MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 4 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 3 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 months ago
A third-party candidate in 2012? It's going to happen, pollster says
By artappraiser on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 5:09pm |By Dave Cook, Christian Science Monitor, Dec. 16, 2011
Stanley Greenberg, a major Democratic pollster, says unhappy and undecided voters make a third-party presidential candidate likely in 2012, introducing uncertainty into the battle to control Congress.
Also see:
A third major party? Most Americans say it's needed
By Susan Page, USA Today, Dec. 13, 2011
[....] In a new USA TODAY/Gallup Swing States Poll, 54% of Americans nationwide and 52% in the nation's top battlegrounds agree that the two major parties "do such a poor job that a third major party is needed."
In the dozen most competitive states, the political group most likely to back the idea of a third party are moderate and liberal Republicans — perhaps because they feel disenfranchised by the clout of a conservative Tea Party movement. Nearly two-thirds back the idea of a third party. Moderates and liberals make up nearly four in 10 Republicans. [....]
URL:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2011/1216/A-third-party-candidate-in-2012-It-s-going-to-happen-pollster-says.-VIDEO
- Add new comment
- 2350 reads
Comments
by artappraiser on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 5:21pm
It is within the realm of possibility that a third party candidate emerges and with the new potential VP, captures the national consciousness and develops a new loyalty to the extent that he or she is able to garner enough victories in enough states to actually take the White House.
But it is seems that at best a third party candidate might win a few of the more quirky states out there and definitely none of the big ticket ones - Texas, Florida, California, New York.
A huge hurdle would be the fear of the dreaded candidate from the other party would win should one cast the vote for the gadfly.
It is also unlikely that what other candidate emerges would take equally from both parties, although someone like a Bloomberg would take some from both. There would be a winner in terms of gadfly impact.
My guess is that it is more likely a third party candidate will come from the right leaning realm. In part because it would be difficult for those potential candidate from left leaning pool to believe they have a legitimate shot against an incumbent Democrat. The only goal for the lefties would to be change the scope of the debate, and to this end they could do so by challenging Obama in the primary - same result without the potential for being a pariah among much of the liberal community should Obama lose the election. It is hard to imagine anyone desiring to become Nader 2.0.
The right leaning candidate on the other hand can convince themselves the way is open to achieving a victory - not only is Obama's approval rating low, the conservatives are not very satisfied with the current field of candidates. If Mitt wins, it would relatively easy to wrestle away many who are reluctantly supporting him (he isn't Obama) as evidenced by his stagnant support in the current race for the nomination.
So this potential for a third party candidate is basically good news for the Obama team and those who hope he wins over his opponent on the other side.
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 6:43pm
The last time that a third party candidate won even a single electoral college vote was in 1968 (George Wallace was that candidate). The last time a third party candidate won the race was 1912, making 2012 its centennial. Of course, power tends to accumulate, and the two major parties have had plenty of opportunities since then to further minimize the chances of third parties doing much other than playing the occasional, and marginal, spoiler.
It's a shame, but it is what it is. If we want to fight it, we need to support the alternative vote.
by Verified Atheist on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 7:58pm
going to a popular vote would be a start,
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 8:54pm
I'm not sure how much that would help without the alternative vote. In fact, doing that prior to going to the alternative vote, could actually slow things down, as with the electoral college system you can actually transition to the alternative vote on a state-by-state basis.
by Verified Atheist on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 9:08pm
As I see it, two of the biggest hurdles a third party candidate face is money and the party machines. With the electoral college, a candidate must win the big states because of the winner take all approach (another alternative would be to join Nebraska and Maine and do a proportional allocation of delegates). If one loses by 2% in Florida, the candidate watches all of those 29 electoral votes (up 2 from 2008 as a result of the 2010 census).
Let's say the same number of voters come out that did in 2008 - 8,144,225. The winner of the contest gets 2,902,027. In second place, our 3rd party candidate, gets a whopping 2,791,010, while third place (the Republican nominee because it's my example) gets 2,451,188. The winner here (the Democrat in my example) gets the 29 electoral votes. The third party nothing, even though over 2.7 million Floridians thought she should be in the White House.
Now say in Washington state, our third party candidate catches fire and pulls in 1,211,450 votes, while the Dem grabs another 987,648, and our sad sack Republican candidate a dismal 496,584. The third party candidate now wins all 11 electoral votes.
