01-06-2014 12:49 AM
127 ... 3456
tools
  1. msndrstood's Avatar
    Be specific, please. What other 'free stuff'?

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    11-20-2013 07:03 AM
  2. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    That was a great post, and I'm glad that you are voting with your conscience. Do you think we'll ever have a Libertarian majority in this country?
    Not as long as we are unwilling to believe, as a nation, that there can be. Then again, as an adult going back to school (I'm in a local 2 year college) the 18-25 somethings of today are pretty much disillusioned with the present status quo, and regardless of whether they plan to do anything about it or not, simply aren't invested in the situation and all the political baggage. They're literally looking at the present situation, scratching their heads in wonderment of how any intelligent people would go along with things as they have been, and (largely) seem to feel that they might just as well make themselves happy because it's not going to last, anyhow.
    11-20-2013 04:02 PM
  3. gamefreak715's Avatar
    Furthermore, did the Tea Party hurt the Republicans' chances during the last presidential election? Conversely, did the Republicans' failure to embrace more of the Tea Party's principles cost them the election?
    I feel like the republicans being associated with the tea party cost them the election. You know the major news networks, sans fox, ate up every wacky thing the tea party said or did. I firmly believe most Americans are moderate and when a party gets associated with a fringe extremist group, that's going to steer them away from that party. I feel like I'm an average American; fiscally conservative but socially liberal. Are there no good options anymore that have sensible money handling policies and won't but into peoples personal lives? The two parties don't fit that bill.

    Posted via Android Central App
    11-26-2013 01:10 AM
  4. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Libertarians pretty much fit that bill. My views are like yours and I've started aligning myself with that more than republican/conservative.
    11-26-2013 01:43 AM
  5. SteveISU's Avatar
    I can't self-identify as conservative because I am all for gay rights, abortion, freedom of expression, funding for space programs, arts, colleges and universities, and I believe that climate change is man made, caused by CO2, reversible, and will change the planet for the worse within a century. I am a strong agnostic and I am certain that this nation is better off secular everywhere but inside churches and private homes. I think trucknuts are retarded and NASCAR is for inbreeds. I think the South losing is the best thing that ever happened in US history.

    I can't self-identify as a liberal because I oppose entitlement programs, affirmative action, gun control, progressive taxation, the welfare state, the expansion of federal power, judicial activism, and cultural relativism. I think the death penalty is a deterrent and red meat is delicious. I think women who hate men aren't pioneers, they're just B's, and that there is nothing noble or soulful about being poor. I don't think anyone in Congress knows whats best for me, that smoking in bars makes shooting pool more challenging, and that fur coats are pimp as hell.
    gamefreak715 likes this.
    12-04-2013 02:06 PM
  6. JW4VZW's Avatar
    I'd amend that to state, "All Americans have to do is attack the issues rather than the person" and I think we're fixing more problems than just who sits behind the Resolute.
    I agree, the democrats are not as innocent as they like to believe that they are.
    Problem is even when attacking the issues, anyone criticizing Obama is still accused of racism by too many on the left. It's all "being against so and so policy is just code speak for hating having a black man for President" and such. You can't argue that kind of nonsense with those people.
    I hate that everyone thinks that people who are against obama are racist. My issues have nothing to do with his race or party.
    Posted on my Samsung Galaxy Note 3 on America's largest 4G LTE Network. Please excuise any errors.
    12-05-2013 12:51 PM
  7. JW4VZW's Avatar
    They only reason they have the House is because well the GOP cheats and gerrymandered the hell out of the districts.

    You know that might solve the problem. Get gerrymandering declared unconstitutional as it is suppressing our votes.
    Right, because the democrats don't gerrymander districts either.
    Posted on my Samsung Galaxy Note 3 on America's largest 4G LTE Network. Please excuise any errors.
    12-05-2013 12:55 PM
  8. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Right, because the democrats don't gerrymander districts either.
    Posted on my Samsung Galaxy Note 3 on America's largest 4G LTE Network. Please excuise any errors.
    Compared to GOP no where near as bad. More the Democrat controlled states have an independent 3rd party control the district and the legislature get zero say.

