“Change” might mean condemning millions.

[newrayz]

you can’t just give up party politics. As much as you may hate it, its so deeply woven into our governments way of doing things that is would never ever happen.

[MasterP]

.cb new_rayz said:

you can’t just give up party politics. As much as you may hate it, its so deeply woven into our governments way of doing things that is would never ever happen.

Every government on the planet that has real elections has at least 2 major parties. It’s not just a US thing.

[Nebs]

Maybe, but many of them also have more than 2 that actually have a shot at being elected. Our system of parties is complete bs.

[MasterP]

Nebs said:

Maybe, but many of them also have more than 2 that actually have a shot at being elected. Our system of parties is complete bs.

If our 3rd parties weren’t narrowly tailored to the interests of a single issue they would be able to compete. It’s not BS, people don’t vote solely for tree hugging or “independent”/anti-everything ideals. They vote for the party that represents them best, minus a few minorities who vote for their interests but that’s a different issue.

[Nebs]

The constitution is not a single issue, though I don’t see the constitution party with any traction. That’s but one example.

[MasterP]

MasterP said:

anti-everything ideals.

It’s never about the Constitution.

 

Maybe I should have mentioned the candidate can’t be a nutjob.

[Nickname]

MasterP said:

If our 3rd parties weren’t narrowly tailored to the interests of a single issue they would be able to compete. It’s not BS, people don’t vote solely for tree hugging or “independent”/anti-everything ideals. They vote for the party that represents them best, minus a few minorities who vote for their interests but that’s a different issue.

BS. The reason we don’t get third party involvement is because the republicans and democrats make it nearly impossible for a third party to compete. If you want to run for office as a republican or democrat , you pay a small fee and they throw your name up on the ballot (I am referring to smaller, local offices obviously). If you are running as a third party its not that easy. You have to (a) pay a larger fee and ( get petitions from a large number of voters just to get your name on the ballots. As for presidential candidates, they can’t get invited to participate in the debates unless they have something like 10% of the popular vote already… and if they cant get on the debate they really dont stand a chance. The system is setup to favor the red or blue even though probably 40% of americans fall somewhere in between.

 

Also, if you think all the third parties are “narrowly tailored to the interests of a single issue”, I suggest you take a look at the Libertarian and Constitution party platforms, they are much more robust than the Republican or Democratic party platforms.

[Nebs]

Well said

[MasterP]

Nickname said:

If you want to run for office as a republican or democrat , you pay a small fee and they throw your name up on the ballot (I am referring to smaller, local offices obviously). If you are running as a third party its not that easy. You have to (a) pay a larger fee

The fee is the same, the party subsidizes most of it. Not their fault.

 

Nickname said:

( get petitions from a large number of voters just to get your name on the ballots.

It’s the same number of petitions for all candidates. I signed a petition to get Bush on the ballot in 2004. Larger parties have a stronger grassroots base so it’s easier to get the signatures but it’s not biased.

 

Nickname said:

As for presidential candidates, they can’t get invited to participate in the debates unless they have something like 10% of the popular vote already… and if they cant get on the debate they really dont stand a chance.

If we let every crackpot with 1% of the vote on stage we’d never get anywhere. Plus someone would have to dress up like Darth Vader or Washington because they both get a good number of write ins.

 

Nickname said:

The system is setup to favor the red or blue even though probably 40% of americans fall somewhere in between.

That’s because neither party has a real base anymore, they both try to cater to everyone and in the process please no one. I don’t consider myself a republican because almost none of the candidates this last run represented any of my ideals. That doesn’t mean I would have voted for Ron Paul or Darth Vader because their ideals are MILES away from mine. You don’t have to cater to not have relatively radical ideals.

 

Nickname said:

Also, if you think all the third parties are “narrowly tailored to the interests of a single issue”, I suggest you take a look at the Libertarian and Constitution party platforms, they are much more robust than the Republican or Democratic party platforms.

I stand by my claim. I’ll even throw out an arbitrary predication that 90% of the parties are narrowly tailored. Prove me wrong in a seperate debate.

 

Back to the topic: This guy shouldn’t have been fired. It was wrong. Obama should have been focusing on hiring people that paid their taxes instead of axing competant employees.

[MajorMajorMajor]

[newrayz]

MajorMajorMajor said:

 

-1 major, not fair =/

 

and to keep it on topic:

 

Obama should have kept him on. I would imagine the doctor still helping even though he got fired. He sounds like that kinda dude.

[YouWinGameOver]

MasterP said:

If our 3rd parties weren’t narrowly tailored to the interests of a single issue they would be able to compete. It’s not BS, people don’t vote solely for tree hugging or “independent”/anti-everything ideals. They vote for the party that represents them best, minus a few minorities who vote for their interests but that’s a different issue.

 

 

Israel has more than 15 parties and they are all considered to be major and not tailored to individual.

[Author]

Posts