The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i think you're less likely to be called a DINO by democrats than a RHINO by republicans. no statistics to back that up or anything, just my opinion

I'd say you don't hear the DINO phrase as often (heck, I'm honestly one of the few people I can think of that uses it really) but that just feels more like a case where the acronym just hasn't caught on as well not that the sentiment isn't felt to reasonably similar extents.

[Swaggs]

I wonder how many people had ever heard of Anita Dunn before this past weekend...

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I might just listen to panerd and go third party from here on. Though it might not do much, voting for either of the main two has pretty much proven no to do much.

That's where I've been for a while too. There's good people in the parties, but on a whole, the current landscape just makes me cringe. The only way I can express that in the voting booth is to go 3rd party. People say that's a "waste of a vote", as if their singular vote for the lesser of two evils somehow decides the presidency. Nobody's vote changes an election, the best we can do it vote our conscience.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd say you don't hear the DINO phrase as often (heck, I'm honestly one of the few people I can think of that uses it really) but that just feels more like a case where the acronym just hasn't caught on as well not that the sentiment isn't felt to reasonably similar extents.

Ask Lieberman if the sentiment exists.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

Nobody's vote changes an election, the best we can do it vote our conscious.

And if you can vote your conscience while conscious even better

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Used to be called a Rockefeller Republican, though it appears to be archaic. I've pretty much accepted that I'm estranged from both parties at this point. I've gotten the feeling that I'm not particularly welcome in the Republican Party as currently constituted and couldn't really see myself ever registering (D), so I've been independent since the 2004 election. I might just listen to panerd and go third party from here on. Though it might not do much, voting for either of the main two has pretty much proven no to do much.

I think Reagan Democrat is another popular term that is used. Although that is usually used in a positive light while RINO is often used in a negative light.

I still don't get why certain people want everyone to fall under one party or the other. That it's so horrible that a Senator would have an independent thought. I just wish we'd drop the R and D shit and just focus on the fact that these are Senators who are representing their respective states.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think Reagan Democrat is another popular term that is used. Although that is usually used in a positive light while RINO is often used in a negative light.

There's probably something in there about who's-doing-the-defining that might influence how the term is used though.

Heck, it seems pretty reasonable to figure that Reagan Democrats might very well make up the largest identifiable block of GOP voters at this point.

[lungs]

Too late in the game to do it for this country, but political parties ought to have been nipped in the bud before they got started.

George Washington's farewell address:

20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

24 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

25 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

[JonInMiddleGA]

So Washington basically opposed the right of association? Interesting.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Used to be called a Rockefeller Republican, though it appears to be archaic. I've pretty much accepted that I'm estranged from both parties at this point. I've gotten the feeling that I'm not particularly welcome in the Republican Party as currently constituted and couldn't really see myself ever registering (D), so I've been independent since the 2004 election. I might just listen to panerd and go third party from here on. Though it might not do much, voting for either of the main two has pretty much proven no to do much.

Wow, that would be cool if I could actually push you towards that. I think after 2 years of pestering I have both of my parents and a cupple of buddies on board. Did me voting for Bob Barr (or local and state level Libertarians) make any difference in the last election? No. But at least when someone tries to debate me (not even on this board mind you but just in general) and they try to use the talking points I cut them off immediately.

panerd's friend: "Well you don't like Obama bailing out the banks? What about when Bush did it?"

me: "Didn't care for Bush either."

panerd's friend: "You against government program X, so I guess you favor government program Y?"

me: "How about we cut both?"

It's hard for someone to debate somebody when they actually have to defend a crappy program instead of arguing how the other side's program is far worse. "Why can't I take $10 from you, would you rather I do the Democrat's plan and take $20?" "No, I would rather you do neither." "That can't happen, you're dreaming." "Why is that exactly?"

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Used to be called a Rockefeller Republican, though it appears to be archaic.

'Tis true, the term is dated and probably has been since Nelson Rockefeller left politics.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

That's where I've been for a while too. There's good people in the parties, but on a whole, the current landscape just makes me cringe. The only way I can express that in the voting booth is to go 3rd party. People say that's a "waste of a vote", as if their singular vote for the lesser of two evils somehow decides the presidency. Nobody's vote changes an election, the best we can do it vote our conscious.

I can only speak for myself but the Libertarian platform is almost spot on in both economic and social aspects for me. I don't pretend that everyone will agree with it but I know a lot of people who support gay rights and more personal freedom who think the Democrats are going to do something for them and friends who think the Republicans will actually cut back government if they get in power. We could at least give the Libertarians a chance.

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

I can only speak for myself but the Libertarian platform is almost spot on in both economic and social aspects for me. I don't pretend that everyone will agree with it but I know a lot of people who support gay rights and more personal freedom who think the Democrats are going to do something for them and friends who think the Republicans will actually cut back government if they get in power. We could at least give the Libertarians a chance.

I usually vote libertarian, but I'm never particularly excited about the candidates nominated by that party. I think the best libertarians are kind of "stuck" in the parties (usually Republican, but Democratic too) because of reality.

But I still vote third party.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by panerd

panerd's friend: "Well you don't like Obama bailing out the banks? What about when Bush did it?"

Reminds me a lot of this thread. It's something I've been guilty of in here as well which is why I've tried to stay out of it (comparatively at least) the last few weeks. Sometimes you're so eager to score a point that you find yourself arguing something ridiculous and you ask yourself "How did I get here?"

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

I usually vote libertarian, but I'm never particularly excited about the candidates nominated by that party. I think the best libertarians are kind of "stucK" in the parties (usually Republican, but Democratic too) because of reality.

But I still vote third party.

You are right on that. Ron Paul and Alan Greyson are two guys that completely stand out for me on economic principles that are supposedly members of the Republican and Democratic parties. Of course everyone is always so quick to marginalize both as crazies while (with a straight face) determining that Hilary Clinton, Barrack Obama, John McCain, and Mitt Romney were the 4 best candidates this country had to offer for president. Bob Barr has some shady stuff in his past (impeachment of Clinton, previous stance on marijuana) but I would take him or Ron Paul as president any day of the week over any of those 4.

[RainMaker]

Ron Paul still isn't really a Libertarian. I mean he'll say he is in speeches and vote that way most of the time. But when it comes down to it, he's still filing earmarks and big government requests like all the other representatives.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Reminds me a lot of this thread. It's something I've been guilty of in here as well which is why I've tried to stay out of it (comparatively at least) the last few weeks. Sometimes you're so eager to score a point that you find yourself arguing something ridiculous and you ask yourself "How did I get here?"

Yeah. I have gotten to know MBBF and Flasch's (and others, these guys are just the most outspoken IMO) personalities a bit over the years here and think they are both good guys that really believe a lot of the principles of the particular party they vote for. But then they will start arguments over NY Times versus Fox News and I wonder think "Come on, you really aren't going to be tricked into arguing over this while the corrupt politicians continue to waste our tax money against all of our self interests." This is exactly what they want you to do. People are noticing how high the defecit is becoming... send a member of each party to the morning talk shows to shovel out bullshit about some wedge issue and take the focus back off the complete lack of finanicial responsiblity by either party.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Ron Paul still isn't really a Libertarian. I mean he'll say he is in speeches and vote that way most of the time. But when it comes down to it, he's still filing earmarks and big government requests like all the other representatives.

Yes and no. He said something along these lines once that I won't be able to say as eloquently as he did but I will give it a shot... I am against the tax code but that doesn't mean I am not going to take a deduction for my house or charitable contributions. I don't think my math department needs a $1000 budget at my middle school but the money is already out there and will just go to some other wasteful cause if I don't take it. He says the same thing. He is against all wasteful government spending (and always votes against it) but if there is $50 million budgeted for wherever in Texas he is from he either takes it for them or gives it up to some other pork barrel project.

The greatest idea I ever heard him propose was that Congress' pay be based on inflation. (Not go up, but down based on poor spending that causes economic problems.) That of course never caught on.

[path12]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd say you don't hear the DINO phrase as often (heck, I'm honestly one of the few people I can think of that uses it really) but that just feels more like a case where the acronym just hasn't caught on as well not that the sentiment isn't felt to reasonably similar extents.

I think that Blue Dog pretty much equals DINO these days. *shrug*

[Greyroofoo]

Ron Paul also generally votes against bills he adds earmarks to. Why not give them government money when everyone else is getting it and everyone has to suffer the effects.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by panerd

Yeah. I have gotten to know MBBF and Flasch's (and others, these guys are just the most outspoken IMO) personalities a bit over the years here and think they are both good guys that really believe a lot of the principles of the particular party they vote for. But then they will start arguments over NY Times versus Fox News and I wonder think "Come on, you really aren't going to be tricked into arguing over this while the corrupt politicians continue to waste our tax money against all of our self interests." This is exactly what they want you to do. People are noticing how high the defecit is becoming... send a member of each party to the morning talk shows to shovel out bullshit about some wedge issue and take the focus back off the complete lack of finanicial responsiblity by either party.

just wanted to say thanks

and

Im against ALL News that blends opinion in, now one could say to excise the two from eachother is impossible but I can dream and Wolf Blitzer himself does a damn good job. Shoot, the dude could put you to sleep. It's just too Daily Show like on the other side y'know. The Daily Show is Comedy BUT I can see how in my grand wish that wouldnt be allowed eiather so Im not sure where that line falls but I can see how a % of 300million Americans can mistake or be swayed by an opinion in News' clothing, and vice versa. In this case, for the first time that I remember (but I could just be mistaken) an editor admitted to it which I can appreciate! At least he admitted it, I respect that a ton more than the ones who dont on ALL sides.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

So Washington basically opposed the right of association? Interesting.

In theory, I guess you could say he did. But I think the conundrum with this is that it's impossible to keep groups of people from associating when they want to associate. As much as I'd like to, I just can't fathom a way that we could possibly do away with political parties without becoming an oppressive one party system. People that want to associate with each other will find ways.

Now on the other hand, I do believe it is possible to forcefully associate people that don't necessarily want to be associated, and desegregation is a prime example of this.

[gstelmack]

The problem isn't that we have a Party system, it's that it has broken down into just two main parties, and that they have enough power to keep any other party from gaining enough traction to be relevant. Political parties should not be able to shut other candidates out from access, and yet these do, by gerrymandering districts, instituting requirements to run for office, and blocking access to public debates.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The problem isn't that we have a Party system, it's that it has broken down into just two main parties, and that they have enough power to keep any other party from gaining enough traction to be relevant. Political parties should not be able to shut other candidates out from access, and yet these do, by gerrymandering districts, instituting requirements to run for office, and blocking access to public debates.

I'd call it a one-party system that is divided into two factions for the above reasons.

[path12]

Originally Posted by lungs

I'd call it a one-party system that is divided into two factions for the above reasons.

It's my belief that we are racing towards corporatism, unfortunately. It's why the parties need to be opposed on the fringe issues to differentiate themselves to the public -- corporations own both sides and are able to dictate much of what actually gets legislated.

[JPhillips]

I'd be all for proportional representation, but as Greg says, the system is rigged to perpetuate the system.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The problem isn't that we have a Party system, it's that it has broken down into just two main parties, and that they have enough power to keep any other party from gaining enough traction to be relevant. Political parties should not be able to shut other candidates out from access, and yet these do, by gerrymandering districts, instituting requirements to run for office, and blocking access to public debates.

You know where the term gerrymander comes from? Eldbridge Gerry, who was the beneficiary of redistricting back in 1812, inspired a political cartoon based on the new district, which twisted and turned through the Massachusetts countryside like a salamander.



Hopefully that picture shows up. Anyway, we've had two strong federal parties since the beginning of this country. I don't see how you can make the argument that something that's been with us for more than 200 years is now the primary cause of our political ills.

Plus, I think the case could be made that our parties are much more "small d" democratic these days. Most of country relies on primaries, and not party conventions that were the home of the smoke-filled rooms. More Americans identify as independents than either Democrats or Republicans. Heck, even things that we take for granted like universal sufferage have made the political system more democratic.

We've always had requirements to hold office, and I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "requirements to run". I do wish we had more debates though. Heck, if I had my way I'd run political debates like American Idol or Survivor and make a reality show out of them.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

We've always had requirements to hold office, and I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "requirements to run".

I mean things like "x number of signatures to appear on the ballot". And the folks in power have played shenanigans with those rules before.

Or heck, the recent Massachusetts flip-flopping on whether the governor appoints a replacement Senator or it takes a special election.

The one thing both sides cooperate on is making it as difficult as possible for anyone else to get on the ballot with them.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I mean things like "x number of signatures to appear on the ballot". And the folks in power have played shenanigans with those rules before.

Or heck, the recent Massachusetts flip-flopping on whether the governor appoints a replacement Senator or it takes a special election.

The one thing both sides cooperate on is making it as difficult as possible for anyone else to get on the ballot with them.

Ah. But you know, if you can't get 10,000 people to sign their name to get you on the ballot... why should you be on the ballot to begin with? It seems weird to argue that moderate voices are being left out, so the answer is to encourage more fringe candidates.

