View Full Version : Anyone out there feel as if neither party works for them?
gimmethesimplelife
4-5-14, 2:56am
I gotta say that with my ObamaCare issues I am really losing faith in the Democratic party and for me, crossing the aisle is not an option as the Republicans stand for too many things I can not stomach. So - wow - this leaves me disenfranchised, or as in independent, or as someone who just doesn't give a damn. I'm not sure which of the three apply most in my case but at this point, I am feeling beyond disillusioned that I once cared for politics so much. I guess there's still things for me to learn from life though, and for that I am glad. Rob
“Anyone out there feel as if neither party works for them?” That’s where I would fall in a ‘which political party are you’ quiz. Whenever I take one of those quizzes, I come out a little of each which is why I label myself a political independent. As I get older, I find more and more that there less things I can influence and even less that I can control. I often feel disillusioned with the whole political system but I just roll with it and try not to complain about either (any) party politics as I see nothing positive or constructive coming from it.
That's me too. It's like that old song that says "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right. So I'm stuck in the middle with you". I have some very strong left leanings as well as very strong right leanings and can't find even a middle ground that makes me happy.
That's me too. It's like that old song that says "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right. So I'm stuck in the middle with you".
Great analogy! I'll have to remember that one.
good one she-rah!
When the big elections come I haven't decided if I will actulaly vote Libertarian (sometimes the candidates are nutty) or if I will go the the voting place, take a ballot, and fail to vote in the races at all. To me, that sends a message: I came to vote, none of you were worth my vote.
Within the constraints we are stuck with, I'm not too happy with either of the two parties, but can definitely pick between the lesser of evils. I'd like to see some tax reform that is simplified and tightens up several of the exemptions and write-offs, much more restraint in international affairs, and an environmental policy that looks to future generations instead of a 5 year balance sheet. Unfortunately some of these require a divorce from politics and the influence of big money, which I don't see anytime soon. I imagine there will be a little shake up in the next election with maybe a stronger showing from the liberatarians, but no big changes on the major issues. I suspect the new boss will be much like the old one.
gimmethesimplelife
4-5-14, 12:39pm
good one she-rah!
When the big elections come I haven't decided if I will actulaly vote Libertarian (sometimes the candidates are nutty) or if I will go the the voting place, take a ballot, and fail to vote in the races at all. To me, that sends a message: I came to vote, none of you were worth my vote.IL, I like your idea here. I may just be doing this myself. Rob
ApatheticNoMore
4-5-14, 1:02pm
Yea. I tried to drum up interest for 3rd party candidates (because I think they will win? not really. I wanted some protest registered :| I mean I could not see voting for Mr Kill List and though Romney was better in one sense in that he didn't have a kill list YET, that was just yet). I posted the 3rd party presidential debate (because they raised the real issues). Obama continues to be horrible (worse than I thought in 2012!) and our political system more bought and paid for by the minute.
Disenfranchised with the two parties doesn't mean doesn't give a damn. That's still swallowing the brainwashing, that the only way to be involved in politics is to vote R or D (or even to vote period). That's nonsense! Yes there is more to life than politics, but there is also more to politics than voting. Sure one can become a risk taking radical, stand in front of the bulldozers against the Keystone XL, leak some more NSA docs, refuse to pay their taxes (and if one supports whatever causes are being served by such things one should be DEEPLY grateful for such people). But not all working beyond voting is going to be high risk. You can protest in the center of town. There's very little chance of arrest.
But changing the system by any means isn't easy? It's very deliberately been engineered not to be easy while everyone kept voting for lesser of two evils! Things like laws against protest within x feet of federal buildings, and the NDAA weren't put on the books to make resistance easy!!!
Even things like removing the $3 on your taxes going to fund public financing of political campaigns (a benefit to doing your own taxes at least some of the time is that you know about stuff like this) that was bipartisan and recently signed by Obama (like I said Obama is absolutely terrible!) are not done to make change easy! But the $3 paled in the face of corporate donations? Yes it did. But if you are cynical enough to realize what we are dealing with, you will understand that they are salting the earth! They are destroying even the remnants of anything from which public financing of campaigns could eventually grow out of (if the amount was raised - and btw checking the box did not increase one's taxes).
Since things are only going to get worse the time to resist is now! (even if the only resistance one can think of is to vote 3rd party or not vote for prez - by the way all of the House members aren't bad, do the research). Things WILL get bad enough that living in this country is barely bearable (and I don't say that as someone anywhere near poverty - but just existing trends AND understanding that living under rulers without any way to make our concerns heard tends to mean they don't have to care about us AT ALL! If there are ways to make our concerns heard voting in a bought and paid for political system that only cares about the highest bidders isn't it).
And that doesn't mean *everyone's* top priority should be politics (taking care of kids under 6 at home - yea your top priority should probably NOT be politics). I was politically hopeless, if not entirely politically passive, the only word I was capable of uttering was "no" (extremely loud and clear but). And then I met someone who wasn't and I wondered if I was wrong because their take on things seemed as valid as mine. Their take is not that things are good politically now (that's just blindness) but that change is possible (though not just by voting R or D).
gimmethesimplelife
4-5-14, 2:14pm
good one she-rah!
When the big elections come I haven't decided if I will actulaly vote Libertarian (sometimes the candidates are nutty) or if I will go the the voting place, take a ballot, and fail to vote in the races at all. To me, that sends a message: I came to vote, none of you were worth my vote.Something you might find interesting, IL? Now that I see ObamaCare differently, some of the stances of the Liberterian party don't seem quite as radical to me. Strong borders, government out of bedrooms, dropping the drug war - these all work for me. I do have stumbling blocks on their stance on SS and Medicare but even these are not quite as strong as they once were - just thought you might find this interesting, is all. Rob
I hate the two-party system. It isn't that far from a one-party system, actually, as by the time they get to positions of power everyone is in bed with the same interests. I would love to see a third party option that was fiscally conservative but socially liberal. Does that exist? Maybe in one of the Scandinavian countries.
I'm just one person. The idea that the nation, or even one of two major political parties in the nation, should be working specifically for me never enters my mind. They should be working for what's best for the nation, state or municipality, as applicable, and more specifically, working in the best interests of those most vulnerable in society, since “The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members”. Making society into a callous competition between citizens for resources kept deliberately scarce through increasing economic inequality sounds more like Lord of the Flies than a modern, compassionate civilization, so I judge who I support by which candidate, of those who have a chance of getting elected, will best support moving things toward a more caring society.
ApatheticNoMore
4-6-14, 11:18am
I think it's mostly that the average person feels they have little voice and they're right. It's big money that has a voice not them. If things seem set up against the interest of most people, they probably are. It doesn't feel like democracy because it's not much (though I'm not really sure really democratic systems could scale to that level. However, the system could definitely be less corrupt).
And they should want a voice because they want favors from the gooberment? Uh well they can (it's how those who influence the government now roll), but it's really FAR more basic than that. A system where the rulers don't have to respect minorities (which is important), but ALSO where the system has NO NEED to really listen to even the majority of the people, fine 99% of the people, but only has to listen to the big donors, has a good chance of leading to ever worsening conditions for that majority. It's not that hard. It's a basic game of strategy and who has power.
I hate the two-party system. It isn't that far from a one-party system, actually, as by the time they get to positions of power everyone is in bed with the same interests.
Not always the same interest as the two parties often have different donors (although I can see them all merging together as money dominates) but they are all obligated to some interest with vast sums to give.
Meanwhile I'll watch people try to change the world who may be better at it than me, I'm prone to think the most radical thing is what will actually work (or the most utopian), them to actually doing more boring work (which does not mostly involve voting, they know the system is corrupt as well as I do). I'm bound to be polarizing in one way or other (why the last thing I'd ever want to be is a leader of anything), they're populist.
Maybe not a good analogy - but it's like folks wondering why Red Sox or the Yankees just don't do it for them when maybe they should be asking if the actual problem might be baseball...
I know what you are saying. I took a quiz that labeled me as on 13% more Democrat than Republican. That is why I am happier if I don't watch the news.........I don't think the ACA is the answer as it currently stands, but SOMETHING has to be done. Insurance companies have been rationing our healthcare for years.
Maybe we should have a cafeteria-style election where people vote on the issues near and dear to them rather than a Party or even a candidate. Then just assign an administrator/s to oversee the implementation of whatever issues won.
Maybe we should have a cafeteria-style election where people vote on the issues near and dear to them rather than a Party or even a candidate. Then just assign an administrator/s to oversee the implementation of whatever issues won.Hmmm, have you ever tried to fire an incompetent government employee? At least politicians are subject to the whims of the electorate.
I like Independents, like Bernie Sanders.
He says in this video that one of the reasons the parties aren't working for people is because they (right-wingers mainly, but certainly not the only ones) are in the pockets of a small handful of billionaires.
I COULD be Republican if I truly believed that the party were 100% made up of people (that is--people) with the character that Alan and iris lilies hold dear--independent, hard-working, full of integrity. But the nature of the political beast dictates that the market trumps all, and now we're stuck with a corporate oligarchy, and the Republicans are the low-hanging fruit for narcissistic power grabs masking as free enterprise. This is no longer the country of Washington/Jefferson/Adams/Franklin etc. etc.
