What? You mean you don't think Bush Jr. would be a good person to send off on diplomatic missions to restore relationships with other countries? I'm shocked 
Election updates...
- Thread starter Cruentus
- Start date
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
Andrew Green, I was country, when country wasn't cool.
quoting Donnie and Marie really dates you...Andrew Green, I was country, when country wasn't cool.
Honesty has nothing to do with US politics.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
Confusing Donny and Marie with Barbara Mandell should be embarassing.
Cute.
But lets go back to looking at the future election. 3 lashes with a noodle to me too for tangenting back there.
But lets go back to looking at the future election. 3 lashes with a noodle to me too for tangenting back there.
I've had to think about the last line you wrote alot. There is almost never someone I politically align well with these days. I often feel that I am just voting for the lesser of two evils, or more precisely, voting against what I'd fear the most. I think its kind of a sad commentary these days, but with such a broad political spectrum in the population, its so hard to accomodate everyones demands. Still, I'd like to find someone out there worth voting -for- rather than someone getting my default "I'm against the other guy" vote.
OP
Cruentus
Grandmaster
- Thread Starter
- #30
Getting back on track, I have 2 points to keep in mind when voting in this next election. These are on the "lesser of 2 evils" argument and the 3rd party vote.
"Lesser of 2 evils" argument...
Let's talk about the idea of voting for "the lesser of 2 evils" , now that it has been brought up earlier.
Having what will be 8 years of GW Bush by this next election, I have learned a lot. In 2000, I really bought into the "lesser of 2 evils" argument as proposed by Ralph Nader at the time. Since then, I have had a chance to do a lot of thinking regarding this. And nothing against Nader who (agree with his ideas or not) is a brilliant man; but I think that the lesser of 2 evils argument is amiss. It's wrong; not in a moral sense or anything, just an objective one. Here is why...
The "lesser of 2 evils" argument is 1st off a very extremist way of looking at things. It is not like we have Adolf Hitler and Ted Bundy running and now we have to decide. Calling our canidates "evil" in most cases is probably a bit much. It is emotionally charged language (fueled by the media who likes to speak in extremes) that ruins the objective argument and political process. For example, Hillary, Obama, or Guilliani are not my 1st choices for President right now. But do I really think that any of them are "evil?" Do I really think that the whole country will fall apart if "Hillary" or "Guilliani" get's elected? Of course not. For as many disagreements that I may have with, for example, Barrack Obama, that doesn't mean that if he gets elected that I have to start an uprising because everything will go to hell. So, this is an extremist, emotional way of looking at our canidates.
Further, I think that we really cheat ourselves when we view our canidates this way, because this is a pessimistic way of looking at things. Pessimism, first of all, is for failures. Plain and simple, no two ways about it. Now, I understand that it is easy to feel discouraged and barred from what is going on in our country (especially if your current president or representative is not your choice for leadership). And because of this disenfranchisement, it is easy to be pessimistic, lethargic, and to simply say "screw it... I'm writing in Jack Bower from 24..." or whatever. But when you do this, as understandable as it may seem, you cheat yourself. People who are successful are not pessimists. I really learned this from my survival training; that it doesn't matter how screwed over you feel or how much the odds seem against you - you have to be optimistic. Ask an Infantryman who has been out in the field against seemingly unconquerable odds if pessimism got him home safe. Ask a successful business person or scholar for that matter if pessimism won him/her that award, or got him/her to be a success. I think that you will find a common trend, and that will be that pessimism isn't what gets people places. Pessimism is for failures, and if you decide to simply throw your vote away as most of the country does, then you are not just failing, but you are cheating yourself, your neighbor, and your country. In my view, you should be ashamed if this is what you choose to do. Here in America, we have the rights and freedoms and voting power that men and women overseas die for, and that some countries don't have. We should take these rights a bit more seriously then we do. So it behooves us to quite feeling sorry for ourselves around election time, and to actually try to do some good by voicing our opinion through the vote, even if our "perfect candidate" isn't running that year.
Then that leads us to my final point about the "lesser of 2 evils" and why the notion is flawed: that is the point about 'the perfect candidate. First off, our canidates are human beings, just like us. They have flaws, just like us, as well as good qualities. For example, Hillary Clinton is not my 1st choice, but I bet you I can name 5 things positive about her if need be. Further, Huckabee is my 1st choice right now, however, I cannot say I like EVERYTHING about him. Can you name 5 good qualities about a candidate you don't like? That is an objectivity check for you, btw. The point is, there is no perfect candidate. The lesser of 2 evils assumption selfishly assumes that there is a 'perfect' or 'ideal' candidate out there, and if that perfect candidate isn't running, then the correct response would be to toss away your vote. This is very self-centered, obviously, because the perfect candidate for you may not be the perfect candidate for someone else. Further, the idea that you will have someone run who you completely agree with on every point is not a realistic one. So throwing away a vote because your ideal candidate isn't running is the equivalent of taking your ball and going home because you want a different team captain. It's called being a baby. But for some reason, cry-babying and feeling sorry for yourself with our political process is acceptable in this country. Well, it shouldn't be.
Realistically, you will not agree with everything any candidate says or does. But an objective person will look at all of the qualities of each candidate, and will weigh out the positives and negatives, and will pick the one that suits him/her the best, and that can possibly win. This is usually the best way to go.
In conclusion, the "lesser of two evils" argument is flawed on so many levels. If you want your government to work for you, and if you want to actually take part in making our country better, then this line of thinking is a no-go. We have to stay positive, objective, and active. Then if we don't get our way, we can at least go to sleep at night knowing we did our best, and realize that tomorrow is another day.
Third Party Votes: I do need to clarify that third party votes are not always throw away votes. They do have their place. Historically, the third party vote has been a way to voice an opinion that one may feel that the 2 main parties aren't addressing. For example, in 2000, I don't believe a vote for Nader was a throw away. Some will say it was because of his low %, but this is a very 1-dimensional way of looking at this. Some will say that Gore would have won, and that Nader gave the election to Bush. Well, I say that if Gore was clearly the better candidate who addressed what the country needed, then he wouldn't have needed Nader's 3% to win. But I digress, as I do not want to rehash the arguments over who should have won that election. The fact was, in 2000, if you will remember, neither party were addressing the issues of minimum and the living wage for the middle class (among others, but we will focus on these). No one in the main stream was talking about these issues. Coming out of the 90's where it seemed like everyone was prosperous, it was easy to ignore the huge gap between the wealthiest in our nation and the poor and middle class. But the fact was that the notion of a living wage and standard of living for working families was one that needed to be addressed. Nader addressed it where the 2 mainstream candidates didn't, and he got 3% of the votes.
What did this accomplish? Well, now you have both parties talking about wage and standard of living for the middle class and solutions to help "working families" and so forth. This is far different then in 2000. By enough people voting 3rd party, even though he didn't win, it brought attention to issues that were never talked about before. This is historically what the 3rd party vote has done in our country going back hundreds of years. So for those of you who did vote Nader 8 years ago, consider this a victory for you. It is arguable that the 2 main parties would have been ignoring some of these concerns today if it wasn't for that 3rd party vote back then.
So don't think that based on my above assessment on 'the lesser of 2 evils' that I think that a 3rd party vote is a throwaway. Now, if there is absolutely no one but you voting for your third party candidate, then you probably need to be responsible and not waste your vote and do something else with it. But if it is a case where that candidate has a fair amount of support and enough to make an impact, then a vote that way might be a sound way to express your concerns and bring your issues to the floor.
All in all, I think that we need to not get so disinfranchised that we throw away our voice. That is the basic reason for this post. I think we need to respect our freedoms a lot more then that...
C.
"Lesser of 2 evils" argument...
Let's talk about the idea of voting for "the lesser of 2 evils" , now that it has been brought up earlier.
Having what will be 8 years of GW Bush by this next election, I have learned a lot. In 2000, I really bought into the "lesser of 2 evils" argument as proposed by Ralph Nader at the time. Since then, I have had a chance to do a lot of thinking regarding this. And nothing against Nader who (agree with his ideas or not) is a brilliant man; but I think that the lesser of 2 evils argument is amiss. It's wrong; not in a moral sense or anything, just an objective one. Here is why...
The "lesser of 2 evils" argument is 1st off a very extremist way of looking at things. It is not like we have Adolf Hitler and Ted Bundy running and now we have to decide. Calling our canidates "evil" in most cases is probably a bit much. It is emotionally charged language (fueled by the media who likes to speak in extremes) that ruins the objective argument and political process. For example, Hillary, Obama, or Guilliani are not my 1st choices for President right now. But do I really think that any of them are "evil?" Do I really think that the whole country will fall apart if "Hillary" or "Guilliani" get's elected? Of course not. For as many disagreements that I may have with, for example, Barrack Obama, that doesn't mean that if he gets elected that I have to start an uprising because everything will go to hell. So, this is an extremist, emotional way of looking at our canidates.
Further, I think that we really cheat ourselves when we view our canidates this way, because this is a pessimistic way of looking at things. Pessimism, first of all, is for failures. Plain and simple, no two ways about it. Now, I understand that it is easy to feel discouraged and barred from what is going on in our country (especially if your current president or representative is not your choice for leadership). And because of this disenfranchisement, it is easy to be pessimistic, lethargic, and to simply say "screw it... I'm writing in Jack Bower from 24..." or whatever. But when you do this, as understandable as it may seem, you cheat yourself. People who are successful are not pessimists. I really learned this from my survival training; that it doesn't matter how screwed over you feel or how much the odds seem against you - you have to be optimistic. Ask an Infantryman who has been out in the field against seemingly unconquerable odds if pessimism got him home safe. Ask a successful business person or scholar for that matter if pessimism won him/her that award, or got him/her to be a success. I think that you will find a common trend, and that will be that pessimism isn't what gets people places. Pessimism is for failures, and if you decide to simply throw your vote away as most of the country does, then you are not just failing, but you are cheating yourself, your neighbor, and your country. In my view, you should be ashamed if this is what you choose to do. Here in America, we have the rights and freedoms and voting power that men and women overseas die for, and that some countries don't have. We should take these rights a bit more seriously then we do. So it behooves us to quite feeling sorry for ourselves around election time, and to actually try to do some good by voicing our opinion through the vote, even if our "perfect candidate" isn't running that year.
Then that leads us to my final point about the "lesser of 2 evils" and why the notion is flawed: that is the point about 'the perfect candidate. First off, our canidates are human beings, just like us. They have flaws, just like us, as well as good qualities. For example, Hillary Clinton is not my 1st choice, but I bet you I can name 5 things positive about her if need be. Further, Huckabee is my 1st choice right now, however, I cannot say I like EVERYTHING about him. Can you name 5 good qualities about a candidate you don't like? That is an objectivity check for you, btw. The point is, there is no perfect candidate. The lesser of 2 evils assumption selfishly assumes that there is a 'perfect' or 'ideal' candidate out there, and if that perfect candidate isn't running, then the correct response would be to toss away your vote. This is very self-centered, obviously, because the perfect candidate for you may not be the perfect candidate for someone else. Further, the idea that you will have someone run who you completely agree with on every point is not a realistic one. So throwing away a vote because your ideal candidate isn't running is the equivalent of taking your ball and going home because you want a different team captain. It's called being a baby. But for some reason, cry-babying and feeling sorry for yourself with our political process is acceptable in this country. Well, it shouldn't be.
Realistically, you will not agree with everything any candidate says or does. But an objective person will look at all of the qualities of each candidate, and will weigh out the positives and negatives, and will pick the one that suits him/her the best, and that can possibly win. This is usually the best way to go.
In conclusion, the "lesser of two evils" argument is flawed on so many levels. If you want your government to work for you, and if you want to actually take part in making our country better, then this line of thinking is a no-go. We have to stay positive, objective, and active. Then if we don't get our way, we can at least go to sleep at night knowing we did our best, and realize that tomorrow is another day.
Third Party Votes: I do need to clarify that third party votes are not always throw away votes. They do have their place. Historically, the third party vote has been a way to voice an opinion that one may feel that the 2 main parties aren't addressing. For example, in 2000, I don't believe a vote for Nader was a throw away. Some will say it was because of his low %, but this is a very 1-dimensional way of looking at this. Some will say that Gore would have won, and that Nader gave the election to Bush. Well, I say that if Gore was clearly the better candidate who addressed what the country needed, then he wouldn't have needed Nader's 3% to win. But I digress, as I do not want to rehash the arguments over who should have won that election. The fact was, in 2000, if you will remember, neither party were addressing the issues of minimum and the living wage for the middle class (among others, but we will focus on these). No one in the main stream was talking about these issues. Coming out of the 90's where it seemed like everyone was prosperous, it was easy to ignore the huge gap between the wealthiest in our nation and the poor and middle class. But the fact was that the notion of a living wage and standard of living for working families was one that needed to be addressed. Nader addressed it where the 2 mainstream candidates didn't, and he got 3% of the votes.
What did this accomplish? Well, now you have both parties talking about wage and standard of living for the middle class and solutions to help "working families" and so forth. This is far different then in 2000. By enough people voting 3rd party, even though he didn't win, it brought attention to issues that were never talked about before. This is historically what the 3rd party vote has done in our country going back hundreds of years. So for those of you who did vote Nader 8 years ago, consider this a victory for you. It is arguable that the 2 main parties would have been ignoring some of these concerns today if it wasn't for that 3rd party vote back then.
So don't think that based on my above assessment on 'the lesser of 2 evils' that I think that a 3rd party vote is a throwaway. Now, if there is absolutely no one but you voting for your third party candidate, then you probably need to be responsible and not waste your vote and do something else with it. But if it is a case where that candidate has a fair amount of support and enough to make an impact, then a vote that way might be a sound way to express your concerns and bring your issues to the floor.
All in all, I think that we need to not get so disinfranchised that we throw away our voice. That is the basic reason for this post. I think we need to respect our freedoms a lot more then that...
C.
OP
Cruentus
Grandmaster
- Thread Starter
- #31
All that said above, I think that we are in a really exciting time for this primary election. Unlike some of you, I don't feel that we have the status quo; I feel that we have some choices out there (some choices that can actually win) on both the dem and repub side who really might be able to make some changes for the better in this country. And that is sure something we could use right now. So, I am excited to keep track of what is going on right now for this reason particularly...
Politically, my beliefs have traditionally fallen in line with what Kucinich stands for. However, I've undergone a sea change in recent months. I feel that our government has been too corrupted by corporate influence and that there have been way too many erosions of our civil liberties to even think about expanding the scope of the government.
I think that a well meaning liberal president would only find his/her policies twisted to fit an elitist agenda and further cast our country down into ruin.
IMHO, this is not the time for social engineering. This is the time to attempt to preserve what is left of our country.
So, with a presidential candidate, I'm looking for the following...
1. Someone who will preserve ALL of our constitutional rights in the spirit in which they were given.
2. Someone who will overhaul the financial system of this country and stop the erosion of our standard of living by inflation, debt, and tax.
3. Someone who will curtail corporate influence in government by preventing it from being controlled by the highest bidder.
The only candidate that I think will do all of this is Ron Paul. I don't agree with everything that he stands for, but at this point I think that something really radical needs to be done or we stand to lose this country as we know it.
This is so weird. I'm a liberal whose supporting a libertarian...but I think its a sign of the times.
upnorthkyosa
btw - I can't support Kucinich. I met him once and he said something that was really really creepy...and this is not superficial.
I think that a well meaning liberal president would only find his/her policies twisted to fit an elitist agenda and further cast our country down into ruin.
IMHO, this is not the time for social engineering. This is the time to attempt to preserve what is left of our country.
So, with a presidential candidate, I'm looking for the following...
1. Someone who will preserve ALL of our constitutional rights in the spirit in which they were given.
2. Someone who will overhaul the financial system of this country and stop the erosion of our standard of living by inflation, debt, and tax.
3. Someone who will curtail corporate influence in government by preventing it from being controlled by the highest bidder.
The only candidate that I think will do all of this is Ron Paul. I don't agree with everything that he stands for, but at this point I think that something really radical needs to be done or we stand to lose this country as we know it.
This is so weird. I'm a liberal whose supporting a libertarian...but I think its a sign of the times.
upnorthkyosa
btw - I can't support Kucinich. I met him once and he said something that was really really creepy...and this is not superficial.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
Oh, do tell, please! (Not that it comes as a surprise.....)
Was it the story about when he saw the UFO with Shirley MacClaine?
I really want to respond to the many points in your entire posts but am just too darn short on pre-holiday time. But I would like to point out that I felt I was voting for the lesser of the two evils before I *ever* heard anyone else use the phrase in regards to the presidential election - or any other election for that matter. So no media talking head, no self-endowed minister of magic, no self-made billionaire nor anyone else for that matter has evoked this "emotion" in me. The records of the people who have run in the elections I've been eligible to vote in during my lifespan speak for themselves.
The most insidious evil is that which works slowly, insipidly and employs opposing forces to unite the vision of ultimate power. It is not seen as evil, but rather protection from evil; not seen as dangerous until it is and even then the danger is seen as 'necessary'.
This is one kid who's eaten too much poisoned split pea soup.
Okay, so here's my story, take it or leave it.
In 2004, I went to a Kucinich rally on the UMD campus with a friend of mine. I was actually working for the Green Party at the time and, like I said above, alot of what I believed was right was what Kucinich stood for.
So, I get to the rally and its filled with the usual types. Lots of old hippies, free thinkers, and pretty much the entire congregation of my Church (Unitarian Universalist). I sat in the front row, as usual, so that if I wanted to ask a question, I would have a better chance of getting called on. Kucinich gets up and starts talking and I was like, "right on."
And then I started looking around the room. It was like being in some sort of fundamentalist revival. People were crying and swaying back and forth and really really getting into this impassioned speech. And I was like, "Heh, that's interesting..."
Finally, we get to the Q&A period at the end and I asked my usual questions to candidates and other people got to ask theirs. Then, someone in the back stands up and throws Kucinich a live one.
"Do you believe that Paul Wellstone was assassinated?"
For those of you who don't know, in 2002, Senator Wellstone from MN died in a plane crash. In my area, there is a popular theory concerning this crash and possible government involvement.
Anyway, here was Kucinich's response...and I was completely floored by this...
He pulls out a dollar bill and flips it over to show the Great Seal. Then he asks if people know what this meant. Lots of head shaking, go figure. Then he goes to the white board and draws the pyramid and the eye and elucidates...
He explained that the eye was our ideal and that the base was us on earth. He then went on to tell us that the bricks of the pyramid were all of us building up toward that ideal and that when we were finished building what we were trying to build it would be...and I kid you not..."As above, so below."
****ing creepy *** ****.
And it gets worse. Kucinich then tells us that there were some people who worked against this and that in order for this process to work, we needed to trust in the eye, trust in our ideals, trust in what was above us.
And then the rally was over. No further questions.
I can't tell you what all of this is about, but it scared the crap out of me. It's like the crap on the creepy Georgia Guidestones.
Like I said before, take it or leave it, just know that I am not making this up. There were a lot of other people who heard this.
In 2004, I went to a Kucinich rally on the UMD campus with a friend of mine. I was actually working for the Green Party at the time and, like I said above, alot of what I believed was right was what Kucinich stood for.
So, I get to the rally and its filled with the usual types. Lots of old hippies, free thinkers, and pretty much the entire congregation of my Church (Unitarian Universalist). I sat in the front row, as usual, so that if I wanted to ask a question, I would have a better chance of getting called on. Kucinich gets up and starts talking and I was like, "right on."
And then I started looking around the room. It was like being in some sort of fundamentalist revival. People were crying and swaying back and forth and really really getting into this impassioned speech. And I was like, "Heh, that's interesting..."
Finally, we get to the Q&A period at the end and I asked my usual questions to candidates and other people got to ask theirs. Then, someone in the back stands up and throws Kucinich a live one.
"Do you believe that Paul Wellstone was assassinated?"
For those of you who don't know, in 2002, Senator Wellstone from MN died in a plane crash. In my area, there is a popular theory concerning this crash and possible government involvement.
Anyway, here was Kucinich's response...and I was completely floored by this...
He pulls out a dollar bill and flips it over to show the Great Seal. Then he asks if people know what this meant. Lots of head shaking, go figure. Then he goes to the white board and draws the pyramid and the eye and elucidates...
He explained that the eye was our ideal and that the base was us on earth. He then went on to tell us that the bricks of the pyramid were all of us building up toward that ideal and that when we were finished building what we were trying to build it would be...and I kid you not..."As above, so below."
****ing creepy *** ****.
And it gets worse. Kucinich then tells us that there were some people who worked against this and that in order for this process to work, we needed to trust in the eye, trust in our ideals, trust in what was above us.
And then the rally was over. No further questions.
I can't tell you what all of this is about, but it scared the crap out of me. It's like the crap on the creepy Georgia Guidestones.
Like I said before, take it or leave it, just know that I am not making this up. There were a lot of other people who heard this.
newGuy12
Master of Arts
Wow.
See, that's what I would call "an evil."
If one looks at the Third Party votes and then how Congress and the two main parties addressed issues raised by the "Third" Parties then one sees that in many cases the strong leaders of these third parties are absorbed by the two main parties. This is to help address the issue being raised. I understand that average American needs to have it down to choose A or B. I know that the 10 options of ordering by number at Taco Bell is sometimes too confusing even for those who work their. But on a larger note, of politics the third party case allows for people to express their points and to see if people will listen.
I like third party, even though I know they have not won. It shows how the two larger main parties need to address issues other than just the few they have chosen to divide upon.
I have said it before and will say it again, it is not a wasted vote. The only wasted vote is one not cast. Vote your conscience and if you believe that a third party has issues on their agenda you like then other will notice if they get a few percentage points. It is kind of like the idea of for ever person who complains there are ten more who did not. And with 50% NOT VOTING this number could be really valid. I have no data, but it is how the advisers read the data, to decide what to present to the two main party leaders for review and action.
newGuy12
Master of Arts
It would make me very happy if everyone who did not vote voted for a third party candidate instead of not voting. It would really make some sphincter muscles tighten up!
