President NOT Republican/Democrat

I know it is impossible to stop corruption in politics but I just want to discuss this thought.

Since it seems that all presidents these days are corrupt or lie, why do people continually vote these people in?

I just want to know what you guys think about some person running for president thats not a democrat or a republican. Can it happen? And if so how?

I don't believe it can happen. The means to promote an independent/third party candidate cost too much for a candidate to fund without corporate/political backing. There's no prominent figures to fundraise for that person who would dare break away from his/her party. For the backing of the business world they would need to support policies that are more pro-free market than the Republicans which I don't see happening. There's no money there to support the kind of exposure that Repulicans/Democrats get. Money is such a huge deciding factor. There's nobody that people can really relate to to support that person because everyone supports candidates among party lines. It would have to be a truly grassroots effort if it did happen. Tea Party = Astroturf.

It would be neat to see it happen and I'm not against it just don't think it's realistic at this point, especially after Citizens United.

i dont vote :D

i think what you mean to say is all politicians are corrupt or lie

i wouldn't mind if half of them (democrat or republican idc) were lined up in front of the whitehouse and shot <.<

To be honest there would need to be a few changes first for it to happen.

1) The American people would have to believe that a third party candidate can win. The Majority of them I talk to say they think it is a waste of a vote, so they cannot get the backing that they need from the people to try and get a float.

2) The government itself would have to change how elections are done (Which I don't see happening) So that all the people who run are given a set amount of air time to discuss things on Television and other such media middle grounds. Right now all Third party candidates have are the internet and signs stuck in the ground all over the place(Which really means in a few places). While the internet is a great tool for promoting yourself it's proven that with the mindset of the people and the lack of other exposure it isn't enough.

3) The debates shouldn't be segregated. All of the third party candidates should be given a chance to get onto the debates (With our current main two parties). (Or at least ones that make a certain requirements. But with the way it's currently run no one could ever make those requirements). But even still, Ron Paul had a very Libertarian point of view and his party attacked him without end while he was on stage. Even the camera was all over the place when he talked: ie, someone laughing at him, jumping in right after to mock his idea, shaking their head, ect. So the debates would still have to be done without the camera supporting this type of Behavior.

That's my thoughts on what would have to change personally. #1 being the most important.

Now while I don't believe any politician has a clean slate, I really don't think that Presidents lie/do dirty business nearly as much as you think.

I never really watch any debates or anything political on TV because I don't vote(Im 17) but I have conversations with my college professors, parents, coaches, and other adults who do vote and they act as if the people they are voting for are lieing.
So I guess that would be another question; why would you vote for someone/thing you don't believe in? Is it because people think that the other choice doesn't have a significant chance? I don't know much about politics but the more I learn it seems America keeps moving further and further from what the constitution says :'(

"Lesser of two evils"

That's really what it comes down to. I've never seen a candidate at any level of government that I would support 100%.

Ever since I starting voting in 2000, it always seemed that way. I'm starting to think it's always been like that.

(Disclaimer: I lean left)

If you're taking up an interest in politics. I'd advise you to take anything you hear/read with a grain of salt, both from the media and politicians (but I won't get into politicians). There's enormous anti-liberal sentiment in America right now, a good amount of which is unwarranted and fueled by fear-based propaganda. If you want to learn to be objective you should avoid watching TV news to a large extent, avoid Fox News/MSNBC entirely (except Rachel Maddow but that's just my opinion, she leans left though just fyi) because almost nobody on either network has any integrity. Read about political stuff that interests you.

Don't take a crash course in modern politics or you will likely develop a bias because political media right now is saturated with fringe (fringe = far right/left) content. Some people become so impassioned about reporting politics they start to develop their own political agenda.

Take for example the "Obama is destroying America" rhetoric. Obama is not really going destroy everything we know/love about America, but saying that makes people want to vote against him. It achieved the goal set by the person who said it, but it's still not true. He may not be managing America the way some would like, but we're not descending into Authoritarianism which is what someone implied to you essentially.

Google definition of authoritarianism is:
dictatorship: a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)

What has Obama done outside of the constitutional framework of our country? I can't think of anything he has done that is unconstitutional. This is just rhetoric by the right to scare the uneducated (you, not saying you're not an educated person in general, but you are as far as politics go) into voting against Obama.

Like I said, with the Citizens United ruling which (in layman's terms) gave corporations the green light to spend vast amounts of money to influence elections, there's just no point in supporting third party candidates right now. The ruling essentially was a matter of giving first amendment rights... to corporations. Which are not people, and have amounts of money most people will never attain. Republicans are the primary beneficiary of this ruling because they are for lower taxes and free market principles (to a greater extent than Democrats), it did little to help Democrats in that perspective and makes it virtually impossible for independent/third party candidates to get national exposure.

By free market principles I meant for example that Republicans were opposed to using taxpayer money to keep the American auto industry from being little more than a memory. Free market principles (which our economy is based on) say they should have been left to die. Democrats passed the auto bailout to save American jobs. In the corporate world, competitors love less competition though. I wasn't implying the Democrats don't believe in free market principles, they just saw a bailout as justified where Republicans didn't.

I would recommend you don't read/hear all of your political news from one source. It's good to get multiple perspectives on issues, partisanship is not a bad thing in moderation. If two sides conflict on something (like the cost of a bill if it passed) then use Google and find a source that is credible. In the case of costs though just trust the CBO to project that... Partisanship is good. It fuels debate, enlightening the discussion. It's bigotry that makes partisanship look like a great evil in America. Hence the "take everything with a grain of salt" remark. Take nothing you hear/read as an absolute truth. Be civil, don't insult people, and have an open mind. Always be open to the idea you're misinformed.

Independents/third party candidates have a lesser chance now than ever to win the presidency. Until the Citizens United ruling is repealed, I'd say it's impossible.

To get support from the business world you need to be more pro-business (i.e. Republicans), not pro-free market. Free market policies aren't necessarily the best for businesses, which is why they would back more pro-business candidates.

A third party is irrelevent. All campaigns will require money; as long as money is needed the person will be influenced by those with the money; influence is corruption.

If you want to fix campaigns then do not require money to campaign. However, that would require a media that is state owned and would do it as an act of charity. Hello North Korea. Unfortunately the current system is what it is. Basically it's blacks, jews, young college students, and teachers vs Business leaders and old people.

Maybe we'll get a new party that will look like this:

Blacks, Old people people vs Jews and big business.

Would be the same corruption.

I think Australia has a system where you can vote for a third party candidate and if they don't get a certain percentage of the vote you can pick who gets your vote next.

This might be a way for people, who would like to vote for a third party candidate but don't want to throw away their vote, to have more voice in elections.

I'd love to see the 2 party system abolished. It's absolute stupidity that we have to choose between a candidate with good fiscal policies, but horrible religion-based freedom restrictions or a candidate with terrible fiscal policies and none of the religious nonsense. I want a pro-freedom candidate with good economic understanding and no bible-backed bullcrap.

Vote libertarian. They're honest because they have no funding.

Political parties are a way for the general population to bicker back and fourth and keep us distracted from the big picture. Slim chance that we have a president that has no party, because thats what the majority of people are caught up with. Also, presidents are not elected, they are chosen. Even if a president from an outside party was elected, the lies and deciet would continue because that position has become more of a "figure heard." Someones pulling the strings. The problem isnt the presidency, the problem is higher than that.

ITT, conspiracy theories.

Political parties aren't main the problem, in my opinion. It's a viable way to get exposure and meet with those who share your values. Without them campaign funding would almost exclusively be big business/big business-backed PACs vs grassroots funding which is not at all fair because the right almost exclusively has big business in their back pocket. Grassroots just doesn't work right now, especially after the Citizens United ruling (I cite this so much because people who don't know what it is, should read it.)

Tea Party is not grassroots for those of you who only read fringe material, a simple Google search will turn up results of who funds the Tea Party movement. Compared to some big business, political parties are the lesser of two evils. The issue isn't black and white. I am of the opinion it is the fringe who are to bare the brunt of the blame for some peoples' negative perceptions of political parties. I don't believe third parties are irrelevant, if someone is going to beat both parties for the presidency I think they will need the backing of a third party to whom people can relate. Otherwise (I think) that candidate is more susceptible to misinformation.

I'm finding myself reading more and more right-leaning material lately and am starting to understand why some on the right believe what they do. I still don't see me ever supporting Republicans for the very reason someone else has pointed out. I don't like their divisive rhetoric and acceptance of certain evils (while glamorizing them) that benefit them. Citizens United was not a victory for the constitution. In regards to what I at the moment perceive as right-leaning values (See what I did thar? Disclaimer that I might be wrong on this), Citizens United should be lamented by the right. Because it benefits them more though, they pretend it is a victory for the the constitution. I can't support such a divisive agenda as a legitimate means of obtaining power, even if what they do with that power is better for average Americans.

I also don't believe Obama is destroying America. :P

Maybe, but we all will find out in time.

The real problem is the lack of education towards the political world. Most people are entirely ignorant of it.

Honestly, if everyone kept up, we'd see a lot less "corruption" and we'd be more open to work together. Meh!

Watch them all and read between the lines... Wonder why someone would say not to listen-- get all the info you can, and make your own damd choise.

We will see if the Healthcare law is constitutional-- its headed for court. The constitution is a restrictive document, where does it give the Feds the power to make you do this?

Also, the Patriot Act is highly questionable, he (Obama) signed it too. I wonder if they are still monitoring American communications. I am sure they would say no, I am confident they still are doing so.

As for a 3rd party winning the White House, I don't see it.

They bend the rules so far these days it makes me sick, I would like to puke on the majority of of the elected officials-- and most of the sheepeople voting this ***into office.

But all we get is ***... i.e. we get to pick the lesser of two evils. When will we get to see a real leader again?

Then there is ***like this...


“There’s a secret government, inside the government…and I don’t control it.”…Bill Clinton…

Read between what lines? Most of the content on either network is pure rhetoric with names/dates/times included so people know who and when to blame someone for hearing the rhetoric that they heard. Trying to find news sources with less rhetoric to begin with and distinguishing what doesn't belong in that article is more productive than watching hours of rhetoric and trying to find the truth in it.

Yup, thats why you listen to Newt and Pelosi and all the ***, so you can get a grip on wtf the left and right are doing. Then find your own way... yes read between the lines.

less rhetoric? idt so, just a different bias...

I hate using Wiki - but sadly it will have to do.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)

I believe that answers your question.

As for why no one votes one of these people really into the seat that you speak of...

Your my hero. Signs are all there. To me, its not so much the lesser of two evils though. Its more of a perceived choice that in the end you get screwed anyway. Im sure every president in office knows of the secrect government behind the government. But if you blow the whistle, you will most likely end up like the Kennedys did.

So damd true! Your statment goes much deeper into the situation than just 'the lesser of two evils'. I agree 100% with you...