A vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the party you dissagree with most.

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ross Perot was the last viable candidate to run as a third party candidate. Prior to temporarily dropping out of the race he held a lead over Bush and Clinton. Some speculate that had he not dropped out for those 4 months he could have maintained his lead and he may have won the presidency. He finished with 19% of the vote.

The point is he had a lead nationally. The last person to command that kind of following was Roosevelt in 1912. No current candidate is even close to those kinds of numbers.

While your passion for your 3rd party candidate may be admirable, admiration does not elect a president nor does it have an effect on policy. I have heard many of you state that Ron Paul has had an impact on the national debate about our economic situation by being in the race. I beg to differ........... The debate is focused where it is because the last two presidents spent us into oblivion and we are now reaping the rewards of such foolish spending. In other words when your broke you dont need your banker to point out the obvious. Did Ron Paul predict it? Sure, but so did every other sane person that was informed economically. Including Perot in 1992.

Now to our current situation....
We have two parties with two different ideas about our current situation. Then we have what will innevitably be, several 3rd party entries that will try to maximize their chances by playing on the Americans general displeasure with the current crop of choices.

Voting 3rd party used to be considered the protest vote. Well now the stakes are so high that, that idea is more idiotic than what either party is proposing to do. THE 3RD PARTY CAN NOT WIN THE PRESIDENCY. Therefore you are simply throwing your vote to whichever party happens to have the least in common with the 3rd party candidate. So lets say Paul gets in, your essentially voting for Obama. Or if someone close to democratic principles gets in, your voting for the GOP. All you accomplish is a devided vote for the party who has the most in common with your beliefs. Its counter productive to your desires and needs as a politically involved individual.

All change in our system starts at the bottom and grows. It doesnt suddenly appear in the form of a 3rd party candidicy. If you want change you have to get involved. Goto town halls, email leaders, volunteer for the party that has the closest values to yours. Change actually starts on the congressional level not the presidential. As proven by Obama and his promises for change. Nothing has changed, we are still deadlocked over ideals, full of partisanship and our economy is as bad or worse off now than it was. The people voted for change with Obama and when he didnt deliver they voted for change in the midterms.

Political leaders want to keep their jobs. If you hold them to account then you can make a difference. If everyone that WASTED their vote on a candidate that couldnt win actually got involved with their elected leaders who currently represent them, they would have a much better chance at having their voice heard and acted upon. The Tea Party is proof of this, regardless if you agree or not, they are the voices of the people they represent. Your voice cant be heard if the one your voting for holds no office with the power to effect change.

No one party can hold all of your beliefs. You all cry for and demand comprimise yet you dont display that very ability when you vote saying, "well they stand for this one or two ideals so I cant support them". Where is the comprimise in that?

LEFT OR RIGHT LEANING, DONT BE A FOOL AND VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS NO CHANCE TO SUPPORT YOUR IDEALS WITH ACTUAL ACTIONS THAT HAVE AN IMPACT BECAUSE THEY CANT WIN........

 

[The T]

Ross Perot was the last viable candidate to run as a third party candidate. Prior to temporarily dropping out of the race he held a lead over Bush and Clinton. Some speculate that had he not dropped out for those 4 months he could have maintained his lead and he may have won the presidency. He finished with 19% of the vote.

The point is he had a lead nationally. The last person to command that kind of following was Roosevelt in 1912. No current candidate is even close to those kinds of numbers.

While your passion for your 3rd party candidate may be admirable, admiration does not elect a president nor does it have an effect on policy. I have heard many of you state that Ron Paul has had an impact on the national debate about our economic situation by being in the race. I beg to differ........... The debate is focused where it is because the last two presidents spent us into oblivion and we are now reaping the rewards of such foolish spending. In other words when your broke you dont need your banker to point out the obvious. Did Ron Paul predict it? Sure, but so did every other sane person that was informed economically. Including Perot in 1992.

Now to our current situation....
We have two parties with two different ideas about our current situation. Then we have what will innevitably be, several 3rd party entries that will try to maximize their chances by playing on the Americans general displeasure with the current crop of choices.

Voting 3rd party used to be considered the protest vote. Well now the stakes are so high that, that idea is more idiotic than what either party is proposing to do. THE 3RD PARTY CAN NOT WIN THE PRESIDENCY. Therefore you are simply throwing your vote to whichever party happens to have the least in common with the 3rd party candidate. So lets say Paul gets in, your essentially voting for Obama. Or if someone close to democratic principles gets in, your voting for the GOP. All you accomplish is a devided vote for the party who has the most in common with your beliefs. Its counter productive to your desires and needs as a politically involved individual.

All change in our system starts at the bottom and grows. It doesnt suddenly appear in the form of a 3rd party candidicy. If you want change you have to get involved. Goto town halls, email leaders, volunteer for the party that has the closest values to yours. Change actually starts on the congressional level not the presidential. As proven by Obama and his promises for change. Nothing has changed, we are still deadlocked over ideals, full of partisanship and our economy is as bad or worse off now than it was. The people voted for change with Obama and when he didnt deliver they voted for change in the midterms.

Political leaders want to keep their jobs. If you hold them to account then you can make a difference. If everyone that WASTED their vote on a candidate that couldnt win actually got involved with their elected leaders who currently represent them, they would have a much better chance at having their voice heard and acted upon. The Tea Party is proof of this, regardless if you agree or not, they are the voices of the people they represent. Your voice cant be heard if the one your voting for holds no office with the power to effect change.

No one party can hold all of your beliefs. You all cry for and demand comprimise yet you dont display that very ability when you vote saying, "well they stand for this one or two ideals so I cant support them". Where is the comprimise in that?

LEFT OR RIGHT LEANING, DONT BE A FOOL AND VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS NO CHANCE TO SUPPORT YOUR IDEALS WITH ACTUAL ACTIONS THAT HAVE AN IMPACT BECAUSE THEY CANT WIN........

Vote as you please...but 3rd party at this point would add votes to re-elect the disaster called Obama.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ross Perot was the last viable candidate to run as a third party candidate. Prior to temporarily dropping out of the race he held a lead over Bush and Clinton. Some speculate that had he not dropped out for those 4 months he could have maintained his lead and he may have won the presidency. He finished with 19% of the vote.

The point is he had a lead nationally. The last person to command that kind of following was Roosevelt in 1912. No current candidate is even close to those kinds of numbers.

While your passion for your 3rd party candidate may be admirable, admiration does not elect a president nor does it have an effect on policy. I have heard many of you state that Ron Paul has had an impact on the national debate about our economic situation by being in the race. I beg to differ........... The debate is focused where it is because the last two presidents spent us into oblivion and we are now reaping the rewards of such foolish spending. In other words when your broke you dont need your banker to point out the obvious. Did Ron Paul predict it? Sure, but so did every other sane person that was informed economically. Including Perot in 1992.

Now to our current situation....
We have two parties with two different ideas about our current situation. Then we have what will innevitably be, several 3rd party entries that will try to maximize their chances by playing on the Americans general displeasure with the current crop of choices.

Voting 3rd party used to be considered the protest vote. Well now the stakes are so high that, that idea is more idiotic than what either party is proposing to do. THE 3RD PARTY CAN NOT WIN THE PRESIDENCY. Therefore you are simply throwing your vote to whichever party happens to have the least in common with the 3rd party candidate. So lets say Paul gets in, your essentially voting for Obama. Or if someone close to democratic principles gets in, your voting for the GOP. All you accomplish is a devided vote for the party who has the most in common with your beliefs. Its counter productive to your desires and needs as a politically involved individual.

