ralph nader and ron paul on the situation room with wolf blitzer

[saz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J3-YoVPckk

it was so refreshing to see these guys getting exposure on a major cable news channel, but wolf blitzer talks way too much. paul called the whole election a charade and criticized the media for blabbering about absolutely nothing, except for the same old "horse race" cliche analogies. then blitzer spent the entire time attempting to marginalize them, talking about how the two of them will influence the result of the election blah blah blah. zero focus on their views or ideology, or what they care about. nader looked like he wanted to reach across the table and pull wolf right out of his chair, while paul looked like he couldn't believe what he was hearing. just more of the same regurgitated and condescending crap from the corporate media.

[DroppinScience]

Yeah, Wolf was essentially going: "You guys are mischief makers!"

Which is a very skewed approach. At least they got to say what are the top issues that neither major party candidate is touching, but they could have gone into greater detail on what alternatives are there for those who may not wish to vote Democrat or Republican.

[RobMoney$]

These candidates are a waste time and this thread is a waste of time.

They're not viable candidates. Don't waste your vote.

[alien autopsy]

Ron said something about not voting for Nader, but trying to get others to so it will "take votes away from obama". what the fuck is that?

[alien autopsy]

what a shit interview. blitzer is a stooge.

[DroppinScience]

These candidates are a waste time and this thread is a waste of time.

They're not viable candidates. Don't waste your vote.

Yeah because we wouldn't want threads like this to distract us from more pressing matters like "plagiarizing" cartoons or anything. No, sir.

There's no such thing as wasting a vote. I would argue that someone NOT voting is the only true waste of a vote.

[saz]

These candidates are a waste time and this thread is a waste of time.

They're not viable candidates. Don't waste your vote.

yeah okay there mr. "lifelong democrat", who is now supporting a warmongering corporate whore.

[alien autopsy]

These candidates are a waste time and this thread is a waste of time.

They're not viable candidates. Don't waste your vote.


its not a waste of a vote. its voting for who you believe is the best candidate. paul is right in the sense that there is not much between the two, obama and mccain. and even if someone radical did get into office who really did believe in real (a change in the system itself) they wouldnt be able to do anything because it takes the support of individuals who are personally invested in it.

voting is flat out a waste of time. you saw what happened in florida, in ohio. election fraud has existed in one form or another throughout history, and that will never change either.

the real answer to our problems isnt voting, its doing. fuck them, their agendas, their money and their lies. we need to reorganize the system from the ground up.From the individual to the neighbor, from the towns, villages counties, states and then to washington. These people have to be crowded out. we cant change the country from the top down. whatever bubbles bubbles up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5HOsnq_2j4)

[alien autopsy]

Yeah because we wouldn't want threads like this to distract us from more pressing matters like "plagiarizing" cartoons or anything. No, sir.

There's no such thing as wasting a vote. I would argue that someone NOT voting is the only true waste of a vote.


And what is a vote if it doesnt count in the end?

[DroppinScience]

voting is flat out a waste of time. you saw what happened in florida, in ohio. election fraud has existed in one form or another throughout history, and that will never change either.


This is a load of shit, even if there was voter fraud in Ohio or Florida. I would agree with you that there is much more to democracy than just casting a ballot. It's not the be-all end-all, but it's a start. However, denying that even this small modest gesture does not make change is the biggest joke I've seen and will only perpetuate the very system you're railing against. I'll give you an example: in Chile, do you know how they eventually got rid of the brutal right-wing dictator Pinochet? Well, they actually VOTED HIM OUT (in a referendum brought on, no doubt by international pressure). It was quite hard to believe for many Chileans that the years of torture and murder could easily be vanished by writing an "X" on a piece of paper, but it did happen. Look it up.

[alien autopsy]

Florida (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq9WVuKGwOM)
Ohio (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen)

my not voting isnt perpetuating anything. the system will be there regardless if you vote or not. its not about the people who are running for president- whoever it is, there will be a corrupt america and lovelust for war and more money that has already established itself and will never give up its hold on america freely. that is the problem with america. it is so deeply corrupt. voting will not affect that. Obama will be corrupt to. He is already talking about war with Iran.

Who put Pinochet in power in the first place? Ever heard of the school of americas? Firstly, our country caused that suffering, the murders, the sexual abuse and torture endured by thousands of working class, innocent people.

The only way to fix the system is through revolution. It took 20 years to build a revolution in Chile against the Pinochet/United States regime. It was MUCH MUCH more than casting a vote to get the Pinochet Regime out of power. Voting was the end result of a movement, a revolution. In a sense, it was a declaration that freedom had already been won. It did not cause the fall of Pinochet.
Voting was not the cause of the revolution.

[alien autopsy]

im guessing you lost interest

[DroppinScience]

im guessing you lost interest

No, it's called having a life every now and then.

Anyways, "revolution" sounds great and all on paper, but what's your plan? Violent revolution? Non-violent? If you get a revolution, what happens directly after? It's romantic and stuff to make these declarations, but something tells me you wouldn't know the first thing in emulating Che or Castro.

I myself do like a "quiet revolution" (less blood is spilled and things get done). Anyways, back to the Chile example. Yes, there was a lot more going on than the referendum vote, but in the end, it's what got Pinochet to relinquish power, yes? If I were to listen to you and I was a Chilean going to cast a ballot AGAINST Pinochet, you'd be telling me: "Fuck voting! It never changes anything. It's a waste of time." Which would be counter-productive.

And why would you tell me not to vote, even if it were for a 3rd party? You do know that votes cast for third parties means they'll get funding. Which means more resources for them to get their message out and (this is waaaaaaaaaay down the road) become a viable party. You're telling me that even that modest gesture is a waste of time.

I understand you, more needs to be done than just voting every few years, but don't count it out completely. You'll probably find some way to tell me I'm still a pawn of the "system," but whatever.

[ericg]

did that feel like how real presidential candidates would conduct themselves at this point? for what's goin' it's 1,000% better. thanks.
i just can't believe how many suckers there are on earth in these polls. it's scarrier than hell.

[ToucanSpam]

There's no such thing as wasting a vote. I would argue that someone NOT voting is the only true waste of a vote.

I disagree with this. Not voting is symbolic of your frustration with the system. Granted, thousands of people don't vote because they are lazy, apathetic, or ignorant, but generally I know a good number of people who don't vote for a good reason.

[QueenAdrock]

I'd argue that what would be symbolic of the frustration with the system is writing in a candidate, either one you believe in or a joke candidate like Batman. That way, the people in charge know that you're not one of those in the majority who are apathetic, you do believe in voting, but you think all the candidates suck. It's what my best friend's father did a while back.

[ToucanSpam]

Usually in local elections I vote for Batman. In yes/no referendums I usually throw in 'maybe'.:D

[DroppinScience]

I disagree with this. Not voting is symbolic of your frustration with the system. Granted, thousands of people don't vote because they are lazy, apathetic, or ignorant, but generally I know a good number of people who don't vote for a good reason.

Maybe some non-voters have a genuine disenchantment with the system, but for every one of those people, I'd say there's at least 3 or 4 others who are not voting simply out of apathy or ignorance so I'd argue that tactic is ineffective and only makes a broken system more problematic. Participation is the first step towards getting a system that works... or at least one that is less of a failure.

And yeah, a write-in candidate is just as good as a vote for a real candidate (mainstream or otherwise). Except in Canada, we don't have that option. So if you wanna be waaaaaaaaay out there, you'd vote for the Marijuana Party (yes, they do indeed exist here).

Edit: Here's another idea that may be good for elections. Why not have a "None of the Above" option? In student elections at the U of A, they have that. I think it'd be cool if that translated towards the real elections. Since some interpret not voting as a vote for none of the above, this would eliminate another excuse for not voting.

[alien autopsy]

No, it's called having a life every now and then.

Anyways, "revolution" sounds great and all on paper, but what's your plan? Violent revolution? Non-violent? If you get a revolution, what happens directly after? It's romantic and stuff to make these declarations, but something tells me you wouldn't know the first thing in emulating Che or Castro.

I myself do like a "quiet revolution" (less blood is spilled and things get done). Anyways, back to the Chile example. Yes, there was a lot more going on than the referendum vote, but in the end, it's what got Pinochet to relinquish power, yes? If I were to listen to you and I was a Chilean going to cast a ballot AGAINST Pinochet, you'd be telling me: "Fuck voting! It never changes anything. It's a waste of time." Which would be counter-productive.

And why would you tell me not to vote, even if it were for a 3rd party? You do know that votes cast for third parties means they'll get funding. Which means more resources for them to get their message out and (this is waaaaaaaaaay down the road) become a viable party. You're telling me that even that modest gesture is a waste of time.

I understand you, more needs to be done than just voting every few years, but don't count it out completely. You'll probably find some way to tell me I'm still a pawn of the "system," but whatever.

i think you and i have been down this road before. im not counting on anything. i do know that all civilizations run their course, and it appears that america is in its downfall. however long that may take, i dont know.

my plan...hmm...to organize with friends into a small community that works. meaning, doing our best to live in harmony with eachother and our environment. there is a lot of meaning behind that before you write it off...

revolution. doesnt have to be anything that has ever happened before. doesnt have to be che, or castro, who worked together i dont know if you know that...

i love how you stick me in the chilean situation and paint me as someone who is just plain bitter. i would proudly vote if i knew my vote meant something. here in this country, it doesnt. The day that our system exhibits real progress is a day i will jump for joy and take part in it. until then, we will all continue to be marginalized and lied to, led to live the illusion that we matter to them.

you will NEVER see a third party candidate become president, unless it was one that was bought and sold, and who was presented to us as the latest "hope for change".

Im sick of hoping for change. i know i will not find the change that i believe in through the political process. i choose not to.

[alien autopsy]

Maybe some non-voters have a genuine disenchantment with the system, but for every one of those people, I'd say there's at least 3 or 4 others who are not voting simply out of apathy or ignorance so I'd argue that tactic is ineffective and only makes a broken system more problematic. Participation is the first step towards getting a system that works... or at least one that is less of a failure.

And yeah, a write-in candidate is just as good as a vote for a real candidate (mainstream or otherwise). Except in Canada, we don't have that option. So if you wanna be waaaaaaaaay out there, you'd vote for the Marijuana Party (yes, they do indeed exist here).

Edit: Here's another idea that may be good for elections. Why not have a "None of the Above" option? In student elections at the U of A, they have that. I think it'd be cool if that translated towards the real elections. Since some interpret not voting as a vote for none of the above, this would eliminate another excuse for not voting.


oh, so you are cool with someone voting none of the above? but isnt that a waste of a vote? what does that accomplish DS? do you really think that is beneficial given your argument?

[saz]

you will NEVER see a third party candidate become president

abraham lincoln.

[DroppinScience]

oh, so you are cool with someone voting none of the above? but isnt that a waste of a vote? what does that accomplish DS? do you really think that is beneficial given your argument?

Well, the way "None of the Above" works in student elections is if NOTA gets more votes than the actual candidate(s) running for the positions (and such a scenario is immensely unlikely because most people choose to vote for a person, but I still think it's cool we have that option), this would force a by-election and a call for more candidates to get nominated and on the ballot. So applying that to the real world, if NOTA won, you'd basically be saying: "I'm unimpressed with these choices. Show me something else."

Your methods are perhaps more esoteric and vague, but hey, you do your thing and I'll do mine and I'm sure we'll meet up in the new New World Order. ;)

[ToucanSpam]

Maybe some non-voters have a genuine disenchantment with the system, but for every one of those people, I'd say there's at least 3 or 4 others who are not voting simply out of apathy or ignorance so I'd argue that tactic is ineffective and only makes a broken system more problematic. Participation is the first step towards getting a system that works... or at least one that is less of a failure.

There are a lot of apathetic, ignorant knobs who would sully the argument I presented, you're right. I'm not sure that participating in a system you have NO faith in helps to make change. Usually, it takes something a little more than working within the system. *coughCUBAcoughUSSRcoughCHINAcough*

Not that I subscribe to that sort of 'madness'.;)

I like the "none of the above" option you mentioned as a healthy alternative to protesting through silence. I personally don't like the idea of not voting at all and this seems like a good way of demonstrating frustration while being able to actively participate.

[alien autopsy]

Well, the way "None of the Above" works in student elections is if NOTA gets more votes than the actual candidate(s) running for the positions (and such a scenario is immensely unlikely because most people choose to vote for a person, but I still think it's cool we have that option), this would force a by-election and a call for more candidates to get nominated and on the ballot. So applying that to the real world, if NOTA won, you'd basically be saying: "I'm unimpressed with these choices. Show me something else."

Your methods are perhaps more esoteric and vague, but hey, you do your thing and I'll do mine and I'm sure we'll meet up in the new New World Order. ;)

esoteric and vague? how so?

[alien autopsy]

abraham lincoln.

it was a much different time back then.
there is serious effort today to undermine any third party, or radical candidate. two examples come immediately to mind- media coverage, and the debates- which are owned by the democrat and republican parties, effectively preventing any third party from being involved. there is also the blame game where third parties are used as a scapegoat by the parties and media who claim that they take votes away from who america really wants as a president. its all bullshit.

today a third party candidate like nader or mckinney would represent a threat to the elite, ruling class in our society. they are invested in. they wont go down quietly.

[saz]

it sure was a different time back then, considering that in 1860 the nation was on the verge of a civil war.

regardless, despite the odds being against them, third parties and third party candidates should not throw in the proverbial towel. conneticut elected an independent governor a few decades or so back. there's also bernie sanders, an independent socialist senator, and even jesse ventura as well. it can happen.

[alien autopsy]

yeah, but we are talking about presidency here....i dont think it will happen anytime soon