Tired of politics, both parties seem out of touch

[Magnulus]

Hey, it's been a long time since I posted in Avault. I'm still gaming, I've bought alot more XBox games and I've cut back alot on my PC gaming.

I'm a lifelong Democrat and liberal/left leaning. I hate Bush, I can't stand him or his policies. But the last couple of months I've just gotten burnt out on politics and I'm fed up with Democrats. I'll vote Democrat just because the other choice is so disgusting, but I don't relish voting for Democrats.

The big problem with Democrats is that they haven't fought very hard for average people in the last decade. They've taken on all these other causes like gay marriage, affirmative action, etc. Anything but stuff that affects ordinary people. No wonder so many blue-collar and service job types just vote Republican- Democrats don't do anything for the most part except belittle their culture from ivory towers, they certainly don't oppose offfshoring to China or a dozen other things that progressives have demanded. And yet some ideologues on the left just don't get the backlash against gay marriage or "God" being a wedge issue, but alot of these same ivory tower types have broken marriages or are agnostics or some other kind of "non-mainstream" belief; they are hardly in a position to judge what a healthy marriage or family is, for example. And they wonder why alot of Americans don't get them. For many Americans their "values" are all they have left, and it is very important to them to have some kind of continuity in their communities; they don't want busibodies from 1200 miles away telling them their ways are backwards.

I used to post at Democratic Underground but I got banned there by an overzealous mod a couple years ago. These guys are mostly on the fringe. IF you aren't a Christian-hating Wiccan with a card-carrying membership in NOW or the ACLU, you are toast. Voices of moderation aren't welcome.

[BloodySloth]

...wtf does being agnostic have to do with not knowing how to judge a healthy marriage?

[Magnulus]

It doesn't. But assuming that all Christians are stupid, does not win you political points with anybody but the far left. And yet there are alot of "progressives" out there who are dismissive of Conservative Christian concerns, to the peril of their cause.

FWIW, I'm not a conservative Christian. I haven't even been to a church in a decade. But that's just my take on it.

[ToddGreenway]

This is why i am a libertarian...the only democrat i like is Russ Feingold and the only Republican i like (just because he is actually a libertarian) is Ron Paul

[Autocratic]

Out of touch? I heard Mark Foley's been doing plenty of touching. Heyoooooo!

[Thud]

What I genuinely don't understand about the US political system is how people accept what is essentially a two party system (although I acknowledge the gains made by the Libertarians and, to some extent, the Greens) as the only possibility. This would seem to polarise every issue into an us/them mentality and thus promote endless partisan squabbling instead of sustained (and sustainable) growth. Instead of people identifying who they are because of who they're not, why aren't more Americans clamoring for a 3rd party representing the center? You know - people who value a strong military but not at the expense of education and/or health care.

[Evilpenguin]

simple, the big two parties squash them every chance they get
plus people are stupid, you would be amazed at how many people don't even know that there are more than two parties, i mean, the electoral colledge is still in place for a reason, the masses are generally too stupid to make good decisions
but i also agree that if some more parties were thrown into the mix with equal pull then the country would start improving a bit
the democrats and republicans have become stagnant, with the only competition being each other, and since they have been trading blows for so long they have pretty much become entirely immune to each other
we need some new blood in there to keep them on their toes, so they will actually have to start making real decisions and changes again

but as far as im concerned, as long as gaming is left alone i dont really care, thats why i hate the democrats right now

[Magnulus]

The US government works by a winner-takes-all system, not majority rule, unlike some European governments. Effectively that means you can have a minority party in the US running the country, that tends to clamp down on third parties because a minority party never has to share power with anybody.

[Autocratic]

What I genuinely don't understand about the US political system is how people accept what is essentially a two party system (although I acknowledge the gains made by the Libertarians and, to some extent, the Greens) as the only possibility. This would seem to polarise every issue into an us/them mentality and thus promote endless partisan squabbling instead of sustained (and sustainable) growth. Instead of people identifying who they are because of who they're not, why aren't more Americans clamoring for a 3rd party representing the center? You know - people who value a strong military but not at the expense of education and/or health care.

Two party systems ensure moderation in politics. I'd rather have two watered down parties then several extreme parties holding real power and enacting far left or far right policies.

[kinein]

I vote for neither Republican or Democrat, I'd like to see Obama run for President. The only person to be able to beat Hillary in '08 in my opinion would have to be the charismatic Obama from Illnoise.

