GOP/ Conservative Lame Attempt to Coral the Youth Vote
To the hard core GOP type conservative/rightwinger: you're ridiculous, yes ridiculous in a Col. Klink, Stalag 13 kind of way.
The GOP, hoping to get the youth vote, are attempting to pit the Baby Boomer Generation against those younger people that came afterwards
This comes from an article in the Salon magazine and while you may question the source, the words that eminate from William Kristol of the Weekly Standard are quite real. From what I understand, Mr. Kristol is an intellecutal pillar within the conservative movement?
He starts by saying the Hillary Clinton is too old to be president. Here below is an excerpt from one of his recent utterances.
"The boomer presidents [Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama] were indulged as young men. They then indulged themselves with the fancy that they should be president. The voters indulged them, too, passing over the question of their qualifications—and, indeed, excusing several manifest disqualifications.
So Hillary Clinton would fit right in. She would be a worthy successor to the boomer presidents who have stood at the pinnacle of American politics for almost a quarter century. Hillary’s would be the echt-boomer presidency. She would be our second affirmative action boomer president (after Obama), our second boomer legacy president (after Bush), and our second reflexively dishonest boomer president (after her husband).
It may be that every generation gets the presidents it deserves. But enough already. Surely it’s time—to use a phrase associated with the Clintons—to move on."
The rightwinger always uses the slight of hand to misdirect and confuse. First of all, there is no difference between Ms. Clinton's age if she is elected and that of Ronald Reagan when he was elected. Second this man plays to racist cues, why the "affirmative action" comment regarding President
Obama? It is one thing about rightwing thinking that I loathe. Without affirmative action is it not possible for any black man or (woman) to be qualified for prominent positions based solely on their own acheivement without step stools? Regardless of what people may believe about his policies, he is certainly more than qualified for the job, if the actual qualifications of previous presidents can be considered a guide.
Also the article made it quite clear that the youth are not interested in endless war attitude of the neocon, nor to a return to the whalebone corset and rack-hanger mentality of the social conservative and finally not in the economic opportunity to be screwed in the interests of the rich guys which most of them are not. They may be young but they are not stupid. Better to work with an ally that disappoints, than with an intractible enemy of everything relating to moving forward.
For the Conservatives and the conservative movement as it currently stands, it would be best to admit, like the Confederate sympathizers, that the youth vote is a lost cause for them"Without affirmative action is it not possible for any black man or (woman) to be qualified for prominent positions based solely on their own acheivement without step stools?"
Apparently not. They are, after all, still insisting that they must discriminate against the white male to "make things equal". Doesn't that mean they can't do it on their own qualifications?I will always appreciate your ability to go through the briar patch without fear and intimidation.
The word "affirmative action hire" is a dog whistle for the right. I still say that there has been a time when AA was necessary because without it there was no access at all, period. Racial discrimination made sure that you were not considered whether qualified or not. And it hasn't been that long ago either. Lets make sure things don't revert in the wrong direction. If my equal qualifications insure that I have equal access and equal consideration ok. Because has not always been the case.
Thanks for your imput what do you think of the main theme of this thread?LOL - you did ask, after all, did you not? Truly, though, I do think that legalized and/or required discrimination is one of the very worst evils of racism...and that it was necessary in the past to set the country and society straight. "In the past" being key words; the relatively little remaining needs that massive evil no longer and if continued it will cause far more harm than good.
But my opinion on the OP? Remembering that it is but an opinion?
That anyone that thinks one American party is significantly better than the other needs their head screwed back on right. It has obviously loosened to the point it is about ready to fall off. Politicians from both sides are identical; "What's in it for me" with the country a distant second and citizens a dot on the horizon. And both party platforms have both pros and cons, in about equal amounts. Neither is substantially right, or wrong either.
And right behind that is that the youth of our country, on the whole, falls into that category (needing their head screwed back on). Having been given everything they wanted for their entire life, they do not realize that money and things have a limit. That we live in the real world where there are limits and where simple giving is not usually the right thing to do.
Further, that this makes youth a prime target for the wonderful sounding rhetoric of the Democratic party; rhetoric that we (mostly) would aspire to and would like to see happen, but rhetoric that, just like the youth, forgets that we live in the harsh and cold world of reality.