Just with these two states, our 3rd party candidate has garnered 4,002,460 votes, while the Democrat has 3,889,675, and the Republican 2,947,772. Yet the Democrat has 29 electoral votes, and the 3rd party only 11 (and the Republican 0 - yeah!).
This means that the 3rd party candidate has to focus energy on Florida, running up against the Florida machine there. It is not enough to get many Floridians jazzed about her potential presidency. She has to win it. Which means less time to spend in places like Washington. Money for the airwaves if push comes to shove go toward Floridians and what they want to hear.
Another way to look at it, the 3rd party candidate could come in second in every state, with the D winning half and the R winning half - and thus ending up with just a couple of electoral votes (thanks to Nebraska and Maine), but winning in the popular vote of the three candidates.
(Ultimately it about fairness - if given the options of this slate of candidates, who can persuade the largest number of American citizens should get the prize, not who can collect the largest number of big ticket states).
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 9:45pm
I've got nothing against ultimately getting rid of the electoral college in lieu of the popular vote, but I think that the alternative vote can happen sooner on a limited scale exactly because each state currently decides how it is going to allocate its electoral votes. To that end, I'd suggest that if replacing the electoral college with the popular vote, the state should still have the same control over how its elections are run with the caveats that: (1) all elections are "fair" (per current legislation) and (2) they're held to a proportionate system (instead of a winner-take-all system).
by Verified Atheist on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 6:00am
The proportional system would basically serve the same purpose. I think this increase voter participation. I mean, with the winner-take-all system how many liberals in Utah or conservatives in Vermont stay away from the polls because they see their vote as basically meaningless for the big ticket contests?
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 8:40am
In a proportional system, you still have strategic voting (that is, assuming that you're not also using the alternative vote or a variant), where voting for a third party is essentially "throwing away your vote". It suffers from much of the same problems as the prisoner's dilemma, but on a much grander scale. Regardless, many people will still see their vote as basically meaningless for big ticket contests, because "what are the chances that my vote will decide anything?" (Neither of our suggestions addresses that issue. A parliamentarian system would stand the best chance of competing against it, but I think the cure might be worse than the disease.)
by Verified Atheist on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 10:11am
If the proportional system allocates the electoral votes based on the percentage of the total votes in the state, rounding up and down, then in my about example, the Democrat would have won 10 in Florida and 4 in Washington, the 3rd party candidate 10 and 5, and the Republican 9 and 2.
So the 3rd party candidate who had more votes than the other two comes away with 15 total electoral votes, while the Dem has 14 and the Republican 11. This is more reflective of the actual votes casted.
There will always be strategic voting, and party machines will be able to leverage their power to generate votes in certain regions of a state. But eliminating the winner-take-all approach means if I live in Florida, I can still help my candidate out by giving him or her some electoral votes, even if in the end another candidate garners more of them.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 11:41am
However, the hypothetical 3rd party candidate wouldn't come close to getting those values without the alternative vote. Just like today, you'd have the very real concern that voting for C would mean throwing away your vote because you just know that A or B is going to win. Of course, this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, which is why I referred to the game theoretic problem known as the prisoner's dilemma (it shares some features with that problem). You're right that it wouldn't completely eliminate strategic voting, but it would eliminate the particular type of strategic voting that so many of us here at dagblog (myself included) partake of, i.e., of voting for Obama instead of some more progressive candidate because we just "know"that the progressive candidate can't win.
by Verified Atheist on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 1:33pm
We have this view about throwing away our vote on the progressive candidate in uber-part because poll after poll after poll shows the candidate having 2% of 3% or 5% of the vote. What we are talking about is some 3rd party candidate (or independent like Ross P.) who somehow captures the nation's imagination and surges in the polls. If we had proportional voting and the progressive candidate was showing 23%, with the Obama at 34% and Mitt at 31% (12% still undecided or choosing one of the other candidates), there would be suddenly be the notion that it is possible. "If we can just capture a few of the undecideds," bloggers would shout, "and convince a few of the Obama and Mitt supporters, we've got a chance."
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 2:17pm
It's a vicious circle. We see such dismal values for voting for third party candidates because people don't want to waste their vote on a third party candidate. People feel that they're wasting their votes on a third party candidate because we see such dismal values for voting for third party. It's amazing Ross Perot was able to garner 18.9% of the vote in 1992 with that in mind.
