More on the Election (1726 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 1.41 on 96 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Steven Durel <stevendurel.at.yahoo.com> (View user info) at 2004-10-09 13:32:36 EDT
As the election for President of the United States comes nearer, the country is obsessed with "Bush and Kerry, Bush and Kerry" because one of these two men are assuredly going to be elected in November.
At the same time, however, might I sugguest to the people of Ubersite that their vote could be more usefull to a third party candidate than John Kerry or George W. Bush? Would it be blasphemy to declare that other common men might appreciate votes more than the multi-millionaire candidates?
You see, third parties often push issues into the mainstream. Ralph Nader isn't running to actually become the President of the United States. He is running to fight against corporations. Of course, the corporate media has fired back with their brain-washing slogans "A Vote for Nader is a Vote for Bush" and with the name "spolier." ("Perhaps their type of politics needs spoiling." -Ralph Nader)
The election is going to turn out the same no matter who you vote for. Face it, individually your vote really makes no difference to the RNC or DNC.
But to third parties (and to the principles that they represent) each vote is one more voice saying "This issue needs to be brought into the mainstream."
This November, I would recommend that everyone who reads this should find a third-party candidate who best represents them and cast a vote for progressive politics.
User Reviews
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-10-11 14:20:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
A vote for Nader is one less for Kerry. That's why the GOP actually helped him get on the ballot in some states. Asswipe.
Submitted by browneyedgirl (user info) at 2004-10-11 14:06:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Badnarik for 2004!
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-10-11 12:28:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. It has jack shit to do with being brainwashed, it comes down to simple mathematics.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/26237
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2004-10-11 11:48:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Shit sorry... I thought it said "More on the eRection."
My bad... I'm english and don't care.
Unless they legalise weed.
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2004-10-11 10:52:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Fucking Americans.
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2004-10-11 09:45:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Libertarian. (And no, we're not all potsmokers)
Submitted by Quasiplasmohedron (user info) at 2004-10-11 05:36:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by PWNstar (user info) at 2004-10-10 21:25:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by johnson (user info) at 2004-10-09 13:59:53 (#)
Ranking: 2
Good point, scoobidydoo2003. How come Ross Perot cost Bush the '92 election and no one called him a "spoiler"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perot got 20% (thats right, 1 out of every 5 people but not one electoral vote) of the vote in 92; he stood well enough on his own. We're not talking an election where it came down to hundreds of votes.
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2004-10-10 21:17:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I want more parties!
wooo chaos and confusion!
w00t!
no seriously, this is awesome.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-10-10 19:21:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
absolutely awesome
Submitted by johnson (user info) at 2004-10-10 13:17:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I would like to let everyone supporting Badnarik simply because he wants to decriminalize weed know that Ralph Nader says the same thing and David Cobb probably does too.
How come Bush or Kerry haven't jumped on the pot bandwaggon yet?
Submitted by Rokinroj (user info) at 2004-10-10 13:05:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Good post!
Anyone ever see that old movie with Richar Pryor "Brewsters Millions"? He ran a campaign promoting everyone to vote "None of the above". Seems fitting.
Rokinroj
Submitted by gibberish (user info) at 2004-10-10 11:21:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Badnarik WOO!
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2004-10-10 08:24:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Legalising pot - Pandering to Uberusers...
they're almost synonymous.
Submitted by ParlorTrick (user info) at 2004-10-10 08:21:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Good. Informative.
(a vote for Nadar IS a vote for Bush, make your political statement next election)
Submitted by jack11058 (user info) at 2004-10-10 08:04:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2004-10-10 04:58:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Badnarik is a pretty cool name.
Submitted by Freight_Train (user info) at 2004-10-10 01:08:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I think I will go for the Libertarians
Submitted by stevendurel (user info) at 2004-10-10 00:17:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I MADE THE MOST HEATED LIST!
WHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Submitted by johnson (user info) at 2004-10-10 00:04:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
What? Your statement does not make any sense. Voting for Kerry is going to put your voice in a sea of anonymity. Voting Libertarian will at least give notice to the RNC and DNC that Libertarian issues should be pandered to.
Submitted by lush (user info) at 2004-10-09 23:58:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Although I am a Libertarian, I don't believe voting for them will do any good. It is just a wasted vote, so I am going with Kerry instead so my vote will count.
