Relevant

"TheHondaBro" (wwaveform) 02/18/2016 at 11:18 • Filed to: cyanide and happiness

6

57

davedave1111 > TheHondaBro 02/18/2016 at 11:30

3

What about when there are no candidates worth voting for? I mean, sure, you can always find someone to vote against , but at that point you’re just encouraging the rest of them.

JeepJeremy > TheHondaBro 02/18/2016 at 11:30

4

The square: I voted/The good person won....

That’s how I felt when Obama was elected AND how I felt when he was Re-elected.

And those angry people in the background...they are still angry *but none of them moved away AND none of the super red states seceded from the union like they said they would.

So yes. VERY relevant.

TheHondaBro > JeepJeremy 02/18/2016 at 11:32

2

Obama needs his face on currency.

BmanUltima's car still hasn't been fixed yet, he'll get on it tomorrow, honest. > TheHondaBro 02/18/2016 at 11:33

0

But then he’d have to be dead.

MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner > JeepJeremy 02/18/2016 at 11:36

0

I went from bottom left when I voted for Obama for his first term

Then jumped up to top left when I voted for someone else and he won for his 2nd term.

JeepJeremy > davedave1111 02/18/2016 at 11:38

0

Obviously our system is not so cut and dry. In that case: when there isn’t a “candidate” worth casting a vote for, a voter can cast a vote along party lines or based on an issue. Abstaining from the process is ok. That’s our freedom in action there.

And if one abstains but still sees injustice: I suggest that person run for an office.

Hellcat Everything > TheHondaBro 02/18/2016 at 11:40

2

Now if only they would ditch the damn electoral college so that the popular vote mattered, it sucks when you live in a state that usually votes red or blue anyways, as when you want to vote for someone else, you essentially throw your vote away. :(

Brian, The Life of > BmanUltima's car still hasn't been fixed yet, he'll get on it tomorrow, honest. 02/18/2016 at 11:40

2

True. Unlike the Queen of England. She’s on more than a dozen currencies. That bitch has everything ... even corgis!

JeepJeremy > TheHondaBro 02/18/2016 at 11:40

2

I empathize with that sentiment. And I nearly joined you. At the tail end of Obama’s first term I was leaning a little right again....but then I would watch Romney speak on tv....and it made me want to puke.

TheHondaBro > Hellcat Everything 02/18/2016 at 11:46

1

I just wish they’d get rid of superdelegates.

TheHondaBro > davedave1111 02/18/2016 at 11:47

1

The one thing you need to remember is that no presidential candidate will follow through with most of the stuff they said they promise. I’d vote along party lines.

spanfucker retire bitch > TheHondaBro 02/18/2016 at 11:51

0

Read up on them, because they’re nowhere near as bad as you think they are.

Without superdelegates we’d have the clown car system that the GOP is currently using.

spanfucker retire bitch > davedave1111 02/18/2016 at 11:55

2

Despite popular belief, you aren’t actually making any ideological “stand” by refusing to vote.

davedave1111 > TheHondaBro 02/18/2016 at 11:59

2

Voting along party lines is what’s got you lot into the mess you’re currently in. If you can’t vote for the man (or woman) in good conscience, don’t fool yourself that just because they’ve signed up to wear one badge or the other that that means anything beyond that they’ll do whatever’s expedient.

I mean, come on, forget promises, at least two of the front-runners are just pretending to want to become President. And at least two or three others would happily walk away if someone offered them a billion dollars to do so. There isn’t a single decent human being among them, and pretending that the one wearing your badge is acceptable won’t solve that rather serious problem.

CobraJoe > davedave1111 02/18/2016 at 12:02

0

Vote 3rd party.

Sure, your vote won’t result in a winning candidate, but personally I think that people saying “you’re throwing your vote away” are incorrect, because how can you throw your vote away when you are voting for exactly who you want?

davedave1111 > JeepJeremy 02/18/2016 at 12:03

0

As I said in reply to another commenter, voting along party lines even though the candidate is unacceptable is a recipe for getting scumbag politicians like the ones you have.

davedave1111 > CobraJoe 02/18/2016 at 12:04

0

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say there. If there are no acceptable candidates, how does voting for a third party help?

davedave1111 > spanfucker retire bitch 02/18/2016 at 12:09

0

Who’s that idiot? Oh, I see, some racist old vaxxer. Fuck him. Whether you approve of it or not, obviously refusing to vote can be an ideological thing.

