• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Geithner: White House Wanted Me to Lie on Sunday Shows

jonny5 said:
Case in point. All you care about is winning. Youre just as bad as the people you hate.
Click to expand...

Winning as opposed to what? Empty gestures? Yes, I'd rather choose between the lesser of bad options than cast a meaningless vote, and in a general election where the third party has a functionally 0% chance of winning, a vote for that candidate is a meaningless vote IMO.

And you're wrong anyway - instant run off voting is a way to increase the odds of independents/third parties WINNING. I see it as a necessary FIRST step to supporting third party candidates in major elections.
 
VanceMack said:
As long as people like you and your brethren continue to send pieces of **** to congress, we will continue to get what we have.

I dont care if you vote Libertarian and I have no illusions on their chances. They are a better alternative to voting lock step for garbage. You dont challenge your party. Partisan republicans dont challenge their party. As a result they are free to act in the interest of party and not country.

There are things about the Libertarian party I dont agree with. You never have to agree on every issue. I think many peoples ideas on a 'real' Libertarian government are foolish. Great in fairy tale land but not practical in the real world. Thats one of the reasons why the Libertarians remain a non player, even though the libertarian message of increased personal freedom and smaller more responsible federal government resonates with so many people.
Click to expand...

Voting for a third party doesn't affect the pieces of **** we send to Congress a bit. You think they care if we don't vote, or vote for a guy who pulls 5%?

And I think you're wrong about people 'challenging' the parties. The Tea party, as much as I oppose that agenda, has changed the GOP. You can't look at the so-called RINOs ejected from Congress and conclude otherwise. That's how it has to be done, not with long shots running doomed campaigns from third parties. Similar challenges to corporate democrats are happening all over the country in blue states and districts. Maybe you think if people 'challenging' the status quo don't WIN that it's not a real challenge. It is even when the 'reform' candidate loses. And as I said, I vote my conscience in the primary - that is where in my view the 'challenge' has to happen.
 
jonny5 said:
Or seperate and form our own country. Why would we want to give authority to two ideologies fundamentally opposed to liberty?
Click to expand...

You can't win local elections and build a national party, but you're going to successfully form your own country..... That should work!
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
i am talking about todays politics.

not 1600s era politics
Click to expand...

And I think its the same thing. The world got along fine before parties. It can get along without them. Arent you a socialist though? In which case you prefer there to be only one party.
 
JasperL said:
Winning as opposed to what? Empty gestures? Yes, I'd rather choose between the lesser of bad options than cast a meaningless vote, and in a general election where the third party has a functionally 0% chance of winning, a vote for that candidate is a meaningless vote IMO.

And you're wrong anyway - instant run off voting is a way to increase the odds of independents/third parties WINNING. I see it as a necessary FIRST step to supporting third party candidates in major elections.
Click to expand...

And empty gesture is voting for someone you dont like, who is guaranteed to win. And since the parties control elections, the first step is to get rid of them. They wont let you change the system to benefit anyone but themselves. And you keep voting for them.
 
jonny5 said:
And empty gesture is voting for someone you dont like, who is guaranteed to win. And since the parties control elections, the first step is to get rid of them. They wont let you change the system to benefit anyone but themselves. And you keep voting for them.
Click to expand...

We have a two party system - unless we change the voting rules (e.g. instant run off voting, or a constitutional change to the way we elect representatives from a winner take all to proportional, where the party that wins 49% of the vote gets 49% of the representatives instead of nothing) you can't get rid of us having two parties. Might as well wish for ponies.

The way to get rid of the, for example, democratic party is by electing DIFFERENT people as democrats - the democratic party will still exist, but the party can change and represent something different than it does now. It's happened before - the current democratic party is different than it was in 1960. The entire South was represented by democrats - now little of it is.

Thom Hartmann is a liberal but he's always taking calls from people unsatisfied with the current democratic party. What he asks them is what they are DOING to change the party - beyond bitching about it. He suggests they join their local party, start recruiting candidates for local office, who then rise to state offices, then national.
 
JasperL said:
We have a two party system - unless we change the voting rules (e.g. instant run off voting, or a constitutional change to the way we elect representatives from a winner take all to proportional, where the party that wins 49% of the vote gets 49% of the representatives instead of nothing) you can't get rid of us having two parties. Might as well wish for ponies.

The way to get rid of the, for example, democratic party is by electing DIFFERENT people as democrats - the democratic party will still exist, but the party can change and represent something different than it does now. It's happened before - the current democratic party is different than it was in 1960. The entire South was represented by democrats - now little of it is.

Thom Hartmann is a liberal but he's always taking calls from people unsatisfied with the current democratic party. What he asks them is what they are DOING to change the party - beyond bitching about it. He suggests they join their local party, start recruiting candidates for local office, who then rise to state offices, then national.
Click to expand...

You cant the rules without first replacing the rule makers. And you refuse to do that.
 
votemout said:
Geithner: White House Wanted Me to Lie on Sunday Shows | The Weekly Standard

Timothy Geithner, the former secretary of the Treasury Department, says the White House wanted him to lie in scheduled appearances on the Sunday TV talk shows. As Geithner writes in his new memoir:

“I remember during one Roosevelt Room prep session before I appeared on the Sunday shows, I objected when Dan Pfeiffer wanted me to say Social Security didn’t contribute to the deficit. It wasn’t a main driver of our future deficits, but it did contribute. Pfeiffer said the line was a ‘dog whistle’ to the left, a phrase I had never heard before. He had to explain that the phrase was code to the Democratic base, signaling that we intended to protect Social Security.”

Of course, Geithner would not have been the only official from the White House to have misled the American people on the Sunday talk shows. Susan Rice famously came under fire for blaming a terrorist attack on a YouTube video in appearances on the shows.




LOOKs like that is all the admin knows how to do is TELL BIG FAT LIES.
Click to expand...

Can anyone be surprised at this coming from the most corrupt administration in the history of this country?
 
US Conservative said:
This administrations biggest achievement was brushing everything under the carpet until it had conned American into another term.
Click to expand...

Obama is responsible for nothing. Either blame Bush or one of his appointees. The same old **** for almost 6 years.
 
US Conservative said:
This administrations biggest achievement was brushing everything under the carpet until it had conned American into another term.
Click to expand...

Not all Americans are to blame for this fiasco, only those on the left. This administration could never have accomplished what they did without their encouragement and support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom