Hate to Say it ... but I miss this Guy

[BigK]

Thanks for the lesson on viability. Surely that's what the founders wanted us base our votes on...

You are absolutely right! Our founding fathers were idealists and they would truly be ashamed of the 2-party system we've allowed to take root.

It's just hard to be a pragmatist and an idealist, so tough choices must be made.

Edited July 11, 2012 by BigK

[RobertNashville]

Distance makes the heart grow fond and this was resembling a lot of stroking. As far as the point of the thread, you brought up Kerry and the idea that there is ever only two options after I pointed out his greatest legacy to our posterity.

Thanks for the lesson on viability. Surely that's what the founders wanted us base our votes on...

Viability is what it is...there were only two viable options in 2000 and in 2004 just as there are only two in 2012 - beating one's head against that brick wall about it won't change that; it will only make our head bloody.

It isn't fond memories of GWB that causes me say I would rather he be president than Obummer nor that causes me to say that GWB was a better President than Kerry or Gore would could have ever been; it's observation, logic and pragmatism. Warts and all, including the Patriot Act, GWB was clearly a better choice against his two opponents and I do not and never will regret voting for him...were it possible and he were running today against Obummer I'd gladly vote for him again.

That's why I miss that guy.

[sigmtnman]

And that is the beauty of our great nation. You are free to believe as you desire and not to have ideas or ideals forced upon you.

[RobertNashville]

And that is the beauty of our great nation. You are free to believe as you desire and not to have ideas or ideals forced upon you.

Agreed.

[stick1]

And this attitude is exactly why we are in the situation we are.

Yeah just like Ross Perot weve been there done that.

[sigmtnman]

Yeah just like Ross Perot weve been there done that.

Yeah and if everyone who sat around saying he had no chance had voted for him, we may not be in the predicament we find ourselves. Where is the dignity in voting vote for who you think others will support instead of who you want? If you truly supported the other fellow and his 1000 points of light and his new world order, then good on you for voting for him. If you did it because Perot had no chance of winning, well, that's another story.]

Not that I liked or voted Perot, just saying that the cow toeing of the party line based on media BS is to the detriment of our country.

Edited July 11, 2012 by sigmtnman

[TMF]

I disagree. I think voting for fringe parties IS a wasted vote. Furthermore, I think it is the strength of the 2 major parties that got us into this situation.

Party affiliations were created to categorize candidates. Without these categorizations, most voters couldn't spend the time needed to learn every candidate's position on the major topics in order to vote more accurately. Some of us do lean strongly to one side or another, but the majority of America, like it or not, is in the middle. The whole battle is to lean JUST far enough to one side or another and keep the center on your side.

Wanting viable 3rd or 4th party choices that are more closely aligned with your beliefs is natural and admirable. I understand and agree with your principles completely. However, there's too much at risk for both sides to back a 3rd or 4th party that has no chance of winning. Sure, the Republicans are no longer conservative enough for most of us, but they're more conservative than the Democraps.

We cannot afford 4 more years of this crap, so NOT voting for Romney truly IS like voting for Obama.

It wouldn't be impossible to challenge the two party system with viable candidates if people started caring at the beginning of a term rather than waiting until 1 year before an election when the two parties are already choosing our future leader for us. Even if we never get a third party candidate in there (which obviously ain't gonna happen) we should still show our power to the two parties to let them know we don't approve of where we're headed. Simply re-elect no one. Once incumbents realize that they're going to be fired at the end of their terms if certain criteria isn't met maybe they'll start focusing on what's important. Sounds great in theory, but Americans are too divided over silly issues to focus on the important stuff. It's a simple concept, fire everyone.

[stick1]

its a 2 party thing and thats probably not gonna change very soon , so if you vote for the 3rd party man you are looking for weakness in the 1st and 2nd parties voting base but if only one of the 1st or 2nd parties voters show a vote of support for the 3rd party then the only accomplishment of the 3rd was to hand victory to either opponent but not win himself thats why with the 2 party system you have left leaning or right leaning canidates within each party and it is all about the money in the end Im not saying its right but Im not falling for the 3rd party utopian promise either

[sigmtnman]

And the road to hell is paved with good intentions or at the very least folks supporting the crap served up by the two "parties".

Edited July 11, 2012 by sigmtnman

[vontar]

He's better than what we've had for the past three and a half years.

understatement. I feel in the past couple years we have really lost place in being a world leader. That is change we can do with out.

[runco]

I still miss him. Regarding his policies and whatnot, presidents are really powerless with the approval of congress. Though presidents may have some policy making abilities through the executive branch, the president really does not have alot of power, congress does. Just think if the republicans had control of the Senate, how powerless O would be today. We were so close in 2010 of having the Senate. Remember, the Dcrats did go along with Bush back in 2001, 2002, etc. So this pinpointing Bush blaming is just an overplayed Dcrats playbook that gained traction because a immoral society does not want a moral president. If Romey is elected, and is deemed moral, the same Bush basing will happen to him. Just think the immoral president before Bush, lied to congress, betrayed his wife, and yet, was loved by society and is still cherished. I think Clinton was a very disgraceful president, and deserves alot more bashing than Bush. I believe Clinton is alot more responsbile for today's economy woes than Bush. The mortgage crisis actually was result of policy changes under Clinton, not Bush. Bad day at work, just venting! I need to go to the range really bad!!!!

[Guest ThePunisher]

And that is the beauty of our great nation. You are free to believe as you desire and not to have ideas or ideals forced upon you.

If Obama gets four more years, you are going to have a lot of things you won't like forced upon you. The ball and chains are going to get heavy.

[sigmtnman]

Then it will be no different than the other presidents who have forced their balls on us.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Sigmtnman, I suspect that you really are an Obama supporter if you cannot find fault and see the disaster Obama is bringing upon our nation, and see that Obama is the most dangerous POTUS we've ever had. Pull that lever for Obama, if that's your wish, but don't complain when you have to start saying comrade to your fellow commies.

[stick1]

Sigmtnman, I suspect that you really are an Obama supporter if you cannot find fault and see the disaster Obama is bringing upon our nation, and see that Obama is the most dangerous POTUS we've ever had. Pull that lever for Obama, if that's your wish, but don't complain when you have to start saying comrade to your fellow commies.

+1

[sigmtnman]

OK. If you don't agree with someone it's always easier call names and make accusations.

Are we still in high school?

[BigK]

It wouldn't be impossible to challenge the two party system with viable candidates if people started caring at the beginning of a term rather than waiting until 1 year before an election when the two parties are already choosing our future leader for us. Even if we never get a third party candidate in there (which obviously ain't gonna happen) we should still show our power to the two parties to let them know we don't approve of where we're headed. Simply re-elect no one. Once incumbents realize that they're going to be fired at the end of their terms if certain criteria isn't met maybe they'll start focusing on what's important. Sounds great in theory, but Americans are too divided over silly issues to focus on the important stuff. It's a simple concept, fire everyone.

I'm all for term limits for congress anyway, so bring on the "FIRE EVERYONE" concept. I'm all for it. Now that everyone in Washington is a career politician, they'll never pass laws to prevent it.

So how do you position a new party to be viable? Please vote here ==> http://www.tngunowne...le-were-in-now/ <==

Edited July 12, 2012 by BigK

[sigmtnman]

Eh. How about we do it like jury duty except no lawyers allowed and only provide a cot and 3 squares while in Washington. All laws in plain English and no longer than one sentence.

Or, we just go back to the original 10.