2016

[feralfreak]

i dont doubt that they would do that, i just dont think that is legitimate reasoning not to tax them, tax them anyway, then if they do that we take that issue on too, cross that bridge when we come to it sort of deal. we used to have a law against profiting more then a certain percentage off of products. well the law still exists but it hasnt been enforced in over a century.

with very few exceptions the rich get away with doing whatever they want(look up the case of one rich boy that murdered others by driving drunk, his defense was "affluenza"), and the issue with a GMO company called monsanto, where they for some stupid reason can take your field if they slip up and let even a little of their pollen or whatever out and it mixes with your crops, the laws wont stop them from taking it out on the average workers, they will cut salaries or pay to have laws changed to allow it, they will cut hours and cut staff. im not about to support some socialist.

[Mistress Becky]

I truly believe it is Scott Walker that is the best Republican candidate. I know he hasn't announced yet, but it's coming. He's not afraid of the hard fight, he took on the unions to put Wisconsin on the right track, and believe he can do the same thing in Washington. He's also the only govener in history to go through a recall election and still win.

[Diapered Jason]

Unfortunately, here on the ground in Madison, the way we view Scott Walker is very different. The main problem with a governer

[Dill_Pickle]

Elfking, you might want to look up the career of Arnold Schwarzenegger!

[crys_138]

I'm hoping Bernie pulls off an upset and makes the general election, but if he doesn't get that far, I'll vote for Hillary.

Absolutely under no circumstances will I ever vote Republican.

[Wet Knight]

I heard somewhere that Bill Clinton said that if he had his way, he'd 'have' a woman in the White House.

[Dubious]

I would vote for Arnold

[BabyChris121675]

I am voting third party next year as I am fed up with the two party system, I hate it- I hate the mudslinging, the dividing of the country and the lesser of two evils.

[Wet Knight]

Anyone remember

[Bettypooh]

We've already had an actor for President- "Bedtime for Bonzo" Reagan I like "Bonzo goes to Bitburg" better though

"Hey, ho- let's go!"

Edited July 4, 2015 by Bettypooh

[Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover]

I'm hoping Bernie pulls off an upset and makes the general election, but if he doesn't get that far, I'll vote for Hillary.

I feel like you've just read my mind since I almost wrote the exact same thing. I find myself liking many of your posts, but this one really encapsulated my feelings very nicely. While I'm not really a fan of Hillary, I'd rather have a second Clinton than a third Bush, and the serious alternatives to a third Bush on the Republican side are even less appealing to me.

Are logos really needed? Presidential campaigns have become really stupid. You know what I'd like to see? No parties at all. Just put the facts along with candidate 1, candidate 2 and so on. No names, no parties, no race, don't list their sex, etc. Then maybe people will vote for what they want. Not because a certain person is black or female. The same could go for governors, congress, mayors, etc.

This would be nice, and it's what was originally intended, but from a strictly realistic standpoint, it'll never happen. Jefferson formed the first political party shortly after the country was formed, (it's still around today as the Democratic party, but it's original name was slightly different,) and we've had party systems ever since. As far as logos go, I'm not really bothered by them one way or another, but I think that elected representatives should be forced to look like NASCAR drivers, and made to wear the logos of their corporate sponsors in addition to their own. At least then we'll know exactly where each elected official is getting their money from.

I am voting third party next year as I am fed up with the two party system, I hate it- I hate the mudslinging, the dividing of the country and the lesser of two evils.

[Bettypooh]

Over time, the two main parties have shifted, re-built, and redecorated themselves many times over. When the terms first came into use, Democrats were conservative and Republicans were liberal a far cry from what they are today. As I see this, there is actually a good chance that Trump can buy his way into the office; for indeed only the rich can be President. Just the cost of having you name on the ballot excludes the chance of any lesser-monied person from doing this. And IMHO that is very wrong, but there you hae it- the two main partied have both colluded to be sure it is this way because they don't want a poor person denting their incomes and lifestyles by applying good economics to the running of the nation such as not spending what you do not have while spending the rest wisely.

[Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover]

Over time, the two main parties have shifted, re-built, and redecorated themselves many times over. When the terms first came into use, Democrats were conservative and Republicans were liberal a far cry from what they are today.

You're absolutely 100% correct, Bettypooh. The Democrats were the party of the south, (hence the term Dixiecrats,) and the Republicans were considered radical liberals at the time. It's worth noting that as I mentioned in my post above though, the northern and southern Democrats, were technically two different parties operating under one party name though. The northern Democrats were effectively moderate centrists, but they had no real power and were highly disorganized. Likewise, the Wigs were a weak, conservative party that had enough power to be relevant, but they were on their way out the door. The southern Democrats were the conservative powerhouse and the Republicans were the liberal powerhouse when the two parties first squared off against each other, albeit under slightly different names. The last "realignment" of party ideologies started under President William McKinley, who first tried to bring a southern strategy to the Republican party. (The Democrats in turn began embracing the more liberal ideology that the Republicans were abandoning, knowing full well they could pick up the voters they'd lost.)

Over the years I have always noted that Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same ilk like people living on different sides of the same street in a gated community where nobody else is allowed in, and where nobody sees their butlers and maids and gardeners dealing with the real world instead of themselves

But I think I like better a bumper sticker I saw a few days ago which said:

Republicans and Democrats- same shit, different piles

It's only when the majority realizes all this and refuses to let it continue that we will see change, any by then we're going to be owned by China so it really doesn't matter who wins in 2016; we've already been screwed over permanently by the shit-piles and nobody can change the future they've given us at this point

This is not the first time that I've seen this analogy made. Decades ago it was actually common rhetoric that the two parties were "pretty similar, but just had some key differences on how they thought specific things should be handled." This changed when Newt Gingrich first started to rise to power, precisely because he pushed the Republican party to reframe their rhetoric so that the two parties were more like the Hatfields and the McCoys and less like two siblings who couldn't agree on who should get the top bunk at camp. Eventually both parties embraced this mentality, and that created the exact situation you've described above.

As for the bumper sticker, I think that's probably one of the best assessments I've seen of the two-party system in awhile. I've been comparing the idea of another Bush vs. Clinton election to the tagline of AvP, (Whoever wins, we lose,) but I think I like "same shit, different piles" even more. There's a reason Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have the support that they do, both have entirely different ideologies, but the one thing they have in common is that they're not establishment candidates, and that makes them appealing to people who are sick of having to choose between the names Bush and Clinton.

[Burp_Cup]

The authors of legislation that contributed to the economic collapse of '08 were all Republicans as I recall. I believe it was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, that unfortunately, President Clinton (yes, a Democrat) signed into law in 1999. Why he acquiesced to this still bothers me, but it may be a prominent display of the sameness of the two parties.

Personally, I will not support any candidate who would back legislation that would remove regulations from Wall St. The Republican Party's agenda however, has an attachment to words like; deregulation, privatization, pro-business, and in my opinion, anti-labor.

Keep going Bernie Sanders!!

[Born Yesterday]

Voting for the first one I hear pronouncing 'nuclear' correctly.

[rusty pins]

Voting for the first one I hear pronouncing 'nuclear' correctly.

Don't wait for George W Bush then.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

I thought he was looking for WMD, since he said he didn't find them in Iraq

[Burp_Cup]

Or, he's out fishin' with his New-kya-Lure.

[babybabbles]

so true cutie if donald duck get elected please adopt me i behave good and keep my cage clean for I only see poverty coming to us if he get voted in.

[Elfy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Ford

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Abbott

Idiots running for Public office isn't exactly an American only kind of thing.

[BabyKayla]

Bernie Sanders is my choice by a landslide. He's the only one who's truly FOR the people. He isn't owned by corporations, consistently fights for equality, and wants to help

[feralfreak]

i would prefer trump, carson, or cruz, i will NEVER support a socialist.

[Diapered Jason]

I'm just happy to be Canadian (well, British-Canadian) so that I don't have to put up with such a long, drawn-out election process.

[Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover]

Bernie Sanders is my choice by a landslide. He's the only one who's truly FOR the people. He isn't owned by corporations, consistently fights for equality, and wants to help

[Diapered Jason]

I'm normally not in favor of "like" buttons on this board, but for this post I'd really like to use one.

I'd have to look into why the Republicans have an early start to comment further on that subject, I know there's a reason, but it's escaping me at the moment. I do agree that Donald Trump will not last forever, especially not in a field as large as the one he's currently competing in. He may make it through the debates, and he may even be one the final two candidates grasping for the nomination, but he is very unlikely to receive it. Just this week Carly Fiorina has been gaining steam, in part because of Donald Trump's alleged comments putting a spotlight on her in the run up to the debate, as well as their back and fourth during the debate.

One thing I do have to agree with cutie_patootie on is that our election process has become long and drawn out, far more than it needs to be. This is something that to the best of my knowledge, doesn't affect any other nation. The fact that the campaign for 2016 essentially started the day the 2014 mid-terms ended is ridiculous. I would like to see elected representatives actually governing instead of campaigning, especially when the election is still over a year away. I don't agree with Donald Trump on much, but there's one thing I can easily get behind him on, and that's the fact that a three-hour debate on CNN was far too long, especially when the aforementioned debate was severely lacking in substance.

Yeah, I think the campaign should be limited to a month maybe, with an entire week for voting to occur.