At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
We're told that if we vote for an Independent party, we've wasted our vote. We only have two parties and are stuck with choosing between two people in a country of over 300 million. That's why we usually vote for a candidate who is the 'lesser of two evils' instead of one we actually believe will be great for our country. We certainly wouldn't want to 'waste' our vote.
If I vote Libertarian because I believe in the values they express but they are not one of the two main parties, I'm 'taking my vote away from the main candidate'. (wasting my vote)
But then how do the majority of voters even know there are other parties, or what they stand for when the Media completely shuts them out in favor of the wealthy who vie for office? When they are prevented from appearing in debates and get no tv or newspaper attention it's pretty hard for voters to commit to an idea they are serious contenders.
If 75,000 other voters decide to vote Libertarian, would that party receive any votes from the Electoral college or would those 75,000 votes just be scrubbed? (wasted votes)
If that's the case, you may as well vote for your brother or sister - or little Stewie. Better I waste my own vote on someone I really like and trust than to waste it on someone I believe to be dishonest, mean, arrogant, or not the brightest bulb on the tree, wouldn't that be a wasted vote too? Maybe even the biggest waste because I'd continue to give power to those who not only don't serve us but actually harm us.
Would you vote for a third party if you don't believe in the candidates we have been given? Why? ....why not?
I do not disparage his motives just his dangerous notions about our role in the world. Do you remember how he responded to the question of how he would've dealt with al-Qaeda after 9-11 ? Almost eveyone agrees that going after them in Afghanistan was the correct move. Well ...almost everyone . Ron Paul said his constitutional mandate was to issue a "Letter of Marquis". In 20th century jargon that is he wanted to send in a hit squad.
He also did not answer adequately to the clearly racists material published in his news letter penned under his name.
Racist? Ron Paul has been a free doctor to hundreds of poverty stricken black families. That should be the answer shouldn't it?
Tom, we can't agree with every single issue with any of the candidates. I disagree with Hillary, Obama and McCain, as well as half of Congress on Amnesty. In fact, I angrily disagree since the money for their care comes out of my crumpled pocket.
It's my inclination to look hard at McCain but every time I do, I find more that I disagree with.......you already know how I feel about the two Democrats. OMG
Ron Paul has extreme policy that people don't agree with? Really?
Yes, really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by purplewings
Do you think people disagree with following the Constitution as it was intended? I don't.
I think a majority disagrees with following the Constitution as Ron Paul interprets it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by purplewings
Do you think people want more government instead of less? I don't.
I think a majority wants more competent and less doctrinaire government. I don't think they want a major reduction in the level of government services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by purplewings
Do people want to pay more taxes instead of less?
Of course not. They want somebody else to pay for their government services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by purplewings
Do people want more government intervention into their private lives?
No, but many of them want the government to make other people behave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by purplewings
Do we want the Federal Reserve holding our money so the government can use it however and whenever they decide without our input?
Since that isn't what the Fed does, the question is moot. A competent central bank is an essential component of a market economy. People who want to abolish it generally misunderstand its role and function. Going back on the gold standard is a recipe for financial disaster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by purplewings
Do people want amnesty for illegals?
Not if it's called that. Do they want to pay what it would cost to round them all up and deport them? I doubt it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by purplewings
If people knew his positions, I don't believe they would disagree.
Well, I know his positions and I disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by purplewings
They don't know his positions because he's been kept from their view the majority of the time. When they do mention him it's in a way that indicates he knows nothing, and yet his time with Congress as well as his career as a doctor, show him to be very knowledgeable about our government.
Anybody who cares can easily find out what his positions are. It isn't necessary to postulate a vast media conspiracy to explain his lack of support.
Tom, we can't agree with every single issue with any of the candidates. I disagree with Hillary, Obama and McCain, as well as half of Congress on Amnesty. In fact, I angrily disagree since the money for their care comes out of my crumpled pocket.
It's my inclination to look hard at McCain but every time I do, I find more that I disagree with.......you already know how I feel about the two Democrats. OMG
can't argue with you threre . I know peope who argue that after 4 years of a disasterous Democrat rule that includes veto proof majorities in both houses of Congres that the US will plead with the GOP to come to the rescue ;and that will give them ample time to bring in fresh blood . Perhaps they are right . After 4 years of Carter the country handed the Presidency to the Republicans for 12 years. After 2 years of the Clintoon act the Republicans began to build their majority in Congress. But a Democrat control will shape the courts for the next 20 years and that will be a bitter pill to swallow.
No self-respecting person under the age of 55 takes Fox News seriously.
Here are the FNC (Fox News Channel )ratings for this period.
Quote:
For the 77th consecutive month, FNC finished first in total day and prime time ratings during May. FNC was the sixth highest rated cable network on all of basic cable during prime time for the month (CNN and MSNBC finished 19th and 26th) and the seventh rated network in total day (CNN and MSNBC were 19th and 27th).
FNC also had 11 out of the top 13 programs in cable during the month in Total Viewers. The O'Reilly Factor was the #1 program in cable news for the 90th consecutive month, and saw gains in Total Viewers year-to-year (26%).
Amercia's Newsroom (9-11amET) was up 30% year-to-year, with the program averaging more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined during the time period.
Meanwhile, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren has been #1 for 73 consecutive months in Total Viewers while Hannity & Colmes has been #1 in its timeslot for 54 consecutive months.
Thanks for trying though. No self-respecting person under the age of 55 takes Fox News seriously.
Nice try NK, but you left out the last sentence of your quote:
Quote:
After a Washington Post article referred to CMPA as "conservative," the Post published a "Clarification," which concluded, "The Center describes itself as nonpartisan, and its studies have been cited by both conservative and liberal commentators."
You also failed to be "fair and balanced" in omitting discussion of the CMPA critic you cite, FAIR:
Quote:
In 1990, Walter Goodman wrote an editorial in The New York Times comparing FAIR and Accuracy in Media and stated that the two groups' "criticism of television and the press is often provocative. But it is always tendentious", and that FAIR's "target invariably is bias on the right."[2]
In May 2002, Jeff Cohen, a FAIR founder, left the organization to work as a producer on Phil Donahue's short-lived talk show on MSNBC...
In 2006, FAIR criticized U.S. media coverage of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, taking issue with the assertion that "... Hugo Chávez is an autocrat who has consolidated one-party rule".[4] FAIR has frequently defended the Chávez government against such criticism.
FAIR currently cites far, far, far left-wing cartoonist and disgusting Bush critic Ted Rall as an authority on fairness in the media. Rall is the bottom feeder that drew this racist cartoon where Condoleezza Rice calls herself "Bush's beard" and "his house nigga":
I understood a long time ago that you had MUCH more free time than I to hang out here. I stand corrected: Fox News is the most balanced news network and caters to both liberals and conservatives equally. Keith Olbermann is also fair and balanced and tells the truth about political situations without fear of ramifications.
I understood a long time ago that you had MUCH more free time than I to hang out here. I stand corrected: Fox News is the most balanced news network and caters to both liberals and conservatives equally. Keith Olbermann is also fair and balanced and tells the truth about political situations without fear of ramifications.
purplewings agrees: Most of your points were childish and completely untrue. The fact is people don't know who Ron Paul is. To this day I have people asking. The Media decides who we will be able to choose from and that's a fact
Hiding behind a supposed conspiracy by The Media instead of actually debating the merits of his policy positions is a cop out. If you think my points were erroneous or poorly reasoned, address them in an adult fashion.
OMG
Linear Mode
