It's May 26, 2024, 06:49:21 PM
Quote from: Lincoln The Mental Traveller on October 20, 2004, 09:39:48 AMQuote from: tom187um on October 19, 2004, 09:39:01 PMi dont understand where your coming from tho lincoln. Say you do not like where the president has taken the country in the past 4 years. And you see the country goin more into the shitter with him as president. How is basing your vote on what you have wittnessed him do a spit in the face of democracy. As long as the other candidate isnt a complete joke how is that a spit in the face of democracy?It's a spit in the face of democracy to vote for Kerry just because he could beat Bush. The whole reason we have democracy is so that you can vote the candidate who best represents your views, not who has a chance at winning. That's why 3rd parties have no chance. If people vote who you believe best represents their views then 3rd parties would have more support. For example, all the Nader support is going to Kerry, but Nader will never even reach the debates unless he gets votes.Kerry does support my views and it is unfair to say that simply because Bush made promises he never kept Kerry would do the same thing. That logic is unfair. Because one candidate did bad things, so will the other candidate, so might as well just stick with the bad candidate we already have in place? I do not know if Kerry will achieve all his stated priorities but I do believe they are his actual priorities. Meanwhile I can't say the same for GWB. I also can say that I strongly disagree with GWB basic worldview. For example,"we need to kill the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here." This statement makes very little sense."even knowing everything we know today I would have done everything exactly the same as I did it"
Quote from: tom187um on October 19, 2004, 09:39:01 PMi dont understand where your coming from tho lincoln. Say you do not like where the president has taken the country in the past 4 years. And you see the country goin more into the shitter with him as president. How is basing your vote on what you have wittnessed him do a spit in the face of democracy. As long as the other candidate isnt a complete joke how is that a spit in the face of democracy?It's a spit in the face of democracy to vote for Kerry just because he could beat Bush. The whole reason we have democracy is so that you can vote the candidate who best represents your views, not who has a chance at winning. That's why 3rd parties have no chance. If people vote who you believe best represents their views then 3rd parties would have more support. For example, all the Nader support is going to Kerry, but Nader will never even reach the debates unless he gets votes.
i dont understand where your coming from tho lincoln. Say you do not like where the president has taken the country in the past 4 years. And you see the country goin more into the shitter with him as president. How is basing your vote on what you have wittnessed him do a spit in the face of democracy. As long as the other candidate isnt a complete joke how is that a spit in the face of democracy?
Quote from: Ant on October 20, 2004, 09:47:50 AMQuote from: Lincoln The Mental Traveller on October 20, 2004, 09:39:48 AMQuote from: tom187um on October 19, 2004, 09:39:01 PMi dont understand where your coming from tho lincoln. Say you do not like where the president has taken the country in the past 4 years. And you see the country goin more into the shitter with him as president. How is basing your vote on what you have wittnessed him do a spit in the face of democracy. As long as the other candidate isnt a complete joke how is that a spit in the face of democracy?It's a spit in the face of democracy to vote for Kerry just because he could beat Bush. The whole reason we have democracy is so that you can vote the candidate who best represents your views, not who has a chance at winning. That's why 3rd parties have no chance. If people vote who you believe best represents their views then 3rd parties would have more support. For example, all the Nader support is going to Kerry, but Nader will never even reach the debates unless he gets votes.Kerry does support my views and it is unfair to say that simply because Bush made promises he never kept Kerry would do the same thing. That logic is unfair. Because one candidate did bad things, so will the other candidate, so might as well just stick with the bad candidate we already have in place? I do not know if Kerry will achieve all his stated priorities but I do believe they are his actual priorities. Meanwhile I can't say the same for GWB. I also can say that I strongly disagree with GWB basic worldview. For example,"we need to kill the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here." This statement makes very little sense."even knowing everything we know today I would have done everything exactly the same as I did it"Ok, Kerry represents your views and that's why you're voting him, but I think you might be in the minority. Most Kerry voters really don't know what's going on, they just know they don't like Bush.Come on, every politician makes promises and doesn't keep them. Bush isn't different in that respect. And how will Kerry be able to push all his bills through with a Republican Senate and Congress?
the US electoral system is a spit in the face of democracy already.