-this space for rent- > TheHondaBro 02/18/2016 at 12:09

1

I don’t think any of the whiners left the country when Bush won. Blowhards be blowhards.

http://www.salon.com/2000/09/20/sta…

CobraJoe > davedave1111 02/18/2016 at 12:12

0

There are plenty of options in the 3rd parties, or even an option to write in a candidate.

If you can’t even find someone to write in, you might be a bit too picky.

spanfucker retire bitch > davedave1111 02/18/2016 at 12:16

1

It is completely disingenuous to make this bullshit claim of “they’re both the same.” That literally hasn’t been true for decades now when comparing the Republican and Democratic parties. The Republicans remain the only party in the world that still denies the scientific reality of climate change. No other major party in any other country in the world has that belief. Over 100 nations all signed the latest Paris accords with the Republicans being the only major party of any of those nations that still refuses to accept scientific fact.

The differences go on and on and on in this matter. The Republicans remain staunchly against the Dodd-Frank regulations and would love nothing more than to see the destruction of the CFPB. They also want to walk back any social progress we’ve made in this country over the last decade or more. They want to do away with the marriage equality rulings (thanks in part, by the way, to the Justices that were nominated by a Democratic President), they want to make abortion illegal, all the major front-runners for the GOP nominee want some form of theocratic law instituted in this country, they want to obliterate the separation of church and state, they want to destroy what little even remains of the voting rights act (which is very, very little) to further disenfranchise the poor from being able to vote.

And that doesn’t even take into account their obstructionist bullshit that they’ve been doing for the last 8 fucking years. They literally won’t even CONSIDER any nominee that the President would put forth to replace Scalia because he has “only a few months left” in office. Apparently a few months is actually a year now, and despite being elected and then reelected, his nomination wouldn’t be the “voice of the people.” Also, please, by all means, tell me the last time the Democrats shut down the Federal government over any issue? By my check it was probably over 40 years under President Carter when the Dems controlled both houses and constant funding spats with the President. Not once under Bush did they shut down the Federal government despite controlling Congress.

So no, the idea that each party and each representative from said parties are all the same, save for what color they wear is quite simply bullshit.

davedave1111 > CobraJoe 02/18/2016 at 12:16

0

There aren’t any acceptable candidates from any party in this hypothetical, by definition.

Does the US presidential election let you write-in a candidate? That’s news to me.

RallyWrench > davedave1111 02/18/2016 at 12:17

0

There’s a write-in line for that.

spanfucker retire bitch > davedave1111 02/18/2016 at 12:18

0

No, it’s not. Because no one gives a shit about someone who doesn’t vote. Certainly not the political parties that you so adorably think you’re “taking a stand” against.

davedave1111 > spanfucker retire bitch 02/18/2016 at 12:20

1

“It is completely disingenuous to make this bullshit claim of “they’re both the same.””

No-one said that. Any other straw men you’d like to knock down while you’re at it?

“The Republicans remain the only party in the world that still denies the scientific reality of climate change.”

No they aren’t, not even close. Stop frothing and listen to yourself for a moment.

“So no, the idea that each party and each representative from said parties are all the same, save for what color they wear is quite simply bullshit.”

It’s something you’ve imagined, too. I never said they’re all the same, I said they’re all unacceptable.

davedave1111 > spanfucker retire bitch 02/18/2016 at 12:22

0

Eh? So what? That doesn’t make it impossible for it to be an ideological stand.

As it happens, I think it’s clear enough that if no-one votes the politicians will at least have to stop claiming to have a democratic mandate.

davedave1111 > RallyWrench 02/18/2016 at 12:23

0

What, in the US Presidential election?

spanfucker retire bitch > davedave1111 02/18/2016 at 12:23

0

Not if the politician wins. They get the mandate from those that voted. Those who decided not to vote willingly chose to have their voices not heard. So no one gives a fuck about them.

CobraJoe > davedave1111 02/18/2016 at 12:25

1

Had to look up the write in, apparently a few states don’t allow a write in, but the other 43 do allow write in candidates.

