GOP - Rand Paul's Presidential Highlight Reel w/ his Libertarian Twist

[bryant.coleman]

that's what i said about obama. you don't know how they'll be until they are in office.

it would be cool if there were some rich billionaire who died and decided to donate all of his money to starting a 3rd party...

The Americans are stuck with the two-party system, and I don't foresee any chance of changing it, at least for the next few decades. The Libertarian Party is stuck at around 2% support nation-wide, while the Greens get even less nationally.

[beetcoin]

that's what i said about obama. you don't know how they'll be until they are in office.

it would be cool if there were some rich billionaire who died and decided to donate all of his money to starting a 3rd party...

The Americans are stuck with the two-party system, and I don't foresee any chance of changing it, at least for the next few decades. The Libertarian Party is stuck at around 2% support nation-wide, while the Greens get even less nationally.

well the issue is that it's so pronounced that america, more than any other country, has tied money with politics. it's ridiculous how much money is spent on the campaign trails. in order for a 3 party system to work, the point of singularity needs to hit.. but they'd need billions of dollars "invested."

[bryant.coleman]

well the issue is that it's so pronounced that america, more than any other country, has tied money with politics. it's ridiculous how much money is spent on the campaign trails. in order for a 3 party system to work, the point of singularity needs to hit.. but they'd need billions of dollars "invested."

I don't think that the injection of any amount of money can change the system. Right now, the major parties are backed up by the powerful demographic blocks. For example, the Democrats enjoy wide-spread support from the minorities (one-third of the population), while the GOP is backed by the religious right (another 1/3rd of the population). There is simply not enough space for a third party.

[beetcoin]

well the issue is that it's so pronounced that america, more than any other country, has tied money with politics. it's ridiculous how much money is spent on the campaign trails. in order for a 3 party system to work, the point of singularity needs to hit.. but they'd need billions of dollars "invested."

I don't think that the injection of any amount of money can change the system. Right now, the major parties are backed up by the powerful demographic blocks. For example, the Democrats enjoy wide-spread support from the minorities (one-third of the population), while the GOP is backed by the religious right (another 1/3rd of the population). There is simply not enough space for a third party.

congress have an approval rating of something like 9%.. it is obvious that most people feel like the parties do not speak for them, and there are plenty of people who want a third party.. it's just that they don't have enough money to buy influence for one.

and back to the topic, here is rand paul backtracking on what he said.. he's not pro-coal, when he was against it in 2008 http://news.yahoo.com/in-2008--rand-paul-called-coal--the-least-favorable-forms-of-energy-164651153.html

i wonder what has influenced his change of mind.. could it be that coal is lubing up his ass hole? obama may be a sellout, but rand paul is not much better.

[Ron~Popeil]

well the issue is that it's so pronounced that america, more than any other country, has tied money with politics. it's ridiculous how much money is spent on the campaign trails. in order for a 3 party system to work, the point of singularity needs to hit.. but they'd need billions of dollars "invested."

I don't think that the injection of any amount of money can change the system. Right now, the major parties are backed up by the powerful demographic blocks. For example, the Democrats enjoy wide-spread support from the minorities (one-third of the population), while the GOP is backed by the religious right (another 1/3rd of the population). There is simply not enough space for a third party.

For a third party to even get beyond 5% would require a certain percentage of us to actually think about real stuff. Not too likely in the reality tv era.

[Ron~Popeil]

well the issue is that it's so pronounced that america, more than any other country, has tied money with politics. it's ridiculous how much money is spent on the campaign trails. in order for a 3 party system to work, the point of singularity needs to hit.. but they'd need billions of dollars "invested."

I don't think that the injection of any amount of money can change the system. Right now, the major parties are backed up by the powerful demographic blocks. For example, the Democrats enjoy wide-spread support from the minorities (one-third of the population), while the GOP is backed by the religious right (another 1/3rd of the population). There is simply not enough space for a third party.

congress have an approval rating of something like 9%.. it is obvious that most people feel like the parties do not speak for them, and there are plenty of people who want a third party.. it's just that they don't have enough money to buy influence for one.

and back to the topic, here is rand paul backtracking on what he said.. he's not pro-coal, when he was against it in 2008 http://news.yahoo.com/in-2008--rand-paul-called-coal--the-least-favorable-forms-of-energy-164651153.html

i wonder what has influenced his change of mind.. could it be that coal is lubing up his ass hole? obama may be a sellout, but rand paul is not much better.

He is in favor of nuclear power which is cleaner. He is also in favor of not using executive orders to drive up energy prices in the middle of a jobless economy. His words were not exactly a manifesto against coal as the author would like us to believe. 

[TheButterZone]

well the issue is that it's so pronounced that america, more than any other country, has tied money with politics. it's ridiculous how much money is spent on the campaign trails. in order for a 3 party system to work, the point of singularity needs to hit.. but they'd need billions of dollars "invested."

I don't think that the injection of any amount of money can change the system. Right now, the major parties are backed up by the powerful demographic blocks. For example, the Democrats enjoy wide-spread support from the minorities (one-third of the population), while the GOP is backed by the religious right (another 1/3rd of the population). There is simply not enough space for a third party.

For a third party to even get beyond 5% would require a certain percentage of us to actually think about real stuff. Not too likely in the reality tv era.

Like the systemic election fraud that makes results the exact opposite of what 91% of Americans want, if that 9% approval rating is correct.

[Ron~Popeil]

well the issue is that it's so pronounced that america, more than any other country, has tied money with politics. it's ridiculous how much money is spent on the campaign trails. in order for a 3 party system to work, the point of singularity needs to hit.. but they'd need billions of dollars "invested."

I don't think that the injection of any amount of money can change the system. Right now, the major parties are backed up by the powerful demographic blocks. For example, the Democrats enjoy wide-spread support from the minorities (one-third of the population), while the GOP is backed by the religious right (another 1/3rd of the population). There is simply not enough space for a third party.

For a third party to even get beyond 5% would require a certain percentage of us to actually think about real stuff. Not too likely in the reality tv era.

Like the systemic election fraud that makes results the exact opposite of what 91% of Americans want, if that 9% approval rating is correct.

You mean like the 100% turnout in heavily democratic Philadelphia precincts in 2012? Really proud day for my state right there.

[beetcoin]

well the issue is that it's so pronounced that america, more than any other country, has tied money with politics. it's ridiculous how much money is spent on the campaign trails. in order for a 3 party system to work, the point of singularity needs to hit.. but they'd need billions of dollars "invested."

I don't think that the injection of any amount of money can change the system. Right now, the major parties are backed up by the powerful demographic blocks. For example, the Democrats enjoy wide-spread support from the minorities (one-third of the population), while the GOP is backed by the religious right (another 1/3rd of the population). There is simply not enough space for a third party.

For a third party to even get beyond 5% would require a certain percentage of us to actually think about real stuff. Not too likely in the reality tv era.

well, yeah.. that or some billionaire tries to inject some money into the political system to create a 3rd party. no doubt that party would have issues, but i think it would help not having 1 of 2 choices.. but then again, if they are to sustain their power, they'd have to sell out to large corporations.

[Kluge]

well the issue is that it's so pronounced that america, more than any other country, has tied money with politics. it's ridiculous how much money is spent on the campaign trails. in order for a 3 party system to work, the point of singularity needs to hit.. but they'd need billions of dollars "invested."

I don't think that the injection of any amount of money can change the system. Right now, the major parties are backed up by the powerful demographic blocks. For example, the Democrats enjoy wide-spread support from the minorities (one-third of the population), while the GOP is backed by the religious right (another 1/3rd of the population). There is simply not enough space for a third party.

congress have an approval rating of something like 9%.. it is obvious that most people feel like the parties do not speak for them, and there are plenty of people who want a third party.. it's just that they don't have enough money to buy influence for one.

It is obvious that most people feel like some abstract "The Man" doesn't speak for them, but oddly enough, there is no congressman with a <9% approval rating. They're often in the high 40s or 50s, often 60-85% for established candidates. If you average them all, you probably get something like a 45-60% approval rating. People are either stupid or ignorant. The only other explanation I can think of is that the US is way, way too large to be effectively governed and really needs to be sectioned off, where what's now the USG acts more like the EU (which a good many Europeans will even tell you is too much government for too much diversity). Of course, we fought a civil war over that, so the chance of the federal USG ever taking a step back and letting people be governed with laws they apparently approve of 45-60% as opposed to 9% is around 0%.

What shows that politicians don't speak for the people is the very low voter turnout in the US in years when only voting for Congressmen rather than the $x billion "political Superbowl" in presidential-voting years (~37-42% in 2010, though it's usually only ~50% in pres. years), which can arguably be seen as a "none of the above" option, which the various US governments have been very active in trying to prevent, perhaps out of worry the US may look anti-American (undemocratic). I don't buy the apathy argument. Maybe people are apathetic toward voting, but that doesn't necessarily indicate apathy toward government or society.

(I don't have the bandwidth to view the Rand backpeddling video - don't mean to ignore it)

[Nathonas]

The Republicans are too crazy and too divided to be a real threat. The conservative people in the US (mostly the south) still vote for them, but even they are starting to realize how absolutely crazy these guys are...not to say the Democrats are saints, but at least they haven't been trying to shove trickle-down economics down people's throats for decades.

[vokain]

only in this world do we have a pompous enough of a press to call the winners before elections even happen

[Swordsoffreedom]

You know Rand Paul leads in the race when its a non-election year
That said who knows if an event is triggered like another Fiscal Cliff and a viable alternative appears

[beetcoin]

well the issue is that it's so pronounced that america, more than any other country, has tied money with politics. it's ridiculous how much money is spent on the campaign trails. in order for a 3 party system to work, the point of singularity needs to hit.. but they'd need billions of dollars "invested."

