• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Extremism Becoming Mainstream?

EgoffTib said:
I do not think it is a good thing that you can "see clear differences". Just means you took the bait.
Click to expand...

Equally if not more likely is that you took the bait. Or of course, it could just be we have differing views on issues. I find it interesting that you immediately assume the choice that is most negative towards others, but makes you feel better about yourself and your fringe element views.
 
Redress said:
[...] So where is this history of election violence? [...]
Click to expand...

Everywhere, but I get tired of repeating myself, so I'll just quote a few things I wrote here in the past:

Alex Libman said:
Voting is [...] like a toy steering wheel that a very young child might play with inside the car and keep himself occupied, pretending that he's driving. Adults should know better.
Click to expand...
Alex Libman said:
Democracy is the most tyrannical form of government that can remain stable in a modern post-industrialized society. It is characterized by subtle yet highly effective use of brainwashing to allow passive control of the subjects, who are "kept on a long leash" and are allowed to keep a faction of the wealth they create for their own use. They are led to believe that the government exists in their interest, and the lowest common denominator of their opinions is pandered to in some trivial matters (i.e. election of figureheads).

By effectively encouraging blind faith in the government system, democratic governments can get away much higher levels of infringement on individual rights than less manipulative forms of government. History is filled with examples of peasant uprisings against a tyrannical ruler, but in a democracy people's anger is manipulated and misdirected toward trivial rituals (i.e. voting). Since governments always have more influence on the public (i.e. public schooling) than the other way around, and because the system is rigged on other levels as well, there exists no real danger of those rituals ever challenging the entrenched ruling class of government bureaucrats and their allies.

Democracy is the greatest threat that currently exists to the hope of eventual freedom for mankind, freedom of course being based on uninfringeable individual rights that can only exist in a pure free-market capitalist society.
Click to expand...
Alex Libman said:
A product purchase is optional, but a politician is forced on you whether you want one or not.

A product can be selected from millions of choices, but with politicians it's usually down to 2 guys who have a chance and a handful more [that] don't.

A product can be replaced at any time, not every X years, and you can even get your money back if you return it within 30 days.

A product is there when you need it, for as long as you need it, but your politician will most likely just send you a form letter if you write him, and then add you to his fund-raising mailing list.

A product that is on the market can be scientifically tested by neutral consumer interest agencies and their results published on the Internet. All you get from politicians are 30 second soundbites, and they can change their mind at any time.

A product's price is known beforehand, but you never know when a politician will raise your taxes, legislate away your rights, or draft your children to war.

With a product purchase you get what you vote for - every single time. [...]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Alex Libman said:
Everywhere, but I get tired of repeating myself, so I'll just quote a few things I wrote here in the past:
Click to expand...

Nothing evidence of violence there. Do please try and keep up with the conversation. Randomly quoting yourself on barely related topics does not answer a question of your facts.
 
Redress said:
Nothing evidence of violence there. Do please try and keep up with the conversation. Randomly quoting yourself on barely related topics does not answer a question of your facts.
Click to expand...

Well, I've tried. When a religious fanatic refuses to think, there's nothing one can do...
 
Alex Libman said:
Well, I've tried. When a religious fanatic refuses to think, there's nothing one can do...
Click to expand...

Ironically, this is exactly what is happening here, though with you and not Redress being the fanatic.
 
Sure it is. When 51% can vote in an extremist president to ramrod the other 49% into their agenda that is the very definition of mainstream.
 
akyron said:
Sure it is. When 51% can vote in an extremist president to ramrod the other 49% into their agenda that is the very definition of mainstream.
Click to expand...

Erm, if 51% voted for it, it is by definition not extremist....
 
Redress said:
Equally if not more likely is that you took the bait. Or of course, it could just be we have differing views on issues. I find it interesting that you immediately assume the choice that is most negative towards others, but makes you feel better about yourself and your fringe element views.
Click to expand...