Quote from: Lincoln The Mental Traveller on October 20, 2004, 09:51:33 AMQuote from: Ant on October 20, 2004, 09:47:50 AMQuote from: Lincoln The Mental Traveller on October 20, 2004, 09:39:48 AMQuote from: tom187um on October 19, 2004, 09:39:01 PMi dont understand where your coming from tho lincoln. Say you do not like where the president has taken the country in the past 4 years. And you see the country goin more into the shitter with him as president. How is basing your vote on what you have wittnessed him do a spit in the face of democracy. As long as the other candidate isnt a complete joke how is that a spit in the face of democracy?It's a spit in the face of democracy to vote for Kerry just because he could beat Bush. The whole reason we have democracy is so that you can vote the candidate who best represents your views, not who has a chance at winning. That's why 3rd parties have no chance. If people vote who you believe best represents their views then 3rd parties would have more support. For example, all the Nader support is going to Kerry, but Nader will never even reach the debates unless he gets votes.Kerry does support my views and it is unfair to say that simply because Bush made promises he never kept Kerry would do the same thing. That logic is unfair. Because one candidate did bad things, so will the other candidate, so might as well just stick with the bad candidate we already have in place? I do not know if Kerry will achieve all his stated priorities but I do believe they are his actual priorities. Meanwhile I can't say the same for GWB. I also can say that I strongly disagree with GWB basic worldview. For example,"we need to kill the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here." This statement makes very little sense."even knowing everything we know today I would have done everything exactly the same as I did it"Ok, Kerry represents your views and that's why you're voting him, but I think you might be in the minority. Most Kerry voters really don't know what's going on, they just know they don't like Bush.Come on, every politician makes promises and doesn't keep them. Bush isn't different in that respect. And how will Kerry be able to push all his bills through with a Republican Senate and Congress?That is still not enough of a reason not to vote Kerry. If you believe the incumbent is absolutely horrible, why is it wrong to vote for his challenger just because his challenger isn't the second coming of Abraham Lincoln? It's faulty logic to say, your not allowed to vote for a challenger unless he is amazing - to do so is to degrade democracy. Ever candidate isn't going to be superman, but thats doesn't mean your required to vote for an incumbent whose views you just don't like. Let's face it. George Bush wasn't an amazing candidate in 2000. A lot of poeple voted for him because they were upset over the Clinton scandals. Yes, I would prefer if all voters were informed, but it just isn't fair to say "your degrading democracy if you don't vote George Bush."
Quote from: 7even the Harbinger on October 20, 2004, 09:54:59 AMthe US electoral system is a spit in the face of democracy already. Holy shit. You just keep getting more and more ignorant with every post.I don't even want to adress you because it's obvious you have no clue what the fuck you're talking about NOR would care to learn. Go read a book. You're a fucking moron.
I didn't say your degrading democracy if you don't vote George Bush. If I were in America, I'd likely vote for Michael Badnarik (spelling might be off).
1. nice job taking it out of context 2. how is it a perfect democracy, when EVERY vote for parties that are not one of the 2 main parties is practically a waste. further, how is it a perfect democratic system, when a candidate that has about 500 votes less in florida, doesnt get ANYTHING. and also, how is it a really good democratic system when certain states ALWAYS give electoral votes to a certain party. if you live in Kansas being a democrat for instance, well, then you aint got to say anything cause all the electoral votes of Kansas will go to the republicans anyfuckingway. your vote is just symbolic and doesnt do the slightest change.
I never said that the US isnt a democracy.
the US electoral system is a spit in the face of democracy
Quote from: Lincoln The Mental Traveller on October 20, 2004, 10:05:25 AMI didn't say your degrading democracy if you don't vote George Bush. If I were in America, I'd likely vote for Michael Badnarik (spelling might be off).well the difference is that voting for Michael Badnarik won't change anything anywhere.voting for Kerry, you have a good chance of contributing to a change. with the system there is in the US, I dont see why people waste their precious votes on a candidate that has absolutely no chance of getting the majority in the respective state, yet winning the entire election.
Quote from: 7even the Harbinger on October 20, 2004, 10:21:42 AMQuote from: Lincoln The Mental Traveller on October 20, 2004, 10:05:25 AMI didn't say your degrading democracy if you don't vote George Bush. If I were in America, I'd likely vote for Michael Badnarik (spelling might be off).well the difference is that voting for Michael Badnarik won't change anything anywhere.voting for Kerry, you have a good chance of contributing to a change. with the system there is in the US, I dont see why people waste their precious votes on a candidate that has absolutely no chance of getting the majority in the respective state, yet winning the entire election.It's not about the change, the point of democracy is to vote who best represents your views so that citizens have at least some input on the government.
Quote from: 7even the Harbinger on October 20, 2004, 10:34:33 AMI never said that the US isnt a democracy. Quote from: 7even the Harbinger on October 20, 2004, 09:54:59 AMthe US electoral system is a spit in the face of democracy