Reply With Quote
I usually vote third party, but sometimes the lesser of two evils.
The backbone of this country has been built on its people. One of the ideals of the cons ution was a limited government. It is my opinion that both parties are interested in maintaing a devisive atmosphere among its people. Regardless of your party affiliation if you are faced with a choice of one candidate from the party you affiliate that you believe is unethical versus a candidate from the opposition party who do you vote for?
I usually vote third party, but sometimes the lesser of two evils.
which is the lesser of two evils?
At the national level, almost always a republican. State level, about 50-50. At least in my state.
"It is my opinion that both parties are interested in maintaing a devisive atmosphere among its people"
What's your evidence, if you have any, that the Dems have anything as inflammatory, polarizing, dishonest, degrading as right-wing hate media and VRWC?
Voting "ethically" is a silly concept. It's like voting for virginity in an election of s.
People vote their pocketbooks.
.It is my opinion that both parties are interested in maintaing a devisive atmosphere among its people
Boutons is right....there are no Progressive, national 24/7 radio stations attacking the wing-nuts but there are 4 wing-nut stations in San Antonio constantly broadcasting hate....
....40% of wing-nuts will never vote democrat or with a democrat...20% based solely on race...there is no reconciliation with this group...
Nice stats, Dan.
....40% of moonbats will never vote republican or with a republican....20% based solely on race...there is no reconciliation with this group...
If something is a known fact, it can't be an opinion can it?
This country's politicians can't settle disputes abortion, gay marriage, and other "moral" issues because then they'd have no where to stand except the middle. If there's nothing to fight against, you can't be a hero and there's nothing to stop you from being voted out simply because someone younger and/or more exciting comes along. It's a great mode of control for the career politicians, I approve!
Dumb thread.
having a divided electorate and having limited govt are not related by causality, contradiction or anything.
This thread fails.
The electorate will always be divided. There is a difference between a divided electorate due to disagreement of issues and an electorate divided because both parties primary interest is self preservation. The result of this self preservation is a lack of honesty and ethics on both sides which results in picking your team and everyone other than those same unethical dishonest politicians maintaining power and coming out ahead.
Nothing changes unless the masses that go and vote stop following either party like blind sheep and hold those looking for their vote accountable for their actions.
You come off like the secretary of the young republicans. As a conservative myself the question I thought was pretty clear. I'll rephrase it with a real life example and a couple of assumptions thrown in. Perry is running to be re-elected. Relative to the rest of the country Texas looks tremendous. A story comes out a week or so ago that he bought a place in Horseshoe Bay for around 300k and sold it for around 1.2 mil. Assuming that this wasn't a brilliant ethical transaction and either Perry received special access to the buy or the buyer gained politically what would you do as a conservative voter. Do you look the other way vote for White or not vote at all? And I know that this goes on with both sides. Rangel, Waters even Obama is questionable.
The point of the question O' brilliant secretary is what takes a higher priority for you?
Unethical vs. someone who will vote contrary to my beliefs?
If I'm being honest (as most if they WERE being honest), I vote for the guy (girl) who is going to vote the most the way I would vote - would have tried to get the unethical crook out of office in the primaries, however.
When are you ever going to find someone who votes as you would? As long as lobbying and bribes are legal in this country, you'll never find anyone who lives up to that standard.
Boutons:What's your evidence, if you have any, that the Dems have anything as inflammatory, polarizing, dishonest, degrading as right-wing hate media and VRWC?:
that sig is awesome
thanks for posting.
actually, i think our political system has ethics down to a fine art. it may be machiavellan, but it's still ethics.
Concedes perhaps too much to the state of incipient lawlessness, no? Bribery is still kinda illegal.
Does it really offend the prevailing cynicism so much to suggest the general absence of honor in our dealings with one another, does not so much refute its importance or overrule it as a possibility for the future, as underscore it in gold?
Not when it's called lobbying or political contribution.
Just curious, how is "lobbying" essentially distinct in its main activities from the right to pe ion?
Vrwc!!!!1111
"right to pe ion"
there's generally no money involved.
in lobbying, the sub-text in lobbying is always
"we contributed to your campaing/we will take care of you. So now vote the way we want.
And btw, here, we've also written the law"
quid pro quo = bribery.
And when the threat is "we will donate against you if don't vote our way", it's extortion.
The biggest spender wins 90% of the time.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-16-2010 at 09:23 PM.
Repug. Darth Cheney. Magik Negro.
As long as boutons is allowed to vote, we're ed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
