New Boss same as old Boss

[FUCK THE POLICE]

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.

It wasn't terribly hard for Barkley.

 

[cawacko]

You betray your inexperience.

LMAO!

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

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.

It's a consequential look at things. If you look at the consequences of their actions, yes, they are as responsible as any Republican. They aren't immoral, because they didn't actually believe the Republican shit, but they were certainly foolish.

 

[Onceler]

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.

Nader was an egomaniac; some of his most ardent followers begged him to get out of that 2000 race when it was apparent how close it would be, but he was too high from the crowds to care.

Nader didn't strike a blow for anything in 2000, and neither did his voters. There were 2 viable choices in that race: Bush and Gore. By about a million miles, one represented values that were much more aligned with what Nader values than the other. The fact is that it was a race decided by about 500 votes, and, as a result of Gore losing, we went to Iraq & are still there. You do the math.

Don't even get me started on everything else. Nader also had very strong environmental convictions. I wonder if the past few weeks worth of midnight rule changes by the Bush admin, that far exceed the worst corporate polluter's fantasies, still have him saying "Bush & Gore are the same."

 

[Cancel7]

Nader was an egomaniac; some of his most ardent followers begged him to get out of that 2000 race when it was apparent how close it would be, but he was too high from the crowds to care.

Nader didn't strike a blow for anything in 2000, and neither did his voters. There were 2 viable choices in that race: Bush and Gore. By about a million miles, one represented values that were much more aligned with what Nader values than the other. The fact is that it was a race decided by about 500 votes, and, as a result of Gore losing, we went to Iraq & are still there. You do the math.

Don't even get me started on everything else. Nader also had very strong environmental convictions. I wonder if the past few weeks worth of midnight rule changes by the Bush admin, that far exceed the worst corporate polluter's fantasies, still have him saying "Bush & Gore are the same."

I have heard all of the arguments against this over and over, through the bush years, and I still don't see any way around what Onceler just wrote.

 

[Epicurus]

You are reducing the act of voting to a "If you're not with us, you're against us" mindset, and that is just wrong. I'm truly sorry if you can't see it. Voting is the expression of your political beliefs and you should vote for the candidate that best embodies them. You should not be voting against a candidate, but for one.

 

[Epicurus]

It's a consequential look at things. If you look at the consequences of their actions, yes, they are as responsible as any Republican. They aren't immoral, because they didn't actually believe the Republican shit, but they were certainly foolish.

Well consequentialism fails.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

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.

does a 3rd party candidate have a shot if not on all 50 state ballots? I think not. hence the reason the two major parties made it difficult for a 3rd party to do so.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

You are reducing the act of voting to a "If you're not with us, you're against us" mindset, and that is just wrong. I'm truly sorry if you can't see it. Voting is the expression of your political beliefs and you should vote for the candidate that best embodies them. You should not be voting against a candidate, but for one.

I think you should vote whichever way would get you the best possible result.

Which means tactical voting. I vote for the Green when the Dem is not going to landslide or is certain to lose. I wouldn't vote for the Green during, say, the Franken Coleman contest. That would be retarded.

 

[Onceler]

You are reducing the act of voting to a "If you're not with us, you're against us" mindset, and that is just wrong. I'm truly sorry if you can't see it. Voting is the expression of your political beliefs and you should vote for the candidate that best embodies them. You should not be voting against a candidate, but for one.

We live under a 2-party system, which is imperfect. People talk about writing in Ron Paul, and you talk about voting for some kind of perfect candidate who embodies by political beliefs.

Am I doing this democracy a greater service by finding the one person in political life who best aligns with me, and just writing in their name on election day? In the end, what has that accomplished?

It's lazy, and it's delusional. You're right; I don't get it. Like I said, Nader didn't strike a blow for anything; on the vast majority of issues, Bush set his priorities back for decades, and some may never fully recover. The idea that a vote for him was somehow productive & principled borders on insane.

 

[Epicurus]

Well that's you, at least respect that other people have different (and better, IMHO) philosophies for their voting. It is unfair to say that because someone supported Nader they essentially voted Bush. They did not view the contest that way and you shouldn't. Many, though probably not most of Nader voters would not have voted for either party anyway because they feel they are too similar and do not represent their values.

 

[Cancel7]

You are reducing the act of voting to a "If you're not with us, you're against us" mindset, and that is just wrong. I'm truly sorry if you can't see it. Voting is the expression of your political beliefs and you should vote for the candidate that best embodies them. You should not be voting against a candidate, but for one.

I saw this kind of funny study that came out yesterday, or at least, it was on aol yesterday. Someone actually studied this - they found that people who watch a lot of romantic comedies, like those meg ryan and hugh grant movies, don't do well in relationships. They have unrealistic expectations.

Now, who is to say that they shouldnt' believe that every time they have sex the world should move, and their partners should be able to anticipate, without ever being told by them, their every whim, desire, thought, and emotional need? Anyone can say, you should find the partner who best embodies what you want. And that's what you want.

Here's the thing: YOu ain't gonna find it.

So the rest of us, do the best we can with what we have. Sometimes, it's pretty darned good. It might be that way with Obama. Pretty darned good. I feel it would have been that way with Gore. Neither men are going to anticipate my every need and fulfill it. But that's what I have my own credit cards for.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Well that's you, at least respect that other people have different (and better, IMHO) philosophies for their voting. It is unfair to say that because someone supported Nader they essentially voted Bush. They did not view the contest that way and you shouldn't.

They voted with their heart. That is technically right.

And the consequences were that Bush won. Voting for Nader wasn't like voting for Bush; it was like not turning up at the booth.

 

[Epicurus]

We live under a 2-party system, which is imperfect. People talk about writing in Ron Paul, and you talk about voting for some kind of perfect candidate who embodies by political beliefs.

Am I doing this democracy a greater service by finding the one person in political life who best aligns with me, and just writing in their name on election day? In the end, what has that accomplished?

It's lazy, and it's delusional. You're right; I don't get it. Like I said, Nader didn't strike a blow for anything; on the vast majority of issues, Bush set his priorities back for decades, and some may never fully recover. The idea that a vote for him was somehow productive & principled borders on insane.

Well for one, it showed the Democrats that they could not afford to take environmentalists for granted.

And second, it showed the potential of even a relatively weak showing by a third party candidate could have on a national election. It was a small victory against the two party system.

Sometimes I bite the bullet and vote for a major party candidate, but only when there is no alternative. This year I was not voting Green or Libertarian because both parties presented joke candidates. I voted for Barack Obama instead.

You are content with the system, or at least accepting of it. But lots of people are not, and they will vote Green or Libertarian long before they vote Democrat or Republican.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Well for one, it showed the Democrats that they could not afford to take environmentalists for granted.

And second, it showed the potential of even a relatively weak showing by a third party candidate could have on a national election. It was a small victory against the two party system.

Sometimes I bite the bullet and vote for a major party candidate, but only when there is no alternative. This year I was not voting Green or Libertarian because both parties presented joke candidates. I voted for Barack Obama instead.

You are content with the system, or at least accepting of it. But lots of people are not, and they will vote Green or Libertarian long before they vote Democrat or Republican.

I'm not content with the system at all. I think a two-party system is stupid.

But I'm also very cynical and realistic. When throwing my vote towards someone who has no chance of winning could bring the very real consequences of someone radically opposed to my values, I am going to do what my head tells me and vote for the Dem.

And yes Barr and McKinney were idiots, and Nader is a shell. Third parties these days are jokes.

 

[Epicurus]

I'm not content with the system at all. I think a two-party system is stupid.

But I'm also very cynical and realistic. When throwing my vote towards someone who has no chance of winning could bring the very real consequences of someone radically opposed to my values, I am going to do what my head tells me and vote for the Dem.

And yes Barr and McKinney were idiots, and Nader is a shell. Third parties these days are jokes.

Well I'm not telling you how you should vote, it just annoys me when people like Onceler come in and pontificate about the short-sightedness of people who vote third party when it is their own complacency and shortsightedness that have left us with only two viable choices in the first place.

 

[Bonestorm]

Voting for third-party candidates in national elections means never having to say you are sorry because your ideas will never become law and you will never be held responsible for anything ever. It is quite liberating, really. And the best part is that you get to criticize everyone for everything.

 

[Epicurus]

Voting for third-party candidates in national elections means never having to say you are sorry because your ideas will never become law and you will never be held responsible for anything ever. It is quite liberating, really. And the best part is that you get to criticize everyone for everything.

I know right? Makes you wonder why any politicos vote major party.