Re;ublicans pretend to hate Obama and Clinton while Clinton and Obama continue the Republican program. Democrats pretend to care about the less fortunate and castigate the Republicans while furthering the Republican agenda. Both parties are bought and paid for by special interests and both parties need the other party to point at as the enemy while deceiving us and piling up the profits for corporate entities that have absolutely no interest in the good of the country. I could go further but these are the basics as I see them.
But I add a layer to it, that all these pols are like players on opposing sports teams, and all of us who claim to be "this" or "that" are just bystanders - fans of these teams. They play their game, and we pay to watch from the sidelines and wave our flags and fight with each other.
I just don't like most, if not all, politicians and our current President is a politician, as was the last one, and the one before him. Nothing personal against Obama. I just don't like his politics. I have equal disdain for both Republicans and Democrats. That's why I consider myself an independent. I think there a lot of people in this country who feel the same way. It's just the extremists that you hear the most from and the news reports on.
Both parties are imperfect. You take that as "they are the same" and have essentially the same program.
They both are imperfect, but they are not the same and you have to decide if you care about the difference.
Obama has stated openly, publicly, that he doesn't see the constitution of the U.S. as a "just" document. Those of you that voted for him voted him to a position where he is sworn to DEFEND the constitution of the U.S., and to execute the laws (executive branch). This is a man who spent his college career studying constitutional law to try to find ways to CIRCUMVENT the intent of the constitution.
He appointed two people, both extremely liberal women, to the supreme court. There job is to evaluate laws against their faithfulness to the constitution. They openly, publicly, have stated they don't look at their job that way, and will not act on their job that way. So they try to excuse it as the constitution is a "living, breathing document". That is just their code words for, yeah, we don't care what the constitution really says because it is a flawed document written by a bunch of old white racists. So we are just going to rule whatever we want, no matter what contortions of the obvious intent of the constitution is.
That is not by and large how republicans and conservatives look at the constitution and how the country is going to go. If that distinction between the two parties doesn't bother you, then I understand your conclusion that it doesn't matter. If it does matter to you, and you believe in a constitutional republic, then you should vote republican, warts and all. If you don't believe in a constitutional republic, and prefer the United States change the constitution without having constitutional amendments voted on by the states, and think 1 president, and 5 supreme court justices should be able to change the United States to a socialist government, then you should definitely vote democrat, warts and all. A second major distinction is if you think making people take some individual responsibility, and the risks that go with it, makes for a stronger populace and therefore a better country, then you vote republican, warts and all.
If you think telling people all the rights they have, with little to no individual responsibility, makes for a stronger populace and therefore a better country, then you vote democrat, warts and all. Either way, both sides love when people think they can make no difference, and so just watch from the sidelines.
Too long, didn't read. But I suspect you may not blindly support my party of choice, and blindly oppose all measures from the other side. So, I can dismiss your opinion out of hand, and ignore anything you may have to say.
yes, very often it does seem more like a sports rivalry than anything resembling trying to make the nation better.
and funny how many bring up the constitution, as if ANY politician EVER paid heed to it. They just pick and choose the parts which suit them, and ignore the rest.
and, finally - the voting. we really need to fix the voting system. something accountable. something accessible. something verifiable.
there should be more than 2 choices - both of which being corporate puppets.
Thinking both parties are "the same" is a cop out.
I hear it more these days by people that are really getting pissed at the democrats and Obama. I see it as a way they feel they can admit they made a mistake, be pissed but at the same time tell you your just as wrong so their error in judgment and lack of information really makes no difference..
Some people are dealing with the awful feeling that they have been duped their whole lives.
"they are all the same" well it is a step in the right direction........ away from the democrats.
and funny how many bring up the constitution, as if ANY politician EVER paid heed to it. They just pick and choose the parts which suit them, and ignore the rest.
and, finally - the voting. we really need to fix the voting system. something accountable. something accessible. something verifiable.
there should be more than 2 choices - both of which being corporate puppets.
Good points, in my opinion.
Since human nature in politicians make them pay heed to their preferences over the constitution, the check and balance to that is supposed to be the supreme court. Which is why one would want a republican (actually a conservative) president. Because the supreme court is supposed to enforce adherence to the constitution, versus the liberal democrat supreme court justices who want to pick and choose their preferences via the "living, breathing document" baloney.
Regarding voting, at least it should be with integrity. The fact that we wouldn't have picture ID to vote in 2014, as if that is some sort of barrier to voting, is absolutely ridiculous and a charade perpetuated by...of course. The democrats.
Regarding having more than 2 parties, that was tried in the 1990's. And it resulted in a split of more conservative/libertarian voters. It changed the election. It allowed Bill Clinton to be elected. Which was against what the majority of Americans wanted. Combination of republican vote and Ross Perot was greater than Clinton, and the vast majority of Perot votes would have gone to the republican.
Originally posted by frontal lobe: Good points, in my opinion.
Since human nature in politicians make them pay heed to their preferences over the constitution, the check and balance to that is supposed to be the supreme court. Which is why one would want a republican (actually a conservative) president. Because the supreme court is supposed to enforce adherence to the constitution, versus the liberal democrat supreme court justices who want to pick and choose their preferences via the "living, breathing document" baloney.
Regarding voting, at least it should be with integrity. The fact that we wouldn't have picture ID to vote in 2014, as if that is some sort of barrier to voting, is absolutely ridiculous and a charade perpetuated by...of course. The democrats.
Regarding having more than 2 parties, that was tried in the 1990's. And it resulted in a split of more conservative/libertarian voters. It changed the election. It allowed Bill Clinton to be elected. Which was against what the majority of Americans wanted. Combination of republican vote and Ross Perot was greater than Clinton, and the vast majority of Perot votes would have gone to the republican.
I find no difference in the level of "picking and choosing" going on compared to party lines. I find it even more amazing that there would be ANY need for "interpetation" being it is written in our very own language. But, it happens. everyone seems to have there own interpetations of the very same sentances. everyone seems to KNOW what they meant when they wrote it. and come up with different meanings. I agree its baloney - but - thats all we got.
as to the ID - I cannot remember a time I did NOT need ID to vote. WTF are all the other states doing?? but, ID is a minor step - accessability. verification. recountable reciepts. how about larger window of voting time which includes weekends? evenings?
and, yes, I can see with the 2 team mentality which is so ingrained, moving away would be way to much for many to handle. but seriously would want at least 6 viable candidates.
I don't think Clinton was hated all that much by Republicans, but Obama is a different animal. I don't think anyone is pretending--his policies are not Republican. What Republican agenda do you see being carried out?
I find it even more amazing that there would be ANY need for "interpetation" being it is written in our very own language. But, it happens. everyone seems to have there own interpetations of the very same sentances.
I find the contortions on many cases amazing as well.
Everyone seems to have their own interpretation, and so I would go with someone who is a strict constructionist vs. the "living, breathing document" crowd. That group creates meaning that no reasonable read of the words would allow.
I'm not in any way opening the abortion debate again. But that supreme court contorted that decision into abortion being legal due to a "right to privacy", because that group wanted to make abortion legal. The constitutional illogic of that line of thinking staggers me to this day. Just a galling example of not interpreting the laws via the constitutional language, and making it say something that isn't there and never was intended to be there.
I have no doubt we would have legal abortion today. But it would have been via legislatures making laws, as prescribed in the constitutional process, and not via 5 justices contorting the constitution to fit what they wanted.
