Democrats__ Losing their way?

by **Neoteny** on Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:19 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Neoteny wrote:Let's be serious for a second. I would research those, and even if I didn't agree fully with those two, he'd probably still be my top candidate. But, Kucinich isn't winning anything anytime soon.

Okay... I'll try to focus. I don't know much about Kucinich, so... how about a question!

In 10 to 1000 words, why do you think Kucinich best reflects your preferences, values, etc.? In short, why Kucinich?

Why do I think Kucinich best reflects my preferences, values, etc.?

His initial appeal to me back in the day was a sense of planning and organization. He seemed to know what he wanted to do, and how he wanted to do it. That was refreshing. He seemed to be campaigning to achieve something other than just holding office. Obama had a similar schtick, just without the plan. Or direction. Fortunately for me, he also turned out to be somewhat socially liberal, and enough of a "commie gummint" type of guy to put him in the category of "people for whom my vote would not feel like the equivalent of punching a baby." I'm still pretty turned off by the religion thing, and the UFO stuff is frustratingly silly, but nobody's perfect. I'm sort of stuck with that. I expect that, like Ronnie, if elected to the presidency, he will be hamstrung by his own party anyhow.

In short, most of us in the US have probably been raised with the mantra of "vote for the person who most closely represents you." Aside from a mental vacuum when it comes to science, Kucinich does that for me, at least among recent politicians campaigning for a presidential nomination.

by **Phatscotty** on Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:20 pm

Obama and Romney have many similarities on major issues. They only have real differences on the political football issues. If Romney gets the nod, I will give him a chance, just like I gave Obama. I gave my all for my guy, and hopefully my guy will have an impact on Romney come nomination time, at which point hopefully Romney will look a lot better.

by **Symmetry** on Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:14 pm

Phatscotty wrote:Obama and Romney have many similarities on major issues. They only have real differences on the political football issues. If Romney gets the nod, I will give him a chance, just like I gave Obama. I gave my all for my guy, and hopefully my guy will have an impact on Romney come nomination time, at which point hopefully Romney will look a lot better.

LOL- like you gave Obama a chance-

Obama inaugurated January 2009,

Your posts on Obama:
Link

Huh, you gave him a few months.

by **kentington** on Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:25 pm

Symmetry wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:Obama and Romney have many similarities on major issues. They only have real differences on the political football issues. If Romney gets the nod, I will give him a chance, just like I gave Obama. I gave my all for my guy, and hopefully my guy will have an impact on Romney come nomination time, at which point hopefully Romney will look a lot better.

LOL- like you gave Obama a chance-

Obama inaugurated January 2009,

Your posts on Obama:
Link

Huh, you gave him a few months.

Looks like half a year. To me it only takes a couple of months to figure someone out anyway. I don't think it will take that long for Romney either. There are a couple of wackos that it would be hard to tell though.

by **Phatscotty** on Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:03 pm

There is only one thing left for the democrats to do. They need to clean out their party like the Republicans did in 2010. In 2010 the Tea Party got rid of a lot of those Republicans that everyone hated so much from 2000-2008 and sent better people to represent us.

We did that by defeating many republicans in their own primaries so they could not even be nominated to run for re-election. I'm not sure the Democrats have the honor or the integrity to do something similar, they are far too enclosed in the bubble of "Republicans are evil, so any Democrat is better, even if it's an evil Democrat".

by **oVo** on Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:55 pm

The Republicans cleaned house? That's a hoot.
Who knew Mittens wasn't a Bears fan?

by **Phatscotty** on Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:02 pm

oVo wrote:The Republicans cleaned house? That's a hoot.

yes. Many republicans who were seeking re-election did not even get the chance to be re-elected.

What do you call Conservatives kicking out sitting Republicans in Congress? The red carpet treatment?

It's pretty clear everything you say and think depends on which party it is, aka living in a bubble. I fully expect to see you in the future shooting the messenger and automatically discounting reality based solely on who is articulating it.

by **oVo** on Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:59 pm

Phatscotty wrote:I fully expect to see you in the future shooting the messenger and automatically discounting reality based solely on who is articulating it.

You rarely have a leg to stand on when posting opinions based on web hearsay and the unsubstantiated innuendo of conservative rumor mongers who earn their living by stirring the speculative controversy pot while preaching to the choir.

My personal opinion is that both parties are fucked up and doing next to nothing to correct it. Our representatives in Washington have been too distracted by their party affiliations to even take care of the business --as public servants-- that they were elected to do. Dividing the country into RED & BLUE states with the continuing debates initiated as US vs. THEM is equally pathetic as politicians spend more time and energy trying to prevent the "other" party from succeeding at anything which might be perceived as a positive step for the Nation. Ignoring THE ELEPHANTS IN THE ROOM to debate trivial issues, while pointing fingers and blaming a lack of bipartisan support for not making any significant progress on the problems facing the citizens that elected them or the less fortunate inhabitants of this planet who also need their assistance.

Both halves of the government machine basically mirror each other while rendering the other impotent beyond maintaining a status quo that's existed for decades unchecked as a symbiotic relationship of dominant twins whose elite political existence is capable of excluding all others... yet is blindly followed by the rank and file of voters who claim allegiance to "their" party regardless of how the actions of those same representatives affect their lives and those around them.

by **thegreekdog** on Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:40 am

It looks like Saxitoxin has been sitting for oVo recently. Regardless... I couldn't agree more.

by **BigBallinStalin** on Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:24 pm

Neoteny wrote:Why do I think Kucinich best reflects my preferences, values, etc.?

His initial appeal to me back in the day was a sense of planning and organization. He seemed to know what he wanted to do, and how he wanted to do it. That was refreshing. He seemed to be campaigning to achieve something other than just holding office. Obama had a similar schtick, just without the plan. Or direction. Fortunately for me, he also turned out to be somewhat socially liberal, and enough of a "commie gummint" type of guy to put him in the category of "people for whom my vote would not feel like the equivalent of punching a baby." I'm still pretty turned off by the religion thing, and the UFO stuff is frustratingly silly, but nobody's perfect. I'm sort of stuck with that. I expect that, like Ronnie, if elected to the presidency, he will be hamstrung by his own party anyhow.

In short, most of us in the US have probably been raised with the mantra of "vote for the person who most closely represents you." Aside from a mental vacuum when it comes to science, Kucinich does that for me, at least among recent politicians campaigning for a presidential nomination.

Hey! Thanks for responding!

(RE: underlined)
I want to compare that line of thought with the Ron Paul, or classical liberal, stance. Many social orders are spontaneous, i.e. are created without the guiding hand of some central authority. Order is unintentional yet created by self-interested individuals over time.

But, letting individuals over repeated plays coordinate in order to overcome collective action problem is not a satisfying political stance because many people are attracted to the allure of central planning/social engineering for a society.

However, if one finds the progressive approach appealing, then at the very least, public policies should be implemented incrementally and ideally should be evaluated for progress and scrapped if unproductive.

by **Neoteny** on Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:21 am

No u.

by **BigBallinStalin** on Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:50 am

Neoteny wrote:No u.

I knew it. You're an evil communist!

by **Neoteny** on Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:58 am

As someone who recognizes the limitations of my knowledge (or lack thereof) of economics, I subscribe to no particular economic theory, evil or otherwise. Most of my macro-scale thinking is an application of my experience in sociology and ethics.

Idealistic? Perhaps. But, at least, if that's the case, I can just blame everyone else for being shitty people when my ideas fail.

by **BigBallinStalin** on Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:01 am

Neoteny wrote:As someone who recognizes the limitations of my knowledge (or lack thereof) of economics, I subscribe to no particular economic theory, evil or otherwise. Most of my macro-scale thinking is an application of my experience in sociology and ethics.

Idealistic? Perhaps. But, at least, if that's the case, I can just blame everyone else for being shitty people when my ideas fail.

That's a good strategy!

by **Neoteny** on Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:05 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Neoteny wrote:As someone who recognizes the limitations of my knowledge (or lack thereof) of economics, I subscribe to no particular economic theory, evil or otherwise. Most of my macro-scale thinking is an application of my experience in sociology and ethics.

Idealistic? Perhaps. But, at least, if that's the case, I can just blame everyone else for being shitty people when my ideas fail.

That's a good strategy!

I think so too! It completely eliminates that pesky issue about admitting when one is wrong. Pretty convenient really.

by **BigBallinStalin** on Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:14 pm

Neoteny wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Neoteny wrote:As someone who recognizes the limitations of my knowledge (or lack thereof) of economics, I subscribe to no particular economic theory, evil or otherwise. Most of my macro-scale thinking is an application of my experience in sociology and ethics.

Idealistic? Perhaps. But, at least, if that's the case, I can just blame everyone else for being shitty people when my ideas fail.

That's a good strategy!

I think so too! It completely eliminates that pesky issue about admitting when one is wrong. Pretty convenient really.

I mean, I hate it when my perfect plans are countered by the sometimes different plans of the "chess pieces."

"Move that way, fool! I command it!"

"Uh, no. I'ma go eat, lol!"