OT: Talk me out of my anti-partisian views.

[CA renter]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=davelj]
Your argument is invalid because you’re cherry picking your starting and ending points. As the graph below shows, government spending as a percentage of GDP has generally increased over time regardless of which party was in office. (That big spike is WWII.) This isn’t a partisan observation – it’s just a fact. As a supporter of Big Government, you should be thrilled. And very upset with Mr. Clinton that he was so stingy during his reign.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1903_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=F0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=US%20Government%20Spending%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s%5B/quote%5D

While I’d hesitate to necessarily attribute it entirely to who was in the white house, what the chart you linked to shows is that during each of the previous 4 democratic administrations over the last 50 years, spending, as a percentage of GDP, actually dropped, with the exception of the very end of the Johnson administration, when the costs of Viet Nam really kicked in. That same measurement grew during each of the Republican administrations. Each dealt with their own special economic circumstances, and absent examining those circumstances, this data is inconclusive. But it does tend to disprove the “tax and spend” rhetoric.[/quote]

Agreed. That’s what I noticed as well.

[teacherSD]

XBoxBoy –

In an attempt to bring the topic back to your original post I will give my opinion of your original question.

I had a politics professor in college who said that not voting was a waste. This was in the context of people expressing disgust with the current system and not wanting to choose between current democrats or republicans. There seemed to be a belief that not voting was a form of protest and distaste of the current system/choices.

The professor disagreed and said a better form of protest was to go to the voting booth and turn in a blank ballot. She said that this showed that you were willing to vote and take the time to visit your polling place but still not happy with your choices.

After the 2000 presidential election (Bush v. Gore) there was a lot of attention on which ballots “count” and I seem to remember that blank ballots are just thrown out. They do not keep track of the number of people who turn in blank ballots. However, I’m not certain about this.

This made me think that there are only two options. One is to get so many people to turn in blank ballots that they can’t be ignored. The other is to vote for a third party candidate.

I personally have started voting for third party candidates. If something like the Ross Perot effect happens, I don’t care. If Clinton wins because people voted for Perot instead of Bush and that bothers me, then I should have voted for Bush.

Another possibility is to vote only for nonpartisan offices. However, I would be afraid that my whole ballot would be thrown out if it isn’t complete. I don’t know if this is true. Does anyone else know?

edit – BTW – the politics professor was from Italy. Maybe their voting/ballot counting system is different.

[teacherSD]

XBoxBoy –

In an attempt to bring the topic back to your original post I will give my opinion of your original question.

I had a politics professor in college who said that not voting was a waste. This was in the context of people expressing disgust with the current system and not wanting to choose between current democrats or republicans. There seemed to be a belief that not voting was a form of protest and distaste of the current system/choices.

The professor disagreed and said a better form of protest was to go to the voting booth and turn in a blank ballot. She said that this showed that you were willing to vote and take the time to visit your polling place but still not happy with your choices.

After the 2000 presidential election (Bush v. Gore) there was a lot of attention on which ballots “count” and I seem to remember that blank ballots are just thrown out. They do not keep track of the number of people who turn in blank ballots. However, I’m not certain about this.

This made me think that there are only two options. One is to get so many people to turn in blank ballots that they can’t be ignored. The other is to vote for a third party candidate.

I personally have started voting for third party candidates. If something like the Ross Perot effect happens, I don’t care. If Clinton wins because people voted for Perot instead of Bush and that bothers me, then I should have voted for Bush.

Another possibility is to vote only for nonpartisan offices. However, I would be afraid that my whole ballot would be thrown out if it isn’t complete. I don’t know if this is true. Does anyone else know?

edit – BTW – the politics professor was from Italy. Maybe their voting/ballot counting system is different.

[teacherSD]

XBoxBoy –

In an attempt to bring the topic back to your original post I will give my opinion of your original question.

I had a politics professor in college who said that not voting was a waste. This was in the context of people expressing disgust with the current system and not wanting to choose between current democrats or republicans. There seemed to be a belief that not voting was a form of protest and distaste of the current system/choices.

The professor disagreed and said a better form of protest was to go to the voting booth and turn in a blank ballot. She said that this showed that you were willing to vote and take the time to visit your polling place but still not happy with your choices.

After the 2000 presidential election (Bush v. Gore) there was a lot of attention on which ballots “count” and I seem to remember that blank ballots are just thrown out. They do not keep track of the number of people who turn in blank ballots. However, I’m not certain about this.

This made me think that there are only two options. One is to get so many people to turn in blank ballots that they can’t be ignored. The other is to vote for a third party candidate.

I personally have started voting for third party candidates. If something like the Ross Perot effect happens, I don’t care. If Clinton wins because people voted for Perot instead of Bush and that bothers me, then I should have voted for Bush.

Another possibility is to vote only for nonpartisan offices. However, I would be afraid that my whole ballot would be thrown out if it isn’t complete. I don’t know if this is true. Does anyone else know?

edit – BTW – the politics professor was from Italy. Maybe their voting/ballot counting system is different.

[teacherSD]

XBoxBoy –

In an attempt to bring the topic back to your original post I will give my opinion of your original question.

I had a politics professor in college who said that not voting was a waste. This was in the context of people expressing disgust with the current system and not wanting to choose between current democrats or republicans. There seemed to be a belief that not voting was a form of protest and distaste of the current system/choices.

The professor disagreed and said a better form of protest was to go to the voting booth and turn in a blank ballot. She said that this showed that you were willing to vote and take the time to visit your polling place but still not happy with your choices.

After the 2000 presidential election (Bush v. Gore) there was a lot of attention on which ballots “count” and I seem to remember that blank ballots are just thrown out. They do not keep track of the number of people who turn in blank ballots. However, I’m not certain about this.

This made me think that there are only two options. One is to get so many people to turn in blank ballots that they can’t be ignored. The other is to vote for a third party candidate.

I personally have started voting for third party candidates. If something like the Ross Perot effect happens, I don’t care. If Clinton wins because people voted for Perot instead of Bush and that bothers me, then I should have voted for Bush.

Another possibility is to vote only for nonpartisan offices. However, I would be afraid that my whole ballot would be thrown out if it isn’t complete. I don’t know if this is true. Does anyone else know?

edit – BTW – the politics professor was from Italy. Maybe their voting/ballot counting system is different.

[teacherSD]

XBoxBoy –

In an attempt to bring the topic back to your original post I will give my opinion of your original question.

I had a politics professor in college who said that not voting was a waste. This was in the context of people expressing disgust with the current system and not wanting to choose between current democrats or republicans. There seemed to be a belief that not voting was a form of protest and distaste of the current system/choices.

The professor disagreed and said a better form of protest was to go to the voting booth and turn in a blank ballot. She said that this showed that you were willing to vote and take the time to visit your polling place but still not happy with your choices.

After the 2000 presidential election (Bush v. Gore) there was a lot of attention on which ballots “count” and I seem to remember that blank ballots are just thrown out. They do not keep track of the number of people who turn in blank ballots. However, I’m not certain about this.

This made me think that there are only two options. One is to get so many people to turn in blank ballots that they can’t be ignored. The other is to vote for a third party candidate.

I personally have started voting for third party candidates. If something like the Ross Perot effect happens, I don’t care. If Clinton wins because people voted for Perot instead of Bush and that bothers me, then I should have voted for Bush.

Another possibility is to vote only for nonpartisan offices. However, I would be afraid that my whole ballot would be thrown out if it isn’t complete. I don’t know if this is true. Does anyone else know?

edit – BTW – the politics professor was from Italy. Maybe their voting/ballot counting system is different.

[XBoxBoy]

First off, thanks Brian for sticking to the topic. (Why this thread immediately turned into a Clinton good vs Clinton bad pissing match is beyond me.)

