New Group Paves Way For 2012 Online Primary 249
DJRumpy sends this excerpt from CNN:
"Americans Elect, which has raised $22 million so far, is harnessing the power of the Internet to conduct an unprecedented national online primary next spring. If all goes according to plan, the result will be a credible, nonpartisan ticket that pushes alternative centrist solutions to the growing problems America's current political leadership seems unwilling or unable to tackle. The theory: If you break the stranglehold that more ideologically extreme primary voters and established interests currently have over presidential nominations, you will push Washington to seriously address tough economic and other issues. Even if the group's ticket doesn't win, its impact will force Democrats and Republicans in the nation's capital to start bridging their cavernous ideological divide."
Good in theory (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And if they don't, the established parties will to avoid vote splitting.
Re:Good in theory (Score:5, Interesting)
You can not institute the reform of a Republic, by instituting the toolset of Facebook.
Fake electronic "Democracy" for a fake, electronic nation. The "ideological divide" is a stage prop, for legerdemain. There is no ideological difference between the parties on supremacy of Financial Capitalists, or on the primacy of American Imperial adventurism.
"Centrist"? Don't make me laugh! The "left" in today's Amercian establishment politics is to the right of RIchard Milhouse Nixon.
The role of the illusory "center" in American political manoeuvrings is to legitimise and institutionalise the digressions from Constitutional rule-of-law, into permanent features that endure beyond vacillations of party dominance and individual administrations.
I am not a Ron Paul advocate. But you can be sure this new, electronic primary will produce nothing that deviates from the progammed discourse - as does Paul, or Nader...
Re:Good in theory (Score:4, Funny)
"Extrajudicial, secret, targeted assassinations, you can believe in!"
Re:Good in theory (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with most of what you say, but I think you aren't giving this a fair chance. That's not to say I'm blindly optimistic, but really, unless there is some kind of push back, nothing will change at all. The mainstream media is too expensive and too married to the monoparty system we have to be of any use at all, so it would be exceptionally unreasonable to expect change from that quarter. What does that leave for a means of national recognition but the internet?
Re: (Score:3)
For instance....WHY is the first primary always held in Iowa...and then all the next ones go in same order every time?
First...I don't see Iowa as being representative of much of the mindset of the US, hell, NO state is.
Why don't they pull state names from a hat each year and go in random order??? Seem it would be more fair....it shouldn't always be the same states that have the nominee picked way before any other states people get to vo
Re: (Score:2)
mod score 5. really?
you are willing to sound off in a hugely popular internet forum currently discussing politics... about how the internet is irrelevant to politics?
(and then you go on to basically say that all modern politics are programmed, and way right wing, and suck, anyway.)
i guess you won't be happy till it is all overthrown, so why even bother with the curmudgeonly (and not very useful) postings...
moderators, what exactly were you thinking w the mod points on this guy?
Re: (Score:2)
This can be expected to solve problems as follows:
One side adamantly claims that 2+2 = 4.
The other side, claims this is purely elitist and merely support for the status quo, and that really 2+2= 6.
An online poll party achieves consensus and declares 2+2=5.
I've had that argument before and lost it (Score:3)
"Centrist"? Don't make me laugh! The "left" in today's Amercian establishment politics is to the right of RIchard Milhouse Nixon.
Once at a Burger King not too long ago I wanted French fries. They came in three sizes. Medium, Large, and Extra Large. I asked for a Small and the lady at the window promptly informed me that they sell no such thing. I had to request "the smallest size of fries that you will sell me" and she informed me that it would be a Medium.
I am trained in math and know this to be b
Re:Good in theory (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good in theory (Score:4, Insightful)
I think many are like me...slightly liberal on the social side, and slightly conservative on the fiscal side.
I'm not sure how many are with me on shrinking the Federal govt both in power and money...but I get the feeling I'm far from being alone on that one too.
Re:Good in theory (Score:4, Interesting)
Nixon was not as much of a right-wing extremist as he's often portrayed. He was a skilled manipulator and liar. He was smart enough to see the way that things were going, and he acted as an advocate of those ideas. He knew how to take something like environmentalism, pacifism, and other leftist causes and give them a conservative spin, so that he could walk a centrist road and give lip service to whatever people wanted to hear. Don't like the Vietnam War? No problem. Nixon will end it. Want a strong Asia that can stand up to the Communists? No problem. Nixon isn't going to cut and run -- he's staying until the job is done. Nixon had a promise for every centrist stance, with enough spin that it could mean whatever was necessary at that point. He was a realist. A realist doesn't choose sides in an ideological battle; instead, he courts the middle while chastising the extremists, even though his own sympathies may very well lie with one of the extreme positions. Nixon was an authoritarian centrist, though he certainly was willing to support "states' rights" (and other Conservative talking points), as long as it didn't impede his own power. I think he legitimately believed that he could handle the power and make the best decisions for the country, though history proved that wrong.
Most Democrats are center-right. A few are centrists. The few that actually are on the left usually get vilified as extremists. Certainly, if you're on the far right, the centrists must seem like socialists, and the center-left must seem like communists. However, an actual Marxist would be horrified by the Democrats' policies. Lenin reserved much scorn for social democrats (which are more to the left than the Democratic party), allegedly calling them "useful idiots" (which has been disputed, of course). Lenin thought that social democrats were sissies who couldn't handle Big Ideas and clung to the old ways (capitalism), trying to reform a broken system that couldn't be fixed. I don't share Lenin's views, and I view social democrats very sympathetically. However, it just goes to show that there's always someone so ideologically pure, so unwilling to compromise, that he's willing to dismiss an entire spectrum of opinion. The challenge is to avoid falling into that trap. Thus, if you're a Libertarian, you should recognize that not every Marxist is going to be stark raving mad, and vice versa for the Marxist.
While I have my own opinions on the validity of the test, the Political Compass [politicalcompass.org] expresses this rather well. Check out how far the right almost every political party is. Very few can legitimately profess to hold leftist views. This tends to annoy people on the right, who view any amount of regulation to be socialist.
Re: (Score:2)
California, Oregon, and Washington can be called Utopia, and only Utopian natives will be allowed to live there or own property.
The area from Arizona Eastward to Virginla can be called Dumbfuckistan. It will be a giant penal colony for the warmongers, leeches, and other savage dregs of society.
The area from Nevada/Idaho Eastward to Maryland can be called "The Great Nation of Ho
Re:Good in theory (Score:5, Interesting)
America should be broken up into several countries, with no overbearing power-hungry Federal government to fuck things up.
America used to be like that, with many strong and relatively independent country-like entities called States, with a small and weak Federal government to do those things only a national government can do, like negotiate treaties, provide common defense against foreign aggressors, and control/defend the national borders.. It's how the Constitution was written and how it was until the Civil War/Lincoln, FDR, and Wilson, continuing into the more recent administrations, morphed it into just the opposite and centralized most government power.
Instead of redrawing all the maps, I think it would be simpler and easier to just return the Federal government back to the Constitutionally-limited & weak central government it used to be.
Same effect.
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
Which sounds great until you realize that the constitution is more complex and more open to interpretation than most people realize.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Good in theory (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying "it's hopeless" only guarantees that it will remain hopeless.
Re:Good in theory (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Good in theory (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem being that the corporations who own capitol hill benefit from the current system, and own the media outlets. They will try as hard as they can to keep things exactly the way they are.
So what? I don't understand what's wrong with you Yanquis these days. On the one hand, you're arguably the most powerful nation on Earth. On the other, you're the most defeatist too.
The Internet opened up information transfer vectors to the masses even more than Gutenberg did. So use it! "The Media" is no longer just ABC, NBC, CBS, and the NY Times.