And at least in NE, you can get a candidate added to the ballot with a certain amount of signatures, I’m betting it’s similar in other states. Writing in allows for voting for someone who didn’t get enough signatures.

But in the hypothetical, where you thoroughly research all of the main candidates, thoroughly research all of the third party candidates, and have no write in candidate, and still go and vote for every other item on the ballot, then go ahead and complain about whoever gets in, because you did more work to decide than 99.9% of everyone else who voted.

davedave1111 > spanfucker retire bitch 02/18/2016 at 12:27

1

You seem to have some kind of axe to grind against logic. The fact is that not voting can be an ideological stance. It’s not one I recommend, but that doesn’t change the fact that it can be one.

And just because you don’t give a fuck about people who feel disenfranchised doesn’t mean no-one gives a fuck, let alone that no-one would give a fuck if, say, US voters spoiled ballot papers en masse, by the tens of millions, rather than vote for the candidates they’re offered.

As it happens, round here we have constituencies where the MP representing them got less than 10% of the available votes at the last election, and there is something of a debate surrounding the distinct lack of mandate such politicians are working with.

davedave1111 > CobraJoe 02/18/2016 at 12:29

0

I think we should start a campaign to get everyone to write themselves in, then.

DrJohannVegas > -this space for rent- 02/18/2016 at 12:48

0

You misspelled “was declared victor by Supreme Court injunction in a tightly-contested election.”

-this space for rent- > DrJohannVegas 02/18/2016 at 13:12

1

That was supposed to be a reply to someone below talking about the whiners that were ‘moving to canada’ if Obama won. Kinja strikes again.

Also, a win is a win.

Pixel > TheHondaBro 02/18/2016 at 13:12

2

Yep. Voting secures my right to bitch about the government for the next 4 years.

DrJohannVegas > -this space for rent- 02/18/2016 at 13:37

1

FWIW, I’m mostly fed up with everyone, so anyone moving to Canada (and getting off my damn lawn) is fine with me.

Also, Kinja gonna Kinj. (Almost did it to me...)

wiffleballtony > spanfucker retire bitch 02/18/2016 at 14:07

1

So I take that you’re undecided in this election cycle?

wiffleballtony > Hellcat Everything 02/18/2016 at 14:07

0

The electoral college is still very important. What state do you live in?

wkiernan > davedave1111 02/18/2016 at 14:29

0

Vote for the one who’s objectively least bad.

Hellcat Everything > wiffleballtony 02/18/2016 at 14:32

0

Texas, don't like Cruz or Trump, so I was thinking about Sanders, but I live in a Red state.

spanfucker retire bitch > davedave1111 02/18/2016 at 14:50

0

No they aren’t, not even close.

As a matter of fact they are the only major party that still denies reality. I did not say they were the only party in the world.

It’s something you’ve imagined, too. I never said they’re all the same, I said they’re all unacceptable.

No-one said that. Any other straw men you’d like to knock down while you’re at it?

I must have made this part up then:

If you can’t vote for the man (or woman) in good conscience, don’t fool yourself that just because they’ve signed up to wear one badge or the other that that means anything beyond that they’ll do whatever’s expedient.

By claiming they’re all “unacceptable” you’re claiming false equivalence bullshit. That is literally exactly what you’re stating despite your ridiculous protestations to the contrary.

spanfucker retire bitch > wiffleballtony 02/18/2016 at 14:50

0

Oh man, it’s down to the wire.

uofime-2 > TheHondaBro 02/18/2016 at 15:15

0

I believe if less than half the population votes all candidates should be barred from running for office ever again.

Or maybe we need a “none of these” option that does the same on our ballots.

Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo > TheHondaBro 02/18/2016 at 20:02

0

davedave1111 > spanfucker retire bitch 02/19/2016 at 09:13

0

“As a matter of fact they are the only major party that still denies reality. I did not say they were the only party in the world.”

It’s just total nonsense, though. They’re not even the only major party in the US which rejects the scientific consensus. The Republicans understate the problem, the Democrats overstate it by the same amount. Both are twisting the science to fit their own agenda. Every major political party in Europe does the same thing. You can’t begin to pretend that any political party prefers science to rhetoric and emotion, given the thoroughly unscientific approaches to pretty much every problem taken by politicians.

“By claiming they’re all “unacceptable” you’re claiming false equivalence bullshit”

Nonsense. That’s just a non-sequitur. (You’ve actually quoted a bit where I said something totally different, anyway. I said people pretending to be A may in fact be B, C, D, or other letters. That is not the same thing as saying that A=B=C=D, etc.)

Let me see if I can explain to you the simple difference between ‘they’re all unacceptable’ and ‘they’re all the same’ with an example. If I say that both the Nazis and the Monster Raving Loony Party would be unacceptable in government, that does not mean that the Monster Raving Loonies are Nazis. It just means that neither of them gets over the bar of ‘fit to govern’ - for totally different reasons, obviously.

spanfucker retire bitch > davedave1111 02/19/2016 at 09:53

0

They’re not even the only major party in the US which rejects the scientific consensus. The Republicans understate the problem, the Democrats overstate it by the same amount. Both are twisting the science to fit their own agenda.

That is just factually not true. The Republicans don’t just understate the problem, they either believe it’s a conspiracy theory or that humans have nothing to do with it. Saying they “understate” the problem is like claiming the BP Horizon disaster was a “small leak.”

They quite literally deny reality and they are the only majort party to do so. Indisputable factual evidence exists to support this. Like wanting to cut funding to NASA’s Earth Science division (because they study climate change), or like in Florida where climate scientists who worked for the government were banned from even discussion or using the terms “global warming” or “climate change.”

I can’t speak to the truthfulness of your statement that politicians in Europe “overstate” the problem, but I can assure that the Democratic party does not overstate it (and I sincerely doubt the ones in Europe do either). They follow right in line (mostly, the Democrats as a platform seem to be against Nuclear energy, despite being one of the best ways to produce massive amounts of carbon-free energy) with scientific policy. In fact most researchers and scientists would probably state that as a platform plank, the Democrats still don’t go far enough. And might I add, Al Gore is not the chosen representative of climate change the world over, so don’t even try to use that movie of his as evidence, because it’s nothing that has influenced current policy.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Let me see if I can explain to you the simple difference between ‘they’re all unacceptable’ and ‘they’re all the same’ with an example. If I say that both the Nazis and the Monster Raving Loony Party would be unacceptable in government, that does not mean that the Monster Raving Loonies are Nazis. It just means that neither of them gets over the bar of ‘fit to govern’ - for totally different reasons, obviously.

Except that’s still not true. Even if you’re steadfastly against all policy positions of the Democratic party, they aren’t the party of obstructionists that have refused to fill empty judicial seats - and I’m not even just talking about the Supreme Court. There are entire Federal court districts without enough sitting judges as the GOP has for literally years now just sat on court appointees. The GOP has also shut down the Fed at least twice - one time almost defaulting on our debts - due to some stupid politicking.

You talk about passing the bar to govern as both parties failing, but look back over the last 3 presidencies and see which party has steadfastly refused to compromise and do what is necessary to govern. Perhaps you should be talking more about neither party is “ideal” if this was a perfect world of rational voters and rational politicians. Because even when using your belief that they’re both bad, even if not equally bad, that still just isn’t true as one of them has flat out refused to even show any indication that they can govern properly at all.

Neither party may be ideal - and you won’t get me disagreeing with you there - but to state that neither party reaches the bar of proper governance is still false equivalence, as one party has spent the last 8 years obstructing governance as much as humanly possible. Something the other party didn’t do, even during the previous President’s 8 years in office.

davedave1111 > spanfucker retire bitch 02/19/2016 at 10:31

0

“ The Republicans don’t just understate the problem, they either believe it’s a conspiracy theory or that humans have nothing to do with it”

Bullshit. Some Republicans say things like that, but the party line is far more mainstream.

“I can assure that the Democratic party does not overstate it”

Many Democrats, including Hillary, completely reject the scientific consensus, preferring alarmist/neo-racist pseudoscience. The IPCC’s latest report debunked most of the ‘we’re all gonna die’ alarmism that neo-racists use as an excuse for their genocidal campaigning.

This is a perfect example of how your party allegiance blinds you to the facts: you assume that what the politicians claiming to be of your stripe are telling you is actually true. Clue for you: all politicians lie all the time.

“Except that’s still not true. Even if you’re steadfastly against all policy positions of the Democratic party, they aren’t the party of obstructionists that have refused to fill empty judicial seats”

You’re still making the same leap of illogic. Just because the Republicans are scum does not mean the Democrats are not also scum of a different kind.

In any case, pretending that all responsibility for a failure to reach a compromise lies with only one party is obvious nonsense. The definition of a compromise makes that clear. Neither party involved in that failure is fit to govern.

The simple reality here is that you’re demonising your opponents while white-washing those who pretend to be Democrats while actually being racist, poor-hating scum. That’s the fucking problem, right there.

spanfucker retire bitch > davedave1111 02/19/2016 at 11:23

0

Bullshit. Some Republicans say things like that, but the party line is far more mainstream.

Except it’s not and I don’t know why you think that’s true.

Many Democrats, including Hillary, completely reject the scientific consensus, preferring alarmist/neo-racist pseudoscience. The IPCC’s latest report debunked most of the ‘we’re all gonna die’ alarmism that neo-racists use as an excuse for their genocidal campaigning.

Lol wat? I’d certainly love a citation here of her “neo-racist” pseudoscience. The IPCC report hasn’t debunked shit when it comes to the dangers of increasing global temperature, affecting weather patterns, raising ocean levels, shorter rain seasons and increasing arid, desert regions.

This is a perfect example of how your party allegiance blinds you to the facts: you assume that what the politicians claiming to be of your stripe are telling you is actually true. Clue for you: all politicians lie all the time.

Yup, I’m sure her voting record in regards to reforming Wall-Street, her support for better insurance (going back to when she was First Lady) and any other number of positions that she’s held for years are totally unaccounted for and cannot ever be relied upon. Please, come on now, you sound like a fucking anarchist.

There’s a huge difference being cautious and skeptical of what a politician says and literally refusing to believe the tiniest things that anybody says because *GASP* they’re a politician.

You’re still making the same leap of illogic. Just because the Republicans are scum does not mean the Democrats are not also scum of a different kind.

Sure, and they have their own problems when it comes to suppressing votes as well. Except their “scum” comes from refusing to fall in line with the 2 year federal election timelines and instead always wants to schedule the local elections on off-years. Because unions like teachers’ unions have a higher voter turn out for elections and ballots for school funding during those off years vs. the rest of the population.

So yeah, that is scummy and it should stop. But they’re not even remotely close the kind of voter disenfranchisement that the GOP does with their bullshit voter I.D. laws. The Democrats schedule the votes when people are less interested. The Republicans make it impossible for anyone to even vote, especially if they’re poor. Is each of those scummy? Yup. Is one leagues worse than the other? You’re god damn right.

In any case, pretending that all responsibility for a failure to reach a compromise lies with only one party is obvious nonsense. The definition of a compromise makes that clear. Neither party involved in that failure is fit to govern.

It’s not nonsense if the other party flat out refuses to even debate with the other. You can’t debate and come up with a compromise if the other party even refuses to hear you out. The shut down back in 2013 happened because the GOP wanted to completely defund the ACA despite voting to pass it 3 years earlier. That isn’t a request to take out one part (like the oft maligned “Cadillac Tax”), that was just an out-and-out request without any room for negotiations. And it blew up in their face as they got labeled obstructionists. They’ve threatened government shut down as a political tactic for 3 years in a row now; that is not how you fucking govern a god damn nation. That’s not even how you govern a municipality. Only one party has been guilty of this. I’m sorry it doesn’t fit into your convenient narrative at them all being awful, but those are the facts.

The simple reality here is that you’re demonising your opponents while white-washing those who pretend to be Democrats while actually being racist, poor-hating scum. That’s the fucking problem, right there.

Again, I’m going to need a citation on the racist poor hating part. As far as demonizing the opposition, they deserve to be demonized. Maybe 60 years ago you could have made the argument that each party was just one side of the same coin. When conservatives like Barry Goldwater were the norm. That is no longer the case. The U.S. no longer has a liberal and conservative party. They have a center-left party, and a party that is so fucking controlled by the lunatic right fringe that their candidates are calling for:

Banning muslim refugees on the basis of their religion.

Keeping a record of all muslims in this country in a central database.

Claiming that they can use the 14th Amendment to ban all abortions.

