"Voting 3rd party in this election..."

my2hands

i hate democrats


























































except the ones i like

brandon10

Do those here that are so anti Obama hope that he will do a good job when he becomes president?

Do you hope he stabilizes relations around the world?

Do you hope he gets us out of Iraq?

I really don't think health care will improve and that's a shame. But i sincerely hope he does the things that the majority want done.

It just seems that some here are so anti Obama. And you really don't want to see him accomplish these out of spite. Everyone talks of the Obamaniacs, but it's mostly the haters that start the threads all the time. It's all very puzzling.

my2hands

brandon10 wrote:

Everyone talks of the Obamaniacs, but it's mostly the haters that start the threads all the time. It's all very puzzling.

-->

spiral out

my2hands wrote:

"... is like remodeling the house while the basement is on fire" ~~ EV 2004


i couldnt agree more

Voting for one of the two mainstream candidates is voting for the best of the worst.

It isn't gonna get you anywhere, they all follow on the main agenda.

Abookamongstthemany

brandon10 wrote:

Do those here that are so anti Obama hope that he will do a good job when he becomes president?

Do you hope he stabilizes relations around the world?

Do you hope he gets us out of Iraq?

I really don't think health care will improve and that's a shame. But i sincerely hope he does the things that the majority want done.

It just seems that some here are so anti Obama. And you really don't want to see him accomplish these out of spite. Everyone talks of the Obamaniacs, but it's mostly the haters that start the threads all the time. It's all very puzzling.

Who exactly are you addressing? Everytime I reply I get this 'I wasn't talking to you' bit.

I have been posting about the same issues on this board since day one. And I will continue to despite whether the people I'm speaking out against are Reps or Dems. Wrong is wrong no matter who you are.

And that sounds like something the Cons used to say....'you want the troops to fail and do these things so you'll be right'. What a twisted way to think that I would prefer people suffer so I can be right.

Abookamongstthemany

spiral out wrote:

Voting for one of the two mainstream candidates is voting for the best of the worst.

It isn't gonna get you anywhere, they all follow on the main agenda.

Agreed and it ain't gonna change as long as we continue to give them free passes for all their shortcomings and downright corruption by voting them back in power every time. What does that tell them? We don't care...carryon with your same old bullshit.

We have to be the one's to break the cycle.

brandon10

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Who exactly are you addressing? Everytime I reply I get this 'I wasn't talking to you' bit.

I have been posting about the same issues on this board since day one. And I will continue to despite whether the people I'm speaking out against are Reps or Dems. Wrong is wrong no matter who you are.

And that sounds like something the Cons used to say....'you want the troops to fail and do these things so you'll be right'. What a twisted way to think that I would prefer people suffer so I can be right.

Well Obama is going to be president, so maybe you should start hoping for the best. If he doesn't get us out of Iraq I'll be more pissed than anyone because that is one of the main reasons I support him. And I'm sure he realizes there are millions that support him for that reason. He is pretty much obliged to do as he says. And I don't know if you have been listening, but he says were comin out.

spiral out

brandon10 wrote:

Well Obama is going to be president, so maybe you should start hoping for the best. If he doesn't get us out of Iraq I'll be more pissed than anyone because that is one of the main reasons I support him. And I'm sure he realizes there are millions that support him for that reason. He is pretty much obliged to do as he says. And I don't know if you have been listening, but he says were comin out.

I really don't know how it works there but judging by the crap politicians talk here in the UK I'll be very surprised if he does what he says he will. I used to believe in voting for change till Tony Blair carried on the same agenda as the tories. He promised loads of things and did not carry out any of his promises.

I will never waste another vote on one of the two main parties again.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Not in the most important ways

a few important ways off the top of my head:

1 gitmo

2 long drawn out war. Bush Sr. fought a war with near unanimous world support that lasted no time at all with clear goals, Clinton kinda dabbled with missile strikes and minor skirmishes (bosnia), but proved to have no political stomach for war (Mogadishu). Bush Jr. has started a war, with no support, no defined goals (unless the goal is continual war), and has proven to be stubborn and refused to change. THIS IS A DIFFERENCE.