Submitted by johnson (user info) at 2004-10-09 23:55:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Man, this post is like fractions of a point away from making the Top Ten Most Heated list.
Submitted by Timmah (user info) at 2004-10-09 23:48:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
My bad. I had someone linkwhore to this post. Assumed they were linkwhoring their opwn post I just ranted on this. In fact they had linked to someone elses post. My bad.
Submitted by stevendurel (user info) at 2004-10-09 23:37:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Timmah, what the hell are you talking about?
Submitted by Timmah (user info) at 2004-10-09 23:33:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Linkwhoring sucks. Linkwhoring while ruining a rating is fucking shit.
-2 for you! http://www.ubersite.com/m/47722
Submitted by Chronicles_of_College_Guy (user info) at 2004-10-09 22:16:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I disagree with the guy below me and agree with the author.
Votes can only count if you give them to the right people (hint: not Kerry or Bush).
Submitted by zxcvvcxz (user info) at 2004-10-09 21:26:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This is essentially what I was saying in these two posts:
http://www.ubersite.com/m/46795
http://www.ubersite.com/m/47326
I strongly feel that voting for anyone other than a major party candidate is both a waste of a vote and a major help to the candidate you probably would rather NOT have in office. That being said, a vote for a major candidate is equally wasted, and I wouldn't want either of them in office anyway.
Thusly, I won't be voting in the election. Ideally, enough people will be so thoroughly DISGUSTED with the options that they won't even show up. Of course, I know all the civic minded folks who aren't jaded will still go out and pretend they matter.
Bahhh. Bahhhhhh.
Submitted by Supreme_Overlord (user info) at 2004-10-09 19:39:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Chronicles_of_College_Guy: agreed!
I agree this was a good post at heart. The only part I had a problem with was the statement that 'your vote won't matter anyway'. I thought that was sending the wrong message. I agree with the rest of it about how there are many other parties, and that they can also have good messages.
Scooby: Your post is quite ironic in that you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing. It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times. Damn monkeys.
Submitted by Chronicles_of_College_Guy (user info) at 2004-10-09 19:03:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
OKAY! OKAY!
Enough of the fighting. Let's just all agree that this was a great post and the author is pretty damn level-headed.
Agreed?
Submitted by scoobidydoo2003 (user info) at 2004-10-09 18:55:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
It's funny how Supreme_Overlord can't let things go. He's just going to keep replying until he has the last word. What an ape!
Submitted by Supreme_Overlord (user info) at 2004-10-09 17:01:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Really, Overlord, I'm sick of pointing out what an asshole you are.
----------------
No you aren't. Or else you wouldn't keep doing it.
And I got like 50 things going on right now. Really I don't care. See, while something like this might take all the attention and passion of some pissant, I really am able to not give a shit what some ethereal entities on an online board think.
-2 DIE, what the gay?
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2004-10-09 16:56:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Overlord - post something, put your opinions up for the scrutiny of others.
Try starting some worthwhile debates, without it degenerating into a pissing match like this.
Or are you an alter?
Submitted by scoobidydoo2003 (user info) at 2004-10-09 16:54:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I find it humorous that someone who is incapable of having a conversation with everyone else here is calling us children. You're the mentally handicapped here, Supreme.
Submitted by johnson (user info) at 2004-10-09 16:53:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Really, Overlord, I'm sick of pointing out what an asshole you are.
Submitted by stevendurel (user info) at 2004-10-09 16:52:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Overlord, your going to keep on getting ridiculed, so just go away. And obviously you care about what everyone thinks, or else you wouldn't bother posting back.
Everyone thinks your stupid, okay? Just live with it and go away.
Submitted by Supreme_Overlord (user info) at 2004-10-09 16:47:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I know, I'll call people gay and proclaim my hate for them. Then everyone will think I am k-rad 31337.
I don't know any of you, so how I could become personally involved is beyond me. Good luck on growing up.
Submitted by stevendurel (user info) at 2004-10-09 16:28:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
True dat.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2004-10-09 16:22:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Now, now children, calm down.
Look at it this way steven, these dipshits are pushing you towards most heated.
Submitted by stevendurel (user info) at 2004-10-09 16:18:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I wish there was a way to ban certain people from this article.
Submitted by scoobidydoo2003 (user info) at 2004-10-09 16:18:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Supreme_Overlord and boogiefever suck eachother.
Submitted by johnson (user info) at 2004-10-09 16:17:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yeah, up yours, boogiefevuh!
I thought Supreme_Overlord was an imbecile, but he pales in comparison to you.
Submitted by Chronicles_of_College_Guy (user info) at 2004-10-09 16:16:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Fuck you, Boogiequeerass. Why do you have a boner for Supreme_Overlord? You didn't even know what his God damn possition was.
Submitted by Chronicles_of_College_Guy (user info) at 2004-10-09 16:15:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I hate Supreme_Overlord the most.
Submitted by scoobidydoo2003 (user info) at 2004-10-09 16:14:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh, I hate Supreme_Overlord about 50 times as much as you.
Submitted by BoogieFevuh (user info) at 2004-10-09 16:14:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Johnson, either have a point next time, or don't respond. This is a debate for grown-ups, not for namecalling.
Submitted by johnson (user info) at 2004-10-09 16:11:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I hate Supreme_Overlord.
Submitted by BoogieFevuh (user info) at 2004-10-09 16:09:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"After all, if even Nader cannot get on the debates, or afford TV ads, then what can they do?"
See, that's the main problem. The major candidates like Bush and Kerry are both personally very wealthy. In this day and age, you don't stand a chance of becoming president if you aren't loaded. There should be a company or sponsor or anything that funds elections, debates, and commercials, it's only fair. I'm sick of the formerly greatest country in the world being run by a bunch of greedy millionaires.
Submitted by johnson (user info) at 2004-10-09 16:07:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
OH MY GOD! If you don't have a fucking IQ of 20 or more, then do not respond.
BoogieFevuh, you have less of a clue of what is going on than anyone else. Supreme_Overlord proved no one wrong. The guy didn't even know what was going on in the conversation and he looked like a jackass.
The same thing is happening to you right now.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2004-10-09 15:57:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
True, such a major change is not going to happen overnight. But even if you settle for other parties merely influencing an election, you have to admit they are not doing even that. Stabkill and Domenad may advocate libertarianism (and in a perfect world, so would I), but they are few.
After all, if even Nader cannot get on the debates, or afford TV ads, then what can they do?
Submitted by Supreme_Overlord (user info) at 2004-10-09 15:55:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Okay. I thought I posted my opinion in the first response.
This country would be best off with many parties in competition for the presidency. This is not the case currently. We are far from an ideal system. Bush has royally screwed all but <1% of the population. I do not intend to help him do that for another term. I will vote for Kerry because that is my best option to stop the Bush regime. I am not a Democrat. I just realize that voting for a third party will not in any way help defeat Bush in the upcoming election.
I also believe that there are going to be violent upheavals in the present future. The world is not in a peaceful state. I believe that Bush will attempt to antagonize the situation as much as possible for monetary gain. Like was mentioned in another post, Hitler used the WWII war machine as the method to bring Germany out of its economic depression. Bottom line, war is profitable.
In no way do I believe I have 'infinite wisdom.' At least I can spell it correctly. The reason spelling pisses me off is that it makes me feel like I am arguing with children. Maybe I am. I like debating, and while the opinions I give are my own, I do not necessarily feel they are 'the one true way'.
I understand the supposed point trying to be made against what I said originally. Unfortunately, the rebuttals offered attempted to be clever and weren't. They were also laden with inaccuracy. I like an intelligent argument, but this one reminds of the oft posted Special Olympics picture. No one wins. There have been several good responses. That last statement was only directed at a few, not every single person other than myself.
Submitted by BoogieFevuh (user info) at 2004-10-09 15:52:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by scoobidydoo2003 (user info) at 2004-10-09 15:14:06 (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh, fuck you, Overlord! Everyone here thinks you are the idiot. Not one person has come to your defense, because you're so God-damn stupid.
-------------
Real mature...he proved you wrong, and you resort to name calling.
Overlord is right, it's completely ridiculous that America has accepted a two party system. With this in effect, to quote Sideburns, "Whoever wins, we lose."
I would like to know why they don't let ALL presidential candidates in the debate, it seems kind of unfair.
