Do you really think it matters who you vote for?

[Buckethead08]

And here's an amazing little tidbit....there are more options on the election ballot than just the two major parties. If people honestly don't like the Dem or Rep options VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE.

It's a shame that we've pretty much let the two major parties dominate the elections and shut out any other options from the debates or really anything having to do with the elections. Who knows what would happen if some of the independants were able to get on the same playing field.

The two party system is such a sham. I was doing everything I could to get Ron Paul as the republican nominee, he is the only strict constitutionalist out there. If my memory serves me right; when you take the oath of office you pledge to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I think Chuck Baldwin could do that, he’s getting my vote.

 

[Member2019]

Hey, do what I do ...

Show up, and only vote for an office you believe in. If there's not one, either abstain from voting for that office or write one in.

I'm seriously considering writing in Ross Perot this year. The man has been been spot-on everything -- from Energy to NAFTA -- over a decade before it came true.

Then again, Ross Perot wasn't a politician, just a businessman who grew nothing into something. Wasn't I saying something about that in a few other threads?

 

[Nester6]

It absolutely matters! Every American soldier who died on American or foreign soil gave his life so we may exercise Democracy. I believe it is our duty as citizens to educate ourselves and express our opinion in the voting booth regardless of political party.

 

[Will E Worm]

McCain and Obama are basically the same. There both New World Order/Banker shills. If want the truth the MSM won’t tell you then check out the Alex Jones radio show on his site www.infowars.com

They are basically the same.

Alex Jones is either one of the Illuminati's puppets or he's not thinking.
William Cooper told the truth. Go to Hourofthetime.com.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am a conspiracy realist. To understand what’s really going on in our country you have to understand who and what the Federal Reserve is doing and has already done. If you disagree, watch America: Freedom to Fascism free online.

The Federal Reserve needs to go.

 

[Facial_King]

Yes, it matters with a considerable amount of significance - definitely.

BUT it doesn't matter as much as it SHOULD. The differences between the candidates are not nearly as wide as they are made out to be, and our votes have different weights (i.e., voters in Wyoming have more powerful votes, per person, than voters in, say, Ohio), which is a problem...

 

[AFA]

McCain and Obama are basically the same. There both New World Order/Banker shills. If want the truth the MSM won’t tell you then check out the Alex Jones radio show on his site www.infowars.com

I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am a conspiracy realist. To understand what’s really going on in our country you have to understand who and what the Federal Reserve is doing and has already done. If you disagree, watch America: Freedom to Fascism free online.

I don't think they're even close. McCain changed his whole campaign to sound more like Obama. Obama even said, he thought McCain was stealing his signs, because suddenly they all said, change. Like I said if you only started following it the past month or two, you wouldn't know that. But despite the fascade, McCain really presents a sounds like Obama front such as in get out of Iraq, and then talks about channeling more $$$ into Iraq and the military, so it's not the same.

 

[Legzman]

I'll root for Obama, but I'm still not voting. I guess all things considered he's the slightly lesser of both evils.

Look at it this way. At the very least Obama is bound to change "something" what, I dunno, but no doubt shit WILL change if he's elected. Be it for better or worse. McCain will just be another 4 years of bush. So FUCK him!

 

[Baill Inneraora]

Of course it matters. If John Kerry would've won the last election, someone who seemed like a huge pansy, do you think we would've attacked Afghanistan after 9/11? Fuck no...we probably would've sat around and done nothing about it. But, since we elected George Bush, someone who was willing to take a stand and fuck shit up, we invaded and sent a pretty loud message to the world.

So...yes, it matters.

Chef, we were already in both Iraq and Afghanistan before the 04 Election when John Kerry ran.

John Kerry a pansy? Both he and Al Gore served in Vietnam will W hid behind his dadies skirts so he didn't have to go.

Cheny, Rumsfeld etc did not serve. They are chickenhawks.

http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/pearly/htmls/gop-chickens.html

 

[Legzman]

Of course it matters. If John Kerry would've won the last election, someone who seemed like a huge pansy, do you think we would've attacked Afghanistan after 9/11? Fuck no...we probably would've sat around and done nothing about it. But, since we elected George Bush, someone who was willing to take a stand and fuck shit up, we invaded and sent a pretty loud message to the world.

So...yes, it matters.

I should have read more of the posts in this thread. What message would that be? "Fuck you" or "Don't fuck with the US" or perhaps most of the world views it as "We don't give a fuck about any country other than our own"

 

[AFA]

Of course it matters. If John Kerry would've won the last election, someone who seemed like a huge pansy, do you think we would've attacked Afghanistan after 9/11? Fuck no...we probably would've sat around and done nothing about it. But, since we elected George Bush, someone who was willing to take a stand and fuck shit up, we invaded and sent a pretty loud message to the world.

So...yes, it matters.

Yes, but the message sent was, the US will do the wrong thing, lie to it's own people and the world to get public support and make sure the lobbyists and defense contractors are taken care of. When going in the wrong direction, stubbornly refuse to admit the mistake as everyone you care about is making big money. At the same time, deny global warming among a host of other serious problems that will go unaddressed to the dismay of the rest of the world.

This is a very good book, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder", but it is also the most scathing commentary on Bush and his administration I've read out of 20 or so titles.

 

[Facetious]

obama is vehemently anti Second Amendment ! This is not a big deal to most here, but it is to me. By default, could obama not cause mass chaos if he'd be so bold as to make such an executive order ? Is this true ? with a supermajority, the guy can put forth an executive order to . . ?
I don't even want to finish the sentence.

Could you imagine the number of fugitives that this man could create with the stroke of a pen ?
Maybe ? :dunno:

 

[ChefChiTown]

Chef, we were already in both Iraq and Afghanistan before the 04 Election when John Kerry ran.

I know. I already acknowledged that I screwed that up.

John Kerry a pansy? Both he and Al Gore served in Vietnam will W hid behind his dadies skirts so he didn't have to go.

There's an old thread somewhere in which I voice my opinion on veterans and whatnot, but...

Just because John Kerry served in Vietnam doesn't mean that he's more of a badass than someone who didn't.

"But Chef, he was willing to risk his life for our country and it's citizen's freedom!!!"

Yeah, my father was more than willing to risk his life in Vietnam too (he actually volunteered for it), but his brother is blind and he wasn't allowed to go because, according to our government at the time, he was an only child.
(Apparently, children with disabilities don't really count as children...:dunno

So, who is more of a badass? Someone who was forced into the military (via draft) or someone who volunteered to risk their own life, but has been denied that opportunity due to unfortunate circumstance?

Oh, also...

John Kerry was (is) a huge opposer of the Vietnam War. He felt that we had no business being in Vietnam and that is was doing nothing but sending a bad message to the world. Umm...would you really want someone like THAT in office when a terrorist attack like 9/11 would happen? Instead of going to Afghanistan and sending a clear cut message of "don't fuck with us", John Kerry probably would've sat back and done nothing about it, because he probably wouldn't see a justifiable reason to attack.

:2 cents:

I should have read more of the posts in this thread. What message would that be? "Fuck you" or "Don't fuck with the US" or perhaps most of the world views it as "We don't give a fuck about any country other than our own"

Obviously, the message has changed over the years, as we currently have no business being overseas anymore (which is a completely different story). But, initially, our message was, as I stated above...

Don't fuck with us!

I'm not saying that a terrorist attack on the United States will never happen again, but since we've bombed the fuck out of Afghanistan and tore up Iraq, how many times has our country been legitimately fucked with? ZERO times. Message sent.

(I am, in no way, shape or form, claiming that George W. Bush is a good President. I am just saying that he was the right person to have in office at a time like 9/11.)

Yes, but the message sent was, the US will do the wrong thing, lie to it's own people and the world to get public support and make sure the lobbyists and defense contractors are taken care of. When going in the wrong direction, stubbornly refuse to admit the mistake as everyone you care about is making big money. At the same time, deny global warming among a host of other serious problems that will go unaddressed to the dismay of the rest of the world.

This is a very good book, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder", but it is also the most scathing commentary on Bush and his administration I've read out of 20 or so titles.

If we would've just attacked Afghanistan, shaken up Iraq and then left it at that, our message would've been viewed as "damn, we probably shouldn't mess with the US anymore".

But, unfortunately, the Bush administration dragged it's "plan" out for far, faaaar too long and it eventually got to the point where we couldn't get out. Why? Because if we would just pick up and withdraw our troops now, it would just make our country look like a big joke, as if we wussed out and said "ahh, fuck it".

:2 cents:

 

[Donkey Boy]

Until we abolish the Electoral College, go to a true popular vote, and fix all the damn voting issues (seriously, WTF Florida?!?!) your vote only kinda, sorta matters.

 

[Rattrap]

Obviously, the message has changed over the years, as we currently have no business being overseas anymore (which is a completely different story). But, initially, our message was, as I stated above...

Don't fuck with us!

I'm not saying that a terrorist attack on the United States will never happen again, but since we've bombed the fuck out of Afghanistan and tore up Iraq, how many times has our country been legitimately fucked with? ZERO times. Message sent.

The irony here is that 9/11 was their way of telling us not to fuck with them.

This isn't isn't necessarily directed to you, CCT, but to all who continuously throw out the idea that there are terrorists out there who, no matter what we do, are out to get us, therefore we can't be at all lax in defense (or defense spending).

Research shows this to be wrong. Terrorists are out there out to get us because we keep fucking with them. For decades. This is why I hate the fact that no one will touch defense spending - not only could we solve most if not all of our domestic issues (or, rather, we'd at least have the money to) with just a chunk of our defense budget, but pulling our myriad of bases from places where people view us as occupiers would largely solve our terrorist problem as well.

See:
Leaderless Jihad by Marc Sageman
Dying to Win by Robert Pape

And a quote from Osama Bin Laden himself, found here:

Oh American people, my talk to you is about the best way to avoid another Manhattan, about the war, its causes, and results.

Security is an important pillar of human life. Free people do not relinquish their security. This is contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.

Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden, for example. It is known that those who hate freedom do not have proud souls, like the souls of the 19 people [killed while perpetrating the 11 September 2001 attacks], may God have mercy on them.

We fought you because we are free and do not accept injustice. We want to restore freedom to our nation. Just as you waste our security, we will waste your security.

 

[Facetious]

But, unfortunately, the Bush administration dragged it's "plan" out for far, faaaar too long and it eventually got to the point where we couldn't get out. Why? Because if we would just pick up and withdraw our troops now, it would just make our country look like a big joke, as if we wussed out and said "ahh, fuck it".

:2 cents:

This was the result of bush's, in part, appeasement to the opposition democrats at home. I think that it was coined something about "Hearts and Minds", a strategy which essentially reinvented the way that wars are fought. If I recall correctly, no air attacks were to be used against any militant opposition - for fear of collateral damage There's collateral damage in every war, for krist sake ! How did this become top priority above and beyond the safety of our own boys ?
The opposition dems who voted for going to war, that's who. In any event, the "hearts and minds" effort only forced our guys to have to go door to door, risking their heads getting blown off, in an urban warfare setting and has extended this war . .. exactly what the dems wanted ! You see, it's a very useful tool to use at election time. :2 cents:

 

[Magnet]

I know my vote dosent matter.

And the reason why is just two words

Electoral College

 

[don_equis]

Get rid of the two party system by allowing more parties to be involved after all aren't we the beacon of democracy across the world? There are more than two ways of seeing or managing the country and we are not been given the opportunity to see the other people that are running point. Why don't they get media exposure to sell their points, these corporations take sides and heavily invest money into their favorite candidate to see who wins, that is also that needs to be looked at, contributions from large corporations. Our goverment has been hijacked for awhile and it no longer responds to the average contributing citizen concerns.

 

[AFA]

Get rid of the two party system by allowing more parties to be involved after all aren't we the beacon of democracy across the world? There are more than two ways of seeing or managing the country and we are not been given the opportunity to see the other people that are running point. Why don't they get media exposure to sell their points, these corporations take sides and heavily invest money into their favorite candidate to see who wins, that is also that needs to be looked at, contributions from large corporations. Our goverment has been hijacked for awhile and it no longer responds to the average contributing citizen concerns.

There are about 10 I believe. Bob Barr and Ralph Nader are two.

 

[ChefChiTown]

There are about 10 I believe. Bob Barr and Ralph Nader are two.

That's true, but our government, with the way that it is set up now, will never let a "third" party win. Or fourth party, fifth party, sixth party, etc.

If our government gave every candidate a fair chance at winning and gave every candidate a fair chance at getting their opinion heard on a national level, then the Presidential Debate(s) wouldn't consist of only the Democratic and Republican candidates. They would include every candidate, no matter how "popular" they are.

Back in 1987, the CPD (Commission on Presidential Debates) was created to help structuralize the Presidential Debates. The problem is that the CPD makes it mandatory for any Presidential candidate to have at least 15% of the popular vote in at least 5 different national polls in order for them to appear at a Presidential Debate. I think that's stupid. It should be fair to everyone...not just the candidates who have already been popularized by the US media.

 

[titsrock]

Good point on the Supreme Court. Yes I understand that there would be some differences but it’s not like either one is even talking about monetary policy or changing foren policy. I plan on voting for Chuck Baldwin from the Constitution party.

Please don't vote. This is a complete waste of your vote and mocks the American democratic process. Perhaps you should instead write in Scooby Doo for President. He has the same chance to get elected as Chuck Baldwin does.

Either vote for one of the legitimate candidates from our two-party system or stay home. All you'll be left with at the end of the day is a meaningless story for a cocktail party someday in the future, "Do you know who I voted for back in the '08 election...."