|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:36 am Post subject: Independents Hate Both Parties as Never Before |
 |
|
The recent wave of alienation could hit Democrats and Republicans alike in 2012. Will voters throw the bums out again?
As an Independent myself, I have to say that arguments blaming one party over the other about the debt ceiling seem pretty ridiculous. A divided government was elected, and America expects them to compromise to achieve their goals.
| Quote: |
Consider these recent findings:
On Wednesday, Gallup reported that a 46 percent to 39 percent plurality of Americans said they opposed the agreement to raise the federal debt ceiling. Among independents, the reaction was much worse: just 33 percent approved, while 50 percent approved.
In a CNN/ORC poll conducted on Monday and released on Tuesday, just 14 percent of those surveyed said they approved of the way Congress is handling its job, while 84 percent disapproved. That was not only the lowest level of approval, and the highest level of disapproval, that the CNN poll has recorded -- the gap between the approval and disapproval numbers were as wide as Gallup has recorded in any of its polls measuring congressional performance dating back to 1974. The public verdict on Congress today is more negative than it was just before the election landslides that switched control of Congress in 1994, 2006, and 2010: Gallup surveys in the fall of those years put congressional approval between 21 percent and 26 percent. |
What result?
| Quote: |
| With each party hemorrhaging public support amid political polarization and economic stagnation, the implications for 2012 are complex and unpredictable. American history lacks a true example of an election in which voters turned out large numbers of incumbents from both parties, but to some observers that no longer seems impossible amid the declining support for both Obama and congressional Republicans. And while no serious independent presidential candidate has yet emerged, the numbers show an unmistakable opening for a Ross Perot-style outsider candidate who mobilizes voters unhappy with both major parties. |
Under the American system, a viable third-party candidate, much less a viable third party itself, still has to surmount long odds. The two-party system is too big to fail.
Perhaps more possible would be this alternative to the status quo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
America is in no condition for a Constitutional convention. Even formulating our current constitution was an extremely challenging matter; now that corporations and the ultra-wealthy have a stranglehold on our society, opening the doors to a reformulation of the Constitution would be giving them the keys to the kingdom in perpetuity.
| Quote: |
| When it comes to amending the US Constitution South Dakota's vote is equal to that of California. Do you understand what this means? You could theoretically pass an amendment with less than 1/4 of American voters supporting it. This has got to scare the hell out of the DC "elites". |
It scares the Hell out of me too, especially since those low population states who would be given power disproportionate to their populations are the ones most likely to be driven by anti-tax, anti-government, pro-theocracy ideology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Perhaps more possible would be this alternative to the status quo. |
Pshaw and balderdash!!!
This has been the Anti-federalist wet-dream since they lost in 1788. It's time to get over it.
I will admit that a jigger here and there would improve the system, but in general, the system is fine. It's the existence of a broken conservative party that is the problem. Yes, I know I've said 'the system is broken' but that was only in times of frustration at the apocolyptic destructiveness of the current conservative party (and friends). Emphasis on 'friends'.
You would think that after 2 1/4 centuries, the right would accept that the people generally want a government of the whole nation, centralized and powerful. Yes, there needs to be a voice for times of government overreach, but there also needs to be an awareness that overreach is not the norm. However, the right's paranoia is not a governing position.
At one time I was also dissillusioned with government. Then I came across a thing about Washington when he was scrounging for food, clothes, and ammunition for the troops. He was not upset at the shenanigans of the Continental Congress. He understood that that is how congresses are supposed to act. Democracy is really nothing more than ritualized civil war, where the guns are taken out of the picture. Representatives of the people are supposed to argue. And argue. And argue.
Sorry, but Louie Gohmert is not the next Ben Franklin, no matter how much the right wants him to be.
(I do hear and understand your frustration, however.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| You would think that after 2 1/4 centuries, the right would accept that the people generally want a government of the whole nation, centralized and powerful. |
 Yes, we already know you are extremely pro-tyranny, and would infinitely prefer to have the US run by a Napoleon-like figure (just as long as he has the letter "D" sewn onto his uniform) than to have any of the checks and balances (like states' rights, explicitly stated in the constitution). There's really no need for you to be so flagrant about it, or pretend you speak for the majority (you don't, not even close). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| There's really no need for you to be so flagrant about it, or pretend you speak for the majority (you don't, not even close). |
And you do? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Yes, we already know you are extremely pro-tyranny |
You support the tyranny of the minority as embodied by the Tea Party. What more needs to be said? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| There's really no need for you to be so flagrant about it, or pretend you speak for the majority (you don't, not even close). |
And you do? |
Where did I say I spoke for the majority? Are you making up more lies again? Perhaps you've got another blatant misquote to provide? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| There's really no need for you to be so flagrant about it, or pretend you speak for the majority (you don't, not even close). |
Your boy Ron Paul is hovering around 11% in the polls. Only in your fevered imagination is 11% a majority. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Yes, we already know you are extremely pro-tyranny |
You support the tyranny of the minority as embodied by the Tea Party. What more needs to be said? |
Sophistry. The real Tea Party movement (started by Ron Paul and libertarians, NOT the current hijacked version co-opted by mainline Republicans and Fox News) was all about liberty. That is, the opposite of tyranny. To call that a "tyranny of the minority" would be almost as absurd as saying that supporting emancipation for slaves (even in the case that the majority supported slavery) is a sort of tyranny. It isn't. At all.
The US is a democratic republic with a constitution enshrining personal liberties, and meant to protect all minorities from the exact sort of tyranny of the majority that ya-ta loves so much.
...(cue Ya-ta's resorting to race-baiting here)... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| There's really no need for you to be so flagrant about it, or pretend you speak for the majority (you don't, not even close). |
Your boy Ron Paul is hovering around 11% in the polls. Only in your fevered imagination is 11% a majority. |
Here's a recent poll from the Washington Post. When asked whether they would prefer a smaller government with fewer services, 58% of people responded YES.
| Quote: |
40. Generally speaking, would you say you favor (smaller government with fewer services), or (larger government with more services)?
Smaller govt. fewer services - 58% |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_011610.html?sid=ST2010011701314
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Here's a recent poll from the Washington Post. When asked whether they would prefer a smaller government with fewer services, 58% of people responded YES.
|
However, when people are asked specifics, like: Would you like Social Security reduced, or any number of other programs, they answer quite differently.
Time after time, conservative right-wingers (is there any difference?) ask vague self-serving questions and then pretend those answers support their point of view. When asked specifics, the public is not at all interested in right wing extremist views. Time after time.
That is why people reject their assinine 'philosophy': it is presented as vague generalities and then when the real questions are asked, the public rejects it. That is why the right finds only authoritarianism workable. Bait and switch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Time after time, conservative right-wingers (is there any difference?) ask vague self-serving questions and then pretend those answers support their point of view. When asked specifics, the public is not at all interested in right wing extremist views. Time after time. |
None of my views have anything to do with "right wing extremism". Libertarianism is simply what America has always been about since its founding. It is the American dream condensed into a single ideology. Your pro-war, pro-Wall Street, pro-eugenics, race-baiting, hypocritical Progressive views are completely alien to the original values the US was founded on.
You can say the public is not interested in right wing ideology and I would agree. But the public is not interested in your radical leftist and morally bankrupt Progressive views either. At least the majority isn't.
| Quote: |
| That is why people reject their assinine 'philosophy': it is presented as vague generalities and then when the real questions are asked, the public rejects it. That is why the right finds only authoritarianism workable. Bait and switch. |
How can you even have the gall to accuse others of espousing authoritarianism, when literally every single policy you advocate is authoritarian? If you had your way, we'd be living in the Soviet Union under Joe Stalin (just so long as he started off as a Democrat, and had the backing of all the talking heads on MSNBC). It truly seems that your hypocrisy is without limit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| There's nothing necessarily anti-Federalist in calling for a few Amendments to the Constitution to be passed. We could target the Senate filibuster, overturn Citizens United and outlaw corporate political donations, and clarify the corporate personhood doctrine, while also reasserting that the Commerce Clause restriction means something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
Here's a recent poll from the Washington Post. When asked whether they would prefer a smaller government with fewer services, 58% of people responded YES.
|
However, when people are asked specifics, like: Would you like Social Security reduced, or any number of other programs, they answer quite differently.
Time after time, conservative right-wingers (is there any difference?) ask vague self-serving questions and then pretend those answers support their point of view. When asked specifics, the public is not at all interested in right wing extremist views. Time after time. |
This is correct. While Americans have been trained to respond positively to the concept of small government in the abstract, once you move to specifics most people support an active, involved government that ensures quality of life. This is why conservative politicians, when asked while running for office what they would cut, are generally very vague, saying things like, "Everything needs to be on the table," or, "I'd cut 5% from everything," or other completely meaningless things. They know as soon as they get into specifics, they're going to start alienating voters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
As an Independent myself, I have to say that arguments blaming one party over the other about the debt ceiling seem pretty ridiculous. A divided government was elected, and America expects them to compromise to achieve their goals.
|
Hmmm. I've often thought libertarians were just Republicans with commitment issues.
We are locked in a struggle over the role of government. At some point people have to chose a side. It seems clear to me that when one side risks destruction of the national economy to win their point, then anyone who sits on the sidelines and says, "Now, let's all get along", then they are helping the destructive side.
Call me partisan if you will, but I consider deliberately wrecking the economy for political gain to be wrong. I just do.
We're supposed to accept only half wrecking the economy as a good compromise deal? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
