The top ten reasons not to vote Republican or Democrat in the midterms

[kaz]

1) They both suck

2) There is no actual difference

3) Are we up to 10 yet?

 

[hipeter924]

4) They are often just as corrupt as each other.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Hey, I'm ready for a third party, and I was even stupid enough to believe that could ever actually happen once.

 

[Kosh]

You have three choices vote for one of the corrupt parties that is more interested in their special interest groups vs actually pass laws that make sense and help "We the People". Then you have the choice not to vote, but that is what the two parties want. They want a very small voting base to appeal to. So 25% of the voting base of the US would dictate the direction of the country.

As it stands now we have the political class against the working class.

 

[kaz]

Hey, I'm ready for a third party, and I was even stupid enough to believe that could ever actually happen once.

Keep believing. A true third party would change everything. With two, you have two choices. Build yourself up, or tear the other side down. They are equally effective, so both parties focus on the easy one of tearing the other side down. With more than two, it's not enough, you have to offer something.

 

[Harry Dresden]

1) They both suck

2) There is no actual difference

3) Are we up to 10 yet?

the first one is good enough......but you will never convince those loyal...."i love my party" people of that....

 

[kaz]

1) They both suck

2) There is no actual difference

3) Are we up to 10 yet?

the first one is good enough......but you will never convince those loyal...."i love my party" people of that....

Yes. Do you want to vote for the candidate who blasts W for using the military so extensively then supports O when he does the same thing or the candidate who blasts Clinton for spending us into the ground then supports W when he does the same thing?

As you say it's about party, there is no other explanation.

 

[Harry Dresden]

1) They both suck

2) There is no actual difference

3) Are we up to 10 yet?

the first one is good enough......but you will never convince those loyal...."i love my party" people of that....

Yes. Do you want to vote for the candidate who blasts W for using the military so extensively then supports O when he does the same thing or the candidate who blasts Clinton for spending us into the ground then supports W when he does the same thing?

As you say it's about party, there is no other explanation.

party people are one of the things wrong with politics today......

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Keep believing. A true third party would change everything. With two, you have two choices. Build yourself up, or tear the other side down. They are equally effective, so both parties focus on the easy one of tearing the other side down. With more than two, it's not enough, you have to offer something.

With two parties you often have one choice in our winner-take-all political ethos. With a strong third party, coalitions must often be formed, cooperation must be respected. Every parliamentary form of government in the English-speaking world is a multiparty system, and it seems to work just fine for them. I'm for anything that scares the bejeepers out of the Democrats and Republicans the way the prospect of coalition government does. Whatever would they do if the little guy actually had a voice in government?

 

[g5000]

Hey, I'm ready for a third party, and I was even stupid enough to believe that could ever actually happen once.

I'm ready for a sane third party. Key word: sane.

 

[g5000]

Every parliamentary form of government in the English-speaking world is a multiparty system, and it seems to work just fine for them.

I see you were careful to say "English-speaking" world. That rather pares it down, eh? Is there some special quality about the English language that makes a multi-party system work better than if you speak, say, Spanish? Or were you just trying to say "White European countries" without being offensive?

In the real world, multi-party systems do not work well at all. I've lived in some of those countries. It does not work well. Just ask Mexico, for example.

I'd rather a third party supplant one of the existing ones we have.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Every parliamentary form of government in the English-speaking world is a multiparty system, and it seems to work just fine for them.

Not really. I've lived in some of those countries. It does not work well. Just ask Mexico, for example.
I'd rather a third party supplant one of the existing ones we have.

Since when is Mexico an English-speaking country?

 

[g5000]

Every parliamentary form of government in the English-speaking world is a multiparty system, and it seems to work just fine for them.

Not really. I've lived in some of those countries. It does not work well. Just ask Mexico, for example.
I'd rather a third party supplant one of the existing ones we have.

Since when is Mexico an English-speaking country?

Yes, I noticed that, too, and went back and edited my post.

To wit: I see you were careful to say "English-speaking" world. That rather pares it down, eh? Is there some special quality about the English language that makes a multi-party system work better than if you speak, say, Spanish? Or were you just trying to say "White European countries" without being offensive?

In the real world, multi-party systems do not work well at all. They are even more dysfunctional. Even in merry old England.

 

[Siete]

Hey, I'm ready for a third party, and I was even stupid enough to believe that could ever actually happen once.

Keep believing. A true third party would change everything. With two, you have two choices. Build yourself up, or tear the other side down. They are equally effective, so both parties focus on the easy one of tearing the other side down. With more than two, it's not enough, you have to offer something.

With two, you have two choices.


my how profound, and just when I was convinced you couldn't count to three..

vote for the person, not the party, if that person fails to exist, use your write in option ... as bad as I hate to say it 3rd party politics are a pipe dream for several more generations ..

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Every parliamentary form of government in the English-speaking world is a multiparty system, and it seems to work just fine for them.

I see you were careful to say "English-speaking" world. That rather pares it down, eh? Is there some special quality about the English language that makes a multi-party system work better than if you speak, say, Spanish? Or were you just trying to say "White European countries" without being offensive?

In the real world, multi-party systems do not work well at all. I've lived in some of those countries. It does not work well. Just ask Mexico, for example.

I'd rather a third party supplant one of the existing ones we have.

Sad. You must have studied geography in one of our public school systems. Now did Ms Jones, your 10th grade geography teacher, ever tell you about an English-speaking country with 1.1 billion very dark people called "India"? They've been a parliamentary democracy for many decades. In fact they're the largest democracy in the world. And their multiparty parliamentary democracy works just fine. Now go stand in the corner and put your dunce cap on, the one that says illiterate race-baiter on it, until I tell you to sit down.

 

[Iceweasel]

Hey, I'm ready for a third party, and I was even stupid enough to believe that could ever actually happen once.

Keep believing. A true third party would change everything. With two, you have two choices. Build yourself up, or tear the other side down. They are equally effective, so both parties focus on the easy one of tearing the other side down. With more than two, it's not enough, you have to offer something.

Third parties have won what? Dog catcher?
The Libertarians have screwed the US by handing over the country to the left. Principles are fine and dandy but doing the same stupid thing over and over again expecting different results is the definition of...well, you know.

 

[kaz]

Hey, I'm ready for a third party, and I was even stupid enough to believe that could ever actually happen once.

I'm ready for a sane third party. Key word: sane.

Depending what you mean by "sane," I agree, but they could be pretty freaking nuts and be better than what we have now.

 

[kaz]

Hey, I'm ready for a third party, and I was even stupid enough to believe that could ever actually happen once.

Keep believing. A true third party would change everything. With two, you have two choices. Build yourself up, or tear the other side down. They are equally effective, so both parties focus on the easy one of tearing the other side down. With more than two, it's not enough, you have to offer something.

With two, you have two choices.


my how profound, and just when I was convinced you couldn't count to three..

vote for the person, not the party, if that person fails to exist, use your write in option ... as bad as I hate to say it 3rd party politics are a pipe dream for several more generations ..

When you are voting between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee, there is only one choice

 

[kaz]

Hey, I'm ready for a third party, and I was even stupid enough to believe that could ever actually happen once.

Keep believing. A true third party would change everything. With two, you have two choices. Build yourself up, or tear the other side down. They are equally effective, so both parties focus on the easy one of tearing the other side down. With more than two, it's not enough, you have to offer something.

Third parties have won what? Dog catcher?
The Libertarians have screwed the US by handing over the country to the left. Principles are fine and dandy but doing the same stupid thing over and over again expecting different results is the definition of...well, you know.