That in a nutshell both choices for president suck. That when you go vote for someone in November that it will be for the lesser of two evils?
In a nutshell here is what is wrong with both of these parties and who they elect:
Republicans: seem to be obsessed with foreign affairs while oblivious to domestic ones.
Democrats: Instead of picking middle of the road types, keep giving us left wing kooks like Obama and Kerry who want to raise taxes and socialize everything.
Personally I am starting to believe that the only hope for real “change” is that both of these putrid parties, whose leadership leaves us voting for total shit every 4 years, have some competition by third and fourth political parties.
[quote]phil_leotardo wrote:
That in a nutshell both choices for president suck. That when you go vote for someone in November that it will be for the lesser of two evils?
In a nutshell here is what is wrong with both of these parties and who they elect:
Republicans: seem to be obsessed with foreign affairs while oblivious to domestic ones.
Democrats: Instead of picking middle of the road types, keep giving us left wing kooks like Obama and Kerry who want to raise taxes and socialize everything.
Personally I am starting to believe that the only hope for real “change” is that both of these putrid parties, whose leadership leaves us voting for total shit every 4 years, have some competition by third and fourth political parties.
[/quote]
Since Newt left Congress, the Repubs decided that emulating Dems was the way to retain power. Afterall, the Dems did that for decades (and setting us up with spending programs designed to send us into oblivion). They then got trashed in '06; the idiots voted in the genuine Dems. Why pick the fakers?
Now, with McCain actually picking a real Republican, which almost stunned me beyond belief, maybe they got the message. If Sarah is a success, maybe the country CAN get back to business. With trillions in debt though, that’s going to be close to impossible.
I see it as Obama and Biden are a pretty good choice, a little far left for my liking, an then you have a crazy old man with a hot VP for second choice
The US is being run by a two party dictatorship and they would like it to stay like that, they run the debates and the media won’t give anyone else a chance.
I don’t know - any election without Bush brings hope for America. I think both candidates have their merits. I’d prefer Obama, but I don’t think McCain can be as bad as the current POTUS. I wish the US and its voters all the best.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I see it as Obama and Biden are a pretty good choice, a little far left for my liking, an then you have a crazy old man with a hot VP for second choice [/quote]
Obama is the worst presidential candidate that I have ever seen. His speeches are flowery fluff completely devoid of substance. His experience is little more than being a senator and before that a “community organizer”. Biden is a good example of why we should apply the same logic to presidential term limits to senators and congressmen. Obama’s spending fetish would definitely raise our taxes too.
What have any of them actually produced or ran for that matter?
[quote]makkun wrote:
I don’t know - any election without Bush brings hope for America. I think both candidates have their merits. I’d prefer Obama, but I don’t think McCain can be as bad as the current POTUS. I wish the US and its voters all the best.
Makkun[/quote]
McCain coild be worse, what if he confuses I ran with India?
[quote]phil_leotardo wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I see it as Obama and Biden are a pretty good choice, a little far left for my liking, an then you have a crazy old man with a hot VP for second choice
Obama is the worst presidential candidate that I have ever seen. His speeches are flowery fluff completely devoid of substance. His experience is little more than being a senator and before that a “community organizer”. Biden is a good example of why we should apply the same logic to presidential term limits to senators and congressmen. Obama’s spending fetish would definitely raise our taxes too.
What have any of them actually produced or ran for that matter?
[/quote]
Talk about spending Look at Bush, Whwn Bush took office there was a balanced budget.
Talk about spending Look at Bush, Whwn Bush took office there was a balanced budget.
[/quote]
You’re right. George Bush also had a spending fetish. Clinton was way more of a fiscal conservative than Bush was. What I am saying is that I don’t want to see this trend continue.
[quote]makkun wrote:
I don’t know - any election without Bush brings hope for America. I think both candidates have their merits. I’d prefer Obama, but I don’t think McCain can be as bad as the current POTUS. I wish the US and its voters all the best.
Makkun[/quote]
Living in England, don’t you get to experience the benefits of benign socialism every day? With that in mind, is that what the USA should embrace?
You must understand that the Republican Party here completely abandoned its principles back in the 1990’s. It’s as if your Conservatives were all suddenly behaving just like Labour. Bush is about as much a Republican as Bill Clinton.
So, when McCain picked an honest-to-God Republican, we were all shocked. In fact, the buzz here is that the pseudo-Republicans finally figured out that…they’re NOT supposed to be the Libs! The Dems are!
Ah well…MI-6 runs everything anyway, as minions of the Rothschilds, right? (joking! joking!)
Talk about spending Look at Bush, Whwn Bush took office there was a balanced budget.
