That is still not the point, it is merely opinion that a 3rd Bush or 2nd Clinton would do well. Not one that I share, you compound that with my concerns for aristocracy and we have a clear reason to be concerned. One that you rather stupidly ignore.
But it is the point. You stipulated that if the election came down to Bush v Clinton, we have a problem with aristocracy. The candidates would have gone through the primary process in their respective parties and come out the other side. Your problem did center specifically on the two of them winning their nominations. You're whining about their last names.
I think there comes a time, at least those who are not hard core Reps or Dems that they just get tired of all this business as usual.
That is hopefully a more common feeling than it used to be. How can we ever hope to change jack in America if we continue to elect people who represent business as usual?
I think there comes a time, at least those who are not hard core Reps or Dems that they just get tired of all this business as usual.
We can't, that is the sad part of all of this. Both parties owe their heart and soul to the money folks, to corporations, wall street, special interests, lobbyist, huge money donors. Neither party will do a thing to upset their sources of campaign cash.
Oh the rhetoric might be different, but it is always with a wink, wink, nudge, nudge assurances to those who provide the money they won't step on their toes.
That's probably because they remember a time not too long ago when the parties actually compromised with each other to get things done for the good of the people in this country, and they liked that idea. It must have been a childish thought, though, since it only seems to happen these days when they have to vote on something like exempting themselves from laws that the rest of us have to live by, and other personal self-interest things like perks and such. No partisan thinking there! :2mad:
Ok, and this is not profound, we've known it forever, who's the guy that said there's a dimes thickness of difference in the two parties, you always know, lol. Anyway, it really and truly is way past time for a third party (at least) independents are in the upper thirty % now. If they really would vote independent, one of the other parties, Green, Libertarian, what have you, just imagine what that would do to the two party albatross.
You pretty much hit the nail on the head. I have been working on my senate update. I decide since it is getting close to the election, instead of waiting until 1 November for my next update, I will do on one the 10th and 20th of this month, plus my final on 1 November.
I'll be very interested in reading those! :thumbs:
My neighbor just called to remind me that there's a big lunar eclipse at 0445 tomorrow morning. It's supposed to be raining here, though, so I don't know if we could see it in this area even if I set my alarm. :sigh:
George Wallace while running as the American Independent Party back in 1968 said, "There's not a dimes worth of difference between the two parties."
Actually according to Gallup, as of 7 September of this year the party affiliation is broken down 26% identify or affiliate themselves with the Democratic Party, 25% with the Republican Party and 47% profess to be independents. Of those 47% who say they are independents, 16% lean towards the Democrats, 22% towards the Republicans and 9% are classified as true independent. Here is the history of Party affiliation since 1935, just in case you are interested.
Here is a list of party affiliation from 1935 to present. I find it quite interesting that the Republican Party has never been higher than 35% of the electorate and that occurred in both 1945 and 1955. Truman had replaced FDR in 1945 and WWII had come to an end. In 1955 Eisenhower was president and was popular with both parties. Everyone liked IKE. Whereas the Democrats have been as high as 52%, 1965 a year after the Goldwater debacle and passage of the civil rights act of 1964 and as low as 30% which the Democrats registered in 2011 and 2013. The Republicans all time low was 21% the year after Nixon resigned from office in 1975 because of Watergate. Today’s mark of 26% for the Democrats ties their record low which was recorded on August 14th of 2011.
Pew Research for the 1935-2000 numbers/Gallup for 2005-Today
Year…Dem…Rep…Ind…Ind.Lean.Dem….Ind.Lean.Rep…..True.Ind
1935…51……30……19
1940…50……32……18
1945…47……35…..18
1950…48……32…..20
1955…47……35…..18
1960…51……29…..20
1965…52……24….24
1970…47……27…..26
1975…51……21…..28
1980…45……27…..28
1985…40……32…...28
1990…38……30…..32
1995…32……32…..36
2000…34……30…..36
2005…34……33……30………..14…………………....8…………………8
2010…32……33…..34………..12……………………15…………………7
2011…30……27…..42………..18……………………15…………………9
2012…35……30…..33………..16……………………12…………………5
2013…30……24….44………..14…………………..18………………..13
2014…26……25….47………..16…………………..22………………….9…..As of September 7, 2014
George Wallace while running as the American Independent Party back in 1968 said, "There's not a dimes worth of difference between the two parties."
Actually according to Gallup, as of 7 September of this year the party affiliation is broken down 26% identify or affiliate themselves with the Democratic Party, 25% with the Republican Party and 47% profess to be independents. Of those 47% who say they are independents, 16% lean towards the Democrats, 22% towards the Republicans and 9% are classified as true independent. Here is the history of Party affiliation since 1935, just in case you are interested.
Here is a list of party affiliation from 1935 to present. I find it quite interesting that the Republican Party has never been higher than 35% of the electorate and that occurred in both 1945 and 1955. Truman had replaced FDR in 1945 and WWII had come to an end. In 1955 Eisenhower was president and was popular with both parties. Everyone liked IKE. Whereas the Democrats have been as high as 52%, 1965 a year after the Goldwater debacle and passage of the civil rights act of 1964 and as low as 30% which the Democrats registered in 2011 and 2013. The Republicans all time low was 21% the year after Nixon resigned from office in 1975 because of Watergate. Today’s mark of 26% for the Democrats ties their record low which was recorded on August 14th of 2011.
