I-Mockery Forum - Reply to Topic

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text

Oct 5th, 2004 02:36 AM

davinxtk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preechr

... If you guys had your choice, is that what you'd be voting for? A smarter, more nuanced Bush that's not so religious? ... He is decidedly not George W Bush, so that seems to satisfy the base, and he's trying his best to be George W Bush to capture the swing voters and the undecideds. My guess is that those I used to think of as principled, ideological progressives are just buying the label here and hoping he'll suddenly turn into a Democrat after he unseats Dubya... But don't you guys at least need some sort of passing effort to be made by him toward running as a liberal candidate? ... Has anyone stopped to consider that Ralph Nader, a principled liberal that I disagree with but respect, would do better against Bush than Kerry might simply because more traditional Democrats would believe in him than they do Kerry? ... Yes, I understand that by the argument you guys have made over and over that it's just too late to switch horses ... I just hope that this sort of election doesn't become the norm. I see hate and fear winning out over principle, and that scares me.

I'm a nutcase left-of-the-left-wing liberal, but a smarter, less religious Bush is still way better than Bush. I really am part of the "Anybody but Bush." camp at this point. I'm from Massachusetts, and I'll admit that I do have a tiny (read: miniscule) bit of legacy loyalty to Kerry, but for the most part I honestly expect him to take more of a nap for four years than be a liberal president, or a Bush clone. This might pave the way for the next neocon with a face and a voice, and possibly able to pronounce "nuclear" properly, but I think (hope) another administration is going to uncover shit about Bush & Co that will lay a lot of shame on his camp.

As far as Ralph Nader having a lot of traditional Democrat support, I'd agree. I'd also hazard that Dennis Kucinich would have been much better as the Democratic frontman this term, but everyone was thinking of swing states and undecided voters instead of rounding up more spirit in those Democrats who, as Bobo said, stay home on election day. I'm definitely a half-assed Kerry supporter. I support him because he has a chance, and that's pretty much the end of it.

I certainly hope this kind of election doesn't become the norm, as well. Like I said, I'd much rather see several viable candidates with varying opinions on varying issues, and millions more people voting.

Oct 4th, 2004 08:12 PM

Anonymous

I'd have to disagree - A kerry loss would just tell politicans that we as a nation are in love with warmongering hillbillies.

Kerry does represent (at least, at face value) what I'd be looking for in a president, though - He doesn't think we should have gone into Iraq to begin with, but isn't just going to yank our army out without restoring some kind of order to the place. But also, he claims that he won't just stick around in Iraq to plunder it, too. He thinks that other places such as North Korea are much bigger threats and that we should actually try talking to these people rather than ignoring them. He plans to roll back tax cuts for ridiculously wealthy people who couldn't possibly need them anyway and so on and so on. What about his policies isn't democratic, given the circumstances in which he'd be taking office?

I'm always hearing people say Kerry doesn't have a shot in hell, but I can't imagine many of the people that voted Gore in 2000 would switch to Bush and Gore had a majority going for him. Not to mention that plenty more people are going to vote against Bush now, given that there's a definitive reason to do so. For me to look at the situation without seeing how people react, Kerry winning would make a lot more sense than Bush. Then again, Americans are absolutely retarded.

Oct 4th, 2004 06:04 PM

Preechr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chojin

What has Kerry said that makes anyone believe his administration would be any different than Bush's in effect? Yes, he's said he'd have done the same stuff BETTER, but isn't that a bit of a stretch for the average Democrat? If you guys had your choice, is that what you'd be voting for? A smarter, more nuanced Bush that's not so religious?

Kerry's campaign is so devoid of any sort of substance it's shocking. He is decidedly not George W Bush, so that seems to satisfy the base, and he's trying his best to be George W Bush to capture the swing voters and the undecideds. My guess is that those I used to think of as principled, ideological progressives are just buying the label here and hoping he'll suddenly turn into a Democrat after he unseats Dubya... But don't you guys at least need some sort of passing effort to be made by him toward running as a liberal candidate?

I understand the point of view you guys have on this, and I guess that if I thought Kerry had a snowball's chance in Hell at actually winning I'd have less of a problem with the mass adoption of so flawed a tactic. Has anyone stopped to consider that Ralph Nader, a principled liberal that I disagree with but respect, would do better against Bush than Kerry might simply because more traditional Democrats would believe in him than they do Kerry?

