quote:

Originally posted by anuneventrade This is the kind of attitude which ends up electing the wrong person into office. Research is what I can suggest. Research which each individual is offering, and make sure you check it out completely and think, "what will need to happen for this to occur?". Actually put some thought into who you check off on your ballot other than "A.B.B.".

whatever u come up with as far as what each is offering..turns out to be bullshit later on sadly.

We know you want Bush!

i think i would have voted the same

___________________

Best Album Ever:
* Infected Mushroom - B.P.Empire

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Fuck the two party mentality.

I'm sure in your country you're probably more able to have a greater variety of choices, but right now the US is a one-party state.

We need to restore the balance of powers, and Nader cannot do that.


Kerry has actually been going to soldiers' funerals, while Bush has been going to fundraisers. He's also more liberal than Clinton and Gore, so he has my support. I don't think he'll be as corrupt as Clinton was, and certainly will be much less corrupt than BUsh.


P.S. Even Nader has said that the troops cannot be pulled out of Iraq or it will collapse into civil war.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

Last edited by DaveSZ on Apr-07-2004 at 21:45

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade +1 for Nader. Fuck the two party mentality.

So if we group the two parties together into one party and vote against them because "fuck the two party mentality" do we not arrive at a two party mentality once again?

___________________
Retro ...

Bush probably has as many backdoors as Clinton had There's no one perfect, however vote for the less eviler of the canidates and that has a chance of winning. VOTE DEA... KERRY

quote:

Originally posted by PHALPAX A.B.B.! (anyone but Bush)

I would like to see a no party solution. Where you simply vote for a candidate you agree with instead of the party that you're faithful to. Kind of like a party primary. Without parties people would be forced to think about what's best for the country and not be consumed with the desire to seek revenge against the incumbent party.

___________________
GIGANTIC CUNT

i think you should implant trancaholics idea, that every candidate decide someone they will "give away" their votes to if they don't win. so you can for example vote nader and if he doesn't win, he "gives" his vote to kerry and none lost anything

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew i think you should implant trancaholics idea, that every candidate decide someone they will "give away" their votes to if they don't win. so you can for example vote nader and if he doesn't win, he "gives" his vote to kerry and none lost anything

That's the system in place here in Australia (and so I can only presume in many parts of Europe too). It encourages people to vote for smaller parties and independents as, like you say, even if the candidate doesn't get anywhere near winning, the votes cast still count in some way.

DaveSZ:

quote:

I'm sure in your country you're probably more able to have a greater variety of choices, but right now the US is a one-party state. We need to restore the balance of powers, and Nader cannot do that.

Yeah, it's a quandry. I would like to see Bush ousted as much as the next man, but at the same time it's undemocratic to vote for someone just because you don't like the other candidate. You should (ideally) vote for whoever has the best policies. If you keep on voting for the lesser of two evils, you're always going to be left with just that. The same problems will just keep resurfacing.

On the other hand, given the ineptness of the Bush admin, is it worth going down this path just to make sure he doesn't get a second term? It's a difficult question and one that isn't answered easily. However, given the uncertainties I still have about Kerry, if I were an American voter (and many of you can be glad that I am not ) I'd probably vote for Nader.

quote:

P.S. Even Nader has said that the troops cannot be pulled out of Iraq or it will collapse into civil war.

And I agree with him! I don't understand leftists when they say it's in the best interests of everyone for the coalition troops to withdraw from Iraq. If Iraq is a humanitarian disaster now, it will become 20 times worse should the troops withdraw prematurely. The occupying forces (which includes Australia) have a responsibility to the Iraqi people under the Geneva convention and I don't think it would be right for the troops to be withdrawn before a stable handover can be conducted.

quote:

So if we group the two parties together into one party and vote against them because "fuck the two party mentality" do we not arrive at a two party mentality once again?

Alright.... you got me.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Cal Vote Nader

Nader will not win anyway. US is dominated by Democratic and Republican party. By voting for independent candidate you lose the vote.

Although Nader would be a better choice than these two.

___________________
Blip, blip, blip...

VOTE BUSH!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Bronze VOTE BUSH!!!

Are you a fan of theocracies by any chance?

___________________
Currently Whoring:

• Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
  
• CPU - So It Begins
  
• Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
  

quote:

Originally posted by Bronze VOTE BUSH!!!

I hope u were sarcastic, lol.

___________________
Blip, blip, blip...