General Chat / the conservative opinion...

http://www.amconmag...._08/cover1.html

I'm not one to post hearsay or political sport, but this is one that I think warrants linking.

especially with elections coming straight up.

Can't say that I disagree with any of this. Once his antics started with his preparation for the invasion of Iraq, the entire country started in a nose dive that his administration generated, not Clinton's.

BTW, I am a Republican....

Why is it something to think about when a Republican doesn't support the Republican canidate but Democrats who do the same are just grumpy, confused, intolerante old men?

lbz: they are just seeing bush for what he is. Has nothing to do with party politics.

So it's not that Republicans are bad for this country, but bush definitely IS.

It'd be the same case if it were the other way around (party wise), atleast from where I'm sitting.

Zell Miller. He is a Democrat that supports a Republican. His support of Bush got him smeared not people saying that others should think twice. If there isn't a double standard then these people too need to be smeared.

Probably because Miller's fucking insane.

zell is your only defense? The mans one picnic short of a sandwich...

Zell is an example. The point is nobody says people should reconsider a Democractic canidate when Democrats says they are against the canidate.

Zell is an example. The point is nobody says people should reconsider a Democractic canidate when Democrats says they are against the canidate.

Actually, there are.

Republicans are always saying "Every Democrat should vote for our canidate, as a few prominent Democrats are doing the same".

And, of course, Democrats are alwys saying "Every Republican should vote for our canidate, as a few prominent Republicans are doing the same".

And, as always follows such things, both parties say "Everyone, regardless of party, should vote for our party, because we don't make arguments like those of the other party!'

My new stance on everything political:

Politics suck!

It's true.

....

Oh, and Zell isn't a Democrat, he's a Republican, who switched parties after Lincoln, didn't get around to changing back after Kennedy, and then realised he could help Republicans more by pretending to be a Democrat.

the above post is 100% true.

I'll add a little more in this...

Now, I don't necessarily consider Kerry better than Bush as president. But I do consider Kerry to be the lesser of the two evils this time around. It's just like in 2000, Gore was the lesser of the two evils, so I voted for him over Bush.

What the country needs in a leader is someone who has a good idea of what foreign policy actually is, let alone actually being able to form a policy.
We need a man/woman that can work with domestic issues and actually have an effect.
We need a man/woman who actually understands that tax cuts aren't necessarily a good thing. Revamp the tax laws to make them more equitable for everyone.
We need someone who knows that invading another country without provocation is a definite NO-NO. And yes, Hussein did need to be removed from power, but not through the U.S. going to war over something that doesn't seem to exist (WMD, link to terrorism/Al Qaeda).
Someone who can actually prove their military service record is valid.

But, other than the last statement, I don't think that Kerry is the answer either.

So, who do we vote for. The most qualified candidate isn't running for office, nor does it seem he wants the job. I know I wouldn't want it right now either.

Whoever wins this election has a complete mess to clean up in this country. I don't see either one being able to accomplish that feat....

if a man wants the presidency, knowing all the problems associated with it, he shouldnt be president, simple as that.

You may call Zell Miller insane...

But he was right on. The democrats aren't a national party anymore. They can't win a SINGLE southern state these days. The took NEw England, the liberal left coast, and the northern midwestern states. That's it.

That is why it is imperative that third parties step up to the plate to end the bullshit of this two party system, once and for all.

I would like to imagine a three or four-party system as having the ability to work, but look at 20th century American political history. How many elections have been closely guarded between candidates of three or more different parties in this century?

What I think American politics needs is a series of successful uniters as presidents. Presidents that put aside party lines and are able to look at the picture from both sides. In the last half of the 20th century, most of the uniting presidents in America have unfortunately been succeeded by dividers. Kennedy to Johnson and Nixon. Reagan to Bush Sr. Clinton to Bush Jr. We need at least three uniters in a row. Under those presidents America may come together more.

That is why it is imperative that third parties step up to the plate to end the bullshit of this two party system, once and for all.

Don't think I could have put it better

Panic: The ones in which the alternative candidate had enough funding and support that they convinced enough Americans that other Americans would vote for them. After all, that's why people don't vote for third parties, because they don't think they have a chance, and they don't want their vote will be useless. Specifically three. Two involving Ross Perot. And get this. In '92, when Perot was allowed to participate in the nationally televised debates--keep in mind, his first candidacy--he recieved more than 15 million votes. In '96, when, amidst scandal, Perot was by that time well known but not allowed to participate in the debates, he recieved only 9 million votes. So he quit. And I don't blame him, but I wish he hadn't.

The idea of a third patry just winning the presidency is a ridiculous fantasy. There is no way to just go straigh to the top. They need to find a state prime for their way of thought and just really push there locally and even for the state wide elections, president being one. A good example of this would be the Free State Project.

LazyBoy no one even heard of Michael Badnarik or the Libertarian party. since he came to my college, he had a major boost. a boost that did take away from Bush's Republican side, Libertarian and Republican share more similaraties the Libertarians and Democrats.

If you ask me, if they make their presence known they will get more votes and be a more powerful party.

If the Democrats and Republicans agreed to make have the other party members be entered into the debates. I am pretty sure that Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party and Walt Brown of the Socialist party would come out on top for people's chocie of presidency. Just because they have such different ideologies and not so many similiarites that the Democrats and Republicans have together.

I also think the grassroots by starting in precints and run in such can third parties actually grow. Something the green party is doing as of right now.

I still think though that if given the chance, the publicity and the action Third parties can be a driving force that makes the difference in a two party system. To know a two party system is not exactly democracy and thats what makes it wrong is still wrong. We should be going after third parties to lead this country which i think.. no matter what ideology it maybe promise more REAL change then the Democrats or Republicans. To think its impossible and to think its stupid to waste a vote on a third party is such a two party conformist. Or atleast someone who is afraid a party may collapse under real change for the people.

Here in Massachusetts State Legislature, the Green Party didn't take anything but they definitely made their presence felt and finished ahead of Republican candidates in quite a few seats.

Why shoudl the two major parties let the other paries in? Their job is to get elected, not to get others elected. The other parties should be self relient and the major parties should not be forced to help the third parties.

Democracy is rule of majority and supports mass parties like the two party system.

There is nothing conformist about ackowledging that their are times when voting for a third party is just ridiculous. I might as well right myself in and actually expect to win in some cases.