CS.Com Election 2012

[GSUhooligan]

Only 34 folks voted? That's disappointing.

[Chizzang]

Oh Crap..!!!
Johnson is in the lead... Now 89hen is going to ride me like Sea Biscuit



I deserve this - that which cometh my way

[89Hen]

Oh Crap..!!!
Johnson is in the lead... Now 89hen is going to ride me like Sea Biscuit



I deserve this - that which cometh my way

Nah, just being right is reward enough.

[GSUhooligan]

WhoTF voted for Virgil Goode? He's like a poor man's Ron Paul, mixed with the worst of Rick Santorum.

[UNI88]

I'm still trying to figure out how ANYBODY could vote for either of the other two guys..?
How is that even possible - frankly it's baffling

But seriously, do you think a vote for Gary Johnson will send ANY kind of message? Do you think he'll get more than 18.9% of the popular vote?

The popular vote is irrelevant. If you live in a clearly blue or red state, your state's electoral votes are pretty much already decided so why not vote for GJ? And even if I lived in a battleground state, I'm not sure I could cast a vote for either of the big 2 buffoons.

[89Hen]

But seriously, do you think a vote for Gary Johnson will send ANY kind of message? Do you think he'll get more than 18.9% of the popular vote?

The popular vote is irrelevant. If you live in a clearly blue or red state, your state's electoral votes are pretty much already decided so why not vote for GJ? And even if I lived in a battleground state, I'm not sure I could cast a vote for either of the big 2 buffoons.

Huh? Popular vote is all that matters with a vote for GJ. He will receive ZERO electoral votes, so the only message you can send with a vote for GJ is it showing up in the popular vote.

Ross Perot received 18.9% of the popular vote in 1992. In 1996 he received 8.4%. Since then Ralph Nader received 2.74%, 0.38% and 0.56% in the following elections.

My point was that if things didn't change after somebody got 18.9% of the votes, why do you think a vote for Gary Johnson will do anything to change the future? Over/under on GJ is 1%.

[CAA Flagship]

The popular vote is irrelevant. If you live in a clearly blue or red state, your state's electoral votes are pretty much already decided so why not vote for GJ? And even if I lived in a battleground state, I'm not sure I could cast a vote for either of the big 2 buffoons.

Huh? Popular vote is all that matters with a vote for GJ. He will receive ZERO electoral votes, so the only message you can send with a vote for GJ is it showing up in the popular vote.

Ross Perot received 18.9% of the popular vote in 1992. In 1996 he received 8.4%. Since then Ralph Nader received 2.74%, 0.38% and 0.56% in the following elections.

My point was that if things didn't change after somebody got 18.9% of the votes, why do you think a vote for Gary Johnson will do anything to change the future? Over/under on GJ is 1%.

It's Friday afternoon and the weather is warm and the statistics you are throwing out do not involve golf. What the hell is going on here? How come you are not on the course?

[89Hen]

Huh? Popular vote is all that matters with a vote for GJ. He will receive ZERO electoral votes, so the only message you can send with a vote for GJ is it showing up in the popular vote.

Ross Perot received 18.9% of the popular vote in 1992. In 1996 he received 8.4%. Since then Ralph Nader received 2.74%, 0.38% and 0.56% in the following elections.

My point was that if things didn't change after somebody got 18.9% of the votes, why do you think a vote for Gary Johnson will do anything to change the future? Over/under on GJ is 1%.

It's Friday afternoon and the weather is warm and the statistics you are throwing out do not involve golf. What the hell is going on here? How come you are not on the course?

The forecast today was for rain and I'm contemplating giving up the game. I can't score worth a shit these days. Haven't broken 80 in weeks.

[AZGrizFan]

It's Friday afternoon and the weather is warm and the statistics you are throwing out do not involve golf. What the hell is going on here? How come you are not on the course?

The forecast today was for rain and I'm contemplating giving up the game. I can't score worth a shit these days. Haven't broken 80 in weeks.

what are you? A donk? Conks don't give up...

[GSUhooligan]

The popular vote is irrelevant. If you live in a clearly blue or red state, your state's electoral votes are pretty much already decided so why not vote for GJ? And even if I lived in a battleground state, I'm not sure I could cast a vote for either of the big 2 buffoons.

Huh? Popular vote is all that matters with a vote for GJ. He will receive ZERO electoral votes, so the only message you can send with a vote for GJ is it showing up in the popular vote.

Ross Perot received 18.9% of the popular vote in 1992. In 1996 he received 8.4%. Since then Ralph Nader received 2.74%, 0.38% and 0.56% in the following elections.

My point was that if things didn't change after somebody got 18.9% of the votes, why do you think a vote for Gary Johnson will do anything to change the future? Over/under on GJ is 1%.

Things did change after Ross got 18.9%, the Commission on Presidential Debates (controlled by the two parties) "outlawed" third parties. Most people don't pay attention to anything except the debates, so it is almost impossible to make noise without a presence there. That's why there hasn't been a repeat performance of '92, not because there isn't interest, but because it is a rigged system.

[psychoCAT]

Obama

[Seahawks08]

Things did change after Ross got 18.9%, the Commission on Presidential Debates (controlled by the two parties) "outlawed" third parties. Most people don't pay attention to anything except the debates, so it is almost impossible to make noise without a presence there. That's why there hasn't been a repeat performance of '92, not because there isn't interest, but because it is a rigged system.

^^This^^

Also why none of the major networks will be showing the third parties debate on Tuesday.

[89Hen]

Huh? Popular vote is all that matters with a vote for GJ. He will receive ZERO electoral votes, so the only message you can send with a vote for GJ is it showing up in the popular vote.

Ross Perot received 18.9% of the popular vote in 1992. In 1996 he received 8.4%. Since then Ralph Nader received 2.74%, 0.38% and 0.56% in the following elections.

My point was that if things didn't change after somebody got 18.9% of the votes, why do you think a vote for Gary Johnson will do anything to change the future? Over/under on GJ is 1%.

Things did change after Ross got 18.9%, the Commission on Presidential Debates (controlled by the two parties) "outlawed" third parties. Most people don't pay attention to anything except the debates, so it is almost impossible to make noise without a presence there. That's why there hasn't been a repeat performance of '92, not because there isn't interest, but because it is a rigged system.

OK, so you think a vote for Gary Johnson in 2012 will make any kind of statement?

[Bronco]

Rosanne would have done a better job the last 4 years

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltDePH9fptc[/youtube]

[Chizzang]

The forecast today was for rain and I'm contemplating giving up the game. I can't score worth a shit these days. Haven't broken 80 in weeks.

what are you? A donk? Conks don't give up...

Which is why all forms of fundamentalism still exist today

[Ivytalk]

Huh? Popular vote is all that matters with a vote for GJ. He will receive ZERO electoral votes, so the only message you can send with a vote for GJ is it showing up in the popular vote.

Ross Perot received 18.9% of the popular vote in 1992. In 1996 he received 8.4%. Since then Ralph Nader received 2.74%, 0.38% and 0.56% in the following elections.

My point was that if things didn't change after somebody got 18.9% of the votes, why do you think a vote for Gary Johnson will do anything to change the future? Over/under on GJ is 1%.

Things did change after Ross got 18.9%, the Commission on Presidential Debates (controlled by the two parties) "outlawed"
third parties. Most people don't pay attention to anything except the debates, so it is almost impossible to make noise without a presence there. That's why there hasn't been a repeat performance of '92, not because there isn't interest, but because it is a rigged system.

America is fundamentally a two- party nation. Do you think things would change for the better if we let fringe loons like Goode and Barr participate in the debates? It would be even more like reality TV than it is now. Vote 'em off the island. As you were.

[kalm]

Things did change after Ross got 18.9%, the Commission on Presidential Debates (controlled by the two parties) "outlawed"
third parties. Most people don't pay attention to anything except the debates, so it is almost impossible to make noise without a presence there. That's why there hasn't been a repeat performance of '92, not because there isn't interest, but because it is a rigged system.

America is fundamentally a two- party nation. Do you think things would change for the better if we let fringe loons like Goode and Barr participate in the debates? It would be even more like reality TV than it is now. Vote 'em off the island. As you were.

We have a one party system who's only true constituency is cash.

[Seahawks08]

We have a one party system who's only true constituency is cash.

damn it, beat me to it.

[Ivytalk]

America is fundamentally a two- party nation. Do you think things would change for the better if we let fringe loons like Goode and Barr participate in the debates? It would be even more like reality TV than it is now. Vote 'em off the island. As you were.

We have a one party system who's only true constituency is cash.

As if public financing of elections will solve anything. There are sharp ideological differences between the two parties, as it should be. Spend all you want, disclose fully, and let people vote.

[GSUhooligan]

We have a one party system who's only true constituency is cash.

As if public financing of elections will solve anything. There are sharp ideological differences between the two parties, as it should be. Spend all you want, disclose fully, and let people vote.

Ideologically, there may be a sharp difference, but practically, they are two wings of the same vulture. Both are servants to the super-elite. Both want to spend money we don't have. Both have ignored the constitution for far too long.

I disagree that we are fundamentally a two party system, most people are fiscally conservative, socially moderate the two parties are not. In today's politics, Democrats are fiscally insane and Republicans are socially bigoted, but that is all we are given. The media hypes every election as if it is the end of the world to scare people into the two party box. I wish people would wake up and see that voting for the lesser of two evils for generations is what has gotten us into this cluster fuck of a government.

[GSUhooligan]

Things did change after Ross got 18.9%, the Commission on Presidential Debates (controlled by the two parties) "outlawed" third parties. Most people don't pay attention to anything except the debates, so it is almost impossible to make noise without a presence there. That's why there hasn't been a repeat performance of '92, not because there isn't interest, but because it is a rigged system.

OK, so you think a vote for Gary Johnson in 2012 will make any kind of statement?

Maybe, maybe not, but I only have 1 vote. I'm in Georgia where Romney will win every single electoral vote. A vote for Romney, especially when you don't like or agree with him, would be a wasted vote since my vote would get lost in the tally. I won't vote for Obama. My vote for Gary Johnson will add to his tally, he won't win, but he may get enough of a percentage to send a signal to the politicos that comb through the numbers that the status quo of politics as usual may be coming to an end.

[kalm]

We have a one party system who's only true constituency is cash.

As if public financing of elections will solve anything. There are sharp ideological differences between the two parties, as it should be. Spend all you want, disclose fully, and let people vote.

Not on some of the big issues like the military industrial complex, for profit health insurance and big pharma, banking reform, crony capitalism, etc...

[Ivytalk]

As if public financing of elections will solve anything. There are sharp ideological differences between the two parties, as it should be. Spend all you want, disclose fully, and let people vote.

Ideologically, there may be a sharp difference, but practically, they are two wings of the same vulture. Both are servants to the super-elite. Both want to spend money we don't have. Both have ignored the constitution for far too long.

I disagree that we are fundamentally a two party system, most people are fiscally conservative, socially moderate the two parties are not. In today's politics, Democrats are fiscally insane and Republicans are socially bigoted, but that is all we are given. The media hypes every election as if it is the end of the world to scare people into the two party box. I wish people would wake up and see that voting for the lesser of two evils for generations is what has gotten us into this cluster **** of a government.

That's all we are given? What a helpless attitude! People have a clear choice this fall between two different philosophies of government. If the people wanted to opt for a third choice in this age of social media and information, they would have done so. If the candidates aren't ideal, people have no one to blame but themselves.

[Ivytalk]

As if public financing of elections will solve anything. There are sharp ideological differences between the two parties, as it should be. Spend all you want, disclose fully, and let people vote.

Not on some of the big issues like the military industrial complex, for profit health insurance and big pharma, banking reform, crony capitalism, etc...

What depresses me is that you believe your own bullshit. Worse yet, cliched bullshit.

[kalm]

Not on some of the big issues like the military industrial complex, for profit health insurance and big pharma, banking reform, crony capitalism, etc...

What depresses me is that you believe your own bullshit. Worse yet, cliched bullshit.

We waste billions on wars we can't win, we protect the profits of a completely unneccessary for-profit insurance industry that raises, not lowers costs, we give big pharma the gift of publicly insured, non-negotiable drug prices, you've pretty much agreed with me about protecting the entrenched power on Wall Street, and on and on and on. Unfortunately these ARE cliches.

You're depressed because you know I'm right.