A new hope?

[lisztisforkids]

Still in its infancy, but hopefully will grow and devolp and end the polarization of American politics.....

 https://www.unityparty.us/index.html

[pianistimo]

clark's revenge.  i don't blame him, necessarily.  it's just that i don't think military guys and veterans would necessarily be the best ones to help out the environment.  they're the ones that smoke cigarettes and end up burning the forest down.

the united part of the united states is becoming somewhat disjointed.  a lot of different viewpoints and perspectives that used to be held up with the idea of toleration - is sort of turning to a 'lets subvert this and that.'  so we can't trust either party because they're sort of easy to read.  one side wants this the other side wants that.  the congress fights so much - they almost need a kindergarten teacher.  noone can agree. 

we basically have two america's.  one is under God. the other is not.  my take is that whoever claims God - is my ally.  i don't care if they are not perfect.  as long as they attempt to be.  look at hezbollah.  they have people rooting behind them simply because they're being shot at now.  i'm not saying the christian thing to do is to wipe out nations that are weak.  in fact - i'm kinda confused by all the bombing.  but, if we let our enemies rule us - they would.  'come over here - and fight on our soil.' yes. that sound really dumb.

as i see it - and boliver might agree with me on this one...even the israeli army does what the usa does and sends down pamphlets on each area that they are going to decimate.  they say -we know you are harboring terrorists - it's going to hell in a handbasket on tuesday.  if people stay - they're bombed.  it's not nice.  i'm not in charge of army things - but can you imagine if we just let them keep on lobbing those wild (goes everywhere - shrapnel stuff) missles that have no target into israel.  they don't even know where they are going to land.  now that's targeting civilians.

don't know very much about clark.  he hasn't done any campagining yet, right?  i hate to say this just yet - because maybe he will ahve some good things to say - but remember ross perot.  he had a lot of common sense.  look what happened to him.  they just took his money.  maybe clark should just take over - like with the rulers in north korea.  a sort of military coup.  (just kidding , really).  having a commander like that might help the army sort things out.  but, for the common people of the united states - we like to see a cowboy just ride in and give them a bust in the mouth.  of course, it's gone way beyond where citizens feel comfortable (both in america and iraq and other parts of the middle east)  we are in a serious conflict and perhaps the ending wasn't as important as the beginning.  as with all gunfights...someone ends up taking the rest of the bullets.

personally, i'd like a cease-fire declared everywhere and start mopping up the mess. the united nations is starting to act in lebanon.  good.  i think that they are sincere right now about helping lebanon and achieving some peace.  that is all fine - if they are sincerely trying to stop the hezbollah in their tracks.  but, if we find out the un is giving them weapons.  we are in a world war.

[prometheus]

Hahaha.

I don't know if you realise it but the 'utopia' is a totalitarian one. You do not want one party of national unity. There are some examples of parties of national unity that were succesful:
Communist Party of Cuba
Communist Party of China
Communist Party of the Soviet Union, of course gone today
People's Action Party, Singapore
Baath Party in both Syria and Iraq, though they both lost total power
Korean Workers' Party

I could go on.

The assumption is a wrong one. You don't want a party of national unity. You want all those parties needed to represent your population. Now surely the US has a wide spectrum of ideas and opinions about politics. You want each and every one of them to be as represented as possible. Of course in practice this will often be limited by efficiency and that is not that bad.


The main difference between democrats and republicans is in style. That is why elections are about qualities, not about issues. During presidential elections people do not know the positions of candidates on issues. So how can they be polarised? They even know the two parties are the same and that their vote doesn't really matter. There are of course third parties but they won't get any votes.

As for polarisation. It seemed to be there, but it is kind of strange. The democrats and the republicans agree on almost all topics. Now the positions of the American population and that of their politicians differ greatly. For example, the US people think one of the most important issues is how to finance health care. But Kerry didn't even dared to discuss the issue of public health care.
Another thing is, most of the American people thought that Bush was for the Kyoto protocol. The idea behind that is: Bush has nice qualities, I like to have a drink with him in a pup+I think Kyoto is a good idea=Bush surely must be pro-Kyoto. The same goes for those that liked Bush but didn't like Kyoto. They think Bush is con-Kyoto. But a large majoty of tje Americans were pro-Kyoto. Same goes for Kerry of course.

So the Kyoto issue was neutralised. The politicians do the same with the other topics where politicians have different stanches than the population. This is a common tactic. So you should pay notice to that what is not discussed. Also, the same goes for media. The most interesting is that what they choose not to report and why.

Political analysists, and I mean american ones, were amazing that the democrats didn't even tried to wage opposition against the republicans, for example on the issue of the Iraq war. And I mean after the 2004 election.

So no, instead of trying to reduce democracy you should try to increase it. You people need more debate, more diversity, etc etc.


Now about the actual positions of this party and if they are really about the idea they try to invoke, I'll can't really comment on that because it is rather thin and I don't know that much about US domestic policy. I am not able to computate the effect of the short statements they have on their site on domestic policy.

[thalbergmad]

I could go on.

I think you did

This thread is well complex.

Me don't understand any of it.

You people is massive intelligent.

respect

Thal

[lisztisforkids]

Hahaha.





The assumption is a wrong one. You don't want a party of national unity. You want all those parties needed to represent your population. Now surely the US has a wide spectrum of ideas and opinions about politics. You want each and every one of them to be as represented as possible. Of course in practice this will often be limited by efficiency and that is not that bad.


The main difference between democrats and republicans is in style. That is why elections are about qualities, not about issues. During presidential elections people do not know the positions of candidates on issues. So how can they be polarised? They even know the two parties are the same and that their vote doesn't really matter. There are of course third parties but they won't get any votes.

As for polarisation. It seemed to be there, but it is kind of strange. The democrats and the republicans agree on almost all topics. Now the positions of the American population and that of their politicians differ greatly. For example, the US people think one of the most important issues is how to finance health care. But Kerry didn't even dared to discuss the issue of public health care.

 You are absolutely crazy. American politics is totally polarized and partisan. I can not beleive you are claiming that Democrats and Republicans agree on most subject, maybe from across the world it looks like that because the Republicans have pushed thier agenda so far... This country is governed by the far right (Bush, Frist) and the far left (hillary, reid) there really is hardly any middle left in america politics. That why the Unity party was formed, the unity party is not seeking to make the US a one party nation, the unity party is a third party that seeks to bring american politics back to the middle.

Hahaha.

I don't know if you realise it but the 'utopia' is a totalitarian one. You do not want one party of national unity. There are some examples of parties of national unity that were succesful:
Communist Party of Cuba
Communist Party of China
Communist Party of the Soviet Union, of course gone today
People's Action Party, Singapore
Baath Party in both Syria and Iraq, though they both lost total power
Korean Workers' Party

I could go on.

 Excuse me? Did you even look at thier website? the unity party is not a communist or socialist party. You just assumed they were communist dident you?  

[jas]

I think you did

This thread is well complex.

Me don't understand any of it.

You people is massive intelligent.

respect

Thal

I have to agree with the ever-practical thalbergmad on this. I don't know that we
Brits are cut out for this kind of thing. We like slagging off Blair (or Bliar, if you like) and Vicky Beckham. That's what we're good at... Gotta love Brittania.

[musik_man]

Prometheus, Kerry did in fact talk about health care in the campaign.  It was his number 1 issue.  I bolded that because you didn't seem to notice it last time I responded to your silly claim. If you make it again, I may be forced to use capital letters in response.

[prometheus]

Prometheus, Kerry did in fact talk about health care in the campaign.  It was his number 1 issue.  I bolded that because you didn't seem to notice it last time I responded to your silly claim. If you make it again, I may be forced to use capital letters in response.

I talked about national funded health care, which the majority of the population supports. Isn't that what public health care means? Health care finanched by the public through taxes?
The only think he said is "I don't force you to do anything. It's not a government plan."

Then political analysts analyse the debates, New York Times, By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: October 31, 2004 :

But there is so little political support for government intervention in the health care market in the United States that Senator John Kerry took pains in a recent presidential debate to say that his plan for expanding access to health insurance would not create a new government program.


He must understand what 'political support' means. It means support from other politicians, not that from the voters.

