On this Super Tuesday, as both a responsible citizen and registered Republican, I...
- Thread starter NAD
- Start date
JayKeeley
Be still, O wand'rer!
You know someone STOLE a toast at the Opeth show in NY? 
Some guy we met raised his drink to everyone else in salute, everyone else then proceeded to say "cheers" and drink from their beer, and abruptly the guy shouts, "Fuck Kerry, go Bush".
What a fucker.
It's so funny how it's just so taboo here about who people are voting for, and how secretive they are about it. For fucks sake, in England there are no secrets. If you're voting for the Tories then so be it. You're a labour fan? Be my guest. Most people very rarely switch sides, they vote based on whoever is leading that party at the time - it's more of a tradition than anything else. Having said that, it will take a complete goofball leader for people to change which party to vote for. Tony Blair won just because the country couldn't take anymore of what Thatcher had originally started, and Major tried to carry through. Same thing's happening with Bush. Republicans don't exactly want a Democratic leader, but for the love of goat, are they really going to vote for Bush just to keep a Republican in power??
Some guy we met raised his drink to everyone else in salute, everyone else then proceeded to say "cheers" and drink from their beer, and abruptly the guy shouts, "Fuck Kerry, go Bush".What a fucker.
It's so funny how it's just so taboo here about who people are voting for, and how secretive they are about it. For fucks sake, in England there are no secrets. If you're voting for the Tories then so be it. You're a labour fan? Be my guest. Most people very rarely switch sides, they vote based on whoever is leading that party at the time - it's more of a tradition than anything else. Having said that, it will take a complete goofball leader for people to change which party to vote for. Tony Blair won just because the country couldn't take anymore of what Thatcher had originally started, and Major tried to carry through. Same thing's happening with Bush. Republicans don't exactly want a Democratic leader, but for the love of goat, are they really going to vote for Bush just to keep a Republican in power??
I'd rather see a damn Democrat in office than some fookin' looney like Bush again, but I'll probably vote for a 3rd party candidate in the main election, whoever looks better from the Libertarian or Natural Law parties. 
J.
Old Fart
Seriously, if you don't want Bush in office, why would you vote for a 3rd party candidate that has no chance to win?
Every vote a third party candidate gets, that's just extra matching funding the gov't gies their party the next time around. Nobody votes for 3rd parties in hopes of winning (except maybe a local office, or the occasional Independent that gets into the House or Senate), it all comes down to support via cash.
Besides, CA electoral votes always go to the Dems. anyhow, voting for Bush literally would be throwing my vote away, but I do have the opportunity to support a 3rd party in hopes that someday they could actually make a difference.
Besides, CA electoral votes always go to the Dems. anyhow, voting for Bush literally would be throwing my vote away, but I do have the opportunity to support a 3rd party in hopes that someday they could actually make a difference.
JayKeeley
Be still, O wand'rer!
True that. It's a wasted vote isn't it? I'm sure the Republicans jumped with joy when Ralph Nader announced his running.Dreamlord said:
J.
Old Fart
Yeah, it's more or less a wasted vote. A third party candidate will more than likely never win an election, unless something monumental happens or a popular celebrity chooses to use all of his money for his campaign. It just ain't gonna happen. But like NAD said, Cali always goes Dem, so his vote really wouldn't matter, but just imagine if millions of Californians suddenly started thinking like that. We'd have Bushy boy for another 4 years because some Californians wanted to make a point.JayKeeley said:
Texas always goes Repub in the electoral college, so my vote for the Dems will be immediately annihilated, but at least it will count towards the popular vote.
And yes, Repubs were thrilled that Nader entered the race. I really don't think he'll play the spoiler this year, as it's too late for him to even get on a lot of the state ballots, but you never know.
I say vote Dem this election just to get Bush out of office. In 2008, go ahead and vote for whoever. Remember, anyone is better than Bush, and this coming from someone who voted for him (not that it mattered since I'm in Texas). Well, he blew it bigtime.
You fuckers didn't listen to me! 
The more votes a 3rd party candidate gets, the more money their party receives in matching federal funds. It's not just a wasted vote, it's like buying a CD from an independent music store instead of Best Buy.
The more votes a 3rd party candidate gets, the more money their party receives in matching federal funds. It's not just a wasted vote, it's like buying a CD from an independent music store instead of Best Buy. Common misperception. The "popular vote" means NOTHING. It was a media tool invented to say "oooh looky, he's winning!!!" but it has ZERO bearing on the outcome of presidential elections. It all comes down to the Electoral College.Dreamlord said:
Demonspell
cheating the polygraph
<<You know someone STOLE a toast at the Opeth show in NY? Some guy we met raised his drink to everyone else in salute, everyone else then proceeded to say "cheers" and drink from their beer, and abruptly the guy shouts, "Fuck Kerry, go Bush".
What a fucker.>>
To which I immediately replied..."Fuck Bush!" It was the metal concert equivalent of Thanksgiving dinner being ruined by your conservative uncle/grandfather/inlaw/whatever.
Some guy we met raised his drink to everyone else in salute, everyone else then proceeded to say "cheers" and drink from their beer, and abruptly the guy shouts, "Fuck Kerry, go Bush".What a fucker.
>>To which I immediately replied..."Fuck Bush!" It was the metal concert equivalent of Thanksgiving dinner being ruined by your conservative uncle/grandfather/inlaw/whatever.
JayKeeley
Be still, O wand'rer!
Oh did you? Well, good for you. I think I was stunned, like a deer in headlights.Demonspell said:<<You know someone STOLE a toast at the Opeth show in NY?
What a fucker.
To which I immediately replied..."Fuck Bush!" It was the metal concert equivalent of Thanksgiving dinner being ruined by by your conservative uncle/grandafther/whatever.
There should be some unwritten rule that you can't shout a toast out whilst everybody's in mid-sip. What a thief!
ProgMetalFan
In the attic
J.
Old Fart
I know the popular vote means squat in the long run. But it should. Seriously, isn't this a democracy where everyone's voice is heard? Yes? So shouldn't we choose a President based on the popular vote so no one's vote is silenced? By voting Dem in Texas, all I'm doing is voting based on principle. Voting Dem in Texas is basically not voting at all.NAD said:
But I guess we can't choose a President based on the popular vote since the Dems would always win, after all, there are more senior citizens, minorities, and poor people than there are middle to upper class whites.
PS. That's not an insult to anybody, I'm just going with the demographic of who make up a lot of the Dem and Repub voting
You left out the Dixiecrats. 
In today's age of TV the Electoral College is a bit flawed, but I understand its purpose. It is to combat candidates from focusing just on large centers of populations. Theoretically, a candidate could win the presidency by campaigning in NYC, LA, San Francisco, Houston, Detroit, and Chicago. However my biggest complaint with the EC is that Washington DC, which for all intents and purposes is the 51st state, gets no electoral votes.
"In theory, Communism works! In theory."
--Homer J. Simpson
In today's age of TV the Electoral College is a bit flawed, but I understand its purpose. It is to combat candidates from focusing just on large centers of populations. Theoretically, a candidate could win the presidency by campaigning in NYC, LA, San Francisco, Houston, Detroit, and Chicago. However my biggest complaint with the EC is that Washington DC, which for all intents and purposes is the 51st state, gets no electoral votes.
"In theory, Communism works! In theory."
--Homer J. Simpson
The electoral college makes more sense now than ever, especially because of the example you pointed out. If it was pure popular vote, they would only try to get the big city votes, and honestly democrats would probably always win. Nobody had a problem with the system until Bush won.
Similar threads
