EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Dec 13, 2014 20:24:28 GMT -5
That and they can't get their message out because to run for office these days you have to a financial war chest.
And even if they do- a we have seen in some cases the two party system defenders will find a way to keep them out of debates and shut them down.
Only fix for this is publically financed elections and getting the money out- and yet we have one party that just added even more into the process and another that does nothing about it. I think they like it just the way it is.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,563
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 14, 2014 13:39:06 GMT -5
Unfortunately, with the dominance of the two parties (and the related dominance of money in elections, not to mention the short-sightedness of the general public) we don't have more than two REAL options. It therefore does sometimes come down to the "least bad" choice. I have long felt that we would be better off if the two parties were abolished and we could start over. Have new parties, more narrowly defined to state what they REALLY believe in. We could probably do well with about five. Not only would we get more and likely better choices, but government would almost necessarily have to be cooperative, since nobody could either dictate or obstruct to any meaningful degree by themselves.
This would lead (I would think) to a much more reasonable slate of government actions. There will always be views on either side, or even extreme, but if the ultimate decision either way is dependent more on those in the middle being convinced of the rightness or wrongness of an idea rather than either of today's parties being in control at one time or another and marching in lockstep because of that, how could we be worse off than we are currently?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 2:10:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 18:47:15 GMT -5
Unfortunately, with the dominance of the two parties (and the related dominance of money in elections, not to mention the short-sightedness of the general public) we don't have more than two REAL options. It therefore does sometimes come down to the "least bad" choice. I have long felt that we would be better off if the two parties were abolished and we could start over. Have new parties, more narrowly defined to state what they REALLY believe in. We could probably do well with about five. Not only would we get more and likely better choices, but government would almost necessarily have to be cooperative, since nobody could either dictate or obstruct to any meaningful degree by themselves.
This would lead (I would think) to a much more reasonable slate of government actions. There will always be views on either side, or even extreme, but if the ultimate decision either way is dependent more on those in the middle being convinced of the rightness or wrongness of an idea rather than either of today's parties being in control at one time or another and marching in lockstep because of that, how could we be worse off than we are currently?
That right there tells me that you are probably one of the ones that uses that BS criteria. I get it that there's little chance of a "third party" winner, but it's not because of the "third party" candidate, nor the fault of those that vote for him/her... it's the fault of those that don't because they have this incorrect mentality. If everyone that thought this BS, would stop thinking it, and give a "third party" candidate their vote instead... Guess what would happen... a "third party" candidate would win. The onus is on the voters to STOP wasting their votes if they want things to change. When enough of the American voters finally decide things need to change... they will. Until then, it'll be "business as usual" in Washington.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,563
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 14, 2014 18:59:17 GMT -5
I have voted third-party before. I may again. I may also choose to vote against an unqualified disaster like Bush rather than try to make a point politically. It's a good thing you added the term "probably" in your little dig. It makes you look at least a little less presumptuous.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Dec 14, 2014 19:21:24 GMT -5
That and they can't get their message out because to run for office these days you have to a financial war chest.
And even if they do- a we have seen in some cases the two party system defenders will find a way to keep them out of debates and shut them down.
Only fix for this is publically financed elections and getting the money out- and yet we have one party that just added even more into the process and another that does nothing about it. I think they like it just the way it is. That might be the only way that elections could become what they are meant to be. Some European countries are using the method of public funded campaign for the purpose of keeping special interests out and not allow one political party to overrun all others. Equal amounts of money are given to candidates running for the same office, national and local radio and television slots on even. Moreover there are rules such as a false claim about an opposing candidate might disqualify a runner. How is an independent candidate for presidency suppose to hold up against the ungodly amounts of money that the two major parties are spending just to discredit him?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 2:10:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 20:39:54 GMT -5
I have voted third-party before. I may again. I may also choose to vote against an unqualified disaster like Bush rather than try to make a point politically. It's a good thing you added the term "probably" in your little dig. It makes you look at least a little less presumptuous. It wasn't a "dig", it was an assumption based on evidence. If that assumption was in error, then I apologize. However, if you do use that criteria, during any vote, then you are part of the problem.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 17, 2014 9:50:11 GMT -5
That and they can't get their message out because to run for office these days you have to a financial war chest.
And even if they do- a we have seen in some cases the two party system defenders will find a way to keep them out of debates and shut them down.
Only fix for this is publically financed elections and getting the money out- and yet we have one party that just added even more into the process and another that does nothing about it. I think they like it just the way it is. That might be the only way that elections could become what they are meant to be. Some European countries are using the method of public funded campaign for the purpose of keeping special interests out and not allow one political party to overrun all others. Equal amounts of money are given to candidates running for the same office, national and local radio and television slots on even. Moreover there are rules such as a false claim about an opposing candidate might disqualify a runner. How is an independent candidate for presidency suppose to hold up against the ungodly amounts of money that the two major parties are spending just to discredit him? Keeping special interests out- well, except the government. I'm sure the government will be happy to have a complete monopoly on campaigns.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 31, 2015 16:00:53 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 31, 2015 16:11:17 GMT -5
cool. I hope the GOP repeals it. it make it way more likely that we will have a public healthcare system.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,563
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 31, 2015 19:39:38 GMT -5
If that were to be the assured outcome I would agree with you. If left to themselves, though, I'd think it infinitely more likely we'd go backwards.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jan 31, 2015 19:57:59 GMT -5
In my mind it will not happen..repeal of...It's becoming to intrenched in the lives of the citizenry...It is helping too many people and to repeal it would be a political time bomb for politicians..
Now I can see sometime..not today or tomorrow , but someday, when the two parties have grown up a bit, GOP and Democrates' working together, because it's needed to tweak the program..make some changes ..improve and fix some of the mistakes ...that I can see but not today...GOP has it's mindset on one thing which will fail....and possible cost them legislature seats and the big one at the oval office in 2016...
When do they grow up ? No idea.....anyone have a clue..?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 31, 2015 21:16:49 GMT -5
If that were to be the assured outcome I would agree with you. If left to themselves, though, I'd think it infinitely more likely we'd go backwards. I think I was looking a bit further beyond "repeal" than you.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,563
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 31, 2015 21:34:57 GMT -5
Yeah, but if they were to repeal it, they would still be in power. You may have been looking WAY beyond repeal.... At least a couple of election cycles (and a census) if not more....
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 31, 2015 22:27:58 GMT -5
Yeah, but if they were to repeal it, they would still be in power. You may have been looking WAY beyond repeal.... At least a couple of election cycles (and a census) if not more.... oh you think so, eh? are you assuming that the move to repeal would be wildly popular?
some in the GOP are.
they are not looking at the polling data.
(expect a bunch of posts to follow which show that 60% disapprove of ObamaCare without showing that half of them want it strengthened, which only leaves 30% that want it repealed. even among those that want it repealed, over half want it replaced, so the number that want it repealed and NOT replaced may well be in the single digits at this point)
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,244
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Jan 31, 2015 23:07:08 GMT -5
I would really hate for them to repeal it. I am planning to retire early and would like to be able to purchase health insurance for myself and my hubby without having to worry about pre-existing conditions or being dropped unexpectedly.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 31, 2015 23:13:33 GMT -5
I would really hate for them to repeal it. I am planning to retire early and would like to be able to purchase health insurance for myself and my hubby without having to worry about pre-existing conditions or being dropped unexpectedly. might I recommend Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica, Malta, Ecuador and Australia?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 1, 2015 1:45:16 GMT -5
I would really hate for them to repeal it. I am planning to retire early and would like to be able to purchase health insurance for myself and my hubby without having to worry about pre-existing conditions or being dropped unexpectedly. might I recommend Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica, Malta, Ecuador and Australia? Canada? Canada doesn't take people who will only suck off the system. You have to have a lot of money if you want to retire in Canada, and even then, it's no guarantee.
www.livingabroadincanada.com/getting-started/retirement/#.VM3KGPJ0zUA
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 1, 2015 1:51:49 GMT -5
I am quite familiar with how it all works, weltz. I have family there. I have traveled there extensively. and yes, I have a lot of money. but I was not mentioning Canada for expatriation because it was easy, but rather because they have a more sensible and humane healthcare system, imo.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 1, 2015 1:58:22 GMT -5
I am quite familiar with how it all works, weltz. I have family there. I have traveled there extensively. and yes, I have a lot of money. but I was not mentioning Canada for expatriation because it was easy, but rather because they have a more sensible and humane healthcare system, imo.Well, yeah, and we want to keep it that way. We just can't take in every Tom, Dick and Hairy who won't contribute. Otherwise, it wouldn't be sustainable. I'm sure that places like Australia operate in the same way.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 1, 2015 2:00:33 GMT -5
I am quite familiar with how it all works, weltz. I have family there. I have traveled there extensively. and yes, I have a lot of money. but I was not mentioning Canada for expatriation because it was easy, but rather because they have a more sensible and humane healthcare system, imo. To damn cold there ...have you checked the latest temperatures there...Well possible the West Coast a bit milder..
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 1, 2015 2:09:10 GMT -5
I am quite familiar with how it all works, weltz. I have family there. I have traveled there extensively. and yes, I have a lot of money. but I was not mentioning Canada for expatriation because it was easy, but rather because they have a more sensible and humane healthcare system, imo. To damn cold there ...have you checked the latest temperatures there...Well possible the West Coast a bit milder.. Well, it's not for sissies, that's for sure. The high tomorrow is about minus 30 with the wind chill.
(That's minus 22 for you Yankees. )
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 1, 2015 2:42:11 GMT -5
To damn cold there ...have you checked the latest temperatures there...Well possible the West Coast a bit milder.. Well, it's not for sissies, that's for sure. The high tomorrow is about minus 30 with the wind chill.
(That's minus 22 for you Yankees. )
No wonder My association has over 50% of the snowbirds from the frozen north...Isn't the West Coast milder?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 1, 2015 3:15:40 GMT -5
Well, it's not for sissies, that's for sure. The high tomorrow is about minus 30 with the wind chill.
(That's minus 22 for you Yankees. )
No wonder My association has over 50% of the snowbirds from the frozen north ...Isn't the West Coast milder?It is, but that's the only place.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 2:10:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2015 3:50:38 GMT -5
To damn cold there ...have you checked the latest temperatures there...Well possible the West Coast a bit milder.. Well, it's not for sissies, that's for sure. The high tomorrow is about minus 30 with the wind chill.
(That's minus 22 for you Yankees. ) And for us Southerners that's "Too damn cold to care what the thermometer says! Why would anyone want to live where it gets this cold? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?"
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 1, 2015 3:59:19 GMT -5
Well, it's not for sissies, that's for sure. The high tomorrow is about minus 30 with the wind chill.
(That's minus 22 for you Yankees. ) And for us Southerners that's "Too damn cold to care what the thermometer says! Why would anyone want to live where it gets this cold? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?" Why? Because aside from the three months of deep freeze, this is the best place in the world to live.
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,244
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Feb 1, 2015 4:07:28 GMT -5
It doesn't really matter how good it is to live in Canada when I don't meet the criteria to move there. I am stuck hoping that when I retire I will be able to buy health insurance here in the states.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 1, 2015 4:33:21 GMT -5
It doesn't really matter how good it is to live in Canada when I don't meet the criteria to move there. I am stuck hoping that when I retire I will be able to buy health insurance here in the states. Maybe by then, you'll have universal healthcare.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 2:10:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2015 6:03:49 GMT -5
And for us Southerners that's "Too damn cold to care what the thermometer says! Why would anyone want to live where it gets this cold? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?" Why? Because aside from the three months of deep freeze, this is the best place in the world to live. For the record, it wasn't an issue against Canada... It was an issue against the cold temperature... no matter WHERE it is!
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,910
|
Post by zibazinski on Feb 1, 2015 9:45:36 GMT -5
When my aunt last looked into emigrating to Australia, you had to have net worth of a half a million dollars and not be in poor health. I'm sure the criteria has risen since then. Unlike the USA, you aren't allowed to come in and take jobs from citizens or become a public charge.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 1, 2015 10:55:46 GMT -5
I am quite familiar with how it all works, weltz. I have family there. I have traveled there extensively. and yes, I have a lot of money. but I was not mentioning Canada for expatriation because it was easy, but rather because they have a more sensible and humane healthcare system, imo.Well, yeah, and we want to keep it that way. We just can't take in every Tom, Dick and Hairy who won't contribute. Otherwise, it wouldn't be sustainable. I'm sure that places like Australia operate in the same way.
they do. some are worse. so yes, I will be expatriating a lot of money. and you know what?
I will STILL be $ ahead.
please tell me you aren't surprised.
|
|