Why vote?

[Tito Jr.]

Seriously, all you slackers out there who think "it doesn't matter" and that "everything is going to suck, regardless" - you are wrong. There is a stark different between both candidates and we all have a choice. This isn't a matter of party or affiliation. It is a matter of standing up for the betterment of America. So do your part.

[anamericangod]

I encourage everyone to vote. Just not for McCain.

[Nevuk]

I encourage everyone to write-in for mickey mouse.

[anamericangod]

In a middle school election I voted for Daffy Duck.

[Nevuk]

I voted for the green party in middle school. They're a bit less likely to win.

[boykosaurus]

There is no huge difference between the two candidates, at least in my opinion and where I want the country to go. That said I'm sill voting but writing in.

[NonOperational]

http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/stealingamericavotebyvote/

[Tito Jr.]

There is no huge difference between the two candidates, at least in my opinion and where I want the country to go. That said I'm sill voting but writing in.

Tax the rich vs. Tax the middle class
Pull out of Iraq vs. Stay in Iraq
Universal health care vs. Private health care
Pro-choice vs. Anti-abortion
Same-sex marriage vs. Civil unions
Invest and invent vs. Drill drill drill

Those are pretty significant differences.

[Smash Adams]

I encourage everyone to write-in for mickey mouse.

how about Mr. T.? He wouldn't have let 9/11 happen and Osama Bin Laden would be in Guantanamo now

[I'm DC]

I live in fucking Kansas, there is no way Obama will ever take this state.
I don't think I will vote...

[Adeniz19]

I live in fucking Kansas, there is no way Obama will ever take this state.
I don't think I will vote...what about your local elections and legislation?

[pilot_light_out]

if voting could really change anything it would be illegal

[boykosaurus]

Tax the rich vs. Tax the middle class
Pull out of Iraq vs. Stay in Iraq
Universal health care vs. Private health care
Pro-choice vs. Anti-abortion
Same-sex marriage vs. Civil unions
Invest and invent vs. Drill drill drill

Those are pretty significant differences.

You always have to look at your specific situation to see how much taxes change for you depending on which candidate is elected, it's not that simple; a certain family or group in the middle class could have their taxes raised if Obama is elected. We'll still (always) be in Iraq in some shape or form. I don't know much about health care so I can't comment, though I believe a hybrid system could work perhaps? Roe v. Wade isn't being overturned any time soon. Personally, I am for civil unions. Both candidates are going to invest, invent, drill here, and look for innovations; they'll obviously have stronger focuses in one area though.

Barack is different but he's not what I want. If PA isn't too close I'm voting for the candidate who represents what I want. If it's a close race in PA though, I may go Barack. Regardless it's my first time voting for the president so I want it to mean something to me.

[Adeniz19]

PA is going to be a close race so it will mean something.

[boykosaurus]

It's getting close, but I think I can still vote for who I want. But that will probably change by November :/

[I'm DC]

what about your local elections and legislation?

I am registered in the county where my parents live, so A. Anything that passes in my local elections won't affect me, B. I would have to drive 100+ miles just to vote, and C. The Mayor is a drug dealer, and deals to over half the city, therefore he will automatically be reelected, along with everyone on the board...

[&IllBeTheReason]

if voting could really change anything it would be illegal
That's original.

[boykosaurus]

I am registered in the county where my parents live, so A. Anything that passes in my local elections won't affect me, B. I would have to drive 100+ miles just to vote, and C. The Mayor is a drug dealer, and deals to over half the city, therefore he will automatically be reelected, along with everyone on the board...

Damn.

[I'm DC]

Damn.

haha yeah, I have often thought about voting or not, and after about a year of racking my brain I decided that I, single handedly, won't change the out come.

[The Affliction]

It's easy to vote...
You just do it. You're one person, one car on the highway, but the mentality shouldn't change because of your lack of ability to do anything independently. That's the wrong way to look at it. Just do it the way you're supposed to, and lend greater power to everyone else who's voting with you. Extend your consciousness a bit more beyond just yourself or immediate surroundings to realize that there are similarly-minded individuals. Simultaneous effort. If you start playing the numbers game, you'll never get anywhere.

[The Affliction]

P.S. Who gives a fuck if you don't change anything? If you win, cool. If you lose, you've a void now where the action taken to at least try and win doesn't exist = you fail.

[Tito Jr.]

I live in fucking Kansas, there is no way Obama will ever take this state.
I don't think I will vote... You should still vote. How bad would you feel if Kansas turned into another Florida? Haha.

[Tito Jr.]