And then from the political point of view, which is equally important, do we want to have a nation in which the concept is one person, one vote, that we're all equal, that you have as much say about what happens in government as anybody else? Or do we want to have a political system where a handful of billionaires can sit around the room and say, "OK. Put $100 million into that state. Let's put $50 million into that state"? Where a handful of billionaires will determine who gets elected president, who gets elected senator, who gets elected governor, and have members of Congress go crawling up to these billionaires: "What do you need, Mr. Billionaire? How do I get the hundreds of millions of dollars you can give me.?" Is that really what American democracy is supposed to be about?
http://www.upworthy.com/the-highly-compelling-case-for-wealth-redistribution-made-by-the-exact-right-person
I like Independents, like Bernie Sanders.
He says in this video that one of the reasons the parties aren't working for people is because they (right-wingers mainly, but certainly not the only ones) are in the pockets of a small handful of billionaires.
I COULD be Republican if I truly believed that the party were 100% made up of people (that is--people) with the character that Alan and iris lilies hold dear--independent, hard-working, full of integrity. But the nature of the political beast dictates that the market trumps all, and now we're stuck with a corporate oligarchy, and the Republicans are the low-hanging fruit for narcissistic power grabs masking as free enterprise. This is no longer the country of Washington/Jefferson/Adams/Franklin etc. etc.
http://www.upworthy.com/the-highly-compelling-case-for-wealth-redistribution-made-by-the-exact-right-person
How does Mr Sanders explain the fact that Democrats routinely lead Republicans in political fund raising? OpenSecrets.org does a pretty good job of keeping tabs on this sort of thing and anyone with an internet connection and a modicum of curiosity can easily check it out. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
How does Mr Sanders explain the fact that Democrats routinely lead Republicans in political fund raising? OpenSecrets.org does a pretty good job of keeping tabs on this sort of thing and anyone with an internet connection and a modicum of curiosity can easily check it out. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
I am going to look into that (having a modicum of curiosity).. and the first thing I'm going to look at is not how much money is raised, but by whom. I'll get back to you on that.
And, just for the record, while I do think Republicans are sitting ducks for less government/less regulation/more business at any cost, Democrats definitely have blood on their hands also.
I am against any entity who stacks the deck against the popular vote with the sheer volume of their pocketbook, be it Koch Industries, MoveOn.org, AOL, CNN, Fox, Exxon/Mobil, Verizon, Walmart, "Citizens for Prosperity," etc. etc. etc.
This is the manner in which Sanders differentiates between which of the two imperfect political parties should prevail in a specific issue, when that's the bottom-line choice:
Moral Issue
In America today, the top 1 percent owns 38 percent of the financial wealth of America. The bottom 60 percent owns 2.3 percent.
In America today, one family, the Walton family of Walmart, owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent, while the top 400 individuals in this country own more wealth than the bottom half of the nation – over 150 million people.
In terms of income, the top 1 percent earns more income than the bottom 50 percent, while the wealthiest 16,000 Americans, who make more than $10 million a year (the top 0.01 percent), saw their income increase by nearly a third from 2011 to 2012.
According to the most recent study, from 2009 to 2012, 95 percent of all new income went to the top 1 percent. Meanwhile, since 1999, median family income declined by more than $5,000 after adjusting for inflation.
Today, a record-breaking 46.5 million people live in poverty in the United States. At 21.8 percent, we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. One out of four kids in this country now lives in a family that receives food stamps.
Poverty among seniors is growing. Over 9 percent of seniors lived in poverty last year, higher than in 2009. More American seniors were living in poverty last year than in 1972.
In recent years, while median family income has declined and poverty has increased, the number of millionaires and billionaires has grown at an extraordinary rate. In 1996, there were 121 billionaires in this country. Today, there are 442.http://www.sanders.senate.gov/polls/wealth-and-income-inequality
In other words, he reviews what each is planning on doing, and judges based on how well each approach treats those most vulnerable in society.
This is the manner in which Sanders differentiates between which of the two imperfect political parties should prevail in a specific issue, when that's the bottom-line choice:http://www.sanders.senate.gov/polls/wealth-and-income-inequality
In other words, he reviews what each is planning on doing, and judges based on how well each approach treats those most vulnerable in society.
Yes. Works for me.
Hmmm, have you ever tried to fire an incompetent government employee? At least politicians are subject to the whims of the electorate.Well we could at least TRY to fire them. Might be better than trying to impeach them (and how well does that work Mr. "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton) to get them out. But them we'd need an oversight committee to do that and hire a replacement. Of course the true problem is that each and every little Bill and issue that comes along would have to be voted on by all Americans. That would be a pain. But then, right now with a two party system it probably takes much longer to pass (or not pass) a Bill anyways. Right now it's like if you and Peggy were the only ones who got to decide what gets passed :-)!
Well we could at least TRY to fire them. I was referring to the ballot box. House members serve 2 year terms. It would be easier to replace them all every two years than to try to fire half the number of federal workers in twice the time.
Right now it's like if you and Peggy were the only ones who got to decide what gets passed :-)! Ha, if Peggy had to agree with me, nothing would ever get accomplished, but I'm thinking that might be a very good thing.
I was referring to the ballot box. House members serve 2 year terms. It would be easier to replace them all every two years than to try to fire half the number of federal workers in twice the time.
Ha, if Peggy had to agree with me, nothing would ever get accomplished, but I'm thinking that might be a very good thing. Hmmm.. sounds familiar Mr. and Ms. House and Senate :-)! Of course we could just do away with Congress all together (Off With Their Heads!) and replace it with a direct vote from the people. Let the people represent themselves directly. Tally computer votes on all issues and send them to the future Robo-Prez to enact. No more two party system, No more any party system. Ok now who's living in fantasy Land. Just imagining all the endless details of administering such a thing is scary. And then there is the constitutionality of every issue - although I guess you could still have a SCOTUS to oversee that.
Here is a Princeton study that talks about how our democracy has been usurped by the wealthy elites. "Of the people"? Certainly--once upon a time. "By the people"? Not anymore. "For the people"? Only if it's in the best interest of the corporate oligarchs.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy
ApatheticNoMore
4-20-14, 10:48am
Here is a Princeton study that talks about how our democracy has been usurped by the wealthy elites. "Of the people"? Certainly--once upon a time. "By the people"? Not anymore.
Well if there was any golden age it was certainly brief. Once upon a time when? When african americans couldn't vote? When women couldn't' vote? (that's less than 100 years there). Of course I guess voting means no representation anyway so a benign dictatorship that better represented one might be preferable, don't think that's likely though.
We can point to a time when things changed from "things improving more than things degrading more" to "things degrading more than things improving more". As strange as it may seem, that probably happened sometime before the 1980s. So much has improved since, but so much has degraded since, too.
gimmethesimplelife
4-20-14, 3:44pm
We can point to a time when things changed from "things improving more than things degrading more" to "things degrading more than things improving more". As strange as it may seem, that probably happened sometime before the 1980s. So much has improved since, but so much has degraded since, too.This rings so true to me, especially as a gay man. It blows me away sometimes that there are 17 - 17!!!!! - states in which I can legally marry another man at the moment, and that I can file as married on Federal income taxes and that gays and lesbians can serve openly in the military. Further stunning are youtube videos of Navy men and women departing their boats and meeting and kissing their partners in plain public view with no fear. Amazing. I never thought I'd live to see such a thing. On a bus here in Phoenix a few weeks ago there were two guys sitting in the back kissing to the point where my reaction was honestly - get a room for crying out loud - same reaction I'd have if it had been a man and a woman kissing that passionately and intensely on a public bus. But I was also floored that no one said a word. This is not the same world I grew up in in regards to this issue. Not at all. So there is certainly some good.
Then when I look at things economic, there's been much sliding backwards, and I don't have the faith that we will be sliding forwards to that life that some had once again. Can the planet even sustain it if we could? So socially, I do see some great progress, economically, not so much.
Something I think of posting this is my mothers second husband she married in the 80's. I never met a man more redneck in my life and certainly a graduate of the John Wayne school of how to deal with whatever life throws your way. Those familiar with me might guess how well the two of us got along. I'm glad in a humane kind of way that he has since passed, as the idea of a black man as the President of the United States and the idea of gay marriage being legal in his home state of Iowa may have been enough to do him in anyway. These two concepts he just could not have dealt with period. But I thank him now that I have the wisdom of the middle aged - I learned from his bigotry to stand up for myself and to call injustice for what it is and have never looked back since learning this. I have him to thank for pushing me to this. Rob
We can point to a time when things changed from "things improving more than things degrading more" to "things degrading more than things improving more". As strange as it may seem, that probably happened sometime before the 1980s. So much has improved since, but so much has degraded since, too.
Well said. Not quite "It was the best of times; it was the worst of time," but similar. The 80s does seem like some line of demarcation--the Reagan Era certainly did start wheels turning in many different directions.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.