Elections

[_Presbyter]

People who claim to stand in the middle or are independent don't really stand for anything at all but a meaningless badge of honor.

Are you suggesting that I don't stand for anything?

To be one with the doctrine, there is only one possible viewpoint. Currently, it's virtually all Republican and Conservative. But who knows? Perhaps it will flip and the Democrats will become Conservative in a few decades.

Wow. I would be much more embarrassed to hear you publicly giving these views than to hear Senator Reid give his. And I'm a conservative.

[_honorentheos]

I don't think I am alone. I want to see an end to "No Compromise." Now.

The problem is that any compromise now is a socialist victory. No Compromise! People who claim to stand in the middle or are independent don't really stand for anything at all but a meaningless badge of honor. They're like people who bought the early Prius' and Insights as if they were doing something for the environment and wanted people to see it.

You make me sad, BC. Really, really sad. Compromise is a socialistic victory? Wow.

I do think your post gets at a problem that I see more and more as the underlying issue - as voters we are restricted to a binary method of communicating what we think to the political machine. We can blink "on" and "off" light little fireflies and the political minds work to interpret that how they may. If you are a binary thinker, then what the analysts and politicos are saying about the elections results today (as they said in 2008) makes sense. I see your thinking has assumed they are right. "On" or "Off". No compromise.

Why is it that no one reads the messages of the last three elections as stating that people want something different than what is going on already? If "No Compromise" politics was voted out in 2006, 2008, and now apparently in 2010 as well, why is it so hard to see this? Because all people see are red and blue? Blink "On", blink "Off"?

[_MrStakhanovite]

The Young Republicans here on the Cassius University campus have been celebrating the retaking of the House. Romeo y julieta Cigars and Woodford Reserve Bourbon have been selected as tonight’s poisons and the mood is at an all time high.

We've been composing Latin limericks in honor of Reverend Kish and will present him with the best of the crop at the celebrations crescendo later tonight.

[_Kishkumen]

Wow. I would be much more embarrassed to hear you publicly giving these views than to hear Senator Reid give his. And I'm a conservative.

Not to bcspace.

[_honorentheos]

I often fear that the person I voted for is the wrong one--that such a person will do precisely the wrong thing for the economy or for education or for law.

I agree completely, Asbestosman. Honestly, I think the reason we are so conflicted is because the hard lined, partisan politics we have today do not allow the intelligent, caring adults we elect (and I think most of them are, on both sides of the party line) to make informed, intelligent decisions that are based on hours of debate and information gathering. Stumping takes up too much time these days, no one has time to read the bills they need to vote on relying instead on party insiders to provide the analysis and tell members what they need to do...it's sad.

I'm one of those people who thinks the system is broken, starting with us the voters. But it is not irreparable.

[_bcspace]

People who claim to stand in the middle or are independent don't really stand for anything at all but a meaningless badge of honor.

Are you suggesting that I don't stand for anything?

If you voted for Obama then and would consider voting for a Republican now, yes I am. You're actually part of the problem since, for example (one of many), the Obama agenda has raised the national debt from 20% of GDP to 25% currently and has put us on track for the debt to reach 90% of GDP.

When you become consistent in your voting, then yes, you will indeed be standing for something. It's no longer a matter of individuals, it's a matter of party as a great division of the people has occured and currently the good ones are voting Republican and the antiAmerican antiGospel ones are voting Democrat. The individual is now swallowed up by party and is beholden to it and implicitly supports it by caucusing with it.

[_honorentheos]

It's no longer a matter of individuals, it's a matter of party as a great division of the people has occured and currently the good ones are voting Republican and the antiAmerican antiGospel ones are voting Democrat. The individual is now swallowed up by party and is beholden to it and implicitly supports it by caucusing with it.

You say it better than I ever could BC - "No Compromise" is a losing scenario for democracy. Stalin would be so proud of this statement you make. Don't kid yourself that the color of your uniform matters.

[_Kishkumen]

We've been composing Latin limericks in honor of Reverend Kish and will present him with the best of the crop at the celebrations crescendo later tonight.

Just make sure they're dirty limericks and we're totally cool.

[_MrStakhanovite]

We've been composing Latin limericks in honor of Reverend Kish and will present him with the best of the crop at the celebrations crescendo later tonight.

Just make sure they're dirty limericks and we're totally cool.

We'll have to enlist the aid of one Paul Osborne then.

[_bcspace]

The problem is that any compromise now is a socialist victory. No Compromise! People who claim to stand in the middle or are independent don't really stand for anything at all but a meaningless badge of honor. They're like people who bought the early Prius' and Insights as if they were doing something for the environment and wanted people to see it.

You make me sad, BC. Really, really sad. Compromise is a socialistic victory? Wow.

Your state of mind is small potatoes compared to the nation as a whole.

I do think your post gets at a problem that I see more and more as the underlying issue - as voters we are restricted to a binary method of communicating what we think to the political machine. We can blink "on" and "off" light little fireflies and the political minds work to interpret that how they may. If you are a binary thinker, then what the analysts and politicos are saying about the elections results today (as they said in 2008) makes sense. I see your thinking has assumed they are right. "On" or "Off". No compromise.

The problem for you is that you see shades of grey where none such exist. All is black and white. Always has been. Always will be. You cannot come up with a single example to the contrary.

Why is it that no one reads the messages of the last three elections as stating that people want something different than what is going on already? If "No Compromise" politics was voted out in 2006, 2008, and now apparently in 2010 as well, why is it so hard to see this? Because all people see are red and blue? Blink "On", blink "Off"?

Black and white. Either they see or they do not because they have been duped or are evil themselves.

I agree completely, Asbestosman. Honestly, I think the reason we are so conflicted is because the hard lined, partisan politics we have today do not allow the intelligent, caring adults we elect (and I think most of them are, on both sides of the party line) to make informed, intelligent decisions that are based on hours of debate and information gathering.

You are insulting those that have made intelligent and informed decisions. If the Democrats carried any of my values, I might be voting for them. Though some of their stated values match mine, the effect of their modus operandii runs contrary to them.