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.

 

Debate this

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies

ps: It maybe a long shot, but it's not impossible, it's people like you that make it impossible because you just don't get that it is possible...

[edit on 6-9-2004 by TrueLies]


You misused the word 'idealism', since what I am saying is anything but ideal. You tried that old 'you're as bad as me, which makes it OK'. I am not idealistic by definition.

Besides that, it's so much of a long shot so as to be impossible. What, 80% of people have already decided who they are voting for, and the vast majority are voting R or D. The remaining 20%, even if they all vote third party, will not allow a third party win.

Of course, 20% are not going to vote third party. A fraction of a percent will. The remaning ~20% are going to decide the election based on a vote for Bush or Kerry.

I think your main problem is that you think people want to vote third party. I don't think they do. The vast majority of people don't agree with third party ideas. They agree, for the most part, with the conservative or liberal standpoint, or are somewhere in between. But those in between are not so far off as to break with the two parties.

People don't vote third party not because they are voting for the lesser of two evils, but because they genuinely like what one or the other party says at the current moment.




posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
I don't like voting for the lesser of two evils as much as the next guy. However, if you vote third party, you are going to be taking a vote away from one of the two major candidates.


Thats correct, and thats exactly why I WILL be voting third party. I really don't get why people question us third party voters all the time...WE DO NOT LIKE EITHER CANDIDATE...case closed! This "taking away a vote from the two major candidates" is getting really tiresome as most third party voters have explained ourselves over and over again...yet some people still don't get it. So, let me say it loud and clear again...

WE DO NOT LIKE EITHER CANDIDATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Again, case closed!



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzerman
Thats correct, and thats exactly why I WILL be voting third party. I really don't get why people question us third party voters all the time...WE DO NOT LIKE EITHER CANDIDATE...case closed! This "taking away a vote from the two major candidates" is getting really tiresome as most third party voters have explained ourselves over and over again...yet some people still don't get it. So, let me say it loud and clear again...

WE DO NOT LIKE EITHER CANDIDATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Again, case closed!


I'm not saying you shouldn't vote for a third party candidate. I'm trying to explain that voting for the lesser of two evils is a valid reason to vote R or D, even if you don't particularly like either candidate. I may vote third party, I may vote for a major party. I haven't decided. But I'm not going to vote third party if I don't believe that it will do my nation some good.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Im voting democrat bc im democrat and i like the party for what it is, is that bad?

I just think our problem right now is our candidate, i wish Dean wouldve been our presidential candidate. I mean sure he was a loose cannon but at least he had a cannon


[edit on 9/6/2004 by s13guy]



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Well if fiscal means financial then i'm only have for this guy... i dont mind paying high taxes as long as the services arep rovided which i am paying for. Also i think the higher income earners should pay more than the lower earners.

I agree with his social policies but financially, even the democrats are too right wing for me.

But i agree this Badnarik guy definately seems to be better bush (by a mile) and i would have to say he is likely even to be better than kerry (but i'd have to read more about him)...



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Yea... Badnarik has principles. I just happen to disagree with almost everything on the Libertarian Party platform. I watched the third party debate and I just couldn't find anything I liked about what he was saying.

Do you really want to go to a system where every state is like a country? If every state has different laws and can get away with anything it wants, what is the point of having a country? Seems that he wants to break up the country. We don't need all these little powers if we're all the same people...if we're all Americans.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
I don't like voting for the lesser of two evils as much as the next guy. However, if you vote third party, you are going to be taking a vote away from one of the two major candidates.


That is the idea


Both of them make me want to puke



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flinx
Do you really want to go to a system where every state is like a country? If every state has different laws and can get away with anything it wants, what is the point of having a country? Seems that he wants to break up the country. We don't need all these little powers if we're all the same people...if we're all Americans.



This was the entire point of the united states something more like the EU than what we have today, and up till the civil war that is what we had.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by s13guy
Im voting democrat bc im democrat and i like the party for what it is, is that bad?

I just think our problem right now is our candidate, i wish Dean wouldve been our presidential candidate. I mean sure he was a loose cannon but at least he had a cannon


[edit on 9/6/2004 by s13guy]


I say to you, respectfully, BULLS**T!!


In a controlled but angry speech, he laid into Vice-President Dick Cheney by name and Bush by implication: "I will not have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have, and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq. The Vice President called me unfit for office last night. Well, I'll leave it up to the voters to decide whether five deferments makes someone more qualified to defend this nation than two tours of duty."

He continued, "Let me tell you what I think makes someone unfit for duty. Misleading our nation into war in Iraq makes you unfit to lead this nation. Doing nothing while this nation loses millions of jobs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting 45 million Americans go without healthcare makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting the Saudi Royal Family control our energy costs makes you unfit. Handing out billions of government contracts to Halliburton while you're still on their payroll makes you unfit."


John Kerry is a damn Howitzer, but it's like the Hun Hordes controlling the Kiber pass.......how's the silk going to get to China!?!
You have a complicit corporate media giving more time to anything but the issues....a theme they're echoing from the Republican convention.

Here's a good piece how the media has deflected for that embarassment currently squatting in the White House. Read it and ask yourself "When was the last time I saw that in the news?" . If it's cover ups for Team Bush...MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
I think your main problem is that you think people want to vote third party. I don't think they do. The vast majority of people don't agree with third party ideas. They agree, for the most part, with the conservative or liberal standpoint, or are somewhere in between. But those in between are not so far off as to break with the two parties.

People don't vote third party not because they are voting for the lesser of two evils, but because they genuinely like what one or the other party says at the current moment.



Your "I don't think they do" is your personal opinion, which I think is part of the problem regarding the idea of voting lesser of two evils is legitmate, you still haven't shown me proof..

I can tell you www.aarp.org shows a polling which show that

70 million americans want third parties in the presidential debates.. Do you know what would happen, if they debated along side bush and kerry?

This is what would happen...

No longer would they be left out, and no longer would people's brains be stuck in first and second gear, rather they would register the fact that there is a third fourth and fifth gear to be recognized...

Many people would be turned off to bush and kerry...

I know badnarik would make bush look like a fool, as well as kerry when it comes to social security, health care, environment, gun control, true civil liberties not a double standard on what civil liberties are, and taxes...

www.lp.org/issues or www.badnarik.org
since your not sure who to vote for maybe you should check your other options...

If he's on the ballot in your state garanteed it's not made up and the vote will count.

You've been lied to my friend...


Part of my problem is that I know people want to vote a legitmate candidate instead of voting lesser of two evils.

Like Badnarik said, he cannot respect himself if he votes rep or dem, and we feel the same way, why sell out to a corporate party when their agenda comes first and citizens comes last, thats not good government is it.

For more information people and third parties feel free to click this link:
www.badnarik.org...

It shows the mentality of people in this country, and it shows a significant amount of people have been brainwashed such as yourself.

I guess if you knew about the history of this country and the reasons why the framer's made that wonderful document it would make your vote alot easier. And i'm also sure you would vote with a clear conscience.



[edit on 7-9-2004 by TrueLies]



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 11:51 AM
link   
As I have already stated in a thread a couple of days ago. Bush will win and you can't stop it.

So you might aswell vote for your 3rd party candidate to actually try and give them credibility. That is why I am voting Libertarian and not trying to vote for the lessor of two evils. I don't want coke head Bush or Commi Kerry to win because they are going to screw things up equally. I already know what the ourcome of this election will be and most people who are democrat even agree with me. Hell most Dems really don't even like Kerry. You cannot vote like this because you are giving away your own liberties to support a movement instead of your own views. Silence yourself and vote for Bush or Kerry.

Anyway, I am not voting to get Badnarik elected. I am voting for him to get him and the Libertarian Party recognized.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
This was the entire point of the united states something more like the EU than what we have today, and up till the civil war that is what we had.


Yeah, I know...I just don't think that would work today. We're too interconnected for every state to have that kind of power. I think the last thing we need is to have states screwing each other over because of resources and petty rivalries. There has to be some kind of oversight.
Also, if things were like that (a collection of tiny countries) States could get away with many things we find unacceptable today. I dare say that if there were no Federal government and states had that kind of power, women still wouldn't be able to vote in some places and the south would still be segregated. There have to be national standards. There has to be *gasp* regulation.

That's one of the reasons I don't agree with the Libertarian platform as was laid out by Mr. Badnarik during the debates. I did like the Green Party guy (Cobb?) though. It seemed like those two had completely opposite views but were still working together to make some difference in the system.

However, I think their energies would be better spent trying to instute a parlimentary system in this country rather than running for President.

[edit on 9/7/2004 by Flinx]



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
I say to you, respectfully, BULLS**T!!


In a controlled but angry speech, he laid into Vice-President Dick Cheney by name and Bush by implication: "I will not have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have, and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq. The Vice President called me unfit for office last night. Well, I'll leave it up to the voters to decide whether five deferments makes someone more qualified to defend this nation than two tours of duty."

He continued, "Let me tell you what I think makes someone unfit for duty. Misleading our nation into war in Iraq makes you unfit to lead this nation. Doing nothing while this nation loses millions of jobs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting 45 million Americans go without healthcare makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting the Saudi Royal Family control our energy costs makes you unfit. Handing out billions of government contracts to Halliburton while you're still on their payroll makes you unfit."


John Kerry is a damn Howitzer, but it's like the Hun Hordes controlling the Kiber pass.......how's the silk going to get to China!?!
You have a complicit corporate media giving more time to anything but the issues....a theme they're echoing from the Republican convention.

Here's a good piece how the media has deflected for that embarassment currently squatting in the White House. Read it and ask yourself "When was the last time I saw that in the news?" . If it's cover ups for Team Bush...MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.


thnx for saying bulls**t with respect


yeah he's finally assumed leadership of his campaign, doing things they way he wants to now. Hes been listening to his cp manager the whole time. shes the one who told him to respond slow when he wanted to counter back fast. Now with a Clinton all start lineup, does he stand a chance??

