Indecision 2008: The Political Discussion Thread

[Woozie]

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.

But Tony the Tiger would make a greeeeeeeeeeat president!













*crickets chirping*

[Correction]

haha I'm cornered on my assertion that it was impossible to predict the effects of a Bush presidency so I'll resort to nitpicking grammar

Fuck off.

[Keno]

haha I'm cornered on my assertion that it was impossible to predict the effects of a Bush presidency so I'll resort to nitpicking grammar

Fuck off.

Hey, I was serious that your grammar was so bad I couldn't understand what the hell you were saying. You can either rephrase yourself clearly and I can respond, or you can continue with the name calling. Either way you're not going to end up looking good.

[Charla]

Anyone notice how flamewars are more fun with postcounts over 1000?

[Xavier]

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.

Paul could have a billion dollars and it still wouldn't do anything to make him the front runner.

[Correction]

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

Even the onion could predict the effects. Satire or not, 9/11 or not, Bush's presidency was pretty well spelled out by the party platform I posted.

- strong military
- deep tax cuts
- stronger engagement with countries that hate us in the middle east (specifically Iraq)

A grade-schooler could add that up and say 'hmm, maybe George W. Bush will harm the relative peace we've had and wreck the economy.' That alone would have turned a reasonable man away from a decision that would have split Al Gore's votes away from him.

Does that parse meaningfully for you, asshole?

[Kuya]

It looks like Ron Paul supporters are almost as good at trolling as he is.

[Xavier]

Do people not realize that they ultimately harm their self-interests when their vote effectively empowers the opposition?

[Keno]

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

Even the onion could predict the effects. Satire or not, 9/11 or not, Bush's presidency was pretty well spelled out by the party platform I posted.

- strong military
- deep tax cuts
- stronger engagement with countries that hate us in the middle east (specifically Iraq)

A grade-schooler could add that up and say 'hmm, maybe George W. Bush will harm the relative peace we've had and wreck the economy.' That alone would have turned a reasonable man away from a decision that would have split Al Gore's votes away from him.

Does that parse meaningfully for you, asshole?

Well, at least it was coherent. By the way, I just read that page you posted in your other post about the republican platform, and this is the closest I could come to finding strong evidence that the Iraq invasion was imminent and premeditated:

A new Republican administration will patiently rebuild an international coalition opposed to Saddam Hussein and committed to joint action. We will insist that Iraq comply fully with its disarmament commitments. We will maintain the sanctions on the Iraqi regime while seeking to alleviate the suffering of innocent Iraqi people. We will react forcefully and unequivocally to any evidence of reconstituted Iraqi capabilities for producing weapons of mass destruction.

By the wording from this I don't see how anyone can disagree with this stance. Sure, at the end they clearly state that they will go to war if they find Iraq with WMDs, but EVERYONE at the time was perfectly OK with that idea. It was the act of lying about the WMDs that sent us to war. How am I supposed to interpret from this statement that the president would have lied to the American people in order to start this war with Iraq? From the way they wrote it it looks like it was going to be a completely sane, collaborative process that would bring about the removal of Hussein.

@Xavier: Is that directed at me? I've clearly stated and defined in at least two ways how my vote for Paul is not a throw-away vote.

[Charla]

A grade-schooler could add that up and say 'hmm, maybe George W. Bush will harm the relative peace we've had and wreck the economy.' That alone would have turned a reasonable man away from a decision that would have split Al Gore's votes away from him.

That's probably the case in a swing state, but us Californians are more or less free to use our votes to make a statement and be confident that it won't affect the outcome. If I was a big fan of what Nader, Ron Paul, or Tony O'Tigreson had to say, I'd definately consider voting for them even though it "takes a vote away" from the realistic candidate that I'd rather elect. That would change if the state were ever contested (or if I moved to Ohio for whatever reason), but for now we might just make more of an impact by doing something unpredictable.

[Xavier]

@Xavier: Is that directed at me? I've clearly stated and defined in at least two ways how my vote for Paul is not a throw-away vote.

No, not directed at you. I don't believe Paul's views are similar enough to the Republican Party to be a throw-away vote.

And certainly if you live in a state that generally goes for the party that most closely supports your views by a wide margin, there is no reason not to support whatever candidate speaks to you.

[pohibaba]

Do people not realize that they ultimately harm their self-interests when their vote effectively empowers the opposition?

Don't you understand that the system will never change if people keep thinking this way?

[Kuya]

To be frank, Bush probably would have still won. Gore's charisma couldn't arouse nimpho on ectasy.

[Xavier]

Do people not realize that they ultimately harm their self-interests when their vote effectively empowers the opposition?

Don't you understand that the system will never change if people keep thinking this way?

How does that affect my statement?

If taking a stand ultimately does more harm than good to the country (in relation to your beliefs), taking a stand has accomplished nothing.

I'm aware of the dilemma that change cannot be accomplished without action, but the cost of that action can't simply be ignored.

[Khamsin]

Do people not realize that they ultimately harm their self-interests when their vote effectively empowers the opposition?

Don't you understand that the system will never change if people keep thinking this way?

Don't you understand that the system will never change based on throw-away votes in the privacy of a booth?

If you want to change the system, get out there and help campaign for your candidate.

Don't complain about how the system will never change if you vote for someone with a chance of winning when the system will never change if you vote for someone with no chance of winning, either.

[Charla]

I'll agree that wasn't Nader that decided the election. Any more than that is a debate for 7 years ago.

@Xavier: That depends on your definition of the term ultimate. If you're using it to refer to the longest-term effects, then changing the system itself trumps pretty much anything one guy could accomplish in 8 years short of extinction.

[Keno]

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.

Paul could have a billion dollars and it still wouldn't do anything to make him the front runner.

I'm not sure you fully understand. If this article is accurate then McCain can't spend a single additional dollar on this campaign until September. What does that entail? For starters, no transportation; those costs come straight out of the campaign budget. No more TV ads. No more shaking hands and meeting the voters (on anything other than a really small scale, i.e. not organized). No more anything. McCain will only be heard on debates and TV shows that allow him on for no fee. Whereas Paul's face will be all over the news, TV, internet, etc., etc. I think it's possible with this perfect mix to see Paul move to the front. You say it wouldn't matter even if he had a billion dollars. Why?

[Kuya]

Not to mention McCain has some really bad history with lobbyist. There is a pretty good chance McCain wont win the presidency, or at least i would think so from this.

[Xavier]

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.

Paul could have a billion dollars and it still wouldn't do anything to make him the front runner.

I'm not sure you fully understand. If this article is accurate then McCain can't spend a single additional dollar on this campaign until September. What does that entail? For starters, no transportation; those costs come straight out of the campaign budget. No more TV ads. No more shaking hands and meeting the voters (on anything other than a really small scale, i.e. not organized). No more anything. McCain will only be heard on debates and TV shows that allow him on for no fee. Whereas Paul's face will be all over the news, TV, internet, etc., etc. I think it's possible with this perfect mix to see Paul move to the front. You say it wouldn't matter even if he had a billion dollars. Why?

Because he has about 16 delegates to McCain's 900, and McCain will easily get the delegates he needs in the upcoming primaries to get the nomination without campaigning at all.

I'm not sure you fully understand.

[Stumblingdrunk]

Don't you understand that the system will never change based on throw-away votes in the privacy of a booth?

If you want to change the system, get out there and help campaign for your candidate.

ok, so your suggestion for change is to campaign for your candidate ie try and get people to vote for him, and then not vote for him yourself? =D>