Still don't know whom to vote for?

Curmudgeon wrote: [soapbox] But the Presidential election is still all a circus. We elect a Grand Poobah to make everything right, ignoring the way our country really works, then point fingers at the Poobah when things go sour. He catches the crap while Congress trucks right along screwing us harder by the minute. [/soapbox]

I've been trying to tell people this for years, but they don't seem to get it.

On the quiz: no matter how I changed the importance of the issues I couldn't get more than 55% for any of them.

Q said- O/Romney/Huntsmen

I would have said Paul/O/Mittens

In reply to Crumudgeon and Hal:

Read "Throw Them All Out" by Peter Schweizer. It is not just Congress that is screwing us. I hope eventually people realize that we really have one party and that the idea of our two party system is just an idea.

carguy123 wrote: Oh noes, a post that is longer than a 3 sentence paragraph. My head is a gonna assplode! You guys are the real problem. ... No matter which way you choose it still leaves you with dead babies so what did you accomplish by ... going with a third party?

So - because the system is broken and the two alternatives are both bad, we're stupid to try to vote in a different way? Yeah, THAT makes sense. So tell me, if it's always too late or non-viable to try a third party route, how exactly are we supposed to GET a third party to compete with the other two?

carguy123 wrote: At this time voting for a third party candidate doesn't show anyone anything. They already know people are pissed so you are throwing away your vote and allowing the most status quo candidate to win. So you are doing dead babies.

You allege both parties already know we're pissed - so please provide a shred of evidence that either party gives a E36 M3, or is changing their behaviour in any way except to continue doing exactly the same things that pissed us off, even more hysterically.

On another note, I took this quiz honestly and it paired me up with Gingrich, Perry, and Huntsman, in that order. Which is funny, because Huntsman is the only one I would even remotely consider voting for.

Duke wrote: You allege both parties already know we're pissed - so please provide a shred of evidence that either party gives a E36 M3, or is changing their behaviour *in any way* except to continue doing exactly the same things that pissed us off, even more hysterically.

Look no further than the Tea Party affiliates and how they have influenced the passage of spending bills in the House. You may label them as "hysterical" but you cannot deny they have had an effect on Congressional behaviours.

The "Blue Dog" Democrats, who campaigned for fiscal resposibility, have have been neutered by their establishment pound keepers.

carguy123 wrote: Wouldn't you rather it be the lesser of 2 evils rather than evil personified? Then in between elections you keep working for change. It's going to take many elections before there's a change. It won't come overnight. And if the wrong people get in power they can just keep curtailing our rights and making it that much harder to effect a change.

As long as you keep pulling a lever for the bad choices, you're putting the babies on the track in the first place.

You know who I consider evil personified? Any Democrat or Republican. They don't offer me any choices because the Democrats suck based on their some of their fiscal policies and the Republicans suck worse due to their affiliation with the Religious Right.

I want fiscal responsibility and social liberty. I'd run myself but I'm unelectable. I'll just keep supporting the candidates I think might possibly screw things up the least.

Mine said Obama, so that's is how I am voting. I do what the internet tells me to!

oldsaw wrote: Look no further than the Tea Party affiliates and how they have influenced the passage of spending bills in the House. You may label them as "hysterical" but you cannot deny they have had an effect on Congressional behaviours.

It is still business as usual. There is no serious discussion of spending reduction on either side. On the Tea Party/Republican side there is a grandstand play aimed at cockblocking the Democrats while looking like they are serious about spending reduction long enough to get more Republicans into power.

That's all. Nobody currently in power is discussing fixing the problem ; they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic , to borrow a phrase.

In reply to Duke:

You're expecting legislative miracles. There aren't enough Republicans in the Senate to ensure spending cuts passed through the House. You said it yourself, Repubs are forced to grandstand because because that's all they have.

One might argue there could be compromise with the Senate but any compromise would be illusory and based on promises that Democrats rarely fulfill. There won't be change in direction until one of the two parties has control of Congress. What that direction is depends on the majority in power.

oldsaw wrote: There won't be change in direction until one of the two parties has control of Congress. What that direction is depends on the majority in power.

When the Republicans had control, spending went through the roof - just on a different set of sacred cows. Nice try, though.

Duke wrote:

oldsaw wrote: There won't be change in direction until one of the two parties has control of Congress. What that direction is depends on the majority in power.

When the Republicans had control, spending went through the roof - just on a different set of sacred cows. Nice try, though.

There is a SMALL chance that they have seen the light and remember the ass whooping they got last time they pulled that E36 M3. Small chance. OTOH, the Democrats have stated that they have zero interest in reducing the size of government. The win with a Ron Paul or Gary Johnson in the White House is that Congress can put bloated bills in front of them, but there's WAY more chance of the veto being used with any of the Big Government types, regardless of the party to whom they belong.

In reply to DILYSI Dave:

That SMALL chance is why I have more confidence in the R's affecting necessary changes. It's also up to voters to apply diligence and pressure to make certain they do so. PO'd voters scared the pants off the BG-types in 2010 and they can do it again in 2012.

A President Paul or President Johnson may whip out the veto pen but if either doesn't have the backing of Congress, vetoes would be overridden.

oldsaw wrote: PO'd voters scared the pants off the BG-types in 2010 and they can do it again in 2012.

They scared the pants off the BG-types... but only in the same way that record company management gets scared when they see a new trend or artist that they've failed to get a contract on early enough. IE "Hey, this Adele chick is selling a lot of records for somebody else. We better scramble around and sign up any chick singers with raspy voices we can find." That kind of scared doesn't hit you where you live and make you change your ways - that kind of scared just makes you yell at your brand managers.

I agree with everything you and Dave are saying in these last 2 posts, but I don't see any real chance of either the Republicrats or the Democricans affecting any real internal change to the profitable detente they've spent the last 40 years perfecting.