FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Republican poll numbers crashing





handfleisch
Next time some wingnut mentions Obama's poll numbers, point out two things:
-Obama's popularity was sky high when he started, and the numbers always go down once a new president gets going, and
-Republican's poll numbers are abysmal. 80 percent of the USA doesn't trust them.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/morning-fix-beating-something.html?hpid=news-col-blog
Quote:
Less than one in five voters (19 percent) expressed confidence in Republicans' ability to make the right decisions for America's future while a whopping 79 percent lacked that confidence.

Among independent voters, who went heavily for Obama in 2008 and congressional Democrats in 2006, the numbers for Republicans on the confidence questions were even more worse. Just 17 percent of independents expressed confidence in Republicans' ability to make the right decision while 83 percent said they did not have that confidence.
...
And, perhaps most troubling for GOP hopes is the fact that just 20 percent of the Post sample identified themselves as Republicans, the lowest that number has been in Post polling since 1983. (No, that is not a typo.)
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

-Republican's poll numbers are abysmal. 80 percent of the USA doesn't trust them.


All congressional approval ratings are abysmal and falling. People are beginning to realize that both parties are full of scumbags.

Once Obama's change and hope turn out to be politics as usual, people will have lost their last hope in the government; loose trust in the last politician they trust.
gandalfthegrey
I hate the republican party. Not much of a democratic fan either.

The Republicans only hope at the presidency in 2012 is Ron Paul, whom they will never nominate. They'll probably choose the Huckster, who will have his electoral ass handed to him by Obama.
Ophois
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

-Republican's poll numbers are abysmal. 80 percent of the USA doesn't trust them.


All congressional approval ratings are abysmal and falling. People are beginning to realize that both parties are full of scumbags.

Once Obama's change and hope turn out to be politics as usual, people will have lost their last hope in the government; loose trust in the last politician they trust.
This is the saddest part to me. All those young, new voters that got out there last year and thought they were changing the world, will just lose hope, and never vote again. All Obama had to do was be bold, and brave. He really could have made some great changes, cashing in on his popularity, charisma, and the Dem-heavy Congress. I think he is just going to put a few small things through to appease his handlers, and then it'll be right back to the good ol' Corporate States of America. Cha-ching!
deanhills
@handfleisch. I thought we had discussed this topic before, and it had been pointed out that both parties go through up and down cycles. The democratic party had their own crisis in 1980 and gradually worked themselves out of it. Sooner or later the Republicans will fix themselves, although I don't think that would be in the next four years. Unless Obama does something really bad and depending on what he does in the Middle East, he looks good for another four years.

@Ocalhoun and Ophois. Agreed. Scumbags in both. Where have all the good leaders gone? Or are the good leaders just unwilling to participate in politics?
jwellsy
The Washington Post/ABC does a poll that only includes 20% republicans
Quote:
And, perhaps most troubling for GOP hopes is the fact that just 20 percent of the Post sample identified themselves as Republicans, the lowest that number has been in Post polling since 1983. (No, that is not a typo.)

and somehow that corrolates to 80% of the population in the USA? That's a lie. They admit they are the most biased they have ever been since 1983.

Could they have polled only 5% republicans and prove that 95% of the population don't trust republicans?
handfleisch
jwellsy wrote:
The Washington Post/ABC does a poll that only includes 20% republicans
Quote:
And, perhaps most troubling for GOP hopes is the fact that just 20 percent of the Post sample identified themselves as Republicans, the lowest that number has been in Post polling since 1983. (No, that is not a typo.)

and somehow that corrolates to 80% of the population in the USA? That's a lie. They admit they are the most biased they have ever been since 1983.

Could they have polled only 5% republicans and prove that 95% of the population don't trust republicans?


No it means hardly any one wants to admit to being a Republican. In the course of two months, the Republicans have lost 20% of their party. One out of five people who previously said they were Republican now just say no.

Wash Post Poll Results: Do you think of yourself as a Republican?
August 17: 25%
October 18: 20%
Turns out maybe the Tea Baggers, the obstructionist Repubs in the Congress and the anti-Obama neocons who celebrated losing the Olympics really created a distaste for the right wing in the USA. And since the Republicans are starting to attack each other now in the battle over the upcoming elections, it may only get worse for them.

Very appropriately, America seems to be rejecting the Republican Party.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Wash Post Poll Results: Do you think of yourself as a Republican?
August 17: 25%
October 18: 20%
Very appropriately, America seems to be rejecting the Republican Party.
5% down and now the whole of America is rejecting the Republican Party? How do you figure that one out Handfleisch? Has to be a special interpretation of statistics on your part, like wanting the Republican Party to disappear?

handfleisch wrote:
Turns out maybe the Tea Baggers, the obstructionist Repubs in the Congress and the anti-Obama neocons who celebrated losing the Olympics really created a distaste for the right wing in the USA. And since the Republicans are starting to attack each other now in the battle over the upcoming elections, it may only get worse for them.
I guess this means all Democrats love one another? Come again? Obama is very much hamstrung by some of his own Democrat Senators, squabbling among party members is usually part of party politics.
ocalhoun
jwellsy wrote:
The Washington Post/ABC does a poll that only includes 20% republicans
Quote:
And, perhaps most troubling for GOP hopes is the fact that just 20 percent of the Post sample identified themselves as Republicans, the lowest that number has been in Post polling since 1983. (No, that is not a typo.)

and somehow that corrolates to 80% of the population in the USA? That's a lie. They admit they are the most biased they have ever been since 1983.

Could they have polled only 5% republicans and prove that 95% of the population don't trust republicans?

I would like to see the poll mentioned in the original post broken down by response per party affiliation.

Such as: Do you trust republicans in power right now?
Republicans: __% yes, __%no, __%undecided, other, or no answer.
Democrats: __% yes, __%no, __%undecided, other, or no answer.
Independents: __% yes, __%no, __%undecided, other, or no answer.
Total: __% yes, __%no, __%undecided, other, or no answer.

And then, just for fun: Do you trust democrats in power right now?
Republicans: __% yes, __%no, __%undecided, other, or no answer.
Democrats: __% yes, __%no, __%undecided, other, or no answer.
Independents: __% yes, __%no, __%undecided, other, or no answer.
Total: __% yes, __%no, __%undecided, other, or no answer.
lagoon
I'm sure once Obama fails more often and the Republicans rebuild their party, they'll be back up.
deanhills
lagoon wrote:
I'm sure once Obama fails more often and the Republicans rebuild their party, they'll be back up.
I neither hope or can see Obama failing, and in absence of a sorted out Republican party presently, Obama has a strong chance of getting re-elected, provided of course he does not make serious bloomers. Although him being as careful as he is, I doubt he would make major mistakes. If the Republicans can get their act together soon, and show a leader that people could be proud to relate to, that would be a completely different scenario, but currently I don't see evidence of that. No doubt however in the longer run, perhaps over 8 years, they will get back to that stage. Maybe the Liberals and Republicans could talk together so that they can rid themselves of the stigma of the right. The only reason that the right is doing such damage of course is the absence of a clear leadership that could take care of the right. Presently it looks a bit like anarchy in the Republican Party, with the equivalent of a Tower of Babel cacophony of voices.
ocalhoun
lagoon wrote:
I'm sure once Obama fails more often and the Republicans rebuild their party, they'll be back up.

Actually, in the event that democrats become very unpopular, I wouldn't expect republicans to pick up the slack... not this time, and not how they've been behaving recently.

I'm looking forward to independents and third parties to win big in upcoming elections... After all, the number of people who don't affiliate themselves with either major party is now about the same size as either party. 'Independents' are a group about the same size as democrats and republicans, and I'm anxious to see that start to be represented in who gets elected. If independents are 30% of the population, why are only 2% of elected politicians independent?
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
I'm looking forward to independents and third parties to win big in upcoming elections... After all, the number of people who don't affiliate themselves with either major party is now about the same size as either party. 'Independents' are a group about the same size as democrats and republicans, and I'm anxious to see that start to be represented in who gets elected. If independents are 30% of the population, why are only 2% of elected politicians independent?
That would be interesting, and probably the necessary change that has been needed for a very long time in the history of political parties in the United States. I guess if that should happen, there would be a good chance of the lefties splitting off from the mainstream Democrats. Right now they seem to be working things out, but Obama has a great challenge with the Democratic representatives on his left.
Ophois
ocalhoun wrote:
If independents are 30% of the population, why are only 2% of elected politicians independent?
I've been saying this for years. I think the comedian Chris Rock put it best when he said)something along the lines of) "no sane person can really be completely conservative or completely liberal, sometimes you have to be one or the other, depending on the issue". Not an exact quote, but you get the gist.

The Independent and other third parties represent that thought(at least better than the Big Two, anyway). Sometimes you have to be conservative on matters, and sometimes it's best to be more liberal, and sometimes you just have to make cold, calculated decisions based on logic, rather than on personal preference. Being conservative or liberal is just a matter of what you want, and does not necessarily always reflect what the country needs. We need more politicians who can see that, rather than just towing party lines and dragging the entire nation into some ideological squabble over unimportant details, at the expense of the very important bigger picture.

These third parties, though, have to grow some cajones and become very vocal about their desire and ability to enact necessary changes. Third party voters have to rally, and denounce the idiocy of the Big Two, and get their leaders taken seriously on the main stage. It's like the big joke about Nader during the past couple elections, was that a vote for Nader was basically a vote for Bush. Even if Nader had the best ideas in the world, his party is just not taken seriously enough by the majority of voters to get him(or any Independent) in the Oval Office, and only rarely in Congress.
ocalhoun
Ophois wrote:
his party is just not taken seriously enough by the majority of voters to get him(or any Independent) in the Oval Office, and only rarely in Congress.

I really don't see enough support to get third parties into the oval office. I'm just hoping to see an increase in congress. (Is 15% (half representation) that much to ask?)

I guess the main problem is that independents are not a united front; while each of the big two parties focuses on one candidate, the independents have a dozen to spread the votes over, and they can also be persuaded to vote for one of the big two by the "you're throwing your vote away" argument.
Ophois
ocalhoun wrote:
I really don't see enough support to get third parties into the oval office. I'm just hoping to see an increase in congress. (Is 15% (half representation) that much to ask?)
You would think it wouldn't be that difficult, but their supporters are not nearly as organized and loyal as the Big Two. During any given election cycle, there are droves of people putting out Rep/Dem signs all over the place, and only a handful of third party signs(at least in my area).
Quote:
I guess the main problem is that independents are not a united front; while each of the big two parties focuses on one candidate, the independents have a dozen to spread the votes over, and they can also be persuaded to vote for one of the big two by the "you're throwing your vote away" argument.
Exactly, they are not united. And for the most part, the "wasted vote" idea is a self fulfilling prophecy. People believe it to be true, so they vote Rep/Dem, but their votes are only wasted because they changed how they voted, based on that belief. It's sad.
jmi256
I tend to agree that third parties might appeal to voters more on specific issues, but it’s hard to win a national campaign on a handful of issues. Large national races are more about overall direction than just individual issues. The 2008 election was even more so because not much attention was paid to the specific issues, and it was more about “feel” and personality. Now that Americans are realizing what/who they voted for and how fringe those policies they are, we are seeing the backlash as shown by the protests, Obama’s dismal poll numbers. Etc. Even if handfleisch's original post is to be believed, these excerpts from the poll below show most voters actually trust Republicans on the specific issues and overall. Obama and his marketing machine just did a good job of pulling the wool over everyone's eyes by avoiding key issues. The liberal media of course did not challenge this in any way, making his coronation all that much easier. I think Obama will be able to get his core left-wing zealots out to vote for him in 2012, but many independents and moderates will examine the policies more closely and not allow themselves to get duped again by Obama’s smoke and mirrors.

Here are some excerpts, and you can find the full details in the link below.
Quote:

Trust on Issues
Voters Trust Republicans More On 10 Top Issues


For the first time in recent years, voters trust Republicans more than Democrats on all 10 key electoral issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports. The GOP holds double-digit advantages on five of them.

Republicans have nearly doubled their lead over Democrats on economic issues to 49% to 35%, after leading by eight points in September.

The GOP also holds a 54% to 31% advantage on national security issues and a 50% to 31% lead on the handling of the war in Iraq.

But voters are less sure which party they trust more to handle government ethics and corruption, an issue that passed the economy in voter importance last month. Thirty-three percent (33%) trust Republicans more while 29% have more confidence in Democrats. Another 38% are undecided. Last month, the parties were virtually tied on the issue.

Among unaffiliated voters who see ethics as the most important issue, 26% trust the GOP more while 23% trust Democrats more. Most (51%) are not sure which party they trust.

On the highly contentious issue of health care, voters now give the edge to Republicans 46% to 40%. The parties tied on the issue last month, after Republicans took the lead on it for the first time in August.

Separate polling released today shows 49% of voters nationwide say that passing no health care reform bill this year would be better than passing the plan currently working its way through Congress. Most voters (54%) oppose the health care reform plan proposed by the president and congressional Democrats, but 42% are in favor of it.

On taxes, Republicans are now ahead of Democrats 50% to 35%, nearly doubling their September lead on the issue. Prior to July, the percentage of voters who trusted the GOP more on taxes never reached 50%. It has done so three times since then.

Thirty-eight percent (38%) of voters say cutting the federal budget deficit in half in the next four years should be the Obama administration's top priority, while 23% say health care reform is most important.

Republicans are down to a seven-point lead on immigration after enjoying a 13-point advantage last month. Recent polling shows that 56% think the policies of the federal government encourage people to enter the United States illegally.

Voters trust Republicans more on Social Security by a 45% to 37% margin, after the GOP trailed Democrats by two points on the issue in the last survey.

The president is proposing a one-time $250 payment to seniors who for the first time in years won't be getting a cost of living increase in their Social Security checks because inflation's down. While half of voters support this idea, they are more skeptical when told how much it will cost.

Source = http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues
Ophois
Well, from the looks of things, the Democrats and the Republicans, as parties, look like they are both spiraling down. The Dems had a nice little moment during and right after the election, and they still have some breathing room for the time being, but I really hope a large number of people abandon both parties in favor of some third party. At least as far as getting them into Congress and in local seats. I agree with ocalhoun, I don't think and Independent or other third party has much of a shot at the White House, but more seats in Congress would be nice, at least so we could get a more balanced voice in there. But hey, you never know... if the Big Two screw up bad enough(or just piss people off long enough), some third party candidate might wiggle their way to the Oval Office.
deanhills
Ophois wrote:
Well, from the looks of things, the Democrats and the Republicans, as parties, look like they are both spiraling down. The Dems had a nice little moment during and right after the election, and they still have some breathing room for the time being, but I really hope a large number of people abandon both parties in favor of some third party. At least as far as getting them into Congress and in local seats. I agree with ocalhoun, I don't think and Independent or other third party has much of a shot at the White House, but more seats in Congress would be nice, at least so we could get a more balanced voice in there. But hey, you never know... if the Big Two screw up bad enough(or just piss people off long enough), some third party candidate might wiggle their way to the Oval Office.
Do you and Ocalhoun see any real great leaders standing out in a third party? I know people talk a lot about Ron Paul, but he must be getting on in age a bit. I am hoping for someone of the same age as Obama, with fire in his/her belly? Do you see anyone like that lurking around? He/she may even be in the Democratic or Republican party right now, waiting for the right approach/moment to break out?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Ophois wrote:
Well, from the looks of things, the Democrats and the Republicans, as parties, look like they are both spiraling down. The Dems had a nice little moment during and right after the election, and they still have some breathing room for the time being, but I really hope a large number of people abandon both parties in favor of some third party. At least as far as getting them into Congress and in local seats. I agree with ocalhoun, I don't think and Independent or other third party has much of a shot at the White House, but more seats in Congress would be nice, at least so we could get a more balanced voice in there. But hey, you never know... if the Big Two screw up bad enough(or just piss people off long enough), some third party candidate might wiggle their way to the Oval Office.
Do you and Ocalhoun see any real great leaders standing out in a third party? I know people talk a lot about Ron Paul, but he must be getting on in age a bit. I am hoping for someone of the same age as Obama, with fire in his/her belly? Do you see anyone like that lurking around? He/she may even be in the Democratic or Republican party right now, waiting for the right approach/moment to break out?

They need congressional seats first. Then use those seats to push for extreme campaign finance reform. Only after reforms like that will an honest man have a chance at the presidency.
Ophois
deanhills wrote:
Do you and Ocalhoun see any real great leaders standing out in a third party?
At this time, for a Presidency? No.
ocalhounb wrote:
They need congressional seats first. Then use those seats to push for extreme campaign finance reform. Only after reforms like that will an honest man have a chance at the presidency.
Absolutely. They need to be taken seriously as a force in Congress before they can expect to get anyone into the Oval Office.

I don't hold my breath for an "honest man" getting to the Presidency. It's almost as if our system is designed to discourage honesty, and coddle corruption.

*WARNING - TANGENT ALERT*

This has nothing to do with this post... or very little.
I think it's sad that we are forced to choose between a lesser of two(or more) evils in politics.
It's public service. Like the Police or Fire Department. Yet, firemen aren't paying each other to burn down buildings in order to get more funding. Why is political corruption almost seen as a 'given' in this country? They have us bickering over Right and Left, but both sides are rife with liars, thieves, bigots and what have you. When are we going to wake up from this political coma, and when the hell is someone with true courage and character going to run for office? Not for money, power or fame. Not for Capitol Hill notoriety, not to push their own agenda, but out of a sense of duty.

I come from a long line of military men. My dad was a US Marine, his dad was an Air Force recon pilot. My uncle is a US Army test pilot/driver. My brother was in the US Coast Guard and participated in one of the biggest cocaine arrests in USCG history. We fought in every war that the US took part in, we always fought, militarily and otherwise, for the interests of the American people. We have, myself included, been serving this country dutifully for almost 200 years non-stop. Not because we thought it would make us rich, not because of the connections it would bring us, but out of a sense of duty to a country that took our family in from a foreign nation. We came here with nothing, as outcasts from our homeland, stripped of everything, and America was our hope. We thrived. "Duty" is the main reason we did as well as we did.

Politicians forget this. The Police officer on the street does what he does because he wants his city to be just that much safer due to him. Our so-called leaders have forgotten that they are elected to make us safer, they are only where they are because of us, and their only purpose is to serve our interests. We let them forget this. And now they have hijacked our system for their own ends.

An honest man?
Like I said, I'm not holding my breath.
I have a bad feeling that our only hope is revolution.
A war in which, yet again, my family will participate for the good of the nation.

*TANGENT OVER*
deanhills
Ophois wrote:
ocalhounb wrote:
They need congressional seats first. Then use those seats to push for extreme campaign finance reform. Only after reforms like that will an honest man have a chance at the presidency.
Absolutely. They need to be taken seriously as a force in Congress before they can expect to get anyone into the Oval Office.
I had included the possiblity of those who already have Congressional seats and are ready to break away from either of the two parties. They would stand a much better chance anyway as length of service in those roles is always an important consideration for any political leadership roles that are to be taken seriously.

Ophois wrote:
I don't hold my breath for an "honest man" getting to the Presidency. It's almost as if our system is designed to discourage honesty, and coddle corruption.
Do you know of any political system in the world that does encourage honesty?

Ophois wrote:
This has nothing to do with this post... or very little.
I think it's sad that we are forced to choose between a lesser of two(or more) evils in politics.
It's public service. Like the Police or Fire Department. Yet, firemen aren't paying each other to burn down buildings in order to get more funding. Why is political corruption almost seen as a 'given' in this country? They have us bickering over Right and Left, but both sides are rife with liars, thieves, bigots and what have you. When are we going to wake up from this political coma, and when the hell is someone with true courage and character going to run for office? Not for money, power or fame. Not for Capitol Hill notoriety, not to push their own agenda, but out of a sense of duty.

I come from a long line of military men. My dad was a US Marine, his dad was an Air Force recon pilot. My uncle is a US Army test pilot/driver. My brother was in the US Coast Guard and participated in one of the biggest cocaine arrests in USCG history. We fought in every war that the US took part in, we always fought, militarily and otherwise, for the interests of the American people. We have, myself included, been serving this country dutifully for almost 200 years non-stop. Not because we thought it would make us rich, not because of the connections it would bring us, but out of a sense of duty to a country that took our family in from a foreign nation. We came here with nothing, as outcasts from our homeland, stripped of everything, and America was our hope. We thrived. "Duty" is the main reason we did as well as we did.

Politicians forget this. The Police officer on the street does what he does because he wants his city to be just that much safer due to him. Our so-called leaders have forgotten that they are elected to make us safer, they are only where they are because of us, and their only purpose is to serve our interests. We let them forget this. And now they have hijacked our system for their own ends.
As long as there is the perception of "us" and "them" (politicians who do not get it), and not "we the people", jointly and together, people may tend to act mostly in their self-interest. Politicians are educated and trained in their communities, the once where the people who elect them come from as well. So if the values that are instilled in everyone are mostly to serve themselves, then this may well lead to dishonesty later on when only self-interest is served.

Bad part about the political system is that people only really care about the system for that short period during the election process. And they are usually already cynical about the outcome at that stage. For people to be less cynical and to have more trust in their leaders and the system, they probably need to be educated to have different values? Either that, or just accept how things are, as in the end they do seem to work out. There are people who stay more or less as honest as they can, there are the ones that are not so honest, yet in the United States, there is a good chance of those who are dishonest to be found out in the end.
Ophois
deanhills wrote:
Do you know of any political system in the world that does encourage honesty?
Which is why I am a borderline Anarchist.
Quote:
As long as there is the perception of "us" and "them" (politicians who do not get it), and not "we the people", jointly and together, people may tend to act mostly in their self-interest. Politicians are educated and trained in their communities, the once where the people who elect them come from as well. So if the values that are instilled in everyone are mostly to serve themselves, then this may well lead to dishonesty later on when only self-interest is served.
True, but not always. I have noticed that Russians tend to see themselves as an extension of their country, and their neighbors as another aspect of themselves. They work very hard, together and willingly, and yet their government is one of the most self serving, corrupt pieces of political machinery in the world.
Quote:
Bad part about the political system is that people only really care about the system for that short period during the election process.
This, I believe, is because of the material distractions being sold to the public to keep them complaisant while the government runs amok. We all become activists for a few months, but then when we either win or lose, we go back to watching Desperate Housewives or playing Halo 3. As long as we have superficial distractions, we will be as docile as cattle being herded into the slaughterhouse.
Quote:
And they are usually already cynical about the outcome at that stage. For people to be less cynical and to have more trust in their leaders and the system, they probably need to be educated to have different values?
Which falls under my ideas for educational reform.
Quote:
Either that, or just accept how things are, as in the end they do seem to work out. There are people who stay more or less as honest as they can, there are the ones that are not so honest, yet in the United States, there is a good chance of those who are dishonest to be found out in the end.
We like to tell ourselves that. They get caught, eventually... But how can we know? If we don't catch them, then they will go down in the books as being 'clean'. How many politicians really get caught being crooks? I am trying my best to not go off on a tangent again, but I will venture a guess and say that we really only catch a fraction of the crooks who run this country. We catch them in sex scandals, or drug scandals, or when they goof up in such a big way as to draw attention to their careers... but I would say that the vast majority of political corruption not only goes unnoticed, and not only is condoned by their peers, but is possible only due to our collective complaisance.
deanhills
Ophois wrote:
We like to tell ourselves that. They get caught, eventually... But how can we know? If we don't catch them, then they will go down in the books as being 'clean'. How many politicians really get caught being crooks? I am trying my best to not go off on a tangent again, but I will venture a guess and say that we really only catch a fraction of the crooks who run this country. We catch them in sex scandals, or drug scandals, or when they goof up in such a big way as to draw attention to their careers... but I would say that the vast majority of political corruption not only goes unnoticed, and not only is condoned by their peers, but is possible only due to our collective complaisance.
You're right about this of course. There are so many that do get away. That is probably also a price to pay for justice, as the very rules that do get those to be caught, may be the same ones that would allow others to get away. All we can hope for is that more people are caught than those that get away with things.

You have of course earned and deserved the right of going off on a tangent. You and your family have risked yourself to the nth degree in providing service to others, against all odds, while less than honest people are serving in Congress, receive all kinds of payments from everyone, some payments are honest and straight, but quite a large proportion dishonest to the point of corrupt. You are also right that that kind of system does create greed and corruption. So possibly jmi has a very good point of trying to have as little Government as possible so that we do not have to have fat cats like that put in a position of that kind of extreme dishonesty.
Ophois
deanhills wrote:
You're right about this of course. There are so many that do get away. That is probably also a price to pay for justice, as the very rules that do get those to be caught, may be the same ones that would allow others to get away. All we can hope for is that more people are caught than those that get away with things.
This is where I have to turn very conservative on you(jimi256, get the camera).

I don't believe in a "price to pay for justice". To me, Justice is a very definite, a very clear, and a very simple thing. No price should ever be paid for Justice. Justice is the price to pay for criminal behavior, not the other way around. If it were the United States of Ophois, heads would roll until the streets ran knee deep with the blood of the corrupt and unjust. I have a very clear definition of right and wrong, and what is legal and illegal are clearly written down. There should never be any fu*king compromise, not for any reason, or for any person.

I give no quarter for the unjust.
deanhills
Ophois wrote:
deanhills wrote:
You're right about this of course. There are so many that do get away. That is probably also a price to pay for justice, as the very rules that do get those to be caught, may be the same ones that would allow others to get away. All we can hope for is that more people are caught than those that get away with things.
This is where I have to turn very conservative on you(jimi256, get the camera).

I don't believe in a "price to pay for justice". To me, Justice is a very definite, a very clear, and a very simple thing. No price should ever be paid for Justice. Justice is the price to pay for criminal behavior, not the other way around. If it were the United States of Ophois, heads would roll until the streets ran knee deep with the blood of the corrupt and unjust. I have a very clear definition of right and wrong, and what is legal and illegal are clearly written down. There should never be any fu*king compromise, not for any reason, or for any person.

I give no quarter for the unjust.

I don't believe in finite justice. Finite justice can only be possible in a system where people are 100% perfect. People aren't perfect by the longest of shots. They can strive for perfection, they can strive for justice, but justice can even be purchased at times by a lawyer who has better knowledge of the law, or someone who is just very lucky when all the witnesses died, etc. etc. For absolute justice to be possible we have to have an absolute perfect environment.
Ophois
deanhills wrote:
I don't believe in finite justice. Finite justice can only be possible in a system where people are 100% perfect. People aren't perfect by the longest of shots. They can strive for perfection, they can strive for justice, but justice can even be purchased at times by a lawyer who has better knowledge of the law, or someone who is just very lucky when all the witnesses died, etc. etc.
No sir. Justice is not a product, and can never be bought or sold. What you are talking about is punishment. Justice is incorporeal. You can't hold it or hand it over to someone else. Justice isn't even something that I see as an exclusive right of the Law or Judges. Justice sometimes metes itself out in ways that we can't fathom. Maybe a child molester gets hit by a bus full of kids, or maybe a thief gets his car repossessed, or a politician who takes a vocal stance on the immorality of homosexuality gets caught with a same sex prostitute... Justice does not always come wearing a uniform, or banging a gavel. Justice is what is right, and every person, even Ted Bundy, knows deep down the difference between right and wrong.

With unjust politicians, I take it very seriously, and more personally, because these men of corruption and filth determine the course of my life in this country. These men, sitting in their houses in gated communities, removed from the reality of the world in which they play such a big role, sleeping like babies at night, have no idea how much havoc they wreak on people with their preference of dollars over lives. Ignorance is no excuse, they are unjust, and they will suffer the judgment of Justice as anyone else. I promise you that much.
deanhills
Ophois wrote:
With unjust politicians, I take it very seriously, and more personally, because these men of corruption and filth determine the course of my life in this country. These men, sitting in their houses in gated communities, removed from the reality of the world in which they play such a big role, sleeping like babies at night, have no idea how much havoc they wreak on people with their preference of dollars over lives. Ignorance is no excuse, they are unjust, and they will suffer the judgment of Justice as anyone else. I promise you that much.
The part of justice that I take personally is when a poor person or a prostitute gets to be treated differently when they report to court than your guy with the nice suit and friendly lawyer that is in with all the right guys on all sides of the bench. The part that I take personally is when that same laywer "brokers" justice for you. Even when you are innocent, he cops a deal for you that says you are semi-guilty. The part that I take personally is that "professional" lawyer thing who may convince you he is "doing his best" for you, and when you call him on it, he debates with you in his own self-interest instead of yours .... etc. etc., and your poor person who "trusts" him because he is supposed to be professional and acting in your interest, getting no justice at all.
Ophois
deanhills wrote:
The part of justice that I take personally is when a poor person or a prostitute gets to be treated differently when they report to court than your guy with the nice suit and friendly lawyer that is in with all the right guys on all sides of the bench. The part that I take personally is when that same laywer "brokers" justice for you. Even when you are innocent, he cops a deal for you that says you are semi-guilty. The part that I take personally is that "professional" lawyer thing who may convince you he is "doing his best" for you, and when you call him on it, he debates with you in his own self-interest instead of yours .... etc. etc., and your poor person who "trusts" him because he is supposed to be professional and acting in your interest, getting no justice at all.
You have me in agreement there. And since death is inevitable, even these scoundrels are not immune to the ultimate Justice. Sometimes it's nice to make it happen sooner though...
Related topics
SEARCHING FOR MR. GOOD-WAR
BUSH'S Poll Numbers Up
The Left Wing Blues
North Korea tests a nuclear weapon
Opinion of US worldwide
How many of you have a landline and a cellphone?
Is nanotechnology immoral?
Should Hillary concede the nomination to Barack Obama?
President Bush
Left-Wing Extremist Media
Obama down in polls
Obama's speech to students Kindergarten through 12
Our One-Party Democracy?
Barack Obama got Nobel peace prize..... share your views.
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.