Voting Independently: why does it seem like such a foreign concept?
Options
Comments
-
Janklow I'll post proof when the time comes
-
Green party = Save the environment
Libertarian = Republican period
What else is there that's relevant or not 1 topic focused and narrow, or lofty? Btw independent doesn't automatically count as third party. That's a person that decided not to choose a party, but i bet you they lean heavily towards a particular one on many issues. The two parties are hardly narrow in their platform and it's easy to take up the the cause of a third party if their cause doesn't interfere with the general cohesion of the party causing flight. When there were other parties using other names, the ideals still weren't that different and there were still liberals an conservatives but other topics of concern that were beyond politics like Slavery, Communism, or terrorism that would skew any party because it threatens America in a general way. At some point any human will agree on a subject, that doesn't make their overall politics the same. People aren't saying Romney and Obama are similar on many issues, your calling them Obamney which is fallacious. Romney doesn't even support ? he used to.
What other third party is there that doesn't Caucus with a major party? What third party doesn't share most of the platform of a major party, only, they are more focused on achieving their particular goals and getting everything they cry about rather then compromising? Do the Democrats not care about the environment? Even baby Bush passed environmental goals. So what's the point of the Green party? What particular issues can they drum for that wouldn't get shot down wholesale if elected President with out large congressional support? Btw, there was no party system when (not the greatest President) George Washington was President. And yes i am speaking about the President, and working your way up with third party in tow from the bottom gives your party credibility at the presidential level if your party is offering anything all that different.
A lot of people claiming independent only did so because they didn't get their party nomination which is why i said that anybody but Obama could have been chosen. Why are libertarians at the Republican convention, or tea party members if they weren't the extreme wing of a major party? Where is their convention? How independent are they really? They share most of the same ideals but folks like Ron Paul speak louder about particular issues yet still votes along the party line unless it's a symbolic vote (which is normally cast on a bill expected to pass anyway).
What I'm saying about extreme is, people want all in or nothing at all or be damned I'll leave the party. Then you get nothing, and that's extreme disappointment when that repetitive tactic fails do to symbolic votes when you could work your policy in little by little. Some subjects can't work on compromise obviously but you can't just choose one. Change the rules and voting practices if you want (or can), but don't expect dramatic results.
-
i mean "changing the system" in the sense that you're arguing there's no other options than "vote for one of the two major parties" or "tear this American electoral system down." obviously new political parties have not really done the latter.Really? New political parties "changed the system", When was this?
symbolic voting isn't supposed to change the system; developing and voting for viable third parties is supposed to change the dynamics of the current system. if the only other solution is your vague "change the system" declaration, which of these is the more reasonable option?I never said changing the system would be easy, I'm saying symbolic voting won't change the system.
...or they're more conservative in the Libertarian/Constitution. i think the split with the non-major candidates in 2008 was about 900000 votes for Nader and McKinney (the "liberal" third-party candidates) and about 750000 for Barr and Baldwin (the "conservative" third-party candidates). there's a gap there, but i wouldn't call it so massive as to label all third-party voters "usually former liberals."Because many people who vote 3rd party are usually former liberals/ Democrats. Which helps these stubborn, ignorant Republicans with their stagnated base.
i await this day with great doubt that it will come to passkingblaze84 wrote: »Janklow I'll post proof when the time comes -
look, since you're telling us the only alternatives are "vote Democrat," "vote Republican" or "CHANGE THE SYSTEM (blares Rage Against The Machine records)," maybe you should tell these potential third-party voters what they should be doing instead.I'm not stumping for anyone, I'm telling an inconvenient truth. Voting 3rd party gets you nowhere. That's a fact. -
You'll see how serious I am about voting 3rd party Nov 6th Jank, I'll leave it at that
-
As an independent voter, i don't vote third party just to be different and want that special attention... but voting third party for local elections is the way to go and it does have a impact from the school board to council members.
As the November presidential election draws closer, Americans seem trapped between two choices for president, each belonging to increasingly polarized parties. While Obama and Romney may differ radically over policy and ideology, both men are locked in a struggle to win the votes of independents and moderates. And while their (often) factually-challenged personal attacks and punch lines may rile up their respective party members, their rhetoric may do little to win over independent voters who are not staunchly inline with either mainstream party. Understandably, then, important issues to voters across the political spectrum have found their way onto many third party candidate platforms in hopes they might garner a larger audience in this election year.
According to a Gallup poll released on August 30, Romney has a 48 percent favorability rating among Americans. In contrast, Republican candidate John McCain enjoyed the favorable opinion of nearly two thirds of Americans during the same time in the 2008 election. While 61 percent of Americans had a favorable opinion of Obama in August 2008, only half approve of his job in office as of September 8.
