Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How is that being a follower? Obviously I didn't follow Romney, LOL... and it's not like anyone I know cares (they're not even all Obama voters), so who was I following exactly? Btw, leaving because you don't like the leadership is about as un-American as it gets. Nice suggestion.
All I did was look at my options, realize the third party option was a waste, and then chose the lesser of two evils. I do agree with more of what the Dems represent than the Reps, so until I have a VIABLE third-party option, I'll just have to go with the better of the two. Still don't see how I voted for free stuff, or what I'm supposedly receiving as a result. Any hint??
So you believe that higher taxation and a spendaholic president is good for American. So much for the velocity of money because it goes straight president instead of passing though other peoples hands before it gets there.
So you believe that higher taxation and a spendaholic president is good for American. So much for the velocity of money because it goes straight president instead of passing though other peoples hands before it gets there.
Yes and no. When it comes to the tax issue, I'm actually more on your side than theirs... but I'm not a one-issue voter, so there was a lot more that influenced my final vote.
Exactly... glad to see somebody gets it, and agrees our two-party system is the real culprit. Do these people really think our nation's problems would have been solved by Romney? He's no better or worse, just a different bird from the same damned flock. It's time for something TOTALLY new!
The real problem is that the two parties are a lot more alike than they are different. They are both owned by the same puppet masters. Heck, if I were a savvy corporation, I'd hedge my bets between the two parties and fund them both too.
Then they dress themselves up to look and act different from each other, and get their bases fired up for nothing. Neither of them will do anything meaningful, but make it look like they're changing the world. The truth is, both parties are beholden to the top 2% and both parties are making suckers out of the rest of us.
JT....hmmmm...James Taylor? John Teller? Jax Teller?
Justin Timberlake, perhaps?
And to your above post, I can only say BINGO! The D & R parties are practically interchangeable at this point, which is why I hate being associated with either... to be perfectly honest, I regretted my vote the minute I mailed it, and wish I had taken a stand against the major parties. Not that it would have mattered, since it'll be a LONG time before enough people are convinced to join the fight. Hopefully it will happen within my lifetime, because I only see trouble ahead if we continue on this path.
George W Bush was elected in 2000? Oh...maybe the Supreme Court thing never happened....sorry..I must have dreamt it.
You didn't dream anything, you just failed to understand. It was a close and controversial election (Florida). Popular vote vs Electorate College vote.
There were questions about Obama's re-election concerning bussing in votes and the voters were "questionable"? Do you take issue with that or are you going to tell me that you know for a fact that there is no truth to it?
If you go by the popular vote (which is a farce) - then no he was not elected as the voters favored Gore.
If you go by the sytem that is in place to determine who won - the electorate vote (which should be abolished and a win determinedon the popular vote) - then yes he was elected because the electorate votes favored GWB. Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court justices conspired against Gore and ignored law to determine that Bush won based on the electorate vote? Did Bush have those justices on his payroll?
If he wasn't "elected", then how did he become president? If he wasn't "re-elected" how did he manage to serve a second term? No matter how YOU want to look at it, or how it happened, he was elected to his first term and re-elected to serve a second term.
So you believe that higher taxation and a spendaholic president is good for American. So much for the velocity of money because it goes straight president instead of passing though other peoples hands before it gets there.
There you go with your ASSumptions. And it is an assumption because you didn't put it in the form of a question, but made a statement.
You didn't dream anything, you just failed to understand. It was a close and controversial election (Florida). Popular vote vs Electorate College vote.
There were questions about Obama's re-election concerning bussing in votes and the voters were "questionable"? Do you take issue with that or are you going to tell me that you know for a fact that there is no truth to it?
If you go by the popular vote (which is a farce) - then no he was not elected as the voters favored Gore.
If you go by the sytem that is in place to determine who won - the electorate vote (which should be abolished and a win determinedon the popular vote) - then yes he was elected because the electorate votes favored GWB. Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court justices conspired against Gore and ignored law to determine that Bush won based on the electorate vote? Did Bush have those justices on his payroll?
If he wasn't "elected", then how did he become president? If he wasn't "re-elected" how did he manage to serve a second term? No matter how YOU want to look at it, or how it happened, he was elected to his first term and re-elected to serve a second term.
Did that really need to be explained to you?
I understand a lot better than you think. I am also aware of the serious flaws in vote counting in FL and the aggressive lobbying by Jim Baker to get Bush appointed. We all know money talks, a brother as governor doesn't hurt, neither does having the state AG on your side.
Try and not assume that everybody except yourself on this board is an idiot, and try to develop skills in spotting irony in posts - its hard, I know, but does that really need to be explained to you?
There you go with your ASSumptions. And it is an assumption because you didn't put it in the form of a question, but made a statement.
Yep... I even gave her enough hints, by stating that I supported Johnson first & foremost (who didn't believe in higher taxation). Interesting how somebody can know ALL of my political views, based solely on who I picked in what was really a 50/50 choice - huh?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
