Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Spoken like a partisan robot. What we have right now is a completely dysfunctional, corrupt, corporate controlled Democratic Party that can not be reformed internally as they've rigged all the election and campaign rules. Similarly the GOP is also completely corrupted by corporations and can not be reformed from within for the same reasons. The ONLY way to create a platform for the people or to wrestle control of the two major parties away from the corporations is to vote 3rd party. Only once enough voters leave the two parties will they be forced to change. i.e. The young Ron Paul voters who watched the corrupt GOP shaft their candidate in 2008 & 2012 didn't vote for McCain or Romney and consequently the GOP lost. So to in 2016 Sanders supporters have seen first hand how corrupt the DNC is and will not be voting for Hillary. Hopefully this costs the corporations the election and forces the party to change. When the only leverage you have is costing, what you once mistakenly thought was "your" party an election, you better use it or they have no impetus to change.
If a vote is so precious that it "can be wasted," then what is your argument that one should use it to elect a candidate that does not have any principles or policies that are concrete and is morally challenged and not qualified for the position?
I think your argument is more about your wanting to have my vote for your candidate and you couch this desire in a false argument intended to make me feel guilty about not voting for your candidate and to create fear that my failure to vote for your candidate will result in the election of the candidate of the other party, which I obviously would never vote for.
The same issues that have been important to me for the last several decade have not been addressed by any REPUBLICAN I have voted for, why should I believe that voting for a liberal democrat running as a REPUBLICAN is going to change anything?
To these "great" and/or "excellent" posts, I thought I had pretty well addressed them through other posts along the way in this thread, but just to avoid more misunderstanding...
I think the charge of "partisan robot" is hardly appropriate just because I am pointing to the reality of our two-party choice right now, two-party dilemma if you prefer. I have simply been trying to point at what our stark reality is, our choice that ultimately will lead to either Hillary or Trump, no matter how much any of us doesn't like that ultimate result.
Anyone who can provide any evidence or hope to the contrary, I would love to read something sensible and hopeful along those lines, but instead it just seems to me a case of "shooting the messenger," me, simply because this is our political reality today that so many people want to deny
Does this make me part of the problem? I don't think so, in fact the opposite...
I am encouraging people to see this issue clearly, and judge wisely, because we WILL end up with either Hillary or Trump according to all indications worthy of note. 4 years with Hillary as POTUS is going to be a profoundly different 4 years for America and the world as compared to 4 years with Trump as POTUS.
For anyone to deny this fact or to suggest there is better to do with their vote over choosing which of the two it will be, I consider seriously misguided or aware of some option of significance that I have yet to hear about.
Frankly I am not sure "a vote is so precious that it can be wasted," especially given the roll of the electoral college as well, but to whatever extent one's vote does have value, the matter of greatest consequence remains the prospect of either Hillary or Trump as POTUS. Simple as that...
Anyone who can provide any evidence or hope to the contrary, I would love to read something sensible and hopeful along those lines, but instead it just seems to me a case of "shooting the messenger," me, simply because this is our political reality today that so many people want to deny.
Here is how I view reality and why I'm using my vote in the way that I think is best. Simply put, the Libertarian party earned 1% of the popular vote last year, when the D option was pretty well liked by the majority of the party, and the R option was luke warm, but very few hated him as they do this year.
With that said, all it takes is for the Libertarian party (or any 3rd party) to get 5% of the popular vote in order for them to get matching funds in 2020, and it will also propel them into the territory of the 15% requirement in polls to get included in the official debates. While the Libertarian party clearly won't win this year, and they may never win, I find it HIGHLY desirable to have the Libertarian voice at the table and helping to shape the conversation to hopefully reel in the extremes that we have on both the left and the right. My ideal scenario is to have an actual Libertarian president, but I'll be happy with the Libertarian party at least influencing the discussion, and hopefully the actual policies that get implemented.
If I truly believe in the Libertarian party, why in the world would I just vote for one of those other candidates just because thats going to make some partisan folks that are content with the two party system happy? It's my vote and I cant give it to someone that I do not truly support with a good conscience. A candidate needs to earn my vote, I don't just give it to the one that seems most politically expedient for the short term instant gratification expectations that many seem to have.
If not voting for Donald is a vote for Hilary, then I am not voting for Hilary and Donald can have that vote.
Actually, to get it just right and/or better understood, if you don't vote for either, the one who benefits is the one you least prefer. First fact to establish is which -- all considered -- you favor. That's who "loses" if you don't vote or vote alternatively.
For example, if you slightly lean toward Trump as either better or least of evils, as it seems your comment implies, such that you would vote for Trump if you were inclined to vote for either rather than neither, then by not voting, you just cost Trump a vote he COULD have had, giving Hillary that benefit.
Net effect, in that scenario, you just made it one vote more likely that Hillary is our next POTUS...
Just simple math is all, adding up to "unintended consequences."
Here is how I view reality and why I'm using my vote in the way that I think is best. Simply put, the Libertarian party earned 1% of the popular vote last year, when the D option was pretty well liked by the majority of the party, and the R option was luke warm, but very few hated him as they do this year.
With that said, all it takes is for the Libertarian party (or any 3rd party) to get 5% of the popular vote in order for them to get matching funds in 2020, and it will also propel them into the territory of the 15% requirement in polls to get included in the official debates. While the Libertarian party clearly won't win this year, and they may never win, I find it HIGHLY desirable to have the Libertarian voice at the table and helping to shape the conversation to hopefully reel in the extremes that we have on both the left and the right. My ideal scenario is to have an actual Libertarian president, but I'll be happy with the Libertarian party at least influencing the discussion, and hopefully the actual policies that get implemented.
If I truly believe in the Libertarian party, why in the world would I just vote for one of those other candidates just because thats going to make some partisan folks that are content with the two party system happy? It's my vote and I cant give it to someone that I do not truly support with a good conscience. A candidate needs to earn my vote, I don't just give it to the one that seems most politically expedient for the short term instant gratification expectations that many seem to have.
You are right, and this is one of the few good justifications I have seen presented before that I would agree makes sense, if in fact you see that optimistic outcome for the Libertarian party.
Frankly, the Libertarian party has been at it for a long time now, rarely getting much better than 3 percent of the vote, and for obvious reasons I think, but if you really think that you and enough others can change that into the future, I can't fault that hope or logic that stems from that hope. I just don't see it as realistic, all considered, but of course we are all called upon to consider what we think can realistically be accomplished into the future. Especially when it comes to predicting that future or those opportunities four years from now, no one can really say...
Also, if you think working to that end has more importance and/or probability as compared to the consequence of either Hillary or Trump becoming POTUS, then I consider your decision better justified, certainly better justified than other positions typically explained here, but really?
You really see the Libertarian party rising to that level of promise given all the attempts so far? You really see signs America is shifting in that direction to any negligible degree worth pinning those hopes on? This too, I'm not seeing...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
