Thus beginneth the pandering.

[Hangtime]

That's all we can hope for.. little nuggets of clarity gleaned from each other.. the crap that passes out the anal orifice of the media is.. well; just crap. Gift wrapped. But still crap.

[442w30]

Quote from: Toad on Yesterday at 05:11:11 PM


So when exactly do we finally tell the Dems and Reps that we're mad as hell and not going to take this poop anymore?

I mean we've been picking between the lesser of two weasels since Reagan left office. For 20 masking years fer chrissakes; Bush1 v Dukakis..... YGBSM! And it got WORSE and stayed bad after those two dweezils!

Dear God... Clinton v Bush1, Clinton v Dole, Bush2 v Gore, Bush2 v Kerry.  Now which one of those was too important not to vote 3rd party? Every single one, of course. That's what the Dems and Reps spoon feed us every time.

So when will there be an election where it's not important so we can vote 3rd party?

If not us, who? If not now, when?

oooOOOOOO- RAH!

And what did voting third party get for those that did so?  People did in each of those elections and outside of Nader in 2000, the only one that received any significant percentage was Perot and even he did no twin any states.  A third party will only become relevant when people truly get sick of one of the major parties or when a third party comes along that really strikes a chord with a lot of people.  A lot being more than the few thousands that vote Green or Libertarian.  In other words the people will decide when a third party becomes relevant. As it stands right now not enough people agree with your stand to give it a shot at making policy and/or being elected for anything on a national level.  

Work on a local level to get third parties more credibility and a larger following.  That is where it is going to have to start.  Any third party cannot compete on a national level right now.  In 50 years?  Maybe so if people work toward it.  Wishing it to be isn't going to do much.  

[BnZ]

Want to know what is pathetic?  That you would draw that conclusion after I have been arguing a political philosophy that has nothing to do with the ideology of either side.  I have used examples of both the right and left as well as not championed either side.  I do not try to convince anyone to vote for a certain cause.  That is left up to the propagandists on either side and to each person's individual philosophy.  Where in anything I said did I talk badly about Obama or the left?  Where did I say anything good about the right or McCain?  

As someone who loves the slash, I salute your mastery of the parry.

[442w30]

That's all we can hope for.. little nuggets of clarity gleaned from each other.. the crap that passes out the anal orifice of the media is.. well; just crap. Gift wrapped. But still crap.

yup!  Take everything that is reported with a grain of salt.   If a person wants to be truly informed on an issue they have to educate themselves and realize where the info they are using is coming from.  Does it have a spin or agenda?  If so, take what they say through a filter.  Become educated and make your own assessment.  

[442w30]

As someone who loves the slash, I salute your mastery of the parry.

 

Want to hear the most incongruous thing?  For several years I have been telling friends that I would like to START a third party.  Yes, I do not believe that now is the time for one to be effective and have a role but I too am dissatisfied with the status quo.    

Now I guess I will wait for the post that accuses me of wanting everyone to vote for Ralph Nader or the Communist party candidate, or maybe write in Ross Perot

[Toad]

And what did voting third party get for those that did so?  

Perot changed the debate; the focus of the election became the federal budget deficit and political reform came front and center. Additionally, he caused the two parties to embrace some of his positions on these issues to win back voters they had lost to Perot. Clinton won but when he introduced his program to trim the deficit by $500 million in four years he included much of Perot's plan of "shared sacrifice" by including tax increases along with spending cuts. He even phoned Perot to try to get him to publicly back the plan. Similarly, Clinton immediately implemented some of Perot's campaign points on ethics in government, like proposing a 5 year ban on lobbying after senior political appointees left government.

That's the kind of stuff you get........ at worst.

At best, you get a Libertarian President.  

[442w30]

Perot changed the debate; the focus of the election became the federal budget deficit and political reform came front and center. Additionally, he caused the two parties to embrace some of his positions on these issues to win back voters they had lost to Perot. Clinton won but when he introduced his program to trim the deficit by $500 million in four years he included much of Perot's plan of "shared sacrifice" by including tax increases along with spending cuts. He even phoned Perot to try to get him to publicly back the plan. Similarly, Clinton immediately implemented some of Perot's campaign points on ethics in government, like proposing a 5 year ban on lobbying after senior political appointees left government.

That's the kind of stuff you get........ at worst.

At best, you get a Libertarian President.  

You know you are right. Perot did not have an impact on the election because he took votes from both sides BUT he had a huge impact on the issues that were debated.  Good point Toad  We could use a Ross Perot this year, but did not get one.

[midnight Target]

So if you meet a "reasonable cross section" of American Blacks you come to those conclusions?

Idiotic drivel.

[BnZ]

Fixed

So if you meet a "reasonable cross section" of American Blacks you come to those conclusions?

Accurate observations that are not warm, fuzzy or popular! Waa!!!!.

[Hangtime]

And what did voting third party get for those that did so?  People did in each of those elections and outside of Nader in 2000, the only one that received any significant percentage was Perot and even he did no twin any states.  A third party will only become relevant when people truly get sick of one of the major parties or when a third party comes along that really strikes a chord with a lot of people.  A lot being more than the few thousands that vote Green or Libertarian.  In other words the people will decide when a third party becomes relevant. As it stands right now not enough people agree with your stand to give it a shot at making policy and/or being elected for anything on a national level.  

I hear that alot.. a kinda twsiting of the hand dismissal voting for the third party candidate is a waste. I see it as only true in only a few states.. the 'battleground' States. All of us that have thought about this much would rather have a three party race than a two party system... the pressing relevant question in this election is, can that be achieved.. and if so; how to do it without wasting a vote.

Most of us that have considered the election as a chess game would rather see the current government hamstrung.. since anything done generally makes things worse, having a do-nothing congress with an opposite party president usually equates to fewer liberties lost, less social welfare reform and less useless government waste... i.e.; slowing the march to socialism.

In light of that, and assuming a stronger democratic congress on the backside of this election, I personally don't want a democrat in the whitehouse, especially with a couple of decrepit SCOTUS judges retiring... again my choices lean to slowing the march to socialism.

Next in the big game is what's happening with the electoral college.. in those states that are 'certain' for the democratic or republican parties, voting for a third party candidate actually strengthens the national push for a three party system.. sends the signal it's time for a change, without risking 'throwing away' your vote.

In the states that are battleground, yes; your point of tossing away your vote on an independent or libertarian could allow one or the other of the big two to capitalize on the loss or gain to one side of the other... and here's where my opinion varies from the rest of the 'third party, uber alles' folks. If it's a battleground state, I'd vote republican on the top of the ticket, anti-incumbent the rest of the way down. I'm not too charmed about letting the dems screw us into oblivion.. I'm for keeping the bastids outta my wallet as long as I can.. even if it means giving my vote in a battleground state to McCain.. this time around.

Lucky for me, my convictions and read of the politics on the national scene won't be much of a problem for me.. this being NY, and NY being solid Blue without a snowballs chance in hell of becoming a battleground, I'll be voting for Barr or Paul on the top of the ticket and anti-incumbent the rest of the way down. Works for me.. on both levels.

Hope this makes sense in some convoluted way?  

[midnight Target]

Fixed

Fix it all you want, you still sound like a racist ass.

[BnZ]

Fix it all you want, you still sound like a racist ass.

*Yawn*

Try harder, please. This is just sad.

But truth be told, one reason this poll was such a farce is the fact that the terms polled about are deliberately vague, and nothing can really be proven either way. Not like violent crime rates or other phenomenon which can actually be broken down to numbers.

[442w30]

Makes sense hangtime.  Especially in a non-battleground state. 

[FrodeMk3]

Want to know what is pathetic?  That you would draw that conclusion after I have been arguing a political philosophy that has nothing to do with the ideology of either side.  I have used examples of both the right and left as well as not championed either side.  I do not try to convince anyone to vote for a certain cause.  That is left up to the propagandists on either side and to each person's individual philosophy.  Where in anything I said did I talk badly about Obama or the left?  Where did I say anything good about the right or McCain?  

To refer back to your opening post...

It is funny, I look at Obama and see a middle aged liberal senator.  I look at McCain and see an older centrist senator.  In the interest of fairness, I looked at Mitt Romney as a middle aged, conservative, ex-governor and Hillary as an older left of center senator. 

I suggest that a person should vote on the basis of which party best represents their own views, because it is the party's ideals that will be represented when in office, not the flowery speeches and platitudes the candidates deliver while on the soap box.  Third party folks, don't bother with a high jack.  In reality America is a two party system.  Work within it.  A good example of what can happen when you support your ideals and throw away your vote on a third party candidate is in 2000 when in all likelihood, liberal people who voted for Ralph Nader succeeded in getting a conservative elected by not supporting Al Gore, who was much closer to what they believe in.  So instead they voted on principle instead of on the candidate that would be closest to what they believe in.  Political parties are a big tent and you have to live in the tent that best represents what you believe in.

It's not the fact that you did not come out in open support for either the Dimocrats or the Republocant's. It's the fact that you are so willing to consign the fate of everyone to the same failing-yes, failing-Two party system. At first, you say a person should vote on the basis of who represents' their own views. Ordinarily, that would scream Independent or Third-party in this day and age. But you immediately turned around and trashcanned supporting your own ideals' and simply aligning yourself with either of the big 2 that at least get's one or two of them right. What the big newsflash to some people will be, is that if you look back at administrations' back to Reagan's times, BOTH parties, and their accompanying lackeys they get into elected office, have more or less followed the same agenda, administration after administration, and not taken any steps to rectify things' done by preceding office-holders. For example, Look at NAFTA. It's widely regarded as a mistake, yet went through it's inception under Bush Sr. (a republican), Was signed in under Clinton (A Democrat) and has not been repealed since, No matter who was in control of Congress. They just simply handed off the ball...Rather than stand up for the interests' of their constituents, or the american people.

A vote's never "thrown away." It's a(n) individual's expression of how they feel that our country should be run. It's not a tool for the greedy to manipulate to stay in power. And when all the big partisan talking heads, pundits, and candidates talk about "throwing away your vote" on Libertarian or Third-parties...They are the ones' simply trying to manipulate. Proof enough to me, at least, of their greed. And this has been the SOP for both main parties for far too long.

[Hangtime]

A vote's never "thrown away." It's a(n) individual's expression of how they feel that our country should be run. It's not a tool for the greedy to manipulate to stay in power. And when all the big partisan talking heads, pundits, and candidates talk about "throwing away your vote" on Libertarian or Third-parties...They are the ones' simply trying to manipulate. Proof enough to me, at least, of their greed. And this has been the SOP for both main parties for far too long.

Quoted for Truth.