The Dems & the GOP - Peas in a pod, again

[dblack]

When I vote third party it's generally due to the fact that I don't have a preferred candidate among the mainstream choices.

Okay, but I find that to be a cowadly copout (I have done it myself in the past). One of the two major candidates is going to win. Adulting is about making hard choices. Surely an adult can find a way to prefer one possible winner 0.0000001% more than the only other.

That's fine. I consider voting strategically, as you suggest, to be a cowardly sellout. Your logic only makes since if your goal is to "pick the winner". That's not the point of voting, in my view. The point of voting is to express our values. The only wasted vote is one that fails to express those values accurately.

There's just not enough net difference between the two major parties. They are both so antithetical to my political views that I see no point in splitting hairs on their differences. It's far more important, to me, to register a vote for something I do believe in.

I'm not completely dismissing the lesser of two evils perspective. In fact, this time around I'm practically begging the Democrats to give something, anything, to vote for. But so far, they don't seem interested. If the Democrats and Republicans insist on framing the next election as a choice between socialism and fascism, it's a choice I'll not participate in.

 

[Olde Europe]

That's fine. I consider voting strategically, as you suggest, to be a cowardly sellout. Your logic only makes since if your goal is to "pick the winner". That's not the point of voting, in my view. The point of voting is to express our values. The only wasted vote is one that fails to express those values accurately.

There's just not enough net difference between the two major parties. They are both so antithetical to my political views that I see no point in splitting hairs on their differences. It's far more important, to me, to register a vote for something I do believe in.

I'm not completely dismissing the lesser of two evils perspective. In fact, this time around I'm practically begging the Democrats to give something, anything, to vote for. But so far, they don't seem interested. If the Democrats and Republicans insist on framing the next election as a choice between socialism and fascism, it's a choice I'll not participate in.

This is a fairly amazing document.

In your first paragraph you set out that the point of voting is "to express our values." When, in fact, the point of voting is to determine, collectively, who is to govern. "Values" - whatever that is - can provide guidance as to whom to choose, but so can any number of other criteria. The individual expression of "values" - in the end, what an individual voter has in mind while voting - gets lost in the ballot booth, and just that cross next to a candidate emerges.

In your second paragraph, you deny there are significant differences between the major parties, while in the third paragraph you allege the choice is between "socialism and fascism". That would be indicative of major, enormous differences.

I cannot possibly conceive of a political point of view from which the most pronounced split between political camps also looks like one has to split hairs to describe it.

Finally - as we are heading toward silly season, when everyone gets treated as if they were stupid - there is no reason for voters to act as if they were stupid. That might mean, for instance, to get beyond the silly labels, or framing, and to look at actual policies or policy proposals, so as to make an informed choice.

 

[Mac1958]

The Paul Ryan Syndrome, playing out in the other party: Tensions Between Pelosi and Progressive Democrats of ‘the Squad’ Burst Into Flame

Too funny. Peas in a pod.

 

[dblack]

That's fine. I consider voting strategically, as you suggest, to be a cowardly sellout. Your logic only makes since if your goal is to "pick the winner". That's not the point of voting, in my view. The point of voting is to express our values. The only wasted vote is one that fails to express those values accurately.

There's just not enough net difference between the two major parties. They are both so antithetical to my political views that I see no point in splitting hairs on their differences. It's far more important, to me, to register a vote for something I do believe in.

I'm not completely dismissing the lesser of two evils perspective. In fact, this time around I'm practically begging the Democrats to give something, anything, to vote for. But so far, they don't seem interested. If the Democrats and Republicans insist on framing the next election as a choice between socialism and fascism, it's a choice I'll not participate in.

This is a fairly amazing document.

Thank you!

In your first paragraph you set out that the point of voting is "to express our values." When, in fact, the point of voting is to determine, collectively, who is to govern.

That's the point of the election, it's not the point of an individual vote. In particular, I'm rejecting this notion that if the candidate you vote for doesn't win, your vote was "wasted". That's nonsense.

The individual expression of "values" - in the end, what an individual voter has in mind while voting - gets lost in the ballot booth, and just that cross next to a candidate emerges.

No, it doesn't. All the votes are counted, and trends favoring fringe candidates can have a big impact on major party policies. They see the writing on the wall - when we bother to put it there. If we blithely keep voting for the majors they'll conclude we approve of what they are doing and see no reason to change.

In your second paragraph, you deny there are significant differences between the major parties, while in the third paragraph you allege the choice is between "socialism and fascism". That would be indicative of major, enormous differences. I cannot possibly conceive of a political point of view from which the most pronounced split between political camps also looks like one has to split hairs to describe it.

I said there's not enough "net" difference. Socialism and fascism are equally shitty options from my perspective. I have no interest in deciding between two bad options. I'm rejecting both. Do you prefer one over the other?

Finally - as we are heading toward silly season, when everyone gets treated as if they were stupid - there is no reason for voters to act as if they were stupid. That might mean, for instance, to get beyond the silly labels, or framing, and to look at actual policies or policy proposals, so as to make an informed choice.

Agreed.

 

[bendog]

It's always fun to point out how similar our two "major" parties can be in their behaviors. No, not issues, behaviors (I put that in bold there).

And, as if to illustrate the point yet again, the Democrats are jumping in by essentially splitting into two pieces for our amusement.

Remember about four and eight years ago, when the the Tea Party Republicans were running around, threatening to "primary" anyone who wasn't pure and obedient? And remember about four years ago, when those same Republicans were shit-canning people like Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan and John Kasich because the party had passed them by?

We'll here we go again, from the kids on the the other side!

Democrats threatening to primary each other:
Nancy Pelosi Doesn’t Know Who The Democratic Party Is Anymore
'Members are looking over their shoulders': Democrats spooked by new primary threats

Democrat leaders losing tough with their new whacked-out base:
'Members are looking over their shoulders': Democrats spooked by new primary threats
Nancy Pelosi Doesn't Know Who The Democratic Party Is Anymore | HuffPost

Seriously, this is almost unfair, it's so easy. The two ends of the spectrum can be so damn similar in their behaviors!


.

I don't think the fringe on the left has the political pull of the fringe on the right. Trump has cobbled together people who supported candidates like Perot and the tea party deficit hawks with the alt-R and racists.

 

[Mac1958]

It's always fun to point out how similar our two "major" parties can be in their behaviors. No, not issues, behaviors (I put that in bold there).

And, as if to illustrate the point yet again, the Democrats are jumping in by essentially splitting into two pieces for our amusement.

Remember about four and eight years ago, when the the Tea Party Republicans were running around, threatening to "primary" anyone who wasn't pure and obedient? And remember about four years ago, when those same Republicans were shit-canning people like Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan and John Kasich because the party had passed them by?

We'll here we go again, from the kids on the the other side!

Democrats threatening to primary each other:
Nancy Pelosi Doesn’t Know Who The Democratic Party Is Anymore
'Members are looking over their shoulders': Democrats spooked by new primary threats

Democrat leaders losing tough with their new whacked-out base:
'Members are looking over their shoulders': Democrats spooked by new primary threats
Nancy Pelosi Doesn't Know Who The Democratic Party Is Anymore | HuffPost

Seriously, this is almost unfair, it's so easy. The two ends of the spectrum can be so damn similar in their behaviors!


.

I don't think the fringe on the left has the political pull of the fringe on the right. Trump has cobbled together people who supported candidates like Perot and the tea party deficit hawks with the alt-R and racists.

Well, I don't know. I'm seeing more and more things like the link in the OP, where Pelosi is losing control just like Ryan did.

The two are close enough that it's easy to see the similarities. It's all a matter of degree, of course.
.

 

[bendog]

It's always fun to point out how similar our two "major" parties can be in their behaviors. No, not issues, behaviors (I put that in bold there).

And, as if to illustrate the point yet again, the Democrats are jumping in by essentially splitting into two pieces for our amusement.

Remember about four and eight years ago, when the the Tea Party Republicans were running around, threatening to "primary" anyone who wasn't pure and obedient? And remember about four years ago, when those same Republicans were shit-canning people like Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan and John Kasich because the party had passed them by?

