President Obama

[Humodour]

This republicans rationale for saying rape victims that become pregnant is god plan is only to say he feels all pregnancies are gods plan, regardless of what circumstances caused the pregnancy. It has nothing to do with rape and everything to do with him being pro-life.

 

Yeah, it's really sad that so many Americans hold such a twisted belief.

[Gfted1]

This republicans rationale for saying rape victims that become pregnant is god plan is only to say he feels all pregnancies are gods plan, regardless of what circumstances caused the pregnancy. It has nothing to do with rape and everything to do with him being pro-life.

 

Yeah, it's really sad that so many Americans hold such a twisted belief.

 

It makes me have sadface that you just phone it in anymore.

[Calax]

Well that's later term. I'm meaning if a girl gets knocked up by daddy's molestations or getting raped, they can get abortions in the first trimester. But this is also on the delightful spectrum of how conservative somebody really is, because on the far far far right you get people like King, and Cobert's "Team Rape" (see last nights episode for details) who think that rape is either caused by the woman, or there's such a thing as "Legitimate" Rape.

 

I dont follow. Abortion is legal in this country for any reason up to whatever the gestation limit is. I dont know what the rest of your post is referencing. This republicans rationale for saying rape victims that become pregnant is god plan is only to say he feels all pregnancies are gods plan, regardless of what circumstances caused the pregnancy. It has nothing to do with rape and everything to do with him being pro-life.

Yes and no. What I was referring to with the first part was that the pro-life crew, the moderate ones, will go with moms life, incest, or rape. With the Mothers Life being only a factor in so called "Late Term Abortions". I think a few states have made it so you can't abort during the last trimester.

 

The rest of it was saying that on the fringe there are the republicans who view ANY pregnancy as being "Gods Work" or that it's the womens fault or whatever.

 

This is the Colbert bit that I was referring to

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/420541/october-24-2012/richard-mourdock-s-rape-comment?xrs=share_copy

[Morgoth]

Gary Johnson: "Our biggest national security thread is the fact that we are bancrupt!"

 

No wonder the mainstream media didn't want to air what Third-party candiates have to say. Americans just cannot handle the truth.

 

I watched some of your video, but there is only stomach so much of Russia Today. Seriously, it is like the Fox News of Russia, only even more biased. I do not even consider it a legitimate news source.

 

I agree. Russian TV is the most biased and propaganda fulled News Channel I have ever had the unfortunate pleasure of being afflicted to watch.

 

RT is a global English-speaking news network.

[Gorgon]

RT means Russia Today and it's state funded. It has a Russian perspective, which is interesting at times, but it's not ridiculed for it's journalism like ,say, Fox News.

[WDeranged]

Whenever RT reports on Russian events I tend to be as sceptical as I am of the BBC's ability to fairly report British events but RT's hosts often impress me with their knowledge of the subject, especially compared to their US counterparts.

[Nepenthe]

Gary Johnson: "Our biggest national security thread is the fact that we are bancrupt!"

 

No wonder the mainstream media didn't want to air what Third-party candiates have to say. Americans just cannot handle the truth.

 

I watched some of your video, but there is only stomach so much of Russia Today. Seriously, it is like the Fox News of Russia, only even more biased. I do not even consider it a legitimate news source.

 

I agree. Russian TV is the most biased and propaganda fulled News Channel I have ever had the unfortunate pleasure of being afflicted to watch.

 

RT is a global English-speaking news network.

"Russia Today is a government-funded Russian television network".

 

Doesn't mean what they say is necessarily untrue, it'll just have that spin on it.

 

Edit: Ninja'd... I went for a cuppa in the middle of that post ;P

Edited October 26, 2012 by Nepenthe

[Humodour]

Gary Johnson: "Our biggest national security thread is the fact that we are bancrupt!"

 

No wonder the mainstream media didn't want to air what Third-party candiates have to say. Americans just cannot handle the truth.

 

I watched some of your video, but there is only stomach so much of Russia Today. Seriously, it is like the Fox News of Russia, only even more biased. I do not even consider it a legitimate news source.

 

I agree. Russian TV is the most biased and propaganda fulled News Channel I have ever had the unfortunate pleasure of being afflicted to watch.

 

RT is a global English-speaking news network.

"Russia Today is a government-funded Russian television network".

 

Doesn't mean what they say is necessarily untrue, it'll just have that spin on it.

 

Edit: Ninja'd... I went for a cuppa in the middle of that post ;P

 

To be fair you could say that about Xinhua.

 

But people will laugh at you. Really, the same applies to RT. There's just such a high noise to signal ratio that it's not worth bothering with anything that comes out of Xinhua or RT. There are far more independent, objective, and reliable media sources out there that do cover the things you'd never hear in an unbiased manner from a US news source - BBC, Guardian, Christian Science Monitor (yeah, OK, it's US, my bad), Reuters, Bloomberg, Al Jazeera, etc.

 

If something Xinhua or RT says is true, accurate, and relevant, a more reliable source will pick up on it.

[GuybrushWilco]

I mostly stick to CNN or BBC and sometimes France 24, for my news I'll gisit the Guardian from time to time. Sure you can pick those apart and find some examples where the pundits or editorialists show some obvious bias, but in my experience RT goes beyond just occasional bias.

[Zoraptor]

BBC, Guardian, Christian Science Monitor (yeah, OK, it's US, my bad), Reuters, Bloomberg, Al Jazeera, etc.

A full 1/3 of those are governmental mouthpieces every bit as much as much as RT. BBC is cowed by potential funding cuts and says whatever the brit government wants on foreign policy (see for example their censoring of the Syrian rebels using unwitting suicide bombers, throwing prisoners off apartment blocks etc). Al-J is outright owned by Gulf State Oligarchs and it's absolutely obvious with their editorial slant- their Kalifah pals in Bahrain barely rate a mention with their loveable doctor torturing hijinks.

 

Anyone who doesn't think that western media gets stampeded into stupidity and facile lead following should think back to the lead up to Gulf War II and exactly how much hapless flag waving, soundbite parroting and absolute and total lack of critical faculty was on show there. Hasn't changed, won't change and given how much more beholden media are to groupthink and concensus in an internet age where Outrage!!!!1!! at non conformist articles can be mustered by a few facebook or twitter postings it is unlikely to change, ever. Which is absolutely and totally how politicians like it since it means they don't face effective scrutiny.

 

Sheesh, look at the Beeb's coverage of the "pro-democracy" demonstrations in Russia. No comment whatsoever on all the Soviet and Russian Imperial Flags. People waving those aren't really 'democratic' in the soppy hand wringing western sense, yet they're made out to be brave heroes of freeeeedom. All you'd get if they were elected is some ossified fossil like Brezhnev Zyuganov and they'd be even less democratic. And marches an order of magnitude larger in Britain itself somehow got far less coverage. Demonstrations in Beirut? Saad Hariri's party and the asterisking Phalange, who were probably the worst bunch in a conflict notable for having a lot of bad bunches (for example, see Sabra and Chatila; their particular brand of nutbartastic ethno-religious zealotry was largely responsible for civil war in the first place), yet somehow you got the impression that it was some sort of unified Lebanese response and one of the Phalangist leaders got a patsy interview by the beeb. You'd also not have the slightest inkling that there's still fighting going on in Libya, with the glorious freedom loving ex rebels levelling another city with their heavy weapons because according to the beeb et alia everyone in Libya actually hated Gaddafi.

 

It's all narrative based fairy tale telling of good guys and bad guys, and anything that doesn't fit the preprepared script gets dropped like a rock.

[Humodour]

BBC, Guardian, Christian Science Monitor (yeah, OK, it's US, my bad), Reuters, Bloomberg, Al Jazeera, etc.

A full 1/3 of those are governmental mouthpieces every bit as much as much as RT. BBC is cowed by potential funding cuts and says whatever the brit government wants on foreign policy (see for example their censoring of the Syrian rebels using unwitting suicide bombers, throwing prisoners off apartment blocks etc). Al-J is outright owned by Gulf State Oligarchs and it's absolutely obvious with their editorial slant- their Kalifah pals in Bahrain barely rate a mention with their loveable doctor torturing hijinks.

 

Anyone who doesn't think that western media gets stampeded into stupidity and facile lead following should think back to the lead up to Gulf War II and exactly how much hapless flag waving, soundbite parroting and absolute and total lack of critical faculty was on show there. Hasn't changed, won't change and given how much more beholden media are to groupthink and concensus in an internet age where Outrage!!!!1!! at non conformist articles can be mustered by a few facebook or twitter postings it is unlikely to change, ever. Which is absolutely and totally how politicians like it since it means they don't face effective scrutiny.

