Please Tell Me

[OCA]

Since we all know that by electing a Democrat or Republican to the Oval Office and Congress that nothing will change i'm just curious as to how you guys justify the prevailing thought here which is: "well at least he/she has a chance of winning".

Don't you guys get tired of the same old Washington run around?

[Gaffer]

Since we all know that by electing a Democrat or Republican to the Oval Office and Congress that nothing will change i'm just curious as to how you guys justify the prevailing thought here which is: "well at least he/she has a chance of winning".

Don't you guys get tired of the same old Washington run around?

YES. But they control the money, the media, the corporations, and ALL levels of govt. What do you propose?

[OCA]

YES. But they control the money, the media, the corporations, and ALL levels of govt. What do you propose?

Nothing will ever change until a 3rd party is introduced into the mix, the people have the power to do that but Americans are sheep, they continue to believe tyhat this party will do this or that party will do that when nothing ever changes, no progress is ever made by either party unless you count petty politics and gotcha stonewalling as progress..

[Gunny]

Since we all know that by electing a Democrat or Republican to the Oval Office and Congress that nothing will change i'm just curious as to how you guys justify the prevailing thought here which is: "well at least he/she has a chance of winning".

Don't you guys get tired of the same old Washington run around?

I'm voting for me. First thing I'm doing is kicking all Greek immigrants out.

[Gaffer]

A third party got clinton elected. what needs to be done is change one of the existing parties into something the majority of people want. The commies and socialists changed the democrat party into what it is now. The repubs need to be changed into a real conservative party that stands by their guns.

Money and the media will prevent any real viable 3rd party from ever getting off the ground.


I'm voting for me. First thing I'm doing is kicking all Greek immigrants out.

we could call it the Evil Party. :salute:

[Gunny]

Since we all know that by electing a Democrat or Republican to the Oval Office and Congress that nothing will change i'm just curious as to how you guys justify the prevailing thought here which is: "well at least he/she has a chance of winning".

Don't you guys get tired of the same old Washington run around?

Wromg. Electing a Republican means at worst nothing will get worse. Electing a Democrat is a guarantee things will get wose. A No-brainer.

[Gaffer]

we could call it the Evil Party. :salute:

Or perhaps the merciless and cruel party. Unless you pick Sir Evil as your VP.

[MtnBiker]

Nothing will ever change until a 3rd party is introduced into the mix, the people have the power to do that but Americans are sheep, they continue to believe tyhat this party will do this or that party will do that when nothing ever changes, no progress is ever made by either party unless you count petty politics and gotcha stonewalling as progress..



The electoral college encourages a 2 party system;


Proponents further argue that the Electoral College contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two party system. There can be no doubt that the Electoral College has encouraged and helps to maintain a two party system in the United States. This is true simply because it is extremely difficult for a new or minor party to win enough popular votes in enough States to have a chance of winning the presidency. Even if they won enough electoral votes to force the decision into the U.S. House of Representatives, they would still have to have a majority of over half the State delegations in order to elect their candidate - and in that case, they would hardly be considered a minor party.

In addition to protecting the presidency from impassioned but transitory third party movements, the practical effect of the Electoral College (along with the single-member district system of representation in the Congress) is to virtually force third party movements into one of the two major political parties. Conversely, the major parties have every incentive to absorb minor party movements in their continual attempt to win popular majorities in the States. In this process of assimilation, third party movements are obliged to compromise their more radical views if they hope to attain any of their more generally acceptable objectives. Thus we end up with two large, pragmatic political parties which tend to the center of public opinion rather than dozens of smaller political parties catering to divergent and sometimes extremist views. In other words, such a system forces political coalitions to occur within the political parties rather than within the government.

A direct popular election of the president would likely have the opposite effect. For in a direct popular election, there would be every incentive for a multitude of minor parties to form in an attempt to prevent whatever popular majority might be necessary to elect a president. The surviving candidates would thus be drawn to the regionalist or extremist views represented by these parties in hopes of winning the run-off election.

The result of a direct popular election for president, then, would likely be frayed and unstable political system characterized by a multitude of political parties and by more radical changes in policies from one administration to the next. The Electoral College system, in contrast, encourages political parties to coalesce divergent interests into two sets of coherent alternatives. Such an organization of social conflict and political debate contributes to the political stability of the nation.



http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php

It is unlikely we will see a 3rd party canidate elected to the presidency.

