• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

2008 American Presidential Election

Who would you prefer to see lead the United States?

  • Total voters
    92
I too support people who are complete dicks, the other one's obviously worse since his fundamental message is change.
Have you looked into his actual piolicies? All of them are 1000 times better than McCain's. He has his thing too: Obama's all 'Change!' and McCain's all 'I AM A WAR HERO I WAS IN THE WAR THIS INSTANTLY MAKES ME A GOOD CANDIDATE DID I TELL YOU I WAS A PRISONER OF WAR THE WAR THE WAR THE WAR i cant lift my arms ):'
 
Ruby said:
You blindly support anyone who isn't vague?
Click to expand...

best thing to do if other candidates are vague, politics are not ideal but sometimes it's a choice between having half an idiot in charge and a complete nutjob, so you know
 
Altmer said:
best thing to do if other candidates are vague, politics are not ideal but sometimes it's a choice between having half an idiot in charge and a complete nutjob, so you know
Click to expand...

It's better to choose the vague risk than the guaranteed idiot.
 
Altmer said:
i guess that is a trade-off you have to make, it depends on what vague risks involve
Click to expand...

You're right, of course; it varies with the situation. In this situation Obama is unlikely to be worse than McCain even if Obama is a sore disappointment.

And Crazy Weavile isn't making a trade-off.
 
Yes, he's making a tradeoff between obama's change politics and mccains war politics, but it's ironic that he's calling Obama stagnant when his whole electoral programme revolves around change
 
Altmer said:
Yes, he's making a tradeoff between obama's change politics and mccains war politics, but it's ironic that he's calling Obama stagnant when his whole electoral programme revolves around change
Click to expand...

Crazy Weavile seems to have focused entirely on Obama's change politics and ignored McCain's war politics.
 
Nader sounds like a better choice to me. His platform sound good to me.

It's suprising how many people here are saying "Both of the main onessuck, but I'll vote for this sucky guy because he sucks less than this other sucky guy." Shame on you! >:( You have fifteen other third party people listed for you and many more you can write in.
 
ChronaMew said:
It's suprising how many people here are saying "Both of the main onessuck, but I'll vote for this sucky guy because he sucks less than this other sucky guy." Shame on you! >:( You have fifteen other third party people listed for you and many more you can write in.
Click to expand...
Voting for third parties makes the member of the main party that is more like your favoured candidate have a lower chance of winning and third party candidates do not win major elections. :| with the current system, there is no reason to vote for a third party.
 
surskitty said:
Voting for third parties makes the member of the main party that is more like your favoured candidate have a lower chance of winning and third party candidates do not win major elections. :| with the current system, there is no reason to vote for a third party.
Click to expand...

Let me tell ya a story about a third party.

Back when slavery was still around, some people didn't like it. One day, they decided to make a party that would end it. This party also wanted to modernize the United States in other ways such as education and urbanization. It was called the "Republican Party". With success and support, it took eight years for one of its candidates, Abraham Lincoln, to become president. Today, the party has a large following. Would slavery had ended quicker if they just depended on the Whigs or Democrats to do it? Fudge no. You've got to vote for the best option that you feel is right. Not one of the main guys because he "supports slavery less".
 
at that point in time, there was an opening for a third party to replace one of the existing parties as neither disagreed sufficiently for many people's tastes. there is currently no issue that enough people are going to care about enough to get a sizable membership for any particular third party. as such, there's no real point in voting for a third party at this point in time and will currently help whoever you disagree with more.
 
ChronaMew said:
This party also wanted to modernize the United States in other ways such as education and urbanization. It was called the "Republican Party".
Click to expand...
and we're still waiting on them. zing


So can anyone in this thread except me even vote in this election? :V And why are we hatin' on Obama.
 
Iibui said:
and we're still waiting on them. zing
Click to expand...

Who's "we"? Democrats? Independents? The Green Party? The Prohibition Party? Did you not get the point I was trying to make? >:(

surskitty, there is always a point in time where we need to vote for parties we feel are right! If I am, say, a person (over 18 roffle) who wants troops to come home, but I do not support national healthcare, then what's the point to vote for either candidate? I should have the right to vote for someone with my ideals, even if that person's not a big guy.
 
However, not enough people are going to vote with you in the presidential election for it to be worthwhile. Third-party candidates do not win presidential elections. They do okay in some areas for congressmen, and certainly can win more localized elections than that, but presidential elections?
 
Okay, then. Let's say you're a Democrat in a red state that's always been a red state. What's the point of voting Democrat? Might as well vote for McCain because not enough people are going to vote with you to give electoral votes to Obama.

See what I mean?

That kind of idea should not be wound so tightly that we should be voting for people that we think would suck in office. We can vote for anybody we want! Why limit ourselves?
 
even if the state is consistently on one particular side, people are prone to waffling. it's not an accurate comparison because enough people can waffle in a particular state for you to still have a chance. vote for a third party and you're defeated before you've begun. this, btw, is why i hate the two-party system.
 
the reason I hate it is because it's choosing between shit and utter shit, you guys have right-wing politics and more right-wing politics :/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom