just playing ima For those mentioning being turned off by politics over the last four years. Can you elaborate what has turned you off?
i don't disagree with you, and would gladly vote for ron paul, or newt (please run) in the primary, but seeing how we have one of the last primaries, it probably will have little to no effect on the outcome. as far as 3rd/4th/5th party votes, it is exactly what got perry elected again, bush in 2000, and some say clinton in the '90s. but then again the votes that these 3rd tier candidates get, would they have gone to one of the 2 bland choices if those were the only 2 choices? allow me to restate that. if it was just a perry vs bell would perry have still mustered a mere 39%? how many votes did kinky and strayhorn pull from bell vs pull from perry? if nader hadn't run in 2000 would his 2.8 million votes have gone to gore? would bush have gotten perot's 19.7 million in 1992?
Lies Debt War Patriot Act Homeland Security North American Union Congress George Bush Cabinet UN Central Bank NGO's G8 for starters
I think, since the war, people on BOTH sides seem to be so set in their ways and completely unwilling to listen to the other side of the argument that reasonable discourse may be gone forever. Now, it's more about winning the argument than actually discussing both sides of an issue. You see and hear it everywhere...internet, radio, TV, etc. The highest rated shows on TV are these "point/counterpoint" type shows where everyone just talks over each other and call each other names. Look at that silly argument between Rosanna O'Donnall and that pregnant chick a few weeks ago. It's like everyone is supposed to pick a side and DIG IN. To hell with differing opinions. It's getting to the point where you can't even talk about politics like adults anymore.
Two bland choices? You've got to be kidding, with all due respect. You don't think that election produced bland results, do you? There was a huge difference between the two parties and the state of the nation today, here and abroad, has been so impacted as to produce disbelief, on my part, that someone would describe the choices as "bland." Now, the personalities certainly could have been seen as bland, by some, but if that were all someone looked at, they simply weren't paying attention. As for Nadir's impact on the 2000 election? If you honestly think he didn't throw the election to Bush by not pulling out, when he had the chance and could have gotten, IMO, a cabinet post to push his agenda, then I suggest you do a tiny amount of research. Nadir's ego led him to place this nation in the hands of a man and a political party who were, and are, the very enemy of his agenda. It was an act of ego so great as to rarely be seen in a nation full of very large political egos. D&D. Replicant Voter.
ive never even been to nyc (although i plan on going for a few days if not this month, next) - ive lived in the great nation of texas my whole life. i didnt know you didnt have to register to vote in primaries in texas though. ive never voted in a primary or aligned myself w/ any party so this is all new to me. i disagree w/ the thinking that 3rd parties are a waste of time - maybe on the national level they are (for now), but it is on the local, county and state level where our votes actually matter and that is an area where 3rd parties are making major inroads. both parties are controlled by the same interests and they both are persuing the same agenda - why should i vote for one or the other when i think both are crooked and in bed together? i have a theory that ron paul, after not getting the gop nomination, will run as an independent. if that is the case, what he is doing right now is absolute genius. he gets all the free airtime on tv shows and gets on the debates - he wouldnt get any of that right now if he was coming out independent. and to those who say why vote for him b/c he has no chance, i say you have to try - if everyone had your attitude than he wouldnt have a chance - i do honestly believe that if he is able to get his message out than the people would overwhelmingly support him. ive never voted in primaries and ive never given money to a candidate before, but im doing both for paul - if i have time, when the elections start getting closer i may look to volunteer in some capacity -
damn, i knew that was a stupid question but my point was that we are many nations with many agendas. i don't think the blue/red or any other divide we have in this country will close, ever. i live where i do because there are like minded people around me.
or perhaps because there are like minded people already there, you live where you do. i live smack dab in the middle of austin - i left houston as soon as i could - its pretty safe to say that its not like the rest of texas here! but back to how great texas is, yes i agree gary, TEXAS KICKS ASS!
Republican or Democrat? Doesn't matter. They all work for the same master. I'll vote for Ron Paul whether he has a chance of winning or not.
How do you know Ron Paul has no chance of being elected? Right now he is the hottest candidate on the internet, blogs and amongst the youth. Its better to join the bandwagon now, before being left in the cold later on.
Now I know I'm surrounded by happy people, ignorance being bliss. (with all due respect for the "Ron Paul Supporters," the latest 3rd party wannabe darling of the "they're all alike and all serve the same bunch!" group, who spin their wheels, in many cases not voting, "because they're all alike and serve the same masters!!!" oh, sure... Al Gore was just like George Bush, Kerry was just like Bush... it doesn't matter who's in charge because THEY are in charge, whoever THEY are... golly, wake up, people) D&D. Replicant Voter.
perhaps i didn't state it clear enough, or you didn't understand my meaning of bland. by bland choices i certainly did mean personality. look at bell, he was about as fun as cardboard, and perry was straight out of the book of "how to be a politician". but more than that, neither tackled any issue with passion or enthusiasm that i would like to see out of somebody who wants to govern. the same could be said for the 2000 campaign. gore is like a robot, it wasn't until he made his movie and got on his global warming kick that anybody thought he had a personality. while bush was able to come across as a compassionate conservative. sure nader's presence affected the results, but like i asked previously, how do you know that the 2.8 million votes have gone to gore? i would like to say that sure those 2.8 may not have gone to bush, but perhaps they wouldn't have voted at all. would 537 of the 97,000 nader votes in florida gone to gore? it's highly likely. but the point of bland is this. clinton wasn't bland, people liked him, as they did reagan. people also like perot and in 1992 people thought bush was out of touch with them. from my candidate i want to know that they're concerned, in touch with my ideals, and going to stick with their respective stances on issues. this is severely off topic, but i don't feel the need to start a new thread. how would you classify this current president? would you call him a neocon? a neolib? a republican? i'm curious, because he did initially (in 2000) run as a compassionate conservative, but has since strayed so far from any true conservative value, i can no longer classify him in that nature, and am curious as to how you perceive him.
I won't address the part of your post that I didn't highlight because, frankly (who is Frank, after all? and why does he keep being brought up in conversation??), it doesn't speak well to your grasp of the political process. There are democracies now all over the world, and in many of them, they have the most bland personalities at the top that one could imagine. Why? Because their parties were elected based on their stand on the issues, and because most of them are parliamentary forms of democracy, as opposed to our almost unique democracy (perhaps I didn't need to use the word "almost." I think it is unique), and if the party wins the election, the party selects it's leader. You see this in our own Congress, with the leaders of both parties in the House and Senate frequently being as bland in public as one could imagine. (Reid? Hastert? puh-lease!) Gore versus Bush in 2000? Putting aside the fact that Gore actually won, proving that a guy who doesn't set the world afire with his personality can get elected, the differences between the two were clear, to anyone paying attention. In some respects, the results of the 2004 election were a worse reflection on the attention paid to politics by the electorate of this country. That Bush could be reelected, after showing his true colors (I admit that he lied to the country about the brand of conservatism he had, although I knew he was a terrible choice. in 2000, a large part of the country knew almost nothing about him, other than the media campaign Rove waged for Bush and against Gore), is astonishing. Fear won that election for him. Fear and a willingness to lie to the electorate that would make Nixon blush. How do I view George W. Bush? As the living embodiment of the Peter Principal. A man who was picked to run for office because of his name, that he was governor of a large state, which gave him credibility as a candidate (because the rest of the country didn't know how Texas government works) and the fact that he was believed to be easily manipulated to deliver the goods for Big Business. He was not, and never has been, qualified to be President of the United States. Since being President, he has shown himself to be even less qualified than many of his detractors believed. I don't think Bush has a clear, personal belief in a political ideology. I think his belief system is based more on the 12 step program, and what advisors tell him, than on any ideology. I think he is a mean-spirited, vindictive man, easily maneuvered by others to do their bidding, stubborn to the point of being dangerous, unwilling to change his mind about a public statement because of his feeling of inferiority, and taking rash acts as well as absurd political choices because of that feeling he is over his head. He doesn't acknowledge mistakes, because he's afraid it would highlight his unfitness for the office. He isn't a fiscal conservative. He isn't compassionate. He tends to do the opposite of what he says he's going to do when running for office. Heck, I really could go on for a long time, but this ground has been covered before, again and again. That anyone could still support the man, at this late date, astonishes me. Yet some do. The world is full of a host of different people. Some keep having to clean the sand out of their ears while catching a breath. Then they stick their heads back in it. Go figure. D&D. Replicant Voter.
deck, i used to think that way. however, this is no longer the america you grew up in, it's broke, real broke. it's time for a revolution.
