Can be summed up in the acceptance speech of Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss after officially winning the Georgia Senate seat.

Quote :

""When he wants to raise your taxes, when he wants to tinker with the Second Amendment, when he wants to make proposals with respect to health care that is going to take your choice of choosing your doctor away form you, then I'm going to be the 41st senator to stand up and say no." "

because we all know every democrat senator is a hardcore leftist libby who wants to take your gun, jack up your taxes to pay for foodstamps, and turn our economy into a socialist paradise! In contrary to freedom loving GOP senators who would never advocate irresponsible fiscal policies, any form of welfare (corporate or social), or restrict your social freedoms through legislation such as the Patriot Act.

I love how politicians on both sides do not really incorporate many logical arguments or facts into their speeches. They just pander to what the audience wants to hear invoking irrational emotion into topics the avg. citizen usually does not fully understand in the first place.

[Edited on December 3, 2008 at 9:13 AM. Reason : a]

12/3/2008 9:12:27 AM

12/3/2008 9:43:34 AM

I'm glad Chambliss's victory will prevent an unstoppable majority of democrats.

But yeah, I get your point. The 2 majority parties are really just the result of "splitting" the issues in half as best the RNC and DNC can. Whether it's intentional or not, the platforms of the parties evolve over time as society changes, in order to maintain this "split" as close to 50/50 as possible. And accordingly, the parties must change their image and/or motto to reflect their newly dealt hand. The D's and R's aren't really parties like other parties...they are shape-shifting halves of a single "bipartisan" agenda. Centrists are often the worst of all. They create the illusion of checks and balances on the over-polarization of the 2 majority parties, when in fact they are just a nonsensical mix of the two. They act like bipartisanship is somehow as good as non-partisanship.

12/3/2008 9:53:37 AM

Another stream-of-consciousness rant by HUR?

Shocking.

Get a livejournal page or something.

12/3/2008 11:37:48 AM

It would be nice if the 41st Senator standing up against a Democratic juggernaut wasn't such a jackass.

Just saying, is all.

12/3/2008 11:38:35 AM

He's not doing any good for the stereotype of people from Georgia.

12/3/2008 11:42:20 AM

^Yeah he is. If that quote is any indicator, he actually speaks coherently with some respect for grammar. Also he didn't say anything racist, which is another credit to Georgia.

(This coming from someone who was born in the state... and is glad to have left the total shithole behind)

12/3/2008 11:47:22 AM

i was almost hoping that he would lose so that the dems would have a supermajority

im a fan of just letting this ship sink

12/3/2008 1:04:22 PM

Quote :

"I love how politicians on both sides do not really incorporate many logical arguments or facts into their speeches. They just pander to what the audience wants to hear invoking irrational emotion into topics the avg. citizen usually does not fully understand in the first place."

Welcome to the art of Oratory. Its not like this is anything new, its been going on for centuries. Every good leader (good as in effective not morally) from Caesar to Hitler used this.

12/3/2008 1:25:29 PM

Chambliss is a disgusting sonofabitch.

this is the guy -- who never served in the military -- who attacked the patriotism of Senator Max Cleland, Vietnam vet, war hero, and triple amputee.

i'd risk a dem supermajority to get that foul bastard out.

12/3/2008 1:59:24 PM

the problem with the two party system is that the D's and R's get in the way of good debate and further complicates issues.

When the founders set up this nation the idea was simple.....every region of the US should send someone to represent them in a congress. Taxation with representation if you will. Local individuals! Not career politicians who move around if they dont get elected in one area. A farming community would send a farmer, a metropolitan like NY should send a metro. Once they serve their country, they should go back to where they came from. If not, they lose touch with the people and area they came from.

This NEVER happens today, and the federal government has absolutely lost touch with most of the country as a result. Career politicians and party hacks have ruined the country.

12/3/2008 2:26:25 PM

Quote :

"Chambliss is a disgusting sonofabitch. this is the guy -- who never served in the military -- who attacked the patriotism of Senator Max Cleland, Vietnam vet, war hero, and triple amputee."

