What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
255 Comments
- ReasonWinsOut, on 04/02/2009, -2/+136I'd like to see this happen, actually, and have long thought the American electorate would be better served by a functioning, viable multi-party system. Such a system would serve well the people--in that they could identify with and vote for parties that are more specifically tuned to their primary political focuses--and would serve the parties--insofar as they would no longer have to pander to extreme ends of their bases (thereby alienating independent voters) just to continue winning elections.
I never felt more strongly about this than in last year's presidential election. Clinton and Obama fought vociferously in an exceedingly close primary election that was as close as it was because of different party factions with vastly different ideologies--mainly, as I observed it, far-left idealists versus left-of-center pragmatists like myself. In any case, should we have had to choose between one over the other? Both were excellent candidates and I would have liked to seem them both in the general.
Likewise, John McCain has long been a darling of independents and right-of-center moderates, but was forced to sell himself out with the ridiculous choice of Sarah Palin as his VP in order to pander to an extremist and skeptical base. Throw in the ardent followers of Ron Paul and the ultra-conservatives who would loved to have nominated Mike Huckabee, and the question remains: wouldn't the American electorate be better served--and the divisiveness and bitter partisanship better mitigated--by a system whereby we are able to nominate and vote for Obama, Clinton, McCain, Huckabee and Paul in the same general election? Wouldn't those have been some excellent debates?
I'd be happy to see a Liberal, Democratic, Libertarian, Republican, Conservative matchup in 2012 and beyond that is taken seriously, treated seriously, and covered seriously. Make it an instant runoff system and it's even better.
But first that pesky electoral college thing to deal with..... - novenator, on 04/02/2009, -5/+88I fully expect Libertarians to siphon votes from both parties in 2012.
- charm803, on 04/02/2009, -3/+62It would be dumb for Ron Paul & Nader supporters NOT to take advantage of the crumbling of the Republican Party.
Right now is a good a time as ever to start preparing for a third party.
I mean, it's already here, just fix the foundation and BAM!
Personally, I hate parties, I vote based on who has similar opinions on issues I find important. Needless to say, I haven't voted based on party lines since I was 18. - kekemortson, on 04/02/2009, -3/+60Who will rise? Libertarian? Constitution? Green? Reform?
An Independant?
There needs to be (at least) a third option to the corrupt two-party system. - jaymzdean, on 04/03/2009, -9/+50Do NOT let Gingrich spearhead any new political party. That would be the *****-machine leading the revolution against itself.
- Tomboys, on 04/03/2009, -3/+33We need a third party. The two that run Washington have lost their God Forsaken minds.
- booksnmore4you, on 04/03/2009, -5/+34I disagree that a Gingrich-lead third party would be "the *****-machine leading the revolution against itself."
The GOP has two main factions: the Limbuagh-Hannity-Palin Rant Wing, and the Old Guard that looks to William F. Buckley, what we can call the Intellectual Wing.
The latter is quietly very uncomfortable with the former. The Rant Wing is the current GOP base.
Every Body needs a good bowel movement now and then. The Rant Wing needs to be feces for a great bowel movement, leaving behind those who are reasoned and emerging new, though one may disagree with them.
If such a split happens, it will NOT mean a three party system. The only thing keeping The Rant Wing from being only a fringe group is the existence of those in the GOP who are eager to see the Rant Wing ***** out. - normlsparky, on 04/03/2009, -2/+30I see the Republican Party splitting into two distinct groups. The traditional, small govt. fiscal conservatives and the religious social conservatives. The social conservatives have dictated the majority of the GOP's political positions ever since Reagan embraced them with his big tent theory. There has been no small govt. or fiscal responsibility practiced by the GOP since.
I can't see Newt leading either one of these groups. - kekemortson, on 04/02/2009, -2/+26For now....it runs in cycles.
- diggproof, on 04/02/2009, -5/+28The difference: Democrats can afford it.
- GlobalGizmo, on 04/02/2009, -7/+28Wouldn't mind seeing this happen either. Do agree though that the electoral college needs tackling first. Frustrates me greatly.
- inactive, on 04/03/2009, -4/+24As long as we continue the two party paradigm, and we probably will, I believe that the new strong party has to be an alternative to Washington centric big government.
That will be a party that pushes decentralization, an end to global empire and States rights.
It will happen by a division of the Republican party aligning itself with the growing libertarian movements.
I see it happening around here. Most of my Republican friends that thought my ideas were a little too radical are now asking my opinion about everything. - inactive, on 04/03/2009, -1/+20I am afraid that you missed one. There is a third wing and that is the world empire or neocon wing.
The old Intellectual wing has no organization at this point. The party organization has been coopted by the neocons. The media organization by the ranters.
The neocons are poison. The future is for the GOP Intellectuals to abandon foreign empire and the police state and to align with libertarian movements. I am talking about Mark Sanford, Ron Paul, Paul Ryan.
I actually have talked to Newt and I think that he would like to champion the new liberty movement, but he isn't credible. - emazur, on 04/03/2009, -4/+23Ross Perot was able to get into the presidential debates of '92 and wound up with about 20% of the popular vote. Previously, the debates were handled by the non-partisan League of Women Voters. Infiltration of a third-party scared ***** the leaders of the Democrats and the Republicans, and so they decided to take the control of the debate process and make it significantly more difficult for a 3rd party contender to participate in the debates. Now, debates are handled by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Who's in charge of this organization? The Democrats and the Republicans! The foxes are guarding the henhouse.
The way it should be is that third-parties who are in enough state ballots to get enough electoral votes to theoretically win the election should be allowed to participate in the presidential debates. In 2008, that would have included the Libertarians, Greens, Constitution Party, and Nader. Had they been allowed to participate, Americans would have known they had some real choices, instead of choosing from 2 sides of the same coin.
*OBAMA vs. McCain* (copied from another user in a different forum...)
Foreign Policy
- Both support an aggressive, interventionist foreign policy
- Both support the "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive war on sovereign nations
- Neither support scaling down the enormous expenditure of policing and occupying the world by closing any one of the 700 bases we have in over 140 countries worldwide
- Both will expand the war in Iraq into Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria
- Both will expand U.N.
operations worldwide
- Both pay lip service to our continued support of Israel, while not mentioning the fact that we give 3 times as much monetary aid to its enemies
- Neither has mentioned the idea of not sending any monetary aid to other countries while the People of America suffer the consequences of a $1 trillion deficit and a $10 trillion + debt
- Both took an offensive stance against Russia, while supporting Georgia, the true aggressors in the Russian/Georgian conflict.. and of course neither has talked about just staying out of the situation all together
- Neither has taken anything, including a preemptive nuclear strike, off the table when dealing with Iran
- Neither support the humble, non-interventionist foreign policy that our Founding Fathers prescribed
Domestic Policy
- Both support the Patriot Act
- Both support the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
- Both will increase Federal spending
- Both support the expansion of our borders 100 miles inland effectively creating a "Constitution Free Zone" that encompasses 2/3 of all Americans
- Neither plan to abolish any one of the unconstitutional or redundant departments of the Federal government
- Both support the militarization of our police
- Both support the construction of hundreds of FEMA controlled detention camps across the US
- Neither plan on reinstating the Constitutional principle of property rights as a way of combating pollution
- Both support amnesty for illegal immigrants
- Both support the North American Union
- Both support NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO as opposed to truly free trade
- Neither support the 10th Amendment of our Bill of Rights by continuing the many unconstitutional programs and laws that do not fall under the authority of the Federal government
- Neither support a healthcare or education system controlled by the People as opposed to government bureaucracies and corporations
- Neither support states' rights in regard to drugs, education, abortion or marriage
- Neither support an un-infringed 2nd amendment
Economy
- Both support the unconstitutional Federal Reserve System
- Both support the redistribution of wealth via inflation
- Neither support free market solutions to our current economic situation
- Neither support Article 1 Sections 8 and 9 of the Constitution by continuing the confiscation of the People's money, gold and silver, in place of a FIAT currency system
- Both support an increased influence of such global government entities as the IMF and world bank
- Both supported the $850 billion+ Wall Street bailout bill
- Both support expanding government intervention in our market
- Both support the income tax and 16th amendment
- Neither have alternative plans for the future of welfare programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicade but will both continue or even expand these programs that are bankrupting our nation
Miscellaneous
- Both have accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from banks, major corporations and lobbyists
- Both are supporters of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations
- Neither support continued investigations of the events of 9/11/01
- Neither believe in strict adherence to the Constitution
- Neither support holding charges against or the impeachment of President George W.
Bush for his blatant disregard of our Constitution and his breaking of so many laws thereof and international treaties
- Neither will grant full pardons to Ignacio Ramos or Jose Compean
- Both of their vice-presidential candidates plan to use more power than is vested in them by the Constitution
- Both believe the United States to be a Democracy as opposed to the Constitutional Republic that the Constitution and our Founding Fathers intended - inactive, on 04/03/2009, -6/+24You are wrong, as usual.
This point in history will herald the third time a new national party came to be competitive. It will probably take two or three election cycles, but two big government parties are not going to survive. One of the two is going to follow the whigs to the showers. - inactive, on 04/03/2009, -0/+16It won't happen with the current elctoral system. You need a Proportional Representation system for third parties to be represented, and America has a weird, unique Majoritarian system.
Not gonna happen guys. Sorry. :( - mfc5200, on 04/03/2009, -2/+17It is impossible to have a third party with our political system the way it is. It's not a coincidence that there have always been two parties since the founding of the country.
For better or for worse (probably worse), there will always be two parties in this country if the system isn't changed. As it stands, it is inevitable that you will have "spoilers".
Unless we switch to instant run off voting, or proportional voting, there is no way around it. - inactive, on 04/03/2009, -3/+17Gingrich is right. The Republican Party was formed as a third party after the Whigs went wonky on slavery. Now that the Republicans have gone wonky on everything, it's time to found a party that has a backbone again.
- GhostyBoy, on 04/03/2009, -5/+19Here's the two party scam:
Corporate scum actually rule the U.S. They throw a guy like Bush in and he acts like a jackass, lets the elite run amok. He's so bad that the Republicans can't win in 2008.
Obama comes in to save the day, but the moment he is elected he forgets all about the people who got him there and starts serving everything up to the corporate scum on a silver platter. He's so bad that in 4-8 years people actually forget what a joke the Republican party is and re-elect them.
Rinse and repeat. - SpykerSpeed, on 04/03/2009, -1/+15This is like marijuana legalization. It seems so blatantly obvious, but it won't happen anytime soon. A third party is a pipe dream.
- ReasonWinsOut, on 04/03/2009, -3/+16@JagPop:
Thanks for the pleasantries but the point of my comment, which I imagine you're intelligent enough to discern, is that a viable multi-party system would well serve American voters by offering plausible candidates with a more varied approach to governing--including candidates/parties that are more in line with your views also.
As far as whether or not the country is doing well, I certainly prefer the current leadership to the other viable option allowed us in November.
Do take care. - SpeedSteamBoat, on 04/03/2009, -1/+14Bimbo. She smeared herself.
- shupy, on 04/03/2009, -1/+14Newt has too much political baggage. He had a hand in engaging the "rant" wing as part of his contract on America. He openly encouraged the GOP to use the right-wing punditry as part of their tactic.
Bad choice. Newt isn't credible, he likes to get attention, but he knows that politically he is not viable. - 3nder99, on 04/03/2009, -3/+15More important is to break up Congress. The Presidency pales in importance to the need to reform Congress. The President has very little power compared to them, as they are the ones who write the Laws and slip in the loopholes and pork for their special interests.
- ericdano, on 04/03/2009, -0/+12I'd love a third party. Neither party seems to represent my view point at all. I don't support spending all this money, nor do I support national health care. But I do support stem cell research, and other social items.
What I'd really like is a party that actually will DO what it says. The Democrats and Republicans don't at all. - sheila0405, on 04/03/2009, -0/+12Look at what the two party system has wrought. I'd love to have a third choice.
- ReasonWinsOut, on 04/03/2009, -2/+14@superkendall:
A massive "smear" operation? I presume the next canned response from you will be that it was the "liberal" media who made her seem unintelligent. It couldn't have been her woefully ignorant responses to even the simplest of questions. It couldn't have been that she has such an embarrassingly superficial understanding of the nuances of foreign policy that it was painful to listen to her. Nor could it have been the fake-Sarkozy call from the radio show in Canada that exposed her to be the very buffoon sentient Americans suspected her to be. It must have just been an out-of-control, liberally biased media trying to influence the election.
Except, well, it wasn't. Traditional media conservatives abandoned John McCain like rats deserting a sinking ship--many of them, at least in part, because of her. Andrew Sullivan questioned his integrity, Peggy Noonan and Kathleen Parker his judgment. William Kristol advocated McCain fire his entire campaign and start from scratch and even Charles Krauthammer seemed perplexed by his frenetic behavior. Nearly all mentioned Palin as a reason for their rebukes.
Andrew Bacevich endorsed Obama in March and Wick Allison did it in September. Then there were the two iconic Christophers: Hitchins and Buckley, son of National Review founder William F. Buckley who is widely credited as the father of modern conservatism. As if it couldn't get any worse for McCain, none other than Colin Powell offered a full-throated, unequivocal and irrefutably measured endorsement of Obama. And nearly every one of them explicitly mentioned or alluded to Palin's unpreparedness and lack of intellectual curiosity as, at least partly, a deciding factor.
And, of course, there was John McCain's own staff who--albeit anonymously--offered repeated behind-the-scenes accounts of just how dangerously unprepared and uninformed she was.
Sarah Palin seems like a good mother and a charming, likable enough person. But remember that we already had the "who would you rather have a beer with" test and, well, we know how that turned out for our country and the world.
Palin probably IS smarter than she made herself out to be during the campaign, but, frankly, that's not saying much; and she is so clearly NOT intellectually curious enough to be given control of the nuclear codes and a chance to try navigating the country through the complex economic, geopolitical, and domestic perils we currently face.
BUT... my original point still stands: if we had a viable multi-party system in this country, then SOME party (Jesus Party, Moose Party, Witchhunter Party, etc) could nominate her and she could participate in the debates and be on every ballot in the union. Which means that you would finally have an opportunity to proudly cast your vote on election day for her to be president. - roguewriter, on 04/03/2009, -0/+11America needs a third party desperately. The death of the old Federalist party, in my opinion, is the original cause of the back and forth pendulum swinging of political polarity the country has suffered from during the 20th century and onward. Said pendulum motion continually (albeit slowly) increasing in distance between the polar opposites.
A third party, dedicated to wresting political control from special interest and extremist groups, could work wonders in helping America evolve from a post-Industrial society to an Informational society. This evolution, again in my opinion, is of the utmost importance for America to sustain its place as a leading world power. - shaelen, on 04/03/2009, -3/+14I don't think that she looked stupid as much as she looked smug and didn't really seem to care that the people would like the vice president (could be president) to at least show she wasn't above all the questions from the press. It always looked like she just blew off all the important questions as if they didn't need to be asked.
We had way more than enough of that from Bush. - inactive, on 04/03/2009, -2/+12Newt blew his wad. He isn't credible anymore.
@booksnmore4you, I humbly concede. Lets not turn this into Kremlinology. I think that we are in agreement about what branch of the GOP has a future. - inactive, on 04/03/2009, -3/+13@diggproof, what makes you so sure that the majority of Republican voters are going to stick with the big government war party model?
- Sleekery, on 04/03/2009, -0/+10I agree that a third party would be great, but the electoral college needs to go to have a real chance at getting a third party in the presidency.
- inactive, on 04/03/2009, -5/+15Thank God. Republicans and Democrats should be tied together and sent off somewhere. Both have equally destroyed a great country.
- ReasonWinsOut, on 04/03/2009, -1/+11Actually, I originally wrote "I HOPE you're intelligent enough to discern..." but thought better of it and decided instead to be charitable. Turns out I was too charitable indeed.
I didn't "dodge" a point of yours because you so clearly didn't have one. Aspersions and juvenile name-calling might make for fun schoolyard games but, sadly, they fall far short of compelling, intellectual debate and they most certainly do not--in and of themselves--constitute or qualify a "point." - c010rb1indusa, on 04/03/2009, -3/+13I completely agree, the religious right has basterdized the GOP. Ron Paul is a real Republican and if he ran against Obama in 2012 that be first election where I could take both sides seriously and actually would be proud of either man was my President.
- ReasonWinsOut, on 04/03/2009, -2/+12@Dirk:
Um... it's not Palin's "strength" and... (it's hard to type this next word with a straight face) "accomplishments" ... that scare people (and not just liberals... that woman scared the ***** out of independents and moderates), it's her doltish lack of intellectual curiosity, grasp of the complexities and nuance of domestic and foreign policy, third-grade understanding of the constitutional role of a VP, "young earth" creationist views, and her pastor feeling the need to pray for Jesus to protect her from witches, among other things.
