View Full Version : This election is a ridiculous farce.
threlayer
09-27-2008, 09:58 AM
I can't help thinking that a vote for Paul or Nader is a wasted vote.
First, it is highly doubtful that either can get even one electoral vote.
Second, neither have enough clout that their votes will be any kind of significant protest that anyone will pay attention to. Not even Fox News.
Third, it may cause your third choice to become the winner.
Best by far to vote for one of the major two.
Yekhefah
09-27-2008, 01:15 PM
Best by far to vote for one of the major two.
Lame defeatist thinking. I refuse to play a rigged game. In my opinion, you waste your vote when you cast it for a candidate you don't believe in. I firmly believe that a vote for McCain or Obama would be a wasted vote because it supports a corrupt system.
CKXXX
09-27-2008, 01:55 PM
There has already been one they diverted, and he's not even close to office, lol. That says volumes about how the "common folk" feel about Barack and his stance on neutering the 2nd am.
NO...it says something about how there are sadly still uneducated racist people in the US. And thats sad. We cant let them win and pander to that kind of thinking.
threlayer
09-27-2008, 02:07 PM
Lame defeatist thinking. I refuse to play a rigged game. In my opinion, you waste your vote when you cast it for a candidate you don't believe in. I firmly believe that a vote for McCain or Obama would be a wasted vote because it supports a corrupt system.
Theoretically unrealistic. :)
The LAME thing is voting for someone who cannot possibly win, thus throwing your vote AWAY. At least come up with a second choice you'd rather vote for than the remaining third choice. Your throwaway vote is going to help no one.
Yekhefah
09-28-2008, 09:17 AM
I don't see enough of a difference between McCain and Obama to pick one or the other. And in my opinion, they both represent unadulterated evil. Just because evil has rigged the game doesn't mean I have to play along with it. I will NOT throw my vote away on someone who I believe to be evil and corrupt; I'm going to support a candidate I like and believe in.
When you know someone is evil and corrupt and you give them your vote, YOU PERSONALLY represent everything that is wrong with this country.
jester214
09-28-2008, 09:36 AM
Theoretically unrealistic. :)
The LAME thing is voting for someone who cannot possibly win, thus throwing your vote AWAY. At least come up with a second choice you'd rather vote for than the remaining third choice. Your throwaway vote is going to help no one.
That's the most bullshit thing I've heard. There is nothing LAME about voting. Casting a vote for anyone is doing a hell of alot better than most people do. Voting isn't about "helping" a candidate, it's about expressing your opinion and excersizing your rights.
eagle2
09-28-2008, 01:36 PM
There has already been one they diverted, and he's not even close to office, lol. That says volumes about how the "common folk" feel about Barack and his stance on neutering the 2nd am.
That's ignorant. Most "common folk" aren't white supremacist Nazis.
dlabtot
09-28-2008, 02:04 PM
I fully support Yekhefah in her decision to cast a meaningless protest vote.
Yekhefah
09-28-2008, 06:25 PM
As I support your decision to cast a meaningless vote for the status quo.
Because it's been nothing but Democrats vs. Republicans since 1776.
G-Real
09-28-2008, 07:38 PM
As I support your decision to cast a meaningless vote for the status quo.
Because it's been nothing but Democrats vs. Republicans since 1776.
2 party system, yes
started with the Federalists vs the Anti-Federalists (great names),.....then came the Democratic-Republicans (yes, they were the same party) then eventually they spilt.
Any other 3rd-parties are going to have to start at the grass-roots level and slowly work their way in.
Oddly Austria just had a election and they have atleast 5 parties from the articles A Very Liberal Party (don't know the name), Socialist-Demorcrat (Center-Left part), Conversvatives (center-right) and 2 far-right parties.
but that is what happens with a parlimentary system..
Yekhefah
09-28-2008, 07:45 PM
Any other 3rd-parties are going to have to start at the grass-roots level and slowly work their way in.
And how do they do that? Oh yeah. People who are disgusted with the status quo, with the ridiculous similarity between the two majors, vote for change.
threlayer
09-28-2008, 08:03 PM
As I support your decision to cast a meaningless vote for the status quo.
Because it's been nothing but Democrats vs. Republicans since 1776.
I support an opportunity for you to take an American History class. I hope you pick a good one. I only had a single good one that was meaningful.
I can see your anger but there is a lot of difference between these two. What differences are you looking for?
Kellydancer
09-28-2008, 08:39 PM
Actually, the modern Republican Party isn't the same as the old one. The Republican Party started indirectly because of slavery (they were against it). When they started they were considered a third party. The major parties were Democratic and Whigs. At one time the Republican Party was the more progressive party and fought for issues such as prohibiting slavery and for women's voting rights. They even had what many consider good presidents such as Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. Of course they evolved into the party for the rich business owners and the rightwing Christian zealots. I can't imagine Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt having much in common with the modern Republicans.
arctic717
09-28-2008, 10:51 PM
Originally Posted by Yekhefah
I don't see enough of a difference between McCain and Obama to pick one or the other. And in my opinion, they both represent unadulterated evil.
?????????????????. Don't see a difference?. How about that if McCain gets in we'll almost definately be at war with Iran and probably Russia. How about the fact that Big Oil will still get to choose our energy policy and there will be no controls or investigations into outrageous pricing. How about the fact that all the super-rich who've made so much money off the backs of the everyone else the last 8 years will get even more tax breaks. How about the fact the Supreme Court will have an overwhelming conservative bend that will impact the US for decades. Are you a Bush fan?, are you aware McCain's campaign is being run by Karl Rove's protege?, are you aware that Palin's convention speech was written by a Bush speech writer?. As much as they are trying to sell change, the "Maverick" of the senate is just more of the same. There are dozens of other huge differences.
It's your vote, do what you will but please realize that the stakes for this election are higher than they have ever been and will have a huge impact on the entire world for a long time to come.
arctic717
09-28-2008, 11:03 PM
I'm all for 3rd parties and getting the best person in, but there is too much at stake in this election and the ramifications are too big. I say don't take a chance, we and the world may not make it through another 4-8 years of what we just had.
I like Ron Paul and would have no problem voting for him if he runs in 2012 after things have hopefully been settled down by a level headed intelligent President with realistic policies that are actually meant to help the country and the people.
I have a big problem with Nadar. I think he's pure ego or on the payroll of the republicans. You want to run third party to change the status qou?, great!. Then get your message out all the time, spend all the time between elections getting stuff organized, working to get your policies better known, there are tons of volunteers and money to this. But no, he does nothing and then right before the election he gets his name on the ballot and basically plays spoiler. I don't see the sense in this.
sapphiregirl
09-28-2008, 11:09 PM
I'm all for 3rd parties and getting the best person in, but there is too much at stake in this election and the ramifications are too big. I say don't take a chance, we and the world may not make it through another 4-8 years of what we just had.
I like Ron Paul and would have no problem voting for him if he runs in 2012 after things have hopefully been settled down by a level headed intelligent President with realistic policies that are actually meant to help the country and the people.
I have a big problem with Nadar. I think he's pure ego or on the payroll of the republicans. You want to run third party to change the status qou?, great!. Then get your message out all the time, spend all the time between elections getting stuff organized, working to get your policies better known, there are tons of volunteers and money to this. But no, he does nothing and then right before the election he gets his name on the ballot and basically plays spoiler. I don't see the sense in this.
I totally agree with you. I don't understand when people don't vote as a "vote" or pick someone who will obviously will not win.
There is too much at risk with this election on so many levels for YEARS to come. There is never going to be a "totally perfect" person running for President.
Look at the issues and read on both candidates and please VOTE
dlabtot
09-28-2008, 11:39 PM
I'd add Eisenhower to the list of good Republican Presidents. He enforced integration at Little Rock, warned against the Military-Industrial Complex... of course, he was recruited by both parties, I wonder how things would have turned out differently if he'd gone with the Dems...
threlayer
09-29-2008, 06:36 AM
Actually, the modern Republican Party isn't the same as the old one. The Republican Party started indirectly because of slavery (they were against it). When they started they were considered a third party. The major parties were Democratic and Whigs. At one time the Republican Party was the more progressive party and fought for issues such as prohibiting slavery and for women's voting rights. They even had what many consider good presidents such as Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. Of course they evolved into the party for the rich business owners and the rightwing Christian zealots. I can't imagine Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt having much in common with the modern Republicans.
Thank you. Very good summary of Lincoln's party. Also joining the Republican Party in the 50s was the Southern Democrats, the Dixiecrats, who probably should have continued being Republicans.
I've noticed that different religions tend to seat themselves in different parties. Certainly not all are Republicans. For example the Roman Catholics I know tend toward the Democratic Party and are considerably more liberal than the Evangelists. At one time the RCs were pretty conservative. Times have changed a lot of thihgs. I should learn more about that.
One thing I don't understand is the switch of strongly Democratic states over the last few decades to Republicans, especially in blue collar states. (I hope someone doesnt tell me its because the Republicans spend less money than the Democrats.)
Yekhefah
09-29-2008, 09:02 AM
?????????????????. Don't see a difference?.
Well, the rhetoric is different. But the Democrats and Republicans vote together about 90% of the time, in that "spirit of bipartisanship" that's hailed as a good thing even though it means there's a monopoly on government. An Obama administration, like the Clinton administration, would just be more of the same, maybe with a bit more socialism. Corporate interests rule America, not the government, and that won't change no matter which major party is in power.
Are you a Bush fan?, are you aware McCain's campaign is being run by Karl Rove's protege?, are you aware that Palin's convention speech was written by a Bush speech writer?. As much as they are trying to sell change, the "Maverick" of the senate is just more of the same.[/quote]
Given that I just said that McCain and Obama both represent evil, it should be obvious that I am not a Bush fan or a McCain fan either. But please don't be deluded that life under Obama will be any different than life under Bush or Clinton. It's all the same shit on a different day. The ONLY difference is that an Obama administration will likely cost more taxpayer money and come with an even more intrusive government (*if* he does what he says he'll do, but that's always a gamble with any mainstream politician, especially one who is so untested).
It's your vote, do what you will but please realize that the stakes for this election are higher than they have ever been...
They say that every election. It's a tactic to scare you into supporting the status quo. Demopublicans know they've got their monopoly locked down as long as the sheeple are too frightened to change anything.
Yekhefah
09-29-2008, 09:03 AM
I totally agree with you. I don't understand when people don't vote as a "vote" or pick someone who will obviously will not win.
Well hell, why vote at all then? Why not just let the media pick the winner like you're already doing? What's the point in voting at all if you already know who's going to win? I don't see the point in showing up to cast a "vote" if it's just for a preordained appointee.
doc-catfish
09-29-2008, 09:38 AM
I can't help thinking that a vote for Paul or Nader is a wasted vote.
First, it is highly doubtful that either can get even one electoral vote.
Because the two major parties have unconstitutionally rigged the system to be that way.
Second, neither have enough clout that their votes will be any kind of significant protest that anyone will pay attention to. Not even Fox News.
Because the mainstream media (and Fox News IS mainstream media) has rigged it to be that way.
Third, it may cause your third choice to become the winner.
Only if you live in a swing state. Approximately 40 of the 51 jurisdictions with an electoral count are solidly or at the least leaning one way or the other (and I have yet to see one 'leaning' state go to the opposite candidate).
If you live in one of those jurisdictions (as I do) you might as well vote as you wish because your vote IS statistically meaningless, even if you vote for the eventual winner once that candidate has the magic 50%+1.
Best by far to vote for one of the major two.
This is standard claptrap stated by fans of the major parties to intimidate independent voters into maintaining the status quo. If the media were required to give third party candidates equal time, and we passed a constitutional amendment abolishing the EC and mandating instant runoff voting in its place, things would change rather dramatically.
Miss_Luscious
09-29-2008, 09:47 AM
I think third parties don't get much attention, in the media and otherwise, is because only a small number of people agree with them. It's that simple. Third parties just seem to be the most extreme factions of the liberals and conservatives and since most people are in the middle, the third parties just aren't appealing. That's just my take on it though.
kitana
09-29-2008, 12:42 PM
That's ignorant. Most "common folk" aren't white supremacist Nazis.
Ya know, it's not just "white supremacist Nazi's" that are against any more gun laws.
Miss_Luscious
09-29-2008, 12:52 PM
No but the people that had the plot to kill Obama were. That's what you were referencing in your previous post, right?
There has already been one they diverted, and he's not even close to office, lol. That says volumes about how the "common folk" feel about Barack and his stance on neutering the 2nd am.
kitana
09-29-2008, 12:54 PM
No but the people that had the plot to kill Obama were. That's what you were referencing in your previous post, right?
No, not at all.
Actually I was just making the point that there are plenty of "bitter gun owners" that will not vote for him based on the gun rights thing alone; and not all of them are Nazi, or white supremacists, or hell even white!
Miss_Luscious
09-29-2008, 12:57 PM
Then which attempt were you referencing in the post I quoted? And how does an assassination plot speak volumes about how people feel about his stance on guns?
arctic717
09-29-2008, 08:28 PM
Originally Posted by Yekhefah
But the Democrats and Republicans vote together about 90% of the time,
I'm not sure of the voting stats, but if your numbers are correct than the 10% they differ on makes a huge difference. For example, the Dems. voted to get out of Iraq ASAP on a responsibly timed exit strategy, they voted for investigations into fuel prices and a windfall oil tax. Both of these were killed by Republicans who still have the juice with the Presidential veto and Cheney's vote to decide a tie. Think how different things would be if we were on our way out of Iraq and the oil companies were being reigned in. Even now, the Dem's are fighting to look out for common people while the Rep. are looking out for big business in this whole bail-out mess. If Gore won instead of Bush I am very confident in saying we would have: Never had war with Iraq, would have focused on and prevailed in Afghanistan(both the war and the peace) we would be paying about $1.75 a gallon for gas, we would still have a surplus, stock market would be at 16,000. Russia would not be sending military aid to Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. Brazil would not be building a nuclear powered submarine to protect their oil reserves against us. Al Qaeda would be isolated. These are huge differences, world and lifetime changing differences.
Originally Posted by Yekhefah
don't be deluded that life under Obama will be any different than life under Bush or Clinton
What was so bad about like under Clinton?. The economy was humming, the rich, middle class and even poor were all doing better than they ever had. There was a balanced budget and surplus. The world was largely at peace, he made peace in Northern Ireland and was trying to do it in the Middle East. We were pretty much liked and respected by everyone but Al Qaeda. Stuff was getting handled intelligently and well and with planning and sustainability for the future. Infrastructure was being maintained and national disasters where handled competently. Did I miss something?, did something on a national stage go horrible wrong back then while he was in charge?
Originally Posted by Yekhefah: They say that every election. It's a tactic to scare you into supporting the status quo
Whether they say it everytime or not, this time it's real. We are at the edge. Everything that America is and stands for is in jeopardy. There are moves being made across the whole world right now just like before WWII, only now there are nuclear powers involved. Our economy is steps away from being obliterated. If things aren't fixed the amount of suffering that will take place worldwide will surpass anything in history. If you think any of this is over dramatic then you are not aware of what's going on. Look at this way, if everything I've said is wrong and you vote 3rd party, you just wasted a vote, no damage. But if what I said is right and you and enough other people vote 3rd party and the "status quo" of the last eight years gets in, well then, I don't think we can make it.
Originally Posted by Yekhefah: The ONLY difference is that an Obama administration will likely cost more taxpayer money and come with an even more intrusive government
He is going to raise the tax rate only on people making over $250,000. Even for them it is only going to be a few % points raise and 5% more on capital gains. It makes the most sense, they are best able to absorb it. Most people making over $250,000 a year pay overall less taxes % wise anyway because of all the deductions, so all this does is get things to where they should be. Not perfect I know, but I think it's the best shot.
As for intrusive government, give it to me (in intelligent doses). With the right government intrusion Enron, the S &L crises, $4.00 gasoline, $700 Billion bailouts don't happen.
threlayer
09-29-2008, 08:41 PM
I think third parties don't get much attention, in the media and otherwise, is because only a small number of people agree with them. It's that simple. Third parties just seem to be the most extreme factions of the liberals and conservatives and since most people are in the middle, the third parties just aren't appealing. That's just my take on it though.
I recall Mr Chalk-Talk (Ross Perot) getting a lot of attention a few years ago. He would have gotten a good pecentage, but he bowed out early. The other two that are running this time cannot get enough support from the people, and that indicates that they can't form powerful enough coalitions to get political things done. And they'd have to because their respective parties are too small to get anything done alone. At times this country has had 3 parties on somewhat equal footing (eg T Roosevelt), but they have not made a huge dent, even before mass media got so powerful.
threlayer
09-29-2008, 08:48 PM
Well hell, why vote at all then? Why not just let the media pick the winner like you're already doing? What's the point in voting at all if you already know who's going to win? I don't see the point in showing up to cast a "vote" if it's just for a preordained appointee.
If i didn't know better. I'd think you are feeling angry and yet powerless. No. We really dont know already who is going to win. This is because we haven't voted yet. Further, most thinking voters (there are some) will make up their own minds based on what info they have received. Some one's gotta give out that info. We're not going to have 150 million voters hanging out at each 'event' and nosing around in the Congressional Record etc. You gotta be realistic that the news media is necessary. And I can tell you that in general the media is a LOT more neutral that most of the people posting here.
CKXXX
09-29-2008, 08:52 PM
What was so bad about like under Clinton?. The economy was humming, the rich, middle class and even poor were all doing better than they ever had. There was a balanced budget and surplus. The world was largely at peace, he made peace in Northern Ireland and was trying to do it in the Middle East. We were pretty much liked and respected by everyone but Al Qaeda. Stuff was getting handled intelligently and well and with planning and sustainability for the future. Infrastructure was being maintained and national disasters where handled competently. Did I miss something?, did something on a national stage go horrible wrong back then while he was in charge?
I agree..I'd KILL to have Clinton back in office.
doc-catfish
09-29-2008, 09:53 PM
I think third parties don't get much attention, in the media and otherwise, is because only a small number of people agree with them. It's that simple.
You got the chicken and the egg mixed up. The two major reasons such parties can't gain any traction is the "first past the post" voting system and media suppressing airtime for third party candidates. If these two shackles were removed by
1. Replacing "first past the post" with instant runoff voting.
2. Making the "equal time" clause REALLY mean what it says.
Third parties just seem to be the most extreme factions of the liberals and conservatives and since most people are in the middle, the third parties just aren't appealing. That's just my take on it though.
There are other ideological tangents in the world other than liberalism and conservatism. The "liberal vs. conservative", "red vs. blue", "left vs. right" fallacy is just another lie the media, the DNC and the RNC want people to believe in so they can keep their little game going. The word "libertarian" is scantly used by the media. They instead sometimes refer to a candidate as "fiscally conservative but socially liberal". This way people don't identify with such a candidate, and hence said philosiphy. This is why the Libertarian party, as well as other third parties often have to put major party washouts on their ballots, giving the impression that they're "extreme" factions.
ColetteCalahan
09-29-2008, 10:07 PM
Yek- I am going to say I agree with your statements 100%. Good for you. I am not sure whether or not I'm ready to cast my vote for 'the lesser of two evils' and maintain the status quo either... I may be voting green this year. While I know it's essentially throwing a vote away (and I haven't yet decided) I agree that succumbing never got anyone anywhere, and if one wants to affect/reshape the system at its core, one needs to at least PRETENd to do something meaningful instead of a little more salt and a little less pepper. Fuck salt and pepper; I want curry. Reform isn't going to work, we need (here I hesitate to use the term revolution because of the obvious connotations) a redefinition of terms and a complete overhaul of our major institutions at this point in time. We need to re-examine power, privilege, corruption, bureaucracy, transparency, civic participation, structural discrimination, and what human rights we value as a society.
jester214
09-30-2008, 08:01 PM
I agree..I'd KILL to have Clinton back in office.
