EPTOn April 24 2008 18:08 sperY wrote:
when are elections? In two years? tt
This november.when are elections? In two years? tt
2008 US Presidential Election - Page 62
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Falcynn
United States3597 Posts
| ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7222 Posts
On April 24 2008 18:08 sperY wrote: when are elections? In two years? tt U.S. Presidential elections occur every 4th year in November on the first Tuesday following the first Monday. That means Nov 4, 2008. | ||
|
Scorch
Austria3371 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
"The existence of party politics is a consequence of those political realities which contrain practical manoeuvring." As for realigning voting blocs in distasteful ways, distasteful to whom? Democrats? Obama supporters? McCain supporters? I was not aware that the political process of the country has been taken hostage by political seers, Greek tragedians or impatient utopianists, that the boundaries between political analysis and political propaganda no longer maintained even the pretense of existence. I would have hoped that party membership would not condition the peoples' thinking, that these candidates could be seen standing in their own names and not that of the democratic party. If one follows this line of thinking, before we outlaw Clinton from the democratic primary, we ought to outlaw the Libertarian, constitution, green, communist and all other minor parties from the American election, and make those maligned by fortune even more unfortunate. oy, you have a very classical view of politics. politics as political mechanics that is supposed to function to some general will. representational democracy by design plainly does not work. "The existence of party politics is a consequence of those political realities which contrain practical manoeuvring." you seem to value the system working in abstraction of the political results it will produce. anyone with some investment in the political condition would differ. politics touches on contentions that are at least as important as the ideal of a working democratic system. suppose a faction is championing rights for blacks, if they lose "fair and square," they would not think that a working democratic system, in a mechanistic way, produced a politically justified result. if they care more about racial equality as a political objective, they will consider winning the higher objective. this can be justified if we take the condition of evaluating political systems to depend on political results, in other words, taking a non detached view of politics. anyway, partisans are most significantly partial to divisive ideas. it is not that they actively form parties to disrupt democratic procedure, they do it because they care about different ideals and such. this is the reality of the thing. it would be productive to abandon teh rhetoric and insubstantial namecalling, btw. no one suggests outlawing hillary, nor should you be so confident in valuing "conditions of democratic procedure" so highly. presumably you are operating from a general "national welfare" that is able to tie the health of the democratic procedure to some evaluative political state of affairs. this does not hold if the general national welfare itself is a bogus ideal. i care about people most of all, the nation can go fuck itself. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On April 24 2008 18:02 MoltkeWarding wrote: There is not much wrong with the superdelegate system, remembering that the selection of candidates to stand for election is not a constitutionally mandated process, and parties have internal mechanisms to determine their candidate. Citizen voting for the presidential election is not a constitutionally mandated process either, but I assure you there would be something extremely wrong if it were removed and delegate voting was all that remained. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
Citizen voting for the presidential election is not a constitutionally mandated process either, but I assure you there would be something extremely wrong if it were removed and delegate voting was all that remained. Why so? If we take the mandate of the constitution of 89, the presidential office and powers, as the state's chief executive, were considerably less powerful than it is today. The power to govern and make policy properly resides in congress, and it is the house of representatives that reflects the will of the people, not the president, who executes the will of congress. Therefore under a proper constitutional system, extending the selection of the presidency to the electorate is both unnecessary and places too much power into the hands of the electorate and all associated powers. Allowing for the present system however, in which congress plays an ever-diminishing role in national politics, and in which national power increasingly intrudes into local affairs, it's imperative that the estates be properly aligned as to offer some kind of check against bad government. The party primaries may theoretically offer this kind of check by becoming an enclosed process in which mechanisms OTHER than that which is followed in the general elections decide the candidate. Far from disenfranchising the electorate, this in many ways preserves the autonomy of the electorate in their proper political role, and reduce the powers of finance and the media complex. you seem to value the system working in abstraction of the political results it will produce. anyone with some investment in the political condition would differ. Nonsense. It's not the political system which ought to be valued, but human weakness which ought to be feared. I am far from denying the beneficial effects of enlightened monarchies, I merely acknowledge that in the democratic age, as distinguished from the aristocratic age in which public opinion deferred to minorities, the people do not recognize the intellectual monopoly of a governing elite. Given the lack of private and socially-induced checks on the inflation of public opinion, it is imperative that a political system be maintained which checks the explosion of public opinion, and limits/organizes their entry into politics. This naturally produces government by mediocrity, wherein society is insulated against both enlightened government and malevolent excess, but which reflects the middling powers of the people. It's not any abstract philosophical system I hold to be a higher moral value, although its preservation in some ways, preserves the ethical inheritances of society, since the disruption of the political system cannot fail to be a consequence of a detachment of ethical continuity. The bottom line is that ethics are not synthetic products, created out of enlightened thought, their sole source lie in what we know about ourselves, and our past, and not our inability to explain injustice. Ironically, this self-confident posturing by which moral improvements are suggested from every corner of the earth is merely a further argument in favour of a political system which limits the application of such ideas. it would be productive to abandon teh rhetoric and insubstantial namecalling, btw. no one suggests outlawing hillary Yet if enlightened government by tl.net existed, I'm sure this would be the first decree in our noble efforts to improve society. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
Probably my favorite piece by jon stewart all year | ||
|
a-game
Canada5085 Posts
ad: i noticed obama is ahead in Indiana. if he wins south carolina and indiana on may 6 there will be so many people within the party starting to pressure clinton out | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On April 26 2008 04:16 fusionsdf wrote: Probably my favorite piece by jon stewart all year I actually thought it was weak. The Daily Show is clearly supporting Obama, and even as an Obama supporter myself, I thought it'd be more appropriate to make fun of him after losing. The last two clips seemed like they were just grasping at straws. | ||
|
a-game
Canada5085 Posts
![[image loading]](http://teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/Zicon_small.gif) + Show Spoiler +  | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 25 2008 06:03 MoltkeWarding wrote: Nonsense. It's not the political system which ought to be valued, but human weakness which ought to be feared. I am far from denying the beneficial effects of enlightened monarchies, I merely acknowledge that in the democratic age, as distinguished from the aristocratic age in which public opinion deferred to minorities, the people do not recognize the intellectual monopoly of a governing elite. Given the lack of private and socially-induced checks on the inflation of public opinion, it is imperative that a political system be maintained which checks the explosion of public opinion, and limits/organizes their entry into politics. This naturally produces government by mediocrity, wherein society is insulated against both enlightened government and malevolent excess, but which reflects the middling powers of the people. It's not any abstract philosophical system I hold to be a higher moral value, although its preservation in some ways, preserves the ethical inheritances of society, since the disruption of the political system cannot fail to be a consequence of a detachment of ethical continuity. i thought about the same as you do like 2 years ago, but i've moved on to more interesting things. i even understand why you relate popular mediocrity to ethical decay, but, not to the degree of putting it into more explicit form. if you would help with this little explication, claims like "disruption of political system is consequence of ethical disruption" can be evaluated.after all, the question at hand is your evaluation of party politics. anyway, party politics is precisely one of those mechanisms that is employed to increase a faction's influence in democratic politics. if you are not committed to a conception of the good of the political whole, i dont see where your objection against party politics comes from. if you want to say that party politics is given to banal populism, i do not disagree too much. i simply care enough about the political results to want to manipulate the system. Yet if enlightened government by tl.net existed, I'm sure this would be the first decree in our noble efforts to improve society. the people who have called hillary to quit the campaign are doing so from the position of political observer. it is basic political form of democratic deliberation. anyway, this will end here. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
the people who have called hillary to quit the campaign are doing so from the position of political observer. it is basic political form of democratic deliberation. Observation is something one does in private. When one feels obliged to inundate the public sphere with his "observations," it is no longer an observation, but an argument. But I do not complain about people making arguments, I merely say that this particular argument concerning Clinton stepping aside is bad and dishonest. Why argue "If Clinton wants the best of the democratic party she ought to quit?" Why not assume that Clinton puts her own fortunes ahead of those of her party? And why assume that party loyalism is a superior ethical objective to fighting for oneself? Under the constitution, we run for presidents as individuals, not as members of a party, for the obvious reason that individuals are more likely to be honest in stating their principles, while the party mechanism is primarily concerned with obtaining power. I have no doubt that were the delegate counts reversed, a large proportion of tl.net would balk at the idea of Obama stepping down simply because they find Clinton to be incompatible with their own principles and even if Obama were a losing shot, they would back him, as he represents their convictions better. This argument that Clinton step down is forged in a combination of malice and deceit. On one hand, the Obama supporters here really do dislike Clinton and wish to see her step down and thereby secure the nomination of their preferred candidate. Since this has no foundation in reason however, they adopt an intellectual forgery proffered to them by media "observers" and narrow-minded party bosses: that Clinton step down for the welfare of the party. That, if Clinton were truly a principled woman, she would strengthen the party by allowing it to unite behind a single candidate. The question is: what has principle to do with adherence to a party? If anything, participation in the latter is corrosive of the former. I should hope, should I favour any given candidate, that I have sufficient confidence in their abilities to sustain the ordeals of extended contest and debate, against opponents of every ideological colour; that my candidate should become strengthened, rather than weakened by such a process. When one is in such a haste to close the book on this process, its cause becomes suspect. anyway, party politics is precisely one of those mechanisms that is employed to increase a faction's influence in democratic politics. if you are not committed to a conception of the good of the political whole, i dont see where your objection against party politics comes from. . It's partyism which is objectionable- loyalty to political corporations rather than to principles. As I said, I do not mean to suggest that tl.net would support Bush if he were on the democratic ticket merely because he is a democrat, but in the context of the aforementioned issue, they are unconsciously towing the party/media line to support their independent beliefs. It's arguing that Clinton harms the party by her continued participation, rather than arguing that Clinton harms the nation by her political platform or character that I find distasteful. | ||
