The Tuesday Night Elections

UNT Five&Dime · November 5, 2010

No. He said he votes third party to let the other parties know he doesn't support what they're doing. That is no way to select leaders. If you vote third party out of a belief in that candidate, then that's fine. To vote third party simply because you don't like the two major party candidates is a waste of a vote and a waste of time. Might as well vote for "None of the Above."

And if you recall from history, the Republican Party began as a third party. The problem with third parties today is that they seem to always, ALWAYS nominate some kook weirdo as their candidate. Ross Perot, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Strom Thurmon... They always nominate completely unelectable candidates.

I can't speak for him but I think his point was he votes third party because they match him AND to send a message. Many people match with a third party but vote a major because of the "can't win" thinking. You led me to believe you support that.

Are they kooks that get nominated, or are they kooks because they get nominated by a third party? And as 90 pointed out earlier, there are kooks in every party.

eulesseagle · November 5, 2010

Flyer, I appreciate what you are saying but my intent was that since the New Deal (really the Raw Deal) and the Great Society the Democrats have built upon their measures and the Republicans have done nothing to reduce the size of that government the Democrats enacted.

The Republicans and Democrats, prior to any election, drift toward the center, blame each other, get elected then drift back to where they were before. When the Republicans have taken control of the Presidency and/or Congress they do absolutely nothing to reduce or eliminate the size of government. Like clockwork the Republicans begin to compromise with the Democrats to "piece-meal" the greater size of government. Incramentalism is the correct word. Just the same way the Fabians did it in England begining in the 1880's and how they blind sided the Labor Party into their ideals then just like a frog taking a bath in an increasingly bath of warm water they woke up and they were cooked. Today the Labor Party is the embodiment of socialism similar to the Democratic Party.

Just watch......the Republicans will begin their "hat-in-hand" tactic of compromising on all of the last legislature's enactments to grow the size of government by enacting bits and pieces of Obama Care...ect.....ect....ect....

Will they stop the growth of government? History says no.

If I choose to vote third party it is because they have a platform to reduce the size of government and give control back to the states & not the other way around.....and that is what I believe.....what I also stated was that if either mainstream party took up those ideals and began to implement them I may support them....but....until then I will vote for the party that best represents me and not for a party that may win just to vote for a winner and to say I voted for a winner.

Heck, I encourage all people to vote for who they believe but I also tell them that both parties will pick your pocket and make your wallet their personal ATM machine.

Stalin once said, and I paraphrase, I don't care how many people vote for whom but what counts is who counts the vote.

_________________________________

America's political corruption has become the strength of our enemies.

UNT90 · November 5, 2010

The moderate way is the only way we should view government.

The libertarians I have known have been former fiscally conservative/socially liberal republicans who can't tell their friends that they would actually agree with someone who is not a republican (ie. dem) and/or can't stomach the vitriol from far right wing mouth breathersteabaggers nuts. maybe there are libertarians who were never republicans; I haven't seen them... just sayin

So, your idea of moderation is slamming the republican party, calling conservatives "far right wing nuts", refering to the tea party movement by using a tired middle school term, and telling Libertarians that they need to agree with democrats.

Yep, you are quite the moderate. :rolleyes:

UNT90 · November 5, 2010

I'd rather lose with a conservative than win with a RINO.

Completely agree, just making an observation.

FirefightnRick · November 5, 2010

Just watch......the Republicans will begin their "hat-in-hand" tactic of compromising on all of the last legislature's enactments to grow the size of government by enacting bits and Obama Care...ect.....ect....ECG

Reminds me of John Cornyn right now and his lack of leadership in helping conservative

candidates getting help from the NRSC. He's the next in line to go as far as I'm concerned.

http://dtpcoordinators.mojo4m.com/3748/

Rick

Edited November 5, 2010 by FirefightnRick

eulesseagle · November 5, 2010

FFR, got to agree. His political ad when the stimulus packages where up for a vote was a classic. Blue jeans, cowboy hat, western shirt, looking over the West Texas Desert and saying in his best Texan accent how independent Texas voters are....blah blah blah and how he was "not" going to vote for the stimulus....a week later Cornyn votes for the stimulus. Kay Baily has done that plenty of times and perhaps that is why Texas voters gave Perry the Governorship.

Then the voters have to put up with the ususal post vote statements.

1. "well I just wanted to vote for it so I could vote against it on the next vote."

2. "well I just voted for some of the measures in the bill and not the whole bill."

3. "well I voted for it so the committee could review the bill further before it goes across the hall and if I don't like it then ... then I will vote against it."

4. "well I voted for it so we can make some changes to it next time."

Same 'ol lies that politicians told our great great grandparents still work today.