 

Sheesh, look at the Beeb's coverage of the "pro-democracy" demonstrations in Russia. No comment whatsoever on all the Soviet and Russian Imperial Flags. People waving those aren't really 'democratic' in the soppy hand wringing western sense, yet they're made out to be brave heroes of freeeeedom. All you'd get if they were elected is some ossified fossil like Brezhnev Zyuganov and they'd be even less democratic. And marches an order of magnitude larger in Britain itself somehow got far less coverage. Demonstrations in Beirut? Saad Hariri's party and the asterisking Phalange, who were probably the worst bunch in a conflict notable for having a lot of bad bunches (for example, see Sabra and Chatila; their particular brand of nutbartastic ethno-religious zealotry was largely responsible for civil war in the first place), yet somehow you got the impression that it was some sort of unified Lebanese response and one of the Phalangist leaders got a patsy interview by the beeb. You'd also not have the slightest inkling that there's still fighting going on in Libya, with the glorious freedom loving ex rebels levelling another city with their heavy weapons because according to the beeb et alia everyone in Libya actually hated Gaddafi.

 

It's all narrative based fairy tale telling of good guys and bad guys, and anything that doesn't fit the preprepared script gets dropped like a rock.

 

I don't disagree with you, although the bias of the sources I quoted is generally at least an order of magnitude less, and an order of magnitude less common, on average than that of the RT or Xinhua.

 

RT and Xinhua are about as useful as Fox News: they're bull****. They're just not worth anyone's time because the noise to signal ratio is so permanently high. When you're sourcing your material from all the sources I suggested (and making sure you check each source against at least 2 others for any one story) you'll do fine.

 

Obviously there are other sources you should consider, but the fact remains that the RT and Xinhua should never be on your list.

[Morgoth]

I'd think they would, they're living in it.

 

A "truth" engineered, run and controlled by a bunch of wannabe-Kings.

 

As for the rest: Thanks for turning another subject into a "RT sucks lol Fox News and BBC rawks" ****storm, instead of discussing the actual video content I linked.

[Morgoth]

Voting these days is for the brainwashed sheeple anyways. Real enlightend men take things into their own hands.

 

Meanwhile, have fun waiting for the big "Hope" that Hussein Obama promised you.

 

 

 

"Howph"

Edited October 27, 2012 by Morgoth

[Blodhemn]

I'd think they would, they're living in it.

 

A "truth" engineered, run and controlled by a bunch of wannabe-Kings.

 

As for the rest: Thanks for turning another subject into a "RT sucks lol Fox News and BBC rawks" ****storm, instead of discussing the actual video content I linked.

Unfortunately, no one takes Libertarians seriously. Democrats say people are too helpless and would die if Government reduces it's grip on society and Republicans freak out from terrorism/drug phobia, and both parties are scared to death of spending cuts and functioning within their means.

[Morgoth]

Democrats say people are too helpless and would die if Government reduces it's grip on society and Republicans freak out from terrorism/drug phobia, and both parties are scared to death of spending cuts and functioning within their means.

And this is why a third-party should come in. Because the Dual-Dictatorship currently present is too much entrenched in pickering and ideological warfare, they can't really act unless they're willing to loose a lot. A third-party wouldn't really have anything to loose, hence they would be more likely able to act and make unpleasent decisions.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Morgoth

[Meshugger]

I think that this is as relevant as it was four years ago:

 

[Gorgon]

Ideally one should have at least 7 or 8 parties. Large parties grow larger by eating up the competition, that's an organic process that can't really be halted. but it's nolonger healthy when the entire rainbow of the political spectrum becomes reduced to a two coloured dichotomy. Fancy analogy if I do say so myself.

 

What it means is that if you seek participation, odds are good that no party exists which remotely resembles your political inclination. That leaves a lot of people disillusioned.

 

I don't think every republican voter stupports creationism, wait and see on stem cell research, or seek and destroy on sex ed and birth prevention programmes, but if you vote republican that's where part of your influcence goes. If you want to avoid it your best bet is to associate yourself with a PAC and try to buy influence or extort your way in instead.

 

it's not an ideal situation. A larger spectrum would have a greater chance of keeping the wingnuts at the edges of political influence.

[Humodour]

Democrats say people are too helpless and would die if Government reduces it's grip on society and Republicans freak out from terrorism/drug phobia, and both parties are scared to death of spending cuts and functioning within their means.

And this is why a third-party should come in. Because the Dual-Dictatorship currently present is too much entrenched in pickering and ideological warfare, they can't really act unless they're willing to loose a lot. A third-party wouldn't really have anything to loose, hence they would be more likely able to act and make unpleasent decisions.

 

America's system - first past the post, does not mathematically allow the long-term (or even short term) existence of third parties in single-winner races.

 

Really, only proportional or preferential systems reliably allow for third parties.

 

It's probably one of the main reasons that the USA is so broken.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Krezack

[Gorgon]

I'd think they would, they're living in it.

 

A "truth" engineered, run and controlled by a bunch of wannabe-Kings.

 

As for the rest: Thanks for turning another subject into a "RT sucks lol Fox News and BBC rawks" ****storm, instead of discussing the actual video content I linked.

That's nothing new, the republicans have been using that angle in the election for a long time.

[GuybrushWilco]

The truth is that the US has hundreds of small political parties, that could each theoretically hold seats in Congress, or win the presidency. I think that the reason we have evolved into a defacto two-party system, is that it just makes it easier for people to enact legislation that way. When you break down political philosophies, it is a wide spectrum, but most, if not everything at least falls into one of two broad camps: conservative and liberal. So even though two people with a liberal bent, may disagree on some important issues, or one may be more extreme than the other, they are still more different from a conservative, than they are from each-other. This is why they would stick to one left leaning political party, since their combined power, even through compromise, will get them closer to what they want, then if they were splintered. In many other parts of the world, political parties like this simply form alliances on certain issues, but here, you just end up with two major parties, that each have a wider spectrum of views.

 

A downside is that this often leads to lots of inter-party bickering, which sometimes makes either party ineffectual an effect which has been especially evident in the Democratic party for the past four years. As for the electoral college, that was put in place to protect the interests of the smaller and less populated states. Because the USA is a geographically large country, we have many states with differing industries, demographics, and thus needs and wants. If we had a straight direct election, then the theory goes that the smaller and less populated states would become disenfranchised, and only the needs of states like California, Texas and New York would get proper representation. I actually kind of agree with this logic, but I do think that the electoral college could use some reform. I have heard one idea that the winner of the popular vote should be given some extra electoral votes, which could be a good idea.

[Morgoth]

That's nothing new, the republicans have been using that angle in the election for a long time.

Of course it's nothing new, but that doesn't mean people have to accept it.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Morgoth

[Humodour]

The truth is that the US has hundreds of small political parties, that could each theoretically hold seats in Congress, or win the presidency. I think that the reason we have evolved into a defacto two-party system, is that it just makes it easier for people to enact legislation that way. When you break down political philosophies, it is a wide spectrum, but most, if not everything at least falls into one of two broad camps: conservative and liberal. So even though two people with a liberal bent, may disagree on some important issues, or one may be more extreme than the other, they are still more different from a conservative, than they are from each-other. This is why they would stick to one left leaning political party, since their combined power, even through compromise, will get them closer to what they want, then if they were splintered. In many other parts of the world, political parties like this simply form alliances on certain issues, but here, you just end up with two major parties, that each have a wider spectrum of views.

 

Way to apologise away a horrible flaw in your electoral system with logic that seems to apply badly when applied to other countries.

 

If it's just so easy for people to generalise into a liberal-conservative divide, then why is the USA the only European country with a 2-party system?

 

Name another European country with 2-party system. Australia? No. Canada? No. Britain? No. New Zealand? No. The Netherlands? No. Germany? No. Ireland? No. Austria? No. Portugal? No. Spain? No. Italy? No. Finland? No. Denmark? No. Sweden? No. Norway? No. Iceland? No. Greece even? No. Switzerland? No. Luxembourg? No.

 

South Africa? No. Japan? No. South Korea? No. Taiwan? No. Indonesia? No. Brazil? No. India? No.

 

The USA is, yet again, an outlier compared to the rest of the world. It is the only real democracy in the world which does not have a multi-party system.

 

What you've basically said is "the right wing of my country is so extreme that the centre-left and centre have to join together and forget about any progressive agenda if they have any hope of beating the extreme right due to my country's first past the post voting system". Oh joy.

 

A downside is that this often leads to lots of inter-party bickering, which sometimes makes either party ineffectual an effect which has been especially evident in the Democratic party for the past four years. As for the electoral college, that was put in place to protect the interests of the smaller and less populated states. Because the USA is a geographically large country, we have many states with differing industries, demographics, and thus needs and wants. If we had a straight direct election, then the theory goes that the smaller and less populated states would become disenfranchised, and only the needs of states like California, Texas and New York would get proper representation. I actually kind of agree with this logic, but I do think that the electoral college could use some reform. I have heard one idea that the winner of the popular vote should be given some extra electoral votes, which could be a good idea.

 

This has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Australia has this system too, yet we also have preferential and proportional voting and we have an excellent electoral system. When people talk about electoral reform, they're not talking about reforming the electoral college - they're talking about making the electors for each state proportional and/or preferential. E.g. if New Hampshire has 4 and 3 parties get between 30 to 40% of the vote, then each party would get an electoral vote. That's proportional. But preferential would probably appeal more to the conservative nature of Americans, and it would go: if party A got 27% of the vote, party B got 33% of the vote, and party C got 40%, and party A likes party B more than party C, then party B wins New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes.

 

The same concept applies to house and senate member elections (this is house Australia does it).

 

The only change to your voting system from the voter's perspective? People don't vote for a single party, they vote for the parties they want in order of fondness, from 1 to say 9.

 

It turns out mathematically to provide a far superior outcome. For instance: suppose two progressive parties get 30% of the vote in your current system - that's 60% of the popular vote. And the conservatives get only 40%. In your system, the conservatives win. So the 'third party' slowly dies as the people have to give up on the concept of a multiparty system in order to defeat a minority party - the conservatives. Sound far fetch? Go take a look at Canada's last election result - completely against the will of the majority of the voters, but perfectly legal by the first past the post electoral system. Thankfully Canadians haven't given up on a multi-party system yet, but without the removal of first past the post there, it's only a matter of time. Britain's implementation of first past the post only produces a multi-party outcome because different areas vote for at least 3 different parties (something that also happens with Canada, but never the USA). If the same average vote share in the UK was distributed evenly amongst seats, it would be an entirely two-party system.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Krezack

[GuybrushWilco]

First of all, thank you for your well reasoned and insightful answer, but I will point out that I was never apologized away anything. I was only offering a logical explanation for why voters choose to go to one of two political parties, and not trying to make any kind of moral justification for or against. I still hold the view that a direct popular vote would probably disenfranchise voters from smaller states, which is all I was saying in my original post, where in fact, I said that the electoral college should be reformed. Also, I am sure you realize that the USA is not a European country and neither are many of the other countries that you mentioned. Also, I was only using the liberal voters as an analogy, and I could have just as easily replaced them with conservatives. It has nothing to do with one party being extreme or not, but that people generally speaking tend to be either liberal or conservative on social and fiscal issues, just to varying degrees. While other countries do have more room for third parties, you can look at the UK for example, and see that it is still heavily dominated by either the Conservative Party or the Labour Party, so you can see the same dynamics at work there too, even if it is to a lesser extent, and also to the Conservative and Liberal Party of Canada.

Edited October 27, 2012 by GuybrushWilco

[Calax]

I think that the two party system is also reinforced by the news networks. People barely know that Libertarians exist enough to have their own presidential candidate, and even when people see it, they don't have the information they need to sort out what the Libertarians are saying they'd do as a president. In the media run debates, the candidates are chosen based on polling numbers, which nobody but the "Big 2" are even on. Thus you end up with the self reinforced 2 party system. I doubt Ross Perot could have made it to wedge himself between Clinton and Bush Sr. in 1992 in todays media tastic world.

[GuybrushWilco]

I think that the two party system is also reinforced by the news networks. People barely know that Libertarians exist enough to have their own presidential candidate, and even when people see it, they don't have the information they need to sort out what the Libertarians are saying they'd do as a president. In the media run debates, the candidates are chosen based on polling numbers, which nobody but the "Big 2" are even on. Thus you end up with the self reinforced 2 party system. I doubt Ross Perot could have made it to wedge himself between Clinton and Bush Sr. in 1992 in todays media tastic world.

 

I agree that the major news networks do purposely do not cover third party candidates much. There was a third party debate hosted by Larry King, but it got very little coverage.