why is there in america the republican presidential debate?

[Prolescum]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

actually, it has more to do to with character limitation on topic-titles.

I stand corrected. My point about TheOnlyThing2FearIsFearItselfFearIsTheMindKiller's comical tirade against Obama is still valid, and is indicative of the mentality of America's right.

and till this day, im when looking at american politics.. im still stuck with my original question: WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THESE HUMANS?!

Democracy in action. Put shit in, get shit out.

you get situations where you see a gigantic hypocrit and see him lie out right into peoples faces and think, no one will vote for someone like that, yet people do...

Well it pays to remember that all politicians are practiced liars; they often have to tow the party line regardless of their own feelings, for example. I agree that it is pretty bad in the US right now, though.

you get situations where you see someone say something incredible stupid and think, no will take him serious anymore, yet people do...

Well, when your government thinks funding the military is its number one priority, we have to expect a comparable drop in education funding. America's schools have been underfunded for a couple of generations now. The uneducated make pretty good soldiers. Can't build an empire without soldiers...

you get situations where you see them preach about love, but see the hatred in their eyes and actions to people who are different, and people just adore it...

Doublethink is a natural state for many. It's a bit of a catch 22, really. The ignorant fight for minimal taxation at the behest of the duplicitous wealthy, little funding for education.

America's class system is painful to observe. Worse in many ways than the British one.

these same kind of people call themselves "the leaders of the free world", yet they want to take all kinds of freedoms from everyone else (except themselves and rich people)...

That is often what the strong (or in this case rich) do to the weak (in this case, the poor). It's the exact opposite of Jesus' teachings, somewhat ironically.

if such a force gets into power, only a few inches away from a button that could send nuclear war heads accross the sky and start WW3... wouldn't you be worried?

Honestly, not on the whole, no. The president doesn't have total power. I'd be more worried about the effects on American society. Despite its obvious (and deep) flaws, it is still, at its heart, a force for good.

if it were up to me, i would only allow people into congress if they can pass an IQ test and score atleast 10 points above the average and hook them all up with lie detectors with gives shocks of electricity when they start lying.

Well as much as I don't think you're serious, I would prefer to live in a demarchy. No lie detectors, but one expects a certain level of understanding, knowledge and experience from representatives. I am of the view that career politicians are part of our overall problem.

and as example with the video posted by televator, isn't it strange that they accuse they other side, of actions you see them do they most?

It's all part of the psychological bombardment the fundies who currently dominate the Republican party use; give people two versions of reality - they'll almost always choose the one best suited to their own beliefs/values/whatever. It is all about phrasing.

Liberals (read: gays, Hollywood, communists, Satan) want to destroy America
Republicans (read: God-fearing, moral majority) want to protect family values

They know how charged their terminology is, the language of fear has been used for a very long time. It's Goebbels 101.

 

[KittenKoder]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

Well, a majority of people wouldn't know about the slightly insane, yet very promising, Ron Paul if there were no debates. The others are essentially pure evil. The flaw with politics in the US has been that it's media-centric. The entire system has just been what you see in the mainstream media with little to no outside information, much less any real facts. Even in this age with the internet being used by so many, most of the voters here are still just watching the debates and completely ignoring all other information.

Though this is shifting more each year, and we can see the possibility of a Republican candidate actually having a chance based entirely on online support. People refer to them as "Paulbots" but really, that's just a smear and has no validity. Anyone who believes in a candidate fits the stereotype of a Paulbot more than the actual Ron Paul supporters.

But more importantly, Obama's support has waned, he is just more of the same, oddly I predicted this on a political forum before he was voted in and got booed from both extremists. So people believe that Obama is the only Democratic candidate, thus invalidating the entire party for presidency, only the blind Democrat supporters would vote for him again.

... and there's the entire problem with the system, the blind supporters of a party. Honestly, I think it's the only reason Ron is even mentioning his beliefs is to get on the Republican ticket, he appears to have no intention of making his religious beliefs laws. So, to rally support from the blind Republican supporters, just say you believe in what they do. It's working to, he actually has a chance if the electorates would stop being morons.

Essentially, we need to get rid of dichotomies completely in politics, it doesn't work. Republican versus Democrat has about as much meaning as blond versus brunette.

