am I republican or democrat????????

elwaysmom06 · Post by **elwaysmom06** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:19 pm

I am a new registered voter, I am 23 and just decided to vote because I felt that I needed to, however I am very uneducated about politics and I need some input on who I am affiliated with, right now I am leaning towards liberals, but anybody I ask is conservative and all they tell me is to be republican, but I want to know the differences, the views, beliefs etc. before I decide....:-2

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:26 pm

In order to register you had to choose a party didn't you? What did you choose?

Why must it be only Dems and Repubs? Why not Independent or Libertarian?

Seriously I could try to explain all the differences but I'd rather just cut it short and tell you to vote with your instinct and not to be party-loyal.

I think it's great you registered. Maybe someone else here will help you out with the parties.

elwaysmom06 · Post by **elwaysmom06** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:36 pm

RedGlitter;585458 wrote: In order to register you had to choose a party didn't you? What did you choose?

Why must it be only Dems and Repubs? Why not Independent or Libertarian?

Seriously I could try to explain all the differences but I'd rather just cut it short and tell you to vote with your instinct and not to be party-loyal.

I think it's great you registered. Maybe someone else here will help you out with the parties.

I believe I chose to be unaffiliated, I kinda don't remember....really. I did vote by gut instinct last.... not presidential, but.....

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:40 pm

Unaffiliated? You can do that? Can I ask where you live?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:58 pm

elwaysmom06;585451 wrote: I am a new registered voter, I am 23 and just decided to vote because I felt that I needed to, however I am very uneducated about politics and I need some input on who I am affiliated with, right now I am leaning towards liberals, but anybody I ask is conservative and all they tell me is to be republican, but I want to know the differences, the views, beliefs etc. before I decide....:-2

You just can't be what someone else says you could or should be. You need to decide that for yourself, and it's really not that hard. Liberalism covers a lot of issues as does Conservatism, and many times the issues overlap. For example: I consider myself liberal on most social issues and conservative on fiscal (money) issues. This position would rule me out as being a 'FAR LEFT WING LIBERAL", or a "RIGHT WING CONSERIVATIVE"

Do a Google search on just what each party's stance is on particular issues.

This shouldn't take more than a couple of hours. Then decide for yourself.

foofoo stripper · Post by **foofoo stripper** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:34 pm

RedGlitter;585458 wrote: In order to register you had to choose a party didn't you? What did you choose?

Why must it be only Dems and Repubs? Why not Independent or Libertarian?

Seriously I could try to explain all the differences but I'd rather just cut it short and tell you to vote with your instinct and not to be party-loyal.

I think it's great you registered. Maybe someone else here will help you out with the parties.

I agree!

JacksDad · Post by **JacksDad** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:49 pm

If you were a democrat I'd tell you so and you would accept it.

If you were republican you would ask questions and investigate your options.

Now duck!

People are going to start throwing things at me.

Baaa, baaaa.

:D

Post by **spot** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:43 pm

There's a very readable and impartial commentator on US domestic politics called Ann Coulter, I'd definitely recommend you look for one of her books in the local library.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:49 pm

spot;585637 wrote: There's a very readable and impartial commentator on US domestic politics called Ann Coulter, I'd definitely recommend you look for one of her books in the local library.

Hey Spot, you're kidding abou Coulter being impartial aren't cha? I like her caustic sense of humour, but impartial-----------NO WAY. She is despised by the Left.

Post by **spot** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:00 pm

I think you're mistaken but I don't insist. It seems pretty good advice from where I sit.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:45 pm

Lon;585639 wrote: Hey Spot, you're kidding abou Coulter being impartial aren't cha? I like her caustic sense of humour, but impartial-----------NO WAY. She is despised by the Left.

NAW LON not despised

SPOT agrees with her 100%......... As do ALL ?

HUH SPOT?

'SORRY' DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THE HARDEST WORD

March 28, 2007

When will Republicans learn to stop apologizing?

The Bush administration is embroiled in the most ridiculous non-scandal scandal in human history â€” set off when the administration stupidly apologized for firing its own employees.

U.S. attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president. The president may fire them for any reason at all. That includes not implementing the president's policy about criminal prosecutions. It also includes being in the way of someone else whom the president wants to appoint for patronage reasons.

Why wasn't a fuss made when Bush fired Donald Rumsfeld? He is every bit as much a political appointee as the U.S. attorneys are.

Democrats have the breathtaking audacity to claim that Bush's replacing his own political appointees is "politicizing prosecutions."

They say this as Sandy Berger walks free after stealing and destroying top-secret national security documents â€” but Lewis "Scooter" Libby faces decades in prison for )not outing a covert agent. (Let's hope he's learned his lesson!)

They say this as Rep. William "The Refrigerator" Jefferson sits on the Homeland Security Committee while waiting for the $100,000 found in his freezer to thaw â€” but Tom DeLay remains under an indictment by some hick prosecutor in Texas for an alleged accounting violation.

They say this as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid draws interest on the sale of a property he sold in a complicated land swindle â€” but American hero Randy "Duke" Cunningham rots in prison.

They say this while Sen. Chuck Schumer pays no price whatsoever for his Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee having illegally obtained a copy of Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Steele's credit report, for which one employee, Lauren Weiner, pleaded guilty, but served no prison time.

They say this while Sen. Teddy Kennedy is still at large (and getting larger).

Democrats have created a world in which a DNC card is a "get out of jail free" card, and "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" means "no doubt the defendant is Republican." (If Democrats keep this up, they'll have to rethink their push to give inmates the right to vote.)

Then they turn around and say Republicans are "politicizing prosecutions" by firing their own employees. And all Republicans can do is apologize.

I refuse to parse the inane allegations the Democrats are making, to point out that Clinton's wholesale firing of Republican U.S. attorneys was worse, or to mention that some of these U.S. attorneys should have been fired a long time ago (Carol Lam).

Bush should say: "We did it, it was political, and there's nothing you can do about it."

Then he should start holding hearings on Congress' obstruction of the war effort. Members of Congress should be asked to come before the administration's hearings and testify under oath about their commitment to victory. If they are not traitors, what do they have to hide? Surely they will be willing to state under oath that they are not undermining the war effort for partisan political gain.

The hearings could be televised in prime time: "Traitor or No Traitor?"

The president's investigatory power is better grounded than is Congress'. There is no "hearings and investigations" clause in Article I, describing Congress' powers, but the Recommendation Clause of Article II, Section 3 obligates the president to "from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union."

If the State of the Union is that we have a treasonous majority in Congress that is affirmatively undermining American national security, the president is constitutionally obliged to give Congress information to that effect. How can he make that judgment without gathering the necessary data?

While he's at it, the Bush hearings should look into the Democrats' hiring and firing practices. Were the dedicated staffers who worked on various committees while the Republicans were in control retained by the incoming Democrats? Or were some of those staffers fired because of their (gasp!) partisan affiliation?

Finally, just for the Democrats' mentioning Randy "Duke" Cunningham's name, Bush should pardon him immediately.

Admittedly, in this one case, the Republican was actually guilty of something. Cunningham took bribes â€” he didn't kill a girl at Chappaquiddick. To put it another way, the only thing Duke Cunningham ever sank was his own career.

And in one glorious afternoon over North Vietnam, Duke Cunningham did more for his county than the entire Democratic caucus will do in a lifetime.

The president has absolute authority to fire U.S. attorneys, hold investigative hearings and grant pardons. What's he worried about? That the media will be hysterical and Democrats will call him names? Constantly apologizing doesn't seem to have worked out too well for him either. How about doing something for the Americans who elected him?

Ah, but I see he has! As we go to press, news comes across the transom that Bush has withdrawn the nomination of Sam Fox as ambassador to Belgium because Democrats are upset that Fox gave a donation to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

There's no hope.

COPYRIGHT 2007 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 2:22 am

RedGlitter;585458 wrote: In order to register you had to choose a party didn't you? What did you choose?

.

You're kidding aren't you? Why do you have to state a party affiliation to register to vote? Does it mean if you don't want to join a political party or state an affiliation you can't vote? i assume the ballot is secret.

I'm unfamiliar with the small details of the American system so the above is not a wind up but a serious question.

Here you just put your name on the electoral register and it's no ones business who you are inclined to support.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 2:43 am

gmc;585678 wrote: You're kidding aren't you? Why do you have to state a party affiliation to register to vote? Does it mean if you don't want to join a political party or state an affiliation you can't vote? i assume the ballot is secret.

I'm unfamiliar with the small details of the American system so the above is not a wind up but a serious question.

Here you just put your name on the electoral register and it's no ones business who you are inclined to support.

No, I'm not kidding. In America, when you register to vote, you must choose a party to be affiliated with. When I registered I refused to be either a democrat or a republican because they both shamed me (and I was pretty rebellious at the time) so I became a Libertarian. I still am a Libertarian although I vote for who I think will do the best job (of all parties) rather than voting for "my" party specifically.

I don't specifically know why this is, maybe someone else does.

Yes, our ballots are secret. In the primary election, we vote for who we want of our party. I go to the precinct and tell them I'm Libertarian and they hand me the Libertarian ballot with all the Libertarian candidates running on it and I vote for who who I want to see run in the general election. The Democrats vote for their chosen Democrat candidates and the Republicans theirs. In the presidential election you can vote for whoever you want regardless of your party and it is still secret from all.

Here in Arizona it's only been some years back since they even allowed Libertarians and Independents to vote in the primaries. It used to be only Democrats and Republicans could vote and they had to vote for their own party; still do. Now Libs and Independents are allowed to vote as well. Before, we could only vote in the presidential. I don't know what it's like in the other states.

Post by **spot** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:38 am

RedGlitter;585679 wrote: Here in Arizona it's only been some years back since they even allowed Libertarians and Independents to vote in the primaries. It used to be only Democrats and Republicans could vote and they had to vote for their own party; still do. Now Libs and Independents are allowed to vote as well. Before, we could only vote in the presidential. I don't know what it's like in the other states.But - as a small question - you can still only vote in one primary in your state, not in both?

Since mention has been made to "Libertarian" and "Lib", just to avoid any confusion, Libertarian has nothing whatever to do with Liberal. A Liberal position is for the State to make efforts to help people and add value to communities, it's an interventionist higher-spending government, it has social values. A Libertarian position is for a government to intervene to the least extent possible consistent with law and order, with consequent tax minimalisation.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:04 am

Does that not mean that only someone coming from one of the major parties has any chance of becoming president? That is no third party gets a look in.

What about elections for congress and the senate, is it the same or do independents have a chance of getting in.

Here so long as you can pay the deposit anyone can stand for parliament. Not enough votes and you lose the deposit but you do tend to get one off independent MP's getting elected if a single local issue catches the voters imagination

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ ... 449285.stm

Then we have wonderful parties like the raving monster loony party. Vote for insanity - you know it makes sense" - Don't get elected but compared to the alternative they do have their attractions.

In Scotland we now have Proportional Representation for the numpty house elections. It has the two main parties sh_))*ING themselves. Well apart from the tories who now think it wonderful otherwise they would have no msp's at all. Actually come to think of it there we would be a one party state without it. Change that to labour are sshI)I*g themselves.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:51 am

spot;585682 wrote: But - as a small question - you can still only vote in one primary in your state, not in both?

Err...what do you mean, Spot? As I know it there's only one primary and then the general....there are city elections for board of directors an dstuff but I live out of city limits so I can't vote in that. I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.

Post by **spot** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:56 am

In electing the President, the Democrats and the Republicans each run a primary to eliminate less popular potential candidates and discover who the front runners are, in whatever states they choose to. Perhaps in all the states, I'm not sure. I thought that a voter had the right to vote in either but not both. Then, of course, once the candidates are chosen by the Conventions, the electorate get to vote in the Presidential election itself regardless of their affiliation.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 8:15 am

gmc;585678 wrote: You're kidding aren't you? Why do you have to state a party affiliation to register to vote? Does it mean if you don't want to join a political party or state an affiliation you can't vote? i assume the ballot is secret.

I'm unfamiliar with the small details of the American system so the above is not a wind up but a serious question.

Here you just put your name on the electoral register and it's no ones business who you are inclined to support.

