OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[thejeff]

And here we go again:

licker, can you really say there is little difference after the last 8 years? I felt the same way after 8 years of Clinton, when I felt the Democrats had drifted too far to the center, leaving little distinction between them and Republicans. 8 years of disastrous and embarrassing foreign policies and economic disasters later...

Two quotes wandering around the internet that sort of sum up how I feel:
Republicans claim that government can't work, then get elected to prove it.
Sometimes it seems the Democrats are trying to prove they're as bad as the Republicans, and the Republicans are trying to prove them wrong.

[rdonj]

I'm not voting for either of them, they both want to do things I seriously disagree with.

[licker]

Originally Posted by thejeff

And here we go again:

licker, can you really say there is little difference after the last 8 years? I felt the same way after 8 years of Clinton, when I felt the Democrats had drifted too far to the center, leaving little distinction between them and Republicans. 8 years of disastrous and embarrassing foreign policies and economic disasters later...

Two quotes wandering around the internet that sort of sum up how I feel:
Republicans claim that government can't work, then get elected to prove it.
Sometimes it seems the Democrats are trying to prove they're as bad as the Republicans, and the Republicans are trying to prove them wrong.

What does the last 8 years have to do with anything? 4 years ago if you said the last 4 years you would have had a better point. The republican party (and McCain particularly) have distanced themselves quite a bit from Bush.

My point is that the dems and repubs are seemingly more interested in simply maintaining their own power than actually accomplishing anything. This is more a knock on congress than it is on the POTUS, but I don't care. I'm sick of being told I only have two choices, and I'm sick of those two choices constantly being subpar if not outright horrific.

Hell I haven't voted for a dem or repub since Clintons first term, and that tends to include the local races (though in some of them there is no other choice).

I take it you are a democrat, which is fine, but honestly, what do you think Obama can or will actually accomplish? What has the democratic legislature accomplished, or even tried to accomplish?

Its a disgusting mess and we would be best served by simply throwing out the lot of them and getting rid of the DNC and RNC. Too much money is at stake for these groups to give up the reins of power, and so they continue to simply do what they need to do to maintain their positions, and survive, which isn't good for the rest of us.

[Ironhawk]

I agree that the two-party system is quite lame. My preference would be to have a primer minister assembling a coalition government as many other nations do. However, we have to work with the system we have - barring a revolution.

[Edratman]

Originally Posted by rdonj

I'm not voting for either of them, they both want to do things I seriously disagree with.

The predominant problem with that attitude is that door #3 has failed to establish itself as a viable alternative at this point in time. This shortcoming on the part of door #3, and in my opinion the onus is really on door #3, reduces those who choose that option as very minor fringe dissenters.

The country has a past history of new political parties. The Republican party came into existance in the 1850's as an anti-slavery party. The Progressive party, usually known as the Bull Moose party arose in the early 1900's, but didn't generate significent legs.

I agree that one or more new political options are required. But today they do not exist and those who consider voting for the insignificent alternatives are not really dissenters, but merely non-voters in a different cloak.

[Omnirizon]

Originally Posted by Ironhawk

Note to Mods: Please do not move this thread! I dont care about shrapnel players as a whole, I just want to know what dominions players think.

If you are a US citizen who is capable of voting, I'm curious to know how you are going to vote for in the upcoming presidential elections. I think it will be really interesting to see the pattern of the dominions community.

you should have put "US citizen who is allowed to vote". Just being allowed to vote doesn't make one capable of voting, and being capable of voting doesn't allow one to vote.

[licker]

Originally Posted by Edratman

The predominant problem with that attitude is that door #3 has failed to establish itself as a viable alternative at this point in time. This shortcoming on the part of door #3, and in my opinion the onus is really on door #3, reduces those who choose that option as very minor fringe dissenters.

The country has a past history of new political parties. The Republican party came into existance in the 1850's as an anti-slavery party. The Progressive party, usually known as the Bull Moose party arose in the early 1900's, but didn't generate significent legs.

I agree that one or more new political options are required. But today they do not exist and those who consider voting for the insignificent alternatives are not really dissenters, but merely non-voters in a different cloak.

nonsense.

Those who continue to propagate the current two party system are either sheep, or delusional enough to think that the lessor of two evils is still somehow worth voting for.

The problem is not with the candidates per se. To be sure neither Obama nor McCain are by default bad people, and neither are they crazy or socialists, or whatever other ridiculous smears have been concocted to fed the media.

The problem is with the system as it CURRENTLY exists. Its meaningless to talk about 1850 or 1900, there is no comparison to the current conditions surrounding how candidates are allowed access to the media, much less access to debates or other public avenues to present their message.

MONEY and POWER are all that we see today, and the RNC and DNC don't want to see it change. Why are no 3rd party candidates allowed to appear in the debates? Do you know when this happened? Do you know why this happened?

The league of women voters used to coordinate the debates, but dropped it as the dnc and rnc began to try to control the events and shape them into the meaningless sound clip fests they have become. The organization which controls the debates today doesn't allow 3rd party candidates to even get a sniff at participation.

So honestly, how would you know if these 3rd party candidates are worth listening to or not? Probably just because you've bought the lies the media and politicians would have you believe.

The governance of this country is a complete joke, and it doesn't matter who pretends they are in charge the end result is the same, 2 parties, 2 candidates saying whatever it takes to get elected, and then simply doing whatever they damn well please since there is no accountability for any of them.

The only way out of this is to break the 2 party stranglehold, and you don't do that by continuing to vote for those 2 parties, you don't do it by not voting (that's completely asinine). You do it by voting for a 3rd party, and giving some of your time and even money to supporting and educating others on the reasons why the 2 party system in this country is slowly but surely destroying it.

[Ironhawk]

Wow, licker, get down off the soapbox.

The two party system doesnt have anything to do with money or power or whatever. It has to do with having ONE powerful position to fill. If there were multiple positions, a la the senate and the house, then you have freedom to make more interesting choices. If there is only one tho, then you must organize into the largest possible aggregate body in order to have an impact. Its as simple as that.

[Epaminondas]

I am not a fan of either McCain or Obama, but Obama really makes me retch and puke. He seems to me the classic politico with no settled principles, willing to do anything to get elected. Ironically, he's a lot like his arch-nemeses, the Clintons, in that respect.

[rdonj]

Unfortunately, edratman, I completely agree with this assessment. But I refuse to vote for someone just because they're slightly better than the other candidate who's actually capable of being elected.

Licker: I disagree that you have to be either a sheep or delusional to vote for one of the major candidates, that is too narrow of a grouping and does not account for all variables.

I also disagree with this - "So honestly, how would you know if these 3rd party candidates are worth listening to or not? Probably just because you've bought the lies the media and politicians would have you believe."

I don't know about you but I haven't heard ANYTHING about the 3rd party candidates. And I'm sure many others haven't either. I would bet more people just don't care about them because they get no media attention. How are we ever going to elect someone who doesn't get any air time? From what I can tell the majority of american voters get most if not all of their information from television. Sad, but it seems to be the case.