After an Obama or Romney win, I think that alternatives are going to start to look better and better. Don't underestimate the power of the Internet to spread ideas. Third party vlogs and blogs could proliferate and this could be a huge step forward.

After a few more years of NDAA, the Patriot Act, the TSA, war with Iran, continuing crumbling state of our country run by banks and the Federal Reserve and the possible collapse of the dollar could all lead to people dramatically changing the way they vote.

I don't know what any of those things are that you listed, ROUS. They certainly don't mention them on the Disney channel that I watch all day every day with my children. You sound like a pinko.

Look, just vote for whoever has a wife with the outfit you like the most. That should make it easier.

But what if Gary Johnson's wife has the best outfit?!

(I always vote third party myself- NADER 2000 WOOOO- but come on, ROUS. If a thousand Facebook wall posts can't get Ron Paul on the Republican ticket, a couple crappy debate videos won't stop the inevitable Obomney win. Your time would be better spent digging fallout shelters and stocking up on guns)

LIKEVOTE THIS CLIP: FOR DEMOCRACY!


How about the idea that the internet has made it worse for activism (at least in America)? Young people can get the quick fix of righteous beliefs by posting on Facebook, Tumblr, signing an online petition, commenting on an Occupy youtube video then calling it a day without any of the hassle of actually doing anything of value.

Five stars for democracy and those who would ridicule it. I look forward to the day when partisanship is looked upon with the same worthy disgust as other forms of religious fundamentalism. Football is the only religion we should support every four years, but no pedo.

"OBOMNEY!" I want to buy you a beer, EvilHomer.

Here's the thing: I think we need third parties, but third parties in America just go about things in some of the dumbest ways imaginable. Your party has zero representation in congress, maybe five random city councilmen scattered around the country, and you're already aiming for president? Even if by some miracle you won, how the hell are you going to run the country with no allies in congress?

If you thought the GOP was obstructionist over the last four years, let's see how you feel after four years of BOTH major parties teaming up to make sure every piece of legislation proposed by the president doesn't even make it out of committee. A third party president in the current climate would ensure that the country stands absolutely still for four years.

If the Greens or whoever want to be in charge, they need to start small. Win some school board elections, build their war chest, move up to city elections, then state, then federal. This would take a decade at the very least, but it's a hell of a lot more realistic than the "fuck it, let's run for president! We'll win because MAGIC" approach they're taking now.

Xeno, the point of running for President is to galvanize the movement. There are more than five city council members who are Greens and there are places where the Greens have started to try and move in at the local level for at least two decades, if not more.

This was also televised on Al Jazeera, Link TV, and live over the Internet to count just three other places.

"...just three other places."

Yeah, that sounds about right.

redistricting is completely unnecessary. They've been wanting to unseat Kucinich for years because he is one of the ONLY real voices of dissent in the nation. It sickens me.

Kucinich is a moonbat and you know it.

He's a hero.

RoUS: You speak of a nebulous "they" who have been trying to unseat Kucinich, and I'm not sure who you think it is, but I can tell you who it ACTUALLY is: Republicans. They couldn't beat Kucinich in an election, so they eliminated his district instead.

EvilHomer: yes I do know it. His worst trait is that he lacks the pragmatism of, say, Barney Frank. Kucinich voted against the House version of the ACA while Frank voted for it; both would have loved to see single payer, but Frank at least understood that a public option was the most that could be hoped for this time around, and voted to deliver as much as was possible to his constituents.

I won't deny he's a hero, Rodent. A moonbat hero.

Bort- I wouldn't call it "a lack of pragmatism" so much as a "lack of good judgement". Personally, I'm opposed to a single payer system. I'm not sold on the idea that the State is qualified to manage healthcare (at least not since working with the VA), or that further centralizing healthcare (and, more importantly, the money used to pay for it) is even a good idea in principle. I'm also concerned about the possible consequences for individual choice that could arise from treating healthcare as a public trust, one whose burden falls on all citizens unequally; at the very least, it could (and probably will) give paternalists a very real economic argument to push for banning lifestyles deemed "risky" or "unhealthy" (from being a fat fuck, to engaging in "high-risk" sexual behavior).

That said, considering all the other crap the State mishandles and blows our money on, I'm OK with the "public option" compromise. Certainly, spending billions of dollars so that most poverty stricken families can get regular checkups is more morally and utilitarianly palatable than spending billions of dollars so our bombers can flatten Libya, or our prison industry can keep another hundred thousand nonviolent offenders cleaning up our state-monopoly-controlled road systems.

EvilHomer, You are pretty much the reason I'm a fan of a public option but not so much single payer: because while I might personally be willing to try single payer (after a successful pilot program of course), this is still America and I can understand that other people might not be so trusting. So I figure a person should have the right to opt out if they want to pursue alternate coverage. But a public option with a large enough base would offer the benefits of single payer, so everybody wins with a public option.

All of which is straying from the original point: Kucinich is a dick for voting against the House ACA (the one with the public option), and for requiring an intervention staged by Obama and Mrs. Kucinich to get him to vote for the Senate version. ObamaCare isn't everything I would have liked, not even close; but if the choice is something vs. nothing, only an asshole opts for nothing.

Also, you raise interesting points about paternalists. I don't see it happening, but then again I didn't foresee 90% of what has happened this century, so you could well be right.

I'd be more impressed if the people who have the "both sides are the same, I'm gonna vote third party!" didn't begin and end their tantrum with wasting their ballot, instead of, you know, becoming any bit active in the political process for the so-called candidate of their choice. Voting "fuck you" is the equivalent of throwing a rock at a campaign sign and feeling like they're taught the system a lesson.

Okay, badideas, let's just shit on all the work third party members and candidates have done to help diversify the political process because i'm sure it amounts to nothing more than throwing a rock at a campaign sign, you mindless twit.

Wow, I hope your political acumen is better than your reading skills kingarthur.

Recently, he voiced a wax figure of himself in an episode of Gravity Falls.

The Green Party Plan:

1. Get five percent of the vote to qualify for matching funds.

2. ?

3. Fix everything!

Also not the point of third parties.

Then that leaves only one possibility: voting third party is a fashion statement. That's what God invented bumper stickers for, son.

Yupt. That's the only possibility left.

Wow.