Amazon Twitch to discipline people for offline behavior

Ungood

Quizzical said:

Iselin said:

The Parti Quebequois, although regional, has had a significant presence in parliament for decades/ The New Democratic party has formed coalition governments with the Liberals a couple of times and has also had a significant presence in parliament for even more decades.

We have something here called "official party status" that requires at least 12 seats in the legislature and confers some extra privileges to those parties. Liberals, Conservative, PQ and NDP have has that status for decades.

Greens are the only party with elected MLAs (3) that don't have that status.

Historically Canada has had many other parties that came and went but it has never been a 2 party system even though two of the parties tend to be dominant. It's the same with politics in EU countries where a couple of parties dominate the landscape but there are so many other parties that it's actually extremely rare to not need coalition governments.

But that's beside the point, which is that voters here have more than just two competing points of view to align themselves with. And politicians of all 5 of the parties do get elected federally.

The number of major political parties that a country will have depends tremendously on election rules.  Some countries use a proportional representation system, where you vote for a party and not an individual, and each party gets a number of seats proportional to its number of votes.  That tends to lead to a lot of major political parties.

The United States uses a first past the post system in which there are a bunch of individual districts, whoever gets the most votes in that district wins the seat, and everyone else gets nothing.  That tends to lead to a two-party system, or at least, if there are more than two parties, it usually isn't more than two parties that contest all seats everywhere.

While I'm a lot less familiar with Canadian politics than I am American politics, my understanding is that the Bloc Quebecois is a regional party that only contests seats in Quebec.  So that doesn't lead to four major parties all contesting seats in Saskatchewan.  Still, I'm not sure how you end up with three major parties outside of Quebec, as at least under the rules of the American political system, that probably wouldn't be stable.  It might just be due to some way that Canadian election or parliamentary rules are different from American rules.

In American history, there have been other parties, but generally two major parties at a time.  After the Federalist party collapsed, they were replaced by the Whigs.  After the Whigs collapsed, they were replaced by the Republicans.  Republicans and Democrats have been the two major parties since the 1850s.

This is a good point, and it really has to do not with our system, but with how corrupt and in control our political parties are.

Case in point, there is no reason why there needs to be Democrats and Republicans in every state, things only exist that way, because those parties want a monopoly on the citizen's vote, forcing them to chose between the two of them, for every single election. This allows those parties to build party loyalty and party identity. 

But there is nothing in the American system that a political party needs to be  federal, or even exist outside it's state, or even make a bid for presidency. People in Texas could form a party called "The Rough Riders" that do not exist outside Texas, and yet still put members of the "Rough Riders" , for for local offices, all the way up to governor, and maybe even put a few bodies into the house of Representatives, given that Texas has 36 seats, they could fill a few with people that were not of the Big 2.

So the fact that we do not have more political parties, or even more local parties, which is what Canada has, they are Provisional, or what we would consider, State Level, political parties, is not a fault of the system, but is the byproduct of the strangle hold the Republicans and Democrats have on our nation.

America was never a two party system, what we have, is two parties that have dominated and corrupted the system, making people believe that it is a 2 party system. 

Scot

Quizzical said:

Iselin said:

Scot said:

I was not really pointing out any particular individual about "education", at least three other posters have used that term.  The UN has all the problems any big organisation has, with the additional problem that it is led by a "committee" that rarely agrees on anything. Any success the UN has always strike me as a triumph of effort over an awful leadership structure.

I think I see your point now, recognised news papers rather than just random guys on the internet? While merely being one of those, I agree with you there. Might I add The Times, the Telegraph and The Observer for breadth of political stance.

When it comes to broadcasters they once set the gold standard in the UK, but times have changed. However I still start my day at the BBC's webpage, though these days no broadcaster we have maintains the standards of impartiality that they once held to.

You can add whatever ones you feel do honest reporting.  I don't know or read those so I have no opinion on them. I do read the CBC web page every day as well as the NYT, Washington Post and Guardian frequently. I know those are reliable sources even if occasionally imperfect.

Don't believe feelings.  Believe evidence.  You're likely to "feel" that whichever sources report things that you like are reliable, even if some of the reports are false.  You'll probably "feel" like sources on your side of the political spectrum are more reliable than those on the other.  Most people do, and it's just part of being human.  But it's often incorrect.  You need evidence if you care about the truth.  Being famous isn't the same as being reliable.

I agree with you here, but this is a trap we all fall into. We can start to view news sources which are more reliable than others as trust worthy. When you realise how much they all have a political stance you don't give out your trust so easily. It is part of the confirmation process that occurs, you think what you do because you read it here, what you are reading here must be trust worthy because it thinks like you do. The thought bubble in action.

Now it is easy to blame the media, I often do, but is there a way of setting up the media so it gives us a more accurate reflection of the news? For example the way broadcasters work is not the same in every country, is one system more healthier than another?

In the UK we have four broadcasters who do the news, they rarely if ever take a different opinion to each other on a news item. The tone and slant may be a bit different but the overall package is just the same. Now I know it is not like that in the US, it is more contentious. Which system is healthier? I think neither, our system leads to a settled view which when it gets it wrong, gets it wrong big time. The US one has conflict built into it so finds it harder to reach any consensus at all. So in many ways we have the best we are going to get, there is no magic bullet. It is down to what we take from the news which is set up about as well as it could be.

Here is a litmus test for you about your own ability to think rather than just regurgitate what you read. Which lets be honest is what we do the baulk of the time when talking about politics. Do you hold any views that are contrary to those expounded in your preferred news sources? Even just one? If not I would suggest you are not thinking for yourself.

Gdemami

The issue laid out has 2 layers that many here have difficulties to distinguish:

1) Can Amazon ban anyone they want from their services?
2) Is it what Amazon should do?

The former is a legal question and there is somewhat an agreement, the latter is a decision made by business entity and where people get issues.

Some acknowledge rights of business owners, but they are still uncomfortable with 2) and ask for regulations.
Then there are others, who also acknowledge rights of business owners and are against it's regulation but only in this particular case.

Both groups are for regulations, they just differ in what and how should be regulated - and both are hypocrites since neither of them actually respect rights of business owners at all. Once something conflicts with their views, they demand intervention(regulations) and that applies to both groups.

The irony is, that is exactly the behavior that pushes Amazon and others to ban people from their business.

How did that happen?

It happened when people traded their liberties for social justice.

Instead of promoting and defending our liberties we only bicker about what liberties we strip off of "the others" - the ones with different tastes, views, the ones we condemn, the ones that "offend us". Left wing, right wing? All the same, they just differ in what liberties they want to strip you off.

Amazon is not doing anything different.

When your customers are looking for authorities to govern their lives, they will take the role of Big Brothers.
When your customers are intolerant, distrespectful, oppressive, hateful, vicious mob looking to persecute someone, they will provide them witch hunts.

So to answer whether Amazon should ban users for behavior outside their platform? Definitely not. But the change cannot come from regulations - that will only reinforce such attitude.

Unless people stop asking for others to improve their own lifehood(at the expense of others via regulations) instead of taking responsibility for their own failures, it will never change. You reap what you saw and if you reap opressive regulations, you will end up opressed.

But what do I know, bring it on Amazon!, credit score and life in China is probably awesome...fuck freedom.

Vrika

Quizzical said:

The number of major political parties that a country will have depends tremendously on election rules.  Some countries use a proportional representation system, where you vote for a party and not an individual, and each party gets a number of seats proportional to its number of votes.  That tends to lead to a lot of major political parties.

You can also do a proportional voting system where you vote an individual. For example:
 1. Every voter gets to vote one individual
 2. Number of seats given to a party is determined by how many total votes its candidates were given
 3. Party's seats are given to their candidates in the order of which candidate got most votes

That way the number of seats is proportional to the whole party's support, but voters also determine who they support most within the party and consequently who get that party's seats.

Rungar

You cant have a democracy and "parties" at the same time. The existence of parties is proof that democracy is a sham. 

The "party" does what it wants, not what you want. The party isnt beholden to you but rather to behind the scenes rich people. You might be conned into thinking it represents you when it actually represses you and undermines the process while it feeds all its friends at your expense. 

back to the games 



 

Quizzical

Vrika said:

Quizzical said:

The number of major political parties that a country will have depends tremendously on election rules.  Some countries use a proportional representation system, where you vote for a party and not an individual, and each party gets a number of seats proportional to its number of votes.  That tends to lead to a lot of major political parties.

You can also do a proportional voting system where you vote an individual. For example:
 1. Every voter gets to vote one individual
 2. Number of seats given to a party is determined by how many total votes its candidates were given
 3. Party's seats are given to their candidates in the order of which candidate got most votes

That way the number of seats is proportional to the whole party's support, but voters also determine who they support most within the party and consequently who get that party's seats.

Suppose that a particular party would win 20% of the vote in every single district.  In a proportional representation system, they get about 20% of the seats and can be a major party that is stable forever.  In a first past the post system, they lose every single race and quickly disband.  That's basically the argument I was making.

laserit

Gdemami said:

The issue laid out has 2 layers that many here have difficulties to distinguish:

1) Can Amazon ban anyone they want from their services?
2) Is it what Amazon should do?

The former is a legal question and there is somewhat an agreement, the latter is a decision made by business entity and where people get issues.

Some acknowledge rights of business owners, but they are still uncomfortable with 2) and ask for regulations.
Then there are others, who also acknowledge rights of business owners and are against it's regulation but only in this particular case.

Both groups are for regulations, they just differ in what and how should be regulated - and both are hypocrites since neither of them actually respect rights of business owners at all. Once something conflicts with their views, they demand intervention(regulations) and that applies to both groups.

The irony is, that is exactly the behavior that pushes Amazon and others to ban people from their business.

How did that happen?

It happened when people traded their liberties for social justice.

Instead of promoting and defending our liberties we only bicker about what liberties we strip off of "the others" - the ones with different tastes, views, the ones we condemn, the ones that "offend us". Left wing, right wing? All the same, they just differ in what liberties they want to strip you off.

Amazon is not doing anything different.

When your customers are looking for authorities to govern their lives, they will take the role of Big Brothers.
When your customers are intolerant, distrespectful, oppressive, hateful, vicious mob looking to persecute someone, they will provide them witch hunts.

So to answer whether Amazon should ban users for behavior outside their platform? Definitely not. But the change cannot come from regulations - that will only reinforce such attitude.

Unless people stop asking for others to improve their own lifehood(at the expense of others via regulations) instead of taking responsibility for their own failures, it will never change. You reap what you saw and if you reap opressive regulations, you will end up opressed.

But what do I know, bring it on Amazon!, credit score and life in China is probably awesome...fuck freedom.

An interesting view with some good points.

I'm confused at your seemingly blind hatred for regulation.

Regulation = Rule

It's really that simple. You couldn't have any organized sports without them. No country could exist without them. Civilization wouldn't exist without them. Every corporation has there own rules/regulations.

Hell even every outlaw motorcycle gangs, drug cartels and MMORPG guilds has rules/regulations. War even has rules and regulations. Imagine free and open biological and chemical warfare.   


Now don't get me wrong, there are definitely bad regulations but there are also good regulations. We should judge each on there own merit. 

Without regulations/rules I doubt you or I would even exist to have this conversation.

Now you can click that lol button

Quizzical

laserit said:

Gdemami said:

The issue laid out has 2 layers that many here have difficulties to distinguish:

1) Can Amazon ban anyone they want from their services?
2) Is it what Amazon should do?

The former is a legal question and there is somewhat an agreement, the latter is a decision made by business entity and where people get issues.

Some acknowledge rights of business owners, but they are still uncomfortable with 2) and ask for regulations.
Then there are others, who also acknowledge rights of business owners and are against it's regulation but only in this particular case.

