OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Beyer160 said:
This is true.

The point of voting libertarian at this stage isn't even the candidates themselves, it's about having more choices in the long run. Today, a tiny party like the libertarians just doesn't attract more qualified/capable candidates because they can't offer them what the big parties can in terms of money, visibility, and the chance to actually, you know, win. This will change if the party gets more viable through funding, visibility and support, and this will mean changes for the party, too.

Right now the 2-party system has a stranglehold on American politics, and that has to be broken.
Click to expand...

You're preaching to the choir. I voted for Nader in 2000 for that reason. Luckily I live in VA where Gore had no shot of winning. I'd be kicking myself if I lived in FL then and voted Nader. I think if a third party emerges, it will also change the policies of the other 2.
 
sunvalleylaw said:
Truth is a defense. And there is opinion involved in what constitutes "serial". But in any case, I think the record shows that he is.
Click to expand...

yea, but i would love for him to get it into court and then have USA Today replay every single vid of him lying and then have him loose.
and then maybe counter sue him for 10 billion.....oh wait....:grin:
 
Chad said:
No, it is broken because of the money. Get rid of the money and set term limits and it will be way better. Problem is the people that need to do that are the ones who benefit from it.
Click to expand...

Def. Plus instant runoff voting.

Though I bet once Hillary is POTUS, and she gets her GOP approved SCOTUS in, that Citizens United remains firmly in place. The establishment dems have more or less as much to benefit from that as the reps.
 
Last edited:
sonik said:
Def. Plus instant runoff voting.

Though I bet once Hillary is POTUS, and she gets her GOP approved SCOTUS in, that Citizens United remains firmly in place. The establishment dems have more or less as much to benefit from that as the reps.
Click to expand...

when all the platform postering is over, and they're behind closed doors, the establishment dems are pretty much the same as the establishment reps.
(and controlled by the same corp's)
 
sonik said:
Though I bet once Hillary is POTUS, and she gets her GOP approved SCOTUS in, that Citizens United remains firmly in place. The establishment dems have more or less as much to benefit from that as the reps.
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t be so sure about that. Trump has proven that there’s a strong populist mood in the GOP now. If Hillary can find a few allies on the right who will frame this the way Trump does—all politicians are always for sale—she can stir up millions of angry voters to shape the court against Citizens United. And given the huge number of young populists entering the voting system, business might prefer a court that would overturn the decision to the possibility of a populist polity amending the constitution.
 
jp_nyc said:
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. Trump has proven that there’s a strong populist mood in the GOP now. If Hillary can find a few allies on the right who will frame this the way Trump does—all politicians are always for sale—she can stir up millions of angry voters to shape the court against Citizens United. And given the huge number of young populists entering the voting system, business might prefer a court that would overturn the decision to the possibility of a populist polity amending the constitution.
Click to expand...
I like this version. Whether it will happen or not remains to be seen. But voting for Stein or Johnson isn't going to get it done either.
 
sunvalleylaw said:
I like this version. Whether it will happen or not remains to be seen. But voting for Stein or Johnson isn't going to get it done either.
Click to expand...
i understand the reasoning that some would vote for stein or johnson, but the reality is (and i've said this many times) voting for them is virtually a vote for trump.
 
Flamencology said:
I think that the best way to get rid of a 2-party system is to petition hard for instant-runoff voting.
Click to expand...

It's a little more involved than petitioning. We'd need a constitutional amendment. Besides, when a large percentage of the people doing the voting think things like global warming is a hoax and the presidents was not born in America, trying to get them to rank the candidates may not be too easy :grin:
 
Help!I'maRock! said:
Trump voters say it's a vote for Clinton.
Click to expand...


They are both right. Anything that takes a potential vote away from one potential winner is one less vote the other potential winner needs.

It culls the weak and undecided from the pool of voters that actually decide who will be elected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top