Russ Feingold in 2008!

Steven M · 09-26-2005, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven M

Quote:

Originally Posted by hevusa

From the information you posted he seems like he would be a good canidate, but not in the eyes of a christian.

He looks like a good candidate to me (for the democrats). Though I don't know why he opposes free trade.

He's opposed to the free trade agreements because they take jobs away from American workers.

Proper free trade agreements do not produce a net loss of jobs and money. Deals like CAFTA open up new markets for American (let's say manufacturers) providing new jobs. Plus, it provides opportunities for the poor to access our (agricultural) markets to sell goods at a lower price, allowing consumers to pay less, thus saving Americans money. If you allow the free market to operate, less people lose.

sgtdmski · 09-26-2005, 10:37 PM

Campaign finance reform was a joke and it still is one. The bill did nothing to reform the system, all it did was take soft money away from the parties and candidates and put it in the hands of the 527s. More money was spent in the 2004 election than ever before. For the longest time democrats cried about soft money, and then the truth came out, that the dems actually raise more soft money than the republicans.

If the 2004 election cycle was any indication of what reform meant, it was a bad reform. That alone is a major hit on his candidacy.

dmk

Steven M · 09-28-2005, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Campaign finance reform was a joke and it still is one. The bill did nothing to reform the system, all it did was take soft money away from the parties and candidates and put it in the hands of the 527s. More money was spent in the 2004 election than ever before. For the longest time democrats cried about soft money, and then the truth came out, that the dems actually raise more soft money than the republicans.

If the 2004 election cycle was any indication of what reform meant, it was a bad reform. That alone is a major hit on his candidacy.

dmk

Like you said, the "soft money," merely changed names under McCain-Feingold. Democrats find themselves in the pockets of a batch of petulant billionaires, led by George Soros, Peter Lewis and Steven Bing. That trio alone contributed nearly $65 million to Democratic candidates and causes during the 2004 election cycle.

NoMoreDems-Reps · 09-28-2005, 05:07 PM

I would just remind you that even if this guy was OK. he would still
be under the Democrat’s flag, and he would ultimately have to serve his
master!

I have only seen the Dems&Reps screw over the People of America
too many times to be fooled in to think they will change.
Until we break the Monopoly that the DEMS&REPS have on the
U.S. Government is all they have to do is be a little better that the
other. "THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS" .

If a third party got in to the White House I bet you a Million $ that
the Dems&Reps would start actually start WORKING HARD for Americans.
But until then they will sit there Fat and Happy.

Dylan · 09-28-2005, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoMoreDems-Reps

I would just remind you that even if this guy was OK. he would still
be under the Democrat’s flag, and he would ultimately have to serve his
master!

I have only seen the Dems&Reps screw over the People of America
too many times to be fooled in to think they will change.
Until we break the Monopoly that the DEMS&REPS have on the
U.S. Government is all they have to do is be a little better that the
other. "THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS" .

If a third party got in to the White House I bet you a Million $ that
the Dems&Reps would start actually start WORKING HARD for Americans.
But until then they will sit there Fat and Happy.

A third party is not going to win the presidency. Ever. Seriously.

The idea of a two-party state is so firmly entrenched that it isn't going to budge. Therefore, we need change from within. If you are an activist, join one, and try to change it in your image. Bring your friends. That's how real change happens. I would point to the difference between the Democracts and the Republicans before and after the 1960's.

Dylan · 09-28-2005, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Campaign finance reform was a joke and it still is one. The bill did nothing to reform the system, all it did was take soft money away from the parties and candidates and put it in the hands of the 527s. More money was spent in the 2004 election than ever before. For the longest time democrats cried about soft money, and then the truth came out, that the dems actually raise more soft money than the republicans.

If the 2004 election cycle was any indication of what reform meant, it was a bad reform. That alone is a major hit on his candidacy.

dmk

Most people don't know that, and won't think that way. The bill could easily be spinned as bipartisanship, and it was an attempt at reform, which is more than most politicians can say they have done. It's not about what he did, it's about what it looks like he did. I know that's machiavellian, but it's also what works.

Steven M · 09-28-2005, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoMoreDems-Reps

I would just remind you that even if this guy was OK. he would still
be under the Democrat’s flag, and he would ultimately have to serve his
master!

Too true.

NoMoreDems-Reps · 09-28-2005, 06:11 PM

Hi Dylan

"A third party is not going to win the presidency. Ever. Seriously."

I know that the system is Rigged so it is statically impossible for a
non-Dem/Rep Candidate to win! That's what I would like to changes!!!!
If you look around, People are much more ready to dump the
Dem-Rep Monopoly and give someone else a chance. We can't much worse
than Bush!

Cheers

Dylan · 09-28-2005, 06:14 PM

I'm not against change. I'm just for the practical.

NoMoreDems-Reps · 09-30-2005, 12:11 AM

I just don't understand how Dems & Reps can swallow this Crap and Keep
fighting for these two Parties!!!

That's why we are in this situation. Everybody is waiting for someone
else to do something. It's Complacency or laziness.
Someone on this board has a great slogan.
"For Evil to Triumph good people just have to do nothing"
Or some thing like that.
The U.S. Revolution was not "PRACTIACL"
Going to the Moon Is Not "PRACTICAL"
and most great things are not "PRACTICAL"

I know one person cannot do much (Alone),
But he could a whole lot more if he doesn't quit
even when "it's not practical".

Just because the Dems&Reps served the American people
a plate of crap doesn't mean we have to eat it.