Next best thing for the US (and perhaps the world)

[Ghogiel]

None of those countries are occupied. It's like saying the US is occupying the UK.

 

I think what you might be referring to are permanent military bases. They aren't trying to close them. And if they did, they would just close them in fairly short order like any base they have closed in the past.

[Syco21]

She is just making up excuses so that she can feel better about voting for the status quo rather than stepping out and trying to change things.

 

Back in mid 90's i voted for ross perot (independent). After i saw how well clinton was doing to the economy I voted for clinton's 2nd term. After clinton i ended up voting of Bush then Obama...

 

Voting for a 3rd party canidate never wins and the problem most the time with 3rd party canidates is they only focus on one thing or two things and nothing else. Any promisses they make are no different than anything any other major party canidate promisses. And most of the time the promisses third party canidates make are totally unrealistic an completely not even possible to accomplish in the time frame of the "four years" every thrid party canidates atleast asks for.

So once upon a time you voted third party, but they didn't win. So instead of trying to educate your fellow voters about the third party candidates, you just decided to give up on them? Isn't this the same as what you told me not to do earlier?

 

With the internet being so widely used these days, it's very much possible for third party candidates to win. What held them back in the past was limited to no exposure in the media. But with the internet we can change that. Obama has already proven the internet a powerful tool in shaping the political landscape. So has protest and activist groups. All you have to do is vote for a third party candidate and spread the word. Let people know there are viable alternatives to the two major parties. Will a third party candidate win this election? Probably not, but perseverance pays off. By voting third party, you show the world there is support for third party.

 

I will agree our country doesn't really need to spend any more money than it already does. But you talking about tax payer money just for millions of dollars when our military budget makes the amount of a millions dollar of tax payer money for Supreme Court cases look like fractions of a penny in cost. and legislation law cases does not come out of peoples personal income. It comes out of tax payer money.

 

also sorry for that minor mistake about being 14...

Once again you have missed the entire point. It costs a single person millions of dollars to bring a case before SCOTUS. If your rights are violated, and you are arrested for violating an unconstitutional law, it will cost you, NOT the tax payer, YOU, millions of dollars to bring YOUR case before the Supreme Court.

 

I would have to disagree with you again even if you think your congressman doesn't repressent you... they actually do. It is really up to you what you decided to do to relay your messages to them.

 

I was not really making any assumptions but I was more trying to remind you that it is your government and its good if you do try to communicate with your congressman. but from my perspective it did seem more like complaining more than anything else. If I was wrong I am sorry again.

Once again, just because a politician is supposed to do something, does not mean they will. My congressman does not represent me. It is their job, but it is not what they are doing. This is why I will not vote for them. Anytime my congressman or senator votes for illegal legislation, everytime they fail to vote for legislation that expands and/or protects our rights, they fail to represent me. I can make my voice heard, but I can not force them to do anything. Nor do I have any desire to try. If I have to jump up and down and scream to the top of my lungs to prevent them from voting for legislation that'll restrict or infringe my rights, then they are not worthy of the office they hold, nor are they worthy of being called my representative.

 

Gary Johnson? Sure his "promisses" seem really great but totally unrealistic for only 4 years that he is asking for. Any third party canidate that makes promisses beyond any realistic time frame is not a top chioce in my mind. How can a person take us out of debt if he cant even calculate his promisses don't add up in any realistic time frame. Just getting all of our military out of every part of the world is totally unrealistic in just 4 years . The world is more complicated than that.

He may not be able to turn America into a super wealthy paradise while eliminating poverty and unemployment, but I don't expect him to anyway. The idea that he is only allowed one term, or that during the next election I'll have to vote for another party is absurd.

 

He can veto unlawful legislation, he can veto spending bills that do not conform to the constitution. This is all I expect from him. I'm not so foolish as to think all of America's problems can be fixed in four years or eight years. But I'm also not foolish enough to think that the people who keep creating the mess are willing to clean up the mess.