These statistics paint a dismal picture of the faith voters have in the Democrats and Republicans, making it a great year for independents to explore what third parties have to offer. Despite independents’ distinct bipartisan politics remaining the focus of the mainstream media and, as such, occupying the majority of brain space amongst voters, third party candidates also work fervently to appear on the presidential ballot and are important political players with which voters should familiarize themselves.
Candidate
Party
Bio and Platform
Gary Johnson
Libertarian
Gary Johnson is probably the most recognized of third party hopefuls. After he dropped out of the Republican race last fall, he has gone on to win the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination. Johnson has an impressive resume. An entrepreneur, he built a large construction company out of his one-man handyman service. He also served eight years as New Mexico’s extremely fiscally conservative governor. Johnson plans to reform regulations on businesses, replace the current extensive tax system with a flat 23% national sales tax, end the prohibition of marijuana, bring the troops home, and radically shrink the federal budget to rein in national debt.
Jill Stein
Green
The presumptive Green Party nominee, Jill Stein is a Massachusetts physician and Occupy activist. She served as Town Meeting Representative, District 2, for Lexington, Massachusetts for two terms. Despite her lack of experience in public office, she has contributed to the public good extensively as an environmentalist movement activist. Stein has authored several reports on green living and testified before many governmental committees on subjects ranging from the toxic byproducts of coal plants, to the effects of mercury poisoning in women and children. Stein proposes a far-reaching economic plan, called the “Green New Deal,” which would root the American economy in social democracy, economic equality, and environmental stewardship.In accordance with the plan, Stein would introduce higher taxes on the wealthy and new regulations on big banks and corporations, with the aim of preventing the 2008 Wall Street debacle from repeating itself. Jill Stein’s vast knowledge of the environmental threat that global climate change poses to America gives her an edge with environmentalists, and her commitment to social justice makes her a champion of the Occupy movement. However, she will likely face the same issue among voters that ended Herman Cain’s run: she has no real experience in federal or even state government.
Virgil Goode
Constitution
The former Republican U.S. Representative from Virginia’s fifth district makes the appeal to staunch conservatives and Tea Party constitutionalists. Goode’s foreign policies revolve around ending the war in Afghanistan, reducing dependence on foreign oil as a means to keep the American military out of the Middle East, and scaling back American involvement in global organizations such as the United Nations. He strongly opposes free trade agreements such as NAFTA, claiming that they take too many jobs off American soil. Goode holds socially conservative views (he proudly touts his lifetime 100% rating from the National Right to Life Committee), and plans to build up the national border patrol and end birthright citizenship. Lastly, while in public office, he made several Islamophobic remarks that seem out of touch with a growing number of Americans.
Rocky Anderson
Justice
Running on the Justice Party ticket, a group he created as a more progressive alternative to the Democrats, Anderson seeks to take a more pacifist and humanistic approach to governance. He served two terms as the liberal Mayor of Salt Lake City from 2000 to 2008, often stirring up controversy in the deeply conservative state.While mayor, Anderson triumphed ? rights, prioritized public planning and mass transit, and worked with unions in support of collective bargaining rights for city workers. Most controversially, he denounced the Iraq war and called for the impeachment of George W. Bush.Anderson’s plans for the country’s highest office include promoting civil liberties, clean energy, and implementing diplomacy over military action to engage unfriendly governments.
While these candidates fall all over the political spectrum, they importantly offer valid alternatives to the mainstream platforms. Their participation in politics, however little recognized, is imperative to maintaining American’s democratic process. It may be a long shot, but if either of these candidates gathers enough support in polls, they may be able to take the stage with Obama and Romney and thus provide independent voters with a more vibrant, diverse ballot this November. -
CHALLENGE ACCEPTED. especially since this doesn't involve me doing anythingkingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »You'll see how serious I am about voting 3rd party Nov 6th Jank, I'll leave it at that
-
@FuriousOne
You are blatantly false and willfully ignorant. Libertarian is not Republican as you suggest. Since when do Republicans support legalizing all drugs, legalizing prostitution, withdrawing troops, eliminating the Department of Education, abolishing the IRS, and abolishing the Fed. Tell me that. -
@FuriousOne
Obama and Romney both support:
Multiple wars
Patriot Act
Cybersecurity Act
NDAA
Trillion dollar debts
Drug War
Federal Reserve
Drone strikes
Drones spying on Americans
Empire Building
IRS
Dept. of Education
Carbon Tax
National healthcare plans
Differences:
? marriage
Abortion
College loans
And you fell for the false Left-Right paradigm. That's pitiful.
-
TheLaureate wrote: »@FuriousOne
You are blatantly false and willfully ignorant. Libertarian is not Republican as you suggest. Since when do Republicans support legalizing all drugs, legalizing prostitution, withdrawing troops, eliminating the Department of Education, abolishing the IRS, and abolishing the Fed. Tell me that.
