Clowns to the Left of me, Jokers to the Right... Here I am, stuck in the middle and SCREWED!

I've said this before here on ATS, and I'll undoubtedly say it again, but I am sick and tired of the 'Parties' of the extremes here in the US. We are stuck with a two party system that only allows for polar opposites to 'rule' the land. Either we are stuck choosing Liberals to run things, or Conservatives. If we 'mix and match' NOTHING gets done. Well folks, I got news for you, both those who call themselves Conservatives and those who call themselves Liberals. When it comes to your Politicians, they work for the same Masters, the Corporations... You know, the GIANT Conglomerates that fund their campaigns... They just tell you what you want to hear so you'll go flip the lever next to their names like a good little puppet! Well, as someone who falls in the middle, politically speaking, I'm sick and tired of it. Problem is, that until you left wing and right wing nimrods wake up and smell the coffee, we are all stuck with it...

We need term limits, but will any of you insist upon it? NO!

We need to outlaw lobbying in Washington, but will you insist upon it? NO!

We need to stop voting in the parties of extremes, but will you do it? NO!

Your too busy making sure that the Gays can't get married and that the Healthcare System is even more frakked up that it was before!

So, when this country goes swirling down the toilet finally and joins the ranks of the 3rd world, just remember that it was because of you faithful Democan'ts & Republicons! It's not Obama's fault, and it's not Bush's fault, it's YOUR fault! Man up for once and admit it! Yeah, like that's gonna happen!

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Wouldn't you be just as guilty as the rest of us? Or are your hands clean because you don't vote? Or do you always vote for the right person? Who exactly do you support for office, so I can be smart and vote like you?

Seems like you view gay marriage as important. Does that mean if I vote for anybody who supports gay marriage, then I made the right choice?

Jaxon, has anybody ever told you that you have an uncanny resemblence to Leonard Nimoy?


[edit on 12-1-2010 by Feeling Frisky]

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
We need to outlaw lobbying in Washington, but will you insist upon it? NO!

That's the big one right there, friend. And it ain't going away....

reply to post by Feeling Frisky


I never said my hands were clean, just that I'm sick and tired of the game... No one in this country is guilt free on this one, but when are we going to cut the strings and realize that we've been had??? After it's too late???

And I prefer to think that Leonard Nimoy bears a striking resemblance to me!

Originally posted by Signals

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
We need to outlaw lobbying in Washington, but will you insist upon it? NO!

That's the big one right there, friend. And it ain't going away....

The Constitution is here to stay along with that pesky freedom of speech part.

reply to post by Carseller4


OK, would you care to explain for the class what the blue hell the Constitution has to do with Lobbying??? I must have missed that part of it... Or maybe it was an Amendment that guarantees lobbying of our elected officials with money and gifts???

Explanation: S&F!

Hey I wrote these lyrics and I think they are very appropriate! Enjoy!

All the jesters and the clowns ....

They'll make you smile they'll make you frown ....

They'll make you laugh they'll make you cry ....

They'll make you wonder why about all the lies!

Personal Disclosure: From my POV there is NO WE and therefor, I no longer do anything for anybody except myself and for very clear and communicated selfish reasons, and if anybody [beyond just me] happens to benefit from my actions, then that is just awesome and for them!

Edited emoticon fail. :shk:

[edit on 12-1-2010 by OmegaLogos]

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Well now, ya see .. Here's where we have a complete difference of opinion about this matter.

Are the problems that you pointed out a reality with our government? Yes absolutely they are and I'll agree with you.

However, to blame on American Citizens instead of the Parties responsible for the actions? I can't agree with you on that boss. We Americans are presented with the options of who we wish to vote into office. Usually with multiple choices for each party.

So we go to the polls in March for the primary elections and the individual from each party that receives the most votes gets to move as the leader of the party seeking election in the general elections come November.

You can not blame the problems of the world on the American People. We choose to support a candidate based on the platform, ideas, and promises that campaign on. We vote for people that we agree with and feel would be the best candidate for the job.

Once those people get in to office and openly go against everything they campaigned for and made promises for, then the blame lays solely on that individual and the decisions that they make, not the voters.

When this deception occurs, should the voters stand up and demand retribution? DAMN RIGHT WE SHOULD! Do we? Sadly, no. We don't.

Does it mean that every single candidate that is elected to office, regardless of party affiliation, is a two-faced lying prick? No, it doesn't. Because believe it or not, there are a lot of people, like you and I, that have grown tired of the way things are and decided to run for office to make things better. And these people, like you and I, campaigned on what they believed in and what they wanted to fight for. And these people, like you and I, were elected into office, by you and I, only to be faced with the brutal cold hard truth that change is never easy and sometimes it's down right impossible under circumstances. So those people, like you and I, that was voted into office, by you and I, must face the fact that you can't fight everything, you won't win all fights, and you sure as hell can't gather supporters by swingly blindly at everything you disagree with.