Claiming that they’ll just ignore the Obergefell decision and just roll back to when homosexuals couldn’t get married. You know, literally ignoring the powers granted to the court through the constitution and subsequent trial cases.

Stating - without the slightest hint of irony - that Sharia law is one of the biggest things threatening our country, while pushing for laws and regulations based on Christian theocratic law and trying to strip away the separation of church and state.

You have Trump stating the Climate Change is a conspiracy thought up by the Chinese, Cruz states it’s a conspiracy and that thousands of scientists all around the world are lying, and then you have Rubio who while he admits the “climate is changing” he also believes humans aren’t responsible in the slightest.

Giving public land - land that is ostensibly owned by all people - “back to the people.” AKA, they’re going to give Federal land that the States have actually literally never controlled, to the states, so they can sell it off the Koch brothers and the rest of their “action network” to mine the mountains and dump coal ash into the once protected rivers and lakes.

I could keep going but I feel no need to. You want to tell me that the Democrats do shitty things too? Sure. Of course they do . They are not the utopian party of perfect rationale and logic. But in this country we are far fucking past the idea that each party is equally shitty in their own special way. The GOP has jumped the shark years ago, leaving the Democrats as the unequivocally sanest party left in the U.S.; for better or worse.

davedave1111 > spanfucker retire bitch 02/19/2016 at 11:37

0

Dude, you’re fucking insane if you think the Democrats are centre-left. They’re hard right, with the Republicans even further right. There’s no point arguing with your points because you’re still totally missing my point: how bad the Republicans are is fucking irrelevant to how bad the Democrats are.

spanfucker retire bitch > davedave1111 02/19/2016 at 11:47

0

They’re not even close to hard right. They’re farther right than their European liberal counterparts, but trying to pigeonhole in political parties from Europe to the U.S. system or vise-versa is an exercise in futility.

There’s no point arguing with your points because you’re still totally missing my point: how bad the Republicans are is fucking irrelevant to how bad the Democrats are.

Except it’s not, because how bad the Democrats are is a mole hill next to the mountain the GOP has turned itself into. If this was a parliamentary system with lots of viable candidates/parties to choose from it wouldn’t be a big deal to support another party. But we don’t have that in the U.S. and refusing to participate in the current system is no way to change it.

davedave1111 > spanfucker retire bitch 02/19/2016 at 12:17

0

“They’re not even close to hard right.”

Does US English make the distinction we do between far-right - that is, Nazis - and hard-right? The Democrats are (on the whole, at least*) obviously not Nazis. They are very far to the right of centre, though, making them hard right.

[*The neo-Nazis got sneaky a while back, and realised they got a free pass for subtle racism if they claimed to be lefties. They’ve been moderately successful infiltrating the Democrats, and even more so with Labour here.]

“They’re farther right than their European liberal counterparts”

Yes, so much further to the right that their counterparts are not the left-of-centre parties but the right of centre ones - and even then our right of centre parties are far less right-wing than the Democrats.

“trying to pigeonhole in political parties from Europe to the U.S. system of vise-versa is an exercise in futility.”

Not really, it’s simple and easy: every mainstream politician in the US is further to the right than any mainstream politician in Europe. The Democratic party* are anti-immigration, anti-free-trade, anti-welfare-state, and so-on. Less anti- those things than the Republicans, but more anti- them than even hard-right nationalist parties in Europe. Even pretty-much-racist, pretty-much-far-right parties like the French Front Nationale don’t want to close France’s borders to Europeans .

[*I originally wrote ‘Democrats’ there and changed it: some of today’s Democrats, like Obama, plainly want to introduce such notions to US politics - but it’s not the party line at the moment because it would result in electoral oblivion.]

The only way the US is not more right-wing than European countries is that oddly enough your taxation system is more progressive than any country has here - because you don’t have a national VAT/sales-tax.

“how bad the Democrats are is a mole hill next to the mountain the GOP has turned itself into”

To repeat myself:

“you’re still totally missing my point: how bad the Republicans are is fucking irrelevant to how bad the Democrats are.”

If the Democrats are not fit to govern, they’re not fit to govern. It doesn’t matter that the alternative is worse, because they’re not fit to govern so you can’t elect them. You must change the system, when it only offers you the choice between the unacceptable and the abso-fucking-lutely unacceptable.

“refusing to participate in the current system is no way to change it.”

On the contrary, it’s quite possibly the only way to change it. If the electoral turnout was, say, 1%, then a) the government would be unable to claim a democratic mandate and b) there’d be a big discussion about what/why/how to change things.

Just as an example of that kind of discussion even with far higher turnouts:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/…

It certainly strikes me as worth a try before pursuing the alternatives involving stringing politicians up from lamp-posts.

spanfucker retire bitch > davedave1111 02/19/2016 at 12:31

0

Not really, it’s simple and easy: every mainstream politician in the US is further to the right than any mainstream politician in Europe. The Democratic party* are anti-immigration, anti-free-trade, anti-welfare-state, and so-on. Less anti- those things than the Republicans, but more anti- them than even hard-right nationalist parties in Europe. Even pretty-much-racist, pretty-much-far-right parties like the French Front Nationale don’t want to close France’s borders to Europeans .

I’m sorry, I’m sorry. What? And yes, I saw your clarification, I didn’t include it in the quote to save space, but I did see it. The Democrats have been pushing for immigration reform since Bush was in office. This includes Obama, but he is not the only one. ICE is is cracking down extremely hard right now on the current undocumented immigrants, but the Senate and House are not being locked down by the President’s fellow Democrats in pushing for positive immigration reform; it’s being locked down by the Republicans, forcing the President to use his executive orders.

I’ve no doubt you can find some Blue Dog Democrats that are against immigration, but you’re so far off base here it’s actually comical. The same goes for being against free trade and being against welfare. I swear it’s like you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

davedave1111 > spanfucker retire bitch 02/19/2016 at 12:36

0

I think you’ve misunderstood my point there. Yes, the Democrats want to change the terms of the debate - but they can’t and don’t attempt to do so overnight, which leaves their policies waaaaaay over to the right of anything we’d accept a mainstream party saying here in Europe.

“The same goes for being against free trade”

Actually, that one’s very much the case even in terms of the US debate. The Democrats largely oppose the TTIP, for example. The Republican party, as opposed to the xenophobic idiots like Trump, actually supports the principle of free trade more than the Democratic party does. Both are very much more isolationist than here in the EU, though.

davedave1111 > spanfucker retire bitch 02/19/2016 at 12:39

0

“ICE is is cracking down extremely hard right now on the current undocumented immigrants”

I think this is a good example of the kind of thing I’m talking about. Yes, the Democrats are much better towards those immigrants than the Republicans. But a party that was actually not anti-immigration wouldn’t be looking to Mexico, they’d be talking about the ludicrous policy of having closed doors to immigrants from other wealthy nations.

spanfucker retire bitch > davedave1111 02/19/2016 at 12:41

1

The Republicans belief of “Free Trade” most certainly does not line up with the mainstream view in Europe. It’s far more closely aligned to the regulated trade that the Democrats always fight for due to their union ties.

davedave1111 > spanfucker retire bitch 02/19/2016 at 12:43

0

“The Republicans belief of “Free Trade” most certainly does not line up with the mainstream view in Europe. It’s far more closely aligned to the regulated trade that the Democrats always fight for due to their union ties.”

Yes, I think you’re agreeing with me there. Both Republicans and Democrats are pretty anti-free-trade, judged by the standards of European parties that actually advocate free-trade. (NB: that’s a fairly small subset of European parties, too.)

spanfucker retire bitch > davedave1111 02/19/2016 at 12:45

0

The immigration process in the U.S. needs to be opened far more than it currently is, or has been. You’ll get no argument from me on that remark. But trying to compare it to the nations of the EU that all have open borders with each other is a bit facetious on your part. It’s a totally different dynamic here in North America. NAFTA is merely an economic trade agreement, it doesn’t go any farther than that.

spanfucker retire bitch > davedave1111 02/19/2016 at 12:51

0

Well I am and I’m not. I’m confused by why you think regulated trade is a chracteristic of a right leaning party when it most assuredly is not. So yes, I agree with you that the Democrats don’t implicitly supported unregulated free trade, but disagree with your assertion that political belief makes them right. That’s just one of the many things that make them a left party, with the support of signing the TPP one of the things that brings them to the center.