American politics

[thelevitator]

That's why I consider them outdated principles. We have Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats. Throw in those that call themselves Moderate "whatevers" and it just makes things even more convoluted. The biggest joke is that there are representatives in both parties that don't even resemble the "principles" of the party they supposedly represent.

I just think they do a better job of encouraging a divisive "us against them" mentality in this country than they do giving us the Cliff's Notes of a candidate's positions, especially when members of the same party differ on positions.

George Washington warned against political parties in 1796. And in my opinion, our electoral system has been going downhill ever since. He was really a man ahead of his times in many ways.

[jfrazierjr]

That's why I consider them outdated principles. We have Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats. Throw in those that call themselves Moderate "whatevers" and it just makes things even more convoluted. The biggest joke is that there are representatives in both parties that don't even resemble the "principles" of the party they supposedly represent.

I just think they do a better job of encouraging a divisive "us against them" mentality in this country than they do giving us the Cliff's Notes of a candidate's positions, especially when members of the same party differ on positions.

George Washington warned against political parties in 1796. And in my opinion, our electoral system has been going downhill ever since. He was really a man ahead of his times in many ways.

Now... I am NOT a historian, nor am I in any way in favor of our crappy two party system, however, it does allow for a clean way to solve things in the current form, with the Electoral College and various different states inputs into such.

While I don't want this thread to devolve, MY UNDERSTANDING, is that 193x Germany had something like 200+ political parties and this huge number of opposing groups is what led to the rise of Adolf Hitler. It seems that nothing was getting done because of the political infighting and there were never enough votes to get anything to pass(darn, many times I wish that where the case here!!!!!) End result, the people got annoyed that nothing was being done and finally started backing the "one" person who was both charismatic and promised change to the status quo. This combined with several parties joining forces resulted in Hitlers "election". 10 years later and half of the civilized nations of the world were involved in a hugh war that was raged across 1/4 of the planets surface.

[voodoo]

Just happened to run into this graph which I felt was relevant



We're paying double since 1970... are we really twice as good?

You don't know how lucky you are...

In France, everybody is bemoaning the fact that, even though the increase in education budget is comparable to the US, children's writing and reading have gone worse in the last 30 years...
(true, french is more difficult to write proper than english, but still...)

[thelevitator]

Now... I am NOT a historian, nor am I in any way in favor of our crappy two party system, however, it does allow for a clean way to solve things in the current form, with the Electoral College and various different states inputs into such.

While I don't want this thread to devolve, MY UNDERSTANDING, is that 193x Germany had something like 200+ political parties and this huge number of opposing groups is what led to the rise of Adolf Hitler. It seems that nothing was getting done because of the political infighting and there were never enough votes to get anything to pass(darn, many times I wish that where the case here!!!!!) End result, the people got annoyed that nothing was being done and finally started backing the "one" person who was both charismatic and promised change to the status quo. This combined with several parties joining forces resulted in Hitlers "election". 10 years later and half of the civilized nations of the world were involved in a hugh war that was raged across 1/4 of the planets surface.

Ahh...that might be true. I don't know much about German political parties during the WWII era. But to me, whether there are 2 parties or 200 isn't really the issue. It's the fact that politicians feel the need to divide into parties in the first place. Our country was founded without them and our first president was vehemently opposed to them and warned of their potential negative consequences.

Our system might just be too FUBAR to make any progressive changes that would level the playing field. I do know that I'm not alone in believing that political parties do more harm than good, and that their worst characteristic is that they encourage divisiveness.

I'm not looking to start a revolution or anything, and I'm pretty much convinced that we are doomed to this set-up for a long time. But I think it's important that we voice our opinions to each other, so that we can get a better understanding of each other.

My biggest wish is that we could just learn how to talk to each other, and not at each other in this country. I think it is completely naive and ignorant to support the belief that any single party has ALL of the answers. I think that most people who get into public service do so with good intentions and even some good ideas. Unfortunately, each side is so hell-bent on getting all the credit for everything that they waste more time bickering and disagreeing instead of working together to get things done.

Sorry, that I have derailed things a bit. While I'd rather not talk about political preferences on a gaming forum, I do enjoy talking about the process itself, and discuss, in my opinion, the more important matters of ideology, communication, and compromise. It boggles my mind at how much farther ahead we would be if we could just work together, instead of acting like we are on opposite teams. Someday, hopefully, we will. My guess is that we will probably destroy ourselves as a nation long before another nation does it.

[Steel Rat]

I just wanted to say I'm NOT posting here. This isn't the reply you're looking for.... Move along...

[Orchard]

I just wanted to say I'm NOT posting here. This isn't the reply you're looking for.... Move along...

That's how I started with this.

Now look at me.

Personally, I am amazed at how civil this thread has been for the most part.

That said, I need to apologize to hawke. Sorry man. I may have overreacted just a bit. I'm kinda running a bit raw just now. I think I'll step out for now.

[Hawke]

George Washington warned against political parties in 1796. And in my opinion, our electoral system has been going downhill ever since. He was really a man ahead of his times in many ways.

As a big libertarian (small-l), I agree with you in so many ways.

One thing that I think the party system could use is a little bit more criticism of their own candidates. No, you don't have to spend all day talking about how much you hate Biden or Palin if you're on their side, but I think just saying "Yeah, I disagree with them on that" "Yeah, I think that was a very dumb idea or thing to say" would go a long way. I almost never hear that from either side... something comes up, either they defend their candidate for something stupid and come across poorly or they deflect the issue and say "well, what about your guy who..." I mean, when the QB blows it on the field, I don't sit there and talk about how those interceptions were actually pivotal moments in the game and your QB should have the same. Listen to sports talk radio instead of political radio and you'll hear people railing their own team members more than the others often!

Shouldn't we all just realize that government sucks and the more of it the worse we are? Just all become libertarians like me!

[Hawke]

Personally, I am amazed at how civil this thread has been for the most part.

That said, I need to apologize to hawke. Sorry man. I may have overreacted just a bit. I'm kinda running a bit raw just now. I think I'll step out for now.

I first saw this thread and thought "oh... 3 pages till lock" and am really impressed with the people here. I thank you all, even if I stop replying in here at this point it isn't because people are flaming each other. I think we set a record.

No need to apologize, Orchard. I'm glad you're a part of this community -inside this thread and out.

[BigO]

Personally, I am amazed at how civil this thread has been for the most part.

I first saw this thread and thought "oh... 3 pages till lock" and am really impressed with the people here.

I'm trying to decide if now is the appropriate time for me to say "I told you so"...no, I'll wait.

(that was humor, in case someone missed it.)

Seriously though, I have a lot of respect for everyone who has been brave enough to voice their opinions here, and I'm very grateful to all of you for keeping it so friendly. This is exactly what I was looking for, a open and reasonable discussion about differing viewpoints.

And I can certainly understand the people who choose not to say anything. There are definitely topics that I would choose to not participate in, should they come up.

[thelevitator]

I get in a lot of trouble on political forums because I'm quick to point things out on all sides. To me, a good idea is a good idea and it shouldn't matter where it comes from. And the flipside is true as well; a bad idea is a bad idea and bad ideas shouldn't survive because of blind loyalism to a particular candidate or party. So people who cheer me when I say something for their candidate, and then get all ruffled when I point out something negative. What really cracks me up that by being honest and trying to see both sides of issues, I often get called a flip-flopper. I used to get pretty upset, but I've come to realize just how ridiculous the charge is. Just because I don't blindly follow a singular viewpoint doesn't mean I'm a flip-flopper. And to be honest, I'd rather be seen as a flip-flopper than a sheepish part of a herd.

It's pretty enlightening to look at our national polls on the election compared to other countries weighing in on our election. What's particularly sad is that there might actually be more people outside of our country who understand our politics even better than the folks living in it.

[voodoo]

Abortion was a non issue compared to those according to public polls

I have always wondered why it comes up every single election. I have never met a single person who lists that as a major topic for discussion when politics comes up. I feel this is a topic that is only pushed by the media to become and issue..

hi, my name is Joe, and Pro-life is one of my highest election candidacy checkboxes. Now, I am not Eric Rudolph crazy and blow stuff up or picket, but I believe embryos are people too. However, I would never vote for anyone that I know supports Pro-Choice.

Do you have a daughter?
Do you have a son?

[jfrazierjr]

I have always wondered why it comes up every single election. I have never met a single person who lists that as a major topic for discussion when politics comes up. I feel this is a topic that is only pushed by the media to become and issue..

hi, my name is Joe, and Pro-life is one of my highest election candidacy checkboxes. Now, I am not Eric Rudolph crazy and blow stuff up or picket, but I believe embryos are people too. However, I would never vote for anyone that I know supports Pro-Choice.

