Indecision 2008: The Political Discussion Thread

[Woozie]

And are you saying the problem with a direct democracy isn't the direct democracy, but that people are too stupid?

We had a discussion about this in American Government and Politics last semester and I kind of agree that I wouldn't want the vast majority of the population deciding a lot of these issues. "Stupid" isn't the right word, most people are just very uninformed an inexperienced about many important issues (and the concequences of certain bills). Sure, we've come a long way since our system was originally formed, but I still don't think direct democracy would be a good idea at this point.

[Beckwin]

I was kind of getting at that if people are too stupid for a direct democracy, then direct democracy is a problem. You can't excuse it based on the former, because the general intelligence and activity of the former is absolutely necessary for the latter to function remotely well.

And honestly, the public being peppered with initiatives to vote on every few months probably wouldn't work out so well in terms of voter turnout. While I like the idea of popular voting on issues to a degree, I think a better implementation would be for congressmen to introduce them as propositions that didn't need a majority to reach the senate- say, 25-33% or so, and if they got 25-33% in the senate, they could be on the ballot for the next federal election. This way, active and concerned citizens would work with their Representatives (who are ideally their most accessible federal legislators) to get bills introduced and the success of those bills wouldn't rely on one particular party backing it as a whole, and the final decision would come to the people as a whole. This keeps lawmakers in the loop without the creation of a whole other legislative body, keeps some control over the slew of initiatives that would likely pop up, and still allows the public to make some legislative decisions (based on intelligent legislation).

[sunb1ind]

ITT sunblind posts conspiracy theory bullshit. Grow the fuck up; honestly you're the type that would be posting conspiracy theory bullshit about Gravel if he was considered a contender right now.

Why did you ask him [Obama] alone whom he's planning to nuke?
I did not single him out.

Yes, you did. I watched the video three times.
Oh, please. Watch it again. He said that everything is on the table with respect to Iran, which is code for nukes. That's why I went at him.

Shit like that is why he stopped getting invited to debates; if you're just gonna accuse your opponents of dropping nukes without anything to back it up, then it just makes you a batshit and angry old man.

[quote:ayr6zt47]Gravel on Sunday night appeared at Phillips Exeter Academy in Exeter to speak to its high school students and showed no sign his campaign had gone up in smoke. Indeed, in a contest of booze versus pot, Gravel said light 'em up.

"I'm sure a lot of you have tripped out on alcohol," Gravel told the students. "It's a lot safer to do it on marijuana."

As if that wasn't enough, according to a tape of the appearance shown by WMUR-TV in New Hampshire, Gravel advised, "And with respect to other drugs, if you've got a problem with coke, go to a doctor, get a prescription and get it filled at a drug store.

The question here is: How would conspiracy theorists have twisted his stance on drugs if Gravel was currently still a contender? And of course, how many topics would you make about it?

Oh, and Gravel hasn't always been anti-war. He was considered a hawk during Vietnam, didn't show up for the vote to stop the draft, etc. Now maybe through 20/20 hindsight he learned a few things, but it also makes him a big ass for for some of his more recent statements.

And are you saying the problem with a direct democracy isn't the direct democracy, but that people are too stupid?[/quote:ayr6zt47]
CONSPIRACY THEORIST!! CONSPIRACY THEORIST!! WARNING! WARNING!

Thanks for pointing out Gravel is "an angry old man", like I haven't heard that line before. Question: Why fuck aren't you angry with comments like that coming from Obama? Gravel stopped getting invited to debates because of fucking corporate owned media, how hard is that for you to comprehend? Its not a conspiracy, its a fact. Its not a secret that the handful of elites are pulling strings in our political system. Here's a nice graph to look at, you tell me who's donations are coming from "we the people". http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donor ... A&sortby=S

I like how you completely disregarded my statement about Clinton and Obama on health care and instead opted for a ignorant attempt to bash Mike Gravel's character.

Why don't you educate yourself on this little gem about Gravel and the draft. Sad to hear you know so much about him, yet didn't know about one of his greatest contributions to America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxMOGgUiCLw

[Charla]

Really? I thought he stopped getting invited to debates because someone finally noticed he was never gonna get any votes.

[sunb1ind]

Really? I thought he stopped getting invited to debates because someone finally noticed he was never gonna get any votes.

Only the powers that be can determine who will get votes. Mike Gravel always came out on top of exit poll surveys on issues people were voting for/against. America has shown they want Gravel as president, they just don't know who the hell he is.

[Charla]

Somehow I don't think name recognition would have helped him much if it meant being seen as an angry old man.

[sunb1ind]

He may not have the same "charisma" as ol' Arnold the governator, but he carries the same convection in his voice. I don't think perception of "crazy, angry old man" came from people who witnessed him at debates, he was speaking for us all when he flared at the other candidates, I think this is how America feels at this point too.

This country needs someone with balls of steal to fix our government(see: release of pentagon papers), not some pussy who preaches change every time he speaks with no actual plan to do it.

[Correction]

Too bad the primaries are pretty much over...if only he'd run for president.

Oh wait he did and nobody gave a shit.

There are certain realities to being a viable candidate and this Gravel fellow fails hard.

[archibaldcrane]

...he carries the same convection in his voice... balls of steal...

I'll save everyone the scroll-down of zoom quotes and get right to the point.

[sunb1ind]

Too bad the primaries are pretty much over...if only he'd run for president.

