Partisan politics = Fools Gold

[TradeTheBeal!]

Go ahead and believe that "brand x" is different than "brand y". Its two heads on one body, at best, and the bottom line is this. Democracy is dead in this country and the power has been monopolized. A bitter pill, I know, but I don't vote and neither should anyone else smart enough to see through the illusion.

So, how do we fix it?

[Westbrook36]

You can't fix it, unless we revolted against our government and overthrew it. The current system ensures that we keep electing people whose primary goal is the preservation of their own power and prestige.....not to count all the spoils that go along with that.

[TradeTheBeal!]

You can't fix it, unless we revolted against our government and overthrew it. The current system ensures that we keep electing people whose primary goal is the preservation of their own power and prestige.....not to count all the spoils that go along with that.

Well Said.

[Prosperity]

We don't need to revolt against the government, we need to take responsibility and stop getting duped. There should be some sort of PAC formed to just run ads against the polarizing nonsense in general. I would donate money, I'm sure other people would. But the point is that this is the voter's part...the politicians may be scummy, but they are only scummy because we elect scummy *******s.

[Burgold]

It's strange. I don't remember the parties ever being this corrupt or polarizing. When the Dems controlled all three branches, this was not the complaint (incompetence might have been, but not corruption at least not jailable corruption) I think what you are railing against is a period of historical wretchedness and it is making you far too cynical. Afterall, short of bloody revolution if you don't vote you can't help to spark change. Now, you can vote with your checkbook if you want and not at the polls, but you have to vote somewhere if you believe change is needed. Otherwise you're just pissing into the wind and wondering why it tastes so bad.

[twa]

Taking responsibility is dead on,liberty. Take the time to look at the canidates and demand accountability for abuses. The straight party voter freely gives up his individual power and rights to a group to the detriment of us all.

If you do not wish to take the time needed to examine the canidates ,

Don't vote.

Added: Burgold ,you are not seriously saying corruption and abuse is limited to one party are you? :laugh:

[Bang]

Well, don't NOT vote.... Vote third party.

all a third party needs is 25% of the popular vote and next time it qualifies for equal funding.

Perhaps a viable third option will help keep the other two pigs in line.

Vote 3rd. It's worth a try, and more productive than not voting at all.

~Bang

[codeorama]

Until people start voting for third party candidates, nothing will change. People are afraid to because they feel that the third party candidates have no real chance. Well, that's the problem.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

There is only one way to change this system..... REVOLUTION.

Our Founding Fathers understood it. The people of the CSA understood it. Now WE need to understand it.

This system is so far beyond internal repair that it's truly sickening. For the last 140+ years our government has been acting extra-Constitutionally. After 140 years of illegitimacy, do you really think there's anything other than tearing it down and starting again from scratch that is going to have any significant impact? I DON'T.

[mjah]

Refusing to vote is just about the worst thing you can do.

The problem is that the pool of candidates consists of people who want to be successful in career politics. The fact that politics is a career in and of itself is a big part of what's wrong, but it's inevitable in a country with as much power and wealth as this one.

Dunno what to do about it, except maybe not to resign yourself to choosing the two smelly turd candidates the parties feed you at election time.

With 300 million people in this country, I guarantee you there are better leaders out there than W and Kerry, Kennedy and Byrd. Problem is, those anonymous heroes have too much good character to consider wasting time in career politics when there are far more productive ways to serve.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Refusing to vote is just about the worst thing you can do.

Ok, mjah, I just noticed that you're from the Communistwealth along with chom and myself. Tell me, as a CONSERVATIVE, who should I be voting for in the Massachusetts Gubeneatorial election next week. Keep these things in mind.....

a. I DON'T vote for women under ANY circumstances.

b. I do not vote for Liberals under ANY circumstances.

Because unless you can give me some wonderful logic as to who I should be voting for, I can't see any of the four candidates in that race that I can vote for.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments.

And I'm not joking.

[Darth Tater]

Burgold,

You told a funny about the Dems.

[Baculus]

Not only does the issue go beyond party lines, but also questions the value of labels such as "conservative" and "liberal," whose meanings often seem to be twisted or change, depending upon the person. To attribute certain attributes solely to one side of the political aisle is often not the best approach, for both sides of the spectrum causes problems and issues, often sharing the same traits or even goals. (For example, we often see both "conservatives" and "liberals" share traits such as International Adventurism, Big Government, etc...) Thus, advocating that "no liberals" shouldn't be able to run for office is not fixing the problem at all, but only narrowly defining the issue. It fixes nothing, for each issue must be approached based not on some flimsily labeled ideology, for that limits one's ability to resolve issues and retain objectivity, which is a large problem that we have.

This is the double-headed problem that was referred to in the original post by mboyd784.

I believe it is a questionable idea to advocate the exclusion of a gender from government, for you are removing an entire section of capable citizens from the role of civil service and governing. Man, as in the gender, hasn't always displayed the full capability of competent governance, so I see no reason for the exclusion of women from the political field. Look for examples such as Margaret Thatcher if you believe that a woman cannot govern in a fasion similiar to a man. And if you cannot have faith in a woman's ability to govern, then you might as well remove her from many other fields as well. The idea is to judge by ability, not some factor that has little to do with the capability to perform a function.

Compentency and certain favorable factors are the deciding factor. Why care about anything else? If someone is incapable, then they are incapable.

I do not believe a society excluding anyone based upon anything other than ability is an inefficient culture with little room for growth. And when cultures and society do not grow and move forward, they become stagnant, whither, and die. We have many examples to cite in history to prove this as truth.

In regards to the government, we also have to consider that the we are ruled by the United States of America, an incorporated entity based out of the District of Columbia. It is possible that we have long lost mastery of our own nation. The sad fact, too, is that, with the advent of electronic voting, which is supposed to bring an ease and accuracy to voting, we may have merely handed the reins of power to whoever can cheat the best vote.

[Henry]

Eh. It's easy to be critical. It's much tougher to actually perform.

A favorite pastime of Americans is to sit around and talk about how they don't like anyone who's in charge of anything in our government. They're all liars and corrupt and whatever. I think the job is a lot tougher than many of us give these people credit for.

I know I can say that in my years as a moderator, a much much much less significant and far far far less difficult position of community leadership, EVERY decision I make is second-guessed by someone. Every policy is ciriticised. Our motives are questioned ALL the time. It's tiring and often-times thankless.

Now, I didn't bring this up to talk about me. It's simply an example I can provide from personal experience. I'd like to think there are some truly good people in our government, who have more in mind than simply holding onto power. But that is what elections are for. Not for clearing house every few years, but for maintaining some accountability, however small, for these people. If someone is doing a bad job, vote them out. Maybe the new guy stinks too. Then vote HIM out next time. The important thing is not how long politicians stay in office, or what motivates them, or what party they belong to, but that we actually do have the opportunity to vote for someone else. Maybe the rest of you have started taking this for granted, but I am awe-struck every time leadership in this country changes hands without violence. Every time. And it happens ALL the time in this country. Do you all have any idea how unprecedented and amazing that is? Maybe sometimes it doesn't happen the way we'd like, or someone gets caught misbehaving. It happens. No system is perfect.

But ours is still the closest thing out there. By a long shot.

Anyway, sorry to preach and ramble. To me, this country is still the most amazing peaceful collection of people, languages, cultures and idealogies the world has ever seen, and probably will see. And I couldn't be prouder.

And there's no WAY anyone will keep me from voting.

But you guys do what you want.

God Bless America.

[Kilmer17]

A simple search of "Democrats Corruption" on google is needed.

One of the reasons the GOP took the house in 94 was because of scandals in the Dem house. Rostenkowski, Kolter, William Jefferson. etc.

Both sides have scum.