What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Vote 3rd party or you're an idiot!Chris Matthews can suck it. (1 Viewer)

tom22406

tom22406

Footballguy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNBQ86nU0js

Not sure if this has been posted before or not but would love to hear some input from the board on this topic.

My view is Matthews is nothing more than a blowhard so I take anything he says with very little regard but I keep hearing the phrase if you voted for someone other than Obama and Romney you threw your vote away.

So to quote another blowhard.............What say you?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If a third party ever finally makes a move, it will be because of people that voted for them, even when they knew they had no shot.

If real change ever happens, it will be because of people like that, not people that kept settling for the lesser of two evils.

That's an incredibly stupid thing for Matthews to say.

 
Tweety is still a self absorbed, thinks he's smarter than he is, #####. Is this really a surprise to anyone?

 
'massraider said:
If a third party ever finally makes a move, it will be because of people that voted for them, even when they knew they had no shot.

If real change ever happens, it will be because of people like that, not people that kept settling for the lesser of two evils.

That's an incredibly stupid thing for Matthews to say.
Click to expand...
Matthews is a spokesman for one of the two parties that share a duopoly of the electorate. Of course he doesn't want people to vote third party.
 
'massraider said:
If a third party ever finally makes a move, it will be because of people that voted for them, even when they knew they had no shot.If real change ever happens, it will be because of people like that, not people that kept settling for the lesser of two evils. That's an incredibly stupid thing for Matthews to say.
Click to expand...
I heard some third party folks that made me happy this week. They said they were going to stop concentrating on every 4 years and start concentrating on the local races. Get some councilman elected. Get some mayors elected. Get some state legislators elected. Eventually a governor here and there. That's the way to really make these parties relevant. Show us what you would do. How they would govern in a real world situation. That's what the third party movement has needed for a long time. I look forward to the day when a third party candidate, who has been a successful third party politician from day one, hopefully a governor, steps forward to run for President.
 
Wow. He is so obsessed with politics he actually doesn't care about people anymore. Something snapped with this guy.

 
'Jewell said:
'massraider said:
If a third party ever finally makes a move, it will be because of people that voted for them, even when they knew they had no shot.

If real change ever happens, it will be because of people like that, not people that kept settling for the lesser of two evils.

That's an incredibly stupid thing for Matthews to say.
Click to expand...
Matthews is a spokesman for one of the two parties that share a duopoly of the electorate. Of course he doesn't want people to vote third party.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: It is at the very least a strong alignment of interests. If anyone can point me to one of the mainstream network political analysts even slightly friendly to third parties, I'd be interested in reading their stuff.
 
'roadkill1292 said:
'Jewell said:
'massraider said:
If a third party ever finally makes a move, it will be because of people that voted for them, even when they knew they had no shot.

If real change ever happens, it will be because of people like that, not people that kept settling for the lesser of two evils.

That's an incredibly stupid thing for Matthews to say.
Click to expand...
Matthews is a spokesman for one of the two parties that share a duopoly of the electorate. Of course he doesn't want people to vote third party.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: It is at the very least a strong alignment of interests. If anyone can point me to one of the mainstream network political analysts even slightly friendly to third parties, I'd be interested in reading their stuff.
Click to expand...
Greg Gutfeld of Fox News says he's libertarian in his beliefs, but he's really a clown. Tucker Carlson is also in this category.Judge Andrew Napolitano labels himself a "libertarian conservative" and I usually enjoy him. He's also not an ######## like the two I mentioned.

Edit to add: I know it's not network TV, but Neil Boortz is a nationally syndicated libertarian talk show host. Can be grating to some, though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Brady Marino said:
'roadkill1292 said:
'Jewell said:
'massraider said:
If a third party ever finally makes a move, it will be because of people that voted for them, even when they knew they had no shot.

If real change ever happens, it will be because of people like that, not people that kept settling for the lesser of two evils.

That's an incredibly stupid thing for Matthews to say.
Click to expand...
Matthews is a spokesman for one of the two parties that share a duopoly of the electorate. Of course he doesn't want people to vote third party.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: It is at the very least a strong alignment of interests. If anyone can point me to one of the mainstream network political analysts even slightly friendly to third parties, I'd be interested in reading their stuff.
Click to expand...
Greg Gutfeld of Fox News says he's libertarian in his beliefs, but he's really a clown. Tucker Carlson is also in this category.Judge Andrew Napolitano labels himself a "libertarian conservative" and I usually enjoy him. He's also not an ######## like the two I mentioned.

