Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[divine_torture]

 

[zabu of nΩd]

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED TO DO! After bringing all our military assets home.

Oh, I just wanted to say as a follow-up to this article that the 'autarky' scenario it suggests seems exceedingly unrealistic, since so many of our manufactured goods come from China. If there were a trade breakdown between us and them, our economy could easily collapse while theirs would be bristling with a variety of robust industries. The only catch might be if China happens to import a lot of food from the US, but I have a hard time imagining that they would be strapped for alternative food sources around the world (though I haven't researched this at all).

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Just to illustrate how awesome the Palin-Beck ticket would be:

Palin repeatedly confuses Iraq with Iran in Hannity interview

"We have allies who are as concerned about Ahmadinejad's actions as we are. We need to be working closer with France, and with Britain, and start, not just considering, but seriously taking steps towards the sanctions that we hear all about but we never see any actions towards, though.

"Cutting off the imports into Iraq, of their refined petroleum products. They're reliant -- 40 to 45 percent of their energy supply is reliant on those imports. We have some control over there.

"And some of the beneficial international monetary deals that Iraq benefits from -- we can start implementing some sanctions there and start really shaking things up, and telling Ahmadinejad, nobody is going to stand for this."

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

Im a fan of Glenn Beck, but Palin needs to go the hell away.

 

[Cythraul]

Glenn Beck has fans?

 

[Einherjar86]

HELL YEAH HE DOES! HE SHOUTS! I LIKE SHOUTING! GET THE HELL OFF MY SHOW!

 

[unknown]

and he cries

 

[zabu of nΩd]

No, I don't care enough about convincing some guy in Virginia that a lot of third party candidates are batshit crazy and the good (or at least somewhat respectable one) are few and far between. It's not worth my time to sit here and google fucking articles illustrating my points when it's not even going to convince "guy in Virginia." If you actually have done as much research as you claim to have done on third party candidates, you would know that most of them are no better than the major party candidates. I would take Kucinich or even Ron Paul over the vast majority of third party candidates. This sounds nearly like blind support of the "next guy" phenomenon, most common in sports. If the guy in front is not doing his job, everybody calls for his head and urges for the next guy to be brought in, not because the next guy is good, but because he's not the other guy. I do not support the "next guy" merely because I don't support the guy who's up to bat right now.

Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are some of the best politicians out there, so that's not a very fair comparison. I would certainly take either of them as President over Nader. I think your line of argument is putting too much focus on Presidential elections, though, and not enough on Congressional or State government ones. Considering how many relative unknowns we often vote on for these other offices, with little or no real evidence of their political skill or courage, why would you not err on the side of minor candidates rather than risk putting another hand-picked corporate shill into office?

What on earth does it matter if the presidential candidate whom you voted for's view are popular with Congress? Did you really just ask this question? If the president's views are not popular with Congress, then he's not going to be able to get anything accomplished. This was, however, not even my point. I was not referring to views, per se, but rather the status quo. Party lines are strictly divided. There are no joint coalitions. Congresspeople from the two major parties have little incentive to support the agenda of some president that is outside of their party, whether it is Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Socialist, or Lizard People.

Another significant issue hindering the success of third party candidates is their unfamiliarity with the legislative process. I do not think that I have to lay out an argument detailing how a Democratic or Republican candidate is all but guaranteed to have a better understanding of how to "work" Congress into their favor than a third party candidate. This can even be seen in major parties. John F. Kennedy had minimal success at best in passing the sweeping legislations that he was elected for. Lyndon Johnson, however, as a former member of the Congress, knew how to get things done within that political culture and was able to enact many of the same things that JFK was unable to. The success of third party candidates hinges just as much on breaking down this political culture as it does changing the "unelectable" mentality that people have toward third parties.

Yes, this is a good case for not electing minor party Presidents unless they have some experience and/or rapport with Congress. I don't want to emphasise Presidential candidates here so much as Congressional and State ones.

For that reason, I'll avoid addressing your 'bullet point' responses so we don't get further sidetracked on less important arguments. Maybe once we reach a stopping point on this other stuff and I get bored enough to take those on again

Well, if you think about what I said, if, taking a specific example of a third party candidate being elected and that election hindering the future election of other third party candidates, then the better option in this scenarios would be to not get elected. Not getting elected would help them in that instance. For centuries, the primary function of third parties was to get issues across, not to get candidates elected, and if one getting elected hinders that function, then it's obviously a negative thing. And I merely said that I can see it being as likely that the election of a third party candidate would hinder the success of future third party candidates as contribute to. I did not say it was inevitable.

No response needed here I think, assuming you're still talking about the Presidency only (otherwise I think you'd be vastly overstating the potential for minor parties to shoot themselves in the foot).

I'm not utterly convinced of this. It seems intuitive enough, but like I said earlier, it is conceivable that there are some instances in which sacrificing pragmatic immediacy for long-term idealism ultimately hinders the ideal.

I've already made the case that the Democratic/Republican duopoly is leading us toward a major economic collapse (and possibly even a major civil rights collapse), so I really don't see this as being about long-term idealism. It still looks to me like breaking the duopoly is of immediate pragmatic value in and of itself, even if it has to be broken with less politically savvy candidates at first. Most of these more experienced ones are, after all, using their experience to perpetuate our problems for their personal gain (wealth, power and/or job security).

 

[skeptik]

I could have sworn we were talking specifically and only about presidential elections.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Not necessarily - I guess it just looked that way because of how the Obama discussion led into it. I didn't mean to overemphasise the idea of getting a minor/independent into the Presidency, and if I did, my bad. So other than that, we're all straight more or less?

@cookie: do you have anything else in defense of your argument against VotePact? I don't see how it is in any way a bad idea, and why people shouldn't be trying it out (assuming you aren't expected to commit to minor party candidates for every single political office, and can pick and choose which offices you want to support minors/independents in). This is really just a no-brainer for me.

 

[cookiecutter]

It seems pointless to me. Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic but I'd rather vote for a candidate I think might win than participate in a little game to make myself feel smart for not participating in the two-party system.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

It's not just pessimistic to call it pointless - it's in bad faith for any type of grassroots effort at changing the world, and to call it a "game" is especially cynical. I think my analogy to recycling illustrated this pretty well, as I have yet to hear you call recycling a "pointless little game" to make someone "feel smart for not wasting reusable goods". And the sad thing is that VotePact requires far less effort than recycling.

It honestly just boggles my mind that you don't see the value of this idea, especially since you have thus far suggested no other option for escaping the Democrat-Republican gridlock in the country. VotePact is at least a solution, which as an added bonus minimizes the risk of jeopardizing your 'preferred' major party candidate. If nothing else, it sends a message that the two-party system is unacceptable (which you do agree with, right?), and other people will see that message.

 

[skeptik]

Not necessarily - I guess it just looked that way because of how the Obama discussion led into it. I didn't mean to overemphasise the idea of getting a minor/independent into the Presidency, and if I did, my bad. So other than that, we're all straight more or less?

Yeah, pretty much. I mean the first step really is to get some third party candidates into Congress. The only alternative I could possibly envision would be if a major player from one of the two primary parties were to run as an independent and somehow magically wasn't an assbag like all the rest of them. The general public seems to be more receptive to those labeled Independent, especially if they moved to that position from either the Democrats or the Republicans, than to those who affiliate themselves with a genuine third party.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Yup. I would imagine that many of the more "maverick" Dems and Repubs like Kucinich, Grayson and maybe even McCain (despite the term being over-applied to him) would be comfortable jumping ship if it were clear that doing so weren't a black mark on their reputations.

 

[cookiecutter]

It's not just pessimistic to call it pointless - it's in bad faith for any type of grassroots effort at changing the world, and to call it a "game" is especially cynical. I think my analogy to recycling illustrated this pretty well, as I have yet to hear you call recycling a "pointless little game" to make someone "feel smart for not wasting reusable goods". And the sad thing is that VotePact requires far less effort than recycling.

It honestly just boggles my mind that you don't see the value of this idea, especially since you have thus far suggested no other option for escaping the Democrat-Republican gridlock in the country. VotePact is at least a solution, which as an added bonus minimizes the risk of jeopardizing your 'preferred' major party candidate. If nothing else, it sends a message that the two-party system is unacceptable (which you do agree with, right?), and other people will see that message.

Your analogy to recycling is bad because if 30% of people recycled that still does something even though it is a minority. If a minority do this vote pact thing nothing changes.

 

[Dak]

Marine Corps to Expand Infantry "Police Training"

And the slippery slope steepens.

 

[cookiecutter]

Like Hell I'm Going To Let Some Black President Help Me Pay For Dialysis

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Haahahahaha

 

[rms]

Marine Corps to Expand Infantry "Police Training"

And the slippery slope steepens.

afghanistan and iraq will become Korea in 15 years or less id say

 

[skeptik]

Darwin was an evil man responsible for evil things... ...if you don't actually know what you're talking about. Then again, look at all of the evil done in his name... ...by ignorant people who have no idea what they're talking about

edit: also http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d...-article-of-the-week-the-dark-side-of-darwin/