I don't know man. Florida is an extremely tricky state demographically speaking. Not only does the population ebb and flow throughout the year as people move to and from the place seasonally, making it infamously hard to poll accurately and reliably, but the state is full of sub-demographics that are diametrically opposed to each other. Young and old, progressive and traditional, LGBT and pro-LGBT and dogshit sniffing rednecks, extremely impoverished boomers and upper class millennials, blah! It's an easy state to lose, and I'm not sure Gore's inability to gain the electoral votes in FLA says much about him at all. The state is just as "Deep South" minded as it is progressive.

I think it's pure lunacy to vote for a third party this time around. And it will continue to be lunacy until one of those parties (the god awful Libs or the Greens) does the necessary work in the off-years to get themselves truly established. Every cycle it's the same... Heu! Nobody pays attention to us! Get us on the ballot! Stop being lazy, you want change!!

But then four years go by and both parties and quiet and complacent and rarely make a big push during the mid terms.

I'll consider voting Green (maybe) when the Green Party does the legwork to build itself up into something formidable that can actually compete with the Dems and Repos without fucking things up.

sev, nader had almost 100,000 votes in Florida, those were clearly to even the left of Gore, so the original point stands, if Gore couldnt convince 600 people in Florida who supported Nader to vote for him that isn't Ralph Mader's fault

there's only something "murky" about obama's birth if you're a racist whose mind is in panic about having a black president.

otherwise no.

David Icke GOP Nominee 2020

this is what i hate about those 3rd party candidates-- they don't bother to build up a base and participate in local and state elections. like, they could maybe take vermont or something. but no-- it's just some bullshit presidential dance with 0 power base. run a city first. run a county. get some laws passed in state legislatures. install a governor. build a reputation based on governance not rhetoric. otherwise it's just bullshit.

i would find it more interesting if we had multiple parties with specific issues instead of two big tents; but as it is right now if you want environmental reforms you have to go through the environmental faction of the democrats because the greens can't do shit. and if you're a libertarian you have to work through the repukes like aqua-buddha. it's how the system works. perfect? no. but it's what we have and the rest is empty gestures at least for now.

Yeah. I had friends who admonished me for voting for Obama (and Kerry, and Gore) because they'd said I wasn't doing anything to be "part of the solution."

Well, friends, with the alt parties as they are (and as they have been for eons) the "solution" has nothing to do with them. The system in place is not going to fall apart over night. It takes decades of real work, minimum. So my way of being "part of the solution" was researching dems, making the best pick I could during the primaries, and then voting for the dem in the general because working within the current system is, for better or worse, the only logical thing to do.

I'm not going to toss out my vote and ignore the imminent problem in favor of some ideal that MIGHT work out in a few decades.

3 debates conclusion " a smoking ruin"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=IlLFTI24Qkw

@severian, the 2-party system does provide changes just like other system but things work out differently.

e.g., obama beat hillary in 2008 and gave us health care reform and a more dovish foreign policy

now bernie sanders lost, but seems to have made some sort of deal with hillary for education if we go by what she said last night-- don't have the specifics right now or time to search them but change does come from interparty dissension or bipartisan deals

so what gets worked out in coalitions within something a parliamentary system gets worked out by caucuses in the 2-party system

parliamentary is not necessarily that revolutionary-- see for example netanyahu's rule in israel, a country that has moved further to the right in the past 2+ decades

but now speaking of the environment, funny thing, the EPA was created by nixon if i'm not mistaken.

how times change.

I don't know if Ezra Klein is my "hero" (I reserve that word for rare, extraordinary cases) but he's damn close.

considering the version of healthcare reform passed was basically the Newt Gingrich plan and not the one America actually needed and how its hard to really categorize the past 8 years of a dozen military operations oversees as dovish i dare say the two party system didn't accomplish much

i agree with this to an extent, BUT at least here in CA third parties do have some local political clout, sitting on municipal councils and even a few state legislature seats.

but yeah third parties generally fail at building coalitions and local power bases BUT i also largely fault this to the dynamics of the machinery of the two party system. if US had a parliamentary system might be easier to accomplish these political goals as the major party machinery becomes less entrenched

also the reasons parliamentary system hasn't worked as well in Israel is its a smaller population, much easier for one party of ideology to dominate

No it really wasn't except for within a markedly racist or xenophobic component of our society. American citizens can live abroad for as long as they or their family likes or prefer, so long as someone has a birth certificate they are an American citizen without question. Indeed, the entire birther argument was silly and stupid, it would take a massive conspiracy for a non-citizen to be elevated all the way to president.

When you mentioned Jesse Jackson or Colin Powell, how is Barry Obama different than them? Because his father is from Kenya?? A LOT of native born Americans have foreign born parents! Its not entirely unusual at all!
Reality is he is a black man, with a foreign sounding name, which amassed unnecessary vitriol, scrutiny, and criticism. Again, the dude was elected president, what, did anyone honestly believe he survived the vetting process of primaries and a national election? I find it hilarious that it was even remotely made into an issue at all! I mean, in the scheme of things Obama might be the least scandalous presidential candidate we have ever had and yet was mercilessly scandalized! Hillary Clinton? I get it, she has A LOT of baggage. Bush family? Yup. Trump? Where do we start? But what scandals was Obama ever involved in before his election? Guy is literally squeaky clean! Now he certainly has gotten his hands dirty as President, but going into it I honestly can't understand what motivated the vitriol against him aside from racism. Even partisan politics are not THAT divisive..

I am not accusing or insinuating you are racist btw, just mentioning the specific context as to why it is NOT in anyway a legitimate or even reasonable question.



Of course, and suspicion isn't evidence of guilt so much as lack of evidence of innocence is certainly going to warrant reasonable suspicion yes?

Responding quickly to the thread title. I like to believe he wasn't at first, but then the GOP turned him into one, and here we are.

Obamacare did get quite butchered, it's true. I know Obama needed to get re-elected, and as a result had a host of proverbial guns pointed at his head, but he allowed the premise of the plan to be perverted by making it essentially a federally curated "marketplace" filled with private companies.

One step forward, and several steps.. well, if not back then definitely to the side. It could have been something much greater. It is essentially a giant bureaucratic kerfuffle. A mess, and a headache to millions. But a lot of people have coverage who didn't qualify for it before. That's positive. What sucks is that the expanded Medicaid is given out and taken away at the drop of a hat, making it so nobody can rest easy about this coverage.

Single pay all the way. Needs to happen. I know this has been an issue close to Hillary's heart since before she was First Lady.

What I do like about Hillary is what so many fragile democrats and idealistic progressives hate about her. She's a wolf. Essentially, she's a democrat with a republican's ethics, ubafraid to do whatever is necessary to put her ideas into action. This makes her rather vile, sure, but her ideas are (God, I want to just say BETTER and, like, NOT FUCKING INSANE, but I'll just go with...) "more in line with my own," and I'm tired of seeing weak knees democrats get smeared and beaten down, either in elections or in the public eye, because they're not willing to fight like the Repos.

I feel like I'm going to regret saying all of this in a few minutes but whatevs.

great point about Hillary Das Wolfe, personally i think that when all the dust settles she will be like LBJ, she has enough political experience and clout, especially within the framework of the Legislature, that she will have the personal connections and diplomatic skill set to get the horse trading done to get some serious legislation passed. indeed that was precisely what went wrong with Obama administration.. Obama had to trade too many of his own horses and so the "liberals" didn't get SHIT.

honestly and all facetious jesting aside, Obama has been the best Republican president America has ever had because he certainly hasn't been a liberal one by any definition.

this is exactly why im not going to be her bitch boy like you and others. Dems have gotten nasty, more nasty than I can tolerate. fighting fire with fire to compete just exposes the corruptness both of the parties. if your not disillusioned like the others you need to check yr priorities boy.