So I agree; the R's cannot attract youth until they, too, become (professed) altruists and promote socialism without regard to the ultimate costs and results of everything for everybody.Wilderness, there are many people in the past and now that have a difficulty acknowledging that ' setting the country and society straight was ever necessary.
The worse discrimination was the surreptitious kind that is covert and operates out of plain site. Those that continue to do this work around the legal structure that prohibit the more blatant forms. I am going to be honest and say that I see things like this in a way that you simply cannot. We look at the same object, I see blue and you see red. We are both sentient beings, why are our perceptions so different?
Here is an opinion by a USA Today writer as to why the young voter leans Democratic:
However, it is evident that in the past elections that registration efforts on college campuses and in other youth environments have been controlled by the Democratic Party. On the other end of the spectrum, Republican efforts to prevent voter fraud have been accused of being disguised attempts to prevent youth voters from making it to the polls. But why is it that Democrats have taken control of the younger population? “In 1984 and 1988, first Ronald Reagan and then George H. W. Bush won first time voters and under-29 voters by big margins. “ So what happened? (4)
David Frum of USA today believes that the reason is four-fold.
Young people vote on what they know. Young people of the past generation knew that Jimmy Carter failed and that Ronald Reagan triumphed. All that this generation has memory of as far of the Republican Party goes are “a wave of disappointments and embarrassments: Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, congressional corruption scandals and the mortgage crisis.”
While the Regan era was known as a positive and prosperous time for young workers fresh out of college, the Bush era only knew high college wages, unemployment and increased cost of housing. All of these issues directly affect young people, and therefore affect their votes.
The Republican Party has become almost synonymous with Christianity. Younger voters are increasingly secular and tolerant of things that the Christian platform rejects. Things like homosexuality and children outside of marriage have become progressively more accepted in younger populations. The fact that the Republican Party has identified with a group that does not accept these is a turn off for younger voters.
Today’s younger voters include a rising number of minorities, including Hispanics, Asians and African-Americans, all of which tilt strongly democratic. (5)
As for which party is better, we have always had 'politics' and politicians. There is still a difference when you look at platform, ideology and voting records between one party an the other. And it is quite fundamental. It turns out that the stance of one party is more in sync with what I believe is the reality than the other. So 'better' is a subjective word. I have never really had a reason to change my party affiliation in the last 45 years. From my point of view, my adversaries; physical, socio-economic, political have not really changed
Young people are not as self-indulgent and naive as you seem to imply. But, the 'harsh world of reality" must also recognize the futility of trying to impose Victorian mores and standards with the force of law, that is not very realistic either. But that is today's GOP. So, it is not just economics, is it?
While many of your points about the nature of the young cannot be dismissed out of hand, their affinity for Democrats is more complicated. I was vexed that the GOP uses disengenuous, hackneyed arguments to try to appeal to them.
But you have given me an idea for a new thread.I fully agree with the transition of the R party to that of moral and religious judge. It is why I can no longer call myself a republican and, as you and I both agree, why the youth of the country is driven away from them.
But I think that our perceptions are so very different because you bury your head in the sand. You think (it appears) that massive charity is a viable option for creating a vibrant economy and society, while I vehemently disagree. The ACA is a case in point here - this nation simply cannot afford to provide what the common man thinks the program is all about. We cannot afford to provide support for half the country from the labor of the other half. And even if we could, such charity will only grow until the country collapses; this is quite evident in much of Europe but the liberals of the US close their eyes and pretend it isn't happening.
So...The R's demand that they, and they alone, are the moral judges of the universe and everyone must follow their religious leanings. The D's insist that they are the moral judge and have a right to require everyone to follow their losing strategies for economic well being. Neither is welcome, in my mind, and both will eventually destroy our country if left unchecked.The idea that one half on society mooches from the other is a tread worn conservative thinking. Yeah, like the idea that somehow poor people and their mortgages are responsible for the 2008 meltdown.
Because I don't want the control of larger portions of wealth in fewer hands, the finance and banking industries goal utlimately does not say that I advocate a foundation of transition of wealth. No, my head is up and it is quite clear to me who the enemy is and their nature malevolent designs on the economic middle. From my perspective, perhaps your head in the sand to advocate the encroaching feudalism, that the conservative always does, even though they wont admit to it. The unbridled power of banks and the finance industry to screw everyone without ever being held accountable So, we agree to disagree"The idea that one half on society mooches from the other is a tread worn conservative thinking."
