83 replies to this topic

[mikeinnaples]

The American people have forgotten our roots and where we came from.

Here is another comment I would like explained. Tell me, asketh I politely, about "our roots and where we came from"?

I hate to answer your question with a question of my own, but it is applicable.

Take into consideration how much care was put into the original constitution to provide our framework for government. Take into consideration what liberty and freedom meant to those who penned it. Do you think our modern government even closely resembles the original intent?

Our liberties and freedoms have been trampled upon.

[Lister]

At this point in the United States, the 'two' party system is pretty much part of our cultural foundation. People are taught that you vote either republican or democratic and that anything else is a wasted vote.

Hell, to make it worse, we have people that are born, raised, and die 'republican' without ever even bothering to think for themselves. ( I am using republican, but you can just as easily insert democratic in its place. )

That is exactly why you need to work very hard on reforming your campaign system and promoting additional parties. Not because you need to push for other parties to get in and take over from the Republicans/Dems; I feel you are right that a multi-party system in of itself may not be better. There is another reason.

As you said it is ingrained into the soul of the US to have 2 parties. It’s always been a struggle between the left and the right both seeking control of a purposely dysfunctional system. But the KEY here and this is important; the US population doesn’t agree with it anymore. You don’t approve. And that approval rating is miles below what it should be to see change, yet no change happens. Do you know why? Because the Dems and Republicans don’t need to change as they both agree to perpetuate the status quo.

They need to be challenged. They need to see death and fear it. They think themselves to be immortal. The ebb and flow of the political system in the states shifts left, right, left, and right constantly. Knowing this why should either party fear its own demise? While I’m no Conservative I agree with much of what our Conservative party is doing because they were forced to struggle and fight their way into power through refining their message and goals. Our Conservative party is a million times more refined and functional than your Republican party. The same goes for our Liberal party versus your Democratic Party yet we kicked our Liberal party out and crushed them.

You’ve always had low standards for your political parties and that has only ever gotten worse. You blame the other party instead of demanding a higher standard of politics. You see politics as a necessary evil that will always be extremely useless and hence it always is.

Even if you saw this and asked for change both sides won’t. They don’t have to change. Make them.

[mikeinnaples]

Always is a rather strong word to use. It is also wrong.

[maxwatt]

Did you hear about the constipated congressman?


He couldn't budge it.

[Lister]

Always is a rather strong word to use. It is also wrong.

It appears to be true. Perhaps that's problem?

[mikeinnaples]

Always is a rather strong word to use. It is also wrong.

It appears to be true. Perhaps that's problem?

The use of always was wrong, not the reference to the current state of affairs.

[platypus]

Isn’t campaign finance reform something everyone can agree needs to happen? Why bother with other issues when we have something here, right now that we can all agree upon?

Campaign finance reform is a big thing on the left. OTOH, it's not even on the radar of the right.

In fact, we're probably better off without it. These laws generally end up being enforced quite selectively against republicans, especially with a trial-by-media.

So republicans are against taking money off politics because...? And what about corporate personhood, why is that a good thing again?

[platypus]

At this point in the United States, the 'two' party system is pretty much part of our cultural foundation. People are taught that you vote either republican or democratic and that anything else is a wasted vote.

The two-party system is a direct outcome of the winner-takes-all voting system (which some people consider to be a mockery of democracy).

[mikeinnaples]

The two-party system is a direct outcome of the winner-takes-all voting system (which some people consider to be a mockery of democracy).

Sure it can be considered a mockery of democracy. I really see no reason why we still need the electoral college when the technology now exists to make tabulating popular vote (outside of Florida) quick and easy.

[Lister]

I can’t help but think that Republican Campaign Finance is slightly more tainted than Democrat.

Sure Unions are in there but there’s a difference between manipulating politics for personal Greed and manipulation politics for a group of people (Teachers for Example). Both wrong but not equally wrong.

