Both parties bro, both. You can't have one, without the other. (Of course, the Republican side is worse.)

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Both parties bro, both. You can't have one, without the other. (Of course, the Republican side is worse.)


Neither party is a perfect fit for me either. But the big Republican idea of cutting "spending" and insisting on no taxes for the rich leads us where this video says it will.

Democrats are insufficiently resolute in their opposition to this idea, but you shouldn't pretend that this makes them equally guilty for the promotion of these bad ideas amongst the populace.

It's the difference between a squadmate who runs away when the bullets start flying, and the people firing bullets at both of you. Neither are going to be your favorite people in the world when the dust settles, but to condemn them equally as if their actions differ only by a trivial matter of degree seems like an injustice to me.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Both parties bro, both. You can't have one, without the other. (Of course, the Republican side is worse.)

Neither party is a perfect fit for me either. But the big Republican idea of cutting "spending" and insisting on no taxes for the rich leads us where this video says it will.
Democrats are insufficiently resolute in their opposition to this idea, but you shouldn't pretend that this makes them equally guilty for the promotion of these bad ideas amongst the populace.
It's the difference between a squadmate who runs away when the bullets start flying, and the people firing bullets at both of you. Neither are going to be your favorite people in the world when the dust settles, but to condemn them equally as if their actions differ only by a trivial matter of degree seems like an injustice to me.



My problem is more that both sides pretend they hate each other while maintaining the status so that both sides are employed. What is the loss of one seat for one politician? Nothing, not when that pol can just sign a million dollar book deal or grab another seat with unnatural ease... Either way, the loser still wins so long as he keeps the "R" or "D"

For example; Charlie Christ ran against Marco Rubio. By himself, he would have won as a non-party candidate. However, Kendrick Meek (Democrat), a jackass with no chance in hell, not even Ralph Nadar close, kept in the race declaring he would be the victor. Either Meek is mildly brain-damaged, or he kept the quo by pretending he opposed the "R."

That's not paronia, that's simple math. Rubio won with Meek's full support, otherwise, the threat of someone who got tired of his party's bullshit would have threatened his precious "R"

>> ^Lawdeedaw:


My problem is more that both sides pretend they hate each other while maintaining the status so that both sides are employed. What is the loss of one seat for one politician? Nothing, not when that pol can just sign a million dollar book deal or get a job somewhere else with "help..."

I guess I think status-quo bias is mostly just baked into the way Congress was set up in the Constitution. More recently, it's baked into the idea that the Senate can't pass a damn thing without a 3/5ths majority, which is really pretty much something new as of 2009.

To the degree that politicians themselves work to maintain the status quo, I say that's usually lobbyist pressure talking. Businesses don't want the environment fixed, they want the freedom to make a profit polluting the world. Businesses don't want health care universal and inexpensive, they want it to be a huge profit-making industry.

Businesses also have wealth that makes the government's budget look like a triviality, and certainly have more wealth than any individual politician does. Bribery can be a strong motivator, and it's effectively legal now.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

For example; Charlie Christ ran against Marco Rubio. By himself, he would have won as a non-party candidate. However, Kendrick Meek (Democrat), a jackass with no chance in hell, not even Ralph Nadar close, kept in the race declaring he would be the victor. Either the man is mildly brain-damaged, or the quo was kept by two opposing allies. That's not paronia, that's simple math. Rubio won with Meek's full support, otherwise, the threat of someone who got tired of his party's bullshit would have threatened his precious "R"


In this case, I just don't think you have your facts right. Charlie Crist was the Republican governor of Florida, who stepped down to run for Senate as a Republican. Democratic party officials didn't really think they stood much of a chance against Crist, so they didn't really try to recruit a strong candidate, or devote much money to the race. Essentially, the Senate seat was going to be Crist's.

But, Crist made the fatal error of publicly endorsing the Obama stimulus package, and the rabid crazies that run the Republican party demanded he be primaried. In comes Marco Rubio to challenge Crist for the Republican nomination for Senate. This turns into a big, ugly battle, and both Crist and Rubio spend boatloads of cash on the primary. Rubio ultimately wins in a landslide -- 20 points, and gets endorsed by all the bigwigs, i.e. Boehner, McConnell, the NRSC, Michael Steele, etc.

