Every four years the point is brought up that we should have more than 2 candidates...3 or 4 with equal media coverage, all get to participate in the debates...perhaps 3 or 4 parties...this seems all fine and dandy until one realizes that it would just take 26% of the vote to secure the WH w/ 4 candidates. I'm pretty sure that the bat-shit contingent hovers around that number. Would any of you feel comfortable with a president that only had to get 26% of the vote to win? I've asked this before and gotten crickets.
Every four years the point is brought up that we should have more than 2 candidates...3 or 4 with equal media coverage, all get to participate in the debates...perhaps 3 or 4 parties...this seems all fine and dandy until one realizes that it would just take 26% of the vote to secure the WH w/ 4 candidates. I'm pretty sure that the bat-shit contingent hovers around that number. Would any of you feel comfortable with a president that only had to get 26% of the vote to win? I've asked this before and gotten crickets.
I'm a betting man but I don't bet on WWF or politics.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
The_Hook_Up said:
Every four years the point is brought up that we should have more than 2 candidates...3 or 4 with equal media coverage, all get to participate in the debates...perhaps 3 or 4 parties...this seems all fine and dandy until one realizes that it would just take 26% of the vote to secure the WH w/ 4 candidates. I'm pretty sure that the bat-shit contingent hovers around that number. Would any of you feel comfortable with a president that only had to get 26% of the vote to win? I've asked this before and gotten crickets.
I'd be fine with it. Or they could do a preliminary vote with all 4 candidates...and then have a run-off election between the top 2 vote-getters of the 4.
But yes, just about anything different than the way it currently goes down would be an improvement.
Every four years the point is brought up that we should have more than 2 candidates...3 or 4 with equal media coverage, all get to participate in the debates...perhaps 3 or 4 parties...this seems all fine and dandy until one realizes that it would just take 26% of the vote to secure the WH w/ 4 candidates. I'm pretty sure that the bat-shit contingent hovers around that number. Would any of you feel comfortable with a president that only had to get 26% of the vote to win? I've asked this before and gotten crickets.
I would much prefer it. The population might be 26% batshit, but they won't all vote for the same batshit. And if one of the other candidates was actually a quality candidate, they would get more votes anyway.
It's a non-issue, imo, and is just one of the excuses given to justify the criminally corrupt two-party system that has been inflicted on us.
Every four years the point is brought up that we should have more than 2 candidates...3 or 4 with equal media coverage, all get to participate in the debates...perhaps 3 or 4 parties...this seems all fine and dandy until one realizes that it would just take 26% of the vote to secure the WH w/ 4 candidates. I'm pretty sure that the bat-shit contingent hovers around that number. Would any of you feel comfortable with a president that only had to get 26% of the vote to win? I've asked this before and gotten crickets.
I would much prefer it. The population might be 26% batshit, but they won't all vote for the same batshit. And if one of the other candidates was actually a quality candidate, they would get more votes anyway.
It's a non-issue, imo, and is just one of the excuses given to justify the criminally corrupt two-party system that has been inflicted on us.
canada has four visible parties as well as small satellite parties that steala percent or two, but it's always a two horse race: liberal. conservative.
Every four years the point is brought up that we should have more than 2 candidates...3 or 4 with equal media coverage, all get to participate in the debates...perhaps 3 or 4 parties...this seems all fine and dandy until one realizes that it would just take 26% of the vote to secure the WH w/ 4 candidates. I'm pretty sure that the bat-shit contingent hovers around that number. Would any of you feel comfortable with a president that only had to get 26% of the vote to win? I've asked this before and gotten crickets.
I would much prefer it. The population might be 26% batshit, but they won't all vote for the same batshit. And if one of the other candidates was actually a quality candidate, they would get more votes anyway.
It's a non-issue, imo, and is just one of the excuses given to justify the criminally corrupt two-party system that has been inflicted on us.
canada has four visible parties as well as small satellite parties that steala percent or two, but it's always a two horse race: liberal. conservative.
fuck it, right?
i thought the liberals lost offical party status after the last general election when they were swept away by the NDP's "orange crush".
Every four years the point is brought up that we should have more than 2 candidates...3 or 4 with equal media coverage, all get to participate in the debates...perhaps 3 or 4 parties...this seems all fine and dandy until one realizes that it would just take 26% of the vote to secure the WH w/ 4 candidates. I'm pretty sure that the bat-shit contingent hovers around that number. Would any of you feel comfortable with a president that only had to get 26% of the vote to win? I've asked this before and gotten crickets.
We have two "serious" candidates in the present system, and the last 3 (Clinton, Bush, Obama) have all been greeted with cries of illegitimacy. Imagine what a president elected with 26% would get.
No thanks. I say to all the complainers that neither candidate is acceptable, get a grip. Don't let perfection be the enemy of good
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Get a grip? Yeah, just deal with being ripped off and lied to because doing anything about it just might require some complex thinking that really only a Democrat or Republican can manage.
Every four years the point is brought up that we should have more than 2 candidates...3 or 4 with equal media coverage, all get to participate in the debates...perhaps 3 or 4 parties...this seems all fine and dandy until one realizes that it would just take 26% of the vote to secure the WH w/ 4 candidates. I'm pretty sure that the bat-shit contingent hovers around that number. Would any of you feel comfortable with a president that only had to get 26% of the vote to win? I've asked this before and gotten crickets.
I would much prefer it. The population might be 26% batshit, but they won't all vote for the same batshit. And if one of the other candidates was actually a quality candidate, they would get more votes anyway.
It's a non-issue, imo, and is just one of the excuses given to justify the criminally corrupt two-party system that has been inflicted on us.
canada has four visible parties as well as small satellite parties that steala percent or two, but it's always a two horse race: liberal. conservative.
fuck it, right?
Not at all!
Par example, Quebec. Yes, I do consider them part of Canadian politics!
The rise and role of the NDP.
The majors are there, but I don't think the influence of the indies should be sneezed at. It speaks to a political climate that allows for even a percent or two to be taken by people who still have to work a day job, aren't affiliated with the big guys and are trying to make a difference in their communities.
I just wish Elizabeth May and the Greens weren't asleep most of the year and only wake up come elections. How you expect people to look at you if you never show your face?
Every four years the point is brought up that we should have more than 2 candidates...3 or 4 with equal media coverage, all get to participate in the debates...perhaps 3 or 4 parties...this seems all fine and dandy until one realizes that it would just take 26% of the vote to secure the WH w/ 4 candidates. I'm pretty sure that the bat-shit contingent hovers around that number. Would any of you feel comfortable with a president that only had to get 26% of the vote to win? I've asked this before and gotten crickets.
I would much prefer it. The population might be 26% batshit, but they won't all vote for the same batshit. And if one of the other candidates was actually a quality candidate, they would get more votes anyway.
It's a non-issue, imo, and is just one of the excuses given to justify the criminally corrupt two-party system that has been inflicted on us.
canada has four visible parties as well as small satellite parties that steala percent or two, but it's always a two horse race: liberal. conservative.
fuck it, right?
Not at all!
Par example, Quebec. Yes, I do consider them part of Canadian politics!
The rise and role of the NDP.
The majors are there, but I don't think the influence of the indies should be sneezed at. It speaks to a political climate that allows for even a percent or two to be taken by people who still have to work a day job, aren't affiliated with the big guys but are trying to make a difference in their communities.
I just wish Elizabeth May and the Greens weren't asleep most of the year and only wake up come elections. How you expect people to look at you if you never show your face?
i'm not going to sell short the PURPOSE behind stealing a percentage or two from the big dawgz, or the people they represent, i'm just saying that it's all they're doing. again, STILL IMPORTANT..... just not in the hunt for a majority any time this decade. moreover, as much as i wish it wasn't, the NDP blossom was an anomaly on the strunff of a well respected/loved man who is now unfortunately dead. the end result of this surge also put a 19 year old college student into parliament who's fallback option was a summer job at a golf course*. NOT MAD...... just saying.... i call it a push.
Not saying it's perfect, but I'll take it over what they got going in the States any day of my life. I am also thinking beyond federal and provincial and taking into consideration the trickle-down impact. However it looks now - and whether a huge shift happens or not - our system still has tenfold the possibilities than south of the border with the Right and Right Lite.
I try to stay out of political threads because I tend to be glib and overly simplistic in them, but the above is precisely the way I refer to our neighbour's 2 party system.
It's always been a strange paradox that the US - guardian of democracy - barely has a democracy. I wonder why that is?
Get a grip? Yeah, just deal with being ripped off and lied to because doing anything about it just might require some complex thinking that really only a Democrat or Republican can manage.
