login
My election eve thoughts...
-
No new posts
|
 2012-11-05 8:46 AM |
Champion  7347     SRQ, FL |  Subject: My election eve thoughts...On this eve of election day I've decided to get a bit deep. Warning, wall of text.... We have a divided country. We have a country of "Democrats" and "Republicans" who have no earthly idea of how the other side can function with such a lack of brain cells. Their belief systems are so foreign to us that it's impossible to imagine voting for their candidate even if he were running against Hitler himself. Well except for most of us. There are probably a good 15-25% on either side who will never sway from their party (even though both of the parties have changed drastically over the last 50 years). They will pull the R or D lever (or push the touch screen button) every time without knowing ANY facts. But there is a MUCH larger demographic. The other 75-80-odd % who really are not that far from each other. For example, I tend to be very conservative fiscally but when it comes to social issues I tend to be more liberal. The party with whom I usually associated for example does not support gay rights. I do. They don't believe in legalizing drugs. I do (to be fair neither of them believe in this). They want to increase military spending. I think it needs to be cut. Meanwhile I have a number of liberal friends who feel the "rich" should not be taxed more. They think that we should have been out of Afghanistan back in 2008. We all cross over these lines and cannot be labeled as D or Rs on all the issues. Yet it is this 2 party system that forces us to chose sides. Even though in daily life we skip merrily back and forth across the liberal-conservative state line, when it comes to election day we are forced to chose one side and demonize the opposition. It's a sad state of affairs when the left is forced to portray the people who helped build this country as the "evil rich" who need to pay more than their fair share, while the right makes arguments like cutting PBS and NPR is the solution to the budget problem. In reality if you sat down 100 random liberals and conservatives at the table my guess is you'd find more common ground that you'd think. Demand the government you deserve. Don't accept the candidates they present to you. You chose who will lead this country. Make your vote count. Criticize your own side when they make mistakes. Maybe if enough people get tired of the bickering and polarization it might take root one day. (cue the Gary Johnson banners.. BTW, that was not the point of this BTW. Just some observations this weekend made me realize how uncivil we have become the last 10 or so years when it comes to politics.) |
| 2012-11-05 9:28 AM in reply to: #4483844 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... Amen. I imagine this has to be close to how it felt back in the late 1850's. |
| 2012-11-05 9:35 AM in reply to: #4483844 |
Champion 10668 Tacoma, Washington | Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... No, we have a lot more than 2 parties, it's just that the media has kept it to these 2. Why weren't any of the other presidential candidates invited to "the debates"? I'm sick of party politics. This country can't survive the polarizing. |
| 2012-11-05 9:43 AM in reply to: #4483844 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... I think this is appropriate. George Washington's Farewell Address.
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume. |
| 2012-11-05 9:51 AM in reply to: #4483987 |
Champion 10668 Tacoma, Washington | Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... JoshR - 2012-11-05 7:43 AM I think this is appropriate. George Washington's Farewell Address. Prophetic words indeed. |
| 2012-11-05 10:00 AM in reply to: #4483974 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... Honestly, I'm not sure the country is more polarized these days, at least DURING campaigns. There has always been some serious animosity between the two main parties, and there have always been minor third parties. Look at Andrew Jackson v. John Q. Adams. Democrats claimed JQA was irreligious (he was a Unitarian, after all!) Even worse, they spread the rumor that Adams, as Minister to Russia, had procured a young American girl to "service" the czar. Al Smith v. Herbert Hoover: Smith was Catholic. Political rivals distributed literature claiming that the Holland Tunnel, built while Smith was governor of New York, ran 3,500 miles under the Atlantic Ocean straight to the Vatican, where Smith could hold secret meetings with the Pope. They claimed the bible would be banned if Smith was elected. In supporting JFK's bid for the presidency, Harry S Truman said, "If you vote for Nixon, you ought to go to Hell!" The list of heated campaigns and overblown rhetoric throughout American history is endless. Even the press has always been sensationalistic and biased. Look at newspapers of the 1830's: August 17, 1836 Indiana Democrat: “The Whigs have accused Van Buren of being a Catholic. All this slander has been disproved, but there is ‘proof’ that Harrison ‘has done more towards establishing the Roman Catholic religion in the Mississippi Valley, and more towards uniting Church and State than any man living . . .Ye abhorrers of the Pope and of Anti Christ, how can ye support Gen. Harrison?’” Perhaps one difference is how politicians get along and reach compromises BETWEEN campaigns. I'm not even sure about that. I think, to a certain extent, we all like to idealize about how things worked "in the good ol' days"... when they weren't all that much different from the present day. |
| 2012-11-05 10:02 AM in reply to: #4483844 |
Pro 5755 | Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... TriRSquared - 2012-11-05 9:46 AM On this eve of election day I've decided to get a bit deep. Warning, wall of text.... We have a divided country. We have a country of "Democrats" and "Republicans" who have no earthly idea of how the other side can function with such a lack of brain cells. Their belief systems are so foreign to us that it's impossible to imagine voting for their candidate even if he were running against Hitler himself. Well except for most of us. There are probably a good 15-25% on either side who will never sway from their party (even though both of the parties have changed drastically over the last 50 years). They will pull the R or D lever (or push the touch screen button) every time without knowing ANY facts. But there is a MUCH larger demographic. The other 75-80-odd % who really are not that far from each other. For example, I tend to be very conservative fiscally but when it comes to social issues I tend to be more liberal. The party with whom I usually associated for example does not support gay rights. I do. They don't believe in legalizing drugs. I do (to be fair neither of them believe in this). They want to increase military spending. I think it needs to be cut. Meanwhile I have a number of liberal friends who feel the "rich" should not be taxed more. They think that we should have been out of Afghanistan back in 2008. We all cross over these lines and cannot be labeled as D or Rs on all the issues. Yet it is this 2 party system that forces us to chose sides. Even though in daily life we skip merrily back and forth across the liberal-conservative state line, when it comes to election day we are forced to chose one side and demonize the opposition. It's a sad state of affairs when the left is forced to portray the people who helped build this country as the "evil rich" who need to pay more than their fair share, while the right makes arguments like cutting PBS and NPR is the solution to the budget problem. In reality if you sat down 100 random liberals and conservatives at the table my guess is you'd find more common ground that you'd think. Demand the government you deserve. Don't accept the candidates they present to you. You chose who will lead this country. Make your vote count. Criticize your own side when they make mistakes. Maybe if enough people get tired of the bickering and polarization it might take root one day. (cue the Gary Johnson banners.. BTW, that was not the point of this BTW. Just some observations this weekend made me realize how uncivil we have become the last 10 or so years when it comes to politics.) Best post on the state of the electorate I've seen yet. I've associated with the other party because of necessity, not because I believe they are the solution. Like you I'm fiscally conservative and socially moderate to liberal. I want to run my business and raise my kids in the way that I see fit, with minimal government interference. I don't mind paying taxes, as long as the burden is shared equally and that money is being spent responsibly. I can hold an intelligent conversation in a political discussion without resorting to name calling or casting someone holding an alternative viewpoint as evil incarnate. I do not believe it should take over six months and two billion dollars to state your case why I should or should not vote for you as a candidate. While you and I may have strong opinions and differing viewpoints, I am certain that you've put serious thought into them and have your reasons for coming to those conclusions. I can respect you for that, and it shouldn't mean we can't sit and have a beer and be friends. And finally, in the wishful thinking department, I wish the media would stop trying to reinforce stereotypes and whip us all up into a frenzy by exacerbating our differences just to sell advertising. |
| 2012-11-05 10:06 AM in reply to: #4484054 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... scoobysdad - 2012-11-05 9:00 AM Honestly, I'm not sure the country is more polarized these days, at least DURING campaigns. There has always been some serious animosity between the two main parties, and there have always been minor third parties. Look at Andrew Jackson v. John Q. Adams. Democrats claimed JQA was irreligious (he was a Unitarian, after all!) Even worse, they spread the rumor that Adams, as Minister to Russia, had procured a young American girl to "service" the czar. Al Smith v. Herbert Hoover: Smith was Catholic. Political rivals distributed literature claiming that the Holland Tunnel, built while Smith was governor of New York, ran 3,500 miles under the Atlantic Ocean straight to the Vatican, where Smith could hold secret meetings with the Pope. They claimed the bible would be banned if Smith was elected. In supporting JFK's bid for the presidency, Harry S Truman said, "If you vote for Nixon, you ought to go to Hell!" The list of heated campaigns and overblown rhetoric throughout American history is endless. Even the press has always been sensationalistic and biased. Look at newspapers of the 1830's: August 17, 1836 Indiana Democrat: “The Whigs have accused Van Buren of being a Catholic. All this slander has been disproved, but there is ‘proof’ that Harrison ‘has done more towards establishing the Roman Catholic religion in the Mississippi Valley, and more towards uniting Church and State than any man living . . .Ye abhorrers of the Pope and of Anti Christ, how can ye support Gen. Harrison?’” Perhaps one difference is how politicians get along and reach compromises BETWEEN campaigns. I'm not even sure about that. I think, to a certain extent, we all like to idealize about how things worked "in the good ol' days"... when they weren't all that much different from the present day.
I think the Key word you used was DURING. Look at what transpires after the election. The rhetoric won't really come down much on Nov. 7. |
| 2012-11-05 10:20 AM in reply to: #4484065 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... JoshR - 2012-11-05 10:06 AM scoobysdad - 2012-11-05 9:00 AM Honestly, I'm not sure the country is more polarized these days, at least DURING campaigns. There has always been some serious animosity between the two main parties, and there have always been minor third parties. Look at Andrew Jackson v. John Q. Adams. Democrats claimed JQA was irreligious (he was a Unitarian, after all!) Even worse, they spread the rumor that Adams, as Minister to Russia, had procured a young American girl to "service" the czar. Al Smith v. Herbert Hoover: Smith was Catholic. Political rivals distributed literature claiming that the Holland Tunnel, built while Smith was governor of New York, ran 3,500 miles under the Atlantic Ocean straight to the Vatican, where Smith could hold secret meetings with the Pope. They claimed the bible would be banned if Smith was elected. In supporting JFK's bid for the presidency, Harry S Truman said, "If you vote for Nixon, you ought to go to Hell!" The list of heated campaigns and overblown rhetoric throughout American history is endless. Even the press has always been sensationalistic and biased. Look at newspapers of the 1830's: August 17, 1836 Indiana Democrat: “The Whigs have accused Van Buren of being a Catholic. All this slander has been disproved, but there is ‘proof’ that Harrison ‘has done more towards establishing the Roman Catholic religion in the Mississippi Valley, and more towards uniting Church and State than any man living . . .Ye abhorrers of the Pope and of Anti Christ, how can ye support Gen. Harrison?’” Perhaps one difference is how politicians get along and reach compromises BETWEEN campaigns. I'm not even sure about that. I think, to a certain extent, we all like to idealize about how things worked "in the good ol' days"... when they weren't all that much different from the present day.
I think the Key word you used was DURING. Look at what transpires after the election. The rhetoric won't really come down much on Nov. 7. Yep, that's why I emphasized it. Maybe the problem, then, is that campaigns last so much longer than they did back in the day. Candidates for president (INCLUDING the president himself) start running for office more than two years before the election. I don't think that is in the public's interest. Edited by scoobysdad 2012-11-05 10:20 AM |
| 2012-11-05 10:23 AM in reply to: #4483974 |
Veteran 1019 St. Louis | Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... briderdt - 2012-11-05 9:35 AM No, we have a lot more than 2 parties, it's just that the media has kept it to these 2. Why weren't any of the other presidential candidates invited to "the debates"? I'm sick of party politics. This country can't survive the polarizing. The debates are run by the Commission of Presidential Debates, which was set up and is jointly controlled by both the Republican and Democratic parties. It turns out the two parties can agree on something, they both love the monopoly they have on this country. Their rules state that a candidate must be polling at a minimum of 15% to be allowed in the debates. Prior to '88, the debates were organized by the League of Women's Voters. They ended their affiliation with the debates and issued this press statement. "The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public." Those women could not have been more accurate on where the future of the debates would lead. |
| 2012-11-05 10:25 AM in reply to: #4483844 |
Master 2277 Lake Norman, NC | Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... My .02 cents... The Tea Party has been one of the worst things to ever happen to Congress. Not so much in their stance or goals, but in their method of absolutes: "Sign a pledge to never raise taxes no matter what." "Say no to anything Democrat or Obama no matter what." "Paralyze decisions until Obama is out of the White House." "NEVER COMPROMISE." Even during the days of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Dubya - there was pragmatism and compromise. The political rhetoric was still just as polarized, but lawmakers in Congress were still willing to do something to move forward. The GOP was center-right which is perfectly fine. You need voices on the right to counter voices on the left. But the Republican Party is in big trouble. There's too much pressure on Republicans these days to lean too far to the right. Look at what it's done to Romney: In the primaries, he had to portray himself as nearly Tea Party far right to win the nomination. And now he has to portray himself as back in the center to win the general election. But this whole "let the system collapse just so that we can blame the Deomcrats and especially Obama and get more of our people voted in" philosophy has got to go! And "our people" doesn't mean Republicans, it means far far far right-wing conservatives. I can live with either party, so long as people in Washington are willing to work together across party lines, to compromise, to be pragmatic, to work to make things better for this country for EVERYONE. Not just only the one extreme side that you represent.
|
| 2012-11-05 10:29 AM in reply to: #4483844 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... TriRSquared - 2012-11-05 8:46 AM On this eve of election day I've decided to get a bit deep. Warning, wall of text.... We have a divided country. We have a country of "Democrats" and "Republicans" who have no earthly idea of how the other side can function with such a lack of brain cells. Their belief systems are so foreign to us that it's impossible to imagine voting for their candidate even if he were running against Hitler himself. Well except for most of us. There are probably a good 15-25% on either side who will never sway from their party (even though both of the parties have changed drastically over the last 50 years). They will pull the R or D lever (or push the touch screen button) every time without knowing ANY facts. But there is a MUCH larger demographic. The other 75-80-odd % who really are not that far from each other. For example, I tend to be very conservative fiscally but when it comes to social issues I tend to be more liberal. The party with whom I usually associated for example does not support gay rights. I do. They don't believe in legalizing drugs. I do (to be fair neither of them believe in this). They want to increase military spending. I think it needs to be cut. Meanwhile I have a number of liberal friends who feel the "rich" should not be taxed more. They think that we should have been out of Afghanistan back in 2008. We all cross over these lines and cannot be labeled as D or Rs on all the issues. Yet it is this 2 party system that forces us to chose sides. Even though in daily life we skip merrily back and forth across the liberal-conservative state line, when it comes to election day we are forced to chose one side and demonize the opposition. It's a sad state of affairs when the left is forced to portray the people who helped build this country as the "evil rich" who need to pay more than their fair share, while the right makes arguments like cutting PBS and NPR is the solution to the budget problem. In reality if you sat down 100 random liberals and conservatives at the table my guess is you'd find more common ground that you'd think. Demand the government you deserve. Don't accept the candidates they present to you. You chose who will lead this country. Make your vote count. Criticize your own side when they make mistakes. Maybe if enough people get tired of the bickering and polarization it might take root one day. (cue the Gary Johnson banners.. BTW, that was not the point of this BTW. Just some observations this weekend made me realize how uncivil we have become the last 10 or so years when it comes to politics.) Well said. I too am fiscally conservative, but I'm somewhere in the middle on social issues. I'm Pro life across the board including anti death penalty, but I'm libertarian on most other social issues. I'm most liberal/progressive when it comes to the judicial branch and restorative justice versus punitive justice. I'm a registered R in Nebraska because the real elections are in the primaries. Whoever wins the nomination is pretty much guaranteed to win the general. I was a registered D when I lived in Chicago for the same reasons. |
| 2012-11-05 10:31 AM in reply to: #4484103 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-11-05 10:25 AM My .02 cents... The Tea Party has been one of the worst things to ever happen to Congress. Not so much in their stance or goals, but in their method of absolutes: "Sign a pledge to never raise taxes no matter what." "Say no to anything Democrat or Obama no matter what." "Paralyze decisions until Obama is out of the White House." "NEVER COMPROMISE." Even during the days of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Dubya - there was pragmatism and compromise. The political rhetoric was still just as polarized, but lawmakers in Congress were still willing to do something to move forward. The GOP was center-right which is perfectly fine. You need voices on the right to counter voices on the left. But the Republican Party is in big trouble. There's too much pressure on Republicans these days to lean too far to the right. Look at what it's done to Romney: In the primaries, he had to portray himself as nearly Tea Party far right to win the nomination. And now he has to portray himself as back in the center to win the general election. But this whole "let the system collapse just so that we can blame the Deomcrats and especially Obama and get more of our people voted in" philosophy has got to go! And "our people" doesn't mean Republicans, it means far far far right-wing conservatives. I can live with either party, so long as people in Washington are willing to work together across party lines, to compromise, to be pragmatic, to work to make things better for this country for EVERYONE. Not just only the one extreme side that you represent.
I don't disagree in your assessment of the Tea Party, but I think the D's have had the same issues going on with the far left side of they party. It doesn't have a name like the Tea Party, but I think both sides have the same issue with the extremes of their party. Moderates on both sides are becoming an endangered species. |
| 2012-11-05 10:36 AM in reply to: #4484103 |
Veteran 1019 St. Louis | Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-11-05 10:25 AM My .02 cents... The Tea Party has been one of the worst things to ever happen to Congress. Not so much in their stance or goals, but in their method of absolutes: "Sign a pledge to never raise taxes no matter what." "Say no to anything Democrat or Obama no matter what." "Paralyze decisions until Obama is out of the White House." "NEVER COMPROMISE." Even during the days of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Dubya - there was pragmatism and compromise. The political rhetoric was still just as polarized, but lawmakers in Congress were still willing to do something to move forward. The GOP was center-right which is perfectly fine. You need voices on the right to counter voices on the left. But the Republican Party is in big trouble. There's too much pressure on Republicans these days to lean too far to the right. Look at what it's done to Romney: In the primaries, he had to portray himself as nearly Tea Party far right to win the nomination. And now he has to portray himself as back in the center to win the general election. But this whole "let the system collapse just so that we can blame the Deomcrats and especially Obama and get more of our people voted in" philosophy has got to go! And "our people" doesn't mean Republicans, it means far far far right-wing conservatives. I can live with either party, so long as people in Washington are willing to work together across party lines, to compromise, to be pragmatic, to work to make things better for this country for EVERYONE. Not just only the one extreme side that you represent.
Here in Missouri, we've been mostly spared from the Senate race advertising ever since Akin said the words legitimate rape. But he's got a new ad running. A woman's voice says that you might not agree with everything he's said, but Akin will support every policy of a president Romney and will fight tooth and nail against every policy of a president Obama. His strategy of painting himself as someone who will never reach across the aisle is apparently working. He's narrowed the gap in the polls recently and might actually pull it out. |
| 2012-11-05 10:38 AM in reply to: #4484103 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-11-05 10:25 AM My .02 cents... The Tea Party has been one of the worst things to ever happen to Congress. Not so much in their stance or goals, but in their method of absolutes: "Sign a pledge to never raise taxes no matter what." "Say no to anything Democrat or Obama no matter what." "Paralyze decisions until Obama is out of the White House." "NEVER COMPROMISE." Even during the days of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Dubya - there was pragmatism and compromise. The political rhetoric was still just as polarized, but lawmakers in Congress were still willing to do something to move forward. The GOP was center-right which is perfectly fine. You need voices on the right to counter voices on the left. But the Republican Party is in big trouble. There's too much pressure on Republicans these days to lean too far to the right. Look at what it's done to Romney: In the primaries, he had to portray himself as nearly Tea Party far right to win the nomination. And now he has to portray himself as back in the center to win the general election. But this whole "let the system collapse just so that we can blame the Deomcrats and especially Obama and get more of our people voted in" philosophy has got to go! And "our people" doesn't mean Republicans, it means far far far right-wing conservatives. I can live with either party, so long as people in Washington are willing to work together across party lines, to compromise, to be pragmatic, to work to make things better for this country for EVERYONE. Not just only the one extreme side that you represent.
IMO, I think it's pretty pathetic to demonize citizens for simply and peacefully calling for fiscal responsibility from their government, when both sides have shown little to no restraint. BTW, the real Tea Party has little to nothing to do with the "far far Right" and its stance on social issues. The contrast to the Occupy movement, with whom the sitting president cast his lot, and its calls for debt forgiveness (paid for by taxpayers), demonizing the builders of society and "free" stuff (paid for by taxpayers), is stark to say the least. Edited by scoobysdad 2012-11-05 10:40 AM |
| 2012-11-05 10:45 AM in reply to: #4484103 |
| Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-11-05 8:25 AM My .02 cents... The Tea Party has been one of the worst things to ever happen to Congress. Not so much in their stance or goals, but in their method of absolutes: "Sign a pledge to never raise taxes no matter what." "Say no to anything Democrat or Obama no matter what." "Paralyze decisions until Obama is out of the White House." "NEVER COMPROMISE." Even during the days of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Dubya - there was pragmatism and compromise. The political rhetoric was still just as polarized, but lawmakers in Congress were still willing to do something to move forward. The GOP was center-right which is perfectly fine. You need voices on the right to counter voices on the left. But the Republican Party is in big trouble. There's too much pressure on Republicans these days to lean too far to the right. Look at what it's done to Romney: In the primaries, he had to portray himself as nearly Tea Party far right to win the nomination. And now he has to portray himself as back in the center to win the general election. But this whole "let the system collapse just so that we can blame the Deomcrats and especially Obama and get more of our people voted in" philosophy has got to go! And "our people" doesn't mean Republicans, it means far far far right-wing conservatives. I can live with either party, so long as people in Washington are willing to work together across party lines, to compromise, to be pragmatic, to work to make things better for this country for EVERYONE. Not just only the one extreme side that you represent.
Could you provide a source for this? People moving our nation towards more and more socialist polices you sound like you have no problem with. Yet those who would like to halt the advancement of socialist policies that move our nation closer to what socialist countries have are evil from what I've read from you here and in the past. If I'm wrong please explain. edited for lack of proofreading,,,, added; to, are Edited by crusevegas 2012-11-05 10:51 AM |
| 2012-11-05 10:50 AM in reply to: #4484173 |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota | Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... crusevegas - 2012-11-05 10:45 AM Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-11-05 8:25 AM My .02 cents... The Tea Party has been one of the worst things to ever happen to Congress. Not so much in their stance or goals, but in their method of absolutes: "Sign a pledge to never raise taxes no matter what." "Say no to anything Democrat or Obama no matter what." "Paralyze decisions until Obama is out of the White House." "NEVER COMPROMISE." Even during the days of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Dubya - there was pragmatism and compromise. The political rhetoric was still just as polarized, but lawmakers in Congress were still willing to do something to move forward. The GOP was center-right which is perfectly fine. You need voices on the right to counter voices on the left. But the Republican Party is in big trouble. There's too much pressure on Republicans these days to lean too far to the right. Look at what it's done to Romney: In the primaries, he had to portray himself as nearly Tea Party far right to win the nomination. And now he has to portray himself as back in the center to win the general election. But this whole "let the system collapse just so that we can blame the Deomcrats and especially Obama and get more of our people voted in" philosophy has got to go! And "our people" doesn't mean Republicans, it means far far far right-wing conservatives. I can live with either party, so long as people in Washington are willing to work together across party lines, to compromise, to be pragmatic, to work to make things better for this country for EVERYONE. Not just only the one extreme side that you represent.
Could you provide a source for this? People moving our nation towards more and more socialist polices you sound like you have no problem with. Yet those who would like to halt the advancement of socialist policies that move our nation closer what socialist countries have evil from what I've read from you here and in the past. If I'm wrong please explain.
Huh? |
| 2012-11-05 10:53 AM in reply to: #4484185 |
| Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... ejshowers - 2012-11-05 8:50 AM crusevegas - 2012-11-05 10:45 AM Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-11-05 8:25 AM My .02 cents... The Tea Party has been one of the worst things to ever happen to Congress. Not so much in their stance or goals, but in their method of absolutes: "Sign a pledge to never raise taxes no matter what." "Say no to anything Democrat or Obama no matter what." "Paralyze decisions until Obama is out of the White House." "NEVER COMPROMISE." Even during the days of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Dubya - there was pragmatism and compromise. The political rhetoric was still just as polarized, but lawmakers in Congress were still willing to do something to move forward. The GOP was center-right which is perfectly fine. You need voices on the right to counter voices on the left. But the Republican Party is in big trouble. There's too much pressure on Republicans these days to lean too far to the right. Look at what it's done to Romney: In the primaries, he had to portray himself as nearly Tea Party far right to win the nomination. And now he has to portray himself as back in the center to win the general election. But this whole "let the system collapse just so that we can blame the Deomcrats and especially Obama and get more of our people voted in" philosophy has got to go! And "our people" doesn't mean Republicans, it means far far far right-wing conservatives. I can live with either party, so long as people in Washington are willing to work together across party lines, to compromise, to be pragmatic, to work to make things better for this country for EVERYONE. Not just only the one extreme side that you represent.
Could you provide a source for this? People moving our nation towards more and more socialist polices you sound like you have no problem with. Yet those who would like to halt the advancement of socialist policies that move our nation closer what socialist countries have evil from what I've read from you here and in the past. If I'm wrong please explain.
Huh? Maybe my edit will make it more understandable for you. If not ask again. |
| 2012-11-05 11:01 AM in reply to: #4484195 |
Master 2277 Lake Norman, NC | Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... crusevegas - 2012-11-05 11:53 AM ejshowers - 2012-11-05 8:50 AM crusevegas - 2012-11-05 10:45 AM Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-11-05 8:25 AM My .02 cents... The Tea Party has been one of the worst things to ever happen to Congress. Not so much in their stance or goals, but in their method of absolutes: "Sign a pledge to never raise taxes no matter what." "Say no to anything Democrat or Obama no matter what." "Paralyze decisions until Obama is out of the White House." "NEVER COMPROMISE." Even during the days of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Dubya - there was pragmatism and compromise. The political rhetoric was still just as polarized, but lawmakers in Congress were still willing to do something to move forward. The GOP was center-right which is perfectly fine. You need voices on the right to counter voices on the left. But the Republican Party is in big trouble. There's too much pressure on Republicans these days to lean too far to the right. Look at what it's done to Romney: In the primaries, he had to portray himself as nearly Tea Party far right to win the nomination. And now he has to portray himself as back in the center to win the general election. But this whole "let the system collapse just so that we can blame the Deomcrats and especially Obama and get more of our people voted in" philosophy has got to go! And "our people" doesn't mean Republicans, it means far far far right-wing conservatives. I can live with either party, so long as people in Washington are willing to work together across party lines, to compromise, to be pragmatic, to work to make things better for this country for EVERYONE. Not just only the one extreme side that you represent.
Could you provide a source for this? People moving our nation towards more and more socialist polices you sound like you have no problem with. Yet those who would like to halt the advancement of socialist policies that move our nation closer what socialist countries have evil from what I've read from you here and in the past. If I'm wrong please explain.
Huh? Maybe my edit will make it more understandable for you. If not ask again. You'll have to clarify a couple of things;
|
| 2012-11-05 11:05 AM in reply to: #4484103 |
Champion 6999 Chicago, Illinois | Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-11-05 10:25 AM The Tea Party has been one of the worst things to ever happen to Congress. Not so much in their stance or goals, but in their method of absolutes: "Sign a pledge to never raise taxes no matter what." "Say no to anything Democrat or Obama no matter what." "Paralyze decisions until Obama is out of the White House." "NEVER COMPROMISE." I was unsure who I was going to vote for a long time. It was really the "must have obama fail at all costs" attitude that made my decision for me. |
| 2012-11-05 11:12 AM in reply to: #4484218 |
| Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-11-05 9:01 AM crusevegas - 2012-11-05 11:53 AM ejshowers - 2012-11-05 8:50 AM crusevegas - 2012-11-05 10:45 AM Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-11-05 8:25 AM My .02 cents... The Tea Party has been one of the worst things to ever happen to Congress. Not so much in their stance or goals, but in their method of absolutes: "Sign a pledge to never raise taxes no matter what." "Say no to anything Democrat or Obama no matter what." "Paralyze decisions until Obama is out of the White House." "NEVER COMPROMISE." Even during the days of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Dubya - there was pragmatism and compromise. The political rhetoric was still just as polarized, but lawmakers in Congress were still willing to do something to move forward. The GOP was center-right which is perfectly fine. You need voices on the right to counter voices on the left. But the Republican Party is in big trouble. There's too much pressure on Republicans these days to lean too far to the right. Look at what it's done to Romney: In the primaries, he had to portray himself as nearly Tea Party far right to win the nomination. And now he has to portray himself as back in the center to win the general election. But this whole "let the system collapse just so that we can blame the Deomcrats and especially Obama and get more of our people voted in" philosophy has got to go! And "our people" doesn't mean Republicans, it means far far far right-wing conservatives. I can live with either party, so long as people in Washington are willing to work together across party lines, to compromise, to be pragmatic, to work to make things better for this country for EVERYONE. Not just only the one extreme side that you represent.
Could you provide a source for this? People moving our nation towards more and more socialist polices you sound like you have no problem with. Yet those who would like to halt the advancement of socialist policies that move our nation closer what socialist countries have evil from what I've read from you here and in the past. If I'm wrong please explain.
Huh? Maybe my edit will make it more understandable for you. If not ask again. You'll have to clarify a couple of things;
1. Would you provide a source for the bolded part about the goals of the Tea Party? 2. What policies you ask, for starters Obamacare. 3. What goal are you referring to? 4. What current law is socialists, take a look at Social Security, the average American is deprived of 1/7 of his income with a promise that he may or may not get back some or all of what the Federal Govt. confiscated during his working life. |
| 2012-11-05 11:18 AM in reply to: #4484248 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... While I do not believe the "Tea Party" is any sort of formally unified movement, I do believe it is movement of everyday citizens bound together by a handful of simple principles. I think this site does a pretty good job in summarizing it. See for yourself how shockingly "far, far Right" it is and note all of those extreme hardcore stances on social issues (of which there are NONE): http://www.teaparty-platform.com/ |
| 2012-11-05 11:52 AM in reply to: #4484248 |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota | Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... crusevegas - 2012-11-05 11:12 AM Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-11-05 9:01 AM crusevegas - 2012-11-05 11:53 AM ejshowers - 2012-11-05 8:50 AM crusevegas - 2012-11-05 10:45 AM Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-11-05 8:25 AM My .02 cents... The Tea Party has been one of the worst things to ever happen to Congress. Not so much in their stance or goals, but in their method of absolutes: "Sign a pledge to never raise taxes no matter what." "Say no to anything Democrat or Obama no matter what." "Paralyze decisions until Obama is out of the White House." "NEVER COMPROMISE." Even during the days of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Dubya - there was pragmatism and compromise. The political rhetoric was still just as polarized, but lawmakers in Congress were still willing to do something to move forward. The GOP was center-right which is perfectly fine. You need voices on the right to counter voices on the left. But the Republican Party is in big trouble. There's too much pressure on Republicans these days to lean too far to the right. Look at what it's done to Romney: In the primaries, he had to portray himself as nearly Tea Party far right to win the nomination. And now he has to portray himself as back in the center to win the general election. But this whole "let the system collapse just so that we can blame the Deomcrats and especially Obama and get more of our people voted in" philosophy has got to go! And "our people" doesn't mean Republicans, it means far far far right-wing conservatives. I can live with either party, so long as people in Washington are willing to work together across party lines, to compromise, to be pragmatic, to work to make things better for this country for EVERYONE. Not just only the one extreme side that you represent.
Could you provide a source for this? People moving our nation towards more and more socialist polices you sound like you have no problem with. Yet those who would like to halt the advancement of socialist policies that move our nation closer what socialist countries have evil from what I've read from you here and in the past. If I'm wrong please explain.
Huh? Maybe my edit will make it more understandable for you. If not ask again. You'll have to clarify a couple of things;
1. Would you provide a source for the bolded part about the goals of the Tea Party? 2. What policies you ask, for starters Obamacare. 3. What goal are you referring to? 4. What current law is socialists, take a look at Social Security, the average American is deprived of 1/7 of his income with a promise that he may or may not get back some or all of what the Federal Govt. confiscated during his working life. What does Social Security have to do with government control of the means of production, i.e. socialism? |
| 2012-11-05 12:03 PM in reply to: #4484341 |
| Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... ejshowers - 2012-11-05 9:52 AM crusevegas - 2012-11-05 11:12 AM Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-11-05 9:01 AM crusevegas - 2012-11-05 11:53 AM ejshowers - 2012-11-05 8:50 AM crusevegas - 2012-11-05 10:45 AM Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-11-05 8:25 AM My .02 cents... The Tea Party has been one of the worst things to ever happen to Congress. Not so much in their stance or goals, but in their method of absolutes: "Sign a pledge to never raise taxes no matter what." "Say no to anything Democrat or Obama no matter what." "Paralyze decisions until Obama is out of the White House." "NEVER COMPROMISE." Even during the days of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Dubya - there was pragmatism and compromise. The political rhetoric was still just as polarized, but lawmakers in Congress were still willing to do something to move forward. The GOP was center-right which is perfectly fine. You need voices on the right to counter voices on the left. But the Republican Party is in big trouble. There's too much pressure on Republicans these days to lean too far to the right. Look at what it's done to Romney: In the primaries, he had to portray himself as nearly Tea Party far right to win the nomination. And now he has to portray himself as back in the center to win the general election. But this whole "let the system collapse just so that we can blame the Deomcrats and especially Obama and get more of our people voted in" philosophy has got to go! And "our people" doesn't mean Republicans, it means far far far right-wing conservatives. I can live with either party, so long as people in Washington are willing to work together across party lines, to compromise, to be pragmatic, to work to make things better for this country for EVERYONE. Not just only the one extreme side that you represent.
Could you provide a source for this? People moving our nation towards more and more socialist polices you sound like you have no problem with. Yet those who would like to halt the advancement of socialist policies that move our nation closer what socialist countries have evil from what I've read from you here and in the past. If I'm wrong please explain.
Huh? Maybe my edit will make it more understandable for you. If not ask again. You'll have to clarify a couple of things;
1. Would you provide a source for the bolded part about the goals of the Tea Party? 2. What policies you ask, for starters Obamacare. 3. What goal are you referring to? 4. What current law is socialists, take a look at Social Security, the average American is deprived of 1/7 of his income with a promise that he may or may not get back some or all of what the Federal Govt. confiscated during his working life. What does Social Security have to do with government control of the means of production, i.e. socialism? The definition of Socialism and the goals and objectives of the Communist and Socialist Parties are pretty broad and encompassing. The definition of Socialism can be very constrictive as you appear to be trying to use it or it can be much broader especially if you look at the Socialists or Communist Parties web sites. To answer you question, it falls under the broader term of socialism, the government is controlling or confiscating 1/7 of the average Americans "production" or pay and is making a promise to possibly pay it back in full or in part at some date in the future. Take a look at the goals and objectives @ cpusa.org it's pretty in line with where our country has been going and headed in the last half century or longer. You can define "Socialist" however you want, I'm going to go with how the Socialist Party and the Communist Party here in the USA are presenting it. |
| 2012-11-05 12:11 PM in reply to: #4484361 |
Pro 5755 | Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... crusevegas - 2012-11-05 1:03 PM ejshowers - 2012-11-05 9:52 AM crusevegas - 2012-11-05 11:12 AM Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-11-05 9:01 AM crusevegas - 2012-11-05 11:53 AM ejshowers - 2012-11-05 8:50 AM crusevegas - 2012-11-05 10:45 AM Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-11-05 8:25 AM My .02 cents... The Tea Party has been one of the worst things to ever happen to Congress. Not so much in their stance or goals, but in their method of absolutes: "Sign a pledge to never raise taxes no matter what." "Say no to anything Democrat or Obama no matter what." "Paralyze decisions until Obama is out of the White House." "NEVER COMPROMISE." Even during the days of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Dubya - there was pragmatism and compromise. The political rhetoric was still just as polarized, but lawmakers in Congress were still willing to do something to move forward. The GOP was center-right which is perfectly fine. You need voices on the right to counter voices on the left. But the Republican Party is in big trouble. There's too much pressure on Republicans these days to lean too far to the right. Look at what it's done to Romney: In the primaries, he had to portray himself as nearly Tea Party far right to win the nomination. And now he has to portray himself as back in the center to win the general election. But this whole "let the system collapse just so that we can blame the Deomcrats and especially Obama and get more of our people voted in" philosophy has got to go! And "our people" doesn't mean Republicans, it means far far far right-wing conservatives. I can live with either party, so long as people in Washington are willing to work together across party lines, to compromise, to be pragmatic, to work to make things better for this country for EVERYONE. Not just only the one extreme side that you represent.
Could you provide a source for this? People moving our nation towards more and more socialist polices you sound like you have no problem with. Yet those who would like to halt the advancement of socialist policies that move our nation closer what socialist countries have evil from what I've read from you here and in the past. If I'm wrong please explain.
Huh? Maybe my edit will make it more understandable for you. If not ask again. You'll have to clarify a couple of things;
1. Would you provide a source for the bolded part about the goals of the Tea Party? 2. What policies you ask, for starters Obamacare. 3. What goal are you referring to? 4. What current law is socialists, take a look at Social Security, the average American is deprived of 1/7 of his income with a promise that he may or may not get back some or all of what the Federal Govt. confiscated during his working life. What does Social Security have to do with government control of the means of production, i.e. socialism? The definition of Socialism and the goals and objectives of the Communist and Socialist Parties are pretty broad and encompassing. The definition of Socialism can be very constrictive as you appear to be trying to use it or it can be much broader especially if you look at the Socialists or Communist Parties web sites. To answer you question, it falls under the broader term of socialism, the government is controlling or confiscating 1/7 of the average Americans "production" or pay and is making a promise to possibly pay it back in full or in part at some date in the future. Take a look at the goals and objectives @ cpusa.org it's pretty in line with where our country has been going and headed in the last half century or longer. You can define "Socialist" however you want, I'm going to go with how the Socialist Party and the Communist Party here in the USA are presenting it. I just looked at the cpusa website and their faq. Some of their views, i.e. equal rights, environment, etc. can also be found in the Democrat and Republican Party platforms. Others, such as the replacement of capitalism and nationalization of industry - I just don't see how you can say we're moving in that direction. If anything, we've become more of a capitalist society. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK