Our two party system is broken.

#52
#52
utvolpj said:
Gary Johnson was on 48 ballots. He was a legit option, offered many things that most Americans would be in favor of and people still didn't have the guts to pull the lever for him.

I agree the 2 major parties suck but to claim there is never an option is incorrect.

again, are you active on a local level?
Click to expand...

Yes he was on 48 ballots. But wasn't in debates. Do you know why?

The 2 party system. They already had there man in place. Period.

They (either party) was not going to allow it.

If Herman Cain had not got screwed out of race he would have won. No race vote then. But the parties didn't want that.
 
#55
#55
Danl said:
Here's the thing in a nutshell. You're complaining about not having a third party to vote for, yet there was a third party to vote for. I'm pretty sure that it's you that doesn't get it.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think it's ones like you who think a 3rd party can win.

Not gonna happen till it gets nasty in D.C.
 
#56
#56
Obsessed said:
Yes he was on 48 ballots. But wasn't in debates. Do you know why?

The 2 party system. They already had there man in place. Period.

They (either party) was not going to allow it.

If Herman Cain had not got screwed out of race he would have won. No race vote then. But the parties didn't want that.
Click to expand...
Meh... I still place a lot of the burden on the shoulders of the American voters. You don't need to be in debates, in an ideal world. The voters would educate themselves and put forth the effort to find candidates that agree with their line of thinking... not pick from the two candidates that were selected by the media.

Plus, If all of the people that say, "I agree with Candidate X, but he doesn't have a chance, so I'll vote for the lesser of the two evils"... if they would actually go out and vote for the guys they agreed with, you might see some real change. But in stead, the get spooked out of voting for their guy because they are afraid of losing an election.

I've said it before, and I'll continue saying it. Sometimes, you have to lose an election to make a point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#57
#57
Rasputin_Vol said:
Meh... I still place a lot of the burden on the shoulders of the American voters. You don't need to be in debates, in an ideal world. The voters would educate themselves and put forth the effort to find candidates that agree with their line of thinking... not pick from the two candidates that were selected by the media.

Plus, If all of the people that say, "I agree with Candidate X, but he doesn't have a chance, so I'll vote for the lesser of the two evils"... if they would actually go out and vote for the guys they agreed with, you might see some real change. But in stead, the get spooked out of voting for their guy because they are afraid of losing an election.

I've said it before, and I'll continue saying it. Sometimes, you have to lose an election to make a point.
Click to expand...

I agree But not being in debates lowers visibility of candidate to nothing.

I lined him and Ron Paul. But a vote for them was a vote for Obama this time around.

I'm sorry but its the cold hard truth
 
#58
#58
Obsessed said:
I agree But not being in debates lowers visibility of candidate to nothing.

I lined him and Ron Paul. But a vote for them was a vote for Obama this time around.

I'm sorry but its the cold hard truth
Click to expand...


You say that still with the benefit of hindsight? :ermm:

Romney drew fewer votes than McCain did in 2008. So Romney being on the ballot itself guaranteed an Obama victory.
 
#59
#59
Danl said:
Here's the thing in a nutshell. You're complaining about not having a third party to vote for, yet there was a third party to vote for. I'm pretty sure that it's you that doesn't get it.
Click to expand...
You dont get it, when I say "third party" I dont mean some random schmuck rolled out so they could say "see, you had a 3rd party choice" Anyone who knows anything about how politics REALLY work, knows what im saying. Now, let the non sheep speak alone. Thanx.
 
#60
#60
JDogInDaHouse said:
You dont get it, when I say "third party" I dont mean some random schmuck rolled out so they could say "see, you had a 3rd party choice" Anyone who knows anything about how politics REALLY work, knows what im saying. Now, let the non sheep speak alone. Thanx.
Click to expand...

OK
 
#65
#65
Obsessed said:
I agree But not being in debates lowers visibility of candidate to nothing.

I lined him and Ron Paul. But a vote for them was a vote for Obama this time around.

I'm sorry but its the cold hard truth
Click to expand...

BS. Not in Greenwood, Arkansas. In FL, OH, VA, maybe. Not in Arkansas.
 
#66
#66
JDogInDaHouse said:
You dont get it, when I say "third party" I dont mean some random schmuck rolled out so they could say "see, you had a 3rd party choice" Anyone who knows anything about how politics REALLY work, knows what im saying. Now, let the non sheep speak alone. Thanx.
Click to expand...

I see. YOU know how politics "really" works.

So you want a ready-made, easily electable, third party candidate that agrees with your political ideas, izzat right?
 
#67
#67
Danl said:
BS. Not in Greenwood, Arkansas. In FL, OH, VA, maybe. Not in Arkansas.
Click to expand...

My vote in greenwood arkansas made no difference. Look at polling numbers and you will see. My in laws are dumicrats and they vote the line. And will tell you they don't know why cause arkansas is a red state.
 
#68
#68
Danl said:
I see. YOU know how politics "really" works.

So you want a ready-made, easily electable, third party candidate that agrees with your political ideas, izzat right?
Click to expand...

Ok genius. When was last time a third party was voted in for president ?
 
#69
#69
Obsessed said:
My vote in greenwood arkansas made no difference. Look at polling numbers and you will see. My in laws are dumicrats and they vote the line. And will tell you they don't know why cause arkansas is a red state.
Click to expand...

You said that if you had voted for a third party candidate (in Arkansas, I presume) that it would have been a vote for Obama. That's BS. Your vote for a third party candidate would not have changed the electoral outcome. But, if you and others would have voted for, say Johnson, then maybe he gets 5% and is in a much better position next cycle.

But you "threw your vote away" on Mitt. Did Mitt win?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#70
#70
JDogInDaHouse said:
You dont get it, when I say "third party" I dont mean some random schmuck rolled out so they could say "see, you had a 3rd party choice" Anyone who knows anything about how politics REALLY work, knows what im saying. Now, let the non sheep speak alone. Thanx.
Click to expand...

And where did you get this education on how politics really works? From what I can gather you don't vote, don't participate in the process at all and watch a lot of YouTube videos.
 
#72
#72
utvolpj said:
And where did you get this education on how politics really works? From what I can gather you don't vote, don't participate in the process at all and watch a lot of YouTube videos.
Click to expand...
Education and intelligence are two different things. But since you asked, its called history.
 
#74
#74
Danl said:
I see. YOU know how politics "really" works.

So you want a ready-made, easily electable, third party candidate that agrees with your political ideas, izzat right?
Click to expand...
And you want to keep electing the same P.O.S politicians, izzat right?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top