Signed


he is awful. Jim Martin was not the most compelling candidate, but he was a genuinely good guy who always came off as a guy who wanted to do the right thing.

12/3/2008 4:08:09 PM

Quote :

"Local individuals! Not career politicians who move around if they dont get elected in one area. A farming community would send a farmer, a metropolitan like NY should send a metro."

was this ever the case in this country?

12/3/2008 4:14:30 PM

Yeah I think just about everyone agrees that the two party system isnt that great



but what can you do about it when together they control it all.

12/3/2008 4:15:16 PM

Quote :

"Career politicians and party hacks have ruined the country."

Amen

12/3/2008 5:42:46 PM

Quote :

" but what can you do about it when together they control it all."

work for implementing a Delayed Runoff (2nd Round) Voting system

.

12/3/2008 6:53:57 PM

^
Yes.. I'm a big fan of Instant Run-Off voting.

Let's get some new blood into the system. It would be refreshing to see a new president bring in a cabinet that isn't just the same people from a previous administration. ( at both Bush & Obama)

12/3/2008 7:23:24 PM

Eventually everything coalesces behind two factions in any legislative system: the majority and the minority. If there's a 3rd party, they'll never set the agenda, but they can at least pressure the party they stand closest to. If you want the makeup of the legislative body and its inevitable coalitions to something that better depicts the makeup of the political beliefs of the nation, you want proportional representation. People don't vote for parties that aren't the Dems or GOP here not because they really love those parties 100%, but because they know that they'll be throwing their vote away. Under proportional representation, you vote for your party (who lists nominees for their seats won) and get the number of seats for your party based on percentages, so if you get 5% of the vote, you'll at least get someone likely representing that 5%.

Of course, countries with that system also tend to publicly fund elections, which makes it less about the advertising, at least.

12/4/2008 12:12:05 AM

Quote :

" but what can you do about it when together they control it all."

You can do what these guys do.

12/4/2008 3:01:35 AM

^Sorry to be out of the loop but... what the fuck ARE they doing?

12/4/2008 3:55:30 AM

^^agreed, but can anyone remember when a protest in America was actually a catalyst for a change?

Im thinking the WTO protests in Seattle were the last big ones were people actually thought something might change, nothing did. It may have slowed some of the WTO's policies but it didnt stop them to any degree.

12/4/2008 8:08:51 AM

Quote :

"but can anyone remember when a protest in America was actually a catalyst for a change?"

Do we really want protests to be catalysts for change?

12/4/2008 9:26:06 AM

^yes, because it certainly isnt going to come from our government

12/4/2008 9:48:56 AM

Quote :

"Yes.. I'm a big fan of Instant Run-Off voting"

unfortunately, IRV won't help change the two-party stranglehold. every country or state that implements a version of IRV still has 2-party rule.

you need a "Delayed" runoff, aka a two-tiered or second-round voting system. so-called "Range Voting" would also do it, but that's too complicated for retard voters in this country for it to ever be practical.

12/4/2008 12:51:08 PM

I can accurately summarize the problem with our two party system in a single word:














Democrats

12/4/2008 1:06:05 PM

Quote :

"Sorry to be out of the loop but... what the fuck ARE they doing?"

Anti-government protesters in Thailand. Among other things, they occupied the international airport in Bangkok, effectively shutting down the entire nation's tourism industry. Apparently it had some impact because the Thai Supreme Court eventually booted the Thai government out of office.

12/4/2008 1:38:55 PM

1 party system

12/4/2008 4:03:56 PM

come on Shultz surely you'd approve of a 1 party system as long as it was the GOP controlling capitol hill and the white house.

^ I suppose your 1st picture represents 2000-2006 when the GOP controlled the legislature and the presidency. While the 2nd picture represents our current Dem president with majorities in the senate and house.

[Edited on December 4, 2008 at 4:07 PM. Reason : l]

12/4/2008 4:06:12 PM

yea we'll hear about the holocaust later on too

[Edited on December 4, 2008 at 4:30 PM. Reason : ]

12/4/2008 4:30:05 PM

i swear you TKE fuckers are batshit crazy.

12/4/2008 6:29:49 PM

a party that reduces the size of government also reduces the power that's given to politicians. this is why i vote libertarian.

to me, it's a choice between "big government for right winged ideals" "big government for left winged ideals" and "small government"

12/4/2008 6:55:31 PM

Quote :

"to me, it's a choice between "a candidate that will do more of what I like, and less of what I don't" ... and "a candidate who doesnt have a snowball's chance in hell"

that's why I don't vote libertarian.

but still, glad to see some of you idealists are still throwing your vote away







[Edited on December 4, 2008 at 7:34 PM. Reason : ]

12/4/2008 7:33:31 PM

Quote :

"throwing your vote away"

Dont you think that mentality is a part of the problem

Id say most people in this thread more or less agreed that they would like to see third party politics introduced into our system. Dont you think accusing them of wasting their vote isnt helping.

12/4/2008 7:44:09 PM

Quote :

"Anti-government protesters in Thailand. Among other things, they occupied the international airport in Bangkok, effectively shutting down the entire nation's tourism industry. Apparently it had some impact because the Thai Supreme Court eventually booted the Thai government out of office."

It was more or less expected the courts were going to do that anyway. The protesters were pro-monarch upper and middle class who don't like the fact that one person - one vote means their candidate doesn't always get elected. They want to change the election system so 30% of the politicians are elected and 70% are appointed by "professionals." The military also sides with these guys which is why they didn't move to do anything about the invasion of the airports.

So I guess while some people might consider things bad in the States, at least we don't have those sorts of problems.

12/4/2008 7:52:15 PM

Quote :

"but still, glad to see some of you idealists are still throwing your vote away "

you are suck a fucktard

im sorry that you are stuck in a mentality that believes that there are two, and only two, options

12/4/2008 8:48:25 PM

^ what do u expect out of a diehard libby. Don't forget all the crack moms and welfare queens are depending on your hardwork today to make that income that uncle sam takes for food stamps.

12/4/2008 10:10:35 PM

Its not the "crack moms" and welfare queens that are getting a trillion dollar bailout this year. You are complaining about someone jaywalking when there's a murder going on.

12/5/2008 12:17:33 AM

It wasn't very long ago that 3rd party players regularly won state-wide elections, and people voted on issues rather than factions.

12/5/2008 12:59:36 AM

Quote :

"you are such a fucktard im sorry that you are stuck in a mentality that believes that there are two, and only two, options "

fucktard. how perfectly clever of you.

look, what you so clearly fail to understand, is that our "First Past The Post" voting system, GUARANTEES a perpetual two-party system

and her -- or your -- voting for a third party candidate will never change this fact

it's called Duverger's Law, and if you have any hope of becoming remotely informed about elections and party politics in the United States, you better get familiar with it.

Quote :

"Dont you think that mentality [that voting third-party is "throwing your vote away"] is a part of the problem?"

is recognizing reality and calling it out for what it is, part of the problem? No... the problem is that our "first-past-the-post" voting system (aka "simple plurality" or "winner take all") has been mathematically PROVEN to guarantee a two-party rule.

yes, it's called Duverger's Law .... look it up.

i'm sorry you people are so emotionally invested in our current voting scheme that you cant recognize reality. but the fact is, if you ever want to have any hope of third party candidates being elected, you'll focus on changing our election system to a form of "Runoff Voting"

Quote :

"Id say most people in this thread more or less agreed that they would like to see third party politics introduced into our system. Dont you think accusing them of wasting their vote isnt helping."

Hell, lets all agree that the Law of Gravity is irrelevant, cause I sure would like to fly. Your accusing me of wasting my time on anti-gravity flight isn't helping. In fact, it is oppressive. So cut it out.

12/5/2008 1:27:43 AM

^^^ I agree that it is not the "crack moms" and "welfare queens" that are taking up all the money right now. The trillions of dollars that we are throwing at financial institutions is the real problem and the issue comes down to both parties using stupid economic actions. This one can't be all pushed on to Bush. Clinton was the one who deregulated the banks and Bush was the one who didnt stop it when it was obviously a bad idea. The bailouts are problem from both parties... its been the Democratically lead house and senate giving all are tax dollars away and the president is too weak to push a veto through. I really disagree with the two party system but there is no way to change it without a revolutions (peaceful or violent). A representative style of government would fit the U.S. much better allowing for a much more diverse government.

[Edited on December 5, 2008 at 2:54 AM. Reason : fnhs;ofj]

12/5/2008 2:51:17 AM

Quote :

"yes, it's called Duverger's Law .... look it up."

Ill admit id never heard of it, so I took your advice.

From what I read its hardly "mathematically proven". In fact even the Wiki page cites a lot of counter examples where nations with plurality voting systems have viable 3rd parties.

A 3rd party wouldnt have to win an election in order to exert pressure on the other two parties. In fact I think a 3rd party making a good showing at an election (maybe 15% of the vote?) would open the political dialogue on issues that our current parties don't seem to distinguish between themselves on. Namely deficit spending and saber-rattling foreign policy (for me). Once the current parties recognize that a chunk of the population is concerned with an issue enough to vote according to it, its in the parties' interest to address that issue.

12/5/2008 9:38:25 AM

Quote :

"because we all know every democrat senator is a hardcore leftist libby"

but considering they are almost all (on both sides) really stupid, it does ease my mind to know they will not be able to move ahead with the latest batch of idiocy quite as easily.

not that its stopping them now...

12/5/2008 12:08:52 PM

It probably wouldn't take a whole lot of seats to introduce a third party with significant influence, especially given how tight many of the recent majorities have been. Nor would it be unprecedented either; back during the turn of the previous century, you had 12 out of 90 Senate seats held by third parties for example. If you can score enough seats so that neither party gets a majority in the Senate, then the third party could forge a coalition in order to establish a majority and score some points.

But seriously, would proportional representation really make all that much difference in the grand scheme of things? Most of the proportional representative systems I can think of right now are pretty much duels between two large parties with a sprinkling of smaller parties that traditionally align with one or the other (not all that differently from courting a particular Democratic or Republican base faction) or coalitions of left and right wing parties that tend to continuously form coalitions together. You have in Japan the LDP and the DPJ (or the JSP before), the British have Labour vs. Conservatives, the Germans Christian Democrats vs. Social Democrats, Swedish left vs. right wing coalitions, Taiwanese Pan-Blue and Pan-Green coalitions, etc. I'm not trying to undermine the argument, I'm just trying to understand why it would be so much different from what we currently have.

In some ways, our current two parties really serve as large coalitions of interests.

[Edited on December 5, 2008 at 3:44 PM. Reason : .]

12/5/2008 3:43:47 PM

Terd:

im not a proponent of "range voting", because it's too complex for the average voter, to ever be implemented in this country. but the range voting site has a good analysis of the different types of voting systems, and how many effective political parties are represented.



-- http://rangevoting.org/Duverger.html


the "counter examples" you read on wiki, are the few anomalies to the vast majority of Single-Member Plurality countries like the U.S. for instance, the demographics of India are so alien to the U.S. that a comparison of the political parties of the two countries can never be made. As for the U.K., they have an effective "two-and-a-half" political parties. i don't think 2 1/2 political parties is what we should strive for.

12/5/2008 5:39:25 PM

Quote :

"its been the Democratically lead house and senate giving all are tax dollars away and the president is too weak to push a veto through."

The President sponsored the bailout. Why would he veto it?

12/6/2008 12:16:51 AM