Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Third party voting: Throwing your vote away or the only Path to Progress?


Off-Topic Discussions

201 to 250 of 635 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

He thinks he's right, so he's not going to see the criticism. He's going to try and show you more information about why he's right and think you're ignorant/dumb/evil for not seeing it.

A really good explanation.

Now I'm guilty of some of what's in there as well, but he's not going to change his opinion based on anything in this thread.

Circular ad hom. SHOW, don't tell. Anyone can level the accusation of "you're wrong and your psycology won't let you see it" at someone else.

You honestly think I could change his opinion on racism?


Freehold DM wrote:


Even when that free market is allowing for slavery based entirely on race?

The free market didn't make slavery legal. The government did that. Of course the market is going to adjust to it though. Any southern business that didn't buy slaves was at a major disadvantage and probably went under. When every person is treated equally, a free market reward those who hire the best people for the job.

Quote:


Without the 1964 act, that would not have changed- racist companies had no problem denying services OR items to people of a different race- in fact, it was a selling point.

So not selling things was a selling point? And other businesses who sell to everyone are at a disadvantage how exactly? Plus, it's not 50 years ago. Doing this now would be a death sentence for any business.

Quote:
Sorry, but as someone who grew up in the district and zoning system attending public school, I don't buy this in the slightest. As I have said in other threads, people who are seriously racist rely upon the blithe acceptance of such things as zoning and districts by people who aren't racist to keep very visible lines between those of different backgrounds. I know this is true because if not for actions taken on the part of my cousin when I was a lad to get me into the high school I went to, we would probably not be having this conversation.

If people really spread out as much as you are implying then there would be no way to segregate the population through zoning. Plus, people do move.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:


You honestly think I could change his opinion on racism?

No, but a discussion is like a hiking trip, you don't have it to reach the end. Resorting to an ad hom isn't just insulting it cuts out the entire point of talking to someone.

I think even though many people use individual liberties as a cover for other sentiments, some people actually believe in them. The ACLU for example routinely defends the KKK's right to freedom of speech without embracing their views.

Shadow Lodge

Frogboy wrote:
So not selling things was a selling point? And other businesses who sell to everyone are at a disadvantage how exactly?

If the area you're serving has more racists than minorities you could very easily loose more white customers than you gain black customers.

The free market was NOT going to fix that problem. I'm all for chaos and freedom but I think it was a decision made for the greater good. (Do i be chaotic or good? Doesn't come up nearly as often for the rangers as for the paladins but it does come up)


Quote:
Then you were on an island when Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law. You were on an island when Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act into law. You were on an island when Obama expanded Pell Grants and student loan protections. And these are just a few of the things you missed.

Maybe you missed RomneyCare. It's basically the same thing as the PPACA. DADT? Like I said before, the majority of the population is warming up to gay rights so is it really so surprising that this happened now? DADT was so blatantly discriminatory that I'm actually shocked that it took that long. Don't blame libertarians though. We've been fighting for gay rights way before it was socially acceptable.


Frogboy wrote:
Quote:
Then you were on an island when Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law. You were on an island when Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act into law. You were on an island when Obama expanded Pell Grants and student loan protections. And these are just a few of the things you missed.
Maybe you missed RomneyCare. It's basically the same thing as the PPACA. DADT? Like I said before, the majority of the population is warming up to gay rights so is it really so surprising that this happened now? DADT was so blatantly discriminatory that I'm actually shocked that it took that long. Don't blame libertarians though. We've been fighting for gay rights way before it was socially acceptable.

Yeah, it's basically RomneyCare, which Romney has denounced and promised to repeal. Not only did Obama expand Pell Grants and loans, against Republican pressure, but he also took the money used to guarantee student loans and loaned it directly to students, cutting out the middleman and saving students a nice penny in the process.

And we shouldn't blame libertarians for the lack of progress on social issues, except when they vote Republican because tax cuts are more important than any other issues.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I'm pretty sure if McCain had won, I'd be in Libya right now and we'd be fighting another unpaid war.

That is blatently untrue!!!!!!

