Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on April 27, 2004, 04:37:02 pm
-
this is a thread explicity for democrats - it's not for debate between Dems and Republicans - ok?
All the Dems here get ahold of your local Party HQ, state Party HQ, the DNC - As many people in positions as possible - YOUR REPRESENTATIVES TO THE CONVENTION ESPECIALLY
Tell them to SACK KERRY - He's a weak candidate and will not win. They should have NEVER shafted Dean.
Dean is CLEARLY different from **** - he can fire up a crowd, has the balls to propose things, etc. Tell them to drop Kerry and pick up Dean - the key to defeating **** is dissimularity
-
You're using a forum full of 8 year olds to start a political coup?
You fool. You poor fool.
-
If we're all 8 year olds, you're still crapping your pampers so keep quiet. Perhaps if you were to venture out into the big bad Net more often, you'de appreciate how mature everyone 'round here, except ofcouse for the obligatory Avril hate topic which I personally do not object to (http://www.dobi.nu/avril.jpg).
I don't live in the States, so I have marginally less of an effect on US politics than citizens. But I'de say, if Dean was to be your man, why not Kucinich or Sharpton. Dean is certainly better than Kerry, but IIRC he did vote both for the war in Iraq and for the PATRIOT act....
-
Um, an0n? Most of the people here are 15-25.
Reaaal smart :p
-
ROFL...kids arguing bout politics...who knows, by shear luck you might even get a decent prez this time...gawd knows you lot deserve one
-
Rictor: dean COULDN"T Vote for the War or the PATRIOT Act - he was the Government of Vermont and he doesn't support either
-
You all honestly beleive that a vote will change things? You think people decide who will lead the US? LOL, if this is what the Democrats beleive, maybe the world isnt that bad off after all!
-
Not that I'm American and not that I can vote but I like Kerry's chances (I watch American politics a fair amount as well). Dean seemed a little too excited at times and that obviously hurt his campaign...although it seemed a little bit much how quickly he went from number 1 to almost last place so quickly.
Politics are soo messed up anyways.
We'll be having our Federal election about the same time as you guys I imagine and we've got to choose between Martin and the Liberal party (essentially similar to the Democrats) or Harper and the Conservative party (essentially the Republicans)...the Liberals have been in power for 10 years, have some serious corruption charges against them, but they are a much better national alternative than the new Conservative party which is currently made up of right winged radicals from the old Reform party. So same problem you guys have....rock and a hard place. Except we don't have the so strongly established party lines that you guys seem to have :)
Even so...Kerry I think has a pretty good chance.
-
Originally posted by Lonestar
You all honestly beleive that a vote will change things? You think people decide who will lead the US? LOL, if this is what the Democrats believe, maybe the world isnt that bad off after all!
I have to believe it. Otherwise I would become as cynical as you, Lone.
And I like you, but I don't like you THAT much, Lone. :D
And Kazan, the Democratic primaries are pretty much over; there's no one else left to stand against Kerry. Who else would you nominate? Kerry's the only candidate left standing.
-
Icefire: Liberals have it for sure. Not only because Canadians are generally left-leaning, a fact which the recent war has done nothing to negate. but also cause Joe Clark recently "endorsed" Martin by saying he would rather see him as PM than Harper. Besides, over here democracy actually means something (not much, but more than the States).
Lonestar: more or less, yeah. For the past 50-ish years, the candidate with the biggest budget has always won, without fail. No reason to think that would change. With something like 98% of the country using electronic voting, any sembelance of democracy goes down the drain (Diebold & Co.). And even if that weren't true, you've got the media issue to contend with, as well as the fact that both candidates are ****ing Bonesmen. And then you have the Saudis saying they'll lower the price of oil to suport ****, various "business interests" and the Supreme Court.
Its not a good time for democracy right now.
-
Well, I suppose the only thing I would say is look at the whole team, not just the leader. In other words, it's not just a question of ****, it's the whole collection of them, from Colin Powell (And that CO-LIN, not CO-LAN, dammit), who is probably the most moderate of the bunch, to Rumsfield, who even **** Senior wouldn't let anywhere near his cabinet!
I would expect that Mr ****'s cabinet has a massive say on Mr ****'s policy, and the same will be true of Kerry.
That's my 2 British pennies worth ;)
You know, this place is going to be lit up like an effing galaxy with stars as we get closer to the electiobs :(
-
I can't see any purpose to a thread like this other than to start a fight.
-
Dean stood no chance of winning. They're both about as dishonest.
-
Not true. There was a significant difference between Dean and Kerry.
Flipside: yeah, Dubya couldn't think his way out of a wet paper bag. Its Cheyneyand Rummy who are running things. Not to mention the vast, vast assortment of neocons, Likudnik cheerleaders, ex-Reaganites and other "policy makers". Also, please don't mention Powell's name in the same sentence as the word moderate. He's anything but, its just that he has a way of putting a smily face on the whole affair, similar to Clinton.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Icefire: Liberals have it for sure. Not only because Canadians are generally left-leaning, a fact which the recent war has done nothing to negate. but also cause Joe Clark recently "endorsed" Martin by saying he would rather see him as PM than Harper. Besides, over here democracy actually means something (not much, but more than the States).
No, the Liberals have it because they are the only party that isn't a regional party. Even the Conservatives are mostly western. There is no real alternative to the Liberals.
-
Until 2 days ago i was on your side Kaz, then i studied the taxation on my future small business venture.
I'm now a right winger.
-
ionia23: your a retard then
kosh: not true at all
The primaries work just like the final - you are really electing electors - who still have the option to rebel
Dean > Kerry
vyper: you're willing to sacrifice the constitution because you want to pay less it taxes - how dispicable
$100 out of a business owners pocket doesn't hurt them as much as $100 out of a blue collar workers pocket
-
Originally posted by vyper
Until 2 days ago i was on your side Kaz, then i studied the taxation on my future small business venture.
I'm now a right winger.
If I had a dollar for every time this happened, I'de be a right-winger.
Stay the hell away from my irony money you filthy Commies.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
ionia23: your a retard
Kaz, I said it before. Cool it down. This is not your personal playground and your general behavior in recent politics has put you very close to not playing here at all. Stop insulting people who don't agree with you.
-
This is the same Dean who did this (http://www.swooh.com/peon/Nuclear1/deangoesnuts.wav) in Iowa? If the dude gets some rehab and anger management, he might be able to replace Kerry.
By the way, neither has a chance anyway. Kerry's a notorious liar, extremely anti-war (not just Iraq, but most wars America's been in, including 'Nam), a wussy would thinks saying he earned a Purple Heart for getting a little booboo in Vietnam is anything worth mentioning (just for the record, he threw that medal away shortly after the war), and all around a retard.
-
do the right thing, vote McCain.
-
McCain would be rather refreshing, but its not going to happen. That or Colin Powell
-
Kerry is anti-war? And Hitler celebrated Passover.
I love it how the race has devolved into this
*points around*
McCain? I'm sorry if I insult your beliefs, but McCain has all the values of a Republican. Same as Kerry, which is probably why there is talk of him being Kerry's running mate. They're not dedicated to anything that the Dems should stand for, they are as deep in the corporate wallets as Dubya or Cheyney.
The only real candidates were Kucinich, Sharpton and Dean. The rest are a sad joke, Hillary included (especially her). Also, nuclear1, I think the Dean yell has been done to death by the media. Apparently Amercia doesn't want a candidate who is passionate, they want someone to tell them happy lies and smile a big fake grin.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
vyper: you're willing to sacrifice the constitution because you want to pay less it taxes - how dispicable
$100 out of a business owners pocket doesn't hurt them as much as $100 out of a blue collar workers pocket
Do I look American to you? :lol:
I come from a country that built an empire based on economics and the gun before America existed as it does today, so please spare me the morality talk.
Money is power, power provides security. Go figure. :doubt:
-
Judging from how Kerry can't decide on what side of the issue he's on with everything, I wish Dean was still in the race. Honestly, with the latest "ribbon toss" fiasco he's in right now, and how hard ABC(BS) is grilling him over lying to Peter Jennings, I'd rather see someone else in the Democrat spot than Kerry. Then it'd actually look like a fair competition between Conservatives and Liberals.
-
Originally posted by Lonestar
You all honestly beleive that a vote will change things? You think people decide who will lead the US? LOL, if this is what the Democrats beleive, maybe the world isnt that bad off after all!
One thing I've never understood about the American electorial system. What's to stop republicans voting in the primaries for a candidate they know can't win and thereby screwing up the entire system?
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Well, I suppose the only thing I would say is look at the whole team, not just the leader. In other words, it's not just a question of ****, it's the whole collection of them, from Colin Powell (And that CO-LIN, not CO-LAN, dammit), who is probably the most moderate of the bunch, to Rumsfield, who even **** Senior wouldn't let anywhere near his cabinet!
Yeah my name is Colin and I hate how they say his name...its terrible, its twisted, and it bears little resemblance to the real irish pronounciation (which as you pointed out is CO-LIN). :D
Now we'll just have to work on getting all of you Americans to say 'Zed' instead of 'Zee'.
I find it ironic that **** is trying to bring "democracy" to Iraq when there are so many problems with democracy at home for the moment. The whole terrorism scare has hurt alot of democratic values...and so did the Iraq war.
I remember on CNN one night before the war when they interviewed some women on the street and she was prostesting the people protesting the war...she said they were "traitors and they should be arrested and tried for treason." I was utterly shocked and dismayed at that statement...apparently the right to free speech and peaceful protest isn't important at all to these people and yet thats what is supposed to be brought into Iraq. It scares me...it really does.
-
How come it always seems like I have to vote for ht lesser of 2 evils? That makes me sad. :(
-
Also, nuclear1, I think the Dean yell has been done to death by the media. Apparently Amercia doesn't want a candidate who is passionate, they want someone to tell them happy lies and smile a big fake grin.
wow, rictor and I agree :D
--------
IceFire: you think that's bad.. delve deeply into what's really going on - the NeoConservative/Christian Right/Christian Fundamentalist movement
-
Is there anyone running against **** on the Republican side?
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Is there anyone running against Bush on the Republican side?
No, the Republicans know better than to let someone try to screw up Bush's chance of winning the republican primaries. Bush has no competitors, so far as I know.
There are rumors that Judge Moore (the "Ten Commandments appeals court judge who was removed from his post for refusing to get rid of an unconstitutional Ten Commandments display in the Alabama state courthouse) might run as the Constitutional party candidate, and so might siphon votes from Bush in the national election. But they're only rumors so far.
But Bush really needs someone to siphon votes from him the way Nader did to Gore (and will likely do to Kerry).
-
Speaking of Nader, since he's not running on the Green Party platform, how many states has he managed to get into the actual elections of?
-
Hey Kazan, you know what?
Even though I am not American, I think that by sacking Kerry the democratic party would split apart. Who would they put in his place without looking totally ridiculous? I mean, if they did it, no matter what they'd do after that, they'd be totally screwed.
Also, throwing away candidate that they elected at least somewhat democratically: :rolleyes:
-
Janos: because it works in the same mamner as the electrial college
the EC is there to prevent people like **** from getting elected... they failed because our current implementation doesn't use independant electors
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Speaking of Nader, since he's not running on the Green Party platform, how many states has he managed to get into the actual elections of?
I don't know, but I doubt it's very many. He's running as an independent so he's going to have a tough time getting on a lot of state ballots. Cry me a river...
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Janos: because it works in the same mamner as the electrial college
the EC is there to prevent people like **** from getting elected... they failed because our current implementation doesn't use independant electors
I lived under impression that USA's somewhat confusing-looking electorial system is actually quite carefully-triggered thing designed to represent the will of people in not-so-strictly-democratical way? Such that large cities - who quite often support more democratic people - don't get overrepresented in election? I don't know, please educate me. As well as of electorial methods of party candidates, like Kerry.
Kerry, BTW, seems quite a good presidential candidate, even though his opinions seem to change pretty fast. Perhaps because he's democratic and knows something about foreign policy?
-
The Electoral College was origionally instituted as a buffer between the "unwashed masses" that may not know everything about a candidate because the speed of information
It basically was meant to buffer against people like Hitler being elected - the electors could be much better informed - just in practice it hasn't been implemented well, partisan electors pretty much defeat the system from ever doing what it's suppose to.
The nominations for the candidates internally in the party works much the same
-
You realize that the corporations and the people currently in power don't want it to be simpler? It would destroy their own power base. The government wants a fat, stupid, happy populace.
-
more importantly they don't want thinking human beings walking around - they want people who will believe and do whatever they say
-
Hmmm. The democratic party, knowing that they are facing the most unpopular president in years put up the most right wing candidate they have. One unpopular even with most democrats because they can't see much difference between him and the current president.
I'm starting to wonder if my theory above about republicans voting for Kerry in the primaries didn't have some validity. :D
-
The actual reason was the "Domino syndrome". Dean and the other front runner managed to fairly well gut each other during the debates leading up to the Iowa primary, severely hurting their voter base. The people these voters ended up voting for instead were Edwards and Kerry. Edwards' campaign just sort of fell apart, and people just tended to vote for Kerry after that since they felt "since he's doing so well in the primaries so far, he can beat Dubya!"
-
Face facts, Kerry can't win. Not against George "We Got Him" ****. You just watch the announce of the capture of a certain You-Know-Who just before election time. He got the last one rigged, no reason he won't do likewise again.
