Do you believe more of your party in Washington makes the country better? (Example: If only more dems were in office, so much more could be done..)


Do you believe the other party is evil? Dimwitted? Out of touch with "reality"?



Are you offended that both parties take away your liberties (about the only time they are bipartisan)?


Do you feel that you are aiding the effort for losing liberties when you vote for 1 of the 2 parties who both vote to end them?

ummmmmmm....yes?

Answer: Term limits for Congress nad Senate
We don't need career politians we need career Americans

1. Yes I think the country would be in a better position had Democrats controlled the House of Representatives for the last several years and going forward.

2. I don't believe Republicans are evil or dimwitted. I think they have moral positions that a reasonable person could easily have. I believe a large swath of them have a moral opposition to the welfare state and they use fiscal arguments as a means to undermine the welfare state because many moral arguments against the welfare state are unpopular because social insurance has broad popularity. If I had a complaint, I wish we wouldn't veil our moral disagreements with fiscal arguments.

3. I think you're making some presuppositions when you say both parties gleefully get together to take away our liberties.

4. I don't think I'm voting to take a liberties when I vote for democrats. Rather, I feel that I'm voting for people who will support policies that will promote more power and liberty in the aggregate. I.E. More people having the power and freedom to choose between more choices.

BoatShoes;1376700 wrote:3. I think you're making some presuppositions when you say both parties gleefully get together to take away our liberties.

Would you agree that Obama continued many of the policies that Bush implemented?

FatHobbit;1376704 wrote:Would you agree that Obama continued many of the policies that Bush implemented?

I know where you're going with this and I reject it.

Are we going to have another argument about deontological purity in electoral politics???

Whatever mistakes that George Bush made that Obama continues to make are outweighed by other concerns. I am a pragmatist when it comes to voting.

I would've liked to have voted for the twisted offspring of John Maynard Keynes/George McGovern/Hubert Humphrey but alas I got Obama and the current world we live in and its realities and its history but that was the hand we were dealt.

BoatShoes;1376709 wrote:Are we going to have another argument about deontological purity in electoral politics???

I have to admit that I had to look up what deontological means. According to dictionary.com it means

ethics, especially that branch dealing with duty, moral obligation, andright action.

I'm not entirely sure how that applies here to electoral politics (maybe I'm hung on the word electoral) but I will also admit that I am ignorant of many many things in language of political discussion.

BoatShoes;1376709 wrote:Whatever mistakes that George Bush made that Obama continues to make are outweighed by other concerns. I am a pragmatist when it comes to voting.

I would've liked to have voted for the twisted offspring of John Maynard Keynes/George McGovern/Hubert Humphrey but alas I got Obama and the current world we live in and its realities and its history but that was the hand we were dealt.

I think the whole point of question #3 was to point out that at every election we are presented with two candidates who are supposed to be very different, but when we elect a candidate from a different party things do not change. There are many things Bush did (that I disagree with) that Obama said he would change and he has not.