Yanks only: Who are you voting for on Tuesday?

Who you voting for, nucka?

  • McKinney/Clemente (Green)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Keyes/Rohrbough (AIP)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Jay/Knapp (Boston Tea)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Amondson/Pletten (Prohibition)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Weill/McEnulty (Reform)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • La Riva/Puryear (Socialism and Liberation)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    68
:lol: Fair enough. He definitely could have worded his comments a little different. I don't pay attention to Nader so I don't really know his true intentions behind the comment.

He's saying that Obama is just going to be more of the same and that there really won't be any change if he panders to the corporations and becomes an Uncle Tom
 
Hey, Dakryn: I don't feel like reading your giant debate with Dodens over the death penalty, but I'd like to point out the following things:

1) Putting a murderer to death because he "deserves it" serves NO FUCKING PURPOSE WHATSOEVER besides giving the family of the victim a sick sense of vengeance. The job of the government is not to allow people to "get back at" those who do them harm, it's to PROTECT SOCIETY. This is accomplished most humanely by locking the murderer up.

2) Murder has one of the lowest recidivism rates of all crimes, so there's a pretty good chance that more innocent lives are lost through wrongful death sentences than through repeat murders. Since 1973, when the U.S. began exonerating death row inmates, 130 have been exonerated. With about 9000 death sentences given during that time, and the majority of cases lacking DNA evidence to overturn a conviction, it's safe to say that the courts are killing innocent people. This is why the death penalty is very dangerous, and should only be used in extreme cases. To risk killing innocent people just to give a victim's family members some perverse gratification is wrong on multiple levels.
 
Like gay marriage, the death penalty is an issue that should not be one. When presented with the facts, it's completely irrational to argue for the death penalty. It serves no purpose that permanent incapacitation (imprisonment) does not, and it's more cost effective to simply incarcerate. On any practical grounds, there is no argument for the death penalty.
 
I didn't say it serves no purpose at all, and I certainly don't believe that. It should be used to get rid of people who are too dangerous to keep alive. That does not include the common murderer, though, who in the vast majority of cases would never seek to kill again.

Execution for a retributive purpose simply amounts to killing someone just to make someone else feel a little better, and it's not like the killing helps the other person out in any way since a murder cannot be undone. Pretty much every other punishment in our entire legal system goes toward deterring crime or compensating victims materially. The death penalty does neither.
 
Yeah I'm not from the US. But I did wait till tuesday to vote.:Smokedev:
Oh and what do you know? Anybody could win tbh.. lets not lose hope.

No, he could win but wouldn't be able to be President because he doesn't meet the requirements to be President.

Because he is not a natural born citizen of the United States, Calero is ineligible to become U.S. president under the United States Constitution, and so James Harris, the Socialist Workers' Party presidential candidate from 2000, stood in on the ticket in nine states where Calero could not be listed, receiving 7,102 additional votes.

Although, some feel Obama's eventual presidency will be illegitimate, so meh
 
I watched McCain's and Obama's speeches live on CNN after they announced the results and was very impressed with both of them. If McCain had handled the rest of his campaign the way he handled his concession speech, I think he'd have had a much better chance of winning. Obama's speech for phenomenal though and it brought everyone in the room to tears, myself included. It's so refreshing to be having a president who can actually articulate his thoughts in an eloquent manner, especially after the past eight years.

It really grinds my nerves though that some people are already on his ass about it, especially since the argument that I've heard isn't even legitimate. One of my friends' moms is up in arms about it because he said "we may not get there in one year, or in one term" and insists that this is his way of back pedalling, because his ideas are too ambitious to ever become reality. I honestly don't know how she can say this though, because it didn't take one year or one term to get ourselves into this mess and I sincerely doubt that any of Obama's supporters were under the impression that he was some kind of savior who would fix everything over night.

EDIT: She also said that she will support Obama anyway, because we should always support our president no matter what, which I think is total bullshit. No one is simply entitled to the support of the people, they have to earn that support by fulfilling a responsibility to the people. In fact, this very philosophy is the basis of our Declaration of Independence.