Voting Discussion (Split from the Ted Cruz thread)

[Artistofnoname]

Personally I would rather have Cruz or vote third party.

A third party would never win. It would be totally meaning less to vote for a third party.

I'm currently in development to get a Third Party into office. The only issue is that my method would only be a theory, and I don't have enough money to get a third party into office.

Also, I changed the original post. In the original post, I stated that jihad was a holy war, and since I've been corrected many times that it's actually a struggle rather than a holy war. I apologize for not fixing this sooner. The only times I've been able to get on and change that was when the site was down.

Also, according to this page, Trump is the number one Republican candidate that'll be in the first republican debate. I'm not sure what merit this holds, but yeah.

I remember watching the Green party die a few years ago. The problem always will be money.

Third parties aren't given a fair shot because the powers that be want us to be stuck between the two parties that are in a way really no different from the other. I consider my vote for a third party to be symbolic. Its like George Carlin said when he said that if you vote for these lying scumbags and they go in and screw up everything you who voted for that person are just as responsible because you endorsed them. So I can always say "I voted third party cause I didn't believe the other guys could do it". I go by who I truly think would do the best possible job not by party.

What could the third party give someone like me?

More choices first of all and a break from the paradigm establishment. Plus if you think about it it really would possibly do a lot of good having different people from many different parties in the government than just having the two. Because with the right and left paradigm all we do is shift directions every time in like a never ending vicious cycle

[Sally]

[i consider my vote for a third party to be symbolic.

BS. Since third parties in America are generally liberal and split off votes from the Democrats, you're helping the Republicans get into power. If that's what you want, you're going to be quite happy in most elections.

[Artistofnoname]

[i consider my vote for a third party to be symbolic.

BS. Since third parties in America are generally liberal and split off votes from the Democrats, you're helping the Republicans get into power. If that's what you want, you're going to be quite happy in most elections.

I'm actually at this point considering not voting at all. I just don't believe in any of these people anymore. Plus the elections are rigged the only reason we vote is to give us the illusion that we have a choice.

Personally I am a conservative Libertarian. I used to be a Republican until I went down the rabbit hole and realized they are not that much different then the Democrats and we are just a ball on a ping pong table going right and left in a vicious cycle.

[Sally]

You obviously don't understand what being able to vote would mean to people in the Middle East monarchies, and North Korea, and would have meant to African Americans during the first half of the 20th century. Representative democracy is wasted on people who deliberately don't vote.

[Artistofnoname]

You obviously don't understand what being able to vote would mean to people in the Middle East monarchies, and North Korea, and would have meant to African Americans during the first half of the 20th century. Representative democracy is wasted on people who deliberately don't vote.

Well if you look at it this way they're actually quite honest over there because they just outright have no elections and just make sure you know that you don't have a choice when here they pretend you do.

Recently I learned that in North Korea they actually do have elections however there's only one candidate on it (Kim Jong Eun of course) and of course the voting is required or you can be publicly executed for not doing so that or be taken to one of those death camps with 3 generations of your family.

[Næt.]

I've split this off from the Ted Cruz thread. It's tangential to the parent topic, but a valuable discussion nonetheless, so I don't want to shut it down.

Næt.

Philosophy, Politics and Science Moderator

[Sally]

Well if you look at it this way they're actually quite honest over there because they just outright have no elections and just make sure you know that you don't have a choice when here they pretend you do.

Obama was certainly not put into office by power brokers. He was voted in by people who had been disenfranchised previously and were overjoyed by voting for someone who looked somewhat like them. If they hadn't voted, we would have had billionaire Romney who made fun of poor people.

But continue pretending you don't have a choice, if you wish, and using North Korea as an example of honesty.

[natsume]

The only recent example of a third party candidate significantly impacting the presidential election was Ross Perot. Ross Perot got Bill Clinton elected with only 43% of the vote. And, similarly, if Ted Cruz or Donald Trump ran as third party that would help Hillary Clinton immensely. I'd say that the Democrats have done a much better job controlling third parties.

Romney wasn't a billionaire, but his net worth was 300 million. I've always said that Mitt Romney walked straight into that voting booth and voted for Obama. Obama's record with the rich is historic. He is a wealth redistributor... but from the poor to the rich.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pew-wealth-gap-20141217-story.html

And since there are rumors that Democrats represent the poor.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/jun/23/do-many-billionaires-support-democratic-party/

And, white collar whites also strongly favor the Democrats. Republicans are also trending towards becoming the party of poor whites. Many other statistics from gallup here:

http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/23/a-closer-look-at-the-parties-in-2012/

If we can't get over this complete myth, that Fox News spreads as much as the rest, that Democrats represent the poor then we will never have anyone who does.

[ThaHoward]

Is it allowed to vote "blank" in USA? We can do it here (it is a "candidate"), so then many who wouldn't have voted take part and do vote.

[Artistofnoname]

I remember Jesse Ventura said that if he could change the voting ballot one of the additions to it would be "none of the above". Of course it would be the guy below who got in office but they would have to go in with that knowledge and maybe it would be an incentive of some kind

[Artistofnoname]

At this point I might as well write in Deez Nutz. He may be too young to run but heck I would trust him more then the adults at this point. Hey my dog could run things better.

[Sally]

Is it allowed to vote "blank" in USA? We can do it here (it is a "candidate"), so then many who wouldn't have voted take part and do vote.

If you don't write in a name, your vote isn't counted. You can write in whoever you want.

[Sally]

The only recent example of a third party candidate significantly impacting the presidential election was Ross Perot. Ross Perot got Bill Clinton elected with only 43% of the vote. And, similarly, if Ted Cruz or Donald Trump ran as third party that would help Hillary Clinton immensely. I'd say that the Democrats have done a much better job controlling third parties.

Romney wasn't a billionaire, but his net worth was 300 million. I've always said that Mitt Romney walked straight into that voting booth and voted for Obama. Obama's record with the rich is historic. He is a wealth redistributor... but from the poor to the rich.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pew-wealth-gap-20141217-story.html

And since there are rumors that Democrats represent the poor.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/jun/23/do-many-billionaires-support-democratic-party/

And, white collar whites also strongly favor the Democrats. Republicans are also trending towards becoming the party of poor whites. Many other statistics from gallup here:

http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/23/a-closer-look-at-the-parties-in-2012/

If we can't get over this complete myth, that Fox News spreads as much as the rest, that Democrats represent the poor then we will never have anyone who does.

Many people vote against their economic and social interests. The Dems historically have instituted and voted for more programs that help less-than-rich people.

An article that explains why Romney is purported to be worth only $250M, from Bloomberg News, not Romney's media sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romney-is-worth-250-million-why-so-little/2012/10/05/64128882-0c20-11e2-a310-2363842b7057_story.html

[(A) & A]

[i consider my vote for a third party to be symbolic.

BS. Since third parties in America are generally liberal and split off votes from the Democrats, you're helping the Republicans get into power. If that's what you want, you're going to be quite happy in most elections.

What if you don't feel that it matters? We have one party that's been bought by corporations, puts politics before people, and hates every LGBT person. Then we have another party that's been bought by corporations, puts politics before people, that love LGBT people since their another vote.

I'm going to quote Jello Biafra; "Republicans stand for greed, corruption, bigotry and war, while Democrats pretend to feel guilty about greed, corruption, bigotry, and war." The entire idea that you have to vote for a lesser of two evils is why we have to pick the lesser of two evils rather than someone who might actually be worth a shit. Don't get me wrong, if Sanders gets the Democratic nomination, I'm going to vote for him since I believe what he stands for...

But if its Biden, or god-forbid Clinton? I'm either voting Green, Socialist Party of America, or since ultimately a vote for a third party is thrown away, Cthulhu. Because I'll be damned if I'm going to give someone who I believe doesn't give a shit about the people of this country, just because he (or she) isn't quite as openly malicious.

[natsume]

It's funny how the perception in 2012 was that a billionaire would be too rich. What we see now is that billionaires are worshipped by poor voters and political parties alike. If Mitt Romney claimed to be a billionaire he probably would have won in 2012. People perceive most rich as greedy but billionaires as generous for paying 14% and evading taxes through trusts. It's mostly because they meet and have experiences with millionaires but rely on the media to give them an accurate presentation of billionaires.

