All joking about Nader and other candidates with little or no prospect of winning aside, I think they are important. Dissenters are the lifeblood of democracy. Suppose they weren't there? The other candidates would look as silly as the candidates in the Chinese elections (or North-Korean for that matter) and have zero credibility (as opposed to the 0,000000001 they have now )
I've always voted LibDem but if I had a quid (£1) for everytime someone said "I would vote for them but they'll never get in" I'd be a rich man. Of course they won't get in if you don't vote for them
Keep on voting for them if that is your choice. The Republican party in the US wasn't there from the beginning (did they start late 19th century?). Powerful parties can disappear and new parties can become the next power. The LibDems have a better chance than ever.
PS how about Ralph Nader in the US
themaffeo wrote:I dont mean to sound glib, but capitalism will even itself out.
It's more like economy can't be steered. It like the weather, you can shelter against it, you can help others to survive or recover but it'll run it's course.
Claiming economical favorable circumstances as the effect of one's politics means you have no idea what economy is (most people don't). Kondratieff knew this and was able to predict the general flow of the economy because it is a cycle that goes on forever, even wars haven't thrown it off course.
His mistake was that he lived in the Soviet Union under Stalin and concluded that no government, including a communist regime, could escape this cycle. It got him an address change to a Siberian labor camp for the rest of his life (well, it was a steady job they gave him there and rent and food were free).
I took some time to scan the Yahoo! message boards. Always an entertaining read. But let me first say that most posters there are not to be taking seriously and are not representative of the parties they say they support.
Oddly enough the word parties in the US can be used in the minimal sense of the word: 2 parties is the minimum requirement for that. And it is just one notch away from a 1 party system. But 'winner-takes-all'-elections are in effect a 2 party system. See Great Britain: same system, also 2 parties effectively. I can remember a most amusing episode of 'Spitting Image' in which the possibility of proportional representation was discussed in the house of commons. It ended with Margaret Thatcher (yes, it was that long ago) shouting 'the 2 idiot system is here to stay'. Indeed.
The only difference between a 1 and 2 party system is that you get the chance to change parties every election.
Oh, yes, Yahoo! message boards. There are people there that think Bush should do something very nasty to democrats. Whether the involves removing them from the country, imprisoning them or teminating their lives, it comes down to ending the Democratic, or any other non-Republican, party. Which takes us back to the one party system.
But I am sure there are no republicans who would like to make the democratic party dissappear, are there?
Well, remarkable things are afoot in the US. They live in interesting times, as the Chinese say (btw is that an actual Chinese curse? I've heard it is).
miamijjs wrote:Good for America..... Bush Wins!
Best thing about is that this will be over, whoever wins. Yes, Bush, but who cares. Although I always vote (no, I'm not an American) elections make me pop The Who's 'Won't get fooled again' in my head: 'Meet the new boss, the same as the old boss'. Not to mention 'I'll pull myself and my family aside, if we're lucky to be left out alive'. I live my live no matter who runs the joint. Never noticed a real difference.
Final quote from that song'I get on my knees and pray' (which in my case would be 'I sit on my bum and meditate).
'Republicans is fine if you're a multi-millionare
Democrats is fair if what you own is what you wear
Neither of them is seeing it right cause neither of them cares'
Zappa was cool, I think.
As a mere observer it is most fascinating to me when Bush wins. A lot of strange things have happened over the last for years, freedoms are given up for safety (and you get neither). I wonder if and how far Bush will push the US towards a thinly veiled theocracy. And what will happen to those who do not agree. You may not agree but remarkable things happened to dissenters. People being held up arbitrarily at airports in the days after 9/11 because they went to a socialist or whatever meeting and indiscriminately rounding up people and holding them for a long time at the RNC.
And again, I am not sure it'd be much better with Kerry.
rjdohnert wrote:BUSH WINS !!!!!!!!!!
Very tight race,
WE ARE VICTORIOUS
Bush and Kerry supporters (oh, and don't forget the Nader supporters):
stop going about something as unimportant as these elections. Over here a filmmaker with an attitude, Theo van Gogh, was gunned down and stabbed to death. The elections shrink into nothingness compared to that.
And, as always, both are nothing more than a short flicker in the whole of human existence.
I will not. But then again, I cannot vote in the US elections. So I'm mostly harmless.
But think twice about one who thinks the military is a pawn on a chessboard.
Or, if you prefer war, think twice about one who has fought in a war, for he will be less likely to see the light side of it and he experienced it is not a game.
jsrfc58 wrote:I suspect that Solitaire has some deep connection with how other parts of my system work--like my WinModem. Personally, I am in dread fear of removing it.
Didn't you know? sol.exe is the real kernel. There is a solitaire in every OS........... *scary music* [btw that is scary as in horror/suspense, not as in country music] <-- ok, that was just a joke *runs and ducks*