10 most absurd things in GOP state platforms

[McHrozni]

No. "Discrimination," as used in the platform, referrs to denial of a job, on an arbitrary basis, to a qualified person.

Cool. I only quoted it for the Native Americans part below

It will be a while before we can do without fossil fuels. It will be longer than any of us have left on earth for a nuke plant to pay for itself and then to become less-than-lethal to a cockroach at the end of its serviceability.

The argument is that nuclear power is not a viable power source, not that nuclear power is worse than fossil fuels.

Navy hasn't many other options, and France is...well..France. That they elected Sarkozy indicates that they may be in decline intellectually.

French nuclear power predates Sarkozy by about 30 years.

Promises made to working people MUST be kept. That the fat class think that the country will shrivel and die if the Shrub's tax give-aways are clawed back is a delusional belief. The pensions need to be defended, to the last drop of investor-class blood, if need be. The fat class would not be fat but for the contributions that the working class made to society.

Sure. But how do you balance the budget and/or keep the economy afloat, then? This isn't supposed to be an ideological spasm, but a working platform, after all.

We stop telling other countries who they can elect. We stop dangling loans in front of tin-pot dictators on the condition that they open their markets to our corporations, regardless what it does to small businesses, or how much land is taken out of food production to feed the people. We don't invade vulnerable countries just because their tin-pot dictator tried to off POTUS who tried to off the tin-pot dictator.

Okay, so you stop cooperation with dictators. That's a start. How do you support free elections and not interfere with the political process in a country?

The only alternative would be to nullify the treaties by which we got the land and give it all back to the indigenous peoples. They got really screwed on the treaties. They were supposed to enjoy the use of the land "except where staked and cultivated" for "as long as the rivers shall run."

Sure. But don't include an anti-discrimination clause in that case, or classify it as upholding of existing treaties.

How were they supposed to know that we would stake and cultivate the beaches and the shallow water and make the rivers stop running?

I'm pretty sure the 1700s and 1800s Americans didn't know or plan for that either.

Well, we're working on the part about getting business out of government, too. First, though, it looks like we will have to wait for one rightwhacker idiot on the Supreme Court to quit or croak.

You'll probably have to have your revolution first.

McHrozni

 

[KingMerv00]

Can you cite the part of the constitution that bans that?

McHrozni

Heh.

As an alternative, I cite every constitutional court case in the last 220 years.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Not that the Minnesota DNC platform for 2008-10 is significantly less self-destructive, just in a different way.

A valiant effort, but, with such absurdities as demonstrated in the Republican platforms, it seems finding anything even remotely equivalent in the Democratic platforms is an uphill battle. Still, nice try.

Maybe try Vermont?

 

[McHrozni]

Well there is absurd and there is absurd. I'll concede some of the Democrats' points may be destructive in the long run or counterproductive or downright goofy, but the ones you list don't really rise to the level of the folks in Maine fighting a one-world government.

Sure. Although I don't see what damage the said law would produce. You might as well prohibit alien invasions. It's goofy, but not likely to produce any damage. Some of the ones I quoted could, however.

Addressing an issue that does not exist is rather absurd - and doing so at the wrong jurisdictional level adds to the humor. Are the Illuminati really going to say, "our plans for a one world government were going fine until Maine passed legislation outlawing a one world government - curses, foiled again."

I think that's more of a statement of principle than anything else. Such efforts can be meaningful, if they snowball. This issue isn't likely to, granted, but it's not as absurd as you think it is.

And while you may find the idea of fully funding Medicare and Medicaid somewhat silly, don't you agree that abolishing federal income tax (as the Montana Republicans want to do) is quite a bit sillier?

Depends on what "fully funding" means. If it's anything remotely reasonable then yes, it is sillier. But it could also be understood as a completely tax-funded medical and substantial social care for everyone, which makes abolishing income tax sane by comparison.

Overall, I'd say that picking on the weakest link(s) in any platform and making your call based on that is a great way to fail. Does it really matter if Minnesota Democrats want to support democracy abroad? Does it matter if Minnesota Republicans oppose a one world government?

I say no, these points, in themselves, are irrelevant enough to be ignored when making a decision. They will not affect their constituents to a meaningful degree. Overall you might agree more with one or the other or someone else entirely. But don't think that in doing so you aren't inadvertently supporting some of the absurd points. Moreover, don't think that this is in any way relevant - the goofy points are rarely important anywhere other than in party platforms.

McHrozni

 

[Alferd_Packer]

(we oppose) Disposal of hazardous wastes below ground.

Yes, let's dispose of all our hazardous wastes above ground, which is much safer for us. Right?

As it has been pointed out, underground disposal endangers the aquifers. The glacial geology in Minnesota makes the aquifers extremely sensitive to contamination.

The preferred method of hazardous waste managment is to eliminate the generation of the waste in the first place, if reduction is not feasible, then treatment or destruction are the preferred disposal methods.

Burying your haz-waste in a landfill just means that you are going to have to pay big bucks sometime in the future to clean it up.

