Is a vote for a 3rd party really a vote for a 3rd party?

#102
#102
NEOCON said:
rev-a-loo-tion!!!!
Click to expand...

It makes no difference to me who wins in 2012... or 2016 for that matter. I say that because there are still too many establishment GOP'ers waiting in the wings that will be running in 2016.

All the GOP wants to do is nibble on the edges of the problem without really creating real, fundamental change anywhere.
 
#103
#103
What exactly convinces everybody that we'll never have a viable 3rd party? Other nations have 3 party systems. What makes it an impossibility here?
 
#106
#106
GreveHaller said:
There - fyp

if you're going to "fyp" maybe you should at least make it true.

Big diff between dem and rep. Big.
Click to expand...

True. Democan begins with a D and Republicrat begins with an R.

In practice, they differ only slightly.

That is why the rhetoric has gotten so over the top. They have to try so hard to appear different because they act almost exactly the same. (granted, there are a couple of differences, but they agree on over 90%)
 
#107
#107
n_huffhines said:
What exactly convinces everybody that we'll never have a viable 3rd party? Other nations have 3 party systems. What makes it an impossibility here?
Click to expand...

getting on a ballot in the us is significantly harder than most other countries, also parliamentary systems are much friendlier to third party politicians
 
#108
#108
n_huffhines said:
What exactly convinces everybody that we'll never have a viable 3rd party? Other nations have 3 party systems. What makes it an impossibility here?
Click to expand...

with a remark like that then its true you dont understand politics.

Take a Poly Sci class about different types of governements. The parliamentary system is entirely different than what we have. That's why they have other parties. On top of that a "party" doesnt hold the weight we have. They have to meld into other parties to form a super party to have a majority. In essence their parties ideology can be jeapordized just to form a majority and elect the Prime Minister.
 
#110
#110
GreveHaller said:
with a remark like that then its true you dont understand politics.

Take a Poly Sci class about different types of governements. The parliamentary system is entirely different than what we have. That's why they have other parties. On top of that a "party" doesnt hold the weight we have. They have to meld into other parties to form a super party to have a majority. In essence their parties ideology can be jeapordized just to form a majority and elect the Prime Minister.
Click to expand...
Well based off of what you just said, MG would have to stop saying that Ron Paul needs to run as a libertarian instead of a Republican because the GOP is the closest thing to his ideology (in theory).
 
#111
#111
milohimself said:
getting on a ballot in the us is significantly harder than most other countries, also parliamentary systems are much friendlier to third party politicians
Click to expand...

I don't know much about the parliamentary system. How exactly does it favor third parties?
 
#112
#112
GreveHaller said:
with a remark like that then its true you dont understand politics.

Take a Poly Sci class about different types of governements. The parliamentary system is entirely different than what we have. That's why they have other parties. On top of that a "party" doesnt hold the weight we have. They have to meld into other parties to form a super party to have a majority. In essence their parties ideology can be jeapordized just to form a majority and elect the Prime Minister.
Click to expand...

You're not going to last long around here.
 
#113
#113
n_huffhines said:
What's the difference?
Click to expand...

Dem wants the goverment to drive the economy. Te Kenysian approach. If the gov't is big enough it can make the country prosperous.

Rep wants business to drive the economy. The Adam Smith approach. If business is allowed to thrive without the interference of gov't, gov't will prosper also.
 
#114
#114
GreveHaller said:
Dem wants the goverment to drive the economy. Te Kenysian approach. If the gov't is big enough it can make the country prosperous.

Rep wants business to drive the economy. The Adam Smith approach. If business is allowed to thrive without the interference of gov't, gov't will prosper also.
Click to expand...

OK, that's the rhetoric, but then they both pass bailout bills that favor banks and corporations. They're the same.
 
#118
#118
GreveHaller said:
with people arguing politics and not understanding political systems, I can understand.

If you dont undertand how other political systems work its probably best not to suggest something change.
Click to expand...

I'm referring to your belligerent approach. Around here people appreciate generally polite reason, logic, and humor.
 
#119
#119
GreveHaller said:
Dem wants the goverment to drive the economy. Te Kenysian approach. If the gov't is big enough it can make the country prosperous.

Rep wants business to drive the economy. The Adam Smith approach. If business is allowed to thrive without the interference of gov't, gov't will prosper also.
Click to expand...

So Bush wasn't the one who did TARP and started the auto bailouts? Gotcha!
 
#125
#125
hard to find donut joints anymore.

shipleys here in nashville is by far the best in da world but all their locations close at 3 except Madisons.

no 24 hour donut joints around. makes me kinda sad when i'm craving me some hot fresh midnight donuts.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top