I kind of hope for a Bush v Clinton election, because I think it would make a third party candidate truly viable.
[quote]TheKraken wrote:
I kind of hope for a Bush v Clinton election, because I think it would make a third party candidate truly viable. [/quote]
I doubt a 3rd party guy could siphon off enough of the vote to win, it would be fun to watch though.
If it ends up being Bush vs Clinton, it means we are scraping the bottom of the sewer.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]TheKraken wrote:
I kind of hope for a Bush v Clinton election, because I think it would make a third party candidate truly viable. [/quote]
I doubt a 3rd party guy could siphon off enough of the vote to win, it would be fun to watch though.
If it ends up being Bush vs Clinton, it means we are scraping the bottom of the sewer.[/quote]
^ that is why I think a 3rd would have a shot. You’d two choices, the same two choices for the last 25 years, would you want that, or (insert viable 3rd party candidate) this guy? I think a lot of people would seriously consider 3rd in that scenario. A vote for “this guy” is a vote against American Aristocracy.
[quote]TheKraken wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]TheKraken wrote:
I kind of hope for a Bush v Clinton election, because I think it would make a third party candidate truly viable. [/quote]
I doubt a 3rd party guy could siphon off enough of the vote to win, it would be fun to watch though.
If it ends up being Bush vs Clinton, it means we are scraping the bottom of the sewer.[/quote]
^ that is why I think a 3rd would have a shot. You’d two choices, the same two choices for the last 25 years, would you want that, or (insert viable 3rd party candidate) this guy? I think a lot of people would seriously consider 3rd in that scenario. A vote for “this guy” is a vote against American Aristocracy.
[/quote]
Everyone says it will work like that, except on election day.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
No Bush. It’s too easy to get drawn into W. bashing and general muckraking by the media. [/quote]
If it is Bush v Clinton I will vote third party or not vote. I will probably vote Libertarian either way. Doesn’t really matter because I live in Kansas and Republicans will easily carry.
If I lived in a swing state I may be more likely to choose the lesser of two evils, but I truly think that is acknowledging the system is broken and we may as well just accept it. The simple matter is for the big things I care about not a huge amount of difference exists between the parties. Socially I’m more liberal and fiscally I’m more conservative so neither Republicans nor Democrats tend to appeal to me.
I really don’t think Republicans want to run Jeb so I’m hoping that scenario doesn’t come true. [/quote]
I understand where you are coming from. But, keep in mind when you throw your vote away on a third party candidate you are basically saying “everyone please decide for me who you would like to win because I don’t want to take part.”
[/quote]
My vote for President doesn’t really matter because Kansas is always going to go Republican for the forseeable future and it won’t be close.
I am taking part by voting for a third party, I’m saying I don’t see a huge difference between the two dominant parties so I won’t vote for either. Yes, one of the people running for these two parties will win, but I’m not contributing to the political football game and voting the lesser of two evils.
If more people did that we may have a chance at real change at some point. If someone thinks that real change is going to happen from one of the two major parties then they haven’t been paying attention to recent history. Isn’t the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?
With the results of the election in my state a foregone conclusion I have nothing to gain by contributing to the Republican or Democratic tally anyways. May as well sleep better knowing I didn’t vote for big government. [/quote]
I understand how you feel. But, keep in mind that “real change” as you say only comes in gradual steps. We had to have a Nixon before we could get a Reagan. And we had a Clinton before we had an Obama-(it works both ways). Those who are holding out for their perfect candidate will most likely have a long wait. And in the process will unknowingly help someone get elected that is even further from their ideal. Hillary would encourage you to vote for a third party candidate if you were not going to vote for her. Food for thought. participate now and then continue to try to move the ball down the field.
[quote]TheKraken wrote:
I kind of hope for a Bush v Clinton election, because I think it would make a third party candidate truly viable. [/quote]
Well, that’s actually not true. It takes tens of millions of dollars to first have an organization. And yet more money to have a viable candidate. Keep in mind Ross Perot tried to buck both parties back in 1992 and again in 1996. He was a multi-billionaire and very well known. He received about 19% of the vote in 92’ and 8% in 96’. His candidacy basically elected Bill Clinton at least once and probably both times.
