fooger03

iTrader: (2)

Which party does the third party take most of their voters from?

There were 4 party affiliations available at my elections site:
DEM
REP
LIB
GRE

What happens when you have 5 candidates.
Candidate A follows platform 1
Candidate B follows platform 2
Candidate C follows platform 2
Candidate D follows platform 2
Candidate E follows platform 3

In a no-party system, if 65% of the nation supported platform 2, your votes could come out like this.

A: 29%
B: 20%
C: 25%
D: 20%
E: 1%

So while the overwhelming majority of voters might be strongly against candidate A, candidate A gets elected.

Breaking our two-party system into a 3-party system is a fantastic idea; however, the party that splits up loses. Currently the larger political rift lies in the republican party, which means the republican party is more likely to split. Consider if three parties went to the general election with candidates, Republican, Democrat, and Tea Party; While support for the Democratic party might only be 45%, the Republican and Tea party split might very well be 40%/15%. Since a tea party candidate would prefer a republican over a democrat, and since a republican would prefer a tea partier over a democrat, they agree to hold a single primary between the two parties, and let the winner take on the democrat.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

depends. but republicans are easily split (see ron paul)

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

After talking to several prominent Occupy protesters, those appear to be their demands.

Why are you so down on them again Brainy? Or is it just because of their insane tactics?

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

Not speaking for Brain, but that's the first time I have heard that "officially declared." Assuming it was (and I think that's a big assumption given their wildly differing makeup), if you added "and union" to the first bullet (assuming we are talking Citizens United) and clarified the meaning of the "loophole" in the third, I might be able to get on board with most of that.


Wait... would that make me a dirty liberal hippy?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Here's the problem. It's the same as, say, the Republicans or the Democrats.

The media doesn't go for the average or the sane people. They find, say, 5% of the weirdest and most out there people, then do a story on them. Add a good dose of a very similar problem that is behind getting Ron Paul media attention and significant amount of either out of context or grossly mischaracterized quotes (Hey, wait, they do that to Paul too....).....Remember, it's distinctly against media's interest for #1. Voila, a cause is suddenly distorted, villified, and mocked due to a crazy minority.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

because I don't agree with those or them. your honestly asking me why I dont agree with them? they represent almost everything I hate in human beings.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Okay.

Why do you support Corporate (And, interestingly, Union since both fictions are based on the same legal basis.) Personhood?

Why do you oppose the separation of investment and savings banks?

Why do you support the Delaware legislation loophole? (http://www.williamscoulson.com/news-...ware-loophole/ is a Pennsylvania law that was intended to close it.)

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

because it is necessary for them to do business without being a single person accountable for billions of dollars if the company does something its accountable for.

because it was never a big deal before or after the law.

because i dont give two ***** what corporation dont pay state taxes where. close the loophole, i dont give a ----. its beyond trivial.


honestly, this is what they are out raping women and destroying public/private property over? these stupid minute things? they are stupider than i thought.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Why can't the CEO be accountable instead of the Corporation then?

I have yet to see an economist that did not state that the financial meltdown was not at least in part due to the removal of the separation of investment and savings banks. I would say this is a Very Big Deal.

So, you don't care?

Aww, Brainy. Are you trying to paint an entire group over the actions of a few retarded people? Can I paint you as a diehard Santorum supporter then? <3 (You know I'm not serious, lulz.)

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Why should he, he's just a dude.

That's possibly cause you only read left sources.

no, it's stupid and trivial. I wish the Delaware loophole was extended to all states not just PA.


a few?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Why should the CEO be responsible for his company? Why should he be indeed, Brainy.

Perhaps leftist as compared to you, Brainy, but remember - you are the furthest right of any poster here. Even Scrappy is extremist left compared to you.

Well, I mean, Santorum only has pretty widespread Republican support, so I grant you that it's not a fair comparison as the people in Occupy were a much smaller bunch proportionately (Actions of a handful vs. actions of a significant minority!). But it's still a nice comparison!

P.S. Just for you Brainy, http://visual.ly/lobbyists-how-we-run-washington

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

I just came to a crazy conclusion when thinking ahead to elections... I might just vote for Obama. I have not had anything good to say about him since he stepped into office, and I don't really like him or the way he does things. But honestly, at this point, he looks better than the crazy ******* we have to choose from to oppose him. Unless Ron Paul pulls a rabbit out of a hat, I may have no choice but to vote for the guy I have been against being in office for the last 4 years.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

Is Andrew Breitbart far enough to the right for you?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Props, Sav, for making me laugh my *** off. Breitbart is one of the few economists I can think of to the right of Brainy.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Andrew Breitbart was an economist?

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

A) Breitbart didn't write that piece

B) What the hell does "to the right" or "leftist" mean in these instances?

C) How many economists use models or theories with zero understanding of actual banking operational realities?

D) There are a number of people within the financial services industry (e.g. banking of one version or another) that will tell you that the repeal of Glass-Steagall was one of several contributors. I am open to being persuaded otherwise, but it certainly seems like an example of crony capitalism in which investment banks were able to "gamble" with implicit government guarantees via FDIC that were previously unavailable to them.

That is largely what allowed them to socialize losses while privatizing gains.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

imagine this, im not an economist either! w00t.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Hey, I was going with what Sav said!

But hey, as a bonus, Scrappy backed what I'm sayin' bro!

Savington

iTrader: (31)

Scott was complaining about "left sources", so I pointed out a "right source". The author is irrelevant - the important part is that it's hosted on Breitbart's website. The point was to show that support for Glass-Steagall is bi-partisan and not a fringe left view like Scott apparently thinks.

Agree 100%. Reinstatement of Glass-Steagall is crucial to the prolonged stability of our economic system, and it's even a bi-partisan issue.

If any good comes of the 2012 GOP primary, it will be the GOP/Fox News's realization that continuing to court the fringe Tea Party vote is not the way forward. The silver lining of Fox's stranglehold on conservative media is that the switch will happen very, very fast - one day we'll all wake up and the Tea Party will be irrelevant, because the "Establishment" said so.

I hypothesized this a few months ago, when Herman Cain was the GOP front-runner. I was actually hoping he would win the nomination, purely so the GOP could watch him get utterly crushed in a general election cycle. If a real TP candidate had made it into the national arena, it would have proven that TPers aren't capable of bringing enough voters to the table to compensate for the loss of independent voters. If Santorum somehow wins the primary, his defeat in November will serve a similar purpose.

Once the switch happens, Republicans like McCain and Romney (the Massachusetts Romney, not the clown that's going to get curbstomped in November) will be free to court independents and work with Democrats on bi-partisan issues (like Glass-Steagall) without fearing that they'll be painted as "traitors" by the TP rhetoric and Fox News. We might even get to hear more from centrist Republicans like Jon Huntsman, whom I would have readily voted for over Obama in a general election. The most vocal TPers will find themselves spent out of office or relegated to the House Committee on Shut The ---- Up.

Or at least that's how I hope it works.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

It was a joke directed purely at blaen.

So long as we repeal dodd-frank at the same time. That would really ensure stability and growth and limit cronyism (like finally stop propping up fannie and freddie). that was serious, I'm actually okay with the idea of keeping commercial banks, banks, and keeping investment banks to raising capital and trading. I just also like to be a little bitch.