Case in point, Reddit is strategizing on the how, and which, politicos to try to unseat/replace with anti-SOPA/PIPA candidates. The last I heard, it was getting a lot of traction (for the record, I'm not a "redditor"). With the advent of "crowd-sourcing", it could concievably make a difference. All you need is one success, and they'll start to sit up and listen next time.
"Social Networking" is the de jour buzz-phrase of the decade. Do you really believe it's a toothless dragon, after it's ignited the Arab Spring?!?
Another case in point: a candidate for the CA governorship with the most bucks behind her lost once the electorate learned of her two facedness. Money is not all powerful! Stand up on your hind legs, FFS! Leverage all this neat stuff at your disposal. Get all your friends involved, and get them to get their friends involved, and just maybe you can effect real change(tm).
Re: (Score:3)
I hate to sound defeatist, but if you appear to be a threat to the country, you can be infinitely detained.
I hate to be a Pollyanna, but there's people in Russia standing up to Putin and his rigged elections these days. For the crime of telling the truth, they're being detained. Are you telling me Russians care more for their freedoms these days than US-ians? Is Gitmo a secure prison for terrorists, or the new Lubyanka?
I don't think your troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan want to hear that kind of thing from you.
Re: (Score:3)
I strongly agree.
Well, in that case, we have nothing to argue about. What a bummer!
What's better? Fortran or Cobol? Show your work. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
We had much more proportional representation before the adoption of the 17th amendment. The 17th amendment needs to be repealed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org]
Right. Because state governments are *so* much more responsive to the electorate and *much* less corrupt that the federal government. Please!
Re: (Score:2)
The constitution does no such thing (well for Congress, there is only one President so that can be nothing but winner-takes-all, well I guess you could return to "second place gets to be VP" but that's retarded). Legislation has, but legislation is far easier to change than the consitution.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2/2c.html [cornell.edu] is what stops a state from using proportional representation in a multiseat district making up the entire state.
Re: (Score:2)
-GiH
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The second place gets VP is dangerous. In Mexico's history, most of the 19th century is filled with second place VPs rising armies to depose the president after the election didn't go their way. The executive branch has to be a "winner takes all" or it quickly devolves into anarchy.
Re:Good in theory (Score:5, Interesting)
It's much more subtle than that. Did you click the link above? Do you notice how CNN chose a picture of Ross Perot where he looks goofy as hell? MSM wants you to read the term "independent party" and then immediately see a picture of a goofy nut, making it so much easier to discredit the serious need for a non-two-party system.
They did the same thing in 2008 with their election poll. All the candidates had dignified, diplomatic headshots in the poll, except for Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel, who all managed to look like they escaped the loony bin together.
Re:Good in theory (Score:4, Interesting)
The same way I feel about Ron Paul. I can only agree about 10% of the time with him but I do respect him. I'd rather have him as POTUS than Newt or Mitt. At the least with Paul, I know where he stands and where he will stand.
A Kucinich/Paul ticket would be interesting. Anything those two could agree upon would be good for the country.
Re: (Score:3)
OMG...great!!
The Slashdot Dream Ticket!! Something for everyone to bitch about!!!
One fatal flaw... (Score:2)
It needs a name that prominently features an adjective, so that voters can label themselves. Yeah, it sounds silly, but labels create something to rally around.
nope (Score:2)
A) No it won t.
B) It's likely to attract Dems. Giving pubs more power.
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, that would be an awesome outcome for civil liberties because then the Democrats could then go back to pretending to care about them. Presuming the third party supports civil liberties, we'd then have the GOP against, the Democrats pretending to support them, and a party with a conscience defending civil liberties.
What he have now is the systematic destruction of the Bill of Rights by the GOP and Democrats and a complete failure to even talk
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, you advocate the slow slide into imperial presidency, then to imperial presidency for life or something? Because that is where we are going and the risk of doing nothing is the greatest risk of all.
