Slashdot Mirror
New Group Paves Way For 2012 Online Primary
DJRumpy sends this excerpt from CNN:
"Americans Elect, which has raised $22 million so far, is harnessing the power of the Internet to conduct an unprecedented national online primary next spring. If all goes according to plan, the result will be a credible, nonpartisan ticket that pushes alternative centrist solutions to the growing problems America's current political leadership seems unwilling or unable to tackle. The theory: If you break the stranglehold that more ideologically extreme primary voters and established interests currently have over presidential nominations, you will push Washington to seriously address tough economic and other issues. Even if the group's ticket doesn't win, its impact will force Democrats and Republicans in the nation's capital to start bridging their cavernous ideological divide."
Except the media will just paint it as a left or right interest group to prevent breaking the 2 party mold.
I'll vote for that!
It needs a name that prominently features an adjective, so that voters can label themselves. Yeah, it sounds silly, but labels create something to rally around.
A) No it won t.
B) It's likely to attract Dems. Giving pubs more power.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
With a majority of adults having some sort of Internet access these days (whether at work, at home or at the library), maybe it's time we start looking into changing the good ol' US of A into a democracy. Get rid of congress and make the legislative branch be truly democratic. At the very least, we'd save a few million a year on taxes going towards salaries and pensions.
Yeah, right. The organizers of this will be found dead of "natural causes."
Centrist, that means to the left of the Republican & Democrat parties?
Cavernous ideological divide? What a load of crap. All the noise-making about how we need "moderate" candidates is asinine and misguided; the biggest things the two parties always work together on are favoritism towards big banks and wall street, and belligerent interventionist foreign policy. These are the two things that are the most damaging to our country - we create enemies abroad through militarism, and impoverish the middle class at home through inflationary policies which favor only the too-big-to-fail banks. "Moderate" candidates would continue these same policies, except would pay Romney-esque, slippery, two-faced lip service on social issues like gay marriage and abortion.
The kind of moderacy that results from the intersection of Republican and Democratic interests is worse than either brand of party extremism. Any kind of compromise that can be made between them will result in less liberty, higher taxes, fewer benefits, and greater warfare.
I legitimately hope they're serious about this and faithful to their principles. I'd absolutely stand behind them if that's the case.
Unfortunately, far too often some organization comes along professing to be nonpartisan but it quickly becomes evident they're very partisan. But more likely they'll start off one way and groupthink sends the whole thing careening off in some other direction.
What cavernous divide? There is a divide in rhetoric to be sure, and an emotional divide (*), but in terms actual policy differences between the GOP of GWB and the Obama administration, they're like siamese twins.
(*) I'm not sure how to characterize this -- I think of the people who despise "rednecks" and those that despise "hippies" -- they have a visceral hate for each other but it has nothing to do with policies apparently, because the Obama administration is indistinguishable from that of GWB. Hence, the somewhat obscure term of "emotional divide".
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Are they implying that they're centrist between the Democrats and Republicans? The rest of the world is watching American politics with some bemusement (and some worry) because there's really no left or centre in American politics. Both of your parties drift to the right ideologically compared to most other nations with open democracies. I see very little practical room between your two parties that would advance your nation forward in a healthy, productive, or sustainable manner.
"Even if the group's ticket doesn't win, its impact will force Democrats and Republicans in the nation's capital to start bridging their cavernous ideological divide."
A couple thoughts...
1) Wow, they think highly of themselves to believe this would have any effect on the current system. However, maybe it ends up similar to the effects of bloggers on journalist? It is a start but its doubtful this will be the magic "Oh shucks, there is a better way to carve up the population!" bullet.
2) I didn't realize there actually was that big of a difference between what the Democrats and Republicans believe, at least not one that could be categorized as "cavernous". To me, they both look to be populated by assholes, scammers and charlatans. This guy wants to take 1% more of my money and give it to the CEO of a company building tanks and this guy wants to take 1% more of my money and give it to the CEO of a company making movies.
A political party with out a defined political stance collecting money for non-existent political candidates?
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Remember, no politician in office will vote to change the system that put them in power
anagama wrote:
>Obama administration is indistinguishable from that of GWB
GWB didn't have ``Fast and Furious'', and his State Department would've approved the importation of WWII-era carbines and rifles from S. Korea.