So, tell me - how much did that poorer 1/2 contribute to the running of the country? As they pay no income tax, how much did they contribute to our military, our roads, our cops, etc.? Now, you can call that "tread worn conservative thinking" all you want, but the fact is that they poorer half is living off the efforts of the richer half. And the answer is NOT to expand or even continue the practice: it is to encourage (force if necessary) that 47% figure to shrink. Which the D's will not do - it is to their advantage to continue to enslave the people to the handouts of government.
A suggestion for you to think about; the size of corporations has become too large and with it the power to control politicians. Could we, somehow, limit that size? Use the monopolies laws, maybe, to force splitting off of the biggest corporations? Or would we lose the savings of large production facilities?
I recognize that the liberal way is to simply confiscate wealth from the rich (giving it to the poor in a futile effort to increase living standards), but that is, in the long run, a losing strategy as it sends wealth overseas to places that won't confiscate it while at the same time destroying incentive to produce. So what else can be done?Use the monopolies laws, maybe, to force splitting off of the biggest corporations?
DUH!Unfortunately, the likes of GM, Ford, WalMart, DuPont and other mega-corps are not monopolies within the definition of the law. There would have to be some changes made.
So lets fact check that old GOP nostrum about the 'unproductive' 47 percent, shall we?
Let’s take a closer look at the 46.4 percenters.
According to the Tax Policy Center, about half of those who owe no federal income tax are people whose incomes are so low that when standard income tax provisions — personal exemptions for taxpayers and dependents and the standard deduction — are factored in, that simply leaves no income to be taxed. Those are people who earned less than about $27,000.
But that doesn’t mean those folks paid no taxes at all. Many of them paid payroll taxes, those taxes taken out of a paycheck by an employer to fund programs such as Social Security and Medicare. They also pay federal excise taxes, such as those on gasoline, and they may also pay state and local income taxes or property taxes.
So that’s half of Romney’s 46.4 percenters. The rest pay no federal income tax due to tax benefits and credits. Here’s the rest of the breakdown:
22 percent receive senior tax benefits — the extra standard deduction for seniors, the exclusion of a portion of Social Security benefits, and the credit for seniors. Most of them are older people on Social Security whose adjusted gross income is less than $25,000.
15.2 percent receive tax credits for children and the working poor. That includes the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit. The child tax credit was enacted under Democratic President Bill Clinton, but it doubled under Republican President George W. Bush. The earned income tax credit was enacted under Republican President Gerald Ford, and was expanded under presidents of both parties. Republican President Ronald Reagan once praised it as “one of the best antipoverty programs this country’s ever seen.” As a result of various tax expenditures, about two thirds of households with children making between $40,000 and $50,000 owed no federal income taxes.
The rest ended up owing no federal income tax due to various tax expenditures such as education credits, itemized deductions or reduced rates on capital gains and dividends. Most of this group are in the middle to upper income brackets. In fact, the TPC estimates there are about 7,000 families and individuals who earn $1 million a year or more and still pay no federal income tax.
So when Romney says all of those in the 46 percent are “dependent on government,” that’s not accurate. Of the estimated 76 million who paid no federal income tax in 2011, 61 percent earned anywhere between $10,000 and $50,000.
-----------------------------------
So, the right attacks the working poor and the senior set. It is already waging war on the poor, so now they can consign to elderly to 'Soylent Green"? The majority having incomes and that means they are not totally dependent, Romney is nothing more than a bloated plutocrat, to float this 'stuff around' and the people who believe it are not much better.
You should already know that the income levels reflect those that are working within the economy and people who have served. Oddly enough there are many military members that require assistance, so they are not deserving either, according to you. Before you consign so many people to the rubbish heap, perhaps you need to consider that they pay many other kinds of taxes.
Regardless of the right constantly feeding on the politics of resentment, can you really say that 47 percent of the population are moochers?
Do I have to listen to Thurston Howell and Richie Rich whine? The maxiimum tax rates have come down massively since the 1950's. Will they be sastified only when they don't have to pay anything?
My ideas are to eliminate 'crony capitalism' where the 1 percent use my tax money to further enrich themselves at my expense.
Revamp the entire defense structure, being critical about what is defense and foreign aid costing. You say that the conservatives think about what is best for the country, but it really about lining the pockets of defense contractors and fat cats. Conservative thinking is always in the previous century, "What is good for General Motors is not necesarily good for America anymore" Conservatives are dupes if they think that short of total surrender by the tax payer, they are going to keep jobs and their companies here. They are going to leave anyway to get that cheap labor and no regulations that they crave.
What you think is waste and what I consider such may well be different. I see investing in the American people and the infrastructure as having value over pasting the world with our military presence at great cost.
I think that there is plenty of waste in the way government programs are currently administered where there is a consensus about it from the left and right. Can we identify and get at those first?No, no. You can't pretend that because of one thing it means another. While I do understand that the vast majority of people pay some sort of taxes (gasoline, if nothing else) the statement concerned income taxes, where the majority of the operating costs of our country come from. Gas taxes do not pay for the military, after all.
But you mention people that exemptions mean they pay no income tax. Which is what I said - they pay no tax and thus no significant support of the countries needs. That they are given an exemption does not change that simple fact.
You complain about seniors and their exemptions, as if that means they pay income taxes. But of course a great many do not, and thus fall into that 47%, again what I said.
You then move on to those getting child credits, as if getting those credits means they are paying net income taxes. They aren't, and also become part of the 47%
Next comes such things as education "credits", meaning that their share of the tax burden is spent on their personal education. This does not mean they are contributing to the country - just themselves.
This is followed by veterans, presumably disabled, that because they are vets means they are somehow automatically paying their way. They aren't (those that pay no taxes) - like the other part of the 47% to contribute nothing to the operation of the country.
So all of these complaints are the same - comments (like I made) that a great number are not paying their share of the operating costs, but depending on others to do it for them. And, of course, on top of that is that a fair percentage of those not paying taxes are also taking, in the form of charity from government.
Now we can cry rivers about the plight of those poor people, but all the tears in the world doesn't change the very simple fact that they are not paying their share. It's incredible to me that instead of trying to get them productive and useful, the liberal solution is to give more to them while requiring less. And giving more. And more. And more. Until half the country is living off the other half.
You also grievously wrong me: "You say that the conservatives think about what is best for the country". I have never said that, I do not believe it to be true and find that the conservative party in our country (just like the liberal), thinks primarily of themselves and not the country.
From my earlier post: "Politicians from both sides are identical; "What's in it for me" with the country a distant second and citizens a dot on the horizon." There is no possible way to read that conservatives care about the country any more than liberals from that quote.
Yes, there is tremendous waste. Partially because liberals keep increasing the size of government instead of leaving it to the private sector. Probably the biggest waste comes from the welfare programs - can we start there or is that verboten territory, only to be increased whenever possible.So if you insist on the principle of the thing, we will make suure than the elderly, infirmed and impoverished have skin in the game.
But what I want in exchange is:
Why not make the capital gains tax rate the same as that for working people, why not? That would surely put a few extra dollars in the coffers.
How about ending corporate welfare that is to the tune of about 100 billion a year? HOw about that for a wealth transfer? Who is transfering what to who, now?
Other examples: The oil, gas, and coal industries get billions in their own special tax breaks. Big Agribusiness gets farm subsides. Big Pharma gets their own subsidy in the form of a ban on government using its bargaining power under Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices. And hedge-fund and private-equity managers get a special tax loophole that treats their income as capital gains, at a lower tax rate than ordinary income.
How much of that money can we return to the treasury, in the form of tax cuts, or improved services?
Just for starters, when you get what you want and I get what I wanr we may just get somewhere.And lets not forget about Sgt Bilko and the military establishment as the very definition of wasteful spending.
1, There are nearly 1000 general officers and admirals in the Armed Forces.each having an expensive entourage that would make a Hollywood Rock star jealous. Experts say that we should be able to get along with a 1/3 of that.
According toe Reuters, 8.5 trillion with a T has been doled out to the Pentagon by Congress since 1996. The Pentagon has resisted an audit as this money has not been accounted for. This is a lot of moiney, who is to be held accountable? Who has been benificiaries of this wealth transfer and theft, it is not little people that the right loves to attack.
