The difference between republicans and democrats I see these days is republicans blame the politicians/government for the problems we have while democrats blame the private individuals and companies that are fueling (via money from ridiculous laws) the problems in government.

You want freedom from the laws the government makes? Well part of unlimited freedom allows you to take vast sums of money to warp government for economic advantages (or even worse, religious reasons).

Without reasonable government regulations, this situation gets worse, not better. Just look at every fucking crisis that has been caused from deregulation and how great it was supposed to be.

Voting out career politicians will just vote in new politicians that are required to have wealthy backers for their PACs to have a chance of being elected. So their beliefs have already been bought. You need to change this fucked up a system of money buying everything in politics before anything remotely different can happen

Sadly it's just going to get worse. Much worse. And all you people talking about how "freedom" is what we need are just buying into this whole illusion that has been bought and paid for

Problem is...the current Republicans and Democrats in office are the ones who make the campaign laws. And they make it so hard for any "third party" candidate to even get on the ballot that it's almost impossible.

The only sure way to get elected is to be a Democrat or Republican and have the party machine fund you and finance you all the way in.

And then? Well then you OBEY the party leaders in the House and Senate and you cast yote according to what Sen. Reid tells a Dem in the Senate or Sen. McConnell tells a Repub in the Senate.

That's what I was saying to crockett...He (and a majority of Americans) have been led to think that our representatives are geniuses and have all kinds of "experience".
The only thing they have "experience" at is fucking the country up. And it doesn't take a genius to go and vote the way the Senate or House leader told you to on every issue.

But yeah...they make sure the campaign laws are set up to keep the 2-party system in power.

And if you try to vote in a new Republican or Democrat candidate...you just get a new guy who will do EXACTLY what the old guy did when it comes to voting in Congress...obey the party leaders.

The only thing that can change this is for the people of the United States to stop voting for the 2 parties and start voting for candidates that actually espouse your beliefs.

If you are crazy religious and pro-life and want a govt run by the Baptist church...then WHY are you voting for a Republican? They will NEVER do that.

If you are a guy like me....pro-choice, anti-war, anti-drug war, pro-freedom...then WHY would you vote for a Democrat? They will NEVER actually do the things they pretend to believe in.

It's time we started finding candidates who are not beholden to the current 2 party power structure that has fucked our country up.

Just look at us. In debt up to our eyeballs, being searched at airports, cops searching us at traffic stops and frisking people on the streets, most of the world hating our guts, the economy barely hanging on...Where we are at is directly the cause of the Republican and Democrat 2 Party System.

Hell, some of those guys have been in office since the 1970's! THEY are the ones who did this to us, and we just keep re-electing them over and over while they laugh all the way to the bank. :(

I'm sorry but that is just a ridiculous notion. Sure a randomly intelligent person could run a small town or learn how to represent at the state level, but even that is going to take time. Thinking some random joe is going to just walk into office and be able to help run the govt and create laws with zero experience is just retarded,.

It's just like someone isn't going to walk into the porn industry and instantly make money or even know how to run a website. You seriously can't be so sense as to think there is no skill or profession involved when it comes to politics.

Added to this we've already had this topic covered before and I brought up the giant gapping hole in your argument. If we only had a bunch of one term elected officials, they wouldn't have to give a fuck what you thought of them. They would just lie their way into office take care of their special,interest and not give a flying fuck about getting elected again. Hell most probably wouldn't give a shit if they did the job right or wrong because they are out the next time around anyway.

Your idea is the same as most of the libertarian ideas, which is not biased on reality and wishful thinking at best.

The issue is money in politics, not how long someone has served.

crockett, seriously, it's not an either or proposition and the problems resulting from career politicians are historical and this was a big issue to address when this nation was formed:

Term limits date back to the American Revolution, and prior to that to the democracies and republics of antiquity. The council of 500 in ancient Athens rotated its entire membership annually, as did the ephorate in ancient Sparta. The ancient Roman Republic featured a system of elected magistrates?tribunes of the plebs, aediles, quaestors, praetors, and consuls?who served a single term of one year, with reelection to the same magistracy forbidden for ten years.

According to historian Garrett Fagan, office holding in the Roman Republic was based on "limited tenure of office" which ensured that "authority circulated frequently", helping to prevent corruption.

Many of the founders of the United States were educated in the classics, and quite familiar with rotation in office during antiquity. The debates of that day reveal a desire to study and profit from the object lessons offered by ancient democracy.

In 1783, rotation experiments were taking place at the state level. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 set maximum service in the Pennsylvania General Assembly at "four years in seven". Benjamin Franklin's influence is seen not only in that he chaired the constitutional convention which drafted the Pennsylvania constitution, but also because it included, virtually unchanged, Franklin's earlier proposals on executive rotation. Pennsylvania's plural executive was composed of twelve citizens elected for the term of three years, followed by a mandatory vacation of four years.

On October 2, 1789, the Continental Congress appointed a committee of thirteen to examine forms of government for the impending union of the states.

Among the proposals was that from the State of Virginia, written by Thomas Jefferson, urging a limitation of tenure, "to prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom by continuing too long in office the members of the Continental Congress".

The committee made recommendations, which as regards congressional term limits were incorporated unchanged into the Articles of Confederation (1781?89). The fifth Article stated that "no person shall be capable of being a delegate [to the continental congress] for more than three years in any term of six years".

1. You have NEVER been able to show ME any "gaping holes" because...well, because of the difference between us.

2. My "idea" is the one that the country was founded on. A Congressman or a Senator is supposed to be nothing more than an average citizen representing other average citizens. NOT your idea of a bunch of lawyers who never had a real job spending their entire lives as bureaucrats spending other people's money.

3. No, the issue is NOT just "money in politics". It's the 2 party stranglehold and the rules and laws that the members of those two parties (one of them being the party you slavishly "believe" in) have made to INSURE that plenty of money flows into the system

4. There is no "4". Just a general observation that you are truly a believer and have no desire for freedom, free will, or running your own life.
You seem to prefer to have a guy like Bill Nelson (in govt. for over 40 years) take his orders from Sen. Reid and run your life for you.

Congrats...you are everythng that the founding fathers did NOT want for our country. :)
Crockett Science.

dynamo you are hitting it right on the head.

Guys like crockett who seem to worship the federal govt. don't even base their statements on reality and history and instead accuse anyone who doesn't fall in line with them as being in some kind of fantasyland.

Thanks for posting that. I'm sure it will have zero effect on getting through to Crockett. He's convinced that somehow Nancy Pelosi, Ted Cruz, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell and others have some magical "experience" that makes them better suited to vote ON THE FUCKING PARTY LINE EVERYTIME than other citizens.

Crockett Science

Yes I get it Robbie, you believe in Robbism, a political system that is built on rainbows and unicorns. You want us to have no standing army, no interest in the rest of the world and not have to pay any taxes. You want a bunch of non experienced farm boys to run the country and everyone will just live happily ever after.. Because nothing bad would ever happen.

No you don't get it Crockett. And you never will.

I've asked you over and over to explain how Ted Cruz is smarter than you are and better equipped to magically vote in the Senate or House.

Tell me how the politicians who vote the PARTY LINE every vote are somehow smarter than you or I and have all this magical experience?

Experience in WHAT exactly? Life? Nope. Making a living in the real world? Nope.
How about spending other people's money? YES! Funneling money to their cronies? YES! Voting EXACTLY as they are told by the party leaders? YES!

As for "nothing bad would ever happen"...WHAT THE FUCK COUNTRY DO YOU LIVE IN?
Have you not seen the shape of things now? 17 TRILLION in debt, searched at airports, hated around the world, and the list goes on and on.

Yeah buddy! Your beloved and benevolent lifetime bureaucrats have done a GREAT job!

Well...they've done a great job at fucking everything up.

That you can't see that is just amazing to me.

Never happen. People wont vote for a morbidly obese president, just like they dont pay to see movies starring morbidly obese people.

