temporary dump

[Empty Hands]

No. The point is the selective outrage...

To those who keep leaving me anonymous rep dings without any message to it: why don't you bring your feelings to the thread and we can hash it out like adults? That would certainly be more useful.

 

[billc]

I'm curious, what is an anonymous rep ding?

 

[Touch Of Death]

I'm curious, what is an anonymous rep ding?

Its something you will be experiencing a lot of, in your future, I suspect. Don't worry about the red marks on the corner. Think of them as ribbons, or badges. I like you. I don't agree with a word you write but I like you. I think the fact that you bought in to the science fiction of the republican party is a direct result of you being a science fiction buff. Just know there is plenty of fiction coming from both sides. The republican talking points which you spout are usually ignorant of about twenty facts that refute them, and become nothing more than political blips. However, keep up the good work. I know this post isn't going to change you.
Sean

 

[Cryozombie]

Did you not have a write in space on your ballot?
Sean

Yes, but that is assuming that if everyone writes in "Donald Duck" the Electoral College will actually cast their votes for Donald Duck. I for one find this hard to believe.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Write in candidates are often not even counted unless there's a tie.

 

[Cryozombie]

First, in what way do 'we' (I presume you mean US citizens) not have possession of our country? No one holds elected office that was not elected, and when they lose elections, they leave office.

Only Problem with that Bill, is that George says "I think we need to suspend due process" so Barak says "We can't allow that to happen" so we vote for Barak and then nothing changes, so next time around Sarah says "We can't let Barak stand after his lies, we need to make this happen" and we vote for Sarah, and again, nothing changes.

I blame this on Two Party Politics, and I do NOT believe that we have any options to vote for anyone BUT a Republican or a Conservative and have the Electorate take us seriously. In several states, Independents and Third parties aren't even allowed on the ballot and the best we can hope for is to throw our votes away by writing in a candidate that will never see an electorate vote...

 

[ballen0351]

I blame this on Two Party Politics, and I do NOT believe that we have any options to vote for anyone BUT a Republican or a Conservative and have the Electorate take us seriously. In several states, Independents and Third parties aren't even allowed on the ballot and the best we can hope for is to throw our votes away by writing in a candidate that will never see an electorate vote...

There are what 300 million people in this country? You cant expect the beliefs of 300 million people to all fit into 2 groups. Also you cant expect a Republican from Maine to want or need the same things as a Republican from AZ.
I believe there should not even be a party system. The party system is whats screwing up congress. You have republicans from one state voting for bills that may be bad for that state because its the "Party Line." and their buddy needs the vote and will give them a nice apointment to the XYZ committee. People running for office should just put out their beliefs and if it fits yours then you vote for them. But instead they are all to wrapped up in the letter next to their name. You had all the Liberal war protests during the Bush years because he had an R but now that Obama is in charge you dont see them any more last time I checked the wars were still there but the Letter of whos in charge has changed and the Republicans do the same thing.

Another problem I feel is that most people could care less about politics and have no clue about it so they just vote for whoever had the coolest commercial or whoever Oprah had on her show last week, or whoever the big music star says to vote for. They dont find out for themselves. There were hundreds of youtube clips of interviews of voters after the elections that had facts so wrong it was amazing. Even Howard Stern got into the act when they found a bunch of Obama voters and asked them if they liked his running mate Sarah Palin and all these people were like oh yes we love her she and obama will do great blah blah blah. Its just sad that nobody seems to care anymore.

 

[billc]

I hear people talking about a third party, but why not just take over one of the existing parties by voting out their imcumbents and putting ours in. The Tea Party showed the way with this, and it may take a while, but starting from scratch seems to much an uphill battle. Even Christine O'donnell served a purpose by getting rid of an old party hack in the primary. She lost in the general but at least she got rid of a republican tool. If they can run a more electable tea party candidate next time it will be one more hack politician, this time a democrat, removed from office.

 

[granfire]

I hear people talking about a third party, but why not just take over one of the existing parties by voting out their imcumbents and putting ours in. The Tea Party showed the way with this, and it may take a while, but starting from scratch seems to much an uphill battle. Even Christine O'donnell served a purpose by getting rid of an old party hack in the primary. She lost in the general but at least she got rid of a republican tool. If they can run a more electable tea party candidate next time it will be one more hack politician, this time a democrat, removed from office.

Because if you have a 3rd strong player in the game the 'Us vs Them' fails to work and you get actually more done. Both big parties have to behave better.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

3rd parties aren't welcome as the rules are different for them than for the DNC and GOP. When they do threaten the status-quo, the rules are changed to make it harder the next time. The TEA Party will not have as easy a time in 2012. They'll need more signatures, will have to file earlier, and will face more ballot access challenges.

 

[ballen0351]

3rd parties aren't welcome as the rules are different for them than for the DNC and GOP. When they do threaten the status-quo, the rules are changed to make it harder the next time. The TEA Party will not have as easy a time in 2012. They'll need more signatures, will have to file earlier, and will face more ballot access challenges.

I think President Reagan gave the Tea Party its marching orders and showed them the path they just need to follow it:
From his speech Feb 6 1977 Long read but well Reagan was the man so its worth the time to read it.
The entire speech is here: http://www.presidentreagan.info/speeches/new_republican_party.cfm



I have to say I cannot agree with some of my friends—perhaps including some of you here tonight—who have answered that question by saying this nation needs a new political party.
I respect that view and I know that those who have reached it have done so after long hours of study. But I believe that political success of the principles we believe in can best be achieved in the Republican Party. I believe the Republican Party can hold and should provide the political mechanism through which the goals of the majority of Americans can be achieved. For one thing, the biggest single grouping of conservatives is to be found in that party. It makes more sense to build on that grouping than to break it up and start over. Rather than a third party, we can have a new first party made up of people who share our principles. I have said before that if a formal change in name proves desirable, then so be it. But tonight, for purpose of discussion, I’m going to refer it simply as the New Republican Party.
And let me say so there can be no mistakes as to what I mean: The New Republican Party I envision will not be, and cannot, be one limited to the country club-big business image that, for reasons both fair and unfair, it is burdened with today. The New Republican Party I am speaking about is going to have room for the man and the woman in the factories, for the farmer, for the cop on the beat and the millions of Americans who may never have thought of joining our party before, but whose interests coincide with those represented by principled Republicanism. If we are to attract more working men and women of this country, we will do so not by simply “making room” for them, but by making certain they have a say in what goes on in the party. The Democratic Party turned its back on the majority of social conservatives during the 1960s. The New Republican Party of the late ’70s and ’8Os must welcome them, seek them out, enlist them, not only as rank-and-file members but as leaders and as candidates.
The time has come for Republicans to say to black voters: “Look, we offer principles that black Americans can, and do, support.” We believe in jobs, real jobs; we believe in education that is really education; we believe in treating all Americans as individuals and not as stereotypes or voting blocs—and we believe that the long-range interest of black Americans lies in looking at what each major party has to offer, and then deciding on the merits. The Democratic Party takes the black vote for granted. Well, it’s time black America and the New Republican Party move toward each other and create a situation in which no black vote can be taken for granted.
The New Republican Party I envision is one that will energetically seek out the best candidates for every elective office, candidates who not only agree with, but understand, and are willing to fight for a sound, honest economy, for the interests of American families and neighborhoods and communities and a strong national defense. And these candidates must be able to communicate those principles to the American people in language they understand. Inflation isn’t a textbook problem. Unemployment isn’t a textbook problem. They should be discussed in human terms. Our candidates must be willing to communicate with every level of society, because the principles we espouse are universal and cut across traditional lines. In every Congressional district there should be a search made for young men and women who share these principles and they should be brought into positions of leadership in the local Republican Party groups. We can find attractive, articulate candidates if we look, and when we find them, we will begin to change the sorry state of affairs that has led a Democratic-controlled Congress for more than 40 years. I need not remind you that you can have the soundest principles in the world, but if you don't have candidates who can communicate those principles, candidates who are articulate as well as principled, you are going to lose election after election. I refuse to believe that the good Lord divided this world into Republicans who defend basic values and Democrats who win elections. We have to find tough, bright young men and women who are sick and tired of cliches and the pomposity and the mind-numbing economic idiocy of the liberals in Washington.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Doesn't matter. Each time a new party threatens the SQ, the "big 2" make it harder for them to get on the ballots, and work some of their goals into their platforms weakening support.

None of this is however relevant to a Constitutional discussion. Political parties aren't addressed in the USC, though who could vote has been changed and what obstacles they faced modified as well through various amendments.

 

[WC_lun]

Does the fact that the USA is now so much bigger with vastly more people in it than when it was written make it harder to 'use' the Constitution?

Tez, I really don't think the population amount really makes it more difficult to use the constitution. There have always been varying views of the constitution, from the day it was written. It is written vaguely in certain areas on purpose, but even if it was not, there would be arguement. It is the nature of human beings and even moreso of politicians. Heck, I could write, "the sky is blue" and for a lot of politicians that statement is vague and open for interpretation.

 

[billc]

Sorry Granfire, a third party here in the states simply weakens the democrat or republican that more closely fits the 3rd party platform, allowing the other party to win. It happened with Perot and it happened to gore. i still think that the tea party needs to keep pressing the republicans, and voting out republican establishment types in the primaries. Get enough real conservatives in and eventually they can start voting for house and senate majority leadership. Get them in at the state level in the governorships and you start taking control of the party machinery at the state level. Starting a new party has too many obstacles. Take over the republicans and get rid of the rinos. That will be a good start.

 

[Tez3]

Sorry Granfire, a third party here in the states simply weakens the democrat or republican that more closely fits the 3rd party platform, allowing the other party to win. It happened with Perot and it happened to gore. i still think that the tea party needs to keep pressing the republicans, and voting out republican establishment types in the primaries. Get enough real conservatives in and eventually they can start voting for house and senate majority leadership. Get them in at the state level in the governorships and you start taking control of the party machinery at the state level. Starting a new party has too many obstacles. Take over the republicans and get rid of the rinos. That will be a good start.

The Republicans should get rid of what? Sorry I don't understand what you mean.

 

[ballen0351]

The Republicans should get rid of what? Sorry I don't understand what you mean.

a RINO is a Republican In Name Only. Its a slang term used here to describe republicans that are not conservative

 

[crushing]

a RINO is a Republican In Name Only. Its a slang term used here to describe republicans that are not conservative

I don't think it really has to do with how conservative they are, but whether or not they are all in with the neo-con leadership that calls independent Republicans out as RINOs. In fact the the big government/big spending neo-cons (some former Democrats and liberals) aren't very conservative based on their record. If they were conservative, there wouldn't be a need to invent the word neo-con to describe them.

 

[Tez3]

In any other country both your parties would be conservative, they seem very alike to us. You seem to have far less choice than other countries do in their political parties. Most countries have a choice from the far left to the far right with everything in between including independants to choose from.

 

[ballen0351]

In any other country both your parties would be conservative, they seem very alike to us. You seem to have far less choice than other countries do in their political parties. Most countries have a choice from the far left to the far right with everything in between including independants to choose from.

This is a center right leaning country on most issues. But you are correct both parties have sort of merged. I can’t tell a bit of difference between Bush and Obama same policies, same wars, same bail out, same everything. That the problem with the current republican party. Both Parties are on a march towards socialism ones just walking a little faster

 

[Tez3]

This is a center right leaning country on most issues. But you are correct both parties have sort of merged. I can’t tell a bit of difference between Bush and Obama same policies, same wars, same bail out, same everything. That the problem with the current republican party. Both Parties are on a march towards socialism ones just walking a little faster

The thing is, they aren't. What you call 'socialism' bears no resemblance to what socialism really is! It must be America's own brand.