We have two parties, both of which people are blindly loyal to.

I reject your premise in the strongest terms. I have a basic life philosophy. One party's platform is consistently much closer to that philosophy than the other.

 

Even though individuals I chose to represent me may fail to live up to those ideals, I will continue to vote that way UNTIL the other party changes their philosophical positions into ones that are even closer to mine.

 

It's as simple as that. Call it "the lesser of two evils" or "the greater good": take your pick. I will NOT vote for people who's views are abhorrent to mine simply to spite someone who is not my "perfect representative".

. . . But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

 

- Declaration of Independence

 

The American people are too uninformed to carry out the relatively simple task of voting for representative government. Expecting them to rise up and throw off the government is a bit much.

I don't think our problem is with the government, it's with the citizens. We can only reach a point of absolute despotism through complete voter apathy and ignorance.

 

Yeah. What he said. :thumb:

Habib, as much as I usually agree with you, I really have to disagree with you on this. The problem is partly with the citizens, but mainly with the politicians. They do more to polarize this country than anything else. I can completely understand voter apathy. It doesn't matter which horse you bet on in the race. They're both going to kick you in the head and take a dump on you.

Habib, as much as I usually agree with you, I really have to disagree with you on this. The problem is partly with the citizens, but mainly with the politicians. They do more to polarize this country than anything else. I can completely understand voter apathy. It doesn't matter which horse you bet on in the race. They're both going to kick you in the head and take a dump on you.

 

HHSDad,

 

What do you think of the recent Supreme Court ruling on political ads? Don't you think allowing special interests greater latitude to smear the candidate of their choosing with (usually) unbalanced, misleading ads poses a particular danger of increasing polarization?

The American people are too uninformed to carry out the relatively simple task of voting for representative government. Expecting them to rise up and throw off the government is a bit much.

 

I don't think the entire apathetic, Bovidaean population would be required for revolt. Only a dedicated group of revolutionaries.

 

"There are ways, you don't want to know about them. But there are ways. I'll get you a toe. I can get all the toes you want. With nail polish."

We get hosed because the population isn't intelligent enough to do otherwise. We have two parties, both of which people are blindly loyal to, and a population that absolutely refuses to research their candidates and support views that are actually relevant. Domestic partner benefits at UK and UL is emerging as the first issue of our gubernatorial race. Honestly, Kentucky, this is more important than the economy or rising pension costs?

 

Why do you have to have millions and millions of dollars to run a campaign? To make cheesy, phony, deceitful commercials that anyone with a 4th grade education can see straight through? If the population cared, these ridiculous commercials would be superfluous.

 

If anything, we need an overall of our electoral college.

I registered republican at 18....out of PURE disgust and PROTEST on my part I am now registered as an independent...the 2 party system has failed the people who fund the government. I may me just one person,but I'm fed up with handing the Govt. 5 months of wages and being told that it's not enough. I have to live with a budget. The government is no better. Remember what happened to the Roman Empire!! We are almost there!!!

HHSDad,

 

What do you think of the recent Supreme Court ruling on political ads? Don't you think allowing special interests greater latitude to smear the candidate of their choosing with (usually) unbalanced, misleading ads poses a particular danger of increasing polarization?

I thought the ruling was a bad decision.

I registered republican at 18....out of PURE disgust and PROTEST on my part I am now registered as an independent...the 2 party system has failed the people who fund the government. I may me just one person,but I'm fed up with handing the Govt. 5 months of wages and being told that it's not enough. I have to live with a budget. The government is no better. Remember what happened to the Roman Empire!! We are almost there!!!

 

 

That's exactly why I registered Independent.

 

I'm fed up with:

 

1) Career politicians who claim to have the best interest of the "average" citizen at heart.

2) Political stalemates that have nothing to do with solving an issue, but all to do with exerting the power of one party over another.

3) Big money lobbying

4) Piggy-backing legislation

5) People who vote payraises for themselves, while exhibiting the above as their "claim to earning more", while spending months, no years, arguing whether a bill should be introduced, then discussed, then passed, addressing the minimum wage that hadn't been increased in 10 years.

6) Overspending in just about every way possible.

7) Not addressing the root of social issues.

8) "Attack" ads in political campaigns that do nothing to tell a politicians platform, but only smear the other candidate's name

 

 

I've got more, but that's enough for now. I still want to have a good day. :lol:

Where do I sign up?

Either I don't understand or I am way to easy to satisfy. There is much about government that I'd like to change and improve, but I'm a happy guy. Revolution? Nah.

That's exactly why I registered Independent.

 

I'm fed up with:

 

1) Career politicians who claim to have the best interest of the "average" citizen at heart.

2) Political stalemates that have nothing to do with solving an issue, but all to do with exerting the power of one party over another.

3) Big money lobbying

4) Piggy-backing legislation

5) People who vote payraises for themselves, while exhibiting the above as their "claim to earning more", while spending months, no years, arguing whether a bill should be introduced, then discussed, then passed, addressing the minimum wage that hadn't been increased in 10 years.

6) Overspending in just about every way possible.

7) Not addressing the root of social issues.

8) "Attack" ads in political campaigns that do nothing to tell a politicians platform, but only smear the other candidate's name

 

 

I've got more, but that's enough for now. I still want to have a good day. :lol:

 

 

Why do you think someone running as an Independent would be any different than a Rep. or a Dem.? While I admit that as an Ind., a Congressperson would not be "beholden" to the party leadership of the Dems. or Reps., then again, they would have zero political clout to get anything positive done. Such would be the case until enough Inds. got elected to make a difference. Of course, when that happened, the Inds. would then be beholden to the leadership of the Inds. in Congress.

