Mel Gibson

[Opera Prima]

[quote][i]Originally posted by phillyidol[/i]
<br>I think the only reason Bushido won the election was because of 9/11. I know alot of people thought he would be more likely to defend us against attack. Man did that go wrong.
[/quote]

You know, it's curious how anytime he was or is down on the polls or seems to be losing people's confidence and support, afterwards there is always news of new threats from terrorists and the defcon level you have is increased...

[beatschool]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Opera Prima[/i]
Anyway, so far I've always found someone interesting to vote for here, and though like in the US we also have two big parties and always one of them is the most voted, it doesn't mean the winner will rule since there are many small parties that can play an important role.
[/quote]

Unfortunately, we have no small party influence at all. The two major small parties (Green and Libertarian) are jokes on every level. We're left with choosing between apathy and two candidates that represent corrupt parties. I think we'd be better off if we chose our leader by lottery. I don't see how they could be any worse than Bush and his crooks.

[stella]

It really is true, I mostly vote for the lesser of evils. I voted for Kerry because Bush was clearly an idiot, liar, and dirt bag, there was nothing the man said that appealed to me. We don't have a 'none of the above' choice and if we did it would have the same effect as not voting at all. We can also write in a candidate but again it's a wasted vote.

We have this huge money burning political machine here, fueled by corporate dollars and run by politicians on the take. No one with integrity can stand against all that money. If GW ran against JC, JC would not have a chance, again

[Bitter Almonds]

[quote][i]Originally posted by beatschool[/i]
Fucktard? I feel like I'm in junior high again. Eat my shorts. And if you think Kerry was the worse of the two choices, you might want to take the GED again.
[/quote]

lol @ irony in the form of this fucktard.

[Bitter Almonds]

[quote][i]Originally posted by beatschool[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by XXX[/i] I suppose if I [i]truly[/i] wanted to throw away my vote, I'd have voted for Mayor Murphy in the local elections.
[/quote]

Ah... a San Diegan. Explains a lot. One of the dumbest damn cities I've ever lived in, and I'll include North County too. Loved all the potheads that thought working to legalize pot made them "environmentalists". And all the "Libertarians" that voted for Bush, a fool with probably the single worst presidential record on civil liberties. And all the retarded Minutemen types that rely on immigrant help to do their landscaping. On a positive note, you do have some damn fine 3AM carne asada burritos.

While working in a hospital in La Jolla, I was ordered to take down two pictures in my cubicle - Martin Luther King Jr, and Thurgood Marshall. Turns out I was being "politically insensitive" and potentially causing problems. Strange that two of the other guys in the office that played the Rush Limbaugh show nightly were never told to turn that crap off. Lots of goose-stepping in that office. That is one seriously scary "Stepford Wives" wannabe community. At least things have changed slightly in the overall political philosophy.
[/quote]

Hahaha. Oh, the drama.

[Spectre General]

I'm tired of this "lesser of two evils" crap. In my mind it's not the lesser of two evils, it's the equal of two evils. I don't think that in my lifetime there has ever been a Republican or Democrat running for President that was WORTH voting for. I never have, and never will vote for a Republican or a Democrat. At least for nothing higher than county level government. I don't like hearing "lesser of two evils" Opera Prima is right, there ARE more than 2 choices. To be honest I don't even KNOW who I voted for in the last election, it was whoever wasn't one of those two idiots (although, you HAVE to be an idiot to run for political office, so I probably still voted for an idiot.)

And to everyone who says "you're throwing your vote away" that's not true, throwing your vote away is not voting at all. People who vote for the "lesser of two evils" in order to keep from "throwing their vote away" should just vote for a 3rd party. Every election you hear all this bitching about how there's no candidate worth voting for, and everyone ends up voting for someone they don't really want in power because "I didn't want to throw my vote away voting for a 3rd party." Guess what, if maybe you'd voted for a 3rd party, or supported them, they'd gain some political clout, and possibly actually become a factor in the future, mabye you don't like Libertarians, or the Green party. But there are other 3rd parties too, write someone in for chirsts sake. I remember the dumb anti-litter campaigns where someone would say: "Everyone else is doing it so why shouldn't I." i.e the "What I do doesn't really make a difference" argument. Well if you belive that then why don't you just kill yourself?

I do belive that no party other than democrats or republicans will ever be in power in this country unless one of those parties fractures. But that doesn't mean I'm ever going to support them.

Another thing, I'm sick and tired of everyone whining about how terrible the President is. The President is next to powerless without Congress's go ahead. If anyone deserves to be bitched at and ridiculed, it's the damned senators and congressmen.

The root of the problem is that a majority of the American public knows absolutely nothing about politics, why do you think corrupt and worthless politicians keep getting elected? Strom Thurmond was 98 when he left office for christ sake! And why the fuck does Ted Kennedy keep getting elected? Because most of the retarded American public heads off to the polls at voting time, find the familiar name to check off, and failing that, select the political party that mommy and daddy taught them to vote for without for ONE SECOND thinking for themselves! The REALLY dumb ones are the ones that stay at home and don't vote at all. So maybe Bush is the perfect representative of America to the rest of the world, because we really are a nation of idiots.

Rant over.

[Bitter Almonds]

[quote][i]Originally posted by NuWaveRx[/i]
... It's time to get rid of the electoral college and dismantle the two-party system. The politics of voting for the lesser of two evils is just ridiculous.
Never happen, of course...

[/quote]

<p align="justify">I was wondering about this comment. What would you put in place of the electoral college? Popular vote? Meaning, presidential candidates will never set foot in states will less than a certain amount of people. I suppose this could be good thing since the Christian coalition will have less influence, coming from the midwest and the south. Huge metropolitan places in the East and West coast, and Chicago and a few other major US cities will be the ones deciding for everyone else[?]

