What political party do you vote with?

there are local issues i am interested in from time to time, but there has not been a candidate for any significant office that i have liked in ages, and am tired of voting against people

[insert gus hall joke]

as you might imagine, if you held a gun to my head i would vote the democratic line - wouldn't you in a state whose lone member of the house of representatives is "do-nothing" denny rehberg?

btw, i talked to a friend who actually voted in that weird caucus [a former republican state legislator] and he was very unhappy about the way the whole thing was done

but one reason he is a former legislator is his disgust with the way politics in montana works - or doesn't . . .

[edit] i should note that i do see the very small differences between the democratic and republican parties, and that you'd have to pull the trigger and punch the tickets with my dead hand to get me to vote republican

too many strange bedfellows in there . . .

 

Not familiar with any of the Montana politicians, democrat or republican, but I try to judge politicians without regard to the party they belong to, and in most cases I've not voted for someone, but against someone, meaning that seldom does the political party provide a candidate would like to vote for.

 

for what it's worth, most of the serving politicians i do like are democrats

kucinich, ellison, anon

montana? brian schweizer [d-gov] could be a hell of a lot worse, and jon tester [d-sen] has been pretty much okay so far

not a big fan of max baucus [d-sen] though

on the other hand [side], denny rehberg [rep] is a lazy, venal hypocrite

and conrad burns, who tester replaced, was possibly even worse . . .

nah, denny is still number one

http://intelligentdiscontent.com/2010/07/04/representative-rehberg-sues-the-city-of-billings-for-not-protecting-his-subdivision/

 

I think voting for "A Party" is nonsense, vote for the freaking Candidate if you can actually find one worth voting for,,, but you cant,,, there aren't any,,, so I guess,,, have fun voting for parties....

Same old story, same old fucking song and dance.

 

In my opinion there is little difference between the party provided candidates, the Democrats provide a candidate who is both socially and fiscally liberal while the Republicans candidate is more openly claimed only to be fiscally conservative. More votes can be had by being seen as socially liberal. Politics today is a career field, essentially a means of making a living doing what we here are doing for free, only they also have the capacity to impose upon us.
As an individual, I live within my means and I can only support a candidate who demonstrates that he/she would work relentlessly to assure that government do the same. The question remains, will one ever appear?

 

clearly you have never lived in montana

 

No, I haven't but in relation to the Federal government it's insignificant. It only takes 11 states to win the executive office, and if we continue on the path we're on at present, Congress may soon become irrelevant as well.

But even more to the point, it's the persons who actually pull the strings and provide the laws and regulations our elected representatives can't understand even if they took the time to read the bills, that we have to find a way of eliminating, and that means we need to elect politicians who can't be bought.

 

there aren't any

and who's we?

you and i want vastly different things

and the people buying the politicians?

there's plenty of historical precedence for, and current support of, the idea that some of us should not be allowed to vote

poll taxes, literacy tests, various others means of disenfranchisement

so the people who run corporations are just taking matters into their own hands, right?

despite any philosophy i might be enamored with i am fairly capable of existing within the current framework of things

and existence is all we really have, no?

 

Then you must subscribe to the old cliche "Everyone has a price"?

Those of us who wish to take full responsibility for our own lives and make choices without any form of government intervention as long as they harm no one else.

Perhaps true, but it would be interesting to know what you think those things might be.

Anyone and everyone with enough money.

Everyone should have a voice in the government they must live under. Sadly it's sometimes hard to get the politicians to listen.

Not just corporations, labor unions, and numerous political action groups.

Humans have in both the past and the present had to endure many forms of hardship. Existence is quite easy, if that's all you care to have. Even an aborted fetus could be claimed to have had an existence, however a short one.

 

i think it was you that once mentioned an expensive car . . .

what i don't get is why a person wanting to significantly reduce the federal government would have a beef with the monied class

who do you think would profit the most from the elimination of the regulations we have now, weak as they are?

it certainly won't be the poor . . .

lol

i don't even have a voice in the small town government i live under, i'm beyond worrying about anything bigger . . .

yet you found it so difficult that you seek radical changes in the government of a nation of 300 million people?

possibly it was so difficult that you left the country?

note that i have no idea why you left, just wondering . . .

 

Is that all you were referring to? Sure I'd like to have many things, but I'm reasonable enough to accept what I can afford to have as adequate.

What beef are you talking about? And certainly I would like to see government downsized tremendously.

It depends on the regulation you might refer to, there are so many.

Everyone has a voice, it just doesn't mean that you will be listened to.

I only seek an end to radical changes.

Actually I had planned to leave the country 45 years ago once I became financially independent, not wealthy. I like the climate, the people, and the customs in Asia, but government can be a problem no matter where you live today. Besides, my wife is Asian and she doesn't like living in the U.S. as her family and friends are all here.

 

really tired of talking about politics

where in asia?

[curious]

mrs wica would like to live in mongolia some day

it pays to find a partner as crazy as oneself . . .

oh, the car thing was kind of a joke, but considering that i don't ever want to own a car again, and would like to see carlessness promoted to some degree . . .

 

Currently living in Laos, Mongolia is too cold for me.

I haven't owned a car since I left the states, and find a small motorcycle provides all the mobility I need locally, and fuel costs me about $3 a week.

 

okay, that is interesting

any khene players around?

:bigear:

 

Anybody here support ABOLISHING the parties? Making politicians run as individuals instead of being backed by a collectivist gang?

 

Plenty of them here, you want to buy one? I have a friend who makes them, but shipping costs might be a little high.

 

Obama has already ruled against allowing that to happen. Just think of the problem it would create for those who vote entirely along party lines, straight Democrat or Republican, they would have to learn the names of all the candidates they would vote for. The news media would have problems too, they couldn't condense their political support in favor or condemnation of candidates without naming them individually.
There is strength in numbers.
What if races had to be won by more than a simple majority? Say two thirds of the votes. Or looking forward to the future, how about creating two countries, one Liberal and one Conservative governed? or three or more if that would allow people to be governed in a way more acceptable to the majority. That would be interesting watching people move from one to another as they became fed up with the form of government they were living under. As it is individual choices are becoming less and less, with new laws and regulations perpetually being created. People look to government more and more NOT as a source of common protection but as the sole provider of their personal welfare.

 

"Anybody here support ABOLISHING the parties? Making politicians run as individuals instead of being backed by a collectivist gang? "

Government is social and more than an individual by it's very nature.
So having people run as " Individuals" is really hard unless they are super rich and can buy all the Ad time in the world.So who will such " Individuals" be looking out for? Number One I think. We have that system now in many ways. The power and money just hides behind faces that play roles.

In 2012 we must work together in " Parties" even if we have to start new ones.

Soon only people will just be total slaves of Corporations.

Corporations maybe they only " collectivist gang " that own anything or have a vote.

i like collectivism for people. Not business. The way this country worked in the 1770's through 1840's. Not a great time for Tech or medical but we really did have freedom then.

Anyone remember the name for a government that works for and with business against people?

 

no, i'm just happy you get to hear them

recordings have little context; me playing would have none

[invasive species]

 

Over 40 years listening to them. I'll stick with the guitar though.