Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see your point, and you are right to a certain extent, but overall I reject it.
Just read this board. Undeniable facts are denied in most cases. THAT has become the new debate. I'll tell you what- just as an example, if Bush were to edn homelessness I promise you the liberals would refuse to believe it for no other reason than they cannot accept the fact a non liberal did such a thing. It's cheap & dishonest thinking- yet, look carefully, and you will see about 80% of the people look at poltics and life just this way.
We are kind of parsing the discussion here but we have some basis of agreement, within a larger context of disagreement.
A good example supporting what you state, and I agree, is that Bush put into place a supplemental benefit for elderly folks concerning their medicines. Yet, many folks I know over 65 who always support the Democrats focus on the "donut hole" in the benefit where they have the maximum out of pocket expenditures. Rather than focusing on the supplemental overall benefit, the focus is on the rather small void (compared to what previously existed) and the pharmacutical and insurance companies making more money.
However, this is only a single issue, and these folks generally discuss the benefits for the elderly overall and how they feel the Democrats will better protect their interest. As a result, they support the party they better believes represents their overall interests.
Medicare part D-----almost $14 trillion dollar of future liability.
I agree. Even after Bush has increased funding for almost every social program, a lot of democrats continue to call bush a heartless monster. A stupid Jackass, yes! But he is not a heartless monster.
The same goes for Clinton and Republican. He reduced the size of goverment more than Reagon or any other republican and he gets blamed for not doing enough and been called a socialist.
We are kind of parsing the discussion here but we have some basis of agreement, within a larger context of disagreement.
A good example supporting what you state, and I agree, is that Bush put into place a supplemental benefit for elderly folks concerning their medicines. Yet, many folks I know over 65 who always support the Democrats focus on the "donut hole" in the benefit where they have the maximum out of pocket expenditures. Rather than focusing on the supplemental overall benefit, the focus is on the rather small void (compared to what previously existed) and the pharmacutical and insurance companies making more money.
However, this is only a single issue, and these folks generally discuss the benefits for the elderly overall and how they feel the Democrats will better protect their interest. As a result, they support the party they better believes represents their overall interests.
Liberal? Conservative? Party? Three labels! I don't vote for liberals, conservatives, or parties. I vote for a person. Sometimes I make the right decision and sometimes I don't. But I do always vote.
I once told my mother that I felt the people in her party had a ring in their noses and followed the leader like he had a chain through it. I also said that I felt that if a pet monkey were the candidate for her party on election day, they would vote for the pet monkey. My mother was a Republican. I am now a very conservative Republican, but I don't vote without looking at the other party or the other candidates. I used to be a Democrat, but the party left me when they started having no morals. Maybe I just grew up. I remember when my mother was very upset that she thought Kennedy might win. I now understand how she felt, because I am concerned for our country if Obama wins.
What goes around, comes around. We have gone full circle.
Liberal? Conservative? Party? Three labels! I don't vote for liberals, conservatives, or parties. I vote for a person. Sometimes I make the right decision and sometimes I don't. But I do always vote.
I once told my mother that I felt the people in her party had a ring in their noses and followed the leader like he had a chain through it. I also said that I felt that if a pet monkey were the candidate for her party on election day, they would vote for the pet monkey. My mother was a Republican. I am now a very conservative Republican, but I don't vote without looking at the other party or the other candidates. I used to be a Democrat, but the party left me when they started having no morals. Maybe I just grew up. I remember when my mother was very upset that she thought Kennedy might win. I now understand how she felt, because I am concerned for our country if Obama wins.
What goes around, comes around. We have gone full circle.
I've often wondered why a third political party has never gotton off the ground here like in most other countries.
I think the answer still comes around to the sheep thing. People just can't break down their self-imposed barriers.
Liberal? Conservative? Party? Three labels! I don't vote for liberals, conservatives, or parties. I vote for a person. Sometimes I make the right decision and sometimes I don't. But I do always vote.