I don't think that the injection of any amount of money can change the system. Right now, the major parties are backed up by the powerful demographic blocks. For example, the Democrats enjoy wide-spread support from the minorities (one-third of the population), while the GOP is backed by the religious right (another 1/3rd of the population). There is simply not enough space for a third party.

congress have an approval rating of something like 9%.. it is obvious that most people feel like the parties do not speak for them, and there are plenty of people who want a third party.. it's just that they don't have enough money to buy influence for one.

It is obvious that most people feel like some abstract "The Man" doesn't speak for them, but oddly enough, there is no congressman with a <9% approval rating. They're often in the high 40s or 50s, often 60-85% for established candidates. If you average them all, you probably get something like a 45-60% approval rating. People are either stupid or ignorant. The only other explanation I can think of is that the US is way, way too large to be effectively governed and really needs to be sectioned off, where what's now the USG acts more like the EU (which a good many Europeans will even tell you is too much government for too much diversity). Of course, we fought a civil war over that, so the chance of the federal USG ever taking a step back and letting people be governed with laws they apparently approve of 45-60% as opposed to 9% is around 0%.

What shows that politicians don't speak for the people is the very low voter turnout in the US in years when only voting for Congressmen rather than the $x billion "political Superbowl" in presidential-voting years (~37-42% in 2010, though it's usually only ~50% in pres. years), which can arguably be seen as a "none of the above" option, which the various US governments have been very active in trying to prevent, perhaps out of worry the US may look anti-American (undemocratic). I don't buy the apathy argument. Maybe people are apathetic toward voting, but that doesn't necessarily indicate apathy toward government or society.

(I don't have the bandwidth to view the Rand backpeddling video - don't mean to ignore it)

well, maniacal people are the ones who rule the world.. and those are the ones who know how to work gullible people. that would explain the disparity. a nice smile and a expensive suit can go a long way into convincing people to do almost anything.

[bryant.coleman]

You mean like the 100% turnout in heavily democratic Philadelphia precincts in 2012? Really proud day for my state right there.

Lol... the inner city areas in most of the American cities are famous for bogus voting and vote rigging. Remember the United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008 (Norm Coleman vs Al Franken). It was epic. 

[beetcoin]

You mean like the 100% turnout in heavily democratic Philadelphia precincts in 2012? Really proud day for my state right there.

Lol... the inner city areas in most of the American cities are famous for bogus voting and vote rigging. Remember the United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008 (Norm Coleman vs Al Franken). It was epic.  

it's actually just the areas where republicans are contesting. they are known for playing a dirtier/smarter game than the democrats, who act like pussies compared to them.

[bryant.coleman]

it's actually just the areas where republicans are contesting. they are known for playing a dirtier/smarter game than the democrats, who act like pussies compared to them.

Are you smoking weed / shrooms right now? The vote rigging mostly happens in the inner city areas, where the Democrats get close to 100% of the votes. There are plenty of examples.

[vokain]

it's actually just the areas where republicans are contesting. they are known for playing a dirtier/smarter game than the democrats, who act like pussies compared to them.

Are you smoking weed / shrooms right now? The vote rigging mostly happens in the inner city areas, where the Democrats get close to 100% of the votes. There are plenty of examples.

not that it matters, but data analysis from one individual (Sam Wang, a neuroscientist from Princeton) suggests otherwise
http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/

There are some simple lessons to take away from this.

Republican-controlled redistricting led to a swing in margin of at least* 26 seats, almost as large as the 31-seat majority of the new Congress. Those actions created a new power reality in the House – or more accurately, retained the old power reality.
In the states listed above, the net effect of both parties’ redistricting combined was R+11.5 seats. Putting all of this redistricting into nonpartisan commissions would lead to a swing of at least 23 seats. The resulting seat count would be 213 D, 222 R or even closer. It is possible that in the absence of partisan gerrymandering, control would have been within reach for the Democrats.

I do not know of the slant of the academic at hand (he does a pretty good job of sounding neutral), though many in academia have leftist slants, in that academia often depends on public funding for research.

edit: definitely leftist, lists Satan/Krugman in a "blogroll" reading list on the left of his website




edit 2: bryant.coleman, your claim is supported with at least Illinois's data

[bryant.coleman]

^^^ Gerrymandering is used by both the main parties (Democrats and the Republicans), to increase their seat count. So no one can just blame any one party for it. Both the parties are responsible.

[vokain]

^^^ Gerrymandering is used by both the main parties (Democrats and the Republicans), to increase their seat count. So no one can just blame any one party for it. Both the parties are responsible.

obviously, or else the side not participating would be out of the game. but beetcoin's thesis was that republicans are more effective at gerrymandering.

not that it matters.