My cynical side must ask:
"Could a case be made that currently the political parites are nothing more than marketing machines for something bigger?" Does one shade the products/services blue while the other shades them red and in the end we still get the same product in a differnt colored wrapper?
Full Version: The Dems and GOP are just marketers?
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > News, Media & World Events > World Events & Current Affairs > US Presidential Election 2008
No. This is what one side tends to do when it is about to loose. Try to get voters to not vote by painting the contest as not meaningful. If you actually think that you are not paying attention. This may be one of the most important elections in the modern history. The "shades" are not shades at all but very clear and different ways forward on a number of issues. It will remain to be seen if after the election the ways hold true to those convictions but the ideologies are vastly different.
QUOTE (ninjadude @ Aug 20 2008, 06:53 AM) 
No. This is what one side tends to do when it is about to loose. Try to get voters to not vote by painting the contest as not meaningful. If you actually think that you are not paying attention. This may be one of the most important elections in the modern history. The "shades" are not shades at all but very clear and different ways forward on a number of issues. It will remain to be seen if after the election the ways hold true to those convictions but the ideologies are vastly different.
I hope you're correct. Can you elaborate on how they are different? I have my perspective, would like to read yours. Thanks.
There are literally millions of websites comparing the two. Here's one to get you started.
comparison
QUOTE (SoCrazes @ Aug 20 2008, 05:13 PM)
I hope you're correct. Can you elaborate on how they are different? I have my perspective, would like to read yours. Thanks.
As is typical, you got a link to someone else's thoughts.
QUOTE (Incorrigible1 @ Aug 21 2008, 01:13 AM)
As is typical, you got a link to someone else's thoughts.
Isn't that the purpose of a forum...to share ideas and thoughts? Learning doesn't take place in a vaccuum.
Kind of sucks, I can find that excellent speech from Alan Shore on Boston Legal that discussed this... Some nazi took it from youtube.
Basically each side is like pepsi and coke. Both massive billion dollar giants that sling mud at each other. But as long as they do that, they suggest they are the biggest and best. As long as they keep at it slinging the mud at each other, nobody is going to pay attention to the great tasting RC cola. And everybody is just going to keep on drinking pepsi and coke because they each validate each other as top rivals and keep their word out about each other.
If more Americans just had some more RC cola, we wouldn't have this huge stage show being put on for us all.
Basically each side is like pepsi and coke. Both massive billion dollar giants that sling mud at each other. But as long as they do that, they suggest they are the biggest and best. As long as they keep at it slinging the mud at each other, nobody is going to pay attention to the great tasting RC cola. And everybody is just going to keep on drinking pepsi and coke because they each validate each other as top rivals and keep their word out about each other.
If more Americans just had some more RC cola, we wouldn't have this huge stage show being put on for us all.
QUOTE (ninjadude @ Aug 20 2008, 05:53 AM)
No. This is what one side tends to do when it is about to loose. Try to get voters to not vote by painting the contest as not meaningful. If you actually think that you are not paying attention. This may be one of the most important elections in the modern history. The "shades" are not shades at all but very clear and different ways forward on a number of issues. It will remain to be seen if after the election the ways hold true to those convictions but the ideologies are vastly different.
Being that I have no side this is not the case. I can however see how the two party system is a politcal tool to control the masses. You present one option as a supposed choice. It's like saying, you can vote for A or B. While you can choose A or B, they're both still letters and country needs numbers. The two party system prevents 1, 2, 3, 4 etc from being elected.
QUOTE (__Kratos__ @ Aug 20 2008, 08:49 PM)
Kind of sucks, I can find that excellent speech from Alan Shore on Boston Legal that discussed this... Some nazi took it from youtube.
Basically each side is like pepsi and coke. Both massive billion dollar giants that sling mud at each other. But as long as they do that, they suggest they are the biggest and best. As long as they keep at it slinging the mud at each other, nobody is going to pay attention to the great tasting RC cola. And everybody is just going to keep on drinking pepsi and coke because they each validate each other as top rivals and keep their word out about each other.
If more Americans just had some more RC cola, we wouldn't have this huge stage show being put on for us all.
Basically each side is like pepsi and coke. Both massive billion dollar giants that sling mud at each other. But as long as they do that, they suggest they are the biggest and best. As long as they keep at it slinging the mud at each other, nobody is going to pay attention to the great tasting RC cola. And everybody is just going to keep on drinking pepsi and coke because they each validate each other as top rivals and keep their word out about each other.
If more Americans just had some more RC cola, we wouldn't have this huge stage show being put on for us all.
or it would be bigger.
QUOTE (danielost @ Aug 21 2008, 06:08 AM)
or it would be bigger.
What would be bigger?
QUOTE (BlindMessiah @ Aug 20 2008, 11:09 PM)
Being that I have no side this is not the case. I can however see how the two party system is a politcal tool to control the masses. You present one option as a supposed choice. It's like saying, you can vote for A or B. While you can choose A or B, they're both still letters and country needs numbers. The two party system prevents 1, 2, 3, 4 etc from being elected.
If you live outside of the usa, you cannot vote for the leader only the party. The party with the most votes or enough votes picks the leader. True the electoral college vote is the one that only counts for president, but the people still get to vote for whom they want.
I think that all states should do it like the two states do and each college vote goes to the person that the people in that area vote for instead of all votes for the state going to one person.
QUOTE (danielost @ Aug 21 2008, 06:12 AM)
If you live outside of the usa, you cannot vote for the leader only the party. The party with the most votes or enough votes picks the leader. True the electoral college vote is the one that only counts for president, but the people still get to vote for whom they want.
I think that all states should do it like the two states do and each college vote goes to the person that the people in that area vote for instead of all votes for the state going to one person.
I think that all states should do it like the two states do and each college vote goes to the person that the people in that area vote for instead of all votes for the state going to one person.
I was referring to the fact that third parties can't win.
the only way we are going to break away from this system is to restrict funds ........... keep campaigns to facts alone and hold nothing but debates to be televised and let the average joe make a decision from there.
no more promises that are never kept. no more half truths or lies about your opponent . .... you get the drift.
it's sickening to see how much money is spent . One should just put the list out there of what they want to accomplish, their idea of how to go about doing that and where they stand on issues and leave it at that .... one only needs to stump via in depth debates for a couple of weeks before the vote. More than enough time . And that would allow a more even footing for other parties .
substance not crap.
no more promises that are never kept. no more half truths or lies about your opponent . .... you get the drift.
it's sickening to see how much money is spent . One should just put the list out there of what they want to accomplish, their idea of how to go about doing that and where they stand on issues and leave it at that .... one only needs to stump via in depth debates for a couple of weeks before the vote. More than enough time . And that would allow a more even footing for other parties .
substance not crap.
Both sides are about greed and power. Once elected, their main goal is to do whatever it takes to get re-elected. Their principles and honesty go right out the window.
QUOTE (Lt_Ripley @ Aug 21 2008, 07:29 AM)
the only way we are going to break away from this system is to restrict funds ........... keep campaigns to facts alone and hold nothing but debates to be televised and let the average joe make a decision from there.
no more promises that are never kept. no more half truths or lies about your opponent . .... you get the drift.
it's sickening to see how much money is spent . One should just put the list out there of what they want to accomplish, their idea of how to go about doing that and where they stand on issues and leave it at that .... one only needs to stump via in depth debates for a couple of weeks before the vote. More than enough time . And that would allow a more even footing for other parties .
substance not crap.
no more promises that are never kept. no more half truths or lies about your opponent . .... you get the drift.
it's sickening to see how much money is spent . One should just put the list out there of what they want to accomplish, their idea of how to go about doing that and where they stand on issues and leave it at that .... one only needs to stump via in depth debates for a couple of weeks before the vote. More than enough time . And that would allow a more even footing for other parties .
substance not crap.
Thanks for the lobbed slowpitch:
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act, Pub.L. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81, enacted 2002-03-27) is United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russell Feingold (D-WI). The law became effective on 6 November 2002, and the new legal limits became effective on 1 January 2003.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act
QUOTE (Lt_Ripley @ Aug 21 2008, 01:29 PM)
the only way we are going to break away from this system is to restrict funds ........... keep campaigns to facts alone and hold nothing but debates to be televised and let the average joe make a decision from there.
no more promises that are never kept. no more half truths or lies about your opponent . .... you get the drift.
it's sickening to see how much money is spent . One should just put the list out there of what they want to accomplish, their idea of how to go about doing that and where they stand on issues and leave it at that .... one only needs to stump via in depth debates for a couple of weeks before the vote. More than enough time . And that would allow a more even footing for other parties .
substance not crap.
no more promises that are never kept. no more half truths or lies about your opponent . .... you get the drift.
it's sickening to see how much money is spent . One should just put the list out there of what they want to accomplish, their idea of how to go about doing that and where they stand on issues and leave it at that .... one only needs to stump via in depth debates for a couple of weeks before the vote. More than enough time . And that would allow a more even footing for other parties .
substance not crap.
Ditto Ripley! Money only promotes money (greed). This is one of the "biggies" that is destroying the middle class in the U.S. There should be a cap on campaign funding as well as a good accounting of the spending. No other entity should be aloud to "promote" candidates. Now, how do we define "promote?"
Sorry I didn't take the time to color my opinions as to why the candidates are so different. I pointed you to a relatively honest non-partisan site. Because usually the 'cons will attack just about anything. I'll give you a couple of recent tidbits. Obama for Net neutrality McCain is not. Obama is not for a draft (but national service) McCain just yesterday wants a draft. No I'll give you more. Obama embraces technology. McCain does not (Wife prints his emails for him! what a Luddite). The statistical life expectancy without medical problems for McCain is much less than Obama. McCain voted 100% with the worst and most unpopular president in modern times. Obama did not. Obama wants universal healthcare. McCain does not. McCain is prone to tempramental outbursts, Obama is not.
The two party system won't go away. As others have pointed out in other threads, we don't have a parlimentary system. Two partys is the only way it will really function at the federal level. Sorry to pour cold water but that's the way it is.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.