The wrong side must not win
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Monday, August 26, 2024 17:12
VIEWED: 8309
PAGE 5 of 10
Again, wasn't a comparison. But I'm glad at least we've moved away from calling a godwin.
Hers was a pertinent question, perfectly in line with the point that was being made here - she would much prefer a viable third option (or more) to exist, and her question highlighted the short-comings of the simple US two party system well.
In Australia, you have a parliamentary system, correct? I've often thought that having a president is a flawed concept - it becomes a place where military power can be invested. I also like that you have to form coalition governments.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
In Australia, you have a parliamentary system, correct? I've often thought that having a president is a flawed concept - it becomes a place where military power can be invested. I also like that you have to form coalition governments.
There are flaws in every system, and I am not sure in the end that ours is a worthier one than yours. Each one has its strengths and weaknesses.
I see there really being a series of limited choices in democracy that you, as an individual can make. But that does not mean that its tweedle dee and tweedle dum, that neither side will make an impact. I actually see that in the US you currently have two quite different choices in terms of the type of government you will have. Ideologically they are possibly further apart than any other time in history, possibly....
I have had many discussions with yanks over the years, and often I have heard this idea that you must somehow be evenhanded about both sides, otherwise you are being partisan. You must even handedly criticise or you must even handedly praise. I see this as much folly as true partisanship, where neither side sees any merit in the others views on any topic ever.
The issue as I see it is that america has moved quite far right. I don't see extremism in both parties, I see extremism in the republicans. I see that that far right christian ideology as being the prevalent force, and that ROmney himself probably more of a pragmatist business bent has had to embrace that ideology.
And yes, there is a predominant type of political discourse that is sadly prevalent in the US (and elsewhere) that I despise. It's a negative discourse that focuses on distraction issues, rather than significant ones, and relies on soundbitey spin. And the reason that exists is because it is largely supported by a population that runs with it.
But beyond all that, it is dangerous to caste the two candidates/parties as being the same. They may not represent what you want from a government, and the best you may be able to do is choose the one that will do the least harm.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HEY CTS, I think this is the thread Kiki and I were thinking of...
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=32253&mid=5
75743
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
But beyond all that, it is dangerous to caste the two candidates/parties as being the same. They may not represent what you want from a government, and the best you may be able to do is choose the one that will do the least harm.
Well, my particular problem is that I see them as being in cahoots, but that's probably more paranoia than it is reason or logic. But you can see how if someone like me thought that it was all a show and all the appearances were calculated, and that behind the curtain it's all deals that will benefit the lobbyists, that someone like me would think that the same policies and even wars would happen no matter who controls congress or who is president.
But I admit that I can't prove that's what's really going on. Even so, I can't shake the perception.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sig: I see only two posts dealing with Somalia in that thread. The first is a post by Finn, who my sources indicate may have been military intelligence.
He says:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Tell that to the guys in Africa, trying to survive between feuding warlords and crime bosses. How is a society in which you have to navigate a lawless terrain any more free then a society where a government enforces a rule of law? Wouldn’t you say that we are much freer with a government then they are in Sierra Leone or Somalia?
And CTS said:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:There, you have feuding warlords, crime bosses, AND government all competing for power. Just because the state is incompetent (failed to consolidate their monopoly) doesn't mean the state doesn't exist.
Tell that to the guys in Africa, trying to survive between feuding warlords and crime bosses.
We might be able to argue that she's WRONG, but from the sound of it, she has not misrepresented her view of somalia or changed it since then, and does not seem to have indicated she considers it a good example of an anarchic society.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Well, my particular problem is that I see them as being in cahoots, but that's probably more paranoia than it is reason or logic. But you can see how if someone like me thought that it was all a show and all the appearances were calculated, and that behind the curtain it's all deals that will benefit the lobbyists, that someone like me would think that the same policies and even wars would happen no matter who controls congress or who is president.
But I admit that I can't prove that's what's really going on. Even so, I can't shake the perception.
the system you have, is the system you have and both sides enter into its machinations, because frankly they have no choice. I think the biggest issue is how much money you have to spend to get elected as pres, which means either you have to have a very deep back pocket, or you have to find those who do to back you. In which case, you have the powerful and the wealthy's interests always at the forefront. Yes, I believe this too.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You and me both.
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
But you can see how if someone like me thought that it was all a show and all the appearances were calculated, and that behind the curtain it's all deals that will benefit the lobbyists, that someone like me would think that the same policies and even wars would happen no matter who controls congress or who is president.
And apparently, the writers of the Simpsons too.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Magons: Very good points. I am also troubled by the prohibitive costs to run for office - it means they either have to be born wealthy (part of a corporate dynasty) or they have to know people who are, who can then buy their opinions and policies.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
HEY CTS, I think this is the thread Kiki and I were thinking of...
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=32253&mid=5
75743
Great. You proved I said that Somalia is NOT an example of anarchy.
Thank you for your support. It is so rare that it almost makes up for the lie you and Kiki told about me in the first place.
Byte, thanks for quoting and summarizing what was actually said about Somalia in that thread.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Ideologically they are possibly further apart than any other time in history, possibly....
Ideologically, Hitler and Stalin were different too.
You have to look at results. Actions, not words.
Is Guantanamo closed? Do we have nationalized health care? Have we stopped murdering innocent civilians overseas? Have we stopped spying on and violating our own citizens?
Or is it sufficient to spout the right ideology, but not follow up with any actions? Like Christians who say they follow Jesus but torture their fellow human beings? Is it ok to vote for hypocrites as long as they say the right thing?
Here is a good discussion between John Cusack (actor) and Jonathan Turley (constitutional lawyer) on the abuses of Obama. Note they are both liberals, but they truly care about their ideology as opposed to simply want their Side to win.
https://shannynmoore.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/john-cusack-jonathan-tur
ley-on-obamas-constitution/
Quote:
Since mostly we hear from the daily hypocrisies of Mitt and friends, I thought we should examine “our guy” on a few issues with a bit more scrutiny than we hear from the “progressive left”, which seems to be little or none at all.
Instead of scrutiny, the usual arguments in favor of another Obama presidency are made: We must stop fanatics; it would be better than the fanatics—he’s the last line of defense from the corporate barbarians—and of course the Supreme Court. It all makes a terrible kind of sense and I agree completely with Garry Wills who described the Republican primaries as “ a revolting combination of con men & fanatics— “the current primary race has become a demonstration that the Republican party does not deserve serious consideration for public office.”
True enough.
But yet…
… there are certain Rubicon lines, as constitutional law professor Jon Turley calls them, that Obama has crossed.
All political questions are not equal no matter how much you pivot. When people die or lose their physical freedom to feed certain economic sectors or ideologies, it becomes a zero sum game for me.
This is not an exercise in bemoaning regrettable policy choices or cheering favorable ones but to ask fundamentally: Who are we? What are we voting for? And what does it mean?
(...Please read the rest of this dialogue.)
If you truly care about ideology, then stop voting for hypocrites who present no tangible difference in the big picture from people with the OPPOSITE ideology.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME