I’m sure you want to hear what I think about the elections, right? No? Well, I will just say this; I am not surprised Taylor lost, but I am disappointed. I feel like there is such a divide with politics in this country, (his loss is a great example) and there are so many problems with both parties, yet we have little choice but to pick one to do the best that we hope they can.
Now with the Republicans, they tend to mobilize together, and often, uttering a single blanket statement causes ripples of unity and loyalty that bring the party together when representing and voting for their chosen candidate; even if s/he isn’t someone they agree with 100%. The Democrats, on the other hand, in my opinion, have lost the sense of unity that gives Republicans a lot of their power. There are so many ideas, and so many different issues, that no one person can fully agree with everything you support or are against, and if you choose to turn your back on your chosen representative because s/he doesn’t represent EVERYTHING you hail as the #1 issue you believe in, well, that represents what is wrong with our party, in my humble opinion. When we turn our backs on our candidates, which we are FAR more likely to do than the Republicans, over one or two issues, it makes us weak, and makes us divided. The result, is that we loose all the power.
Those that vote Libertarian/Independent, or don’t vote at all, yes, I understand that you are making a statement that you don’t necessarily agree with either side (and this is not a critique, nor chastising statement about your choice. I believe your choice is valid); but understand that often times you** are more likely to side with Democrats (which in my mind is the lesser of TWO evils), and by ignoring them to prove a point, the other side often wins. I don’t understand why our party doesn’t focus harder on coming together, and putting our support fully behind the person chosen to represent us; because the Republicans have mastered that, and are using it to win, time and time again. We were lucky to win so many elections last night, mainly because so many people are pissed off at the way things have been going, but without that anger, we wouldn’t have stood a chance, because we are so quick to turn our backs on our representatives.
The solution to this problem isn’t an easy one. Perhaps it would be more effective to have more parties, like in other countries, which would allow for more opinions and choices to be offered. Until that happens, which it may never happen truly in America, we need to decide which is better; standing behind the person that can hopefully do the most good, or following the words of organizations like Georgia Equality, that command that we must not vote for anyone because neither candidate supports gay marriage; when we all know supporting gay marriage in the south is political suicide. Do what you want, but I personally know that I will never follow the lemmings and (not) vote on principle… I vote for the person that can best represent me, because if you only have 2 choices, you have to pick the one that will do the best they can… it may not be perfect, but it can be better; at least I can hope.
And before you lay into me about how Republicans aren’t evil and blah blah blah, save it. I said that the Dems, IN MY OPINION are the LESSER of TWO evils. I don’t think that the people that are elected to represent us have half of the knowledge necessary to truly know what it is like to be American. You have to be a millionaire in this country to hold higher office; and those aren’t the people that truly need things to change.
UPDATE: enough people have commented on this, that I realize I did indeed write the wrong thing, and so I will clarify; what I meant to say, rather than Libertarians tend to align with Democrats, and should vote thusly, is that Democrats that don’t want to support the candidate, but abhor the thought of voting Republican tend to vote Libertarian. There. That should clarify that.
**this is referring to the above updated statement. Those “you”s are in fact Democrats that have chosen to vote as Libertarians, as was a carry over from the first sentence, but not necessarily correctly elaborated upon. Sorry for the confusion.
You contradict yourself. In one paragraph you say those who vote 3rd party would typically vote Democrat if they weren’t trying to make a point. And by not voting Democrat, they’re letting the other side (the greater of the two evils) win. From this, I take that you would prefer they vote Democrat instead. But in your very next paragraph, you ask for more parties. wtf mate?
Of course your logic flawed from the very beginning. I don’t know about the Independents or other 3rd parties, but Libertarians (the largest 3rd party) tend to always vote Republican. Just sayin…
My opinion… the Republicans that were/are in office are crap however, the conservative philosophy is one which I most closely align. So on one hand I’m glad we gave the boot to several Repubs, but on the other… well… I’m scared shitless of what a Democrat controlled Congress and Democrat President (in 2 years) will hold for this country. Regardless of the people in the party, the Democrat philosophy is one which I’m adamantly opposed.
For the record, I did vote exclusively Libertarian yesterday. I hope my point was made.
And you also can’t say that a 3rd party is necessary and that you appreciate that 3rd party voters are making a point and then ask them to vote for one of the major parties instead. I chose not to vote for either Perdue or Taylor for a reason. Sure, the L might have only gotten 3% of the vote, which makes him statistically nonexistent, but I voted. I didn’t sit at home and bitch, or forget or just say, “it won’t matter anyway.” I have historically voted a straight-R ticket and I’m a single, white, property-owning female, which makes me a highly coveted voter. The fact that I didn’t cast a ballot for EITHER major party is a point I want to make.
