New Boss same as old Boss

SmarterThanYou said:
no, you do pick based on others opinions. you pick based on who can win, not who is best for the nation or who will actually change the way things get done.
Click to expand...

I vote based on my opinion of who can win. And figure in who scares me the least.
Many of the third party types scare the heck out of me.
Quasi Libertarian types who would promote business running everything for instance.
 
uscitizen said:
I vote based on my opinion of who can win. And figure in who scares me the least.
Many of the third party types scare the heck out of me.
Quasi Libertarian types who would promote business running everything for instance.
Click to expand...

So, you'd rather vote for the lesser of two evils, one of which is guaranteed to win or scares you the least, and gives lip service about change and serving the people while they are practicing the same backroom deals of letting business run everything instead of the upfront in your face not lying to you about letting free market or business run everything, but who MIGHT actually listen to what people tell him to do?

good call, thanks for playing.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
So, you'd rather vote for the lesser of two evils, one of which is guaranteed to win or scares you the least, and gives lip service about change and serving the people while they are practicing the same backroom deals of letting business run everything instead of the upfront in your face not lying to you about letting free market or business run everything, but who MIGHT actually listen to what people tell him to do?

good call, thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

A bit self-righteous. The deal is that in any given election, there are basically 2 candidates who stand a snowball's chance of getting elected. It's easy to say both candidates are part of the big corporate machine, and ergo, they are the same, but that is oversimplifying to a fault. The fact is that America under Obama will look 180 degrees different from America under McCain, just as an America under Gore would look 180 degrees different than America did under Bush.

That's what we have. Like I said, it might make you feel all warm inside to vote 3rd party, like you're part of the big revolution, and it probably sounds good at cocktail parties - but the plain fact is that 3rd parties are losing ground, there is no revolution, and we're currently stuck with a 2-party system. It's lazy to just say "oh, they're both the same, so I'm doing something with integrity", but that's just news from another planet. It doesn't exist in reality.
 
Onceler said:
A bit self-righteous. The deal is that in any given election, there are basically 2 candidates who stand a snowball's chance of getting elected. It's easy to say both candidates are part of the big corporate machine, and ergo, they are the same, but that is oversimplifying to a fault. The fact is that America under Obama will look 180 degrees different from America under McCain, just as an America under Gore would look 180 degrees different than America did under Bush.

That's what we have. Like I said, it might make you feel all warm inside to vote 3rd party, like you're part of the big revolution, and it probably sounds good at cocktail parties - but the plain fact is that 3rd parties are losing ground, there is no revolution, and we're currently stuck with a 2-party system. It's lazy to just say "oh, they're both the same, so I'm doing something with integrity", but that's just news from another planet. It doesn't exist in reality.
Click to expand...
Translation - "I like the current setup and will continue to vote for lesser of two evils, you're an idiot for not joining in"

self righteous? nah, just righteous.

The reason we have a two party solid cycle? take a look in the mirror.
 
The American people are being gamed by the two-party system.

Obama is selling the same snake-oil McCain was selling .. but WAR sounds better when its rolling off the lips of the Svengali Mindfuck Master.

Bend over and drop your pants for the corporate will just somehow sounds sweeter when Obama calls it "a rescue plan."

Gather up your sons and daughters and send their asses into the military makes such a sweet tune when Obama is playing the music.

Illegal wiretapping and Bush tax cuts sounded like country music at Freaknic when republicans were playing the music .. but Obama can rap that shit into a bumpin' beat that made hapless Americans nod their heads in agreement.

Take a look at the band Obama has assembled .. pro-war and pro-Bush economic policies everyone of them.

Change my ass .. Obama is even further to the right on the ME than Bush or Mccain.
 
Onceler said:
I'm sure Nader voters voted their conscience in 2000, as well.

Then, over 100,000 people died.
Click to expand...

Nader didn't cause a single person to die .. nor did he or his supporters cause Al Gore, who couldn't even win his own home state, to lose.

Democrats are cowards and didn't aggressively challenge the results in Florida and allowed republicans to simply strong-arm the presidency from their weak asses.

THEN, in 2004, democrats were weak as shit again and didn't have the brains to know you can't have republicans be the sole proprietor of the American vote and expect to win. What dummies.

Republicans would have NEVER allowed either scenario to occur.
 
leaningright said:
Why couldn't Al win his home state?
Click to expand...

I've never really looked into it. TN is a pretty red state, however. I've never really bought into the idea that a candidate should always be able to win their home state; it ignores the idea that voters actually do stay fairly loyal to ideology for the most part.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
no, you do pick based on others opinions. you pick based on who can win, not who is best for the nation or who will actually change the way things get done.
Click to expand...

When said person picks up in the polls I may consider him.

The fact is... third parties in America aren't held back all that much by the "refuse to vote for a spoiler" effect. If a strong third party candidate runs, he gets votes. And if everyone voted completely honestly, the Libertarian would still get almost nothing.

Third parties in America are, quite frankly, pitiful. In Britian and Canada, they use our voting system, and still have a plethora of strong parties (although they don't get the number of seats they deserve, it is not absolutely gobsmacking to see one earn 20% of the vote when facing both a Conservative and Liberal).

I am a strong endorser of tactical voting.
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
When said person picks up in the polls I may consider him.

The fact is... third parties in America aren't held back all that much by the "refuse to vote for a spoiler" effect.
Click to expand...

negative, ghost rider. When Perot siphoned off Bush votes and Clinton won, both sides saw the damage a strong third party could do to their power, so they modified the current rules in to a much stronger and more rigid qualification doctrine to make it harder for third parties to get on ballots.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
negative, ghost rider. When Perot siphoned off Bush votes and Clinton won, both sides saw the damage a strong third party could do to their power, so they modified the current rules in to a much stronger and more rigid qualification doctrine to make it harder for third parties to get on ballots.
Click to expand...

And how hard was it for Lieberman to get on the ballot when he had to resurrect a new third party before the general election so he could run as an independent?

The ballot access laws aren't awful. Strong candidates could easily overcome them.
 
blackascoal said:
Nader didn't cause a single person to die .. nor did he or his supporters cause Al Gore, who couldn't even win his own home state, to lose.

Democrats are cowards and didn't aggressively challenge the results in Florida and allowed republicans to simply strong-arm the presidency from their weak asses.

THEN, in 2004, democrats were weak as shit again and didn't have the brains to know you can't have republicans be the sole proprietor of the American vote and expect to win. What dummies.

Republicans would have NEVER allowed either scenario to occur.
Click to expand...

QFT Onceler I don't know why you pursue this intellectually dishonest argument that voting your conscience for Nader in 2000 makes you responsible for the deaths of Iraq.

It's pure fantasy on your part. And the candidates of Democrats and Republicans are much more similar than they are different. You can look to minor issues, but there is a much greater host of issues both parties agree on.
 
Watermark said:
And how hard was it for Lieberman to get on the ballot when he had to resurrect a new third party before the general election so he could run as an independent?

The ballot access laws aren't awful. Strong candidates could easily overcome them.
Click to expand...

Bullshit you fucking moron. This clearly shows that you have done nothing in politics other than sit behind a computer.

Anyone who has participated in third party candidacies or ballot access drives understands how difficult it is to make it onto a ballot, much less win.

You betray your inexperience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top