Still I don’t see why removing the cash all together would be a bad thing; campaign to a budget rather than elect the highest bidder. Also, other than inserting another political party to increase pressure I’m out of ideas.

Removing the Electoral College would smooth things out but would it really be anything other than a specific fix?

I can’t deny being hopelessly Optimistic that people will be willing to face these issues head on instead of finding them conveniently too far away to care about…

[rwac]

I can’t help but think that Republican Campaign Finance is slightly more tainted than Democrat.

Dunno about that. The Obama campaign deliberately disabled credit card checks on their donation website to allow donations from overseas, which is against campaign law. They got away with it because the donations were $5 or less, which doesn't trigger the mandatory reporting.

Still I don’t see why removing the cash all together would be a bad thing; campaign to a budget rather than elect the highest bidder.

What about "donations" by say reporters in kind? Most of them lean one way.

Removing the Electoral College would smooth things out but would it really be anything other than a specific fix?

How exactly does removing the electoral college do anything at all?

[niner]

Most of them lean one way.

Reality has a liberal bias. I'm not just saying that to be snarky, I think it's really true. Republicans lean on ideology over evidence, expertise and science. Reporters, if they are real journalists rather than partisan hacks, will strongly favor evidence over ideology, since they are interested in getting at the truth. Academia is similar. For every person in the media who is a liberal partisan hack (Michael Moore), I bet I could find two who are conservative partisan hacks. (Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly)

[rwac]

Most of them lean one way.

Reality has a liberal bias. I'm not just saying that to be snarky, I think it's really true. Republicans lean on ideology over evidence, expertise and science. Reporters, if they are real journalists rather than partisan hacks, will strongly favor evidence over ideology, since they are interested in getting at the truth. Academia is similar. For every person in the media who is a liberal partisan hack (Michael Moore), I bet I could find two who are conservative partisan hacks. (Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly)

Perhaps your version of reality, haha. Democrats mostly say that because they live in a media echo chamber ...

The problem is that science is as vulnerable to fads as anything else. Unless (Until?) it meets a high standard, we're probably better off going by general principles rather than wrecking things chasing the wild goose.

When it comes to expertise, obviously there's a bias involved. If you ask a regulator for the solution, the response will obviously be for more regulation. We need to have courage to go back to first principles and say that perhaps we need to undo a few things that aren't quite working right.

For example, if you ask anyone in the federal government about marijuana, they will want tougher regulations, etc. It takes courage to go against that and say that perhaps it shouldn't be banned after all.

As for partisan hacks, it's not just people, it's entire channels who will bury information if it's harmful to "their candidate".

Edited by rwac, 27 November 2012 - 03:22 PM.

[niner]

Most of them lean one way.

Reality has a liberal bias. I'm not just saying that to be snarky, I think it's really true. Republicans lean on ideology over evidence, expertise and science. Reporters, if they are real journalists rather than partisan hacks, will strongly favor evidence over ideology, since they are interested in getting at the truth. Academia is similar. For every person in the media who is a liberal partisan hack (Michael Moore), I bet I could find two who are conservative partisan hacks. (Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly)

Perhaps your version of reality, haha. Democrats mostly say that because they live in a media echo chamber ...

The problem is that science is as vulnerable to fads as anything else. Unless (Until?) it meets a high standard, we're probably better off going by general principles rather than wrecking things chasing the wild goose.

Well, if you think that science is as vulnerable to "fads" as "anything else" (Boy Bands, hairstyles, clothes, reality TV) then that pretty much demonstrates the problem. I think that science, the scientific method and evidence are the best way of getting at the truth, and that people who have some expertise in a field usually know a hell of a lot more about it than people who don't have any expertise. I have to wonder how anyone could come to a different conclusion.

I'm not sure which part of my post is allegedly due to living in a media echo chamber, but if Democrats live in this echo chamber, where do Republicans live? Aren't they surrounded by all the same media? Or are they all listening to Rush and Fox News? If so, do you really think they are getting a more true version of reality than people who get information from other sources?

[Lister]

It’s a shame politics in the states is so polarized. There are extremely good ideas brought by both sides. I would even argue that due to the left, right, left, right swings the only productive area is times when both sides have to work together. You look at AZ for example – Super majority in both houses, passing bills like nuts and it’s causing a huge uproar.

The Left and the Right are only useful by themselves to a point. Beyond that point they’re forgetting half the country which causes rejection of whatever changes they're trying to make. This then completely cancels out said changes and wastes ever more time.

People holding firm (or appearing to do so) on the right or left are next to useless. You can energize your base but when it comes down to it you try and pass hyper partisan bills which don’t pass (I wonder why) and then you spend all day blaming the other side.

Obama has this useless idea of “Work Together” which the left hates and the right laughs at. I think he has the right idea on how to run your country but if he’s not legalizing weed or drilling off shore he’s a socialist or a failure.

The real failures are those who think their side is always right.

[niner]

It’s a shame politics in the states is so polarized. There are extremely good ideas brought by both sides. I would even argue that due to the left, right, left, right swings the only productive area is times when both sides have to work together. You look at AZ for example – Super majority in both houses, passing bills like nuts and it’s causing a huge uproar.

The Left and the Right are only useful by themselves to a point. Beyond that point they’re forgetting half the country which causes rejection of whatever changes they're trying to make. This then completely cancels out said changes and wastes ever more time.

People holding firm (or appearing to do so) on the right or left are next to useless. You can energize your base but when it comes down to it you try and pass hyper partisan bills which don’t pass (I wonder why) and then you spend all day blaming the other side.

Obama has this useless idea of “Work Together” which the left hates and the right laughs at. I think he has the right idea on how to run your country but if he’s not legalizing weed or drilling off shore he’s a socialist or a failure.

The real failures are those who think their side is always right.

This is really hard to follow. Obama's attempt to "Work Together" is useless, but hardcore partisans are next to useless. Or 'real failures'. Sounds like you don't like any of it.

[Lister]

This is really hard to follow. Obama's attempt to "Work Together" is useless, but hardcore partisans are next to useless. Or 'real failures'. Sounds like you don't like any of it.

Sarcasm. Both sides see the idea of "Working Together" as being useless yet it's obvious to me that that's the right idea. Sorry, I forget how difficult it is for most people to see sarcasm in writing.

[rwac]

Well, if you think that science is as vulnerable to "fads" as "anything else" (Boy Bands, hairstyles, clothes, reality TV) then that pretty much demonstrates the problem. I think that science, the scientific method and evidence are the best way of getting at the truth, and that people who have some expertise in a field usually know a hell of a lot more about it than people who don't have any expertise. I have to wonder how anyone could come to a different conclusion.

I'm not sure which part of my post is allegedly due to living in a media echo chamber, but if Democrats live in this echo chamber, where do Republicans live? Aren't they surrounded by all the same media? Or are they all listening to Rush and Fox News? If so, do you really think they are getting a more true version of reality than people who get information from other sources?

Ok, maybe a touch of exaggeration for effect.

The scientific method is very cool, except that it's honored mostly in the breach.

Yes, the scientific method and evidence is the best way of getting at the truth, but it's certainly possible for scientists to fall prey to group-think. Indeed, the insiders ("experts") tend to be especially vulnerable. There's any number of examples from the field of health, where the government recommendations tend to be out of whack with reality. Sometimes it takes an educated outsider to question research and the conclusions therein.

Republicans are generally more exposed to Democrat arguments about any topic than vice versa, and thus better equipped to debate. Well media bias is usually not about a blatant lie, it's about not publicizing or hiding certain things that don't play well with the narrative. I would say Republicans have a more complete view of reality.

Edited by rwac, 28 November 2012 - 02:21 AM.

[mikeinnaples]

This is really hard to follow. Obama's attempt to "Work Together" is useless, but hardcore partisans are next to useless. Or 'real failures'. Sounds like you don't like any of it.

