What's Going On Here???

[Steve757]

Why can't the people of our country get it through their collective heads that our political parties are allowing their egos to destroy our nation? Why do we tolerate partisan politics that put political wins ahead of what's best for our country? I consider myself a common sense Independent. I vote for the people who I believe offer the best ideas for the issues that impact me and our country. That means I vote Republican at times and Democrat other times.

Right now, I can't relate to either party! We have a Republican government (where there is no longer and checks and balances) fighting a "war on terrorism." We were told that it was important to "fight terrorism before it hit our land." So far, so good. BUT, how can we take this war on terror seriously when our borders have no protection? Does it not make sense that THIS should be our FIRST priority? I'm still trying to understand the justification for not cracking down on illegals. I have no problem with people who want to come to our country. Why can't they do so legally? Further, all immigrants should be required to gain an elementary education...at the very least, learn english. Finally, how about a 10 year residency requirement before they are allowed to collect any benefits? In essence, they'd have to actually contribute to the funds they are benefitting from.

But its not just Republicans to blame. Where have the Democrats been? AND, what new IDEAS are you bringing to the table? To date, I've heard none. The Republican party has dropped the ball. They control both houses and have no excuse for the current string of failures. Yet where are the Democrats? I don't need to be told how messed up things are today. Is it asking too much for someone to offer ideas for fixing this mess? Hillary is NOT the answer and will cost the Dems any shot at the presidency. Mark Warner would be an interesting candidate that would have some appeal to both parties, but look for the Dems to blow this.

Finally, I need someone to clarify something for me. We are losing lives and spending huge amounts of money to "free" the Iraqi people. We want them to experience the freedoms we, as Americans enjoy every day. Why is it then, that people who disagree with the Republican viewpoint on the war, are labeled "unpatriotic," and "unamerican?" You certainly can support the troops without supporting the cause (again, I happen to believe we did the right thing by going to Iraq.) One of our most precious rights as Americans is our right to disagree with the government. I believe it was Ben Franklin who said, "The first amendment was created to respect speech that was unpopular, not popular."

 

[insein]

welcome steve.

Your kind of all over the place there on topics we've discussed at length. Try picking one to start and we'll have a conversation from there or you can do a search and find a topic that is already started and add to that.

You have some strong opinions it seems. You'll make a good addition to the boards. Just make sure you back up your opinions with links to the facts.

Once again welcome.

 

[kgoodwin10]

I'm new myself. This is a good place to sort out your ideas.

I have always wondered, and perhaps you can help me, someone who claims to be an Independent says they vote for a candidate based on their ideas. Because we basically a two party system, and those two parties have agendas don't you identify with one agenda over the other, and if so, how can you be independent?

Again, welcome, if your an incurable political gunky you will have a good time on this board.

 

[Semper Fi]

I'm new myself. This is a good place to sort out your ideas.

I have always wondered, and perhaps you can help me, someone who claims to be an Independent says they vote for a candidate based on their ideas. Because we basically a two party system, and those two parties have agendas don't you identify with one agenda over the other, and if so, how can you be independent?

Again, welcome, if your an incurable political gunky you will have a good time on this board.

From what I gather, independents call themselves independent so they can fluctuate their ideology as needed. During an unpopular presidency, one might take pot-shots at the party in power, while not recognizing themselves as a member of the opposite party. Also, independents do not have to defend the party they are of, so they can attack Democrats and Republicans alike, and do not have to defend either.

 

[archangel]

Why can't the people of our country get it through their collective heads that our political parties are allowing their egos to destroy our nation? Why do we tolerate partisan politics that put political wins ahead of what's best for our country? I consider myself a common sense Independent. I vote for the people who I believe offer the best ideas for the issues that impact me and our country. That means I vote Republican at times and Democrat other times.

