problem: separation of church of state

Haha, no. I think things are better off more secular.

wrong. it doesnt have to be two party because if it was three party the most amount of people that could be happy is 34%, which leaves alot of people pissed off. also, most of the goals of third parties are just to have the bigger parties take up the flag for their cause.

That's bullshit. There have been presidents in the past from the Federalist party, the Whig Party, The Torrie Party, it's a 2 party system now because people will only RECENTLY pick Republican or Democrat. This is a trend that's only been within the last 50 years or so.

We CAN pick someone else, we just don't.

That's bullshit. There have been presidents in the past from the Federalist party, the Whig Party, The Torrie Party, it's a 2 party system now because people will only RECENTLY pick Republican or Democrat. This is a trend that's only been within the last 50 years or so.

We CAN pick someone else, we just don't.

yeah, but back then it didnt matter who you elected because presidents did nothing. up until FDR the presidency didn't really have any power and there were maybe a handful presidents (Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt along with the other trust busters and Woodrow Wilson) that ever actually did anything. Not to mention that the parties you mentioned probably don't even exist, so I hardly see the relevancy.

One of my main issues is America's obsession with money.  This probably isn't limited to America, either.  Everything I see is tied to money in some way.  When I read about the latest hit movie, I don't hear about its artistic merits, but rather $45 MILLION DOLLAR OPENING WEEKEND.  Even our political race is focused on who can grub up the most cash for their campaign.  When I watch TV, it's obvious that the TV station is maximizing their ads (it's sad when the programming to ad ratio is about 1:1)...for more money.  Rap stars, basically our youth's role models, praise money and power while denouncing any sense of morals.  Our politicians have even begun to sell their vote to the highest bidder.  Basically corporations run our lives.  They have more power (legally and financially) than the common man. 

Anything that doesn't have money-making power is hardly noteworthy anymore.  I understand that the capitalist system is what keeps our economy in shape (though it's pretty much receded at the moment), but the system has turned into such an obsession that it's ridiculous.

There isn't anything wrong with America that a change in President won't fix.

The main problem is how people in other countries view America. The fact is, the people who migrate here and actually spend a lengthy amount of time here are nothing but thrilled out of their minds to be living in the greatest country in the world. It's the people who don't live here who just see us on their news, or in the newspaper, or in propaganda videos who get this warped view and end up hating us.

I have lived in the U.S. for a lengthy amount of time and I certainly don't think that the U.S. is the best country in the world and I believe there are many things that can be fixed. For instance the school system where about no-one goes to college and responsibility for own learning is unheard of. Even college students need to be assigned homework before they even bother to do work.

Also if you are poor in the U.S. you will end up in horrible schools, the colleges will weight down your GPA, because you went to a bad school and your school didn't offer any AP courses. Even if you get to a good college you will meet tons of problems, you have to take up more than a million dollar in loan because the college prices are extremely high. The previous high school has  probably skipped a lot of the syllabus or you don't need to understand the material to achieve a high grade and then you will fail and have to leave the college.

However, if you are rich in the U.S. then everything is impeccable. You can attend the best elementary and high schools in the U.S., even the public schools are very good and that's because they receive a lot more funding than public schools in poor areas. If you are poor it is very hard to achieve something and most poor people don't have the willpower. Therefore the U.S. has very many poor people and a lot of criminality and stupid people who base their morals on religious values.

Also, in spite of these problems, the U.S. doesn't even have the highest GDP in the world. In the recent years the U.S. has been beaten by many countries because of stupid actions from the Congress and the President.

I'm not saying that the U.S. is bad in every single aspect. There are many good things about the U.S., but it's certainly not perfect.

That's bullshit. There have been presidents in the past from the Federalist party, the Whig Party, The Torrie Party, it's a 2 party system now because people will only RECENTLY pick Republican or Democrat. This is a trend that's only been within the last 50 years or so.

We CAN pick someone else, we just don't.

Your an American and you don't even know your own system. In the U.S it's worthless to vote for another candidate and that has been proven severall times in the past. If you are going to get any votes you need to get above 50%/majority in a state and if you don't then you will not get a single vote from that state. I will give you an example.

Let's say in an election there are three parties. Party 1,2, and 3. If in the previous election party 1 got 60% and party 3 got 40% then party 1 won easily. However, if in the next election party 1 divides itself and becomes party 1 and 2 and get together 60% of the votes while party 1 still got 40%. In countries apart from the U.S Party 1 and 2 will win if they go together as a coalition, but not in the U.S. Since you have to win the state and if we presume that they divide themself equally, then party 1 will get 30%, Party 2 will get 30% and party 4 will get 40% and party 4 gets all of the votes even though they only had 40% of the votes the party will probably get 75% of the votes from the electoral college. Therefore it's impossible to come in as a third party and voting for a third party is similar to voting for the party you support the least.

Up during the past no third party has ever won an election and that should ring a bell.

man who taught you american history

you have clearly demonstrated you do not know/understand how american politics worked in the 18th and 19th century, so dont try to pass off his argument as being irrelevant.

Mr. Kernaghan, but yeah maybe he was just wrong. I am open to admitting I'm wrong, but either way, you can't say that politics now is what it was then so saying "we elected third party canidates over 100 years ago under completely different circumstances" isn't really proof that a third party candidate could realistically be elected now.

haha how can you defend this post: (???)

after he says there has only been a two party system for half a century~

There has been a two party/one party system since George Washington. Not a single time has a third party won an election, the only times when it switch is for instance if a party divides itself. One of the parties will die and there are two parties left. The reason is because it's impossible to have three sucessful parties in the U.S.

Mr. Kernaghan, but yeah maybe he was just wrong. I am open to admitting I'm wrong, but either way, you can't say that politics now is what it was then so saying "we elected third party canidates over 100 years ago under completely different circumstances" isn't really proof that a third party candidate could realistically be elected now.

Calling the Federalist, Whig, Torrie, etc parties "Third parties" just shows your ignorance. They weren't third parties back then. It was NOT a Republican and Democrat dominant system back then. Republican/Democrat dominant politics is RECENT. You REALLY need to educate yourself before you go ranting on a forum.

The reason that NOW it is just Republican and Democrat getting votes is because we only vote for those two. If we voted as a country for let's say the Green party and Nader then the Green party would be one of the dominant parties in the future. It's not set in stone people! It changes over time. The Democratic Party didn't even exist in the beginnings of our political system. And before anyone says it, no I'm not voting for Nader. It was an example.

What's wrong with America? The 10% that are idiots seem to shout louder than the 90% of intelligent people can combined. Just look at this thread.

Calling the Federalist, Whig, Torrie, etc parties "Third parties" just shows your ignorance. They weren't third parties back then. It was NOT a Republican and Democrat dominant system back then. Republican/Democrat dominant politics is RECENT. You REALLY need to educate yourself before you go ranting on a forum.

The reason that NOW it is just Republican and Democrat getting votes is because we only vote for those two. If we voted as a country for let's say the Green party and Nader then the Green party would be one of the dominant parties in the future. It's not set in stone people! It changes over time. The Democratic Party didn't even exist in the beginnings of our political system. And before anyone says it, no I'm not voting for Nader. It was an example.

What's wrong with America? The 10% that are idiots seem to shout louder than the 90% of intelligent people can combined. Just look at this thread.

This doesn't help your argument at all. Ignoring the fact that all those parties where just early versions of democrats/republicans that just had different issues to be mad about, you are still admitting that forever and ever no one outside the two main parties will ever get elected, regardless of what they are named. I'm not ranting either, I'm am pretty open about admiting I am wrong.

The green party could never win an election. They only have a stance on one or two issues. A candidate from a third party could never run the country and thats why they'll never win. They're whole intent is to get the bigger parties to care. Yeah, legally they could, but what is legal and what is realistic is completely different. No one is going to vote for candidates that don't even take a stance on shit like economy or foreign affairs.

So yeah I admit my ignorance there, but your whole logic is flawed.

Edit: Republicans usually agree with a lot of republican ideas, and democrats generally agree with democrats on things, so I don't some sort of third party that runs on the basis of conservative/liberal mix of ideas couldnt really win, because people would just vote for an existing party out of habit or actual logic, plus their are an infinite combination of stances from the two parties, so I'm not sure what third party you have in mind that could actually win an election ever.