1st of the debates underway

[Trey@IG]

I'm not bashing anyone, but the 3rd party candidates have NO CHANCE of winning. (Even if they are the best choice) Why waste your vote? Vote for one of the two who have a chance. Vote for the one who will Not take away your rights and freedom. Vote for the one who will not let the UN decide if you can own a gun. Personally I'm voting for the one who isn't a socialist. I'm not saying who that is, because I'm saying anything bad about the piece of excrement.

romneys done more to take away your gun rights than obama has. 3rd party candidates have no chance of winning because of people with your mindset. all youre doing is perpetuating this flawed system. youre saying "hey this system sucks ass but im going to vote for it anyway and get another 4 years of **** shoved in my face" neither of the parties are any good or will get anything done

 

[Jack]

I was hoping Mitt would ask O if we really have reversed engineered UFO's at area 51. I would like to have heard his response on that one.

 

[Armnhammer]

It's time to stand up to this crooked 2 party system. Even if it means I stand alone and know 100% he won't win I will not conform. If everyone who liked Gary but said he couldn't win voted for him he'd have a chance. We should all abandon this 2 party system. But if I'm throwing away a vote, so be it. At least he wants to discuss the issues that matter. The other 2 won't debate important issues because they agree on them. Ex. Gun control, no real budget cuts, continual government growth, war on drugs, etc...

 

[Jack]

If everyone who liked Gary but said he couldn't win voted for him he'd have a chance.

No, he wouldn't. Gary Johnson isn't a name the majority of Americans know. Even if everyone who knows who he is votes for him, he would still lose. It doesn't matter how good of a candidate you are if nobody knows your positions, much less you exist.

 

[Bosco]

 

[Armnhammer]

 

[Armnhammer]

No, he wouldn't. Gary Johnson isn't a name the majority of Americans know. Even if everyone who knows who he is votes for him, he would still lose. It doesn't matter how good of a candidate you are if nobody knows your positions, much less you exist.

Because mainstream media refused to cover him. He was blacked out through the whole race yet still is a threat to both parties

 

[Armnhammer]

Pulled this off last nights TelePrompTer

 

[Jack]

Because mainstream media refused to cover him. He was blacked out through the whole race yet still is a threat to both parties

A threat in what way?

 

[Armnhammer]

A threat in what way?

The rep party claims a vote 3rd party is a vote for Obama and his votes are splitting the party. Yet oddly enough the dems say the same thing. Both parties are scared of him and refuse to even let him be in the debates. They both know he will discuss the issues they r scared of.

 

[honestlou]

Yes, I would support Ron Paul, or Gary Johnson, or anyone who is not beholden to the Democrat/Republican system. As long as we allow them to tell us we only have two choices, then we will only ever have two choices, and those choices will be made for us before we are allowed to pick which of the two we hate less than the other one. A wide selection will always be more beneficial to the masses than a monopoly. The Dems and Reps have a monopoly of power in this country and it does nothing good for us. I think we need more than a third party, we need a fourth-fifth-sixth... We need to completely change the way our elections are run and carried out, or things will only keep getting worse.

I disagree. I think the U.S. has done pretty damn well for the last couple hundred years with a predominately two-party system. Can you point to a country that has done better than the U.S. with multiple parties? That was a rhetorical question, as no country has prospered more, and done more good for the world, than the U.S. Period.

If you think 3, 4, 5, or more parties will make us better or stronger, why stop there? Why not 1000 parties? Why not direct democracy-just vote online on every issue? That is not a good idea, and is not the basis of our representative republic.

Lastly, there are actually many parties. It's just that only two are popular enough to have a real chance at winning. That can change, but is not likely to in the foreseeable future. The reason is that the vast majority of Americans identify fairly closely with one of the two major parties. And the primaries allow multiple candidates to compete.

I think your main problem is that your personal views are not in line with the majority of Americans. The majority of Americans are happy with one or the other of these two candidates.

Lastly, if you think there is no difference between Romney and Obama, then you simply have not paid any attention to the issues, or lack the ability to process information.

 

[Armnhammer]

I disagree. I think the U.S. has done pretty damn well for the last couple hundred years with a predominately two-party system. Can you point to a country that has done better than the U.S. with multiple parties? That was a rhetorical question, as no country has prospered more, and done more good for the world, than the U.S. Period.

If you think 3, 4, 5, or more parties will make us better or stronger, why stop there? Why not 1000 parties? Why not direct democracy-just vote online on every issue? That is not a good idea, and is not the basis of our representative republic.

Lastly, there are actually many parties. It's just that only two are popular enough to have a real chance at winning. That can change, but is not likely to in the foreseeable future. The reason is that the vast majority of Americans identify fairly closely with one of the two major parties. And the primaries allow multiple candidates to compete.

I think your main problem is that your personal views are not in line with the majority of Americans. The majority of Americans are happy with one or the other of these two candidates.

Lastly, if you think there is no difference between Romney and Obama, then you simply have not paid any attention to the issues, or lack the ability to process information.

Where is this majority of Americans. I know no one that agrees with one of the two parties on most issues. Maybe on a couple but the only good thing anyone says about Romney is he isn't Obama.

 

[Jack]

The rep party claims a vote 3rd party is a vote for Obama and his votes are splitting the party. Yet oddly enough the dems say the same thing. Both parties are scared of him and refuse to even let him be in the debates. They both know he will discuss the issues they r scared of.

I wouldn't say they are scared of him, I'd say they are trying to get every vote they can, winning is the goal isn't it?

 

[Armnhammer]

I wouldn't say they are scared of him, I'd say they are trying to get every vote they can, winning is the goal isn't it?

If they weren't scared of him being a threat then they wouldn't have went though so much to keep him out of the debate.

 

[Bosco]

Lastly, if you think there is no difference between Romney and Obama, then you simply have not paid any attention to the issues, or lack the ability to process information.

 

[Cochise]

I wouldn't say they are scared of him, I'd say they are trying to get every vote they can, winning is the goal isn't it?

Is winning the goal? Yes. Is winning supposed to be the goal? NO, doing what is best for the country and the people they represent is supposed to be the goal. Sadly, both parties have been corrupted and have devolved to the point that winning is all that matters to them. That is why they both work together to shut out any other candidates who aren't in line with the inner circle and the party's way of thinking and that is why I, personally, call bullsh*t on the whole damned thing.

 

[Jack]

If they weren't scared of him being a threat then they wouldn't have went though so much to keep him out of the debate.

And they is supposed to be the democrats and republicans?

 

[Jack]

Is winning the goal? Yes. Is winning supposed to be the goal? NO, doing what is best for the country and the people they represent is supposed to be the goal. Sadly, both parties have been corrupted and have devolved to the point that winning is all that matters to them. That is why they both work together to shut out any other candidates who aren't in line with the inner circle and the party's way of thinking and that is why I, personally, call bullsh*t on the whole damned thing.

No, winning should be the first goal. It's hard to help America from your couch.

 

[Cochise]

I disagree. I think the U.S. has done pretty damn well for the last couple hundred years with a predominately two-party system. Can you point to a country that has done better than the U.S. with multiple parties? That was a rhetorical question, as no country has prospered more, and done more good for the world, than the U.S. Period.

If you think 3, 4, 5, or more parties will make us better or stronger, why stop there? Why not 1000 parties? Why not direct democracy-just vote online on every issue? That is not a good idea, and is not the basis of our representative republic.

Lastly, there are actually many parties. It's just that only two are popular enough to have a real chance at winning. That can change, but is not likely to in the foreseeable future. The reason is that the vast majority of Americans identify fairly closely with one of the two major parties. And the primaries allow multiple candidates to compete.

I think your main problem is that your personal views are not in line with the majority of Americans. The majority of Americans are happy with one or the other of these two candidates.

Lastly, if you think there is no difference between Romney and Obama, then you simply have not paid any attention to the issues, or lack the ability to process information.

The system used to work because the parties both used to have the sense to nominate qualified, intelligent people who could do the job and convince people they could do the job.

Today, the world has changed so much that the old ways don't work anymore. Now, the Presidential Election isn't about what the candidates really believe or what really needs to be done, it's about winning the media circus popularity contest and charming the average idiot into keeping them in power. The people who actually have the knowledge and drive to do great things for our country are thrown under the bus to make room for the guy with the charming smile that looks really good on TV and can quote all the lines that are prepared for him by careful calculation to charm the soft hearts of the soft minded.

Can you deny that?

Lastly, I don't believe that there is no difference between Romney and Obama. I believe that they will take completely different paths to screwing up the country worse than it already is. The only similarity is where we will be in the end.

 

[honestlou]

Where is this majority of Americans. I know no one that agrees with one of the two parties on most issues. Maybe on a couple but the only good thing anyone says about Romney is he isn't Obama.

I think that Romeny was correct in that 47% of the people are completely fine with Obama. I think Romeny will win this election with 52% of the vote or more--and yes, some of those will be people who didn't have Romeny as their first choice, but are voting against Obama. Regardless, clearly the vast majority of U.S. voters like either Romeny or Obama.

The system used to work because the parties both used to have the sense to nominate qualified, intelligent people who could do the job and convince people they could do the job.

Today, the world has changed so much that the old ways don't work anymore. Now, the Presidential Election isn't about what the candidates really believe or what really needs to be done, it's about winning the media circus popularity contest and charming the average idiot into keeping them in power. The people who actually have the knowledge and drive to do great things for our country are thrown under the bus to make room for the guy with the charming smile that looks really good on TV and can quote all the lines that are prepared for him by careful calculation to charm the soft hearts of the soft minded.

Can you deny that?

Lastly, I don't believe that there is no difference between Romney and Obama. I believe that they will take completely different paths to screwing up the country worse than it already is. The only similarity is where we will be in the end.

I don't deny that because of the evolution and current state of mass media, that how a candidate looks and performs is very important in getting elected. Good thoughts and ideas and plans are not enough if you don't look good and communicate well as a candidate. Historically this was different, as there were none and then little audio/video media, and the public relied on print--words--to form opinions and make decisions. But I do disagree if you think that looks and performance are the only things that matter. Romney won the debate last night because of the ideas he communicated, not just because he's a good looking guy that communicates well.

As to your last comment, I can only ask you to elaborate on what path you think Romney will take to screw up the country worse than it already is? I think that a Romney Supreme Court appointment could have an extremely important positive impact on our nation for the next 30 years. I think that Romney will exercise good executive leadership and that if he is President we will be able to begin curtailing the outrageous deficit spending.

Romney was not my first choice in the primaries, but I think the direction of the country will be vastly different under Romney than under Obama--they are different, they will govern differently, they will make different Supreme Court nominations, they will make different Federal appointments, ie. Justice Dept., and yes.... the country will be different depending on which is elected.