a lot of my friends in the Bay Area are/were Ron Paul supporters. i assume it's because of issues like the ones he mentions here, status quo, medicine and troops...
indeed, let's hope Obama is ready to back up the word change when he's sworn in.
I love the popup that comes up near the end of Paul's answer.
Ron Paul promise(s/d) a lot of stuff that sounds great, but i really don't think is ever gonna work in the Real World, unlike the unoverse that Randroids and capital-"L"-Libertarians occasionally visit ours from...
mollifire: let's hope Obama is ready to back up the word change when he's sworn in.
Hope so, lets wait and see...
fairpoint: I couldn't see him changing things overnight, but I can see him putting a dent in the system. I think he has already by changing some people's mind's. He was really popular online for a while. I think the two parties really are afraid of people like this. Ross Perot really scared them when he was running. In the end he would have really pissed off a lot more people than two parties. And I'm not just talking about the citizens of this country.
Ross Perot really scared them when he was running. In the end he would have really pissed off a lot more people than two parties. And I'm not just talking about the citizens of this country.
That's sure.
Of course, Perot would have accomplished nothing in his four years (assuming he wasn't impeached earlier), because he wouldn't have been able to get anything through Congress.
And Congress would have had to over-ride a lot of vetos, too, i suspect.
i really think the voting process itself kills the chance of a 3rd party ever becoming viable. i feel we are a 2 party system as long as our votes are counted the way they are. voting for a 3rd party = "throwing your vote away" so to speak. if we could use the ranking system (like we do for other government offices) to choose presidents, then other parties would get a fair chance.
until then, Ross Perot, Ron Paul and Ralph Nader will be a very small threat to the Republicats...
Of course, Perot would have accomplished nothing in his four years (assuming he wasn't impeached earlier), because he wouldn't have been able to get anything through Congress.
fairpoint:Yea, but something like that could change things around.
mollifire: voting for a 3rd party = "throwing your vote away" so to speak.
I get told that a lot, but I don't see it that way. I think voting this way could maybe get people to consider to vote for a third candidate. The media has a big influence good, or bad on how to vote.
Change is glacial..To move masses of people one way takes a lot of effort. I think Obama has a chance, but it will be a long, hard slog. If folks are ready for it, it will happen, but not if they expect any one person to do it.
Locating MOG account...
Comments (11)
i think we all hope he's wrong
a lot of my friends in the Bay Area are/were Ron Paul supporters. i assume it's because of issues like the ones he mentions here, status quo, medicine and troops...
indeed, let's hope Obama is ready to back up the word change when he's sworn in.
I love the popup that comes up near the end of Paul's answer.
Ron Paul promise(s/d) a lot of stuff that sounds great, but i really don't think is ever gonna work in the Real World, unlike the unoverse that Randroids and capital-"L"-Libertarians occasionally visit ours from...
MrFrost: I can't argue with yoo there...
mollifire: let's hope Obama is ready to back up the word change when he's sworn in.
Hope so, lets wait and see...
fairpoint: I couldn't see him changing things overnight, but I can see him putting a dent in the system. I think he has already by changing some people's mind's. He was really popular online for a while. I think the two parties really are afraid of people like this. Ross Perot really scared them when he was running. In the end he would have really pissed off a lot more people than two parties. And I'm not just talking about the citizens of this country.
Ross Perot really scared them when he was running. In the end he would have really pissed off a lot more people than two parties. And I'm not just talking about the citizens of this country.
That's sure.
Of course, Perot would have accomplished nothing in his four years (assuming he wasn't impeached earlier), because he wouldn't have been able to get anything through Congress.
And Congress would have had to over-ride a lot of vetos, too, i suspect.
i really think the voting process itself kills the chance of a 3rd party ever becoming viable. i feel we are a 2 party system as long as our votes are counted the way they are. voting for a 3rd party = "throwing your vote away" so to speak. if we could use the ranking system (like we do for other government offices) to choose presidents, then other parties would get a fair chance.
until then, Ross Perot, Ron Paul and Ralph Nader will be a very small threat to the Republicats...
Of course, Perot would have accomplished nothing in his four years (assuming he wasn't impeached earlier), because he wouldn't have been able to get anything through Congress.
fairpoint:Yea, but something like that could change things around.
mollifire: voting for a 3rd party = "throwing your vote away" so to speak.
I get told that a lot, but I don't see it that way. I think voting this way could maybe get people to consider to vote for a third candidate. The media has a big influence good, or bad on how to vote.
"Fairportfan", please...
<grin>
fairpoint: Never say never, because a lot of things have happen that I never thought would of.
cheers!
Change is glacial..To move masses of people one way takes a lot of effort. I think Obama has a chance, but it will be a long, hard slog. If folks are ready for it, it will happen, but not if they expect any one person to do it.
Cody B: He's sure going to inherit a lot of crap to deal with. Best to him...