Sarcasm. Both sides see the idea of "Working Together" as being useless yet it's obvious to me that that's the right idea. Sorry, I forget how difficult it is for most people to see sarcasm in writing.

In all fairness to Niner, given the nature of some of your other posts, that could have easily been taken as something other than sarcasm and not due to difficulty in seeing it in writing.

It’s a shame politics in the states is so polarized. There are extremely good ideas brought by both sides. I would even argue that due to the left, right, left, right swings the only productive area is times when both sides have to work together. You look at AZ for example – Super majority in both houses, passing bills like nuts and it’s causing a huge uproar.

The Left and the Right are only useful by themselves to a point. Beyond that point they’re forgetting half the country which causes rejection of whatever changes they're trying to make. This then completely cancels out said changes and wastes ever more time.

People holding firm (or appearing to do so) on the right or left are next to useless. You can energize your base but when it comes down to it you try and pass hyper partisan bills which don’t pass (I wonder why) and then you spend all day blaming the other side.

Obama has this useless idea of “Work Together” which the left hates and the right laughs at. I think he has the right idea on how to run your country but if he’s not legalizing weed or drilling off shore he’s a socialist or a failure.

The real failures are those who think their side is always right.

Criticism is easy, solutions are difficult. I really don't know a single person that thinks that the political system in the US as it exists today is perfect. I look at it this way though, it could be worse, I could live in Canada.

[maxwatt]

Oh, Canada! Three leftish parties split the vote so the right takes power.

The US has only two political parties; one is evil, the other stupid. When they cooperate they produce something that is stupid and evil and call it bipartisanship.

I fail to see how Fox NEws is anything but an echo chamber for Republican party ideology. MSNBC has risen to their mirror image level, but at least they only slant things instead of making things up.

The right does seem to have a lock on the authoritarian personality, which will ignore facts that do not fit their preconceived (or mandated) notions. The left coniders facts, presents a more nuanced view, which appears indecisive and weak to the ideologically indoctrinated.

Solution? When reality becomes too harsh to ignore. Sandy came close, may have convinced a few. When 4 degrees temperature rise before the end of this century obtrudes, reality may break the deadlock. Even so, the psychopaths will still be steering the ship.

[Lister]

So with regards to the parties; is Evil - Stupid the same as Smart/Evil - Stupid/Good? I've always thought both parties were stupid at times, smart at times.

As far as the climate goes there's a lot of money riding on decisions made regarding it ("Clean" Coal, Off Shore Drilling, etc.) Republicans seem to promote themselves as being the party of business. It just seems that those supporting increased production at the expense of increased CO2 are getting smarter about how they pledge their support (through commissioning favorable studies or studies that confuse the facts).

Again the money backing the parties and the way business interacts with the parties is no good. You guys enjoy bashing the other side so much yet you don’t seem to have any solutions. You go so far as to elude to the situation as being OK or at least better than another countries in vastly better financial condition than your own.

Delusions won’t solve your problems and neither will arguing with each other over whether an obvious truth is a truth at all.

[maxwatt]

Whenever the Greek city states found themselves in a crisis, they would suspend their normal system of government which were to some degree democracies of the their elites and elect an all-powerful dictator for the duration.

[sthira]

It's silly and ignorant to call one party evil and the other stupid. I understand the frustrations, but it's also wrong to keep repeating that the two sides just enjoy bashing each other and no one has solutions. Since we've turned this thread toward environmental concerns, here are some facts I'll bet you won't read and will ignore, but they will remain facts.

Obama, in terms of environmental issues, has done quite a bit.

He fast-tracked regulations to allow states to enact fuel efficiency standards that exceeded federal standards. http://nyti.ms/e8e94x

He fast-tracked increased fuel economy standards for vehicles beginning with the 2011 model year. It was the first time such standards had been increased in a decade.

