Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The Green platform is good. But the candidates are usually not well-known or experienced in political office. Gary Johnson is though.

The problem is organization. Only the Dems and Reps have any. Yes, the Greens and Libs have a thin structure, but a real party operates 24/7/365. Reform had a shot at it, but whithered. None of the others is more than a debating society ... sort of like us, but a bit more serious about it ... but only just a bit.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I made no implication that you have ever said that. It's only my hyperbolization!() of what I perceive to be a very common worldview.

Nice try there, but no, it is not a common worldview at all. It is a strawman. Quote any Democrat or liberal who has said that.

I beg to differ with you though, Eric. Government and Society does not always help; They sometimes "help" and sometimes "hurt"(unless you believe in absolute statements using words like "always", of course.). Helping and hurting are relative terms that depend on the perception of the "receiver", IMO. What is perceived as helping by one person can often be seen as hurting by another (in many complicated realistic and theoretical relationships).

IMO the facts and history are clear, and it's not a matter of perception. Bottom line, as Democrats like Elizabeth Warren have pointed out, what entrepreneurs can "build" depends on the infrastructure, environment and education level society has provided, including government. No-one builds anything alone. Republicans complain about taxes, regulations and social insurance. Democrats usually are capable of updating or removing them if they "hurt." Republicans do not seem capable of living with them without coercion, or following them without complaint. Democrats seem to respect private enterprise and entrepreneurs and what they can do. Republicans cannot respect what government does to support entrepreneurs. We have one major party that is moderate, and one major party that is extreme right-wing and that enables greed.

I harp on these things because they are important. Free-market ideology is the nub of all the issues we face. And I don't think it's that difficult for an average informed citizen to know about these things. I don't need to take any pride in it, nor do I consider myself to "lack self-doubt" just because I state these things clearly and forcefully so others can consider them or debate them. I am open to learning all the time. That's how I am able to know these basic things which are relatively elementary. Asking me to reconsider some of this stuff, is like asking someone to reconsider whether the air has oxygen or not.

Originally Posted by The Rani

In all seriousness, I think you should check out Rocky Anderson.
He's an official "write in" candidate in California.

That is directed at the Prince of Cats, although you quoted me.

Myself, I already am committed to the Green. And I think she speaks well and articulately. As you know, the questionnaires I take (because they are fun) always verify what I already know; that I thoroughly agree with their platform and (they) represent my interests and concerns, and always have.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The problem is organization. Only the Dems and Reps have any. Yes, the Greens and Libs have a thin structure, but a real party operates 24/7/365. Reform had a shot at it, but whithered. None of the others is more than a debating society ... sort of like us, but a bit more serious about it ... but only just a bit.

That's true, but I doubt it's up to them. It's really up to the people to get in and support them, if they want alternatives. A party cannot organize people if they aren't there. Most people just think that if they (don't) vote for these two major parties, they are wasting their vote. So they go along. Sometime we need to break out of this box. No other democracy has our outdated system. People don't really respect these parties now, and 1/3 of them are already independents. I think a 4T is a time to look at this. But some strong candidates will be needed.

As for the Greens, they are unlikely to become a major party like the Democrats, because they are too advanced beyond what the people are capable of supporting. Americans are too conservative and rather stupid when it comes to politics. But if we had a parliamentary system with proportional respresentation and ranked choice voting, the Greens could become major players and responsible governors as they are elsewhere. Greens are much more thoughtful and flexible than the Libertarians too, who are johnny one-notes and stuck on an extreme anti-government utopian viewpoint-- including the free market ideology that is so troublesome and crippling to a workable government that might be able to address real problems. Obviously, a moderate party like Reform could go far if it had a good candidate. Ross Perot was smart and charismatic and did well, but he was neither qualified for the office nor temperamentally suited for it.

Originally Posted by The Rani

That's what I loved about it, though. There was no "game."
For example, Virgil Goode knowing that his viewpoint on an issue wasn't going to be popular, but expressing it anyway.
But you're probably right that the country isn't ready for that.

Agreed with you on the "manners" part, and you are welcome!

All that's easy when you know you have absolutely no chance of winning. Virgil was my Congressman. He acted a lot different when he ran for that office. Of course, he was a putz then and he still is.

Originally Posted by playwrite

We obviously have a different definition of what bullying is.

You know, I have never ganged up on you, Odin, when others have about some of what you have written - some of which even I would label as being way over the top.

I haven't, but I could start if you're feeling left out.

Ding Ding in left corner we have the MMT-lover of Boomers: Playwrite. And in the other Left corner we have the most Transhumanist of Millennials: Odin. Ladies and Gentlemen you can begin placing your bets for this will be the match of a lifetime! Watch them pummel each other with overly long posts and CAPSLOCK! Bonus points for off the cuff remarks shall determine the winner!

Originally Posted by The Rani

Hey, go for it.
I'd buy BOTH popcorn and drinks for everyone.

Thanks.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Ding Ding in left corner we have the MMT-lover of Boomers: Playwrite. And in the other Left corner we have the most Transhumanist of Millennials: Odin. Ladies and Gentlemen you can begin placing your bets for this will be the match of a lifetime! Watch them pummel each other with overly long posts and CAPSLOCK! Bonus points for off the cuff remarks shall determine the winner!



Thanks.

~Chas'88

OMG, I was laughing so hard reading this I think I scared the neighbors, LOL!!!

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Ding Ding in left corner we have the MMT-lover of Boomers: Playwrite. And in the other Left corner we have the most Transhumanist of Millennials: Odin. Ladies and Gentlemen you can begin placing your bets for this will be the match of a lifetime! Watch them pummel each other with overly long posts and CAPSLOCK! Bonus points for off the cuff remarks shall determine the winner!

You don't quite have the fighters scoped out correctly. Odin does not make overly-long posts!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. Good opinion, but but bad target (IMNSHO). We need much better third parties. When and if we get them, the candidates will follow.

As it stands today, the Greens and Libertarians should both be playing AAA ball. They aren't.

these aren't "third" parties. they're third, fourth, fifth, and sixth parties. (and i'm sure the commies will run someone again)

and i still can't tell the difference between the greens and the justice folks.

this isn't like perot, who had money behind his message, or even nader and buchanon, who had *some* name recognition.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Ding Ding in left corner we have the MMT-lover of Boomers: Playwrite. And in the other Left corner we have the most Transhumanist of Millennials: Odin. Ladies and Gentlemen you can begin placing your bets for this will be the match of a lifetime! Watch them pummel each other with overly long posts and CAPSLOCK! Bonus points for off the cuff remarks shall determine the winner!

geez louise. i like both those guys. they shouldn't fight.

Originally Posted by The Rani

What determines who is qualified or temperamentally suited for it?
The criteria as they stand seem to produce lying manipulators. Maybe it's time to change the criteria.

There is still something to be said for having held political office. Your previous post was correct. As for temperament, Ross Perot's behavior in 1992 was well-known. Too much paranoia and conspiracy theory. Oh, and he quit, and then reentered the race.

Originally Posted by the bouncer

these aren't "third" parties. they're third, fourth, fifth, and sixth parties. (and i'm sure the commies will run someone again)

and i still can't tell the difference between the greens and the justice folks.

this isn't like perot, who had money behind his message, or even nader and buchanan, who had *some* name recognition.

That's all true. And the Left IMO needs to unite behind the greens, who are the more modern leftists.

"It's simple. PW has a lot of solid knowledge; you can agree with him or not."

I have yet to see anything approaching solid knowledge from that persona. What I do see is cut and paste repetition of a smattering of Leftist non-theories, which is used as cover for the trashing of others. But if people enjoy being trashed by a troll, far be it from me to decide for them. I won't accept that sort of behavior towards myself though, and I think the endless streams of vitriol from that quarter have destroyed this board.

I don't think Odin deserved that trash fest from various other people about his status either. I know a lot of people have strong feelings about certain issues, such as Social Security and SSI. But you really have to be in Odin's shoes to understand his feelings and why he gets so worked up. He's doing the best he can in a difficult situation and I think it's great. I may not agree with his political viewpoint, but I understand why he feels the way he does.

A lot of people on this board probably don't know what it's like to have what we euphemistically call limited options these days. How many people here have ever gone hungry at night, and not because you are on a diet? How many people here know what it is like to be completely at the mercy of others? How many are totally alone in the world with no one to help? How many look to the future and see an endless road of misery and unhappiness for themselves?

This is reality for tens of millions of the people who share this country with you. By last count there are 100 million adults who have left the workforce or are currently unemployed. This is a human tragedy and a sign that the system is failing. Arguing about which team should win is a pleasant diversion that half the country can't afford.

No matter which person or party wins the election this time around, the problem will still remain. Nobody at the head of the government is talking about real solutions, so we'll just have more of the same. More of the failed past that led us here in the first place. That's why people don't feel there's any difference between the candidates- the net change is zero.

Maybe it will make you feel better if one of the teams wins, but what good does that do for the growing plurality of people who have no hope, no future? We need something big, a seismic shift. What we get is the inertia of a dead construct leaning to one side or another, drifting off in the wrong direction anyway.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

So... because the two candidates that the ruling class has elected to allow the people to select from agree with each other... that means that the people agree with them, too?

See what I mean about you being our archetypal Reactionary Prophet?

By "the ruling class" you mean the voters. Both parties have their caucuses and primaries to nominate their candidate. It may not involve the 100 million or so that vote in the general but it does involve 10s of millions of them. Money obviously plays a role but in the end, someone can't buy your vote unless you let them.

So, again, what I'm getting at is that you are out of step with the VAST majority of people on this issue. I'm trying to elicit why.

I think peeling back part of the onion, we would get to whether the Al Qaeda threat justifies the risk of collateral deaths of innocents. But I don't think that is the heart of it. I think, for you, killing by the state is the epitome of what you hate about the state. You discount any protection of and by the state because the very idea of the state revolts you.
And in turn, isn’t that derived from certain characteristics of a Xer. My sense, however, is that you take it to the level of caricature; much like Rani does with her nihilism. So, if you’re pining to make this a generational issue maybe that is more telling path?

I realize this is putting words in your mouth, but where there is a vacuum....

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

"It's simple. PW has a lot of solid knowledge; you can agree with him or not."

I have yet to see anything approaching solid knowledge from that persona. What I do see is cut and paste repetition of a smattering of Leftist non-theories, which is used as cover for the trashing of others. But if people enjoy being trashed by a troll, far be it from me to decide for them. I won't accept that sort of behavior towards myself though, and I think the endless streams of vitriol from that quarter have destroyed this board.

I don't think Odin deserved that trash fest from various other people about his status either. I know a lot of people have strong feelings about certain issues, such as Social Security and SSI. But you really have to be in Odin's shoes to understand his feelings and why he gets so worked up. He's doing the best he can in a difficult situation and I think it's great. I may not agree with his political viewpoint, but I understand why he feels the way he does.

A lot of people on this board probably don't know what it's like to have what we euphemistically call limited options these days. How many people here have ever gone hungry at night, and not because you are on a diet? How many people here know what it is like to be completely at the mercy of others? How many are totally alone in the world with no one to help? How many look to the future and see an endless road of misery and unhappiness for themselves?

This is reality for tens of millions of the people who share this country with you. By last count there are 100 million adults who have left the workforce or are currently unemployed. This is a human tragedy and a sign that the system is failing. Arguing about which team should win is a pleasant diversion that half the country can't afford.

No matter which person or party wins the election this time around, the problem will still remain. Nobody at the head of the government is talking about real solutions, so we'll just have more of the same. More of the failed past that led us here in the first place. That's why people don't feel there's any difference between the candidates- the net change is zero.

Maybe it will make you feel better if one of the teams wins, but what good does that do for the growing plurality of people who have no hope, no future? We need something big, a seismic shift. What we get is the inertia of a dead construct leaning to one side or another, drifting off in the wrong direction anyway.

I think one team has some answers, while the other team's answer is to allow the tragedy to continue and take no action at all, but instead pursue the policies that caused the mess. But you're right, we need a seismic shift, and a 4T is the time to make it. I have a crystal ball that tells me correctly the timing of events. Hang on until the 2020s if you want to see some real action.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

It's simple. PW has a lot of solid knowledge; you can agree with him or not. On the other hand, he never suffers fools gladly, so be on your game. Justin, who is on his game most of the time, enjoys pestering PW, who returns the barbs in spades. I don't see this as anything more than it is, spirited, albeit snarky-testy, debate. If either resented it, he would withdraw.

If you want to play, understand the rules. Moderation on this board is very light ... and that suits most of the members. Attempts at more stingent moderation have been voted (or shouted) down every time someone has tried to impose it. Some have left because of this, but, on a whole, you get treated as you treat others (Silver Rule). We're just not up to Gold standard, and we may never be.

Well said.

It could also be possibly caulk up to someone locking up my liquor cabinet on occasion.

Originally Posted by The Rani

What determines who is qualified or temperamentally suited for it?
The criteria as they stand seem to produce lying manipulators. Maybe it's time to change the criteria.

Very subtle. But then I'm here, aren't I?

What big manipulating lie has Obama ever told, deary?

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

No matter which person or party wins the election this time around, the problem will still remain. Nobody at the head of the government is talking about real solutions, so we'll just have more of the same. More of the failed past that led us here in the first place. That's why people don't feel there's any difference between the candidates- the net change is zero.

Maybe it will make you feel better if one of the teams wins, but what good does that do for the growing plurality of people who have no hope, no future? We need something big, a seismic shift. What we get is the inertia of a dead construct leaning to one side or another, drifting off in the wrong direction anyway.

This is the truth that so many of us don't want to see. While we turn a blind eye to what our *candidate* is doing to deconstruct our democracy, we focus on the other's faults.

Meanwhile, we turn on any one who doesn't have our point of view. This, at a time when we need one another more than ever.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Now the way I see it is that your use of the term "Leftism" encompasses your use of the terms: Democrat and/or Liberal (not in the classical sense, of course IOW, the way that I believe you are using it). I'm also assuming that defining yourself as a "Green" would also be a version of "Leftism".

Maybe I'm fuzzy on the definition of "necessary"? I think of that term i/r/t "cause and effect"(ie: to achieve Effect B, it is necessary for Cause A to occur).

I rest my case.

Too soon.

"The Fed Govt is the best solution to most if not all of one's perceived problems!" is not equal to "The government is necessary to achieve those goals." Necessary is not the same as best solution to all problems. Nor is "government" equal to "federal government."

Eric, do you even read what I say before you respond?

Sure, but there's no point in responding to statements in which you say "please don't respond."

Oh, I just thought of something:

Now I guess I know how Rags feels when I insert JB into things. I mean, why pollute this thread with a picture of that horrible guy who ruined............... here I stop before I put you to zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Originally Posted by playwrite

By "the ruling class" you mean the voters.

Umm.. no. By 'ruling class', I mean 'ruling class'. That's why I used the words "ruling" and "class" together in that order. If I had meant 'the voters', I would have used these words: "the" and "voters".

There's a neat trick to it; I can explain to you sometime if you've got a spare couple hours

As to the rest of your efforts to attribute thoughts to me based on words you come up with yourself...

Suffice it to say that, to me, murder is an inexcusable thing, no matter who the murderer is and no matter what justifications they can dream up. Imagine that as being among my first-principles (though to be honest, it's derivative probably at the second or third iteration -- but its predecessors aren't really significant at the level we're discussing) and maybe the stuff I say might make a little more sense to you.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Umm.. no. By 'ruling class', I mean 'ruling class'. That's why I used the words "ruling" and "class" together in that order. If I had meant 'the voters', I would have used these words: "the" and "voters".

There's a neat trick to it; I can explain to you sometime if you've got a spare couple hours

As to the rest of your efforts to attribute thoughts to me based on words you come up with yourself...

Suffice it to say that, to me, murder is an inexcusable thing, no matter who the murderer is and no matter what justifications they can dream up. Imagine that as being among my first-principles (though to be honest, it's derivative probably at the second or third iteration -- but its predecessors aren't really significant at the level we're discussing) and maybe the stuff I say might make a little more sense to you.

Reminds me today of General Turgidson in Dr. Strangelove. Do you want a scenario where you have 20 million people killed, or 150 million people killed? I know we might get our hair mussed, but......... there's the choice

Originally Posted by playwrite

Well said.

It could also be possibly caulk up to someone locking up my liquor cabinet on occasion.

Feel free to have one on me




... or a few.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Reminds me today of General Turgidson in Dr. Strangelove. Do you want a scenario where you have 20 million people killed, or 150 million people killed? I know we might get our hair mussed, but......... there's the choice

You do realize that Turgidson was a satire of people stuck asking ridiculous questions because they chose to ignore the fact that their premises were faulty? I mean, assuming you did, I'm pretty pleased with the analogy -- you hit it spot-on. But I get the feeling from your other posts that you might have missed that subtle subtext to the film.

Originally Posted by Deb C

This is the truth that so many of us don't want to see. While we turn a blind eye to what our *candidate* is doing to deconstruct our democracy, we focus on the other's faults.

Meanwhile, we turn on any one who doesn't have our point of view. At a time when we need one another more than ever.

I can't say I like the choices this year either, but 'poor' is a whole lot better than 'horrible'. I llive in a swing state. I have to go with D Team, as much as I would prefer to vote otherwise.

You have to ask, how did we get this far down the rabbit hole?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I can't say I like the choices this year either, but 'poor' is a whole lot better than 'horrible'. I llive in a swing state. I have to go with D Team, as much as I would prefer to vote otherwise.

You have to ask, how did we get this far down the rabbit hole?

You don't think it might have to do with the fact that people have been counted on to reliably vote for whichever monster happens to be the D or R, so long as someone can offer them a thread of excuse that the other monster will be worse? Need the fault for the situation you describe necessarily lie in the stars? When there's so many plausible explanations among yourselves?