Is there any independent candidate who appeals to both left and right?

RCG Trader · Apr 18, 2011

Quote from Pekelo:

Here is an interesting scenario:

Let's say there is a charismatic, well liked blah-blah-blah 3rd party candidate, who against all odds makes it through the race with popular support and with the people's money, instead of corporations'. He is only accountable to the people. He promises everything what the other 2 parties wouldn't do.

Let's say we are 1 week away from election night and the polls are saying that he will win 40% with the other 2 trailing 30-30% of all votes. Now obviously neither established parties wants to lose to an unpredictable, uncontrollable newcomer. Let's say you are the Rep or Dem adviser and facing a pretty much guaranteed loss.

What do you do???* (beside assassination )

Well, if I were Karl Rove, I would sit down with the Dems and make a deal. 3 days before election we would announce that we reached an agreement and we vote for the agreed candidate. So we would have a public coinflip, and whoever wins that, both parties' voters are encouraged to vote for that person. The VP can even come from the other party.

Even if 15% or so of the voting block still votes to their own candidate, that would still give a 45% win over the 3rd party's 40%....

What is the point here? That the 2 incumbent parties can screw over a 3rd party candidate at the last moment, if the situation calls for it. Later they can negotiate how they are going to share the power, but letting in the unwanted guy would be averted...

* Messing with the voting machines also works, as we remember.

ammo · Apr 18, 2011

Quote from Pekelo:

Here is an interesting scenario:

Let's say there is a charismatic, well liked blah-blah-blah 3rd party candidate, who against all odds makes it through the race with popular support and with the people's money, instead of corporations'. He is only accountable to the people. He promises everything what the other 2 parties wouldn't do.

Let's say we are 1 week away from election night and the polls are saying that he will win 40% with the other 2 trailing 30-30% of all votes. Now obviously neither established parties wants to lose to an unpredictable, uncontrollable newcomer. Let's say you are the Rep or Dem adviser and facing a pretty much guaranteed loss.

What do you do???* (beside assassination )

Well, if I were Karl Rove, I would sit down with the Dems and make a deal. 3 days before election we would announce that we reached an agreement and we vote for the agreed candidate. So we would have a public coinflip, and whoever wins that, both parties' voters are encouraged to vote for that person. The VP can even come from the other party.

Even if 15% or so of the voting block still votes to their own candidate, that would still give a 45% win over the 3rd party's 40%....

What is the point here? That the 2 incumbent parties can screw over a 3rd party candidate at the last moment, if the situation calls for it. Later they can negotiate how they are going to share the power, but letting in the unwanted guy would be averted...

* Messing with the voting machines also works, as we remember.

there were 300 bogus lawsuits files against ralph nader during last or previous election to tie him up in court and burn up his small electin campaign money, they will do use every tool in the shed way before that 3rd party gets to the 3rd rung on the ladder,there are billions,trillions in the money pipeline that won't be turned back

Pekelo · Apr 19, 2011

It is actually the Old World Order:

According to Newt's 3rd law of Politics: "People in power want to stay in power."

This is similar as Helmsley's 2nd law of Society: "Rich people want to stay rich, and want to get richer."

Hey, would you blame them???

Savant · Apr 19, 2011

LOL! You guys are simply scared shitless of the Donald aren't ya? Anything to keep a lefty or RINO/faux republican in there huh?

Quote from Pekelo:

Here is an interesting scenario:

Let's say there is a charismatic, well liked blah-blah-blah 3rd party candidate, who against all odds makes it through the race with popular support and with the people's money, instead of corporations'. He is only accountable to the people. He promises everything what the other 2 parties wouldn't do.

Let's say we are 1 week away from election night and the polls are saying that he will win 40% with the other 2 trailing 30-30% of all votes. Now obviously neither established parties wants to lose to an unpredictable, uncontrollable newcomer. Let's say you are the Rep or Dem adviser and facing a pretty much guaranteed loss.

What do you do???* (beside assassination )

Well, if I were Karl Rove, I would sit down with the Dems and make a deal. 3 days before election we would announce that we reached an agreement and we vote for the agreed candidate. So we would have a public coinflip, and whoever wins that, both parties' voters are encouraged to vote for that person. The VP can even come from the other party.

Even if 15% or so of the voting block still votes to their own candidate, that would still give a 45% win over the 3rd party's 40%....

What is the point here? That the 2 incumbent parties can screw over a 3rd party candidate at the last moment, if the situation calls for it. Later they can negotiate how they are going to share the power, but letting in the unwanted guy would be averted...

* Messing with the voting machines also works, as we remember.

Savant · Apr 19, 2011

This statement deserves a 'complain' from everyone.

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

I'm sure there is long line of teabaggers just waiting to adopt a nappy headed child who's father is not known, and whose mother is a whore...

Savant · Apr 19, 2011

No, I think the "racial blindness" is only for people who aren't white. It's always open season on Caucasians as far as they are concerned.

Quote from Cache Landing:

Really? That is really your opinion? I hope that isn't representative of your liberal constituents. I thought you were the party of equality, racial blindness, and tollerance...

Pekelo · Apr 19, 2011

Quote from Savant:

You guys are simply scared shitless of the Donald aren't ya? Anything to keep a lefty or RINO/faux republican in there huh?

I would love 3rd and 4th party candidates running, if for nothing else, the entertainment value. I am discussing the mathematical chances of such a run and the political feasibility of it.

What are you discussing??? I don't recall you saying anything on topic...

Savant · Apr 19, 2011

Haha! Human life measured in financial terms. Reminds me of reading about how the starving workers in the Soviet fields would be shot if they were caught eating the tomatoes and produce from the fields they were working in; the tomatoes were more valuable than the life! This kind of thinking is a hallmark of socialism.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure that NO ONE in this country has trouble finding a family willing to adopt their child regardless of what color the child is.

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Yes, she got pregnant irresponsibly.

So the solution is to force an irresponsible woman to bear a child that becomes a burden on society?

That makes no sense at all...

Your position is stubborn, because it will cost you more in the long run.

Look, if you want to say to the woman getting an abortion..."for you to get the abortion, you have to sign consent forms for us to tie your tubes because you are irresponsible" I'm not opposed to that at all.

It is still cheaper to fix the mistake before it becomes a costly mistake to the child, the mother, and the society as a whole.

Savant · Apr 19, 2011

:eek: This is revolting. Simply because the pregnancy was unplanned, then it will necessarily be a "crack baby"?

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

So if a woman doesn't get an abortion that she wants, but can't afford, and we get another crack baby that costs the taxpayer money in the long run...you are good with that?

Doesn't make economic sense at all.

You don't appear to have a moral issue with abortion, so I am looking only at the economics of the situation.

Lucrum · Apr 19, 2011

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

So what you are saying is that Bush pretended to be something he was not.

Like Obama?