It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

This is really making me mad

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 09:37 AM
link   
I am on my knees begging my husband not to vote bush in again...
My husband says well he's the lesser evil of the two... Third party votes don't count blah blah blah...

Third party = protest vote he says, no matter how much "I" want to deny it...

what bs is that?? Is that what people have been led to believe???

Will it not count to vote in populist or libertarian??

Last time I checked third parties were kicking Nader's ass... he had 3 they had 10 kerry had 20 ... source: foxnews

Someone please explain this crap to me..

He says he voted for bush last time he he's FAAAR from perfect BUT BUT BUT BUT... blah! I am getting really mad at this whole idea that they don't count.

If people really cared about their freedoms and independance from intrustive government they should be voting populist or libertarian... I know populist for sure gives the powers back to the people which is where it should be..

How come it's a protest vote? How come the dems are making it hard for nade to get on the vote if this is truly a free country and ANYBODY can run??
Or are we being fed lies or what??




posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 10:26 AM
link   
You haven't been away from home long enough. America is truely a 2 party country. You're still thinking Canadian.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 04:03 PM
link   
The country has always been a 2 party system, even when it was made you had the Democratic-Republican Party and the other party (its name slips my mind currently.) The other parties don't really count, as in general, the major mass of voters are all democratic or republican. Nader won't get elected simply because he doesnt have a majority vote, and he never will. Its kindof a fact of life kindof thing when it comes to how the parties system is set up. Currently, seeing how the majority of voters are between those two parties (Dem and Rep) a vote for neither of those two parties is basically throwing away a vote, or doing a Protest vote ("I will vote for him because I hate both parties so much I wont give them the benefite of getting a vote from me")



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
The country has always been a 2 party system, even when it was made you had the Democratic-Republican Party and the other party (its name slips my mind currently.) The other parties don't really count, as in general, the major mass of voters are all democratic or republican. Nader won't get elected simply because he doesnt have a majority vote, and he never will. Its kindof a fact of life kindof thing when it comes to how the parties system is set up. Currently, seeing how the majority of voters are between those two parties (Dem and Rep) a vote for neither of those two parties is basically throwing away a vote, or doing a Protest vote ("I will vote for him because I hate both parties so much I wont give them the benefite of getting a vote from me")


Well we have the benefit of a multi-party gov't. This is a good thing. We have a minority gov't now, after having majorities, by both sides for so long. Not a good thing. Now the gov't in power CAN'T do what it feels like, it's accountable. That third pary keeps the gov't honest, too bad it doesn't happen more often.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 05:08 PM
link   
"A third party vote is a wasted vote" is one of the greatest con jobs that they have pulled on the voters. A third party candidate would not even have to win, just get a good chunk of the votes and you would see some changes.

I look at it the other way around a vote for either of the big two is a wasted vote because with them NOTHING is gonna change.

Ever.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
"A third party vote is a wasted vote" is one of the greatest con jobs that they have pulled on the voters. A third party candidate would not even have to win, just get a good chunk of the votes and you would see some changes.

I look at it the other way around a vote for either of the big two is a wasted vote because with them NOTHING is gonna change.

Ever.


Exactly, the NDP came in 4th in our federal election, as far as seats are concerned, but they are the party that will, either will make new legislation or, hold the gov't accountable.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 05:56 PM
link   
If the USA operated as a modern democracy rather than an archaic feudal system, then all parties that receive a significant enough proportion of the national vote would be represented in its government.



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 10:56 PM
link   
America is a two party system. You can vote for corporapte bought criminal number one, or corporate bought criminal number two. We are all told that third party votes are wasted, so as to get their votes in the mainstrem or not at all.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 09:30 AM
link   
It kind of reminds me of that Simpsons episode which was frighteningly true. When the two aliens who have taken the form of the presidential candidates are exposed as aliens who want to take over the Earth, the mass of people are shocked and one says something along the lines of "We'll vote third party". One of the aliens replies "hahaha! That would be just THROWING your vote away". Although comical what happens is true, they vote in one of the aliens even when they KNOW they're going to get f#@ked because the mind-set is that the other parties don't really exist and are a waste of time.

Of course that is a complete rubbish, it's probably surprising how many people would vote for third parties if they knew everyone else would and it wouldn't be wasted, but I can't see that changing unfortunately. Instead they'll go for what they believe is the "lesser of two evils" when in fact there is no less, both parties take their p's and q's from the same source. They just f@#k the people in slightly different ways is all.

The Republican Screw:

This is the equivalent of being screwed missionary style right to your face, they TELL you you're getting screwed and they don't care that you know it or see the perverted faces that they pull as they do it as they know you can't do anything about it anyway.

The Democrat Screw:

This is the equivalent of being screwed doggy style, where you can be certain you're being screwed; you can feel it so you MUST be being screwed, but you can't see it. You can't see their disgusting grin as they screw you, nor their silently mouthed words "you're getting f@#ked".

