I just voted Democrat-Republican-Democrat-Republican down the ticket, figuring neither party is essentially different from the other (any more) in any way I can ascertain.
Would you like me to start listing substantive platform and policy differences? Or were you just being fashionably cynical for its own sake?
"Take that, political-process-I-don't-understand!"
Voted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think thy all need to be forced to wear nascar style jackets that list the corporate owners of each of them. Then we know who we are really voting in.
I just voted Democrat-Republican-Democrat-Republican down the ticket, figuring neither party is essentially different from the other (any more) in any way I can ascertain.Would you like me to start listing substantive platform and policy differences? Or were you just being fashionably cynical for its own sake?
"Take that, political-process-I-don't-understand!"
Now it isn't just not voting that's super cynical, it's voting, too!
Welp, that went about as expected.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never understood people being proud of their ignorance.
Move to the midwest, people love their ignorance so much they practically swim in it:) ignorance that would shock everyone, and they're proud of it, brag about it even
And before evryone plays gang up on nobodyshome, remember he's talking about california, the government alone is a test case on what not to do when building a democracy or a balanced budget, so cut him a little slack there:)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just voted Democrat-Republican-Democrat-Republican down the ticket, figuring neither party is essentially different from the other (any more) in any way I can ascertain.Would you like me to start listing substantive platform and policy differences? Or were you just being fashionably cynical for its own sake?
"Take that, political-process-I-don't-understand!"
You can list platform and policy differences.
Then you can actually look at proposed laws, voting records, and what the candidates actually do when in office.
Yes, the stated platforms are VERY different.
The in-office behavior is depressingly the same.
I'm a "individual libertarian, corporate socialist". I believe in strong personal freedoms and strong corporate limitations. Both parties have shown a remarkable taste for limiting individual freedoms and increasing corporate power. You can claim that Democrats aren't like that, but Obamacare ("You MUST purchase insurance from the insurance megacorporations that have been rendering health care unavailable to many and unaffordable to many more,") is a great example of the similarities. The eternal "War on Terror" is another bandwagon both parties have tied themselves to with iron cables.
Nationalized health care is a fantastic Democratic idea. Yet as soon as they met any resistance, they rolled over and passed a strongly pro-corporate "solution".
I understand the party platforms. I see Republicans adhering more closely to their platform than Democrats. But I see very little difference once either party gets in office.
EDIT: In 2008 I actually voted *for* Obama -- the first major-party candidate I believed in in a very long time. I thought he'd fight for his beliefs, and be a great president. Instead I got, "Well, the Republicans don't want me to do this, so I guess I'll stop trying, or pass a gross miscarriage of what I originally proposed."
Watching my democrats (yes, I'm in California. Every Democrat won in my district, so my vote was indeed meaningless) continually back down and accept any pro-corporate law that comes along is just depressing. Platform is one thing. Action is another entirely.
How'd the three strike ballot go, Citizen Home?
How'd the three strike ballot go, Citizen Home?
Passed. Reduced a lot of crimes to misdemeanors to avoid permanent incarceration of the non-violent.
The propositions went surprisingly well here in CA.
Just another ridiculous unfunded bond got passed.
I love California. "Our economy is terrible! Our infrastructure is failing! We're in horrific debt!"
"Quick! Pass another multi-billion dollar bond measure! That'll fix things!"
So you support their policies but vote against them and then wonder why they caved?
How'd the three strike ballot go, Citizen Home?Passed. Reduced a lot of crimes to misdemeanors to avoid permanent incarceration of the non-violent.
Huzzah!
Down with New Jim Crow!Vive le Galt!!!
Is it wrong to expect the behavior to match the platform?
Is wrong to vote them out if it doesn't?
Is it wrong to expect the behavior to match the platform?
Is wrong to vote them out if it doesn't?
Let me make sure I understand.
Democrats want A. Republicans want Z.
I want A but Democrats didn't deliver A quite like I wanted it so I'll vote Republican and they'll give me a better version of A?
It's kind of weird to vote for the people whose platform loudly proclaims the thing you don't want in order to punish the people who didn't go as far as you wanted in getting you the thing you wanted on their platform.Is it wrong to expect the behavior to match the platform?
Is wrong to vote them out if it doesn't?
It is kind of weird, but people do weird things out of spite when the government forces them to vote for people they don't want to vote for.
I understand, Citizen Home, but I would've voted like your friend.
Actually, re-reading your post, did your friend leave the whole thing blank or just the parts where he had to vote for a Republicrat?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be a bit more clear: Captain Yesterday is quite right: California is a strange animal.
To belong to the Democratic Party in California, it seems that the sole requirement is, "I have, at one point in my life, acknowledged that there exists a democratic platform statement somewhere."
You are all correct, for most of my voting life I have identified myself as an "anti-Republican". You really would have been hard-pressed to come up with a platform I am so diametrically opposed to. And Republicans are remarkably good at staying on-platform...
***EXCEPT IN CALIFORNIA***, where Republicans are far more left-leaning and willing to compromise. Go figure. Republicans want to get elected, they make compromises. Much as everyone hated him, I didn't think Arnie did a half-bad job at trying to run a dysfunctional state.
So I dutifully voted a Democratic ticket for a decade or more, only to get such gems as Boxer and Feinstein (DINOs, or Democrats in Name Only), or lovely loopy Barbara Lee (so far to the left even my liberal friends fear her. But she was the sole dissenting voice in Bush's initial lunacy, so I have a soft spot for her).
In California, Democrats pay little to no attention to the democratic platform. They're far more interested in obstructing Republicans and voting however their contributors want them to (Feinstein, Boxer) or their own minds (Lee).
I started voting independent, since I couldn't stand either alternative.
Now, even that option has been removed, thanks to our new primary laws. I *MUST* vote Democrat or Republican. I have the luxury that Democrats win 80/20 in my district. It's not even a race. So this particular election, I voted randomly.
You are correct, this was inappropriate of me.
Next election I'll just write in some of my friends as candidates. I'm sure they'd do a better job.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's kind of weird to vote for the people whose platform loudly proclaims the thing you don't want in order to punish the people who didn't go as far as you wanted in getting you the thing you wanted on their platform.Is it wrong to expect the behavior to match the platform?
Is wrong to vote them out if it doesn't?It is kind of weird, but people do weird things out of spite when the government forces them to vote for people they don't want to vote for.
I understand, Citizen Home, but I would've voted like your friend.
Actually, re-reading your post, did your friend leave the whole thing blank or just the parts where he had to vote for a Republicrat?
Just the Republicrat.
I'm tending to agree with the group here; next time I'll just write in people.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it wrong to expect the behavior to match the platform?
Is wrong to vote them out if it doesn't?Let me make sure I understand.
Democrats want A. Republicans want Z.
I want A but Democrats didn't deliver A quite like I wanted it so I'll vote Republican and they'll give me a better version of A?
Since I have a few more minutes and I think you're referring to me.
Democrats CLAIM they want A. Republicans CLAIM they want Z.
Both Democrats and Republicans pass laws that further Z.
So it's not that Democrats "didn't deliver A quite like I wanted it" but far more, "They lied to me and delivered Z instead."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, dang. I was really expecting more of an argument. Now what am I supposed to do with my morning?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, the reward for not doing what they said they would is to leave them in office, simply because the alternative is percieved as worse?
How does anything get changed at that point? Isn't this how you end up with life-long politicians that don't actually do anything?
How is this philosophy any different than blindly voting down party lines?
Comrade Spear didn't win, alas.
Speaker Chopp splinters Socialist Alternative challenger
"Late-arriving Seattle votes trend to the left. The best-known Socialist Alternative candidate, Kshama Sawant, trailed Seattle City Councilman Richard Conlin last year on election night — she delivered a fiery non-concession speech quoting Leon Trotsky — but beat him as the count came in."
Huh, I didn't know that. Sweet.
Probably should have posted Comrade Kshama's statement earlier but I didn't see it until now:
Open Letter from Kshama Sawant and Howie Hawkins to the Left and Labor Movement
Is it wrong to expect the behavior to match the platform?
Is wrong to vote them out if it doesn't?Let me make sure I understand.
Democrats want A. Republicans want Z.
I want A but Democrats didn't deliver A quite like I wanted it so I'll vote Republican and they'll give me a better version of A?Since I have a few more minutes and I think you're referring to me.
Democrats CLAIM they want A. Republicans CLAIM they want Z.
Both Democrats and Republicans pass laws that further Z.
So it's not that Democrats "didn't deliver A quite like I wanted it" but far more, "They lied to me and delivered Z instead."
(Thank you for this.)
Then you need to find better Democrats. Unless you've decided you now want Z simply out of spite. I honestly don't understand how you think voting against what you want is going to get you what you want.
And how are the candidates supposed to know your voting out of spite instead of support?
Well, dang. I was really expecting more of an argument. Now what am I supposed to do with my morning?
I actually have to do some work all morning, but this afternoon I'll see whether I can post something more confrontational for you.
Oh, wait!
Why is it that some people ROLEplay and some ROLLplay?
Should my paladin fall for this action?
Just how DO you put a succubus in a grapple?
Hey, Captain Yesterday! Want to go bore hunting?
I think last night was spite.
I don't think people that voted Dem 2 years ago suddenly were political converts.
Either that, or they simply did not show up to the polls, which could also be out of spite.
So, the reward for not doing what they said they would is to leave them in office, simply because the alternative is percieved as worse?
How does anything get changed at that point? Isn't this how you end up with life-long politicians that don't actually do anything?How is this philosophy any different than blindly voting down party lines?
Or nominate different candidates. But yes, I would rather vote for someone who failed to accomplish something I wanted rather than vote for some opposed to what I want. In what world would that make sense? Is the idea that you get someone in there that is really good at passing laws you disagree with?
Sometimes it's a 2 or 4 year reboot, I guess.
Makes about as much sense as backing a person who seemingly lied to get into office.
Disappointment is hard to deal with, but yeah the best thing would be to back another canidate of the same philiosphy to replace the one that strayed. But what do you do when none are available or interested in running?
This conundrum is on both sides of the aisle, btw. I'm not gloating/lamenting last night's results.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thankful that my state allowed me to vote by mail. Also thankful that the ads are done for another 18 months or so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Should my paladin fall for this action?
Short answer, yes with an if. Long answer, no with a but...
True.
I guess the overall thing would be to keep an eye on the in-state canidates before they get to the national stage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then you need to find better Democrats. Unless you've decided you now want Z simply out of spite. I honestly don't understand how you think voting against what you want is going to get you what you want.
Then you're not reading very hard. He doesn't think voting against what he wants is going to get him what he wants. He thinks that voting in a district that was going to the Democrats no matter what, that recently changed laws that prevented him from being able to vote for what he wants, is pointless, and cast a meaningless vote because he was worried that if he left the parts that only allowed you to vote for Republicrats blank, it would invalidate his ballot initiative votes.
Anyway, who's got the juicy roundup on voter suppression stories?
All I've got thus far is Comrades Amy, et. al.
New Voter Suppression Laws Could Decide Key Races, and Turn Back the Clocks for Years to Come
Right, I mean as far as stopping their progression career-wise.
If your school board member is a moron, chances are they probably shouldn't be on the state or national legislature either.
EDIT:
Thing is, even people I know that are more political than average rarely pay attention to local politics, so alot of people fall through what should be a weeding out process.
Well, dang. I was really expecting more of an argument. Now what am I supposed to do with my morning?I actually have to do some work all morning, but this afternoon I'll see whether I can post something more confrontational for you.
Oh, wait!
Why is it that some people ROLEplay and some ROLLplay?
Should my paladin fall for this action?
Just how DO you put a succubus in a grapple?
Hey, Captain Yesterday! Want to go bore hunting?
You forgot to mention that rogues are viable. That one is sure to set off a $%^&-storm of rage.
The other way to get parties to change is to educate people and organize. There are basically two types of laws in all forms of government:
1) The kinds that the voting public gets worked up about
2) The kinds that the voting public ignores or seems to know nothing about
Within a complicated law you have aspects that fall into one or the other category.
A politician will almost never go against the voting public on a (1) type issue. It's political suicide and a guaranteed loss in the next election.
The problem is that more and more laws fall into category (2). The public doesn't know about the law, or doesn't understand it, or just doesn't care. When one of those three conditions are met, the politician can make their decision however they want without fear of retribution at the polls. If corporations come along and say "Hey, we have an opinion on this, we'd like to pay you lots of money to hear it", all of a sudden this becomes an attractive offer. They don't have to vote with the corporation, particularly if there is a group on the opposite side offering just as much money for their time. But running for office is expensive, so votes are used to gather campaign funds in these instances.
The big donors don't own candidates. The voters own the candidates. The problem is that the voters don't care/know what goes on 80% of the time, so the big donors come in and fill that gap.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If this board leans any further to the left it's going to capsize.
I suppose it's not unusual to see the standard "democrats good, republicans bad" gem that is the norm. Also, nice to see that the guy who acknowledged that the parties are nearly identical when it comes to actions gets derided.
Still, I remain amazed that people disapprove of the government because it's not doing enough rather than because it's doing too much.
Not quite the topic at hand, but thanks for your 2 cents.
I guess you haven't read the last batch of posts then. That's alright.
I think last night was spite.
I don't think people that voted Dem 2 years ago suddenly were political converts.
Either that, or they simply did not show up to the polls, which could also be out of spite.Mostly this really and not out of spite.
Mid-term election turn out is always lower than presidential election turnout and for a number of demographic reasons also skews more strongly Republican. There may or may not be factors beyond that reflecting actual political changes, but that's the single largest factor and has to be considered before deciding what this election proves.
We (Nebraksa) had a seemingly bigger turnout yesterday because we also had a minimum wage increase on the ballot, that passed.
Same people apparently voted for a repub governor and senator as well. Go figure.
I did and partook in them. I didn't thread crap, though.
Thing is when haveing discussions with people of the opposing viewpoint, you let some inevitable things slide, because discourse.
According to what I've read over the years, proposals to increase the minimum wage are popular with the base of both of the parties of Neoliberal American Empire.
It's nice to be able to vote yourself a pay raise, just like the politicians do :)
Still, I remain amazed that people disapprove of the government because it's not doing enough rather than because it's doing too much.
Sometimes one person's "too much" is another person's "not enough."
Similarly, it's possible to read the same data and reach different conclusions.