Does it matter which political party you cast a vote for?

"Do not give(your vote) what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces" (Matthew 7:6)...

 

He was talking to Jews only.

 

So, I am wondering, why would making things worse for their country be part of their plan?

 

Maybe because they want to control everything and own everything and everyone but I don't know.

 

Oh so that specific time he was talking to the Jews, yet EVERY other time he was talking about generations to come?? You need to wake up and stop twisting words, only when they fit your agenda.

People like YOU are Nazi's. You know why? Cause you mindlessly follow a war mongering leader, thinking that somehow all this killing, war and, destruction is making a "better America."

Obama= Romney= Bush= Hitler.

No president should have the right to kill/detain American citizens!!!

And with that said, re-enlist in the armed forces. Cause once Obama starts war with Syria, Libya, Iran and, Africa, my generation is NOT going to bully the world in the name of "spreading democracy!!!"Seriously, YOU go die for this fake fucking cause!!!

Btw I wouldn't be the least bit surprised, if I found out you work for the Obama administration... You're just like one of them; always talking about the "good," he's doing, and avoiding every question that refers to his Tyranny.

 

One article on one AMAZING website does not change my mind about anything. I find people that cannot admit to themselves that the 2 party dictatorship is a farce and insist on participating in the slave suggestion box that is US voting "lethargic".

 

The nazis didn't lose, they just moved.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV1lZMTCqf8"]George Carlin's Greatest Moment - YouTube

 

You think the people who run this country are patriotic Americans? They're not. They are part of an international elite. They want a one-world government, so in order for that to occur America must be toppled first.

 

In countries such as the UK and US, until more than 70% of the electorate vote - the two party dominance will prevail.

I watched 'StpLSD25's Youtube clip - it was well done. I was impressed!
Obama and Romney seem to agree on certain issue - or did once upon a time.
Does this mean the Republican and Democratic party (or their predecessors) have agreed with each other over the last 250 years (or so)?
I'd like to see that Youtube video.
Does this mean their is no discernible differences?
I would say the simplistic answer is 'no', and the in-depth answer is 'yes'.
Ignoring the 'superficial issues'...
Would Al Gore have pursued a course to invade Iraq and Afghanistan if he had managed to secure less than 1% of the vote, in 2000?
Was it inevitable, regardless of who was in power, once 9/11 occurred?
Heck, would 9/11 have happened if Gore was in the Whitehouse?
What would have been the outcome if the other 46% [lets make it 47% ] of voters had voted? Who really knows!

What would be the situation in the UK if the Tories had secured three more election victories after 1997?
The reason it all feels the same is because, generally, it is.
However, Imho, there are key decisions that come along, and how they are dealt with defines a particular time and how the future pans out.

To suggest nothing would be different, regardless of who was in government, is highly simplistic, imho.

I tend to vote for who chimes with me at the time.
I voted for Blair.
I'd probably vote for Cameron.
I wouldn't have voted for Major.
I won't be voting for Ed.

 

I agree with you to an extent. I think people like to think America would've been alot different under Gore, when in fact, he's actually just Bush's cousin who shared the same general agenda, with completely different ways of appealing to the public. I don't think he would've stopped 9/11 or prevented war with Iraq.

 

Well, some people contend 9/11 was a false flag operation - an inside job.
I don't believe it was.
I don't believe because the vast majority of the seventies, eighties and nighties America had a Republican president - it helped 9/11 occur.
I do not believe there was an over-arching game plan covering decade upon decade (as Pressed Rat might suggest).
Do you believe that?
Imho, unless you tend to ignore everything and only follow a set ideology - you have to accept there is the possibilty for a different path to be followed.
However, as far as war with Iraq is concerned: http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html - you are probably right.
I'm not so sure about other aspect of policy.

- perhaps it depends which country you are talking about. Which election you are talking about. And, importantly, which candidates are involved.

 

I'm going to let Elizabeth Warren answer this with one of her responses in the debate with Scott Brown the other night. Case in point, if Republicans win a 51-49 control of the Senate, the new head of the Senate science committee will be a man who wrote a book on how global warming is a hoax. Or take Todd Akin, running for Senate who also currently sits on the House science committee, and believes the female body has ways of shutting that shit down if its a legitimate rape.

 

So, you're voting for Obama?

 

Some people believe Global Warming is a hoax, including me. The research for global warming only goes back 200 years, as people didn't document the climate temperature too much before then. Therefore I tend to believe the earth heats up and cools down naturally in a pattern that we're yet to understand. The EPA is spending billions of dollars and politicians (some republican and some democrats,) are getting our money and obedience through fear.

Global warming is going to kill us, the swine flu is going to kill us, terrorists are going to kill us etc. Because by keeping us in this mind frame, they're able to divide us into different groups. "poor, rich, black, white, Christian, Muslim republican, democrat, etc. etc.. This creates a diversion so we can never agree that something is terribly wrong. This problem is internal and ever growing, no matter which republican or democrat is elected.

 

I think they call it 'climate change' these days.
As some countries will heat up and other countries will cool down.
I know what you mean regarding studying the climate only over the last couple of hundred years.
But nowadays they can study eons of climate temp', and conditions through ice core readings and other means.
Which wasn't the case hundreds of years ago, or even late into the last century.
It's not like they are studying dusty parchment from 1864.
I guess, to some, climate research only started when the US government decided it was legitimate, and accepted it was an actuality.
Which has only occurred over the last decade or so.
You can't really ignore the fact humans have been pumping 'greenhouse gases' (CO2) into the atmosphere over the last couple of hundred years.
What do you think happens to the atmosphere when this occurs? Nothing?
Yes, the earth heats up and cools down in a fairly predictable pattern, and this continues.
On top of that, other variables are in play.
Perhaps you can give a few e.g's of a government or the EPA (or any other environmental agency around the world) that has stated it's going to kill us any time soon.
To be fair, I do think many governments made a big deal of this a decade or more ago.
As usual, Americans treated this in their usual gun-ho manner.
Either claiming it's all hocum (like you think) or it was the end of civilisation as we know it.
I do think the attitude is a little more sedate now.

Are you not just replacing one supposed fear with your own?
What is the problem?
What is going to happen in the next decade?
Who is responsible?
Try and respond to that in a reasonable way if you can - with out fear-mongering.

 

No, I'll probably vote for Jill Stein if she makes the ballot here since this isn't a swing state by far. If I lived in a swing state though, yeah I'd vote for Obama, I'd vote the hell out of Obama. It's not a preferable choice but strategic voting is a realization of the electoral system you have to deal with. Even the hero of the real left Noam Chomsky said he would've went for Obama had he lived in a swing state.

 

Fair enough.

Would you have gone with Rosanne if Jill had not beat her? - or would that be a strategy too far?

 

Sure I'd vote for her, I at least respect her. Heck even her old show I respect her for, people forget that show was groundbreaking in a lot of controversial areas, down to the fact the main family often pretty poor. If the choice was between Rosanne Barr and Jill Stein though(it may be in some place, Roseanne is on the ballot as the Freedom and Peace party candidate I think? in Cali and Florida) I'd go with Jill Stein.

 

On August 4, 2012, the Peace and Freedom Party nominated Roseanne Barr for President and Cindy Sheehan for Vice President. http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/

I like Roseanne but not Cindy. I was going to say Jill looked like Cindy, but that would have been rude. I wanted to remain an adult about this.