Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

[mlooney 3,417]

I'm sorta right leaning.  I thought about becoming a upper case libertarian, but their actions with regards to aid to Ukraine and their support of Russia has made them a non starter.  I used to say that I would never be a Republican as long as Nixon was alive.  It's now Trump.

[ChronosCat 155]

I'm not a member of any party, and have always taken pride in deciding my position on each issue for myself. The way my positions have developed, mapping them onto the current political spectrum you could say I was "left leaning", but I would happily vote for a politician near the center of the spectrum, or even a moderate-right politician who agreed with me on the issues I considered most important.

Unfortunately, with the way the Republican party has been drifting to the right* there haven't been any Republicans I've been willing to vote for for roughly a decade, maybe more. In fact, much to my annoyance, it's the rare election where there are any options besides Democrats who both hold positions similar to me and have any chance of winning. (Honestly, I blame the "two-party system", and hope that one day the Democrat/Republican duopoly on US politics is broken to make way for a political system with a larger number of viable options.)

 

* And if I'm honest, my own slow shift to the left - though I still have many centrist positions, and a few that would have been "near right" a couple decades ago.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

7 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

I'm not a member of any party, and have always taken pride in deciding my position on each issue for myself.

I'm not sure you can not declare a party in every venue. In most cases, you can't vote in primaries unless you do. There is a move to change that, you could vote in any party's primary that you were not a member of; I really don't like that, it will largely be used to game the system and attempt to poison the ballot.

I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat. (Disclaimer, that is a stolen quote. attributed to Will Rogers.)

 

7 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

Unfortunately, with the way the Republican party has been drifting to the right* there haven't been any Republicans I've been willing to vote for for roughly a decade, maybe more.

I think the expression you are looking for is 'Jumped the Shark'. (I saw that episode, maybe when it first aired, before it was a trope. That scene was indeed absurdly over the top.)

There are G.O.P. members who I really would not want in power, but look pretty good in contrast to the frothing idiots. Chris Christie comes across as, "Well, at least he wouldn't burn down the house." Contrast that with InSantis said recently during and after the debate in interviews that he'd go to war with Mexico on day one. We really don't need $#!7 like this in a place of power. And the tech guy was possibly even worse.

Honestly, we owe Nixon an apology if we entertain the crazy faction as serious candidates. In spite of his paranoia, he actually accomplished some good stuff.

 

7 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

. . . I blame the "two-party system", and hope that one day the Democrat/Republican duopoly on US politics is broken to make way for a political system with a larger number of viable options.

I concur, Technically, there is nothing prohibiting additional parties, and every at least presidential election has multiple candidates, they rarely amount to anything, and when they do, they just undermine the party they are most closely aligned with. At lower levels they do have some minimal representation. But our system favors a winner take all approach that minimizes their impact. This is in contrast to most democracies around the world, that have a proportional representation.

I attribute this to two things. We are not a democracy, we are a republic, which is felt to varying degrees at different levels. The entire Senate is fundamentally a republic institution, it is affected by popular vote, but represents the state, not the people, two votes per, and can be strongly biased even for a fairly balanced electorate (that 'winner take all' thing again). And the President is elected by the Electoral College, which are not necessarily beholden to the constituents' vote, nor even all voting by the same rules, it varies from state to state (they rarely stray, though, otherwise we'd have anarchy).

The other thing is that for modern democracies, we are kind of the prototype, the trial copy where you catch all of the errors before you role out the real thing.

And we have endemic xenophobia baked into our system, so maybe three things.

Our system makes gerrymandering a viable strategy, another reason it should be made proportional.

OTOH, proportional systems tend to some instability when a coalition can not reach a consensus.

 

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,586]

 

Before the Reagan era, "Conservative" candidates could go to extremist right wing groups (Fascist, racist, theocracies, isolationist, militants . . . ) and with a smile, nod and a generic jingoistic speech that didn't address any of their issues specifically, they could quietly count on their votes in the general election. 

Now these groups realize that they have motivated members who can show up to primaries in sufficient numbers to disproportionately influence the result.  Republican candidates for areas the size of single congressional districts or smaller know that they must appease these groups or be voted out long before the general election. 

 . . . . 

As for "open" primaries, this was the case in Michigan when I was a child and first started voting. 

Basically, the primary ballot was divided into sections.  A "Non-Partisan" section for ballot issues, and a section for each party.  If you puled down a lever in the Republican section you were not able to move a lever in the Democratic section, and verse vicea. 

I don't know if it was the principal factor, but one idea was to remove the cost of primaries from the taxpayer by letting the parties run their own caucuses.  If you wanted to vote in the Democratic caucus, you had to register your party preference with the local election supervisor sufficiently in advance of the election and then the election supervisor would let the parties know who had registered as what. 

Personally, I suspect that party organizers just want to keep their rank and file members from considering other party candidates at all.

 

[Darth Fluffy 302]

2 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

Personally, I suspect that party organizers just want to keep their rank and file members from considering other party candidates at all.

'Consider' - implies a thought process - in many cases, they already have their wish.

Yes, that cuts both ways. Multiple ways.

[Don Edwards 548]

The state of Washington used to have open primaries. All candidates for party nomination (and all candidates running non-partisan) appeared on a single primary ballot. You could vote for candidates from eight different parties, if you wanted to.

