Could/would you change your political side?

[Darin]

Anyone else for strict term limits, and also part time legislators? I don't believe politicians should hold a full time position, or even a paid one.

No REAL positive change is ever going to happen from either party. The only real change that would benefit Americans would be far less government and government leaders. But that's never going to happen. So we have to just make our best educated choice that is presented to us at the time.


Would anyone consider voting 3rd party? I would, and might depending on what I hear in the remaining debates.

[CosmicDebris]

Term limits, line item veto, and other at all good idea but have been voted down each time they come up. Just those two alone would make a huge difference but I won't hold my breath waiting. Perhaps we can have a congressional hearing on why Jems are so expensive.

[jemsite]

YES ON TERM LIMITS.

Cid - more excuses. D & R vote party lines... all the more reason to get a 3rd party viable.

i'm just ROTF at anyone happy about someone voting 95+ % with GWB. Lets get real folks... glen

[elcid]

Originally Posted by Darin

Would anyone consider voting 3rd party? I would, and might depending on what I hear in the remaining debates.

I would imagine most people would vote for a third party, but none of them have the money to compete with the big two. So we are left with one guy who just talks about being a POW and one guy who just talks about change without explaining how the change will happen or what exactly will change, and people clap for both of them like trained seals.

If you dont vote McCain you dont like old people and if you dont vote Obama, you're a racist. No matter who wins, we all lose.

Glen, you have absolutely no problems supporting a guy with close ties to someone like Bill Ayres? Also Obama voting straight down party lines just goes to show that as much as he talks change, it's just more of the same.

[Darin]

Originally Posted by elcid

Glen, you have absolutely no problems supporting a guy with close ties to someone like Bill Ayres? Also Obama voting straight down party lines just goes to show that as much as he talks change, it's just more of the same.

Resist the temptation to get this thread closed brother.

[ColinMmmmm]

Everyone has a responsibility to vote. Even if both candidates are complete tools.

Think of all the people who don't vote (likely poorer folk) and then think what politicians would do if they saw that those people had started - all of a sudden you'd see some policies that might affect Joe Blow. In the end - politicians will do anything for your vote - if you're not voting then they won't try and win you over.

[elcid]

It is a fine line, isn't it?

Edit: Maybe you're right D. I should walk away now.

[elcid]

Originally Posted by ColinMmmmm

Everyone has a responsibility to vote. Even if both candidates are complete tools.

Think of all the people who don't vote (likely poorer folk) and then think what politicians would do if they saw that those people had started - all of a sudden you'd see some policies that might affect Joe Blow. In the end - politicians will do anything for your vote - if you're not voting then they won't try and win you over.

The poorer folk dont need to vote, the Democrats look out for them with all their government sponsored (read, tax payer funded) programs the Republicans look out for the rich, and the working middle class get it stuck to them.

[MFB]

Amen to that elcid

[jemsite]

guys you're getting too specific in your debate.

When voting on the national level you have 3 obvious choices.

1. vote R
2. vote D
3. write in vote

staying home or not voting is just totally foolish, it's not a 4th option. it's a cop out.

my personal voting philosophy is always, always vote AGAINST an incumbent and their party unless they have shown progress and reason to continue leading the country. it's very, very simple. if you fail to do that then in effect you are ENDORSING the problem-maker and enhancing your own demise.

same ol', same ol' doesn't work for me. it's clear that it works for many americans however. unfortunately reasonable and smart people can get caught up overanalyzing beyond what is sensible... for example what elcid edited out... glen

[elcid]

but voting against the incumbant person or party just because you werent happy with them doesnt make sense if the person or party you are then voting for isn't any better. Nor does it make sense to vote against an incumbant party because their previous guy was a schmuck.

[Darin]

I have missed alot of elections. Not presidential. But I usually don't bother. But I was just thinking. If they had free coffee and donuts, or cookies and the polling place. I'd go!!

[elcid]

edit: nevermind

[jemsite]

Originally Posted by elcid

but voting against the incumbant person or party just because you werent happy with them doesnt make sense if the person or party you are then voting for isn't any better. Nor does it make sense to vote against an incumbant party because their previous guy was a schmuck.

of course it does... use common sense. you guys are blabbering how you are to choose between "two evils". ok... take what i said and run with it.

now OTOH if you think one guys is god's gift to the world then the choice is obvious.. vote for him/her.

again... total overanalysis. which is what any sitting politician wants because 9 out of 10 people will stand there cowering in fear voting these scumbags back into office (newer, less entrenched scumbags are in your better interest) ... glen

[Lefty Robb]

I don't vote or care about politics because in the end its just another monkey sitting in the white house...