I thought this was funny...

Gato_Solo

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
until I got to this part...

There is an anger and alienation brewing against both parties in the Texas electorate -- they are frustrated by the excesses of the Republican establishment, but can’t bring themselves to align with the Democrats because they’re allergic to the lack of common sense they see on the liberal left.

This mirrors a national trend: Across the nation, in states that register voters by party there has been an average 300 percent increase in the number of independent, or non-affiliated, voters since Texan Ross Perot’s independent run for the presidency in 1992.
Click to expand...
 
Leslie said:
:confuse3:
Click to expand...

People voting for that guy just because he's not affiliated with either party. It shows a distinct drift towards chaos. If you're voting for somebody for who they aren't, instead of who they are, then you've already lost your way.
 
Ah, but you can vote for someone because of who they are AND who they aren`t.
Multi party systems ain`t that bad man. Choice is good.

http://www.ndp.ca/

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.blocquebecois.org/fr/default.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dbloc%2Bcanada%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26rls%3DWZPA,WZPA:2006-06,WZPA:en

http://www.greenparty.ca/


some Joe who doesn`t like the system can over time become a viable alternative. I can vote solely on what a group or person stands on and not be limited to two options.
 
Leslie said:
Ah, but you can vote for someone because of who they are AND who they aren`t.
Multi party systems ain`t that bad man. Choice is good.

http://www.ndp.ca/

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.blocquebecois.org/fr/default.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dbloc%2Bcanada%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26rls%3DWZPA,WZPA:2006-06,WZPA:en

http://www.greenparty.ca/


some Joe who doesn`t like the system can become a viable alternative.
Click to expand...

While I agree that a multi-party system is best, they are picking this guy because they are fed up with the other two parties. It shows a distinct lack of thought.
 
so is just voting one way for a lifetime cause it is the closest to your way of thinking. Either way it is sheeplike.

A big benefit to other people on the table is that they will bring into question the old standbys and what they stand for, and make them be accountable for what they do and say. Because now there *is* another option, and they can`t rest on their laurels anymore.

And, this guy could someday become a viable alternative with his own good platform if he got half a chance, if he`s any good. Right now he`s campaigning on that idea because it will get him attention That`s PR. He needs the audience, obviously. There will come a point when he has to state what he wants to do and run on that. Then it will all come out in the wash.
 
Leslie said:
so is just voting one way for a lifetime cause it is the closest to your way of thinking. Either way it is sheeplike.

A big benefit to other people on the table is that they will bring into question the old standbys and what they stand for, and make them be accountable for what they do and say. Because now there *is* another option, and they can`t rest on their laurels anymore.

And, this guy could someday become a viable alternative with his own good platform if he got half a chance.
Click to expand...

I don't...but I know quite a few people who do that as well as the "He's not [fill in the blank]" crowd. I actually find the latter more appalling than the the former. "Knee-jerk" voting can actually make things worse, because you have no idea what you're getting until it's too late. I'd much rather they said that they were petitioning him to get a fresh start rather than what they did say. :shrug:
 
I am more apt to read and study what an alternative group is proposing, definitely. But I won`t vote for them just cause they`re there. NDP was there for years and I just could not do it. I have to be behind what they`re saying to actually do the deed.

I found the Green Party to be viable for the first time this time around.

There`s sheep on both sides of the coin. Luckily, for the old standbys, they have more sheep on their side. The alternatives definitely have to do more than just `not be that guy` to get anywhere in the end. But they have to get their names out there first, so they can be heard. By whatever means necessary.
 
Leslie said:
There`s sheep on both sides of the coin. Luckily, for the old standbys, they have more sheep on their side. The alternatives definitely have to do more than just `not be that guy` to get anywhere in the end. But they have to get their names out there first, so they can be heard. By whatever means necessary.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything but the last sentence. There is a such thing as 'too extreme'. ;)
 
Leslie said:
so is just voting one way for a lifetime cause it is the closest to your way of thinking. Either way it is sheeplike.
Click to expand...


No ma'am. Voting one way, all your life, because of an affiliation is sheep-like. Voting one way all your life because it is closest to your way of thinking is the way it should work. Why would anyone vote for someone because they disagreed with them?
 
Gato_Solo said:
People voting for that guy just because he's not affiliated with either party. It shows a distinct drift towards chaos. If you're voting for somebody for who they aren't, instead of who they are, then you've already lost your way.
Click to expand...
That's the only reason I briefly considered Nader, but didn't vote for him
because he was almost a whacked as Kerry.

I did vote Perot, and still think we'd be better off if he had gotten it, instead of Bill.
 
In 30 years, I have only ever voted for one presidential candidate because of who he was. In every other case I voted against someone rather than for someone. I seriously believe that the mjority of voters vote this way. Most of the people I talk to do. It's gotten more pronounced recently, but it's nothing new. As for voting for someone simply because he's affiliated with neither major party, I attribute that to more and more people concluding that the only real difference between democrats and republicans is marketing. It makes no difference whatsoever in the day to day lives of 99% of the citizenry who is in or who is out.

OTOH, read Kinky's platform. It's not as far out there as you think. I suspect a fair few Texans support him for what he stands for rather than the banner he's running under.
 
I would remind all that ..... the PQ in Quebec got voted in the first time .... not by separatists, but because people were fed up with the Liberals under Bourassa. They continue to get voted in by non-seps for the same reason. The ADQ, in their first couple of years, accumulated nearly 30% of the vote ... simply because they're neither.
 
catocom said:
At least here's one local man that I've voted for from the start, and have
been happy with so far.
It'd take a helluva lot for me to vote him out.

http://www.house.gov/deal/
Click to expand...

There are good ones. Rarer than hens teeth but they're out there.

Boy howdy them Canuckistanis have weird politics, huh?
 
chcr said:
Boy howdy them Canuckistanis have weird politics, huh?
Click to expand...
I'm not that familiar with their system really. :lloyd:
I think Ours is weird. I think popular vote is best, not college.
Of coarse I have in mind a whole different system that makes more sense
to me, but I won't go into that now. :nerd:
 
Well see, under MY system, we'd go back to landowners, and their immediate families only.
This just showing an ID (registered or not) would definitely end.
 
catocom said:
Well see, under MY system, we'd go back to landowners, and their immediate families only.
This just showing an ID (registered or not) would definitely end.
Click to expand...

:hmm: Definitely unfair. :hmm:

I believe that the no rights should be given unless you complete 4 years of honorable military service. They should be earned, not given. :devious:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top