John McCain blames Republicans for Govt. Shutdown on Fox News Interview

Listen to yourself. What kind of advertisement for your perspective is this.

"Oh, I can't argue with this person, so I am going to make assumptions and be condescending so they stop pressing on my mindless devotion to the status quo and making me feel bad for not trying to actually demand change"

See, this is why the Republicans and Democrats are so similar -- those who support them are often so too.

 

Honestly, if things would have held true to the model you gave, and the Dems would have moved to the left in 08 while handling things like GTMO, healthcare, the bailout -- then people like me would not have abandoned them in 10 and would not be criticizing them now (not as much anyway...ha). They may have been able to get out the vote and won seats in 10. Like I said, I would have voted for them.

Instead the party out of power moved to the right (as you mentoned) and so did Obama and the dems. They thus lost people like me, lost in 10, did not execute an agenda that is satisfactory...and here we are.

So, I think your historical trend has some basis in reality, but our country is also filled with counter examples. And I can't make decisions on who to support based on historical party trends that may or may not apply to the situation I am currently living under.I have to make up my mind based on what I actually think, believe and want to happen in this country.

I understand that in the short term me voting 3rd party will increase the power of the republicans. But I feel that the chance that this will eventually lead to either a viable 3rd party or a better Dem party outweighs the benefit of having a Dem in over a Republican.

It is not an easy calculus, and it is not exact, but unless you can tell me why I should be satisfied with the Dems, I won't be. And I will criticize them, and work for parties and groups to the left of them in the meantime. Because I think there is a greater chance in that foundationally improving this country than in depending on the Democrats to do so, when they have proven unwilling or incapable of doing so thus far. And while you point to their victories, I will point to our sub par rankings in education, healthcare, infant mortality, literacy, freedom indexes, distribution of wealth...and the list goes on.

 

I don't know -- I remember the healthcare debate being a pretty huge consideration when he first came into office. Again, I while I am criticizing the Dems for not making a single payer system, the fact that they did not fight for it the way the Republicans and the tea party fight for the issues they care about -- that is the real reason I had to stop supporting them. And why I went back to 3rd parties. If they would have tried and failed I would have actually been more impressed and been a great advocate for such a party.

I assume of course you mean to the right of me -- and yes, I understand that. But how did the Tea Party and the republicans move the nation to the right? Did they do it by settling on the established conservative element and accepting whatever that party did as the best of all possible worlds? No. They supported 3rd parties, challenged people in primaries and in general elections, and, in the short term, it meant more Dems in office. But in the long term it changed the entire political discourse and has even moved Democrats to the right.

Any movement to the left is going to most likely follow a similar course and have similar short term losses with the hopes of long term gains.

I am prepared for that. But, as my response to the Tea Party actions points out, there is a possibility the country would move leftward while the republicans won more offices.

I will say doubtlessly and explicitly, what I am suggesting would, in the short term strengthen the republican party. But in the long term it might mean a completely different political landscape, with possibilities that do not currently exist (possibilities that are of a vital necessity for the future of this country).

I feel like being satisfied with the Democrats is like accepting a slow death instead of trying to overcome a deep rooted disease. Sometime the treatment sucks, h*ll, sometimes it kills you -- but at least it gives you a chance at survival.

Oh, trust me, I don't disagree with that. Major (the poster I was responding to) wanted an example where a democracy made a drastic change -- I was just giving him one. And, economically, the change was not so devestating. And that was the context of the discussion Major and I were having -- namely, can democracies enact and deal with radical change. I think the end of slavery and prohibition are examples of how we can and have.

Are you saying I am throwing my hand up and saying it is all about sheep?What makes you say that, if so?

It may be necessary to work through major party politics (I disagree, but not categorically), but groups either unaffiliated or loosely affiliated with a party can move a party to the left or the right. Look how the Tea Party moves the republicans to the right. Look how the old Populist party moved the Democrats to the Left, or how Huey Long moved FDR to the left.

Dissident groups have an effect on the major parties in America. So, whether or not we have to work through major parties, that does not mean we have to dutifully support them. Our critiques of them often lead to shift in the entire political narrative.

 

I can't argue with you because you're retreating behind faux "perspective" of an obnoxious collegian rather than acknowledge a pretty simple point and commit the *critical* sin of acking a mistake on webternet.

There's not really anything to argue here. The gulf between the 2 major political parties is as cavernous as its ever been - this is self evident. The Norwegian green party is not relevant to this fact.

Either you're hot + bothered in the study lounge at Oberlin or u str8 troll in'. Probably the latter.

In the words of j cutler....DONNNNNT CARRRRE!!!

 

So I used the word perspective (not perspectivism mind you) and then...what? You sound ridiculous.

As soon as you resorted to condescension and ad hominem attacks instead of discussion and debate you showed who you really are. One, I am not in college, but perhaps you had ideas more similar to mine when you were and now you feel the need to stomp those ideas out of others the same way people who are secretly homosexual are always the most homophobic. I can't understand your reactionary assumptions any other way.

You might as well be a republican with the way you act and with your cynical craven clinging to the status quo. Remember I said this...in 10 years you will be watching Fox News and voting Ted Cruz.