Hey for once somebody used the lies tag correctly. It's tru bro, look at my last sift talk post, it got discarded without any discussion. Pretty much a little Hussein-boy style socialist state here. HURAAAAYYYYYYYY

^I never said I was driven to the right...I'm right back here where I started: confused, frustrated and angry.

^Here, here. The Obama camp has largely become pushy chest-thumpers, in my opinion. The debates are nothing more than a smattering of party-bashing and sound bytes. We're in a growing economic crisis and the best the two candidates can come up with to solve it is buying toxic loans or cutting taxes for the middle class. And party zombies eat that shit up like it was the gospel, all the while vehemently labeling the other party's candidate as the muslim anti-christ terrorist or the old warmongering bushie.

This is why I'm voting third party.

^You're wasting a vote, but at least you're voting from the heart.

^It's not wasting a vote. People who got you to think that are fear-mongering Repubs and Dems. A wasted vote is one for a lesser of two evils. Do you realize that a substantial spike in 3rd party votes could eventually allow for more people in the debates than an evil and his lesser evil? The more votes 3rd parties get the more visibility they will ultimately gain. That leads to more options and more legitimized competition for presidency.

I guess it's sacrificing an unheard vote for small steps of progress. A true honor of your vote.

Yeah, don't be bullied into voting out of fear. Even if McCain-in-the-membrane became president, the Earth wouldn't implode. We'd have four crappy years that would be marginally more crappy than with Obama as our Commander-in-Chief. Either way we lose. Voting your conscience is the only way to vote.

^Yes, but sadly that will never happen.

^Sure it could. Eventually. Not overnight.

I think the problems we have in our country are beyond any one man's or administration's abilities. Whomever takes over, is going to look like they fucked up. I almost think this is why the Republican's had McCain run; they were certain he'd lose leaving Obama and the Democrats to clean up a mess that can't be cleaned thus placing blame on the democratic party. It's far-fetched but possible.

>> ^blankfist:
^It's not wasting a vote. People who got you to think that are fear-mongering Repubs and Dems. A wasted vote is one for a lesser of two evils. Do you realize that a substantial spike in 3rd party votes could eventually allow for more people in the debates than an evil and his lesser evil? The more votes 3rd parties get the more visibility they will ultimately gain. That leads to more options and more legitimized competition for presidency.


Unfortunately, the nature of the SMD system does not allow for more than two parties.

Despite how I may have come off in some of my sift posts, I don't think Obama is some messiah come to save our country. Nor that the dems are beyond the pettiness and corruption we accuse the repubs of.

I think its far easier to criticize a position you disagree with than, and with something like politics, the bias is built in the second you express an interest in one side over the other. About a month ago I was trying to search for some positive McCain videos (meaning the intention of the video wasn't to make him look like an idiot) to post, and I had a hard time finding anything I thought met that criteria. Either youtube is liberally biased in the content of the videos that get posted and/or my own views keep me from identifying McCain videos as 'positive'.

I think you're certainly right about the whole things are going to be fucked for awhile no matter who is in charge. I think it'll be at least 2 years before we start to see any real forward progress with our economy or other multitude of problems we have, in the mean time who ever is in charge will get blamed for everything, and it'll probably be 6 years before things are suitably different.

>> ^Crosswords:
Despite how I may have come off in some of my sift posts, I don't think Obama is some messiah come to save our country.

Oh really? Are you sure?

And I'll give this thread a *quality while I'm at it, Palin/Nugent 2012!

Awarding rottenseed with one star point for this contribution to Sift Talk - declared quality by BillOreilly.

Welcome back to the center of the fold, rottenseed. Your room is how you left it.

*nochannel, how on Earth does this belong in Lies?

*politics

Post is already assigned to lies talk - ignoring all requests by Fjnbk.

Is this Obama hype really founded?

"This is about research without bias, critical thinking and the scientific method being suspended for, what could be, the most important election of our time."

Isn't it always that? I mean look that the last couple of elections. It is always about who is better at flinging feces.

I think it is sad when someone like Obama doesn't hit very much back in debates and he is deemed the loser of it. McCain tells straight up lies in the debate and no one bats an eye. Obama also makes unsubstantiated claims in the debates, though, so he's certainly not clean.

If it was about who was better for the American people Ron Paul or Mike Gravel would be president in about a month.

Oh, what rot.

Poor McCain. Just can't get a break. Let's all feel sorry for grampa because the young black guy from Harvard is mopping the floor with him.

I'm glad you're turned off.

We don't need you anyway.

Go hang out with grampa - if you can afford to.

I am sick of the Ron Paul-is-the-best talk that has infested the Internets for months.

Yes, Ron Paul is an honorable man. Yes, I respect Ron Paul. Yes, I agree with him on many things, especially regarding the Iraq War and civil liberties.

But Ron Paul as President would be ridiculous. At this point America has lost nearly all its respect among the rest of the world. Our alliances are tenuous and strained. Ron Paul would make that all worse. He is opposed to alliances and wants to withdraw the U.S from the United Nations. How on Earth would that help us?

With domestic policy, Ron Paul sees everything through the lens of state rights. Many civil liberty transgressions he opposes at the national level he either ignores or condones at the state level, such as flag burning. Essentially he thinks that the federal government shouldn't be involved in anything other than the bare minimum given to it by the Constitution. What he fails to realize is that the Federal Government is already involved in a lot and he couldn't just dismantle it.

Ron Paul sees the world as he would like to see it and is an idealist to the extreme. He is not what is best for the American people.

>> ^rougy:
Oh, what rot.
Poor McCain. Just can't get a break. Let's all feel sorry for grampa because the young black guy from Harvard is mopping the floor with him.
I'm glad you're turned off.
We don't need you anyway.
Go hang out with grampa - if you can afford to.


You prefaced the remainder of your comment quite well with those first 3 words.

Yes, I discarded Captain's Siftalk post where he trolled me into giving him a quality point and it was the only way I could take it back. I'd be pleased to be banned for such an offense. A most spectacularly uninspiring troll.

That said, and not having read the whole thread I must say that there is a political center to videosift, by you loudmouth fanatics don't hear it. Both sides.

http://parody.videosift.com/talk/Ive-given-up-on-John-McCain

Gee, I'd hate to see what election week is gonna be like . . . yeesh!

Rottenseed, there is a difference between being turned off by the nasty political habits of those on the left and right, and changing your mind about what's behind that nastiness. Politics is what it is in the country, and to win you've got to get dirty. It sucks. We all know it, and yet politicians keep on winning with the mudslinging. Surprised? I hope not. I'm encouraged that while you may be turned off by the win-at-all-costs mentality, you don't seem to have given up on the ideas on the left.

Some of the comments on this thread make me wonder, though, just how young are you people? Look at the last two elections for dirty politics? Try the last 53 elections. They've all had their share of nastiness. Read some of the stuff written about Adams, or Jackson, or Cleveland, etc. There's absolutely nothing new about dirty politics. If anything, the phrase is somewhat redundant.

The economy is going to take 6 years to rebuild??? How long did it take Clinton to get the economy turned around after the mess left by Bush I. How about Roosevelt during the Great depression - within 3 years nearly every economic indicator was back to 1929 levels, the notable exception being unemployment. And unemployment dropped from 25% to 9% during his first term. There is so much panic in financial markets right now that people have suspended good judgement. My personal take on it is that the stock markets are in the process of bottoming out right now. Valuations on so many companies are so low that it won't take much more before some folks notice some of the bargain stocks out there. No, that won't do too much to unfreeze the credit markets - that will have to work itself out. But it's not going to take 6 years. Lenders can't wait that long. They need to start lending at some point so they can make a living.

