Anyone frustrated w. party politics?

[Jason1977]

Anyone else feel frustrated with the polarized operation of the way things work? As if I needed to ask....

One extreme on one side, one extreme on the other, meanwhile seldom do people jump on the 3rd party ticket? For me personally, I identify with some of what both sides of the aisle are for. What frustrates me is it is almost always polarized.

SO: Given the option, if you knew there was a middle of the road candidate, would you select a balanced / compromising candidate over your own party affiliation? Anyone out there match that description? Care to weigh in?

I know I would. I tend to favor balance over absolutism on either side. Not sure who fits the bill though.

 

[SniperFire]

Perhaps you might be interested in another forum?


LOL

 

[Sinjorri]

Anyone else feel frustrated with the polarized operation of the way things work? As if I needed to ask....

One extreme on one side, one extreme on the other, meanwhile seldom do people jump on the 3rd party ticket? For me personally, I identify with some of what both sides of the aisle are for. What frustrates me is it is almost always polarized.

SO: Given the option, if you knew there was a middle of the road candidate, would you select a balanced / compromising candidate over your own party affiliation? Anyone out there match that description? Care to weigh in?

I know I would. I tend to favor balance over absolutism on either side. Not sure who fits the bill though.

center of the road doesnt work. Not all people can be appeased and not all problems are going to be solved by making everyone happy on every problem. You dont necessarily have to pick a side, but the parties need to have a goal and appeasing people is not a goal.

 

[Wolfsister77]

Yep, politics is a lot about beliefs and values.

There isn't a lot of room for being on both sides of all the issues.

They are usually too big and important not to take a principled stand.

That is why Romney sucks.

 

[antagon]

To the contrary, our two major parties are both fairly centered. They certainly do not constitute extremes.

 

[martybegan]

I want the old federalist party back. With the exceptions of those rights strictly given in the consitution states should be able to legislate according to thier own constitutions and the will of the people.

If people didnt like it, they could move, and still be in the old USA.

 

[Sinjorri]

To the contrary, our two major parties are both fairly centered. They certainly do not constitute extremes.

wont argue that, i think the play for votes is more important and whatever the have to do.

 

[occupied]

American politics thrives on conflict, the hope for some kind of unifying third party is a pipe dream. Politics is a bloodsport in America, we demand about as much civil discourse from our political leaders as we do from our professional wrestlers.

 

[Jason1977]

Yep, politics is a lot about beliefs and values.

There isn't a lot of room for being on both sides of all the issues.

They are usually too big and important not to take a principled stand.

That is why Romney sucks.

2 sides can compromise though. Reagan & Clinton understood that. I think Romney's problem is he's wishy washy. I'll have the chicken. No, I'll have the beef. No, chicken. No beef, um.....do you serve fish? That's the problem I have w. Romney. you're right though.

 

[mamooth]

The perfect is often the enemy of the good. A principled stand can get a lot of people killed. Some Nader voters put Bush in office with their principled stand. Al Gore would not have started a war in Iraq and killed a couple hundred thousand people.

Who do you think is more likely to start a war in Iran, Obama or Romney? How willing are you to risk that your principled stand won't get many more people killed?

 

[Jason1977]

To the contrary, our two major parties are both fairly centered. They certainly do not constitute extremes.

When it comes to cases though, it seems you're either for or against something. You're either black or white. hot or cold. There is no grey area. Just as an example:

Abortion: pro choice, pro life.

Well what about the guy that doesn't like abortion but is okay w. it if a woman is raped.

When it comes to stimulating the bases during election season, it seems they say things WAY out in left / right field & the closer it gets to election day, the closer to the middle they appear to be.

 

[Dissent]

Yes. Absolutely.

 

[Jason1977]

Perhaps you might be interested in another forum?


LOL

That's it. You're so not on my Christmas list. No towels this year for YOU buster.....

 

[antagon]

The perfect is often the enemy of the good. A principled stand can get a lot of people killed. Some Nader voters put Bush in office with their principled stand. Al Gore would not have started a war in Iraq and killed a couple hundred thousand people.

Who do you think is more likely to start a war in Iran, Obama or Romney? How willing are you to risk that your principled stand won't get many more people killed?

Gore wrote a policy memo on invading Iraq, btw.

 

[hortysir]

The perfect is often the enemy of the good. A principled stand can get a lot of people killed. Some Nader voters put Bush in office with their principled stand. Al Gore would not have started a war in Iraq and killed a couple hundred thousand people.

Who do you think is more likely to start a war in Iran, Obama or Romney? How willing are you to risk that your principled stand won't get many more people killed?

The Algore would still be sitting at the negotiating table with OBL

 

[antagon]

To the contrary, our two major parties are both fairly centered. They certainly do not constitute extremes.

When it comes to cases though, it seems you're either for or against something. You're either black or white. hot or cold. There is no grey area. Just as an example:

Abortion: pro choice, pro life.

Well what about the guy that doesn't like abortion but is okay w. it if a woman is raped.

When it comes to stimulating the bases during election season, it seems they say things WAY out in left / right field & the closer it gets to election day, the closer to the middle they appear to be.

The abortion debate is not important at all. Rowe v Wade will never be overturned, so it is a smokescreen issue. That's one of the most durable smokescreens, but Romney's tax returns and Obama's birth certificate are also on the screen list. Actual policy differences couldn't distinguish our parties nearly as well.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I think Romney's problem is he's wishy washy. I'll have the chicken. No, I'll have the beef. No, chicken. No beef, um.....do you serve fish? That's the problem I have w. Romney. you're right though.

John Kerry was the same way. Between Kerry, Romney, and Dukakis I'm sometimes embarrassed to admit I'm from Massachusetts.

 

[martybegan]

To the contrary, our two major parties are both fairly centered. They certainly do not constitute extremes.

When it comes to cases though, it seems you're either for or against something. You're either black or white. hot or cold. There is no grey area. Just as an example:

Abortion: pro choice, pro life.

Well what about the guy that doesn't like abortion but is okay w. it if a woman is raped.

When it comes to stimulating the bases during election season, it seems they say things WAY out in left / right field & the closer it gets to election day, the closer to the middle they appear to be.

The abortion debate is not important at all. Rowe v Wade will never be overturned, so it is a smokescreen issue. That's one of the most durable smokescreens, but Romney's tax returns and Obama's birth certificate are also on the screen list. Actual policy differences couldn't distinguish our parties nearly as well.

I'm sure the justices who delivered Plessy V. Furgeson thought the same way.

Any decsion can be overturned.

 

[candycorn]

Yep, politics is a lot about beliefs and values.

There isn't a lot of room for being on both sides of all the issues.

They are usually too big and important not to take a principled stand.

That is why Romney sucks.

2 sides can compromise though. Reagan & Clinton understood that. I think Romney's problem is he's wishy washy. I'll have the chicken. No, I'll have the beef. No, chicken. No beef, um.....do you serve fish? That's the problem I have w. Romney. you're right though.

See, you're already taking sides by saying you have a problem with Romney. I would suspect that you'll be branded a liberal at some point during this thread (those who support him were calling him a liberal back in the Spring by the way).

A third party isn't what is chiefly needed. Common sense perfections to our constitution is the reason that parties have the power they do. Where the constitution is silent, parties are adding their own narratives.

Example: The Constitution allows the Senate and House to make their own rules. So if the PARTY leader of the Senate wants to stall legislation, he can do so. A third party won't eliminate that issue; it will just be another boxer in the ring throwing punches at the other two.

 

[Shelzin]

Anyone else feel frustrated with the polarized operation of the way things work? As if I needed to ask....

One extreme on one side, one extreme on the other, meanwhile seldom do people jump on the 3rd party ticket? For me personally, I identify with some of what both sides of the aisle are for. What frustrates me is it is almost always polarized.

SO: Given the option, if you knew there was a middle of the road candidate, would you select a balanced / compromising candidate over your own party affiliation? Anyone out there match that description? Care to weigh in?

I know I would. I tend to favor balance over absolutism on either side. Not sure who fits the bill though.

I've spotted several independents, libertarians, and not quite exactly stupid enough to follow EVERYTHING their chosen supported party at this time stands for at this forum. Pretty good mix as a political forum goes really.