"A credible, nonpartisan ticket"? Third-party candidates have historically done very poorly in American presidential elections. There is no reason to expect this one, even if it comes off, to do any better. I don't see the effort as "credible". And it certainly won't be "non-partisan". The mere fact that they want someone to vote for the ticket makes it "partisan". At best, the organizers want to straddle some kind of middle-ground between Republicans and Democrats, but that middle ground is a fantasy and, despite the expressed desire to "force Democrats and Republicans in the nation's capital to start bridging their cavernous ideological divide", that divide is unbridgeable at this point. Republicans believe they can win by not compromising. They have been busy not compromising for Obama's entire time in office. The effort could only succeed if it convinces Republicans that they have more to gain by compromising than by stonewalling, but Republicans are very good at holding the line. More likely this effort will siphon off Democratic voters. Do you remember how voters for Nader drew enough voters in Florida from Gore to (after Supreme Court intervention) throw the election to Bush? Are the organizers of the Internet primary moderate Democrats or Republicans? Who would have the most to gain?
Even if the group's ticket doesn't win, its impact will force Democrats and Republicans in the nation's capital to start bridging their cavernous ideological divide."
Did I miss the part about how Americans Elect will raise the billions of dollars necessary to get any particular issue noticed?
Or the part about what has changed since the second coming of Jimmy Carter took over from the second coming of James Buchanan in 2009?
More likely, its a PAC that formed for the intent of separating suckers from their money, but at least they're honest about not particularly caring about any particular issue - like other politicians they'll just follow the money.
Why do they need a huge pile of cash for that when access to the decision making process is supposed to be without barriers of race, creed, social standing or wealth?
But if this is what it takes to break the infinitely corrupt stranglehold D&R have put the USA in then more power to them.I've completely given up on that.
ATM this is so ridiculous. How much money do they spend on the primaries just so we actully care who of the curent rank and file of turkey dinner leftovers does the same thin again for the real election? People gobble it up and cheer on them as if they were their home team. You are expected to pick one when the clear choice seems to be: none of the above.
Yep, we're screwed.
20 minutes into the future
http://www.alternet.org/news/153412/secretive_millionaires_funding_online_primary_for_'independent'_white_house_run
chuck
How about we just call it the Naive party? Who knows, maybe if a few of their candidates get elected they can sit over in the corner at the little kids table and yap at each other while the rest of Congress goes about maintaining the status quo.
There's no such thing as "no ideology." Most people who claim to be making decisions not based on ideology are in fact subscribers to the ideologies of utilitarianism ("do whatever's necessary to make the most people content") or technocracy ("rule by scientific experts").
Some such people probably don't even realize this; other people are akin to the true believers of a religion who insist that their religion isn't really "a religion" but the One True Way to do things.
Liberty in your lifetime
Americans Elect's board is primarily staffed by the far right. This is simply an effort to split the liberal vote. Go look it up; it's pretty easy to find that Americans Elect's board alone makes it untrustworthy.
Not that finding the center between Dems and Republicans is worthwhile anyhow.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Just because it's not one of the other two, major parties, or one of the several minor parties, doesn't make it "a credible, nonpartisan ticket that pushes alternative centrist solutions to the growing problems America's current political leadership seems unwilling or unable to tackle." It makes it a different party, which is by definition partisan.
And practically every party claims to offer only "a credible ticket that pushes alternative centrist solutions to blah blah blah".
This new party might have something to offer. But painting it as a non-partisan effort is lying.
But what else do you expect from a party organized by the 1%? How about calling itself non-partisan while organizing itself as a party:
You can expect secrecy and total control by its directing board:
So it defines itself as a party to get on the ballot, but with a legal invention to fund itself as a "social welfare org" to keep its donors secret. It is known, however, that its $5M seed money came from a hedge funder. Its founding board has people who were Bush's EPA Director and previous FBI and CIA directors, among similar backgrounds.
Note that I am not saying that's any different from the other parties. In fact, I'm saying it's not any different.
--
make install -not war
Haven't heard that phrase in a while. Are you sure the press release didn't talk about The Information Highway?
But that would imply that the only people who should have guns are criminals and not law abiding citizens per the Obama administration, and we all know that isn't true.
