Hatred is a healthy thing. It's a necessary prerequisite to getting pissed off enough to do something about it.
LOL, I tend to lean to the right on certain things, mostly fiscal. To the left on social issues. I have been fighting the two major/monopoly parties since the days of Ross Perot. As far as disliking both parties, a majority of Americans are with you. Last I looked the Republican Party had a 62% unfavorable rating and the Democrats not far behind at 55%. But what is a person to do when it all boils down to the lesser of two evils? Regardless of who wins, evil is still elected.
I tend to lean both left and right fiscally, it just depends on what exactly the issue is. I lean left fiscally on social issue, but I'm still conservative because I'm for conservative ideas like welfare to work and minimal welfare. Just enough to survive, don't incentivise poverty, I'm all for school subsidy. I'm right because I'm strongly against Nanny state behavior with corporations. Don't subsidize them, let the free market decide, but I'm for the epa, minimally. Ban it or regulate it if it's an immediate health hazard to workers or consumers, but don't be idiotic about it. I'd call myself a progressive libertarian. Basically the market, and people, should be as free as possible without compromising safety or exploiting others but I think we need a social safety net. If the people were truly being represented I have a big suspicion we would probably fall somewhere in here, but they're not. Even limited government republicans have expanded government over sight as much or more than democrats depending on which president were talking about.
I do as much as I can. I call congressmen , sign petitions, in fact it seems I sign more petitions against actions then for just to show how bad it is, but until somebody is elected and changes the rules, it's gonna be a constant fight to just prevent disaster let alone fix it. With the money and cronyism involved, a true representative of the people will never be elected. What do we do? Protest outside of Koch industries and George Soros estate? It's not just the government now, it's those who own it.
Any of the candidates running on the republican side would be better for our country than any democratic candidate. We Republicans have several great candidates such as Walker, Huckabee, or Kasich. I do believe it will be a governor. Cruz would be great, but he would get butchered for being so correct and so honest.
Protest in numbers directly in front of the White House. Surround the Dirksen Building and prevent any work from being done.
Jeb Bush's idol is Democrat Lyndon Johnson. Ted Cruz is a diversity enthusiast to the most extreme degree. Even worse than some democrats on the issue.
Overall, Cruz is the smartest, most capable one of the bunch. He's also practical and realistic. Jeb is not my favorite, neither was LBJ. Too many died in Vietnam.
Only by words, not by actions. And Cruz may not be being dishonest intentionally, but he has along history of NOT being correct. In fact, his record of accuracy is only 2% of the time. That's bad. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ted-cruz/ Republicans are nothing more the snake oil salesmen. Their policies never actually are what they said and definitely don't do what they've claimed they would, and most of the ideas behind them are based on false facts to begin with. Of course, the same goes for dems, but the numbers speak worse for republicans from the 80s on.
Not true, many of the R candidates have important contributions. The democrats seem to have only one candidate, Hillary. What has she accomplished of importance for our country? How honest is she? Hmmm?
That's what happens when big money gets involved. Don't be fooled. They're not representing you nor I.
Arent you opposed to diversity? I thought you agreed with the Tea Party? Is it practical of Ted Cruz to increase mass immigration of non-whites when the economy is in the (*)(*)(*)(*)ter? Lyndon Johnson was the antithesis of small government conservatism. I thought you would have a stronger opinion against him. but don't get me wrong on Ted Cruz. I agree with him on most stuff as he is principled against Obama except on diversity/immigration where he is a anti-American diversity extremist.
"Diversity" has many meanings, it doesn't always mean letting illegals in. I have always though LBJ was a scummy crook, but now looks better compared to Obama.
Really? Did he say that? Bush is an open borders enthusiast. All the Republicans are, with one or two minor exceptions.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-be-like-lyndon-johnson-if-elected-president/ Scott Walker might not be. He wants to reduce legal immigration to protect the American worker. Donald Trump also is sane on immigration issues. The rest of them are just as bad as the democrats, if not worse. - - - Updated - - - Are you alright with immigrants if they are legal? How are they different?
Rand Paul seems like a nice change to me. However the GOP will no doubt screw the pooch and nominate another loser thereby creating the Clinton II era.
The GOP is scared of Rand Paul, they won't nominate him. They'll probably nominate Jeb Bush, is my guess. And in that case you're right, it'll be Clinton II. Why don't they just stop the charade and have Clinton and Bush run together? One of 'em can be prez and the other can be veep, they can alternate every year just to keep it fair. I mean, otherwise we'll have half the country believing these two are somehow "different".
Sad but true. Shows what a joke these two parties are and that they are both controlled by the same group of bank swindlers and war profiteers. Maybe enough young and aware voters will get involved and vote for Senator Paul.
Well, this is the "choice we're being given" - on the one hand we have Lyndon Johnson in drag, and on the other we have a Republican who claims Lyndon Johnson is his political idol. So, that appears to be our choice - Lyndon Johnson or Lyndon Johnson. And I don't know about you, but I personally don't know anyone who likes Lyndon Johnson, not even one single solitary person. Every I know says he was one of the biggest scumbags who ever lived. He had an undersecretary of agriculture murdered, and we even know the name of the hit man. He ordered the pilot of his personal jet to take off in a storm, whereupon it crashed costing the lives of the pilot and co-pilot, and Johnson filed a 700,000 dollar insurance claim and didn't compensate either of the families. Maybe if I put this in bold someone in one of the two major parties will see it and get a clue: I don't want Lyndon Johnson, and neither does anyone else.
That is the thing, both parties expand government especially programs and projects they like. The idea of limited government doing only what was prescribed in section 8, Article I is long gone.
I don't know what will happen in 2016. Most political pundits are giving Clinton a 50-50 chance of winning which also means the GOP candidate at this time also has the same 50-50 chance. Of course with 18 months or so between now and the election those odds will change depending on events taking place and other unforeseen happenings. Hillary is weak with independents having a 43% favor vs. a 51% unfavorable rating. This is probably what drops her chances down to 50-50. You mentioned Rand Paul, among independents he is on the plus side, 34-29, but 36% of independents say they don't know enough about him to make up their mind on how they view him. Only 3% of independents haven't heard enough about Hillary Clinton, so I assume her numbers will not fluxuate wildly like Paul's can and will. Rubio is another candidate view favorably by independents by a 36-24 margin, Walker is at 24-21, all other candidate are well below the water mark and most worst than Clinton. The reason I keep tabs on independents is the Democrats have a larger base than the Republicans, hence it is a must whomever the GOP candidate is that he wins the independent vote and by probably at least a 53-47 margin.