All change in our system starts at the bottom and grows. It doesnt suddenly appear in the form of a 3rd party candidicy. If you want change you have to get involved. Goto town halls, email leaders, volunteer for the party that has the closest values to yours. Change actually starts on the congressional level not the presidential. As proven by Obama and his promises for change. Nothing has changed, we are still deadlocked over ideals, full of partisanship and our economy is as bad or worse off now than it was. The people voted for change with Obama and when he didnt deliver they voted for change in the midterms.

Political leaders want to keep their jobs. If you hold them to account then you can make a difference. If everyone that WASTED their vote on a candidate that couldnt win actually got involved with their elected leaders who currently represent them, they would have a much better chance at having their voice heard and acted upon. The Tea Party is proof of this, regardless if you agree or not, they are the voices of the people they represent. Your voice cant be heard if the one your voting for holds no office with the power to effect change.

No one party can hold all of your beliefs. You all cry for and demand comprimise yet you dont display that very ability when you vote saying, "well they stand for this one or two ideals so I cant support them". Where is the comprimise in that?

LEFT OR RIGHT LEANING, DONT BE A FOOL AND VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS NO CHANCE TO SUPPORT YOUR IDEALS WITH ACTUAL ACTIONS THAT HAVE AN IMPACT BECAUSE THEY CANT WIN........

Vote as you please...but 3rd party at this point would add votes to re-elect the disaster called Obama.

That would depend on if someone from the left doesnt mount a challenge to Obama as a third party candidate. There is deep unrest on the left also

 

[The T]

Ross Perot was the last viable candidate to run as a third party candidate. Prior to temporarily dropping out of the race he held a lead over Bush and Clinton. Some speculate that had he not dropped out for those 4 months he could have maintained his lead and he may have won the presidency. He finished with 19% of the vote.

The point is he had a lead nationally. The last person to command that kind of following was Roosevelt in 1912. No current candidate is even close to those kinds of numbers.

While your passion for your 3rd party candidate may be admirable, admiration does not elect a president nor does it have an effect on policy. I have heard many of you state that Ron Paul has had an impact on the national debate about our economic situation by being in the race. I beg to differ........... The debate is focused where it is because the last two presidents spent us into oblivion and we are now reaping the rewards of such foolish spending. In other words when your broke you dont need your banker to point out the obvious. Did Ron Paul predict it? Sure, but so did every other sane person that was informed economically. Including Perot in 1992.

Now to our current situation....
We have two parties with two different ideas about our current situation. Then we have what will innevitably be, several 3rd party entries that will try to maximize their chances by playing on the Americans general displeasure with the current crop of choices.

Voting 3rd party used to be considered the protest vote. Well now the stakes are so high that, that idea is more idiotic than what either party is proposing to do. THE 3RD PARTY CAN NOT WIN THE PRESIDENCY. Therefore you are simply throwing your vote to whichever party happens to have the least in common with the 3rd party candidate. So lets say Paul gets in, your essentially voting for Obama. Or if someone close to democratic principles gets in, your voting for the GOP. All you accomplish is a devided vote for the party who has the most in common with your beliefs. Its counter productive to your desires and needs as a politically involved individual.

All change in our system starts at the bottom and grows. It doesnt suddenly appear in the form of a 3rd party candidicy. If you want change you have to get involved. Goto town halls, email leaders, volunteer for the party that has the closest values to yours. Change actually starts on the congressional level not the presidential. As proven by Obama and his promises for change. Nothing has changed, we are still deadlocked over ideals, full of partisanship and our economy is as bad or worse off now than it was. The people voted for change with Obama and when he didnt deliver they voted for change in the midterms.

Political leaders want to keep their jobs. If you hold them to account then you can make a difference. If everyone that WASTED their vote on a candidate that couldnt win actually got involved with their elected leaders who currently represent them, they would have a much better chance at having their voice heard and acted upon. The Tea Party is proof of this, regardless if you agree or not, they are the voices of the people they represent. Your voice cant be heard if the one your voting for holds no office with the power to effect change.