P.S. Who gives a fuck if you don't change anything? If you win, cool. If you lose, you've a void now where the action taken to at least try and win doesn't exist = you fail. Very good point.

[saysmydoctor]

Who is this asshole calling me a slacker?

[hero_dujour]

There is no huge difference between the two candidates, at least in my opinion and where I want the country to go. That said I'm sill voting but writing in.

There is definitely a huge difference.

[Nevuk]

Difference is relative.

[Adeniz19]

I am registered in the county where my parents live, so A. Anything that passes in my local elections won't affect me, B. I would have to drive 100+ miles just to vote, and C. The Mayor is a drug dealer, and deals to over half the city, therefore he will automatically be reelected, along with everyone on the board...re register in the county you live in now?

[benjammun]

Anyone that truly thinks there is a substantial difference in the platform policy between these two candidates is delusional and has learned nothing from history, to say nothing of common sense. But you don't even need historical precedent: look at corporate campaign contributors, an area in which Sen. Obama far outweighs his opponent with huge deals from Goldmann Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Telecomm industry, ad infinitum. As far as taxes go, there is a slight opportunity to relieve the lower 95% of the population but the proposed changes are incredibly moderate, just as Bill Clinton's were (remember the Welfare Reform Act of 1996?).
Anyone knows that in order to initiate any real social change knows how to do it, that is, through drastic budget cuts from the obscene military machine. Obama will not, or rather, can not touch this. Just look at his foreign policy rhetoric, he will 'contain' the 'threat' of Iran through clandestine operations or through Israel, whichever is more convenient. He will continue down the long line of US politicians bending over backwards for AIPAC and the Israeli lobby. He will more than likely move to escalate the next Cold War, abandoning possible diplomatic solutions in favor of a 'tough American presence.' As for Iraq, take a close look at the withdrawal agreement set up with Al-Maliki, in fact, here you go: http://www.truthout.org/article/us-iraq-agreement-leaked. All forces will withdraw, that is, all non-combat troops, which is in itself ambiguous; US personel will b exempt from Iraqi law anywhere they are stationed, and a "U.S. Embassy" (read: permanent military base) the size of the Vatican is currently being built in the Anbar province, just outside of Baghdad, adding to a global hegemonic military-net extending to upwards of 150 countries. We own the world, and Obama will not prove an exception.
Obama has no universal health care plan, I don't know where you've picked this up but I'd love to see your source. Meanwhile we'll all debate about cultural issues and write whatever we desire on the blank slate that is Barack Obama.

[benjammun]

Though, what I meant to say in the first place is that not voting at all solves nothing. Vote third-party if you feel their candidates reflect your interests but throwing away even a partial role in policy-making is incredibly self-defeating.

[Machu505]

Tax the rich vs. Tax the middle class
Pull out of Iraq vs. Stay in Iraq
Universal health care vs. Private health care
Pro-choice vs. Anti-abortion
Same-sex marriage vs. Civil unions
Invest and invent vs. Drill drill drill

Those are pretty significant differences.

Actually Obama supports civil unions as opposed to marriage. He does not support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

[WakeUpBlondie]

I encourage everyone to vote. Just not for McCain.

McCain FTL. His supporters are so close minded. Any one who wants another eight years of Bush is fucking retarted.

[matt_bergeron]

Actually Obama supports civil unions as opposed to marriage. He does not support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.



truth.

[Machu505]

Obama: Republicans must think you’re stupid (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/06/obama-republicans-must-think-you%e2%80%99re-stupid/)

[Machu505]

truth.

It's one of the things him and I disagree on.

[h23eather]

I volunteered for the democrat running for county legislature in my home town.
He lost by 94 votes.

every vote counts.

[timchoke]

McCain FTL. His supporters are so close minded. Any one who wants another eight years of Bush is fucking retarted.

Good thing all you Obama supporters are so open to new ideas!

[saysmydoctor]

Good thing all you Obama supporters are so open to new ideas!
Good thing.

[boykosaurus]

Good thing all you Obama supporters are so open to new ideas!

Sure am.

[Neo Cassady]

I am registered in the county where my parents live, so A. Anything that passes in my local elections won't affect me, B. I would have to drive 100+ miles just to vote, and C. The Mayor is a drug dealer, and deals to over half the city, therefore he will automatically be reelected, along with everyone on the board...

there's a little thing called absentee ballots. do it.

[saysmydoctor]

Anyone that truly thinks there is a substantial difference in the platform policy between these two candidates is delusional and has learned nothing from history, to say nothing of common sense. But you don't even need historical precedent: look at corporate campaign contributors, an area in which Sen. Obama far outweighs his opponent with huge deals from Goldmann Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Telecomm industry, ad infinitum. As far as taxes go, there is a slight opportunity to relieve the lower 95% of the population but the proposed changes are incredibly moderate, just as Bill Clinton's were (remember the Welfare Reform Act of 1996?).
Anyone knows that in order to initiate any real social change knows how to do it, that is, through drastic budget cuts from the obscene military machine. Obama will not, or rather, can not touch this. Just look at his foreign policy rhetoric, he will 'contain' the 'threat' of Iran through clandestine operations or through Israel, whichever is more convenient. He will continue down the long line of US politicians bending over backwards for AIPAC and the Israeli lobby. He will more than likely move to escalate the next Cold War, abandoning possible diplomatic solutions in favor of a 'tough American presence.' As for Iraq, take a close look at the withdrawal agreement set up with Al-Maliki, in fact, here you go: http://www.truthout.org/article/us-iraq-agreement-leaked. All forces will withdraw, that is, all non-combat troops, which is in itself ambiguous; US personel will b exempt from Iraqi law anywhere they are stationed, and a "U.S. Embassy" (read: permanent military base) the size of the Vatican is currently being built in the Anbar province, just outside of Baghdad, adding to a global hegemonic military-net extending to upwards of 150 countries. We own the world, and Obama will not prove an exception.
Obama has no universal health care plan, I don't know where you've picked this up but I'd love to see your source. Meanwhile we'll all debate about cultural issues and write whatever we desire on the blank slate that is Barack Obama.
wKjxFJfcrcA

[immorehxcthanu]

I'm on the fence about it. The truth is, I just don't give a shit anymore. It's the same bullshit promises every election.

[Dan1234]

It's one of the things him and I disagree on.

Obama basically wants gay people to have the same rights as everyone else. McCain, on the other hand, is a shithead bigot asshole. So yeah i'd say Obama wins in that category.


I'm voting in South Carolina where the asshole will win, man i really want us to get rid of the electorial congress and just go with the popular vote so bad!

[Kid B]

I'm 14 and I go to a Jesuit high school, it's a given that I vote for Old Man Mccain (if I could). I am a hardcore liberal though lol.

[DCfreak]

Obama basically wants gay people to have the same rights as everyone else. McCain, on the other hand, is a shithead bigot asshole. So yeah i'd say Obama wins in that category.


I'm voting in South Carolina where the asshole will win, man i really want us to get rid of the electorial congress and just go with the popular vote so bad!


rofl are you serious? FUCKING REPUBLICANS ARE SO CLOSE MINDED AND ARE ALL JUST RACIST BIGGOTS... I HOPE THEY ALL DIE... come onnnn lets make some sense please. Hating people for hating people doesnt make you any cooler and even that is a huge stretch from Mccain.

[Jason Tate]

rofl are you serious? FUCKING REPUBLICANS ARE SO CLOSE MINDED AND ARE ALL JUST RACIST BIGGOTS... I HOPE THEY ALL DIE... come onnnn lets make some sense please. Hating people for hating people doesnt make you any cooler and even that is a huge stretch from Mccain.
Well, McCain is a racist - and has admitted to it.

[DCfreak]

why hasnt that soundbite gone through the media?

[fuller]

why hasnt that soundbite gone through the media?

It did in 2000.

"I hate gooks"

[samsara]

im gonna vote and i tell everyone i know that is eligible that they should vote

no matter who you are your vote makes a difference

[benjammun]

wKjxFJfcrcA

I know it doesn't coincide well with your messianic dreams of this man but really, u mad?

[saysmydoctor]

I know it doesn't coincide well with your messianic dreams of this man but really, u mad?
WOW. Congratulations, Politics Forum's Version of Slade.

[benjammun]

Who is this Slade you speak of?

[boykosaurus]

wKjxFJfcrcA

He actually made some good points, he just presented them in a sloppy way.

[matt_bergeron]

Good thing all you Obama supporters are so open to new ideas!

i would be, if mcCain had any

[matt_bergeron]

It's one of the things him and I disagree on.

wait... you disagree on civil unions or gay marriage or gay people all together....?

[GiggsOho]

I know it doesn't coincide well with your messianic dreams of this man but really, u mad?

I am so fucking tired of your types with the "oh please, can the change crap, Obama." Look anyone in the face and readily say that the U.S. under Obama would be worse off than it is now.

Oh wait, you can't. So have fun being cynical at house parties and bitching at everyone because they are involved in the "hollow" political process. You completely miss the point of what Obama has consistently said, "I want you to help me change Washington."

[Machu505]

wait... you disagree on civil unions or gay marriage or gay people all together....?

No, I support full on marriage, not just civil unions. Though it would be a start.

[benjammun]

I am so fucking tired of your types with the "oh please, can the change crap, Obama." Look anyone in the face and readily say that the U.S. under Obama would be worse off than it is now.

Oh wait, you can't. So have fun being cynical at house parties and bitching at everyone because they are involved in the "hollow" political process. You completely miss the point of what Obama has consistently said, "I want you to help me change Washington."

Ok, first of all you need to calm down if we're going to have an intelligent discussion over this.

Second, not once did I say that the nation would be 'worse of' than under Obama. Of course it wouldn't.

Third, do you really think Obama's campaign rhetoric is substantive at all? I mean, really? I could not want 'change' anymore than any one of you, but I try to approach the election with a healthy dose of skepticism and attention to detail, not convention slogans. The Democrats and Republicans are two factions of the same party, look at any Democratic president in history and you will find a faithful subservience to the same corporate lobbyists, the same banks, the same Israel, and the same destructive foreign policy agenda.

That's not saying Obama will help no one. I'm sure he wants to. He will, on a small scale, help middle and lower class people, and much more than the predecessor, which is why I will most likely cast my vote for Obama come November, or more accurately, against McCain.

But if you have this grand dream of Obama changing the world, I'm sorry but you're going to be dissappointed.

[GiggsOho]

Ok, first of all you need to calm down if we're going to have an intelligent discussion over this.

Second, not once did I say that the nation would be 'worse of' than under Obama. Of course it wouldn't.

Third, do you really think Obama's campaign rhetoric is substantive at all? I mean, really? I could not want 'change' anymore than any one of you, but I try to approach the election with a healthy dose of skepticism and attention to detail, not convention slogans. The Democrats and Republicans are two factions of the same party, look at any Democratic president in history and you will find a faithful subservience to the same corporate lobbyists, the same banks, the same Israel, and the same destructive foreign policy agenda.

That's not saying Obama will help no one. I'm sure he wants to. He will, on a small scale, help middle and lower class people, and much more than the predecessor, which is why I will most likely cast my vote for Obama come November, or more accurately, against McCain.

But if you have this grand dream of Obama changing the world, I'm sorry but you're going to be dissappointed.

I don't, I wouldn't have a job if I thought this. But I think going "pshhh, change" is so counter-productive to whats at stake.

I, like anyone else, aren't completely sold on Obama. He is starting to drift toward the center more and more (that keeping Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy raises my eyebrows), but its a chance to get the ball rolling in the opposite direction.

I'm not an idiot, I don't think that I'm going to have free healthcare and see classrooms full of multi-ethnic 8-year-olds, who will have brand new textbooks printed on recycled paper, and Muslim and Christians will share prayer circles by mid-2010.

There is no way this country can move fwd with McCain in office. I don't think anyone helps that when they go "YOU ARENT GOING TO GET CHANGE EITHER WAY!" I strongly disagree.

[saysmydoctor]

I don't, I wouldn't have a job if I thought this. But I think going "pshhh, change" is so counter-productive to whats at stake.

I, like anyone else, aren't completely sold on Obama. He is starting to drift toward the center more and more (that keeping Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy raises my eyebrows), but its a chance to get the ball rolling in the opposite direction.

I'm not an idiot, I don't think that I'm going to have free healthcare and see classrooms full of multi-ethnic 8-year-olds, who will have brand new textbooks printed on recycled paper, and Muslim and Christians will share prayer circles by mid-2010.

There is no way this country can move fwd with McCain in office. I don't think anyone helps that when they go "YOU ARENT GOING TO GET CHANGE EITHER WAY!" I strongly disagree.
:appl:

[benjammun]

Well I think that raises the question of whether or not any real change, whatever that means, can be achieved within the two-party system. I mean, it's strange that the U.S. doesn't even have a Labor party or something like that. I think almost every other industrialized nation does. I agree that Obama is what we need now, but I think that it would be a short-term solution to a much larger problem, maybe even as fundamental as state capitalism itself.

That's probably more of a long-term goal, maybe naive, but one that at least I would want to see progress towards in my lifetime. In the mean time something more realistic might be a popular movement demanding a third alternative party, something that reflects public opinion on issues like healthcare (a lot of potential) or classrooms filled with multi-ethnic children or whatever. I don't think this is unfeasible, in fact it's been done all over the world in the poorest countries with the least amount of resources, Bolivia most recently.

