Kanye to The banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,751 Posts
Ha, it's you again. But everyone knows this.

But congrats on feeling like your smart! (Bear in mind this is a guy who finds Chavez as a resounding success.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,372 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Everyone knows this? Really?

That's why the general consensus is to continue to vote by party?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,751 Posts
m0town said:
Everyone knows this? Really?

That's why the general consensus is to continue to vote by party?
Because the truth is more liberal parties aren't going to gain the traction we'd like, Ron Paul's policies would in fact benefit corporations more (though for some reason you're infatuated with him), and even if liberal parties were to some how gain traction from voters (and it won't), it would simply end up splitting the Democratic party leading to a Republican effort in completely stain the color of the sea red. (figuratively since their party is red...)

It's better to settle on Democrats. I'm not a Democrat, I consider myself to be a Moderate liberal (meaning, there are some times where I think the government should stay out of the economy like after the homebuyer tax credit provided support needed for stabilization, I don't think the government should really mess with the housing market anymore cause I think the market should set prices on housing, I think the federal government should stay out the foreclosure mess and there's no need for a federal probe of the system or a moratorium), but the Democrat are less shitty than the Republicans. Sad fact, but it's true.

But I would also vote for a moderate Republican depending on where the country is. I could see myself voting for a Republican in 2016 because more deficit cutting would be crucial then, not now when the GDP is on the brink of contraction. I used to like Petraeus cause he's a moderate but he sees counterinsurgency as a period of nearly perpetual war. Although that may be the most sound military policy, as a commander-in-chief that would be disastrous. So with him out of the picture, the only real Republican I like is Chris Christie or Bloomberg who became an independent. I agreed with NJ for getting rid of Corzine and I think Christie's doing a pretty good job (though I'm not sure his temperament would be suitable in the realm of foreign policy)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,372 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
You can't win with any candidate when they play within a broken system.

None of them are playing to fix the system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,751 Posts
m0town said:
..Or it's because our country is uninformed..
Not really. Everyone knows company donations fuel campaigns but how can you reform a system when it's that same system that would have to produce the reformation? (Dems, the best of the two, came close to campaign reform because there were a few senators that were appointed by governors and didn't want to run for reelection but the rest of the senate didn't care cause they had to raise money)

People are uninformed about liberal and progressive ideas because (1) the Democrats are too afraid they'll scare the moderates away and they're really bad communicators, (including Obama when it comes to policy, who is probably the most liberal mainstream politician we've had since Nixon but even he's a Moderate Republican from the '50s, who hasn't grasped the art of the sound bite because apparently he's viscerally opposed to crafting them his administration officials say. He gives a speech clearly defining policy but when you have cable chatter like we have, no one knows what the hell happens after they listen to the pundits nullify everything someone says. I can just imagine Lincoln giving the Gettysberg address and the reaction from fox and msnbc) and (2) people are too busy to really give a shit. If you've been Middle class in America in the last few decades you've seen your median income decrease for the majority of it (clinton had a slight boom which was largely artificial but really incomes remain to stagnate or decline) while working longer hours (while the other OECD nations work less), and being more productive (america statistically has the most productive workers in the modern world while its incomes are still stagnating or etc. because corporations pay the rest of their paychecks to banks who lend you the money so you can borrow the income you'd expect to normally obtain and then find yourself paying 18% interest on top of skyrocketing health care bills and wonder how the fuck you just got in debt)

The key to all of this will be getting public support for one term senators. We limit the President to eight years but a Senator can serve one term of 6? That's bs.

T-Party may support term limits so maybe there's hope.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,751 Posts
At the same time there is a drawback to term limits on Senators.

Ted Kennedy was a big liberal proponent of Universal health care and was able to be that because of the legacy of the Kennedys. He was so popular, or was a special interest of other industries, that he was able to push for health care reform despite the industry.

Yet even if he was in the pocket of other corporations (he probably was, knowing how the senate operates), no one can speak ill of his importance. He was able to get a lot of great legislation through and that was largely because of his long tenure and ability to forge relationships. If he had been limited to one term, his ability to work as he did would be diminished due to the nature of the Senate.

So if not term limits, then just ban donations from citizens and corporations. Give everyone public funding of a certain amount.

But then there's a drawback to that too! The way you run a campaign can give signs to what kind of an executive you'll be. Take for example the brilliant campaign of Obama in '08 (even if you hate Obama you can't speak ill of how smooth his campaign worked for the most part despite the controversies with rev. wright, bill ayers, and the birth certificate). That gave signs to what kind of executive he'd be and for the most part, he's been a pretty solid Executive. He's had some controversies (Department of Agriculture firing Shirley Sherrod, him saying the cop was stupid to arrest gates, and sestak, and the DOJ being accused of some political bating), though they largely have been squashed and if they were a big deal, weren't really related to how he himself ran his administration some lower level problem or some comment the media took out of proportion (like saying they were stupid for arresting the guy. the guy was stupid for arresting him when he showed proof.) On top of that he's been able to get a lot done (despite how centrist the policies have been though for the most part they're pretty solid). So he's a pretty capable executive and that was demonstrated to how he ran his campaign (which colin powell said was almost military precision). The key problem for him may be communication and too close of a circle but that's largely emanuel's fault (though he did pick him, not that emanuel wasn't good at his job, he was outstanding), and the best communication can't calm a nation with 9.6% unemployment and in the middle of 2-3 wars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,728 Posts
So wait? You know that the Democrats Work for the corporations, they're too whiped to push for any of their positions, and you don't even always agree with them, but you'd still vote for them because they're not republicans?

That's tru democracy in action, baby. No wonder your country sucks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,751 Posts
King Suck You said:
So wait? You know that the Democrats Work for the corporations, they're too whiped to push for any of their positions, and you don't even always agree with them, but you'd still vote for them because they're not republicans?

That's tru democracy in action, baby. No wonder your country sucks.
Depends on what you mean by "work for them."

For example, they just passed a Wall Street reform bill. It didn't go as far as some people on the left (I think it was pretty balanced. there are some problems with it like the clearing houses and how the fed would lend them money in trouble, though those rules have yet to be written and for the most part, I don't mind bailouts for companies that pose systemic risk if the company can pay it back) I think major reforms like putting a cap on their size could have been a little too far, (but I mean the government now has the right to seize a company if it thinks it has system risk, and liquidate it. What more could you really ask for?) though, though liberals will say it was beholden to the bankers. If tha were true, then why are all the banks now funding Republican candidates in the midterms?

On health care, they certainly are beholden to insurance companies and drug companies. the fact they got what moderate reforms (that will do some good) they did get is remarkable. in a few years, we'll probably see a public option)
On oil, they are too. they also favor lawyers and etc.

I'm not as pessimistic about the demas motown because of the progress dems have made in the past 80 years, though they'd never be as liberal as they should be (which would probably be in the realm of nader. i disagree with a lot of kucinich's ideas. idk what nader thinks about the fed, but for the most part i approve of the federal reserve system. that's one example where i think there's a nice balance. any other reforms in the finance industry should be left to the fdic, the treasury, or just congressional legislation, or even the SEC)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46,317 Posts
ktothe2 said:
Ron Paul's policies would in fact benefit corporations more
Really? I'm not American and don't follow their politics, but everything I've heard says the opposite.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top