A stupid question...

[slutbag]

Heard a comment about how a lot of college-age kids in Wisconsin actually do vote, and I was curious to see if the pointlesspopulus is politically active or if people take for granted the right to bitch.

[Mr. Blonde]

I think I'm gonna vote in this upcoming election.

[Hot Carl]

I voted this evening... Glad I did, too. I hope John Kerry is keeping an eye out now...

[Mr. Blonde]

Who'd ya vote for?

And what party do you think you're going to vote for in the upcoming erection...er...election?

[slutbag]

Well Mr. Blonde, I voted for Dean, the first democrat I've ever supported...come November it looks like I might have to go Libritarian (I truly detest John Kerry).

[Mr. Blonde]

Why? because he looks like living death?

[Angela]

Its not because he looks like living death, its because he is living death . He is basically a Republican cloaked in the Democratic party. i was hella excited to vote for the first time. I voted for Kucinich like the good citizen i am. Incidently why vote libertarian when you can vote Green Party or even better Nader? they advocate legalizing pot, have a larger following, and they love the environment.

[Hot Carl]

Riiiiiiiiight. A vote for Kucinich or Nader isn't throwing your vote away or anything like that... it makes perfect sense...

[Ozmodiar]

Hogwash, sarcasm boy. While I do admit that the fact that the huge majority of Americans agree with the idea that if you don't support one of the two major parties you're throwing your vote away-which is a definite self fulfilling prophecy-I think it's better to vote for Mickey Mouse than not vote at all.

[slutbag]

Carl, I completely disagree with the whole "throwing yr vote away" line of bussiness. The fact is that a lot of people are disenchanted by the two major political parties--let's face it, they're both full of shit. The fact is that my vote will never go to someone that I don't feel like i can trust, or who in this case is Living Death. The fact is Kerry doesn't have the balls to stand up for gay marriage, doesn't have the balls to stand up to special interest groups, and does not give a sweet goddamn about anyone but himself. I trust him as much as I trust good ole George. If not for all the people out there who have been brainwashed into believing in this "throwing away of votes" theory, we wouldn't be stuck with all of this lesser of two evils bullshit.
As far as your comment angela, the libritarians believe in personal freedom and choice, so naturally the have a very similar platform to that of the green party or ralph nader.

[Hot Carl]

Hey, I didn't say that it's a great system, but it's a fact. Come November, if you don't vote for either Bush or whoever wins the democratic nomination, you're wasting your time. True, it's always good to participate in the vote, but if you vote for Nader or Kucinich, you're not participating in the competition. Take this past primary election for example. John Kerry is almost a shoe-in for the nomination, but John Edwards hasn't been eliminated quite yet. If John Kerry runs against Bush in November, he's going to lose. He's just not a good candidate -- I think we can all agree on that. Since I want to see a real competition in November, I voted for Edwards. Edwards has an actual chance of beating Bush, and although it's a long shot, he just might win the nomination. However, Kucinich doesn't have a chance at even winning the nomination. If you want Bush out of office, do something about it. Don't vote for a guy who doesn't even have a chance at winning the nomination, let alone beating Bush in November. And when November does roll around, vote for either Bush or Kerry or Edwards. If you want your single vote to carry any weight in the election, you have to.

Think of it this way -- if Kerry wins the nomination, and if you want Bush out of office, you should vote for Kerry -- even if you think he's living death -- because your vote for Kerry will cancel out someone else's vote for Bush. If you vote for Nader, you're allowing that other person to have his vote count for Bush. And so, essentially, as has been the saying for a while now, a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. And your vote for Kucinich in the primary was a vote for Kerry. Nice going.

And I disagree about voting for Mickey Mouse. Voting for Mickey Mouse is making a mockery of democracy and wasting the resources of vote-counting machines and/or officials. You'd be much better off just staying home.

And for the record, if it's Kerry vs. Bush in November, I'm voting for Bush. If any of you crazy Nader-supporting libs don't like it, you're going to have to vote for Kerry! However, if it's Edwards vs. Bush, I'm not sure what I'll do. It'll go right down to the wire with that one.

[lazy Ang]

Carl...i hate to say this so bluntly but you don't know shit about elections. First off edwards sucks as much as kerry does. and i really don't see that big of a difference between Kerry and Bush except for Kerry's slight liberal tendancy. Both parties suck monkey balls and as far as i am concerned corporations are rulling this contry and the citizenry has no idea of how much shit they get away with. If the populace becaomes educated they will vote for a third party that is against corprate greed. As far as wanting competition i think it would be quite interesting if Bush had another run at it and completely distroyed the nation to the point where either the citizens realize a change needs to be done or the democrats realize that they need to bring another issue forward (the issue of the working man) and change their paltform so that they get elected. I think america needs to wake up and see what is going on out there with Bretton Woods the IMF and WTO and take a stand that we want the poor to get the money not those that are already billionaires.

Incidently..corporate media rules the public opinion...as much as i think bush is the stupidest prez of all time and his constitutional amendment is indeed unconstituational these are not the type of issues that matter or should be swaying the popular vote. incidently i don't care if you vote for Bush i'm still going to vote for the canindate that i allign the most with. Thats what this country was supposed to be about.

words of thought courteously brought by Colin quin:
in a dictatorship one party rules.
while in our democracy two partys rule...one more than a democracy.

[lazy ang]

editing factor....sucks balls.....not democracy...one more than a dictatorship

[Hot Carl]

Well I'm sorry I wasted my time trying to get you to see things rationally. It was an obvious mistake, and it won't happen again . . .


I was going to leave it at that, but I just can't resist. You started off by claiming that I 'don't know shit about elections', immediately followed by your views on how corporations are ruling the nation? What exactly don't I know about elections? Are you saying that my statements about the two parties always winning is false? I know that the general public will always vote either democrat or republican, and that if I want my vote to count, I have to put it towards one of the two. Again, I'll repeat that I don't think it's the best way to do things, but it is, in fact, the way things are done, and so I have to do what I can to have my vote have any worth. Tell me where I'm wrong. You go ahead and vote for your third party candidate. Vote for the "anti-corporate greed" candidate, as apposed to the "pro-corporate greed" candidate(s). Maybe he'll rearrange the states' borders to form a big peace sign on the maps. That would be groovy. Oh, and maybe he'll tax the hell out of those rich folk so that the poor people can have some money. It's not fair that some people have lots of money and other people don't. We have to fix that.

That's the beauty of our democracy... you can vote for whoever the hell you want, and then whine about how the two party system doesn't give your independant candidate a fair chance...

Wait, I have an idea. Maybe those independant candidates don't stand a chance at winning the elections because nobody wants them in office!

Alright, I'm going to bed.

[dannyd]

Now while I won't say that Carl "don't know shit" about elections (because he's got some pretty darn good points and he's simply looking at things realistically), I will say that I disagree with you, Carl. The reason is simple. Democracy is supposed to mean that you can vote for whichever candidate you think would make the best president, whether they're republican, democrat, green party or whatever. Limiting yourself to two candidates because they're the only ones who "have a shot" not only throws the entire system of democracy out the window, but that's also the attitude that creates the dominance of the two parties. If everyone goes into the election with the notion that they have to vote either republican or democrat for their vote to matter (which they pretty much do), then of course their candidates are going to be the only ones who "have a shot." I sure wish I knew the term for which logical fallacy that is, but I'm pretty sure it's one of them. I'm not saying I believe I'm going to change anything by voting for Nader or Kucinich. It's purely an ethical decision, however futile and hopeless it may be. Vote your conscience. Don't worry about "throwing your vote away." As long as your actually using your constitutional right to vote, you're not throwing away your vote.