In a Vermont way, or an Amherst way?
Man, California liberals are a breed apart. Vermont ones are just crunchy-granola Beat-wannabe eco-worshippers who haven't outgrown it yet. California liberals will talk to you about how they're "farmers" and solicit you for hefty donations to fight nuclear war or something... while taking you on a tour of their wine plantations, worked by armies of migrant slaves.
In a Vermont way, or an Amherst way?Marin County in California was really a fun place to grow up as a conservative Republican.I'm surprised you're as reasonable as you are, politically-speaking. People in Marin County aren't just ivory-tower liberals; they're freakin' NUTS.
Aww hey now, Amherst ain't got nothing on its neighbor Northampton, or as the poseurs say, 'NoHo'. Or are you talking the school? Because Hampshire College has them beat to all heck on nuttyness....
The less said about Vermont the better, but they do make a sweet cheddar cheese ...
Both parties can kiss my furry butt.
It is time for a revolution.
CourtFool for dictator!
My cat just asked me to say "Meow that noise, bub".
I might vote for Puff in '12, though.
He sits on a rock all day, eating shredded carrots. Everything runs smoothly because he needs to keep those carrots coming. If people pick him up, he's fine with that (be they male, female, Christian, or pagan); if no one picks him up at all, that's OK, too, he's got a sun rock. Never tells anyone what to do -- he never even talks. Occasionally a mealworm will invade his territory; he immediately becomes fercociously predatory, rampaging around and eating all the worms he can find until they all stop moving and he can go back to leaving everyone else alone.
Don't make me go all "redneck" and bring a case of Lone Star on Saturday ;)
Edit: Friday.
It's Friday? Ok, cool, they have chitterlings and pigs feet on sale on Fridays!
Um, yeah, disregard Suzanne's directions. The party is now being held in Birmingham, Ala.
Anybody else have the feeling that if your boss in politics starts making statements like your position is secure, that it is time to be looking for a new job because the hammer is coming. I give Geithner two months.
|
It's Friday? Ok, cool, they have chitterlings and pigs feet on sale on Fridays!Um, yeah, disregard Suzanne's directions. The party is now being held in Birmingham, Ala.
Hehehehe :)
Anybody else have the feeling that if your boss in politics starts making statements like your position is secure, that it is time to be looking for a new job because the hammer is coming. I give Geithner two months.
Probably. It's like football. As soon as the coach gets a "vote of confidence" from management, you know he's out the door soon.
** spoiler omitted **
Hey, some of the happiest moments of my pre-married life were spent in Birmingham Alabama.
What does Will Ferrel say to 'Sean Connery' in 'Celebrity Jeopardy'? "You have lived a horrifying life!" (Admission: I've had some fun times in Columbus, GA/Phenix City, AL).
Both parties can kiss my furry butt.
It is time for a revolution.
CourtFool for dictator!
Sees:
"Have a party and eat my furry brain.
It is time for a luncheon.
CourtFool for entree!"
blah blah blah
Flattered. Really. But you are not my type.
blah blah blahFlattered. Really. But you are not my type.
Should we pee on him Boss? He does look French.
Should we pee on him Boss? He does look French.
No need for that.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
That's why I'm not a Texas "libertarian" -- I railed against the Republicans just as much as I do the Democrats -- instead of complaining far more during 1/4 a year of Obama than during 8 years of Bush.
I tend to not complain about concepts like victory and safety. I do complain about socialism and bills that are passed without even being read.
Grant...there's been plenty of that in previous years. Bush is no saint to me. He's soft on joining hands and saying the word 'bipartisan' over and over as if it will somehow have the same meaning to his political opponents as it does to him. He forgets what Kennedy and others did to his father.
I'll never get that, but I do thank Bush for being tough in the two places he was right about.
That's two more than the current guy.
|
|
That's why I'm not a Texas "libertarian" -- I railed against the Republicans just as much as I do the Democrats -- instead of complaining far more during 1/4 a year of Obama than during 8 years of Bush.I tend to not complain about concepts like victory and safety. I do complain about socialism and bills that are passed without even being read.
Grant...there's been plenty of that in previous years. Bush is no saint to me. He's soft on joining hands and saying the word 'bipartisan' over and over as if it will somehow have the same meaning to his political opponents as it does to him. He forgets what Kennedy and others did to his father.
I'll never get that, but I do thank Bush for being tough in the two places he was right about.
