PDA

View Full Version : Evangelicals SERIOUSLY consider a 3rd party Vote.


Pureracket
Nov 1st, 2007, 01:33 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071031/ap_on_el_pr/evangelicals_third_party

Poll: Evangelicals looking beyond GOP



WASHINGTON - More than half of white evangelical Republicans would consider voting for a conservative third-party candidate should the 2008 presidential race pit Hillary Rodham Clinton against Rudy Giuliani, a poll said Wednesday.

The finding, in a survey by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, was the latest reading of discontent among one of the GOP's cornerstone voting blocs. Giuliani, the leading Republican contender in most national polls, is a former New York mayor whose views on abortion, gays and guns are considered too moderate by many conservatives. According to the poll, 55 percent of white evangelical Republicans said they would consider a conservative who ran as a third-party candidate. Forty-two percent said they would not.

Evangelicals comprise 34 percent of GOP and Republican-leaning voters, according to Pew. They are divided about evenly among Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

It is unclear whether a third-party bid would be launched should Giuliani become the GOP nominee. Several dozen conservative Christian leaders met privately in September to discuss that possibility, but top evangelicals said they have reached no consensus.

The evangelicals' dissatisfaction reflects a general GOP discontent. According to the Pew poll, Republicans are less likely than Democrats to say that their own party is concerned about people like themselves, can bring needed change or is more honest or ethical.

Overall, 50 percent of Americans identified themselves as Democrats or leaning toward Democrats, compared to 36 percent who consider themselves Republicans or GOP leaners, Pew found. That is the largest gap in almost 20 years of Pew surveys, and a big change since 2002, when the two parties were even at 43 percent each.

Clinton, the senator from New York, leads Democratic contenders in national polls.
The poll involved telephone interviews with 2,007 people conducted from Oct. 17-23. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. That included 648 Republicans and GOP-leaners, for whom the margin of sampling error was plus or minus 4.5 points.

kittyking
Nov 1st, 2007, 02:02 AM
Just because they would consider it doesn't mean that they would actually do it.

True Republicans always vote for Republicans

juki
Nov 1st, 2007, 02:06 AM
If only a fraction of the evangelical votes does go to a third party, it would give the democrats a victory. But it is still way to early to tell how this will play out. If Giuliani does get the nomination of the GOP, he'll probably choose a vice president that would make the evangelicals happy, and spend lots of time campaigning to get their votes. Also Clinton v. Giuliani isn't guaranteed in my opinion.

kittyking
Nov 1st, 2007, 02:08 AM
If only a fraction of the evangelical votes does go to a third party, it would give the democrats a victory. But it is still way to early to tell how this will play out. If Giuliani does get the nomination of the GOP, he'll probably choose a vice president that would make the evangelicals happy, and spend lots of time campaigning to get their votes. Also Clinton v. Giuliani isn't guaranteed in my opinion.

Evangelical Republicans will vote for a Republican. For all we know heaps of Democrats may vote for that Comedy Central guy anyway

Donny
Nov 1st, 2007, 02:19 AM
I always wonder why blacks never considered doing this. They've been shafted harder, for way longer, than evangelicals have.

Scotso
Nov 1st, 2007, 02:22 AM
Just because they would consider it doesn't mean that they would actually do it.

True Republicans always vote for Republicans

I wish you would stop speaking as if you know so much about US politics, like you're some kind of Republican insider. You're from New Zealand. Have you ever even been here? It doesn't seem like it.

And what the hell is a "true Republican"?

Scotso
Nov 1st, 2007, 02:25 AM
I always wonder why blacks never considered doing this. They've been shafted harder, for way longer, than evangelicals have.

People don't want to "throw their votes away." It's why we need to reform our election process. We either need runoff elections or instant-runoff voting. Black Americans don't utilize their potential influence at all. If they were to make the effort, they could insure that the Democratic Party would support any ideas they wished. If black Americans decided to start their own Black Rights Party or to support another third party, the Democrats would never be able to win the Presidency. Democrats completely rely on the black vote, but do very little to actually earn it.

Scotso
Nov 1st, 2007, 02:27 AM
I'm sure these people would support the Constitution Party as their 3rd party choice, which is really scary. It really pisses me off that they call their party "Constitution," as well. Be real, let's call it what it really is... the Religious Wackjob Party.

Apoleb
Nov 1st, 2007, 02:27 AM
Overall, 50 percent of Americans identified themselves as Democrats or leaning toward Democrats, compared to 36 percent who consider themselves Republicans or GOP leaners, Pew found. That is the largest gap in almost 20 years of Pew surveys, and a big change since 2002, when the two parties were even at 43 percent each.

Why do some people then insist that the Christian Right is taking over American politics?

Anyway I don't think a split will happen before the elections. It might happen though after the elections.


(ETA: could someone please shut that meowing cat?)

juki
Nov 1st, 2007, 02:32 AM
Evangelical Republicans will vote for a Republican. For all we know heaps of Democrats may vote for that Comedy Central guy anyway

Yeah, I agree, the evangelists know whats best for them.

And it would be hilarious if Colbert affects the race, it would be exactly what the US needs. :worship: If it looks like Colbert actually will influence the race at all I'll for sure vote for him. But his name is only going to be on one ballet and like the Evangalists, most liberals will realize the best move (really only move) is to stick with the democrat party.

njnetswill
Nov 1st, 2007, 02:34 AM
I would love for that to happen. No way in hell GOP can win without the Evangelical vote.

Pureracket
Nov 1st, 2007, 02:57 AM
I think the Evangicals should try a third party. They don't have a candidate who is consistent with what they stand for. I'd totally support their desire to do this.

Pureracket
Nov 1st, 2007, 03:13 AM
I wish you would stop speaking as if you know so much about US politics, like you're some kind of Republican insider. You're from New Zealand. Have you ever even been here? It doesn't seem like it.

And what the hell is a "true Republican"?I was thinking the same thing too. Is this person even an American citizen? Is Sam L one either?:confused:

Sam L
Nov 1st, 2007, 03:21 AM
I'm just hoping that Giuliani picks someone like Thompson as VP.

meyerpl
Nov 1st, 2007, 03:31 AM
I was thinking the same thing too. Is this person even an American citizen? Is Sam L one either?:confused:
I know non-Americans who know a hell of a lot more about U.S. history and politics that most Americans. Being from the USA does not automatically make one knowledgable on the subject, nor does not being from the U.S. preclude one from being knowledgable.

The bottom line is, everyone is entitled to their opinion, regardless of where they live. It's mighty damn arrogant to suggest otherwise. Especially since, because the U.S. has a great deal of influence on global politics, most educated people around the world pay very close attention to U.S. politics. Conversely, roughly 60% of Americans can't name the three branches of their government and 37% can't name their vice-president.*



*I made those numbers up.

Donny
Nov 1st, 2007, 03:33 AM
I know some non-Americans who know a hell of a lot more about U.S. history and politics that most Americans. Being from the USA does not automatically make one knowledgable on the subject, nor does not being from the U.S. preclude one from being knowledgable.

The bottom line is, everyone is entitled to their opinion, regardless of where they live. It's mighty damn arrogant to suggest otherwise. Especially since, because the U.S. has a great deal of influence on global politics, most educated people around the world pay very close attention to U.S. politics. Conversely, roughly 60% of Americans can't name the three branches of their government and 37% can't name their vice-president.*



*I made those numbers up.

KittyKing however, seems at times to be completely ignorant of US politics, and indeed, even reality.

Sam L
Nov 1st, 2007, 03:37 AM
I know non-Americans who know a hell of a lot more about U.S. history and politics that most Americans. Being from the USA does not automatically make one knowledgable on the subject, nor does not being from the U.S. preclude one from being knowledgable.

The bottom line is, everyone is entitled to their opinion, regardless of where they live. It's mighty damn arrogant to suggest otherwise. Especially since, because the U.S. has a great deal of influence on global politics, most educated people around the world pay very close attention to U.S. politics. Conversely, roughly 60% of Americans can't name the three branches of their government and 37% can't name their vice-president.*



*I made those numbers up.

So eloquently said.

meyerpl
Nov 1st, 2007, 03:37 AM
I'm just hoping that Giuliani picks someone like Thompson as VP.
I hope he gets the nomination and picks Phil Spector. And I hope he announces that he'll select Robert Blake as his Attorney General and Michael Jackson as his education secratary. What the fuck, I hope he announces plans to dig Jeffrey Dahmer's corpse up and make him Surgeon General too.

Apoleb
Nov 1st, 2007, 03:39 AM
I know non-Americans who know a hell of a lot more about U.S. history and politics that most Americans. Being from the USA does not automatically make one knowledgable on the subject, nor does not being from the U.S. preclude one from being knowledgable.

The bottom line is, everyone is entitled to their opinion, regardless of where they live. It's mighty damn arrogant to suggest otherwise. Especially since, because the U.S. has a great deal of influence on global politics, most educated people around the world pay very close attention to U.S. politics. Conversely, roughly 60% of Americans can't name the three branches of their government and 37% can't name their vice-president.*



*I made those numbers up.

On the subject (and speaking very seriously), I had to tell a 20 year old American friend of mine what's the difference between the politics of the Democrats and the Republicans. The sad thing is that he even planned to vote, and all I had to do is shake my head, considering that vote (coming from 95% ignorance) will play a role in determining the situation and lives of hundreds of millions of people in the world, including people in my native country (where the US ambassador is almost as busy as the prime minister).

Sam L
Nov 1st, 2007, 03:40 AM
On the subject (and speaking very seriously), I had to tell a 20 year old American friend of mine what's the difference between the politics of the Democrats and the Republicans. The sad thing is that he even planned to vote, and all I had to do is shake my head, considering that vote (coming from 95% ignorance) will play a role in determining the situation and lives of hundreds of millions of people in the world, including people in my native country (where the US ambassador is almost as busy as the prime minister).

What did you tell him?

mckyle.
Nov 1st, 2007, 03:45 AM
Don't blame the American public for political ignorance. Blame the embarrassing education system and the standards set for teaching history. History is just not properly taught in most school systems. In my school system, football coaches are the history teachers, mainly because the school system requires all athletic coaches to be a teacher, and history is the 'easiest' subject to teach. In Alabama, the most failed graduation exam is history, and most of the seniors that don't graduate fail because they don't know their history.

Apoleb
Nov 1st, 2007, 03:47 AM
What did you tell him?

The very basic stuff. Like Democrats favor more state intervention in the economy and social freedoms, and the other way for the Republicans. Apparently his sole impression of US politics was that the Democratic party was for the poor (and he's from an upper middle class background).


Don't blame the American public for political ignorance. Blame the embarrassing education system and the standards set for teaching history. History is just not properly taught in most school systems. In my school system, football coaches are the history teachers, mainly because the school system requires all athletic coaches to be a teacher, and history is the 'easiest' subject to teach. In Alabama, the most failed graduation exam is history, and most of the seniors that don't graduate fail because they don't know their history.

I'm not really blaming anyone for this. You'll find those cases everywhere in the world, but they become more striking in the country that can literally change the lives of people most countries on earth.

meyerpl
Nov 1st, 2007, 03:59 AM
Don't blame the American public for political ignorance. Blame the embarrassing education system and the standards set for teaching history. History is just not properly taught in most school systems. In my school system, football coaches are the history teachers, mainly because the school system requires all athletic coaches to be a teacher, and history is the 'easiest' subject to teach. In Alabama, the most failed graduation exam is history, and most of the seniors that don't graduate fail because they don't know their history.
There's certainly truth in what you say, but in the U.S. there are dozens of decent daily newspapers, libraries in every city, computers everywhere you go with access to a wealth of information, televisions in virtually every home that carry C-Span, History Channel, Public Television, etc. What are most Americans reading? People Magazine, Soap Opera Digest, US Weekly......What are we watching? Dancing With the Stars, Survivor, Simple Life, etc. The real problem isn't stupidity, Americans aren't stupid, it's apathy. Too many people don't know what the hell is going on and they don't care.

Whitehead's Boy
Nov 1st, 2007, 04:18 AM
People don't care, because the system is made such a way that you don't need to care. People are given the right to vote, without any condition.

If to pass a class, you don't need to pass an exam, how many students are going to study? Only the 10% that really care. Same thing for politics.

Expat
Nov 1st, 2007, 02:45 PM
well i don't know about american politics
but the standard of US education is appalling to say the least
but even worse to say is that most of the children and their parents dont even care
they would rather work at Wal Mart than try to get a decent college degree and job
Coming from an Asian society its rather discomforting to see children just whiling away their time
not that i blame them
its american education that stinks

samsung101
Nov 1st, 2007, 03:04 PM
The Media & Democrats SERIOUSLY want the religious right to defect or sit out
the election. They're banking on it. That's why they're writing about it so much.

One tiny problem.

There is no candidate out there who represents religious right beliefs that is
a national figure. It isn't Huckabee, his record overall is okay, but, it's not
Reagan-esque. Nor would he run as a 3rd party candidate. Tancredo? No. Hunter,
like Huckabee, no. Ron Paul, sorry, he comes off as a loon to many people, even
if he is a solid Libertarian.

Add in the fact this election is likely to be more about foreign policy and domestic
political policy and the economy, than social issues. Unlike 2000, which did seem to
be more about a social change the nation wanted, after Clinton and his issues.



Also, there are just as many polls that have been done in the past several months
that show given a choice of HIllary or Rudy, most Republicans would suck it up and
vote for Rudy. Because they hate Hillary more.

Also, Rudy in most polls does better than expected with the traditional religious right.


Rudy is banking on two things:

His views on the Supreme Court v. Hillary's views.

Adding a guy like Romney or Huckabee as VP - who would carry the moral compass he
does not have.


Lastly, sad to say, the religious right has lost a lot of steam politically because of
guys like Ted Haggard and even old Larry Craig. The base is solid in their beliefs,
their so called public figures have let them down.

If there was one solid religious right political figure, I'd say, yeah, Ross Perot re-do is
up and coming for 2008. There really isn't right now.

That won't stop the media and the Democrats from pushing this idea hard though......beat
down the faction with publicity any way they can.

samsung101
Nov 1st, 2007, 03:09 PM
I do agree with you that American education does fall short of where it should be.

Who is in charge of education in America?

The teacher unions and the Democratic Party.

Any effort to make the education system more like Europe's, with
standard testing, or more like Japan, with harder testing, is
fought tooth and nail by the unions and the Democrats.

We get ads on the radio every day in California from the teacher
unions complaining about the testing system from No Child Left Behind.
Even if it has improved reading and writing scores. They say it takes
away from real learning, arts, music, and physical education, and that's
why kids are fat.

As for working at Walmart....well, most Americans do take advantage of the
college system, junior to masters .... just not enough finish, or move beyond
the first degree. Most Americans make a decent living, and want more for
their kids. They don't work at Walmart, full time anyway. Most people change
jobs multiple times in a lifetime. Settling for an hourly job at Walmart forever,
now, that would be bad. As a supplemental job, or an extra job, or a temporary
job, it's good. As a return to the workforce job, it's also good.

sfselesfan
Nov 1st, 2007, 03:26 PM
If enough shave off, it would be a democratic win. I'm glad they're disenfranchised.

SF

Pureracket
Nov 1st, 2007, 03:33 PM
Well, it's not about disenfranchising. I'm very interested in the views that the religious right has to say. We could all use a third party for some diversity. The religious right certainly deserve for their voices to be heard.