I once told my mother that I felt the people in her party had a ring in their noses and followed the leader like he had a chain through it. I also said that I felt that if a pet monkey were the candidate for her party on election day, they would vote for the pet monkey. My mother was a Republican. I am now a very conservative Republican, but I don't vote without looking at the other party or the other candidates. I used to be a Democrat, but the party left me when they started having no morals. Maybe I just grew up. I remember when my mother was very upset that she thought Kennedy might win. I now understand how she felt, because I am concerned for our country if Obama wins.
What goes around, comes around. We have gone full circle.
Looking at the logic of your statements, voting for the person and your sentiments about the Democratic Party, should I assume that you view Obama as a person without morals?
I've often wondered why a third political party has never gotton off the ground here like in most other countries.
I think the answer still comes around to the sheep thing. People just can't break down their self-imposed barriers.
We've had few 3rd party candidates that are serious contenders, but we have had some... and the reason they always fail is the same. People have taken to voting against someone more than they vote for someone. They feel that a vote for Candidate Z is a wasted vote, thus Candidate Y will get elected instead of Candidate X who is the lesser evil.
Until we have a voting system which does not punish people voting for their ideal candidate(s), we will not see the emergence of a viable third party. My personal favorite system would be the approval voting system where you pick as many candidates as you care to, so you could pick Perot and Bush, or Perot and Clinton, or just Clinton. Had that been the case in 1992, I feel we would have had a much different outcome in that election.
I think the one thing above all esle about politics that bothers me are all the sheep. As this board cleary demonstrates, liberals view all liberal politicians as gods and conservatives the same for their people. Anyone who opposses their gods is an evil satan, worthy only of death.
From all I read and all I can discern, about 80% of the population are essentially told what to believe- and they blindly follow what they are told. Just like sheep. Bleating all the way. Yes, we have come to this.
About 20% are genuine independent thinkers who have an ability to look at both sides and realize that neither side has all the answers. The ability to call as it really is.
Actually, it's a darn shame.
The only thing I disagree with are your numbers. I think the saying goes
"One percent of people are independent thinkers, the rest are sheep"
As an independent voter who is basically split on all the major issues, I tried to find just ONE candidate that matched my views. I am STILL searching, lol!
My advice on politics is this:
Don't ever get emotionally involved in a candidate's run for office, but instead study the field and look to the future. Anticipate right now how each one's possible win could affect YOUR life and your pocketbook and plan accordingly. That way you are ahead of the pack. Only foolish people get emotionally charged about candidates.
This is not to say that intelligent people do not endorse candidates, they just don't put all their eggs in one basket, they don't feel devastated if their horse loses.
There are many good points on both sides of the parties lines the trouble comes into play when people are forced to stick with “all” the values of one or the other, and the political parties don’t bend their issues or values. Change is needed but both major parties have issues that they need to address. As an individual I accept the values that I choose to hold on to and reject those that I don’t care much about.
The problem comes into when you have to get down to the “core” values of either of the parties.
I disagree with your basic take on politics there, Blazer. I think practically everyone of voting age has a core set of beliefs, and find that one party or the other is better in line with their philosophies.
Politics is loaded with hyperbole, and mischaracterizations of opponent positions. This is nothing new, you can't win if you don't get the votes, and the best way to get folks to vote is to dread the outcome should your opponent win.
This has been going on since before any of us were even born, and it isn't a big deal. You need to "energize your base" if you want to win elections.
I think folks have a greater comfort level with one parties set of philosophies, and tend to support their candidates. Sometimes priorities change, and folks may switch their vote, but typically folks have fairly consistent voting patterns.
This is a good response, I can honestly say that I will probably never vote for a Democratic presidential candidate. Not that I support every Republican. I actually fully support very few. But there are many fundamental differences that I have with leftist doctrine, so I disagree with what it means to be a Democrat. I don't support tax hikes, I don't support universal anything, I don't support the PC thought police, I don't support aid to every damned third world on Earth, I don't support the UN, I don't support gun control. So my views inhibit me from supporting all but maverick, centrists, Western Democrats, which rarely achieve any national prominance in the modern political climate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gosh, you're right!
I think the saying goes 