You’re right. George Bush also had a spending fetish. Clinton was way more of a fiscal conservative than Bush was. What I am saying is that I don’t want to see this trend continue.
[/quote]
The thing is regardless of whose elected,you have to look at the “ground work” laid by current administration and how its gonna affect our taxes…example: the Iraq “War.” Who do you think is gonna pay for the money wasted?? We are.
There’s no getting around it. Something has to give…its just a matter of where and how.
The thing is regardless of whose elected,you have to look at the “ground work” laid by current administration and how its gonna affect our taxes…example: the Iraq “War.” Who do you think is gonna pay for the money wasted?? We are.
There’s no getting around it. Something has to give…its just a matter of where and how.
[/quote]
He did waste a lot of money on Iraq. This is part of what I was getting at when I said that most Republicans seem to be obsessed with foreign policy. However, electing someone for president who wants spend money like it is monopoly money, which will eventually lead to higher taxes, will not make anything better. If he gets elected, he will raise our taxes.
He is not even denying that he won’t raise taxes.
[quote]phil_leotardo wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I see it as Obama and Biden are a pretty good choice, a little far left for my liking, an then you have a crazy old man with a hot VP for second choice
Obama is the worst presidential candidate that I have ever seen. His speeches are flowery fluff completely devoid of substance. His experience is little more than being a senator and before that a “community organizer”. Biden is a good example of why we should apply the same logic to presidential term limits to senators and congressmen. Obama’s spending fetish would definitely raise our taxes too.
What have any of them actually produced or ran for that matter?
[/quote]
Agreed. I am stunned there is anyone that supports this guy!
I think there is a slowly bubbling minority in America sick and tired of big government, political correctness, and social conservatism.
And it’s happening on the internet.
All it will take is one person, perhaps a Ron Paul esqu (though much less radical) figure to emerge to tip the scale and pop the buble, bringing an overflow of small government kids onto the political scene.
I can already see it here at Cornell. We think we’re alone, but we’re not. We think we can only choose between fiscal policy combined with retarded social restrictions or horrible overspending combined with over-progressive policy that needs to be implemented over time, instead of forced via the courts.
Just wait until these kids find out they have another choice. Wait until they grow up. Hopefully, they’ll ewb the ones to step up and fix this mess.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
I think there is a slowly bubbling minority in America sick and tired of big government, political correctness, and social conservatism.
And it’s happening on the internet.
All it will take is one person, perhaps a Ron Paul esqu (though much less radical) figure to emerge to tip the scale and pop the buble, bringing an overflow of small government kids onto the political scene.
I can already see it here at Cornell. We think we’re alone, but we’re not. We think we can only choose between fiscal policy combined with retarded social restrictions or horrible overspending combined with over-progressive policy that needs to be implemented over time, instead of forced via the courts.
Just wait until these kids find out they have another choice. Wait until they grow up. Hopefully, they’ll ewb the ones to step up and fix this mess.[/quote]
So long as the two major parties have America gulled into believing that the only way to have an election is to have the process accept no information and no answer but “Which one of these is your choice?” then the situation of two-party-rule will continue indefinitely.
Now, of course, it’s entirely possible to have an election method such as instant-runoff where a voter indicates, for example, that his first choice is Candidate A, his second choice is Candidate B, his third choice is Candidate C, and other candidates, he has no preference on other than they are below these three that he picked.
Then if it turns out, as the votes are counted, that Candidate A isn’t in the top two, but Candidates B and C are, his vote counts as being for Candidate B.
But if let’s say it’s Candidate B that doesn’t prove to be in the top two as the votes are counted, but rather A and C, his vote counts as being for Candidate A.
Oh, but then people wouldn’t fear that voting for a minor party candidate meant that their vote would be wasted. We cannot do without that fear!
So, instead we have a system where if Stalin and Lenin were the two major party candidates, most voters would decide they “had” to vote for one of those two, else their vote would be wasted.
There are local elections where instant-runoff is used but I predict it will never be used in party-dominated major elections, for the above reason. Not because it isn’t better, because it obviously is.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
I think there is a slowly bubbling minority in America sick and tired of big government, political correctness, and social conservatism.
And it’s happening on the internet.
All it will take is one person, perhaps a Ron Paul esqu (though much less radical) figure to emerge to tip the scale and pop the buble, bringing an overflow of small government kids onto the political scene.
I can already see it here at Cornell. We think we’re alone, but we’re not. We think we can only choose between fiscal policy combined with retarded social restrictions or horrible overspending combined with over-progressive policy that needs to be implemented over time, instead of forced via the courts.
Just wait until these kids find out they have another choice. Wait until they grow up. Hopefully, they’ll ewb the ones to step up and fix this mess.[/quote]