Yes, I understand that by the argument you guys have made over and over that it's just too late to switch horses... I just hope that this sort of election doesn't become the norm. I see hate and fear winning out over principle, and that scares me. Hopefully, a Kerry loss will cause many Democrats to reconsider their decisions and actions over the last two or three years and re-find their path.

I believe that we'll one day look back on this time in history and say that Democrats trying to vote strategically, instead of voting with their hearts, handed over the entire government to the Republicans at just the point they'd become most dangerous... for "X" number of years.

Oct 4th, 2004 04:58 PM

kellychaos

Every once in a great while, a third-party with a a new and influentual ideology does emerge to shake the system up a bit. In that case, what usually happens is that one of the major parties usually absorbs that ideology into their platform. Hell, the democrats and republicans nearly had a diametric reversal of their platforms during the late 1800's to early 1900's because of some grass roots third parties, so you can't say that third parties don't matter to some degree.

Oct 4th, 2004 04:52 PM

Anonymous

Yes, it'd take a moron to think that.

Oct 4th, 2004 04:48 PM

Bobo Adobo

Idealistic morons are better than cynical twits.

Oct 4th, 2004 04:42 PM

Anonymous

I can see the point behind voting 3rd party in most elections, but I think the risk is far too great if the president is re-elected in this one, so I have to side with whomever has the greatest chance of ousting him.

And yes, Bobo, you are an idealistic moron; Most Americans are too stupid to have beliefs that aren't selected for them.

Oct 4th, 2004 03:49 PM

Bobo Adobo

Quote:

Originally Posted by AChimp

Bobo's "angry youth" image. He has rights, you know.

I keep rereading the previous posts, I can't see how I come off as angry. I actually get a kick out of how many people I piss off when i tell them im thinking about voting third party. Davin actually reminds me more of the opinions of the angry little neoliberal teenyboppers I went to high school with...

Oct 4th, 2004 12:49 PM

FartinMowler

I want to see Perndog in this conversation as a third party.

Oct 4th, 2004 08:47 AM

AChimp

Come on, davin, you're stepping all over Bobo's "angry youth" image. He has rights, you know.

Oct 4th, 2004 01:45 AM

davinxtk

I tried giving you dignified responses, Bobo, and all you can seem to do is repeat yourself. You keep saying the same stupid things and honestly, I'm just not going to respond to them more than once.

And yes, you do need a reading comprehension course -- I'm just being dismissive. The only way that sentence relates to the rest of the conversation is that you seem to think that you're making a difference in a candidate's platform or a party's stance on things, when realistically you're just wasting paper.

I'm really done caring, though, there's no way either of us is going to convince the other one.

Oct 3rd, 2004 10:56 PM

Bobo Adobo

"SO when do I vote 3rd party? Am i suppost make sure that there are no somewhat popular concervatives running for the election.ohwell.gif"

"Yeah, sure. In fact, just vote for Barney the Big Purple Dinosaur every year. You can consider it a protest movement if you'd like. "

And Im the one that needs a reading comp course? That statement isn't even close to being relevent with my quote. Why don't you at least try arguing with me or answer my question and quit acting like a closeminded douche.

"it's about reality and the potential for ousting a war-monger."

Yes and we never ever were engaged in any conflicts overseas, when the democrats were in office. I think its you who needs the reality check...

"I'm just an ignorant kid with an opinion. "

Can't agrue with you there, but Im actually looking for more dignified responses. Im not expecting anything that I want to hear.

Oct 3rd, 2004 05:25 PM

davinxtk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobo Adobo

Oh shit I forgot, everythings going to be peaches and cream as long as we keep a jackass in office.

Right. That's exactly what I'm saying.
You are just stupid, aren't you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobo Adobo

SO when do I vote 3rd party? Am i suppost make sure that there are no somewhat popular concervatives running for the election.:/

Yeah, sure. In fact, just vote for Barney the Big Purple Dinosaur every year. You can consider it a protest movement if you'd like.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobo Adobo

For the thousandth time, canidates aren't entitled to anyones votes you moron.

Yeah, wow. You've said that so many times. Jesus, how did I ever miss it?
You're a fucking twat and you're completely missing the point. This isn't about who's entitled to what, it's about reality and the potential for ousting a war-monger. You don't seem to grasp this concept, but I guess there's no accounting for blatant stupidity, is there?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobo Adobo

and you can't even argue that third party canidates take away votes when thousands of registered democrats don't vote.

