What is Digg?55 Comments
- GoKings, on 11/13/2009, -0/+19Whatever... To me the (D) or the (R) shouldn't even matter. It's how the person votes and their policies that really count. Who cares if a D is anti-abortion, or if a R is for health-care? Those are their policies. They shouldn't change sides just so they'll fit it in with everyone else. Vote for the person, not their letter. It holds way too much weight these days.
- ThatNeilDude, on 11/13/2009, -5/+18Lieberman needs to just go away.
- norwegianlegion, on 11/13/2009, -0/+12I'm tired of political beliefs being picked like dodgeball teams and divided cleanly into two packages with no compromise. Why are you forced to join a team without thinking for yourself and choosing what YOU believe? Why is politics predominantly represented by a straight line instead of the wide field it really is?
I believe in extremely liberal social values, but I'm also pro gun rights, I believe if you kill someone maliciously and with premeditation we should kill you back, I'm against bloat and current spending habits in the federal government and pro states rights, and I'm a bit Libertarian. Why am I forced to vote for only half my beliefs in a sea of clones and see people who I would actually want to vote for get choked out by a monopolizing political system?
Basically, I'll support anything that breaks file in Washington, even if I don't agree with them, because loosening the binds on what we have right now will be so completely worth it in the future. If it isn't a run of the mill donkey or an elephant, I'll probably vote for it. - Blinker1315, on 11/12/2009, -4/+16No politician "ought" to switch parties. That's up to him or her. Take Joe Lieberman, for example. He has the best of both worlds: he's courted by both parties, even after the liberal Democrats sabotaged his last Senate campaign. If he were a Republican, he wouldn't get nearly the attention he does now (ditto for Oympia Snowe) and that's one of the main reasons—power—that these people run for office in the first place.
- regeya, on 11/12/2009, -0/+11Ja. Not many people know this, but the Führer was descended from a long line of English queens.
- stompk291, on 11/12/2009, -0/+9I don't understand why they DON'T just change. but of course, many of them have been re-elected - so I guess they aren't being sent any messages from their own party, so why would they. Your party isn't complaining, and the other party loves you. why not ride the tide ?
- OMNIAuser, on 11/13/2009, -0/+5Danzig for Pres!
- norwegianlegion, on 11/13/2009, -0/+5I think if I went to a tea party and gave a speech about how I wanted a single payer health care bill, a radical shift to our transportation grid, the taxation of religious organizations, eliminating government subsidies on corn and ethanol, halving military spending over time, the legalization of weed and ecstasy, and replacing the concept of marriage with civil union for everyone and legalizing gay civil unions, thus getting the state out of religion and the "moral" debate, I'd have to leave in some fashion. Maybe run.
- smacksaw, on 11/13/2009, -0/+5Yeah, Mel Brooks is the unfunniest ***** ever
/s - Atario, on 11/13/2009, -0/+5Unfortunately, it does have meaning for actual government functions. A party is given greater control in Congress if it holds the majority.
- whatthefu, on 11/13/2009, -1/+6That's not even the quote. It's "Don't be stupid, be a smarty, come and join the Nazi Party," and outside of the context of The Producers it doesn't make sense.
- robbob, on 11/13/2009, -1/+5they're no FIEND of mine
- blitzkriegpunk, on 11/13/2009, -3/+7I GOT SOMETHING TO SAY ...
- zephc, on 11/13/2009, -1/+5No one got your reference to The Producers (other than me)
- broadway1baby, on 11/13/2009, -1/+4I solemnly svear to obey ze zacred Zigfreid Oath!
Adolph Elizabeth Hitler! - TheLee, on 11/13/2009, -1/+4wat
- thomas, on 11/13/2009, -1/+4They went with RINOs for Republicans but didn't do DINOs for Democrats?
- Kaegro, on 11/13/2009, -1/+4I KILLED YOUR MOTHER TODAY
- NetworkNed, on 11/13/2009, -0/+2These aren't misfits. They are actually quite beneficial to the process.
- Elranzer, on 11/13/2009, -0/+2The pet dinosaur from the Flintstones doesn't get a lot of respect these days.
- nicc, on 11/13/2009, -0/+2one reason why I personally think the ballots shouldn't have party representation listed.
