why 3rd party is a wasted vote

[milkmandan]

Nader was on CNN during 2000 election saying a vote for Gore is a vote for Bush it doesn't matter 3rd party is the only difference and Nader was gonna change things. Well, I love ya Nader, but you bear most of the blame for Bush being elected. I always hear scotus picks are the most important reason to vote. I disagree. I tend to think all those 100,000s lives ended or shattered in war are more important than scotus. Does anyone think we would've diverted to Iraq had Bush lost? Or Guantanamo, or 08 crash, or any of this crap. This is what voting 3rd party does. We're still digging out from under it. Talk about opportunity cost, we'll never be the same. Gotta vote anti-hate, anti-greed, pro-people, and thats only 1 option.

[Stonehenge]

By that logic, obama must have gotten us out of foreign wars and not looked to start any new ones. Wrong, he is keeping us in afghanistan as long as possible, the iraq pullout was negotiated by bush, not obama and he is beating the drums of war to attack iran next. His promise to go easy on medical pot users turned out to be a lie. How could mccain have been any worse? What makes you think gore would have been the magic bullet? He would have pulled an obama too. They all take orders from the same people. Promises mean nothing.

Picking the lesser of the evils has never worked. Vote for third party or support the current puppet show. Neither of the two current major candidates are worth a crap including obumbles. The lesser of the evils is still evil.

[dendro]

I tend to agree with you stoney. Third party may just be a grand (or empty?) gesture this year, but the game is essentially lost at this point anyway.

I would go to the polls to vote third party. If not possible, I'll stay home.

[Stonehenge]

People are hypnotized by the lesser of the two evils argument. Liberals dont like obama and conservatives dont like romney but each side hates the other worse so they hold their nose and vote for the puppet of their choice. The d and r are just tools of the big money people who give the real orders.

Why do you think a majority of the public has been in favor of legalizing medical pot for years but no president, no matter what promises he makes while running, will ease up on it? We know the president can't really make it legal by himself but who is making him do all those raids on legal state dispensaries that the people have voted for? Not the public so who? He hides away while flunkies do the dirty work but we know who authorized the raids and prosecutions. He could just as easily have looked the other way and let flunkies say they can do nothing but he didn't. Politicians will bend over backwards to cater to every interest group except this one. The big money men sell prescriptions, booze and other things people would not need if they had legal pot.

I dont like romney either, he is puppet b to obama's puppet a. They are the two hands of the same puppet master. Paul is about the only honest one out there but big money with the media in their pocket make sure he wont win. They ignore paul or write nasty articles about him. I would take green or libertarian sight unseen over either d or r.

[milkmandan]

I agree with everything said. I would also vote green party asap if they had a chance to win. I wouldn't vote libertarian because, well, alot of reasons. I hold my nose and vote for D cause = less war, more equal rights, and a bunch of other stuff. Can anyone say with a straight face that Gore would've brought the pain like Bush. The record kinda blows that outa the water. Or that Bush would've won without Nader pulling all those few votes. I kinda like the looks of the argument on this territory, so lets keep it here. Is anyone able to convincingly overturn what I feel is this bulletproof  line of reasoning? If not, there's an historical case for why 3rd party is playing with fire! Its on the mathematical level.

[Stonehenge]

MMD, i think you have some good points. It would be totally true if there was a meaningful difference between d and r besides the speeches. We can say if the d had won it would have been better or if the r had won it would be worse but would it? Both major parties are against reform by stopping payola. Both seem to be in favor of war. Bush jr was terrible but he negotiated the pullout from iraq which obama seems to get credit for. Obama said he would get us out of afghanistan but has not done so in over 3 years. Obama is talking war with iran if it does not do as its told. How is this a peace president? Obama is in favor of spying on us.

Obama promised to go easy on medical pot and he lied. How could mccain have been worse? He would have been the same and people would have said if only obama had gotten in, he promised to go easy. But when you put them to the test, politicians are liars and will stab you in the back. Obama promised to close guantanamo and lied about that too. He is in favor of this new security act which gives him the power to murder americans as well as anyone else. He has already been doing this and abusing it. How would any d or r be worse?

As for nader giving it to bush, i dont believe that either. It was vote manipulation by diebold and others that gave it to him. There is solid evidence of that but of course obama didn't look into it. He was too busy raiding legal pot dispensaries. I think bush jr stole both elections. There is a famous saying by an old time crooked chicago pol who said "don't buy a single vote more than we need"

I know people are hypnotized by the lesser of the evils argument but it is a false one. It just guarantees you will get an evil bastard in office. You are being taken in by the puppet show. "oh noes, the bad puppet won!!" or "yay, the good puppet won" and it all turns out the same.