BACK TO HOME PAGE SITE NAVIGATION CONTACT POETRY FORUM STORY FORUM   Horoscope  Radio  Gallery  FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   PM's   
Log in 
 
General Forum Index -> Articles & Essays

You don't have to choose the less of two evils!

Ladies Lifestyle and Living Store
  Author    Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Phoenix
Moderators


Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 1664
Location: Tallahassee Florida
You don't have to choose the less of two evils!

I'm a registered independent voter. I'm socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. I had no one to support until I found Ron Paul. He's a constitutionalist as I am. Please watch this video, visit his website, find out what he is saying, and why he is winning so many straw polls. The major media isn't showing it. Heck, he was even removed as a choice for president on Glen Beck's site.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFjM1ZzZSE8&mode=related&search=

Just search you tube for Ron Paul. He is amazing.
_________________
"A little work won't hurt you bad, but just in case I'm wrong, you'll be smiling when they pronounce you dead." Amanda Marshall 'This could take all night

Post Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:55 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
RAGE



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 7
Location: Atlanta...always reppin' Brooklyn


Thanks for this information. It's important to know as much as possible about all constituents....not just the color of their skin, gender, or if they'll let gays marry or not. Appreciate it *wink*
_________________
Speak only if it will improve the silence
~Icon da poet~

Post Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:05 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger  Reply with quote  
bbmaniac



Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 248
Location: Houston, TX


As a Texan, I'm familiar with Ron Paul. He is simply not the same candidate he was 20 years ago. I'm not saying that, for lack of a better way of putting it, that a tiger can't change his stripes...I'm just a little wary of someone who can make such vast changes in his political stances.

You're right, Phoenix...you don't have to vote for the lesser of two evils. It just sometimes comes down to that.

Hugs to you all,
BB
_________________
For nothing this wide universe I call,
Save thou, my rose; in it thou art my all.

Sonnet 109 - Shakespeare

'I'm just your ordinary, everyday sane-psycho...supergoddess' Liz Phair

--------------------------------------

Post Sun Oct 14, 2007 2:42 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger  Reply with quote  
Eiregirl



Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 10230
Location: Chasing a pink bunny


No we do not have to choose between the two biggest evils

I'm currently checking on what Christine Smith thinks and how she stands on many issues and so far I like where she stands.

However the sad thing is...she most likely does not have a chance in hell of winning simply because the majority of people who vote will vote for a Republican because they always have or they will vote for a Democrat because they always have. Those who swing back and forth will not even think of voting for someone outside of those two parties. That is a sucky and cowardly way to vote in my humble opinion.

Just imagine if everyone who did not like Bush or Gore had checked out another candidate and really listened to what they had to say and checked out their stance on various issues they just might have found someone they could better identify with. If that had happened then perhaps…well we might still have Bush or we may have ended up with Gore or better yet we might have ended up with someone else.

Thanks for posting this and reminding people they have other choices.

Hugs,
Eiregirl Arrow
_________________
All poems and stories posted by Eiregirl are Copyright 2005 - 2008 Aoibhegréine These literary works are my property under copyright. If you wish to use my work for any purpose please ASK FIRST.

Post Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:11 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  Reply with quote  
bbmaniac



Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 248
Location: Houston, TX


Unless, Eire, the third, fourth or what have you is only in the race to manipulate the outcome (i.e. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, etc.), you're right...it would be cowardly to vote for a Republican or a Democrat just because those are the predominant parties. It just doesn't usually work out that way, though.

Hugs,
BB
_________________
For nothing this wide universe I call,
Save thou, my rose; in it thou art my all.

Sonnet 109 - Shakespeare

'I'm just your ordinary, everyday sane-psycho...supergoddess' Liz Phair

--------------------------------------

Post Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:32 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger  Reply with quote  
Eiregirl



Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 10230
Location: Chasing a pink bunny


quote:
Originally posted by bbmaniac:
Unless, Eire, the third, fourth or what have you is only in the race to manipulate the outcome (i.e. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, etc.), you're right...it would be cowardly to vote for a Republican or a Democrat just because those are the predominant parties. It just doesn't usually work out that way, though.

Hugs,
BB


BB,

Yes there have been third party candidates who knew they could not possibly win and were only in the race to take votes from a particular major party…(i.e. Ross Perot wanted to take votes away from Bush #1 and Ralph Nader wanted to take votes away from Bush #2 but ended up hurting Kerry even more). But I believe both Perot and Nader wanted to win and I even think Perot felt he had at least a slim chance of pulling it off. I even think that if Perot had brought in a good vice presidential candidate he would have done even better than he did. There have been at least 20 presidential elections where 3 or more parties have had a candidate on the ticket and since 1968 there has always been a third party on the ticket…but they have never had that candidate who could capture the publics eye, stand up in front of a crowd of people and articulate their views and opinions in an understandable and positive way. It was very clear that Perot hated Bush and that is where most of his votes came from…the swing vote Republicans who hated Bush and everyone else who did not want Clinton or Bush in the White House. With better campaign management and some better speaking skills he might have pulled it off especially if he had picked a better known and more popular running mate. Nader on the other hand just does not have what it takes to win.

You are right it does not usually work out that way (I assume you are meaning that it does not work out that a third party only runs to take votes from a particular candidate) But it does usually work that a third party will take votes from both parties and usually more from one than the other depending on what third party it is and who that candidate is.

