oh, please puppy...don't go the "gallup is illegitimate" route. yer crony miler just used it last week to "prove" something about the democrats. i didn't notice you objecting.

ok, how bout this,,,from the guy who wrote lives to continue the Reagan legacy...is he a liar too?

"... independents outnumber Democrats and the Republicans by quite a margin. Most estimates put the figure at about forty percent of the electorate. That leaves about thirty percent each for Republicans and Democrats. "


http://techwritepublishing.com/tlj/articles/candidate.htm

if this is true then why aren't there more independents in office

I never said it was illegitimate Sean (Puppy....LOL).  Col seemed to present his arguement that this was some "official" statistic in which it was not.  Polls are BS, and miller is free to post what he wants, as I can comment on what I want. 




I don't know if he's a liar.  Where is his data to back up his statements, and maybe something more current than an article from 2000.

yeah, ya did...and did again...



not all polls are "bs." some are more accurate than others. and gallup has one of the finest reps out there.

as far as 2000 goes. just goes to show it's nuttin new. that actually surprised me. the way it's been reported, you would think it was.

Polls are polls, they are typically of about 1000 people and their questions are often questionable to begin with, especially with media based polls.  So as usual people like col present polls as a given word and fact, which they are not.

yeah, yeah , yeah...keep raisin up that ol bar, lol. independents outnumber both parties. it's a fact. the polls merely reflect that here.

If this is true then why aren't there more independents in office?

Because we have not been able to establish an effective third party. If the supporters of Bush and the GOP believe what they have been doing is what the majority want, they are simply in denial. The truth is THEY NO NOT CARE. They want what they want and the HELL with what the majority want! However, the political operatives, like Rove, have been very clever and retained control even though their policies do not represent what the people want for America!

And democrats are any different?  Once again you keep spekaing for what America "wants", but you have nothing to back that statement up with. 

actually. it has more to do with the 2 majors shutting out independents and 3rd party candidates. it is most obvious in the presidential debates.

the debates are run by "the commission on presidential debates." that sounds all nice and official and non-partisan. but it is actually a private entity that has the sole purpose of keeping the debates so controlled that no real damage can be done to the candidates. interaction between candidates is severely curtailed. and all "3rd parties" and independents are kept out of the game.

the commission is funded by major corporations that give big dolars to both parties to ensure that no one else can sneak in.

the only person who has been able to beat them was ross perot, who had billions to do it with.

on the local level, there are many 3rd party / independent office holders.

and on the state level, when the money gets a little bigger, ther are still a few that manage to hang in there.

but once you get back to the fed level in regards to congress...again, the money gets so big that few can even hope to compete.

so, to be a candidate without the backing of the 2 majors, you either have to be mega wealthy, or be content to be in local office.

your answer is a lot better than dictator col. gene

thanks dan...understand that money plays a big part. but money isn't everything. and at certain levels, it matters less than at others. another big factor is organization. at the large campaign level, the parties are so much more organized and "pre-hired" and have national and local party resources available 24/7- 365. an independent candidate must both do all that work in getting people and organizations together from scratch for an individual campaign. the majors use their party resources for many candidates simotaneously, which defers cost greatly.

opening up the debates to 3rd party candidates on a national level would be a big 1st step towards someone being able to break thru. but unfortunately, that candidate will probably have to be a billionaire, like bloomberg. not that this makes mike a bad guy or anything (having billions) but it's unfortunate that it seems it takes a billionaires influence just to crack thru.

in 2000, nader should have been on the stage. but nader isn't a billionaire and all his "good arguments" for it couldn't change the reality of the situation. of course, if nader had been allowed to get national coverage that only the debates offer, then his vote totals probably would have went up. most likely well above the 5% benchmark that they were shooting for. gore would have probably actually lost the popular vote, making the election less controversial. but to both the major's shagrin, that would have also probably garnered the green party "matching funds" from the fed for 2004 (for getting 5% in 2000). that means the green party would have 2X as much money to run in 2004, and with momentum from 2000. and that thought scared both parties to death so much that they stood silent while their private entity (C.O.P.D.) just rigged the rules so it would appear that nader wasn't good enough to get in.

Sean is correct about the money. What I said is a viable third party has not developed and money at the national level is a major factor. The two major parties have garnished many of the people that make contributions. My point was that the policies that the GOP has been pushing do not fit with what the majority want. That would also be true if the liberals were able to push through their agenda. We need leaders that move toward the center and so far the GOP candidacies are all trying to demonstrate they are to the far right. I believe some of the democrat candidates like Obama and Edwards might be more centrist but of that I am not sure.

i will accept that neither party fit with the majority

but i will not accept that the majority of the united states wants a liberal dictator any more than they want a conservitive dictator

and what you keep pushing is a dictatorship

Incredible.  I seriously doubt you would be complaining if the left pushes their agenda.  What exactly do you think the democrats are trying to do?

Incredible. I seriously doubt you would be complaining if the left pushes their agenda. What exactly do you think the democrats are trying to do?


We need a Centrist policy that reflects a compromise of what both side want.

But i will not accept that the majority of the United States wants a liberal dictator any more than they want a conservative dictator

And what you keep pushing is a dictatorship

How can I be pushing a dictatorship when I say we NEED WHAT THE MAJORITY WANT? You do not know what a Dictator is!

You don't know what the majority "wants".  You just assume it.

I bet the majority doesn't want their tax dollars wasted on welfare programs, so we should get rid of them according to your theory.

I bet the majority doesn't want their tax dollars wasted on welfare programs, so we should get rid of them according to your theory.


I believe you are correct. However helping people like after Katrina, insuring Social Security and Medicare are funded would not be considered "WASTED MONEY” Funding Food Stamps and Medicaid would not be considered WASTING MONEY! Balancing the Budget and stopping the rapid escalation of the interest we must pay each year would NOT be considered Wasting Money! Hiring Border Guards to protect our border would not be considered Wasting Money! These are the issues I believe the MAJORITY want and are the things Bush and the GOP are NOT doing!

here it is in a nut shell for you dictator col. gene

the democrats want to replace the president with a prime minister

what is the difference you ask

the president answers to the people

a prime minister would answer to the congress

in other words the democrats want to remove the check and balances

just so you understand what i mean look at iran they have both a prime minister and a president

who do we hear from the prime minister

Actually it would along with many other entitlement programs. 

Guess what? for the last two years we (America) as been importing gasoline because demand has exceeded our ability to produce refined oil. The liberals 30 years ago have finially won! We have lost the ability to refine enough gas for our needs. We are now like Iran, oil rich and refinery poor.