 

[McHrozni]

Maybe try Vermont?

Nah. It's not my intention to compare DNC and GOP with each other to declare which one is stupider, but to show neither is perfect. No party is. GOP is certainly becoming way goofier than it was 5-10 years ago or so, and DNC much less so. That too is a fairly normal process in politics. Supporting one party exclusively for no apparent reason is likewise, stupid.

McHrozni

 

[leftysergeant]

The argument is that nuclear power is not a viable power source, not that nuclear power is worse than fossil fuels.

It really isn't that cost-effective. Solar, geothermal, wind and hydro (with proper protections for fish) are much better in thjat regard.

French nuclear power predates Sarkozy by about 30 years.

The French also continued doing above-ground nuke tests long after the rest of the world figured out that it was mega-stupid.

Sure. But how do you balance the budget and/or keep the economy afloat, then? This isn't supposed to be an ideological spasm, but a working platform, after all.

Tax the bejabbers out of the financial sector and big estates. Above a given level of income, the only exemptions that should be given are for worker's benefits paid and physical plant created HERE. End the exemption for "repatriation of capital," because it only subsidizes off-shoring of our jobs.

Okay, so you stop cooperation with dictators. That's a start. How do you support free elections and not interfere with the political process in a country?

Through the UN.

I'm pretty sure the 1700s and 1800s Americans didn't know or plan for that either.

The white business people did know they would cut down most of the trees, plow up the camas prairies and plant oysters in the tide lands

You'll probably have to have your revolution first.

Keep starving workers or kicking them to the curb, we just might see that.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

A valiant effort, but, with such absurdities as demonstrated in the Republican platforms, it seems finding anything even remotely equivalent in the Democratic platforms is an uphill battle. Still, nice try.

Maybe try Vermont?

i tried to find some stuff, but all i found was that apparently a lot of state dem parties dont post their platforms where people can find them easily

guess the idea is people should elect them and see what happens to find out their platform

 

[leftysergeant]

guess the idea is people should elect them and see what happens to find out their platform

No. The idea is that people should vote based on what the candidate says.

Democrats can act as a group when it really matters, like getting Obama elected. Other times, it's like pushing a rope to get them to hew to a party line.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

No. The idea is that people should vote based on what the candidate says.

Democrats can act as a group when it really matters, like getting Obama elected. Other times, it's like pushing a rope to get them to hew to a party line.

the interesting thing about this rationalization is that it would mean the GOP is by far the most popular political position in the US, since it takes everyone who isnt a republican to band together to be able to garner enough votes to take elections from the GOP

 

[McHrozni]

It really isn't that cost-effective. Solar, geothermal, wind and hydro (with proper protections for fish) are much better in thjat regard.

Simply put, false. Unfortunately.

Tax the bejabbers out of the financial sector and big estates. Above a given level of income, the only exemptions that should be given are for worker's benefits paid and physical plant created HERE. End the exemption for "repatriation of capital," because it only subsidizes off-shoring of our jobs.

You missed the "keep the economy afloat" part. Want to try again?

Through the UN.

Identical to "don't do anything".

Etc ... I have sufficiently made my point, I think. Even if some of what I wrote isn't that absurd (e.g. waste disposal, due to special circumstances), it's clear absurdities and/or contradictions exists in the platform. True, they may not approach the absurdities in GOPs' current platform there, but this wasn't and won't be always the case. To say DNC is "good" and "GOP" is "bad" is no better than saying the opposite.
DNC is currently "better". Just five years ago, some of their stuff made the hair on my back rise and perform mass gymnastics. These things change and this is usually a good thing.

McHrozni

 

[Alferd_Packer]

It really isn't that cost-effective. Solar, geothermal, wind and hydro (with proper protections for fish) are much better in thjat regard.

Wind turbines are major bird killers

 

[leftysergeant]

Wind turbines are major bird killers

Some of the development money should go toward developing successful bird repellers, or making the blades look more like an impassable obstacle.

 

[leftysergeant]

You missed the "keep the economy afloat" part. Want to try again?

You missed the part about tax exemptions for physical plant built HERE.

Identical to "don't do anything".

There is a limit to how much we can do in any event. The UN would just be better in terms of PR.

Etc ... I have sufficiently made my point, I think. Even if some of what I wrote isn't that absurd (e.g. waste disposal, due to special circumstances), it's clear absurdities and/or contradictions exists in the platform. True, they may not approach the absurdities in GOPs' current platform there, but this wasn't and won't be always the case. To say DNC is "good" and "GOP" is "bad" is no better than saying the opposite.
DNC is currently "better".

The GOP sliding more and more toward fascism. At what point do you consider than evil?

 

[cwalner]

Heh.

As an alternative, I cite every constitutional court case in the last 220 years.

I was initially thinking along the same lines when I saw the original plank. Why do we need to have legislation banning legislation that is inconsistent with the Constitution when we already have a mechanism in place for nullifying such legislation (the SCOTUS)?

But, then I read some of the other planks from Texas and I realize that they want to sidestep the SCOTUS on religious freedom matters and then as a package they made more sense.

I also like the cognitive dissonance required for these two planks to appear on the same platform.

We also urge
the Texas Legislature and the United States Congress to enact legislation prohibiting any jurisdiction from allowing any substitute or parallel system of Law, specifically, but not limited to, Sharia Law, to be recognized which is not in accordance with the Constitutions of Texas or of the United States of America

.

Ten Commandments – We oppose any governmental action to restrict, prohibit, or remove public display of the Decalogue or other religious symbols.

Basically they want the probihit any parallel system of Law, except the one they believe in, which should be protected.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Nah. It's not my intention to compare DNC and GOP with each other to declare which one is stupider, but to show neither is perfect. No party is. GOP is certainly becoming way goofier than it was 5-10 years ago or so, and DNC much less so. That too is a fairly normal process in politics. Supporting one party exclusively for no apparent reason is likewise, stupid.

McHrozni

To me it seems that one can reasonably disagree with the Dem planks as bad policy while the Rep planks are based on pure fantasy. One shows a party trying to deal with serious issues, even if you disagree with their solution. The other shows a party of paranoid reactionaries not able to distinguish what the actual problems are.

As to your assertion that you simply want to show that neither is perfect, I'll just quote Asimov: "when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

 

[Dr. Keith]

Wind turbines are major bird killers

Sarcasm?

If not, you may want to do a bit of research on this with regards to modern siting wind turbines and how modern wind farms are sited and managed. This is a problem that has been largely addressed by the industry.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I was initially thinking along the same lines when I saw the original plank. Why do we need to have legislation banning legislation that is inconsistent with the Constitution when we already have a mechanism in place for nullifying such legislation (the SCOTUS)?

But, then I read some of the other planks from Texas and I realize that they want to sidestep the SCOTUS on religious freedom matters and then as a package they made more sense.

I also like the cognitive dissonance required for these two planks to appear on the same platform.

.


Basically they want the probihit any parallel system of Law, except the one they believe in, which should be protected.

eh, i can see where they come from on this, they want to be able to display religious symbols, but it says nothing about the commandments becoming binding law

and speaking of sidestepping the SCOTUS, heres one from the Maine Democratic Party:

We support a democratic government that:
....
9. Believes the authors of the U.S. Constitution did not intend corporations to be included in the definition of the word “person” and “people,” and supports legislative remedies and/or a Constitutional amendment to correct contrary court decisions.

and to throw cognitive dissonance in there:

We support a democratic government that:
....
5. Maintains the integrity of the Maine and the U.S. Constitutions by strengthening the separation of powers and by requiring executive, legislative, and judicial accountability.

separation of powers....except when the courts are wrong


BTW isnt corporations falling under the definition of "person" kindof the whole point of corporations? so they can hold property and be held accountable for stuff?

 

[dudalb]

Nah. It's not my intention to compare DNC and GOP with each other to declare which one is stupider, but to show neither is perfect. No party is. GOP is certainly becoming way goofier than it was 5-10 years ago or so, and DNC much less so. That too is a fairly normal process in politics. Supporting one party exclusively for no apparent reason is likewise, stupid.

McHrozni

I have a theory that the party out of power tends to be more crackpot then the one in power.
What concerns me is the rise of Conspiracy Theories in the GOP Platforms. That is something new..and dangerous. CTs to me are Canaries in the Mine.
It's worrying to me since I feel we need a reasonable conservative party to keep the liberals in line, just like we need a reasonable Liberal party to keep the conservatives in line. The GOP is rapidly going bonkers on us, and I am appalled by that...though for different reasons then a lot of "progressives" have.

 

[Ladewig]

Depends on what "fully funding" means. If it's anything remotely reasonable then yes, it is sillier. But it could also be understood as a completely tax-funded medical and substantial social care for everyone, which makes abolishing income tax sane by comparison.

Overall, I'd say that picking on the weakest link(s) in any platform and making your call based on that is a great way to fail. Does it really matter if Minnesota Democrats want to support democracy abroad? Does it matter if Minnesota Republicans oppose a one world government?

I say no, these points, in themselves, are irrelevant enough to be ignored when making a decision. They will not affect their constituents to a meaningful degree. Overall you might agree more with one or the other or someone else entirely. But don't think that in doing so you aren't inadvertently supporting some of the absurd points. Moreover, don't think that this is in any way relevant - the goofy points are rarely important anywhere other than in party platforms.

McHrozni

I'm fine with that. I feel no need to rebut any of these points.

I think that's more of a statement of principle than anything else. Such efforts can be meaningful, if they snowball. This issue isn't likely to, granted, but it's not as absurd as you think it is.

I am going to argue this one. Yes, it is as absurd as I think it is. Snowballing or no snowballing - it is very much absurd that the Maine Republicans wrote down their opposition and actually voted against a one world government.