Politics

[KefkaticFanatic]

lol Kefka was owned

-No attacks on other users in the form of trolling, flaming, etc.

dont break rules kids

Huzzah for the canadian politick lesson from da roz though o:

[Roz~]

Ya
Basically all of the Left parties in Quebec are separatists parties, and the Right parties are federalists parties. So if you don't want to become a country but you don't want to vote for the Liberals you're pretty much screwed. We need a Left Federalist party to balance things out I think.

[Cobraroll]

Last time I checked, I associated myself the most with Venstre (meaning "left", but they're a right-centrist party). That, or Arbeiderpartiet (workers' party, slightly left). Would have been more centrist if I could, but the only true centrist party we have mostly caters to farmers ("let's subsidize the farmers even more, and rise the toll on all foreign food, so all the farmers can continue being farmers even though they hardly produce anything!").

I agree with Høyre ("Right") in some cases, but disagree with them too much otherwise to vote for them. They're supposed to be the moderate right-wing party (in other words, slightly to the left of the US Democrats).
We also have Fremskrittspartiet ("the Progress Party"), our resident populist party which sits slightly to the left of the US Republicans (Imagine Republicants without religion). Those are the guys who propose to lower taxes on alcohol, petrol and cars, make tobacco ads legal again and spend the entire Oil Fund on building motorways and subsidize roads, as well as closing the borders for immigrants. For some reason, they have got a relatively strong backing in the population (currently at about 15%, according to polls, they peaked at about 30% a couple years ago). The stereotypical idiot in Norwegian culture votes FrP. To their credit, they've never been in a position of government, so it's hard to tell how their wacky ideas would have worked in practise.

We also have a number of smaller parties, from communists to fundamental Christians and the Coastal Party (all three polling in at about 1.5%). And remarkably less poop-flinging than we see in the US. Such a level of lies and bashing as we see from both sides of the debate in the US, would probably lead to expulsion from the party in Norway, and the guy would probably plunge on the polls and forever be remembered as a grumpy whiner.


I think a two-party system allows for too much polarization of the debates. Everything boils down to "Us vs. Them", and if you're politically engaged, you're either for or against one of the big parties. No political alliances, no third voice to calm the debate, and too much dogmatically voting against everything (especially in Congress, where practically everybody vote according to either the Democrats or the Republicans based on which party they belong to themselves).

Though, with more parties, expect to see poop flying in more directions than ever. But at least there are smaller quantities of the stuff around, especially around election time.

[wariopiano]

Obama I hate that name!!!!!

[spitllama]

I think a two-party system allows for too much polarization of the debates. Everything boils down to "Us vs. Them", and if you're politically engaged, you're either for or against one of the big parties. No political alliances, no third voice to calm the debate, and too much dogmatically voting against everything.

Yes to everything in this paragraph. Yes yes yes.

[KefkaticFanatic]

The problem is that we have too many politicians that strictly align to one portion of their parties beliefs.  There is barely any malleability and almost no desire for compromise.  It's almost always an ALL OR NOTHING sort of attitude, which is why we have so many instances of things taking fucking forever and/or just not happening in Congress.

[Ruto]

Can't find a lot of clips for that Simpsons THOH episode, Citizen Kang...thanks a lot, FOX -.- But I think everyone should watch it because it never gets old. Except Clinton and Dole aren't running for president.

Obama I hate that name!!!!!

Yeah, that's one way to turn this thread into a flame war... >__>

[spitllama]

If politicians figured out that the majority of voters are not radical morons, maybe their idea of compromise would actually change.

[Mashi]

Something I've noticed in politics is that most Democrats strongly favour Democratic principles and Republicans strongly favour Republican principles.  I know that sounds ridiculously obvious, but I don't think that there are many Democrats or Republicans that are only slightly aligned with their respective parties; it's often, as been stated before, a devoted and sometimes even passionate alignment.  So whenever a Republican or Democratic candidate go up for a caucus or primary, he/she always seems more supportive of extreme and party-favoured ideas and actions, but when they finally win the caucus or primary, the candidates both race to appearing to be moderates.  They don't do so in a manner to appear as if they're completely changing face (doing so would alienate their respective party members, after all), but to an extent in which a good deal of their policies are only slightly Democratic or slightly Republican to appeal to the Independents (which, if I'm correct, is 40% of the US population nowadays?  Not sure).  This is the only real explanation I have for why candidates always offer such extreme ideas (and also makes sense out of certain views on issues that certain candidates have, such as Willard Mitt Romney's (also, am I the only one who finds that his being referred to as Mitt, rather than Willard, is hilarious because of how rich Willard sounds?) opposition to gay marriage, to appeal to the religious voters in the Republican party.  Of course, I don't keep up with politics anymore (and when I did, I had no clue what was going on!), so I'm probably completely wrong in my observations of all this, but oh well!

But anyhow, I concur with a lot that's been said in this thread involving the problems with a two party system.  But with the Independents being on the rise, maybe we'll soon see a dominant 3rd party!

[KefkaticFanatic]

Nah, a lot of the candidates now are not only advocating for radical views, but they actually pursue them when appointed to office.  They aren't always that successful, but many of them have been such as all the awful voting regulations meant to stifle low income and minority groups in certain states like Texas and Florida.  Luckily the courts actually look at them and are like "rofl this is unconstitutional" as they should, but the amount of nuts in power is just frightening :|

[Roz~]

Something I've noticed in politics is that most Democrats strongly favour Democratic principles and Republicans strongly favour Republican principles.  I know that sounds ridiculously obvious, but I don't think that there are many Democrats or Republicans that are only slightly aligned with their respective parties; it's often, as been stated before, a devoted and sometimes even passionate alignment.  So whenever a Republican or Democratic candidate go up for a caucus or primary, he/she always seems more supportive of extreme and party-favoured ideas and actions, but when they finally win the caucus or primary, the candidates both race to appearing to be moderates.  They don't do so in a manner to appear as if they're completely changing face (doing so would alienate their respective party members, after all), but to an extent in which a good deal of their policies are only slightly Democratic or slightly Republican to appeal to the Independents (which, if I'm correct, is 40% of the US population nowadays?  Not sure).  This is the only real explanation I have for why candidates always offer such extreme ideas (and also makes sense out of certain views on issues that certain candidates have, such as Willard Mitt Romney's (also, am I the only one who finds that his being referred to as Mitt, rather than Willard, is hilarious because of how rich Willard sounds?) opposition to gay marriage, to appeal to the religious voters in the Republican party.  Of course, I don't keep up with politics anymore (and when I did, I had no clue what was going on!), so I'm probably completely wrong in my observations of all this, but oh well!

But anyhow, I concur with a lot that's been said in this thread involving the problems with a two party system.  But with the Independents being on the rise, maybe we'll soon see a dominant 3rd party!

Yes, a two-party system sucks. It's basically vote against the party you hate and not vote for the party you like.

And yes, I think you are somewhat right. Every politician as to follow their Party Line, so they have to agree with everything, even the most extreme ideas, their party offers. That's why you see some politicians strongly agree with certain ideas; but since they know that the public might not agree, they have to change their stance on said ideas a little bit, to make it look "less extreme" I guess.

[Olimar12345]

So, Slow was banned for this?

lol Kefka was owned

I don't see this "repeted warning" he supposedly had.

Hmmm...
Looks like someone was just looking for a reason to ban him...

[spitllama]

Wait he was actually banned? :O I thought that was a joke... or a warning at the very worst. He didn't say anything insulting.

[Olimar12345]

Wait he was actually banned? :O I thought that was a joke... or a warning at the very worst. He didn't say anything insulting.

Exactly.
What's up, Kefka?

[Dude]

He's done it multiple times.

Where have you people been.

He also constantly talks about disliking Kefka in the skype room, along with derp.

...There's a strike through the e, in case you can't tell.