You will see the same things in other media after the debate. Many people pointed out that Kerry never supported public health care. Yes, health care may have been his no.1 issue and the no.1 concern of the population, he did not do it.

Now you keep claiming that you can ignore polls but the opinion of the US people is the best one researched in the world. The US has the best polling industry because the corporations need to know what people think. All points show a majority of the population supporting it, the number is around 2/3.

The same goes for Israel. When Kerry was asked about Iran vs Israel first he talked about how interesting it was and then he switched to North Korea and doesn't answer the question at all

Edwards did talk about it. Actually, in the vice-presidential debate it seemed it was possible to have more issues rather than qualities. Edwards said Israel ought to defend themselves, that Arafat was no parter in peace, not talking about Sharon being worse, and then he started to talk about a suicide bomber, dead Israeli children and how bad it was. The issue of the occupied territories and the Israeli settlements and annexation was not brought up.

Then Cheney claimed that Saddam Hussain generated suicide bombers by paying the family of an already dead suicide bomber 25,000 dollar. I don't know how that works. I mean, would anyone here commit suicide if someone payed your family 25,000 afterwards? How does that work?

That's all on these two major issues.

Fact is that neither wanted to sign Kyoto either. Both supported the Iraq was while the whole world knew it was a bad idea. The list goes on.

The differences? Stem Cell research and homosexuality. And of course the qualities. Some people would like to have a drink with Bush, others with Kerry.

In the end only 10% of the voters claimed they voted on issues.

[prometheus]

You are absolutely crazy. American politics is totally polarized and partisan. I can not beleive you are claiming that Democrats and Republicans agree on most subject, maybe from across the world it looks like that because the Republicans have pushed thier agenda so far... This country is governed by the far right (Bush, Frist) and the far left (hillary, reid) there really is hardly any middle left in america politics.

No. If you compare the two parties to the opinion of the american people then already they agree on most issues. If you compare them to the world spectrum then they are both two factions of the same party, a party on the far right.
I can't say how Hillary Clinton is on the far left. The US doesn't even have a left. There are people on the left and on the far left in the US. But they don't resemble Clinton, or Dean or not even Ralph Nader, if we talk about far left. Ralph Nader could be considered left. He does not resemble anyone in the Democrats by far.

Actually, some republicans are more on the left than some democrats. I am sure that if I would vote in the US I would end up voting for Republicans because I agree with them more.

That why the Unity party was formed, the unity party is not seeking to make the US a one party nation, the unity party is a third party that seeks to bring american politics back to the middle. 

The Unity party does not want to create Unity? The point was that you need diversity, otherwise you will have a system like the parties I mentioned. Now all of them were either communist of socialist but that was because I did not continue. And that was not the point. The point was nationalism and unity. And that is bad.

You need to bring politics closer to the people so that it actually starts to resemble the people, not the elite. You need to have people vote on issues and not on qualities after an insane PR campaign run by the public relations campaign. Then anyone can be elected. So a factory worker could become US president and represent the people. Just like happens in some countries that do better at democracy. Like Bolivia.


Could you please explain me on which points the republicans and the democrats are so polarised? What are the major issues they strongly oppose each other?

I must admit that I once also thought that the US was polarised. In a sense during the election it was. But this was not because they were polarised on issues. They were polarised because one side was cheering for Kerry while the other side was cheering for Bush, both oblivious to issues. After the elections it stopped since it was no longer an event happening.

So yes, maybe the cheerleaders were polarised. But I was talking about the politicians themselves.

[pianistimo]

why rehash an old election.  the american people don't vote on issues?  only 10 % do?  where do you get this?  are you saying 90 % are stupid.  i think that everyone has some issues that are more important to them than others.  just because you pick health care doesn't mean that someone else should pick that, too - otherwise they're the 10 %.  that is random.  not even a poll.  not worthy of a poll.

you want the usa socialized.  why.  so you can see us groping around for the nearest doctor in the dark?  what kinds of malpractice are you preventing?  some say all of it because doctors would all be paid the same, regardless.  well, then if someone didn't like what kind of job a doctor was doing - there wouldn't be the checks and balances in place.  that's my opinion, only - and probably a poor way of thinking - but although i like hmo's - i do not like the feeling of control sliding away.  where you are forced to go where the prices are better and yet the accounting department is never itemizing hospital bills. 

