What makes you vote for democrats the most? is it republican policies?

[pvsi]

What have Republicans accomplished?

Jobs?
Infrastructure?
Education?
Medical care?
Equal rights?

Just name one positive thing Republican have accomplished.

The problem begins when society begins to expect government to accomplish things - in Americas' case today, what needs to be done is for the people to rise up against the government to stop oppressing people - we are now a welfare state burdened with taxation, and regulation, and unavailability of jobs and high prices as a result of it. think about it. I only like the part in your sig about "who I am depends on your attitude" the rest IMO is garbage

So, our congress works a scant 125 days a years for a salary of more than $125K a year, is on vacation for more than 2/3 of the year and your position is that we should not expect them to "accomplish things"???

Hell, why don't we let them take the rest of the year off and give them a raise.

We have no congress luddly, we have no senate and we have no president. the country is an illusion since 1913, although for ordinary people it is difficult to detect the precise moment the parasite entered it's host, but that is precisely when it happened. there is no America, it is an illusion: Banks own America, we are slaves who are forced to come up with money to pay for their taxes, their regulations, their provided food - hell I can not even buy milk from my neighbor farmer, because he is afraid to sell it to me because he explained to me in detail he would lose his license to farm, and it is very difficult to get those licenses, so I go buy milk at walmart, paying $4 gallon to some Chinese company. in USSR, the oppressed nation, we used to buy milk from farmers all the time for penies, and there were far less degenerates in that country, but even stating so, will get me called a socialist and advices will start flying in that I should go back to where I came from. There is no America. republicans and democrats are delusional. Thank god I smashed my TV sets in early 90's and therefor still have some common sense.

 

[Truthmatters]

then move

 

[Borillar]

To me, the Republicans have always been of, by, and for the rich. The effete country clubber Republicans were bad enough, but when the religious right joined in, it became totally untenable. Now they are just a bunch of authoritarians who claim they are for small government and freedom. They want small government and freedom when it comes to oversight and regulation of their corporate overlords. They don't want small government when it comes to individuals. They want it right there in your bedroom and Doctor's office. They want it reading your mail, tapping your phone, logging your transactions, and feeling you up at the airport. They are the ones who brought us the Patriot Act, TSA, and DHS.

I can't think of one thing they support in favor of the poor and middle class. They oppose minimum wage, Social Security, welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance, and health care. Basically the whole social safety net. They offer no ideas for solving serious problems. The only thing they ever bring up is more and more tax cuts for the rich. It is because of their policies that we have gone from a creditor nation to the biggest debtor nation. It amazes me that anyone who isn't a multimillionaire votes for Republicans. They are still only about the rich. God, guns, and gheys are just window dressing they add to get the social conservatives to vote against their own interest.

 

[Truthmatters]

that is why they courted the uninformed voter.

Its why they continue to cheat in elections and continue to get caught cheating

 

[pvsi]

To me, the Republicans have always been of, by, and for the rich. The effete country clubber Republicans were bad enough, but when the religious right joined in, it became totally untenable. Now they are just a bunch of authoritarians who claim they are for small government and freedom. They want small government and freedom when it comes to oversight and regulation of their corporate overlords. They don't want small government when it comes to individuals. They want it right there in your bedroom and Doctor's office. They want it reading your mail, tapping your phone, logging your transactions, and feeling you up at the airport. They are the ones who brought us the Patriot Act, TSA, and DHS.

I can't think of one thing they support in favor of the poor and middle class. They oppose minimum wage, Social Security, welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance, and health care. Basically the whole social safety net. They offer no ideas for solving serious problems. The only thing they ever bring up is more and more tax cuts for the rich. It is because of their policies that we have gone from a creditor nation to the biggest debtor nation. It amazes me that anyone who isn't a multimillionaire votes for Republicans. They are still only about the rich. God, guns, and gheys are just window dressing they add to get the social conservatives to vote against their own interest.

I agree completely. And the gun totting is there to appear tough - where were all their gun totters when government was repossessing tens of millions of homes from American families? where was their Herman Cain and the gun totting patriots? but let us not fall for the fraud that tries to capitalize on our hatred of this filth, trying to pass themselves as democrats.