No one party can hold all of your beliefs. You all cry for and demand comprimise yet you dont display that very ability when you vote saying, "well they stand for this one or two ideals so I cant support them". Where is the comprimise in that?

LEFT OR RIGHT LEANING, DONT BE A FOOL AND VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS NO CHANCE TO SUPPORT YOUR IDEALS WITH ACTUAL ACTIONS THAT HAVE AN IMPACT BECAUSE THEY CANT WIN........

Vote as you please...but 3rd party at this point would add votes to re-elect the disaster called Obama.

That would depend on if someone from the left doesnt mount a challenge to Obama as a third party candidate. There is deep unrest on the left also

True. But I don't belive in my heart of hearts that Obama will choose not to run. And I honestly think that no one on the left has the brass cajones to run against the one.

(albiet? I would like to be proven wrong in my belief)

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Hillary has em...lol

But she wont run.

She is waiting for 2016

 

[Baruch Menachem]

The OP is true, but that is life.

And the reason so many places in the world opt for proportional representation.

 

[Oddball]

Ross Perot was the last viable candidate to run as a third party candidate. Prior to temporarily dropping out of the race he held a lead over Bush and Clinton. Some speculate that had he not dropped out for those 4 months he could have maintained his lead and he may have won the presidency. He finished with 19% of the vote.

The point is he had a lead nationally. The last person to command that kind of following was Roosevelt in 1912. No current candidate is even close to those kinds of numbers.

While your passion for your 3rd party candidate may be admirable, admiration does not elect a president nor does it have an effect on policy. I have heard many of you state that Ron Paul has had an impact on the national debate about our economic situation by being in the race. I beg to differ........... The debate is focused where it is because the last two presidents spent us into oblivion and we are now reaping the rewards of such foolish spending. In other words when your broke you dont need your banker to point out the obvious. Did Ron Paul predict it? Sure, but so did every other sane person that was informed economically. Including Perot in 1992.

Now to our current situation....
We have two parties with two different ideas about our current situation. Then we have what will innevitably be, several 3rd party entries that will try to maximize their chances by playing on the Americans general displeasure with the current crop of choices.

Voting 3rd party used to be considered the protest vote. Well now the stakes are so high that, that idea is more idiotic than what either party is proposing to do. THE 3RD PARTY CAN NOT WIN THE PRESIDENCY. Therefore you are simply throwing your vote to whichever party happens to have the least in common with the 3rd party candidate. So lets say Paul gets in, your essentially voting for Obama. Or if someone close to democratic principles gets in, your voting for the GOP. All you accomplish is a devided vote for the party who has the most in common with your beliefs. Its counter productive to your desires and needs as a politically involved individual.

All change in our system starts at the bottom and grows. It doesnt suddenly appear in the form of a 3rd party candidicy. If you want change you have to get involved. Goto town halls, email leaders, volunteer for the party that has the closest values to yours. Change actually starts on the congressional level not the presidential. As proven by Obama and his promises for change. Nothing has changed, we are still deadlocked over ideals, full of partisanship and our economy is as bad or worse off now than it was. The people voted for change with Obama and when he didnt deliver they voted for change in the midterms.

Political leaders want to keep their jobs. If you hold them to account then you can make a difference. If everyone that WASTED their vote on a candidate that couldnt win actually got involved with their elected leaders who currently represent them, they would have a much better chance at having their voice heard and acted upon. The Tea Party is proof of this, regardless if you agree or not, they are the voices of the people they represent. Your voice cant be heard if the one your voting for holds no office with the power to effect change.

No one party can hold all of your beliefs. You all cry for and demand comprimise yet you dont display that very ability when you vote saying, "well they stand for this one or two ideals so I cant support them". Where is the comprimise in that?

LEFT OR RIGHT LEANING, DONT BE A FOOL AND VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS NO CHANCE TO SUPPORT YOUR IDEALS WITH ACTUAL ACTIONS THAT HAVE AN IMPACT BECAUSE THEY CANT WIN........

Bullshit....My vote belongs to me, not to the demopublicraticans.

If you fools can't nominate someone worthy of earning my vote, rather than playing your chicken shit evil-of-two-lessers game, then y'all can go suck a big fat chili dog.

If anyone proved this party man turd foolhardiness, it was the disaster of Chimpola Bush.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ross Perot was the last viable candidate to run as a third party candidate. Prior to temporarily dropping out of the race he held a lead over Bush and Clinton. Some speculate that had he not dropped out for those 4 months he could have maintained his lead and he may have won the presidency. He finished with 19% of the vote.

The point is he had a lead nationally. The last person to command that kind of following was Roosevelt in 1912. No current candidate is even close to those kinds of numbers.

While your passion for your 3rd party candidate may be admirable, admiration does not elect a president nor does it have an effect on policy. I have heard many of you state that Ron Paul has had an impact on the national debate about our economic situation by being in the race. I beg to differ........... The debate is focused where it is because the last two presidents spent us into oblivion and we are now reaping the rewards of such foolish spending. In other words when your broke you dont need your banker to point out the obvious. Did Ron Paul predict it? Sure, but so did every other sane person that was informed economically. Including Perot in 1992.

Now to our current situation....
We have two parties with two different ideas about our current situation. Then we have what will innevitably be, several 3rd party entries that will try to maximize their chances by playing on the Americans general displeasure with the current crop of choices.

Voting 3rd party used to be considered the protest vote. Well now the stakes are so high that, that idea is more idiotic than what either party is proposing to do. THE 3RD PARTY CAN NOT WIN THE PRESIDENCY. Therefore you are simply throwing your vote to whichever party happens to have the least in common with the 3rd party candidate. So lets say Paul gets in, your essentially voting for Obama. Or if someone close to democratic principles gets in, your voting for the GOP. All you accomplish is a devided vote for the party who has the most in common with your beliefs. Its counter productive to your desires and needs as a politically involved individual.

All change in our system starts at the bottom and grows. It doesnt suddenly appear in the form of a 3rd party candidicy. If you want change you have to get involved. Goto town halls, email leaders, volunteer for the party that has the closest values to yours. Change actually starts on the congressional level not the presidential. As proven by Obama and his promises for change. Nothing has changed, we are still deadlocked over ideals, full of partisanship and our economy is as bad or worse off now than it was. The people voted for change with Obama and when he didnt deliver they voted for change in the midterms.

Political leaders want to keep their jobs. If you hold them to account then you can make a difference. If everyone that WASTED their vote on a candidate that couldnt win actually got involved with their elected leaders who currently represent them, they would have a much better chance at having their voice heard and acted upon. The Tea Party is proof of this, regardless if you agree or not, they are the voices of the people they represent. Your voice cant be heard if the one your voting for holds no office with the power to effect change.

No one party can hold all of your beliefs. You all cry for and demand comprimise yet you dont display that very ability when you vote saying, "well they stand for this one or two ideals so I cant support them". Where is the comprimise in that?

LEFT OR RIGHT LEANING, DONT BE A FOOL AND VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS NO CHANCE TO SUPPORT YOUR IDEALS WITH ACTUAL ACTIONS THAT HAVE AN IMPACT BECAUSE THEY CANT WIN........

Bullshit....My vote belongs to me, not to the demopublicraticans.

If you fools can't nominate someone worthy of earning my vote, rather than playing your chicken shit evil-of-two-lessers game, then y'all can go suck a big fat chili dog.

If anyone proved this party man turd foolhardiness, it was the disaster of Chimpola Bush.

You fools? I dont get it........ Your as big a player in the nomination process as everyone else. So does that mean if we dont vote like you want us too the outcome is our fault?
We've had two big spenders in a row so now you want to throw the whole system down the drain? That solves nothing

 

[Oddball]

Nominate another loser dickhead like Bob Olde or Juan McWeasel and you've done nothing to earn my vote.