GWB also made it easier for law abiding people to protect themselves, and passed as a executive order that gun companies were not liable for the actions of criminals, something that the courts should have never allowed to happen in the first place.
I hope the sarcasm is strong in my first sentence. Don't want anyone to get the wrong impression.
Another example of 'High Broderism' made into a political party, like Bloomberg's try or the 'No Labels' party. When one party's response to a cut finger is to recommend to cut off the patient's hand and the other party's recommendation is to cut the patient's arm off at the shoulder, these 'centralists' would compromise and just cut the patient's arm off at the elbow instead of getting out the band-aide.
America Elect is a group of campaign consultants looking for a front man.
"Centrist" isn't automatically correct. This country was founded by extremists who created a constitution based on individual liberty and very limited government. That's what we need, not more mealy mouthed compromise.
"will force Democrats and Republicans in the nation's capital to start bridging their cavernous ideological divide" Are you kidding me?!? The Democrats and Republicans are more alike than at any time since the Gilded Age. They are both owned by the same rich elite, and their policies on everything that matters is identical.
There is a myth that the Democrats and Republicans are on the ends of some primitive spectrum, and that "moderates" are somewhere in between. This is false. Check out Glenn Greenwald's piece on Obama (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/27/vote-obama-centrist-republican), one of the many commentators pointing out that Obama is a Republican in almost all ways. The "real" Republicans have to go off the edge in order to distance themselves from Obama. I almost feel sorry for them. Almost.
I want decent healthcare reform, an end to foreign wars, everyone paying their fair share of taxes, a level playing field in the business world so capitalism can do what it does best. Neither the D's nor the R's support this.
There is no political party in America that represents my beliefs.
Dilute! Dilute! OK!
Centrist? They think they'll be somewhere in the middle? This 1 dimensional view of politics is a problem itself. What positions will they take on our hard problems, problems such as the Great Recession, corruption, the national debt, and climate change? The usual denial and spin, same as both major parties? At least things seem fairly good on the foreign affairs front right now, no need for any drastic policy changes there.
I don't know for sure what we should do about it all, but for starters, fix our tax system, starting with the gas tax. Make it 19% of the price of a gallon, instead of 18.4 cents per gallon. Phase it in over a year or two, rather than shock everyone with an abrupt change. The gas tax should have been a percentage from the start, not a fixed amount. At one stroke, that helps with the deficit and climate change problems, and contrary to the knee jerk reaction, would primarily fall on Big Oil, not the consumer. Big Oil knows they would have to eat most of that tax. And they certainly have the profits to do so. If they try to pass it all on, we suddenly become more interested in fuel economy. Next, close the loopholes, make the rich and the big pay their fair share. Especially, scrap that special 15% rate on stocks. And that's just the start, will need a lot more than that to clean up Big Finance. Jail terms for those Wall Street crooks, clawbacks, and an end to golden parachutes. But I know much of that is politically impossible, can't be done without faux screams of agony about how that will wreck the economy, starve our children, spoil our morals, etc. Well, perhaps not doing this will ultimately wreck the country.
People want to vote for unicorns and rainbows, not hard choices.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
because the Obama administration is indistinguishable from that of GWB
This is the kind of irresponsible and unsubstantiated exaggeration that was responsible for people voting for Nader in 2000 with the result of Bush getting into office.
Can you list 10 policies that are identical between the Obama and Bush administrations? If you can't, all you have is an unsubstantiated opinion written with an air of authority.
In the mean time check out this web site for President Obama's record. With each item ask yourself if Bush or any Republican would have done the same:
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
Pro-Corporate Power.
Everyone needs to understand this political code word.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Check my sig. Here, I'll link to it again: http://nothingchanged.org/
I haven't added in Obama's recent enshrinement in statute of indefinite due process free detention, which I consider "worse than Bush", but when I do, the scorecard will be:
Worse than Bush: 8
Same as Bush: 10
Better than Bush: 1
Worse than Bush, but not Obama's fault: 1
Better than Bush, but not Obama's accomplishment: 1
Can't make a fair comparison: 1
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Re: "between the GOP of GWB and the Obama administration, they're like siamese twins."