Obama has solidified due process free detention, execution, and even enshrined indefinite detention in statute: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/ [salon.com]
These types of polices are the hallmarks of tyrannical governments. This is where we are going now if nothing change
Re: (Score:2)
It might attract old-school moderate Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
Before the current Right-wing machine took over the Republican party (people like Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, and the neocons), there used to be moderate Republicans, nicer than Nixon and farther left than Barry Goldwater. People like my mom, who care about good government, want fiscal responsibility but aren't scared of taxation if it goes to worthwhile programs, think that you shouldn't start wars just to keep defense contractors in business, and think that the job of religion in politics should be to tell politicians to be honest and to care about the poor. They've pretty much all been kicked out of the party, and she didn't vote for either Dubya Bush or his father, and she was really annoyed when Christine "Not A Witch" O'Donnell beat moderate Mike Castle for the Republican nomination in Delaware.
The most traditional Republican presidential candidate at the moment is Jon Huntsman. He's too far right for me, and too far right to really call a moderate, but he's not part of the right-wing crazy machine, and thinks that the fact that evolution and climate change are real is more important than what voting blocks they attract or what corporate donors would be affected by laws about them (which is to say, "he doesn't have a chance of getting the nomination.") Ron Paul's not far-right, but he's a radical, not a moderate. Romney's relatively moderate, but he's doing deals with the machine, and if you look at the current Republican debating process, it's really a circus designed to convince the right-wing voters that they'll have to pick Romney to beat Obama. (Donald Trump was the comedy warm-up act, and Gingrich is the biggest of the clowns, as well as being personally opportunistic, but a lot of the process was Perry replacing Bachmann and still being an obvious non-starter.)
Will Americans Elect end up attracting more Republicans than Democrats? Probably not, but at least it's an interesting experiment in politics, and it might end up being as influential as Joe Trippi's online organizing for Howard Dean, which led the way for Obama's broad-based campaign. Alternatively, it could end up like a mirror to Ross Perot's campaign, which attracted enough Republicans to give Bill Clinton the election, and then fizzled out because Perot wouldn't let go of it and let it grow into a bottom-up party.
Internet = Ticket to Democracy (Score:4, Interesting)
With a majority of adults having some sort of Internet access these days (whether at work, at home or at the library), maybe it's time we start looking into changing the good ol' US of A into a democracy. Get rid of congress and make the legislative branch be truly democratic. At the very least, we'd save a few million a year on taxes going towards salaries and pensions.
Re:Internet = Ticket to Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but they know how to get elected (win a popularity contest), and that's the sole metric that's used to award them their office.
Divide? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Divide? (Score:5, Insightful)
Came here to say this. There is no 'cavernous ideological divide'. The truth about american politics is that there is no choice. You have two parties that favor big government, are owned by corporations and are hell bent on maintaining the status quo. That's it. The few polarizing issues they differ on simply give them something to argue about in order to foster the illusion of choice.
It's like choosing between a bullet to the brain or a guillotine. Sure it's a choice, but the outcome is the same.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I would love to know what the people who see no 'cavernous ideological divide' are looking for, that the parties look the same to them.
The last 40 or so years have seen some significant shifts. The Democrats have been taken over by those looking for European style socialism. In attempts at moderation, the Republicans lost their focus on small federal government and states rights. Each compromise takes us down the progressive path, so yes you end up with these silly bailouts. There is now a resurgance of Rep
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's nonsense. There has only been one single progressive policy passed in the last fifty years, and it is brand new, and next year the Supreme Court will strike it down. This country hasn't been even a teeny weensy bit progressive since the Civil Rights Act.
If you disagree, start naming all those progressive policies.
Re: (Score:3)
"One side things the government should provide for everyone, the other that people should provide for themselves."
All the while both camps fail to recognize that doing either in any absolute way is essentially impossible and doomed to failure, which as more and more multinational corporations become increasingly foreign owned will make either choice irrelevant.
Re: (Score:3)
The Republicans NEVER had a focus on states rights. Read your history books: they were arguably founded to oppose the idea. Further, "states rights" brought us such great things in the past... like slavery and civil war.
What really happened was that the Republicans made a hard-right turn around the 50s and 60s, and the Democrats stayed where they were. You can see this very process happening now: compare the platform of GWB in
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but their argument is that it still counts as a choice, and that there is a world of difference between death by guillotine vs. death by a bullet to the brain.
Think about it. A guillotine would employ several different people, from the blacksmith who castes the blade, to the carpenter who makes the stand, to the weaver who makes the basket for your head to fall into, to the tailor who makes the rope that hoists the blade, to the executioner who pulls the lever. It works out pretty well for the proletar
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not it. One of the big-party parties is full of hypocritical bigots, and the other big-government party is full of people who genuinely and honestly think that government can help solve the country's problems, and will tell you so. To equate those two things is to ignore almost all of the context of the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
To me, moderates are willing to reach a middle point. They will compromise - that dirty word that is all but gone from politics.
When it comes to negotiation, the Reps tend to be unmovable, and get rewarded for it in the long term. Their ideology is -nearly religious- dogma and can't deviate from it, and leaders that are certain regardless of any facts are regarded as the ideal. The Dems tend to listen to arguments (and accept things like science and studies and that other people might disagree and contribut
Re:Divide? Artificially created, but really there (Score:3)
The Rove/Norquist machine that brought Dubya Bush to power has always been aggressively polarizing. You're either with them or you're an anti-American pinko liberal socialist commie community-organizer-lover, and they got a lot of Republicans to buy in to it and a lot of politically inactive right-wingers to get active or at least to watch Fox News and throw popcorn at the TV set when Democrats' pictures are on. The fact that the ideology isn't philosophically based, adjusts to whatever's useful for creat
The Horrible Moderates (Score:3, Funny)
The kind of moderacy that results from the intersection of Republican and Democratic interests is worse than either brand of party extremism. Any kind of compromise that can be made between them will result in less liberty, higher taxes, fewer benefits, and greater warfare.
Hopeful but not optimistic. (Score:2)
I legitimately hope they're serious about this and faithful to their principles. I'd absolutely stand behind them if that's the case.
Unfortunately, far too often some organization comes along professing to be nonpartisan but it quickly becomes evident they're very partisan. But more likely they'll start off one way and groupthink sends the whole thing careening off in some other direction.
Cavernous Divide? Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
What cavernous divide? There is a divide in rhetoric to be sure, and an emotional divide (*), but in terms actual policy differences between the GOP of GWB and the Obama administration, they're like siamese twins.
(*) I'm not sure how to characterize this -- I think of the people who despise "rednecks" and those that despise "hippies" -- they have a visceral hate for each other but it has nothing to do with policies apparently, because the Obama administration is indistinguishable from that of GWB. Hence, the somewhat obscure term of "emotional divide".
Re:Cavernous Divide? Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
because the Obama administration is indistinguishable from that of GWB
This is the kind of irresponsible and unsubstantiated exaggeration that was responsible for people voting for Nader in 2000 with the result of Bush getting into office.
Can you list 10 policies that are identical between the Obama and Bush administrations? If you can't, all you have is an unsubstantiated opinion written with an air of authority.
In the mean time check out this web site for President Obama's record. With each item ask yourself if Bush or any Republican would have done the same:
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/ [whatthefuc...esofar.com]
Re:Cavernous Divide? Seriously? (Score:4, Informative)
Check my sig. Here, I'll link to it again: http://nothingchanged.org/ [nothingchanged.org]
I haven't added in Obama's recent enshrinement in statute of indefinite due process free detention, which I consider "worse than Bush", but when I do, the scorecard will be:
Worse than Bush: 8
Same as Bush: 10
Better than Bush: 1
Worse than Bush, but not Obama's fault: 1
Better than Bush, but not Obama's accomplishment: 1
Can't make a fair comparison: 1
Re: (Score:3)
You need to remove one of your examples:
I usually try to avoid thinking that 3 year old stories are news, and this link on your site:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/guantanamo.order/index.html [cnn.com] is way outdated.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/07/obama-guantanamo-trials_n_832451.ht [huffingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Gitmo?