Edit to add: I know it's not network TV, but Neil Boortz is a nationally syndicated libertarian talk show host. Can be grating to some, though.
Click to expand...
Yeah a little grating:
BOORTZ: I would like to congratulate Richard Speck. I would -- you know, I would like to congratulate Ted Bundy on sneaking into yet another sorority house and killing another coed. I would like to congratulate Adolf Hitler on his invasion of Poland. I would like to congratulate the -- Al Qaeda for their successful attack on New York City. I would like to congratulate the Ansar al-Sharia crowd over there in Benghazi for their successful assault on our consulate.

Congratulate Barack Obama? I'm sorry, Herman, love you but you can take that and stick in that phony damn cowboy hat of yours.
Click to expand...
Really? Libertarians want that as a spokesman?
 
'NCCommish said:
'Brady Marino said:
'roadkill1292 said:
'Jewell said:
'massraider said:
If a third party ever finally makes a move, it will be because of people that voted for them, even when they knew they had no shot.

If real change ever happens, it will be because of people like that, not people that kept settling for the lesser of two evils.

That's an incredibly stupid thing for Matthews to say.
Click to expand...
Matthews is a spokesman for one of the two parties that share a duopoly of the electorate. Of course he doesn't want people to vote third party.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: It is at the very least a strong alignment of interests. If anyone can point me to one of the mainstream network political analysts even slightly friendly to third parties, I'd be interested in reading their stuff.
Click to expand...
Greg Gutfeld of Fox News says he's libertarian in his beliefs, but he's really a clown. Tucker Carlson is also in this category.Judge Andrew Napolitano labels himself a "libertarian conservative" and I usually enjoy him. He's also not an ######## like the two I mentioned.

Edit to add: I know it's not network TV, but Neil Boortz is a nationally syndicated libertarian talk show host. Can be grating to some, though.
Click to expand...
Yeah a little grating:
BOORTZ: I would like to congratulate Richard Speck. I would -- you know, I would like to congratulate Ted Bundy on sneaking into yet another sorority house and killing another coed. I would like to congratulate Adolf Hitler on his invasion of Poland. I would like to congratulate the -- Al Qaeda for their successful attack on New York City. I would like to congratulate the Ansar al-Sharia crowd over there in Benghazi for their successful assault on our consulate.

Congratulate Barack Obama? I'm sorry, Herman, love you but you can take that and stick in that phony damn cowboy hat of yours.
Click to expand...
Really? Libertarians want that as a spokesman?
Click to expand...
It's our only option. :shrug:
 
'Brady Marino said:
'NCCommish said:
'Brady Marino said:
'roadkill1292 said:
'Jewell said:
'massraider said:
If a third party ever finally makes a move, it will be because of people that voted for them, even when they knew they had no shot.

If real change ever happens, it will be because of people like that, not people that kept settling for the lesser of two evils.

That's an incredibly stupid thing for Matthews to say.
Click to expand...
Matthews is a spokesman for one of the two parties that share a duopoly of the electorate. Of course he doesn't want people to vote third party.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: It is at the very least a strong alignment of interests. If anyone can point me to one of the mainstream network political analysts even slightly friendly to third parties, I'd be interested in reading their stuff.
Click to expand...
Greg Gutfeld of Fox News says he's libertarian in his beliefs, but he's really a clown. Tucker Carlson is also in this category.Judge Andrew Napolitano labels himself a "libertarian conservative" and I usually enjoy him. He's also not an ######## like the two I mentioned.

Edit to add: I know it's not network TV, but Neil Boortz is a nationally syndicated libertarian talk show host. Can be grating to some, though.
Click to expand...
Yeah a little grating:
BOORTZ: I would like to congratulate Richard Speck. I would -- you know, I would like to congratulate Ted Bundy on sneaking into yet another sorority house and killing another coed. I would like to congratulate Adolf Hitler on his invasion of Poland. I would like to congratulate the -- Al Qaeda for their successful attack on New York City. I would like to congratulate the Ansar al-Sharia crowd over there in Benghazi for their successful assault on our consulate.

Congratulate Barack Obama? I'm sorry, Herman, love you but you can take that and stick in that phony damn cowboy hat of yours.
Click to expand...
Really? Libertarians want that as a spokesman?
Click to expand...
It's our only option. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Time to get a new option my friend. Or at the very least don't advertise for the guy.
 
