Presidential Preference Poll

LayraLilliane · Post by **LayraLilliane** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:26 am

Beek,

Maybe, but sounds like me he was attacking people for voting Nader. Like why the fuck would you vote Nader, thanks for helping Bush.

Oh and it's so easy to fuck with Syeni, it amuses me to watch him go off.

Nicophorus · Post by **Nicophorus** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:33 am

A vote for Nader is hardly a vote that supports Bush. It can be in certain circumstances unquestionably.

For the record, I'm one of the people listed as "Nader" currently.

I live in Texas. There is simply no way in hell that TX will NOT vote Bush. It's a given. We don't split electoral votes in this state, so 100% of the TX electoral college will go Bush no matter what I do.

Essentially my vote is "wasted" no matter what.

I can vote Kerry and simply join the ranks of Bush non-supporters or I can vote for Nader and make a statement that neither of our two-parties represents my viewpoint.

In any state where the vote is pretty much pre-deermined, a third party vote is a vote for long-term changes in our political process. I'm thinking long-term.

LayraLilliane · Post by **LayraLilliane** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:55 am

Nico,

I also thought about voting for Nader a long time too but decided it would be a waste. Kerry and Bush both suck, and it's sad there is nothing we can do. One of them will become president, I really wish though there will be a shake up on both sides. They are both too stuck on themselves, and the way the campaigning on boths sides, it actually makes me sick.

Nicophorus · Post by **Nicophorus** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:02 am

Hence my point, if your vote wont actually influence the election in your state, a vote for a third party carries more weight.

A stroll through American history notes that while we've pretty much always had two political parties, the actual parties have changed several times as have the beliefs and affiliations of each party.

The process generally begins with a schism in one (or both) dominant parties (this is definitely in play right now) as well as emergence of an alternative party (also in play). It's not a fast process, but it does have historical precedent.

Post by **Ddrak** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:05 am

You just need instant runoff elections. Makes far more sense and allows the 3rd party vote to still count.

Dd

Harlowe · Post by **Harlowe** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:27 am

It appears that Layra wants to become the new Rsak.

LayraLilliane · Post by **LayraLilliane** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:29 am

Oh noes I just been had by Harlowe's one liners!

Harlowe · Post by **Harlowe** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:31 am

Your dimwitted posts are hardly worth even that.

Syeni Soulslasher MK6 · Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:35 am

Good Points Nic.

Ross Perot didn't manage to stop NAFTA however. 3rd Partys do manage to stur the pot but does not always produce results.... I miss Ross Perot I wish he would have ran again this year.

Layrawhore wrote:Maybe, but sounds like me he was attacking people for voting Nader. Like why the fuck would you vote Nader, thanks for helping Bush

Ummm I guess you really cant read.

myself wrote:No, If people want to vote Nader its fine with me as I said atleast it wasn't Bush. I am first to say I'll be voting for Kerry since he is not bush why would I flack anyone else for doing the same?

Layra however does amuse me.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:35 am

Maybe, but sounds like me he was attacking people for voting Nader. Like why the fuck would you vote Nader, thanks for helping Bush.

Nico presents a compelling counterargument, but Arianna Huffington's phrase, "When your house is on fire it is not the time to talk about redecorating" comes to mind. I think you read a bit too much into Syeni's post, but even so, it's not an indefensible position that the push should be to get Bush out, and any vote for anyone but Kerry, or not voting at all, is counter to that goal.

Before you go all Rsak on me, I'm not saying this is my position. I tend to agree more with Nico, actually.

LayraLilliane · Post by **LayraLilliane** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:35 am

Harlowe,

Then, Why are you wasting your time? Lonely?

Harlowe · Post by **Harlowe** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:40 am

The offal you post requires very little energy to deal with. It’s like turning over a compost heap.

Harlowe · Post by **Harlowe** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:40 am

The offal you post requires very little energy to deal with. It’s like turning over a compost heap.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:41 am

As anyone who has turned over a compost heap knows, not only does it stink to high heaven but you get saturated with the smell of it.

I suggest you two settle it with naked jello wrestling.

Nicophorus · Post by **Nicophorus** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:42 am

but Arianna Huffington's phrase, "When your house is on fire it is not the time to talk about redecorating"

With all respects to Ms. Huffington, her points are only valid in swing states. In already decided states the house is already burned down, we're talking about rebuilding.

Ross Perot didn't manage to stop NAFTA however

Nope, 3rd parties never create change in the global spectrum in a short run. Perot however succeeded in making a 3rd party legitimate in the US again. Perots candidacy may go down as the death nell to one of our two political parties... as history indicates though, which one (or if) is still anyones guess.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:46 am

Yes, Nico, like I said, I agree with you and your counterargument.

However, I think a strong popular mandate for Kerry is important too if we're to undo the damage caused by Bush, and the wider his margin of popular victory, the better, IMHO, and even Texas votes count for that. So I can see both sides.

Syeni Soulslasher MK6 · Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:29 am

FYI: I see now how my coments were miss-interpreted

So i will clarify.....

My original coment was directed to how votes for Nader do help Bush (after all its part of how he won in 2000) somewhat. However I don't think Nader factor will have as large of an inpact this time so no ill feelings to Nader backers IMO (it isn't Bush so they or a ok). The point being things need to change and as I have said befor Stallin would be consitered as an ALT befor supporting Bush again. Things need to change.

Send in the McCain for President boat please!

ZanypherCocoapuffs · Post by **ZanypherCocoapuffs** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 12:39 pm

Relbeek Einre wrote:I think a strong popular mandate for Kerry is important too if we're to undo the damage caused by Bush

Why do I laugh everytime someone says this? I'm just putting on Beek-Goggles and seeing Kerry with a big "S" on a Shield embroidered on the Senator's Jammies.

Jesus Fucking Christ. What the hell do you REALLY think Kerry can do in a mostly Republican Congress?

Cartumandua · Post by **Cartumandua** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 12:40 pm

If I were in a solidly republican state, I would probably vote third party, though I couldn't vote for Ralph Nader myself. I think he's an attention whore. I'd vote for one of the other third party candidates.

I would like more viable political choices in this country.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 12:48 pm

Jesus Fucking Christ. What the hell do you REALLY think Kerry can do in a mostly Republican Congress?

A) I think even a Republican Congress will start to undo some of the worst of Bush.

B) Much of what Kerry needs to do is foreign relations, not much Congressional impact there.

C) It is not guaranteed by any means that both houses of Congress will remain in Republican hands.

D) Clinton did pretty good for six years despite a Republican Congress.

Brell Rants

Presidential Preference Poll

Whom do you support in the upcoming Presidential election?