Right now, I can't relate to either party! We have a Republican government (where there is no longer and checks and balances) fighting a "war on terrorism." We were told that it was important to "fight terrorism before it hit our land." So far, so good. BUT, how can we take this war on terror seriously when our borders have no protection? Does it not make sense that THIS should be our FIRST priority? I'm still trying to understand the justification for not cracking down on illegals. I have no problem with people who want to come to our country. Why can't they do so legally? Further, all immigrants should be required to gain an elementary education...at the very least, learn english. Finally, how about a 10 year residency requirement before they are allowed to collect any benefits? In essence, they'd have to actually contribute to the funds they are benefitting from.

But its not just Republicans to blame. Where have the Democrats been? AND, what new IDEAS are you bringing to the table? To date, I've heard none. The Republican party has dropped the ball. They control both houses and have no excuse for the current string of failures. Yet where are the Democrats? I don't need to be told how messed up things are today. Is it asking too much for someone to offer ideas for fixing this mess? Hillary is NOT the answer and will cost the Dems any shot at the presidency. Mark Warner would be an interesting candidate that would have some appeal to both parties, but look for the Dems to blow this.

Finally, I need someone to clarify something for me. We are losing lives and spending huge amounts of money to "free" the Iraqi people. We want them to experience the freedoms we, as Americans enjoy every day. Why is it then, that people who disagree with the Republican viewpoint on the war, are labeled "unpatriotic," and "unamerican?" You certainly can support the troops without supporting the cause (again, I happen to believe we did the right thing by going to Iraq.) One of our most precious rights as Americans is our right to disagree with the government. I believe it was Ben Franklin who said, "The first amendment was created to respect speech that was unpopular, not popular."

I hear ya and agree..our two party system is failing us at a crucial time in history!

 

[insein]

I see this as being more of a politics thread than a WOT thread. PErhaps a mod should move this.

 

[kgoodwin10]

From what I gather, independents call themselves independent so they can fluctuate their ideology as needed. During an unpopular presidency, one might take pot-shots at the party in power, while not recognizing themselves as a member of the opposite party. Also, independents do not have to defend the party they are of, so they can attack Democrats and Republicans alike, and do not have to defend either.

This has always confused me. Splitting your vote is another perplexing issue. For example, if you vote for a Republican President, and then vote for a Dem Senators and Dem Representatives what did you accomplish?

 

[Gunny]

This has always confused me. Splitting your vote is another perplexing issue. For example, if you vote for a Republican President, and then vote for a Dem Senators and Dem Representatives what did you accomplish?

Theoretically it should not matter. For instance, having lived on both coasts and in between a conservative/liberal on one coast is not necessarily the same on the other. Many who consider themselves liberals on the East Coast suddenly find their ideals defned as conservative in SoCal.

If a Republican President holds a certain belief, then whoever holds that same belief or represents that same point of view, should vote accordingly. That's the way it's supposed to work.

It's a sound theory -- in practice, blind partisanship destroys it.

 

[kgoodwin10]

Theoretically it should not matter. For instance, having lived on both coasts and in between a conservative/liberal on one coast is not necessarily the same on the other. Many who consider themselves liberals on the East Coast suddenly find their ideals defined as conservative in SoCal.

If a Republican President holds a certain belief, then whoever holds that same belief or represents that same point of view, should vote accordingly. That's the way it's supposed to work.

It's a sound theory -- in practice, blind partisanship destroys it.

Uhhh...I think you're stretching. At the extreme margins, I would agree with you, but agendas aren't conceived and run at the margins. Agendas are driven from the base of each party. McCain and Lieberman are good examples, both enjoy support from the other party, but neither represent the base of their respective party and will never lead their respective party. Both have tried, both have crashed and burned.

 

[MtnBiker]

McCain and Lieberman are good examples, both enjoy support from the other party, but neither represent the base of their respective party and will never lead their respective party. Both have tried, both have crashed and burned.

So their consituency supports them locally because they believe that they(McCain, Lieberman) are good for their state, but may choose to vote differently on a national level.

 

[Gunny]

Uhhh...I think you're stretching. At the extreme margins, I would agree with you, but agendas aren't conceived and run at the margins. Agendas are driven from the base of each party. McCain and Lieberman are good examples, both enjoy support from the other party, but neither represent the base of their respective party and will never lead their respective party. Both have tried, both have crashed and burned.