Do you have a daughter?
Do you have a son?

Yep... not sure how relevant that is to the subject. If you are getting at the fact of "would I vote for my son for office X if he were Pro-Choice" the answer is no. Would I still love him and support him, then the answer is of course. I just would not vote for someone who affects policy decisions who supported Pro-Choice.

[Orchard]

hi, my name is Joe, and Pro-life is one of my highest election candidacy checkboxes. Now, I am not Eric Rudolph crazy and blow stuff up or picket, but I believe embryos are people too. However, I would never vote for anyone that I know supports Pro-Choice.

Do you have a daughter?
Do you have a son?

Yep... not sure how relevant that is to the subject. If you are getting at the fact of "would I vote for my son for office X if he were Pro-Choice" the answer is no. Would I still love him and support him, then the answer is of course. I just would not vote for someone who affects policy decisions who supported Pro-Choice.

See this is where I'm not sure I agree. Of all the issues where I see people get really hot under the collar, this is one where I just say, "look, stop: it's too complicated to be a cut and dry issue". Anyone who says all abortion is wrong is a bit far out in my opinion, just as I would absolutely disagree with who says 'all abortion is okay'.

I am essentially pro-life, but I won't argue that all abortion is wrong. After all, if carrying a fetus to term puts the life of the mother in serious danger, with little chance of the child surviving, then the abortion is hard to argue with. On the other hand, it's also really hard to justify the abortion (in my mind) of a child with no medical problems, simply because the mother finds the pregnancy inconvenient (say she is married and slept around, or is married and she and her husband do not wish to have children). Cases of rape and incest? Those are EXTREMELY tricky.

On the other hand, I think we are getting to the point, medically, where abortion, even in the case of rape, unwanted pregnancies, and whatnot, will seem like an extremely barbaric thing to do (it does to me). With thousands (and more) of couples who would desperately love to have a child, and cannot afford the extremely costly fertility treatments or (currently expensive) adoption procedures, it seems like such a terrible thing to do to abort a life when there are good and intelligent people who would gladly raise the child. I know several people in this situation. Medical procedures, I suspect, will soon allow the fetus to be transferred from natural mother to an artifical womb, so that in cases where the idea of carrying a child to term would be abhorrent (rape), the abortion can be avoided, while preserving the life of the child.

Would I vote for someone who was pro-choice? Perhaps. It depends on so many other things, and why they were pro-choice. If they were militantly pro-choice because they didn't believe that the fetus was a life, and all that, then I might be a bit less inclined. If they were pro-choice because they felt that the issue is complicated and therefore they don't have the right to dictate a law on the matter, then I would probably be more comfortable with their position. On the other hand, I'd probably be just a bit hesitant with a person who wanted to ban ALL abortion, regardless of the reason.

Of course, I get pretty ticked by all candidates who paint issues as being dipolar. You are EITHER for abortion or AGAINST it. Well, actually, that's a lie. I can have a third position about abortion, that being simply that I want to do medical research that would allow the fetus to be taken from the mother and saved, but prevent her from having to carry it to term and allow someone else to adopt it in a LOW-COST scenario. (Why is adoption only for the rich?).

So there you have it. Orchard finally gives an opinion about something in this thread other than a graph. And it's one of the hottest topics in politics, by which I mean 'one of the issues most guaranteed to make someone angry'.

I hope I don't make anyone angry, but frankly, I'm sure I will. Because I really try to take a nuanced position on this topic--and the MORE controversial a topic, the more I try to avoid just taking one side or the other, which is what I think more people should do. If anything is guaranteed to tick me off, its someone blindly accepting one side of a position without recognizing that the other side has ANY merit at all. One of my brothers does this (he's pretty open about his feelings about having a black president, for instance--and it disgusts me). I CRINGE when I'm talking politics, trying to persuade someone that their view is not the only one with merit and he walks in and represents the other side as being completely trashy and bigoted. It's really hard to make much headway as being thoughtful and intelligent when you have someone like that thrashing aruond. Bull in a china shop, he is. Ugh.

I'm glad he's internet challenged.

