the debate

[SNiFFeR]

Well let's see. I was very confused, I started off the debate being a Kerry fan for sure. But after the debate I'm not sure who I want.

Kerry's points came across as opposite of what bush wanted, yet, he had no stance.

While Bush, a horrible public speaker I might add. I don't agree with his stance on practically anything, so I'm probably going to go Nadar.

[quasi-modo]

voting for a third party is considered by some to be throwing away a vote though.

[Hitmen]

voting for a third party is considered by some to be throwing away a vote though.

Those people are called 'stupid'.

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

Or we could just do what 70% of the population (correctly) does,

DON'T VOTE!

I'm 100% against voting.

[SNiFFeR]

$t0rm although that seems like a good idea, but if those 70% of the population voted for nader we would all be happy.

[quasi-modo]

$t0rm although that seems like a good idea, but if those 70% of the population voted for nader we would all be happy.

I wouldn't. I am a bit of a fiscal libertarian, but even if Badnarik were to be elected I would not be happy. He is a goof ball on everything else (from what I have seen. On many issues the libertarian stance seems to be just... strange). I have not seen a single third party candidate this year that I liked.

[hismajesty]

$t0rm although that seems like a good idea, but if those 70% of the population voted for nader we would all be happy.

But that won't happen, Nader has less than 1% in the polls. It's impossible for a third party to win due to the winner-take-all system we have.

I do agree that it's throwing your vote away to not vote for somebody that could win, or to not vote at all. If you don't vote - you shouldn't have the right to complain about government imo.

Oh yea, Nader isn't even on the Virginian ticket.

[muert0]

But in that aspect if you always vote for one of the two main parties because you think that's the only way you are going to vote for the winner then you are stunting the democracy of the whole thing by making it stay a two party system. But whatever I think it's just said that a country so advanced can't produce a real leader. We've got a trigger-happy guy who can't complete a sentance on his own and a guy who can't make a solid decision because he's scared of what half the people think.

[quasi-modo]

The only time our country has not been divided into two parties was during the era of good feelings, and that was because we only had one party at that point. Because you need a majority to win an election without the decision going before the legislature our system will only favor two parties. The only roll a third party plays in the election is by taking up a very small percent of the votes making it harder a tad harder for either major party to get a majority. Nader just barely got on the ballot on Florida, he will not get a single electoral vote out of our state. If they guy is not getting any electoral votes it really is kind of pointless to vote for him.

[SNiFFeR]

But in that aspect if you always vote for one of the two main parties because you think that's the only way you are going to vote for the winner then you are stunting the democracy of the whole thing by making it stay a two party system. But whatever I think it's just said that a country so advanced can't produce a real leader. We've got a trigger-happy guy who can't complete a sentance on his own and a guy who can't make a solid decision because he's scared of what half the people think.

Thats why I should be president, because I don't care what people think.

[Hitmen]

If they guy is not getting any electoral votes it really is kind of pointless to vote for him.

No it isn't. If a third party gets 5% of the popular vote (not too unlikely--it's happend before), their party is automatically on the ballot the next year, and it gives them access to public funding or something like that.

[Arta]

Kerry did offer solutions. He wants bilateral talks with N. Korea. He wants to earn back the US's reputation in the rest of the world (which is in *tatters*), by listening to other countries and being diplomatic, and becoming involved with international efforts to make the world a better place. In his words, 'statesmanship'. He wants to impose a moritorium on executions. These are substantive actions. Bush also talked about actions. Both bashed eachother, as they should have done, and both offered solutions, as they should have done. The question is, who do you agree with?

Everyone should stop talking about mudslinging, bashing, and all this bollocks. It's *designed* to stop you from looking at what really counts: who's more qualified? Who's more a experienced person? Who's got the best record, over their lifetime, according to your worldview? Who'd be a better president? Both of them have good points. I just agree with more of Kerry's.

[Stealth]

Who's more a experienced person?

Well, Bush has served as President through September 11th, and a war which even if you disagree on whether or not we should be there, nearly everyone agrees is being handled correctly strategically. He is clearly a strong, capable, moral leader, something which I believe John Kerry can never be.

Who's got the best record, over their lifetime, according to your worldview?

While our worldviews differ, I'm sure, Kerry's record over his 20 years in the Senate is not very remarkable at all. He's simply another liberal career politician saying whatever he can to get elected.

[SNiFFeR]

Well, Bush has served as President through September 11th, and a war which even if you disagree on whether or not we should be there, nearly everyone agrees is being handled correctly strategically. He is clearly a strong, capable, moral leader, something which I believe John Kerry can never be.

But to whos morals? Everyone has different morals, different beliefs. So people believe what he did was immoral, so it's all on perception and interpretation. I believe what Arta said.

[Stealth]

"Strong, capable" and "leader" still stand...