Science Abuse Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 Jesus tap dancing christ, and I get a fucking campaign ad about the actualy fucking candidate thats promoting it!? Fort the love of fuck, I have seen on one, not one, ZERO fucking capaign ads that say "I'm cool, this is why, this is my plan". ALL OF THEM, 100% of these fucking ads are slam ads, nothing but. No one is campaigning on ANYTHING but their apponents mistakes. Jesus fucking christ, I swear to god I'm going to start robbing liquor stores and sending the money to 3rd parties, fucking fucker fuckless fuckup FUCK! I'm putting a god damn Peirce sticker on my car, I swear to GOD. In related news, I'm watching the Massechusetts Governor's debate on C span. Guess how many people there are...guess, no, four, fucking four. This is some good shit, when they're not yammering at each other. The "Green Rainbow party" candidate just brought up global warming, hilarious. Mean while, in our shitty state, the inept Fuck and the corrupt fuck that are running for governor won't let any other parties represent at a debate. If a 3rd party shows up, they protest and refuse to show. I swear to fucking christ I want to burn this state to the ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Removed Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 Ok Mr. Politics, Third party candidates do not win elections. They know that, everyone knows that. Their sole purpose is to bring issues to the forefront. All you are doing by letting third party candidates into a debate is make it longer and more boring. Plus you confuse voters, take time away from one of the "real" candidates running for office to spew their party double speak. I would rather hear from two dipshits that actually have a chance at winning so I can make a decision than some greenpeace, indpendent, third party dipshit taking my attention away from issues to global warming when social security is in trouble. Tell the third parties to keep putting up flyers and having booths at Lalapalooza, I give them my attention then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted October 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 Ok Mr. Politics, Third party candidates do not win elections. They know that, everyone knows that. Their sole purpose is to bring issues to the forefront. All you are doing by letting third party candidates into a debate is make it longer and more boring. Plus you confuse voters, take time away from one of the "real" candidates running for office to spew their party double speak. I would rather hear from two dipshits that actually have a chance at winning so I can make a decision than some greenpeace, indpendent, third party dipshit taking my attention away from issues to global warming when social security is in trouble. Tell the third parties to keep putting up flyers and having booths at Lalapalooza, I give them my attention then. Wow, have you considered moving to china? Its for you. I'm still watching this debate, I couldn't stomach my own states debate for this long. If three candidates would confuse voters, it makes me want to set the state on fire even more. Also, learn something about the candidates, they do adress real issues, more so then Ig and Ook. Peirce, for one, aint a screaming hippy, hes a professor with a Ph.D. in Economics from Princeton. Read more, assume less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 Ok Mr. Politics, Third party candidates do not win elections. Following the 2002 elections, more than 300 Libertarians held elected state and local offices; by comparison, in June 2005 at least 222 Greens hold elected office. Though twelve Libertarians have previously been elected to state legislatures, none hold that office currently, unlike the Greens (one in Maine), the Progressive Party (six in Vermont), the Republican Moderate Party (one in Alaska), and the Working Families Party (one in New York). Some Libertarian candidates for state office have performed relatively strongly in statewide races. In two Massachusetts Senate races (2000 and 2002), Libertarian candidates Carla Howell and Michael Cloud, who did not face serious Republican contenders (in 2002 the candidate failed to make the ballot), won a record-setting 11.9% and 19% respectively. In 2002, Ed Thompson, the brother of former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, won 11% running for the same office, resulting in a seat on the state elections board for the Libertarian Party, the only such seat for a third party in the U.S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Removed Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 He is still an Econ professor that will lose. Sad or not, sick or not...it does confuse voters. I mean you are living in a country where more adults voted for their favorite American Idol than voted in the last election. I didnt say there wasn't good people running; just that they lose (fact), they draw attention away from more viable candidates (fact) and confuse voters (fact). It isnt me that that needs to accept anything...sadly it is you that need to wake up and look at what your country is really like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Removed Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 Following the 2002 elections, more than 300 Libertarians held elected state and local offices; by comparison, in June 2005 at least 222 Greens hold elected office. Though twelve Libertarians have previously been elected to