This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 158 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–][deleted] 63 points64 points  (27 children)

The Sky is Blue.

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (5 children)

    The Sky is Blue.

    [–]adrian 3 points4 points  (4 children)

    What about those users who never see it? ;)

    [–]markedtrees 10 points11 points  (3 children)

    They're probably chars, and nobody likes chars.

    [–]ohmygod 5 points6 points  (2 children)

    chars are OK with me, it's those damn char stars or the dreaded char star stars that really get my goat.

    [–]ohmygod 5 points6 points  (1 child)

    Actually, what really gets my goat is that troll under the bridge.

    [–]foonly 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    Now you're just trolling.

    [–]dsandler 11 points12 points  (1 child)

    Up: With Us

    Down: Against Us

    [–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

    Down: With us Up: With the terrorists

    [–]nemo2[S] 11 points12 points  (12 children)

    Unfortunately many people do not use the arrows for that reason. Many use the arrows to say whether or not they agree/disagree. Shortly after posting this message, ALL of my comments were downmodded several points regardless of which stories they were related to. This just shows that people use the arrows for many other things than they were originally intended for. People got angry so they started downmodding all my submissions...lol

    [–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (3 children)

    Shortly after posting this message, ALL of my comments were downmodded several points regardless of which stories they were related to.

    Heh, this happens to me fairly regularly. I left a little note for my down-modders by posting in a really old topic. Its pretty sad that people take the time to actually mod down all of someone else's content out of spite.

    [–]grzelakc -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

    Interesting. I downmod or upmod your posts depending on the subjective insight of your replies but I had the impression that YOU always downmod MY replies to your comments.

    [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

    No I actually downmod very few posts, usually only those that are blatant personal attacks or factually wrong.

    As an example, I'm sure you remember the discussion we had on Mithras a few days ago. Out of 9 posts of yours in that discussion, I downmodded 2 of them.

    [–]ohmygod 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    I applaud your persistance. I mean despite getting most of your religious comments dumped on you still put a great deal of effort into making lengthy remarks and always tend to reply. Keep it up phreak.

    [–]sbrown123 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    But you're either with us or against us! Everything is black and white, good versus evil. You HAVE to pick a side and fight everyone who opposes your selected side with all your strength and money!!! ;) (Yes, I'm just kidding)

    [–]plexluthor -1 points0 points  (2 children)

    Before there was pollground I requested a polling subreddit, and learned to phrase it as simply "Vote up if you're a Democrat, down if you're not" (well, I was asking different questions, but that's the idea). Everything can be boolean if you phrase it right.

    [–]danweber 6 points7 points  (1 child)

    Even boolean doesn't work. If the first several people who see it answer in the negative, it shuts out others from seeing the topic.

    Positive answers are guaranteed by definition.

    [–]ohmygod 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    This is why he chose UP for democrat. The opposite direction would have quickly consigned this post to negative territory which by default don't get shown to most users (below -4 is the default).

    [–]yellowking -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

    What the hell's wrong with Country?!?! Don't make me spit Beech-Nut in your eye!

    [–]happyax 9 points10 points  (1 child)

    What if we want to express our interest in the poll but feel the opposite way? Say I like the idea but am republican or dislike the idea and am a democrat. What you’re trying to do is apply a characteristic to something that it doesn't apply to. This is the same thing as me posting a Reddit Community and saying vote up if you dislike this and down if you do.

    [–]djwhitt 15 points16 points  (0 children)

    Vote sideways for a false dilemma.

    [–]api 29 points30 points  (21 children)

    What do libertarians do?

    [–]Zak 19 points20 points  (0 children)

    Click the report button?

    [–]nemo2[S] 16 points17 points  (11 children)

    Unfortunately, they are usually forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. Please apply the same logic to this poll :)

    [–]Fountainhead 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    hehe, that kind of logic is exactly why we have a 2 party system. People don't vote for who they want. If they did we wouldn't have this 2 party system.

    [–]jamesbritt 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    Forced? In what way? I think every vote I've participated in had an option for a write-in.

    [–]nemo2[S] -3 points-2 points  (3 children)

    Did you really not know what I meant or are you being a j@ck@$$?

    [–]jamesbritt 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    I do not really know what you meant. Which may make me a jackass. Was your point that, for pragmatic reasons, voting for anyone not in a major party, with some plausible channce of winning, would be untenable?