Hyperbole much? This statement is not only inaccurate. It's patently absurd.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
>GWB didn't have ``Fast and Furious''
You might try to do a little research before you make up a post like this.
Check out project gunrunner:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
But I see a more important problem with what you said. Most of it (except for the 'end to foreign wars - which I think is a silly idea) is jargon that doesn't mean anything.
That is EVERY politician I know of will support "decent healthcare", "fair taxes", and a "level playing field". Those words are meaningless generalities - and both sides use them to mean directly opposite solutions. The Democrats think healthcare reform means ensuring that everyone gets healthcare. The GOP thinks Healthcare reform means getting the government out of healthcare. Same for everything else.
You want a political party that represents your beliefs? Try being a lot clearer about what they are.
P.S. An end to foreign wars sounds like a great idea - till you meet the next Hitler. And no, Obama/Santorum are not the next Hitler. N. Korea might be enthroning one right now. And that means that no, WWII was not the last good war - Ask anyone in either Korea that is not mourning the death of their dear dictator. Ask anyone in Kuwait that is not embroiled in Iraq's mess.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
It's exciting and new! Except it's not, and it won't amount to a damn thing. Remember Unity '08? The media said that was new and shiny and wonderful back in 2007-2008 and seems to have forgotten about that. Unity '08 tried the same thing, a unity party with online primary and everything, except they got a lot of pushback from the FEC and everyone else and it all fell apart just before the election. What's left of their once expansive forum and website is a statement from their founders at Unity08.com. Worth checking out -- though remember it was posted before Obama's election when everyone was still going to get a unicorn and a bucket of magical government money and seas would lower and dogs and cats would live together in perfect harmony. Snort.
Anytime I see something like this my cynical side (pretty much all of me at this point) thinks "Look! The media invented something new and exciting! Like Justin Bieber or the Coffee Party that is sweeping the nation!" Remember the Coffee Party? It's bigger than the Tea Party--really!--and it's truly grass roots but we won't talk about how it was created by Democrat strategists! Ugh. This is why I read BBC news.
There isn't going to be a third party able to win the presidency. There are enough people, R & D, in the FEC and state governments that will be able to pull bureaucratic levers and tie things up in red tape (sorry for mixing metaphors) that a serious third party challenge would be kept from getting on the ballot in all 50 states. It's just not going to happen.
The established "extremism" of the current primary system reflects the capture of this system by the ideological extremes. If "moderates" would get off their asses and vote on election/caucus day, then we'd be more likely to have moderate candidates in the general elections.
This (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2461#comic) captures the nature of the problem fairly well, IMO.
it can best be summed up by the phrase "Screw the poor!". With a few exceptions (Alan Grayson & Barney Frank) a Democrat is just a Republican that isn't very good at it. BTW, this comes from a card carrying Dem. My theory is at least their Rhetoric isn't openly hostile to me. Anyway, you want change in this country? Do something about racism and Homophobia. That's what the 1% use to divide and conqueror the rest of us.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You need to remove one of your examples:
I usually try to avoid thinking that 3 year old stories are news, and this link on your site:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/guantanamo.order/index.html is way outdated.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/07/obama-guantanamo-trials_n_832451.html
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
What dishonest whackjob dared to post this???? The hedge fundsters, and private bankster trash, are going to save America????? Kiss my barberously hard all-American a**, you jackholes!!!!! Even the Rothschilds can be found on the list of Americans Elect financial backers, for chrissakes!!!!!!!!!!! Eff off, slime bag credit who posted this nonsense --- go back to wetdreaming about performing sex acts on your fave boyfriend, Thomas Friedman, for chrissakes!
10 seconds of research has ackerman's name on a page that wanted to demolish social security. I wouldn't trust anything he funds.
Gitmo?
I am John Hurt.
Before the current Right-wing machine took over the Republican party (people like Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, and the neocons), there used to be moderate Republicans, nicer than Nixon and farther left than Barry Goldwater. People like my mom, who care about good government, want fiscal responsibility but aren't scared of taxation if it goes to worthwhile programs, think that you shouldn't start wars just to keep defense contractors in business, and think that the job of religion in politics should be to tell politicians to be honest and to care about the poor. They've pretty much all been kicked out of the party, and she didn't vote for either Dubya Bush or his father, and she was really annoyed when Christine "Not A Witch" O'Donnell beat moderate Mike Castle for the Republican nomination in Delaware.
The most traditional Republican presidential candidate at the moment is Jon Huntsman. He's too far right for me, and too far right to really call a moderate, but he's not part of the right-wing crazy machine, and thinks that the fact that evolution and climate change are real is more important than what voting blocks they attract or what corporate donors would be affected by laws about them (which is to say, "he doesn't have a chance of getting the nomination.") Ron Paul's not far-right, but he's a radical, not a moderate. Romney's relatively moderate, but he's doing deals with the machine, and if you look at the current Republican debating process, it's really a circus designed to convince the right-wing voters that they'll have to pick Romney to beat Obama. (Donald Trump was the comedy warm-up act, and Gingrich is the biggest of the clowns, as well as being personally opportunistic, but a lot of the process was Perry replacing Bachmann and still being an obvious non-starter.)
Will Americans Elect end up attracting more Republicans than Democrats? Probably not, but at least it's an interesting experiment in politics, and it might end up being as influential as Joe Trippi's online organizing for Howard Dean, which led the way for Obama's broad-based campaign. Alternatively, it could end up like a mirror to Ross Perot's campaign, which attracted enough Republicans to give Bill Clinton the election, and then fizzled out because Perot wouldn't let go of it and let it grow into a bottom-up party.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
The Rove/Norquist machine that brought Dubya Bush to power has always been aggressively polarizing. You're either with them or you're an anti-American pinko liberal socialist commie community-organizer-lover, and they got a lot of Republicans to buy in to it and a lot of politically inactive right-wingers to get active or at least to watch Fox News and throw popcorn at the TV set when Democrats' pictures are on. The fact that the ideology isn't philosophically based, adjusts to whatever's useful for creating partisan antagonism this week, and contains lots of messages from their corporate sponsors ("Drill, Baby, Drill!") doesn't mean it's not ideological or divisive. Look at the attacks on Nancy Pelosi - the fundamental reason for attacking her was that she was the lead Democrat in the House, even though she wouldn't have been elected Speaker if she'd been a radical.
And yes, both major parties believe in favoritism to big banks, deficit spending, the military-industrial complex, the drug war and the prison system that profits from it, and an increasingly invasive surveillance state, but that doesn't mean that "moderate" candidates agree with that - it means that "compromise" candidates do.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
A "centrist, outside the beltway" political movement started and managed by career, inside-the-beltway politicians.
Can you list 10 policies that are identical between the Obama and Bush administrations?
- Slow withdrawal from Iraq/Afghanistan (Bush would've pulled out EVENTUALLY...)
- War on drugs
- Tax cuts for the rich
- Gitmo stays open
- Deport craploads of illegal immigrants
- No campaign finance reform
- Random unconstitutional searches+seizures at airports
- National Defense Authorization Act (Bush's wet dream)
- Warrentless wiretapping
- Execution of US citizens abroad without trial
- Pathetic lack of financial reform
Oh wait, I'm past 10 already. Just go here for more.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
You're kidding me. One of the results of a two-party system is that both parties become centrist. Don't believe me? Well, we don't have a powerful Communist, Socialist, Anarchist, Fascist, Populist, Libertarian or Nationalist party in the United States, nor do we have powerful special interest political parties. These kinds of parties are very common in Europe where proportional democracy is more common. In the US, with the first-past-the-post system, we are essentially garunteed two dominant centrist parties that try to be as mundane and vanilla as possible. Sure, the Republicans are more conservative than the Democrats, but both are only slightly to the right of center. I can't even imagine a more centrist party that would be able to fit between them.
Whenever I would hear Colbert joking that Obama was a secret muslim, I would joke to my friends that he was a secret republican
Back in the early 00's, George Lakoff (cog-sci professor at Berkeley) put out a short book called "Don't Think of an Elephant", about the framing tools that the Republican Party was using and how they get people to commit to one side or the other, and to view events and ideas the way the Fox News and similar PR machines want people to. There's a radical difference in how people in the different parties feel, and what they want, that's pretty much independent of what the politicians have been doing in office (and that's part of why both liberals and conservatives are annoyed at Obama, and why Republicans didn't complain when Bush tripled the Federal debt.)
