Dems and Reps keep out

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Dems and Reps keep out
38
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 9:51pm

This thread is dedicated to Moderate Centrists, Independent voters,  third party enthusiasts, Libertarians, Greens, and even Communists - in other words anybody who is not a Republican or a Democrat.


I bet you a cookie this thread gets hardly a friendly response!  Prove me wrong!


Elaine

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-02-2004
Fri, 09-03-2004 - 6:11pm
You are so correct about Clinton, why when the republicans have nothing else to do they bash Clinton? is he the token whipping boy? Look at the facts people under Clinton we paid off the national debt! the first time in history that a president did this!!! Also more jobs,more healtcare, more people in college, and women had rights!! under Bush we have lost jobs, and even more to come due to outsourcing Bush even stated that outsourcing helps our econemy grow? tell me how that works? Tell the workers in Ohio that had to pack up the machines they work on and send them to India, that this will help them? help them to unemployment thats how! Also I find it odd that women vote for Bush! do you know that he just appointed to the FDA a physician that prescribes prayer for PMS? and refuses to give prescription oral birthcontrol to unwed women? thats a rep for you!! opress women make them go back 30 years! If you have no birth control how many un wanted children will there be? and being a paramedic I saw alot of unwanted abused children that would have been better off if mom or dad had been on birth control! tell me its fair to bring children into this world that will be starved beat and locked in closets, how many of the republicans will take care of these children? We need to have access to birth control! did you know that in kentucky a pharmist refused to fill a young womans birth control due to the fact she was unwed? what is this saying to our young women? It says that you must get married like your grandmother did and have 10 kids and die an old woman at 40 thats what it says!
Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 1:38pm
You're wise to read and watch everything that’s going on from all points of view, so that you'll be an informed voter. But, I agree with you that the debates will be key to those still undecided.

Sorry to have taken so long to respond to your post.

C

Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 1:42pm
It seemed to me that many were still posting to the Dem, Rep, & Independents threads, so I figured my question belonged here. However, there's no reason that others couldn't answer it too.

C

Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 1:49pm
<>

However, in order for your vote to be effective in our "winner takes all" electoral system, you do have to choose.

C

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-31-2004
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 2:01pm
You have to choose only because both dominant parties perpetuate the supposed necessity to choose from only these 2 limited options. So the problem is the myth created far before the point of choice. But most people it seems like to be told what to do. Even so, independents can still vote for one of the other smaller parties.
Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 2:19pm
Yes, I agree that Independents can vote for whomever they wish, including other smaller party candidates. IMO issues should be the deciding factor and the important thing is to actually vote.

However, I also know that when you move beyond the local level and your vote is translated into Electoral College votes; you have to acknowledge that it will benefit or hurt one or the other of the two major parties. That shouldn't keep anyone from voting for the candidate who most effectively addresses the important issues.

C

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 2:44pm
In order to pay for his proposed spending over the next 10 year period (I have read it between $1.5 and $2.0 trillion in additional money) Kerry not only would have to repeal the entire Bush tax cut, but also increase taxes on just about every working American as well. This is what scares me. I dont mind having those that are the most fortunate pay a little more of the share, but to overtax people is not what I am looking for either.

I think that states should be responsible for managing their money as well as the Federal Government, and while I know many programs are Federally mandated, these programs should see some money from the Federal Government. I do not however, feel that it is the Federal Governments responsibility to bail out states that mismanage their budgets, or else you end up in the cycle of constantly doing this.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 2:50pm
Start with the pork first, as this is a total waste of money, and it has been estimated that roughly $3 to $4 billion per year is wasted on total pork spending.

Second, if it were not for 9/11, most economists projected that this economy would have created an additional 3 to 3.5 million jobs on top of the 1.9 million it has created in the past 12 months. Add to this the 800,000 or so jobs that went poof with the collapse of the dot.com boom, and you have a thriving economy, where unemployment is close to 4.2% (or lower).

If you want to look at fiscal responsibility, I look at the deficit of Bush, and I look at the one project that Kerry was a supporter of (The Big Dig). Bush has run a deficit of $450 billion for an entire country (which I am not happy with). Kerry's pet project ran $15 billion over budget. This gets me to wonder what on earth he would do with the budget for a nation with thousands and thousands of projects each year..... it scares me.

Compare the budget of one project in one state to a budget for an entire nation.

Pages