It Really Depends On If a Cand...

It really depends on if a candidate worth voting FOR ends up running. I will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton because she is NOT a person that can be trusted. Any woman who stays married to a man like Bill Clinton just to further her own goals will do and say anything to get what she wants.

I haven't seen a Republican worth voting for either unless Fred Thompson gets in the race.

What we the people need to do is ABOLISH the two party system and implement a system that opens elections up to any one who wants to run. Patisan politics is ruining this country.

If a voter chooses the lesser of two evils, that voter has STILL chosen evil.
seeker25801 seeker25801
41-45, M
8 Responses Apr 16, 2007

True, true.

Not only do we need to open the elections up to more parties and do away with the electoral college, we need to publicly fund elections and have a national primary to level the playing field.

I agree: no career politician can be trusted. <br />
<br />
I think the gov't should stay out of the business of legislating morality.<br />
<br />
As for my opinion of HC, it's based on much more than just the fact that she didn't divorce Bill. My main reasons for not wanting her for president are based on her stances on political issues. It's not the fact that she didn't divorce him that gives me pause, it's the reasons she didn't divorce him that worry me. It says alot about her character as a person.<br />
<br />
If she chose to stay with Bill for reason other than to further her own political career then I question her judgment. If it had only been one indiscretion with BC I could see her saying "Okay. I love you and I'm willing to work this out". But since it wasn't (allegedly) then I would hope she would have more respect for herself than to stay with a man who didn't respect her or the vows he took with her.<br />
<br />
Concerning Giuliani, the fact that he makes poor judgment calls in his personal life and the fact the he was unfaithful also says a lot about his character. That being said, I do agree with many of his political views. I would still be hard pressed to vote for him though.

The Bush/Gore and Bush/Kerry races are perfect examples of what I'm talking about. I feel there were far better choices from both parties than either of them. <br />
<br />
As far as a candidate that's shut out by the two-party system, I can't say I have a choice. I lean more towards the Libertarian side of politics but even the Libertarian party doesn't have a candidate I'd vote for at the moment.<br />
<br />
But if it were easier for 3rd, 4th, or even 5th party candidates to get on the ballots, and if we did away with the electoral college, we would have more of a true choice and our votes would actually count for something.

However, sometimes one of the candidates is more inept than the other, and by not voting, or by writing a candidate in, you end up with George Bush in office. I would argue that he is one of, if not the most inept President we've ever had. <br />
<br />
Here's a question, who would you like to see run for president that is shut out by the current two party system? I'd love to know!<br />
<br />
Thanks for the good debate.

Not voting has nothing to do with apathy and laziness. With the two-party system, voters do not get a true choice. It doesn't come down to who to vote FOR. It comes down to who to vote AGAINST. Basically, with the two-party system, we are given the choice of the lesser of two evils. If one chooses the lesser of two evils, one has still chosen evil. <br />
<br />
If, in my judgment, neither candidate is capable of leading this country, I will NOT vote for either. I will not be one of the voters responsible for putting an inept candidate in office. <br />
<br />
Sometimes the right action is to take no action.

and if someone chooses to simply NOT vote, they have choosen apathy and laziness.<br />
<br />
your explanation seems more like an excuse.

What about Ron Paul