Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Camino LS6

Ya Know...

47 posts in this topic

Back at the beginning of Political threads around here, I said that I saw value in both major party candidates.

That has been all but obscurred by all of the BS in this election - all of the substance has vanished.

Now, I can't help thinking (as I have for years) that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between them.

The arguments are all about accusations and counter-accusations while anything important has been utterly ignored.

Sad and stupid.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, I can't help thinking that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between them.

+1

There really isn't anyone I would like to vote for in this election. Neither candidate or party presents a clear advantage over the other one. There isn't much of a "lesser of two evils" in this election anymore either.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

join the 3rd party movement....?

my mother, funny, she saw her person fade from the primaries only to back the person she disliked the most (out of the last ~6-7 R's), she was disgusted then, and with the supposed McCain quote, "it's ok to vote for B.O." or something very close to it, has been disgusted again, but she'll prolly vote R anyway cause of Palin but more so of McCain's pro-life abortion stance.

right now the "2 parties", for president and most of congress, are not the answer , and maybe the farthest from it, before anarchy.

edit: changed sentence to make more sense.

Edited by loki
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wasn't it Geo. Washington's farewell address that warned us of the two party system but it was inevitable?

So far right now im throwing my vote in the toilet to bill burr or some odd ball with a cool last name just to see the 3rd parties get recognition.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barr.

isn't Baldwin/Castle cooler sounding?

I don't remember who barr made his VP choice as.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol I messed that up. hell I could write him in, it would be like the same thing.

Edited by capriceman
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep...

They're the same.

It shouldn't be democrat verses republican. It should be politicians verses real people.

Yup.

We have the same thing up here in Canada, a bunch of politicians taking our money with any kind of tax they can think up only to do what they do best...... put money in their pockets while we the people pay for their ineptness.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A crazy idea from this crazy Portuguese/European (details can be found at www.notgoingtohappen.com): what about changing whatever needs to be changed in the US Constitution and/or Election Laws, so that the political system in the US becomes a true multi-party system?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A crazy idea from this crazy Portuguese/European (details can be found at www.notgoingtohappen.com): what about changing whatever needs to be changed in the US Constitution and/or Election Laws, so that the political system in the US becomes a true multi-party system?

Huh? There really isn't anything in the Constitution or election laws that precludes a multiple party system. We have other parties...just no one votes for them. Most likely because they get started by whackjobs and have a single agenda, without encompassing broad policy points.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huh? There really isn't anything in the Constitution or election laws that precludes a multiple party system. We have other parties...just no one votes for them. Most likely because they get started by whackjobs and have a single agenda, without encompassing broad policy points.

And the Big Money contributors (corporations, wealthy individuals, PACs, etc) fund both the Big 2 parties. Given all the buzz about environmentalism, I'm surprised we haven't seen a viable Green party in the US, but it's probably the lack of Big Money contributions that have kept it small...

Edited by moltar
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One guy claims to be an agent of change, yet gives us more of the same. The other guy claims to be a maverick, yet gives us more of the same.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ZL-1, the "powers that be" would never change the system to disadvantage themselves, that would sound way too fair. lol.

it used to be more fair when debates were held by the league of women voters...but that's not in my memory lifetime... before 88? now third parties have to be polling 15%+ to get into the debates, that will not happen for another election cycle most likely.

Edited by loki
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huh? There really isn't anything in the Constitution or election laws that precludes a multiple party system. We have other parties...just no one votes for them. Most likely because they get started by whackjobs and have a single agenda, without encompassing broad policy points.

Not in the Constitution, no.

But you are way off about the election laws!

Merely getting on the ballot has been effectively obstructed by the major parties for years - and yes, it is intentional.

They have much to fear from a strong third party.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only real issue that is at stake here is the fate of the Supreme Court.

Under Obama it would likely see two of the oldest liberal judges retire and be replaced by younger liberal judges who will undoubtedly be "living document" types.

Under McCain likely no judges would retire, but in the unlikely event that one did retire they would be replaced by either moderate or conservative "constructionist" judges.

That issue alone is enough to make me vote... Well and the fact that Obama-Biden are completely anti-gun, but i know most of you don't give a rats ass about the 2nd Amendment.

and this http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html

Edited by Teh Ricer Civic!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the difference is that McCain is too old to run a country day to day, and more than that his running mate is completely inexperienced and has a relatively good shot of taking over at some point.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only real issue that is at stake here is the fate of the Supreme Court.

Under Obama it would likely see two of the oldest liberal judges retire and be replaced by younger liberal judges who will undoubtedly be "living document" types.

Under McCain likely no judges would retire, but in the unlikely event that one did retire they would be replaced by either moderate or conservative "constructionist" judges.

That issue alone is enough to make me vote... Well and the fact that Obama-Biden are completely anti-gun, but i know most of you don't give a rats ass about the 2nd Amendment.

and this http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html

Interesting article.

and,

I think you'll find a fair number of second ammendment supporters around here - me included.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only real issue that is at stake here is the fate of the Supreme Court.

Under Obama it would likely see two of the oldest liberal judges retire and be replaced by younger liberal judges who will undoubtedly be "living document" types.

Nothing wrong with that..it would balance out the court...there are too many conservative judges on it now..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing wrong with that..it would balance out the court...there are too many conservative judges on it now..

judging shouldn't play any politcal part in things. the law is the law, if ti's too open ended then the courts should say that and such, not define the laws from the bench.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
judging shouldn't play any politcal part in things. the law is the law, if ti's too open ended then the courts should say that and such, not define the laws from the bench.

except, that's their job....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
except, that's their job....

Well, 2 problems, 1) it would not affect the composition at all, it would simply be replacing 2 liberal judges with 2 liberal judges.

And the problem is not conservatism or liberalism its how they interpret the document, constructionists (origionalists) interpret it in the way it would have in the 1700s if they were HERE today. "Living Document" types interpret it in light of "fairness" which is likely not really what the founding fathers had in mind.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, 2 problems, 1) it would not affect the composition at all, it would simply be replacing 2 liberal judges with 2 liberal judges.

And the problem is not conservatism or liberalism its how they interpret the document, constructionists (origionalists) interpret it in the way it would have in the 1700s if they were HERE today. "Living Document" types interpret it in light of "fairness" which is likely not really what the founding fathers had in mind.

The thing is, the reality context of today is not what it was in the 1700s...things that were relevant then aren't necessarily so today... times have changed, including the language, so the interpretation of the document has to evolve through time.

Edited by moltar
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Who's Chatting

    There are no users currently in the chat room