may i ask a quick question?

[lazysmurff]

in all seriousness, im very curious.

everyone on this forum seems to be rather strongly for bush, rather strongly for kerry (a few exceptions not withstanding) yet its pretty obvious to all of us that they are both terribly unfit to lead this country.

Im not sure if Kerry is a democrat, republican, socialist, libertarian or anarchist these days

and well, im well aware that bush has a terrible track record, ruining everythig he has ever been in charge of.

so why vote for either one?

why not find a better, third party canidate that you can truly get behind, instead of just settling for the shit that comes out of the republicrat party?

[YogsVR4]

You are wrong. Bush has not ruined everything he has been in charge of. You're setting up false conditions to propose a loaded question.

You are also mistaken in saying there are a lot of Kerry supporters. There are not. There are Bush supporters and people who don't want Bush as president. Very few are actually pro-Kerry. It didn't matter who the major opposing canidate was going to be - he would have their support.

If there were a third party canidate that better reflected what I value and find important, I would vote for him (her). Nader would be worse then Kerry, Badnarik and Phillips are to unknown to be viable candidates.

[TexasF355F1]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

You are wrong. Bush has not ruined everything he has been in charge of. You're setting up false conditions to propose a loaded question.

You are also mistaken in saying there are a lot of Kerry supporters. There are not. There are Bush supporters and people who don't want Bush as president. Very few are actually pro-Kerry. It didn't matter who the major opposing canidate was going to be - he would have their support.

If there were a third party canidate that better reflected what I value and find important, I would vote for him (her). Nader would be worse then Kerry, Badnarik and Phillips are to unknown to be viable candidates.

I agree(as usual). A lot of Kerry 'supporters' I've talked to around campus and at parties don't have any clue of what he plans to do. They just keep bringing up that he's a Vietnam war hero and that they hate Bush. Kind of hard to have an intellectually stimulating conversation with those kids.

[lazysmurff]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

You are wrong. Bush has not ruined everything he has been in charge of. You're setting up false conditions to propose a loaded question.

ok,maybe not EVERYTHING, but two business attempts, texas as a whole, and while you may not think so, i see that his administration has done a pretty good job eroding quite a bit of America, and dont even get me started on the texas rangers....

and yes, by kerry supporters i ment those who would choose the lesser of two evils, not that many people here support kerry more than they hate bush (like you said).

so really, i mean, correct me if im wrong, but you (YOGS) seem as though you and the libertarian party would get along quite well...why not vote that way?

[YogsVR4]

I don't vote for the libertarian on the national level because Badnarik's take on immigration is totally unpalletable to me. Add in the big deal - he can't win and I'll go with the next closest overall which is Bush.

Third party candidates will do better once they refocus their energies at the local levels and then progress through the food chain.


As far as the Rangers are concerned - they are a bust? Their worth has jumped from 250 million to 331 million in six years. Seems like the team was sold (I don't have the profit margin in front of me) and continues to thrive. Reciepts outpace expenses. Or, are you saying their a bust because they don't have a winning team? Winning and making money are mutually exclusive. http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2003/0428/mlb_9.html

[lazysmurff]

i hear ya, i was just curious why it is that so many people express dismay at our current political situation yet never vote thrid paty in an effort to change it.

and the rangers was more of a joke than anything, but yes, i was refering to the fact that the suck as a team, not as an interprise. Texans have the extreme unfortunate ability to support something thats texan, no matter how bad it actually is (hence the continued support for one of the worst baseball teams as of late, and a continued support for W)

[leadfootGTP]

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

i hear ya, i was just curious why it is that so many people express dismay at our current political situation yet never vote thrid paty in an effort to change it.

and the rangers was more of a joke than anything, but yes, i was refering to the fact that the suck as a team, not as an interprise. Texans have the extreme unfortunate ability to support something thats texan, no matter how bad it actually is (hence the continued support for one of the worst baseball teams as of late, and a continued support for W)

people dont vote for third party candidates because if they get enough votes it almost gaurentees that that the candidate on their side (to a lesser extent) that actualy had a chance of winning will lose. For instance, if you are a hardcore weed smoking liberal hippy you can either vote for kerry and have a chance at a democratic prez, or vote for a third party liberal candidate, not get enough votes to kerry, and get 4 more yeard with Bush. The same goes for a hardcore rich conservative fuck voting for a heavily conservative third party candidate instead of bush.

[lazysmurff]

its that very mentality that will forever doom us to a tyranny of the "two party" system

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

its that very mentality that will forever doom us to a tyranny of the "two party" system

Part of it is the system, but another problem is the wholesale partisan house cleaning the senior civil service gets everytime there is an administration change in the White House.
Why not have the best/most experienced candidates for these jobs, instead of making them all a bunch of cronies of whoever becomes President.
The public votes for a ticket of two people, not 200.

[TRD2000]

haha yeah... what the world needs is some leaders with personality and drive! like Hitler!


JOKING!!!!!!

[YogsVR4]

Actually there is not a complete turn over in the civil service areas when new administration comes in. Most of the upper level areas are replaced and they are replaced with competent people. Bush even kept Mineta on his cabinet (he was on Clintons).

Having turn over in these positions is a good thing IMO.

[jaysgotalude]

Originally Posted by leadfootGTP

people dont vote for third party candidates because if they get enough votes it almost gaurentees that that the candidate on their side (to a lesser extent) that actualy had a chance of winning will lose. For instance, if you are a hardcore weed smoking liberal hippy you can either vote for kerry and have a chance at a democratic prez, or vote for a third party liberal candidate, not get enough votes to kerry, and get 4 more yeard with Bush. The same goes for a hardcore rich conservative fuck voting for a heavily conservative third party candidate instead of bush.

I vote third party every election. i do not care for republicans or democrats. I feel it is time to stop kidding ourselves saying things like "if we vote third party we are just throwing away our votes" and realize that we the people have the power to vote whom ever we like into office. Don't buy into the "2-party" b.s.

yogs you are right, third parties do need to focus more on local levels.

[leadfootGTP]

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

its that very mentality that will forever doom us to a tyranny of the "two party" system

its not the mentality, its the system its self and the way things are run/ defiined in this country. it is unfortunate but it is the way things are. what you have to understand is that prior to the election about 45% of american voters know they will vote for the democratic candidate, and 45% of voters know that they will vote for the republican candidate. These 45% groups are incredibly stubborn and can rarely be convinced by debated and advertising that they should switch sides, so each candidate is proobably going to recieve 45% of the popular vote. That being said, the other 10 percent basically decides the election. They are who the candidates are really trying to persuade. These 10 percent are also the poeple who will likely make up most of the percentage of the people who vote for third party candidates ( outside of confused old people in florida ). in most elections all 10% dont end up voting for the same guy, obviously, it is fairly evenly divided so if 4% of this group decides to vote for nader, as many of them did last year. The democratic prez is screwed because the type of people who would voted for nader, would def choose a democratic prez over a republican one ( this can be debatable, a popular belief is that the people who would vote for nader wouldnt be voting for anyone if he wasnt running, but that is a very large assumption) . unless only 2% of people were to vote for the republican candidate (and it would probably be at least 4%) the democratic candidate would be lown out. And although this is obviouslt just the popular vote, if the rebublican candidate had 2% more of the popular vote he vill very likely recieve the most electoral votes. This is the way things currently are in our country, and you basically just have to deal with them untill some major changes come. If we had a bunch of candidates who wernt openly democratic or republican or whatnot, and who each had views from both sides on important issues this would be a different story, but unfortunately, that is not the way it is.

[lazysmurff]

except that just about everyone i've talked to says they'd vote third party if they thought they had a chance of winning, or if they didnt feel like they were wasting their vote.

and maybe the 45% on either side would actually find a party that better fit their beliefs if more third parties came to prominance.

really, im just hoping for some sort of salvation before i totally give up on the system

[TRD2000]

good luck with that.