I'm not stretching at all. Politician A believes in mining the Mexico-US border. Politician B believes in it to. Both were voted into office by their constituents who also believe in mining the border. Each politician belongs to different political parties.

Take out the partisan ass-kissing and vote for what your constituents put you in office to vote for.

You asked "why." I answered. I also caveated what I posted with "theoretically.' Theoretically, partisan politics should not be a factor.

I agree re McCain and Lieberman -- neither represent the base of their respective parties; which, should be irrelevant.

Whatever happened to doign what's right instead of voting however the Lead Dem/Republican says?

 

[kgoodwin10]

I'm not stretching at all. Politician A believes in mining the Mexico-US border. Politician B believes in it to. Both were voted into office by their constituents who also believe in mining the border. Each politician belongs to different political parties.

Take out the partisan ass-kissing and vote for what your constituents put you in office to vote for.

You asked "why." I answered. I also caveated what I posted with "theoretically.' Theoretically, partisan politics should not be a factor.

I agree re McCain and Lieberman -- neither represent the base of their respective parties; which, should be irrelevant.

Whatever happened to doign what's right instead of voting however the Lead Dem/Republican says?

Becasue that is why politics works (agendas) and that is what moves the policies of this nation in one way or the other. Of course you can have oppising elected representatives agree on issues. However, those issues are at the margins of politics. Agendas are driven by the base that the candidates represent. I don't understand why this should be irrelevant? I understand that you are posing this as theoretical, my point is that theory wouldn't work because their would be not base, therefore no agenda, and there would be no movement of policies one way or the other.

 

[Gunny]

Becasue that is why politics works (agendas) and that is what moves the policies of this nation in one way or the other. Of course you can have oppising elected representatives agree on issues. However, those issues are at the margins of politics. Agendas are driven by the base that the candidates represent. I don't understand why this should be irrelevant? I understand that you are posing this as theoretical, my point is that theory wouldn't work because their would be not base, therefore no agenda, and there would be no movement of policies one way or the other.

You mean that is why politics does NOT work.

What you are saying is that anyone who does not agree with the base agenda of the Democrats (whatever the Hell that may be) or the base agenda of the Republicans is just shit out of luck.

We should all just fall into line with whichever of the two parties comes closest to our core values.

Agendas should be dictated by the needs of the people and the needs of the people as a Nation. Not the needs of lobbyists for special interest groups, nor the loudest whacko-fringe-minority element who believes they should have special laws dictating thier so-called legitimacy.

And yes, I am arguing theory. The reality of the situation sucks.

What being a registered independent really amounts to is I have the satisfaction of not allowing EITHER party to count me among their numbers by proxy, nor blindly count on my support.

 

[kgoodwin10]

You mean that is why politics does NOT work.

What you are saying is that anyone who does not agree with the base agenda of the Democrats (whatever the Hell that may be) or the base agenda of the Republicans is just shit out of luck.

We should all just fall into line with whichever of the two parties comes closest to our core values.

Agendas should be dictated by the needs of the people and the needs of the people as a Nation. Not the needs of lobbyists for special interest groups, nor the loudest whacko-fringe-minority element who believes they should have special laws dictating thier so-called legitimacy.

And yes, I am arguing theory. The reality of the situation sucks.

What being a registered independent really amounts to is I have the satisfaction of not allowing EITHER party to count me among their numbers by proxy, nor blindly count on my support.

In this lone ranger context I can see your point. However, if you take it to the other extreme it wouldn't work, because if you didn't have a party system, and therefore no agenda or base, then 250 million constituents would have a hell of a time getting anything done. By being counted in the base of one party or the other you have political influence over the agenda of your party. My views and values aren't necessarily entirely represented by my party; however, those that are I support that agenda by supporting a consistent partisan ticket. By splitting my ticket I would nullify my agenda's support.

Thanks for arguing. Your points are well taken.

 

[Avatar4321]

We want them to experience the freedoms we, as Americans enjoy every day. Why is it then, that people who disagree with the Republican viewpoint on the war, are labeled "unpatriotic," and "unamerican?"

Because they are expressing anti American hate speech. No one is saying they can't say that. But if you want to say what you want you need to be responsible enough to admit what you are doing when someone points it out. You speak out against everything that the US does to support peace and freedom. You actively try to undermine our policies, you are unpatriotic.

The difference between the US and other nations is people can be unpatriotic and still speak their views freely. Soldiers die so that they can. But dont think that somehow trying to undermine every policy to preserve lives is patriotic.

 

[Gunny]

In this lone ranger context I can see your point. However, if you take it to the other extreme it wouldn't work, because if you didn't have a party system, and therefore no agenda or base, then 250 million constituents would have a hell of a time getting anything done. By being counted in the base of one party or the other you have political influence over the agenda of your party. My views and values aren't necessarily entirely represented by my party; however, those that are I support that agenda by supporting a consistent partisan ticket. By splitting my ticket I would nullify my agenda's support.

Thanks for arguing. Your points are well taken.

Dig a little deeper. What you are basically saying is you are willing to accept the mediocrity being offered rather than attempt to change it. Our elected officials no longer represent what we want. I think they don't even give a damn. They tell us what we want to hear to get a vote with no intention of ever honoring their promises.

I have no problem with a party system, and I don't disagree with the logic of your argument as far as agendas go.

What I disagree with are two parties that no longer represent the will of the people in favor of self-interest and special interest. As long as we just toss our votes the way that closest represents our views, we're giving in to the same old same old and not calling inefficient bureaucrats on their BS.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

This has always confused me. Splitting your vote is another perplexing issue. For example, if you vote for a Republican President, and then vote for a Dem Senators and Dem Representatives what did you accomplish?

Gridlock. It's a wonderful thing. :clap1:

 

[dilloduck]

Gridlock. It's a wonderful thing. :clap1:

You enjoy watching America going down the tubes, huh?

 

[Steve757]

From what I gather, independents call themselves independent so they can fluctuate their ideology as needed. During an unpopular presidency, one might take pot-shots at the party in power, while not recognizing themselves as a member of the opposite party. Also, independents do not have to defend the party they are of, so they can attack Democrats and Republicans alike, and do not have to defend either.

I can only speak for myself, but your assertion is way off base. Being an Independent allows me to formulate MY OWN OPINIONS and then vote for those who I believe will work in ways that will accomplish the things I believe in. What's wrong with that? I believe in fiscal responsibility and small government--keeping government out of our lives...Sound familiar? That USED to be the Republican way. Unfortunately, the Republicans seemed to lose their way since Reagan.

I was listening to Hannity the other day, and he brought up the thought, "What would Reagan do?" Well, Reagan certainly wouldn't be allowing our country to be invaded by Mexico. Reagan wouldn't think of turning over port operations to the Dubai government. And as I recall, government never reached its current size during the Reagan years. BUT WAIT...

What have the Democrats done to fix these same issues? Nothing. One could say that that is because they have no say as long as Republicans control both houses, but where are the freakin' ideas? I kept waiting for Kerry to come through with something...anything, but alas, they had nothing. What's even more disappointing is the fact that they don't seem to have anyone on the horizon who can step up.

My point: THIS is how one can be an Independent. I'm waiting for someone to tell me how we plan to control our borders. How do we plan to deal with the growing threat of Iran? I'm looking for someone to step up and offer ideas minus the bs politics.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Steve, simply, we're transitioning into the New World Order. Unless you work for government or at a fairly high level in a multinational corporation, you're screwed. The republicans are creating the corporate superstructure which will control all monetary transactions in the future. The governments which used to protect the interests of the nations separately and the liberals, will now just become instruments of oppression, protecting the new world order from those freedom loving individuals who would seek freedom. Oh, and it's all satan based. Can you stomache it?