patrick.net

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He actually voted against the House equivalent of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley (Financial Services Act of 1999) bill that repealed Glass-Stegal on the first round, then abstained on the second round.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

corntrollio says

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.

I agree, the Democrats are now a center-right party.

I also agree about Congressional seats, but that won't happen for two reasons: First, the antiquated assignment of Representatives to Districts (no longer necessary thanks to the telegraph, much less the telephone and digitalization) makes them prone to co-option by powerful constituencies in their district - and not necessarily their own voters. Feinstein (CA - major intel/defense state), Frank (Upper Class Boston suburbs like Brookline - FIRE back offices), and Dodd (CT, same situation as Frank) are great examples. Second, if just getting one officer on the ballot for president is a manpower and financial hardship for third parties, getting multiple candidates in several districts is even harder - the rules are often just as stringent for House and Senate seats as they are for non-major party Presidential candidates.

corntrollio says

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.

It sounds good to me. I actually would love the SCOTUS to rule that all ballot access laws should be the same for any candidate, regardless of Party - or lack of party - affiliation.

Given the way the US is structured today, politicians and corporations must re-learn to fear the public, or the public must lose their apathy on a grand scale.