|
Author
|
Topic: Prez Debate
|
IceHawk78
NOBODY IMPORTANT
Member # 1699
Member Rated:
|
posted 09-30-2004 09:23 PM
Haha..
Kerry: Saddam Bin Laden.
Bush: We're not done hunting down Saddam Hussein, I mean Osama Bin Laden.
More screwups as they happen.
From: Ohio | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
White Cat
Nobody knows why I'm an admin.
Member # 42
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-01-2004 02:59 AM
I just found out it was hosted by the University of Miami.
Why didn't K arrange to have a Koffing backdrop?
- - - - -
"Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?"
-- Barack Obama, campaigning in Iowa
From: Calgary | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dredite
Farting Nudist
Member # 33
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-01-2004 01:39 PM
Besides a few slipups though, they stayed relatively on topic, which suprised me.
- - - - -
Dreadite
--
Tired of your logical fallacies, because you're an idiot.
From: Santa Cruz, CA | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dweedle
My hands and feet are mangos
Member # 1209
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-01-2004 02:53 PM
problem is they only stayed on one topic the entire time
- - - - -
the only way to get pass this will be to commit suicune
From: second of all, Quagmire's not really a bad guy! | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-01-2004 04:18 PM
White Cat: Why didn't K arrange to have a Koffing backdrop?
It's been a giant pain in the ass all week. Yesterday we didn't get any mail or Fed Ex deliveries because only students, employees, and debate-related people were allowed on campus.
Also all the seats went to Important People, so the only people from UM who got to go were a few students who won an essay contest. One of them gave her ticket to Nader, but the Gestapo told him they'd throw him off campus if he tried to get in.
I saw Nader speak on campus a couple days ago and he was great.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fenix
I live in a public bathroom.
Member # 2371
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-01-2004 04:37 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dweedle:
problem is they only stayed on one topic the entire time
how dare they talk about foreign policy in a foreign policy-themed debate
- - - - -
life of lively to live to life of full life thx to shield battery
From: The Homeworld, Aiur | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dredite
Farting Nudist
Member # 33
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-01-2004 10:41 PM
Yeah, and how dare they answer the questions they were given on the foreign policy topic?
- - - - -
Dreadite
--
Tired of your logical fallacies, because you're an idiot.
From: Santa Cruz, CA | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anthrax
Ultimate Authoritative Power in the Universe
Member # 335
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-01-2004 10:47 PM
Mr. K there's this flyer posted all around my campus thats basically saying "vote for nader" but on the sign it says to vote for him if you want to "abolish poverty." Now does Nader think he can do something this ridiculous or is it just some misinformed flyer maker?
- - - - -
She told The Associated Press she first realized her son was mentally ill in 1996 when he killed her oldest child, a 25-year-old woman who suffered from cerebral palsy, by beating her with a dumbbell.
From: Somebody put shit in my pants! | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
MK
is somewhat large.
Member # 1445
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-01-2004 10:57 PM
Nader's a socialist: any questions?
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-02-2004 12:22 AM
Anthrax: Now does Nader think he can do something this ridiculous or is it just some misinformed flyer maker?
I've never heard him mention this before, but it looks like that goal is a part of his platform, just from a little googling:
quote:
Nader's speech touched on nearly every aspect of the progressive agenda (campaign finance reform, national health insurance, solar energy, organized labor, poverty, etc.), and offered this grim observation of the current political spectrum (R to D): "To show you how far we've declined, we are now looking back on Richard Nixon with great nostalgia." Recalling how Congress rebuffed Nixon's proposals to replace punishment for drug offenders with rehabilitation, and to abolish poverty, Nader asked wryly, "If Richard Nixon thinks we should abolish poverty, who are we to object?"
It certainly wouldn't be impossible to do this in America, but I doubt we'd ever think we got there, since we'd just keep redefining poverty. A teevee is basically a luxury, but friggin' everybody has one.
He's for increasing the minimum wage (which has basically dropped for 40 years, if you take inflation into account) and he apparently has some plan for "abolishing poverty".
I'd rather vote for someone with that goal than someone who thinks they can create a sekrit s00pr misl sheeld that will protect us all from Evil.
So, anyway, it's no more ridiculous than Bush or Kerry saying that they'll "defeat terror".
[ 10-02-2004, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cesar
Farting Nudist
Member # 529
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-02-2004 12:51 AM
Nadar's Abolishing Poverty Plan:
Donate money to send a homeless man to a 3rd world country of your choice!
=======
I don't see how he plans to do both abolish poverty and increase minimum wage. Anyone that is earning minimum wage has a job that is sensitive to its expenditures and tries to keep costs down so that their prices remain low (eg. McDonalds, Wal Mart, etc). Any increase in the minimum wage, I would bet, will initiate layoffs and perhaps increase the overall number of homeless people.
Either that will happen or you will see a spike in the number of bureaucrats, and in your taxes.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-02-2004 04:00 PM
All he'd have to do is not invade some country, take the $200 billion he's not spending on killing brown people, take households earning less than $20K/year, divide up the money and friggin' give it to them.
Seriously, though, the economy was humming along just fine in the 1960s when the minimum wage was higher.
Cesar: Any increase in the minimum wage, I would bet, will initiate layoffs and perhaps increase the overall number of homeless people.
The service jobs you mentioned can't be outsourced, unless you can get Indians to virtually stock a Wal-Mart. Poor people shouldn't be eating at McDonald's, so it's not like any potential price rise there should have any effect.
Anyway, if you look at typical corporate profits, they aren't in any danger of losing money, they are just in danger of not making ludicrous profits. If they were happy with only great profits, they could pay employees a living wage and line their pockets with obscene amounts of cash simultaneously.
I don't see why you think paying people more money is not going to combat poverty.
[ 10-02-2004, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cesar
Farting Nudist
Member # 529
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-02-2004 06:53 PM
Corporate profits are huge, and I'm sure they will do anything to keep it that way. Those that have been able to stop unions from forming in the workplace are most successful. And the minimum wage is just a substitute for a byproduct of unions.
Poor people eat fast food. Fast food is inexpensive and more fulfilling then eating a healthy meal of equal price. You go to a restaurant these days and it is like $8.99 for most meals. For that price you can buy like 9 cheeseburgers.
It would be cool if you can manage the increase without any repercussions. Modern society is built on price, the cheaper you can make a product the better. Any increase, even if it is for a good cause tends to cause problems (electric cars, public transportation tax on gas, there is probably others that I'm too lazy to list).
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-02-2004 07:08 PM
Cesar: Those that have been able to stop unions from forming in the workplace are most successful. And the minimum wage is just a substitute for a byproduct of unions.
So your point is that unions are bad?
Fast food is inexpensive and more fulfilling then eating a healthy meal of equal price.
You are incorrect, sir.
You go to a restaurant these days and it is like $8.99 for most meals. For that price you can buy like 9 cheeseburgers.
I don't think you understand what "poor" means. Poor people aren't eating in any restaurants. You can cook nutritious meals at home for much cheaper than fast food.
It would be cool if you can manage the increase without any repercussions.
Obviously, there will be repercussions, but if the repercussions are that the rich still get fantastically richer, at a slightly slower pace than currently, isn't that something that society as a whole can live with?
[ 10-02-2004, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jman
Farting Nudist
Member # 618
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-02-2004 10:41 PM
As a non-Kerry supporter, Bush-hater, I'd have to give the nod to Kerry in the debate.
The best part was when Bush was like, "It's hard work, Jim, hard work." As if being the president of the United States was supposed to be easy or something.
Especially since foreign policy and the "War on 'Terror' [arabs]" are supposedly Bush's strongest point of appeal. Other than his striking resemblance to a monkey; who doesn't like monkeys?
If I could vote, I'd probably vote for Kerry just to try to get Bush out, but under normal conditions, I'd probably vote Nader or Badnarik.
I'm starting to like Nader more and more.
[ 10-02-2004, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Jman ]
From: da burgh | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
MK
is somewhat large.
Member # 1445
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-02-2004 11:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jman:
"It's hard work, Jim, hard work."
You have to remember, the AVERAGE AMERICAN is stupid, and you have to remind him/her of the obvious on a daily basis...
-MK
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MK
is somewhat large.
Member # 1445
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-02-2004 11:33 PM
P.S.
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IceHawk78
NOBODY IMPORTANT
Member # 1699
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-03-2004 12:42 AM
Fast food is inexpensive and more fulfilling then eating a healthy meal of equal price.
Fast food is both more expensive and less fulfilling than buying groceries and cooking your meal at home. Also healthier.
Obviously, there will be repercussions, but if the repercussions are that the rich still get fantastically richer, at a slightly slower pace than currently, isn't that something that society as a whole can live with?
Nice ideals. However, economically speaking, it won't happen. In general, if a company's cost of production increases (wages++) they directly pack that into the cost. They do this because they see their lowered profits as being a loss, not as you say simply a lowering of the rate at which they make a profit, even if this is how it is so.
[ 10-04-2004, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: IceHawk78 ]
From: Ohio | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-06-2004 08:51 AM
IceHawk78: However, economically speaking, it won't happen.
The economy worked just fine before CEOs started taking unreasonable salaries. It just takes a shift in culture. I agree that it probably wouldn't happen (because people are too stupid to demand it), but certainly could happen.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dweedle
My hands and feet are mangos
Member # 1209
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-06-2004 04:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Fenix:
quote:
Originally posted by Dweedle:
problem is they only stayed on one topic the entire time
how dare they talk about foreign policy in a foreign policy-themed debate
oh i wasn't aware it was themed
- - - - -
the only way to get pass this will be to commit suicune
From: second of all, Quagmire's not really a bad guy! | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
DoomMullet
Farting Nudist
Member # 3363
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-06-2004 09:57 PM
I dunno, it was okay, I thought Quayle looked a little stiff. And Gingrich lost so much hair!
- - - - -
What kind of a fuckass fuck of a bumfuck shithole town is this?
From: fondling your balls, don't you feel that? | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rolken
Vulcan
Member # 7
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-07-2004 12:00 AM
owned
- - - - -
[insert sig here]
From: Provo, UT | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
gruco
I am Ian Garvey's lovechild.
Member # 1645
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-07-2004 08:35 PM
So, K, are you gonna vote for Nader again?
From: Clock Town | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-08-2004 12:03 AM
No, I'm swapping votes with a guy who lives in New Yawk, so I'll vote for the horse-faced jackass.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cesar
Farting Nudist
Member # 529
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-08-2004 11:39 PM
quote:
So your point is that unions are bad?
I'm saying that those companies that lacked unions are those that require the minimum wage boost.
==========
Regarding the new presidental debate:
A: What was the theme?
B: Georgie evaded the last question. "What were three mistakes you made and what did you do to try and fix them?"
C: Every time Kerry mentioned a member of the repulican party, Bush wrote down something
C. I say the stool won. That bar stool looked fabulous. kept his shape under the pressure of his opponents. It is a mighty fine stool indeed, he'll make you a proud president. He won't talk unless you agree with him, and there is no use in argueing with a stool.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
dr.steelix
Farting Nudist
Member # 2734
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-11-2004 05:26 AM
I hope that George Bush wins the elections and bombs some more shitty sandnigger countries.
- - - - -
i am sorry
From: Israel | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MK
is somewhat large.
Member # 1445
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-11-2004 02:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dr.steelix:
I hope that George Bush wins the elections and bombs some more shitty sandnigger countries.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dweedle
My hands and feet are mangos
Member # 1209
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-11-2004 04:01 PM
I hope that John Kerry wins and bombs some shitty Republicans.
- - - - -
the only way to get pass this will be to commit suicune
From: second of all, Quagmire's not really a bad guy! | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark_Herakurosu
Farting Nudist
Member # 1677
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-11-2004 04:28 PM
I hope Michael Moore walks in and farts, killing everyone but Nader who conveniently was provided a gas mask.
And who promtly gets killed by a stray shot from outside the building.
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moogleman
Farting Nudist
Member # 1017
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-12-2004 10:32 PM
I saw something on a comedy video once, a guy named Patton Oswald (it's on the Rock Against Bush Vol. 2 DVD, if you're curious). He mentions that if Bush wins, he'll destroy the republican party for the next 20 years.
I thought it was funny.
From: Kamloops, BC, Canada | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Animelee
Orangutan Spouse
Member # 3720
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-13-2004 01:06 AM
quote:
Originally posted by MK:
quote:
Originally posted by dr.steelix:
I hope that George Bush wins the elections and bombs some more shitty sandnigger countries.
You're a racist, MK?
- - - - -
It's "Animation" + "Melee". No "anime" or "Lee".
From: Brampton, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MK
is somewhat large.
Member # 1445
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-13-2004 01:26 AM
of course I'm not a racist, racists are idiots...
I apologize if my was misleading, I can see how it might have been...
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Animelee
Orangutan Spouse
Member # 3720
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-13-2004 01:46 AM
Oh, okay. I was just surprised, is all. Sorry for the false accusation.
- - - - -
It's "Animation" + "Melee". No "anime" or "Lee".
From: Brampton, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rolken
Vulcan
Member # 7
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-13-2004 02:18 AM
you better apologize, you nigger
From: Provo, UT | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-13-2004 10:57 AM
Nixon henchman Charles Colson re: John Kerry in 1971: "...let's destroy this young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph Nader."
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wintermute
My custom title sucks.
Member # 5
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-18-2004 01:00 AM
Nader can't win the election, and his candidacy could hand the election to Bush. So why is he running?
One possibility is that he truly believes that the consequences of running are irrelevant to his decision to run. If (a) he wants to see America led in a direction not offered by other candidates, (b) he is willing to take on the duties of the presidency, and (c) he has the skills and wherewithal to run a serious campaign, then he must run, as a matter of principle. Perhaps Nader is Rorschach, in other words, willing to face armageddon rather than help perpetrate a single injustice.
The other possibility is that he thinks the consequences of running are relevant to his decision. If so, then presumably he believes that either (a) the probability of his handing the election to Bush is very low, or (b) some consequence may result from his candidacy that is worth getting 4 more years of Bush instead of 4 years of Kerry. I don't put much stock in (a), because the numbers are right there in front of him.
So what, to Nader, could be worth 4 more years of Bush over Kerry? I think he has said that there's no difference between them, but surely that's at least somewhat disingenuous. Two other possibilities occur to me: long-term party building, and a pull on the Democratic platform.
Long-term party building. Maybe Nader thinks that the only way voters will ever regularly receive more choice in the US is for someone to do exactly what he's doing, for years if necessary, until a 3rd party is regularly receiving a respectable amount of the popular vote.
Pulling on the Democratic platform. Neither major party would make the drastic changes needed to co-opt Ralph's positions for a measly 3% of the votes, unless absolutely forced to. Because his positions lean left, the dems are more likely to find their asses in that particular crack. They didn't learn in 2000, and they apparently aren't learning to Nader's satisfaction in 2004. So perhaps he sees his "spoiler" role as a chance to smack the dems and say, "see, I'm not fucking kidding; start addressing these things or you'll never win."
I think that Nader has mentioned each of these three arguments. What I want to know is: which if any does Mr. K find the most persuasive?
Your plan to swap votes suggests that you're voting as though your vote mattered, that is, as if it had a chance of influencing the outcome. Given this, and given that you want to support Nader, the swap would seem to indicate that you buy into the long-term party building idea. (Because if you believed that Bush=Kerry, you would go ahead and vote for Nader in Florida, and because if you wanted to "help" Nader pull on the dem platform, you would help him paddle their dumb asses by voting for Nader in Florida.) Is that a fair analysis?
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-18-2004 04:05 AM
Wintermute: Long-term party building.
Also election reform, since Nader is currently party-less.
The electoral college is nonsense, although I'm not sure I know how, specifically, to fix it. I'm certainly happy to allow NYC and SoCal to control the nation, but I can see how that would suck if you live in a Red state and are yourself a primitive ape. On the other hand, I'm not sure I care about the plight of the oppressed racist ape minority.
Also our winner-take-all system of voting is poop, as that great article that was posted here a while ago pointed out, of all possible voting schemes, none are perfect, but we have chosen the absolute worst method.
Also the problems Nader is having getting on the ballot are poop. There are different BS rules in every state and all it takes is an army of lawyers to tie up 90% of the Nader campaign's energy in just trying to give people the ability to vote for him.
Nader recently lost a court battle in Pennsylvania, but some of the absentee ballots have already been sent out with his name on them. When asked what they'd do with any absentee votes for Nader, the answer was they will be thrown away.
Excuse me, but wtf? Shouldn't some primal alarm bell go off in an American's mind when told that if they vote for who they want to for president, it will be thrown away because the Democratic party has vast numbers of evil supergenius-created orange-jumpsuited henchlawyers?
Also Nader can't even get in to see the debates, much less participate, despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of the voting public wants him (and other third party candidates) in the debates.
Kerry got a large bump in the polls when people actually finally saw him in the debates, and got to form an opinion of him based on something other than 30-second ads and sound bites. Nader consistently pulls a minimum of 3% and I would guess that most Merkins probably have no idea who he is.
Maybe Nader thinks that the only way voters will ever regularly receive more choice in the US is for someone to do exactly what he's doing, for years if necessary, until a 3rd party is regularly receiving a respectable amount of the popular vote.
Yes, he's said as much. He talks about how women and blacks didn't just give up and walk away when they failed after their first, second, third, etc. attempts to get the vote.
Pulling on the Democratic platform.
This would work if the Dems weren't so goddam stupid. And, you know, tools of major corporations and all that.
Neither major party would make the drastic changes needed to co-opt Ralph's positions for a measly 3% of the votes, unless absolutely forced to.
I still contend that the solid 3% he'd pick up from stealing Nader's major issues would be a safer and larger gain than trying to go after that impossibly stupid and fickle creature, the "undecided voter".
So perhaps he sees his "spoiler" role as a chance to smack the dems and say, "see, I'm not fucking kidding; start addressing these things or you'll never win."
That's how I see it. Nader doesn't talk about things in these terms, because you don't run for president to try to get someone else elected, but I imagine that deep down, he is hoping for a little of this to happen.
He has mentioned before that Kerry said he was going to take the Nader vote by adopting his issues and that he waited hopefully to see what would happen. I'm not sure Nader would have stayed out of the race entirely if Kerry did this, but I think he might be persuaded to work with Kerry, if he essentially made Nader's candidacy redundant.
...which if any does Mr. K find the most persuasive?
I think the one thing I've learned is that change has to be systematic. You can't just change the minds of those who can think for themselves, you need to change the manner in which third parties are perceived.
Right now, a third party vote is a kook vote. Maybe we need Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw to say a third party vote is a patriotic move, or pull a DK2 and make it trendy. The point is, most people have no idea wtf they are doing, ever. Their actions are shaped by societal pressure, not internal decisions.
Most people who vote Democratric or Republican don't do so because they've analyzed the issues and believe their party most closely mirrors their personal beliefs, despite what they teach in Civics. They do so for societal reasons. "Mom and Dad are X, so I'm X too", or "I hate Mom and Dad, so I'm Y".
And then the backwardass logic kicks in, and they say "Well, because I'm Red/Blue and my party says Z, then I believe Z!".
Something needs to get a certain amount of cultural legitimacy before people can run with it. Like, who the fuck is going to listen to Geddy Lee and decide Rush is hard core and something you want to help define your teenage existence?
But, somehow, it happened, and it became a societal thing that everyone just accepted. It took a foreign friend of mine to ask "Hey, man, wtf is up with Rush?" before I even noticed the ridiculous shrieking. Kids are good for this too, but kids don't care about politics.
Your plan to swap votes suggests that you're voting as though your vote mattered, that is, as if it had a chance of influencing the outcome.
Well, you know, I like to pretend...for kicks.
(Because if you believed that Bush=Kerry, you would go ahead and vote for Nader in Florida, and because if you wanted to "help" Nader pull on the dem platform, you would help him paddle their dumb asses by voting for Nader in Florida.) Is that a fair analysis?
That's basically it.
Last time I took the Rorschach route, and normally I would continue to do so. Before W, I remember saying "I don't care how many fucking times the Dems lose, they need to learn their lesson."
But the thing that drove out the Rorschach-ness this time is just how fucking scary W is.
W's dad was a freak, but this guy is a total friggin' wingnut. He's gonna bring back the draft, load up the Supreme Court with Scalia clones who think the Constitution is terlet paper, maybe get us nuked, etc.
At a certain point, I just have to forget about principle and suck it up.
And, you know, Kerry sucks so bad that the only reason he's in the race is because W is so frightening. You'd think that would teach the Dems something, but mostly all they seem to get from it is "keep your head down and try to play safe", which is pretty much the same as "bend over and prepare for insertion".
Dems haven't learned that the Pubs aren't fucking around with niceties any more, they're trying to destroy the free world and any freedoms Merkins have enjoyed up until this point...
...on a certain level, I hope W wins and things just get even worse, on the off chance that would make Dems (and the citizenry) wake up. I'm just concerned that W will do irrevocable damage in the next 4 years. He's been a crazy-ass loon so far, imagine what he'll do when he doesn't care about re-election.
And, of course, unless the sheep have someone to lead them, I doubt they'll bother to wake up.
also tl;dr
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-18-2004 06:12 AM
also
Nader is not the man who is going to start the trend, although I think he's laying important groundwork. Nader can only fire up people who use their brains, and that's never going to get anyone anywhere. Same with Al Franken. He's funny, but only smart people know that.
What we need is someone with charisma, like Ross Perot, only not insane.
Arnold could probably do it, although it's possible he will do more good moving the Republicans back to the left.
What's interesting about characters like that is that initially, regular politicians and the media are pretty condescending about the whole thing.
Perot was mostly laughed at, until he was leading in the polls. Then the forces of the status quo turned savage and sabotaged him, although he was a loose cannon and probably would have sabotaged himself eventually. Anyway, then people went back to laughing at him, because Jay Leno said so.
Arnold is interesting...he's clearly not a rocket scientist, but he can get the average idiot to vote for him, regardless of political affiliation, because they like the Terminator. Jesse Ventura could have got the third party process going, but while he had enough charisma and moron appeal to ride into the governor's office, he didn't have the brains to not shoot himself in the foot once he got there.
(Too bad Carl Weathers is black.)
I guess all I'm trying say here (with more words than a flaming cflakkin) is that a third party needs the stupid vote. You can't get anywhere in this country without the stupid vote, and pandering to smart people is a recipe for disaster.
Also also also Democrats are total fucking pussies. They haven't yet noticed that, while you can try and figure out what the people seem to want and be that, it's much more effective to tell the people what they want, and then be that.
Instead of being timid liberals with moderate records, they need to retake the word and remind everyone that Americans like liberals.
The debate should have gone something like this:
Bush: Yahoo! *fires six-guns into air* Dang, you has got to be thee most libril varmint I ever done seen!
Kerry: Damn straight I'm a liberal. Would you like me to list some other liberals? How about Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, FDR, JFK, Teddy Roosevelt...stop me when I get to someone who isn't completely fucking beloved by all...
And with the proper spin and media blitz, suddenly it would be OK to be a liberal again.
But, you know, they're pussies.
Maybe if you are lucky, I will write some more.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
gruco
I am Ian Garvey's lovechild.
Member # 1645
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-18-2004 08:40 PM
K: Also our winner-take-all system of voting is poop, as that great article that was posted here a while ago pointed out, of all possible voting schemes, none are perfect, but we have chosen the absolute worst method.
I've read that instant runoff is worse than plurality, but I agree that election reform is a Good Thing. Give us Approval voting, more house seats, percentage-attributed elctors, districts that are less exploitable, something...
And, you know, Kerry sucks so bad
Why do you dislike the guy so much? Is it a matter of policy, or do you just think he sucks at getting enough support as he should be?
And with the proper spin and media blitz, suddenly it would be OK to be a liberal again.
All we're missing is a completely compliant press corp!
I'm sure the liberal media will be glad to lend a hand!
edit - also third parties are stupid because they keep going balls to the wall for the presidency instead of focusing on building support from the ground up.
[ 10-18-2004, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: gruco ]
From: Clock Town | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
White Cat
Nobody knows why I'm an admin.
Member # 42
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-19-2004 01:24 AM
Also election reform, since Nader is currently party-less.
Isn't he on the Reform Party ticket?
Maybe it'll be Bush that he "steals" votes from this time. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
[Dubya's] gonna bring back the draft
I take it you're unaware that both Congressional bills to reinstitute the draft were proposed by Democrats? And that the military bigwigs don't even want a draft, since they feel it would lower the troops' effectiveness as opposed to volunteers?
Edit: Hey gruco, where did you read that "instant runoff" is worse? I'd be interesting in seeing that argument.
[ 10-19-2004, 01:26 AM: Message edited by: White Cat ]
- - - - -
"Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?"
-- Barack Obama, campaigning in Iowa
From: Calgary | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-19-2004 03:07 AM
gruco: I've read that instant runoff is worse than plurality, but I agree that election reform is a Good Thing.
