[lordofduct]

ShakesSpears, on 26 April 2011 - 05:58 PM, said:

...snip

Working with politicians(i.e. house/senate):
I doubt he would work well with politicians. I could be wrong I don't know how similar politics and big business are. If they're close enough he could do great. If sufficiently different he could get bogged down working through the political channels trying to get things done.

And here is the biggest issue actually. He would get nothing done because he wouldn't be able to work with the senate and congress. The president doesn't get to just make changes all willy nilly, it needs to be agreed upon. Obama didn't get to just implement his health reform or budget, it needs to be voted on. And if you can't work with 'other politicians' you aren't going to get anything done.

And compensation from our allies for our support? Which countries are you talking about? Countries we invaded... yeah they don't need to 'compensate' us. Or the other countries we took down years ago and now have bases in and a general military presence (Germany, Japan, South Korea?) How many countries do you see w/ military basis here in the states!? Or wait are you talking about any of the other countries like Israel, Egypt, Britain, etc that on top of any military relation, but also political and economic relations (giving them money...), is that what you're talking about? Hrmmm, maybe you don't understand the brevity of what is actually going on in those political alliances and what those countries do for that stuff. Not that I agree w/ ANY of it, just that they aren't just sucking from our teet, there's a bit more complexity to it.

[AlbuquerqueApache]

Has anyone considered Ron Paul? He's a Constitionalist/Libertarian and I really like his ideas of non-interference in foreign wars and economic policy.

[lordofduct]

I already know who I'm voting for...

[xclite]

I thought I disliked Ron Paul for educational views, but upon further research it's Rand Paul that wants to allow local communities to control education. Yay for widening that gap!

[Craig328]

lordofduct, on 26 April 2011 - 02:29 PM, said:

I already know who I'm voting for...

/damn...burned a finger on that hot link

This post has been edited by Craig328: 26 April 2011 - 12:36 PM

[Craig328]

As an American first and identifying myself with a particular political party second, I'm pretty discouraged with what we have to choose from in the voting booth each election cycle. Giant douche v. Turd sammich is not what this country deserves...but it's what we get.

I don't much care for Obama now that he's been in the job for a bit. He turned out as I feared he would: overmatched by events, clueless, rudderless in the absence of opinion polls, too bound to dogma and, quite simply, no change whatsoever. I really wanted to be wrong about him (for the good of the country) but it didn't turn out that way. He's just more of the same...except less capable.

The rest of the field...well, it's way early yet. I doubt Obama will get any challenge from his own party. He's already in campaign mode and he won't do anything to rock his own boat further. Despite the media making hay about them, it's too soon to be discussing opponents for a November 2012 election. Eighteen months in advance is far enough off that potential candidates aren't really serious about it yet. So far though I've heard Trump, Romney, Gingrich, Giuliani and Palin mentioned as possibles. I think Sarah Palin stays out, personally as she'd be more influential as a king-maker than a king. I think Gingrich has too much baggage to overcome (although I believe he's probably the smartest and most savvy of the lot). Giuliani too has a fair amount of baggage and I just don't think he can ride 9/11 anymore. Trump is an assclown with zero political experience which is what a fair chunk of Obama's detractors didn't like about him...so he's out. That leaves Romney as the one candidate I've heard of that seems like he might have a chance. I like some of the things about him, don't care for others.

I just wish the hell some sanity would prevail and a quality centrist candidate would emerge. I may as well wish for a pony and a million dollars though while I'm at it.

[modi123_1]

AlbuquerqueApache, on 26 April 2011 - 01:19 PM, said:

Has anyone considered Ron Paul? He's a Constitionalist/Libertarian and I really like his ideas of non-interference in foreign wars and economic policy.

Aaaaaaaand that's why I won't vote for him. Isolationism isn't a good plan. Either you make them your bitch or you'll quickly become their bitch. (That's in the prison sense of the term.)

I have a healthy fear that Trump might turn the Presidency into the full fledge reality tv show thus ushering in certain doom that comes with megacorps running countries ala shitty scifi books/movies/comics.

[lordofduct]

The approach I've taken to voting has usually ended up w/ me not voting in the majour two parties. Mainly because it has usually been Giant Douche v. Turd Sammich.

I've had some people comment and say, "yeah but they have no chance". And of course that comes with the usual retort back from 3rd partiers saying "well of course they won't with that attitude".

My response, as well as some others I've met, is a bit broader.