"BUT BOOGIE NOBODY SUPPORTS THOSE OTHER GUYS, WHO CARES WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY?"
Glad you asked...see, if people saw these 3rd party candidates debating against the only two previous presidential possibilities, it would give them more exposure. If more people learned about their ideas, only then could the public truly make their own decision on who THEY want to run this country.
Submitted by scoobidydoo2003 (user info) at 2004-10-09 15:40:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Well, here's the thing though. I might support a multi-party system as well, but I think that that is a harder goal to acheive than just asking people to hop on some 3rd party bandwaggons to call attention to issues. Wouldn't you agree?
Also, many criticize 3rd parties expressly because they think the candidates actually believe they have a chance at becoming president. I think this post highlights what the real goal of 3rd parties are.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2004-10-09 15:34:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
And although I generally agree with Overlord, I do wonder why he lacks the balls to post his opinions.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2004-10-09 15:33:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Let me put it this way, scoobidydoo.
The third parties shown above are not seriously attempting to take the presidency, but are running in order to highlight issued (your, and Steven Durels, argument).
But the only way these parties can highlight their concerns is by performing well at the polls (my point). And that they cannot do.
Excepting Nader, which of the above parties recieve real mainstream media coverage? None.
If these groups have no strength at the polls and are little known among the general public, then the DNC and RNC have no reason to accomodate their postitions - because they know there is little danger of the public siding with the small fry in an election.
That is why I suggest a multi-party system, one in which a spread of parties can represent a real variety of policies - a system which can accomodate change.
Can any of you see a real possibilty for change in your American system?
Submitted by johnson (user info) at 2004-10-09 15:20:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Well I'm under the impression that he's just some fucking pretentious 20-year-old college kid trying to share his "infinate wisdom" of facts and spelling, but is too God damned stupid to even know what the hell is going on in a conversation.
Submitted by Supreme_Overlord (user info) at 2004-10-09 15:20:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I am under the impression that one someone can not win an argument (oh I'm sorry, arguement), that they resort to name calling. Particularly, as recently pointed out to me on negative-positive, insults of the; "UR GAY!!!!!! LOL" variety.
Submitted by Supreme_Overlord (user info) at 2004-10-09 15:18:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I know you think I am an idiot. I also know that I think you are in 6th grade, and your opinion really doesn't matter to me.
Oh no, I have a lack of cyber-friends! Cry! Sob! Gasp!
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2004-10-09 15:18:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
-2 for election. Is it November 3rd yet?
Submitted by Chronicles_of_College_Guy (user info) at 2004-10-09 15:18:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I don't know about the rest of you, but I am under the impression that Supreme_Overlord is one of the following:
-An impotent old man trying who is too senile to have a conversation with.
-A child.
-A flaming queer who is upset about their family disowning them and is lashing out online.
Submitted by scoobidydoo2003 (user info) at 2004-10-09 15:14:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh, fuck you, Overlord! Everyone here thinks you are the idiot. Not one person has come to your defense, because you're so God-damn stupid.
You gave the impression that Republicans use 3rd parties as a tool to fight liberals. All that I was trying to do was counter your arguement.
Submitted by Supreme_Overlord (user info) at 2004-10-09 15:11:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Republicans] know more liberal minded people could be swayed into supporting a third party candidate."
Supreme_Overlord at 1:50pm
"I never said only liberals will vote for a third party."
Supreme_Overlord at 2:37pm
Those two statements do not contradict. Notice the verb 'could'. Notice the lack of the word 'only'. Notice your lack of the ability to understand the English language.
Submitted by scoobidydoo2003 (user info) at 2004-10-09 15:08:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
With all due respect zakalwe, I don't think you understand the arguement made by the author. It's not about winning a bunch of the electorate and winning the election, it's about giving issues as much attention as possible.
If the enviornment was great, there would be no need for a Green Party.
Like the author says, "You see, third parties often push issues into the mainstream. Ralph Nader isn't running to actually become the President of the United States. He is running to fight against corporations."
So, we don't need 4 parties, we just need our politicians to pay attention to certain issues that they feel they don't need to.
Perhaps John Kerry might liberalize his platform to try to pick up more Nader voters before the election.
Submitted by cigar (user info) at 2004-10-09 15:05:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
If Nader wasn't so dead set against the war in Iraq I would vote for him. If I had been of age to vote in 92 (I was 16) I would have voted for Perot.
Great fucking post.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2004-10-09 14:58:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
That is one kick-ass argument going on below me, but I have to add my two cents.
What percentage of electorate can these parties rely on?
Nader polls 1-4% nationally, but the rest have negligible support. Add their respective voters together and I bet you wouldn't get more than 5-6% (Nader included).
A two-party system may be bad for a country, but these parties can do nothing about that - they lack the strength. You guys need a multi-party system like here in the UK. Two parties may dominate, but there are many substatial smaller parties, which have some real influence. AND this arrangement can change - look at current descent of the Tories and corresponding ascent of the Lib Dems.
Submitted by NoahsArk (user info) at 2004-10-09 14:57:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
If I had a pie for every time I've heard someone say, "I would vote for x 3rd party candidate but he has no chance of winning," I'd have a lot of pies.
Submitted by Chronicles_of_College_Guy (user info) at 2004-10-09 14:47:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Not-so-Supreme Overlord,
You gave the impression that Republicans are viscious liars who can never be swayed to vote outside party lines. Everyone is trying to convince you otherwise.
Get it?
Submitted by stevendurel (user info) at 2004-10-09 14:45:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Sorry that I mispell things. You're the one that looks like an idiot here. You can't even pay attention to what conversation everyone is having.
Submitted by scoobidydoo2003 (user info) at 2004-10-09 14:43:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Ladies and gentlemen, the John Kerry of Ubersite, Supreme_Overlord.
"[Republicans] know more liberal minded people could be swayed into supporting a third party candidate."
Supreme_Overlord at 1:50pm
"I never said only liberals will vote for a third party."
Supreme_Overlord at 2:37pm
Wow! A flip-flop in 47 minutes. Kerry would be proud.
Submitted by Supreme_Overlord (user info) at 2004-10-09 14:42:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
IT IS NOT SPELLED ARGUEMENT.
Submitted by johnson (user info) at 2004-10-09 14:40:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Supreme Overlord...
You said (an I quote):
"And I have always seen in my lifetime it is the Republicans who will pretend to support this idea. They will NEVER actually vote for anyone other than their candidate, but they know more liberal minded people could be swayed into supporting a third party candidate, thereby weakening the opposing candidate. Republicans will lie through their teeth all the way to the booth, but make no mistake in who *they* will be voting for on election day."
"And I have always seen in my lifetime it is the Republicans who will pretend to support this idea. They will NEVER actually vote for anyone other than their candidate"
"they know more liberal minded people could be swayed into supporting a third party candidate"
"And I have always seen in my lifetime it is the Republicans who will pretend to support this idea. They will NEVER actually vote for anyone other than their candidate"
"they know more liberal minded people could be swayed into supporting a third party candidate"
"And I have always seen in my lifetime it is the Republicans who will pretend to support this idea. They will NEVER actually vote for anyone other than their candidate"
"they know more liberal minded people could be swayed into supporting a third party candidate"
"And I have always seen in my lifetime it is the Republicans who will pretend to support this idea. They will NEVER actually vote for anyone other than their candidate"
"they know more liberal minded people could be swayed into supporting a third party candidate"
Submitted by stevendurel (user info) at 2004-10-09 14:37:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I love it when things fall apart into an arguement.
Submitted by Supreme_Overlord (user info) at 2004-10-09 14:37:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Please. When I respond to scooby doo, then johnson pretends I'm responding to him... and vice versa.
I never said only liberals will vote for a third party. Show me where I said that.
Submitted by Chronicles_of_College_Guy (user info) at 2004-10-09 14:32:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yeah, why does Supreme_Overlord keep going back to that?
Supreme_Overlord, you were saying Republicans will never vote for a 3rd Party, he gave you examples of how they have and how they will, and you keep going on about TR.
Did your mother drop you when you were a baby?
Submitted by scoobidydoo2003 (user info) at 2004-10-09 14:29:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I've met some dumb people in my day, but Supreme_Overlord takes the cake.
It is true. You said that Republicans could never be swayed to a third-party candidate, I gave you an example of when it actually happened (only 12 years ago), and you keep calling me a moron because you think I'm talking about Teddy Roosevelt for some reason.
