AT2k Design BBS Message Area
Casually read the BBS message area using an easy to use interface. Messages are categorized exactly like they are on the BBS. You may post new messages or reply to existing messages! You are not logged in. Login here for full access privileges. |
Previous Message | Next Message | Back to Friendly Debate (18+ please) <-- <--- | Return to Home Page |
|
||||||
From | To | Subject | Date/Time | |||
![]() |
Mike Powell | ROB MCCART | Democrats Cracked? |
July 26, 2025 11:10 AM * |
||
> That is why we in Canada have 3 main parties, a strong Right, a strong Left > and a medium one, although the far left doesn't seem to get many of the > votes. They have lots of 'great' ideas, but they are always expensive to > implement and most people figure they will either not manage to get those > things done or they will be paid for with higher taxes which may drive > uber wealthy people and some businesses out of the country. Unfortunately, our two main parties -- Republican and Democrat -- have things under control in most states that make it very, very difficult for a third party to get on the ballot and/or to have access to public funds and/or have access to debates and other "public access" that they have. You usually have to have a lot of money and be able to get X% of the vote in the state before you can be considered for any of those things. In some/many cases, just getting on the ballot requires you have a petition turned in, with X number of registered voters signing, before you can even get on a ballot and start trying for X% of the vote. Just as an example, some of the folks "on the ballot" for the last three Presidential elections -- like Kanye West or RFK, Jr -- were only on the ballot in some states. In a bit of irony, RFK, Jr won his fight to get on the Kentucky ballot just in time to drop out, but not with enough time to get himself removed. The Democrat and Republican politicians want to make sure our choices are limited which, in turn, allows them to field candidates who very in their level of "crapitude" and which causes some of their supporters to claim that you need to vote for their candidate because they are "less evil than" the other one -- note that only the delusional or completely dishonest will try to use the "not at all evil" approach. > What often works out best (IMHO) is when (frequently) we get a party > in power who didn't have a majority (50%+) so they need help to > vote most things through, which you don't get without giving someone > something in return. That swings the policies a little more one way > or the other than they would maybe prefer, but not radically so. > Since the extra votes often come from the far Left party, they agree > to vote with you if they can get a few things going through that often > help out low income people and seniors, moderately good dental covereage > being the last big one that came from one of those deals. That'd be nice. Since we are down to 2 choices here, IMHO, there needs to be some safeguard in place that prevents one party -- either one! -- from having control of the White House and both Congressional chambers. Like maybe some "at large Representatives" who only get to serve/vote in the House if it is necessary to prevent full party control of all three. They often get nothing done anyway but, when all three are controlled by the same party, they often tend to get mostly only stupid, polarized things done. * SLMR 2.1a * All Aboard!!! --- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux * Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1) |
||||||
|
Previous Message | Next Message | Back to Friendly Debate (18+ please) <-- <--- | Return to Home Page |
![]() Execution Time: 0.0133 seconds If you experience any problems with this website or need help, contact the webmaster. VADV-PHP Copyright © 2002-2025 Steve Winn, Aspect Technologies. All Rights Reserved. Virtual Advanced Copyright © 1995-1997 Roland De Graaf. |