Election for Ohio Governor (Clinton, Republic: income, tax, to live in)

[OhioJB]

Originally Posted by dramamama6685

The LPO spent 125K and the National party matched. That combined with thousands of volunteer hours, got us 102,000 signatures just to exist.

I could go on for hours on this subject and the collusion to silence choice in Ohio.

It's not right, and quite frankly infuriates me. One of the many reasons I've turned against both ruling parties. My problem is there isn't a third party I feel strongly enough about to support. I carefully read through party platforms and some things are impossible to ignore and dealbreakers. And yes, I realize no party is going to be perfect in any voter's eyes, but as I said some issues, or stances on issues, I can't look past.

Thanks to SB 193 that Kasich signed into law I believe a registered voter can sign a party's petition to get on the ballot only if they haven't voted in the previous two primaries. How that is constitutional I don't know, or maybe I'm misunderstanding that law.

[on3]

None of the canidates at any level are in it for the best interest of the people. They are just trying to climb the ladder to make $$ for themselves. The entire system needs overhauled. What do I propose? Well I can hold the door open, others need to walk through it and it will be in the direction that is opposite of sheep who follow sheep.

[ohio_peasant]

Originally Posted by woxyroxme

Hillary was blatantly corrupt herself, so much so that she could not beat a mentally unhinged bat shyt crazy dumpster fire.

Corruption is inherent in the very idea of wielding power, be in the public-sector, or private. And some amount of corruption is an essential lubricant for getting things done. I'm not much fazed by corruption itself. What worries me is aggressive and strident changes in policy - changes that I find to be repulsive in their very idea, and even more so, in how they're implemented. I would rather vote for a candidate who practices egregious, banana-republic-level corruption, graft, criminality, cronyism and theft - if I broadly agree with this person's policies - than for some hypothetical saint, whose ideas and policies I find to be loathsome. Sadly, too often we've gotten both the bad ideas and the cronyism, simultaneously.

Originally Posted by OhioJB

...My problem is there isn't a third party I feel strongly enough about to support. I carefully read through party platforms and some things are impossible to ignore and dealbreakers. ...

Even if there were a third party with a compelling vision and a charismatic candidate, how could this party possibly grow, and reach any significance beyond the sporadic local office? Original intent (in 1787) notwithstanding, the American system seems to be set up with only two significant parties. I wonder whether a parliamentary system would not be better, from the viewpoint of having more competition between parties. America is almost unique among democracies around the world, in having a presidential (instead of parliamentary system). Maybe this is part of our problem?

Originally Posted by on3

None of the canidates at any level are in it for the best interest of the people. They are just trying to climb the ladder to make $$ for themselves. The entire system needs overhauled. ...

It's human nature to be in it, mainly (strictly?) for oneself... be it leading a non-profit, a university, a political party, a church, a country, a corporation, a community organization, or a club. We're selfish creatures, and the better among us at least have the perspicacity, self-awareness and frankness to admit it. Others couch their narrowly personal interest in public terms. They say "we", but really only mean "I".

Because this can't be helped, it's useless to attempt reform. What can however be done, is to use more rigorous economic calculations, to compare risks and rewards. For example, what are the costs of environmental regulations, vs. the economic benefits of say cleaner air? What are the costs of mass-transit vs. more roads vs. doing nothing? If we start enacting policy more along utilitarian and technocratic lines, rather than culture and "values", I think that we'll have better ideas in government, and better leadership.

As to how to vote in the upcoming Midterm elections in Ohio, I haven't yet decided. I have converged towards an opinion on local issues, but statewide, I still don't know.

[OhioJB]

Originally Posted by ohio_peasant

Even if there were a third party with a compelling vision and a charismatic candidate, how could this party possibly grow, and reach any significance beyond the sporadic local office? Original intent (in 1787) notwithstanding, the American system seems to be set up with only two significant parties. I wonder whether a parliamentary system would not be better, from the viewpoint of having more competition between parties. America is almost unique among democracies around the world, in having a presidential (instead of parliamentary system). Maybe this is part of our problem?

It is the near impossible task in this day and age of state politicians setting up laws that make it extremely difficult for third parties to get on the ballot. SB 193 still chaps my hide.

Only way really is if a party has a platform that appeals to enough people during a time of great discontentment. Goes without saying but I'll say it anyway, the new party would need large numbers of passionate supporters and money to help organize and advertise. And they'd have to set up safeguards against extremists from taking over key positions in the party that would ultimately destroy it. A very strong party leader and board of up to 10 party members should be set up to keep the members in line. If any member strays too far from the party platform or tries getting into a key leadership position while not supporting enough of the platform, they would be neutered from having a key position or speaking on behalf of the party, and in extreme cases expelled.

I absolutely hate the word 'populists' or 'populism' to describe people who want their politicians to represent the country's and their constituents' best interests. That is what they are supposed to be doing, there's nothing populist about it. It's a word used by the far left and far right, including those in the media, to disparage the rest of us. Having said that I know any party I tried setting up would be branded populist and dangerous for the country. And believe it or not I have thought about starting a new party. Maybe in the future.

[ohio_peasant]

Populism overall (beyond just the context of politics) means the embrace and advocacy of simple solutions to complex problems, where it's asserted that the extant experts are benighted, out-of-touch, corrupt and ineffectual. That is, the people currently in charge, or used as advisors for those currently in charge, have done a poor job. So, the remedy is to dispense with these experts, and instead to seek solutions in common-sense accessible to common people.

The thorny part is that common sense, while laudable as philosophy underpinning one’s lifestyle, isn’t all that helpful in solving complex problems. Why? Because they’re complex! The reason that problems don’t get solved, is that solutions are impractical or costly; or that there’s too much vested interest in the current approach; or that compelling arguments can be made for contradictory approaches, so that neither gets adopted. For example, we can’t solve the healthcare mess in America, because there are too many good jobs at stake. If healthcare were to become less expensive, then either lots of people currently connected to the healthcare industry would suffer diminution in pay, or outright lose their livelihood.

Populism fails because in a complex world, we really do need experts to offer advice and to influence decisions. Leaving too much to “the people” only facilitates the rise of new tyrants and mountebanks to exploit popular grievance, making even costlier errors than the supposedly corrupt incumbents whom they displaced.

My own main frustration in America’s current political system is that both parties are incongruous coalitions of interests that don’t really cohere, or make sense as unified parties. For example, I am a secular person, who finds the religious tilt of the modern Republican party to be distasteful. But I find many (not all) Republican economic-policies to be better than the alternative. As a person who does regard global warming as a problem, and who thinks that reproductive rights are a personal matter, I find much common-cause with the Democrats on social issues; but I’m repelled by their emphasis on the plight of persons regarded as being marginalized in society. My vote is thus almost invariably for the lesser evil. Generations ago, I might have been a staunch Republican, as I have no blue-collar or agrarian roots, and tend to align with the interests of professionals and investors. But starting in the 1970s, if not earlier, the Republican party has drifted more towards the working-class, and this goes contrary both to my own actual interests, and my philosophical sentiments…. leaving me without a party with which to align.

[on3]

Originally Posted by woxyroxme

Voting for someone just because they are the lesser of two evils is wasting your vote because it is still a vote for evil, Trump was elected president for not being Hillary Clinton.

Yep. Both candidates were and still are a complete joke. You know it's going down the crapper if this is these are the best candidates that the US can come up with. Don't vote Dem or Reb, instead rebuild the whole corrupt program from the ground up. It's a joke.

[1watertiger]

Originally Posted by on3

Yep. Both candidates were and still are a complete joke. You know it's going down the crapper if this is these are the best candidates that the US can come up with. Don't vote Dem or Reb, instead rebuild the whole corrupt program from the ground up. It's a joke.

Sorry but I like the direction of the country.
-tax cuts
-very low unemployment
-growth 3-4%
-got us out of Iran deal
-got us out of nafta and into better trade deals with Mexico and Canada
-enforcing immigration laws and securing our borders. Deporting illegal aliens.
-5 hostages returned home without paying for their release.
-remains of our Korean War veterans returned.
-supports Israel and not terror backed(Hamas) pallistine.

Until another canadate of any party can deliver a better plan/path for our country (other than we hate trump) I will continue to vote red.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by woxyroxme

Voting for someone just because they are the lesser of two evils is wasting your vote because it is still a vote for evil, Trump was elected president for not being Hillary Clinton.

And 3rd party votes helped Trump win. Your precious idealism has left the nation irrevocably damaged.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by woxyroxme

Hillary was blatantly corrupt herself, so much so that she could not beat a mentally unhinged bat shyt crazy dumpster fire.

And now I have to put up with Donnie and his red hat society coming to my town.

500 Republican-led investigations with nothing found would argue otherwise. The reality is that most people are irrational and they believe easily-debunked lies.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by dramamama6685

No it’s not. This is ridiculous and has been since I heard it first in 1995.

A vote for someone you agree with most is your voice- period.

Negative voting is a scourge on this country..

Your voice isn’t heard if you vote for someone that literally can’t win.