Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Unfortunately, grey, politics is politics and will always be. Gone are the days when the true good of the people... ALL the people... is considered above all else. There's always a hidden political agenda and special interests to appease. Extreme environmentalists would have us shut the country down, so as to not endanger the yellow-striped, hook-billed, heavy-feathered hummingbird... and our children and grandchildren can go camping and see them. Extreme oil and coal advocates would have us think that oil and coal are limitless, and screw the environment... what's a few major oil spills here and there, and who cares about emissions from burning coal.
I don't consider myself either Republican or Democrat (contrary to what Lyle may think, with all due respect, Lyle). But I have a deep mistrust for Mitt Romney, which I expressed as many times as I could before and after the elections. I've never claimed Barack Obama is perfect, either. I'm sure we've had much better and more effective Presidents. But to me it was the lesser of two evils.
You, unlike most of us (or all) in the forum, live in Montana. So you have a long-standing and clear view of the politics in your state and your neck of the woods. You have your reasons for supporting or not supporting certain issues. The issues you consider important may be 180 degrees different from those that someone in NYC might consider important. But your point is well taken. Politicians by and large, lie. Believe me. If a new candidate surfaced tomorrow who looked and sounded capable of leading the country and doing what is best for ALL Americans, not just the wealthy upper class... and could balance the need for energy with the needs of the environment... and could work truly in a bi-partisan manner for the good of the country.... I wouldn't give a rat's ass whether he/she was Republican, Democrat, or Martian. I'd support that person.
OK a few things and I'll number them just because I like to not because I want to be a dick about things.
#1 The first part I put in bold & underlined: When has that ever been the case EVER in the history of this nation or the world? In history there's no such thing as "The good old days" the world has always been and will always be dog eat dog. What's good for some people might go against the interests of another population and that has always been the case from the dawn of time. Hell even now what's good for Americans is not necessarily all that great for the rest of the world and in a global society like we have these days so it's even more difficult to choose a line of thinking that benefits all parties involved or even harms the least amount of people.
Maybe you're so jaded as to think there's NEVER been a public servant who's had the best interests of the country and its people in mind, first and foremost. And MAYBE you're right in being jaded. I don't know. All I know is I'd prefer to think such a political leader has existed at some point in time.
When choosing between benefiting one group or another, certainly you're going to disappoint some. But you try to make the wisest decision, adversely impacting the least amount of people. And you cut no corners explaining to those not benefitted why you made the decision you made.
#2 Why do you distrust Romney specifically? I do not trust Obama A) Because he had no experience his first term and B ) he did not fulfill his promises and has further divided this country either on purpose or from not being as well skilled in the art of politics as he should be. Obama was a Community Organizer and they play an "us vs them" game to get concessions from their opponents, there's no point where the 2 groups "kiss and make up" it's the kind of leadership that builds mutual hostility and resentment...as we've seen so very often.
Specifically? Intent. I don't believe Romney actually intended on carrying through every claim he made in his campaign. I'm sorry... he doesn't hold much water as a champion of the middle class. You mistrust Obama because he failed to "fulfill his promises." Fair enough. If I tell you I'm going to do something, and I don't... no matter what reasons or excuses I give you... you might not trust me to deliver a second time. I'm more forgiving. If I think the INTENT was there, I'm willing to give the man a second shot. Big difference. Intent. That's my answer.
#3 The problem we have about considering "What's good for which groups of people" is one of how we should go about solving the issue. When it comes to the poor, some people wish to offer money, some food, some jobs. What's the best way to fix the issues? Hell it's anyone's guess all are good in theory. I try to make my decisions based on human behavioral psychology because that is how individuals operate in everyday life.
I have no qualms with the above. But you brush this off because in your mind I'm a liberal, and no amount of words from me are going to convince you otherwise. Once your mind is made up, it's a steel trap... a closed one. But I, like you, am against uncontrolled handouts. As a working class citizen, and one who has worked his ass off all my life, I have a problem with the leeches of society. And that is not just a U.S. problem. That is a global problem.
#4 It's going to hurt to bring it up for most of us, but George W. Bush, (despite what damn near everyone says about him) DID reach across the isle on several issues: education, environment, nuclear nonproliferation etc. The credit he recieved is minimal (from all parties) and he is roundly condemned by the Right as "weak" and the left as "stupid". He was no saint, he was not perfect, but he attempted to appease his detractors in some ways which only left them more angry at the times they didn't get what they wanted.
(shudder) Ah, yes-s-s-s..... Georgie. Well, I'm not going to argue your point about his reaching out on some occasions. I'll choose to take your word for it. But Bush's criticism was well-deserved. An international diplomat he was not. A President conscious of the environment he was not. And spare me your extremes here. One does not have to be either a (to use your words) "granola-eating, whale-saving (I added that one), hippie"..... or a "environment-be-damned, oil-drilling-maniac lunatic. One can happily co-exist in the middle. And yes, @Greenbeanz, this is your fucking cue to come barging in here and tell me that there's too much gray in the world. 
Thanks: 
Likes: 
Dislikes: 
Re: Aftermath and repercussions of Obama victory
Reply With Quote
So Obama means to follow through on his promises after 4 years of not worrying at all about the economy and forcing Obamacare down our throats? Hahaha....you are such a phoney you'd never vote Republican at least I'm honest when I say I'll never vote Democrat.
Bookmarks