Duane, you know I’m a staunch Democrat, but I’d rather have my uterus ripped out than vote for Taylor. I’d rather vote according to my conscience than choose the lesser of two evils - isn’t that what voting is about in the first place?
Lori, it is, that’s why I said that it was a valid choice to vote 3rd party or not at all; BUT, when you do that, you get something MUCH worse, like Perdue. That is what I mean by choosing lesser of two evils.
And yes, voting is for choosing who you want to represent you; but the way it works with this two sided system, not choosing often means doing the same thing as voting for the party you don’t agree with.
Well, mathematically speaking, even if say all voters of Hayes voted Taylor (which would be highly unlikely), Perdue would still lead. So your argument of “having to” choose D or R is null?
There is only one way to make any 3rd party a legitimate contender… that’s to vote for it.
for the record, I never said that anyone had to vote for the Dems vs. a third party. But, in some cases (not this one, obviously, but the Bush/Kerry race, maybe), those votes do get “wasted”. I am fine with people doing what they want with their vote, I just feel it could better be served going with one party or another, since we do exist in a two party system.
which leads me to your comment dave, to create a 3rd party, we really have to do it (create the party at the governmental level). 1% does not a 3rd party make.
dude… I don’t even understand what you’re saying. “create the party at the governmental level”???
WJC summed it up pretty well:
“This is an election unlike any other I have ever participated in. For six years this country has been totally dominated — not by the Republican Party, this is not fair to the Republican Party — by a narrow sliver of the Republican Party, its more right-wing and its most ideological element. When the chips are down, this country has been jammed to the right, jammed into an ideological corner, alienated from its allies, and we’re in a lot of trouble.”
–Bill Clinton speaking in Las Vegas Oct. 12, according to AP.
….and the American people let this be known.
Why are people so afraid of Democrats? We’ve had both Dems in control of Congress and the executive branch before and we still have our guns, our god and no gay marriage and it’s still illegal to burn flags. The core conservative values are still intact. So relax. Okay if you make more than $250k per year, yeah I hear you. Your tax breaks are going to be gone and they’re going back to the middle class (we shall see, Bush is all of a sudden going to discover this neato-torpedo new-fangled thing called a ‘VETO’). The conservatives said that we all would get tax breaks yet mine went up. It was right there on my tax tables in black and white. The amount of federal income tax owed in my tax bracket was higher the year after the “tax cuts” went into effect and I know the tax tables are for the preceeding year, that was taken into effect. That was the first lie (or misleading statement) the conservatives told me and we all know it snowballed from there making me re-think political philsophy. Trying to ammend the constitution to tell people who they can’t share benefits with while other groups of people can, was another. That is also VERY un-libertarian. We can nitpick over what is a lie or what are very misleading statements (pick your words of choice) but the end result is the same, deception. I used to align more with the conservative philosophy but not so much libertarian. It’s kind of Nihilism, it dosen’t go anywhere.
A corporate free market unchecked is bad bad bad for people because you can’t ignore the egoist philosophy associated with it. We’ve seen that system fail in the early 1900’s. So balance will always be is necessary and humans are always inherently greedy and self-serving which wrecks any notion of a totally free market being good for people in general (unless of course ALL people are stockholders).
It just amazes me that people in middle to low income brackets have been made to believe that giving tax breaks and regulation breaks to the corporations and very wealthy will benefit them. Taxes are a zero sum game. If you give the wealthy and corporations a break, it’s going to come from somewhere else. They didn’t cut spending, they increased it AND started a war, so where does it come from? YOU (and me). The guys who champion tax breaks for the wealthy are paying for it. You think that $300 check was a break or a cut for you? You get $300 and the wealthy save millions of dollars and you think you’re better off?
What about the free market letting corporations free to do whatever they want? That will help Americans too right? That’s a big part of the libertarian philosohpy. It sounds really good, we’ll all have more jobs and the economy does better in theory. In reality, and we see it now, is that with corporations let go, they ship huge bank accounts and jobs overseas. This does NOT help the American people. The inherently selfish tendencies of the human and by extenstion the corporation, when left free, do not help the people, they help themselves.
What did Clinton do that was so bad? Give a bunch of homos rights? Nope, he turned his back on a promise and started the don’t ask don’t tell policy. Did he raise taxes a lot? I remember mine being the same. We still have our gun rights. I can still go buy an SKS assault rifle. What’s the problem guys?
Kudos to you guys who vote for third parties. That’s standing your ground. It would really be interesting to have a 3 party system that was more or less even percentages across the board. A lot more would get done. Nader is totally right because we really, truly have just one party and each faction leans a little left and the other a little right, but nothing really drastically changes.
I don’t think we’ll see a Democratic president in ‘08. If we do, then the Dems better have some things to roll out. This election was about checking the far right swing our government has taken and the Repubs turning their backs on traditionally conservative philosophies and they got burned hard. The American people will probably elect a Repub (espeicially if it is Guiliani) to maintain that check which isn’t all that bad. It’s looks like the Dems will have the Senate as well. I did not think that would happen.
I totally agree with you on the “lesser of two evils”. I’ve never voted 100% “party”, but rather tried to vote in the direction that will do the most good. The thing is, at least for me, sometimes that’s a hard call to make.
Yes, I voted for Hayes because Taylor pissed me off; however, if I thought the election would be close and Taylor had a chance, I would have voted for him.
But everyone knew that Taylor was going to get spanked, so there was no real incentive to vote for him.
Jay,
1. Socialized Medicine
2. Raised Minimum Wage
3. Higher Taxes
4. Amnesty for illegal immigrants
5. Formation of a welfare state
I’m not claiming our current class of Repubs are awesome because God knows they increased the size of our government by historic proportions, but at least our economy is doing well and I’m putting more coin in my pocket every year. I’m afraid that a Democrat controlled government may change that.
Of course you think they’re the lesser of two evils… You vote Democrat, right? I really think people are crazy (including some libertarians like Boortz) for suggesting that libertarians vote Democrat or Republican. I mean, suggesting that we’re ignoring (in your mind) the major parties to “prove a point” is insulting and completely misses the point of third party politics in the first place. I mean, I feel great about the fact that I don’t have to reward the lesser of two evils for pissing me off the least. Do you feel good about that? If in your mind, the country will be worse off with a Republican in power, it is not my fault or the fault of anyone who votes for a third party. It’s the fault of the people who voted for Republicans.
So you’re saying… People who want more than just this shitty two-sided system needs to realize that it’s a…shitty two-sided system and they need to fall in line and participate? Hell no. It’s statements like that that perpetuate the whole “team politics” bullshit in the first place. By voicing that mentality, YOU keep the major parties’ dreams alive of marginalizing the voices of people who don’t play their stupid game.
I seem to recall that “Big-L” Libertarians generally vote, well, Libertarian. But yes, Duane, you may have been slightly mistaken there. The general buzz around “little-l” libertarians is that traditionally, they’ll vote Republican before they’ll vote Democrat. In fact, I’ve heard them called “Republicans who want to smoke pot”. Now, the Republicans in power at the moment retain very few of the characteristics that I believe may have attracted some Libs in the first place, so I can’t imagine it’s as prevalent as it used to be.
To quote the old saying, a vote for the Democrats is a vote for raping your own mom. You don’t want to rape your own mom, do you?
Anyway, I think equating a Libertarian/Independent vote with no vote at all is pretty unfair. The former is a vote for one’s principles, while the latter is indicative of procrastination or apathy (even if it’s veiled as something else.)
Garret,
Yes, you’re right. What I meant to say was that when Libertarians don’t vote Libertarian (for instance, a tight or close election), they tend to vote Republican.
First of all, I would like to address your concerns about Democrats dave:
EVERYTHING that you listed is a good thing for people that need it. Those people are a part of our society, and I do believe that to function as a society, some people need some assistance, more so than others. To be concerned that we would have to all do our part and chip in to make sure that everyone in our society is taken care of is one of the scariest revelations you have ever expressed to me; because it shows that you not only completely take for granted the benefits you have because of who you are, and where you were born, but it also highlights that you don’t understand, nor care about anyone that would be considered beneath you economically. That is both inconsiderate and naive.
With that being said, it also highlights why I would never be a Libertarian or a Republican; they tend to put their needs so far above anyone else’s (which, it is perfectly fine to tend to your own needs, so don’t even insinuate that the opposite is what I am saying), and do so without any concern, regret, or feeling for those that may need help or those that they have been born higher than, with more privilege than, or they stepped on to get to where they are; EVEN if they can help them with little or no monetary effort on their part! Having those beliefs is just not human in my opinion. People that believe this shouldn’t be afforded the benefits of living in the society they seek so desperately to leave the ones poorer than them out in the cold. If you believe those things, truly, perhaps you should move to a country where they don’t take care of their poor, and everyone is on truly equal footing… you may find that you don’t like your station in life as much as you do in America.
