barf twice

Whichever you choose of two, your policy will be the same.

I'd like to clarify before I get labelled a liberal for siding Clinton. I tend to focus on foreign policy for my choices. Clinton to me appears to be (at this time) the most qualified foreign policy candidate; her experience as Secretary of State and First Lady make her shine to me. Also before the arguments begin, I remind everyone that as SecState, Clinton was under Obama so his foreign policy overshadowed her's; if you listen to her more recent independent interviews you will see HER opinion.

No one with any sense of American politics would label you a liberal for siding with Clinton.

However, last I looked, the election was in 2016, not 2014. For all we know, Hillary may have dropped dead of a heart attack or some new challenger arisen. The GOP is likely to throw up some clown or another and will generate humorous television viewing with its debates. However, my seasoned advice is that a week is a long time in politics, and two years an eternity. I wouldn't worry about such questions until we are much, much closer to time

@ogion, I love that you have seasoned advise. Is that battered and fried or broiled? Lol :))

I focus on what's good for America. Clinton doesn't cut it, but neither do mos politicians in America to be fair. The jersey governor is likely to be the republicans choice for 2016

It will be my first election as well, and I don't intend to vote for neither Clinton nor the GOP's candidate, whoever it ends up being. Vote third party and let's actually change the country as opposed to letting it sit in the damned hands of the Democrats and Republicans.

@bo in theory isn't that just as bad as blindly voting for Dems or Reps? rather shouldn't we push for more independent research into politicians, regardless of party?

@bo, that will get you far in life, keep it up. You could actually something useful, and petition your ex-governor Mitch Daniels and he would be a quality candidate for the GOP

A vote for a third party is a vote for the major party you dislike more. Welcome to a first-past-the-post electoral system, bo_sox48.

The idiocy of saying a person is no good simply because they belong to a particular group....

Exactly what Invictus said. Voting for a third party is idiotic. If you want to "actually change the country as opposed to letting it sit in the damned hands of the Democrats and Republicans" push for election reform i.e. changing the voting system.

I have a question for anyone from another country, are your politics as complicated as US politics seems or are we just uniquely a mess?

Hillary is the candidate of Wall Street and a continuation of our neo-conservative interventionist foreign policy. She might be competent at her terrible policies, which is more than we can say for Bush or Obama.

Everyone is wrong about third parties. That thinking assumes A you would have voted for one of the two major parties; B it makes a significant difference which major party candidate wins; C third parties have no shot of winning anything important. None of these assumptions are correct.

Or rather, at least for me, A is not correct. I'd rather not vote than vote Democrat or Republican at this point.

Is that a serious question? Look at Thailand or Ukraine and see if you think we are "uniquely a mess." We're blessed to have the problems we do.

As long as politics are a business, the special interest groups and the lobbiests will control the govt.... The severance from leaving the political structure is too great. Our founding fathers never meant for this to be a career. You were to serve your country and go back to your job....campaign finance reform needs to be at the top of the list of things to change. The pensions are ridiculous , and not deserved.

@ck ...I'm quite surprised to hear that from you. Voting is or only inalienable right. Not voting is not the answer....to many people actually think their vote doesn't count. Voting records are at all time lows, and that allows for the worst of the offenders to win. The idea of getting a higher percentage of the population to vote would be better.

@Invictus/uclabb - I'm more than aware, but people that vote for third parties in national elections will also vote for third parties more in local elections, and that's where the 'overthrow' of the Democrats and Republicans has to start. Besides, Indiana and Illinois (whichever I register in) don't matter in the Presidential election; we all know where their votes are going. Might as well add to the percentages.

@CommanderByron - Yes, we should, and independent research on Clinton will reveal that her past is no less spotty than Obama or Romney or Bush or Gore or any other major player. There could even be an argument that political families (Kennedy, Bush, Clinton, etc.) have the bug worse than the rest. I'll have to research that.

To your other question, I have friends in New Zealand, Germany, France, Israel, and plenty of other random spots around the globe, and pretty much all of them complain about their politics the same way we do ours. It seems to be a global thing.

@ssorenn - I hoped he would run in 2012. He'd have won if he did. Too late now, though.

@ckroberts - Agreed, though in the Presidential election, a third party isn't going to win. They might win national seats every now and again, which is a rallying point I guess. It's all in sentiment.

"Everyone is wrong about third parties. That thinking assumes A you would have voted for one of the two major parties; B it makes a significant difference which major party candidate wins; C third parties have no shot of winning anything important. None of these assumptions are correct."

It doesn't assume A.

It absolutely does matter which party wins. President McCain would have attacked Iran by now and not passed anything like Obamacare. Talk of the parties being carbon copies of each other is nonsense.

If it's wrong to think third parties have no shot at winning anything important, why aren't there three major parties? Why do all first-past-the-post systems tend toward a two-party system?


Here, what this video. It explains it all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

bo_sox48, it's a structural issue from the voting system we have that prevents third parties. Watch the video.

"Indiana and Illinois (whichever I register in)"

Illinois? You gonna be an Illini? Oskee Wow Wow!

Sorry if being to antimassdemocratic, but with enough cheeseburgers and campaignmoney you can get apsolute power of todays most powerfull country, all 9000 or so nuclear heads and Miley Syrus or how you spell it, land of the free...

Illinois, yeah

I mean U of I. I went there.

Define overthrow. The current state is *the* stable equilibrium. Again, it is virtually guaranteed that what you want is electoral reform, so push for that. Don't waste your vote.

@ck- A) So your argument is that you should vote third party since you are going to vote third party (or not vote) anyway? That's obviously not an argument. B) If it makes any difference, you should vote your preference. C) Third parties have no shot of winning anywhere except places that have different electoral structure. There are two independent senators, and neither of them are actually independent- they both are former members of the Democratic party.

Ssorenn has done a decent job at summarizing my feelings towards voting 3rd party and Clinton

"Again, it is virtually guaranteed that what you want is electoral reform, so push for that."

I'm always very puzzled by how every few years there's strong murmurings about how we need a third party, but it is NEVER accompanied by any talk of electoral reform. Even when people talk about abolishing the Electoral College they never seem to specify what replaces it. Would someone need 50% plus one to win or would a plurality by enough? No one ever says.

It's quite bizarre that people put so much effort into third parties but zero effort into advocating for the sort of reform that would make those parties actually possible. It's like no one can even imagine there are other ways to vote than first-past-the-post.

@invictus - I may have worded that wrong. I mean in nations like England, France, Germany. I did not mean nations that obviously are having problems I am not blind, dense, or uneducated. I would appreciate however (since I was asking a serious question regarding the political atmosphere of other countries) if someone could give me information about the political atmosphere of other countries. I am a curious person simply looking for information.

The problem, as usual, is someone saying something as COMPLETELY idiotic as "I won't for for X -- NO MATTER WHO HE IS OR WHAT HE STANDS FOR"...

Fucking retards should not be allowed in the voting booth.

You want to reform the political system? Disallow morons from voting. Require that citizens actually INVESTIGATE the fucking candidates they are goign to vote for instead of thinkig it is actually acceptable for some little punk ass douchebag to decide how he is going to throw his vote 2 1/2 years out form an election.

Line him up and shoot him...spare us the misery of yet another ill-informed moron from "participating" in the process, because he thinks it's a right...and does accept it as the PRIVILEGE that it should be considered.