That's exactly my reaction.

It sounds like a chance to filter people out of the voting system.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 8:39 am

from BTS's post

Bush should say: "We did it, it was political, and there's nothing you can do about it."

Then he should start holding hearings on Congress' obstruction of the war effort. Members of Congress should be asked to come before the administration's hearings and testify under oath about their commitment to victory. If they are not traitors, what do they have to hide? Surely they will be willing to state under oath that they are not undermining the war effort for partisan political gain.

The hearings could be televised in prime time: "Traitor or No Traitor?"

The president's investigatory power is better grounded than is Congress'. There is no "hearings and investigations" clause in Article I, describing Congress' powers, but the Recommendation Clause of Article II, Section 3 obligates the president to "from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union."

If the State of the Union is that we have a treasonous majority in Congress that is affirmatively undermining American national security, the president is constitutionally obliged to give Congress information to that effect. How can he make that judgment without gathering the necessary data?

Is she for real or is this satirical? Sounds like the house unamerican activities committee all over again. surely you learned from that experience and can see it coming a mile off?

posted by koan

That's exactly my reaction.

It sounds like a chance to filter people out of the voting system.

My American history is a bit sketchy but was that not the reason the senate was constructed in such a way it could stop the congress having too much say and the colleges were there to stop a populist getting elected?

uv_lightmyway · Post by **uv_lightmyway** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 2:05 pm

RedGlitter;585679 wrote: No, I'm not kidding. In America, when you register to vote, you must choose a party to be affiliated with. When I registered I refused to be either a democrat or a republican because they both shamed me (and I was pretty rebellious at the time) so I became a Libertarian. I still am a Libertarian although I vote for who I think will do the best job (of all parties) rather than voting for "my" party specifically.

I don't specifically know why this is, maybe someone else does.

Yes, our ballots are secret. In the primary election, we vote for who we want of our party. I go to the precinct and tell them I'm Libertarian and they hand me the Libertarian ballot with all the Libertarian candidates running on it and I vote for who who I want to see run in the general election. The Democrats vote for their chosen Democrat candidates and the Republicans theirs. In the presidential election you can vote for whoever you want regardless of your party and it is still secret from all.

Here in Arizona it's only been some years back since they even allowed Libertarians and Independents to vote in the primaries. It used to be only Democrats and Republicans could vote and they had to vote for their own party; still do. Now Libs and Independents are allowed to vote as well. Before, we could only vote in the presidential. I don't know what it's like in the other states.

Depends on the state. As a New York State native, when I lived in New York State I had to chose a party or I could mark indie. But if you chose independent you cannot vote in a primary. When I lived in Texas, you also chose your party affiliation, but if you chose indie, instead of voting in a primary you were able to sign the petition of any non-party candidate (when I was living there Kinky Friedman and Carol Keaton Strayhorn were both running for gov. as indies). I signed for Friedman, but then regretted it when, in the debates, it appeared that I (a Yankee in Texas) knew more about the state history and political system than he did. Now that I live in Missouri, I don't know what the rules are...

uv_lightmyway · Post by **uv_lightmyway** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 2:12 pm

As for political party, I would not worry so much about that if you are unaffiliated. The important thing to do is to look at each candidate's positions and determine how you feel about them. There are pro-life democrats, there are Republicans who are for environmental conservation, ect. To pidgeon-hole yourself into a party is limiting. That's particularly why I am an indie. I value social/individual freedoms, and I like fiscal restraint, but I have a bit of a populist streak in me as well - I do believe strongly in helping out those less fortunate. I am against the war in Iraq, but I also do believe we need a strong national defense. I wish we still made things in America (coming from a struggling rust belt city in Western New York, I have seen what the decline in a strong manufacturing base has done to our citizens).

I despise political party bickering.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:32 pm

spot;585740 wrote: In electing the President, the Democrats and the Republicans each run a primary to eliminate less popular potential candidates and discover who the front runners are, in whatever states they choose to. Perhaps in all the states, I'm not sure. I thought that a voter had the right to vote in either but not both. Then, of course, once the candidates are chosen by the Conventions, the electorate get to vote in the Presidential election itself regardless of their affiliation.

But surely that's the intent of it - to stop the Dems from voting for the biggest tosspot out of the Reps catalogue and vicky verky.

Please though, tell me that you can change your affiliation between elections?

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:51 pm

As was previously stated, each state is different. In Louisiana, for state and congressional elections we have an open primary meaning voters can vote for any candidate regardless of party affiliation. All candidates are listed on one ballot and the top two candidates face each other in a runoff unless the top candidate gets over 50%. So it happens from time to time (like the most recent mayoral election in New Orleans) that the runoff can be between two Democrats or two Republicans. However, the Presidential primary is closed and a voter can only vote in the primary of the party they are registered with.

Here's a bit of a rundown:

Fighting for Control of Presidential Primaries

By Edward Hayes, Medill News Service

Fighting for Control of Presidential Primaries

By Edward Hayes

As a case pended before the U.S. Supreme Court that was to address how much latitude political parties have in running their own primaries, candidates were crisscrossing the country campaigning to win primaries and the all-important delegates to clinch their respective political partyâ€™s nomination.

In the 2000 Presidential campaign, there were 48 states were hosting a presidential primary or presidential preference election. All 50 states were holding primaries for state elected positions. Often, the two elections were being held in completely different fashions.

One of the main reasons is respect for the political parties in their pursuit of a presidential nominee. Parties take the nomination process very seriously and they want to control it.

In California Democratic Party v. Jones, the case before the Supreme Court, California Democrats sued over the stateâ€™s decision in 1996 to hold a blanket primary.

A blanket primary is when "voters receive a ballot listing all candidates running for office regardless of party affiliation," according to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC)

In contrast, Michigan, which held its 2000 primary two weeks before California, has an open primary system, the difference being that voters get only one partyâ€™s ballot but can decide that day which they want. According to Brad Wittman, director of communications and training in the Michigan election bureau, the open primary has been in place since the 1988 Presidential Election.

At that time there were no presidential primaries in Michigan, at the request of the parties. When voters voiced opposition to this, the state implemented the system that is in place today, Wittman said.

However, due to party rules, the Democratic and Reform Parties did not participate in the Michigan Primary in 2000. "Democrats who went to the polls were surprised not to see their candidates on the ballot," Wittman said.

In California, the Democrats are arguing that a blanket primary violates their 1st Amendment rights to association. "A political partyâ€™s right to choose its own nominees is core associational activity," said George Waters, attorney for the Democratic Party, in his brief.

Alaska also hosts blanket primaries for all its state elections. They do not host a presidential primary, choosing caucuses instead. Even though there is no party affiliation in the primaries, election officials said that political parties are not dead in Alaska.

"Political parties are still strong [in Alaska]," said Virginia Breeze, election projects coordinator. "We have a lot of undeclared candidates."

Alaska has enjoyed a blanket primary since 1996 when the State Supreme Court ruled such a primary constitutional.

Since then, Breeze said, there has been no concern over the format. "It all seems to work out pretty smoothly," she said adding that there is no litigation pending over the primary.

Some states have a mixed format, as a compromise with the parties. In Louisiana, the primaries are open for state and congressional candidates, but closed for presidential. When Louisianans vote for state or congressional offices, they see the candidatesâ€™ names placed alphabetically on the ballot and the party is under the names, said Elsie Cangelosi, director of registration in Louisiana. In Louisianaâ€™s presidential primaries, voters must be members of the party in which they vote. The presidential primaries remain closed, though, the legacy of a tradition that dates back to when the parties held their own caucuses for presidential nominees.

Washington State has a similar system in that its state primaries are blanket, but the presidential primary is closed. However, voters not affiliated with any political party can vote on either side, using an unaffiliated ballot.

Washington Voter Services Program Manager Shawn Merchant said voters do not declare a party when they register to vote. On election day, a voter can request a Republican, Democrat or unaffiliated ballot. The unaffiliated ballots list all the candidates randomly with their party affiliation.

Merchant said voters favor the system, which is based on Washingtonâ€™s populist heritage and independent-minded voters.

In his brief against Californiaâ€™s plan, Waters argues that a blanket primary eliminates a partyâ€™s right to choose its own candidates. "Proposition198 will inevitably lead to the selection of party â€˜nomineesâ€™ who are supported by neither a majority nor a plurality of party members," he said.

Illinois looks to maintain the political partiesâ€™ identities by holding an open primary, which allows voters to select the ballot of any political party they choose while still using separate ballots.

"We donâ€™t have a blanket primary so we can preserve the two party system," said Dan White, assistant director of the Illinois board of elections.

Waters has argued in California that one of the negative effects of a blanket primary will be party "raiding," which is when members of the opposing party cross party lines to vote for a weak candidate in the opposing party.

White said it is difficult to track any "raiding" in Illinois because voters do not register with a party. However, no one has stepped forward to complain either. "Iâ€™ve seen no evidence of raiding or any accusations of raiding," he said.

In the 2000 presidential primary in California, the crossover to vote in the more hotly contested Republican primary, was dramatic. Of the over 3 million votes Republican candidates received, 63.2 percent came from other parties, in contrast to only 29.5 percent crossover voting in the Democratic primary.

In Arizona, the state separates its presidential preference race and primaries. "They are two completely different elections," said Jessica Funkhouser, state elections director.

The primaries, held in September, are open in the sense that Independents can select the ballot of any of the three recognized parties in Arizona: Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians. Those registered in the three recognized political parties must vote within their party.

In the presidential preference election, Independents play no role. Voters must declare a political party preference and vote that way. "The presidential preference is a unique party opportunity," Funkhouser said.

The trend with regard to state primaries appears to be eliminating the separation by political parties. However at the presidential level, the parties still maintain a strong presence.

Whether those trends will continue may depend on what the Supreme Court decides in allowing the political parties in California â€” or the state -- to control the stateâ€™s presidential primaries.

Link to Northwestern

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:47 pm

elwaysmom06;585451 wrote: I am a new registered voter, I am 23 and just decided to vote because I felt that I needed to, however I am very uneducated about politics and I need some input on who I am affiliated with, right now I am leaning towards liberals, but anybody I ask is conservative and all they tell me is to be republican, but I want to know the differences, the views, beliefs etc. before I decide....:-2

Good question.

In the interest of keeping it simple and not writing a book, I'd sum it up by saying that Democrats tend to look to the government for the solution to the problem. Republicans tend to look to the government as the source of the problem.

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:48 pm

elwaysmom06;585451 wrote: I am a new registered voter, I am 23 and just decided to vote because I felt that I needed to, however I am very uneducated about politics and I need some input on who I am affiliated with, right now I am leaning towards liberals, but anybody I ask is conservative and all they tell me is to be republican, but I want to know the differences, the views, beliefs etc. before I decide....:-2

You have not voted in any election yet???? There are so many elections to vote......county, city, school board.

You need to vote at the podunct level and then the biggies.

Have a good time for President.

edge2125 · Post by **edge2125** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:35 pm

Truth be told, its doesnt matter very much who you vote for...the results are pretty much the same. Does anyone here really think this country will be drastically different under Obama than it would be under say, Romney? How about the difference between McCain and Billary? Once they take office all the happy talk goes out the window and the paper pushing through congress begins. Sometimes we get lucky. The person we like wins, and we're happy.

60% of Americans do not approve of president Bush. Im in the 30% who like him. Apparently, the other 10% have their heads crammed up their 4th point of contact.

Regardless of where you stand with this president, or any other for that matter, vote for whoever you like, for whatever reasons you like, then just hope everyone else agrees...and whoever you vote for does what he/she says they will.

Post by **spot** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:57 pm

edge2125;586556 wrote: Truth be told, its doesnt matter very much who you vote for...the results are pretty much the same.An interesting observation, that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system makes interesting reading from that perspective.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:17 pm

Which has the sovereign power? Senate, congress or the president? My understanding is that the senate was there as a balance against the possibility of a populist lower house-congress. But which can ultimately call the others to task. I assume that's congress.

In the UK it is parliament. TB forms a govt at it's sufferance except out spineless doughballs of MP's have forgotten their heritage and just nod away like those little nodding dogs.