Here's that article again. No method is perfect, but clearly the thing we're doing now is the worst. IRV does have problems, though.
Why do you dislike [Kerry] so much?
He's just not fit to lead the free world. OK, he'd be a better choice than Bush, but so would my grandmother.
I thought Cheney knocked out Edwards cold with his dissection of Kerry/Edwards' vote on the war, although not quite exactly in his terms. He said they voted against the $87B because Howard Dean was gaining popularity at the time, and that seemed like the correct political move to make.
Cheney was entirely correct. The part where I differ with him is that he's going along with the story that Kerry really wanted to give the president to give the power to invade in the first place. Here's where Kerry is lying...we all know he didn't want to give Bush the power to invade, and we all know he knew Bush's reasons for invading were bogus, but he didn't have the balls to say so at the time.
This doesn't mean that Kerry's a flip-flopper (if anything, Bush is), but it does mean that Kerry has had to construct arguments that strain credibility. His purported motivations are logically consistent and free of contradiction, but his method of decision-making is piss poor.
Maybe if he were an executive instead of a legislator, he'd have more balls, but why select a ball-less wonder to run for president in the first place?
Also he's just a terrible candidate, but that doesn't necessarily mean he'd be a bad president.
also third parties are stupid because they keep going balls to the wall for the presidency instead of focusing on building support from the ground up.
They're doing that too, but it helps if people know what their party is all about. Nobody pays attention to local politics except people with more than 6 neurons and other assorted freaks, and, like I said before, courting only those people is not going to get anyone anywhere.
WC: Isn't he on the Reform Party ticket?
He's been endorsed by the Reform Party, but that's not the same thing. The Greens could endorse W if they wanted to. Nader's an "independent".
I take it you're unaware that both Congressional bills to reinstitute the draft were proposed by Democrats?
No, I know what Charlie Rangel's been up to. That's a seperate political move to try and get the war to matter to white suburbanites.
And that the military bigwigs don't even want a draft, since they feel it would lower the troops' effectiveness as opposed to volunteers?
At a certain point, it doesn't matter what the military wants. They need X number of troops and they're not getting them. They're already breaking agreements with existing troops and forcing them to spend more time in Iraq.
If W has other solutions to this simple math problem, he's not telling us. Maybe Halliburton is going to hire out mercenaries.
[ 10-19-2004, 03:12 AM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Wintermute
My custom title sucks.
Member # 5
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-19-2004 10:00 AM
If W has other solutions to this simple math problem, he's not telling us. Maybe Halliburton is going to hire out mercenaries.
Old news man.
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wintermute
My custom title sucks.
Member # 5
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-19-2004 11:03 PM
Kerry got a large bump in the polls when people actually finally saw him in the debates, and got to form an opinion of him based on something other than 30-second ads and sound bites.
I was embarassed by my reaction to the first 20 minutes of the first presidential debate. The pub campaign machine had been pounding the flip-flop charge so hard it had become Kerry's identity. I never watch TV news, so when I saw Kerry for the first time, I was mortified he was literally going to flip up into the air and flop so hard that he'd break his own spine on live television.
Within a few minutes I was going, "THIS fucking guy can be president! LOOK at him. Now look at the chimpanzee you already HAVE." And all Kerry was doing was being a half-assed decent politician, for a change. It was nothing special. But jesus, what a job they did on him, and naturally the media treated it as if it were news.
"This just in! 90% of merkins now regard Kerry as too flip-floppy to be president. This is up from 89% yesterday. We'll be back with full analysis on Crossfire after this word from the RNC."
that impossibly stupid and fickle creature, the "undecided voter".
...
it's much more effective to tell the people what they want, and then be that.
On a somewhat related note, the single thing that bothers me the most about the Bush administration is nicely summed up in this quote.
Put aside the deficit, the environment, corporate welfare, all of that. Even if someone didn't give a rat's asshole about any of those issues (and most Americans don't), I don't see how you can call yourself a citizen of the most liberty-loving country on earth and tolerate that orange alert shit.
Other things that piss me off, though that's the worst.
• Whatever the chimpanzee says, they don't hate you for your freedoms.
• "American military officials say they're targeting only terrorists." ...which are identified by their blue jackets with "TERRORIST" in big yellow letters on the back? They haven't got a fucking clue how many terrorists they're killing over there. It's bunch of wide-eyed e.g. Oklahomans trying not to get RPGs up their asses, do you think they have time to ID some brown guy they just shot? In the face? There's not a single good reason to believe it's making you safer.
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
gruco
I am Ian Garvey's lovechild.
Member # 1645
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-19-2004 11:55 PM
'mute - good stuff. I love the stuff analyzing cause effect and motivation.
Also, while on the topic of what bothers people most about the Bush administration, I gotta throw a link to this little post.
From: Clock Town | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jman
Farting Nudist
Member # 618
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-20-2004 10:21 PM
I'm very discouraged about the whole thing. I can't vote and I may be young, but I truly frown on the current state of American politics.
The problem doesn't lie with any of your opinions, your vote, or even the candidates themselves. It lies with the American political system.
The presidential election is not about who would be a good president, its about deciding who would least destructive and picking the other guy.
My high school is running a poll soon to simulate the outcome of the election if only our votes were counted. The ballot will only read George W. Bush and John Kerry. As an honest Nader supporter, I feel disenfranchised that I don't even have the option of writing in my candidate. When we take the vote, I will be selecting neither candidate and writing a lengthy paragraph on the issue. What kind of "Democracy" do we live when only two men in a country of our size has a chance of winning?
I remember a time when the majority of Democrats and other liberals opposed the war. I remember the issue of ending the Iraq conflict was in the primaries. I remember anti-war candidate Howard Dean leading the polls. But when John Kerry won the primaries, his pro-war stance took over. Most everyone now agrees you have to stay in Iraq. When I ask people why, they just say "you can't leave." I ask, why not? If someone can argue a good reason for us to stay there, please enlighten me. The fact is we're going to be there for freaking ever. Forcing a country to be a "Democracy," forcing them to follow "their" constitution (that we happen to write for them), and "keeping the peace" with armed troops is not going to work. A country has to want to do it on their own. If you pull out the troops, there is no enemy for the Iraqi insurgents to fight. End of conflict.
From: da burgh | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cesar
Farting Nudist
Member # 529
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-21-2004 02:33 PM
Actually this happened up here too when a close race was predicted ("a vote for Nadar is a waste, why not vote for someone who has similiar views and hope he wins" crap). Never underestimate the power of one person. Really, don't. If you know Chuck Cadman, you know what I mean.
When the little guy does not get to participate in the debate, or does not get as much media attention, that sometimes draws in pitty votes from the undecided.
quote:
Nader recently lost a court battle in Pennsylvania, but some of the absentee ballots have already been sent out with his name on them. When asked what they'd do with any absentee votes for Nader, the answer was they will be thrown away.
Your trying to bring democracy to a hostile country when you don't have democracy yourselves!
quote:
If you pull out the troops, there is no enemy for the Iraqi insurgents to fight. End of conflict.
Actually, there will be even more conflict over who will be in power. You'd leave the country in a worse condition then you came in.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
spunman
Farting Nudist
Member # 1181
|
posted 10-23-2004 06:36 AM
WTF! No parenthesis in an HTML tag?! And I go back and my post is blank?!
I am NOT typing all that again, assholes!
Oh, and I got pinkies all of a sudden. Wow! Guess cheese grater injuries aren't permanent. Or I've got lizard DNA?
But it's good to see y'all still running, all the same. Oh, the memories!
From: the middle | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wintermute
My custom title sucks.
Member # 5
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-23-2004 03:25 PM
Why is America so divided? How does an elected leader retain support after taking the country into an unnecessary war? After ensuring crippling debt for the country's children, in order to send wheelbarrows of cash to the ultra-rich?
Tough questions, but the answer is now clear. Bush supporters are schizophrenic retards (pdf).
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
MK
is somewhat large.
Member # 1445
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-23-2004 10:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Wintermute:
Why is America so divided? How does an elected leader retain support after taking the country into an unnecessary war? After ensuring crippling debt for the country's children, in order to send wheelbarrows of cash to the ultra-rich?
Tough questions, but the answer is now clear. Bush supporters are schizophrenic retards (pdf).
You know what, I'm not even going to bother saying why you're wrong, why ______ is wrong, etc...
I really have nothing more to say...
[ 10-23-2004, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: MK ]
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic