AT&T Thanks Democrats For Telecom Immunity → Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties"

Really? You really can't believe they did this?

Partisanship has only hidden the reality of politics. Each side points and cries "THEY are horrible!". When it comes down to it, both parties do the same crap, just under different banners.

Stop voting (D)
Stop voting (R)

Vote on the issues, and this will stop. Until then, it'll continue to be business as usual.

Who would you recommend then? If you don't vote D and don't vote R, you are not left with much. You suggest no one be president? Open office? ;P

I agree. Both want your support for their agendas, and both are horrible.

Whether it's the Democrats:
Tax us till we break, and spend irresponsibly (medical/medicare fraud, general wasteful spending). Sue for discrimination wherever possible, and kill off any hope of running your own business.

Or the Republicans:
Sell it all to the highest bidder, outsource north America, and still raise fees on everything possible. Become the world's police, for corporate interests.

There are other parties besides those 2 (I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not). Independents are the next largest, green party, etc..

At the current rate things are going, that just might work!

There are many 3rd parties who would love your support, and chances are there are 3rd parties which line up with precisely what you want - whether they're Reform, Green, Libertarians, or Constitutionalists...

But as long as we're stuck in the (D)-(R) chasm, we're going to just continue to fall.

i hate this whole 'outsourcing' issue on how people cry like BABIES all over it. it is a FACT OF LIFE that it happens, you can NOT stop unless you cut off entirely from the world (nothing in or out of the country). i'd suggest anyone concerned with 'outsourcing' should take a good look at history. find me a place in time in which a technology or knowledge or 'jobs' did not get 'outsourced' to another country or place. we live, now more so than ever, in a world with a tightly intertwined global economy in which some competition is not confined to just locally.

I just want to see a national debate with a 3rd party participating. We generally keep voting the incumbents back into office over and over again and we are going nowhere. There is very little separating a Democrat from a Republican other than the direction the mud is being slung. I keep hearing how I am wasting my vote by casting mine for anything other than R or D each election, but I know in my heart that I am really doing the right thing, and we have to start somewhere.

The problem with most 3rd parties is that they spend too much time and money on national campaigns. If they went whole hog in a limited # of selected states they could actually get people elected to Congress(especially the House) and then use their leverage in a non-majority D-R split in Congress to negotiate some of the things they want and gain higher visibility for future elections. Until they do that they are going nowhere in Presidential elections.

The LP is doing this to an extent, and slowly making inroads...

Me too. Unfortunately neither the Ds, Rs nor media want this to happen, therefore it doesn't.You said it, brother. I am sick of this, and I fully intend to vote for any third name that gets on my ballot, or write in someone (probably Nader) if there isn't. They have virtually no chance of winning, but if enough of us do it, maybe people will take heart and they will have a chance next time ...

I would recommend you find out how your representative and your senators voted. If their votes don't agree with your values, vote their @ss out of office.

It is correct to say this isn't really a D or an R issue - both sides (especially the Dem leadership) are equally craven and corrupt.

one telling fact: the republicans couldn't get the immunity provision thru when they controlled congress; they were enabled and abetted by a democratically controlled legislature.

I do agree that outsourcing is inevitable.
The issue that the politicians need to watch is the trade deficit, and who 'owns' the country.

I tend to agree with the Democrats so in general have no problem voting for them.

If you find neither Republican nor Democratic acceptable then I think voting for a third party candidate is a good idea, better then not voting. With our winner take all system it is hard for third party candidates to gain enough traction to be elected. However they can and do influence the debate. In that role even though they do not win elections they perform a valuable service and voting for them provides a strong message to incumbents about popular sentiment.

/tom

Nader!

He's got a point, start small and kick some ass. Divide and Conquer as they say.

Oh, puleez...

I guess if you are against people who fight for consumer protections, that is the appropriate response.

and does that same consumer protection cover the drug addicts too?

it could happen if they didnt a ton of money nationally.

spend it in the states that matter and go from there. If you can win the states that matter or even maybe 2 of them then the other parties could have problems.

I disagree. What hurts third parties is the lack of a runoff, requiring > 50% of the vote. Third parties can always be portrayed as a "wasted vote" or "voting for the greater of two evils by not voting for the lessor."

What we need is a tiered-ranking ballot where you could indicate your first, second, third, etc. choice. You could vote the Green candidate as your first choice. Then the Dem as your second. The tallying software would accumulate everyone's first choices, and if it isn't > 50%, discard them and proceed to the 2nd choice.

I think a lot of people would vote for third parties if they didn't feel "the worst of two evils" might get into office as a result.

But, modern Americans are pretty stupid. If they can't punch a pre-cut hole in a card (Florida), their heads would probably explode if they had to cope with 1 through n choices.

Mark

I think the "Tax and spend" slogan is merely political labelling. It seems to me, both parties are "Spend & Spend" and it doesn't matter if it comes from borrowing, taxing, stealing until we break.

Basically it's massive waste, fraud, and graft all around amongst both parties.

Ross Perot came the closest in recent years.

I think TK is right about this... They need to start at the local and state level so they can build a base to propel them to the Federal Level.

And the Democrats would equally say "especially the Republican Leadership."

What you just said is "Both sides suck, but the Dems suck worse, so vote for Republicans" which undermines the entire point, really.

Imagine if Americans actually took their duty to vote seriously, and we got 85% of the populace to vote.

That right there would cause some real changes. It would at least shake things up. I'm not sure Brad Pitt would make a good President, but hey, it's be different...

Yeah, and if a loon like him* could get as far as he did in '92, imagine what someone more level-headed could do using the same strategy.

*Or at least he came off that way-how much due to media?

I don't believe he was that loony.

His style allowed him to be portrayed as kind of a bumpkin BUT we have other Presidents from Texas ... anyway, both parties went after him and tried to make him seem like a loose cannon.

Question, a man who hires mercenaries to rescue employees held hostage overseas.... is that really a sign he's a loon? Or maybe a loyal boss! ...Or a President who wants to invade a country? Which is worse?

Anyway, both parties went after him and tried to label him in two ways. 1: A fringe loonie and 2: Voting for Perot is "Wasting" your vote and helping the "Other" party win. BOTH parties preached this. I think this was the main reason people didn't vote for him...

Personally, I don't think a guy who becomes a billionaire and does it on his own really could be a stupid loon.

Either way, he failed... but he did make a big impact considering the relatively small amount of money he spent compared to the Republican and Democrat fund-raising juggernauts.

I thought it was his Ron Paul'ish dismissal of complicated issues with "if it's broke, you gotta fix it." And then the part about his house being attacked by black-helicopter people, and he withdrew from the race, and then re-entered.

Personally, at the time I wished he would be elected just to shake things up. But, he really was a nut job.

Mark

This is, it is broke, we should fix it. Also not sure about the Black Helicopter thing.... but it wouldn't surprise me.

Could of been just about anyone....

Yeah, he never should of left the race then re-entered. He claimed he didn't want it to be about him, but of course he was the icon of the movement, so of course everything was concentrated on him.

If he had been elected President, I think it would of been proof the system can be shaken up... but I expect the two party system in Washington would of tried VERY VERY HARD to lame-duck him and make him seem like an incompetent.

Who knows how it would of worked out. If the people liked him, Congress would have to get in line, but if Congress could make him seem stupid and incompetent, the people, especially party faithful, would buy it hook line and sinker. You'd see a impeachment in such a circumstance. Remember they also had the Unlimited office of Special Persecution back then, too. Something this administration has never had to face.

"What we need is a tiered-ranking ballot where you could indicate your first, second, third, etc. choice. "
That's what they have in Australia, EVERY vote counts eventually, it seems good in theory but it does not lead to a real third party even there. They also make it illegal not to vote (with a small fine) and get a large % voting- does it help- nope, the mega rich worldwide control everything anyway!
The only place I know of where peoples vote actually counts against all that money and power is Singapore where it is illegal for any politician to accept ANYTHING, if you do you go to jail! I believe in China you could get the death sentence but they don't have a problem helping our politicians.
The system we have reduces the value of a vote in direct proportion to the money raised by the politicians, something that has been raised to a new level with Bush (and the Congress)--(transferring 5 trillion somewhere) and seems to be locked in now with both parties.
So go ahead with the voting, just remember that a $1 million contribution from the oil barons to McCain IS going to lead to $5 Billion in benefits to them!