BOTH PARTIES SUCK

1. 58

   double_frickposted 14 years ago

   political parties and the conflict between ALL of them, but mainly the republicans and democrats, is just a distraction from people fixing whats really wrong with america.
   most things are.
   maybe one day people will wake up and start paying attention to what matters, it feels like high school never ended. @_@

   replyreport
   1. 70

      rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I absolutely agree with your perspective on this.  Unfortunately the politicians have woven this web of division for their gain.  As long as they divert the topics of discussion away from the mechanics of what is really going on and the solutions by using puppet causes, there will be no change.  In essence they have us at each others throats.
      
      An example would be the way the wars are being carried on.  Do you think that the liberals would want to bring on terrorism by reducing our ability to monitor and act against it?  The answer has to be obvious.  The politicians think by attacking any questioning of the tactics employed by the experts there is a conspiracy to bring on the terrorism rather than questioning for an understanding and better process to acheive it.  This is ridiculous and keeps fueling the bickering rather than getting back to the question.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Ken R. Abellposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Every elected politician in every party is wired for one thing & that is to get reelected.  It is the nature of the beast & I think you are right, except high school is too high a level of behavior for politicians...more like kindergarten.
      
      Am I a cynic or a realist?  When it comes to politics, I am not sure of the answer to that question anymore.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         lostgirlscatposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Ken R. Abel -Ditto to the first, and cynicism is realism to the second.

         replyreport
   3. 63

      AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Your glasses are big, but your words are wise

      replyreport
   4. 70

      Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      There is too much corruption, supported by greed, already happening in Congress as a whole. None of them can be trusted to do what's right or on the behalf of citizens, any longer.

      replyreport
   5. 67

      drej2522posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Yes! There we go! Nobody ever brings up the fact that both parties are absolute garbage! It becomes a head game on how to beat out the other party rather than looking at the facts. We should have listened to George Washington whom in his 1796 farewell warned:
      
      "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism."

      replyreport
   6. 0

      zampanoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      And it will be too late...

      replyreport
   7. 58

      Unkotareposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree.

      replyreport
2. 68

   Bill Manningposted 14 years ago

   Yup. The ones that really would do a fair and good job in office have no chance of ever getting elected. They also have no interest in taking office.
   
   So it always comes down to the lesser of two evils. Or lesser of two morons.

   replyreport
3. 67

   shazz01109posted 14 years ago

   I'm not as jaded about politics, but I am about the 2 Parties.  Getting involved in the local is perhaps most effective, and most beneficial.  I honestly think that a 3rd Party is what is needed in order to have more perspectives and voices represented.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      The most pathetic thing I think that could happen to a third party beginning to get any power would be any old school politicians jumping ship and joining to save their own skins.  I would hope the new party members could have enough sense to rebuke them instead of looking to them for any credibility.

      replyreport
   2. 59

      Gregg Biancciposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I agree, a third party could make a world of difference.   Which is exactly why both parties have made it their duty to denounce any thrid party attempts.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Justine Tposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         i agree there should be a a voice for the people of everday

         replyreport
         1. 70

            Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Welcome to HubPages!

            replyreport
         2. 63

            AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Wow, you're only an hour old

            replyreport
      2. 60

         Karina S.posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         third party needed

         replyreport
4. 68

   MikeNVposted 14 years ago

   No one is truly representing the people.  Just look at Nebraska Senator Nelson.
   
   His constituents told him EXACTLY what they wanted, and then he did what HE wanted.
   
   And that's why Americans need to stop voting Party and start voting for people who support the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
   
   These documents form the foundation for Freedoms and Liberties.  Without them we collapse.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I agree but the system really needs a reset and as with most resets you lose all the added crap that bogged it down in the first place.  Merely voting them out will not work as the new ones coming in are swayed to the dark side of party politics for the almighty party support and dollars.
      
      A fresh start such as a third party is what is needed.

      replyreport
5. 60

   jfreemonposted 14 years ago

   Was it nto george Washington that said that political parties would be the one thing to stay away from?
   
   I rest my case.

   replyreport
6. 63

   AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years ago

   In Canada we presently have, at the federal level, four major parties. Personally, I actually quite like this. I am sure many people here don't, but, for example, the party in power has been forced to move its position closer to the others, preventing from running away completely with their own agenda, because they cannot gobble up too large a share of electoral support.
   
   This, if nothing else, makes Canadian politics at the moment a bit more representative of people's views than a system where one party can dominate completely (as has happened before in Canada, and as happened under Bush when the Republicans held the House, or now, when the Democrats do)

   replyreport
7. 80

   mega1posted 14 years ago

   to me it seems that it may have begun in our country as a rather smart way to get people to debate and consider issues and put people in power who would follow their wishes - majority rule and all that -   BUT NOW it seems to me that it is justs that we put labels like Democrat or Republican on "parties" and then expect them to solve our problems and hopefully not create new ones - but with such a huge population increase in the world how is it possible for such a system to really work?  How crazy are we to look at a small group of people who we like to believe have all the power to do our changing for us?  or even to say the President is the responsible one - really - one person responsible for 385 million people? and half the people on the rest of the planet?  curazzzy!  so glad I dropped out long ago. :

   replyreport
8. 61

   Caterinoposted 14 years ago

   There is nothing wrong with this great country of ours, just the people running it, all the people who run it.  We need to fire them and try to find honesty again, wow, it has been a few hundred years hasn't it.

   replyreport
9. 75

   figmentposted 14 years ago

   agreed

   replyreport
10. 0

    Ghost32posted 14 years ago

    I don't profess any certainty that either (a) ousting all incumbents and starting over or (b) coming up with a third party would prove to be drasticially beneficial.  Maybe, maybe not.  But I do most definitely believe we have those options here and now, should we choose to exercise either one or both of them.
    
    Considering option (a), 2010 is a dynamite year to "throw the bums out" if that's what  We the People decide to do--because the dissatisfaction runs deep enough among millions of voters whose wishes are so blatantly being ignored by Washington this year in particular, and because so many in both houses of Congress are up for reelection and/or jumping out of the D.C. rat race in fear of reprisals.
    
    Considering option (b), a lot of "experts" declaim loudly that creating a viable third party just simply could not  be accomplished against the oppostion of the two currently well established "dogs in the manger".  But they're wrong, and I offer this nugget of personal experience to support my statement:
    
    In 1992, Ross Perot ran for President under the banner of United We Stand.  Had he actually won, or even garnered enough electoral votes to force the powers that be to deal with him, that third party would have been automatically established.  Few pundits gave him any shot at all.  Then it got worse:  It became apparent that his daughter's life might be in danger (from those who wished to see him stopped).  He immediately suspended his campaign and lost a huge amount of momentum--our national electorate being apparently uninterested in a man who puts family first and public office second. 
    
    When he returned  to the fray some weeks later, having satisfied himself that he had his family's safety adequately covered, polls indicated he was no longer a factor in the race in any way, shape, or form.
    
    However, on election day that proved to be untrue in at least one state, South Dakota, where I was living at that time.  I attended one Ross Perot rally in Rapid City (held prior to his temporary hiatus) and campaigned for him as well, going so far as to drive throughout much of Election Eve evening and starting again in the wee hours of Election a.m., putting up posters throughout the snow-blanketed Black Hills area before the polls opened.  In South Dakota that day, Ross Perot pulled 22% of the Presidential vote.
    
    Because of that experience, I firmly believe it COULD be done--the founding of a viable Third Party, that is.  I do also believe it would require a strong leader with clear vision and an understandable platform who inspires committed coworkers to Get 'R' Done, somebody like a Ross Perot or a Sarah Palin, to allow it to happen.  (Not that I want to see Sarah go the Third Party route, just saying.)
    
    Of course, the bottom line is that "they" can't do it; if it's to be, it's up to We.

    replyreport
11. 60

    Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years ago

    They both do suck, but we the people allowed this situation to evolve.

    replyreport