Was gonna make a few threads with questions regarding the election, but before I do, I wanted to kno how many Dems an GOPs we got here. Judging by all the anti Bush/McCain stuff I see, Im gonna guess the dems outnumber the republicans.
Your stance?
Printable View
Was gonna make a few threads with questions regarding the election, but before I do, I wanted to kno how many Dems an GOPs we got here. Judging by all the anti Bush/McCain stuff I see, Im gonna guess the dems outnumber the republicans.
Your stance?
Ill start. Im Republican and will be voting such.
Curious to know why yer voting the way you are. I kno this can be a hot topic, so no fights here about it plz.
I imagine that many people here are Libertarians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gmanfromthechi
:roll:
i m not from States but if i was i will not vote any of them, Warren Beaty said onces that USA doesnt need a third political party but a second one
I bet I can predict the results before it's even over.
Gee, thanks for all the "Diverse" choices in your poll!
Truth is, the differences between the two are negligible in a larger picture. Two sides of the same coin, as it were. The two party system is a paradigm to give Americans the sense that they still have a sense of choice. It doesn't matter who wins this election. The wars will wage on, your paychecks will continue to be grossly over taxed, the economy will continue to fail, and corporations will continue centralizing all the power. A coup has been staged on the peoples government by a fascist corporatocracy. The Obama "change" campaign is a farce
I didn't see Independent or Libertarian, so I didn't click on the poll. While the 'third' parties have little chance of winning a national election on their own, they are powerful enough to tilt the vote and many of their supporters can be considered in the swing/undecided numbers. While my views take a decidedly Democrat direction, I don't swear allegiance to that or any other political party and prefer to look at the individual candidates rather than the party as a whole. It is historically proven that any party is capable of putting a crook or a moron in office.
As this nonsense began to play out and the caucuses and primaries culled the herd, I had strongly considered McCain over Obama, though still considering it a lesser-of-two-evils race. Yet, in recent weeks, especially with the left-field choice of Palin as VP and all of the baggage that came with that train, I am now firmly convinced that Obama would work out better. Note that I did not say 'best', just 'better'.
What *I* could predict was a thread mostly full of whining about "only 2 choices". That's comically common online.
But the real problem is the voting system. If the voting system is set up like ours, then it's *mathematically necessary* that politics gets dominated by 2 primary parties.
So if you need to change any of this, you need to first start by changing the voting system. The rest of the bellyaching is about as useful as complaining that it gets dark at night.
Duverger's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_Law
Libertarian Reform Caucus: http://reformthelp.org/issues/voting/range.php
(Title: "Why Alternative Parties Must Get Range Voting, or DIE")
The voting system is deeply flawed, I agree, especially since the introduction of electronic voting. The bigger problem actually is the vast blitzkrieg of disinformation and propaganda pulled over our eyes by the mainstream media; who are owned by mega-corporate conglomerates who also own defense contractors (weapons manufacturers) that make money off of war. It is social engineering on a grand scale and people are mentally herded around the likes of which, is uncanny. War, is a euphemism for genocide. Nothing in politics happens by accident... Remember that
Exactly, this board is most definitely predominately Democrat.Quote:
Originally Posted by AllanahStarrNYC
Neither.
Why? Well, a quote from Noam Chomsky sums it up fairly well: "The United States effectively has a one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats."
Libertarians from Ron Paul to social liberals like Ralph Nader firmly believe that. Plus, there's a slew of Presidential candidates: Brian Moore to Cynthia McKinney who are excluded.
People should vote for their interests. The problem with both Barack Obama and John McCain is, well, they're so outside the mainstream of American opinion.
Why do you want to poll the forum before you make threads regarding the election? It reminds me of someone saying "I'm thinking about telling this joke . . . but, uh (looks around room) I hope there aren't any Polish people around. I want to make sure no-one's going to get pissed off at me before I tell it."Quote:
Originally Posted by Gmanfromthechi
Just make some election related question threads, if that's what you want to do.
Libertarian here. Anybody here remember when Jessie Ventura was governor of Mn? He was my kind of politician. Didn't care who he offended, didn't try to censor what was on his mind, didn't believe government was the solution to all our problems, and didn't believe government had any business in our personel lives.
The only thing I don't support Libertarians on is their stance on the War on Terror.
Good quote!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Clind
Jesse Ventura is da man! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IH6fiARKaoQuote:
Originally Posted by msbhaven
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFsuggwnTWQ
The "war on terror" simply generates more terror, on an exponential scale.