 

No, he might not be able to fulfill all of his promises, but he'll at least try and he'll do a far better job of improving the condition of the country than either Obama or Romney. And even if he were to turn into another Obama/Romney, what would I have to lose by voting for him? At least I tried.

[Ghogiel]

No, he might not be able to fulfill all of his promises, but he'll at least try and he'll do a far better job of improving the condition of the country than either Obama or Romney. And even if he were to turn into another Obama/Romney, what would I have to lose by voting for him? At least I tried.

How are you able to tell his campaign rhetoric, just saying the s*** so as to make himself resonate with a particular target voters, to actually being genuine? Being an independent qualifies him of exactly nothing, it doesn't give his campaign spiel any extra weight in terms of making good on it.

 

I am perhaps missing vital evidence as to his motives, but in absence of that evidence there is no basis to found support for his words.

[mizdarby]

The problem that all the political parties in the US have right now, is not one of them can actually tell it as it is. The Presidential candidate that states "Gee the economy is shot to pieces, and quite frankly I won't be able to fix it in just 4 years" is the candidate that gets no votes. I think Gary Johnsons' rhetoric is no more, nor any less, truthful than any of the main parties rhetoric. As the third party, he realises that he can't possibly get elected, so why not rose tint his policies, just to be different to the Democrats or the Republicans. As Syco21 rightly pointed out, if you keep voting for the same old parties, you get the same old issues and the same tired solutions that fix nothing. Of the three party leaders standing, Gary Johnson appealed to me most, but I figure if he appeals to non-americans that doesn't actually win him any votes.

If Ron Paul had won the republican nomination, (due to the blogs of one of my best facebook friends) I would certainly advocate him as the best option for getting the US back where it belongs.

[Syco21]

How are you able to tell his campaign rhetoric, just saying the s*** so as to make himself resonate with a particular target voters, to actually being genuine? Being an independent qualifies him of exactly nothing, it doesn't give his campaign spiel any extra weight in terms of making good on it.

 

I am perhaps missing vital evidence as to his motives, but in absence of that evidence there is no basis to found support for his words.

He was Governor of New Mexico for 8 years, during that time he delivered on many of his promises and worked hard to deliver the rest. He vetoed 200 bills out of 424, and used line item veto on many others. He has a record and it demonstrates he's a better candidate than either of the two big party candidates.

 

The problem that all the political parties in the US have right now, is not one of them can actually tell it as it is. The Presidential candidate that states "Gee the economy is shot to pieces, and quite frankly I won't be able to fix it in just 4 years" is the candidate that gets no votes. I think Gary Johnsons' rhetoric is no more, nor any less, truthful than any of the main parties rhetoric. As the third party, he realises that he can't possibly get elected, so why not rose tint his policies, just to be different to the Democrats or the Republicans. As Syco21 rightly pointed out, if you keep voting for the same old parties, you get the same old issues and the same tired solutions that fix nothing. Of the three party leaders standing, Gary Johnson appealed to me most, but I figure if he appeals to non-americans that doesn't actually win him any votes.

If Ron Paul had won the republican nomination, (due to the blogs of one of my best facebook friends) I would certainly advocate him as the best option for getting the US back where it belongs.

What I said above, Johnson was governor of New Mexico and his record there backs up many of his campaign promises.

[colourwheel]

None of those countries are occupied. It's like saying the US is occupying the UK.

 

I think what you might be referring to are permanent military bases. They aren't trying to close them. And if they did, they would just close them in fairly short order like any base they have closed in the past.

 

Unless his message is mistaken He made it seem like he wants to bring home all troops around the world. Taking this into account this includes places around the world where we have these "permanent military bases".

 

Back in mid 90's i voted for ross perot (independent). After i saw how well clinton was doing to the economy I voted for clinton's 2nd term. After clinton i ended up voting of Bush then Obama...

 

Voting for a 3rd party canidate never wins and the problem most the time with 3rd party canidates is they only focus on one thing or two things and nothing else. Any promisses they make are no different than anything any other major party canidate promisses. And most of the time the promisses third party canidates make are totally unrealistic an completely not even possible to accomplish in the time frame of the "four years" every thrid party canidates atleast asks for.

 

So once upon a time you voted third party, but they didn't win. So instead of trying to educate your fellow voters about the third party candidates, you just decided to give up on them? Isn't this the same as what you told me not to do earlier?

 

With the internet being so widely used these days, it's very much possible for third party candidates to win. What held them back in the past was limited to no exposure in the media. But with the internet we can change that. Obama has already proven the internet a powerful tool in shaping the political landscape. So has protest and activist groups. All you have to do is vote for a third party candidate and spread the word. Let people know there are viable alternatives to the two major parties. Will a third party candidate win this election? Probably not, but perseverance pays off. By voting third party, you show the world there is support for third party.

 

To be clear I could really care less if you wish to put your vote on a 3rd party canidate. If that is what you wish to do that is your choice. But is it really my responcibility to educate what you say "your fellow voters" about a 3rd party canidate they could easily check up on themselves when you already claim how wide spread the internet is. If this is a canidate you are so actively advocating it should be you educating to vote for this canidate instead of trying to get others who have already giving you reasons why they are not going to vote for him.

 

She is just making up excuses so that she can feel better about voting for the status quo rather than stepping out and trying to change things.

 

In all fairness seems like more of an excues from you to advocate others to educate and promote your canidate which is like asking someone who is voting for canidate "A" to educate and advocate others to vote for canidate "Z".

 

I will agree our country doesn't really need to spend any more money than it already does. But you talking about tax payer money just for millions of dollars when our military budget makes the amount of a millions dollar of tax payer money for Supreme Court cases look like fractions of a penny in cost. and legislation law cases does not come out of peoples personal income. It comes out of tax payer money.

 

also sorry for that minor mistake about being 14...

Once again you have missed the entire point. It costs a single person millions of dollars to bring a case before SCOTUS. If your rights are violated, and you are arrested for violating an unconstitutional law, it will cost you, NOT the tax payer, YOU, millions of dollars to bring YOUR case before the Supreme Court.

 

Now here is where I think we are completely confused on with each other. To my understanding from the original arguement, you were claiming if Legislation is turned into law then turned over to the Supreme Court as unconstitutional saying it was going to cost "millions of dollars" and its going to come out of your personal income? To me this totally make no sense.

 

I would have to disagree with you again even if you think your congressman doesn't repressent you... they actually do. It is really up to you what you decided to do to relay your messages to them.

 

I was not really making any assumptions but I was more trying to remind you that it is your government and its good if you do try to communicate with your congressman. but from my perspective it did seem more like complaining more than anything else. If I was wrong I am sorry again.

Once again, just because a politician is supposed to do something, does not mean they will. My congressman does not represent me. It is their job, but it is not what they are doing. This is why I will not vote for them. Anytime my congressman or senator votes for illegal legislation, everytime they fail to vote for legislation that expands and/or protects our rights, they fail to represent me. I can make my voice heard, but I can not force them to do anything. Nor do I have any desire to try. If I have to jump up and down and scream to the top of my lungs to prevent them from voting for legislation that'll restrict or infringe my rights, then they are not worthy of the office they hold, nor are they worthy of being called my representative.

 

Just because a president or political figure is elected into office that you didn't vote for you can't just disavowed them as your pressident or congressman or senator. America is your country, Just because stuff is happening in your country you do not like you don't say "America is not my country".

 

These people in office repressent us. Even if we did not elect them even if they do stuff we do not like. Just because you say you didn't vote for them they are still there to serve you.

 

This is not excluding sometimes representatives will "fail" to represent the people who got them into power but they actually do work for you. If you look at the bigger picture yes I can see how you think how they might actually be working for special interest groups but they shouldn't be.

 

If you understand how commercial real estate works a broker will work for tendent to find land. yet it ends up being the land lord that endups up paying the broker. But in the end its really the tendent who is being repressented.

