Also, black people weren't human! I mean, at least they weren't chattel, right?
Meh, if you're going to go sarcastic on me, I'll go realistic on you and say that the thousands of people who died (or are still dying) - who are black, by the way - at Congo or Rwanda (by God, what is the name of the capitals of those curious tribes?) so videogame developers could have their cassiterite or coltan so "enlightenedbum" could play Ultima VII or Civilization 4 haven't bothered you in the least.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Several minerals key to modern computer technology are in/were in war-torn regions of Africa. If western companies purchase raw materials from shady regimes, those regimes then use that money to finance their wars and oppression, etc, etc.
It's one of the (many) dark things underlying the global economy that most people don't know much about. (Including myself, I'm just pretty sure that's what he's talking about)
obviously this is a greater travesty than diamomds, given the millions of lives diamonds have saved
And what's Ron Paul going to do about (whatever the hell is going on outside our borders)? Absolutely nothing! So that digression is sort of irrelevant.
dojango on
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
And what's Ron Paul going to do about (whatever the hell is going on outside our borders)? Absolutely nothing! So that digression is sort of irrelevant.
He's going to ensure that we don't get involved! In any way!
I really can't tell who's being serious in this thread anymore.
Feature, not a bug.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Anybody wonder if Obama should have the Senate come back?
I think it's a bit of a gambit on the part of the GOP. Either the Democrats cave and do what the GOP wants or they stand their ground and the economy's staggering recovery takes a shot to the knee caps.
I do think that the president will be able to turn it back on the Republicans if that happens, but if we get a staggered recession now plus the probable recession we're going to get from Europe sooner or later the recent bump in the polls Obama's gotten might well waffle away.
And then we'll get President Romney and nobody wants that.
Anybody wonder if Obama should have the Senate come back?
I think it's a bit of a gambit on the part of the GOP. Either the Democrats cave and do what the GOP wants or they stand their ground and the economy's staggering recovery takes a shot to the knee caps.
I do think that the president will be able to turn it back on the Republicans if that happens, but if we get a staggered recession now plus the probable recession we're going to get from Europe sooner or later the recent bump in the polls Obama's gotten might well waffle away.
And then we'll get President Romney and nobody wants that.
Let the House GOP twist in the wind. If boehner had the guts to call it to a vote it'd pass. He's going to have to throw the teappers under the bus sooner or later.
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
China may or not be about to undergo a massive real estate crash, as well. That's another financial crisis that may or may not hit in 2012.
I'd be surprised if a Chinese real estate crash causes more than a blip. It's not nearly the same situation as we had here in the US.
Any time the average price of something triples in 4 years you are either looking at an extreme shortage or a giant massive bubble. Many people [citation needed] think that many Chinese banks are hiding massive portfolios of worthless properties and mortgages.
China may or not be about to undergo a massive real estate crash, as well. That's another financial crisis that may or may not hit in 2012.
I'd be surprised if a Chinese real estate crash causes more than a blip. It's not nearly the same situation as we had here in the US.
Any time the average price of something triples in 4 years you are either looking at an extreme shortage or a giant massive bubble. Many people [citation needed] think that many Chinese banks are hiding massive portfolios of worthless properties and mortgages.
Right, and even supposing your second statement is true (I have no clue), that's bad for the Chinese economy, but not necessarily a big deal for the rest of the world.
To my knowledge there's not a ton of foreign investment in Chinese markets, especially not the Chinese housing market. Hell the wealthy Chinese have been moving their money overseas by investing in Canadian real estate for the last several years. On top of that, the yuan is fixed to the dollar at a point that artificially undermines the currency.
So even supposing the bubble is real, it pops and many Chinese banks fail due to systemic risk, all that happens in my view is the Chinese government bails out the banks. This would devalue the yuan if it weren't already artificially devalued and I'm sure it will have very real consequences for the Chinese middle class, but I don't really see it impacting the global economy like the US or Euro financial collapsess have.
Yes I know I've driven this thread widely OT but the last page is just a bunch of sarcastic Ron Paul comments that have nothing to do with anything, so I don't feel too bad.
Sir Landshark on
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
China may or not be about to undergo a massive real estate crash, as well. That's another financial crisis that may or may not hit in 2012.