[quote=briansd1]I’d say participate in the primaries and vote the issues, not the emotions. [/quote]

I always participate in the primaries. As a matter of fact I’m registered as a republican, not because I like the republicans (I dont) but because I had hoped that I might be able to provide a vote to move the republican’s from the far wing nut right to the center. (So far that hasn’t been working out so wel, but that’s another discussion)

But here’s my dilemma. I see this whole repub vs dem and big govt vs smaller govt debate as BS. The issue isn’t which party is in power, or whether we do things via govt or via “free” markets. The issue is how do we allocate resources in an efficient and fair manner free of corruption and fraud, From what I see, the current situation of politicians and lobbyist working together to line the pockets of special interests completely subverts this goal

So, given that I want to vote for a candidate that will actually work towards my goal of efficient allocation free of corruption, I find it pretty hard to stomach anyone who has gotten the support of either the democratic party or the republican party.

[quote=briansd1]When I pick something to eat, I always choose the items that taste the best and are the least unhealthy. Most everything that we eat is unhealthy…. But we have to eat nevertheless.[/quote]

[quote=Hobie]So it is bitter pill but I think we need to stick with the two parties for now.[/quote]

So, leaving aside Brian’s feeling that most everything we eat is unhealthy, (Dude, there’s some serious issues buried in that statement) my question to you two would be, if we just go along with the current two parties, how can we ever hope to change the system? For Hobie, if we don’t change things now, are you thinking we will sometime in the future? Why will the future be a better time?

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

First off, thanks Brian for sticking to the topic. (Why this thread immediately turned into a Clinton good vs Clinton bad pissing match is beyond me.)

[quote=briansd1]I’d say participate in the primaries and vote the issues, not the emotions. [/quote]

I always participate in the primaries. As a matter of fact I’m registered as a republican, not because I like the republicans (I dont) but because I had hoped that I might be able to provide a vote to move the republican’s from the far wing nut right to the center. (So far that hasn’t been working out so wel, but that’s another discussion)

But here’s my dilemma. I see this whole repub vs dem and big govt vs smaller govt debate as BS. The issue isn’t which party is in power, or whether we do things via govt or via “free” markets. The issue is how do we allocate resources in an efficient and fair manner free of corruption and fraud, From what I see, the current situation of politicians and lobbyist working together to line the pockets of special interests completely subverts this goal

So, given that I want to vote for a candidate that will actually work towards my goal of efficient allocation free of corruption, I find it pretty hard to stomach anyone who has gotten the support of either the democratic party or the republican party.

[quote=briansd1]When I pick something to eat, I always choose the items that taste the best and are the least unhealthy. Most everything that we eat is unhealthy…. But we have to eat nevertheless.[/quote]

[quote=Hobie]So it is bitter pill but I think we need to stick with the two parties for now.[/quote]

So, leaving aside Brian’s feeling that most everything we eat is unhealthy, (Dude, there’s some serious issues buried in that statement) my question to you two would be, if we just go along with the current two parties, how can we ever hope to change the system? For Hobie, if we don’t change things now, are you thinking we will sometime in the future? Why will the future be a better time?

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

First off, thanks Brian for sticking to the topic. (Why this thread immediately turned into a Clinton good vs Clinton bad pissing match is beyond me.)

[quote=briansd1]I’d say participate in the primaries and vote the issues, not the emotions. [/quote]

I always participate in the primaries. As a matter of fact I’m registered as a republican, not because I like the republicans (I dont) but because I had hoped that I might be able to provide a vote to move the republican’s from the far wing nut right to the center. (So far that hasn’t been working out so wel, but that’s another discussion)

But here’s my dilemma. I see this whole repub vs dem and big govt vs smaller govt debate as BS. The issue isn’t which party is in power, or whether we do things via govt or via “free” markets. The issue is how do we allocate resources in an efficient and fair manner free of corruption and fraud, From what I see, the current situation of politicians and lobbyist working together to line the pockets of special interests completely subverts this goal

So, given that I want to vote for a candidate that will actually work towards my goal of efficient allocation free of corruption, I find it pretty hard to stomach anyone who has gotten the support of either the democratic party or the republican party.

[quote=briansd1]When I pick something to eat, I always choose the items that taste the best and are the least unhealthy. Most everything that we eat is unhealthy…. But we have to eat nevertheless.[/quote]

[quote=Hobie]So it is bitter pill but I think we need to stick with the two parties for now.[/quote]

So, leaving aside Brian’s feeling that most everything we eat is unhealthy, (Dude, there’s some serious issues buried in that statement) my question to you two would be, if we just go along with the current two parties, how can we ever hope to change the system? For Hobie, if we don’t change things now, are you thinking we will sometime in the future? Why will the future be a better time?

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

First off, thanks Brian for sticking to the topic. (Why this thread immediately turned into a Clinton good vs Clinton bad pissing match is beyond me.)

[quote=briansd1]I’d say participate in the primaries and vote the issues, not the emotions. [/quote]

I always participate in the primaries. As a matter of fact I’m registered as a republican, not because I like the republicans (I dont) but because I had hoped that I might be able to provide a vote to move the republican’s from the far wing nut right to the center. (So far that hasn’t been working out so wel, but that’s another discussion)

But here’s my dilemma. I see this whole repub vs dem and big govt vs smaller govt debate as BS. The issue isn’t which party is in power, or whether we do things via govt or via “free” markets. The issue is how do we allocate resources in an efficient and fair manner free of corruption and fraud, From what I see, the current situation of politicians and lobbyist working together to line the pockets of special interests completely subverts this goal

So, given that I want to vote for a candidate that will actually work towards my goal of efficient allocation free of corruption, I find it pretty hard to stomach anyone who has gotten the support of either the democratic party or the republican party.

[quote=briansd1]When I pick something to eat, I always choose the items that taste the best and are the least unhealthy. Most everything that we eat is unhealthy…. But we have to eat nevertheless.[/quote]

[quote=Hobie]So it is bitter pill but I think we need to stick with the two parties for now.[/quote]

So, leaving aside Brian’s feeling that most everything we eat is unhealthy, (Dude, there’s some serious issues buried in that statement) my question to you two would be, if we just go along with the current two parties, how can we ever hope to change the system? For Hobie, if we don’t change things now, are you thinking we will sometime in the future? Why will the future be a better time?

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

First off, thanks Brian for sticking to the topic. (Why this thread immediately turned into a Clinton good vs Clinton bad pissing match is beyond me.)

[quote=briansd1]I’d say participate in the primaries and vote the issues, not the emotions. [/quote]

I always participate in the primaries. As a matter of fact I’m registered as a republican, not because I like the republicans (I dont) but because I had hoped that I might be able to provide a vote to move the republican’s from the far wing nut right to the center. (So far that hasn’t been working out so wel, but that’s another discussion)

But here’s my dilemma. I see this whole repub vs dem and big govt vs smaller govt debate as BS. The issue isn’t which party is in power, or whether we do things via govt or via “free” markets. The issue is how do we allocate resources in an efficient and fair manner free of corruption and fraud, From what I see, the current situation of politicians and lobbyist working together to line the pockets of special interests completely subverts this goal

So, given that I want to vote for a candidate that will actually work towards my goal of efficient allocation free of corruption, I find it pretty hard to stomach anyone who has gotten the support of either the democratic party or the republican party.

[quote=briansd1]When I pick something to eat, I always choose the items that taste the best and are the least unhealthy. Most everything that we eat is unhealthy…. But we have to eat nevertheless.[/quote]

[quote=Hobie]So it is bitter pill but I think we need to stick with the two parties for now.[/quote]

So, leaving aside Brian’s feeling that most everything we eat is unhealthy, (Dude, there’s some serious issues buried in that statement) my question to you two would be, if we just go along with the current two parties, how can we ever hope to change the system? For Hobie, if we don’t change things now, are you thinking we will sometime in the future? Why will the future be a better time?

XBoxBoy

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter]
IMHO, policies enacted during Clinton’s presidency are most certainly behind our most recent bubbles, and also behind the devastation of our job base. I believe our elected representatives are merely puppets who serve the will of those who really run this country (the very wealthy and powerful). We’re supposed to go along with these fruitless elections because we’re supposed to believe that we can somehow hold them accountable. We can’t, and we won’t for as long as we vote for those who are put there by “those who matter” — always follow the money.[/quote]

Money quote.

Excellent post, CAR, and one that speaks directly to partisanship in this political age. There really isn’t a “Left” or a “Right” anymore. Given the absurd amounts of money needed to fuel a campaign, the politicians are bought and paid for well before they reach office and owe significant “favors” to those moneyed interests, not the electorate.

The Dems and the Repubs are now virtually indistinguishable from one another. If you think I’m wrong, ask yourself a few questions about President Obama:
– Is Gitmo closed yet?
– Have Patriot Acts I and II been repealed, or even slightly rolled back?
– Have we truly exited from Iraq?
– Are we winding down the war in Afghanistan?

We all know the answers, but the real question remains: How is Obama fundamentaly different from Bush on the above topics? Answer: He isn’t.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter]
IMHO, policies enacted during Clinton’s presidency are most certainly behind our most recent bubbles, and also behind the devastation of our job base. I believe our elected representatives are merely puppets who serve the will of those who really run this country (the very wealthy and powerful). We’re supposed to go along with these fruitless elections because we’re supposed to believe that we can somehow hold them accountable. We can’t, and we won’t for as long as we vote for those who are put there by “those who matter” — always follow the money.[/quote]

Money quote.

Excellent post, CAR, and one that speaks directly to partisanship in this political age. There really isn’t a “Left” or a “Right” anymore. Given the absurd amounts of money needed to fuel a campaign, the politicians are bought and paid for well before they reach office and owe significant “favors” to those moneyed interests, not the electorate.

The Dems and the Repubs are now virtually indistinguishable from one another. If you think I’m wrong, ask yourself a few questions about President Obama:
– Is Gitmo closed yet?
– Have Patriot Acts I and II been repealed, or even slightly rolled back?
– Have we truly exited from Iraq?
– Are we winding down the war in Afghanistan?

We all know the answers, but the real question remains: How is Obama fundamentaly different from Bush on the above topics? Answer: He isn’t.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter]
IMHO, policies enacted during Clinton’s presidency are most certainly behind our most recent bubbles, and also behind the devastation of our job base. I believe our elected representatives are merely puppets who serve the will of those who really run this country (the very wealthy and powerful). We’re supposed to go along with these fruitless elections because we’re supposed to believe that we can somehow hold them accountable. We can’t, and we won’t for as long as we vote for those who are put there by “those who matter” — always follow the money.[/quote]

Money quote.

Excellent post, CAR, and one that speaks directly to partisanship in this political age. There really isn’t a “Left” or a “Right” anymore. Given the absurd amounts of money needed to fuel a campaign, the politicians are bought and paid for well before they reach office and owe significant “favors” to those moneyed interests, not the electorate.

The Dems and the Repubs are now virtually indistinguishable from one another. If you think I’m wrong, ask yourself a few questions about President Obama:
– Is Gitmo closed yet?
– Have Patriot Acts I and II been repealed, or even slightly rolled back?
– Have we truly exited from Iraq?
– Are we winding down the war in Afghanistan?

We all know the answers, but the real question remains: How is Obama fundamentaly different from Bush on the above topics? Answer: He isn’t.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter]
IMHO, policies enacted during Clinton’s presidency are most certainly behind our most recent bubbles, and also behind the devastation of our job base. I believe our elected representatives are merely puppets who serve the will of those who really run this country (the very wealthy and powerful). We’re supposed to go along with these fruitless elections because we’re supposed to believe that we can somehow hold them accountable. We can’t, and we won’t for as long as we vote for those who are put there by “those who matter” — always follow the money.[/quote]

Money quote.

Excellent post, CAR, and one that speaks directly to partisanship in this political age. There really isn’t a “Left” or a “Right” anymore. Given the absurd amounts of money needed to fuel a campaign, the politicians are bought and paid for well before they reach office and owe significant “favors” to those moneyed interests, not the electorate.

The Dems and the Repubs are now virtually indistinguishable from one another. If you think I’m wrong, ask yourself a few questions about President Obama:
– Is Gitmo closed yet?
– Have Patriot Acts I and II been repealed, or even slightly rolled back?
– Have we truly exited from Iraq?
– Are we winding down the war in Afghanistan?

We all know the answers, but the real question remains: How is Obama fundamentaly different from Bush on the above topics? Answer: He isn’t.

[Author]

Posts