The Pros and Cons of Hillary for President

ScienceChic wrote: Perhaps, but has our system really changed all that much since the last time a 3rd party was elected? I just don't see it, though admittedly I am not up on my government history to say with certainty. I don't believe a huge revision of our system is required, I think all that's needed is for the middle and lower class to finally understand, in significant enough numbers, just how bad the income disparity is and remove those who have built and enabled it over the decades. The rich are getting richer without working harder for it, and that leads to radical change; my only hope is that is a peaceful one.

The last time a 3rd Party candidate was elected to what office SC? The last 3rd party candidate to win at the gubernatorial level was Jesse Ventura. The guy up in Alaska is a Republican turned independent and so was Chafee in Rhode Island and Crist in Florida. The last time a third party candidate got even one electoral vote in the presidential race was 1968 - Wallace. The one and only time a third party candidate garnered more electoral votes than one of, not both of, the two primary parties was in 1860. One of the candidates from the two major parties of the era has won every presidential election that has been held since the passage of the 12th Amendment. We have never had a 3rd party president, we've never had a Congress in which either chamber had a 3rd party majority, to the best of my knowledge no State has ever had either chamber of their legislature with a 3rd party majority. Know what a good showing is for a third party candidate? 5% of the vote. Teddy Roosevelt did the best for a 3rd party candidate, running for the Progressive party, with roughly 27% of the vote and 88 electoral votes, but even he gained his following first as a member of one of the two major parties.

And really, when you get down to the brass tacks of it, there are only two lines of thought with regards to government. Those who want more of it and those who want less of it; the rest are little more than subsets of these two main groups which might actually hold some views in common with both of the main groups at the same time such as wanting more environmental regulations but also desiring lower taxes.

Two things are going to have to happen to undue this hegemony - repeal of the 12th Amendment and abolishing the primary system which allows the parties to reduce the potential field to the least objectionable candidate from both parties before the general election is held.

I voted 3rd party once, for Ross Perot. What it got me was Bill Clinton as president for my troubles. That's not a mistake I will make twice and I'm not alone in that regard. There are some who voted for Ralph Nader and got GW Bush for their troubles. Do you think another left leaning person is going to run against DeGette in the Colorado 1st CD even as a 3rd party candidate? Not on your life, they don't want to risk splitting the vote and getting a Republican for their troubles.

No, the problem has to be cured by garnering signatures to appear on the ballot and a dismantling of the primary system now in place. That's the only way you are going to get anything other than the lesser of evils on the final ballot, the only way that the best candidate for the job has a chance of winning regardless of party affiliation.

ScienceChic wrote: I also believe it will require a fundamental shift in the way we live - that will be the hard part because just voting out the career parties isn't enough, we all will have to make an effort to be less materialistic, and less wasteful - individuals and companies alike. Change is hard and people do it only when faced with a less pleasant option. Products must become a lot less disposable, a lot less processed/fast/easy/cheap - they must become as they once were - durable and long-lasting, requiring service to maintain. The shift from manufacturing as priority and the public buying massive quantities of stuff to keep the economy afloat must shift to spending more for fewer items that will last and require people to fix/maintain them - which would keep more jobs local. I have no idea how any of that happens, but it's the future I see in which we survive (what we have now is not sustainable). A return to tradition in some ways.

It can't happen for one simple reason, microprocessors. You simply can't buy anything at all today that doesn't have them and all of them are created specifically for one item and one item only. I had a nice flat screen TV recently with a blank screen. I took it to a TV repairman and was told that because it wasn't the power supply it was going to be less expensive to replace the TV than it would be to repair it. The washing machines and refrigerators sold today are also microprocessor controlled, it is how they achieve their superior energy usage abilities. Something on the board goes south and so does your refrigerator or washing machine because, unless it dies within the first couple of years, by the time the board needs replacing there are no boards available to replace it with.

My first car had wheel bearings that I could replace myself. I also had to repack those bearings a couple of times a year with fresh grease. If I didn't get it put back together correctly I had to buy new bearings and races, which were pretty inexpensive because there were a number of vehicles by all manufacturers who used that same bearing for their vehicles, and pretty easy to install myself with a couple of hand tools. The Jetta I drive today has sealed bearings that have to be pressed out and pressed back in. They are a lot more efficient than the ones in my old Rambler were, which is necessary to achieve the federal mandates required under the CAFE laws, but I have to take the vehicle to a mechanic to have them replaced and it costs me roughly $500 a wheel to replace one if it goes bad. But for the federal government's CAFE standards the type of bearing in my Rambler, which was the same type of bearing in use for the better part of 50 years, might still be in use.

And that, right there, is the assault on the middle class that the left doesn't want to talk about. No longer can a middle class father take a Saturday afternoon and fix the car is something goes wrong with it. Between all the computers in the vehicle that you need a specialized reader and software to access and interpret properly, and all the specialized, read expensive to replace, parts, many of which are electronically controlled by the ECU, it doesn't matter how well you maintain your vehicle - at some point in time those electronics are going to fail. The cost to replace a fuel pump in a 2013 Chevy Cruze is between $550 and $680 dollars, labor included. And if your fuel pressure drops below the pressure the computer in the car is expecting the car won't run, period, the ECU won't allow the car to start. And good luck figuring that out it's the fuel pump in the shade of the tree at your house.

I've got a lot more on that subject, but the bottom line is this - it is federal regulations enacted on industry that makes today's purchases unlike those of yesteryear. It is one thing for a car company to offer computer control of everything having to do with the operation of the vehicle, quite another for the federal government to burden them with so many mandates that the only way to achieve them is to resort to putting computers in control of every facet of operation. That's the war on the middle class that the federal government is currently waging. That is what is taking so much money out of their pockets. It costs them more to purchase the product up front because of all of the R&D that is required to adhere to federal regulations and it costs them more to maintain and repair the product because of all the computerized control those regulations cause.

And I haven't even started in yet on all of those regulations as it pertains to preventing new competition from entering the marketplace and which serve mostly to protect the existing companies producing a product and the increased costs as a result of that to the middle class . . .

HEARTLESS wrote: Pro: The Libs haven't totally destroyed this nation yet, give them another 4 years.
Con: See the above.

Pros: Bill gets an office in the WH again, and can check out the latest interns.

Cons: um, can't think of any!

Pros: can't think of any

Cons: Hillary and Bill

Con-victs Hillary & Bill?

With criminal charges pending against Robert Menendez, the obstruction of justice and Congress exhibited by Hillary and Holder, the capital D in Democrat obviously stands for Deception.