There are ~311 million people in the United States of America, and we all 'have a voice'. But it's really hard for your voice to be heard when everyone is clammering and screaming about their own deal. I bet feel I yell over them just as much as I feel they yell over me. And there's only a few places where our voices are recorded... very very few. Voting is probably the only place. Yes it's a tiny fraction, but at least my volume is heard just as clearly as your volume. A fair playing ground for the both of us. Other camps can get blown up and seem larger than they are because of media and money. It can appear as if they have greater numbers because some well funded pundit organizes a 'rally' for them. But in a vote a Liberal, a Tea Party, a Green Part, and a Republican all are relatively equal... one share each.

Now I'm not going to waste that moment on 'voting for the better evil'. I take that chance to send a small message that there are people out there that believe a certain thing. I vote for the specific group or individual that actually stands for what I believe in... shit that person I might not think would even be an effective President because of their inability to work with other politicians. I want that message sent that I AGREE w/ this individual.

Those people who vote 'Ron Paul' and 'Ralph Nader', even those guys that vote 'Optimus Prime'. You go! Screw the Dems and Republicans when they say you lost some election, screw the sheep who tell you your vote was thrown away because Al Sharpton could never be President. When some off candidate blips up with a 4% dwarfed by Republicans and Dems, it's still us saying "hey fuck you, we think you're both jackasses!"





... sorry, wearing my 'Underdog' shirt today.

[Craig328]

And to be completely honest, I'm good with 3rd party candidates being on the ballot and garnering their votes. Without it, we might could have had President Gore.

The biggest problem with 3rd party candidates is they're all doing it wrong. You cannot start at the top (the presidency) and work your way down. You need to form your party, take some local elections, then some state elections and finally a governorship. The problems have always been a lack of patience and a lack of stature. For whatever their merits, I don't think the Libertarian party will ever be a serious 3rd party. They run "who?" candidates and the common voter doesn't know how a Libertarian government would directly benefit them.

The best chance for a viable 3rd party forming actually already exists with the Tea Party folk. IF the Republicans continue to back away from the promises made to the Tea Party folk elected you could easily see an ideological split within the party with the Tea Party breaking off to form their own organization. And yes, that would immediately guarantee a Democrat majority across the board in the following election. Thing is, for as poor as the Democrats did with Obama's first 2 years in office where they had the White House and both houses of Congress...that might be exactly the impetus a 3rd party needs to gain support. I'm not saying I'm a supporter of such a party, BTW...it's just that historically, that's how new parties in America have formed.

[lordofduct]

Actually a good deal of 3rd parties do start small and build up. Green party and Socialist party has been in local governments for a long time.

[Craig328]

They both run presidential candidates who get completely ignored. That ignorance is transferred to local candidates. If you can safely ignore their top guy, you can surely safely ignore the Green candidate running for county commission.

What I'm saying is, you simply don't run a national candidate until you are competitive in a local then state arena.

[lordofduct]

I don't agree. Because then I wouldn't have anyone to vote for come presidential election, there is a less chance that there is someone running that actually meets what I believe in and instead I'm back to 'selecting between the better of two evils'.

[Craig328]

You're free to disagree all you like. Doesn't make what I said any less truthful. Unless a party has a well known personality who can command an audience with the media, running a no-name candidate for president who will 100% be ignored doesn't help the image of the party.

In the past 100 years, only 2 people could really say they fit the bill for a 3rd party: Theodore Roosevelt and Sarah Palin. Aside from that, nobody but nobody knew who Brian Moore was, for instance, and as a result they also ignored the party he represented. His obscurity became the party's obscurity.

[Sethro117]

If Trump became president it'd be like that movie War Inc.

[lordofduct]

Is there a reason you validate your statements with lines like "You're free to disagree all you like. Doesn't make what I said any less truthful."?

I said:

"I don't agree"

that kind of implies I know this is opinion and that I'm allowed to think what I want. When I make a counter statement doesn't mean I'm saying "I'm right, you're wrong", I'm saying "I hear your statement, here is my response."

Your statement may be truthful in some measure, that wasn't what I was driving at. My point from my original post about 3rd parties to now is that sometimes 3rd parties aren't running just to win. There's more to an election and politics than just 'winning'. And that was my statement, nothing about a measure in your 'truthful'ness.

Don't worry, I'm not trying to prove you wrong. You'll know when I am, because I'll say "you're wrong".

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 26 April 2011 - 01:38 PM