Blame the Libertarians. It's less Painful

[Kyle B]

Having more viable parties wouldn't necessarily make things all great and nice.

With three parties, you'll just have two dominant parties with an additional party playing kingmaker, or you'll get gridlock between three possibly equally powerful parties. Add more viable parties into the mix and you just get more gridlock.

 

[robdawg1]

so Kyle and anyone else who wants to answer, If like minded people congregate to exchange ideas and formulate platforms, and thats how legislation gets drafted and eventually passed....how do we bi-pass a party system? anytime you have an elected body of representatives you have groupings of like minded people who support the same things and reject the same things...dates all the way back to ancient Rome and Greece.
How do you change this?

 

[Accountable]

While we continue to elect members of these parties and not as a whole start voting in more moderate and honest representatives then big Corporate still gets to play. WE arent stopping them...we are just complaining about them.

You didn't answer my question.

Who do the Big Two pay to get the voting machines and venues? I truly don't know.

 

[Accountable]

so Kyle and anyone else who wants to answer, If like minded people congregate to exchange ideas and formulate platforms, and thats how legislation gets drafted and eventually passed....how do we bi-pass a party system? anytime you have an elected body of representatives you have groupings of like minded people who support the same things and reject the same things...dates all the way back to ancient Rome and Greece.
How do you change this?

There's a world of difference between groupings of like minded people who support the same things and reject the same things, and allowing those groups for formally and officially infiltrate the legislature, set the rules by which the legislature runs, dictate which states may enter the Union and under what conditions, etc etc etc.

 

[robdawg1]

That would be the job of congress right? Who is ELECTED to office by "we the people", who are part of a political party....so therefore we elect the parties to exert control over the process....

 

[Accountable]

That would be the job of congress right? Who is ELECTED to office by "we the people", who are part of a political party....so therefore we elect the parties to exert control over the process....

I don't recall any constitutional amendment installing political parties as an official arm of the federal gov't.

 

[robdawg1]

I understand where you are coming from Acc, but what you aren't grasping is that despite our Founding fathers dread of political parties(see John Adams, and George Washington), They exist and aren't going anywhere as long as we keep voting for their candidates!!! Who needs a constitutional amendment when you have almost total control??

 

[Accountable]

I understand where you are coming from Acc, but what you aren't grasping is that despite our Founding fathers dread of political parties(see John Adams, and George Washington), They exist and aren't going anywhere as long as we keep voting for their candidates!!! Who needs a constitutional amendment when you have almost total control??

Are you boasting or what?

 

[robdawg1]

LOL, No boasting. Up for a change in the whole system, I just don't see how it can be accomlish when we don't rise as a whole or at least a majority and stop voting for the parties...start voting for the people!!

 

[robdawg1]

I, Personally, tend to vote with the Democrats most of the time, as I am a bleeding heart who supports enviromental clean up, social programs to help those in need, fair taxation, Gay rights, Womens rights, and My right to have a goverment make decisions not based off of religious ideation! I have, and will vote for republicans, when they have candidates who match my political views on conservative spending, and limitations on government power when it begins to interfere with my individual rights and freedoms!
I may support Obama, and other democrats, but I am NOT a pill swallower!

 

[Accountable]

LOL, No boasting. Up for a change in the whole system, I just don't see how it can be accomlish when we don't rise as a whole or at least a majority and stop voting for the parties...start voting for the people!!

I think the key is to populate the lower levels and build from there. That doesn't mean we should support them at higher levels, but the way to get the sheep to start thinking out of the two-party box is to show them that there are many other people willing to do it, too.

 

[Alien Allen]

I, Personally, tend to vote with the Democrats most of the time, as I am a bleeding heart who supports enviromental clean up, social programs to help those in need, fair taxation, Gay rights, Womens rights, and My right to have a goverment make decisions not based off of religious ideation! I have, and will vote for republicans, when they have candidates who match my political views on conservative spending, and limitations on government power when it begins to interfere with my individual rights and freedoms!
I may support Obama, and other democrats, but I am NOT a pill swallower!

Is there anything there which the originators of the Tea Party was against?

Anything there which Ron Paul was against?

They get demonized as being anti environment, anti women, anti this, anti that

Yet IMO it is just spouting rhetoric.

I work in an industry that has been brow beaten by regulations. I can state for a fact that it is not based on science but bullshit. I have been involved in local and state negotiations and we are treated like shit. They are judge and jury and the bleeding hearts as you describe it buy into their stance. Because after all an industry has to be self serving. Never mind the fact that regulators are self serving to protect their jobs. Something the average person can not comprehend unless they are involved in the process

 

[robdawg1]

Is there anything there which the originators of the Tea Party was against?

Anything there which Ron Paul was against?

They get demonized as being anti environment, anti women, anti this, anti that

Yet IMO it is just spouting rhetoric.