Instead of taking the defeat and walking off the stage, Crist vowed to keep campaigning. At that point there was a ton of talk about whether Crist would run as an Independent, or a Democrat. A bunch of Democratic bigwigs, including Bill Clinton, personally approached Crist about running as a Democrat, even though Meek had already won the Democratic nomination.

Crist rejected that offer, and immediately started running ads slamming both Meek and Rubio. He burned his bridges with both parties.

So the election was a big three-way clusterfuck. Rubio was the Republican nominee, Meek was the Democratic nominee, and Crist chose to try to fight both parties. Even so, Democrats asked Meek to drop out and endorse Crist, but Meek thought that was a bridge too far -- Crist had not made any commitment to the Democratic party, and he was a Congressman and a full-fledged candidate for Senate in his own right, why should he drop out to help someone who wasn't a Democrat?

In the end, Rubio came out on top, but that was because he was the only one with any serious backing to his campaign, both monetarily and in terms of grassroots support (Rubio was a Tea Party darling). Meek had no money, and no grassroots support, and neither did Crist at the end of the day.

I remember it vividly because I was tantalized by the possibility of flipping Crist to the Democratic party and turning a sure Republican hold (due to Crist) into a situation where it became a likely Democratic pickup (due to Crist!). That kinda thing doesn't happen too often.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
My problem is more that both sides pretend they hate each other while maintaining the status so that both sides are employed. What is the loss of one seat for one politician? Nothing, not when that pol can just sign a million dollar book deal or get a job somewhere else with "help..."
I guess I think status-quo bias is mostly just baked into the way Congress was set up in the Constitution. More recently, it's baked into the idea that the Senate can't pass a damn thing without a 3/5ths majority, which is really pretty much something new as of 2009.
To the degree that politicians themselves work to maintain the status quo, I say that's usually lobbyist pressure talking. Businesses don't want the environment fixed, they want the freedom to make a profit polluting the world. Businesses don't want health care universal and inexpensive, they want it to be a huge profit-making industry.
Businesses also have wealth that makes the government's budget look like a triviality, and certainly have more wealth than any individual politician does. Bribery can be a strong motivator, and it's effectively legal now.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
For example; Charlie Christ ran against Marco Rubio. By himself, he would have won as a non-party candidate. However, Kendrick Meek (Democrat), a jackass with no chance in hell, not even Ralph Nadar close, kept in the race declaring he would be the victor. Either the man is mildly brain-damaged, or the quo was kept by two opposing allies. That's not paronia, that's simple math. Rubio won with Meek's full support, otherwise, the threat of someone who got tired of his party's bullshit would have threatened his precious "R"

In this case, I just don't think you have your facts right. Charlie Crist was the Republican governor of Florida, who stepped down to run for Senate as a Republican. Democratic party officials didn't really think they stood much of a chance against Crist, so they didn't really try to recruit a strong candidate, or devote much money to the race. Essentially, the Senate seat was going to be Crist's.
But, Crist made the fatal error of publicly endorsing the Obama stimulus package, and the rabid crazies that run the Republican party demanded he be primaried. In comes Marco Rubio to challenge Crist for the Republican nomination for Senate. This turns into a big, ugly battle, and both Crist and Rubio spend boatloads of cash on the primary. Rubio ultimately wins in a landslide -- 20 points, and gets endorsed by all the bigwigs, i.e. Boehner, McConnell, the NRSC, Michael Steele, etc.
Instead of taking the defeat and walking off the stage, Crist vowed to keep campaigning. At that point there was a ton of talk about whether Crist would run as an Independent, or a Democrat. A bunch of Democratic bigwigs, including Bill Clinton, personally approached Crist about running as a Democrat, even though Meek had already won the Democratic nomination.
Crist rejected that offer, and immediately started running ads slamming both Meek and Rubio. He burned his bridges with both parties.
So the election was a big three-way clusterfuck. Rubio was the Republican nominee, Meek was the Democratic nominee, and Crist chose to try to fight both parties. Even so, Democrats asked Meek to drop out and endorse Crist, but Meek thought that was a bridge too far -- Crist had not made any commitment to the Democratic party, and he was a Congressman and a full-fledged candidate for Senate in his own right, why should he drop out to help someone who wasn't a Democrat?
In the end, Rubio came out on top, but that was because he was the only one with any serious backing to his campaign, both monetarily and in terms of grassroots support (Rubio was a Tea Party darling). Meek had no money, and no grassroots support, and neither did Crist at the end of the day.
I remember it vividly because I was tantalized by the possibility of flipping Crist to the Democratic party and turning a sure Republican hold (due to Crist) into a situation where it became a likely Democratic pickup (due to Crist!). That kinda thing doesn't happen too often. <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif">


Christ to me will always have lost because he was tag-teamed. Meek was asked to drop out because he was a loser that siphoned votes. He intentionally stayed for what purpose? I can't think of one besides pride, and that doesn't motivate politicians often enough to be valid.

Crist had a huge grassroots, and large support even if it wasn't tea party fanatics. He should have never been the one to walk off stage. He did the right thing, but right typically loses to the wrongs. I think Crist would never have been happy being a slave to either party--and that's why he left the insanity that is Florida's republicans.

He supported the Obama stimulus and that's fine. He went on attacks but even then kept a positive attitude. And this is why winners cannot be politicians.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Christ to me will always have lost because he was tag-teamed. Meek was asked to drop out because he was a loser that siphoned votes. He intentionally stayed for what purpose? I can't think of one besides pride, and that doesn't motivate politicians often enough to be valid.
Crist had a huge grassroots, and large support even if it wasn't tea party fanatics. He should have never been the one to walk off stage. He did the right thing, but right typically loses to the wrongs. I think Crist would never have been happy being a slave to either party--and that's why he left the insanity that is Florida's republicans.
He supported the Obama stimulus and that's fine. He went on attacks but even then kept a positive attitude. And this is why winners cannot be politicians.


Take a look at the exit polls. Scroll down to the breakdown by party ID.

Rubio got 87% of the Republican vote, and 51% of the Independent vote. Crist and Meek split the Democratic vote (with Meek getting slightly more of it than Crist), but Crist getting 38% of the Independents, with Meek getting only 10%.

Crist lost because Republicans abandoned him. He only got 12% from the party he was in just a few months prior.

Hell, looking at these numbers again makes me think Rubio would've won in a straight-up contest with Crist.

FWIW, it sounded like Crist was a good guy. I'd rather have him in the Senate than Rubio. I probably would've voted for him if I were a Floridian, even.

It is insane, but when people know someone or think someone will lose, they vote against that person. I.e., Christ. Add that percent to Christ's and you come up with a bigger voting base.

The great part was---even burning with utter loss before the battle was finished, Christ still earned what he earned. I was pleased. Independents went to Rubio because he was the winner... Sad.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Christ to me will always have lost because he was tag-teamed. Meek was asked to drop out because he was a loser that siphoned votes. He intentionally stayed for what purpose? I can't think of one besides pride, and that doesn't motivate politicians often enough to be valid.
Crist had a huge grassroots, and large support even if it wasn't tea party fanatics. He should have never been the one to walk off stage. He did the right thing, but right typically loses to the wrongs. I think Crist would never have been happy being a slave to either party--and that's why he left the insanity that is Florida's republicans.
He supported the Obama stimulus and that's fine. He went on attacks but even then kept a positive attitude. And this is why winners cannot be politicians.

Take a look at the exit polls. Scroll down to the breakdown by party ID.
Rubio got 87% of the Republican vote, and 51% of the Independent vote. Crist and Meek split the Democratic vote (with Meek getting slightly more of it than Crist), but Crist getting 38% of the Independents, with Meek getting only 10%.
Crist lost because Republicans abandoned him. He only got 12% from the party he was in just a few months prior.
Hell, looking at these numbers again makes me think Rubio would've won in a straight-up contest with Crist.
FWIW, it sounded like Crist was a good guy. I'd rather have him in the Senate than Rubio. I probably would've voted for him if I were a Floridian, even.

*length 1:30 that is just a guess.... I didn't time it.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Both parties bro, both. You can't have one, without the other. (Of course, the Republican side is worse.)

Neither party is a perfect fit for me either. But the big Republican idea of cutting "spending" and insisting on no taxes for the rich leads us where this video says it will.
Democrats are insufficiently resolute in their opposition to this idea, but you shouldn't pretend that this makes them equally guilty for the promotion of these bad ideas amongst the populace.
It's the difference between a squadmate who runs away when the bullets start flying, and the people firing bullets at both of you. Neither are going to be your favorite people in the world when the dust settles, but to condemn them equally as if their actions differ only by a trivial matter of degree seems like an injustice to me.


Netrunner, why are you blinded by partisan theater?

http://videosift.com/video/Obama-s-Economic-Policy-is-a-Charade-of-lies

Michael Hudson:
What’s inefficient? Paying for people on Medicaid. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Medicare. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Paying Social Security. What is efficient? Giving $13 trillion to Wall Street for a bailout. Now, how on earth can the administration say, in the last three years we have given $13 trillion to Wall Street, but then, in between 2040 and 2075, we may lose $1 trillion, no money for the people?
[...]
They’re going to have to decide what to cut back. So they’re going to cut back the bone and they’re going to keep the fat, basically. They’re going to say–they’re going to try to panic the population into acquiescing in a Democratic Party sellout by cutting back payments to the people–Social Security, Medicare–while making sure that they pay the Pentagon, they pay the foreign aid, they pay Wall Street.

The whole idea of parties needs to be banished. But then people would have to actually start thinking for themselves, and we all know stupid people are the majority in the world, let alone America.

>> ^ForgedReality:

The whole idea of parties needs to be banished. But then people would have to actually start thinking for themselves, and we all know stupid people are the majority in the world, let alone America.


indeed indeed.
political party membership = emotional/identity attachment = loss of cognition

it seems that an increase in the number of independent critical thinkers is somewhat proportional to our access to information and the sharing of information.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Both parties bro, both. You can't have one, without the other. (Of course, the Republican side is worse.)

Neither party is a perfect fit for me either. But the big Republican idea of cutting "spending" and insisting on no taxes for the rich leads us where this video says it will.
Democrats are insufficiently resolute in their opposition to this idea, but you shouldn't pretend that this makes them equally guilty for the promotion of these bad ideas amongst the populace.
It's the difference between a squadmate who runs away when the bullets start flying, and the people firing bullets at both of you. Neither are going to be your favorite people in the world when the dust settles, but to condemn them equally as if their actions differ only by a trivial matter of degree seems like an injustice to me.

Netrunner, why are you blinded by partisan theater?
http://videosift.com/video/Obama-s-Economic-Policy-is-a-Charade-of-lies

Michael Hudson:
What’s inefficient? Paying for people on Medicaid. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Medicare. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Paying Social Security. What is efficient? Giving $13 trillion to Wall Street for a bailout. Now, how on earth can the administration say, in the last three years we have given $13 trillion to Wall Street, but then, in between 2040 and 2075, we may lose $1 trillion, no money for the people?
[...]
They’re going to have to decide what to cut back. So they’re going to cut back the bone and they’re going to keep the fat, basically. They’re going to say–they’re going to try to panic the population into acquiescing in a Democratic Party sellout by cutting back payments to the people–Social Security, Medicare–while making sure that they pay the Pentagon, they pay the foreign aid, they pay Wall Street.


Who's blinded by partisan theater?

I'm not gonna bother with the video clip, but not a single sentence in the entire quote from Michael Hudson was true.

That said, if you think Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security should stay as they are, and Wall Street should have to contribute more to the debt (say, with more taxes), then everything you want is antithetical to the Republican party.

Why exactly do you assume that Democrats are secretly working with the Republicans to implement the Republican policy platform?

I feel like we get the Republican party's policies no matter who's actually in office too. But my solution is to try to make sure all the Republicans lose their seats, so the Democrats will have to put up or shut up.