    And your entire defensive is they did it 2.
    And end of the day your entire argument does not change the fact. The ONLY reason they have the house is due to pure gerrymandering. Any election decided in the primaries means they do not represent most of the district. The simple fact is the GOP much more than the Democrats are pandering heavy to their base and scared of the primaries.

    But your standard argument is the conservative argument is deflect and not address the issue.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    msndrstood likes this.
    12-05-2013 01:01 PM
  9. SteveISU's Avatar
    Compared to GOP no where near as bad. More the Democrat controlled states have an independent 3rd party control the district and the legislature get zero say.

    And your entire defensive is they did it 2.
    And end of the day your entire argument does not change the fact. The ONLY reason they have the house is due to pure gerrymandering. Any election decided in the primaries means they do not represent most of the district. The simple fact is the GOP much more than the Democrats are pandering heavy to their base and scared of the primaries.

    But your standard argument is the conservative argument is deflect and not address the issue.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    Come to IL. lol
    12-05-2013 04:05 PM
  10. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    Ok, so first off, why are we still using the term "race" here?

    This is the guy who chiefly came up with the idea of "human races". Many others have added to his "work" over the centuries. However, the reason I bring this up is using the term "race" other than in quoting someone who used the term is to write something in an inaccurate way and legitimize the concept itself.

    There aren't separate races of humans. If there were, then we would be genetically different enough from each other that we would not be able, for instance, to successfully reproduce. There's one single race of humans on this planet. We have different ethnicities and different cultures, and we live as different nations, but we are biologically one single species that has a range of unique expressions (hair color, skin color, physical shape, etc.) so please, quit using the term "race". It doesn't actually mean anything.

    Human beings as a species are inherently self-segregating. Therefore, despite George Washington's advice, there will likely always be parties, whether official and sanctioned, or not. That being the case, there are groups out there (of course my mind automatically goes to the Libertarians, but there are other equivalent movements) which seek to broaden the range of political spectra for we Americans to participate in. All the Dems or the GOP want to do is keep themselves as the "only game in town" and they've been doing a darned good job of that up until the last, oh, 15-20 years. Now things are falling apart, and when people are encouraged to exercise their free will and right to free association, those people are demonized. When people attempt to free-associate in new groups (Libertarians, Greens, Constitutional Party, etc.) they are decried to scare people into helping prop up the existing hegemony.

    Maybe it would be more useful to have a discussion here -- since there is a politics section on AndroidCentral -- which would help illuminate people's minds about not just "politics" but also philosophy and world view and perspectives, and then encourage people to go and join the political party which actually MATCHES what they really believe.

    If we're ever going to de-fang the Dem and GOP parties, it has to be through de-populating them and effectively countering their continual "we're the only option" harangue.

    Otherwise, what's the point in you folks here complaining about the stupidity of American Politics? Either help do something about it, or shut up already.
    12-05-2013 09:29 PM
  11. JnEricsonx's Avatar
    I don't vote for either, but I'd probably count more as a liberal because I'm for pro-choice, gun control, legalizing pot, gay marriage, fixing global warming, cutting the defense budget A LITTLE, though I'd probably got a bit of Republican in me when it comes to wanting school shooters/public shooters flat out executed(James Holmes, Arizona guy, the other Boston bomber), and hey, I live in NY, and Obama got Bin Laden on his watch, so I give him credit for that. I don't think the man's perfect, maybe not even near it, but it seems like he's trying. While I do know some Rep's who are more...centered(no pun intended) in that they don't think Obama is secret Muslim devil, I think when you have leading Republicans who think we're in the End Times, and thats a GOOD THING(Michelle Bachman), yeah, its enough for me to wanna grab a TARDIS, and go bring Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson, and then Lincoln and Kennedy, to 2013, stand em up in front of Congress, and watch all heaven and hell break loose.
    12-05-2013 10:10 PM
  12. SteveISU's Avatar
    I don't vote for either, but I'd probably count more as a liberal because I'm for pro-choice, gun control, legalizing pot, gay marriage, fixing global warming, cutting the defense budget A LITTLE, though I'd probably got a bit of Republican in me when it comes to wanting school shooters/public shooters flat out executed(James Holmes, Arizona guy, the other Boston bomber), and hey, I live in NY, and Obama got Bin Laden on his watch, so I give him credit for that. I don't think the man's perfect, maybe not even near it, but it seems like he's trying. While I do know some Rep's who are more...centered(no pun intended) in that they don't think Obama is secret Muslim devil, I think when you have leading Republicans who think we're in the End Times, and thats a GOOD THING(Michelle Bachman), yeah, its enough for me to wanna grab a TARDIS, and go bring Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson, and then Lincoln and Kennedy, to 2013, stand em up in front of Congress, and watch all heaven and hell break loose.