I'm sure she's a wonderful woman. But qualified to command our nuclear arsenal? Unequivocally not. - booksnmore4you, on 04/03/2009, -4/+13Although for their differing reasons, neo-cons are represented in both the Rant Wing and Intellectual Wing, don't you think? And if so, I think my main two factions argument is useful.
- inactive, on 04/03/2009, -9/+18@keke, diggproof and novenator
It all depends on the economy. If Obama has bet wrong (and I believe he has) and the deficit spending and monetization of debt cause double digit inflation and continued high unemployment, then the Democrats will be cut down to at parity with the Republicans at most.
If the Republicans can truly remake themselves as a libertarian party and cull out the worst Washington insiders, then they will win the election.
If the Republicans continue on as the big government war party, then there will be a three way contest with a libertarian coalition as a competitive alternative to Yin and Yang - focoguy, on 04/03/2009, -1/+10After some of the goofy Democratic Congressional moves this year, and with the GOP lost in the wilderness, it will be pretty sad if there aren't strong alternatives in 2012 (and 2010)
- brainflakes, on 04/03/2009, -0/+9Or how about a run-off election like they do in France. Vote between all candidates in a first round then choose between the top two in the second.
- inactive, on 04/03/2009, -7/+15Wait and see NoLibs. It will probably not be the Libertarian Party. It will be the result of the division of the Republican Party.
- muzfuz, on 04/03/2009, -0/+8It's just the way the American (and UK, and French) democracy is set up-- it will always be a two party system, in terms of there being a choice A and B in big elections (they UK is slightly different, but this is why the LibDems never make it past a certain percentage). In other countries, i.e. Germany, Austria, Sweden, Israel there are on the order of 4 to 6 parties that tend to make it into parliament and then possibly into government.
However, it IS Possible for a party to decline, which I think is what we are seeing with the Republicans right now-- they seem to be busting apart at the seams, and it wouldn't surprise me if they are replaced at some point by another party. (This has happened several times in the course of US history, it's actually pretty interesting).
The Atlantic Monthly recently suggested that we'll see a new party run and possibly win the presidency in 2016-- though predictions do need to be taken with a grain of salt, I have on occasion been quite impressed by their analyses. - novenator, on 04/03/2009, -4/+12akhomestead, there has been a huge push to redefine 'conservative' the last couple months. Who supported Reagan? It was the conservatives. What did he do? Borrow and spend. Same thing with Bush. I consider Clinton to be a southern, conservative democrat, and he did the same thing for a while, although managed to get a surplus late in his term. Then the next Bush came, same thing, hugely popular with the conservative base, what happened? Borrow and spend.
I know we will disagree on this, but you have to admit, liberals certainly did not support Reagan, Bush, and Bush. - WiseGuy1020, on 04/03/2009, -0/+8@ KSUdesigner
"Nothing needs to be changed about the fundamentals of Congress"
*****. Change number one needs to be the implementation of term limits for all of Congress. These politicians are more worried about getting reelected than doing what they think is right for the country. Term limits would greatly diminish if not remove the power wielded by special interest groups and allow the people to actually have some ***** influence. You know the way it was designed to be. - Dumbledorito, on 04/03/2009, -2/+10This is the same Newt who put out the memo encouraging changes to the language used by the GOP to include words like "bizarre" and "treasonous" when describing their opponents? The one (of many) Republicans who cheated on his wife while lambasting Clinton for infidelity? The one who said women couldn't serve in the military due to "infections?"
That sounds like an abusive Founding Father, one we could do without. - tajitj, on 04/03/2009, -1/+9Check out site that covers all 3rd parties.
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/ - HopeForTomorrow, on 04/03/2009, -0/+7Don't quote me on this, but I believe JagPop may be a troll.
- sarahlee, on 04/03/2009, -0/+7Also you have to start building a party locally - in the smaller local and regional offices/elections. You have to build the network and campaign forces county by county - you can't just show up and win nationally without that base.
So far, the main 3rd party contenders have not shown the patience for that - though the Greens have done better than most and do have more regional and state offices than the other 3rd party contenders - at least that is what I read in 2007. - Rapter09, on 04/03/2009, -1/+8Warning?
Seriously, America, come on into 21st Century politics and get a third party. I think it'll do your country wonders. Canada's got 4 and we're doing pretty good. - NUMBER4940, on 04/03/2009, -0/+7I want my vote to count not matter what. My state will never be a swing state.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 258 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is