A Tale of Two Parties

Ohhh, YES!

HA!

Da!*

*WHO SENT ALL THESE BABIES TO FIGHT

XA*

axaxaxaxaxaxaxaxa

ALOW

this medvedev guy, it's like his parents said "what we should call our son?" and they were like "let's play with the keyboard and what comes out will be our son name" and then they got "apaoaipp" so they tried again and the second one wasn't that bad.

>Language different from Germanic
>XDDD WHY DO THEY ROLL OVER KEYBOARD TO MAKE UP WORDS? XDDDD

Medvedev in Russian means "Of the Bears"

go home

thebest404pageever.com/swf/snap_your_shit.swf

Electing 3rd party makes you a tool?

From what I understand, getting 5% of the votes allows them to be in the debates and get more money. I could be wrong.

Yeah i mean if its true then whats the problem with voting for them? its not wasted if it means your candidate gets to express his ideas if front of millions of Americans, increasing the chance of getting elected.

The reason I want a third party is because I have democratic views and republican views. For example: I don't want the government to give bailouts, but I do want gays to have equal rights. Good comment though. I lol'd.

Not to mention most Americans dont even vote third part, what kind if cycle is this?

I just wanted to make a jab at all of the people below me that were voting for a 3rd party because *well i don't like either Romney or Obama very much*

Only one problem: it doesn't matter who you vote for, because it doesn't matter; the Electoral College overrides the popular vote, every time. The first time that happened was John Quincy Adams versus Andrew Jackson. Jckson won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote. Fast-forwards almost 2 centuries, and you get Bush vs. Gore. Same shit, different Presidents.

Epic, sir!

The third party candidates only get on to debates if it can show it has a significant amount of voter support (5 or so percent). it has happened. However the two primary third parties are the greens and librarians who hold positions the majority of Americans do not.

Most people who I have talked to about the libertarians agree with the Libs more the Democrats or Republicans. The real problem is that nobody really knows about third parties so they don't have a chance to grow their voter base and the Top 2 can just duke it out ever year.

Also: The "Throw away the vote" mentality that a lot of people seem to have.

This mentality really makes me angry. I told a woman I was voting for Gary Johnson, and she was like "Well your vote doesn't count. You're just giving it to the winner". If people would stop being fucking ignorant and see that they can choose whoever they want, we might have a chance.

It makes me angry too.
And If I want to "throw away my vote", I will do what I please, voting for whomever I please, because I ave the right to.

Libertarian candidates typically aren't even on the ballot in all 50 states. Even if they were, they get a small fraction of the funds to campaign on that Republicans and Democrats do. You can call it what you want, but a libertarian is not going to win the Presidential election. And that being said, the key issue in this election is the economy, and libertarian economical views are extremely congruent to Republican economical views. Plus, the margin of victory for whoever wins is likely to be smaller than the percentage of votes Gary Johnson will obtain as a third party candidate. So, assuming you do vote for Gary Johnson and Obama does win by an exceedingly close margin, you'd have to know that you could have voted for someone who was more congruent with your political position than the person who won the election, and you could have made a significant difference in the result.

Not that I particularly care who you vote for, just saying that there's a lot of logic behind that argument.

This time, there is some logic behind the statement, but some people shy away from third parties because they "don't count". This is one of the reasons we're going in the shitter. We won't open up to anything new. It also shows how perfect a two party system is for holding control of a populace. Your argument does make sense though, especially in this election. I like your comparison of the margin of victory to that of the entire Libertarian vote. Good show!

The threshold is 15%.

And you missed the 200 years before that, if you want to talk history get your facts straight kid

12 years doesn't compare to 200 :/ that guys right.

What, do you expect one of the two to be in charge for ever?

Depends.

Canada does not have a 2 party system, allowing more choices.
If the Conservatives fail, there are a number of parties that can take their place.

(Conservatice, Liberal, New Democrat Party, Green Party, Bloc Québécois, Pirate Party, etc.)

With more parties, it means that the governing party MUST do a good job, or risk loosing by a HUGE pargin.

Also, Canada is a Constitutionnel Monarchy. in short, the Queen (or Governor General) can call an election if the Prime Minister fucks up.

If the President fucks up in America, there is no safeguard. You will have him/her until the next election, which is every four years. If he fucks up, you will get the other party that fucked up before...

Here, there are about 6 different major parties.

america IS a republic. you know, we elect REPRESENTATIVES in a REPUBLIC. in a democracy the people directly vote on bills and such.

Well, not necessarily. You are referring to a Direct Democracy, such as Athens. We have a representative democracy. However, that's not the point I was making. I was stating how in our country, we really do not see any other party as a truly viable candidate or political party, simply because of how long the two reigning powers have held on to Congress.

No, that's entirely put off onto the media; they shut the other parties out. Like what happened to Ron Paul, he had a HUGE advantage on the other candidates... Until he started speaking. The media then decided that he was too Independent and gave him less and less face time while also slandering him a bit.

Emh, well

In most countries there are more parties, BUT
they go together to make a collision government.
This means that if party A gets 40% of votes,
party B gets 30% and C gets 30%,
Party C and B can go together and make government,
because they got more votes together than A alone.

Now, party B and C would never form government together
unless they could agree on politics, which basically means
in most countries you get two main collision options
just like in the USA. This you find in the UK, where the conservatives
and the liberals formed government, even though labor party got more votes.

i wonder if that means the populous has to sit through two or four times the amount of political smack ads?

Ah, alright, however the fact still stands that the Democratic and Republican parties have maintained their grip on the government for the last 150 years. Other nations are not like that, their coalition governments are swapped out every now and again.

*collision

did you even read his post?

He meant to say coalition, for they work together.


If you read the post and/or had the deductive abilities equal to at least a cat, you would know that's what he meant, and that I was not mistaken in saying coalition.

collision as in two masses colliding to become one but operating within the legal parameters of the government already set in place. not coalition government as in a country that has agreed to work with another country to form their own super country.

No, it's a coalition government, I assure you. Have you never heard of one before? They are not planetary masses colliding together and exploding, they are two political parties coming together to form a single government. Your intel is mistaken.

did i say exploding? does everything have to explode for you people to finally understand that something is happening? if i hadn't heard of what he was talking about do you think i would debating it with someone?

and yes a coalition government is to parties coming together to form a new government. i don't think you are understanding the NEW portion of that. a coalition government is in reference to a new nation. a collision government is what happens in a multiple partied system. where the runners up can be elected since they together had more votes than the candidate who had more than either one of them separately.

and as far as intel goes, I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue.

www.google.com/search?source=ig&rlz=1G1TSNA_ENUS396&q=define+coalition+government&oq=define+coalition&gs_l=igoogle.3.1.0j0i20j0l3.65582.82175.0.83448.46.24.17.1.1.2.417.4626.5j7j8j3j1.24.0...0.0...1ac.1.ycZR1D8rK7g

Anyways, this will be last response I have to you. There is no such thing as a Collision government. Good bye.

i give up. you have clearly outwitted me through your usage of google.
i may only pray that one day i may be as smart as you.

America is already so far down the road of Capitalism, it would literally be economic suicide to try and implement socialist ideas. On the whole, Socialism ISN'T as bad as we make it out to be, but it's just not something that our people would be able to handle.

The only thing Americans know to do is vote, work, and spend. In a Socialist country, the best thing to do is work and maybe spend a little. Since America is in such a recession, trying to have Socialistic views would be a bad move.

TL;DR Socialism is bad for America, but not bad in general.

I can respect that opinion, and I do agree with it for the present, trying time that our nation is enduring. But what I was complaining about was that Americans see Socialism as this evil, inoperable economic, dictatorial system, which is simply not true.

But yeah.

Oh yeah, definitely. It's just the wrong sort of thing for us, it's great for a booming economy, though.

Yeah, perhaps once the American economy starts booming again, and people see how potentially hurtful the level of Capitalism we practice is, leading to such Economic crises such as the Depression or in 2008, we'll transition to a slightly more Socialist economy, through of course democracy.

I can only hope for that however, in the present time.

Indeed. Although, I voted for Romney, I don't foresee any Socialistic ideas coming into play while he is in office. If Obama is in office... God help us all...

Ah, you voted for Romney? May I ask why?

Because Obama has already tripled the debt in his one term. He's created more deficit than anything else he's done. The main reason, however, is because one of our delegates went to Libya and was killed there; the Libyans even admitted to doing it, and Obama decided it would be best to apologize to them for it because we "don't understand their culture."

I see. Well, I can respect that. I am by no means a fan of Obama, but I believe that he will be a more capable leader than Romney would be, but that's just my opinion.

And everyone is entitled to their own.

precisely. In any case, have a fine day, friend! twas nice speaking to someone who was nice and knew what they were talking about, unlike the other user stalking the thread here.

I could see that you were in a bit of a bind so I offered a decent conversation. Have a nice day!

you don't sound free.

*there, after that i thumbed you down& stopped reading

Well, if you let minor grammar mistakes get in the way of what I'm trying to say, then I don't want or need your green thumb or approval.

perhaps by expressing the smallest empathy and acknowledgment that human beings on occasion do indeed, in fact, make mistakes. I know that as a Grammar Nazi that may be hard for you to digest.

But, if you are so flabbergasted by a small grammatical error, then perhaps you should reevaluate yourself as a functioning, human being.

that sure is a bunch of long words.


compensating for something?

Fin.

Good Day Sir. If you go to such low standards such as that, then I have no interest in speaking with you further. I only hope that your blatant arrogance and argumentative capabilities will graduate from that of a 5 year old afflicted with Asperger's.

i had the most insults, that means i had the deepest understanding of the arguments presented. that means i win.



how smart you look.

Why do you even bother calling yourself a Grammar Nazi if you don't even use perfect grammar skills yourself? DON'T TARNISH OUR NAME!

wut?

funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4216329/A+Tale+of+Two+Parties/301#301

This is what I'm referring to.

oh my how cou-

nope, don't see anything wrong.

are you even trying to communicate?

I suppose my attempts at communication are wasted on you.

that was the first intelligent thing you've said.


bravo.

lrn2meme

I'm off to enjoy another thread.

my, my, my.
looks like somebody has quite alot of butthertz.

Speaking of which...

mmmm,

so tasty.

yes, yes, feed me your butthurt.

looks like somebody lifts.

Not trying to sound stand-offish but, for someone whose having seizures over other people's grammatical errors you sure don't mind not capitalizing the first letter of your sentences. Not even "I" >.>

Just pointing that out.

Unless you're attempting to troll, then good job I suppose.

Who's*

I liked you're comment b/c you are correct, and I also found it amusing.

And yes the "you're" was a joke if you must ask....

i dont care to capitalize the first letter on an fj post. had this been an assignment i would take the time yes. but its not.
and now you're nitpicking. to think that first letter capitalization is a crime worse that the[re,ir,y're] confusion, needs to have their Gnazi credentials checked.

> Now you're nitpicking

> Nitpicking

ಠ_ಠ

So pretty much the exact same thing you're doing? While we're on that subject, you ever stop to realize that maybe other people think the exact same thing that you, only in a different area?

By that I mean the "Had this been an assignment" deal, maybe when they're going *takka takka takka* on their keyboard commenting on some post on a comedy site, they don't feel compelled to have the required spelling of a Comp II paper.

Although I must concede. It IS much easier to just take the "Psh, MY errors don't count/are negligible. But THEIRS is blasphemy!" route.

welcome to the internet.

And his society fell due to their avarice and abuse of nature's laws.

sounds like the society we live in today, lol!

Avarice yes. Abuse of Nature's laws, not so much.

I think that cloning, genetic manipulation and more of that sort of things are a form of abusing nature's laws..

Cloning: Also know as breeding, do that already
Genetic manipulation: Cleaning the gene pool faster than Nature (speedy evolution)

We're not throwing fire, turning invisible, or creating 19 year olds that are only a year old to assassinate their dictator fathers.

I know what you mean man and I'm not against any of that but I just think that we should slow down with all our experimental shit and let nature have it's way. Us humans have already proven ourselves as advanced earth destroyers (/hippie mode off)

Human beings are still animals. We still fight for resources like gorillas seizing the territory of their neighbors. To get beyond that we must overcome nature, must break these bond so that we can move forward. If we do not, the only viable solution is a world dictatorship enforcing a unifying culture upon the world. We get past our nature, remove the need for conflict, we will naturally gravitate towards each other.

True story! Nice to see people who think about this!

What are nature's laws exactly? I didn't get a copy.

Not throwing fire, creating assassins in under a year coded to respond to "would you kindly", or giving the power of the gods to ordinary citizens.

the only law is survive. nature/god/the universe never issued a single guideline or law on how to do it. if it works, it works.
it's what hitler did on ww2. france built the maginot line on the northeast. but forgot about the alps. "hey, shouldn't we reinforce the alps too?" "nah, those are mountains! why would they make an army go through there?"
where do you think the germans crossed through like it was their backyard?

Except they never crossed, the alps. They met the allies in Northern France by pushing through swampland that was no fortified.

As for the other matter: It's about escalation. One man starts tossing fire, someone invents lightning. More over it's a commentary of the free market of the early 1900s in America in which radition and various chemical compounds were widely avaiblable to an uninformed public.

the point is that they were expecting them to cross through the maginot line. if you do what you are expected to do you don't win

When I played Bioshock I kept thinking "I agree with him this would be an awesome system"

People thumbing this down?

All of my wut, FJ. Probably the best advice Andrew Ryan ever gave

thank you.. I thought the same..

it's not that the advice is bad, it's more of a "THIS ISN'T THE TIME TO USE THAT" moment.

They think the president can be handed a shitty economy, and fix it is under 4 years.

Ohhh, you're getting it now, son.

but the bullet cost him his life?! amirite?

Fucking lol'd

Originally I didn't even want to vote because I basically had to choose between an overly powerful Federal Government or an overly powerful Upper Class. But then I figured if I was going to do that I might as well vote Gary Johnson.

Of course he has no shot to win, but I like him better than the other two. Just my opinion.

Glad you voted Johnson, but as far as the powerful upper class, it's only bad or unnatural when government is involved ya know. Look up the Robber Baron myth by Milton Friedman.

Or anything by Friedman really, but that in particular. It all comes down to the non-aggression principle. While I like a lot of Johnson's plan and all, he's a crappy debater considering the wealth of knowledge and amazing arguments that he can stand on the shoulders of.

I'll still vote for him, but tonight's debate was pretty bad. He could have done MUCH better. I miss Ron Paul in debates too, he was a better debater. Not Friedman level mind you, but really good.

I read this economics book one time, and the guy said something, and it's true because he was an economist and he's dead now. Seriously it was in a book and I know the name of the author so now I'm a leading pseudo-intellectual authority on the economy by default.

You clearly don't know much about Austrian Economics. If anything, it tries to say that because the economy is too complicated a beast, no planner can figure it out.

The essence of Johnson's (or the Libertarian) plan on the whole is to stop all the planning, and leave it to individuals to plan their own future. To let the invisible hand do it's work.

But just out of curiosity... would you prefer people not read about the economy? Listen I'm not trying to say I know everything... or even all that much per se, as much as start a discussion so we can figure this out together and decide upon the best course of action so long as we are forced to live with each other's choices in this political system called democracy where we are all tyrants over each other, having to live with each others' choices. I want to give up as much of that tyranny as possible, but since doing so would require forcing others to give up the same amount of their power as well, I have to engage in diplomacy with them so to speak.

And considering that we all make choices as to the role of government in the economy, wouldn't you prefer we all become as educated as we can get? I've read plenty of Keynsian stuff as well (not as much because I don't like it as much), but I do see where they're coming from. I think they're short-sighted a bit, but I can see where their viewpoint comes from, and for the real keynsians who have actually studied it and can defend it somewhat, I respect that. I disagree with them but I really respect the effort.



TL;DR - I never said I was an expert, but would you prefer that I (and people in general) NOT study economics???

I never said I'd prefer people to not know about economics. I'm just sick of people acting like everything they see in an economics textbook is a fact. Adam Smith, the invisible hand, laissez fair economics, and all that jazz was based on a model that was created before the global economy existed.

The least common denominator in most if not all economic THEORIES is that the money will gravitate toward some least common denominator. The people or companies that can make the best products for the least amount of money will win out of natural selection. How can a company go about reducing costs? Less pay for workers for longer hours, rampant pollution because the environment is free, unhealthy or unsafe product design, etc. It's so GOD DAMN easy to just say "fuck it we'll let everything work out on its own". That's incredibly ignorant. If the government just buggered off like the way libertarians would like it to, the world would be a much different place. Just look at india and china. No governmental regulations on business. Ya know what the Chinese economy is doing great! We should strive to be more like them. Fuck human rights and the environment as long as the flow of money is up and running.

I think it's great that you read about the economy. Fantastic. But "Friedman said so" isn't justification for what you're saying, even if you think it should be.

I feel the same as you, and I also voted Libertarian. I like republican economics and democratic social ideals (for the most part).

Dude you're better off asking a teenaged girl to use logic.

I will agree with you there.

Politicians: "You don't want the truth."

I love how it was a trend a few weeks ago to put "Smart quotes" that I'm sure Bush totally said with him as the background , and make it seem like he was the smartest man alive and he was a better president then Obama.