It's a total no brainer for those of us outside the US. America has a big image problem at the moment thanks to that bone headed cretin Bush. And the only man that can give you back the moral authority, the self belief and the respect of the world is Barack Obama. The tactics McCain is using at the moment are utterly disgraceful. Hope you don't have a terrorist attack in the next 3 weeks, because if you do the Republicans get in and that would be a disaster for us all.
I think this "choosing of sides" instead of people actually investigating issues is exactly why the US, and by proxy, the entire world economy is messed up beyond recognition. I used to be a bit soft on it, seeing that they didn't do too much damage, but times have changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gmanfromthechi
Also, neither side is properly dealing with bank investments in securities derivatives, so therefore nothing they'll do will fix anything.
Prepare for the 2nd Great Depression. :x
Why would someone vote Dem when its clear the Dems are responsible for the current financial mess we're are in?
I don't understand this.
The Dems were behind things like the Community Reinvestment Act (organization responsible for backing risky loans).
The Dems were proponents of Fanny and Freddy and received the most campaign contributions. Dodd was #1 and Obama was #3
The Dems fought ALL attempts at Fanny-Freddy reform.
The Dems, like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, etc, said there was nothing wrong with Fanny or Freddy.
The Repubs (and this is documented, even in the liberal NYT) tried on several occasions to bring reform to Fanny & Freddy but were blocked by the Dems.
http://blackinformant.wordpress.com/...-back-in-2003/
http://www.humanevents.com/article.p...8973#continueA
http://townhall.com/columnists/Walte...om_the_bailout
http://townhall.com/columnists/Thoma...o_facts_matter
Neither.
I am of the libertarian to anarchist faction.
I am socially conservative but don't believe in passing laws for ethics (sex, drugs, rock and roll, etc) is a positive force. Minimize the military for defense only (not oil raids)m encourage non-profits/charities (without government influence, unlike the "faith-based programs") to take the place of government social programs, strip the tax code to bare minimum (e.g. Fair Tax Act), abolish the farm programs which pay farmers not to farm or buy the goods and dump them in the ocean (or on poor countries in the form of "aid", devastating their economies) and all other subsidies, put the government on a crash diet, let the banks fail without billions of tax dollars spent, and let free choice rule the land, not irrational governmental force.
The economy will crash, the question is simply when. There is no such thing as a permanently growing market, though we try to pretend there is. We are burning up economic fuel and it will run to empty if we let it. The only people who can save our economy is us, as individuals, not the massively wealthy State (which survives off our backs). I have no doubt that the American-focused world will crash just as Rome did and every great society in between. When America crashes, it will drag many other countries down but it won't be 500 years of dark ages, we will just emerge in a new economy that isn't focused on the US. My prediction is that the US will crash before the Asian nations or the EU, probably in the next 50-100 years. America burns hot and fast, it will not last like the great empires of old.
So voting here is rather irrelevant. It's like the bad pupil being forced to select which paddle he would like to be beaten with. Both options are bad.
My prediction is that Obama will win, unless there is some polling trickery (as per 2000 and 2004) or "October Surprise" (e.g. terrorist attack or McCain single-handedly "fixing" the economy ^_^). Intrade is trading Obama to McCain at 77-23, which is far more biased than the actual vote will go but I am predicting a 5-10 point gap between the candidates, in Obama's favor.
I have not decided if I am going to vote this election, I will likely abstain or else vote for Bob Barr (L). I have chosen to vote in the local elections, however, and have a slew of parties on my primary ballot, including Constitution, Libertarian, Republican, Independent and maybe even a Democrat in there somewhere. I am not loyal to any political party and consider the whole deal rather futile and bunk.
It's sad that people get all wrapped up in this, as though it makes one bit of difference which one wins.
Wow Zoe, right on!
It seems that the only trickery that's going on is voter fraud on a massive scale. We're seeing dead people registered, people voting dozens of times, 7 year old kids registered to vote for Obama, and all kinds of fraud brought to you by ACORN. And we do know Obama's intimate connection with ACORN.Quote:
Originally Posted by tgirlzoe
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/a...10/139365.html
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77813
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10122008...ote_133207.htm
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/7203
LOL. A handful of idiots working for ACORN who may have falsified registrations to get their quota hardly qualifies as 'voter fraud on a massive scale', although Fox noise would have us believe so. Guess what? That 7 year old won't be showing up to vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beagle
If you want to see election fraud on a truly massive scale, look to the Republican Party. Check out Katherine Harris and ChoicePoint Inc in Florida 2000, who purged tens of thousands of 'felons' from the rolls when in fact, their only crime was voting while black. Google Ohio 2004 election fraud, or vote caging in '00 and '04 or the current purging of voters who have recently lost their home to foreclosures. There's an awful lot of info out there on various election dirty tricks if you're willing to look.
