Anyone look seriously at the third party candidates?

pete240z wrote: they end up being throw away votes.

Pete, you live in Illinois. Do you really think it matters who you vote for? NO. Barack is gonna take the state by a landslide. I don't know if you've noticed it or not, but people here are in love with the idiot.

Jensenman wrote: There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

Well, there are three, really... but replacement is usually proffered in place of amendment during the terms of surrender :)

EastCoastMojo wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote:

carguy123 wrote: You have to band together against the evil.

And when the top 2 candidates are varying degrees of evil?

I believe Mae West put it well when she said, "When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never tried before."

I got tired of voting for evil.

As Bob Barr's platform is the only one I could stand, I voted for him.

Benjamin Franklin, 1759 said:Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

GregTivo wrote:

Benjamin Franklin, 1759 said:Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

It is as likely that Benjamin Franklin said that as it is that George Carlin wrote all that spam attributed to him... but in trying to find the source of the quote I came across this lovely little ditty:

A Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.

A Republic: The flock gets to vote for which wolves vote on dinner.

A Constitutional Republic: Voting on dinner is expressly forbidden, and the sheep are armed.

Federal Government: The means by which the sheep will be fooled into voting for a Democracy.

Freedom: Two very hungry wolves looking for dinner and finding a very well-informed and well-armed sheep.

GameboyRMH wrote: Yes unfortunately once a country gets locked into a two-party system there's no way out.

I think the Whigs and Know Nothings would beg to differ. It took only six years for the Republican party to go from being nonexistent (founded in 1854) to having a sitting president, so there's no guarantee that the current two parties will be the last ones to ever gain favor.

I can't stand it this year. Government ruins everything it touches, so I'm voting Libertarian just because they'll touch less stuff. I also believe that voting for a third party at least puts some pressure on the two current parties to try to differentiate themselves from one another in some way instead of saying "I'm more moderate than he is!"

CarGuy123 said:Present day 3rd party candidates are worse than throw away votes as there is no hope of them being elected so don't brag about being able to sleep afterward. You actively helped elect the wrong person by not voting for the right person.

Normally, I would agree. However, this time it makes virtually no difference. They both suck donkey balls.

I am waiting to see if my state (PA) will matter. If it will, I will cross myself, grit my teeth, and pull the McCain lever. But I'll be cussing up a storm as I leave the booth. If the PA race is not going to be close, Bob Barr it is, because I truly support about 85% of his platform vs the 15% of the other two bozos. I don't believe any vote is 'wasted'. I just think there are times when the tide of supidity simply can't be turned by the few intelligent folks who would vote outside the 2 party system. Either I vote for whom I want, or I stay home. Either way my vote counts the same. Even if PA is close I may still vote my conscience and not my 'fear'.

I am waiting to see if my state (PA) will matter.

According to the talking heads, PA may be the state that matters MOST. Personally, I couldn't, in good conscience, vote for McCain. My wife and I both voted for Barr, though I'd be a liar if I said I didn't stare at the screen for a good 30 seconds and consider voting for McCain.

Jensenman wrote: This country needs involuntary term limits to get rid of the entrenched ruling class. Until then, voting third party really is a waste, exactly as it is if voting for the two entrenched parties.

With all due respect, coming from a state that does have term limits, I can't disagree more.

While I totally see your point in purging the entreched ruling class every once in a while, the only real way to do it is via voting.

Here in Michigan, it's a disaster. You end up with turn over all at the same time, and get a group of congressmen who have no idea how to work together. Our state shut down for a month trying to figure it out. Terrible.

While it "seems" like a great idea, don't forget that government DOES actually do something- police, roads, maitenence, schools, defence, pollution, etc. It's not like your tax dollars are for nothing.

As much as we all have disdain for people in Washington, they are professionals, and most have schooling in public administration. All we hear is the bad side- and keep thinking that when they compromise, that it's bad- which is opposite to the reality of politics- one must compromise to get what you need.

The real problem is that we've all be beaten to death how horrible inside the beltway is, and how corrupt the entire system is, and all the rest of the bad news (especially if they represent someone else), that we all tune out. Once we tune out, and pretty much only pay attention to the bad news, you end up with the lesser of two evils, and campaings more about NOT voting for the other guy.

What we need is citizen engagement. And honesty to vote their real views. Professional politicians are fine as long as they actually have to live with the consequences that we give them.