'17seconds said:
Wow. He is so obsessed with politics he actually doesn't care about people anymore. Something snapped with this guy.
Click to expand...
I have never seen anyone get a chub for politics like Chris Mathews. He's completely obsessed with the system and he freaking LOVES it.That being said, he's clearly a partisan hack who is every bit as much in Obama/D's pocket as Hannity is/was in Mitt's/R's. The fact that he goes out of his way to insult anyone who deviates from the planned system proppiing up two nearly identical parties just shows what a ####### loser he is.
 
'Clifford said:
'17seconds said:
Wow. He is so obsessed with politics he actually doesn't care about people anymore. Something snapped with this guy.
Click to expand...
I have never seen anyone get a chub for politics like Chris Mathews. He's completely obsessed with the system and he freaking LOVES it.That being said, he's clearly a partisan hack who is every bit as much in Obama/D's pocket as Hannity is/was in Mitt's/R's. The fact that he goes out of his way to insult anyone who deviates from the planned system proppiing up two nearly identical parties just shows what a ####### loser he is.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:
 
Midwest/west/Southern Democrats.

Northeasertern / west coast Republicans.

Somehow if those two groups could leave their parties there might be the hope for a third party and maybe we could have some veto-proof coalitions built in Congress.

Problem is that everyone left in the two traditional parties would be so extreme it could end up being very harmful.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's probably more accurate to say if you DIDN'T vote for a third party you're an idiot.

 
I think it's more true now than it used to be.

The argument in the past for voting for 3rd parties was that while they could never win, if they garnered enough votes to gain attention, then one of the two main parties would eventually absorb many of their ideas. Historically, there has been merit to this: in the 1930's, the Democratic party absorbed many of the ideas of the Socialist party, which had decent showings in the late 1920s. Similarly, the relative success of a few Libertarian candidates in the 1970s had an impact on the agenda of Ronald's Reagan's presidency, which was decidedly more libertarian in economic views than his Republican predecessors.

However, that's all in the past. Today, the money given to the Democratic and Republican parties make them much less resistant to change, and any change that DOES come will emerge from creative people within the parties rather than without. Therefore, the old argument about outside absorption doesn't apply. So in effect, if you are voting for a 3rd party, you're not influencing anything, you're not changing any outcome. You may as well not vote. While I wouldn't say you're an idiot. you're basically making a foolish and meaningless gesture.

 
timschochet said:
I think it's more true now than it used to be.

The argument in the past for voting for 3rd parties was that while they could never win, if they garnered enough votes to gain attention, then one of the two main parties would eventually absorb many of their ideas. Historically, there has been merit to this: in the 1930's, the Democratic party absorbed many of the ideas of the Socialist party, which had decent showings in the late 1920s. Similarly, the relative success of a few Libertarian candidates in the 1970s had an impact on the agenda of Ronald's Reagan's presidency, which was decidedly more libertarian in economic views than his Republican predecessors.

However, that's all in the past. Today, the money given to the Democratic and Republican parties make them much less resistant to change, and any change that DOES come will emerge from creative people within the parties rather than without. Therefore, the old argument about outside absorption doesn't apply. So in effect, if you are voting for a 3rd party, you're not influencing anything, you're not changing any outcome. You may as well not vote. While I wouldn't say you're an idiot. you're basically making a foolish and meaningless gesture.
Click to expand...
Yep. Pretty much sums up my political philosophy.

 
timschochet said:
I think it's more true now than it used to be.

The argument in the past for voting for 3rd parties was that while they could never win, if they garnered enough votes to gain attention, then one of the two main parties would eventually absorb many of their ideas. Historically, there has been merit to this: in the 1930's, the Democratic party absorbed many of the ideas of the Socialist party, which had decent showings in the late 1920s. Similarly, the relative success of a few Libertarian candidates in the 1970s had an impact on the agenda of Ronald's Reagan's presidency, which was decidedly more libertarian in economic views than his Republican predecessors.

However, that's all in the past. Today, the money given to the Democratic and Republican parties make them much less resistant to change, and any change that DOES come will emerge from creative people within the parties rather than without. Therefore, the old argument about outside absorption doesn't apply. So in effect, if you are voting for a 3rd party, you're not influencing anything, you're not changing any outcome. You may as well not vote. While I wouldn't say you're an idiot. you're basically making a foolish and meaningless gesture.
Click to expand...
So you're saying because people don't vote for 3rd parties, voting for 3rd parties is meaningless. Got it.

