Yay, another political thread!

[Alpha]

You don't have an applicable option for me. I'm not eligible to vote, and if I was, I'd most likely not vote. If I did, it'd be for a third party candidate, probably Jill Stein (she's Green right? I have never heard or read her name in any news ever).

Why vote when there are really only two options? Two remarkably similar options. The entire spread of the political spectrum from Obama to Romney would be captured by about 45% of ours, encompassing the centre-right National Party (socially 'liberalish', fiscally 'conservativeish' = Obama, currently in power with about 45% support, which is remarkably high) and the Conservative Party (with about 3% support, which is insufficient for Parliamentary representation = Romney).

I'd not vote for either of these. If those were my only two legitimate options, I'd feel disenfranchised. My ideologies are barely expressed. Which is why I have HUGE reservations about the entire American political system. My government is comprised of a coalition of four parties (National, libertarians, indigenous, and a party I don't have an adequate label for). Not one. The opposition is another four parties, including social democrats, environmentalist social democrats, nationalists/populists, and socialists/indigenous rights. If you fit into one of these, you can be represented in Parliament. I'm immensely proud of this system, and incredibly bemused by the non-choice that is the American election process.

[Sasquatch]

Why vote when there are really only two options. Two remarkably similar options. The entire spread of the political spectrum from Obama to Romney would be captured by about 45% of ours, encompassing the centre-right National Party (socially liberalish, fiscally conservativeish)= Obama, currently in power with 45-ish% support, which is remarkably high) and the Conservative Party (with about 3% support, which is insufficient for Parliamentary representation (=Romney).

Just because neither party is as extreme as you'd like to see does not in the least mean that they are "remarkably similar". And where do you get that Obama is "centre-right" or in any way conservative, even "conservativeish"? The man has made plans -- some of which, followed through on -- to nationalize nearly every aspect of business ... that's nowhere near "conservativeish". Romney, while more conservative (read: less extreme liberal) than Obama, isn't even conservative.

Did anybody watch the Vice Presidential Candidates debate last night? I'd like to get a take on that. I can't remember which commentator said it, but I'd have to agree with him ... if somebody was to read the transcript, it was a tie; if they were to listen to it, Biden won; and if they were to watch it, Ryan won.

Biden has historically been a tough debate opponent. He was obviously prepared with points, data, and rebuttals to expected counter-points. He also looked aggressive and proactive -- extremely different than Obama in his debate with Romney last week -- as opposed to Ryan, who was more passive and reactive. Unfortunately for him, Biden went too far with it. He grinned like an idiot and chuckled, even laughed, during most of the time Ryan was speaking -- this went well past reflecting confidence and instead displayed arrogance and disrespect. Not only that, but also, the vast majority of his "points" and "data" has been debunked. There comes a point that one cannot blame false information ignorance or slight manipulation of facts, but must admit that it is a flat-out lie. Simple facts are in direct contrast to many of Biden's attacks on Romney/Ryan policies (their Medicare plan, their "five trillion dollar tax cut" that doesn't exist, etc. etc.).

If I was extremely ignorant of any facts, Biden would have looked great. Disrespectful and rude, very much, but still good. It's just too bad for him that most people that give a damn about a Vice Presidential Candidate debate are typically a little more politically enlightened than the average voter.