Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
Hillary Clinton for president....
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mountainsheep" data-source="post: 137514" data-attributes="member: 5875"><p>[ QUOTE ]</p><p> </p><p>If you're a Dem, and reading this forum, then Richardson of New Mexico is a viable alternative. </p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ] </p><p></p><p>Even if you are a GOP, Richardson of New Mexico is a viable alternative; and likewise with others of both parties. America is one of the few nations left that can be considered a democratic, republic. Voting citizens should focus on the individual issues and a candidates' position in regards to those issues, party affiliation is a concentrated effort to lump everyone into a group to sway the vote in a generalized direction, in so much as, the two party system has become nothing more than competitive fund raising. Why do you see the ideologies of both parties directed to the extreme fringe and avoiding a centrist stance? Why not give some thought to weighing a candidate's commitment to the issues and not so much to party affiliation. If the U.S. continues along these lines we will end up with a government similar to that in the U.K. (see quote below)</p><p> </p><p></p><p>[ QUOTE ]</p><p> At least you guys have the chance of a vote, we in the UK are going to get a Prime Minister that no one even voted for! </p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ] </p><p></p><p>Dave</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mountainsheep, post: 137514, member: 5875"] [ QUOTE ] If you're a Dem, and reading this forum, then Richardson of New Mexico is a viable alternative. [/ QUOTE ] Even if you are a GOP, Richardson of New Mexico is a viable alternative; and likewise with others of both parties. America is one of the few nations left that can be considered a democratic, republic. Voting citizens should focus on the individual issues and a candidates' position in regards to those issues, party affiliation is a concentrated effort to lump everyone into a group to sway the vote in a generalized direction, in so much as, the two party system has become nothing more than competitive fund raising. Why do you see the ideologies of both parties directed to the extreme fringe and avoiding a centrist stance? Why not give some thought to weighing a candidate's commitment to the issues and not so much to party affiliation. If the U.S. continues along these lines we will end up with a government similar to that in the U.K. (see quote below) [ QUOTE ] At least you guys have the chance of a vote, we in the UK are going to get a Prime Minister that no one even voted for! [/ QUOTE ] Dave [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
Hillary Clinton for president....
Top