Warning: Discussing politics can cause......

[BobD]

Hi All,

Since we're in the middle of the week, and I don't care to comment on another thread about our QB's, I thought I'd ask for your opinion on something.

Up until about two years ago I had been a Republican my entire life. I use to vote strictly along party lines and would never consider voting for a Democrat. Over the last few years I've had quite a change of heart in regards to politics. I guess I'm an Independent now. I've become sick of the idiotic bickering, the ego's, the lobbyist/special interests groups and in general all of the stupid $hit going on in Washington DC. For the longest time I blamed everything on politicians, but truely, its our fault, we send the morons there.

As I sit here and watch this battle between the two parties heading up to the next election, each trying to lay blame on the other for this economic disaster we're in, and at the same time trying to block each other from making any progress on anything that might help....its insane. WE NEED CHANGE!

Heres my question/idea: What do you think about the idea of not voting for ANY incumbent? NONE! Don't vote along any party line, just sit down, figure out who you think is the best candidate for the job, and they get the vote, UNLESS they're already in office, then vote for your second choice. I don't know if it's an idea that could catch on, but I do think if it did, it would change our country for the better. What do you think?

 

[NDPhilly]

Hi All,

Since we're in the middle of the week, and I don't care to comment on another thread about our QB's, I thought I'd ask for your opinion on something.

Up until about two years ago I had been a Republican my entire life. I use to vote strictly along party lines and would never consider voting for a Democrat. Over the last few years I've had quite a change of heart in regards to politics. I guess I'm an Independent now. I've become sick of the idiotic bickering, the ego's, the lobbyist/special interests groups and in general all of the stupid $hit going on in Washington DC. For the longest time I blamed everything on politicians, but truely, its our fault, we send the morons there.

As I sit here and watch this battle between the two parties heading up to the next election, each trying to lay blame on the other for this economic disaster we're in, and at the same time trying to block each other from making any progress on anything that might help....its insane. WE NEED CHANGE!

Heres my question/idea: What do you think about the idea of not voting for ANY incumbent? NONE! Don't vote along any party line, just sit down, figure out who you think is the best candidate for the job, and they get the vote, UNLESS they're already in office, then vote for your second choice. I don't know if it's an idea that could catch on, but I do think if it did, it would change our country for the better. What do you think?

I remember someone promised this. Can't put my finger on it though.

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

I'm all for it. Vote all of these crooks out.

 

[Rhode Irish]

At some point everyone in office was a challenger. Voting for a challenger in every race is likely to produce a government of roughly the same quality as the one we have now.

If you're going to vote for new people, make sure you vote for new IDEAS while you're at it. Voting for different people with the same ideas isn't going to get us anywhere.

 

[BobD]

I remember someone promised this. Can't put my finger on it though.

That was his slogan....you gotta read the post, it's something different.

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

At some point everyone in office was a challenger. Voting for a challenger in every race is likely to produce a government of roughly the same quality as the one we have now.

If you're going to vote for new people, make sure you vote for new IDEAS while you're at it. Voting for different people with the same ideas isn't going to get us anywhere.

Sure, that's fine, but if these cats see that people aren't voting party lines anymore and are voting on production, or they're gone at the end of their term. They'd be more apt to get off their azz and do something positive instead of running party lines and looking for constant handouts. "We, The People" at one time had the power.....It's about time we take that back.

 

[TerryTate]

Be an independent and vote on issues not parties.

Educate yourself a little

 

[Rhode Irish]

Sure, that's fine, but if these cats see that people aren't voting party lines anymore and are voting on production, or they're gone at the end of their term. They'd be more apt to get off their azz and do something positive instead of running party lines and looking for constant handouts. "We, The People" at one time had the power.....It's about time we take that back.

OK, but if you just vote everyone out, regardless of their individual performance, what message does that send to the next batch? "Unless this turns into a Utopia, you're going to get voted out next term regardless of what you do in office or how you do it"?

Nobody is less of a party-line voter than I am. I don't need convincing of the folly of that approach.

 

[BobD]

Sure, that's fine, but if these cats see that people aren't voting party lines anymore and are voting on production, or they're gone at the end of their term. They'd be more apt to get off their azz and do something positive instead of running party lines and looking for constant handouts. "We, The People" at one time had the power.....It's about time we take that back.

BINGO!! You just said what I'm trying to say. Thank you!

 

[no.1IrishFan]

Marco Rubio, I haven't felt so optomistic about a politician in a very long time and he's not even a candidate.

But I agree with other posters that voting based on party lines rather than who has the best ideas and intentions for our country is getting us nowhere.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

I'm not anything. I have to say all of the candidates are less than stellar for 2012. I may not vote.

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

OK, but if you just vote everyone out, regardless of their individual performance, what message does that send to the next batch? "Unless this turns into a Utopia, you're going to get voted out next term regardless of what you do in office or how you do it"?

Nobody is less of a party-line voter than I am. I don't need convincing of the folly of that approach.

It says, "You're on watch. F up, and you're gone. You work for us, not the other way around." That's been lost for a long damn time.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Marco Rubio, I haven't felt so optomistic about a politician in a very long time and he's not even a candidate.

But I agree with other posters that voting based on party lines rather than who has the best ideas and intentions for our country is getting us nowhere.

Not trying to be a jerk here, but this is the kind of platitude that we kill politicians for all the time. For example, I can't think of many people whose ideas I consider more dangerous for America than Marco Rubio, whereas you feel that he might be the guy to save us. I'm not saying you're a bad guy for what you believe, I just think that people have very different ideas about what is the best thing for our country. Your neighbor may not have the same opinion of what the best ideas are as you do. I don't think anyone goes to the polls thinking "I'm going to vote for the guy that has the worst ideas and intentions for the country!"

 

[pkt77242]

It says, "You're on watch. F up, and you're gone. You work for us, not the other way around." That's been lost for a long damn time.

I think you are ignoring the real problem though. currently you need a ton of money to run for public office, and so you sell your soul to raise the money which makes you beholden to special interests. It is like the Grover Norquist Pledge to not raise taxes (forget wether we should or shouldn't raise taxes), it shouldn't be controlled by one person or group. It should be decided by the people. Until this is fixed we can not have reform. Even the new people you want to elect will have to get money form somewhere so back to the special interest trough they go.

Until we fix the root cause, you are just applying a band aid.

 

[Rhode Irish]

It says, "You're on watch. F up, and you're gone. You work for us, not the other way around." That's been lost for a long damn time.

OK, I mean we obviously agree that that is the message we want to send, but if you vote EVERY incumbent out without regard for who is representing The People and who is representing themselves, their friends and their special interests, you aren't doing anyone any favors. I don't think it is responsible to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Me personally, I don't consider myself a conservative or a liberal, or even a moderate or an independent. I like to think of my political beliefs as a hybrid between many platforms. I've voted Republican the majority of the time, but I test a few marks to the left on all of those quizzes and whatnot.

I don't think I could ever bring myself to vote for Obama. I think he's been one of the worst contemporary Presidents. The only thing I can really give him unabashed credit for it increasing the strikes in Pakistan and really giving the green light to the Pentagon to maybe reach another level of seeking out the remaining Al-Qeada SOB's.

Basically I think the federal government sucks and I think power needs to be given back to the states. It's a lot easier to change something in Columbus than it is in Washington. I also think people who hate a particular party are idiots. Both parties are FUBAR in my opinion.

I think the intricacies of politics are too much to possibly discuss well enough on a forum like this. You have to really break it down into issues first.

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

Me personally, I don't consider myself a conservative or a liberal, or even a moderate or an independent. I like to think of my political beliefs as a hybrid between many platforms. I've voted Republican the majority of the time, but I test a few marks to the left on all of those quizzes and whatnot.

I don't think I could ever bring myself to vote for Obama. I think he's been one of the worst contemporary Presidents. The only thing I can really give him unabashed credit for it increasing the strikes in Pakistan and really giving the green light to the Pentagon to maybe reach another level of seeking out the remaining Al-Qeada SOB's.

Basically I think the federal government sucks and I think power needs to be given back to the states. It's a lot easier to change something in Columbus than it is in Washington.

The very last thing that Kasich needs is more power. If there ever was a poster boy for one term governor, he'd be on that poster.

 

[BobD]

OK, but if you just vote everyone out, regardless of their individual performance, what message does that send to the next batch? "Unless this turns into a Utopia, you're going to get voted out next term regardless of what you do in office or how you do it"?

Nobody is less of a party-line voter than I am. I don't need convincing of the folly of that approach.

Utopia sounds like a great ultimatum!

I see your point, I think one election where the majority refused to vote for an incumbent would cause enough change by flushing the bowels of Washngton. After that we would just need to reinforce the importance of not voting party lines. I think that hurts us more than anything.

 

[BeauBenken]

Well let's be honest, politicians once past primaries are not fighting for the independent voter. They argue issues where they can take absolute or extreme issues because people who have strong opinions on that one topic will vote one way or another without much care for anything else.

Example: Republicans being pro-life and democrats being pro-choice. People who are radical pro-life people will not be found voting for someone who is pro-choice and vice versa.

Trust me, voting is a bit of a joke now. You find people who vote on people based purely on looks or race or one opinion on something they won't change (like how I'm pro-legalizing marijuana and now candidates constantly say they'd be for legalizing it, but never really try once in office).

Hell, I haven't even voted on anything other than city officials yet as I just turned 18 in May. I'm not sure I'll be using my right to vote on anything other than that (as of now) when I look at the current candidates either.

 

[Buster Bluth]

The very last thing that Kasich needs is more power. If there ever was a poster boy for one term governor, he'd be on that poster.

Well, I actually think Kasich is making the calls other politicians were too afraid to make. If people (and I don't mean just Strickland) took care of this state's flaws he would need to be so drastic.

Here in Ohio the status quo has been a slow death for the last few decades. It's about time we try something new. He's a bold guy, but I actually like what he's doing.

Ironically that's exactly my point. It's just easier to movements to arise in a state than across the country. If people don't like what's going on in a state--CHANGE IT. If one state does something that is working for them and generating prosperity, emulate it!

 

[pkt77242]

I would also add that closed primaries are bad for us. Too many times it allows very far right and far left canidates to get through. A good examples is that a moderate democrat might consider voting for Jon Huntsman but there is no way he makes it out of the Republican primaries. No chance. Primaries kill of moderates unfortunately.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I would also add that closed primaries are bad for us. Too many times it allows very far right and far left canidates to get through. A good examples is that a moderate democrat might consider voting for Jon Huntsman but there is no way he makes it out of the Republican primaries. No chance. Primaries kill of moderates unfortunately.

As I said earlier, a middle-of-the-road guy isn't necessarily a good thing either. You want guys who are truly right on some issues and truly left on other issues. A hybrid.

I want a guy who will get a balanced budget amendment through, end the War of Drugs, cut the hell out of the Defense Department, shrink the federal government (completely eliminate bureaucratic mandates like the Dept of Edu), etc. But we just won't see it, sadly.

I do strongly agree with you that the primaries do make the GOP spring to the right in terms of being pro-life, Fundamentalist Christian, etc. I could give a sh*t is my President is Mormon, Jewish, Catholic, or some Festivus religion.

 

[IrishLax]

Everyone on this site who is a current/prospective ND students needs to try to take the class American Congress as a free elective if at all possible. Absolutely eye opening class about the inner workings of Congress, and how the House and Senate have evolved over time into what they are today. Also taught by a very good professor who is extremely objective and it doesn't matter whether your views are Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, etc.

One conclusion I drew Congress cannot be fixed. The problem is that the entity making the rules that govern Congress/elections is Congress itself... and over time it has slowly gotten harder and harder and harder to replace incumbents. So you end up with career politicians who could care less about "doing the right thing"... all they want to do is keep their jobs. So they are perpetually tweaking the rules to make it easier and easier for them to do so (even if it isn't obvious to the public).

