Red or Blue the only way?

[Mountaintech]

Wonder how many people realize there are 6 people running for President this time around? Things will keep getting worse as power bounces back and forth between the Republicans and Democrats. Why? Because both parties are too corrupted by bigger interests regardless of what they may say to the contrary. Its ridiculous that they are the only ones that are allowed to debate publicly. I guess things aren't bad enough yet because I don't see a revolt.

 

[grubbn]

Wonder how many people realize there are 6 people running for President this time around? Things will keep getting worse as power bounces back and forth between the Republicans and Democrats. Why? Because both parties are too corrupted by bigger interests regardless of what they may say to the contrary. Its ridiculous that they are the only ones that are allowed to debate publicly. I guess things aren't bad enough yet because I don't see a revolt.

Good point! Too bad it's coming from a canuck...no offense

 

[Mountaintech]

Yes, I am Canadian. Sometimes things are more obvious when you're on the outside looking in.

 

[grubbn]

Yes, I am Canadian. Sometimes things are more obvious when you're on the outside looking in.

Oh its obvious down here too. But it takes more than good ideas to change the status quo Politicians are fear mongers. They keep people afraid of real change.

 

[Ollie]

I will give you an actual answer.

There are only 2 candidates that really stand a chance.
The republican and the Democrat.
The rest don't have the money to get their name or their platform information out there. So to vote for them would in essence be throwing your vote away.

It would be like you having a conservative and a liberal on the canadian ballet, plus 4 more you know nothing about.
The liberal is bad news and you know it, so do you vote for one of the 4 no one has ever heard about, or do you vote for the conservative and hope he can stop the liberal?

We need a non of the above option

 

[Mountaintech]

I will give you an actual answer.

There are only 2 candidates that really stand a chance.
The republican and the Democrat.
The rest don't have the money to get their name or their platform information out there. So to vote for them would in essence be throwing your vote away.

It would be like you having a conservative and a liberal on the canadian ballet, plus 4 more you know nothing about.
The liberal is bad news and you know it, so do you vote for one of the 4 no one has ever heard about, or do you vote for the conservative and hope he can stop the liberal?

We need a non of the above option

I understand what you are saying but do not agree with the throwing your vote away thing. Vote counts are recorded and that is one way for a third party to grow....as seen up here in the past. To not vote for a candidate because you think he might not get enough votes will always get you the status quo.

 

[skibreeze]

There are actually 16 people listed on the ballot.

 

[grubbn]

I will give you an actual answer.

There are only 2 candidates that really stand a chance.
The republican and the Democrat.
The rest don't have the money to get their name or their platform information out there. So to vote for them would in essence be throwing your vote away.

It would be like you having a conservative and a liberal on the canadian ballet, plus 4 more you know nothing about.
The liberal is bad news and you know it, so do you vote for one of the 4 no one has ever heard about, or do you vote for the conservative and hope he can stop the liberal?

We need a non of the above option

The answer would be to have each state governed individually. What i mean is elect a president per state. The Pres of th USA is too far out of reach from every day people. Put them closer and more liable things would be different. IMO

 

[swampwater]

The states are supposed to govern individually, "all powers not delegated to the united states belong to the states and to the people respectively." The problem is that in the early 20th century an amendment was passed giving the election of the senate to the popular vote rather than as originally designed that the 2 senators were appointed by the state legislators, which were assumed to be more pragmatic than the voters themselves, this was called separation of powers at the federal level, house, elected by the people, senate appointed by the state legislatures to watch out for states rights. Swampy

The answer would be to have each state governed individually. What i mean is elect a president per state. The Pres of th USA is too far out of reach from every day people. Put them closer and more liable things would be different. IMO