Theres a chance you might be in Syria or Iran.


thejeff wrote:


And we shouldn't blame libertarians for the lack of progress on social issues, except when they vote Republican because tax cuts are more important than any other issues.

Please tell this to Scott Betts. That voting for someone just because hes part of the 2 big parties and you agree with 5% of his views (as opposed to only 4% of the other guys) isnt always that good of an idea.


Frogboy wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:


Even when that free market is allowing for slavery based entirely on race?
The free market didn't make slavery legal. The government did that. Of course the market is going to adjust to it though. Any southern business that didn't buy slaves was at a major disadvantage and probably went under. When every person is treated equally, a free market reward those who hire the best people for the job.

Actually, the government made slavery ILlegal, which is what lead to problems.

Quote:


Without the 1964 act, that would not have changed- racist companies had no problem denying services OR items to people of a different race- in fact, it was a selling point.
So not selling things was a selling point? And other businesses who sell to everyone are at a disadvantage how exactly? Plus, it's not 50 years ago. Doing this now would be a death sentence for any business.

--Yes, yes it was. Ask almost anyone who lived through it. 50 years ago isn't nearly as long ago as you think.

Quote:
Sorry, but as someone who grew up in the district and zoning system attending public school, I don't buy this in the slightest. As I have said in other threads, people who are seriously racist rely upon the blithe acceptance of such things as zoning and districts by people who aren't racist to keep very visible lines between those of different backgrounds. I know this is true because if not for actions taken on the part of my cousin when I was a lad to get me into the high school I went to, we would probably not be having this conversation.
If people really spread out as much as you are implying then there would be no way to segregate the population through zoning. Plus, people do move.

--Two words, man. Redlining and blockbusting. When working with a zoning system, it's all the horror of segregation in our modern age. And, once again, this DID happen, I lived through it.


Frogboy wrote:
Maybe you missed RomneyCare.

RomneyCare isn't evidence of the two parties having the same agenda. It's evidence that Mitt Romney is a terrible Republican. His party hates that he pushed for health care reform while governor.

Quote:
It's basically the same thing as the PPACA. DADT? Like I said before, the majority of the population is warming up to gay rights so is it really so surprising that this happened now?

Not at all. It's also not at all surprising that the Democratic party led the charge to have it nullified, while the Republican party resisted at every step. Which is exactly my point.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:


And we shouldn't blame libertarians for the lack of progress on social issues, except when they vote Republican because tax cuts are more important than any other issues.
Please tell this to Scott Betts. That voting for someone just because hes part of the 2 big parties and you agree with 5% of his views (as opposed to only 4% of the other guys) isnt always that good of an idea.

No, it's always a good idea.


Freehold DM wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:


Even when that free market is allowing for slavery based entirely on race?
The free market didn't make slavery legal. The government did that. Of course the market is going to adjust to it though. Any southern business that didn't buy slaves was at a major disadvantage and probably went under. When every person is treated equally, a free market reward those who hire the best people for the job.
Actually, the government made slavery ILlegal, which is what lead to problems.

I'm not exactly sure what you guys are arguing about, but slavery was established in the Americas under various mercantilist systems that are pretty much the opposite of the free market.

Yeah, there's 1776-1865, but it's worth noting that the party that has historically been most associated with "free trade" was also the one that smashed slavery.

Just sayin'.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Yeah, there's 1776-1865, but it's worth noting that the party that has historically been most associated with "free trade" was also the one that smashed slavery.

The f&@&? Republicans were protectionists and isolationists until the 50s. It was a combination of World War II and Eisenhower that finally chased the isolationists out of the Republican mainstream. Whole-hearted enthusiasm for neoliberalism and free trade is a relatively recent development in the Republican Party, and even now you still have the isolationist sorts who want to withdraw from the UN, ban immigration, cut off ties with China, etc.


Free Labor, Free Soil, Free Men!

Vive le Galt!


Free beer!


Free women too...

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Free Labor, Free Soil, Free Men!

That is not "free market" in the modern sense, though. That is "free man", in the sense of "not a slave."


LazarX wrote:

I've met a lot of Libertarians over the last few decades starting at my days on Rutgers Campus in '79. To a man, (and they were mostly men) they came from white backgrounds growing up without having any real experience of what it was like to be on the wrong side of the color divide before the era of the Civil Rights Act. Like many whites who grew up in better times than those, they tend to see the struggle as a problem in the past that's mostly a done deal.

Seeing how they describe how things would just come together and "work" if their principles were suddenly enacted, I'm not sure they're living on the same planet with me today.

Well, I'll admit that I am white and I'm not old enough to have been alive during the Civil Rights era. I have lived most of my life in areas that are roughly 50-50 black-white. I'm not isolated from other races and cultures.

Racially motivated hatred is a very ugly thing and some of that still does exist today (despite government decree). But the only reason that the law passed in the first place was because it had popular support and collective thought was and is ever moving in that direction. How often does government make a bold move and support something that's way before its time?

Why does everyone believe that America would be this cesspool of racial turmoil if the government didn't make a law that said racism is illegal? The government makes a lot of laws and for the most part, people follow the ones they agree with and tend to break the ones that they don't. Prohibition from drugs doesn't stop people from doing drugs; Prohibition from underage sex doesn't stop teenagers from engaging in it; and prohibition from racism doesn't stop people from being racist. There are many ways to circumvent the law other than putting up a "Whites Only" sign on your front window. If someone wont take money from a paying customer because they're a particular race or demographic, they can (and will) find a way.

Irontruth wrote:

Let me put it this way: Everything you are saying to me is reinforcing to me how racist the idea of not voting for the Civil Rights Act is. Your understanding of racial relations in this country, to me, is so horribly wrong that it's hard to describe how it disgusts me.

You are wrong.

You are provably wrong, but you don't WANT to see it, so there is no point in showing you. If you are interested, I can come up with some suggested reading, but your language tells me that you aren't interested.

I'm interested. Prove me wrong.

Irontruth wrote:
Feel free to support bigotry, but know this, that is EXACTLY what you are doing, whether you intend it or not.

Equality is not bigotry. This doesn't make any logical sense to me. Let me state this again. I believe that every man, woman and child should be treated equally, all have to follow the same rules (maybe a few extra for children to protect their well being) and not receive any special benefits or disadvantages based on race, sex, religion, wealth, political affiliation, profession or any other way that we group people into collectives. This is equality. It may not be what you've been taught is equality or you may feel that our current system of inequality is preferable but that's not what I believe and you can't rationally believe that I am a racist or a bigot for believing this.

thejeff wrote:
Yeah, it's basically RomneyCare, which Romney has denounced and promised to repeal.

Please tell me that you don't actually believe this. The biggest campaign lies that every (D or R) candidate tells is that they are going to repeal the most controversial law passed under the previous administration. Obama did it to with the Patriot Act. Not only did he turned around and resign it, he passed the just as bad if not worse NDAA (and several other unsavory laws).

thejeff wrote:
Not only did Obama expand Pell Grants and loans, against Republican pressure, but he also took the money used to guarantee student loans and loaned it directly to students, cutting out the middleman and saving students a nice penny in the process.

Sounds nice ... but Obama isn't saving anyone any money. The market sets the price of college tuition and when the government subsidizes it, it only makes the price go up.

thejeff wrote:
And we shouldn't blame libertarians for the lack of progress on social issues, except when they vote Republican because tax cuts are more important than any other issues.

At least Republicans make good on their desire to cut taxes. That's more than I can say for Democrats and civil liberties. But no, you won't see many libertarians voting Republican this time around. We've realized that we aren't going to get what we want through them (this time around at least). I've personally never voted Republican but I'm glad many others are doing the same.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Frogboy wrote:
Equality is not bigotry. This doesn't make any logical sense to me. Let me state this again. I believe that every man, woman and child should be treated equally, all have to follow the same rules (maybe a few extra for children to protect their well being) and not receive any special benefits or disadvantages based on race, sex, religion, wealth, political affiliation, profession or any other way that we group people into collectives. This is equality. It may not be what you've been taught is equality or you may feel that our current system of inequality is preferable but that's not what I believe and you can't rationally believe that I am a racist or a bigot for believing this.

