The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[DaddyTorgo]

I <3 Kucinich.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I find it interesting that you keep bringing up Kucinich since he sold out his position on abortion so he could run for President in the Dem primaries.

[DaddyTorgo]

Yeah, the kind of "austerity measures" they're going to go through in Greece and elsewhere would never fly here. People say they want that shit, but in reality we're all too impatient and entitled (even those of us who think we aren't).

[panerd]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I find it interesting that you keep bringing up Kucinich since he sold out his position on abortion so he could run for President in the Dem primaries.

Not an issue I care about at all but if he changed to the pro-chocie crowd than it would make me like him even more.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

Not an issue I care about at all but if he changed to the pro-chocie crowd than it would make me like him even more.

I'm just talking about how you hold him up as being above the usual politicians, but he famously sold out to the "money and power" of the pro-choice lobby so he could run for president.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Yeah, the kind of "austerity measures" they're going to go through in Greece and elsewhere would never fly here. People say they want that shit, but in reality we're all too impatient and entitled (even those of us who think we aren't).

No doubt. I fear we are past the point of no return but spending more and more is just going to get us to the collapse faster and faster. It's much easier to blame Bush or blame Obama and to say maybe we need to cut some of these government programs or stop some of these wars or stop these corporate handouts but very few have the balls to say that we have to do all three. Who is going to win an election by proposing cutting spending, stopping war, and raising taxes?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm just talking about how you hold him up as being above the usual politicians, but he famously sold out to the "money and power" of the pro-choice lobby so he could run for president.

will concede that. Let's just say that Paul (as I am sure there will be some issue that Paul has flip-flopped on as well) and Kucinich seem to be the people at the debates that don't just give the "Rah rah America, listen to what the other side does wrong while I offer no tangible solutions" answer to every question. I don't mind moving Kucinich a little lower than Paul.

EDIT: Believe me I think Kucinich has some really backwards plans but he seems to at least have solutions that Democrats should want and not "I will end this war" while just moving it to Afganistan and Pakistan.

[Senator]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I apologize that lots of people hate your own personal hero, George W. Bush.
*There is no cabal.

Not sure but you might be an idiot.

View Poll Results: Who was the worst President in your lifetime thus far?

George W. Bush
-apoc-, ace1914, Apathetic Lurker, Arctus, Atocep, Autumn, AZSpeechCoach, bhlloy, Big Fo, boberot, Butter_of_69, Calis, chesapeake, Chubby, claphamsa, CleBrownsfan, clemsonfan, CrimsonFox, DaddyTorgo, Daimyo, Danny, Dark Cloud, dawgfan, DeToxRox, Dodgerchick, ds27, duckman, fantom1979, Fidatelo, Flasch186, flere-imsaho, Fonzie, gkb, GoSeahawks, GrantDawg, I. J. Reilly, INDalltheway, ISiddiqui, Izulde, jaygr, JetsIn06, johneh, JPhillips, JS19, Karlifornia, kcchief19, Kodos, korme, KWhit, larrymcg421, laser, Lathum, lerriuqs, lighthousekeeper, like a dog, LionsFan10, M GO BLUE!!!, MacroGuru, Marc Vaughan, Masked, McSweeny, MIJB#19, molson, MrKordell, NevStar, nol, Noop, PackerFanatic, panerd, Panthersfan75, path12, Peregrine, PineTar, Pyser, Qrusher14242, Racer, Radii, RainMaker, RendeR, rockboy70, Ronnie Dobbs2, Router Help, RPI-Fan, Saul Goode, Scoobz0202, Senator, Sgran, SirFozzie, Solecismic, sovereignstar, SportsDino, SteveBollea, Sublime 2, SunDevil, Swaggs, Telle, TheOhioStateUniversity, thesloppy, Thomkal, Tigercat, TLK, Toddzilla, TredWel, yacovfb

[flere-imsaho]

Ah. Well, then.

I do apologize. That was catastrophically stupid of me.

Guess I'll have to get you that check then, now.

[Senator]

That's all I wanted in the first place!!!!

[path12]

Originally Posted by molson

I think the tea party (or a more sane version of it) is a double-dip recession/public debt crisis away from really taking off. Which seems inevitable once the stimulus dries up.

I think a third party makes a lot of sense and I would love there to be one. Unfortunately the only examples I've got so far are Perot, Nader and the tea partiers -- all of which became crazy as batshit within six months.

Color me skeptical.

A parlimentary system is making more and more sense to me as time goes by. Jesus, England's got the liberals and conservatives working together. When do you think that's going to happen here again?

[larrymcg421]

Throwing in extra parties could cause chaos with our current electoral system. You'd very likely have the elections decided by congress almost every single time, or you could have someone managing 35% in enough states to get 270 electoral votes. They could have less than 30% nationwide and be President.

[path12]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Throwing in extra parties could cause chaos with our current electoral system. You'd very likely have the elections decided by congress almost every single time, or you could have someone managing 35% in enough states to get 270 electoral votes. They could have less than 30% nationwide and be President.

Fair point. I obviously haven't thought the whole idea through.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by path12

A parlimentary system is making more and more sense to me as time goes by. Jesus, England's got the liberals and conservatives working together. When do you think that's going to happen here again?

Unless there's more common ground some day, hopefully never.
edit to add: Unless, of course, our left wingers find some common decency & suddenly discover common sense

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by path12

Jesus, England's got the liberals and conservatives working together. ?

Hey, the Democrats and Republicans are in complete agreement that the two-party system is superior.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by path12

I think a third party makes a lot of sense and I would love there to be one. Unfortunately the only examples I've got so far are Perot, Nader and the tea partiers -- all of which became crazy as batshit within six months.

All of the examples you mentioned question the establishment. The establishment owns all of the media (mass media at least). Are you really sure they are all batshit crazy or are they really any different than whatever the CNN/Fox flavor of the month is? (Obama, Palin, etc) I guess perception is reality but I am sure if you attended some of these third party rallies you would see they are made up of mostly normal people who are pissed off like you. Of course the radicals will come out in droves, I am sure they probably go to GOP and Democrat rallies as well. I dunno unless you really have firsthand knowledge I would at least give them a shot.

[path12]

Originally Posted by panerd

All of the examples you mentioned question the establishment. The establishment owns all of the media (mass media at least). Are you really sure they are all batshit crazy or are they really any different than whatever the CNN/Fox flavor of the month is? (Obama, Palin, etc) I guess perception is reality but I am sure if you attended some of these third party rallies you would see they are made up of mostly normal people who are pissed off like you. Of course the radicals will come out in droves, I am sure they probably go to GOP and Democrat rallies as well. I dunno unless you really have firsthand knowledge I would at least give them a shot.

Don't talk to me about the media. The failure of the media to do their job over the past thirty years is in my opinion one of the top three reasons that we are where we're at right now.

And yes, I have attended more than a few third party rallies in my life. Hell, I even attended some Libertarian ones. I'll stand by my statement.

[path12]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Unless there's more common ground some day, hopefully never.
edit to add: Unless, of course, our left wingers find some common decency & suddenly discover common sense

Well, you've always got that secession thing to fall back on.

[RainMaker]

Rand Paul is an interesting guy and I'd love to see some Libertarian voices in both the House and Senate. But he's already backtracking on a lot of his libertarian beliefs and is morphing into just another politician. I mean he's against socialized medicine, but not Medicare.

It's cute to give speeches and stuff about how you're for small government. But winning elections and staying in power are another people. All these anti-big government people don't like it when you tell them you're taking their government social security and health care from them.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Rand Paul is an interesting guy and I'd love to see some Libertarian voices in both the House and Senate. But he's already backtracking on a lot of his libertarian beliefs and is morphing into just another politician. I mean he's against socialized medicine, but not Medicare.