 

[Harry Dresden]

One more thing, Harry: voting for a candidate with no chance or simply abstaining from the voting process altogether ...both amount to voting by abstention for the winner.

im sorry....i wont vote for the "lessor of 2 evils"....i go third party....to me thats at least trying to make a difference....voting for someone just because, he/she is one of the two party people and you know is not going to make any difference .....is not helping the Country as far as i am concerned.....you vote for the same old shit,you get the same old shit....and for quite a while now we have been getting ....the same old shit....just different variances....but its the same old shit....with "bones" thrown out to try and appease everyone....but its the same old tired shit....

 

[Harry Dresden]

that is why they courted the uninformed voter.

Its why they continue to cheat in elections and continue to get caught cheating

geezus....again?.....

 

[AVG-JOE]

Occasionally I start to wonder if Dems are really the lesser evil, and then the Reps remind me why it is so

this voting for the lessor of 2 evils bullshit is like saying ...."i wont vote for Satan but i will vote for Dracula"....not much of a difference,both are going to **** you....

Yeah, but Dracula might at least give you a reach-around.

I would think Dracula would be good for a hickey

 

[Capstone]

One more thing, Harry: voting for a candidate with no chance or simply abstaining from the voting process altogether ...both amount to voting by abstention for the winner.

im sorry....i wont vote for the "lessor of 2 evils"....i go third party....to me thats at least trying to make a difference....voting for someone just because, he/she is one of the two party people and you know is not going to make any difference .....is not helping the Country as far as i am concerned.....you vote for the same old shit,you get the same old shit....and for quite a while now we have been getting ....the same old shit....just different variances....but its the same old shit....with "bones" thrown out to try and appease everyone....but its the same old tired shit....

Not to discourage you from trying to do what you think is right, but the sad truth is that third party candidacies have largely been co-opted by the duopoly as a means of splintering the voting block of one or the other parties. Nobody's happier about the prospect of a Ron Paul ticket than the DNC. Likewise, Ralph Nader was indispensable to the GOP (particularly in 2000). The only differences made by supporters of third party candidates in recent cycles have been to the detriment of the major party candidates for whom many of those supporters would have otherwise voted.

The system is rigged, from campaign finances to mainstream media coverage; and until a way can be devised to demolish the infrastructure (figuratively speaking, of course!) of political corruption, I think the best we can do is to vote in accordance with as many of the middle and lower classes' financial interests as possible. And while the only real "difference" we might be making by doing so is one of slight inconvenience to the power-elite, at least that's something tangible.

I don't expect to convince you to see things entirely my way (nor would I respect you if you were so easily persuaded, BTW) ...and I think we're actually in agreement at the core of this issue anyway, but I hope you're more conservative than liberal in your personal beliefs. At least then I'd know that you and I had ultimately voted for the same presidential candidate in 2008 and 2012 -- namely the winner.

 

[Nyvin]

Democrats have been a hell of a lot more responsible with not shutting down the government and not putting the credibility of our country up to question by threatening to not raise the debt ceiling.

 

[bripat9643]

Democrats have been a hell of a lot more responsible with not shutting down the government and not putting the credibility of our country up to question by threatening to not raise the debt ceiling.

Yeah, because spending like there's no tomorrow is "responsible" and gives the country "credibility."

You can't buy better entertainment than the idiocies posted in this forum.

 

[Nyvin]

Democrats have been a hell of a lot more responsible with not shutting down the government and not putting the credibility of our country up to question by threatening to not raise the debt ceiling.

Yeah, because spending like there's no tomorrow is "responsible" and gives the country "credibility."

You can't buy better entertainment than the idiocies posted in this forum.

You can compromise different spending levels (and Democrats agreed to Republican spending levels in 2013) but putting up demands that aren't related to the budget at all (what the GOP did in 2013) is not responsible governing.

Further not agreeing to raise the debt ceiling does nothing to adjust the budget for the year...it just makes the country look stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

Democrats have been a hell of a lot more responsible with not shutting down the government and not putting the credibility of our country up to question by threatening to not raise the debt ceiling.

Yeah, because spending like there's no tomorrow is "responsible" and gives the country "credibility."

You can't buy better entertainment than the idiocies posted in this forum.

You can compromise different spending levels (and Democrats agreed to Republican spending levels in 2013) but putting up demands that aren't related to the budget at all (what the GOP did in 2013) is not responsible governing..

What "Republican spending levels" are you talking about? How does a spending level become "Republican?"

[Further not agreeing to raise the debt ceiling does nothing to adjust the budget for the year...it just makes the country look stupid.

It does if it forces Democrats to curtail there spending. Apparently nuclear weapons are sufficient for that purpose.

 

[Capstone]

[. . .]We have no congress luddly, we have no senate and we have no president. the country is an illusion since 1913, although for ordinary people it is difficult to detect the precise moment the parasite entered it's host, but that is precisely when it happened. there is no America, it is an illusion: Banks own America, we are slaves who are forced to come up with money to pay for their taxes, their regulations, their provided food - hell I can not even buy milk from my neighbor farmer, because he is afraid to sell it to me because he explained to me in detail he would lose his license to farm, and it is very difficult to get those licenses, so I go buy milk at walmart, paying $4 gallon to some Chinese company. in USSR, the oppressed nation, we used to buy milk from farmers all the time for penies, and there were far less degenerates in that country, but even stating so, will get me called a socialist and advices will start flying in that I should go back to where I came from. There is no America. republicans and democrats are delusional. [...]

What do you suggest we do about it?

Protest?

Been there, done that, only to have the most recent movements spun into political irrelevance on both sides of 'the aisle'. You see, the criminals we're after now own most of the lawmakers and much of the propaganda machinery in our country ...and have therefore been very effective in dealing with the OWSer's and TPer's on a number of levels.

Revolt?

Truth be told, while combining popular movements on the basis of their common angst against big money interests would likely produce a significant foe to government corruption in that regard, there are way too many ideological differences on other key issues to give rise to a cohesive union in the first place. Hippies and cowboys tend to have more differences than similarities, including where the prospect of armed conflict for the sake of overthrowing the gub'mint might be concerned.

Beyond that, I personally believe in my heart of hearts that there still exist some good people both inside and outside of government, who really do have the best interests of 'the people' at heart (call it my version of faith, in the absence of reason to believe ), so the best way to address the perceived injustices of government remains from within the system ...across the entire spectrum (local, state, and federal), until the balance of power is shifted to where it has always belonged in a so-called 'democracy' -- in the hands of the majority, with due consideration for the concerns of the minority.

 

[pvsi]

[. . .]We have no congress luddly, we have no senate and we have no president. the country is an illusion since 1913, although for ordinary people it is difficult to detect the precise moment the parasite entered it's host, but that is precisely when it happened. there is no America, it is an illusion: Banks own America, we are slaves who are forced to come up with money to pay for their taxes, their regulations, their provided food - hell I can not even buy milk from my neighbor farmer, because he is afraid to sell it to me because he explained to me in detail he would lose his license to farm, and it is very difficult to get those licenses, so I go buy milk at walmart, paying $4 gallon to some Chinese company. in USSR, the oppressed nation, we used to buy milk from farmers all the time for penies, and there were far less degenerates in that country, but even stating so, will get me called a socialist and advices will start flying in that I should go back to where I came from. There is no America. republicans and democrats are delusional. [...]

What do you suggest we do about it?

Protest?

Been there, done that, only to have the most recent movements spun into political irrelevance on both sides of 'the aisle'. You see, the criminals we're after now own most of the lawmakers and much of the propaganda machinery in our country ...and have therefore been very effective in dealing with the OWSer's and TPer's on a number of levels.

Revolt?

Truth be told, while combining popular movements on the basis of their common angst against big money interests would likely produce a significant foe to government corruption in that regard, there are way too many ideological differences on other key issues to give rise to a cohesive union in the first place. Hippies and cowboys tend to have more differences than similarities, including where the prospect of armed conflict for the sake of overthrowing the gub'mint might be concerned.

Beyond that, I personally believe in my heart of hearts that there still exist some good people both inside and outside of government, who really do have the best interests of 'the people' at heart (call it my version of faith, in the absence of reason to believe ), so the best way to address the perceived injustices of government remains from within the system ...across the entire spectrum (local, state, and federal), until the balance of power is shifted to where it has always belonged in a so-called 'democracy' -- in the hands of the majority, with due consideration for the concerns of the minority.

This video I released last summer starts out by me saying "in order to bring political changes that are needed, demonstrating and picnicking is not enough"
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3iSxCX09_Q]Newworldgovernment.net Bible of the New world politics part 2 of 3 - YouTube[/ame]
Revolt? NO. what we need to do is form a popular referendum against the government so that the third parties can win. I would appreciate it if you will come on board with the few of us in our effort to reach out to the so called anti establishment leaders to publicize this referendum - when we only get 100 votes, it seems not serious, but when we will get a million votes, it will become un ignorable...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfozAw40_zM]Nobody the Leader - Greatest Story Never Told Part 1 - We 1% Will Win - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Capstone]

I'll give you this: some of your commentary is spot on (especially WRT the social and political landscapes in our beloved United States).

What I can't even imagine being able to accept is the notion of living under the governance of a self-appointed dictator (and his personal appointees), no matter how appealing his message might otherwise seem at face value.

It's all well and good to benefit from the virtues of America (E.G. the First and Second Amendments) which have enabled you to live your present lifestyle, but then to try to ride those virtues to your own personal kingship over the entire planet ...seems more than a little like megalomania gone wild.

It sometimes takes courage to speak your mind; but it takes even more courage to recognize the signs of disorder in one's own thought processes.

 

[pvsi]

I'll give you this: some of your commentary is spot on (especially WRT the social and political landscapes in our beloved United States).

What I can't even imagine being able to accept is the notion of living under the governance of a self-appointed dictator (and his personal appointees), no matter how appealing his message might otherwise seem at face value.

It's all well and good to benefit from the virtues of America (E.G. the First and Second Amendments) which have enabled you to live your present lifestyle, but then to try to ride those virtues to your own personal kingship over the entire planet ...seems more than a little like megalomania gone wild.

It sometimes takes courage to speak your mind; but it takes even more courage to recognize the signs of disorder in one's own thought processes.

But you see, the illusion formulates in people's minds - I never said I need to be elected, or seek power, on the contrary, I am consistent in mentioning in my speeches that I seek no power, I seek to hold no public office, no donations, and not to get elected. By leader, I simply mean a spokesman so that we are not a thousand voices creating noise and confusion. But even more importantly, you should understand WHY we have been conditioned to fear such leader - because it is only HE who can restore justice - THERE ALREADY IS A DICTATOR hiding in the shadows.

 

[Capstone]

But you see, the illusion formulates in people's minds - I never said I need to be elected, or seek power, on the contrary, I am consistent in mentioning in my speeches that I seek no power, I seek to hold no public office, no donations, and not to get elected. [...]

I'm not going to be drawn into an argument over semantics (with the whole "leader" vs. "dictator" thing), but I suggest it's precisely the attempted absolution of yourself from "the need to be elected" or to "seek power", by simply appointing yourself as the "leader of humanity", which basically cements your status as a wannabe dictator.

In your own words (from one of your videos):

"I'm presenting myself as a leader of humanity - to end the confusion, to unite the people, and to defeat evil.

Politicians can be elected; presidents, as Roosevelt said, are selected; but a leader can only appoint himself."

[...] By leader, I simply mean a spokesman so that we are not a thousand voices creating noise and confusion. [...]

And by "noise and confusion", I suppose you mean opposing opinions?

[...] But even more importantly, you should understand WHY we have been conditioned to fear such leader - because it is only HE who can restore justice - THERE ALREADY IS A DICTATOR hiding in the shadows.

Care to elaborate?

 

[pvsi]

1. And by "noise and confusion", I suppose you mean opposing opinions?

[...] But even more importantly, you should understand WHY we have been conditioned to fear such leader - because it is only HE who can restore justice - THERE ALREADY IS A DICTATOR hiding in the shadows.

2. Care to elaborate?

1. Example: In my understanding Libertarian party and Green party want the same thing - to defeat establishment, keep environment clean and keep economy going, HOWEVER - their arguments between themselves if they exist, to me sound like an argument over which way a roll of toilet paper must be put on. The purpose of the leader is to find common ground and speak for both parties, and other independents. I see no need to silence opposition, opposition such as Hillary Clinton and other pretend to be anti establishment trolls simply need to exposed for the fraud that they are - NOWHERE in my speeches I talked about the need to ban any media, I despise them absolutely.

2. - 13:10 mark of the video below brilliantly explains it

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz-rW5LTbuk]The New Bible of the World Politics - PART 1 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Vox]

I never voted dimocra and will NEVER vote for them.