personally I think both partys are full of crap (CNN, polls, lobbyists)

[kidkaos2]

Originally Posted by Redraven

"To claim that you "vote for the person, not the party" is a cop out."

Obviously, I disagree. What it really means is that I can see that "the party" is not as important as what the PERSON stands for.
For instance, in the last election I found myself voting for a democrat for senator. I really didn't want to, but the republican candidate was TOTALLY unacceptable!
In the next election, I will very likely vote for a republican for senator (IF the party gives us a decent candidate) because the democrat has been there entirely too long, and seems to be thinking he OWNS the seat! It is time to send him a message that his senatorial career is OVER, and he needs to come home and find productive work.
I have known many people who vote a strict party line, no matter who the candidate is. To me, that is incredibly stupid! They vote for people they don't like, and wouldn't hire to clean the dog yard, just because they have "D" or "R" after their name! Actually, "stupid" isn't a strong enough word!
I rarely waste a vote on a "third party" candidate.
I would be very much in favor of having NOTA (None Of The Above) as a choice on all ballots. If nothing else, it just might teach the parties to give us candidates we can feel comfortable voting FOR, instead of voting against the other party candidate.
There are some who don't know the difference between voting FOR a candidate, and voting AGAINST the other candidate. That is exactly what I did for Senator last year. My vote was NOT "for" the candidate I checked on the ballot, it was AGAINST the republican candidate. I truly wanted to take the seat away from the democratic party, but I just could not vote for that republican!

When you vote for the person, you also vote for the party. Candidates vote the party line most of the time. So I vote a party line. And yes that does mean I vote for people I don't particularly like. But I figure if I don't like what the candidate does on his own 20% of the time, but I wouldn't like what the opposing candidate did along with his party 80% of the time, then overall I win by voting the party I like and the candidate I don't. I consider the primaries as the place where you vote for the person and the general election as the place where you vote for the party.

[california-jewel]

Originally Posted by pvs

+1 ... I agree. It's something I've seen for years, but it has only gotten worse with Citizens' United, and the current crop of cr4p in DC and elsewhere. Color me jaded these days, and for the foreseeable future.


Independent here, too, always HAVE been (though I haven't "Registered" with them ). Admittedly, I usually wind up voting [D], as I am more for the masses and less for the elite, but it no longer seems to make any difference.


+1 ... This is the way I see it these days, too. Voting doesn't seem to make any difference, as nobody running ever has any interest for the whole of society, just their own fringe and special interest groups. What they SAY and what they ACCOMPLISH are complete dichotomies.


+1 ... Aye, that's about the size of it. It amazes me that any GOOD idea can (and IS) turned to cr4p by the time it runs through the houses and becomes "law". And the resulting turd is always benefiting those same special interests, and creating new problems, rather than solving anything. And we pay these people HOW MUCH?!?! It's all just a game, that both parties are too happy to play.


And the difference is???? Sorry but I think the attitude is growing. Maybe that's a GOOD thing, because as more people become aware of the politicians' game, they might start to demand some REAL changes. But I fear the powered elite might be able to dismantle any ideas that conflict with their agenda, as they own not only the power and the money, but the media, and can thus manipulate the masses by filtering the disseminated information, and flavoring anything and anybody that might otherwise stand a fighting chance.

I have, to all three questions, but it doesn't make any difference. Emailing Obama regarding his constant caving to the House merely put me on his spam list. The way I see it, Romney (and the [R's] lost because they were all too happy with what they could get out of Obama. While his words are [D], his accomplishments are 100% [R] (yes, even the flucked-up version of Obamacare, which does nothing to get Insurance and Pharmaceutical profits out of the healthcare industry). The [R's] put on this great show of scorn and ridicule while they all (the [D's] AND [R's]) laugh all the way to the bank.


Talking points don't work with me any more. I've seen the cycle too many times.


Sorry, but IMO, these are just more talking points. The Tea Party candidates are all just looking for their turn at bat. As they seem to do nothing but foment hate and division, and "in-your-face" social intrusions, while they claim to want small government. I can't see them ever being able to garner a majority of voters, as they cast everyone who is not exactly like them as an enemy. IMO, THEY are driving influence behind the divisiveness of this country today.


+100! ... Very well stated, IMO. Sorry, but I couldn't rep you again just yet.


This is an interesting claim. Do you have some documentation that could support it? But more importantly, WOULD they have taken a payout if one was indeed offered? I guess, similar to "you have to pass it to find out what's in it", we will not know until it's too late. Sorry if I don't share your optimism here.


If only the money spent on lobbying and these PAC/SuperPAC pieces of sh1t was paid where it belongs ... in TAXES ... rather than lining pockets of individuals who don't need it, this country MIGHT find itself on a stronger financial foundation. Heck, it would be a start! But sorry, I DON'T think that's the "reason Obama wants to raise taxes".


Some good points here, but IMO, our "Freedom Of Speech" has already bitten the bullet. When a monopoly (or a limited number of individuals) own the media, nobody else can make their voices heard. When only a limited few have the $$$, everyone else's voice becomes a mere drop in the ocean.

You too besides my friend, also make some good points. The media is a freaking joke, has been for the past 4 years and will continue while Obama is President. Lets see if the next guy or gal, get the same breaks as Obama has.

And do out voices even matter anymore, seems some politicians have an agenda, and by golly they will see to their agenda, whether it is in our best interest or not.

[J746NEW]

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

Freedom of speech = freedom of speech, but the more dollars you have the more people will listen to that speech.

My point was that there are so many ways for money to influence politicians that it is impossible to combat that influence.

As long as free speech is allowed then people with money will find a way to get their speech to have more effect than other peoples' speech.

So the final solution has to come from the people via propaganda and their own speech in dirtying those that choose to buy politicians so as to put pressure on them and those associated with them. Which I am certainly doing my part.

Perhaps, even play dirty like they are and label false accusations against them so it makes it to the media.

[Jean71]

Originally Posted by samcrow2

I am very displeased with both party's. Both go to Washington where there are five lobbyists handing out money for luminance and we get the shaft. Until we have meaningful campaigne reforem where money is take out and I mean for every corporation its nothing but a big shell game. They get rich and we get the bill and screwed and no dinner.

I could have told you that long ago.
We really only have one party disguised as two.


Exactly why I support Ron and Rand Paul.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by nononsenseguy

Your attitude is wrong. You might be 100% correct (but I don't agree that it is that bad), but you cannot effectuate any change unless you get involved. You have more power as an idividual than you think, but sitting out, you have no power at all.

Do you ever fax your representatives? Sign petitions? Do you vote? It is being said that Romney lost (I don't know which Party you favor) because 40M of the Republican base did not vote.

Your first responsiblility is to become informed on the issues that matter. Then let your voice be heard. Be vocal (but be articulate and polite).

Romney lost because 5 million more people looked at his policies,then looked at Obama's and decided Obama's was better.

there were 104 million people over the age of 18 who did not vote. if only 40 million if the republican base didnt vote, then that leaves about 60 million that sat out for Obama. 4 million non dems and republicans.

[LCSDays]

And you just now came to this conclusion? May I ask your age?

[GreggT]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Romney lost because 5 million more people looked at his policies,then looked at Obama's and decided Obama's was better.

No they didn't decide "Obama was better", they decided he was "least worst"! That's the way I looked at it anyway.

[jimj]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Romney lost because 5 million more people looked at his policies,then looked at Obama's and decided Obama's was better.

there were 104 million people over the age of 18 who did not vote. if only 40 million if the republican base didnt vote, then that leaves about 60 million that sat out for Obama. 4 million non dems and republicans.

Romney lost because he didn't want to win. He didn't ask to run the second time he was recruited. His heart wasn't in it as evidenced by his constantly passing up opportunities to point out the differences between him and his opponent, his reluctance to point out his opponents mistakes,follies and outright lies. His opponent had no problems rolling in the mud, he really wanted it.

Here's a question for y'all. Why are the debates restricted to the two parties? Why can't we have the Ron Paul's etc on the stage as well? Wouldn't that at least give some chance of keeping the other candidates honest?

[kidkaos2]

Originally Posted by Jean71

I could have told you that long ago.
We really only have one party disguised as two.


Exactly why I support Ron and Rand Paul.

I like Rand Paul. I am not as big a fan of Ron Paul because I think the father goes way too far with is isolationism. I agree with pulling back on our foreign intervention, but I don't agree with stopping it. There is a world out there that we can't ignore. That world is full of enemies, and we can't ignore them either.

I always liked Ron Paul on domestic issues and didn't like his foreign policy. Happily, Rand Paul seems to have inherited his father's ideas on domestic issues without the notion that we should just fold up like a turtle in its shell on foreign issues.

[no1brownsfan]

Originally Posted by jimj

Romney lost because he didn't want to win. He didn't ask to run the second time he was recruited. His heart wasn't in it as evidenced by his constantly passing up opportunities to point out the differences between him and his opponent, his reluctance to point out his opponents mistakes,follies and outright lies. His opponent had no problems rolling in the mud, he really wanted it.

Here's a question for y'all. Why are the debates restricted to the two parties? Why can't we have the Ron Paul's etc on the stage as well? Wouldn't that at least give some chance of keeping the other candidates honest?

People like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson pose a threat to the 2 parties, and their agenda. It's too bad that people can't see this. Of course, many Americans will continue to vote for people based on the letter next to their name, then engage in partisan BS, and blame the other party for not getting anything done, when in fact it's both parties that are at fault.