41 replies to this topic

[Orcseeker]

Original article: http://www.politico....ots-148639.html

Quote

Hard to tell if the A block of MSNBC's 12 p.m. hour today was "Now With Alex Wagner" or "Hardball with Chris Matthews."

Matthews was a guest at Wagner's table today but largely controlled the conversation as he railed against people who either weren't intending to vote or intended to vote for a third-party candidate.

"If you don't vote, you're an idiot," Matthews yelled at the camera. "If you don't vote, I don't want to talk to you. And if you vote for one of these numbskull third or fourth party candidates like Gary Johnson or Jill Stein and say, 'Oh, I was so surprised at what happened. ...' No! You shouldn't be! Because idiots like you voted for third- and fourt-party candidates, and they don't know how this system works. You have two choices."

Matthews has many fans on the left, but he probably just lost the Green Party. 

The larger issue on the table: Should cable news hosts be admonishing people based on how they vote?

So what kind of country is the US? One where you only have a small choice as to which goes where? That you are pigeonholed into making a choice regardless of your thoughts on the issue?

The main choices are what everyone hears about, they have an upper hand just on that information alone. People have these choices shoved in their faces. Those who don't delve to deeply in their choice would usually go for one or the other. Should those who do this be demonised and shunned? Is it not proof that some actual thought has gone into their vote and consideration of the alternatives? Should this not be encouraged?

What do you think?

[Hasina]

What do I think? I think Matthews is an idiot.

[supervike]

Hasina, on 08 November 2012 - 01:20 AM, said:

What do I think? I think Matthews is an idiot.

Took the words right out of my mouth.  The guy is just a blowhard pundit.  It's people like him that makes politics so hard to stay interested in.

Edited by supervike, 08 November 2012 - 01:22 AM.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Mind you, to vote for a Third Party and be surprised they didn't win is somewhat naieve.
I'm never surprised the people I vote for don't win, Australia is inherently "conservative" while I vote "Green".

[ImaLoner]

Oh, now my feelings are hurt...     I'm an idiot because I use my brain to think and choose which candidate I want, rather than who others tell me to vote for.  Garsh...  I guess it never occurred to Matthews that his chosen party may actually one day be obsolete.. Maybe he missed that bit in his History books about how majority parties disappeared after a shift in political opinions.. What a git!

[Hilander]

Its your vote use it like you want to.  I think third party candidates need more exposure.

[supervike]

Hilander, on 08 November 2012 - 01:59 AM, said:

Its your vote use it like you want to.  I think third party candidates need more exposure.

Absolutely! Fresh ideas should never be dismissed.

[MiskatonicGrad]

supervike, on 08 November 2012 - 02:02 AM, said:

Absolutely! Fresh ideas should never be dismissed.

unless they come from the mind of Chris Matthews. No fear of that though.

Edited by MiskatonicGrad, 08 November 2012 - 02:40 AM.

[F3SS]

Orcseeker, on 08 November 2012 - 01:14 AM, said:

Original article: http://www.politico....ots-148639.html



So what kind of country is the US? One where you only have a small choice as to which goes where? That you are pigeonholed into making a choice regardless of your thoughts on the issue?

The main choices are what everyone hears about, they have an upper hand just on that information alone. People have these choices shoved in their faces. Those who don't delve to deeply in their choice would usually go for one or the other. Should those who do this be demonised and shunned? Is it not proof that some actual thought has gone into their vote and consideration of the alternatives? Should this not be encouraged?

What do you think?

He's just a sheep. I'm proud to admit that for the first time I chose every libertarian I could and no vote on two unchallenged dems. No, I didn't pick Gary Johnson. Just thought it was more important to get O out.
Anyhow, it should be encouraged not discouraged. Really, how the hell is someone like Gary Johnson supposed to get his name out. I seen two commercials for him during the fall but I only recognized what it was about because I knew who he was. Otherwise I'd never notice or remember. Third parties should be given exposure. They really can't achieve only 5% of the vote? Especially with all the Ron Paul supporters out there? Are Ron and Gary really that much different? If so, how?
Also, like 12-15M less people voted this year. Repubs lost around 2M votes and dems(Obama) lost around 12M since 2008. Were those independents and Paulies who just opted out? Were they former dem voters who didn't want to vote for Obama but couldn't vote for Romney? I doubt they were Paulies but the Obama still lost 12M votes. Who were they? I'm very curious.
EDIT: who were they and why didn't they vote.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 08 November 2012 - 02:48 AM.

[karmakazi]

Orcseeker, on 08 November 2012 - 01:14 AM, said:

Original article: http://www.politico....ots-148639.html



So what kind of country is the US? One where you only have a small choice as to which goes where? That you are pigeonholed into making a choice regardless of your thoughts on the issue?

The main choices are what everyone hears about, they have an upper hand just on that information alone. People have these choices shoved in their faces. Those who don't delve to deeply in their choice would usually go for one or the other. Should those who do this be demonised and shunned? Is it not proof that some actual thought has gone into their vote and consideration of the alternatives? Should this not be encouraged?

What do you think?

I think it's sad that there are people that not only listen to this guy but agree with him.  No one should be bullied into voting one way or another, yet it is pretty common.  Feh.  Still glad I don't have cable after all these years.

More often than not, he who has the most money for the campaign wins.

Edited by karmakazi, 08 November 2012 - 03:13 AM.

[acidhead]

The idiots are more aptly called zombies in my book....... you know?..... anybody who voted either D or R yesterday.  

lol

[Jackofalltrades]

In my opinion, it might benefit the US if there was another party elected and not just the democrat's or republican's party's that normally get elected...
They have both had more than their fair share of running the country, and where has it got the US ?

It would be benficial for the US to actually give the people a choice, rather than making them choose from the lesser of two evil's (Lib's/Dem's) which judging by what I seen in this election there is not much difference to each other

In my opinion, the playing field should be levelled out and make all candidates spend a maximum amount of money, and not spend million's/billion's to run for president (which I think is disgusting, as the money could be put to better use like housing the homeless etc), doing that would give the third party candidate's a chance at winning (some seem like they may do a better Job than any Lib/Dem has done to date) it would give the American people more choice to who they want as President, and who they think would actually do a better job

IF I voted (I dont vote) IF I could vote in the US, then I would vote for ANY other third party that seem they would do the job better, and not the Lib / Dem party's

Matthews seem's like a **** in my opinion (judging by what he said about people voting for third party's)

[F3SS]

I really like the idea of putting a cap on the amount of campaign money allowed to be spent. A cap for primaries and a cap for general. No billion dollar campaigning. It is kind of sick that a president makes 400k, swindles a billion dollars to advertise and touts himself as relating to the common man. Sounds more like a self fulfilling selfish thing looking at it that way. Limiting to 100-200M could first limit a campaign to the where one stands on issues and less focus on attacks. Plus, there would be an inevitable yearning for people to look into other options and parties when Ds and Rs aren't the only thing bombarding you in the face anymore.

[Gromdor]

Eh, but the PACs aren't directly affiliated with the campaigns, that is how they get around a lot of the rules regarding campaign spending.

[lightly]

There was a time when our two current major parties didn't exist....  they came into existence by "idiots"  voting for an alternate party.