Republican or Democrat?

How about taking all the moderates of both parties, forming one party that could represent most people, leaving the far right and the far left to tear each others throats out.

Nice idea, but is it workable? I doubt it, saddly . . .

Yep, perception, I dream of the same thing -- and I've got a lot of apparently (in the U.S.) radical tendencies myself. I'd just rather see things get done than have every single issue become a war of "What can I get for myself/my consituency out of this?"

I'm a registered Democrat, but that's just because I want a bit of say in the pres. primaries, and with the exception of McCain I've yet to see a viable Republican candidate I could stomach. (A young'un, though, and haven't been able to vote in that many elections.)

Really, though, I'm sick of the whole thing, and generally turn my mind to other things.

Other - I want there to be more of a Parlimentarian system in the USA so that a Government must be created with coalitions!

Gosh, totally forgot about this thread.

Setanta....I understand your surmise, but in fact the only affiliation I have had was when Trudeau was around, and that was because of him (and his ideas, of course). We are, here in Canada, blessed or cursed with a multi-party scenario (I think blessed) and so there is some range of positions on all issues. But I find myself here one time and there another time, so any firm affiliation would be false of me to claim. I do look to the individuals, and seek first of all, a broad and independent intellect with a lack of fixed ideas. Unfortunately, that's a curiously a tall order in political animals. In policy, I look for two things - foremost that the government keeps its nose quite clear of personal issues (sex, drugs, ideas, etc) and second, that it remembers it is there to represent the interests of the people and their communities, not some other entity with well-funded advocates whose interests may have absolutely nothing to do with the people (even if they suggest it to be so).

You mean yer a new democrat, like Neil Young's daddy, right?

Ah, ye spoiled all my fun, BLatham, comin' back in here with a serious answer when i was pokin' serious fun at ye . . .

Neil Young's daddy is dead. Have some respect. Actually, I've been worried about the son too ever since seeing him do Helpless in The Last Waltz...has anyone ever been that stoned and lived?

Ya call that livin' ?

I get the feelin' that ol' Neil is like a feller runnin' down an icy slope--so long as he keeps his feet movin', he may not fall . . .

Lives in a pretty swank neighborhood in Tarana, though . . .

edgarblythe - but the best America can offer is a three party system. Any third party I've seen developed, I agree with some of their stuff and disagree with a lot. Coalition Government is the only way - a third party will never be powerful enough to have a viable national election. If it is coalition, then evertime a government is determined, they have to have a majority and each minority party has a % say. However, in the USA we would probably have the govenment disolve every 3 months and nothing will get done!

There has been one thing that puzzles me, the Democrats always act like they are so much for the poor people of America. They are always painting the rich people as greedy, care nothing about you kind of people.
We all know that in every class of people rich poor or in the middle, there are going to be greedy people, the rich do not have a corner on this.
My question is: how many successful people do you know that work for poor people?
When the rich are doing well, we all have jobs, when the rich have no money to invest, we have to depend on the government and that is exactly were the Democrats seem to want us, dependent on them so they can buy our vote with tax payers money. It is a good scheme for them, but how much does that show they care about us poor people. We make more when we are working than we do in their socialistic scheme.

Slimmerson- I have never begrudged rich people for their wealth, if they acquired it honestly. In fact, I am grateful to people who have more ability in certain areas than I do. Their expertise allows ME to have a better life.

Patio dog, if you become sick of the whole thing and look the other way you may have done exactly what they wanted you to do.
You sound like you have pretty much denied the Republicans a shot at your vote by looking the other way, but what did you see over there?
I am all for that middle of the road party, but until that comes along a suppose I will vote basicly Repub. and it is simple to me. being a poor person, I have worked for other people all of my life. Thinking back on my 50 years in the working class I do not remember any jobs I had working for poor people.
Always I was looking for a way to get ahead, and never once did I look towards poor people to help.
While the Democrats tell you how much they are going to do for the poor, the first thing they want to do is raise taxes. I do not know about you , but I don't have a lot of write offs and loop holes. When they raise taxes, I pay more. When they lower taxes as the Repubs. seem to want , I take more home.
What I am really trying to say is, while you are looking the other way things are still happening that affect your ability to feed yourself and your family.

I doubt the contention that the investments of the wealthy make opportunity for all of us. This sounds very much like a rehash of that tired old shiboleth of Ray-gun, "trickle-down economics." A great deal of investment of recent years was in the dot.coms which imploded as dot.bombs. This did not generate any meaningful increase in productivity, nor did it employ large numbes of the previously unemployed, university graduates excluded. Simply saying that investment will cure economic woes is either disingenuous or ill-informed. In this i am not being a cheerleader for the Democratic Party--i just found Slimmerson's post to read very much like a Repub diatribe. Democrats want to tax and spend on domestic programs, Repubs want to tax and spend on military programs--any way you look at it, our government has their collective hands deep in our pockets, and the representative democratic process in this country is so divorced from reality that we have precious little control of either group of rapacious flannel-mouths.

Phoenix: That is pretty much how I feel about it, the one variable might be that I do not feel it is my place to judge how someone else reaches their place in life as I rarely have all the facts.

Setanta: Hey this is Christmas eve lighten up!!
In reality what I feel and believe does seem like I got it straight from the Repubs, however read what you have entered here, that is almost word for word Democrat diatribe.
You really believe that tax and spend mantra dealt out by the Democrats but try to back off on it by saying how bad all politicians are.
I don't want to bash anyone here but the Democrats were pretty much in control for eight years and all the problems we had when they took control are still here no matter how you want to rewrite history.
The schools are terrible, social security is a bummer, and we have no health program.
The Republicans, like them or not have done more to improve our education system in 2 years than the Democrats did in 8.
The other thing I have said is maybe over simplified, and you don't like the trickle down theory, but did you ever work for a poor person for a living wage?

This was nothing personal against you, Slimmerson. That's not a Demo diatribe--i really do believe that neither party provides a solution for unemployment. We, in the working class, don't get anything from much of the investment types which have been popular in the last 10 years, so note that i'm not tying either Demos or Repubs to the patterns of recent securities exchanges. I don't see that the Repubs have done any more for education than the Demos did. I do note that there was a surplus just a few years ago, and that a Repub give-away, largely to the wealthier classes who support Repub candidates, has wiped out the surplus and re-started the deficit plunge. As for social security, that fund will be raided shamelessly now that the Shrub and company want a big military and intend to use it in a war of dubious provenance. You say we have no health program--so what do you propose the Repubs are likely to do about that? It is not rewriting history to point out that when Bush Sr. left the White House and Clinton moved in, businesses gained new confidence and investment took off. Sadly, that investment was oftentimes not of any value to the working stiff. And yes, i am saying all politicians are bad--but you are saying that i believe "that tax and spend mantra" without any evidence. I've not said i buy into that, and, in fact i am saying that i don't care which party is taxing and spending, they're both profligate with our money, and gamblin with the fiscal future of our children and grandchildren. This is a diatribe, but it is non-partisan. I'm an equal opportunity sceptic--i think they're all liars.

Setanta- I agree that both parties are looking to grab as much money as then can from people, but with different agendas and purposes.

As far as investing is concerned, what we saw in the 1990s wll probably be described by historians as the biggest Ponzi scheme perpetrated on the American people.........by themselves.

What we saw in those years, was not investing, but the desire of people to jump on the gravy train, without thought, without foresight. We ended up with an investing nightmare- a fantasy of stocks being sold for prices way out of line with their worth. The bubble had to burst- it was all smoke and mirrors, and it certainly did. My son used to say that if you wanted to gamble, in the 1990s, you were better off betting football games. At least there, you had a 50-50 cahnce of winning. That's what the market was, gambling, pure and simple.

I believe the entire situation came out of the mindset of the baby boomers, the "me" generation, who wanted everything NOW. More money, more toys, get rich quick without having to put much effort into it.
(Am I sounding like an old fart yet?)

Both major parties in this country have sold their souls to money. They have sacrificed "the good of the people" to what advances their political career. c.i.

c.i., that sellout doesn't just include money!

But, I have to agree that money is the god!