There is a light and it never goes out

[storch]

"drive a liberal insane, work hard and become a millionaire"

[Mace2004]

Originally posted by T0J0
Bush 3 will never make the ballot! 2 Bushs were enough...

That's probably true but the sad part is the Jeb is the best of the bunch.

[lazs2]

yep... two viable choices means no choice at all for a sensible person.

The democrats are never a choice as they are liberal socialist controled... even if the candidate claims not to be... he WILL tow the party line.

The only real choice I have is that if a Republican will win by a landslide... if I am sure of this... I will vote libertarian to "send a message" I suppose.. the truth is... no protest is worth the chance that a democrat will get in.

I think some of the guys who voted for Bush in double ought voted for libertarians or others in 04...  That was kinda dumb in my opinion because kerrie could have gotten in.

It isn't about if he is a good man or not.... It is about taxes and social programs and destroying the second amendment and letting more and more illegals from socialist countries vote.  It is about apointing liberal judges and cowtowing to the UN and giving the EPA more and more power over our lives...  It is about blue areas dictating laws to red ones.  

lazs

[storch]

wait until George P. Bush comes of age,  the Bush's may actually be what the Kennedy's wanted to be.

[Holden McGroin]

I haven't voted for anybody for president in a long....  make that ever.

Voted against Gore, voted against Kerry....  It would be nice to vote for somebody someday....

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by straffo
There is no choice when there is only 2 choices.

there are more then two.

Which is why Im probably going to vote 3rd party
Possibly libritarian.

[john9001]

jeb bush is the democrats nightmare, he is married to a Hispanic and could get most of hispanic votes.

[Dago]

I only regret I can't vote for GWB again.  

[DREDIOCK]

I dont think Jeb will run and it would be foolish for him to do so as his brother has left a bad taste in too many peoples mouths and the Demoncrats have done a more then effective job with their anti Bush Propaganda and overall whining. To have another Bush elected just based on the name alone

and lets face it. Bush has helped them with his lack of willingness to adapt to changing situations.
 And some of his antics such as the patriot act have rubbed too many people the wrong way

Socially The country as a whole is tired of moving to the right. Just as it was tired of moving to the left in 00.

The way it stands now
Its gonna be real hard for the republicans to win in 08.

They are going to have to put up someone that REALLY wows people.
About the only one I can think of that has half a chance would be Rudy G
but even that would be tough.

About the only thing the Reps have going for them is I just heard Hillary was announced as a frontrunner to run for the election in 08
Which I dont think this country is quite ready for yet. Certainly not with Hillary anwyay
but the country right now seems so disgusted and dissillusioned with the republican party at the moment. I dont know if they can over come it

The time is probably as ripe as its going to get for a third party candidate should one of the third parties put themselves out there to be known enough.

by and large I think most of the country has about had it with both parties antics
so should a third party Candidate make himself known enough. There probably isnt a better time for it.

Unless George decides to go to war with North Korea
Of the issues that will be at the forefront. I think the two main ones will be Iraq and illegal immigrants.

[Mace2004]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
there are more then two.

Which is why Im probably going to vote 3rd party
Possibly libritarian.

LOL...here's a match...just burn your ballot.  We have a two party system, third parties are nothing but spoilers.  Just ask Algore.  Always have been, always will be.

Edit:  Just wanted to add, third parties do have a role in that they tend to force the major parties to pay attention to issues they might otherwise ignore.  In Ross Perot's case it was economics.  In Ralph Nader's case, it was....well, I guess he showed that there was potentially someone worse than Gore.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Mace2004
LOL...here's a match...just burn your ballot.  We have a two party system, third parties are nothing but spoilers.  Just ask Algore.  Always have been, always will be.

Edit:  Just wanted to add, third parties do have a role in that they tend to force the major parties to pay attention to issues they might otherwise ignore.  In Ross Perot's case it was economics.  In Ralph Nader's case, it was....well, I guess he showed that there was potentially someone worse than Gore.

If memory serves correct
Lincoln was a third party candidate

What rule is written that said its only a 2 party system?

No such thing as a burned ballot.
Why cause they wont win?
You vote for who you think would do the best job. Not by who you think would win

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
If memory serves correct
Lincoln was a third party candidate

What rule is written that said its only a 2 party system?

No such thing as a burned ballot.
Why cause they wont win?
You vote for who you think would do the best job. Not by who you think would win

Thw Whigs fell apart, the Republican party was built upon the ashes of the Whigs, Die hard Whigs formed the Constitutional Union party, the Democrats broke into two peices... so there were four candidates in 1860.

Lincoln, Douglas, Breckenrige and Bell

[Mace2004]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
If memory serves correct
Lincoln was a third party candidate

True, the Republican party was a third party but by winning it destroyed one of the two major parties resulting in the continuation of a two-party system.  You also have to consider the situation in the US at the time, nobody is seriously suggesting the US is going to have another civil war.

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
What rule is written that said its only a 2 party system?

There is none, as a matter of fact, the founders wanted a no-party system but the way the system is set up it virtually guarantees two major parties while making it almost impossible for a third party to garner enough votes to do anything other than to influence the major parties.  Historically, the US has a two-party system and to argue that it's not the "rule" ignores history.

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
No such thing as a burned ballot.

Actually, you can burn an absentee ballot but I think you get my point.

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Why cause they wont win?

By voting for a third party you're not voting for either of the parties that will win so, in essence, you're throwing your vote away.  No party is perfect, I think that's fairly obvious, but say you believe in 80% of what one party stands for and 20% of the other.  Wouldn't you still rather see the party you mostly agree with win?

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
You vote for who you think would do the best job. Not by who you think would win

I didn't say you should vote for the guy that's going to win.  I was simply saying that to vote for a third party candidate you know will lose is a poor choice and may result in the party you most disagree with winning.  Those people who voted for Ross Perot were more closely aligned with the Republican party than the Dems and look who won.  Those who voted for Ralph Nadar were more aligned with Dems and look who won that one.  Seems a little bit foolish to do this.

[lasersailor184]

I was simply saying that to vote for a third party candidate you know will lose is a poor choice and may result in the party you most disagree with winning.

I'm beginning to think that it might be worth it if the revolution is kicked off sooner.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Mace2004
True, the Republican party was a third party but by winning it destroyed one of the two major parties resulting in the continuation of a two-party system.  

The Whig party, the other party with the Demos which made up the 2 party system before the civil war was all but gone in 1854, after the Kansas Nebraska act split the party.

The Whigs did not feild a candidate in 1860, so Lincoln's win was not the cause of the end of the Whigs.