I am seeing a lot of "Obama vs. Romney, either way we are screwed" posts on the internet.....Uh are you all fucking dumb? there are more than just two people running for president. STOP choosing the lesser of the two evils. if you think your wasting a vote if you have the lesser of two evils mentality then waste it on a third party, and guaranteed that "wasted" vote for a third party will be BETTER than the two evils.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-01 20:12
If democracy could actually change anything important, it'd be banned. Overnight.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-01 20:18
Having two parties makes the candidates seem polarized, and voters cast based on that. Thus do the candidates make themselves appeal to the extremes.
Through voting for a more nuanced platform (of a third party, since the two we have aren't interested), it would push the Democrats and Republicans to moderate their own platforms for fear of losing votes.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-03 6:17
We're stuck with a two-party system because of the first-past-the-post voting system in place. It mathematically ensures that there will only be two parties in place.
>>1 if[sic] you think your wasting a vote if you have the lesser of two evils mentality then waste it on a third party
Voting third party is a "wasted vote" because of the "spoiler effect". This video explains it all rather well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
Now if we could just abolish the Electoral College, that would be a plus.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-03 9:30
>>4
Well no, it isn't practical because most people can't reason themselves out of a cardboard box or look at the big picture, but voting for a third party is a good idea to break the system in theory.
We just need a candidate who is centrist enough to appeal to both sides enough. That video only dealt with a candidate who couldn't draw enough votes from either side.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-04 0:03
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty." — George Washington, September 19, 1796
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-04 0:23
Since when there are two parties? U.S. has just one party under different marketing names. Shame they can't have both white and black presidents at the same time, so they have to use a mixed one.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-04 1:11
don't lie lar,... both democrat and republican are illuminati member,s.... whoever win, the power still in the new world order's hand...
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-04 11:31
Another one of the "two almost-different choices".
- The Republicrat pretend-enemies, with unattested rumours of a mythical "third party" somewhere well clear of any air-time
- "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists". There's a difference?
- Coke/Pepsi; or, if you're feeling particularly non-conformist, Dr Pepper
- PC/Mac; anything else is small-time embedded systems based on ARM processors
- If you go with PC, then there's Windows… and Windows. And Linux, if you're feeling geeky for real.
Just the examples off the top of my head. There's more.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-04 11:37
>>9
2 is the minimum number to ensure competition.
>>9 If you go with PC, then there's Windows… and Windows. And Linux, if you're feeling geeky for real.
All Windows, MacOSX and Linux have similar architectures (and run mostly the same software), compared to Open Genera or capability-based systems.
So in practice they are all versions of single OS.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-06 14:39
>>11
Same CPU? Same graphic accelerators? Same keyboard/mouse ports?
>>12 and run mostly the same software
Not without compatibility layers and shit, they don't.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-06 14:42
>>10
2 is a somewhat small number to be using over and over and over.
I mentioned the Republicrat pretend-enemies. They dominate the landscape and prevent any real competition from ever entering the ballgame. That's the worst of the examples, also in that they're gonna get to keep that oh-so-not-monopoly on power of theirs, for as long as the sheeple don't wake up (i.e. forever).
>>17
By OS, do you mean API? Or GUI?
Cos GUI's are more into being "human-compatible" (or, rather, sheeple-compatible) than anything else.
As for API, it's one of those infamous things-under-the-hood that only look similar until you bother to actually look.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-09 0:37
>>11
Wouldn't they then have a similar price tag?
They are definitely two different philosophies. Mac takes user idiocy for granted (to the point of obstructing tech literacy), PCs allow people to be literate and leave the dumbing-down to someone in Redmond.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-09 20:48
>>18
I mean general architecture. GUI and API just provides various levels of access to it.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-10 9:26
>>20
So you really are saying that PC and Mac are even more pretend-different than I first thought? Why then, that just underscores my original point (>>9) even more.
>>15
Linux can run on other CPU architectures, you know. PowerPC is becoming a popular one again thanks to the new Amiga that came out. Now HTML 5 video needs to become as popular as Flash and then we can finally watch Web video on virtually any computer.