you hate Fox News? I can name five other networks just as worst. like that cunt that replaced David Letterman.

not voting, and if someone held a gun to my head i'll vote for Gary Johnson just to say I voted.

what a joke!

barf!! wax museum kiddie dance protest music overdosed on the B-52's. lame ass lame!! the punk retirement home is just around the corner. they should check it out.

i see you aren't familiar with who Hillary Clinton actually is. if anything the reason conservatives have always loathed her is more or less the bitch gets shit done yo

Only one of us is being ludicrous, and it isn't me. I agreed with and quoted what you said about Obama pursuing the crimes of Dubya's administration. Now it's he should have been impeached while still in office--as if that was ever going to happen. You're engaging in a lot of double-talk.

As for Obama's "murkiness" and "appearance on the public scene seemingly from out of nowhere", let's examine just part of his resume: graduate of Columbia University; graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School; president of the Harvard Law Review; taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago School Of Law; served three terms in the Illinois state senate; served in the United States Senate; gave a very well received keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He didn't exactly sneak into Amurica by being smuggled on a banana boat.

I said foreign interference in the US presidential election. I didn't specify Russia although US intelligence organizations have concluded Russia was involved. I'll take their word over yours. Besides, Assange (not going to bother seeing if I spelled the name right) is from Australia, not the US.

You must be really bored to troll like this. Get a hobby or something.

Settlers of Catan is a pretty good bored game

Tonite after the Alfred Smith dinner Hillary heartily greeted Kissinger.

That's not true. DCI James Clapper, who lied to Congress about the NSA, released a statement that is being used to provide this propaganda.
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/...ector-national

The statement clearly says: "However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government."

See this analysis:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-1...ly%E2%80%A6a-f

There are also intelligence people who think this is a hack by US intelligence who HATE the Clintons.

Anything to deflect attention from the fact the Clinton has no respect for basic cybersecurity, and she's supposed to be head of the country.

Then you don't have any business participating in any discussion about any of this.

Also, if this is true, you're an idiot.

hold on that isn't fair i ain't voting for shit either

Is Trump really a serious contender for the Republican nomination?




etc......

Nothing personal, but I haven't taken anything you've written in this entire thread particularly seriously. You're wrong as often as Trump is. Now it turns out you're not even voting? Just wordswordwwords

haha whatever you say boss, if it makes you feel intellectually or morally superior to dismiss my opinions or analysis fine. we will see in three weeks who is wrong as often or right.

so someone who couldn't vote like a felon, their opinions are just wordswordswords too?

I'm not sure if I posted this before, but it's pretty germane. Discussion of people who

1)don't know shit
2)say they do
3)complain all the fucking time!

http://harpers.org/archive/2016/05/t...ynical-people/

awwwwe how cute i have a No Homers Allowed fan club.

I don't really mean that people who abstain from voting aren't "allowed" to talk about political or social issues. Sorry for the hyperbole.

But I definitely believe that voting is a privilege (not a "right" in the true sense of the word). That is, it is not inalienable. It CAN be taken away (and is taken away from millions of people every day). Millions the world over are not born with the freedom to do it, and in reality millions never know that freedom.
So it's not a "right" ... it's a priviledge. And it's absolutely a duty for people with that priviledge to exercise it, not just for ourselves but for the people in the world who do not have that freedom, in the hope that maybe someday they will.

I also believe that if you're going to complain about politics, or insult people for their political choices, you'd goddamn better well be doing your civic fucking duty. Or, rather, if you're going to yell and scream about (for example) marijuana legality, you'd better be willing to cast a vote about it. If you're going to insult people for the way they choose to vote then you'd better man up and be a living breathing example of what you claim others should be. If you hated Obama, don't be a pussy... get out there ad vote for someone who's going to do something differently!

One can't just sit back and yell from the sidelines. Well, one definitely can, but it's Fucking selfish and absurd. If you're not going to get in the game, don't yell at the ref.

If you're going to choose to be a person who doesn't exercise their *priviledge* to vote, you're choosing an apolitical life. Own that choice, and Bitch about sports or whatever instead.

Now, that said, I fully support voter abstinence from anyone who is intellectually unequipped to make a truly informed decision. If you don't know shit about Baseball, don't make an ass of yourself screaming and shouting at the World Series.
People who can't be bothered to research candidates or inquire about platforms and policies really SHOULDN'T vote. It's an insult to the system and a misuse of a priviledge.

If you know enough to make an informed decision, but simply don't want to because you "couldn't live with yourself" if you voted for Hilllary, even though you loathe Trump, then I don't have much respect for you on this particular topic, and I'd wager you think a bit too much about yourself and have a mythologized idea of your own significance.

Basically, if you're just an idiot ... then damn right, don't vote. If you're not necessarily an idiot but you don't know anything about either candidate because you spend literally all of your time being a stay at home dad or something, then sure... don't vote.

But if you don't do your part to keep Donald Trump and dangerous lecherous fatcat pigs like him out of positions of power AND YOU KNOW BETTER, then fuck you. You're a lazy waste of meat. You certainly have no business complaining about the results afterward, and I probably wouldn't hang out with you because that shit frankly makes me sick.

Of all the years to opt out, this is not the one. You either March your ass into that booth and cast a vote against Donald pussy groping Trump, or congratulations you're a fuckwad.

Funny story... ^ this is the exact lecture I used to give whenever I subbed for a government class. I'm a genuine O-Captiain-My-Captain shaper of young ass minds. ;)

And SFAD, I'm not getting on your case, and when I say "you" I'm talking about the Royal you ... ok that's not a thing. But I'm talking about people in general. Or pepper green if you prefer.

I do hope your ass votes though.

My comments apply to some other comments more so than yours, I know you are not quite as politically crass.


Yet a fundamental ontology of the premise of democracy is that one's vote for their conscience or what they believe in. If the candidates, or parties, or platforms, or polices, or propositions are found to be disagreeable, it is no longer democracy if one's are intimidated to vote for such! See what I mean? It becomes a kind of tyranny on its own, this pressure to conform. Further its a total cop out for those who "lose" an election to blame or intimidate those who voted differently or didn't vote, because the problem is not that those voted differently or didn't vote, THE PROBLEM IS THE PARTIES DIDN'T DEVELOP A CANDIDATE, POLICY, OR PROPOSITION THAT CONVINCED THE CONSTIUENCY TO VOTE!!!!

The job of politicians is to convince people like me to vote, and if I am not convinced they didn't do their job. If any of y'all who support one candidate or policy couldn't convince me to vote for it, y'all didn't you your job simple as that. Don't get mad at or blame me for YOUR OWN POLITICAL FAILURES. its not my fault for being honest, and if y'all hold it against me haha that is totally your mistake.

I DON'T HOLD IT AGAINST ANYONE WHEN THEY VOTE FOR SOMETHING OR SOMEONE, so don't hold it against me if I choose not to for the sake of my own political conscience, it is my right to protest or boycott a vote just as much as it is yours to vote!





If I ever insulted someone in a personal way for their politics I apologize sincerely. However, sorry y'all, but to try and quell or silence political speech, opinions, or voice simply because it disagrees with your own view or approach including voting or not is some alt-right fascist bullshit!




Yes and no, for example even if I personally don't vote for Prop 64 here in California, I can use my own political voice to discuss it, analyze its merits, and possibly convince others to vote for or against it based on my opinions. THIS IS HOW POLITICS WORK PEOPLE. DUH



Yes and no, though personally i thin personal level insults have no business in politics (insults against voters that is, not necessarily candidates or policies those are open game)


And if none of the candidates available would do anything different then what?



maybe it is selfish and absurd to think that you can bully, badger, or harangue people into voting for things they don't agree with or believe in??

See y'all ever think through your attacks on non-voters, if I said i was not voting because i was lazy, fine, fuck with me, but if I say I am not voting because i don't believe in what there is to vote for? Why attack that?

Doesn't seem fair to me. Further to try and silence my political voice because I don't believe in the voting options is equally unfair and needlessly hostile.

Whateverz y'all, go through this every election, doesn't hurt my feelings but it seems to make those who vote feel some kind of way which I find ironic

This is actually a damn good point, and I never thought about it like this because I myself have always been a voter. You'd have to convince me NOT to vote. The process has been normalized for me to the extent that I wouldn't consider not participating unless there were some extreme extenuating circumstances. But I see what you mean.

Also, I want to clarify that I'm talking about voting for president here. Yes, I will argue all day and night with anyone with a soul that voting AGAINST TRUMP is more imprtant brat whatever's going on in their fragile little hearts, and that not voting against him when they clearly hate him is pretty much indefensible.

BUT... I am not going to jump down someone's throat for not voting for every proposition, every little city and county position. That's not what I'm talking about here. I should have specified that I'm talking about the presidential election, and this presidential election in particular.

My own rule when I'm in the booth is that if I don't know enough about the proposition, or the candidate for judge, or whatever.. or if I can't develop a satisfactory picture of what the consequences of voting YES or NO or For this guy or that guy will be, then I skip it. I certainly don't vote on issues that I don't understand or am not comfortable taking a position on, and I would never dream of trying to bully someone into voting for everything all the time. That's insane.

So yeah.

Not true at all. Just choosing not vote, has nothing to do with not having an opinion too.


Is that meant to be as barbed as it came across? So y'all assume only those who are too stupid to vote are those who don't vote? Ironically sometimes the opposite is true and only the stupid turn out


well that definitely is true.


Its fair you to not have respect, but personally I think that is extreme position. Why not respect people's political decision even if not to vote? I mean, you would support them whoever they vote for yes? So how is a non-vote any different? Further it has nothing to do with personal aggrandizing or ego, its about people sincerely voting or not voting their according to their conscience and what they believe. If you can't respect that, maybe you don't know what the word respect even really means to begin with!


fair enough


whatever yo, fuck you too. does it make you feel any better? I'm thinking probably not..


Nope, not lazy at all, but thank you for the personal insults. Fantastic political strategy there, that certainly will convince me to vote now if I wasn't convinced before.. and folks honestly wonder why our current politics are so fucking toxic, LOOK IN THE MIRROR PEOPLE, its certainly not my fault.


Better go get some Peptobismol homie for realz


yeah that will teach me.

Ironically I feel the opposite way, the only true voice people have is in local and state elections for actual propositions and ballot measures, in other words voting for actual policy, voting for representatives is just the same old song and dance. So personally i think people should ONLY vote for propositions and ballot measures or at the least turn out for such IF they agree with or believe in what is on the ballot.

Fair enough, to a certain extent. But I can honestly say that ever since I reached voting age, there hasn't been one candidate I have voted for that I was totally comfortable with, or agreed with on every issue. Chris Christie is mostly useless as a politician, but he said something in this vein that's worth repeating, and I paraphrase: if you're looking for someone who agrees with you 100% of the time, look in a mirror. None of us are perfect, especially politicians, but voting for someone who is imperfect (or in the case of Drumpf, voting against someone who's a total sociopath) isn't selling out, or betraying your ideals. It's exercising, IMO, good judgment.

I don't know how far a politician has to go to convince you that you should vote for him/her, or for/against a ballot issue, SFAD. Again, politicians sure as hell aren't perfect. But as I've said before, lesser of two evils is a very valid concept. If nothing else, HRC won't appoint Scalia types to the SCOTUS, which Whiny Grab-A-Puss has promised to do. I don't think you want 1, 2, 3, or 4 Scalia types appointed, SFAD. I hope you will reconsider not voting. I assume you're registered to vote (hope I'm right about that).