The 'Official' Do Not Vote For Obama In 2012 - Thread. Don't Want Him Back N Office!

[canndo]

So by this example you mean to support a position that every word written on parchment, that now has a slightly different use or change in meaning compared to when it was written, no longer is the same law?

I just want to you to be clear. So if the word Bear, which means to posses or carry, was used more or written Bare for it' meaning bare, as in lack of something as in "bare naked" (not having any clothes), then we would no longer have the right to "Bear arms"? Because we would be "Bare of arms"? just want you to be clear.

I never said anything of the kind. I said that the meaning (and thus the understanding of society) of words change. The meaning of that single word - Cruel is different. Bear and Bare are not an issue, what you are playing with is a homonym. HOWEVER, the defintion of arms is hotly debated. Arms used to mean muskets. Now it can mean any weapon from a handgun to a cruise missile. Do you have the "right" to bear a howitzer? The SCOTUS, rightly or wrongly has defined that term and will likely need to define it again and again (presuming this country lasts that long).

Times change, society changes and words change.

 

[canndo]

Canndo, to get back to the original intent of this thread, do not vote for Obama. We know beyond any doubt the founding fathers wanted this country to have a very limited federal government. Is that what we have? The current dipshit in charge has been twice as bad as the last dipshit about expanding the federal government into our lives and spending our money. The more power the fed gets the more corrupt it becomes and I for one will not vote for any candidate that does not convince me he or she will reduce the scope of the federal government significantly. As far as your living breathing ever changing founding documents I always try to return to the original intent. I'll cede you that times have changed but the principles have not and we have strayed far from those principles.

The limited federal government argument Goovedaddy. Yes, yes yes, they wanted a limited federal government but they also knew that the articles of confederation just didn't work. That is why they were scrapped. They knew that a federal government was needed. How big? Big enough to protect citizens from other big organizations - like other countries and like (although I doubt they knew it), corporations. I don't worry about the power the feds get. I worry about the power the President gets and it seems I am alone in the wilderness with this concern. Bush opened the door to massive and virtually unchecked power, he forged his own tools to that effect. No one said a damn thing. Now, when Obama discovers these beautiful shiny new power tools in the oval office, Now, Now, everyone is all upset. I will vote for whom I think is the best person for the job. I pray someone better is presented for my vote, it shouldn't be too hard but the right put together and old fool and a young fool to run against the man last time and I can't see them doing much better this round.

On original intent, I believe we agree.

 

[canndo]

Not so.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
James Madison: Father of the Constitution

"It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction…what colour can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms, immediately follows; and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon. If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded as to give meaning to every part which will bear it; shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent and the clear and precise expressions, be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?...the idea of an enumeration of particulars, which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity…"
James Madison The Federalist Papers

"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank piece of paper by construction."
Thomas Jefferson

"The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is in the intention of the law makers. This is the most safely gathered of words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law."
Thomas Jefferson

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."
Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by me [as President] according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption - a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it, and who opposed it merely lest the construction should be applied which they denounced as possible."
Thomas Jefferson as POTUS

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."
Thomas Jefferson

"It is an established rule of construction, where a phrase will bear either of two meanings to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which will render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given to them. It was intended to lace them up straitly with in the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."
Thomas Jefferson

"The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it."
James Wilson

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson

All wonderful words with this one the most appropriate. Now, kindly do what I have been asking, tell me the meaing of the word cruel and unusual, how it was observed then and how it is observed now.

 

[Windsblow]

Not so.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
James Madison: Father of the Constitution

"It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction…what colour can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms, immediately follows; and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon. If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded as to give meaning to every part which will bear it; shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent and the clear and precise expressions, be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?...the idea of an enumeration of particulars, which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity…"
James Madison The Federalist Papers

"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank piece of paper by construction."
Thomas Jefferson

"The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is in the intention of the law makers. This is the most safely gathered of words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law."
Thomas Jefferson

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."
Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by me [as President] according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption - a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it, and who opposed it merely lest the construction should be applied which they denounced as possible."
Thomas Jefferson as POTUS

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."
Thomas Jefferson

"It is an established rule of construction, where a phrase will bear either of two meanings to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which will render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given to them. It was intended to lace them up straitly with in the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."
Thomas Jefferson

"The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it."
James Wilson

Just to be even more clear Windsblow, How about a few more words.

Awful, gee, it used to mean inspiring wonder. Not now
Demagogue, Meant "a popular leader" Demagogos (leader of the people)
Egregious, from the latin meaning outstanding or remarkably good.
How about the word Brave? it used to mean exactly the opposite "bravado"
Sophisticated? it meant corrupted, or vile.

You are intentionally misinterpreting my statement. I am not arguing that words use and meaning never evolve. What I am saying is laws are not inforced or interpreted by the current meaning of words. You can only use the original intent. Just because Cruel and unusually might mean something different today than it did 200 years ago doesn't mean the Letter of the Constitution has changed.
It's a very weak argument.

By your weak and silly argument of a living breathing Constitution (LOL), If I read a transcript or a Book written in the 1800 and the word "queer" was used, in a sentence, and in it's original context and meaning of paculiar or strange. That sentence would have a totally different meaning now even though I know what the author meant by queer.

 

[canndo]

i'm sorry, but i can only take bestiality so far and bears are a bit outside of my comfort zone. please understand that i have nothing against a big woman (or any other partner you may wish to imagine), it's just the big claws and teeth and the nearly insatiable appetite that i object to. i make a point of never having intimate relations with anything that is in the least bit interested in eating me for lunch.

Strange indeed, I have found myself in the company of women I was quite certain were at one time or another interested in eating me...for lunch.

 

[Windsblow]

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson

All wonderful words with this one the most appropriate. Now, kindly do what I have been asking, tell me the meaing of the word cruel and unusual, how it was observed then and how it is observed now.

You just quoted Jefferson and you don't even realize you just broke your own argument? You are very confused. Jefferson just destroyed your argument...... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH. Liberalism is a mental disorder for sure.

 

[canndo]

You are intentionally misinterpreting my statement. I am not arguing that words use and meaning never evolve. What I am saying is laws are not enforced or interpreted by the current meaning of words. You can only use the original intent. Just because Cruel and unusually might mean something different today than it did 200 years ago doesn't mean the Letter of the Constitution has changed.
It's a very weak argument.

By your weak and silly argument of a living breathing Constitution (LOL), If I read a transcript or a Book written in the 1800 and the word "queer" was used, in a sentence, and in it's original context and meaning of peculiar or strange. That sentence would have a totally different meaning now even though I know what the author meant by queer.

Your statement was quite clear, the meaning of words don't change over time. How else is one to read this? I have never said that we should not take the document for it's intent. I'll ask yet again. Define for me the precise meaning of the word cruel and unusual, what actions does that prohibit now and what did it prohibit then? You said the "letter has not changed", indeed it has not, but the meaning has. How about not dancing around that simple request and perhaps we can come to a mutual understanding, even agreement.

 

[canndo]

You just quoted Jefferson and you don't even realize you just broke your own argument? You are very confused. Jefferson just destroyed your argument...... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH. Liberalism is a mental disorder for sure.

No, I didn't, the issue goes to intent. Furthermore, I have treated you in a civil way, I have addressed your arguments without calling either you, those arguments or your ideology a "mental disorder". If that is the sort of thing you would rather deal in then I can't see the need to continue with you.

 

[Mr Neutron]

Now, kindly do what I have been asking, tell me the meaing of the word cruel and unusual, how it was observed then and how it is observed now.

Frankly, I am only concerned with what the law says. The law does not define "cruel and unusual". Personally, I think waterboarding is cruel and unusual. I also do not believe in capital punishment.
I don't see the relevance of your question so why don't you enlighten us as to what the meanings are and their difference.

 

[canndo]

I can't enlighten Mr. Neuron. My point is that the words bear and bore differrent meanings. Is waterboarding a U.S. citizen by a government official in violation of cruel and unusual? I think it is. Is 20 lashes cruel and unusal? I think it is but it wasn't then. That they have different meanings is exacly the issue and abiding by the Constitution "word for word" is impossible.

 

[Mr Neutron]

I can't enlighten Mr. Neuron. My point is that the words bear and bore differrent meanings. Is waterboarding a U.S. citizen by a government official in violation of cruel and unusual? I think it is. Is 20 lashes cruel and unusal? I think it is but it wasn't then. That they have different meanings is exacly the issue and abiding by the Constitution "word for word" is impossible.

No, it's not impossible. The phrase "cruel and unusual" is not defined in the Bill of Rights therefore one can conclude that it is decided by the courts. This is almost always a state issue anyway.
But using that as an argument that everything in the Constitution is up for interpretation is absurd. It is "original intent" as shown in the quotes I provided above.
OK, so you tell me, how does, "direct taxes shall be apportioned" differ in meaning today from when it was written?
Or just take the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th amendments and explain how todays definitions differ to allow the loss of these rights?

 

[canndo]

Yes, it is decided in the courts and unless it is ALWAYS a state issue it is important as a Federal one. Now that is what I am talking about. It must be interpreted as to meaning and limit. I also never said that everything us up for interpretation. Note that I said that we could not "obey the Constitution word for word" -or whatever the original statement was that I took issue with.

Now, how do we define direct vs indirect tax? Do we do it using economic definitions? income taxes and property taxes are direct because they are collected "directly" from the individual according to his ability to pay (directly) as opposed to sales tax, customs taxs and other "regressive" taxes. The point here is that property and income taxs are considered direct taxes but constitutionally they are not.

Hence -

The Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which most people recognize as the beginning of federal income taxes, was ratified in 1913 and specifically divorced income taxes (and all taxes collected by the federal government) from "apportionment" clauses within the Constitution, making income and property taxes collectible without violating the Constitution. ​

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Despite these legislative gymnastics, income taxes --- federal, state and local --- are, for all intents and purposes, direct taxes.


Ok, now, some of this is very familiar territory, but that is my point, if we could abide by the Constitution word for word then there wouldn't be the sorts of battles we have over constitutionality.

Amendment one. What is the meaning of and extent of "speech" To a lesser extent, what is "the press"?

Amendment two. Never mind the militia, what constitutes "the people" in this context and as I have mentioned, what are "arms". (don't start - I hold that not only are the people, meaning individuals due their right to keep and bear, but they are entitled to do so secretly and possession of a firearm should be a private matter)

Amendment four. what is an effect? how does "papers" apply in a paperless society?

Amendment Five. What constitutes "due process"?
​

Amendment six. "impartial" "confronted"

Amendment seven - this is an important one because it exemplifies what I am talking about. The founders and the signers didn't say "the equivalent" of 20 dollars, they said twenty dollars.

This is not as precise a response as I would have liked to give but I wanted to respond to you as you are at least entertaining my comments with civility.

 

[Windsblow]

No, I didn't, the issue goes to intent. Furthermore, I have treated you in a civil way, I have addressed your arguments without calling either you, those arguments or your ideology a "mental disorder". If that is the sort of thing you would rather deal in then I can't see the need to continue with you.

Well...... How else am I supposed to deal with someone who keeps repeating something that clearly is not part of our reality. I never siad the use of words don't change. And you keep repeating the same old point that I have addressed several times. You sound a little insane and I have to make fun of it. And I do personally believe that Liberalism (that is the mentality of the American left not true liberalism which is it's opposite) has all the classic characteristics of a diagnosable mental disorder. If you find that offensive, than I am sorry.

What I find offensive is you using a quote from your ideologic opponent (Jefferson) to try and support your argument of Legal or Constitutional animation. You must think I am an idiot. I can read and know the meaning of that quote. It is exactly the opposite you are claiming it is. Liberals are a sad sad lot of mongaloids. You folk are the types that will vote yourselves right in the Gulogs.

 

[Mr Neutron]

Are you saying that the federal income tax is a direct tax that is exempt from the apportionment clause in the constitution?

 

[Windsblow]

Yes, it is decided in the courts and unless it is ALWAYS a state issue it is important as a Federal one. Now that is what I am talking about. It must be interpreted as to meaning and limit. I also never said that everything us up for interpretation. Note that I said that we could not "obey the Constitution word for word" -or whatever the original statement was that I took issue with.

Now, how do we define direct vs indirect tax? Do we do it using economic definitions? income taxes and property taxes are direct because they are collected "directly" from the individual according to his ability to pay (directly) as opposed to sales tax, customs taxs and other "regressive" taxes. The point here is that property and income taxs are considered direct taxes but constitutionally they are not.

Hence -

The Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which most people recognize as the beginning of federal income taxes, was ratified in 1913 and specifically divorced income taxes (and all taxes collected by the federal government) from "apportionment" clauses within the Constitution, making income and property taxes collectible without violating the Constitution. ​

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Despite these legislative gymnastics, income taxes --- federal, state and local --- are, for all intents and purposes, direct taxes.


Ok, now, some of this is very familiar territory, but that is my point, if we could abide by the Constitution word for word then there wouldn't be the sorts of battles we have over constitutionality.

Amendment one. What is the meaning of and extent of "speech" To a lesser extent, what is "the press"?

Amendment two. Never mind the militia, what constitutes "the people" in this context and as I have mentioned, what are "arms". (don't start - I hold that not only are the people, meaning individuals due their right to keep and bear, but they are entitled to do so secretly and possession of a firearm should be a private matter)

Amendment four. what is an effect? how does "papers" apply in a paperless society?

Amendment Five. What constitutes "due process"?
​

Amendment six. "impartial" "confronted"

Amendment seven - this is an important one because it exemplifies what I am talking about. The founders and the signers didn't say "the equivalent" of 20 dollars, they said twenty dollars.

This is not as precise a response as I would have liked to give but I wanted to respond to you as you are at least entertaining my comments with civility.

Liberal semantics at it's best. If you want answer those question study history. Not law, History. Go back to your Jefferson Quote and find the intent of the writer and signers. There are very few words in the Constitution that don't have directly defined term of intent documented. Our law was based on principles. Leran those principles and you will understand our law.

 

[Windsblow]

I can't enlighten Mr. Neuron. My point is that the words bear and bore differrent meanings. Is waterboarding a U.S. citizen by a government official in violation of cruel and unusual? I think it is. Is 20 lashes cruel and unusal? I think it is but it wasn't then. That they have different meanings is exacly the issue and abiding by the Constitution "word for word" is impossible.

I would say it's a moot point really. The Constitution only applies to citizen. Not enemies of war!

 

[redivider]

Liberal semantics at it's best. If you want answer those question study history. Not law, History. Go back to your Jefferson Quote and find the intent of the writer and signers. There are very few words in the Constitution that don't have directly defined term of intent documented. Our law was based on principles. Leran those principles and you will understand our law.

i'll have to defer on this point.

US and British law are similar in that the 'law' is established via precedent in the court. it is assumed that a code of law, such as the one in place in Spain, where the law is expressed in terms limited by what is contained in the code, is inferior because it does not allow for flexibility in a rapidly changing world environment.

US is very loyal to it's 'case law' and follows the precedents set by courts. regardless of what the law says.

 

[groovedaddy]

The limited federal government argument Goovedaddy. Yes, yes yes, they wanted a limited federal government but they also knew that the articles of confederation just didn't work. That is why they were scrapped. They knew that a federal government was needed. How big? Big enough to protect citizens from other big organizations - like other countries and like (although I doubt they knew it), corporations. I don't worry about the power the feds get. I worry about the power the President gets and it seems I am alone in the wilderness with this concern. Bush opened the door to massive and virtually unchecked power, he forged his own tools to that effect. No one said a damn thing. Now, when Obama discovers these beautiful shiny new power tools in the oval office, Now, Now, everyone is all upset. I will vote for whom I think is the best person for the job. I pray someone better is presented for my vote, it shouldn't be too hard but the right put together and old fool and a young fool to run against the man last time and I can't see them doing much better this round.

On original intent, I believe we agree.

Ah common ground, I love it! I'm betting there's a whole lot more we agree upon. I'm betting there's a whole lot more this entire country could agree upon if we were just able to remove the bullshit labels and stereotypes we place on one another. I believe that about 10% of the left are complete whackos and 10% of the right are lunatic zealots. Unfortunately each has their own media outlets and scream louder than the other 80% of us that can look at things with common sense and come to a reasonable agreement. I am also praying that someone comes forward that is worthy of my vote but unfortunately he wants to remain governor of New Jersey. Go figure! Enough with the love fest, I must press you on not worrying about the power that the fed accumulates. Limited federal government was the foremost concept our forefathers wanted this country to adhere to. "All powers not delegated to the fed by the constitution shall belong to the states" that is where we started and I believe the reason we have succeeded to this point. Slowly over the last hundred years we have strayed to the point that we should seriously consider the possibility of our great country going bankrupt because of a fat bloated wasteful pig of a federal government. I know your intelligent by your ruse about "cruel and unusual punishment" and your understanding of original intent. Do you not agree that we have gone far beyond our founders intent?

 

[Windsblow]

i'll have to defer on this point.

US and British law are similar in that the 'law' is established via precedent in the court. it is assumed that a code of law, such as the one in place in Spain, where the law is expressed in terms limited by what is contained in the code, is inferior because it does not allow for flexibility in a rapidly changing world environment.

US is very loyal to it's 'case law' and follows the precedents set by courts. regardless of what the law says.

Our Courts rule on case law but our system wasn't intended to work this way. Case law is corruption. Period!!! Case law is why our country is burning it's self down. If case law was good law, then we should still have slavery or JIm crow or you name every bad law that has precedence. Case law is popular law. It is the rule of man over the rule of law.

 

[RyanTheRhino]

let's see whos the one lying:

first of all, Barack Obama IS a United States citizen. he's got all the documentation to prove it to the federal government of the United States. he has the highest security clearance this country has to offer, which requires very extensive and intrusive background checks. if you don't believe he's a natural born citizen, then it's because your either a racist or an idiot, because he was born in this country, whether you believe it or not.

second, barack obama has not delivered on every campaign promise, few presidents do. he has shown a lot of flexibility and a willingness to compromise. that's good leadership.

third, the economy is rebounding resoundingly. companies are making serious money, the dow jones hit a new 2-year high just a few days ago. obama is doing a good job. it's companies and rich motherfuckers hoarding and sitting on trillions of dollars that are hurting this country.

if you don't want me to vote for Obama again, then you have to give me a better alternative.

all you did was spew hate and lies about the man....

See thats what i dont understand you blame big companies that sit on large masses of money. they got there from blood sweat and tears no one in this country is guaranteed money you have to work for it. You get mad when big corporations get tax breaks but the guy working at McDonald's has a higher percentage. Yet those companies paying lower taxes still give more than 55% of all total taxes collected by the united states. That means they pay for half of your food stamps, well-fair, infrastructural needs ,military defenses,and the list goes on. so before you blame big companies imagine your life with 3x the current taxes and unable to find a job. No big companies = no jobs ( even less then we have now). with no jobs available and taxes strictly coming from the citizens that would put more people on well-fair turning into a downward spiral.

The United States party system is complete bull shit.

In the past Republicans and Democrats actually had a purpose providing different ideas to add to the country, but now they just oppose each other like little kids in a pissing contest. They dont give a dam about the health of the country.