The Republicans have been going for the gut instinct for over a decade, polarizing and radicalizing their voter base. The Democrats didn't do that much - most of them already disliked Bush and Cheney, but radical aggressive antagonism isn't a Democrat or Liberal value, and inspiring speech-making about shared values and Hopey Changey Stuff and organizing communities to bring about the greater good is. (Too bad Candidate Obama got replaced by President Obama after about a month in office :-)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
It used to be that "The Republicans are like the Tories, and the Democrats are also like the Tories." (Since then the Republicans have tried to move farther right, and Maggie Thatcher may not be badass enough for them.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Ha ha ha, of course GWB had F&F. He (his admin) invented it!
Has Obama done even one single thing about guns during his entire administration?
I haven't added in Obama's recent enshrinement in statute of indefinite due process free detention, which I consider "worse than Bush",
Eh, I think you should count that as "Worse than Bush, but not Obama's fault" -- to see what's going on, you need to realize there's another layer of politics besides R vs. D -- there's also legislature vs. executive, and this power struggle (claimed to keep both in check) is very much alive and well.
Like Bush, Obama considers indefinite detention of US citizens in the current situation to be a right of the executive, requiring no (further) grant of authority from the legislature. If those goes unchallenged, the legislature loses this bit of power. So they "contest" it, not by fighting the executive, weakening both branches' power in this area -- how the power struggle, aka "checks and balances", is supposed to work -- but by explicitly authorizing it. In the final form, this power grab was weakened (the law now places itself as a clarification, stating it doesn't grant any new power, thus that Bush's and Obama's previous detentions were legal) because Obama threatened to veto the original form, precisely to protect his claim that he already had that power, but it's still better for Congress's power than no clarification at all.
The party followers' beliefs are fairly different, and the Republican right-wing machine has spent a decade or two getting their followers to be polarized and antagonistic, and getting their politicians to believe that Winning is the only value that really matters, and Following The Party Line is how you Win, and that the details can be filled in to match the needs of current events and/or the party's corporate sponsors ("Drill, Baby, Drill!" "Don't Increase Taxes on Job Creators!")
That's relatively independent of what the politicians do in office.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I'm not sure I disagree with you on any point. Still, I'm going to be watching this eagerly.
Most of us here are probably technology and sci-fi junkies. So much of that fills us with hope for what may come. But as I've grown to become an adult, the theater of politics has left me weary...feeling like we are certainly in the decline of our civilization. It's not a good feeling.
I'd give anything to have a candidate, a government, a political system, an electoral process that I believed in. That's a hope for something that made feel like people more intelligent that me are steering the ship toward a bright future.
Just give me something to believe in.
I can't go with "not Obama's fault" on this, exactly because his original veto threat was couched in the notion he inherently had that power. Since he believes that, he can't be fault free.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
The Lawrence Lessig interview on "The Daily Show" points to the heart of the current problem with all of our representatives in government. Until we fund our representatives differently they are going to beholden to special interests.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/extended-interviews/404264/playlist_tds_extended_lawrence_lessig/404242/
A reasonable summary. However, the mistake that most make is waiting until a presidential election to get serious about alternative parties or party "wings". Likewise, alternative parties or "internal wings", would do well by first working at the local level and targeting local and regional offices that reflect the character of their constituencies.
Corporate and money interests have an easy time playing every one off against themselves when they only have to two parties to deal with. If at a local level there were the Tea-Partys, Greens, Libertarians, Socialist Workers Party, Nazis, Communists, Theocratic Christian Party, The Muslim Brotherhood, etc. in addition to the Democrats and Republicans democracy would work a lot better as all would have to appeal to the center to expect a chance at election.
Its not as if people don't hold the views they do. The only way to force "reasonable" choices to be made is for there to be more of a competition of ideas rather than dollars. It is this aspect of our electoral process that has our system largely broken. Yes, it could be scary and many may prefer to move, but ultimately workable solutions would emerge. Those who vote for the wrong leaders will simply suffer the consequences, but at least the entire system of a set of United States would work as intended than grind to a dysfunctional halt as a few well financed competitors divide the spoils and keep everyone else hostage.
but aren't scared of taxation if it goes to worthwhile programs
You might as well say Democrats are happy to cut Social Security and Medicare when it's worthwhile. Everybody supports stuff they think is worthwhile, by definition.
The notion that both parties are the same is so false and bogus as to be absurd. To say that Obama is indistinguishable with GWB is even more ridiculous, whatever your politics.
To cite but one example: Every republican candidates with the exception of one has essentially promised to go to war with Iran (a few promise to start a few additional wars ie China, Mexico, etc.). It seems Obama is trying hard to end the second of two wars (has already ended one) and doing what he can to avoid going to war with Iran.
Given that Iran is a major supplier of oil to the Chinese and a major importer of Russian goods and services, a war with Iran would not be "cakewalk" or "pay for itself" as did the Iraq war. It would close the Strait of Hormuz for a considerable period of time and dramatically affect all economies of the world for the worse. It could easily take out Saudi Oil production facilities and much of the world's supertanker fleet.
Its hard to fathom the purpose of such a spin on the truth, but it just too absurd to be taken seriously.
No, instead he gave us two wars, neither of which were funded on budget. Whatever transgression "Fast and Furious", originally a Bush program, may have amounted to, it pales in comparison to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of the cost and sacrifice to the country.
"Centrist"? Don't make me laugh! The "left" in today's Amercian establishment politics is to the right of RIchard Milhouse Nixon.
Once at a Burger King not too long ago I wanted French fries. They came in three sizes. Medium, Large, and Extra Large. I asked for a Small and the lady at the window promptly informed me that they sell no such thing. I had to request "the smallest size of fries that you will sell me" and she informed me that it would be a Medium.
I am trained in math and know this to be bunk. But I bought the damn Medium fries anyway.
So, my point is that Centrist would be The Middle of whatever happens to lie at the extremes. Wherever they happen to be at the moment regardless of any labels people wish to attach. And as such, I think it's a good idea. Listening to my government argue and bicker while people who want to work continue to get foreclosed on and thrown out of their homes isn't getting us anywhere.
A little Centrist compromise and bridge building is what this country needs. I hope this scares the crap out of the establishment. This fighting is not what We The People want. We want our government to work for US, not for the party fringe whackos.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I've seen a lot of people posting that this is a pet project of the Rothschild family. Now I don't need a tinfoil hat to not trust big political names, ex-CIA, and possibly the biggest name in banking, to assure us that the results are unbiased, correct, and safe from hackers. If it was open sourced and ran by a MIT or other big university name I'd think it was a good idea.
Yeah! Aside from the war mongering, TSA gooning, rights-crushing, consitution-violating, they're TOTALLY different:
Obama didn't try to get people into houses with a "Blueprint for the American Dream".
I believe they were voicing their opposition to the last Supreme Court decision on how states could ban guns.
They've supported trying to the Ammunition Accountability legislation.
I found this quote from an article:
'I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control]. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar,' President Obama told Sarah Brady, the former president of the Brady Campaign, this past spring.
Some others:
Trying to ban shooters off public lands.
Banning import of historic guns into the US.
Defining high powered guns as those being over .22 cal?
And his judge appointments, many of whom are anti-gun like Justice Sonia Sotomayor has signed on to a Supreme Court opinion stating that there is no individual right to "private self-defense" with guns.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I'm not so familiar with history behind the US way of voting, but why isn't the presidential candidate voted for directly in a single-pass system?
Instead - correct me if I'm wrong - people vote for a proxy which may or may not vote for the candidate which the proxy previously claimed to give their vote to.
He has quietly pushed the anti-gun agenda without overtly acting, which cayenne's reply covered the bulk of it.
He also blocked the repatriation of a bunch of surplus guns legal to own from South Korea. Guns that the CMP (a government founded agency) would have sold for peanuts to new gun owners to get them active and involved in the sport.
And clearly, allowing guns to fall into the hands of the people that have destabilized your neighbor is perfectly acceptable to the Obama administration when operations like Fast and Furious are allowed to take place, and once found there is no real punishment to the directors of that operation. Showing, that he is either perfectly accepting of the situation, or is supporting it. Either way guns going to drug cartels is okay, but a bunch of guns from South Korea going into the hands of law abiding people is wrong.
I took time to register, fill out questions, etc. I even posted some "debate" questions.. Several were modded down, for no apparent reason...