It's cute to give speeches and stuff about how you're for small government. But winning elections and staying in power are another people. All these anti-big government people don't like it when you tell them you're taking their government social security and health care from them.

I have noticed the attacks have really started up in the press. (EDIT: I know, I know. Tuesday I was bitching about him not being in the news. I should be happy that he is now) Going back to the race baiting like they always do with his father. (Buried somewhere in the Rand Paul is a Racist headline is that he doesn't believe in the Civil Rights Act for private business. Not sure I have met many who do.) If he is backtracking on some other major stuff that is kind of sad. I am a big fan of his dad's and would love to be a fan of his too. You won the primary because you weren't mainstream don't be convinced that's what you need to do to win this election, it's the exact opposite of what you need to do! The tea party is really starting to follow the famous Gandhi quote (not quite the same situation but with the spending the way it is it could get just as bad!) though. It will be fun to watch Republicrats and Demolicans unite to try and save their asses when these guys start winning their seats.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

[DaddyTorgo]

You haven't met many people who believe in the Civil Rights Act for private businesses??

Where (and in what year) the fuck do you people live??? WTF!!!!!!

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

You haven't met many people who believe in the Civil Rights Act for private businesses??

Where (and in what year) the fuck do you people live??? WTF!!!!!!

Yawn. Hasn't this topic been done here 1000 times? Go talk to Skydog if you want. It seems like all of the faux outrage is gone when a black guy says it.

EDIT: Though if you google "civil rights act for private business" the first 20 results are Rand Paul. Sure no media manipulation going on in this country at all.

[JediKooter]

I thought it was funny...

Rodent scurries by as Obama lauds Wall Street vote - Yahoo! News

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

I have noticed the attacks have really started up in the press. (EDIT: I know, I know. Tuesday I was bitching about him not being in the news. I should be happy that he is now) Going back to the race baiting like they always do with his father. (Buried somewhere in the Rand Paul is a Racist headline is that he doesn't believe in the Civil Rights Act for private business. Not sure I have met many who do.) If he is backtracking on some other major stuff that is kind of sad. I am a big fan of his dad's and would love to be a fan of his too. You won the primary because you weren't mainstream don't be convinced that's what you need to do to win this election, it's the exact opposite of what you need to do! The tea party is really starting to follow the famous Gandhi quote (not quite the same situation but with the spending the way it is it could get just as bad!) though. It will be fun to watch Republicrats and Demolicans unite to try and save their asses when these guys start winning their seats.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Paul only got about a quarter of the overall vote in the KY primaries. Let's at least see a Tea Party candidate win a general election before comparing them to Ghandi.

[JPhillips]

Ron Paul and Reagan staffer Bruce Bartlett on Paul:

Rand Paul, son of legendary libertarian Congressman Ron Paul, for whom I worked in the 1970s, is now the official Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate from Kentucky. Perhaps unfortunately for him, he did not get a great deal of national press scrutiny during his primary campaign because he was an outsider that many in the national press corps thought could not win. Now that he has, they are making up for lost time. And Rand has accommodated them by repeatedly saying that he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on libertarian grounds: private businesses should not be forced to serve African Americans if they so choose. Presumably, market pressure will eventually force them to be more accommodating. If it doesn't, then so be it, Rand believes.

Both Rand's supporters and critics point to Senator Barry Goldwater's principled opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, according to Rick Perlstein's excellent book, Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act was based entirely on constitutional concerns. He had been told by both William Rehnquist, then a private attorney in Phoenix and later chief justice of the Supreme Court, and Robert Bork, then a professor of constitutional law at Yale, that it was unconstitutional. Bork even sent him a 75-page brief to that effect.

