OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chad said:
I tried in 2000. Nader was head and shoulders above this years third party candidates. If these are the best candidates the third parties can come up with, getting them matching funds and including them in the debates accomplishes nothing.
Click to expand...

More importantly, the get matching funds and get into the POTUS debates plan is a red herring. A third party candidate will never win the presidency without the help of a national party machine. The only way for third parties to build those machines is to build up from the bottom. They have to win local elections, send the best of those people to the state house, then to the HoR, then to the Senate. And voting reform will help build those machines up because it makes it easier to elect third-party candidates.
 
jp_nyc said:
More importantly, the get matching funds and get into the POTUS debates plan is a red herring. A third party candidate will never win the presidency without the help of a national party machine. The only way for third parties to build those machines is to build up from the bottom. They have to win local elections, send the best of those people to the state house, then to the HoR, then to the Senate. And voting reform will help build those machines up because it makes it easier to elect third-party candidates.
Click to expand...

Valid points for sure. But whether it's right or wrong (it's wrong), the country's attention is keenly focused on presidential elections far more than any others. Getting a 3rd party on that stage would do wonders for awareness. Trickle down wonders if you will.
 
BlockInlay said:
Valid points for sure. But whether it's right or wrong (it's wrong), the country's attention is keenly focused on presidential elections far more than any others. Getting a 3rd party on that stage would do wonders for awareness. Trickle down wonders if you will.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the third party candidates tend to be wackadoos or aren't taking it seriously. If a third party put up a candidate who wasn't a fucktard maybe they'd have a chance, but instead we get "Uh... Wait, what??? I haven't read a news article since 8th grade social studies..." and "I'm a doctor, but vaccines cause autism and WiFi is killing the children".
 
GilmourD said:
I'm an atheist and I like this pope. For a pope he's a cool motherfucker.
Click to expand...
I was raised in Tacoma, when the Seattle Arch-Diocese was pretty darned liberal. Lots of crazy hippy stuff like helping those in need, and accepting those that need help, without judgment, and opposing war, and crazy talk like that. :wink: The religious movements of the 80's and beyond, and how the RC Church seemed to change for the worse after a couple of very conservative popes, was quite disturbing to me. Enough that I could not ask my wife to join me in the faith I was raised in, at least via the RC Church. This guy has been a breath of fresh air. He is Jesuit, and the Jesuits that taught me in high school were good, critical thinkers that demanded the same of us. They also mostly happened to be liberal for some reason. After doing all that critical thinking.
 
GilmourD said:
The problem is that the third party candidates tend to be wackadoos or aren't taking it seriously. If a third party put up a candidate who wasn't a fucktard maybe they'd have a chance, but instead we get "Uh... Wait, what??? I haven't read a news article since 8th grade social studies..." and "I'm a doctor, but vaccines cause autism and WiFi is killing the children".
Click to expand...

Is that any better than being force fed shit sandwiches by team R or manure sandwiches by team D?
 
not that it's ever going to happen in this country....but i am all for a NO party system. everyone stands on their own merit and ideals. no platforms.....no party bosses.....no good ol' boys......individuals with a vision.
 
sunvalleylaw said:
I was raised in Tacoma, when the Seattle Arch-Diocese was pretty darned liberal. Lots of crazy hippy stuff like helping those in need, and accepting those that need help, without judgment, and opposing war, and crazy talk like that. :wink: The religious movements of the 80's and beyond, and how the RC Church seemed to change for the worse after a couple of very conservative popes, was quite disturbing to me. Enough that I could not ask my wife to join me in the faith I was raised in, at least via the RC Church. This guy has been a breath of fresh air. He is Jesuit, and the Jesuits that taught me in high school were good, critical thinkers that demanded the same of us. They also mostly happened to be liberal for some reason. After doing all that critical thinking.
Click to expand...
Went and revisited this history, and Arch Bishop Hunthausen, who held back half of his taxes in protest of spending on nuclear war. The 80's church basically investigated him and ran him into early retirement over that one, though he passed all the investigations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Hunthausen

EDIT to add quote:
"Despite the attention surrounding the [investigation, which went his way], Archbishop Hunthausen is remembered most for his support of the poor and disenfranchised. He was also a great advocate for the youth and encouraged better catechesis in Catholic parishes and Catholic parochial schools despite waning enrollment. In 1985, he helped establish the Institute for Theological Studies at Seattle University, which in 1996 evolved into the School of Theology and Ministry."

