Bye, bye Republican party! Last straw, I'm out!

[redrumloa]

At Debate, McCain Proposes Buying Up Bad Home Loans

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/08 ... ome-loans/

Republican candidate says he wants to bail out Americans on the brink of losing their homes, and he wants to put $300 billion into the effort.

Once again they are going to reward risky and/or illegal behavoir while those of us who are fiscally responsible get the bill. F*** you McCain.

 

[Speelgoedmannetje]

How about Ron Paul?

 

[ltstanfo]

How about Ron Paul?

Ron Paul, while perhaps more principled than any other candidate has no chance of ever winning the office of presidency. Regardless of what I think about him the fact is that America lives under a two party system and until a candidate comes along who truely has broad appeal, it will always be a two party system. The closest the US has come to a viable third party candidate was Ross Pero (until he self destructed) and Paul has never had that kind of appeal (IMO).

Voting for Paul (in the current circumstances) would be throwing a vote away (IMO).

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[Wayne]

Watching last night's debates (with an admitted bias), I found myself hearing a seemingly desperate McCain trying to come across as the everyman, when he just seemed like a creepy grandpa to me. To me, McCain typifies status quo and Bush policies, and after 8 years, "that's just not my bag baby".

I don't think it was a slam dunk for Obama either, but the policies and crap McCain was spewing about buying up houses and the general avoidance of direct questions just made me go "WTF?"... McCain seemed to be stuck in broken needle mode last night.

Granted, I'd "LOVE" the opportunity for the government to step in and give me the opportunity to buy my house back at the 25k less that it's now worth, but that ain't going to happen.

Wayne

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Voting for Paul (in the current circumstances) would be throwing a vote away (IMO).

Regards,
Ltstanfo

That depends on what you would otherwise use your vote for.

If you vote for someone you don't support, just to stop someone else, then that is using your vote.

If you vote for a third option such as Paul or Barr or any of the other 6 or so "third party" candidates then you are still using (not wasting) your vote.

Only not voting wastes your vote. Politicians don't care as much about votes not cast as they do about votes cast that could have been theirs. Casting for an outsider demonstrates that you are a motivated and eligible voter who needs to have his position won over whenever a race is tight.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

What? The last straw wasn't when the party decided to replace Numnutz and Satan with NummerNutz and Gee-Wilikers.

Here's Nummer showing his foreign policy chops.


Still, I'm not so impressed with the other side of the house either, but it did seem to me that there was a giant opportunity missed when 200 and some representatives from across party lines voted nay on the bailout - it would have been amazing to see the Reps reach across the aisle and realize that they may have a basis for a new party ... a "Save the USA" party to get the country back in order and throw a giant monkey-wrench into the election process forcing people to think and debate a bit about some of the things that always get ignored while we bicker about whether single black mothers should be allowed to have government funded healthcare for their babies other than sterilization.

 

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Voting for Paul (in the current circumstances) would be throwing a vote away (IMO).

It's never, believe me. I "threw away" my votes a couple of times now, I voted for a party of which people thought never to get any chance, but it surpassed most of the major parties now.
Voting for someone who you feel he/she is representing your political opinions is a democratic duty. If you're voting for someone who is the "least worse" of the bunch, it's close to treason, because you still let "the worse" govern your country.

 

[ltstanfo]

[It's never, believe me. I "threw away" my votes a couple of times now, I voted for a party of which people thought never to get any chance, but it surpassed most of the major parties now.
Voting for someone who you feel he/she is representing your political opinions is a democratic duty. If you're voting for someone who is the "least worse" of the bunch, it's close to treason, because you still let "the worse" govern your country.

You bring up an interesting point but I have to disagree with you and Fluffy on this matter. I am not familiar with your country's political situaion Speel but using the USA as the example l reiterate:

1. We (effectively) have a two party political system.
2. Third partys don't seem to work / gain traction / survive.
3. "Protest" votes for a third party candidate still result in a two party system... while one of the two candidates may wish for the lost vote, the other is clearly happy (and wins). In simpler terms, a third party candidate only helps to support the two party system in current circumstances.


While I agree with you and Fluffy (in principle) that you should vote your conscience and support those who agree with you, given the current political scene in the US this "lost" vote produces nothing of consequence to the election. You still have two candidates going in and one candidate winning out. Given that, I feel that my only viable option is to vote for the "lesser of two evils" because anything else ultimately works against me (IMO). Your mileage may vary.

Still, thanks to you both for the thoughts.

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[Glaucus]

I think without an instant run-off or a two-round vote system, more then 2 parties can cause problems. It is because of this that the US will certainly never see a third major party. Also, it's quite likely that Canada will eventually see some of the lesser parties merge. In the case of Canada, a party wins a seat simply by collecting the most votes, not necessarily the majority. In a system where you have 5 or more parties like they do in Quebec, a mere 25% of the vote could be all you need. This strikes me as a major flaw, as currently Canada has one right wing party and two left wing parties and one center-left (plus the Bloc in Quebec). This means the left vote is split up to three or four ways, while the right wing vote is consolidated. Despite that, the Conservatives are still under 40% nationally but are most likely to form the next government. That means 60% of Canadians are voting against the party that wins. This seems wrong to me and counter to what democracy is all about. Of course the reason for this is that the left-leaning votes are split, if we could merge those left-wing parties into one they'd win a majority hands down (btw, this used to be the case for the right-wing parties where we had the Reform Party of Canada and the Progressive Conservatives of Canada, but they have since merged into one and are reaping the benefits).

So I think strategic voting has it's place. I'm a Liberal supporter, but I'd rather see NDP win my riding then a Conservative. If I felt that the NDP had the best chance of defeating the Conservatives I'd vote NDP. Lucky for me, my riding just happens to be a Liberal stronghold so I'll vote the way I want, but anyone who votes other then Liberal in my riding is really voting Conservative as they are the 2nd place party right now. And since the NDP and Conservatives are polar opposites when it comes to policy, why would you want to do that? Since the political parties refuse to merge (possibly mostly due to egos) then voters have to perform a "virtual-merge" when they cast their votes strategically.

- Mike

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

While I agree with you and Fluffy (in principle) that you should vote your conscience and support those who agree with you, ...

'S not what I said.

I'm fine with strategic voting. That's what I'm doing this year - see if we can defeat Harper-Bush. That's one of the things I said was fine to do if you have your reasons for doing it.

On the other hand (and here's the rest of what I said) if you are so disenchanted with the leading options and you can't swallow voting for any of them, go vote for someone else if all you can do is make a protest. Staying home is NOT a protest and THAT is a wasted vote. If you can't see a dimes worth of difference between the leaders, vote your interests and make the candidates try to win back your vote the next time.

If 10% of people vote for a third party in a district where the the winner is decided by 1% then the next time round the lead candidates know they have to offer something to the third party voters to try to swing a few percent their way.

 

[Robert]

Voting for Paul (in the current circumstances) would be throwing a vote away (IMO).

It's never, believe me. I "threw away" my votes a couple of times now, I voted for a party of which people thought never to get any chance, but it surpassed most of the major parties now.
Voting for someone who you feel he/she is representing your political opinions is a democratic duty. If you're voting for someone who is the "least worse" of the bunch, it's close to treason, because you still let "the worse" govern your country.

The same thing happened to me, although there were other factors.

 

[ltstanfo]

'S not what I said.

I'm fine with strategic voting. That's what I'm doing this year - see if we can defeat Harper-Bush. That's one of the things I said was fine to do if you have your reasons for doing it.

On the other hand (and here's the rest of what I said) if you are so disenchanted with the leading options and you can't swallow voting for any of them, go vote for someone else if all you can do is make a protest. Staying home is NOT a protest and THAT is a wasted vote. If you can't see a dimes worth of difference between the leaders, vote your interests and make the candidates try to win back your vote the next time.

If 10% of people vote for a third party in a district where the the winner is decided by 1% then the next time round the lead candidates know they have to offer something to the third party voters to try to swing a few percent their way.

Sorry you had to clarify Fluffy. I was trying to respond to both you and Speel in one email so I hoped to simplify by lumping you both into one message.

In any event I have to disagree with your premise, particulary in light of our two party system here. Voting Perot or Ron Paul (in this case) has not produced significant changes from either candidate that I can see. If, during the election in November we see a sizable vote for Paul, it will likely (IMO) be played as the media did with Nader... he "lost" the election for Democrats (or perhaps Republicans in this case). Nader didn't win then, Paul won't win now and neither party will take notice in another 4 years. Unfortunately I believe that most voters in the US are too short sighted to recall what happened during the previous election and the media appears content to let the past alone (IMO).

Again, opinions vary but we do agree that not voting is indeed a wasted vote.

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

If, during the election in November we see a sizable vote for Paul, it will likely (IMO) be played as the media did with Nader... he "lost" the election for Democrats (or perhaps Republicans in this case). Nader didn't win then, Paul won't win now and neither party will take notice in another 4 years.

But 4 years later the Dems were all worried about the Nader effect. They had to work to bring Nader voters over to Dems. They still didn't win, but that was for other reasons.

Unfortunately I believe that most voters in the US are too short sighted to recall what happened during the previous election and the media appears content to let the past alone (IMO).

But the campaign strategists do not forget.

 

[faethor]

Republican candidate says he wants to bail out Americans on the brink of losing their homes, and he wants to put $300 billion into the effort.

Once again they are going to reward risky and/or illegal behavoir while those of us who are fiscally responsible get the bill. F*** you McCain.

Fox News after the debate acted as if this was a wonderful idea and showed that McCain was the clear victor. Unfortunately, the idea isn't new. The Republicans requested this to be in the bail out bill. It was included to get the Republicans to sign onto the deal. McCain just restated something that people were unlikely to know about.

As for Fox. McCain clearly lost the debate. I watched this one on TV. McCain paced like a caged animal. He showed disdain for 'that one'. He was condesending to the guy with the question that he didn't know about Freddie and Fannie. The gloves McCain claimed to be taking off were left in their box somewhere forgotten. He was spending $300Billion dollars then 2 seconds later accusing Obama of excessive spending. There was nothing new or exciting to turn his losing tide. Obama didn't have anything new either. However, he handled the debate better appeared more poised, collected, and his points seemed to be clearer. Obama's foreign policy was in front of McCain's. The moderator's McCain bias didn't seem to bother him. He came into the debate out front and perhaps had the easier job.. just maintain position, he did it well.

 

[Robert]

McCain clearly lost the debate. I watched this one on TV.

I watched it too and thought the same but I'd take it with a pinch of salt; remember, John Kerry shat all over Bush in the debates four years ago - didn't matter in the end.

 

[faethor]

I watched it too and thought the same but I'd take it with a pinch of salt; remember, John Kerry shat all over Bush in the debates four years ago - didn't matter in the end.

Yup, the Dems need enough votes so the Republican vote counting manipulation doesn't have it's intended effect. Ohio is still a problem. Florida had an issue with a recent mayor recount 3,400 votes went missing, 3,600 were later found, and then even a bit later another 160 uncounted were found. New Mexico found a problem where if someone voted Democratic for every box the Presidential vote didn't count. If they added 1 Republican or voted all Republican, no problem. Supposedly this problem is fixed. I think there was another problem with a voting machine incorrectly counting votes but it wasn't a problem until over 50 votes were cast. Typically 10 votes are used to verify operability.

 

[redrumloa]

Yup, the Dems need enough votes so the Republican vote counting manipulation doesn't have it's intended effect. Ohio is still a problem. Florida had an issue with a recent mayor recount 3,400 votes went missing, 3,600 were later found, and then even a bit later another 160 uncounted were found.

Republican voter fraud :?: The recent mayor recount was in Palm Beach County, which is run by nothing other than liberal democrats.

 

[ltstanfo]

Yup, the Dems need enough votes so the Republican vote counting manipulation doesn't have it's intended effect. Ohio is still a problem. Florida had an issue with a recent mayor recount 3,400 votes went missing, 3,600 were later found, and then even a bit later another 160 uncounted were found.

Republican voter fraud :?: The recent mayor recount was in Palm Beach County, which is run by nothing other than liberal democrats.

Thank you Jim. For some reason that fact is often omitted. :wink:

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[Wayne]

Yup, the Dems need enough votes so the Republican vote counting manipulation doesn't have it's intended effect. Ohio is still a problem. Florida had an issue with a recent mayor recount 3,400 votes went missing, 3,600 were later found, and then even a bit later another 160 uncounted were found.

Republican voter fraud :?: The recent mayor recount was in Palm Beach County, which is run by nothing other than liberal democrats.

Thank you Jim. For some reason that fact is often omitted. :wink:

Don't listen to Jim. Don't you remember? He's "out"..

Wayne

 

[Speelgoedmannetje]

While I agree with you and Fluffy (in principle) that you should vote your conscience and support those who agree with you, given the current political scene in the US this "lost" vote produces nothing of consequence to the election. You still have two candidates going in and one candidate winning out. Given that, I feel that my only viable option is to vote for the "lesser of two evils" because anything else ultimately works against me (IMO). Your mileage may vary.

Still, thanks to you both for the thoughts.

Regards,
Ltstanfo

I meant to say that if everyone is voting for the lesser of the two evils, you still vote for evil ones. If everyone fears the worse of the evil will win by not voting for the lesser evil, another party will never get any chance, and a habit of voting will take place, where politicians are assured to get power. This'll have the effect of a dictatorship.
Why would you still vote?