3. Clinton ruled by poll numbers, his opinions changing almost daily. Bush ignores poll numbers (and everything else apparently) and runs things guided by stubborn pride.

4. Kyoto accord. or at the very least acknowledging global warming might exist.

5. The support of creationism and abstenance programs in school.

6. balanced budget. surpluses.

7. general goodwill towards the US from a good chunk of the world.

8. patriot act.

i'm sure there are a few million more. I'm also sure the extremist types around here will say those are minor and dont really matter. i disagree. There may not be that much difference between between dems and Republicans, but THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.


i dont know who i'm voting for. Probably throw my vote away on a 3rd party. personally, i'm torn between my hatred of sellout republicans, and my hatred of bullshit socialist programs of democrats. But dont tell me there is no difference. If someone wants to vote democrat, they certainly have my blessing and its a perfectly logical choice.

Abookamongstthemany

MrSmith wrote:

a few important ways off the top of my head:

1 no gitmo

2 no long drawn out war. Bush Sr. fought a war with near unanimous world support that lasted no time at all with clear goals, Clinton kinda dabbled with missile strikes and minor skirmishes (bosnia), but proved to have no political stomach for war (Mogadishu). Bush Jr. has started a war, with no support, no defined goals (unless the goal is continual war), and has proven to be stubborn and refused to change. THIS IS A DIFFERENCE.

3. Clinton ruled by poll numbers, his opinions changing almost daily. Bush ignores poll numbers (and everything else apparently) and runs things guided by stubborn pride.

4. Kyoto accord. or at the very least acknowledging global warming might exist.

5. The support of creationism and abstenance programs in school.

6. balanced budget. surpluses.

7. general goodwill towards the US from a good chunk of the world.

8. no patriot act.

i'm sure there are a few million more. I'm also sure the extremist types around here will say those are minor and dont really matter. i disagree. There may not be that much difference between between dems and Republicans, but THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.


i dont know who i'm voting for. Probably throw my vote away on a 3rd party. But dont tell me there is no difference. If someone wants to vote democrat, they certainly have my blessing and its a perfectly logical choice.

You have no way of knowing what would have happened in a Clinton or Gore presidency after 9/11.

There would be differences...I agree with that. But they would still be bought and owned by special interests/big business and the will of the people would not be served to the extent it's supposed to. I mean look at all the Obama supporters who have now started bitching about how things were under the Clintons. A claim that has plenty of basis but is now being used to discredit Hillary and not the Democratic party as whole for being as sorry as they were/are and never having the balls to put up candidates that truly represent their party's original ideals. Both parties are pro-business first and foremost...and no one is going to tell me we as a nation can't do better than this bullshit if we just stood up and finally made it clear that we are not going to take it anymore. The best we can manage is to say we don't approve of the job they are doing as reflected in recent polls showing congress' approval rating below 20%. So we don't think they are doing their job but we want to extend their terms and give them a raise. If only all of us had it so easy at work. We should fire them.


But instead we keep lining up to support whichever new flavor of shit they've scooped out this time.

DriftingByTheStorm

my2hands wrote:

i didnt see kucinich or paul change their party affiliation...

You realize that Ron Paul has spoken out specificaly and repeatedly -- you know, because the media and the televised debate questions asked him endlessly, "will you run 3rd party" -- to the fact that 3rd party candidates are deliberately marginalized by the system, and therefore he will not be running 3rd party, because it is ineffectual, right?

So you are criticizing a non-mainstream candidate for recognizing the bias in the system, and trying to use the system to his advantage?

Besides, Ron Paul's positions are, in truth, traditionaly "Republican".
Why should he leave the party that, by tradition, best represents the values he stands for?

Huh?

Huh?

Eagerly awaiting my cute and witty, yet irrelevant and fallacious response.
:cool:

brandon10

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

You have no way of knowing what would have happened in a Clinton or Gore presidency after 9/11.

There would be differences...I agree with that. But they would still be bought and owned by special interests/big business and the will of the people would not be served to the extent it's supposed to. I mean look at all the Obama supporters who have now started bitching about how things were under the Clintons. A claim that has plenty of basis but is now being used to discredit Hillary and not the Democratic party as whole for being as sorry as they were/are and never having the balls to put up candidates that truly represent their party's original ideals. Both parties are pro-business first and foremost...and no one is going to tell me we as a nation can't do better than this bullshit if we just stood up and finally made it clear that we are not going to take it anymore. The best we can manage is to say we don't approve of the job they are doing as reflected in recent polls showing congress' approval rating below 20%. So we don't think they are doing their job but we want to extend their terms and give them a raise. If only all of us had it so easy at work. We should fire them.


But instead we keep lining up to support whichever new flavor of shit they've scooped out this time.

You didn't address any of the differences. And I would say they are huge. They are complete opposites in policy and what they would like to accomplish. We all realize both parties are corporate whores. But any sane person can't say they are fundamentally the same.

Abookamongstthemany

brandon10 wrote:

You didn't address any of the differences. And I would say they are huge. They are complete opposites in policy and what they would like to accomplish. We all realize both parties are corporate whores. But any sane person can't say they are fundamentally the same.

Because these differences already have us transfixed. We feel we are pulling for a team...the 'good guys' and they don't exist in our gov't hardly. And neither one of these parties are doing their job despite their differences, it's not enough for me to continue to give my support and keep looking the other way at all their crimes and corruption. I believe in doing things the right way and I know it is possible. If you, me, everyone keeps giving support to these corporate whores then they will always be in power and the really good guys who put their necks out there for us, who manage w/o the millions of dollars in corporate money are always going to be marginalized and excluded from doing all the good work they could do for our country. I want to support people I am proud of and look up to, I don't want to keep settling for people who make me cringe, are phoney and tranparent. When enough people join me...we will get it done. I'll keep on fighting the good fight until you guys finally get fed up and join me.

brandon10

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Because these differences already have us transfixed. We feel we are pulling for a team...the 'good guys' and they don't exist in our gov't hardly. And neither one of these parties are doing their job despite their differences, it's not enough for me to continue to give my support and keep looking the other way at all their crimes and corruption. I believe in doing things the right way and I know it is possible. If you, me, everyone keeps giving support to these corporate whores then they will always be in power and the really good guys who put their necks out there for us, who manage w/o the millions of dollars in corporate money are always going to be marginalized and excluded from doing all the good work they could do for our country. I want to support people I am proud of and look up to, I don't want to keep settling for people who make me cringe, are phoney and tranparent. When enough people join me...we will get it done. I'll keep on fighting the good fight until you guys finally get fed up and join me.

I think we will meet in the middle. I believe there will be more and more like Kucinich in the Dem party as time goes on. And I'm really hoping that when Obama becomes president that he will lean to the left. Had Kucinich made it to my primary I would have voted for him. But I'm giong to back Obama and hope he does what he says. We have to start somewhere, we have to start sometime, what better time than now?

Worst case scenario, Obama is the shit's and we get 4 or 8 years of the same. Then there will be a true uproar in this country. And a strong chance for a third party.

Only problem is that with all the right wing conservative nut jobs in the south, is that a split party could never beat the republicans! Sometimes I wish America was split during the civil war.

VictoryGin

MrSmith wrote:

a few important ways off the top of my head:

1 gitmo

2 long drawn out war. Bush Sr. fought a war with near unanimous world support that lasted no time at all with clear goals, Clinton kinda dabbled with missile strikes and minor skirmishes (bosnia), but proved to have no political stomach for war (Mogadishu). Bush Jr. has started a war, with no support, no defined goals (unless the goal is continual war), and has proven to be stubborn and refused to change. THIS IS A DIFFERENCE.

