Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-30-2016, 12:34 AM
 
13,303 posts, read 7,872,015 times
Reputation: 2144

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
It is going to be hard to get the Democrats off the couch, and wasting their time with a loser, like with Carter in 1980.
Wait a minute.

Carter inherited a stupid lost country war.

He also inherited Nixon's gold lost money.

Nixon also opened up China for global consumerism to take the world.

Carter couldn't just go up and start a new stupid war. Neither could Reagan in 1981.

It wasn't until Dick Shamey got a new stupid war started.

O'bomb'ya was able to keep it going.

I don't think China buys derivatives.

I don't think Trump likes derivatives either, but I think HILLARY DOES.

Gary Johnson is out of it.

Last edited by Hyperthetic; 09-30-2016 at 01:33 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-30-2016, 01:53 AM
 
Location: London
12,275 posts, read 7,142,126 times
Reputation: 13661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost View Post
The third party candidates have zero chance of winning. Inasmuch as one's vote has an effect on the outcome of the election, voting for a third party candidate is essentially the same as not voting. There are only two outcomes here: either Hillary wins or Trump wins. That much is certain. Given that, one should vote for whichever of those two scenarios is best.
For this election cycle, sure.

But in the long run, there's a huge difference between not voting, voting for the "lesser of two evils", and voting third party if that's the candidate you most align with of them all.

Not voting = "I don't give a **** who leads this country. Just have a full-on dictatorship for all I care. I'm too busy uploading selfies"

Voting for the lesser of 2 evils: "I think Clinton / Trump would be THE BEST leader of the US out of ALL the candidates. Good job, Democrat and Republican parties !!"

Voting 3rd party: "Sorry, but the Democratic / Republican choices just don't cut it. I expect better than that. Meanwhile, of every choice I can possibly vote for, Candidate X is the one I want most of all."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2016, 01:59 AM
 
Location: London
12,275 posts, read 7,142,126 times
Reputation: 13661
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
"You vote FOR someone not against someone"

No you don't. you vote FOR the best choice. In this case thats clearly not Trump. I am unsure why this is such a complex idea for folks.

I dont vote FOR someone, I vote for the best options I have that are most likely to result in better outcomes for our nation.
Yes, because regardless, we're confined to a finite number of options to vote for.

So, why artificially confine oneself even more to only 2 options?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2016, 02:44 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,643 posts, read 26,384,037 times
Reputation: 12648
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Bwahahaha

OK seriously though, you may live in a Red area, and I may be living in a blue area, but neither of us should be drinking all the koolaid from those around us.

Did you even watch the debates? Where Trump was so proud that they didnt admit responsibility when settling a lawsuit about refusing to rent to black people?



Anyone can be sued for any reason, and if you have a lot of money, you will be sued.


Everyone knows that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2016, 02:55 AM
 
Location: Springfield, Ohio
14,682 posts, read 14,652,852 times
Reputation: 15415
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowrimol View Post
The vote for the (D) because they are the party of promised and increased benefits!!!!
Like paying no taxes?

The Libertarian philosophy is closer to that of Republicanism than Democratic Party. The only thing they really share is reduced interventionism in foreign affairs and personal rights (guns aside). Otherwise, they're pro-business, anti-regulation, anti-taxes. Environmental policies are most important to me, since without a healthy Earth there is no life and any of the "issues" which come with it, and Gary Johnson doesn't want to do anything about climate change, sooooo...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2016, 08:17 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,634,918 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyperthetic View Post
Wait a minute.

Carter inherited a stupid lost country war.

He also inherited Nixon's gold lost money.

Nixon also opened up China for global consumerism to take the world.

Carter couldn't just go up and start a new stupid war. Neither could Reagan in 1981.

It wasn't until Dick Shamey got a new stupid war started.

O'bomb'ya was able to keep it going.

I don't think China buys derivatives.

I don't think Trump likes derivatives either, but I think HILLARY DOES.

Gary Johnson is out of it.

So, he was ineffective, like Clinton was as SS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2016, 09:41 AM
 
13,303 posts, read 7,872,015 times
Reputation: 2144
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
So, he was ineffective, like Clinton was as SS.
Carter wasn't ineffective, per se; he was put-so that way.

Perot put a disgusting Clinton in, like Gary will put Clinton in again.

I think Trump was for Perot; many decent people were for Perot.

The CIA was posed to kill the entire Perot family.

The Clintons were locked-in by the CIA.

Only the CIA could get Gary elected.

The CIA probably wants . . . Hillarium or Trump Card in.

Who knows?

Does Gary have any family to succumb to a death threat?

He seems to be all by himself.

He also has little to lose.

Last edited by Hyperthetic; 09-30-2016 at 09:50 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2016, 09:48 AM
 
20,462 posts, read 12,384,859 times
Reputation: 10259
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
"You vote FOR someone not against someone"

No you don't. you vote FOR the best choice. In this case thats clearly not Trump. I am unsure why this is such a complex idea for folks.

I dont vote FOR someone, I vote for the best options I have that are most likely to result in better outcomes for our nation.
I agree with you that we often for the best choice. I disagree with you on who is clearly NOT the best choice.




as far as I am concerned the WORST choice is Hillary. Worst choice by a long shot and the worst choice to come down the pike in more than a generation. Hillary is as corrupt as the day is long. Hillary has a long history of failure.


I do recognize that my post here is opinion....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2016, 10:03 AM
 
13,303 posts, read 7,872,015 times
Reputation: 2144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyperthetic View Post
Carter wasn't ineffective, per se; he was put-so that way.

Perot put a disgusting Clinton in, like Gary will put Clinton in again.

I think Trump was for Perot; many decent people were for Perot.

The CIA was posed to kill the entire Perot family.

The Clintons were locked-in by the CIA.

Only the CIA could get Gary elected.

The CIA probably wants . . . Hillarium or Trump Card in.

Who knows?

Does Gary have any family to succumb to a death threat?

He seems to be all by himself.

He also has little to lose.
Hopefully, Trump will throw in the towel and support Gary.

Trump's got my vote for this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2016, 10:24 AM
 
Location: London
12,275 posts, read 7,142,126 times
Reputation: 13661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural510 View Post
Like paying no taxes?

The Libertarian philosophy is closer to that of Republicanism than Democratic Party. The only thing they really share is reduced interventionism in foreign affairs and personal rights (guns aside). Otherwise, they're pro-business, anti-regulation, anti-taxes. Environmental policies are most important to me, since without a healthy Earth there is no life and any of the "issues" which come with it, and Gary Johnson doesn't want to do anything about climate change, sooooo...
You might like Jill Stein (Green Party) then. Environment and health are among her top priorities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:44 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top