i think, if you came to america, you'd be pleased at the system already in place.  if you pay into your system of health care - you get generally good quality.  for those that complain - perhaps they should become naturalized citizens?  that seems like a novel idea.  when you pay taxes - you are already paying for many other services.  it isn't like we have this huge surplus of money to also pay for standardized health care.  pennies on the dollar is what you would see - or else you would see taxes rise.

do you realize how much europe charges it's citizens in taxes.  we have taxes, too, but not always built into the cost of living as much as europe (if i understand correctly).  i may be wrong - but there is a blessing here for working hard and getting an education.  doctors don't want to settle for patients that can't pay - and  patients don't want to settle for mediocre health care.  you know, standing in line for hours (like we already do for emergency care sometimes - but not always).  europe is not the standard, imo.  of course, people claim it is so inexpensive.  but at what cost.  you stand in line for several hours?  people aren't used to that here.  we may be spoiled - but we're not going to give up the right to work hard and enjoy the fruits.
 

[pianistimo]

i think one of the issues that we are discussing right now is an 'ideal' society.  if everyone were honest, if everyone were just, if everyone were true - we could ahve a very good society and probaby one with socialized health care.  the fact of the matter - is there is corruption.  look at how much honest citizens donated to the hurricane katrina relief, and yet we find out later much of it was misused and misaligned to some people who were not even real victims of the hurricane.  also, insurance fraud, etc. etc.  we are trying to always come up with ways to prevent identity theft.  we have to pay fot he extra insurance for that now at banks.  to me, this is idiocy.  capital punishment should be reinstated for those that are too poor to repay stolen money (just kidding on that one).  but, i do sort of believe that they should work for many years to repay it and not get off the hook.  now, bankrupcy is becomign a harder thing to accomplish - and i fairly like the idea of debt repayment anyway.

the only system of freedom from debt that i see in the bible is the 'jubilee' where every 50 years, people are released from debt.  this seems fair since even the land would go back to the original owners  - thus keeping greedy banks and people from taking land fromt he poor.  i thinkGod has a system that is far fairer than any government on earth.  every three years the fallow land is harvested (from previous crops that return) and given to the poor.  also, biblical people were told to harvest the 'corners'of their crops every year.  and never to turn away the poor.  the governments of the world are not concerned about the people that fall through the cracks.

[arensky]

No. If you compare the two parties to the opinion of the american people then already they agree on most issues. If you compare them to the world spectrum then they are both two factions of the same party, a party on the far right.
I can't say how Hillary Clinton is on the far left. The US doesn't even have a left. There are people on the left and on the far left in the US. But they don't resemble Clinton, or Dean or not even Ralph Nader, if we talk about far left. Ralph Nader could be considered left. He does not resemble anyone in the Democrats by far.

Actually, some republicans are more on the left than some democrats. I am sure that if I would vote in the US I would end up voting for Republicans because I agree with them more.

Indeed Ralph Nader is the only real leftist choice for high office in American politics, and the only one with any integrity. We do have a left but they are marginalized because they mostly belong to the Democrats, who have cleverly subverted and brainwashed the left while claiming to be their standard bearer. Insidious liars and hypocrites. Well not all of them, but mostly. The Republicans at least are honest about their evil intentions.

Prometheus; you agree with the Republicans more? Very interesting! Do talk about this, I'm listening...

Ok, the Unity Party. It must be a scam. No one will vote for them; a 30% flat tax for all people who make more than $30,000 dollars a year. That is ludicrous. It would put me and almost all other small businesses out of business, and drive most regularly employed people into penury.  The only people who would benefit from this are the poor, who would have to remain poor to benefit.  Very un-American!  Sure it would be great to deduct all our healthcare expenses, but if these did not equal 30% of our income we would be even more in the hole. These people are insane. There must be a hook or hidden motive in this somewhere. This slogan is simplistic and appeals to the uneducated, a catch phrase. "Fifty four forty or fight" at least had a nice alliteration. Let's keep going.

"Generational Justice"... why should 16 year olds vote? At least not until we clean up the shambles that is education in this country. Most teenagers do not have the knowledge or grasp of the issues to make an intelligent desicion in an election. I first voted as a teenager in 1980. I would not vote for Mr. Carter again. Thank god not too many others did... we would be speaking Russian!

( we would have better classical piano, though...  )

I do not wish to raise the voting age, but lowering it given our present lack of political awareness and the general American suceptibility to sound bites would be a mistake.


"Economic Based Affirmative Action". What a crock of s***. How about intelligence based affirmative action.

I do not wish to repeal the current USA affirmative action policies/programs. There is still a lot of racism to be expunged from our society.


"Social Security Tithe Pool".  This would change nothing in the current set up of social security. But again, like 30 over 30 it would raise taxes astronomically. Again. These people are insane.


"Natural Presidents Amendment". Hey LFK, ya want prometheus to move here and run for President?

*** prometheus immediately applies for student visa, marries the checkout girl at the Wal-Mart,      moves into a trailer park and is elected USA President on the Unity Party ticket in 2028. Appoints arensky to the newly created cabinet post "Secretary of Art" ***.   

"Carb Balancing" At first glance I thought this was an anti-supersizing food nazi health intiative. I'm not kidding. Again, more f*****g taxes!    Let's just reduce our dependency on fossil fuels for fuel. We need the petroleum for plastics, this is a better use for it as the plastic can be recycled later.

"Dividend Tax Reduction" A giant tax break for corparations. They don't need anymore breaks.

"Balanced Budget Amendment" This is a good idea but it cannot practically be acheived at this point in time because of the way things are. But with all the taxes these thieves want to inflict on us, maybe it could be done. I don't think most Americans would accept this plundering of their income, particularly when the big corporations are getting the Dividend Tax Reduction.

The implementation of the Unity Party programs in the USA would result in a huge poverty ridden uneducated underclass that would undermine and would destroy any possibility for the individual "pursuit of happiness" which Mr. Jefferson felt we were entitled to, except for the very, very rich. Fortunately, they will not get far. What they are thinking, I have no idea. They will never be elected. Someone must be making money off of this, somehow, somewhere.

[le_poete_mourant]

This country is governed by the far right (Bush, Frist) and the far left (hillary, reid) there really is hardly any middle left in america politics.

"Extremists run this country because the moderates have $h!t to do."  -- Jon Stewart.   

The Unity Party seems to have lots of ideas of what would make the country better, just not ideas on how to implement these ideas. 

[BoliverAllmon]

what will happen when the unity party begins to gain some votes or power will be that either the dems or reps will adopt some of their ideas and absorb the party. Once the party is abolished everyone will go back to their extremist ways. I agree that their is no middle ground out there. Look at Liebermann. I don't see him as middle ground, but apparently if you are a dem and agree with Bush on anything you are not Democratic enough therefore the party will turn its back on you.

boliver

[prometheus]

Well, isn't that just the point I am trying to make? Liebermann lost becase he agreed with Bush on several points, and disagrees with the general population.

And who is this opponent he lost to? A multi-millionaire. Hahaha, the irony.


I don't really understand when you say that Liebermann isn't middle ground enough. So, in the political spectrum itself, is he too much towards the democrats? Or towards the republicans? Too left or too right?

Or is he too much on the side of the political elite rather than being one of the people?

[BoliverAllmon]

I think of him as more left than center. Not as extreme as some, but still left.

boliver

[prometheus]

I don't know Liebermann very well but what are his leftist positions? Which positions does he need to change to reach your 'middle'?

And who is precicely in the middle?

And public opinion. Is that in the left? The right? Or the exact middle?

[lisztisforkids]

"Generational Justice"... why should 16 year olds vote? At least not until we clean up the shambles that is education in this country. Most teenagers do not have the knowledge or grasp of the issues to make an intelligent desicion in an election. 

 

"Economic Based Affirmative Action". What a crock of s***. How about intelligence based affirmative action.

I do not wish to repeal the current USA affirmative action policies/programs. There is still a lot of racism to be expunged from our society.

