Come out of your closet and take your licks. How can you back an explicitly pro-religion party that thinks women are second-class citizens, chattels of their husbands and The State, and who favors widening the gap between the rich and non-rich even more?
Here's a point gentlemen, that I haven't heard either of you address, and I'd really like to hear from each of you.
Extreme wealth, in the hands of the relatively few - at least under our (US) current political system - politically disenfranchises the remainder of society, in that that remainder has only the vote, and possibly the capability of forming protest groups, while the wealthy can afford to pay lobbyists and fund political campaigns to influence that laws are passed that benefit them over the less affluent remainder of society.
I agree. The wealthy (and that includes the corporate "person" of legal art) have a power to influence and corrupt others to realize their ends. As you said, the rest of us only have the vote. But voters are subject to the influence of the wealthy, too. Especially the more naive among us.
I think it's known as the "Golden Rule" - them that has the Gold, makes the Rules --
The issue then isn't the wealth, or the disparity, but that the voters don't hold their elected officials to account or form interest groups or even vote. Seeing as I actually am a liberal, meaning I hold the individual responsible and find blaming the system futile when there are avenues open to rectify the situation, I hold the voters responsibility for the failings of politics.
You have the politicians, politics, and government you deserve.
Romney darkens skin color to appear more Hispanic
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
It's not going unnoticed that in a September 19th interview on Univision (which has the largest reach of news programming to Latino audiences in the United States), Mitt Romney had his face darkened to appear, well, more Hispanic. As a sharp eye on Democratic Underground noted and showed, there is simply no disputing it if you look at Romney's face while on Univision as compared to his other campaign photos and television appearances.
The cheesy attempt to subliminally try to make Romney appear more Latino, instead of a pale Mormon, was blatantly evident in a surprisingly critical article of the interview in the right wing Washington Times (although it should be disclosed that the commentary was from a liberal blogger).
As far as proof of Romney man tanning it up to try to appear more like "one of them," just look at his wan hands as compared to his face.
Well, then why didn't he appear in blackface when he addressed the NAACP? LOL
Actually, Obama considered trying the same tactic, but since Michael Jackson died, they stopped making PaleMale --
Because looking black, does not make you black. I expect the liberals would suggest that he is the wolf! While conservatives would think he is trying too hard to blend in.
Oompa loompa oompity-doo,
I've got another riddle for you:
What do you get with a fake orange tan?
Voters who think you're an insecure man.
Cheap PR tricks for minorities will
Not make you less of a corporate shill.
So who was your makeup man,
A retiree of the 47%?
Who suggested your 'staining' job,
The under employed man you keep hungery as a temp?
Who did the market study,
To see if such a stain would fly,
A poor sick man of 65?
We all love the noisy minstrel show,
I hope it runs till NO-vember!
For your viewing pleasure --
And more --
"As for Obama being leftist..."
It isn't about Obama being leftist; in a conversation on US parties, his party represents the only viable option for voters on the left. Taking into consideration that Obama's positions on subjects such as health care and taxation of the wealthy, it's relevant.
"...why would it be worse than i.e. Dahl's democratic dilemma?"
I'm not that familiar with the dilemma, but if I'm not mistaken, it deals with the balance of power between democratically elected government and independent organizations. In that scenario, government can wield its authority to limit independent organizations from causing harm and injustice, and independent organizations can keep government in check.
Three common means of independent organizations effecting influence are political lobbying, litigation, and rallying public support. One resource which indisputably facilitates all three of those things is money. If, hypothetically, an independent party comes about whose chief interest lies in generating money, a bit of a problem arises. Once some measure of success has been achieved, money exists for lobbying, litigation and rallying public support. What for? Well, if the party's chief interest is in generating money, it makes sense to wield influence to promote policies and practices which facilitate this party generating more money. And now a vicious circle is born.
But that's not actually a hypothetical 'if'. It certainly exists in my country. I can accept that not all people can have equal wealth, but in a culture where money bears a strong connection with quality of living, opportunity, and power, it is problematic when people are systematically pushed toward certain wealth brackets based largely on the amount of wealth they had to begin with.
I apologize if this is too vague, but I really can't even touch into the broader implications without a) writing mor ethan I have the time and energy to write (or anybody is willing to read), and b) using specific cases from my own culture which are not directly relevant to this thread or relatable to your personal experience.