Just a general observation:

What is important to conservatives and liberals is not what is important to corporate America.  Corporate America calls the shots with BOTH major parties--Republican and Democrat--and yet we still vote for them.

The liberals and the conservatives on this board agree that NAFTA and CAFTA are bad for America.  We may have different reasons, but we don't support these so-called free-trade agreements.

The conservatives are less willing to point the finger at corporate America than liberals are.  They like to blame Hollywood, public schools, secularism, and multi-culturalism for our crumbling cultural heritage.  Yet, if conservatives were willing to look beyond their dividend statements, they would have to admit all the things they hate in the popular culture are there because they make money.

Gangsta rap, pornography, Paris Hilton, Snoop Dogg, "Grand Theft Auto," "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," "Sex in the City," illegal immigration, hedonism, and anti-authoritarian attitudes have all been positive boons for the corporate bottom line.  All of these are examples of things grass roots conservatives claim they are against.  The Republican party has adopted anti-pop cultural attitudes as a mainstay of their campaigns since the 1960s.  Yet, as soon as campaign season is over, the GOP turns its focus on tax cuts for the rich and subsidies for corporations and defense contractors.
Sure, Reagan made some noise with the Meese Commission on Pornography, but the annual income of the industry doubled between 1985 and and 1990.  Porn is a staple service of the major telecommunications firms and hotel chains.

Liberals keep voting for Democrats, and Democrats keep sucking up to the same corporate interests Republican politcians do.  I held my nose and voted for both Gore and Kerry, terrified by the idea of how much worse things would be under the Bush Administration.
The difference between the lengths the two major parties will go to please the rich and the corporations is significant.  The evidence is in the degree to which rich people and corporations support the GOP over the Dems.  The Dems for their part act like the the Republicans' dopey--looking pal who tries to get the same girl (corporate favoritism) but loses out every time to the rich-boy star quarterback (Republicans).

Unless you care about nothing except lining your pockets, the Republicans don't have anything to offer.  A true conservative cares a great deal more about moral rectitude than material wealth, right?  Since the Democrats have enslaved themselves to the same interests, they have nothing to offer.  Period.  The greedy are still afraid the Dems will raise their taxes, and the prigs have it in their heads the Dems are the party of Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion.  Meanwhile, we liberals watched Jimmy Carter increase defense spending and deregulate the airlines, and later Clinton knuckle under on healthcare reform, sign onto to NAFTA, and sign that atrocious anti-welfare bill into law.

So why would a true liberal vote Democrat or a true conservative vote Republican?*

*question is a bit rhetorical.
;)

Well, the problem is, there isn't much choice.  I have tried to watch the independent candidates but it is usually clear throughout the whole campaign process that they don't stand a chance.

I have never considered voting for a democrat, but that may well be because in my lifetime, I haven't liked the democrats who have run, at least for presidency.  However, had I been alive when Kennedy was running, I would have likely voted for him.

Well, the problem is, there isn't much choice.   I have tried to watch the independent candidates but it is usually clear throughout the whole campaign process that they don't stand a chance.

I have never considered voting for a democrat, but that may well be because in my lifetime, I haven't liked the democrats who have run, at least for presidency.  However, had I been alive when Kennedy was running, I would have likely voted for him.

Ah, I think part of the answer lies in Campaign Finance Reform.  I mean rrrradical campaign finance reform.  Get all that special interest money out of the campaigns, corporate and otherwise.

Ah, I think part of the answer lies in Campaign Finance Reform.  I mean rrrradical campaign finance reform.  Get all that special interest money out of the campaigns, corporate and otherwise.


Yeah, I agree... I would like to see the stupid opponent-bashing commercials done away with completely.

In local contests I have been known to vote outside the two parties, or when it is a landslide for the dems and I vote in protest I cast a vote for the independent. Right now the Greens seem to being coming along and I have to look into them as an alternative, but there is too much at stake, when the race is close, to do a Nader.  A friend of mine once said the only difference between the Republicans and Democrats is the Democrats will throw you a bone, and a soup bone is better than no bone at all.

Ah, I think part of the answer lies in Campaign Finance Reform.  I mean rrrradical campaign finance reform.  Get all that special interest money out of the campaigns, corporate and otherwise.


Maxwell, how do you feel about Term Limits?  More then finance reform, I think that is something that would change politics a lot in this country, and for the better.

Right now, we have people who go into Congress in their early 30's, and do not leave until they die of old age.  Heck, I am 40 years old now, and some members of Congress have been there longer then I have been alive!  If we can place term limits on the Executive Branch, why not the Legislative?

I have long thought that the President should be capped at 2 full terms, and should serve no more then 10 years as President.

The Senate should also serve no more then 2 full terms, under the same restrictions as the President.  That means that they will serve no more then 15 years.

The House is a trickier subject, because of the shorter terms.  But if 15 years is good for the Senate, it should also be good for the House.

One reason that politics is so stagnated, is that there is hardly ever any change.  Ted Kennedy has been in office longer then a lot of us posters here have been alive.  And do you think he will ever be voted out of office?  Good or bad, he will only leave when he retires, or he dies.

The last time we had a major influx of youth into the Congress was after World War II.  We had a lot of young Senators and Congressmen step into office in the decade after the war.  And a lot of them changed politics forever.  JFK brought the nation a youthful look at the world, introduced the Peace Corps, and pushed us towards the moon.  Nixon had enough influence that he was able to help stop McCarthy, and then he did the unthinkable when he visited China.

I once considered trying a run for politics.  I even spent my own money years ago and ran for a city council seat.  But the people that we on the council had been there for years, and there was no way to replace them.  The one with the shortest tenure has been there for over 12 years!

But do you think that Congress will ever vote in term limits for themselves?  Heck no!  If any part of this country has a aristocracy, it is congress.  We vote them in, then we vote in their nephers, their sons, their daughters, their grandchildren.

Ah, I think part of the answer lies in Campaign Finance Reform.  I mean rrrradical campaign finance reform.  Get all that special interest money out of the campaigns, corporate and otherwise.



That is one aspect that needs to change, the other is instant run-off voting. For example, in a three-way race, you have candidate A, who you totally dislike and would slit your wrists if this person got in-but (s)he is running for one of the two major parties. Candidate B is not your favorite but is also running for the other major party. Candidate C is your favorite but is an Independent. If you vote for C, it is likely that A would win. So, you hold your nose and vote for B.  But, with IRV-you rank the order you want. C is your first choice, then B, then A. If no one gets the majority, then the candidate with the least votes gets thrown out-say in case it is Candidate C. So your vote would then go to your second chioce, in this case Candidate B. And it keeps going on until someone gets a majority. And there would be no such thing as a "wasted vote". You get to choose which one you want without having to hold your nose and vote for whom you think might win against the candidate you dispise.

(I hope this makes sense-if not, let me know and I will try to explain it better.)




Cat

Ah, I think part of the answer lies in Campaign Finance Reform.  I mean rrrradical campaign finance reform.  Get all that special interest money out of the campaigns, corporate and otherwise.


Yeah, that would take only about five minutes for the U.S. supreme court to declare unconstitutional on the bases that giving money to a candidate is protected free speech.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

That is one aspect that needs to change, the other is instant run-off voting. For example, in a three-way race, you have candidate A, who you totally dislike and would slit your wrists if this person got in-but (s)he is running for one of the two major parties. Candidate B is not your favorite but is also running for the other major party. Candidate C is your favorite but is an Independent. If you vote for C, it is likely that A would win. So, you hold your nose and vote for B.  But, with IRV-you rank the order you want. C is your first choice, then B, then A. If no one gets the majority, then the candidate with the least votes gets thrown out-say in case it is Candidate C. So your vote would then go to your second chioce, in this case Candidate B. And it keeps going on until someone gets a majority. And there would be no such thing as a "wasted vote". You get to choose which one you want without having to hold your nose and vote for whom you think might win against the candidate you dispise.

(I hope this makes sense-if not, let me know and I will try to explain it better.)




Cat


IRV is a fantastic idea, and is already in place in several democracies. 


Yeah, that would take only about five minutes for the U.S. supreme court to declare unconstitutional on the bases that giving money to a candidate is protected free speech.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/


That's why the Constitution can be amended, and keep in mind that there is a second way to do it - a Constitutional convention.

Yeah, that would take only about five minutes for the U.S. supreme court to declare unconstitutional on the bases that giving money to a candidate is protected free speech.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

MONEY IS NOT SPEECH.  MONEY IS PROPERTY.  PERIOD.

The problem is money.  The politicians running the country right now have nothing else going for them.  They don't have honesty, wisdom, compassion, justice, solutions to our long term problems, solutions to our short term problems, or even common decency going for them.
And why?  Because monied interests obstruct it all.  I listed honesty first because honesty is the first to go with these SOBs.  They can't run on the platform of their true intentions, "Make the rich richer, comfort the comfortable, and afflict the afflicted."  So they spill out mind-numbing torrent of lies to the electorate. 
The corporate barons know if they have to share equal time and equal access with the Left, their jig is up.  If they cannot feed endless carts of cash into their Propaganda-and-Defamation machine, if their Limbaugh and Hannity-type lapdogs are not allowed to bay all day everyday unchecked by counter-argument, then it's over.  The fatcats can't run on ideas.  They have to run on scandal, fear, jingo, and halcyon dreams of a golden future.
If you declare money is speech, then he who has the most money has the most speech.  Guess what?  That's the way it is.  The business interests have just about everything they want.  I say "just about" because they won't have everything they want until they have, well, everything!  If you say money is money, speech is speech, and dare demand the big money of the few be forbidden to drown out the speech of the many, then you stand a chance of having democracy, not plutocracy.
If you want to interpret citations from our Constitution as saying money is speech, then you can lead us back to the plutocracy of yore in which four percent of the adult population had the franchise.

