• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Republicans in blue states should...

peptoabysmal

Illuminator
peptoabysmal
Joined
Sep 27, 2002
Messages
3,466
Republicans in blue states should vote for Badnarik or Nader.

Wouldn't that be fun to watch the Demo's whine about third party candidates "stealing their votes" for the next four years?

C'mon Bush has picked up 7 electoral votes since 2000, since there has been a population shift to red states, because people can no longer afford to live in blue states. It's in the bag.

Whattya say? Shall we have some fun?
 
Interesting, that comment about affordability. What is your reaction to the fact that red states also get the largest federal subsidies?
 
peptoabysmal said:
Republicans in blue states should vote for Badnarik or Nader.

Wouldn't that be fun to watch the Demo's whine about third party candidates "stealing their votes" for the next four years?
Click to expand...


Aren't there enough problems without having fake problems to get people arguing about? Geez.
 
I say that is you are in a 'Blue' OR a 'Red' state, you ought to vote either for Nader or Badnarik. Your vote will lose REGARDLESS of your casting it, so vote for the one that will scare the majority party the most.

Look, if you vote for Bush in in a Democratic state, Kerry and his people are just going to see it as 'eh... big deal', and will see it that way even if 45% of them vote that way. BUT, if they saw that 40% of the state voted for NADER...

The Democrats would know WITHOUT QUESTION that they were doing something wrong. OR, if they saw 40% Badnarik, they would have a LOT of reason to worry.

Voting for the majority parties shows you as a 'mainstream moderate' in my opinion. By casting a vote for ANY third party, it's like casting a double-vote; one for that candidate, and one AGAINST either established major party.
 
Nothing personal, but I'm about to go off... Not directed towards you in particular...

Larspeart said:
OR, if they saw 40% Badnarik, they would have a LOT of reason to worry.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but more about why people somehow think it is a good thing to actually act in such a way to put someone in government that will cause utter chaos.

It strikes me as utterly juvinille. Yes, maybe things are not perfect in America, but anyone that decides that actually voting for someone who wants to completely disrupt our monetary system, who believes that the IRS is literally part of a criminal conspiracy against the american people, who sees nothing wrong with forcing congress to endure instruction in what he thinks the constitution means followed by a videotaped oath is going to make things somehow better is not acting in a reasonable manner.

It is like a four year old threatening to burn down the house because Daddy doesn't get him the toy he wants. The problems we have in America today are in the context of human history completely minor. The solutions that Badnarik in particular suggest are so draconian and irresponsible that they stagger the reasonable mind. Similar to how I think when a cancer patient doesn't like that chemo makes him puke, so he switches to homeopathic remedies.

Yeah, Badnarik will not win, but justifying a vote for him on that ground adds cowardice to the mix. Avoid making a real decision because as long as "I didn't vote for him" you retain some moral authority to complain about how things turn out. This is weak.

Nothing personal against the people this is directed at. I used to act in the way I describe above, but this campaign (and a close study of Badnarik) has made me realize how utterly wrong I was about all of this. Not all third party candidates are as alarming as Badnarik, but I would urge those considering a "protest" vote to actually investigate with a critical eye the promises being made, as well as what effect this person would really have if elected. Otherwise you really are wasting your vote. Consider how it would turn out if everyone acted as you do, can you really say you want that person in charge?
 
Suddenly said:
Avoid making a real decision because as long as "I didn't vote for him" you retain some moral authority to complain about how things turn out. This is weak.
Click to expand...
I think this describes more then a few people. I stopped throwing away my vote with that Anderson guy a couple of decades back. Unless you're blinded by some ideology (glancing quickly at shane) and think Bush and Kerry are the same, it does boil down to voting for the lesser of two evils. I could vote for who I think is the best candidate, but then I am accepting the risk that the "worse of two evils" will become president and I will not take that risk. While maybe not the best situation, it's reality.
 
The Democrats would know WITHOUT QUESTION that they were doing something wrong. OR, if they saw 40% Badnarik, they would have a LOT of reason to worry.
Click to expand...
This makes no sense. If the Dems won a state with 51%, and 45% voted for Badnarik, the Dems would just assume that Republicans have abandoned their candidate in droves and adopted an "anybody but Kerry" strategy. By the way, get someone to pinch you, because if you think Badnarik would ever get more than 1-2%, you are dreaming.
 
Re: Re: Republicans in blue states should...

HarryKeogh said:
why is that?
Click to expand...

This was a tongue in cheek post. I saw the info on a right-wing site, so I won't swear to the accuracy of it.

I just know I live in a state the Kerry owns, so what could I do with my vote that might be entertaining?
 
Larspeart said:
I say that is you are in a 'Blue' OR a 'Red' state, you ought to vote either for Nader or Badnarik. Your vote will lose REGARDLESS of your casting it, so vote for the one that will scare the majority party the most.

Look, if you vote for Bush in in a Democratic state, Kerry and his people are just going to see it as 'eh... big deal', and will see it that way even if 45% of them vote that way. BUT, if they saw that 40% of the state voted for NADER...

The Democrats would know WITHOUT QUESTION that they were doing something wrong. OR, if they saw 40% Badnarik, they would have a LOT of reason to worry.

Voting for the majority parties shows you as a 'mainstream moderate' in my opinion. By casting a vote for ANY third party, it's like casting a double-vote; one for that candidate, and one AGAINST either established major party.
Click to expand...

This idea I could get behind.

Neither candidate is really addressing border and immigration security or the national debt (not deficit, debt) or the astounding growth of government size compared with the private sector over the last 20 years.
 
Re: Re: Republicans in blue states should...

gnome said:


Aren't there enough problems without having fake problems to get people arguing about? Geez. [/B]
Click to expand...

Some of us come here because we like problems, even fake ones. What's that you say? More than just some of us? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom