Obama is not a good speaker and doesn't seem that intellegent

[Super Dude]

How do you reconcile that viewpoint with your seemingly loyal support to a corporatist Democrat party?

"The enemy of my enemy....." 

I live in the real world, where there are two parties in power.  I choose the Democrats because they most closely match my social and economic views.

I also live in the real world, thank you

I'm just saying...I think the events of the last decade have shown us that we need to think outside of the box. Sure, voting third party won't do anything substantial this election cycle; but as more and more people realize that neither party serves the interests of the 99% -- if I may use #OWS parlance -- I think strong showings for third party candidates would at least be a symbolic gesture that we aren't satisfied with the duopoly.

I wasn't accusing you of not living in the real world.  I apologize if it came out that way, that was not my intent at all.  Many of my friends have tried to convince me to vote for fringe candidates, but I just can't bring myself to do it because I feel like it's a wasted vote.  Believe me, I've heard all of the arguments.  I guess my votes, especially over the last 12 or so years have been more geared towards trying to remember that the person we put in office is going to have a lasting influence on society with the supreme court justices they appoint. 

So when I vote for Democrats in the national elections I do so knowing that while they do not necessarily reflect my personal political and social view with 100% acuity, they WILL most likely appoint judges that will vote more closely to the way I think and feel than a Republican will.  So, you know, I go into that voting booth with a clothespin on my nose, do what I've gotta do, then I live with.

I'm with you on this one.  I don't like doing it like that, but honestly I would feel as you do that I'm wasting my vote otherwise.

[Scheavo]

How do you reconcile that viewpoint with your seemingly loyal support to a corporatist Democrat party?

"The enemy of my enemy....." 

I live in the real world, where there are two parties in power.  I choose the Democrats because they most closely match my social and economic views.

I also live in the real world, thank you

I'm just saying...I think the events of the last decade have shown us that we need to think outside of the box. Sure, voting third party won't do anything substantial this election cycle; but as more and more people realize that neither party serves the interests of the 99% -- if I may use #OWS parlance -- I think strong showings for third party candidates would at least be a symbolic gesture that we aren't satisfied with the duopoly.

I wasn't accusing you of not living in the real world.  I apologize if it came out that way, that was not my intent at all.  Many of my friends have tried to convince me to vote for fringe candidates, but I just can't bring myself to do it because I feel like it's a wasted vote.  Believe me, I've heard all of the arguments.  I guess my votes, especially over the last 12 or so years have been more geared towards trying to remember that the person we put in office is going to have a lasting influence on society with the supreme court justices they appoint. 

So when I vote for Democrats in the national elections I do so knowing that while they do not necessarily reflect my personal political and social view with 100% acuity, they WILL most likely appoint judges that will vote more closely to the way I think and feel than a Republican will.  So, you know, I go into that voting booth with a clothespin on my nose, do what I've gotta do, then I live with.

If not for the fact that this post as the word "Democrat" in it instead of "Republican," I might have mistakenly thought that I wrote it if someone just sent me the quote without saying who it was from. 

Can we all just say fuck the two party system already?

[Super Dude]

On that note, does anyone here think there's a realistic chance that a multiparty system could actually work here? Just curious, 'specially about getting some pros and cons up in this bitch.

[antigoon]

How do you reconcile that viewpoint with your seemingly loyal support to a corporatist Democrat party?

"The enemy of my enemy....." 

I live in the real world, where there are two parties in power.  I choose the Democrats because they most closely match my social and economic views.

I also live in the real world, thank you

I'm just saying...I think the events of the last decade have shown us that we need to think outside of the box. Sure, voting third party won't do anything substantial this election cycle; but as more and more people realize that neither party serves the interests of the 99% -- if I may use #OWS parlance -- I think strong showings for third party candidates would at least be a symbolic gesture that we aren't satisfied with the duopoly.

I wasn't accusing you of not living in the real world.  I apologize if it came out that way, that was not my intent at all.  Many of my friends have tried to convince me to vote for fringe candidates, but I just can't bring myself to do it because I feel like it's a wasted vote.  Believe me, I've heard all of the arguments.  I guess my votes, especially over the last 12 or so years have been more geared towards trying to remember that the person we put in office is going to have a lasting influence on society with the supreme court justices they appoint. 

So when I vote for Democrats in the national elections I do so knowing that while they do not necessarily reflect my personal political and social view with 100% acuity, they WILL most likely appoint judges that will vote more closely to the way I think and feel than a Republican will.  So, you know, I go into that voting booth with a clothespin on my nose, do what I've gotta do, then I live with.

I definitely respect that view. I toy with it myself from time to time. The court appointment argument is definitely the strongest and most persuasive one in your favor.

How do you reconcile that viewpoint with your seemingly loyal support to a corporatist Democrat party?