 

[bluejatheist]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

Well, a majority of people wouldn't know about the slightly insane, yet very promising, Ron Paul if there were no debates. The others are essentially pure evil. The flaw with politics in the US has been that it's media-centric. The entire system has just been what you see in the mainstream media with little to no outside information, much less any real facts. Even in this age with the internet being used by so many, most of the voters here are still just watching the debates and completely ignoring all other information.

Though this is shifting more each year, and we can see the possibility of a Republican candidate actually having a chance based entirely on online support. People refer to them as "Paulbots" but really, that's just a smear and has no validity. Anyone who believes in a candidate fits the stereotype of a Paulbot more than the actual Ron Paul supporters.

But more importantly, Obama's support has waned, he is just more of the same, oddly I predicted this on a political forum before he was voted in and got booed from both extremists. So people believe that Obama is the only Democratic candidate, thus invalidating the entire party for presidency, only the blind Democrat supporters would vote for him again.

... and there's the entire problem with the system, the blind supporters of a party. Honestly, I think it's the only reason Ron is even mentioning his beliefs is to get on the Republican ticket, he appears to have no intention of making his religious beliefs laws. So, to rally support from the blind Republican supporters, just say you believe in what they do. It's working to, he actually has a chance if the electorates would stop being morons.

Essentially, we need to get rid of dichotomies completely in politics, it doesn't work. Republican versus Democrat has about as much meaning as blond versus brunette.

I find it to be a(subjectively) moral imperative to vote anything but conservative, frankly.

 

[KittenKoder]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

I find it to be a(subjectively) moral imperative to vote anything but conservative, frankly.

At least you understand it's subjective, however, you do realize you are not really voting for anything different than the Democrats, right?

 

[bluejatheist]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

At least you understand it's subjective, however, you do realize you are not really voting for anything different than the Democrats, right?

My votes are based on liberalism, with no loyalty to any particular party, and I dont consider the democratic party very satisfactory in terms of that lately. Still I see it more a matter of choosing between Bad and Worse, as a third party isn't likely to win. If you mean either way there's going to be an imbecilic suit running things, yeah I know. Some suits are worse than others, however.

 

[KittenKoder]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

At least you understand it's subjective, however, you do realize you are not really voting for anything different than the Democrats, right?

My votes are based on liberalism, with no loyalty to any particular party, and I dont consider the democratic party very satisfactory in terms of that lately. Still I see it more a matter of choosing between Bad and Worse, as a third party isn't likely to win. If you mean either way there's going to be an imbecilic suit running things, yeah I know. Some suits are worse than others, however.

Want to know why a third party will never win? Because people are fooled into believing a third party will never win so no one votes for them. They would, if everyone who says what you just did actually voted third party.

 

[bluejatheist]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

Want to know why a third party will never win? Because people are fooled into believing a third party will never win so no one votes for them. They would, if everyone who says what you just did actually voted third party.

Oh well

 

[atheisthistorian]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

Third Parties don't win because our entire election structure has been built around the two party system. The primary system which we are currently enduring is entirely Party dominated. The outdated electoral college persists because it allows parties to control the delegate slates so they never have to worry about "faithless electors" who might vote against the Party line (which they were actually intended to do if the party line ran contra American interest). The vast majority of primaries are closed meaning that the parties are the gatekeepers as to who gets to run for them. The media is deeply embedded in the party structure as well. Parties provide easily digestible nuggets for 24 hour news cycles, and have close relationships with the established networks.

Assigning voting districts in almost every state in the union is also party controlled. One need only look at the latest fracas in Texas to see how Parties try to gerrymander districts to ensure safe seats for their members.

It doesn't matter how many third party candidates have good ideas, or present alternatives, until the structure of the electoral system is altered, we will not have a viable third party alternative in the U.S.

 

[televator]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

My votes are based on liberalism, with no loyalty to any particular party, and I dont consider the democratic party very satisfactory in terms of that lately. Still I see it more a matter of choosing between Bad and Worse, as a third party isn't likely to win. If you mean either way there's going to be an imbecilic suit running things, yeah I know. Some suits are worse than others, however.

I seems to me that your original basis is actually null then...

 

[bluejatheist]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

My votes are based on liberalism, with no loyalty to any particular party, and I dont consider the democratic party very satisfactory in terms of that lately. Still I see it more a matter of choosing between Bad and Worse, as a third party isn't likely to win. If you mean either way there's going to be an imbecilic suit running things, yeah I know. Some suits are worse than others, however.

I seems to me that your original basis is actually null then...

What do you mean? I'll take time to address your point when you actually explain it, I don't see exactly how it's null.

 

[televator]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

What do you mean? I'll take time to address your point when you actually explain it, I don't see exactly how it's null.

Well, when you have 2 candidates promoting conservative ideals in the main 2 parties. You'd vote for the one who is seemingly least ardent about it, but you'd still end up voting for a peddler of conservative ideals. Where liberalism still fits into that would be unknown to me.

 

[bluejatheist]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

What do you mean? I'll take time to address your point when you actually explain it, I don't see exactly how it's null.

Well, when you have 2 candidates promoting conservative ideals in the main 2 parties. You'd vote for the one who least ardent about it, but you'd still end up voting for a peddler of conservative ideals. Where liberalism still fits into that would be unknown to me.

It seems quite logical, if liberalism is preferred, and there is a choice between conservative and less conservative, less conservative is the best option available. Unless I want to waste a vote on a third party.

 

[KittenKoder]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

It seems quite logical, if liberalism is preferred, and there is a choice between conservative and less conservative, less conservative is the best option available. Unless I want to waste a vote on a third party.

Tell me, would you vote for a Giant Douche or a Turd Sandwich?

Funny how that analogy works on so many levels. Basically you are saying that you would prefer that choice over all other possible choices. Again, the only reason that third party candidates never get anywhere is because no one who wants a third party candidate is voting for them because they "can't win" thus causing the third party candidate to have no votes so people who .... you get the circular logic here, right?

 

[televator]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

It seems quite logical, if liberalism is preferred, and there is a choice between conservative and less conservative, less conservative is the best option available. Unless I want to waste a vote on a third party.

But there's a choice for "liberal/progressive" in 3rd parties, regardless. I would just vote liberal. That's what makes sense to me... If liberalism is preferred, vote liberal. It seems interesting to consider a vote for opposing policies, which a vast amount of liberals seem all too easily herded into doing, as "not wasted". What good is that really doing? How could it get any worse? I really want to know what fear it is that holds so many people captive on the left.

 

[bluejatheist]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

It seems quite logical, if liberalism is preferred, and there is a choice between conservative and less conservative, less conservative is the best option available. Unless I want to waste a vote on a third party.

But there's a choice for "liberal/progressive" in 3rd parties, regardless. I would just vote liberal. That's what makes sense to me...It seems interesting to consider a vote for opposing policies, which a vast amount of liberals seem all too easily herded into doing, as "not wasted". What good is that really doing? How could it get any worse? I really want to know what fear it is that holds so many people captive on the left.

"what fear it is"? I swear I could feel my interest in this discussion shrink a little, it's fascinating. Frankly I see no good in the future regardless, if you want to talk about "getting any worse" then let's just vote by flipping a coin, it will have identical outcomes.

 

[televator]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

"what fear it is"? I swear I could feel my interest in this discussion shrink a little, it's fascinating. Frankly I see no good in the future regardless, if you want to talk about "getting any worse" then let's just vote by flipping a coin, it will have identical outcomes.

Huh...No answer? If I made you feel insulted, I'm sorry. I'm just genuinely interested. However the second part of your response just made your whole part in this conversation rhetorical IMO. If there is not much else to fear and you see no difference in the outcomes of voting for either party, why make the case you were making in the first place about voting for one over the other?

There's something quite incongruous about your thinking so far...

 

[Dean]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

There is indeed little point in paying attention to American political debate at the moment, since on one side you have someone who's committed to innumerable human rights violations, and was apparently seeking the power to indefinitely detain and perhaps even execute American citizens without a trial, has a track record of smooth-talk masking his lies, and so on and so forth.

Meanwhile on the "other side" â„¢, there is a gaggle of complete lunatics such as Rick Santorum, Perry, and Gingrich. Of course some of them are not too likely to win any elections, but there isn't anything incongruous about stating that discussion of the two parties is, ultimately, to put it bluntly; pretty pointless. I certainly wouldn't vote for any one of them.