So, while I agree that the two party system may need to be fixed it is not happening any time soon. So, rest assured you are either going to have a republican or a democrat in the White House. You can choose to vote for one of them or assist the winner by voting for a 3rd party candidate.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
If it ends up being Bush vs Clinton, it means we are scraping the bottom of the sewer.[/quote]
That’s what politicians have become. The best and brightest have no chance at getting votes from the average dumbass voter. They’re looking for someone to tell them nothing is their fault, and then go take selfies with jayz.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]TheKraken wrote:
I kind of hope for a Bush v Clinton election, because I think it would make a third party candidate truly viable. [/quote]
Well, that’s actually not true. It takes tens of millions of dollars to first have an organization. And yet more money to have a viable candidate. Keep in mind Ross Perot tried to buck both parties back in 1992 and again in 1996. He was a multi-billionaire and very well known. He received about 19% of the vote in 92’ and 8% in 96’. His candidacy basically elected Bill Clinton at least once and probably both times.
So, while I agree that the two party system may need to be fixed it is not happening any time soon. So, rest assured you are either going to have a republican or a democrat in the White House. You can choose to vote for one of them or assist the winner by voting for a 3rd party candidate.[/quote]
This would be more likely to be true if we went off popular vote. Most states aren’t swing states and voting third party has no chance of effecting the outcome in a lot of states. If I lived in Ohio I might be more likely to vote for whoever I thought was the better of the main two party candidates. Kansas hasn’t been close to going Democrat in the general for a long damn time.
The main point though is that I don’t believe either side is interested in smaller government. Of course both of them pay lip service to it when they are out of power, but in power they are completely different. Why should I work hard to elect a Republican president who almost undoubtedly will do little to shrink the size of government? Neither Republicans or Democrats are serious about reducing the national debt and I hate most of the Republicans social views.
I hope the Republicans win because the more we continue to flip flop back and forth between these two main parties the more people will see how little differences they have. Then and only then will a third party candidate be viable. When people realize that Democrats and Republicans want to control your life just in slightly different ways.
Anyways, voting third party only really matters in a handful of states. The Republican will carry my state by a huge portion no matter what happens between now and 2016.
[quote]TheKraken wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]TheKraken wrote:
I kind of hope for a Bush v Clinton election, because I think it would make a third party candidate truly viable. [/quote]
I doubt a 3rd party guy could siphon off enough of the vote to win, it would be fun to watch though.
If it ends up being Bush vs Clinton, it means we are scraping the bottom of the sewer.[/quote]
^ that is why I think a 3rd would have a shot. You’d two choices, the same two choices for the last 25 years, would you want that, or (insert viable 3rd party candidate) this guy? I think a lot of people would seriously consider 3rd in that scenario. A vote for “this guy” is a vote against American Aristocracy.
[/quote]
I think people who vote intelligently (i.e. are aware and reasonably knowledgable about the important issues and are aware of their stances on these issues) and happen to align with such a 3rd party candidate would, at the very least, garner enough votes for the 2 main parties to wake the fuck up.
If not get that 3rd party candidate into office, then at the very least give those voters confidence that it can indeed happen and that a strong minority of voters turned out to cast their votes for what they believe in rather than for who they think can win. That’s not the point of our democratic republic.
H wrote:
“…I hope the Republicans win because the more we continue to flip flop back and forth between these two main parties the more people will see how little differences they have…”
Agree.
And I hope they (the GOP) wins because its time for them to step up to the plate and Govern.
Mufasa
[quote]polo77j wrote:
[quote]TheKraken wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]TheKraken wrote:
I kind of hope for a Bush v Clinton election, because I think it would make a third party candidate truly viable. [/quote]
I doubt a 3rd party guy could siphon off enough of the vote to win, it would be fun to watch though.
If it ends up being Bush vs Clinton, it means we are scraping the bottom of the sewer.[/quote]
^ that is why I think a 3rd would have a shot. You’d two choices, the same two choices for the last 25 years, would you want that, or (insert viable 3rd party candidate) this guy? I think a lot of people would seriously consider 3rd in that scenario. A vote for “this guy” is a vote against American Aristocracy.
[/quote]
I think people who vote intelligently (i.e. are aware and reasonably knowledgable about the important issues and are aware of their stances on these issues) and happen to align with such a 3rd party candidate would, at the very least, garner enough votes for the 2 main parties to wake the fuck up.
If not get that 3rd party candidate into office, then at the very least give those voters confidence that it can indeed happen and that a strong minority of voters turned out to cast their votes for what they believe in rather than for who they think can win. That’s not the point of our democratic republic.[/quote]
Yeah, I mean it’s not like I’m insane about it. I realize that voting Libertarian the last two elections was going to be voting for someone who wouldn’t win. Like you said if I was trying to vote for the winner I would have voted Obama in those elections because that is who I thought would win (from studying the polls).
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]polo77j wrote:
[quote]TheKraken wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]TheKraken wrote:
I kind of hope for a Bush v Clinton election, because I think it would make a third party candidate truly viable. [/quote]
I doubt a 3rd party guy could siphon off enough of the vote to win, it would be fun to watch though.
If it ends up being Bush vs Clinton, it means we are scraping the bottom of the sewer.[/quote]
^ that is why I think a 3rd would have a shot. You’d two choices, the same two choices for the last 25 years, would you want that, or (insert viable 3rd party candidate) this guy? I think a lot of people would seriously consider 3rd in that scenario. A vote for “this guy” is a vote against American Aristocracy.
[/quote]
I think people who vote intelligently (i.e. are aware and reasonably knowledgable about the important issues and are aware of their stances on these issues) and happen to align with such a 3rd party candidate would, at the very least, garner enough votes for the 2 main parties to wake the fuck up.
If not get that 3rd party candidate into office, then at the very least give those voters confidence that it can indeed happen and that a strong minority of voters turned out to cast their votes for what they believe in rather than for who they think can win. That’s not the point of our democratic republic.[/quote]
Yeah, I mean it’s not like I’m insane about it. I realize that voting Libertarian the last two elections was going to be voting for someone who wouldn’t win. Like you said if I was trying to vote for the winner I would have voted Obama in those elections because that is who I thought would win (from studying the polls). [/quote]
It’s funny how logic goes out the window when it comes to politics.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]polo77j wrote:
[quote]TheKraken wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]TheKraken wrote:
I kind of hope for a Bush v Clinton election, because I think it would make a third party candidate truly viable. [/quote]
I doubt a 3rd party guy could siphon off enough of the vote to win, it would be fun to watch though.
If it ends up being Bush vs Clinton, it means we are scraping the bottom of the sewer.[/quote]
^ that is why I think a 3rd would have a shot. You’d two choices, the same two choices for the last 25 years, would you want that, or (insert viable 3rd party candidate) this guy? I think a lot of people would seriously consider 3rd in that scenario. A vote for “this guy” is a vote against American Aristocracy.
[/quote]
I think people who vote intelligently (i.e. are aware and reasonably knowledgable about the important issues and are aware of their stances on these issues) and happen to align with such a 3rd party candidate would, at the very least, garner enough votes for the 2 main parties to wake the fuck up.
If not get that 3rd party candidate into office, then at the very least give those voters confidence that it can indeed happen and that a strong minority of voters turned out to cast their votes for what they believe in rather than for who they think can win. That’s not the point of our democratic republic.[/quote]
Yeah, I mean it’s not like I’m insane about it. I realize that voting Libertarian the last two elections was going to be voting for someone who wouldn’t win. Like you said if I was trying to vote for the winner I would have voted Obama in those elections because that is who I thought would win (from studying the polls). [/quote]
It’s funny how logic goes out the window when it comes to politics.
[/quote]
I find it illogical that some people still buy into Republicans are the party of small government, but to each their own.
Are you really trying to argue I have something to gain by adding to the Republican tally for President in Kansas? I can vote Republican, Democrat, or third party and the result will be the same in my state. And I’m not going to support someone I don’t think will do the things I want. Why would I?
I would have no problem voting Democrat or Republican (despite the fact that the result is a given in Kansas) if I thought they were the best man or woman for the job. Isn’t that the entire point of voting? I’ve voted for far more Republicans on my tickets than Democrats, though I do try to have some semblance of knowledge about each person if I can.
I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012. Even if you added all the people who voted for him to Obama’s total Obama would have been 229,492 votes short of Romney.
If I was in a state where my vote might possibly be significant to someone’s chances of taking the electoral votes I would be more likely to vote lesser of two evils. I couldn’t sleep at night knowing I voted for someone like Jeb Bush or Hilary Clinton.
[quote]H factor wrote:
I couldn’t sleep at night knowing I voted for someone like Jeb Bush or Hilary Clinton.
[/quote]
I couldn’t sleep at night knowing that I did not vote for someone who could beat Hillary Clinton
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
I couldn’t sleep at night knowing I voted for someone like Jeb Bush or Hilary Clinton.
[/quote]
I couldn’t sleep at night knowing that I did not vote for someone who could beat Hillary Clinton
[/quote]
I can understand that mindset. Except my biggest complaint about Barack Obama has been just how similar he was to George W. Bush. I don’t really think Jeb and Clinton are much different from one another in terms of what they would actually do while in office. Of course they will talk about their differences, but in reality of what I think they would do? Highly similar. We shouldn’t forget that Obama ran as the anti GWB then got into office and mimicked the shit out of him. IMO status quo wins whether it is Hilary or Jeb.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
I couldn’t sleep at night knowing I voted for someone like Jeb Bush or Hilary Clinton.
[/quote]
I couldn’t sleep at night knowing that I did not vote for someone who could beat Hillary Clinton
[/quote]
I can understand that mindset. Except my biggest complaint about Barack Obama has been just how similar he was to George W. Bush. I don’t really think Jeb and Clinton are much different from one another in terms of what they would actually do while in office. Of course they will talk about their differences, but in reality of what I think they would do? Highly similar. We shouldn’t forget that Obama ran as the anti GWB then got into office and mimicked the shit out of him. IMO status quo wins whether it is Hilary or Jeb. [/quote]
Well, in some ways he did follow in GW’s footsteps. For example the shooting down of Bin Laden was well planned out before Obama took office. He never did close Gitmo as he promised. He continued The Patriot Act (which none of us like). So in a sense at least foreign policy wise he tried to follow through with what Bush has done.
But, domestically Bush would never have raised taxes the way Obama did (I received a nice tax cut under GW). He never would have sponsored a national health care plan. Bush would have signed off on the pipeline deal. And oh one very important one. Bush would never have instigated black people to riot. And please don’t think for a minute that “community organizer” Obama is not at the heart of those riots. Certainly either way he did nothing responsible to end them…unless you think using the bully pulpit to attack the police was a good idea.
Maybe people should not use such broad brush strokes when comparing. There are bound to be similarities between one President following another. But in reality Obama is the exact opposite of Bush domestically while he is similar foreign policy wise.
I’m pretty sure Bush would have kept some military presence in Iraq vs. tucking tail and running like pussy. Which then directly caused the rise of isis, so we can solely thank barry for the current middle east situation.
He’s failure both domestically and especially aboard.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
I’m pretty sure Bush would have kept some military presence in Iraq vs. tucking tail and running like pussy. Which then directly caused the rise of isis, so we can solely thank barry for the current middle east situation.
He’s failure both domestically and especially aboard. [/quote]
Oh good point. He would not have thrown his hands up and walked away from Iraq. That left a huge vacuum which was filled by isis.
One more point Bush would never had turned his back on Israel the way Obama did. So, I guess there are many differences between the two.
Obama is not only a failure as you say, he is our worst modern day President by far. Virtually everything that he’s touched has turned to crap.
Outside of political party, what qualities make a good President? Are experience and high level connections a positive for a candidate? Or just like a short cut to corruption?
Aside from New Deal, make work programs, did any President ever go wrong pushing Internal Improvements(infrastructure)? Everyone loves Eisenhower, right?