patrick.net

corntrollio says

People are rather naive if they think that the two parties are really that similar. This is just a propaganda tactic by someone trying to fool you. You can empirically show this to be wrong:

That's OK you still get to wear the hat.

terriDeaner says

However, they are unsubstantiated, and seemingly based only on the authors' opinion(s). What do the units of the axes represent? How is the degree of left/right or libertarian/authoritarian actually quantified?

What specific flaws do you see?

Again, I was responding to your assertion, which was simply that the two parties are the same. Are you saying that their metric for determining the two parties are not the same is flawed? If so, how?

The concept is certainly not new, and there are other academics who believe in a multi-axis political spectrum.

People who think ideology will fix the world are really just making circular arguments.

To be clear, I am not saying that the two mainstream parties are identical. I am saying that they are controlled by the same master (the uberwealthy), and that both enact polices that produce the same result (keep them in a comfy job, and make the uberwealthy more wealthy at the expense of the middle class).

Sure there are differences in terms of how much bread they dole out, and what type of circus they put on, but how are they really different? Pretty charts are one thing, and actual history is another.

And I'm not arguing that the multi-axis political spectrum is bogus. It is an interesting and useful model. BUT I AM saying that their metric is flawed because they give no formula for how they calculated it (at least for folks who didn't take their online test). How do figure how any politicians fit on their scale? How reproduceable is their methodology? Why should I, or anyone else, trust their black box formulation?

corntrollio says

People who think ideology will fix the world are really just making circular arguments.

You lost me here... are you accusing me of being an idelogue, of making circular arguments, or both? Please clarify.

Ron Paul is doomed because

1. He is running in the wrong party. He'd be better off as a fiscally conservative Democrat. It's closer to the libertarian ideal also.

2. He touts his beliefs in small gvt and fiscal rights, but doesn't talk about civil and human rights. A lot of Ron Paul supporters like him because of his anti-torture, anti-war, anti-tyranny philosophy. But he only talks economics anymore.

Ron Paul could win if we had instant run-off elections instead of our current Wolf's Dilemma system. Absent that change, he'd stand a better chance as a Democrat since both liberals and conservatives see him as the anti-Bush.

Yes, he would lose some votes in the primary from pro-social spending voters, but there are enough Dem voters who want smaller government to give Paul a better chance than he'll get from Repub voters.

I just don't see redneck voting for someone who is pro-gay rights, for ending marriage as a secular institution, anti-death penalty, pro-narcotic legalization, and anti-military spending.

terriDeaner says

I am saying that they are controlled by the same master (the uberwealthy), and that both enact polices that produce the same result (keep them in a comfy job, and make the uberwealthy more wealthy at the expense of the middle class).

I'm not defending either party. I'm asking, why is Ron Paul different from that? If anything, he is closely identified with Teabaggers, who have been astroturfed by the Kochs and other people that are not known to be particularly poor.

terriDeaner says

As the status quo ensures that we make our slow grind back towards the 1880s

How is today more like the 1880s? Please explain. You like stereotyping ("liberals like this...conservatives like that..."), but you don't really incorporate facts very well. It would be very helpful if you incorporated facts about the 1880s and now that how they are allegedly converging.

terriDeaner says

You lost me here... are you accusing me of being an idelogue, of making circular arguments, or both?

Neither, I was making an independent statement. However, you haven't explained why Ron Paul's ideology would be better. It seems like you are saying you want someone outside the narrow mainstream (i.e. the diagonal line on my "pretty chart"). Would ANYONE that's not on that line be better? Why would Ron Paul be better than, say, Dennis Kucinich who also doesn't really fit within the mainstream? To pull more people from my "pretty chart," why not Mike Gravel? If you really don't like that chart, use Nolan's, I don't mind -- I was just suggesting that the two parties are different, and it's largely naive people who think they are not.

corntrollio says

People are rather naive if they think that the two parties are really that similar.

They are. You can tell by the token financial reforms enacted when the democrats were in power. You can tell by "triangulation", the ongoing DNC strategy of outflanking the republicans on tax cuts and social spending.