Oh wait he did and nobody gave a shit.

There are certain realities to being a viable candidate and this Gravel fellow fails hard.

Thank you for that amazing discovery sherlock holmes. Except change "nobody gave a shit" to "nobody even knows who the fuck he is". Vote Obama!!!!

...he carries the same convection in his voice... balls of steal...

I'll save everyone the scroll-down of zoom quotes and get right to the point.

Thank you for wasting space with useless grammar posts. Obviously you know what I meant and you really had nothing to argue against my posts. I'm not even going to edit that shit because you've done such a good job being an ass.

[Correction]

Too bad the primaries are pretty much over...if only he'd run for president.

Oh wait he did and nobody gave a shit.

There are certain realities to being a viable candidate and this Gravel fellow fails hard.

Thank you for that amazing discovery sherlock holmes. Except change "nobody gave a shit" to "nobody even knows who the fuck he is". Vote Obama!!!!

You talk about Gravel like America wants him to be president. He had his chance. American didn't want him to be president. You can have all the balls you want to change America but that never got Ralph Nader elected. You can have all the money you want to change America but that never got Ross Perot or Steve Forbes elected. Mike Gravel is a 77 year old Democrat from Alaska. Where was he drawing support from, again?

p.s. vote Obama.

[Khamsin]

Mike Gravel always came out on top of exit poll surveys on issues people were voting for/against. America has shown they want Gravel as president, they just don't know who the hell he is.

People had to have known who he is in order for him to always come out on top of exit polls.

The real indicator would be if people voted in alignment with his stances without realizing that he shared all their views.

[sunb1ind]

You talk about Gravel like America wants him to be president. He had his chance. American didn't want him to be president. You can have all the balls you want to change America but that never got Ralph Nader elected. You can have all the money you want to change America but that never got Ross Perot or Steve Forbes elected. Mike Gravel is a 77 year old Democrat from Alaska. Where was he drawing support from, again?

p.s. vote Obama.

Ohhhhh, Gravel was excluded from the debates because America didn't want him there. I see, that makes alot of sense because it would unfair to exclude a candidate from the primaries simply because they didn't raise enough money. I mean, that's the reason MSM gave to Gravel, he was short of the 1 million dollar quota

I'm glad you cleared things up for me.

@Khamsin: That's exactly what I meant. The blind polls consistently matched up to Mike Gravel on issues they shared with presidential candidates. I'd imagine that data would be hard to dig up online, I regret not saving any links. Its funny, I first discovered this fact watching CNN at the start of the election, interestingly enough, and further through newpapers and the various Candidate Matching surveys found online at the time.

[Norelco]

sunb1ind, please get the fuck out of my thread. Thank you.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Gravel has been excluded from everything because the hollywood jew bankers that control america had to make sure that we never rise up and wrestle the power from them.

Duh.

[sunb1ind]

Do you have nothing to add to the discussion? You created the thread, participate in it. You should have known anything political in-nature posted will turn into debate, no matter how neutral it may start out.

Gravel has been excluded from everything because the hollywood jew bankers that control america had to make sure that we never rise up and wrestle the power from them.

Duh.

If it was only that simple huh? I know what some may think of me, probably to that extreme, but you need nothing but a long read through U.S. government to see why its so corrupted today.

I remember seeing a documentary awhile back called "The Money Masters" about the history of private bankers road to political power. Some may call it conspiracy, but this is pure documented American history following a pattern. You can probably find it on YouTube, its old as hell but just as relevant today.

The real conspiracy theorist make an effort to throw in multiple opinions on religion and history into one big clusterfuck that no one will listen to.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Ohhhhh, Gravel was excluded from the debates because America didn't want him there. I see, that makes alot of sense because it would unfair to exclude a candidate from the primaries simply because they didn't raise enough money. I mean, that's the reason MSM gave to Gravel, he was short of the 1 million dollar quota

I'm glad you cleared things up for me.

Not having 1mil means america didnt want him there... Or at least not enough americans who cared enough to donate money to his campaign.

[Correction]

Mike Gravel is a 77 year old Democrat from Alaska. Where was he drawing support from, again?

Answer the question, little boy.

Presidential elections are big-boy politics. There's only room for the biggest candidates. You don't get to come just because.

[Charla]

We've been debating various things for the last 8 pages and he hasn't had a problem with it.

I think it's reasonable to think that America was getting tired of watching debates with 8 people, 5 of which were never going to carry a state (I don't actually remember whether they trimmed the debate roster before or after Edwards left). As such, yes, America did didn't want him there, or the other 5 guys nobody'd heard of. Reasons notwithstanding, they trimmed the debates because they wanted to have better debates.

[sunb1ind]

We've been debating various things for the last 8 pages and he hasn't had a problem with it.

I think it's reasonable to think that America was getting tired of watching debates with 8 people, 5 of which were never going to carry a state (I don't actually remember whether they trimmed the debate roster before or after Edwards left). As such, yes, America did didn't want him there, or the other 5 guys nobody'd heard of. Reasons notwithstanding, they trimmed the debates because they wanted to have better debates.

Did you even watch those debates? Did you see the crowd's reaction after nearly every, single, one of his points he made in his ridiculously short 30-second clips allowed to speak(yes, I know he wasn't the only one cheated on time)? Go back and watch the clips online, tell me that crowd did not agree with any one of his points.

The primaries were chosen long before America had an opportunity to choose who they thought was the best candidate.