|
HaXxorIzed
Australia8434 Posts
| ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7222 Posts
If there was a pro-Obama bias before there's certainly none now. Every op-ed has replaced analogies of Obama as JFK with Obama as McGovern. It's pretty ugly out there right now, but the story will shift back to everyone wanting Clinton out if he wins Indiana and NC. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 26 2008 19:59 MoltkeWarding wrote: observations are also arguments. to call them observations is just to emphasize the empirical content and subject. Observation is something one does in private. When one feels obliged to inundate the public sphere with his "observations," it is no longer an observation, but an argument. But I do not complain about people making arguments, I merely say that this particular argument concerning Clinton stepping aside is bad and dishonest. Why argue "If Clinton wants the best of the democratic party she ought to quit?" Why not assume that Clinton puts her own fortunes ahead of those of her party? And why assume that party loyalism is a superior ethical objective to fighting for oneself? Under the constitution, we run for presidents as individuals, not as members of a party, for the obvious reason that individuals are more likely to be honest in stating their principles, while the party mechanism is primarily concerned with obtaining power. I have no doubt that were the delegate counts reversed, a large proportion of tl.net would balk at the idea of Obama stepping down simply because they find Clinton to be incompatible with their own principles and even if Obama were a losing shot, they would back him, as he represents their convictions better. in that case, clinton supporters would be in position to call for obama to quit it, not without good reasons, reasons that may not even contradict the interests of obama's base. now, the two candidates' convictions are not neutral here. clinton is apparently willing to rock the boat in dangerous ways just to get at obama. if obama is doing this, even if he is leading, he will be criticized. of course, some people are just going by their personal distaste for hillary, but there is also the contention that hillary's campaign is an unproductive political phenomenon. (i do not see it as entirely bad, but as a risky proposition.) This argument that Clinton step down is forged in a combination of malice and deceit. On one hand, the Obama supporters here really do dislike Clinton and wish to see her step down and thereby secure the nomination of their preferred candidate. Since this has no foundation in reason however, they adopt an intellectual forgery proffered to them by media "observers" and narrow-minded party bosses: that Clinton step down for the welfare of the party. That, if Clinton were truly a principled woman, she would strengthen the party by allowing it to unite behind a single candidate. The question is: what has principle to do with adherence to a party? If anything, participation in the latter is corrosive of the former. that is incorrect. voting for the candidate of principles is not the only way to exercise one's political will. contrary, an honest and informed approach to politics that is in keep with one's principles demands a consequentialist evaluation of options. poltical actions are symbolic on the surface level, but political conditions are not. one should be able to see past the naive rituals and act in a way that maximizes desired political condition. I should hope, should I favour any given candidate, that I have sufficient confidence in their abilities to sustain the ordeals of extended contest and debate, against opponents of every ideological colour; that my candidate should become strengthened, rather than weakened by such a process. When one is in such a haste to close the book on this process, its cause becomes suspect. the process is not so much one of debate but one of pandering and manipulation. when the effects of the manipulation are detrimental to the political fortune of good policy, it is prudent to call a stop to it. notice that calling for a hillary quit is only one of a few ways this can be resolved. hillary could patch up the damage and change the course of her campaign, for instance. It's partyism which is objectionable- loyalty to political corporations rather than to principles. As I said, I do not mean to suggest that tl.net would support Bush if he were on the democratic ticket merely because he is a democrat, but in the context of the aforementioned issue, they are unconsciously towing the party/media line to support their independent beliefs. It's arguing that Clinton harms the party by her continued participation, rather than arguing that Clinton harms the nation by her political platform or character that I find distasteful. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
MARION, Ind. - Hillary Rodham Clinton takes the debate dispute to a new level, challenging her opponent Barack Obama to face off with her in a debate without a moderator, Lincoln-Douglas style. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
"I noticed again today that Sen. Obama repeated his opposition to giving low-income Americans a tax break, a little bit of relief so they can travel a little further and a little longer, and maybe have a little bit of money left over to enjoy some other things in their lives," McCain said. "Obviously Sen. Obama does not understand that this would be a nice thing for Americans, and the special interests should not be dictating this policy." The Arizona senator deflected questions about his record on the Bush administration's tax cuts — he initially opposed them but now supports extending them — by again criticizing Obama. What a jackass statement. | ||
|
a-game
Canada5085 Posts
bunch of quotes where clintons campaign managers declare repeatedly that the only thing that matters is the delegate count. it's amazing how they can get away with this. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 28 2008 07:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: McCain calls Obama insensitive to poor people What a jackass statement. this is hilarious. it is really school yard level politics. | ||
| ||
