...and thus, given that we're on Totse, I would imagine that a good deal of you are voting for some 3rd party candidate.

It's stupid. Don't do it. Grow up. One of the two main nominees is going to be president whether you like it or not. If you don't like either one, then you choose the lesser of the two evils, so to speak. Voting for a 3rd party candidate not only is a wasted vote, but often those votes can determine elections. You could throw your vote away on Nader or whoever the fuck and actually help the candidate that you dislike the most.

So seriously...no one thinks you're rebellious, cool, or intelligent for voting for a 3rd party candidate. They think you're a stupid jackass, because you are.

Vote for who you like the most out of the major candidates, or don't vote at all. Period.

Vote for who you like, or don't vote at all. Period.

and what if that person is a third party candidate? you've just contradicted yourself


/thread

and what if that person is a third party candidate? you've just contradicted yourself


/thread

You certainly aren't helping your case for not being an idiot.

You could throw your vote away on Nader or whoever the fuck and actually help the candidate that you dislike the most.


People have a difficult time understanding this, even with the vast amount of examples of it. Fortunately it always comes back to ass rape them.

EDIT: People act like if you vote libertarian things will magically change for the better, but libertarian = embarrassed republican. People voting 3rd party will not magically fix things. Abandoning the two party system would not fix things. What would fix things is to stop allowing the media to brain wash people for the profit of corporations and other evil doers.

There should be some real tests to decide who can become president, none of this "leave it up to the easily manipulated retards to decide" shit.

*cough* fascist *cough*

People have a difficult time understanding this, even with the vast amount of examples of it. Fortunately it always comes back to ass rape them.

EDIT: People act like if you vote libertarian things will magically change for the better, but libertarian = embarrassed republican. People voting 3rd party will not magically fix things. Abandoning the two party system would not fix things. What would fix things is to stop allowing the media to brain wash people for the profit of corporations and other evil doers.

There should be some real tests to decide who can become president, none of this "leave it up to the easily manipulated retards to decide" shit.

Now THAT is proactive thinking. :cool:

Scientists are pretty damn good at making tests these days...you'd think ruling the nation would require some type of psychological testing.

*cough* fascist *cough*

I'm just a realist and a non-dumbass. In theory, a 3rd party candidate could win, but it hasn't happened (not even close, frankly), and it DEFINITELY won't happen with this election.

50% of the country is in love with Obama
40% of the country is female evangelical retards, racists, or diehard party loyalists

There's no way that some 3rd party jackass with a tiny fanbase is going to win. If the guy (it's Ron Paul this time, isn't it?) was campaigning at the same level as Obama and McCain, he MIGHT have an improved chance, but mostly...No.

First past the post is fucking retarded.
First past the post is fucking retarded.
First past the post is fucking retarded.
First past the post is fucking retarded.
First past the post is fucking retarded.


Until you have instant runoff (preferential voting), proportional representation, MMP, or some other system you will continue to have a two party system because it's the only one that works given the electoral mechanics.

Look at Canada - even with established 3rd parties, what effectively happens is that the least fractured side of politics wins by default.


Look at the UK 2005 result:

Labour
36.91% of the vote
55.11% of the seats

Conservatives
33.86% of the vote
30.65% of the seats

Liberal Democrats
23.09% of the vote
9.6% of the seats

FUCK YEAH DEMOCRACY

Think about that - the UK: even with 23% of the vote the Liberal Democrats have diddly squat parliamentary representation. Firstly tactical voting warps how people vote, but secondly vote splitting can allow candidates favored by the fewest people in a seat to win. (thus tactical voting!)

Electoral mechanics in the US make the two party system inevitable, until that changes there will not be viable 3rd parties. Because of primaries you won't see the Canadian situation where left wingers dissatisfied with the liberals support the NDP, because those people are quite happy trying to rock the boat in democratic primaries (ie Obama vs Hillary).
While it's true that a shaky multiparty system where two parties dominate can exist with FPTP, it's crap and favors 'coalitions' that intentionally don't compete against it other. The primary system in the US entrenches the two party system because those on the fringes of the major parties can still have a large say in *who* the candidates are, as opposed to the internal pre-selections that occur in other countries.

...and thus, given that we're on Totse, I would imagine that a good deal of you are voting for some 3rd party candidate.

It's stupid. Don't do it. Grow up. One of the two main nominees is going to be president whether you like it or not. If you don't like either one, then you choose the lesser of the two evils, so to speak. Voting for a 3rd party candidate not only is a wasted vote, but often those votes can determine elections. You could throw your vote away on Nader or whoever the fuck and actually help the candidate that you dislike the most.

So seriously...no one thinks you're rebellious, cool, or intelligent for voting for a 3rd party candidate. They think you're a stupid jackass, because you are.

Vote for who you like the most out of the major candidates, or don't vote at all. Period.

Its the logic like this that prevents third party candidates, legitimate or not, from having any shot, and thus "throwing away" any hope for this country.

By continuously voting for one of two parties, we are only reinforcing the terrible policies that got this country into the fucked up position it is today. Your rationale has all but eliminated accountability in politics; each party can pretty much guarantee being in power at least once every couple terms.

So take your lesser of two evils and shove it up your ass. I'm not going to vote for a person I don't agree with. No, I'm going to hold the party accountable for their actions, I'm going to tell both of them with my vote that I think they're doing a piss poor job of things. Yeah, yeah, my one vote won't make a difference, but if everyone thought that way no one would vote at all.

And I'm not worried about the outcome anyway. I was going to vote for McCain, but now I'm voting for Nader. See, I'm taking votes away from McCain, helping Obama get elected! I can eat my cake and have it too. ;)


What would fix things is to stop allowing the media to brain wash people for the profit of corporations and other evil doers.


So your solution is for everyone to wake up and smell the proverbial coffee, then vote in the same bastards that have been playing us for fools all these years? How is realizing there's a problem, then not doing anything about it going to help?

EDIT: Parallax pretty much said what I mean, only more eloquently. :p

The good thing about voting 3rd party is that if enough people do it, it sends a message. For example, if the Republicans lose this time because people voted for the Libertarian instead, the Republicans might say "Oh shit, we better do more of what that guy is doing so that doesn't happen again next time".

I'll either be writing in Ron Paul or not voting this time around.

Stupid.

You're still an idiot, as nothing you said changes what I already said.

You're still an idiot, as nothing you said changes what I already said.

Expert trolling or do you just not have a reasonable response?

Expert trolling or no reasonable response?

No. I've already thoroughly explained why voting for a 3rd party is useless (particularly in this election), and nothing you wrote changed that. You basically said "Well, it shouldn't be a two-party system (even though it is), so I'm gonna waste my vote even though I know it's a completely useless act."

If you want to change the system, there are ways to go about it that could actually WORK. Voting for Nader is like...I dunno, a fucking high school victory. That's to say, you do something that you think is rebellious and hxc0re even though it still doesn't get you what you want.

Honestly, a more effective strategy would be to make a YouTube video, moon everyone, and say "Our Two-Party System sucks". It'll save you a trip to the polls. :p

You certainly aren't helping your case for not being an idiot.

ok? do you have a point besides ad hominem? or are you just so fucking stupid you can't point out a hole in my argument?

No. I've already thoroughly explained why voting for a 3rd party is useless (particularly in this election), and nothing you wrote changed that. You basically said "Well, it shouldn't be a two-party system (even though it is), so I'm gonna waste my vote even though I know it's a completely useless act."


Nope. Not useless. It holds the main two parties accountable for their actions. I thought I made that pretty clear in my post.


If you want to change the system, there are ways to go about it that could actually WORK. Voting for Nader is like...I dunno, a fucking high school victory. That's to say, you do something that you think is rebellious and hxc0re even though it still doesn't get you what you want.

*sigh* is this whats become of american politics? Vote for someone you want, and you're labeled a rebellious teenager. Well thats alright. You keep on voting for the lesser of two evils. That sure seems to be getting you somewhere.

Honestly, a more effective strategy would be to make a YouTube video, moon everyone, and say "Our Two-Party System sucks". It'll save you a trip to the polls. :p

A nice gesture to be sure. But even if everyone agrees with me, if they still go out and vote for one of the two major parties, absolutely nothing has been accomplished.

Nope. Not useless. It holds the main two parties accountable for their actions. I thought I made that pretty clear in my post.



*sigh* is this whats become of american politics? Vote for someone you want, and you're labeled a rebellious teenager. Well thats alright. You keep on voting for the lesser of two evils. That sure seems to be getting you somewhere.

The fact of the matter is that 34% of the votes (the minimum needed to win in a 3-party race) are NOT going to go to a 3rd party in this election. Part of being mature is being realistic. Nader will not be president now, but he technically could have a chance in the future. If that's what you want, then you should be working hard to get your fellow countrymen interested in multiple parties and a new government system. That would hold the Democrats and Republicans responsible for their actions, and you'd actually have a chance of getting what you want.

Actually if enough people vote third party this election cycle, then the next election cycle that party/nominee becomes eligible for "matching" funds from the gov't so if you don't like either vote Barr and hope he gets 10% of the vote and then Libertarians can compete on the national level, of course that will mean the two main parties will stop opting for public funds (like Obama did this time).

The fact of the matter is that 34% of the votes (the minimum needed to win in a 3-party race) are NOT going to go to a 3rd party in this election. Part of being mature is being realistic. Nader will not be president now, but he technically could have a chance in the future. If that's what you want, then you should be working hard to get your fellow countrymen interested in multiple parties and a new government system. That would hold the Democrats and Republicans responsible for their actions, and you'd actually have a chance of getting what you want.

Fair enough, but interest alone isn't going to get anyone anywhere. At some point or another it needs action, in the form of votes. Whether the end is to actually elect a third party candidate, or simply to show the major parties that we think they are fucking up big time, it doesn't matter. Your logic however, goes directly against that, largely preventing progress in any form.

...and thus, given that we're on Totse, I would imagine that a good deal of you are voting for some 3rd party candidate.

It's stupid. Don't do it. Grow up. One of the two main nominees is going to be president whether you like it or not. If you don't like either one, then you choose the lesser of the two evils, so to speak. Voting for a 3rd party candidate not only is a wasted vote, but often those votes can determine elections. You could throw your vote away on Nader or whoever the fuck and actually help the candidate that you dislike the most.

So seriously...no one thinks you're rebellious, cool, or intelligent for voting for a 3rd party candidate. They think you're a stupid jackass, because you are.

Vote for who you like the most out of the major candidates, or don't vote at all. Period.

Wow.....you are an idiot and you are waisting your time.

Your vote and your opinion mean nothing.
People have the right to vote for who ever they want.

What do you get out of telling people they are idiots for voting for a third party?

Let's assume there's a 33% turnout in my state (Utah). If I vote, my vote will be one out of about a million. If McCain gives his candidacy to Jack Abramoff and al-Qaeda officially endorses the Republican ticket there would probably be only one state that would still give its EVs to the GOP by double digit margins and that would be Utah. So, vote what I may my vote will be irrelevant. The only thing that matters here are local elections for which I'll (hypothetically) be voting straight Democratic (and libertarian for the solid races like governor and attorney general for reasons I'll describe later and with the added reason that I know both of the candidates personally). The Republicans control everything here and thus corruption is pervasive without another party to monitor it. If I lived in Chicago I would do the opposite. But, there is a strategy for my solitary federal vote. Last year the Green Party was about 200 signatures away from being on the ballot this year in my state. Thus a vote for the Green Party would mean that the party receives more attention and can eventually be placed on the ballot in future elections. Assuming about 10,000 people write-in Green (a heavily optimistic number), my vote will instead be one out of 10,000. My vote will have more local influence if it goes to a third party than if it went to any of the major parties. If I lived in a swing state then the opposite would be true; that's why they created www.voteswap.org in 2004, so that third parties could get help in solid states (where they are typically weak) and solid parties could get help in swing states (the only states that matter for them). It's a strategic vote; by voting third party your vote has more local influence. But honestly, one vote for either of the two largest candidates will not affect anything, unless it's by some freak coincidence where one vote decides the election, but for that you would have to live in a swing state and I don't.

Der Drache is the reason thrid-parties can't win elections.

My apologies, that comment was completely out of line.

DerDrache, I disagree with you completely. With enough individuals showing dissatisfaction by voting 3rd party, or even voting 3rd party as a genuine act, we can make a real impact on the two main parties. When a giant sleeps, it takes a violent action to wake them up. Losing half of your voter base to a 3rd party may very well do the job.

Bull Moose V2.0.08?

I can agree that in a major presidential race third parties are longshots, and voting for them is throwing away your vote, and whatever power you have to swing your state to your side. Unless of course the party managed to establish itself in your state, and started to spread of course. The problem with third parties is they aren't starting small. they want to go right for the presidency without taking up smaller positions and building a name for themselves.

I'll either be writing in Ron Paul or not voting this time around.

Much as I like Paul, voting for him would be the same as not voting. I expect if you don't vote you will change your sig to..

Don't blame me, I didn't vote.

BTW I would take Ron Paul over Obama any day of the fucking week, but since Ron Paul is no longer a viable candidate (my opinion of his qualification not withstanding) I have to vote Obama.

I missed voting age this election by about a month, so I wont have the chance to be voting.

If I were voting I would vote with my conscience and no matter how irrational it look to everyone who is brainwashed into "voting for the lesser of 2 evils."
The point of voting was never to vote for who you think can win, but to vote for who you agree with.

I realize no one I support will probably ever be in office anytime soon(if ever), but at least I wont be supporting some kind of crazy, nutjob, welfare fantasy(and I'm not just talking about Obama).

And even if I was going to vote I honestly can't see a huge difference between McCain and Obama. They are both going to do almost the exact same thing once they get in office, they are just going to try and sell it to you differently. To someone embroiled in the whole thing they might see a difference, but to someone with *libertarian*(I am not necessarily libertarian but its about as close as it gets to a way to describe it) views, its just the same old bullshit.

Its about time that we downsize the government to a realistic in size and have a balanced budget. Its also time for people to take responsibility for themselves and stop demanding for the government to give them what they seem to believe they are entitled to.

But if you honestly believe in voting for either McCain or Obama and believe that one is honestly better then go ahead, just make sure you are making a informed decision. Who am I to tell you otherwise.


By the way, your bigotry isn't doing anything for trying to make anyone else look like an idiot. :)

Much as I like Paul, voting for him would be the same as not voting. I expect if you don't vote you will change your sig to..

Don't blame me, I didn't vote.

BTW I would take Ron Paul over Obama any day of the fucking week, but since Ron Paul is no longer a viable candidate (my opinion of his qualification not withstanding) I have to vote Obama.

I struggled with this as well. He dropped out of the race, tacitly saying "I don't want to be president." Bob Barr is a long way from Paul, but he is someone who is sticking in the race that I agree with the most.

I agree with the OP. Voting for what you believe in is retarded.

I missed voting age this election by about a month, so I wont have the chance to be voting.

If I were voting I would vote with my conscience and no matter how irrational it look to everyone who is brainwashed into "voting for the lesser of 2 evils."
The point of voting was never to vote for who you think can win, but to vote for who you agree with.



I happen to like Obama. I'm not voting for him because I think he's the lesser of 2 evils, but I realize for the 3rd-party voters, that's generally how he is percieved.

It doesn't matter what you think the "point" of voting is. Voting for someone who you know can't win can help a terrible candidate be elected. Period.

If you guys want a change then you need to do something smarter and more proactive than wasting your vote. Grow up.

Voting third party in this presidential election is an example ofthe instinct of instant gratification at it's worst. It's like a get rich quick scheme. It is the political equivalent of erecting a string can telephone in your backyard in order to compete with the phone company. With out the the relevant support structure backing it such an endeavour is doomed to failure. Politics isn't about principle, and it's never been about principle. Politics is about the excercise of power. With that in mind why should anyone vote for a political party that lacks political power? If your political party lacks the political discipline and ability to be elected dogcatcher (hyperbole) why on earth would you expect anyone to be willing to support your party in a presidential bid? If you want your party to be taken seriously elect them to local office first.Then once you've achieved that elect them to state office and support your partie's expansion into other states.Only then once you've built up a significant base should you even consider supporting a candidate for presidential office. TL/DR Third parties need to pay their dues before they run for president.

Voting third party in this presidential election is an example ofthe instinct of instant gratification at it's worst. It's like a get rich quick scheme. It is the political equivalent of erecting a string can telephone in your backyard in order to compete with the phone company. With out the the relevant support structure backing it such an endeavour is doomed to failure. Politics isn't about principle, and it's never been about principle. Politics is about the excercise of power. With that in mind why should anyone vote for a political party that lacks political power? If your political party lacks the political discipline and ability to be elected dogcatcher (hyperbole) why on earth would you expect anyone to be willing to support your party in a presidential bid? If you want your party to be taken seriously elect them to local office first.Then once you've achieved that elect them to state office and support your partie's expansion into other states.Only then once you've built up a significant base should you even consider supporting a candidate for presidential office. TL/DR Third parties need to pay their dues before they run for president.