Re: (Score:2)
Can you list 10 policies that are identical between the Obama and Bush administrations?
- Slow withdrawal from Iraq/Afghanistan (Bush would've pulled out EVENTUALLY...)
- War on drugs
- Tax cuts for the rich
- Gitmo stays open
- Deport craploads of illegal immigrants
- No campaign finance reform
- Random unconstitutional searches+seizures at airports
- National Defense Authorization Act (Bush's wet dream)
- Warrentless wiretapping
- Execution of US citizens abroad without trial
- Pathetic lack of financial reform
Oh wa
Re: (Score:2)
George Lakoff on the emotional divide (Score:2)
Back in the early 00's, George Lakoff (cog-sci professor at Berkeley) put out a short book called "Don't Think of an Elephant", about the framing tools that the Republican Party was using and how they get people to commit to one side or the other, and to view events and ideas the way the Fox News and similar PR machines want people to. There's a radical difference in how people in the different parties feel, and what they want, that's pretty much independent of what the politicians have been doing in offi
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
>GWB didn't have ``Fast and Furious''
You might try to do a little research before you make up a post like this.
Check out project gunrunner:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Ha ha ha, of course GWB had F&F. He (his admin) invented it!
Centrist? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are they implying that they're centrist between the Democrats and Republicans? The rest of the world is watching American politics with some bemusement (and some worry) because there's really no left or centre in American politics. Both of your parties drift to the right ideologically compared to most other nations with open democracies. I see very little practical room between your two parties that would advance your nation forward in a healthy, productive, or sustainable manner.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think America has an open democracy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7R1_ixtlyc&feature=share
Re: (Score:2)
Then perhaps it's time to stop running candidates who campaign on being good while performing evil, and start running candidates who campaign on being evil while performing evil. If we get enough super-villains interested in the White House or a seat in the Senate, perhaps there will be an incentive for them to reform.
There's a recent WonderMark cartoon that appeals to me in this sense: http://wondermark.com/782/
There's a fair chance it will backfire, and to be honest, there isn't much incentive for a super
British views of American political parties (Score:2)
It used to be that "The Republicans are like the Tories, and the Democrats are also like the Tories." (Since then the Republicans have tried to move farther right, and Maggie Thatcher may not be badass enough for them.)
I'm lost (Score:3)
A political party with out a defined political stance collecting money for non-existent political candidates?
Where's the money? (Score:2)
Even if the group's ticket doesn't win, its impact will force Democrats and Republicans in the nation's capital to start bridging their cavernous ideological divide."
Did I miss the part about how Americans Elect will raise the billions of dollars necessary to get any particular issue noticed?
Or the part about what has changed since the second coming of Jimmy Carter took over from the second coming of James Buchanan in 2009?
More likely, its a PAC that formed for the intent of separating suckers from their money, but at least they're honest about not particularly caring about any particular issue - like other politicians they'll just follow the money.
Ugh. (Score:2)
But if this is what it takes to break the infinitely corrupt stranglehold D&R have put the USA in then more power to them.I've completely given up on that.
ATM this is so ridiculous. How much money do they spend on the primaries just so we actully care who of the curent rank and file of turkey dinner leftovers does the same thin again for
Follow The Money (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.alternet.org/news/153412/secretive_millionaires_funding_online_primary_for_'independent'_white_house_run
Re:Follow The Money (Score:4, Interesting)
if I could I'd mod the parent up.
I was hoping someone would link that. Here's another shocking analysis: http://goo.gl/VKx8m [goo.gl]
So if I understand this correctly, this is not a true popular selection. This is an internet poll, where the slots on the ballot are predetermined, and regardless of who "teh intarnetz" choose, the Candidate Certification Committee makes the actual choice ... all three of who are present members of the Council on Foreign Relations, two of which are recent executives of the RAND corporation, one former director of both CIA and FBI.
I know it sounds tin-foil hatty, but ahh ... damn ... this kinda tastes a little funny.
like the intelligence community executing a very long con, perhaps.
No such thing (Score:2)
There's no such thing as "no ideology." Most people who claim to be making decisions not based on ideology are in fact subscribers to the ideologies of utilitarianism ("do whatever's necessary to make the most people content") or technocracy ("rule by scientific experts").
Some such people probably don't even realize this; other people are akin to the true believers of a religion who insist that their religion isn't really "a religion" but the One True Way to do things.
Not credible (Score:4, Insightful)
Americans Elect's board is primarily staffed by the far right. This is simply an effort to split the liberal vote. Go look it up; it's pretty easy to find that Americans Elect's board alone makes it untrustworthy.
Not that finding the center between Dems and Republicans is worthwhile anyhow.
Re: (Score:2)
Americans Elect's board is primarily staffed by the far right. This is simply an effort to split the liberal vote. Go look it up; it's pretty easy to find that Americans Elect's board alone makes it untrustworthy.
Not that finding the center between Dems and Republicans is worthwhile anyhow.
Interesting. Do you think this is an astroturfed counterpunch to the Ron Paul folks splitting the paleoconservative vote?
Of Course This Is Partisan - from the 1% (Score:5, Informative)
Just because it's not one of the other two, major parties, or one of the several minor parties, doesn't make it "a credible, nonpartisan ticket that pushes alternative centrist solutions to the growing problems America's current political leadership seems unwilling or unable to tackle." It makes it a different party, which is by definition partisan.
And practically every party claims to offer only "a credible ticket that pushes alternative centrist solutions to blah blah blah".
This new party might have something to offer. But painting it as a non-partisan effort is lying.
But what else do you expect from a party organized by the 1% [dailykos.com]? How about calling itself non-partisan while organizing itself as a party:
You can expect secrecy and total control by its directing board [politico.com]:
So it defines itself as a party to get on the ballot, but with a legal invention to fund itself as a "social welfare org" to keep its donors secret. It is known, however, that its $5M seed money came from a hedge funder. Its founding board has people who were Bush's EPA Director and previous FBI and CIA directors, among similar backgrounds.
Note that I am not saying that's any different from the other parties. In fact, I'm saying it's not any different.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a simple way of dealing with this problem: just record the person's name with the vote. Make it public. A number of elections, at different levels, in the past, have been handled this way.
Sure, there is the possibility of voter intimidation, but everyone knows the vote.
Re: (Score:2)
There is the certainty of both voter intimidation and vote buying. That is what non-anonymous elections have proven throughout the past and around the world.
Besides, apart from making vote corruption worse, identified voting doesn't do anything to interfere with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just any hedge funder: Overthrow Inc.: Peter Ackerman's Quest to Do What the CIA Used to Do, and Make It Seem Progressive [blogspot.com]
This is just another PSYOP.
--
Ron Paul for U.S. President in 2012
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks man. We're all in it together.
What we really need is to prohibit parties altogether as political racketeering. Of course that won't happen any time soon, if ever.
But what we could maybe get sooner is to defund political parties. Every party, especially the duopoly, gets subsidies from the public in running their primary elections and other activities, which should end - especially the larger share gained by the larger parties.
Another way out from under these parties would be to enforce a policy they
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice (Score:2)
America is not in the "middle" between D's and R's (Score:2)
There is a myth that the Democrats and Republicans are on the ends of some primitive spectrum, and that "moderates" are somewhere in between. This is false. Check out Glenn Greenwald's piece on Obama (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/27/vote-obama-centrist-republican), one of the many commentators pointing out that Obama is a Republican in almost all ways. The "real" Republicans have to go off the edge in order to distance themselves from Obama. I almost feel sorry for them. Almost.
I wa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever I would hear Colbert joking that Obama was a secret muslim, I would joke to my friends that he was a secret republican
1D view of politics (Score:2)
Centrist? They think they'll be somewhere in the middle? This 1 dimensional view of politics is a problem itself. What positions will they take on our hard problems, problems such as the Great Recession, corruption, the national debt, and climate change? The usual denial and spin, same as both major parties? At least things seem fairly good on the foreign affairs front right now, no need for any drastic policy changes there.
I don't know for sure what we should do about it all, but for starters, fix o
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, yes. I laugh a little when I read the word "centrist." It's like trying to find an edge on a sphere. Politics can be multi-dimensional.
What they should really be saying is that they believe in the common fallacy that the truth always exists in middle or the best position is a compromise between two extremes. Reality dictates that a compromise / midway between the truth and a lie is a half-truth, which is arguably more damaging than a straight out lie.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
The divide isn't cavernous... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no. The commonality between Democrats and Republicans is "screw the middle class". The Democrats take from the middle class and give it to the poor. The Republicans take from the middle class and give it to the rich.
And there are many Republicans who are truly embarrassed by what their party has become over the last 15 years or so. I happen to be one of them.
This attempt will go the way of other third party attempts. US law and public opinion is too geared for a two party system. The articled in t
Private Banksters to the rescue????? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Lets use some over generalizations to get a point across:
Republicans: Large Government is Bad and let the free market correct itself over time.
Democrats: Large Government is good Free market doesn't correct itself.
Centrists: There are some areas that government will do a much better job then private industry and there are areas private industry does better then the government. Lets find cases where things match.
For the most part we all want to see ourselves as a
Re: (Score:2)
Quit blaming the GOP for Obama's abject failure. His foreign policy is as blindly neo-con as Bush's was. His policies, the things he does without any help or hindrance from the GOP, demonstrate a neo-con philosophy toward domestic civil liberties (due process free detention/execution, excusing torturers, excusing wiretappers, higher secrecy levels than ever, harshest on leakers). And on any social issue you pick to name, why is the fault of the GOP that Obama doesn't have the balls to fight a losing batt
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. When the party of purple is dealing with an insurrection or secession of various internal groups, they get a focus group and modify their sales tactics. They don't actually ever change.
Imagine they are, I don't know, an oil company. Instead of changing so that blowouts in the Gulf of Mexico are less likely (training, better equipment, a little less drinking, hiring an operations manager who attended some engineering courses in college), they instead dial up a marketing firm, and put out a message ab
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't realize there actually was that big of a difference between what the Democrats and Republicans believe, at least not one that could be categorized as "cavernous".
There is, but its unrelated to policy or idiology. It's actually, from a GOP point of view, if a Democrat proposes it, it's bad, and vice versa, obverse and converse (meaning GOP == good; Dems believe everything GOP propose are bad; Dems believe everything Dems propose (except for the Pres.) is good; ...). This is where gridlock and filibustering take the day.
Oh, and they both believe anything proposed by neither GOP or Dems is bad, except when "neither" is an ex-GOP or ex-Dem who's successfully jumped s
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously. There are days when I can watch a youtube video, and can't tell from which party an official is representing. I just shake my head and facepalm as I listen to their remarks or 'plans' to 'fix' things.
I'm going with Pete's Overlord list here, and I have to say that if I can spot the flaws in their plans, they should not be implemented. What more, if I have a question, they cannot continue until they answer it to my satisfaction.
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly. There is, of course, always the possibility that no one has come up with a large enough bribe to convince them that it's truly in their own best interests to change things.