The way to break the vicious circle is through the alternative vote where there's no such thing as "throwing away your vote". I believe that proportional voting would barely dent it (because you'd still be throwing away your vote).
by Verified Atheist on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 3:04pm
I don't quite understand why you believe proportional voting (percent of electoral votes to equal the percent of votes garnered) is the same as throwing away one's vote? If I get 32% of the electoral votes based on 32% of the popular votes, that doesn't seem like my vote was thrown away. It may not lead to a victory (somebody has to lose) when combined with all the other electoral votes from other states, but it may mean victory when all are tallied. It might even be the case where in my state, my candidate get whomped and receives say only 2 of the possible 29 electoral votes, but those two electoral votes, when added with the other states' is the difference between victory and failure.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 3:33pm
It's not that proportional voting per se is the same as throwing away one's vote (or more specifically requires such a judgment call for those not preferring one of the two leading candidates). It's that any system that doesn't allow preferential voting (of which the alternative vote is one kind) results in throwing away one's vote when one doesn't vote for one of the two most likely-to-win candidates. To be clear, preferential voting can easily be incorporated into a proportional voting scheme, but unless it is, the proportional voting scheme would still have the "throwing away one's vote when voting third party" problem.
To use your example (but I'll lower your 32% to 23% which is still greater than has happened in my lifetime for a US presidential race). If you vote for the third party candidate ("C") under a proportional voting system using the current simple forced choice voting scheme, then you've "thrown away" your ability to help decide whether candidate "A" or candidate "B" will win. Preferential voting (which could be included in proportional voting) does not suffer from that problem, because you can say that you prefer C the most, then A, then B, thus specifying that you prefer A over B.
by Verified Atheist on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 3:52pm
okay, i get what you are saying. preferential would definitely be a boost to third (and fourth and fifth) party candidates, as well as make people feel assured that they weren't doing a Nader on the 2nd preference candidate.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 4:02pm
Wouldn't it be easier to just stop exhibiting the behavior you describe?
I think people stay home because they perceive that it doesn't matter which one of the people wins ... nobody offers anything worth a shit. Not that their vote might be cast for the person who doesn't win and therefore "would not matter."
The voting scheme minutiae doesn't seem to really make a difference as far as excluded political ideas go. The media decides what to disseminate through the mass media. Howie Kurtz put it bluntly not long ago (I think in relation to Ron Paul ... too lazy to check) and said the Media's role is to discern who is not worthy and kick them out of the race. The two parties negotiate with the television networks over who will be allowed to participate in every debate that goes on national broadcast. And they set arbitrary fundraising or poll-number bars to "prove" a candidate is serious enough to participate (because getting the support to qualify for the ballot is apparently not "serious" anymore). Without equal ability to present ideas to the bulk of Americans through mass media, any person hoping to run is already irreparably hobbled no matter how you re-jigger the voting.
I think by and large when many Democrats look at reforming the voting system aren't trying to fix that part - or very specifically don't think there is anything wrong with that part at all. For a person who accepts as given that "America is a two party system" and is totally stoked with that, reforms are focused at trying to make sure something like Florida 2000 never happens to them again.
I like the idea and think it could make a big difference with the state and congressional representation ... just don't think any of them would change much when it comes to presidential politics (I *am* very skeptical of some of the replacement ideas suggested along with doing away with the electoral college though).
by kgb999 on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 6:27pm
No, because I can either vote for a third party candidate or I can express my preference for Obama over a Republican-to-be-named-later, but I can't do both. That's the meaningful origin of the vicious circle. Over time, it just gets amplified. Watch this video to see why:
by Verified Atheist on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 7:11pm
See below for a non-clipped version of this video.
by Verified Atheist on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 7:15pm
Do you mean came in (a distant) second?
In the history of the U.S., no third party or independent candidate has ever even come close to winning the presidency, unless you want to count George Washington.
by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 9:32am
Er, yeah, that's exactly what I meant!
by Verified Atheist on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 10:07am
In the next two weeks I will most probably do a blog on this which shall be of importance to the hundred folks who scan it. hahahaha
Let us go back to 1948 in my time machine.
Wallace would have been my favorite.
I would have walked over hot coals and such to support him.
No not George Wallace for chrissakes!
And a then there was Dewey who would have been out of the questions.
And of course there were the Dixicrats who were KKK backed.
It ended up rather interesting.
I mean here was a feller right out of some Marlowe play named TRUE-MAN.
Well screw him!