I'd be surprised if a Chinese real estate crash causes more than a blip. It's not nearly the same situation as we had here in the US.
Any time the average price of something triples in 4 years you are either looking at an extreme shortage or a giant massive bubble. Many people [citation needed] think that many Chinese banks are hiding massive portfolios of worthless properties and mortgages.
Right, and even supposing your second statement is true (I have no clue), that's bad for the Chinese economy, but not necessarily a big deal for the rest of the world.
The Chinese housing bubble bursting would do fairly profound things to commodity prices and deeply affect those economies that export commodities like copper
China may or not be about to undergo a massive real estate crash, as well. That's another financial crisis that may or may not hit in 2012.
I'd be surprised if a Chinese real estate crash causes more than a blip. It's not nearly the same situation as we had here in the US.
Any time the average price of something triples in 4 years you are either looking at an extreme shortage or a giant massive bubble. Many people [citation needed] think that many Chinese banks are hiding massive portfolios of worthless properties and mortgages.
Right, and even supposing your second statement is true (I have no clue), that's bad for the Chinese economy, but not necessarily a big deal for the rest of the world.
The Chinese housing bubble bursting would do fairly profound things to commodity prices and deeply affect those economies that export commodities like copper
Even the minor unrest in China (Wukan, Haimen) has had the communist party backing down twice now. Publicly.
The housing bubble in China will leave the property owner with the loss, because they put down 50 to 100% of the value. That will not leave people happy it starts to tank. Any predictions of what would happen will likely be wrong, because look at how well everyone has done with the U.S. and Europe crises.
Does anybody know what, exactly, a third party is supposed to do? Everyone cites it as the solution to his pet issue. Politics too polarized? Third party! Politics too liberal? Third party! Politics too conservative? Third party! Have cancer? Third party!
Does anybody know what, exactly, a third party is supposed to do? Everyone cites it as the solution to his pet issue. Politics too polarized? Third party! Politics too liberal? Third party! Politics too conservative? Third party! Have cancer? Third party!
Hold a circle jerk.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Third parties that don't steal votes from parties that stand a chance to win allow more granular, accurate representation of voters. It wouldn't necessarily move the country left, right, or anywhere else, but it would make it clearer what people wanted from their government, I think.
Something like 'These guys are my first pick but I guess these guys and these guys are less bad than those guys and I'd rather elect Hitler's zombie than those guys' would help, I think.
Like, I'd probably vote for the Green party if it wasn't effectively a nonvote (and if they weren't fuckstupid about nuclear energy).
If Karl Rove isn't being listened to, who the hell is in charge of the Republican party?
someone who doesn't like listening to Karl Rove? In other words, not Karl Rove.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Well duh, but my main point is this is the guy who has been representative of the GOP leadership for more than a decade now. This, to me, shows how deep the tea party got its claws into the Republicans. For example, the leading story is that Boehner was pro the Senate deal until the caucus meeting he had where Cantor and the rest decided that they were going to doublegoodunthink their past intransigence to have an all new form of intransigence.
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Well there is an odd split in the Republican party between old guard and the Tea Party. The old guard wants Romney to be in play because he is the most moderate likable and electable. The Tea Party can't fucking decide, but people like Perry are persona not grata in the Bush Rove camp.
Third parties that don't steal votes from parties that stand a chance to win allow more granular, accurate representation of voters. It wouldn't necessarily move the country left, right, or anywhere else, but it would make it clearer what people wanted from their government, I think.
Something like 'These guys are my first pick but I guess these guys and these guys are less bad than those guys and I'd rather elect Hitler's zombie than those guys' would help, I think.
Like, I'd probably vote for the Green party if it wasn't effectively a nonvote (and if they weren't fuckstupid about nuclear energy).
There's only one presidency. The new system would either mean a run-off, and therefor nobody caring about the third party because it'll get knocked out and the voters taken by the other party on that side of the aisle, or some sort of power sharing where coalitions are guaranteed enough that no one cares whether your votes for the mainline party or one of the minor hangers-one like the who-killed-tupak party (sorry, I just had to rib you for that one).
Third parties that don't steal votes from parties that stand a chance to win allow more granular, accurate representation of voters. It wouldn't necessarily move the country left, right, or anywhere else, but it would make it clearer what people wanted from their government, I think.
