Originally posted by Quiero Mota
He's not gonna win in twenty-twelve. Everyone who voted for him (hippies, college professors, black people) will see that all that "change" crap was just to get him elected.I'm kind of a fan of the Republican answer to Obama: Bobby Jindal (young, not white, and a good speaker).
I think he will. Come 2011, they'll be this and that, the "it was a mess when we came in; now that the foundation has been laid, the healing can begin" speeches. Which go over well.
Will look into Jindal, don't know much about him.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
He's not gonna win in twenty-twelve. Everyone who voted for him (hippies, college professors, black people) will see that all that "change" crap was just to get him elected.I'm kind of a fan of the Republican answer to Obama: Bobby Jindal (young, not white, and a good speaker).
I would never vote for someone because they were or were not white or any color. To bring that up is racist.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I would never vote for someone because they were or were not white or any color. To bring that up is racist.
It's not racist, it's just a sad fact of life. If the Republican party wants to win against Obama come 2012, they need a non-white candidate.
Looking up Jindal's stances, Mota is spot-on, he's the non-white Obama beater, ie Republican 2012 wet-dream. Against abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, 09' stimulus. Pro Patriot Act, offshore drilling, ID in schools, chemical castration and keeping the Feds out of local law enforcement.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Except for all those policy differences and the different people in the parties and their two-some centuries worth of history are separate entities . . .
Oh my. Let me guess; Democrats are a gift from god to the human race while Republicans are the spawn of Satan him self.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Oh my. Let me guess; Democrats are a gift from god to the human race while Republicans are the spawn of Satan him self.
Nope, both sides have poor policies on some subjects and I doubt either consists mainly of actively malicious people. But they (factually) support different sides of many issues. Anyone who seriously believes there is no difference is actively deluding themselves.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nope, both sides have poor policies on some subjects and I doubt either consists mainly of actively malicious people. But they (factually) support different sides of many issues. Anyone who seriously believes there is no difference is actively deluding themselves.
They do have differences, but then it come down to my pocket; One wants to take money directly from me while the other makes sure I never get the money in the first place.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They do have differences, but then it come down to my pocket; One wants to take money directly from me while the other makes sure I never get the money in the first place.
That's not the only difference between them by a long shot, though a lot of people consider it the most important.
Are third parties different enough to spoil some Congressional/Senate seats? I know that, for the most part, third parties are almost negligible, due in no small part by the highly restrictive ballot access laws at state/national level that some states enforce.
In comparison, Canada is way more lax than the vast majority of U.S. states in regards to ballot access laws, as far as registering parties is concerned.
Canadian ballot access rules (House of Commons-level)
- Must have at least 250 members
- Must run at least 1 candidate
Quebec provincial ballot access rules (National Assembly-level)
- Must have at least 100 members
However, registered parties may or may not run candidates and still remain eligible to run at a National Assembly level. Anyway, in both cases, one needs to collect 100 signatures from his/her constituents if one wanted to run as an independent.
I'm sure few states would be Canada-lax in regards to ballot access...
No, I was only saying Canadian rules are a lot more inclusive as far as ballot access go. Compare the Canadian ballot access rules to that of a state like Oklahoma:
A party is defined as:
- A group that polled 10% or more for top-ticket offices (president or governor) or
- A group that submits a petition signed by a number of voters equal or greater than 5% of the number of votes cast in the last election for a top-ticket office (in the state)
An independent presidential candidate or a presidential candidate from an unqualified party would require a petition signed by at least 3% of the number of votes cast in the state in the last presidential election.