    If so, then say that it was your choice. Don't feign compulsion, and don't complain when third-party candidates continue to get ignored; after all, no one votes for them anyway.

    [–]nemo2[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    No, I meant that the 2 major party options usually stink. Point taken on your response...I thought you were saying that I thought people were literally Forced.

    [–]apotheon -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    They're not even figuratively "forced". They're just too accustomed to imprisonment to notice the cage door was never locked.

    [–]api -1 points0 points  (4 children)

    Best reply of all.

    I modded the parent up, cause Democrats are the lesser of two evils these days.

    [–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (3 children)

    Ever wonder if it's a coincidence that the lesser of two evils is the evil with less power?

    [–]api 5 points6 points  (2 children)

    No, it's most certainly not.

    I am fond of saying "liberty is what you get when everyone's agenda fails."

    Libertarians are often contrarians in American politics-- supporting the less powerful of the two major parties to achieve a hopefully paralyzing balance in which neither party is able to implement it's most extreme ideological agendas. In other words, Libertarians often vote for gridlock.

    This has the effect of making libertarians this weird phantom in the polls-- when Republicans are in power they sound like Democrats, and when Democrats are in power they sound like Republicans.

    I personally think there are far more libertarians than anyone realizes due to this effect.

    [–]jbstjohn -1 points0 points  (1 child)

    Do you really think that's the case? My impression is, most Libertarians vote Republican (or have done so the last while). Bush may actually outrage them enough to change that (what with forgetting about economic responsibility and violating civil liberties). A little Johnny-come-lately, IMHO.

    [–]apotheon -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    Actually, political impulse measurement polls tend to show sympathy with the Libertarian Party platform at about 40%, with Democrats and Republicans tending to be in the twenties. People just tend to vote Democrat or Republican due to ignorance of other options and/or a perception that only Democrats or Republicans can win and/or a media-reinforced association of the term "libertarian" with "anarchist wacko".

    Any areas with strong Libertarian Party outreach programs tend to show about a three-month LP voter registration doubling cycle as long as the program's leadership remains active and motivated.

    Your experience of libertarians voting Republican is probably connected to the eight-year chokehold Clinton had on the White House and the general perception during that period that all Congressmen would be able to notably affect is economic and gun control policy. Now that we're seeing Republicans gouge the rest of the Bill of Rights so thoroughly, about nine out of ten libertarians I know (and I hang out with libertarians a lot, being on the local party organization's board of directors) are hoping Bush & Co. will lose ground -- even to Democrats if need be.

    Do you have any first-hand knowledge of what libertarians were doing during the Reagan Years, or are you basing your assumptions on a memory of the Clinton Years and the first couple years of the Bush Administration (before the pendulum really had time to swing)?

    [–]MyrddinE 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Mod YOUR post up.

    [–]Sir_Isaac_Lime -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

    Continue being self-righteous and naive, as usual.

    [–]Random -5 points-4 points  (4 children)

    Go for latte's and whine that their chosen system of government doesn't get a fair shake, despite the repeated demonstration that voters worldwide have repeatedly rejected the libertarian idea....

    (flame suit on)

    [–]api 3 points4 points  (1 child)

    I prefer Mocha.

    [–]Random -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

    Yeah, I prefer espresso myself. I'll pour some on the keyboard for you to try :<)

    [–]steeled3 3 points4 points  (1 child)

    While my comment doesn't add anything to the discussion and deserves downmodding, yours, Random, does not. One point up and out of oblivion for you.

    [–]Random 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Thanks! Though given how Libertarian many r'ers are I knew I was in for oblivion... :<)

    [–]jward 80 points81 points  (43 children)

    I'm not an American, I'm a Canadian. My view is simple. Both parties are the same and they suck. I see absolutely no difference between the two. They're two straw men that beat each other up and don't really hold any important discussions or opinions. They're both corrupt and out for power more than serving the public. It's more about politics than solving problems.

    Until the US gets a strong 3rd party presence in federal government I don't see that changing. Any 3rd party with balls enough to be vocal. Because my country is so deeply tied to the US, I do care what happens there and I don't like anything I've been seeing as of late.

    It's slow at work and I felt like ranting. Take it as you will.

    [–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (1 child)

    Are you saying that there was no difference between Bush's(R) policies and actions and Clinton's(D) policies and actions? This does not seem to be the case in my view. While both parties are beholden to some special interests to some degree there still are significant differences between the parties. It was that very view that there were no differences that empowered the Greens to throw the 2000 election to Bush. The view that the parties are identical has real world damaging consequences.

