{OT} Why Mommy is a Democrat (heart-warming book)

I'm a Conservative, and I don't buy into ANY of the crap that easily.

Why is there such a book? As I mentioned, Indoctrination? Why isn;t there an equivolent "Why Daddy is a Republican"?

It's all bullshit as far as I can see. Gotta make sure them kids don't become Evil Republican Wal*Mart shoppers!!

Reply to
Hachiroku
Loading thread data ...

So, how profitable was "work on your street corner", on Thanksgiving night?

Reply to
sharx35

=====

BGM, I think you may have misunderstood what I wrote. I'm saying Democrats can definitely be bought but not quite as easily as Republicans. Republicans are more easily bought than Democrats.

I haven't decided who is more easily bought between Democrats and Libertarians. But it's clear that the hardest to buy are Greens, and I think it's impossible to buy some Greens.

What we need is Proportional Representation in elections (not winner-takes-all), so that we can get some level-headed Greens and Libertarians into Congress. Much of Europe uses Proportional Representation, but alas we don't. And, of course, don't hold your breath for the Dems and Repubs to change the winner-takes-all system.

Reply to
Built_Well

=====

In many European countries, if a candidate gets a certain percentage of the votes, say 1 percent or 5 percent, he/she gets a seat in the legislature. The percentage varies depending upon the European nation. I think the Neterlands has one of the lowest percentage requirements, only 1 or 2 percent.

Perhaps our British and Australian friends can tell us what the percentage is in their electoral systems of Proportional Representation.

Some nations have actually had candidates win seats in the legislature who are from way-out odd-sounding parties like the "Car Party" (I think that may have been Austria?), etc., etc. That's what we need in America. Proportional Representation is more democratic than winner-take-all.

Reply to
Built_Well

Alas, the one time I thought you said something meaningful I was mistaken. All this time I have searched your posts for a bit of logic and I was hopeful I had stumbled upon one but you fooled me.

Reply to
badgolferman

=====

This is interesting. From the Wiki page on Proportional Representation:

"Proportional representation does have some history in the United States. Many cities, including New York City, once used it for their city councils as a way to break up the Democratic Party monopolies on elective office.

"In Cincinnati, Ohio, proportional representation was adopted in 1925 to get rid of a Republican Party party machine, but the Republicans successfully overturned proportional representation in 1957."

Reply to
Built_Well

=====

Alas, indeed.

Reply to
Built_Well

Built_Well,

That's an interesting position. I think that it's true, insofar as no Green candidate has yet made it into a position of power and influence worth buying. I have my doubts as to any inherent "unbuyability" of that particular stripe of politician as opposed to any other.

Of course, it also depends upon your definition of "buying." If one means it as "breaking the law by accepting bribes, illegal contributions of cash to one's campaign, and so forth" I think that the relative buyability of politicians is highly individual and does not necessarily reflect party affiliation.

I personally would not trust your Mr. Nader as far as I could throw the man, I might add. He'd not be likely to line his own pockets per se, but he's something far worse- an Idealist. Given the opportunity I think that, like Chairman Mao in 1959 who starved sixty million of his own in the name of agricultural collectivization, he'd cheerfully dismantle our economy and send us all to our deaths in the name of Environmentalism - damn the law and damn the Constitution.

If on the other hand you mean to "buy" a politician in the hippie-dip sense of "selling out one's ideals," I think it's inherent in the system. Accomplishing any goal in politics requires compromise; politicians must choose between accomplishing some of their goals by compromising others, or maintaining one's high ideals but accomplishing nothing.

In this sense, I doubt that Greens are any more or less difficult to "buy" than any other politician, although the currency used might not be cash money per se.

And if I am wrong and you are right - that Greens are more likely to maintain their ideals than other politicians - well, I've read the Green Party platform. I for one would be heartily relieved at the thought of a proud but ineffective Green Pol.

Reply to
Mike Harris

Then it should be easy for you to give some specific examples. Let's hear them.

Reply to
Truckdude

Didn't you mean Hysterical?

Reply to
Hachiroku

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.