Obama or McCain?

[waltshooter]

NEITHER.

Those who fall for Obama's "change" line are naive. How can you believe he'll "change" anything, when he keeps spouting the same Democrat promises?

I've heard the argument against voting for McCain because of Palin's inexperience. That seems ironic on two counts. First, you have (R) experienced politician Pres candidate + inexperienced politician VP candidate ... while on the (D) side you have inexperienced politician Pres candidate + experienced politician VP candidate. Second, the only thing worse than an inexperienced politican ... is an experienced one.

Remember when they say "government service" ... what "servicing" means in animal husbandry.

If you only look at the 2 major parties, you're looking at a choice between a Socialist/Communist and a Socialist/Fascist.

Keep voting within the "two party system", or for "the lesser of two evils", and you all you do is succeed in proving the Ratchet Theory of Government:

(A) Democrats enlarge gov't spending on social programs.
(B) People get tired of high taxes and social programs, and fall for the Republican promises of "smaller government".
(C) Republicans don't shrink government. At best keeping it the same size, resulting in social programs (IE; Social Security) not keeping pace with inflation.
(D) People demand more money from government, and fall for the Democrat promises. Return to (A).

If you truly want a change ... vote for someone other than the (R) and (D) candidates. To claim that voting for a 3rd Party is a "wasted vote", is to abandon hope. Besides, which is the "wasted" vote? To vote your ideals ... or to vote for a candidate that doesn't agree with your ideals, but is "the lesser of two evils"? IMO - it's a wasted vote to abandon your ideals. Isn't that what we're supposed to be voting for? Someone to represent our ideals?

I often wonder what would happen if the 1/3 of Americans who don't vote ... plus all those who vote for "the lesser of two evils" ... started voting 3rd Party candidates. At the very least, it would result in more interesting elections.

[waltshooter]

As to the situation between Russia and Georgia ... I think a lot of people are overlooking a couple items that may have contributed to it.

(A) We have an agreement to install part of our anti-missile defense system in Georgia. Russia doesn't want that. In fact, Russia doesn't want us to build an anti-missile defense system anywhere. They are in fact working on a missile designed to get past such systems. One has to ask why, if we are "friends", they have such a strong aversion to us being able to defend ourselves.

(B) How many Ossutians (?) are actually from that region? The USSR had a policy of relocating people, to cut down on the possibility of insurrections, in the old Eastern Block. After all, what better way to prevent conspiracies against the government than to surround someone with people they don't know, don't share a language with, and don't share a culture with?

The conflict between Serbs and Croats (IMO) was exasperated by the fact that the Russians had "intermingled" the two groups to prevent violence under the USSR. But, with the fall of the USSR, there was no "buffer zone" between the two groups. The intermingling led to the genocide, and UN involvement - which basically re-separated them.

I have to wonder how many more such situations will "flare up" in the future? Perhaps giving Russia the excuse it seeks to "reunify" the region ... still a goal of many of their politicians and military.

[Necromis]

NEITHER.

Those who fall for Obama's "change" line are naive. How can you believe he'll "change" anything, when he keeps spouting the same Democrat promises?

I've heard the argument against voting for McCain because of Palin's inexperience. That seems ironic on two counts. First, you have (R) experienced politician Pres candidate + inexperienced politician VP candidate ... while on the (D) side you have inexperienced politician Pres candidate + experienced politician VP candidate. Second, the only thing worse than an inexperienced politican ... is an experienced one.

Remember when they say "government service" ... what "servicing" means in animal husbandry.

If you only look at the 2 major parties, you're looking at a choice between a Socialist/Communist and a Socialist/Fascist.

Keep voting within the "two party system", or for "the lesser of two evils", and you all you do is succeed in proving the Ratchet Theory of Government:

(A) Democrats enlarge gov't spending on social programs.
(B) People get tired of high taxes and social programs, and fall for the Republican promises of "smaller government".
(C) Republicans don't shrink government. At best keeping it the same size, resulting in social programs (IE; Social Security) not keeping pace with inflation.
(D) People demand more money from government, and fall for the Democrat promises. Return to (A).

If you truly want a change ... vote for someone other than the (R) and (D) candidates. To claim that voting for a 3rd Party is a "wasted vote", is to abandon hope. Besides, which is the "wasted" vote? To vote your ideals ... or to vote for a candidate that doesn't agree with your ideals, but is "the lesser of two evils"? IMO - it's a wasted vote to abandon your ideals. Isn't that what we're supposed to be voting for? Someone to represent our ideals?

I often wonder what would happen if the 1/3 of Americans who don't vote ... plus all those who vote for "the lesser of two evils" ... started voting 3rd Party candidates. At the very least, it would result in more interesting elections.

I can understand your concerns and your suggestion to vote for a third party nominee. The reason, as you somehwat pointed out, that most won't vote for the third party is that they know they won't win and they will have only helped to elect the oposing parties pick. Hence the *wasted* vote. We have had a two party system since the begining of our country. At this point there is not a strong enough or large enough third party to make a challenge or replace either of the two existing parties.

What has been said time and time again about this to those following third parties is to vote for those persons within the party closest to your ideals that have the same ideas as you and/or that third party. So if you were liking Ron Paul, then vote for McCain i nthis election and then in your local election vote for canidates that are like Ron Paul. Change the party from the inside towards where you would want it to be.

[waltshooter]

What has been said time and time again about this to those following third parties is to vote for those persons within the party closest to your ideals that have the same ideas as you and/or that third party. So if you were liking Ron Paul, then vote for McCain i nthis election and then in your local election vote for canidates that are like Ron Paul. Change the party from the inside towards where you would want it to be.

And who has said that? The 2 Parties and their puppets.

Again, what better way to convince people that there is no alternative than to tell them that if they don't vote "the lesser of two evils" their vote is wasted. Say a lie often enough and people will believe it the truth. Is it any wonder that so many eligible voters have decided not to vote at all?

I don't buy that a 3rd party has to get candidates in office "from the ground up". Roosevelt succeeded with the Bull Moose Party without doing so. I've also heard the argument that without a base of lower office holders, a 3rd Party president would be blocked by the 2 major parties controlling Congress. Well, wasn't that the whole point of "checks and balances"?

Besides, I'm not saying a 3rd party could win. But look at what happened when Perot was a viable threat to the status quo. Both major parties turned more toward listening to the American People.

To paraphrase Edmund Burke ... "All that's necessary for evil politicians to win - is to convince voters to elect the less evil one".

[Necromis]

No. Actually most people that are independant say it. Also in FDRs time there was a big difference compared to today. Perot had no chance of getting elected. Reality is that the most any 3rd party has gotten in a presidential election has been 5%. All it shows when you vote 3rd party is how easy it is to elect the other guy. Change from within. Change from within.

[waltshooter]

Change from within does not work, when the "lifers" and "career politicians" ignore the base. Why is Palin so popular with the Republican base? Because they are desperate for someone to (figuratively) knock McCain upside the head and remind him who his base is. When you ignore your base to "compromise" ... most people understand that change from within is impossible. The party leaders picked McCain to run, not the "Joe Plumbers".

So replace the party leaders, I hear you say. Right. With what? To become a leader in either major party ... even a low level leader ... you have to pretty much devote your life to the party. That's why most of them are career lawyers and politicians. The average working stiff can't afford to devote that much time to something outside work and family. And given the attacks they face by the media, nor do most average people want to paint a target on themselves.

So the chance of "change from within" is that of the proverbial snowball.

Actually, I think that the main problem with the "two party system" ... the reason that the politicians are so out of touch with their constituents ... is that they are surrounded by other politicians. A single capitol, where representatives gather, was fine before the Technology Age. But now, it would make more sense for them to "telecommute" and "teleconference". Both from a standpoint of enabling the People to have access to their representatives, and for national security.

[Necromis]

wow Waltshooter, you must know something that the rest of us don't. Last time I checked McCain was chosen by those of us who voted in the primary. Guess what. Change from within does happen. Unfortunetly lately that change has been more towards the middle than to the original core values that the conservatives have. Here is the reality. If your ideals are more in line with McCain than Obama you can do one of two things. One is vote for McCain and help to place someone in office that is more in line with you, or two, vote for a third party individual and help to place Obama into office. If you want to end up with a third party president in the white house you are going about it the wrong way. The only way it *might* have a chance is if you starting getting third party congressmen and senators elected. Once there was a quarter to a third of another party inthe mix you have a better chance of making a third party president happen. Until then you are wasting your vote if you chose to pick third party.

[waltshooter]

Let's see ... who helped McCain win the primary? Oh, that's right. The party leaders and mainstream media ... because they said that McCain was the only "real" choice the Republicans had. Now the same people are telling conservative voters they better vote McCain, 'cause he's the only "real" choice they have. Nah. I don't see any pattern here.

Besides, anyone that can't tell by now that this election is going to be ripe with corruption, is playing ostrich. Where's the prosecutions of people who have admitted to multiple registrations? Instead of being sent to prison, they are invited on talk shows. Voter intimidation? No prosecution because the two major parties disavow any connection to the people involved. Hmmmm. "If you are caught, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions."

Too bad we don't have a Veteran's Party anymore. (RE: Athens, TN 1945)

[Necromis]

Actually quite mistaken. First it was Romney that everyone was pushing during the primary and never has the mainstream media backed a republican, except for Fox. Once McCain was the clear choice of the people THEN the party got behind him because it was the peoples CHOICE.