We'll here we go again, from the kids on the the other side!

Democrats threatening to primary each other:
Nancy Pelosi Doesn’t Know Who The Democratic Party Is Anymore
'Members are looking over their shoulders': Democrats spooked by new primary threats

Democrat leaders losing tough with their new whacked-out base:
'Members are looking over their shoulders': Democrats spooked by new primary threats
Nancy Pelosi Doesn't Know Who The Democratic Party Is Anymore | HuffPost

Seriously, this is almost unfair, it's so easy. The two ends of the spectrum can be so damn similar in their behaviors!


.

I don't think the fringe on the left has the political pull of the fringe on the right. Trump has cobbled together people who supported candidates like Perot and the tea party deficit hawks with the alt-R and racists.

Well, I don't know. I'm seeing more and more things like the link in the OP, where Pelosi is losing control just like Ryan did.

The two are close enough that it's easy to see the similarities. It's all a matter of degree, of course.
.

I agree there's a similarity, but I just don't see the left's fringe having any group to ally with. Dems will say "well, at least our fringe doesn't include Richard Seymour (and his ilk(-, and I guess that's true because Trump's base includes guys like Mulvaney and Meadows who really are obnoxious assholes in the same vein as AOC, but Pelosi is right in that AOC has no votes beyond her fingers and maybe toes.

 

[Mac1958]

It's always fun to point out how similar our two "major" parties can be in their behaviors. No, not issues, behaviors (I put that in bold there).

And, as if to illustrate the point yet again, the Democrats are jumping in by essentially splitting into two pieces for our amusement.

Remember about four and eight years ago, when the the Tea Party Republicans were running around, threatening to "primary" anyone who wasn't pure and obedient? And remember about four years ago, when those same Republicans were shit-canning people like Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan and John Kasich because the party had passed them by?

We'll here we go again, from the kids on the the other side!

Democrats threatening to primary each other:
Nancy Pelosi Doesn’t Know Who The Democratic Party Is Anymore
'Members are looking over their shoulders': Democrats spooked by new primary threats

Democrat leaders losing tough with their new whacked-out base:
'Members are looking over their shoulders': Democrats spooked by new primary threats
Nancy Pelosi Doesn't Know Who The Democratic Party Is Anymore | HuffPost

Seriously, this is almost unfair, it's so easy. The two ends of the spectrum can be so damn similar in their behaviors!


.

I don't think the fringe on the left has the political pull of the fringe on the right. Trump has cobbled together people who supported candidates like Perot and the tea party deficit hawks with the alt-R and racists.

Well, I don't know. I'm seeing more and more things like the link in the OP, where Pelosi is losing control just like Ryan did.

The two are close enough that it's easy to see the similarities. It's all a matter of degree, of course.
.

I agree there's a similarity, but I just don't see the left's fringe having any group to ally with. Dems will say "well, at least our fringe doesn't include Richard Seymour (and his ilk(-, and I guess that's true because Trump's base includes guys like Mulvaney and Meadows who really are obnoxious assholes in the same vein as AOC, but Pelosi is right in that AOC has no votes beyond her fingers and maybe toes.

Yeah, I guess we'll see. The AOC/Tlaib/Omar faction is getting a lot of attention (particularly from the GOP), but it's tough to say how much influence it actually has at this moment. Certainly there's a lot of energy there, but that doesn't necessarily translate.
.

 

[bendog]

It's always fun to point out how similar our two "major" parties can be in their behaviors. No, not issues, behaviors (I put that in bold there).

And, as if to illustrate the point yet again, the Democrats are jumping in by essentially splitting into two pieces for our amusement.

Remember about four and eight years ago, when the the Tea Party Republicans were running around, threatening to "primary" anyone who wasn't pure and obedient? And remember about four years ago, when those same Republicans were shit-canning people like Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan and John Kasich because the party had passed them by?

We'll here we go again, from the kids on the the other side!

Democrats threatening to primary each other:
Nancy Pelosi Doesn’t Know Who The Democratic Party Is Anymore
'Members are looking over their shoulders': Democrats spooked by new primary threats

Democrat leaders losing tough with their new whacked-out base:
'Members are looking over their shoulders': Democrats spooked by new primary threats
Nancy Pelosi Doesn't Know Who The Democratic Party Is Anymore | HuffPost

Seriously, this is almost unfair, it's so easy. The two ends of the spectrum can be so damn similar in their behaviors!


.

I don't think the fringe on the left has the political pull of the fringe on the right. Trump has cobbled together people who supported candidates like Perot and the tea party deficit hawks with the alt-R and racists.

Well, I don't know. I'm seeing more and more things like the link in the OP, where Pelosi is losing control just like Ryan did.

The two are close enough that it's easy to see the similarities. It's all a matter of degree, of course.
.

I agree there's a similarity, but I just don't see the left's fringe having any group to ally with. Dems will say "well, at least our fringe doesn't include Richard Seymour (and his ilk(-, and I guess that's true because Trump's base includes guys like Mulvaney and Meadows who really are obnoxious assholes in the same vein as AOC, but Pelosi is right in that AOC has no votes beyond her fingers and maybe toes.

Yeah, I guess we'll see. The AOC/Tlaib/Omar faction is getting a lot of attention (particularly from the GOP), but it's tough to say how much influence it actually has at this moment. Certainly there's a lot of energy there, but that doesn't necessarily translate.
.

Maybe if I was still a republican I'd say "well the dems already have their racists with the reparations crowd, but I used to think of the GOP as the party for grownups. LOL Now they have Richard Spencer, and I'm damned if I know where the middle went.

But you're right AOC primaried the guy who represented the working class middle in Queens

 

[Olde Europe]

The Paul Ryan Syndrome, playing out in the other party: Tensions Between Pelosi and Progressive Democrats of ‘the Squad’ Burst Into Flame

Too funny. Peas in a pod.

Laughing hard here. Very funny.

Ryan lost control because a significant portion of his caucus were cranks and imbeciles with whom it was entirely impossible to reason.

There are tensions between Pelosi and The Squad because she moves too cautiously on some matters in the view of the latter, while they agree on the aims, and even respect each other in their respective roles.

So, we have a bunch of young lawmakers who wouldn't sullenly follow the leadership's orders, and who are contributing a lot by way of ideas, projects and brain power to the debate about the Democratic party's future. I'd say, to anyone but reactionary old farts, that should be exciting. Exhilarating even. And while I like and respect Pelosi, she, too, needs to be kept on her toes, and reminded that there are boundaries to the deals she's making that should not be crossed. Tossing money in Trump's direction to put to any use he sees fit is no way to solve the crisis at the border Trump has manufactured. I, for one, am glad AOC pointed that out, and Pelosi better listen, or otherwise she and Democrats co-own the brutalization of kids at the border.

All told, your "Peas in a pod" nonsense really is funny. In a weird way.

 

[Mac1958]

The Paul Ryan Syndrome, playing out in the other party: Tensions Between Pelosi and Progressive Democrats of ‘the Squad’ Burst Into Flame

Too funny. Peas in a pod.

Laughing hard here. Very funny.

Ryan lost control because a significant portion of his caucus were cranks and imbeciles with whom it was entirely impossible to reason.

There are tensions between Pelosi and The Squad because she moves too cautiously on some matters in the view of the latter, while they agree on the aims, and even respect each other in their respective roles.

So, we have a bunch of young lawmakers who wouldn't sullenly follow the leadership's orders, and who are contributing a lot by way of ideas, projects and brain power to the debate about the Democratic party's future. I'd say, to anyone but reactionary old farts, that should be exciting. Exhilarating even. And while I like and respect Pelosi, she, too, needs to be kept on her toes, and reminded that there are boundaries to the deals she's making that should not be crossed. Tossing money in Trump's direction to put to any use he sees fit is no way to solve the crisis at the border Trump has manufactured. I, for one, am glad AOC pointed that out, and Pelosi better listen, or otherwise she and Democrats co-own the brutalization of kids at the border.

All told, your "Peas in a pod" nonsense really is funny. In a weird way.

Your several dismissive and defensive responses in this thread have been perfectly appropriate for someone like you.

While I didn't need all these vivid illustrations of my point, I do appreciate your efforts in providing them.
.

 

[Olde Europe]

Your several dismissive and defensive responses in this thread have been perfectly appropriate for someone like you.

While I didn't need all these vivid illustrations of my point, I do appreciate your efforts in providing them.

And the Rorschach test is ... on. And, unsurprisingly, you "see" what you are inclined to "see".

The next time you actually deal with reality will be the first in quite a number of months.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I disliked both the choices in 2016, the two worst choices in American history.

I disliked them both as well. However, not wanting to cast a vote for the one i least preferred, I cast a vote for the one I preferred. You say it was a perfect tie. That is absurd, and you know it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That may be true for you.

No, it's true for everyone. If you claim it was a "perfect tie", you are lying.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's fine. I consider voting strategically, as you suggest, to be a cowardly sellout.

And that opinion is silly and misguided, for precisely the reasons i have already stated. Your protest vote or non vote was by far the more cowardly copout. And it's not even close. Furthermore, it's not just cowardly, but also very stupid, as you essentially cast a vote for the one of the only two possible winners you least preferred.

And voting for the candidate i prefer is not "strategic"....poor use of the word by you.

 

[Papageorgio]

I disliked both the choices in 2016, the two worst choices in American history.

I disliked them both as well. However, not wanting to cast a vote for the one i least preferred, I cast a vote for the one I preferred. You say it was a perfect tie. That is absurd, and you know it.

Not for me, I went with a candidate that I felt was a good candidate that would represent my views and my country well. I am not going to vote for the lesser of two evils, I don't intend to vote against my principles. You can compromise yours and I understand that, however I am not willing to do so. Not sure why I have to choose between only two parties.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not for me, I went with a candidate that I felt was a good candidate that would represent my views and my country well.

Cool! But you actually voted for the one of the two candidates you least preferred, between Hillary and trump. So, clearly, of the two of us, it is you who compromised himself.

 

[FA_Q2]

I couldn't agree more. The primaries are hard swings to the extreme and then the summer of the election is trying to win the middle. The extremists on both sides are dictating who we get in office and leads to the lesser of two evils. I went third party because I hate voting for the lesser of two evils, why in the hell would anyone vote for evil?

Well, here's hoping a new option shows up soon.

I just don't know how.
.

Public financing of elections!

I really, really hope you're kidding.

Someone debated me on this a few dyears ago here and they put up a damn good argument. Cant say I am against publicly funded elections anymore - I just do not see how that would be less effective than what we are doing now.

There are better solutions, like the one you mentioned, but that does not mean publicly funded elections would not improve what we currently have.

Public financing of elections means government financing of elections. Aspiring candidates would first please the powers that be - qualify by their rules - before they can score government funds for their election campaign. What this is attempting to do is transfer power from wealth in society to government, and I think that's a bad thing in general.

I agree in principal with this position. However, all the research I have seen on the subject seems to point the opposite way. namely, publicly financed elections lead to LESS power for the incumbent and opens elections up.

I don't see it as a transfer of power from wealth to government though. They are the same thing - wealth and influence is what runs government anyway. The difference I think is public funding removes some of the barriers that exist when politicians have to placate to specific interests for money.

 

[FA_Q2]

Your several dismissive and defensive responses in this thread have been perfectly appropriate for someone like you.

While I didn't need all these vivid illustrations of my point, I do appreciate your efforts in providing them.

And the Rorschach test is ... on. And, unsurprisingly, you "see" what you are inclined to "see".

The next time you actually deal with reality will be the first in quite a number of months.

You identify newcomers on the right as being 'cranks and idiots' but define a similar move on the left as 'contributing a lot by way of ideas, projects and brain power to the debate.'

Those on the right would say that the tea party contributed a lot in the way of ideas and debate.

 

[FA_Q2]

Not for me, I went with a candidate that I felt was a good candidate that would represent my views and my country well.

Cool! But you actually voted for the one of the two candidates you least preferred, between Hillary and trump. So, clearly, of the two of us, it is you who compromised himself.

You could try and hide your circular logic with at least one more step...