Exactly. They would use the write in vote if the two candidates are not appealing. Some just do note vote if the candidates are not to their liking.

Why arent you a funny one :rotfl2:
Why cant cant you just deal with the fact that the majority of your nation holds a different opinion than you ? and that they won.

You sound like you've been watching too much Alex Jones or something.
The wrecked economy you speak of cannot be blamed on Obama or any president before him. It is caused by a 30 year debt binge which is a combination of mass irresponsibily by financial institutions, politicians and shock horror - ordinary citizens and consumers.
Virtually everything you said above could easily be reworded by a die hard democrat to describe Bush or Romney to the same degree of accuracy (or in accuracy).
Your eyes are open, but only to one set of views which can only seem to determine one possible outcome, what will you say if we hit 2016 and nothing much has changed?

I'd love to be proved wrong about why you've put that in quotes.

Enlighten us.

He's had four years. If he wanted to totally destroy America, why would he wait for a second term he might not have gotten, when he could have done it in his first term. Are you that damn stupid?

Remember that part up there where I admitted to not voting for him? Again, how dense are you?

Yup. Obama is the one single person in control of the United States economy. Congress has nothing to do with the budget, do they?

Make sure that after he fails to accomplish anything, you place the blame solely on Obama for not getting anything done. Toe that party line, man!


BTW-
I live in Texas.
Damn. If I had voted for Romney instead of "Other", Romney would have won by -1 votes. Don't I feel silly now? (Of course, that's just my county. It doesn't matter towards the state's electoral votes.)

You see my point? It doesn't matter if I vote for Obama, Romney, or "Other". My vote wasn't going to matter in the totals. I knew that going in. I chose to use my vote to send a message that I hope might register with someone. I knew the guy I was voting for didn't have a chance. Even if he had won all the states he was on the ballot in, he couldn't have gotten the 270 to win. But it's my vote, my right, and my choice.

So go and stick your doom and gloom BS somewhere else. Don't blame me for choosing to vote for neither of the big two. Your guy screwed up, America made its choice, and it wasn't your guy. You can do three things: man up and work harder for your guy next time, pack up and leave the country, or whine on the internet about it.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...emish_Bond.jpg
Uh huh... do tell.

Maybe Bubblehead is looking at it the wrong way: it isn't a case of 3% costing Romney the election; it's just a case of 53% of Americans saying "anyone but Romney"... :)

<O>

And you don't just buy into what the right-wing shills say? You are so transparent, you're the only one who can't see it.

:rotfl2:

You? Eyes open? You still don't get it.

Oh and just for you Bubbles

http://i.imgur.com/qN8YC.jpg

53% of America and 95% of the world, in fact in a poll done by the BBC of about, 27 countries IIRC, only the people of Pakistan wanted Romney to win.

I was wondering where this loony toon was. I figured he was on suicide watch.

It must pain you to see that "your country" isn't really "yours" at all. YOU are the one in the minority. YOU are the one with the extremist views. Your nation isn't occupied. You're the occupier. You're the cancer that's slowly being excised from the country. You're the extremist that's being marginalized. The people have spoken. You and your views have been thrown out on their ear. There's no place for your twisted vision of America. You can try and "take back" your country, but how are you going to take back something that exists only in your head? You can try grabbing onto your dream but you'll only find it's an illusion and something you've made up in your head. A fantasy land with no relation to reality.

Deal with it.

Hey look over here.

I'm reminded of this some how?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEj31njaeX0

SQUIRREL !!!!! where is your Ron Paul now.. thanks for making me yak up fingernails, knuckles and elbows,, third party :/\\!! Well,, come the first of the year everbody will have a nice surprise in their paycheck except me,, I don't get one.. a paycheck I mean...

Have some faith, people. I have it on good authority that Obama won't win the next presidential election.

And.....how is this better? If two candidates were ever THAT terrible, in this era of information, a third party candidate could easily rise up. The people have spoken. Only 3 percent of people voted independents. 97% of American voters have spoken: They want the two party system, and if it serves the people then the two party system is just as effective at serving the people as 6 parties, in some ways more so.

So a third party candidate was not needed. If the people of the United States wanted a 6 major party system, they would've said so already. our two-party system is just as representative as your 6 party system because we aren't the same country. The citizens of the U.S desire 2 major parties, the people of Australia desire 6. And both are equally ok. So neither country is "lucky" to have more/less parties because ultimately parties don't mean anything. It's what the people want. And that's what this country was founded on. Of the people, by the people, for the people. And the people have spoken.

Changing a system that has been in place for a long time is a little more complicated than that, I think. One tends to favor the system one has grown up in, or at the very least need lots of time to get used to the new system.

I know that the USA effectively has a two party system. I don't know what it is like to live in one. And likewise I don't expect many Americans to really know what it is like to live in a different system. If asked now, I wouldn't want a two party system in Finland. Why? Because the current one works just fine. Why change it? But that doesn't make my opinion well informed or valid for comparing the systems. It simply means I prefer the system I'm used to and have no real complaints about.

Actually dovish and hawkish foreign policy is something that pays little regard to party lines. There are conservatives who are "dovish" (though it has more to do with them not liking the idea of giving aid to foreign countries) and liberals who are relative hawks, in fact, we have one in the Oval Office right now. I mean, for a lot of Pakistanis, the escalation of UAV operations in their country may as well be as good as a full-scale occupation with ground troops

On average your probably right. Still - we don't need more "parties" - we need less. We have a 2 party system. We need a 0 party system. As a country, we need to stop playing "partisan" (on both sides) and make ballot access open. Doing this - simply removing party affiliation from the process - would go a long way toward making the candidates more responsive and open to the public.

A third (and fourth and fifth) party candidate is most definitely needed. The more choices the better, especially when the two major candidates are more alike than any of their supporters want to admit.

Not really. The citizens of any country by and large vote for the choices they are given. They see the ads, they (like you) think the major candidates are the only viable choices, and they ignore the rest.

We don't have a "two party" system. We have an open system that is dominated by two parties, mainly because they are the only ones who can raise the money. A real "two party" system would have the number of candidates limited by law. Is that what you want?

Hear! Hear! :rock:

The Founding Fathers decried the idea of parties, yet one of my favorites, Thomas Jefferson, found himself creating the first US party in spite of himself. After that it was all downhill.

I have to disagree here Steve. In many areas - like NC where I live - the rules are so restrictive if your not blessed and sanctioned by one of the 2 parties, you have very little ability to compete. Not just in fund raising - but in every aspect. Even getting on the ballot is a challenge - you have to have a huge number of signatures (which takes organizing and resources). The 2 parties have made it a "semi-closed" system. They don't want competition (something I find ironic regarding team R - since they are all for it as long as it can't hurt them!).

We are supposed to have an open system. We SHOULD have an open system. Yet in many parts of the country, the 2 parties have collaborated to make it a head to head contest while effectively shutting everyone else out wherever possible. They want a head to head, controllable matchup with a referee and judges (the voters) that can be bought. They don't want a wide open cage match where they can't try to rig the outcome with massive spending. That is one reason why neither party is really interested in getting rid of partisan elections. Their power is more important that what is best for the citizenry and the country.