Well, Harry ended up desegregating the entire military-industrial complex by executive order. I mean he was from Missouri for chrissakes and liked to use the N word all the time besides 'manure' which Bess explained was a much better word than the S word which he liked to use before that!
And then, against the counsel of one of the greatest Americans who have ever lived--and I mean ever--Harry decided that the Jews who lost at least 6 million and probably another three million under communism--should have a homeland.
I could write three hundred pages on Marshall and his sins compared to what he accomplished but I run out of time.
I wonder.
I just wonder after only a short decade in a time machine, how bad Obama could look!
George w was an idiot. And Rove can sp;in and spin but shit. George W was an idiot and his VP was evil incarnate.
If there is a third party candidate, it should be Ron Paul who is more evil than Cheney could ever hope to be and will never be elected.
If a Nader shows up, he will never be elected either.
And I think that a Paul candicacy would ensure the re-election of Barry.
In the end; I think that Barry will be absolved of any sins the left have to attach to the Obama Administration.
I pray and hope that Paul runs as a third party and any fourth party will achieve less than Nader or Wallace (the good man) could ever have accomplished.
What was the question?
by Richard Day on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 5:53pm
There was no question, Richard...hahahaha. I am pleased, though, that you found this news item posting of mine a good place to do free associating and stream of consciousness as preparation for a future blog entry.
by artappraiser on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 6:20pm
I have no idea how you became a friend of mine in this virtual universe. hahahahaha
I had a nothing blog--most of them are nothings anyway--and Ducky took to two of them actually. A couple of years ago he hated me. As usual I said the wrong thing at the wrong time...so what is new?
Now he is one of the few who really really likes my digressions. hahahaha
If I may espouse....
History is strange and it is such a wonderful animal.
You could take sound bites and make HST look like the worst man who ever lived!
Noam would have little problems coming to this conclusion as he has.
But damn, look at Colin Powell for chrissakes!
Colin has no sins as far as I am concerned and yet some would brand him with this Stevenson-patterned speech at the UN and yet Gingrinch--one of the worst human beings who has ever traversed the planet earth--would appoint Bolton as Secretary of State.
Harry accomplished stuff--in the jargon of the bar patron!
HST is one of the greatest human beings who ever sat in office and Marshall who became his nemeses (but who came back for more) could not agree on a basic human rights issue.
Life is not simple--or anyone could do it!
I was naughty the other day and used language I should have not used.
But I was attacking the premise not the premiser.
I might even do a blog on new rules for blogging.
If you recall, it was Craig Crawford's rules that I used years ago for demonstration.
Oh HST used the 'ultimate weapon'. It did not really accomplish more mayhem than the Dresdon bombings but I have read countervailing accounts of this mishap.
I just wonder, what is history and what is sin and what is evil and what is a real leader to do?
I am sorry to go on and on about this short squib, but I am thinking out loud or is it out virtual?
We say Barry should have done this or should have done that!
I have viewed videos recently that demonstrate that Clinton and Albreit really really really wished to invade Iraq.
But neither Clinton nor his Secretary of State would have made anything close to the profits that Cheney's old corp would have made off of this invasion.
HST made nothing from Hiroshima nor Nagasaki nor the Executive Order that set men freer than the Supreme Court could ever do. HST made not a dime from the establishment of Israel as a state.
Prove me wrong later on.
Demonstrate to me that Barry has made or will ever make a hundred bucks off of Wall Street.
Oh that is enough for now.
I have Hitch in my veins right now.
by Richard Day on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 7:05pm
Stanley Greenberg, a major Democratic pollster, says unhappy and undecided voters make a third-party presidential candidate likely in 2012, introducing uncertainty into the battle to control Congress.
That first sentence in the first article makes no sense. Other than some coattail effect, how does a third-party presidential candidate affect who controls congress?
The American Elect is also presidential third party only. Its site even says the third party candidate should pick a VP from one of the other parties?
And USAToday? I played their very, very dangerous Candidate Match Game a couple of days ago, choosing None of the Above about 80% of the time Who did it match me with? 1) Newt Gingrich; 2) Ron Paul; and, 3) Michelle Bachmann. Slightly amusing for me but I was very recently surprised to learn how much confidence too many people have in how these sorts of 'games' label them. It makes me wonder how many people will accept their assigned candidate.
by EmmaZahn on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 6:52pm
The first thing that comes to mind is the psychological effect of not voting for one's normal party. Even in the years of "throw the bums out," incumbents win 80%+ of the time. This is because Republicans (or those leaning that way) still vote Republican and Democrats (or those leaning that way) still vote Democratic, even if they hate Congress. The moment a Republican / Democrat chooses in their mind to vote not for the Republican / Democrat nominee for president, it opens up the possibility psychologically to not vote for the other Republicans / Democrats on the ballot. Remember there are many "third" party candidates usually on the ballot for these seats (who get like .5% of the vote), not to mention that other candidate from the other party. In a tight race, if 7% of the voters throw their vote to the other side, or to the Libertarian or Green Party candidate, and then to the third party candidate for president, it could make all the difference.
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 9:05pm
Sadly, we're about to lose our only truly third party Senator (Barney Frank) that we have, or both of them if you include Joe Lieberman in the definition of "third party". ("Party of one"?)
by Verified Atheist on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 9:11pm
Hey VA, Barney Frank is not a Senator, he is a Representative in the House, and the D you see after his name signifies his membership, (long time membership) in the Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders is the other Independent, is he retiring?
by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 10:44am
Blah. No, that's just me getting the two mixed up in my head. You're right, (hopefully) we'll still have Bernie Sanders in the Senate in 2012.
by Verified Atheist on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 11:23am
The moment a Republican / Democrat chooses in their mind to vote not for the Republican / Democrat nominee for president, it opens up the possibility psychologically to not vote for the other Republicans / Democrats on the ballot.
Your state must be different than Georgia There are not many Democrats much less a third party on the ballots here and only for national offices and almost none for any at the state and local levels.
Third parties never trickle down well. They just get co-opted by one of the major parties whenever they reach a certain point.
by EmmaZahn on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 11:04pm
Don't know much about Georgia politics, but I looked at the 2008 results.
In the US Senate race Saxby Chamblis won 49.8% of the vote, Jim Martin the Democrat won 46.8%, and Allen Buckley the Libertarian won 3.4%. This caused a run off election in December between Chamblis and Martin, who won 57.4% and 42.6% respectively.
Had Jim Martin been able to get another 121,000 votes from the 3,751,450 who turned out, he would have become the Senator. Would there have been this many who had voted for Chamblis and Buckley who might have pulled the lever for Martin had they been able to vote for a third party president rather than McCain or Obama? Who knows.
On the House side, 6 Democrats won (2 were uncontested) and 7 Republicans won. Don't know, but off the top of my head, I would assume most of those Democrats are of the blue dog variety. But at least it shows that folks in Georgia can pull the lever for someone with a D next to their name. Two of the Dems won with nearly 70% of the vote.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 11:58am
Under the circumstances I think Jim Martin did as well as he was ever going to in the 2008 general. Since only voters in the general election can vote in runoffs, the percentage spread there is much more representative of straight party line voting.
2008 is maybe not the best year to use to make your point. It is difficult to imagine a third party candidate who would have increased turnout more than Obama did.
And on the House side, you know what happens when you assume. Of the six Democrats, four are black, two white. The two uncontested Democratic seats are the result of extreme gerrymandering along racial lines.. Of the two you would consider Blue Dogs, Jim Marshall lost his seat in 2010 and John Barrow's district is being carved up in the redistricting after the 2010 census in which Georgia picked up a new seat in the house. It will be filled in the 2012 elections. The new 14th district proposed by the Georgia legislature is pending approval by the Justice Department. It is a reliably Republican region.
In fewer words, the percentages of votes in extremely gerrymandered districts really do not mean that much. For more on that:
Southern white Democrats are becoming an endangered political species by Vernon Jones
by EmmaZahn on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 4:14pm
If Romney gets the nomination, wouldn't there be more of a likelihood of a third party candidate from the radical right/tea party than from the Republican moderates? But then, if a Bachmann or Perry or Issa or DeMint 'goes rogue' and runs, then what's to stop a quasi-moderate like Bloomberg from making it a four-way race?
Imagine how pissed off the tea-partiers would be if Obama won re-election with 26.5 % of the vote in a four-way race ... There would be a lot of exploding heads.
Of course, the next thing to ponder is, when does the GOP leadership call Jeb Bush in as Deus ex machina? On the third or fourth ballot at a deadlocked GOP convention?
by MrSmith1 on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 8:39pm
And it looks like Gary Johnson is heading to the Libertarians for the cycle ... he's loads better as a candidate then Bob Barr was.
loosely related because Johnson brought it up ... this might be the most breathtaking Newt quote I've seen yet.
by kgb999 on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 3:28am
Right below the quote is this:
Did you see that?
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 12:02pm
Obviously not. Notice how that bit you highlight is right below the quote and indicates that the correction has been brought to their attention by "several readers?" Temporal issues are a bitch sometimes ... I hear the quantum guys are working on it.
I guess this speaks well of
HuffPo'sRepublican-candidates.org's approach to getting the correction disseminated ... not so well of their editors [Edit: the article I copied the quote from is still un-corrected - and cross-linked through their weekly election roundup. Soooooo maybe the approach isn't working so well after all ... and HuffPo's editors suck x2.].Wonder where that quote tracks back to .... and if it's a full fabrication/misquote or paraphrased hyperbole or what. Based on the article, it kind of looked like something HuffPo pulled from somewhere, not the specific issue Johnson raised ... interesting.
by kgb999 on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 2:50pm
My sources (quantum and otherwise) tell me that the Illuminati are somehow involved in the dissemination of this quote.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 3:38pm
That's exactly what the Priory of Sion want you to think.
by Verified Atheist on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 3:57pm
FYI: My sources have just told me you are a blasphemer and must be ignored.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 4:14pm
Reposting a video I embedded above since that one seemed to get cut off by the margin:
by Verified Atheist on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 7:15pm
If only we had a Queen Lioness, rather than hoping that Gorilla and Tiger would change the system in order to lessen their grip on power.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 7:24pm
Assuming there is someone on the ballot next November you agree could better represent your objectives in the office than Obama (not necessarily assured at this point I am guessing) then you are the one who would be wasting your vote ... and expressly agreeing you support the system exactly as it is.
I don't care really, it's your vote. But your decision matrix seems simple-minded to me. In every instance the decision is carried based on a strong chance that something you have been conditioned to fear most of all may or may not occur supposedly based solely on your vote. So you knowingly vote against your own self interests if voting such has the "best chance" of not realizing your conditioned fear. Ironically, everyone who is knowingly voting against their own self interests on the other side in support of that which you fear most are doing so because that person represents the "best chance" of not realizing that which they have been conditioned to fear most of all.
And of course, neither of you are technically wrong when you holler that the other side has someone who's probably going to act against our best interests ... the only thing you really disagree on is that the candidate you've totally agreed to support despite recognizing doing so is against your own self interest isn't quite as against everyone's self interest as their guy who they are supporting despite recognizing doing so is against their self interest - which at that point really becomes largely a matter of taste on what types of policy you'd more prefer to see get all fucked up for the next four years - as opposed to just marginally fucked up or flat-out ignored.
The net result is that everyone gets an assured outcome that will always be against our own self interests. And then y'all do it again next time.
Fucking brilliant. Yup. Genius, that. Couldn't ever just stop being stupid ... im-possible. They don't even have to pretend anymore, they've got you guys on autopilot.
by kgb999 on Sun, 12/18/2011 - 12:44am
On one hand, we disagree about how to best use our "one choice". Given candidates A, B, and C where it's clear that C is not going to get more than 20% of the vote, I like to use my vote to specify my preference for A over B (or B over A). You think it's better to use that vote to specify C over A or B. Reasonable people can disagree, preferably politely, but many here have expressed a feeling that politeness is limiting or something like that.
However, my primary point is that we shouldn't be forced into that limited choice. We should both be able to say that we prefer C over A or B, but that we prefer A over B. That's my point, and that's the point of the video I embedded.
by Verified Atheist on Sun, 12/18/2011 - 10:55am
I have to say that the preferential approach does make more sense the more I think about it (although the issues of counting voting ballots seems to be a big hurdle). Part of kgb's response seems to also be built on the premise that there is very little difference between A, B and C. An attitude that has been growing stronger in this country that is partly based on the facts - there is not much difference in the big scheme of things between Mitt and Obama (Perry and Bachmann) that is another matter. But this no-difference-between-politicians (which includes all-politicians-are-corrupt meme) can be seen as an outcome of the winner take all approach. If we had three or four or even five serious candidates for the presidency and Congress over the past three decades, where people could rate them in order of preference, then we might not have so many with the attitude of what we face is a voting decision "which at that point really becomes largely a matter of taste on what types of policy you'd more prefer to see get all fucked up for the next four years - as opposed to just marginally fucked up or flat-out ignored."
by Elusive Trope on Sun, 12/18/2011 - 11:45am