He oversaw establishment of an Energy Partnership for the Americas, to create more markets for American-made biofuels and green energy technologies. http://bit.ly/lZp73y

The Obama EPA reversed a Bush-era decision to allow the largest mountaintop removal project in US history. http://bit.ly/lP3yEL

He ordered the Department of Energy to implement more aggressive efficiency standards for common household appliances.

Obama ordered energy plants to prepare to produce at least 15% of all energy through renewable resources like wind and solar, by 2021. http://reut.rs/fV155p (As you can see, Republicans are trying hard to kill it.)

Obama oversaw the creation of an initiative that converts old factories and manufacturing centers into new clean technology centers. http://bit.ly/mjnq2R

Obama bypassed Republican opposition in Congress and ordered EPA to begin regulating and measuring carbon emissions. http://bit.ly/froaP5

Obama EPA ruled that CO2 is a pollutant. http://bit.ly/iQTSNN

He oversaw doubling federal spending on clean energy research. http://bit.ly/iN0sCE

He pushed through a tax credit to help people buy plug-in hybrid cars. http://bit.ly/j8UP5Y

He created a program to develop renewable energy projects on the waters of our Outer Continental Shelf that will produce electricity from wind, wave, and ocean currents. http://1.usa.gov/fgfRWq

He reengaged in the climate change and greenhouse gas emissions agreements talks, and proposed one himself. He also addressed the U.N. Climate Change Conference, officially reversing the Bush era stance that climate change was a “hoax.” http://bit.ly/dX6Vj3 http://bit.ly/fE2PxK http://nyti.ms/hfeqvv

He fully supported the initial phase of the creation of a legally-binding treaty to reduce mercury emissions worldwide. http://bit.ly/eJ6QOO

He required states to provide incentives to utilities to reduce their energy consumption. http://bit.ly/lBhk7P

Following the neglect of Bush’s eight year reign, he reengaged in a number of treaties and agreements designed to protect the Antarctic. http://bit.ly/fzQUFO

He created tax write-offs for purchases of hybrid automobiles, and later he and Democrats morphed that program into one that includes electric cars. http://bit.ly/glCukV

He mandated that federal government fleet purchases be for fuel-efficient American vehicles, and encouraged that federal agencies support experimental, fuel-efficient vehicles. http://bit.ly/h5KZqy http://1.usa.gov/fLWq5c http://1.usa.gov/hmUSbk

He got BP to cough up $20 billion to establish Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, to reduce the need for taxpayer funds to be used for compensation and clean up. http://wapo.st/ds2BxT (Note: it took 20 years to get $1.3 billion for the Exxon Valdez spill. )

He oversaw and pushed through amendment to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 authorizing advances from Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. http://1.usa.gov/yTRYVo

He actively tried to amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to eliminate the liability limits for those companies responsible for large oil spills.

He initiated Criminal and Civil inquiries into the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. http://nyti.ms/bVuB7a

Through Obama's EPA, he asserted federal legal supremacy, and barred Texas from authorizing new refinery permits on its own. http://bit.ly/ww8eMd

Strengthened the Endangered Species Act. http://bit.ly/hscjsH

Obama EPA improved boiler safety standards to improve air quality, and save 6500 lives per year. http://bit.ly/jYH7nt

Through the EPA, attemped to take steps to severely limit the use of antibiotics in livestock feed, to increase their efficacy in humans. http://bit.ly/fBuWd2

Through new EPA regulations, he created a pretext for closing the dirtiest power plants in the country, by limiting emissions of mercury and other toxic gasses. http://bit.ly/rQCIgA

Increased funding for National Parks and Forests by 10% http://bit.ly/fbJPjY
191.

Announced greatly improved commercial fuel efficiency standards. http://1.usa.gov/oQiC1K

Announced a huge increase in average fuel economy standards from 27.5mpg in 2010 to 35.5mpg starting in 2016 and 54.5 starting in 2025 http://1.usa.gov/qtghsW

[maxwatt]

I have moved the posts discussing green energy and global warming here http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/60298-green-energy-and-global-warming/ as I'd been threatening. They are interesting but off topic, and deserbve their own thread.