Submitted by johnson (user info) at 2004-10-09 14:26:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Supreme_Overlord, what the fuck is the matter with you? You look like an idiot to everyone here and you just keep going with it.
Let me explain to you what happened, because apparently you STILL don't get it.
You said that only liberals will vote for third party candidates. Okay? You got that?
Scoobidydoo2003 said, "No, that's not true. Ross Perot is a good example of a conservative 3rd party candidate who cost the Republican candidate the election."
Okay? Do you still follow?
Now you keep going back to the fucking Teddy Roosevelt comment. Please notice that NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT THAT EXCEPT FOR YOU! We're not on that comment, we're on the other one.
Got it retard?
Submitted by Supreme_Overlord (user info) at 2004-10-09 14:25:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Good luck at the GEDs!
Submitted by Supreme_Overlord (user info) at 2004-10-09 14:23:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Oops! Better clarify a sentence. Else it will never be understood. When I said:
"When I said 'in my lifetime' it was not even in the same response as I threw in information for the past."
it was not stated clearly. I sincerely apologize. I should be reprimanded. Let me restate that:
When I said 'in my lifetime' it was in a different response than the one (response) in which I took an example from America's past.
Submitted by Supreme_Overlord (user info) at 2004-10-09 14:21:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Are you in 6th grade? And please learn how to spell. I dun gotz me an argyment pa!
>> Also notice how Supreme_Overlord said "in my lifetime." Was he alive in 1912? Also, I think that my arguing about the 1992 election is a lot more relevant to today than to 1912.
Wow, you take things out of context worse than a politician. When I said 'in my lifetime' it was not even in the same response as I threw in information for the past. Why do we even consider the past with the American ADD attention span. I'm sure what's happened in the past 5 seconds is more relevant than what happened in 1992.
>>Supreme_Overlord: "Okay, when did I say a thing about the 1992 election. I said 1912, Theodore
>>Roosevelt was not alive in 1992. I think you should get your head out of your ass and learn to
>>read. I never said a thing about either the Reform Party or the Constitution Party.... You don't
>>even have an argument."
>> Supreme_Overlord, you need to pay attention if you want to have an arguement.
I still don't see where I mentioned anything about either of those parties. I addressed third parties in a general manner, but said nothing specific about any particular third party.
Please, if you don't read at an adult level, then you need to stick to Harry Potter.
Submitted by scoobidydoo2003 (user info) at 2004-10-09 14:09:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Thanks, johnson.
Also notice how Supreme_Overlord said "in my lifetime." Was he alive in 1912? Also, I think that my arguing about the 1992 election is a lot more relevant to today than to 1912.
Submitted by johnson (user info) at 2004-10-09 14:07:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
PROOF THAT SUPREME_OVERLORD IS AN IDIOT:
Supreme_Overlord: "And I have always seen in my lifetime it is the Republicans who will pretend to support this idea. They will NEVER actually vote for anyone other than their candidate, but they know more liberal minded people could be swayed into supporting a third party candidate, thereby weakening the opposing candidate."
(Please notice how he capitalized "NEVER".
scoobidydoo2003: "Supreme_Overlord, you are an idiot. Ross Perot cost George H.W. Bush the 1992 election! The Reform Party is traditionally conservative (Pat Buchanan in 2000!) and the Constitution Party guy says that the country was founded on the Bible! Your arguement is stupid and unfounded."
A logical response (though a little angry). Let's see Supreme_Overlord's repsonse to this!
Supreme_Overlord: "Okay, when did I say a thing about the 1992 election. I said 1912, Theodore Roosevelt was not alive in 1992. I think you should get your head out of your ass and learn to read. I never said a thing about either the Reform Party or the Constitution Party.... You don't even have an argument."
Supreme_Overlord, you need to pay attention if you want to have an arguement.
Submitted by Supreme_Overlord (user info) at 2004-10-09 14:07:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It is the nature of voting in this country that I can not prove who ANYONE voted for. In fact you could claim you would be voting for one person, vote for someone else, and afterwards keep right on pretending you voted for who you said you were going to. Voting is a private matter, not a public one. If it were any different then people could be discriminated upon based on their ballot, and that would be even worse than the current system.
Submitted by vajokki (user info) at 2004-10-09 14:05:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Also:
Peace and Freedom party canidate Leonard Peltier. Convicted of two accounts of first degree murder.
Personal Choice party vice president canidate Marilyn Chambers Taylor. Ex-porn star who filmed in the movies 'Behind the Green Door' and 'Insatiable'.
Socialist party: Two old senor citzen bitches that have hearing aids.
Other parties of note:
American Nazi party, Natural Law party, Grassroots party, Communist Party USA.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-10-09 14:03:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You know what, just to PROVE that you're wrong, I'm going to really vote Libertarian. You're right, I don't want to endorse Bush if I don't really like him. It's not the fucking government's business if gays get married, and cops shouldn't take bullets over someone smoking pot. I'm officially voting for Badnarik now, and I"ll post my absentee ballot to prove it.
Submitted by Supreme_Overlord (user info) at 2004-10-09 14:01:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Supreme_Overlord, you are an idiot. Ross Perot cost George H.W. Bush the 1992 election!
The Reform Party is traditionally conservative (Pat Buchanan in 2000!) and the Constitution Party guy says that the country was founded on the Bible!
Your arguement is stupid and unfounded.
-------------------------------------------------
Okay, when did I say a thing about the 1992 election. I said 1912, Theodore Roosevelt was not alive in 1992. I think you should get your head out of your ass and learn to read.
I never said a thing about either the Reform Party or the Constitution Party....
You don't even have an argument.
Now, I started by saying that ideally we would be much better off with a third party candidate, and this nation was never intended to be bipartisan. We do not live in an ideal world. I threw away my vote on a worthless third party candidate last election. It was only in desperate hope of opening the debates to a third party. Not only did nothing change but my country has been shot into the shit-hole in the four years since.
Please, for the love of God, don't listen to misleading twits.
Submitted by johnson (user info) at 2004-10-09 13:59:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Good point, scoobidydoo2003. How come Ross Perot cost Bush the '92 election and no one called him a "spoiler"?
Submitted by Sepsis (user info) at 2004-10-09 13:57:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by scoobidydoo2003 (user info) at 2004-10-09 13:54:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Supreme_Overlord, you are an idiot. Ross Perot cost George H.W. Bush the 1992 election!
The Reform Party is traditionally conservative (Pat Buchanan in 2000!) and the Constitution Party guy says that the country was founded on the Bible!
Your arguement is stupid and unfounded.
Submitted by lojope (user info) at 2004-10-09 13:53:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm not a Republican. I am voting for Nader.
Submitted by Supreme_Overlord (user info) at 2004-10-09 13:52:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Even now the Republicans flock to this thread with their 'support.' And I know not a single one will vote for a third party candidate on election day. Two-faced sons of bitches.
Submitted by Supreme_Overlord (user info) at 2004-10-09 13:50:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
And I have always seen in my lifetime it is the Republicans who will pretend to support this idea. They will NEVER actually vote for anyone other than their candidate, but they know more liberal minded people could be swayed into supporting a third party candidate, thereby weakening the opposing candidate.
Republicans will lie through their teeth all the way to the booth, but make no mistake in who *they* will be voting for on election day.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-10-09 13:50:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-10-09 13:39:44 (#)
Ranking: 2
Libertarian all the way, bitches!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-10-09 13:48:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I vote for you
Submitted by Supreme_Overlord (user info) at 2004-10-09 13:47:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I know you think you are doing the right thing. And you are correct in saying that it would be better to have a multi-party system. In fact the US government was never intended to be strictly bipartisan. However, your idealistic standpoint loses its theoretical shine when brought to reality. And leads you into saying plainly false things like:
>> The election is going to turn out the same no matter who you vote for. Face it, individually your vote really makes no difference to the RNC or DNC.
You see, it is precisely those people who are not dedicated to one side or the other who will ultimately decide the popular election. In another response I made, taking quotations from the Encyclopedia, the Democratic victory in 1912 was due in large part to Theodore Roosevelt (of the Popularist party) taking votes from the Republican party and weakening their support.
Submitted by tech-junkie (user info) at 2004-10-09 13:45:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
wow... and i up until now i used to always joke around by saying "vote nader!"
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-10-09 13:39:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Libertarian all the way, bitches!
Submitted by lojope (user info) at 2004-10-09 13:39:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yup.