Welcome to PatsFans.com

New Minority Politicians

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Harry Boy, Jun 20, 2010.

  1. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    38,843
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +295 / 1 / -9

    VOTE FOR THESE PEOPLE WHEN YOU CAN DUMP THE SCUM THAT NOW ARE DESTROYING AMERICA

    Here's a new group joining American politics, good for them, I hope they become successful in their political carreers, America needs them, they are a breath of fresh air after having to live with that wretched gang of grinning smirking crooks that tag along behind Pelosi every day and these people are in America "legally" they're not on "food stamps"
    Record number of Indian-Americans seeking office - Yahoo! News
  2. TBradyOwnsYou

    TBradyOwnsYou Rookie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    This "new" group still smells the same as they are still Democrats or Republicans... not sure how this helps us any.
  3. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    38,843
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +295 / 1 / -9

    I know, we'll never get away from those bastards I guess, we need "term limits" leaving some of those slimey crooks in office for 30 years is Unholy (uncle teddy cowardly drunken despot)

    Can't you just see Chris (mush mouth) Matthews telling the world that his legs are tingling at the sight of America's "FIRST INDIAN PRESIDENT"...........
  4. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,000
    Likes Received:
    179
    Ratings:
    +284 / 5 / -8

    While ironically several ran on a platform of being "Indian killers." Different kind of Indian of course.

    TBradyetc., I gotta say, I'm thoroughly unimpressed by the "Pox on both houses" school of politics these days.

    You think a political party becomes bad by virtue of the D or the R? Any sufficiently organized group to have access to political power becomes the equivalent of what we've got now. I'm even less impressed by the major contender these days, the reactionary "tea party" or "parties" that are making so much noise. I don't really think that the Democratic Socialists, the Greens, or on the rightie side the American Nazis stand much of a chance either.

    People complaining about the two parties are equally likely to complain that the parties are "too partisan" (i.e., fight over their differences too much,) and that they are really the same. To me they seem more likely (or at least AS likely) to babble about a third party right between the two (makes sense if the two are far apart, but not if they're the same,) as about a third party on the right or the left.

    Now, when we complain about both parties being corrupt, that's another story. But what are we to expect when we declare Corporations to be "persons" with "speech" rights, as defined by monetary campaign expenditures?

    It's the purest distillation of the phrase "money talks", and therefore cannot be limited.

    What do we set ourselves up for when we define campaign contributions as speech, and when we create a most-money-wins system?

    The particular parties we have aren't the problem, it's the administration of both parties, i.e., campaigning laws, that exacerbate an inherent problem: People who try to get power want to be powerful, and having gotten power, they want to hold on to it, and to use it to their own benefit.

    These are the natural foibles we see in whoever we elect, and the natural urges we ourselves might also exhibit, having attained that level of power. The question is what laws can constrain those impulses.

    The answer is not complaining that someone still has the word "Democrat" or "Republican" attached to his name. In the present context, that just means he or she is making his or her rise to prominence possible.

    Do you have other political parties you consider more reliable than the two you don't like?

    PFnV
  5. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    38,843
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +295 / 1 / -9

    Nope, two parties are fine, two four year terms and they are out no matter how good they are and no matter who they are.

    Robert (KKK) Byrd, now that is a sick situation, he's been a senator for 500 years.
  6. TBradyOwnsYou

    TBradyOwnsYou Rookie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Yes, I would in fact argue they are too partisan.

    Agree.

    I don't like the R or D because while the name isn't the problem, what they represent is. THEY are the ones in charge of the laws. THEY are the ones who control everything. Do they ever make changes for the better? No. They just continue to push out the little guy, maintain power for themselves, and don't do anything that might make it possible for real change to happen. If you look in to the rigamarole that you need to do to get on the Presidential ballot for example, it's ridiculous. If you aren't an R or a D odds are you will not be on the ballot for all 50 states and you will face many lawsuits making your run unwinnable. I mean good god, when you have to spend over half a billion dollars to campaign for a public office, something is wrong.
    I also REALLY hate how divisive the "R" and "D" labels can be. Even here on a forum for Patriots fans, people throw around terms like "right" and "left" as though they are throwing spears aimed at the heart, as opposed to simply labeling a common philosophy.
    I agree that you can't judge a book by it's cover, and you can't judge a politician by his political party, BUT, you can make a pretty good guess that in today's society if that politician is going to get anything done, he/she is going to walk the party line as opposed to doing any original thinking and their main goal is going to be raising funds for their upcoming campaign.

    You put in a 2 term limit, combined with campaign finance laws that limit and equalize what is spent during a campaign, and all of the sudden you have politicians who are there to actually represent the people as opposed to just being concerned about staying elected and raising funds. Would there still be corruption? Hell yes. Would special interests still have a large hand in legistlation? Hell yes. Would it be a step in the right direction? Hell yes.
  7. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,000
    Likes Received:
    179
    Ratings:
    +284 / 5 / -8

    Making them more than interpreting, but point taken (the Court is more a reflection of conservative/liberal ideology, though not a party line, filtered through a judicial philosophy. As much as we all have our faves on the court, they're not reliable party functionaries.)

    535 congressmen/senators, innumerable lobbyists and staff; 1 president; innumerable executive branch functionaries (famouly non-partisan in the 9/10ths of the iceberg you never see, but the top follows the President's party for the most part.)

    And if every one of them were replaced by someone of some off-brand party, or someone who was a dyed-in-the-wool believer that NO party was of any significance, "THEY" would still control everything. There would still be the same number; that number would still be a tiny proportion of America.

    Rule by plebescite, on every word of every bill, would defeat this state of affairs, which by the way has always pertained. However, we'd have 100% unemployment, as everyone voted as a full-time job. I'd prefer to keep this particular activity to a smaller pool, and to elect them to make sure they represent the people.

    Really? I thought the civil rights act was a change for the better. I thought the safety regulations that keep ptomaine out of your ptuna and exploding pintos off the roads were changes for the better. I thought the clean air act was a change for the better. I thought the anti-trust laws and the child labor laws were changes for the better. I thought the right of women to vote was a change for the better.

    I furthermore think that we do not cover changes for the better. We are also short-sighted and arrogant that way. We watch a 10-second sound bite, or think ourselves scholars when we find a 2-minute YouTube rant by our favorite amateur fearmonger, or when we sit through an hour of Rush or Maddow.

    Overall, we're neither interested enough nor mature enough to think through something our grand-kids will reap the benefits of. Just look around this board. Most of our attention goes to who boffed who, what "types" of people - always, an "other", whether geographically, racially, linguistically, or by dint of sex or sexual preference - make us sick, etc.

    Then it's "surprise surprise! oil's running out, we're doing risky stuff to find it, and whoda thunk, we eventually take a catastrophic risk!"

    I'd argue that once you control for the eggregious power-seeking at the top, the party ideology and affiliation across the gamut of officialdom has an influence. To wit:

    The Republican thesis is that very large private entities should be left alone to get larger and richer, and their tabs should be picked up by "the little guy" when they eff up. Government's role is to encourage business, which will result in better lives for the rest of us, because business has some interest in our lives being better somehow.

    The Democratic thesis is that government has a role in protecting its citizens and making their lives better through whatever means are feasible. Laissez-faire capitalism is limited by the common interests that rise to a national level - for example, we demand accountability of a corporation that floods our shores with oil, and require regulations that prevent such actions in the future.

    You've got a lot more here, but I need to get to work LOL... perhaps more later, after the predictable knee-jerk jackass responses to this first bit of what was meant to be a longer response.

    PFnV
  8. atomdomb

    atomdomb Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

  9. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    38,843
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +295 / 1 / -9

    Obama is destroying liberalism and he is destroying the democratic party.

    Black Conservatives:
    I'd vote for all of those people, from what I see in Maine those two back stabbers Collins/Snowe won't be around much longer either.
  10. TBradyOwnsYou

    TBradyOwnsYou Rookie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Ya, I'm not against representative government, I'm just saying the people we elect to represent us, no matter which party, don't really care about "us".

    I may have been exagerating a bit... :p

    No bias here? :)

    I think the point stands though that just because a politician is of Indian decent doesn't make them a better politician.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>