FoxNews: : As post-9/11 program grew, info on Americans, not terrorists was collected; price tag huge

[SnyderShrugged]

At this point I have little faith either will. But I know for a fact that Gary Johnson and Ron Paul will do **** all about it because in January neither of them will have that power.

You have created a self fulfilling prophesy by not voting for them. Again, Its your choice who to vote for. If you choose to not vote for someone who will definitely prevent something that is evil because you are afraid they wont win, then you are part of the problem.

---------- Post added October-3rd-2012 at 11:41 AM ----------

I think that voting third party in certain elections can change things, and Ross Perot's candidacy probably had a real effect in pushing towards balanced budgets in the 90s. But for most elections, it really doesn't matter very much, and the best way to advocate for particular issues is through the primaries and the platform of a major party.

I think that Ron Paul and the Paul campaign understood this, and worked very hard to affect the Republican campaign this year. Unfortunately, that wasn't particularly successful either, but they were certainly much closer to effecting real change than we will see in the general election with Gary Johnson.

I agree all the way up to the point of the actual general election. Dont vote for one of the bigs if you believe what they will do is wrong or evil. Its as simple as that.

[JimboDaMan]

You have created a self fulfilling prophesy by not voting for them. Again, Its your choice who to vote for. If you choose to not vote for someone who will definitely prevent something that is evil because you are afraid they wont win, then you are part of the problem.

Yup, that's me.

I'm afraid you don't understand that everybody considers "the other guys" to be part of the problem.

In any event, vote for whoever you want. But in January we will both be urging Romney or Obama to curtail these practices.

[SnyderShrugged]

Yup, that's me.

I'm afraid you don't understand that everybody considers "the other guys" to be part of the problem.

In any event, vote for whoever you want. But in January we will both be urging Romney or Obama to curtail these practices.

LOL, good luck with that. We all know they wont change a thing and it really matters little as to which one gets in.

what, "other guys" are part of the problem that was expressed in this thread ?

[thebluefood]

its not a mindset, its American history. Go throughout American history and find a period where a 3rd party was viable. It has nothing to do with wanting one or the other, and it has everything to do with how Americans have always chosen its politicians.

Hey, guys! What's going on in this thread?

[Larry]

I think that voting third party in certain elections can change things, and Ross Perot's candidacy probably had a real effect in pushing towards balanced budgets in the 90s. But for most elections, it really doesn't matter very much, and the best way to advocate for particular issues is through the primaries and the platform of a major party.

I think that Ron Paul and the Paul campaign understood this, and worked very hard to affect the Republican campaign this year. Unfortunately, that wasn't particularly successful either, but they were certainly much closer to effecting real change than we will see in the general election with Gary Johnson.

Me, as to third parties, in general?

I'm of the overwhelming opinion that, especially in elections like this one, (where virtually nobody is "voting for", they're simply "voting against"), that if you think a 3rd party candidate represents your positions better than the two majors, then you absolutely should vote for him.

My reasoning for that, even if you leave asside the whole debate about voting for somebody you don;t like and all of that, is that I assert that, in elections like this one, that a 3rd party vote will have vastly more impact on the political landscape, in the years ahead, than a vote for one of the biggies.

My reasoning: Let's assume that a mere 1% of the vote like some 3rd party candidate.

If that 1% vote for the majors, then a) their vote will be somewhat spilt between those majors, and a 1% change in the votes for the majors will be a drop in the bucket, and won't be paid attention to, by either Party.

But, a 1% vote for a 3rd Party candidate? (Or, more accurately, an additional 1% vote for him? That will get noticed.

If (some 3rd Party candidate) gets 5% of the vote, then I guarantee that both political Parties will re-examine their positions, and try to figure out if maybe they can tweak their Party's stance, to try to lure those 5% to their side.

In a lot of states, 5% of the vote can't swing the election from one major to the other. But 5% can make the majors pay at least lip service to that party's objective.

5% of the voters, split between the majors? Nobody pays attention. 5% of the voters, voting 3rd Party? They'll get attention.

[SnyderShrugged]

There is some good wisdom in Larry's post