I don't believe that Democrats try to help the poor but it's just inevitable that the poor become poorer and receive worse education year after year. The whole 'the government has good intentions but is incompetent' thing is preposterous as they don't even write most of their own legislation and think tanks map out the path from their front door to their car.

[Sally]

It's funny how the perception in 2012 was that a billionaire would be too rich. What we see now is that billionaires are worshipped by poor voters and political parties alike. If Mitt Romney claimed to be a billionaire he probably would have won in 2012. People perceive most rich as greedy but billionaires as generous for paying 14% and evading taxes through trusts. It's mostly because they meet and have experiences with millionaires but rely on the media to give them an accurate presentation of billionaires.

I don't believe that Democrats try to help the poor but it's just inevitable that the poor become poorer and receive worse education year after year. The whole 'the government has good intentions but is incompetent' thing is preposterous as they don't even write most of their own legislation and think tanks map out the path from their front door to their car.

I'm not sure where you get your claim that poor voters worship millionaires/billionaires. One of the big reasons Obama won TWICE against a party which elevated financial success in business to a religion is that he was NOT rich, and appealed to what poor voters cared about: food, housing, education, their families. Romney did not win, and it wasn't because he didn't claim he was a billionaire. He didn't win because he obviously didn't give a flying f*ck about what he actually called "the 47%".

[natsume]

If you read my post you'll see that I stated that poor voters worship billionaires, not millionaires. Look at Donald Trump - his following is mostly poor whites according to all the polls. Billionaires are bringing out poor whites like nobody predicted. I clearly stated that identifying as a millionaire instead of a billionaire is something that hurt him.

Obama won the rich in 2008 according to exit polls. He lost it in 2012 but picked up more billionaires. Of course, voter turnout was much lower in 2012. Emotional positions are what has sustained the two party system. Mitt Romney and Obama have a different tone but a very similar platform. The ACA has been compared to the Massachusetts exchange Mitt Romney set up quite a bit. And Obama has cut food stamps multiple times as well as disability during his presidency. And you'll say the Republicans made him sign it. And Obama gets to say he's made a budget cut. Everyone gets what they really wanted. Good cop, bad cop.

[Sally]

If you read my post you'll see that I stated that poor voters worship billionaires, not millionaires. Look at Donald Trump - his following is mostly poor whites according to all the polls. Billionaires are bringing out poor whites like nobody predicted. I clearly stated that identifying as a millionaire instead of a billionaire is something that hurt him.

Obama won the rich in 2008 according to exit polls. He lost it in 2012 but picked up more billionaires. Of course, voter turnout was much lower in 2012. Emotional positions are what has sustained the two party system. Mitt Romney and Obama have a different tone but a very similar platform. The ACA has been compared to the Massachusetts exchange Mitt Romney set up quite a bit. And Obama has cut food stamps multiple times as well as disability during his presidency. And you'll say the Republicans made him sign it. And Obama gets to say he's made a budget cut. Everyone gets what they really wanted. Good cop, bad cop.

Sorry, but what you say is neither backed up by cites or common sense. Polls don't ask if someone is a "poor white", exit polls do not ask if those who just voted are "rich", Obama and Romney had very dissimilar platforms, and Obama has neither cut food stamps nor disability payments (the Republicans in Congress did so in budget packages which had enough Congressional support that Obama had no hope of vetoing them -- and he certainly didn't brag about any "budget cuts").

I think you need to read a bit more about how government works, and a lot more basic facts of political history.

[natsume]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/jul/08/barack-obama/wisconsin-visit-barack-obama-brags-he-reduced-fede/

I give sources for practically everything. All you do on here is spread anti Islamist hatred, Republican hatred, conservative hatred, and hate for any fact that challenges your narrow minded beliefs. I don't even side with anyone else more than your Democratic Party. But I present facts and it infuriates you. Every time. And you never have a source for anything but... your hate? The real world simply doesn't agree with your fantasy politics. You want to believe in a simplified reality because it is easy, and who wants to read about politics or history when it can be so simple, right? ;) Good guys vs the world.

If you actually did some reading you might find you have a lot in common with Trump.