those dirty 3rd parties stealing votes...

24567…14

Comments

  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    Danny Boy wrote:
    Please allow the rest of us to know who will be our next president.


    Why don't you tell us all? Since you're the one telling us who should be allowed to run and who deserves our vote despite what we think about the matter.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Why don't you tell us all? Since you're the one telling us who should be allowed to run and who deserves our vote despite what we think about the matter.

    You and EK sound like goddamn Libertarians in this thread...I'm scared

    ;)
  • Danny Boy
    Danny Boy Posts: 161
    Pacomc79 wrote:
    Maybe we should just work on ways to devalue the power of the president.

    Perhaps we fixate too much on the head of the executive branch...

    If the government is of by and for the people..... why is everyone treating the presidential race as if its running for King?

    The president..... Probably has too much power, probably because we the people have allowed them over the years too much leeway.

    Local elections, Senators, Congress are supposed to be the ones with the bulk of the power. Not the President. The Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch have done a crappy job checking the office of the Executive in the last 50 years or so and really vise versa.

    This race is basically completely constituted of empty promises, and that's been true the last 20 years.

    This is absolutely the best thought I've read in a while. Good insight and I confess I'm just as guilty as the next of getting in way too deep with the concept of the presidency versus the congressional representation that actually legislates.

    I'm not saying that thrid party candidates shouldn't seek the presidency, but when it becomes painfully evident that such a candidate is only going to win perhaps 1% of the vote, that 1% could be the difference between having somebody in office who is going to prolong war or end war, somebody who is going to seek affordable healthcare versus pandering to healthcare lobbysists.

    Al Gore did run a shitty campaign in 2000 ~ I don't disagree with that fact. Do you think if Nader knew what Bush's presidency would deliver, had he known then what he knows now, that he still would have ran? Gore's campaign might have been poorly carried out, but he wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq and he wouldn't have leveraged Medicare at the expense of taxpayers, amongst a mountain of other policies the Bush administration has created at the expense of people like me, you and the majority of Americans who aren't homeless or wealthy.

    Farfromglorified ~ I think Nader was fully aware when he ran that he had more in common with Gore than Bush in terms of policy and ideology. Hillary's campaign invoked negativity and many feel that she bears the bulk of responsibility for creating divisions in the woefully inept Democratic Party. John Edwards or Bill Richardson could be in Obama's position right now and I'd have the the same misgivings with the Clinton's.
    Trading magic for fact, no tradebacks... So this is what it's like to be an adult...
  • Danny Boy
    Danny Boy Posts: 161
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Why don't you tell us all? Since you're the one telling us who should be allowed to run and who deserves our vote despite what we think about the matter.

    I'm guessing you would have preferred Bush over Gore in 2000??? I'd offer who I think will win and why but it's painfully obvious you don't give a shit in lieu of your sarcastic questioning.
    Trading magic for fact, no tradebacks... So this is what it's like to be an adult...
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Danny Boy wrote:
    Farfromglorified ~ I think Nader was fully aware when he ran that he had more in common with Gore than Bush in terms of policy and ideology. Hillary's campaign invoked negativity and many feel that she bears the bulk of responsibility for creating divisions in the woefully inept Democratic Party. John Edwards or Bill Richardson could be in Obama's position right now and I'd have the the same misgivings with the Clinton's.

    Do you see the problem with your logic here though? Certainly Clinton has been more negative, but the political realities dictate that she had to be because of Barack's challenge to her. The previous point I made holds -- had Barack (and all the other Democratic candidates) simply gotten out of her way, there'd be no division in the party. Based on your logic then, he shouldn't have run.

    That's the problem with your thinking -- it's too in-the-moment. Much more harm has been done and will by done by the gradual merging of the two major parties as they push out other voices than has been done by those other voices "stealing" votes from each other.
  • Danny Boy
    Danny Boy Posts: 161
    Barack shouldn't have run? Why do we have primaries then?

    The primary system amazes me in its flaws and this prolonged Democratic primary provides as much. We have two candidates from the SAME party who do differ somewhat on issues yet still share similar core ideologies.

    When Obama was down 20 points at the commencement of his run, he didn't invoke any of the numerous scandals that Republicans will eagerly unleash on HRC should she garner the nomination. Only when Hillary started to lose did the negative campaigning begin. As I said earlier, if Edwards was in Barack's position, we'd see the same scenario unfolding in terms of the tit-for-tat campaigning that doesn't focus on altering the status quobut rather doing whatever's necessary to further ambition. Hillary's vote for Iraq and refusal to admit it was a mistake dictated that somebody would be in the race at least through Super Tuesday. You're twisting my logic, and feel free to continue to do so, but the only time we ever see uncontested primaries is when a sitting president seeks his second term. It's not Obama's fault that she voted to authorize war in Iraq or has been who she is and done what she's done during her tenure in public life.