That's two more than the current guy.
It'll take a while for "Bush Derangement Syndrome" (the irrational thought that Bush 43 is somehow the Anti-Christ - Kirth, you must keep in mind that the Righties have seen their guy torn apart - some with cause, quite a bit without - mercilessly over the last eight years) to wear off and his two terms put into proper perspective.
And, honestly, Kirth, I have to ask: Why is Obama on the protected list? I didn't see you saying "Hey, leave Bush alone, isn't it kind of unfair to keep capping on him?". Bush, for better or worse (and there was plenty of worse), at least did what he said he'd do. Obama, to date, has only proven he has no interest in following up on any of his rhetoric. Well, except closing Gitmo. And, please, don't make me post links to what those wonderful men he released are doing now.
Obama is a Democrat Bush who can read off a teleprompter better, nothing more, nothing less.
That's why I'm not a Texas "libertarian" -- I railed against the Republicans just as much as I do the Democrats -- instead of complaining far more during 1/4 a year of Obama than during 8 years of Bush.I tend to not complain about concepts like victory and safety. I do complain about socialism and bills that are passed without even being read.
Grant...there's been plenty of that in previous years. Bush is no saint to me. He's soft on joining hands and saying the word 'bipartisan' over and over as if it will somehow have the same meaning to his political opponents as it does to him. He forgets what Kennedy and others did to his father.
I'll never get that, but I do thank Bush for being tough in the two places he was right about.
That's two more than the current guy.
I believe what hurt Bush the most during his eight years was that he picked friends to surround him instead of picking the best person for the job. Rumsfeld was on the verge of turning Iraq into another Vietnam and look how Brown handled the Katrina situation.
|
I think Bush was too hands off a president. Usually I am a supporter of teaching people correct principles and letting them govern themselves. However, Bush was too wrapped up in the idea that he had the right people for the job and let them handle things without looking at what was going on. Iraq is a good example of this, but Katrina not so much.
The problem with Katrina was that it was mismanaged from the bottom up. They had to wait until Mayor Nagin and the governer asked for federal assistance and by then it was too late. Before the hurricane hit Amtrack offered to send enough trains to New Orleans to evacuate everyone, but Mayor Nagin refused. He also left school buses sitting in their lots instead of using them to bus people out. Bush was more a victim of political oportunism with Katrina then he was of poor management.
I think Bush was too hands off a president. Usually I am a supporter of teaching people correct principles and letting them govern themselves. However, Bush was too wrapped up in the idea that he had the right people for the job and let them handle things without looking at what was going on. Iraq is a good example of this, but Katrina not so much.
The problem with Katrina was that it was mismanaged from the bottom up. They had to wait until Mayor Nagin and the governer asked for federal assistance and by then it was too late. Before the hurricane hit Amtrack offered to send enough trains to New Orleans to evacuate everyone, but Mayor Nagin refused. He also left school buses sitting in their lots instead of using them to bus people out. Bush was more a victim of political oportunism with Katrina then he was of poor management.
The funny part of all of this David is that Nagin was reelected. That tells you something about the politics of New Orleans and the obvious media bias we have in this country. If Nagin was a Republican, his career would have been over.
|
And, honestly, Kirth, I have to ask: Why is Obama on the protected list? I didn't see you saying "Hey, leave Bush alone, isn't it kind of unfair to keep capping on him?". Bush, for better or worse (and there was plenty of worse), at least did what he said he'd do. Obama, to date, has only proven he has no interest in following up on any of his rhetoric.
Oh come on, where do you even get that, his Rhetoric he has been following up on full force, pushing massive spending bills that put more government control into our financial system, he's pushing for his school reform, and his rhetoric on health care reform. In fact he's even following up on his open government policies with internet town hall forums that let people talk and listen to him.
Now that's not to say he is doing a good job or that it's really open government (hah) but to say he isn't following up on his campaign promises is asinine. hell he even reached across the aisle to push for performance based pay for teachers which is something the unions have been forcefully opposed to.
I may not be happy with what he is doing, but to say he isn't doing exactly what he said he would do (massively increase government scope and control in an attempt to make things "fair" hell he even kept his middle class tax cut, then congress f##*ed us over by saying they won't let it stay for more than a year) is just silly.
|
|
I believe what hurt Bush the most during his eight years was that he picked friends to surround him instead of picking the best person for the job. Rumsfeld was on the verge of turning Iraq into another Vietnam and look how Brown handled the Katrina situation.
The real problem was he relied too much on his DAD'S people. Rumsfeld, Powell, and Cheney all had prominent positions under Bush 41, and they brought too much "Cold War" baggage with them to a post-Cold War administration. Throw in the Neo-Cons and their "World-Wide Democracy or Death" agenda, and Bush had a serious problem from jump street. His first four years were really his dad's second term, in a way.
But. He did finally get rid of Rummy (a little (lot) later than he should have, but still), and Bremer, and, wow, the situation in Iraq improved dramatically. If you can honestly look at the state of Iraq now, compared to Iraq under Saddam, and tell me that the Iraqi people aren't in a better place now (after a long, dark time, granted), I'm going to fit you for a straight jacket.
The economy? There are so many places to assign blame for various aspects of the collapse (on both sides of the aisle) that it is disengenuous at best to put the blame at Bush's feet. Furthermore, if you look at the political contributions of Bear Stearns, Goldman-Sachs, Citigroup, A.I.G., Faniie and Freddy, Countrywide (in other words, the biggest offenders), they gave 5 to 1 to Democrats, so calling Wall Street a bunch of "Republican Cronies" is a flat out lie. This is all PUBLIC INFORMATION people, no excuse for being misinformed...
Katrina? Yep, Blanco and Nagin have a lot more to answer to than Bush does, frankly. The Governors of Alabama andf Mississippi (the two states actually HIT by Katrina, and not just the storm surge) didn't have nearly the problems New Orleans did, because they actually knew you had to, by law, ASK for Fed help. Blanco took two days AFTER the fact to make the call. Not Bush's fault. But, you know, Kanye West can talk out his ass all he wants, the "neutral" media will eat it up...
Point is, most finger pointing is partisan BS.
Kirth, look at my third paragraph. You can fact check if you like, but be honest: if you asked the average person on the street who is to blame for the recession, they'll say Bush. If the MSM were doing their job, people would blame both sides equally (Dodd, Cuomo and Frank are VERY culpable in all of this, but you hardly hear that on CNN...).
|
|
Oh come on, where do you even get that, his Rhetoric he has been following up on full force, pushing massive spending bills that put more government control into our financial system, he's pushing for his school reform, and his rhetoric on health care reform. In fact he's even following up on his open government policies with internet town hall forums that let people talk and listen to him.
Now that's not to say he is doing a good job or that it's really open government (hah) but to say he isn't following up on his campaign promises is asinine. hell he even reached across the aisle to push for performance based pay for teachers which is something the unions have been forcefully opposed to.
I may not be happy with what he is doing, but to say he isn't doing exactly what he said he would do (massively increase government scope and control in an attempt to make things "fair" hell he even kept his middle class tax cut, then congress f%@@ed us over by saying they won't let it stay for more than a year) is just silly.
No, I agree, he's pushing his rhetoric from the primaries, when he was addressing a sympathetic audience, but he isn't following his general election rhetoric, which was, on most points, a 180 from his primary rhetoric (and, frankly, is what got him elected). He went on and on about "fiscal responsibility", capping on Bush's deficits. Funny thing, Obama's budget is projected to QUADRUPLE the budget deficit (again, this is public info folks, look it up), his party completely froze the opposition out of the "stimulus" bill process (no "bipartisanship" on the biggest issue of the day trumps the small potatoes of teacher's pay), and his people have NO IDEA where any of the TARP money is going (transparency, my ass).
No, Obama is superficially following up on some of his rhetoric, but I still stand by my point.
You can fact check if you like, but be honest: if you asked the average person on the street who is to blame for the recession, they'll say Bush. If the MSM were doing their job, people would blame both sides equally (Dodd, Cuomo and Frank are VERY culpable in all of this, but you hardly hear that on CNN...).
What you call the "MSM" are pretty much always anti-whomever is in office, it just takes them some time to shift gears. Look how eagerly they grabbed at the Starr Report and anything that hinted at a further scandal for Clinton (NAFTA, etc.; hell, they probably even blamed El Nino on him at one point); and in '00 they were all about "how can anyone possibly vote for a guy who claims to have invented the internet?" Did the Dems deserve all that criticism? Yes, probably a lot of it. But still, it was fairly one-sided, and the Democrats were whining about unfair media, and the Republicans had no problem at all with it.
But then Bush, Jr. ("Like John Quincy Adams again!") won, and soon thereafter everything from 9-11 to climate change was "all his fault," and all the Republicans, silent for 8 years, began clamoring about the "liberal mainstream media conspiracy" -- as if the Clinton administration somehow moved from the White House into complete control of all TV stations and newspapers. Bollox. There's no "conspiracy" -- it's a free market; the rest is rhetoric from people who like to imagine that they are lone patriots bravely defying a Communist takeover, but that's largely wishful thinking on their part. Bush-era Conservatives tend to be people who spend a lot of time in their trucks (hence the ubiquitousness of conservative talk radio), or who have access to computers at all times (hence the massive proliferation of politically-conservative web sites). But guess what? Radio and the internet are media. And the web has become a lot more "mainstream" than obsolete papers.
So, back to anti-people in office; it's like you said earlier, Derek, something along the lines of "now that their love affair with Obama is cooling..." well, more evidence of that -- Obama's in power; by the end of the year, he'll be blasted for everything, while whoever is the new rising Republican celebrity will be billed as a savior. Give it a few months and see if I'm wrong. He's not off-limits any more than Bush was... and right after 9-11, I was skeptical of all the Bush criticism (the next seven years made me feel that a lot of the negativity about him, while very premature, wasn't necessarily unmerited). Will all the "Obama can't even tie his shoes without a teleprompter" criticism also turn out to be accurate? Quite possibly, but I still think it's too soon to tell.
No, Obama is superficially following up on some of his rhetoric, but I still stand by my point.
Which makes him exactly like everyone else who's ever been in office -- say whatever will get you elected, then turn around and cater to the interests you're beholden to. That's one thing that never changes!
Geithner is going to be Obama's "Browny". Obama pushed hard for him, despite the tax-evasion issues because he was the only person who could fix the mess. If he doesn't, Obama is going to be seen just like Bush was during Katrina, out of touch.
He went on and on about "fiscal responsibility", capping on Bush's deficits. Funny thing, Obama's budget is projected to QUADRUPLE the budget deficit (again, this is public info folks, look it up), his party completely froze the opposition out of the "stimulus" bill process (no "bipartisanship" on the biggest issue of the day trumps the small potatoes of teacher's pay), and his people have NO IDEA where any of the TARP money is going (transparency, my ass).
It is kind of humorous watching Obama, he makes use of textbook ad hominems.
Reporter: Some congressional republicans have pointed out how much your budget will expand the deficits. Isn't this just push the cost on to future generations which you said we shouldn't do?
Obama: Aren't these the same republicans that raised the deficits under Bush? Next question.
Total avoidance of the real question, it is hillarious. In fact the reporters are (perhaps unwittingly) setting him up for it. The whole fact that it was republicans that were talking about it is irrelevant to the question and should have been left out.
Bush-era Conservatives tend to be people who spend a lot of time in their trucks (hence the ubiquitousness of conservative talk radio),
Where in the hell to do you come up with this crap, Kirth. LOL!
|
|
It is kind of humorous watching Obama, he makes use of textbook ad hominems.Reporter: Some congressional republicans have pointed out how much your budget will expand the deficits. Isn't this just push the cost on to future generations which you said we shouldn't do?
Obama: Aren't these the same republicans that raised the deficits under Bush? Next question.Total avoidance of the real question, it is hillarious. In fact the reporters are (perhaps unwittingly) setting him up for it. The whole fact that it was republicans that were talking about it is irrelevant to the question and should have been left out.
It also completely ignores the fact that for the past two years Democrats have controlled what went on in Congress and could have blocked the bills that raised the deficit, if they wanted to.
|
|
Bush-era Conservatives tend to be people who spend a lot of time in their trucks (hence the ubiquitousness of conservative talk radio),Where in the hell to do you come up with this crap, Kirth. LOL!
I seem to recall Howard Dean saying the same thing.
|
|
No, Obama is superficially following up on some of his rhetoric, but I still stand by my point.Which makes him exactly like everyone else who's ever been in office -- say whatever will get you elected, then turn around and cater to the interests you're beholden to. That's one thing that never changes!
Stop reinforcing my point!
As to the media, sorry, but if you can tell me, with a straight face, that they treated Obama and McCain (not to mention poor Palin, who, were she a Dem would be celebrated as the perfect modern woman - seriously, Biden is a bigger ass-clown than she could ever hope to be) the same, I'l get you a straight jacket, too!
Seriously, how many times did Harry Smith wipe his chin after talking about Obama?
Remember, the average American doesn't use the internet for news, they watch whatever NBC, CBS, or ABC trots out as "news" every night. And there is no way in hell you're going to convince me that they are "balanced" in their coverage (NBC being the most egregious offender, imo, though Couric is a one woman storm of partisanship and inaccuracy).
As to the Clinton years, you know what I did for a living back then, so I had a LOT more leisure time than the average American, and I'm a political junkie, so I spent a lot of time watching the news and reading the paper. Yeah, Clinton was in the news for Lewinsky, but the media (broadcast and cable, Fox excepted) hardly "went after" him. Sure, Drudge made his mark then, but he was the forefather of what we have on the internet now, it wasn't there in the '90s. CNN and MSNBC (along with the editorial drift of the Big Three broadcast news organizations) held the "why are we bothering with this" line, for the most part.
What happened to Bush, media-wise, in sheer volume and bile, is unprecedented. And he never had a "honeymoon" period, he "stole" an election, remember? Even the NYT admitted, well after the fact*, in typically NYT fashion - you know, small print, page 36, below the fold - that Bush won in Florida fair and square. He got some love after 9/11 from the press, but that went away two seconds after the shock wore off.
No, Kirth, most reporters are products of their Liberal Arts training, emphasis on "Liberal", and you can see it. The press keeps on harping on Bush not capturing Osama Bin Laden, but you never hear about the THREE TIMES The Sudan offered Clinton Osama on a silver platter after the African embassy bombing. (Again, public info, folks).
The Fourth Estate has lost its credibility as our "watchdog" and check on Government power. Sorry.
*Edited for accuracy
|
|
It also completely ignores the fact that for the past two years Democrats have controlled what went on in Congress and could have blocked the bills that raised the deficit, if they wanted to.
It is kind of humorous watching Obama, he makes use of textbook ad hominems.Reporter: Some congressional republicans have pointed out how much your budget will expand the deficits. Isn't this just push the cost on to future generations which you said we shouldn't do?
Obama: Aren't these the same republicans that raised the deficits under Bush? Next question.Total avoidance of the real question, it is hillarious. In fact the reporters are (perhaps unwittingly) setting him up for it. The whole fact that it was republicans that were talking about it is irrelevant to the question and should have been left out.
It also completely ignores the fact that Obama's budget projections result in deficits 3x anything Bush ever signed. Bush's biggest budget deficit was $400 billion over budget (almost all war spending). Obama's 2010 budget projects to a $1.2 trillion deficit (public info, kids).
|
|
Just wanted to chime in here: Sarah Palin would have been just as criticized as a Dem as she did as a Pubby. Dumb is dumb. If we want to vote folks in because we think they are hot, my vote goes to the Rosetta Stone gal!
The deal with the Republican party right now is that they are lost. They have lost their way and are doing what they often do when confused, they are trying to appeal to their Far Right base. Most moderates don't want to hear words like "Socialism" and "Facism" bandied about. They'd rather see unemployment go down, see the economy recover, get our troops out of Iraq.
Obama scares the Far Right, but Middle America likes him. A lot. If the Republican's were smart; they'd stop being the party of no, and start trying to work with the man, while trying to redefine their own agenda.
Man, we need to get more Liberals on here. Seems like Paizo has become a Conservative refuge; at least 3.5 lovers can still find love here. I don't post here as much because I'm much happier with my government now then I was a year or more ago. My guy won, and I am totally happy with how he is running things. I do sympathize with those that aren't happy as I felt that way during the Cheney-Bush years. Just hang in there gang, Bobby Jindell will save you eventually!
Go ahead and lambast me, my Obama-hating friends; I doubt if I'll revisit this thread again. Got a Spring Break game to plan for this afternoon. :)
Peace out!
|
|
Just wanted to chime in here: Sarah Palin would have been just as criticized as a Dem as she did as a Pubby. Dumb is dumb.
I call shenanigans on this one. Sorry, but more inane crap flies out of Pelosi's mouth than Palin could ever hope to match, but the press seems to give her a pass.
And, amazingly, most people who seem to think Palin is "dumb" are of a certain political persuasion. Hokey? Sure. "Soccer Momish?" Sure. Right wing nutjob? Perhaps. Dumb? Sorry, but no.
Seems like Paizo has become a Conservative refuge; at least 3.5 lovers can still find love here.
Well, think about it -- people who embrace change have moved on to 4.0.
|
|
Obama scares the Far Right, but Middle America likes him. A lot.Gee, his poll numbers have dropped 20 points in the last two months, you sure about that?
That's not quite true. His job approval numbers have been dropping like a stone. His personal approval numbers have only fallen slightly - they're surprisingly steady.
I can come up with several explanations for this, but have not seen the data to confirm it yet. I lean towards believing that these numbers will come to correspond with each other; that job approval is a leading indicator of personal approval. But it hasn't actually happened yet.
I seem to recall Howard Dean saying the same thing.
I didn't get it from him -- I can't stand to listen to the guy. He's like the Ron Paul of Vermont.
Seems like Paizo has become a Conservative refuge; at least 3.5 lovers can still find love here.
Actually this site seems to be well-balanced between cons and libs.
Actually this site seems to be well-balanced between cons and libs.
I have not actually counted, but I have to agree. I consider myself pretty middle of the road. I have seen plenty from both sides. I did not hate Bush and I do not hate Obama. I bet there are a lot of people like me, in the middle, who just keep our mouth shut because we know both sides are right and wrong.
|
|
I seem to recall Howard Dean saying the same thing.I didn't get it from him -- I can't stand to listen to the guy. He's like the Ron Paul of Vermont.
Agreed. Except Dean did better in the primaries.
|
|
If the Republican's were smart; they'd stop being the party of no, and start trying to work with the man, while trying to redefine their own agenda.
Just like the Democrats did with Bush, right? I will agree with Chucky on this, if Obama sends down legislation that does not violate what I feel should be the three tenets of conservatism; which are 1)Lower Taxes, 2) Less government interference in people's lives, and 3) Respect for others and their abilities to make their own choices; then by all means they should work with the president. However, if his ideas violate one of those three guiding principles then they should fight tooth and nail to stop them. As an example, the California State Legislature is trying to ban black cars in that state. That is something that should be opposed.
|
|
Seems like Paizo has become a Conservative refuge; at least 3.5 lovers can still find love here.Actually this site seems to be well-balanced between cons and libs.
The libs are content right now, which is why they don't speak out. However, I don't think Obama is governing as either right now. I think he's trying to walk right down the center of the road. Of course all that will do is get him hit by traffic from both sides.
|
|
The deal with the Republican party right now is that they are lost. They have lost their way and are doing what they often do when confused, they are trying to appeal to their Far Right base. Most moderates don't want to hear words like "Socialism" and "Facism" bandied about. They'd rather see unemployment go down, see the economy recover, get our troops out of Iraq.
Conservatives would also like to see the economy recover and unemployment go down, we just have a different opinion on how to make it happen. The biggest problem we have in our country right now is that people are convinced that one party has a monopoly on certain issues. Democrats don't have a monoply on the economy, just like Republicans don't have a monopoly on national security. As for Iraq, as of the last Rasmussen poll that I could find, only 58% of Americans want the troops out of Iraq and the numbers were falling. Only 20% supported an immediate withdrawl. In fact according to Rasmussen, no polls on the subject have been taken by them since Obama was inagurated. That should tell you something.
|
|
I just want to say, don't confuse being right leaning with being conservative.
I'm right leaning on fiscal policy, I am by no means conservative. and if you ask a lot of the guys here that you think are conservative I think you'll find there are a lot fewer self identified conservatives than you think.
|
|
Fiscal conservative, social liberal here.
But my wallet trumps everything, frankly.
Allow me to expound. All things being equal, the economy trumps everything when it comes to my vote. I would rather live under a bunch of stupid social laws and be prosperous, than be broke but able to legally marry a dude.
I'm no respecter of the law anyway, so whether something is illegal or not doesn't (or didn't, I should say, being in prison makes you a bit more pragmatic about the law, frankly) really affect my decision making process, my own moral compass does.
Neither party offers me what I want, so I don't vote for either of them. "The lesser of two evils" is a stupid, STUPID reason to cast a vote, when that vote would be better served helping another alternative get a voice. Third parties aren't nonviable because their ideas are weak, they're non-viable because the public has bought the lie that voting third party is a "waste" of a vote. The "two party" stranglehold on the national dialogue only exists because the average person is willfully incapable of thinking for themselves.