Why Vote Third Party?

[BellaBellucci]

Don't worry, Dino. My funhole is still there (although moved to http://xxx.bellabellucci.com and still having production issues at the moment - long story).

But this site isn't about that. It's the new primary portal for all of my sites and will focus on my personal life story and artistic and political endeavors and commentary. You know, the stuff I did BEFORE I took my clothes off for a living (read: got fucked in the ass for a little extra money).

My first political post is about why everyone who can (without throwing the election) should vote for a third party candidate. Check it out. If you like transsexuals who use big words and explain complex concepts (trans-attracted sapiosexual), then I guess it'll be sort of like porn, right?

http://bellabellucci.com/blog/2012/09/08/why-vote-third-party/

~BB~

[gaysian71]

Woo Hoo. www.lp.org

[danthepoetman]

Very bright and well argued discourse, Bella! I’m very sensible to your arguments. You're making very good points.

[onmyknees]

Don't worry, Dino. My funhole is still there (although moved to http://xxx.bellabellucci.com and still having production issues at the moment - long story).

But this site isn't about that. It's the new primary portal for all of my sites and will focus on my personal life story and artistic and political endeavors and commentary. You know, the stuff I did BEFORE I took my clothes off for a living (read: got fucked in the ass for a little extra money).

My first political post is about why everyone who can (without throwing the election) should vote for a third party candidate. Check it out. If you like transsexuals who use big words and explain complex concepts (trans-attracted sapiosexual), then I guess it'll be sort of like porn, right?

http://bellabellucci.com/blog/2012/09/08/why-vote-third-party/

~BB~


I'll def give it a look see Bella. From what I did see, there's more agreement than disagreement. :)

[RallyCola]

i understand why you MIGHT believe that your vote for a 3rd party candidate might actually be something more than a vote in abstention but honestly it is hardly a valid argument simply because 3rd party candidates usually are not viable which is why they do not fit the two-party mold.

Simply put...see Nader 2000 and The Bull-Moose Party for why 3rd party votes are just a way to sway an election but not get your candidate in office.

[Dino Velvet]

Don't worry, Dino. My funhole is still there (although moved to http://xxx.bellabellucci.com and still having production issues at the moment - long story).

But this site isn't about that. It's the new primary portal for all of my sites and will focus on my personal life story and artistic and political endeavors and commentary. You know, the stuff I did BEFORE I took my clothes off for a living (read: got fucked in the ass for a little extra money).

My first political post is about why everyone who can (without throwing the election) should vote for a third party candidate. Check it out. If you like transsexuals who use big words and explain complex concepts (trans-attracted sapiosexual), then I guess it'll be sort of like porn, right?

http://bellabellucci.com/blog/2012/09/08/why-vote-third-party/

~BB~

I'll give it a peek if you give me a wink.

[Quiet Reflections]

i will definitely be checking that out

[BellaBellucci]

i understand why you MIGHT believe that your vote for a 3rd party candidate might actually be something more than a vote in abstention but honestly it is hardly a valid argument simply because 3rd party candidates usually are not viable which is why they do not fit the two-party mold.

Simply put...see Nader 2000 and The Bull-Moose Party for why 3rd party votes are just a way to sway an election but not get your candidate in office.

I specifically state towards the end of the video that this isn't really about voting for the man, but for his ideas and against the two-party system et al.

~BB~

[GrimFusion]

Don't worry, Dino. My funhole is still there (although moved to http://xxx.bellabellucci.com and still having production issues at the moment - long story).

But this site isn't about that. It's the new primary portal for all of my sites and will focus on my personal life story and artistic and political endeavors and commentary. You know, the stuff I did BEFORE I took my clothes off for a living (read: got fucked in the ass for a little extra money).

My first political post is about why everyone who can (without throwing the election) should vote for a third party candidate. Check it out. If you like transsexuals who use big words and explain complex concepts (trans-attracted sapiosexual), then I guess it'll be sort of like porn, right?

http://bellabellucci.com/blog/2012/09/08/why-vote-third-party/

~BB~

Speaking of sapiosexuality, your brain makes my dick hard.
*Ahem*

I think the biggest problem with both the democratic and republican parties is that they're riding on platforms which don't come close to repairing some of the largest issues our country is facing. They both want to talk about job growth, but Obama's plan is to improve infrastructure and create construction jobs for workers who are already skilled but unemployed or force unskilled workers though trade schools only so they can find out after graduation that the majority of new jobs have already been filled. Essentially, forcing them to pay into a system that doesn't guarantee any kind of return. The republicans just want to offer more tax cuts to corporations and businesses hoping that they'll use the money they save to hire new employees, but that rarely happens. Instead, they further consolidate job responsibilities and continue laying off employees just to pad their pockets and make more profit.

