Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Why I early voted for Gary Johnson..


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
51 replies to this topic

#37 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 13,010
  • Reputation: 2,375
HUDDLER

Posted 06 November 2012 - 01:29 PM

I voted for Stein. What of it?


She still in jail?

#38 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 12,795
  • Reputation: 2,493
Moderators

Posted 06 November 2012 - 01:39 PM

She still in jail?


She was released the next day. She was arrested for trespassing.

#39 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 13,010
  • Reputation: 2,375
HUDDLER

Posted 06 November 2012 - 01:40 PM

She was released the next day. She was arrested for trespassing.


I know, just pulling your chain

#40 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,133
  • Reputation: 1,529
HUDDLER

Posted 06 November 2012 - 01:51 PM

I do wonder why people think that having a third party would really make things better. If you look at the countries that have multiple parties, those parties usually have some idealogical cause behind them. I have a feeling that if we had mulitple parties, they would also break down along idealogical lines. We would have a moderate party that would encompass some democrats and some republicans, a left leaning party that encompasses liberals, a social conservative party, and a fiscal conservative party. Which is basically how things are now, but those groups are loosely under the umbrellas of the two major parties. And none of them would have enough power to get legislation to pass on their own, so they would have to form alliances with the other parties. In essence, things wouldn't change.

The third party talk is a holy grail for some, but its essentially meaningless.

#41 CCS

CCS

    Glutton for heart break and punishment

  • Joined: 13-February 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,495
  • Reputation: 390
HUDDLER

Posted 06 November 2012 - 02:10 PM

I wrote in Ron Paul. We're raised to believe that our vote matters and every vote counts so even though I didn't want to vote at all I did. I know that Ron has absolutely no chance of winning, but it makes me feel good knowing that I voted for a man who I think is a great leader and has introduced some great concepts into my life. I really think that Ron Paul has started a revolution, especially amongst people in my age group. People are passionate about him, his beliefs, and our country. Hopefully a lot more people decided to write him in too so we can send the powers that be a message.


and I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I just think that the government is incredibly corrupt at it's current state and Ron Paul would be the man to fix that.

#42 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 13,854
  • Reputation: 4,612
Administrators

Posted 06 November 2012 - 02:12 PM

Ron made such a Revolution that he couldn't get the Pub nomination.

#43 Proudiddy

Proudiddy

    The Thread Killer (Since 2004)

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 17,679
  • Reputation: 5,611
Moderators

Posted 06 November 2012 - 02:22 PM

I do wonder why people think that having a third party would really make things better. If you look at the countries that have multiple parties, those parties usually have some idealogical cause behind them. I have a feeling that if we had mulitple parties, they would also break down along idealogical lines. We would have a moderate party that would encompass some democrats and some republicans, a left leaning party that encompasses liberals, a social conservative party, and a fiscal conservative party. Which is basically how things are now, but those groups are loosely under the umbrellas of the two major parties. And none of them would have enough power to get legislation to pass on their own, so they would have to form alliances with the other parties. In essence, things wouldn't change.

The third party talk is a holy grail for some, but its essentially meaningless.


It's relevant b/c it gives people an actual spectrum of choices to choose from that may fall more directly in line with their politics, versus making people box themselves in and basically join the bloods or the crips. So many people who vote now for the two main parties don't adhere to more than 50% of what their party's platform is, but they vote for them because of the "me versus you" aspect. It's just another source of division and diversion, IMO.

#44 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 12,795
  • Reputation: 2,493
Moderators

Posted 06 November 2012 - 02:28 PM

I do wonder why people think that having a third party would really make things better. If you look at the countries that have multiple parties, those parties usually have some idealogical cause behind them. I have a feeling that if we had mulitple parties, they would also break down along idealogical lines. We would have a moderate party that would encompass some democrats and some republicans, a left leaning party that encompasses liberals, a social conservative party, and a fiscal conservative party. Which is basically how things are now, but those groups are loosely under the umbrellas of the two major parties. And none of them would have enough power to get legislation to pass on their own, so they would have to form alliances with the other parties. In essence, things wouldn't change.

The third party talk is a holy grail for some, but its essentially meaningless.


All you hope to do is make enough noise the major parties have to incorporate your platform in the next election.

#45 CatofWar

CatofWar

    Join, or Die

  • Joined: 24-March 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,522
  • Reputation: 895
HUDDLER

Posted 06 November 2012 - 02:44 PM

Colored in the bubble beside Johnson earlier today. We are still rocking paper ballots here.

#46 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,133
  • Reputation: 1,529
HUDDLER

Posted 06 November 2012 - 02:45 PM

All you hope to do is make enough noise the major parties have to incorporate your platform in the next election.


And then the platform is largely ignored until the next election cycle. Well the parts of it the winning candidate doesn't like are anyway.

#47 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,133
  • Reputation: 1,529
HUDDLER

Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:01 PM

It's relevant b/c it gives people an actual spectrum of choices to choose from that may fall more directly in line with their politics, versus making people box themselves in and basically join the bloods or the crips. So many people who vote now for the two main parties don't adhere to more than 50% of what their party's platform is, but they vote for them because of the "me versus you" aspect. It's just another source of division and diversion, IMO.


Fwiw, I don't care about platforms anyway, because they get largely ignored once a candidate takes office. When voting for a candidate, I tend to look at that candidates style of leadership and what he or she has done in the past. I support Romney primarily because he showed a history of being able to work with the other side.

IMO, the biggest problem with politics in our government today is that to many individuals do adhere to their beliefs to the point that compromise is becoming impossible. And in our style of government, compromise is a requirement unless one party grabs complete power (which rarely happens). And if we had a third party, complete control would be even more difficult, making compromise even more necessary and yet perhaps more difficult to attain.

#48 Proudiddy

Proudiddy

    The Thread Killer (Since 2004)

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 17,679
  • Reputation: 5,611
Moderators

Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:14 PM

Fwiw, I don't care about platforms anyway, because they get largely ignored once a candidate takes office. When voting for a candidate, I tend to look at that candidates style of leadership and what he or she has done in the past. I support Romney primarily because he showed a history of being able to work with the other side.

IMO, the biggest problem with politics in our government today is that to many individuals do adhere to their beliefs to the point that compromise is becoming impossible. And in our style of government, compromise is a requirement unless one party grabs complete power (which rarely happens). And if we had a third party, complete control would be even more difficult, making compromise even more necessary and yet perhaps more difficult to attain.

Agreed about the platforms as well as what is wrong with our government today. Compromise is key. But the two party system polarizes people and forces them to choose a side with often venomous conviction. Most voters I talk with don't think like you when they vote. They don't look at leadership style. If you believe that to be true, that is a valid reason to vote for whom you feel that way about.

But compromise is another reason why I think a third party is necessary, because naturally, a third party nominee would be much more likely to compromise because they aren't stuck in the paradigm that is the two party system, they're already starting from a middle ground that most on either side of the aisle currently either can't find or refuse to look for.