Sell me because your product is good, not because it's just barely less sucky than that that of your alleged "competition".

 

[The T]

The OP is true, but that is life.

And the reason so many places in the world opt for proportional representation.

And highlights the lock on power the Republicans and Democrats have.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The OP is true, but that is life.

And the reason so many places in the world opt for proportional representation.

And highlights the lock on power the Republicans and Democrats have.

I believe that lock is slowly breaking. If the republican party doesnt get in line with conservative values I believe the Tea Party could become a factor in future elections. In essence, breaking the dam

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Nominate another loser dickhead like Bob Olde or Juan McWeasel and you've done nothing to earn my vote.

Sell me because your product is good, not because it's just barely less sucky than that that of your alleged "competition".

What part of YOUR AS BIG A PART OF THE NOMINATION PROCESS AS ANYONE ELSE IS are you not getting?

It is not "MY" job nor anyone elses to provide "YOU" a candidate. Your vote in the primaries counts as much as mine.

This is the part my OP was talking about when I brought up personal responsibility and getting involved.

And as far as your "lesser of two evils" is concerned, you are unfortunately right. Sometimes those are our choices. But again thats because the electorate is not informed and are easily misslead by a 30 second tv spot. Thats where "YOUR" part comes in........
Lets say your a Ron Paul supporter. Its on you to convince me and others to support him in the primaries. Then the choice becomes Paul vs Obama. Granted I still believe that is a Lesser os Two Evils scenario. But unlike you I will easily support the lesser of the two evils. Some change is better than no change.

 

[The T]

The OP is true, but that is life.

And the reason so many places in the world opt for proportional representation.

And highlights the lock on power the Republicans and Democrats have.

I believe that lock is slowly breaking. If the republican party doesnt get in line with conservative values I believe the Tea Party could become a factor in future elections. In essence, breaking the dam

Interesting though that the Old Guard Repubicans have tried to hijack the TEA Party movement by claiming to redefine Conservatism? The TEA Party means to get the Republicans back on track as to what is most important. the survival of the Republic as it was or close to what the Founders gave us.

They know that they are an endangered species as the people elect more TEA Partiers under the Republican Banner.

The days of reaching across the aisle to compromise principle with those that mean to make this nation less than what it's potential is, and make it into just another EU Style Socialist State are numbered.

WE have seen what compromise with Socialists does...hence the state of affairs present. The Old guard are on thier way out.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

And highlights the lock on power the Republicans and Democrats have.

I believe that lock is slowly breaking. If the republican party doesnt get in line with conservative values I believe the Tea Party could become a factor in future elections. In essence, breaking the dam

Interesting though that the Old Guard Repubicans have tried to hijack the TEA Party movement by claiming to redefine Conservatism? The TEA Party means to get the Republicans back on track as to what is most important. the survival of the Republic as it was or close to what the Founders gave us.

They know that they are an endangered species as the people elect more TEA Partiers under the Republican Banner.

The days of reaching across the aisle to compromise principle with those that mean to make this nation less than what it's potential is, and make it into just another EU Style Socialist State are numbered.

WE have seen what compromise with Socialists does...hence the state of affairs present. The Old guard are on thier way out.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoxGvG5Uhrk]Genesis - Land Of Confusion (with lyrics) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Oddball]

Nominate another loser dickhead like Bob Olde or Juan McWeasel and you've done nothing to earn my vote.

Sell me because your product is good, not because it's just barely less sucky than that that of your alleged "competition".

What part of YOUR AS BIG A PART OF THE NOMINATION PROCESS AS ANYONE ELSE IS are you not getting?

It is not "MY" job nor anyone elses to provide "YOU" a candidate. Your vote in the primaries counts as much as mine.

This is the part my OP was talking about when I brought up personal responsibility and getting involved.