In order to also appear on the general-election ballot, a candidate had to (a) be the top vote-getter in their specific party and (b) get a certain minimum percentage of the total number of votes for that office. And, again, every candidate went on a single ballot.

It was nothing unusual to see a general-election ballot with four or five parties having candidates for the same office, even for statewide offices. Occasionally three for state legislature and local-government positions.

Then the issue of hostile voting, to cause a party one dislikes to nominate a less-suitable candidate, was raised.

By the Libertarian Party. WHY??????  Who would bother to spoil a minor party that way?

The courts actually declared the existing system unconstitutional.

The replacement system basically made it impossible for a third party to appear on the general-election ballot.

[mlooney 3,417]

Kansas had like 6 options for president last time.  There were also several local offices that only one "candidate" the incumbent.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

3 minutes ago, mlooney said:

Kansas had like 6 options for president last time.  There were also several local offices that only one "candidate" the incumbent.

As Hitler demonstrated in 1936, democracy is a lot easier when there is only one candidate available to vote for.

[mlooney 3,417]

These were things like county clerk.  Hardly earth shattering important.  All the "big" offices had at least 3 candidates. 

[The Old Hack 2,448]

On 8/27/2023 at 9:42 PM, mlooney said:

These were things like county clerk.  Hardly earth shattering important.  All the "big" offices had at least 3 candidates. 

I feel honestly relieved. The county clerk of Hodgeman County, Kansas is somewhat less likely to start making speeches about how neighbouring Pawnee County historically belongs to Hodgeman.

[mlooney 3,417]

Just for the record Hodgeman County (and Pawnee) are way the hell west of where I currently live.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

4 hours ago, mlooney said:

Just for the record Hodgeman County (and Pawnee) are way the hell west of where I currently live.

Kansas is so flat you can probably see them, no?

[mlooney 3,417]

No.  I live in what passes as the hilly part of Kansas.  Granted we are talking very small hills.  Also wooded.  Plus beyond the curvature of the earth.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

7 hours ago, mlooney said:

Plus beyond the curvature of the earth.

I see you are not among the True Believers of the Flat Earth.

 

[mlooney 3,417]

One of the Facebook groups I belong to is "Shit creationist say"  I cross post about 3 or 4 posts from there about flat earth and related brain hurty stuff a week, so no I'm not a flat earther.

[Don Edwards 548]

12 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I see you are not among the True Believers of the Flat Earth.

Proof the world is not flat: if it were, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,586]

 

The Earth is usually out of tune, but it is not consistantly flat.  Disagreements about tempo & lyrics are more common.

 

[ijuin 572]

So the Earth ia occasionally sharp?

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,586]

 

Guitars in sharps and flats

 

[Darth Fluffy 302]

12 hours ago, mlooney said:

One of the Facebook groups I belong to is "Shit creationist say"  I cross post about 3 or 4 posts from there about flat earth and related brain hurty stuff a week, so no I'm not a flat earther.

Scary thought, this kind of thing primes its followers to deny evidence when presented, leading to our various social ills; vaccine denial, sending money to Mr. Mango Mayhem because he was indicted (which is a lot like supporting a televangelist), peaceful BLM folks are 'terrorists', but the folks that shoot at black or gay or Jewish or Islamic folk aren't. "Best turn off that critical thinking, guys and gals, it can only get you in trouble." - I recall someone in Texas proposed outlawing teaching critical thinking. It was a handful of years ago.

I suppose managing sheeple is easier, but you'd also be setting yourself up for eventual failure.

[mlooney 3,417]

The weird thing about 1/3 of the flat earth posts in SCS is that they _try_ to post evidence of the earth being flat.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

39 minutes ago, mlooney said:

The weird thing about 1/3 of the flat earth posts in SCS is that they _try_ to post evidence of the earth being flat.

I've heard some of those. "I drove for hours, with a dash cam, and the horizon is always at the same level, it never dips."

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,586]

I've encountered at least four types of flat earthers 

1, People who are not flat earthers, but just like provoking responses from others 

2, People who really believe that flat earth is a statement of faith 

3, People who are convinced that conventional thinking is a conspiracy, so they deny everything that reeks of modern knowledge 

4, People for whom education has failed and are unable to debate a concept with themselves 

 

Have I missed anyone? 

 

[Darth Fluffy 302]

8 minutes ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

I've encountered at least four types of flat earthers 

1, People who are not flat earthers, but just like provoking responses from others 

2, People who really believe that flat earth is a statement of faith 

3, People who are convinced that conventional thinking is a conspiracy, so they deny everything that reeks of modern knowledge 

4, People for whom education has failed and are unable to debate a concept with themselves 

 

Have I missed anyone?

5. The [surface of the] earth is flat enough for most purposes if you look at a small enough piece of it. We don't factor the earth's curvature in to most building projects.

# 3 would have an underlying motive, which is going to be # 2, more often than not. I think # 4 would also be a tied in factor. You might just combine them.

For # 2, there are all kinds of faith, this seems most germane to those who take the literal words too far, reading meaning into them that was never intended. The phrase, 'straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel', comes to mind.

[mlooney 3,417]

Most of the flat earth people on "Shit Creationists Say" are type 2.  Let me be clear SCS is a group for making fun of Creationists.