What's new
By:
Filters

3rd Party Options

N

northeast

Well-Known Member
I realize that there is not much point, but I am not planning on supporting either Romney or Obama. Even though Obama is clearly the better of the 2, he blew his chance to fight for some progressive change, and I will give him some feedback on that.

My vote does not count anyway, so I'll probably just write in Nader or Ron Paul.
Is there anyone else out there I should know about?
 
northeast said:
I realize that there is not much point, but I am not planning on supporting either Romney or Obama. Even though Obama is clearly the better of the 2, he blew his chance to fight for some progressive change, and I will give him some feedback on that.

My vote does not count anyway, so I'll probably just write in Nader or Ron Paul.
Is there anyone else out there I should know about?
Click to expand...

Why? It's like jerking off to a centerfold of fatass magazine. What's the point?
 
your crowd is having a bad influence on you.
You could be a valuable member of society, but you choose to be the class clown.

(PKM, not Weezer. Weezer is awesome.)
 
northeast said:
I realize that there is not much point, but I am not planning on supporting either Romney or Obama. Even though Obama is clearly the better of the 2, he blew his chance to fight for some progressive change, and I will give him some feedback on that.

My vote does not count anyway, so I'll probably just write in Nader or Ron Paul.
Is there anyone else out there I should know about?
Click to expand...

Nader and Paul are very different. I probably won't take the time to vote. But Rocky Anderson would be awesome! I'd also love to vote for Jon Huntsman, since he's one of the few politicians with any kind of integrity.
 
The two party system is inadequate to cover all the many stances. Having only two view poitns to cover the dozens of topics doesnt cut it.

Abortion, jobs, ecomony, enviroment, military, boarder security, immigrations, gay marriage...two many topics and to many differing opinions for only 2 candidates to cover it all.

However a viable third party will never happen. Regardless of need.
 
Stoked said:
The two party system is inadequate to cover all the many stances. Having only two view poitns to cover the dozens of topics doesnt cut it.

Abortion, jobs, ecomony, enviroment, military, boarder security, immigrations, gay marriage...two many topics and to many differing opinions for only 2 candidates to cover it all.

However a viable third party will never happen. Regardless of need.
Click to expand...

The system was fine when there actually was a difference between candidates. A system with only a few parties (say 3) is more efficient and streamlined than European parliamentary democracy. You don't have to waste time forging alliances, and the losing parties don't become completely irrelevant. American politics also encourage centrism and pragmatism, which is a more stable approach than the ups and downs of parliamentary governments.

But since the government has been hijacked by special interests, there is no longer any meaningful distinction between the candidates. Liberals like to talk about how terrible Bush is, and conservatives continuously attack Obama, but that's only because the media works 24/7 to create an illusion of choice so that the drama keep rolling and the people keep watching. In reality, most of the differences are just in rhetoric. There is very little distinction in policy once a candidate actually gets the job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top