View Full Version : Is the rift between right and left too far gone?
Belmont31R
07-15-11, 19:03
Just a simple question but it seems American politics have gotten to the point where the differences are insurmountable. The difference between republicans and democrats 30+ years ago wasn't all that huge. I mean Kennedy did the Cuban blockade, and he was in office during our first forays into Vietnam. The SF building is named after him. I could never imagine the Obama Special Forces center. And this is not about Obama but just American people in general.
So if you've interacted with die hard lefties, as I have, have you found any common ground? I have, numerous times, and its almost as if these people are like aliens. Yes they are still Americans but the rift between what was a righty and a lefty is much wider than its ever been. I dont think either side can every reconcile or put politics aside to do what most Americans want or what is best for us. Now the political stage is either based on D or R behind your name not the substance of your argument or point. Just like Juan Williams got tricked on Hannity last night into talking complete shit about a statement he was told Eric Cantor said when it was really Obama who said it in 2006 about the debt limit. I don't even really think its about the substance anymore just gaining power in either the Congress or Executive. I dont think people on the news care anymore about what whatever party they are beholden to but are just out there to attack whatever the other party does. I mean if you watch MSNBC from about 5-9 the entire 4 hour periods is blaming republicans for this and that with some leftist host. They go as far as to say they would vote multiple times if they could. Its not even anything close to news anymore. Its just talking points for a political party disguised as news.
And lastly it seems like the fight revolves around the 10-15% of the "undecideds". Obama only won with 3% of the votes. Not a huge victory yet the losers during that election came out in force like never before in modern politics.
I don't really think we have a bonded country anymore. I really don't. Before Americans were able to get behind America, and now it seems like we have a battle between old America and new America with both sides being polar opposites of each other. I mean I would not really feel bad about having someone like JFK in office like I do about either Clinton or Obama. Now each side is as different as can be imagined. One side investigating the ATF on allowing guns into Mexico and the other side using guns in Mexico as evidence we need new laws and reporting to the government on what guns we buy. The response to this quandry is just further evidence of the rift. The left uses 'guns in Mexico' as evidence of the need for new laws while those on the right use the ATF running guns into Mexico as proof of a civil rights violation conspiracy. Is there anything Im missing here?
I guess what Im asking is...how to people who have either seemingly flocked to either the far right or far left able to come together and run a country? I don't really see things ending until one side or another wins, and I dont think there can be any winners here.
As evidence of this change just look at the makeup of Congress in the last 100 years. When Newt tookover in 1994 it has been decades since we had a republican controlled Congress. A lot of righties view the Reagan era as the holy grail when it comes to government yet Democrats were in charge during the 80's in Congress.
I just think something has happened to where politics are at a point where neither side is ever going to be able to peacefully work with the other. Not that either side is right or wrong just that working together now is much bigger than sides working together. I mean look at the 80's. republican president, and we had the SR47 running, star wars program, it was perhaps one of the best decades of NASA, and lots of major legislation we are dealing with today was passed. Now we have not even had a budget in TWO years. Not just a couple month fight over something we have not had a budget go through the house to the senate to the president in 2 years.
In the end I don't see how this can ever be worked out. The differences today are much greater than they have been in 100 years. Im not a history expert but have done my fair share and more of digging, and I don't really see anything in our history more different than the differences in the north vs. the south in the lead up to the Civil War.
Littlelebowski
07-15-11, 20:00
It's the highly populated urban areas with lots of votes versus the rest of America.
It's the highly populated urban areas with lots of votes versus the rest of America.
Frankly, I do not think the electoral college and the senatorial system goes far enough.
Those that choose to live on top of each other in huge f'ing cities need to be disenfranchised, by and large and let sane people make their political decisions for them.
History is not kind to urbanized populations and their political viewpoints/policies/insane world views.
I believe I saw a study not that long ago that said we are still a lot better off than in times past like the Civil War when it comes to political strife. On the other hand I have this gut feeling that we are moving towards the Balkanization of this nation. I think its a case of where moderates are left with shrills on either side and have become apathetic. I can blame them we there are other alternatives out there.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-15-11, 23:27
I just see it getting worse. We can't even agree on facts anymore. You can get all your information from online sources or cable channels that feed you what you want to hear or don't report what you don't want to hear. Add in representative districts and a primary system that promotes extreme candidates and a unelected judges legislating from the bench because legislatures are full of squabbling politicians.
sadly unless things do get turned around somehow ? I dont see it ending
and I do see it as the beginning of the end so far ?
along with the over the top PC that is being put in place things are going to end up with a huger divide and we all know that ends up in a split or the end of what we know
parishioner
07-16-11, 03:01
I've recognized the increasing polarization. Just tonight I was out with one of my good friends and the debt ceiling crap came up and then we started talking about other things. He then told me that he would vote for Obama again. First of all I didn't even know he voted for him the first time but I asked him why he would vote for him again. He said to give democracy a chance. I said WTF are you talking about. He said in order for something to work, you have to give it time to take hold and all republicans want to do is run the government like a business and you can't do that when you are dealing with human lives (people on welfare, Medicare yada yada). I told him we have a spending problem not a revenue problem and asked him if he knew that nearly half our budget goes to entitlement programs. Didn't have a clue and didn't seem to care since they are "humans".
I don't remember exactly what was said but he was muttering crap about how the rich should be paying more taxes. I asked why and he said why the f**k not? They can afford it. I then asked if he thought a rich person should pay more for a loaf of bread than a lower income person in line behind him and he said they should.
I couldn't believe what I was was hearing. What the hell do you say to that? Fundamentals can't even be agreed upon. It's only a matter of time.
Moose-Knuckle
07-16-11, 04:18
Did we get here by accident?
I say no.
Divide and conquer is an ago old tactic. When looking at both ends of the spectrum I see no difference in Right or Left, Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Liberal. Those in power merely play to the whims of the masses all the while fanning the flames.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand . . ." - Abraham Lincoln
Littlelebowski
07-16-11, 05:32
I agree with Moose Knuckle. I am thoroughly disgusted with big govt Republicans. We need a third party.
I agree with Moose Knuckle. I am thoroughly disgusted with big govt Republicans. We need a third party.
This.
montanadave
07-16-11, 08:23
I just see it getting worse. We can't even agree on facts anymore. You can get all your information from online sources or cable channels that feed you what you want to hear or don't report what you don't want to hear. Add in representative districts and a primary system that promotes extreme candidates and a unelected judges legislating from the bench because legislatures are full of squabbling politicians.
Did we get here by accident?
I say no.
Divide and conquer is an ago old tactic. When looking at both ends of the spectrum I see no difference in Right or Left, Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Liberal. Those in power merely play to the whims of the masses all the while fanning the flames.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand . . ." - Abraham Lincoln
Contained in these two comments are the central elements creating the massive divisions in this nation. The divisions are real. The first is a division in perception and the second is a division in wealth.
I've been beating this drum for a long time now. This nation has become a corporatist plutocracy which has manipulated the majority of the population, who are slowly sinking into an economic abyss, to turn on each other so as to be distracted from the folks at the top stealing out the back door with the wealth of this nation.
It's not about the red state/blue state divide. It's all about the green. Follow the money. It's not flowing right or flowing left-- it's flowing up.
Whenever I hear terms like "most polarized it's ever been", "worst time our country has ever had" etc I can't help but think about how poor our history education is in this country. Im thinking that we were far more polarized (and close to dissolution/collapse) back in the 1860's. Heck my grandparents thought that the END was arriving during the depression/WWII. I think that we are far less different from our ancestors than we imagine.
telecustom
07-16-11, 10:41
I have a Democrat that I work with that actually said to me the other night that the best thing for The Democratic Party is to have the Republicans split. It looks like the Tea Party is actually accomplishing this.
I actually think the Party system is the problem. Having an official platform to conform to is an issue. A candidate needs to just layout what 'they' believe in, not what others tell them what they should believe in.
Dragon Slayer
07-16-11, 10:53
I agree with Moose Knuckle. I am thoroughly disgusted with big govt Republicans. We need a third party.
It is people like you that will cause the democraps to rule forever.
The only time a third party can be succesful is if it draws from both parties not only from one. If you split the Republican party the democraps will rule forever.:rolleyes:
Dragon Slayer
07-16-11, 10:58
Contained in these two comments are the central elements creating the massive divisions in this nation. The divisions are real. The first is a division in perception and the second is a division in wealth.
I've been beating this drum for a long time now. This nation has become a corporatist plutocracy which has manipulated the majority of the population, who are slowly sinking into an economic abyss, to turn on each other so as to be distracted from the folks at the top stealing out the back door with the wealth of this nation.
It's not about the red state/blue state divide. It's all about the green. Follow the money. It's not flowing right or flowing left-- it's flowing up.
So what is what you are saying? Who do you want to control the wealth of America? the government or the people that create the businesses in this country?
I do not get it you have a problem with people or businesses that make money and provide jobs for the people?
It's the highly populated urban areas with lots of votes versus the rest of America.
Sadly, pretty much the case with a few exceptions out west...
QuietShootr
07-16-11, 13:56
Just a simple question but it seems American politics have gotten to the point where the differences are insurmountable. The difference between republicans and democrats 30+ years ago wasn't all that huge. I mean Kennedy did the Cuban blockade, and he was in office during our first forays into Vietnam. The SF building is named after him. I could never imagine the Obama Special Forces center. And this is not about Obama but just American people in general.
So if you've interacted with die hard lefties, as I have, have you found any common ground? I have, numerous times, and its almost as if these people are like aliens. Yes they are still Americans but the rift between what was a righty and a lefty is much wider than its ever been. I dont think either side can every reconcile or put politics aside to do what most Americans want or what is best for us. Now the political stage is either based on D or R behind your name not the substance of your argument or point. Just like Juan Williams got tricked on Hannity last night into talking complete shit about a statement he was told Eric Cantor said when it was really Obama who said it in 2006 about the debt limit. I don't even really think its about the substance anymore just gaining power in either the Congress or Executive. I dont think people on the news care anymore about what whatever party they are beholden to but are just out there to attack whatever the other party does. I mean if you watch MSNBC from about 5-9 the entire 4 hour periods is blaming republicans for this and that with some leftist host. They go as far as to say they would vote multiple times if they could. Its not even anything close to news anymore. Its just talking points for a political party disguised as news.
And lastly it seems like the fight revolves around the 10-15% of the "undecideds". Obama only won with 3% of the votes. Not a huge victory yet the losers during that election came out in force like never before in modern politics.
I don't really think we have a bonded country anymore. I really don't. Before Americans were able to get behind America, and now it seems like we have a battle between old America and new America with both sides being polar opposites of each other. I mean I would not really feel bad about having someone like JFK in office like I do about either Clinton or Obama. Now each side is as different as can be imagined. One side investigating the ATF on allowing guns into Mexico and the other side using guns in Mexico as evidence we need new laws and reporting to the government on what guns we buy. The response to this quandry is just further evidence of the rift. The left uses 'guns in Mexico' as evidence of the need for new laws while those on the right use the ATF running guns into Mexico as proof of a civil rights violation conspiracy. Is there anything Im missing here?
I guess what Im asking is...how to people who have either seemingly flocked to either the far right or far left able to come together and run a country? I don't really see things ending until one side or another wins, and I dont think there can be any winners here.
As evidence of this change just look at the makeup of Congress in the last 100 years. When Newt tookover in 1994 it has been decades since we had a republican controlled Congress. A lot of righties view the Reagan era as the holy grail when it comes to government yet Democrats were in charge during the 80's in Congress.
I just think something has happened to where politics are at a point where neither side is ever going to be able to peacefully work with the other. Not that either side is right or wrong just that working together now is much bigger than sides working together. I mean look at the 80's. republican president, and we had the SR47 running, star wars program, it was perhaps one of the best decades of NASA, and lots of major legislation we are dealing with today was passed. Now we have not even had a budget in TWO years. Not just a couple month fight over something we have not had a budget go through the house to the senate to the president in 2 years.
In the end I don't see how this can ever be worked out. The differences today are much greater than they have been in 100 years. Im not a history expert but have done my fair share and more of digging, and I don't really see anything in our history more different than the differences in the north vs. the south in the lead up to the Civil War.
Nope. **** 'em. I ditched my last lefty friends after the election. Now I have some who think they're my friends, but in reality I keep them around to keep an eye on them.
dookie1481
07-16-11, 14:00
Did we get here by accident?
I say no.
Divide and conquer is an ago old tactic. When looking at both ends of the spectrum I see no difference in Right or Left, Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Liberal. Those in power merely play to the whims of the masses all the while fanning the flames.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand . . ." - Abraham Lincoln
Bingo.
dookie1481
07-16-11, 14:04
I agree with Moose Knuckle. I am thoroughly disgusted with big govt Republicans. We need a third party.
The funny thing is, if people objectively looked at their positions on many issues, instead of merely identifying with a party/ideology, I bet there would be a LOT more libertarians out there.
I know SOOOO many people who identify themselves with a party when their beliefs are much more libertarian than they think..."democrats" who don't want a ton of gov't spending, or "republicans" who don't have a problem with gay marriage, or abortion (PLEASE DON'T **** UP THIS THREAD WHINING ABOUT THESE ISSUES, THIS IS MERELY AN EXAMPLE!!!!!!!)
Littlelebowski
07-16-11, 14:32
It is people like you that will cause the democraps to rule forever.
The only time a third party can be succesful is if it draws from both parties not only from one. If you split the Republican party the democraps will rule forever.:rolleyes:
Oh, ****ing bullshit. There's plenty of blue dog dems out there and plenty of deems disgusted with their party and Obama. Take your simplistic "us versus them" shit elsewhere.
Dragon Slayer
07-16-11, 15:50
Oh, ****ing bullshit. There's plenty of blue dog dems out there and plenty of deems disgusted with their party and Obama. Take your simplistic "us versus them" shit elsewhere.
You are an ignoramus that will never learn from the past, I am trying to keep my mouth clean and not stoop to your level so i shall pass on answering your BS, you can take your third party garbage and shove it together with the screaming banshee Ron (f***ing senseless) Paul.
The only consolation I have is that you libertarians which I call losertarians never won anything, will not win anything and will amount to nothing in the big scheme of things and the only negative contribution you will have that will also bite you on your ass is to keep Obama in power for four more years.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-16-11, 15:51
Oh, ****ing bullshit. There's plenty of blue dog dems out there and plenty of deems disgusted with their party and Obama. Take your simplistic "us versus them" shit elsewhere.
Actually, it is the redistricting and Republican gains in the South and Democratic gains in New England that have lead to higher 'purity' in the parties. Blue Dogs either lost in primaries to progressives or lost to Republicans in races. 2010 was the last gasp of 'center-right' democrats that got elected in 2006 and 2008. Those 'conservative' democrats either weren't really conservative and got voted out or people realized that they were just Pelosi's bitches with no clout and even if they said things conservative dems liked the national party was jerky goofy left.
I'm not saying that their aren't voters out there that are fairly conservative and identify themselves as democrats, it is just there are very few elected officials that fit that description anymore. There used to be a lot in the south, and now the only place you will find them in in the west/mountain region because of our lack of big city centers.
Dragon Slayer
07-16-11, 16:32
The rift between right and left has reached a crescendo. The reason the left is going to continue winning is because some on the right have what I call the impossible dream syndrome from the production of "The Man From la Mancha".
This so called right wingers have to have it all or they will sit home and not vote or vote for a candidate or party that has never won anything, is not winning anything and will never win anything but the left is united and they always will vote as a block because their goal is to defeat the right wing candidate no matter who he is..
The impossible dreamers by doing so and throwing their vote away they have and will continue facilitating the democraps win and if you do not believe me look what happened with Perot and please do not tell me that Perot did not take enough votes to get Clinton elected he took some and the other third party candidates took some and some sat home and did not vote so we lost and Clinton won.
The same happened with Obama, a nobody won and is running the country into the ground and if people will persist in searching for the impossible dream (candidate) it will happen again, remember any body is better then Obama.
Dragon Slayer
07-16-11, 16:38
BTW just so you know how united the left is just imagine if Obama tomorrow shifted and run as a republican he would be defeated by the left wingers.:angry:
dookie1481
07-16-11, 17:35
Impossible dreamers throwing our votes away?
I would rather go hungry than choose to eat one of the plates of shit put in front of me.
Dragon Slayer
07-16-11, 18:43
Impossible dreamers throwing our votes away?
I would rather go hungry than choose to eat one of the plates of shit put in front of me.
If you eat the stuff that the impossible dreamers serve you and Obama gets reelected you will be eating shit that Obama will serve you for the next four years.:rolleyes:
Impossible dreamers throwing our votes away?
I would rather go hungry than choose to eat one of the plates of shit put in front of me.
That is making a choice and voting right there in and of itself.
Sitting out because there is no perfect candidate on the GOP side is by default a vote for the worse candidate on the left. So by going hungry, you are choosing the sh*t from the left.
I agree with Moose Knuckle. I am thoroughly disgusted with big govt Republicans. We need a third party.
You won't get it. The best that can happen is a new party displaces one of the existing parties.
This is due to how the system us designed as a "winner takes all" system. Because of this, the losers band together to take the winner on next go around. This is why we have a two party system.
dookie1481
07-16-11, 19:37
That is making a choice and voting right there in and of itself.
Sitting out because there is no perfect candidate on the GOP side is by default a vote for the worse candidate on the left. So by going hungry, you are choosing the sh*t from the left.
So be it.
It's not like things would be much different for the average person had McCain been elected.
So be it.
It's not like things would be much different for the average person had McCain been elected.
Do you really believe that? Do you think that the government outlays would have gone up as high and as fast as they have under Obama (which are much higher than even that spender Bush dared)? That McCain would have socked us with something similar to Obamacare? That the naked class warfare that Obama pushes would have happened? That the give aways to the Unions would have happened? That Boeings 787 factory in SC would be on hold?
I think the real problem is Democrats today are no longer simply Americans with some socially liberal views, but honest to god socialists and communists posing as Democrats.