 I think that it is wrong to give out money/vouchers to school based on ones skin color. It dosent make sense that if I am just as poor as my neighbor, but my neighbor is black so he gets a bunch of crap. I have a freind that is a Native America that s getting a free ride to college while I have to work my ass off to get there. There was a time for Affirmitve action, when the system was against minoritys advancing. Affirmitive Action dosent solve any rascism problems... But at the same time, I reconize the dispairty between whites and non-whites, and whats the best way to help a population? An education... A neccesary evil?

"Natural Presidents Amendment". Hey LFK, ya want prometheus to move here and run for President?

The implementation of the Unity Party programs in the USA would result in a huge poverty ridden uneducated underclass that would undermine and would destroy any possibility for the individual "pursuit of happiness" which Mr. Jefferson felt we were entitled to, except for the very, very rich. Fortunately, they will not get far. What they are thinking, I have no idea. They will never be elected. Someone must be making money off of this, somehow, somewhere.

 I dont think thats true. I dont beleive that there intiatives would result in a wasteland or anything. I think what appeals to me is that there basic ideology is middle of the road...

[BoliverAllmon]

I don't know Liebermann very well but what are his leftist positions? Which positions does he need to change to reach your 'middle'?

And who is precicely in the middle?

And public opinion. Is that in the left? The right? Or the exact middle?

he votes 90% of the time right along with his party. I view middle as someone who votes closer to 50% with their party and 50% with the other side.

I tend to think of Schwarzenegger as a somewhat middle kind of guy. He is Rep. when it comes to economic issues, but is very democratic on moral issues (abortion and things). Giulliani (sp?) is another that comes to mind.

boliver

[prometheus]

So just inbetween the two american parties, that are largely the same, is also the center of all politics?

You don't think you are a bit biased there? What about the positions of the american people? Let alone those of the rest of the word.


And still, why do the two parties need to approach each other even more? Shouldn't one be able to vote for Kyoto and against, for military support for Israel and against? For pre-emptive war and against. For public health care and against? Etc Etc? So shouldn't one party disagree with the other here to give voters more possibilities?

I mean, what democracy is left when all politicians say the same thing and those that have other opinions aren't allowed in?

[BoliverAllmon]

So just inbetween the two american parties, that are largely the same, is also the center of all politics?

You don't think you are a bit biased there? What about the positions of the american people? Let alone those of the rest of the word.


And still, why do the two parties need to approach each other even more? Shouldn't one be able to vote for Kyoto and against, for military support for Israel and against? For pre-emptive war and against. For public health care and against? Etc Etc? So shouldn't one party disagree with the other here to give voters more possibilities?

I mean, what democracy is left when all politicians say the same thing and those that have other opinions aren't allowed in?

no having everyone agree on the same thing is definately not the way to go, but I hate it when politicians blindly follow their parties.

boliver

[prometheus]

Ok, I understand what you are after. Yes, its a problem of political parties. They rarely allow people to derive from the party line because it weakens the image and contract of the party.
The party leadership dictates who is going to raise in the party hierarchy.

At least that is the case in my country. Isn't it very different in yours? I mean, Lieberman can still run as senator. In my country this is not possible.


But still the biggest problem is that neither of the two political parties represent the population. They are both too pro-business and pro-upper class.

[BoliverAllmon]

Though liebermann will try to run as senator the likelihood of him being voted in is next to zero. Most people will see that voting for an independent candidate is a waste of vote. Even if he is voted in, he does not have a majority party backing him and helping him out. Hence, if they are dems they vote dems and vice versa.

boliver

[arensky]

 I dont think thats true. I dont beleive that there intiatives would result in a wasteland or anything. I think what appeals to me is that there basic ideology is middle of the road...

Your quoting is screwed up.

The programs should  be maintained until all workforces in all fields are integrated. This is happening but more needs to be done. There are abuses of these programs, but it's helped the USA become a more open society, for everyone, not just for white people.

