Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 Simon and Ken, can't we all just get along?!? Is that so much to ask for? I think I speak for everyone, if you can't do it for yourselves, do it for the children of our great country. 742323[/snapback] Ooooh...now you're going to be on double-secret probation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 Ooooh...now you're going to be on double-secret probation... 742357[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 I like John Stewert. But i don't like the way he is moving with The Daily Show. It is simply turning into "Bush is stupid" humor. It was funny when he started because they were simple tiny things that just were original, but now it has simply turned into stupidity that is only appealing to one crowd. If Stewert was smart, he would get back to what made The Daily Show, and that is appealing to all. He is cutting out 1/2 of his audience by cracking the jokes that he does, and it ends up hurting the integrety of the show rather then helping the ratings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 17, 2006 Author Share Posted August 17, 2006 I like John Stewert. But i don't like the way he is moving with The Daily Show. It is simply turning into "Bush is stupid" humor. It was funny when he started because they were simple tiny things that just were original, but now it has simply turned into stupidity that is only appealing to one crowd. If Stewert was smart, he would get back to what made The Daily Show, and that is appealing to all. He is cutting out 1/2 of his audience by cracking the jokes that he does, and it ends up hurting the integrety of the show rather then helping the ratings. 745251[/snapback] Yeah, after all, thats the ONLY thing he does. Thats the ONLY thing I've seen on the whole program for the past few months. Have you even watched it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Yeah, after all, thats the ONLY thing he does. Thats the ONLY thing I've seen on the whole program for the past few months. Have you even watched it? 745253[/snapback] I've only seen a few glances since i primarily wait for the Colbert Report. But the only things i see are stabs at Cheney and talking about people who oppose Demeocrats are invited on hunting trips with Cheney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 17, 2006 Author Share Posted August 17, 2006 I've only seen a few glances since i primarily wait for the Colbert Report. But the only things i see are stabs at Cheney and talking about people who oppose Demeocrats are invited on hunting trips with Cheney. 745256[/snapback] Hmm, would you consider yourself a Republican or someone who leans Republican? Reason I'm asking is most of the people who lean Republican I know that like Jon Stewart have stopped watching his program since Colbert came out with his own show. Most people like me (I'd consider myself a middle of the road voter, who leans one way or another depending on what office it is) or who leans/are a democrat likes Stewart better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Hmm, would you consider yourself a Republican or someone who leans Republican? Reason I'm asking is most of the people who lean Republican I know that like Jon Stewart have stopped watching his program since Colbert came out with his own show. Most people like me (I'd consider myself a middle of the road voter, who leans one way or another depending on what office it is) or who leans/are a democrat likes Stewart better. 745258[/snapback] I am neither a Republican or Democrat. Depending on the issue at hand i will lean a different way according to my belief. For example, i will lean Democratic when discussing abortion, but will lean Republican when discussing taxes or anything to that affect. As a matter of fact, i believe that the Republicans and the Democrats have strayed away from the true path of politics and the foundation of this country, and that is looking out for what is best for the people. Most of these politicians seem hell bent on rapaciously making money, and protecting their own interest. The best thing for this country right now would be for a third party to rise up and simply compromise between the two opposing sides on stand points. Sorry, but that is just my belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 17, 2006 Author Share Posted August 17, 2006 I am neither a Republican or Democrat. Depending on the issue at hand i will lean a different way according to my belief. For example, i will lean Democratic when discussing abortion, but will lean Republican when discussing taxes or anything to that affect. As a matter of fact, i believe that the Republicans and the Democrats have strayed away from the true path of politics and the foundation of this country, and that is looking out for what is best for the people. Most of these politicians seem hell bent on rapaciously making money, and protecting their own interest. The best thing for this country right now would be for a third party to rise up and simply compromise between the two opposing sides on stand points. Sorry, but that is just my belief. 745262[/snapback] *grin* no need to apologize. I was just wondering, as thats the trend I've experienced anecdotally. *shrug* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 *grin* no need to apologize. I was just wondering, as thats the trend I've experienced anecdotally. *shrug* 745267[/snapback] I actually think that if these two parties aren't willing to change their standpoints on some topics, as the younger generations get older, these two parties will find themselves out of power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 17, 2006 Author Share Posted August 17, 2006 I actually think that if these two parties aren't willing to change their standpoints on some topics, as the younger generations get older, these two parties will find themselves out of power. 745269[/snapback] That they would, but I think the party process inherently changes their position. If a young person wants to get elected, their best chances are to join either the Dems or Republicans. Since young kids that are in politics are at least somewhat smart (and most likely stupid at the same time), they make the best strategic decisionf or themselves and choose to join a party rather then start one. As older generations die off/lose, younger people are there to take their place. Therefore, the parties adopt. Voters are also strategic voters, and don't like to throw away their vote. Hell, I know I don't, and would rather vote for the best Dem/Repub then for a 3rd party candidate, unless that 3rd party candidate had a chance at winning. Where in lies the problem. i think for one party to die, its going to tay another party years and years of not only convincing voters, but proving themselves to be viable. Ross Perot would be a good example. He convinced a lot of the American public to vote for him, but he screwed it up politically. If you get some major financial backers like Perot, and garner votes that are significant, you might be on to something. That'd take a major screwup by the parties though. People like Ted Stevens would have to just go on and on about how his internets were delayed and how the internet isn't a dump truck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 That they would, but I think the party process inherently changes their position. If a young person wants to get elected, their best chances are to join either the Dems or Republicans. Since young kids that are in politics are at least somewhat smart (and most likely stupid at the same time), they make the best strategic decisionf or themselves and choose to join a party rather then start one. As older generations die off/lose, younger people are there to take their place. Therefore, the parties adopt. Voters are also strategic voters, and don't like to throw away their vote. Hell, I know I don't, and would rather vote for the best Dem/Repub then for a 3rd party candidate, unless that 3rd party candidate had a chance at winning. Where in lies the problem. i think for one party to die, its going to tay another party years and years of not only convincing voters, but proving themselves to be viable. Ross Perot would be a good example. He convinced a lot of the American public to vote for him, but he screwed it up politically. If you get some major financial backers like Perot, and garner votes that are significant, you might be on to something. That'd take a major screwup by the parties though. People like Ted Stevens would have to just go on and on about how his internets were delayed and how the internet isn't a dump truck. 745272[/snapback] I hear you on that. It's just a matter of time before people realize that there is not always a chance for peace through talking, and therefore every republican and democrat will probably become the same. Then it will just be a popularity contest for president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 17, 2006 Author Share Posted August 17, 2006 I hear you on that. It's just a matter of time before people realize that there is not always a chance for peace through talking, and therefore every republican and democrat will probably become the same. Then it will just be a popularity contest for president. 745274[/snapback] Zidane for President? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Zidane for President? 745276[/snapback] LMAO Good call... Zidane 2020? Maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Voters are also strategic voters, and don't like to throw away their vote. Hell, I know I don't, and would rather vote for the best Dem/Repub then for a 3rd party candidate, unless that 3rd party candidate had a chance at winning. 745272[/snapback] I hear this all the time. I ask a simple question and have NEVER received a response. I am going to try again. People will not vote for a third party candidate until they become viable candidates to win. How do they become viable candidates to win if you do not vote for them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 I hear this all the time. I ask a simple question and have NEVER received a response. I am going to try again. People will not vote for a third party candidate until they become viable candidates to win. How do they become viable candidates to win if you do not vote for them? 745312[/snapback] They have to get endorsed by leading Democrats and Republicans, for starters... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 They have to get endorsed by leading Democrats and Republicans, for starters... 745333[/snapback] Like Cheney and the GOP endorsing Lieberman (D oops, R CT-Sen)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Like Cheney and the GOP endorsing Lieberman (D oops, R CT-Sen)? 745387[/snapback] Did they? I hadn't heard...but I'm not surprised. The Democratic/Republican parties need more Republicans/Democrats like Lieberman. I had no idea we had strikethrough tags here, either. Cool... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 17, 2006 Author Share Posted August 17, 2006 I hear this all the time. I ask a simple question and have NEVER received a response. I am going to try again. People will not vote for a third party candidate until they become viable candidates to win. How do they become viable candidates to win if you do not vote for them? 745312[/snapback] It's a simple question with a not so simple answer. One way to do it would be to make the 3rd party as a whole viable and a major player in the game. It'll probably take a major voting bloc of one of the big parties to break off and either join a 3rd party or start their own in order to be taken as serious. Even if they do this, though, more then likely they'll just end up joining up together again with one of the two big parties, because if for example the evangelicals broke off from the Republican party, and split that vote in every district so that the Democrats won all the seats, they would be worse off then they were before, where they at least got some representation. Thus, they rejoin. The other way would be on an individual level, the Ross Perot way. If you have tons and tons of money, and then get exposure (such as the debates where the perception was that Perot won), you can show people that you are a viable candidate and poll numbers will support this claim. If Perot hadn't have backed out of the election for a couple months, he would have been a strong competitor. The thing is, though, people won't be convinced that whatever party this candidate belongs to is going to be worth voting for every single time. They're voting for the candidate, not the party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 It's a simple question with a not so simple answer. One way to do it would be to make the 3rd party as a whole viable and a major player in the game. It'll probably take a major voting bloc of one of the big parties to break off and either join a 3rd party or start their own in order to be taken as serious. Even if they do this, though, more then likely they'll just end up joining up together again with one of the two big parties, because if for example the evangelicals broke off from the Republican party, and split that vote in every district so that the Democrats won all the seats, they would be worse off then they were before, where they at least got some representation. Thus, they rejoin. The other way would be on an individual level, the Ross Perot way. If you have tons and tons of money, and then get exposure (such as the debates where the perception was that Perot won), you can show people that you are a viable candidate and poll numbers will support this claim. If Perot hadn't have backed out of the election for a couple months, he would have been a strong competitor. The thing is, though, people won't be convinced that whatever party this candidate belongs to is going to be worth voting for every single time. They're voting for the candidate, not the party. 745443[/snapback] It is a Catch-22. You cannot become viable unless people are willing to vote for you. People will not vote for you unless you are viable. You can get a lot of exposure and people can like what you are saying, but they still pull the red or blue levers when they get into the voting booth. People want to wait for someone else to do all the work and then they will just latch on later. As a result, we are stuck with the Big Two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 It is a Catch-22. You cannot become viable unless people are willing to vote for you. People will not vote for you unless you are viable. You can get a lot of exposure and people can like what you are saying, but they still pull the red or blue levers when they get into the voting booth. People want to wait for someone else to do all the work and then they will just latch on later. As a result, we are stuck with the Big Two. 745474[/snapback] See now this is a perfect example of those in power, solidfying their power. I don't find it suprising that the system is like this and you have be endorsed by either a Republican or Democrat because they have simply been in power too long, and we have allowed them to do this so that it is nearly impossible to toss even one of them, let alone both of them. I would say that your answer lies somehere in between flirting with the American voters, while playing cloke and dagger with the Republicans and Democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts