Indecision 2008: The Political Discussion Thread

[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?

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.

I was under the impression that it was still possible for Paul to take the nomination if he had a near sweep of the rest of the delegates and/or if certain delegates were to change their pledge? Or am I misinformed on that matter?

[Xavier]

Its impossible.

McCain would have to die and Huckabee would have to gracefully step out of the race. Check the link in my sig for some hilarity over Huckabee gracefully exiting the race.

[Correction]

He would also get the nomination if both McCain and Huckabee were gunned down in an alley tomorrow.

Doesn't mean it has the remotest chance of happening.

[Keno]

Its impossible.

McCain would have to die and Huckabee would have to gracefully step out of the race. Check the link in my sig for some hilarity over Huckabee gracefully exiting the race.

Ah, too bad then. Thanks for informing me at least. What if McCain gets indicted on this charge of overspending and loaning? Is a federal indictment enough to get him to bow out of the race?

He would also get the nomination if both McCain and Huckabee were gunned down in an alley tomorrow. Doesn't mean it has the remotest chance of happening.

Haha, very true. It's not as if I was actually planning on him to sweep the delegates or take the nomination, but just venturing that it could be possible I guess.

[Charla]

I would assume he's more interested in generating public awareness and support for the third-party candidate (and for the concept of a viable third-party candidate) than actually getting votes. Don't forget that Ross Perot came pretty close for a while there. Maybe all it would really take to change the system is a bajillionaire with a coherent platform that can't be pulled out from under him by a major party, and of course a lot of luck.

edit: Sure, but nobody's going to change their pledge at this point unless Kira shows up and takes out everyone else.

edit2: beaten twice, but at least mine has a animu reference!

[Xavier]

Michael Bloomberg.

[Correction]

For every Bloomberg, there's a Forbes.



also: http://www.theonion.com/content/video/d ... ally_leaks

[Keno]

Michael Bloomberg.

He has repeatedly denied any plans to run and says the news media has concocted his possible presidential bid.

Or are you saying for '12?

@Correction: Thats one of the funniest vids I've seen in a while.

[Xavier]

It was in response to this:

Maybe all it would really take to change the system is a bajillionaire with a coherent platform that can't be pulled out from under him by a major party, and of course a lot of luck.

[Norelco]

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

LOL, that's the fucking point. You win this thread. Lock it!

[Keno]

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

LOL, that's the fucking point. You win this thread. Lock it!

Instead lets just rename the thread, "Indecision 2008" and leave it open for political discussion.

[Norelco]

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

LOL, that's the fucking point. You win this thread. Lock it!

Instead lets just rename the thread, "Indecision 2008" and leave it open for political discussion.

That's fine.

[Kuya]

For every Bloomberg, there's a Forbes.



also: http://www.theonion.com/content/video/d ... ally_leaks

Finally, i can stop acting like i make conscious decisions.

[Keno]

I don't know if any of you caught Real Time last Friday, but some douche was on there slandering Obama to no end. Some guy found video responses directly rebutting almost every accusation and it made me smile:

http://blog.cameronfredman.com/2008/02/ ... s-hbo.html

[Charla]

For every Bloomberg, there's a Forbes.



also: http://www.theonion.com/content/video/d ... ally_leaks

Gotta love the throwaway joke at the last second.

[Khamsin]

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>

Unless you did such a good job that he actually has a chance of winning, in which case your vote wouldn't be wasted.

The point is that simply voting for him won't change the system. You have to actually do something that reaches other people and convinces them.

[sunb1ind]

Fuck throwing your votes away to the same warmongers, why don't you vote on something that will make a diff http://www.nationalinitiative.us/

Really not much to discuss about nowadays if all the candidates, that have a chance to win, all share the same mindsets for war. What's this about people using the same bullshit story that Nader helped Bush win the election? ROFL How simple can you be to think that? I think you may have missed the whole bit where Bush managed to get the Supreme Court to stop the election/recount, therefor rendering the whole election meaningless

There's more important issues to be campaigning for, rather than Nader's presidency, if you want to get involved that is. It takes alot of time and research to fight the real problems; I can attest to this. Its time to stop wasting our time focusing on the circus every 4 years and going back to basics of democracy. Research our founding fathers, the history of our wars, and go back to fighting for what our country's principles used to stand for.

Here's some good sites with a ton of documentaries to watch, the best being the ones focusing on American History, War, and business topics. Yes, they contain 9/11 docus, but there's a wealth of unrelated videos that shouldn't be disregarded.

http://www.teachpeace.com/movies2all.htm
http://freedocumentaries.org/

Long ass post, but actually just posted something similar today lol Just doing my part to try and spark an interest in someone to look away from the shell game for a second and start hammering the books

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." -Thomas Jefferson

[Xavier]

Maybe I misunderstood but it sounds like you're advocating we all become more involved in democracy whilst shifting our attention away from our...democracy?

[sunb1ind]

Maybe I misunderstood but it sounds like you're advocating we all become more involved in democracy whilst shifting our attention away from our...democracy?

No, how would my post indicate that? Do you sincerely believe our current electoral process is democratic?

[Beckwin]

And I kinda showed that in Florida, where a large majority of the Nader votes would've gone to Gore, he did in fact contribute to Gore losing that state (although there were other causes). And you know, the election.

In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes. In fact, all seven of the other third-party candidates on the ballot Florida each received more than 537 votes see United States presidential election in Florida, 2000.

Proponents of the argument that Nader was the source of Gore's defeat claim that Nader pulled votes from Al Gore, and this tilted the election in Bush's favor. Opponents say that the controversy was due to poor election practices and cite the fact that there were 8 third party candidates on the ballot, both liberal and conservative, and to attribute the deciding factor to one of those candidates is illogical.

The claim is that this was Nader's "greatest impact" on the election. Nader himself, both in his book Crashing the Party, and on his website, states: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all."[30]

But hey let's pretend that didn't happen.

Why hasn't Nader tried, oh I dunno, running for lesser positions and actually building widespread, considerable support before making a bid for the presidency? Nader is a guy that would thrive in a parliamentary system (hell, Ron Paul could too) but unless you change the system (not happening), you have to work with it. Otherwise, you're dicking over your supporters by tipping the scales toward the guy further from what they'd actually want overall. At least Ron Paul is sensible enough to work within a party first (for now?), rather than campaign as a Libertarian- a party without enough volume to make a bid at an office so high.