Pick your battles wisely, because winning one will not win the war, but losing one could cost you everything.

reply to post by Detailed Perfection


I'm sorry, but you just don't get it. You are told what to think, what is important, what should be done, etc. etc. etc. The Corporate Masters, who control the media, spoon feed you everything, then they pay for a candidate who espouses the view you have been given, and you dutifully vote them in... We've all been had, only some of us are starting to wake the hell up and see what's really going on... It appears you are not one yet, but maybe...

I completely agree, and I support a complete ban on corporate lobby groups. These are OUR representatives, not corporate representatives. These people serve the PEOPLE not the companies.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Detailed:

You have made an excellent point here and I am not sure if you intended to. It has to do with primary elections.

How many people actually go out and vote in a primary in March? That is where the bread and butter of the potential candidate poll reside. Alas, few people pay attention to primary elections and the 'big money' candidates get a free pass. Thus those that have great ideas and are the everyday man (woman) looking to make a change for his/her community are at. We as a people just fail at self-governance.

In regards to the OP:

I understand your frustration and it is good to get it out sometimes. I use this place to get out thoughts that I cannot put into place in my head, but here I try to come off as clear and concise as I possibly can. It helps to see what we are thinking written down and validated.

I believe Carsellers is referring to the 1st Amendment and our ability to redress our Government. By saying we should ban all lobbying, that would include us, the people.

What I believe you were trying to get across is the lobbying done by corporations and unions. The type of lobbying that involves throwing huge amounts of cash at an issue and representatives in order for them to vote one way or another. That type of lobbying should go. Understandable.

A person, group of persons or even a union should still retain the right to lobby their representatives in attempts to sway their vote. In essence, your vote for that representative is the initial lobbying attempt done by your district and/or State. By removing the large amounts of money that flow on K Street from various avenues, it will help bring out what the people want and not always what the corporations want.

My last thought regarding lobbying would be the ban on monetary and gift type donations in connection with lobbying activity would just go underground. It would be the Congress's Black Market. It would thrive and there would have to be strict adherence to the law and strict penalties...Like removal from Public Office if caught and stiff fines to the lobbying group.

EDIT: Grammar

[edit on 13-1-2010 by ownbestenemy]

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Detailed Perfection

 

I'm sorry, but you just don't get it. You are told what to think, what is important, what should be done, etc. etc. etc. The Corporate Masters, who control the media, spoon feed you everything, then they pay for a candidate who espouses the view you have been given, and you dutifully vote them in... We've all been had, only some of us are starting to wake the hell up and see what's really going on... It appears you are not one yet, but maybe...

Brother, I understand your arguement, but to say that I can't see what's going on is far from the truth.

I know the games they try to play and how they try to manipulate and control the mindset of the people. You can bet your ass I know about it, however, I don't think that every candidate running for election is trying to do that.

Lobbyist and Special Interest Groups have no place in Washington or any other place of government, I agree with you. They should be outlawed and any persons caught doing business with or for such groups should be charged with criminal charges with a damn hefty jail sentence and fine.

I don't think Candidates that are or once were on any form of Board of Directors, or CEO, or major stock holder or invester for any company should be allowed to govern for or make decisions that have any regard to that business. Ie: Bush/Cheney and Halliburton.

Term limits for office holders should be adopted if there are none and should be strongly enforced without question.

Any office holder tha is caught and convicted of a crime should be held responsible and should face a much harsher punishment than the average citizen. These people chose to take a stand and represent we the people, so they are held to a higher standard and should face harsher penalties if they break the law.

Salaries and benefit packages for officeholders need to be regulated and in most cases should be decreased drasticly. If they want to forcefull impose a standard heathlcare package on Americans, then they themselves should have to accept the same coverage as the rest of us.

I'm not arguing against you my friend, I'm standing shoulder to shoulder and demanding the same thing you are. I just have a different opinion once it comes to laying blame.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I agree. The Primary Elections are extremely important when it comes to getting the right candidates to the General in November. I would be interested to see the numbers for the Primary and General Elections to doa comparison. But that's not the only problem with the Primaries ..

The biggest problem with the Primary Election is that you HAVE to vote one sided, no matter what.
Let's say you're a Democrat and you want to vote for one of the Democrat candidates for Mayor, but you also like one of the Republican candidates running for Sheriff and want to vote for him ... Well, guess what? You can't. Not in the Primary Election anyway.
Primary Elections are absolute straight party voting, no exceptions. If you're Democrat you go to the Democrat Polling Place. If you're Republican, you go to the Republican Polling Place.