To be sure, the Rehnquist-Bork position was not a lame rationalization for racism. It was rooted in the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 essentially replicated the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which was enacted by a Republican Congress over strenuous Democratic opposition. However, in 1883 the Supreme Court, then it its most libertarian phase, knocked down the 1875 act as well as many other Republican measures passed during Reconstruction designed to aid African Americans. The Court's philosophy in these cases led logically to Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, which essentially gave constitutional protection to legal segregation enforced by state and local governments throughout the U.S.

As we know from history, the free market did not lead to a breakdown of segregation. Indeed, it got much worse, not just because it was enforced by law but because it was mandated by self-reinforcing societal pressure. Any store owner in the South who chose to serve blacks would certainly have lost far more business among whites than he gained. There is no reason to believe that this system wouldn't have perpetuated itself absent outside pressure for change.

In short, the libertarian philosophy of Rand Paul and the Supreme Court of the 1880s and 1890s gave us almost 100 years of segregation, white supremacy, lynchings, chain gangs, the KKK, and discrimination of African Americans for no other reason except their skin color. The gains made by the former slaves in the years after the Civil War were completely reversed once the Supreme Court effectively prevented the federal government from protecting them. Thus we have a perfect test of the libertarian philosophy and an indisputable conclusion: it didn't work. Freedom did not lead to a decline in racism; it only got worse.

Sadly, it took the Supreme Court more than 50 years after Plessy before it began to undo its mistake in Brown. This led to repeated efforts by the Eisenhower administration to enact civil rights legislation, which was opposed and gutted by Senate Democrats led by Lyndon Johnson. But by 1964, it was clear to Johnson that the tide had turned. The federal courts were moving to dismantle segregation to the extent they could, and the 1963 March on Washington, the murder and beating of civil rights demonstrators in the South and growing awareness of such atrocities changed the political climate and made the Civil Rights Act of 1964 possible--despite the filibuster against it by Senator Robert C. Byrd, who still serves in the Senate today.

If Rand Paul were saying that he agrees with the Goldwater-Rehnquist-Bork view that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unconstitutional and that the Supreme Court was wrong to subsequently find it constitutional, that would be an eccentric but defensible position. If he were saying that the Civil Rights Act were no longer necessary because of the great strides we have made as a country in eradicating racism, that would also be defensible. But Rand's position is that it was wrong in principle in 1964. There is no other way of interpreting this except as an endorsement of all the things the Civil Rights Act was designed to prohibit, as favoring the status quo throughout the South that would have led to a continuation of segregation and discrimination against African Americans at least for many more years. Undoubtedly, changing mores would have broken down some of this over time, but there is no reason to believe that it would have been quick or that vestiges wouldn't still remain today. Indeed, vestiges remain despite the Civil Rights Act.

I don't believe Rand is a racist; I think he is a fool who is suffering from the foolish consistency syndrome that affects all libertarians. They believe that freedom consists of one thing and one thing only--freedom from governmental constraint. Therefore, it is illogical to them that any increase in government power could ever expand freedom. Yet it is clear that African Americans were far from free in 1964 and that the Civil Rights Act greatly expanded their freedom while diminishing that of racists. To defend the rights of racists to discriminate is reprehensible and especially so when it is done by a major party nominee for the U.S. Senate. I believe that Rand should admit that he was wrong as quickly as possible.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Paul only got about a quarter of the overall vote in the KY primaries. Let's at least see a Tea Party candidate win a general election before comparing them to Ghandi.

Yeah because that's what I did. I know it's hard for you when the typical Democrat/Republican playbook of Obama and Bush bashing back and forth doesn't work out but you can surely do better than that can't you?

[JPhillips]

Yes, bashing both Republicans and Democrats is much more morally pure.

You're as partisan as anyone in this thread you just root for a different jersey.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Yes, bashing both Republicans and Democrats is much more morally pure.

You're as partisan as anyone in this thread you just root for a different jersey.

Nah, I honestly couldn't tell you one Libertarian outside of Bob Barr. (and my guess he was just using the party in 2008 to run for president and probably isn't with the party anymore) I like a lot of their ideas and find that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson (Republicans) match my ideas best but I am hardly partisan. i.e. committed to a party. You are correct that I am firmly against the shit we have in Washington. But no reason to do anything about it. In 2015 we can talk again about how it's too late to really do anything anyways, then again in 2020, then in 2025. The government is already too big I give up! Spend more! Spend us out of this mess please!

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

No, there's a mandatory 4-year cooling-off period after your guy was President for 8 years.

By the way, we did ship the pony via certified mail. Did you not get it?

Hey, you never said we could have a real pony

[JPhillips]

Join a local Libertarian group, those chicks are wild.

Libertarians say Kagan is bad, but bigger problem exists

And this isn't my usual Libertarian rant.

True, but it is a true Libertarian response. Every major Libertarian scholar I have ever read has done anything but call for isolationism.

when I presented a Libertarian viewpoint

Libertarians on health care

Libertarians on the enviornment

Take a look at the Libertarian platform sometime and tell me where you differ.

I feel like my Libertarian viewpoints at least resonate with some people.

Your description of yourself sounds very Libertarian.

But you're right my Libertarian views are wacky!

I can only speak for myself but the Libertarian platform is almost spot on in both economic and social aspects for me.

I will still be voting Libertarian

You're entitled to argue whatever floats your boat, but let's not pretend you haven't been one of the main supporters of the Libertarian Party in this thread.

[path12]

I flirted with Libertarianism during that time in one's life where you try and get past the bullshit you've been brought up to believe and start to figure out what you really do believe.

My conclusion was something like this. Any time you have a clear belief system that promotes otherwise perfectly avoidable suffering of fellow human beings you lose me. Plain and simple.

It is a utopian dream that is absolutely unworkable in our age and society. Name one social ill that an unfettered free market is able to fix. You can't.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by path12

I flirted with Libertarianism during that time in one's life where you try and get past the bullshit you've been brought up to believe and start to figure out what you really do believe.

My conclusion was something like this. Any time you have a clear belief system that promotes otherwise perfectly avoidable suffering of fellow human beings you lose me. Plain and simple.

It is a utopian dream that is absolutely unworkable in our age and society. Name one social ill that an unfettered free market is able to fix. You can't.

What you said. I did the same thing - flirted with it, espoused it for a little while, even voted that way when I was 18...19. But yeah...it's unworkable.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by path12

I flirted with Libertarianism during that time in one's life where you try and get past the bullshit you've been brought up to believe and start to figure out what you really do believe.

My conclusion was something like this. Any time you have a clear belief system that promotes otherwise perfectly avoidable suffering of fellow human beings you lose me. Plain and simple.

It is a utopian dream that is absolutely unworkable in our age and society. Name one social ill that an unfettered free market is able to fix. You can't.

LOL. So the Utopian dream is one where I live for myself and hope that my neighbors do too? While a realistic one is world peace or no guns or conquering the middle East and solving the oil crisis or no abortions because of law or 100% literacy from government run schools or spending money to get out of debt. You're right Libertarians are so unrealistic and living in a dream world.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

What you said. I did the same thing - flirted with it, espoused it for a little while, even voted that way when I was 18...19. But yeah...it's unworkable.

Does the federal government require a handicap ramp on your ivory tower? Please tell me more about when I grow up? What don't I understand about the real world and King Obama?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

Does the federal government require a handicap ramp on your ivory tower? Please tell me more about when I grow up? What don't I understand about the real world and King Obama?

Don't be a douche. Other people are allowed to have their opinions - you haven't discovered some magical "elixir of perfect politics" because you're a libertarian.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Kung Fu Monkey: Ephemera 2009 (7)

What about a fully grown man who gets kicked off a football message board for acting like a 14-year old and thinks he can trick everyone by coming back under a different handle?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Don't be a douche. Other people are allowed to have their opinions - you haven't discovered some magical "elixir of perfect politics" because you're a libertarian.

So your discovery at age 18 of why my opinion is wrong wasn't you being a douchebag it was just an opinion? Got it.

[path12]

Originally Posted by panerd

LOL. So the Utopian dream is one where I live for myself and hope that my neighbors do too? While a realistic one is world peace or no guns or conquering the middle East and solving the oil crisis or no abortions because of law or 100% literacy from government run schools or spending money to get out of debt.

Tell me where I said that.

You're free to believe whatever you want. But don't go around acting like you've got the answer and nobody else is wise enough to see it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

So your discovery at age 18 of why my opinion is wrong wasn't you being a douchebag it was just an opinion? Got it.

Exactly. IT IS MY OPINION THAT I FORMED AT THAT TIME THAT IT IS UNWORKABLE.

You're free to come to a different conclusion. Doesn't mean that either of us is right in the end.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Exactly. IT IS MY OPINION THAT I FORMED AT THAT TIME THAT IT IS UNWORKABLE.

You're free to come to a different conclusion. Doesn't mean that either of us is right in the end.

Right. You didn't throw the 18 or 19 yeard old part in just to be a dick about it. Got it, you just wanted to make sure all of us were clear on the dates of when you made discoveries.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

Right. You didn't throw the 18 or 19 yeard old part in just to be a dick about it. Got it, you just wanted to make sure all of us were clear on the dates of when you made discoveries.

Actually...yes.

You have quite the "Libertarian persecution complex" going on lately hmm?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

I have noticed the attacks have really started up in the press. (EDIT: I know, I know. Tuesday I was bitching about him not being in the news. I should be happy that he is now) Going back to the race baiting like they always do with his father. (Buried somewhere in the Rand Paul is a Racist headline is that he doesn't believe in the Civil Rights Act for private business. Not sure I have met many who do.) If he is backtracking on some other major stuff that is kind of sad. I am a big fan of his dad's and would love to be a fan of his too. You won the primary because you weren't mainstream don't be convinced that's what you need to do to win this election, it's the exact opposite of what you need to do! The tea party is really starting to follow the famous Gandhi quote (not quite the same situation but with the spending the way it is it could get just as bad!) though. It will be fun to watch Republicrats and Demolicans unite to try and save their asses when these guys start winning their seats.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

The thing is, he isn't that much different. He's just like your typical Republican or Democrat. Look at his platform, it's not that much different than the rhetoric you see by just about any politician on the right. The one major difference is that he's against the Iraq war. He's a libertarian only in image.

I would vote for the guy because while I think some of his ideas are crazy, they are crazy to the point that he'll never be a deciding vote on the issue. But his votes on spending and other things that are close will be good overall.

As for the race-baiting, I agree that it's horrible. People try and portray those against the private sector portion of the Civil Rights Act as racist when in fact they just don't feel the government should be legislating morality. I wish he would just say that and stop pussy footing around. But he's running in a party that wants the government to legislate morality, so he can't.

[JPhillips]

From the BArtlett essay posted above:

I don't believe Rand is a racist; I think he is a fool who is suffering from the foolish consistency syndrome that affects all libertarians. They believe that freedom consists of one thing and one thing only--freedom from governmental constraint. Therefore, it is illogical to them that any increase in government power could ever expand freedom. Yet it is clear that African Americans were far from free in 1964 and that the Civil Rights Act greatly expanded their freedom while diminishing that of racists. To defend the rights of racists to discriminate is reprehensible and especially so when it is done by a major party nominee for the U.S. Senate.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by path12

Well, you've always got that secession thing to fall back on.

Sigh. If only ...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

You won the primary because you weren't mainstream

Umm ... he's "100% pro-life", he "opposes all federal bailouts of private industry", on defense he believes "When we are threatened, it is the obligation of our representatives to unleash the full arsenal of power that is granted ...", he believes "Lowering taxes gives working men and women the ability to take control of their own lives", he's pro-veteran, he's pro-homeschool rights, he opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants, he says he'll "fight to balance the budget and dramatically reduce spending".

Other than his take on health care (and apparently Iraq, I haven't read his comments on that in detail), how far outside the GOP mainstream are his actual positions?

Let's be honest here, winning a GOP primary is a feat that has some pretty narrow parameters you're going to have to be within. I'm not being critical of that, we both know you aren't going to find me being too upset by narrowly defined boundaries of acceptability. To pretend that he won because he's some sort of socio-political revolutionary is just fucking silly.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

EDIT: Though if you google "civil rights act for private business" the first 20 results are Rand Paul. Sure no media manipulation going on in this country at all.

That's Google's algorithm being influenced by frequency of searches, immediacy, and link backs. That's not a sign of a vast bipartisan media conspiracy.

Such a thing might conceivably exist but what you cite isn't evidence of it.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by path12

Fair point. I obviously haven't thought the whole idea through.

That's OK: I have.

Keep the Senate as it is, but convert the House to a body that is elected by a national vote based on proportional representation, with no more individual districts.

Any party can run in the national election and they put a slate of candidates up who would take the seats they end up being allotted. As an example:

Republicans get 37% of the vote, they get 161 seats
Democrats get 32% of the vote, they get 139 seats
Libertarians get 15% of the vote, they get 65 seats
Greens get 10% of the vote, they get 44 seats
Socialists get 3% of the vote, they get 13 seats
Federalists get 2% of the vote, they get 9 seats
States' Rights Party gets 1% of the vote, they get 4 seats

Republicans form governing coalition with Libertarians for a 226-seat majority.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

edit to add: Unless, of course, our left wingers find some common decency & suddenly discover common sense

[path12]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

That's OK: I have.

Keep the Senate as it is, but convert the House to a body that is elected by a national vote based on proportional representation, with no more individual districts.

Any party can run in the national election and they put a slate of candidates up who would take the seats they end up being allotted. As an example:

Republicans get 37% of the vote, they get 161 seats
Democrats get 32% of the vote, they get 139 seats
Libertarians get 15% of the vote, they get 65 seats
Greens get 10% of the vote, they get 44 seats
Socialists get 3% of the vote, they get 13 seats
Federalists get 2% of the vote, they get 9 seats
States' Rights Party gets 1% of the vote, they get 4 seats

Republicans form governing coalition with Libertarians for a 226-seat majority.

Interesting. But if the Senate stays the same that body (at least for awhile) is likely to remain mostly two party. So say you have this governing coalition of Repub/Libertarian and a Democratic majority in the Senate. Nothing could pass both bodies. Though of course there are some who would consider that a victory.

[flere-imsaho]

A key benefit of a nationally-elected PR system would be immediate relevance for some third (or fourth, or fifth) parties. As it stands now, a vote for someone other than D or R is essentially a protest vote, and so even if you, say, really agree with the Greens, you probably won't vote for them over a Democrat, especially in a tight race.

In this system you can, especially since Greens would likely ally with Democrats on more issues, you're not necessarily voting to the benefit of Republicans by voting Green (from the opposite side, substitute Libertarians for Greens and Democrats for Republicans).

Later, if non-D/R politicians get press and reputations, you might even see a few of them run, and win, Senate seats. So you get more diversity of opinion overall.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

A key benefit of a nationally-elected PR system would be immediate relevance for some third (or fourth, or fifth) parties.

Except that there's a great deal of the country (I'd dare say a majority of those who actually have an opinion) who don't see that as a "benefit".

Truth is, a lot of us don't believe that most of those fringe elements have any actual relevance, and especially don't think a system should be jury rigged in order to create an artificial relevance for them.

edit to add: Further, if someone thinks "special interest groups" have too much sway now, wait 'til they get a load of the deals cut between the Vegetarian Party & the Dem's (or any of the dozens of other possible combinations on either side of the aisle).