"But in general, if you vote Green it's the same as not voting"

_____________________

Nobody "loses" votes to a third party. Nobody is entitled to your vote. If Dems don't want to "lose" votes to Greens, they better put together a real platform. If the Republicans don't want to "lose" to the Libertarian movement, they'd better put up as well.
Make them earn it. Isn't that the point!?

Every vote for a third party candidate puts pressure on the two parties to get with it, lest they're willing to continue seeing huge chunks of voters turn from them.

Voting for someone or something you don't believe in is the antithesis of democracy; I have no interest in political calculations. If you keep voting for the lesser of two piles of $hit, don't be surprised that the end result will still stink up the country.

No third party "costs" anyone an election. The sorry, tired, sold-out, and cowardly platform of your own party does.

Edited by xnomanx on 02/20/2011 19:59:14 MST.

Thank you Brad, well put.......

Craig, I respectfully disagree with you. I am on my third scotch and about to approach an epic dinner. I will reply to your post tomorrow. I too thought the same at onetime, and now disagree.

and one last thing before we all put ourselves on a pedastool. Politics are not black and white. They are grey. For those that have studied politics will understand that statement.

Edited by kennyhel77 on 02/20/2011 20:33:03 MST.

"Politics are not black and white. They are grey."

So you're against politics being black and white, but advocate only two choices on election day?

we have more that 2 options on election day up here. believe me having more options isn't much better

I don't have the answer... although I would say building up a third party ain't the answer.

What I like to see (I think) are simply more independents -- those who are loyal to their conscience, their constituents -- but not to any party machinery per se.

Like Warren Buffet said, it's not fair that he pays a tax of 15% on his income but his secretary pays a tax of 30% on hers

"... although I would say building up a third party ain't the answer.
What I like to see (I think) are simply more independents -- those who are loyal to their conscience, their constituents -- but not to any party machinery per se."



...so a third party isn't the answer...but we need more independents, loyal to their beliefs...so long as they ultimately vote for one of two parties????


Ya'll are seriously confusing me so far.

Edited by xnomanx on 02/20/2011 22:10:31 MST.

.so a third party isn't the answer...but we need more independents, loyal to their beliefs...so long as they ultimately vote for one of two parties????

Confused? Craig, why did you tack on the last phrase onto my statement? I said no such thing! The only way we can have more independents in Congress is to vote for the honest and the able -- de-emphasizing party affiliation. Who was it who said "people deserve the government they have"? If we have an entrenched two-party system, it's because we the voters allow it -- or don't care enough to change it.

If you don't have a third (or fourth or fifth) party, isn't it sort of implied that you'll have to vote for one of two?

Choice A or Choice B. Exercise your independent thinking, don't get attached to party affiliation...but vote for one or the other. Doesn't sound too independent to me.

Another solution is to call your representative and senators and let them know what you think

For example tell them about http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2011/continuing-resolution-02-16-2011.html which was the OP

From the representative and senator's perspective, most people never bother calling, so for each call they get there are probably 1000 other people thinking the same thing

Rather than forming a new party, take over one of the two parties from within

Like the Tea Party is doing to the Republican party

The only problem there is that organizations, like the Tea Party Express are funded by the same elites that control the Republican Party, so they may subvert the Tea Party before the Tea Party subverts them

"Just to comment on the oil bashing
- exxon profit margin 8%
- apple profit margin 21%
- Microsoft profit margin 30%

In 2009 exxon paid 79 billion in taxes or an effective rate of 47%."

From Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes_2.html):

"Though Exxon's financial statement's don't show any net income tax liability owed to Uncle Sam, a company spokesman insists that once its final tax bill is figured, Exxon will owe a "substantial 2009 tax liability." How substantial? "That's not something we're required to disclose, nor do we." "

So Exxon paid 47% tax to other countries

They don't disclose if they paid any U.S. taxes

Craig:

You are too stuck in your "we only got two choices" paradigm.

Just to clarify. No US tax liability just means at year end you have no liability. Doesn't mean you didn't pay taxes. They pay estimated taxes on a quarterly basis and the liability is the balance. So the 47% wasn't all foreign countries and zero US

Your article is very good. It highlights why over a trillion in corporate cash is sitting overseas. The US is the only country that wants to tax foreign earnings when brought back into country. So the cash gets invested in other countries and not the US. That is just smart business. If you where going to build a new plant would you pay the extra 15% or whatever diff to bring money to US and build. I would just build plant to that country.

Both parties now agree that the US corporate tax system is a problem and needs to be fixed. BTW one of many problems I don't think they will ever agree to fix.

Alright on a tangent. Back to the outdoors

Brad

That's not quite how I interpreted that article

Exxon paid 47% foreign taxes

They paid no U.S. taxes at that time,

but maybe they would go back later and revise it to pay some U.S. taxes but that wouldn't be public information

if they were "investing" based on taxes, they'de take all there money and invest it in the U.S. because here they can get special loopholes to pay less taxes

I think the corporations and wealthiest people think that the current tax system is great!!! it's so complicated it's almost impossible for the people to figure out what's going on

the politicians depend on "political contributions" so they're not going to do anything

When we get "mad as hell" and "go Egypt" maybe something will change, but until then expect the same

sorry for ranting, go back to backpacking light, or heavy...

Craig I said politics are grey, not political parties. What I mean by that is that you have two sides of a spectrum. One side is the right and the other is the left. Both have far reaching sides. To make them coincide and be as one they have to meet in the middle and the is the grey. When you have that it is much easier to govern.

"...they have to meet in the middle and the is the grey. When you have that it is much easier to govern."

But, if you go way "right" for years

then "meet in the middle" is still far "right"

To put it another way, Republicans like Nixon and Eisenhower would be considered liberal democrats in today's spectrum. Even Reagan advocated some liberal policies.

You have to be willing to compromise sometimes, but

FDR compromised for the first few years, but then he got an attitude and really took on his opponenets and got some significant things passed

Now, everyone open your windows, stick your head out and yell "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!!!"

In American you have to vote for the guy who sucks.
Voting for the best guy means Mr Suck won't have enough votes to beat Mr Blow. If Mr Blow wins, terrible things will happen. Mr. Suck will only do a few horrendous things.

With this logic, nothing improves.

Voting for either of the two parties changes nothing.

The two choices are more of the same, or try something different. Too bad America is a country of scared people. Scared of god. Scared of foreigners. Scared of intelligence. Scared of the dark. Scared of their shadow.

Change is scary. Just vote for Mr Suck, it's safer than freedom.

Well, having more than two parties does not guarantee good government, but at least those systems that have mixed ruling parties a) allow your vote to count even if you vote for the greens or independents, and b) makes the larger parties compromise some as they scramble to get the smaller parties on their side to make up a majority. It also makes for entertaining politics as politicians really hate to compromise :) Personally I would rather see compromise than have extreme left or extreme right factions controlling the country. Like many people who live in a mixed voting system, I don't vote along party lines, I vote for whoever makes the best and most realistic promises that align with my priorities. Sometimes it's greens, or independents, or liberals, or conceivably even conservatives who, in this country, can be quite liberal compared to most Republicans. The extreme right in this country is usually represented by the Christian party.

Edited by retropump on 02/21/2011 13:30:37 MST.