So what does this mean? Basically, besides a very small minority (see: Ron Paul as a very good example of the minority), very few reps on either side of the aisle are more than just a guy who was at the right place at the right time with a big enough smile/ego/wallet to adopt the "winning" set of beliefs for their constituents.

Also, as long as the rep campaigns hard enough and brings home enough pork, none of the constituents will care if they f*ck up the big picture because they can always deflect blame on the "other guy." People demonstrate repeatedly that they think their rep is doing a "good job" and it's all the other guys that are screwing up the system. This is slowly changing as Congress f*cks up so bad that some people for the first time are beginning to assume their guy is "part of the problem." But it is still not going to fix any of the problems we have. It doesn't matter who is in control... whether it be the Dems or the Repubs... the situation is screwed unless you blow up the current system and come up with a new model for Congress.

The good news? As "bad" as America is, I'd still rather live here than any other country in the world. So we should all count our blessings.

 

[pkt77242]

As I said earlier, a middle-of-the-road guy isn't necessarily a good thing either. You want guys who are truly right on some issues and truly left on other issues. A hybrid.

I want a guy who will get a balanced budget amendment through, end the War of Drugs, cut the hell out of the Defense Department, shrink the federal government (completely eliminate bureaucratic mandates like the Dept of Edu), etc. But we just won't see it, sadly.

I do strongly agree with you that the primaries do make the GOP spring to the right in terms of being pro-life, Fundamentalist Christian, etc. I could give a sh*t is my President is Mormon, Jewish, Catholic, or some Festivus religion.

I disagree with other parts of your post but that is more personal perference. But the bolded part is a very bad idea. Most economists (even very conservative ones) are against this idea. When we hit a bad downturn in the economy we have to spend into a deficit. Only the Federal government is large enough to carry the load during the worst recessions. Yes when times are good we should have a balanced budget or a small surplus but when recessions hit a balanced budget amendment doesn't make sense and in fact would be outright horrible for the economy. When the economy tanks, the governemnt takes in drastically less money as people are unemployed and businesses don't make as much money or outright fail, and a balanced budget amendment would cause us to drastically cut our spending which would just make the economy worse. I tried to condense this thought process but I know that I didn't do the best job (sorry 3 beers will do that to you).

 

[IrishLax]

As a complete aside... as a testament to our stupidity we elected a man with no experience running anything of note to run our entire country. This man was also the epitome of a career politician... never having worked a job that depended on producing or offering a competitive service.

Our other choices? Two senators with years upon years of experience. One with leadership experience in both the Senate and the military where he was a war hero. The other a person who was part of one of the most successful presidencies in the modern era. Yet the one lost because people were anti-Republican, and the other didn't get nominated because she was too "bitchy" or whatever.

I am one of the sheep that bought into "change" and voted for Obama. I mostly did it because I thought he would do wonders for us in foreign policy/international relations. I feel like a moron and a lemming after having learned how the whole system works. You need the most shrewd, experienced, respected and feared politician you can find to be the President. In my opinion, it was a huge mistake not nominating Hillary. I think either Hillary or McCain would've been far more successful in managing Congress, setting priorities and working out compromises.

 

[pkt77242]

As a complete aside... as a testament to our stupidity we elected a man with no experience running anything of note to run our entire country. This man was also the epitome of a career politician... never having worked a job that depended on producing or offering a competitive service.

Our other choices? Two senators with years upon years of experience. One with leadership experience in both the Senate and the military where he was a war hero. The other a person who was part of one of the most successful presidencies in the modern era. Yet the one lost because people were anti-Republican, and the other didn't get nominated because she was too "bitchy" or whatever.

I am one of the sheep that bought into "change" and voted for Obama. I mostly did it because I thought he would do wonders for us in foreign policy/international relations. I feel like a moron and a lemming after having learned how the whole system works. You need the most shrewd, experienced, respected and feared politician you can find to be the President. In my opinion, it was a huge mistake not nominating Hillary. I think either Hillary or McCain would've been far more successful in managing Congress, setting priorities and working out compromises.

I disagree on Mccain. I might have voted for 2000 McCain but the 2008 McCain sold his soul to get the Republican nomination. No thanks. That is the problem with politics now.

 

[Rhode Irish]

As I said earlier, a middle-of-the-road guy isn't necessarily a good thing either. You want guys who are truly right on some issues and truly left on other issues. A hybrid.

I want a guy who will get a balanced budget amendment through, end the War of Drugs, cut the hell out of the Defense Department, shrink the federal government (completely eliminate bureaucratic mandates like the Dept of Edu), etc. But we just won't see it, sadly.

I do strongly agree with you that the primaries do make the GOP spring to the right in terms of being pro-life, Fundamentalist Christian, etc. I could give a sh*t is my President is Mormon, Jewish, Catholic, or some Festivus religion.

Well, that goes to his point. You're never going to get your ideal candidate through a primary. Nobody that will end the war on drugs or cut the defense budget (or believes in science, for that matter) will get through republican primary; nobody that wants to shrink the government will get through a democratic primary.

As far as the appeal of the GOP to fundamentalists, I went through a brief confused time in college, where I mistook my slight libertarian streak for a conservative one. The thing that finally got me off of that idea was every other "conservative" I talked to only cared about these wedge social issues that were dictated by their evangelicalism (abortion, marriage equality, etc), and they were completely at odds with why I went to that meeting in the first place. Turns out my brand of libertarianism has a lot more in common with liberals.

 

[pkt77242]

Well, that goes to his point. You're never going to get your ideal candidate through a primary. Nobody that will end the war on drugs or cut the defense budget (or believes in science, for that matter) will get through republican primary; nobody that wants to shrink the government will get through a democratic primary.

As far as the appeal of the GOP to fundamentalists, I went through a brief confused time in college, where I mistook my slight libertarian streak for a conservative one. The thing that finally got me off of that idea was every other "conservative" I talked to only cared about these wedge social issues that were dictated by their evangelicalism (abortion, marriage equality, etc), and they were completely at odds with why I went to that meeting in the first place. Turns out my brand of libertarianism has a lot more in common with liberals.

I tried to rep you but it says I have to spread it around.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I tried to rep you but it says I have to spread it around.

Thanks buddy. Its the thought that counts!

 

[BobD]

Everyone on this site who is a current/prospective ND students needs to try to take the class American Congress as a free elective if at all possible. Absolutely eye opening class about the inner workings of Congress, and how the House and Senate have evolved over time into what they are today. Also taught by a very good professor who is extremely objective and it doesn't matter whether your views are Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, etc.

One conclusion I drew Congress cannot be fixed. The problem is that the entity making the rules that govern Congress/elections is Congress itself... and over time it has slowly gotten harder and harder and harder to replace incumbents. So you end up with career politicians who could care less about "doing the right thing"... all they want to do is keep their jobs. So they are perpetually tweaking the rules to make it easier and easier for them to do so (even if it isn't obvious to the public).

So what does this mean? Basically, besides a very small minority (see: Ron Paul as a very good example of the minority), very few reps on either side of the aisle are more than just a guy who was at the right place at the right time with a big enough smile/ego/wallet to adopt the "winning" set of beliefs for their constituents.

Also, as long as the rep campaigns hard enough and brings home enough pork, none of the constituents will care if they f*ck up the big picture because they can always deflect blame on the "other guy." People demonstrate repeatedly that they think their rep is doing a "good job" and it's all the other guys that are screwing up the system. This is slowly changing as Congress f*cks up so bad that some people for the first time are beginning to assume their guy is "part of the problem." But it is still not going to fix any of the problems we have. It doesn't matter who is in control... whether it be the Dems or the Repubs... the situation is screwed unless you blow up the current system and come up with a new model for Congress.
The good news? As "bad" as America is, I'd still rather live here than any other country in the world. So we should all count our blessings.

Good post! I wish I could take that class.

I think if we could get a majority of voters to refuse to vote for an incumbent, it would be as close to "blowing up the system" as we can hope to get in our lifetime. I feel it would send a powerful message that wouldn't be forgotten anytime soon. It's suppose to be a Government by the people and in many ways we have become a people divided by the Government.