The democrats say they're all for corporate and government regulation, and Obama ran on that idealism four years ago, but what's happened in the last four years? Obama has chosen to not only continue MANY of Bush's enacted policies but has actually increased our defense budget, sent more troops to the middle east, pulled them out, then sent even more, and increased bombing operations in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and Libya. That's just concerning the "war on terrorism" and the apparent government deregulation that's been occurring under his term. If you ask Obama, we're no longer at war. We're involved in "overseas contingency operations". Officially speaking, we've brought all our troops back from the war because it's not a war anymore. Fuckin' pathetic.

Everybody wants to blame Bush for the Patriot Act, but despite it's unpopularity with the majority of the American public and the fact that it breaks the first, fourth, and fifth amendment rights granted to us by the constitution, when it was up to expire, Obama didn't change a single word in the policy and signed it right back into law.

Same deal with the war on drugs. Whether you believe that drug use supports terrorism, decays American social and moral standards, or has become the cause of our devastating national unemployment, it's obvious that the war on drugs hasn't paid off and should either be modified or revoked. Obama has done neither. Instead, he didn't attempt to modify the policy and simply reenacted it.

What happened to holding government accountable and making their actions transparent to the American public? Fuck-all, that's what. Obama promised to publish all non-emergency legislation to a website for five days before the he signed it then broke that promise over and over again. Despite promising to keep lobbyists out of his administration, Obama allowed 17 of them within his first two weeks in office. He's held closed-door stimulus meetings and closed-door healthcare meetings. He upheld the State Secrets Privilege which blocked allegations into CIA torture. The Obama Administration has proven far more aggressive than the Bush Administration in seeking to punish whistle-blowers within the administration. There's no transparency. At least no more transparency than under the Bush administration.

I'm not saying all of this to demonize Obama or make him seem worse than Bush ever was, but democrats who want to claim that most of these enacted policies are all Bush's fault and that Obama simply had to deal with the fall-out are full of shit.

My only real point is to make it more than obvious that republicans and democrats are the same two-headed party with the same motivations and same goals, but different rhetoric. They campaign on empty promises and attempt to distract the American public from important issues by focusing on moral, ethical, and religious matters just to gain support by creating a grandiose "us versus them" battle between Americans that are too stupid to work together.

Voting for a third party is fine, but it won't have any impact or create change until congress is replaced with members from the same party. Even then, corporations and large businesses would need to be heavily regulated, campaign contributions from churches and lobbyists should be banned even if they're funneled through third-parties, our policies on domestic goods and imports would need to be drastically altered, and monopolies on news and media would need to be broken. That's just the beginning of the list and that only ensures politicians cannot put private interests above public interest and are forced to work for the majority of American people instead of themselves.

[Ben]

Interesting article by Paul Craig Roberts. Who was the Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury in the Reagan administration.... It's essentially about how the so-called Two Parties don't get it:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/07/disposable-america/

[BellaBellucci]

Interesting article by Paul Craig Roberts. Who was the Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury in the Reagan administration.... It's essentially about how the so-called Two Parties don't get it:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/07/disposable-america/




Oh no, they get it. They just don't care. :lol:

~BB~

[Helvis2012]

Not a good idea. The country isn't there yet.
Remember what Nader brought us.......Bush.

[rockabilly]

"The most American thing to do is not to vote." - Dale Gribble

[Prospero]

Not a good idea. The country isn't there yet.
Remember what Nader brought us.......Bush.


Yikes.... that was true! Wht third parties are there, anyway, apart from the good old socialists. Cept of course the GOP would have us believe that the socialists have taken over the White house... yawn....

[Jackal]

A woman is automatically more attractive if she is intelligent, thanks for sharing :)

[firkin]

Well stated grimfussion

[Ben]

Yikes.... that was true! Wht third parties are there, anyway, apart from the good old socialists. Cept of course the GOP would have us believe that the socialists have taken over the White house... yawn....

It was the Supreme Court who chose Bush....
Anyway, neither the Dems or the Republicans want actual competition. Why would they? It's a nice system they have -- :)
They've a nice duopoly. It's great.
Vincent Bugliosi's book is well worth reading...

