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

[JWBooth]

More of the same shit that got us here
vs
More of the same shit that got us here

Oh yes, thats something to get motivated over.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Bush isn't one of the worst presidents, he isn't one of the best either.
Your Obamacare in retirement will be kind of like payback to you.

Dean says lets see a link proving that....

 

[Meister]

Bush isn't one of the worst presidents, he isn't one of the best either.
Your Obamacare in retirement will be kind of like payback to you.

Dean says lets see a link proving that....

Do you always listen to your bed fella'?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Bush isn't one of the worst presidents, he isn't one of the best either.
Your Obamacare in retirement will be kind of like payback to you.

Dean says lets see a link proving that....

Do you always listen to your bed fella'?

bed fella?...........HEY!! ...how about those Yankees?....

 

[Meister]

Dean says lets see a link proving that....

Do you always listen to your bed fella'?

bed fella?...........HEY!! ...how about those Yankees?....

Crash and Burn....just goes to show you that money isn't everything.

 

[georgephillip]

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........

Between 80% and 99% of Americans have absolutely nothing in common with the values of elected Democrats AND Republicans; both major parties need Wall Street every day and most voters one day every two to six years.

IMO, the Internet has offered a new option for those inclined to vote third parties.

If hundreds of incumbents, Republicans AND Democrats, are FLUSHED from DC in a single news cycle, that will generate the grass-roots, bottom up type of change you are encouraging. In other words, go into the voting booth and vote for anyone who isn't Democrat OR Republican.

In many states the third parties are already on the ballot.
What do you have to lose by firing the second shot heard 'round the world in November 2012?

 

[Meister]

Right now the third party would be wearing a conservative hat. That would splinter the votes with the republicans and the third party. I bet the democrats and liberals would love that scenario for years to come.
The only way for a third party to work would be having a fourth party that the liberals would lay claim.

 

[georgephillip]

Right now the third party would be wearing a conservative hat. That would splinter the votes with the republicans and the third party. I bet the democrats and liberals would love that scenario for years to come.
The only way for a third party to work would be having a fourth party that the liberals would lay claim.

If Ralph Nader ran as a Green for president in 2012 against Ron Paul running as a Libertarian, who do you think would win?

 

[Meister]

Right now the third party would be wearing a conservative hat. That would splinter the votes with the republicans and the third party. I bet the democrats and liberals would love that scenario for years to come.
The only way for a third party to work would be having a fourth party that the liberals would lay claim.

If Ralph Nader ran as a Green for president in 2012 against Ron Paul running as a Libertarian, who do you think would win?

Ralph Nader....really?
All I can say is that Paul would pull a much higher percentage than Nader could ever dream about.

 

[georgephillip]

Right now the third party would be wearing a conservative hat. That would splinter the votes with the republicans and the third party. I bet the democrats and liberals would love that scenario for years to come.
The only way for a third party to work would be having a fourth party that the liberals would lay claim.

If Ralph Nader ran as a Green for president in 2012 against Ron Paul running as a Libertarian, who do you think would win?

Ralph Nader....really?
All I can say is that Paul would pull a much higher percentage than Nader could ever dream about.

A higher percentage in your neighborhood.

Regardless of whether Ralph or Ron won, they would make changes on Wall Street and in the Pentagon that would not occur with Romney or Perry or Obama in the White House.

Republicans AND Democrats have outlived their usefulness to 90% of this country.
Any meaningful change will require conservative and progressive values that don't favor special privileges for corporations.

 

[WatertheTree]

Right now the third party would be wearing a conservative hat. That would splinter the votes with the republicans and the third party. I bet the democrats and liberals would love that scenario for years to come.
The only way for a third party to work would be having a fourth party that the liberals would lay claim.

If Ralph Nader ran as a Green for president in 2012 against Ron Paul running as a Libertarian, who do you think would win?

What about a bi partisan effort of paul/nader 2012

 

[georgephillip]

Right now the third party would be wearing a conservative hat. That would splinter the votes with the republicans and the third party. I bet the democrats and liberals would love that scenario for years to come.
The only way for a third party to work would be having a fourth party that the liberals would lay claim.

If Ralph Nader ran as a Green for president in 2012 against Ron Paul running as a Libertarian, who do you think would win?

What about a bi partisan effort of paul/nader 2012

I'm not sure about that billing.

How about Ralph v Ron in 2012 with the loser serving as VP?

 

[Meister]

I'm waiting for you two to get grounded with the here and now.

 

[georgephillip]

I'm waiting for you two to get grounded with the here and now.

The Electoral College may put the White House out of reach in 2012, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to change the US Government from the ground-up by voting against all Republicans AND Democratic incumbents running for reelection in 2012.

 

[Meister]

I'm waiting for you two to get grounded with the here and now.

The Electoral College may put the White House out of reach in 2012, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to change the US Government from the ground-up by voting against all Republicans AND Democratic incumbents running for reelection in 2012.

Realistically?

 

[georgephillip]

I'm waiting for you two to get grounded with the here and now.

The Electoral College may put the White House out of reach in 2012, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to change the US Government from the ground-up by voting against all Republicans AND Democratic incumbents running for reelection in 2012.

Realistically?

For those living in states with multiple third party candidates already appearing on their ballots, it is just a realistic to vote for a Green or Libertarian as a Republican or Democrat. Voters in other parts of the country without third party candidates on their ballots would have to seriously consider voting against their incumbent even if that meant voting for the "evil other."

 

[Meister]

The Electoral College may put the White House out of reach in 2012, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to change the US Government from the ground-up by voting against all Republicans AND Democratic incumbents running for reelection in 2012.

Realistically?

For those living in states with multiple third party candidates already appearing on their ballots, it is just a realistic to vote for a Green or Libertarian as a Republican or Democrat. Voters in other parts of the country without third party candidates on their ballots would have to seriously consider voting against their incumbent even if that meant voting for the "evil other."

Again....realistically?

 

[georgephillip]

Realistically?

For those living in states with multiple third party candidates already appearing on their ballots, it is just a realistic to vote for a Green or Libertarian as a Republican or Democrat. Voters in other parts of the country without third party candidates on their ballots would have to seriously consider voting against their incumbent even if that meant voting for the "evil other."

Again....realistically?

It's at least as realistic as the conversation you and I are having right now.

 

[Full-Auto]

For those living in states with multiple third party candidates already appearing on their ballots, it is just a realistic to vote for a Green or Libertarian as a Republican or Democrat. Voters in other parts of the country without third party candidates on their ballots would have to seriously consider voting against their incumbent even if that meant voting for the "evil other."

Again....realistically?

It's at least as realistic as the conversation you and I are having right now.

What are the odds?

 

[georgephillip]

Again....realistically?

It's at least as realistic as the conversation you and I are having right now.

What are the odds?

Long odds at the moment.

If official unemployment is over ten percent in November 2012, it's possible FLUSHING becomes a last minute choice for millions of regular voters on their way to the polls.

If the 30% to 40% of eligible voters who usually don't see anything worth voting FOR decide to register and vote AGAINST the status quo at the same time...more Change and Hope than Obama or Perry can handle.