Discussion in 'Politics and Current Affairs' started by SimsDelt, Nov 2, 2010.
Everybody seems to forget that the economy was one of the strongest we've ever had under Bush until the big crash and the main culprits for this were Barney Frank(D) and Chris Dodd(D) as well as the newly elected Democratic Congress who repeatedly ignored Bush's requests especially the ones about bringing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under control.
The Democrats are real quick to play the blame game because they just want to cover their butts instead of being responsible for the mess they created and working to fix it.
The Republicans aren't totally without blame, but the major player in the economic collapse was the Democrats policies and actions.
Anyway, don't see how one could vote Obama considering his positions on climate change, his foreign policy, his history, etc, but whatever.
Well, Obama's action on climate change has been terribly limited, I agree, but Romney claims to not believe in the science, and even if he did, I believe he would do absolutely nothing, and not only fail to drastically decrease US greenhouse gas emissions, but actually cause them to increase, putting the world in even greater danger.
I have pointed out Obama's foreign policy failings, but on the whole his foreign policy has been a remarkable success considering the circumstances.
That's all they have done.
Obama Says "When I Was President" At Debate
NY Observer Switches Sides: Backs Romney
With 19 days to go before voters pick the next president, Mitt Romney has picked an early newspaper endorsement from the New York Observer.
The weekly paper ”which in 2008 backed Barack Obama against John McCain” made no bones about why it has changed parties, calling the Republican nominee not a demagogue but a manager, a candidate whose experience is rooted in the pragmatism of the business world rather than the ideology of partisan politics.
blindly encouraging others to vote without guiding or explaining about who/what to vote for , or, at least, stating outright what they believe is one of the stupidest things people can do in any form of democracy. ... And..the premise that one doesn't have the right to complain if one doesn't vote is ridiculous. the lesser of two evils is a horrid way to vote or live your life. I'll never vote or publicly support someone I don't agree with.
then you will never vote or publicly support anyone
youll never find a person who is in 100% agreement with you on everything
and any thing less than 100% is simply the lesser of 2 evils
Both of your premises are incorrect. I assume you're a democrat..or equally likely, a republican. and, anyway, voting (the act itself) isn't the end-all-be-all of human activity that you've been lead to believe.
If you vote for the lesser of two evils you will always, by definition, get evil. So you are telling people to vote for evil and then you're going to complain because you got evil? Logically that makes no sense. There is almost always a 3rd party candidate somewhere that you can agree with or at least live with. No, there's no one out there who agrees with me 100%. I don't agree with me 100% all the time. But I'd rather vote for a 3rd party candidate who I agree with philosophically even if our view differ on the actual day to day stuff than a major party candidate if both of them are dead wrong philosophically.
There are things that Obama and Romney agree on. They both agree that more government is the answer. They both agree that more spending is the way to go. They differ on how to expand government and they differ on what to spend the money on and how to get that money. I have huge philosophical differences with both of them. Yet you would encourage me to vote for someone who I disagree with both philosophically and on the details?
With only two candidates remaining as electable, voting for the lesser of two evils is still necessary, even if it is only to cast a vote against the greater evil. And to not vote is the equivalent of voting for the other side. Always imperfect, voting is what has kept America alive longer than any other free country thus far.
I'm not sure that you can have it both ways. You can't complain about the quality of the two major party candidates and then argue that people should not vote for a third party. That logic ensures that only those two parties stay in power and doesn't encourage either party to actually provide a decent candidate.
Actually any of these candidates are still eligible and can be elected should they get the necessary votes.
2012 Presidential Candidates (P2012)
You are not limited to the choice of Democrat or Republican however unless enough people get behind one of the other party's candidate they will just end up siphoning votes off and affecting the outcome by reducing the potential for one of the main candidates to win.
I might actually vote for Gary Johnson if he had a chance of actually winning, while not the perfect candidate either I could live with him much better than the other two choices we face!
Honest question. How does someone like Gary Johnson get your vote? You mention you like him better than the other choices on the ballot. What would he (or any other 3rd party) have to do to get you to vote for him?
His stance on the 2nd amendment & the Fair Tax Proposal are the two biggest for me, plus I tend towards Libertarian anyway. Our government should be the absolute minimum necessary to do it's job and should never even consider anything that infringes on our civil liberties much less constitutional rights.
Whether you or anyone thinks I can or I can’t, that’s exactly what I’m doing, exactly what most are doing, in fact. That’s the one thing almost every voter on either side has in common – neither thinks their candidate is the perfect choice to represent themselves.
To either not vote or to vote for a third-party candidate at this point is not only pointless, it’s pretty much the same as voting for the other candidate, the one you certainly don’t want elected.
The candidate(s) you and I really wanted had their chance and lost it last spring. So even if you’re not in lockstep agreement with the one you feel is the lesser of two evils, you still have to vote for him just to vote against the other side.
I’m sure George Bush Sr, Ross Perot or Bill Clinton can explain all this more eloquently...
Right, but what would he have to do to actually get you to pull the lever for him? Him or any other third party candidate for that matter. What does a third party candidate have to do to get you to vote for him/her?
Sadly, have a snowballs chance in hell of winning. Other than that, the same reasons you would vote for any candidate.
If the American sheeple could get together enough to send a clear message by voting a third party candidate into office, or even close enough to make the powers that be wake up and realize what is going on things would likely improve, at least for the immediate future. Unfortunately the people are too brainwashed to actually believe they could make such a difference so most of them vote "the lesser of two evils" instead of the other option(s) or even worse don't vote at all. It is sad that the only logical choice is to vote in this manner...
I agree with the first part, disagree with the second. They realized the futility in trying to make a third party create strength that matched the existing two and decided it was more practical to assimilate with the party that most closely resembled their visions.
I guess this again proves my point of the issues with a first past the post system where parties don't need to maintain any sort of strict policy platform.
Personally I find it shocking how successful they were at their semi-takeover of the Republican Party.