jackson33

JohnB; What we're discussing this thread, is the switching from a major party to running as a "no affiliation" candidate or as an Independent. In theory any person, with any ideology or one that could run under one of the current 20+ established parties, will attempt to run as one of the majors. For instance both Ron and Rand Paul are in fact members of the Libertarian Party, but are registered and run as Republicans. Party policy or Platforms change according to who wins their Primary, ahead of a general election. Basically, in this case, if their were a VIABLE "Tea Party" (there is none) Rubio and maybe 50-100 other candidates for the US Congress or a thousand running for State Legislatures, would have run under that party and probably done quite well, IMO. As I understand your parliamentary system, they require a majority to rule or without that majority either a coalition will form or a new election called. Here, so long as we have a two party system, Independent Candidates or member of another party, can option to join either party, called to caucus with. As explained above this is usually pre-determined and done by affiliating with that party ahead of the elections. Florida, already has a "time limit" for switching parties to run which is SIX months ahead of the National Election, due to there early primary allowed time for Crist to run as an Independent. ALL there legislation is asking is that this time limit be extended a year or about 18 months (12 months ahead of primary) that the person running under some party actually be a registered member of that party. Since Independent usually means no party affiliation, unaffiliated members of the electorate that wish to run, would either have to run as an In dependant or register with some party 12 months ahead of the Florida Primaries. From opening post link;

It may be wrong, but if I owned a Company, the PRESIDENT of US and staff members continuously try to undermine or members of that party that will NOT participate in dialog, I just might contribute to their loyal opposition, but then that's just me....but;

Pangloss; The Alvin Green story is interesting, but there have been Alvin Green's elected to office in the past even a few people that died or people that have gone to prison, which show an electorate ignorance. (By the way I'm predicting Green will receive 25-30% of the vote this election). However we're talking about Rubio over Crist as the Republican choice and I do believe there is a difference. Rubio is the Speaker of the Florida House, an attorney and a degree in Political Science.

To preface my comments bascule, you are one of the best political posters I've noted on any forum over many years, even political forums. You have your convictions, are passionate about them and most important consistent. Rarely do you use foul language, are insulting or use tactics to evade unwelcome comments.... Now for the big "BUT"; In your above comments post #25, you admit not even having access to Fox News or Cable Channels (any), only watching them when your on the road, yet have formed your opinions on them, according to your political conviction, based on antidotal personal observation, telling me your accepting other political pundits interpretations of what's actually aired. Myself being in the opposite political ideology camp, find many Fox programs, boringly liberal with several news programs too liberal in content and see some as over the hill, too conservative, NO fair and balanced. One example, that will draw some fire here, IS the Glen Beck Show. In my mind he represents the average person, with an ability to speak in an articulate manner that somehow got a platform to speak his views. As most "alcoholics" (self admitted) I feel he relies too much on religion (preaches too much), but has done more to bring the History of this Country back into national discourse than anybody in my lifetime, bar none. It's not always pretty, it's not always to my liking (dirty laundry) but so far IMO it has been, informative, accurate and he has displayed the problems of the past, that it would seem have been forgotten and being relived in many ways over the past 10 years or so. While I would never recommend you listen to Hannity or a few other shows, but I would challenge to watch Beck or Shep Smith News shows (two per weekday) for at least two weeks, maybe two Sundays of Fox News Sunday or the Stossel's week-end show. Possibly I'm wrong but with my little knowledge of your background or reasons for your convictions, the viewpoints I do recognize are very common and those with like minded understanding (to you) watch some of these shows. I would say of say 40 different shows on Fox, both News or Financial, probably 20 of them opposed Bush's policy either then or now, almost to the same degree as they seem to oppose the current administration and up to ten are A political (to both major parties) and 5 lean liberal.

zapatos; I told moon, he would have to ask the folks there, as I have no idea how they feel. I would assume many of them are quite happy, then adding from my post to you that much of third world migration is INTO the big cities, where at least some food/shelter/necessities are available. The discussion on this thread however, is not promoting 'Big Cities' but that with all this over population of the WORLD peoples, all 6+B could in fact could live in the State of Texas, with less density than in those two towns, or the same in many others, it's a hypothetical scenario.

For a good understanding of the US electoral system today, the following explanation is one of the best. It's a short 6 page pdf....

This ought to get a reaction; Fox News has just announced a multi year extended contract with Mr. Williams....

I don't know CP, but if 70% of the general public supports the minority Union Led riots, one would think the Nation is pretty far right. This went on in 1995 as well, with the unions getting the then reform act stopped. What I don't understand are those actually rioting, at least from pictures, who seem to be 30-40 years from retirement and should know their current system can't be maintained. Today's news, several pictures...

Between Mumbai and Kalkata India, about 27 million people live in 1025 sqkm (1sqkm= 2.59 sqmi) or about 27,000 people per sqkm, or about 2655 square miles. Houston Texas, the city has 601 sqmi and the greater Houston area 12,500 sqmi. In theory up tp 125 million people could live in the area of greater Houston alone, well over 1/3rd the current US population. http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html People already in live in very large cities, in most cases with little or no natural resources and are doing just fine. Some have business parks or as in Houston, a factory may be in the middle of a residential area or as in NYC where it's almost all small business or service business for outside NYC, but most needed natural resources and products are transported (piped/rail/truck) into the area. The MYTH then is just that, a Myth. The overstatement that the Earth cannot support nearly 7B people, is incorrect, in fact it's THAT reason (can support), 7B people are here. There are many other factors to why problems exist in many parts of the world, in part including political policy, transportation of goods/cost and/or infrastructure, just a couple. I personally believe North America could grow the food we use/waste daily for NA for every person now on this planet TODAY and maybe another 5B people or so, then with technology advancements in agriculture (yields), animal production (farming), fertilizers and so on, alone in 20 years maybe another 10B. An interesting comparison, might be ANTS. I don't know who figured this out, but it's said ants out weigh humans on the planet by 50 to one, for every human by pound, there are 50 pounds of ants. While, Religion is NOT part of the threads intent, many including myself say religion is a CAUSE for anything seen as over population. This would be a reasonably new factor however, as abortion, contraceptives have not been around that long and some religions do object to there use. Occasionally I'll use this argument under "drumming down" of society as many of the poorer societies are very religious.

IMO and to make a very long story short, their success was determined by leadership, not to say failures are a result of lacking leadership. The minors themselves had some good leadership (think the shift foreman being credited) by establishing a plan and once found the President of Chili "Sebastian Pinera" literally took charge, saying those minors would be recovered alive, no questions aloud. As for us billion or so watching the event, it was as inspirational as anything in my lifetime (minor event), to how human kind could react, with a little more of this style leadership. What impressed me, aside from the leadership, was the Chilean Patriotism shown. A 20 year old return to democracy, having had so many problems, including a recent major earthquake. I hope this was noticed by many in South America, whom seem to be trending socialistic.

Azure; OK, on earth humans are people or people are humans, not dolphins or anything else. If you would like an addition to my post, then what makes Tony unique (your apparent problem) could not have been logically 100% duplicated anyplace, anytime in the history of the Universe, eternal or back to some Big Bang and another definition for matter. He is, as is every human/person biologically different, genetically and in other ways different to any other human living or has ever lived on the planet. Yes he has similar genetic characteristics of Dolphins or a Rose Bush, but different in total...