I was disappointed in as far as I can tell, American's Elect is only resorting the same old crooked blowhards we already have running... No new faces, no new ideas, just the same old shit.. Why bother? These crooks will just lie to this group to get votes the same way the lie to get votes from other groups..
I'd rather see a mass mobilization / movement to convince people to always vote against the incumbent...To ignore party (as the two-party system is a myth) Local, state, federal, doesn't matter.. Something that would eliminate the pompous overconfident sense of job security all these crooks have.. Something to make them wake up and start listening to voters again, rather than special and corporate interests...
Fair enough, but I'd like to point out that you referenced one piece of legislation with no support, then three opinion articles (two explicit opinions without references, and one more from FN), all amounting to a whole bunch of nothing. Basically, what I'm saying, is that no, Obama hasn't done shit with guns. And for good reason! The American people, myself included, don't want more gun control. The preferences of Americans are for more guns, and laws around the country have become more permissive for gun owners. It's politically unpopular, so he won't touch it.
So what you are saying is... no, he has not acted to restrict guns. Okay. Well, I encourage you to continue your vigilance for the second amendment, which I consider one of the most essential freedoms in the Constitution. At the same time, I encourage you to stop imagining things that are fake, illusory, or fantastic.
Can you list 10 policies that are identical between the Obama and Bush administrations?
As a non American, I think I won't reach 10, but there are a few obvious important ones from across the Ocean :
- Guantanamo is still there.
- PATRIOT act has been said to be a good thing and even "essential" by the White House
- Gay marriage is still illegal
- Drug on war is still going on and is still silly
- Copyright lobbies can still pass whatever silly legislation they want
- No plans for a Palestinian state
The whole NDAA thing is just unbelievable. In my (not so) humble opinion, signing this bill would make it just impossible to vote for Obama. Removing the right to a fair trial is not an action that one can do unharmed in a democracy. There are few worse things that I can imagine a president doing.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Meh, "war on drugs"...
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
That's a pretty good site, but what's up with this:
How is the President the penultimate head of the Department of Justice? Wouldn't he be the ultimate? He's the Attorney General's boss after all.
Oh boy, another center left coalition of unemployed Democrat hacks and unemployed RINOs. Their goal? "Bi-partisanship", ie the same big government stagnation that a far left president and right-leaning congress currently produces: regular (and lucrative) employment for wilderness politicians and the special interests that they cater to (in spite of what they might claim).
Third parties and open ballots are just great, even if they help throw political control over to the worst candidates of the major parties. But if so-called independents or third parties don't stand for anything in particular, they're no better than the current Republocrat offering.
He has not gone to Congress with laws that are anti-gun, he just has slithered around when it comes to being anti-gun. As to not impose the image of Clinton or Kerry onto himself and lose votes.
He openly blocked the importation of World War 2 vintage firearms that would have been resold to the American public by the CMP from South Korea. Which is a open move against firearms.
Additionally promoting people into positions that will allow them to rule in favor of more gun restrictions, knowing full well they are anti-gun and anti-2nd Amendment does indeed count as being against guns. Since Bush already patched up a lot of the laws when it comes to firearm ownership and defense, its easier to stack the judicial system to your favor (ie anti-gun judges) to effect a reversal of the current laws without going to congress.
Yeah, like I said, fake fantasies. Give those up, they don't help our shared cause of firearm freedom.
Centrist is just another word for Conservative, and so far Conservative notions regarding our current problems have routinely failed, often failing even to admit that a problem exists, or is real, or can be solved.
So, whatever. This really just sounds like Teaparty 2.0. Another bunch of arrogant out-of-touch moneybags trying to create a fake populist movement.
...more like "swiftly merging cesspool." Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same wooden nickel.
I heart anarcho-capitalism.
From what I see, the USA can be governed by one party where some members act as the opposition, but in the end the goals of the lobbyists win out.
With a third party, democracy will return, where the third party can represent the 99% middle class. It will have to act as a de-confrontational party to break the deep polarization that exists between republicans and democrats. It could be the tea party or a new party.
On the otherhand, too many parties will mean coalitions so that special interest groups get balanced hearing and appropriate actions.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Just vote for Ron Paul. Then these one off political organizations would have no purpose because Ron would have already fixed our government.