What is happening to this country?

[starlitelady]

It is really sad when older Black Americans are telling me that they are hearing comments from main-stream media, that they haven't heard since the 50s and 60s. What's worse is that a lot of them are saying President Obama is our generation's Martin Luther King Jr. Under more desirable circumstances, this would be a compliment, or a positive comparison. However, they are making that association to refer to the negative energy, and tone in America before and during the Civil Rights Movement. Now, there is this Tea Party. Am I the only one who sees that this is a way to express racist ideologies, and opinions, and hide behind a so-called movement that is supposed to seek out and support real change? Tom Tancredo said that America should bring back Literacy Testing in order to register to vote!
The Obama administration is under a microscope! Pres. Obama can't stop to tie his shoe, without it being major news on CNN! FoxNews will say he's not tying his shoe properly, and will find a way to convince their loyal conservative fan-base that this is somehow leading to the failure of their beloved country.
When I register to vote, I think I'm leaning more toward being an independent. There is no issue that I am completely to the right or left on. How can anyone be 100% conservative, or 100% liberal on every issue facing this country. Our Senators and Congress Men and Women are obviously not. They can't agree on anything-even in their own parties! Well, the Republicans seem to have a collective agenda: "Take Obama down, no matter what it takes!"

It seems like comedian Lewis Black was right when he said the Democratic Party is the party of NO IDEAS, and the Republican Party is the party of BAD IDEAS.
I really wish that I had more to choose from. THIS COUNTRY REALLY NEEDS 4 OR 5 PROMINENT POLITICAL PARTIES. It may seem crazy, but I think that it would actually force current politicians to be more honest.

[DaemonSeid]

Ummm...there's a thread for that

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Ummm...there's a thread for that

Commercial: "Wanna type about this mess? There's an app for that." *click*

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Commercial: "Wanna type about this mess? There's an app for that." *click*

HAHAHAHAH....!!!!

[33girl]

Originally Posted by starlitelady

THIS COUNTRY REALLY NEEDS 4 OR 5 PROMINENT POLITICAL PARTIES.

Actually, I think a far better idea would be NO political parties. Wouldn't it be nice if a person could run solely on what he/she believed without having to bend his ideas to fit some ridiculous platform - which honestly half the time doesn't represent the majority of the party members? Political parties are a holdover from the days when half the voters were illiterate and could only make out "R" or "D" on the ballot. Those days are over.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Actually, I think a far better idea would be NO political parties. Wouldn't it be nice if a person could run solely on what he/she believed without having to bend his ideas to fit some ridiculous platform - which honestly half the time doesn't represent the majority of the party members? Political parties are a holdover from the days when half the voters were illiterate and could only make out "R" or "D" on the ballot. Those days are over.

QFT!

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Actually, I think a far better idea would be NO political parties. Wouldn't it be nice if a person could run solely on what he/she believed without having to bend his ideas to fit some ridiculous platform - which honestly half the time doesn't represent the majority of the party members? Political parties are a holdover from the days when half the voters were illiterate and could only make out "R" or "D" on the ballot. Those days are over.

Actually I am of the belief that political parties in the United States are a hold over from our British heritage. By that I mean the major role parties play n politics in the UK. But that being said, while I am all for getting rid of them, I don't see it happening. While the first Constitutional President was not affliated with any parties, the formation of the American parties started during his administration. They are going to form naturally when people with similar beliefs try to work with each other to get their goals accomplished.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by LookAtMeImADelt

I understand what you are saying, but parties are inevitable. You can't have an election on a national level without them forming to some degree.

Why not? We have national media for them to disseminate their ideas. We have many means of communication for people across the nation to unite to work for the candidate.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Do you honestly believe that?

Just saw this. Yes I do believe English has no official standing because the United States of America doesn't have an official language. However I will acknowledge that English is the de facto national language of the United states and that I think it is a good idea for people to learn it. But forcing people to learn a language with no official standing just to become a citizen makes no sense to me.

Originally Posted by 33girl

Why not? We have national media for them to disseminate their ideas. We have many means of communication for people across the nation to unite to work for the candidate.

Honestly, I think he is right about the existence of parties. However I do think they are formed more by politicians, especially on the Hill, then the people. Lets be perfectly honest, how many average joes support the whole platform of their party? But parties are a good way for individuals with similar goals in the legislative to get things done.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Why not? We have national media for them to disseminate their ideas. We have many means of communication for people across the nation to unite to work for the candidate.

It's not just about communication, though. To get mundane about it, ballot management and vetting are issues.

The current system, at least in most states, is that parties nominate candidates, which requires those candidates to undergo a primary or caucus system to guage the degree of support they have. Each recognized party then puts up its candidates, who presumably have already shown some degree of support in the electorate. Typically, this results in a manageable number of candidates on the ballot.

It's not just POTUS when we're talking about with parties -- it's senators, representatives, governors, state legislators, other state executive and judicial officials possibly, potentially all the way down to town council and school board. Do away with parties and what happens when you have 30+ people running for POTUS, plus 20 more for governor (there was the California recall ballot with 135 candidates, but that was the only office on the ballot), 13 for senator, 22 for representative . . . ? Both from the standpoint of a manageable ballot and from the standpoint of trying to keep straight the positions of all the scores of candidates, it has the real potential for an electoral nightmare.

Parties have their problems, to be sure, but doing away with them wouldn't solve anything.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

It's not just about communication, though. To get mundane about it, ballot management and vetting are issues.

The current system, at least in most states, is that parties nominate candidates, which requires those candidates to undergo a primary or caucus system to guage the degree of support they have. Each recognized party then puts up its candidates, who presumably have already shown some degree of support in the electorate. Typically, this results in a manageable number of candidates on the ballot.

It's not just POTUS when we're talking about with parties -- it's senators, representatives, governors, state legislators, other state executive and judicial officials possibly, potentially all the way down to town council and school board. Do away with parties and what happens when you have 30+ people running for POTUS, plus 20 more for governor (there was the California recall ballot with 135 candidates, but that was the only office on the ballot), 13 for senator, 22 for representative . . . ? Both from the standpoint of a manageable ballot and from the standpoint of trying to keep straight the positions of all the scores of candidates, it has the real potential for an electoral nightmare.

Parties have their problems, to be sure, but doing away with them wouldn't solve anything.

You could still have a primary, in which only the top 5 or 10 vote getters are placed on the national ballots. I don't see how that's any different than the party primaries where everyone and their brother is running.

I just honestly think it's gotten to the point where parties do more harm than good and are pushing good people away from politics.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Just saw this. Yes I do believe English has no official standing because the United States of America doesn't have an official language. However I will acknowledge that English is the de facto national language of the United states and that I think it is a good idea for people to learn it. But forcing people to learn a language with no official standing just to become a citizen makes no sense to me.

Good job, Wikipedia.

I am ecstatic that English remains the dominant language and that I rarely encounter someone in America who does not speak it.

[KSUViolet06]

Kids must have a snow day tomorrow.

[chickenoodle]

Ann Coulter has an ad at the top of this page. That is my cue to stay the heck outta here.

That's all.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by chickenoodle

Ann Coulter has an ad at the top of this page. That is my cue to stay the heck outta here.

That's all.

She's watching us.