Indecision 2008: The Political Discussion Thread

[Norelco]

You have to wonder if the Republican party is hiring this guy to run every election to pull votes away from the Democrats.

[Woozie]

lol, a friend of mine jokingly said the same thing just this morning.

[Seraphise]

I don't think he'll have a very substantial effect this election, its way to focused on obama/hillary

[Xavier]

I don't have the exact numbers, but I believe his effectiveness has been declining. In 2000 he had something like 3.3% of the vote, while in 2004 only like .3~.6% of the vote.

[Keno]

I don't have the exact numbers, but I believe his effectiveness has been declining. In 2000 he had something like 3.3% of the vote, while in 2004 only like .3~.6% of the vote.

I'd vote for him over any of the current front runners (McCain/Obama/Hilary), but not over Paul.

[Correction]

I don't have the exact numbers, but I believe his effectiveness has been declining. In 2000 he had something like 3.3% of the vote, while in 2004 only like .3~.6% of the vote.

I'd vote for him over any of the current front runners (McCain/Obama/Hilary), but not over Paul.

I find it interesting that your top choices for president are a big-government progressivist and a republican from texas who shakes hands with libertarians...

[Keno]

I don't have the exact numbers, but I believe his effectiveness has been declining. In 2000 he had something like 3.3% of the vote, while in 2004 only like .3~.6% of the vote.

I'd vote for him over any of the current front runners (McCain/Obama/Hilary), but not over Paul.

I find it interesting that your top choices for president are a big-government progressivist and a republican from texas who shakes hands with libertarians...

Both of them would be able to do good for this country. There are multiple ways to get out of this muck we're in; there is no singular solution. Either extreme can work to make the problem better, it's these damn middle of the roaders that get nothing done. I'm voting in the '08 election based almost purely on economic issues as that's whats going to effect me most in the upcoming years. Many of the social issues I couldn't give a damn about (illegal immigration, gay marriage, etc.). I feel that both Paul and Nader would be the most fiscally responsible and probably the most eager to take down the useless social institutions that are plaguing our budget. If you look at Nader on the issues, sure he's for more taxation, but the taxes will fall mostly on the upper 1%, which I have no problem with.

[Correction]

There's more to fiscal responsibility than shifting the tax burden around. Nader would spend like a motherfucker.

[Norelco]

I just don't understand the whole "Bush and the Republicans really mucked up this country, so I was going to vote for a Democrat, but now that Nader is running I'm going to throw away my vote to a guy who has no chance in hell of getting elected" mentality.

I don't know if Xavier's numbers are correct or not, but this guy has basically singlehandedly delivered the elections to the Republicans because of liberal fart-sniffers who change their vote from Dem to Nader.

[Keno]

I just don't understand the whole "Bush and the Republicans really mucked up this country, so I was going to vote for a Democrat, but now that Nader is running I'm going to throw away my vote to a guy who has no chance in hell of getting elected" mentality.

I don't know if Xavier's numbers are correct or not, but this guy has basically singlehandedly delivered the elections to the Republicans because of liberal fart-sniffers who change their vote from Dem to Nader.

Oh yeah, I shouldn't vote for who I think will run the country the best, I should vote for who is going to win. As for Nader's spending, yes, he is a spender. But if you look at his history on spending and social campaigns, you'll see that it's almost always useful spending on necessary or near necessary institutions. Take a look at some of the stuff his group Public Citizen has done.

[Norelco]

I just don't understand the whole "Bush and the Republicans really mucked up this country, so I was going to vote for a Democrat, but now that Nader is running I'm going to throw away my vote to a guy who has no chance in hell of getting elected" mentality.

I don't know if Xavier's numbers are correct or not, but this guy has basically singlehandedly delivered the elections to the Republicans because of liberal fart-sniffers who change their vote from Dem to Nader.

Oh yeah, I shouldn't vote for who I think will run the country the best, I should vote for who is going to win. As for Nader's spending, yes, he is a spender. But if you look at his history on spending and social campaigns, you'll see that it's almost always useful spending on necessary or near necessary institutions. Take a look at some of the stuff his group Public Citizen has done.

Be realistic, you fucking vote for the person who is the lesser of two evils, not the idealistic idea. Morons like you helped put that fucking maniac Bush in office.

[Keno]

I just don't understand the whole "Bush and the Republicans really mucked up this country, so I was going to vote for a Democrat, but now that Nader is running I'm going to throw away my vote to a guy who has no chance in hell of getting elected" mentality.

I don't know if Xavier's numbers are correct or not, but this guy has basically singlehandedly delivered the elections to the Republicans because of liberal fart-sniffers who change their vote from Dem to Nader.

Oh yeah, I shouldn't vote for who I think will run the country the best, I should vote for who is going to win. As for Nader's spending, yes, he is a spender. But if you look at his history on spending and social campaigns, you'll see that it's almost always useful spending on necessary or near necessary institutions. Take a look at some of the stuff his group Public Citizen has done.

Be realistic, you fucking vote for the person who is the lesser of two evils, not the idealistic idea. Morons like you helped put that fucking maniac Bush in office.

Fuck that. It's people like you who slowly let our freedoms slip away until we're being butt fucked by the gov't and you're wondering why. Not to mention, my vote doesn't even count because I live in CA. CA is obviously going to the Dem front runner no matter who I vote for. So I might as well put another vote in for who I think would be best for president and increase his popular vote count.

[Norelco]

Fuck that. It's people like you who slowly let our freedoms slip away until we're being butt fucked by the gov't and you're wondering why. Not to mention, my vote doesn't even count because I live in CA. CA is obviously going to the Dem front runner no matter who I vote for. So I might as well put another vote in for who I think would be best for president and increase his popular vote count.

Excuse me for not knowing you live in CA.

Not all of you fart-sniffing idealists live in CA. If Nader really gave a shit about this country he'd go about getting on a platform that a larger majority of people can take seriously instead of joining a campaign season that is pretty much over and done with. And don't even start on me supporting letting our freedoms slip away. I'm advocating not voting for maniacs like Bush.

[aceofspades]

gotta love a political argument containing the words "fart sniffing"

Morons like you helped put that fucking maniac Bush in office.

pot kettle etc etc

[Khamsin]

I just don't understand the whole "Bush and the Republicans really mucked up this country, so I was going to vote for a Democrat, but now that Nader is running I'm going to throw away my vote to a guy who has no chance in hell of getting elected" mentality.

I don't know if Xavier's numbers are correct or not, but this guy has basically singlehandedly delivered the elections to the Republicans because of liberal fart-sniffers who change their vote from Dem to Nader.

Oh yeah, I shouldn't vote for who I think will run the country the best, I should vote for who is going to win. As for Nader's spending, yes, he is a spender. But if you look at his history on spending and social campaigns, you'll see that it's almost always useful spending on necessary or near necessary institutions. Take a look at some of the stuff his group Public Citizen has done.

You can vote on principle, sure.

But if you want to actually accomplish something, you sometimes need to do things that don't follow your principles on the surface, but in the end will be the closest you can realistically get and therefore ensure your best interests.

There's many situations in life where you can't take the straight arrow path to a moral victory, and instead must get there in a roundabout way. To others it may seem as if you've abandoned your principles, but your principles are exactly what is driving you down that path. You have the means to the end all planned out, and while the means may not fit your principles, the end will.

Your goal is to ensure the best person possible for you gets elected. You believe it is Nader, but your second choice is Hillary/Obama. You have two choices. If you vote for Nader, not only will Nader not win but your second choice may lose. If you vote for Hillary/Obama, Nader still won't win but at least your second choice has a better chance. By voting for your second choice you are not abandoning your principles, you are embracing them.

Of course, you can claim that it's that mentality that keeps Nader from winning. However, whether or not that is true, it is how it is and your choices remain unchanged.

[Keno]

I just don't understand the whole "Bush and the Republicans really mucked up this country, so I was going to vote for a Democrat, but now that Nader is running I'm going to throw away my vote to a guy who has no chance in hell of getting elected" mentality.

I don't know if Xavier's numbers are correct or not, but this guy has basically singlehandedly delivered the elections to the Republicans because of liberal fart-sniffers who change their vote from Dem to Nader.

Oh yeah, I shouldn't vote for who I think will run the country the best, I should vote for who is going to win. As for Nader's spending, yes, he is a spender. But if you look at his history on spending and social campaigns, you'll see that it's almost always useful spending on necessary or near necessary institutions. Take a look at some of the stuff his group Public Citizen has done.

You can vote on principle, sure.

But if you want to actually accomplish something, you sometimes need to do things that don't follow your principles on the surface, but in the end will be the closest you can realistically get and therefore ensure your best interests.

There's many situations in life where you can't take the straight arrow path to a moral victory, and instead must get there in a roundabout way. To others it may seem as if you've abandoned your principles, but your principles are exactly what is driving you down that path. You have the means to the end all planned out, and while the means may not fit your principles, the end will.

Your goal is to ensure the best person possible for you gets elected. You believe it is Nader, but your second choice is Hillary/Obama. You have two choices. If you vote for Nader, not only will Nader not win but your second choice may lose. If you vote for Hillary/Obama, Nader still won't win but at least your second choice has a better chance. By voting for your second choice you are not abandoning your principles, you are embracing them.

Of course, you can claim that it's that mentality that keeps Nader from winning. However, whether or not that is true, it is how it is and your choices remain unchanged.

Yes, it is that mentality that keeps the good candidates from winning. And NO, you cannot just sit back and say "that is how it is". If you continue with that line of thought then it will never change. Historically significant events always start as a minority movement.

[Aerin]

It's people like you who slowly let our freedoms slip away until we're being butt fucked by the gov't and you're wondering why.

Actually it's people like you that made this happen to us currently. It was people like you that voted for Nader the first time, which helped give us Bush the first time, which ended up giving us what you said above.

?

[Keno]

It's people like you who slowly let our freedoms slip away until we're being butt fucked by the gov't and you're wondering why.

Actually it's people like you that made this happen to us currently. It was people like you that voted for Nader the first time, which helped give us Bush the first time, which ended up giving us what you said above.

?

haha. I love how everyone here has perfect 20/20 hindsight on the 2000/2004 elections. Yeah man, you voted for Nader, you fucking caused 9/11 basically!

And you people seem to not understand and just keep spouting out your circular logic:

Don't vote for Nader. Why? He can't win. Why? Because we're telling everyone not to vote for him because he can't win.

How about instead of that retarded logic you just disseminate the information about the candidate and if he's the best candidate then make sure people vote for him and not one of the other candidates?

[Ryko]

It's people like you who slowly let our freedoms slip away until we're being butt fucked by the gov't and you're wondering why.

Actually it's people like you that made this happen to us currently. It was people like you that voted for Nader the first time, which helped give us Bush the first time, which ended up giving us what you said above.

?

haha. I love how everyone here has perfect 20/20 hindsight on the 2000/2004 elections. Yeah man, you voted for Nader, you fucking caused 9/11 basically!

Do yourself a favor and shut up, no one made such a logical extension and even if you were speaking in very exaggerated terms not everyone fucking agrees with nader anyway, the likelihood that everyone who voted democratic would have voted for nader based on the issues alone is stupid low and the concept that nader pulled essential votes away from the democratic party was clear as fucking day. Cram it.

How about instead of that retarded logic you just disseminate the information about the candidate and if he's the best candidate then make sure people vote for him and not one of the other candidates?

Because the likelihood that a republican would vote for nader is even lower so you're effectively only pulling votes away from a side that you would have agreed with more in the first place.

[Venture]

We already have two novelty candidates in a black man(Obama) and a woman(Clinton). A old white man just ain't got a chance against that powerhouse duo of the anti-status quo, even if he does run as Independent.