 
I would say simply vote for the person you like best, regardless of party. You like the Green Party candidate? Then vote for that person.

Anything else just feeds into the machine everyone says they hate.

 
Gr00vus said:
timschochet said:
I think it's more true now than it used to be.

The argument in the past for voting for 3rd parties was that while they could never win, if they garnered enough votes to gain attention, then one of the two main parties would eventually absorb many of their ideas. Historically, there has been merit to this: in the 1930's, the Democratic party absorbed many of the ideas of the Socialist party, which had decent showings in the late 1920s. Similarly, the relative success of a few Libertarian candidates in the 1970s had an impact on the agenda of Ronald's Reagan's presidency, which was decidedly more libertarian in economic views than his Republican predecessors.

However, that's all in the past. Today, the money given to the Democratic and Republican parties make them much less resistant to change, and any change that DOES come will emerge from creative people within the parties rather than without. Therefore, the old argument about outside absorption doesn't apply. So in effect, if you are voting for a 3rd party, you're not influencing anything, you're not changing any outcome. You may as well not vote. While I wouldn't say you're an idiot. you're basically making a foolish and meaningless gesture.
Click to expand...
So you're saying because people don't vote for 3rd parties, voting for 3rd parties is meaningless. Got it.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. It may be meaningful to YOU- perhaps voting for Batman is meaningful to you. But if your desire is to have any kind of impact, no matter how small, on our political system, then no. We're locked in to the two party system. Only a catastrophic economic crisis would ever threaten our two party system, and I prefer not to see that happen.

 
jwb said:
I would say simply vote for the person you like best, regardless of party. You like the Green Party candidate? Then vote for that person.

Anything else just feeds into the machine everyone says they hate.
Click to expand...
Not all of us hate it. For the last 154 years, our current two party system has provided us one of the most stable, free, and progressive governments in world history.

 
timschochet said:
jwb said:
I would say simply vote for the person you like best, regardless of party. You like the Green Party candidate? Then vote for that person.

Anything else just feeds into the machine everyone says they hate.
Click to expand...
Not all of us hate it. For the last 154 years, our current two party system has provided us one of the most stable, free, and progressive governments in world history.
Click to expand...
True, not to mention those polls where people say they hate x party or y party or disapprove of the job they're doing and how Congress is doing, but ask them about their own rep or Senator and..... yeah they're pretty much happy with him.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
joffer said:
Tim's love for the two party system is just :loco:
Click to expand...
It's certainly not a popular view to take in this forum. But for all it's flaws, I think it's the best political system ever created. It runs rings around parliamentary Democracy- if you doubt this, I would urge you to study the Knesset and see the chaos.

 
There should be two votes

1) vote for your top choice

2) runoff of the top two vote-getters

This way you can vote your conscience and not have to worry about inadvertently helping some other ####### get elected

 
The original Constitution was pretty interesting...

The No. 2 vote getter for president became Vice President. The VP was President of the Senate. Imagine if Mitt Romney was the No. 2 man in the White House and held the power that Harry Reid (Pat Leahy) does.

Or vice versa, imagine Al Gore having been in that situation under Bush.

Anyway, that had possibilities.

 
3rd Parties are like backup QBs; they all look great over there on the sidelines and get a ton of hype b/c they don't actually have to play the game.

As soon as they get a few snaps, they are exposed.

 
FlapJacks said:
There should be two votes

1) vote for your top choice

2) runoff of the top two vote-getters

This way you can vote your conscience and not have to worry about inadvertently helping some other ####### get elected
Click to expand...
It does not necessarily have to be two votes. Instant runoff voting (where you rank the candidates, and votes are transferred as the lowest vote-getter is eliminated by round until someone gets a majority) is used elsewhere in the world, and in certain local contests in the U.S.

 
timschochet said:
So in effect, if you are voting for a 3rd party, you're not influencing anything, you're not changing any outcome. You may as well not vote. While I wouldn't say you're an idiot. you're basically making a foolish and meaningless gesture.
Click to expand...
This is true. But it's just as true if you vote for one of the major-party candidates. No matter whom you vote for, you're not changing any national electoral outcome. I don't know whether you voted for Romney or Obama (I don't keep a notebook), but Obama was going to win either way. You, personally, have no influence. Your vote doesn't matter. A vote for Hillary is exactly the same as a vote for a third-party candidate as far as practical consequences are concerned.

Therefore, don't worry about practical consequences. Think of voting as a form of entertainment. Vote for the candidate you admire most -- no matter which party she or he belongs to -- not because your vote is going to influence the election, but because it makes you feel better about democracy and your role in it. There's much to be said in favor of feeling better about things.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FlapJacks said:
There should be two votes

1) vote for your top choice

2) runoff of the top two vote-getters

This way you can vote your conscience and not have to worry about inadvertently helping some other ####### get elected
Click to expand...
I would consider some other things:

- Don't put the party of the candidate next to their name. Know who the hell you're voting for before you go in.

- Allow a 'none of the above' choice.

- Get rid of registration fees for running for office. This would encourage more people to run and almost always ensure people a choice at the ballot box.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
FlapJacks said:
There should be two votes

1) vote for your top choice

2) runoff of the top two vote-getters

This way you can vote your conscience and not have to worry about inadvertently helping some other ####### get elected
Click to expand...
I would consider some other things:

- Don't put the party of the candidate next to their name. Know who the hell you're voting for before you go in.

- Allow a 'none of the above' choice.

- Get rid of registration fees for running for office. This would encourage more people to run and almost always ensure people a choice at the ballot box.
Click to expand...
D. Cancel voting and install a benevolent dictator.

 
timschochet said:
Gr00vus said:
timschochet said:
I think it's more true now than it used to be.

The argument in the past for voting for 3rd parties was that while they could never win, if they garnered enough votes to gain attention, then one of the two main parties would eventually absorb many of their ideas. Historically, there has been merit to this: in the 1930's, the Democratic party absorbed many of the ideas of the Socialist party, which had decent showings in the late 1920s. Similarly, the relative success of a few Libertarian candidates in the 1970s had an impact on the agenda of Ronald's Reagan's presidency, which was decidedly more libertarian in economic views than his Republican predecessors.

However, that's all in the past. Today, the money given to the Democratic and Republican parties make them much less resistant to change, and any change that DOES come will emerge from creative people within the parties rather than without. Therefore, the old argument about outside absorption doesn't apply. So in effect, if you are voting for a 3rd party, you're not influencing anything, you're not changing any outcome. You may as well not vote. While I wouldn't say you're an idiot. you're basically making a foolish and meaningless gesture.
Click to expand...
So you're saying because people don't vote for 3rd parties, voting for 3rd parties is meaningless. Got it.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. It may be meaningful to YOU- perhaps voting for Batman is meaningful to you. But if your desire is to have any kind of impact, no matter how small, on our political system, then no. We're locked in to the two party system. Only a catastrophic economic crisis would ever threaten our two party system, and I prefer not to see that happen.
Click to expand...
Your circular reasoning and defeatist attitude are delicious.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
timschochet said:
So in effect, if you are voting for a 3rd party, you're not influencing anything, you're not changing any outcome. You may as well not vote. While I wouldn't say you're an idiot. you're basically making a foolish and meaningless gesture.
Click to expand...
This is true. But it's just as true if you vote for one of the major-party candidates. No matter whom you vote for, you're not changing any outcome. I don't know whether you voted for Romney or Obama (I don't keep a notebook), but Obama was going to win either way. You, personally, have no influence. Your vote doesn't matter. A vote for Hillary is exactly the same as a vote for a third-party candidate as far as practical consequences are concerned.

Therefore, don't worry about practical consequences. Think of voting as a form of entertainment. Vote for the candidate you admire most -- no matter which party she or he belongs to -- not because your vote is going to influence the election, but because it makes you feel better about democracy and your role in it. There's much to be said in favor of feeling good.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

Until my one vote is the decides an election, all my votes were wasted.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GregR
Greg's Useless Trivia #50 - 100 questions (75 greatest hits, 25 new)
Replies
19
Views
2K
GregR
GregR
SHIZNITTTT
Supreme Court weighs union fees for teachers: Is it a matter of free s
2
Replies
66
Views
1K
Hooper31
Hooper31
BobbyLayne
The 25 Greatest Films of the 21st Century So Far
2 3 4
Replies
155
Views
6K
El Floppo
El Floppo

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top