|
|
On November 07 2012 04:07 ParadoxFox wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2012 04:00 mordek wrote:On November 07 2012 03:58 ParadoxFox wrote:On November 07 2012 03:54 mordek wrote:
I posted something about voting third party on facebook. What was I thinking -.-
I'm just tired of Rep/Dem dichotomy tt Should you not vote against the system somehow rather then voting at another party? Republican and democratic party dominance are obviously only a consequence of the elector vote system. I don't understand, how does one vote against the system? Well you cannot, which to me is really fucked up. You have a system that ensures that only one out of two parties can rule your country, and there is no way that you can vote in this matter. The only thing that I find weird is how americans think this is a "good" system. Like how do you accept that is close to impossible for another party to have any real effect? Of course then again who is benefiting from the system? Well the two parties that are in power. I wonder why they never have changed the system. Tricky question.
Political parties aren't as powerful / monolithic in the US as in other countries, so the 'need' for a third party isn't as great.
|
On November 07 2012 04:08 MVega wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2012 04:03 ParadoxFox wrote:On November 07 2012 04:00 urashimakt wrote:On November 07 2012 03:56 ParadoxFox wrote:
Going to be exciting to follow the american president election. It is a lot more interesting then to follow the Swedish election actually. I do not like all parties in Sweden but I am not horribly worried if one of the 8th parties gets a little more influence in one election then they did in the one before.
US is more crazy because the republicans are... well statements like "I do not believe in science". If you said that in the swedish government/senate someone would point at the door and say that you can bring your office stuff home with you. This is only one out of many Mitt Romney statements you just CANNOT say and work as politician in Sweden.
The fact that a guy that said he does not believe in science might be in charge for the most powerful country on earth is concerning to me to say the least. I'm not a Republican and I don't recall Mitt Romney ever being opposed to science. A few Republican congressman lean that way and one of them came out and said it this cycle, you might be thinking of him. I saw it in a documentary yesterday, I can see if find the clip again. Think it was called "The way to the whitehouse". I guess he actually refers to that he does not believe in evolution, which to me is kind of weird to me but at least that makes a lot more sense. That sounds a lot more likely. There are definitely crazy politicians who have said they don't trust science, but that's just their general ignorance and not a reflection of any policy that their party has. However a lot of people do seem to get that idea because it's those crazies that scream the loudest. The more extreme ends of both political parties are equally batshit - or maybe not equally, I'll say the extreme end of the Republican party is probably a bit more batshit than their Democrat equivalents. Republicans are definitely the loudest though. Republicans anti science is laaargely policy neutral, or at least it often is [skepticism of evolution for example doesnt always mean support for creationism in schools] but democrats anti science crusade usually results in policy discussions > ex: being for natural foods, against fracking, nuclear power plants, etc etc.
|
On November 07 2012 04:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2012 04:07 ParadoxFox wrote:On November 07 2012 04:00 mordek wrote:On November 07 2012 03:58 ParadoxFox wrote:On November 07 2012 03:54 mordek wrote:
I posted something about voting third party on facebook. What was I thinking -.-
I'm just tired of Rep/Dem dichotomy tt Should you not vote against the system somehow rather then voting at another party? Republican and democratic party dominance are obviously only a consequence of the elector vote system. I don't understand, how does one vote against the system? Well you cannot, which to me is really fucked up. You have a system that ensures that only one out of two parties can rule your country, and there is no way that you can vote in this matter. The only thing that I find weird is how americans think this is a "good" system. Like how do you accept that is close to impossible for another party to have any real effect? Of course then again who is benefiting from the system? Well the two parties that are in power. I wonder why they never have changed the system. Tricky question. Political parties aren't as powerful / monolithic in the US as in other countries, so the 'need' for a third party isn't as great.
What? You're going to have to explain this one.
|
If you feel any affection for the left wing side of politics please vote for Barack Obama, even if he isn't the best liberal representative he will be the best chance you have to enjoy a sensible rational United States.