The difference between the Republicans and Democrats is the only the speed. The Republicans want to drive 80mph down the straight through the night, the Democrats want to drive at 55mph taking in some of the sights along the way and maybe stopping when they get tired. Both are driving down the same neoliberal highway.

Abortion, Guns, and Gay Rights are more philosophical wedge issues than economic issues.

On foreign policy, the majority of Democrats and Republicans are hyperinterventionist hawks. Obama, Hillary, Biden, Frank, Pelosi, etc. all voted for Iraq, Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, and Libya at various times. None of them want these things to truly end.

Or rather, it's about what both of their biggest mutual contributors want and don't want..

thunderlips11 says

The difference between the Republicans and Democrats is the only the speed.

Right ON!

thunderlips11 says

Abortion, Guns, and Gay Rights are more philosophical wedge issues than economic issues.

Yup.

thunderlips11 says

Abortion, Guns, and Gay Rights are more philosophical wedge issues than economic issues.

They aren't economic issues at all. They are social issues.

I think the parties are quite a bit different and it's pretty easy to see if you look at charts over longer periods of time. The country changed when Reagan took office and Republicans. Clinton was able to reverse the trend, but W. put us on our current path.

If you look at important issues, there is a clear divide:

Campaign finance reform--Dems for, Reps against.
Military spending--Reps for, Dems against (or at least for a reduction. Clinton actually started to address military spending)

Social programs (Dems for, Reps against)

There are clear differences. Saying there isn't ignores history.

tatupu70 says

They aren't economic issues at all. They are social issues.

Exactly. When it comes to bread and butter, the shit that actually matters like the state of my wallet, I have little choice.

Campaign Finance Reform is and was a joke.

No incumbent wants Campaign Finance Reform.

The McCain-Feingold Reform was a complete scam. All it did was encourage more soft money donations to the parties themselves. The influence of special interests is, if anything, stronger.

Similarly, Sarbanes-Oxley was just a means of looking tough on corporate accounting while simply funneling more money into the hands of accountants and auditors. It actually stopped very few abuses, it only required that shady shit had to go through some red tape hoops. Creative Accounting lives on and if anything is more widespread than it was in 2000.

But neither party put a reintroduction of Glass-Steagal up for a vote, for example.

Not in the interests of the banking industry that underwrites both parties, even candidates in areas where the banking industry is minimal (Montana, for example).

As Carlin said, "We have the illusion of choice."

For example, I dislike free trade. What major party can I vote for, that contains a majority of candidates that will roll back the trade policy disasters of this country?

A country of 300M people and there isn't one party that isn't doesn't have moderate trade in it's platform?

Considering that Free Trade was considered a fringe idea prior to the late 60s for ALL of US history?

Sherrod Brown does not the Democratic party make.

Poor, dear, gentle, easily confused tatupu... nice to hear from you again! So then they are social wedge issues. Still...

tatupu70 says

I think the parties are quite a bit different and it's pretty easy to see if you look at charts over longer periods of time.

That's why many of us are more concerned with where the parties stand NOW relative to the future. The past is done.

tatupu70 says

If you look at important issues, there is a clear divide:

Campaign finance reform--Dems for, Reps against.

Obama Opts Out of Public Financing: Promise-Breaker or Reform-Shaker?

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2008/06/obama-opts-out-public-financing-promise-breaker-or-reform-shaker

tatupu70 says

Military spending--Reps for, Dems against (or at least for a reduction. Clinton actually started to address military spending)

Trimming the Defense Budget, Tea Party Style
http://www.theworld.org/2011/08/defense-budget-tea-party/

tatupu70 says

Social programs (Dems for, Reps against)

(This one is a little old, but you get the point...)

George Bush: a good man in Africa
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/15/georgebush.usa

thunderlips11 says

But neither party put a reintroduction of Glass-Steagal up for a vote, for example.

Bingo again.

terriDeaner says

Please don't take it personally if I don't agree with your methodology

Who took it personally? I can argue zealously without being personal. I even suggested that you can take my methodology *conceptually* as opposed to that my "pretty chart", and you agreed. I even suggested an alternative -- Nolan or other people who suggest multi-axis views.

terriDeaner says

corntrollio says

How is today more like the 1880s?

Read a little more carefully - I'm suggesting this is where we are headed, not where we are at today.

I could ask you to read carefully as well -- if we are headed this way, then clearly today is more like the 1880s than yesterday or yesteryear. Again, please explain, I can rephrase if that helps: how are we headed in this direction?

terriDeaner says

Sure they are different, but the issue you seem to be wrong on is HOW MUCH are they different?

No, I already took care of this argument. I said that we do not have anyone in the other 3 quadrants who is a serious candidate. I agree, that would be fundamentally different. Ron Paul is still within the same quadrant, just off the mainline.

terriDeaner says

terriDeaner says

I do, however, think that RP is the singularly different choice among all of the legitimate/electable Repub and Dem options.

Is Dennis Kucinich running for president?

Okay, fine. Why didn't you vote for Dennis Kucinich in the past? He is clearly different from the mainstream. What was his flaw? Why would he not have shaken things up like Ron Paul?

thunderlips11 says

Abortion, Guns, and Gay Rights are more philosophical wedge issues than economic issues.

I think the problem is that if you believe these are the only differences, then you are falling into the same trap as the people who believe wedge issues are important -- ignoring all the other stuff. There are real substantive differences that are economic, as tatupu70 said. I'm not expressing which ones are right and which ones are wrong -- I'm just saying you can't ignore them.

thunderlips11 says

Or rather, it's about what both of their biggest mutual contributors want and don't want..

Okay, so why not support campaign reform?

thunderlips11 says

Campaign Finance Reform is and was a joke.

No incumbent wants Campaign Finance Reform.

Okay, so you do support campaign finance reform, but the votes aren't there to do comprehensive reform. You have people on one side and people on the other, and they compromise. That's how legislation (should) work. Certainly there were some people who thought it should have gone A LOT further. This is what I mean when I say ideology generally doesn't produce much besides circular arguments -- ideology generally isn't pragmatic or fact-sensitive.

terriDeaner says

thunderlips11 says

But neither party put a reintroduction of Glass-Steagal up for a vote, for example.

Bingo again.

Ron Paul would repeal Glass-Steagall? Kucinich might. Why didn't you vote for him?

Right, TD.

The most recent Patriot Act extension was voted in by the majority of both the Democrats AND Republicans in the Senate.

corntrollio says

Ron Paul would repeal Glass-Steagall? Kucinich might. Why didn't you vote for him?

I thought the Democratic Party was for civil liberties and seem to always talk against the Patriot Act. Why did the majority of Dems in the Senate vote in favor of it?

corntrollio says

Okay, fine. Why didn't you vote for Dennis Kucinich in the past? He is clearly different from the mainstream. What was his flaw? Why would he not have shaken things up like Ron Paul?

The Democratic Leadership will never allow Kucinich to become President. Not a problem, the typical Democratic primary voter would never pick him as he is "unelectable". What they do is pick somebody like Obama who talks a big game to the left during the Campaign, but then governs as a neoliberal center-right President.

Then, when he's up for re-election, they'll point to some PHILOSOPHICAL, non-economic remark about abortion or gays and say "OMG! You can't consider NOT voting for our Obama because he let you down for being center-right when he actually got elected --- imagine the alternative! Sure, he's not very liberal, but he's not one of (dun, dun, duhhhh....) THEM!"

Rinse, wash, repeat. The old "campaign as left-of-center, govern as a neoliberal". Clinton did the same thing. Ron Paul will never be President if the Republican party has anything to say about it.

terriDeaner says

Poor, dear, gentle, easily confused tatupu... nice to hear from you again! So then they are social wedge issues. Still...

Was I gone?

terriDeaner says

That's why many of us are more concerned with where the parties stand NOW relative to the future. The past is done.

Agreed. The problem is you aren't using the right criteria to judge where the parties stand NOW.

Yes, Obama opted out of public financing. This is a common logical fallacy that simple minds often utilize. Similar to those saying if Buffet wants higher taxes on the rich, why doesn't he voluntarily pay more himself.

Obama played by the rules in place at the time. That doesn't mean he doesn't want the rules changed. I think it's pretty clear he does.

thunderlips11 says

The McCain-Feingold Reform was a complete scam. All it did was encourage more soft money donations to the parties themselves. The influence of special interests is, if anything, stronger.

And another poor argument. Just because the final bill that was passed was less than ideal, doesn't mean that Democrats didn't want something stronger. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Republicans (andn some Dems) in Congress that made sure real campaign finance reform didn't have a change. In general, however, it is pretty clear that Dems want reform and Reps don't.

terriDeaner says

Trimming the Defense Budget, Tea Party Style
http://www.theworld.org/2011/08/defense-budget-tea-party/

Are you seriously going to argue that Reps aren't the party of military spending? And Dems are the party of less military spending? If so, one op-ed piece on the Tea party isn't sufficient to make a compelling case.

Ditto with social programs. I don't think you are really going to argue the parties are the same.

thunderlips11 says

The most recent Patriot Act extension was voted in by the majority of both the Democrats AND Republicans in the Senate.

72-23 vote with 5 votes missing. That means 28 people didn't vote for it. If the majority of people don't think the Patriot Act is a problem, then why is this a surprise? If I remember correctly, we're not even talking about the whole Patriot Act (I'm sure there are provisions you agree with), but just some specific provisions of it.

As far as I can tell, you're saying you disagreed with the end result. That doesn't mean that the parties are the same. That just means people had to compromise. You can't always get what you want, but you can try sometimes...

That doesn't mean people who disagree are shut out -- they're part of the debate too. If there are enough of them, things change. If 4 million gun control advocates joined the NRA, you can bet their stance would change.

thunderlips11 says

The Democratic Leadership will never allow Kucinich to become President.

thunderlips11 says

Ron Paul will never be President if the Republican party has anything to say about it.

Why don't the voters have more control over that than party leadership? You are necessarily saying that the majority of voters won't vote for Ron Paul either. That just means the majority of voters don't agree with you.

To put it another way, a third party or a third way or whatever will never have a winning presidential candidate until that third party gets at least some Congressional seats. Start smaller than you're talking about and build a groundswell. Ron Paul will not win if a majority of people won't vote for him, not because of any other reason.

I've gotta run so I'll make this quick:

Corntrollio - glad to hear that you don't take these things personally. Late 19th century corporations had heavy handed control of the government, at the expense of the poor (there was no large middle class then). And I still don't trust the charts to estimate party differences - explain to me how they are calculated and I might change my mind. And I'm not for or against Kucinich, but this post is about the electability of Ron Paul.

tatupu - I didn't think you went anywhere, I just haven't chatted with you in a while. And, as usual, I think you misunderstood my reasoning. I am not trying to simply support my position with solitary facts, I am disproving yours with exceptions to your hard-and-fast rules about what Dems and Repubs stand for. Enjoy!

BTW - this one made my day!

tatupu70 says

This is a common logical fallacy that simple minds often utilize.

terriDeaner says

tatupu - I didn't think you went anywhere, I just haven't chatted with you in a while. And, as usual, I think you misunderstood my reasoning. I am not trying to simply support my position with solitary facts, I am disproving yours with exceptions to your hard-and-fast rules about what Dems and Repubs stand for. Enjoy!

When did I make any hard and fast rules? I merely pointed out some of the obvious differences between the parties.

And your exceptions were hardly that. I think I showed how your logic was flawed.

Somehow I get the impression this thread exists to convince anyone reading it that they should not vote for Ron Paul. Given that the majority posting here are pro-socialist/communist, I'm not surprised.

Ron Paul is a direct threat to the central banker-controlled establishment that put Obama and Bush in office.

Basically, if you want to exit the paradigm of presidents who continue where the last one left off, then vote Paul into office. He does not represent a continuation of the same agenda.

Greg H says

Given that the majority posting here are pro-socialist/communist, I'm not surprised.

Oh great, another first-time poster trying to categorize broad swathes of people. You don't know anything about the people here and have never participated in discussion here.

