Woman: The idea of the first woman president is very exciting... but there's just something abou ther...
The creators of South Park had the right idea when they basically referred to choosing between to major party candidates as making a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. For anyone with an independent mind, picking between the two parties will always be little more than picking the lessor of two evils, and those of us who vote third party will be vilified for letting the other guy win.
What is it about a female becoming president? Secretary Clinton has the bona fides to be president. Hope she runs and wins.
I always wonder what Bill would look like in drag, now I know.
“But until there is a snowball’s chance in the hot place of a third party candidate winning, I’ll stick with trying to chose the one who will stick it to me the least.”..Which is why a third party candidate doesn’t stand a snowballs chance in Texas of being elected.
What we need is the ‘Australian System’Ban all political advertising until 3 months before the election. Election day is a holiday so everyone can get to the polls. Voting is mandatory for all registered voters. We get 100% voter turnout therefore everyone is represented.
Steam Vapor: I agree!
How do you enforce the “law” to vote? It would take too much manpower.
Pretty certain there are other female presidents in other countries. So being the first female president in the world is rather self absorbed.
In your reply to Jase99, you are, of course, absolutely correct.
But in another comment, you praise Bill Clinton, because “…he did preside over one of the greatest periods of economic prosperity in our nation’s history….”. While this statement is largely true, there was poison in our economic system, at that time.
As if we didn’t already have too much de-regulation in the banking/money markets, he, and the SEC, stood by while CitiGroup and Travelers merged, IN DIRECT VIOLATION of the Glass-Steagall Law, and then, at Alan Greenspan’s request, repealed it. More mega-mergers followed!Yes, of course, the economy was humming. But the poison took time to do its work.
Instead of reigning in Wall Street, Bill watched them race off from the sidelines. That, and his zeal in getting NAFTA passed through his reluctant democrats, has cost most Americans dearly. (Greatly benefited a few!)
This is my biggest worry with Hillary. She is too cozy with Wall Street, (as is congress), and has said nothing about bringing some regulation back to the Wild West/Wall Street/Goldman Sachs show.
Lastly, I totally concur with STEAM VAPOR’s idea! (never happen, though)
TM, Ruff…a problem I can see with the “mandatory”, based on either reward or penalty, is the lack of progressivity – it would cost the low (or no) income voter disproportionately, and we would be “charging” citizens for what has been considered a “Right”. Also, the incentive for fraud – effectively, that old “vote early & often” or vote selling would be officially incentivized. Any legal penalty for not voting (for whatever reason) would add ANOTHER new class of “criminal” to our already somewhat draconian & overburdened justice system. Would non-casters-of-ballots have their voting rights taken away ? And how would the verification apply to absentee/early ballots ? Just some spur-of-the-moment thoughts…there may be other problems.
Two Clintons for the price of one would not be a bad thing. After all Bill did leave his successor with a budget surplus. It was not his fault that W pissed it away on tax breaks for his “have more” supporters and a trillion dollar war against non existent WMD’s.
With regards to your response to Jase99, I respectfully disagree. The notion that “until there’s a good chance of success, I’m not going to get involved” is the reason we haven’t gained traction as it is. Last election, I pushed the people I knew to vote for Gary Johnson. None of them wanted Obama or Romney to win, but they were all so afraid of the other guy winning that they were afraid to “throw their vote away.” There was not a single person I talked to who actually wanted the D or R candidates. I encouraged everybody to vote Libertarian, explained the platform to them, and most of them indicated that it was a platform they would support; however, they just couldn’t see throwing their vote away, and to quote one person, “I’m terrified of X winning.”
It’s a small sample, yes, but if the 15 people I talked to were somehow representative of the rest of the country, how many votes were wasted voting for the lesser of a turd sandwich or a giant douche out of fear when they could have voted for someone who at least purported to have a platform they liked? If the trash is full and everybody says, “when somebody else takes it out, it’ll be empty,” the trash never gets emptied. It’s time to take out the trash in Washington, but it’s a big job: those of us who voted 3rd party last election can’t do it by ourselves, as evidenced at the polls. My small survey demonstrates that there is at least some part of the population out there that ended up voting for the D or R candidate even though they didn’t want to. Yes, getting the 3rd parties to have equal money would certainly help, but I’d be curious how the election would have gone if people actually voted the way they wanted without fear of throwing their votes away. I cannot claim the 3rd party would have won; however, like many things in politics, I think if people would give it a chance, they might be surprised. It takes a leap of faith and the help of those who are afraid of wasting their votes to clean up this mess.
In the end, even if our votes don’t amount to much, I can at least sleep at night knowing that I didn’t vote for somebody whose platform I despise. Small consolation, but it’s a tiny silver lining. I may not have emptied the trash, but I at least picked up the soiled napkin that spilled out and took it out.