Your attempt at psychoanalysis, while being cute, is entirely incorrect. The reason I support the Libertarian party is because I feel they should be given a legitimate chance to hold office and enact their policies. I do not think that Democrat or Republican ideas are wrong, I have just seen them fail on more than one occasion and think it is time to try something new.

Should Libertarianism/Minarchism be given a fair shot, and fail, I would be quick to reassess my political views and attempt to support the next party I feel will better our country. I simply grow tired of watching both Republicans and Democrats continue to increase government spending and piss on the Constitution.
 
EgoffTib said:
Your attempt at psychoanalysis, while being cute, is entirely incorrect. The reason I support the Libertarian party is because I feel they should be given a legitimate chance to hold office and enact their policies. I do not think that Democrat or Republican ideas are wrong, I have just seen them fail on more than one occasion and think it is time to try something new.

Should Libertarianism/Minarchism be given a fair shot, and fail, I would be quick to reassess my political views and attempt to support the next party I feel will better our country. I simply grow tired of watching both Republicans and Democrats continue to increase government spending and piss on the Constitution.
Click to expand...

What about the Greens? Or the Socialists? Or the Constitutionalists? Should they all not be given their chance? If we are going to give one bunch of fringe element lunatics their chance to ruin the country, you should give them all.

Further, saying we should let the fringe run the country, since the other parties are not perfect is some what silly. No one claims that either the democrats or republicans are perfect. I am a democrat and I bitch about my party frequently(far more than you do about yours in fact, but it is I who have "taken the bait"). No party will be perfect, what is the question is what party will best represent the desires of the people, and I guarantee you that is not the libertarians or any other wingnut fringe element party.
 
Redress said:
What about the Greens? Or the Socialists? Or the Constitutionalists? Should they all not be given their chance? If we are going to give one bunch of fringe element lunatics their chance to ruin the country, you should give them all.
Click to expand...
I'm fine with that. The "shot" I was referring to was a chance in the nationally televised debates. This would educate the general populace on the views and beliefs of third parties.

Further, saying we should let the fringe run the country, since the other parties are not perfect is some what silly. No one claims that either the democrats or republicans are perfect. I am a democrat and I bitch about my party frequently(far more than you do about yours in fact, but it is I who have "taken the bait").No party will be perfect, what is the question is what party will best represent the desires of the people, and I guarantee you that is not the libertarians or any other wingnut fringe element party.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand. I only want the Libertarian party to run the country if they are elected to do so. I wish that the hindrances and obstacles put in the paths of third parties would be removed.
 
EgoffTib said:
I'm fine with that. The "shot" I was referring to was a chance in the nationally televised debates. This would educate the general populace on the views and beliefs of third parties.


You misunderstand. I only want the Libertarian party to run the country if they are elected to do so. I wish that the hindrances and obstacles put in the paths of third parties would be removed.
Click to expand...

Until the libertarians can get a decent number of members, they should not be taking away from those who have a real chance to win in a debate. Any one who wants to know about libertarians can go to their website quite easily(I did this to get an actual list of their stance on issues). Of course, you don't really want people to go to the website, since seeing some of the libertarian stance on issues would repel people. A debate is much easier to avoid the tricky stuff like legalizing drugs, deregulating the health care industry, loosening immigration laws and virtual amnesty for illegals...

The obstacle to libertarians gaining office is the libertarian platform. It's time you all manned up and admitted it's not a conspiracy to keep you down, it's the fact that most people think you guys are nutty.
 
Redress said:
Until the libertarians can get a decent number of members, they should not be taking away from those who have a real chance to win in a debate. Any one who wants to know about libertarians can go to their website quite easily(I did this to get an actual list of their stance on issues). Of course, you don't really want people to go to the website, since seeing some of the libertarian stance on issues would repel people. A debate is much easier to avoid the tricky stuff like legalizing drugs, deregulating the health care industry, loosening immigration laws and virtual amnesty for illegals...

The obstacle to libertarians gaining office is the libertarian platform. It's time you all manned up and admitted it's not a conspiracy to keep you down, it's the fact that most people think you guys are nutty.
Click to expand...
It's apparent you're not interested in actually discussing the flaws in the presidential debates and, for that matter, the race. Have a nice day.
 
EgoffTib said:
It's apparent you're not interested in actually discussing the flaws in the presidential debates and, for that matter, the race. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

What you see as flaws are not flaws though. Libertarians and other third party nuts use excuses that they call "flaws to the system", when the fact is, the reason they are not getting votes is simply that people do not believe in their platforms. When Libertarians stop making excuses and start trying to represent more people, then they will succeed, but no change to the election law will do it.
 
Dav said:
Ironically, this is exactly what is happening here, though with you and not Redress being the fanatic.
Click to expand...

No, democracy is in fact a religion - and not a particularly good one, because no democracy seems to be able to last more then a couple of centuries, much less a few thousand years. Your blind faith in the "divine right" of the majority to initiate aggression has no rational justification.


Dav said:
Erm, if 51% voted for it, it is by definition not extremist....
Click to expand...

Genocidal dictators throughout history thank you for exonerating them. :doh
 
Dav said:
Erm, if 51% voted for it, it is by definition not extremist....
Click to expand...

The majority can be, and often is, wrong.

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner....freedom is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote."
 
Goshin said:
The majority can be, and often is, wrong.

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner....freedom is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote."
Click to expand...

I didn't say it wasn't wrong, I just said it wasn't extremist.
 
Dav said:
I didn't say it wasn't wrong, I just said it wasn't extremist.
Click to expand...

I'd have to classify that as semantics. If 51% vote themselves the right to rape the other 49%, we could arguably call it "mainstream thinking"... but all it means it that the "mainstream" has lost their freaking minds...
 
Redress said:
What you see as flaws are not flaws though. Libertarians and other third party nuts use excuses that they call "flaws to the system", when the fact is, the reason they are not getting votes is simply that people do not believe in their platforms. When Libertarians stop making excuses and start trying to represent more people, then they will succeed, but no change to the election law will do it.
Click to expand...

So you think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the current presidential debates? That the majority of the people only get to watch two candidates discuss issues? You see no inherent flaw to this?
 
EgoffTib said:
So you think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the current presidential debates? That the majority of the people only get to watch two candidates discuss issues? You see no inherent flaw to this?
Click to expand...

Two, or three(remember Perot). I have no problem with the televised debates requiring candidates to get at least 10 % or so support in polls to be included. If you cannot do that, you are not going to win anyway.
 
Redress said:
Until the libertarians can get a decent number of members, they should not be taking away from those who have a real chance to win in a debate. Any one who wants to know about libertarians can go to their website quite easily(I did this to get an actual list of their stance on issues). Of course, you don't really want people to go to the website, since seeing some of the libertarian stance on issues would repel people. A debate is much easier to avoid the tricky stuff like legalizing drugs, deregulating the health care industry, loosening immigration laws and virtual amnesty for illegals...

The obstacle to libertarians gaining office is the libertarian platform. It's time you all manned up and admitted it's not a conspiracy to keep you down, it's the fact that most people think you guys are nutty.
Click to expand...

It is true the Libertarian Party is pretty extreme and outside the mainstream. In fact, if you think the current platform is extreme, you should look up what the platform was like before a reform movement in the party gutted the really nutty stuff. The LP, as it currently exists, will never be a major party because its a party run by fringe extremists. That doesn't mean that a big tent moderate libertarian based party couldn't potentially emerge as a major party.

However, it would also be wrong to pretend that our system doesn't encourage a two party set up and that the two mainstream parties run the system and use their power to further their entrenchment. As much as I admire the founding fathers, I think one of their greatest oversights was setting up a system that naturally favored the creation of two huge coalition style parties. Madison himself wrote in the Federalist Papers how having many factions competing for power is key to preventing any one faction from having too much power.