    It's not that anyone thinks failure is a good thing, but at some point in time when the government buckles on the brink of collapse because too many people and businesses have grown reliant on it, that is the only thing that will straighten things out. Until then the votes must be secured and that means selling out regardless of what it does on the whole in 10yrs. The entitlement society and the party that feeds it will cause the meltdown and some just wanna sit back and watch it burn. Partly due to the fact that no one wants to take anything away from anyone because that is how they secured their vote in the first place. Half of the voters in this society are stupid. People in their 20's and 30's should be standing up and screaming for medicare and SS reform. Raise the retirement age, raise the bar on taxable income, ect. Their voice should be louder than anyone over the age of 50 because any reform won't affect them whatsoever anyway. Force the politicians to act so we have it in 30-40yrs. Do so before they start airing the "Push the old bag over the cliff" ads. When those ads start running everyone just sits back down.
    12-06-2013 09:55 AM
  13. anon8126715's Avatar
    If we had major campaign reform then I'd vote based on who's throwing how much money at each candidate. And by "Major Campaign Reform" I mean drastic changes. For instance, back when BP had its Gulf Coast spill, some people thought that Obama wasn't tough enough on BP because BP contributed a large amount to his campaign. What was funny is that BP contributed to BOTH candidates an obscene amount, but just a few hundred thousand more to Obama's campaign. It reminded me of the financial collapse where banks were betting against their loans and were winning regardless of whether or not the loans were paid. Thus, I think that no entity should be allowed to hedge their bets by contributing to BOTH candidates that are running for the same office. I know this would be a drastic rule, but this would ensure that big corporations and the wealthy don't get an inside track regardless of who wins (which is what makes it so hard to pick a candidate since regardless of who wins, they're both going to give more time to their largest contributors).

    The 2nd rule I'd like to see put in place is complete transparency and more detail about where the money for each candidate is coming from. My interests don't align with the interests of big oil, big pharmaceutical, or big banks, thus if I see one of these entities pumping crazy amounts of money into a candidate, I'll know that this candidate will push their agendas further (as if they don't realize enough profit from a system rigged in their favor already). The last few elections have been a little disturbing when you consider that a lot of money being pumped into campaigns came from foreign entities that didn't have to be disclosed. It makes you wonder what motive some of these entities had in trying to sway our elections.

    I don't see campaign finance reform meaningful campaign finance reform taking hold anytime in my lifetime and I think that's probably one of the biggest most under reported calamities that will have a drastic effect on our country in the future. What you have to understand as a citizen of this country is that we are great when we have a strong middle class. A strong middle class means legislation that does the most good for the majority of the people, not for the wealthiest people. When you look at how much our middle class has eroded and the growing disparity between the poorest and the wealthiest among us, it's obvious to me that our leaders aren't governing based on what decisions are the best for the most Americans. They're governing based on what's best for their biggest contributors.

    Thus, to answer the original post, I try to vote based on all the information I can amass, but there are special interests with vast resources out there that will do all they can to bend the truth to suit their candidate's needs. I can't imagine a company like Exxon, Merck, or Chase wanting a candidate in power that will enact legislation that does the most good for the most Americans. That kind of legislation would most certainly cut into their bottom line.
    12-19-2013 07:54 AM
  14. Aquila's Avatar
    20% of states are ready to introduce bills in 2014 calling for a constitutional convention for an amendment for campaign reform. Takes 67% to pass it. This year has been huge and we're picking up steam.

    XT1060. Through spacetime.
    12-19-2013 03:43 PM
  15. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    1820-somethings these days don't know or care either because they're too stereotypically wrapped up in their own lives and pop culture and just don't know about anything else going on, OR because they feel things are just to FUBAR'd to either be taken seriously or for any meaningful change to be possible.
    palandri likes this.
    12-19-2013 06:49 PM
  16. JW4VZW's Avatar
    18—20-somethings these days don't know or care either because they're too stereotypically wrapped up in their own lives and pop culture and just don't know about anything else going on, OR because they feel things are just to FUBAR'd to either be taken seriously or for any meaningful change to be possible.
    Well said
    Posted on my Samsung Galaxy Note 3 on Verizon Wireless, America's largest 4G LTE Network. Please excuse any errors.
    12-22-2013 12:06 PM
  17. palandri's Avatar
    18—20-somethings these days don't know or care either because they're too stereotypically wrapped up in their own lives and pop culture and just don't know about anything else going on, OR because they feel things are just to FUBAR'd to either be taken seriously or for any meaningful change to be possible.
    Are you trying to say the life and times of Snooki isn't important? What if she get's arrested again on the Jersey shores for being too drunk again?
    12-22-2013 01:12 PM
  18. anon8126715's Avatar
    18—20-somethings these days don't know or care either because they're too stereotypically wrapped up in their own lives and pop culture and just don't know about anything else going on, OR because they feel things are just to FUBAR'd to either be taken seriously or for any meaningful change to be possible.

    I'll probably give them a little more credit than this, mostly because I remember (vaguely) when I just turned old enough to vote. As luck would have it, it was the same year Ross Perot was running for office and despite my "stereotypical" age, I was excited because he was considered a very legitimate 3rd party candidate at the time. I remember growing up in the Reagan years and still convinced that it was not as wonderful as some people claim it to be. I remember my parents were either working insane amount of hours or were on strike (which to me indicated that there was a lot of wealth eroding from the middle class). What Perot's candidacy meant to me was (even though I thought it was a lost cause especially after some of his rants hit the airwaves) sending the other 2 parties a message that they weren't the only show in town. Sadly, his candidacy didn't really do much to the 2 party system structure as he became a footnote and fodder for the comedic circuit.

    If you look at how Obama won in 2008, it had a lot to do with engaging social media, energizing these younger voters, and making them feel like they were a part of something bigger. The GOP has somewhat learned its lesson, but I think their platform of protecting the status quo is lost on the younger voters that are trying to find a place for themselves. If I were a GOP strategist, what I would suggest is them propping up a 3rd independent candidate to siphon some of the young vote from the Democratic party. I've heard some people argue that the Libertarian party was just that, a brainchild of a GOP strategist trying the old "Divide and Conquer" on a political stage.
    12-23-2013 07:55 AM
  19. Aquila's Avatar
    As we move into next year, two numbers keep coming to mind....

    Congress has a 10% approval rating and a 96% re-election rate. So, we hate them... and then pay them to DO IT AGAIN. Definition of insanity?

    It's not that your representative is doing a good job and the rest are crooks. They're all crooks. Let's try something new. If the corporatism establishment promotes a candidate, we shun them. Automatically. Traditionally in the House and Senate, the candidate with the most campaign funding wins 97% of the races. Let's try to make that not true.

    If we look at campaign finance for what it is: bribery, what we're really acquiescing to is supporting the MOST CORRUPT person possible, in your district... and that's before they do a horrible job and we re-elect them.

    Money. Out of politics. Look up your local drive for a constitutional amendment for campaign reform and support it.
    12-23-2013 07:47 PM
  20. anon8126715's Avatar
    As we move into next year, two numbers keep coming to mind....

    Congress has a 10% approval rating and a 96% re-election rate. So, we hate them... and then pay them to DO IT AGAIN. Definition of insanity?

    It's not that your representative is doing a good job and the rest are crooks. They're all crooks. Let's try something new. If the corporatism establishment promotes a candidate, we shun them. Automatically. Traditionally in the House and Senate, the candidate with the most campaign funding wins 97% of the races. Let's try to make that not true.

    If we look at campaign finance for what it is: bribery, what we're really acquiescing to is supporting the MOST CORRUPT person possible, in your district... and that's before they do a horrible job and we re-elect them.

    Money. Out of politics. Look up your local drive for a constitutional amendment for campaign reform and support it.

    I'm waiting for a black semi-professional ball player that inherited millions from a long lost relative so that I may vote for "none of the above". (10 points for naming the movie)
    12-24-2013 02:52 AM
  21. JW4VZW's Avatar
    As we move into next year, two numbers keep coming to mind....

    Congress has a 10% approval rating and a 96% re-election rate. So, we hate them... and then pay them to DO IT AGAIN. Definition of insanity?

    It's not that your representative is doing a good job and the rest are crooks. They're all crooks. Let's try something new. If the corporatism establishment promotes a candidate, we shun them. Automatically. Traditionally in the House and Senate, the candidate with the most campaign funding wins 97% of the races. Let's try to make that not true.

    If we look at campaign finance for what it is: bribery, what we're really acquiescing to is supporting the MOST CORRUPT person possible, in your district... and that's before they do a horrible job and we re-elect them.

    Money. Out of politics. Look up your local drive for a constitutional amendment for campaign reform and support it.
    Yes, Congress has a 10% approval rating. Hopefully the democrats will loose the Senate in the next elections.
    Posted on my Samsung Galaxy Note 3 on Verizon Wireless, America's largest 4G LTE Network. Please excuse any errors.
    12-28-2013 11:25 AM
  22. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    Why do people want the Dems or the Reps running things any more? Hasn't it been more than amply proven that they are corrupt and evil, etc.?
    Aquila likes this.
    01-04-2014 10:05 PM
  23. llamabreath's Avatar
    Why do people want the Dems or the Reps running things any more? Hasn't it been more than amply proven that they are corrupt and evil, etc.?
    I agree, but ANY person/people in office can and probably will become corrupt. It's human nature and it's what power does to people in general. Just look in the workplace; supervisors, foremen etc etc etc.




    I think signatures are stupid.

    (⊙.⊙)
    01-05-2014 11:54 AM
  24. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    I would never argue that corruption is the exclusive province of any specific group or groups. Corruption is the result of a number of factors present in most of humanity. This, of course, was significantly on the minds of the Founding Fathers, and why:

    the Constitution is a bill of negative rights; and
    there is the separation of powers in the Federal government.

    JnEricsonx:

    I don't believe in gun control. I believe in personal responsibility and personal accountability. If A murders B, it doesn't matter what the means was; a murder was committed.

    I don't believe in women's rights, or minority rights, etc. I believe that all life is entitled to dignity, and that sentient life should have equal status before the law and within society. Therefore, for example, if someone is straight or gay, or if a woman wants to use contraception, or if someone wants to say whatever they want to, then so long as nobody is harmed as a result, it is nobody else's business and should also be incapable of being a crime.

    I do not believe pot should be legalized. I believe it should never have been criminalized in the first place. Therefore, it along with all other such substances should be decriminalized. Anyone getting "f-ed up" on any drug, or alcohol, or by any other means, and then harming other people (or animals, too) should be seen as having abrogated any right to legal retaliation if another person should find it necessary to take it upon themselves to stop said intoxicated person.

    I believe we should go back to a tax only on capital gains, and I believe there should be a 5% - 8% Federal Sales Tax. This would ensure there would be a sufficient income for the Federal Government to conduct legitimate business, and it would force it to renegotiate all contracts and cut out all unnecessary spending. It would, if handled properly, reduce our military operations to an appropriate level, and ensure we spent reasonable amounts on all materials used by the military.


    I think the biggest difference between liberals (in the roughly modern, conventional sense) and libertarian-minded people is we're not really interested in dealing with the symptoms; we want to deal with the fundamental root causes instead.
    01-05-2014 11:28 PM
  25. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    Having just re-read my post, I would like to add that my comment about liberals also equally well applies to conservatives. I would also like to add that I don't believe every single person of any group walks, talks, and chews gum the same way, so yes, there absolutely are individuals who are decidedly non-Libertarian who are also trying to address root causes as well.
    01-05-2014 11:41 PM
127 ... 3456

Similar Threads

  1. Do All Phones Turn To Crap After A Year?
    By music_man185 in forum General News & Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 10-19-2017, 08:25 PM
  2. On the umi x2 how do you determine what bloatware to remove
    By hoben02 in forum Misc. Android Phones
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-26-2014, 05:09 PM
  3. 5STAR Sound quality (if you do it right).
    By Zingfharn in forum LG G2
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 10-31-2013, 06:24 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-29-2013, 09:35 PM
  5. How do I save a screen shot?
    By BillDennes in forum Verizon Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-29-2013, 08:30 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD