Political Pet Peeves

[Wickabee]

So what's the alternative? Just suck it up and continue to deal with the garbage that is put out by the two parties who often make back room deals with each other?

I'm not saying don't do it, just that you end up with more of the same.
Basically, all the same people split into 4 or 5 groups instead of 2. It actually leads to more backroom deals and alliances. Multi party politics can be likened to a WWE story line or game of Survivor.

The results seem better, but I think that a reflection of the different societies more so than politics.

[duane1969]

We have already seen what other parties have to offer. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and Michelle Bachmann have not been very good 3rd options. If we could get a 3rd party that melds the core values of both party with a candidate that isn't crazy, on drugs or an idiot, then it might work. Problem is that most of the "other" party options are just extreme versions of the current big two. There is no moderate third party that can fulfill the needs of the bulk of Americans.

[mrveggieman]

We have already seen what other parties have to offer. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and Michelle Bachmann have not been very good 3rd options. If we could get a 3rd party that melds the core values of both party with a candidate that isn't crazy, on drugs or an idiot, then it might work. Problem is that most of the "other" party options are just extreme versions of the current big two. There is no moderate third party that can fulfill the needs of the bulk of Americans.

What about Gary Johnson? Besides the fact that he wasn't in bed with one of the big 2 what didn't you like about him?

[Star_Cards]

My biggest pet peeve is the us versus them attitude.

[Wickabee]

We have already seen what other parties have to offer. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and Michelle Bachmann have not been very good 3rd options. If we could get a 3rd party that melds the core values of both party with a candidate that isn't crazy, on drugs or an idiot, then it might work. Problem is that most of the "other" party options are just extreme versions of the current big two. There is no moderate third party that can fulfill the needs of the bulk of Americans.

Canada has a multi party system, but more often than not it comes down to our Liberal Party and our Conservative party. The other "major" parties being the NDP, Bloc Quebecois and Greens. The Bloc runs only in Quebec (which has won them "official opposition" or "second place" status but makes forming a government basically impossible) and only concerns themselves with Quebec's federal issues. The NDP, while having a pretty large following, is usually the perpetual third place team, though they're the opposition right now. The Greens are just starting to gain some respect and won their first ever seat in the last election.
All of the other parties end up helping decide whether the Liberal party or Conservative party will lead. The Liberals have been so ridiculous of late, we not only handed the Conservatives a fifth(?) straight election and took the opposition status away from the Liberals. That's why the other parties exist, to punish the big 2 when they hit ridiculousness. That could definitely help bring some sanity to your big 2, but I see it playing out as Duane says just because of the "all or nothing" attitude of American politics. The far left will leave the Dems while the Tea Party will officially (finally) split from the Reps. The Dems and Reps will, by default, suddenly be more centrist and sane. The differences will be in the budget, not abortion and gay marriage. The Teabaggers and Left-Wingnuts will fight over that.

A multi party system would be beneficial, but not because it would give you more options, but because it would give the looney tunes elsewhere to rant and rave. You'd actually end up still voting Dem or Rep, but you'd be a lot happier doing so.

[duane1969]

What about Gary Johnson? Besides the fact that he wasn't in bed with one of the big 2 what didn't you like about him?

He can never win because he lacks any moderate views. He pushes away conservatives because he is pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion and anti-Israel. He pushes away liberals because he is anti-gun control, pro-social welfare reform and pro-cutting taxes.

In all honesty, I would probably vote for him. He supports three things that are big for me (gun rights, lower taxes and reform of govt. spending) and I accept that abortion will never be overturned and that gay marriage is inevitable. The whole Israel thing is moot because anybody who understands Middle East issues knows that if we alienate Israel then we lose our only ally in the region, but his belief that Iran poses no threat is either blatant ignorance or severe misinformation. So my only sticking point would be his policy on Israel. I think a lot of moderate conservatives would see it the same way.

[mrveggieman]

He can never win because he lacks any moderate views. He pushes away conservatives because he is pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion and anti-Israel. He pushes away liberals because he is anti-gun control, pro-social welfare reform and pro-cutting taxes.

In all honesty, I would probably vote for him. He supports three things that are big for me (gun rights, lower taxes and reform of govt. spending) and I accept that abortion will never be overturned and that gay marriage is inevitable. The whole Israel thing is moot because anybody who understands Middle East issues knows that if we alienate Israel then we lose our only ally in the region, but his belief that Iran poses no threat is either blatant ignorance or severe misinformation. So my only sticking point would be his policy on Israel. I think a lot of moderate conservatives would see it the same way.

It sucks that all the good canidates are pro abortion and all the jerks are anti abortion.

[Wickabee]

It really sucks that so many people incorrectly use the term pro abortion.

[duane1969]

It really sucks that so many people incorrectly use the term pro abortion.

LOL are we back to that again?

[Wickabee]

Apparently.