You also anyone can go on the internet and look up about the libertarians and their candidate, which is true, but I think we both know the typical voter is not that proactive. He's going to get his information from the mainstream media (TV, newspaper) and make his decision from there. And major media focuses on the Republican and Democratic candidates almost exclusively. Its easy to mistakenly think the American electorate is as informed and interested in politics as the general population here at DP, but it would be a mistake. Most folks I talk to don't know what a libertarian is, or that there is a Libertarian Party. I'd like to see more candidates included in the debates, at least early on in the election season. The field can be narrowed as the elections get closer. I don't see any possible harm coming from letting more candidates get their message out. I don't think that change alone would break the two party system, but it would be a start. To truly break the two party system, we'd need fundemental Constitutional changes in how voting is done in this country.
 
Psychoclown said:
To truly break the two party system, we'd need fundemental Constitutional changes in how voting is done in this country.
Click to expand...

The problem with breaking down the system into more parties is that it would be much harder to gain a majority vote... If the system was changed to allow a plurality decision, then we open the door to the possibility of a candidate winning the presidency for winning just a single big state--not good either.

Psychoclown said:
That doesn't mean that a big tent moderate libertarian based party couldn't potentially emerge as a major party.
Click to expand...

This is the best scenario I'd say. Third parties have been propelled suddenly into prominence as one of the two major parties before, but this is rare-- one major party incumbent to the system has to be broken up and swept out.

I think it'd be better if our system didn't allow for more parties to gain prominence simultaneously, but instead shifted who the actual two main parties were more often. Parties should be less all-encompassing and die more often--hopefully to refresh the system.
 
Last edited:
A great many people simply have not cared to research American political history or contemporary politics to begin with. From a distance, I am sure that to many people the United States government is some insurmountable force that holds an almost God-like power over human events.
 
other said:
The problem with breaking down the system into more parties is that it would be much harder to gain a majority vote... If the system was changed to allow a plurality decision, then we open the door to the possibility of a candidate winning the presidency for winning just a single big state--not good either.
Click to expand...

As I said, fundamental Constitutional changes need to be made. In the case of Presidential elections, I'd propose a ranked voting system - which would eliminate the wasted vote syndrome. Say my ballot looked like this ...

1. Bob Barr
2. Chuck Baldwin
2. John McCain
3. Barak Obama

For the sake of simplicity say these 4 were the only candidates running. The first round all the votes are tallied up based on the first ranked candidate (in my case Barr). If no majority is reached, the lowest vote getter is eliminated then and the ballots listinghim as the first choice are then counted for however is listed second. Let's say Baldwin was the lowest vote getter and he's eliminated. So my ballot still counts for Barr.

In the second round, if no majority is reached, the same thing happens. Low man is eliminated and his ballots are reassigned to the next highest candidate still in the running. So let's say Barr is eliminated, and Baldwin is already out, so my vote now goes to McCain.

This kind of system let's voters vote for whoever they feel is the best choice without worrying about wasting their vote for a non-contender. In our current system, if I think McCain is nominally better than Obama, I increase Obama's chances by voting third party, since I would've otherwise voted for McCain. Here, that's not a problem. I can vote for who I like best without worrying about if I "helped" the candidate I least support.

This is the best scenario I'd say. Third parties have been propelled suddenly into prominence as one of the two major parties before, but this is rare-- one major party incumbent to the system has to be broken up and swept out.

I think it'd be better if our system didn't allow for more parties to gain prominence simultaneously, but instead shifted who the actual two main parties were more often. Parties should be less all-encompassing and die more often--hopefully to refresh the system.
Click to expand...

The problem is the system promotes a two party set up and those two parties once established, seek to entrench themselves. I don't see any practical way for the system to encourage parties to "die off" more often. What we should do is encourage more parties or factions as Madison called them, thereby making it more difficult for anyone party or faction to gain too much influence.
 
Psychoclown said:
What we should do is encourage more parties or factions as Madison called them, thereby making it more difficult for anyone party or faction to gain too much influence.
Click to expand...

That is also the problem with that notion. Having far too many viable political parties reduces their mandate and can create political instability.
 
Psychoclown said:
[............. I'd propose a ranked voting system .........................]
Click to expand...

It seems like it'd be difficult to implement, but I like that alternative--hadn't heard of it before.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom