NationStates Jolt Archive

Honestly, I get so frakkin' SICK of politicians who take a knee-jerk, ideological approach to problem resolution that I could "fire" every damn one of them! WTF is WRONG with these idiots? Jeeze! :mad: :headbang:

That's why we have parties - to vote on ideological lines.
Having a choice of 2 (lots of choice ...) isn't much.

You need more of those wacko independents to keep the big parties honest or they just run amok.

That's why we have parties - to vote on ideological lines.
Having a choice of 2 (lots of choice ...) isn't much.

You need more of those wacko independents to keep the big parties honest or they just run amok.
Outlaw ideology! Mwahahaha! :D

Do many centrists advocate abolition of freedom of thought? It's a new one on me.

Do many centrists advocate abolition of freedom of thought? It's a new one on me.
Get a grip, dude. It's called hyperbola. Google has a note or two on it. :p

I don't get it.

So, you're saying that in fact you don't really mean to actually say anything...you just want to whinge about the fact that, you know, shit happens. Great.

That's why we have parties - to vote on ideological lines.
Having a choice of 2 (lots of choice ...) isn't much.

You need more of those wacko independents to keep the big parties honest or they just run amok.

Ahh, but the problem is that independents and third parties are marginalized in the US political system. I can't say how it works everywhere, but in Oregon, they don't even count the independent votes unless there are enough of them to rival the two parties. What this does is deny independents and third parties the ability to show any progress, which is needed to build support.

Say one election, you run, and you get 200 votes. That's nothing. Next year, say you get 2,000 votes. It's still nothing, but it's 10x more than last time so now you can rightfully claim that support for you is growing. If there's one thing people like to jump on, it's a bandwagon, and if it looks like you're going somewhere, people will follow you.

Instead, when you look at independent and third party voter statistics, all you will see is: year 1: 0.....year 2: 0.......year 3: 0....
Not that they are actually zero, but since there aren't enough to count and the numbers just get reduced to zero, it looks like there is no progess being made at all.

I don't get it.

So, you're saying that in fact you don't really mean to actually say anything...you just want to whinge about the fact that, you know, shit happens. Great.
Are you truly that logically challenged? I want the politicians to STOP already with all the ideologically-based crap. What's so difficult to understand about that?

BTW ... WTF does "whinge" mean?

Get a grip, dude. It's called hyperbola. Google has a note or two on it. :p

I think it's hyperbole, actually; hyperbola is a conic section.

Ahh, but the problem is that independents and third parties are marginalized in the US political system. I can't say how it works everywhere, but in Oregon, they don't even count the independent votes unless there are enough of them to rival the two parties. What this does is deny independents and third parties the ability to show any progress, which is needed to build support.

Say one election, you run, and you get 200 votes. That's nothing. Next year, say you get 2,000 votes. It's still nothing, but it's 10x more than last time so now you can rightfully claim that support for you is growing. If there's one thing people like to jump on, it's a bandwagon, and if it looks like you're going somewhere, people will follow you.

Instead, when you look at independent and third party voter statistics, all you will see is: year 1: 0.....year 2: 0.......year 3: 0....
Not that they are actually zero, but since there aren't enough to count and the numbers just get reduced to zero, it looks like there is no progess being made at all.
It's a conspiracy, that's what it is! :eek:

I think it's hyperbole, actually; hyperbola is a conic section.
Yeah. My bad. Sorry about that.

I think the biggest thing Washington can do is get rid of all of the campaign finance laws, and stop giving out federal matching funds for presidential candidates. Then we can have full democracy where it matters most: the campaigns.

I think the biggest thing Washington can do is get rid of all of the campaign finance laws, and stop giving out federal matching funds for presidential candidates. Then we can have full democracy where it matters most: the campaigns.

Why, what do the campaign finance laws say/do?

Are you truly that logically challenged? I want the politicians to STOP already with all the ideologically-based crap. What's so difficult to understand about that?

BTW ... WTF does "whinge" mean?

Yes, I am logically challenged. But beyond that, what I don't understand is what you mean by 'stop...with all the ideologically-based crap'. If you're arguing that there can never possibly be any ideological basis for political decision-making, because all ideologies are inherently flawed, then how do you propose we do assess political worth? By character? Or even what they say? It seems to me that by having many ideologies interacting within the framework of political decision is a good thing, because it keeps them in check, and prevents one from running riot. It's only from an ideological standpoint - that of principles - that one can ever really have an effective system of governance, because anything else is far too unreliable. So, I don't really understand how you can expect any alternative.

(Maybe 'whinge' is British-only. It means moan pointlessly or childishly.)

I think the biggest thing Washington can do is get rid of all of the campaign finance laws, and stop giving out federal matching funds for presidential candidates. Then we can have full democracy where it matters most: the campaigns.
Perhaps so. Haven't really given this much thought yet.

Yes, I am logically challenged. But beyond that, what I don't understand is what you mean by 'stop...with all the ideologically-based crap'. If you're arguing that there can never possibly be any ideological basis for political decision-making, because all ideologies are inherently flawed, then how do you propose we do assess political worth? By character? Or even what they say? It seems to me that by having many ideologies interacting within the framework of political decision is a good thing, because it keeps them in check, and prevents one from running riot. It's only from an ideological standpoint - that of principles - that one can ever really have an effective system of governance, because anything else is far too unreliable. So, I don't really understand how you can expect any alternative.

(Maybe 'whinge' is British-only. It means moan pointlessly or childishly.)
( Oh. Ok. Thanks. )

We can easily assess a candidate's "political worth" by seeing how successful he or she has been in resolving problems in previous jobs. And yes, character should be assessed as well. The best predictor of future performance is past performance.

Third parties and independants have a very hard time getting on the ballot here in Oklahoma. I think anyone who has the money to file and register to run for the office should be put on the ballot.

The best predictor of future performance is past performance.
Except in a chaotic system.

( Oh. Ok. Thanks. )

We can easily assess a candidate's "political worth" by seeing how successful he or she has been in resolving problems in previous jobs. And yes, character should be assessed as well. The best predictor of future performance is past performance.

...no it's not. This is ridiculous. Firstly, your suggestion would mean that it would be impossible to inject young, fresh ideas into a political process, because large amounts of experience would be needed. Furthermore, people change. Just because someone has said or done one thing does not mean they would say or do that same thing again. Ideologies are consistent. Many are abhorrent, but they are what they are.

I just hope you don't play the stock market.