Forty years ago your Native American ( they liked to be referred to by their tribe name btw, not by that politically correct moniker) friend could probably not have attended college, at least not comfortably. Take a drive through the Navajo or Apache nations, there's not a lot of educational resources or opportunities, or anything to do with an education. If these people ( subjugated, nearly exterminated, relocated to the worst land the USA govt. could find for them that they did not want for themsleves, then adminstered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to keep them down) are not helped they will remain an underclass. If they can receive an "education" (another topic)  they will be able to improve their lot. Or so the theory goes. And it's the least the government can do to make up for past injustice.

And in my college classes they are stellar students, they really want to learn. From my vantage point (teacher) they deserve a free ride. The white kids are largely a bunch of promiscuous meth smoking entitled whiners who don't want to learn anything, they just want the diploma so they can get into a job interview. They don't appreciate what they have and how good they have it.  Ask your friend what he thinks about this...

Ah thinks you are just jealous and wants da free ride too. 

It's ok, "working your ass off" is good for you! Builds discipline and character. 

You "don't think that's true". You obviously don't manage money or pay taxes. Think a little more.

[arensky]

Though liebermann will try to run as senator the likelihood of him being voted in is next to zero. Most people will see that voting for an independent candidate is a waste of vote. Even if he is voted in, he does not have a majority party backing him and helping him out. Hence, if they are dems they vote dems and vice versa.

boliver

Connecticut has a history of supporting  and electing independent candidates, Lowell Weicker was a Republican senator from there and then was elected governor, as an independent candidate. This was in the 1980's and is not forgotten in Connecticut, although the news media have not mentioned this factor in reporting this election, nor the Rassmussen poll of Connecticut voters two days after the primary election... https://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/August%202006/ConnecticutSenate.htm

Many Republicans in Connecticut will vote for Lieberman to keep Lamont from winning. I think these "Lieberman Republicans" already figure in that poll. Connecticut is not as solidly Democratic as the media has made it out to be, Mr. Lamont has some work to do, he is an unknown quantity and New Englanders don't like that. They will vote for the person who has a proven track record of working for their state and "bringing home the bacon". Look at Senator Kennedy in Massachusetts, the people there complain about him and make fun of him and his personal misadventures, but he gets the job done. There have been a few close elections for him but he has been re-elected as Senator for 44 years, and not just on the allure of his family name. He works hard for Massachusetts. At any rate will see what happens in CT in November, more interesting than the elections in my state, where the results seem to be a foregone conclusion.

[Mozartian]

Am I the only one who saw the thread title and said "oooh, star wars thread!'

...

Yeah, I thought so.

[prometheus]

Nerd.

[BoliverAllmon]

Connecticut has a history of supporting  and electing independent candidates, Lowell Weicker was a Republican senator from there and then was elected governor, as an independent candidate. This was in the 1980's and is not forgotten in Connecticut, although the news media have not mentioned this factor in reporting this election, nor the Rassmussen poll of Connecticut voters two days after the primary election... https://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/August%202006/ConnecticutSenate.htm

Many Republicans in Connecticut will vote for Lieberman to keep Lamont from winning. I think these "Lieberman Republicans" already figure in that poll. Connecticut is not as solidly Democratic as the media has made it out to be, Mr. Lamont has some work to do, he is an unknown quantity and New Englanders don't like that. They will vote for the person who has a proven track record of working for their state and "bringing home the bacon". Look at Senator Kennedy in Massachusetts, the people there complain about him and make fun of him and his personal misadventures, but he gets the job done. There have been a few close elections for him but he has been re-elected as Senator for 44 years, and not just on the allure of his family name. He works hard for Massachusetts. At any rate will see what happens in CT in November, more interesting than the elections in my state, where the results seem to be a foregone conclusion.

thanks for pointing this out. I was unaware of CT political history. I think there are only a ffew (3-5) independents in the entire country so CT stands out against the norm on that issue. From what I have heard about Lamont, I would also vote Liebermann just to make sure that Lamont loses.

boliver

[prometheus]

So what's wrong with Lamont?

[BoliverAllmon]

Too far left for me. I don't agree with his Iraq stance. He thinks we need to get out of there, but we do need to be peace makers in the middle east. so which is it?

I dont agree with free health care for everyone. I think it is a good idea, but first you have to fix the increasing prices first otherwise you will have another bankrupt program on your hands just like medicare.

I think the Patriot Act and wiretapping are vital for our safety, he doesn't.

I am against abortion and the morning after pill available over the counter. It should have a prescription and if a company (like wal-mart) doesn't want to carry it they shouldn't have to.

I am against homosexual marriage.

I think we should use cord blood stem cells. they work just as well for research and we have a vast more available to us.

I can't tell if he is for or against creationism in the science classroom. Either way I am for teaching it. Not that it should be the only thing taught, but I don't think it should be considered taboo.

This is what I know of so far.

[prometheus]

For a second I thought he was the republican candidate...


Anyway, I think you are very very conservative. He is not too left. He is too progressive for you because you are one of the US christian fundamentalists, a very large minority. This guy is a multi-millionare. He will not be taking away rights of corporations or strenghten the positions of the working class. This guy is probably more for the upper class than Lieberman or the republican candidate. This means I may up ending voting the same guy as you if we would both live in that state. Isn't that strange? I mean, I am both far left and far progressive.
Just look at very succesful people comming from the private world, owning a lot of money. It won't be very pretty.


Also, the US health care system is by far the most expensive one in the western world. It is also has very poor results regardless of the cost. So it is extremely inefficient.

The problem is that an attempt to make health care cheaper by cutting bureaucracy etc the pharmacy industry will make less profit. Thus a total reform does not happen.

Now, if you are a true conservative you should be in favor of a reform.

Fact is that there isn't a conservative christian part. In my country we have three christian parties that hold seats. One is so conservative that they only have two of the 150 seats and all of them vote fanatically. Now they are way way way way out of the mainstream. Our country was the first with gay marriages. Same goes for abortion and euthanasia. So imagine an Amnish party in the US.

Same goes with libertarians and classical liberalists(actual capitalists). Same goes for a real left, enviromentalists, etc. I think the next election we will have a party that solely focusses on animal rights and I will vote for them. They must get one seat this time.

Imagine a communist party in the US. Or at least a socialist one, conservative actual left. Then a progressive party. What about a workers party? Or a party for ethnic minorities. Imagine black people creating a party calling for reperation payments because of the slavery. Or the native americans calling for recognition of the genocide and thus an independent state in current US country.

[BoliverAllmon]

I am not really that far right. I am pretty central. I am more left on social issues, but right on economic issues. am I left? nah, but not very very conservative.

this biggest reason I would not vote for Lamont is his stand on Iraq. I think cutting and running is the worse thing to do. Even if you don't agree with us going in, you now have a responsibility and that responsibility will not allow us to just leave.

boliver

[prometheus]

There is more than one axis. The religious ideas you have do make you a conservative. And that doesn't naturally mean you are far right. Religious nuts can be on the left.



The US has a responsibility. Yes they have, and a very big one. They have a huge responsiblity towards the Iraqi people. But these Iraqi people want the US military out. So if you think you have a responsibility towards them then how can you claim the US needs to stay? Isn't that amazing reasoning? And it seems so logical, yes. But why?
So the one thing the US needs to do is to accept their responisbility and leave. Second, the US need to pay reparations for the damage they caused.


As for Iraqi's internal problems. The US can't fix them. The Iraqi people themselves are responsible for this. You can only do what the Iraqi people ask from the US.

Frankly, the US doesn't care about their responsibility towards the Iraqi people at all. On the contrary.Look at the past. It is silly. It is silly to suggest otherwise. Countries that invade other countries never pay reparations willingly. They never accept the will of the people. They never feel responsible for the violence and destruction they have caused.

Now I am sure this Lamont is pulling the populist card. It is very easy for him to say this. He doesn't take any risks and gets free votes. I am not sure which argument he is using. Surely this guy is going to play the games of politics smart. But regardless of this, if you really believe the US has a responsibility towards the Iraqi people then the only conclusion can be that they need to accept the will of the Iraqi people and leave. So my reason for saying that the foreign armies need to leave is exactly this reason. Because it is totally unclear if this will turn out for the best. I don't really know what would be the best for Iraq. But because the US is the agressor and responsible for all the violence in Iraq they can't even consider what to do. They just need to respect the wish of the people and leave. Then they need to pay reparations.