a 2 party debate is unacceptable
macgyver06
Posts: 2,500
in 2008. We cannot let these 2 corporate giants take control of our country even further by pushing out other candidates and having them banned from the television debates.. while these 2 clowns dodge scripted questions and talk of hope there are other candidates that have a PLAN... im not just talking about NADER... there are plenty of candidates out tehre under NO INFLUENCE... these are the only people who should be considered when going to a voting booth.. YOU ARENT VOTING FOR MCCAIN OR OBAMA... youa re voting for their party... NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE OR GET DONE FOR ANOTHER 4 YEARS unless they are forced to work together by a third party candidate... these people are children.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Lil Wayne is better than Pearl Jam.
Bitches ain't nothin' but hoes 'n tricks
that is a lie created by those 2 parties.. its brainwashing.. there are more than 2 parties... there are just 2 parties who legally (somehow) take millions of dollars from corporations. your vote can beat those corporations from taking power... thats why this country is great... your vote can say... NO, FUCK YOU AND your millions of dollars. or you can go to the booth brainwashed and read a list of names for president and for some reason think its a two party system.
You do a lot of name calling with little substance.
If I am apparently a brainwashed imbecile, as we apparently have met dozens of times and you know everything about me, tell me the error of my ways and how to fix them. By all means.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
my solution is simple. don't vote for a party who uses television outlets to exclude other presidential candidates from debating simply because they want a controlled environment where they can harbor lies and get away with it.
is this english?
also another point of mine is brought up in your post.. no one called youa brainwashed imbecile.. im saying.. the republican parties and democrat parties are brainwashing citzens. I AM NOT YOUR ENEMY...
John McCain and Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama are friends.. they WORK TOGETHER!!!
Don't twist your words around, again, to fit your argument. You *are* calling me brainwashed, and you have in multiple threads, because I apparently cannot think for myself (again, because you know me oh so well) and I need someone to tell me that a 2-party system like ours is heavily flawed.
You lack tact and your posts give me no motivation to look into your 'cause' any deeper. You're just abrasive.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
Listen...once the US has a real third party, then we can start this debate. Until then voting for anyone other than Obama or McCain is a waster of a vote. BECAUSE NO ONE OTHER THAN THOSE TWO WILL WIN. Even if you don't agree with it, vote for the less of two evils. You can't start talking about a third party with less than four months to go in the general election. That's being idiotic.
Lil Wayne is better than Pearl Jam.
Bitches ain't nothin' but hoes 'n tricks
Thank you.
You're not going to get a tidal wave started this late in the game.
So again I question the reason behind these apparently brilliant and insightful posts.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
2006: Camden I & II, DC
2008: DC, Ed DC II
please explain.. thats all i ask... why am i a nut job... enlighten everyone who may read this entire thread..please...
I think if any of these two parties are elected nothing is going to progress. I think these senators running for president have the power now and have had the power to do things for this country and they haven't. I expect more of the same if they win. These two parties will write legislation and they will be vetoed because they will not agree on anything. Furthermore, a party who makes another parties members feel stupid and instruct its followers to think the same way in order to get a vote is VERY DANGEROUS.. let me explain... a country cannot be divided and progress... they either have to split or a war has to start or a rebellion. This is common sense. That's is why these two parties are the same. I dont care who you vote for, but i'm telling you if you vote for democrat or republican you are voting for a party who is engaging in known brainwashing and heavy influence through the teactics as follows:
they use fear
they use enormous amounts of money
they will tell you the other guy is old
they will tell you the other guy is inexperienced
they will tell you mccain is the same as bush
they will tell you Obama is just a fad
both parties will tell you its a two party system and if you vote for a third party you could potentially help the other guy get elected
its brainwashing
you dont understand. the election hasnt happened yet.. these two parties have brainwashed you.. this is not an insult
I love being brainwashed. Keeps my mind nice and clean.
Lil Wayne is better than Pearl Jam.
Bitches ain't nothin' but hoes 'n tricks
I don't really care who the president is because ultimately it doesn't really matter between those two. It's going to be pretty similar anyway no matter who wins between them so I don't think it matters who wins and it's not the end of the world either.
The content and "debate" in these conventions, meetings TV appearences is all carefully crafted as are the answers... so it's really not worth listening too... it's just marketing and I'm not buying the product. So I can't endorse or vote for any of the people on the ballot.
The libertarian party decided to trot out Bob Barr? Seriously? SERIOUSLY??? WTF?
Basically, I'm hoping for Federal gridlock.
Ultimately though, unless some unforseen incredible thing happens I think Obama wins this one 51 to 49.
Good I'm glad they work together. The majority of the country would be best served if the Republicans and the Democrats did work together.
I pay enough attention to politics that the two sides have been bitterly working against each other since The Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 and started to make Clinton's life a living hell.
I do hope that Obama Teddy McCain Brownback Pelosi etc etc all do work together.
Nader or Paul would be blocked at every turn and the fighting between the two sides would be worse then ever.
Both of the candidates currently have history of reaching out to the other side which is a GOOD thing imo. Or maybe I'm brainswashed...
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Candidate A = 29%
Candidate B = 8%
Candidate C = 20%
Candidate D = 22%
Candidate E = 21%
Then you have Candidate A winning the electoral vote of that state, with only 29% popular support. However, let's say that supporters of C, D, and E are in far more agreement with each other than they are with the supporters of A and B; and A and B feel the same way about the other three. So the popular vote totals based roughly on "sides" equals A and B with 37% of the vote and C, D and E with 63%. Basically a stunningly unpopular Candidate just won all the electoral votes of the state. This is not lost on supporters of C, D, and E. Next time, they decide to pull their resourses. Candidate D seemed to be the most popular of the three, so he or she is chosen to run and represent the 63%. However, this is now another election, and Candidate A is not too terrible, and also realizes that the others are pulling together, so he convinces B to stay out of the race and support his candidacy. To add to is, many supporters of Candidate C just never reconciled with D. So this time there are three candidates, and the vote goes:
Candidate A 44%
Candidate D 41%
Candidate C 15%
Again, Candidate A wins with 44% - better than before, but the D and C total is a whopping 56%. And, as we established before, D and C have a lot more in common with each other than they do with A, so the state gives it's electors to a minority candidate. Now, I'm sure you see where this is going. By the next election, D is finally able to convince enough of the C supporters to oust A, that D is able to win the electors. Extrapolate that over the course of two hundred years, and you end up with - will always end up with -a default two party system.
Then there's also the fact that a majority of people do not agree with you, specifically; so you (or whomever it is you support) will never win an election no matter what kind of voting system we have. Taking the government by force is your only option - but, then, would you still be for "the people?"
So it's not brainwashing that's keeping your "views" out of office. It's math.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Honestly, someone tell me what is wrong with that system? I think the only reasonable criticism is the Monotonicity Criterion but even that is a weak argument. How is that any different from Rush Limbaugh urging Republicans to vote in Dem primaries?
Nader is already on close to 40 ballots, (37 ?) which is more than in 2004.
Vote with your heart
that is why this country is not great, because you can't. But people still play along.
But anyways, as RainDog brilliantly demonstrated, change your electoral system before asking for a 3rd party.