I work in an industry that has been brow beaten by regulations. I can state for a fact that it is not based on science but bullshit. I have been involved in local and state negotiations and we are treated like shit. They are judge and jury and the bleeding hearts as you describe it buy into their stance. Because after all an industry has to be self serving. Never mind the fact that regulators are self serving to protect their jobs. Something the average person can not comprehend unless they are involved in the process

I was involved in a business that was highly regulated, and all the regulations were to protect the workers and the consumers as far as i could tell. I wa sin thye financial industry and we had all sorts of regulations regarding fair lending, transparancy, and disclosure regs we had to follow all to protect the consumer.
We also had a Union, and it was to protect us from our employers in terms of fair wages, and un-due firings/punishment. We were able to get representation via the union to fight what was unfair, and when I had to use them because of my promotion takling effect in august and i didnt get to move to the position and begin training until after december, they were incredibly usefull for me!
I never made a complaint about the Tea Party on this forum, but I will say, I have read the platform on their website, and if they adhered strictly to there specified platform and didnt stray into the area where they defy the seperation of church and state in their "value voting" with their religious basis for their stance on gay marriage and abortion, I wouldn't have much of a problem with them!

 

[robdawg1]

A new analysis by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life finds that Tea Party supporters tend to have conservative opinions not just about economic matters, but also about social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. In addition, they are much more likely than registered voters as a whole to say that their religion is the most important factor in determining their opinions on these social issues.[SUP]2[/SUP] And they draw disproportionate support from the ranks of white evangelical Protestants.

http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Tea-Party-and-Religion.aspx

Just to annotate my opinion via research

 

[Minor Axis]

I never made a complaint about the Tea Party on this forum, but I will say, I have read the platform on their website, and if they adhered strictly to there specified platform and didnt stray into the area where they defy the seperation of church and state in their "value voting" with their religious basis for their stance on gay marriage and abortion, I wouldn't have much of a problem with them!

My problem with the Tea Party is that they were co-opted by the GOP. I always think of that picture with the old guy holding a "Keep Government Out of My Medicare!" sign, lol. This is not it, but:

 

[Accountable]

My problem with the Tea Party is that they were co-opted by the GOP.

:thumbup

 

[robdawg1]

Tea party was co-opted by the GOP but they still hold themselves as seperate. You should look at their website. There is some interesting stuff on there....

 

[The Man]

I was involved in a business that was highly regulated, and all the regulations were to protect the workers and the consumers as far as i could tell. I wa sin thye financial industry and we had all sorts of regulations regarding fair lending, transparancy, and disclosure regs we had to follow all to protect the consumer.
We also had a Union, and it was to protect us from our employers in terms of fair wages, and un-due firings/punishment. We were able to get representation via the union to fight what was unfair, and when I had to use them because of my promotion takling effect in august and i didnt get to move to the position and begin training until after december, they were incredibly usefull for me!
I never made a complaint about the Tea Party on this forum, but I will say, I have read the platform on their website, and if they adhered strictly to there specified platform and didnt stray into the area where they defy the seperation of church and state in their "value voting" with their religious basis for their stance on gay marriage and abortion, I wouldn't have much of a problem with them!

We also had a Union, and it was to protect us from our employers in terms of fair wages, and un-due firings/punishment.

Whats an undue firing...why should an employer be forced to keep someone he does not want in his company..shouldnt it be the employers decision what is undue..not a third party such as a union.
Wages should be determined by supply and demand not a union...hey I think the kid down the street needs 20 bucks an hour for flipping burgers..lets start a union.
Fuck unions...I have watched some stupid shit because of unions that have cost millions to the company..nothing personal towards you.

 

[robdawg1]

Whats an undue firing...why should an employer be forced to keep someone he does not want in his company..shouldnt it be the employers decision what is undue..not a third party such as a union.
Wages should be determined by supply and demand not a union...hey I think the kid down the street needs 20 bucks an hour for flipping burgers..lets start a union.
Fuck unions...I have watched some stupid shit because of unions that have cost millions to the company..nothing personal towards you.

We had a woman fired because she had previously antagonized a manager. Her antagonism simply came as a result of a personal disagreement, nothing work related. She was then summarily fired, and they withheld the cause until they were able to research her work(after the firing) and find a minimal mistake. The mistake was then pinpointed as the reason for her firing. she was able, thru the union, to get her job back as she could prove the mistake was unintentional, she had never recieved a warning about the mistake, and several other employees including the manager had commited the same error. Without the support of the union she would have been unfairly un-employed!

 

[The Man]

We had a woman fired because she had previously antagonized a manager. Her antagonism simply came as a result of a personal disagreement, nothing work related. She was then summarily fired, and they withheld the cause until they were able to research her work(after the firing) and find a minimal mistake. The mistake was then pinpointed as the reason for her firing. she was able, thru the union, to get her job back as she could prove the mistake was unintentional, she had never recieved a warning about the mistake, and several other employees including the manager had commited the same error. Without the support of the union she would have been unfairly un-employed!

So mistakes are ok as long as they are not intentional?
And who in the hell would want to antagonize their manger..about something that isnt work related?
Antagonizing other employees on a personal level is a fire-able offense at any job....so why is she allowed to antagonize the manager of all people?
How about this.....fuck with the manager get canned..nice and simple.
But with this union he has to allow being treated like shit by the employees...but he cant treat the workers like shit...brilliant.