Export thread

I couldn't make this up if I wanted to.

This is the state of our politics.

So, you've read the article, there is no doubt as to what is transpiring here. The question is now what everyone's thoughts and opinions are on the matter. Do you find this to be a viable political strategy, or a dirty trick?

I think Grandpa looks legit.

No seriously, what the fook. One would hope tricks like this would backfire in the face of the party responsible.

I mean, that's not politics, that's playing silly buggers.

Lol, honestly don't care I think if you vote with no idea of who you are voting for than go ahead and throw your vote away. This same stuff is happening here with the democrats making a party called Tea Party, I am not sure where it sits right now but it was having problems getting put on the ticket.

Update I guess it was decided it was illegal but it is hardly a surprise this stuff is happening.

Hey, hey, hey. Guys. It isn't about politics.

It's about getting jobs for people down on their luck.

I mean, who wouldn't want a 30 year old vagrant running the state's treasury, especially when their own situation will be so much improved by it?

I can't believe you duplicrats* are up in arms about this - isn't Obama trumpeting about JOBS JOBS JOBS lately?

;-P

*As opposed to the replicons, of course.

Which is more disturbing?

A political party pulling this, or the strong possibility that they will actually receive votes?

The problem is no one is voting for something anymore, but voting against something.

Liv said:

Which is more disturbing?

A political party pulling this, or the strong possibility that they will actually receive votes?

Click to expand...

If by "disturbing" you mean "expected", both.

Liv said:

Which is more disturbing?

A political party pulling this, or the strong possibility that they will actually receive votes?

Click to expand...

Don't worry, third parties don't receive votes

Grandpa, widely known in the area through the pedicab he drives for hire, is against higher taxes and for God in the classroom.

Click to expand...

But, but ... the other Republicans told me that Greens are Godless Communists who want to tax us into slavery!

I'm so confused! :waah:

It would be hilarious if each side set up Manchurian candidates who are so much better at playing the stereotype than the real deals that by the time of the election, only the fake candidates are left.

I thought my opinion of American politics could not sink any lower.

I was wrong.

North_Ranger said:

I thought my opinion of American politics could not sink any lower.

I was wrong.

Click to expand...

Yep. A two-party Adversarial system where both parties are hideously financed and powerful usually results in everything BUT violence. I'd probably say the most blatant and embarrassing proof of this is the events of the Watergate break-in, and that's only if you don't count the currently inprovable election fraud of the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections.

I'm confused about this. What does this move do to benefit the republican party? If anything it benefits the democrats by weakening the third party that siphons votes from them.

No, in one instance Republican operatives were putting up Green Party candidates, which would normally otherwise vote Democrat, while in the other Democrat operatives were making up Tea Party people to siphon away from Republican votes.

What I find really weird is the Democrats involved in the Michigan scandal resign in shame or got fired while the Republican in the Arizona one says to the NY Times "Yeah, I did it and I'm proud of it." Is this a regional thing or a party thing?

Krisken said:

No, in one instance Republican operatives were putting up Green Party candidates, which would normally otherwise vote Democrat, while in the other Democrat operatives were making up Tea Party people to siphon away from Republican votes.

What I find really weird is the Democrats involved in the Michigan scandal resign in shame or got fired while the Republican in the Arizona one says to the NY Times "Yeah, I did it and I'm proud of it." Is this a regional thing or a party thing?

Click to expand...

It's a chutzpah thing. It's like extreme Gerrymandering. Some people, when caught, don't want to deal with, or can't take the flak and so resign under pressure.

Other people take that pressure, relish it, and power through the public relations mess.

In either case nothing illegal was done. Just very, very shady.

Sheesh. First everyone complains that Republicans don't care about the poor, and here's this guy trying to help a bunch of the homeless get government jobs, and everyone just bitches about it. Man, nothing makes you guys happy.

Thinking about it, it really is a form of political darwinism.

People who are so stupid that they blindly vote green just because it exists on the ballot, without actually looking at the candidates to see if they actually follow the party's principles probably deserve what they get.

The people who are complaining about this are, essentially, saying, "We want our stupid constituents back! No fair putting up a decoy that so obviously fake that a baby could see it for what it is!"

First Lady Puffinstuff said:

Thinking about it, it really is a form of political darwinism.

People who are so stupid that they blindly vote green just because it exists on the ballot, without actually looking at the candidates to see if they actually follow the party's principles probably deserve what they get.

The people who are complaining about this are, essentially, saying, "We want our stupid constituents back! No fair putting up a decoy that so obviously fake that a baby could see it for what it is!"

Click to expand...

Next you'll say there shouldn't be bank regulations because banks shouldn't be responsible about lending.

I'll admit I wouldn't see the benefit in this. I assumed if you're going to vote for a third party you're at least going to research the person you're throwing your vote away for.

I guess third party voters aren't any more informed than your average voter.

Krisken;435854][QUOTE=First Lady Puffinstuff said:

Thinking about it, it really is a form of political darwinism.

People who are so stupid that they blindly vote green just because it exists on the ballot, without actually looking at the candidates to see if they actually follow the party's principles probably deserve what they get.

The people who are complaining about this are, essentially, saying, "We want our stupid constituents back! No fair putting up a decoy that so obviously fake that a baby could see it for what it is!"

Click to expand...

Next you'll say there shouldn't be bank regulations because banks shouldn't be responsible about lending.[/QUOTE]

If we had a two party banking system run by elected officials your analogy would totally make sense.

What the banks did was far worse than politics anyway. They traded securities, which is a nice way of saying, "We will sell you insurance on stock you don't own. You can then sell that insurance to another bank. Heaven help us all if the market has a significant dip at the wrong time."

Further, you can't introduce too much regulation on people's free speech, especially in cases where that speech is political in nature. I can't even begin to think about what legislation could be enacted that would 1) have a significant positive effect, 2) have no significant negative effect, 3) have no loopholes that could carry a semi, and 4) not implicitly allow or pave the way for some other shady behavior.

So you can complain all you want, but the fix is an informed and active public. Figure out how to solve that problem rather than creating the most labyrinthian rule-set you can.

I'm all ears on your suggestion.

Krisken said:

I'm all ears on your suggestion.

Click to expand...

I don't recall suggesting that we need a solution, nevermind having a suggestion for one.

This has been going on forever in one form or another. Lots of puppet leaders have been set up through the ages. At least this guy's out in the open.

But I'm not sure what the problem is, exactly. It's skeezy, but isn't it democracy?

Considering my experiences with the Green Party in Canada, homeless vagrants ARE their demographic.

Thread: Republican Operative...
- Rep: Democrats do the same thing too. Where are your posts about their plants in Tea Party rallies? -Quonas


What, you mean like Crono pointed out up there? Where I commented on it?


Honestly, it's shitty no matter who does it. I don't find "But they do it too" to be a justifiable defense. I just happened to see the Republican one first.

Quonas probably didn't know that rep is no longer anonymous.

It is shit and your point isn't that the republicans are turds, its that both sides have really gone to shit and find it is awesome to waste donation money or whatever money on building up a candidate whose only job is to take votes, that isn't the democratic process that is a buschleague technique.

Also if you think third party voters don't matter Al Gore would like a word with you because I am pretty sure Ralph Nader took votes that would have changed the 2000 election.

The only third party candidate to split the vote and cost an election was Teddy Roosevelt.

Also both sides haven't gone to shit, they have always been shit. Politics has never been this pure honorable ideal people seem to make it out to be. Something we should strive for it to be? yes. Something it once was? no.

Covar said:

The only third party candidate to split the vote and cost an election was Teddy Roosevelt.

Click to expand...

Because the only elections that matter are national ones. *facepalm*

AshburnerX;436650][QUOTE=Covar said:

The only third party candidate to split the vote and cost an election was Teddy Roosevelt.

Click to expand...

Because the only elections that matter are national ones. *facepalm*[/QUOTE]

Because the only nations that matter are election based ones.

Because the only matters that are national are election based ones.

Because the only nations that elect are matter based ones.

Because the only matters that are elected are national.

Because the only elections that are national matter.

Sorry, I saw a trio and had to see what the other permutations indicated.

First Lady Puffinstuff;436661][QUOTE=AshburnerX;436650][QUOTE=Covar said:

The only third party candidate to split the vote and cost an election was Teddy Roosevelt.

Click to expand...

Because the only elections that matter are national ones. *facepalm*[/QUOTE]

Because the only nations that matter are election based ones.

Because the only matters that are national are election based ones.

Because the only nations that elect are matter based ones.

Because the only matters that are elected are national.

Because the only elections that are national matter.

Sorry, I saw a trio and had to see what the other permutations indicated.[/QUOTE]

I have absolutely NO idea what you are trying to say here.

Nothing really. He just wanted to take the three words nation, matters, and election and switch them around and see what other sentences could be made to make statements.

Did I get that right Puffinstuff?

Dammit, when he got to, "Because the only nations that elect are matter based ones" I totally thought he was going to go in a completely different direction from that point.

SpecialKO said:

Dammit, when he got to, "Because the only nations that elect are matter based ones" I totally thought he was going to go in a completely different direction from that point.

Click to expand...

I'm a staunch materialist. I'm totally against nations composed entirely of non-matter.

First Lady Puffinstuff;436712][QUOTE=SpecialKO said:

Dammit, when he got to, "Because the only nations that elect are matter based ones" I totally thought he was going to go in a completely different direction from that point.

Click to expand...

I'm a staunch materialist. I'm totally against nations composed entirely of non-matter.[/QUOTE]

Typical prejudice conservative.

escushion;436719][QUOTE=First Lady Puffinstuff;436712][QUOTE=SpecialKO said:

Dammit, when he got to, "Because the only nations that elect are matter based ones" I totally thought he was going to go in a completely different direction from that point.

Click to expand...

I'm a staunch materialist. I'm totally against nations composed entirely of non-matter.[/QUOTE]

Typical prejudice conservative.[/QUOTE]

I dunno, the traditional GOP platform seems pretty materialist to me. His anti-matter stance wouldn't combine with that very well.

escushion;436719][QUOTE=First Lady Puffinstuff;436712][QUOTE=SpecialKO said:

Dammit, when he got to, "Because the only nations that elect are matter based ones" I totally thought he was going to go in a completely different direction from that point.

Click to expand...

I'm a staunch materialist. I'm totally against nations composed entirely of non-matter.[/QUOTE]

Typical prejudice conservative.[/QUOTE]

You won't be so glib when your daughter starts dating an anti-matter person. It only takes one "mistake" and the entire city is immolated in a blinding flash of light.

There are good reasons why anti-matter nations are kept separate.