ACORN needs to get a handle on their people, but their misdeeds are tiny compared to what's been done by the other side.
A handful of idiots?
No, ACORN voter fraud is under investigation in nearly a dozen states.
"It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes"
here's the key. This is fraud against ACORN. They end up paying people for registering more people then they actually signed up. If you register me three times to vote, the registrar will see two new registrations of an already registered person and the ones won't count. If I successfully register Mickey Mouse to vote, on election day, Mickey Mouse will still be a cartoon character who cannot go to the local voting station and vote. Logically speaking there's very little way a few phony names on the voting rolls could be used to commit actual vote fraud. And much more importantly, numerous studies and investigations have shown no evidence of anything more than a handful of isolated cases of actual instances of vote fraud.
To expand on this point let me quote from Richard Hasen, one of the most experienced and concise commentators on this question, from a June 2007 column in the Dallas Morning News ...
At least in hindsight, the center's line of argument is easily deconstructed. First, arguing by anecdote is dangerous business. A new report by Lorraine Minnite of Barnard College looks at these anecdotes and shows them to be, for the most part, wholly spurious. Sure, one can find a rare case of someone voting in two jurisdictions, but nothing extensive or systematic has been unearthed or documented.
But perhaps most importantly, the idea of massive polling-place fraud (through the use of inflated voter rolls) is inherently incredible. Suppose I want to swing the Missouri election for my preferred presidential candidate. I would have to figure out who the fake, dead or missing people on the registration rolls are, then pay a lot of other individuals to go to the polling place and claim to be that person, without any return guarantee - thanks to the secret ballot - that any of them will cast a vote for my preferred candidate.
Those who do show up at the polls run the risk of being detected and charged with a felony. And for what - $10? Polling-place fraud, in short, makes no sense.
The Justice Department devoted unprecedented resources to ferreting out fraud over five years and appears to have found not a single prosecutable case across the country. Of the many experts consulted, the only dissenter from that position was a representative of the now-evaporated American Center for Voting Rights.
Again, there have been numerous investigations of this. Often by people with at least a mild political interest in finding wrongdoing. But they never find it. It always ends up being right-wing hype and lies. Remember, most of those now-famous fired US Attorneys from 2007 were Republican appointees who were canned after they got tasked with investigating allegations of widespread vote fraud, did everything they could to find it, but came up with nothing. That was the wrong answer so Karl Rove and his crew at the Justice Department fired them.
Vote registration fraud is a limited and relatively minor problem in the US today. But it is principally an administrative and efficiency issue. It is has little or nothing to do with people casting illegitimate votes to affect an actual election. That's the key. What you're hearing right now from Fox News, the New York Post, John Fund and the rest of the right-wing bamboozlement chorus is a just another effort to exploit, confuse and lie in an effort to put more severe restrictions on legitimate voting and lay the groundwork to steal elections.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/223436.php
Independent
Hey Cuc...
You're out of touch. Many of the new regs allow people to register and vote absentee the same day.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10062008...aos_132278.htm
These frauds don't have to show up at the polling place at all.
There's a good reason why ACORN is working so hard to deliver bogus registrations.
Here's a good video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4
That's not the way it works. I've looked at numerous state/county election websites. If I've missed something, I'm sure you'll point it out. 'Same day registration'/'One stop absentee voting' is done in person. You show up, present w/ever ID that state requires, get registered and then vote. It's really just early voting, but can be done on the same day you register. If you want a traditional absentee ballot, you have to request it by filling out a form. The ballot is then mailed to you. Absentee ballots require additional ID info - exactly what info depends on the state requirements. You can't register, have an absentee ballot sent to you and mail it in all on the same day, obviously. I'm sure some places allow you to pick up an absentee ballot in person, but you still have to provide a reason for needing it. If you just registered that day, why would you need to vote absentee?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beagle
Bottomline, the NYP article you cited is horseshit, which is what I'd expect from any rag owned by Rupert Murdoch.
