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 try to be a middle of the road voter. I look at the candidate, and what the support, and weigh the good with the bad.
However, in recent years, I find it really hard to support anything the Republican party has done.
1. They want to be conservative, yet they don't do anything conservative. If conservative means "family values" then I guess they are conservative. My definition is very different.
2. They allow the radicals in their party to run, well, everything. Its only about abortion, and calling people communists, and a bunch of stupid things that they have done.
I can't support any Republican candidate today. I wanted to vote for McCain. I was a Hillary supporter to begin with, when she lost, I was really an up in the air voter. I felt that Obama was to inexperienced to be President.
I liked McCain from 2000. He was a middle of the road candidate. He was pro choice, against big government, and would have been one hell of a commander and chief. However, he went and sold his soul to try and win. Allowing others to pick Sarah Palin, who is a blithering Christian conservative idiot, to be his VP running mate was just stupid. Not to mention he turned his back on EVERYTHING he stood for to try and win office.
I couldn't vote for him. So I took a chance and went with Obama. I didn't believe the rhetoric, I knew he was just a politician, and I expected little from him. He hasn't done a terrible job, I think he's done reasonably well.
It just seems that the Republican party went to the far extreme, as is usual when a party loses as badly as they did. I still think they are in trouble. The economy is getting better, and most people can see it. If it turns around, Obama and the Democrats will get the credit for it.
People talk about the "blue dog" Democrats who fought for changes in the HC bill. I didn't see any "red dog" Republicans fighting to vote for the HC bill, did you?
Maybe one or two, but not even 10% of their party. Thats crazy, they have no middle of the road right now.
I like your post. Neither party seems to have a middle of the road core, which I have to tell them, best describes the political viewpoints of most Americans.
Most of us have some liberal ideas, some conservative, some blend in the middle. It varies by issue and situation.
Republicans seem to be trying to drive out the middle of the road supporters. I've listened to Rush Limbaugh from time to time, and have heard him say things along the line, that moderates do not have any real values, no ideals, and that they are Democrats and Liberals. Excuse me? I do not subscribe to the notion that I have to have any "label" placed on me and my political opinions by someone else. The only person who can define and label (if I choose) my opinions is ME, and only ME.
Democrats do little better concerning the middle of the road. Take a look at this health care reform process, there has been so much arm twisting it's not funny, and no one is listening to anything but the sound of their own voice.
Once again, I am not assigning blame to either party. I am merely asking for opinions on the situation.
When the people go to the polls nothing during the campaign and on the ballot should show a "D or R" on the ballot. Then it will force the people to stop voting the party line and educate to what the candiate stands for.
Not picking on you, but your statement lends itself to a part of the problem. One side decides that the other is dysfunctional (by their standards) and dismisses everything the other side proposes.
Your statement is very true. Becuase i feel, that the problems are with the Dems, one sided, not bi-partisian, thug style politics, etc etc, my point only. To eaches own. One side will always disagree with the other, no matter even if there is some common ground, it is just nature. Doing things in Secret and behind closed doors does not seem bi-partisian to me, again my point only.
Your statement is very true. Becuase i feel, that the problems are with the Dems, one sided, not bi-partisian, thug style politics, etc etc, my point only. To eaches own. One side will always disagree with the other, no matter even if there is some common ground, it is just nature. Doing things in Secret and behind closed doors does not seem bi-partisian to me, again my point only.
You know, if you take a group of say, 100 people.
Then, you split that group down the middle, and you ask them a question, usually some on both sides are going to agree on the answer.
If you look at what happened in the Senate, they had 1 Republican Senator on their side, 1. If there had been at least 10, I would have seen it as they were working together, it appears to me that Republicans are just working against.
At least the Democrats had some people who didn't like the idea, but were willing to work on it. Thats the difference right now, some are willing to work on a solution, and the Republican party was just completely against anything the white house said or did.
Get over it, you lost the last election. The party in power will dictate the majority of the bill. You are welcome to try and tweak it, but you aren't going to get everything you want, when you are in the minority party.
Lets look at some of the controversial legislation that Bush put forward. They had some Democrats who voted with him, and had some Republicans vote against it as well. However, they got a majority of both houses to pass some of his ideas. Thats bipartisanship, and the Democrats showed at least an little of that under our last President.
Republicans are just NO right now, whatever the thing is. Hell, leading Repbulicans were against sending money to a nation where 200,000 died this week, and that seems to be just a human response to try and help them.
Even GWB said this shouldn't be a partisan issue, and that anyone who tries to turn it into one is going to far.
Most certainly NOT good. We need checks and balances in everything. To much of anything is no good. When one party has so much power it leads to nutty control issues as seen right now with Reid and Pelosi.
Democrats do little better concerning the middle of the road. Take a look at this health care reform process, there has been so much arm twisting it's not funny, and no one is listening to anything but the sound of their own voice.
I think Ds have a bigger problem because they are inclusive rather than having a strict party line like the Rs do. They want to support all sides.
The Ds are not very left, they are middle of the road and it drives me, a very left social liberal, bonkers. Why the Ds get demonized for being radically left is laughable.
What the Ds tend to support (and get slammed for as radical) is absolutely acceptable as middle of the road in Europe.
In fact, many Ds would be thought of as right wing in Europe.
I think Ds have a bigger problem because they are inclusive rather than having a strict party line like the Rs do. They want to support all sides.
The Ds are not very left, they are middle of the road and it drives me, a very left social liberal, bonkers. Why the Ds get demonized for being radically left is laughable.
What the Ds tend to support (and get slammed for as radical) is absolutely acceptable as middle of the road in Europe.
In fact, many Ds would be thought of as right wing in Europe.
It's all relative.
Really I guess the total LACK of bipartisanship in any issue shows the D's inclusiveness right?
If you don't agree with the Democrats, you're evil, racist, and bigoted. That's pretty much their play book.
And if you don't agree with the Republicans, you're a socialist, anti-family, atheist, communist, who was born in Kenya, who should just leave this country, because its better off without you.
Not meaning to be partisan and without regard to party, do you feel it is a good thing for one or the other party to have an unbreakable dominance in Congress?
Doesn't having to work with the other party at least give a chance for better legislation?
I don't think it's a good thing for either party to have dominance like that. I think that having both serves as a check and balance. When there is dominance, you end up with groupthink and more extreme postiions. Unfortunately, at this point in our history, the parties are broken and do not work well with each other.
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.
when voting