[Killadelphia]

There are other candidates out there.

[benjammun]

Yeah but when they are denied access to both the debates and any substantial advertising on corporate-owned media, electing them would be almost impossible.

[Killadelphia]

in the day of the internet, podcasts, and so forth, these canidates can find a way.

[Tito Jr.]

in the day of the internet, podcasts, and so forth, these canidates can find a way. You're the reason why Bush was in office for two terms.

[matt_bergeron]

No, I support full on marriage, not just civil unions. Though it would be a start.


oh, ok awesome, yea im a full supporter of gay marriage

[Killadelphia]

You're the reason why Bush was in office for two terms.

techinically, no. I was unable to vote in the 2000 election, not of age and I was in Florida during the 2004 election. My absentee ballot did not count.

[highpi]

techinically, no. I was unable to vote in the 2000 election, not of age and I was in Florida during the 2004 election. My absentee ballot did not count.
like a gaint dick. Yup

[lauren<3s music]

There are other candidates out there.
barr? paul?

righttttt

[Killadelphia]

barr? paul?

righttttt

I'm not saying worthy, but the bipartisan system will always be a bipartisan system until the voters make the move.

[Jason Tate]

I'm not saying worthy, but the bipartisan system will always be a bipartisan system until the voters make the move.
Never going to happen.

[Killadelphia]

Never going to happen.

But we both agree it is the only way it will. Unless some obscure billionaire celebrity tries to make a run under his own party.

[lauren<3s music]

I'm not saying worthy, but the bipartisan system will always be a bipartisan system until the voters make the move.
the system is the way it is because of the fact the people have decided that's what they wanted. if people wanted third party candidates to succeed they would. most of the third party candidates are fringe at best, which is why they lose.

[open mind]

the system is the way it is because of the fact the people have decided that's what they wanted. if people wanted third party candidates to succeed they would. most of the third party candidates are fringe at best, which is why they lose.

give me a break.
it has next to nothing to do with people and almost all to do with money....or more specifically the lack of it.

[lauren<3s music]

give me a break.
it has next to nothing to do with people and almost all to do with money....or more specifically the lack of it.
partially yes. but part of their lack of funds is due to their ideas. or lack thereof

[Killadelphia]

the system is the way it is because of the fact the people have decided that's what they wanted. if people wanted third party candidates to succeed they would. most of the third party candidates are fringe at best, which is why they lose.

I think it is more of a money issue. There is no Moderate Party. There is no third party with a huge fund behind them.

I'm not asking for a green party winner or something. I'm asking for a few Dems or Reps that are moderate to somehow find a fund system and form another party.

[open mind]

partially yes. but part of their lack of funds is due to their ideas. or lack thereof

it's not lack of ideas, they've got plenty of ideas (nader comes to mind)....but lack of money means they can't spread them.....and the 2 big reasons they don't get money is because A)thier ideas are a threat to the status quo and B)the people with money are happy with the 2 party system because it saves them money since it's much cheaper to buy influence with 2 parties instead of 3.

[lauren<3s music]

I think it is more of a money issue. There is no Moderate Party. There is no third party with a huge fund behind them.

I'm not asking for a green party winner or something. I'm asking for a few Dems or Reps that are moderate to somehow find a fund system and form another party.

I agree partially with you on this. I think there are many moderates who receive funding from other streams than the traditional party lines. It does make it easier to break in with a party backing you.

I think to say there is no moderate party is also overlooking the variation between the members who make up the party. the blue dogs come to mind.

it's not lack of ideas, they've got plenty of ideas (nader comes to mind)....but lack of money means they can't spread them.....and the 2 big reasons they don't get money is because A)thier ideas are a threat to the status quo and B)the people with money are happy with the 2 party system because it saves them money because they only have to give money to 2 parties instead of 3 in order to buy influence.

i dont think their ideas are supported by the general public which is why they don't raise as much money as their counterparts.

[Killadelphia]

I agree partially with you on this. I think there are many moderates who receive funding from other streams than the traditional party lines. It does make it easier to break in with a party backing you.

I think to say there is no moderate party is also overlooking the variation between the members who make up the party. the blue dogs come to mind.



i dont think their ideas are supported by the general public which is why they don't raise as much money as their counterparts.

Their is no moderate party comparable to the dems or reps. It's black and white and no grey. People are only going to dump their money into the parties that already have a firm hold in congress, etc.

[open mind]

i dont think their ideas are supported by the general public which is why they don't raise as much money as their counterparts.

the general public is important but it's simply impossible to win a major election without the money of big buisness......and odds are you won't see people decide to become candidates without that backing to begin with.

[open mind]

Their is no moderate party comparable to the dems or reps. It's black and white and no grey. People are only going to dump their money into the parties that already have a firm hold in congress, etc.

i see things almost exactly the opposite of you here.
i think the dems are moderate, and the repubs are pretty far right on almost all issues, which leaves the u.s. without a real liberal party.

[lauren<3s music]

Their is no moderate party comparable to the dems or reps. It's black and white and no grey. People are only going to dump their money into the parties that already have a firm hold in congress, etc.
To say that being part of a party means you can not be a moderate is ridiculous.

[lauren<3s music]

the general public is important but it's simply impossible to win a major election without the money of big buisness......and odds are you won't see people decide to become candidates without that backing to begin with.
i think many people rely on the current system too much and third party candidates lack the innovation to fundraise appropriately. As much as I can't stand him, take a look at Ron Paul's intake. He's a perfect example of finding your base and getting them to support you. The problem comes in with the base; there aren't enough people to buy in that would fund his campaign.

I think the scope of the candidacy is also important. For example, an independent party president is not likely. However, state level and even Congressional campaigns could be quite possible.

[Killadelphia]

To say that being part of a party means you can not be a moderate is ridiculous.

They may be moderate, but come election time, they generally ride the party line for votes and money.

i see things almost exactly the opposite of you here.
i think the dems are moderate, and the repubs are pretty far right on almost all issues, which leaves the u.s. without a real liberal party.

Personally, I think the extreme left or right in both parties get the most publicity.

[open mind]

i think many people rely on the current system too much and third party candidates lack the innovation to fundraise appropriately. As much as I can't stand him, take a look at Ron Paul's intake. He's a perfect example of finding your base and getting them to support you. The problem comes in with the base; there aren't enough people to buy in that would fund his campaign.

I think the scope of the candidacy is also important. For example, an independent party president is not likely. However, state level and even Congressional campaigns could be quite possible.

third party candidates do not lack innovation.....sure ron paul is a kook but you can't say he's not innovative. i really like ralph nader and i believe alot more people would get behind someone like him if he had the money to really spread his message....and with money comes equal press coverage, and not having to sue to get on ballots and into the big debates which also are enormous factors in the probability of getting elected.

edit:the occasional third party candidate does in fact win a minor election, but they are called minor elections for a reason....and if that candidate tries to rock the boat to much they're bound to see a large amount of cash backing thier opponent in a re-election bid.....so i think until a third party candidate wins a major election they (and their message) won't ever catch on in any meaningful way.

[open mind]

They may be moderate, but come election time, they generally ride the party line for votes and money.



Personally, I think the extreme left or right in both parties get the most publicity.

i don't think so.
i mean c'mon now, the majority of the "extreme" left in this country are simply kinda leftist in the rest of the industrialized world.

[lauren<3s music]

third party candidates do not lack innovation.....sure ron paul is a kook but you can't say he's not innovative. i really like ralph nader and i believe alot more people would get behind someone like him if he had the money to really spread his message....and with money comes equal press coverage, and not having to sue to get on ballots and into the big debates which also are enormous factors in the probability of getting elected.
i actually liked nader until i met him.

[open mind]

i actually liked nader until i met him.

i know it's silly of me to pretend it's going to happen, but i wish people would vote strictly on the issues instead of reducing our elections into insipid popularity contests.

[lauren<3s music]

i know it's silly of me to pretend it's going to happen, but i wish people would vote strictly on the issues instead of reducing our elections into insipid popularity contests.
i met him and couldn't stand him. He couldn't defend his positions with any sort of tact. It was sad actually.

Character makes a good leader.

[open mind]

i met him and couldn't stand him. He couldn't defend his positions with any sort of tact. It was sad actually.

Character makes a good leader.

don't act like the man lacks character.
you can't fight for things he's fought for (and won) and lack character......and suggesting he does is lowering yourself to the sort of political tactics you claim to despise when it comes to the republicans use of them.

[benjammun]

the system is the way it is because of the fact the people have decided that's what they wanted. if people wanted third party candidates to succeed they would. most of the third party candidates are fringe at best, which is why they lose.

Sadly, many people believe this, but 80 per cent of the population thinks, if you read the words of the polls, that the government is run by a few big interests looking out for themselves not for the population and 95 per cent of the public thinks that the government ought to pay attention to public opinion but it doesn't.

So, take something like health-care, which is by far the largest domestic issue among the general public. Remember John Kerry, when defending his health-care plan, saying there wasn't enough 'political support' for such a policy? Well, what he means is the pharmaceutical business and HMO's.

Though on this issue, which is why I think there's so much potential for reform, corporations are starting to come around. Not for any principled reasons of course, but because, for example, General Motors can save $1,500 a car by basing it's plants in Canada instead of Michigan due to inadequate health-care. Well yeah, then government listens.

I think when you look at candidates like Cynthia McKinney, Nader or even Ron Paul, they most closely reflect what the majority of the people want, and what any real democratic process would reflect.

[Nevuk]

i met him and couldn't stand him. He couldn't defend his positions with any sort of tact. It was sad actually.

Character makes a good leader.
When you have the political positions of a person like him, or further, you get really, really REALLY fucking sick of people asking you about them. I say this and I haven't dealt with it on the political stage he has, or for anywhere near the length of time - but I no longer bother being polite in the slightest. I burst out laughing at a kid in class today because he framed his argument around "Only in america do you ... " etc. (have economic freedom to do what you wish, but the specifics don't matter). The point is, that was horribly impolite and tactless - I was downright mocking him. I didn't care, when a year ago I wouldn't have laughed at someone for just saying that.

[Tito Jr.]

Clearly, a vote for Nadar is a throw a way vote that could have gone to Obama. You might as well vote for McCain.

[benjammun]

Clearly, a vote for Nadar is a throw a way vote that could have gone to Obama. You might as well vote for McCain.

It's also a vote that could have gone to McCain, and why should someone modify their vote to benefit a candidate that doesn't work for them anyway? True, a vote for Nader would have little short-term practical significance, symbolic at best, but the gesture is important and the goal remains the same: to demand a viable alternative party that reflects the interests of the majority, whether that be a Labor-based party or otherwise.

[Tito Jr.]

It's also a vote that could have gone to McCain, and why should someone modify their vote to benefit a candidate that doesn't work for them anyway? True, a vote for Nader would have little short-term practical significance, symbolic at best, but the gesture is important and the goal remains the same: to demand a viable alternative party that reflects the interests of the majority, whether that be a Labor-based party or otherwise. My point is that a third party is not "viable". If you want to change our democratic process that is an entirely different issue. Go ahead and make your symbolic vote if it makes you feel better but it has no impact on how the democratic process is carried out.

[benjammun]

Voting for the candidate that you want has no impact on the democratic process?

[saysmydoctor]

My point is that a third party is not "viable". If you want to change our democratic process that is an entirely different issue. Go ahead and make your symbolic vote if it makes you feel better but it has no impact on how the democratic process is carried out.
There is nothing democratic about a two party system. You get two people on stage, on podium, one makes a stance. What is the best way to appeal to those who don't agree with his stance? Perpetuate the utter opposite. And that's our current political system.

[Tito Jr.]

There is nothing democratic about a two party system. You get two people on stage, on podium, one makes a stance. What is the best way to appeal to those who don't agree with his stance? Perpetuate the utter opposite. And that's our current political system. I'm not saying that I agree with the way our system works. I'm just saying a third party candidate is not a viable option, given the platform we are given.

[Nevuk]

Voting for the candidate that you want has no impact on the democratic process?
Correct. Absolutely no bearing. If someone drags out the list of elections decided by one vote, I'll point out that in one of them a mule was running for mayor.

[saysmydoctor]

I'm not saying that I agree with the way our system works. I'm just saying a third party candidate is not a viable option, given the platform we are given.
And, because of this, we should just accept it.

[Tito Jr.]

And, because of this, we should just accept it. No, you don't have to accept it. But symbolically voting does absolutely nothing to change it.

[open mind]

There is nothing democratic about a two party system. You get two people on stage, on podium, one makes a stance. What is the best way to appeal to those who don't agree with his stance? Perpetuate the utter opposite. And that's our current political system.

utter opposite? really? i don't think so, i'd say that our current political system consists of a bullying far right wing and a moderate left wing that for whatever reason usually fails to properly counter-punch thier opponents.

[saysmydoctor]

utter opposite? really? i don't think so, i'd say that our current political system consists of a bullying far right wing and a moderate left wing that for whatever reason usually fails to properly counter-punch thier opponents.
It's about right, yeah.

McCain: For Iraq
Obama: Against Iraq

Obama: Pro choice
McCain: prolife

To name a few, and for the most part, that is American politics. Both parties differ from the other and squabble on the hill. A few 'loose cannons' truly fight the status quo...Ron Paul, Kucinich, Nader, Bloomberg, Gravel...

[Killadelphia]

I wonder what matters more to politicians...

Doing good to do good or gain approval from foreign leaders and countries in terms of foreign policy?

The values they hold or that their values win?

[open mind]

It's about right, yeah.

McCain: For Iraq
Obama: Against Iraq

Obama: Pro choice
McCain: prolife

To name a few, and for the most part, that is American politics. Both parties differ from the other and squabble on the hill. A few 'loose cannons' truly fight the status quo...Ron Paul, Kucinich, Nader, Bloomberg, Gravel...

obama is not against iraq, he's just against being there permanently.

i'll give you the abortion debate and other "culture issues" but on the things that really matter they aren't all that different.

[saysmydoctor]

obama is not against iraq, he's just against being there permanently.

i'll give you the abortion debate and other "culture issues" but on the things that really matter they aren't all that different.
He was against going to Iraq in the first place, well documented.

McCain was not.

They have different tax plans, different energy plans (for the most part), different economic plans...

Social issues are part of the problem. We've shoved them aside as we focus on the big issues...now social issues are big issues.

[*crying stars*]

You know what sucks? Being a college freshman that cannot vote in the biggest election in the country's history because my birthday is a month shy.

[Killadelphia]

There is an interesting essay in Klosterman's IV regarding the issues that are either black or white:


Whenever I meet someone who openly identifies themselves as a Republican or a Democrat, my immediate thought is always, 'Well, this person might be interesting, but they'll never say anything about politics that's remotely useful to me.' I refuse to discuss abortion with anyone who is pro-life or pro-choice; I refuse to discuss affirmative action with any unemployed white guy or any unemployed black guy. All the world's stupidest people are either zealots or atheists. I you want to truly deduce how intelligent someone is, just ask this person how they feel about any issue that doesn't have an answer; the more certainty they express, the less sense they have. This is because certainty only comes from dogma.

[Killadelphia]

You know what sucks? Being a college freshman that cannot vote in the biggest election in the country's history because my birthday is a month shy.

Isn't just about every election the biggest in the country's history to one side or another?

[open mind]

He was against going to Iraq in the first place, well documented.

McCain was not.

They have different tax plans, different energy plans (for the most part), different economic plans...

Social issues are part of the problem. We've shoved them aside as we focus on the big issues...now social issues are big issues.

that doesn't mean he's against continued involvement in iraq....you know what would be opposite? a pro-war side and a anti-war side....and obama is not at all against war.

different is not nearly the same as opposite.....and even on social issues the dems aren't always opposite for instance the reps are anti-gay marriage, but most dems aren't pro-gay marriage.

[saysmydoctor]

that doesn't mean he's against continued involvement in iraq....you know what would be opposite? a pro-war side and a anti-war side....and obama is not at all against war.

different is not nearly the same as opposite.....and even on social issues the dems aren't always opposite for instance the reps are anti-gay marriage, but most dems aren't pro-gay marriage.
Are you really arguing the war thing? It is well documented that Obama was against going into Iraq and staying there while McCain is the polar opposite. He was for the war and is not opposed to staying there.

[open mind]

Are you really arguing the war thing? It is well documented that Obama was against going into Iraq and staying there while McCain is the polar opposite. He was for the war and is not opposed to staying there.

you misread my point, i'm fully aware of the fact that obama didn't vote to go into iraq....give me a little fucking credit....i'm almost offended that you'd think i'm that clueless.
i'm arguing that obama is in principle not against wars......and he would have to be in order to be truly opposite the very pro-war mccain.

[saysmydoctor]

you misread my point, i'm fully aware of the fact that obama didn't vote to go into iraq....give me a little fucking credit....i'm almost offended that you'd think i'm that clueless.
i'm arguing that obama is in principle not against wars......and he would have to be in order to be truly opposite the very pro-war mccain.
It's different enough, I guess with the war thing, I questioning how one would actually go about war...would there be diplomacy beforehand? There is where the difference lie.

[open mind]

It's different enough, I guess with the war thing, I questioning how one would actually go about war...would there be diplomacy beforehand? There is where the difference lie.

like i said different is not the opposite....we've got a pro-war party, but it's damn near unthinkable that a party with pacifism as one of it's tenets could gain any traction in this country.

[saysmydoctor]

I consider the lack of diplomacy an opposite in the planning, and clearly more important than the 'war' portion.

[open mind]

I consider the lack of diplomacy an opposite in the planning, and clearly more important than the 'war' portion.

what?