Something like 'These guys are my first pick but I guess these guys and these guys are less bad than those guys and I'd rather elect Hitler's zombie than those guys' would help, I think.
Like, I'd probably vote for the Green party if it wasn't effectively a nonvote (and if they weren't fuckstupid about nuclear energy).
There's only one presidency. The new system would either mean a run-off, and therefor nobody caring about the third party because it'll get knocked out and the voters taken by the other party on that side of the aisle, or some sort of power sharing where coalitions are guaranteed enough that no one cares whether your votes for the mainline party or one of the minor hangers-one like the who-killed-tupak party (sorry, I just had to rib you for that one).
Yeah, forgot I was in the Obama thread and thus talking about presidential candidates specifically.
Well there is an odd split in the Republican party between old guard and the Tea Party. The old guard wants Romney to be in play because he is the most moderate likable and electable. The Tea Party can't fucking decide, but people like Perry are persona not grata in the Bush Rove camp.
Yeah, but if the tea partiers actually end up raising taxes on the middle class over a petty dislike of Obama, it's a somewhat self-fixing problem, Hopefully. It's nice to see it being covered from the 'The GOP/Tea Party won't bend" angle.
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Third parties that don't steal votes from parties that stand a chance to win allow more granular, accurate representation of voters. It wouldn't necessarily move the country left, right, or anywhere else, but it would make it clearer what people wanted from their government, I think.
Something like 'These guys are my first pick but I guess these guys and these guys are less bad than those guys and I'd rather elect Hitler's zombie than those guys' would help, I think.
Like, I'd probably vote for the Green party if it wasn't effectively a nonvote (and if they weren't fuckstupid about nuclear energy).
There's only one presidency. The new system would either mean a run-off, and therefor nobody caring about the third party because it'll get knocked out and the voters taken by the other party on that side of the aisle, or some sort of power sharing where coalitions are guaranteed enough that no one cares whether your votes for the mainline party or one of the minor hangers-one like the who-killed-tupak party (sorry, I just had to rib you for that one).
I think you are confusing parties w/ voting systems. We already have 3rd parties. The Green Party, the Libertarians, and the Constitution Party are the largest of the 3rd parties. (Wiki list of US 3rd parties).
While we don't have a mandated two-party system, our voting system (First Past The Post) and ballot access laws have created a defacto two party system. FPTP is often called out as the biggest cause of party stagnation, but personally I believe the biggest cause of party stagnation is voter apathy in form of "Us vs Them" that causes people to vote against Party Them, instead of for a party they actually support. This behavior, and way of thinking, are caused by the lack of ability to support a preferred party without sacrificing support for a party likely to win. (I think this is why most political pundits spend so much time attacking Party Them, instead of talking about what Party Us has accomplished) Instant Runoff Voting is superior to FPTP in many ways, being only slightly more difficult to understand and allowing voters to vote for a non-major party without harming their favored major parties opportunity to win.
When I call for people to (intelligently and strategically) vote for a 3rd party, I am hoping to influence the major parties, combat voter apathy, and end the idea of "votes for us are a mandate to ignore the opposition".
I went into systems because I can't see a system where third parties would be viable without hurting their own causes yet still relevant. For example, no one would care about your #1 for a smaller partisan party because your #2 to the mainstream party would be the only thing to have an effect on the real world.
I went into systems because I can't see a system where third parties would be viable without hurting their own causes yet still relevant. For example, no one would care about your #1 for a smaller partisan party because your #2 to the mainstream party would be the only thing to have an effect on the real world.
But it makes the mainstream party know more about your real interests, which helps them court you more. And it encourages more people to vote for the smaller partisan party, which could cause them to actually become significant.
Unless enough people put mainstream party as #2 or #3 (or not at all) that a minor party got more total votes than them. A theoretical 3rd party that appealed to Independent voters and median voters could easily do such a thing, and it would help reign in extremism and "Us vs Them" by rewarding compromise.
Edit: As a bonus, IRV doesn't punish people who don't believe it will work. Such people can still just vote for one party without selecting 2nd and 3rd choices. When you get past all of the reasoning and justifications for IRV you'll find that ultimately it just provides additional options without taking any options away.