I was happily surprised that the recent local election here in VA didnt have the party affiliations listed!
of course, you still have the people outside the voting trying to force their sample ballots on people, etc, even though they are within the distance limits that should make it illegal for them to be there.
alas, it is never enforced! :( - RAAFStupot, on 11/13/2009, -0/+2@smacksaw
Nice comeback. If it is indeed a Mel Brooks reference I will happily eat *****, because I didn't pick it up. - Ahmon, on 11/13/2009, -0/+2Terrible article. If anything, government should strip all politicians of their (R)'s, (D)'s, (I)'s and whatnot. They and the news networks can label themselves all they want - don't let the ballots do it for them.
- Elranzer, on 11/13/2009, -1/+3Joe Lieberman (R-Israel)
- TheCollective00, on 11/13/2009, -1/+3AND IT...DOESN'T MATTER MUCH TO ME, AS LONG AS SHE SPREADS!!
- mparker21311, on 11/13/2009, -0/+2Ron Paul
- TheCollective00, on 11/13/2009, -0/+1That's funny, I heard he was quite pro-legalization.
- browntiger, on 11/13/2009, -2/+3If you are politician and you vote D line, or R line - you should be voted out.
YOU SHOULD BE VOTING FOR WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT! - Kaegro, on 11/14/2009, -0/+1with some one with a anarchy avatar, you don't seem to know you're classic punk rock.
Oh, and I ***** up my part on purpose...for obvious reasons. - smacksaw, on 11/13/2009, -2/+3Big tent politics? Why can't we say honestly what is really going on? Many of these politicians (including others unnamed in this article) are not beholden to their constituents, but to special interests.
One would hope that a politician would represent their district like Cao, regardless of party affiliation. I am fine for someone's political philosophy being their guide, but they should do what their constituents want first and foremost. Then you have politicians who just do whatever their convictions are. And if it turns out well for their constituents, so be it. Finally you have those who do what the lobbyists tell them to do.
I don't really see much in the way of big tent politics when you have politicians doing what lobbyists tell them to do. I guess what I am saying is that in the end, while Joe Liebermann is representing his constituents in Connecticut, it's the wrong ones. The insurance industry, not the voters.
It doesn't matter what party they are, it matters that they stop taking money from anyone but small, individual donors. - spworm, on 11/13/2009, -0/+1i know. :..(
- exspasticcomics, on 11/13/2009, -1/+2holy crap!! there's a difference between the democratic & republican parties?
- AManWithNoName, on 11/13/2009, -1/+2I hear a lot of people saying that Arnold should switch parties, but I think they're failing to take into account how he cuts funding left and right for things that no democrat would be caught dead cutting, such as the education budget. He's also taken pretty solid stances against liberal things like legalizing pot. He's also said that while he was against prop 8 and believes that it's not up to the gov't to decide who can and cannot marry, he does not believe in gay marriage personally. He's not (D) or (R), he's smack-dab in the middle.
- RAAFStupot, on 11/13/2009, -0/+1<He's not (D) or (R), he's smack-dab in the middle.>
That should actually be a good thing. On the other hand, from my 'outside of USA' perspective, it probably isn't. - govtdoesnotwork, on 11/16/2009, -1/+2Depends on the issue, and you mentioned a lot of 'em. But whatever you do, DON'T believe either Fox "News" or Digg's left about Tea Parties, and if you want socialized medicine try to be honest enough to use that term instead of "single payer" NewSpeak. Then make an honest argument for why it would somehow work (it doesn't work too well) or be less expensive than the corporate (NOT FREE MARKET CAPITALISM BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION -- and I understand my side has lost the debate and we're not even gonna try capitalism!) medical insurance monopoly system we have now, which if anything resembles fascism in the classic Mussolini description. A "choice" between tax and spend socialism vs borrow and spend fascism is often what's left to America's voters. Being honest about it, though, tends to get me buries from both sides.
- keithschricker, on 11/23/2009, -0/+1The repulican party is just a wing of the democrats party. They are Left and more left. If the Dems take a position on an issue the reps try to make the same position with differant means.
