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 thing I regret is being slow to catch on to the fact that our two-party system is really a one-party track to trans-national government and the erosion of our freedoms. Not too long ago I would've considered myself a Republican but now I realize that our entire political process is fraudulent and doesn't represent the needs of the American people.
The two party system is the best possible method. It's compromise maximized.
The two parties begin with a foundational oppositional view of liberty. Republicans have assumed the side of maximum practical liberty w/the individual responsibility that comes with it. Democrats have chosen the opposite.
So, the first step, is we decide if we want more or less liberty; do we want more or less government intervention in our lives? You've chosen the foundation of your beliefs: Dem or Rep. There is no third option because everyone will fit into one of those two groups.
Next, you have your primary. You select from that group the person who's most consistent with your views and who you believe will win-- You make your compromise. If your person loses, you accept the nominee because that person is just another notch over on the compromise scale and has demonstrated a level of electability over everyone else. Those who become "third party" candidates are individuals who refuse to compromise.
Looking at what your party is doing isn't a practical way to choose your candidate. Alaskans might have voted for a Senator who builds bridges to nowhere while Arizona voted in a Senator who accepts no pork: They're both Republicans but how the individual politician moves toward his goals is based on his electorate.
What matters most is what your representatives are doing. During the primaries, are you and the electorate voting for like minded Republicans in your state and district?
I think most people make a lot of assumptions about the goals of a party when what's important is the goals of their representative.
Right now, I think Americans overlook their Congressional representation so severely that their reps are forced to toe the line because if they didn't, they'd lose out on party election support. However, when the electorate gets involved, those politicians worry about one thing: Getting re-elected. You get active, and they'll listen to you more than the party chiefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by movin'on
I'd love to hear from reformed republicans in this thread, and I guess from that 29% who are so in the minority right now.
I think the "29%" is BS. I think if the questions were along the lines of "If immigration wasn't a factor, would you approve?" or "If the mismanagement of Iraq in the initial stages wasn't a factor, would you approve?" then that percentage would skyrocket.
I'm a little PO'd over immigration. However, I understand the tax burden on legally employing people is heavy and it wouldn't be that way if there was no Social Security and a host of other expenses. So, I don't hold it against him too much because he's fighting the left.
I highly disapprove of waterboarding.
However, outside of the few things I dislike, I think he has been an absolutely wonderful president.
People can say how awful Republicans have been, but I remember some things. Clinton ruined his presidency by lying under oath about violating a law he enacted... He lied to the whole country. Him and Newt shut down the government. His wife wasted a whole mess of time on universal healthcare.
He did some good. However, when we've all met our maker, I think Republicans will look back at Bush and consider him a better Republican president than Dems will look back at Clinton as a Dem president.
Other Dem presidents? Carter... come on, that was a mess... or wait... was it? I don't know... I can't make a decision (LOL!!!) Kennedy and Johnson?... Yeah, Viet Nam was a beauty.
They all suck. However, I think the Republicans have been really lucky to have Reagan and Bush whereas, the last exceptional Dem president was FDR who gave us a socialist program (Social Security) that, exactly as every welfare program does, grew from a 2% tax supporting people who lived two years beyond average life expectancy to 15.65% supporting people retiring fifteen years earlier than average life expectancy. He was a true Dem. He implemented the biggest contemporary oppressor and failing system we currently have.
Against that sort of backdrop? I don't regret Bush a bit.
How do you know Gore or Kerry would not have closed the border? Again, I am not looking for your personal opinion, rather citing something from someone who knows more than both you and I. Thank you.
Did Gore do anything for the eight years he was VP?
Has Kerry done anything since he has been in the senate?
I'm finding it interesting that I'm not seeing any or possibly only a VERY few, and I mean few, of those Bush/Cheney bumper stickers in this conservative town.
My theory is that republicans now realize they screwed up BIG TIME with their votes. I'm finding they either stay silent or just say "I don't want to discuss politics" or are just basically sheepish when someone mentions Bush, et al.
I'd love to hear from reformed republicans in this thread, and I guess from that 29% who are so in the minority right now.
Time to fess up. HUGE error in supporting Bush.
And if you would also please state which category you fall into, that will help us get a better handle on just what is going on out there - really.
I voted for Bush and am a reformed Republican who thinks who has been less then what we needed. However I am clear that even at this point he was better then Kerry. Can you really say we would be better off with John Kerry? Al Gore perhaps.
Lets leave aside for the moment my claim that the two parties are effectively merging and instead ponder the question of how such a vast and diverse citizenry (300+ million strong) could possibly be represented by only two parties. The latter observation shouldn't sit well with us if we're honest.
Let me tick off a few observations:
Foreign Policy - U.S. Military
Both political parties are in agreement with respect to the fact that our military should be used as an international force for "good"; the remaining dispute is a matter of emphasis. Republican party members would rather use the military for their ventures in the Middle East while Democrats would have us engaging in international peacekeeping efforts in the nether regions of Kosovo, Sudan, Somalia, Rwanda, and Darfur. Neither party has any serious desire to fundamentally change the strength, size, and international presence of our military.
Structure of American High Finance
It should bother us that Democrats and Republicans engage in almost no political debate over the relationship between Wall Street, The Treasury Dept., and our Federal Reserve. In fact the two parties give not even a hint of disagreement on the nature of these economic and/or financial structures.
Why is that?
Immigration
Both political parties have decided that we should allow semi-unrestricted mass legal immigration while leaving our Southern border wide open.
Does this represent the wishes of the American people?
Economic Globalism - American Sovereignty
The GOP and the Democrats have both embraced the realities of economic trans-national globalism. This has caused us to lose much of our manufacturing base to countries like China, which routinely violate international child labor laws.
I wonder, do either the Republicans or Democrats have a different vision for America that doesn't have us as being one gigantic service-oriented economy for the globe?
[crickets]
Environmental - Conservation
- The American landscape is being altered in order to make room for more strip malls, Starbucks, and Applebees.
- The major aquifers which run through are bread basket are being depleted faster than nature can replenish them.
- We are already experiencing major water shortages due to over-population in our Southwest.
I would like to stress that there is no environmental conservationist movement in this country. The Republicans couldn't care less in general and the Democrats are too obsessed over carbon emissions to give a damn about the American landscape and her aquifers (perhaps this kind of thing isn't sexy enough?!)
Some of us rural folk happen to like an unadulterated American landscape, where is our representation?
Did Gore do anything for the eight years he was VP?
Has Kerry done anything since he has been in the senate?
One of Gore's major works as Vice President was the National Performance Review,which pointed out waste, fraud, and other abuse in the federal government and stressed the need for cutting the size of the bureaucracy and the number of regulations.
Omnibus Budget reconciliation act of 1993 (referred to as the Deficit Reduction Act), casting the tie-breaking vote in a republican held senate that mathematically must have had spendaholic defectors.
Lets leave aside for the moment my claim that the two parties are effectively merging and instead ponder the question of how such a vast and diverse citizenry (300+ million strong) could possibly be represented by only two parties. The latter observation shouldn't sit well with us if we're honest.
Let me tick off a few observations...
None of your observations are "party" issues. They're issues with the candidates who have been making it through to the top.
Quote:
Some of us rural folk happen to like an unadulterated American landscape, where is our representation?
Marginalized. You have the option to vote for representatives that 1)move the country slightly in the direction you desire, 2)move the country further away from the country you desire, or 3)don't vote or vote third party and stand on the sidelines while the country is moved around without your voice meaning a thing-- like '92 Perot voters when Repubs were fractured against Clinton and '00 Nader voters when Dems fractured against Bush.
Compromise is the hardest lesson I've ever learned. It's emotionally painful. However, it's not party issues; it's who's been making it to the top.
I think the "29%" is BS. I think if the questions were along the lines of "If immigration wasn't a factor, would you approve?" or "If the mismanagement of Iraq in the initial stages wasn't a factor, would you approve?" then that percentage would skyrocket.
Why don't you buy this? These polls are fairly straightforward. Now..if a poll is just being conducted with a Faux news audience or perhaps a CNN audience, I get your point. But any poll of value will have a minimum sample size of 100 and the participants will be randomly selected. If I can figure this out and know this, certainly all the pollsters who do this for a living can come up with an accurate figure. Bush = Worse.President.Ever.
Hah! This is even better and a description of just how these things are done...
Quote:
April 21, 2008
George W. Bush's Overall Job Approval Holds Steady
George W. Bush's overall job approval is holding steady at 22% as 68% of Americans say the national economy is in a recession according to the latest survey from the American Research Group.
Among all Americans, 22% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 72% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 22% approve and 73% disapprove.
Among Americans registered to vote, 23% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 71% disapprove. When it comes to the way Bush is handling the economy, 23% of registered voters approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 72% disapprove.
A total of 54% of Americans say their personal financial situations are getting worse, up from 46% in March and up from 31% a year ago.
The results presented here are based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews conducted among a nationwide random sample of adults 18 years and older. The interviews were completed April 16 through 19, 2008. The theoretical margin of error for the total sample is plus or minus 2.6 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split.
Overall, 22% of Americans say that they approve of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president, 72% disapprove, and 6% are undecided.
George W. Bush has been a blight on this nation for eight freaking years! Even little old ladies at my grandmother's rest home curse his name. Though you may not have known what you were getting when you voted his way, you can at least look back and say "I wish I knew now what I didn't know then!" And if you are one of the very few who still support the guy, WHY!!!! If you can give me a coherent explanation of why you still support the man I would be so happy to read it. Most of his die-hard supporters just call me a terrorist and curse alot! Anyway, thanks for reading!
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.
Please regret it!!!