No one is saying don't vote for Paul. What people are challenging is the stated reasons for doing so. If you want to participate in this debate, talk about those, instead of trying to label people with your nonsense. If your sole reason is to kill the fed, then good luck to you, sir -- what is your coherent argument to do that and what makes you think Ron Paul could do this alone as president? (although I suspect you would capitalize it to FED)

corntrollio says

Ron Paul would repeal Glass-Steagall? Kucinich might. Why didn't you vote for him?

He actually voted against the House equivalent of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley (Financial Services Act of 1999) bill that repealed Glass-Stegal on the first round, then abstained on the second round.

first round:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1999-276

final vote:
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/money-and-votes-aligned-in-con.html

Paul's stated reason for doing this was put in the congressional record, although I can't seem to get at it for some reason...

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec99/cr110899-glb.htm

Here's a summary - I've never read this site before so I can't vouch for it's truthiness:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/23595.html

According to this guy's summary, it seems that Paul didn't think the repeal went far enough, and in its proposed state would simply make the financial sector more unstable.

Oh yeah, Kucinich also voted Nay.

tatupu70 says

When did I make any hard and fast rules? I merely pointed out some of the obvious differences between the parties.

Uh... here...

tatupu70 says

If you look at important issues, there is a clear divide:

Campaign finance reform--Dems for, Reps against.
Military spending--Reps for, Dems against (or at least for a reduction. Clinton actually started to address military spending)

Social programs (Dems for, Reps against)

There are clear differences. Saying there isn't ignores history.

People don't tend to use phrases like "there is a clear divide" and "there are clear differences" and then make hard-and-fast rules like "Saying there isn't ignores history" unless they are trying to MAKE HARD AND FAST RULES!!!

Thanks for playing, please come again!

tatupu70 says

And your exceptions were hardly that. I think I showed how your logic was flawed.

And yes, my EXCEPTIONS violated your absolutist statements, and exposed their flawed construction.

You can think whatever you like, but I know you didn't show me up... you little scamp!

corntrollio says

As far as I can tell, you're saying you disagreed with the end result. That doesn't mean that the parties are the same. That just means people had to compromise. You can't always get what you want, but you can try sometimes...

It seems to me the Republicans get what they want; the Democrats promise to stop it, but they never reverse it nor seem to make any serious attempt to do so. Or, they make token reforms that leave the situation mostly unchanged then announce they've put in fair and firm regulations.

To go back to the analogy again, the Democrats only back off the accelerator a little, they never turn around the car or make any serious effort to do so.

They had the votes and the mandate to reregulate the banking industry, which the party seemed to studiously avoid doing during their previous control of Congress.

It used to mean something to vote Democrat, however in the past 30 years, this 'something' means less and less.

This is because there is "consensus" on Free Trade, Deregulation, and Lower Taxes. Economically, the parties are not very far apart.

Moderate liberals want me to vote Democrat, because they think it's an issue of generating more support. I don't believe this because I've seen democrats placed in the majority and they've done nothing. Contrast this to when the Republicans win the House and what they do right away.

Almost every elected official moves away from their campaign position when elected; it's the art of the possible. However, third way triangulation democrats become center-right when in office, and those are the ones who tend to win, however hopey-changey their rhetoric is.

corntrollio says

To put it another way, a third party or a third way or whatever will never have a winning presidential candidate until that third party gets at least some Congressional seats.

Which won't happen because elections are subject to state rules, and 100% of the states are controlled by Republicans and Democrats. A monopolist will never voluntarily give up a monopoly, so they go as far as the Supreme Court will let them in setting up ballot access blocks. Because startup parties must spend all their small donation-driven money and volunteer manhours on getting signatures, they have few resources for the actual campaign.

Then, the Media decides who is electable and who is 'extreme'. I'd like to see an editor give me an objective criteria of how 'extremists' are chosen. Since non-Paul and non-political fanatics get their info from the media, choosing not to cover his candicacy as 'unelectable' becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. When a more 'acceptable' candidate runs third reliably in ever state that isn't Ron Paul, they cover him/her extensively as a 'wildcard' or 'potential challenger' in most situations - not so with Paul.

The Media is about as open and objective about how they determine candidate's electability as the MPAA is open and objective about assigning ratings to films. Funny how big studio films can be packed with violence, nudity, and cursewords and get an "R" at worse, and Indies/Art Films can have little to none of this but still get an "NR" at best.

As for chosing the President.

Primary nominated delegates aren't the only electors. Many delegates to the national convention are hand-picked by party insiders at local and state conventions and there are also incumbent elected officials who have voting power; these are the Superdelegates.

Good article about how the leadership of the Democratic Party changed the rules, deliberately to stop liberals from picking the candidates in the primaries and giving the Establishment more control over the nomination process:
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_convention_delegate_process_explained

We live in a country with 20 brands of cat food, 20 car makers making multiple models across a multitude of classes, etc. but to have more than 2 major parties would 'confuse' people.

Right now I feel about Democrats the same way many Brits feel about the Liberal Democrats over in the UK.

***deleted***

Won't his staunch anti-abortion position kill his chances, even if people ignore the more easily mocked positions in this economically driven cycle (Like the Gold Standard or the Civil Rights v. Property rights issues)?

You can't win if people think that you really would outlaw abortion, can you?

CL says

You can't win if people think that you really would outlaw abortion, can you?

First, this wedge issue has largely moved to the back burner as economic issues have been more pressing in the political arena.

Second, RP is personally against abortion, but realizes that the federal government should not be regulating it. He suggests it should be up to the states. His political position is ultimately closer to pro-choice than pro-life, don't you think?

Here's Greenwald's reasoning why Paul is ignored: Reporters are lazy, and prefer an easy dichotomy.

But coverage of these presidential campaigns has even more pernicious effects than mere distraction. They are also vital in bolstering orthodoxies and narrowing the range of permitted views. Few episodes demonstrate how that works better than the current disappearing of Ron Paul, all but an "unperson" in Orwellian terms. He just finished a very close second to Michele Bachmann in the Ames poll, yet while she went on all five Sunday TV shows and dominated headlines, he was barely mentioned.

Now this is a great example of why neither competitive money raising nor consistent popularity will get an 'outsider' equal treatment from the media:

He (PAUL) has raised more money than any GOP candidate other than Romney, and routinely polls in the top 3 or 4 of GOP candidates in national polls, yet -- as Jon Stewart and Politico's Roger Simon have both pointed out -- the media have decided to steadfastly pretend he does not exist, leading to absurdities like this:

And this:

There are many reasons why the media is eager to disappear Ron Paul despite his being a viable candidate by every objective metric. Unlike the charismatic Perry and telegenic Bachmann, Paul bores the media with his earnest focus on substantive discussions. There's also the notion that he's too heterodox for the purist GOP primary base, though that was what was repeatedly said about McCain when his candidacy was declared dead.

But what makes the media most eager to disappear Paul is that he destroys the easy, conventional narrative -- for slothful media figures and for Democratic loyalists alike. Aside from the truly disappeared former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (more on him in a moment), Ron Paul is far and away the most anti-war, anti-Surveillance-State, anti-crony-capitalism, and anti-drug-war presidential candidate in either party. How can the conventional narrative of extremist/nationalistic/corporatist/racist/warmongering GOP v. the progressive/peaceful/anti-corporate/poor-and-minority-defending Democratic Party be reconciled with the fact that a candidate with those positions just virtually tied for first place among GOP base voters in Iowa? Not easily, and Paul is thus disappeared from existence. That the similarly anti-war, pro-civil-liberties, anti-drug-war Gary Johnson is not even allowed in media debates -- despite being a twice-elected popular governor -- highlights the same dynamic.

It is true, as Booman convincingly argues, that "the bigfoot reporters move like a herd" and "put[ their] fingers on the scales in elections all the time." But sometimes that's done for petty reasons (such as their 2000 swooning for George Bush's personality and contempt for Al Gore's); in this case, it is being done (with the effect if not intent) to maintain simplistic partisan storylines and exclude important views from the discourse.

More:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/08/16/elections/index.html

An example of how simplified to irrelevance the "Democrats are peaceniks" claim is, consider that many Dems, such as Hillary, Pelosi, Reid, and many other Dems - even a plurality of Dems - are reliable pro-war votes, regardless of who is President ad which country is considered for "kinetic action."

Please note also that Paul is second only to Romney in fundraising, which is a major accomplishment considering Paul supporters are mailing $5, $10, $20 checks while Romney and the others mostly made a few phone calls to some rich friends. In fact, the "Money Bomb" was developed by Paul's campaign in the 2008 season and widely copied. His campaign is not some rickety, fly-by-night outfit but composed of highly skilled individuals.

PS Just for clarity, I do not agree with Paul on many of the issues, however, I respect his views on many things and his honesty, consistency, and practicality. On the latter note, Paul has said many times that he wouldn't destroy the social welfare state overnight, that it would be too disruptive and that it is not his top priority, which is breaking up the banking cartel.

terriDeaner says

People don't tend to use phrases like "there is a clear divide" and "there are clear differences" and then make hard-and-fast rules like "Saying there isn't ignores history" unless they are trying to MAKE HARD AND FAST RULES!!!
Thanks for playing, please come again!

Come on-you're really going to tell me what "people" do? Are you qualified to speak to what "people" do?

If you construed my post to imply that ALL Dems and ALL Reps vote the same way (as I described), I am very sorry. I thought it was understood that I was talking in generalities because everyone knows that even among Reps and Dems there are differences.

So, now that we have the matter of your disingenuous nitpicking out of the way, the point of my post remains.

Do you agree that there are significant difference between the parties or not?

terriDeaner says

And yes, my EXCEPTIONS violated your absolutist statements, and exposed their flawed construction.
You can think whatever you like, but I know you didn't show me up... you little scamp!

Well, good. My point was never to show anyone up--I wanted to discuss the difference between the two parties and show that they do exist. Sounds like you'd rather argue with me about the true meaning of my statements.

thunderlips11 says

On the latter note, Paul has said many times that he wouldn't destroy the social welfare state overnight, that it would be too disruptive and that it is not his top priority, which is breaking up the banking cartel.

Seems consistent with his No/Absent vote on repealing Glass-Stegal.

A politician who follows through with what they say they'll do... amazing.

terriDeaner says

A politician who follows through with what they say they'll do... amazing.

Yes, imagine that. :)

It's much more refreshing than "More Humble Foreign Policy" and "Withdraw the troops by 2010".

There is a difference between making a concession to get something in return - compromise - and simply giving concessions in return for nothing. When the latter happens too often, it makes you wonder if you've gotten suckered.

Maybe because Americans are so sensitive about being suckered, they ignore it or make excuse for it when it happens.

C'mon now tatupu, I'm just yanking yer chain a bit. Don't make is so easy for me!

tatupu70 says

Sounds like you'd rather argue with me about the true meaning of my statements.

Not really... but it would help if your statements reflected your 'true meaning', and if your 'true meaning' didn't seem to be a moving target.

And no, outside social wedge issues, I don't think that the two main parties are really all that different, particularly in practice. They take money form corporate special interests and legislate according to the desires of their masters.

And don't take my word for it, check out:

http://www.opensecrets.org/

They are all on the take, red or blue.

thunderlips11 says

Maybe because Americans are so sensitive about being suckered, they ignore it or make excuse for it when it happens.

Sounds about right...

The more I think about it, the less I see this as orchestrated "conspiracy".

It's more of a groupthink. Look, everyone who speaks publicly whether "media" or whatever is heavily molded themselves by corporate influence. If they do not work directly for a big corporation themselves like most media people, they are at least influenced by a world that prides itself on being "corporate friendly". Hobnobbing with the moneyed and influential is the their way of getting "access" and is the sea in which they swim. Therefore they just NATURALLY see someone who wants to take an axe to the FIRE cartel as some kind of loon. He is a threat to their established order.

terriDeaner says

And no, outside social wedge issues, I don't think that the two main parties are really all that different, particularly in practice. They take money form corporate special interests and legislate according to the desires of their masters.
And don't take my word for it, check out:
http://www.opensecrets.org/
They are all on the take, red or blue.

Sure. It's very expensive to run a campaign these days. I'm 100% for finance reform to take the money out of politics. I think it's the #1 problem and nothing else is close.

But the simple act of taking a campaign contribution doesn't prove bribery. Further, it doesn't prove the parties are the same.

We haven't really had a truly Democratic (filibuster proof) Washington for so long that I think it's pretty hard to say with a certainty what they would have changed.

Vicente says

The more I think about it, the less I see this as orchestrated "conspiracy".

It's more of a groupthink. Look, everyone who speaks publicly whether "media" or whatever is heavily molded themselves by corporate influence. They don't see it as a bad thing since they are going to lunch regularly with corporate bigwigs. Therefore they just NATURALLY see someone who wants to take an axe to the FIRE cartel as some kind of loon. He is a threat to their established order.

Yeah, it's simply group self-interest (or group laziness).

Reporters today are less funded and lazier (or maybe the former made them into the latter). They get a gov't or corporate press release, call up a source or think tank for commentary, and write up the story. They don't "Dig" and they don't elaborate (which is confused with "impartiality" - ie "Many think 2+2=4; however, S&P and others disagree").

tatupu70 says

But the simple act of taking a campaign contribution doesn't prove bribery. Further, it doesn't prove the parties are the same.

No, but their voting record relative to their campaign contributions does demonstrate their propensity to favor those who gave them their funny money.

terriDeaner says

tatupu70 says

But the simple act of taking a campaign contribution doesn't prove bribery. Further, it doesn't prove the parties are the same.

No, but their voting record relative to their campaign contributions does demonstrate their propensity to favor those who gave them their funny money.

Sure--that's almost certainly true. Money talks--no doubt about it.

But that influence only works so far--it's much easier to buy a vote on a small bill that nobody really follows. So, if you looked at every bill voted on over the last 5 years, I guarantee you'd find some very obvious difference between those with a D after their name and those with an R.

thunderlips11 says

However, third way triangulation democrats become center-right when in office, and those are the ones who tend to win, however hopey-changey their rhetoric is.

But Democrats ARE center-right. See Political Compass. We don't have a true left party here besides maybe the Greens who don't poll well, as I pointed out earlier. I don't think Ron Paul is the right candidate for that, but that's a valid point that I made too.

I also don't see this happening from the top down. What would be better is if a third party started getting Congressional seats in states with open primaries. You are not going to create a viable third way with a presidential election.

thunderlips11 says

Which won't happen because elections are subject to state rules, and 100% of the states are controlled by Republicans and Democrats. A monopolist will never voluntarily give up a monopoly, so they go as far as the Supreme Court will let them in setting up ballot access blocks.

California recently had a ballot proposition to open up primaries, and the top 2 candidates go on to the general. Would you suggest something like this more broadly?

CL says

You can't win if people think that you really would outlaw abortion, can you?

I don't want to dwell on this question because it's a silly wedge issue, but pro-choice and pro-life don't mean what they used to mean any more. There are people who are nominally "pro-choice" who think there should be significant restrictions on abortions, and there are people who are nominally "pro-life" who think abortions should not be outlawed entirely.

People focus on the extremes, but if you read the poll data carefully, people don't always label themselves the way you'd think. It's mostly politicians and lobbyists who live at the extremes, not the general population. The vast majority of people believe that abortions should not be completely outlawed, but the line gets drawn different places by different people.

thunderlips11 says

Reporters today are less funded and lazier (or maybe the former made them into the latter). They get a gov't or corporate press release, call up a source or think tank for commentary, and write up the story. They don't "Dig" and they don't elaborate (which is confused with "impartiality" - ie "Many think 2+2=4; however, S&P and others disagree").

Yes, our current "journalists" do suck. This is a huge problem. Our journalists think impartiality means no analysis, when in reality that just means that journalists are an echo chamber for stupid politicians. That's why Jon Stewart is one of the few true journalists out there despite being a comedian.

The problem is not "liberal media" either. The problem is the *corporate* media, and the fact that true journalism standards don't exist any more. The media is more interested in dividing people than telling the truth because it makes a sexier story.