Why? You think the economy would be any better? Go take a basic Macro Econ course, first thing you'll learn is that the American economy, along with others, goes up and down. Clinton had th upswing and the peak, now were in the downswing. Clinton ran from terrorism, and let Bin Laden get strong, he'd shit himself the way things are today.
I'd like the Clinton Era back, but not the guy.
jester214
09-30-2008, 08:13 PM
Think how different things would be if we were on our way out of Iraq and the oil companies were being reigned in. Even now, the Dem's are fighting to look out for common people while the Rep. are looking out for big business in this whole bail-out mess. If Gore won instead of Bush I am very confident in saying we would have: Never had war with Iraq, would have focused on and prevailed in Afghanistan(both the war and the peace) we would be paying about $1.75 a gallon for gas, we would still have a surplus, stock market would be at 16,000. Russia would not be sending military aid to Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. Brazil would not be building a nuclear powered submarine to protect their oil reserves against us. Al Qaeda would be isolated. These are huge differences, world and lifetime changing differences.
What was so bad about like under Clinton?. The economy was humming, the rich, middle class and even poor were all doing better than they ever had. There was a balanced budget and surplus. The world was largely at peace, he made peace in Northern Ireland and was trying to do it in the Middle East. We were pretty much liked and respected by everyone but Al Qaeda. Stuff was getting handled intelligently and well and with planning and sustainability for the future. Infrastructure was being maintained and national disasters where handled competently. Did I miss something?, did something on a national stage go horrible wrong back then while he was in charge?
As for intrusive government, give it to me (in intelligent doses). With the right government intrusion Enron, the S &L crises, $4.00 gasoline, $700 Billion bailouts don't happen.
(I cut some of your post out, just to make it shorter, just commenting on it in general)
Your reasoning is, arguably, somewhat sound on paper, but it ends there. You talking about some HUGE if's. Read my above post for the answer to your Clinton comments. He had some of the easiest 8 years ever.
But to sit there and pretend that the Dems are some huge champion of the little guy is absurd. Just as it is to claim the Republicans are the protectors of big business.
They all protect whoever can give the money to stay in power, and try and pass what there supporters want, when they can to keep the votes coming. It's not just Republicans taking money from Big Oil. Look at the bailout, people from both parties, and in big number, voted for and against it.
The whole system is 'corrupt'. Gore would have shit himself if he had been in charge instead of Bush, not to mention he would have been working against a Republican congress. Which I beleive was in power when things were going so amazingly with Clinton.
Dems and the media are so busy painting McCain as Bush Jr. they don't realize that he's a guy who's worked with both sides for years. I'm not saying that's what we need, but I really think people aren't seeing it.
Obama's a guy who's so far to the left I have trouble seeing him from the middle. Yet he's painted as this man who's bipartisan and for everyone. He's just another politican same as McCain. Again, I'm not sure if he's not what we need, hell I voted for him once already, just that to speak in such a black and white way, as you do, is wrong.
CKXXX
09-30-2008, 08:59 PM
Why? You think the economy would be any better? Go take a basic Macro Econ course, first thing you'll learn is that the American economy, along with others, goes up and down. Clinton had th upswing and the peak, now were in the downswing. Clinton ran from terrorism, and let Bin Laden get strong, he'd shit himself the way things are today.
I'd like the Clinton Era back, but not the guy.
Yeah I've taken basic Econ thanks though for being condescending. It isnt JUST about upswings and downswings...who is in charge has a lot to do with that. Spending trillions on a war we should never have started wasnt something Clinton did. HE was the one who made other countries want to be our allies...instead of hating us like they do now.
Clinton was by far the best President of my lifetime hands down.
jester214
09-30-2008, 09:35 PM
Yeah I've taken basic Econ thanks though for being condescending. It isnt JUST about upswings and downswings...who is in charge has a lot to do with that. Spending trillions on a war we should never have started wasnt something Clinton did. HE was the one who made other countries want to be our allies...instead of hating us like they do now.
Clinton was by far the best President of my lifetime hands down.
He never had any justification for war. I'm with you, wish we hadn't gone to Iraq, or even Afghanistan for that matter. But I get really scared when I start thinking was Clinton would have done in the same situation.
For the record, I honestly wasn't being condescending, just meant it's a basic tenant of economics.
Certainly the President has an effect (although I would argue that Congress has more power) but upswing and downswings are very important. I mean really, what did Clinton have to deal with? The economy was booming without him, peace reigned (and when it didn't he ignored it), there was nothing like Katrina. He would be considered a much different president if he'd been in the next eight years.
Yekhefah
10-01-2008, 08:36 AM
Even now, the Dem's are fighting to look out for common people...
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. From where I'm sitting, it looks like they're looking out for their own political interests and nothing else. (Which, don't get me wrong, is the same thing the Republicans are doing.)
What was so bad about like under Clinton?. The economy was humming, the rich, middle class and even poor were all doing better than they ever had.
The times were good, I remember. But not all of that was Clinton's doing. He also had the benefit of a good relationship with the media, so his "bipartisan" sucking up to special interests was hailed as a beautiful thing. He signed the federal anti-gay marriage bill, he signed a bill giving federal funds to churches, he promised to sign a bill banning nearly all late-term abortion even in cases of rape and incest, he refused to sign the treaty banning land mines, he opened the National Petroleum Reserve for drilling in Alaska, he made no effort to require auto manufacturers to improve gas mileage (Reagan and Bush Sr. actually did), and health insurance coverage actually *fell* while he was in office. Don't get me wrong, I liked him overall. But he was a garden-variety Demopublican just like the others, and just like Obama. Same shit, different day.
But if what I said is right and you and enough other people vote 3rd party and the "status quo" of the last eight years gets in, well then, I don't think we can make it.
That's exactly my point though. The status quo is already going to get in. Whether it's McCain or Obama, it's still going to be the status quo. If you think al Qaeda is suddenly going to love us because our president has a Muslim name, or gas prices will be slashed to a third after we've already demonstrated that we're quite willing to pay $4 a gallon, then there's no helping you.
Yekhefah
10-01-2008, 08:39 AM
I agree that succumbing never got anyone anywhere, and if one wants to affect/reshape the system at its core, one needs to at least PRETENd to do something meaningful instead of a little more salt and a little less pepper. Fuck salt and pepper; I want curry.
Amen, and well said!
threlayer
10-01-2008, 11:26 AM
...Whether it's McCain or Obama, it's still going to be the status quo. If you think al Qaeda is suddenly going to love us because our president has a Muslim name, or gas prices will be slashed to a third after we've already demonstrated that we're quite willing to pay $4 a gallon, then there's no helping you.
What is it that constitutes the 'status quo' that will not change, despite the big differences in the potential administrations?
The beauracracy will still be there; no one else can change that. Al Qaeda will still hate us regardless of whomever is in power, even Paul. Oil will still be an issue because, though we have reduced our demand quite a bit, we still have no immediate alternative. Taxes will always be there, even if it changes our governmenbt cannot transform itself in 1 or 2 administrations; it never has. There always will be an authority we have to conform to and obey its laws because if we relax them a little criminals,including corrupt businesses, will be better able to prey on us. So what is it that has to change, in your worldview?
xcuzmylife
10-01-2008, 12:21 PM
Many men in the U.S. suffer from erectile dysfunction. We are all sufferering from ELECTILE dysfunction. The Libertarians nominated Bob Barr as their candidate last week. Ron Paul is no longer an option unfortuantely. As for the hockey mom, pit bull, lipstick joke that Palin made - my pit bulls are friendlier than hockey moms.