Dante Would Consider Voting For John Ellis 'Jeb' Bush in 2016

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

No Bush or Clinton is getting my vote.

 

[Ernie S.]

Not to consider. But who the other candidate is (speaking of general election) would determine who gets my vote..
Dante is a liberal and true liberals have open minds -- within reason

Yanno, there's a reason I put mine in the plural -- "alternatives are"....

Whichever candidate runs for whichever party, the first thing we gotta get rid of is this binary mindset that it's gotta be Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dumb.

Maybe I'm a minority but when given a choice of two and I don't like either, the first thing I ask is "what else ya got"?

Third candidates in the general screw everything up. Pluralities give us very unstable governments -- look at the past 50 years

Declaring "third candidates screw everything up" ensures that there will never be any. It condemns us to the binary. I'm just not satisfied with being stuck in that hole. The first thing to do is quit diggin'.

To a very large extent that's a flaw of the system that leans to the binary, yes. But change comes from The People. When the drones sleep though the status quo, it remains that.

I understand the idealistic desire for a 3rd party, though my ideal would likely differ from yours. Given the current system, it's unlikely that in our life time, a Socialist, Green or Conservative POTUS could form any kind of coalition with Congress. They couldn't pass a bill about what time to break for lunch.
The place for a 3rd party to start would be in the House. Over 16 or 20 years, someone like the far right (or Socialists for that matter) could become a block sufficient to influence legislation. A star could emerge as a viable candidate for the big chair

That's good lucid thinking, and in a practical sense realistic for how it actually comes about down the road.

For now I'm just saying it has to start somewhere, and where that start is is to stop thinking binary.

I'm 65. For my own personal interests, I have to go with the flow as far as POTUS is concerned.
I will support House candidates that could start the changes.

 

[Ernie S.]

No Bush or Clinton is getting my vote.

And if it ends up Jeb vs hillary? What then?
There will be only 2 candidates with a chance. I say vote for the lesser of 2 evils.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Not to consider. But who the other candidate is (speaking of general election) would determine who gets my vote..
Dante is a liberal and true liberals have open minds -- within reason

Yanno, there's a reason I put mine in the plural -- "alternatives are"....

Whichever candidate runs for whichever party, the first thing we gotta get rid of is this binary mindset that it's gotta be Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dumb.

Maybe I'm a minority but when given a choice of two and I don't like either, the first thing I ask is "what else ya got"?

Third candidates in the general screw everything up. Pluralities give us very unstable governments -- look at the past 50 years

Declaring "third candidates screw everything up" ensures that there will never be any. It condemns us to the binary. I'm just not satisfied with being stuck in that hole. The first thing to do is quit diggin'.

To a very large extent that's a flaw of the system that leans to the binary, yes. But change comes from The People. When the drones sleep though the status quo, it remains that.

We have a system of primaries and generals. We have rules in those elections. We can change those rules, but to do so you need to convince others. Stomping and whining "unfair!" will do nothing but marginalize your arguments.

Making the point here is one start, but capitulating to a flawed system brings us absolutely nowhere; all that does is perpetuate the status quo. I'm not content with the status quo -- so I say so. I find that more effective that genuflecting to a two-party-which-is-in-effect-one-party system for which I have no use. Complacency is not one of my strong suits.

The longest journey begins with a single step, and I'm always willing to point out that the interstate highway is not the only way to get somewhere.

Other nations have other systems. I remember when younger looking at European systems. I remember most how many governments Italy had in a few decades after WWII. I remember the Parliamentary systems where chaos ruled. I think our system is the better of flawed systems.

Italy is prolly an extreme example, often bordering on anarchism, and every nation or society has to work within what its cultural history suggests. A better example might be Canada.

Calling others Drones will NOT win them over. Change comes slowly. If you have no long term strategy all you end up is a reactionary and a radical that would bring about chaos and what we have today in Congress -- no compromise

But it may wake some up, get their attention and once in a while, generate a thought in that direction.
It got Dante's attention didn't it?

I don't get to choose the tools I get to work with. I would play my best within the system we have while trying to change it. Some choose to try and change it while staying outside. I see that as capitulating because they get no input.

I've been involved in party politics before. It's tough. You join with others and rarely get wht you want. What we get is always compromise or we get Tea Party reactionaries.

Canada versus Italy? Interesting. Canada has been demonized in American politics. They are more like us than not. But they have a parliamentary system. I dislike that.

Alienating people doesn't work. Even Hitler knew to blow smoke up the arses of the German people and their allies he needed

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Not to consider. But who the other candidate is (speaking of general election) would determine who gets my vote..
Dante is a liberal and true liberals have open minds -- within reason

Yanno, there's a reason I put mine in the plural -- "alternatives are"....

Whichever candidate runs for whichever party, the first thing we gotta get rid of is this binary mindset that it's gotta be Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dumb.

Maybe I'm a minority but when given a choice of two and I don't like either, the first thing I ask is "what else ya got"?

Third candidates in the general screw everything up. Pluralities give us very unstable governments -- look at the past 50 years

Declaring "third candidates screw everything up" ensures that there will never be any. It condemns us to the binary. I'm just not satisfied with being stuck in that hole. The first thing to do is quit diggin'.

To a very large extent that's a flaw of the system that leans to the binary, yes. But change comes from The People. When the drones sleep though the status quo, it remains that.

I understand the idealistic desire for a 3rd party, though my ideal would likely differ from yours. Given the current system, it's unlikely that in our life time, a Socialist, Green or Conservative POTUS could form any kind of coalition with Congress. They couldn't pass a bill about what time to break for lunch.
The place for a 3rd party to start would be in the House. Over 16 or 20 years, someone like the far right (or Socialists for that matter) could become a block sufficient to influence legislation. A star could emerge as a viable candidate for the big chair

That's good lucid thinking, and in a practical sense realistic for how it actually comes about down the road.

For now I'm just saying it has to start somewhere, and where that start is is to stop thinking binary.

Good. Now what? Plan on the go? You need a long term strategy

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No Bush or Clinton is getting my vote.

Not voting for somebody because of their name is a negative vote. The unintended consequences rules here

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

No Bush or Clinton is getting my vote.

Not voting for somebody because of their name is a negative vote. The unintended consequences rules here

This country didn't fight a war over 200 years ago to overthrow a monarchy just so we could start electing one. Nothing good comes out of either of those two being president. Just further consolidation of the power into fewer hands.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I just can't imagine the president of the United States by the name of "Jeb".

Of course ten years ago I would never in a million years believe we would elect a president by the name of Barack Hussein Obama.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No Bush or Clinton is getting my vote.

Not voting for somebody because of their name is a negative vote. The unintended consequences rules here

This country didn't fight a war over 200 years ago to overthrow a monarchy just so we could start electing one. Nothing good comes out of either of those two being president. Just further consolidation of the power into fewer hands.

Hyperbole will get you nowhere in an argument. Power has always been in few hands. As a matter of fact over 200 years ago power was in fewer hands and it worked better.

Why should I or anyone else for that matter not get to vote for somebody because others think they should run? A Monarchy is not about one family being in office. It's about the power in the hands of the Monarchy and birthright. Thee is no vote on who gets to be a Monarch, unless of course there is a rebellion

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I just can't imagine the president of the United States by the name of "Jeb".

Of course ten years ago I would never in a million years believe we would elect a president by the name of Barack Hussein Obama.

come on
Jeb is a nickname. His dad's was Poppy LOL

Reagan's was Daddy.

 

[Dan Daly]

No more Bushes. No more Clintons. No more wunderkind puppets either.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No more Bushes. No more Clintons. No more wunderkind puppets either.

Why not? Do you hate democracy?

 

[Pogo]

Yanno, there's a reason I put mine in the plural -- "alternatives are"....

Whichever candidate runs for whichever party, the first thing we gotta get rid of is this binary mindset that it's gotta be Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dumb.

Maybe I'm a minority but when given a choice of two and I don't like either, the first thing I ask is "what else ya got"?

Third candidates in the general screw everything up. Pluralities give us very unstable governments -- look at the past 50 years

Declaring "third candidates screw everything up" ensures that there will never be any. It condemns us to the binary. I'm just not satisfied with being stuck in that hole. The first thing to do is quit diggin'.

To a very large extent that's a flaw of the system that leans to the binary, yes. But change comes from The People. When the drones sleep though the status quo, it remains that.

I understand the idealistic desire for a 3rd party, though my ideal would likely differ from yours. Given the current system, it's unlikely that in our life time, a Socialist, Green or Conservative POTUS could form any kind of coalition with Congress. They couldn't pass a bill about what time to break for lunch.
The place for a 3rd party to start would be in the House. Over 16 or 20 years, someone like the far right (or Socialists for that matter) could become a block sufficient to influence legislation. A star could emerge as a viable candidate for the big chair

That's good lucid thinking, and in a practical sense realistic for how it actually comes about down the road.

For now I'm just saying it has to start somewhere, and where that start is is to stop thinking binary.

Good. Now what? Plan on the go? You need a long term strategy

Seems to me Ernie just laid one out. Which, within the limits of what we have to work with, makes a lot of sense.

 

[Pogo]

No Bush or Clinton is getting my vote.

Not voting for somebody because of their name is a negative vote. The unintended consequences rules here

This country didn't fight a war over 200 years ago to overthrow a monarchy just so we could start electing one. Nothing good comes out of either of those two being president. Just further consolidation of the power into fewer hands.

Hyperbole will get you nowhere in an argument. Power has always been in few hands. As a matter of fact over 200 years ago power was in fewer hands and it worked better.

Why should I or anyone else for that matter not get to vote for somebody because others think they should run? A Monarchy is not about one family being in office. It's about the power in the hands of the Monarchy and birthright. Thee is no vote on who gets to be a Monarch, unless of course there is a rebellion

Worthy worthy points, both the present and the prior one responded to.

The problem is a single-party oligarchy, whether it pretends to dress in two different colours or not, is a distinction without a difference from a monarchy. Thus there's little appeal in either one.

 

[Pogo]

I just can't imagine the president of the United States by the name of "Jeb".

Of course ten years ago I would never in a million years believe we would elect a president by the name of Barack Hussein Obama.

For that matter we've never had a POTUS with a female name... and in the big picture of world nations we're pretty far behind on that as a benchmark. Just sayin'.

 

[Pogo]

Canada versus Italy? Interesting. Canada has been demonized in American politics. They are more like us than not. But they have a parliamentary system. I dislike that.

Care to expound?

 

[Dan Daly]

No more Bushes. No more Clintons. No more wunderkind puppets either.

Why not? Do you hate democracy?

We are not a democracy...and I'd like to keep us from devolving further into a plutocracy.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Third candidates in the general screw everything up. Pluralities give us very unstable governments -- look at the past 50 years

Declaring "third candidates screw everything up" ensures that there will never be any. It condemns us to the binary. I'm just not satisfied with being stuck in that hole. The first thing to do is quit diggin'.

To a very large extent that's a flaw of the system that leans to the binary, yes. But change comes from The People. When the drones sleep though the status quo, it remains that.

I understand the idealistic desire for a 3rd party, though my ideal would likely differ from yours. Given the current system, it's unlikely that in our life time, a Socialist, Green or Conservative POTUS could form any kind of coalition with Congress. They couldn't pass a bill about what time to break for lunch.
The place for a 3rd party to start would be in the House. Over 16 or 20 years, someone like the far right (or Socialists for that matter) could become a block sufficient to influence legislation. A star could emerge as a viable candidate for the big chair

That's good lucid thinking, and in a practical sense realistic for how it actually comes about down the road.

For now I'm just saying it has to start somewhere, and where that start is is to stop thinking binary.

Good. Now what? Plan on the go? You need a long term strategy

Seems to me Ernie just laid one out. Which, within the limits of what we have to work with, makes a lot of sense.

Instant gratification syndrome rules here. No one wants to build a party up. Everyone for the past few hundred years seems to want a 3rd party person in the White House. All of my life I've seen good people waste time, effort, and money along with hopes and dreams on this 3rd party from the top down nonsense.

sad

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No Bush or Clinton is getting my vote.

Not voting for somebody because of their name is a negative vote. The unintended consequences rules here

This country didn't fight a war over 200 years ago to overthrow a monarchy just so we could start electing one. Nothing good comes out of either of those two being president. Just further consolidation of the power into fewer hands.

Hyperbole will get you nowhere in an argument. Power has always been in few hands. As a matter of fact over 200 years ago power was in fewer hands and it worked better.

Why should I or anyone else for that matter not get to vote for somebody because others think they should run? A Monarchy is not about one family being in office. It's about the power in the hands of the Monarchy and birthright. Thee is no vote on who gets to be a Monarch, unless of course there is a rebellion

Worthy worthy points, both the present and the prior one responded to.

The problem is a single-party oligarchy, whether it pretends to dress in two different colours or not, is a distinction without a difference from a monarchy. Thus there's little appeal in either one.

We are all one big liberal party. We all come out of a tradition of liberal democracy. Conservatives and Liberals are all traceable back to the same people, movements, and ideas.

Some people get disillusioned because they can never get others to listen to them, but what they fail to grasp is that change will only come from inside. Any outside change in our tradition will result only from bloodshed and rebellion. But at what and at what cost? Americans do not have the stomach for such radical change because no matter how bad tings get we still have it good relatively speaking.

People like you NEED to step up and try to convince others. But doing that means abandoning certain traits and taking on new ones. You have to dress the part and speak the part in order to live the part

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I just can't imagine the president of the United States by the name of "Jeb".

Of course ten years ago I would never in a million years believe we would elect a president by the name of Barack Hussein Obama.

For that matter we've never had a POTUS with a female name... and in the big picture of world nations we're pretty far behind on that as a benchmark. Just sayin'.

That should not matter.