Yeah, I can't possibly argue that people who are voting for a third party candidate would be voting for a major party. There's no hint of logic or common sense there.
Do you even read what you type?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobo Adobo

You ever sit down and think why they don't vote? no you don't... you rather just sit around and blame the 2000 election on Jeb Bush and Ralph Nader.

Yeah, you're right. I never think about how inadequate the choices are or what I'd do in an ideal world. I never ever fantasize that some day things will be different and I'll actually have a viable choice on who to vote for.
I'm just an ignorant kid with an opinion.
You don't seem to be willing to accept anything else, so I'll just feed you the lines you're looking for, okay?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobo Adobo

And voting for third party canidates will influence main stream politicians. People vote for them knowing they have no chance in hell at winning, for now atleast. I'm not sitting here in Lala land thinking someday Ralph Nader or a Green/libertarian party canidate will be president... BUt Im not just going to vote for puppet after puppet every election.

Once again, you either need a reading comprehension course or a cyanide pill. I don't know how many times I would have to tell you that there's a reason I'm saying this and that it's based on the current situation before you got it through your head, but it really just doesn't seem to be worth the effort. Liberal or conservative, blow your vote and just shut up about it.

Oct 3rd, 2004 05:09 PM

Preechr

I am soooo staying out of this conversation.

You guys rock.

Oct 3rd, 2004 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobo Adobo

And voting for third party canidates will influence main stream politicians. People vote for them knowing they have no chance in hell at winning, for now atleast.

Seriously, what is with this ludicrous concept that you're supposed to vote for a person you think will win? From what I've come to understand of American elections, third party candidates are not much more than a formality, and people who actually vote for them are mocked even by people who think the candidates for both major parties aren't a good choice. It's like the average American equals voting to betting or associates a candidate's victory with a personal victory. That's like denying yourself democracy because it's fashionable to do so. It really boggles my mind.

Oct 3rd, 2004 02:28 PM

AChimp

Way to stick it to THE MAN, Bobo.

Oct 3rd, 2004 02:13 PM

Bobo Adobo

"I'm telling you to stick to it when we've got a ludicrously close and bitterly partisan election on the table. "

Oh shit I forgot, everythings going to be peaches and cream as long as we keep a jackass in office.

"If you're not voting republican or democrat in 2004, you might as well be one of the millions who don't vote."

SO when do I vote 3rd party? Am i suppost make sure that there are no somewhat popular concervatives running for the election.:/

"You can't even begin to argue that third parties are doing anything but detracting from another candidate's votes this year"

For the thousandth time, canidates aren't entitled to anyones votes you moron. and you can't even argue that third party canidates take away votes when thousands of registered democrats don't vote. You ever sit down and think why they don't vote? no you don't... you rather just sit around and blame the 2000 election on Jeb Bush and Ralph Nader.

And voting for third party canidates will influence main stream politicians. People vote for them knowing they have no chance in hell at winning, for now atleast. I'm not sitting here in Lala land thinking someday Ralph Nader or a Green/libertarian party canidate will be president... BUt Im not just going to vote for puppet after puppet every election.

Oct 3rd, 2004 06:26 AM

davinxtk

Quote:

Stop whining and do something more constructive.

Because bitching and moaning and telling people to vote for candidates who just plain don't have a chance this year isn't completely hypocritical considering the advice you just gave me, right? Oh, please.

Quote:

What the fuck? If im not suppost to vote for the person I would to see be president then what is the point of voting? People liek Davinxtk will gripe about the system, but then just go with it. Im Sorry, but thats just pathetic. Things won't change if we are limited to these "paper or plastic" type choices.

Are you blind or just plain stupid? I'm not telling you to stick to the two-party system consistently, I'm telling you to stick to it when we've got a ludicrously close and bitterly partisan election on the table. You can't even begin to argue that third parties are doing anything but detracting from another candidate's votes this year, it's really simple to see that there's a two-way race in '04.
If you're not voting republican or democrat in 2004, you might as well be one of the millions who don't vote. Literally the only benefit you're getting out of it is burning a few calories and killing ten or fifteen minutes of your time.