I hear people say that "It doesn't matter who gets elected" jazz all the time. However, I truly believe if we had 8 years of Al Gore or even 4 years of Bush, cut short by 4 years of John Kerry, this country would be in much better shape than it is now. If you disagree you are delusional buddy. The razor close elections and reign of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney really proved to lots of people, that your vote does matter (especially if you live in a battleground state). Now, while I'm a registered Democrat, I'm not a liberal Kool-Aid drinker and I don't agree with the Dems on everything, especially immigration. Even the independent party is a farce, because only billionaires have any success with it, such as Ross Perot, Michael Bloomberg or Ralph Nader (with the exception of Ron Paul). Most billionaires are so entrenced with that corporate mindset, they will eventually fall victim to their instincts. When Michael Bloomberg was running for his 1st term as mayor of New York City, he went on Black radio and promised to deal with communities of color a lot differently than Rudy Giuliani. The progressive Black New Yorkers (such as I) who voted for him on the independent line, really solidified his victory. Well, he really hasn't lived up to his campaign promises. He's not the aggressive tyrant that Giuliani was, but he a smug @sshole, who has allowed real estate developers to run amok. Minority business participation in city government/agencies are at their lowest levels under his administration. The Village Voice said the guy (appointed by Bloomberg) that runs the agency responsible for rewarding gov't contract is a out and out bigot. Bloomberg, real estate developers and their minions are improperly using eminent domain, to displace the poor and elderly for their land grabs and line their pockets. He's running around saying, since he's a businessman, he should be entitled to a 3rd term to steer NYC thru this financial mess, in spite of the 2 term limit in place. Well, why didn't Mr. Businessman, warn New Yorkers, Wall Street and real estate developers, to proceed with caution, as the financials backing the securitization of subprime mortgages and the credit default swaps (the main culprit of this mess), that acted as a quasi-insurance to get investors on board with these risky mortgages, was akin to playing with fire. Many reputable economists warned this was going to happen years ago, but he thought he'd enjoy the ride up and be out of office on the ride down. He is the owner of the biggest financial information company in the world, so I know he knew about this for years. Bloomberg was against term limits, when Rudy Giuliani tried to use the 9/11 crisis for a 3rd term, yet he's using this financial crisis to do the same thing. The Dems pissed me off at times too, because they did have some people like Chris Dodd and Bill Clinton who were bigtime players in this mortgage meltdown crisis, but Nancy Pelosi wants to play partisan blame games. It's both these parties' fault, if you wanna keep it real!Quote:
Originally Posted by El Nino
I am a student of history and how it affects people. I think I'm that way, because I've seen how it has affected African-Americans for the worst, but that's a debate for another day. However, when I look back personally or ask others about how the poor and working folks in communities of color remember their lives under the Republicans and you just get frowned up faces and profanity laced criticisms. You don't hear that same talk when Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton names are mentioned, even though Carter presided over a bad economy. The rich got richer under Ronald Reagan (see the movie Wall Street) and the inner cities and rural areas were forgotten about. The same B.S replayed under George Bush Sr. As far as Bush Jr, I think he does care about the little guy, but he cares way more about the big guy. That is why he's used this country's tax dollars as his personal fiefdom, to give hundreds of billions in no-bid contracts to companies he, Cheney and Rumsfeld were chummy with (i.e Halliburton, Blackwater and Bechtel). That is the type of leadership, that ballooned our deficit, while Republicans talk about "small government" and "prudent spending". Well, Reagan and Bush Sr. left a huge budget deficit and Bill Clinton left a huge surplus and Bush Jr. burned thru it and created more national debt, than any President in U.S history. My point is, both parties are full of shyt to some degree, but the Republicans are the party of the wealthy and corporations, but they use fearmongering and the biases of poor, small-town folk (like the lady that called Obama an Arab) to get elected. Karl Rove was the king of this type of campaigning. I find it ironic how Cindy McCain has said Barack Obama has run the nastiest campaign in history, when McCain has way more negative ads running and his rallies are full of negativity. Coupled with the fact, that Bush Jr and Karl Rove brought up Cindy's prior addiction to prescription medications and McCain supposedly having a child of color out of wedlock somewhere. Barack Obama has not mentioned either issue once. Yet, Cindy McCain is saying Barack is the most vile
campaigner in history. Hilary Clinton and Sarah Palin supporters accuse Obama of being sexist, yet both women have used racial code language in interviews and rallies (especially Hillary). Remember the "I can get the vote of hard working White Americans, not him" comment (probably why he didn't make her V.P). Hillary Clinton and the McCain/Palin tickets both resorted to sewer, biased politics out of desperation, when they saw their campaigns fizzling out.
