Atlanta Nov 2016 Presidential Election (Washington, White: real estate market, schools, casinos)

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by primaltech

Vote for a third party if they're your favorite candidate! Period. Ignore anyone saying otherwise.

First of all, Georgia is not a battleground state. Even if we're only 55% Republican, that's not a battleground state. Winner takes all, so barring some really crazy unexpected and unlikely result, Donald Trump will get every single electoral vote in the state of GA, period, and that's all that matters. Popular vote doesn't matter.

So, if, like me, you prefer Hillary over Trump by a mile but she's not your favorite candidate- remember that you're not hurting her at all by voting third party in GA. She's not expecting to win our state, and she doesn't need our state to win. Your vote doesn't matter. Popular vote means nothing and is not what elects the President. Gore beat Bush in votes total in 2000. Doesn't matter, it's not how the system works.

If this was a dead-even swing state like Ohio or Florida usually is, then a vote for a third party is only 'taking away' a vote from the D or R that you would have otherwise voted for. If you wouldn't have voted at all if not for the third party option, then it's not taking away a vote from Hillary, is it? No.

Last point, even if you live in a close swing state and you prefer Hillary over Trump, I say go ahead and take a vote away from Hillary, if you prefer the other candidate over her. The election process is not supposed to be a horse race where you try to pick the winner or play some kind of strategy. Democracy might actually function in this country if we all just simply picked our favorite candidate purely on their positions and other important factors, and we had a number of viable candidates on the ballot to pick from. The winner would be the reflection of our majority popular opinion.

Don't vote for Gary Johnson if he wouldn't be your preferred president out of these 4 candidates (incl. Jill Stein). Do vote for him if he would be. If all voters just did that, he'd probably win a large chunk of the popular vote, and might win some states. That would be an historic event.

Completely counter productive...... The only way Georgia can become a swing state is if more vote Democrat, but your saying it doesn't matter a Republican will win Georgia. So other wise your discourage Democrats that Georgia can become a Swing state. counter productive even if Georgia does not go purple the only it has chance is if you motivate Dems.

[fieldm]

With Hillary VP pick speaking spanish in his opening speech they won the majority of the latino vote in 30 seconds lol

[primaltech]

Counter productive for the Democratic Party establishment, maybe. But not the best interests of our country. Vote for the candidate, not some idea of party allegiance. That's all I'm saying.

If that's Hillary, then vote Hillary. But I'm just tired of people ignoring the third party candidates for consideration because they don't have a chance to win. If you'd vote for them, they'd have a chance to win. And then maybe we could have a country where it feels more like an election than a selection.

Demographic shifts will happen in GA regardless, as old generations are replaced by new. That will change the politics of the state. Nobody has to vote for someone they don't like that much in order to achieve that goal.

It would just be nice if we went in a liberal direction on all social matters, but with a more restrained spending policy that doesn't look at government or politicians as the solution to all or even most of our problems. I know the national debt doesn't bother Paul Krugman, but it bothers me. A lot of bloat and overhead in government seems inefficient and wasteful to me.

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by primaltech

Counter productive for the Democratic Party establishment, maybe. But not the best interests of our country. Vote for the candidate, not some idea of party allegiance. That's all I'm saying.

If that's Hillary, then vote Hillary. But I'm just tired of people ignoring the third party candidates for consideration because they don't have a chance to win. If you'd vote for them, they'd have a chance to win. And then maybe we could have a country where it feels more like an election than a selection.

Demographic shifts will happen in GA regardless, as old generations are replaced by new. That will change the politics of the state. Nobody has to vote for someone they don't like that much in order to achieve that goal.

"Demographic shifts will happen in GA regardless, as old generations are replaced by new. That will change the politics of the state."

Are you oblivious that the US has nearly been a 2 party system for 150 years? that was several generation and Demographic changes.



No Counter productive to progressive ideas if someone is progressive

A third party candidate has no chance of winning in populated states unless they have a lot money to compete against a Democratic or Republican.

So you vote for best candidate that fit ones views.


Voting for 3rd party candidate all your doing is increase they likely hood that someone you politically disagree with will win.


------------------------

It would just be nice if we went in a liberal direction on all social matters, but with a more restrained spending policy that doesn't look at government or politicians as the solution to all or even most of our problems. I know the national debt doesn't bother Paul Krugman, but it bothers me. A lot of bloat and overhead in government seems inefficient and wasteful to me.

You don't history about Bill Clinton do you... the Deficit was balance until Bush, Bush gave a Tax cut for the rich.


http://origin.factcheck.org/Images/i...Deficit(1).jpg

The Biggest thing the Gov spend money is the Military, Which republicans encourage, it's larger the next 10 countries combined, There would be no country that could challenge the US even if our military was 1/2 it's size.


Another major waste, The US by far has the large Largest Prison population, The US has some of strictest offense on Drugs. The War on Drugs, Lead by republicans in Reagan 80's and Nixon 70's spiked the prison population.


http://www.libertyforlife.com/jail-p...on-state-m.jpg











During the Civil War what was straw man argument for slavery?............. "state right" and they hated "reconstruction" by the federal government. This theme by Southern conservatives continued....