So pick your poison, there is no "lesser of two evils", there's only the preference of how you want to get f#@ked. They're puppets from the same operator is all, giving you the illusion of "choice".



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Nada

Of course that is a complete rubbish, it's probably surprising how many people would vote for third parties if they knew everyone else would and it wouldn't be wasted, but I can't see that changing unfortunately. Instead they'll go for what they believe is the "lesser of two evils" when in fact there is no less, both parties take their p's and q's from the same source. They just f@#k the people in slightly different ways is all.

The Republican Screw:

This is the equivalent of being screwed missionary style right to your face, they TELL you you're getting screwed and they don't care that you know it or see the perverted faces that they pull as they do it as they know you can't do anything about it anyway.

The Democrat Screw:

This is the equivalent of being screwed doggy style, where you can be certain you're being screwed; you can feel it so you MUST be being screwed, but you can't see it. You can't see their disgusting grin as they screw you, nor their silently mouthed words "you're getting f@#ked".

So pick your poison, there is no "lesser of two evils", there's only the preference of how you want to get f#@ked. They're puppets from the same operator is all, giving you the illusion of "choice".




I love this and it is true


As I said before a vote for the big two is a wasted vote not the other way arround. If all the people who thought they would be wasting their vote on a third party would go ahead and "waste" it we would see an IMMEDIATE change in America. If for no other reason than we would scare the # outta the big two, by electing a third party into pretty much every office in America. Because those of us discussted with the big two out number those that are not.

But dont try something different, keep doing the same thing over and over expecting something different to happen. Keep adding 2 + 2 and sooner or later you will get 5 right?

Keep believing them when they tell you "drop your pants and bend over, we promise we wont do it THIS time.

I dont know about but my butt is getting sore, I am voting Libertarian.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Amuk, voting for the big two is a wasted vote if you don't know what else to do and you vote because you feel you have to aline yourself with one of them.

If you actually believe in the tenants of the big two, then voting is not a waste.

Even I wish their was more than two parties. Personally I would like to limit all elected seats so we do away with career politicians.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Hey Jethro


Good to see you again



Of course if you believe
,the big twos message you should vote for them. I am just saying everyone should vote their mind not let them tell you who to vote for.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Your right Amuk, I am curious to see how many people on here would vote third party...

Is there anyway we can take a poll poll with lines and all to see how many people on ATS would vote third party......

I want to see if it's not so uncommon...



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I have started an unoffical poll asking that same question on this thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It asks if all parties had an equal chance of winning who would you vote for



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 02:41 PM
link   

from TrueLies
How come the dems are making it hard for nade to get on the vote if this is truly a free country and ANYBODY can run??

Because they figure (correctly) that those who would vote for Nader would most likely be voting for the Democrats if Nader wasn't running. In other words, a vote for Nader is likely to be a vote taken away from Kerry, and given to Bush, since Nader really has no chance.

The only way to correct this is to get a Nader and a Perot on the ballot along with the Bushes and Kerrys. Then both major parties will be hurt equally.

Just an observation on Masked Avatar's post: there are socialists and libertarians in Congress, though their numbers are small. Not ideal, I'll admit, but it's a start.




posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
If the USA operated as a modern democracy rather than an archaic feudal system, then all parties that receive a significant enough proportion of the national vote would be represented in its government.



This belief is part of the problem, we CAN achieve equal status with enough votes.

If any party (to include a third party) can get 10% of the vote for pres., they will get federaly matching funds in the next election. I believe this will be about $75 million, although I could be totaly wrong about that number.

The libertarian party (although it may not accept federal funds) spends about $12 million every 4 years just to be on the ballot in all 50 states. By the time they get on the ballot there is no money left for ads. and the party must count on its members to "convert" others. Seeing as this word of mouth system has been pretty much the only means of growth, it is amazing how large the party has grown, and how fast it continues to grow. Imagine how much faster it would grow with that $12 million back (I have a feeling it is the only portion of the matching funds they would keep.)

So voting third party is not a waste of vote, we have been above 9% before. If you vote the lessor of two evils, how will we reach the 10% mark?



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 07:49 PM
link   
I wouldnt be suprised if Nader's running is being secretly funded and supported by the GOP, there is simply NO way a third party candidate is going to win any presidential election in the near future, not unless theres a complete change in the system. So it would not be too far fetched for one of the two major parties to plant a third party candidate to extract votes from the other, by pulling away the far left in this case. Nader can't truly have the slightest belief he stands a snowballs chance in hell. So in effect a vote for Nader would be a vote for Bush. Think about what happened last election, if Nader hadnt run, Gore wouldve been elected.

[edit on 31-7-2004 by 27jd]



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies

How come the dems are making it hard for nade to get on the vote if this is truly a free country and ANYBODY can run??



you know why the dems dont like third parties and nader, cause a vote for a third party or nader is a vote for bush.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join