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.

Spot on. I think this is one discussion where the two parties are in perfect agreement.

So, you think you might have a problem explaining to your boss an expense that had a poor to zero rate of return? Spare a tear for poor, little Karl Rove:

http://news.yahoo.com/republican-str...002109469.html

The GOP famously hammers away at the notion the Dems try to solve problems by throwing money at them; seems they don't quite fully understand the notion themselves... :)

<O>

exacly...I am sure they would have had a much better chance with...

...Cain...:hmmm:

or...

..Perry..:haha:

or...

.. Santorum...:o

The only good thing about this is that I am sure the GOP will come to the conclusion that they have to nominate someone even MORE conservative in 2016.

We all know how well that worked out in Indiana, losing a Senate seat which had been in the GOP since 1976.

You make a good point, but we actually have LOADS of parties:

About 100 or more independents

The hunting party

The sex party (Yes, really)

The green party

The Liberal/National coalition

The labour party

And we used to have the Australia First Party (To get what this party is, replace First with Socialist, and the Australia with National :nope:)!

I wonder about the popularity of Christi ...
perhaps with a latino running beside him he could
take it all the way to the white house in 2016 :hmm2: