US: Why vote R or D?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 6:08 pm

Edited convo from another thread:

AnneBoleyn;1395149 wrote: That's because he [President Obama] is taking my vote for granted & dissed me.Ahso!;1395151 wrote: He's dissed and pissed on just about every person not on the right who voted for him last time around. He won't get my vote again, that's for sure.AnneBoleyn;1395154 wrote: That's right. Be an idiot & shoot yourself in the foot with your high & mighty ideals & ultra-sensitivities. Grow up you big baby.Ahso!;1395157 wrote: I'm not voting for Romney either, but he can't be any worse than Obama. Ahso!;1395159 wrote: I'm voting for the libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, who incidentally is to the left of both Obama and Romney.Ahso!;1395179 wrote: [to AnneBoleyn] And you'll be voting for your lying right-winged democrat because?AnneBoleyn;1395189 wrote: I don't necessarily love your choice, :yh_doh but as long as it is That's enough for me. :yh_peace
Why sidestep the question, Anne? President Obama & the dems can take your vote for granted because, as you've clearly demonstrated, they've got your vote no matter what they do.

How is voting for repubs shooting yourself in the foot any more than voting for dems who takes your vote for granted?

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 6:53 pm

Which corporations sponsor the Democratic candidate and which corporations sponsor the Republican candidate?

To tell the truth, I'm more concerned with the congressional races. Congress makes the laws and sets the budget. The president is primarily a figurehead.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 6:57 pm

That was like Meet The Press in Bizarro World.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:12 pm

Wandrin;1395234 wrote: Which corporations sponsor the Democratic candidate and which corporations sponsor the Republican candidate?

To tell the truth, I'm more concerned with the congressional races. Congress makes the laws and sets the budget. The president is primarily a figurehead.Most pay both parties - some pay equally, some not. It would be more telling if we could find out how much the lobbyists spend on them to bribe, erm, convince them to pass favorable legislation.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:18 pm

Wandrin;1395234 wrote: Which corporations sponsor the Democratic candidate and which corporations sponsor the Republican candidate?

To tell the truth, I'm more concerned with the congressional races. Congress makes the laws and sets the budget. The president is primarily a figurehead.Change has to begin somewhere and sometime, anything and anywhere is good as far as I'm concerned. Lots of voters vote straight party ticket and if libertarian candidates can get a few congressional seats that way that's cool with me.

The problem regarding congress is, as we've been witnessing with Rand Paul, is that libertarians caucus with republicans and end up towing the party line in their rhetoric. This is one reason why concentrating on a presidential candidate is useful. Executive orders and the justice department can affect some major change. The drug war has to get some consideration if America doesn't want to become a country owned by the prison industry.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:35 pm

For congressional races, I prefer candidates who rate practicality over ideology. They are there to get the job done - not to score points with the extreme elements of some political party. Compromise is something that adults do. Only spoiled little children throw tantrums when they don't get exactly what they want.

I guess it isn't possible to have a congress filled with independents, but a guy can wish.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:57 pm

Wandrin;1395244 wrote: For congressional races, I prefer candidates who rate practicality over ideology. They are there to get the job done - not to score points with the extreme elements of some political party. Compromise is something that adults do. Only spoiled little children throw tantrums when they don't get exactly what they want.

I guess it isn't possible to have a congress filled with independents, but a guy can wish.What do you do when you find that the job they are getting done in the name of practicality is not the job you think they should be doing?

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:18 pm

Accountable;1395248 wrote: What do you do when you find that the job they are getting done in the name of practicality is not the job you think they should be doing?

If what they are doing is not in the best interest of the citizens, then they aren't being practical. If telling them doesn't correct their ways, then vote them out of office.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 1:36 am

The whole party system is a racket. No matter who you elect, you are electing a gang. It's the same in Canada. What drug does the gang sell? Consumerism and a free market system based on impossible exponential growth.

It does matter who you vote for but it's more important to be trying to change why it doesn't really matter who you vote for. Right now it's just a matter of how fast we all die.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 5:14 am

Wandrin;1395255 wrote: If what they are doing is not in the best interest of the citizens, then they aren't being practical.:yh_rotfl Where do you find your definition of "practical"?

They are being practical by doing what will get them reelected. One of the best ways to get reelected is to do what the what the corporate sponsors want (so that they will fund your next campaign) and what the party wants (which is exactly what the corporate sponsors want, btw). If a few of the people get what they want then it is purely coincidental.

Didn't you read in the OP that Anne knows her vote is being taken for granted, yet she gives it to them anyway?

Wandrin;1395255 wrote: If telling them doesn't correct their ways, then vote them out of office.
I can tell you are someone who votes only when the big national elections roll around, might not even be aware that there are other times to vote, and votes against a candidate rather than for one.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 5:21 am

koan;1395261 wrote: The whole party system is a racket. No matter who you elect, you are electing a gang. It's the same in Canada. What drug does the gang sell? Consumerism and a free market system based on impossible exponential growth.
That's only the packaging; the product is quite different here in the US. What we get is a government whose primary purpose is to preserve the mega-corporations at all costs, pass legislation to facilitate their international growth and insulate them from the consequences of the risks they take, and keep the population distracted with promises of consumerism and a free market system based on impossible exponential growth.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 6:18 am

I just woke up (almost). Can't deal with challenges right now. Later.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 7:10 am

I had to laugh at Bill Maher when on a recent episode of his show he rattled off a litany of examples where Obama capitulated and pandered to the right, basically giving republicans all they wanted and his supporters crumbs. Then Maher went on to talk about how important it was to not elect Romney and republicans. Just so funny.

Maher being a board member of PETA must not be aware of Obama's reversal on the horse slaughtering issue he promised not to back and did.

Maher does a segment on his show about republicans being in a bubble and it's accurate but what Maher doesn't appear to realize is he's in a bubble of his own more often than not.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:21 am

AnneBoleyn;1395283 wrote: I just woke up (almost). Can't deal with challenges right now. Later.

Whenever you're ready.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 1:24 pm

Ahso!;1395286 wrote: I had to laugh at Bill Maher when on a recent episode of his show he rattled off a litany of examples where Obama capitulated and pandered to the right, basically giving republicans all they wanted and his supporters crumbs. Then Maher went on to talk about how important it was to not elect Romney and republicans. Just so funny.

Maher being a board member of PETA must not be aware of Obama's reversal on the horse slaughtering issue he promised not to back and did.

Maher does a segment on his show about republicans being in a bubble and it's accurate but what Maher doesn't appear to realize is he's in a bubble of his own more often than not.

I did kinda enjoy his comment after that list, "If Obama is a Socialist, he is a really bad one."

It's all about which bubble you're in, I guess.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:49 pm

My first choice would be to dissolve both political parties and start from scratch. The GOP has become a religious cult, and the democratic party is now the moderate wing of the GOP. My preference would be to ban the formation of political parties, and the airing of all political ads on TV and Radio. That might cut off some of the influence of corporate money ... if they can't spend it.

I'll probably vote for Obama, though haven't given his campaign a penny. When I voted for him last time, I just wanted him to wind down the wars and pass some form of health care reform. And a couple other things like end DADT. He did some of these things, though health care "fix" was not really what I had hoped for. Though it was better than what McCain had proposed (a 5K tax credit). If McCain were elected I would expect the economic stimulus would be in the form of having a bloody shootout with a new country. Right now the GOP is averaging one new war per term, and chomping at the bit to attack Iran.

Romney to me looks like an inauthentic joke. His main platform is to attack Obama over ideas he helped create (like the health care reform bill).

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 5:37 pm

yaaarrrgg;1395350 wrote: My preference would be to ban the formation of political parties, and the airing of all political ads on TV and Radio. That might cut off some of the influence of corporate money ... if they can't spend it.
I would support blocking all corporate involvement in all political or legislative processes. That includes political parties, unions, churches and charities as well as business corporations and any of their lobbyists. Individuals can support the candidate that would represent them, so I wouldn't prevent them from airing political ads. I also wouldn't prevent the candidate from using his own money or direct contributions from his potential constituents to advertise. But I definitely agree that we need to get corporate money out of the system.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 7:40 pm

Accountable;1395358 wrote: I would support blocking all corporate involvement in all political or legislative processes. That includes political parties, unions, churches and charities as well as business corporations and any of their lobbyists. Individuals can support the candidate that would represent them, so I wouldn't prevent them from airing political ads. I also wouldn't prevent the candidate from using his own money or direct contributions from his potential constituents to advertise. But I definitely agree that we need to get corporate money out of the system.

I can agree with most of this. But I'd allow small contributions from registered voters in his/her district for advertising. But yes, all corporate money out of the picture, including gifts, junkets to the Mediterranean, preferential house loans, etc. Anything paid by lobbyists, churches, or corporations should be considered bribery and should be punishable by jail time.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:02 am

Cornel West addressed this issue rather succinctly, he said: "Romney is a catastrophic response to a catastrophe and Obama is a disastrous response to a catastrophe!".

Disastrous doesn't cut it for me.

Wild Fire · Post by **Wild Fire** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:46 am

Pffft...any conversations about the so-called president - or any other politician, really - are absurd and pointless. The 2 parties? Another huge joke. On one side you've got anti-American morons, on the other, you have gutless cowards. Take your pick which is which.

There is no good choice to vote into the White House. There hasn't been for ages. We're screwed no matter who sits in the big chair. The Constitution has been used as asswipe by politicians for years. From the President all the way down to your local mayor. The People are no longer considered. Unless American's can force a total revamp and kick out every politician there is and start over under a completely different system, things are pretty much hopeless.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:00 am

Anyone brave enough to try and tackle that?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:34 am

Sorry, Accountable, recovering from second leg surgery & too tired and/or dumb to talk yet. Trying to keep up on FG reading, at least.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:04 pm

Wild Fire;1395568 wrote: Pffft...any conversations about the so-called president - or any other politician, really - are absurd and pointless. The 2 parties? Another huge joke. On one side you've got anti-American morons, on the other, you have gutless cowards. Take your pick which is which.

There is no good choice to vote into the White House. There hasn't been for ages. We're screwed no matter who sits in the big chair. The Constitution has been used as asswipe by politicians for years. From the President all the way down to your local mayor. The People are no longer considered. Unless American's can force a total revamp and kick out every politician there is and start over under a completely different system, things are pretty much hopeless.

So it is like Southpark said we have the choices of a Giant Douche, or a Turd Sandwich

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:09 pm

Or maybe it just because there all puppets for the 1% that rule it all and our politicians are just doing what those who pull the strings tell them too. Like Kang did with Bill Clinton in the simpsons

Wild Fire · Post by **Wild Fire** » Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:14 pm

M'kay....I have no idea how to respond to the South Park and Simpsons references. 2 programs I have never and would never waste a moment of my life watching and I find them completely ridiculous and pointless.

Next?

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:53 pm

Wild Fire;1395805 wrote: M'kay....I have no idea how to respond to the South Park and Simpsons references. 2 programs I have never and would never waste a moment of my life watching and I find them completely ridiculous and pointless.

Next?

like your ranting

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Jun 08, 2012 5:46 am

I'm not sure that politicians are the problem as much as the core of the American political system. It was a bad design from the start, and has led to predictably bad results.

For example, America was founded on the notion that people were too ignorant to self-govern (electoral college). Also the framers failed to create a wall of separation between money and power. Not only that, they built the entire system on the principle of "one-dollar, one-vote" (poor people couldn't even vote at all). It's not a turd sandwich by accident, the chef followed the recipe to this point.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:18 pm

Anecdotally, anyone I ever met or heard who urged people not to vote has always, 100% of the time, been Republican. I consider Libertarians to be republican no matter how much they No No to that.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:06 pm

AnneBoleyn;1395898 wrote: Anecdotally, anyone I ever met or heard who urged people not to vote has always, 100% of the time, been Republican. I consider Libertarians to be republican no matter how much they No No to that.
Out of curiosity, what prompted this post?

eta: hope the surgery went okay.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:32 am

Accountable;1395901 wrote: Out of curiosity, what prompted this post?

eta: hope the surgery went okay.

Just recalling my experiences. I remember the last time the left urged people not to vote, or vote 3rd/4th party, & that was 1968. Probably the last time there was a left in this country.

Thank you, the surgery went okay, but I'm so exhausted. Four surgical procedures in 5 months. I need a holiday from myself.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:42 am

AnneBoleyn;1395931 wrote: Just recalling my experiences. I remember the last time the left urged people not to vote, or vote 3rd/4th party, & that was 1968. Probably the last time there was a left in this country.
But nobody's urging anyone not to vote nowadays, that I'm aware of. In my view, not voting is tacit acceptance of the status quo. That's certainly how the politicians are going to interpret it.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:14 pm

I believe I read other peoples' posts & accidentally attributed these here. Unconsciously. Sorry. But since I drove us here anyway, I was thinking of:

Don't Vote It Just Encourages the Bastards by P.J. O'Rourke. He's a conservative "humorist".

When the notion is pressed that "they are all the same" or "both parties are the same" the next step is "why bother".

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:44 pm

To me it looks like both R and D parties have moved to the right, and converged to some degree because of this. But I don't think the GOP likes the convergence, they are moving even further right to get away from the Democrats (and even themselves). To some degree, it's an interesting political strategy from the Democrats. If they become the Republican party, it forces the GOP off the cliff. Either that, or the GOP has to appeal to the space on the left that's opened up. Could be an advantage for the libertarian party long term.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:25 pm

AnneBoleyn;1395940 wrote: I believe I read other peoples' posts & accidentally attributed these here. Unconsciously. Sorry. But since I drove us here anyway, I was thinking of:

Don't Vote It Just Encourages the Bastards by P.J. O'Rourke. He's a conservative "humorist".

When the notion is pressed that "they are all the same" or "both parties are the same" the next step is "why bother".
We need to start acknowledging that they complement each other and start thinking of them as one unit to be gotten rid of. That's the next step.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:58 pm

I wonder sometimes, if a grassroots movement was started to form a new political party for those that rejected the extremes and games of the existing parties, how long it would take for those same "men behind the curtain" to take control of the fledgling party.

Oh wait, we have a very recent example of that. I remember the tea party holding a few sparse demonstrations and then suddenly having a national organization, bussing protesters in to shout down questions asked of elected representatives, and having boatloads of cash to spend campaigning. The whole process of co-opting the tea party took a matter of months. I guess that answers the question.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jun 10, 2012 5:26 am

And did you notice that the next group that tried it rejected assimilation (and traditional organization) and became the butt of jokes and ridicule.

Wild Fire · Post by **Wild Fire** » Mon Jun 11, 2012 6:46 pm

littleCJelkton;1395812 wrote: like your ranting

Thanks! :yh_peace I like your post-count-bumping post.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Mon Jun 11, 2012 9:38 pm

Wild Fire;1396057 wrote: Thanks! :yh_peace I like your post-count-bumping post.

Your welcome, and I will continue waiting for something that contributes to the thread through other means than closed-minded rants and the continuing there-of.