Since they caucus with the republicans on a lot of issues that are Republican. All that ? has been said by other Republicans more stealthily. They are all about small government and abolishing things that were created to offer fare chance or support. They run as Republicans on the Republican ticket. If they were serious, they would run candidates under their own banner from the start like the Green party? What happend to Ron Paul's independent run? And those ideas are the fringe ones that i mentioned that are ludicrous. Get your own party, not some sudo party that's attached to Republicans by the hip with cool talking points that will never see the light of day or make logical sense.
http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2012/09/cato-survey-finds-more-libertarians.html -
TheLaureate wrote: »@FuriousOne
Obama and Romney both support:
Multiple wars
Patriot Act
Cybersecurity Act
NDAA
Trillion dollar debts
Drug War
Federal Reserve
Drone strikes
Drones spying on Americans
Empire Building
IRS
Dept. of Education
Carbon Tax
National healthcare plans
Differences:
? marriage
Abortion
College loans
And you fell for the false Left-Right paradigm. That's pitiful.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Barack_Obama_vs_Mitt_Romney
Education (against vouchers)
Healthcare, Social security and Medicare (against vouchers)
Clean Energy
Diplomacy first (his war tactics were known before he was elected, so drones it is)
Immigration
Voting rights
Infrastructure building (rather then empire building which sounds like a conspiracy rather then fact)
Taxes on the Rich
Tax cuts on the poor
Streamlining and cutting waste to reduce the debt while maintaining social programs.
SMH at trillion dollar debts knowing the Republicans did nothing to help reduce dept while Obama put forward plans to cut military spending.
IRS? Really? and the FED is going nowhere. The ? is important even if you hate it.
Cyber security is to stop the threats of hackers and wack people downloading free ? yet claiming moral high grounds. You mad? He's for net neutrality unlike Romney, which is a different subject.
Some of your points sound highly conspiratorial and downright silly.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »TheLaureate wrote: »@FuriousOne
Obama and Romney both support:
Multiple wars
Patriot Act
Cybersecurity Act
NDAA
Trillion dollar debts
Drug War
Federal Reserve
Drone strikes
Drones spying on Americans
Empire Building
IRS
Dept. of Education
Carbon Tax
National healthcare plans
Differences:
? marriage
Abortion
College loans
And you fell for the false Left-Right paradigm. That's pitiful.
It's not a blatant play by play support. They differ on how those programs are handled and their purpose. Romney doesn't even support Healthcare and how is that a negative anyway? The carbon Tax? lol u mad? Romney supports vouchers for health and education. Empire building? You sound silly. I'm not going to comment on the rest, all of that ? is over simplified and highly misleading.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Barack_Obama_vs_Mitt_Romney
Education (against vouchers)
Not a big issue. Don't care. Current system ain't bad, voucher system is better.
Healthcare, Social security and Medicare (against vouchers)
Social security and Medicare should remain the same. Except, we should stop depleting the SS funds on wars. Thanks Obama for starting 3 new wars.
Clean Energy
They both support clean energy, just different types.
Diplomacy first (his war tactics were known before he was elected)
I like how Obama was diplomatic with Bin Laden and Anwar Alaqi (US citizen) and his teenage son (US citizen). Obama killed Bin Laden with no charge or trial and dumped his body in the ocean (none of that really happened, Obama didn't ? Bin Laden, he died of kidney disease and lung failure in 2001).
Obama killed Anwar and obliterated his little son with a drone strike.
I like how Obama was diplomatic with Syria, Libya, and Afganisthan. Oh wait, he wasn't, he went to war with them.
Immigration
They both like having illegal immigrants flood the country.
Voting rights
What?
Infrastructure building (rather then empire building which sounds like a conspiracy rather then fact)
900 military bases and embassies in 130 countries. Some embassies the size of the Vatican
Taxes on the Rich
Tax cuts on the poor
Under both of them, the rich will prosper, the middle class get smaller, and the poor remaining poor. Both are funded by Goldman Sachs you ? . How about the fact that Obama gave billions to his rich banker friends and no money to middle class or poor? Explain that.
Streamlining and cutting waste to reduce the debt while maintaining social programs.
That is such a load. Both will continue to spend more money on our military. Admitted by both. I attended both Obama and Romney speech rallies in the past couple weeks.
SMH at trillion dollar debts knowing the Republicans did nothing to help reduce dept while Obama put forward plans to cut military spending.
Are you freakin kidding me. The nation was in debt, so Obamas solution was "let me add 3 trillion more to the debt." That was in '08/'09. Just a few weeks ago Obama have us QE3, another bailout that adds billions everyday to our debt. But you wouldn't know anything about that would you.
-
@TheLaureate
We did not go to war with Syria and Obama did not start the Afghan war. Libya was a Civil War taking place and we aided them through NATO funds which were already there. The Taliban was lent a leaf a few times but we have never been willing to offer Al Qaeda a truce. That's not their goal either. Those military bases been there and many countries want to keep them. Every country has a embassy everywhere. We don't have a base in Iraq because they don't want one.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-12/03/c_131285441.htm
I'm not with vouchers that are used for religious institutions on the tax payers dime with little over site. Obama's bailout (which Romney was against), has been proven to show returns. It was a necessity to save the country and many said it should have been bigger. Bush's bailout wasn't Obama's.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/business/in-missouri-and-ohio-gm-bailouts-success-is-no-guarantee-of-votes.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Obama actually decreased government spending is attempting to cut the military budget.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/29/republicans-hate-obamas-defense-cuts-the-trouble-is-they-voted-for-them/
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/
Obama receives most of his funding for citizens and anyone can donate to a campaign (insert insult). Most of Romney's money comes from big money individual donors. Obama has enacted measures against wall street and gave tax breaks to the poor as well as aided with foreclosures. Voting rights as in voter ID laws and purges. You see democrats doing that? This nation is built on immigrants and slaves.
I see we just don't agree on many issues regardless.
-
I'm not stumping for anyone, I'm telling an inconvenient truth. Voting 3rd party gets you nowhere. That's a fact.
Yes, this is what you said earlier, and I’d like to think that I’ve responded since then and have given plenty of reasons and evidence to suggest that you might be wrong.If your voting 3rd party for your own "personal achievement" that's fine
Ugh, “personal achievement” wasn’t the right word to use, my bad. Meh.but let's not act as if it will change anything at present. The best a 3rd party will do is spoil one of the other parties. Of course I'm speaking on national elections in most states, there are instances where 3rd parties can be more impactful on the local level.
Again, I’ve given many points to suggest otherwise. And I’d like to reiterate the point that 3rd parties can and do exist independently from the two major parties. 3rd parties should not be viewed as mere extensions of major parties. That kind of thought process in itself perpetuates/justifies our “two party system.” And this system is inefficient, corrupt, and incompetent.I am under the impression its already been decades
I’m not sure if what you say here is true, but if it is, then that’s not a problem at all. Like I’ve implied before, decades are nothing in the context of systematic change. At its worst extents, change can take centuries unfortunately.and both parties are still becoming more entrenched in the power structure.
I can’t say with 100% certainty that what you say here is false, but I would be surprised if it was true. Many Americans are seeing through the ineffectiveness (and the façade) of the Republicans and Democrats. Even more Americans do not vote at all and/or align themselves with neither major party. I would hardly call that a manifestation of Democrats and Republicans increasing their stronghold in the power structure. ? , I could say that the Occupy Movement and the Tea Party Movement are indications of Democrats and Republicans losing power and/or influence."Insufficient" is putting it mildly lol. I partially agree with the "sheep" comment.
Heh, and I agree with the “insufficient” comment.I think people vote for the person that "best represents" them even if they don't like him.
I agree. But I think that this is one of the biggest problems with our current system and with sheepish Americans today.
Firstly, I think that an American should vote for an official that best represents a better America. Voting for an official that best represents yourself is not only selfish but short-sighted as well when you consider that the future of all Americans, not just you and yours, is at stake.
Secondly, whether or not you like a particular official should be nowhere near as important as whether or not said official’s policies are valid. Yet I wouldn’t be surprised if many Americans don’t vote for so-and-so because he’s “too old” or because he’s “too white” or because she’s “too manly.” None of that should really matter. If Bill Clinton was running for president and you weren’t going to vote for him because he wanted to expand NAFTA, then that’s justified. But if Bill Clinton was running for president and you weren’t going to vote for him because he cheated on his wife, then imho that’s unjustified and stupid/petty. -
Conservatives and Republicans were ? on Romney during the primaries but are consolidated behind him now for the sole purpose of defeating Obama. People who wouldn't normally vote for Romney will vote for him now because they dislike Obama. It shouldn't come to any surprise that they are.
Yes, which is why this system is so primed for fakeness. Americans should not have to be pressured and boxed in to vote for this or that (Republican or Democrat) as if these two options are the only legitimate ones available. And this is why third parties are so necessary – because they create a diverse yet general enough variety of candidates for people to vote. After all, America is about freedom of choice.Yes. But people tend to group like objects with like objects. A Constitutional Party voter will share a lot of the same messages as a Republican voter, by grouping like items the Constitutional Party looks like another wing of Republicans. Whether that is true or false doesn't matter, its all about voter perception and if you are perceived to be a Liberal, even if you're an anti-Obama progressive, to a Conservative you might as well be a Democrat.