    When you say you see a gradual merging of the parties, I agree that in some circumstances that rings true with Senator Clinton and most other typical politicians. I just don't see how Obama's stances meld with Republican agenda.
    Trading magic for fact, no tradebacks... So this is what it's like to be an adult...
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    Danny Boy wrote:
    I'm guessing you would have preferred Bush over Gore in 2000??? I'd offer who I think will win and why but it's painfully obvious you don't give a shit in lieu of your sarcastic questioning.


    I prefer Gore over Bush but Nader over Gore....is that okay with you?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Danny Boy wrote:
    Barack shouldn't have run? Why do we have primaries then?

    Nader shouldn't have run? Why do we have elections then?
    The primary system amazes me in its flaws and this prolonged Democratic primary provides as much. We have two candidates from the SAME party who do differ somewhat on issues yet still share similar core ideologies.

    Ok. This isn't amazing, but that's fine.
    When Obama was down 20 points at the commencement of his run, he didn't invoke any of the numerous scandals that Republicans will eagerly unleash on HRC should she garner the nomination. Only when Hillary started to lose did the negative campaigning begin. As I said earlier, if Edwards was in Barack's position, we'd see the same scenario unfolding in terms of the tit-for-tat campaigning that doesn't focus on altering the status quobut rather doing whatever's necessary to further ambition. Hillary's vote for Iraq and refusal to admit it was a mistake dictated that somebody would be in the race at least through Super Tuesday. You're twisting my logic, and feel free to continue to do so, but the only time we ever see uncontested primaries is when a sitting president seeks his second term. It's not Obama's fault that she voted to authorize war in Iraq or has been who she is and done what she's done during her tenure in public life.

    When you say you see a gradual merging of the parties, I agree that in some circumstances that rings true with Senator Clinton and most other typical politicians. I just don't see how Obama's stances meld with Republican agenda.

    First, none of this addresses the core point. I'm not twisting your logic -- you're saying that those on one side of the political spectrum should do the utmost to ensure that their side of the political spectrum wins an election and that those who might challenge those within their side of the spectrum are to blame whenever they lose.

    Second, you don't think Obama's stances meld with the "Republican agenda"??? Ask around, I'm sure there are many here who are willing to tell you why Obama is as much an establishment candidate as Clinton or McCain. Tossing the word "change" around isn't a bona fide when it comes to bucking the establishment.
  • Hoon
    Hoon Posts: 175
    El_Kabong wrote:
    i had to watch part of CNN's 'not just another cable news show' and the brief moments i saw were all about ross perot and showed a bunch of sound bytes to make him look crazy...at the end they said "but he still managed to steal enough votes from george bush allowing bill clinton to win"

    how did he steal any votes?? how did they belong to bush in the first place??

    if i choose to go to jack in the box instead of mcdonalds is jack in the box stealing money from mcdonalds? and if they happened to be closed it doesn't necessarily mean i would've gone to mcdonalds

    it just seems like the media tries to discredit 3rd parties

    Yeah, Randi Roads, who told off and hung up on Nader in 2004, was talking about Perot last night and doing much of the same thing.

    Could there be whispers of other strong well funded candidates entering the race?

    Perot got 19% in 1992 and beat Clinton in Utah where Bush actually won.
    27% 24% 43%

    Perot got 8% in 1996 with not being in the debate, spending less money. . .and I think this was the one where he dropped out temporary.

    Anyway, Randi was saying how he was "crazy" ..........."what were those pie charts all about. . .ha ha" ............and also said "Did he even get 4%"? ? ?

    I know she's more knowledgeable than that. . .Same old shit from her.

    I was proud to cast my first presidential vote for Ross Perot!
    If you keep yourself as the final arbiter you will be less susceptible to infection from cultural illusion.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    nader would have been an afterthought if they didn't rig florida in 2000 ... can anyone actually point to nader costing gore electoral colleges?? ... gore did win the popular vote ... but unfortunately because most states play out as suspenseful as a scooby doo episode - there are these swing states ... all they needed to do was rig one ... one where candidates brother governs ...
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    polaris wrote:
    nader would have been an afterthought if they didn't rig florida in 2000 ... can anyone actually point to nader costing gore electoral colleges?? ... gore did win the popular vote ... but unfortunately because most states play out as suspenseful as a scooby doo episode - there are these swing states ... all they needed to do was rig one ... one where candidates brother governs ...


    All third party candidates running in 2000 in Florida received more votes than the
    difference between Gore and Bush, as well.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    All third party candidates running in 2000 in Florida received more votes than the
    difference between Gore and Bush, as well.

    i keep hearing nader cost gore the election but is there any actual evidence of this even if we are to assume all nader votes would have went to gore?
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    polaris wrote:
    i keep hearing nader cost gore the election but is there any actual evidence of this even if we are to assume all nader votes would have went to gore?

    http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=276261
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    El_Kabong wrote:
    i had to watch part of CNN's 'not just another cable news show' and the brief moments i saw were all about ross perot and showed a bunch of sound bytes to make him look crazy...at the end they said "but he still managed to steal enough votes from george bush allowing bill clinton to win"

    how did he steal any votes?? how did they belong to bush in the first place??

    if i choose to go to jack in the box instead of mcdonalds is jack in the box stealing money from mcdonalds? and if they happened to be closed it doesn't necessarily mean i would've gone to mcdonalds

    it just seems like the media tries to discredit 3rd parties


    I agree....saying 3rd party candidates "steal" votes is incorrect...

    personally, I think people should vote for whomever that want...

    however, history has shown, supporting 3rd party candidates may have unintended consequences...
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    inmytree wrote:
    I agree....saying 3rd party candidates "steal" votes is incorrect...

    personally, I think people should vote for whomever that want...

    however, history has shown, supporting 3rd party candidates may have unintended consequences...


    We could say the same about whomever you support if they don't win, then.

    If you all voted for Nader in 2000 instead Blah Gore then Bush wouldn't have won.

    So I think it's best to use your right to vote in this democracy towards voting for the person who best represents your own voice.

    Nader best represents mine.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Pacomc79
    Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    inmytree wrote:
    I agree....saying 3rd party candidates "steal" votes is incorrect...

    personally, I think people should vote for whomever that want...

    however, history has shown, supporting 3rd party candidates may have unintended consequences...


    If you have strong canidates... competition should bring out the best in them and show people why they are the best canidates... The absolute weakness of the career politicians our major parties have provided are the entire reason anyone would run third party. For all the talk of disenfranchisement.... what about the people that say the hell with this.... these people are all essentially status quo this is not what I want?

    I've been kind of amused especially by Hillary Clinton's treatment of this election especially early on as if a nomination was something that should just be handed to her... I put in my time I'm experienced give it to me now I want it. She's like Veruca Salt. Gore almost had the same attitude but just less fortitude.

    McCain is almost the same way except the Republican party I guess had no one else. He was a much better canidate than Bush 8 years ago they screwed up royally and pushed the wrong guy and they shit on him and I guess now they feel bad about it?

    Thanks Political Strategists....

    Where is the substance in debates? It's just hollow and empty now.
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    We could say the same about whomever you support if they don't win, then.

    really...? my vote for Obama won't lead to Nader winning...

    I do know that much...
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    If you all voted for Nader in 2000 instead Blah Gore then Bush wouldn't have won.

    So I think it's best to use your right to vote in this democracy towards voting for the person who best represents your own voice.

    Nader best represents mine.

    sounds good to me...
  • norm
    norm Posts: 31,146
    Pacomc79 wrote:
    I've been kind of amused especially by Hillary Clinton's treatment of this election especially early on as if a nomination was something that should just be handed to her... I put in my time I'm experienced give it to me now I want it. She's like Veruca Salt.

    that's brilliant!!! :D
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    inmytree wrote:
    really...? my vote for Obama won't lead to Nader winning...

    I do know that much...

    The votes for Obama instead of Nader will keep Nader from winning going by your logic. Also your vote for Obama and mine vote for Nader could possibly lead to McCain winning so how is Nader anymore to blame than Obama? None of that should matter. The point is simple, the Democratic Party does not automatically deserve anyone's vote just because they are not Republicans. That kind of thinking has lead to their corruption and extreme lack of accountability. They treat voters as if they are the only alternative so they can do as they please because lefties will all line up and vote for them anyways. Not this voter.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    The votes for Obama instead of Nader will keep Nader from winning going by your logic. Also your vote for Obama and mine vote for Nader could possibly lead to McCain winning so how is Nader anymore to blame than Obama? None of that should matter. The point is simple, the Democratic Party does not automatically deserve anyone's vote just because they are not Republicans. That kind of thinking has lead to their corruption and extreme lack of accountability. They treat voters as if they are the only alternative so they can do as they please because lefties will all line up and vote for them anyways. Not this voter.

    all I said is this:

    history has shown, supporting 3rd party candidates may have unintended consequences...

    I also said:

    personally, I think people should vote for whomever that want...

Categories