A Message from a Friend about Todays Political Situation.

I put this in the Pit because it may engender some less than stellar responses but when I read this I had to share it:

I was traditionally a Republican but, when the party went to far I right I became an independent. I am sort of all over the place. I am pro gay marriage, legalizing pot, I am pro choice but, not a fan of abortion. I am also pro death penalty, pro responsible gun ownership not this nonsense with people wandering around open carrying, I am pro strong military but, not wasting money on weapons systems the military does not want but, get built anyway because they are in the somebody's congressional district. I think Congress should have term limits. I am not a fan of illegals but, also very aware of the vital role they play in our economy. I think a person has the right to burn an American flag without the government stopping them but, also reserve the right to punch them in the head. So what am I? I do not know. Neither party really meets my needs. I hate the way they refuse to agree on anything. The GOP has gone out of its mind so I unless they get in together I am not going back. So I am planning on staying indie. Honestly I hate both parties and wish they would go away. I voted for Bush Jr. twice, and Obama twice. I kind of regret that second vote for Bush Jr but, did not see a much better option.

I have permission to share this. I can't argue with one point there. Truth in politics is something seriously missing today. This speaks it imo.

I voted for Bush Jr. twice, and Obama twice.

Sounds like a real solid stance.

The Hegelian Dialectic is the tool which manipulates us into a frenzied circular pattern of thought and action.

Intrepid for president!!

I'd vote twice for you!

originally posted by: xuenchen

I voted for Bush Jr. twice, and Obama twice.

Sounds like a real solid stance.

Voting for a poor candidate because it's "your party" is one of the major reasons that American politics is in the crapper. This sounds like a SOLID mind imo.

originally posted by: baddmove
Intrepid for president!!

Well Cruz is running so I guess any Canadian could.

I'd vote twice for you!

Just a minute. I'm not used to the voting principles in the States. Is that legal?

a reply to: intrepid

I agree with your friend. Not necessarily on EVERY stance, but most. What I think is that the parties are BOTH in direct opposition to common sense and how this country was supposed to be run. The parties divide us. They make extremists out of us.

Too many people don't form their own opinion on individual issues, but instead, ADOPT the official position of their chosen "team". Too many people are willing to fight for their own freedoms, yet fight against others having the same freedom.

Today's political situation is chaos. Good luck to us...

Name me a candidate in any of those elections you friend cited who was any good.

Bush wasn't great, but our alternatives were Gore and Kerry who were neither one any good and campaigned on positions I didn't like.

Obama was bad, but so were McCain and Romney.

Honestly, I think Trump has traction because he is who he is and makes no apologies for it. "Oh, I said anchor baby and that makes you unhappy? So what." All the others focus group and try to come up with something that sounds like everything without being anything because it might mean the wrong thing to someone.

Obama campaigned on open slogans and invited people to make up their own meanings. Trump is possibly doing the same.

People are even angrier now than they were when Obama did. They might explode if the same game gets played on them twice.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Sounds like a real solid stance.

"Solid" as in loyalty to the almighty political party no matter what? That's not the kind of solid I aspire to be.

I prefer "solid" as in reasonable, rational, thoughtful and sensible...

And that's how the OP's friend sounds to me, even though I don't agree with everything they said.

Great read!

We need to move to a system of proportional representation to bring more parties that represent the people into politics. Two parties winner takes all has made our countries politicians what they are today, lobbyist worshipping corporate politicians.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

great context chop there BH.

i like it.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

great context chop there BH.

i like it.

Well you are the Master. As to my politics I have voted for all 3 major parties here. It depends on the issues and individuals. Voting by party is not productive.

Lets hope more people,like your friend come out to hopefully influence more voters to get some real change for once.

a reply to: intrepid

The GOP has gone out of its mind

Been saying this for years. It seems the more I talk to people and converse with people on the net, the more I hear people waking up to this reality.

Don't get me wrong. The Dems are corrupt and manipulative, but the Right has gone full-retard in many aspects.

The problem is, what do we do about this? To enact term limits we have to vote in people that are willing to progress a bill such as that, but all we get is the same ole every election. That means they would be cutting themselves off at the knees and what politician is going to do that?

We also have to vote people in to office that are going to stop these senseless wars. But that means that we'd have to stop them from being lobbied by the military-industrial complex. So we would have to ban lobbying, which was how the founders intended it to be. What politician is going to do that?

No, I think it comes down to another "revolution" of sorts. The final straw will have to be placed that pushes the people over the breaking point and forces change out of sheer necessity. Or we allow ourselves to become slaves.

Time will only tell and thanks to you friend for sharing.

a reply to: introvert

Or we allow ourselves to become slaves. 