 

Gary Johnson? Sure his "promisses" seem really great but totally unrealistic for only 4 years that he is asking for. Any third party canidate that makes promisses beyond any realistic time frame is not a top chioce in my mind. How can a person take us out of debt if he cant even calculate his promisses don't add up in any realistic time frame. Just getting all of our military out of every part of the world is totally unrealistic in just 4 years . The world is more complicated than that.

He may not be able to turn America into a super wealthy paradise while eliminating poverty and unemployment, but I don't expect him to anyway. The idea that he is only allowed one term, or that during the next election I'll have to vote for another party is absurd.

 

He can veto unlawful legislation, he can veto spending bills that do not conform to the constitution. This is all I expect from him. I'm not so foolish as to think all of America's problems can be fixed in four years or eight years. But I'm also not foolish enough to think that the people who keep creating the mess are willing to clean up the mess.

 

No, he might not be able to fulfill all of his promises, but he'll at least try and he'll do a far better job of improving the condition of the country than either Obama or Romney. And even if he were to turn into another Obama/Romney, what would I have to lose by voting for him? At least I tried.

 

And this is the ironic point about anyone you vote for regaurdless of what they preach.

 

"You don't know" In all honestly an arguement could be made a person like Gary Johnson would just make our country worse. just like anyone can argue mitt romney or Obama would too.

Edited September 28, 2012 by colourwheel

[Ghogiel]

None of those countries are occupied. It's like saying the US is occupying the UK.

 

I think what you might be referring to are permanent military bases. They aren't trying to close them. And if they did, they would just close them in fairly short order like any base they have closed in the past.

 

Unless his message is mistaken He made it seem like he wants to bring home all troops around the world. Taking this into account this includes places around the world where we have these "permanent military bases".

 

I suppose even if he was, the US could still just close every military base in foreign countries if it wanted to. As it happens it actually costs to run them, I would expect a cost savings in the 700bn a year in military spending. However it'll never happen. It's not a case of can't. It's a case of won't. Of course the necessary job cutting involved isn't going to go down very well with voters. Not to mention security advisers would object. And at the same time a lot of the people, regardless of those things, actually want to war and support war. Right now Mitt is rousing his followers with a definite promise of war with Iran. :\

[colourwheel]

None of those countries are occupied. It's like saying the US is occupying the UK.

 

I think what you might be referring to are permanent military bases. They aren't trying to close them. And if they did, they would just close them in fairly short order like any base they have closed in the past.

 

Unless his message is mistaken He made it seem like he wants to bring home all troops around the world. Taking this into account this includes places around the world where we have these "permanent military bases".

 

I suppose even if he was, the US could still just close every military base in foreign countries if it wanted to. As it happens it actually costs to run them, I would expect a cost savings in the 700bn a year in military spending. However it'll never happen. It's not a case of can't. It's a case of won't. Of course the necessary job cutting involved isn't going to go down very well with voters. Not to mention security advisers would object. And at the same time a lot of the people, regardless of those things, actually want to war and support war. Right now Mitt is rousing his followers with a definite promise of war with Iran. :\

 

This what I am takling about ussually 3rd party canidates campaign on unrealistic goals. Not saying our country doesn't have the ability just just pack up and leave any place in the world. Yet the reality is it's not really that simple. Do people actually take in concideration what could happen if we just packed up and left all "occupied" countries? I just don't see it happening when I stated before we are still in German after all these many dacades ago and now have "permanent military bases". around the world even though Germany and other places are very peaceful places now.

[Ghogiel]

To be fair the US isn't still in Germany. It's exactly like saying they are still in the UK. It's a base.

 

 

edit: oh an if you mean checkpoint charlie. Well I lived in Berlin. And it's a tourist attraction. it's not real any more

Edited September 27, 2012 by Ghogiel

[colourwheel]

To be fair the US isn't still in Germany. It's exactly like saying they are still in the UK. It's a base.

 

 

edit: oh an if you mean checkpoint charlie. Well I lived in Berlin. And it's a tourist attraction. it's not real any more

 

Approximately 41,000 US Army personnel are currently based in Europe, with the majority in Germany.

 

Seems like a very large amount of troops in Germany just for a tourist attraction.