Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Take the special interest money out of Washington......and the choices become much better.....with more options.
Would you say it is liberals or conservatives who are more likely to want the special interests, lobbyists and their money out of the process for picking our leaders>
Take lobbying out of the picture and we're back to smoky back room deals and bribes. Leave lobbying and we eliminate bribes for "campaign contributions."
I'm at the point now where I say we scrap the parties, just randomly pick people to fill seats in Congress like we do with jury pools, and pick one of those people to be President. It's not like it can get any worse.
Take the special interest money out of Washington......and the choices become much better.....with more options.
Would you say it is liberals or conservatives who are more likely to want the special interests, lobbyists and their money out of the process for picking our leaders>
with 100% certainty it IS the LEFT. since it is ALWAYS during the left reign when the corporates get more expansion and power.
Crony capitalism and the left are in bed forever.
Did anybody mention Solyndra?
I agree. I mean, so long as there is money to be made by making laws to benefit one interest or another we'll have corruption. Freezers filled with cash and campaign contributions just flip sides of the same coin.
it's not the parties, it is the special interests ... Term Limits would help solve the problem.
Take the special interest money out of Washington......and the choices become much better.....with more options.
Would you say it is liberals or conservatives who are more likely to want the special interests, lobbyists and their money out of the process for picking our leaders>
with 100% certainty it IS the LEFT. since it is ALWAYS during the left reign when the corporates get more expansion and power.
Crony capitalism and the left are in bed forever.
Did anybody mention Solyndra?
100% huh? I tend to agree. How did you get that one right?
I disagree.
Wanting only two choices is retarded. There are infinite shades of gray in the electorate which is why I split my vote locally. Federally under our constitution; it makes zero sense to elect a President of one party and a congress of another when one has to rely on the other to get anything done (hence gridlock).
Further; If "no third party would put anyone in a category that is not already espoused by one or the other present parties", Perot and Nader would not have had an outcome. BTW; it was Pat Buchanan that got Bush elected in 2000.
There is a large issue of trust involved as well. Nobody could trust Romney who gained his victory in the primaries due to his running against dumb and dumber (Santorum and Gingrich). So just because he was the nominee; could you trust him to follow through? Not really. As for the Dems; hope and change was more hope than change as it turns out. The most "transparent" administration in history doesn't seem that much of a change from his predacessors.
Multiple (infinite number of) shades of grey is just another (cowardly) expression saying: I have no spine, I love to vacillate between here and there, I don't mind if I get big slivers in my ass for sitting on the fence, I am too weak to make up mind (which I may or may not have) about what is right or wrong.
well, unfortunately there are a lot of people who can't make a choice for one candidate vs the other based not on their spineless but on their wrong view that if they don't choose between two wrongs, they somehow are exempt from the responsibility of dealing with those wrongs which then are being "chosen" mostly based on fraud ( the last one as an example).
not every fiscal conservative will agree on the "war on drugs" for example and not every liberal-minded individual where it comes to some social issues will necessary be on the side of the idiotic expansion of not working social programs.
and many other combinations.
Today those people are left with either or.
Which is not right.
In this day and age there is absolutely NO EXCUSE for being uninformed, misinformed and/or stupid.
There is TV, radio, both with choices to pick the station/channel most suitable for your political views, there is the internet, and there are still newspapers and magazines. You can also attend candidate debates, town hall meetings and debates in rec rooms of your friends or your own, hosted by you, if you care.
If, with all that information you still can not choose between two parties, because neither may be 100% to your liking, go form your own party, or attempt to make the wisest possible choice to fit your ideology or simply refuse your franchise and don't bother to vote, because if you can't make up your mind between two choices, left/right, right/wrong, liberal/conservative, you are too stupid anyways, and your vote is nothing but a detriment to the fate of the country.
America needs a third party like a fish needs a bicycle.
This is the computer age, which is, as yo know, based on the idea of BINARY, as in TWO.
No third party would put anyone in a category that is not already espoused by one or the other present parties.
You see what third party candidates have done in the past.
Russ Perot got the Arkansas hillbilly elected in 1992 and 1996.
Ralph Nader got George W. Bush elected in 2000.
If you want America to become like Europe, encourage third, fourth, fifth, sixth....thirtieth parties to grandstand and ruin your life and your country.
I disagree.
Wanting only two choices is retarded. There are infinite shades of gray in the electorate which is why I split my vote locally. Federally under our constitution; it makes zero sense to elect a President of one party and a congress of another when one has to rely on the other to get anything done (hence gridlock).
Further; If "no third party would put anyone in a category that is not already espoused by one or the other present parties", Perot and Nader would not have had an outcome. BTW; it was Pat Buchanan that got Bush elected in 2000.
There is a large issue of trust involved as well. Nobody could trust Romney who gained his victory in the primaries due to his running against dumb and dumber (Santorum and Gingrich). So just because he was the nominee; could you trust him to follow through? Not really. As for the Dems; hope and change was more hope than change as it turns out. The most "transparent" administration in history doesn't seem that much of a change from his predacessors.
Multiple (infinite number of) shades of grey is just another (cowardly) expression saying: I have no spine, I love to vacillate between here and there, I don't mind if I get big slivers in my ass for sitting on the fence, I am too weak to make up mind (which I may or may not have) about what is right or wrong.
When you split your vote and vote one party locally and another state or federally, you only reveal your lack of spine, your greediness and your intention to be a full fledged free-loader. If you can not trust the candidate of your choice on the local level, but he/she is fine with you on state or federal level, you displayed exactly what trust your representative on any level can place in you.
Both are unemployed and their comparatively short careers in professional politics is over.When you say dumb and dumber and mention the names of Santorum and Gingrich, once again you display your ignorance. Santorum and Gingrich - collectively - had and still have, far more political savvy, experience, knowledge, honesty and dignity, than any Obama/Biden, Obama/Clinton, Biden/Clinton, Obama/anyDemocrat etc. could ever have or had.
No, I didn't vote for Romney.But you were, obviously mesmerized by a snake oil salesman,
Wanting only two choices and forcing yourself to select A or B is retarded.Since you are, obviously, a liberal, you declared that my position on a two party system was "retarded".
Feel free to quote me in that.You also claimed that the Constitution, that gives you the checks and balances makes zero sense. If you had any decency, loyalty, patriotism and integrity, you would not split your vote in order to gain some tiny padding to your pocket book.
Finally, go back to Grade 2 and get some spelling lessons.
Multiple (infinite number of) shades of grey is just another (cowardly) expression saying: I have no spine, I love to vacillate between here and there, I don't mind if I get big slivers in my ass for sitting on the fence, I am too weak to make up mind (which I may or may not have) about what is right or wrong.
well, unfortunately there are a lot of people who can't make a choice for one candidate vs the other based not on their spineless but on their wrong view that if they don't choose between two wrongs, they somehow are exempt from the responsibility of dealing with those wrongs which then are being "chosen" mostly based on fraud ( the last one as an example).
not every fiscal conservative will agree on the "war on drugs" for example and not every liberal-minded individual where it comes to some social issues will necessary be on the side of the idiotic expansion of not working social programs.
and many other combinations.
Today those people are left with either or.
Which is not right.
In this day and age there is absolutely NO EXCUSE for being uninformed, misinformed and/or stupid.
There is TV, radio, both with choices to pick the station/channel most suitable for your political views, there is the internet, and there are still newspapers and magazines. You can also attend candidate debates, town hall meetings and debates in rec rooms of your friends or your own, hosted by you, if you care.
If, with all that information you still can not choose between two parties, because neither may be 100% to your liking, go form your own party, or attempt to make the wisest possible choice to fit your ideology or simply refuse your franchise and don't bother to vote, because if you can't make up your mind between two choices, left/right, right/wrong, liberal/conservative, you are too stupid anyways, and your vote is nothing but a detriment to the fate of the country.
Take the special interest money out of Washington......and the choices become much better.....with more options.
Would you say it is liberals or conservatives who are more likely to want the special interests, lobbyists and their money out of the process for picking our leaders>
Take lobbying out of the picture and we're back to smoky back room deals and bribes. Leave lobbying and we eliminate bribes for "campaign contributions."
I'm at the point now where I say we scrap the parties, just randomly pick people to fill seats in Congress like we do with jury pools, and pick one of those people to be President. It's not like it can get any worse.
well, unfortunately there are a lot of people who can't make a choice for one candidate vs the other based not on their spineless but on their wrong view that if they don't choose between two wrongs, they somehow are exempt from the responsibility of dealing with those wrongs which then are being "chosen" mostly based on fraud ( the last one as an example).
not every fiscal conservative will agree on the "war on drugs" for example and not every liberal-minded individual where it comes to some social issues will necessary be on the side of the idiotic expansion of not working social programs.
and many other combinations.
Today those people are left with either or.
Which is not right.
In this day and age there is absolutely NO EXCUSE for being uninformed, misinformed and/or stupid.
There is TV, radio, both with choices to pick the station/channel most suitable for your political views, there is the internet, and there are still newspapers and magazines. You can also attend candidate debates, town hall meetings and debates in rec rooms of your friends or your own, hosted by you, if you care.
If, with all that information you still can not choose between two parties, because neither may be 100% to your liking, go form your own party, or attempt to make the wisest possible choice to fit your ideology or simply refuse your franchise and don't bother to vote, because if you can't make up your mind between two choices, left/right, right/wrong, liberal/conservative, you are too stupid anyways, and your vote is nothing but a detriment to the fate of the country.
Even if the reality is inexcusable, it is still a reality.
some people can make the priorities, some can not.
you can not expect all to be the same.
therefore if you can not change the people ( and you can't, even forcibly - you know it) one tries to adjust the system to the people for the best result.
Obviously, having the educated, responsible and thoughtful populace would be the best - but it is not going to happen.
it's not the parties, it is the special interests ... Term Limits would help solve the problem.
The more polarized America gets, the more there is a need for term limits.
Short of having term limits, the President (assume he/she was a patriotic one) must have line item veto, in order to strip pork from a bill, which is the greatest reason for the need of term limits.
Take lobbying out of the picture and we're back to smoky back room deals and bribes. Leave lobbying and we eliminate bribes for "campaign contributions."
I'm at the point now where I say we scrap the parties, just randomly pick people to fill seats in Congress like we do with jury pools, and pick one of those people to be President. It's not like it can get any worse.
The answer is to have all federal elections paid for by the tax payers.
That being the case, those who don't care, are uninformed, misinformed, stupid or uneducated to form a valid opinion, a valid choice, should not be able to cast their worthless and uninformed vote and spoil the election for those who took the time and effort to be informed about politics and their country.
Poll tax based on skin color was wrong, wrong, wrong.
But there should be a poll tax and denial of voting rights for those who think that rights come without responsibilities.
There is no excuse for political ignorance.