I think we've already allowed that to happen. We're all slaves to a system that benefits the rich and powerful, both politically and economically.

a reply to: intrepid

*sigh*
I disagree with the "why," but I agree that both parties are a joke. Personally, I think the "Neo-con" movement represented a leftward movement by the GOP. As the Democrats shifted further towards the left, the gap between the two parties remained the same, requiring a leftward shift by the GOP in some areas. As a result, I see no Conservatives, just a bunch of mamby-pamby marginalized Republicans who embrace way too many liberal positions like big government, increased welfare, and enemy appeasement.

It is mind boggling that the modern Libertarian Party aligns far closer to Barry Goldwater's vision than the modern GOP does.

As for your friend, I've never understood how anyone could make the leap between Bush and Obama. It just seems way too far out there to me. Almost like an individual saying "Hey, personal prosperity has been fun, but I want to experience my government rolling me over every day so I'm gonna vote for this jackass who want to make my taxes higher and pass acts that will make everything cost me more." It's not well thought out or, if thought was put into it, it reflects some manner of fiscal self harm. Meh, I guess cutting and self mutilation has gained popularity over the past couple of decades, so maybe it was all well thought out before electing Obama.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I think we've already allowed that to happen. We're all slaves to a system that benefits the rich and powerful, both politically and economically.

Agreed. But the slavery I talk about is much worse.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

great context chop there BH.

I didn't chop anything. Those were your words in response to someone voting for two parties.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I view it as exactly the opposite. The Left went further right.

Before 9/11 the Left focused more on worker's issues, anti-war, diplomacy and trade issues. Afterwards, the Left corroborated with the Right to increase the size of, not only government itself, but the private sector military-industrial complex through BS wars, take more freedoms of citizens in the form of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security, and all so that they could secure lobbying funds from those sectors.

The Right took money from defense contractors and the Left took money from contractors, such as the corporations that built the vast NSA centers. Traditional Liberals would have never sacrificed the freedoms of the people for such things. They have become Republican-Lite.

Take Obama and the ACA for example. If they were moving Left, with the republicans following suit, the ACA would have been a single-payer plan or a universal healthcare plan. What did we get? A big handout where you are forced to either pay the corporate insurance companies, or pay a fine to the government.

Fascism. Should we also mention that the entire premise behind the ACA was also a Republican creation? Did not Obama and the Dems also continue the wars that the Right started after 9/11 under false pretenses?

Anyway, I'm sure we will agree to disagree on many points, but the fact remains that something must be done. I think we agree on that.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: xuenchen
Sounds like a real solid stance.

"Solid" as in loyalty to the almighty political party no matter what? That's not the kind of solid I aspire to be.

I prefer "solid" as in reasonable, rational, thoughtful and sensible...

And that's how the OP's friend sounds to me, even though I don't agree with everything they said.

I *suspect* what xuenchen was getting at is the fact that GW Bush, in 2000 and 2004, was night and day platform-wise from Barack Obama 2008, 2012. If Intrepid's friend was holding fast to a political ethos (which is not the same as political party in any way, especially in these changing times) he/she would have never considered voting for both men because they ran on 180-degree opposite platforms.

It would appear that their personal politics and personal political priorities dramatically changed between 2004 and 2008.

Statements like "The GOP moved far right" and " I hate the way they refuse to agree on anything" aren't reflected in the reality of today. As I said earlier, the GOP has marginalized itself by shifting to the more liberal side of things... Fine example being the gay marriage argument... if the GOP had gone far right compared to the party of several decades ago, would there even be the concessions we've seen occur? Wouldn't that Defense of Marriage Act have passed the GOP dominated Congress if they'd even stayed as right as they were, let alone gone further right? Seriously, we currently have GOP embracing domestic unions and many of the candidates are accepting of gay marriage. That doesn't scream "Oh NOES! They're getting more Conservative!" to me. This reads as a classic example of someone who is an old school Democrat that latched onto the GOP under Reagan, as the party began it's leftward shift away from Goldwater, and then suddenly decided "Uhm, I'm not a big progressive guy, but I also don't like the modern establishment GOP... I'm independent!"

Oh, and the current complaint of GOP and Dems refusing to agree on anything... it's far worse than that, IMO. Today's GOP provides weak-ass resistance against Obama and the Democrats, puts on a big show, and the Boehner sheds some tears and gets his cronies to buckle and accept WHATEVER Obama, Reid, and Pelosi were demanding. Not only are they stupid, they're frickin' spineless to boot. A bunch of marginalized, weak, manipulateable tools make up the majority of the GOP "leadership."

originally posted by: introvert
Anyway, I'm sure we will agree to disagree on many points, but the fact remains that something must be done. I think we agree on that.

We do agree on that. I'm in favor of torching the whole bastard, collect the insurance, and rebuild on the foundation laid 240 years ago, myself.