And don't you dare accuse me of hypocrisy, you twit. I'm not going around griping about the two-party system these days because at this point, we don't have a choice. When we've got a progressive or influential third-party candidate with a realistic expectation of taking the election, you can bet your sorry ass I'll be voting for them. Until then, get the fuck off your high horse. This isn't hypocrisy, Bobo, I'm being practical.

Oct 3rd, 2004 05:05 AM

Bobo Adobo

just to add, I'm really sick of the headcounter types saying how imporatant is to vote and whatnot. As soon as I tell them Im thinking about voting third party, they tell me Im wasting my time...

What the fuck? If im not suppost to vote for the person I would to see be president then what is the point of voting? People liek Davinxtk will gripe about the system, but then just go with it. Im Sorry, but thats just pathetic. Things won't change if we are limited to these "paper or plastic" type choices.

Oct 3rd, 2004 04:40 AM

Bobo Adobo

Change isn't going to happen if you replace a flip-flopper with another flip-flopper. You need a presidential Canidate that is progressive.

And like I like I said. You can't blame a small amount of the public that happens to vote for a third party canidiate for screwing up an election, when a very large portion of the country doesn't even vote. Stop whining and do something more constructive.

Oct 3rd, 2004 03:40 AM

davinxtk

Sorry, I forgot to address...

Quote:

From my position, right on top of the fence I suppose, I can clearly see both parties being shitty to about an equal extent. Of course, my guys never do anything bad.

That's because the libertarian party has yet to have any substantive power. It's not the republicans or democrats who engage in this bullshit overseas and at home, it's the American federal government, and change can happen, it's just going to come extremely slowly.

Oct 3rd, 2004 03:37 AM

davinxtk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preechr

Election season is normally pretty a pretty depressing time for me, but sometimes it's nice to be a third party person. I don't suffer from the illusion that one of the major parties is perfect... like you guys do with whatever party you support... and the other party is the evil one that is always pulling some sort of dirty tricks.

From my position, right on top of the fence I suppose, I can clearly see both parties being shitty to about an equal extent. Of course, my guys never do anything bad.

Does anyone else find what sludge Preechr's been spewing lately rather laughable? You sound like Marty, telling us that he knows our system is fucked and that we're all stupid to choose between "these two morons". Seriously, Preechr, I don't think you're going to find a single person on this board who thinks that either party is infallible, by any means. Even Ronnie's admitted in the past that the Neocon's don't share the same agenda as earlier republicans (maybe not in as many words, but he's done it). Just because we identify practicality and would rather vote for a candidate who's not a completely useless runner doesn't mean we actually fully favor their politics or practices.
Voting libertarian (or green party, or what have you) is an exercise in futility, and it's detrimental to the elections at this point. I really don't like admitting it but in November '04 anyone who doesn't pick Bush or Kerry might as well light their ballot card on fire and then piss on the first person who asks why they're doing it.

I'm so fucking sick of people backing alternative parties this year. All you're doing is taking votes away from one party or the other. You're not making a point, you're making a mistake.

Oct 3rd, 2004 03:04 AM

Bobo Adobo

"conspiracy theorists has it that he is working for bush."

That is very stupid if anyone believes that. THeres always been third party canidates. you can whine all you want about how Nader "steals" the liberal/swing votes that are somehow entitled to the democratic canidate, but you have to realise that there are millions of people in this country who don't even vote...Including many registered Democrats.

"but when you're in the anybody-but-Bush camp and you're voting for a third-party candidate in this election"

The people who vote for third party canidates aren't in the "anybody but Bush" camp, there in the "How about I vote for the person who appeals to my political ideals so main stream politicians pay attention to the political issue i care about" camp.

Sep 30th, 2004 10:23 AM

Geggy

nader should count himself out of the race. take a big look into the microscope and see how small of a chance he has of winnning. conspiracy theorists has it that he is working for bush. w/e

Sep 29th, 2004 09:10 PM

AChimp

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with this. Nader says some interesting things, but other times he's just foaming at the mouth. Chances are that the people who are voting for Nader wouldn't vote for Bush, either.

Splitting the vote in an election like this is a stupid thing to do, even though it's "democracy." If the election wasn't going to be so close, I'd say that this was a bad thing, but when you're in the anybody-but-Bush camp and you're voting for a third-party candidate in this election, you are just a dumbass who's just going to bitch for the next 4 years if things don't lean in your direction.

This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

About Us |

Store |

Advertising |

Contact

Features

Shorts

Editorials

Games

Comics

Blogs

Forum

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off