The "Democratization of Democracy"

**BigVrunga** · 08-09-2006, 05:07 PM

Interesting Article on Liberman's ousting from the democratic candidtate seat:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...archived=False

The most interesting quote from the article:

Quote:

"The candidates and the parties are about to see that they are no longer in control of politics," Darr said. "And I've got a front-row seat at the revolution."

I freaking hope so. I have no idea if the candidtate they picked is any good or not, but its almost reassuring to know that if the desire for change is strong enough - it can still happen.

BV

BioHazzard · 08-09-2006, 06:21 PM

It proves nothing. What it proves is that the Dem party is being taken over by extreme lefties. That has always been the downfall of the Dem party. This time around, it will be no exception.

They acted like they have won the election. Well, surprise surprise..

When November comes, Lieberman is going to get re-elected. Desire for change? What change? lol

It is good tho. Now the Jewish lobby is going to turn their guns onto the Dem.

Lieberman is going to win re-election in any case. The GOP has next to zero chance of winning that seat, with a lightweight candidate. So, this turn of event is a positive development, for the GOP.

**BigVrunga** · 08-09-2006, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Lieberman is going to win re-election in any case. The GOP has next to zero chance of winning that seat, with a lightweight candidate. So, this turn of event is a positive development, for the GOP.

Well, I guess you've got a point there. My initial post wasnt supporting the Democratic party, in truth I think both parties suck hard ass

- but that if enough people put forth an effort change can be pushed through the relatively stagnant political system. The incumbant losing to an unknown due to a 'grassroots' (or 'netroots' - whatever you want to call it) is a pretty big thing in any event...at least enough people were motivated to do something who probably would have been sitting home being influenced by propaganda on television, if they didnt feel a strong desire to change the current system.

Same deal with the guy trying to get votes by selling cheap gas. Yeah it might have been a gimmick - but if that was money out of his own pocket he was spending to sell gas at $1.22 a gallon just to meet/greet potential voters he'd get my vote as long as most of his views lined up with my own. If that was tax payer money however, Id want his head on a plate.

Personally, I think it would be a *huge* mistake to pull out of the mideast now. I didnt agree with the war, but now that whats done is done it'd better be done right. If I dont see all of arabia shopping at a wal-mart (without bombs strapped to their kids) within the next 10 years Im going to be pretty irate.

Rather than a left-wing sissy boy being elected to take Bush's place, Id rather see a hard-ass military general running on the Independant ticket, who loves his country and owes allegience to no one, no corporation, no secret society or legacy of his old man. Just get in, whip the worlds ass and clean this ****ing place up before everything turns to ****.

BV

**kwyckemynd00** · 08-09-2006, 06:52 PM

Yeah...I didn't get too much out of that article either. All I see is MoveOn.org ruining the chances of any democrat getting into the Presidency.

Instead of the "democratization of democracy" it would have been better described as "the MoveOn.org-anization of the Democrats".

**Jayhawkk** · 08-09-2006, 06:55 PM

Need a full force 3 party system.

**kwyckemynd00** · 08-09-2006, 07:00 PM

Kwycke's new government:
- No political parties
- No multi-million dollar advertising
- In order to vote, a mandatory 12 hr seminar must be attended where each potential voter will sift through the personal statements and political records of the candidates themselves, versus letting they lie to you about each other.
- MOST IMPORTANT RULE: KM00 is Emperor of the World! Muahahahahahahahh!

**BigVrunga** · 08-09-2006, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Need a full force 3 party system.

We need to at least shake up the 2 that are already there, dissolve them like you would a anemic monopoly.

Quote:

Yeah...I didn't get too much out of that article either. All I see is MoveOn.org ruining the chances of any democrat getting into the Presidency.

Instead of the "democratization of democracy" it would have been better described as "the MoveOn.org-anization of the Democrats".

MoveOn does have some important issues they're trying to cover - the "Save the Internet" thing is trying to keep bills getting passed that allow big money corporations to get on the Internet 'fast lane' while individuals/small business have to suffer with less bandwidth. That's not right, takes the spirit right out of what the net is supposed to be.

Funding for public television, exposing corruption in government, etc - all important issues that people should consider when they're going to the polls.

Their 'lets pull out now' stance on the Iraq war would just be self destructive if it were really implemented, but I dont see the GOP handling that well either.

What would you like to see changed in our government? Bio, Kwyc, CDB - we all end up posting in the political forum at least once a week

Im ashamed to admit that I didnt start voting until last year, when the reality set in that by 'not having time to vote' Im just letting other people make my choices for me. Seeing news like this is at least reassuring that more people are getting involved in deciding who is leading them...and no matter who wins the next election if its a democrat or republican, our country will continue to slide down the ****ter IMO. At least more people will be aware of it, hopefully spurring a real change in the way things are done before its too late.

BV

BioHazzard · 08-10-2006, 01:47 AM

3rd party candidacy is basically mental masturbation. A total waste of time. None would get elected.

It is far more productive to support moderate members in both parties. Dem or GOP are all fine by me, as long as they are moderates, pro law and order, for a strong America, and for all the stuffs that moderates from all sides would for, ie good education, clean environment, low crime, strong military, fair taxes, strong economy, etc etc.... All of these, has nothing to do with party affiliation.. Any one with the right mind, would for all these issues. Whether you are GOP or Dem, it is our duty as American, to defeat extremists from ****ing up either parties and the country.

The change I want to see is for moderates to dominate and control both parties.

**Jayhawkk** · 08-10-2006, 01:53 AM

The problem with a 2 party system is good things will be rejected in fear of losing dominance on the hill come election time.

They piggybacked a estate tax bill on top of the min. wage bill for God's sake.

The Colonel 333 · 08-10-2006, 01:56 AM

I think what it means it that both parties are out of touch with the average American. 56% of whom want us out of Iraq either immediately or within the next 6 months.
I love this quote !!
Quote:
"The candidates and the parties are about to see that they are no longer in control of politics," Darr said. "And I've got a front-row seat at the revolution."

BioHazzard · 08-10-2006, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayhawkk

The problem with a 2 party system is good things will be rejected in fear of losing dominance on the hill come election time.

They piggybacked a estate tax bill on top of the min. wage bill for God's sake.

Doesn't make a lot of sense. Promoting good things would ensure dominance in election.

It has nothing to do with the number of parties. It has everything to do with intra party politics, ie catering to the special interest groups. The key is to rescue the parties from the dominance of these special interest groups.

BioHazzard · 08-10-2006, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Colonel 333

I think what it means it that both parties are out of touch with the average American. 56% of whom want us out of Iraq either immediately or within the next 6 months.
I love this quote !!
Quote:
"The candidates and the parties are about to see that they are no longer in control of politics," Darr said. "And I've got a front-row seat at the revolution."

Unfortunately there is no revolution. Come November, Lieberman will win. It would be funny if he tells the Dem to go **** themselves. Unlikely.

**Jayhawkk** · 08-10-2006, 02:11 AM

3 party system takes out a either/or scenerio. One of those three will end up siding with another. It also allows a party to not suffer completely from allowing a bill go through that wasn't their idea.

As it stands a party is afraid to let something pass it didn't come up with so they either outright dismiss it or add/take away so much garbage it becomes worthless. No one wants to lose their seat.

**Jayhawkk** · 08-10-2006, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Doesn't make a lot of sense. Promoting good things would ensure dominance in election.

Not if it wasn't your party that came up with it.

BioHazzard · 08-10-2006, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayhawkk

Not if it wasn't your party that came up with it.

And they will lose the election if they insist on continuing on being stupid.

BioHazzard · 08-10-2006, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayhawkk

3 party system takes out a either/or scenerio. One of those three will end up siding with another. It also allows a party to not suffer completely from allowing a bil