LoveFifteen
Nov 1st, 2007, 03:53 PM
It would be a dream come true if the evangelicals launched their own party! :hearts:

Please, please do it! Please!!! :bounce:

samsung101
Nov 1st, 2007, 04:04 PM
Romney was bashed by a lot of christians who are political early on.
NOw, he's loading up on many traditional religious right endorsements,
including old Bob Jones University - which as an institution is very
leery of the Mormon Church. Why? He is the closest they will get to
a guy with a moral background and a pro-life view. Romney has loaded
up on these types of endorsements from West to East, and will continue to
do so.


Rudy - traditional conservative talk show hosts like Sean Hannity, Glen
Beck, Bill Bennett, Michael Medved, etc., all say they could support
Rudy if he was against Hillary. They figure his statements to nominate
Scalia-Roberts-Alito type judges is what they need for any pro-life
movement anyway. More than anything else, it is the courts that matter.




But, the media wants this to be a huge, huge issue. More than it is right
now.

That's why we get Time and Newsweek covers with things like
Does the Supreme Court Matter?
Ariana Huffington on the cover,
ominous covers of Romney,
smiling covers of Obama.

samsung101
Nov 1st, 2007, 04:10 PM
The Democrats worry about a hardline anti-war candidate emerging to appeal to
the moonbats.

Hillary isn't that figure.
Obama says he is.

But, he's looking to the future as a candidate again, or
a VP candidate this time around.


But, will that stop a hardline lefty from running?
Moveon.org is powerful, and Hillary isn't publicly
aligning herself with them. Although, she does privately
endorse almost all it stands for.

Sam L
Nov 1st, 2007, 04:18 PM
The very basic stuff. Like Democrats favor more state intervention in the economy and social freedoms, and the other way for the Republicans. Apparently his sole impression of US politics was that the Democratic party was for the poor (and he's from an upper middle class background).

Thanks. Frankly, this situation is worrisome. The best example of this imo is with the Ron Paul phenomenon. So many gullible and uninformed people are easily bought by him and his supporters simply because he's the most anti-war - not just Iraq - but any war. I actually very much doubt that most of his supporters actually know what other things he stands for. Obviously, extremist groups that are now on his bandwagon are having a field day with this.

Expat
Nov 1st, 2007, 04:35 PM
Thanks. Frankly, this situation is worrisome. The best example of this imo is with the Ron Paul phenomenon. So many gullible and uninformed people are easily bought by him and his supporters simply because he's the most anti-war - not just Iraq - but any war. I actually very much doubt that most of his supporters actually know what other things he stands for. Obviously, extremist groups that are now on his bandwagon are having a field day with this.
Ron Paul stand on war seems quite good to me
why get into a hellhole like Iraq when u cant finance it
as it is they dont seem to be getting any oil out of there also
so whats the use in running a war
let the world burn for all america cares
as afar as i see saddam hussein had no links with al qaeda
OTOH america invading iraq has created a base for al qaeda there

griffin
Nov 1st, 2007, 05:25 PM
Don't blame the American public for political ignorance. Blame the embarrassing education system and the standards set for teaching history.

Blame the "education system"?

My ass - who do you think is responsible for our "education system"? The FRENCH public? And how does having a bad history teacher prevent someone from reading a damn newspaper?

Don't get me wrong, our schools are a mess. But even THAT is very much the fault of the American public. The problem isn't people's schools, it's people's laziness.

Expat
Nov 1st, 2007, 05:53 PM
Blame the "education system"?

My ass - who do you think is responsible for our "education system"? The FRENCH public? And how does having a bad history teacher prevent someone from reading a damn newspaper?

Don't get me wrong, our schools are a mess. But even THAT is very much the fault of the American public. The problem isn't people's schools, it's people's laziness.
blame fox news
seriously the naivety and chest thumping patriotism in Fox News makes me laugh
no wonder they dont know anything about the world outside them
for heaven's sake even news organizations in arabia dont peddle intelligent design and creationism as news

fufuqifuqishahah
Nov 1st, 2007, 05:54 PM
I wish you would stop speaking as if you know so much about US politics, like you're some kind of Republican insider. You're from New Zealand. Have you ever even been here? It doesn't seem like it.

And what the hell is a "true Republican"?

awe i kind of like it...

showing interest in another country/culture is always cool :yeah:

ptkten
Nov 2nd, 2007, 12:31 AM
I had a couple of points I wanted to make

First, Samsung, you're kind of right that this is a media-based and Christian leadership based story. The vast majority of ordinary evangelical Christians will go out and vote for the Republicans on election day. There's some discontent, but believe me if Hillary is the nominee, a lot of those people will vote for anyone if they think they have a chance to beat her.

Second, I think it's great when people from other countries are interested in American politics because it gives a different insight from an outsiders point of view. One of my favorite magazines to read on American politics is the Economist because it is knowledgable but doesn't have the ordinary biases that a lot of the American media has.

Lastly, I think in the end the Democrats will win because of the discontent of independents. State polling has given Hillary leads against Giuliani in states Democrats usually don't even dream of winning like Virginia, Arkansas, Colorado, and Arizona. Independents and conservative Democrats who voted for Bush in those states appear to have shifted their allegiance back to the Democratic party. If she can just pick up a couple of those states, I think she'll win.

All that being said, there's a LONG time until the election, who knows what will happen.

aussiestatman
Nov 2nd, 2007, 10:26 AM
and if you live in new zealand you have to be interested in the rest of the world because nothing happens at home!
rugby is supposedly their religion but they cannot win a world cup
i'm told the weather is ordinary
thats why they all come here to australia
last one to leave please turn off the lights!

Scotso
Nov 2nd, 2007, 03:29 PM
Thanks. Frankly, this situation is worrisome. The best example of this imo is with the Ron Paul phenomenon. So many gullible and uninformed people are easily bought by him and his supporters simply because he's the most anti-war - not just Iraq - but any war. I actually very much doubt that most of his supporters actually know what other things he stands for. Obviously, extremist groups that are now on his bandwagon are having a field day with this.

On the contrary, I think Ron Paul's supporters make up the more educated and reasonable section of politics. The clueless ones are more likely to support a big name.

What "extremist" groups? It's not extreme to want peace and freedom.

Scotso
Nov 2nd, 2007, 03:30 PM
awe i kind of like it...

showing interest in another country/culture is always cool :yeah:

Yes, interest in another country is a good thing... it's nice to learn about all different cultures. But kittyking isn't trying to learn about our culture, he's seemingly professing to be an expert on it, which he obviously is not.

Sam L
Nov 2nd, 2007, 03:32 PM
What "extremist" groups? It's not extreme to want peace and freedom.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/10/23/ron-paul-supporters-advertising-on-stormfront-now/

Scotso
Nov 2nd, 2007, 07:12 PM
Blame the "education system"?

My ass - who do you think is responsible for our "education system"? The FRENCH public? And how does having a bad history teacher prevent someone from reading a damn newspaper?

Don't get me wrong, our schools are a mess. But even THAT is very much the fault of the American public. The problem isn't people's schools, it's people's laziness.

Americans aren't really lazy, that's a bad choice of words, I think. Americans work harder than almost any other country in the world. I would instead say that they're ignorant to the problems in the system. But that's not the entire reason for the state of public education, a lot can be blamed on ridiculous standardized testing and the tendency of the government to enact moronic programs like "No Child Left Behind."

The public education system does a good job of providing reasons to support the initiative to get rid of itself altogether. While I'm a Libertarian, I still don't fully support the total elimination of public schools, because I feel that it would mean the lower classes are not going to have access to a decent education, which would, in the end, harm all of us by creating a very uneducated majority of the population which would certainly hurt our economy and standing in the world. However, I do think that the U.S. Department of Education needs to be completely scrapped and that public schools should be entirely the domain of state governments. I feel they would do a lot better without interference from the national government.

Scotso
Nov 2nd, 2007, 07:22 PM
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/10/23/ron-paul-supporters-advertising-on-stormfront-now/

You can't blame a candidate for the actions of people who support them. You can't exclude anyone from the political process arbitrarily, so what do you want him to do? I seriously doubt he has anything to do with the group or in any way supports their beliefs. All candidates have a few nutjob supporters.

I really don't understand your hatred of Ron Paul.

Expat
Nov 2nd, 2007, 07:45 PM
You can't blame a candidate for the actions of people who support them. You can't exclude anyone from the political process arbitrarily, so what do you want him to do? I seriously doubt he has anything to do with the group or in any way supports their beliefs. All candidates have a few nutjob supporters.

I really don't understand your hatred of Ron Paul.

ron paul tells the truth that israel is a liability for the USA
and it will be till israel magically learns of some technology that makes oil useless

griffin
Nov 2nd, 2007, 08:36 PM
Americans aren't really lazy, that's a bad choice of words, I think. Americans work harder than almost any other country in the world.

Based on what? Most of what I"ve read indicates we're much less productive - despite having the least amount of time off in the industrialize world.


I would instead say that they're ignorant to the problems in the system.

As much as people bitch an moan about it? People are aware of the problems, just like we know (and complain about) politicians campaigning by soundbite, or whatever the moral failing of the day is. What we won't do is change anything or do anything that requires real work to deal with the problem.

Like reading a newspaper or two.

Scotso
Nov 2nd, 2007, 11:31 PM
Based on what? Most of what I"ve read indicates we're much less productive - despite having the least amount of time off in the industrialize world.

Nope - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/business/worldbusiness/04output.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

If we were so ineffective, we wouldn't enjoy our current world status.

As much as people bitch an moan about it? People are aware of the problems, just like we know (and complain about) politicians campaigning by soundbite, or whatever the moral failing of the day is. What we won't do is change anything or do anything that requires real work to deal with the problem.

Like reading a newspaper or two.

They bitch and moan that the system is broken, but they don't know what the actual problems are.

meyerpl
Nov 3rd, 2007, 12:17 PM
Based on what? Most of what I"ve read indicates we're much less productive - despite having the least amount of time off in the industrialize world.


As much as people bitch an moan about it? People are aware of the problems, just like we know (and complain about) politicians campaigning by soundbite, or whatever the moral failing of the day is. What we won't do is change anything or do anything that requires real work to deal with the problem.

Like reading a newspaper or two.
I recently heard a piece on NPR that said workers in Japan used to out-produce Americans (hour for hour) but now it's the other way around.

kittyking
Nov 3rd, 2007, 12:21 PM
They should consider voting for me :)

meyerpl
Nov 3rd, 2007, 12:33 PM
Americans aren't really lazy, that's a bad choice of words, I think. Americans work harder than almost any other country in the world. I would instead say that they're ignorant to the problems in the system. But that's not the entire reason for the state of public education, a lot can be blamed on ridiculous standardized testing and the tendency of the government to enact moronic programs like "No Child Left Behind."

The public education system does a good job of providing reasons to support the initiative to get rid of itself altogether. While I'm a Libertarian, I still don't fully support the total elimination of public schools, because I feel that it would mean the lower classes are not going to have access to a decent education, which would, in the end, harm all of us by creating a very uneducated majority of the population which would certainly hurt our economy and standing in the world. However, I do think that the U.S. Department of Education needs to be completely scrapped and that public schools should be entirely the domain of state governments. I feel they would do a lot better without interference from the national government.
I agree with you that Americans, by and large, are hard working people. I think the applicable word for the issue at hand is apathy, not laziness.

There's some truth in what you said about the educational system but I think you're overlooking something; there was a reason for the federal government taking a greater roll in delivering public education in the first place. I think it's desirable for there to be some funding and standards on a national level to try to gain some consistency. I agree that the "no child left behind" program has some problems, both in it's philosophy and it's implimentation.

JustineTime
Nov 3rd, 2007, 02:35 PM
I would just like to take this opportunity to welcome my fellow "evangelicals" to the party. :hatoff:

Even if they're just a tad tardy. :unsure:

;)

JustineTime
Nov 3rd, 2007, 02:38 PM
And what the hell is a "true Republican"?

:scratch:

I think Thomas Jefferson was the last one. :tape:

OK, OK, Ronald Reagan. :)

:p

JustineTime
Nov 3rd, 2007, 02:51 PM
I'm sure these people would support the Constitution Party as their 3rd party choice, which is really scary. It really pisses me off that they call their party "Constitution," as well. Be real, let's call it what it really is... the Religious Wackjob Party.

You know, I was all prepared to disagree with you. But then I read this:

"The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States." :scared:

No wonder so many people think evangelical Christians want America to be a theocracy. :tape: :help:

:rolleyes:

JustineTime
Nov 3rd, 2007, 03:03 PM
:secret: Just for the record, "Evangelical Christian" is technically [and Biblically] redundant.:secret:

;)

JustineTime
Nov 3rd, 2007, 03:18 PM
It would be a dream come true if the evangelicals launched their own party! :hearts:

Please, please do it! Please!!! :bounce:

Be careful what you wish for...:hehehe:

Scotso
Nov 3rd, 2007, 11:14 PM
I'd also love a split in the Republican Party. But, I'd love a split in the Democratic one as well, as long as it was coupled with the former. We need a multiparty system, I'm sick of both the major parties. It angers me that so few people in this country will even consider other options. I vote Libertarian/Independent whenever there's a decent candidate.

I also think all elections need a "none of the above" option.

Expat
Nov 3rd, 2007, 11:56 PM
I'd also love a split in the Republican Party. But, I'd love a split in the Democratic one as well, as long as it was coupled with the former. We need a multiparty system, I'm sick of both the major parties. It angers me that so few people in this country will even consider other options. I vote Libertarian/Independent whenever there's a decent candidate.

I also think all elections need a "none of the above" option.dont ever wish for multi party democracy
its the worst thing
just look at india and italy for examples of multi party democracy gone wrong
every party and person is always negotiating for his or her share of the spoils from the government and do nothing for their country

Whitehead's Boy
Nov 4th, 2007, 12:38 AM
Evangelicals party, fun! They could have the Father as president, the Lamb of God as vice-president and the Holy Ghost as the secretary of state.

kittyking
Nov 4th, 2007, 12:52 AM
Evangelicals party, fun! They could have the Father as president, the Lamb of God as vice-president and the Holy Ghost as the secretary of state.

Sheep for President :woohoo:

juki
Nov 4th, 2007, 01:40 AM
We need a multiparty system, I'm sick of both the major parties. It angers me that so few people in this country will even consider other options. I vote Libertarian/Independent whenever there's a decent candidate.

My thoughts exactly, after spending a year in Belgium with 5 or 6 major parties running I'm determined to only vote for third party/independent candidates now (and I agree with them more often than not anyway). It really frustrates me how many people dislike both major parties but nothing is getting done to change that.

meyerpl
Nov 4th, 2007, 02:15 AM
What? Rudy Giuliani isn't crazy enough for half of all white evangelical Christians?

Scotso
Nov 4th, 2007, 02:37 AM
dont ever wish for multi party democracy
its the worst thing
just look at india and italy for examples of multi party democracy gone wrong
every party and person is always negotiating for his or her share of the spoils from the government and do nothing for their country

Italy doesn't have a strong multiparty system, and India is just majorly corrupt. You cite two poor examples as a reason not to have it, but there are many more positive ones you've ignored. Multiparty systems allow people with all different viewpoints to express themselves through the electoral process. Our two-party system forces people to mold their beliefs to fit one of the two parties. So basically you have to be a left-moderate statist or a right-moderate statist. No thanks.

Scotso
Nov 4th, 2007, 02:38 AM
My thoughts exactly, after spending a year in Belgium with 5 or 6 major parties running I'm determined to only vote for third party/independent candidates now (and I agree with them more often than not anyway). It really frustrates me how many people dislike both major parties but nothing is getting done to change that.

What we really need is a wealthy, strong independent candidate to run for President and wake everyone up. Like a Ross Perot with charisma.