| Author |
Previous Topic | Next Topic |
|
Gabriels
339 Posts |
 Posted - 11/06/2009 : 3:07:24 PM
|
| Ron Paul, together with his son Rand Paul were interviewed on Glenn Beck's program this evening. Ron Paul said that a third party is not viable for the near future, and that we need to work within the Republican party to bring it back to it's core principles of conservatism. At least thats what I heard him say. Ron Paul's stock just went way up for me. |
|
|
|
homebroker@sbcgl
7357 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2009 : 3:55:47 PM
|
| Too many criminals in the two parties to turn them around. He can turn a few, but the whole corrupted party? Look who the GOP nominated last election, a Liberal Republican. |
|
|
craigppls
2115 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2009 : 4:08:31 PM
|
| Thats was because a far right rep... Would not win... |
|
|
GetLoans4me
2689 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2009 : 4:25:02 PM
|
I disagree.
Ross Perot had the money and he did very well until his ego slammed his image. It's all about money folks.
Third party can and will happen only if $$$ is supported. I hope Bloomberg step up for 2012 |
|
|
craigppls
2115 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2009 : 4:32:29 PM
|
| Because the way the system is setup a third party guy really doesn't have a chance. |
|
|
homebroker@sbcgl
7357 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2009 : 4:43:05 PM
|
Ofter Bush and Obama, I think the chances are increasing every day these idiots remains in office of a third party winning sometime soon.
quote:
Originally posted by craigppls
Because the way the system is setup a third party guy really doesn't have a chance.
|
|
|
CoolMtgGuy
9053 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2009 : 6:12:26 PM
|
| It is always so much easier to look elsewhere for solutions when the only real solution is to work within the existing system and stop dreaming. Res and Dems will be here as controlling political entities long after we are all pushing up daises. |
|
|
assassin17
7830 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2009 : 01:32:06 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by craigppls
Because the way the system is setup a third party guy really doesn't have a chance.
Well, should it? I mean, is it better to have 5 candidates splitting America to the point where 21% of the vote puts you in office? Do you think we'd be a happier country then?
Really, there are only two options... You either like risky governing or you don't. What's the only third way, except to say "I don't really know what I'll do at any given time, so I can be swayed on anything." I don't want to vote for someone like that.
Any extra parties will just be variations of the two views. Do we need that? If one of them has enough steam to deserve the presidency, couldn't they do the same thing in the closest party to their views?
And if we really do need multiple options, there is no reasonable way to do it without an 'American Idol' style of eliminations, where you toss out the lowest vote-getter one at a time, which gives voters a chance to make their vote count and not waste it or have it disregarded on a longshot with no prayer. A third candidate means potentially a third of voters will be wasting their vote and I'm sure many of them would love to reassign that rather than have it flushed away.
The current philosophy that it's okay, because all those wasted votes would just be equally split, is completely flawed. For instance; if I had wanted Ron Paul as an Independent, I'd have had to watch Obama march into office although I know damn well that I'd prefer McCain. Why should there not be an elimination round, tossing Paul, to whittle choices down to where I'd get the chance to reassign my vote properly to McCain the next week instead of my vote being trashed? The way it works now, we've already seen that you can sabotage anything by hiring, coercing or funding any idiot opponent like Ralph Nader to jump in and steal votes from your opponent. We're flawed.
And no, it wouldn't cost a boatload or allow game-playing by voters. Register everyone, one vote per SS number, and only those who've lost a candidate get to vote in the next round. |
|
|
LoanPro71
4299 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2009 : 02:38:12 AM
|
I think we should do away with political parties completely and judge each and every candidate on MERIT alone.
Here's an outstanding article on the subject that I stumbled across the other day.
Check this out ...
George Washington Said it Best, Political Parties Stink
"... The battle of one political party vs. the other political party rules the day. There is little to no concern for actual objective problem solving on the part of most politicians and most of the public who elects them--looking at the problems our nation faces and actually looking for the best solution to solve the problem instead of pushing a political agenda on behalf of a political party and passing it off as problem solving.
Most of us are so busy being emroiled in this contest mentality because that's typically how most of us are raised, believing that politics is this sporting contest, where there are only two teams, Democrats vs. Republicans, and one side is evil and must be defeated, and we are so caught up in this mob mentality that we ignore common sense arguments and faults within the parties we choose to belong to. We go to such great lengths to support the idea of the MONSTER known as Party, that we will defy logic and reason, even when it is b*tch slapping us in the face...."
http://uhokaythen.blogspot.com/2009/10/george-washington-said-it-best.html
|
|
|
Gabriels
339 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2009 : 02:55:55 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by LoanPro71
I think we should do away with political parties completely and judge each and every candidate on MERIT alone.
Here's an outstanding article on the subject that I stumbled across the other day.
Check this out ...
George Washington Said it Best, Political Parties Stink
"... The battle of one political party vs. the other political party rules the day. There is little to no concern for actual objective problem solving on the part of most politicians and most of the public who elects them--looking at the problems our nation faces and actually looking for the best solution to solve the problem instead of pushing a political agenda on behalf of a political party and passing it off as problem solving.
Most of us are so busy being emroiled in this contest mentality because that's typically how most of us are raised, believing that politics is this sporting contest, where there are only two teams, Democrats vs. Republicans, and one side is evil and must be defeated, and we are so caught up in this mob mentality that we ignore common sense arguments and faults within the parties we choose to belong to. We go to such great lengths to support the idea of the MONSTER known as Party, that we will defy logic and reason, even when it is b*tch slapping us in the face...."
http://uhokaythen.blogspot.com/2009/10/george-washington-said-it-best.html
That is another thing that RP said. We should look at each candidate on THEIR merits. I agree. |
|
|
CoolMtgGuy
9053 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2009 : 05:45:09 AM
|
I diagree with the last statement of your idea. I may want to change my mind and vote differently in the next round of voting even if the person I voted for in the previous round won that round.
quote:
Originally posted by assassin17
quote:
Originally posted by craigppls
Because the way the system is setup a third party guy really doesn't have a chance.
Well, should it? I mean, is it better to have 5 candidates splitting America to the point where 21% of the vote puts you in office? Do you think we'd be a happier country then?
Really, there are only two options... You either like risky governing or you don't. What's the only third way, except to say "I don't really know what I'll do at any given time, so I can be swayed on anything." I don't want to vote for someone like that.
Any extra parties will just be variations of the two views. Do we need that? If one of them has enough steam to deserve the presidency, couldn't they do the same thing in the closest party to their views?
And if we really do need multiple options, there is no reasonable way to do it without an 'American Idol' style of eliminations, where you toss out the lowest vote-getter one at a time, which gives voters a chance to make their vote count and not waste it or have it disregarded on a longshot with no prayer. A third candidate means potentially a third of voters will be wasting their vote and I'm sure many of them would love to reassign that rather than have it flushed away.
The current philosophy that it's okay, because all those wasted votes would just be equally split, is completely flawed. For instance; if I had wanted Ron Paul as an Independent, I'd have had to watch Obama march into office although I know damn well that I'd prefer McCain. Why should there not be an elimination round, tossing Paul, to whittle choices down to where I'd get the chance to reassign my vote properly to McCain the next week instead of my vote being trashed? The way it works now, we've already seen that you can sabotage anything by hiring, coercing or funding any idiot opponent like Ralph Nader to jump in and steal votes from your opponent. We're flawed.
And no, it wouldn't cost a boatload or allow game-playing by voters. Register everyone, one vote per SS number, and only those who've lost a candidate get to vote in the next round.
|
|
|
zpaperkid
361 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2009 : 4:36:30 PM
|
You make some real valid points!
It is impossible to get rid of the lobbyists influence-parties or no parties. Money rules the system!
I do think that we need to have an initiative and referendum process for voters on the National level. Where we, the people, can petition the Govt and float our own initiatives. We have that in Mexifornia, although special interests dominate it, rather than the people.
We also need a way to qualify candidates before they run for office. FBI check. criminal
background, and an I.Q. test! Say, 130 minimum. No F--ing Lawyers or lobbyists need apply! All we get now are career crooks, and influence peddlers and other assorted scoundrels and bottom feeders!
And we need a certified FACT-CHECKING Board, to sort thru all the lies and BS they sell
If we enforced the libel and slander laws, you would see a lot cleaner campaigns. |
|
|
assassin17
7830 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2009 : 11:52:22 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by CoolMtgGuy
I diagree with the last statement of your idea. I may want to change my mind and vote differently in the next round of voting even if the person I voted for in the previous round won that round.
You couldn't allow that. Not only would it be costly to run a full election over and over for a few weeks, but it opens up the possibility of switching votes just to get a weaker opponent in the next round.
For instance, a slimy group like ACORN, knowing that Obama and McCain were shoo-ins for the next round, and Nader takes away votes from Obama, could slimeball their voters to conservative Ron Paul to get rid of liberal Nader, then switch back to Obama afterwards with full knowledge that Nader's voters come straight to them. Or, they might pump up the numbers for someone like Palin, just to erase McCain, then switch back to Obama. You'd actually be giving full incentive for both Reps and Dems to get rid of that third-strongest person very early in the game or corrupt the process legitimately.
And besides, if your mind is easily changed within a week you shouldn't even be voting. |
|
|
assassin17
7830 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2009 : 11:54:53 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by LoanPro71
I think we should do away with political parties completely and judge each and every candidate on MERIT alone.
I've been saying that for about 20 years. Political parties are nothing more than gangs. |
|
|
CoolMtgGuy
9053 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2009 : 05:57:55 AM
|
Yeah ... so that does not happen now? I have no problem allowing people to change their minds. I assume your concept would do away with the electoral college?
quote:
Originally posted by assassin17
quote:
Originally posted by CoolMtgGuy
I diagree with the last statement of your idea. I may want to change my mind and vote differently in the next round of voting even if the person I voted for in the previous round won that round.
You couldn't allow that. Not only would it be costly to run a full election over and over for a few weeks, but it opens up the possibility of switching votes just to get a weaker opponent in the next round.
For instance, a slimy group like ACORN, knowing that Obama and McCain were shoo-ins for the next round, and Nader takes away votes from Obama, could slimeball their voters to conservative Ron Paul to get rid of liberal Nader, then switch back to Obama afterwards with full knowledge that Nader's voters come straight to them. Or, they might pump up the numbers for someone like Palin, just to erase McCain, then switch back to Obama. You'd actually be giving full incentive for both Reps and Dems to get rid of that third-strongest person very early in the game or corrupt the process legitimately.
And besides, if your mind is easily changed within a week you shouldn't even be voting.
|
|
|
darkstar
26248 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2009 : 06:56:08 AM
|
>>>>
"... The battle of one political party vs. the other political party rules the day. There is little to no concern for actual objective problem solving on the part of most politicians and most of the public who elects them--looking at the problems our nation faces and actually looking for the best solution to solve the problem instead of pushing a political agenda on behalf of a political party and passing it off as problem solving.
BINGO!... |
|
|
Tsnyder
10567 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2009 : 07:07:12 AM
|
I don't think there's any such thing as a wasted
vote. I often wonder how candidates like Ron Paul
would fare if everyone who said they preferred him
but didn't think he had a chance would have voted
for him.
It's no wonder the system is so screwed up. If people
would actually stand up for what they believe in and let
their voices be heard through the ballot box instead of
choosing the lesser of two evils things might begin to
look different.
Incumbents have every reason to believe they're doing exactly
what people want when they keep getting reelected at a 90%+
rate.
Tsnyder |
|
|
rudeness
5393 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2009 : 08:14:07 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by craigppls
Because the way the system is setup a third party guy really doesn't have a chance.
Because of the way our system is setup... common sense doesn't have a chance. |
|
|
homebroker@sbcgl
7357 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2009 : 1:11:13 PM
|
Like denying Nader entry into the debates and threatening to arrest him. Some democracy we have here!
quote:
Originally posted by craigppls
Because the way the system is setup a third party guy really doesn't have a chance.
|
|
|
CoolMtgGuy
9053 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2009 : 1:16:26 PM
|
You want the rules changed to accomodate a moron like Ralph Nader? Screw him ... let him get enough support and then come to the table with the big boys.
quote:
Originally posted by homebroker@sbcglobal.net
Like denying Nader entry into the debates and threatening to arrest him. Some democracy we have here!
quote:
Originally posted by craigppls
Because the way the system is setup a third party guy really doesn't have a chance.
|
|
|
darkstar
26248 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2009 : 1:33:56 PM
|
| Yeah, if Nader can't find enough people he can give kickback, favorable legislation and favors to once elected so they'll support him financially, he doesn't deserve the opportunity... |
|
|
CoolMtgGuy
9053 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2009 : 1:53:57 PM
|
If you want to put it that way ... yes. He does not deserve special accomodation.
quote:
Originally posted by darkstar
Yeah, if Nader can't find enough people he can give kickback, favorable legislation and favors to once elected so they'll support him financially, he doesn't deserve the opportunity...
|
|
|
| |
Previous Topic | Next Topic |
|
Search for: 
