Originally posted by Devil King
Yes, very wrong. Especially since we all know he likely won't be voting at all.
If he were though, he's use one of the three standard women's method. Vote for the person their father voted for, their husband voted for or who they think is "hottest." You can guess which method he'd go with.
Originally posted by Robtard
If he were though, he's use one of the three standard women's method. Vote for the person their father voted for, their husband voted for or who they think is "hottest." You can guess which method he'd go with.
1) MY father voted for Bush. Death to my father.
2) My Husband dand I are now divorced
3) None of the Candidates are hot. Except for John Edwards..holy shit, I know who I'm voting for now. THANKS A BUNCH ! 😄
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
1) MY father voted for Bush. Death to my father.2) My Husband dand I are now divorced
3) None of the Candidates are hot. Except for John Edwards..holy shit, I know who I'm voting for now. THANKS A BUNCH ! 😄
Sometimes you bring up good points...and sometimes you really, really scare me.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Which they have been quite good at the last two elections.
Exactly. But Democrats were kind of stupid electing John Kerry. That is why they lost. I liked Al Gore. He certainly showed down most candidates from most parties when it comes to intelligence. Bush was all right when he was first nominated (certainly miles ahead of Dole in my opinion), but he shouldn't have beaten Gore. He really only got a second term because he was running against another idiot on the Democrat side.
Of all the smart people these parties could nominate...they pick a lot of dopes.
Originally posted by Robtard
You don't have to share my opinion, but I do feel that "electability" should be a consideration when choosing who you support, that is also my "right as a voter." Supporting a candidate who can't win, is essentially throwing out your vote. Like I said, I'd rather have a guy in office that shares some of my views and will accomplished some of what I want, than a guy who shares all my views, yet won't be able to accomplish anything for me.As far as your "dishonesty, betraying etc. etc. etc." I never said "vote for a guy that you didn't want to vote for", now did I.
*kicks soapbox from under your foolish feet*
That is perfectly fine to make "electability" as one of your presidential requirements because that is your right as a voter...but isn't that rather immature? Think about it for a bit and let it sink in before you respond.
You did indirectly say vote for the guy you didn't want to vote for and I'll explain why. By saying you would rather vote for a person that shares 60% of your views rather than the guy who shares 90% of your views because of electability, you are, in a way, saying that you will not vote for the guy you want in office. True that you could just call that "I'm voting for my second choice" but IF that wasn't your first choice...you didn't vote for the person you TRULY wanted in office. You are not throwing your vote away at all if you vote for the person you that shares the most views with you...what if everyone voted the for the person they wanted in office rather than the person that they think will win?
The reason you don't want to vote for a person that you think will lose even IF they share most of your views is you don't want to lose...rather immature, imo.
*points and laughs of Robtard because dadudemon already stepped off of the soapbox...then realizes that Robtard kicked dadudemon in the feet and dadudemon wimpers in pain*
Originally posted by dadudemon
That is perfectly fine to make "electability" as one of your presidential requirements because that is your right as a voter...but isn't that rather immature? Think about it for a bit and let it sink in before you respond.You did indirectly say vote for the guy you didn't want to vote for and I'll explain why. By saying you would rather vote for a person that shares 60% of your views rather than the guy who shares 90% of your views because of electability, you are, in a way, saying that you will not vote for the guy you want in office. True that you could just call that "I'm voting for my second choice" but IF that wasn't your first choice...you didn't vote for the person you TRULY wanted in office. You are not throwing your vote away at all if you vote for the person you that shares the most views with you...what if everyone voted the for the person they wanted in office rather than the person that they think will win?
The reason you don't want to vote for a person that you think will lose even IF they share most of your views is you don't want to lose...rather immature, imo.
*points and laughs of Robtard because dadudemon already stepped off of the soapbox...then realizes that Robtard kicked dadudemon in the feet and dadudemon wimpers in pain*
For a so called genius, you sure do act like an idiot.
No, it isn't immature, regarding "electability"... If there is a candidate that comes out and says he/she will make world peace happen, end homelessness, pass bills that will both fund and find the cures for HIV & Cancer, lower the deficit to zero and give everyone in the US all their tax money back, would you vote for them them? No, you wouldn't, because you're (hopefully) smart enough to realize they are both not electable and do not have the ability/pull to accomplish their goals. So voting for him/her, wouldn't accomplish anything, while voting for a guy that does share some/half/a good percentage of your views, is electable and has the ability to accomplish said goals would.
It has nothing to do with "so I can say my guy won", clown. You also gleened that from DK, you plagerizing asshat.
edit: No, it wouldn't be a "second choice" either, because if a guy isn't electable or couldn't accomplish his/her goals, then he wouldn't really be a choice to begin with. That's why "electability" is considered in the 'big picture'.
Originally posted by Quark_666
Exactly. But Democrats were kind of stupid electing John Kerry. That is why they lost. I liked Al Gore. He certainly showed down most candidates from most parties when it comes to intelligence. Bush was all right when he was first nominated (certainly miles ahead of Dole in my opinion), but he shouldn't have beaten Gore. He really only got a second term because he was running against another idiot on the Democrat side.Of all the smart people these parties could nominate...they pick a lot of dopes.
...why do you like that moron Gore?
Originally posted by Robtard
For a so called genius, you sure do act like an idiot.No, it isn't immature, regarding "electability"... If there is a candidate that comes out and says he/she will make world peace happen, end homelessness, pass bills that will both fund and find the cures for HIV & Cancer, lower the deficit to zero and give everyone in the US all their tax money back, would you vote for them them? No, you wouldn't, because you're (hopefully) smart enough to realize they are both not electable and do not have the ability/pull to accomplish their goals. So voting for him/her, wouldn't accomplish anything, while voting for a guy that does share some/half/a good percentage of your views, is electable and has the ability to accomplish said goals would.
It has nothing to do with "so I can say my guy won", clown. You also gleened that from DK, you plagerizing asshat.
edit: No, it wouldn't be a "second choice" either, because if a guy isn't electable or couldn't accomplish his/her goals, then he wouldn't really be a choice to begin with. That's why "electability" is considered in the 'big picture'.
Actually, I was thinking that for someone who actually knows something about politics, you certainly act like an idiot about this voting shit.
I didn't "gleen"* shit from anyone...is it REALLY that hard to see that? Could it be that you are just immature about it...Mr. "I call peepul who r asshats because that winz teh duhbates!!!1!1!".
It is very immature to use that point of view when casting your vote...Electability: the ability of a candidate to be elected. The ability of someone to be elected varies directly with the number of votes one receives...if you vote for the person you agree with and know are a good choice for president...their electability depends on your vote...dumbass/asshat/upside down poopy dick, etc.
Who cares what others think about your candidate...if YOU think they would be the best choice for president...vote for that shit in a heart beat. Is it really that hard to understand? If someone is not electable to you..then you shouldn't agree with that persons campaigning points 90% of the time..now should you? If someone says they want something to happen and it is something that you want to but they don't have a logical "how to" for it..then you shouldn't be agreeing with their poit
and to your asinine comments about a candidate that sounds too good to be true...that shit would obviously surface as B.S. eventually...that is definitely NOT what you and I were talking about and you know it...you are reaching now just to be right...when in reality, there really isn't a right or wrong here because it is your right as a voter to vote immaturely...I'm just pointing out how your immature approach to voting is contradictory to you being an educated voter.
Obviously it wouldn't be a "second choice" because you are voting for someone that you think is a better candidate BECAUSE you think they are more electable.
Someone made an excellent point earlier that if a person is elected where you only agreed with that candidate 60% of the time...and the candidate gets bills and policy approved/implemented for the 40% that you DIDN'T agree with...you just screwed yourself...also, that logic is thrown out of the window to begin with because if you have an "asshat" get elected into office that promised the world...obviously ALL of that shit wouldn't get passed and some good MIGHT actually come from a "miss America" type.
My point is...IF you are going to be an educated voter...don't be a dumbass and vote for someone because you think they have a better change of winning...vote for the person that YOU think best represents your interests....PERIOD...if that person happens to be someone you agree with only 60% of the time...then so be it...but if there is a person out that the you can honestly determine to share most of your views AND that candidate provides a "how to" to accomplish those that isn't just hot air...then vote for that shit regardless of whether or not you think that person will win...that is what democracy is about. Don't let the propaganda machines get to you so that you think you have to vote for one person over another based off of "electability"...vote for the person that best represents your interests in an educated way. It ain't hard.
*that is in quotes for more than one reason...I'll let you figure both reasons out.
Also, about your "genius" comments...
You are just pissed because you have to study to pass tests nya nya 😛
also...I didn't proofread this because it was too long...I apologize in advanced.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, I was thinking that for someone who actually knows something about politics, you certainly act like an idiot about this voting shit.I didn't "gleen"* shit from anyone...is it REALLY that hard to see that? Could it be that you are just immature about it...Mr. "I call peepul who r asshats because that winz teh duhbates!!!1!1!".
It is very immature to use that point of view when casting your vote...Electability: the ability of a candidate to be elected. The ability of someone to be elected varies directly with the number of votes one receives...if you vote for the person you agree with and know are a good choice for president...their electability depends on your vote...dumbass/asshat/upside down poopy dick, etc.
Who cares what others think about your candidate...if YOU think they would be the best choice for president...vote for that shit in a heart beat. Is it really that hard to understand? If someone is not electable to you..then you shouldn't agree with that persons campaigning points 90% of the time..now should you? If someone says they want something to happen and it is something that you want to but they don't have a logical "how to" for it..then you shouldn't be agreeing with their poit
and to your asinine comments about a candidate that sounds too good to be true...that shit would obviously surface as B.S. eventually...that is definitely NOT what you and I were talking about and you know it...you are reaching now just to be right...when in reality, there really isn't a right or wrong here because it is your right as a voter to vote immaturely...I'm just pointing out how your immature approach to voting is contradictory to you being an educated voter.
Obviously it wouldn't be a "second choice" because you are voting for someone that you think is a better candidate BECAUSE you think they are more electable.
Someone made an excellent point earlier that if a person is elected where you only agreed with that candidate 60% of the time...and the candidate gets bills and policy approved/implemented for the 40% that you DIDN'T agree with...you just screwed yourself...also, that logic is thrown out of the window to begin with because if you have an "asshat" get elected into office that promised the world...obviously ALL of that shit wouldn't get passed and some good MIGHT actually come from a "miss America" type.
My point is...IF you are going to be an educated voter...don't be a dumbass and vote for someone because you think they have a better change of winning...vote for the person that YOU think best represents your interests....PERIOD...if that person happens to be someone you agree with only 60% of the time...then so be it...but if there is a person out that the you can honestly determine to share most of your views AND that candidate provides a "how to" to accomplish those that isn't just hot air...then vote for that shit regardless of whether or not you think that person will win...that is what democracy is about. Don't let the propaganda machines get to you so that you think you have to vote for one person over another based off of "electability"...vote for the person that best represents your interests in an educated way. It ain't hard.
*that is in quotes for more than one reason...I'll let you figure both reasons out.
Also, about your "genius" comments...
You are just pissed because you have to study to pass tests nya nya 😛also...I didn't proofread this because it was too long...I apologize in advanced.
I can now sympathize as to why people have put you on ignore... you ignore the points made, attach your own idiot-thoughts to others and rabble on and on like the village idiot.
As usual, you end with the "your pissed" I.D.T.; it's typical of you and it's tiring... when you're ready to discuss the points I've actually made and thoughts I've actually expressed, let me know.
Originally posted by Robtard
For a so called genius, you sure do act like an idiot.No, it isn't immature, regarding "electability"... If there is a candidate that comes out and says he/she will make world peace happen, end homelessness, pass bills that will both fund and find the cures for HIV & Cancer, lower the deficit to zero and give everyone in the US all their tax money back, would you vote for them them? No, you wouldn't, because you're (hopefully) smart enough to realize they are both not electable and do not have the ability/pull to accomplish their goals. So voting for him/her, wouldn't accomplish anything, while voting for a guy that does share some/half/a good percentage of your views, is electable and has the ability to accomplish said goals would.
It has nothing to do with "so I can say my guy won", clown. You also gleened that from DK, you plagerizing asshat.
edit: No, it wouldn't be a "second choice" either, because if a guy isn't electable or couldn't accomplish his/her goals, then he wouldn't really be a choice to begin with. That's why "electability" is considered in the 'big picture'.
I think it shouldn't be voting on who necessarily has the best chance of winning and/or best chancing of getting things accomplished but who has the best chance of representing your beliefs and ideas. I'd rather vote for my beliefs and only one of those beliefs have a bill come to fruition to stop it (say for example, stop people from being homeless) than vote for someone I primarily disagree with just because they may win or may get more accomplished.
I just don't get how you can have that kind of foresight. But uh, what is so radical about anything Ron Paul is saying that lends you to believe he can't get anything accomplished?