There are advantages and disadvantages of term limits.  However, you need to overhaul the campaign finance system.  Otherwise corporate America will keep training new monkeys and duping the people into voting for them.  Term limits without campaign finance reform would result only in same ****, different names.

Equal funds, equal access, no monkey business!
:)

So, if you (you meaning anyone reading this) voted third party, which one would it be?

So, if you (you meaning anyone reading this) voted third party, which one would it be?


I did vote third party....I voted Libertarian in the past presidential election. 

I like our system down here. MMP, which means you can vote for 2 parties (one large and one small) and as the final result, you get 2 parties working together as a government instead of just one. Also any opposition parties still have a bit of a say aswell, instead of just fading away into nothing for 3 years.

It does have it's drawbacks and everything, but overall it is a reasonably good system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_Member_Proportional

But do you think that Congress will ever vote in term limits for themselves?  Heck no!  If any part of this country has a aristocracy, it is congress.  We vote them in, then we vote in their nephers, their sons, their daughters, their grandchildren.


I feel we already do have term limits.  It is called the ballot box.  What we do not have is enough voter
education in schools, and too many apathetic voters sitting at home on their butts thinking that their voice doesn't count for anything, or just to damn lazy to go out and take control of their country.  I would just like to slap them.  Think what you will about Mrs. Sheehan, but I bet she votes and she is putting her rights into practice, which is much better than the people in front of the t.v. complaining about her, but haven't voted in 5, or 10, or 20 years. It doesn't matter if we have one party or 50 parties if the electorate is just plain stupid.

It does have it's drawbacks and everything, but overall it is a reasonably good system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_Member_Proportional



No thanks.

I feel we already do have term limits.  It is called the ballot box.  What we do not have is enough voter
education in schools, and too many apathetic voters sitting at home on their butts thinking that their voice doesn't count for anything, or just to darn lazy to go out and take control of their country.   I would just like to slap them.  Think what you will about Mrs. Sheehan, but I bet she votes and she is putting her rights into practice, which is much better than the people in front of the t.v. complaining about her, but haven't voted in 5, or 10, or 20 years. It doesn't matter if we have one party or 50 parties if the electorate is just plain stupid.

I think Election Day should be a federal holiday.  Some people suggest making it a Saturday, but I say keep it on Tuesday, and give everyone the day off.  To offset the economic loss, let's abolish Veteran's Day.  Not really.  I just said that to make Republicans mad.  My deal would be it's a day off to vote, NOT a long weekend.  So Tuesday is good.

Say, you ever notice how when you start suggesting ways to encourage MORE people to vote, and to make the process more facile, Republicans always scream bloody murder?
???

I highly doubt the republican party really wants voter turnout low.  But we do want less fraud.  Why is it democrats fight so hard to make sure a voter is 18+ years old and is a legal U.S. citizen?  Why is that?

Like the recently passed voter I.D. bill here in Georgia that recently passed, the democrats are still whining about it.  Requiring a photo I.D. to vote seems like common sense, especially since people are required I.D. before buying alcohol.  Shouldn't voting be more important and safe?  Nope, democrats scream "racism," which anybody who is even mildly sane knows is garbage.  The democrats don't seem to think that black people and other minorites are capable of getting I.D., that they're to stupid to get it I guess.  Why else are they saying this will effect the black voter turnout?  The only think they're really worried about is that less illegal aliens might vote, that's all.  The party of voter fraud.  They don't like Georgia's new photo I.D. law, they're suing to stop Indiana's new voter I.D. law, they're screaming bloody murder about the less strict voter I.D. law (it doesn't require a photo I.D.) that the sec. of state in Washington, Sam Reed, is doing.  Hell even the governor of Wisconsin, a democrat, recently vetoed a voter I.D. law just like the ones passed and signed into law in Georgia and Indiana.

All about that illegal immigrant vote, eh democrats?

Personally, I vote for whoever I like, regardless of party affiliation.  In the last election, I think I was split almost 50/50.  If I don't care for EITHER of the people running for a certain spot, I don't vote for either.  If Jack Ryan had stayed in the race in the last election, my choice would've been difficult between him & Obama.  However, when Ryan was booted and Keyes joined in, the decision was simple :D



What?? You didn't want to vote for Keyes?? I find that hard to believe.  ;)





Cat