I personally see all of the things on this list as things that help people that didn’t necessarily grow up with the same privileges as the rest of us, and I see focusing on them as an opportunity to be more humanitarian, and less greedy. I also see it as something that a society was designed to do, and in essence, why our country was even founded in the first place.
Unfortunately, as you illustrate with these beliefs, the people that tend to have the most wealth (the amount you make, whatever it is, is in the top 99% percentile of the world’s wealth, think about that), are more likely to have started on a higher step in life, and when they state the plight of people beneath them is both none of their concern, nor their problem, that is just inhumane and deplorable. I challenge you to think about that, because you never know when you may find yourself in someone else’s shoes.
Well, you got that right. It doesn’t take ANY money on your own part to create a welfare state. That’s the whole point, right? You just have to decide to give other people’s money away, and that’s the easiest kind of giving!
Again, I think your rhetoric reminds me of a lot of politicians. Are you against raising the minimum wage, socialized medicine, and higher taxes? YOU MUST NOT CARE ABOUT PEOPLE, YOU INSENSITIVE SHIT!
It’s incredibly evasive and easy to dismiss people that way, but you’re just yelling loud enough to ignore the fact that maybe, just maybe, people who don’t necessarily support all of your bullet points in lock step may still care about other people. YOU paint us as uncaring, unthinking greed-bots because it makes YOU feel better for supporting these causes.
But what about thoughtful people who just happen to think that some of these measures may not actually help the people they were intended to help? You know, since by removing the lowest rung on the economic ladder, raising the minimum wage may have destroyed 60,000 to 100,000 jobs back in the 90s? Party politics dictate that even if you actually had research saying that minimum wage hurts the poor, you would still probably prefer a candidate who supported it because just the idea makes you feel good. Just because someone has at least a high-school economics education that they rely on in deciding whith policies to support–instead of what makes them feel all bright and sunny inside–doesn’t mean that they’re some dark-hearted Scrooge. There are similar arguments against socialized medicine that I’m happy to discuss if you’d like.
Or what about those who think that this isn’t a proper function of government, but are happy to help people in other ways besides government seizure? People like Bill Gates argue against higher taxes because they hurt his business, and by extension, his employees and customers. But he’s one of the most giving philanthropists in history, right? *GASP* There are other ways to help people besides government?
You paint everyone against these items with this huge brush that the Democratic party has handed you saying that anybody that disagrees with these specific initiatives is inconsiderate and naïve. That’s a pretty narrow-minded view, considering the reasons people might not support them OTHER than greed. It’s really funny how “greedy” has come to be defined as “unwilling to pay for things out of other people’s pockets”.
Don’t you find it interesting that CEO’s salaries are in the millions, yet we don’t have the money to increase minimum wage? I am inclined to think that those two are somehow related. One of those reasons that increasing minimum wage looses jobs, is because the rich don’t want to get any poorer, so to keep their salary high, cut the employees, and make it work. You have to agree that this is at least part of that problem, and deserves just as much focus.
AND, to clarify, I didn’t say that everyone that found those principles somewhat questionable was a greedy, heartless asshole, and that everyone that went by them was a saint; I know that there are people like Bill Gates out there that do great things, but the main point about that is, HE IS A MINORITY. If more people in similar situations as his position (not necessarily on the top billionaires list) did half of what he did, a lot of these problems that fall on the government to take care of probably wouldn’t even be an issue.
What I see is a huge disparity between the elite wealthy, and the poor, and the margin only grows; it never stops growing. While the poor people are left to fend for themselves, as the rich get richer, I do think that the government should be helping; after all, they are definitely helping the rich get richer, and making it harder and harder to live a decent life in this country. You don’t have to agree with everything I believe (such as my previous comment), that’s fine, but that doesn’t change the fact that a lot of the points I made here in this, that lead me to many of those beliefs, are totally true.
Oh no, the tired old conservative minimum wage argument that says “keeping wages low, (below 1/3 the poverty level), actually helps you Mr. Minimum wage earner.”
Bullocks
Fallacy: Raising the minimum wage hurts the poor: This logic is wrongfully based upon the notion of supply and demand in that if you raise the price of something demand will go down. This is true. However, it is totally wrong to apply this to labor. “Demand for labour” isn’t really demand because in general people don’t consume labour. The amount of labour employed is determined by a production function, not a demand function.
Go to the bureau of labor statistics and look up facts and data; don’t link the word “research” and point it to a right-wing republican talking points peice. Business owners and conservatives try to convince you that keeping wages low really helps young black americans for instance. They are not fighting for the young black american, they are fighting for business owners who will see their bottom line increase and their profits won’t be as high. An increase in minimum wage does not reduce the demand of their product and thus they cannot reduce their number of employees without having negative effects on production and meeting those demands. If you do a little research (I mean apart from quoting talking point from people who have business and corporations interests at heart) it’s pretty easy to see. Those old models they still use today to convince people they are better off earning less, have long since been disproven.
Oh and this illustrates the bs factor of the “Joint” economic committee (which lists only republicans on the letter head) report:
From the conservative talking points: “Even after the Card and Krueger study was fully discredited by economic science, it is still being used by proponents of higher minimum wages to support an increase.”
Notice there’s no footnote after this statement? That’s because he is talking out of his ass. “Fully discredited by economic science”…and then you see what “economic science REALLY said about it:
“The belief that raising the minimum wage causes job loss was more commonly accepted by economists decades ago, but high-quality research by leading academic economists has forced the economic community to re-evaluate these arguments. This consensus view rapidly eroded following evidence from the 1990s. Even Benjamin Bernanke, President Bush’s appointee as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has noted that “economists disagree about …whether increases in the minimum wage reduce employment of low-wage workers”(Bernanke 2006).”
I know it’s been a while. I’ve really been wanting to reply but have been hella busy drinking and stuff. duane, please do not confuse my lack of support for these issues (socialized medicine, raised minimum wage, etc) as heartless condemnation of those “less fortunate” than me. It would give me no greater joy than to live in a world where highly advanced healthcare is free to anyone that needs it and not a single person goes a day without the basic necessities. Well, that’s not entirely true… getting a hummer from a teenage hottie would probably give me greater joy than all that, but you get my point.
Anyways… yes, I would love to live in this perfect world but then I have to ask myself, how much am I willing to give up to live in that world? And more importantly, would the majority of people really be better off in that world?
Currently we have the absolute best healthcare in the world. The quality of our doctors and the access to life saving medications are second to none. Why is that? Money. Money makes all of that possible. Doctors, as they should, make crap tons of money. Granted, much of that goes to malpractice insurance, but how often do you see a doctor driving an old beat up Honda? My point is, these high salaries attract the brightest and most competent people to the profession. That means that when you go to the doctor, chances are really good you’re getting someone better than Joe Average that barely passed “Turn Your Head and Cough 101.” As for the medicine and procedures, big corporations invest billions of dollars into research to find those magic pills that prevent or ward off diseases. The investment is worth it because when they find that magic pill, they know they’ll recoup all their costs.
Under socialized medicine, you lose the money. Doctors will be given a menu by Uncle Sam that dictates how much they are allowed to charge for exams and procedures. To keep the cost of the program in check (and not rape the taxpayers too much), these prices will more than likely be far less than what doctors charge now. That’s less money in the doctor’s bank account. Over time, these highly intelligent people will start looking for other ways their intelligence can bring home the bacon. As the qualified doctors leave the field, they’ll be replaced with a new class of Joe Average. The quality of care will go downhill dramatically. The same thing with medications. Uncle Sam will tell pharmaceutical companies that he’s only paying $x for all pills therefore the incentive for these companies to invest fortunes into research disappears.
I firmly feel that under socialized healthcare, we would go from the Gods of Medicine to mere midgets pedaling shit filled caplets in the back alley.
Plus, show me a country where socialized healthcare has worked. In Canadia, the waiting lists and quality of care has gotten so bad that the wealthy started paying doctors under the table for their care. This got so bad they actually instituted a law that made this a crime.
Sure, socialized healthcare may be great for the millions that have nothing right now, but it kills the quality of care for the hundreds of millions that pay for their healthcare today.
Jay, sounds like you’ve done your research on the minimum wage deal. Good work. Here’s my two. The minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage. It’s also not a difficult task to make more than minimum wage. It doesn’t require any specialized skill. Well, unless you consider knowing how to drop a metal basket of frozen potatoes into a fryer a special skill. When I worked in fast food back in high school, I got paid more than minimum wage. Not much more but more nonetheless. The adults that could work during the day hours made even more than me. So if it’s easy to make more than minimum wage, why raise it? After all, if the only way you are capable of making more than minimum wage is for the government to increase it, then you probably don’t deserve the increase to begin with.