3. Clinton ruled by poll numbers, his opinions changing almost daily. Bush ignores poll numbers (and everything else apparently) and runs things guided by stubborn pride.

4. Kyoto accord. or at the very least acknowledging global warming might exist.

5. The support of creationism and abstenance programs in school.

6. balanced budget. surpluses.

7. general goodwill towards the US from a good chunk of the world.

8. patriot act.

i'm sure there are a few million more. I'm also sure the extremist types around here will say those are minor and dont really matter. i disagree. There may not be that much difference between between dems and Republicans, but THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.


i dont know who i'm voting for. Probably throw my vote away on a 3rd party. personally, i'm torn between my hatred of sellout republicans, and my hatred of bullshit socialist programs of democrats. But dont tell me there is no difference. If someone wants to vote democrat, they certainly have my blessing and its a perfectly logical choice.

another huge difference:

women's health and a myriad of other ladyissues---the first day of clinton's term, he lifted the global gag rule. the first day of bush's term he reinstated it. must i mention the so called partial birth abortion ban act of 2003? and look at all the judges bush has installed---on all levels. they matter---especially when it comes to women's health since they like to rule that shit. contraception, medical procedures, they're in it all.

you mentioned abstinence ed above. that has had a HUGE impact nationwide. i mean holy shit. clinton did fund that a little bit. but bush increased that by hundreds of millions. let me just say this: jaime lynn spears.

i am so excited to vote for barack obama.

Abookamongstthemany

VictoryGin wrote:

another huge difference:

women's health and a myriad of other ladyissues---the first day of clinton's term, he lifted the global gag rule. the first day of bush's term he reinstated it. must i mention the so called partial birth abortion ban act of 2003? and look at all the judges bush has installed---on all levels. they matter---especially when it comes to women's health since they like to rule that shit. contraception, medical procedures, they're in it all.

you mentioned abstinence ed above. that has had a HUGE impact nationwide. i mean holy shit. clinton did fund that a little bit. but bush increased that by hundreds of millions. let me just say this: jaime lynn spears.

i am so excited to vote for barack obama.

and both parties are not concerned with bringing us a Universal Single Payer Helathcare System, you know...like every other industrialized nation in the world.

VictoryGin

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

and both parties are not concerned with bringing us a Universal Single Payer Helathcare System, you know...like every other industrialized nation in the world.

i haven't heard obama say he would never want a single payer system. for many reasons i think it's impossible to move directly to one and i think he has a good step and a workable plan. it's very important to me that something can be accomplished. i think what he suggests can be accomplished and it is one of the reasons i'm voting for him. completely rehauling the health care system is no small undertaking.

Abookamongstthemany

VictoryGin wrote:

i haven't heard obama say he would never want a single payer system. for many reasons i think it's impossible to move directly to one and i think he has a good step and a workable plan. it's very important to me that something can be accomplished. i think what he suggests can be accomplished and it is one of the reasons i'm voting for him. completely rehauling the health care system is no small undertaking.

I see no reason why we couldn't implement a single payer system in the US now, just as nations like Canada, France and the UK did long ago.

VictoryGin

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I see no reason why we couldn't implement a single payer system in the US now, just as nations like Canada, France and the UK did long ago.

i guess that's one area in which we differ.

because the insurance and pharm industries are so deep and wide, i don't think that can be accomplished immediately. the us is different now than canada france and the uk were.

Abookamongstthemany

VictoryGin wrote:

i guess that's one area in which we differ.

because the insurance and pharm industries are so deep and wide, i don't think that can be accomplished immediately. the us is different now than canada france and the uk were.

I see this issue as doable and urgent. When it's people's lives we could be saving, I feel we shouldn't keep dragging our feet and become to complacent.