[ISiddiqui]

I think one of the main issues is that people think it was somewhat "better" in the old days. Shenanigans were far more pronounced back then... and the franchise was far more restricted (first just while male property owners, then white men, then all men, then all adults [of varying ages based on the state], then all adults over 18). In addition to Senators being elected by state legislatures and political parties being incredibly closed and the primary system only coming into play in the last half century or so, we probably have the most open and democratic system in our country's history NOW... of course the Founders were somewhat worried about that (ie, how much Democracy).

[lungs]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I do wish we had more debates though. Heck, if I had my way I'd run political debates like American Idol or Survivor and make a reality show out of them.

Do you agree that debates are one area where third-party candidates get the shaft? I'd think if you'd want more debates, then you'd want more participants?

I'd get bored as hell watching the same two guys getting asked questions and responding with a completely different answer than what was asked as our current debates are.

Now I'd understand the need to not have every American Nazi Party candidate included in the debate or American Stalinist Workers Party, but what about being on the ballot in a certain amount of states would allow participation in debates?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

we probably have the most open and democratic system in our country's history NOW

I couldn't find a Sponge Bob "good luck with that" image but maybe this will do

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Ah. But you know, if you can't get 10,000 people to sign their name to get you on the ballot... why should you be on the ballot to begin with? It seems weird to argue that moderate voices are being left out, so the answer is to encourage more fringe candidates.

Ballot Access News

There are far more shenanigans than signature count, although some searches today did show more repubs and dems getting tripped up than I thought, although they seem to have a much easier time appealing than anyone else.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think one of the main issues is that people think it was somewhat "better" in the old days. Shenanigans were far more pronounced back then... and the franchise was far more restricted (first just while male property owners, then white men, then all men, then all adults [of varying ages based on the state], then all adults over 18). In addition to Senators being elected by state legislatures and political parties being incredibly closed and the primary system only coming into play in the last half century or so, we probably have the most open and democratic system in our country's history NOW... of course the Founders were somewhat worried about that (ie, how much Democracy).

And rightfully so, in my opinion. Unfortunately, I think it's more likely that Western Democracies become more like China than an old-school Federalist system.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by lungs

Do you agree that debates are one area where third-party candidates get the shaft? I'd think if you'd want more debates, then you'd want more participants?

I'd get bored as hell watching the same two guys getting asked questions and responding with a completely different answer than what was asked as our current debates are.

Now I'd understand the need to not have every American Nazi Party candidate included in the debate or American Stalinist Workers Party, but what about being on the ballot in a certain amount of states would allow participation in debates?

I'd actually prefer two candidates actually debating, instead of the contrived soundbite fests that they are today. Adding another candidate on the stage to say "blahblahblah" isn't as appealing to me as putting candidates under the gauntlet of a series of Lincoln-Douglas style debates. Then again, I am under no illusions that my tastes are those of the public at large. Your solution is much more likely to happen than mine.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Ah. But you know, if you can't get 10,000 people to sign their name to get you on the ballot... why should you be on the ballot to begin with? It seems weird to argue that moderate voices are being left out, so the answer is to encourage more fringe candidates.

Takes much more than 10,000 people to sign their name on a petition. Each state has different rules and many make it very difficult for a third party to get on the ballot. Some require signatures from all the counties, some require large fees, some require 5-10% of the state to sign (which I doubt even the major parties could get done in a small timeframe).

The biggest problem with the current restrictions is that any 3rd party must spend most of their time and resources just getting on ballots, while the two major parties don't have to. While Perot was on the ballot in all 50 states, newer rules have made it tougher. The top 3rd parties like Libertarian and Green rarely get on all 50 state ballots. It's tough to win an election when you're at a 5-10 state disadvantage from the start.

Sure there are a lot of cultural issues behind why 3rd parties can't succeed, but the two major parties have made it next to impossible to compete. I also think the lax attitude Americans have toward elections play a role. If we treated our votes like we treated other major decisions in our life, I'm sure there would be a lot more people casting ballots for 3rd parties (if they are allowed on the ballot).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I'd actually prefer two candidates actually debating, instead of the contrived soundbite fests that they are today. Adding another candidate on the stage to say "blahblahblah" isn't as appealing to me as putting candidates under the gauntlet of a series of Lincoln-Douglas style debates. Then again, I am under no illusions that my tastes are those of the public at large. Your solution is much more likely to happen than mine.

I would like this too. I think the problem is that with our current society, the soundbites are all people have time for and care about. That's all these politicians look to do and all they would do in these debates.

My biggest issue with this form (and all debates in general) would be that there are some really smart people who just suck at debates. Not necessarily on the issues, but in how they present them to the public. I dont' like how "image" means so much. We could have the brightest guy in the world running for President but have him stutter a few times during a debate and it's over for him.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by panerd

Yeah. I have gotten to know MBBF and Flasch's (and others, these guys are just the most outspoken IMO) personalities a bit over the years here and think they are both good guys that really believe a lot of the principles of the particular party they vote for. But then they will start arguments over NY Times versus Fox News and I wonder think "Come on, you really aren't going to be tricked into arguing over this while the corrupt politicians continue to waste our tax money against all of our self interests." This is exactly what they want you to do. People are noticing how high the defecit is becoming... send a member of each party to the morning talk shows to shovel out bullshit about some wedge issue and take the focus back off the complete lack of finanicial responsiblity by either party.

I'm a bit confused by this post. I agree with nearly all of your posts and the point of view behind them. I'm very like-minded to your opinions in regards to politics. Not sure how I became the extremist when I split time between left and right overall. The only reason I generally get tossed in the conservative camp is because economic policy and spending are the usual discussion points in this thread, which I'm totally opposed to Obama's handing of economic policy. I agree with nearly all of his social policies beliefs, but that's never a factor because it's rarely discussed here.

If you want to place me as against nearly all of Obama's economic policies and spending, fine. But I'm not even close to being a Republican if all my beliefs are considered. I'd be considered a traitor.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I also think the lax attitude Americans have toward elections play a role. If we treated our votes like we treated other major decisions in our life, I'm sure there would be a lot more people casting ballots for 3rd parties (if they are allowed on the ballot).

It's like Tom Paine said, "What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly."

[Swaggs]

I think term limits would do a world of good for congress. 10-years in the House and 12-years in the Senate is enough. Get new people in, get them working, and then get them moving on before they become too entrenched.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm a bit confused by this post. I agree with nearly all of your posts and the point of view behind them. I'm very like-minded to your opinions in regards to politics. Not sure how I became the extremist when I split time between left and right overall. The only reason I generally get tossed in the conservative camp is because economic policy and spending are the usual discussion points in this thread, which I'm totally opposed to Obama's handing of economic policy. I agree with nearly all of his social policies beliefs, but that's never a factor because it's rarely discussed here.

If you want to place me as against nearly all of Obama's economic policies and spending, fine. But I'm not even close to being a Republican if all my beliefs are considered. I'd be considered a traitor.

No it wasn't meant to be confrontational but re-reading it it sure didn't come out how I wanted it to. I was basically saying that we all have core values that we believe in but we get tricked into these fringe issues that we really don't care about. And while you and I may believe in limited government and Flasch may believe that some government programs really do a good job you end up debating total bullshit that nobody cares about. Politicians do a great job of making us believe we have big differences when in fact we are the ones getting shit on while they go out and get rich.

You are a Royals fan so here is an analogy I heard once. (It was Cards/Cubs but it will work here also) So the Royals and Cardinals fans (I long for the days when it was Chiefs/Rams) will get all up in arms about 1985 and steroids and Brett vs. Pujols and hate each other. We think we are both fighting for a side, us vs. them. But in the end of the day Albert Pujols is 10,000 times more likely to go out for a beer with a Royal's player than any Cardinal's fan. The enemy!!! These politicians get you going on Fox News vs. NY Times and then go out for a cocktail together with their common banker buddies and tobacco lobbyists laughing their way to their next term in office. They don't really have differences, do they?

1980's: Republicans bail out savings and loans. Fight wars
1990's: Democrats finalize NAFTA (draw your own conclusion). fight wars
2000's: Republicans bail out banks, fight wars.
Obama (New kind of politician): Bails out banks, fights wars.

[Warhammer]

I really think we could do with a little less democracy and go back to some of the old school Federalism. Part of the reason why things get bogged down and everything gets boiled down into soundbites is that the electorate by and large is ignorant and will not do what they need to do to make an informed decision. The result is that people vote for the person who has the best soundbites or the person that has a big R or D next to their name.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

Yes and no. He said something along these lines once that I won't be able to say as eloquently as he did but I will give it a shot... I am against the tax code but that doesn't mean I am not going to take a deduction for my house or charitable contributions. I don't think my math department needs a $1000 budget at my middle school but the money is already out there and will just go to some other wasteful cause if I don't take it. He says the same thing. He is against all wasteful government spending (and always votes against it) but if there is $50 million budgeted for wherever in Texas he is from he either takes it for them or gives it up to some other pork barrel project.

The greatest idea I ever heard him propose was that Congress' pay be based on inflation. (Not go up, but down based on poor spending that causes economic problems.) That of course never caught on.

I understand his reasonings, but it still comes across like a big show. Voting against something like that when you know it's going to pass and you'll receive the funding anyway doesn't really show me any principle. It's a cheap gimmick.

If he's a true Libertarian, there should be no reason he needs to setup all these earmarks. It's one thing to request funding for your district and get your share of the pie, but that's not what he was doing. I respect the guys views on a lot of things but I still think it's real easy to play the role of maverick when you know your vote won't change anything and you'll still reap the benefits if you lose.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I usually vote libertarian, but I'm never particularly excited about the candidates nominated by that party. I think the best libertarians are kind of "stuck" in the parties (usually Republican, but Democratic too) because of reality.

But I still vote third party.

The candidates they get are I guess "weird". I used to donate to the party years ago but I've been disappointed in their direction of late. This younger generation really has some libertarian leanings and they've failed to capitalize off that.

I think they'd do much better with a moderate candidate that was for fiscal conservatism but very socially liberal. That's a huge voting block that is just not being targeted right now.

The problem they have right now is that they want too much change. They have great ideas that can resonate with people, but then throw in some batshit crazy ones that can't possibly work that turn people off. I love the freedom stuff (legalizing marijuana, allowing gambling, etc), the lower taxes stuff, and the less spending stuff. But then they start talking about disbanding the CIA, FBI, CDC, etc and it just turns me off.

[gstelmack]

Obama wants seniors to get another $250 - Oct. 14, 2009

So consumer prices have fallen but Obama wants to spend an extra $13 billion on social security anyway?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The candidates they get are I guess "weird". I used to donate to the party years ago but I've been disappointed in their direction of late. This younger generation really has some libertarian leanings and they've failed to capitalize off that.

I think they'd do much better with a moderate candidate that was for fiscal conservatism but very socially liberal. That's a huge voting block that is just not being targeted right now.

The problem they have right now is that they want too much change. They have great ideas that can resonate with people, but then throw in some batshit crazy ones that can't possibly work that turn people off. I love the freedom stuff (legalizing marijuana, allowing gambling, etc), the lower taxes stuff, and the less spending stuff. But then they start talking about disbanding the CIA, FBI, CDC, etc and it just turns me off.

I agree. Fiscal conservatism but social liberalism is the direction they need to go. And they can't be all "disband the CDC and the FBI and become isolationist." They have to recognize that there's a need for America to engage with the world, and there's unfortunately a need for the military, and for the CIA/FBI/CDC/NSA/etc.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Obama wants seniors to get another $250 - Oct. 14, 2009

So consumer prices have fallen but Obama wants to spend an extra $13 billion on social security anyway?

Yep, not in favor of this pandering to seniors at all.

[Flasch186]

I too am not in favor of this, please take note so that later some people wont broadly paint that I am in favor blindly of all the things Obama tries to do (since it didnt get through when I opposed Gitmo not closing, a continuation of the abhorrent rendition, opposition to the stimulus checks portion of the stimulus bill) in an effort to minimize the things I truly am in support of. It'll cut out that ridiculous waste of time later on in this 125 page thread.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I agree. Fiscal conservatism but social liberalism is the direction they need to go. And they can't be all "disband the CDC and the FBI and become isolationist." They have to recognize that there's a need for America to engage with the world, and there's unfortunately a need for the military, and for the CIA/FBI/CDC/NSA/etc.

True, but third parties tend to be more extreme due to the system we have. It was started by those who didn't fit in the two party system and were a bit, let's be honest, off the reservation. Those who were fiscally moderate and socially liberal could find at least some likeminded members in, say, Northeastern Republicanism and in some pockets of Southern and Mountain West Democratism (Scoop Jackson, etc). It'd be fun if those groups splintered to become a moderate third party.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

True, but third parties tend to be more extreme due to the system we have. It was started by those who didn't fit in the two party system and were a bit, let's be honest, off the reservation. Those who were fiscally moderate and socially liberal could find at least some likeminded members in, say, Northeastern Republicanism and in some pockets of Southern and Mountain West Democratism (Scoop Jackson, etc). It'd be fun if those groups splintered to become a moderate third party.

It's surprising right now as much as both parties are pandering to their extreme that a middle-of-the-road party hasn't found room to emerge.