Even I would . . . .

[turtlespeed 226]

Vote against GW Bush . . .


. . . just bring me a better alternative.


Kerry/Edwards is not it.

. . . . As undesireable as another 4 years with Bush is, it would be down right nightmarish with Kerry.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,169]

Mike Badnarik. Libertarian and a skydiver, on the libertarian ticket in most states. Having a republican senate, democratic house and libertarian president would be a good situation - there'd be a lot of fighting, and no new laws would get passed unless we REALLY needed them.

[lawrocket 3]

Libertarian. I absolutely agree with billvon.

Turtle - if there was ever a situation where voting your conscience would give some efficacy, this is it. I can't vote for Bush. I simply cannot do it. Therefore, I will vote libertarian.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

. . . just bring me a better alternative.

Is this REALLY the place to look for serious and sensible alternatives...?

I'd like to nominate Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev as a suitable candidate. OK. His track record on democratic elections isn't all that good... But he is relatively Socialist, He has experience of governing and ruling a large country, especially during economic collapse.

He commands global respect (although he may not get on all that well with Vladimir Putin)

... And he knows stuff... Like, say, where Albania is. In fact he even has a map of it on his forehead!

So yeah... I'd vote for Gorbachev as "Most Suitable American President". At least until I hear other nominations.

Mike.

.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Mike Badnarik. Libertarian and a skydiver, on the libertarian ticket in most states. Having a republican senate, democratic house and libertarian president would be a good situation - there'd be a lot of fighting, and no new laws would get passed unless we REALLY needed them.

Ok how about a guy with an actual CHANCE at getting elected?

I like Libertarians....But any vote cast for them will be wasted.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[wmw999 2,638]

Quote

But any vote cast for them will be wasted

Turtle lives in Texas. Any vote cast for anyone but Bush is only a statement -- Bush is a lock here. So it's the best possible time to vote your conscience -- the more votes Badnarik gets in Texas, the stronger the statement it sends that people who just can't bring themselves to vote for Kerry still feel strongly about Bush and/or the two-party system.

It's not like voting for Kerry in Texas will make a difference, after all

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Douva 0]

Quote

Quote

Mike Badnarik. Libertarian and a skydiver, on the libertarian ticket in most states. Having a republican senate, democratic house and libertarian president would be a good situation - there'd be a lot of fighting, and no new laws would get passed unless we REALLY needed them.

Ok how about a guy with an actual CHANCE at getting elected?

I like Libertarians....But any vote cast for them will be wasted.

That's the defeatist attitude that ensures the survival of the two party system. Sure, a third party candidate won't win this election, but if more and more people will just start voting for the person they consider the best candidate, instead of the person they consider the most "electable" candidate, someday we might actually vote the best candidate into office.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Turtle lives in Texas. Any vote cast for anyone but Bush is only a statement -- Bush is a lock here.

And I live in Delaware, where Kerry is a lock. I'll be voting my conscience this election - Bush won't miss it and Kerry doesn't need it, not from this state.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Douva 0]

Quote

Quote

But any vote cast for them will be wasted

Turtle lives in Texas. Any vote cast for anyone but Bush is only a statement -- Bush is a lock here. So it's the best possible time to vote your conscience -- the more votes Badnarik gets in Texas, the stronger the statement it sends that people who just can't bring themselves to vote for Kerry still feel strongly about Bush and/or the two-party system.

It's not like voting for Kerry in Texas will make a difference, after all

Wendy W.

This scenario proves once again the flaws of the electoral college. There are probably millions of voters in this country who won't vote because they realize their votes won't effect the outcome of the election. There are certain states, particularly my home state of Texas, which are an absolute lock for one candidate. The best we can do, like Wendy said, is use our votes to make a statement. If enough of these disillusioned voters will go to the polls, despite not being able to affect the outcome of the election, our statement would come across loud and clear.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[Ron 10]

Quote

That's the defeatist attitude that ensures the survival of the two party system. Sure, a third party candidate won't win this election, but if more and more people will just start voting for the person they consider the best candidate, instead of the person they consider the most "electable" candidate, someday we might actually vote the best candidate into office.

Maybe if the third party actually backed an "electable" canidate it would not be a wasted election?

But so far they have not produced one. So you can either chunk your vote to the wind and not have a say in the next 4 years, or vote the lesser of the two evils.

I live in a hot state and every vote will matter.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,169]

>Maybe if the third party actually backed an "electable" canidate it >would not be a wasted election?

It's the other way around. Anyone not democratic or republican is not electable. There are plenty of republicans and democrats who vote purely on party lines; these people guarantee that no one other than the two prime candidates will be elected.

>So you can either chunk your vote to the wind and not have a say
> in the next 4 years, or vote the lesser of the two evils.


"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Mike Badnarik. Libertarian and a skydiver, on the libertarian ticket in most states. Having a republican senate, democratic house and libertarian president would be a good situation - there'd be a lot of fighting, and no new laws would get passed unless we REALLY needed them.

Oh my word I agree!!!!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Ron 10]

Quote

It's the other way around. Anyone not democratic or republican is not electable. There are plenty of republicans and democrats who vote purely on party lines; these people guarantee that no one other than the two prime candidates will be elected.

Maybe a good canidate has not yet been found?
It would be hard to equal the spending amounts of either party. But as long as the best canidate that can be found is someone almost nobody has heard of, you can bet there is no chance.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,169]

>Maybe a good canidate has not yet been found?

With the way politics works today, there ARE no good candidates. If a candidate is a threat, he will be torn limb from limb by the opposition. If he has a family, they'll be called whores, sluts and drug addicts. If he ever served in the military, he will be called a traitor or an AWOL guy. If he rescued a kid from a burning building, someone will claim he purposely left the other kid there to die because the other kid was white and he was trying to make a political statement.

>But as long as the best canidate that can be found is someone
> almost nobody has heard of, you can bet there is no chance.

Almost no one heard of Kerry before two years ago. Money and power made his name heard - and that's what both political parties specialize in.

[Ron 10]

Quote

>Maybe a good canidate has not yet been found?

With the way politics works today, there ARE no good candidates. If a candidate is a threat, he will be torn limb from limb by the opposition. If he has a family, they'll be called whores, sluts and drug addicts. If he ever served in the military, he will be called a traitor or an AWOL guy. If he rescued a kid from a burning building, someone will claim he purposely left the other kid there to die because the other kid was white and he was trying to make a political statement.

>But as long as the best canidate that can be found is someone
> almost nobody has heard of, you can bet there is no chance.

Almost no one heard of Kerry before two years ago. Money and power made his name heard - and that's what both political parties specialize in.

Way to cave into the system there Bill.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[wmw999 2,638]

There are probably a lot of people that would do a good job as President. The problem is that to get there, you have to have shown a lot of politicians (who control the money to get elected) that you are a candidate who will work with them.

The candidates' campaigns, in a way, are like a job interview with the American people. The problem is that the people no longer get to ask the questions -- the party upper-ups do, and the people get to listen to all the dirty questions as well as the good ones.

Since the dirty ones get more folks gossiping (and gossip is a powerful tool), they seem to be used more and more.

How would you propose to get "the best candidate" identified, associated with someone with money, and then elected? And who exactly would that best candidate be -- there are a lot of differences of opinion as to who would be best in any given time.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Ron 10]

Quote

There are probably a lot of people that would do a good job as President. The problem is that to get there, you have to have shown a lot of politicians (who control the money to get elected) that you are a candidate who will work with them.

The candidates' campaigns, in a way, are like a job interview with the American people. The problem is that the people no longer get to ask the questions -- the party upper-ups do, and the people get to listen to all the dirty questions as well as the good ones.

Since the dirty ones get more folks gossiping (and gossip is a powerful tool), they seem to be used more and more.

I understand how the system works...

My beef is that some like to blame the system for the lack of a good third choice.

I prefer to blame the third choice for not doing well enough.

You can decide to blame who you like, but as long as you blame the things you can't control...Well then you have already lost.

Quote

How would you propose to get "the best candidate" identified, associated with someone with money, and then elected? And who exactly would that best candidate be -- there are a lot of differences of opinion as to who would be best in any given time.

Well the first thing I would not do is say I didn't have a chance due to something I can't control.

As for who...Well we will never know till someone comes up. I can say that with the two we have and the feelings that most have about them, this year would ahve been a good year to have a strong canidate in a third party...McCain with Lieberman maybe.

But I can say as long as you say you don't have a chance...you are correct.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[wmw999 2,638]

Well, you got me there. I'm not in charge of a third-party McCain/Lieberman ticket.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,169]

>Way to cave into the system there Bill.

I'm not; I'm voting for Badnarik. You have said yourself that you're going to support the two-party system because you think only one of those two will get elected. If everyone thinks like you, nothing will ever change - and the status quo will continue.

[ozthebum 0]

Quote

>Way to cave into the system there Bill.

I'm not; I'm voting for Badnarik. You have said yourself that you're going to support the two-party system because you think only one of those two will get elected. If everyone thinks like you, nothing will ever change - and the status quo will continue.

So that gets to my question....how can we (meaning people who want a change from the standard 2 party system into the "3 or more party" system) get this out there? I feel that there are so many people out there want to vote for someone other than the current options. It seems that most everyone else that feels that way are scared to vote something other that the 2 main parties. How can we change that? Is it as serious as a political revolution....grasss roots, 3rd party canadates starting off in local and state governement, etc? In short, how can we make a change?

[lurch 0]

You want to know how?
Money.
First you have to have a guy good enough you can actually see being able to do the job responsibly. I'd suggest someone who does not want the job. If you want the job badly enough to try for it and engage in the campaign process and all the corruption and mudslinging and vote buying and flat lying and special interesting that it takes to get elected you're probably not fit for the job.
Figure out how to gain access to the, what, 50 or 60 million $$ it will take to get your candidate's name splattered on every billboard, stuck on everyone's front lawn, in everyone's face. Hire an army of bullshit artists and PR guys to craft and present the image best calculated to get as many people to vote for the guy as possible. Got to appeal to the little old ladies, the southern white set, the blacks, the growing hispanic vote, (candidate speaks spanish a plus!) the west coast, the midwest, etc...difficult trick to do, appeal to so many diverse types with often conflicting values. You have to sell your guy as being everything to everyone.
Then just hammer away bombarding the public with the guy and his praises till people do what they're told and vote for the guy. We got the best democracy money can buy...unfortunately its now so expensive if you don't have a Bill Gates budget, you ain't getting elected. Anybody know where to score a billion dollar advertising budget?
The election goes to the guy with the most powerful friends the least skeletons in the closet the best spinmasters the most expensive public relations guys and the biggest advertising budget. It isn't about the will of the people anymore. Its about who is best at manipulating the will of the people through media saturation. So much for democracy. Give me a good old fashioned tyrant dictator. At least it'd be a welcome change from the overevolved scripted Jerry Springer show we call a political system. Maybe something would actually get done right by a leader not focused on pleasing the largest numbers of the stupid to ensure reelection.

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[ozthebum 0]

Quote

You want to know how?
Money.
First you have to have a guy good enough you can actually see being able to do the job responsibly. I'd suggest someone who does not want the job. If you want the job badly enough to try for it and engage in the campaign process and all the corruption and mudslinging and vote buying and flat lying and special interesting that it takes to get elected you're probably not fit for the job.
Figure out how to gain access to the, what, 50 or 60 million $$ it will take to get your candidate's name splattered on every billboard, stuck on everyone's front lawn, in everyone's face. Hire an army of bullshit artists and PR guys to craft and present the image best calculated to get as many people to vote for the guy as possible. Got to appeal to the little old ladies, the southern white set, the blacks, the growing hispanic vote, (candidate speaks spanish a plus!) the west coast, the midwest, etc...difficult trick to do, appeal to so many diverse types with often conflicting values. You have to sell your guy as being everything to everyone.
Then just hammer away bombarding the public with the guy and his praises till people do what they're told and vote for the guy. We got the best democracy money can buy...unfortunately its now so expensive if you don't have a Bill Gates budget, you ain't getting elected. Anybody know where to score a billion dollar advertising budget?
The election goes to the guy with the most powerful friends the least skeletons in the closet the best spinmasters the most expensive public relations guys and the biggest advertising budget. It isn't about the will of the people anymore. Its about who is best at manipulating the will of the people through media saturation. So much for democracy. Give me a good old fashioned tyrant dictator. At least it'd be a welcome change from the overevolved scripted Jerry Springer show we call a political system. Maybe something would actually get done right by a leader not focused on pleasing the largest numbers of the stupid to ensure reelection.

Ok, here is how I see things....I'm not very politically minded, hell up until last month I was never even registered to vote (I defend democracy, but I don't participate in it) , but whether you were serious or not, what you said is exactly the way I feel. The question still remains, how can we get someone into the election that normally wouldn't be there, besides lots of money (that's part of the problem). I'm not saying this should be figured out before the next election, cause I know it wouldn't, but maybe if people start pushing for a change in the next several years we might have something going for 2012....or maybe 2008. It's never too late to take your country back from the people you don't want to have it. Like I said, I’m not the one that should be talking about political revolution, but maybe that’s not such a bad idea.
As far as the money goes, there has to be plenty of rich people out there that are willing to listen to the different ideas that are out there now. Hell, what about Bill Gates (you mentioned his type of money), he is such a big mind/free thinker, maybe he’ll give some money. All we (those who want a change) need to do is come up with some ideas…..a few good ideas started this country, a few good ideas started this political process, a few good ideas is the great thing this country was founded on!!!!
This may all sound like some dumbass tirade, but really I’m just trying to figure everything out. Please help me out.

[Ron 10]

Quote

You have said yourself that you're going to support the two-party system because you think only one of those two will get elected.

Well I live in a swing state and it really is going to boil down to one of the two....Its caller REALITY. I would rather cast my vote in the one of two options that will actually happen. Than try to piss up a rope and waste my vote.

Quote

If everyone thinks like you, nothing will ever change - and the status quo will continue.

See you blame guys like me...I blame the third parties for being crap choices.

Why should I vote on a crap choice with no chance of winning?

If they want my vote they have to come up with a better canidate.

You blame me, I blame the party.
Typical Dem stance..."It's not the guys fault he sucks, it's yours. And you should be ashamed".

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334