The military has wasted 32B on doomed weapons projects since 1995. No bid or limited competition contracts with the fattest defense contractors have not helped matter. I speak with experience on this point. How is that wealth transfer ticker of your working? (Forbes Magazine)
The Pentagon can easily cut 70B from its outlays without closing a single installation, such is the scale of waste.
We don't have enough to see to our citizens, but the right winger says we are obligated to feed this beast until it eats us all out of house and home.
I will avoid getting into the excess capacity represented by bases abroad that should have been closed. The cost of maintaining these excess installations
have been at around 6B per year. That is still a lot of money.
So I guess if you show me yours (cuts), I will show you mine....
BTW, I like your ideas on limiting Corporate power. This idea of being "too big to fail" necessitating tax payer bailout must never happen again. Controlling the development of monopolies is healthy medicine for a true market system. Even Teddy Roosevelt knew this.
But it goes, IMO, beyond prohibiting monopolies. Like I told Kathryn, big companies like DuPont, GMC, Ford, etc. are not monopolies but ARE large enough that they can (and do) control our politicians. They need cut back in size, but I really have no idea how or what the cost would be.
For instance, cutting Ford into 10 pieces - will that raise the cost of building cars because of a loss of quantity? The more cars are made, to a point, the cheaper each one is - if we cut Ford down in size can we still afford their cars or will we all be relegated to horses?
We chopped up AT&T (because it was a monopoly) and the short term cost was an increase in phone bills. Long term I'm not so sure of, though - as the industry changed and companies grew large again did the prices drop below what they would have been without the breakup? I don't know.I don't know Wilderness, I don't want to say big is bad, because there is such a thing as economy of scale. I just don't want the 'big' to be stranglehold on our economy. This "too big to fail" must never be allowed a foothold again. We have been lax in modern times on the idea of merger and monopolistic activity in the economy. I am one to say that more scrutiny is in order. Unlike conservatives, I do not trust the private sector at all, certainly not to police its untoward behavior.
I don't know enough about the topic to provide solutions, I know that insurance policies are used for us mere mortals to protect the lienholder from a catastrophic outcome. Is this a concept that can be applied to private firms that exceed a certain size, to protect the lienholder, the American taxpayer?That's the problem - we don't want to lose economies of scale. At the same time, we don't want the "too big to fail" scenario, and we don't want big enough to control politicians.
Nor do I trust government to police untoward behavior of the giant corporations paying for politician's re-election (their livelihood and wealth); IMO the private sector will do better...IF the corporations are not too large. But that's only opinion, and it isn't working any better than politicians controlling them.
Insurance; no, that can't work. Only the American taxpayer has pockets deep enough to bail them out. No insurance company could ever come close.
Like you say, I'm not smart enough either to find a general solution. But I DO think we're allowing too many mergers and too large a size of our corporations. When the cash flow of a single American corporation is larger than most countries can boast of there is an obvious problem of control.The very problem with the Government is the inordinate influence of representatives of the 'private sector' lobbies, tax breaks, 'corporations as indivuduals and such". What did you thibnk of my proposals in a couple of earlier threads to consider reducing the outlays for social services in exchange for reduction of corporate welfare and military expenditure, see earlier posts?
Ha! I read your post and knew immediately that someone would zero in on that small section. Either I'm brilliant, or people are so predictable.
I would like to think I'm brilliant, but I know better. lolYes, Pretty Panther, it is not any fun when you can't stir up the pot from time to time. You got to motivate people to share their opinions and talk, regardless what side they come down on. That is what we are here to perhaps learn a little something about another individual's world.
I think you spidey sense works fine, you have to give yourself some credit for prescience.
Affirmative action?! Affirmative Action?!
Please allow me to tell you a true story.
Back in 1965 when I was drafted into the US Army, I was an impoverished 19-year-old black boy who had lived my entire life in South-Central Los Angeles-Watts-Compton, and I only had a high-school education. Yet, after being administered a battery of written examinations, my scores on those tests were high enough to qualify me to apply for admission to Officer Candidate School (OCS). Then, after undergoing several very difficult interviews, I was selected to be a candidate in the school.