Unless enough people put mainstream party as #2 or #3 (or not at all) that a minor party got more total votes than them. A theoretical 3rd party that appealed to Independent voters and median voters could easily do such a thing, and it would help reign in extremism and "Us vs Them" by rewarding compromise.
What would that party stand for?
They'd be Democrats
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I mean, really, is it too much to want a chance to vote for an actual left-of-center or even straight up left-wing party without giving elections away to the GOP?
I've always wondered why people think politicians never actually see who's voting for them? I mean, yeah, there's some haziness in the process but they really do not want to lose out on the gravy train. So basically it really does matter if you vote because it shifts the base to the where you are and the politician knows you'd keep them in office supporting your ideas.
Spanish Inquisition on
AKA: gottabegaming, gotta, gottabeajerk, and Mr. Wave's Point/Click Adventure.
Perhaps. Perhaps it would be a version of the Democrats that was more small government and more anti big money. Or a version of Democrats that acted the same, but professed a more pro-military stance. Or perhaps even a party that was Democrats in everything but name, history, and baggage.
I'll be honest, I think that greater 3rd party support would lead to a fracturing of the GOP; of the big three 3rd parties, two of them are right wing. Once the GOP fractured, I suspect that the Democrat party would fracture as well, and the resulting parties would pick up a lot of the moderate & center-right votes. I suspect that the resulting major parties would have more in common with current Democrats than they would current GOP. But this is guesswork. I could easily be misunderstanding why people vote for the GOP. (Hint: I think the majority of GOP votes are anti-Democrat votes due to lack of understanding the issues)
@Kamar It is possible, as long as your not in a swing district. If you want to vote for an non-GOP party, do research on your voting district to try and find out how it will vote. If it looks like it could swing either way, vote Democrats. If it is decidedly one way or another, vote for your 3rd party. If, after your research, you are still worried about the spoiler effect then vote Democrat knowing that you've done what you can.
Posts
terrifyimg change
obviously this is a greater travesty than diamomds, given the millions of lives diamonds have saved
He's going to ensure that we don't get involved! In any way!
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Feature, not a bug.
I think it's a bit of a gambit on the part of the GOP. Either the Democrats cave and do what the GOP wants or they stand their ground and the economy's staggering recovery takes a shot to the knee caps.
I do think that the president will be able to turn it back on the Republicans if that happens, but if we get a staggered recession now plus the probable recession we're going to get from Europe sooner or later the recent bump in the polls Obama's gotten might well waffle away.
And then we'll get President Romney and nobody wants that.
Does that mean they'll stop building ghost towns now?
I'd be surprised if a Chinese real estate crash causes more than a blip. It's not nearly the same situation as we had here in the US.
Let the House GOP twist in the wind. If boehner had the guts to call it to a vote it'd pass. He's going to have to throw the teappers under the bus sooner or later.
Where it will cause interesting questions is in copper.
Any time the average price of something triples in 4 years you are either looking at an extreme shortage or a giant massive bubble. Many people [citation needed] think that many Chinese banks are hiding massive portfolios of worthless properties and mortgages.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Most of those "ghost towns" now have people in them. China didn't become the most populous country on earth by having no population growth.
Okay that is pretty sickening. Especially since they're supposed to love tax cuts. True colors.
Right, and even supposing your second statement is true (I have no clue), that's bad for the Chinese economy, but not necessarily a big deal for the rest of the world.
To my knowledge there's not a ton of foreign investment in Chinese markets, especially not the Chinese housing market. Hell the wealthy Chinese have been moving their money overseas by investing in Canadian real estate for the last several years. On top of that, the yuan is fixed to the dollar at a point that artificially undermines the currency.
So even supposing the bubble is real, it pops and many Chinese banks fail due to systemic risk, all that happens in my view is the Chinese government bails out the banks. This would devalue the yuan if it weren't already artificially devalued and I'm sure it will have very real consequences for the Chinese middle class, but I don't really see it impacting the global economy like the US or Euro financial collapsess have.
Yes I know I've driven this thread widely OT but the last page is just a bunch of sarcastic Ron Paul comments that have nothing to do with anything, so I don't feel too bad.
