Karl Rove Creates "Conservative Victory project"... To Get Rid of The Tea Party
82 replies, posted
The point is that all the parties of the coalition form the government together, not that one party gets control after promising the others to do what they say. Parties generally form the government by having a majority of seats in the parliament, there isn't any kind of weird side election for the leader like in the states.
If a government can't be formed immediately you can get this sort of thing happening [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_Belgian_government_formation[/url]
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39467271]Personally, I'd rather have parties and coalitions disbanded[and outlawed] and have it so you vote for the person and the policies/concepts they stand by.[/QUOTE]
Pointless, because then it just becomes like the Supreme Court--informal rather than formal groupings, individual senators and representatives will likely agree to support each other, and go through any number of other informal actions, until you basically have the same structure we have now, only looser and without any kind of ideological identifier.
Personally, it's interesting to see how the Republicans split: there's the business focused old guard and the more populist upstarts. The will of the people (however insane they might be) is now shifting against entrenched politics and business. Which is bad of course, for the Rs will lose much of their renewed vigor and strength with the diehard tea-partiers gone. Just off the top of my head, R staples like the the evangelical and "patriot"(jingoistic militarists or 'murica fuck yeah types) votes are now tightly linked to the TP. No TP, no votes.
EDIT: In regards to the the whole parties thing:
Pretty much any two party system is going to have two huge parties with widely varied constituencies. Each has to be big enough for half the country, after all. Thus, views get muddled and everything is pulled as close to the center as possible to shave off votes from the other side. It also encourages compromise voting: which choice gives you want you want, or (more often) less of what you don't want. Personally, it's a horrible feeling to have to make a decision between two choices you don't like, and this frustration is compounded by the fact that there are systems which could easily allow a plurality of views, each with their own party.
I'm alright with hard infighting between the Tea Party and GOP. For the exact reason he lists. Come on spoiler effect!
I'd be thrilled to see the GOP boot the Tea Party crazies out of the party. They can form their own fuckin party of insane racist people.
[QUOTE=The Letter Q;39467799]Personally, it's interesting to see how the Republicans split: there's the business focused old guard and the more populist upstarts. The will of the people (however insane they might be) is now shifting against entrenched politics and business. Which is bad of course, for the Rs will lose much of their renewed vigor and strength with the diehard tea-partiers gone. Just off the top of my head, R staples like the the evangelical and "patriot"(jingoistic militarists or 'murica fuck yeah types) votes are now tightly linked to the TP. No TP, no votes.[/QUOTE]
Except the fact is, moderate conservatism and moderate liberalism actually make sense, while the fringe ends of each party are a bunch of disgusting shitheads. I'd much rather the fringe shitheads of each side drop off and form their own parties and fuck off so we can actually get stuff done as a country.
[QUOTE=The Letter Q;39467799]Personally, it's interesting to see how the Republicans split: there's the business focused old guard and the more populist upstarts. The will of the people (however insane they might be) is now shifting against entrenched politics and business. Which is bad of course, for the Rs will lose much of their renewed vigor and strength with the diehard tea-partiers gone. Just off the top of my head, R staples like the the evangelical and "patriot"(jingoistic militarists or 'murica fuck yeah types) votes are now tightly linked to the TP. No TP, no votes.[/QUOTE]
I divide the GOP in to two categories: The pro-business guys and the social conservative religious nuts. That's what the GOP mostly was before the teabaggers came about.
With the newcomers, you essentially have them pushing a pro-anarchyesque business with zealous religious beliefs.
[QUOTE=draugur;39467864]Except the fact is, moderate conservatism and moderate liberalism actually make sense, while the fringe ends of each party are a bunch of disgusting shitheads. I'd much rather the fringe shitheads of each side drop off and form their own parties and fuck off so we can actually get stuff done as a country.[/QUOTE]
What is the Democratic fringe, exactly? Universal healthcare? LGBT rights advocates? Higher tax rates? Stricter regulation of the financial system?
the fringe end of the democrats are "moderate" liberals
[QUOTE=Megafan;39467903]What is the Democratic fringe, exactly? Universal healthcare? LGBT rights advocates? Higher tax rates? Stricter regulation of the financial system?[/QUOTE]
I'm sure there is one, but no where near in size or as vocal as the GOP's fringe
[QUOTE=draugur;39467864]Except the fact is, moderate conservatism and moderate liberalism actually make sense, while the fringe ends of each party are a bunch of disgusting shitheads. I'd much rather the fringe shitheads of each side drop off and form their own parties and fuck off so we can actually get stuff done as a country.[/QUOTE]
Extremists are never good, yeah. The problem being that the US has no real fringe left or even "Moderate Liberals" for that matter :v:. We have moderate conservatives and slightly more conservative conservatives. As for the moderate D and R positions, they still don't really address issues like IP/Copyright, privacy, or election reform. Even if the two parties did work together, you'd see little progress on those fronts.
[QUOTE=Megafan;39467903]What is the Democratic fringe, exactly? Universal healthcare? LGBT rights advocates? Higher tax rates? Stricter regulation of the financial system?[/QUOTE] the democratic fringe is the centre-left of europe, basically.
[QUOTE=Megafan;39467903]What is the Democratic fringe, exactly? Universal healthcare? LGBT rights advocates? Higher tax rates? Stricter regulation of the financial system?[/QUOTE]
There are very very few of them and in a lesser intensity than the Rep side of things. They're also a lot less vocal, which is actually nice.
[QUOTE=draugur;39467864]Except the fact is, moderate conservatism and moderate liberalism actually make sense, while the fringe ends of each party are a bunch of disgusting shitheads. I'd much rather the fringe shitheads of each side drop off and form their own parties and fuck off so we can actually get stuff done as a country.[/QUOTE][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation]Argument to Moderation[/url]
[QUOTE=The Letter Q;39467955]Extremists are never good, yeah. The problem being that the US has no real fringe left or even "Moderate Liberals" for that matter :v:. We have moderate conservatives and slightly more conservative conservatives. As for the moderate D and R positions, they still don't really address issues like IP/Copyright, privacy, or election reform. Even if the two parties did work together, you'd see little progress on those fronts.[/QUOTE] i think that extremism is fine and dandy. i mean i might not agree with all extremists, but it's necessary for a democratic process. when we have two parties that are incredibly similar and moderate you get a system like the usa where both parties are not representative of the american people. our political system has turned "radical" into a dirty word when really radicals are just principled people(which our government seems to hate).
[editline]4th February 2013[/editline]
also, is there a "moderate" or "middle ground" with things like human rights? in a sense, most of us are radicals when it comes to human rights.
[editline]4th February 2013[/editline]
like extreme feminism or extreme civil rights movement. what does "extreme equality" or "extreme freedom" even look like?
[QUOTE=The Letter Q;39467955]Extremists are never good, yeah.[/QUOTE]
so martin luther king, baynard rustin, susan b anthony, web dubois, gloria steinem, noam chomsky, bernie sanders are no good
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39467982]i think that extremism is fine and dandy. i mean i might not agree with all extremists, but it's necessary for a democratic process. when we have two parties that are incredibly similar and moderate you get a system like the usa where both parties are not representative of the american people. our political system has turned "radical" into a dirty word when really radicals are just principled people(which our government seems to hate).
[editline]4th February 2013[/editline]
also, is there a "moderate" or "middle ground" with things like human rights? in a sense, most of us are radicals when it comes to human rights.
[editline]4th February 2013[/editline]
like extreme feminism or extreme civil rights movement. what does "extreme equality" or "extreme freedom" even look like?[/QUOTE]
I think my perception of extremism is different from yours. To me, extremism is where you go past the logical bounds of your principles. Extreme feminism or civil rights would be oppression of the once oppressors.
[QUOTE]so martin luther king, baynard rustin, susan b anthony, web dubois, gloria steinem, noam chomsky, bernie sanders are no good[/QUOTE]
See above. I misspoke, but to me, an extremist is more a Malcom X than a MLK.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39467271]Personally, I'd rather have parties and coalitions disbanded[and outlawed] and have it so you vote for the person and the policies/concepts they stand by.[/QUOTE]
sorry to tell you this but factually speaking party systems strengthen democracy significantly
[B]additionally to that any time you disband parties it hugely favors the elite.[/B]
[QUOTE=The Letter Q;39468085]I think my perception of extremism is different from yours. To me, extremism is where you go past the logical bounds of your principles. Extreme feminism or civil rights would be oppression of the once oppressors.[/QUOTE]
that definition of extremism is flexible to the point where its not a definition at all, sounds more like a cop out
and id like to know what "extreme" feminism or civil rights are supposed to be, certainly in the 50's any feminism was considered extreme
[QUOTE=The Letter Q;39468085]I think my perception of extremism is different from yours. To me, extremism is where you go past the logical bounds of your principles. Extreme feminism or civil rights would be oppression of the once oppressors. [/QUOTE] so extremism has more to do with logical consistency then it has to do with how extreme you are? that seems more like a corruption of the word then a legitimate definition. extremism to me has always been a relative term. it's an idea that is radical to mainstream cultural ideas. for example, the idea of universal suffrage might be extreme in a society that only allows 25% of the population to vote, but in the usa universal suffrage is a given.
[QUOTE=The Letter Q;39468085]
See above. I misspoke, but to me, an extremist is more a Malcom X than a MLK.[/QUOTE]
what exactly was extremist about malcolm x?