And in December, 1966, I graduated from OCS, commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the Infantry Branch. Next, about a year after that, I was promoted to First Lieutenant, and about year later (December, 1968, when I was only 22 years old), I was promoted to Captain.
Now, the one of the most remarkable things about my rise in the ranks is, at the time, there was no such thing as affirmative action, and I was not given any special breaks because of my skin color. In fact, a number of ranking military personnel did everything they could to cause me to fail.
Now, the big question is, why was I able to climb to the top without affirmative action or other special provisions? Why didn't I need a "stepping stool?"
In closing, I must say, when I was honorably discharged from the Army in 1970, I landed an entry-level position in a very large Los Angeles-based life-insurance company and I went on to become a senior vice president in that firm, without any affirmative action or any kind of a "stepping stool."
One of the big problems today is, there are far too many liberals out there brainwashing blacks to believe they cannot succeed in life unless whites extend them helping hands and shower them with goodwill -- which is causing a great many blacks to go right on thinking and behaving like slaves.You make valid points. The best can rise to the top when the system is fair and unbiased. You were able to prove this when the system was based more in prejudice. Rather than promoting preferential treatment because on skin color, we should be promoting equality, effort, and competency. There are plenty of people, regardless of skin color, who will rise to the top. Black people don't need preferential treatment to be successful; they need equality, and that's it. Giving preferential treatment seems racist, in a way. It presumes a race needs an unfair advantage to be successful. That presumption is wrong. As you proved, competency speaks more than skin color.
Hello, Education Officer, I am pleased to have made your acquaintance and thank you for your thoughtful and supportive comment.
Interestingly, about 15 years ago, I published an article on a conservative blog site entitled, "Affirmative Action!!! We Don't Need No Stinkin' Affirmative Action!!!Education Answer, where have your been? I need you around to help me keep my claws sharpened.
Affirmative Action was the direct result of a society where equality of opportunity was not expectation for many of us. You are correct in your saying that what is desired is equality of opportunity, where racism is not an overiding factor in success and achievement potential. When being the 'best' is the sole criteria, then we have arrived.
Feenix!
Have to get back with you on this, you're proof positive that with determination all things all possible.
While I am about a decade behind you, I was ROTC and relished the life of a very young junior officer in the AirForce. It was the trail blazers, like you, who during the heart of the "Civil Rights Era "came before that allow many of us that came after to see the possibilities and the opportunities.
That later led on to a lucrative career in the Civil Service, resulting in the sweet nectar of retirement that I take to this very day.
But you were fortunately to be given a man's chance to succeed to which you met the challenge. But we both know that there was a time not so long ago that a pervasive racism would insure that even being the best was not good enough.
LBJ, the most southern of southerners, acknowledged in 1965
that is was unreasonable to expect anyone tied and chained for so long in the past to all the sudden be allowed to compete with those who have attained laps ahead due to no fault of your own.
As many conservatives have stated, we may have come far enough in efforts of insuring equality of opportunity so that the ideas of quotas and such have become passe.Hello, Credence, my very good friend,
God willing, I will be hitting the road around September or October of this year to spread the "good word" among a very large number of black people. I am going to do everything I can to upstage all of the blacks who are out there preaching that "woe are we" bullshit. I am going to kick ass and take names, as they often say in the military.
I am driven because I have grown very sick and tired of seeing such people and entities as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and the NAACP and National Urban League out there discouraging blacks from moving forward by instilling into them that they are under siege by racist white cops and so forth.
A voice like mine is sorely needed -- and interestingly, that is the primary reason I returned to HubPages; I am getting back into shape and warming up for the Big Show.I wish you luck, I was thinking about getting back in to the substitute teaching so I may be in a position to grab some of these kids by the scruf of the neck, extolling the virtues of acedemic excellence, self reiliance.
Getting on this quest will help keep us young. By focusing on the main event, the side shows become less significant in comparison, You bring a prominent voice to the chorus and am I glad to have you return.Credence, in addition to my really liking you as a person, I have always respected you for your intellect and excellent writing skills.
If you do decide to be a substitute teacher, you will rapidly become a very valuable asset to the local school system -- and I know you will motivate and inspire quite a number of young people.
