BLU
Active topics


  1. Personally, I think Congress should automatically go to the party that aint in the White House. It would keep things nice and balanced.
  2. Third party is a better option.


  3. Traditionally all that third party candidites do in America is split on partys vote, as there usually diulusioned members of one of the major partys.

    That being said, I am a Tea Party Librytarian.
  4. Your main problem is that people arent voting for someone, they are voting against another.

    That is why people are dissapointed in Obama. They could see this all coming.
  5. Originally posted by Risto:Your main problem is that people arent voting for someone, they are voting against another.

    That is why people are dissapointed in Obama. They could see this all coming.


    They didn't see it coming because they knew Jack about him.
  6. You dont get that much choice with 2 parties either. If you hate one you have to vote the other.

    Here in Holland there are too many parties, in the USA too little.
  7. If Bush had been Obama's oponent, the argument of "You're not voting Obama - You're voting abainst Bush" would be perfectly valid. But John McCain (someone who has completely disapperared from the political stage and scene) was not Bush, had no big amount of enemies and was no danger or possible harm himself - he wasn't that radical on the right wing either. Just a normal Republican with a normal political profile. So the USA wasn't voting against McCain (we can discuss if they were voting against Sarah Palin anyway )...

    On November 4th, USA elected Obama. They knew what they were voting (most of the people even expected more radical, deep and quicker changes!!!!), and they chose it.
  8. That is not what i meant.

    I meant that a two party system leads to stupid votes. If you cant stand Pailin you had to vote Obama. If you didnt like Hillary, you had to vote republican. The whole campaign is designed like this as well. Try to throw dirt on the other to improve your own chances.

    Its mainly picking the lesser evil or the one with the hottest wife.

    The whole republican vs democrats is ridiculous as wel.. As if you can group all opinions of a country that big into two words.
  9. Originally posted by Risto:That is not what i meant.

    I meant that a two party system leads to stupid votes. If you cant stand Pailin you had to vote Obama. If you didnt like Hillary, you had to vote republican. The whole campaign is designed like this as well. Try to throw dirt on the other to improve your own chances.

    Its mainly picking the lesser evil or the one with the hottest wife.

    The whole republican vs democrats is ridiculous as wel.. As if you can group all opinions of a country that big into two words.


    not too much difference with a 10+ party system like ours

    everyone who has the right to vote keeps an eye on what he doesn't want

    luckily the hottest wife isn't much of an issue in the netherlands, only 1.5 million people voted for the one with the hottest wife.

    we even have politicians not having a wife at all, how enlightening to the world we dutchies are

    Really not much of a difference between 2, 3, many, or 500 parties when it comes to voting. 2% vote from conviction, 30 don't vote at all, 68% votes just randomly, misinformed, misled, against someone else, with an eye on looks, gender, smile, wife or age of candidates which shouldn't be even remotely interesting, et cetera. Besides the more parties the less you can choose. Think about it. Two parties serve their own rank and file, three parties could do, maybe. But interesting target groups for four or more parties simply don't exist so all will aim at the same grassroots, i.e. the more parties the less differences, it makes no sense. Look at Dutch politics. Right wing, left wing? Bugger off. 2% differences. Dutch right wing is virtually as socialistic as Dutch left wing. Don't think I complain there's no real far right here - I don't. I just don't see much differences between left and right here and that's worth a thought in a 17 party system.
  10. International Court of Justice decided Kosovo´s independence is legal.


  11. If it would have made a difference if it was illegal. Too many fingers in the pie there.
  12. Originally posted by noiseless:[..]

    not too much difference with a 10+ party system like ours

    everyone who has the right to vote keeps an eye on what he doesn't want

    luckily the hottest wife isn't much of an issue in the netherlands, only 1.5 million people voted for the one with the hottest wife.

    we even have politicians not having a wife at all, how enlightening to the world we dutchies are

    Really not much of a difference between 2, 3, many, or 500 parties when it comes to voting. 2% vote from conviction, 30 don't vote at all, 68% votes just randomly, misinformed, misled, against someone else, with an eye on looks, gender, smile, wife or age of candidates which shouldn't be even remotely interesting, et cetera. Besides the more parties the less you can choose. Think about it. Two parties serve their own rank and file, three parties could do, maybe. But interesting target groups for four or more parties simply don't exist so all will aim at the same grassroots, i.e. the more parties the less differences, it makes no sense. Look at Dutch politics. Right wing, left wing? Bugger off. 2% differences. Dutch right wing is virtually as socialistic as Dutch left wing. Don't think I complain there's no real far right here - I don't. I just don't see much differences between left and right here and that's worth a thought in a 17 party system.


    True
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.