1) a) Dems want sociallized healthcare b) Reps try to sell there own idea for healthcare
2) a) Dems want Crap and Trade b) Reps try for their own global warming bill
Now I may or may no agree with the republicans and have not agreed with an democrat since 1998 when Clinton got his arm twisted to sign the welfare reform act I have yet to see these two parties divide addiquately to get the kind of landslide elections we used to have when the political issues were 180* out of phase of eachother.
furthermore there must be more gridlock in Washington DC. When the Republicans had the whole of parliment and the oval office we got shafted with the kind of spending that FDR would have had a hardon over. Now the shoe is back on the other foot and the same is happening. What made Clinton come across so well was that there was the gridlock that was needed to check the speed of government expansion. - keithschricker, on 11/23/2009, -0/+1He only ran as a Republican because Grey Davis would not willingly abdicate the throne. He is trying to fix the state. He is just doing what Democrats across the country do... run it into the ground and blame the capitollists for the woes they are facing. Like Granholm in Michigan doesn't know how to do anything and her failure is viewed as such a success that she was on the president's economic advisory panel.
Being in the middle just means he stands for nothing and falls for everything. - keithschricker, on 11/23/2009, -0/+1The repulican party is just a wing of the democrats party. They are Left and more left. If the Dems take a position on an issue the reps try to make the same position with differant means.
1) a) Dems want sociallized healthcare b) Reps try to sell there own idea for healthcare
2) a) Dems want Crap and Trade b) Reps try for their own global warming bill
Now I may or may no agree with the republicans and have not agreed with an democrat since 1998 when Clinton got his arm twisted to sign the welfare reform act I have yet to see these two parties divide addiquately to get the kind of landslide elections we used to have when the political issues were 180* out of phase of eachother.
furthermore there must be more gridlock in Washington DC. When the Republicans had the whole of parliment and the oval office we got shafted with the kind of spending that FDR would have had a hardon over. Now the shoe is back on the other foot and the same is happening. What made Clinton come across so well was that there was the gridlock that was needed to check the speed of government expansion. - richlw, on 11/14/2009, -0/+1I honestly know very little of punk rock. I have the anarachy symbol for political, not musical reasons.
- AManWithNoName, on 11/13/2009, -0/+1In the digg dialogg he did, he made it pretty clear that he doesn't think we should legalize.
- ericthesalmon, on 11/13/2009, -0/+1Olympia Snowe is already a Republican, though, and Ben Nelson is a Democrat.
All 3 still get attention because they could provide the last few votes needed to break a filibuster. They're around the 60th percentil of the political spectrum in the Senate. Their parties don't really matter. - WeAreAWAKE, on 11/13/2009, -0/+0I understand...and for the example...I agree. However, can you imagine voting in a President, only to have the person change their views completely (maybe finding religion or something) and now not being the person (or views) you voted in? How much would that suck.
- topicality, on 11/13/2009, -0/+0Interesting how everyone criticizes the average American voter for always voting Republican or Democrat, and how politicians only vote based on party politics. But when you get some who act independent to do what their voters want, they should now switch parties.
- govtdoesnotwork, on 11/16/2009, -1/+1Sorry, but voting for what they think is right would involve actually reading the bills first (they voted against that!).
- erkokite, on 11/13/2009, -1/+1A tea party? Lol.
- WeAreAWAKE, on 11/13/2009, -0/+0Maybe I'm off base on this being a fact, however...don't most people (out of laziness) vote D or R? If so, when an individual is elected based upon their affiliation, they shouldn't be allowed to change parties without a new vote. If Joe Smith wants to change from D to R, a new election should be held. Most people, I believe, don't look further than the party when they vote, regardless what they claim. And out of curiosity...can the President simply change parties after being elected?
- tao52nyc, on 11/13/2009, -2/+1Nah...they'll just laugh you off the podium.
- Junkyarddawg, on 11/13/2009, -3/+2The only one on that list who really, truly, seriously, should switch is Lieberman. He's a reactionary even among reactionaries, and supported Bush and his policies right until the very end.
For many of the other, especially Schwarzenegger, this article just shows that the center is now firmly in Dem hands, with the GOP drifting further and further into loony right "here be dragons" territory. - superkendall, on 11/13/2009, -5/+4Welcome to the belief system of the majority of Americans.
Come to a tea party the next time one is held near you, and listen to the speeches. Yes there are Republicans there but there are also Democrats and Libertarians. All the people care about is that we stop spending, they don't care if it's and R or D that gets it done.
I've voted for R and D and L and lots of other letters all my life, it makes way more sense to vote for people on issues than letters. - JordanM85, on 11/13/2009, -2/+1More like One Hundred and Thirty Eight Politicians Who Ought to Switch Parties.
-
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is