Both groups are for regulations, they just differ in what and how should be regulated - and both are hypocrites since neither of them actually respect rights of business owners at all. Once something conflicts with their views, they demand intervention(regulations) and that applies to both groups.

The irony is, that is exactly the behavior that pushes Amazon and others to ban people from their business.

How did that happen?

It happened when people traded their liberties for social justice.

Instead of promoting and defending our liberties we only bicker about what liberties we strip off of "the others" - the ones with different tastes, views, the ones we condemn, the ones that "offend us". Left wing, right wing? All the same, they just differ in what liberties they want to strip you off.

Amazon is not doing anything different.

When your customers are looking for authorities to govern their lives, they will take the role of Big Brothers.
When your customers are intolerant, distrespectful, oppressive, hateful, vicious mob looking to persecute someone, they will provide them witch hunts.

So to answer whether Amazon should ban users for behavior outside their platform? Definitely not. But the change cannot come from regulations - that will only reinforce such attitude.

Unless people stop asking for others to improve their own lifehood(at the expense of others via regulations) instead of taking responsibility for their own failures, it will never change. You reap what you saw and if you reap opressive regulations, you will end up opressed.

But what do I know, bring it on Amazon!, credit score and life in China is probably awesome...fuck freedom.

An interesting view with some good points.

I'm confused at your seemingly blind hatred for regulation.

Regulation = Rule

It's really that simple. You couldn't have any organized sports without them. No country could exist without them. Civilization wouldn't exist without them. Every corporation has there own rules/regulations.

Hell even every outlaw motorcycle gangs, drug cartels and MMORPG guilds has rules/regulations. War even has rules and regulations. Imagine free and open biological and chemical warfare.   


Now don't get me wrong, there are definitely bad regulations but there are also good regulations. We should judge each on there own merit. 

Without regulations/rules I doubt you or I would even exist to have this conversation.

Now you can click that lol button

Regulations written and enforced by whom?  It's one thing for every company to write its own internal rules of what its employees must do.  In a competitive market (which is a good description of some markets and not others), if you disapprove of how one company handles things, you can avoid doing business with them and buy from a competitor instead.

It's quite another thing for regulations to be written and enforced by the government that all companies have to abide by.  If you disapprove of those regulations, you've got nowhere else to go unless you're going to flee the country.

Some amount of government rules and regulations are nearly always necessary.  It should be--and is--illegal for Amazon to take your money when you buy an item from them but not actually send you the item you paid for.  But the case for government regulations becomes much weaker when the regulations become much more detailed and try to micromanage business practices.

In some uncompetitive markets, the question of monopolies often becomes relevant.  If you don't like one restaurant, then you don't have to eat there.  There are plenty of other places to get food.  But you only have one set of water pipes to your house, and if you don't like the company that delivers water, you don't really have any viable alternatives.  You need water to live, after all.

When you have a monopoly like that, it is sometimes appropriate to have more intrusive regulations to force a company to do business with basically everyone and to limit what they can charge.  But are the big tech companies monopolies in the sense that electric and water utilities are?  For the most part, I would say "no".

But what is needed for dealing with big tech companies is anti-trust regulations to keep them from becoming de facto monopolies.  Facebook should never have been allowed to buy Instagram, and I think that it should be split into those two separate companies.  Google has dominant positions in the search engine, web advertisement, video sharing, and mobile OS markets, and regularly uses its dominance in one market to inhibit competitors in others.  I'm ambivalent about the government forcing a breakup of Google, but don't see a good case for highly intrusive regulation of exactly how their search engine ought to work.

But every tech company is different, and I generally don't see Microsoft, Apple, or Amazon as being monopolies, though I do think that they should be prohibited from buying competitors in the markets where they are dominant.

The big tech companies are mostly avoidable in ways that electric and water utilities are not, however.  For the most part, I don't do business with Facebook, Amazon, Google, Apple, or Netflix.  I am aware that some companies try to track what I do online, and I'd favor regulations to allow me to harshly limit that, but that's about it.  That is, I'm fine with a company tracking what I do on their own web site, but it should be easy for me to block them from having trackers on a bunch of other sites, as Google and Facebook have no right to know what I do on other sites on the Internet besides their own.

Wizardry

What do you people THINK happens when you try to get a job?You get an interview and in that interview YOU are scrutinized and the person doing the interview is determining if you are good for their business so it is not unlike being scrutinized after you are hired.
I feel some think that just because you have now been hired you should attain a level of protection that no longer allows you to be scrutinized.

I have for years heard the phrase "don't judge me"yeah this matters to that individual when it serves THEM but when the shoe is on the other foot all of a sudden it is time to JUDGE others.If you ever hear someone use that "don't judge me"it says a lot about that person in a negative way.

Ungood

laserit said:

It's really that simple. You couldn't have any organized sports without them. No country could exist without them. Civilization wouldn't exist without them. Every corporation has there own rules/regulations.

Hell even every outlaw motorcycle gangs, drug cartels and MMORPG guilds has rules/regulations. War even has rules and regulations. Imagine free and open biological and chemical warfare.   


Now don't get me wrong, there are definitely bad regulations but there are also good regulations. We should judge each on there own merit. 

Without regulations/rules I doubt you or I would even exist to have this conversation.

Now you can click that lol button

War does not have any regulations, it has the illusion of rules and regulations set down by NATO, and keep in mind, you need to be part of NATO to be bound by those Rules and Regulations. In any case, when it comes to War, if you 'cheat' and win, who is going to punish you that you didn't follow the rules? The loser that you ground under your heel? LOL.

No, the only reason why we have the illusion of regulation in war, is because the biggest bruiser on the planet said that everyone needs to follow these rules & regulations or they will crush them. In short, the laws of war are imposed by a might makes right approach, which is ironic, as most civilized people would resent that is not the way society should run, and yet.

Also, You are also confusing rules and regulations with what would pass for Respect and Common Sense, case in point, In a gang or just random social groups, like gamer guilds, there are often no hard fast rules, more guidelines at best, based heavy on who you are dealing with at the moment and what they will and will not tolerate, and more often than not, a large helping of double standards as well as situational conditions.

As far as society, eh, many prides and herds exist with no hard fast rules, with most social groups built on "Obey the strongest one or get out" and humanity was not any different when it was starting out, in a sense of irony, we really have not diverged from that mentality, where the people in power make the rules, enforce them thought treat of indomitable violence, and in true human nature, also for the most part feel they are exempt from them.

So.

Now you have someone like Amazon, that feels that they should be able to control your access to their services based on something that has nothing to do with their services, ergo, things you do outside your Twitch persona.

How you embrace that, is up to you. But keep in mind, you cannot take away anyone's else freedoms without losing your own in the process, and every freedom you give up today, you just robbed your children of.

But, I have to agree, Fuck Freedom! I for one welcome Big Brother.

Scot

Rungar said:

You cant have a democracy and "parties" at the same time. The existence of parties is proof that democracy is a sham. 

The "party" does what it wants, not what you want. The party isnt beholden to you but rather to behind the scenes rich people. You might be conned into thinking it represents you when it actually represses you and undermines the process while it feeds all its friends at your expense. 

back to the games 

Well at the birth of democracies there were no parties and even in the Victorian era MP's had a lot of latitude into what stance they could take. Today many parties describe themselves as a "broad church" of political opinion. Well yes, as long as you all vote how the party wants you to. Parties give good direction to political opinion while stifling what is not the settled view, very much a two edged sword.

ChildoftheShadows

Regulation prevents competition.

Rungar

Scot said:

Rungar said:

You cant have a democracy and "parties" at the same time. The existence of parties is proof that democracy is a sham. 

The "party" does what it wants, not what you want. The party isnt beholden to you but rather to behind the scenes rich people. You might be conned into thinking it represents you when it actually represses you and undermines the process while it feeds all its friends at your expense. 

back to the games 

Well at the birth of democracies there were no parties and even in the Victorian era MP's had a lot of latitude into what stance they could take. Today many parties describe themselves as a "broad church" of political opinion. Well yes, as long as you all vote how the party wants you to. Parties give good direction to political opinion while stifling what is not the settled view, very much a two edged sword.

they have more power than that. They determine who you get to vote for. As long as they have this power there is no such thing as a democracy. 

Quizzical

ChildoftheShadows said:

Regulation prevents competition.

That can be either true or false depending on how the regulation is structured.  It's an enormous mistake to think of all government regulations as good, or to think of them all as bad.  It all depends on the particular details.  It would similarly be an enormous mistake to think of all laws as good, or of all laws as bad.

Quizzical

Rungar said:

Scot said:

Rungar said:

You cant have a democracy and "parties" at the same time. The existence of parties is proof that democracy is a sham. 

The "party" does what it wants, not what you want. The party isnt beholden to you but rather to behind the scenes rich people. You might be conned into thinking it represents you when it actually represses you and undermines the process while it feeds all its friends at your expense. 

back to the games 

Well at the birth of democracies there were no parties and even in the Victorian era MP's had a lot of latitude into what stance they could take. Today many parties describe themselves as a "broad church" of political opinion. Well yes, as long as you all vote how the party wants you to. Parties give good direction to political opinion while stifling what is not the settled view, very much a two edged sword.

they have more power than that. They determine who you get to vote for. As long as they have this power there is no such thing as a democracy. 

At least in the US, anyone who meets some basic qualifications can run, and the only thing stopping you from winning is if people won't vote for you.  Parties don't have that much control over their own candidates unless you regard a "party" as meaning its tens of millions of members.  For example, in 2016, higher ups in the Republican party sure didn't want Trump to be the party's nominee for president.

MMOExposed

Neanderthal said:

Most of it sounded reasonable but then there is the question of their definition of "terrorist activities".  These days anyone who speaks openly about wanting honest elections and wanting to preserve freedom in the U.S.A. is likely to be labeled a terrorist by the leftists.

In fact, I now fully expect to be banned from this site just for pointing that out.

I want to say RIghtist also do the same thing to people that were born not looking a certain skin tone. SO yeah I agree but goes both sides of the equation 

Rungar

Quizzical said:

Rungar said:

Scot said:

Rungar said:

You cant have a democracy and "parties" at the same time. The existence of parties is proof that democracy is a sham. 

The "party" does what it wants, not what you want. The party isnt beholden to you but rather to behind the scenes rich people. You might be conned into thinking it represents you when it actually represses you and undermines the process while it feeds all its friends at your expense. 

back to the games 

Well at the birth of democracies there were no parties and even in the Victorian era MP's had a lot of latitude into what stance they could take. Today many parties describe themselves as a "broad church" of political opinion. Well yes, as long as you all vote how the party wants you to. Parties give good direction to political opinion while stifling what is not the settled view, very much a two edged sword.

they have more power than that. They determine who you get to vote for. As long as they have this power there is no such thing as a democracy. 

At least in the US, anyone who meets some basic qualifications can run, and the only thing stopping you from winning is if people won't vote for you.  Parties don't have that much control over their own candidates unless you regard a "party" as meaning its tens of millions of members.  For example, in 2016, higher ups in the Republican party sure didn't want Trump to be the party's nominee for president.

Make no mistake here. They decide what compromised retard you get to vote for. You will never get a superhero. Always super zeros. Superheroes are marginalized, smeared, attacked, threatened and killed if necessary. You didn't hear about it.

Ungood

Quizzical said:

Rungar said:

Scot said:

Rungar said:

You cant have a democracy and "parties" at the same time. The existence of parties is proof that democracy is a sham. 

The "party" does what it wants, not what you want. The party isnt beholden to you but rather to behind the scenes rich people. You might be conned into thinking it represents you when it actually represses you and undermines the process while it feeds all its friends at your expense. 

back to the games 

Well at the birth of democracies there were no parties and even in the Victorian era MP's had a lot of latitude into what stance they could take. Today many parties describe themselves as a "broad church" of political opinion. Well yes, as long as you all vote how the party wants you to. Parties give good direction to political opinion while stifling what is not the settled view, very much a two edged sword.

they have more power than that. They determine who you get to vote for. As long as they have this power there is no such thing as a democracy. 

At least in the US, anyone who meets some basic qualifications can run, and the only thing stopping you from winning is if people won't vote for you.  Parties don't have that much control over their own candidates unless you regard a "party" as meaning its tens of millions of members.  For example, in 2016, higher ups in the Republican party sure didn't want Trump to be the party's nominee for president.

You have to be approved by the "Higher Ups" in the Republican party  to accepted by them to run as a candidate on their party.

The only party you can directly chose to run for without needing to get approval from the people running it, is your own. If you want to run on any preexisting party, like the Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Etc, you need to get their explicate approval to use their party ticket, icons, emblems, etc, and in the case of the major parties, like the Republican and Democrat party, you need to sign a contract with them as well.

So if the Republican party did not want Trump, they never would have signed him on as a candidate.

Quizzical

Ungood said:

Quizzical said:

Rungar said:

Scot said:

Rungar said:

You cant have a democracy and "parties" at the same time. The existence of parties is proof that democracy is a sham. 

The "party" does what it wants, not what you want. The party isnt beholden to you but rather to behind the scenes rich people. You might be conned into thinking it represents you when it actually represses you and undermines the process while it feeds all its friends at your expense. 

back to the games 

Well at the birth of democracies there were no parties and even in the Victorian era MP's had a lot of latitude into what stance they could take. Today many parties describe themselves as a "broad church" of political opinion. Well yes, as long as you all vote how the party wants you to. Parties give good direction to political opinion while stifling what is not the settled view, very much a two edged sword.

they have more power than that. They determine who you get to vote for. As long as they have this power there is no such thing as a democracy. 

At least in the US, anyone who meets some basic qualifications can run, and the only thing stopping you from winning is if people won't vote for you.  Parties don't have that much control over their own candidates unless you regard a "party" as meaning its tens of millions of members.  For example, in 2016, higher ups in the Republican party sure didn't want Trump to be the party's nominee for president.

You have to be approved by the "Higher Ups" in the Republican party  to accepted by them to run as a candidate on their party.

The only party you can directly chose to run for without needing to get approval from the people running it, is your own. If you want to run on any preexisting party, like the Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Etc, you need to get their explicate approval to use their party ticket, icons, emblems, etc, and in the case of the major parties, like the Republican and Democrat party, you need to sign a contract with them as well.

So if the Republican party did not want Trump, they never would have signed him on as a candidate.

The exact ballot access rules vary by state, but in a lot of places, you just need to pay a fee and you're on the ballot.  That won't necessarily get people to vote for you, and you'll need to win a primary election to make it to a general election.  But access to be on the primary ballot is pretty easy, which is how Goodspaceguy has run for a variety of offices in the state of Washington as a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, and even as a representative of other political parties that don't actually exist.

Sometimes higher ups in a party have a very strong preference for a particular candidate in a primary election and that candidate loses anyway.  Democrats sure didn't want Alvin Greene to be their candidate in a 2010 Senate race in South Carolina, and for the most part, they didn't even find out who he was until after he won the primary.  Wikipedia says that he raised $0 for his campaign, though he did release a rap video campaign ad.

Or to take another example, Republicans didn't want Christine O'Donnell to be their nominee in a 2010 Senate race in Delaware.  The party overwhelmingly preferred Mike Castle, as he had been elected in Delaware many times before and would have a good chance of actually winning the seat.  O'Donnell went on to lose the general election badly, and was most famous for her "I am not a witch" ad.

klash2def

Quizzical said:

Mylan12 said:

 I have to see them actually discipline  ANTIFA and BLM and other left leaning groups members who are involved in Riots which include damage to property and people before I believe that this is more than the usual BS.

