Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment Would it be third party or only Second?

So now we're going to get another "Guru" to head yet another Cabinet position at the expense of several BILLION dollars. The Dept of Homeland Industry Protection? Yep, lets waste the taxpayers money trying to get back what they gave away with NAFTA and GATT; AND WE HAD TO PAY FOR THOSE GIVE-A-WAYS TOO!!!

The Repub.'s all voted for them, even the Union supported Dem's all voted for them. They cut the throats of the very people that fund them, and the stupid Unions STILL support the Dem's. Go figure? More stupid still, many union members still vote for them even today. Go figure again <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

With the rate that Bush is enlarging government, he's even making the Dem's happy. Government hasn't grown at this rate since FDR!

Since as Wallace said, "there ain't a dimes worh a difference between a Rep. and a Dem. " and its truer now more than ever, would a "third party" candidate truely be a third alternative or just our second?

They are all the same anymore, only the names change to protect the guilty! Need to do away with a "Career in Politics"! TERM LIMITS TERM LIMITS TERM LIMITS TERM LIMITS TERM LIMITS TERM LIMITS

With all due respect sir I will submit that OUST ALL INCUMBENTS should do a lot of good from local to national levels. Bob

T Lee, if there were term limits, Representative Ron Paul would have been out of there long ago, but he is just about the only good Congressman there is in the whole bunch. I think the solution is some kind of run off election, i.e., first the full election, where all candidates run against each other, followed by an election between the two candidates who got the most votes in the first election. Even if we just worked towards having this in the primaries (which would not require a constitutional amendment) the benefits would be enormous. We'd actually get candidates who represented the majority views of their party. Republican national candidates would actually have to be conservative to win their primary. The true conservatives could not be eliminated by the establishment backing a second conservative, so as to split the conservative vote. Let's say we had this for each state primary when Pat Buchanan first ran. Most states backed more conservative candidates than establishment candidates, but the conservative votes were divided. Once there is only one conservative and only one establishment candidate in the primary run off election, the conservatives can concentrate their votes. Ideally, this would be arranged for the national election too, but that would require an amendment to the Constitution. But, at least this way the people will have an actual choice between a conservative (who will run on the Republican ticket) and a liberal (who will run on the Democrat ticket).

That would work.

Hawk, can't do a butchering without spilling some blood! Ron Paul would be a great loss, but then Ron could always run for Prez!!!