People need to stop being slaves to politicians and think for themselves. People act like being a registered Democrat or Republicans is like some fraternity or sorority membership. I respect the few GOPers, who came on TV and reprimanded McCain for taking the "low road" and exploiting people's prejudices and fears. I find people who are overly partisan, highly suspect and morally deficient (see Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin or Sean Hannity). I watch Lou Dobbs on CNN all the time, even though I don't agree with him half the time. Why? Because, while his views are typically conservative and Republican, he realizes that the Republicans never do right by the hard working Joes out there. They're allegiance is to greed and corporations, but they wrap themselves in the American flag, lathered up in bogus patriotism and Christian values, while they're shafting those hard working, small town folk, that voted for them. That's one reason why Barack Obama is doing well in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, where Democrats and minorities never did well statewide, because many of them are starting to wake up and smell the coffee. I'm not naive, I know Barack Obama isn't going to make America some great paradise or even do half of what he promised in his 1st term. However, I'll know he'll point us in the right direction and the average Jo and Joanne will do better under his policies.
With minds like Rove,Schmidt,Tucker,Newt...in the Grand Ole Party it's a wonder that we have not heard that Acorn has ties to Ahmadinejad as well.These ARKITEKKKs of the GOP put news out their(Ohio...) while they are pulling something funny down in Florida(JEB?).
It was Schmidt who started the rumor about Palin's down syndrome baby and how tests should be run,to make it look like the DEMS...for christ sake ROVE should be in prison...GIRLS would ANY of you let THAT HEDGEHOG climb aboard for any amount of $$...
Makes no difference at all. With the exception of who appoints Fed Judges... there's not one bit of difference at the end of the day... they're both slaves to the dollar.
Mcinsaine / Obamamama....both slaves to the same master.
If either of them took the Constitution seriously...I'd cast my vote for them....they don't, so I won't.
Oh wait,
I stand corrected, apparently Obamamama is a bigger psychopath then even Mcinsane (who says the WOT will be a hundred year war).
The big O wants to kill your daughters too.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08287...=elections.xml
[quote="beandip"]Makes no difference at all. With the exception of who appoints Fed Judges... there's not one bit of difference at the end of the day... they're both slaves to the dollar.
Mcinsaine / Obamamama....both slaves to the same master.
If either of them took the Constitution seriously...I'd cast my vote for them....they don't, so I won't.[/quote]
AGREED
I vote mostly for Democrats, because the Republican party makes me sick to my stomach. I refuse to drink Rush Limbaugh's Kool-Aid. He's made enough millions sreaming. However, I'm not sure that makes me a Democrat. Just Anti-Republican
Look, this might sound a bit presumptuous, but how can a member of the GLBT community be socially conservative? That's not rhetorical Zoe, I am really interested to know, hey.Quote:
Originally Posted by tgirlzoe
As for the libertarian thing:
I think the problem with libertarianism is that you have to assume that every person is inherently good, in that you have to believe that business owners will act with discretion.
In theory, the market should solve everything. But if that were really so, why do we still have small children in Asia making our sneakers?
The system does not favour the consumer any more; we are not given enough choice, and therefore the idea of the free market stops functioning.
Dude you've been watching Fox News this week too hey? :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beagle
They've been milking that ACORN thing to death.
Ok, it's an issue. But it's only ONE issue. It doesn't deserve such overwhelming coverage.
You know they're just making a point of it, so they have something to blame if McCain loses (but I doubt he will lose).
I clicked on Democrat. Being European, I don't get to vote anyway...
That said, Dubya Bush aside, I don't think there has been a presidential ticket in recent years that was more anti-GLBT than McCain and Palin. Sure, McCain may still be somewhat liberal in some of his views... on the other hand, Palin being a social archconservative with a still sizeable following, there is a pretty good chance the tail will be wagging the dog and we will see lots of hostility (and legislation, for that matter) against anything and anybody who doesn't conform to what she and her fellow fanatics think is within social and cultural (read: fundamentalist evangelical) norms.
Now, what do I care, you may think. I'm here in good old liberal secular Europe where the U.S. government has no jurisdiction...
The truth is, thanks to Bush in particular, the current U.S. administration has attempted to push its puritan, sex-abhorring views and ideas on other countries. African aids relief has been sabotaged by replacing the encouragement of condom use with mere abstinence talk, laws governing teenage sexuality in Europe have been tightened without reason... the list goes on.
You guys over there are a free country, and how you vote is entirely up to you, I would never tell you who to cast your vote for. But maybe these are things to consider.