The Government is actually spending too little and spending on the wrong stuff.

Are infrastructure needs updates



https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2...ng?w=640&h=331


Rail


Airports
http://siteselection.com/issues/2015...portCharts.jpg


The US is the only first world western country with out universal heath

Guaranteed Health Care In Iraq - But Not For You

And got love fact the US pays for universal heath Iraq and Afghanistan, So the right wing think the US paying for them is ok but against Americans having universal heath care.





So essentially was


From Bernie Himself

https://berniesanders.com/wp-content...Charts_2-2.png


https://berniesanders.com/wp-content...Charts_4-1.png





So when I hear conservatives taking about big government and spending..... I immediately think of the warp of lies.

1. I think of the growing income gap
2. I think of money lost because Republicans giving the extremely wealth tax cuts for heck of it.
3. I think how the US is falling behind infrastructure.
4. I think how Republicans praise over spending militarily
5. I think of how big government straw man was used in the civil war, and Jim Crow by southern conservatives.

[primaltech]

I wasn't quite old enough to vote in 2000, but I probably would have voted for Gore, because he was pro-science and the environment, and just generally seemed a lot smarter than Bush. I voted for Kerry in 2004 because I was frustrated with the huge, expensive mess that was the Iraq War. Even though we killed that crazy evil Uday Hussein, it still wasn't worth it. I voted for Obama twice, because I just like Obama, and he's been a great president. You can call me a "conservative" if that makes you feel better or whatever, but, I mean, I've only ever voted Democrat in my life. But that fact doesn't mean I have to now vote for Hillary.

And I've been a big Bernie supporter. And yes, absolutely I am concerned with the huge income inequality issue, but I tend to believe government policies have been more to blame for that, than necessarily lack of government policies. Big corporate lobbies are the buddies and cronies of big government. That's not the free market. None of that is. Anyway, Clinton will not change or help anything with any of that, as she is all about status quo and not rocking any boats.

We need to reduce military spending by 60% or even more. But, Clinton will not do that either, not even close. She'll probably increase military spending and get us involved in even more complicated foreign clusterf*ck conflicts.

Hillary is just an opportunist, dishonest politician. She has never believed in gay marriage as a matter of personal freedom, she just took that position when the polls on it changed. While I would rather Georgia become a Blue state, that by itself is not a high enough priority for me to suck it up to vote for her.

I'm just stating my own view, not saying you shouldn't vote for her or that your views are necessarily wrong.

But sorry, I'm not sure what Jim Crow has to do with that. I am not a right winger. Yes, the right has hidden their racist and bigoted agendas under insincere pretenses of calling for "small government" over the decades. But that fact doesn't mean that actual small (or at least less huge) government is not, or would not be a good idea. A balanced budget and no national debt, that sounds like sound financial national security to me.

I'm not extreme with libertarian, I'm not saying let's close the Department of Education or anything like that. Just saying, maybe it's time for someone in office who is serious about this budgetary stuff, and will veto bloated and bad legislation that just grows bureaucracy and doesn't make anyone's life any better (no matter which party in congress passed it.)

Obama has actually been overall pretty good in the regard of finances and spending and budget, but he is now term limited.

[flamadiddle]

Originally Posted by fieldm

With Hillary VP pick speaking spanish in his opening speech they won the majority of the latino vote in 30 seconds lol

Sure they did, because Hispanics are too stupid to understand pandering, right?

[fieldm]

Darn better than their other option

[onemanarmy]

Originally Posted by flamadiddle

Sure they did, because Hispanics are too stupid to understand pandering, right?

In contrast to deporting several million family members of the largest Latino group in America, or making some of their relatives build a wall for free, I think refuting these ideas in Spanish would go along way. I think most Latinos understand who is doing the pandering.... Que piensas?

[flamadiddle]

Originally Posted by onemanarmy

In contrast to deporting several million family members of the largest Latino group in America, or making some of their relatives build a wall for free, I think refuting these ideas in Spanish would go along way. I think most Latinos understand who is doing the pandering.... Que piensas?

What part of Legal vs. Illegal do latinos not understand? I guess by your assertion, they're all a lawless bunch? And no one said the workers building the wall would not be paid or forced to participate.

[onemanarmy]

Originally Posted by flamadiddle

What part of Legal vs. Illegal do latinos not understand? I guess by your assertion, they're all a lawless bunch? And no one said the workers building the wall would not be paid or forced to participate.

The difference between legal and illegal immigration is about as clear as how fast you can speed before a cop gives you a ticket. The fast majority of "illegal" immigration is a result of the business class and 1% exploiting labor laws and suppressing wages.

Immigrants come here looking for work, and it's plentiful. Remove the jobs and they will leave, no need to build a wall. If you have been paying attention, illegal immigration has been net zero for quite some time.

The second issue with the argument is some of these "illegal" immigrants arrived as children and others have "legal" children by birth. (Save the argument, the constitution isn't changing) There are no easy solutions, but simply moving the economic incentive to migrate illegal will go along way.