NationStates Jolt Archive

That's all you're doing isn't it? Choosing the guy who can keep Bush/Kerry out depending on who you fear the most. Is anyone actually voting on your principles?

Conservatives
- is Bush really pro-life in a meaningful sense?
- Is he a true fiscal conservative?
- Patriot Act anyone?
- What about you isolationist types - wars around the globe huh?
- Clamping down on 'illegals' is he?
- Second Amendment freedoms - where's that 'assault weapon'?

'Liberals' (for want of a better word)
- Kerry's looking a bit of an ass huh?
- What's he going to do about 'assault weapons' and the 2A - preserving your freedoms huh?
- and on and on, you get my point.

To you all

First of all, how many of you identified yourselves as 'conservative' or 'liberal' when reading this? Why did you do that? How many of you identified yourselves as Republican or Democrat? Why did you do that?

Do the political parties as they are really suit your wants and needs? Bush is no fiscal conservative and the Democrats are not going to hand you universal healthcare. It's a two horse race and the two parties know it.

If you are vaguely anti-Democrat the Republicans feel they can count on your vote regardless of your views on Bush, the economy or the WOT. The reverse is true.

Why are you sticking to this rigid definition of politics as a bipolar affair? Why settle for the lesser of two evils? Why vote Democrat just to get rid of Bush if you can't stand Kerry and think he will be a disaster? Why vote Bush just to keep the Democrats out.

"I've always voted Republican, just like my father and his father before him."

"I'm from California of course I vote Democrat, they deport you otherwise."

Definition of insanity - doing what you've always done expecting to get different results this time.

The moral - screw the two parties, they're in cahoots to keep it partisan and bipolar, vote on your conscience. If you feel that the Libertarians/WackoSocialist Party are closest to your views and needs - vote for them. It isn't "throwing your vote away" - if we all think like that and settle for the lesser of evils or don't vote then we have thrown our votes away because we have changed nothing.

(apologies to all who have read this before, the thread was somewhat hijacked for reasons I will not mention - you know who you are :D )

I whole-heartedly believe the American election system should be a majority vote. If this would be done the winning candidate would have to get at least 50 percent of the vote. Since this is the case, people will not be afraid to vote for a 3rd party since there will most likely be a run-off between the top two candidates so they recieve over 50 percent and be elected. This would give the American system a multi-party system, which is what I would love to see.

'Liberals' (for want of a better word)
- Kerry's looking a bit of an ass huh?

Uhm..How exactly?

[quoute] - What's he going to do about 'assault weapons' and the 2A - preserving your freedoms huh? [/quote]

Ummm...assualt weapons are already illegal to own if they are fully automatic, or 3-shot burst.


- and on and on, you get my point.

If your saying..."Vote your conscience.." thwen yes I do..

If your saying..."dont vote for someone becuase thats what you think you are expected to do...yes.

If your saying something else...

No.

This is why I don't 'affiliate' myself with a particular political party. Just because a political party is called for instance, 'The Liberals', doesn't necessaraly mean they are far-left, or even anywhere left at all.

'Liberals' (for want of a better word)
- Kerry's looking a bit of an ass huh?
- What's he going to do about 'assault weapons' and the 2A - preserving your freedoms huh?
- and on and on, you get my point.


Yes. There is such a good argument against Liberality that you can think of three reasons- one being 'One liberal happens to be a bit of an ass', another being 'and on and on'. So much to say, huh.

Liberals in Britain actually are bang in the middle of the political spectrum. So you Republicans would hate it over here.

Yes. There is such a good argument against Liberality that you can think of three reasons- one being 'One liberal happens to be a bit of an ass', another being 'and on and on'. So much to say, huh.

Liberals in Britain actually are bang in the middle of the political spectrum. So you Republicans would hate it over here.

Can you read Mr Pyrnees or do you just do 'angry and proud of it'?

Kerry is an ass. See 'I don't own my SUV - my family does', 'Purple Heart for a scratch on the elbow', 'I'm a hunter so I support the 2A' and more. He is pretty much the worst candidate the Dems could have chosen.

Bush is easier to pick holes in because he has been in power and so been cocking up, had I done this topic in 2000 then it would have been pretty easy to pick on Clinton.

Now, if you read the rest you will find that I in no way support the Republicans.

Kerry is a bit of jackass who half of the time makes himself look like an idot and he will pobably increass the crime rate because he is to far to the left and bush is the same as kerry but he will screw up the economy so both candidates suck so I am no going to vote because both outcomes will lead to failure.

Kerry is a bit of jackass who half of the time makes himself look like an idot and he will pobably increass the crime rate because he is to far to the left and bush is the same as kerry but he will screw up the economy so both candidates suck so I am no going to vote because both outcomes will lead to failure.

Kerry is a bit of jackass who half of the time makes himself look like an idot and he will pobably increass the crime rate because he is to far to the left and bush is the same as kerry but he will screw up the economy so both candidates suck so I am no going to vote because both outcomes will lead to failure.

Kerry is a bit of jackass who half of the time makes himself look like an idot and he will pobably increass the crime rate because he is to far to the left and bush is the same as kerry but he will screw up the economy so both candidates suck so I am no going to vote because both outcomes will lead to failure.

This thread seems a lot like the cthulhu one but without the cthulhu references.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

[quote]Ummm...assualt weapons are already illegal to own if they are fully automatic, or 3-shot burst.

[/quotes]

There not one, but TWO errors in here.

First of all, fully-automatic weapons are not assault weapons. An assault weapon, according to US law, is a semi-auto version of a full-auto assault rifle(note the difference!). See also http://www.awbansunset.com

Second, automatic weapons are not illegal. Under federal law, two main restrictions are put on them.

First, you must get licensed and pay a $200 tax, and register the weapon. The entire process, with a looong wait, has to be repeate per weapon.

Second, you can only buy only those automatic arms that were already in civilian hands before May 1986. This puts the price up there.

See also: http://www.mp5.net/info/itmgwi.htm

Mr Allanea!

I'd be proud to have you post your thoughts on 'settling for the lesser of two evils' too.

Person in crowd: I believe I'll vote for a third candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away. :lol:

Person in crowd: I believe I'll vote for a third candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away. :lol:

Simpsons? With the aliens and the election?

Damn Simpsons stealing all my ideas before I had them.

St. Johns:
Both major parties care only about power.

Look at the Republicans, their support of Patriot Act and "A-Salt" Weapon Ban.

Look at the Democrats, their suppports of extension of FBI authority and the "A-Salt" Weapon ban.

Both parties fear a third party. Both lust for power. That is why they passed the Campain Finance Reform Act together. That's why they keep upping the percentage needed to get into the presidential debates.

Both are enemies of freedom. Why vote for them?

Makes me glad I live in a country with seven major political parties to choose from.

Really, though, when was the last time America was truly bipartisan? It looks to me like the two parties basically stand for about the same things, with small variations here and there. Whatever happened to opposition?

Cromotar, I'd argue it's the same problem with most major parties in the Western World.

Cromotar, I'd argue it's the same problem with most major parties in the Western World.

St. John's, I agree with you in part. I've voted for minor parties before. I've even done so in the last 6 months and would do so again if I felt the candidate was the best out there and that candidate had a chance to not only win but bring about change in the system.

But sometimes you have to forgo voting your heart in order to vote against someone. John Kerry wasn't my first choice for President--hell, he wasn't in my top 5. But he's got my vote in November for one simple reason--the only other realistic alternative is George Bush, and the potential of him having another 4 years in office is too horrible to imagine.

But he's got my vote in November for one simple reason--the only other realistic alternative is George Bush, and the potential of him having another 4 years in office is too horrible to imagine.

How would Kerry be better than Bill 'Waco' Clinton?

the problem is in skull and bones they swear to take all their orders from a higher up and both Kerry and Bush are in Skull and Bones.

But Bush has done such a bad job that "anybody but Bush" is a valid argument in my opinion.

But he's got my vote in November for one simple reason--the only other realistic alternative is George Bush, and the potential of him having another 4 years in office is too horrible to imagine.

How would Kerry be better than Bill 'Waco' Clinton?What the hell are you talking about?

Waco - David Koresh's lot. Allanea has strong feelings about it, ask him sometime.

Skull and Bones is smoke and mirrors.

Incertonia - I honestly think the idea of having Kerry is power is just as bad as having Bush in power.

----------

The Reps are encouraging Nader's campaign hoping that it will split votes from Kerry. I find this contemptible and an example of partisan politics at it's worst - the Reps are not trying to persuade people with alternative views to see it their way but are arrogantly encouraging them to vote for another they believe cannot win (and in this they are right)

I'm sure the Dems have done the same. The two parties are only interested in maintaining the status quo, the two party system.

I'd love to see a grassroots movement to put independant candidates of good standing in every election in the country. Local businessmen, doctors etc - but they need money, and that is what it is all about these days.

St. Johns - it is interesting to point out that the Campaign Finance bill and other similar bills only serve to increase the gap between the big paries and the small parties.

Allenea, would you mind pointing out how campain finance reform will give the Dems and Reps an even greater advantage?

If that is not what you are saying please clarify.

Waco - David Koresh's lot. Allanea has strong feelings about it, ask him sometime.

Skull and Bones is smoke and mirrors.

Incertonia - I honestly think the idea of having Kerry is power is just as bad as having Bush in power.

----------

The Reps are encouraging Nader's campaign hoping that it will split votes from Kerry. I find this contemptible and an example of partisan politics at it's worst - the Reps are not trying to persuade people with alternative views to see it their way but are arrogantly encouraging them to vote for another they believe cannot win (and in this they are right)

I'm sure the Dems have done the same. The two parties are only interested in maintaining the status quo, the two party system.

I'd love to see a grassroots movement to put independant candidates of good standing in every election in the country. Local businessmen, doctors etc - but they need money, and that is what it is all about these days.


http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Saint, you're right of course. Your point is blindingly obvious but the Reps and Dems have got the system sewn up. There ain't a snowball in hells chance of any third party, even reasonably funded, getting its pecker in. The moment either of the two parties thought a third represented a credible threat....bang, they'd both be in the smoky rooms working out all the ways to discredit them. Yeah, I know, defeatist isnt it? But the US system is the most corrupt democracy we know of.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."
-- John Lennon

Allenea, would you mind pointing out how campain finance reform will give the Dems and Reps an even greater advantage?



Several reasons:

1.The media (CNN, Fox, et al) are exempt from the law. The large, mainstream media stations will only support major candidates.

2. By limiting donation size, it allows parties which are already large to out-strip small parties trying to get ahead.

3.Statistics prove that campaign finance reform works to increase the chance of incumbents winning elections (like they weren't high already).

Thanks for clarifying Allanea, although I am still confused.

this happens a lot :P

1. The media is exempt from what law exactly? Of course they will support mainstream candidates because their owners get the greatest advantage from dems and reps. But isn't it the law to give every candidate equal airtime?

2. I dont get what you said here at all. If large parties have a cap on what funds they can raise, then wouldnt it give the smaller parties a greater chance of equealing those funds?

3. I understood this but I don't see the reasoning. Could you link me to a source for this if you would be so kind good sir/madam.

1.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/printct20020219.shtml

is a link for you.

No, the law is to prohibit campaign donations by certain sources. It is also to prohibit campaign donations over certain limits. Note of course that the media can and does support whichever candidate they want by slanting ther stories in various ways.


2.Let's say I limit campaign donations by X dollars per man. A party like the Dems will get more donations (X times the several million supporters) than the Greens, and the act doesn't allow the Greens to "fight back" by getting some rich guy to give a big, large, honking huge donation.

3.
http://www.cato.org/new/02-02/02-14-02r.html

Saint, you're right of course. Your point is blindingly obvious but the Reps and Dems have got the system sewn up. There ain't a snowball in hells chance of any third party, even reasonably funded, getting its pecker in. The moment either of the two parties thought a third represented a credible threat....bang, they'd both be in the smoky rooms working out all the ways to discredit them. Yeah, I know, defeatist isnt it? But the US system is the most corrupt democracy we know of.

Thank you for saying my point is blindingly obvious - it was such a...special...thing to say. :P

Allanea is right about campaign finance laws as I understand them. Unfortunately because people are so partisan I suspect that the limit on donations was not done to cripple the Greens or anyone else, but to prevent certain individuals from donating maybe tens of millions to one of the two parties.

What I am railing against is that not only is the system sewn up - but that we, the voting public, participate in this by DEFINING ourselves as 'Democrats' or 'Republicans' on many occasions.

Party loyalty is nothing to be proud of. On another forum I post on, one guy consistently posts non-news about Kerry, latest being 'Kerry's $1000 haircut' - claims this is an issue because it gives us insight into the foppery of the man. When it was pointed out that Bush is no different - somehow Bush's expensive haircut showed how manly he is.

So I ask - what is to love about party loyalty or political partisanship?

I ask because I know those people post on NS Gen. Where are they?