satyreyes wrote:

I'm not sure how commonly the left-right model is used in Europe and points beyond, so I'll take a moment to explain this comment.

We use it much like you, except that we tend to have more extreme differences, since our norm tends to be a dozen parties in countries that are the size of your states. Personally a political non-Euclidian, I vote the GreenParty that started out as enviromentalist, but today carter to free-thinkers who couldn't care less about the traditional left-right ideologies. A pity that you Americans have to choose between just two parties - I think that a proper democracy should have at least ten choices...

There are many in this country who don't know how our election system works.

The USA is a Republic with a representative form of government.  Not a 'pure' democracy where 'whoever (or whatever) gets the most votes wins'.

Further complicating matters is the issue of 'Gerrymandering', where voting district borders are realigned to create favor for one party or the other before the next election.

So don't feel bad that not being from the USA makes you feel your understanding of our system is less than those who live here.  So many right here don't have half of a clue either, because [generalization]most people in the USA believe that their vote doesn't matter.[/generalization]  Then they wonder why nothing ever changes...

BioKraze wrote:

I'd sooner vote for QT1 than any other person currently running. But then again, I don't quite live in Realityland...so it doesn't matter, now does it?

Honestly, I'd vote a computer in sooner than a man. Computers have this strange and wonderful thing called logic. It's an amazing piece of magic that can make things work out right when everybody has their head up their collective ass. And in politics, you don't have to look far for people with their heads so up their ass they're coming out of their mouth.

You may all now feel at liberty to discharge assorted firearms in my direction.

American presidential checklist, first to tick them all and shout bingo spends a night in Watergate Hotel

[ ] First Black President
[ ] First Woman President
[ ] First Gay President
[ ] First Computer President
[ ] First Alien President

I've had the oversized marker poised for years... I can barely believe that there seems to be a chance for one of the first two to be checked next election!

Seriously though? A computerised president? Computers may have logic but they have shown us all on a very human level that any system obeying a complex set of rules produces random flashes of chaos! I suppose it couldn't do as much damage to the world as Bush though... type 2 error.

Lightice wrote:

We tend to have more extreme differences, since our norm tends to be a dozen parties in countries that are the size of your states. Personally a political non-Euclidian, I vote the GreenParty that started out as enviromentalist, but today carter to free-thinkers who couldn't care less about the traditional left-right ideologies. A pity that you Americans have to choose between just two parties - I think that a proper democracy should have at least ten choices...

There's a really great mathematical theorem that shows that with only two parties choosing positions on a left-right model, both parties will be drawn to the center and will become almost indistinguishable.  I don't think the Rs and Ds are indistinguishable, but there are certainly major issues (reducing entitlement spending; fighting climate change) on which neither party has put forth any real, workable ideas.  The thing about this theorem is, when a third party shows up, everything gets thrown out of whack.  The two original parties are forced to differentiate themselves so that the third party doesn't grab all that unclaimed turf.  It takes more than three parties in more dimensions, and I think it starts getting a little silly after a certain point, but this central finding makes sense to me.  We could definitely use a strong third party in America.

Raven Nightshade wrote:

The thing that worries me is that we'll get a good Democratic candidate, and the third-party candidate (Nader, etc.) will totally fubar it by splitting the liberal/left-wing/anti-Republican vote and the Republicans win again.

However, if Rudy Giuliani is the Republican stated above, then I won't mind as much.

I've heard a lot of pro-Rudy talk from the liberal-to-moderate end of the spectrum.  I'm not sure what all the fuss is.  Can you explain what makes him special/different?

SleepDebtFairy wrote:

But I'm almost desperate enough to say anyone but Bush.

That won't be a problem this time around! 

How many times can someone be elected president?  People who have already served two terms as president can't run for president again.  It may feel like Bush has been in office since the early '80s, but in fact he was first elected in 2000, and 2008 will be the end of his second term.  We can fight all we like about who the best next president would be, but Bush is off the table! 

satyreyes wrote:

There's a really great mathematical theorem that shows that with only two parties choosing positions on a left-right model, both parties will be drawn to the center and will become almost indistinguishable.  I don't think the Rs and Ds are indistinguishable, but there are certainly major issues (reducing entitlement spending; fighting climate change) on which neither party has put forth any real, workable ideas.  The thing about this theorem is, when a third party shows up, everything gets thrown out of whack.  The two original parties are forced to differentiate themselves so that the third party doesn't grab all that unclaimed turf.  It takes more than three parties in more dimensions, and I think it starts getting a little silly after a certain point, but this central finding makes sense to me.  We could definitely use a strong third party in America.

Phase space! One of my favourite subjects! In recent years its effect on a 2 party system was was curiously demonstrated in Adelaide's central shopping precinct: Rundle Mall! 2 buskers who both made twisty baloon animals used to service the mall, spaced evenly (left and right), so anyone who wanted a twisty baloon could walk one third of the stretch for an inflatable poodle. As twisty balloon men have long forgotten the joy of their craft and are motivated entirely by greed both looked toward the centre of the mall and lusted for the rival's turf. Eventually both balloon men ended up on current affair television indulging in fistycuffs next to Bert Fluegleman's twin spheres - Adelaide's most well known public art: 2 massive steel balls which mark the mall's midpoint. Not only had the baloon men failed to increase their market share, but now anyone who wants anthropomorphised balloons has to walk half the length of the mall!