How about just blind to your own privilege? You don't have to hate people to advocate for rolling back laws that fight institutional racism, but it doesn't suddenly mean that it's a good idea or doesn't have obvious racist effects.

Quote:
Why does everyone believe that America would be this cesspool of racial turmoil if the government didn't make a law that said racism is illegal?

Because it is a cesspool of racial turmoil. The CRA didn't magically make racism disappear forever. Prohibition from racism gives people recourse against those who wrong them, a recourse that didn't exist before that prohibition.

Also, if you're going to link Mises, I'm going to link "a flourishing free market in children". Don't take mises.org seriously.


A musical interlude about why I don't need to prove s~!*.

Edit: I can't think of a way to really make you feel your privilege through a message board. The medium and it's effects are just too limited. I guess I can try music. Listen to that song. Read up on lynchings in this country.

Than come back and tell me that hanging n*****s from trees was acceptable in a society, but somehow the free market was going to fix that.


Now that the concept of music has occurred to me, I'm running with it.

Racism and sexism... the musical interlude.

A show tune, except the show hasn't been written for it yet.


The parents of the idyllic 1950's grew up in a world like this. WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGE

But we can wait for the free market, right?


Frogboy wrote:
But the only reason that the law passed in the first place was because it had popular support and collective thought was and is ever moving in that direction. How often does government make a bold move and support something that's way before its time?

OK think about this. Imagine what the south was like in the 1950s (and before) where lynchings happened every tuesday (or whatever) and no one did anything about it. Probably because it was the cops doing the lynching a lot of the time. Leaders of the community. That sort of crap just didn't happen in the north, or if it did it was a rare occurrence.

So, the half of the elected representatives, or just over, that inexplicably don't hate black people, they pass a law about that s+&@. You know what that is? That's a violation of the 10th amendment that is. It's a federal overreach. It was also the right g&!%!*n thing to do and if you don't believe that then you should really reexamine your priorities.

Also think about this. How do people stop being racist? How do people shake free of their irrational prejudices? Especially when it's the cultural norm in your community, let alone expounded as a virtue by the local establishment and institutionalized into the law. How does a community shake free of racial bigotry? By being forced to see that we're all the same. It's hard to convince old people, it's easy to convince children. I dunno, forced bussing something something. I think you can work the rest out yourself.

Racism takes a long time to wash out. Generations. It's only been, what, MAYBE two since the CRA? But there's a lot less "strange fruit" on those trees these days. I guess you think that's a bad thing.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Frogboy, these two paragraphs are at odds.

Frogboy wrote:
The free market is not racist in the least. Any business that denies employment to minorities risks two things. They become less competitive in the market because they are arbitrarily limiting their pool of employees and therefor not hiring the best people. They also risk a public backlash and boycott of their product for choosing such practices. Both of these can and will hurt your business in the long run and give your competitors the upper hand to push you out of the market.

versus...

Quote:
The reason people segregate is because people often choose to. Look at our communities and our school districts. No one is forcing this. It's what we as a people freely choose to do (for better or worse). I completely agree that the government should strictly ban racist practices within their ranks and policies. If you believe in freedom and liberty, our leaders must treat everyone equally. Otherwise, they're either discriminating or reverse discriminating (which is no better and just as immoral).

The free market is racist if people in the free market are choosing to do racist things at personal expense. For example, fleeing communities and moving at great personal expense and inconvenience. Or rather, it is not a free market, and indeed the "free market" is a a myth. The free market can't fix racism, because it's predicated on people being profit-maximizers, and racism (and tribalism is general) is a motivation that conflicts with profit maximization. People will do things which are self-detrimental because those actions hurt Them, regardless of whether They are another race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, whatever. If you need evidence of this, Irontruth linked you plenty.

I still don't think you're a straight up racist, but these sorts of problems go straight to the heart of libertarianism. This is why libertarians tend to be well-off white guys.

Andoran

TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:


And we shouldn't blame libertarians for the lack of progress on social issues, except when they vote Republican because tax cuts are more important than any other issues.
Please tell this to Scott Betts. That voting for someone just because hes part of the 2 big parties and you agree with 5% of his views (as opposed to only 4% of the other guys) isnt always that good of an idea.

Myth of "sameness" was demonstrated to be false between 2000 and 2006.

If it helps you sleep at night to say "lesser of two evils" feel free, but consider monarchy and dictatorship was the go-to government prior and nothing better has managed to work since for any length of time without becoming dictatorship.

Andoran

Irontruth wrote:

The parents of the idyllic 1950's grew up in a world like this. WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGE

But we can wait for the free market, right?

Don't get me started on the myth of the 1950's...

mother's little helper...


ciretose wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:


And we shouldn't blame libertarians for the lack of progress on social issues, except when they vote Republican because tax cuts are more important than any other issues.
Please tell this to Scott Betts. That voting for someone just because hes part of the 2 big parties and you agree with 5% of his views (as opposed to only 4% of the other guys) isnt always that good of an idea.

Myth of "sameness" was demonstrated to be false between 2000 and 2006.

If it helps you sleep at night to say "lesser of two evils" feel free, but consider monarchy and dictatorship was the go-to government prior and nothing better has managed to work since for any length of time without becoming dictatorship.

So basically, you and Scott Betts are telling the libertarians that we should STFU and vote for Romney? I mean, Im not going to do it, but that just seems strange.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:


Even when that free market is allowing for slavery based entirely on race?
The free market didn't make slavery legal. The government did that. Of course the market is going to adjust to it though. Any southern business that didn't buy slaves was at a major disadvantage and probably went under. When every person is treated equally, a free market reward those who hire the best people for the job.
Actually, the government made slavery ILlegal, which is what lead to problems.

I'm not exactly sure what you guys are arguing about, but slavery was established in the Americas under various mercantilist systems that are pretty much the opposite of the free market.

Yeah, there's 1776-1865, but it's worth noting that the party that has historically been most associated with "free trade" was also the one that smashed slavery.

Just sayin'.

I know. They won't stop bleating about it every chance they get. Furthermore, you can't just handwave away 1776-1865. I suspect you already knew this, but you really can't. Jefferson et.al had a chance to do the right thing re: all men created equal. They did not.

Andoran

TheWhiteknife wrote:
ciretose wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:


And we shouldn't blame libertarians for the lack of progress on social issues, except when they vote Republican because tax cuts are more important than any other issues.
Please tell this to Scott Betts. That voting for someone just because hes part of the 2 big parties and you agree with 5% of his views (as opposed to only 4% of the other guys) isnt always that good of an idea.

Myth of "sameness" was demonstrated to be false between 2000 and 2006.

If it helps you sleep at night to say "lesser of two evils" feel free, but consider monarchy and dictatorship was the go-to government prior and nothing better has managed to work since for any length of time without becoming dictatorship.

So basically, you and Scott Betts are telling the libertarians that we should STFU and vote for Romney? I mean, Im not going to do it, but that just seems strange.

I'm saying you should vote for the person closest to your beliefs if your preferred option lost.

Otherwise it is like rooting for a team to win the Superbowl that didn't make the Super Bowl, because they are your favorite.

You had a shot to get Ron Paul on the ballot. You failed. Move on to who is left and make a choice.


A Man In Black wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Free Labor, Free Soil, Free Men!
That is not "free market" in the modern sense, though. That is "free man", in the sense of "not a slave."

It's not NAFTA or nothing (or the proposed TPP), but they were talking about slavery.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
ciretose wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:


And we shouldn't blame libertarians for the lack of progress on social issues, except when they vote Republican because tax cuts are more important than any other issues.
Please tell this to Scott Betts. That voting for someone just because hes part of the 2 big parties and you agree with 5% of his views (as opposed to only 4% of the other guys) isnt always that good of an idea.

Myth of "sameness" was demonstrated to be false between 2000 and 2006.

If it helps you sleep at night to say "lesser of two evils" feel free, but consider monarchy and dictatorship was the go-to government prior and nothing better has managed to work since for any length of time without becoming dictatorship.

So basically, you and Scott Betts are telling the libertarians that we should STFU and vote for Romney? I mean, Im not going to do it, but that just seems strange.

If you think that the tax cuts Romney and Ryan are promising are more important than women's healthcare, gay rights and whatever else is on the Democratic side, then yes, you should vote for Romney. If tax cuts trump all the other libertarian issues, go right ahead.


Don't listen to the anti-Third Party People, Comrade Knife; don't vote for Romney.


Oh Im not. Im still going to vote Johnson. Because tax cuts arent my number one issue and both sides are against the things I consider most important. Namely civil rights and anti-interventionism. I just didnt get how people dont consider third party voting a valid form of protest.


Because they are, for the most part, shills for the Democrats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:


Even when that free market is allowing for slavery based entirely on race?
The free market didn't make slavery legal. The government did that. Of course the market is going to adjust to it though. Any southern business that didn't buy slaves was at a major disadvantage and probably went under. When every person is treated equally, a free market reward those who hire the best people for the job.
Actually, the government made slavery ILlegal, which is what lead to problems.

I'm not exactly sure what you guys are arguing about, but slavery was established in the Americas under various mercantilist systems that are pretty much the opposite of the free market.

Yeah, there's 1776-1865, but it's worth noting that the party that has historically been most associated with "free trade" was also the one that smashed slavery.

Just sayin'.

I know. They won't stop bleating about it every chance they get. Furthermore, you can't just handwave away 1776-1865. I suspect you already knew this, but you really can't. Jefferson et.al had a chance to do the right thing re: all men created equal. They did not.

I'm only hand-waving it because I couldn't think of a pithy one-phrase description of the half-slave/half-pre-industrial capitalism system of ante-bellum America.

AMiB already called me out on the Republicans, and, yeah, he's right about the tariffs and stuff, but I'm pretty sure (could be wrong) that there have never actually been any totally free markets in world history.

The Anglo-American imperialists were always willing to hypocritically invoke such phraseology ("freedom" to sell the Chinese opium; Open Door Policy, etc.) but they never threw their own borders open to the free market if it was going to go against them. Not terribly unlike NAFTA, either.

Andoran

TheWhiteknife wrote:
Oh Im not. Im still going to vote Johnson. Because tax cuts arent my number one issue and both sides are against the things I consider most important. Namely civil rights and anti-interventionism. I just didnt get how people dont consider third party voting a valid form of protest.

I consider it as a effective as most forms of protest.

Not very.

Systems change over time from within. To change a system, you need to figure out how it works, get inside of it, gain influence, then you can effect change.

This is how the world works. Your vote for Gary Johnson is as effective as voting for Nadar.

See how influential he is now?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I still can't understand the demonization of Nader after the Republicans' Grand Theft Florida.

Andoran

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I still can't understand the demonization of Nader after the Republicans' Grand Theft Florida.

It was the fact that Nadar was unrepentant and his criticism and claims that both sides were the same helped lower turnout, leading to one of the worst presidents in American history, two wars, exploding deficits, etc...

It wasn't all his fault, but he refuses to take any responsibility for his role.

When you make the perfect the enemy of the good, you get neither.


Well, I don't know how you can prove that it was Nader's campaign that resulted in lower voter turnout, but there was something on one of the wikipedia pages about some Commission that showed that if, in fact, an entire recount of the Florida votes had been carried out, Gore would have won.

And I don't think that's even getting into the disenfranchised blacks and old Jewish ladies for Buchanan, etc., etc.

As much as I hate Al frickin' Gore (I snubbed him once, hee hee!), it seems pretty clear that the Repubs straight-up stole that election, and the only thing that mainstream Dems learned was: don't vote third party.


And, what about 2004? Did Nader throw that one, too? I don't remember...

Andoran

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
And, what about 2004? Did Nader throw that one, too? I don't remember...

No, again low turnout did. I don't blame Nadar, I do think Nadar helped Bush win.

I think the mindset of "Don't blame me, I didn't vote" isn't dissimilar from "Don't blame me, I voted for someone who had no chance of winning."

If Nadar voters voted for the candidate closest to their interests that had a chance of winning, Bush is never president in 2000 and likely not even on the ballot in 2004, since losers in the General Election don't generally get a second chance.

We don't go into Iraq. We have spent 8 years with a focus on Climate Change...

If you can't see the difference between Gore and Bush, you are just trying to abdicate blame from yourself for any outcomes.

S&*t or get off the pot.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
And, what about 2004? Did Nader throw that one, too? I don't remember...

No, again low turnout did. I don't blame Nadar, I do think Nadar helped Bush win.

I think the mindset of "Don't blame me, I didn't vote" isn't dissimilar from "Don't blame me, I voted for someone who had no chance of winning."

If Nadar voters voted for the candidate closest to their interests that had a chance of winning, Bush is never president in 2000 and likely not even on the ballot in 2004, since losers in the General Election don't generally get a second chance.

For all the Nader voters you're complaining about, there were TONS of middle class voters who voted against their interests in electing Bush. Why did they vote for Bush? The vast part of the blame goes to Gore himself. Gore's bipolar nature towards the Administration he had served in was so bipolar that comics like Doonesbury lampshaded it as the running gag it was. The mechanical way in which he responded to the Election and his advisers led the Village Voice to call him the GoreBot. Don't hang the failures of Gore on Nader. Gore did his best to LOSE the election and he still almost won.

The Democrats like to put up Nader as a scapegoat because of all the times he's called them to task for failing to live up to their own professed ideals. The plaint fact of the matter is that they were more sincere in practicing what they preach, they'd BE Ralph Nader.

Andoran

It was all of the above that is the problem.

But all of the above includes Nader.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Frogboy wrote:

Well, I'll admit that I am white and I'm not old enough to have been alive during the Civil Rights era. I have lived most of my life in areas that are roughly 50-50 black-white. I'm not isolated from other races and cultures.

Racially motivated hatred is a very ugly thing and some of that still does exist today (despite government decree). But the only reason that the law passed in the first place was because it had popular support and collective thought was and is ever moving in that direction. How often does government make a bold move and support something that's way before its time?

Why does everyone believe that America would be this cesspool of racial turmoil if the government didn't make a law that said racism is illegal? The government makes a lot of laws and for the most part, people follow the ones they agree with and tend to break the ones that they don't. Prohibition from drugs doesn't stop people from doing drugs; Prohibition from underage sex doesn't stop teenagers from engaging in it; and prohibition from racism doesn't stop people from being racist. There are many ways to circumvent the law other than putting up a "Whites Only" sign on your front window. If someone wont take money from a paying customer because they're a particular race or demographic, they can (and will) find a way.

Part of you not being alive in that area is that you were not around to make the observation on how passing the Civil Rights Act impacted this country. No it did not make racism go away over night. But it was an important part of the transition. It gave Americans a legal direct tool to attack elements of racism beyond protest marches and rioting. It was the passing of Law and Laws are an essential building block in how you put together a civilization.

The Civil Rights Act was not the beginning of the struggle against racism, nor did it solve the problems overnight, nor does it mean that the problem is over now. But that does not change the fact that it was and remains an important step in moving us forward in making the concept of racial equality a mainstream thought instead of radical fringe.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

C'mon, someone take my bet!

I mean, it's a pretty win-win situation for you guys. If Obama wins, I was going to hold you all responsible anyways, and if Romney wins, I disappear for four years!

I can't take your bet because I want you to win, Comrade!

I WANT people to hold Obama's feet to the fire for the last four years.

0 prosecutions of Wall Street execs for 2008-2009 and the bubble run-up that led to it! Woo! He's SUCH A SOCIALIST!

300 dead Mexicans from the ATF sending guns to Mexican drug lords with no accountability!

10% reduction in the labor force from the depths of the financial crisis and STILL has a higher unemployment rate!

For Scott Betts, what would Obama have to do (or not do) to get you to vote against him? What would Romney have to do to get you to vote for him?

Andoran

We will demand accountability on Wall Street by having Mitt Romney win.


I was wondering how long this thread was going to stay center-left!


ciretose wrote:
I don't blame Nadar, I do think Nadar helped Bush win

I'm going to disagree here. Nader may have split the vote in 2000, but in 2004 Bush won because Kerry was terrible at running a campaign. There were two groups of people I knew who were opposed to Kerry the most. The first were the rah-rah republicans. The other was the people I knew who had lived in Mass.

Kerry has much more to do with 4 more years than Nader ever could.


Scott Betts wrote:


Barack Obama raised $778,642,962 during the Presidential campaign in 2008.

John McCain raised $383,913,834 during the same campaign.

In other words, Obama more than doubled McCain's fundraising efforts. That's because Obama had massive, unprecedented grassroots small-donor support. He had millions (plural) of individual donors. It is impossible to compete with that if you and your base are still mired in the fundraising strategies of yesteryear.

Obama is still massively out-raising Romney in the current election cycle. That's because Obama has managed to reactivate his donors from the previous cycle, and still has that same massive grassroots support.

Obama outraised McCain about 1.6:1 in corporate donations in 2008. (Source: Federal Election Commission). It was close to 2:1 from money from Wall Street.

Obama is outraising Romney about 1.25:1 in corporate donations in 2012. They're about tied for Wall Street money. If Santorum or Ron Paul had won the nomination, we'd have a massive Wall Street cash influx to Obama.

And while Obama does have a lot of small voter support, it's barely a third of the money (34%) that he's using. For Romney, it's about 18%.

Woohoo! Obama uses a SMALLER majority of corporate funding to run his campaign! WE ARE SAVED!

McCain-Feingold was a horrible piece of legislation. Well intentioned, but horrible. A clear example of legislators caught up in political momentum not understanding the law of unintended consequences.

And...

Just to spin the basic argument further:

Every Democrat who voted for Kerry in the primaries is responsible for George W. Bush winning 2004. There were at least two candidates who could've beaten Bush in that field (Edwards and Clark). Bush was an astoundingly unpopular president in 2004. Lots of Republicans would've voted for any kind of Democratic alternative who showed any sort of a plan...

Edwards' campaign pretty much showed why negative campaigning works. He promised not to do it, fell behind, turned to it late, and lost.


AdAstraGames wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

C'mon, someone take my bet!

I mean, it's a pretty win-win situation for you guys. If Obama wins, I was going to hold you all responsible anyways, and if Romney wins, I disappear for four years!

I can't take your bet because I want you to win, Comrade!

I WANT people to hold Obama's feet to the fire for the last four years.

0 prosecutions of Wall Street execs for 2008-2009 and the bubble run-up that led to it! Woo! He's SUCH A SOCIALIST!

300 dead Mexicans from the ATF sending guns to Mexican drug lords with no accountability!

10% reduction in the labor force from the depths of the financial crisis and STILL has a higher unemployment rate!

For Scott Betts, what would Obama have to do (or not do) to get you to vote against him? What would Romney have to do to get you to vote for him?

INSB, but here's my point of view on it: I'd only cast my vote specifically against Obama if he was a worse choice (IMO, of course) than Romney; given Romney's performance during the 2008 republican primary, and the entirety of this race, I can't imagine that happening. Let me be clear here, Obama's not my ideal candidate, but he's certainly the better choice. The only thing Romney could to to get my vote at this point is go back in time and act very, very differently for the last 6 years or so.

That said, I live in one of the least swing-ey states in the nation, and plan to really concentrate on unseating any official who supported our new voter ID law. Depending on how things look in a month, I may well vote for a third party candidate.

201 to 250 of 635 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Third party voting: Throwing your vote away or the only Path to Progress? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.