Discussion in 'The Fire Hydrant' started by Barbara!, Aug 11, 2012.
:hail: :hail: :hail:
A vote for the lesser evil is still a vote for evil.
No arguement here.... Generally speaking, no government in the recent past has come close to reasonable spending plans on the Federal level. This said, are you saying you are FOR spending cuts?
As to 'essential' programs, what defines an essential program? To me, that would be something that gives the Federal government the ability to do the things it is mandated to do by the Constitution, NOTHING else. This nation is coming apart because we do not honor the concept of our Republic. The states should have way more power than they do. As it stands now however, all they really can do is what the Federal government tells them to via unfunded mandates. This all comes about because of the 17th Amendment.
Living in the state I do, I am QUITE happy that states don't hold more power. We would be up a creek without a paddle otherwise. I understand why the electoral college was enacted, I understand why state's rights were an issue I just disagree that its as relevant now. Our country has changed, people move all over, families are all in different states, etc.
I agree... I have thought this through, in depth. A vote for a 3rd party candidate this go around is a vote for Obama. Period. I do not like it either, but I want my money to continue to have value.
Simply put, Romney has experience fixing broken economic things. All Obama knows how to do is rally people and spread money around. He has no clue how to CREATE wealth. In fact, I belive he despises success. His writing leads to that conclusion.
Do you think Americans are more diverse or homogenic now? Right.
So explain to me how a top down, one size fits all government is going to work AND not be a dictatorship?
Perhaps its cliche, but if you don't like how your state works, you can move. That is a big part of the idea of our Republic.
"The greatest inequality of all is trying to make unequal things, equal."
I didnt say states should have no rights....but I dont think they should have more. No, I dont think individual states should decide on things like slavery, or gay rights, or abortion.
Yes, I could always move and I have considered it. At some point I may but I LOVE my area, I LOVE being around my family and don't want to be away from them.
As far as "creating wealth," yes, Romney's done that.
It reminds me of the story of the stockbroker who was wooing a potential client, showing him around the yacht club . . .
"This one over here belongs to one of our top brokers . . . and our vice president just bought this one for his wife. See the one out in harbor? Our founding broker bought that a few months ago . . . Over there . . ."
The potential client broke in: "Very nice, but where are the clients' yachts?"
What about the employees of all the companies Bain saved? I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of rather wealthy people at Staples who would not have been except for Bain. Sure, SOME of the companies failed. Thats capitalism.
Your little story reeks of class envy. I would think you would know better than to stoop there.
I'll be voting for Johnson.
I don't believe voting Libertarian to be a wasted vote... What could be more wasteful than not voting at all or voting for someone you don't want? If you don't like the way things are, stand up and say something. Maybe you won't win, but it's better than just keeping your mouth shut and your head down.
No, not class envy, Puck, just observing the obvious.
Honestly, do I think either side of the aisle gives a flying **** about anyone who can't contribute gazillions to their war chests? Nope.
And if more people thought that way, the two party tyranny would be broken.
I hear ya.... But we do realize that under a true Libertarian system, there would still be wildly rich people and very poor people, right? Probably even MORE of those rich brokers...
Don't ge me wrong, I would be all for a Libertarian that could actually win. Libertarians need to start smaller if they ever want to really matter. Win local and state races. Get a few seats in Congress first....
Struggling between Obama and Johnson based on my own internal argument - what's better for me personally, right now, or what's better for america in the long run. I definitely think Obama in office would make things better for me, a young and very poor working woman, but it's not all about ME and on most issues I tend to strongly agree with Johnson.
I would like to know where you got the information that the Republican's controlled the the House in the first few years of his presidency? There were more Democrats starting in 2007, before Bush's presidency even ended. The House only became more Republican in 2011, and the Senate is still more Democrat.
I do not think the Republicans have it right, but I am sick of Democrats trying to pass all the blame off on Republicans. They all suck at budgeting.
What if I don't like agree with any of the independent candidates either?
If I don't vote it will because because I cannot bring myself to vote for any of the candidates, because I just don't feel like I can support them. If there was an independent candidate that I really liked and supported I would vote for them.
But to me it isn't just between the lesser of TWO evils, I don't think any of the options are really good.
that is the reason for write in voting
I really, REALLY, REALLY, wish that we had allll the candidates at last night's debate and at future debates...If we don't allow them all to debate, the majority of Americans won't ever realize that they truly have an option to vote for someone other than the Democratic or Republican candidates.
So I can write in who?
I totally agree with Stardogs, that they need to have ALL the candidates at the debate.
whoever you think would do a good job, even if they're not running or you're the only vote they get. i'm writing in James Mattis, that way i can say i voted for someone i believe to be competant, generally of good character & a good leader.