Robbie Ted Cruz is not the example of a life long politician. He was elected into office in 06 I believe and is now on his second term. He is a perfect example of Robbism in action. A guy with no experience being elected and not knowing his head from his ass when it come to how to work with the other side. He is of the extreme right and was voted into office by the quick rise of the well funded tea party.

He is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with your ideas..

I wanted to add, prior to the rise of the tea party and their love of voting out incumbents and installing non lifers into office, both sides may have often disagreed with each other, but they still knew how to work with each other. Now that all these short term extremist have been voted into office by the right, the govt has grinded to a stand still, because all these inexperienced Tea Partiers have no understanding of give and take or how to work with the other side.

crockett you are acting stupid...Ted Cruz is only 44 years old.

He's held political office since 2003. Which means he was 33 years old. Been in political office for ELEVEN years now in one form or another.

Yes...unless he retires and goes back to a real job, he's on his way to being a lifetime/career bureaucrat.

Why are you acting so goddamned dumb?
At one point Harry Reid was "new" too. Strom Thurmond was a "newbie" at one point too.

These clowns should come into office, SERVE THE PEOPLE (not themselves) for a couple of years and then go HOME.

Your ideas on this are the same ones that have fucked our country.
How much "experience" did Pres. Obama have by the way?

And I'll ask you again...what exactly do these great Senators and Congressmen that you worship have experience AT? WHAT?

Answer: Nothing. And there is nothing in their job description that requires them to have ANY skills (other than being able to read and write and vote in the House and Senate).

I reject your lame and OLD ideas. You're no progressive. You are locked in a time machine with old ancient bureaucrats who need to get the fuck out of the way of progress.

Robbie, I'm not the guy acting dumb whom thinks random joes with zero experience are going to somehow get elected into office and work miracles.

Another thing you have this issue of thinking that because I disagree with you, that I somehow stand for everything you seem to hate. You do do this all the time and it's the same dumb mentality that most hardcore right wingers have.

If anyone disagrees with you, they are instantly the enemy and represent everything you hate about what ever the subject is. Because I think your idea about inexperienced people being a bad idea, you somehow equate that to me being pro old ancient bureaucrats.

I don't think you ever worked alongside him or you would take that back.

Smarter than his brother, but I can tell you firsthand he is a lying pile of turd. :2 cents:

He has no chance anyway. The country wont elect anyone leaning libertarian. To bad :( Im not a big RP fan, but it would be interesting to see what this country would look like with his father in the WH for a couple terms, lol

Well I never said I'd vote for him.. I just said it wasn't a horrible governor, but I sure as hell would never vote for him.

Rand Paul suffers from the same problems as his father does. Yes he sometimes says some interesting things, he then often says some bat shit crazy stuff. However the biggest problem with him, is he is too far to the extreme and not very moderate. The Republican Party is already too far to the right, it needs to be pulled back away from the whackos and then pushed toward actual fiscal consertivism.

The problem is you couldn't even sell real fiscal consertism to the Republican Party at this point, which is why he has no hope. They have to be moved back to being moderates and lose all the hate and fear mongering before any chance of fiscal consertism has any hope of coming back.

Again, I ask you....WHAT experience???? What are these old men that you think are so great experienced AT?

And again I TELL you...Senators and Congressmen don't do anything but vote on legislation.
And if you are a Democrat in the House you vote the way you are told to by Nancy Pelosi. If you are Republican you vote the way you are told to by John Boehner.
If you are a Dem in the Senate you vote the way Harry Ried tells you. If you are a Republican you vote the way Mitch McConnell tells you.

Now YOU tell ME how any of the 2 party lifetime/bureaucrats have to have "experience" to do that?

Your ideas are old, antiquated, and nothing but "more of the same". And the "same" is what has ruined this country. Again, you are NOT progressive at all. You are for keeping things just the way they are and pretending to be some kind of fake liberal.

Instead of continuing on with your rant about how people need "experience"...Just answer my questions:
Experience at WHAT?
And 2nd question: How much "experience" did Pres. Obama have at being an executive?

I can answer that for you (because you won't)
Answer to the 1st question: Nothing
Answer to the 2nd question: None.

Now how about you try answering those two questions? Or would that open your eyes if you did?

Keep dreamin'. The demographics are against the GOP, and they're getting worse. Doesn't matter who they run, they're gonna lose the WH. Maybe some day, when they stop shitting on latinos, blacks and especially women(!), they'll have a realistic chance at the WH. Until then, not so much...

If you'd like to place a bet, though, I'd be glad to take your money.

All that said, see sig.

I don't dream this up and i dont gamble with gfyers. I base most of my views on what i learn about the history of things and the simple fact is history strongly shows the wh will change hands in 2016.

Nothing is going to change until dems control the White House long enough to have the Supreme Court 5-4 in liberals favor. Once this happens big things will change and finally some sanity can start to creep back in

Well that's nice. On the other hand, there are these things called "polls" (not to mention "demographics"), and it turns out they're usually accurate, especially when polls on the same topic are aggregated.

Tragically, right-wingers especially (and especially over the last 6 years) have been trained to ignore objective reality and double (if not quadruple) down on indefensible positions, so your opinion is not surprising. Just like it was unsurprising when, on election night 2012, Karl Rove believed his own bullshit so much that it led to this epic meltdown, even though polls had been predicting Obama's decisive victory virtually all summer and fall.

Leading up to the election, I pointed this out a few times here, and every time the response from GOP partisans was pretty much "LALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALA." In other words, ignoring objective reality.

Don't get me wrong, IMO, in the current political environment, it doesn't matter much whether a democrat or republican wins the WH. At the national level, both parties are utterly corrupt and ONLY serve their huge money donors. So either way, We The People lose.

For things to "change"...first a case has to be brought to the Supreme Court. They don't just decide to change things on their own.

And what "sanity" do you think the Supreme Court will have "creep back in" if they have a majority of Justices appointed by Democrat presidents?

Will there magically be cases brought to the Supreme Court that will fix the debt? Stop the feds from bombing other countries? Stop them from spying on us? Etc., etc.?

I'm all for "liberal" judges who WON'T take away our personal freedoms...but realistically, they have to have a case brought before them to consider anything first. :)

Pretty sure we are stuck with debt, bombing, and spying. I was mostly referring to the fact that the current Supreme Court has almost completely dismantled campaign finance laws

Granted, then of course congress will have to actually pass new laws for it and by then it maybe far to late

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh


I just stated to you I made that comment based on history, not political affiliation. You're too much party aligned to grasp that apparently. I've stated this here many times, I am not a right-winger or a republican. I'm a realist with no affiliation to anyone, any thing or any fucking political party.

I would make the same prediction if the parties where flip-flopped at this point, and say the repubs are out of the wh in 2016 and the dems are in.


Nevertheless, I hope you feel better now that you got all that off your chest, whew!

Santorum, again? ha haha, he must be a masochist.

Jon Stewart is going to have a field day with this election.

Republican comedy writes itself!

Yes it does.

Fucked up thing about Santorum...I didn't know much about him except when I would see him on the Sunday news shows before 2012.

And on those shows he seemed bright, articulate, and very focused on economics. I didn't bother to check out his background...because I didn't give a fuck at that point. lol

Then when the 2012 election kicked up, I was thinking that he would be a good candidate...until the first time I saw him during the campaign being interviewed.

Man, I've never seen such a change. There he was in that ridiculous sweater vest, spouting religious nonsense like a crazy man. And with that angry pursed lips look.

I suppose I never saw that side of him in the past...but that seemed to be his ONLY side during the campaign.

Fucking politicians. :(
They seem to just change like the wind to try and get power.
Romney changing his abortion stance, Hillary talking like a black person when she was campaigning in an all-black environment. It's fucking ridiculous.

And you'd think that with cellphone video catching these people acting that way, and the internet shooting it out everywhere...that they would smarten up and stop it.

for a republican, i liked Jon Huntsman - even when he's a mormon

but at least he doesn't seem to be insane like some of the other candidates

Vade et caca in pilleum et ipse traheatur super aures tuo :thumbsup

Let him get in the "lead" and I'll guarantee you that the media will dig up everything he has ever done and make it headline news.
Remember in 2012 when they spent all that time "reporting" on Mitt Romney cutting another kids hair 50 years ago? Or the strapping the dog pen to the top of his station wagon 40 years ago?

Trust me, they can dig into everything you ever did and make you look as bad as they want to.

Huntsman would be the same way.

Remember how the media fawned over Romney in the primary. And then when he won it...they turned on him viciously.

Same thing with McCain in 2008. He was the one "good" Republican. The "maverick". The one who got robbed by George Bush in 2000...and once he was the nominee? They tore him a new asshole. lol

There's no ratings in "good guys".

So they hold those "stories" until they get a nominee.

Can't you just imagine all the reporters sitting on that stupid Romney and his dog story? And having to wait until just the right moment to "break" a 40 year old story of a guy tying a dog pen to the top of his station wagon. lol

Actually McCain had a pretty drastic change over and he stopped being the Mavrick and started acting like any other Republicain goon with line for line talking points. Then there was the whole Palin issue..

The media turned on him as you call it, because he started acting ridiculous.

well, Huntsman is out of question anyways because he signed a paper on gay marriage and as former ambassador in China he's probably automatically considered a communist.

but that's what I meant earlier - someone with international experience, good ratings as governor, some common sense (even as a mormon) is by far not crazy enough to satisfy the tea bagging crowd that holds the republican party hostage right now.

and whoever fits that profile is never going to win in the presidential elections - because thankfully the normal Americans are still a majority ;)

Yes and to remind everyone how far to the extreme the Tea Party is.. After McCain supported ending the budget hostage crisis, the Tea Party members of his own state voted to censure him and claimed he was too liberal.

Actually it was several COUNTIES in Arizona that had their COUNTY GOP "censure" him for what they called "abandoning party principals".

They pretty much said what we all know about McCain...he's not a religious right nutcase like the more extreme cases. And from what we've all seen coming out of Arizona the last few years..the people there have become VERY conservative.

They want somebody to represent them that reflects their own will. That's how it's supposed to be. And I guess IF he tries to run again (hopefully he won't and he will FINALLY leave govt.) the people he is supposed to represent will show him how they feel at the ballot box.

But I swear to God...I don't think McCain has ever seen a war he DIDN'T want to get in.

The guy always seems to be itching to get our military involved all over the world. :(

Disclaimer: I'm no fan at all of Hillary Clinton. I wouldn't vote for her with YOUR dick, so to speak.

That said, here's the current polling data of she v. the potential GOP nominees. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...tial_race.html

Rand Paul 3/6 - 6/30 -- 49.6 40.6 Clinton +9.0
Chris Christie 3/6 - 6/30 -- 48.6 39.1 Clinton +9.5
Jeb Bush 3/4 - 6/30 -- 49.7 39.7 Clinton +10.0
Mike Huckabee 3/6 - 6/30 -- 50.3 40.7 Clinton +9.6
Paul Ryan 3/6 - 6/30 -- 49.0 42.3 Clinton +6.7
Ted Cruz 3/2 - 6/15 -- 51.8 38.0 Clinton +13.8
Marco Rubio 3/6 - 6/21 -- 49.0 37.5 Clinton +11.5

The problem with the GOP is that they have moved way too far to the right. In other words, they're having another "Barry Goldwater moment", and they won't win another Presidential election until they muzzle the extremists who have hijacked the party over the last 6 years.

They're alienating 2 key demographics: Latinos and (especially) women. Check out what's happened to the female vote: http://www.gallup.com/poll/158588/ge...p-history.aspx. For those too lazy to look at data, the gender gap in 2012 was 20%!!

Especially until they quit crapping on women, they won't win another national election. Though I have to say, it's gonna be hilarious when demographics turn Texas "blue" by 2020 at the latest.

"As you sow so shall you reap"

http://m.artician.com/pu/QSEEN5D4HFH...A.preview.jpeg


A dead Republicans is better then a live democratic.

McCain is an excellent servant to his big benefactors.

Nice grammar.