Quite a straw man, and you are being obtuse.
Now I’m idiotic? Coming from a fucking retard like you, that’s pretty harsh indeed.
Thanks for the simplistic civics lesson, though. Gosh, it’s really a shame my thought process when casting my ballot was “I’m going to vote my conscience” rather than “This will tend to help the candidate that is furthest from my views”. Maybe that’s because a) I don’t agree with your analysis; and b) both candidates were pretty far from my views. It’s your brand of pessimistic, repeating-what-all-the-pundits-say “thinking” that keeps any third party options basically off the table - “We’re never going to topple the two-party system, so the lesser of two evils is the only morally correct choice”. It’s not only smug in its assumption that the vast majority of the voting populace is too stupid to think for itself, but it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think Bush is a shitty president, and I think Kerry would have been a (not-quite-as) shitty president. So morally, for me, neither was an option. So if I’m going to be stuck with someone I don’t like anyway, at least I can try to bump up the percentage of third-party votes in the hope that some day the numbers will be significant enough to allow them a real shot at higher office.
As far as Nader siphoning votes from Gore in 2000: good. It was the first encouraging sign to me that anybody outside the Dems and Pubs could affect the political process in any kind of meaningful way (and are you saying Nader - who I didn’t vote for then, BTW - was the sole cause of Bush winning in 2000? Way I remember it, there was plenty of chicanery going on that had nothing to do with Nader). But you go on “thinking for yourself”, as you so often claim to do, and keep the bullshit system healthy. I’m sure people have tried to explain it before, while you hold your hands over your ears and scream “lalalalalalal”. Stupid cunt.
Strawman?
When, exactly, will we be rid of you?
Fool.
That’s the fallacy of appeal to authority and it ignores the fact that Kucinich was answering that in the context of the primaries in the hopes of being nominated. He was electable if he had been nominated. If the President were elected by a majority (instead of a plurality as is the case) in a nationwide election (instead of the electoral college), then you’d have a President wtih 50 percent plus one vote not needing a run-off. The general election in Nov is best explained as a run-off. The electoral college, developed to give the slave states more political power than they would otherwise have, is an anachronism that is less than ideal as far as one person one vote goes. But that’s what history has given us. Anyone who ignores that or doesn’t study it enough to understand it is just a poopyhead.
Harriet Miers, is that you?
Mother of mercy you’re a fucking moron.
It has nothing to do with the fallacy of appeal to authority.
Here’s my quote:
Note that I did not state that I was happy with Bush. I stated that I’m glad Bush is Prez instead of Kerry. Read it twice and you may catch the (not so) subtle difference.
Very little, other than not being John Kerry, which in this case is enough.
I repeat, next time offer up a candidate I can vote for. It ain’t that hard. I voted for Clinton twice and Carter twice. (Admittedly, it turned out that my second vote for Carter was a mistake, since it was a vote against Reagan. I corrected that error the second time Reagan ran.)
Okay, why is that? On what basis do you conclude Kerry would have done an even worse job?
If you won’t tell us your standards, how can we understand how Bush can meet them but no Democrat can?
Cripes, that is kind of unexpected. You’d vote for Carter and Clinton, but not Kerry? Not Kerry over Bush?
Well, if you feel you did the right thing…
You point is taken, if one can vote for Reagan, one can vote for a bowl of cold oatmeal. But I think the thrust of the question was not to have you affirm that you don’t like Kerry, but to probe for some reason. Not all that complicated, really.
Dude, it’s pointless. I wish I hadn’t let the little prick get under my skin, because I now feel dumber for having attempted to argue with him. Leave him to babble randomly into the void and you’ll walk away feeling cleansed.
No, I was mocking the OP’s hysteria over the Bush election, a year after the fact. As I said.
Believe what you like. I am not naive enough to pretend that I could express myself in such a way that the nattering ninnies of the “Bush sux” contingent could not react with the usual bullshit barrage.
I swear, you folks are the whiniest bunch in captivity. Nothing but Bush-hatred 24/7, and the instant you get even a trace of it back, you strike these self-righteous poses like it means something.
Ah well. Enjoy your circle jerk. I will still be here when you are done.
Regards,
Shodan
Point.
Well, I, for one, would like to thank you for helping to raise the tone of political discussions.
Oh, no, that’s quite all right! Don’t tarry on our account, I’m sure there are many who are keening for your brilliant sartorial analysis of the Emperor’s New Flight Suit.
From the OP?
:dubious:
Good luck with that.
Regards,
Shodan
Kerry was one of them. You know. Starts with a C? Ends with a c?
Shodan, you know full well that when you respond to a thread you’re not only talking to one person.
Critic? Couric? Cynic? Wha?
Catholic.