Maybe us Libertarians should vote for Bush?
POSTED BY: CrevanReaver
UPDATED: Monday, July 7, 2025 16:53
VIEWED: 9160
PAGE 2 of 3
And Bush murdered thousands of inoccent people in Iraq. He has also had no respect for the first amendment. Besides personaly I can't say that I believe the U.S. is better off now than it was during Clintons second term where both parties kept each other in check. It was just a personal opinion if you don't agree and think things are better now good. I'm sure there are many other things that could be brought up here and there about what both presidents have done to the rights of US citizens but I'm saying that I think having gridlock and checks between the two heavyweight parties can be and usually is good.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:ALL of this matters, whether we use the electoral college, direct elections, instant-runoff voting, or elect the party who can scream the loudest. The point is what to do with your vote - give it to the lesser of two evils or vote your conscience. My post above states my position.
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
None of this matters with the electoral college system. Only a very few states actually split their electoral college votes, the greater majority are all winner take all.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rangrbob:
....I'm saying that I think having gridlock and checks between the two heavyweight parties can and usually is good.
That's actually a very good point. If there's a Demoncrat President to veto a Republican Congress' bills, or vice versa, then "We the People..." are safer from all the bad bills that would be passed otherwise. Too bad I already voted. I think I'd adopt a new campaign slogan - "Gridlock is Good."
Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've kinda settled on a Bush is gonna win kind of thing - sort of cause I'm hoping God will prove me wrong as he so often does but mostly because I want to be emotionaly ready for the bad shit.....
But one thing is helping me look on the sunny side of life -
I'm not an American and while I'll feel bad for all the really nice Americans that Bush Inc. will really fuck over in the next four years ('cause he doesn't have to run again and Chaney's to old to run - they'll do what ever they want!) the American Economy will get worse which means more cheap DVD's on Amazon for the Spookyjesus!
I mean American money's gonna be like toilet paper in 3 years if he gets back in. Hell, the amount of Region 1 disks I've picked up in the last 2 years is unreal! It's like getting stuff from Japan but with English boxes. I've the Seinfeld box set and a load of Angel and Buffy stuff due to ship after the election. I'm getting them for a nice prive now - Bush gets back in - I'll be getting them a whole lot cheaper.
So Vote Bush - so your crappy economy benefits me - the foreign consumer :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:Quote:ALL of this matters, whether we use the electoral college, direct elections, instant-runoff voting, or elect the party who can scream the loudest. The point is what to do with your vote - give it to the lesser of two evils or vote your conscience. My post above states my position.
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
None of this matters with the electoral college system. Only a very few states actually split their electoral college votes, the greater majority are all winner take all.
hmmm.. the problem is that to garner enough votes to overwhelm the votes in an entire state to get any one state's entire set of electoral votes (except for the states where they allow splits. maybe that's where a good start would be). No one will pay any attention unless you do that, but to do that, you will have to get someone's attention. It's a chicken-or-the-egg thing. You can't get the votes unless you get enough attention and you can't get enough attention unless you get enough votes. Without gaining the electoral votes, it really doesn't matter what percentage of the votes you get (yeah, some debates and press will only qualify you when your party get certain percentages, but that's not going to happen without the attention in the first place)...
Look, the whole point is that the electoral college system makes it pretty unlikely if not impossible, where as it would probably be easier to actually make a change in the voting system and that will by itself change the 2 party system.
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:A third party candidate doesn't need to win an entire state to get lots of attention. We've all seen the OVERALL percentages from previous elections, and if in a future election that list reads something like this:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
hmmm.. the problem is that to garner enough votes to overwhelm the votes in an entire state to get any one state's entire set of electoral votes
Democrat - 45%
Republican - 44%
Libertarian - 10%
Other - 1%
all the political pundits will take notice, mainstream journalists will do stories, there will be lots of talk about "spoiler" candidtates, and MORE PEOPLE WILL HEAR ABOUT LIBERTARIANISM AND LOOK INTO IT ON THEIR OWN. That means a few more votes for the next election. And that means more attention which means more votes, and so on.
The issue for Libertarians right now is to get attention in other ways to find voters. They're doing a pretty good job. The biggest problem any third party candidate faces is his supporters voting for one of the big two, just because "we can't win anyway, so I'll vote for the guy who's kinda' not as bad". What these people don't seem to realize is that they've just gone from a one in million chance of getting what they want to absolutely zero chance of getting what they want.
Vote your conscience!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Maybe us Libertarians should vote for Bush?"
Hmm. Let me think about it.
No.
Hell no.
Christ no.
Jesus H. Tap Dancing Christ on a motorbike, No!
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. NEIN! NON! NEGATORY GOOD BUDDY!
Bush isn't in favor of Free Enterprise pal; he's in favor of big business. Specifically, he's in favor of big business getting disproportionate breaks from the Federal Government, not because he believes in Capitalism, but because they're where the money and power are. If he could find a similar source of funds and power in Communism, he'd be selling the little red book on the street corner.
I'm no fan of Kerry either, but breaking the momentum of Bush's particular flavor of abusive behavior seems more important to me than the damage Kerry might or might not do.
Captialism -- true capitalism -- has survived liberal regiemes before; another term of Bush's brand of "help" might just kill any chance free enterprise has in this country.
If you can't stand the idea of Kerry, then by all means vote Libertarian, but with friends like Bush, America doesn't need enemies.
"You can't enslave a free man. The most you can do is kill him." -- Robert A. Heinlein
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A lot of people have suggested that voting for the Libertarian candidate for president is the way to get attention and up your chances. Now I don't agree with anything Libertarian, but I do think that many people, such as the people who would have a Libertarian prez, are not being represented in government. Two parties do not accurately represent the people of the United States.
But voting for the Libertarian candidate at this time is not the way to go about it and it is throwing your vote away.
Many democracies worldwide have a system called proportional representation. Now I dunno how unknown this is, but I just found out about myself (I'm in college) and was so suprised that I thought I would spread it around. Proportional representation is a simple concept which promotes third and fourth parties and a wider spread of idealogies.
There are 435 Representatives in the House. This means there are 435 districts in which the winner takes all...if 51% vote Republican, the Republican wins and 49% of the people aren't represented. In a proportional representation system we could, for example, reduce the number of districts to 87 and elect 5 representatives per district by percentage of votes won...if 51% percent vote Republican, the Republicans get half of the seats in that district. The rest of the seat are dolled out according to the percentages the other parties recieved. That way, if a Libertarian got a small amount of votes, the party would still have a chance at a seat here and there and that would get attention.
Maybe this is old news to people but I think it's a good system and that would be where you would have to start to get your party noticed. You can't start with the presidency. So...if people really don't know about this, spread it around. It's time for a revolution. ;)
lol. Since I've only had a day or so to think about this new (to me) system, I'm unaware of any flaws it might have. Plus, my brain has been fried by studying for physics, which is why this post reads like a 14 year old wrote it. So nobody hurt me with their reply. :D
On another note...vote Kerry 2004. :D
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The words Bush , Smart and Economics shouldn't really be put together
Got this one on another debate
QUOTE
The IMF warned that increased federal debt from the deficits would make funding social security and healthcare more difficult.Robert Rubin, former treasury secretary under Bill Clinton, along with other senior economists, published a report warning that the Bush administration's record deficits will have "severe adverse consequences" for all Americans and is unsustainable. Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) is sounded a note of caution
"Cost estimates for the new programs range from $550 billion to $1 trillion," said CAGW President Tom Schatz. "Until the federal government brings the record deficit back down to Earth, it should not launch expensive new space programs of questionable scientific value."
but there's more
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the federal budget deficit would swell to $477 billion this year, a record in terms of the sheer number of dollars involved
Bush hasn't offered any more specifics for cutting the deficit, and -- according to some analysts -- what plans he has proposed seem more likely to grow the deficit, including:
What's more, spending on Social Security and Medicare -- "mandatory" budget expenditures -- will skyrocket by the end of the decade, as millions of baby boomers begin to retire, de Rugy and other analysts say.
"This is like running up a credit card debt and asking our kids to pay for it in the future -- it's fiscal child abuse," de Rugy said.
http://home.socal.rr.com/bootbush/images/Budget%20Deficit%20JPEG.JPG
how Bush almost Destroyed the Dollar !!
Massive rise on health and medi care costs, a huge mess in Iraq, the pension system starting to strain, industrial output dropping, the President breaking new records by being the only leader since the Great Depression to lose jobs, huge cost of security, North Korea is pronouncing the word nuclear better than Bush. There are jobs being sent over seas to China which grows rapidly while the Euro has become a strong alternetive for investors unsure about the unsteady dollar, big scandals Worldcom, Halliburton, Enron another massive rise in Oil prices , by any standard, going from +6 trillion to -1 trillion is abysmal. Enron would be proud. and unemployement figures don't look so good and the USA's debts goin up to astronomical levels. 
A huge loss of 1.6 million jobs and Medicare premiums that are up by a record 17
percent. Spiraling deficits could prove a thorny reelection issue for both men, who will be able to stop this weak economic performance and the massive rise in the US debts. As Senator Bob Graham said "George Bush is managing this economy the way his friend Ken Lay managed Enron," "Whoever wins the 2004 election will have to take these deficits seriously," said Robert Bixby.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
