I think it is wasted to, Nader has run every year forever it seems. I think a valid thrid party candidate would make it more sensible. Perot or Anderson mattered perhaps. They can change an election, just ask Bush Sr. or Al Gore.
Charlie Gibson Interviews Palin
- Thread starter WhatsHisNuts
- Start date
- Sep 13, 2005
- 2,896
- 24
- 38
yeah...the community organizer`s the experienced guy....lol...i want to hear more about those "57" states in our union(actually,there are 57 muslim states....oops!)....
ii will say this...she made a HUGE mistake letting those lefties at abc edit the interview...should have made them agree to air it unedited....
lesson learned...
btw...that pinky ring wearing,looking down the glasses at the end of his nose snob/metrosexual charlie gibson is getting his ass reemed for the disrespectful way he handled the interview....
believe me...this is good...every perceived insult gains her more votes...
the dunces on the left...always willing to fulfill a self-defeating prophecy......
As someone who will probably vote for McCain but doesn't respect this decision at all, let me ask you this,
Why do you justify one bad candidate (Palin) by comparing her to Obama? At the age of 72, McCain has a 25% or so chance of dying in office and it is incumbent on him to make a good choice. So why do republicans justify it by comparing her shortcomings to Obama's. And you give up your credibility by calling Charlie Gibson a leftie. Come up with something better than that.
Point #1=I will not play their game,so I will play my game. Nader knows he can't win and I know that he can't win so its Nader or Barr or write in vote for RON PAUL who I do like the most.
Point #2= Ross Perot isn't running. When he did run, I voted for him.
Point #3= The biggest reason of all to vote for a third party is to let the two BIG parties know that there is a protest vote. If the protest vote gets big enough then and only then will a candidate that is capable of winning take that road.The hard road that a third candidate must travel.A road with not much if any corporate backing.A road with a weasel or a barking dog behind every tree. You know that the real power and the two major parties would do just about anything to keep a third party from even running much less if they thought a third party might win. Assassination would be on the table.
Last edited:
The problem is that every vote for Nader is a vote for for Bush, er McCain. Third parties have to put someone up who has a chance of winning. Twenty or 30 years ago Nader would have been a great choice, But not now. Besides not having a chance the guy is out of touch and his presence makes the very things he is against stronger. I don't love Obama because I don't know much about him. But the one thing I do know is that he is not Bush or McCain. And that is why I am voting for him. My protest vote is not going to Nader so that we can have 4 more years of the attack against the middle class. My protest vote goes to Obama.:director: :director:
Consider it a risk worth taking Stevie. I'm more passionate about derailing the current system than I am about either candidate or against either candidate. This system is a joke and they are playing the American people for suckers. The way Ron Paul was treated in the early debates should have told you everything about this system....engineered for their gain, not ours.
Thanks AR and Terryray:
Finally some real reasoning on this. I know what you guys pointed out as been said over and over but in the context of barry's qualifications vs Palin's, it seems to have hit home in this thread.
As I see some of the rats leaving the obama ship:142smilie :mj07:
And a few of the left wing loons are worried heh stevie.:shrug: :142smilie :00hour
Finally some real reasoning on this. I know what you guys pointed out as been said over and over but in the context of barry's qualifications vs Palin's, it seems to have hit home in this thread.
As I see some of the rats leaving the obama ship:142smilie :mj07:
And a few of the left wing loons are worried heh stevie.:shrug: :142smilie :00hour
Yeah Don, that's what I hoped for too. I voted for Nader in '96 and '00 because I thought he was America's best hope for change. Unfortunately, I think Nader's popularity peaked in '00 and he'll never be a viable 3rd party candidate again. I couldn't stand the thought of 4 more years of Dubya so I voted for Kerry in '04. Now, the thought of 4 years of Exxon John McBush and Dan Quayle in Tina Fey glasses and a skirt is just as hard to accept.
- Feb 12, 2000
- 10,652
- 39
- 48
- 50
100% agree here.
I am so tired of a few items in this campaign run:
1. Relating Obama to Muslim
2. McCain = Bush
3. Voting against something instead of FOR something. I don't think I have heard one person saying they would vote for Obama actually FOR something.
4. Change - what a fecking joke
5. Wasted votes (nothing new to this campaign) - there's no such thing as a wasted vote. Probably could be argued that it is more of a waste of a vote to go with one of the two duopoly parties because no matter which one gets in, you're getting the same bullshit.
<stepping off the soapbox>
That is the first thing you ever said that made sense. Of course I am worried. Aren't you? Or are you happy with the choices? :0corn
