It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Being stuck in the political wasteland

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I love guns. I believe strongly in personal responsibility. I'm fiscally conservative. I believe in sane immigration policy.

I also believe strongly in the complete separation between church and state. I detest anti intellectualism. I am a proponent of science, logic and reason. I believe in gay rights, equality for women and a compassionate approach to dealing with the poor and disadvantaged.

I am in the political wilderness. There is no party that represents me. I'm forced to accept the lesser of two evils.

Is that a democracy? It doesn't feel like one.




posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Is that a democracy? It doesn't feel like one.

It shouldn't. You sense something is wrong. it goes against your grain. Where is the reason, right?

It supposed to be a Republic. Representing the Public. Elected representatives by democratic means. Of by and for the people not the government, military or big business.

They aren't representing you any more. They represent their issues to you, their mission to you, they decide and pass laws without even asking you. Top down authority with the leaders up there and everyone else down below like sheep going where they are told.

You're right, it sucks.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: duaneology

Well yes, it is a democracy, but it is broken. One could be forgiven for believing that any method of electing a government, which involves hegemony, is utterly unworkable.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Have a point? Sounds like you are like most citizens of the US - moderate. Moderates don't make the news cycle - Moderates don't sell advertising on media. Moderates get shouted down at every turn.

Used to be that moderates governed in the US. Used to be moderates were considered responsible and wise. Used to be one had to be a moderate to be considered an upstanding member of a community.



In my parents day you'd be called an Eisenhower Republican - Moderate. Now he would be called a commie nut-job.


edit on 21-10-2014 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   
It doesn't matter how you vote anymore. Under the current system, money controls politics.

Regardless who's in office, "the people" have no influence anymore. The whole damn thing is broken.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer
It doesn't matter how you vote anymore. Under the current system, money controls politics.

Regardless who's in office, "the people" have no influence anymore. The whole damn thing is broken.



You do realize that voter suppression is the most effective way to control a population right?



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Apathy is deadly as arsenic to democracy.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 06:39 PM
link   
With all it's shortcomings, we were plugging along at a fairly even keel until there arose such a thing as a "tea party"';
Hell-bent on destroying any hope of progress, and any hope of functioning together, as we used to be able to do when push came to shove.

As they say "This ain't yo daddy's GOP". Dangerous folks.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: duaneology

You might be interested ib the modern Whig movement. No joke! modernwhig.org...

Best of luck in your search for a political home.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: revswirl
Thanks for the link revswirl! Very interesting.


Modern Whigs are citizen-legislators with a deep respect for the vocation of public service who clearly distinguish themselves from other parties in the following ways:
Whigs are the only mainstream party whose agenda includes fundamental political reforms without which nothing else will change.
Whigs are not interested in power, they are interested in governing and public service.
Whigs do not argue about whether government should be “big” or “small”, but whether it is doing its job.
Whigs seek public office in order to solve problems and not in order to impose their ideological, religious or other views on their fellow citizens.
When solving problems, Whigs rely on fact instead of fiction, use reason instead of dogma, and judge solutions based on evidence instead of slogans.
Whigs do not accept undisclosed money from corporations, lobbyists, unions or special-interest groups, and prefer to limit themselves to public financing and individual donations.
Whigs practice what they preach: they do not say one thing when running for office and do another thing once they are in office.
Whigs are committed to an ethical approach to politics based on the principles of meritocracy and integrity, the cornerstones of the Whig Philosophy.
Whig elected officials who abandon these practices will be held accountable: by expulsion from the Party and by becoming subject to recall efforts launched by the Whig Party leadership.


I particularly like this:
Whigs do not accept undisclosed money from corporations, lobbyists, unions or special-interest groups, and prefer to limit themselves to public financing and individual donations."



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 08:12 PM
link   
I believe in individuality, personal responsibility, freedom.

I also believe that bunnies will one day rule the world and that if you heat leftover lasagna in the microwave, it'll talk to you in strange dialects.
edit on 21-10-2014 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: duaneology

originally posted by: Answer
It doesn't matter how you vote anymore. Under the current system, money controls politics.

Regardless who's in office, "the people" have no influence anymore. The whole damn thing is broken.



You do realize that voter suppression is the most effective way to control a population right?



Would that be the *Whole* population?

Or just a tiny part in tiny places.




posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: duaneology

This sounds good but I am not sure how sound it is. Not arguing, just discussing.

I would say voter suppression is a bad thing but it controls little. Regardless of who is chosen for any given office, what most politicians say to constituents and what they do to support their financial supporters are miles apart.

Suppressing some fraction of voters might sound like someone is not being heard (which is true) but neither are the voters casting ballots being heard. It's just a charade held for the masses. Big money does and always has steered the ship.

With regards to your OP, individual candidates will never meet the mark of ones personal beliefs. Parties claim to but I think it is more a case of low information voters toeing the line unconsciously. A politician deals with the full spectrum of issues daily. Only a few of those issues concern any individual voter.

Nothing wrong with this. A politician's voting record is in the public domain. Keep up with who votes your issues as you would and who does not. Vote accordingly. No need for any affiliation.

Just my dos centavos



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: duaneology

originally posted by: Answer
It doesn't matter how you vote anymore. Under the current system, money controls politics.

Regardless who's in office, "the people" have no influence anymore. The whole damn thing is broken.



You do realize that voter suppression is the most effective way to control a population right?



Controlling the population is even easier when the elected officials no longer base their decisions on their constituency but on corporate bribes and the influence of special interest groups.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Regarding voter disenfranchisement:

Paul Weyrich co-Founder of ALEC, Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority, and Free Congress Foundation at a confrence with Jerry Falwell and Ronald Reagan, Discusses Why Republicans Should Suppress Voter Turnout

In 1980.....



And if your concerned about the RT source, I used it because it mentioned the date. This clip is all over the internet.


edit on 22-10-2014 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 05:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd
Regarding voter disenfranchisement:

Paul Weyrich co-Founder of ALEC, Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority, and Free Congress Foundation at a confrence with Jerry Falwell and Ronald Reagan, Discusses Why Republicans Should Suppress Voter Turnout

In 1980.....



And if your concerned about the RT source, I used it because it mentioned the date. This clip is all over the internet.



People like this are enemies of democracy and should swing from a traitors noose.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: duaneology
I love guns. I believe strongly in personal responsibility. I'm fiscally conservative. I believe in sane immigration policy.

I also believe strongly in the complete separation between church and state. I detest anti intellectualism. I am a proponent of science, logic and reason. I believe in gay rights, equality for women and a compassionate approach to dealing with the poor and disadvantaged.

I am in the political wilderness. There is no party that represents me. I'm forced to accept the lesser of two evils.

Is that a democracy? It doesn't feel like one.


You are what we call a "libertarian." Welcome to the club.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: duaneology

originally posted by: FyreByrd
Regarding voter disenfranchisement:

Paul Weyrich co-Founder of ALEC, Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority, and Free Congress Foundation at a confrence with Jerry Falwell and Ronald Reagan, Discusses Why Republicans Should Suppress Voter Turnout

In 1980.....



And if your concerned about the RT source, I used it because it mentioned the date. This clip is all over the internet.



People like this are enemies of democracy and should swing from a traitors noose.


Personally I like the idea of mandatory voting like they have in Australian.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
I believe in individuality, personal responsibility, freedom.

I also believe that bunnies will one day rule the world and that if you heat leftover lasagna in the microwave, it'll talk to you in strange dialects.


Would that be personal responsibility to self? or what?

I don't believe much in 'individuality', as far as I can see it's just ego-centrism in the extreme. We are all 'individuals' without having to preach it - I've never met two people that were the same. What's the fear here? The ego's fear.

Freedom, from what or whom? Freedom to me is freedom from self-centered fear.

Now responsibility I get, responsibility to neighbors, co-workers, and strangers of all walks of life. I am responsible for the state of the world and because I truly dislike that 'state' I work towards making it better by making myself less afraid and more inclusive.

How do you express or practice this 'personal responsibility'.

Pretty words but often very hollow.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 05:00 PM
link   


a reply to: FyreByrd

I don't believe much in 'individuality', as far as I can see it's just ego-centrism in the extreme. We are all 'individuals' without having to preach it - I've never met two people that were the same.



Maybe this is why collectivism often fails.





top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join