Presidential Debate

[NYJmpMaster]

A third party candidate cannot win at this time. That does not mean that I agree that there shouldn't be multiple parties involved in the process. I'd love to see this happen, and see the money given to the two major parties spread around. But I believe in being realistic, and that isn't the way it is right now.

In my opinions there should not be multiple parties involved in the process. I have too main reasons for saying this -
1) All political parties should be banned - if not outright banned than at the least be given no official recognition at all and party affiliation should not be on the ballot for certain. If you want to seize control of the government from rich and from huge corporations and PAC's then get rid of political parties that owe huge favors to them - no matter how rich you can not buy an election every election cycle. By losing political party backing and support there would be no more automatic re-elects based on districts - what we call a democrat in a primarily urban minority area or a republican in a upper middle class conservative district would no longer run unopposed. Every elected official would have to actually compete in the primary and the general election. The 2 highest vote getters in the primary should be the 2 candidates in the general election- if that meant in the last presidential election Hillary Clinton and Obama were facing off in the general election then that is far preferable than this person against that person based on separate party affiliation. This would have the effect of enacting term limits because if politicians were not doing there job they would face actual competition in both the primary and general election to hold them accountable for their actions. Congress would vote with common sense rather than out of fear of being cut off from party funding in the next election. It makes far less sense for a special interest to put huge resources into getting a person elected if it is not a sure thing for them to stay in power long term. It would also eliminate party ticket voting and simply choosing republican or democrat based on what the AARP or the NRA told you to do or what you "have always done" - God forbid a citizen had to actually watch news and read newspapers and follow debates and issues to decide instead of following like sheep based on the letter beside the candidates name.

2) Multi party systems are even worse - their are multitudes of countries with long standing true multi party systems - it produces nothing but inaction and deadlock - as hard as it is to get anything accomplished with 2 parties imagine trying to get a majority of 51% with 5 antagonistic groups. It simply does not work efficiently in any way and leads to even more shady back door deals and pork barrel politics.

Pure opinion of course.

[Autumn01]

I watched the debate last night. I'm for Romney. He totally nailed it last night! Though I was already for him way before last night
VP debate is next Thursday- I think Ryan will nail it too!

[katrina77]

I listened to Romney's speech for his ideas on foreign policy. I have to admit I was surprised, and not at all pleased. He wants to become more involved with the struggle in Syria, and create a separate Palestianian state. He has a lot of ideas that I don't agree with, and I can't see adding that much money to our overseas spending.

[OutCaste]

Neither romeny nor obama has a plan for the 16 trillion dollar debt bomb.

Dollar is doomed, China/Russia and other countries are already taking steps to dump the dollar.

[gloomy]

I listened to Romney's speech for his ideas on foreign policy. I have to admit I was surprised, and not at all pleased. He wants to become more involved with the struggle in Syria, and create a separate Palestianian state. He has a lot of ideas that I don't agree with, and I can't see adding that much money to our overseas spending.

He wants to give weapons to Syrian rebels.
It's a good thing too, because we all know how well that worked in Afghanistan.

It's a good thing that Romney is going to lose... Obama isn't going to be so different, but at least he seems to care about education and is trying to regulate the markets. Romney is going to set everything back to where it was before the crash, except worse-- as if wall street is just suddenly going to decide to play fair after 30 years of hardcore douchebaggery and scandal after scandal after scandal.

I really wish that the Republicans would stop trying to create another Ronald Reagan-- it's not the 80s anymore, and that s--t just doesn't work.

[gloomy]

I watched the debate last night. I'm for Romney. He totally nailed it last night! Though I was already for him way before last night
VP debate is next Thursday- I think Ryan will nail it too!

One of the advantages of being the challenger is that you can aggressively make absolutely ridiculous promises without having to back them up.
Obama was too busy trying to talk about reality-- probably a mistake, because reality is unpopular.

[katrina77]

He wants to give weapons to Syrian rebels.
It's a good thing too, because we all know how well that worked in Afghanistan.

It's a good thing that Romney is going to lose... Obama isn't going to be so different, but at least he seems to care about education and is trying to regulate the markets. Romney is going to set everything back to where it was before the crash, except worse-- as if wall street is just suddenly going to decide to play fair after 30 years of hardcore douchebaggery and scandal after scandal after scandal.

I really wish that the Republicans would stop trying to create another Ronald Reagan-- it's not the 80s anymore, and that s--t just doesn't work.

I'm not sure who will win at this point. It could go either way, depending on the remaining debates, and what happens between now and the election.

I personally believe we should stay out of the affairs of Syria, and let them fight their own wars. We should have stayed out of Libya, etc.

I am not any happier with Obama's policies, then I am with Romney's. I know that Obamacare has already caused our health insurance to rise by over 50%, with less coverage. It's a disaster, and I want it repealed. And I haven't seen Obama offer any workable plans to fix the economy, other than additional stimulus plans that don't work. He's had almost four years now, and things are only getting worse. He's done a lousy job, and I'm not willing to give him another four years to try and get it right. JMO.

[Autumn01]

One of the advantages of being the challenger is that you can aggressively make absolutely ridiculous promises without having to back them up.
Obama was too busy trying to talk about reality-- probably a mistake, because reality is unpopular.

I disagree with you. Obama doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Romney was only speaking the truth.

[Autumn01]

I'm not sure who will win at this point. It could go either way, depending on the remaining debates, and what happens between now and the election.

I personally believe we should stay out of the affairs of Syria, and let them fight their own wars. We should have stayed out of Libya, etc.

I am not any happier with Obama's policies, then I am with Romney's. I know that Obamacare has already caused our health insurance to rise by over 50%, with less coverage. It's a disaster, and I want it repealed. And I haven't seen Obama offer any workable plans to fix the economy, other than additional stimulus plans that don't work. He's had almost four years now, and things are only getting worse. He's done a lousy job, and I'm not willing to give him another four years to try and get it right. JMO.

I'm hoping Romney. We are screwed if we have Obama for another 4 years- America would then be no more.

[gloomy]

I disagree with you. Obama doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Romney was only speaking the truth.

http://www.ibtimes.com/romney-cant-f...experts-843747

Enjoy your new tax.
But don't worry, there's no way that he's not lying.