Political talking points

Status
Not open for further replies.
erect

erect

New member
Jun 3, 2007
3,796
154
0
Esoterica
twitter.com
Candidates beat their points into our head like we are toddlers. Makes you wonder how many hours went into creating and rehearsing the rhetoric we hear daily ... yet another reason I'll be voting 3rd party.

<div><embed src="http://www.236.com/video/shareplayer.swf?videoID=1885473979&permalink=/d/?video=1885473979&width=425&height=364&embedCode=http://www.236.com/video/shareplayer.php?v=1885473979&tags=Original+Video&urlPath=/d/?video=&translatorSwf=http://www.236.com/video/xml_translator.swf&xmlURL=http://iacas.adbureau.net/xtserver/site=236.com/aamsz=300x250video/area=video2/frmt=0/frmt=1/frmt=16/lnid=-1/ttID=1885473979/cue=post/cgm=0/RANDOM=0000000000&roll=post&policyFile=http://www.236.com/video/adPolicy.xml&title=+" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" name="flashObj" width="425" height="364" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" swLiveConnect="true" allowFullScreen="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed><div style="padding: 0px 5px 5px 5px; width: 410px; text-align: center; font-size: 0.8em;">Get the latest news <a href="http://www.236.com/">satire</a> and <a href="http://www.236.com/video/">funny videos</a> at <a href="http://www.236.com">236.com</a>.</div></div>
 


Luckily, it appears the Libertarian party is emerging as a viable party.

Wasnt one of the republicans running for president a libertarian, running as a republican? Was it Romney?
 
Ron Paul was that man. He's a Republican congressman from Texas, but has run previously for president as a Libertarian. He broke party barriers in a big way this year and is now supporting Chuck Baldwin of the constitution party.

Bob Barr, the Libertarian nominee, is a bit of a crybaby, pro-war on drugs and not that great of a candidate, though his VP (Wayne Allyn Root) is likable, though is a loose screw from what I understand.

3rd party people should unite for the greater cause, 5% is very achievable and 15% makes for a viable 3rd party in 2012. I'm voting Baldwin as he is the most likely to make some noise. He's a better candidate than the big 2 but has few credentials to run a country (if you grade by years spent in the gov't) ... I wouldn't vote for him if he was a threat to win, but I will to make a point.
 
Very clever.

Apart from the fetus = person stuff, Baldwin seems ok and I'm sure animal rights campaigners would love the logical extension of that argument. However it will take a lot more than a handful of protest votes to change the system. From what I can tell, as an outsider, it looks like you need to break the stranglehold the 2 main parties have on the senate and congress before even attempting to tackle the big job.
 
LazyHippy said:
However it will take a lot more than a handful of protest votes to change the system. From what I can tell, as an outsider, it looks like you need to break the stranglehold the 2 main parties have on the senate and congress before even attempting to tackle the big job.
Click to expand...

You are exactly correct.

A couple thousand rogue votes don't work for major change. We desperately need an overhaul of the 2 party system, neither have the citizen's best interest in mind. Here's how change happens ...

1. Local change - it's much easier to vote in a 3rd party of some sort at a local level, this person will typically do a better job than a republocrat because there's no special interest in their ear or big brother party breathing down your neck pushing their agenda ... not yours or the people you represent.

Small time 3rd party gov't officials do well and change filters to city & statewide changes ... which include the house & senate. That is not bad at all

2. Partisan change - Presidential funding for the republocrats is handled by the US gov't (with my money). Funding is also provided to minor party candidates in lower amounts depending on how many votes the party got last election

More details

At 5% of the total vote, a party qualifies for election funding. The amount spent is their % of the national limit as per the previous election. Major parties get the full limit. At 25% of the total pie of votes, a minor party turns into a major one and gets full access to the national limit.

This means 2 very important things

1. The system is set up so that change is hard. 5% of the limit means $2,000,000 when the major candidates get $40,000,000. You can see the potential for an uphill struggle just from this

2. With each percentage point gained, you take away from one of the other parties. So your % goes up and the rest go down. As a 3rd party, you can align yourself with an extreme wing and pull votes from one party (like Libertarians do for Republicans), align yourself right in the middle and pull from both parties or do something different like Nader (arab) / Gonzalez (Hispanic) does and pull directly from a minority base.

The closest a 3rd party has ever come to working was when Ross Perot took 8+% of the 2000 presidential eleciton under his personal political project, the reform party. Those guys immediately took the ball and passed it to the other team ... tardfucks! This year their candidate is only in the ballet in Mississippi (to the best of my knowledge) because the party was so unorganized. Their biggest success was getting Jesse Ventura (the wrestler) as governer of Minnesota. That had more to do with his "celebrity" status than the reform party, but no matter he's no longer there.

I personally think major reform needs to happen on the Republican side. I'm totally behind conservatives on almost all the issues but there has been a serious loss of focus on what they are truly supposed to represent ... things like fiscal dilligence, personal freedoms, an anti-war policy & states rights.

All that said, it wouldn't be a bad idea to rid ourselves of both parties. Obama's right about at least 1 thing ... we desperately need change.

This country is fucking awesome ... this duocracy sucks ass








One more thing, there is another option. We can have a civil war.

Personally I'd rather have a dictator. As a bully-ish country, we're not exactly engraciating ourselves around the globe. This means that we're either getting group fucked by EVERYONE or we can have neuclear weapons shoved up our asses by our own military. Neither sound appealing.

EDIT: I almost forgot the most important thing. When you are recognized as a major party ... you get TV airtime in debates and primaries. This is more important that 40M these days (have you seen what commercials run?). Also, this is where all the sheep get their info ... it's the place for change to happen, not the internet contrary to popular belief (see Ron Paul's internet following). You are just a "extreme wing 3rd party wacko" unless Fox or CNN validates you these days.
 
ArtDeco said:
OK. America needs a third party - but not for president, at least not this year. We are already dealing with racism, sexism, and age-ism ( if that is even a word ) tomorrow.
Click to expand...

If you don't do it now, it will have to wait for 2016 as funding happens based on the previous election. And there will always be "issues" to keep sheep voting with the herd. Always a reason we have to vote Republocrat

In 2016 my daughter will be heading off to college (erect sheds a tear), that's too fucking far away. Change has to start happening tomorrow!!!

Perhaps you weren't listening, we're not getting a 3rd party president ... momma didn't raise a fool. 10%, that's what I'm shooting for. That's where change starts.
 
ArtDeco said:
OK. America needs a third party - but not for president, at least not this year. We are already dealing with racism, sexism, and age-ism ( if that is even a word ) tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Correct. In the beginning years of a viable third party, it will simply take votes from one of the major parties - kinda like the Perot effect. Remember Ross Perot? He cost George Bush senior the election. Bill Clinton got less that 50% of the vote that year. Had it not been for Perot, Bush probably would have won.
 
@Erect
" Presidential funding for the republocrats is handled by the US gov't (with my money). Funding is also provided to minor party candidates in lower amounts depending on how many votes the party got last election"

Actually I knew that, but had forgotten. Kinda makes me feel guilty for voting for a corrupt Chicago politician tomorrow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back