0
Darius11

Do you think it will make a significant difference if the president is democrat or republican?

Recommended Posts

Do you think it will make a significant difference if the president is democrat or republican?

My answer is no i am one of those crazy conspiracy guys who thinks the not 1% but the .0001% who control money and industry control everything.

I read the arguments on here and i see the passion and energy i am wondering if there are believers still who think if there guy will win things will change in a noticeable way.

I know its hard to put a level on what is significant but work with me i will trust your judgment.
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honestly, I think the only thing that scares me is the idea of a religious fundamentalist becoming President. Typically, those people are more frequently Republicans and I could see that influence affecting my life, but other than that I doubt there's much of a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yoink

Honestly, I think the only thing that scares me is the idea of a religious fundamentalist becoming President. Typically, those people are more frequently Republicans and I could see that influence affecting my life, but other than that I doubt there's much of a difference.



THIS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darius11

Do you think it will make a significant difference if the president is democrat or republican?

My answer is no i am one of those crazy conspiracy guys who thinks the not 1% but the .0001% who control money and industry control everything.



There are more issues involved than simply who controls money and industry. There are social issues which have almost zero money and industry impacts, but have huge effects on hundreds of millions of people.

So, yes, I do think it matters. I think it especially matters when you take under consideration the long term effects a President can have on social policy through his appointment of judges and nomination of Supreme Court Justices.

Yes. It makes quite a bit of difference.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yoink

Honestly, I think the only thing that scares me is the idea of a religious fundamentalist becoming President. Typically, those people are more frequently Republicans and I could see that influence affecting my life, but other than that I doubt there's much of a difference.



Spot on.
Never try to eat more than you can lift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, yes, I do think it matters. I think it especially matters when you take under consideration the long term effects a
President can have on social policy through his appointment of judges and nomination of Supreme Court Justices.

Now that's really scary

Gone fishing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Conundrum

***Honestly, I think the only thing that scares me is the idea of a religious fundamentalist becoming President. Typically, those people are more frequently Republicans and I could see that influence affecting my life, but other than that I doubt there's much of a difference.



THIS.
All this does is prompt the democrats to portray every republican candidate (whether true or not) as excessively religious. Which is already the status quo in campaigning.

Disagree - I am fearful of any candidate that is so fanatical about their social positions that they are unreasonable. I don't care if it's a religious fanaticism or otherwise.

I think the biggest effect party has on the president is long term judicial appointments - since it seems either party attempts to find socially fanatical appointees that don't support the law. Fortunately, many justices, once they get in, seem to attempt to be non-biased and law based - but not all by any means.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rehmwa


All this does is prompt the democrats to portray every republican candidate (whether true or not) as excessively religious. Which is already the status quo in campaigning.



But the Republicans generally seem to do nothing to deny it - in fact they tend to see deeply christian families as a base of their support.
I agree they'd be better off if this wasn't the case, as it seems to be now.

For an example (and not wishing to start a religious argument), there have been politicians running for positions who have stated their intent to make abortion illegal based on their belief in the Bible. To me, that's simply WRONG. Not the abortion issue itself, but that they use their position to foist their personal BELIEFS on a population. Things like that would open a whole host of nasty precedents.

Separation of religion and government MUST remain a thing.


Quote

I am fearful of any candidate that is so fanatical about their social positions that they are unreasonable. I don't care if it's a religious fanaticism or otherwise.



I couldn't agree more. The problem is that the 2 parties have become caricatures of themselves with each being either extremely right or left wing with very little in the idea of moderation.

The most depressing thing about the recent elections is that more moderate positions and overall cooperation seemed to be the message the people put forward but as far as the parties are concerned it's just business as usual. [:/]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yoink

in fact they tend to see deeply christian families as a base of their support. ....... politicians running for positions who have stated their intent to make abortion illegal based on their belief in the Bible.



well, then it appears they are stating an intent to do this based on the beliefs of their constituents. (i.e., the voters want them to or they wouldn't have voted for them. ) That's a bit more difficult to reject out of hand when they are supposed to support their base. I'm not a fan of it either (for this topic), but that is the system.

I think the real issue is that voters think it's right to allow government to be way too into social manipulation in areas that allows them to get into issues that should be best left to the individual. In other words, when you let the government take over in some areas that we want them to, we shouldn't be surprised when they also do it in areas we don't want them to.


Quote

The problem is that the 2 parties have become caricatures of themselves with each being either extremely right or left wing with very little in the idea of moderation.

The most depressing thing about the recent elections is that more moderate positions and overall cooperation seemed to be the message the people put forward but as far as the parties are concerned it's just business as usual. [:/]




yes (bold)

when the parties are mainly defined by the extreme social positions that their constituents want to force on the rest of us, we get extremism. It's pretty much voters that think they are smarter/nicer/morally superior than anyone else feeling compelled to force their world view on everyone else.

It's a lack of trust in others to decide and live for themselves. We need to let individuals be themselves and stop sticking our noses into it. But that also means letting people be responsible for their decision and suffer the consequences of their decisions.

I trust others to make their own decisions. I don't want to pay for it. I don't want to clean up after them if they choose poorly either. That's their responsibility. What's so hard about that?

I trust you to:
- decide what to do with your body
- own a firearm
- decide what kind of light bulb you want to use
- own any property
- pick who you want to partner with
- etc
etc
etc
etc

I just want the same respect. Freedom means choice - responsibility - ownership - risks

you can't legislate a risk free society without giving up choice

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Do you think it will make a significant difference if the president is democrat or republican?

Yes. A president and a congress all of the same party is a disaster. Want to outlaw gay marriage? A republican congress plus a republican president will consider that a mandate. Want to make it impossible to begin any large construction project? A democratic congress plus president will add so many labor, environmental and cultural restrictions it will become impossible. Any time you get a single party in charge they decide that "The People Have Spoken" and every asinine idea they have ever had is now a commandment.

Probably the ideal case is a split Congress and a third party President (libertarian perhaps?) but that's never going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>Do you think it will make a significant difference if the president is democrat or republican?

Yes. A president and a congress all of the same party is a disaster. Want to outlaw gay marriage? A republican congress plus a republican president will consider that a mandate. Want to make it impossible to begin any large construction project? A democratic congress plus president will add so many labor, environmental and cultural restrictions it will become impossible. Any time you get a single party in charge they decide that "The People Have Spoken" and every asinine idea they have ever had is now a commandment.

Probably the ideal case is a split Congress and a third party President (libertarian perhaps?) but that's never going to happen.



When only 36% of eligible voters turn out to vote, it suggests that either most Americans don't think it will make a difference in their lives, or Gruber was correct.

Mandate? About 18% of eligible voters voted for the party that "won".
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>Mandate? About 18% of eligible voters voted for the party that "won".

And they will take that as an indication that THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN. Heck, it would be a slap in the face to voters to NOT ban gay marriage after that.



I cringe every time I hear a dimwit state "the American people feel that...." - I don't care who you are, you don't speak for the American people in they way you are implying.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>Mandate? About 18% of eligible voters voted for the party that "won".

And they will take that as an indication that THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN. Heck, it would be a slap in the face to voters to NOT ban gay marriage after that.



I wish there was a mechanism to vote no confidence when you feel they all suck as they often do. Not sure how the mechanism would work, you cant keep voting no confidence forever someone has to take charge.

The real question, is there anyone doing it better then us, without sacrificing our principles of freedom? What are they doing different?

I will be the first to admit that i am not an expert in current governments and if there is a perfect example some where out there i do not know about it. Asking the people on here?
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>The real question, is there anyone doing it better then us, without sacrificing our
>principles of freedom? What are they doing different?

Instant-runoff voting would at least remove many of the benefits that the parties now enjoy, and would tend to make third party candidates more electable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>The real question, is there anyone doing it better then us, without sacrificing our
>principles of freedom? What are they doing different?

Instant-runoff voting would at least remove many of the benefits that the parties now enjoy, and would tend to make third party candidates more electable.



(the following is the best change sugestion I have heard in a long time)

Close Washington
Set up, in every state for every congress critter, a small auditorium style office where congress conducts business via web meetings. In their own districts.
Mandatory access to the meetings will be allowed by each congress critters constituents only!
This way, they have to fact their people each and every day
They go home each night and just think of the operating money that would save!

This de-centralization of power would help

I know it would never happen but I like the idea
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc

***>The real question, is there anyone doing it better then us, without sacrificing our
>principles of freedom? What are they doing different?

Instant-runoff voting would at least remove many of the benefits that the parties now enjoy, and would tend to make third party candidates more electable.



(the following is the best change sugestion I have heard in a long time)

Close Washington
Set up, in every state for every congress critter, a small auditorium style office where congress conducts business via web meetings. In their own districts.
Mandatory access to the meetings will be allowed by each congress critters constituents only!
This way, they have to fact their people each and every day
They go home each night and just think of the operating money that would save!

This de-centralization of power would help

I know it would never happen but I like the idea

Both of these ideas are good.
I think the biggest problem is lack of rapid accountability. Like Darius points out, there's no easy way to tell an elected critter that they're sucking at their job and are in danger of losing it as there is in business - They only really pretend to pay much attention at election time, then rely on the public forgetting the previous years of things they've done.

Having some form of instant feedback with real consequence would change things.
Something where residents of a state can select 'no confidence' (I'm imagining an internet site with a simple tick box for example, which registers the complaint for a certain amount of time - say 4 months) which, if it reaches a certain percentage immediately triggers a election in x months time.... I bet politicians would be more interested in doing a good job and publicizing what they're doing.

(I'm not suggesting this as a method because of the potential abuse it would be open to, but more of a conceptual idea.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon


Instant-runoff voting would at least remove many of the benefits that the parties now enjoy, and would tend to make third party candidates more electable.



The problem with any political overhaul like this is that it's not in the interest of either party, so will never get proposed or passed.

It depresses me just to think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>
Instant-runoff voting




I had to Google that. I must say at first glance I like it. I know plenty of people that vote for "the lesser of 2 evils" rather than a 3rd party candidate so they do not feel like they are wasting their vote
You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rick

***>
Instant-runoff voting




I had to Google that. I must say at first glance I like it. I know plenty of people that vote for "the lesser of 2 evils" rather than a 3rd party candidate so they do not feel like they are wasting their vote

Me too man not google but asked one of my friends then confirmed with Google.:)
I like the idea.
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0