I'd rather go with a party that actually will accomplish something. Wipe out the gangs, enact harsher laws that prevent kids from getting molested and raped by repeat offenders. Actually sit down and figure out how to stop the spread of AIDS instead of talk about prevention. Actually stop the increase in AIDS cases in America - it's simple , just test EVERYONE. If you have AIDS you now have to have that marked on your ID so that you can't trick anyone. ID would tie in with your credit card/bank card/work card/gas card/paying for bills card.

Hi we can actually stop the flow of HIV if the democrats republicans and the liberal extremists actually wanted to. Let's actually ACCOMPLISH something instead of hearing the same garbage every single election.

Why can't America not compete education wise with the rest of the world til the University level on average? Wouldn't it be simple to just look at what the other countries in the world are doing and compare it to what we are doing in California for an example.

How about we stop spending money on prisons, the military, inmates, gang prevention, money for illegal immigrants, and all the other crap and fix our schools within the next 365 days so that we can output high school graduates that perform and excel as a majority like other countries into the university system.

Why not stop sending aid to the rest of the world. Stop helping the Euro's withdraw the military from everywhere and let the UN take care of the troubles in the world. Don't give billions to the Tsunami victims, let's instead use all that money to create jobs and communities for the poor and give them a choice between living in prison like environments or nice apartments if they actually do some work like keeping their communities clean.

RANT RANT RANT. This stuff could be fixed overnight. This is like the forest fire that never was put out because the Republicans and Liberals and everyone else just stood around talking the entire time. Every election is the same, who cares which party they are in. WHO ACTUALLY GIVES US RESULTS!? The only person I've noticed that actually DID something that I could notice that had a impact on my standard of living was the Governator. His repeal of the 300% increase in car registration fees by the previous Governor and the repeal of the illegal immigrant driver license.

I COULD SEE AND FEEL HIS ACTIONS. What is anyone in 2008 going to do that will actually have a impact on your life and my life except talk. I for one have no interest in going around in circles or hearing the same old crap. I want results not bullsht!

[Thud]

Two party systems ensure moderation in politics. I'd rather have two watered down parties then several extreme parties holding real power and enacting far left or far right policies.

I'm not sure how two parties ensure moderation as the voter can only vote for one or the other (if voting for a nation-leading party). That seems extreme to me. What is even more extreme is that, from an outside point of view, the Republicans and Democrats don't seem to be that different - the Republicans seem (to me anyway) like right-leaning conservatives and the Democrats left-leaning conservatives. There is little chance of any real change since people are voting for what essentially amounts to two flavours of the same party. Oligarchy, anyone? :confused:

[Wingnut]

I'm a lifelong Democrat and liberal/left leaning. I hate Bush, I can't stand him or his policies. But the last couple of months I've just gotten burnt out on politics and I'm fed up with Democrats. I'll vote Democrat just because the other choice is so disgusting, but I don't relish voting for Democrats

I hate to say, but you are part of the problem. Everyone is so afraid that the 'other' side will win, so they vote for the side that is a slightly more palatable. In reality, there is little difference between the two parties. Both are suckups to big business and lobbyist and could not give a rat's rear about the population of the US. The main concern with both parties is establishing their power above all else.

So next time you vote, vote for what you conscience tells you, even if you think it is a loser. After all, does it really matter if a republican or democrat screws you, you still got screwed. At best, don't give them your approval to do it.

[ToddGreenway]

yea i think ive brought up that point in several other threads

[Autocratic]

I'm not sure how two parties ensure moderation as the voter can only vote for one or the other (if voting for a nation-leading party). That seems extreme to me. What is even more extreme is that, from an outside point of view, the Republicans and Democrats don't seem to be that different - the Republicans seem (to me anyway) like right-leaning conservatives and the Democrats left-leaning conservatives. There is little chance of any real change since people are voting for what essentially amounts to two flavours of the same party. Oligarchy, anyone? :confused:

The system ensures moderation because both major parties have to pitch a broad tent to appease enough voters to actually win an election.

[ToddGreenway]

yea but its also promotes apathy and corruption

[Autocratic]

And there isn't corruption in proportional European countries?

[ToddGreenway]

of course there is...there is corruption in any institution which holds power in my opinion, however when people have a choice simply between the lesser of two evils does that help the situation?

