Arlen Specter.

Here. This thread isn't long enough. I like to watch it grow.
I think this is a great topic.

The Democrats are really getting dirty now. They mailed literature saying Curt Weldon (R PA 7th), was worse than a :worried: .....Dallas Cowboys Fan.

In this thread, 10 years ago, I argued that the only way to bring meaningful change to American politics was to vote third party, and over time, to send a message of non-participation to the two-party system. I believed, and still do believe that this was the only moral, logical choice we had at that time. Because partisan politics were leading us nowhere, and the fundamental issues of corruption within both parties was never going to be solved by swinging a superficially ideological pendulum back and forth.

Since then, partisan politics have become even more polarized, record numbers of Americans are identifying as independent, and both major parties have been hijacked from within, by anti-establishment candidates.

The narrative I see—and please correct me if you disagree—is that enough people have become disillusioned with the status quo, that we’ve reached a breaking point. The groundswell of “ƒuck the system” has finally crystallized. And those who have been “throwing our votes away” have finally added up to something that counts. Is that accurate? Are we really moving in a direction to change things? Or am I still a fool.

Still very premature. The people see the dysfunction, but don't see the extent of the entanglement of the two parties with the levers of political power.

I agree in theory, but to accomplish it takes educated, as well as concerned, voters participating from the ground up.

Americans don't want to be educated, at best maybe slightly concerned. They don't want to be involved, they don't want to be distracted from their full time dedication to avoiding reality and hating "the others".

Americans may get pissed off enough about some issue to actually carry a sign and mug for the TV cameras, if they can schedule it between Jr's baseball practice and Sis's dance lessons, but they want someone else to educate themselves on the complicated problem of running the government, and do it. They also want someone else to keep tabs on the ones doing it, 'cause ain't nobody got time for that.

When it comes time to vote, if they can squeeze it in without missing supper or missing Pat and Vanna time, they'll do it for bragging rights, feeling all proud to have contributed their two cents to truth, justice, and the American way. Knowing in their heart, the guy that contributed $10,000 has the real say in the outcome.

Like I said, I agree in theory, but I don't see it happening. :headshake

Not a fool, but foolish to think that any more than about 10% are willing to break away from the only thing they've ever known.

Rush goes past idiot a fair bit here.

I think he's right. I also think it's a good thing.

Indeed, except, speaking of "right", note the "left"s.

He is literally complaining that, with "the left" in charge, sex without consent is a crime.

No matter who's in charge sex without consent is RAPE.

I know that, but what he's saying is right correct. I'm saying that's the way it should be.

No argument here.

Except I wonder how many people who aren't in "the left" want to cede that moral position to "the left".

'cause boys will be boys, she was dressed like a slut, he was drunk/stoned, everyone knows she puts out, etc, etc, ad infinitum.:rolleyes:

Do we declare the GOP officially broken now or do we wait for election day?

The funny thing is the Democratic win is going to double down on a Party that represents banks and bombs not people so their realignment will be tortuously slow. Whatever the new right becomes it's going to happen faster than the new left, unless Hillary gets her nuclear exchange with Russia, then politics get local.