Eric

alfadriver wrote: While it "seems" like a great idea, don't forget that government DOES actually do something- police, roads, maitenence, schools, defence, pollution, etc. It's not like your tax dollars are for nothing.

If that was all the government did, I don't think I'd be as jaded about the country's future.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

alfadriver wrote: While it "seems" like a great idea, don't forget that government DOES actually do something- police, roads, maitenence, schools, defence, pollution, etc. It's not like your tax dollars are for nothing.

If that was all the government did, I don't think I'd be as jaded about the country's future, have a sore rectum, want to go on killing sprees, or need blood pressure medication.

fixed.

walterj wrote:

GregTivo wrote:

Benjamin Franklin, 1759 said:Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

It is as likely that Benjamin Franklin said that as it is that George Carlin wrote all that spam attributed to him... but in trying to find the source of the quote I came across this lovely little ditty: A Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. A Republic: The flock gets to vote for which wolves vote on dinner. A Constitutional Republic: Voting on dinner is expressly forbidden, and the sheep are armed. Federal Government: The means by which the sheep will be fooled into voting for a Democracy. Freedom: Two very hungry wolves looking for dinner and finding a very well-informed and well-armed sheep.

Yeah, I've also seen version attributed to HL Menken, so who knows. It doesn't really matter though. its a good quote.

as much as it pains me, i'm voting for what i believe is the lesser of two evils for the good of the nation. pooklobama will get us to socialism much faster than mccain, and i kinda like keeping 80% of the fruit of my labor.

i know about the same amount of obama and mccain. obama scares me more than mccain.

GregTivo wrote: As Bob Barr's platform is the only one I could stand, I voted for him.

Same here.

Jensenman wrote: With all due respect, coming from a state that does have term limits, I can't disagree more.

With all due respect, I can't disagree with your disagreement more

While I totally see your point in purging the entreched ruling class every once in a while, the only real way to do it is via voting.

...which the distracted public rarely can bring themselves to do

Here in Michigan, it's a disaster. You end up with turn over all at the same time, and get a group of congressmen who have no idea how to work together. Our state shut down for a month trying to figure it out. Terrible.

Our government shut down in the mid 90's as I recall and most people couldn't care less. A bunch of politicians throwing a hissy fit and refusing to cooperate and approve bills is not the problem, its when they shut down the bureaucracy that problems arise. The bureacracy should be allowed to function past any temporary government shutdown. Turnover at the top therefore shouldn't be allowed to cause a problem.

While it "seems" like a great idea, don't forget that government DOES actually do something- police, roads, maitenence, schools, defence, pollution, etc. It's not like your tax dollars are for nothing.

Mostly, the paid bureacracy polices, builds and maintains infrastructure, runs schools, handles day to day military defense, enforces pollution regulation, etc. My congressman never tackled a criminal nor educated my child AFAIK.

As much as we all have disdain for people in Washington, they are professionals, and most have schooling in public administration. All we hear is the bad side- and keep thinking that when they compromise, that it's bad- which is opposite to the reality of politics- one must compromise to get what you need.

Yeah, but I think if someone becomes entrenched in the give and take of politics for too long, even the most stalwart defender of pragmatism within a certain ideal loses his/her way. Politicians can forget the point of their being elected to congress and simply think of it as any other job, where showing up is 90% of the work.

The real problem is that we've all be beaten to death how horrible inside the beltway is, and how corrupt the entire system is, and all the rest of the bad news (especially if they represent someone else), that we all tune out. Once we tune out, and pretty much only pay attention to the bad news, you end up with the lesser of two evils, and campaings more about NOT voting for the other guy.

if you watch C-SPAN, its easy to see who's been there too long. A freshman politician gets all up in arms over something the public feels is an atrocious breach of trust and the senior politicians all smile and nod at the naivete of the newbie and then proceed to lecture him on how things are done. Congress and the senate become a club determined to keep its members in line. Since they have to live with each other for decades, they lose their desire to really have different opinions. It becomes a tool for the strong willed to gather disciples and direct discussions. For god's sakes, there are "power rankings" for senators and congressmen. Basically, some representatives become more powerful than others and alot of that has to do with how long they've been in the system.

What we need is citizen engagement. And honesty to vote their real views. Professional politicians are fine as long as they actually have to live with the consequences that we give them.

Voters often make mistakes. Let's mitigate those mistakes by minimizing the effect of those mistakes.

Greg

I voted for a so called third party candidate. I don't agree with everything he says, but I cannot vote for one of the other two jokers.

We really do not have two parties - we have really one party that is only two in name, not in action and it's purpose is to serve itself not us, the people.

One of my favorite things I heard this year is "the problem isn't that there is too much money in politics, it's that there is too much power in government." It was said about campaign finance reform and the point is as long as the government has so much power over everything the money will find a way to control and influence those the politicians.

Getting the American p[eople to wake up and not keep sending the same people back to Washington every two years - that is change I can believe in, but change is not going from a Republican in the White House to a Democrat that other than slight differences in their rhetoric have the same policies and whose real goal is obtain and hold on to power.

AngryCorvair wrote: as much as it pains me, i'm voting for what i believe is the lesser of two evils for the good of the nation. pooklobama will get us to socialism much faster than mccain, and i kinda like keeping 80% of the fruit of my labor. i know about the same amount of obama and mccain. obama scares me more than mccain.

keep in mind, 80% of nothing is still nothing. If McCain spends are dollar to oblivion, the effect is still the same as if Obama taxes us to death, but maintains a reasonable value to the dollar by keeping our standing with the world amicable.

I see both as the wrong path (we should cut spending across the board and reduce taxes and restrictions on free trade), so saying Obama is the only way to destruction is not correct.

I also believe that given the right set of circumstances, either candidate could make things better, but I feel their answers are not robust enough for me to trust either to run the country.

GregTivo wrote:

AngryCorvair wrote: as much as it pains me, i'm voting for what i believe is the lesser of two evils for the good of the nation. pooklobama will get us to socialism much faster than mccain, and i kinda like keeping 80% of the fruit of my labor. i know about the same amount of obama and mccain. obama scares me more than mccain.

keep in mind, 80% of nothing is still nothing. If McCain spends are dollar to oblivion, the effect is still the same as if Obama taxes us to death, but maintains a reasonable value to the dollar by keeping our standing with the world amicable. I see both as the wrong path (we should cut spending across the board and reduce taxes and restrictions on free trade), so saying Obama is the only way to destruction is not correct. I also believe that given the right set of circumstances, either candidate could make things better, but I feel their answers are not robust enough for me to trust either to run the country.

Read P's post again. He didn't say McCain good, Obama bad. He said that Obama will get us to socialism faster. They are both on the same track, only with varying degrees of vigor.

I will also say that while the left has been tickling the wealth redistribution tenets of Marx for sometime, it was Bush who was the first to begin nationalization of industry.

GregTivo wrote:

Jensenman wrote: Note: this was not MY statement. SC has no term limits. Now back to your regularly scheduled political argument. With all due respect, coming from a state that does have term limits, I can't disagree more.

With all due respect, I can't disagree with your disagreement more

While I totally see your point in purging the entreched ruling class every once in a while, the only real way to do it is via voting.

...which the distracted public rarely can bring themselves to do

Here in Michigan, it's a disaster. You end up with turn over all at the same time, and get a group of congressmen who have no idea how to work together. Our state shut down for a month trying to figure it out. Terrible.

Our government shut down in the mid 90's as I recall and most people couldn't care less. A bunch of politicians throwing a hissy fit and refusing to cooperate and approve bills is not the problem, its when they shut down the bureaucracy that problems arise. The bureacracy should be allowed to function past any temporary government shutdown. Turnover at the top therefore shouldn't be allowed to cause a problem.

While it "seems" like a great idea, don't forget that government DOES actually do something- police, roads, maitenence, schools, defence, pollution, etc. It's not like your tax dollars are for nothing.

Mostly, the paid bureacracy polices, builds and maintains infrastructure, runs schools, handles day to day military defense, enforces pollution regulation, etc. My congressman never tackled a criminal nor educated my child AFAIK.

As much as we all have disdain for people in Washington, they are professionals, and most have schooling in public administration. All we hear is the bad side- and keep thinking that when they compromise, that it's bad- which is opposite to the reality of politics- one must compromise to get what you need.

Yeah, but I think if someone becomes entrenched in the give and take of politics for too long, even the most stalwart defender of pragmatism within a certain ideal loses his/her way. Politicians can forget the point of their being elected to congress and simply think of it as any other job, where showing up is 90% of the work.

The real problem is that we've all be beaten to death how horrible inside the beltway is, and how corrupt the entire system is, and all the rest of the bad news (especially if they represent someone else), that we all tune out. Once we tune out, and pretty much only pay attention to the bad news, you end up with the lesser of two evils, and campaings more about NOT voting for the other guy.

if you watch C-SPAN, its easy to see who's been there too long. A freshman politician gets all up in arms over something the public feels is an atrocious breach of trust and the senior politicians all smile and nod at the naivete of the newbie and then proceed to lecture him on how things are done. Congress and the senate become a club determined to keep its members in line. Since they have to live with each other for decades, they lose their desire to really have different opinions. It becomes a tool for the strong willed to gather disciples and direct discussions. For god's sakes, there are "power rankings" for senators and congressmen. Basically, some representatives become more powerful than others and alot of that has to do with how long they've been in the system.

What we need is citizen engagement. And honesty to vote their real views. Professional politicians are fine as long as they actually have to live with the consequences that we give them.

Voters often make mistakes. Let's mitigate those mistakes by minimizing the effect of those mistakes. Greg

Our political system is winner-takes-all, and that will default to two parties each trying to appeal to 51% of the voters. A third party candidate will never get elected.

However, that doesn't mean third parties are useless. The two major parties will use them as sounding boards. When an independent party (small 'i') starts saying thing that people really like, one or both major parties will appropriate it and use it as their own.

The independent parties won't hold offices, but they can shape the philosophical-political landscape of our country.

Uhg - learn how to quote autocrosser!

sorry jensenman, deleted the wrong name in the post, my bad.

48 posts and no one has given me any detailed information about a single candidate.

Uggh.

I expected more of you guys.

Politicians get addicted to the bribery and fawning and butt kissery and begin to feel they are above the laws they pass. We need look no further than the Congressional pension and health care plans to see that. Or to look at the likes of Ted Stevens to see what happens when you get too comfortable up there. I have had dealings with a couple of elected officials here in SC and they have the same attitude after being in office for too long.

Good examples: Google 'Jim Clyburn' and 'Lone Star bridge' to see our own version of the Alaska 'bridge to nowhere'. Projected cost: $75 million, including connector roads. Population of Lone Star: 1,066. There are two other roads which connect Lone Star with I-95, all the proposed bridge would do is knock about 15 miles off the trip. He allegedly has dropped the project due to pressure, but recent newspaper reports have him lobbying behind the scenes in preparation to bring it up yet again.

Or 'Glen McConnell' and 'Hunley submarine' to see how state funds get poured into pet projects. How about some $30 million so far to cover raising, storing and restoration of the Hunley and now he wants another $38 million for a museum. He claims the museum would be self supporting. Yeah, right. He's a Civil War nut (he owns a Civil War memorabilia store) and sees nothing wrong with dumping state money into his pet project. He also has threatened to block moving the sub from its current storage spot if his specs for the museum are not met. He's basically wanting different municipalities to bid agaist each other with our tax dollars for the right to display the thing.

Or on a smaller scale: the South Carolina Aquarium. The thing was built with tax money over the objections of quite a few in our state. Joe Riley, mayor of Charleston, swore up and down the thing would be self supporting once built. Guess what: it's been done for about 7 years now and has run at least a half million dollars in the red every year. Of course the good mayor pulls strings and gets the Legislature to make up the deficit.

My wish list:

Yank the current crop out of office.

Put term limits in place for all elected officials.

Subject them to the same health and retirement plans we get.

Pass a balanced budget amendment.

Capital punishment for governmental corruption.

Problem fixed. Of course, afterwards there won't be a whole lot of people chomping at the bit to get elected, but I would think that is a good thing.

Jensenman wrote: Politicians get addicted to the bribery and fawning and butt kissing and begin to feel they are above the laws they pass. We need look no further than the Congressional pension and health care plans to see that. Or to look at the likes of Ted Stevens to see what happens when you get too comfortable up there. My wish list: Yank the current crop out of office. Put term limits in place for all elected officials. Subject them to the same health and retirement plans we get. Pass a balanced budget amendment. Capital punishment for governmental corruption. Problem fixed. Of course, there won't be a whole lot of people chomping at the bit to get elected, but I would think that is a good thing.

You forgot any lobbyist that attempts to give a gift of even a breath mint or single penny is subject to the "Log Chipper of Justice". They are only allowed to use their persuasive skills at the microphone.