The root of our political problems

[Leadeye]

Ask yourself to what ends people who make this much from the corrupt system will go to protect that same system.

 

[jamil]

How has your wealth increased in the same time? Someone needs to review all the politicians wealth increases. They are probably all on the take!

Don't Feel Sorry for Liz Cheney - She Increased Her Wealth by $36 Million After Serving Just 6.5 Years in Congress | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

Don’t feel sorry for Liz Cheney. She’s doing just fine.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

From 15 million to 44? I mean. She’s obviously not competing with the Pelosi stock index. C’mon. If yer gonna be corrupt, don’t do it half assed.

 

[jamil]

She is proof that the average American in Wyoming has a room temperature IQ at best , who looks at her fathers legacy and thinks "would she not make a great choice to be our rep?!?"

Years ago I worked with a guy who said he’d vote Republican even if they ran a dog. It’s that kind of loyalty that gets people like Cheney elected.

And, I know several people who like Dick. ..Cheney, that is. Can’t see why people don’t like him. Neocons loves them some Neocons.

 

[KLB]

Years ago I worked with a guy who said he’d vote Republican even if they ran a dog. It’s that kind of loyalty that gets people like Cheney elected.

That's pretty much what a lot of people have said here. You have to vote for the R.

 

[BugI02]

Neocons loves them some Neocons.

'What's good for GM [HAL] IS good for the country'

2003 update to the Charles E Wilson sentiment

 

[BugI02]

That's pretty much what a lot of people have said here. You have to vote for the R.

Not precisely correct. 'A lot of people' here are saying you should carefully consider the ramifications of not doing so

Most people on INGO likely can't really remember a situation in which it would have been better to vote for the Democrat running in any election in which they were old enough to vote. Many long for an alternative to whatever steaming pile the Republicans sometimes offer up and that is understandable

What is being said is the time to fix that is in the primaries and that voting third party, while keeping the hem of your garment clean, often has the result of electing the Democrat anyway

Take the third party high water mark, Perot and the 1992 election. Perot carried zero states and had zero electoral votes, but received about 19% of the popular vote

Clinton received 43% of the vote to GHW's 37.5%. Arguably many third party people might have voted Republican in the absence of a Perot candidacy. If only one in three had, we likely would have been spared a Clinton presidency. Imagine where we might be right now if that had happened

Was there any lasting legacy of the Perot candidacy? Did the issues he raised outlive his candidacy? I would argue no, not for long or in any meaningful way relative to policy. People arguing that because they voted third party, no matter what happens their conscience is clear (ie: hand washing in the Pilate sense) IMO have no room to complain about what they get from either major party because they have pursued some illusory temporal savior instead of a viable solution to problems

If you don't work to get what you like, you're left to like what you get

 

[jwamplerusa]

They are probably all on the take!

FTFY

 

[jwamplerusa]

Take the third party high water mark, Perot and the 1992 election. Perot carried zero states and had zero electoral votes, but received about 19% of the popular vote

Clinton received 43% of the vote to GHW's 37.5%. Arguably many third party people might have voted Republican in the absence of a Perot candidacy. If only one in three had, we likely would have been spared a Clinton presidency. Imagine where we might be right now if that had happened

@BugI02 comment is correct, but also illustrates the problem. The Party machines, and the professional politician / bureaucrats that populate the administrative state simply ignore the evidence before them.

I would argue that if the Republican Party had listened and acted upon the disaffection of the Perot voters Clinton would have been at worst a one term president. The AWB might well have not been, and our debt might not have ballooned to the catastrophic levels it is now. The Republican Party might also have not been internally roiled by the Tea Party movement, and arguably weakend to some degree in the process.

A root cause analysis has to touch on the entrenchment of the incumbents and the administrative state. While we are currently witnessing a straight up subversion of the Constitution by a cadre of elected communist insurgents, the roots of the problem are far deeper in our society and arguably are the result of wide spread ignorance of the basis of our Nation and its government structure (as intended, not as is).

Large segments of the electorate (but both minorities) are desperate for something different and are willing to grasp at anything they believe offers the possibility for a new course that they envision as "better" based upon their ideology. For the left this is naked communist ideology gently draped in a cloak of "America's version" (it will work here, this time). For the right, it is a return to limited government more closely aligned to the literal and contemporaneous meanings of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States of America and early jurisprudence. Often it means (or requires) the devolution of the administrative state and the reapplication of the restraint upon the Federal Government intended by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Sadly, and I believe largely through ignorance, the great middle ground of the electorate just want their lives to "improve" relative to their current station. Most have little knowledge of this Nation's basis, and all to often don't care to learn. They are not evil so much as ideologically neutral and ignorant. It is only when they are faced with personal hardship or disruption (job loss, income devaluation, etc.) that they react and often then only within the bounds of their ignorance. For this middle ground the large scale media outlets, and the little propaganda distribution machines they hold in their hands all day, form and skew their perspectives on a host of issues usually (but not always) to the left.

 

[BugI02]

For the right, it is a return to limited government more closely aligned to the literal and contemporaneous meanings of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States of America and early jurisprudence.

If You Don't Know What Time It Is, Get Out Of Politics Now

Americans must understand that the ruling class seeks total power, is closing in on it, and will stop at nothing to achieve it.

thefederalist.com

What does “market-oriented” matter if you’ve lost the culture on which a genuinely free enterprise system — which we are nowhere near — relies, and the market actors themselves are among the most culpable actors in killing that underlying culture?

What good is “limited government” when the state is colluding with non-state actors to erode the core values and principles on which the republic was founded? Does “limited government” mean exercising restraint while those who loathe our system run roughshod over it? Does it mean the Constitution is a suicide pact, whereby conservatives keep their arms tied behind their back and the left waltzes to victory almost by default?

It’s not that these ideals are not imperative or worth defending. I’d like to abolish the administrative state, reinstitute sound money, and see a massive redistribution of federal power to the states and more importantly the people — along with a host of other policies associated with traditional conservatism and libertarianism.

But an emphasis on these issues to the detriment or exclusion of the almost pre-political, existential challenges we face, indicates a focus on a world, and a time, that we might wish for, but in which we are not currently residing.

 

[jamil]

'What's good for GM [HAL] IS good for the country'

2003 update to the Charles E Wilson sentiment

Had to look that one up.

 

[jamil]

That's pretty much what a lot of people have said here. You have to vote for the R.

I mean. Liz Cheney is better than Nancy Pelosi if we're keeping score. But the key is for America-first candidates to challenge the establishment candidates, and for the voter base to be vigilant against the new boss same as the last boss.

 

[jamil]

What is being said is the time to fix that is in the primaries and that voting third party, while keeping the hem of your garment clean, often has the result of electing the Democrat anyway

While I agree that the time to fix it is in the primaries, I'm not going to fault someone who votes third party if they disagree with both D's and R's. I can't fault Libertarians' for voting Libertarian. That's what they are. They don't owe D's or R's their vote. But it's like saying it's the Democrat's fault that Republicans didn't win. Yeah. Duh. That's effectively a tautology. The problem is in thinking that the Libertarians owe Republicans their vote.

But, consider the trope "voting for a douche vs a turd sandwich". There's some truth to that, but they're not exact equivalents either. People need to weigh their own priorities and decide for themselves if that matters. I think a lot of Libertarian leaning people voted for Trump for pragmatic reasons. Especially in 2016. Gary Johnson is a progressive **** (begins with 't', rhymes with swat) and the more conservative leaning Libertarians voted pragmatically.

 

[jamil]

If You Don't Know What Time It Is, Get Out Of Politics Now

Americans must understand that the ruling class seeks total power, is closing in on it, and will stop at nothing to achieve it.

thefederalist.com

There's some truth to that. But if there's a viable America first candidate who also believes in small government, that's the play.

 

[KLB]

Clinton received 43% of the vote to GHW's 37.5%. Arguably many third party people might have voted Republican in the absence of a Perot candidacy. If only one in three had, we likely would have been spared a Clinton presidency. Imagine where we might be right now if that had happened

Unless the other 2/3 leaned towards Clinton.

You always come at this like everyone being discussed is a Republican that is choosing to not vote for a Republican. There are a lot of people that do not see themselves as Republicans nor as Democrats.

 

[BugI02]

They don't owe D's or R's their vote.

That's not what I have a problem with. You and I both know that a libertarian is much more likely to align with a conservative candidate (except on weed) than a progressive one, so that libertarian vote is unlikely to affect the progressive's vote total

What I have a problem with is the willful blindness to any personal responsibility for the consequences. The attitude that 'the R's should have offered a better candidate' is armchair quarterbacking at best. You'd think wanting the best R possible 'just in case'would be the prepper call

Third party voting is just choosing the blue pill

 

[BugI02]

Unless the other 2/3 leaned towards Clinton.

You always come at this like everyone being discussed is a Republican that is choosing to not vote for a Republican. There are a lot of people that do not see themselves as Republicans nor as Democrats.

You and I obviously have a different definition of 'a lot'

Third party, especially libertarian third party, is a type of catch 22

Few people want to vote libertarian if they have no chance of winning, but they will always have no chance of winning if no one votes for them

 

[BugI02]

There's some truth to that. But if there's a viable America first candidate who also believes in small government, that's the play.

IngoMike has the right of it, though

The priority must be on fix the most existential threat to the Republic, tilt at windmills when the situation allows

I find it VERY concerning that quite a few people here now who fled communism are warning that what is currently going on is familiar to them because they have seen it before

 

[KLB]

You and I obviously have a different definition of 'a lot'

Third party, especially libertarian third party, is a type of catch 22

Few people want to vote libertarian if they have no chance of winning, but they will always have no chance of winning if no one votes for them

Let's take Gallup poll numbers for party affiliation last year.
Over 40% of respondents identified as independent. That is a lot in my book.

 

[xwing]

Years ago I worked with a guy who said he’d vote Republican even if they ran a dog. It’s that kind of loyalty that gets people like Cheney elected.

And, I know several people who like Dick. ..Cheney, that is. Can’t see why people don’t like him. Neocons loves them some Neocons.

If the choice is Cheney or a communist (typical Democrat at the national level), I'm proudly voting for Cheney. This is a primary, and the right time to vote out RINOS. So, good! In a primary, I certainly will vote for and advocate for a conservative. But in a general election, doing anything other than voting for the Republican candidate is simply shooting myself in the foot! It's not that I would vote for a dog with a R next to them, it's that I vote for the dog opposition to the Dem who's actively trying to destroy our country. Even a dog will govern better than a Dem...

 

[oze]

That's pretty much what a lot of people have said here. You have to vote for the R.

And others have said that we need to vote for the donkeys, because getting them in will somehow fix everything.