By todays standards Truman and Kennedy would be conservative Republicans. And honestly I'd take either one of them over the last four Presidents we've had.
Thomas M-4
07-16-11, 20:36
You won't get it. The best that can happen is a new party displaces one of the existing parties.
This is due to how the system us designed as a "winner takes all" system. Because of this, the losers band together to take the winner on next go around. This is why we have a two party system.
This is it ^^, our system a two party system.
You may not like any person from either party. I know that I don't really like any of the republican runners so-far. But you have to choose between the lesser of the two evils.
I can not tell you enough words how much I hate Romney :bad: But if he runs against Obama then he will get my vote :bad::bad: Then I will go to the BAR to get drunk.
ChicagoTex
07-16-11, 20:37
I think the real problem is Democrats today are no longer simply Americans with some socially liberal views, but honest to god socialists and communists posing as Democrats.
In fairness, are we talking about the captial D Democrats (i.e. the American party), or democrats as the word etymologically means?
If the former, how is it "posing"? Just because current Democrats differ from former Democrats? The Republicans have changed an awful lot too in the past 20-30 years, especially as far as frequently running as the de facto fundamentalist Christian platform (which I would submit to you is every bit as much as a betrayal of the original word "republican" as socialist "democrats").
My point is that it seems to me that it's generally public knowledge these days that neither Capital D Democrats nor Capital R Republicans operate remotely in line with their actual namesake, and while that's annoying from an abuse-of-the-english-language standpoint, I don't really view it as the "betrayal" or "posing" you seem to, nor do I think it's really a major issue.
By todays standards Truman and Kennedy would be RINOs. And honestly I'd take either one of them over the last four Presidents we've had.
A. There, I fixed it for you.
B. Absolutely, me too.
C. The fact that the very concept of RINOs and DINOs exist is a testament to the original lament of this thread that candidates are no longer candidates themselves, but symbols of what the general populace thinks they should be (or thinks they shouldn't be).
Belmont31R
07-16-11, 20:48
You are an ignoramus that will never learn from the past, I am trying to keep my mouth clean and not stoop to your level so i shall pass on answering your BS, you can take your third party garbage and shove it together with the screaming banshee Ron (f***ing senseless) Paul.
The only consolation I have is that you libertarians which I call losertarians never won anything, will not win anything and will amount to nothing in the big scheme of things and the only negative contribution you will have that will also bite you on your ass is to keep Obama in power for four more years.
The ruling parties have won us a 14.5 trillion dollar debt that is going up by 1.5+ trillion a year, wars/bombing 5 middle east nations, welfare programs out the wazoo, we haven't even had a budget in 2 years, our schools suck, we have constant government involvement in our personal lives, your kids, wife, and grand mother have to get molested and assaulted to travel to another city or state, and I can list many many more things.
But yes its the libertarians who are to blame....:rolleyes:
Belmont31R
07-16-11, 21:00
C. The fact that the very concept of RINOs and DINOs exist is a testament to the original lament of this thread that candidates are no longer candidates themselves, but symbols of what the general populace thinks they should be (or thinks they shouldn't be).
My problem with candidates now is they say one thing, and then get to Congress the entire thing is run by a few people. Its like a school of fish. They all mostly vote for the same shit because the leadership tells them to. So we have, really, maybe 15-20 people running the country. Whatever party is in charge has their leader, and 95% of the time they do what the leader says to. If a rep doesn't toe the line they get cuts in responsibility like committee appointments, reelection contributions from the DNC/RNC, district mapping, ect.
Not to mention most people these days are stupid, don't care about much, and even if you do care it would be a full time job to keep track of every elected official in my "chain". We have school board (which has taxing authority), city board, county level positions from DA to judge to commissioner, state reps and senators, national reps and senators, governor, president, and who knows what else. Take an average guy working 9-5 5 days a week with a family, and no person can keep track of all the shit these people do. No one wants to come home tired from work and then put the mental energy into figuring out what all these jackasses are doing, and then actually do something about it.
Belmont31R
07-16-11, 21:25
The rift between right and left has reached a crescendo. The reason the left is going to continue winning is because some on the right have what I call the impossible dream syndrome from the production of "The Man From la Mancha".
This so called right wingers have to have it all or they will sit home and not vote or vote for a candidate or party that has never won anything, is not winning anything and will never win anything but the left is united and they always will vote as a block because their goal is to defeat the right wing candidate no matter who he is..
The impossible dreamers by doing so and throwing their vote away they have and will continue facilitating the democraps win and if you do not believe me look what happened with Perot and please do not tell me that Perot did not take enough votes to get Clinton elected he took some and the other third party candidates took some and some sat home and did not vote so we lost and Clinton won.
The same happened with Obama, a nobody won and is running the country into the ground and if people will persist in searching for the impossible dream (candidate) it will happen again, remember any body is better then Obama.
Im not searching for the dream candidate.
I will tell you a few things. Our primary system is so ****ed a few states decide who the rest of us get to vote for. I never get to vote in a primary that makes any difference. So you get a few states who 'elect' an Obama symanthizer like McCain who most righty people had to hold their nose to vote for... a guy who said we have nothing to fear from Obama, and only came close in the poles after whats her name came along, and then suspended his campaign to go vote yes for a 600+ billion dollar bank hand out.
If Romney is the front runner this time around I get to vote for ****stick A who made Romney care nationwide or ****stick B who created RomneyCare and signed his states assault weapons ban. Great choices there...and now all the sudden Romney is a conservative...his only opposition to ObamaCare was because he thinks states should be able to force mandatory insurance purchase not the Federal government. What a great thing to tell us we should support on a site called m4carbine.net a guy who signed into law a law which took away his state's citizens right to own guns this site is dedicated to.
GermanSynergy
07-16-11, 22:52
I ended a promising romantic relationship when I found out that she voted for Obama. I'd rather be single and true to my ideological beliefs than be a Romney.
ChicagoTex
07-16-11, 23:08
My problem with candidates now is they say one thing, and then get to Congress the entire thing is run by a few people. Its like a school of fish. They all mostly vote for the same shit because the leadership tells them to. So we have, really, maybe 15-20 people running the country. Whatever party is in charge has their leader, and 95% of the time they do what the leader says to. If a rep doesn't toe the line they get cuts in responsibility like committee appointments, reelection contributions from the DNC/RNC, district mapping, ect.
That is indeed a massive problem (and don't forget the leadership also blackmails their own candidates with the threat of campaign fund withdrawal). The fact is the parties themselves have arranged things such that there is virtually no incentive to stay true to the constituency, and all the incentive in the world to follow party instructions. This reality has been recounted numerous times by former politicians from both parties.
ChicagoTex
07-16-11, 23:12
I ended a promising romantic relationship when I found out that she voted for Obama. I'd rather be single and true to my ideological beliefs than be a Romney.
I sincerely hope for your sake there was actually more to it than that and you're just oversimplifying for brevity's sake.
I, for one, don't think who a person votes for reflects on them nearly as much as WHY they vote for that person.
People can often be misled, after all, and you'd be hard-pressed to deny that many career politicians (Obama included) are some of the most successful con-artists in the world.
GermanSynergy
07-16-11, 23:29
I sincerely hope for your sake there was actually more to it than that and you're just oversimplifying for brevity's sake.
I, for one, don't think who a person votes for reflects on them nearly as much as WHY they vote for that person.
People can often be misled, after all, and you'd be hard-pressed to deny that many career politicians (Obama included) are some of the most successful con-artists in the world.
Why "for my sake"? I made the choice to end the relationship, and have no regrets. She didn't like guns, the military or Indian food. She got an F in GermanS's book.
I ended a promising romantic relationship when I found out that she voted for Obama. I'd rather be single and true to my ideological beliefs than be a Romney.
That works in relationships. It does not work in voting. Since each person has 1 vote, whether they vote or not, that vote has its effect, cast or not. So, in a hypothetical matchup between Obama and Romney, assuming you don't support Obama, not voting is a vote for Obama and has a direct result in the outcome. So what you describe is only possible in love, not in elections.
Thomas M-4
07-16-11, 23:38
I really hate that bastard I really do.. But right now it looks like if we will have a choice between 9.5 bastard or a 10.0 bastard:suicide2:. If it comes to it it will be the hardest vote I have had to take so far.
I Really don't care if Romney is a one timer right now. Maybe it would be good for the system to have a string of one timers to shake the scallywags from both parties loose from power.
GermanSynergy
07-17-11, 00:50
Oh, for the record, I don't see this getting better. I'm a young man, but have never seen a nation more divided and polarized.
This rift isn't going to get better.
Thomas M-4
07-17-11, 01:23
Oh, for the record, I don't see this getting better. I'm a young man, but have never seen a nation more divided and polarized.
This rift isn't going to get better.
I can not see any body giving you argument for much other wise.
But we have the choose between witch what we have. BTW my family mostly voted for Ross Perot back in the day that is why I tell you to vote for who ever the 2 party system elect's:bad:
ChicagoTex
07-17-11, 01:30
Why "for my sake"? I made the choice to end the relationship, and have no regrets. She didn't like guns, the military or Indian food. She got an F in GermanS's book.
You previously described ending a, in your words, "promising romantic relationship" because she voted for Obama. What you describe doesn't sound particularly promising at all, so my apologies for taking you at your word.
GermanSynergy
07-17-11, 01:35
You previously described ending a, in your words, "promising romantic relationship" because she voted for Obama. What you describe doesn't sound particularly promising at all, so my apologies for taking you at your word.
It was promising, until she dissed Indian cuisine, guns and the .mil
Any of the 3 are grounds for future divorce. :lol:
Thomas M-4
07-17-11, 01:40
It was promising, until she dissed Indian cuisine, guns and the .mil
Any of the 3 are grounds for future divorce. :lol:
No argument from me:lol: Just wasn't meant to be. Been there, done that.
ChicagoTex
07-17-11, 02:59
It was promising, until she dissed Indian cuisine, guns and the .mil
Any of the 3 are grounds for future divorce.
I can just imagine drafting that up in the pre-nup:
"If the first party ever becomes aware that his spouse is less than enthusiastic for
a.) Firearms
b.) The U.S. Military
or c.) Indian Cuisine
...the first party shall be entitled to immediate anullment and retention of all assets prior to the marriage. The spouse may also receive a bare-bottom spanking at the first party's option."
:lol::cool:
Politics are exhausting these days. I'm at the point where I don't trust any of them. What they sell you on to vote for them & what materializes are 2 different things. Then when it doesn't work out it's the last guys fault. I want to know where's the hope & change for the better that was promised? When the almighty one was campaigning, he went on like a slippery used car salesman & sold the majority of the country on his bullshit. Now since he failed, it's Bush's fault. None of them take any accountability when they crash & burn.
I'm tired of the "vote for the lesser of the 2 evil's" crap. To me it's like having to choose between having to screw one of the last 2 ugly, fat chicks at the bar when you have no interest in either. I don't want to just settle for the best of the scraps. I'd rather go without. Ahhhhh, it's frustrating!
JFK would be too conservative to get elected as a Republican these days.
The country wasn't founded legally and I doubt it will be re-founded legally. Like my fathers before me, I am not above begging for my liberty, wages and property, but if you have a sincerely held belief that those things belong to you, then you need to move to Canada or die.
Oh, for the record, I don't see this getting better. I'm a young man, but have never seen a nation more divided and polarized.
This rift isn't going to get better.
This level of polarization has existed though out our history over various issues and usually divides the population down the center (excluding the 30% of "independents" who do not know what day it is let alone the issues). The scope and importance of the issues have determined the fallout with the Civil War being the most costly to date.
Today, the major issue dividing the country is that of government spending as it relates to government providing the necessities of life - in other words entitlement spending. Every other pet issues such as abortion, gun control, GWOT, gay marriage, etc. will become further relegated to the back burner of the national conscious until this is sorted out.
Despite claims to the contrary in this thread, there are big differences between the two sides. Divorcing oneself from the process because there is no "perfect" candidate is self-defeating since abstinence from the polls essentially supports the incumbent and the status quo in a 2-party system.
That works in relationships. It does not work in voting. Since each person has 1 vote, whether they vote or not, that vote has its effect, cast or not. So, in a hypothetical matchup between Obama and Romney, assuming you don't support Obama, not voting is a vote for Obama and has a direct result in the outcome. So what you describe is only possible in love, not in elections.
If the Republican party wants people to vote for their candidate, they should put someone up who has a better campaign platform than simply "Hey, I'm not that douchebag..."
Moose-Knuckle
07-17-11, 08:49
But we have the choose between witch what we have.
In reality we really don't have a choice. If so Ron Paul would have received just a little more media attention during the last election. Its perceived freedom of choice. In the end candidate "A" or "B" is not really a choice.
The country wasn't founded legally and I doubt it will be re-founded legally. Like my fathers before me, I am not above begging for my liberty, wages and property, but if you have a sincerely held belief that those things belong to you, then you need to move to Canada or die.
Very well put.
This so called right wingers have to have it all or they will sit home and not vote or vote for a candidate or party that has never won anything, is not winning anything and will never win anything but the left is united and they always will vote as a block because their goal is to defeat the right wing candidate no matter who he is..
The impossible dreamers by doing so and throwing their vote away they have and will continue facilitating the democraps win and if you do not believe me look what happened with Perot and please do not tell me that Perot did not take enough votes to get Clinton elected he took some and the other third party candidates took some and some sat home and did not vote so we lost and Clinton won.
The same happened with Obama, a nobody won and is running the country into the ground and if people will persist in searching for the impossible dream (candidate) it will happen again, remember any body is better then Obama.Quite frankly it is this attitude that has lead us to where we are at. I know quite a few Dems that agree with me more than disagree, but as with far to many, they are convinced to vote for only one of the big two. I am sorry but if everyone would vote for WHO THEY WANT and not for lesser of two evils or party lines, we would get a better result instead of the losers who are chosen, then forced down our throats. Romney is the perfect example, I don't know a single conservative or Libertarian who wants or even likes him but they say they will still vote for him because he is not Obama:rolleyes:. I even know a few Dems that have told me that. If you don't like either Dem or Rep and you vote for one of them, you are throwing your vote away.
QuietShootr
07-17-11, 09:00
I ended a promising romantic relationship when I found out that she voted for Obama. I'd rather be single and true to my ideological beliefs than be a Romney.
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/8894/kaneklapqo6.gif
QuietShootr
07-17-11, 09:05
Quite frankly it is this attitude that has lead us to where we are at. I know quite a few Dems that agree with me more than disagree, but as with far to many, they are convinced to vote for only one of the big two. I am sorry but if everyone would vote for WHO THEY WANT and not for lesser of two evils or party lines, we would get a better result instead of the losers who are chosen, then forced down our throats. Romney is the perfect example, I don't know a single conservative or Libertarian who wants or even likes him but they say they will still vote for him because he is not Obama:rolleyes:. I even know a few Dems that have told me that. If you don't like either Dem or Rep and you vote for one of them, you are throwing your vote away.
There's a smoke screen here: this guy doesn't like Obama because he's an Israeli. Which has ****-all to do with internal US politics, and as such should be immediately dismissed from consideration in this discussion.
And I agree with both sides: no vote is a vote for Obama, but voting for that scumbag Romney is giving him de facto approval of his agenda.
Perhaps not voting will speed the eventual (necessary, imo) collapse and restart. For now, that's going to be my choice.
I don't remember exactly what was said but he was muttering crap about how the rich should be paying more taxes. I asked why and he said why the f**k not? They can afford it. I then asked if he thought a rich person should pay more for a loaf of bread than a lower income person in line behind him and he said they should.
I couldn't believe what I was was hearing. What the hell do you say to that? Fundamentals can't even be agreed upon. It's only a matter of time.
I can't believe how much that mentality has taken over. It's spoon fed by the media sooo much it's taken hold.
I have a Democrat that I work with that actually said to me the other night that the best thing for The Democratic Party is to have the Republicans split. It looks like the Tea Party is actually accomplishing this.
I actually think the Party system is the problem. Having an official platform to conform to is an issue. A candidate needs to just layout what 'they' believe in, not what others tell them what they should believe in.
Genius.
I think the real problem is Democrats today are no longer simply Americans with some socially liberal views, but honest to god socialists and communists posing as Democrats.
I agree MOST are. Some just want to retain power. A local House Rep has flipped flopped on so many issues, voted with Pelosi most of the time except when not needed to because the votes were there (Obamacare as one example) and was able to retain his seat.
Im not searching for the dream candidate.
I will tell you a few things. Our primary system is so ****ed a few states decide who the rest of us get to vote for. I never get to vote in a primary that makes any difference. So you get a few states who 'elect' an Obama symanthizer like McCain who most righty people had to hold their nose to vote for... a guy who said we have nothing to fear from Obama, and only came close in the poles after whats her name came along, and then suspended his campaign to go vote yes for a 600+ billion dollar bank hand out.
If Romney is the front runner this time around I get to vote for ****stick A who made Romney care nationwide or ****stick B who created RomneyCare and signed his states assault weapons ban. Great choices there...and now all the sudden Romney is a conservative...his only opposition to ObamaCare was because he thinks states should be able to force mandatory insurance purchase not the Federal government. What a great thing to tell us we should support on a site called m4carbine.net a guy who signed into law a law which took away his state's citizens right to own guns this site is dedicated to.
Exactly. What differences are there between them?
There's a smoke screen here: this guy doesn't like Obama because he's an Israeli. Which has ****-all to do with internal US politics, and as such should be immediately dismissed from consideration in this discussion.
And I agree with both sides: no vote is a vote for Obama, but voting for that scumbag Romney is giving him de facto approval of his agenda.
Perhaps not voting will speed the eventual (necessary, imo) collapse and restart. For now, that's going to be my choice.
I won't vote for either douchebag.
I'm tired of the "vote for the lesser of the 2 evil's" crap. To me it's like having to choose between having to screw one of the last 2 ugly, fat chicks at the bar when you have no interest in either. I don't want to just settle for the best of the scraps. I'd rather go without. Ahhhhh, it's frustrating!
Except, you can't. Any choice you make, including making no choice, affects the outcome. And making no choice at all is usually, in practical terms, a vote for the greater of two evils.
Just by virtue of reaching the age of 18 and getting the right to vote, you choice has an affect whether you like it or not.
The country wasn't founded legally and I doubt it will be re-founded legally.
Probably true (not that I am advocating that). However, until then, we have what we have and each of us has a vote on how that evolves. Making no choice in an election is in practicality a vote for the incumbent, or him who is ahead in the polling, as the case may be, as has been mentioned, which is usually the greater of the two evils. You cannot escape this no matter what you try.
I won't vote for either douchebag.
Yes you will. You have no choice. If you stay home on election day, then for all practical purposes, you have voted for Obama. In a practical sense you have let someone else use your vote.
Lots of people here need a lesson in civics and how a "winner takes all" system really works (which is why our system is a 2 party system).
If you don't like either Dem or Rep and you vote for one of them, you are throwing your vote away.
I used to believe that. But it is not true. Not voting is throwing your vote away, because for all practical purposes it is allowing someone else to use your vote. You basically cede your vote to the most "popular" of the two.
Our system is a 2 party system and you cannot change that. It cannot change -- it is baked into how our system was formed in the beginning by virtue of being a "winner takes all" system. (I am not saying the founding fathers said, "let's have a two party system." In fact, most of them did not want any party as far as I can tell. But they did set up a "winner takes all" type of democratic system, which naturally will turn into a 2 party system by inherent nature). This is civics 101 (that is where I learned it).
You will not get away from a 2 party system without changing the basic foundation to something like a proportional system used in parliamentary systems. The best you can hope for is that a party dies and is replaced by a better party, which has happened a few times. That is unlikely in today's information age and entitlement age of stupid people voting.
A 3rd party will never win. It is impossible. If enough people get dissatisfied with one of the majors and votes for a 3rd party, the best you can hope for is that the losing major party tacks in the direction of the 3rd party platform a little in hopes of regaining the dissatisfied, so a 3rd party can sometimes have an effect on the platform and direction of one of the majors. But the 1% that the Libertarian Party gets is not enough to do that. You would probably ned at least 5% and more like 10-20%.
And due to it being a "winner takes all" system, you don't really have a choice to not vote. Sure, you can stay home. But the reality of it is that your action is taken as a vote for the more popular of the two candidates, usually the greater of 2 evils now-a-days. This is because you deprived the less popular candidate of a vote which made it that the more popular needs one less person voting for him. The effect is that you voted him. All you guys who did not vote for McCain basically voted for Obama, whether you like it or not. Think about that! YE OBAMA Lovers! :D
The_War_Wagon
07-17-11, 12:07
Since 1988, yes. And takers now outnumber producers. And charity can't make up the difference, because gumint - the BIGGEST "takers" - want charity regulated INTO elimination. :(
Thomas M-4
07-17-11, 12:56
And due to it being a "winner takes all" system, you don't really have a choice to not vote. Sure, you can stay home. But the reality of it is that your action is taken as a vote for the more popular of the two candidates, usually the greater of 2 evils now-a-days. This is because you deprived the less popular candidate of a vote which made it that the more popular needs one less person voting for him. The effect is that you voted him. All you guys who did not vote for McCain basically voted for Obama, whether you like it or not. Think about that! YE OBAMA Lovers! :D
This is exactly it , and it really is in civics 101.
This is exactly it , and it really is in civics 101.
Of course, the flip side is, if you live in an area, like I do, where the greater of two evils has no chance at all of approaching the lesser of two evils choice in the popular vote (ie, in a very Republican state that even when the Democrat is popular, is not popular enough to even approach the Republican such as in Utah where McCain got around 62%), you can safely vote for a 3rd party without affecting the outcome, and make your discontent heard. This can be important if enough people do it (at least at a local level) as it can force the party who lost the votes to tack a bit in the direction of the 3rd party platforms.
Thomas M-4
07-17-11, 13:39
Yes you can but that is like asking a mob to perform a complicated task its sure to get fouled up.
The parties need to change how to accomplish this IDK.
If you guys want to keep attacking people who choose only to vote for someone when they are actually voting for someone, so be it. You are certainly entitled to whatever opinion you wish.
I am not "depriving" any candidate of my vote by not voting for them. It's my vote, and they have no right to it. And if, as you state, they are the "less popular candidate", well that right there is the problem, isn't it? If the GOP puts on a repeat performance of '08 and gives us another McCain on the ballot, then the blood is on their hands for losing, not mine. It's also on the hands of the moochers voting for Obama. In any case, it will not be my fault when the GOP nominates Romney or Bachmann and Obama wins a second term. Sorry. I'm sure you disagree and that's fine.
Perhaps everyone on both sides (voting or not voting for lesser of two evils) should quit telling the other side that they are wasting their vote. Vote your conscience and how you see fit and it's not wasted.
If you guys want to keep attacking people who choose only to vote for someone when they are actually voting for someone, so be it. You are certainly entitled to whatever opinion you wish.
Nobody is attacking you. We are only pointing out the fact that you don't really have the choice not to vote. Even if you don't go to the voting booth, you still are casting a vote that has an effect in the election.
I am not "depriving" any candidate of my vote by not voting for them.
Nobody claimed you were (in the sense that you mean it). What I said is that when you withhold your vote from the lesser of two evils, it basically equates to support, a vote so to say, for the greater of two evils. That is just how it works out.
It's my vote, and they have no right to it. And if, as you state, they are the "less popular candidate", well that right there is the problem, isn't it? If the GOP puts on a repeat performance of '08 and gives us another McCain on the ballot, then the blood is on their hands for losing, not mine. It's also on the hands of the moochers voting for Obama. In any case, it will not be my fault when the GOP nominates Romney or Bachmann and Obama wins a second term. Sorry. I'm sure you disagree and that's fine.
Perhaps everyone on both sides (voting or not voting for lesser of two evils) should quit telling the other side that they are wasting their vote. Vote your conscience and how you see fit and it's not wasted.
The point is, when you withhold your vote, by voting your conscience, there is the unintended consequence of, from a practical viewpoint, voting for the other (worse) guy. There is no way around this. So your action has an effect, however unintended, and the blood IS on your hands as much as on anyone elses.
A. There, I fixed it for you.
B. Absolutely, me too.
C. The fact that the very concept of RINOs and DINOs exist is a testament to the original lament of this thread that candidates are no longer candidates themselves, but symbols of what the general populace thinks they should be (or thinks they shouldn't be).
Actually, no. Truman and Kennedy would be conservatives Republicans with much in common with Reagan. But I agree just as there are DINOs there are RINOs, Guiliiani, Romney, etc. come to mind.
Nobody is attacking you. We are only pointing out the fact that you don't really have the choice not to vote. Even if you don't go to the voting booth, you still are casting a vote that has an effect in the election.
Nobody claimed you were (in the sense that you mean it). What I said is that when you withhold your vote from the lesser of two evils, it basically equates to support, a vote so to say, for the greater of two evils. That is just how it works out.
The point is, when you withhold your vote, by voting your conscience, there is the unintended consequence of, from a practical viewpoint, voting for the other (worse) guy. There is no way around this.
So be it. Maybe the party will pull their head out of their collective ass if they keep losing because they put a crap sandwich on the menu.
So your action has an effect, however unintended, and the blood IS on your hands as much as on anyone elses.
That's your opinion, nothing more. You can keep on thinking it. I disagree, and I'll sleep at night just fine.
Thomas M-4
07-17-11, 16:22
If you guys want to keep attacking people who choose only to vote for someone when they are actually voting for someone, so be it. You are certainly entitled to whatever opinion you wish.
I am not "depriving" any candidate of my vote by not voting for them. It's my vote, and they have no right to it. And if, as you state, they are the "less popular candidate", well that right there is the problem, isn't it? If the GOP puts on a repeat performance of '08 and gives us another McCain on the ballot, then the blood is on their hands for losing, not mine. It's also on the hands of the moochers voting for Obama. In any case, it will not be my fault when the GOP nominates Romney or Bachmann and Obama wins a second term. Sorry. I'm sure you disagree and that's fine.
Perhaps everyone on both sides (voting or not voting for lesser of two evils) should quit telling the other side that they are wasting their vote. Vote your conscience and how you see fit and it's not wasted.
Nobody is attacking you.
Its a tough pill to swallow but as chadbag has pointed out not voting only helps the candidate that is ahead.
The choosing of the lesser of two evils is absolutely applicable because you are only going to get one or the other for the next 4yrs. Its not like going to the bar and choosing between 2 ugly chicks then you have a choice of going home alone and not dealing with it, With a election you are going to have to deal with it no matter what the outcome.
Nobody is attacking you.
Its a tough pill to swallow but as chadbag has pointed out not voting only helps the candidate that is ahead.
The choosing of the lesser of two evils is absolutely applicable because you are only going to get one or the other for the next 4yrs. Its not like going to the bar and choosing between 2 ugly chicks then you have a choice of going home alone and not dealing with it, With a election you are going to have to deal with it no matter what the outcome.
