Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

I actually really believe in voting for third parties. I mean, I know the obstacles between a third party in America and the Presidency are pretty much insurmountable, but I really think that if third parties can show that they're getting increases in voting (like from .5% of the vote to 2%), then the two major parties would be more inclined to adopt some new ideas.
I mean, most people aren't really just straight-up liberal or conservative. Pretty much everyone really belongs to a third party and doesn't know it yet. Even if independents have no chance at ever getting an influential office, I still think people should vote for what they actually believe in. Never settle, you know?

I'd be constitutionalist

Yeah, someone mentioned something to me that our vote is not for who we think will will of the two parties, but who should be president of all the parties. I don't care if the dude is republican, democrat, whatever, I'll listen and pay attention and see what I think. I am trying to pay equal attention to the conventions, but school makes it hard.

One of my teachers today was asking us why on earth we aren't paying attention to the conventions and stuff. He didn't know how we could go on in life without knowing about these things.

He also strongly recommended we watch the Colbert Report and that other dude.

Another sad thing with US politics is the lack of interest in Congressional elections. After all the hype, the president can do very little without the aid of Congress. I think the ability to appoint Supreme Court Justices is about the most influential power the President has.

Tao wrote:Another sad thing with US politics is the lack of interest in Congressional elections. After all the hype, the president can do very little without the aid of Congress. I think the ability to appoint Supreme Court Justices is about the most influential power the President has.

Actually thanks to Bush, the President has a lot more power now than he used to...

Tao wrote:Another sad thing with US politics is the lack of interest in Congressional elections. After all the hype, the president can do very little without the aid of Congress. I think the ability to appoint Supreme Court Justices is about the most influential power the President has.

I know, I know little about congressional elections and local election information.

Actually, in two weeks or so, from what my uncle was telling me, there will be a small forum or sorts in Kearns (west valley/west jordanish) to get to know the candidates for congressional office.

I will confirm the date and if any of you want the address to be able to attend, pm me.

He can invade a country and keep troops there for a time (I think it's 30 days to 3 months or so...) without a declaration of war. (to continue he needs congressional approval or a declaration of war from congress)

He can also veto any bill which is very powerful since to overcome the veto they (congress) need a huge majority.

Control over who becomes a justice is also very influential and lasting.

He can grant unconditional pardons as well.

Evidently wiretapping every American is also legal (via FISA, Patriot Act, etc...)

This is a good overview... http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

Tao wrote:Another sad thing with US politics is the lack of interest in Congressional elections. After all the hype, the president can do very little without the aid of Congress. I think the ability to appoint Supreme Court Justices is about the most influential power the President has.

So Tao, you being a wise dude and all, ignoring the media hype, what are the pros and cons of voting for either of them?

orb360 wrote:

Tao wrote:Another sad thing with US politics is the lack of interest in Congressional elections. After all the hype, the president can do very little without the aid of Congress. I think the ability to appoint Supreme Court Justices is about the most influential power the President has.

Actually thanks to Congress passing all sorts of laws they should have never thought about passing in the first place, the President has a lot more power now than he used to...

There, I fixed your post.

And to build on your most recent post orb, the President can commit troops to an area for 60 days according to the War Powers Act. He must notify congress within 48 hours of committing the troops. They then must vote to extend the stay or the troops must be withdrawn within 60 days; however, the constitutionality of the War Powers Act of 1973 has been called into constitutionality many times. Supreme Court has never directly ruled on it.

Back to the main point of the thread, I have a very hard time with this subject. In 2004 I voted for Michael Badnerik (the Libertarian Party candidate). Since then, I've wondered more and more if I was actually voting for a cause (the propulsion of the Libertarian Party) or as a coward (one unwilling to commit to either actual nominees ideals even though they did not closely mirror my own). I feel in this election, it is even more compelling. In 2004, I felt both candidates were unqualified to be President (read unqualified as: tools). This election, I truly feel as though both candidates have viable and vibrant causes to push forward. I like them both. Yet I look at the Libertarian Party as the future of conservative America that will one day ingest the Republican base. Do I vote for the cause or do I vote for a person who will have the greatest effect in the White House?

wired wrote:Do I vote for the cause or do I vote for a person who will have the greatest effect in the White House?

I think greatest effect isn't appropriate, because Bush has had tremendous effect. I think the main point to vote for someone is who would be the better president. I don't know who to to vote for, I do pay attention to the conventions, but not too much attention as to fall for every line given. Frankly the issues and record for following up on promises are what I look for. For example, I don't think that being a pow is that great advantage to be a president. Sure he served in the military, but that doesn't mean that he will be a great president, or that just because Obama is a great orator, doesn't mean I am swayed by his talk of hope and actually see his plans, and pay attention to the issues.

Darth Fedora wrote:I actually really believe in voting for third parties. I mean, I know the obstacles between a third party in America and the Presidency are pretty much insurmountable, but I really think that if third parties can show that they're getting increases in voting (like from .5% of the vote to 2%), then the two major parties would be more inclined to adopt some new ideas.
I mean, most people aren't really just straight-up liberal or conservative. Pretty much everyone really belongs to a third party and doesn't know it yet. Even if independents have no chance at ever getting an influential office, I still think people should vote for what they actually believe in. Never settle, you know?

I see your point, but that's not the only way of looking at things. After all, it's still likely that you disagree with a 3rd party candidate or platform on some issues, so it's a matter of how narrowly you choose to drill down. There's a difference between "settling" and "compromising."

wired wrote:

orb360 wrote:

Tao wrote:Another sad thing with US politics is the lack of interest in Congressional elections. After all the hype, the president can do very little without the aid of Congress. I think the ability to appoint Supreme Court Justices is about the most influential power the President has.

Actually thanks to Congress passing all sorts of laws they should have never thought about passing in the first place, the President has a lot more power now than he used to...

There, I fixed your post.

And to build on your most recent post orb, the President can commit troops to an area for 60 days according to the War Powers Act. He must notify congress within 48 hours of committing the troops. They then must vote to extend the stay or the troops must be withdrawn within 60 days; however, the constitutionality of the War Powers Act of 1973 has been called into constitutionality many times. Supreme Court has never directly ruled on it.

Back to the main point of the thread, I have a very hard time with this subject. In 2004 I voted for Michael Badnerik (the Libertarian Party candidate). Since then, I've wondered more and more if I was actually voting for a cause (the propulsion of the Libertarian Party) or as a coward (one unwilling to commit to either actual nominees ideals even though they did not closely mirror my own). I feel in this election, it is even more compelling. In 2004, I felt both candidates were unqualified to be President (read unqualified as: tools). This election, I truly feel as though both candidates have viable and vibrant causes to push forward. I like them both. Yet I look at the Libertarian Party as the future of conservative America that will one day ingest the Republican base. Do I vote for the cause or do I vote for a person who will have the greatest effect in the White House?

I vote for Chuck Norris because he can roundhouse kick those terrorists in the face!

On a more serious note... I vote for who I want in office. Right now, I don't think any of the candidates are qualified... although investigate the 3rd parties more before I write them off, but they are typically very extreme in their views. (green party... whoa!)


And thanks for the clarification of the War Powers act... ^_^

I like the ME PARTY! YAY LOL!

I'm TOTALLY writing in sqrt(-1)

Nanti-SARRMM wrote:So Tao, you being a wise dude and all, ignoring the media hype, what are the pros and cons of voting for either of them?

Sorry for the delay, my attendance of this forum will be sporadic as I will be working 12's for an undetermined time. But I'll try to give this a fair go over (especially as it will help clear things up for myself as well).

First off though, were you asking for the pros and cons of voting for Presidential and Congressional nominees in general, or for voting for either McCain or Obama?

Tao wrote: First off though, were you asking for the pros and cons of voting for Presidential and Congressional nominees in general, or for voting for either McCain or Obama?

McCain and Obama.

Nanti-SARRMM wrote:

Tao wrote: First off though, were you asking for the pros and cons of voting for Presidential and Congressional nominees in general, or for voting for either McCain or Obama?

McCain and Obama.

and Ron Paul

orb360 wrote:

Nanti-SARRMM wrote:

Tao wrote: First off though, were you asking for the pros and cons of voting for Presidential and Congressional nominees in general, or for voting for either McCain or Obama?

McCain and Obama.

and Ron Paul

and Pottersues. (See her comment at the top of this post.)

bobtheenchantedone wrote:

orb360 wrote:

Nanti-SARRMM wrote: McCain and Obama.

and Ron Paul

and Pottersues. (See her comment at the top of this post.)

Wow... I'm speechless