[gabosaurus]

YES. But they control the money, the media, the corporations, and ALL levels of govt. What do you propose?

Always has. Always will. But I suppose it beats the one-party system that remains popular in many parts of the world.

[Gunny]

Always has. Always will. But I suppose it beats the one-party system that remains popular in many parts of the world.

Once again, you're stupid. Mind your own business?

[gabosaurus]

Once again, you're stupid. Mind your own business?

On the rag again tonight? Sorry babe, I can sympathize. Have your geisha prepare you a hot bath.

[Gunny]

On the rag again tonight? Sorry babe, I can sympathize. Have your geisha prepare you a hot bath.

You still here? Sneaking in late night, as usual, thinking no one's here to bury your pathetic arguments? OOPs. Guess you fucked up and got on too early.

[ConHog]

Once again, you're stupid. Mind your own business?

Pretty sure the election of the POTUS IS her business Gunny.

[OCA]

I'm voting for me. First thing I'm doing is kicking all Greek immigrants out.

Ok, there goes half the tax base, anymore bright ideas junior?

[OCA]

Wromg. Electing a Republican means at worst nothing will get worse. Electing a Democrat is a guarantee things will get wose. A No-brainer.

You don't pay much attention do ya Gunny?

TRhings got MUCH worse under Bush.

[OCA]

The electoral college encourages a 2 party system;



http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php

It is unlikely we will see a 3rd party canidate elected to the presidency.

But they can be elected.

Why stick with something when it never works Biker?

[OCA]

A third party got clinton elected. what needs to be done is change one of the existing parties into something the majority of people want. The commies and socialists changed the democrat party into what it is now. The repubs need to be changed into a real conservative party that stands by their guns.

Money and the media will prevent any real viable 3rd party from ever getting off the ground.



we could call it the Evil Party. :salute:

You mean the Clinton that balanced the budget to the point of a surplus? That Clinton?

What we have in America is the Dems=socialists and the Repubs=liberals, every election cycle someone like you says the same thing about Repubs and conservatism, never happens.

A question Laffer: name one major piece of social conservative legislation passed in the last 30 years or name 1 time when Repubs were in power when spending and taxes did not increase in the last 30 years.

[Gaffer]

You mean the Clinton that balanced the budget to the point of a surplus? That Clinton?

What we have in America is the Dems=socialists and the Repubs=liberals, every election cycle someone like you says the same thing about Repubs and conservatism, never happens.

A question Laffer: name one major piece of social conservative legislation passed in the last 30 years or name 1 time when Repubs were in power when spending and taxes did not increase in the last 30 years.

Yeah, the same clinton who moved to the center when a majority republican congress was put in place and he was forced to work with them. It wasn't clinton who balanced the budget it was the republican house.

Every cycle someone says the same thing about repubs and it never happens is true. Because the rino's keep getting in inspite of warnings from people like me. While people like you are complaining and coming down on the ones that are trying to change things. It took decades to turn the dems into a socialist party. It will take a long time to turn the repubs into a conservative party. But it's started. The Tea Party, which I believe you bad mouthed in the past, has started the ball rolling.

In the past 30 years govt has done nothing but grow. The repubs have slowed the growth somewhat at times, but when the GOP is rino controlled they are not going to do anything but slow the growth, if that.

[OCA]

Yeah, the same clinton who moved to the center when a majority republican congress was put in place and he was forced to work with them. It wasn't clinton who balanced the budget it was the republican house.

Every cycle someone says the same thing about repubs and it never happens is true. Because the rino's keep getting in inspite of warnings from people like me. While people like you are complaining and coming down on the ones that are trying to change things. It took decades to turn the dems into a socialist party. It will take a long time to turn the repubs into a conservative party. But it's started. The Tea Party, which I believe you bad mouthed in the past, has started the ball rolling.

In the past 30 years govt has done nothing but grow. The repubs have slowed the growth somewhat at times, but when the GOP is rino controlled they are not going to do anything but slow the growth, if that.

Nice try, if that congress gets credit for the budget then this cycle's edition of the REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS gets credit for the increased deficit.

Now for the two questions you avoided.....................

Whether the Tea Party, the Tea Party that endorses the same policies that got us to where we are right now, has any useful influence is still open to debate.

[fj1200]

You mean the Clinton that balanced the budget to the point of a surplus? That Clinton?

Congress controls the budget. But yes, Clinton read the tea leaves quite well.


Nice try, if that congress gets credit for the budget then this cycle's edition of the REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS gets credit for the increased deficit.

There is no Republican controlled Congress.

[OCA]

Congress controls the budget. But yes, Clinton read the tea leaves quite well.



There is no Republican controlled Congress.

Repubs handily control the house, Dems narrowly control the Senate........by sheer numbers and the flow of things Repubs have control.

Sorry for deflating your point.

[fj1200]

Repubs handily control the house, Dems narrowly control the Senate........by sheer numbers and the flow of things Repubs have control.

Sorry for deflating your point.

You didn't deflate anything. You admitted you were wrong, thanks for that. They do not control flow anymore than the Dem controlled Senate controls the flow.

[LuvRPgrl]

Repubs handily control the house, Dems narrowly control the Senate........by sheer numbers and the flow of things Repubs have control.

Sorry for deflating your point.

just admit you are wrong, and move on

economically, when repubs are in power, we do better.

Socially, they both suck.
The only solution is to give more power back to the lowest level of govt, but that wont happen. In fact, cities should even be broken down into neighborhoods, that they have most of the control

[ConHog]

just admit you are wrong, and move on

economically, when repubs are in power, we do better.

Socially, they both suck.
The only solution is to give more power back to the lowest level of govt, but that wont happen. In fact, cities should even be broken down into neighborhoods, that they have most of the control

But then you'd have neighborhood taxes on top of all the other level taxes. No thanks.

[LuvRPgrl]

But then you'd have neighborhood taxes on top of all the other level taxes. No thanks.

and eliminate all or large chunks of the federal income tax

the only way people will feel they have any say so in how the country is run is if they get to meet personally with, get to talk to, express their opinions and ideas with the candidate, not through email to a senator you will never see in person, whom you dont know if he read your email of it just went into the spam folder with tens of thousands of others, and they simply gave you a computerized standard response

[ConHog]

and eliminate all or large chunks of the federal income tax

the only way people will feel they have any say so in how the country is run is if they get to meet personally with, get to talk to, express their opinions and ideas with the candidate, not through email to a senator you will never see in person, whom you dont know if he read your email of it just went into the spam folder with tens of thousands of others, and they simply gave you a computerized standard response

That's why I favor sending Congressmen home and let them do their business via the internet, while being more accountable to the people who elected them.

As for your idea, I'm just not sure its workable, don't neccesarily oppose it, I'm just thinking that many neighborhoods simply don't need a level of government.

[avatar4321]

Solution isn't in Washington. Never will be. The solutions in the hearts and minds of the people.

[krisy]

and eliminate all or large chunks of the federal income tax

the only way people will feel they have any say so in how the country is run is if they get to meet personally with, get to talk to, express their opinions and ideas with the candidate, not through email to a senator you will never see in person, whom you dont know if he read your email of it just went into the spam folder with tens of thousands of others, and they simply gave you a computerized standard response

My mom sent an e mail to one of our reps a year or two ago. She was expressing her dissatisfaction with the job he was doing,it was NOT complimentary. They sent her an email back thanking her for her support. :coffee: They are so out of touch

[ConHog]

My mom sent an e mail to one of our reps a year or two ago. She was expressing her dissatisfaction with the job he was doing,it was NOT complimentary. They sent her an email back thanking her for her support. :coffee: They are so out of touch

Wouldn't it be impossible to stay in touch when you literally never interact with those who elect you? Now obviously they need some level of separation for safety purposes, but when you live like royalty separated from the very people who put you on high how hard are you going to try to remain in touch with them? Hell, don't most of them actually refer to as "little people?"

[krisy]

Wouldn't it be impossible to stay in touch when you literally never interact with those who elect you? Now obviously they need some level of separation for safety purposes, but when you live like royalty separated from the very people who put you on high how hard are you going to try to remain in touch with them? Hell, don't most of them actually refer to as "little people?"


So true. We have a rep here named Steve Chabot. He's a good guy. Marches in small town parades,talks to a lot of people. He does those phone calls where you can ask him a question and talk to him personally. Doesn't even dress like a rich dude lol. We have watched his voting record and he has voted conservative everytime,until recently. He recently voted for that bill that states the government can detain anyone for any period without representation. He was on a morning talk show to explain himself but I didn't hear it before I went into work.

I don't know a whole lot about the bill,but I didn't like what I heard about it.

[ConHog]

So true. We have a rep here named Steve Chabot. He's a good guy. Marches in small town parades,talks to a lot of people. He does those phone calls where you can ask him a question and talk to him personally. Doesn't even dress like a rich dude lol. We have watched his voting record and he has voted conservative everytime,until recently. He recently voted for that bill that states the government can detain anyone for any period without representation. He was on a morning talk show to explain himself but I didn't hear it before I went into work.

I don't know a whole lot about the bill,but I didn't like what I heard about it.

I don't like that Bill either. It takes away one of the special protections afforded citizens. Now of course some claim the COTUS protects anyone who comes into contact with the US government, but I disagree with that.

[LuvRPgrl]

That's why I favor sending Congressmen home and let them do their business via the internet, while being more accountable to the people who elected them.

As for your idea, I'm just not sure its workable, don't neccesarily oppose it, I'm just thinking that many neighborhoods simply don't need a level of government.

but the congressman will still represent too many people

wussy, thought you were a big bad intimidating ranger.
Maybe physically, but not in intelligence and willingness to try new ideas?

Of course all neighborhoods need a level of govt that will respond to them
people are sick of living in a place dominated by the other party and their voice doesnt get heard at all
that level of govt is already there, it simply isnt representative of the lower and lower middle classes.

and of course your worrisome attitude of "Im not sure its workable'' is the same they said about the COTUS


Solution isn't in Washington. Never will be. The solutions in the hearts and minds of the people.

absolutely.
DC should only be involved in issues that affect how states will interact, and the military.

Issues of everyday importance, like health care, should be dealt with locally,, thats the ONLY way the small guy will be heard and influental. Without such a process, big money is in control.
back in the day, people had town meetings, and they werent just for show, like today


Wouldn't it be impossible to stay in touch when you literally never interact with those who elect you? Now obviously they need some level of separation for safety purposes, but when you live like royalty separated from the very people who put you on high how hard are you going to try to remain in touch with them? Hell, don't most of them actually refer to as "little people?"

once again putting safety ahead of freedom.
dont you understand the terrorists have already won? They are called terrorists because they instill fear in the people so they will react just as we are, giving up or freedom to make us feel safe and secure, of which we are neither.

[ConHog]

but the congressman will still represent too many people

wussy, thought you were a big bad intimidating ranger.
Maybe physically, but not in intelligence and willingness to try new ideas?

Of course all neighborhoods need a level of govt that will respond to them
people are sick of living in a place dominated by the other party and their voice doesnt get heard at all
that level of govt is already there, it simply isnt representative of the lower and lower middle classes.

and of course your worrisome attitude of "Im not sure its workable'' is the same they said about the COTUS

I'm trying to get away from these kinds of wars in the normal threads. I didn't insult you at all, if you wish to continue the conversation then by all means. If you wish to flame you know the appropriate forum.

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm trying to get away from these kinds of wars in the normal threads. I didn't insult you at all, if you wish to continue the conversation then by all means. If you wish to flame you know the appropriate forum.

I didnt flame, I asked you a legitimate question. you do see the question mark at the end of the sentence dont you? It takes guts sometimes to try new ideas, do you have what it takes?

I simply asked, "well, you claim to be intimidating, does that translate into ideas and thoughts also,'' THATS ALL
Dont be so thin skinned dude.

[ConHog]

I didnt flame, I asked you a legitimate question. you do see the question mark at the end of the sentence dont you? It takes guts sometimes to try new ideas, do you have what it takes?

I simply asked, "well, you claim to be intimidating, does that translate into ideas and thoughts also,'' THATS ALL
Dont be so thin skinned dude.

Whatever dude, I am not thin skinned but I'm taking flack for taking part in the flaming in threads so I decide to forego that and now I'm taking flack for NOT flaming?

And it doesn't matter how you attempt to justify it, we all know you were attempting to bait me. I'm just saying you can have it.


See ya in another thread.

[LuvRPgrl]

Whatever dude, I am not thin skinned but I'm taking flack for taking part in the flaming in threads so I decide to forego that and now I'm taking flack for NOT flaming?

And it doesn't matter how you attempt to justify it, we all know you were attempting to bait me. I'm just saying you can have it.


See ya in another thread.


BALONEY, I asked if you have the intestional fortitude to support bold ideas and radical changes, or not, you brought up flaming and are dwelling on it

[OCA]

You didn't deflate anything. You admitted you were wrong, thanks for that. They do not control flow anymore than the Dem controlled Senate controls the flow. The Senate currently compromises because of numbers only, the House, run by Repubs does not, nothing gets passed really so by sheer numbers Repubs run congress. Nice try, better luck next time.
economically, when repubs are in power, we do better. Oh you mean like in 2008?:laugh2: :laugh2:


Solution isn't in Washington. Never will be. The solutions in the hearts and minds of the people.

And currently the people are sheep.

[fj1200]

The Senate currently compromises because of numbers only, the House, run by Repubs does not, nothing gets passed really so by sheer numbers Repubs run congress.

Nice try, better luck next time.

Who tried? I succeeded in making the point. The Senate always compromises except when its filibuster proof. When was the last time that occurred? Oh yeah, the Dems had that majority about two years ago briefly. It is also amusing that the Republicans, who have been in "control" for less than 12 months, are now on the hook for the every BO deficit.


Oh you mean like in 2008?:laugh2:
:laugh2:

Using your new definition of control, who was in control in 2008? Oh yeah, the Dems solidly controlled both the House and Senate.

[OCA]

Using your new definition of control, who was in control in 2008? Oh yeah, the Dems solidly controlled both the House and Senate.

But with Barry the buck stops there currently with you guys, doesn't it? If thats the case then Bush, a Repub gets the blame for the crashed economy and rightly so.

[fj1200]

But with Barry the buck stops there currently with you guys, doesn't it? If thats the case then Bush, a Repub gets the blame for the crashed economy and rightly so.

"You guys"? I'm just using your logic in assigning blame. You'll have to tell me what Bush did to "crash the economy" to see if he deserves blame for it. Bush didn't have much power after '06 which magnified his lame duck status; he couldn't have pushed anything through even if it was the correct course of action. Nevertheless, if you had started this whole thing out by blaming Bush and the Republican Congress, through 2006 anyway, in running up deficits and debt then you would have been rightly correct and Republican losses in '06 and '08 were deserved.

Oh, and "us guys" probably extend the blame to the Democrats in control of the Senate, nothing pro growth has come out, or is coming out, of there.

[OCA]

"You guys"? I'm just using your logic in assigning blame. You'll have to tell me what Bush did to "crash the economy" to see if he deserves blame for it. Bush didn't have much power after '06 which magnified his lame duck status; he couldn't have pushed anything through even if it was the correct course of action. Nevertheless, if you had started this whole thing out by blaming Bush and the Republican Congress, through 2006 anyway, in running up deficits and debt then you would have been rightly correct and Republican losses in '06 and '08 were deserved.

Oh, and "us guys" probably extend the blame to the Democrats in control of the Senate, nothing pro growth has come out, or is coming out, of there.

Yeah i'm sure it was the Dems who pushed for deregulation of Wall St. and the mortgage industry since they have always been the "deregulation" party.:laugh2:

[DragonStryk72]

Since we all know that by electing a Democrat or Republican to the Oval Office and Congress that nothing will change i'm just curious as to how you guys justify the prevailing thought here which is: "well at least he/she has a chance of winning".

Don't you guys get tired of the same old Washington run around?

Yes, hence why I don't vote for them. I got off that merry-go-round years ago. I tend to vote for third party candidates or independents. A or B is not the answer to our problems, and as long as the Dems and Republicans are allowing to dictate the game to us, they will continue to take us out behind the woodshed at their whim.

[fj1200]

Yeah i'm sure it was the Dems who pushed for deregulation of Wall St. and the mortgage industry since they have always been the "deregulation" party.:laugh2:

Democrat President Bill Clinton, Democrat Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Democrat Larry Summers... lobbied very hard to roll back Glass-Steagall. You'll also note that Democrat (http://avstop.com/news_december_2010/alfred_e_kahn_father_of_airline_deregulation_dies_ at_93.htm) Alfred E. Kahn was very influential in the wave of deregulation in the 70's, airline deregulation (1978) in particular, plus trucking deregulation (1980), railroad deregulation (1980), banking deregulation (1980)... All of those signed by Democrat President Jimmy Carter after having been passed by Democrat controlled House and Senate.

[DragonStryk72]

Wromg. Electing a Republican means at worst nothing will get worse. Electing a Democrat is a guarantee things will get wose. A No-brainer.

I don't mean offense, but were you here for Bush?


The electoral college encourages a 2 party system;



http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php

It is unlikely we will see a 3rd party canidate elected to the presidency.

You mean like Ireland, a stable country that has six major political parties? Most of it's economic issues right now stem from its connection to the EU.

Yes, of course the Electoral College assures us of their necessity, I mean, every agency in the entire government does that. What were you expecting them to say of themselves, "Well, see, it's turns out we're really useless and outdated, and we're holding everyone back. You should definitely shut us down so we can go back into the job market."?

[fj1200]

^You can have multiple major parties in a parliamentarian system without losing influence. Not so much here. It would be a great thing if you could vote Libertarian and then throw your support over to another conservative option without throwing away your vote. Maybe if we required runoff elections for all Federal offices, including POTUS electors, that would encourage other parties. Imagine if FL in 2000, and the other close states, simply held a runoff between Bush/Gore, the whole FL debacle would have been moot.

[DragonStryk72]

^You can have multiple major parties in a parliamentarian system without losing influence. Not so much here. It would be a great thing if you could vote Libertarian and then throw your support over to another conservative option without throwing away your vote. Maybe if we required runoff elections for all Federal offices, including POTUS electors, that would encourage other parties. Imagine if FL in 2000, and the other close states, simply held a runoff between Bush/Gore, the whole FL debacle would have been moot.

But that will only reinforce the exact problem we have now. A or B doesn't work in life. Your life could not be run on purely A or B options on a daily, and that is exactly what is occurring now in our country. There are no new options, because there are only two real voices, and they are all with lock step with "their" team. Anyone who isn't gets labeled as a kook, or otherwise trivialized. We reinforce the very core problems that are ripping us apart.

[fj1200]

But that will only reinforce the exact problem we have now. A or B doesn't work in life. Your life could not be run on purely A or B options on a daily, and that is exactly what is occurring now in our country. There are no new options, because there are only two real voices, and they are all with lock step with "their" team. Anyone who isn't gets labeled as a kook, or otherwise trivialized. We reinforce the very core problems that are ripping us apart.

You presume that multiple parties in parliament leads to a better total outcome whereas our system does have particular advantages; a more stable government is one. But it does present the opportunity to vote for a third party in greater numbers without being locked out of the process such as now. With those greater numbers comes legitimacy IMO. Not to say that you can't/won't still have kooks. ;)

Your overall argument is that we don't have A or B right now, it's that we have A or A. If anything with the legitimacy comes the opportunity for people to really know what those differences are. If the Libertarians ultimately gained over the Republicans, or even comes close, in an election then the R's at a national level are going to have to reflect the power of that vote.

[Gunny]

Or perhaps the merciless and cruel party. Unless you pick Sir Evil as your VP.

Oh, you missed my running mate?

[LuvRPgrl]

The Senate currently compromises because of numbers only, the House, run by Repubs does not, nothing gets passed really so by sheer numbers Repubs run congress. Nice try, better luck next time. Oh you mean like in 2008?:laugh2: :laugh2:



And currently the people are sheep.

2008, republicans didnt have control of congress,
from 2000 to 2006, the country did well even though pres Bush inheirited a struggling economy, just like obama did, but Bush turned it around, obama wana just made it worse

[avatar4321]

Since we all know that by electing a Democrat or Republican to the Oval Office and Congress that nothing will change i'm just curious as to how you guys justify the prevailing thought here which is: "well at least he/she has a chance of winning".

Don't you guys get tired of the same old Washington run around?

I dont justify it. I think it's ridiculous. Anyone you're willing to vote for has a chance of winning. And if you think that person deserves to win you should be activeley supporting him/her.

But the premise is a bit flawed. This is the United States of America. Change doesnt come through government, but by individual citizens changing their lives and circumstances and helping others do the same.