Personally, I would like to get rid of the 17th Admendment....sending senators by popular vote to Washington. Up to Wilson the senators were elected and sent by the individual state legislatures. IMHO, this was one of the major steps in the erosion of states rights to a larger centralized government. There were, essentially, no career senators then because the senators were at the becon call of the 48 state governments. If the individual state governments did not like what their senator was doing they would vote him out and put someone else in who represented their state more appropriately. Senators no longer, in general, represent the interest of their states but vote to represent the overall interest of their party.....even when it adversly effects their state.

Edited November 5, 2010 by eulesseagle

forevereagle · November 5, 2010

How about this cage match? Who ya got (as if we don't already know)?

VS

untbowler · November 5, 2010

Reminds me of John Cornyn right now and his lack of leadership in helping conservative
candidates getting help from the NRSC. He's the next in line to go as far as I'm concerned.
http://dtpcoordinators.mojo4m.com/3748/

Rick

Cornyn, Boehner, and McConnell all need to be gone after their actions this election season.

As for Karl rove, someone please get some ducktape and socks for this idiot.

UNTflyer · November 5, 2010

Obama still doesn't understand what the election results mean:

================

NEW YORK (CBS) After a suffering a "shellacking" in the midterm elections, President Obama acknowledges what many have seen as his chief weakness failing to sell the importance of several legislative milestones to the American people.

"I think that's a fair argument. I think that, over the course of two years we were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that, we stopped paying attention to the fact that leadership isn't just legislation. That it's a matter of persuading people. And giving them confidence and bringing them together. And setting a tone," Mr. Obama told 60 Minutes' Steve Kroft in an exclusive interview set to air Sunday.

"Making an argument that people can understand," Mr. Obama continued, "I think that we haven't always been successful at that. And I take personal responsibility for that. And it's something that I've got to examine carefully … as I go forward."

===============

So... the reason Democrats lost is because Americans just don't understand all the great things Obama has done for them. Like adding over $3 trillion in real debt in 22 months, and a 10-year projected debt of $10 trillion.

When I read this, I was reminded of the Star Trek episode when Picard was on trial for the crimes of humanity. Q shouts out "He doesn't understand!" and all the spectators laughed about how Picard could be so clueless.

Edited November 5, 2010 by UNTflyer

MeanGreenTexan · November 5, 2010

And if you recall from history, the Republican Party began as a third party. The problem with third parties today is that they seem to always, ALWAYS nominate some kook weirdo as their candidate. Ross Perot, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Strom Thurmon... They always nominate completely unelectable candidates.

I happen to work for Mr. Perot and I can assure you he's no "kook wierdo". If he were elected president our money woes would have been gone long ago. Money falls into this mans lap, and once it does, he knows what to do with it. As a matter of fact, both times he ran he carried a few states. To throw Ross Perot in with Ralph Nader is beyond ridiculous.

UNTflyer · November 5, 2010

I happen to work for Mr. Perot and I can assure you he's no "kook wierdo". If he were elected president our money woes would have been gone long ago. Money falls into this mans lap, and once it does, he knows what to do with it. As a matter of fact, both times he ran he carried a few states. To throw Ross Perot in with Ralph Nader is beyond ridiculous.

Uh, no he didn't. Perot didn't carry a single state.

MeanGreenTexan · November 5, 2010

Uh, no he didn't. Perot didn't carry a single state.

I stand corrected.

I don't know where I saw that, but after doing some simple googling, he did not carry any states. He finished second in a few, but not 1st.

However, he was extremely successful as a 3rd Party candidate, you must admit that. Much more so than Nader/Buchanan/et al. The fact that he pulled down 19% of the vote in '92 enforces that.

I just wish people were honest. I'm so put-off with national (and even State) politicians. They're all crooked and, once in office do nothing but vote on party lines and do whatever they can to get re-elected.

I hate politics.

UNTflyer · November 5, 2010

It's not the people... it's just the nature of politics and government. I think people really want to go to Washington to make a difference and they end up becoming career politicians steering tax money to pert projects so they can keep their job for another term.

The voters should impose their own term limits. 12 years in national office (6 terms for House, two for Senate, or any combination thereof). Because the politicians themselves aren't going to do it. Hmm, maybe I'll start a new grass roots campaign for just that - Voter-Imposed Term Limits.

MeanGreenTexan · November 5, 2010

It's not the people... it's just the nature of politics and government. I think people really want to go to Washington to make a difference and they end up becoming career politicians steering tax money to pert projects so they can keep their job for another term.

The voters should impose their own term limits. 12 years in national office (6 terms for House, two for Senate, or any combination thereof). Because the politicians themselves aren't going to do it. Hmm, maybe I'll start a new grass roots campaign for just that - Voter-Imposed Term Limits.

That's a start. I'd be on board.

You may be right about some, but I just don't get that vibe from most of them. They're all so polished, it's like they've wanted to do this their whole lives... not to be the voice of the people they represent, but to get the power & prestige that comes with being a congressman/Senator/Governor/President.