Announcement

**Faust** · 04-03-2012, 03:40 PM

Yes, that's exactly what I am arguing. BTW, the jury is out on whether Gore lost the election in the first place. And, yeah, if not for Nader, he probably would've taken it, Bush relatives or not.

Which McGovern are you talking about? The one I know was a Democratic candidate, last I checked.

**Pumpfish** · 04-03-2012, 04:14 PM

Big fundamental differences may be rare, but even so, democracy serves as a mechanism for stopping corruption or complacency.

Swing it. Make them work for your vote.

**Magic1** · 04-03-2012, 04:57 PM

okay, the point of the mcgovern thing is that he had no chance of winning, it was known well before election day that nixon was going to win. So why vote for him?

Voting for someone, regardless of the person ( major party, third party, secessionist, etc) holds political meaning and import even if such a vote does not affect immediate change.

here's your argument:
if someone doesn't have a chance to win, then there's no point to vote for them.
a third party candidate has no chance of winning
therefore, there's no point in voting for a third party candidate.
Right?

I argue that premise one is flawed. There is a point to voting for someone even if they don't have a chance of winning. Re: the mcgovern case. Although voting for him wouldn't have amounted to anything, there was an important political message involved in voting for him. it said I don't support nixon.

In theory, I think abstaining from a vote is a political decision that holds meaning. If I'm in a group of 5 people and we are voting between two of us and I stay out of the vote, that means something. I did not support either candidate. in larger elections abstaining is not considered (rightfully so, I'd say..) abstaining; it does not carry a political meaning (although political dynamics do explain why people don't vote, of course). Rather, one's decision not to vote (if they don't support either candidate, let's say) is lumped in with the reasons why the majority of people don't vote (they don't care, don't know there's an election happening, aren't registered, yada yada). In which case not voting does not carry any political message. Hence I do not think anyone should not vote.

Faust, we agree, but we agree for different reasons. Your argument says that you should vote in order to make a difference. Which requires the person (or proposition, I'd assume too, no?) to have some chance of winning. I think you should vote in order to support a political message, which does not require the person you are voting for to have a chance of winning.

**cjbreed** · 04-03-2012, 05:32 PM

the important thing is that u vote. whether it be for a giant douche or a turd sandwich

**equilibrium** · 04-08-2012, 07:13 PM

Tragedy and Hope

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy." - Carroll Quigley

"I think it is absolutely tragic, it is shameful, it is sinful... that Western Civilization is going to go down the drain." - Carroll Quigley

"It's a tragedy if you don't accept us and there's hope if you know who runs the show... that's my interpretation but I believe it's correct." - Ron Paul

"As a teenager I heard John Kennedys summon to citizenship, and then as a student at Georgetown I heard that call clarified by a professor named Carroll Quigley - who said to us that America was the greatest nation in history because our people had always believed in 2 things: that tomorrow can be better than today and that every one of us has a personal, moral responsibility to make it so." - Bill Clinton

**Patroklus** · 04-18-2012, 12:24 PM

The President Of Iceland Tells Us How He Had The Balls To Stand Up To Britain

http://www.businessinsider.com/olafur-ragnar-grmsson-iceland-icesave-uk-banks-europe-2012-4

A key example of this approach is Iceland's refusal to pump money into failed banks. The decision was controversial at the time, but now looks increasingly wise. "I have never understood the argument — why a private bank or financial fund is somehow better for the well being and future of the economy than the industrial sector, the IT sector, the creative sector, or the manufacturing sector".
There is, of course, another aspect. A tricky situation arose when the U.K. and Holland demanded money for their citizens' depleted Icesave accounts, and Iceland refused. The incident sparked a major diplomatic scuffle, with Iceland refusing to pay out and the U.K. even using "anti-terrorism legislation" against the state.
For Ólafur, it's also a personal aspect. He was head of state, though he did not control the government — in effect his position was more like being an elected Queen of England than being Barack Obama. But constitutionally he had the right to veto government legislation — though it had never been used by his office previously.
Ólafur decided to block government legislation to pay back the U.K. Twice. Both times the legislation went to a nationwide vote, and failed.
"It was absolutely very tough indeed," Ólafur says. "Every big financial institution, both in Europe and in my own country was against me, and there were powerful forces, both in Iceland and Europe, that thought my decision was absolutely crazy."
The decision was hugely controversial, and remains a sore spot in relations. For him, it was a matter of history. "What is our primary legacy to countries and nations in modern times?" He says, "Europe is and should be more about democracy than about financial markets. Based with this choice, it was in the end, clear that I had to choose democracy."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/olafu...#ixzz1sPiYGzvc

**cjbreed** · 05-30-2012, 04:34 PM

so...uh, in response to some recent unpleasantness in the randomness thread, here is a full 4 minute long obama attack ad produced by fox news and aired on fox&friends as fair and balanced journalism.

this is a professionally produced and edited attack ad complete with dramatic background music. not journalism. 4 fuckin minutes man that would be an expensive ad.

**viv1984viv** · 06-03-2012, 06:41 AM

I don't feel the argument about smear campaigns is at all interesting, parties will always strive to take votes away form the opposition, damaging the oppositions reputation is one way of doing so.

It boils down to degrees of separation. You either have a complex and charming critique and division drawn up in order to win votes or you have an unimaginative and childish personal attack - but both share the same genesis. You may have a direct character assassination or you may have umpteen people (in opposition) working behind the scenes to ensure an ugly political policy hits the media with the opposition politicians on standby to bath in the negatively afforded moral high ground of pointing out the uncomfortable revelation about the other party.

Personally do not respond well to political smear campaigns, I feel they are insultingly simplistic, but I do not disagree with using personal aspects as political ammunition and /or leverage. Politicians know that a large chunk of their task is celebrity personality contest, whole careers are founded on this.

**cjbreed** · 06-09-2012, 01:02 PM

lol

**jippos** · 06-10-2012, 01:46 PM

^^^

Funny, but it's disheartening how true this is. How can people continually vote against their own self-interests?

**Faust** · 06-10-2012, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by jippos View Post

^^^

Funny, but it's disheartening how true this is. How can people continually vote against their own self-interests?

By now it's more important to the rednecks to hate those who scorn them. The intelligentsia, rightfully, has lost its mid-century infatuation with the working class (there will be no more Steinbecks in the foreseeable future). In a sense, they don't vote for, they vote against. I don't see how this is going to get repaired.

Funny how the ideas of Enlightenment, that reason is the best and most reliable guide, have come under attack. If you'd sketched the US circa 2012 to Matthew Arnold, he'd probably laugh at you.