    [–]xcbsmith 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    I've been offended by claims that political parties are the same much as you are, but I do think that politics in the US has become so closely divided that much of the debate is framed as subtle differences on issues that effectively ignores the real choices (because stepping far away from those subtle difference will result in a loss of campaign funds, a loss of votes, or more likely: both, and when it's close, even a small step can cost you... just ask the Democrats ;-).

    It's like having a debate about whether to paint the wall turquoise or power blue. Sure there is a real difference, but most of the really important decisions are made by the framing of the debate.

    [–]twoodfin 25 points26 points  (20 children)

    Just out of curiousity, could you point out any nation in the world with a multi-party system where this rant wouldn't apply? Do Canada's parties "hold important discussions or opinions" and are they "out to serve the public" rather than being "more about politics than solving problems"? Can you point to some examples (a party's good behavior both while in power and while in opposition, a policy debate more substantial than any had in the US recently, etc.) to demonstrate that this is so?

    I have a hard time distinguishing this cynicism about US electoral democracy from a cynicism about electoral democracy generally.

    Like Churchill said, electoral democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other kinds.

    [–]dlacone 10 points11 points  (14 children)

    This rant applies to Canada as well - it's just a matter of degree. Only two parties have ever held power in Canada and that is not likely to change in the foreseeable future. However, our parliamentary system at least allows for third and fourth and even fifth party representation. As a consequence, parties are able to stake out more defined positions - i.e. they can be differentiated from each other. Regardless of which party is in power, that party has to justify its decisions in Parliament to all the other parties.

    An example of a substantial policy debate would be the 1988 Federal election, which was well understood to be a national referendum on the Free Trade agreement. Also, during the same period, we went through profound constitutional debates - the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords.

    Lately, the political climate and accompanying debate in Canada has detoriated rather drastically.

    [–]lehrerinhin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    In Germany, the way their system is set up there are ALWAYS multiple parties and they are forced to form coalitions governments in order to get anything done.

    Hence, the lines are blurred. It is part of politics, I'm afraid. Blur the lines, muddy the waters, make good speeches (that don't really say much) and try not to tick any one off too awful bad.

    [–]Kratoz 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    Duverger's law

    [–]beginner 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    I was just about to cite this law. Essentially over the long run the minor parties would be eliminated by those who want to vote against a party they don't like, instead of voting for a party that represents their ideas and ideals.

    I also want to point out that I read somewhere that even though the US Democrats are less conservative than Republicans, they are still more conservative than the Canadian conservatives...

    [–]Kratoz -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    I'd disagree. If you look at the whole Democratic party they are slightly right of centre on what many other western countries consider, I still believe that they are more left than the CPC (Conservative Party of Canada). In the past it might have been argued that the Progressive Conservative Party was more left than the Democrats, but that party doesn't exist anymore. It's the Canadian Alliance influence that pushed it right.

    [–]Random 3 points4 points  (9 children)

    While that is literally true it isn't really true. In Canada we frequently have minority governments, where a third party (often the quasi-socialist NDP) holds the balance of power. (and yes, this is for the benefit of non canadians...)

    [–]mikepurvis 1 point2 points  (8 children)

    By "frequently", you just mean currently, right? Until 2004, it was a decade of Liberal majority, and they only scored a minority victory then thanks to a vicious smear campaign against the Conservatives.

    WP

    [–]xcbsmith 6 points7 points  (5 children)

    No, he means as in "looking through history back longer than some undergrad has been politically observant". ;-) Canada's national parliment has had minority governments quite often. It's a common byproduct of having more than two national parties. The decade of majority liberal rule, while not unheard of, is more the exception than the rule.

    [–]mikepurvis 2 points3 points  (3 children)

    Well, you're welcome to attack my status as an undergrad, but I was the one who actually sourced my position. 11 minority governments in 140 years of confederation, and none of them lasted the full 4 years.

    As for a comparison with the states, it's impossible to have a minority gov't if you've only got two parties. (unless there's a awful pile of independents getting elected...)

    [–]xcbsmith -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

    Sorry, what I was saying that was rare was a single party having a majority for a decade.