If you vote right wing side, you really want a RINO supporting you, a moderate who is willing to flip flop to most of Obama's positions but he can just "magically create jobs"?
Rather than vote Romney, vote your conscience and vote Gary Johnson. Then next election we can get a true conservative candidate for president if we can get 5% of the vote.
|
On November 07 2012 04:19 p4NDemik wrote:"Keep calm, VOTE, and trust Nate Silver" ftfy
True dat, true dat.
|
On November 07 2012 04:23 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2012 04:08 MVega wrote:On November 07 2012 04:03 ParadoxFox wrote:On November 07 2012 04:00 urashimakt wrote:On November 07 2012 03:56 ParadoxFox wrote:
Going to be exciting to follow the american president election. It is a lot more interesting then to follow the Swedish election actually. I do not like all parties in Sweden but I am not horribly worried if one of the 8th parties gets a little more influence in one election then they did in the one before.
US is more crazy because the republicans are... well statements like "I do not believe in science". If you said that in the swedish government/senate someone would point at the door and say that you can bring your office stuff home with you. This is only one out of many Mitt Romney statements you just CANNOT say and work as politician in Sweden.
The fact that a guy that said he does not believe in science might be in charge for the most powerful country on earth is concerning to me to say the least. I'm not a Republican and I don't recall Mitt Romney ever being opposed to science. A few Republican congressman lean that way and one of them came out and said it this cycle, you might be thinking of him. I saw it in a documentary yesterday, I can see if find the clip again. Think it was called "The way to the whitehouse". I guess he actually refers to that he does not believe in evolution, which to me is kind of weird to me but at least that makes a lot more sense. That sounds a lot more likely. There are definitely crazy politicians who have said they don't trust science, but that's just their general ignorance and not a reflection of any policy that their party has. However a lot of people do seem to get that idea because it's those crazies that scream the loudest. The more extreme ends of both political parties are equally batshit - or maybe not equally, I'll say the extreme end of the Republican party is probably a bit more batshit than their Democrat equivalents. Republicans are definitely the loudest though. Republicans anti science is laaargely policy neutral, or at least it often is [skepticism of evolution for example doesnt always mean support for creationism in schools] but democrats anti science crusade usually results in policy discussions > ex: being for natural foods, against fracking, nuclear power plants, etc etc.
How is being opposed to the applikation of certain technologies that you deem harmful the same as doubting the validity of the scientific process?
|
On November 07 2012 04:26 msl wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2012 04:23 whatevername wrote:On November 07 2012 04:08 MVega wrote:On November 07 2012 04:03 ParadoxFox wrote:On November 07 2012 04:00 urashimakt wrote:On November 07 2012 03:56 ParadoxFox wrote:
Going to be exciting to follow the american president election. It is a lot more interesting then to follow the Swedish election actually. I do not like all parties in Sweden but I am not horribly worried if one of the 8th parties gets a little more influence in one election then they did in the one before.
US is more crazy because the republicans are... well statements like "I do not believe in science". If you said that in the swedish government/senate someone would point at the door and say that you can bring your office stuff home with you. This is only one out of many Mitt Romney statements you just CANNOT say and work as politician in Sweden.
The fact that a guy that said he does not believe in science might be in charge for the most powerful country on earth is concerning to me to say the least. I'm not a Republican and I don't recall Mitt Romney ever being opposed to science. A few Republican congressman lean that way and one of them came out and said it this cycle, you might be thinking of him. I saw it in a documentary yesterday, I can see if find the clip again. Think it was called "The way to the whitehouse". I guess he actually refers to that he does not believe in evolution, which to me is kind of weird to me but at least that makes a lot more sense. That sounds a lot more likely. There are definitely crazy politicians who have said they don't trust science, but that's just their general ignorance and not a reflection of any policy that their party has. However a lot of people do seem to get that idea because it's those crazies that scream the loudest. The more extreme ends of both political parties are equally batshit - or maybe not equally, I'll say the extreme end of the Republican party is probably a bit more batshit than their Democrat equivalents. Republicans are definitely the loudest though. Republicans anti science is laaargely policy neutral, or at least it often is [skepticism of evolution for example doesnt always mean support for creationism in schools] but democrats anti science crusade usually results in policy discussions > ex: being for natural foods, against fracking, nuclear power plants, etc etc. How is being opposed to the applikation of certain technologies that you deem harmful the same as doubting the validity of the scientific process?
I'm pretty sure he's saying that they aren't the same.....
Edited for stupidity, thanks msl lol
|
For the love of god.
Do not vote Garry johnson.
Romney needs all the support he can get.
The conservatives will be much better off with romney as president and gary at <1% then with obama as president and gary at 6%
Jill stein is a good alternative for obama though:p
The first female president after the first black president,now that would be something.
Else you have to go with hillary in 2016.
Come on democrats/liberals, show some balls and vote jill stein.
@ below:
Conservatives (anny fraction of them) will see their interests much better served with romney as president then with obama as president.
Getting gary johnson to 6% is of much less importance then preventing a 2nd obama term.
|
On November 07 2012 04:29 Rassy wrote:
For the love of god.
Do not vote Garry johnson.
Romney needs all the support he can get.
The conservatives will be much better off with romney as president and garry at <1% then with obama as president and garry at 6%
This assumes a collective agreement amongst those labeled as "conservatives" that does not exist, meaning many conservatives who like Gary Johnson don't like Romney enough for a plea for consensus to make sense.
|
On November 07 2012 04:31 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2012 04:29 Rassy wrote:
For the love of god.
Do not vote Garry johnson.
Romney needs all the support he can get.
The conservatives will be much better off with romney as president and garry at <1% then with obama as president and garry at 6%
This assumes a collective agreement amongst those labeled as "conservatives" that does not exist, meaning many conservatives who like Gary Johnson don't like Romney enough for a plea for consensus to make sense.
This is exactly correct in my case. Not to mention I'm in a state going Romney regardless.
|
On November 07 2012 04:28 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2012 04:26 msl wrote:On November 07 2012 04:23 whatevername wrote:On November 07 2012 04:08 MVega wrote:On November 07 2012 04:03 ParadoxFox wrote:On November 07 2012 04:00 urashimakt wrote:On November 07 2012 03:56 ParadoxFox wrote:
Going to be exciting to follow the american president election. It is a lot more interesting then to follow the Swedish election actually. I do not like all parties in Sweden but I am not horribly worried if one of the 8th parties gets a little more influence in one election then they did in the one before.
US is more crazy because the republicans are... well statements like "I do not believe in science". If you said that in the swedish government/senate someone would point at the door and say that you can bring your office stuff home with you. This is only one out of many Mitt Romney statements you just CANNOT say and work as politician in Sweden.
The fact that a guy that said he does not believe in science might be in charge for the most powerful country on earth is concerning to me to say the least. I'm not a Republican and I don't recall Mitt Romney ever being opposed to science. A few Republican congressman lean that way and one of them came out and said it this cycle, you might be thinking of him. I saw it in a documentary yesterday, I can see if find the clip again. Think it was called "The way to the whitehouse". I guess he actually refers to that he does not believe in evolution, which to me is kind of weird to me but at least that makes a lot more sense. That sounds a lot more likely. There are definitely crazy politicians who have said they don't trust science, but that's just their general ignorance and not a reflection of any policy that their party has. However a lot of people do seem to get that idea because it's those crazies that scream the loudest. The more extreme ends of both political parties are equally batshit - or maybe not equally, I'll say the extreme end of the Republican party is probably a bit more batshit than their Democrat equivalents. Republicans are definitely the loudest though. Republicans anti science is laaargely policy neutral, or at least it often is [skepticism of evolution for example doesnt always mean support for creationism in schools] but democrats anti science crusade usually results in policy discussions > ex: being for natural foods, against fracking, nuclear power plants, etc etc. How is being opposed to the applikation of certain technologies that you deem harmful the same as doubting the validity of the scientific process? I'm pretty he's saying that they aren't the same.....
you sure are pretty ;-)
Anyway, when calling both anti-science it seems to mee that he is equating the two.
|
All of you posting "Don't vote for Romney" need to stop. Vote for who you think will be the best for our country. For me personally, Obama has told to many lies to be President. Romney is the next logical choice. Voting for a 3rd party canditate won't get that man elected. Vote for Obama or Romney, otherwise your vote is pointless.
|
On November 07 2012 04:35 Boraz wrote:
All of you posting "Don't vote for Romney" need to stop. Vote for who you think will be the best for our country. For me personally, Obama has told to many lies to be President. Romney is the next logical choice. Voting for a 3rd party canditate won't get that man elected. Vote for Obama or Romney, otherwise your vote is pointless.
You want people to stop telling others how to vote and then you goes on to tell others how to vote? Ok...
|
California voting today:
Obama
30 Y
31 N
32 N
33 N
34 Y (fuck the death penalty)
35 N
36 Y
37 Y
38 N
39 Y
40 Y (such a stupid prop)
|
No. I want others to stop saying "Don't vote for Romney, just vote forGary Johnson, because by the next election we can get a true conservative". If you truly look at the numbers, voting for Gary Johnson won't do crap. You'll be one of the few who actually vote for him. Either Romney or Obama is getting elected. So use your vote wisely for the 2 people that matter. I'm just telling people to be logical with their vote. You have the freedom to vote, don't throw that freedom away by being stupid with it.
|
On November 07 2012 04:37 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2012 04:35 Boraz wrote:
All of you posting "Don't vote for Romney" need to stop. Vote for who you think will be the best for our country. For me personally, Obama has told to many lies to be President. Romney is the next logical choice. Voting for a 3rd party canditate won't get that man elected. Vote for Obama or Romney, otherwise your vote is pointless. You want people to stop telling others how to vote and then you goes on to tell others how to vote? Ok...
Don't worry, he knows best.
|
And now you bring on the sarcasm for interpreting what I said to mean something else. This is why I love the TL Forums.
|
You can only have two options. This is the freedom you are throwing away.
|
On November 07 2012 04:37 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2012 04:35 Boraz wrote:
All of you posting "Don't vote for Romney" need to stop. Vote for who you think will be the best for our country. For me personally, Obama has told to many lies to be President. Romney is the next logical choice. Voting for a 3rd party canditate won't get that man elected. Vote for Obama or Romney, otherwise your vote is pointless. You want people to stop telling others how to vote and then you goes on to tell others how to vote? Ok...
I know right? Everyone is allowed to vote for whoever they want, thats like the biggest constitutional right we have in this country and it should be respected. Vote for who you think is best and the president most people agree upon will be sworn in.
JUST VOTE! DON'T CARE WHO, JUST VOTE!
|
On November 07 2012 04:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2012 04:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 07 2012 04:07 ParadoxFox wrote:On November 07 2012 04:00 mordek wrote:On November 07 2012 03:58 ParadoxFox wrote:On November 07 2012 03:54 mordek wrote:
I posted something about voting third party on facebook. What was I thinking -.-
I'm just tired of Rep/Dem dichotomy tt Should you not vote against the system somehow rather then voting at another party? Republican and democratic party dominance are obviously only a consequence of the elector vote system. I don't understand, how does one vote against the system? Well you cannot, which to me is really fucked up. You have a system that ensures that only one out of two parties can rule your country, and there is no way that you can vote in this matter. The only thing that I find weird is how americans think this is a "good" system. Like how do you accept that is close to impossible for another party to have any real effect? Of course then again who is benefiting from the system? Well the two parties that are in power. I wonder why they never have changed the system. Tricky question. Political parties aren't as powerful / monolithic in the US as in other countries, so the 'need' for a third party isn't as great. What? You're going to have to explain this one.
Not everything breaks down to party politics. A senator / representative can vote however he or she wants - regardless of what the party wants. So it doesn't matter if someone like Ron Paul is a Republican or a Libertarian - he still votes like a Libertarian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A6-H4YUCYAMi45N.jpg:thumb)