Fucking A.

I happen to like Obama. I'm not voting for him because I think he's the lesser of 2 evils, but I realize for the 3rd-party voters, that's generally how he is percieved.

It doesn't matter what you think the "point" of voting is. Voting for someone who you know can't win can help a terrible candidate be elected. Period.

If you guys want a change then you need to do something smarter and more proactive than wasting your vote. Grow up.

Like I said, I am fine with you voting for Obama as long as you have made an attempt to inform yourself and you feel it is best for the country.

I would agree with you actually, just not on this election. I cannot perceive Obama or McCain as being the lesser of 2 evils. If a candidate in a major party had some fundamental views I agreed with(monetary policy for example), even if we disagreed on a lot of other things, and they were running against McCain/Obama I would probably vote for them. I cannot vote for someone I disagree with entirely, just so someone else I disagree with entirely wont be in office.

And I would agree with you again on needing to do something smarter and more proactive than just vote. I think the Ron Paul Revolution, or whatever they were calling it was a great step in the right direction and I am interested in seeing what comes out of what it in the coming years.

When I was talking about the "point" of voting, I think what I was saying applies to the party elections more. I know a lot of people who preferred Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, or Mike Gravel, but didn't vote for them just because they didnt think they had a chance of winning and instead voted for McCain, Romney, Hillary, or Obama even if they disagreed with them entirely. Just the fact that they were openly talking about it that way is absolutely absurd.

Isn't "lesser evil" politics what elected Dubya the second time around? :rolleyes:

This thread is fucking retarded. As if people actually think that voting for the lesser of two evils is a GOOD thing. You get no where in life if you compromise. If history thought us anything it's to stand up for what you believe in: Equal rights, war, peace, poverty. What the fuck is it with this lazy generation and their apathetic attitude towards everything?

Not voting for the best candidate because their party hasn't, "pay their dues" is probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard. How can you even try to use that as an argument? Vote for the best man (or woman), period.

The fact of the matter is that 34% of the votes (the minimum needed to win in a 3-party race) are NOT going to go to a 3rd party in this election. Part of being mature is being realistic. Nader will not be president now, but he technically could have a chance in the future. If that's what you want, then you should be working hard to get your fellow countrymen interested in multiple parties and a new government system. That would hold the Democrats and Republicans responsible for their actions, and you'd actually have a chance of getting what you want.

Another part of being mature is not throwing tantrums and name-calling because people don't conform to your way of thinking.

It should be pointed out that one of the founding principles of this country is diversity of thought and belief, and the idea that the vote should represent someone you want to be president is one of those beliefs. You may feel that it is stupid and throw nonsense around about highschool mentality, but this predates kiddy faddishness, and is not reflected in reality. The reality is that someone may indeed believe that neither candidate is appropriate, that they are both the "greater evil", and that if their vote is going to be meaningless in effect, then it should at least represent something.... and that something not being sucking off some partisan's ridiculous idea of "stealing" votes.

It should also be noted that being realistic includes realizing that insulting people to get them to take you seriously is failure in motion.

Another part of being mature is not throwing tantrums and name-calling because people don't conform to your way of thinking.

It should be pointed out that one of the founding principles of this country is diversity of thought and belief, and the idea that the vote should represent someone you want to be president is one of those beliefs. You may feel that it is stupid and throw nonsense around about highschool mentality, but this predates kiddy faddishness, and is not reflected in reality. The reality is that someone may indeed believe that neither candidate is appropriate, that they are both the "greater evil", and that if their vote is going to be meaningless in effect, then it should at least represent something.... and that something not being sucking off some partisan's ridiculous idea of "stealing" votes.

It should also be noted that being realistic includes realizing that insulting people to get them to take you seriously is failure in motion.

When 3rd party voters stop being idiots, I'll stop calling them idiots. I may be "name-calling", but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

If, for instance, a 3rd party voter said, "I fully understand that 3rd party voting can result in a worse fate for the country than voting Dem/Rep, but I'm going to do it anyways just because I can.", then I definitely wouldn't call him an idiot. I'd call him an asshole. (But being an asshole is a lot better than being an idiot.)

When 3rd party voters stop being idiots, I'll stop calling them idiots. I may be "name-calling", but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

If, for instance, a 3rd party voter said, "I fully understand that 3rd party voting can result in a worse fate for the country than voting Dem/Rep, but I'm going to do it anyways just because I can.", then I definitely wouldn't call him an idiot. I'd call him an asshole. (But being an asshole is a lot better than being an idiot.)

Quoting you:
So seriously...no one thinks you're rebellious, cool, or intelligent for voting for a 3rd party candidate.

You make this generalization as if it somehow represented all third-party voters, and that's just unearned arrogance on your part. It's about as "valid" as assuming that the only reasons people vote for the major parties is because they are all sheep.

Certainly, it's true that some are, but the way you parade it around is outright toolish. For you to sit there and harp on about maturity when you're not conducting yourself in a mature fashion is hypocritical. Okay, so you want to say it? Sure, that's your right. But you sure as fuck aren't mature in doing it.

Quoting you:


You make this generalization as if it somehow represented all third-party voters, and that's just unearned arrogance on your part. It's about as "valid" as assuming that the only reasons people vote for the major parties is because they are all sheep.

Certainly, it's true that some are, but the way you parade it around is outright toolish. For you to sit there and harp on about maturity when you're not conducting yourself in a mature fashion is hypocritical. Okay, so you want to say it? Sure, that's your right. But you sure as fuck aren't mature in doing it.

"no one thinks you're rebellious, cool, or intelligent for voting for a 3rd party candidate. "

That applies to every 3rd party voter who doesn't have the aforementioned "asshole sentiment". Refusing to accept that voting 3rd party is useless and potentially detrimental to the country is idiotic. Period.

For reference:
Main Entry:
id·i·o·cy Listen to the pronunciation of idiocy
Pronunciation:
\ˈi-dē-ə-sē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural id·i·o·cies
Date:
circa 152

1usually offensive : extreme mental retardation (heh)
2: something notably stupid or foolish

And what does "foolish" mean, then?


Main Entry:
fool·ish Listen to the pronunciation of foolish
Pronunciation:
\ˈfü-lish\
Function:
adjective
Date:
13th century

1: lacking in sense, judgment, or discretion
2 a: absurd , ridiculous b: marked by a loss of composure : nonplussed
3: insignificant , trifling

---

Honestly, I don't really care who you vote for. What bothers me is the stupidity behind the action. If you smarten up and decide you want to vote 3rd party for the sole purpose of being an asshole, then although you'd be an asshole, you wouldn't be a stupid asshole.

"no one thinks you're rebellious, cool, or intelligent for voting for a 3rd party candidate. "

That applies to every 3rd party voter who doesn't have the aforementioned "asshole sentiment". Refusing to accept that voting 3rd party is useless and potentially detrimental to the country is idiotic. Period.



Sorry, it is in fact your lesser of two evils argument that is actually detrimental to our country. The reasons for this I've explained in my posts. Now please, stop being an arrogant douchebag.

Also, no one thinks you're mature or or enlightened because you refuse to vote third party. They think you're a retard, because you are.

Abandoning the two party system would not fix things.

Why do you say that? I would say this is one of two things that could fix American democracy, the other being a cap on corporate donations.


Also, no one thinks you're mature or or enlightened because you refuse to vote third party. They think you're a retard, because you are.

^This.

DerDrache = black?

If so, I find it weird that a black person is putting people down who want to exercise a civic duty like voting when not too long ago blacks were hung up for practicing theirs. Well, I guess anything is possible on totse.

DerDrache = black?

If so, I find it weird that a black person is putting people down who want to exercise a civic duty like voting when not too long ago blacks were hung up for practicing theirs. Well, I guess anything is possible on totse.

ROFL. I"m not putting people down for voting. I'm putting them down for voting idiotically.

ROFL. I"m not putting people down for voting. I'm putting them down for voting idiotically.

Well, to third party supporters, consistently voting for the people who have caused all the problems in this country at the Federal level (Democrats and Republicans) is voting idiotically. But seriously, you are putting people down for a basic freedom that this country agreed that each individual is entitled to. Your Great Grandparents probably were not allowed this freedom by means of physical harm.

Also... this time around Barack pretty much has it in the bag. No amount of third party votes will effect his landslide victory. The mainstream media saying shit like "the race is neck to neck" is bullshit they report because there really isn't anything to report. Barack has it not just because people tend to vote on image, which Barack excels at in comparison to McCain; but because McCain and his campaign has pretty much fucked themselves over anywhere they could have.

Seriously screw libertarianism. I cant wait until they start creating gold using nuclear fusion reactions. Gold belongs in TVs, Computers, cell phones, and any kind of electrical wiring. That will get the gold standard guys to STFU. I'm not saying don't get rid of the federal reserve. Fuck the fed. We can get rid of them too, the central bankers are worse than government, because we can't vote on their actions.

It's totally feasible to get weed, abortion, gay unions, and all that person liberties jazz without resorting to economic anarchy. Ron Paul wants to get rid of Roe vs Wade repealed and renegotiated at the state-by-state level. He's a dinosaur. Why do I wan't the state of virginia to tell the girls here that their glob of cells is a human with rights because of some evangelical hicks further south? Funny how "socialist" states like europe and canada do more for personal liberties with lower drinking ages, lax weed laws, more gay rights, etc. Meanwhile the deregulated states of america has to deal with stupid shit like prayer in school debates.

A decent government kept in check by the people needs to allocate proper funds to things like science, anti-pollution laws, FDA-like establishments and things of the sort. Free market capitalism relies on unlimited growth on a planet with finite, limited resources. Doing the right thing isn't always profitable. That's why companies have to be told to stop dumping pollution in the streams. Companies have to be told that some pesticides are toxic. The chinese have to be told not to put fucking lead paint on toys. If a company can suppress information to keep people from knowing that it's damaging the environment and poisoning people, effectively delaying a boycott, is that free-market victory? That's also why the US is slacking in science and education while the Europeans have the hadron collider and NASA is bumming rides off of the Russians. That's why france operates under nuclear power and germany has one of the most efficient recycling systems in the world.

But no, the deregulated states citizens can keep grenades in their basements to defend themselves against baby-killers and liberal elitists. Clearly they know more about being free. I don't like the idea of an idiot majority, where by definition half of all people are below average intelligence and most just slightly above, calling the shots.

Well, to third party supporters, consistently voting for the people who have caused all the problems in this country at the Federal level (Democrats and Republicans) is voting idiotically. But seriously, you are putting people down for a basic freedom that this country agreed that each individual is entitled to. Your Great Grandparents probably were not allowed this freedom by means of physical harm.

What is so complicated about this?

1) You have two candidates, one of whom will definitely win. Our bipartisan mentality is to blame, but that doesn't change the fact that either a Democrat or Republican is going to win a given upcoming election.

2) You may dislike both candidates, but I think it's generally fair to say that one is usually worse than the other in a 3rd party voter's mind. Correct?

3) Votes given to a 3rd party instead of the two central candidates can and have allowed the worse candidate to become president.

Now, my opinion is that 3rd party voters are voting as part of a pointless, childish protest. You guys claim that isn't the case, and that you want to improve the country's future. The only thing you actually achieve, however, is potentially helping the shittier candidate win, which is bad for the country's future.

Solution? Accept that in the country's current state of affairs, either a Democrat or Republican will be president. Even if you aren't crazy about either one, use your head and vote for the better candidate out of those two. Assuming you sincerely do want to change the country (and not just be an idiot), you should then spend the next 4 years helping a 3rd party candidate get recognition and support from the rest of the country. Then in the next election, your 3rd party vote might not be so retarded. I mean, honestly...do you really think you're going to change 80-90% of the country's political beliefs and alliances just by voting 3rd party?

The ONLY valid point that has been made here is that if a candidate gets x% of votes then he'll get some funding for a future campaign. However, if you want the rest of the country to vote for such a candidate, you're going to have to do more than just vote Ron Paul and hang around on Totse.

2) You may dislike both candidates, but I think it's generally fair to say that one is usually worse than the other in a 3rd party voter's mind. Correct?
Incorrect. Worst of all is voting to keep the status quo, which is exactly what you're doing if you give in and vote for either of the two main candidates.

Incorrect. Worst of all is voting to keep the status quo, which is exactly what you're doing if you give in and vote for either of the two main candidates.

So you think that no matter who the main candidates are, neither one will be better or worse for the country? I take it you've been living on Mars for the last 8 years, then?

Seriously screw libertarianism. I cant wait until they start creating gold using nuclear fusion reactions. Gold belongs in TVs, Computers, cell phones, and any kind of electrical wiring. That will get the gold standard guys to STFU. I'm not saying don't get rid of the federal reserve. Fuck the fed. We can get rid of them too, the central bankers are worse than government, because we can't vote on their actions.

It's totally feasible to get weed, abortion, gay unions, and all that person liberties jazz without resorting to economic anarchy.

It's worth noting that not all libertarians believe that we need to return to the gold standard.

Seriously guys...I realize that I forced you to be defensive by calling you idiots, but...get over it.

The bottom-line is that if you continue on this path, you'll never get the change you want. Do you really think that changing the political system of the most powerful country in the world is going to be EASY? You've got...what, maybe 10% of the country seriously interested in a new political system, and most of you think you can bring that change about just by voting 3rd party and doing nothing else.

It's absurd. If you want America to get this huge facelift, then you need to be fucking activists. Then your 3rd party voting would mean something, and you wouldn't be getting bad presidents elected for no reason.

It's worth noting that not all libertarians believe that we need to return to the gold standard.

That's why we need to start a science-oriented party. If you can promote logical thinking throughout the population then personal social liberties are a given. Science has flourished under democracy, fascism, and communism. See the US, hitler, and russia, but not without massive funding from either governments or corporations. If you can balance these two out, with the government promoting competition and keeping corporations from fucking us over we'll be in a new enlightenment era. It will also cure the US of its anti-intellectualism disease.

That's why we need to start a science-oriented party. If you can promote logical thinking throughout the population then personal social liberties are a given. Science has flourished under democracy, fascism, and communism. See the US, hitler, and russia, but not without massive funding from either governments or corporations. If you can balance these two out, with the government promoting competition and keeping corporations from fucking us over we'll be in a new enlightenment era. It will also cure the US of its anti-intellectualism disease.

Hitler had some really stupid scientists, though.

Seriously guys...I realize that I forced you to be defensive by calling you idiots, but...get over it.

The bottom-line is that if you continue on this path, you'll never get the change you want. Do you really think that changing the political system of the most powerful country in the world is going to be EASY? You've got...what, maybe 10% of the country seriously interested in a new political system, and most of you think you can bring that change about just by voting 3rd party and doing nothing else.

It's absurd. If you want America to get this huge facelift, then you need to be fucking activists. Then your 3rd party voting would mean something, and you wouldn't be getting bad presidents elected for no reason.

Yeah. The two parties are indistinguishable during an election because they have to pander to the middle always. After the election you see them revert back to their true nature. Equal they are not.

Hitler had some really stupid scientists, though.

Yeah, like jet aircrafts and rockets that got NASA to the moon. Those idiots.

Yeah, like jet aircrafts and rockets that got NASA to the moon. Those idiots.

Well, wasn't most of his science focused on genetics? Weren't many of his top scientists hardcore racists, so much so that they did experiments on non-Aryans as though they were animals? Racist = idiot, in my book.

IMO, a lot of people in the world are beyond help and need to be killed, and then we need to start from scratch with real science and logical thinking as the foundation for society.

Yeah. The two parties are indistinguishable during an election because they have to pander to the middle always. After the election you see them revert back to their true nature. Equal they are not.

Which is why people vote 3rd party. Most people who vote for a 3rd party candidate do so not because they think their candidate stands a chance of getting in, but because they want to demonstrate top the major parties that the issue they care about can sway votes, and to force the main parties to address it. How long ago was it that climate change was an issue only talked about by loony fringe green candidates?

That's the realistic outcome of support for the Paul campaign and a reason to vote for Barr, to show the big two that civil liberties and bloated wasteful government are issues which can cast votes and part people with donation money.

Which is why people vote 3rd party. Most people who vote for a 3rd party candidate do so not because they think their candidate stands a chance of getting in, but because they want to demonstrate top the major parties that the issue they are about can sway votes, and to force the main parties to address it. How long ago was it that climate change was an issue only talked about by loony fringe green candidates?


Al Gore did that after he lost the presidential race, not the loony fringe green candidates.

Al Gore did that after he lost the presidential race, not the loony fringe green candidates.

No, he cashed in on a rising market.

"no one thinks you're rebellious, cool, or intelligent for voting for a 3rd party candidate. "

That applies to every 3rd party voter who doesn't have the aforementioned "asshole sentiment". Refusing to accept that voting 3rd party is useless and potentially detrimental to the country is idiotic. Period.

No, that is indeed bullshit. Realize that the "logic" you've been parading around in another reply fails - third party voters do NOT always perceive one of the two primary parties as the "lesser evil". And when you consider both of them equally lame, your vote becomes meaningless, except in two ways.

One is two you, one is to others.

If you believe this, your vote becomes meaningful to you in that it allows you to state what you feel by voting for someone else.

And yes... it's the other way that makes you a so-called asshole... because the other way it's meaningful is to others who believe you are somehow stealing their candidates votes. This is fucking asinine, and this seems to be people like you who believe it's detrimental because they won't vote for YOUR candidate. You want them to fucking fall in line and conform, and because they won't, you resort to this petty and childish name-calling, pure BULLSHIT which harkens back to high school behaviour.

Honestly, I don't really care who you vote for. What bothers me is the stupidity behind the action.

If you smarten up and decide you want to vote 3rd party for the sole purpose of being an asshole, then although you'd be an asshole, you wouldn't be a stupid asshole.

Before this goes too much further, I'd like to point out that I don't typically vote third-party. However, I do understand and support the fundamental thought system behind voting that way, particularly when I see a pair of decent candidates for the presidency - decent in that they aren't a pair of Bushes, who I don't believe are good for the position. I believe that neither will be "more detrimental" to this country, and that we're in store for more of the same old bullshit.

As such, I can see why someone would vote that way. For you to insult those people shows a fundamental lack of the maturity you criticize others for, a lack of grasp on the basic principles of insight into the way others think, and an all-around arrogance that you've in no way earned.

Examine the reasoning you've used. It fails, because it is THEIR vote, not yours, and they're voting for what they believe. The idea that they are assholes for not voting the way you think is least detrimental for this country is nonthing but self-obssessed conceit. "Believe the way I do, or you're an idiot.".l

Thinking that any two candidates are going to take the country in the same direction is retarded. As I said, just look at the direction Bush has taken us. While you might say that both candidates are going to maintain the same general political system we have now, that doesn't mean that one won't be more detrimental to our country's health.



Examine the reasoning you've used. It fails, because it is THEIR vote, not yours, and they're voting for what they believe. The idea that they are assholes for not voting the way you think is least detrimental for this country is nonthing but self-obssessed conceit. "Believe the way I do, or you're an idiot.".l

This isn't a matter of belief. It's a matter of reality. I have absolutely no problem with them supporting 3rd party candidates. I have a problem with them helping shitty people get elected for no reason other than ego and immaturity. If they want to support 3rd party candidates, they should do it in an effective, non-idiotic, non-pointless manner. For that matter, you can add laziness to the laundry-list of things wrong with 3rd party voters. They love to talk about how they want change and new government, but the extent of their activism is throwing away their vote.

And to be clear: If all of these people voted for one of the main candidates and helped the worse guy get elected, I wouldn't (necessarily) consider them idiots. In that situation, they'd be supporting their beliefs and doing something that can actually get them what they want. When they vote for the 3rd party, they are supporting their beliefs, accomplishing nothing, AND possibly helping an asshole get elected.

Seriously screw libertarianism. I cant wait until they start creating gold using nuclear fusion reactions.

The binding energy of any element over iron takes energy to fuse. That is, the process is endothermic. It's an assload of energy, which is why you see a shitload more hydrogen and other light elements in the universe than you do the heavier elements. The only known sources are stars, which tend to be much larger and consist of pretty much nothing but elements in various degrees of fusion.

Basically, I don't look forward to industrial scale transmutation of elements until maybe the quantum leap in energy production after fusion, which there is a distinct possibility that such a process is not even possible in this universe.

If they want to support 3rd party candidates, they should do it in an effective, non-idiotic, non-pointless manner.

It's funny you mention that because with the current power structure of Democrats versus Republicans, it ensures that thrid parties have a distinct disadvantage to running a campaign compared to said Democrats and Republicans. That's the way it has been set up, and will be perpetuated. For instance, the judge ruling that Obama and McCain can be on the Texas ballots cited a law stating that parties getting %10 of the votes in a previous election can get on the next election ballots, carefully neglecting that same law spells out that parties that can use the %10 qualifier are parties that nominate their candidates by convention (Libertarian party) as opposed to primary (Dem/Pub).

The party establishment will not allow a third party to rise, and you are a fucking moron if you can't figure this out. Did you ever wonder why Democrat and Republican approval rates are so damn low, but Democrat and Republicans always get elected to federal offices? :rolleyes:

There is no way possible to go about supporting 3'rd party candidates without laws that give them equal footing, which would require a thrid party candidate with a vested interest in such a thing to have a place of significant power. It's a catch-22.

Solution? Accept that in the country's current state of affairs, either a Democrat or Republican will be president. Even if you aren't crazy about either one, use your head and vote for the better candidate out of those two. Assuming you sincerely do want to change the country (and not just be an idiot), you should then spend the next 4 years helping a 3rd party candidate get recognition and support from the rest of the country. Then in the next election, your 3rd party vote might not be so retarded. I mean, honestly...do you really think you're going to change 80-90% of the country's political beliefs and alliances just by voting 3rd party?

Helping third party candidates between elections?
I thought candidates weren't even presented until the primaries. I mean before this election, McKinney was a Democrat. There was no way to know before the primaries that she was going to become a Green. So when is the right to time to vote for candidates? The next time around? Are you saying don't do today what you can put off tomorrow? If so, you aren't really doing a good job as a black citizen. First you put down people for practicing a freedom you wouldn't have had a century ago. Then you are advocating procrastination, which whites have stereotypically placed on black people as being lazy in the past. Seriously... dude... why do you care how other people vote? I don't see anyone saying DerDrache is voting for Obama because he is black. He shouldn't do that because it may look racist voting based on race. Thats like you saying, you guys shouldn't vote for third party candidates because it looks like you are trying to act cool.

DerDrache, do you believe it is more idiotic to not vote at all or to vote for a 3rd party?


Can someone explain to me why they believe bringing back the gold standard is a bad idea? Stable currency, WHAT A HORRIBLE IDEA.

DerDrache, do you believe it is more idiotic to not vote at all or to vote for a 3rd party?


Between the options of not voting at all or voting for a 3rd party candidate, I think it would be better to not vote at all. If you don't vote, then you're basically resigning to just "see what happens". This can result in a bad candidate being elected, but the non-voter simply doesn't care much, and that's his choice. However, 3rd party voters take the time and energy to go out and vote, and then do the equivalent of not voting. The idiotic part is that a) they refuse to acknowledge just how pointless their behavior is, and b) they claim to care about the country's well-being, yet don't do anything about it. (ie. they don't do anything that requires thought and energy, and instead do something simple that will have absolutely no effect)

3rd Party Voters: I'm going to make a thread to remind you that you're idiots every time there's a presidential election. Maybe in 20 years when you see that nothing has changed you'll start approaching this in a less naive way.

Helping third party candidates between elections?
I thought candidates weren't even presented until the primaries. I mean before this election, McKinney was a Democrat. There was no way to know before the primaries that she was going to become a Green. So when is the right to time to vote for candidates? The next time around? Are you saying don't do today what you can put off tomorrow? If so, you aren't really doing a good job as a black citizen. First you put down people for practicing a freedom you wouldn't have had a century ago. Then you are advocating procrastination, which whites have stereotypically placed on black people as being lazy in the past. Seriously... dude... why do you care how other people vote? I don't see anyone saying DerDrache is voting for Obama because he is black. He shouldn't do that because it may look racist voting based on race. Thats like you saying, you guys shouldn't vote for third party candidates because it looks like you are trying to act cool.

I'm genuinely not sure if you're trolling or just a moron. I'll assume both.

The vast majority of this country supports the current bipartisan system. If you want a given 3rd party person to win, they would at BEST need the support of more than 34 percent of the country. What does that mean? The small portion of the country that wants a 3rd party to win is going to have to actually do more than jack off, complain about Republicans and Democrats, and then vote for Nader every year.

This isn't a matter of belief. It's a matter of reality. I have absolutely no problem with them supporting 3rd party candidates. I have a problem with them helping shitty people get elected for no reason other than ego and immaturity. If they want to support 3rd party candidates, they should do it in an effective, non-idiotic, non-pointless manner. For that matter, you can add laziness to the laundry-list of things wrong with 3rd party voters. They love to talk about how they want change and new government, but the extent of their activism is throwing away their vote.


DerDrache for Douche '08. Has a nice ring to it.

I'm genuinely not sure if you're trolling or just a moron. I'll assume both.

The vast majority of this country supports the current bipartisan system. If you want a given 3rd party person to win, they would at BEST need the support of more than 34 percent of the country. What does that mean? The small portion of the country that wants a 3rd party to win is going to have to actually do more than jack off, complain about Republicans and Democrats, and then vote for Nader every year.

Are you sure they support the current bipartisan system or do they just accept it? There is a difference. With this attitude of yours, I really do hope you don't have a picture of Mr. Luther King hanging up in your place. He pretty much went through hell and high water to his death so you can vote. Seriously... this attitude of yours is pretty Uncle Tom-ish. "Don't do this... don't do that..." As a black person, I would have figured you out of anyone else would understand how fucked up that is to tell people stuff like that.

Politics isn't about principle, and it's never been about principle. Politics is about the excercise of power.

No. Voting - which is what is relevant here, not "politics" - is whatever the fuck I want it to be because I'm the one's who's doing it, not you.

Thinking that any two candidates are going to take the country in the same direction is retarded.

That's a completely meaningless observation. Of COURSE they will take us in different directions - they're opposition ideologies. That doesn't mean that one will take us in a successful direction - they're both full of fucking failure. End result - dead and homeless in a ditch versus dead in your house with a bullet in your face... is still dead either way. The end roads are failure.

Understand that voting third party is NOT like choosing Option C: Other - these are parties with their own ideologies, their own belief systems and their own candidates.

What you are arguing is that because things are the way they are, all those should be abandoned. It's the worst form of apathy, promoting the status quo, insulting others that don't step into line.

After all, if they simply vote some other candidate, then THEY HAVE NO PURPOSE... except to feed your ego.

As I said, just look at the direction Bush has taken us. While you might say that both candidates are going to maintain the same general political system we have now, that doesn't mean that one won't be more detrimental to our country's health.

Your opinion. My opinion - both will be detrimental to our health, and yes - equally so. Oh yes, both will be "change" from Bush, but the fact is that one is dangerously naive while the other can't seem to lead effectively to save his ass. They're both decent people, certainly, but they have nothing to offer us as a country.

This isn't a matter of belief. It's a matter of reality. I have absolutely no problem with them supporting 3rd party candidates.

I have a problem with them helping shitty people get elected for no reason other than ego and immaturity.

This is the primary problem you have here, your insistence that you are talking about reality when what you are really talking about is your perception of reality.

The third party voter cannot win. No matter what they are doing, they are helping a shitty person get elected. That is what THEY believe. YOUR problem is that they are helping what you believe is the wrong shitty person win. This is nothing but your ego and your fear talking, the belief that if they did things the way you think they should, they have no other choice than to vote the way you do, because the other candidate is clearly more detrimental.

This is ignorant, and it ignores insight into the way other people think.

If they want to support 3rd party candidates, they should do it in an effective, non-idiotic, non-pointless manner.

If they do it the way you suggest, there is no purpose in their existence. And remember - despite what you say - their manner IS the most effective way to go about it, because they don't win no matter what. They don't perceive as you do, that one candidate is more detrimental - because these candidates don't support their ideologies.

Tell me something if this were Republicans and Libertarians for candidates, and you were a hardcore Democrat, would you "automatically" vote for people who are in direct opposition to the way you think? Do your own ideals mean that little to you?


For that matter, you can add laziness to the laundry-list of things wrong with 3rd party voters. They love to talk about how they want change and new government, but the extent of their activism is throwing away their vote.

Dude, fuck off. That's a problem with American voters, not just third-party.

And to be clear: If all of these people voted for one of the main candidates and helped the worse guy get elected, I wouldn't (necessarily) consider them idiots. In that situation, they'd be supporting their beliefs and doing something that can actually get them what they want. When they vote for the 3rd party, they are supporting their beliefs, accomplishing nothing, AND possibly helping an asshole get elected.

Oh bullshit. They'd be denying their beliefs to support someone they don't believe in. After all, that candidate offers them NOTHING, nothing EXCEPT the "lesser of two evils", at least as you say it. When they believe that neither is the lesser, they're effectively playing a game of Mystery Doors.

I also find it extremely dishonest for you to say that when you've been repeatedly referring to (your perception) of their only alternative to stepping in line with you as "being assholes".

You've already decided that not only should they not vote third-party, but they must vote as you do, or they are assholes. Yet you turn around and pull this wishy washy garbage about how it's not necessarily bad for them to vote for the worst guy.

Read what you are saying. It's self-centered to the point of irrationality. Understand that this IS fundamentally about beliefs - that not everyone believes that there is a lesser of two evils.

Guys, I really don't care to argue about this anymore.

But as long as Totse is around, I'm going to make a thread every 4 years to remind you just how stupid and lazy you guys are. Maybe in 40 years or so, when the political system is completely unchanged, you'll realize that maybe you were approaching this the wrong way.

I don't really care though. I'm fine with the bipartisan system, so I guess I'll benefit from your laziness at least half of the time.

I don't really care though. I'm fine with the bipartisan system, so I guess I'll benefit from your laziness at least half of the time.

You do‽

Between the options of not voting at all or voting for a 3rd party candidate, I think it would be better to not vote at all. If you don't vote, then you're basically resigning to just "see what happens". This can result in a bad candidate being elected, but the non-voter simply doesn't care much, and that's his choice. However, 3rd party voters take the time and energy to go out and vote, and then do the equivalent of not voting. The idiotic part is that a) they refuse to acknowledge just how pointless their behavior is, and b) they claim to care about the country's well-being, yet don't do anything about it. (ie. they don't do anything that requires thought and energy, and instead do something simple that will have absolutely no effect)

3rd Party Voters: I'm going to make a thread to remind you that you're idiots every time there's a presidential election. Maybe in 20 years when you see that nothing has changed you'll start approaching this in a less naive way.

Most 3rd party voters take the time to actually understand the issues, unlike most voters who just flip on the tv and watch the sophomoric bullshit(the fact that you are using this forum probably takes you out of that group). The people who don't vote are, for the most part ignorant and apathetic.

You make the point that the two candidates will take us in different directions. It is obvious to me(and a large part of the population apparently) that they are just taking us to hell(figuratively), and that both parties are just leading us down 2 paths to the same place.

3rd party voters are taking the time to go out and send the message "I dont want to follow you all to hell."
To say you think it is more idiotic to be informed and do a arguably irrational behavior is more idiotic then sitting around and bitching and moaning and not voting, is absurd.

Most 3rd party voters do do thing that require thought and energy, they actually research the issues, and most of them inform others when they get the chance. In all honesty that is about all you can do.


...and maybe in 20 years you will realize that your "voting for the lesser of 2 evils" ideology hasn't gotten us anywhere.

So to everyone who will be voting democrat or republican this election, I hope you have fun deciding which bucket of puke you want to eat this time around.

DerDrache, do you believe it is more idiotic to not vote at all or to vote for a 3rd party?


Can someone explain to me why they believe bringing back the gold standard is a bad idea? Stable currency, WHAT A HORRIBLE IDEA.

Only it doesn't stabilize the currency.

Only it doesn't stabilize the currency.

Well the problem with our currency is that they keep printing money that isn't really backed up by anything, and for every new dollar printed the value of every other dollar goes down(inflation).

Theoretically in a country with a gold standard they could only print a new dollar if it is backed up by X amount of gold and thus the value of that dollar would stay stable. I say theoretically because due to the nature of banking institutions it doesn't always work out that way.

The real problem with our currency isn't just that it isnt backed up by anything, it is that the money supply is in the hands of people who dont give a damn about us.

...and maybe in 20 years you will realize that your "voting for the lesser of 2 evils" ideology hasn't gotten us anywhere.

So to everyone who will be voting democrat or republican this election, I hope you have fun deciding which bucket of puke you want to eat this time around.

So, I'm satisfied with the bipartisan system, and in 20 years, it'll still be here.

You're dissatisfied with the bipartisan system, and in 20 years, it'll still be here.

Hm...

So, I'm satisfied with the bipartisan system, and in 20 years, it'll still be here.

You're dissatisfied with the bipartisan system, and in 20 years, it'll still be here.

Hm...


How can you possibly be satisfied with anything that puts a huge limit on the possible ideas that are discussed in politics?

How can you possibly be satisfied with anything that puts a huge limit on the possible ideas that are discussed in politics?

You guys will have to convince me, and around 150 million other people as well.

You guys will have to convince me, and around 150 million other people as well.

Convince you of what?

Do you not agree that a 2 party system limits ideas, and do you not see the danger in this?

Convince you of what?

Do you not agree that a 2 party system limits ideas, and do you not see the danger in this?

The only way you're going to get your new government is if you change the attitudes of half the country. Sure, a bipartisan system limits ideas, but that isn't at all going to convince me that your 3rd party way is better. Aside from informing the public of what the alternatives are, you then have to convince them that the alternative is jsut as good/better than what we currently have.

My point? You. Have. A. Lot. Of. Work. To. Do.

Well the problem with our currency is that they keep printing money that isn't really backed up by anything, and for every new dollar printed the value of every other dollar goes down(inflation).

Theoretically in a country with a gold standard they could only print a new dollar if it is backed up by X amount of gold and thus the value of that dollar would stay stable. I say theoretically because due to the nature of banking institutions it doesn't always work out that way.


The value of the dollar would NOT be stable under a gold standard.
The supply of dollars would be determined by the supply of gold.
Depending on the rate of change in the amount of gold available and the growth of the real economy, a gold standard would be either inflationary or (far more likely) deflationary.

If in an imaginary village there are 50 dollars that get spent about once a year, and the village produces and consumes nothing in a year but 50 apples, apples would cost $1 right?
If next year, they produce 100 apples, but there is still only $50 in circulation with the same velocity, they're only going to cost 50c each.

MV = PQ
with Q (real output) rising, if the velocity of money is more or less equal, and M (the money supply) rises at a slower rate then Q, P (prices) must fall.
There's simply no way that the rate of increase in the supply of gold is going to come close to approximating the rate of increase in real output, thus price stability ain't going to happen.

In reality consistently falling prices are inevitable, because while it might be possible to increase the total amount of gold by say, 3% a year currently (and I doubt it is), it sure as hell wouldn't be in 50 years time.

In a complex economy falling prices screw with things more then modestly increasing prices, that's why central banks have small positive target bands for inflation eg 1-3%.

(admittedly this is a gross simplification, but it gets the point across)


The real problem with our currency isn't just that it isnt backed up by anything, it is that the money supply is in the hands of people who dont give a damn about us.


Well yeah, that and your government's spending habits.

Sure, a bipartisan system limits ideas, but that isn't at all going to convince me that your 3rd party way is better

Are you really as fucking retarded as you make yourself sound like? What you are saying is that if there are two ideas, both being bad, it is better than having a third person at the table discussing the issue? Whynot just cut the shit and have one party? :rolleyes:

If Bush asked you to get into a train car, you'd be saying "Yes suh bawsa man! Right away!" because you don't seem to be able to think for yourself.

Are you really as fucking retarded as you make yourself sound like? What you are saying is that if there are two ideas, both being bad, it is better than having a third person at the table discussing the issue? Whynot just cut the shit and have one party? :rolleyes:

If Bush asked you to get into a train car, you'd be saying "Yes suh bawsa man! Right away!" because you don't seem to be able to think for yourself.

I don't think a Democratic Republic is a bad idea...neither do most Americans.

This guy is a fucking retard.

Voting 3rd party minimally impacts the two-party count and will not decide a state between Obama and McCain.

Aside from that, it's foolish retards like this who continue to perpetuate the idea that voting third party will ruin the election and that it's a wasted vote. These are the same morons who repeat this every four years when every four years it's "the most important election" blah blah blah, instilling a fear into people that such a crucial election would hang in the balance if you were to stray from the main party lines resulting in what could be a catastrophic outcome resulting in the greater evil to snatch a win because of your 3rd party vote.

Fuck your retarded ill conceived drivel DerDrache, you'd be better off not casting a vote.

I don't think a Democratic Republic is a bad idea...neither do most Americans.

A "democratic republic" is a fucking form of government. It has absolutely nothing to do with parties.

Could somebody who's been around a little longer confirm that "every four years it's 'the most important election'" is true (according to the MSM)?

a "democratic republic" is a fucking form of government. It has absolutely nothing to do with parties.

lulz.

Could somebody who's been around a little longer confirm that "every four years it's 'the most important election'" is true (according to the MSM)?

I'd laugh pretty hard if it were the case that they were saying that in 1996.

FUCK YEAH BOB DOLE!

Could somebody who's been around a little longer confirm that "every four years it's 'the most important election'" is true (according to the MSM)?

This is most definitely one of, if not the most anticipated and controversial elections in American history.

This is most definitely one of, if not the most anticipated and controversial elections in American history.

Dont people say that almost every four years...

anticipated
The election season gets longer every four years. Obama and McCain have been campaigning for more than 20 months. You didn't see that in the 50s.
controversial
Coincidentally, cable and internet news resources reach a larger audience every day.

This is most definitely one of, if not the most anticipated and controversial elections in American history.

Stop typing you fucking chimp.

So... I can't really be arsed to read every post in a thread by This mother fucker. But... as probably been stated before, if enough people can leave a dent in the voting, completely fcking one of the parties into losing b/c the party voted for was a reformed version of their party, it reminds them to straighten up and fix their shit. But too many complete morons (usually read: Stereotypical Sunday Christians, Poor Black people, and/or the majority of America) have decided that "oh... my vote can't do anything" just like This mother fucker (that's your new name btw, nigger) have no testicular fortitude (funny that my ovaries are manlier than you are, fgt) to stand up and vote responsibly, but instead would rather just let some old white bastard spread the same lies or some left leaning "socialist" (haha, I laugh at all of my fellow citizens who actually think Mr. Obama is this evil crazy socialist that you claim him to be) try to change us TO TEH EVILS KOMMUNIST AMERIKA! that the white bastard claims you have to worry about (but you don't because Josef Stalin already ran our country for 8 years and he's now possessed Sarah Palin... or is that Georgia Bush... I can never tell who she's supposed to be) and we're so worried about unborn babies, but it's okay to kill iraqi's b/c we call them TERRORISTS.

To steal a (very paraphrased) line from George Carlin, Muslim Extremists are called TERRORISTS. Israeli Extremists are called FREEDOM FIGHTERS. Well if Crime Fighters fight crime and Fire Fighters fight fire... WHAT DO FREEDOM FIGHTERS FIGHT?

So... I can't really be arsed to read every post in a thread by This mother fucker. But... as probably been stated before, if enough people can leave a dent in the voting, completely fcking one of the parties into losing b/c the party voted for was a reformed version of their party, it reminds them to straighten up and fix their shit. But too many complete morons (usually read: Stereotypical Sunday Christians, Poor Black people, and/or the majority of America) have decided that "oh... my vote can't do anything" just like This mother fucker (that's your new name btw, nigger) have no testicular fortitude (funny that my ovaries are manlier than you are, fgt) to stand up and vote responsibly, but instead would rather just let some old white bastard spread the same lies or some left leaning "socialist" (haha, I laugh at all of my fellow citizens who actually think Mr. Obama is this evil crazy socialist that you claim him to be) try to change us TO TEH EVILS KOMMUNIST AMERIKA! that the white bastard claims you have to worry about (but you don't because Josef Stalin already ran our country for 8 years and he's now possessed Sarah Palin... or is that Georgia Bush... I can never tell who she's supposed to be) and we're so worried about unborn babies, but it's okay to kill iraqi's b/c we call them TERRORISTS.

To steal a (very paraphrased) line from George Carlin, Muslim Extremists are called TERRORISTS. Israeli Extremists are called FREEDOM FIGHTERS. Well if Crime Fighters fight crime and Fire Fighters fight fire... WHAT DO FREEDOM FIGHTERS FIGHT?

This is not a type of post one typically sees on totse. It's very typical of youtube, or an intelligent myspace discussion. Not that I disagree with the 5% of actual content in that post, but you could definitely have phrased it better.

Meh, what was that for?:confused:

This is not a type of post one typically sees on totse. It's very typical of youtube, or an intelligent myspace discussion. Not that I disagree with the 5% of actual content in that post, but you could definitely have phrased it better.

Meh, what was that for?:confused:

I like to poke DerDouche in the ribs... that's about it.

But seriously, America is a bunch of cowards. France, the country that we make fun of so much, has it's government by the balls and if it has a problem with it, they let them know. HUGE PROTESTS. MARCHES. They're not scared of riot squads. The government knows they're not trying to cause problems, they're bringing up a problem that they have with their government.

In America... we have to demonstrate so many feet away and we have to worry about guys w/ beanbag guns and pepper spray because we don't want the red father (I'm sorry, I mean the American Government) to be challenged.

If people will just rise up and use their ability to vote and talk to their representatives as the constituency is supposed to... remind them "hey, if you don't vote this way, I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR YOU AND NEITHER ARE MY FELLOW CITIZENS". They do what they're supposed to then. I've seen it work.

The election season gets longer every four years. Obama and McCain have been campaigning for more than 20 months. You didn't see that in the 50s.

Coincidentally, cable and internet news resources reach a larger audience every day.

While "important" is fairly arbitrary, it's a fact that more people are anticipating this election. You've got a shitload of the black community voting when they otherwise wouldnt' have, and you've even got ex-felons going and restoring their voting priveleges.

I understand what your idea that people view every election as "epic", but just by pure numbers this is a very serious election.

Don't argue with me, because you're wrong.

Don't argue with me, because you're wrong.

Where have we heard that one before?...

While "important" is fairly arbitrary, it's a fact that more people are anticipating this election. You've got a shitload of the black community voting when they otherwise wouldnt' have, and you've even got ex-felons going and restoring their voting priveleges.

I understand what your idea that people view every election as "epic", but just by pure numbers this is a very serious election.

Don't argue with me, because you're wrong.

Even if Obama was white, it would still be the same kind of turn out, cut that shit out.

Every year pop-stars and black people that think they're important (like kanye west or Sean Combs) do their "vote or die" or whatever other crap they can come up with to mix thuggin' with voting. It would've happened again and black ppl... sorry, I mean niggers, would've decided that following a musician to the ballot box was a good idea. Black people are already conscious enough to vote in at least a decent turn out.

The problem is that NO ONE IN AMERICA realises the power they have behind their vote (Yes that's a STARK generalisation, but it's going to prove my point) and that they have the ability to be the ruling voice in this nation, but instead they live under the fear of the iron fist of their president, who really isn't even all that powerful when you take into account checks and balance (except Mr. Obama would be with his democratic congress in place currently).

While "important" is fairly arbitrary, it's a fact that more people are anticipating this election. You've got a shitload of the black community voting when they otherwise wouldnt' have, and you've even got ex-felons going and restoring their voting priveleges.

I understand what your idea that people view every election as "epic", but just by pure numbers this is a very serious election.
I already told you that the election season is more than twice as long as it used to be. It increases every year, and so anticipation does as well. A shitload of evangelicals voted in 80, 84, 00, and 04, where otherwise they wouldn't have. A shitload of independents voted in 92 and 96 where otherwise they wouldn't have. There's nothing new about a certain community voting in large numbers.

Don't argue with me, because you're wrong.

You're such a child.

There's no point in arguing what I just said. After the election, we'll look at what percentage of the country voted. When it's higher than any previous elections, I'll be back to tell you guys to shut the fuck up.

I already told you that the election season is more than twice as long as it used to be. It increases every year, and so anticipation does as well. A shitload of evangelicals voted in 80, 84, 00, and 04, where otherwise they wouldn't have. A shitload of independents voted in 92 and 96 where otherwise they wouldn't have. There's nothing new about a certain community voting in large numbers.



You're such a child.

Can you refute or add to my points made? I actually am very respectful of your intelligence and believe you could either help enforce or give good counterpoints to disprove my views.

The good thing about voting 3rd party is that if enough people do it, it sends a message. For example, if the Republicans lose this time because people voted for the Libertarian instead, the Republicans might say "Oh shit, we better do more of what that guy is doing so that doesn't happen again next time".

I'll either be writing in Ron Paul or not voting this time around.

couldn't agree more

the lesser of two evils is still evil.

I agree with some things that both Obama and McCain say, but I dont agree totally with either. Some third party candidates I agree with almost entirely. Will they get elected this election? No. But voting for them sends a message. Voting for one of the two main candidates even if you do not agree with them says that you dont mind if your interests are not represented. I want my interests represented. I wrote in a third party candidate with the hope that if enough other people did the same thing it will send a fucking signal to the major politicians to change their agendas, even in the slightest bit, to win my vote next time around. That would be real CHANGE

I wrote in Ron Paul, even though he suggested that his followers vote for the Congregationalist candidate (who seems like a fuck). Voting for someone you do not totally believe in is just plain fucking stupid. This is America, vote for what you believe in.

Oh, PS, Im proud to say that as a Massachusetts resident, I also voted to:

Decriminalize Marijuana
Eliminate the state income tax
Keep Dog Racing legal
And to allow my local reps to hopefully do away with the county government

Can you refute or add to my points made? I actually am very respectful of your intelligence and believe you could either help enforce or give good counterpoints to disprove my views.

What a cute girl. And so polite all of a sudden.

OK I know I am not nshanin, but I just thought I would give it a shot at analyzing your post. So here it is:

Even if Obama was white, it would still be the same kind of turn out, cut that shit out.

Obama is NOT white, so talking about him being white is purely hypothetical. And hypothetical situations are pretty useless to talk about, so I would avoid it if I were you.


Every year pop-stars and black people that think they're important (like kanye west or Sean Combs) do their "vote or die" or whatever other crap they can come up with to mix thuggin' with voting. It would've happened again and black ppl... sorry, I mean niggers, would've decided that following a musician to the ballot box was a good idea. Black people are already conscious enough to vote in at least a decent turn out.

First of all, I would probably cut down on the racial slurs. Not that there's anything wrong with being a racist, or using racial slurs once in a while, it's just that if you want to convey your point, instead of your emotions, you would probably do well by using neutral terms like "black people".


The problem is that NO ONE IN AMERICA realises the power they have behind their vote (Yes that's a STARK generalisation, but it's going to prove my point) and that they have the ability to be the ruling voice in this nation, but instead they live under the fear of the iron fist of their president, who really isn't even all that powerful when you take into account checks and balance (except Mr. Obama would be with his democratic congress in place currently).

First of all, "live under the fear of the iron fist of their president" is a metaphor. I would completely avoid using metaphors if I were you. Use plain language to explain your thought processes. Metaphors are for people who otherwise don't know how to get their point across. Secondly, you might want to explain WHY the president is "not even all that powerful", given the checks and balances, and while you are at it, you probably want to explain what these checks and balances are. No everybody is an American and some of us don't know what these are. So if you wish to communicate your point to us, you might want to go into a bit more details.

Hope this helps.

There's no point in arguing what I just said. After the election, we'll look at what percentage of the country voted. When it's higher than any previous elections, I'll be back to tell you guys to shut the fuck up.

The U.S. has reached up to 80%+ voter turnout in it's history.

Are you actually saying this election will beat that? Or is it that: you're ignorant of U.S. voter turnout history, and/or just conveniently mean the past few elections (ignoring that the past few elections showed a trend of increase before Obama and this "epic" campaign)?

Uhm....there's this thing called the electoral college, meaning for people in many states, it doesn't matter if you vote for a major candidate or 3rd party, because the gap is much, much larger than the number of people that will vote 3rd party. For instance, if you live in Texas, does it really matter who you vote for? There is such a gap in the state, you might as well take your Obama or Mccain vote and send it to a 3rd party candidate. But truly, if we want things to change, people need to keep spreading the word and fight for allowing 3rd party candidates into the debates. That's the biggie imo.

The U.S. has reached up to 80%+ voter turnout in it's history.

Are you actually saying this election will beat that? Or is it that: you're ignorant of U.S. voter turnout history, and/or just conveniently mean the past few elections (ignoring that the past few elections showed a trend of increase before Obama and this "epic" campaign)?

Rofl. Between now and 1960 it's been between about 40 and 60 percent. I looked up the record, and it was 81% when Abe Lincoln ran for president.

Given that the size, demographics, and culture of the US then and now are incomparable: Shut the fuck up.

EDIT: Though I deifnitely said "biggest turnout in US history", so you got me there. Great job.

Rofl. Between now and 1960 it's been between about 40 and 60 percent. I looked up the record, and it was 81% when Abe Lincoln ran for president.

Given that the size, demographics, and culture of the US then and now are incomparable: Shut the fuck up.

True, and that was just 81% of white men, which means well below 40% of the total population. The richest quintile continues to have a very high voter turnout.

EDIT: Though I deifnitely said "biggest turnout in US history", so you got me there. Great job.

I'm glad we agree you said something completely fucking retarded.

Just in case you still don't understand... You either meant

a) in all of history - which is so stupid it's not worth going into detail

b) or you meant "recent history"... which isn't that much better because voter turnout had already been increasing.

If you meant b - and that's what I was betting on - you're essentially telling us that voter turnout ...which has shown a trend of increase in the past few elections... will continue to increase in this election. Thank you Captain Obvious for that amazing observation.

True, and that was just 81% of white men, which means well below 40% of the total population. The richest quintile continues to have a very high voter turnout.

It has had comparable results decades after the abolition of slavery and it has had other high results that aren't likely to be surpassed in this election.

The point was that if he meant this election would make history in terms of voter turnout records than it's almost certain he is wrong.

Can you refute or add to my points made? I actually am very respectful of your intelligence and believe you could either help enforce or give good counterpoints to disprove my views.

It's just social commentary, there's not much to argue.

Uhm....there's this thing called the electoral college, meaning for people in many states, it doesn't matter if you vote for a major candidate or 3rd party, because the gap is much, much larger than the number of people that will vote 3rd party. For instance, if you live in Texas, does it really matter who you vote for? There is such a gap in the state, you might as well take your Obama or Mccain vote and send it to a 3rd party candidate. But truly, if we want things to change, people need to keep spreading the word and fight for allowing 3rd party candidates into the debates. That's the biggie imo.

Uhm... unless Texas bitched out and turned their back on their word, the only candidate on their ballot is Bob Barr because the dems and reps missed the deadline for announcing their candidates for both positions.

I think they might've actually gone back on their word but for a hot minute, it was ONLY bob barr.

Uhm... unless Texas bitched out and turned their back on their word, the only candidate on their ballot is Bob Barr because the dems and reps missed the deadline for announcing their candidates for both positions.

I think they might've actually gone back on their word but for a hot minute, it was ONLY bob barr.

Welcome to last month.

I'm glad we agree you said something completely fucking retarded.

Just in case you still don't understand... You either meant

a) in all of history - which is so stupid it's not worth going into detail

b) or you meant "recent history"... which isn't that much better because voter turnout had already been increasing.

If you meant b - and that's what I was betting on - you're essentially telling us that voter turnout ...which has shown a trend of increase in the past few elections... will continue to increase in this election. Thank you Captain Obvious for that amazing observation.

Scrounging for crumbs, eh? I love your posts, man. Ever since that LHC thread you've been just loltastically pathetic.

Uhm... unless Texas bitched out and turned their back on their word, the only candidate on their ballot is Bob Barr because the dems and reps missed the deadline for announcing their candidates for both positions.

I think they might've actually gone back on their word but for a hot minute, it was ONLY bob barr.

The judge ruled in Obama and McCain's favor by citing a law that only applied to parties than nominate by convention, ironically like the Libertarian party. It was a fucking farce.

Scrounging for crumbs, eh? I love your posts, man. Ever since that LHC thread you've been just loltastically pathetic.

Why would I be scrounging for crumbs when you said something demonstrably stupid and essentially admitted it?

Don't be silly.

The judge ruled in Obama and McCain's favor by citing a law that only applied to parties than nominate by convention, ironically like the Libertarian party. It was a fucking farce.

Well isn't that funny.

Welcome to last month.

You sir, can suck my E-penis. I wouldn't let you near my vagina though, you probably have an STD or a freakishly small cock.

You sir, can suck my E-penis. I wouldn't let you near my vagina though, you probably have an STD or a freakishly small cock.

No need to be offended. Just read up on something before you go to the lengths of posting it.

Why would I be scrounging for crumbs when you said something demonstrably stupid and essentially admitted it?

Don't be silly.

Awww. He's so funny when he's angry.

This thread is a riot.

RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE

Awww. He's so funny when he's angry.

Yeah, that's me angry!


P.S. You almost got us to forget the fact that what you said was incredibly stupid. Almost.

Yeah, that's me angry!


P.S. You almost got us to forget the fact that what you said was incredibly stupid. Almost.

Sure thing, Paco.

http://nitespyder.com/FatGothKid.jpg

Cheer up.

Sure thing, Paco.

http://nitespyder.com/FatGothKid.jpg

Cheer up.

For all your talk of maturity you certainly act like a 12 year old.

For all your talk of maturity you certainly act like a 12 year old.

I'm gonna have to go ahead and...uh...disagree with you there.

http://www.evilshare.com/b14c6b9a-f387-102b-bdf3-0007e90cfb90

Did an interview with 2 Nader supporters on my radio show today. They said things much better than I could.

http://www.evilshare.com/b14c6b9a-f387-102b-bdf3-0007e90cfb90

Did an interview with 2 Nader supporters on my radio show today. They said things much better than I could.

All I see is a woman.

Sure thing, Paco.



I'm glad we both agree it was incredibly stupid.

I'm glad we both agree it was incredibly stupid.

You're practically my slave. Keep it up.

You're practically my slave. Keep it up.

You fucking wish, you dumb nigger.

So, voting day is approaching guys. Have I convinced any of you to be more proactive, beyond just wasting your vote on Bob Barr or Nader?

And the record turnout this year is gonna kick ass. :D

All I see is a woman.

Download link is on the right side next to "type that here".

So, voting day is approaching guys. Have I convinced any of you to be more proactive, beyond just wasting your vote on Bob Barr or Nader?

How can you do anything "proactive" for your ideas if you don't even have the integrity to vote for them?

You're practically my slave. Keep it up.

You have your history wrong, again.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immig_emig/england/stoke_staffs/img/body_slave.jpg

You have your history wrong, again.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immig_emig/england/stoke_staffs/img/body_slave.jpg

Oh wow.

Elegantly executed.

Why, thank you good sir! I always strive to present myself with elegance on the internet.

dropping into page 3 without reading 1-2:

Nader makes total sense via C-Span coverage.

It is a shame he wasn't included in the debates.
American political chooses are lame, with alternative choices squashed, IMO.

http://tinyurl.com/kutenader2

Edited the audio file down to about 7 minutes. It applies mostly to liberals but you can substitute your political affiliation into it if you're not.

EDIT: BTW, that's not my real IP.

You have your history wrong, again.



You are. That's present tense, Fernando.

EDIT: I just realized, why the hell am letting you continue talking? As I pointed out earlier, the record voter turnout was in Abe Lincoln's time, essentially a useless figure in regard to present day America. In relevant, recent history, it's fluctuated between around 40 and 60%. I said this year there would be a record turnout. Whether or not it beats the inaccurate 80% record, or whether it beats 60%, it doesn't change that it would be beating a record. An upward trend does not mean that every year a record is broken. The last time that even just 60% of the country turned out was in the 1960s, so a voter turnout above THAT would still be significant.

Go back to your corner.

The OP is a retard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_Presidential_Election

Look at how many votes Ross Perot got. Over 19 MILLION. If he had been a little less like Bush he would probably have gotten more. He made a huge impact on that election.

As I pointed out earlier, the record voter turnout was in Abe Lincoln's time, essentially a useless figure in regard to present day America.

There have been other times, decades after Abe Lincoln's election, where voter turn out reached close to those levels (i.e. 70%+)

If this election were to get second place on voter turn out history, you might have a point. Since it's pretty likely that it wont, you don't.


I said this year there would be a record turnout. Whether or not it beats the inaccurate 80% record, or whether it beats 60%, it doesn't change that it would be beating a record

Saying it "breaks a record" when you conveniently get to ignore all the years that it didn't beat it is completely fucking moronic.

Do you honestly think that saying "This election will beat a record... if we don't count roughly 80% of U.S. election history" is at all meaningful, and more importantly, worthy of the your uppity attitude ("When it's higher than any previous elections, I'll be back to tell you guys to shut the fuck up.")?



An upward trend does not mean that every year a record is broken.

Well since I didn't say it did - in fact I stated that thus wouldn't break the record - I have no idea why you would mention that... Should I start writing in Ebonics so you can understand my posts?

I said the upward trend means it's not a surprise that it will be higher this time, which is the only thing you can say with any reasonable certainty. You cannot say it breaks a record when you ignore half of U.S. election history. Or you can, but you end up looking like a fucking moron.

There have been other times, decades after Abe Lincoln's election, where voter turn out reached close to those levels (i.e. 70%+)

If this election were to get second place on voter turn out history, you might have a point. Since it's pretty likely that it wont, you don't.



Saying it "breaks a record" when you conveniently get to ignore all the years that it didn't beat it is completely fucking moronic.

Do you honestly think that saying "This election will beat a record... if we don't count roughly 80% of U.S. election history" is at all meaningful, and more importantly, worthy of the your uppity attitude ("When it's higher than any previous elections, I'll be back to tell you guys to shut the fuck up.")?




Well since I didn't say it did - in fact I stated that thus wouldn't break the record - I have no idea why you would mention that... Should I start writing in Ebonics so you can understand my posts?

I said the upward trend means it's not a surprise that it will be higher this time, which is the only thing you can say with any reasonable certainty. You cannot say it breaks a record when you ignore half of U.S. election history. Or you can, but you end up looking like a fucking moron.

You seem to be the only one having trouble with the concept that modern-day America isn't comparable to America of the 19th and early 20th century. In modern-America, you have a diverse demographic of voters...male, female, black, white, asian, hispanic, etc. In America of 100+ years ago, you had white male voters. Not to mention that the American population has increased nearly 10-fold since the mid 1800s.

So, indeed, the technical record might be 80%, 70%, or what have you, but it's absolutely meaningless when the present-day country is completely different from the country when the record was achieved. Since I'm sure this is going to be difficult for you to grasp, allow me to spell it out for you: This election probably won't break the all-time, technical records for voter turnout, but it will likely beat all relevant records.

Try again, fuckhead.

EDIT: And who knows? It may very well beat the 80% record for all we know.

You seem to be the only one having trouble with the concept that modern-day America isn't comparable to America of the 19th and early 20th century. In modern-America, you have a diverse demographic of voters...male, female, black, white, asian, hispanic, etc. In America of 100+ years ago, you had white male voters.

I don't have any trouble understanding that at all. I understand that just fine. That doesn't change a single thing I've said, which is what you don't understand. That the demographics have changed does not mean that this will beat a record, which is what you said.

Animals have changed, have they not? Yet if would be incredibly stupid for me to say that African Elephants are the biggest land animal that have ever lived on Earth's history (i.e. the equivalent of you saying that this will be the biggest turnout in history) when that's not true.



Not to mention that the American population has increased nearly 10-fold since the mid 1800s.Which has what to do with our statistics, which deal in percentages? Nothing. Great.


This election probably won't break the all-time, technical records for voter turnout, but it will likely beat all relevant records.
Thank you for conceding you were wrong, and for making it obvious what a trivial statement that is since you conveniently get to define "relevant".

Let me guess, you have the smartest brain in history... out of all the "relevant" brains of course!

Let me guess, you have the smartest brain in history... out of all the "relevant" brains of course!

lol lol

I don't have any trouble understanding that at all. I understand that just fine. That doesn't change a single thing I've said, which is what you don't understand. That the demographics have changed does not mean that this will beat a record, which is what you said.

Animals have changed, have they not? Yet if would be incredibly stupid for me to say that African Elephants are the biggest land animal that have ever lived on Earth's history (i.e. the equivalent of you saying that this will be the biggest turnout in history) when that's not true.


Which has what to do with our statistics, which deal in percentages? Nothing. Great.

Thank you for conceding you were wrong, and for making it obvious what a trivial statement that is since you conveniently get to define "relevant".

Let me guess, you have the smartest brain in history... out of all the "relevant" brains of course!

I suspected you'd get caught up on "percentages", but I wanted to wait and give you the benefit of the doubt. So much for that: The size of the country is relevant. A small population with generally similar values and culture is going to be more likely to engage in similar voting behavior than a large, diverse population spread out over thousands of miles. More people generally means more cultures, more beliefs, and subsequently, potential for different voting behavior. That's not necessarily the case, but in regard to the so-called "Melting Pot" of the world? Population size is definitely relevant here, especially when you consider how the immigrant population boomed throughout the 20th century.

Your elephant analogy is also invalid. The proper analogy would be "The African elephant is the largest elephant that has ever lived in Earth's history.", at which point someone chimes in and starts talking about a larger ancestor of the elephant (but not an elephant).

Try, try again.

EDIT: I've already acknowledged that the technical record was 80% in Abe Lincoln's era. You can go and masturbate now to your knowledge of insignificant facts, and your amazing talent of missing the point.

EDIT2: I didn't say that "the demographics have changed, so this will beat a record." I said that the official "record turnout" was irrelevant and essentially meaningless since the demographics and size of the US have changed so drastically. There's a difference.

Don't hurt yourself trying to think of more bullshit.

Rust, why do you think it won't be a record turnout? Regardless of whether the election is actually "OMFG IMPORTANT" if the media and the campaigns says it is, then the vast majority of people will believe it to be so. I'm not sure about other states, but Ohio is implementing this early voting shit for the first time this year and I can't imagine how much of the population has already voted just because of increased convenience to do so. Also, apparently voter registration has been pretty successful in adding new people this year. So who fucking knows what's going to happen until it happens? DerDrache saying the voter turnout will be the highest in history is just as dumb as you saying there's no chance it will be.

And I think Sanchez there made a good point when pointing out how much of a smaller demographic registered voters were in Lincoln's time. How many fucking white males over 21 do you think vote in recent elections? Somewhere around 80%? I wouldn't be surprised.

The size of the country is relevant. A small population with generally similar values and culture is going to be more likely to engage in similar voting behavior than a large, diverse population spread out over thousands of miles.

Which, again, has what to do with what we're talking about? Nothing. I'm not here discussing people having or not having similar values or culture. I'm here discussing the percentage of the population that turned out to vote.

Population size is irrelevant to that point since regardless of whether they had similar values, similar culture, "engaged in similar voting behavior", or not, your statement still suffers from what I pointed out (i.e. the record is 80% and even when we focused on the past 40 years your comment is still trivial).


Your elephant analogy is also invalid. The proper analogy would be "The African elephant is the largest elephant that has ever lived in Earth's history.", at which point someone chimes in and starts talking about a larger ancestor of the elephant (but not an elephant).

Wrong again.

You said this would be the largest turnout in history, which includes all U.S. Elections, hence the analogy must speak of a criteria that includes much more than just elephants. Thus, the correct version is just as I said:

You said "Greatest land mammal in history" then conveniently backtracked and said you meant "elephant" to save face (i.e. you said "greatest turnout in history" and then backtracked and claimed "greatest turnout in this X arbitrary amount of years" to save face).

I've already acknowledged that the technical record was 80% in Abe Lincoln's era. You can go and masturbate now to your knowledge of insignificant facts, and your amazing talent of missing the point.How have I missed the point when I dealt with every single one of them? The fact that the record is 80% is just one of my points, another one is that what you claim you meant it still a meaningless comment because you get to define "relevant" as you want, and because an increase is not a surprise given the trend in the past few elections.


I didn't say that "the demographics have changed, so this will beat a record."Learn to read, I didn't say that you claimed this would beat a record because of the change in demographics; I was pointing out how you claimed I didn't understand that the demographics had changed when I do and the fact that they did change didn't affect my points in the least (i.e. it would affect my point if it refuted the actual record or of it made your backtracking to the past 40 years less trivial)..

DerDrache saying the voter turnout will be the highest in history is just as dumb as you saying there's no chance it will be.

I didn't claim it was impossible. I'm arguing the chance of it beating the actual record is extremely small and the only relevant point here is that DerDrache apparently agrees.

So instead of voting for the person who represents what you want, you just choose the puppet on the left or the puppet on the right? The system works.

Rust, you are hung up on what the offical record percentage is. I do not care what it is, because it has no relevance to the current discussion. Regardless of what is on the books, voter turnout information is only meaningful if the voter populations are comparable. They are not. You can cite the official information until your blue in the face, but it won't make it any less pointless in context of the current topic.

And since everything needs to be spelled out for you: I'm confident that this election will beat any relevant voter turnout records in history.

Do I get to define "relevant"? Yes, though anyone with half a brain should be able to figure it out: Relevant turnout information would provide statistics for America when it was demographically/culturally/legally/etc. comparable to present-day America. If you indeed understand that America is demographically(culturally/legally/etc.) different, then you should also understand the significance of that, and subsequently, I shouldn't have to spell out for your short-bus ass what the meaning of "relevant" is.

As for the analogy: Way to miss the forest for the trees. If I'm referring to the "biggest turnout in history", in a discussion about American politics, I'm obviously referring to the biggest turnout in American history". Part of intelligent communication is being able to catch obvious inferences, and make some minor logical inferences of your own. I didn't quite see it before, but whoever said you were autistic must have been spot on. My analogy perfectly captures the actual topic at hand; yours does not. It must be really frustrating to have a large vocabulary and a good command of grammar, yet still not be able to understand concepts unless they are spelled out for you in perfect detail.

Summary of Rust's verbal diarrhea in this thread: "Hey, the official record was made in 1860's America, and although I know that information is completely meaningless and pointless in regard to the content of this thread, I'm going to keep talking about it, just to make a point that DerDrache forgot to use the word "relevant" in his initial comment"

Rust, you are hung up on what the offical record percentage is. I do not care what it is, because it has no relevance to the current discussion. Regardless of what is on the books, voter turnout information is only meaningful if the voter populations are comparable. They are not. You can cite the official information until your blue in the face, but it won't make it any less pointless in context of the current topic.

And since everything needs to be spelled out for you: I'm confident that this election will beat any relevant voter turnout records.

Do I get to define "relevant"? Yes, though anyone with half a brain should be able to figure it out: Relevant turnout information would provide statistics for America when it was demographically/culturally/legally/etc. comparable to present-day America.

As for the analogy: Way to miss the forest for the trees. If I'm referring to the "biggest turnout in history", in a discussion about American politics, I'm obviously referring to the biggest turnout in American history". Part of intelligent communication is being able to catch obvious inferences. I didn't quite see it before, but whoever said you were autistic must have been spot on. My analogy perfectly captures the actual topic at hand; yours does not.

STFU, you're really annoying and this thread is retarded.

By the way, I just realized that you fucked up your analogy. Again.

"You said "Greatest land mammal in history" then conveniently backtracked and said you meant "elephant" to save face (i.e. you said "greatest turnout in history" and then backtracked and claimed "greatest turnout in this X arbitrary amount of years" to save face)."

Interesting. And since history is the variable in that equation, how exactly did "greatest land mammal in history" become "greatest elephant in history" as well? Since Rust apparently doesn't know how analogies work, allow me to clarify: Voter turnout was the elephant, and I never stopped talking about that elephant. Looks like Rust just said something that was demonstrably idiotic.

So instead of voting for the person who represents what you want, you just choose the puppet on the left or the puppet on the right? The system works.

This Mother fucker (the nigger formerly known as Der-Douche) is just a second rate troll and he's too much of a pussy to actually have hope in humanity to get together and do the right thing b/c he's too busy hating white people and acting like they owe him.

I didn't claim it was impossible. I'm arguing the chance of it beating the actual record is extremely small and the only relevant point here is that DerDrache apparently agrees.

Either way, I think it's only fair to look at presidential elections where equal levels of suffrage have existed. So...I'd only go back to 1972, after the voting age was reduced to 18, because that election and every one after it has allowed the same types (race, age, sex) of people to vote. And that does affect the percent of registered voters who actually vote (or are we talking the percent of eligible voters, who may or may not be registered, who actually vote?). I'm going to go with the latter because that makes more sense, and luckily the internet has everything.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

It appears voter turnout has hovered around 55% in all presidential elections from 1972 to 2004. If it goes up to say, 65-75% this time around, I'd say that would be pretty historically significant. There should be somewhere around 200 million people registered to vote this year.

This Mother fucker (the nigger formerly known as Der-Douche) is just a second rate troll and he's too much of a pussy to actually have hope in humanity to get together and do the right thing

ROFL. That's my new signature. Thanks; now I just have to remember to keep it in the clipboard.

--
This Mother fucker (the negro formerly known as Der-Douche) is just a second rate troll and he's too much of a pussy to actually have hope in humanity to get together and do the right thing

Rust, you are hung up on what the offical record percentage is. I do not care what it is, because it has no relevance to the current discussion. Regardless of what is on the books, voter turnout information is only meaningful if the voter populations are comparable. They are not. You can cite the official information until your blue in the face, but it won't make it any less pointless in context of the current topic.

All the more reason why saying it will the record is fucking retarded!

You're under the very wrong impression, it seems, that 80% is some sort of bar I deem all results in terms of voter turnout need to be compared against. I don't. I pointed out how, regardless of the difference is social circumstances, the record is 80%. That is undeniable fact and, which is what's important, contradicts your initial statement.

That the 80% result was in a different social context is all the more reason why you yourself shouldn't be including it by making stupid statements such as "it will break the record of all previous elections". Sorry, but it's not my fault you fail at English.

And since everything needs to be spelled out for you: I'm confident that this election will beat any relevant voter turnout records in history. Which is a meaningless thing to say when you get to define "relevant" to essentially mean "any time where I would be proven correct".

You get to decide what's "demographically/culturally/legally/etc. comparable to present-day America".


As for the analogy: Way to miss the forest for the trees. If I'm referring to the "biggest turnout in history", in a discussion about American politics, I'm obviously referring to the biggest turnout in American history". Part of intelligent communication is being able to catch obvious inferences, and make some minor logical inferences of your own. Are you fucking retarded? That's exactly what I said.

I said:

"You said this would be the largest turnout in history, which includes all U.S. Elections, hence the analogy must speak of a criteria that includes much more than just elephants. Thus, the correct version is just as I said:"


I'm not including elections across the world, I'm saying that all U.S. elections would be included in the statement "It would be the biggest turnout in U.S. History". Thus it includes those elections you don't deem "relevant". Hence, the initial statement in the analogy must also be a group of organisms that includes much more than just "elephants" (i.e. much more than just elections you deem relevant).



Summary of Rust's verbal diarrhea in this thread: "Hey, the official record was made in 1860's America, and although I know that information is completely meaningless and pointless in regard to the content of this thread, I'm going to keep talking about it, just to make a point that DerDrache forgot to use the word "relevant" in his initial comment"

Not quite. The summary is just as I said in my initial post (Oh, how I love being right since the very beginning! :)):


"The U.S. has reached up to 80%+ voter turnout in it's history.

Are you actually saying this election will beat that? Or is it that: you're ignorant of U.S. voter turnout history, and/or just conveniently mean the past few elections (ignoring that the past few elections showed a trend of increase before Obama and this "epic" campaign)?"


Guess what happened? Just as I predicted: You said all of history and backtracked to "past few elections" ignoring that it would mean your statements and boastings in this thread are still pretty stupid since an increase is not a surprise given the trend we've been seeing!


Interesting. And since I changed "history" to "X arbitrary amount of years" in that equation, how exactly did "land mammal" become "elephant" as well? I never stopped talking about voter turnout. Looks like Rust just said something that was demonstrably idiotic.What the fuck are you babbling about?

"Land mammal" equals the set of mammals that includes Elephants and non-elephant mammals that live in land.

That's analogous to "All U.S. Elections in History" which is the set that includes the elections you arbitrarily define as "relevant" and any others that you don't.

What I said is fine, you're just too fucking dumb to realize it.

Either way, I think it's only fair to look at presidential elections where equal levels of suffrage have existed.

"Either way" is a nice way of saying : Yes, Rust, the record is 80% and thus it was stupid of DerDrache to suggest this will undoubtedly beat it just as you said.

That was my point in this thread: To point out how the U.S. has reached very high levels, and thus how this election is unlikely to beat them.

"Either way" is a nice way of saying : Yes, Rust, the record is 80% and thus it was stupid of DerDrache to suggest this will undoubtedly beat it just as you said.

That was my point in this thread: To point out how the U.S. has reached very high levels, and thus how this election is unlikely to beat them.

As I later clarified repeatedly that I was only discussing relevant history, the record is not 80%. Did I originally say "all elections"? Indeed. I made a mistake and later corrected myself, just as you completely fucked up your analogy, and have yet to acknowledge the error.

"Either way" is a nice way of saying : Yes, Rust, the record is 80% and thus it was stupid of DerDrache to suggest this will undoubtedly beat it just as you said.

That was my point in this thread: To point out how the U.S. has reached very high levels, and thus how this election is unlikely to beat them.

Huh? No, retard, that's not what I was saying at all. "Either way" as in whether or not the voter turnout this year sets a record, it is only fair to compare it to the years going back to 1972 because the laws were different before then in allowing people to vote. So if this election gets 55%, it's not right to say it's a low turnout compared to ALL elections, it would be average compared to comparable elections. Both you and DerDrache made the error in thinking of all elections going back to George Fucking Washington as being comparable, when they definitely are not. I don't give a shit about 80%, I already told you why that's wrong. I can't find the data right now, though I'm sure I could, to see how many eligible 21+ white males vote, but I imagine that is one of the higher voting demographics. Now blacks on the other hand is not. Given that Obama is half black and thought of as "omfg the first black president ever??" black voter turnout should skyrocket this year and produce an effect right there.

In conclusion, lick my ass slowly.

Nobody456

Rust: "African Elephants are the biggest land animal in Earth's history."

This election is the biggest "All US elections in history" in Earth's history.

You're a fuck up. Admit it, and move along.

"Part of intelligent communication is being able to catch obvious inferences, and make some minor logical inferences of your own. I didn't quite see it before, but whoever said you were autistic must have been spot on."

Enjoy irony, much?


They don't have to fit in perfectly to be analogous. The point of the analogy isn't changed. The point, which you would have understood had you actually possessed the ability you criticize me of supposedly not having, is that you made a statement that is demonstrably false and then tried to save face by changing your initial statement to a subset of the initial set mentioned. That is, you reduced "All elections in U.S. history" to "The elections I conveniently deem relevant" (i.e. a subset).

Huh? No, retard, that's not what I was saying at all.

Thank you Captain Obvious. Just in case you didn't get it, my post was a slight indication that I don't give a flying fuck what you think they should be compared to since that doesn't change a single thing I've said in this thread.

I have not said, nor do I believe, that they should be compared in all cases to all periods in U.S. election History. My only point, which was what I was reminding you in the post, was that 80% was the record and thus DerDrache was incorrect in his claim.

As I later clarified repeatedly that I was only discussing relevant history, the record is not 80%. Did I originally say "all elections"? Indeed.

Who said otherwise? I'm reminding him what happened, not claiming that you didn't' admit you were wrong.

just as you completely fucked up your analogy, and have yet to acknowledge the error.

Not in the least. The analogy makes perfect sense, you're just, ironically enough, scrounging for crumbs.

Thank you Captain Obvious. Just in case you didn't get it, my post was a slight indication that I don't give a flying fuck what you think they should be compared to since that doesn't change a single thing I've said in this thread.

I have not said, nor do I believe, that they should be compared in all cases to all periods in U.S. election History. My only point, which was what I was reminding you in the post, was that 80% was the record and thus DerDrache was incorrect in his claim.

How can he be incorrect when the election hasn't happened yet? You may disagree with his prediction, but no one is right or wrong about it yet.

Learn2talkplz.

"Part of intelligent communication is being able to catch obvious inferences, and make some minor logical inferences of your own. I didn't quite see it before, but whoever said you were autistic must have been spot on."

Enjoy irony, much?


They don't have to fit in perfectly to be analogous. The point of the analogy isn't changed. The point, which you would have understood had you actually possessed the ability you criticize me of supposedly not having, is that you made a statement that is demonstrably false and then tried to save face by changing your initial statement to a subset of the initial set mentioned. That is, you reduced "All elections in U.S. history" to "The elections I conveniently deem relevant" (i.e. a subset).

Ahem. I botched my last reply while trying to follow all of your retarded, ever-changing analogies at once. I was referring to this:

What the fuck are you babbling about?

"Land mammal" equals the set of mammals that includes Elephants and non-elephant mammals.

That's analogous to "All U.S. Elections in History" which is the set that includes the elections you arbitrarily define as "relevant" and any others that you don't.

What I said is fine, you're just too fucking dumb to realize it.

Rust(and I quote):
You said "Greatest land mammal in history" then conveniently backtracked and said you meant "elephant" to save face (i.e. you said "greatest turnout in history" and then backtracked and claimed "greatest turnout in this X arbitrary amount of years" to save face).

You use an analogy right here. "Greatest land mammal in history" is to "Greatest turnout in history", and "Greatest elephant in history" is analogous to "greatest turnout in relevant history."

The time frame of history changed, not the focus on voter turnout. You made an error. Admit it, and proceed to lick my ass slowly as well.

Your other analogy was fine, but incomplete compared to mine. This one is just retarded.

How can he be incorrect when the election hasn't happened yet? You may disagree with his prediction, but no one is right or wrong about it yet.

Learn2talkplz.


Yes. We don't know if poison will cease to be poisonous tomorrow. So we shouldn't claim it will be today.


My bad.

Ahem. I botched my last reply while trying to follow all of your retarded, ever-changing analogies at once.

More irony!



You use an analogy right here. "Greatest land mammal in history" is to "Greatest turnout in history", and "Greatest elephant in history" is analogous to "greatest turnout in relevant history."

The time frame of history changed, not the focus on voter turnout. You made an error. Admit it, and proceed to lick my ass slowly as well. Your other analogy was fine, but incomplete compared to mine.
Again, what the fuck are you babbling about? I don't see anything wrong in what you just quoted.

The analogy still applies:

You made a claim, the claim was wrong and you reduced the set in order to save face. All the analogies I've given, including the one you quoted right there, follow that same pattern, which is the important bit of information.

And no, your analogy was atrocious as I already explained:

"You said this would be the largest turnout in history, which includes all U.S. Elections, hence the analogy must speak of a criteria that includes much more than just elephants. Thus, the correct version is just as I said"

Yes. We don't know if poison will cease to be poisonous tomorrow. So we shouldn't claim it will be today.


My bad.

You essentially made the same remark as whocares123 just did back in that LHC thread.

So you're a hypocrite now too?

ITT:


DerDrache: I must stop the idiots!
Rust: No DerDrache, you are the idiots.

and then DerDrache was a retard

This pointless nit picking argument between rust and der drache is a colossal waste of time.

On a more relevant note, voting for those who represent your ideals is the whole idea of democratically elected government.

The less the big guys have to try to get voters the less effort they have to put into policy.

(please ignore my massive summarys/generalisations and resist the urge to nitpick me)

***(AND I MEAN YOU DER DRACHE)

You essentially made the same remark as whocares123 just did back in that LHC thread.

So you're a hypocrite now too?

Yes because I remember what whocares123 said in that thread... :rolleyes:

Care to quote the post in question? Unlike you, it seems, I'm not obsessed with that thread to remember what the idiot said in it and be able to compare it now.

More irony!





Again, what the fuck are you babbling about? I don't see anything wrong in what you just quoted.

The analogy still applies:

You made a claim, the claim was wrong and you reduced the set in order to save face. All the analogies I've given, including the one you quoted right there, follow that same pattern, which is the important bit of information.

"You said "Greatest land mammal in history" then conveniently backtracked and said you meant "elephant" to save face (i.e. you said "greatest turnout in history" and then backtracked and claimed "greatest turnout in this X arbitrary amount of years" to save face)."[

Greatest land mammal in history
Greatest elephant in history

Greatest turnout in history
Greatest turnout in X arbitrary amount of years

The million-dollar question: What has changed in this apparently analagous pairs of sentences? In the first set of sentences, you change the animal (analogous to election turnout), and in the second, you soley change the time-frame.

Now, are you trying to claim that you MEANT "land mammal" to refer to history? I hope not, because that would make your statement even stupider. Are you trying to say, as you most recently claimed, that "The Greatest "collection of all US elections" in history" is analgous to "The greatest turnout in history"?

Believe me, this is just as confusing to me as it is to you. Don't write retarded stuff in the future, and we won't have this problem.

Yes because I remember what whocares123 said in that thread... :rolleyes:

Care to quote the post in question? Unlike you, it seems, I'm not obsessed with that thread to remember what the idiot said in it and be able to compare it now.

You said it in that thread. You argued about it for at least a full page, and it culminated in a remark strikingly similar to what whocares123 said just now. (ie. the same remark that you just shrugged off with your "poison" comment)

You said it in that thread. You argued about it for at least a full page, and it culminated in a remark strikingly similar to what whocares123 said just now. (ie. the same remark that you just shrugged off with your "poison" comment)

You know I don't really hate you, right?

But still, every 4 years, as the independant vote starts to grow bigger, it is proof that if we keep voting for independants soon we can at least move to a 3 party system that will promote true change, a removal of this 2 party bullshit that we parade around.

The million-dollar question: What has changed in this apparently analagous pairs of sentences? In the first set of sentences, you change the animal (analogous to election turnout), and in the second, you soley change the time-frame.



Are you fucking retarded?

I already explained to you: What matters in the analogy is that it represents what you did, namely change the set to save face once you were caught saying something stupid. That's the important bit.

The exact same thing is done in both group of sentences: A larger set is reduced. In other words, a subset is taken out.

Larger Sets: Land Mammals and All elections in U.S. History.

Subset: Elephants and only those elections in X arbitrary amount of years.

Yes. We don't know if poison will cease to be poisonous tomorrow. So we shouldn't claim it will be today.


My bad.

Your analogy has nothing to do with predicting voter turnout for the election. Now you're just typing shit to type shit.

You said it in that thread. You argued about it for at least a full page, and it culminated in a remark strikingly similar to what whocares123 said just now. (ie. the same remark that you just shrugged off with your "poison" comment)

My post in the LHC thread aren't comparable to anything whocares123 said here.

What is whocares123 saying here? That I shouldn't discount the possibility of Obama breaking the record.

What was I saying in the LHC thread? That we should discount the possibility of LHC fucking everything up.

In other words whocares123 is taking a position much like yours in the LHC; one of saying "Hey, it's possible", while I'm taking the same possition I took in the LHC thread: "The possibility is so low that it's ridiculous to consider it seriously".


You're having trouble keeping up with the original discussion, I suggest you don't task your brain further by adding another topic.

Your analogy has nothing to do with predicting voter turnout for the election. Now you're just typing shit to type shit.


My statement has nothing to do with "predicting" anything, but with things we do not know for sure. We don't know for sure either of those things.

Learn2readplz

My post in the LHC thread aren't comparable to anything whocares123 said here.

What is whocares123 saying here? That I shouldn't discount the possibility of Obama breaking the record.

What was I saying in the LHC thread? That we should discount the possibility of LHC fucking everything up.

In other words whocares123 is taking a position much like yours in the LHC; one of saying "Hey, it's possible", while I'm taking the same possition I took in the LHC thread: "The possibility is so low that it's ridiculous to consider it seriously".

Obama breaking a record? What? Nobody is talking about that. What the fuck does that even mean? Obama getting the most votes ever? Um....looks like someone doesn't know how to talk again.

And what you said about the elephants has plenty to do with the LHC debacle because you are still asserting this idea of history having an input into the future. Just because elephants are the largest land animal doesn't mean they always have been or that they always will be. Just like the LHC fucking up, elephants could fuck up and there could be a new, land animal of larger mass.

My statement has nothing to do with "predicting" anything, but with things we do not know for sure. We don't know for sure either of those things.

Learn2readplz

Claiming poison won't be poisonous tomorrow has nothing to do with poison being poisonous today. You can still say it's poisonous today if you give it to an elephant and the elephant fucks up and dies.

My post in the LHC thread aren't comparable to anything whocares123 said here.

What is whocares123 saying here? That I shouldn't discount the possibility of Obama breaking the record.

What was I saying in the LHC thread? That we should discount the possibility of LHC fucking everything up.

In other words whocares123 is taking a position much like yours in the LHC; one of saying "Hey, it's possible", while I'm taking the same possition I took in the LHC thread: "The possibility is so low that it's ridiculous to consider it seriously".

I'm referring to

"How can he be incorrect when the election hasn't happened yet? You may disagree with his prediction, but no one is right or wrong about it yet."

in relation to you, shitting yourself because I used the word "underestimate", when the actual total value was unknown:

"What I have a problem with is your claim. I mentioned the word you used, "underestimate" to piggy back off it and show how: For all you know they are correct in their understanding of the impossibility (or implausibility) of the doomsday scenarios nutjobs keep crying about."

And "the possibility is so low that it's ridiculous to consider seriously"? As whocares123 pointed out, you thinking it's so ridiculously unlikely for this election to have record-breaking turnout is just as "demonstrably stupid" as me thinking it will definitely have record-breaking turnout.

Claiming poison won't be poisonous tomorrow has nothing to do with poison being poisonous today. You can still say it's poisonous today if you give it to an elephant and the elephant fucks up and dies.

Which changes the fact that we don't know either of the outcomes (i.e. poison being poisonous tomorrow and the election) how exactly? It doesn't. The point still stands.

Which changes the fact that we don't know either of the outcomes (i.e. poison being poisonous tomorrow and the election) how exactly? It doesn't. The point still stands.

Right, so we don't know the outcome of the fucking election turnout yet. So why speculate on whether or not it will be record breaking?

What are you doing?

Right, so we don't know the outcome of the fucking election turnout yet. So why speculate on whether or not it will be record breaking?

I still don't understand why you're telling me that instead of DerDrache who's the one who made the claim in the first place.


What are you doing?

Pointing out how the record is 80%+ and asking if he really thought this election season would be that.

I still don't understand why you're telling me that instead of DerDrache who's the one who made the claim in the first place.



Pointing out how the record is 80%+ and asking if he really thought this election season would be that.

Whether I made the claim first, you also made the exact opposite, yet equally ridiculous claim.

Stop fucking up, Rust.

I'm referring to

in relation to you, shitting yourself because I used the word "underestimate", when the actual total value was unknown:


Close, but still incorrect.

In both threads, including the fragment you just quoted, my position is the same: "The possibility is so low that it's ridiculous to consider it seriously". What I was doing in the statement you quoted is pointing out how your claim was completely baseless.

Could you claim that me stating "This wont break the 80% record" is baseless? Sure. Just as I said in my post: As baseless as claiming that poison will be poisonous tomorrow.

Whether I made the claim first, you also made the exact opposite, yet equally ridiculous claim.

Stop fucking up, Rust.

1. You can't claim it's equally ridiculous since that assumes that both scenarios are equally as plausible. You fail again.


2. I already admitted that the possibility existed. The only reason I've said "It's not going to happen" is because it's quicker than saying "It is statistically so unlikely that I do not consider it worthy of being taken seriously as a possibility".

You, on the other hand, were being a complete fucking moron when you made your statement.

But if this is what you need to do to feel as if you "caught" me, then go right ahead: Yes. I should have continued saying that it was so unlikely that we shouldn't take it seriously as a possibility. I was wrong.

Close, but still incorrect.

In both threads, including the fragment you just quoted, my position is the same: "The possibility is so low that it's ridiculous to consider it seriously". What I was doing in the statement you quoted is pointing out how your claim was completely baseless.

Could you claim that me stating "This wont break the 80% record" is baseless? Sure. Just as I said in my post: As baseless as claiming that poison will be poisonous tomorrow.

This is the first election with both a black man and a woman involved as president and VP. Blacks and young people are more involved than ever before, it would seem (and female evangelicals as well, possibly). Given that you live on an island, you probably aren't aware of this. Point being, every election could potentially break the record, and given that this is significantly different from ALL past elections, it's not ridiculous to think it could break the 80% mark.

You really want to compare poison suddenly becoming non-poisoinous with the election results?

Seriously...stop fucking up, Rust.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything you just quoted? Whether you think is likely, and why, is not something that is relevant to anything I said there.

The point remains that I was not being hypocritical. The gist of my points is actually the same: " I believe possibility of X is so low that it's ridiculous to consider it seriously".

What the fuck does that have to do with anything you just quoted? Whether you think is likely, and why, is not something that is relevant to anything I said there.

The point remains that I was not being hypocritical. The gist of my points is actually the same: " I believe possibility of X is so low that it's ridiculous to consider it seriously".

Do you even know what you're talking about anymore?

1) LHC thread: I said "underestimate" when the actual value in question was unknown.

2) You shat a brick and started whining about my use of "underestimate"

3) This thread: You said my claim about the outcome of the election was incorrect.

4) whocares123 said: How can a prediction about the outcome be incorrect if we don't know the outcome.

Point is: You don't know the outcome, therefore you can't call my prediction incorrect. Instead of acknowleding that, you made a sarcastic, irrelevant remark about poison. Probability has absolutely NOTHING to do with you stupidly using "incorrect" to describe a prediction.

---

As for you believing the possibility is too low to be considered seriously? There's no point in arguing about it now. If in two weeks we find that the results are close to or exceeding the (meaningless, by the way) 80% mark, then I'll be back to call you an idiot. Simple as that.

Why did I ask if you were a hypocrite?

"
Main Entry:
hyp·o·crite Listen to the pronunciation of hypocrite
Pronunciation:
\ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritēs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
Date:
13th century

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion"

That's to say, you bicker nonstop about word usage, make an almost identical semantic mistake in this thread, and then get arrogant and sarcastic instead of acknowledging it. Since you apparently don't even realize your mistake, I think you'd fit quite nicely under Rust's label of "fucking stupid", yet I somehow doubt you'll take responsibility.

I still don't understand why you're telling me that instead of DerDrache who's the one who made the claim in the first place.



Pointing out how the record is 80%+ and asking if he really thought this election season would be that.

I said his claim was unfounded, and he didn't bitch at me and try to say I was wrong, when there's really no way to prove anyone is right or wrong here because THE ELECTION HAS NOT HAPPENED YET.

YOU on the other hand, just like to argue about everything even when it doesn't make logical sense to argue.

"Hey Rust, the sky is blue."

"No it's not. It's night time, so it's black."

"You know what I mean..."

"How am I supposed to "know what you mean?" You said the sky was blue, I looked up and saw it was black. You're wrong."

"The sky will be blue in the daytime."

"It is clearly black now. Are you retarded?"

/the basis of your whole life

I said his claim was unfounded, and he didn't bitch at me and try to say I was wrong, when there's really no way to prove anyone is right or wrong here because THE ELECTION HAS NOT HAPPENED YET.

YOU on the other hand, just like to argue about everything even when it doesn't make logical sense to argue.

"Hey Rust, the sky is blue."

"No it's not. It's night time, so it's black."

"You know what I mean..."

"How am I supposed to "know what you mean?" You said the sky was blue, I looked up and saw it was black. You're wrong."

"The sky will be blue in the daytime."

"It is clearly black now. Are you retarded?"

/the basis of your whole life

Lawl. And that's only half of it.

"Uh...okay, it's blue when the sun's out, and black at night."

-"How can it be blue if it's also black."

"It's blue some of the time. And black the rest of the time."

-"So it's not blue then?"

"It's blue during the day."

-"So you admit that originally you said 'The sky is blue'?"

"Uh...k?"

-"Do you realize how stupid it is to say the sky is blue when it's black at night?"

"The sky is blue...during the day."

-"But that's not what you said. You said it's blue, implying that it is always blue under any circumstances. You're wrong, don't you see? It's not blue. It's only blue during the day."

"Yes. The sky is blue during the day."

-"But you didn't say the sky was blue during the day. You backtracked to save face. You originally just said the sky was blue."

And so on, and so on, for several pages, until the thread gets locked or until no one has any idea what the fuck Rust is talking about.


*waits for Rust to start arguing about the color of the sky*

lol@both posts above

yep, that's Rust alright, he likes to nit-pick about unimportant details, just for argument's sake

What's even funnier than that "parody" is that it's you guys who start this mess. I made a statement that was 100% factually correct:

The U.S. has reached up to 80%+ voter turnout in it's history.

Are you actually saying this election will beat that? Or is it that: you're ignorant of U.S. voter turnout history, and/or just conveniently mean the past few elections (ignoring that the past few elections showed a trend of increase before Obama and this "epic" campaign)?

And instead of acknowledging that and moving on - which would have ended this whole thing - you desperately try to save yourself from the depths of stupidity by blaming me for your stupid mistake.

It takes two to argue. If you say I'm arguing about "everything", then I'm sorry to report so are you.

Point is: You don't know the outcome, therefore you can't call my prediction incorrect. Instead of acknowleding that, you made a sarcastic, irrelevant remark about poison. Probability has absolutely NOTHING to do with you stupidly using "incorrect" to describe a prediction.

If that's your point then I already acknowledged that before. I already stated that I cannot know for sure that it wouldn't. Your point, is then, pretty fucking useless as usual.

then I'll be back to call you an idiot. Simple as that.

And if it doesn't you'll be back here backtracking and trying to save face by talking about "relevant", or "social different circumstances". We know.


That's to say, you bicker nonstop about word usage, make an almost identical semantic mistake in this thread, and then get arrogant and sarcastic instead of acknowledging it. Since you apparently don't even realize your mistake, I think you'd fit quite nicely under Rust's label of "fucking stupid", yet I somehow doubt you'll take responsibility.

Except I didn't bicker nonstop about word usage in that thread. The very statement you quoted made that clear:

"What I have a problem with is your claim. I mentioned the word you used, "underestimate" to piggy back off it and show how: For all you know they are correct in their understanding of the impossibility (or implausibility) of the doomsday scenarios nutjobs keep crying about"

What's even funnier than that "parody" is that it's you guys who start this mess.

What's slightly less funny is two people with a superiority complex who derail threads with irrelevant analogies and semantics in order to prove they're right. Apart from your good selves, nobody cares.

Nobody is forcing you to read this; in fact you've been provided with ample ways to make sure you don't. Like for example, the "ignore user" feature.

I suggest you use it. That or just shut the fuck up.

That would be a shame, because you usually start out with something interesting.

Thanks. Make sure you hit "View Post" in the first post I make in a thread.

What's even funnier than that "parody" is that it's you guys who start this mess. I made a statement that was 100% factually correct:

The U.S. has reached up to 80%+ voter turnout in it's history.

Are you actually saying this election will beat that? Or is it that: you're ignorant of U.S. voter turnout history, and/or just conveniently mean the past few elections (ignoring that the past few elections showed a trend of increase before Obama and this "epic" campaign)?

And instead of acknowledging that and moving on - which would have ended this whole thing - you desperately try to save yourself from the depths of stupidity by blaming me for your stupid mistake.

You really can't remember what you've just read, after you've read it, can you?

How the FUCK are elections from the mid 19th century at all related to how elections in 2008 are conducted? You are only looking at WHITE MALES OVER 21. Even if black males technically had the right to vote at some point in all that, we all know the history of them either choosing not to, or not being able to because of jim crow laws. Or are you ignorant of the history of the United States?

Listen, Shercock Holmes, I have a hunch that if you seek out voter turnout information, broken down by demographic, you will likely see a high rate of voter turnout for white males, 21 and over, throughout all elections. When you put on blinders and look at an election where that was the only group a) eligible to register to vote, b) registered to vote, and c) voting, then you ignore a huge portion of the US adult population that today FUCKING VOTES. It would not be at all surprising to find out that 80% of white males 21+ vote. So a 1860 figure of 80% voter turnout, limited to WHITE MALES 21+, is not all that high after all. Perhaps if white males 21+ were the only ones allowed to vote in this election, then perhaps we would see "OMFG 80% VOTER TURNOUT!!1111"

This is why I say you can't look beyond 1972, because everything before that had different rules for who could vote, and should not just be blindly compared. "OH LAWLS DA NUMBAR IS HIGHER IN DIS YEAR SO UR WRONG....EVEN THO DA ELECTION AINT HAPPEN YET OH LUL."

So according to your logic, as long as 80% of 21+ white males vote in this election, it will have the highest voter turnout of any election ever. Even if the total number is really some shit like 50%. Doesn't matter to you. You want to compare all elections as if they presented the same opportunity to the same amount of people. So there we are. In Assburgers Land.

What's slightly less funny is two people with a superiority complex who derail threads with irrelevant analogies and semantics in order to prove they're right. Apart from your good selves, nobody cares.

Rust is slightly nuts in the sense that he will argue and argue and argue about something that's not even all that important in the grand scheme of things just to win an argument/debate, all the while completely fail at inputting anything of real insight. In other words he just like to argue for argument's sake. It's good to have him around in the sense that he will improve one's debating skills (cause he will catch all your mistakes and call you on them), but if you want insight you might want to look elsewhere.

Thanks. Make sure you hit "View Post" in the first post I make in a thread.

He already expressed that he thinks you are a good poster so I think it's unlikely that he will put you on ignore. WHich brings the question, why did you even say this? Just to be a disagreeable cunt? Or are you just pugnacious by nature?

What a fucking loser. Why can't you take some constructive criticism? Lewcifer was right, the two of you have been bickering about some really stupid trivial stuff and if I were you I would heed his advice and stop this nonsense.

"OH LAWLS DA NUMBAR IS HIGHER IN DIS YEAR SO UR WRONG....EVEN THO DA ELECTION AINT HAPPEN YET OH LUL."



lol lol

You really can't remember what you've just read, after you've read it, can you?


You're a fucking moron.

I already explained to you that I'm not saying we should compare these elections to that of ones 100+ years ago. It was DerDrache who was making the comparison by claiming this would beat all other elections (which includes those before 1972).


Try reading the thread. You'd see it went something like this:

DerDrache: "It will beat all elections in U.S. history"

Rust: "Err... The record is 80%, so that seems doubtful; do you mean the past few elections?"


DerDrache: "ROFL!111! [Insert ridiculous attempt to blame Rust].

You're a fucking moron.

I already explained to you that I'm not saying we should compare these elections to that of ones 100+ years ago. It was DerDrache who was making the comparison by claiming this would beat all other elections (which includes those before 1972).


Try reading the thread. You'd see it went something like this:

DerDrache: "It will beat all elections in U.S. history"

Rust: "Err... The record is 80%, so that seems doubtful; do you mean the past few elections?"


DerDrache: "ROFL!111! [Insert ridiculous attempt to blame Rust].

DerDrache conceded long ago, like right after you started talking about this on page 3, that "oh yeah, you got me because I did say "all of US history." " But ok, this is where human logic and not just useless semantics come into play. DerDrache was simply trying to say the election would have a very high voter turnout, because it is so important, or at least it is being made out to be so important. After seeing that the turnout was 80% in 1860, he would acknowledge there were different circumstances and technology at the time, and so it would be illogical to compare 1860 to 2008. You then come back with some bullshit about the trend is more people are voting since 1960, which basically has nothing to do with anything.

You were trying to then get another hit in and say "oh DerDrache, you're just making obvious statements. Of course the voter turnout will go up this year! It's always going up!" How the FUCK do you know where the trend ends and begins? How do you know voter turnout will not decline this year, and start a "trend" of declining voter turnout? Are you making a baseless claim here? Why are you doing that?

edit: WAN's first paragraph explains you spot on, Rust. No insight into anything.

DerDrache conceded long ago, like right after you started talking about this on page 3, that "oh yeah, you got me because I did say "all of US history." "

Yes, I know that. Anytime that issue (the 80%) has been brought up afterward is because DerDrache wants to misrepresent my position in order to ridicule me. He wants to make it out to be as having only to deal with that, and you fell for it like a fucking moron.

I haven't been bringing that issue up at all, it's him.


You were trying to then get another hit in and say "oh DerDrache, you're just making obvious statements. Of course the voter turnout will go up this year! It's always going up!" How the FUCK do you know where the trend ends and begins? How do you know voter turnout will not decline this year, and start a "trend" of declining voter turnout? Are you making a baseless claim here? Why are you doing that?You're grasping at straws. You've shown absolutely no reason why the trend would cease to increase. In fact, the only person that matters in my discussion, DerDrache, believes that it will increase thus confirming my position! He already agrees with me that it will continue to increase, therefore he is making my point for me. You don't agree? Who gives a shit? I wasn't talking to you.


edit: WAN's first paragraph explains you spot on, Rust. No insight into anything.I have WAN on ignore since he's a troll, so I have no idea what you're talking about. If it's a lame attempt at psychoanalyzing me over the internet, then I frankly don't give a fuck. Some idiots think badly of me on the Internet? The Horror.

You're grasping at straws. You've shown absolutely no reason why the trend would cease to increase. In fact, the only person that matters in my discussion, DerDrache, believes that it will increase thus confirming my position! He already agrees with me that it will continue to increase, therefore he is making my point for me. You don't agree? Who gives a shit? I wasn't talking to you.

Grasping at straws? You're ridiculing someone for making a prediction about the election turnout, (whether it's over the 55% or so record since 1960, or the 80% record for all years) when you yourself are in fact doing the same thing! The only difference is you disagree on the outcome. You have no reason to bitch at DerDrache for his prediction when you're doing the same thing. You both think it will go up, but disagree as to what extent. Ok, so what? That doesn't make either of you right or wrong. So why the fuck are you arguing about it at all? See, Rust, this is how normal people talk about things:

A: I think this year's election turnout will be the highest in history!

B: Really? You know the record is like, 80%? That's pretty high given the last 40 years, it's hovered around 55%.

A: Oh yeah? When was it 80%?

B: 1860.

A: Oh, well...that's a different time period, I mean, come on. Plus there were a lot of tensions brewing and emerging political parties...I mean, weren't there like 4 major candidates in that race? And only white males 21+ could really vote, so...yeah, completely different animal there.

B: I suppose.

A: So yeah, I guess I meant to say it'll be the highest turnout in recent history. Still pretty significant.

B: I don't know about that...I feel like it won't be. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

A: I guess so.

B: Wanna go to Dairy Queen? I love their blizzards!

A: Yeah!

I typed all that up so you could read over it in your spare time and practice the dialog in the mirror, or with a stuffed animal. I would like to help you, Rust, all sarcasm aside.

i typed all that up so you could read over it in your spare time and practice the dialog in the mirror, or with a stuffed animal. I would like to help you, rust, all sarcasm aside.

roflmao

Grasping at straws? You're ridiculing someone for making a prediction about the election turnout, (whether it's over the 55% or so record since 1960, or the 80% record for all years) when you yourself are in fact doing the same thing! The only difference is you disagree on the outcome. You have no reason to bitch at DerDrache for his prediction when you're doing the same thing. You both think it will go up, but disagree as to what extent. Ok, so what? That doesn't make either of you right or wrong. So why the fuck are you arguing about it at all? See, Rust, this is how normal people talk about things:

A: I think this year's election turnout will be the highest in history!

B: Really? You know the record is like, 80%? That's pretty high given the last 40 years, it's hovered around 55%.

A: Oh yeah? When was it 80%?

B: 1860.

A: Oh, well...that's a different time period, I mean, come on. Plus there were a lot of tensions brewing and emerging political parties...I mean, weren't there like 4 major candidates in that race? And only white males 21+ could really vote, so...yeah, completely different animal there.

B: I suppose.

A: So yeah, I guess I meant to say it'll be the highest turnout in recent history. Still pretty significant.

B: I don't know about that...I feel like it won't be. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

A: I guess so.

B: Wanna go to Dairy Queen? I love their blizzards!

A: Yeah!

I typed all that up so you could read over it in your spare time and practice the dialog in the mirror, or with a stuffed animal. I would like to help you, Rust, all sarcasm aside.

Lol lol dude, you are funny, insightful and compassionate (in that you want to help a socially retarded fellow human, namely Rust).

I have WAN on ignore since he's a troll, so I have no idea what you're talking about. If it's a lame attempt at psychoanalyzing me over the internet, then I frankly don't give a fuck. Some idiots think badly of me on the Internet? The Horror.

It's a she.

Grasping at straws? You're ridiculing someone for making a prediction about the election turnout, (whether it's over the 55% or so record since 1960, or the 80% record for all years) when you yourself are in fact doing the same thing!

No, I'm not. Try actually reading what I've said.

I have no problems with people making predictions. I simply pointed out how it was unlikely that this race would be the actual record, and anticipated his response (i.e. backtracking) and pointed out that judging it by the past few elections only would still not be some great achievement as he implied.

I am not "ridiculing" him for making a prediction, and "ridiculing" him for :

1. Making the wrong claim whiles he's calling other people morons (you can see the tone he had when he made the claim - which is probably why he got so angry he knew he fucked up in the middle of ridiculing everyone else).

2. Implying this would be some amazing achievement (once he backtracked and changed it to the "relevant" years) when the trend makes this pretty much expected.


See, Rust, this is how normal people talk about things

Yes! That's pretty much how I envisioned it going. Sadly instead of DerDrache saying "So yeah, I guess I meant to say it'll be the highest turnout in recent history. Still pretty significant." he said "ROFL!11!!1 blah blah blah shut the fuck up"

Of course, since you want to attack me and not DerDrache, you're going to ignore this completely and still blame me.

*Draws a line*

So Rust, would you agree with the statement "anyone voting for a 3rd party candidate is an idiot"? If not, why not?

Would you like to agree or disagree with any of the substance in this post:

Most people who vote for a 3rd party candidate do so not because they think their candidate stands a chance of getting in, but because they want to demonstrate top the major parties that the issue they care about can sway votes, and to force the main parties to address it. How long ago was it that climate change was an issue only talked about by loony fringe green candidates?

That's the realistic outcome of support for the Paul campaign and a reason to vote for Barr, to show the big two that civil liberties and bloated wasteful government are issues which can cast votes and part people with donation money.

Or this one:

Its the logic like this that prevents third party candidates, legitimate or not, from having any shot, and thus "throwing away" any hope for this country.

By continuously voting for one of two parties, we are only reinforcing the terrible policies that got this country into the fucked up position it is today. Your rationale has all but eliminated accountability in politics; each party can pretty much guarantee being in power at least once every couple terms.

So take your lesser of two evils and shove it up your ass. I'm not going to vote for a person I don't agree with. No, I'm going to hold the party accountable for their actions, I'm going to tell both of them with my vote that I think they're doing a piss poor job of things. Yeah, yeah, my one vote won't make a difference, but if everyone thought that way no one would vote at all.



Or this one:

It's stupid. Don't do it. Grow up. One of the two main nominees is going to be president whether you like it or not. If you don't like either one, then you choose the lesser of the two evils, so to speak. Voting for a 3rd party candidate not only is a wasted vote, but often those votes can determine elections. You could throw your vote away on Nader or whoever the fuck and actually help the candidate that you dislike the most.

So seriously...no one thinks you're rebellious, cool, or intelligent for voting for a 3rd party candidate. They think you're a stupid jackass, because you are.

Vote for who you like the most out of the major candidates, or don't vote at all. Period.

?

It's just I have this silly thing about preferring to read & take part in actual debate rather than petty squabbling over semantics :D

I agree with the first two posts pretty much in their entirety. I already gave such an inclination when I stated - to someone else who was saying voting was for a particular reason only - that voting is whatever the hell I want to to be (i.e. thus making it pretty clear I disagree with anyone telling me not to vote for a third party candidate).

So what did I just accomplish right there, save for answering your question? Pretty much nothing.


It's just I have this silly thing about preferring to correct incorrect information rather than restate an opinion for the 100th time in a thread that's pretty shitty to begin with :D

I agree with the first two posts pretty much in their entirety. I already gave such an inclination when I stated - to someone else who was saying voting was for a particular reason only - that voting is whatever the hell I want to to be (i.e. thus making it pretty clear I disagree with anyone telling me not to vote for a third party candidate).

So what did I just accomplish right there, save for answering your question? Pretty much nothing.


It's just I have this silly thing about preferring to correct incorrect information rather than restate an opinion for the 100th time in a thread that's pretty shitty to begin with :D

I look forward to the day you make a thread titled "The world according to Rust." It's pretty hard to figure you out because you never post about yourself or add new ideas. You live in Puerto Rico, are a communist, and have an obsession with semantics. It's going to take forever to put the puzzle pieces together.

Nobody will notice because half the poster's will probably have me in ignore by then. :D

http://blog.dreamhost.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/serious.jpg

It's just I have this silly thing about preferring to correct incorrect information rather than restate an opinion for the 100th time in a thread that's pretty shitty to begin with :D

Fair enough.

DerDrache.

I used to dislike you.

But your skills in the art of trolling in this thread brings tears to my eyes, thank you for the wonderful lulzfest, sir.

And the only thing worth quoting in this thread:

A "democratic republic" is a fucking form of government. It has absolutely nothing to do with parties.

Alongside Aragon's other posts, you should all learn from this man.

I am not "ridiculing" him for making a prediction, and "ridiculing" him for :

1. Making the wrong claim whiles he's calling other people morons (you can see the tone he had when he made the claim - which is probably why he got so angry he knew he fucked up in the middle of ridiculing everyone else).

2. Implying this would be some amazing achievement (once he backtracked and changed it to the "relevant" years) when the trend makes this pretty much expected.

Please show me where DerDrache's tone can be seen, and is at all hostile or implying other people are morons. If anyone has done that, it is you with your quick dismissal of his prediction. Elitist, are we?

I would also like to see where he implied an amazing achievement would be taking place, especially after he corrected himself on his prediction. What is so amazing about people voting? What do we owe this "achievement" to as you put it? Obama? The media? What the fuck are you talking about now?

And I ask once again how do you know what the trend is? Why do YOU expect more people to vote in this election than in, say, 2004? What are you basing this off of? Or are you just talking out of your anus?

Please show me where DerDrache's tone can be seen, and is at all hostile or implying other people are morons. If anyone has done that, it is you with your quick dismissal of his prediction. Elitist, are we?

I would also like to see where he implied an amazing achievement would be taking place, especially after he corrected himself on his prediction. What is so amazing about people voting? What do we owe this "achievement" to as you put it? Obama? The media? What the fuck are you talking about now?

And I ask once again how do you know what the trend is? Why do YOU expect more people to vote in this election than in, say, 2004? What are you basing this off of? Or are you just talking out of your anus?

It's extremely rare to find someone who can actually beat, or at the very least, hold his own against Rust in a debate.

Please show me where DerDrache's tone can be seen, and is at all hostile or implying other people are morons. If anyone has done that, it is you with your quick dismissal of his prediction. Elitist, are we?

1.

"ROFL. I"m not putting people down for voting. I'm putting them down for voting idiotically."


"Seriously guys...I realize that I forced you to be defensive by calling you idiots, but...get over it."


"But as long as Totse is around, I'm going to make a thread every 4 years to remind you just how stupid and lazy you guys are. "


That's his tone throughout the thread in general. This is his tone regarding the specific achievement he says this election will be:

"
Don't argue with me, because you're wrong.


"When it's higher than any previous elections, I'll be back to tell you guys to shut the fuck up"


In the end, though, that you don't agree that his tone was how I described it, is irrelevant. I did, hence I replied the way I did.


2. You yourself already "dismissed" his prediction when you said neither of us are know the outcome and that his claim was dumb (i.e. "DerDrache saying the voter turnout will be the highest in history is just as dumb as you saying there's no chance it will be")!

Stop contradicting yourself.



I would also like to see where he implied an amazing achievement would be taking place, especially after he corrected himself on his prediction.


He said it would have the biggest turnout in history. That's the achievement I was talking about.

Why would I have to provide an example of him talking about the great achievement after he was corrected? I understand he was corrected; I corrected him. I already explained to you that the issue of breaking the record was already resolved: he was wrong. He admitted he was wrong.

The only time it keeps getting broguht up is either because of idiots like you, who are butting in the conversation, or because he keeps trying to say that I was arguing in favor of judging all modern election turnouts against those of 100+ years ago, when that's simply not the case.



And I ask once again how do you know what the trend is? Why do YOU expect more people to vote in this election than in, say, 2004? What are you basing this off of? Or are you just talking out of your anus?


1. As I already explained to you, this is irrelevant given that DerDrache agrees with me that this election will increase.

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant because I wasn't talking to you.

2. The trend is based on the results of the past few elections, which have increased each time. Could it not increase this time? Sure. DerDrache believes it will, and nobody here has shown any reason why the tredn would magically cease this year.

In other words: DerDrache and I are banking that poison will be poisonous tomorrow. Maybe you disagree... who gives a shit?

The good thing about voting 3rd party is that if enough people do it, it sends a message. For example, if the Republicans lose this time because people voted for the Libertarian instead, the Republicans might say "Oh shit, we better do more of what that guy is doing so that doesn't happen again next time".

I'll either be writing in Ron Paul or not voting this time around.

I completely agree.

Off topic: I heard someone today tell me at work that "The conservatives are actually hoping Obama wins this election because they know the economy is going to crash, so they'll win the next election because it will be blamed on him".

Fcking bigots.

OP is right on the mark.

If not for Nader's inflated ego and the misguided fucking morons who voted for him, Al Gore would be president and there would be no war in Iraq. And we would still have a functioning Bill of Rights.

^It's pretty low to blame a third party candidate when Gore couldn't even win his home state. The Republicans would have rigged the thing regardless, it's quite apparent to anybody willing to do the research.

The good thing about voting 3rd party is that if enough people do it, it sends a message. For example, if the Republicans lose this time because people voted for the Libertarian instead, the Republicans might say "Oh shit, we better do more of what that guy is doing so that doesn't happen again next time".

I'll either be writing in Ron Paul or not voting this time around.

Same...

I haven't decided if I am going to vote for McCain or -- send a message.

OP is right on the mark.

If not for Nader's inflated ego and the misguided fucking morons who voted for him, Al Gore would be president and there would be no war in Iraq. And we would still have a functioning Bill of Rights.

If you want to blame someone, blame the dickheads like myself that voted for Bush, the first time around. Back then there was no Iraq war, no reason to suspect there would be one, and he sure as fuck wasn't running on a platform of "lol, gonna take away your rights because of 9/11".

Because 9/11 didn't happen until after the election.

This 20/20 hindsight you're pulling is bullshit.