Indecision 2008: The Political Discussion Thread

[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!

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.

Sorry, but I'm not a Dem by any means. And I'm not going to vote for one in this election either, so I'm not sure if the point you're making is even remotely valid. In this election I'm going to vote Paul, a republican. I was saying if I had to choose between THE FRONT RUNNERS and Nader, I'd take Nader. By the way, I didn't vote for Nader in 2000 if any of you are wondering. And my whole Nader to 9/11 extrapolation was a response to this:

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.

Which basically implies that voting for Nader is the reason we're being fucked by the gov't.

[Demosthenes11]

I can obviously see most people on these boards are tools of the 2party system. I'm voting WAY third party this election; captain crunch for the mother fucking win

[Norelco]

I can obviously see most people on these boards are tools of the 2party system. I'm voting WAY third party this election; captain crunch for the mother fucking win

Well, it's hard to deny the Cap'n's platform on crunchiness, I'll give you that much.

[Beckwin]

Final certified vote
Final certified vote for the state of Florida (25 electoral votes) Presidential Candidate Vote Total % Party
George W. Bush (W) 2,912,790 48.850 Republican
Al Gore 2,912,253 48.841 Democratic
Ralph Nader 97,421 1.633 Green
Patrick J. Buchanan 17,412 0.292 Reform

Source: CBS News State Results for Election 2000

mhmmm

[Venture]

I can obviously see most people on these boards are tools of the 2party system. I'm voting WAY third party this election; captain crunch for the mother fucking win

Well, it's hard to deny the Cap'n's platform on crunchiness, I'll give you that much.

The real question of this election season will be how the candidates deal with sogginess. The Captain is the only man with real experience combating the threat of sogginess! Vote the Captain for 2008!

[Guyverarmor]

Vote Walken in 08' :nikkei:

[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.

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.

Ok, but that shouldn't affect your personal vote if you really care about helping the best candidate for you get elected.

You deciding to vote Nader and watching him lose while your second choice has one less vote has absolutely no bearing on fixing that problem, or changing things. All it does is allow your least favorite choice get one vote closer to the presidency. It may seem counter-intuitive or like you're checking your principles at the door, but in the end you have to vote for the best candidate that has a chance of winning. It truly benefits you more than any of your other choices. It may not be exactly what you want, but it's closer to it than the alternative.

If you really want to change things, then you need to make your voice heard and get out there. Hold rallies, inform people, try to get people to see things your way. I can't honestly say I think it'd work, but it's a hell of a lot more effective than stepping into your private voting booth and voting for a losing candidate on principle.

[Norelco]

If you really want to change things, then you need ALOT OF FUCKING MONEY.

Fixed.

[Aerin]

And my whole Nader to 9/11 extrapolation was a response to this:

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.

Which basically implies that voting for Nader is the reason we're being fucked by the gov't.

Umm I never meant that if Bush wasn't elected 9/11 wouldn't have happened, I meant that if we had a different president we most likely would not have as much of a shitstorm of problems as we do now.

But I'm sure that will still confuse you so let me map it out for you.

9/11 -> Bush -> PATRIOT ACT -> Iraq -> etc.

So once again, I am not saying voting for Nader caused 9/11. But voting for him ended up giving us Bush. Who has fucked this country in the ass at almost every turn. And those freedoms that are slipping away while we're getting butt-fucked by the gov't is happening right now, because of who's in office.

[Keno]

And my whole Nader to 9/11 extrapolation was a response to this:

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.

Which basically implies that voting for Nader is the reason we're being fucked by the gov't.

Umm I never meant that if Bush wasn't elected 9/11 wouldn't have happened, I meant that if we had a different president we most likely would not have as much of a shitstorm of problems as we do now.

But I'm sure that will still confuse you so let me map it out for you.

9/11 -> Bush -> PATRIOT ACT -> Iraq -> etc.

So once again, I am not saying voting for Nader caused 9/11. But voting for him ended up giving us Bush. Who has fucked this country in the ass at almost every turn. And those freedoms that are slipping away while we're getting butt-fucked by the gov't is happening right now, because of who's in office.

If you read my reply to Ryko you'll see that I clearly and obviously extrapolated (as stated in that post) the 9/11 scenario to prove a point. We all have 20/20 hindsight. Saying that throwing a vote away is the reason we're getting fucked, while true, is ridiculous. No one could have anticipated that Bush would have done many of the things he's done during his time in office. During the 2000 election it wasn't as if people were already jumping on the "Bush is the devil" bandwagon. At the time he was still a viable candidate. And to reiterate again, because none of you seem to be able to understand the point I'm trying to get across: I'd vote for Nader over any of the front runners currently, but that doesn't mean I'm going to vote for him. I'm going to vote for Paul. Why? Because he's my preferred candidate, and while you think I might be throwing my vote away I really am not. All three of the front runners are extremely middle of the road anyways and are all basically substitutions for each other. In my eyes they're the same candidate. It's either status-quo with one of those three or change with Paul. In this case, there are only two decisions so I might as well vote for my preference, because there is only one other option anyways.

[Aerin]

If you read my reply to Ryko you'll see that I clearly and obviously extrapolated (as stated in that post) the 9/11 scenario to prove a point.

And if you read my reply to you you'll see that I clearly and obviously explained that your hyperbole was completely invalid. Whether or not it was to prove a point.

[pohibaba]

If it makes you guys feel any better, I'm going to be voting for the Libertarian candidate which will "take a vote away" from McCain, so it'll all even out.

[Septimus]

No one could have anticipated that Bush would have done many of the things he's done during his time in office.

Yup, no one...

[Beckwin]

...was that really written on Jan 17, 2001?

If so, when did the Onion get Nostradamus back from the dead?

[Keno]

No one could have anticipated that Bush would have done many of the things he's done during his time in office.

Yup, no one...

No, you're entirely correct. I should have voted based on an internet joke newspaper. Yeah, thats an informed decision.

And if you read my reply to you you'll see that I clearly and obviously explained that your hyperbole was completely invalid. Whether or not it was to prove a point.

The entire purpose of hyperbole is to exaggerate something to an inconceivable level, one that is not valid, to prove a point.

[Eaglestrike]

Final certified vote
Final certified vote for the state of Florida (25 electoral votes) Presidential Candidate Vote Total % Party
George W. Bush (W) 2,912,790 48.850 Republican
Al Gore 2,912,253 48.841 Democratic
Ralph Nader 97,421 1.633 Green
Patrick J. Buchanan 17,412 0.292 Reform

Source: CBS News State Results for Election 2000

mhmmm

How about a breakdown of which states would've gone to another candidate if Nader had not been in the running?

Remember that some people wouldn't have voted for Gore or Bush if Nader wasn't there, and not ALL Nader votes would've gone to Gore, either.

[Woozie]

...was that really written on Jan 17, 2001?

That's the exact same thing I just asked my brother after I sent him the link. That article is amazing, lol

[Correction]

No one could have anticipated that Bush would have done many of the things he's done during his time in office.

Yup, no one...

No, you're entirely correct. I should have voted based on an internet joke newspaper. Yeah, thats an informed decision.

Hey idiot, try reading the official republican platform they ran on in 2000

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conven ... atform.00/

Which promises deep tax cuts, slashes in social spending and threatens Iraq?

Talk like you know what you're talking about before making jokes about 'informed decisions.'

[Charla]

Will everybody relax? He said he's in California, so it doesn't matter anyway. Let's all just vote for our favorite breakfast cereal mascot and see what John Stewart has to say about it afterwards.

I'm with Count Chocula.

[Keno]

No one could have anticipated that Bush would have done many of the things he's done during his time in office.

Yup, no one...

No, you're entirely correct. I should have voted based on an internet joke newspaper. Yeah, thats an informed decision.

Hey idiot, try reading the official republican platform they ran on in 2000

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conven ... atform.00/

Which promises deep tax cuts, slashes in social spending and threatens Iraq?

Talk like you know what you're talking about before making jokes about 'informed decisions.'

Your grammar is too bad to respond to that. I'm not even entirely sure what you're trying to say.

On another note, I just read this article (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/24/21035/8739) which if accurate (I guess we'll see in short time) explains that McCain is dead broke and can't spend another dollar towards the election before September or he'll be in violation of federal law. Paul still has plenty of funds remaining. If this is all true we could be seeing a shift in the front runner for the Republican party.