[QUOTE=thisispain;39468103] and id like to know what "extreme" feminism or civil rights are supposed to be, certainly in the 50's any feminism was considered extreme[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Extreme feminism or civil rights would be oppression of the once oppressors.[/QUOTE]
Lets use civil rights leaders in their heyday: Malcom X was, to me extremist, he wanted to get even and then some, and the methods that he wanted used were drastic (i.e violence). MLK used nonviolent methods and advocated for actual equality, where none were superior.
EDIT:
[QUOTE]so extremism has more to do with logical consistency then it has to do with how extreme you are? that seems more like a corruption of the word then a legitimate definition. extremism to me has always been a relative term. it's an idea that is radical to mainstream cultural ideas. for example, the idea of universal suffrage might be extreme in a society that only allows 25% of the population to vote, but in the usa universal suffrage is a given.[/QUOTE]
Well then I misspoke and oversimplified: what I was trying to convey that extremists can be toxic both to the political system and to discourse, either through their ideas, drastic measures, or their unwillingness to negotiate.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39467271]Personally, I'd rather have parties and coalitions disbanded[and outlawed] and have it so you vote for the person and the policies/concepts they stand by.[/QUOTE]
You can't really prevent like-minded people from congregating in groups. Even if you make political parties illegal, people will just converge behind the scenes, find someone they agree with, and run their "independent". Instead we need a new voting system (winner-takes-all does only represents the winner and creates tension with the loser) and we need to get corporations out of elections (we're supposed to be electing who we think will be best, not running an auction house).
[QUOTE=The Letter Q;39468163]Lets use civil rights leaders in their heyday: Malcom X was, to me extremist, he wanted to get even and then some, and the methods that he wanted used were drastic (i.e violence). MLK used nonviolent methods and advocated for actual equality, where none were superior.[/QUOTE]
malcoLm X wasnt anything like that at all????
i mean even his nation of islam days which were controversial had nothing to do with "getting even, and then some", and he only advocated self-defense which was a rejection of pacifism
i'd argue rejection of violence as pacifism is far more extremist
[QUOTE=thisispain;39468192]malcoLm X wasnt anything like that at all????
i mean even his nation of islam days which were controversial had nothing to do with "getting even, and then some", and he only advocated self-defense which was a rejection of pacifism
i'd argue rejection of violence as pacifism is far more extremist[/QUOTE]
Wiki says hi:
[QUOTE]From his adoption of the Nation of Islam in 1952 until he broke with it in 1964, Malcolm X promoted the Nation's teachings, including that black people are the original people of the world,[80] that white people are "devils",[81] that blacks are superior to whites, and that the demise of the white race is imminent.[82] While the civil rights movement fought against racial segregation, Malcolm X advocated the complete separation of African Americans from whites, proposing establishment of a separate country for black people in America[83] as an interim measure until African Americans could return to Africa.[84] He also rejected the civil rights movement's strategy of nonviolence, advocating that black people use any necessary means of self-defense.[85] His speeches had a powerful effect on his audiences, generally African Americans in Northern and Western cities, many of whom—tired of being told to wait for freedom, justice, equality and respect[86]—felt that he articulated their complaints better than did the civil rights movement.[87][88][/QUOTE]
Notice I qualified the time, I know that he mellowed out as he got older and broke with the Nation of Islam.
As for whether violence or nonviolence is more extreme, that's a separate argument.
i feel like you're making a significant copout by not being honest and admitting that we as a society have incredibly benefited from extreme leftism
[QUOTE=thisispain;39468243]i feel like you're making a significant copout by not being honest and admitting that we as a society have incredibly benefited from extreme leftism[/QUOTE]
And you're tacitly ignoring the horrors that both the extreme left and right have created.
[QUOTE=The Letter Q;39468266]And you're tacitly ignoring the horrors that both the extreme left and right have created.[/QUOTE]
and which horrors in the american political system are caused by the extreme left?
[QUOTE=thisispain;39468276]and which horrors in the american political system are caused by the extreme left?[/QUOTE]
There has never really been an extreme left in this country. It's actions are therefore unknown, and to assume that it would only do good because "left=good":downs: is folly. I was arguing in a wider context, seeing as again, there is no example of an American extreme left.
[QUOTE=The Letter Q;39468300]There has never been an extreme left in this country. It's actions are therefore unknown, and to assume that it would only do good because left=good:downs: is folly. I was arguing in a wider context, seeing as again, there is no example of an American extreme left.[/QUOTE]
[quote]martin luther king, baynard rustin, susan b anthony, web dubois, gloria steinem, noam chomsky, bernie sanders[/quote]
that's a civil rights leader, a gay communist quaker, a proto-feminist suffragette, the co-founder of the NAACP, one of the most infamous feminists, an anarchist-socialist linguist, and i think the only openly socialist congressman in like 60 years???
that's pretty far left even by world standards, so id like to hear the horrors theyve created
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.