Riots don't happen in random locations.  The reason there have been so many Antifa riots in the Portland area is that the mayor of Portland is inclined to just stay out of the way and let them riot.  Crack down hard on rioters in one riot and you probably won't very more in the same area anytime soon.

*pops head in*

Oh this is still open? okay..

Dude what..Im responding to this because Im so sick of seeing this rhetoric.. lol I'm aware of the type of people around this place which is why I dont say much anymore I just observe from time to time. let me say this and read it carefully.. take your time and read each word like you are in 3rd grade:

*GRABS MIC*

RIOTS AND LOOTING ARE LEGITIMATE AND PROFOUND FORMS OF PROTEST AGAINST A SYSTEM THAT VALUES GOODS AND SERVICES OVER HUMAN LIFE.

*politely places mic on the ground*

ok... continue to fight about Amazon deleting your account and stealing your 'merican rights for being Trump/Biden supporters or whatever the hell boomers like to talk about these days lmao byeee!

Ungood

Quizzical said:

Ungood said:

Quizzical said:

Rungar said:

Scot said:

Rungar said:

You cant have a democracy and "parties" at the same time. The existence of parties is proof that democracy is a sham. 

The "party" does what it wants, not what you want. The party isnt beholden to you but rather to behind the scenes rich people. You might be conned into thinking it represents you when it actually represses you and undermines the process while it feeds all its friends at your expense. 

back to the games 

Well at the birth of democracies there were no parties and even in the Victorian era MP's had a lot of latitude into what stance they could take. Today many parties describe themselves as a "broad church" of political opinion. Well yes, as long as you all vote how the party wants you to. Parties give good direction to political opinion while stifling what is not the settled view, very much a two edged sword.

they have more power than that. They determine who you get to vote for. As long as they have this power there is no such thing as a democracy. 

At least in the US, anyone who meets some basic qualifications can run, and the only thing stopping you from winning is if people won't vote for you.  Parties don't have that much control over their own candidates unless you regard a "party" as meaning its tens of millions of members.  For example, in 2016, higher ups in the Republican party sure didn't want Trump to be the party's nominee for president.

You have to be approved by the "Higher Ups" in the Republican party  to accepted by them to run as a candidate on their party.

The only party you can directly chose to run for without needing to get approval from the people running it, is your own. If you want to run on any preexisting party, like the Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Etc, you need to get their explicate approval to use their party ticket, icons, emblems, etc, and in the case of the major parties, like the Republican and Democrat party, you need to sign a contract with them as well.

So if the Republican party did not want Trump, they never would have signed him on as a candidate.

The exact ballot access rules vary by state, but in a lot of places, you just need to pay a fee and you're on the ballot.  That won't necessarily get people to vote for you, and you'll need to win a primary election to make it to a general election.  But access to be on the primary ballot is pretty easy, which is how Goodspaceguy has run for a variety of offices in the state of Washington as a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, and even as a representative of other political parties that don't actually exist.

Sometimes higher ups in a party have a very strong preference for a particular candidate in a primary election and that candidate loses anyway.  Democrats sure didn't want Alvin Greene to be their candidate in a 2010 Senate race in South Carolina, and for the most part, they didn't even find out who he was until after he won the primary.  Wikipedia says that he raised $0 for his campaign, though he did release a rap video campaign ad.

Or to take another example, Republicans didn't want Christine O'Donnell to be their nominee in a 2010 Senate race in Delaware.  The party overwhelmingly preferred Mike Castle, as he had been elected in Delaware many times before and would have a good chance of actually winning the seat.  O'Donnell went on to lose the general election badly, and was most famous for her "I am not a witch" ad.

That was rather informative, I am going to have to look into this, as this disagrees with pretty much everything I have known about running on a party ticket.

Going to look it up now.