By having to vote straight party in the Primaries, you run the risk of the other party candidate losing and not making it to the General.

I think we deffinately need to address this issue and make a change to the primary election process.

reply to post by Detailed Perfection


This would easily be addressed by dissolving the party system altogether, which is something I support. No more 'voting along party lines', and such... Each candidate would be an Independent, regardless of political philosophy. Wanna guess who would have the majority in Congress??? WE WOULD! THE PEOPLE!

Then the primary system would be simple. Just pair down the x number of candidates to two, the top two vote getters in the primary, again, regardless of political philosophy...

Who would win with this scenario, WE WOULD!

This would be truly Change we could believe in!

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Yes, and you're absolutely right, but you can't have every candidate running as Independent, because every candidate is going to have a different idea as to what's best.

Candidate A:
- Supports Abortion
- Supports Gay Marriage
- Supports War on Terror
- Supports Freedom
- Opposes Migration Reform
- Supports Government Health Care

Candidate B:
- Supports Abortion
- Against Gay Marriage
- Supports War on Terror
- Supports Freedom
- Opposes Migration Reform
- Opposes Government Health Care

Candidate C:
- Opposes Abortion
- Opposes Gay Marriage
- Opposes War on Terror
- Supports Freedom
- Supports Migration Reform
- Opposes Government Health Care


These three candidates have different ideologies and plans. They're never going to agree on anything together and they'll never get anything done because they'll spend their time debating their own ideas trying to persuade the other.

That's why we have a multi-party system. So people will have like minded individuals to support them and help them get decisions made. What we need is more bipartisanship, or tripartisanship if there's more than two parties represented and we need people who will make decisions in the best interest of America needs, not what the Corporations need.

If every candidate ran as an Independent and was seeking office for what they believe, then you're going to get a lot of people lying about what they believe and siding with what's popular just to get in to office.

Atleast when they run as Republican and Democrat then you know that they stand for the same thing, or close to what their party stands for and you can make your Political Affiliation with whichever party believes in the same thing you do, or close to it.

The best way to solve the problem that you're talking about, is for us to change the Primary election process so that we're able to vote cross-party instead of being forced to vote straight party. If we're able to voice our support for candidates regardless of political affiliation, then we would see a better crop of candidates in the General Election come November, and then we would be able to see that the will of the people being upheld.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Detailed Perfection

 

This would easily be addressed by dissolving the party system altogether, which is something I support. No more 'voting along party lines', and such... Each candidate would be an Independent, regardless of political philosophy. Wanna guess who would have the majority in Congress??? WE WOULD! THE PEOPLE!

Then the primary system would be simple. Just pair down the x number of candidates to two, the top two vote getters in the primary, again, regardless of political philosophy...

Who would win with this scenario, WE WOULD!

This would be truly Change we could believe in!

Finally! Political Parties are not mandated by The Constitution for the United States, and there is no practical need for them. In his Farewell Address, George Washington gave dire warnings to the evils of political parties, pointing out that they pander to the lowest common denominator and only work to further divide an all ready divided populace.

There just is no need for political parties. That said, I am not so sure it would be Constitutional to just simply "dissolve" the all ready existing parties. People have the right to form organizations and to use those organizations to push forth their own political agenda.

This is why lobbying can not be so easily regulated. People have the right to free speech and to petition their government for a redress of grievances, as both Carseller and Ownbestenemy have pointed out.

One of the real problems that I think exists in the U.S. today is that far too many of the People believe their only method of reigning in out of control government is through voting. While voting is, to be sure, a method of exercising civic duty and attempting to push the government in a certain direction, it is only the least of what People can do to ensure that freedom and rights are protected.

In fact, relying upon a government to protect your own rights can be a dicey proposition at best. History has shewn, (to emulate our Founders), that government officials will see their job as one of reigning in the freedoms of People, rather than protecting them.

"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly.... [However, now] there's a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it."

~Bill Clinton - MTV's "Enough is Enough" 4-19-94~

Clinton, in a remarkable contrast to his usual prevarications, was speaking in a refreshingly honest way. Refreshing in that he was being honest about how politicians tend to view freedom and governments responsibility to limit it. Tired and stale in his assertion that rights and freedom were given to the People by government, instead of acknowledging that rights and freedoms pre-exist governments.

The most telling remark of Clinton's is the last sentence which states:

"When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it"

It is statements like that which gained Clinton his appropriate moniker "Slick Willie". In an uncanny Orwellian remark, he suggests that the abuse of freedom means freedom must be limited. However, the only abuse of freedom is when one or more people are abrogating and derogating the rights of another person or group of people. We have the right to do whatever we want, as long as what we are doing is not trampling all over the rights of others. That is freedom, and requires no limitation.

When freedom reigns, the land is just. When freedom is limited there is an absence of justice and those who are having their freedom curtailed must do what is necessary to put justice back in. To think that all a person can do to put this justice back in is vote, greatly undermines the inherent political power of the People.

The People did not at any time surrender their inherent political power and at all times hold it. What has happened, due in a large part to the canard that all the People can do is vote, is that many people have abdicated their power and submitted to the usurpation's of tyrants.

I have come to the conclusion that it matters not how much money a person spends on lobbying and gifts to politicians, if individuals are politically savvy and know the law well enough to understand that they do not have to submit to legislation that is contrary to the Constitution, or acts to abrogate or derogate their natural rights.

If a person wants to show more civic duty and strive for "social justice" then they must do far more than simply vote. They must embrace their responsibility to serve as a member of a jury and to take seriously their oath to uphold the law, understanding that the Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution.

It is often put out, untruthfully so, that there are three ways to legislate law. Those three methods being:

1) Congress

2) Presidential Veto or signing of law

3) Judicial order or holding

While these three methods are truly three ways to legislate law, there is a fourth method which is demonstrable through voter propositions, and then finally a fifth, which is "jury nullification", an unfortunate term used to describe the jury's right to refuse to convict a person of a crime simply because a statute calls it a crime.

Finally, free people do not have to do anything contrary to their own freedom. There may be a government in place committed to contradicting what I just stated, but there is no natural and just law that requires People to submit to tyranny. Don't do it! Live free, flourish and prosper!!

reply to post by Detailed Perfection


EDIT: Spelling and grammar

This is true but that is a States issue. States dictate if they have an open primary or a closed primary and the now defunct blanket primary a la the Supreme Court
(see CA Democratic Party et al. v. Jones, Secretary of State, California) - I will return to this in a second.

Some states have an open primary which allows a voter to vote for the slate of any party. Most have a closed primary. Which is exactly as it implies; voters are limited to their party affiliation.
This is an excellent resource to understanding your State's primary rules in regards to voting: FairVote EDIT TO ADD: Thus the reason a lot of people declare Independent (Even then, parties can still limit their primaries)

Now back to the Supreme Court case. In terms of a blanket type primary, the Court found that it violated a party's 1st amendment right of free association and is a private interest in terms of the scope. I tend to agree as primaries are held to nominate a party's candidate; whereas a general election is one that selects the person of representation and are a public interest in terms of scope.

The party system is dangerous but also, as stated before allows people to find association with others of like mind and attitude. A fundamental 1st Amendment right. Abolishing the party system wouldn't solve the problems we see today. I believe it would muddle the playing field even more and would cause disassociation between voter/candidate.

Jean Paul-
You are correct that political parties are not mandated by the Constitution, which leads us straight to the 9th and 10th amendments; leaving the States and the People to decide.

Couple that along with our ability to freely associate, Congress, the State, nor the People could ever 'dissolve' a party. Thus the party system will remain.

Most I can think of is for each state to push for open primaries. I do not see why it always has to be a Dem v. Rep issue. Why not a Dem v. Dem? Or why not Rep v. Rep? If the two best candidates coming out of a primary are from the same party, as selected by the voters regardless of party lines, why can this not happen?

We all know what the scare tactics would be in this type of situation, but that is where we, as voters must make a stand.

I still stand by what I said in my first post on this thread....we the people, generally, are too lazy, ignorant and just unwilling to self-govern. It saddens me to say this as I truly believe it is the only way to be free.

[edit on 13-1-2010 by ownbestenemy]

[edit on 13-1-2010 by ownbestenemy]

[edit on 13-1-2010 by ownbestenemy]

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


I strongly disagree that there are two polar opposites. Virtually everyone in politics all agree that government needs to get a whole lot bigger, and requires a whole lot more employees. The only disagreement is where to spend our money next.

But really we are in a zero party system, since for-profit corporations really the ones that write the laws.

Originally posted by Detailed Perfection
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

 

These three candidates have different ideologies and plans. They're never going to agree on anything together and they'll never get anything done because they'll spend their time debating their own ideas trying to persuade the other.

Thank God... a government that doesn't get more regulations passed because they spend all their time debating. It sounds like the perfect government. Lets roll back the rules to about 1777, then take even more regulations out since in 1777 there was a lot of stuff prohibiting women to vote and such. What we'd be left with is legislation that prohibits everything that needs to be prohibited which is murder, rape, theft, etc. And then we get the politicians to do nothing but argue all day long about how to rule over our lives but since they spend all their time arguing nothing gets done. Perfect, where do I sign up?