Yeah, get a grip. Face it, what you thought was a good option, Ron Paul, was/is a phoney and had you hoodwinked from the jump. So, maybe you need to re-evaluate what your political views are.
No one is saying just deal with it. I'll say it again, Don't let perfection be the enemy of the good. If you think every politician, whether they be R or D, only lies and rips you off, I would also add grow up to get a grip, because it's just not true.
Do you really need a lesson in the good that has been accomplished in the past 25 years (shit we could go all the way back to 1776 if you really want) thanks to government, or are you just being willfully obtuse?
I try to stay out of political threads because I tend to be glib and overly simplistic in them, but the above is precisely the way I refer to our neighbour's 2 party system.
It's always been a strange paradox that the US - guardian of democracy - barely has a democracy. I wonder why that is?
Kindly,
parallax
It is because of tax on gas. The result is more people getting left out of the democratic practice known as drivIng.
Do you really need a lesson in the good that has been accomplished in the past 25 years (shit we could go all the way back to 1776 if you really want) thanks to government, or are you just being willfully obtuse?
Yeah, everything's cool. No problems here.
And if I did need a lesson, you wouldn't be the person I'd ask.
I try to stay out of political threads because I tend to be glib and overly simplistic in them, but the above is precisely the way I refer to our neighbour's 2 party system.
It's always been a strange paradox that the US - guardian of democracy - barely has a democracy. I wonder why that is?
Kindly,
parallax
It is because of tax on gas. The result is more people getting left out of the democratic practice known as drivIng.
Kindly,
GT
Ah. Makes sense.
Carry on.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Ron Paul is not a phoney. He just lacks the balls we needed him to have in order for his good ideas to really cross over from fringe to mainstream. Ultimately though, that's the fault of the undereducated, brainwashed populace that doesn't seem even able to grasp the concepts at hand. Oh well, Starbucks and Quarter Pounders 4 Lyfe!
Ron Paul is not a phoney. He just lacks the balls we needed him to have in order for his good ideas to really cross over from fringe to mainstream. Ultimately though, that's the fault of the undereducated, brainwashed populace that doesn't seem even able to grasp the concepts at hand. Oh well, Starbucks and Quarter Pounders 4 Lyfe!
So I'm uneducated and brainwashed because I don't believe in stripping the government of the dept of education, the EPA, social security, Medicare/Medicaid, food stamps, etc?
I'm uneducated because I am against HR 1505?
Interesting.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
No, you are uneducated and brainwashed if you don't recognize that before a single cent is ever spent by the federal government that the corrupt monetary system as directed by the Federal Reserve has to be overhauled as US priority #1. That's Paul's flagship cause and whoever the people are who have kept it out of the mainstream coversation are dickwads who need to keep their hands out of the placating trough.
And the same goes for our foreign policy at large. Keep voting for blatant war criminals just because on the side they provide some local social services that you approve of. Just don't get mad when someone with a wider perspective than you calls you out on it.
Yeah fuck the elderly and veterans...everything needs to be shut down until we audit the fed.
How do you feel about his idiot son, Rand? He recently said health care should be changed to a "cash only" policy.
The fact that you think that auditing the fed is a legitimate trade for a "every person for themselves" (including the disabled, elderly, veterans) society is fucked up. I don't see why we need to eliminate everything until this is done. It isn't feasible and would leave us bankrupt.
Also your boy Paul is all for privatizing prisons and the criminal justice system. How do you feel about that?
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Paul is for a lot of stuff in theory that he doesn't even really push to actually have happen, knowing that the majority of Americans don't agree with him and/or knowing that he'd never have the power to put his every whim into effect.
But that's all you look at when it comes to Paul. You skip past the essential stuff that he's actually campaigning and acting on, just so you can dismiss him wholesale over some tiny idea of his that could never feasibly come to fruition.
Fact is the foundation of the US government is faulty to the point of being criminal. So yes, the lot of them need to be thrown out so we can then set up a system that actually works for the people.
But yes, go right ahead and keep voting for Nicky Barnes just because you wouldn't ever want to see his free turkey give-aways meet their end.
Comments
Chills...
Tim Pawlenty is not looking.
Cowboys vs. Eagles
I'm a betting man but I don't bet on WWF or politics.
I'd be fine with it. Or they could do a preliminary vote with all 4 candidates...and then have a run-off election between the top 2 vote-getters of the 4.
But yes, just about anything different than the way it currently goes down would be an improvement.
I would much prefer it. The population might be 26% batshit, but they won't all vote for the same batshit. And if one of the other candidates was actually a quality candidate, they would get more votes anyway.
It's a non-issue, imo, and is just one of the excuses given to justify the criminally corrupt two-party system that has been inflicted on us.
canada has four visible parties as well as small satellite parties that steala percent or two, but it's always a two horse race: liberal. conservative.
fuck it, right?
i thought the liberals lost offical party status after the last general election when they were swept away by the NDP's "orange crush".
We have two "serious" candidates in the present system, and the last 3 (Clinton, Bush, Obama) have all been greeted with cries of illegitimacy. Imagine what a president elected with 26% would get.
No thanks. I say to all the complainers that neither candidate is acceptable, get a grip. Don't let perfection be the enemy of good
b/w
Not at all!
Par example, Quebec. Yes, I do consider them part of Canadian politics!
The rise and role of the NDP.
The majors are there, but I don't think the influence of the indies should be sneezed at. It speaks to a political climate that allows for even a percent or two to be taken by people who still have to work a day job, aren't affiliated with the big guys and are trying to make a difference in their communities.
I just wish Elizabeth May and the Greens weren't asleep most of the year and only wake up come elections. How you expect people to look at you if you never show your face?
And what 'good' would you be referring to?
i'm not going to sell short the PURPOSE behind stealing a percentage or two from the big dawgz, or the people they represent, i'm just saying that it's all they're doing. again, STILL IMPORTANT..... just not in the hunt for a majority any time this decade. moreover, as much as i wish it wasn't, the NDP blossom was an anomaly on the strunff of a well respected/loved man who is now unfortunately dead. the end result of this surge also put a 19 year old college student into parliament who's fallback option was a summer job at a golf course*. NOT MAD...... just saying.... i call it a push.
[i'd take the $158,000/yr over $11/hr too]
I try to stay out of political threads because I tend to be glib and overly simplistic in them, but the above is precisely the way I refer to our neighbour's 2 party system.
It's always been a strange paradox that the US - guardian of democracy - barely has a democracy. I wonder why that is?
Kindly,
parallax
Yeah, get a grip. Face it, what you thought was a good option, Ron Paul, was/is a phoney and had you hoodwinked from the jump. So, maybe you need to re-evaluate what your political views are.
No one is saying just deal with it. I'll say it again, Don't let perfection be the enemy of the good. If you think every politician, whether they be R or D, only lies and rips you off, I would also add grow up to get a grip, because it's just not true.
Do you really need a lesson in the good that has been accomplished in the past 25 years (shit we could go all the way back to 1776 if you really want) thanks to government, or are you just being willfully obtuse?
Why do you even come into these threads when all you do is throw a temper tantrum? You really are a crybaby. Put me on ignore, asshole.
Besides, if you spent less time stalking me in these threads, you would know that I post in many different kinds of threads.
It is because of tax on gas. The result is more people getting left out of the democratic practice known as drivIng.
Kindly,
GT
Yeah, everything's cool. No problems here.
And if I did need a lesson, you wouldn't be the person I'd ask.
Ah. Makes sense.
Carry on.
So I'm uneducated and brainwashed because I don't believe in stripping the government of the dept of education, the EPA, social security, Medicare/Medicaid, food stamps, etc?
I'm uneducated because I am against HR 1505?
Interesting.
And the same goes for our foreign policy at large. Keep voting for blatant war criminals just because on the side they provide some local social services that you approve of. Just don't get mad when someone with a wider perspective than you calls you out on it.
How do you feel about his idiot son, Rand? He recently said health care should be changed to a "cash only" policy.
The fact that you think that auditing the fed is a legitimate trade for a "every person for themselves" (including the disabled, elderly, veterans) society is fucked up. I don't see why we need to eliminate everything until this is done. It isn't feasible and would leave us bankrupt.
Also your boy Paul is all for privatizing prisons and the criminal justice system. How do you feel about that?
But that's all you look at when it comes to Paul. You skip past the essential stuff that he's actually campaigning and acting on, just so you can dismiss him wholesale over some tiny idea of his that could never feasibly come to fruition.
Fact is the foundation of the US government is faulty to the point of being criminal. So yes, the lot of them need to be thrown out so we can then set up a system that actually works for the people.
But yes, go right ahead and keep voting for Nicky Barnes just because you wouldn't ever want to see his free turkey give-aways meet their end.