Phase space is like a graph of all the possible outcomes in any closed system. Attractors in phase space can predict anything from the motion of molecules, birth rate patterns in cute little chu chu populations to the relationships between predators and prey. Mapped in phase space these attractors often loop like donuts, spirals or kidney beans... In a two party system the attractor is a single point: twisty baloon men end up in the middle of the mall, political parties end up being only superficially different.

Eventually a twisty baloon man was exiled to Melbourne, a city a state away. What phase space failed to predict was that the following christmas the baloon man was sitting depressed on my cousin's swing set while his alcoholic wife, replete with champaign glass raucously made herself at home at my Xmas reli bash! Upon learning that I was the last male to bear the family name she goaded to the disquiet of my entire family "lets hope he doesn't turn out gay".

Last edited by abraXas365 (06-22-2007 01:12:51 AM)

Stormcrow wrote:

The only reason he's got any stature is that some psychos dropped a couple of planes on his city while he happened to be mayor. Somehow, this made him a hero?

Well, to be fair, he did clean up a lot of crime and make Times Square child-friendly, which was a considerable feat back in the day. (Not that I think it's an improvement.)  New Yorkers hated him anyway. I like Rudy in that he does get shit done, he's not just going to coast through his presidency. The problem is you better like what he's getting done.

In that regard, I'm inclined to vote for anyone that will actually do something with the term in office, but I only get that vibe from Rudy, Hillary..and Ron Paul. The wrench in those works is I want the fuck out of Iraq because it's a huge retarded moneysink/troop guillotine, and Rudy and Hillary will both stay there. (I strongly doubt Hillary will be nearly as quick to pack up the troops as she says.)

I think it's kinda sad to imagine that this might be a big first. The first black president, the first female one...but if it happens it won't happen because they deserved it. It'll happen because we're in a 'UGH WE'LL TAKE ANYTHING' political climate, and in Hillary's case, she's coasting into office entirely on account of her husband.

Also, I don't think Hillary should win. I don't like this dynastic shit that's popping up. And she's way too socially conservative. You keep your paws off my games and R-rated movies, bitch.

Stormcrow wrote:

Even if violent images in video games and music do contribute to delinquency, that's ultimately beside the point.

Quoted because someone had to say so.

I'm so pessimistic on this whole censorship thing. The harsh reality I have to face is that a substantial majority of Americans want more censorship, not less. We talk big talk about how the terrorists "hate our freedoms", but we hold them (our freedoms) in contempt, which is just as bad.

EDIT: Don't want anyone to get the wrong idea, now.

Last edited by Stormcrow (06-22-2007 11:52:50 PM)

Haha this thread is too involved for me to catch up... but I guess I'm an "Internet Libertarian Fanboy" since I definitely want Ron Paul to win.  Okay, well fangirl... Libertarian fangirl who can recognize someone who isn't full of crap.

Yeah, but Bloomberg's already getting the Ross Perot comparisons. This will, naturally, eat away at any credentials he has.

Or so I thought...

Then I watched Fox News this morning because my brain needed a rest. Some of the people on there think that Bloomberg wouldn't be a half bad presidential candidate due to a) his mayoral experience b) his corporate experience. Now I tend to disregard his mayoral experience because I don't feel like he's really accomplished much in NYC, unless I haven't been paying attention. What Bloomberg's term in NYC has been was supposed to be what Bush's term as President should have been: some slick mofo with marital problems fixes things and makes life better despite his personal scandal, then the next guy just coasts off of that for four years.

As for his business experience, the general consensus seems to be that if he can run a ginormous company, he can run the country. After all, maybe the country needs to be run like a business for a while, they say.

Here's a question I find myself thinking about sometimes: How angry should I get when someone deploys bias in order to win an election?  I don't think it should be relevant that Giuliani's best friends are gay, or that Obama is half-black, or that Bloomberg is Jewish.  How spiteful do I get to be towards candidates that make a big deal about their opponents' personal qualities that have nothing to do with being president?

On one hand, surely it's crucial to democracy that we judge the candidates on what kind of president they would be, not on the color of their skin or the title of their holy book (if any).  How stupid and superficial it would be to vote against a candidate because he's gay, or because she's a woman!  How cynical it is to try to get voters to vote on those grounds, instead of on the Issues!  Isn't playing on the voters' biases obviously destructive to the health of the whole nation?

On the other hand, who gets to decide what the Issues are?  I haven't made up my mind yet whether it's relevant that Romney is Mormon; wouldn't stifling debate on this question potentially jeopardize democracy?  And if it's really so irrelevant that Giuliani's best friends are gay, then why do I feel reassured to know that he has gay friends?  It seems so obvious to me that Obama's race isn't relevant to his performance in office, but an Alabaman who had somehow been taught to speak English might argue that "racial issues" are important to most black politicians, so Obama's race might predict his politics.  Isn't that a reasonable point, even though ads about Obama's race would clearly be playing primarily on prejudice?  We value the free exchange of ideas here; isn't deciding that some topics are off-limits obviously destructive to the health of the whole nation?

What do you think, IRG?

Last edited by satyreyes (06-24-2007 08:35:57 PM)

Satyr, you pose an interesting question. I would say that free speech doesn't obligate you to talk about anything you don't think is important. We also have the right to stay silent, if we're not subpoenaed. Holy shit, I spelled subpoenaed right on the first try, yay me! Anyway, it's not undemocratic to avoid certain subjects, or even to ask others to do the same, as long as it's not the government saying so. As for who decides what the issues are, I'd say that that's you. That's how it's supposed to work anyway.