Agreed. However, again the problem here is about voters, not third parties. Like I’ve said before, many voters are misinformed, naïve, brainwashed, ignorant, and the list goes on. What we need to do as voters is firstly recognize that we wield the ultimate power (we essentially define our government, not the other way around), secondly find the ways to use said power in an effective and efficient manner (we should avoid propaganda/bias and educate ourselves with the truth/reality regarding America and her politics), and thirdly execute our power (we should then actively participate in American politics such as voting). However, I think that many Americans don’t yet have what it takes to get to the first of these three steps. You can yell “power to the people” as loud as you can, but it doesn’t mean ? if you don’t know what that truly means. But none of this is exactly easy, so I can’t 100% blame everyone.Fair criticism but by that same token a 3rd party candidate can't change the system from within either because it will be so few of them.
I’m not so sure about that. If a 3rd party candidate rose to presidency, I think that would absolutely stun America and give Americans something to think about. Might even give Americans a chance to jump on the bandwagon to make a difference or to be a part of history. Might even grab the attention of casual or indifferent voters who may then begin to actively participate. You’d be surprised how small things can catch on like a wildfire. I think that people really do want to vote and better America. It’s just that what they’ve seen and what they’ve been offered (in the Republican and Democratic parties) doesn’t amount to much. They’re waiting for alternatives that hopefully offer something greater.Its quite the conundrum, to which there's no simple answer because you have obstructionists in both parties that are wholly interested in keeping themselves and their party relevant.
Agreed. That’s a central problem in all of this.I've been reading up on proportional representation and campaign finance reform information but I'm certain you can't get proportion representation but campaign finance reform may be possible with some pressure.
Sounds interesting. I might have to check that out. -
Because many people who vote 3rd party are usually former liberals/ Democrats. Which helps these stubborn, ignorant Republicans with their stagnated base.
This sounds like yet another post that assumes that Republicans and Democrats represent the only legitimate parties up for the vote and that any other party is merely a "splinter group" that hurts the chances of its mother party to succeed. People, we really need to step outside this "two party system" mentality.
I never liked labels. "Republican" and Democrat" are probably two labels that I hate the most. So what exactly is a Republican or a Democrat anyway? Can a Republican have Democratic tendencies? Can a Democrat have Republican tendencies? What if a Republican likes a Democrat candidate? Can he vote for that candidate or would that be a betrayal to his fellow Republicans? You see how this partisan ? is petty and destructive? It really shouldn't matter who is Republican or Democrat. A candidate's policies should be all the evidence you need to see whether not he or she is fake or genuine. I've voted both Democrat and Republican because there's some good on both sides to be honest.
Btw, I would very much like see evidence to validate your claim that most 3rd party voters are former Liberals/Democrats. You do know that Ron Paul registered as a Republican right? You also do know that Gary Johnson of the Libertarian party (one of the very few major independent parties today) once registered as a Republican right? You also do know that Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party once registered as a Republican as well right? And you do know that the latter two are running for president in 2012 right? So by your logic, that would mean that Romney's vote is being split three ways. So your claim that 3rd party voters hurt Democrats would be wrong. And your claim that Republicans have a stagnated base would also be wrong. Please correct me if I'm wrong, no sarcasm. -
TheLaureate wrote: »
You are blatantly false and willfully ignorant. Libertarian is not Republican as you suggest. Since when do Republicans support legalizing all drugs, legalizing prostitution, withdrawing troops, eliminating the Department of Education, abolishing the IRS, and abolishing the Fed. Tell me that.
^^^ You know, I kind of agree with this guy. I don't understand how anyone can come to the general conclusion that a third party is basically either Democrat or Republican. Like I've said many times in this thread, many, if not most, Americans are exclusively committed to the "two party system" mindset even if they are not aware of it. And you sir are thoroughly indoctrinated.
Laureate and I have given you more than enough evidence and facts to suggest that many third parties with major and distinctive platforms exist (nevermind the fact that some mingle and affiliate themselves with Democrats and/or Republicans or that some care and actually agree here and there with other issues).
Speaking of which, you still have yet to reply to my rebuttals to your arguments. I'm interested in what opinions you might have in such a response. -
@Plutarch Too many responses prompted me to write a book further up. I also offered links to show the difference between the candidates in my previous post.
It seems people in here are trying to throw the two major parties into a position of not having gradient ideals. As if it's just one single mind with no differing opinions. They operate under particular ideas and work from there to expand. Yes a democrat can vote for a Republican or Independent and vice versa. I did. There were blue dogs that leaned and voted Republican yet voted Democrat often because of subjects that the that party supports which are wide and varying yet obtainable.
A party is there to flesh out general obtainable and workable goals that they can all focus on and agree with. Party members also have their own legislation that they put forward independently. Every candidate runs on a particular platform. But to caucus with Republicans only which Libertarians do, tells me that they are Republicans. When was the last time a Libertarian had majority votes as a democrat? I keep hearing how they have many liberal ideas but i only see fringe Republican ones even when some claim that they aren't. And why are their candidates running under Republican banners? Actually, i can barely tell the difference anymore because they all have far right views.
Nobody wants to vote for a weirdo with extreme ideas. The ideas that do make that difference when digging deep are no different then what many in a major party supports and most are fringe and unobtainable no matter the system so small laws are put in place until they can possibly build up to an obtainable goal. That's patience as you spoke of. But this is pointless because third party or no, i don't agree with those fringe ideas regardless so vote how you feel. I'm content with my vote. -
FuriousOne wrote: »@TheLaureate
We did not go to war with Syria and Obama did not start the Afghan war. Libya was a Civil War taking place and we aided them through NATO funds which were already there. The Taliban was lent a leaf a few times but we have never been willing to offer Al Qaeda a truce. That's not their goal either. Those military bases been there and many countries want to keep them. Every country has a embassy everywhere. We don't have a base in Iraq because they don't want one.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-12/03/c_131285441.htm
@FuriousOne
No, not every country has bases/embassies everywhere. Where's the Chinese and Russian bases in America? As far as I can tell, no country has their bases in America but we have our bases everywhere in the world.
I consider large groups of soldiers fighting eachother a "war." Obama sent American troops into Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria and they weren't sent there to play patty-cake. Lets not forget our drone strikes that are murdering children in Yemen.
And yes, we are funding Al-Queda again just like Obama's adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski did 30 years ago: http://thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/12802-us-funded-jihadist-“holy-war”-in-syria-seeks-sharia-dictatorshipI'm not with vouchers that are used for religious institutions on the tax payers dime with little over site. Obama's bailout (which Romney was against), has been proven to show returns. It was a necessity to save the country and many said it should have been bigger. Bush's bailout wasn't Obama's.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/business/in-missouri-and-ohio-gm-bailouts-success-is-no-guarantee-of-votes.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
You are false, Romney supported the bailout:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWDJEc92d38Obama actually decreased government spending is attempting to cut the military budget.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/29/republicans-hate-obamas-defense-cuts-the-trouble-is-they-voted-for-them/
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/
Utterly false. Obama's disguised the military spending increase as a defense cut. He actually spent more on the military than Bush, you have no facts.
http://www.newsmax.com/DickArmey/Obama-Military-Budget-cut/2012/01/11/id/423870Obama receives most of his funding for citizens and anyone can donate to a campaign (insert insult). Most of Romney's money comes from big money individual donors.
Are you freaking kidding me, you have no knowledge. Obama is funded by Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, Google, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup. C'mon, don't give me that freakin load. Their funded by the same people.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638Obama has enacted measures against wall street and gave tax breaks to the poor as well as aided with foreclosures. Voting rights as in voter ID laws and purges. You see democrats doing that? This nation is built on immigrants and slaves.
When I was poor, Obama did give me a "tax break," but then I got practically zero for my tax return. So I evened out, yet Obama gets to say look, I helped you out. No, you just moved my money around, but it's the same amount.I see we just don't agree on many issues regardless.
It's not that we don't agree, you either blatantly believe lies or openly support fascism and you call the third party support for civil liberties "weird." How is freedom weird, are you a freakin psychopath?
-
@TheLaureate
Civil war in Libya sir not an American war in Lybia as you suggest.. No troops in Syria or Lybia. Afghanistan was the right war that Bush abandoned.
You're using proof from 30 years ago to support you today? smh
Terrorist will always find a way to get money from sources not intended for them and you try to help some but they end up spitting in your face. Lesson learned.
China and Russia embassies (not to mention the UN).
http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/sgxx/
http://www.russianembassy.org/
Maybe i shouldn't be so general and say everyone. But I'm speaking of embassies mainly rather then bases that were there since ww2 and countries want them there or they would be gone.
Military cuts
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-decries-military-cuts-obama-talking-jobs-212034437--election.html
Romney did not support the bailout until it was seen to work. But it did work so how is that a negative.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/08/news/companies/romney-auto-bailout/index.htm
Federal workers and citizens donate more then anyone other entity which is why Obama is beating Romney in fund raising.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/02/federal-government-workers-among-obama-top-campaign-donors/
http://www.loop21.com/obama-donors-middle-class-poor-citizens
But as i said, anybody can donate and you actually know who is donating unlike Romney.
I see your not poor anymore so ? the rest right? I did save on my taxes because i pay my own taxes as a consultant. The tax breaks were for the middle class also, not just the poor.
enjoy.
-
@Plutarch
I'll just hav to agree to disagree. You sound very...ambitious. There's a fine line between ambition and naiivety...
One thing i'll say is, if a Rep. or Dem. 'compromises', his base blasts him
If an Independent WAS in a position to have to compromise (they dont have to now, as i stated in my previous post),
it would be like fidning out Santa Clause is not real.
This is what sickens me: LOL People who claim to 'not be into politics' and 'tired of the games' always gravitate toward the underdog, like Independts arent politicians themselves. It would break yall little 'rebellious' hearts to see what your precious Independents would become if they got in the game.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »@TheLaureate
Civil war in Libya sir not an American war in lybia as you suggest.. No troops in Syria or Lybia. Afghanistan was the right war and that Bush abandoned.
Youre right, our troops aren't there, instead we funded Al-Queda troops to do our fighting in Syria. With Libya, we outsourced the conflict to England and France.You're using proof from 30 years ago to support you today? smh
False. I said as a sidenote that Zbigniew Brzezinski funded Al-Queda 30 years ago. My proof that Obama is funded Al-Queda right now is dated September 2012.
http://thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/12802-us-funded-jihadist-“holy-war”-in-syria-seeks-sharia-dictatorshipTerrorist will always find a way to get money from sources not intended for them and you try to help some but they end up spitting in your face. Lesson learned.
You don't get it. We created Al-Queda. Their not just some group taking advantage of us, we created them and we are taking advantage of them. Look how many freedoms we lost and how much privacy invasion has occured because of our governments fear-mongering of Al-Queda.China and Russia embassies (not to mention the UN). Maybe i shouldn't be so general and say everyone. But I'm speaking of embassies mainly rather then bases that were there since ww2 and countries want them there or they would be gone.
http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/sgxx/
http://www.russianembassy.org/
Military cuts
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-decries-military-cuts-obama-talking-jobs-212034437--election.html
Just because Romney attacked Obama for cutting military spending doesn't mean it's true. Either he didn't know the facts or he was just trying to pander to the Republican base who oppose military cuts.
The facts show that Obama increased military spending at a rate higher than Bush.
http://www.newsmax.com/DickArmey/Obama-Military-Budget-cut/2012/01/11/id/423870Romney did not support the bailout until it was seen to work. But it did work so how is that a negative.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/08/news/companies/romney-auto-bailout/index.htm
Did it work? Really? That's bad free market economics first of all. Youre supposed to let bad business fail, not reward it.
Secondly, the dollar is quickly devaluing, the countries credit rating is decreasing, the national debt is increasing, unemployment is still at all-time highs, and you call the bailout a success? No. Deliberate sabotage is what it is. At best, a bandaid on a broken dam about to flood.Federal workers and citizens donate more
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/02/federal-government-workers-among-obama-top-campaign-donors/
http://www.loop21.com/obama-donors-middle-class-poor-citizens
But as i said, anybody can donate.
Sure, they might be top donors too, that doesn't change the fact that his other top donors are giant mega-corporations.see your not poor anymore so ? the rest right? I did save on my taxes because i pay my own taxes as a consultant. The tax breaks were for the middle class, not just the poor.
enjoy.
I simply moved up to middle class. I don't know what my tax return will be like yet. However, come January the Bush tax cuts expire and 20 new Obama taxes will hit us. Also, Obama just did QE3 bailout which is a billions dollar tax on us. Who do you think picks up the tab for all Obama's bailouts? The taxpayer.
-
@TheLaureate
#1 i don't trust your source, newsmax, because of their blatantly known bias especially coming from ? Armey. Please provide an alternative link.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/08/obama_s_ad_against_military_spending_have_polls_shifted_on_the_defense_budget_.html
What we are suffering issues that occurred before Obama and it's only been four years to fix something that took 8 years to break. It's far easier to break stuff.
Donating is donating which is legal and allowed. These are also donations from individuals in the company. But your quest is to make Obama look bad because of a fraction of donations. What are you implying with the big donors? They donate far more to Romney and can donate to anyone. Americans would be the biggest recipient of any payback for donations being he biggest donors after accumulation.
Al Qaeda came about because Russia was invading a country and we funded them to stop Russia. What came out of that still is not Obama's fault and you did not provide that link the first time when i questioned your 30 year statement. Britain created the USA so i guess they're still responsible right? Yes the bailouts have been shown to work and the tax cuts were ended by Republicans. The credit rating also dropped because of Republicans.
I'll give you the current military spending, but there will be a quicker draw down from Afghanistan before the 2014 date and cuts are still on the table. Tax dollars are meant to support American infrastructure and goals and that's exactly what the bailout did. Letting everything fail outright isn't a very wise decision when it could destroy American industries before new ones can take their place. The Bush tax cuts were unpaid for in the first place yet the banks paid that all back plus some, so yay bush. -
uh, no. if we're talking about guys like Bin Laden, they got their money from the Middle East.FuriousOne wrote: »Al Qaeda came about because Russia was invading a country and we funded them to stop Russia.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »@Plutarch Too many responses prompted me to write a book further up. I also offered links to show the difference between the candidates in my previous post.
Ok.FuriousOne wrote: »It seems people in here are trying to throw the two major parties into a position of not having gradient ideals. As if it's just one single mind with no differing opinions. They operate under particular ideas and work from there to expand. Yes a democrat can vote for a Republican or Independent and vice versa. I did. There were blue dogs that leaned and voted Republican yet voted Democrat often because of subjects that the that party supports which are wide and varying yet obtainable.
I think that I understand what you are saying, and I mostly agree. However, wouldn't you agree that Republicans and Democrats are unwilling to be genuinely open minded when it comes to many issues, platforms, and/or policies? Some may say that both parties can't afford to be open minded because they must pander to the American public and they must compromise their integrity simply for the sake of votes. Both parties aren't so much concerned with which candidate has genuine (and thus transgressive) policies as much as they are concerned with which candidate is the most presentable (e.g., Mitt Romney). This fact severely limits the variety of acceptable/presentable candidates that can achieve success in either major party. A "moderate" Republican candidate who has Democratic tendencies is not going to get a lot of love in the Republican party. Even Romney had flip flop to ensure his demographic that he's a "legitimate" Republican.FuriousOne wrote: »A party is there to flesh out general obtainable and workable goals that they can all focus on and agree with. Party members also have their own legislation that they put forward independently. Every candidate runs on a particular platform. But to caucus with Republicans only which Libertarians do, tells me that they are Republicans. When was the last time a Libertarian had majority votes as a democrat? I keep hearing how they have many liberal ideas but i only see fringe Republican ones even when some claim that they aren't. And why are their candidates running under Republican banners? Actually, i can barely tell the difference anymore because they all have far right views.
I'm not 100% certain that Libertarians only caucus with Republicans, but it wouldn't be surprising. The only thing that truly links Libertarians with Republicans is that both generally vie for limited government. A Libertarian may advocate some standard Republican principles, but the same Libertarian may also advocate other major principles that are either very different or very oppositional when compared to standard Republican principles. Just look at Ron Paul. You'd have to define what a true "Republican" is if you really think that a Libertarian is a Republican. Wait, didn't you just argue in your first paragraph that Republicans represent a variety of different platforms? So then why would you say that Libertarians are Republicans...Ok now i'm confused. I'm not even sure what we were originally arguing about here.
Ok, let me back up. This might be a case of semantics here. I'm going to use "Republican" in two different contexts: one in the context of the Republican party, and the other in the context of Republican principles. So if you are saying that Libertarians are more like Republicans (party), then I might be able to agree with you there especially if you are also saying that Republicans (party) represent a wide variety of different Republican (principles)ideas and platforms. In this case, Libertarians would be a type of group within the Republican party, and the Republican party would include many different kinds of politicians and parties who have different Republican principles.
However, if you are saying that Libertarians aren't a distinctive group within the Republican party, then I disagree. And if you are saying that there isn't a general yet dominant set of Republican principles within the Republican party, then I again disagree. Why do you think that Ron Paul said that he would have refused the endorsement of then-president George Bush during his campaign for presidency? He said that because George Bush, who represent that dominant set of Republican principles within the Republican party, does not represent the set of Republican principles within the Libertarian party. Could you picture the Republican party's presidential nominee rejecting the current-standing Republican president during a presidential election? That would be unheard of.FuriousOne wrote: »Nobody wants to vote for a weirdo with extreme ideas. The ideas that do make that difference when digging deep are no different then what many in a major party supports and most are fringe and unobtainable no matter the system so small laws are put in place until they can possibly build up to an obtainable goal. That's patience as you spoke of. But this is pointless because third party or no, i don't agree with those fringe ideas regardless so vote how you feel. I'm content with my vote.
Lol, define "weirdo" and "extreme" because those terms might just simply mean "different." And different doesn't necessarily mean bad. The way I see things now, different can mean necessary and good. I hope that you're not making the general assumption that third party candidates are weirdos and have extreme idea because that's ? . As a matter fact, I think that Obama has been a weirdo with extreme ideas at times, and we voted him in office, so I don't see your point about voters not wanting to vote for weirdos with extreme ideas. I'm also still quite confused because you seem to be saying that third parties are "out there" and unvotable, but at the same time you're saying that third parties are not that different than the major parties. Is this not a contradiction?
I'm not denying that there isn't anything good and worth being patient for in the the major parties, and I'm certainly not trying to change your vote (I'm not sure how that came up). I'm simply making the argument that third parties 1. are necessary to better represent the variety of American politics, 2. are distinct entities within themselves, and 3. can make a difference, especially once we see past this flawed "two party system." I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "fringe" ideas, but if you consider ideas about foreign policy, the federal reserve, and the War on Drugs (and let me remind you that Libertarians and "Republicans" do not agree at all on these ideas) to be fringe, then I think that you're sorely mistaken.
