Political involvement

All third parties are doing is getting creeps elected.

Without Ross Perot's votes in 1996, Bob Dole, -(an honorable and mature statesman)- would have beaten Clinton the liar.

Without Ralph Nader's votes in 2000, Al Gore-(a boring guy and not a great politician but honorable and responsible)- would have beaten George W., the country club brat whose policies are now driving the country deep into debt for the next couple of generations.

I'm not really a political person but I do have common sense.

Since the last time a third party got elected to President was, I believe Lincoln in 1861, and it will probably be another 150 years before another one gets elected, why don't Americans do this; nominate decent, responsible people for the Republicans and Democrats, and then elect somebody decent and responsible for a change.

Third party canidates? Good luck, you will need it!

I want to thank everyone for their input and responses!

Sorry double post!

Thanks again!

Oh Jennifer, I wouldn't worry yet. Being a Libertarian isn't exactly what I call trendy. But I'm with you on the hair.

The NYC Libertarians are kind of embarrassing. They were a big media spectacle a few months back when they were handing out toy guns to kids in front of a public school in Harlem and they pissed the kids' parents off royal and started a big argument in front of the school. (The city had been considering outlawing all toy guns because some kids had been shot by the police recently. They were holding toy guns that the police thought were real. NYC is crazy authoritarian like that. They have laws for EVERYTHING.)
Now, I agree with the Libertarians' point, but I don't think that was the way to go about it. They totally set themselves up to look like idiots on the nightly news. And the guy who was leading it was clearly a moron. Who put that guy in a position of leadership?

That's the party's main problem. We need good, charismatic leaders that appeal to all Americans, not just those of us already in the party. I voted for Harry Browne, but I really was voting for the party. Harry Browne just is not good presidential material. We need a better candidiate for 2004. I'm sure they're working on it.

The problem is the same as always. Anyone you would really want to be president is smart enough to know he doesn't want the job.

Rod wrote: As an educated person who has worked on the business side of media, I can tell you that the issue isn't as simple as you make it out to be. It benefits a lot more people than a few CEOs and media conglomerates. Many of the perceived drawbacks consumers sight aren't going to materialize. I don't like it for business reasons, not consumer reasons.

Oh that's true. There are many reasons not to like it.
They say the rates will drop and the quality of technology will increase. Bull! They've deregulated several times before and we've yet to see any benefit.

Congratulations, Girl Tia! I know it can't be easy. But as long as your happy in the end, that's what matters.

Thank you Kathy Ann for bringing up this topic.
I have read on your posts that you are a lebian woman in a relationship with another woman here, a bi-sexual woman Tina. Hi to you both.

I am a gay male in the process of becoming a woman. I wear my hair long mid-back, jet black hair. I dress as a female. Have already had my breasts done.
I am also Asian(Chinese-American).
As a sexual and ethnic minority I do feel it is important to vote.

Howdy SuperGrover!
It is cool to see my fellow Libertarian proud to call themselves as such. We're a small but growing bunch.
The fastest growing party in America.

The government that governs best governs least.

That's my opinion, Thomas Jefferson's actually, what's everyone elses?

As an educated person who has worked on the business side of media, I can tell you that the issue isn't as simple as you make it out to be. It benefits a lot more people than a few CEOs and media conglomerates. Many of the perceived drawbacks consumers sight aren't going to materialize. I don't like it for business reasons, not consumer reasons.

Jennifer, a republic is basically a representative democracy.

e are both a Republic and a democracy.

I think the problem is that the word "democracy" entails different varieties. The US is obviously not a direct democracy, yet I see no reason why we can't be called a representative democracy.

Can anyone answer my questions? Why are we not a Representative Democracy?

You know what? This stuff is confusing. Here's something I found on the web:

The United States is a Republic which follows the ideals of a Representative Democracy. Our Electoral College is an example of voting via a Representative Democracy.

http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure1.htm

So, are we not a Representative Democracy? I do understand that under a direct democracy, there are no "middlemen" and each person votes directly for the decision. And, for obvious reasons, our country is far too large for that. But, why can't we be called a Representative Democracy?