2010 Midterm Election

[Temerit]

Who do you want to win? Republicans or Democrats and why?

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

As far as governors go, we have a choice between Jerry Brown (old democrat with a history of being a bad politician) and Meg Whitman (republican with no experience and used to run ebay). I think both of them would be bad for California and I wish there was someone else to vote for.

 

[Cinnamon]

I better reign myself in while answering this. lol



Anymore the labels republican and democrat have become obsolete. Even though they're still on the ballot, those terms represent long ago and far away. A line has been drawn in the sand and better terms would be Americans and Socialists ... each separate ends of a very wide spectrum.



I'm disgusted with the current leadership in America and how it's trying to turn us into a communist country, or worse. Fortunately, it appears that the voters are on to this. If things turn out as predicted on Tuesday, we'll be sending a loud and clear message to the powers that be that America stands for freedom and all we were originally founded on.



Obama is a disgrace. He's never had our true interests at heart and it shows. He considers us as infidels and his leadership could be the death of America if left unchecked. Thank God for elections and what Tuesday will bring. Further, thank God for 2012. I hope His mercy and grace will find it's way back to us. America was founded on Christianity no matter how much Obama resents it and fights it.



Thanks for the thread. My reply was in the mildest form I could muster.

 

[Temerit]

I have to disagree on nearly all points.



I fail to see how the terms 'Democrat' and 'Republican' have become obsolete, I find that they still quite accurately identify a set of values which in turn can be applied towards contemporary issues of the day. Your assertion that more accurate titles would be Americans and Socialists bleeds of ignorance, I would hazard a guess that approximately 1% of the United States population would be truly interested in a socialistic society.



I would now ask you how in anyway is America currently being turned into a communist county? Would it be the growing amounts of wealth held by the upper class? The complete desecration of any kind of financial regulation by the Republican Legislature in the 1990s? Perhaps the significant lowering of taxes for small business startups?



The only message that can really be sent on Tuesday is either, we want to continue the legacy of positive change set up by President Obama or we are idiots and are misdirecting our hatred at those who legitimately have the interests of Americans at heart (at least much more so that the alternative). I'm also wondering who you believe in the leadership believes that America shouldn't stand for freedom? The only one I can think of would be Bush, driving up deficits and initiating two unnecessary wars, presiding over the use of torture and passage of the Patriot Act.



What has convinced you that Obama has never had our interests at heart? The use of the word infidel better not have any sort of reference toward Obama supposedly being a Muslim, because that reeks of pure lunacy. If you believe otherwise please espouse upon your view that Obama practices a different religion that the one he claims to practice.



And America was not founded on Christianity. The majority of founding fathers were deists in fact, Christianity (the antithesis to rational behavior) has no place in our government.

 

[Cinnamon]

I have to disagree on nearly all points.



I fail to see how the terms 'Democrat' and 'Republican' have become obsolete, I find that they still quite accurately identify a set of values which in turn can be applied towards contemporary issues of the day. Your assertion that more accurate titles would be Americans and Socialists bleeds of ignorance, I would hazard a guess that approximately 1% of the United States population would be truly interested in a socialistic society.



I would now ask you how in anyway is America currently being turned into a communist county? Would it be the growing amounts of wealth held by the upper class? The complete desecration of any kind of financial regulation by the Republican Legislature in the 1990s? Perhaps the significant lowering of taxes for small business startups?



The only message that can really be sent on Tuesday is either, we want to continue the legacy of positive change set up by President Obama or we are idiots and are misdirecting our hatred at those who legitimately have the interests of Americans at heart (at least much more so that the alternative). I'm also wondering who you believe in the leadership believes that America shouldn't stand for freedom? The only one I can think of would be Bush, driving up deficits and initiating two unnecessary wars, presiding over the use of torture and passage of the Patriot Act.



What has convinced you that Obama has never had our interests at heart? The use of the word infidel better not have any sort of reference toward Obama supposedly being a Muslim, because that reeks of pure lunacy. If you believe otherwise please espouse upon your view that Obama practices a different religion that the one he claims to practice.



And America was not founded on Christianity. The majority of founding fathers were deists in fact, Christianity (the antithesis to rational behavior) has no place in our government.

Let me tell you a little something about me and how I operate. For the record, I don't engage name-calling, insults and someone telling me what I better or better not believe. Your slam on my Christian faith speaks volumes on how you conduct yourself in conversations. We are obviously at two far ends of every spectrum and I can assure you there will be no meeting of the minds, no common ground, none. Further, your approach doesn't lend itself to a discussion. Perhaps the next time you wish to engage someone in conversation, you don't start off with such direct angst and personal insults. Maybe that works with others, but it never works with me.



After reading your first sentence I thought we were actually going to have a discussion. By the time I got to your last sentence, I knew that would be impossible.

 

[Evil Eye]

We have rules on religious debates people so please refrain from calling religions irrational.

Play nice, I don't want something to do.

 

[Temerit]

Let me tell you a little something about me and how I operate. For the record, I don't engage name-calling, insults and someone telling me what I better or better not believe. Your slam on my Christian faith speaks volumes on how you conduct yourself in conversations. We are obviously at two far ends of every spectrum and I can assure you there will be no meeting of the minds, no common ground, none. Further, your approach doesn't lend itself to a discussion. Perhaps the next time you wish to engage someone in conversation, you don't start off with such direct angst and personal insults. Maybe that works with others, but it never works with me.



After reading your first sentence I thought we were actually going to have a discussion. By the time I got to your last sentence, I knew that would be impossible.

I'm sorry for asking you to clarify what you stated that you believed. It was not my intent to come off as hostile, but it appears that's how my response was received. I would ask you to answer some of my questions, because I am currently trying to understand the conservative mind and am completely willing to do so.



I was also not aware that I was slamming the Christian faith... I didn't know that it not being rational was seen as a negative, I thought that was merely a characteristic of the religion having been raised in the Christian faith (although I no longer belong to it) and hearing other Christian claim that the religion is not rational. Rationality requires that a thought process involve reason which is defined as a basis or cause for some belief. It was my understanding that rationality and faith were opposites.



Its seems that you are unwilling to responds which is saddening, I was looking forward to see you defend what I perceived as baseless assertions (America is becoming communist etc.) I am completely willing to disregard religion, but when people try to use it as a sound means for justifying economic or social policy it becomes impossible for one to refute such an assertion without in some way pointing out flaws in the religion or the connection between said religion and policy.



I hope that you will reconsider your decision and reply in good faith. It was not my intent to attack your faith, but nor would such an attack validate your radical claims.

 

[The Dragon Master]

Please refrain from turning this into a religious debate!

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

Today is voting day... *sigh* No good people to vote for.

 

[awpoon]

You gotta vote for one either way. Are you going to vote for the devil you know or are you going to vote for the devil you don't know?

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

You gotta vote for one either way.

Says who?

 

[Andrew Darmac]

I could have registered to vote, being 18 now, but I see no one worth of assuming any position in Congress or as a governor today. All the voting is, is a over-scaled popularity contest where the biggest speaker and/or biggest spenders tend to win. Both parties always do the same fighting with eat other, trying to see who can insult the other the worst. It's just a joke.



Ever election, the same trends seem to follow: One election, the Democrats are in power. Next election, everyone hates the Democrats and the Republicans are elected in. The following election, everyone hates the Republicans and the Democrats are voted in. No one ever seems to notice both parties are tearing the nation apart with their constant bickering and tendencies to divide people with different ideas. I hate both of them with a passion, and will be glad when people elect representatives based on merit, and not parties.

 

[Evil Eye]

Can't you just vote for a third party?

 

[Andrew Darmac]

Can't you just vote for a third party?

Theoretically, yes, but most third parties are eons away from being the same magnitude in size and influence of the two main ones. So much so, that only on rare occasions does someone from a third-party or an independent come into office.

 

[Evil Eye]

Well, with that attitude

 

[Temerit]

All the voting is, is a over-scaled popularity contest where the biggest speaker and/or biggest spenders tend to win.

And it's up to you to change that.

Both parties always do the same fighting with eat other, trying to see who can insult the other the worst. It's just a joke.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. That are people in office who are legitimately trying to work for the common good.. Ross Finegold, Anthony Weiner, Barack Obama, Ron Wyden, and Patty Murray come to mind.

Ever election, the same trends seem to follow: One election, the Democrats are in power. Next election, everyone hates the Democrats and the Republicans are elected in.

Not particularly, the majority of voters actually vote for candidates from the same political party each election. Those kind of people I have a small problem with. My biggest problem however is that elections tend to be decided by a group called swing voters, which I believe are mostly uneducated idiots who vote for whoever they see the most ads for or vote solely based off of name recognition. If they actually had stances on political and social issues and cared about the integrity of their representatives they would more than likely vote in a more consistent manner.

Theoretically, yes, but most third parties are eons away from being the same magnitude in size and influence of the two main ones. So much so, that only on rare occasions does someone from a third-party or an independent come into office.

This is mostly due to impracticality, although third parties can function to some extend within a Republic, for example in Great Britain. Generally a two party system is used to drive the poles of political discourse to wherever constituents stand. That is why a Republican from Massachusetts will be vastly more liberal than a Democrat from Alabama. The political parties adjust to the different viewpoints of voters. When you throw a third party into the mix, say one that is a Moderate (or Center of both Dems and Republicans today) and the current political agenda has been conservative for a long time and hasn't been working, a person whose views align with a more moderate party may vote for a more extreme party simply to shift the current agenda in the direction they want to go. Most times third parties simply siphon votes from a major candidate and third parties allow the minority viewpoint to prevail if the combined total of the loser and the third party candidate is greater than the victor and the loser and the third party candidate share similar views.



I agree with you partially though.

 

[Evil Eye]

which I believe are mostly uneducated idiots

Doesn't the same apply to the people who vote for the same party all the time? Because I really doubt people always agree with what's being said...

 

[Temerit]

Doesn't the same apply to the people who vote for the same party all the time? Because I really doubt people always agree with what's being said...

I understand your point which is partially accurate, but at least those people actually have stances on issues and certain views. I would gladly vote for a Republican, IF he shared my views (which has been happening less and less as the Republican party has drifted off the right side of the political spectrum).

 

[Evil Eye]

but at least those people actually have stances on issues and certain views.

I suspect some of them think My grandfather voted for <blank>, my father voted for <blank>, so I vote for <blank>!.

 

[Temerit]

There are most definitely some of those, however those are constants and do not generally decides elections so they don't frustrate me as much.