October 4, 2012
What Happened Last Night
Walter Russell Mead

{Snip}

What Governor Romney did last night was less to win a debate with President Obama than to vault over him to position himself as the Jacksonian candidate in the 2012 race. President Obama allowed himself to be cast as the professorial intellectual who cites

Report message to a moderator

What I don't understand is why Americans (generally) don't vote for third-party candidates. I mean, whenever I hear Americans complain about Washington their solution is either not voting at all or voting for the party (Dem or Rep) that doesn't hold the presidency and that seems futile if the intention is to "fix the system".

easy

1. only natural persona are allowed to donate

2. noone is allowed to get a taxcut for more than 5%

3. noone is allowed to donate more than 10 grant (if he does he, the guy who rigs it and the guy who took it get heavily fined, if they do it again they go to jail for rigging an election)

4. fundraisers as they are need to be illegal

2. noone is allowed to get a taxcut for more than 5%

As noted in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a United States Supreme Court ruling on the BCRA, the Act was designed to address two issues:

The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion;
The proliferation of issue advocacy ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union general treasury funds. The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overturns this provision, but not the ban on foreign corporations or foreign nationals in decisions regarding political spending.

mccain-feingold is nothing that needs discussion i'd say.

the problem is of course it's not going far enough, but what really sucks is that decission of you subprime court as to who is allowed to contribute to campaign funding.

1. that's why we don't need to discuss it - neither of us thinks it to be a bad thing

2. you cannot retire them - they are 'for live'

1. i'm not to vote for anyone in your elections, my problem with mccain was more along the line of cardiac arrest and his veep taking over - lincoln was a republican, wasn't he? btw for an european even your so called leftwing people are right wing (obama is right of anyone who held office in europe after the war, not counting dame margaret thatcher that is). so if he's a socialist we're all commies here :devilaugh:

2. your problem not mine - in my book 'for live' kinda predates alzheimer's desease :pitchfork:

1. the statistacial chance that a president dies in office comes with age (especially when you compare mccain to obama) so palin was a much bigger threat than biden.

surviving the hanoi hilton does not mean you automatically get 80 or more years, does it. to the contrary 'died of old war injuries' is something not anheard of.

in my book your 26th president - a republican, btw - was - at least - your greatest president in the 20th century.

i'm not always against republicans. btw. if his cousin jailed prescott b. the world would have been spared of prescott's grandson, which means i'm also not always for a democrat (probably the cousin was one of your most dishonest but nevertheless a good president.

the most underrated was #37 (that was mostly one thing, but he should have gone to jail for it) - he got you out of that vietnamese quackmire, he went to china etc. but there is of course watergate. when it come to honesty he ws in a league with the kennedys => do we really need honest politicians or could it be that effective ones are better for our countries? the word realpolitik goes back to f

[Updated on: Sun, 21 October 2012 13:01] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

the 26th president of the us in later years founded the bullmoose party, which means the cousin is fdr - benjamin harrison was #23.

It was plain and simple posturing. What he will actually do is anybody's guess since he chooses to be opaque about actual plans. We need someone different, that goes without saying. But we honestly don't even know what this guy is saying he will do let alone what he will actually do.

This may be so but I don't really see what it has to do with being nebulous about things like what your plans are for the economy etc. If you are implying he is planning on taking an ultra conservative approach so is deliberately being obtuse so as to trick certain people in to voting for him I have to say that
a)that seems unlikely based on his centrist or even left leaning past policies
b)this is hardly a reason to have any confidence in the guy.
If his plans are so shaky or controversial he is afraid to even mention them during an election than he is not likely to get anything done once elected (which he has about a snowball's chance in hell of doing thanks to being so nebulous about real issues).


This is the first election of my adult life I am sitting out. I really want Obongo gone but have zero faith in the only other possible alternative. I cannot in good conscious vote for either of these duds since they are two sides of the same rotten coin.