Archbishop Hunthausen retired in 1991 and currently resides near Helena, Montana, with his brother, Father Jack Hunthausen."

He is currently 95. My point, I guess, is that the RC Church had a more liberal period, before the reactionary times beginning in the 80's. That more liberal view that the new Pope espouses, is what I was raised with. Along with all the doctrine and ritual. Now, the Pope is moving it back in the other direction again. As others have noted before, it has a long way to go, and sometimes it seems a bit like lipstick on a pig. But, there have been some good people that I admire as people for their good acts, ethics, and heart.
 
Last edited:
BlockInlay said:
Is that any better than being force fed shit sandwiches by team R or manure sandwiches by team D?
Click to expand...
They may not be ideal but at least they have a grip on what the job entails. I mean, c'mon, Gary Johnson seems like a nice dude but has zero knowledge of foreign affairs and nothing domestic beyond getting rid the Department of Education and legalizing weed. Jill Stein keeps wavering on the idea of vaccines being a bad thing and keeps pushing this wackadoo idea that WiFi is killing our children... Maybe if she had a clue what sort of interstellar radiation actually makes it through the magnetosphere and ionosphere, she'd change her mind on that one.

They're jokes. They're not people that have what it takes to be POTUS. The job takes a lot of preparation, a lot of knowledge, and a thick skin. Out of all of the candidates floated this year Bernie and Hillary were the only two qualified and Bernie didn't win the nomination.
 
mongooz said:
not that it's ever going to happen in this country....but i am all for a NO party system. everyone stands on their own merit and ideals. no platforms.....no party bosses.....no good ol' boys......individuals with a vision.
Click to expand...
The reason for the party system isn't even so much to take sides... It's more that a party brings with it financial means of campaigning. Ross Perot was the closest we've ever gotten to putting a significant dent in the system and that's only because he was a bajillionaire.
 
BlockInlay said:
Is that any better than being force fed shit sandwiches by team R or manure sandwiches by team D?
Click to expand...

so we get fecal matter sandwiches by team I. I don't see that as better. Unless a third party throws a good candidate in the ring, I'm not wasting a vote again. I vote for the best of what is given to me. I would never consider a libertarian and the Green Party nominee is a whackado. Give us something good, not a just as shitty choice who has nobody to work with in congress.
 
GilmourD said:
The reason for the party system isn't even so much to take sides... It's more that a party brings with it financial means of campaigning. Ross Perot was the closest we've ever gotten to putting a significant dent in the system and that's only because he was a bajillionaire.
Click to expand...
if there are no parties.....then the money will follow the best ideas.
 
Chad said:
would never consider a libertarian and the Green Party nominee is a whackado.
Click to expand...

I don’t think Jill Stein is crazy. I don’t think she believes the ignorant shit she spews about WiFi and vaccines. But she is an an evil piece of shit who panders to crazy people that believes the ignorant shit she spews about WiFi and vaccines. In that sense she’s just as awful as Trump, who has been pandering to his own flock of crazies. And the entire Libertarian party is built on crazy supply side economic bullshit, so they’re in there, too.
 
Tiltsta said:
I can't wait for this shit to end. My phone rang every ten minutes all day long today. I finally just unplugged the fucking thing as I got tired of the robocalls.
Click to expand...

The Dems locally know I am already helping, and I am not on the call list. I am getting robo-calls from d-bag Idaho Senator Mike Crap-o. Like I would take his call.
 
jp_nyc said:
I don’t think Jill Stein is crazy. I don’t think she believes the ignorant shit she spews about WiFi and vaccines. But she is an an evil piece of shit who panders to crazy people that believes the ignorant shit she spews about WiFi and vaccines. In that sense she’s just as awful as Trump, who has been pandering to his own flock of crazies. And the entire Libertarian party is built on crazy supply side economic bullshit, so they’re in there, too.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, she is worse than crazy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top