Kerry will win by a landslide, and not bc of clintons help.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flinx
Yeah, I know...I just don't think that would work today. We're too interconnected for every state to have that kind of power.

However, I think their energies would be better spent trying to instute a parlimentary system in this country rather than running for President.



I've lived in a parliamentary system, it blows...

It's better to have a de centralized government, this way it is better managed by each state. Each state will recognize the needs and demands of people, a central government isn't the way to go, there is too much room open for corruption, each state won't get taken care of properly, asking big government for money to help states make them better is just asinine imo, because when this happens the government gives you a take it or leave it option, especially if it came to health care, a state knows what is needed how much is needed, and thus should be making the decision to fix problems, not have to go to the central government to make requests.

more money gets burned with a central gov. more agencies are opened, more programs are created, and more of our money get sucked out of our pockets.


America wasn't built on socialist policies, nor do the people who respect the constitution and our founding fathers who gave us such a great country, want a socialist governemnt. Socialism blows, if you think you should get taken care of through a redistribution system then America is not for you, if you think you should get hand outs from the government through tax paying citizens, America is not for you. If you think you can take care of yourself, respect other people's privacy and their success, then stay. But don't think for one minutre you are entitled to other people's success because that reasoning is flawed. You don't make your way in the world by depending on others to take care of you, you depend on doctors to take care of you for free, it's a profession just like dentistry, just like lawers..

If you think you should be taken care of through the health system for free, then you also think you should get free lawers in case something ever happens to you and you need to go to court.

I've lived in a system where health care is "free", and it's not free, taxes are miserably high, the waiting times are long, you don't get a proper diagnosis because doctors aren't happy with their jobs because they get paid #ty amount of money... People have to come here to get taken care of alot of the time because they've met their quota or the line up is too long and their cancer is growing during the waiting period... It's not a perfect system, neither one is, but US health care used to be the best in the world, it still is the best in terms of getting propert treatment and care, but the red tape and the regulations affect prices of treatment, fees, and drugs. As stated in another thread I made it goes through the list.

If your just going to vote because you want universal health care you should think about what your trying to sign yourself up for. It's not all rosey like you think it is. I know of three people who died on the operating table because they were left there cut open for too long, everytime I was to go to the e.r for a measly sore throat I would hear people complaining about wait times or how something happened to their loved ones. On top of that I knew that my sore throat wasn't as big of a deal as some other people sitting around waiting with me. Some guy stabbed his hand with a knife and he sat there for 2 hours with a gauze wrapped around it waiting...

I can safely say that I love this system of health care alot better then socialised, the prices maybe high, but I know that something will happen sooner or later to fix this problem and to get government out of health care so it's not as expensive.
I don't mind paying doctors because they are taking care of me...
They are doing it professionally, they do it with a smile, I can tell that they are happy because they are making a living doing what they went to school to do. The offices are more professional, you can purchase your own equipment instead of asking the government which btw, in a socialised health world, you wouldn't get the equipment because the government wouldn't want you making more money then it through those machines that help treat people.
When you have socialised medicine, alot of politics come into play, alot of times government wants to be the boss and stay at the top... This pisses doctors off, they know they can do a better job but they are being held back, they can't give proper treatments, or proper diagnosis for that matter..

It's a big game.. government cares about financial gain first, people second, doctors third... When doctors start working for the government, this the first sign of a problem... We need to get government out of health.

See a proper solution to the United States health problem:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 7-9-2004 by TrueLies]



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 12:30 AM
link   
The question remains, WHY are third parties not getting the votes to compete.

The answer is pretty simple. First reason would be the media's total lack of attention. Even in this time of great political unrest, you'd think they'd key in on the publics need for alternatives, but they don't. Why is that?

"...the overwhelming majority (in revenue terms) of the world's film production, TV show production, cable channel ownership, cable and satellite system ownership, book publishing, magazine publishing and music production is provided by these 50 or so firms, and the first nine firms thoroughly dominate many of these sectors. By any standard of democracy, such a concentration of media power is troubling, if not unacceptable." Source

This includes Westinghouse. It's funny that Westinghouse's CEO said that "We are here to serve advertisers. That is our raison d'etre." or reason to exist if you don't know French. But who honestly thought that the news was there for your good? It's simply a platform to sell air time now.

Put that in combination with the fact that it's shown that the "Big Two" subvert Third Parties to maintain their current money and power, and you have a serious problem.

But honestly, I can't think of any better reason to vote for a party that subverts political choice, and chooses their candidates by their likeability (sometimes), and their loyalty to THE PARTY rather than the country.

But the millions of people have been fooled into thinking Third Parties are worth the vote because they won't win. It's all been taken care of for you by the rich elite on both sides. That money buys TV ads and other nice perks.

But then again, we are a nation that loves convinience right?


[edit on 8-9-2004 by KrazyJethro]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join