PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
actually, doesn't that just prove that the right is the lesser of two evils?.......
As a black American, you'd be nuts not to be a republican
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
actually, doesn't that just prove that the right is the lesser of two evils?.......
Canceled.2014.1
New member
So you say. But then, you also said Mccain would win big.
It accomplishes plenty for me. The same argument could be made that any single vote is irrelevant. But I doubt you would encourage people to stay home on election day. First of all, if you vote for one of these two you are supporting them in what they do after they are elected. So the ills in our country are laid at your feet. Enjoy that.
Second of all, if more and more people showed the courage to ignore all the party hacks that rail against 3rd party candidates, we might actually see some change. And THAT is worth my vote.
And third, the two major parties cannot ignore a good showing by the 3rd party candidates. They will see it as a call for change.
I am neither a fool nor am I separated from reality. I am one who believes you never accept less than the best. If you think Obama or Mitt is the best for this nation, then cast your vote for them. I do not see either as the best option. Hell, I don't even see either of them as honest, much less as a great leader. If you are willing to continue to accept that a politician will lie to you on the campaign trail and then do what he can to further the goals of his financial backers, then by all means vote for one of the two.
No, my 3rd party candidates have not won. But this election has seen a groundswell of support for other options. A look at Ron Paul will show you that we are hungry for a leader with character and integrity. That we want someone who will not flipflop on serious issues. That Paul is not going to get the party nomination says more about the media and the big money influence than about the quality of the candidate.
If you wish to call me a fool for demanding more than the status quo, so be it. But I will tell you this, if you are willing to cast your vote for a candidate that will bring little or no change, that is bought and paid for, and that will lie at the drop of a hat, you are wasting your vote, imho.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
No, it doesn't.
It just proves that democrats are weak and often unprincipled.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Amen Bro.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I agree with Lo. From bitter experience I've learned that voting third party is a wasted vote. Unless we change our system to a proportionate one then we are pretty much stuck with out two party system and you are better off joining one of the coalitions within either of the two existing parties. That doesn't mean you have to be a partisan, but it does mean you have to work with other groups to build a coalition. If you don't, you'll be on the outside looking in and not getting anything done.
If our system is non-responsive and non-repersentative it is probably a reflection of the publics apathy and not a flaw in our political system, which I happen to think is a very good one.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Well I was agreeing with you until you went on another liberal rant. LOL
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I agree with Dixie, on principle, about the point he is trying to make about our two party system. I agree with Lo, in principle, about his ad homs.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Well that's a very principled stand and I congratulate you for that as I've been down that road before. However, what did it accomplish? The current system is still being perpetuated with no indication that it will change anytime soon.
Voting for the 'lesser of 2 evils' or voting for your incredibly mis-characterized 'all white 'party' amounts to the same thing.....
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
ad hom·i·nem (h m -n m , -n m). adj. Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason.
My argument is, it is "foolish" to vote 3rd party, and those who do so are "fools." That is not ad hominem, that is logic and reason.
You are often accustomed to seeing "fool" and "foolish" misused as ad homs, but this is a case where the terms fit appropriately, and are not.
Again, I take no pleasure in calling WB a fool, and I don't do this to distract from his or my argument, it's just a logical deduction based on the facts.
I'll say.....getting smarter at your age is an unusual occurrence...a C T is recommended...
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I don't think she's getting smarter, I just think it shocked her when her "free thinking" actually kicked in for once, and didn't know how to react.
Cut her some slack!
Golly gee wilikers you mean the republicans are gonna let Blacks vote so long as they prove they are Americans....well I'll be doggone, the conversion is over, the transformation complete, the mind changed.....We all know the Cadillac mom was a myth, and food stamps help white people, and welfare, well that helps white people too...and dog whistles are for dogs....
I guess they forgot to inform that tea party crowd. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...ty-arkansas-leader-racist-joke_n_1597334.html
"[Richard] Viguerie hoped that Ronald Reagan. the candidate of the economic right, fresh from his third term as governor of California and starting to look toward national polities, could somehow be persuaded to run for the presidency on the American Independent Party ticket with George Wallace, the candidate of the social right. At the time, Reagan was growing eager to pursue a broader role in national politics. As he wrote to Lemuel Boulware, his old friend from GE, "l promise you I'll be trying to stir up the business world, including the exhortation to fight back against government's increasing lust for power over free enterprise." He even told the aging GE executive that an article Boulware had written for Human Events (a conservative magazine) had been the basis for some of his own speeches. Boulware still had great hopes for Reagan. When the politician began a radio program in 1974, Boulware wrote to him, "You are the lone one with the knowledge, facility, zest and credibility needed to make the initially disillusioning facts be both economically understandable and humanly attractive." Kim Phillips-Fein (1979 p219 'Invisible Hands')
"You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a by-product of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.” Lee Atwater, Republican strategist, 1981, describing the Southern Strategy
"Anti-government sentiment in the United States has risen and fallen in different eras. During the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson, U.S. government programs were expanded; Social Security and Medicare came into being, artists and the arts received federal support, the plight of poor American children was addressed on several fronts, and the Southern system of racial apartheid was gradually but dramatically dismantled. It was this last intervention that roused anti-government feeling in many white Americans. They were particularly outraged when Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy called out the National Guard to enforce racial integration of public educational institutions." Caroline Hamilton (http://www.hnn.us/articles/129715.html)
"....A new survey by the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality offers fresh insight into the racial attitudes of Tea Party sympathizers. "The data suggests that people who are Tea Party supporters have a higher probability"—25 percent, to be exact—"of being racially resentful than those who are not Tea Party supporters," says Christopher Parker, who directed the study. "The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race." http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/25/are-tea-partiers-racist.html
I guess they forgot to inform that tea party crowd. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...ty-arkansas-leader-racist-joke_n_1597334.html
"[Richard] Viguerie hoped that Ronald Reagan. the candidate of the economic right, fresh from his third term as governor of California and starting to look toward national polities, could somehow be persuaded to run for the presidency on the American Independent Party ticket with George Wallace, the candidate of the social right. At the time, Reagan was growing eager to pursue a broader role in national politics. As he wrote to Lemuel Boulware, his old friend from GE, "l promise you I'll be trying to stir up the business world, including the exhortation to fight back against government's increasing lust for power over free enterprise." He even told the aging GE executive that an article Boulware had written for Human Events (a conservative magazine) had been the basis for some of his own speeches. Boulware still had great hopes for Reagan. When the politician began a radio program in 1974, Boulware wrote to him, "You are the lone one with the knowledge, facility, zest and credibility needed to make the initially disillusioning facts be both economically understandable and humanly attractive." Kim Phillips-Fein (1979 p219 'Invisible Hands')
"You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a by-product of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.” Lee Atwater, Republican strategist, 1981, describing the Southern Strategy
"Anti-government sentiment in the United States has risen and fallen in different eras. During the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson, U.S. government programs were expanded; Social Security and Medicare came into being, artists and the arts received federal support, the plight of poor American children was addressed on several fronts, and the Southern system of racial apartheid was gradually but dramatically dismantled. It was this last intervention that roused anti-government feeling in many white Americans. They were particularly outraged when Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy called out the National Guard to enforce racial integration of public educational institutions." Caroline Hamilton (http://www.hnn.us/articles/129715.html)
"....A new survey by the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality offers fresh insight into the racial attitudes of Tea Party sympathizers. "The data suggests that people who are Tea Party supporters have a higher probability"—25 percent, to be exact—"of being racially resentful than those who are not Tea Party supporters," says Christopher Parker, who directed the study. "The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race." http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/25/are-tea-partiers-racist.html
Socrtease
Verified User
You know what Dixie, I have spoken to more Republicans that plan on voting for Johnson this past week than I thought possible. They are Fiscally conservative/Socially Moderate and to a person they have said they are not going to let the Republican party count on them anymore. They are tired of the party of "Save Our Souls". So now if Johnson can't win, I hope he does ruin Mitt's chances in several states. It is time for the Eisenhower/Goldwater Republicans to take back the party or let it self destruct. It is not the job of the Government to feed me or save my soul.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, we're going to let people vote who can prove they have the legitimate right to vote and haven't already voted.
Do you want me to illustrate what is about to happen, if you don't allow fair elections with such standards of verification? After losing a few elections, the other side finally realizes they can't win elections unless they pull the same stunts and stuff the ballot box too... so they do. Then what we have, is a total hot mess, because NONE of the votes are legitimate. We simply have a contest every 4 years to see who can cheat the best. Those who win political power, are the ones who were best at cheating, and once they are in power, fuck you all. Now is that the kind of system our founding fathers envisioned? I don't think so.
We are going to maintain integrity in the election process because we HAVE to. Not because Republicans want to disenfranchise people, not because Republicans want to prevent people from voting, and not because Republicans hate brown people... but because elections have to be legitimate.
Socrtease
Verified User
The lesser of two evils is. . . Evil.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Johnson has as much chance of being elected as I do.
Nice to know you fully support and encourage another 4 years of Barack Hussein Obama.
Give the man a Big "O" bumper sticker!
Socrtease
Verified User
No, I am not voting for either man because both men are the same. Go look at the video I posted on Mitt holding opposing views on several different issues. You are so DESPERATE to get Obama out of office that you will vote for a guy that 4 short years ago held almost the same views as Obama. You are so myopic, you can't even see that.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, Mitt Romney is a lot of things, but he's not a Marxist Socialist. I just fundamentally disagree they have the same views. Mitt is a businessman, Obama doesn't know or comprehend the first thing about business. Romney has been a success in business, Obama has never accomplished anything in business. Romney believes in the power of capitalism and free enterprise, while Obama reviles them and wants to destroy capitalism. Romney believes in supply-side economics, while Obama believes in Keynesian economics. The two men are as different as night and day.
But beyond ALL of this... the REALITY is, one of two men will be elected president on Nov. 6, and neither of them are Gary Johnson. Sorry, that's reality.