[NuWaveRx]

[quote][i]Originally posted by XXX[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by NuWaveRx[/i]
... It's time to get rid of the electoral college and dismantle the two-party system. The politics of voting for the lesser of two evils is just ridiculous.
Never happen, of course...

[/quote]

<p align="justify">I was wondering about this comment. What would you put in place of the electoral college? Popular vote? Meaning, presidential candidates will never set foot in states will less than a certain amount of people. I suppose this could be good thing since the Christian coalition will have less influence, coming from the midwest and the south. Huge metropolitan places in the East and West coast, and Chicago and a few other major US cities will be the ones deciding for everyone else[?]
[/quote]

That's exactly what I mean. Remember the Electoral College was put in place exactly beacuse the (mostly) aristocratic Founding Fathers did not completely trust the general populace to vote for the head of the executive branch. Additionally the lag in time in tabulating votes was an additional factor. Neither applies in the 21st century. I've heard the argument before that only large population centers would be "visited" by presidental candidates. I believe it doesn't hold water. I have certainly not decided who I was voting for in an election based on me seeing them in person. I get the vast majority of my information on Presidential candidates the same way everybody else does: TV (or perhaps the Net). Presidential debates and photops are, let's face it, still held in mostly large metropolitan centers (exceptions are things like the Iowa Caucus). I would venture that most Americans today make their decisions not on what the Candidate said in their state, but from information gleaned from the sources above. In sum, the Electoral college is an anachronism that should be eliminated. As long as the two major political parties hold sway in this country, a presidental vote for anything other than what the majority of your state votes IS in fact "throwing your vote away" because it does not count when it comes to ACTUALLY deciding who the president is. In some cases voting for the opposite party in a state known for overwhemingly voting one way or the other (voting Democrat in Utah, for example) is another example. Electing the Executive branch by total popular vote would make sure that every person's vote does count. Considering that you're voting on who will be one of the most powerful people on the planet, I think that's the way it should be.

[KYYX4ever]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Spectre General[/i]
<br>And to everyone who says "you're throwing your vote away" that's not true, [b]throwing your vote away is not voting at all.[/b] People who vote for the "lesser of two evils" in order to keep from "throwing their vote away" should just vote for a 3rd party...

Guess what, if maybe you'd voted for a 3rd party, or supported them, they'd gain some political clout, and possibly actually become a factor in the future...

The REALLY dumb ones are the ones that stay at home and don't vote at all.[/quote]

True dat.
I tell everyone I know to go vote. That goes for my students, too. Whom they vote for is up to them--it's not my business to influence them---but for heaven's sakes, GO VOTE. Don't give me that business about how "my vote doesn't matter".[xx(]

[egg-roger]

[quote][i]Originally posted by NuWaveRx[/i]
<br>As long as the two major political parties hold sway in this country, a presidental vote for anything other than what the majority of your state votes IS in fact "throwing your vote away" because it does not count when it comes to ACTUALLY deciding who the president is. In some cases voting for the opposite party in a state known for overwhemingly voting one way or the other (voting Democrat in Utah, for example) is another example. Electing the Executive branch by total popular vote would make sure that every person's vote does count. Considering that you're voting on who will be one of the most powerful people on the planet, I think that's the way it should be.

[/quote]

I'm in Utah and, thanks to the Electoral College, I've never felt that my vote for president had anything more than symbolic value. I voted for Nader; not that I would want him as president, but I'm sick of the old "two-party system" mantra. Knowing in advance that Bush would take Utah, I had the liberty to vote against both of the sell-out candidates.

[Bitter Almonds]

[quote][i]Originally posted by NuWaveRx[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by XXX[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by NuWaveRx[/i]
... It's time to get rid of the electoral college and dismantle the two-party system. The politics of voting for the lesser of two evils is just ridiculous.
Never happen, of course...

[/quote]

<p align="justify">I was wondering about this comment. What would you put in place of the electoral college? Popular vote? Meaning, presidential candidates will never set foot in states will less than a certain amount of people. I suppose this could be good thing since the Christian coalition will have less influence, coming from the midwest and the south. Huge metropolitan places in the East and West coast, and Chicago and a few other major US cities will be the ones deciding for everyone else[?]
[/quote]

That's exactly what I mean. Remember the Electoral College was put in place exactly beacuse the (mostly) aristocratic Founding Fathers did not completely trust the general populace to vote for the head of the executive branch. Additionally the lag in time in tabulating votes was an additional factor. Neither applies in the 21st century. I've heard the argument before that only large population centers would be "visited" by presidental candidates. I believe it doesn't hold water. I have certainly not decided who I was voting for in an election based on me seeing them in person. I get the vast majority of my information on Presidential candidates the same way everybody else does: TV (or perhaps the Net). Presidential debates and photops are, let's face it, still held in mostly large metropolitan centers (exceptions are things like the Iowa Caucus). I would venture that most Americans today make their decisions not on what the Candidate said in their state, but from information gleaned from the sources above. In sum, the Electoral college is an anachronism that should be eliminated. As long as the two major political parties hold sway in this country, a presidental vote for anything other than what the majority of your state votes IS in fact "throwing your vote away" because it does not count when it comes to ACTUALLY deciding who the president is. In some cases voting for the opposite party in a state known for overwhemingly voting one way or the other (voting Democrat in Utah, for example) is another example. Electing the Executive branch by total popular vote would make sure that every person's vote does count. Considering that you're voting on who will be one of the most powerful people on the planet, I think that's the way it should be.

[/quote]

It's not only about "visiting", but also about which states will get the most attention and political favours. You think peeps would feel okay if voters in metropolitan centres do the planning for other states on a federal level?