Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That quote is taken out of context. You left out everything else to support it.
If your state prohibits you from participating in the primaries then you have an issue to take up with your local leaders. Every state has its own set of rules regarding elections and who is allowed to participate. Many states do not have such restrictions and those that do you could easily circumvent by registering prior to the primaries.
What do you mean out of context? This reply makes me wonder if you even have any idea what you're talking about in the first place. EVERY STATE requires that you belong to a party in order to participate in its primary. THAT'S WHAT A PRIMARY IS! It's the party selecting its candidate.
And your suggestion that people should register for a party just to be part of the primaries is nothing more than repeating the flaw of your entire argument. Your hypothesis demands that people choose to belong to one or the other party, which would BY NECESSITY make your conclusion true BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME AS YOUR PREMISE.
But the fact remains that we have a 2 party system
That quote is taken out of context. You left out everything else to support it.
If your state prohibits you from participating in the primaries then you have an issue to take up with your local leaders. Every state has its own set of rules regarding elections and who is allowed to participate. Many states do not have such restrictions and those that do you could easily circumvent by registering prior to the primaries.
What do you mean out of context? This reply makes me wonder if you even have any idea what you're talking about in the first place. EVERY STATE requires that you belong to a party in order to participate in its primary. THAT'S WHAT A PRIMARY IS! It's the party selecting its candidate.
And your suggestion that people should register for a party just to be part of the primaries is nothing more than repeating the flaw of your entire argument. Your hypothesis demands that people choose to belong to one or the other party, which would BY NECESSITY make your conclusion true BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME AS YOUR PREMISE.
Some states allow people to "crossover" during primaries.
Im not suggesting people register for one party or the other unless they want to vote for a person in that party. I mean christ, that makes complete sense to me. But the fact remains that we have a 2 party system and thats where the action will always be until a 3rd system is funded and put in place.
But the fact remains that we have a 2 party system
That is where you are wrong. We have a multi party system, but too many ignorant jerks like you insist on only tolerating two parties. Go read the constitution. It clearly anticipates more than 5 candidates for President in an given election.
But the fact remains that we have a 2 party system
That is where you are wrong. We have a multi party system, but too many ignorant jerks like you insist on only tolerating two parties. Go read the constitution. It clearly anticipates more than 5 candidates for President in an given election.
Yeah, your right, and when was the last time any party other than a republican or a democrat win?
That is where you are wrong. We have a multi party system, but too many ignorant jerks like you insist on only tolerating two parties. Go read the constitution. It clearly anticipates more than 5 candidates for President in an given election.
Yeah, your right, and when was the last time any party other than a republican or a democrat win?
The election before the people stopped believing in a multi party system. Historic apathy is no excuse for continued apathy.
When was the last time a third party won the presidency?
When was the last time a third party won the presidency?
Do I need to repeat myself? The election before the people stopped believing in a multi party system. Do you want specifics? In 1860 Abraham Lincoln was elected President as a member of a new party, called the Republicans. Do you wish to point to the time passage between then and now? Then I'll repeat what I said a moment ago. Historic apathy does not justify continued apathy. Any argument that people should simply submit to the power of the two major current parties is nothing more than an endorsement of apathy. Any argument based on how long it's been since a third party won the Presidency is nothing more than an attempt to justify continued apathy based on historic apathy.
When the people believe it is proper to submit to having the option of only one of two candidates, they are just one step away from submitting to having the option of only one candidate.
But the fact remains that we have a 2 party system
That is where you are wrong. We have a multi party system, but too many ignorant jerks like you insist on only tolerating two parties. Go read the constitution. It clearly anticipates more than 5 candidates for President in an given election.
But the fact remains that we have a 2 party system
That is where you are wrong. We have a multi party system, but too many ignorant jerks like you insist on only tolerating two parties. Go read the constitution. It clearly anticipates more than 5 candidates for President in an given election.
I voted for Ross Perot so apparently im not the person YOU claim I am.
But the fact remains that we have a 2 party system
That is where you are wrong. We have a multi party system, but too many ignorant jerks like you insist on only tolerating two parties. Go read the constitution. It clearly anticipates more than 5 candidates for President in an given election.
Look, I really don't understand your argument/participation in this discussion. You chime in supporting an argument. But when it's demonstrated as logically flawed you bow out.
Look, I really don't understand your argument/participation in this discussion. You chime in supporting an argument. But when it's demonstrated as logically flawed you bow out.
Logically flawed? Your position is flawed. You will vote for someone who hasn't a chance in hell to win. I call that....making a statement, nothing more.
Just because you can't or refuse to acknowledge this, don't put that on me...it's your problem.
I'm not going to change your mind and you certainly are not going to change my mind, maybe that's why "I bowed out".
Sheila until a viable 3rd party platform is put together to function year round, rather than last minute candidates thats what we got.
and as long as people have this attitude that they dont matter......we are never going to get them there....
What is, is, Harry. When was the last time a third party took the presidency? It's not going to change. 15-20% max is what what a third party will get realistcally. That's just enough to get the other party elected.
I may not like it, but that's the way it is, I'll go with one of the two big parties that has the ideology closest to mine.
:........ill go with Rufas T.Firefly over those who are running....
and as long as people have this attitude that they dont matter......we are never going to get them there....
What is, is, Harry. When was the last time a third party took the presidency? It's not going to change. 15-20% max is what what a third party will get realistcally. That's just enough to get the other party elected.
I may not like it, but that's the way it is, I'll go with one of the two big parties that has the ideology closest to mine.
yea but Obama is ok for guys like you and Dean......
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........
Hey Libby, I thought I would just let Ron Paul respond to this one.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ_Z_XG0L2c&feature=player_detailpage]Ron Paul---Actual Republican - YouTube[/ame]
Ron Paul has more electability in his pinky finger then the rest of the parties combined.
I was under the impression Paul was running as a republican and not a 3rd party candidate. Did I miss something? Or did you just go way off topic for the hell of it?
No, I just dont know any of the typical third party candidates so I use him as a hypothetical.Hey Libby, I thought I would just let Ron Paul respond to this one.
Ron Paul---Actual Republican - YouTube
Ron Paul has more electability in his pinky finger then the rest of the parties combined.
I was under the impression Paul was running as a republican and not a 3rd party candidate. Did I miss something? Or did you just go way off topic for the hell of it?
The whole thing is clearly a refrence to Ron Paul. You just tried to slip it in the back door. Worse you insinuate that Ron Paul is a 3rd party candidate, which he is not. If anyone is republican this cycle is Ron Paul.
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........
