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.
The only problem with the *vote for the person not the party* philosophy is that that person will *usually* vote with the party. Minnick is an exception but look at all the dems falling all over themselves to support this healthcare debacle coming out of DC. Blue dogs will vote with the leadership most of the time. Liberal republicans (RINOs) will usually do the same.
They system is broken and has been for 200+ years. Nothing will change because we've all become complacent (at least the majority of Americans).
The only problem with the *vote for the person not the party* philosophy is that that person will *usually* vote with the party. Minnick is an exception but look at all the dems falling all over themselves to support this healthcare debacle coming out of DC. Blue dogs will vote with the leadership most of the time. Liberal republicans (RINOs) will usually do the same.
They system is broken and has been for 200+ years. Nothing will change because we've all become complacent (at least the majority of Americans).
I'll agree with a good part of your statement - the current political climate allows for more herding of votes than it used to; I might argue that it's only been ~50 years of all-out herding, but that's not the issue at hand.
That's why it is up to individual voters to make a conscious choice to not (necessarily) vote for a party line...but if each person in a political party happens to appeal to you as a voter, then you'll probably vote along with the governing party. My concern is that some good people get discounted, from either or any party, just because of the letter/s after their name.
The change in how politicians act/vote once in office can only be dictated by who WE put into office, and letting them know what we, as those that voted, expect of them. And sometimes we make mistakes or are misled - if a politician claims to 'vote their mind/heart/conscience' but ends up following the party line or the $, and you disagree with that, then by God don't vote for them again.
It's YOUR choice as to who represents your voice, and if said person isn't up to the job, then throw your own voice into the argument. If you're fair and honest and hold true to the beliefs & ideals that I expect of someone representing my voice, I'll sure as hell vote for you!
(Sorry, when I started this reply, I had no intention if jumping on the soapbox...)
The math is simple. Look at San Francisco. Look at Massachusetts. Now drive through the average city in Idaho. Normal hard working people who don't whine and cry when the going gets tough. People with innate common sense and values. Seems fairly simple to me. You get what you vote for. If you want big government go to Frisco. If you want common sense and moral values to remain the cornerstone of government vote accordingly. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
I will definitely vote for a democrat. I certainly won't vote for Otter or that nutcase Rammell. It would be nice to have a democrat who felt that women have equal rights and finally bring this State into the 21st Century. Unfortunately, this State will never allow women to be treated equally as long as they let the LDS church control our government.
I will definitely vote for a democrat. I certainly won't vote for Otter or that nutcase Rammell. It would be nice to have a democrat who felt that women have equal rights and finally bring this State into the 21st Century. Unfortunately, this State will never allow women to be treated equally as long as they let the LDS church control our government.
So are you implying that Democrat Obama doesn't give women equal rights?
Just wondering because it is such a broad statement.
The last I checked the LDS church doesn't control the state government, they may have interest in and control the majority of Utah politics, but not here in Idaho. There may be several LDS in the government from Eastern Idaho and maybe areas of the Magic Valley but the majority of the state is much, much more religiously diverse. Idaho grew into a state as one of the most anti LDS states in this nations history after Brother Brigham Young sent some saints North of the border of Utah into Idaho and they were not met with kindness either, much had to do with the polygamy issue.
I am going to vote for the candidate that I feel will best lead our state regardless of party affiliation, except for Rammell. The LDS Church Headquarters in SLC has chastised him for his mixing of deep religious prophecy with religion.
Last edited by TohobitPeak; 01-10-2010 at 11:44 PM..
You can talk about who YOU are voting for or about specific Idaho political issues...but you MUST avoid political commentary in such sweeping terms. That belongs in the P&OC forum.
Idaho grew into a state as one of the most anti LDS states in this nations history after Brother Brigham Young sent some saints North of the border of Utah into Idaho and they were not met with kindness either, much had to do with the polygamy issue.
.
Mormons weren't actually even allowed to vote in Idaho until something like 1980 when they took the law off the books, obviously it hadn't been enforced for quite some time.
I went to the state of the state yesterday, and it sounded like Otter is gearing up to set himself up as a staunch conservative before the election, he talked about not raising taxes, cutting programs and threw in an extensive quote from Ronald Reagan for good measure. Last year he was pushing an increase in road taxes and user fees and was at odds with the conservative Republicans for most the session. Maybe he was fearing a primary loss.
I had the esteemed honor of standing next to Rex Rammel during the speech. that guy is kind of a clown, who is alienating voters by the day.
I had the esteemed honor of standing next to Rex Rammel during the speech. that guy is kind of a clown, who is alienating voters by the day.
I have to agree, I've found him to be very arrogant and was disappointed with a recent correspondence I had . He comes across as your typical politician, so I think to many, it's disappointing.
Why would someone who enjoys the lifestyle and freedoms that Idaho residents enjoy, try to vote people into office whose whole agenda is to take away that lifestyle and those freedoms. It just doesn't make any sense. A good friend who just moved from Socal to NID just reregistered his truck to get rid of the dreaded Calif. plates ASAP. his registration went from almost $700 a year to $90 for two years. Yeah! [MOD CUT]
Last edited by Sage of Sagle; 01-14-2010 at 12:28 AM..
Reason: Please avoid the broader partisan political commentary
Why would someone who enjoys the lifestyle and freedoms that Idaho residents enjoy, try to vote people into office whose whole agenda is to take away that lifestyle and those freedoms. It just doesn't make any sense. A good friend who just moved from Socal to NID just reregistered his truck to get rid of the dreaded Calif. plates ASAP. his registration went from almost $700 a year to $90 for two years. Yeah! [MOD CUT]
There's a whole spectrum of political beliefs in-between California and Idaho. Comparing the two extremes doesn't prove anything.
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.
