Will you vote 3rd party in the 2008 election?

Post Reply New Topic

Perhaps they could preface their statement with, "if it comes across my desk I will/wont veto ___"

Oh yes, he can influence Congress, much as Reagan and FDR attempted to do by appealing directly to the electorate. I would rather he have been more honest by saying "I will support efforts to raise the minimum wage" rather than "I WILL raise the minimum wage" because the former is closer to reality. But aside from things that he can't guarantee (he likely would be able to push through a new minimum-wage law, especially with a Democratic House and Senate) the real objection are the promises that simply can not be fulfilled, regardless of the cooperation of the legislature or the people. His fiscal policy is an absolute joke, and it's not even internally consistent. Other promises are just unrealistic. It's one thing for a presidential candidate to come out in support of some legislative goal, but making promises that simply can not be kept is dishonest.

But, hey, that's what voters want to hear.

I will vote for Obama if he receives the nomination or is on the ticket.

As for voting 3rd Party, I will consider it if Ron Paul is on a third-party ticket.

You mean you actually vote for the lizards?

I'll vote for a party which got 0.2% of the votes in a recent election in a state. This is not really a third party (more like 6th after the CDU/CSU, SPD, F.D.P., Alliance '90/The Greens and Linkspartei), but it fits the spirit of the thread, I guess. I oppose all established parties in the issues, which are most important to me so I vote for the party, which I agree with!

Ron Paul was a war medic and a gynecologist, he just spent 10 years in Congress. Every year he puts money to the deficit, so he doesn't blow hot air. If it wasn't for the corporate-serving media, he would be on top as he has received praise from right and left.

Me thinks you are being too literal. Obviously, these are policy goals. During the Great Depression, politicians stated they would put a chicken in every pot. Which was a metaphor for restoring jobs and economic prosperity. Whether or not there really was a chicken in each and every pot was not the issue.



Yes, please do explain. In the short run, these can be exclusive. In the long run, when economic growth occurs, it is possible to do all 3. I personally believe that getting spending under control should be first, as it stabilizes the economy. Then some mixture of increased spending and tax cuts would be possible.

Additionally, it is possible to restructure taxes so that most people pay less while a few people pay more, and that could be described as a tax cut for most people. For example, dividend income is taxed at 15%, which is less than many wage earners are taxed at. The idea that people living off of trust funds pay less taxes than a person that works for a living is suspicious to me.

Please check your history. "A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage" was the campaign slogan of Herbert Hoover in 1928 when he was promising to continue to promote the prosperity seen in the Roaring Twenties. And yes, I'm being literal again. But anyways, Obama has made numerous promises that obviously can not be fulfilled. That is completely dishonest and pretty much a load of bullcrap.


He presents them as things that will occur during his administration, for one thing. Look, he has promised to increase government spending (by a hell of a lot) in almost every area, while decreasing the tax burden and balancing the budget. And the kind of policies that Obama promotes aren't going to lead to the economic growth that you seem to hope will magically solve all our problems. You are advocating radical wealth redistribution, and you are going off of outdated economic ideas that production and distribution of wealth are completely separate. They aren't, as Menger and the Austrian school showed. Socialism doesn't work. I would advocate getting rid of all income taxes, so then you wouldn't be whining about what rates people are paying anyways.

You may like the idea of government playing Robin Hood, but I don't. If you restructure the tax burden to steal from the rich and give to the poor, you will harm the economy by discouraging investment and entrepreneurship, which are arguably the two most vital components of our economy.

I supported Dennis Kucinich in the primaries and i'm going to be supporting Ralph Nader in the general election. In my view, neither Clinton, McCain or Obama have done enough to earn my vote and they do not represent the drastic change in politics that this country desperately needs.

May I ask how you can support these candidates when you are in Canada? I disagree very strongly with the two candidates you have mentioned, but I certainly have more respect for them than for Hillary, Obama, or McCain. Nader and Kucinich are at least honest men who believe in what they're doing, even if I do think they're a bit loony.

If Nader knows what he's doing, which is increasing the Republican's chances of success, he stubbornly refuses to admit it.

I supported Kucinich in the primaries. I would be in favor of an Obama-Kucinich ticket, but I'm guessing it's going to be Obama/Richardson. I'll vote for Obama in November whoever his Veep candidate is. (News flash: Hillary won't be nominated. It's only a question of how much more damage she will do the Democratic Party and her own reputation before she is finally dragged, kicking and screaming, out of the election process.)

If we had a multi-party system like in most democracies, where parties get a percentage of seats in the parliament proportional to the percent of the popular vote they got, then it would make more sense to vote for a third or fourth or fifth party. In the US in 2008, it doesn't make much sense.

The US really should get over this "We're the freest, best nation ever" BS and pay some attention to the improvemnets to the state of the art which have been made since the adoption of our Constitution. Other countries have learned from us, we can learn from them, too.

Last edited by Bollinger on 28 Mar 2008, 6:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I may live in Canada but i'm a dual citizen and I grew up in Cleveland. So I vote by absentee ballot. Can I ask why you believe Kucinich and Nader are "loony". Kucinich is a true Democrat that speaks the truth. Clinton and Obama are corporatists and they both have aggressive foreign policies. They go out and make speeches about healthcare and Iraq but they have done nothing in the Senate to change this. They could vote against funding, and they could stop taking money from insurance companies!

Nader has accomplished more in his career than Clinton, Obama and McCain combined without even holding elected office. The man is a true public citizen and he would make a great president.

Why should Nader take the blame for the Democrats inability to attract progressive voters? Many of the people who voted for him in 2000 wouldn't have voted at all had he not ran. Ultimately its up to the Democrats to show some leadership instead of pandering to the corparations.

As for elections, the two party system has obviously failed and we would benefit from a larger third party. That is what the NDP did for Canada in the 1960s and it energized politics. Proportional representation and instant run-off voting wouldn't hurt either.

There is a difference between being Robin Hood, and in believing that a person living off a trust fund should pay the same tax rate (or a slightly higher one) as a plumber or truck driver.

We agree on this much, at least.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I have great respect for both of those men (Nader and Kucinich). I just deeply disagree with many of their political views- eg Kucinich is a socialist and I am for laissez-faire. But I like that Kucinich is actually an honest politician, a very rare creature indeed. Similar things could be said for Nader.