 

To me, its not the two party system that is at fault, its the people leading them in part at fault and the citizens electing them in part at fault.

 

While I appreciate (and agree with) your dissatisfaction with our political leaders, in my opinion its a little pollyannish to think all of the problems you listed will go away if we just start electing Inds.

 

Me personally, I think lifetime term limits (two terms as a Senator and three terms as a Rep. with no switching back and forth) and cutting the pay to nothing over living expenses to be in Washington during session would solve a lot of the problems we encounter. But there are good reasons for no term limits (loss of experience and knowledge of people in Congress and the need for a much improved federal bureacracy) and there are understandable reasons for paying considerable wages to our Congresspeople (otherwise only the wealthy could afford to be in Congress). Nonetheless, I think those disadvantages would be minor to the advantages of term limits and wage elimination.

 

Fire away everyone and tell me why I am wrong. I have an open mind and can certainly learn from other's thoughts on the subject.

I’m tired of being told I don’t pay enough in taxes… I work nearly five months out of the year to pay my fair share as is. The only recourse is for my family to economize more and budget more tightly to provide our government another month’s worth of pay to squander on more vote getting pork we don’t need and cannot possibly benefit from.

 

Why can’t our government economize, by cutting wasteful programs that do nothing but buy votes for weasels we don’t need guiding our nation?

 

It’s time for a major revolution in the IRS and our tax structure. We’re getting hosed.

 

This is the greatest nation the world has ever known. We didn’t get here by giving handouts. It’s time for everyone in reasonable health and mental acuity to get a job and help pull the load. It’s time to give the boot to lazy bums milking the system for handouts. It’s time to punish employers who bend the rules by paying ridiculously low wages to illegal residents who pay no income tax and soak up many of our free social services.

I could go on, and probably will, but this is a good start… :lol:

 

 

FB, while the bolded sentiment is pc these days, I think it is an oversimplification of the issue and is similar to the anti Walmart craze. Those businesses that pay those illegal residents low wages pass on those reduced costs to their customers. I represent a couple of construction companies. When the INS folks cracked down in Cinti, the labor cost for framing, drywall and roofing went through the roof (pardon the pun). With unemployment around 4% (with 3% unable or unwilling to work), the contractors had to really raise the wages to attract the workers. Those increased costs were passed on to the home owners and business owners for which the building was being constructed. Bottom line, you the consumer will pay for it now using legal workers or may pay for it later (of course if we simply denied illegals access to the social services, perhaps we wouldn't have to pay for it at all). At the end of the day, I'm not too sympathetic to those who say the illegals are taking the jobs away from Americans. Many Americans are unwilling to to do the work or are unwilling to relocate more than two hours away to find work (as opposed to the illegals that leave their families in another country, swim a river, cross a fence, etc to go to a country that speaks another language). We have very low unemployment in this country as it is and I view the illegals as filling a need that Americans are unwilling to fill. Of course if we paid framers, dry wall hangers and roofers $15 an hour, we'd have no problem filling those jobs, but of course we'd pay a lot more for our homes and buildings and of course all the other service providers would also need to pay a lot more to keep and attract their workers, which means those costs to the consumers would go up also.

Leatherneck, you're the first person to ever suggest political correctness in relation to me... :lol:

 

I realize I've simplified... I have to, or I need to write a book... :lol:

 

I respect you and your opinion. The problem in my eyes is we're gonna have to pay for illegals one way or another. Like the Fram Oil Filter commercials, we pay a little more now, or a lot later. I understand your point, but since we can't ship the manufacturing of our homes and buildings outside our borders to where the cheap labor is like we do tennis shoes, computers and TVs... I'm all for paying more for my next home or office instead of paying more into social entitlements for the rest of my life. :thumb:

 

The truth of the matter is, if we cut off illegal workers to all contractors and construction companies we level the playing field for all of them to compete fairly. Yes, they will pass on added labor costs to their customers, but we are not all going to be soaked whether we ever buy another home/building or not. We adopt all these illegals, we're paying for them without their income tax contributions to our system.

 

For the record, I have absolutely no problem with anyone from any country in the world wanting to come to America and become Americans. I just think they should do it within the law. I'm all for eager new citizens who want to add to our society. I'm 100% against lying, sneaking, thieves who want to come to America, skim the benefits of citizenship without contributing the way all citizens should.

While I appreciate (and agree with) your dissatisfaction with our political leaders, in my opinion its a little pollyannish to think all of the problems you listed will go away if we just start electing Inds.

 

Me personally, I think lifetime term limits (two terms as a Senator and three terms as a Rep. with no switching back and forth) and cutting the pay to nothing over living expenses to be in Washington during session would solve a lot of the problems we encounter.

Actually, I think it's a little "Pollyanna-ish" to expect the congress to fix itself. For the reasons that you mentioned yourself, the powerful parties and congressional members would never allow such a thing to happen. This is afterall, the congress that just voted itself another hefty raise.

 

Independents -- by definition -- would not be beholden to any party. There would be no such thing as the "independent party leadership" because there would be no single "Independent Party." And it really isn't about having clout to get things done. The purpose of the legislative branch is to give each region, and each state an equal voice in national affairs.

 

I would suggest that voting for independent candidates is better than doing nothing at all, or hoping for the system to volunteer to change itself.