And as far as your "lesser of two evils" is concerned, you are unfortunately right. Sometimes those are our choices. But again thats because the electorate is not informed and are easily misslead by a 30 second tv spot. Thats where "YOUR" part comes in........
Lets say your a Ron Paul supporter. Its on you to convince me and others to support him in the primaries. Then the choice becomes Paul vs Obama. Granted I still believe that is a Lesser os Two Evils scenario. But unlike you I will easily support the lesser of the two evils. Some change is better than no change.

Wrong...Don't blame the customer because your party's product sucks.

My one vote in the primary or caucus bears little more weight than it does in the general.

Your party nominates another squishy sellout neocon loser, and I continue voting LP...Period.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Nominate another loser dickhead like Bob Olde or Juan McWeasel and you've done nothing to earn my vote.

Sell me because your product is good, not because it's just barely less sucky than that that of your alleged "competition".

What part of YOUR AS BIG A PART OF THE NOMINATION PROCESS AS ANYONE ELSE IS are you not getting?

It is not "MY" job nor anyone elses to provide "YOU" a candidate. Your vote in the primaries counts as much as mine.

This is the part my OP was talking about when I brought up personal responsibility and getting involved.

And as far as your "lesser of two evils" is concerned, you are unfortunately right. Sometimes those are our choices. But again thats because the electorate is not informed and are easily misslead by a 30 second tv spot. Thats where "YOUR" part comes in........
Lets say your a Ron Paul supporter. Its on you to convince me and others to support him in the primaries. Then the choice becomes Paul vs Obama. Granted I still believe that is a Lesser os Two Evils scenario. But unlike you I will easily support the lesser of the two evils. Some change is better than no change.

Wrong...Don't blame the customer because your party's product sucks.

My one vote in the primary or caucus bears little more weight than it does in the general.

Your party nominates another squishy sellout neocon loser, and I continue voting LP...Period.

The "customer" as you put it played the largest roll in the selection of our nominee. If everyone said my vote is meaningless, change would never be made. On the contrary if everyone believed in the power of their voice, change would result. Look no further than the election of Obama for the proof of that. All the new voters who wanted to be involved put him in office. It just wasnt a change in the right direction. Granted McCain wasnt a much better choice but I believe the tides are turning for conservatives.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

A vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the party you dissagree with most.

No, a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for a third party candidate. End of story.

People like you are why we keep getting represented by either giant douches or turd sandwiches.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

A vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the party you dissagree with most.

No, a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for a third party candidate. End of story.

People like you are why we keep getting represented by either giant douches or turd sandwiches.

3rd party victories as well as history say otherwise.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Nominate another loser dickhead like Bob Olde or Juan McWeasel and you've done nothing to earn my vote.

Sell me because your product is good, not because it's just barely less sucky than that that of your alleged "competition".

What part of YOUR AS BIG A PART OF THE NOMINATION PROCESS AS ANYONE ELSE IS are you not getting?

It is not "MY" job nor anyone elses to provide "YOU" a candidate. Your vote in the primaries counts as much as mine.

This is the part my OP was talking about when I brought up personal responsibility and getting involved.

And as far as your "lesser of two evils" is concerned, you are unfortunately right. Sometimes those are our choices. But again thats because the electorate is not informed and are easily misslead by a 30 second tv spot. Thats where "YOUR" part comes in........
Lets say your a Ron Paul supporter. Its on you to convince me and others to support him in the primaries. Then the choice becomes Paul vs Obama. Granted I still believe that is a Lesser os Two Evils scenario. But unlike you I will easily support the lesser of the two evils. Some change is better than no change.

Wrong...Don't blame the customer because your party's product sucks.

My one vote in the primary or caucus bears little more weight than it does in the general.

Your party nominates another squishy sellout neocon loser, and I continue voting LP...Period.

yea i agree ......i vote for a third party person just about every time now.....the 2 main ones have fucked this Country enough......time to try that new product.....

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Both parties are and have been spreading their versions of welfare to the detriment of the country and now we're broke. Screw 'em.