Can we express our views without it becoming a flame-fest?
You think maybe part of the problem, no, all of the problem is perhaps government has become super polarized, and thus nothing can be compromised on, and thus everything is teeth pulling, and thus it is all partisan, and thus it is not in the best interest for the country as a whole? Do you think maybe Romney will be just as guilty, but on the other end of the spectrum?I am a fire-breathing libertarian leaning Constitutional Conservative who can't think of one policy Obama has implemented, or attempted to implement that I supported.
I tend to think that the Republican party is the one that has drifted the most from the center. I'm pretty sure the Democratic party will probably have shifted away from it to some degree as well, but when you look at the Republican party of today, it is incredibly different and far more to the right than the more centered Republican party two decades ago.You think maybe part of the problem, no, all of the problem is perhaps government has become super polarized, and thus nothing can be compromised on, and thus everything is teeth pulling, and thus it is all partisan, and thus it is not in the best interest for the country as a whole? Do you think maybe Romney will be just as guilty, but on the other end of the spectrum?
I disagree. I think that what happened there was both sides dug in their heels and gave as little as possible....on principle or whatever reason they did, but neither side put that much of an effort to make it worth while. It was a grudge match from day one...a wizzing match if you will, and it turned out so poorly because the ends were on such opposite ends of the rope, and threw the crap into the mix to say "hey we tried.""Trying to meet in the middle" is exactly what poisoned some of the universal healthcare mandates and pushed them askew of their original intentions.
I don't dislike the Healthcare law, I just don't think it went far enough, and I don't think it will work....but neither is that my major concern, more so is the whole budget issue. The healthcare bill increased our debt, and the morons in Washington can't get a budget passed. Will I go into details..no, because the debate isn't about congress. My point was, no matter which president we choose, the lines have been drawn and whoever wins is in for a dog fight with whoever wins congress. I am a republican, but I fear that after the last time Republicans ruled both congress and the white house. I dislike the thought of all the democratic socialism that will happen if the same thing happens with an all democratic government....so while I don't mind some of the things Obama has done, and I blame the republicans for A LOT of the nonsense going on right now. I dislike Romney, I dislike the stupidity of the Republican party, but I have to ask myself do I dislike them enough to let the democrats have at it again.....Well then I suppose I'll have to be a bit offensive and say you really weren't following the entire healthcare event as it unfolded because your summation, at least in regards to this, is off the mark.
Returning to "Presidential Election," the topic of this thread, where do we find comfort? In the examination of Congressional shenanigans or in the compromises of Presidents? Obviously not the former, and yet the latter is exactly the issue that serves as a two-edged blade, cutting both for and against the President, as he compromised on some core principles to a hostile GOP to gain other core principles. On a bad not, this is what the President did. But, on a good note, much of what he compromised on also hurt the GOP for their support of such compromises, like extending Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy, extending some parts of Bush's Patriot Act, etc and so on. In each compromise, he made a tactical trade-off. So while many libertarians are at arms for such things, in truth they should be at arms against the GOP for having forced such disreputable compromises on the President.
And do consider, a GOP President wouldn't compromise on such issues, precisely because a GOP President would be advocating such. So I find it ironic there are citizens raging against such compromises, and the President who accepted such compromises, when the alternative is a President (GOP) that would maintain the very things these citizens are raging against.
Frankly, it's as if common sense is taking a back seat to kneejerk emotional responses.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA. lookie who is trolling me!!!!! You looking for a fight? I can't give you oneYeah well racism, elitism, religiousism, and corporations' paid propaganda have surely posed a tremendous toll on the welfare and sanity of the American citizenry. Kinda hard to find logical, reasoned voters these days.
well like mt grandfather always said the country cant stand having a good economy thats why they always vote for republicans to put us back in the hole as soon as democrates get us out.
as you can see as i just skimmed across the table and unemployment is higher with republicans and they national debt is higher. and as you take a look at the table you will see that republicans are heavier on your wallet then democrats.
Dark, what a load of nonsense, and you've missed the mark there too Hero. As others have acknowledged throughout the thread, alot has changed in twenty years, so let's look at what's on the table today. Over the past presidential term, the biggest drain on the government budget has been stimulus spending (and interest from resulting debt) in response to the global financial crisis, which was triggered by the bursting of the U.S. housing bubble. If you do want to lay blame then you'll have to examine numerous factors attributed to both sides. The obvious ones Wikipedia cites would be the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (Jimmy Carter, Democrat), Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act (Ronald Reagan, Republican), Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (Bill Clinton, Democrat) and finally 'Mania' for home ownership spurred on by George W. Bush's (Republican) "aggressive housing agenda". Neither side has clean hands, but looking forward at this presidential election, only one has come with a cloth to clean the mess they've made. (And no, incase you didn't catch on there, it's not those still shouting "deregulate the world, small government!")OH NO HERO DID'NT!!! I think you have that backwards. You love posting your links. Go look at what the numbers were as far as unemployment, interest rates and things when Jimmy Carter was president. Then look at what they were with Reagan after he beat Carter. Sure you can look at 20 year spans on a chart, but they do not factor in the the numbers for Clinton were so good since he was riding the coat tails of Reagan. Clinton was actually not bad during his second term (when he came more center). That is what President Obama has to do. Even tho no president has ever had the bad numbers that President Obama has, and got reelected, I bet President Obama will (Carter actually had better approval numbers and lost by a land slide). The reason will not be that is President Obama is so bad (the far left dislikes him just as much as the far right) it will be that the Republicans offered up the worst candidate to run. I will abstain my vote this time. Neither one of them has the savvy to get things done in Washington. President Obama is very savvy on the streets. But those bully, thug type Chicago politics do not do well in the capital, and that is all he knows.