Democrats start more wars than Republicans.

[InExile]

t/f? google it. Just to make sure?

[InExile]

Not that anyone cares about Democrats or Republicans right? Its so silly maaan.

[captivewear]

cool story bro.

[J.C.]

I remember when the Democrats started World War II by ordering the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor.

[InExile]

ya man.

[InExile]

I remember when the Democrats started World War II by ordering the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor.

Did the Japanese also order the Democrats to enslave portions of west coast? lol

[zion the lion]

I dont know what t/f means.

[J.C.]

Did the Japanese also order the Democrats to enslave portions of west coast? lol

That went over your head, just a lil bit.

[open mind]

a republican started the civil war, therefore republicans hate americans.X-)

[jwicklun]

Sick bro.

[InExile]

That went over your head, just a lil bit.

Maybe, but maybe my reply was just clevererrr?

[InExile]

a republican started the civil war so republicans hate americans.X-)

But thats because other Republicans wanted freedom? haha?

[InExile]

Sick bro.

AM I ON TO IT BRO?

[InExile]

Lol Palindrome? Almost.

[open mind]

But thats because other Republicans wanted freedom? haha?

i think you failed to grasp the fact that i was mocking this thread.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Andrew Jackson and James Polk were both raging liberals who supported the homo communist agenda of course.

[InExile]

i think you failed to grasp the fact that i was mocking this thread.

HAHA OHHHHHHHH LOLk

[InExile]

Andrew Jackson and James Polk were both raging liberals who supported the homo communist agenda of course.

could you point me to a good wikipedia article on this? open floor, lets see what you got, make it good.

[Paulie4star]

The stormtroopers were the ones that wanted to be a free nation, but the hobbits prevented that from happening. I would have done the same thing...

If everyone else is spitting out nonsense, I will do the same

[GuitarR0cker1]

OP took me seriously?

[InExile]

OP took me seriously?

This is the internet, right? could have opened wrong browser.

[zion the lion]

Okay, nobody tell me what t/f means, I dont give a fuck.

[InExile]

The stormtroopers were the ones that wanted to be a free nation, but the hobbits prevented that from happening. I would have done the same thing...

If everyone else is spitting out nonsense, I will do the same

Actually the rebels were the good guys, the Stormtroopers were the Big Government Galactic Empire. lol you really dont know Star Wars bro.

And Hobbits dont leave the shire

well, a couple times.

[saysmydoctor]

Don't forget the Whigs.

[InExile]

Okay, nobody tell me what t/f means, I dont give a fuck.

Sorry man! True/False

[InExile]

Don't forget the Whigs.

lol, dude it gets so confusing at that point.

[zion the lion]

Sorry man! True/False

I'm a lady.

[a speedo model]

Okay, nobody tell me what t/f means, I dont give a fuck.
True or false?

[InExile]

I want to be listening to new Moving Mountains right now, fyi.

[InExile]

I'm a lady.

a woman though, right? could be wrong 'man.

[Paulie4star]

Actually the rebels were the good guys, the Stormtroopers were the Big Government Galactic Empire. lol you really dont know Star Wars bro.

And Hobbits dont leave the shire

well, a couple times.
It wasn't supposed to make sense. That was the point.

[open mind]

of the conflicts that we've officially designated wars republicans win out as a republican was president at the start of the war of 1812, the spanish-american war, the civil war, iraq (twice), and afghanistan. a democrat was president during the start of the mexican-american war, vietnam, and both world wars.

so republicans "started" 6 and democrats "started" 4.

[brook183]

"of all our iniquities, ignorance may be the worst"

[InExile]

of the conflicts that we've officially designated wars republicans win out as a republican was president at the start of the war of 1812, the spanish-american war, the civil war, iraq (twice), and afghanistan. a democrat was president during the start of the mexican-american war, vietnam, and both world wars.

so republicans "started" 6 and democrats "started" 4.