[Ben]

"The most American thing to do is not to vote." - Dale Gribble

It's worth thinking about.
And, too, does voting make any difference? Well, maybe. A slight difference. As to who runs the reigns of government, as it were.
I mean, will Romney bring back all the Neoconservatives that filled up the Bush White House? It's quite possible.
I mean, Obama is hawkish. But could Romney be even more hawkish? It's a possibility.
So, it does make a difference.
But either way the likes of Lloyd Blankfein and Rex Tillerson run the show... :)

[Prospero]

Other differences too Ben. Like the likelihood that the GOP will introduce more tax breaks for the rich and would scrap affordable health care. To name just two.
And yes judging by Romney's daft remarks in the past 24 hours considerably more hawkish.

[Ben]

Other differences too Ben. Like the likelihood that the GOP will introduce more tax breaks for the rich and would scrap affordable health care. To name just two.
And yes judging by Romney's daft remarks in the past 24 hours considerably more hawkish.

Yeah, Romney could staff his cabinet with Neoconservatives.
The first George Bush -- the Father -- referred to Neoconservatives as the crazies. And put them in mid-level positions. Well, apart from Dick Cheney. But he was definitely less extreme two decades ago.
But then Bush the son came into office and put them, as we know, in high-level positions. So, the "crazies" took over the White House. Hence: Iraq.
Now, will Romney bring back the crazies? It's worth thinking about; it's worth giving serious thought to. Because he, of course, can. And he may.
Will Robert Kagan wield influence again?
What about Elliott Abrams? John Bolton?
Could Paul Wolfowitz also wield influence?
What about Eliot Cohen?
You know, these people could resurface in a Romney administration. Then, well, we get Bush Jr. all over again.

[onmyknees]

Other differences too Ben. Like the likelihood that the GOP will introduce more tax breaks for the rich and would scrap affordable health care. To name just two.
And yes judging by Romney's daft remarks in the past 24 hours considerably more hawkish.


Your routine is tired and boring, and frankly devoid of facts.

Fact...If Barry's tax the rich scheme makes it through Congress,(and it won't) the revenue realized will fund the government at it's current spending level for 8 days. That's 8 days. Even Warren Buffet admitted it's Bullshit, but you keep on clinging to that narrative. It's about spending, stupid.

Fact....Liberals definition of "rich" is individuals making 200K and couples making 250K, but they never tell you that.. In NY that's a high school principal and a union sanitation worker. Even Nicki Minaj gets that.

Fact....When the top income-tax rate was as high as 70% in the 1970s, the top 1% paid about 19% of all federal income taxes. At the current rate of 35% the top 1% pay just under 40% of all income taxes.
Fact...Romney's Tax plan is revenue neutral...that is to say he lowers the withholding rate, but eliminates many of the typical deductions wealthy people take advantage of.

Fact.......when JFK and Reagan cut the tax rates, revenues to the treasury increased. Google the Obama/Clinton debate and Charlie Gibson as he posed that reality to Barry in their debate. Even Barry had to adknowledged it, then quickly called it a question of "fairness"

Why do you continue to traffic in lame untruths ? You may not be a dumb guy, but what else are we to think when your posts sound like a campaign commercial that needs to be fact checked ?

[BluegrassCat]

Like the likelihood that the GOP will introduce more tax breaks for the rich and would scrap affordable health care. To name just two.


Your routine is tired and boring, and frankly devoid of facts.


Mitt Romney: "Number one, I said that we’re going to cut taxes on everyone across the country by 20 percent, including the top 1 percent. So that’s number one."

Mitt Romney: "Well of course I’m going to repeal Obamacare, I’ve said that on the campaign trail, I think, every single day."

Fact: OMK is a crazy liar and buffoon.

[BellaBellucci]

Arguing about partisan politics, boys? I guess you missed the point. :lol:

~BB~

[GrimFusion]

Bella's right. The bickering is pointless because as a Republican, you can find just as many faults with Obama and his previous four years of presidency as any Democrat can researching Romney. Neither choice is a good choice, and voting shouldn't boil down to picking the lesser of two crappy candidates.

[Prospero]

I agree up to a point Grim. However it is about preventing power being attained by a party who will really do grievous harm to the poor in your country, to your economy and to your country's already damaged image and role in the world. And quite possibly spark a terrible new war across the Mid east and further afield. There are profound differences actually. This talk veers dangerously close the 1960s notion that politics doesn't matter - and that brought you Nixon and thousands of deaths in Vietnam (and watergate etc etc etc).

[GrimFusion]

I agree up to a point Grim. However it is about preventing power being attained by a party who will really do grievous harm to the poor in your country, to your economy and to your country's already damaged image and role in the world. And quite possibly spark a terrible new war across the Mid east and further afield. There are profound differences actually. This talk veers dangerously close the 1960s notion that politics doesn't matter - and that brought you Nixon and thousands of deaths in Vietnam (and watergate etc etc etc).

