+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
Fun political quiz (US)
Log In to post a reply
20 messages
View: flat \ threaded

5992 posts

Re: Fun political quiz (US)

wracket wrote:
Of course, of course...there's always an excuse, always a reasonable argument for why we surely must keep Corporate Whore A out and all costs, and how therefore it would be a waste of one's ballot to vote for anyone other than Corporate Whore B.

I don't consider Obama a corporate whore. Unless you say that we should fund our campaigns differently than we do now, which is of course a reasonable argument, more so than just calling them whores. But I don't blame Obama for having to take contributions, and I do not think he's a whore for doing so.

wracket wrote:
Honestly, it's not that I don't see the differences between McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden, I do. It's just that I also see that they're two sides of the same coin, two parties permanently entwined, one completing the other, both sucking on basically the same corporate teats and force-feeding the public the doctrine that choices C, D, E, etc. are jokes, that A vs. B is the only game in town. A sick duopoly, unheard of in most of the world (and worse in many ways than Malaysia's Barisan Nasional, which is at least a coalition) and truly unrepresentative of the population as a whole.

I totally disagree with you. I think in some ways our system is much more balanced and successful than many other countries, and it may be because it has to have a more moderate stance to be successful. Yes we're a capitalist system. Not many people really want it otherwise in our country. And yes, the parties tend to be stronger when they are closer to the middle, than the extreme left or right. But still, in many areas the political platforms of the two prominent parties have opposing views on topics of importance to people around the country, so the third party candidates that have existed in the past have eaten into one side or the other.

wracket wrote:
Granted, third parties would be more viable if the US were to move to a parliamentary form of government, but the national pride associated with having the oldest living constitution automatically equates all suggestions of revamping the American political process in any meaningful way with sacrilege. Therefore, the only way it's EVER going to change is by people like me (and a lot of others here on this board) refusing to vote for a candidate who does not represent our views. If not now, when?!

I don't think the arguments against changing to a parliamentary system are entirely based on pride or irrational emotion.

Oct 10, 2008, 05:13