In every election the main voters people talk about are what they call “swing voters”. These are the people who do not vote for a person simply because that person is a Republican or Democrat. Everyone else will only vote for someone who is in their party period and to me that is silly. I have heard people say, “I’m a Republican and have always voted for a Republican and always will vote for a Republican.” I have heard it from people in the Democratic party as well and that is just plain stupid. Those are the hard core people who will always vote for the party and not the person running. Then you have the real…umm…for lack of a better word…idiots who think just because they are registered with one party that they can’t vote for another. Yes it is true I have heard it with my own ears from the stupid persons own lips. “…but I like the other guy and what he says but I could not vote for him because I’m not registered as a republican.” I was totally dumbfounded and I’m sure my chin hit the floor when those words escaped her lips.

I know there are two major parties and there most likely will never be a third major party that has a snowballs chance in hell of winning in a presidential race. The people that would be good enough and have a chance will never run under a third party ticket. They will run under one of the two major parties so they can get those core votes. In doing that they have to be on that parties platform and adopt the major views of that party and have a history to go along with it. They do not see a third party as an avenue to climb the political ladder. In today's world it will take someone who is well known and well liked by a vast majority of the voting public to ever put a third party into the White House.

Most of the voting public do not educate themselves on the issues or what the candidates say. All they pay attention to are sound bites and when a candidate says something they want to hear that is who they vote for. They will vote for that candidate simply because that candidate said ONE thing they wanted to hear and for no other reason. People should take the time to find out where all the candidates stand on all issues and not just a single issue and they definitely should not rely on sound bites.

Another problem is with the people who could vote but never do.
Here are figures compiled by the American Presidency Project

In 1960 58.22% of the registered voting age population voted and 62.77% of the voting age population

In 1964 64.61% of the registered voting age population voted and 61.92% of the voting age population

In 1968 67.86% of the registered voting age population voted and 60.84% of the voting age population

In 1972 69.11% of the registered voting age population voted and 55.21% of the voting age population

In 1976 68.96% of the registered voting age population voted and 53.55% of the voting age population

In 1980 68.67% of the registered voting age population voted and 52.56% of the voting age population

In 1984 71.18% of the registered voting age population voted and 53.11% of the voting age population

In 1988 69.20% of the registered voting age population voted and 50.15% of the voting age population

In 1992 70.79% of the registered voting age population voted and 55.23% of the voting age population

In 1996 74.40% of the registered voting age population voted and 49.08% of the voting age population

In 2000 76.00% of the registered voting age population voted and 51.30% of the voting age population

In 2004 79.00% of the registered voting age population voted and 55.27% of the voting age population

This shows that the number of people registered to vote generally get out and vote...well at least 58 to about 80% generally do. It also shows that of the total voting age population that between 38 and 51% do not bother to vote. In the last election nearly 80% of registered voters voted but 44.73% of eligible voters did not vote.

In the figures from the Census Bureau from 1964 to 2000 (and they are a little different which only tells me that some people lie to the census bureau.) As many as 69.3% of the people able to vote voted and as few as 54.2% of the voting age population voted.

To me seeing less than 80 or 90% of the voting age population getting out and voting is even sadder than people not paying attention to a third party candidate. It is very sad when only about half the people who could vote get out and actually vote.

In recent history (1992) Ross Perot won 19% of the vote but yet only around 55 to 60% of eligible voters voted…what if that other 40% had voted for him…what if only 30% of those had voted for him? That year Clinton received 43% of the vote while Bush received 37%. Is it possible that the vast majority of those 40% who did not vote would have voted for Perot but did not because all the polls said he did not have a chance of winning? Yes it is possible but highly unlikely. There is however absolutely no doubt that if those other people had taken the time to vote the results could have been very different.

A lot of people think their vote means nothing so they don’t vote and it is very true…they don’t vote so their vote really means nothing but if they voted it could mean something. Just ask Al Gore…one vote means something. If all those people who thought their vote meant nothing had voted…he might have won.

Voting and making sure the people who represent me know what I think about issues is very important to me. The people I vote for think and feel the same way I do about most things…no they do not have the exact same opinions as I do but they think and feel in similar ways as I do about many things. Even if the people I vote for do not win that does not change how I feel and think about things important to me and that does not change the fact that I make sure the person who was elected to represent me knows how I think and feel. I know it would clog up the phone lines and mail boxes but I think everyone should make sure the people that have been elected to represent them know what they think and how they feel about the issues.

I wonder how many people know just how many and who was running for President of the United States in 2004 on election day...I would wager that most Americans would say 2 and good many would say 3 but I wonder how many would be able to give the right answer.

I know that got a little off track but I love talking about politics…hell I love talking about anything. Smile

Hugs,
Eiregirl Arrow
_________________
All poems and stories posted by Eiregirl are Copyright 2005 - 2008 Aoibhegréine These literary works are my property under copyright. If you wish to use my work for any purpose please ASK FIRST.

Post Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:48 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  Reply with quote  
  Display posts from previous:      
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


Last Thread | Next Thread  >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 


Search For Posters!


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

In Association with Amazon.com
     
Terms & Conditions Privacy Statement Acknowledgements