"The enemy of my enemy....." 

I live in the real world, where there are two parties in power.  I choose the Democrats because they most closely match my social and economic views.

I also live in the real world, thank you

I'm just saying...I think the events of the last decade have shown us that we need to think outside of the box. Sure, voting third party won't do anything substantial this election cycle; but as more and more people realize that neither party serves the interests of the 99% -- if I may use #OWS parlance -- I think strong showings for third party candidates would at least be a symbolic gesture that we aren't satisfied with the duopoly.

I wasn't accusing you of not living in the real world.  I apologize if it came out that way, that was not my intent at all.  Many of my friends have tried to convince me to vote for fringe candidates, but I just can't bring myself to do it because I feel like it's a wasted vote.  Believe me, I've heard all of the arguments.  I guess my votes, especially over the last 12 or so years have been more geared towards trying to remember that the person we put in office is going to have a lasting influence on society with the supreme court justices they appoint. 

So when I vote for Democrats in the national elections I do so knowing that while they do not necessarily reflect my personal political and social view with 100% acuity, they WILL most likely appoint judges that will vote more closely to the way I think and feel than a Republican will.  So, you know, I go into that voting booth with a clothespin on my nose, do what I've gotta do, then I live with.

If not for the fact that this post as the word "Democrat" in it instead of "Republican," I might have mistakenly thought that I wrote it if someone just sent me the quote without saying who it was from. 

Can we all just say fuck the two party system already?

YES.

On that note, does anyone here think there's a realistic chance that a multiparty system could actually work here? Just curious, 'specially about getting some pros and cons up in this bitch.

What do you mean? Like could it ever be implemented? Or would it work like it does elsewhere in the world?

[Super Dude]

Could it ever be implemented (realistically, and I don't just mean in terms of breaking the present duopoly) in our current, non-parliamentary system?

[PraXis]

You can have more parties, but they require lots of money. Ross Perot did very well for a third-party candidate and he turned out to be right. He was also a billionaire.

[kirksnosehair]

PraXis makes a good point here.  Ross Perot did do extremely well, but the problem is he funded his own campaign with his own very deep pockets, so he's right.  Another party COULD enter the picture, but HUGE amounts of money are required to actually get any traction.

[Scheavo]

PraXis makes a good point here.  Ross Perot did do extremely well, but the problem is he funded his own campaign with his own very deep pockets, so he's right.  Another party COULD enter the picture, but HUGE amounts of money are required to actually get any traction.

People have more control over state governments

State governments can call a constitutional convention and bypass congress, and amend the constitution.

Amendments: parliamentary system, public funding of elections and very strict limits set on private funding.

Easy? No,  but it's possible.

[El Barto]

Consider that there were several congresses that had major 3rd and 4th party blocks. The system supported multiple parties at the start,  but gradually consolidated down to the current 2.  Based on that,  no,  I don't think it could happen.   The current two party system seems to be the end result of American democracy.

[snapple]

On that note, does anyone here think there's a realistic chance that a multiparty system could actually work here? Just curious, 'specially about getting some pros and cons up in this bitch.

In short - no.

I'll finish my dinner and come back to this, I just wanted to make the note here so I remember to come back.

[GuineaPig]

Here's a good set of trivia questions: which candidate was the last third-party candidate to win a state?  How many states did he win?  What was the focus of his campaign?


It also makes it abundantly clear why there aren't viable third party candidates.

[kirksnosehair]

Wasn't it Ralph Nader?

[GuineaPig]

Nope.

[rumborak]

On that note, does anyone here think there's a realistic chance that a multiparty system could actually work here? Just curious, 'specially about getting some pros and cons up in this bitch.

In short - no.

I would have to agree, and it's not even an issue of the United States specifically really. Changes in such integral assignments of power usually only happen during major upheaval of a country.

That said, I don't actually think a switch to parliamentary would be necessary. If parties were allowed to form coalitions in order to get the majority necessary, that would go a long way. Members of administration would be assigned according to the parties' relative importance in the coalition, with the president coming from the biggest one.

rumborak

[El Barto]

That said, I don't actually think a switch to parliamentary would be necessary. If parties were allowed to form coalitions in order to get the majority necessary, that would go a long way. Members of administration would be assigned according to the parties' relative importance in the coalition, with the president coming from the biggest one.

rumborak

That's not a parliamentary system?

[King Postwhore]

Here's a good set of trivia questions: which candidate was the last third-party candidate to win a state?  How many states did he win?  What was the focus of his campaign?


It also makes it abundantly clear why there aren't viable third party candidates.

I looked up Ross Perot thinking he was the last but damn if he didn't yet still got 19%.

[GuineaPig]

It was George Wallace in '68, running on a pro-segregation platform.  He won Georgia, Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana.

[livehard]

So does anyone actully think that obama is a good speaker?  Does anyone else find his soeeches kind of shallow?

[rumborak]

That said, I don't actually think a switch to parliamentary would be necessary. If parties were allowed to form coalitions in order to get the majority necessary, that would go a long way. Members of administration would be assigned according to the parties' relative importance in the coalition, with the president coming from the biggest one.

rumborak

That's not a parliamentary system?

Not really, right? You still have a president, only that he is somewhat bound to nominate his cabinet according to the coalition. A parliamentary system entails a lot more, i.e. an actual parliament.
BTW, apparently Brazil, also a presidential system, has coalitions. So, it's been done before.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

Really? I mean I've studied Brazil's political structure, and I thought it was considered a parliament?

[kirksnosehair]

It was George Wallace in '68, running on a pro-segregation platform.  He won Georgia, Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana.

Thanks for answering.  I forgot all about George Wallace.  It's interesting that it seems that what is required in order to motivate sufficient interest in third party candidates, at least, enough interest for them to actually win a few states and be legitimately viable, is fairly significant social unrest. 

[Super Dude]

And even then they fall short of successful election, it seems.

[hefdaddy42]

So does anyone actully think that obama is a good speaker?  Does anyone else find his soeeches kind of shallow?

I don't think there is any question that he is a gifted speaker.  That's one huge reason that he got elected.

Whether you like what he speaks about is another matter entirely.

[rumborak]

Yeah, criticizing him on his public speaking abilities is almost the single most off-the-target thing one can criticize about him. I think the accusation that he's not black enough has almost more merit than saying he's not a good public speaker.

rumborak

[Perpetual Change]

I don't think he's a good public speaker. I don't find him captivating at all. Sorry.

[rumborak]

I don't find him particularly captivating either. But he's able to get subtleties across in his points, and that for me is something that makes someone a good public speaker.

rumborak

[El Barto]

So does anyone actully think that obama is a good speaker?  Does anyone else find his soeeches kind of shallow?

He's a politician.  Even the best of them still come across as shallow.  St. Reagan is lauded for being able to connect with people,  yet even his speeches were written in a style that was crafted far more for style than substance. 

[kirksnosehair]

So does anyone actully think that obama is a good speaker?  Does anyone else find his soeeches kind of shallow?

I don't think there is any question that he is a gifted speaker.  That's one huge reason that he got elected.

Whether you like what he speaks about is another matter entirely.

[livehard]

So does anyone actully think that obama is a good speaker?  Does anyone else find his soeeches kind of shallow?

I don't think there is any question that he is a gifted speaker.  That's one huge reason that he got elected.

Whether you like what he speaks about is another matter entirely.

Not quite a reasonable justification.  There's no doubt his speaking skills induced an emotional reaction in some people that caused them to vote for him.  But people buy kanye west albums, but that doens't necissarily mean he's a great musician.

When you really look at his speaches and his off-the-cuff public speaking, he seems pretty bad.  I don't remember ever hearing another president pretty obviously using a black accent/ebonics or saying some of the most intellectually vacant comments.

By the way, off topic: how come all the people that went after how much golf Bush played are now totally silent about the amount of golf and vaca Bush took?

[El Barto]

By the way, off topic: how come all the people that went after how much golf Bush played are now totally silent about the amount of golf and vaca Bush took?

We had this discussion about a year ago.  At this point,  Obama is still strictly amateurish compared to Chimpy.

So far, President Obama has taken 61 vacation days after 31 months in office. At this point in their presidencies, George W. Bush had spent 180 days at his ranch where his staff often joined him for meetings. And Ronald Reagan had taken 112 vacation days at his ranch.

https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/17/eveningnews/main20093801.shtml

[rumborak]

Using George W Bush as a comparison hardly ever works. The other person always comes out as a winner.

rumborak

[livehard]

Im not saying that playing golf is bad.  I thought when Bush quit golf out of respect for the fallen troops it was nice, but really unecissary.  But if you're gonna bitch about Bush playing that much, you have to go after Obama as things have really gone in the shitter and he's playing 3 times as much.

[El Barto]

Actually,  I didn't even know Bush played golf at all,  so I never bitched about it.  I'm merely pointing out that if we're going to compare presidential down time,  Obama has a very long ways to go before he approaches a Bush level of slacking.

[rumborak]

If I remember history correctly, things had gone to the shitter before Obama took office. He inherited massive debt, two unwinnable wars and a recession from his predecessor.

EDIT: I didn't know that either played golf.

rumborak

[livehard]

The lets blame bush line is getting old.  This economy has only gotten worse, so has the wars.  He's been in office for 3 years, no more excuses about your predecessor.  As I was just saying in the other thread, Reagan cut double digit inflation in half and started turning things around in about a year and a half.  And he didn't constantly bitch and blame Carter for his presidency.