The Chinese housing bubble bursting would do fairly profound things to commodity prices and deeply affect those economies that export commodities like copper
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Even the minor unrest in China (Wukan, Haimen) has had the communist party backing down twice now. Publicly.
The housing bubble in China will leave the property owner with the loss, because they put down 50 to 100% of the value. That will not leave people happy it starts to tank. Any predictions of what would happen will likely be wrong, because look at how well everyone has done with the U.S. and Europe crises.
Hold a circle jerk.
If Karl Rove isn't being listened to, who the hell is in charge of the Republican party?
Something like 'These guys are my first pick but I guess these guys and these guys are less bad than those guys and I'd rather elect Hitler's zombie than those guys' would help, I think.
Like, I'd probably vote for the Green party if it wasn't effectively a nonvote (and if they weren't fuckstupid about nuclear energy).
someone who doesn't like listening to Karl Rove? In other words, not Karl Rove.
There's only one presidency. The new system would either mean a run-off, and therefor nobody caring about the third party because it'll get knocked out and the voters taken by the other party on that side of the aisle, or some sort of power sharing where coalitions are guaranteed enough that no one cares whether your votes for the mainline party or one of the minor hangers-one like the who-killed-tupak party (sorry, I just had to rib you for that one).
Yeah, forgot I was in the Obama thread and thus talking about presidential candidates specifically.
Yeah, but if the tea partiers actually end up raising taxes on the middle class over a petty dislike of Obama, it's a somewhat self-fixing problem, Hopefully. It's nice to see it being covered from the 'The GOP/Tea Party won't bend" angle.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
I think you are confusing parties w/ voting systems. We already have 3rd parties. The Green Party, the Libertarians, and the Constitution Party are the largest of the 3rd parties. (Wiki list of US 3rd parties).
While we don't have a mandated two-party system, our voting system (First Past The Post) and ballot access laws have created a defacto two party system. FPTP is often called out as the biggest cause of party stagnation, but personally I believe the biggest cause of party stagnation is voter apathy in form of "Us vs Them" that causes people to vote against Party Them, instead of for a party they actually support. This behavior, and way of thinking, are caused by the lack of ability to support a preferred party without sacrificing support for a party likely to win. (I think this is why most political pundits spend so much time attacking Party Them, instead of talking about what Party Us has accomplished) Instant Runoff Voting is superior to FPTP in many ways, being only slightly more difficult to understand and allowing voters to vote for a non-major party without harming their favored major parties opportunity to win.
When I call for people to (intelligently and strategically) vote for a 3rd party, I am hoping to influence the major parties, combat voter apathy, and end the idea of "votes for us are a mandate to ignore the opposition".
But it makes the mainstream party know more about your real interests, which helps them court you more. And it encourages more people to vote for the smaller partisan party, which could cause them to actually become significant.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Edit: As a bonus, IRV doesn't punish people who don't believe it will work. Such people can still just vote for one party without selecting 2nd and 3rd choices. When you get past all of the reasoning and justifications for IRV you'll find that ultimately it just provides additional options without taking any options away.
What would that party stand for?
NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION! Oh bugger.
Perhaps. Perhaps it would be a version of the Democrats that was more small government and more anti big money. Or a version of Democrats that acted the same, but professed a more pro-military stance. Or perhaps even a party that was Democrats in everything but name, history, and baggage.
I'll be honest, I think that greater 3rd party support would lead to a fracturing of the GOP; of the big three 3rd parties, two of them are right wing. Once the GOP fractured, I suspect that the Democrat party would fracture as well, and the resulting parties would pick up a lot of the moderate & center-right votes. I suspect that the resulting major parties would have more in common with current Democrats than they would current GOP. But this is guesswork. I could easily be misunderstanding why people vote for the GOP. (Hint: I think the majority of GOP votes are anti-Democrat votes due to lack of understanding the issues)
@Kamar It is possible, as long as your not in a swing district. If you want to vote for an non-GOP party, do research on your voting district to try and find out how it will vote. If it looks like it could swing either way, vote Democrats. If it is decidedly one way or another, vote for your 3rd party. If, after your research, you are still worried about the spoiler effect then vote Democrat knowing that you've done what you can.