Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Chart of 2012 contenders on LGBT issuesFollow

#27 Aug 17 2011 at 5:43 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
Jophiel wrote:
At least in US history, the "change" in parties is a rapid upheaval where one party is largely replaced by another, leaving the country with a two-party system -- just one with a different party. Third parties don't work here because they take their voters primarily from one side or the other and voters typically decide that it's better to vote Republican than to split the vote with a Libertarian candidate and risk a Democrat taking the seat (or vice versa with the Green party and Democrats). There's no magical "Centrist" party that appeals equally to both sides of the divide.


In my opinion, it's a part of the problem with the system. We have an all or nothing system which makes 49% of votes not seeing a return, a number which would be even higher if there were more parties. If we were interested in making a more smooth political system (ie. less of the edge effects that lead to a wholly adversarial system) which would put more weight on compromise plans, we could shift that. Right now, 51% of the votes make 100% of the decisions whereas a more proportional representation system (ie. 51% has 51% of the power) would favor a larger number of parties meaningfully taking part in the political process. Unfortunately the design of such a system is tricky, because you have to be more able to quantify qualitative things.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#28 Aug 17 2011 at 5:53 AM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:

Wait! So any time a special interest group writes down a list of political changes they want, we get to say that any politician who disagrees with them is "oppressing people"? That's a funny bit of linguistic twisting going on right there!
Any time one group of people is denied the same rights that everyone else has they are being oppressed, whether a list is presented or not.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#29 Aug 17 2011 at 7:12 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
gbaji wrote:
Iron Chef Olorinus wrote:
yeah it is sad that the right wing is willing to oppress people to score political points. It is even more sad that left wing politicians fall for it.


Wait! So any time a special interest group writes down a list of political changes they want, we get to say that any politician who disagrees with them is "oppressing people"? That's a funny bit of linguistic twisting going on right there!

You would have us believe - well let's say YOU believe and therefor assume it's factual - that anytime a special interest group with a social agenda does anything it's sole purpose is to garner votes for Obama.

Quote:
I think the more relevant point is that this is a liberal organization. They're providing political cover for Obama here.


Smiley: lol

gbaji you're a joke that you don't get.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#30 Aug 17 2011 at 5:48 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Vestal Chamberlain Lubriderm wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Wait! So any time a special interest group writes down a list of political changes they want, we get to say that any politician who disagrees with them is "oppressing people"? That's a funny bit of linguistic twisting going on right there!
Any time one group of people is denied the same rights that everyone else has they are being oppressed, whether a list is presented or not.


Way to /whoosh there!

The circular part is where you decide whether a group is being denied their rights pretty much entirely because a special interest spends tons of time and money telling you that they are. Get it? Or do I need to draw you a picture?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Aug 17 2011 at 6:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
gbaji wrote:
Vestal Chamberlain Lubriderm wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Wait! So any time a special interest group writes down a list of political changes they want, we get to say that any politician who disagrees with them is "oppressing people"? That's a funny bit of linguistic twisting going on right there!
Any time one group of people is denied the same rights that everyone else has they are being oppressed, whether a list is presented or not.


Way to /whoosh there!

The circular part is where you decide whether a group is being denied their rights pretty much entirely because a special interest spends tons of time and money telling you that they are. Get it? Or do I need to draw you a picture?


Deduction: he disagreed with you, so he couldn't possibly have understood.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#32 Aug 17 2011 at 6:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Kavekk wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Vestal Chamberlain Lubriderm wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Wait! So any time a special interest group writes down a list of political changes they want, we get to say that any politician who disagrees with them is "oppressing people"? That's a funny bit of linguistic twisting going on right there!
Any time one group of people is denied the same rights that everyone else has they are being oppressed, whether a list is presented or not.


Way to /whoosh there!

The circular part is where you decide whether a group is being denied their rights pretty much entirely because a special interest spends tons of time and money telling you that they are. Get it? Or do I need to draw you a picture?


Deduction: he disagreed with you, so he couldn't possibly have understood.


When someone responds to my statement refuting the correlation between two things by simply restating the same correlation it's safe to say that they didn't understand that I was refuting that correlation in the first place. Right? Well, that or they just completely fail at basic logic and reason, I suppose.

Edited, Aug 17th 2011 5:26pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#33 Aug 17 2011 at 6:33 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
gbaji wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Vestal Chamberlain Lubriderm wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Wait! So any time a special interest group writes down a list of political changes they want, we get to say that any politician who disagrees with them is "oppressing people"? That's a funny bit of linguistic twisting going on right there!
Any time one group of people is denied the same rights that everyone else has they are being oppressed, whether a list is presented or not.


Way to /whoosh there!

The circular part is where you decide whether a group is being denied their rights pretty much entirely because a special interest spends tons of time and money telling you that they are. Get it? Or do I need to draw you a picture?


Deduction: he disagreed with you, so he couldn't possibly have understood.


When someone responds to my statement refuting the correlation between two things by simply restating the same correlation it's safe to say that they didn't understand that I was refuting that correlation in the first place. Right? Well, that or they just completely fail at basic logic and reason, I suppose.


You didn't refute it, you just indicated disagreement by characterising the position in a certain way. The good Chamberlain disagreed with you by characterising it ina different way. Both of you have simply stated your positions, without justification; if this goes on for another five pages, it'll be a typical Asylum argument.

Now stop kicking rocks.

Edited, Aug 18th 2011 12:34am by Kavekk
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#34 Aug 18 2011 at 1:05 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
TLW wrote:
No. The rise and fall of parties comes independent of the change in human nature.

The change is slow though, typically taking more than a generation to form.


I'm not following what you're trying to get at, but it appears that I disagree with you.


Jophiel wrote:
Third parties don't work here because they take their voters primarily from one side or the other and voters typically decide that it's better to vote Republican than to split the vote with a Libertarian candidate and risk a Democrat taking the seat (or vice versa with the Green party and Democrats).


This.

People aren't going to vote for 3rd party out of fear of the "opponent" taking office. When people focus more on supporting what they truly believe, other parties can stand a chance. Simply labeling yourself as a Republican/Democrat will you give you support over the other.
#35 Aug 18 2011 at 6:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
When people focus more on supporting what they truly believe, other parties can stand a chance. Simply labeling yourself as a Republican/Democrat will you give you support over the other.

I'll feel worse about that when "historic" primary election participation isn't 15-20%. That's your main chance to affect the direction of the parties and most people just sit out the process and wait until two candidates are left and then start whining about how they don't like either of them.

And God forbid someone get involved earlier than that and actually help support a candidate in the primaries or help someone they'd like move out of being a state-level legislative rep to running for Congressional rep.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#36 Aug 18 2011 at 6:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Kavekk wrote:
gbaji wrote:
When someone responds to my statement refuting the correlation between two things by simply restating the same correlation it's safe to say that they didn't understand that I was refuting that correlation in the first place. Right? Well, that or they just completely fail at basic logic and reason, I suppose.


You didn't refute it, you just indicated disagreement by characterising the position in a certain way.


Um... That's one of the two meanings of the word "refute":

Quote:
2. To deny the accuracy or truth of


Quote:
The good Chamberlain disagreed with you by characterising it ina different way.


No. He responded to my statement with a statement which rested on the exact assumption I was refuting (or disagreeing with, if that makes you feel better).

I disagreed with the assumption that opposing the things on this groups list is equivalent with oppressing a group of people (homosexuals in this case).

He responded by saying that when you deny a group their rights, we are oppressing that group. Which while certainly true, is completely irrelevant as a response to my statement unless he's assuming that the things on the list are necessary to prevent the denial of rights and thus represents oppression of the group.

Um... Which is exactly what I said wasn't true. Hence the /whoosh. He completely missed what I was disagreeing with and went off on some other thing. I questioned an assumption, and he just repeated the same assumption again. Which seems terrifically unhelpful, wouldn't you agree?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#37 Aug 18 2011 at 8:12 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jophiel wrote:

I'll feel worse about that when "historic" primary election participation isn't 15-20%. That's your main chance to affect the direction of the parties and most people just sit out the process and wait until two candidates are left and then start whining about how they don't like either of them.


The number of people who participate is overrated. I am a firm believer that stupid people shouldn't be able to vote. If you're just voting for the sake of voting or something stupid like, ***, skin color, religion, looks, etc., then you're better off not voting. I would rather let the 15% of the population that's actually following the politics to vote rather than having 60%-75% of the nation voting over stupid reasons.

Jophiel wrote:
And God forbid someone get involved earlier than that and actually help support a candidate in the primaries or help someone they'd like move out of being a state-level legislative rep to running for Congressional rep.


That's the problem, the way the system is set up now, you'll lose/gain most of your support at the beginning even before the race actually starts. Instead of allowing the nation to vote in the primaries all on one day, we spread it out. That alone isn't bad, but the media does these stupid polls and try to project winners. If you lose the first couple of states, then people change their support out of fear of "wasting a vote".
#38 Aug 18 2011 at 8:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
I'm not going to tarnish the brilliance of my last post by engaging in a pointless argument with you.

Using 'refute' to mean 'deny' is a fairly common mistake, but should not be regarded as a proper meaning because to do so is to conflate proof with denial. This is obviously undesirable.

That's all I have to say on the matter.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#39 Aug 18 2011 at 11:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
The number of people who participate is overrated

As long as it's smaller than the number of people who vote in the general election, I don't care about their ******** over their choices.
Quote:
That's the problem, the way the system is set up now, you'll lose/gain most of your support at the beginning even before the race actually starts. Instead of allowing the nation to vote in the primaries all on one day, we spread it out.

There's only one political office where that makes a difference and 536 elected seats in the federal government where it doesn't.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#40 Aug 18 2011 at 11:43 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jophiel wrote:
As long as it's smaller than the number of people who vote in the general election, I don't care about their ******** over their choices.


I'm not sure if I follow. If a candidate has to drop out of the race due to the media projections causing a lack of support, then I believe they have a right to complain.

Jophiel wrote:
There's only one political office where that makes a difference and 536 elected seats in the federal government where it doesn't.


Why stop there? You could go down to local city elections. We aren't talking about those elected seats. Unless your argument is that one political office has no pull/power, then you have no point.
#41 Aug 19 2011 at 12:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I'm not sure if I follow. If a candidate has to drop out of the race due to the media projections causing a lack of support, then I believe they have a right to complain.

Sure. I have the right to dismiss your complaints. Win-win!

Quote:
Why stop there? You could go down to local city elections.

Given that those seats can often act as feeders to higher office, that would be an excellent use of your time if you were actually worried about influencing the direction of political parties. See previous comment about "help[ing] someone they'd like move out of being a state-level legislative rep to running for Congressional rep."

Quote:
We aren't talking about those elected seats.

We were talking about political parties. Even local elections usually have partisan identification.

Edited, Aug 19th 2011 1:11am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Aug 19 2011 at 12:48 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Sure. I have the right to dismiss your complaints. Win-win!


Correction, they have a logical REASON to complain, you don't have a logical reason to dismiss their complaints.

Jophiel wrote:
Given that those seats can often act as feeders to higher office, that would be an excellent use of your time if you were actually worried about influencing the direction of political parties. See previous comment about "help[ing] someone they'd like move out of being a state-level legislative rep to running for Congressional rep."


I'm not denying that, that's just not the point of the discussion. Your excellent local city job performance will not alter the media's projections on future elections. Hence why it's irrelevant. Now, I will give you credit because if I understand you correctly, you're referencing people who only vote for the President and nothing else. That is a legitimate point, but it doesn't alter anything for the person who did vote in every local, state and national election. The outcome for the presidential election is still the same. Just because other elections aren't "jacked" doesn't overwrite the errors with the election in question.

Jophiel wrote:

We were talking about political parties. Even local elections usually have partisan identification.


Well, maybe I wasn't clear, my bad... I'm referring to the scenarios where it matters, local cities matters much less. I was primarily referring to the General Election. I don't know the record of Governors, but I'm sure they fall in the same category.
#43 Aug 19 2011 at 2:18 AM Rating: Good
Screenshot


It's really too bad she's such a bigot, as she's got so much in common with the gays.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#44 Aug 19 2011 at 4:10 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
better to be a bigot then a blithering moron.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#45 Aug 19 2011 at 6:34 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I am a firm believer that stupid people shouldn't be able to vote.
I agree, so stay away from the polls.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#46 Aug 19 2011 at 6:57 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
better to be a bigot then a blithering moron.

Didn't she recently say that the USSR was a threat to the USA?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#47 Aug 19 2011 at 7:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Obligatory Onion Link

Sadly, they're not making up the details, just pointing out the absurdity.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#48 Aug 19 2011 at 1:19 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
I shudder to think of what would happen if Bachmann were to become the 44th person to run your country. Bad news for everyone in the world, methinks.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#49 Aug 19 2011 at 1:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Nilatai wrote:
I shudder to think of what would happen if Bachmann were to become the 44th person to run your country. Bad news for everyone in the world, methinks.

God might be happy. It would likely bring us closer to the End of the World, and I'm sure the Almighty's getting antsy for the after-party.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#50 Aug 19 2011 at 1:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
I shudder to think of what would happen if Bachmann were to become the 44th person to run your country. Bad news for everyone in the world, methinks.

God might be happy. It would likely bring us closer to the End of the World, and I'm sure the Almighty's getting antsy for the after-party.


She's the anti-Christ! Smiley: eek
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#51 Aug 19 2011 at 1:38 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
I shudder to think of what would happen if Bachmann were to become the 44th person to run your country. Bad news for everyone in the world, methinks.

God might be happy. It would likely bring us closer to the End of the World, and I'm sure the Almighty's getting antsy for the after-party.


She's the anti-Christ! Smiley: eek

She's dangerously delusional, I don't know about anything else.

I'm not even sure if Ron Paul would be a less dangerous choice than her, what with his hatred of keeping church and state separate and all.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 69 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (69)