I think the debate is not over conservatives and democrats anymore. We have to transcend the Manichaeans view. Conservatives and democrats act in favor of corporations and the invisible power. While voting, we have to put them in check by stating our disagreement with their policies. It is time to strike. By voting any of those parties, we are tacitly agreeing to continue Bush's policies privileging private interests domestically and internationally. Vote none of the above. With the TPP it will destroy our sovereignty, identity, citizenry, our glorious days are gone, it is clear that the US has no future if our future reposes in their hands. Detroit is the perfect example of the annihilation of the Americans. Detroit is the future of the US.
To give credit to Clinton or any other so-called representatives is to fool ourself. We know now that the voter is not rational then think about your wallet as they do. They want a maximization of their yield, of their capital let's think (can you people do that?) similarly. Now, did your purchasing power increase during the Bush administration, the Obama's. No. Then what will change? And, don't tell me that it is because Obama has no leadership, or because he's black. If he failed for those reasons, so will Clinton because she's a woman... It is your rationalization of their failures. It is not an agenda implemented by the invisible power that is lobbying hard for our dismemberment. Again, think about your wallet, did my purchasing power increase? If not, after, four presidential terms applying the same policies, we have nothing to lose. Vote none of the above.Yes, Maxo, the system is corrupt to the core and it has been that way for nearly a century, looking at the 1930's era letter that you posted in another thread.
But is anachy or nihilism the alternative? The car is rolling toward the ravine, and the brakes are gone, am I going to listen to the people that tell me to step on the gas as a solution? I am just one man, I do my bit to whittle back tyranny to the extent that I can each day. We may all we be doomed, but I can discriminate against those politicians and parties that are in a hurry to get us there that much sooner. I am disappointed with Obama (it has nothing to do with Obama's skin color and everything to do with his giving allegiance to the 'dark side") for supporting the TPP thing, as it may be likely that the American worker will get TPPed upon as a result. But if we had went with Romney or McCain with all the big money behind it, we would have had ithis TPP years ago. It may be a fools errand, but I have a duty to at least try to avert the inevitable. My turning my back will just insure the tryant a more certain foothold and if I allow it, I have no right to complain about the outcome.
Look at the politician's and left wing of Democratic party that are proving to be a source of resistance to TPP, can I lend a hand to help them?For once , someone else see's through the haze of idealistic Bull****, Nothing ....repeat Nothing-- will ever change in America until the voting public STOPS seeing the ridiculousness of two party politics ! And , I doubt seriously it will ever happen . From the beginning and by design what should have happened is that the two party divisions should have morphed because of the public's increase in political education , in public involvement at the polls , and a better generational awareness, Instead our youth voter awareness- is probably the least participatory in the world and Americans have grown fat ,happy and lazy .
Related Discussions
- 266
Clarity Please Conservatives
by Charles James 13 years ago
As some fellow hubbers will know, I am involved in writing hubs for a Socialism 101 series.There are a few issues raised by the conservatives where I do not fully understand what they are saying. Before I address these in a hub or hubs I really would like clarity on what exactly the conservative...
- 37
For Conservatives Only, Is the Democratic Party GOOD for America?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 18 months ago
The Democratic Party have institutionalized socioeconomic policies which are the detriment to America such as welfare & a governmental health program known as Obamacare. Because of the Democratic Party, we have generational welfare which the onus of tax is on the middle...
- 36
Post Mortem-So why did Romney lose?
by Credence2 11 years ago
I am taken back to the site 'unskewed polls' where the conservatives were saying that the mainstream polling system was unfairly skewed in favor of Mr. Obama. So, I bet I could not find them now anywhere among all the bits and bites of the internet. Maybe you guys can add to this most interesting,...
- 4
If you have a job, is it fair that you may not pay Federal Income Tax?
by Judy Specht 12 years ago
If you have a job, is it fair that you may not pay Federal Income Tax?Forty nine percent of people in US don't pay Fed Income Tax because they don't make "enough", Warren Buffet says he doesn't pay as much as his secretary. Whats a fair share and who should pay it.
- 45
Do you believe that America was much better when the Conservatives ran it or wit
by Grace Marguerite Williams 9 years ago
Do you believe that America was much better when the Conservatives ran it or with the Liberalscurrently running it? Why? Why not?
- 819
The Beginning of the End of the Tea Party
by Doug Hughes 13 years ago
"..._Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can't afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can't afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy. Think about it. In the last...