Nice attempt, i'll give you that. I suppose the initial question is flawed due to semantics anyways, lol.

[open mind]

Nice attempt, i'll give you that.
facts kinda suck huh?

[InExile]

facts kinda suck huh?

The funny thing is we never declared war on Vietnam, Iraq, Iraq 2, etc. I hope i'm getting the wheels turning in your mind man.

[InExile]

1:20ish of Furnace Woods is amazing. Moving Mountains = 3rd most anticipated album of the year.

[saysmydoctor]

The funny thing is we never declared war on Vietnam, Iraq, Iraq 2, etc. I hope i'm getting the wheels turning in your mind man.
Mostly, I think you're an asshole.

[jwicklun]

http://dudelol.com/DO-NOT-HOTLINK-IMAGES/Teddy-Roosevelt-vs-Big-Foot.jpg
I just need an excuse to throw in this image.

[open mind]

The funny thing is we never declared war on Vietnam, Iraq, Iraq 2, etc. I hope i'm getting the wheels turning in your mind man.

got me there.....fucking facts.

i guess it's a tie, and we're all winners.

[InExile]

Mostly, I think you're an asshole.

but a lil charming, right?

ofcourse snoop.

[open mind]

http://dudelol.com/DO-NOT-HOTLINK-IMAGES/Teddy-Roosevelt-vs-Big-Foot.jpg
I just need an excuse to throw in this image.

haha......is that T.R. gunning down chewbacca?

[InExile]

got me there.....fucking facts.

i guess it's a tie, and we're all winners.

Heh :-p

But the question as it stands in scientifically flawed due to semantics and their relative parabolas and trifectas and protons. I suppose numerous answers are acceptable under the definition as well as its legality both international and internal, among even more factors and statistics. I need to add that to the book I plan on writing, though it would'nt even be about war really, just scientific worldviews, drugs, life, etc.

[open mind]

if we're gonna go by interventions, pretty much every administration has gotten involved in a conflict or 2 so that's basically a tie also.

good luck with the book.

[InExile]

"of all our iniquities, ignorance may be the worst"

The worst song on the otherwise masterpiece that is "Beggars". Though I have it ranked 2nd after the Illusion of Safety, i.e. the best album of all time.

[InExile]

if we're gonna go by interventions, pretty much every administration has gotten involved in a conflict or 2 so that's basically a tie also.

Yeah, I could probably define it to work for either side, but, thats just too much googling, ofcourse, hehe.

[InExile]

and thanks, I plan on starting the book in about 10-15 years.

[saysmydoctor]

http://dudelol.com/DO-NOT-HOTLINK-IMAGES/Teddy-Roosevelt-vs-Big-Foot.jpg
I just need an excuse to throw in this image.
TL;DR: this post was the only thing worth looking at.

[InExile]

Would love to get the opinion of this video from respected users

iLrLgOVHT8E

[open mind]

Would love to get the opinion of this video from respected users

iLrLgOVHT8E

agree with some of the points he makes but i don't think we've tried to engineer getting rid of gaddafi as he's adopted much of our suggested economic policies in recent years, and i don't think we're in danger of any massive violent uprisings in america anytime soon.

i think (let me stress i think) the real problem with gaddafi is that he came down to hard on his people in to public a fashion and as a result he could no longer be packaged as a leader who's made his mistakes in the past but really isn't all that bad.

[ParkwayTom]

i think you failed to grasp the fact that i was mocking this thread.

At least you're keeping an open mind though.

[Hail Lelouch]

I remember when the Democrats started World War II by ordering the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor.

Lol

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/web04/2011/3/14/10/anigif_funcolorz-29916-1300112843-29.gif

[mattyrocks]

haha.

[brook183]

The worst song on the otherwise masterpiece that is "Beggars". Though I have it ranked 2nd after the Illusion of Safety, i.e. the best album of all time.

it is in reading through threads like this one that i am reminded just how starkly spot-on that song is

[Republicanman]

This is fucking retarded.

[inthemidst]

t/f? google it. Just to make sure?

Jacksonville, represent!

[ctmk]

Theres only a few wars america has ever started: the revolution (cmon), the civil war (started by both sides but if you want to get technical it was southern democrats who bear no resemblance to the party today), and the wars in iraq and afghanistan (:-p ). Libya isnt a war yet and probably isnt going to be. Vietnam was an intervention that seemed to snowball from Eisenhower's administration. WW1 (really?), WW2 (really?).
If you want to include conflicts like somalia (dem. yes, but hardly a bad cause). Desert Storm (repub) but again wasnt started by the US.

[ctmk]

But thats because other Republicans wanted freedom? haha?

until 1864 the war was fought to restore the union, not to abolish slavery and even then, the emancipation proclamation was used only as a tactic against the south.

[apoemtothedead]

Could somebody tell me what t/f means.

[Republicanman]

Theres only a few wars america has ever started: the revolution (cmon), the civil war (started by both sides but if you want to get technical it was southern democrats who bear no resemblance to the party today), and the wars in iraq and afghanistan (:-p ). Libya isnt a war yet and probably isnt going to be. Vietnam was an intervention that seemed to snowball from Eisenhower's administration. WW1 (really?), WW2 (really?).
If you want to include conflicts like somalia (dem. yes, but hardly a bad cause). Desert Storm (repub) but again wasnt started by the US.

You seem to have an incomplete view of history.

And if the war in Libya isn't a war, then we need to seriously have a discussion about redefining war.

[GuitarR0cker1]

lMRWNNBYAc8

[David87]

Your face starts more wars than Republicans

[InExile]

until 1864 the war was fought to restore the union, not to abolish slavery and even then, the emancipation proclamation was used only as a tactic against the south.

I agree.

[Machu505]

I can't see how anyone could argue that slavery wasn't the main cause of the Civil War.

[caveBEAR]

Could somebody tell me what t/f means.

It means 'true or false', since, you know, it takes a really long time to type all that out.

[ctmk]

You seem to have an incomplete view of history.

And if the war in Libya isn't a war, then we need to seriously have a discussion about redefining war.

after reading today i agree with you: it is a war
but why the incomplete view?

[deanster321]

http://dudelol.com/DO-NOT-HOTLINK-IMAGES/Teddy-Roosevelt-vs-Big-Foot.jpg
I just need an excuse to throw in this image.
It'd be sweet if you could do that in Undead Nightmare.

[over.reaction]

The stormtroopers were the ones that wanted to be a free nation, but the hobbits prevented that from happening. I would have done the same thing...

If everyone else is spitting out nonsense, I will do the same
Best post.

[Americanism]

Heh :-p

But the question as it stands in scientifically flawed due to semantics and their relative parabolas and trifectas and protons. I suppose numerous answers are acceptable under the definition as well as its legality both international and internal, among even more factors and statistics. I need to add that to the book I plan on writing, though it would'nt even be about war really, just scientific worldviews, drugs, life, etc.

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/io9/2009/10/NetTroll.jpg

[animefan13LPfn1]

The stormtroopers were the ones that wanted to be a free nation, but the hobbits prevented that from happening. I would have done the same thing...

If everyone else is spitting out nonsense, I will do the same

Well this made me laugh really hard.

[SiriusBusiness]

http://dudelol.com/DO-NOT-HOTLINK-IMAGES/Teddy-Roosevelt-vs-Big-Foot.jpg
I just need an excuse to throw in this image.
MARRY ME

[SiriusBusiness]

Andrew Jackson and James Polk were both raging liberals who supported the homo communist agenda of course.
Exactly my pointpoint noir me a FRuiit?
:fuck::fuck::fuck::fuck::fuck::fuck ::fuck::fuck::fuck::fuck:

[Americanism]

I can't see how anyone could argue that slavery wasn't the main cause of the Civil War.

Then you have never heard anyone intellectual argue that point, many historians consider it a fact that slavery was only used by the north to win over support. I definitely believe slavery was one of the main 3 factors of the civil war. Anyway I'm going to digress since this is slightly off topic.

[Scrandon]

What is the point of this thread?

[Scrandon]

Then you have never heard anyone intellectual argue that point, many historians consider it a fact that slavery was only used by the north to win over support. I definitely believe slavery was one of the main 3 factors of the civil war. Anyway I'm going to digress since this is slightly off topic.
What are the other factors?

[Machu505]

Then you have never heard anyone intellectual argue that point, many historians consider it a fact that slavery was only used by the north to win over support. I definitely believe slavery was one of the main 3 factors of the civil war. Anyway I'm going to digress since this is slightly off topic. I'm not denying that the North used feigned abolitionism to gain support, but the point I'm trying to make is that all the factors that lead to the Civil War were related, in one way or another, to slavery, both in opposition to and in support of. The reason why I'm trying to make this point is because what I perceive to be a trend of Confederate apologetics (is there a better word I can use here?). Folks acting in defense of secession seem to act as if slavery had little or nothing to do with it, and in place of outright lies like that, they often emphasize certain Union actions in order to downplay the role of slavery. Wakka.

What is the point of this thread? Shits and giggles, perhaps?

[Theseventhson]

I start more wars than you...bitch.

[caveBEAR]

Exactly my pointpoint noir me a FRuiit?
:fuck::fuck::fuck::fuck::fuck::fuck ::fuck::fuck::fuck::fuck:

What the fuck is this exactly?

[SiriusBusiness]

What is the point of this thread?
Theodore Roosevelt murdering Bigfoot.

[SiriusBusiness]

What the fuck is this exactly?
I don't know, I just wanted the guy who I quoted to say the same thing you did.

[SiriusBusiness]

I can now officially start athread. Thanks guys! :wave:

[J.C.]

Folks acting in defense of secession seem to act as if slavery had little or nothing to do with it, and in place of outright lies like that, they often emphasize certain Union actions in order to downplay the role of slavery. Wakka.

2034737951

The fact the North wasn't fighting in the name of abolition doesn't speak at all to the South's motives, but that's the go-to red herring.

[SiriusBusiness]

:wave: Thanks guys! I can now start a thread!

[J.C.]

Myspace is being lame. Video was of Larry David yelling 'BINGO' a bunch of times.

[Americanism]

What are the other factors?

South's overall lifestyle was threatened by industrialization. They wanted to go in a different direction than the north not SOLEY because of agriculture. The North had begun importing raw materials from overseas, which agriculture was being the south's entire economy they were threatened. I have very little hard opinion on the matter because I think it is nearly impossible to gauge motive with any certainty at this point, and I don't believe in speculation.

[Americanism]

I'm not denying that the North used feigned abolitionism to gain support, but the point I'm trying to make is that all the factors that lead to the Civil War were related, in one way or another, to slavery, both in opposition to and in support of. The reason why I'm trying to make this point is because what I perceive to be a trend of Confederate apologetics (is there a better word I can use here?). Folks acting in defense of secession seem to act as if slavery had little or nothing to do with it, and in place of outright lies like that, they often emphasize certain Union actions in order to downplay the role of slavery. Wakka.

Shits and giggles, perhaps?

I can totally see that because their economy relied so heavily on slavery.

[InExile]

Yeah. There are a lot of misconceptions about American Slavery and the Civil War in general. This paragraph wont be enough, but the North is just as guilty for the situation, many Northerners imported the slaves that were sold to white people by other Africans, then sold them to the South. It's a long story. Lincoln wanted a more powerful central government with higher taxes to Southern states, the Southern states were like fuck that. Bam, they go to war. Few years later, as support for the war in the North is losing popularity, Lincoln suddenly wants to free the Africans in the South (but ofcourse he did not want to free the slaves in states that stayed in the Union, they would have been piiisssseeeed!) because slavery is a horrible thing, ofcourse, so thats a pretty good reason, I guess. Then Lincoln got assassinated. But he was pretty evil himself with all the political arrest that he made.

"Let the South go? Let the South go? Where shall we get our revenues?" - Abe Lincoln

[InExile]

Basically, I think its ignorant to say Slavery was the only cause. It did play a role, mainly for Congress votes when new states were being added, but it did play a role. Nobody can deny that.

[J.C.]

Yeah, no.

[InExile]

Yeah, no.

Yeah I have studied the Civll War a few times. I realize you being born and raised in white ass CT might have something to do with how your parents taught you the war, no biggie.:-p

[J.C.]

Yeah I have studied the Civll War a few times. I realize you being born and raised in white ass CT might have something to do with how your parents taught you the war, no biggie.:-p

I'm sure I would've turned out much more sympathetic to the South if my parents had been cousins.

[JuneJuly]

Take a history class if you really think that slavery was the sole reason that they stared the Civil War.

[Theseventhson]

Shut the fuck up JC you live in white ass Connecticut. Whitey.

[caveBEAR]

God damn, how did it become either slavery was the sole reason for the war, or not a factor at all? Slavery was indeed an issue, but mostly for economic/political reasons (as InExile so eloquently stated :rolleyes: ); keep in mind, the average American back then, even if they didn't support slavery, didn't exactly support African-Americans getting the vote. Looking at the Civil War through the lens of 2011 will just give you a fucked view of the entire situation.

We could pretty easily equate the Civil War and slavery to the Iraq War and Iraqi Freedom; was freedom for Iraqis the sole, or even main, reason for war? Of course not. That'd be silly, life is more complex and horrible than that. Slavery and the Civil War are similar; slavery was definitely a part of the equation, but not the whole.

[Love As Arson]

So, Lincoln used slavery as a means to get northerners to fight against the south? I guess we're forgetting about the conscription riots and the violence against blacks that ensued in the north. To put it simply, the conflict between north and south was an economic conflict, one which pitted a southern aristocracy, intent on maintaining its base of power, against the burgeoning industrial bourgeois class in the north. At the center of this conflict was slavery, not as a moral issue, but in terms of whether or not capitalism and free labor had progressed beyond it. Slavery was an important part of the industrial base of the north at one point, but with the development of the free territories, and the increase in their population over the north, the paradigm shifted.

[J.C.]

Take a history class if you really think that slavery was the sole reason that they stared the Civil War.

Slavery played a role in almost every significant political debate of the time.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Take a history class if you really think that slavery was the sole reason that they stared the Civil War.

It was my understanding that the southern states wanted to break away from the union so they could still be dependent on slavery for their economies.

[Machu505]

Yeah. There are a lot of misconceptions about American Slavery and the Civil War in general. This paragraph wont be enough, but the North is just as guilty for the situation, many Northerners imported the slaves that were sold to white people by other Africans, then sold them to the South. It's a long story. Lincoln wanted a more powerful central government with higher taxes to Southern states, the Southern states were like fuck that. Bam, they go to war. Few years later, as support for the war in the North is losing popularity, Lincoln suddenly wants to free the Africans in the South (but ofcourse he did not want to free the slaves in states that stayed in the Union, they would have been piiisssseeeed!) because slavery is a horrible thing, ofcourse, so thats a pretty good reason, I guess. Then Lincoln got assassinated. But he was pretty evil himself with all the political arrest that he made.

"Let the South go? Let the South go? Where shall we get our revenues?" - Abe Lincoln That wasn't the Emancipation Proclamation's purpose at all. He gave the Union military men the authority to free slaves in the rebellious states to deprive them of resources. By emancipating slaves and taking them with them, the Union Army essentially took the South's labor force away from them.

[Machu505]

And straight up, the Civil War is way more interesting than the thread's original topic.

[open mind]

why is it that we get some southerner or conservative in here claiming that slavery wasn't the real motive behind the civil war every few months?