And as for voting for a third party candidate - well, at the national level right now, it is a waste. I may be wrong, but I think the best way to foster a truly viable third party is from the ground up. Start getting Progressives or Libertarians elected into local and state offices, then get a few in Congress, maybe a Senator or two. Then they will have enough of a base to mount a viable national campaign. Until then, I can't see how a national campaign for a party that has no members in Congress is going to work.

>> ^rougy:
Oh, what rot.
Poor McCain. Just can't get a break. Let's all feel sorry for grampa because the young black guy from Harvard is mopping the floor with him.
I'm glad you're turned off.
We don't need you anyway.
Go hang out with grampa - if you can afford to.

That's a well formulated debate. Thank you for your input, I am more enlightened having read it. This is not, by any means, the type of shitslinging I was referring too...

What made you change your mind, exactly?

Are we making stuff up that's not true about McCain?

Are we saying positive stuff about Obama that's not true?

Are we covering over McCain's smears with lies?

If it's the "smear tactics", we've still got a long way to go before we match the right -- we're calling McCain old and angry, he's calling Obama a Muslim terrorist.

That's not equivalent. Technically they're both personal attacks, but what we're saying about McCain is pretty mild compared to what he's saying about Obama (never mind the fact that we're telling the truth, and he's making false implications).

People don't seem to understand that "unbiased" doesn't mean "everything must make both parties look equally bad".

Democrats aren't guiltless saints, but we weren't the ones who broke the country.

>> ^nibiyabi:
>> ^blankfist:
^It's not wasting a vote. People who got you to think that are fear-mongering Repubs and Dems.
> Unfortunately, the nature of the SMD system does not allow for more than two parties.

it certainly does discourage it, by turning anyone who isn't Rep or Dem into a 'spoiler'.
i mentioned this in response to curiousity's blog post a few weeks ago, which doesn't exist now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
for anyone unfamiliar, please scan that and pass it on. thanks.

@rottenseed
"what could be, the most important election of our time"
"The Most Important Election in History - Is it possible to elect a president
without invoking that phrase?"
http://www.theamericanscholar.org/au08/election-clausen.html

Note that what is considered left in the United States is still predominantly right wing. There are - as blankfist stated here - third party candidates.
e.g. Look at the situation in the UK where's a two party system but liberal democrats may have a chance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats
..not to say that Labour is a predominantly left party - they're now redefining theirselves after a failed attempt at radical centrist/third way politics..

BTW could we - after the showdown - get an *elections channel?
Many going on in the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Future_elections

You're wasting your meal if you don't go to McD or BK!!!

You're wasting your drink if you don't drink Coke or Pepsi!!!



Anyone that says third party voting is a waste is just another prop holding up the artificial bullsh-t duopoly that has taken over American politics. Look, both parties are insanely corrupt and wasteful and could give less a crap. I guarantee if the US had five parties then we would not have bullsh-t and half-retards like Bush or Palin. We wouldn't have FISA, telecom immunity, rich people bailout.

And I don't think there is enough interest in *elections channel. We already have politics and worldaffairs. It might sound good, but really, there were ZERO election videos in the past except for a few voting machine videos and maybe the mexico elections.

I am not liberal,
I am not religious,
I am not conservative,
I am not republican,
I am not a democrat, I am...
Who am I?

Answer:

˙sʇɥƃıɹ s,ǝslǝ ǝuo ǝɯos uodn sǝƃuıɹɟuı ʎllɐɔısʎɥd ʇı lıʇun ʍǝıʌ ɟo ʇuıod sǝuo ʎɹǝʌǝ oʇ lɐɹʇnǝu ɯɐ ı
˙ʇsılɐuoıʇnʇıʇsuoɔ ɐ ɯɐ ı

It is your(ambiguous association) right to vote rep, dem, independent, libertarian, or what ever party, it is not a wasted vote. Those who say that it is are only angry that you did not vote the way they did, and they feel the need to secure themselves in a group of people that voted the same way.

This system of class warfare is what the parties like, and how they thrive, see past the stupidity of this and be thankful that you belong to the group.. that does vote.

Likewise to say that because some one doesn't vote doesn't have the right to complain is more of the same rhetoric.
They have the same right to complain that you do, as afforded by the constitution of the united states.

How do I come to the conclusion that these petty arguments about voting for who, or not voting at all being a waste of kinetic energy? See the Stalin quote at the bottom.

Voting... Stalin said something about it...

"Those who vote decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything."-
http://www.carryabigsticker.com/those_vote.htm

It's ridiculous to suggest that everyone has a right to vote as they choose. Voting is action. You have the right to act only as far as you don't infringe on the rights of others. Appointing leaders to oppress others on your behalf is exactly as immoral as doing it yourself.

>> ^NetRunner:
If it's the "smear tactics", we've still got a long way to go before we match the right -- we're calling McCain old and angry, he's calling Obama a Muslim terrorist.
That's not equivalent. Technically they're both personal attacks, but what we're saying about McCain is pretty mild compared to what he's saying about Obama (never mind the fact that we're telling the truth, and he's making false implications).
Democrats aren't guiltless saints, but we weren't the ones who broke the country.


Cracka please. I'm no McCain fan, but to say the Dems' attacks are truthful therefore better is an hypocrisy. If Obama was McCain's age and McCain's camp was calling Obama old, the goddamn Dems would be playing the ageism card. For the record, I know Obama isn't a terrorist or affiliated with terrorists, so I think that right wind tactic is baseless and low. Shame on them. But isn't that Republican and Democrat politics as usual? To be baseless? To be opportunistic?

And don't sit there and act like Dems didn't play a role in this shit sandwich economic crisis. This is just more BS partisan hackery. You probably think the housing bubble popped because there wasn't enough government regulation, like so many delusional Dems, but the truth is this crisis didn't come from a deregulated market. No. We haven't seen a deregulated market in a long, long, long time, and chances are we never will with the current Neocons and Dems trading places so readily in the captain seat.

The housing market was falsely propped up and made to appear lucrative in order to keep costs high. I'm tired of hearing scapegoat politicians going after subprime lending practices, “predatory” mortgages and unscrupulous lenders who target poor people as if these were the only culprits. The market and capitalism wasn't to blame for this crisis. The Federal Reserve was for manipulating interests rates and creation of money out of thin air. Why? Because when you create that much money and create a false credit then banksters, investors and creditors and even the people investing think the market is booming when it's not.

I still fail to see how complete deregulation will prevent stocks from becoming over valued, banks from offering loans at stupidly low interest rates or extending credit to those with bad credit history.

Doing those things makes a company extremely competitive (in the sense they'll attract more customers than other banks), and it makes them look very profitable, until all those crap loans start defaulting and it becomes beyond obvious the banks assets aren't exactly what they were projected to be. But that really doesn't matter to the people who set those policies in the first place because by the time things head south they've made their money, why should they care what happens to the company? Things 'looked' good when they were in charge, so they got paid a lot.

So in a completely free market what will keep that from happening?

I'd also like to add I have no doubt once the economy stabilizes again the fickle middle which is now calling for regulation, will be screaming for deregulation.

Unfortunately this is what I think tends to drive a lot of policies, and why you see democrats voting for deregulation, and like now, republicans calling for oversight (they can't bring themselves to actually say regulation). They flip-flop on policies to stay on the side of public opinion and stay in office, it's not an excuse it's just the way it is, and in my opinion one of the draw backs to a democracy. That's why people like Ron Paul are so admirable even if you don't agree with them, because they continue to vote in a consistent way despite public opinion.

Obama has voted for things I don't approve of, the dems have voted for things I don't approve of. Sometimes it'd been under the banner of compromise and something just to go along with public opinion. I still support Obama and the Dems because overall they support the views I support. If there were a viable candidate or party that voted more consistently in a manner I approved, I'd vote for them.

I think this is a pretty *quality discussion here, and I'm sorry that you're lumping in everyone who dislikes McCain in a neat group called "the left".

I've never voted for a winning president before, having only voted third party my entire life. This year is different.

I think you may be confusing the idea of "party-loyalty" with a whole shitload of citizens who are sick to death of what the neo-conservative movement has done to our country, our constitution, and our treasury.

Never before have I seen this happen; from authorizing torture of our citizens, to FISA, PATRIOT ACT, Iraq War, Katrina, My Pet Goat, the impending recession, "bomb bomb Iran", "you're with us or against us", giving up on the middle-east peace process, gutting regulations, making a laughing stock out of the EPA and the FDA....the list goes on and on and on.

So please, forgive us for getting a little fuckin' cranky about this. But this country, and this constitution is all we got. And the idea that a person like Barack (screw Kerry and the Gore of 2000) who not only possesses great oratory skills and a 360degree worldview, but who could also be the first black POTUS, brings a big goddamn smile to a lot of faces in this country.


cheers

(ps: i now have a gold star!)

rottenseed has already been awarded a star point for this post - ignoring quality request by volumptuous.

But there has to happen something with the election08 channel..
http://election08.videosift.com/talk/Election08-Channels-fate
Maybe the channel name can be changed into the more general (worldwide) elections, if desired/possible..

>> ^joedirt:
And I don't think there is enough interest in elections channel. We already have politics and worldaffairs. It might sound good, but really, there were ZERO election videos in the past except for a few voting machine videos and maybe the mexico elections.

The problem with most third parties is how they are viewed; most are seen as a one-issue party.

Take your pick...

The Green Party focuses on environmental issues.
The Reform Party focused on economic issues.
The Constitution Party focuses on social issues.
The Libertarian Party focuses on the minimization of government.
etc.

In the public's eye, the Democratic and Republican Party can't be nailed down to one particular issue - they have a well-known stance on a broad range of social, economic, civil, and foreign policy issues. This is not to say that these third parties don't hold a stance on such issues, they just don't focus on them, so they seem like a one-issue party. A single issue will never appeal to the entire population (especially a single stance on one issue), hence they remain largely unpopular.

Until a third party can become known for a strong position on multiple issues and run on those positions, they will remain unpopular.

It's really a catch 22.

Third parties are usually formed by voters who have an extreme view on a certain topic ("extreme" being a view not held by the Democratic or Republican party, since those two have the "slightly left" and "slightly right" center positions pretty much nailed). Take a look at the history of third parties in the USA - they're mostly either extremely liberal or extremely conservative; the ones that are center were mostly formed by Ross Perot in the 90's, and based on economic principles. An extreme view, by definition, is only going to be found in a minority of the population.

Therefore, until common sentiment changes (and it does...eventually...take a look at the civil rights movement or the women's suffrage movement) and public opinion sways, the Dems or the Reps will remain in power. However, even when sentiment sways it will be hard to establish a third party, as one of these major parties will just adopt the new changing sentiment and disregard their old stance, evolving with the sentiment of the people.

Ah, just found out it's impossible to change a channel name..

>> ^Eklek:
But there has to happen something with the election08 channel..
http://election08.videosift.com/talk/Election08-Channels-fate
Maybe the channel name can be changed into the more general (worldwide) elections, if desired/possible..
>> ^joedirt:
And I don't think there is enough interest in elections channel. We already have politics and worldaffairs. It might sound good, but really, there were ZERO election videos in the past except for a few voting machine videos and maybe the mexico elections.

>> ^Fjnbk:
I am sick of the Ron Paul-is-the-best talk that has infested the Internets for months.

[snip]

I've got my share of disagreements with RP, but I'm still inclined to think he would have been one of the top candidates to get us out of what we're sinking in right now:

- Iraq
- Inflation
- National Debt
- Foreign Policy
- Shrinking Personal Freedoms

What RP would do with unlimited time may well be really bad for the country, but he doesn't have unlimited time. In 4 years we could pick someone else.