Pew Research for the 1935-2000 numbers/Gallup for 2005-Today
Year…Dem…Rep…Ind…Ind.Lean.Dem….Ind.Lean.Rep…..True.Ind
1935…51……30……19
1940…50……32……18
1945…47……35…..18
1950…48……32…..20
1955…47……35…..18
1960…51……29…..20
1965…52……24….24
1970…47……27…..26
1975…51……21…..28
1980…45……27…..28
1985…40……32…...28
1990…38……30…..32
1995…32……32…..36
2000…34……30…..36
2005…34……33……30………..14…………………....8…………………8
2010…32……33…..34………..12……………………15…………………7
2011…30……27…..42………..18……………………15…………………9
2012…35……30…..33………..16……………………12…………………5
2013…30……24….44………..14…………………..18………………..13
2014…26……25….47………..16…………………..22………………….9…..As of September 7, 2014
We may as well have a monarchy if these are our 'choices.' Bush III vs Clinton II. Does anyone really believe this is democracy?
Set aside his family and explain what it is that you dislike about Jeb Bush. Everything negative I hear about him is either standard "He's a conservative, therefore I hate him." or "He's a Bush, therefore I hate him." Set aside the rhetoric and preconceived notions and look at the man and let us know what issues you have with him.
It's not letting me give you a "like" on this post, so I'm doing it this way for all your hard work!
Cool, I've seen that before, was that you that posted it?
It probably was. I have all sorts of things like that I keep track of. Usually I post this thing to show the dissatisfaction of the electorate with both parties. It is sad when both parties unfavorables are 60% or more. But even if one hates both parties, what is one going to do on election day? Stay home? I didn't and have voted third party in five of the last six elections.
The problem is the Democrats and the Republicans have a monopoly on our election system. Both parties write the election laws as a mutual protection act and those special interests etc. who donate their millions upon million donate only to the two major parties. So any third party is starting about a billion dollars or more behind the big two.
I totally agree.
George Wallace while running as the American Independent Party back in 1968 said, "There's not a dimes worth of difference between the two parties."
Actually according to Gallup, as of 7 September of this year the party affiliation is broken down 26% identify or affiliate themselves with the Democratic Party, 25% with the Republican Party and 47% profess to be independents. Of those 47% who say they are independents, 16% lean towards the Democrats, 22% towards the Republicans and 9% are classified as true independent. Here is the history of Party affiliation since 1935, just in case you are interested.
Here is a list of party affiliation from 1935 to present. I find it quite interesting that the Republican Party has never been higher than 35% of the electorate and that occurred in both 1945 and 1955. Truman had replaced FDR in 1945 and WWII had come to an end. In 1955 Eisenhower was president and was popular with both parties. Everyone liked IKE. Whereas the Democrats have been as high as 52%, 1965 a year after the Goldwater debacle and passage of the civil rights act of 1964 and as low as 30% which the Democrats registered in 2011 and 2013. The Republicans all time low was 21% the year after Nixon resigned from office in 1975 because of Watergate. Today’s mark of 26% for the Democrats ties their record low which was recorded on August 14th of 2011.
Pew Research for the 1935-2000 numbers/Gallup for 2005-Today
Year…Dem…Rep…Ind…Ind.Lean.Dem….Ind.Lean.Rep…..True.Ind
1935…51……30……19
1940…50……32……18
1945…47……35…..18
1950…48……32…..20
1955…47……35…..18
1960…51……29…..20
1965…52……24….24
1970…47……27…..26
1975…51……21…..28
1980…45……27…..28
1985…40……32…...28
1990…38……30…..32
1995…32……32…..36
2000…34……30…..36
2005…34……33……30………..14…………………....8…………………8
2010…32……33…..34………..12……………………15…………………7
2011…30……27…..42………..18……………………15…………………9
2012…35……30…..33………..16……………………12…………………5
2013…30……24….44………..14…………………..18………………..13
2014…26……25….47………..16…………………..22………………….9…..As of September 7, 2014
It's truly worth noting that George Wallace said this in large part because the leadership of both the Republican and Democratic parties rejected Wallace's continued advocacy for segregation. His political party was formed with the explicit purpose of pushing his segregationist agenda after it was rejected by the Democratic party in the preceding years.
His opinion on this might be, ah, colored.
No, I would say that is a fantastic argument against and concern about aristocracy. It does not matter if we are talking about a 3rd Bush in office or a 2nd Clinton, there must be somoene out there that does not represent the polarization these families clearly bring to the table. Capabilities of course comes into play, not necessarily all one or the other but it would be moronic to not see the condition we are setting ourselves up for with political family dynasty after dynasty. In a way that also applies to the Kennedy's and several other families that have found a way that through family have a foot in the door to the political scene.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?