And BTW: I didn't count Ron Paul into this bunch, because he's part of the 3rd party, which has little chance of getting anything done anyways. The prospect of someone like Romney becoming the most powerful man on Earth is...

terrifying, still. And I would favour Obama over him. But as I said, and as Bluejay said, it's ultimately a choice of the lesser of two evils. And it's a choice I'd probably have little interest in making, were I an American citizen.

 

[KittenKoder]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

There is indeed little point in paying attention to American political debate at the moment, since on one side you have someone who's committed to innumerable human rights violations, and was apparently seeking the power to indefinitely detain and perhaps even execute American citizens without a trial, has a track record of smooth-talk masking his lies, and so on and so forth.

Meanwhile on the "other side" â„¢, there is a gaggle of complete lunatics such as Rick Santorum, Perry, and Gingrich. Of course some of them are not too likely to win any elections, but there isn't anything incongruous about stating that discussion of the two parties is, ultimately, to put it bluntly; pretty pointless. I certainly wouldn't vote for any one of them.

And BTW: I didn't count Ron Paul into this bunch, because he's part of the 3rd party, which has little chance of getting anything done anyways. The prospect of someone like Romney becoming the most powerful man on Earth is...

terrifying, still. And I would favour Obama over him. But as I said, and as Bluejay said, it's ultimately a choice of the lesser of two evils. And it's a choice I'd probably have little interest in making, were I an American citizen.

Yet the point is that with that thinking of "if I vote for them, they still won't win" you lose the whole point of voting, which is why many of us are perplexed by that. As for getting anything done, there are ways they can, just not in only one office. We have to consistently vote for third party to make it strong, that's how the other two are still strong in the system anyway. It's not the presidential race that grants the real power, but it is an announcement to the rest of the politicians of "shape up or we'll ship you all out." That message has more power than the president himself and why I believe Ron Paul needs to be elected.

He got on a major party ticket, by just voicing his opinions (beliefs), even though he doesn't vote to enforce those. Voting for him would put the fear of the people into the hearts of the other politicians, reminding them of who they are suppose to be listening to. Just imagine how scared they are right now, with just a hint of him having the popular vote they are scrambling to discredit and marginalize him. So if the majority did vote for him, even if he didn't get into office because of the electorate, even if he did and couldn't get anything done, the other politicians would realize that the people are wise to their lies and two-faced voting habits.

We all know the kind of power fear has over people, no one can deny that fear is probably stronger than any weapon.

 

[Prolescum]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

 

[televator]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

There is indeed little point in paying attention to American political debate at the moment, since on one side you have someone who's committed to innumerable human rights violations, and was apparently seeking the power to indefinitely detain and perhaps even execute American citizens without a trial, has a track record of smooth-talk masking his lies, and so on and so forth.

Meanwhile on the "other side" â„¢, there is a gaggle of complete lunatics such as Rick Santorum, Perry, and Gingrich. Of course some of them are not too likely to win any elections, but there isn't anything incongruous about stating that discussion of the two parties is, ultimately, to put it bluntly; pretty pointless. I certainly wouldn't vote for any one of them.

And BTW: I didn't count Ron Paul into this bunch, because he's part of the 3rd party, which has little chance of getting anything done anyways. The prospect of someone like Romney becoming the most powerful man on Earth is...

terrifying, still. And I would favour Obama over him. But as I said, and as Bluejay said, it's ultimately a choice of the lesser of two evils.And it's a choice I'd probably have little interest in making, were I an American citizen.

:?: How is it pointless? There has to be a deciding factor. Both parties are fucked. Okay, but why vote for one over the other? Either they are the same and you wouldn't vote for either, or there is something seen as worth voting for... You can't have it both ways. Don't you start dancing on me, Dean... **shakes finger**

It is highly incongruous in Blujay's case because he initially stated that the lesser of 2 evils (although not in those exact words) is what swayed his vote. So now I ask him what makes one the lesser over the other in his POV and he pretty much tells me it's all the same. This is all beside the whole claim that his choice comes from a liberal basis.

Edited to try to discern Dean's input from Bluejay's.