[BigO]

So there you have it. Orchard finally gives an opinion about something in this thread other than a graph. And it's one of the hottest topics in politics, by which I mean 'one of the issues most guaranteed to make someone angry'.

Well, look at you, getting all involved and stuff. Welcome to the dark side.

BTW, I agree with your position on this one. I mean, think of it this way: no politician (or practically none), on EITHER side of the issue is willing to make a declarative statement about when life actually begins. That alone should tell you that it isn't a strictly black and white issue.

Wait, that's a poor choice of phrase in a political thread isn't it. Boolean issue?

[voodoo]

[

I am essentially pro-life, but I won't argue that all abortion is wrong. After all, if carrying a fetus to term puts the life of the mother in serious danger, with little chance of the child surviving, then the abortion is hard to argue with. On the other hand, it's also really hard to justify the abortion (in my mind) of a child with no medical problems, simply because the mother finds the pregnancy inconvenient (say she is married and slept around, or is married and she and her husband do not wish to have children). Cases of rape and incest? Those are EXTREMELY tricky.
...
Would I vote for someone who was pro-choice? Perhaps. It depends on so many other things, and why they were pro-choice. If they were militantly pro-choice because they didn't believe that the fetus was a life, and all that, then I might be a bit less inclined. If they were pro-choice because they felt that the issue is complicated and therefore they don't have the right to dictate a law on the matter, then I would probably be more comfortable with their position. On the other hand, I'd probably be just a bit hesitant with a person who wanted to ban ALL abortion, regardless of the reason.

...

.

First, I have to say that I heartily embrace your point of view that it is a complicated issue. Personnaly, I think that it is so complicated that I think it is much more of a personnal issue (as opposed to something that the government should decide for you) than gun regulation (which every civilized country but the US think should be upheld). And I'm always puzzled when I see someone who is anti-abortion but pro death penalty...

I am an anesthetist by formation, an ED doctor and a father of sons and daughters.

As an anesthetist, I gave anesthesia fo women for abortion (in France, it is only in the first 3 months unless the mother is in danger or the fetus has a "severe" and untreatable condition). I was surprised to see how abortion affected most women, since childbearing in our civilization is the epitomy of womanhhod. After anesthesio, your defenses are usually down and your reactions are really what you feel rather than what you want people to see (it(s not the truth serum for nothing). And I've seen many girls and women cry after abortion so I don't think it is something any woman does lightly, just because "it is not convenient" aven though they may tell you so.

(I have to say too that a 3 month fetus is nothing like a clump of cells, what you see is something that most people would consider "a human baby" even though I sincerely don't know hom much a fetus feels...)

As an ED doctor, I have talked enough with social workers to assure you that unwanted children and small children of single parents are the one that are the most at risk of getting abused.
I can also tell you that no pregnancy (especially in the young and "old" women) is without risk. We are not in the middle ages, but childbearing and birth are medical conditions.

As a parent, I definitley cannot assure you that I am certain my daughter will never have unwanted pregnancy. I think first time sex is a little bit like first time roleplaying: you don't really know what you get into, you don't always know if the people you get into this with are the right ones, and even if you don't want to go any further, sometimes you do (and then you get hit by the troll!).
Do I think that my 14 year old daughter should go through pregnancy (with all the social and school consequences) and separation with her infant (in the case of child abandon at birth) because she didn't know how to say "no" to the boy she was in love with at the time? I don't think so.
Do I think I should scare her out of sex until wedlocks? I don't think so either. Should I tell her about birth control and STD? Definitely, but, from experience, intellectual knowledge and practical application are not the same.
I had children when I was 28, me and my wife had stable jobs, we had our parents to help us, and even then, we can't say that we felt in control all the time and that there were no moments we thought "what mess did we get ourselves into".
I really can't imagine how single parents with no family to help and no stable job can cope with it, and even "just" pregnancy, alone and with little support (and I'm not certain all of the people who propose to help single mothers are people I would like to be arounf).

These are the reasons why I think that abortion definitly is a bad solution to unwanted pregnancy, but banning it seems much, much worse (only because it mechanically creates illegal abortions and their dire medical consequences).

So I would consider a "pro-choice" politician as someone who is practical, can see how complicated a problem may be and yes, someone who I would like to be in charge of my country.

(meanwhile, someone who is against choice would rather be the one to think that a big gun and invasion can solve any international problem...)