[Autocratic]

How does it hurt the situation? You may not have your choice of extreme candidates, but in the end the system results in centrism and moderation. This is most likely to appease the largest amount of citizens.

[coldwave]

This is the problem with our present two parties: They are fighting for what is best for their party, not what it best for this country and its people. They are FAR more concerned with the struggle for power than they are about the real issues.

For example, you always hear about Gay marriage during the campaigns and X candidate is for it while Y candidate isn't. I DON"T CARE! It's not an issue. If they want to get legally married and pay the associated taxes and penalties that go with it, that's fine by me. Let them! Now, if they want to get married in a church, well, that's another issue entirely, and is ultimately up the beliefs and rules of the Church whether or not the marriage can take place. Regardless, either way, it's a non-issue.

But, instead, they make it an issue. You hear the right-side saying, "It's wrong in the eye's of God! Vote for me!" while the left says, "It's your God-Given right! Vote for me!" In the back ground, I'm screaming, "Keep your religion out of it!" Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that our candidates shouldn't be religious people. I just don't think they should be using it as a campaign gimmick.

So anyway, yeah, I'm tired of the two parties we have right now. That's why I'm planting my votes squarely on the independents. It may not get me anywhere, but at least I'm not voting for the parties I hate.

[Magnulus]

I'll probably be voting Democrat this time around. I just hope that Democrats start getting smarter about politics. It's not the 1970's anymore, and people don't vote along identity politics.

I would rather see Obama run for president than Hillary. IMO, Hillary is damaged goods. Between being called a "liberal" on one side (she isn't really, and neither was Bill Clinton), and sucking up to the warhawks on the other, she doesn't really have a record to be proud of anymore. She's a frontrunner only because she has alot of deluded fans.

Now Republicans are going to have to clean house in a major way if they want to win in 2008. I think they've lost credibility with independents. And people like Giuliani and McCain are not going to galvanize the religious rightwing.

[Thud]

The system ensures moderation because both major parties have to pitch a broad tent to appease enough voters to actually win an election.

This is based on the supposition that people are voting for a party that represents their interests. In fact, I think that people are often voting as much against parties who do not represent their interests. The problem with a two major party system is that people are limited in their choice; if they don't want A, they have to vote for B (even if B has policies/platforms that they don't really like or care about). While a multiparty system is far from perfect (what political system is?), by giving people more choice, there is a higher probability that people are finding parties that represent what they want, not what they don't.

[Autocratic]

This is based on the supposition that people are voting for a party that represents their interests. In fact, I think that people are often voting as much against parties who do not represent their interests. The problem with a two major party system is that people are limited in their choice; if they don't want A, they have to vote for B (even if B has policies/platforms that they don't really like or care about). While a multiparty system is far from perfect (what political system is?), by giving people more choice, there is a higher probability that people are finding parties that represent what they want, not what they don't.

You're looking at the interests of individuals and discounting the whole. The whole will tend to be moderate, and thus a system more geared towards moderation will benefit the majority of the population.

[Wingnut]

I'll probably be voting Democrat this time around. I just hope that Democrats start getting smarter about politics. It's not the 1970's anymore, and people don't vote along identity politics.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. Same coin, different side.

[ToddGreenway]

How does it hurt the situation? You may not have your choice of extreme candidates, but in the end the system results in centrism and moderation. This is most likely to appease the largest amount of citizens.

meh, you call it moderation, ill call it the scourging of the American ideal.

[kyleh]

The American ideal pretty much is the appeasement of the majority, no? What with all the voting and stuff.

[Fox Mulder]

Not to burst your bubble but last I heard, Democrats have started to invoke the name of the lord and help from Ministers in their campaigns.

[ToddGreenway]

The American ideal pretty much is the appeasement of the majority, no? What with all the voting and stuff.

only if you look at the world in black and white

[Thud]

The American ideal pretty much is the appeasement of the majority, no? What with all the voting and stuff.

If that's the case, then why is America still in Iraq (as poll after poll shows that the majority of Americans don't want to be there)? No no no, the appeasement of the majority in any country only exists in the campaigning (or courting) stage - when the person/party attempts to create an image of themselves that they cannot follow through on. The discrepancy between what they said and what they did (appeasement and reality) to me suggests the suitability of that party to be in power.

Note - I would never suggest that this discrepancy was any less frequent with the Democrats than with the Republicans; just the the effects of this discrepancy were less dire...