I agree, and I'm not saying voting is pointless or that politics simply don't matter, but who do you rightfully vote for when the president re-elect has already proven he has no intention of fulfilling his campaign promises or working in the interests of the American people and the only other option is a candidate who seems interested in ignoring the needs of a vast majority of Americans and favors an economic recovery plan that has been proven time and time again to fail.

There's simply "no better option", but voters are getting too caught up in attacking the opposite party candidate and defending their own to realize it. I'm a registered Democrat, but I find myself agreeing with many of the claims made against Obama by the Republican party. I simply fail to see why Republicans would support Romney in the first place considering the vast majority of Republican voters admit they would like to see further corporate regulation and smaller government. Romney is NOT going to provide that.

You're entirely right, though; Prospero. This campaign does mirror the Nixon/Humphrey election in 1968 with one very large exception. Back then, it was the Republicans who ran on an anti-war campaign and the Democrats who supported Linden B. Johnson's foreign affairs policies. Nixon was elected on his platform of improving relations with Vietnam and ending the war. Once he became president, he did the opposite... kinda like Obama.

History tends to repeat itself and much like the American public in the 1960's and 1970's, there's a general mistrust of all presidential candidates and politicians which eventually resulted in impeachment and the American people finally woke up, began holding their elected officials responsible, and presidential candidates improved. I think the last two decades have seen a rebound of the degeneration of American politics, and no matter who is elected, if our country continues to suffer under new policies, impeachment and a renewal of American political standards is simply an eventuality.

So, basically; a positive out of the negative. Since neither presidential candidate is a good option, we're either going to end up suffering through another four years of ho-hum inaction or end up with a president who abuses their power by working against the common interests of the American people and their campaign promises. If the latter occurs, I look forward to the fall-out because it'll necessitate improvement.

[Prospero]

A pretty bleak posititon you outline there Grim.

I think that you overlook the very real barriers thrown up by the most partisan GOP America has ever seen to Obama achieving anything. Without that sweeping result for the Republicans in the mid term election Obama might well have been able to engineer a greater economic recovery than has been possible.

You all should never forget that it was Bush and his policies - domestic and overseas - for eight years that were the prime creators of the mess. The Republicans since have blocked all attempts to sort it out. This mess is NOT due to Obama and the Democrats.

Also I don't think it quite fair to suggest that Obama and Nixon share a trait in worsening the wars. Obama has failed to close Guantanamo true. But he has brought the troops home from Iraq. He has helped overturn the dictatorship of Gaddafy (a genuine Arab revolt unlike the engineered overthrow of Saddam). He has given weight to the ousting of Mubarak (again a genuine Arab revolt). And he has set out a timetable for the withdrawal of forces in Afghanistan.

[loveboof]

Since neither presidential candidate is a good option, we're either going to end up suffering through another four years of ho-hum inaction or end up with a president who abuses their power by working against the common interests of the American people and their campaign promises. If the latter occurs, I look forward to the fall-out because it'll necessitate improvement.

If the election is a gonna be a close call, given those options you should vote for the lesser of two evils. In the latter you'd have to wait 4 years before any improvement is necessitated, by which time more damage could have been commited than simple 'inaction'.

Personally I don't see how anyone could argue that Obama has achieved nothing in his presidency though. Are Americans that impatient? You seem to expect immediate results, and if they're not seen you'll flip back to the other side. 4 years is not a long time to fix the kind of economic state the world is currently in...

[fred41]

If you side strongly with one candidate over another...by all means vote for that candidate...but in some states it's fine to vote for third party candidates you can side with. I live in N.Y....Obama will get two or more votes for every one of Romney's. It's a done deal. The Electoral Votes here are going to Obama anyway.

[Ben]

Abby Martin asks 'What is the real choice between Obama & Romney'?

Obama & Romney: Two Sides of Same Evil | Weapons of Mass Distraction - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KONifCDWess&feature=plcp)

[marcellogo]

May gave you a suggestion?

http://www.modernwhig.org/

That would be a good, moderate option enough to coalesce a wide support.

In every case best way for you to get a third party working is to change vote system.
Two-round system like in France would allow the birth of a third party (plus something for minor ones) while keeping all the pluses of a single-member districtsystem with the added bonus of getting rid of the huge cost, both in money and time of primary campaign.

[Jericho]

In every case best way for you to get a third party working is to change vote system.
Two-round system like in France


Yah, right! :hide-1:

[Prospero]

Works well in Israel too - total gridlock with some lunatic extremist party getting their way because of the need for coalition.

The only way forward is the rule of Philosopher kings.