So Guys I guess Mr. Colbert CAN'T run for President.

[Skiiran]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3766656&page=1


With its snack-food sponsorship, Democratic and Republican affiliations, and Sen. Larry Craig as a possible running mate, Stephen Colbert's run for the presidency is hardly serious business.
But the joke could be on Colbert if federal election officials decide his candidacy is for real.


If his campaign plays out the way he's indicated that it will, Comedy Central and Colbert's sponsor, Doritos, could be violating federal laws that bar corporations from backing political campaigns, election law experts say.

God dammit.

[Con]

>:0

[Ki11a_FTW]

i never actually paid attention to the elections that much

[n00b1n8R]

damn, america would have been cool then :<

[Skiiran]

i never actually paid attention to the elections that much
You are horrible. Go vote you communist.

[ExAm]

Awwww...

[rossmum]

You are horrible. Go vote you communist.
Compulsory elections :haw:

[Zeph]

Lol, it's satire. Other than that, it does bring up a good point and I have a feeling the law is going to be changed to reflect a more modern time.

[Kornman00]

I guess the author of that story doesn't watch his show, he addressed it last week...

[StankBacon]

thank fucking god.

[SnaFuBAR]

oh so now i don't have to give up my citizenship? cool.

[Rob Oplawar]

I read that article- I took it as more of a "it's going to be tricky for him and possibly require him to leave Comedy Central if he's serious" thing rather than a "he can't do it" sort of thing.

Even so, idk if I'd vote for him. Silly me, I'm so unamerican, I'm going to actually take some time and research the candidates before voting.

And FUCK the party system. Democrats suck. Republicans suck. And all the other parties suck because they make up like 1&#37; of the population. Fuck the parties, just let us vote on the best candidate without making everyone either choose one of two sides or simply concede defeat.

Aw dammit now I'm all pissed at the US government again. Dammit dammit

FUCK THE US GOVERNMENT! It needs to be fixed one way or the other, and if that means overthrowing certain political leaders and rewriting laws then so be it! COME AND GET ME CIA WEBCRAWLERS!

ahem. sorry.
I think it would be cool if Colbert turned out to be a good candidate and I voted for him and he won. God knows he'd be better than Reagan.

[Terin]

People just love being with groups on a country scale.

[Emmzee]

I'm sorry, but I like to vote for parties that realistically can't win.

[paladin]

He was only running in one of the Carolinas, as a joke, to prove a point.

[Emmzee]

He was only running in one of the Carolinas, as a joke, to prove a point.
It was South Carolina.

[Kornman00]

Fuck the parties, just let us vote on the best candidate without making everyone either choose one of two sides or simply concede defeat.
The parties are there as a way to group ideals. Like -rep-licans h8 same sex marriage and don't want to help people like Chris Reeves while their still alive. While democrats are just not Bush. What your wanting to do is mask the whole grouping thing, which really to me makes to difference. The party system just helps me filter out who the hell I'm (not) going to vote for.

Even if you masked the system, people would still secretly join together because of their relating ideals they share. You can't stop people, especially government people. They do what they want. Because they have that power.

[kungpow]

Isnt Ron Paul a half decent dewd?

[Phopojijo]

Lol, it's satire. Other than that, it does bring up a good point and I have a feeling the law is going to be changed to reflect a more modern time.Because the other candidates totally are not sponsored by anyone.

[Skiiran]

Isnt Ron Paul a half decent dewd?
Ron Paul is crazy and you should not vote for him if you want to actually have money in two years' time.

[Rob Oplawar]

Even if you masked the system, people would still secretly join together because of their relating ideals they share.


but what if I agree with some things, but disagree with others? What if I find it simply ridiculous that political decisions are made solely because it is the standard position of the party rather than basing them on what is really relevant?
See, I'm the kind of person who hates arbitrary limitations and restrictions. Sure, margins and rules are good, but the more restrictions you have, you may have less potential for total fuck up but you also have less potential for epic win. Things like a party system just impose an arbitrary restriction on who can be president and what they can support and what combination of ideals you can vote for. And as it is, it's pretty much ridiculous to vote for someone who's not either democrat or republican, but with both parties totally fucked up it's a lose-lose situation. Because of arbitrary restrictions.

Psh, it's not like my vote even counts. No rly- I'm talking about the fact that the number of citizens who vote for a candidate has absolutely no direct effect on who gets elected. It's not up to us, so we just have to take it on faith that the real votes will reflect what the people want. Haw, fat chance of that.

A government that claims to be a democracy and yet is very commonly known to do whatever the fuck it wants to regardless of what the people have to say about it is fucking broken, and needs to be fixed. Srsly, if I start an uprising, who will join me?

[jahrain]

Elections are fake anyways. All the numbers and figures are completely artificial.

[Skiiran]

Elections are fake anyways. All the numbers and figures are completely artificial.
But we can always hope the Singularity will bring equality for all, right?

Right?

....

*sobs*

[Sel]

I hope he wins, then the US will be less gay :D

[Rob Oplawar]

who do you mean by The Singularity? A friend of mine has a band named The Singularity, and they srsly rock.

[rossmum]

I hope he wins, then the US will be less gay :D
Wow, they found that the entire nation is homosexual? When did this happen?

[Rob Oplawar]

You didn't know that? Tsk, you thilly goothe!

[Emmzee]

Elections are fake anyways. All the numbers and figures are completely artificial.
And the Freemasons decide the outcome of every election.
:tinfoil:

[rossmum]

You didn't know that? Tsk, you thilly goothe!
You fail so hard you can't even get a lisp right. Congrats.

[Texrat]

Lol, it's satire. Other than that, it does bring up a good point and I have a feeling the law is going to be changed to reflect a more modern time.

That's why the law was (recently) changed in the first place: corporate money was (and still is, sadly) having too much influence on elections.

And I'm sure Colbert's point was to just satirize our real lack of choice...

[Texrat]

And the Freemasons decide the outcome of every election.
:tinfoil:

Just because you choose to deny conspiracies doesn't mean they really go away, MZ.

You do know Watergate was real... right? And Iran-Contra? :hist101:

[Emmzee]

Just because you choose to deny conspiracies doesn't mean they really go away, MZ.

You do know Watergate was real... right? And Iran-Contra? :hist101:
YES THEY WERE REAL AND IF YOU FOLD THE DOLLAR BILL A CERTAIN WAY IT SAYS "BUSH WILL INVADE IRAQ"

BUT GET THIS: THE DOLLAR WAS MADE IN 1995!

[Skiiran]

They laugh at conspiracies. They also laugh at the Marx Brothers. Being laughed at doesn't make you right.

[nooBBooze]

So no Pot, right?
:(

[Kybo_Ren]

That's why the law was (recently) changed in the first place: corporate money was (and still is, sadly) having too much influence on elections.

And I'm sure Colbert's point was to just satirize our real lack of choice...
I really see no need for this law. It's not like Hillary would come out with a Vagisil sponsorship on all her banners. It's all about the PACs, not the direct corporate sponsorships.