And again, putting up a good candidate is the critical and fundamental issue here. If the only thing we ever have to hang our hat on is voting for someone who doesn't suck quite as much, we're ****ed in the long term anyways; because we'll still be moving in the general direction that the left wants us to head, just at a slightly slower pace for four years once a decade or so. Still going to the same place.
And again, putting up a good candidate is the critical and fundamental issue here. If the only thing we ever have to hang our hat on is voting for someone who doesn't suck quite as much, we're ****ed in the long term anyways; because we'll still be moving in the general direction that the left wants us to head, just at a slightly slower pace for four years once a decade or so. Still going to the same place.
so by not voting, you are condoning moving to the left faster?? I agree both parties do suck, but anyone who would stay home to not vote against Obama is the worst decision anyone could make. I cannot imagine another 4 years as I do feel he has an agenda beyond getting left.
Please amigo...re-think your position. The SCOTUS appointments alone should get those with your attitude into the voting booth!!
Thomas M-4
07-17-11, 16:56
And again, putting up a good candidate is the critical and fundamental issue here. If the only thing we ever have to hang our hat on is voting for someone who doesn't suck quite as much, we're ****ed in the long term anyways; because we'll still be moving in the general direction that the left wants us to head, just at a slightly slower pace for four years once a decade or so. Still going to the same place.
Totally agree with you but the only choice it seems we have right now is ether riding the brakes or standing on the gas, totally shitty choice. To change the candidates the parties will have to change.
Belmont31R
07-17-11, 17:06
Except, you can't. Any choice you make, including making no choice, affects the outcome. And making no choice at all is usually, in practical terms, a vote for the greater of two evils.
Just by virtue of reaching the age of 18 and getting the right to vote, you choice has an affect whether you like it or not.
Thats why the primary should be all 50 states and held on the same day nationwide. I get to vote for who people in other states says I have to vote for or Im told Im voting for Obama if I don't want to vote.
so by not voting, you are condoning moving to the left faster?? I agree both parties do suck, but anyone who would stay home to not vote against Obama is the worst decision anyone could make. I cannot imagine another 4 years as I do feel he has an agenda beyond getting left.
Please amigo...re-think your position. The SCOTUS appointments alone should get those with your attitude into the voting booth!!
I'm not advocating anything specifically with respect to the 2012 election. We don't even have a Republican candidate yet. I have no clue what I will do yet. But I certainly understand why people are done with the lesser of two evils thing. I did vote against Obama in 2008 by way of John McCain.
Regarding moving faster to the left, do you think that as many people would be awake right now if not for Barack Obama? I highly doubt it.
Regarding SCOTUS, more than anything right now I'm just hoping that the 5 right-most justices stay healthy as long as possible. I do acknowledge that you know exactly what you will get with an Obama nomination. That said, it's hardly a certainty what you get with a Republican nominee, last time I looked half of the liberal wing of the court was nominated by a Republican president (IIRC).
Belmont31R
07-17-11, 17:31
so by not voting, you are condoning moving to the left faster?? I agree both parties do suck, but anyone who would stay home to not vote against Obama is the worst decision anyone could make. I cannot imagine another 4 years as I do feel he has an agenda beyond getting left.
Please amigo...re-think your position. The SCOTUS appointments alone should get those with your attitude into the voting booth!!
I don't really think there is a big difference between the RINO's and democrats, and to me it doesn't really make much difference that I feel compelled to go vote.
A good example is Medicare Part D which was put through the Republican Congress, and signed into law by Bush. People got all pissed off and spurred all this "grassroots" movement when Obama signed his HC law into place. The 10 year cost difference is only a couple hundred billion. Basically 950 billion to 750 billion over 10 years. Whoopie doo when were are running 1.5 trillion deficits now.
Republicans did ZERO to push for conservative anything from 2001-2006. They went more left than Clinton was by increasing spending and pushing for more social programs. No Child Left Behind, Part D, TSA, DHS, they did nothing to curb the out of control lending which was largely due to previous legislation which was social engineering. So **** them with a bag of rusty screwdrivers. Remember in 2009 Bohener was proposing a ~500 billion stimulus in addition to the TARP they had just passed months before.
I want to vote for someone who represents me not just because he is a little less sucky than the guy we have now, and its not right to tell people to vote for someone they don't even like. Romney or Obama doesnt even matter to me because they are both anti liberty, anti capitalist, and as I said before I watched a full interview with Romney where his main reasoning for not liking ObamaCare was because he said the states should be able to force you to buy insurance not the Feds. So he is just as big of a big government socialist just as long as its the states treating people like slaves and not the Feds.
Last...I can at least say that Obama was well known prior to his election in his direction on his personal politics. Everyone knew he attended at anti-USA church, he had socialist/communist beliefs, and he said he was going to fundamentally transform America just 2 days before the vote. These Republicans all the sudden want to come across as small government low taxes while at the same time under Bush they passed all kinds of big government programs, and they are still voting for them to this day. They don't represent my beliefs, and I think they are bigger liars than the democrats. I think they are as equal in destroying America, capitalism, and liberty than the democrats. Through their own actions they gave the dems from 2009-2010 a golden spoon to do what they did. TARP got the ball rolling right into their hands to do the stimulus and obama care. They had from 2001-2006 to make a mark, and they increased socialism and big government MORE than what was done from 1995-2001.
I did vote against Obama in 2008 by way of John McCain.
sigh...not sure what else i can say to sway you to reconsider 'regardless' of who the republican candidate is but appreciate the efforts in 08. The actions alone taken by the current admin so far hopefully have many chomping at the opportunity to vote him out in 2012.
I thought for sure he lost all the jewish vote by stating they should go back to the old unprotected border days, but have talked to several jewish friends stating many will still vot dem...just 'because' they are dems. Especially the women vote for some reason?? This was kind of a wow moment for me when I heard it after the 2nd time.
I'm really not sure what to think of the upcoming elections but my initial thoughts were a dead jackass could win but have talked to some others who opinions I respect & say we should really be worried.
Another 4 years simply scares me.
~~~~~~~~~
edit...belmont, I agree with your comments but feel the currrent potus agenda is to hurt our country plain and simple. How he won with his prior history & comments ON RECORD is pretty mind boggling.
I do not feel anyone on the current radar has the same desire planned out so deliberatly.
There really are no words I can say on the voting public as a whole...I know I'm beating a dead horse but I think you should own property and pay taxes to be able to vote. Combine that with term limits for every elected official and we can get back on track.
I've said this before but think our forefathers would vomit if they saw today's paper & for us to come from the bombing of pearl harbor and sacrifices made from the greatest generation for our current freedom, just to come to THIS since 1945?? Just makes me sad.
Belmont31R
07-17-11, 17:44
Regarding SCOTUS, more than anything right now I'm just hoping that the 5 right-most justices stay healthy as long as possible. I do acknowledge that you know exactly what you will get with an Obama nomination. That said, it's hardly a certainty what you get with a Republican nominee, last time I looked half of the liberal wing of the court was nominated by a Republican president (IIRC).
Ha. Exactly the point I just made. Both parties have long been into big government and socialism. Both parties are not even close to the visions our founders had of what government should be doing. Just like I don't get the love of Reagan. Sure the guy could give an 'American' speech, and did do some good things. He also had his big government moments, and is the guy to blame on why we cant buy machine guns right now. He had bank bailouts and amnesty for illegals among other things.
This and things republicans have done in the last decade really makes me curious as to why people are so behold to them. They are ****ed our country good and plenty, too. I dont see the fix in either party. If I vote for a republican I am condoning the further destruction. In 20 years when we have a 30 trillion dollar debt and we have TSA check points on the side of the road so your kids can be molested and wife assaulted the same crew will still being saying a vote for anyone but the R candidate will be a vote for the left.
As these people who say we can only vote for establishment big government anti liberty and capitalism politicians are being loaded onto the box cars they'll be fuming under their breaths how libertarians ruined everything.
sigh...not sure what else i can say to sway you to reconsider 'regardless' of who the republican candidate is but appreciate the efforts in 08. The actions alone taken by the current admin so far hopefully have many chomping at the opportunity to vote him out in 2012.
I thought for sure he lost all the jewish vote by stating they should go back to the old unprotected border days, but have talked to several jewish friends stating many will still vot dem...just 'because' they are dems. Especially the women vote for some reason?? This was kind of a wow moment for me when I heard it after the 2nd time.
I'm really not sure what to think of the upcoming elections but my initial thoughts were a dead jackass could win but have talked to some others who opinions I respect & say we should really be worried.
Another 4 years simply scares me.
No need to get me to reconsider anything, I honestly don't know what I'm doing yet and won't until I know who is on the ballot.
Believe me, I'm not relishing in the prospect of a second Obama term.
Sent from my Evo using Tapatalk
Belmont31R
07-17-11, 17:54
sigh...not sure what else i can say to sway you to reconsider 'regardless' of who the republican candidate is but appreciate the efforts in 08. The actions alone taken by the current admin so far hopefully have many chomping at the opportunity to vote him out in 2012.
I thought for sure he lost all the jewish vote by stating they should go back to the old unprotected border days, but have talked to several jewish friends stating many will still vot dem...just 'because' they are dems. Especially the women vote for some reason?? This was kind of a wow moment for me when I heard it after the 2nd time.
I'm really not sure what to think of the upcoming elections but my initial thoughts were a dead jackass could win but have talked to some others who opinions I respect & say we should really be worried.
Another 4 years simply scares me.
All the tools Obama has used were either left status quo by republicans or expanded on, and then expanded on again by Obama. The republicans gave him all the tools he needed or never bothered to reduce government in case someone evil like Obama came along, and much of the time they even agree with him or or only just "half as bad".
And Ive heard NOTHING on how they are going to remove such tools or ensure this wont happen again. I think they just want to keep the status quo going for as long as they can. If they can keep this boat floating for 30 years instead of 10 they will do it. By then they will all be either dead or retired. What are the republicans doing who got voted out doing now? The ones who voted in DHS, TSA, Patriot Act, NCLB, ect? Probably WAY better than most of us are doing.
The entire thing is a sham, and I don't think republicans are interested in returning to a small government system with citizen rights in mind. They just want to keep as big of government going as long as possible. They will all flock to votes funding TSA, DHS, education programs, they all mostly voted for renewing the PA.
All but a few ignored the TEA party when they learned we were protesting against both of them, and Bohener was out campaigning for a stimulus just "half as bad" as what Obama wanted. What a joke of a party, and the joke is on us when you fly with your family and your little girl gets molested and your wife touched everywhere. Republicans gave us those asshats who are now molesting kids.
That's your opinion, nothing more. You can keep on thinking it. I disagree, and I'll sleep at night just fine.
It is not an opinion. It is objective fact and could be logically proven. You have a vote, nothing you can do to change that, and whether or not you actually cast it, that vote plays its role in the election.
This has nothing to do with opinion.
All but a few ignored the TEA party when they learned we were protesting against both of them.
But hasn't the TEA party already stated they would not support a third party that would split the republican vote that would essentially keep Obama??
You aren't doing anything to lift my spirits by the way...:p
While I agree the right side of the current two party has dropped us in the grease & is a huge disappointment (which goes back to term limits to fix), there is nothing that can run me off the anyone but obama tracks. I 'think' the TEA party is on the same train.
If the GOP puts another McCain on the ballot, they start that ball rolling and their fate is sealed regardless of what I do or don't do on election day.
Blame me if you want (if I do indeed decide to not vote for the McCain), but I don't understand why you wouldn't have much more angst with the party and the candidate. It's their job to get elected, and if they can't, that is a failure on their part.
Sent from my Evo using Tapatalk
Belmont31R
07-17-11, 20:14
But hasn't the TEA party already stated they would not support a third party that would split the republican vote that would essentially keep Obama??
You aren't doing anything to lift my spirits by the way...:p
While I agree the right side of the current two party has dropped us in the grease & is a huge disappointment (which goes back to term limits to fix), there is nothing that can run me off the anyone but obama tracks. I 'think' the TEA party is on the same train.
Well I think a big part of the Tea Party waining off in the last year is because a few people have come forward supposedly representing the Tea Party, and kinda scared a lot of people off.
I went to one of the first ones in early 2009 at the Alamo, and there was equal hatred to both the TARP and Stimulus. One republican bill and one democrat.
Just remember the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and while Im sure many of them do have good intentions Id prefer not to give the evil ones a road to travel on in the first place. Let them pave their own road for all to see. History remembers those types in Hitler, Stalin, Mao. History doesn't remember FDR, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Bush...yet they have all had a hand in destroying the city on the hill.
montanadave
07-18-11, 08:19
An alternative view to the civics debate re: voting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk
Everybody happy now? :smile:
Littlelebowski
07-18-11, 08:47
In the name of realpolitik, I voted for Bush and McCain. Little things like the expansion of the TSA, the PATRIOT Act, the Republican Party taking control of Congress and Boehner declaring that their priority is cutting federal funding for abortions, et cetera has made me not able to vote for these big gov't Republicans anymore. The TEA party had such a good start too. Hijacked by religious extremists. Barry Goldwater would leave the Republican Party of today.
In the name of realpolitik, I voted for Bush and McCain.
I didn't vote for Bush and McCain so much as I voted against Gore, Kerry and Obama. Like you I later had cause to regret my vote, not that I preferred the alternative. Next time around I might just stay home and watch porn. I will still get jerked off but I won't be deluded into believing I have participated in rescuing the nation for it's fate.
I tell communists that I voted for Bush twice, just to piss them off. I think I voted libertarian though, but I can't rightly remember.
I didn't vote for Bush and McCain so much as I voted against Gore, Kerry and Obama. Like you I later had cause to regret my vote, not that I preferred the alternative. Next time around I might just stay home and watch porn. I will still get jerked off but I won't be deluded into believing I have participated in rescuing the nation for it's fate.
Instead you will have been deluded into thinking you are exercising some choice when in fact you would have been hastening the nation's fate.
No ifs ands or buts about it. You have 1 vote, cast for one or the other of the 2 main candidates, or not. But if not, you really have voted for the most popular of the 2. Objective fact. Due to the way "winner takes all" works, your vote has an effect whether you actually cast it or not, and the default effect is in most cases not what you wanted, which is a vote for the greater of two evils.
You can dance around it all you want but that is objective fact.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-18-11, 14:38
Coke or Pepsi?
I'm drinking a lot of Dr. Pepper lately.
Thomas M-4
07-18-11, 14:50
There are only two choices for one possible out come. Not voting only helps the person that is ahead because he doesn't have to get a vote to counter act your vote when you do not vote, In reality you are now voting for the person that is ahead because he does not have to counter react your vote.
I get it every body is disgusted with the Republican's and cant stomach the thought of some of the possible candidates. [Hello I am right there with you.] But a third party will not work unless it pulls voters from both parties and the dems don't seem to be pissed in any great numbers.
Baring that the only other choice is to change the republican party.
The time to get pissed off is in the Primaries. That is when you need to "vote your conscience" and get people you support into the election.
Once you hit the general election, you only have 2 choices. Not voting is not a choice as it defaults to a vote for the guy ahead, whether you like it or not. Whether or not you show up at the poll. Not showing up at the poll just means someone else uses your vote.
I guess I am a super cynical pragmatist, because when I look at Bush versus Obama I can see a significant difference worthy of my support.
I would have voted for Bush a third time or even a potted plant over Obama. His deficit spending is something like 5-6 times the average yearly deficit of Bush and his unemployment numbers are double those under Bush. I think he has pretty much destroyed the country, we just won't know that for a few more years when all the bills come due. The stimulus bill alone was almost double the highest budget deficit we had ever run up to that point, and was basically a massive bribe to public service employee unions.
As far as TARP goes, I didn't like it either, but Obama doubled down the next year with his stimulus, and deficits of over a trillion dollars are projected for the next 10 years. How did massive supposedly one time outlays become the new status quo?
Suwannee Tim
07-18-11, 19:37
...By todays standards Truman and Kennedy would be conservative Republicans.....
And by the standards of only a couple or three decades ago George W Bush would have been hailed as a great liberal Democrat president.
All things considered, it's not exactly as bad now as when the Democrats thought that states rights pertained to keeping black people locked up in their tool shed. On second thought, it might even be worse now that they want to keep everybody locked up on Uncle Sam's Plantation.
Belmont31R
07-18-11, 20:38
The time to get pissed off is in the Primaries. That is when you need to "vote your conscience" and get people you support into the election.
Once you hit the general election, you only have 2 choices. Not voting is not a choice as it defaults to a vote for the guy ahead, whether you like it or not. Whether or not you show up at the poll. Not showing up at the poll just means someone else uses your vote.
That sound good except its only a few states that get to decide who the rest of us get to vote for.
Primaries should be either all 50 states in one day or 25 1/3rd through and the other 25 2/3rds of the way through. Random selection on which states are which each time.
Its BS some dingy states give me one person to vote for or not 'otherwise Im wasting my vote'.
Primaries should be either all 50 states in one day or 25 1/3rd through and the other 25 2/3rds of the way through. Random selection on which states are which each time.
That would be great. The fact that we have a permanent ethanol subsidy now because of the moochers in the Iowa primary really ticks me off. No candidate wins there unless they support welfare for corn growers.
Belmont31R
07-18-11, 20:56
I guess I am a super cynical pragmatist, because when I look at Bush versus Obama I can see a significant difference worthy of my support.
I would have voted for Bush a third time or even a potted plant over Obama. His deficit spending is something like 5-6 times the average yearly deficit of Bush and his unemployment numbers are double those under Bush. I think he has pretty much destroyed the country, we just won't know that for a few more years when all the bills come due. The stimulus bill alone was almost double the highest budget deficit we had ever run up to that point, and was basically a massive bribe to public service employee unions.
As far as TARP goes, I didn't like it either, but Obama doubled down the next year with his stimulus, and deficits of over a trillion dollars are projected for the next 10 years. How did massive supposedly one time outlays become the new status quo?
I don't agree with TARP in principle but at least the money was paid back. TARP was loans, and even got us some interest. When TARP was written the law said the money being paid back was supposed to be used to pay down the debt. So they hand 650B out, get it back, and put 650B into the debt. So it would have not really made a difference in the debt. Not widely reported because 90% of the media gobble on the DNC's dick all day the dems changed the law, and instead of spending the TARP money coming back in they spent it again, and this time we didn't get any of it back. So if you ever hear Obama say Bush caused the debt because he signed TARP its a bold face lie. It was on the news for a couple days and then forgotten about. MSNBC probably never even mentioned or if they did they tried telling everyone how great the idea was while blaming Bush for the debt out the other side of their mouth.
Stimulus was written by Apollo Alliance which is a George Soros think tank/action group. I believe Van Jones works for one of their shell groups now. They create new groups all the time so no one can keep track of the money and connections. Shortly after the Stimulus was passed there was video of Harry Reid thanking the Apollo Alliance for their work on the Stimulus, and he has spoken to them in the past.
Where I think TARP failed was it set the ball in motion just as Obama was coming into office that government had to spend MASSIVE amounts of money we didn't have to 'save' the economy. No one has really kept track of the spending that was done and no one can really look around and notice a difference. All they did around here was fund a bunch of dumb ass projects and tear our roads they just did less than 2 years ago. They built some walking trail around some park or some shit that was several million dollars.
I think the intent of that bill was to funnel money to interest groups, and Obama was banking on things turning around anyways. He talked about it for about a year, and aint heard shit out of no one in about a year about it except maybe in passing type of conversation. No one is asking questions about where the jobs that were promised are or where all the money went. I bet no one could even say where it all went. Just like every other gov account system there will be billions missing and zero accountability to the places it did go. Just deposit 100 mil in some bank account, the recipient says we added 50 jobs, and Obama goes on TV and says millions of jobs were saved or created. No accountability if the people who got a job were employed for 2 months, a year, what? No one knows the average time frame these people were employed.
But no one is asking either. If you could collect some skin cells and sweat off his arms, put it in a pan, you'd have the next greatest non stick pan coating that would revolutionize cooking. He's slicker than owl shit and teflon combined. Every word and action was scrutinized down to its deepist core, and if they couldn't find anything people just made up shit. Obama runs up debt faster than any human on Earth has ever done, can't show results, contradicts his own words constantly, and ain't a peep that will make a damn bit of difference.
Almost 300 Republicans in Congress and they continue playing his games, and will lose. They can't control the message, and they are ignoring their base. 1.6T a year debt but lets 'start the debate' at only 2.4T a decade in cuts! LMAO...
sorry mods...this probably goes in the comic session but can't stand how ironic it is I got the stupid email today.:)
John was in the chicken business. He had over a hundred young hens, called 'pullets', and ten roosters to fertilize them. He kept records, and any rooster not performing went into the soup pot and was replaced.
This took a lot of time, so he bought some tiny bells and attached them to his roosters. Each bell had a different tone, so he could tell from a distance, which rooster was performing. Now, he could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report by just listening to the bells.
John's favorite rooster, Obama, was a very fine specimen, but this morning he noticed Obama's bell hadn't rung at all! When he went to investigate, he saw the other roosters were busy chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing, but the pullets, hearing the roosters coming, would run for cover.
To John's amazement, Obama had thought of a way to do it without work, he had his bell in his beak, so it couldn't ring. He'd sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one.
John was so proud of Obama, he entered him in the Chicago County Fair and he became an overnight sensation among the judges.
The result was the judges not only awarded Obama the No Bell Piece Prize but they also awarded him the Pulletsurprise as well.
Clearly Obama was a politician. Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the populace and screwing them when they weren't paying attention.
Vote carefully next time around; you can't always hear the bell.
VooDoo6Actual
07-18-11, 22:02
sorry mods...this probably goes in the comic session but can't stand how ironic it is I got the stupid email today.:)
John was in the chicken business. He had over a hundred young hens, called 'pullets', and ten roosters to fertilize them. He kept records, and any rooster not performing went into the soup pot and was replaced.
This took a lot of time, so he bought some tiny bells and attached them to his roosters. Each bell had a different tone, so he could tell from a distance, which rooster was performing. Now, he could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report by just listening to the bells.
John's favorite rooster, Obama, was a very fine specimen, but this morning he noticed Obama's bell hadn't rung at all! When he went to investigate, he saw the other roosters were busy chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing, but the pullets, hearing the roosters coming, would run for cover.
To John's amazement, Obama had thought of a way to do it without work, he had his bell in his beak, so it couldn't ring. He'd sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one.
John was so proud of Obama, he entered him in the Chicago County Fair and he became an overnight sensation among the judges.
The result was the judges not only awarded Obama the No Bell Piece Prize but they also awarded him the Pulletsurprise as well.
Clearly Obama was a politician. Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the populace and screwing them when they weren't paying attention.
Vote carefully next time around; you can't always hear the bell.
EXCELLENT !
Nicely written & clever humor w/ truth
jklaughrey
07-18-11, 22:37
EXCELLENT !
Nicely written & clever humor w/ truth
I agree with Hop...funny shit! Artos.
That sound good except its only a few states that get to decide who the rest of us get to vote for.
Primaries should be either all 50 states in one day or 25 1/3rd through and the other 25 2/3rds of the way through. Random selection on which states are which each time.
Its BS some dingy states give me one person to vote for or not 'otherwise Im wasting my vote'.
I agree the Primary system needs some work and is no where near perfect.
Thomas M-4
07-19-11, 00:08
That sound good except its only a few states that get to decide who the rest of us get to vote for.
Primaries should be either all 50 states in one day or 25 1/3rd through and the other 25 2/3rds of the way through. Random selection on which states are which each time.
I agree also there could be a better way for primaries to be held.
Its BS some dingy states give me one person to vote for or not 'otherwise Im wasting my vote'.
Yes it is a big ****ing flying big green weenie ****ing us in the ass.
The time to get pissed off is in the Primaries. That is when you need to "vote your conscience" and get people you support into the election.
Once you hit the general election, you only have 2 choices. Not voting is not a choice as it defaults to a vote for the guy ahead, whether you like it or not. Whether or not you show up at the poll. Not showing up at the poll just means someone else uses your vote.
Agree this is what we have at the moment, this is what we have to work with. So choosing the lesser of the two evils is all the choice that we may have. Choosing not to vote will only help the party that is ahead.
VooDoo6Actual
07-19-11, 12:12
imo,
Regardless of beliefs, party affiliations, political polarizations etc.
De-regulation, "no pain felt" policies in place for Governmental accountability (fiscally or justice/ethics), no Cap limit on campaign contributions & no term limits on certain positions in Gubermint, having <50% of populace NOT contributing to fed taxes yet suck $ from entitlement programs & coupled w/ non-standarderized, unenforced, inconsistant, arbitrary immigration policies is how we only partly (collectively the US) got here.
The system has been hyper-exploited & "gamed" to it's death.
Unless we change the trajectory through reform, things will remain the same w/ continued corruption & gaming the agendas on both sides.
Totally agree with you but the only choice it seems we have right now is ether riding the brakes or standing on the gas, totally shitty choice. To change the candidates the parties will have to change.
This. Currently they have zero incentive to change either. They've figured out how to hold onto power in spite of record disapproval levels by the public. Accountability is extinct. They can rule by fiat and get away with it. This applies to whom THEY choose as the candidate we're stuck with as well.
At this point, our best defense is to destabilize both political parties. Only when they're on the run and in disarray do we stand a chance of regaining control. Every politician scandalized, marginalized and prosecuted is a win for the people. The worse trouble they're in, the less time they have for ****ing us over. There shouldn't be a single politician in this country right now that enjoys going to work every day. They should have no self-esteem and no illusions about whether they're responsible for running this country into the ground. They are.
The press is a HUGE problem. They've abandoned research and critical thinking in favor of "up to the second" reporting. It doesn't matter who's most accurate, just who's first. These bobbleheaded parrots they have reporting the "news" nowadays are the dumbest bunch of lemmings I've ever seen. We need to throw them out of power and get some real diggers on the job. I mean some really detestable SOB's who thoroughly enjoy pissing people off. People who think everything they're told is a lie unless they squeeze it out of them forcibly. Every politician should be exposed as a liar and a cheat for all the retarded shit they spew to justify their idiotic voting record.
These things might be a start on the road back to sanity. For me, there is no right or left. Just a 360 degree target rich enviromnment. Time to go weapons free and engage at will. :(
For me, there is no right or left. Just a 360 degree target rich enviromnment. Time to go weapons free and engage at will. :(
Be careful with your words. You might get labled as a right wing nut job that wants to target and shoot democrat politicians, kinda like the way Sarah Palin was labled after the Tucson, AZ shooting. :rolleyes:
GermanSynergy
07-20-11, 10:14
Liberal Talk Show host tells us what he feels:
HERE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoqzR9Rf4C0)
and
HERE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EaF2OyhyPw&feature=)
Liberal Talk Show host tells us what he feels...
Funny thing is I have never even heard of the A-hole.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.