state legislatures, none hold that office currently, unlike the Greens (one in Maine), the Progressive Party (six in Vermont), the Republican Moderate Party (one in Alaska), and the Working Families Party (one in New York). Some Libertarian candidates for state office have performed relatively strongly in statewide races. In two Massachusetts Senate races (2000 and 2002), Libertarian candidates Carla Howell and Michael Cloud, who did not face serious Republican contenders (in 2002 the candidate failed to make the ballot), won a record-setting 11.9% and 19% respectively. In 2002, Ed Thompson, the brother of former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, won 11% running for the same office, resulting in a seat on the state elections board for the Libertarian Party, the only such seat for a third party in the U.S. The Progressive Party went out in 1896 with William Jennings Bryan, and look at the states you are talking about, their populations are more trees than people and they have no real political power in the scheme of things. What do they have..like 5 electoral votes each? They are not and will never be real power players like it or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmrmnhrm Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 Don't forget Jesse Ventura up in Minnesota. Reps and Dems both wrote him off, and look what it got them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T Rex Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 You are right this country is Capitalist NOT Democratic like we like to claim we are.... "Spead Democracy throughout the globe." These people have every right to be put on a ballot and participate in a debate. Just like you have the right to speak your mind and if YOU wanted to participate in these debates. We as a society need to wake up and realize our government is slowely taking our rights away. From a smoking ban to candidates not being able to speak their mind and run for governor with a fair chance! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted October 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 Direct from Jon, who told me about the Libertarian/3rd party stuff: The "3rd parties don't win" argument is essentially a self fulfilling prophecy. 3rd parties would get a fair shot if they demonstrated that they could take a significant portion of the vote. They can't get a significant portion of the vote if they aren't allowed to participate. This becomes clear with the current elections, there are 4 candidates on the ballot and one write in, yet only two at the debates. They are being blocked because of rules established by the Leauge of Women voters (sponsoring 4 of the debates) and by the D's and R's (in the case of the Westerville debate). An interesting case came up on one of the local news shows, Strickland at 49%, Blackwell at 35%. There is 15% that was not mentioned as being undecided or for other candidates. Bad polling perhaps, but the winds are changing. Third parties do bring light to issues otherwise not covered. The Democrats and Rebublicans focus on issues that will swing a very small percentage of the middle voters whereas 3rd parties tend to champion issues that are consistently important to them. For example the Buckeye Firearms Association had a candidates forum, during 'gun' elections this draws all candidates, this year only Dr. Peirce chose to attend because 2nd amendment rights matter to him, the party, and his constituents. The Libertarian Party was also a vocal supporter of private property rights when the Ohio Supreme Court heard the Norwood case and effectively overrulled the SCotUS decision in the Kelo case. Gary Nolan (Libertarian Presidential candidate in 2004, lost in party primaries) pointed out during a recent Q&A session that the Democrats and Republicans have shifted in the past (IMHO also very recently, states rights my ass). So by voting Libertarian today, one party may evolve and become libertarians even though the Libertarian party as we now know it may not gain office. This demonstrates that voting for what you really believe in and agree with will lead to a better representative democracy in the long term while voting for the lesser of two evils will lead to a less-bad situation in the near future. Furthermore, you can vote 3rd party guilt-free in the Governors race AND lesser-evil in the legislative races (most districts have a state Senator or Representative up for grabs) and get both worlds. Many are voting Strickland without realizing that a Democratic legislature is also needed to assert any real balance. Above all else the 3rd parties want voters to be honest and informed. Libertarian campaigners have been known to say "even if you don't vote for us, please, at least make an informed decision". In that light I offer you these: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html - Worlds shortest political quiz. Are you really voting for who you agree with? http://peirceforohio.com - Campaign website for Dr. Peirce http://lpo.org - Libertarian Party of Ohio (Delaware and Franklin County are very active and have meetings in some nice bars) http://lp.org - National Libertarian Party http://lso.org.ohio-state.edu/ - OSO libertarian studies hosting many candidates and info sessions I will also post a link to the recent 3rd party debates sposored by Common Cause where Dr. Peirce (Libertarian), Bob Fitrakis (Green), and James Lundeen (write in independent) debate. Take the time to watch this when it is available, you will see a real debate over issues that matter rather than two talking heads arguing for 'grey' or 'gray'. Should be YouTubed in a day or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 Ok Mr. Politics, Third party candidates do not win elections. They know that, everyone knows that. Their sole purpose is to bring issues to the forefront. All you are doing by letting third party candidates into a debate is make it longer and more boring. Plus you confuse voters, take time away from one of the "real" candidates running for office to spew their party double speak. I would rather hear from two dipshits that actually have a chance at winning so I can make a decision than some greenpeace, indpendent, third party dipshit taking my attention away from issues to global warming when social security is in trouble. Tell the third parties to keep putting up flyers and having booths at Lalapalooza, I give them my attention then. A prime example of why people don't like Republicans. I'm seriously getting concerned with the welfare of this nation. Up until now, every president has wanted to keep his party in power but has always been very supportive of those who support his policies in other parties. In this administration, I see nothing but George Bush constantly slamming "Democrats" (as a whole, because he knows every Democrat running for Congress and knows what each one stands for) for being weak-kneed and not having the moral fortitude to make tough decision in regard to the safety and security of this country. This attitude is sounding more and more like a damn dictatorship. --We can't be trusting those foolhardy Democrats for they are too weak on tough issues. We need a man of steel at the forefront, commanding our troops to victory.-- Does anyone know how to say "steel" in Russian? "Stalin." I'm an admittedly fiscal conservative, but goddamn I want to live in a democracy where more than two parties are recognized as functioning members of our society. We've gotten to a point in our society where we're so fearful of being attacked that all we can do is listen to those extremists that have A) the wherewithall to get in the public eye (aka money and connections) and B) those that are extreme enough that people want to support them for fear of being lenient. Fuck the current political climate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 The Progressive Party went out in 1896 with William Jennings Bryan, and look at the states you are talking about, their populations are more trees than people and they have no real political power in the scheme of things. What do they have..like 5 electoral votes each? They are not and will never be real power players like it or not. I addressed your argument with a direct response disproving your statement. You respond stating that out of the several hundred examples I gave proving that you were wrong, none of the states (including New York) matter when it comes to presidential elections (which was not what your statement was referencing). In this thread you actually come close to making some sense, unfortunatley in this instance you're wrong and your statements are misinformed and misleading. Good try though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGraw Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 I think it's terrible, as previous stated differently. That of all the ad campaigns I have seen, I just know what the other guys doesn't do. Which could be a great arguement really because as people who love to argue know, you don't have to be right, you just have to make them wrong. It's the old spin techniques. Senator A : Senator B doesn't like the color black that makes him a racist. Senator B : Senator A sold his farm in 1987, he doesn't support farmlands. I think it's a drastic realization of the American culture, you don't wanna hear that Johnny got on a plane and arrived safely at his destination, you wanna hear Johnny was the only survivor of a plane crash due to mechanical failure. Which leaves it up to the plane company to defend itself to the media, and IF they decide to defend, it only snowballs. Which is why I think you hear more 'He said, she said" then anyone trying to say "Here is what I believe, and this is why I think I'm good for the job, if you think so too, vote for me!" Instead people focus on the negatives of their opposition, people hear negative news louder then good news. Again, all personal opinion, no supporting facts or arguments. What do you guys think though? EDIT : The perks of being a congress person, senator, president or anything, should not make it so it is a cat fight to get the position, It should be literally who we all feel is better for the job. But that's not reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berto Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 I think its a funny coincidence that when election time comes around gas prices come down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGraw Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 I think its a funny coincidence that when election time comes around gas prices come down. +1 haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils Advocate Posted October 8, 2006 Report Share Posted October 8, 2006 I was thinking of making a thread with less profanity about this topic earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted October 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2006 I was thinking of making a thread with less profanity about this topic earlier. Fuckall that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trouble Maker Posted October 8, 2006 Report Share Posted October 8, 2006 I think its a funny coincidence that when election time comes around gas prices come down. That just means we need to have elections every two months. Just spread everything out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Removed Posted October 8, 2006 Report Share Posted October 8, 2006 This thread started by wondering why third party candidates do not appear in debates. Good or bad, nice or not, they are not power players in America's "democracy" of 2006. Television shows an debate organizers want to fill seats or gather ratings. Third parties may have good intentions and our well being at heart but they just cant seem to get the support they need to get the attention of the media and organizers. I guess if there are many third party supporters out there, why arent they attending rallies and showing up at the polls demanding to be heard? Maybe a little less therorizing on what can and how to save the world and focus more attention and actual work on changing the opinions of voters a.k.a. society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lustalbert Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Giant popularity contests. Nothing more, as most people can't be bothered with trivial things such as learing about the canidates or issues, it would interupt thier precious "Reality TV" time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted October 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 This thread started by wondering why third party candidates do not appear in debates. No, it started with me bitching about the 2 party system, and may turn to bitching about balless people who do nothing to changes what they admit isn't right or American. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desperado Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Giant popularity contests. Nothing more, as most people can't be bothered with trivial things such as learing about the canidates or issues, it would interupt thier precious "Reality TV" time. This man speaks the truth, and the truth is sad. You all know I am a raving republican. But I will say that the party, in Ohio, has a pretty bad rap from some stupid shit that has went down lately. Tome Noey and his coins, Taft and his biggest tax increase in history, coupled with being close to the Bible belt and having alot of religons folks hearing about that sicko and his emails to a kid, that is also a male (double sick). Even thought ther are sickos and perv's on both sides of the party line the conservative side finds it more unacceptable. The same sex marriage vote we had in Ohio a few years ago proves that a vast majority of Ohioains are not homosexual friendly, by either party. Bu t I will say that Blackwell ain't got a chance in hell of winning. The rednecks ain't gonna vote for him becasue he's black, the bklack vote will never lean republician, which makes Blackwell an 'Uncle Tom' in their eyes. The Denocrats are already for Strickland and the Republians I have spoke with are concerned that he is gonna be another Taft. And they figure Talf needs to go, with his whole group of appointed state department directors and we can rebuild and get another republican in after 4 more years of Taft type leadership, with Strickland running the show. I honestly can't tell you I will vote for a govenor this year. There are two things I am incapable of doing, one is bearing children, the other is voting democrat. But I personally can't see making a contribution to more of the same with my vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tractor Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Strickland or Blackwell wouldn't be bad for governor after having Taft for so long. I'm voting for Blackwell because I like small government and he says that he does too. At least I can't think of many reasons strickland would be a very bad choice. he seems like an old school democrat and thats probably because he's like 68 years old. Can't ever really tell with the democrats though they use so much doublespeak it makes my head spin. He was on wosu 820 today and Fred (the host for those who don't listen) asked him some direct questions and he skipped around the issues talking about some other crap that was only somewhat related. I can't wait to hear the same discussion with Blackwell in the chair. Hopefully he doesn't decide to be a little bitch and decline the interview like Taft did year after year. He needed to get on the air and come clean with the people and explain the issues and never did. Also I'm really not so sure that Blackwell is just another Taft buddy. For at least the last 3 years he's been at the forefront of the law suit filed against the legislature and the taft administration concerning the Ohio supreme court ruling that declared ohio's property tax situation unconstitutional. Taft and his buds + the senate have actually ignored 2 rulies and the law suit so far. This was well before blackwell should have been worrying about looking good for a governors race. He probably created some heat between departments for that sort of action and I want a leader that isn't afraid to take the heat. Bush is an excellent example and I only disagree with him anytime he agrees with/or lets democrats get there way. Evan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.