FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Third Party





Afaceinthematrix
Up until today, I was planning on voting for Gary Johnson in the 2012 U.S. presidential election. However, today I decided that I will probably vote for Jill Stein.

My reasons:
1) It doesn't matter which third party candidate you vote for because they will lose anyways. The important part is that it is taking a vote away from both the Republicans and Democrats.
2) Today Jill Stein was arrested for trying to get into the presidential debate (which always excludes the majority of people running for president) because she wanted her voice heard. It's about time that someone fights to end the two party scam.
3) I decided to be serious and not vote for Vermin Supreme (who is hilarious (as you can expect from anyone who has their name legally changed to Vermin Supreme)). Although Vermin Supreme would be terrible, he'd never get elected and it's still taking away a vote from both con parties. However, I'd rather give a vote to a serious candidate because they is probably more progress than giving it to a joke candidate
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:

2) Today Jill Stein was arrested for trying to get into the presidential debate (which always excludes the majority of people running for president) because she wanted her voice heard. It's about time that someone fights to end the two party scam.
Totally agreed. And those debates are scams as well. Can't believe that the US hasn't had a female President yet either.
darthrevan
deanhills wrote:
Can't believe that the US hasn't had a female President yet either.


We came kinda close when it was down to Obama and Clinton during the nomination process.
Iceaxe0410
The only way a third party will move up is if there's a severe downturn and the economy collapses. A lot of people will break off from the Democrats and Republicans and form or join a third party. All it takes is a major event that affects everyone. In a way, that might be a blessing, but only if pain and suffering comes first. I'm not hoping for another Great Depression, but we are definitely not out of the woods or even close. We keep on getting further and further into debt. Eventually, we will no longer be a first world power if we continue down the same path.

I really want to vote for a third party, but then I wonder if I'm just throwing away a vote. I still haven't decided yet. I know I don't want to vote for Obama. I'm leaning towards Romney even though he doesn't seem to stand for anything. I really wish Ron Paul was the Republican candidate instead. At least he knows exactly what he stands for and supports. I didn't completely agree with all his positions, but at least I know what he stands for. Romney just seems like a blank slate that can be molded by anyone and that's dangerous because corporations and those with power will be influencing his decisions. It makes it seem like he can be pushed around and be a puppet. Not to say that doesn't happen anyway, but I would like to have a president that does have and show his own values; the ability to resist temptation and corruption if only to a minor degree. I still have some time to think about it.
deanhills
Iceaxe0410 wrote:
I really wish Ron Paul was the Republican candidate instead. At least he knows exactly what he stands for and supports. I didn't completely agree with all his positions, but at least I know what he stands for. Romney just seems like a blank slate that can be molded by anyone and that's dangerous because corporations and those with power will be influencing his decisions. It makes it seem like he can be pushed around and be a puppet. Not to say that doesn't happen anyway, but I would like to have a president that does have and show his own values; the ability to resist temptation and corruption if only to a minor degree. I still have some time to think about it.
I'm sorry Ron Paul did not make it either. I feel more or less the same about Romney too. Looks as though Romney has lots of money and connections though. As does Obama. Maybe that is what makes the difference in the US, the power of the buck to get to be President. Ron Paul should have had a chance to be voted for as President. Instead there is this archaic two party system where Presidents need the maximum funds for campaigning, to the point of almost bankrupting themselves, that does not make any sense at all.
RosenCruz
A female president does not change much. We've seen one during 90's in Turkey and she was such an iron lady. More mascular than you could ever imagine. More violent, less transparent, less responsible. Less democratic
deanhills
RosenCruz wrote:
A female president does not change much.
More the reason for wondering why the US hasn't had a female president yet.
coolclay
Wow I didn't hear about her arrest. Good for her!
RosenCruz
Looking at all those Sarah Palin, Margaret Thatcher, Tzipi Livni, Michele Bachmann and similar figures, I hope some female politicians could change this. But females in politics are acting just like man. Imho
darthrevan
deanhills wrote:
Iceaxe0410 wrote:
I really wish Ron Paul was the Republican candidate instead. At least he knows exactly what he stands for and supports. I didn't completely agree with all his positions, but at least I know what he stands for. Romney just seems like a blank slate that can be molded by anyone and that's dangerous because corporations and those with power will be influencing his decisions. It makes it seem like he can be pushed around and be a puppet. Not to say that doesn't happen anyway, but I would like to have a president that does have and show his own values; the ability to resist temptation and corruption if only to a minor degree. I still have some time to think about it.
I'm sorry Ron Paul did not make it either. I feel more or less the same about Romney too. Looks as though Romney has lots of money and connections though. As does Obama. Maybe that is what makes the difference in the US, the power of the buck to get to be President. Ron Paul should have had a chance to be voted for as President. Instead there is this archaic two party system where Presidents need the maximum funds for campaigning, to the point of almost bankrupting themselves, that does not make any sense at all.


Yep. People need to consider that a two party system isn't working for us and maybe try a different party and see if that works. Though I have to say, I believe we are getting closer to voting in a different party. I say this because the past you didn't hear too much about the other parties, Atleast I didnt, but now they are becoming a little bit more known.
deanhills
darthrevan wrote:
but now they are becoming a little bit more known.
Guess now they need mega bucks to enter into the elections more seriously? I'm sure if that can happen that would create a complete shift in everything. But while most of the election funding is limited to two parties, can't see the third parties making as much progress as they ought to make.
handfleisch
I would vote for Jill Stein if the Republicans were not truly bad-crazy. But if they get into the White House, we are in for some very bad times. So I have to vote to keep them out, and Obama is a decent moderate politician by any reasonable standard.
Afaceinthematrix
handfleisch wrote:
I would vote for Jill Stein if the Republicans were not truly bad-crazy. But if they get into the White House, we are in for some very bad times. So I have to vote to keep them out, and Obama is a decent moderate politician by any reasonable standard.


And it will take many votes to cancel out the votes from my family. Most of my family is from Oklahoma or Texas and so they are exactly what you would expect them to be, "NoBama 'dat commi want socialism tryin' to take our guns away!" I rarely see my family because I just don't like them but I did decide to go to a family reunion last month (considering it had been 15 years since I had seen most of them). You should hear them talk about Obamacare and how it will single-handedly destroy our country and that if the Romney-Savior isn't elected to stop it then the unemployment rate will at least triple (no joke; they said that).

Read their platform and see exactly how my family thinks (you'll face-palm yourself when they get to education and find out that they are against teaching critical thinking skills (no joke; it says just that)):
http://www.texasgop.org/about-the-party

I'm not a huge fan of Obama as I am not a huge fan of most politicians. But I think that you're right in that he's moderate. I will always remember what he did for LGBT and I am convinced that if he gets a second term that within four years gay marriage will be universal in this country (two federal courts have already decided that DOMA is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court is about to take a look at it). Ironically, DOMA was passed by Clinton - a president that I hold to be in somewhat high esteem than Obama.

I did convince my parents to vote third party and so they decided to vote for Gary Johnson. I decided to not play the lesser of two evils game (not that I think that Obama is evil; I certainly don't agree with all of this policies and would like a more liberal (liberal in the sense of libertarian) government that he'd never create) because I'd love to live to see a third-party president and the only way to get that is to quit playing this game at some point.

deanhills wrote:
2) Today Jill Stein was arrested for trying to get into the presidential debate (which always excludes the majority of people running for president) because she wanted her voice heard. It's about time that someone fights to end the two party scam.
Totally agreed. And those debates are scams as well. Can't believe that the US hasn't had a female President yet either.[/quote]

How many women run for president (not as a third-party)? None, essentially. It's not that Americans wouldn't vote for a woman; it's that the only women options that we have are third-party candidate that don't stand a chance anyway.

Quote:
I really wish Ron Paul was the Republican candidate instead.


I don't like Ron Paul. He doesn't have a stance on anything. You can ask him his opinion on just about anything and his response will always be, "I'd leave it to the States." Why not take a stand on what is right instead of using the States as a scapegoat for essentially everything? Furthermore, if we had left everything to the States then slavery would never have ended (remember that half the States fought against that), women would not have the right to vote universally (the Feds did that), neither would blacks, we'd still have segregation (multiple states tried fighting the federal government when they wanted to end segregation on the basis of state's rights and JFK actually had to send out military officials to ensure that black people were allowed into Southern schools), etc. Sometimes the Federal government must step in when the States don't want to do the right thing and so we cannot have the answer to everything be "state's rights." I'm for personal rights - not the rights of any part of the government.
darthrevan
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
I would vote for Jill Stein if the Republicans were not truly bad-crazy. But if they get into the White House, we are in for some very bad times. So I have to vote to keep them out, and Obama is a decent moderate politician by any reasonable standard.


