OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[DonCorazon]

oops, i accidentally clicked McCain. sorry long day. wow and that was the tie-breaker.

[rdonj]

I'm not voting for either of them, they both want to do things I seriously disagree with.

[Edratman]

Originally Posted by rdonj

I'm not voting for either of them, they both want to do things I seriously disagree with.

The predominant problem with that attitude is that door #3 has failed to establish itself as a viable alternative at this point in time. This shortcoming on the part of door #3, and in my opinion the onus is really on door #3, reduces those who choose that option as very minor fringe dissenters.

The country has a past history of new political parties. The Republican party came into existance in the 1850's as an anti-slavery party. The Progressive party, usually known as the Bull Moose party arose in the early 1900's, but didn't generate significent legs.

I agree that one or more new political options are required. But today they do not exist and those who consider voting for the insignificent alternatives are not really dissenters, but merely non-voters in a different cloak.

[licker]

Originally Posted by Edratman

The predominant problem with that attitude is that door #3 has failed to establish itself as a viable alternative at this point in time. This shortcoming on the part of door #3, and in my opinion the onus is really on door #3, reduces those who choose that option as very minor fringe dissenters.

The country has a past history of new political parties. The Republican party came into existance in the 1850's as an anti-slavery party. The Progressive party, usually known as the Bull Moose party arose in the early 1900's, but didn't generate significent legs.

I agree that one or more new political options are required. But today they do not exist and those who consider voting for the insignificent alternatives are not really dissenters, but merely non-voters in a different cloak.

nonsense.

Those who continue to propagate the current two party system are either sheep, or delusional enough to think that the lessor of two evils is still somehow worth voting for.

The problem is not with the candidates per se. To be sure neither Obama nor McCain are by default bad people, and neither are they crazy or socialists, or whatever other ridiculous smears have been concocted to fed the media.

The problem is with the system as it CURRENTLY exists. Its meaningless to talk about 1850 or 1900, there is no comparison to the current conditions surrounding how candidates are allowed access to the media, much less access to debates or other public avenues to present their message.

MONEY and POWER are all that we see today, and the RNC and DNC don't want to see it change. Why are no 3rd party candidates allowed to appear in the debates? Do you know when this happened? Do you know why this happened?

The league of women voters used to coordinate the debates, but dropped it as the dnc and rnc began to try to control the events and shape them into the meaningless sound clip fests they have become. The organization which controls the debates today doesn't allow 3rd party candidates to even get a sniff at participation.

So honestly, how would you know if these 3rd party candidates are worth listening to or not? Probably just because you've bought the lies the media and politicians would have you believe.

The governance of this country is a complete joke, and it doesn't matter who pretends they are in charge the end result is the same, 2 parties, 2 candidates saying whatever it takes to get elected, and then simply doing whatever they damn well please since there is no accountability for any of them.

The only way out of this is to break the 2 party stranglehold, and you don't do that by continuing to vote for those 2 parties, you don't do it by not voting (that's completely asinine). You do it by voting for a 3rd party, and giving some of your time and even money to supporting and educating others on the reasons why the 2 party system in this country is slowly but surely destroying it.

[chrispedersen]

nonsense.

Those who continue to propagate the current two party system are either sheep, or delusional enough to think that the lessor of two evils is still somehow worth voting for.


Nonsense yourself.

I've studied enough politics to have a minor in it. And have been around the world and studied various forms of government. The two party system has advantages (and disadvantages) over a multi party system and I for one am more than content in it.

I am actually surprised to see so many mccain supporters - and somewhat heartened by it. Youth and online tends to be strongly in favor of Obama - perhaps gamers are more rational (or conservative).

[AreaOfEffect]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

I am actually surprised to see so many mccain supporters - and somewhat heartened by it. Youth and online tends to be strongly in favor of Obama - perhaps gamers are more rational (or conservative).

Are you implying that those who don't vote for McCain are somehow less rational. Not only is that implication not sound, it is also invalid.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

I would be happy to have Palin as my governor, senator or representative. Just as most of her constituents are. Despite your opinion of her, prior to the start of this election campaign she had the highest sustained favorability rating of any governer in history.

Your last statement sounds like a canned comment, but I'll indulge. I see little connection between favorablility and qualification. Please explain why she is suitable for any political position.

[rabelais]

Oy, Politics.

I have an actual button with Spendios Cthulhu slogan.

It is true that the parties, as game theory would suggest, are less different than we would like, but ever since reagan got elected in 1980, after making a deal to *delay* the release of the Iranian hostages, and then getting caught giving them arms as the back end of a quid pro quo, it is VERY apparent that the parties are not the same.

The previously unimaginable horror show that Chimpy, {Gombe division} Inc. (err, I mean the Bush administration) has ushered in is just the second go around farce.

The funny thing about wanting the flee the country post-bush is ...that as a friend of mine pointed out, we don't have to move, very soon we'll be living in Peronist Brazil.

My wife and I have already voted for Obama in texas. (HAHAHA... pointless I know) He may disappoint us, or prove incapable of dislodging the corporate overlordship once he gets in.... but the certainty of disaster and perpetual war with McCain and his VP "W-in-a-skirt" makes it not a difficult choice.

Particularly as the republicans stole the last two elections, have gratuitously killed over a million iraqis and have nothing but obfuscation, vote suppression and racist-dog whistle fear-mongering to recommend them. Plus the McCain of this campaign makes Mitt Romney look principled.

We have a 4 month old... the world will be bad enough when he grows up, ...we don't have to make it worse by pretending political choices don't matter, assuming you believe the election isn't controlled by a consortium of Di-e-boldic imps inside the voting machines.

Conservatism is one thing, I think history has proven conservatives are almost always wrong, but it's plausible in its no longer practiced Burkean form... these people aren't conservatives, they are plutocratic fascists.

And that's all I've got to say about that....

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by AreaOfEffect

Are you implying that those who don't vote for McCain are somehow less rational. Not only is that implication not sound, it is also invalid.

Your last statement sounds like a canned comment, but I'll indulge. I see little connection between favorablility and qualification. Please explain why she is suitable for any political position.

Make a choice. Which are we arguing qualifications or suitability?

You were asking people to investigate the candidates, thinking perhaps that if people did they would find Palin an absolutely unsuitable candidate.

Arguing qualifications for a moment - obviously, she met the qualifications. Our founding fathers put their faith in the common folk - specifically did not *want* a ruling elite, recall?

As for why palin is suitable - lets see. Renegotiated deal with the oil companies to extract HIGHER royalties from oil companies.
Broke with her own party to get a corrupt party official indicted.

And before you start spouting untruths about her, lets just lay to rest some internet fallacies, as debunked by snopes:
-Palin has never sought to have books banned, or burned.
-Has been praised by *many* of her political opponents for *not* advancing a prolife agenda.
-Did not cut funding for special needs kids - or education at all.

Finally, you seem to think that being popular is not germane. To the contrary, the ability to satisfy people across the political spectrum means that you address their common concerns and needs. It means that people believe you effectively address their concerns.

It is not the sole criteria for judging a political candidate -but how your opponents view you (favorably) is a pretty good indicator.

Now.. since you bring up the question of qualifications....
Palin has been mayor for something like 7 years, and governor for two or three.

Obama has.... good speeches - and exactly zero executive experience. So if you believe Palin is not qualified to be Vice President.. exactly how do you believe Barry Sotuero (you know, Baracks real name, before he changed it (as he admits in his book dreams of my father) to appeal to minorities) is qualified to be President?

[rdonj]

Unfortunately, edratman, I completely agree with this assessment. But I refuse to vote for someone just because they're slightly better than the other candidate who's actually capable of being elected.

Licker: I disagree that you have to be either a sheep or delusional to vote for one of the major candidates, that is too narrow of a grouping and does not account for all variables.

I also disagree with this - "So honestly, how would you know if these 3rd party candidates are worth listening to or not? Probably just because you've bought the lies the media and politicians would have you believe."

I don't know about you but I haven't heard ANYTHING about the 3rd party candidates. And I'm sure many others haven't either. I would bet more people just don't care about them because they get no media attention. How are we ever going to elect someone who doesn't get any air time? From what I can tell the majority of american voters get most if not all of their information from television. Sad, but it seems to be the case.

[licker]

Originally Posted by rdonj

Licker: I disagree that you have to be either a sheep or delusional to vote for one of the major candidates, that is too narrow of a grouping and does not account for all variables.

I also disagree with this - "So honestly, how would you know if these 3rd party candidates are worth listening to or not? Probably just because you've bought the lies the media and politicians would have you believe."

I don't know about you but I haven't heard ANYTHING about the 3rd party candidates. And I'm sure many others haven't either. I would bet more people just don't care about them because they get no media attention. How are we ever going to elect someone who doesn't get any air time? From what I can tell the majority of american voters get most if not all of their information from television. Sad, but it seems to be the case.

I agree, my first statement was a bit strong, but was only made in response to an equally strong, and equally limited statement.

As to the 3rd parties...

That's my point!

Do you think the Green party or the libertarian party does not roots? Why is it that you haven't heard what they are saying, other than that you are just taking what is spoon fed to you.

They have been on NPR, they have been in some newspapers, and they have had some limited TV exposure, but the main stream media doesn't touch them.

And why?

Because they know who is cutting them their checks for all the ad time they allow.

Take MONEY out of the political equation as much as possible and you'll start to hear more varied platforms and opinions. European nations do this, sure, they have their big parties, but the smaller parties are also heard from, with our winner takes all congressional design (which isn't necessarily a bad design, it's just been completely subverted by the haves to completely exclude the have nots) if you are not a repub or a dem you get very little monetary support (which is derived from the dnc and rnc) and have very little chance to actually compete.

Look at Obama and his earlier stance on what money he would use for the campaign, and how he completely discarded that stance when he realized he would benefit more by dropping it. Disgusting, and just another example of our politicians doing whatever they want since they know there are no consequences.

McCain is no saint here either, none of them are, that's my point. Voting for them is just casting your ballot for more of the same screw job we've become accustomed to.

For either of those candidates, if you support them and they win, write down what their campaign promises were, and then actually bother to track what and how they go about fulfilling them. Of course most people won't do this, hell most people don't even know what the promises are, other than in some incredibly pointless and generic sense.

Change? What the hell does that mean? It could mean anything, and it probably will since both campaigns are using it.