[apoemtothedead]

I'm sure I would've turned out much more sympathetic to the South if my parents had been cousins.
BINGO BINGO BINGO BINGO BINGO BINGO BINGO BINGO BINGO BINGO

[Americanism]

why is it that we get some southerner or conservative in here claiming that slavery wasn't the real motive behind the civil war every few months?

Being neither of those things to any extent whatsoever, I think slavery played a huge roll. But it was an economy war, slavery just happened to be the oil that fueled the southern economic machine. The north was just trying to reclaim all those succeeded states for the obvious reason of wanting the territory. So in my opinion, the south succeeded primarily to protect it's slavery rights/intimidation from overseas. The north's real motive was not slavery.
I hope in 150 years people don't think we went to Iraq to 'free the Iraqi's' or 'dethrone a dictator.'

[open mind]

Being neither of those things to any extent whatsoever, I think slavery played a huge roll. But it was an economy war, slavery just happened to be the oil that fueled the southern economic machine. The north was just trying to reclaim all those succeeded states for the obvious reason of wanting the territory. So in my opinion, the south succeeded primarily to protect it's slavery rights/intimidation from overseas. The north's real motive was not slavery.
I hope in 150 years people don't think we went to Iraq to 'free the Iraqi's' or 'dethrone a dictator.'

to my way of thinking slavery was such a huge part of the southern economy it's misleading to separate the two.

[Americanism]

to my way of thinking slavery was such a huge part of the southern economy it's misleading to separate the two.

Ya I'm just saying the north wasn't involved to fight or stop slavery. The north was involved for territorial and economical purposes. South was in the war because of slavery and the ramifications it had on their economy and social way of living in general.

[open mind]

Ya I'm just saying the north wasn't involved to fight or stop slavery. The north was involved for territorial and economical purposes. South was in the war because of slavery and the ramifications it had on their economy and social way of living in general.

gotcha. i think since the south seceded and fired the first shots in the war most of blame goes on them for starting/causing the war though.

[Americanism]

gotcha. i think since the south seceded and fired the first shots in the war most of blame goes on them for starting/causing the war though.

Indeed. My old roomie was super confederate loving for some reason, intelligent guy but his family was southern, and him and I always fought about it all the time. Sometimes it felt like he refused to acknowledge the existence of slavery. All he ever talked about was suppression, revolution and freedom. Quite annoying. :squint:

I guess the only against the grain point I'm going for is Lincoln/the north wasn't the harbinger of unity and supreme justice everyone likes paint them as. I guess it is more poetic and interesting for school children. But from what I can tell we barely disagree, if at all. So I'm glad we talked this one out lol.

[Irishboyv2]

The whole two party system is a joke, we should be voting on what's best for us as people based on research. So many people just vote party these days it's sad. Until we get rid of this two party system, we're fucked.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

The whole two party system is a joke, we should be voting on what's best for us as people based on research. So many people just vote party these days it's sad. Until we get rid of this two party system, we're fucked.

In recent elections, Americans had the opportunity to vote for the Green Party candidate, the Reform Party candidate, the Libertarian Party candidate, the Constitution Party candidate, and The Natural Law Party candidate.

And yet, a majority of votes went towards the Republican and Democratic Party. What are you going to do in order to support these Third Parties?

[Americanism]

In recent elections, Americans had the opportunity to vote for the Green Party candidate, the Reform Party candidate, the Libertarian Party candidate, the Constitution Party candidate, and The Natural Law Party candidate.

And yet, a majority of votes went towards the Republican and Democratic Party. What are you going to do in order to support these Third Parties?

Are you proposing we don't have a two party system in America just because its not the law that there are only two parties. The fact is lots of nonmainstream special interest parties are around, but in the sense of mattering we only have two.
Though some matter I guess, none of them win.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Are you proposing we don't have a two party system in America just because its not the law that there are only two parties. The fact is lots of nonmainstream special interest parties are around, but in the sense of mattering we only have two.
Though some matter I guess, none of them win.

The fact is that we live in a democracy. American voters have the opportunity to vote for who they like (whether it's the candidate of major party or a fill-in candidate). A majority of Americans voted for George W. Bush in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008. If you are against the two-party system, then what are you going to do to get Americans to vote for the ideal candidate?

[Americanism]

The fact is that we live in a democracy. American voters have the opportunity to vote for who they like (whether it's the candidate of major party or a fill-in candidate). A majority of Americans voted for George W. Bush in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008. If you are against the two-party system, then what are you going to do to get Americans to vote for the ideal candidate?

I don't really believe in the system at all... Find it hard to really respect any president/political figure because they are either pushovers who stand for nothing, puppets, power hungry self motivated dicks, or idiots.

[Irishboyv2]

I don't really believe in the system at all... Find it hard to really respect any president/political figure because they are either pushovers who stand for nothing, puppets, power hungry self motivated dicks, or idiots.

Neither do i, you hear them say all the time that they know what it's like to be a middle income family and the struggles we go through and all these other things to try and identify with us and its all a bunch of crap, problem is most americans buy it.

[Americanism]

Neither do i, you hear them say all the time that they know what it's like to be a middle income family and the struggles we go through and all these other things to try and identify with us and its all a bunch of crap, problem is most americans buy it.

Ya, most of them are such cheesy pander-ers.

[Irishboyv2]

Indeed, it's gotten to the point where i just don't vote anymore. I vote on initiatives and other things but it takes every thing i have to even vote for a president, or what have you.

[FNF]

I'm no expert, but I can't think of one democratic president that started a war. Obama in Libya doesn't count in my book because that war was already going on.

[FNF]

The fact is that we live in a democracy. American voters have the opportunity to vote for who they like (whether it's the candidate of major party or a fill-in candidate). A majority of Americans voted for George W. Bush in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008. If you are against the two-party system, then what are you going to do to get Americans to vote for the ideal candidate?
What the two party system does is it creates a dividing line. Politics has become us vs them and each party is only acting for the good of their party, instead of the good of the country. I think we should follow George Washington's advice and get rid of all parties altogether. That way its no longer an us vs them event and people wouldnt be biased towards a particular candidate because of his/her political affiliation.

[caveBEAR]

What the two party system does is it creates a dividing line. Politics has become us vs them and each party is only acting for the good of their party, instead of the good of the country. I think we should follow George Washington's advice and get rid of all parties altogether. That way its no longer an us vs them event and people wouldnt be biased towards a particular candidate because of his/her political affiliation.

:squint:
What happens during a Presidential election when we have no parties to use to whittle out the other candidates? What's your plan? 50 parties, each with a candidate? Can anyone run? What will it take to run? Etc., etc., etc.

You're thinking in the right direction, you're just not thinking it through.

[GeeBee]

As we see in Libya...every country has the government they deserve. That's what democracy is.

[FNF]

:squint:
What happens during a Presidential election when we have no parties to use to whittle out the other candidates? What's your plan? 50 parties, each with a candidate? Can anyone run? What will it take to run? Etc., etc., etc.

You're thinking in the right direction, you're just not thinking it through.
I'm not sure, but I say let anyone run, as long as they meet constitutional requirements, of course the more famous, richer ones will have a better shot, but Obama went from first term senator to president, so the most famous of course don't always win elections.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

I'm not sure, but I say let anyone run, as long as they meet constitutional requirements, of course the more famous, richer ones will have a better shot, but Obama went from first term senator to president, so the most famous of course don't always win elections.

It's not so much about fame, it's about money. In most cases, the person who spends the most money on the campaign ends up winning. An exception to the rule is Meg Whitman.

[Americanism]

It's not so much about fame, it's about money. In most cases, the person who spends the most money ends up winning. An exception to the rule is Meg Whitman.

fixed.
/life