2004 Elections

[CommunistRob]

Ok.So everyone here probably agrees that it is best to make sure bush does not get elected ( I'm not going to say re-elected he never won the first time).But who do you guys support.I mean personally I don't want to support any of the democratic canidates because they are just as bought out by the rich as G.W.Bush.What about Ralph Nader the consumer advocate he doesn't seem to be supported by the rich but he still does not seem like someone who could relate to the common man.I don't have the time to see who the other canidates are ,did the communsit party or the socialist party nominate anyone yet.So comrades enlighten me and give me your opinions.

[Solace]

I don't support any.

If I could vote in the US, I would get that little paper and draw a hammer and a sickle on it. In bold face.

[Morpheus]

I'm going to boycott the election. The last time the democrats were in power they killed at least 2 million people. Clinton killed 1.5-3 million people through sanctions on Iraq, backed genocide in Turkey, bombed Yugoslavia and a gazillion other countries, including that medicine factory in Sudan. None of the third parties will be allowed to win, whenever they stand a chance the government suppresses the party, puts it's candidates in jail, censors it's publications, etc. Look at Eugene Debs & the socialist party. Nader is a millionaire and a union-buster. See http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000...ocks/index.html (http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/28/stocks/index.html) and http://lists.village.virginia.edu/lists_ar...ies-l/1288.html (http://lists.village.virginia.edu/lists_archive/sixties-l/1288.html)

See my article The Dead End of Electoralism (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/Electoralism.html)

[CommunistRob]

Ok what about third party canidates does anyone in particular draw any of you peoples support?

[Pepo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 01:01 AM
I don't have the time to see who the other canidates are ,did the communsit party or the socialist party nominate anyone yet.So comrades enlighten me and give me your opinions.
I thought that in U.S Comunism would be somekind of sickness.

Communist party?! Where, since when?!! Where are this comunists. Lat time I saw comunists in US they where killed, by the same fucking Nazis that keep in Power.

What's the difference between Democrates and Republicans? Well, not many but some.

Democrates try to talk with International community and arrange a solution that all agree and they Bomb.

Republicans simply Bomb.

A country that never had a real multy party sistem how can be called democratic?

I leave in a countrie where there is 5 political representation in the assembly. and it goes from comunists until right democrats. For 15 years was even better, there was all kind of people and ideas.

US will decide, one thing is for sure. People in US where brainedwashed and many becamne to stupid to think. All they want is Big Mac and some stupid TV show like Jerry Springer.

I would vote Jerry Springer for president at least the world would have something to laugh about US because at the moment US brings only sadness to the world.

Copy

[Lardlad95]

I support Walter Brown and the Socialist Party

[Michael De Panama]

It is best to make sure that Bush gets elected.

[Solace]

Oh, my fucking llama shit! Is that really you Michael De Panama? I thought you were dead.

*faints*

[Comrade Yars]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 01:30 AM
Oh, my fucking llama shit! Is that really you Michael De Panama? I thought you were dead.

*faints*
... :blink:

[Bolschewik]

I disagree with De Panama.

I am personally undecided whether I should vote for Nader or not vote at all. It all depends. I think Bush will win the election because of the treats that he will present this year. Namely the transfer of power and the capture of bin laden... possibly a pre-election terrorist attack.

[che's long lost daughter]

I have been asking asking the same question on whom will I vote for during the elections here in my country but i decided not to vote for anybody because I think no one deaserves my vote.

I am not familiar with the candidates in the elections in America but I must say, noooooooooooooo, not BU$H, not agaiinnnnn!!!!!

[Solace]

Can I know why do I have those eyes blinking and staring at me, Comrade Yars?

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by che's long lost [email protected] 6 2004, 05:53 PM
I have been asking asking the same question on whom will I vote for during the elections here in my country but i decided not to vote for anybody because I think no one deaserves my vote.

I am not familiar with the candidates in the elections in America but I must say, noooooooooooooo, not BU$H, not agaiinnnnn!!!!!
Think I can get an enlarged version but instead of what you have at the bottom put "Thinking I can waste tax payer money, and people will still like me...Priceless"

I want to post them all around my city

[SittingBull47]

none. motherfucking Kerry is just as bad as Bush.

This is a bit off topic, but i saw an ad ran by the Kerry Admin., they were badmouthing sen. Arlen Specter. I don't know too much about Specter, but the fucking Kerryites labeled him "100% too liberal" in big RED letters...it wasn't lost on me.

[il Commie]

Don't boycott elections. Don't vote capitalist candidates (Bush, Kerry, Nader...). Either vote some socialist candidate (as a vote of protest, they don't really stand a chance) or vote 'ABSTAIN'. If there was a big communist party, or atleast a union-based Labour party in the US you could vote for them and not boycott elections, but since there isn't just vote abstain.

[FatFreeMilk]

What's the whole point of making it a point on not voting or abstaining from from voting or voting for someone who doesn't have a chance. There are *seven political parties running for president, none of which are communist. Wouldn't it be best to just vote for the "best" one? Would you rather give Bush the chance to serve another term?

*Scratch that, there are only six. The natural law party has zero candidates.

[Michael De Panama]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 12:33 PM
I disagree with De Panama.

I am personally undecided whether I should vote for Nader or not vote at all. It all depends. I think Bush will win the election because of the treats that he will present this year. Namely the transfer of power and the capture of bin laden... possibly a pre-election terrorist attack.
Who cares who wins? It's still the same government. I don't know why any of you haven't realized this, but Bush's incompetence in disguising the intentions of our government is the best thing a radical leftist could ever ask for.

I hope to fucking God that Bush wins in 2004.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

The way I look at it, if you aren't voting for Kerry, you might as well show how much you care about the world and vote for Bush. I can tell you, that if Gore had won, our economy would have been as fucked as it is now, and we wouldn't be in Iraq. Unless you WANT to see Cuba taken over, vote for Kerry.

[Michael De Panama]

Hell yeah! Vote Kerry! Down with Bush! Together, we can slightly change the system a little bit!!

[Le Libérer]

You know, if we can put down our defenses long enough, we would realize there is little difference between Republicans and Democrats. (my epiphamy for the day) One is in office, taxes go up, when the other is in office, we go to war. The two parties will throw around words like 'conservative' and 'liberal' as if they mean something different. The truth is, the two parties make deliberate efforts to present themselves as "middle of the road" in order to win more votes from the average guy.

The U$ was not founded on a two-party system. In fact, there were several strong major parties at the founding of this country, along with a dozen or so smaller parties. After a while, most of these parties merged in an effort to obtain majorities and what eventually evolved, were the Democrat and Republican parties today. This fine oiled machine has done one thing, eliminate competition.

In many European countries, (correct me if I'm wrong) it is not unusual to have five or six well known, frequently elected political parties. Unfortunately here in the U$, a person is perceived as a traitor if they are registered Independent or affiliated with the Green Party, Libertarian Party, or Reform Party.

I have found this 2 party system has done only one thing, besides eliminate competition, its divided the middle and lower classes into fighting with each other so much, that the upper class secretly keeps lining their pockets with their money. Enron, anyone?

Vote for anyone but Bu$h!

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Michael De [email protected] 7 2004, 04:04 AM
Hell yeah! Vote Kerry! Down with Bush! Together, we can slightly change the system a little bit!!
....Thats no more moronic than you wanting bush to win. I mean how much did the GOP pay you to infiltrate this site?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by Michael De [email protected] 7 2004, 12:04 AM
Hell yeah! Vote Kerry! Down with Bush! Together, we can slightly change the system a little bit!!
Or you can vote Nader and not change it at all!

[Morpheus]

The evidence does not support the position that the democrats are the lesser of two evils. Clinton killed at least 2 million people through sanctions on Iraq, genocide in Turkey, bombing Yugoslavia and a gazillion other countries. The highest estimate I've seen for Bush is .25 million.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Why don't you just go and vote for Bush then? I happen to support the bombing of Yugoslavic. Miloshevik was a Fascist, genocidal dictator who needed to go...

[Michael De Panama]

....Thats no more moronic than you wanting bush to win. I mean how much did the GOP pay you to infiltrate this site?
To infiltrate this site? A million billion dollars.

Or you can vote Nader and not change it at all!
That's why this is solid evidence that this government, as a whole, needs to be torn apart limb from limb. American democracy is worthless. Don't think you can change that just by switching the puppet representing it.

Why don't you just go and vote for Bush then? I happen to support the bombing of Yugoslavic. Miloshevik was a Fascist, genocidal dictator who needed to go...
Why, in your opinion, was Milosevic worse, when Saddam was also a genocidal dictator?

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Michael De [email protected] 8 2004, 03:05 AM

....Thats no more moronic than you wanting bush to win. I mean how much did the GOP pay you to infiltrate this site?
To infiltrate this site? A million billion dollars.

You got ripped off

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 10:09 PM
Why don't you just go and vote for Bush then?
Because I'm not going to vote for someone who killed .25 million people.


happen to support the bombing of Yugoslavic. Miloshevik was a Fascist, genocidal dictator who needed to go...

Ah, so your'e an imperialist who "supports his own ruling class" in RedStar's words. Milosevic wasn't a fascist, he was president of the last surviving member of the Eastern Bloc. Bombing Yugoslavia was another imperialist venture, like in Iraq, designed to rip the country apart and replace it with a bunch of NATO puppet governments. Clinton shipped Muslim Fundamentalist terrorists into Bosnia to help destabilize Yugoslavia. NATO doesn't give a rats ass about genocide. Turkey, a NATO member, was committing genocide against the Kurds at the same time NATO was bombing Yugoslavia. The US provided 80% of the weapons. Tens of thousands were slaughtered and over 3,000 villages destroyed. Do you support that, too? The US backs numerous brutal dictatorships around the world - Pakistan, Kuwait, Uzbeckistan, etc. Do you support that policy, too?

[redstar2000]

I knew there was a reason I saved this quote.


From the September-October 2003 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine...

I credit Bush for his ambition and for taking political risks he did not have to take. I share his assessment of the need not simply to oppose but also to defeat the declared enemies of the country. For the good of the United States, I hope his policies succeed.

Madeleine Albright, "life-long Democrat", Secretary of State in the Clinton administration, 1997-2000.

Ah, the Democratic "alternative". :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[sh0cker]

Any one who tries to keep USA and their politics IN their own country, not to settle things around the world which mostly ends up on benefiting from the side which support USA.
And thats not right neither to even close to democratism which are they saying they are.

It is really hard to say will some others become better?
It is obvious that every USA president wants to settle problems around world etc.
And is it because the influence of people around them, like Jews (I don't have anything against them) or mafia which is more likely, no one knows really.
And even with this kind of media we are unable to be well informed so that we can discuss about these things.


sh0cker