Don't get me wrong, I rather like the guy's platform and will probably vote for him (Kerry, that is), but his views aren't exactly popular with..oh, say, the wealthy and "patrio-zealot-trotic".
-
Never said he could. I was just stating people's rationale for voting for him in the primaries.
-
Pity they don't have primaries for the sitting president then. It would have been quite funny to watch **** lose :D
-
So do only Democrats get to vote in the primaries or does everyone? It seems kinda of wierd to have Republicans voting for who the Democratic candidate is going to be....
-
In most states, only Democrats can vote. In others, like New Hampshire, Democrats and people who are not registered in either party can vote. In some really messed up states, everyone can vote.
-
But how do they know you're a democrat? What was to stop you from saying you're one as soon as **** got elected so you could lie in wait for the primaries 4 years later?
-
You register for a political party.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Pity they don't have primaries for the sitting president then.
They do. Gerald Ford had to fight off a strong primary challenge from Ronald Reagan in 1976.
First post in this thread! Woohoo!
-
you can change party afiliations the night of the primaries, then change back the next day
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
They do. Gerald Ford had to fight off a strong primary challenge from Ronald Reagan in 1976.
Originally posted by Kazan
you can change party afiliations the night of the primaries, then change back the next day
Okay. Now I'm confused. Why didn't the "anybody but ****" mob get organised and kick him out then? Surely they'd be plently of people who would vote for that even?
-
because there is no republican primary this year since they have an incumbent president
-
There have been Republican primaries this year... I've seen one or two articles about some obscure people trying to run against Bush.
I'm sure that they have systems in place to ensure people can't switch parties for only the day of the primary.
-
Goober5000: you're explictly ALLOWED to switch parties the day of the primary
i know one republican professor who does it, and then switches right back because he enjoys being present at the democractic caucuses here in iowa - he finds them interesting, and he abstains from picking a candidate
he switches back immediately
-
That's interesting. Wish that was more widely known... we might have been able to get Howard Dean nominated. Now that campaign would have been fun. :)
-
Then here's the plan for electoral reform in the states. It's too late for this one but next election why not get everyone who hates both parties to elect the most useless candidate possible for both the republicans and the democrats. Then the third parties suddenly have a chance :D
-
Because the most useless candidate possible is George W **** ;)
-
Yeah. But he can't run next time :D And by useless I mean someone that the party faithful would never vote for. There were all to many idiots willing to vote for ****
-
karajorma: if he doesn't get elected this fall he can run again at some other time
-
Originally posted by Kazan
karajorma: if he doesn't get elected this fall he can run again at some other time
True but I don't remember any president doing that successfully in living memory. Let's hope it stays that way :)
-
Originally posted by karajorma
True but I don't remember any president doing that successfully in living memory. Let's hope it stays that way :)
Quayle 2004.
"Mars is essentially in the same orbit... Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe."
Dan Quayle - August 1989
-
I said successfully :D He didn't get elected in any of his previous campaigns did he? :D
-
I believe the only one to successfully run after being in office and then losing the next election was Grover Cleveland, back in the end of the 19th Century.
-
You could be right. I was sure that someone did it but it's only American history so I don't pay much attention :D
-
To tell you the truth, I find American history rather boring compared to European and Asian history. I just remember that since I'm taking AP American History this year.
-
It's because we have more of it. You have such a wealth of history to choose from you don't have to get bored of any of it, you just move on. The problem with American history I tend to find is the lack of it more than anything.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
"Mars is essentially in the same orbit... Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe."
Dan Quayle - August 1989
Dear God, Quayle actually said that? That's even better than the line he gave about having to brush up on his Latin because he was about to visit Latin America... :eek2: :wtf: :rolleyes: :nervous:
-
Quayle is funny but you have to be careful of misattributing stuff. The Mars one is accurate but the Latin America one isn't.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/quayle.htm
-
Originally posted by Rictor
If we're all 8 year olds, you're still crapping your pampers so keep quiet. Perhaps if you were to venture out into the big bad Net more often, you'de appreciate how mature everyone 'round here, except ofcouse for the obligatory Avril hate topic which I personally do not object to (http://www.dobi.nu/avril.jpg).
I don't live in the States, so I have marginally less of an effect on US politics than citizens. But I'de say, if Dean was to be your man, why not Kucinich or Sharpton. Dean is certainly better than Kerry, but IIRC he did vote both for the war in Iraq and for the PATRIOT act....
woah.. ya.. this is THE most mature forum i have ever been to, and i love it..