Reply With Quote
if only that would do anything. it would, but not enough. what needs to happen is to get 3rd party candidates, sane ones, to be involved in the up coming debates. get them some camera time. that's the change we need.
Say NO to McBama!
Say NO to Republicrats!
Say NO to Establishment media outlets!
Say NO to bipartisan trashing of the Cons ution!
Cast a protest vote for a 3rd party presidential candidate of your choice.
Tell everyone why you will vote against the lesser of two evils.
Be heard: http://www.bobbarr2008.com/
if only that would do anything. it would, but not enough. what needs to happen is to get 3rd party candidates, sane ones, to be involved in the up coming debates. get them some camera time. that's the change we need.
I'm not voting for Bob Barr just because I don't want to vote for 'two evils'.
All you need is like 12% (don't remember the exact percentage, but somewhere around there) of the popular vote and next time around your party gets in the debates and eligible for federal funds.
Perot came very close the last time he ran.
But yeah. I think anyone on the ballot in enough states to actually win (aka eligible for 271 electoral votes) should be in the debates.
I'm with you, cool hand. Since Ron Paul is no longer in the race, I'll be voting for a 3rd party candidate. Admittedly, I haven't decided on which one, since many of them agree on key issues that are important to me (war in Iraq, foreign policy, fiscal responsibility, small government, etc.). I like Bob Barr more and more each day, but I hear his voting record isn't as consistent as a libertarian candidate's should be.
This election is to important to waste your vote on a third party candidate...
I couldn't disagree with you more. In an election where both candidates are likely to lead the country farther down the ter, there's no better time than to give voice to candidates who represent a surprisingly large fraction of the country. There's nothing democratic about a two-party stranglehold.
Face it, on the major issues, the economy and the war in Iraq, you couldn't have two more opposing viewpoints....if there was a third party candidate who supported a more populous position on these issues then maybe he could garner 12% of the vote, but there isn't...so you have to stake your position and plant your flag on either side of the choices we have available to us...
If it was that important they shouldn't have thrown out a ty candidate.
...Obama is a very popular candidate or he never would have beaten Hitlary...plus he continues to raise millions in campaign funds....quit falling for wing-nut spin
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
