NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a rhetorical question ... but it seems to point up a fundamental difference between Obama and McCain. Why do all McCain's campaign ads lately seem to be attacking Obama, with no other content. Not a word about his real stance on anything. You get no idea of what he stands for, except negatively, from the content of his attacks.

Obama, at least superficially, seems to be concentrating on what he wants to do as President in his ads.

Wait, McCain has had ads that don't focus on attacking Obama?

Pics or it didn't happen.

I agree with Forensatha... they all seem to be attacking Obama. The only thing McCain has truly made his stance on known other than he should be president is the insurance thing.

What's wrong with it? There are two sides of the ball in any sport, offense and defense, and the same applies to politics. You have to tell the voters two things-- That you are qualified for the job, and that your opponent is not.

Going on offense is not "dirty politics", it's a necessary part of the game.

I'm no McCain fan, but to get on him about attacking Obama is just denying the truth of what politics is. Obama has done his share of attacking as well, but he does it in a different way... usually through allies rather than doing it himself.

Seems everytime McCain picks up a fresh ball of mud to sling, he loses points in the survey polls. Someone give that man a dumptruck full of dirt. Don't get any mud on your maverick chaps Johnny Boy. Throw it AAAALLLLL at Obama!
:tongue:

Seems everytime McCain picks up a fresh ball of mud to sling, he loses points in the survey polls. Someone give that man a dumptruck full of dirt. Don't get any mud on your maverick chaps Johnny Boy. Throw it AAAALLLLL at Obama!
:tongue:

It's funny, because the more mud I sling, the more NSG loves me. :)

because when your as far behind in the polls as Mccain you got to attack.

I think he's given up. He is sort of old you know.

It's funny, because the more mud I sling, the more NSG loves me. :)

That's because you sling clean mud. And tacos.

This is a rhetorical question

No such thing on NSG.

because when your as far behind in the polls as Mccain you got to attack.

Since it's not working, apparently you don't.

Maybe he should have been a maverick instead of just saying he is. To be elected, he had to suck a lot of GOP dick. Once he got the nomination, it's too late to get all that dick off his breath, but he could have convinced me that the McCain I would have voted for in 2000 was still alive in there: He could have picked a running mate that proved his intentions of ignoring party to get the job done, fight pork, the power of lobbyists and push campaign finance reform. He could have proved it by picking....

Ralph Nader. Could you just imagine the explosion? Could you? Every lobbyist in Washington would embolize simultaneously. Half the GOP(the half that sucks the most) would shit bricks. Half the Democratic party(the half that sucks the most) would burst into flame. But ultimately, it would be the genius move of all genius moves and McCain would have won the Presidency.

I can't think of anything he can do now to win. It's Obama's to lose.

That's because you sling clean mud. And tacos.

Shhhh! If McCain were to learn the secret of the tacos, he could turn this thing around!
:eek::p

That's because you sling clean mud. And tacos.

*slings you a taco*

I can't think of anything he can do now to win. It's Obama's to lose.

And about the only way I can think of for Obama to lose would involve some really bad stuff that my common sense told me, much too late, to remove.

And even then, I know people who would still rather have him in office than McCain.

And about the only way I can think of for Obama to lose would involve a video tape surfacing of him having sex with an underage boy while shooting a toddler in the face and screaming "My life for Allah! Down with the American infidels!"

And even then, I know people who would still rather have him in office than McCain.

He could start talking like Jimmy Walker from "Good Times"

mccain doesnt have much money to spend. he had made the judgement that the best use of that money is attack ads. i suppose he offsets that with positive statements in his stump speeches that get run on news channels for free.

obama has more money than god so he can afford to run the same number of attack ads as mccain does (not that im sure its the same number) PLUS twice the number of positive ads about himself and his policies. plus ads in video games, his own channel on satellite tv, and stories on the news channels.

mccain doesnt have much money to spend. he had made the judgement that the best use of that money is attack ads. i suppose he offsets that with positive statements in his stump speeches that get run on news channels for free.

obama has more money than god so he can afford to run the same number of attack ads as mccain does (not that im sure its the same number) PLUS twice the number of positive ads about himself and his policies. plus ads in video games, his own channel on satellite tv, and stories on the news channels.

I can't help but notice though he's got quite a negative tone to his events also. Palin saying he's associated with terrorists and whatnot. He's just running a very negative campaign, and I think it's come back to bite him in the ass.

republicans don't give a dam what you elect them FOR, they just want to keep getting elected to keep their corporate mafia buddies in power.

that's why they keep inventing wars and telling us the sky is falling, and that we can't spend anything on anything that will do anyone any good because 'we' (they) have to spend it on their wars to keep scaring us into continuing to elect them.

What's wrong with it? There are two sides of the ball in any sport, offense and defense, and the same applies to politics. You have to tell the voters two things-- That you are qualified for the job, and that your opponent is not.

Going on offense is not "dirty politics", it's a necessary part of the game.

I'm no McCain fan, but to get on him about attacking Obama is just denying the truth of what politics is. Obama has done his share of attacking as well, but he does it in a different way... usually through allies rather than doing it himself.See, what we're alleging is that McCain isn't doing any of the "defense" bit. As in, he's not really telling us the "why he's qualified" part but only the "why the opponent is not" part.
It's funny, because the more mud I sling, the more NSG loves me. :)
That's because you don't do it metaphorically.

I can't help but notice though he's got quite a negative tone to his events also. Palin saying he's associated with terrorists and whatnot. He's just running a very negative campaign, and I think it's come back to bite him in the ass.
they bother me too. but it may be that the media only show the ugly parts (because it makes better tv) and leave out the majority of the speech that is devoted to policy and positive remarks about mccain and palin.

for example, if you only watch the clips of obama's speeches on the news you would never know that he is obsessed with pie. its just not controversial enough for the news.

And about the only way I can think of for Obama to lose would involve some really bad stuff that my common sense told me, much too late, to remove.

And even then, I know people who would still rather have him in office than McCain.
what stuff was that that would make you vote for mccain over him?

they bother me too. but it may be that the media only show the ugly parts (because it makes better tv) and leave out the majority of the speech that is devoted to policy and positive remarks about mccain and palin.

for example, if you only watch the clips of obama's speeches on the news you would never know that he is obsessed with pie. its just not controversial enough for the news.

precisely why, if it wasn't for indie media (and doing our homework looking things up on the net and elsewhere) none of us would know jack

the last thing in hell the corporate mafia and it's media want is an actually and honestly informed populas

Palin saying he's associated with terrorists and whatnot. He's just running a very negative campaign,.


What do you expect? the man (obama) started his campain from the home a terrorist, and in 2001 called that same man a "good man" now hes a bad guy???

Obama said in the last debate people were yelling "kill him" and yet the secret service that was there says "we didnt hear that at all, and we have found NOT ONE PERSON who did"

Obama says he voted to support life saving treatment to children, then why did he vote against a bill to give that same treatment to children who survive abortion?

Folks Mc Cains so called "attack ads" are not the attacks people think. Mc Cain is calling obama out on every thing. Obama says he does not support terrorist but is ( or was before he ran for office) friends with a known terrorist. Obama has lied more times in this race then any one i know.

I was all set to vote for the man, till i saw how much he lies. "every add you run is an attack ad" really obama? every ad?? MC CAIN WAS THE FIRST PERSON TO PUBLICLY SAY CONGRATS YOU FRAUDULENT FOOL!

What do you expect? [Oh snip!]Better.

What do you expect? the man (obama) started his campain from the home a terrorist, and in 2001 called that same man a "good man" now hes a bad guy???

Obama said in the last debate people were yelling "kill him" and yet the secret service that was there says "we didnt hear that at all, and we have found NOT ONE PERSON who did"

Obama says he voted to support life saving treatment to children, then why did he vote against a bill to give that same treatment to children who survive abortion?

Folks Mc Cains so called "attack ads" are not the attacks people think. Mc Cain is calling obama out on every thing. Obama says he does not support terrorist but is ( or was before he ran for office) friends with a known terrorist. Obama has lied more times in this race then any one i know.

I was all set to vote for the man, till i saw how much he lies. "every add you run is an attack ad" really obama? every ad?? MC CAIN WAS THE FIRST PERSON TO PUBLICLY SAY CONGRATS YOU FRAUDULENT FOOL!
oh darlin. you need to stop listening to conservative talk radio. its bad for your grasp of reality.

even if what 19 colonies said were true, which most of it isn't, again people really need to do their homework, how does it tell anyone anything USEFUL? which WAS the whole POINT of this thread.

Ralph Nader.
To quote a conversation I had with one of my friends:

No one cares about Ralph Nader anymore.
:D

To quote a conversation I had with one of my friends:

:D
Then I must be no one! =D

oh darlin. you need to stop listening to conservative talk radio. its bad for your grasp of reality.

Wait Ash! He had a smiley at the top, it might be satire!

Then I must be no one! =D

That makes two of you no-ones.:tongue:

Wait Ash! He had a smiley at the top, it might be satire!Or trolling...

What's wrong with it? There are two sides of the ball in any sport, offense and defense, and the same applies to politics. You have to tell the voters two things-- That you are qualified for the job, and that your opponent is not.

Going on offense is not "dirty politics", it's a necessary part of the game.

I'm no McCain fan, but to get on him about attacking Obama is just denying the truth of what politics is. Obama has done his share of attacking as well, but he does it in a different way... usually through allies rather than doing it himself.

And perhaps this practice in politics is part of the reason so many people get turned off by it?

Obama said in the last debate people were yelling "kill him" and yet the secret service that was there says "we didnt hear that at all, and we have found NOT ONE PERSON who did" Yet oddly we've all seen the tape, repeatedly, on national television. I'm fair certain the Secret Service doesn't employ the deaf in the protection detail.

Obama says he voted to support life saving treatment to children, then why did he vote against a bill to give that same treatment to children who survive abortion? CRITICAL RESEARCH FAILURE!!!

Folks Mc Cains so called "attack ads" are not the attacks people think. Mc Cain is calling obama out on every thing. Obama says he does not support terrorist but is ( or was before he ran for office) friends with a known terrorist. Obama has lied more times in this race then any one i know. Friends with a known terrorist, a guy who set off a couple bombs 40 years ago, and killed no one. I know a guy who set off a pipe bomb and killed his wife. TERRORISTS! (he was making "fireworks".. this one was a bit too big).

I was all set to vote for the man, till i saw how much he lies. "every add you run is an attack ad" really obama? every ad?? MC CAIN WAS THE FIRST PERSON TO PUBLICLY SAY CONGRATS YOU FRAUDULENT FOOL!

Wait Ash! He had a smiley at the top, it might be satire!
oh i didnt notice it! thanks for pointing it out.

of course my advice still stands. i had the opportunity to listen to a few minutes of sean hannity yesterday afternoon on my way home from albuquerque. no sane person should subject themselves to that crap.

oh i didnt notice it! thanks for pointing it out.

of course my advice still stands. i had the opportunity to listen to a few minutes of sean hannity yesterday afternoon on my way home from albuquerque. no sane person should subject themselves to that crap.

I was forced to listen to it for just twenty minutes once. It ended up with me arguing with both my mother AND the radio.:$

I was forced to listen to it for just twenty minutes once. It ended up with me arguing with both my mother AND the radio.:$
radio sucks that way! you can yell at it but sean hannity NEVER answers back.

the slimey bastard!

I was forced to listen to it for just twenty minutes once. It ended up with me arguing with both my mother AND the radio.:$

Jam the signal! Quickly! His brain is melting! :p

Seems everytime McCain picks up a fresh ball of mud to sling, he loses points in the survey polls. Someone give that man a dumptruck full of dirt. Don't get any mud on your maverick chaps Johnny Boy. Throw it AAAALLLLL at Obama!
:tongue:From another board:
They've run out of fresh poo to fling, now they're reduced to throwing the old turds that have already been thrown back at them. Problem is, when turds get stale, they don't stick as well.

Question from someone in Europe (me) :

What negative things do the people at Obama's rallies yell about McCain/Palin ? I heard about the "kill the filthy "blackskinned"* islamoterrorist commie" screams of enthousiastic McCain supporters, but very little from the other camp.

Are Obama's supporters on average simply vastly more civilised, or is the media being biased ?


* This forum censors the N word.

What negative things do the people at Obama's rallies yell about McCain/Palin ?

Nothing, so far as I have ever heard. In fact, Obama does not even allow his crowds to boo at McCain's name.
I heard about the "kill the filthy "blackskinned"* islamoterrorist commie" screams of enthousiastic McCain supporters, but very little from the other camp.

McCain frequently makes the accusation that it is equal in both directions, but never provides any examples.
Are Obama's supporters on average simply vastly more civilised, or is the media being biased ?

The former.

because when your as far behind in the polls as Mccain you got to attack.

...and when that has backfired and McCain sinks lower, he brings out more negative ads, and when those backfire and he sinks lower he brings out more negative attack ads, and when those backfire and he sinks lower...

...and when that has backfired and McCain sinks lower, he brings out more negative ads, and when those backfire and he sinks lower he brings out more negative attack ads, and when those backfire and he sinks lower...

The plan finally pays off and he wins the election.

In fact, Obama does not even allow his crowds to boo at McCain's name.

I just wish McCain would do the same.

Hang onto your wallets.

This is a rhetorical question ... but it seems to point up a fundamental difference between Obama and McCain. Why do all McCain's campaign ads lately seem to be attacking Obama, with no other content. Not a word about his real stance on anything. You get no idea of what he stands for, except negatively, from the content of his attacks.

Obama, at least superficially, seems to be concentrating on what he wants to do as President in his ads.

Really? I've seen the same amount of attack ads from both sides.
"McCain wants to help big business save money"
"Do we really need 4 more years of the same policies?"
"McCain voted for..."

They have attacked each other the same amount. However if you look at the amount of campaign ads Obama has compared to Mcain a much higher percentage of Mcains ads are attacks Compared to the percentage of Obama attack ads. Obama simply has more ads so he can match Mcainns attacks and then still talk about himself and his plan. Less than a third Of Obamas Ads have been atacks on Mcain But he still matches the amount of attack ads Mcain puts out. Over two thirds of Mcains ads are attack ads.

So it only seems like Obama is attacking Mcain less because there are so many more Obama ads than Mcain, and the majority of Mcain ads are attacks on Obama.

Really? I've seen the same amount of attack ads from both sides.
"McCain wants to help big business save money"
"Do we really need 4 more years of the same policies?"
"McCain voted for..."

I've seen attack ads from Obama as well, and a greater percentage of them seem to be policy based rather than on "character". And I'd rather prefer them arguing about policy in their ads than dumb shit about palling around with terrorists and what not.

They have attacked each other the same amount. However if you look at the amount of campaign ads Obama has compared to Mcain a much higher percentage of Mcains ads are attacks Compared to the percentage of Obama attack ads. Obama simply has more ads so he can match Mcainns attacks and then still talk about himself and his plan. Less than a third Of Obamas Ads have been atacks on Mcain But he still matches the amount of attack ads Mcain puts out. Over two thirds of Mcains ads are attack ads.

So it only seems like Obama is attacking Mcain less because there are so many more Obama ads than Mcain, and the majority of Mcain ads are attacks on Obama.

don't think that's right. can you show some numbers here?

I've seen more Obama ads that attack McCain's policies and plans than McCain ads in total.

don't think that's right. can you show some numbers here?

I've seen more Obama ads that attack McCain's policies and plans than McCain ads in total.

Obama can have more attack ads than McCain has adds in total while still maintaining a lower ratio of attack ads because he has the money to put so many up. But I suppose we're all conjecturing up till now, I'm yet to see any numbers, and I don't have any either (plus I'm too lazy to look, and besides, hypothesizing is so much funner).

I've seen attack ads from Obama as well, and a greater percentage of them seem to be policy based rather than on "character". And I'd rather prefer them arguing about policy in their ads than dumb shit about palling around with terrorists and what not.

Indeed. Hell, in the debate, McCain even said "Yeah, well you're going negative too. You released an ad that attacked my healthcare plan!" (or, something to that effect.)

Whereas McCain's ads are essentially "Barack Obama is a terrorist-loving freedom hater. Who wants to teach Kindergarteners how to have sex. And he's a commie!"

Really? I've seen the same amount of attack ads from both sides.
"McCain wants to help big business save money"
"Do we really need 4 more years of the same policies?"
"McCain voted for..."

There's a difference between ads that attack policies, you know, the things we're voting on, and ads that attack people.

Re: Nader as a running mate... That would have been, in a word, awesome. Not sure I'd call it "good", but still awesome (in the sense of definition). That would have added some spice to this race.

But on topic... Mudslinging has been around in every election for decades.

There's a difference between ads that attack policies, you know, the things we're voting on, and ads that attack people.

I agree. I don't see ads that poke holes in an opponent's solutions to issues to be the same as ads that accuse people of palling around with terrorists.

Re: Nader as a running mate... That would have been, in a word, awesome. Not sure I'd call it "good", but still awesome (in the sense of definition). That would have added some spice to this race.

But on topic... Mudslinging has been around in every election for decades.

I assume you're replying to me.

If nothing else, it would be worth it just to watch every lobbyist in Washington simultaneously grab their chests and keel over. :)

It's because Rove is running the campaign. And as I'm horrified to think I believe the tactic is either:
A: Make Obama lose because no one wants a "Terrorist"
or
B: Get Obama Assassinated by a "Patriot".

Really? I've seen the same amount of attack ads from both sides.
"McCain wants to help big business save money"
"Do we really need 4 more years of the same policies?"
"McCain voted for..."
There's a difference between ads that attack policies, you know, the things we're voting on, and ads that attack people.

I wouldn't consider an ad that attacks the opponent's policy as an "attack ad"...
The candidates are supposed to be convincing us that they will do a better job and pointing out flaws/failings of the opponent's policies is one way good to do that. Personal attacks, especially false ones are not.

It's because Rove is running the campaign. And as I'm horrified to think I believe the tactic is either:
A: Make Obama lose because no one wants a "Terrorist"
or
B: Get Obama Assassinated by a "Patriot".

Unfortunately you just might be right.

Re: Nader as a running mate... That would have been, in a word, awesome. Not sure I'd call it "good", but still awesome (in the sense of definition). That would have added some spice to this race.

But on topic... Mudslinging has been around in every election for decades.

I don't think Nader would have accepted the offer.

It's because Rove is running the campaign. And as I'm horrified to think I believe the tactic is either:
A: Make Obama lose because no one wants a "Terrorist"
or
B: Get Obama Assassinated by a "Patriot".

McCain is going to have difficulty painting himself as a maverick after he bent over to get the Republican nomination. And he's going to have difficulty getting people to believe he puts "Country First" after picking Palin as his running mate. What's he got left other than to attack Obama, either through words or a "supporter"?

don't think that's right. can you show some numbers here?

I've seen more Obama ads that attack McCain's policies and plans than McCain ads in total.



Its not quite as wide as a margin as I said but both cannidates are spending the same amount on attack ads but obamas attack ad spending is under 50% of his total ad spending, while Mcain it is above.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/12/fact-check-are-all-mccains-ads-negative/#more-24148

I don't think Nader would have accepted the offer.

Probably not, and definitely not as late in the game as McCain picked his vp. But if McCain had picked him early, I think Nader would have considered the offer, thought about the procedural rules the Vice-President makes as President of the Senate, contemplated the foot in the door this would give to third party candidates and then.... refuse the offer.

But he would've thought about it. ;)

WHether he accepted or not, it would have truly demonstrated McCain's dedication to reform, maverickiness and congressional oversight a lot better that Governor Hockey Mom did.

Edit: Also, if Nader was his veep, it would have given McCain someone to reminisce with about the good old days before automobiles. :D

There's a difference between ads that attack policies, you know, the things we're voting on, and ads that attack people.

Ah. I haven't seen any ads that attacked the person itself.

and I'm not counting those that are reported on by news or any third party, to me, the ads have to be played on the Media (t.v. or Radio).

Its not quite as wide as a margin as I said but both cannidates are spending the same amount on attack ads but obamas attack ad spending is under 50% of his total ad spending, while Mcain it is above.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/12/fact-check-are-all-mccains-ads-negative/#more-24148

huh? "both cannidates are spending the same amount on attack ads but obamas attack ad spending is under 50% of his total ad spending"?

all that says is they are spending the same amount but Obama's resources for ads is greater than McCain. Nothing about the amount of ads being produced and shown.

oh and...
The Facts:
The Obama campaign has been circulating a study by the University of Wisconsin Advertising Project that examined TV ad spending by the two candidates from September 28 to October 4. The Obama campaign told CNN Sunday that Biden has been referring to that report on the stump. One conclusion, summarized in one of the report's sub-headlines: "McCain's ads nearly 100% negative."

The study also found that both campaigns have spent more on negative advertising than their counterparts did during the last presidential race. "In all of 2004, 64 percent of the Bush campaign's ads were negative, while to date, 73 percent of McCain's ads have been negative. Similarly, 34 percent of all Kerry ads were negative while 61 percent of Obama's have been."
The Verdict:
False. While the analysis Biden referenced says "nearly 100 percent" of the McCain ads were negative, Biden's claim that it says "100 percent" are attacking Obama is inaccurate. The statement is also incomplete. The analysis says about a third of Obama's ads were negative, but Obama has more ads overall, and the two candidates are spending about the same on negative advertising.

little over a 10% difference. not much really and not what Biden claims it to be.

Ah. I haven't seen any ads that attacked the person itself.

and I'm not counting those that are reported on by news or any third party, to me, the ads have to be played on the Media (t.v. or Radio).
you are so lucky not to be living in a battleground state.

although i HAVE seen a mccain ad that puts forth the idea that he has stuff he is going to do if he is elected so they arent ALL negative from that side.

huh? "both cannidates are spending the same amount on attack ads but obamas attack ad spending is under 50% of his total ad spending"?

all that says is they are spending the same amount but Obama's resources for ads is greater than McCain. Nothing about the amount of ads being produced and shown.

oh and...



little over a 10% difference. not much really and not what Biden claims it to be.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2008/10/16/mccain-did-go-100-negative-a-study-finds/

Not as much difference as I thought there was, But I already said that. My point was the only reason Mcain seems like he has more attack ads is because of the larger percentage of his ads that are negative, but this is because Obama has more ads overall.

Even though I never mentioned Biden once before this. his Claim about Mcain ads being 100% negative, there was a period of time where Mcain was spending 100% on negative campaign ads, but that was pretty brief.

McCain is going to have difficulty painting himself as a maverick after he bent over to get the Republican nomination. And he's going to have difficulty getting people to believe he puts "Country First" after picking Palin as his running mate. What's he got left other than to attack Obama, either through words or a "supporter"?

Step out of the race and hope to God that he hasn't killed his chance for continuing a political career?

you are so lucky not to be living in a battleground state.

although i HAVE seen a mccain ad that puts forth the idea that he has stuff he is going to do if he is elected so they arent ALL negative from that side.
yep, both sides engage in political mudslinging.

Oh... and while I am not in a battleground state... I am in a state that is "Vote for Obama cuz he was born here."

...

I'd rather be in a battleground State. :(

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2008/10/16/mccain-did-go-100-negative-a-study-finds/

Not as much difference as I thought it was, But I already said that. My point though was the only reason Mcain seems like he has more attack ads is because of the larger percentage of his ads that are negative, but this is because Obama has more ads overall.
As for Biden's Claim about Mcain being 100% negative, there was a period of time where Mcain was spending 100% on negative campaign ads, but that was pretty brief. Even though I never mentioned Biden once before this.

anyhoo. both sides engage in the mudslinging, both sides lie, both sides carry on with campaigning as usual.

no news here. :p

Probably not, and definitely not as late in the game as McCain picked his vp. But if McCain had picked him early, I think Nader would have considered the offer, thought about the procedural rules the Vice-President makes as President of the Senate, contemplated the foot in the door this would give to third party candidates and then.... refuse the offer.

But he would've thought about it. ;)

WHether he accepted or not, it would have truly demonstrated McCain's dedication to reform, maverickiness and congressional oversight a lot better that Governor Hockey Mom did.

Edit: Also, if Nader was his veep, it would have given McCain someone to reminisce with about the good old days before automobiles. :D

Especially since, from what I heard, McCain didn't chose Palin. the GOP did.

Nader as VP. now that would've been interesting...

Especially since, from what I heard, McCain didn't chose Palin. the GOP did.

Nader as VP. now that would've been interesting...

The entire political world would have shat themselves. It would have been beautiful.

The entire political world would have shat themselves. It would have been beautiful.

nah... my pants would be soiled if it was a McCain - Perot ticket!

nah... my pants would be soiled if it was a McCain - Perot ticket!

Perot has become disillusioned with politics. Pat Buchannan and John Hagelin can do that to a man. :tongue:

Perot has become disillusioned with politics. Pat Buchannan and John Hagelin can do that to a man. :tongue:

and being offered a position like VP can make many a person recover their... vision... :p

and being offered a position like VP can make many a person recover their... vision... :p

I'd prefer Perot remain... blind...

I'd prefer Perot remain... blind...

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/carvey_perot_save.wav

:D

lol

This is a rhetorical question ... but it seems to point up a fundamental difference between Obama and McCain. Why do all McCain's campaign ads lately seem to be attacking Obama, with no other content. Not a word about his real stance on anything. You get no idea of what he stands for, except negatively, from the content of his attacks.

Obama, at least superficially, seems to be concentrating on what he wants to do as President in his ads.
It seemed obvious to me that the Republicans intended to throw the election to begin with, the instant they chose Sarah Palin as VP.

It seemed obvious to me that the Republicans intended to throw the election to begin with, the instant they chose Sarah Palin as VP.

I used to think that, but I have changed my mind. I think they were trying to energize their base which they did, and possibly cash in on some frustrated Hilary suporters which I dont think they did. The problem with Palin is that she discourages every one not in the republican base, and for good reason she is an incompetent nutjob the idea of her as president makes me want to dig a hole in the sand and stick my head in it.

I'd prefer Perot remain... blind...

hence my comment about adding to the aroma on a McCain/Perot ticket. :D

Because hes senile. No, seriously, that can answer any "Why is McCain...?" question you may have.

I dont think they intent to win at this point. I think they intend to use McCain to sow seeds of Discord that they will harvest 8 years later.

This is a rhetorical question ... but it seems to point up a fundamental difference between Obama and McCain. Why do all McCain's campaign ads lately seem to be attacking Obama, with no other content. Not a word about his real stance on anything. You get no idea of what he stands for, except negatively, from the content of his attacks.

Obama, at least superficially, seems to be concentrating on what he wants to do as President in his ads.

Actually, not all of McCain's ads are negative, contrary to what some people might believe.

http://www.youtube.com/user/JohnMcCaindotcom

It seemed obvious to me that the Republicans intended to throw the election to begin with, the instant they chose Sarah Palin as VP.
Yeah that was a dumb thing to do. What did they expect to happen? That they'd get the Fundi vote (Well they did, but they would anyway, with Obama being the anti-christ and all. *Sacarsm*) but I can't believe they thought that they could get the Hiliary voters just because Palin was female.

He should have picked Nader???? You folks must be high, that wouldn't have fared much better than his actual pick, maybe even matched it. Nader is a doddering fool that only rebels without a clue and apathetic stoners would care about in the slightest. Nader and his ilk have always been the candidates preferred by losers that think they're sticking it to anyone but themselves by 'snubbing' the main parties. It's not a huge demographic, and in addiiton to that, Nader wouldn't have exactly helped out McCain's 'old guy' image.

He should have picked Nader???? You folks must be high, that wouldn't have fared much better than his actual pick, maybe even matched it. Nader is a doddering fool that only rebels without a clue and apathetic stoners would care about in the slightest. Nader and his ilk have always been the candidates preferred by losers that think they're sticking it to anyone but themselves by 'snubbing' the main parties. It's not a huge demographic, and in addiiton to that, Nader wouldn't have exactly helped out McCain's 'old guy' image.

I am neither a "rebel without a clue" or an "apathetic stoner" and I voted for Nader in the last election. As to why I did, it's simple: Of the "third party" candidates he's the only one that I knew anything about and I refused to vote for either George W. Bush or John Kerry because I felt that neither one was capable of doing the job.

As to why I did, it's simple: Of the "third party" candidates he's the only one that I knew anything about and I refused to vote for either George W. Bush or John Kerry because I felt that neither one was capable of doing the job.

That's just what I described in different words. A 3rd party candidate was not going to win and taking the time to vote for one is a typical self-important outburst. It's all just to basically say:

"look at me, look at me, I'm different than you! (no damn clue about the political theater or politics in general, but look at me!), I'm making a statement! (I'm clueless)" Yeah, *pats head*.

I wouldn't have anything against a serious 3rd party president if the campaign had any substance behind it, but like it or not, the fact is they don't. It's typically just some failed populist crackpot and the goofballs that think they're making an effort by going to a booth and wasting the resources of voting, instead of getting off their fat asses and organizing a credible campaign behind it. No, no, they should be taken seriously just for being rebels. Well, they fail.

That's just what I described in different words. A 3rd party candidate was not going to win and taking the time to vote for one is a typical self-important outburst. It's all just to basically say:

"look at me, look at me, I'm different than you! (no damn clue about the political theater or politics in general, but look at me!), I'm making a statement! (I'm clueless)" Yeah, *pats head*.


Its called a protest vote. Are you unfamiliar with this concept?

That's just what I described in different words. A 3rd party candidate was not going to win and taking the time to vote for one is a typical self-important outburst. It's all just to basically say:

"look at me, look at me, I'm different than you! (no damn clue about the political theater or politics in general, but look at me!), I'm making a statement! (I'm clueless)" Yeah, *pats head*.

I wouldn't have anything against a serious 3rd party president if the campaign had any substance behind it, but like it or not, the fact is they don't. It's typically just some failed populist crackpot and the goofballs that think they're making an effort by going to a booth and wasting the resources of voting, instead of getting off their fat asses and organizing a credible campaign behind it. No, no, they should be taken seriously just for being rebels. Well, they fail.

Its called a protest vote. Are you unfamiliar with this concept?

Apparently he is, obviously he expects everyone to vote for one of the two main candidates regardless of whether you think either is qualified. And people wonder why the U.S. is stuck in a two party system.

Its called a protest vote. Are you unfamiliar with this concept?

Does a protest vote have any use in the USA ?
Except for letting Al Gore lose of course ;)

I personally think he shoulda picked LG as his running mate (or at least bribed, cajoled, begged and abducted him/his family in an attempt to force LG to run with him.). Not only would he get the NSG vote but he'd also have an expert mudslinger by his side at all times . . .and get this the GOP would have somebody who actually knew something!!!!

Does a protest vote have any use in the USA ?
Except for letting Al Gore lose of course ;)

Point taken.


Sometimes, however it works. In the last IL governor election, for example, the incumbent and the person he ran against were both so horrid that the green party (I think) candidate got 15%+ of the vote.


They now have a perminant spot on our ballot. So, sometimes it works out.

Its called a protest vote. Are you unfamiliar with this concept?

You can call it whatever you want, it's also a waste of resources and nobody but the people who vote that way allegedly care about it. Believe me, nobody outside of that gives the slightest poop.

You want a protest to vote? Don't vote, that's a very common type of protest.

You want a serious 3rd party? Get some real funding, organize, work hard. People would definitely take notice after a while if the vote percentage went up at elections. Short of that is just a quaint club. And have a candidate that shows leadership skills while you're at it, not just some dry, nonreciprocating rhetoric.

You can call it whatever you want, it's also a waste of resources and nobody but the people who vote that way allegedly care about it. Believe me, nobody outside of that gives the slightest poop.

You want a protest to vote? Don't vote, that's a very common type of protest.

You want a serious 3rd party? Get some real funding, organize, work hard. People would definitely take notice after a while if the vote percentage went up at elections. Short of that is just a quaint club. And have a candidate that shows leadership skills while you're at it, not just some dry, nonreciprocating rhetoric.

Sometimes, however it works. In the last IL governor election, for example, the incumbent and the person he ran against were both so horrid that the green party (I think) candidate got 15%+ of the vote.


They now have a perminant spot on our ballot. So, sometimes it works out.



As I mention above, the IL race says youre wrong. "Protest voting" has given the third party now a serious leg up.


What about people who vote for the socialist party because they truely support that party? Should they just not vote? Unfortunitally, the way you view elections and our options is not the way everyone else does.

Ok, I'm only talking about the Presidential Election.

Independent senators and representatives have already happened.

What about people who vote for the socialist party because they truely support that party? Should they just not vote? Unfortunitally, the way you view elections and our options is not the way everyone else does.

Unfortunately it IS the way one needs to view the US presidential elections. It is inevitable, untill the US gets rid of the "winner takes all" system.

He could start talking like Jimmy Walker from "Good Times"

So something like get up in front of a crowd and go ...

"I am the one who makes de States feel awright!

"Go to the polls and vote ..."

*claps hands*

"KID DY-NO-MITE!"

Unfortunately it IS the way one needs to view the US presidential elections. It is inevitable, untill the US gets rid of the "winner takes all" system.

What you're proposing is abolishing the executive branch as we know it. And yeah, I know everyone has an opinion, but, hey, why not just have a million congressmen and 55 presidents?

Ok, I'm only talking about the Presidential Election.

Independent senators and representatives have already happened.

But governors?


If a state can have a third party as a serious contender to its executive branch, especially such a populus state as IL, why not on a national level?

What you're proposing is abolishing the executive branch as we know it. And yeah, I know everyone has an opinion, but, hey, why not just have a million congressmen and 55 presidents?

Look, we've been respectful of your opinions, and youve been nothing but a sarcastic dick in return.

You can either keep acting like a child, and we will respond in kind or ignore you, OR you can tone it down and have a reasonable debate.


Your call.

But governors?


If a state can have a third party as a serious contender to its executive branch, especially such a populus state as IL, why not on a national level?

Jesse Ventura actually won a governorship as a third party candidate.

Jesse Ventura actually won a governorship as a third party candidate.

Exactly.

Unfortunately it IS the way one needs to view the US presidential elections. It is inevitable, untill the US gets rid of the "winner takes all" system.

Or until more people realize that there are more than two choices for president. A vote for a third party candidate that you agree with (or at least find tolerable) as opposed to a vote for one of the 2 main candidates who are ill-suited for the job is not a waste.
Voting for someone who you do not want to be president is a waste.

I kind of like the idea of going back to the original system - several people run, the winner becomes President and 2nd place becomes Vice-President. Think of the possibilities ... *smiles wistfully.*

I kind of like the idea of going back to the original system - several people run, the winner becomes President and 2nd place becomes Vice-President. Think of the possibilities ... *smiles wistfully.*

No Dick Cheney.

Look, we've been respectful of your opinions, and youve been nothing but a sarcastic dick in return.

You can either keep acting like a child, and we will respond in kind or ignore you, OR you can tone it down and have a reasonable debate.


Your call.

None of this was any part of the relevant debate, so you are the one being childish. Typical Nader voter I guess, you think your mere whine is more important than the issues at hand.

None of this was any part of the relevant debate, so you are the one being childish. Typical Nader voter I guess, you think your mere whine is more important than the issues at hand.

Actually, Im not a Nadar voter. Im a die-hard democrat. But hey, dont let that stop you.

Grow up. You'll last longer here, and people might take you seriously.

But governors?


If a state can have a third party as a serious contender to its executive branch, especially such a populus state as IL, why not on a national level?

Because it's not realistic, the fact that it's a contender for governor in one of fifty states speaks for itself. That's not really a bigger deal than a congressman as far as I'm concerned.

Because it's not realistic, the fact that a contender for governor in one of fifty states speaks for itself. That's not really a bigger deal than a congressman as far as I'm concerned.

Well, one won in MN too.

Its clear you dont get how this works.

None of this was any part of the relevant debate, so you are the one being childish.

What?

Actually, Im not a Nadar voter. Im a die-hard democrat. But hey, dont let that stop you.

Grow up. You'll last longer here, and people might take you seriously.

Well good for you, I guess you're just being antagonistic then. And what made you think I was here to be a people-pleaser? Grow up yourself, thanks.

Because it's not realistic, the fact that it's a contender for governor in one of fifty states speaks for itself. That's not really a bigger deal than a congressman as far as I'm concerned.

Two actually, and 20 years ago it was none, so this could be a sign of things to come.

Well, one won in MN too.

Its clear you dont get how this works.

Nice dismissal. Like I said, there have already been Independent congressmen.

*slings you a taco*I sling radioactive Vikings at people.

Who wants one?

Well good for you, I guess you're just being antagonistic then. And what made you think I was here to be a people-pleaser? Grow up yourself, thanks.

Seriously, what?

Well good for you, I guess you're just being antagonistic then.



No, Im not. Its just when people make stupid, ignorant comments, and show a blatant misunderstand of how things work, as well as consistantly thinking their narrow minded and wrong views are the only views that matter, Im going to call them on it.

Dont want me to correct you? Dont say stupid shit. Can you do that?

Two actually, and 20 years ago it was none, so this could be a sign of things to come.

Perhaps, so building presidential campaigns needs to happen, like I said, simply voting and supporting lackluster candidates isn't going to cut it.

Nice dismissal. Like I said, there have already been Independent congressmen.

You do know that a GOVERNOR is not a congressmen right?


Are you being deliberitally stupid, or are you really this clueless?

Seriously, what?

Honostly, I dont know why Im argueing with someone who doesnt seem to understand the difference between a state governor and congressmen.

No, Im not. Its just when people make stupid, ignorant comments, and show a blatant misunderstand of how things work, as well as consistantly thinking their narrow minded and wrong views are the only views that matter, Im going to call them on it.

Dont want me to correct you? Dont say stupid shit. Can you do that?

Nice going, your airclaims don't really have any impact here. All you said is "you suck" in many words. I could do the same and save us both the time: you suck and just whine while dismissing pretty much everything point I've made, with some strawman arguments thrown in for good measure. I never claimed any such things as you list here.

You do know that a GOVERNOR is not a congressmen right?


Are you being deliberitally stupid, or are you really this clueless?

Is it really fair to overlook option C?
Option C would be both being true

Is it really fair to overlook option C?
Option C would be both being true

That hes both? Well, if hes stupid, he doesnt need to act it, so an "all of the above" is pointless.

If option C is hes a troll, Ive thought about that.

Interesting thing about third parties, sometimes they become main parties. Funny how times have changed.

http://www.mcgop.net/History.htm

Nice going, your airclaims don't really have any impact here. All you said is "you suck" in many words. I could do the same and save us both the time: you suck and just whine while dismissing pretty much everything point I've made, with some strawman arguments thrown in for good measure. I never claimed any such things as you list here.

Do you know what a strawman is?


And do you know the difference between a congressmen and governor?

Two actually, and 20 years ago it was none, so this could be a sign of things to come.

Five, actually-Jesse Ventura, Angus King-independent of Maine 1995-2003, Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. of Conneticut 1991-1995, and Walter Joseph Hickel of Alaska from the Alaska Independence Party from 1990-1994.

Five, actually-Jesse Ventura, Angus King-independent of Maine 1995-2003, Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. of Conneticut 1991-1995, and Walter Joseph Hickel of Alaska from the Alaska Independence Party from 1990-1994.

But they were congressmen!:headbang:





:confused:

Interesting thing about third parties, sometimes they become main parties. Funny how times have changed.

http://www.mcgop.net/History.htm

Kind of where I was going with this...

I just wanted to give Dimesa plenty of chances to say ridiculous things.

I know, it's ironic you think I'm stupid while you miss my point.

I never claimed a governor was a congressman. If you're that simple don't blame me.

I pretty much implied the notion that a congressman is another major elected official just like a governor is, and that of those we have only not seen governors in the Independent side. I don't consider a governor more important for a party than congressmen, esp. when we've already long had more than one in a party. Either case, far from a presidency. Get it?

I know, it's ironic you think I'm stupid while you miss my point.

I never claimed a governor was a congressman. If you're that simple don't blame me.

I pretty much implied the notion that a congressman is another major elected official just like a governor is, and that of those we have only not seen governors in the Independent side. I don't consider a governor more important for a party than congressmen, esp. when we've already long had more than one in a party. Either case, far from a presidency. Get it?

No, see, we've said that many states elect third party governos. Ergo, its feasable that we could have a third party president, and the vote isnt just pointless self glorifying whining like you seem to think it is.

Your rebutle? "WE ALWAYS HAD INDEPENDENT CONGRESSMEN!"

Are you a troll? Or are you going to start acting a manner were we might take you seriously?

I know, it's ironic you think I'm stupid while you miss my point.

I never claimed a governor was a congressman. If you're that simple don't blame me.

I pretty much implied the notion that a congressman is another major elected official just like a governor is, and that of those we have only not seen governors in the Independent side. I don't consider a governor more important for a party than congressmen, esp. when we've already long had more than one in a party. Either case, far from a presidency. Get it?

Like the Governors of Georgia, California, Arkansas, and Texas who have made up four of our last five presidents?

Did someone just quote CNN as a viable news source?

Like the Governors of Georgia, California, Arkansas, and Texas who have made up four of our last five presidents?

We've always had independent congressmen.

Did you just quote CNN as a viable news source?

And the problem with CNN is?

Five, actually-Jesse Ventura, Angus King-independent of Maine 1995-2003, Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. of Conneticut 1991-1995, and Walter Joseph Hickel of Alaska from the Alaska Independence Party from 1990-1994.

Well, looks like none of us knew this trivia. Thanks for googling. It really just emphasizes my point though.

I know, it's ironic you think I'm stupid while you miss my point.
It's not ironic, it shows your inability to present your argument in a fashion that can be understood...
I never claimed a governor was a congressman. If you're that simple don't blame me.
read what you wrote:
Because it's not realistic, the fact that it's a contender for governor in one of fifty states speaks for itself. That's not really a bigger deal than a congressman as far as I'm concerned.Well, one won in MN too.

Its clear you dont get how this works.Nice dismissal. Like I said, there have already been Independent congressmen.


I pretty much implied the notion that a congressman is another major elected official just like a governor is, and that of those we have only not seen governors in the Independent side. I don't consider a governor more important for a party than congressmen, esp. when we've already long had more than one in a party. Either case, far from a presidency. Get it?
If you had stated it like that to begin with it would have been clear, as opposed to the way you actually said (look up a little bit in case you forgot)

Well, looks like none of us knew this trivia. Thanks for googling. It really just emphasizes my point though.

No, seriously, are you a troll?

Like the Governors of Georgia, California, Arkansas, and Texas who have made up four of our last five presidents?

How many Independent presidents? Please google it too to be sure.

How many Independent presidents? Please google it too to be sure.

*whooooosh*


Thats the sound of the point going over your head.


You said governors are far from the presidency.

We point out that 4 of our 5 last presidents were governors, showing that candidates who are made governor are likely to become president.


You get it now? Because I could explain it slower and in smaller words for you.

No, seriously, are you a troll?

Give it a rest already, or stick to the points of topic.

Five, actually-Jesse Ventura, Angus King-independent of Maine 1995-2003, Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. of Conneticut 1991-1995, and Walter Joseph Hickel of Alaska from the Alaska Independence Party from 1990-1994.

Which just adds more support to my point

Give it a rest already, or stick to the points of topic.

Ill stop asking when you start actually discussing instead of flamebaiting and making nonsensical claims.

Well, looks like none of us knew this trivia. Thanks for googling. It really just emphasizes my point though.
What?
How many Independent presidents? Please google it too to be sure.
When was the last time the Whig party won the presidency? Or the Federalists?

You said governors are far from the presidency.

And you're dwelling in semantics. The point is and always was that the parties themselves are the presidential campaigns, this is esp. true of the presidential elections. It's no coincidence they receive the most attention out of any other political election in the country.

How many Independent presidents? Please google it too to be sure.

So you're actually saying that since it hasn't happened yet, it can never happen?

By that logic McCain is a shoe-in since there has never been a black president...

Ill stop asking when you start actually discussing instead of flamebaiting and making nonsensical claims.

Yes, please continue with fascinating content like this. :rolleyes:

So you're actually saying that since it hasn't happened yet, it can never happen?

By that logic McCain is a shoe-in since there has never been a black president...

See, Knights of Liberty, that is a "strawman" argument.

And you're dwelling in semantics. The point is and always was that the parties themselves are the presidential campaigns, this is esp. true of the presidential elections. It's no coincidence they receive the most attention out of any other political election in the country.

No, see, pointing out that your claims are nonsensical and baseless is not "dwelling in semantics".

Well, looks like none of us knew this trivia. Thanks for googling. It really just emphasizes my point though.

Which just adds more support to my point

I'm all purpose, baby! I apparently support apposing sides of the same argument in one stroke!

See, Knights of Liberty, that is a "strawman" argument.

Except thats what you are essentially saying.


Your inability to get your point across is no fault of ours.


Heres a hint, if everyone is confused, its not everyone else, its you. Unless your the Ubermensch.

See, Knights of Liberty, that is a "strawman" argument.

That's it...

What?

When was the last time the Whig party won the presidency? Or the Federalists?

1850 & 1796 respectively

But to be fair they were major parties at the time...

See, Knights of Liberty, that is a "strawman" argument.

No, actually it's not. I didn't say that was what you were saying, I was asking if that was what you were saying. Note the question mark.

Your inability to get your point across is no fault of ours.


Heres a hint, if everyone is confused, its not everyone else, its you. Unless your the Ubermensch.

Right, that's it, it's not that you're depth of comprehension stinks. Please keep saying "you suck" a million different ways.

1850 & 1796 respectively

But to be fair they were major parties at the time...

Don't forget the Democratic-Republicans (1792-1824). So, really, there were three major parties overlapping each other in that period.

Right, that's it, it's not that you're depth of comprehension stinks. Please keep saying "you suck" a million different ways.



Yep.


"None of you are getting my point! Its not that Im utterly incapable of expressing my thoughts clearly and coherantly, its that you are all st00pid!!!11!"


I now know not to take you seriously in the future. But Im keeping you off ignore for now, because your hilarious.


Im going to bed, but I do hope youre still here tomorrow when I check this forum, because youre silly.

1850 & 1796 respectively

But to be fair they were major parties at the time...

None in the 20th century and up? I can't see how I'm supposed to believe it's going to happen for us now without any effort besides a goofball willing to run and the armchair rebels who will vote for him/her. It's going to take far more than that.

I hope my point repeated in a nutshell is understood.

None in the 20th century and up? I can't see how I'm supposed to believe it's going to happen for us now without any effort besides a goofball willing to run and the armchair rebels who will vote for him/her. It's going to take far more than that.

I hope my point repeated in a nutshell is understood.



Yep, everyone who votes outside of the two parties is an "armchair rebel". Nevermind if they actually agree with the 3rd party candidate or not. What you say matters more.


Your point is as weak now as it was then.

None in the 20th century and up? I can't see how I'm supposed to believe it's going to happen for us now without any effort besides a goofball willing to run and the armchair rebels who will vote for him/her. It's going to take far more than that.

I hope my point repeated in a nutshell is understood.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats were originally third parties.

Your point fails.

Yep, everyone who votes outside of the two parties is an "armchair rebel". Nevermind if they actually agree with the 3rd party candidate or not. What you say matters more.

Again, simply voting doesn't amount to any kind of real support in this case. The political presidential party would have to be built into a contender, that would be the true support for it.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats were originally third parties.

Your point fails.

Strawman.


And a governor is a congressmen.


Ok, now Im really going to bed. This is just too funny.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats were originally third parties.

Your point fails.

And the entire concept of parties was originally some aristocrats from a monarchy. I think The Queen's 3rd Party in 2012 has a shot merely for that fact. Go way back. We were all primordial ooze at one point. Ok, sorry, I won't argue against slugs for president.

Again, simply voting doesn't amount to any kind of real support in this case. The political presidential party would have to be built into a contender, that would be the true support for it.

How about you look into how the Democrats and Republicans became the major contenders...
I'll give you a hint it's because their policies were relevant whereas their predecessors weren't anymore.

How about you look into how the Democrats and Republicans became the major contenders...
I'll give you a hint it's because their policies were relevant whereas their predecessors weren't anymore.

No, why don't you tell us how they did it? Did they nominate lame candidates and have a few armchair rebels vote for them to be different?

I doubt it.

No, why don't you tell us how they did it? Did they nominate lame candidates and have a few armchair rebels vote for them to be different?

I doubt it.

Your horse is dead. Stop beating it.

No, why don't you tell us how they did it? Did they nominate lame candidates and have a few armchair rebels vote for them to be different?

I doubt it.

I already told you...

Their policies were relevant, the party they supplanted policies were not...

Admittedly alot of the current third parties have limited appeal, but that does not mean that if one of the big two stumbles badly that one cannot rise up to the challenge. Which is what it seems like you are saying.

How many Independent presidents? Please google it too to be sure.
George Washington. The man with the foresight to see the problems of political parties. It really is a shame no one listened.

You know, there's no prize for picking the winner. If you vote for a guy and he wins, they don't send everybody who voted for him a toaster oven. There's no penalty for voting for a loser. If you vote and the other guy wins, they don't have you taken out back and beaten. At least not yet.

So why not pick the man you think will actually do the best job? What does it matter if he actualy could win or not?

Am I the wacko here? :confused:

Am I the wacko here? :confused:

Always. But since it needed to be said, this time in the Shakespearean sense...

Right, that's it, it's not that you're depth of comprehension stinks. Please keep saying "you suck" a million different ways.

When insulting someone else's intelligence it somewhat harms your case if you confuse your and you're.

1992 election - independent Ross Perot won 18.9% of the popular vote.

1968 election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968) - independent George Wallace won 13.5% of the popular vote and 5 states on the electoral vote, totaling 46 electoral votes.

WHY did no one bring this up before, to end Dimesa's flood of ignorance?

However, that being said, I do almost agree with him. In this election, a vote for a third party candidate is somewhat wasted. A vote for Obama is not just a vote for Obama, but a vote to keep the republicans out of office. In this election it is vitally important that the republicans don't win, just as it was in 2004, and in 2000. In elections where it is more important to keep one candidate OUT of office than to get one candidate IN office, I think third party votes are wasted.

But, that being said, in an election where, of the GOP and Dem candidates, it doesn't really matter who wins, then a third party vote is probably the way to go.

However, to reiterate, in THIS election, a vote for a third party is a vote that could have been much better spent voting for Obama to keep McBush out of office, and thus condeming the horror that has been the last 8 years.

You know, there's no prize for picking the winner. If you vote for a guy and he wins, they don't send everybody who voted for him a toaster oven. There's no penalty for voting for a loser. If you vote and the other guy wins, they don't have you taken out back and beaten. At least not yet.

So why not pick the man you think will actually do the best job? What does it matter if he actualy could win or not?

Am I the wacko here? :confused:Wait, I don't get a prize? Forget this voting shit then.

Wait, I don't get a prize? Forget this voting shit then.Some booths give you "I voted" stickers. That's a prize, I guess. In Iraq, they ink one of your fingers for you.

McCain is crazy! Bad bad crazy!:eek2:

You know, there's no prize for picking the winner. If you vote for a guy and he wins, they don't send everybody who voted for him a toaster oven. There's no penalty for voting for a loser. If you vote and the other guy wins, they don't have you taken out back and beaten. At least not yet.

So why not pick the man you think will actually do the best job? What does it matter if he actualy could win or not?

Am I the wacko here? :confused:

because of the mentality of "throwing your vote away" that is prevailant these days. :(

because of the mentality of "throwing your vote away" that is prevailant these days. :(

Seems to me that voting for the guy you think can win, or the guy that you think can beat the guy you don't want to win instead of voting for the guy you think can do the best job is throwing your vote away.

But then again, I'm the wacko. ;)

I live in NY and I really dont see many ads


I was wondering if you guys from battleground states get them all the time?

Aside: pages ago I asked if Obama's supporters truly were vastly more civilised than the vocal McCain crowd. One person answered with a resounding yes.

Are there any opposing views ;) ?

Seems to me that voting for the guy you think can win, or the guy that you think can beat the guy you don't want to win instead of voting for the guy you think can do the best job is throwing your vote away.

But then again, I'm the wacko. ;)

Considering how many strange looks when I also suggested that...

we wackos need to stick together.

I live in NY and I really dont see many ads


I was wondering if you guys from battleground states get them all the time?Oh god yes. I live in Florida and every other commercial is a campaign ad.

None in the 20th century and up? I can't see how I'm supposed to believe it's going to happen for us now without any effort besides a goofball willing to run and the armchair rebels who will vote for him/her. It's going to take far more than that.

I hope my point repeated in a nutshell is understood.

Well, while correct that no third party canidate WON an election in the 20th century, coming in second place in the election of 1912 isn't too bad. Here, read up: Presidential Election of 1912 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1912)

I live in NY and I really dont see many ads


I was wondering if you guys from battleground states get them all the time?
constantly.

im hoping that new mexico will go blue enough that mccain will pull his ads from the state soon.

McCain is crazy! Bad bad crazy!:eek2:

Why do you hate freedom?

1992 election - independent Ross Perot won 18.9% of the popular vote.

1968 election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968) - independent George Wallace won 13.5% of the popular vote and 5 states on the electoral vote, totaling 46 electoral votes.

WHY did no one bring this up before, to end Dimesa's flood of ignorance?


Because looking things up is bad, and somehow proves his point. And we're dicks. Or something.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats were originally third parties.

Your point fails.That's not really true. The Democrats were one of the TWO parties into which the old Jeffersonian party split, and the Republicans formed after the second party (the Whigs) had disintegrated.

This time, I expect an unusually high third party vote (but not more than 5%) from people who absolutely cannot bring themselves to vote for Obama, but are repelled by McCain.

Why do you hate freedom?

I don´t hate freedom. I just think Republicans are wackos. Besides, I would be quite concerned if my candidate for the presidency referred to me as ¨My fellow Prisoners¨, like McCain did, during his campaign.

I don´t hate freedom. I just think Republicans are wackos. Besides, I would be quite concerned if my candidate for the presidency referred to me as ¨My fellow Prisoners¨, like McCain did, during his campaign.Wait, what? Source?

Wait, what? Source?

It was a slip. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mBi7d6e5KI) In the great litany of reasons why this man should not be president it's barely worth a mention, just a funny slip.

Wait, what? Source?

Hera ya go!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_52zoXfWKLY

It was a slip. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mBi7d6e5KI) In the great litany of reasons why this man should not be president it's barely worth a mention, just a funny slip.I agree. It's not really worth getting up in arms about. It honestly sounds like he was trying to make a point with it rather than it being a slip up. Maybe he meant fellow prisoners as in prisoners of the crisis or debt? Who knows, who cares.

That's not really true. The Democrats were one of the TWO parties into which the old Jeffersonian party split, and the Republicans formed after the second party (the Whigs) had disintegrated.

This time, I expect an unusually high third party vote (but not more than 5%) from people who absolutely cannot bring themselves to vote for Obama, but are repelled by McCain.

I'm also anticipating a slightly larger third-party vote, but not for the reason you detailed. I'm thinking that a lot of moderate republicans who don't like McBush, but don't like Obama enough either, will be inclined to vote for the Libertarian party. But I think because of Obama's energizing campaign, most of the lefty voters will vote for Obama rather than a third party. The other thing to consider is that a lot of 'lefties' don't want another republican president, and will vote for whoever they can to make sure it's a loss to the republicans this year. Whereas I think past republican supporters might not care enough for McBush to vote for him.

I agree. It's not really worth getting up in arms about. It honestly sounds like he was trying to make a point with it rather than it being a slip up. Maybe he meant fellow prisoners as in prisoners of the crisis or debt? Who knows, who cares.
It was probably more a wires being crossed and short-circuited in his brain. Every 2nd sentence he has to say, "my friends" and every 5th make mention about his POW experience. Obviously he made a mistake in his arithmetic and slipped in the word, 'prisoners' a sentence too early.

When insulting someone else's intelligence it somewhat harms your case if you confuse your and you're.

And garden variety typo lames makes one look like a genius?

However, that being said, I do almost agree with him. In this election, a vote for a third party candidate is somewhat wasted. A vote for Obama is not just a vote for Obama, but a vote to keep the republicans out of office. In this election it is vitally important that the republicans don't win, just as it was in 2004, and in 2000. In elections where it is more important to keep one candidate OUT of office than to get one candidate IN office, I think third party votes are wasted.

What if you do not agree with the policies of either candidate? Should the person vote for Obama (as you suggested) simply because you don't want a Republican president?

That to me is ludicrous. People should vote for whoever they think will do the best job.

Considering how many strange looks when I also suggested that...

we wackos need to stick together.

I agree as well...
Although I'm not sure about the being stuck to LG part...

What if you do not agree with the policies of either candidate? Should the person vote for Obama (as you suggested) simply because you don't want a Republican president?

That to me is ludicrous. People should vote for whoever they think will do the best job.

Most people acknowledge that the Bush years have been bad (that's one of McBush's campaign platforms - "I'm not Bush", but he kinda really is). Most people not voting for either the dems or reps don't like what has happened over the past years (this I cannot prove, but I observe that it seems to be true), and most people who aren't outright McBush supporters can see that voting for McBush is a continuation of the past 8 years. So, by voting for Obama, you are putting an end to the horrible leadership of the Bush mob.

Basically, unless you flat out agree with the past 8 years, you should vote for Obama, simply because, regardless of anything else, he does represent change (change from a republican administration to a democrat administration, which is change, if only by a little bit). No one can argue that dems are just as bad as reps, because things were going okay during the 90's, and things turned to shit in the 80's and 00's, economically.

If you're apathetic enough to say that the economy sucks, or that fuel prices suck, or that Bush sucks, then you should vote, not because you want Obama to be president, but because you don't want a continuation of the failed policies of the Bush admin, which means voting for Obama. It's not a question of who you think is most qualified, it's a question of keeping out who is least qualified, and most people agree that Bush is bad, and if you're not voting for McCain, you probably agree with that to an extent.

That to me is ludicrous. People should vote for whoever they think will do the best job.

Then reform the US election system so that is a viable option.

<snip>

So you do not think that people should vote for the person that they think is best for the job?

Then reform the US election system so that is a viable option.

Voting for who you think is the best man for the job is already a viable option.




Edit:
Do you feel that if the candidate you voted for loses, you have wasted your vote?

Do you feel that if the candidate you voted for loses, you have wasted your vote?

Depends. If one knows for certain that candidate will not win - which is pretty much guaranteed in the idiotic "winner takes all" system the US presidential election employs if you do not vote for one of the main candidates- and you really, really, REALLY do not want a certain person to win... yes. THe US presidency is slightly too important to view as a sports event where your team may win or lose.

If you had a system where power was granted proportionally to the amount of votes received (i.e. a coalition government) then the vote has value.

It was probably more a wires being crossed and short-circuited in his brain. Every 2nd sentence he has to say, "my friends" and every 5th make mention about his POW experience. Obviously he made a mistake in his arithmetic and slipped in the word, 'prisoners' a sentence too early.
Another reason not to vote for McCain... I get this vision of him slipping into a flashback like the 'Strawberry' Character in "Up in Smoke"


Claymores.



What?



Claymores.



Get me up past
that last hutch



and jettison me
into the paddies.



What are you
talking about paddies?



Ain't no paddies,
just Chicanos, man.



What are you
talking about?



Strike that
line chatter, grunt.



If you'd deploy
a little recon,



you'd see that Charlie
has us surrounded.




Yeah just what we need with with their finger on the button...

Depends. If one knows for certain that candidate will not win - which is pretty much guaranteed in the idiotic "winner takes all" system the US presidential election employs if you do not vote for one of the main candidates- and you really, really, REALLY do not want a certain person to win... yes. THe US presidency is slightly too important to view as a sports event where your team may win or lose.

If you had a system where power was granted proportionally to the amount of votes received (i.e. a coalition government) then the vote has value.

And I feel that voting for someone who I do not think is the best person for the job is a wasted voted, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree

So you do not think that people should vote for the person that they think is best for the job?

In THIS election? No. I think you should vote for the candidate who has a chance at beating the candidate you DON'T think is best for the job. In this election, it is more important to keep out the bad candidate, then make sure the good candidate gets in. But in an election where neither candidate is too bad, then by all means, third party voting is the way to go.

In THIS election? No. I think you should vote for the candidate who has a chance at beating the candidate you DON'T think is best for the job. In this election, it is more important to keep out the bad candidate, then make sure the good candidate gets in. But in an election where neither candidate is too bad, then by all means, third party voting is the way to go.

What if someone is of the Opinion that both Obama and McCain are bad candidates? See, just because you think that Obama is a good candidate and McCain is a bad one does not make it true for everyone.

What if someone is of the Opinion that both Obama and McCain are bad candidates?
This is why I expect the third-party vote to be up around 5% this time.

What if someone is of the Opinion that both Obama and McCain are bad candidates? See, just because you think that Obama is a good candidate and McCain is a bad one does not make it true for everyone.

Ahh, but I also mentioned a fed-upness with the current administration, and a loathing of the past 8 years. Obama WILL be different from the past 8 years, likely for the better, but he will be different. McCain will not. So, if you're apathetic enough to not like either candidate, but you did not like the Bush administration, then you should vote for Obama simply to change the pace. Or else you can stop complaining about things if McCain wins and things are the same or worse.

Ahh, but I also mentioned a fed-upness with the current administration, and a loathing of the past 8 years. Obama WILL be different from the past 8 years, likely for the better, but he will be different. McCain will not. So, if you're apathetic enough to not like either candidate, but you did not like the Bush administration, then you should vote for Obama simply to change the pace. Or else you can stop complaining about things if McCain wins and things are the same or worse.

Disliking Obama and McCain does not automatically make you apathetic. And I repeat that I don't believe anyone should ever vote for someone that they do not believe is the right (or at least best available) man for the job.

And I repeat that I don't believe anyone should ever vote for someone that they do not believe is the right (or at least best available) man for the job.
The primary role for me as a voter is to see elected a government that I would not be unhappy to be lead by. If I were a rabid capitalist, it would be foolish of me to vote for the Libertarian party if a Socialist party were one vote ahead of their nearest, moderately conservative, competition.

Do you feel that if the candidate you voted for loses, you have wasted your vote?

it's worse than that, even. sometimes your vote causes the exact opposite of ideals to be implemented. it's not just a waste, it's aiding the enemy.

I can't believe the number of people advocating voting for someone that you do not feel is qualified.

Well i think its simply down to the fact that McCain has run out of things tosay. So he thought that his last chance might be to just pick on Obama.

Disliking Obama and McCain does not automatically make you apathetic. And I repeat that I don't believe anyone should ever vote for someone that they do not believe is the right (or at least best available) man for the job.

In an ideal democracy, sure, your idealism is completely correct. But the US is NOT an ideal democracy, not even close. Preferrential voting however, would make voting for the candidate you like most as well as voting to keep out the worst candidate possible. However, ranking the candidates from 1 to n is a little too complicated for most people. Which is why the US's voting system is fundamentally flawed and murderous to true democracy. Face the fact, with the US, it's not who you think is best, it's ALWAYS lesser of two evils.

I can't believe the number of people advocating voting for someone that you do not feel is qualified.It makes me glad that I won't be able to vote this time around. I don't have enough of a good idea about both candidates to decide which is best for me.

If it's anything like Australia it's because both political parties have become practically the same after years of no real competition and stagnation.

Our parties cant do a great add campaign based on there polices because they have no real beliefs anymore, they just bag eachother simply because of a lack of idea's. Unless you do some research you can even get confused for what they stand for.

Heck thats why I got excited when we finally got a Labour candidate that offered us something, but even now it's slowly turning into the same old Australia again with no real changes or motives.

I just wish some country in the western world had a leader that not only wanted change but was willing to cut the red tape to make it happen, because in the end thats my theory on politics is that there is so much red tape that stops laws getting passed and the like that no real changed can be made thus making Democracy worthless.

((Yeah I know it's about my country, but I wont make comments about the US system when I barely understand it))

McCain is a little dude, back in his day he was a fanatical horny dude.
All little dudes are horny toads. He was actually decent looking .. same as W was when he was young, but W wasn't little. ?

I can't believe the number of people advocating voting for someone that you do not feel is qualified.
This is very basic stuff. Voting is not about expressing yourself, nor is it about imposing your ideas on the political system. Representative democracy does not work that way. It is about compromise - it's aim is not to find the best person for the job but the person that the greatest number of people can accept. If you want the "best person for the job", then you need a benevolent dictatorship, since, fundamentally, people don't vote for "the best person" but "who they think is the best person". And people can't be trusted to know who the best person is. Me included.

The truth of the matter is, I don't think anyone is qualified to lead. There is not a human being alive, now or ever to come, that knows what the right thing to do in every circumstance is. But I'm not voting because I want to put that imaginary person in the position of authority; I'm voting because somebody needs to occupy that seat, and it is far better to have someone closer to that ideal than further away.

The aim of my vote is to secure this authority, in compromise with my fellow members of the electorate, in favour of someone who I think is "good enough".

You get it now?