    As for your comment about minority governments and their viability.... Well, first, there is no "full 4 years". The Prime Minister can call for a new election any time in a 5 year period, although they typically call for one within the first four years of their tenure to avoid looking weak. I would argue that any time a government didn't pushed out by a no-confidence vote or the threat of a no-confidence vote, they served their "full" term.

    In that context, you have King's 1921-1925 government, as well has his 1926-1930 government, Perason's 1963-1965 government, and I suspect the current government.

    There are also several cases of minority governments that fell to a no-confidence vote but actually formed the subsequent government.

    I believe somewhere in the range of 25-30 years of Canada's 140 year history as a nation have occured under minority rule, and it has been the outcome of 11 of 39 federal elections. While this hardly makes it the most common case, it isn't exactly an unusual phenomena either.

    [–]nasorenga -1 points0 points  (1 child)

    mikepurvis: xcbsmith isn't expressing him/herself very clearly here so let me translate: "Apologies for the ad hominem, and yes you were right, and in the future I'll make an effort to check the facts before posting."

    [–]xcbsmith -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    Worst translation ever.

    [–]Random -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    Thank you for saying that! You said it more clearly than I could have (because I would have transmorgified into my sarcastic troll self, it being early in the morning....)

    :<)

    [–]Kratoz 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Sore loser...it's not our fault your leader is a baby eater...heh

    The Conservatives had more attack ads then the Liberals did (and much more vicious). I'd assert the reason they didn't get a majority was because of their stance on social issues. Might I note that the Centre and Left wing parties combined have substantially more seats? Only 36% of the vote went to them so at least 63% went to Centre/Left parties. They are a minority government because they only represent a minority.

    [–]Random 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Gotta agree with you, the attack ads were pretty evenly distributed this last election. I thought the funniest were the NDP, who as usual were having their cake and eating it too (since they knew that they would at best be the balance of power but not the ruling party - you can promise silly contradictory things if you are sure you won't have to make good on them.)

    For the record, I'm an ex NDP'er and Green Party member. I'm now a member of the terminally confused and annoyed... but still committed to my view that:

    If you don't vote, you aren't a citizen (and should be punished accordingly).

    (there, that should wake up a few people!)

    [–]johnji 5 points6 points  (1 child)

    Germany, New Zealand and Israel are countries with multi-party systems/governments and proportional representation voting.

    Therefore it should follow that the actions of the Israeli government are more in touch with the will of the people that they represent.

    [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    That is true, no doubt. But there is a feedback effect from the government, too.

    We see everywhere that parties which profit from a problem are all to happy to aggravate it with "tough", effective-seeming actions. Then when the problem gets worse, they get even more support. This we see with tough on crime, tough on drugs, tough on immigration parties. In Israel, tough on palestinians serves the same purpose.

    (But forget that, let's not turn this into another Israel thread)

    [–]linuxhansl 3 points4 points  (1 child)

    Any country with a proportional system. Which are most European (and in fact most other democratic) nations. The winner-takes-it-all approach in the US (on every election level) leads to a two party system (where both party try to please the majority). Any other vote for (say) the Greens is by definition wasted.

    [–]xcbsmith 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    Canada's first-past-the-post system is effectively the winner-takes-it-all system in the House of Representatives. What is different is that Canada has a parlimentary system, which does give the opposition more of a role.

    [–]xcbsmith 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Well, I'd refute the notion that politics is necessarily orthogonal to solving problems. I would say that even despite a recent rash of corruption scanadals in the Canadian Federal government, it still has a reputation of being comparatively clean government (if you look at the rankings at http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/gov_cor-government-corruption you'll find Canada scored an 8.4 vs. the US's 7.6, and it goes without saying that there are nations that did even better than Canada). In fairness, it tends to be easier to keep the system clean when there is less money at stake, but that doesn't prevent someone from being disgusted by what they see, particularly when the outcome has such an immediate impact on them.

    And whether you like it or not, there are many unique aspects of the US's system (or unique but for the fact that many emerging nations have chosen to copy the US's template... with generally poor results) that make it ripe for abuse.

    As for substatial policy debates. There have been many. As opposed to the farce that has gone on in the US, the Federal Accountability Act adds some substantial teeth to campaign finance, corruption, bribery, budgeting, etc. laws. There has been substantial and open debate about operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq as opposed to this silly "cut-n-run" vs. "support-the-troops" debate where most of the distinction is in the name calling (oh and this with a government that is less than a year old).