And it will take many votes to cancel out the votes from my family. Most of my family is from Oklahoma or Texas and so they are exactly what you would expect them to be, "NoBama 'dat commi want socialism tryin' to take our guns away!" I rarely see my family because I just don't like them but I did decide to go to a family reunion last month (considering it had been 15 years since I had seen most of them). You should hear them talk about Obamacare and how it will single-handedly destroy our country and that if the Romney-Savior isn't elected to stop it then the unemployment rate will at least triple (no joke; they said that).

Read their platform and see exactly how my family thinks (you'll face-palm yourself when they get to education and find out that they are against teaching critical thinking skills (no joke; it says just that)):
http://www.texasgop.org/about-the-party

I'm not a huge fan of Obama as I am not a huge fan of most politicians. But I think that you're right in that he's moderate. I will always remember what he did for LGBT and I am convinced that if he gets a second term that within four years gay marriage will be universal in this country (two federal courts have already decided that DOMA is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court is about to take a look at it). Ironically, DOMA was passed by Clinton - a president that I hold to be in somewhat high esteem than Obama.

I did convince my parents to vote third party and so they decided to vote for Gary Johnson. I decided to not play the lesser of two evils game (not that I think that Obama is evil; I certainly don't agree with all of this policies and would like a more liberal (liberal in the sense of libertarian) government that he'd never create) because I'd love to live to see a third-party president and the only way to get that is to quit playing this game at some point.

deanhills wrote:
2) Today Jill Stein was arrested for trying to get into the presidential debate (which always excludes the majority of people running for president) because she wanted her voice heard. It's about time that someone fights to end the two party scam.
Totally agreed. And those debates are scams as well. Can't believe that the US hasn't had a female President yet either.


How many women run for president (not as a third-party)? None, essentially. It's not that Americans wouldn't vote for a woman; it's that the only women options that we have are third-party candidate that don't stand a chance anyway.

Quote:
I really wish Ron Paul was the Republican candidate instead.

Quote:

I don't like Ron Paul. He doesn't have a stance on anything. You can ask him his opinion on just about anything and his response will always be, "I'd leave it to the States." Why not take a stand on what is right instead of using the States as a scapegoat for essentially everything? Furthermore, if we had left everything to the States then slavery would never have ended (remember that half the States fought against that), women would not have the right to vote universally (the Feds did that), neither would blacks, we'd still have segregation (multiple states tried fighting the federal government when they wanted to end segregation on the basis of state's rights and JFK actually had to send out military officials to ensure that black people were allowed into Southern schools), etc. Sometimes the Federal government must step in when the States don't want to do the right thing and so we cannot have the answer to everything be "state's rights." I'm for personal rights - not the rights of any part of the government.


Idealy the states are suppose to have to most power to an extent. It is suppose to be states can run their own state without as much federal govt sticking their nose into everything. Govt isn't suppose to be as large as it is now.
Afaceinthematrix
darthrevan wrote:
Idealy the states are suppose to have to most power to an extent. It is suppose to be states can run their own state without as much federal govt sticking their nose into everything. Govt isn't suppose to be as large as it is now.


I don't care what it is supposed to be like; I care about what is right. If we let the States have all the power then there would maybe still be slavery and if not there would definitely still be segregation. Women wouldn't be allowed to vote everywhere. Blacks wouldn't be allowed to vote in the South. Atheists couldn't run for office in some States (that law is still on the books in some States but because of the federal government there's no way that they would get away with that discrimination). Some laws have blasphemy laws still on the books but the Federal government would never let any State get away with prosecuting someone over that because of obvious first amendment issues.

Right now we have some states that are making gay marriage illegal as a part of their constitution. Like I said, I am sure that if we have four more years of Obama then the federal government will step in and do what is right and make sure that all homosexuals have equal rights. I'm sorry, but the federal government has a far greater track record of equal rights than the States... By FAR. If we had Ron Paul get elected then he'd probably just use the states as a scapegoat and have them handle gay marriage and then the discrimination would continue. States are essentially models for failure when it comes to social legislation. Really, the Federal government has only made a few laws that went backwards as far as social legislation but they are few and far between. Prohibition in the 20s is an obvious example but at least that was overturned. The War on Drugs is another obvious complete failure but there's even been a lot of talk recently on ended the failed drug war and looking at treatment as an alternative (as many Latin American countries are now doing because they are sick of the black market and dangerous cartels that keeping drugs illegal is bringing); many law enforcement groups (such as LEAP) are working on this.
deanhills
Isn't that a bit undemocratic though within a Federal Government system (regardless of the issues) since States should have the right to govern themselves (except for the areas that have been listed are for the Federal Government to take responsibility for), otherwise what's the point exactly of having separate States? If some of the States want to dictate to others, via the route of the Federal Government or the President, it will probably be much more practical to get rid of the States, have one country (with no States) and one Government only, and save mega billions of tax payer dollars at the same time.
Afaceinthematrix
deanhills wrote:
Isn't that a bit undemocratic though within a Federal Government system (regardless of the issues) since States should have the right to govern themselves (except for the areas that have been listed are for the Federal Government to take responsibility for), otherwise what's the point exactly of having separate States?


That's a pretty crappy way to look at it. Why don't we just put a proposition on the next Arkansas election that, if passed, would reinstate slavery? It's Arkansas; plenty of people would vote for it! You said that we should vote on everything - despite the issue - and that the States have their rights to do anything. Some things are just wrong and should not be voted on. As I said, the federal government was what gave blacks and women the rights to vote (which is democratic) despite the fact that many states didn't want to pass it or would have voted against it. The federal government is what ended slavery and segregation - despite what states wanted or would have voted for. Are you going to argue that we should vote for other people's rights and if it doesn't pass those people then don't get their rights? Rights are something to be voted on; their something to be fought for and then protected. That is why it absolutely annoys me when states vote on the "issue" or gay marriage. The Supreme Court needs to just pass gay marriage and not start voting for peoples' rights.
handfleisch
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
I would vote for Jill Stein if the Republicans were not truly bad-crazy. But if they get into the White House, we are in for some very bad times. So I have to vote to keep them out, and Obama is a decent moderate politician by any reasonable standard.


And it will take many votes to cancel out the votes from my family. Most of my family is from Oklahoma or Texas and so they are exactly what you would expect them to be, "NoBama 'dat commi want socialism tryin' to take our guns away!" I rarely see my family because I just don't like them but I did decide to go to a family reunion last month (considering it had been 15 years since I had seen most of them). You should hear them talk about Obamacare and how it will single-handedly destroy our country and that if the Romney-Savior isn't elected to stop it then the unemployment rate will at least triple (no joke; they said that).

Read their platform and see exactly how my family thinks (you'll face-palm yourself when they get to education and find out that they are against teaching critical thinking skills (no joke; it says just that)):
http://www.texasgop.org/about-the-party

I'm not a huge fan of Obama as I am not a huge fan of most politicians. But I think that you're right in that he's moderate. I will always remember what he did for LGBT and I am convinced that if he gets a second term that within four years gay marriage will be universal in this country (two federal courts have already decided that DOMA is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court is about to take a look at it). Ironically, DOMA was passed by Clinton - a president that I hold to be in somewhat high esteem than Obama.


I totally respect where you are coming from, I have a similar background as you do (but not Texas, maybe the most extreme besides Louisiana or Mississippi). Still, I would urge you to vote Obama. GOBAMA 2012.
Afaceinthematrix
handfleisch wrote:

I totally respect where you are coming from, I have a similar background as you do (but not Texas, maybe the most extreme besides Louisiana or Mississippi). Still, I would urge you to vote Obama. GOBAMA 2012.


I am still going to vote for Jill Stein. Trust me, it won't matter. I live in Los Angeles. Every poll that I have seen shows that Obama will easily win California. Throwing another vote his way won't do anything since he'll get California and we use an electoral system instead of a popular vote. Therefore, I might as well throw a vote at Jill Stein and see what I can do for her. A recent email that I received from her (I'm on the Green Party emailing list) said that she's hoping for 5% of the total votes.


Also, I don't think that Romney is as bad as people make him out to be. The person who is awful, though, is Paul Ryan. That dude has serious issues. The mere fact that Romney chose him as a running mate is the part of Romney that really scares me. Paul Ryan is the definition of what is wrong with this country.
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Also, I don't think that Romney is as bad as people make him out to be.
I'd love to hear your views on him. Why do you think he is not that bad?
Afaceinthematrix
When a former governor is running for president I tend to look at the success or failure of their term as governor. This isn't completely accurate because running a country is a much bigger deal than running a state and being good at running a state does not imply that you'd be good at running a country. However, it's not a bad place to start.

As governor, Romney managed to balance the budget of Mass. He reduced government waste and spending and attempted to lower taxes. However, he did realize that he couldn't lower all taxes and did what was necessary to give his state a surplus.

Romney created near universal health-care in his state by going to measures to make health care affordable. He didn't provide health-care for free; he just made it affordable. This is a good alternative to socialized health-care if you cannot make socialized health-care work. As a result of his health-care work, his states saw a growth of health-care jobs (although they still had a higher unemployment rate than most other states although the government cannot do much about that). Romney supported stem-cell research despite the fact that Bush vetoed stem-cell research twice (which was a big mistake on his part).

During his time as governor, he supported initiatives that helped the environment. He cleaned up a lot of polluted areas, placed heavier taxes on SUVs, supported initiatives that made it harder to drill for oil in protected areas (like in Alaska), etc. He's flipped on that now with his drilling-campaign and he's essentially against every environmental cause but I think that is probably just to get elected and like all politicians he is lying and will go back to what he does once elected.

He also supported housing initiatives to make housing affordable in his very expensive state. Oh, and despite the fact that he's a Republican, he's not a climate change denier (as everyone in his party tends to be).

The bad things about him?

He is against abortion and the right to choose. He has been quoted saying that he will fight his hardest to keep marijuana illegal despite the fact that it's completely against freedom, marijuana prohibition has failed as bad as alcohol prohibition failed, marijuana is less destructive than alcohol, and any rational person realizes that this War on Drugs failure needs to end. However, Obama is just as bad when it comes to this. Romney is also against gay marriage which is a major failure as far as equality goes. At least if Obama is reelected I am confident that in four years gay marriage will be universal in this country. Romney doesn't seem to have any type of connection with what the middle class needs and wants to go back and make the same economic mistakes that Failure Bush made. Romney literally wants to make our over-bloated military even more over-bloated with at least another 100,000 troops (I'll admit that I couldn't remember the number and so I checked Wiki real quick and so I am assuming that Wiki is correct here). Worse of all, he chose that moron Paul Ryan (who is for the Constitution but wants to make a constitutional amendment that would ban flag burning - which is against the first amendment (freedom of speech)).

So yes, Romney has quite a few problems but I am not sure if he's saying what he is saying because he thinks that it will get him elected or not. I have never even been to Mass and so I do not know what it was like under his leadership but it doesn't seem like he did too bad there.
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
When a former governor is running for president I tend to look at the success or failure of their term as governor. This isn't completely accurate because running a country is a much bigger deal than running a state and being good at running a state does not imply that you'd be good at running a country. However, it's not a bad place to start.

As governor, Romney managed to balance the budget of Mass. He reduced government waste and spending and attempted to lower taxes. However, he did realize that he couldn't lower all taxes and did what was necessary to give his state a surplus.

Romney created near universal health-care in his state by going to measures to make health care affordable. He didn't provide health-care for free; he just made it affordable. This is a good alternative to socialized health-care if you cannot make socialized health-care work. As a result of his health-care work, his states saw a growth of health-care jobs (although they still had a higher unemployment rate than most other states although the government cannot do much about that). Romney supported stem-cell research despite the fact that Bush vetoed stem-cell research twice (which was a big mistake on his part).

During his time as governor, he supported initiatives that helped the environment. He cleaned up a lot of polluted areas, placed heavier taxes on SUVs, supported initiatives that made it harder to drill for oil in protected areas (like in Alaska), etc. He's flipped on that now with his drilling-campaign and he's essentially against every environmental cause but I think that is probably just to get elected and like all politicians he is lying and will go back to what he does once elected.

He also supported housing initiatives to make housing affordable in his very expensive state. Oh, and despite the fact that he's a Republican, he's not a climate change denier (as everyone in his party tends to be).

Thanks for all of that information Matrix. Realized how little I really knew, and how much I had bought into the media hype. A serious bad of mine. I was tremendously impressed that Massachusetts had created its own universal health-care system at the time it had, and was wondering why all of the other States couldn't have done the same thing. So looks as though Romney had created all of that. I was under the wrong impression that Teddy Kennedy had done most of the legwork. Buying into media hype again. Need to swot up more on the facts.
Afaceinthematrix
deanhills wrote:
Thanks for all of that information Matrix. Realized how little I really knew, and how much I had bought into the media hype. A serious bad of mine. I was tremendously impressed that Massachusetts had created its own universal health-care system at the time it had, and was wondering why all of the other States couldn't have done the same thing. So looks as though Romney had created all of that. I was under the wrong impression that Teddy Kennedy had done most of the legwork. Buying into media hype again. Need to swot up more on the facts.


I would hardly trust me. I've shown about as much interest in this election as I have in a root canal. I have tried to gather facts and true data but I haven't gone to as much effort to fact check as I usually would because I decided long ago that I was going to ignore both major candidates and vote third-party. I assure you that everything I said is correct as far as I know but I would certainly take it with a grain of salt.
deanhills
I'm sure it will be shortly tested by the experts in this Forum, so am looking forward to their comments.

Thanks any way though. Sort of at least balanced things out a little from a base of zero.
handfleisch
Hey, third-party enthusiasts, did you watch the third-party debate last night? You can watch it again here. I lean towards the Greens but Jill Stein didn't do great and for me Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party "won" the debate.

But BTW, if you live in a swing state, VOTE OBAMA.

direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0vE5CTTSFI
Afaceinthematrix
I didn't see the debate because I'm not in the States right now. Plus my internet is limited to iffy wifi on my mp3 player so doing anything takes effort. However my friend told me the exact same thing that you said. At this point watching debates is useless because I already sent in my ballot by mail a few days ago. I gave my vote to Stein.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

But BTW, if you live in a swing state, VOTE OBAMA.


NO!

Bwahahaha!

I want reform, not four more years of telling us we're getting reform when we're not.

The Democrats say they're on your side... but they're really just as corporate-owned as anyone. They'll just blame their failure to fix the system on the other party.
They're part of the problem, and voting for them is ALWAYS counterproductive.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

But BTW, if you live in a swing state, VOTE OBAMA.


NO!

Bwahahaha!

I want reform, not four more years of telling us we're getting reform when we're not.

The Democrats say they're on your side... but they're really just as corporate-owned as anyone. They'll just blame their failure to fix the system on the other party.
They're part of the problem, and voting for them is ALWAYS counterproductive.

I would agree with you except for what this country went through from 2000-2008. You have apparently forgot two unfunded wars, going from a historic budget surplus to a budget deficit, and near-economic collapse. Whatever--the "bwahaha" idiots are unfortunately a dime a dozen.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
I would agree with you except for what this country went through from 2000-2008. You have apparently forgot two unfunded wars, going from a historic budget surplus to a budget deficit, and near-economic collapse. Whatever--the "bwahaha" idiots are unfortunately a dime a dozen.




That has to be an epic fail Handfleisch. That has been two presidencies ago.

I agree with Ocalhoun. For me Republican or Democrat is in its whole package the same. Just the other side of a bad penny. Due to the limitations of a political system that does not provide its electorate with much of a choice.

When Obama campaigned before his first presidency, he campaigned to the left, and his policies were everything but leftist. Now Romney is campaigning to the right, and probably will be anything but the right if he should be elected President, which I highly doubt any way. Romney is obviously campaigning for votes, and looks as though he has shot himself in the foot as a result. Point however, if he should make it to President, everything would probably still remain the same.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
I would agree with you except for what this country went through from 2000-2008. You have apparently forgot two unfunded wars, going from a historic budget surplus to a budget deficit, and near-economic collapse. Whatever--the "bwahaha" idiots are unfortunately a dime a dozen.


That has to be an epic fail Handfleisch. That has been two presidencies ago.

I agree with Ocalhoun. For me Republican or Democrat is in its whole package the same. Just the other side of a bad penny. Due to the limitations of a political system that does not provide its electorate with much of a choice.

When Obama campaigned before his first presidency, he campaigned to the left, and his policies were everything but leftist. Now Romney is campaigning to the right, and probably will be anything but the right if he should be elected President, which I highly doubt any way. Romney is obviously campaigning for votes, and looks as though he has shot himself in the foot as a result. Point however, if he should make it to President, everything would probably still remain the same.


A fail--according to your eminence? That was FOUR years ago, not eight, and you act like it's ancient history. Like so many with semi-amnesia these days, you fail to remember how close we were to economic collapse, how insane and inept the GOP administration was. Did "everything...remain the same" the last time the GOP got in the White House? No, there was an utter reversal of fortunes, from peace to war, from surplus to deficit, from managed policies by technocrats to dangerous clowns in charge like Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, and Cheney. Get a clue ferkrissakes.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
A fail--according to your eminence? That was FOUR years ago, not eight, and you act like it's ancient history. Like so many with semi-amnesia these days, you fail to remember how close we were to economic collapse, how insane and inept the GOP administration was. Did "everything...remain the same" the last time the GOP got in the White House? No, there was an utter reversal of fortunes, from peace to war, from surplus to deficit, from managed policies by technocrats to dangerous clowns in charge like Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, and Cheney. Get a clue ferkrissakes.
Common Handfleisch, you're not the only one who have access to that knowledge. We've all been there, done that a million times, the Dems most of all. Has to be some point when one starts to move on. For me the more people are looking backwards, the bigger the sign that they have been unable to move forwards.
ocalhoun
Look into the green party, handfleisch.

...And consider it might be time to let go of those who claim they want to help (while actually stuffing their sponsors' pockets in the meantime), and instead elect those who actually DO want to help.
Stop fighting for broken promises, and fight for what you really believe in.
darthrevan
I was kinda thinking of voting for Gary Johnson, but now that we are getting closer to election day, it is getting kinda scary and fatiguing. I don't want Obama in office any longer! Somebody mentioned about lets put Obama in the Unemployment line and I thought about it and said he won't be unemployed like us. He will keep getting paid until he dies. This always getting paid, even after leaving office is just wrong. The former President is no longer working, so he should no longer get paid and that would save us a lot of money.
deanhills
darthrevan wrote:
I was kinda thinking of voting for Gary Johnson, but now that we are getting closer to election day, it is getting kinda scary and fatiguing. I don't want Obama in office any longer! Somebody mentioned about lets put Obama in the Unemployment line and I thought about it and said he won't be unemployed like us. He will keep getting paid until he dies. This always getting paid, even after leaving office is just wrong. The former President is no longer working, so he should no longer get paid and that would save us a lot of money.
Well Obama was a millionaire before he started his campaign for President. I'd imagine even if he were not paid after his Presidency he'd still continue as a millionaire. If he can progress from very poor and humble beginnings to brilliant, writing books and networking himself into higher echelons, I'd say he'd be able to similarly cash in with more books and networking after his Presidency.
darthrevan
Don't you agree a former president should no longer get paid after getting out of office? It is like retiring at four or eight years where others have to wait over twenty years to retire.
ocalhoun
darthrevan wrote:
Don't you agree a former president should no longer get paid after getting out of office? It is like retiring at four or eight years where others have to wait over twenty years to retire.

The law was enacted when one former president turned destitute, and people thought it was a scandal.

It's unnecessary now though; let them depend on their own programs for the poor!
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
It's unnecessary now though; let them depend on their own programs for the poor!
Laughing That would be interesting.
Related topics
Microsoft gunning for Adobe's PDF format?
IBM backs Firefox in-house
Beware How You Google !!!
IE 7 to take a cue from Firefox
Shutdown & Restart Shortcuts for Windows XP & Window
Speed up Firefox
Gamers
Google Virused?
Pls help me someone.
Need help with mail.everyone.net
Third party VPN software?
HP opens TouchSmart PC to third-party development
Tea Party Protests
Which Party in the United States would you vote for?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.