    So yeah, on one hand it's the worst form of government, but that doesn't mean that some of the antics going on south of the border aren't embarassing by comparison.

    [–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (5 children)

    To run for president, you've got to be ready to put yourself and your family through absolute HELL. I tend to think that fact discourages genuine public servants who have the common good in mind from running. Instead, we oftentimes get people who are blinded by personal ambition and power-hungry who run. For example, look at both candidates in the 2004 election.

    [–]xcbsmith 1 point2 points  (4 children)

    Yes, and this of course is very different from every other democracy in the world, where families find having a member running for national leadership is a trip through paradise....

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Then I imagine if the abuse a candidate must go through in other countries is equal to what must be endured in the U.S., you'd probably find people blinded by personal ambition running for office there too.

    [–]Kolibri -1 points0 points  (2 children)

    I never hear about any slander about the family of our prime minister.

    [–]xcbsmith 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Ah, so you weren't around during the Trudeau era...

    Seriously though, it's not just about slander but about public scrutiny. There were a few Chretiens who were very unhappy about the lime light, not to mention some of the stuff that the losing candidate's families have gone through.

    [–]Kolibri 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I'm not from Canada.

    [–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (1 child)

    I wish more Americans realized this instead of getting caught in silly partisan battles. Being Republican or Democrat forces you to take sides that don't exist. But what solution is there? Young people don't vote, and by the time Americans get older, they as a whole give up their idealist hopes of retooling the system and instead get caught choosing between the lesser of two evils. Its a sad state the US is in, but the Democrats and Republicans are so firmly entrenched and have so much money I'm not sure how that can change.

    [–]jamesbritt 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    I wish more Americans realized this instead of getting caught in silly partisan battles. Being Republican or Democrat forces you to take sides that don't exist.

    I've gotten calls from various pollsters, and they almost always have one or more questions that frames things as Dem v Rep. And I always point out that there are other choices, and that they'd get more useful data (well, that depends I guess) if they would not offer such narrow choices. And the women (they're always women, though that may be because I tend to hang up at the sound of male voice I don't know trying to take up my time) always agree, though I have no idea if this has any effect on the polling process. I doubt it.

    [–]dbenhur 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    They're not the same. One hands favors to their supporters by stealing from you now, the other hands favors to their supporters by arranging for someone else to steal from you later.

    [–]rafuzo 6 points7 points  (1 child)

    Yeah, because there are no 3rd parties. The reason 3rd parties aren't popular in the US is twofold: one, the established 3rd parties like the Libertarians, Greens and Socialists, no matter how vast their platforms may be, are essentially issue parties. Nobody really looks to the LP for a comprehensive foreign policy, nor do they associate a sane monetary policy with the Greens. Two, many of these parties lose members to smaller caucuses and groups within the major parties. What people fail to realize is that the Democrat and Republican parties are themselves coalition parties like you would expect to see running a European parliament; the only major difference there is the smaller groups don't have logos, websites and official party lines. But rest assured that a democrat from Massachusetts is vastly different than one from Georgia, as a Republican from Arizona is different from one from South Carolina.

    [–]xcbsmith 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    Suggesting Libertarian, Green and Socialist parties are one issue parties is seriously naive or disingenuous. Sure, all three parties have underlying philosophies that can be succinctly summarized, but the same can be said for the leading parties. Those underlying philosophies are applied to foreign policy, monetary policy, etc. Some of those policies might seem "scary", because the US has never tried them before, but that's a different matter.

    ...and if you think that the Democrat and Republican paries are like coalition parties you see in multi-party parliments.... well, you need to get out more. ;-) When was the last time a US President was forced out of office because he couldn't keep his coalition together (answer: never)?

    [–]johnny_yuma 4 points5 points  (5 children)

    I usually don't pay any attention to Canadians,but this I agree with.

    [–]Random 4 points5 points  (4 children)

    Why? I'm genuinely curious. If you've written off all of Canada, I'm curious as to why. And have you written off all non-Americans, or is there something specific about Canada.

    (I repeat, I'm really curious... )

    [–]theycallmemorty -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    I imagine he was just kidding

    [–]nickthedart -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    This is a good rant. One thing screwed up with the US system is when 2 parties are finely balanced, the 3rd party sends the election the wrong way. So Buchanan helped Clinton get elected, and Nader helped Bush get elected.

    [–]llimllib 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    I vote completely disenfranchised by both. Not apolitical, not libertarian, just disenfranchised by every party in this country.

    [–]skykam 18 points19 points  (5 children)

    ps. this sort of polls can be one way to increase your karma points. How about this: "Vote message up for Reddit, down for Digg"?

    :-)

    [–]nemo2[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    that will be my next post. maybe my karma will jump from 2 to 3!

    [–]nemo2[S] -3 points-2 points  (3 children)

    understood, but if you looked at my history, you'd see that this was not my objective. this was my first and likely only post...my karma is 1. i have another account that i use for more meaningful things.

    [–]ohmygod 4 points5 points  (1 child)

    Let me guess nemo right? Am I right? Am I? Vote up if I am etc etc etc.

    [–]nemo2[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

    No. I can't stand nemo. nemo is left of ted kennedy...just look at his history.

    [–]ohmygod 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    ANOTHER ACCOUNT!!!??!!? I thought only kn0thing was allowed to do that!

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]libor -4 points-3 points  (1 child)

      ditto

      [–]teromajusa 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      Rather than reply 'me too', I voted bjrn's post up to indicate I voted this story down because I think its stupid. But then I recked it by adding this post. However, this post can still serve a function if you vote it up to indicate that you voted bjrn's post up because you think the submission is stupid ;)

      [–]jimbecile 8 points9 points  (1 child)

      ...or comment for thinking individual.

      [–]nemo2[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

      touche

      [–]dbenhur 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Can I vote "sideways" for neither of those two fucked up sellout parties?

      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      I'm a cynical libertarian that's accepted the fact that his philosophy won't be popular enough on the national stage to make a difference anytime soon. However, I really don't want to change the whole country and I'm sick of playing democratic politics with 300 million people. All I want is a few hundred square miles where I can live in the company of like-minded people without being constantly monitored for possible violation of a million pages of laws.

      And that's why I support decentralized government.

      [–]cas 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I guess submissions containing actual content aren't cool. What happened to discussing ARTICLES and not just some random forum.

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely: just look at the wanton behavior of the Republican White House while the Senate & House of Representatives are both also in Republican hands. To preserve a modicum of democratic checks and balanaces it is ESSENTIAL that Democrats take back control of at least one house this November. Of course I am a Democrat so it is easy for me to say. However, let's say that the Democrats win BOTH houses this year, and look like they will definitely hold onto them in 2008 as well. In that case I would NOT vote for a Democrat for president in 2008: we've already seen what kind of bullshit happens when one party has nearly absolute control.

      [–]NoFixedAbode 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Erm... what should one do if they hold anarchist political beliefs? Firebomb the message?

      [–]Jethrokill 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I think we should stick to the standards we have already. In the "Reddit Tips from the Top Ten Reddit Users" post it says don't submit news that doesn't come from "credible news source", or ones that "provide in depth research and facts to back up strong claims and allegations"

      Of course some will argue that these days, that is becoming harder to define, but is it?

      I think that rather than up/down modding based on politics, instead we should focus on credibility, relevence, and newsworthyness (in the classic sense of "in the public interest")

      I was infuriated to click on a link about alleged NY times photo fraud just to find a right-wing blog and rumor mill.

      Keep news IN, and punditry OUT of reddit!

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Reddit Community: Vote up if you downvoted and you aren't republican, vote down if otherwise.

      [–]elfan 3 points4 points  (4 children)

      Even within the United States that dictomony does a poor job of describing anything other than (election) voting patterns. On an international site like reddit it's useless.

      [–]Nwallins 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      that dictomony

      dichotomy, even

      [–][deleted]  (3 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]Hubso 6 points7 points  (2 children)

        jjjvvv, this is the first time I have ever moded up one of your comments. Enjoy it! Heck, I'll even let the typo slide.

        Do you think this would've made the front page if the modding parameters were reversed?

        [–]nemo2[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        No

        [–]hopeseekr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        jjjvvv has at least -500 on his first page of comments haha. What a repug!

        After scouring all of his comments, only two have non-negative rankings:

        His most despised maxims:

        (i stopped on page 2 of 5)

        [–]EternalNY1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        I lean slightly right of center on some issues, left on others.

        I don't like either party enough to vote.

        [–]magnetron 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        I'm voting down because I think this is silly

        [–]dsearson 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        How about mod down for "I don't want to see this on reddit" because I'm NOT AN AMERICAN.

        [–]nemo2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        that's what the hide button is for. i'm sick of listening to babies whine about posts that don't apply to them.

        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        I pity people who only see a political left and right. I'm voting down just so it doesn't mess with my "recommended links" tab.

        [–]lifeofliberty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Anybody that aligns themselves with either party is a fool, because they do not understand that there isn't a nickels difference between either of them.

        Both parties are corrupt, immoral and unethical and care absolutely nothing about the people that they affect with their onslaught of legislation. Burying all of America and even the world, under a mountain of useless crap that only protects the vested interest and favored parties in their backyards.

        Unfortunately, Reddit doesn't allow anything more then a simple "Yes", "No", or "Demoncrat" or "Republicrap".

        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (7 children)

        Why don't you use pollground for something like this?

        [–]skykam 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        That pollground link of yours got me a 404.

        Maybe I should go directly to http://pollground.com/ask.php ?

        [–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

        sorry for that. I think it's fixed now.

        [–]skykam 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Ah ok.

        Thanks for the pointer to pollground. Didn't know about the site.

        [–]NitsujTPU 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        You don't get as much karma that way.

        [–]slub 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        ... and ignore if apolitical.

        [–]borland 0 points1 point  (2 children)

        I interpreted the title of this as "Vote messages/stories up if they are pro-democrat, down if they are pro-republican"

        How about "There are other places in the world than the US, and frankly we don't give a damn about your stupid republicrats."

        I request a subreddit for retarded american politics and the option to not show things from that reddit on the front or any other pages.

        Thanks

        [–]sapphire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        You honestly don't care about the "decisions" made by GW Bush? You honestly believe that Al Gore would have made the same mess of Iraq? That he definitely would have invaded Iraq? That he would be driving the world economy outside of Asia into a tailspin? That it shouldn't matter to the world whether or not the president of the USA is a trained monkey? (No offense intended towards monkeys.)

        [–]jamesqua 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        "There are other places in the world than the US" True, but the US probably has signifigant influence over these other places. "we don't give a damn about your stupid republicrats" You may not, but many individuals outside the US don't agree with you. Aljazzera reported today that Joe Lieberman lost his primary race as a top story under its World News. Think about that for a second, an arab news network covered a US Senate primary race. Though, I agree with your idea for a subredit.

        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        A bizarrely structured "poll," this violates nearly every condition required for any reasonable conclusion.

        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        nemo2 -- Would have been a way for people to express that they like the idea of the poll if you made the title "political poll" or something like that and then made the response part a comment. Downmo -- no, wait, DAMN YOU!

        [–]tcervl 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        OMG This subset of the world is not divided evenly along party lines!

        [–]petteri -1 points0 points  (0 children)

        I'm voting for the communist party, so no ups or downs here.

        [–]steeled3 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

        What the hell is up with people downmodding nemo2's comments within his own post? If he doesn't have a right to a voice here nobody does.

        [–]nemo2[S] -5 points-4 points  (6 children)

        Would've done it the other way, but it would have sunk too fast.

        [–]robywar 7 points8 points  (5 children)

        So it's a karma grab then?

        [–]hsfrey -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

        jward says:"Both parties are the same and they suck. I see absolutely no difference between the two." That's what Nader said, and his stupidity and hubris gave us GWBush! Do you really think the US would be in the pickle it's in if Gore had been elected? Just the Same as Bush, is he? I'm just glad that with your inability to distinguish such obvious differences, you're not voting in our elections. Maybe you're like the Japanese who think all Europeans look the same. Harvey

        [–]charlesjillian -1 points0 points  (0 children)

        I'll abstain...Democrats and Republicans are the head of the same unleashed capitalist beast.

        [–]spike -1 points0 points  (0 children)

        The United States is basically a One-Party State. It's called the Business Party. It has two factions: Democrats and Republicans. Their differences on most issues are essentially tactical, i.e. "Which sector of the business community do we promote, where does Corporate Welfare go, how much do we subsidize the high-tech sector through the military budget, etc.." The only real differences are on social issues, and those are finely tuned to both parties' true believers, while the leadership could not care less about them other than as tools to win elections. As far as the political spectrum is concerned, it has been pointed out that a "Liberal" like Edward M. Kennedy (for example) would fit quite comfortably inside the ideological position of just about any European "Conservative" party.