Random Chatter on 2012 Presidential Elections - Page 6

[erinmattsmom88]

 We choose *one OF THE ONES* who has *A* CHANCE of winning.

 We should choose who we feel is best for the job.

Third party voting frustrates me because, the way our system is set up, it isn't a logical choice. It's self-defeating. We need to learn from recent history. It's just so *unnecessary* to allow Romney to win when WE'VE GOT enough voters who would rather have Obama as President than Romney. They just need to *vote that way*! Casting a vote for a 3rd party instead of Obama, and thus allowing Romney to become the next President, is something I consider to be a tragic waste.

P.S. I don't think that a 3rd party voter's vote is worthless

 Huh???

You don't think a third party vote is worthless, but it's a tragic waste and not a logical choice. You don't make any sense.

I guess you'll feel this way only if your candidate doesn't get elected, right?

 However, if the 3rd party voter WOULD be voting for Obama if Romney and Obama were the only candidates running (and write-ins weren't allowed) then I would consider a third party vote to be worse than worthless. I would consider it actually harmful, because it would act as a vehicle to bring Romney into power. Especially if the voter is in a swing state. But, if the voter would not be voting at all if the only candidates running were Obama and Romney (and write-ins weren't allowed), then I suppose the vote would have some slight value as a "making a point" kind of symbolic action.

 Stop with the hypotheticals. Face it... there are more than two choices and us third party voters will vote third party without caring about who it helps this election.

For crying out loud my favorite candidate running in this election is a 3rd party candidate! But if I and the other voters who like her the best actually vote for her, Romney will win instead of Obama, and I like Romney less than Obama, and Romney and Obama are the only potential winners.

 That's terrible. You should be supporting the candidate you feel is best for the job. That woman needs your support. How awful.  

 

Correction: You're waiting for me to give you one *that you will accept as objective.* And there aren't any. And I'm waiting for you to give me one that says anything other than the majority of voters supporting Obama or Romney. And I won't even hold it to as high a standard as you evidently have.

 That's not what I asked. This is what I asked... I'm waiting for you to give me one. Just one. Yep, I don't feel that there are any out there that are reliable. You say there are. OK then, show me the error of my ways and give me one. I will research it on my own and go from there. Me asking you for this doesn't mean I'm a conspiracy theorist. That's ridiculous. Please STOP calling me that. Give me something solid and I will take the time to look into it. That's all I'm asking. I gave you information to look into after you asked for it. Now you return the favor.

Ok, so.... I'm waiting....

 

Yes, it certainly would be ridiculous if I said you were a conspiracy theorist simply because you asked for polling data. Thank god I never said such a thing.

You didn't "say" specifically that I am, but the fact that you have asked me more than once if I am means that you are thinking it and it's offensive.

Because it's illogical to choose the person you think is best for the job if that person is not one of the people who has a chance of winning.

Wrong.

 

When we get to the election that a third party candidate actually has a realistic chance of winning in, that will be the time to vote 3rd party.

Right now, voting 3rd party just takes us in the *opposite* direction.

 Wrong again. Now is the time. If no one starts voting third party, then we'll never get there. The squeaky wheel gets the oil. If no one votes third party, how will third party ever win an election? How will it gain the exposure necessary to be in the running. How will your candidate be successful in the future if no one votes for her? If women didn't assert themselves long ago for the right to vote, it wouldn't have happened when it did (used that specifically as an example, as someone else did a few posts back).

 I stated something before too, but maybe you missed it. I said that if you really think there is no difference between the Republican and the Democrat, then go right ahead and vote 3rd party.

 I am and I've been telling you that I will be voting third party. But, for some reason, you feel the need to keep telling me they have no chance, are not a real option, are illogical, a waste, worthless, etc. You are essentially saying this about me and it's offensive. Do I say this about you? NO. Go ahead and vote for Obama. I don't care. I am voting for RON PAUL. I know a third party will not win THIS CYCLE, but in the future, they will. Again, now is the time to start sending the message that there are a lot of Americans who are beginning to get fed up with the status quo and want something different, someone who can take this country in a different direction because we are headed and have been heading down a path of destruction. This country is sooo messed up.

 Disclaimer: The following statement applies only to people who *would* vote for Obama if Romney and Obama were the only candidates running and write-ins weren't allowed. It does not apply to people who think Republicans and Democrats are equal in terms of the benefits and harm they would bring the world.~~

 What authority do you have to disclaimer anything I have to say. Again, stop with the hypotheticals. Yeah, they're equal alright... in that they both suck and are terrible choices.

 The voting booth is not an effective forum for raising this kind of awareness.

YES IT IS. You were the one who said that elections reflect what the people prefer. Well, if I prefer a third party for reasons stated previously then what better way to tell the world this than by voting for a third party candidate. Sheesh.

There are so many more effective media for raising awareness. Use them. Take action on the other 364 days of the year.

 I will and have.

The voting booth is a dangerous place to make this kind of statement. 

 No, it's the perfect place.

 You are the one who needs to deal with the fact that ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO WIN

 I have already stated that fact. I have "dealt with it". Still voting third party though.

 They are our only two actual choices.

 I've heard this before.

 The fact that the world is counting on us to minimize their suffering is a reason TO vote for the Democrat or the Republican, whichever one we determine to be the better one after researching them. It's rather frustrating that you've admitted that one of these two is going to win, and yet you do not accept the inevitable conclusion that results, which is that we should choose between the two.

 Are we the United States of the World? No, the world wants us to back off and the Dem and Repub parties can't get that through their thick skulls. We are causing their suffering. I have done my research, have you? How have I not accepted that one of those fools is going to win? Doesn't matter to me. I am still voting third party. You need to accept that you are not going to convince me otherwise. I am not and will never compromise my integrity and values just to help a poor choice win just so the other doesn't. Give me a break.

I'm not being insulting. I'm just saying the truth. 

 Whether you are speaking the truth or lying you ARE being insulting.

You disagree with it and you're bothered by it, so you're taking it as a personal insult. I'm giving factual information. 

 I'm not bothered by the fact that ObamnaRomney is going to win this election cycle. I've grieved already. I'm over it. What I am bothered by is your logic about why one should not vote third party.

 Don't YOU see what is wrong with what YOU are saying?? There IS a difference between the Democrat and the Republican, and most of us recognize that.

 No and no there isn't.

 They are the only two with a chance of winning, so most of us are going to vote for the one that we think is better than the other one.

 I've also heard this before.

 You really don't see the sense of that?

 No, because it doesn't make sense.

  Yes, I am saying that we should accept that there are only two choices who have a chance of winning. Since it is true (and you have conceded that it is true), why shouldn't we accept it? Why do you have a problem with accepting the truth? It is folly not to accept it. As I said, you can insist on the salad until you're blue in the face, but you're not going to get it in this election, and you know that. You've admitted it.

 I have not told anyone not to accept anything. I only speak for myself. Again, I've heard this all before and I'm bored. You keep repeating that third party is not going to win this election cycle, and EVERYONE KNOWS THIS ALREADY. Please stop repeating yourself. Your argument does not gain any ground or increase credibility when you keep repeating yourself. In an attempt to make me look like I am being a hypocrite, you keep saying that I admit third party won't win. I never said they were going to win. I didn't nor do I need you to tell me that. I'm still voting third party.

I share your hope that we will eventually be able to elect a 3rd party President. 

 If you REALLY do, then you should vote for that third party candidate. Actions speak louder than words.

 

Apparently the only way you can justify trying to get everyone not to vote for a candidate who has a chance of winning is to be in denial about the fact that either the Democrat or the Republican is going to win.

I'm not trying to get anyone to do anything. YOU ARE. I'm not in denial about anything.

 I did not back down. I had several reasons for not hunting up links. For one thing, I had to get in the car. For another, I had a feeling you would not accept the information if it didn't agree with your theory. For another, it is not central to my argument. I am not the one claiming that there were only about a dozen cases of voter fraud discovered nationwide. An independent investigation came to that conclusion. I don't think I really need to counter Faux News.

 Yes you did back down and I don't care about whatever reasons you had for not "hunting up links".

 For another, I had a feeling you would not accept the information if it didn't agree with your theory.

 Remember when I said this... I'm waiting for you to give me one. Just one. Yep, I don't feel that there are any out there that are reliable. You say there are. OK then, show me the error of my ways and give me one. I will research it on my own and go from there. Me asking you for this doesn't mean I'm a conspiracy theorist. That's ridiculous. Please STOP calling me that. Give me something solid and I will take the time to look into it. That's all I'm asking. I gave you information to look into after you asked for it. Now you return the favor.

 I am not the one claiming that there were only about a dozen cases of voter fraud discovered nationwide. An independent investigation came to that conclusion. I don't think I really need to counter Faux News. 

 But you mentioned it. My link to Faux News was one of several. I guess if it came from CNN you would have been ok with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

The ID law is targeted at everyone who doesn't have one.

And most of them just happen to be Democrats. And the new laws just happen to be in swing states with Republican leaders.

 Who cares if most of them just happen to be Democrats. The fact remains that there needs to be a voter ID law. Everyone should be showing ID at the polls. It seems that you don't agree with this.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

There is no reason why every American citizen shouldn't have ID.

How about: Because we aren't living in Nazi Germany

If the government wanted people to have to present photo I.D. at the voting booth, it should have been decided 3 years ago, and every citizen should have been GIVEN the required ID. The rule should not be decided on and implemented right before a Presidential election.

 WHAT?????? Nazi Germany, huh? That's where we're headed, btw. Why 3 years ago? Why not 9 months ago or 5 days ago or 20 years ago. Who cares. It needs to be a law, and it just so happens that a big election is coming up. More of a reason it needs to be done.

[mtiger]

Originally Posted by Sustainer 

 Those of us who vote for Obama will not deserve to get Romney, but if he wins, then we will get him anyway. 

I would hazard a guess that those who support Romney feel the same way about Obama winning.

What I find objectionable is being told that there is only one RIGHT way to vote, and that is for Obama. That may be your opinion, but that does not make it right.

Of course, this thread has also reminded me why I tend to not discuss politics. So I do thank you for that.

[erinmattsmom88]

Here are some polls from earlier this year. Even though Ron Paul was running for the republican ticket at the time, he was treated as a third party candidate so essentially he was. Yeah, they aren't treated very well. Case in point, Sustainer's attitude. A few of these polls had him up against Obama. So, for all you heard about Ron Paul having no chance of winning, here ya go. The RNC DID NOT want Paul as the nominee and guess what, he's not. He was treated very poorly and unfairly. So much for voter preferences. He should be officially running third party because he could do some serious damage!! Yep, damage. Maybe that will tell the establishment on both sides that we want something new and different. I hear and read about so many people who say they voted for Obama last time, aren't happy with him, but are voting for him anyway because they hate Romney more. I also hear/read that people aren't voting for Obama because he wasn't who they thought he was/was going to do. Some people are voting for Romney because they don't want Obama. Maybe if we changed our way of thinking, and looked into the fact that there are other options out there, not the status quo, maybe then real change will happen in this country. The time is now to vote for third party, if that's your preference. Don't wait until they poll 40%. Start now. They only way he/she can get there is if people start voting third party... if they feel it is what they want. Baby steps. People are so afraid of that change though, but ironically, they say they want change. Make a difference. If you don't 100% agree with a candidate, don't for him/her. Simple as that. Vote for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or Rosanne Barr (yes, she is running!) or Jill Stein or Merlin Miller or Virgil Goode. They are just as good if not better... better in my opinion... than the two current mainstream choices. If you feel that Romney is your guy or Obama is, then go ahead and vote for him. If you feel that one of those candidates is the right one, I support you. Just be 100% sure of your decision. That's all I've been trying to say. I am 200% sure Ron Paul is the right guy and I am voting for him. I am trying to raise awareness of the other choices, whereas someone else is trying to force feed only two out of the many choices to me and trying to persuade me to vote for them because they are the only ones who have a chance. She hasn't given me any other reason. She is telling me that my vote, which would be for a third party candidate is illogical, a tragic waste, worthless, etc. To me, that is un-American. We have the right and freedom to voice our preference at the polls, which by the way is the absolute best way to do this, unlike what someone else said. I was told to use any other day during the year EXCEPT election day to send a message. Does that sound right? No, it is very wrong.

http://reason.com/poll/2012/01/13/ron-paul-rising-evidenc-from-national-po

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0228/Ron-Paul-poll-shocker-He-beats-Obama-head-to-head

http://www.policymic.com/articles/3057/why-ron-paul-s-rise-to-the-top-of-iowa-polls-makes-sense

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/21/poll-paul-in-top-spot-in-iowa-gop-battle/

http://www.dailypaul.com/248818/attention-rnc-delegates-ron-paul-beats-obama-and-romney-with-58-favorability-in-national-poll

http://www.dailypaul.com/249510/paul-vs-obama-poll-2-results

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/02/facebookpolitico-poll-ron-paul-on-top-with-missouri-113816.html

http://rt.com/usa/news/poll-ron-paul-obama-467/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/12/19/143963906/polls-show-ron-paul-rising-in-iowa-as-gingrich-swoons

This happened ALL. THE. TIME... http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread739397/pg1

[erinmattsmom88]

Found a few typos... They only way he/she can get there is if people start voting third party... if they feel it is what they want. Baby steps. People are so afraid of that change though, but ironically, they say they want change. Make a difference. If you don't 100% agree with a candidate, don't ____ for him/her.

They should be the. The blank should read vote.

[erinmattsmom88]

Hey Sustainer, check this out...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/16/green-party-candidate-arrested-outside-debate-site/

Is this the third party candidate that is your favorite?

For crying out loud my favorite candidate running in this election is a 3rd party candidate!

How do you feel about this? Thoughts??

[erinmattsmom88]

 Difficult for any other party to get 15% in the polls when they aren't even brought up in the polls! The Commission on Presidential Debates was founded by the Republicans and Democrats. Of course, they don't want any other party in a debate. I think the American people would be better served if other parties such as the Libertarian party would be able to get more time.

 Exactly my point.

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

 We should choose who we feel is best for the job.

You already expressed this opinion.  I think at this point we need to just agree to disagree on this one.  

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

 You don't think a third party vote is worthless, but it's a tragic waste and not a logical choice. 

I already clarified this, but I'll do it again.  I find it illogical, tragic, and wasteful *if* the voter *would* be voting for the Democrat if a 3rd party were not an option.  If the voter sees no difference between the Democrat and the Republican, then I think the word I'd use to describe a 3rd party vote would be "harmless."

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Stop with the hypotheticals. Face it... there are more than two choices and us third party voters will vote third party without caring about who it helps this election.

I'm not going to stop using hypotheticals.  When it comes to what I am saying, they matter.  Maybe you need to start with them.  Avoiding them might be one of the things keeping you from considering other ideas.  As I've said many times now, there are only two choices that have a chance of winning.  If you really don't care who you are helping to win (and that would help explain such actions), then that is one of the things that is tragic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

That's terrible. You should be supporting the candidate you feel is best for the job. That woman needs your support. How awful.  

You're not going to get it no matter how many times I explain it, are you.

 

Action:  I, and the other voters who like the Greens more than the Dems, vote for the Greens ------------------>  Result:  Romney becomes the next President

Action:  I, and the other voters who like the Greens more than the Dems, vote for the Dems   ------------------>  Result:  Obama will be President for the next 4 years

 

Comparison of two possible results:

 

President Romney

     World ------------------>  Hell in handbasket

 

President Obama

     Better than President Romney.

 

Therefore:

     Better action

     Vote for Dem.

 

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

 

 

The reason the Green candidate is the candidate I like the best is that, of all the candidates running, her views are the closest to my own.  If I were just going to vote for the person whose views were closest to my own, without giving any regard to how possible it is that the person could actually win the election, then I would just write in my own name.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Ok, so.... I'm waiting....

 

I don't know why I'm even bothering to type this when you already said that in your opinion all of the polls are unreliable, but if you go to realclearpolitics.com and click on one of the pull down menus on the left, you should be able to find a whole slew of polls, conducted by many different independent pollsters.  They all say pretty much the same thing.  About 45%, or maybe a little more, of registered voters support Obama, and ditto for Romney.  And you don't really need me to tell you this.  You could have just gone to Google or something at any time and searched for "2012 presidential poll" or something like that and you'd probably get hundreds of results.  And every poll would tell you pretty much the same thing.  Add the Obama supporters to the Romney supporters and it will probably be more than 90%.  I'm not going to hold my breath for you to provide any evidence that anything other than this is true.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

 You didn't "say" specifically that I am, but the fact that you have asked me more than once if I am means that you are thinking it and it's offensive.

 

Here's what you need to realize.  The ONLY time I mention conspiracy theories is when you say things like "voting has no effect on the outcomes of elections" and "the next President has already been pre-determined" and "all polls are invalid."  When you say things like this, you should be prepared for people to ask you if you're a conspiracy theorist.  However, I NEVER accuse you of being a conspiracy theorist simply as a result of you saying that you support 3rd parties, or you're unconventional, or you don't follow the mainstream, or you want to see a poll.   It's pretty silly for you to keep trying to put such words in my mouth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Wrong.

Again, I think we just need to agree to disagree at this point.  We can keep saying "you're wrong" at each other all day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Now is the time. If no one starts voting third party, then we'll never get there. The squeaky wheel gets the oil. If no one votes third party, how will third party ever win an election? How will it gain the exposure necessary to be in the running. How will your candidate be successful in the future if no one votes for her?

Now is the time to advocate for election reform and run-off voting.  If I, and the other voters who share my views, vote Green next month, the next President will be the one who will take us in the opposite direction from the way we want to go.  If I, and the other voters who share my views, vote Dem next month, the next President will take us, in slow baby steps, slightly in the direction that we want to go.  If I want to get the country to the place where it will eventually elect a Green, I need to take it in the right direction.  Taking it in the opposite direction will delay the eventual election of a Green.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

 I am and I've been telling you that I will be voting third party. But, for some reason, you feel the need to keep telling me they have no chance, are not a real option, are illogical, a waste, worthless, etc. You are essentially saying this about me and it's offensive. Do I say this about you? NO. Go ahead and vote for Obama. I don't care. I am voting for RON PAUL.

And I repeat.  Go ahead and vote for him.  I have been saying from the very beginning of this conversation that I am not specifically trying to get YOU to vote for anyone else.  As for my general comments about 3rd party candidates not having a chance, not being real options, and about choices that seem to me to be illogical or wasteful (I never said worthless), I have simply been responding to the general arguments that you have been making about how you think people should vote.  You HAVE been saying that people should NOT vote for Obama or Romney.  I have simply been defending my own rationale.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

 What authority do you have to disclaimer anything I have to say.

My disclaimer does not refer to anything *you* are saying.  My disclaimer only applies to what *I* am saying.  Me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

 No, it's the perfect place.

Not when casting the vote for a 3rd party candidate instead of the Dem/Rep (whichever has views closer to your own) results in the election of a President whose views are *further* from your own.  But as I said, this does not apply to you.  The Dem and the Rep are the same to you.  So you should go right ahead and vote 3rd party.  This is what my disclaimer meant.  But you evidently didn't understand my disclaimer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

 Are we the United States of the World? No, the world wants us to back off and the Dem and Repub parties can't get that through their thick skulls. We are causing their suffering. I have done my research, have you? How have I not accepted that one of those fools is going to win? Doesn't matter to me. I am still voting third party. You need to accept that you are not going to convince me otherwise. I am not and will never compromise my integrity and values just to help a poor choice win just so the other doesn't. 

The actions of the President of the United States greatly affect the entire world.  Yes, we cause them suffering.  That is my point.  Yes, I have done my research, and this is what I have found:  Republicans cause more suffering than Democrats.  That is why I feel it is my duty to keep Republicans out of office.  The effective means of achieving this result is to vote for the Democrat.  Again, I am not trying to convince you not to vote 3rd party.  I have only been explaining the general reasons for voting for Democrats and explaining why I don't think people who prefer Obama to Romney should vote for someone other than Obama.  I would never compromise my integrity or values either.  Are you implying that you think I am compromising my integrity or values by voting for the better of the two electable options?

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

 no there isn't.

That's your opinion.  I don't see how anyone who researched them could fail to see a difference between the Democrat and the Republican.  But whatever.  Vote 3rd party.  Again, my argument against voting 3rd party only applies to the people who *do* see the difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

 No, because it doesn't make sense.

Actually it does.  It's very basic logic.  But you obviously don't see it.

Of course, in order to agree with the conclusion, you would have to agree with the premise that either the Democrat or the Republican is better than the other, and you don't agree with that premise, so it makes sense that you don't agree with the conclusion.  However, one would hope that you should at least be able to see that *for voters who agree with the premise,* the conclusion represents the action that we should take.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Please stop repeating yourself. 

If you would, then I could.  Nothing would make me happier than to not have to go round and round in circles like this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Your argument does not gain any ground or increase credibility when you keep repeating yourself. 

Neither does yours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

In an attempt to make me look like I am being a hypocrite, you keep saying that I admit third party won't win. 

I keep having to point this out because you keep making arguments that deny the reality of there being only 2 potential winners.  You keep emphasizing that there are more than two choices, and you imply that the right thing to do is vote for one of the ones who is better than the Republican or the Democrat.  And why?  Because the 3rd party candidate would make the best President.
(Even though the 3rd party candidate cannot become President as a result of this election.  Do you see what I'm saying?  Probably not.)

And you imply that there's no good reason to vote for the Democrat or the Republican.  Even though many of us do think one is better than the other, and one of them will be President, so we want the better one, and the one we vote for could actually win, thereby preventing the worse one from becoming President.  Which is a worthy goal.  Thank you very much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

I never said they were going to win. I didn't nor do I need you to tell me that. I'm still voting third party.

And that's fine.  Go ahead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

 If you REALLY do, then you should vote for that third party candidate.

I really do.  And no I shouldn't.  She wouldn't win.  And failing to vote for Obama would result in the worst possible outcome: President Romney.  I will continue to advocate an election system under which I could vote for a 3rd party candidate without helping the Republican win.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

I'm not trying to get anyone to do anything. 

Then why do you keep trying to convince me (and others) to vote 3rd party?

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Yes you did back down and I don't care about whatever reasons you had for not "hunting up links".

Um, no, I did NOT back down.  If you don't care what my reasons were (including literally NOT having any time to do it) then that is *your* problem.

By the way, you should really stop quoting yourself saying "Me asking you for this doesn't mean I'm a conspiracy theorist."  It's one of the sillier things you've said.  One wouldn't think you'd want to keep drawing attention to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Who cares if most of them just happen to be Democrats.

Because I was being sarcastic.  They DON'T "just happen" to be Democrats.  The Democrats are being targeted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

 The fact remains that there needs to be a voter ID law. 

That's not a fact.  It's an opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Nazi Germany, huh?

Yeah.  As in, "Papers, please."

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Why not 9 months ago or 5 days ago or 20 years ago. Who cares. It needs to be a law, and it just so happens that a big election is coming up. 

5 days ago?  'Who cares?'  It doesn't "just so happen" that there's a big (close) election coming up very very soon.  They are purposely doing it now so that people won't have time to conform to the law.  You'd think someone who doesn't trust authority would be open to this conjecture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtiger 

I would hazard a guess that those who support Romney feel the same way about Obama winning.

Obviously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtiger 

What I find objectionable is being told that there is only one RIGHT way to vote, and that is for Obama. 

All I have been doing is expressing my opinion of who I think should be voted for, and explaining my reasons for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtiger 

Of course, this thread has also reminded me why I tend to not discuss politics. 

It has reminded me of the same thing.  I have subjected myself to quite an ordeal, because I believe speaking out is the right thing to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Here are some polls from earlier this year. Even though Ron Paul was running for the republican ticket at the time, he was treated as a third party candidate so essentially he was. 

I meant general election polls in which people express who they support for President in the November election.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

I hear and read about so many people who say they voted for Obama last time, aren't happy with him, but are voting for him anyway because they hate Romney more.

You are criticizing the above argument, even though it is a PERFECTLY VALID argument!  Romney is going to be the next President if we don't vote for Obama.  And we hate Romney more.  So that is the only reason that we need.  Our decision is fully justified on that basis.

Quote:

Quote:Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

Maybe if we changed our way of thinking, and looked into the fact that there are other options out there, not the status quo, maybe then real change will happen in this country.

And here's another instance when I need to point out that those other options aren't actual possibilities in this election, and that voting for them will have an unintended and undesirable effect.

Quote:Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

The time is now to vote for third party, if that's your preference. Don't wait until they poll 40%. Start now.

And this is you NOT trying to get people to vote a certain way, right?  /sarcasm

Quote:  Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

People are so afraid of that change though, but ironically, they say they want change. Make a difference.

I don't want change in the wrong direction.  The difference it would make if I voted 3rd party is that Romney would win.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

If you don't 100% agree with a candidate, don't for him/her. Simple as that. 

This is an incredibly harmful thing to say to people.  It would be horrible if people took this advice.

It's as simple as THIS -- and I really do hate to sound like a broken record! -- but there are exactly two candidates who can come out of this election as President-elect -- and they are TIED in popularity right now -- and we need to choose the better one.   Otherwise:  disaster for the world for the next 4 to 8 years.  This is not a scare tactic.  It's just the unavoidable fact of the matter.  It would be dangerous to avoid or deny it.  Remember George W. in 2000 and 2004.  Don't repeat history's mistake.  Please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Vote for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or Rosanne Barr (yes, she is running!) or Jill Stein or Merlin Miller or Virgil Goode. 

Or just write in your own name, right?  After all, that's the only person you can really 100% agree with.  Keep in mind that the candidates named above have the same chance of winning (zero) as you do.  So you might as well write in yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

trying to persuade me to vote for them because they are the only ones who have a chance. She hasn't given me any other reason. 

Again, I'm not trying to get YOU to vote for the Dem or the Rep.  And as far as my general argument for other people to vote for one of them, no other reason is needed than "they are the only ones who have a chance."  That is a good enough reason.

You are advocating voting for people who have no chance of winning, because it would be better if they did win (even though they have no chance to).  You haven't given any other reason.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

She is telling me that my vote, which would be for a third party candidate is illogical, a tragic waste, worthless, etc. 

I never said worthless.  And I actually said that *your* vote (the vote of a person who has no preference between the Dem and the Repub) has some value as a 3rd party vote.

Edited by Sustainer - 10/20/12 at 12:06pm

[CatsCradle]

Guys/Gals (assuming there may be guys here):  Look, I agree with a lot or the points here from both sides.  I'm busy and can't keep up with the multi-quoting, etc.  You seem to be having a debate between yourselves and that's legitimate, but my eyes glaze over when we/you start mincing words.  This whole debate looks like a bid protest in New Jersey. Eyes glaze over.  Start collecting thoughts and make a closing statement!  

That being said, my profession is law and I have very REAL CONCERNS about how laws are interpreted in this country and how it will effect all us in the long term.  Being a lawyer, I have to always consider what is best for the client (within certain perimeters).  You  know, I used to have certain moral considerations when I was younger and I always made decisions based on base morals.  I didn't have any strategy.  I thought that I could prevail simply on the issues.  Things are much more complex than that.  I still have the same beliefs and morals that I did then, but I've learned that there are round-about ways to get there.  People don't want to smashed in the face with ideas.  People are slow to change.  There is a way to change attitudes and persuasions.  I operate within the system because it gets me a better result, in my experience.  People who once held staunch views are questioning those views, and they don't know why!  It is a slow process and I'm willing to take the risks (i.e. voting for the person who is most likely to make those changes - Supreme Court - or otherwise) in order to effectuate the changes that I REALLY WANT.  

There's something to be said about the underground.  You may make fun me for voting for "THE MAN" but I am sincerely working to make real changes, even if it is not what you want to hear or the method you want to employ.  Good luck to you.  I'm doing my own underground work.  I don't need random people on the internet telling me I'm a robot, Obamobot, and whatever term you want to apply to people you know nothing about and therefore are not qualified to diss.  

Edited for huge spelling errors.   Also edited to say:  you can pick apart my post and multi-quote me or whatever.  Not going to change how I feel or what I believe.  And likewise, I don't feel compelled to convince people about my own feelings on the subject.  It has been an interesting discussion and I'll leave it at that.

Edited by CatsCradle - 10/17/12 at 8:23pm

[erinmattsmom88]

I already clarified this, but I'll do it again. I find it illogical, tragic, and wasteful *if* the voter *would* be voting for the Democrat if a 3rd party were not an option. If the voter sees no difference between the Democrat and the Republican, then I think the word I'd use to describe a 3rd party vote would be "harmless."’

I'm not going to stop using hypotheticals. When it comes to what I am saying, they matter. Maybe you need to start with them. Avoiding them might be one of the things keeping you from considering other ideas. As I've said many times now, there are only two choices that have a chance of winning. If you really don't care who you are helping to win (and that would help explain such actions), then that is one of the things that is tragic.

Yes, you need to stop. No, your hypothetical situations don’t matter because they don’t apply to this election cycle. The fact is, is that there are more than two options, period. That is fact. I’m not avoiding anything because I am living in reality. You are not. I’m not avoiding the fact that there are 16+ presidential candidates this cycle. How about this, when there are only two, I will consider one. Does that work for you? Until then, I am going to learn about each candidate and what they have to potentially offer this country, and I will choose the one that I like best… no matter what party they are affiliated with. For you to say… “Avoiding them might be one of the things keeping you from considering other ideas” is outrageous. I have considered all 16 candidates’ideas. So you are way off.

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

That's terrible. You should be supporting the candidate you feel is best for the job. That woman needs your support. How awful.

You're not going to get it no matter how many times I explain it, are you.

Yeah, because it doesn’t make sense that you are not voting for your preference.

Quote:

 

Action: I, and the other voters who like the Greens more than the Dems, vote for the Greens ------------------> Result: Romney becomes the next President

Action: I, and the other voters who like the Greens more than the Dems, vote for the Dems ------------------> Result: Obama will be President for the next 4 years

Comparison of two possible results:

President Romney

World ------------------> Hell in handbasket

President Obama

Better than President Romney.

Therefore:

Better action

Vote for Dem.

I didn’t bother reading this whole list because Romney and Obama will both send this country to hell in a handbasket.

Quote:

 

The reason the Green candidate is the candidate I like the best is that, of all the candidates running, her views are the closest to my own.

Which is why you should VOTE FOR HER.

Quote:

 If I were just going to vote for the person whose views were closest to my own, without giving any regard to how possible it is that the person could actually win the election, then I would just write in my own name.

 

So, when you look at a candidate and make a decision on whether or not to vote for him/her, you first look at whether or not they can win?? That’s pathetic.

Quote:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

Ok, so.... I'm waiting....

I don't know why I'm even bothering to type this when you already said that in your opinion all of the polls are unreliable.

I told you that if you give me one poll to look at, I’d be glad to check it out and look into it further. You are delaying and deflecting back at me. I flat out told you to give me some information and I would read about it/look into it. Did you skip over that part the 3-4 times I reminded you of me saying this??? Did YOU check into all the links I sent you?? I doubt it. You can dish it out, but you can’t take it.

Quote:

but if you go to realclearpolitics.com and click on one of the pull down menus on the left, you should be able to find a whole slew of polls, conducted by many different independent pollsters. They all say pretty much the same thing. About 45%, or maybe a little more, of registered voters support Obama, and ditto for Romney.

 

What are the choices in these polls? Romney and Obama, right? What about the others? I sent you links to many polls that Ron Paul was either leading or close to leading earlier this year. Some of them had him up against your buddy Obama, which showed Ron Paul would have a much better chance of beating Obama than Romney did. He was essentially a third party candidate. You said third party candidates don’t have a chance at winning and are essentially unelectable. Well, those polls tell a different story. However, like I said earlier, the RNC was not going to allow Ron Paul to be the candidate because Ron Paul would not have put up with all the crap that goes on. He wanted to audit the fed, cut spending by 1 trillion in his first year, bring the troops home, decrease the size of the federal government, etc, etc and the establishment didn’t like that. So, they took those polls, got rid of them, and then quickly followed with BS polls from who knows where to make it look like he was at the bottom of the pack or close to it. This happened over and over again and everyone knows it.

And you don't really need me to tell you this. You could have just gone to Google or something at any time and searched for "2012 presidential poll" or something like that and you'd probably get hundreds of results. And every poll would tell you pretty much the same thing. Add the Obama supporters to the Romney supporters and it will probably be more than 90%. I'm not going to hold my breath for you to provide any evidence that anything other than this is true.

Wow. If I had told you to just google stuff after you asked me to specifically give you proof of what I was saying, you would have jumped all over that accusing me of “avoiding” your requests. I went to the trouble of providing you specific information you asked for, and when I ask that of you, you tell me to google it. Not surprising.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

Now is the time. If no one starts voting third party, then we'll never get there. The squeaky wheel gets the oil. If no one votes third party, how will third party ever win an election? How will it gain the exposure necessary to be in the running. How will your candidate be successful in the future if no one votes for her?

Now is the time to advocate for election reform and run-off voting.

Specify “election reform”. Does that mean equal the playing field for ALL the candidates?? That would be great!

Quote:

 

 If I, and the other voters who share my views, vote Green next month, the next President will be the one who will take us in the opposite direction from the way we want to go. If I, and the other voters who share my views, vote Dem next month, the next President will take us, in slow baby steps, slightly in the direction that we want to go. If I want to get the country to the place where it will eventually elect a Green, I need to take it in the right direction. Taking it in the opposite direction will delay the eventual election of a Green.

Not voting for the green party now… if that’s who you like… IS delaying an eventual election of a green party candidate. If that party doesn’t get the votes, when is it going to happen??? Saying that voting for a democrat will get a green party elected does NOT MAKE ANY SENSE!

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

I am and I've been telling you that I will be voting third party. But, for some reason, you feel the need to keep telling me they have no chance, are not a real option, are illogical, a waste, worthless, etc. You are essentially saying this about me and it's offensive. Do I say this about you? NO. Go ahead and vote for Obama. I don't care. I am voting for RON PAUL.

And I repeat. Go ahead and vote for him. I have been saying from the very beginning of this conversation that I am not specifically trying to get YOU to vote for anyone else.

 

By you trying to discredit third party candidates is a way of you trying to get me, others to say oh, ok then, I’ll vote dem or repub instead. Not gonna happen.

Quote:

 

As for my general comments about 3rd party candidates not having a chance, not being real options, and about choices that seem to me to be illogical or wasteful (I never said worthless), I have simply been responding to the general arguments that you have been making about how you think people should vote. You HAVE been saying that people should NOT vote for Obama or Romney. I have simply been defending my own rationale.

That is absolutely NOT TRUE. You are lying. I have never said that people should not vote for those two. Nor have I said I think people should vote a certain way. That’s what YOU have been doing. WOW. I have said there is no difference in the parties, neither one will do a good job, both will take this country down a path of destruction, but nowhere did I tell you or anyone else… “Please don’t vote for Obama or Romney”. I never said there are only two options. You did. I have only encouraged folks to look into the fact that there are other options besides the status quo. I have said that folks should vote third party IF THEY FEEL THAT IS THE BEST CANDIDATE. IF is the operative word here. You are a piece of work. Wow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

No, it's the perfect place.

Not when casting the vote for a 3rd party candidate instead of the Dem/Rep (whichever has views closer to your own) results in the election of a President whose views are *further* from your own. But as I said, this does not apply to you. The Dem and the Rep are the same to you. So you should go right ahead and vote 3rd party. This is what my disclaimer meant. But you evidently didn't understand my disclaimer.

No, it is the perfect place to have your voice heard. Didn’t you say the election results show the preference of the voters? Yes, you did.

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

Are we the United States of the World? No, the world wants us to back off and the Dem and Repub parties can't get that through their thick skulls. We are causing their suffering. I have done my research, have you? How have I not accepted that one of those fools is going to win? Doesn't matter to me. I am still voting third party. You need to accept that you are not going to convince me otherwise. I am not and will never compromise my integrity and values just to help a poor choice win just so the other doesn't.

The actions of the President of the United States greatly affect the entire world.

Yeah, I know this.

Quote:

Yes, we cause them suffering. That is my point. Yes, I have done my research, and this is what I have found: Republicans cause more suffering than Democrats.

 

Proof please. They both cause suffering. Does it matter who is better at it? Ask the people who have been affected by our messed up government meddling in other countries affairs. Do you think they give a crap whether or not the person who caused their suffering is a republican or democrat??

Quote:

 

That is why I feel it is my duty to keep Republicans out of office.

OK, so you’d rather vote to keep a republican out of office instead of voting for the person you feel can do the best job of fixing this country?

Quote:

The effective means of achieving this result is to vote for the Democrat.

Why don’t you vote for your green party candidate instead.

Again, I am not trying to convince you not to vote 3rd party.

I almost spit out my water.

Quote:

I have only been explaining the general reasons for voting for Democrats and explaining why I don't think people who prefer Obama to Romney should vote for someone other than Obama.

That sounds so innocent when you write it like that, but we all know that’s not how it went.

Quote:

Because I would never compromise my integrity or values either.

 

You are. You like the green party candidate the best, but aren’t voting for her because she doesn’t have a chance of winning. So, you are voting for Obama to help keep Romney out of office. You should not be voting at all. People like this should not vote.

Quote:

 

Are you implying that you think I am compromising my integrity or values by voting for the better of the two electable options?

Yes. See above.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

Please stop repeating yourself.

If you would, then I could. Nothing would make me happier than to not have to go round and round in circles like this.

This all started with you saying your nonsense and continued with me responding to it.

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

In an attempt to make me look like I am being a hypocrite, you keep saying that I admit third party won't win.

I keep having to point this out because you keep making arguments that deny the reality of there being only 2 potential winners.

No, there are 16+ potential winners.

 

You keep emphasizing that there are more than two choices, and you imply that the right thing to do is vote for one of the ones who is better than the Republican or the Democrat.

 IF a person feels an option other than a dem or repub can do a better job. What's wrong with that? Don't try and be tricky with semantics.

 

And why? Because the 3rd party candidate would make the best President.

See above. If I vote for a third party because I feel they can do the best job, then yes, I would also feel they would make the best president. Yep, you betchya.

Quote:

 (Even though the 3rd party candidate cannot become President as a result of this election. Do you see what I'm saying? Probably not.)

Yeah, I see what you’re saying alright. You think that voting for a candidate to keep the other out of office is the most important thing when choosing a candidate. You should not be voting.

 

And you imply that there's no good reason to vote for the Democrat or the Republican. Even though many of us do think one is better than the other, and one of them will be President, so we want the better one, and the one we vote for could actually win, thereby preventing the worse one from becoming President. Which is a worthy goal. Thank you very much.

No. All I have said all along is that folks should vote for the candidate he/she feels is the best person for the job. I’ve said that over and over. That person can be independent, democrat, green party, republican, whatever. I have also said that I think it’s ridiculous to vote for someone just because they have a better chance of winning even though you like someone better and/or want to keep someone else out of office, which is what you are doing. No, what you are doing is not a worthy goal. A worthy goal is to vote for someone who is going to cut spending, create jobs, bring our troops home, reform healthcare, audit the fed, the list could go on.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

If you REALLY do, then you should vote for that third party candidate.

I really do. And no I shouldn't. She wouldn't win.

Not if she has supporters that don't believe in her, like you. You should stop saying that you like her the best. She doesn’t need someone like you as a supporter. She needs supporters who agree with her and want her to win and will vote for her. As far as I’m concerned, you don’t like her at all.

Quote:

 

And failing to vote for Obama would result in the worst possible outcome: President Romney.

If you are an Obama supporter such as yourself. Romney supporters would see that differently. You are terrified of Romney being president, aren't you. What about him scares you so much??? I'd love to hear this.

I will continue to advocate an election system under which I could vote for a 3rd party candidate without helping the Republican win.

 

You seem to want an election system which has only two candidates. You can't say with a straight face that you wish you could vote third party. I don't want to be lumped in with you as a third party supporter. You are a disgraceful, supposed third party supporter. We don't need people like you among us. Just stay in Obama-land.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

I'm not trying to get anyone to do anything.

Then why do you keep trying to convince me (and others) to vote 3rd party?

 

ROTFLMAO!!!!! Are you serious? Puh-lease. Like I said above, I am not trying to convince anyone to do anything. Where do you get this??? All I have said all along is that people should vote third party if that is what they prefer, regardless of the fact that they feel they can win or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

Yes you did back down and I don't care about whatever reasons you had for not "hunting up links".

Um, no, I did NOT back down. If you don't care what my reasons were (including literally NOT having any time to do it) then that is *your* problem.

By the way, you should really stop quoting yourself saying "Me asking you for this doesn't mean I'm a conspiracy theorist." It's one of the sillier things you've said. One wouldn't think you'd want to keep drawing attention to it.

 

I have been reacting to you with the conspiracy theorist thing. The more you bring it up, the more I will. Hey, did you read the links I sent you? How about that video of Jill Stein getting arrested yesterday? That’s your candidate, right?

Where are the links you sent me? Oh, that’s right, you haven’t sent me any.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

Who cares if most of them just happen to be Democrats.

Because I was being sarcastic. They DON'T "just happen" to be Democrats. The Democrats are being targeted.

Sure you were. Your tone was not sarcastic until I made your claim sound ridiculous. Now I will read your next line, which sounds awfully like what you said about those who don’t have ID happen to be democrats. You are changing your wording. Now you are saying they don’t happen to be democrats. The democrats are being targeted. Is that sarcasm too?

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

The fact remains that there needs to be a voter ID law.

That's not a fact. It's an opinion.

And it needs to be a law. Don’t you think that people should be ID’d at the polls? And if not, I would love to hear why you don’t think so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

Nazi Germany, huh?

Yeah. As in, "Papers, please."

Yeah, in this day and age among voter fraud, intimidation, the increasing illegal alien population, etc, everyone should be ID’d. Our government created this monster.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

Why not 9 months ago or 5 days ago or 20 years ago. Who cares. It needs to be a law, and it just so happens that a big election is coming up.

5 days ago? Who cares? It doesn't "just so happen" that there's a big (close) election coming up very very soon. They are purposely doing it now so that people won't have time to conform to the law. You'd think someone who doesn't trust authority would be open to this conjecture.

No, trying to enact a voter ID law has been an ongoing thing for years. It always gains more exposure when an election nears.

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtiger

Of course, this thread has also reminded me why I tend to not discuss politics.

It has reminded me of the same thing. I have subjected myself to quite an ordeal, because I believe speaking out is the right thing to do.

Don’t make it sound like you just jumped on this thread and are now in this heated debate suddenly. You have been posting on this thread since day one back in June.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

Here are some polls from earlier this year. Even though Ron Paul was running for the republican ticket at the time, he was treated as a third party candidate so essentially he was.

I meant general election polls in which people express who they support for President in the November election.

You should have said what you meant. Earlier, you asked me to show you polls where a third party candidate polls high either in a leading or close to leading position. You didn’t say anything about this November election and whether or not that specific poll was reflecting a general election, primary, caucus, etc. I gave you a bunch of examples where Ron Paul was on top if not close to the top many times. Now, you are going to change the rules. You sound like Romney. Well, why don’t you google it yourself just like you told me to do. I’m sure you didn’t read any of those polls.

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

I hear and read about so many people who say they voted for Obama last time, aren't happy with him, but are voting for him anyway because they hate Romney more.

You are criticizing the above argument, even though it is a PERFECTLY VALID argument!

 

It’s perfectly valid to vote for someone just to keep the other out of office??

 

Quote:

Quote:Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

Maybe if we changed our way of thinking, and looked into the fact that there are other options out there, not the status quo, maybe then real change will happen in this country.

And here's another instance when I need to point out that those other options aren't actual possibilities in this election, and that voting for them will have an unintended and undesirable effect.

Here’s another instance where I am going to point out that all the candidates are possibilities this election, and voting for the one you like the best is the right thing to do.

 

Quote:Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

The time is now to vote for third party, if that's your preference. Don't wait until they poll 40%. Start now.

And this is you NOT trying to get people to vote a certain way, right? /sarcasm

That statement in no way is convincing anyone to do anything. Do you see the part of that statement where it says vote third party IF THAT’S YOUR PREFERENCE????????????????

Quote:

Quote: Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

People are so afraid of that change though, but ironically, they say they want change. Make a difference.

I don't want change in the wrong direction. The difference it would make if I voted 3rd party is that Romney would win.

Because that’s all you care about, right? Romney not winning? This reason is so bizarre. You must really hate him. Are you going to be one of those who riots if Obama doesn’t get elected? You know, I don’t recall anywhere that you have given a valid reason for choosing Obama over Romney. Valid meaning that you like Obamacare or like his foreign policy. Is there any other reason why you like Obama????

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

If you don't 100% agree with a candidate, don't for him/her. Simple as that.

This is an incredibly harmful thing to say to people. It would be horrible if people took this advice.

WHAT?????????????

 

It's as simple as THIS -- and I really do hate to sound like a broken record! -- but there are exactly two candidates who can come out of this election as President-elect -- and they are TIED in popularity right now -- and we need to choose the better one. Otherwise: disaster for the world for the next 4 to 8 years. This is not a scare tactic. It's just the unavoidable fact of the matter. It would be dangerous to avoid or deny it. Remember George W. in 2000 and 2004. Don't repeat history's mistake. Please.

And this is you not trying to convince me and others to vote for Obama, right? (sarcasm here)

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

trying to persuade me to vote for them because they are the only ones who have a chance. She hasn't given me any other reason.

Again, I'm not trying to get YOU to vote for the Dem or the Rep.

You are such a hypocrite!!!!

 

And as far as my general argument for other people to vote for one of them, no other reason is needed than "they are the only ones who have a chance." That is a good enough reason.

That is a good enough reason???? What about their platforms on limited government, foreign policy, domestic issues, abortion, illegal immigration, education, ending the wars, defense spending, creating jobs, decreasing spending, fixing the economy??? Are those not issues worth mentioning as reasons why someone should vote for a specific candidate? Those are much more important than keeping someone out of office. So, what you are saying is that the only “good enough” reason to vote for someone is they have a better chance at winning than x, y, z and will keep the other one who has a good chance of winning out of office. Holy lord have mercy.

 

You are advocating voting for people who have no chance of winning, because it would be better if they did win (even though they have no chance to). You haven't given any other reason.

I haven’t?? Well, just in case you may be right, here are my reasons why I am voting Ron Paul. Oh and before I continue, what are your reasons for voting for Obama, besides to keep Romney out of office?

Ron Paul wants to cut 1 trillion dollars from the deficit his first year in office. He wants to return power back to the states where they should have it. He wants to audit the fed. He wants to bring our troops home and end the wars that do nothing. He wants to uphold the constitution as it should be. He wants to reduce our taxes to 0%. He wants to end the war on drugs. He wants to keep the federal government out of our personal lives, homes, bedrooms. I could go on. If you’re really interested, you should look him up. Ronpaul2012.com. dailypaul.com

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

 

She is telling me that my vote, which would be for a third party candidate is illogical, a tragic waste, worthless, etc.

I never said worthless. And I actually said that *your* vote (the vote of a person who has no preference between the Dem and the Repub) has some value as a 3rd party vote.

 

You have not once said that my vote for a third party has value.

[erinmattsmom88]

This is the end of the road for me on this thread. Sustainer, it is clear that you want to vote for Obama to keep Romney out of office and that's the only reason you are voting for him. You like the green party candidate more, but because she has no chance of winning, you aren't voting for her. I can't understand this way of thinking. Not once have you given me another reason why you are voting for Obama. You also haven't stated anything that you would like to see change in this country so I have no idea where you are coming from. All I know is that you are voting for someone for a very wrong reason. I also know that you are trying to convince me that my voting for a third party is illogical and a tragic waste. So is what you are doing. You have spoken some untruths about me, asked things of me that you yourself won't reciprocate. You have tried to discredit, disrespect and devalue my reasons for voting for a third party. You don't for one second want to see the other side of things, that is clear. Yet, you accuse me of that. Anyone can read back these posts and realize that you are, in fact, trying to convince me to go your way. Then, you accuse me of the same when you are called out on it. I have never tried to persuade you or anyone else who has posted on this thread, or just read it to vote my way. I have merely stated that there are more than two options, and have encouraged folks to look into them. I have also encouraged folks to vote for the best for the job, and if they feel, for example, voting for the American Third Position candidate is the right thing to do, then I say they should do it. I have never flat out said on here that folks should not vote for either Obama or Romney. Nor have I said they must vote third party.  However, you have incorrectly accused me of that.

Now as for me, I feel that voting for a third party is the right thing to do, for myself. I 200% agree with whom I have chosen, and I feel I can sleep at night knowing that I am about to do something good and have made the right decision. I will never vote for someone to keep someone else out of office. That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. There are more than two candidates running. Choosing from either the democrat side or the republican side because they are the only options that can win is sad. Pick the one you like and go for it. Sustainer has said she likes the green party candidate the best, but won't vote for her because she says she can't win. That is wrong. That’s how I feel.

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

 No, your hypothetical situations don’t matter because they don’t apply to this election cycle.

This election cycle is when they *do* need to be considered.  It's ironic that you're criticizing strategies as not applying to this election cycle, because you're the one giving advice about taking actions (voting 3rd party) that would be ineffective in this election cycle.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

The fact is, is that there are more than two options, period. That is fact. I’m not avoiding anything because I am living in reality. You are not. I’m not avoiding the fact that there are 16+ presidential candidates this cycle. How about this, when there are only two, I will consider one. Does that work for you? Until then, I am going to learn about each candidate and what they have to potentially offer this country, and I will choose the one that I like best… no matter what party they are affiliated with. For you to say… “Avoiding them might be one of the things keeping you from considering other ideas” is outrageous. I have considered all 16 candidates’ideas.

Why do you keep repeating this?  It just means that I have to keep repeating "only 2 of them have a chance of winning."  Of course I'm living in reality.  I'm perfectly aware of the fact that there are more than two candidates on the ballot, and I take into consideration the fact that only 2 of them have a chance of winning.  There are actually more than 7 billion people you could vote for, because you can write in anyone you want.  The only point I'm making is that the Democrat or the Republican is going to win, and it's a tight race between them, and I think one is better than the other, and I think it's important for people to vote for the one they prefer.  And this point doesn't even apply to how you're going to vote, because you don't have a preference between the two, so vote third party and have a nice day, and could we PLEASE drop it?

As far as voters who do have a preference between the two potential Presidents, I maintain that it is important to consider the fact that if they would otherwise consider voting for Obama, then voting for a 3rd party instead, especially in a swing state, would benefit Romney.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

Yeah, because it doesn’t make sense that you are not voting for your preference.

It does make sense.  Between the two people who actually has a chance of winning, I *am* voting for my preference.  If my goal were to vote for the person whose views are closest to my own, regarless of whether the person has a chance of winning or not, I would just write in my own name.

Get it?

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

I didn’t bother reading this whole list because Romney and Obama will both send this country to hell in a handbasket.

Okay, here's why you need to go back and read it.  If you and I were only discussing who *you* should vote for, then I would agree that there is no reason for you to read it.  However, you and I have also been discussing who *I* should vote for and who *other people* should vote for.  If you want to continue discussing who people other than yourself should vote for, then you need to go back and read this first.  Because this explains the logical argument for why people who have a preference between Obama and Romney should vote for Obama rather than voting for a 3rd party, even if they like the 3rd party better than Obama.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

Which is why you should VOTE FOR HER.

Sigh.  You need to go back and read the sentence that I wrote *after* the sentence that you quoted.  And you also need to read the logical argument referenced above. 

You seem to be looking at this issue with very narrow, black-and-white vision.  Continually repeating "people should vote for whatever candidate they like best" and refusing to take any of the practical implications into account, is a rather simplistic, knee-jerk, middle-school level kind of thing to do. 

As someone who has no preference between the two front runners, there is no reason *you* shouldn't vote 3rd party.  But you need to understand that not everyone shares your opinion about Obama and Romney being equally bad.  For those of us who have a preference between the two, there are legitimate reasons for us to vote for one of them, even if he isn't our very favorite of *all* the people we could vote for.  It is illogical for you to be unwilling to concede this much.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

So, when you look at a candidate and make a decision on whether or not to vote for him/her, you first look at whether or not they can win?? That’s pathetic.

How on earth can you say this or even think it?  If anything is pathetic, it's NOT looking at whether or not the candidate could potentially win.  It is perfectly reasonable to consider whether or not the candidate could actually win.  I want to have a positive effect on the outcome of the election which will determine who will actually be the President for the next four years.  That is a very very VERY reasonable thing for a citizen to want to do.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

I told you that if you give me one poll to look at, I’d be glad to check it out and look into it further.

That was after you had already declared all the polls out there to be unreliable.  Why should I go to the time and trouble to look for a poll for you just so you can look at it and say it's unreliable?  Especially since I don't really CARE whether you accept the polling data or not?  There was no reason you needed to keep asking me for a poll.  You could have looked for one just as easily as I could.  It wasn't as if I had a particular poll in mind that I thought you would accept as reliable.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

What are the choices in these polls? Romney and Obama, right?

No.  The person is simply asked who they are going to vote for.  The person says a name that is in their head.  Their answer is recorded.  That's why most polls have results like "forty-something percent: Obama, forty-something percent: Romney, one or two percent: one of the more popular third party candidates, one or two percent: another of the more popular third party candidates, one or two percent: "other."

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

I sent you links to many polls that Ron Paul was either leading or close to leading earlier this year.

Are you talking about early in the primary season, when Republicans were deciding whether they wanted Romney or Paul or someone else to be the nominee? 

Any nationwide poll taken NOW, asking people who they're going to vote for in November, is going to have results similar to what I just described above.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

You said third party candidates don’t have a chance at winning and are essentially unelectable.

In the modern political climate, once the Democratic and Republican candidates have been nominated, they become the only two candidates who has a chance to win in November.  Show me a *recent* poll, taken after the conventions, that indicates who people are going to vote for for President in the general election in November.

If Paul had been nominated by the Republican party, he would have had a chance.  Since he wasn't, he's dead in the water.  You've conceded that he doesn't have a chance at this point and that was the only point I was making, so this argument should end now.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

So, they took those polls, got rid of them, and then quickly followed with BS polls from who knows where to make it look like he was at the bottom of the pack or close to it. This happened over and over again and everyone knows it.

Do they?  Here's why it seems unlikely to me:  most people are moderate centrists.  Ron Paul is very far from being either.  Romney is more of both than Paul is.  So I wasn't surprised when Paul did not become the nominee.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

Specify “election reform”.

Here's what I think needs to happen.  Since more than 2 people are on the ballot for President every 4 years, people should not be restricted to voting for only 1 person.  We should be allowed to RANK all of the candidates who are on the ballot, in order of our preference.  It's called run-off voting or, more specifically, instant run-off voting, since we don't want to have to hold more than one election.  I would specify that my #1 choice is the Green Party, then #2 Democrat, and so on.  For me, Ron Paul would be near the bottom, since I don't share most of his views.  Romney might be dead last, since I hardly share any of his views.  When the #1 votes were counted and it was determined that the Green Party only got 5% or so of the votes, my second choice would become my vote.  It could very easily be handled by a computer.  Then, people wouldn't have to choose between voting for their favorite candidate who has no chance of winning, and holding their nose and voting for the better of the 2 candidates who had a chance of winning.  It would free us from the 2-party system.  Once we got away from the 2 party system, the 3rd party candidates could be allowed in the debate.  This would get them more votes.  They would also get more votes because people wouldn't be afraid to vote for them on the basis that they have no chance of winning and the worst candidate will end up winning.  It would be *much* more fair.  The day when a 3rd party candidate could actually have a chance of winning would come much sooner.  We would be discussing many more issues and progress would happen faster.  We would advance as a society.  There is no end to the benefits.  It would be great.  We really really need to insist on it.  Only being allowed to express one preference is unreasonable when there are more than 2 people running.  We need a mass education campaign and we need to get everyone to insist that this be implemented.  Another great benefit:  we could stop having stupid arguments like this on message boards!    The relative merits of voting 3rd party vs. voting mainstream would become a moot point.  I can't think of a single reasonable argument for NOT doing this.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

Not voting for the green party now… if that’s who you like… IS delaying an eventual election of a green party candidate. If that party doesn’t get the votes, when is it going to happen??? Saying that voting for a democrat will get a green party elected does NOT MAKE ANY SENSE!

Voting for the Democrat would not get the Green party elected in *this* cycle, but neither would voting for the Green party.  Voting for the Dem would take us *in the right direction.*  Closer to environmentalism and liberalism (MY opinion of the right direction).  Voting for the Green would only make it more likely that the Repub would win, which would take us further from environmentalism & other Green Party values.  See?

---

Alright, believe it or not, I'm actually having technical problems typing another full paragraph here.  I think I finally reached the limit!  I'm going to click "submit" and then respond to the rest of your post in a new post.

Edited by Sustainer - 10/22/12 at 2:13pm

[erinmattsmom88]

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

Specify “election reform”.

Here's what I think needs to happen. Since more than 2 people are on the ballot for President every 4 years, people should not be restricted to voting for only 1 person. We should be allowed to RANK all of the candidates who are on the ballot, on order of our preference. It's called run-off voting or, more specifically, instant run-off voting, since we don't want to have to hold more than one election. I would specify that my #1 choice is the Green Party, then #2 Democrat, and so on. For me, Ron Paul would be near the bottom, since I don't share most of his views. Romney might be dead last, since I hardly share any of his views. When the #1 votes were counted and it was determined that the Green Party only got 5% or so of the votes, my second choice would become my vote. It could very easily be handled by a computer. Then, people wouldn't have to choose between voting for their favorite candidate who has no chance of winning, and holding their nose and voting for the better of the 2 candidates who had a chance of winning. It would free us from the 2-party system. Once we got away from the 2 party system, the 3rd party candidates could be allowed in the debate. This would get them more votes. They would also get more votes because people wouldn't be afraid to vote for them on the basis that they have no chance of winning and the worst candidate will end up winning. It would be *much* more fair. The day when a 3rd party candidate could actually have a chance of winning would come much sooner. We would be discussing many more issues and progress would happen faster. We would advance as a society. There is no end to the benefits. It would be great. We really really need to insist on it. Only being allowed to express one preference is unreasonable when there are more than 2 people running. We need a mass education campaign and we need to get everyone to insist that this be implemented. Another great benefit: we could stop having stupid arguments like this on message boards! The relative merits of voting 3rd party vs. voting mainstream would become a moot point. I can't think of a single reasonable argument for NOT doing this.

 Believe or not, I actually agree with what you're saying here, ONLY here though, and that is the only reason I am replying to this thread, after I said I was done. I like the idea of placing people in order of personal preference. That would equal the playing field, in a sense. Doing it that way would make it appear that everyone really does have an equal and fair chance, therefore, getting those third party people to not be afraid to vote for who they like versus who they feel will win. It's usually the case that third party people just won't vote because they feel that their candidate can't win, as opposed to you, who will drop your preference and vote for the lesser of two evils. I'm not afraid to vote third party NOW. I still think what you are doing is a wasted vote, as you feel mine is, but I like what you are presenting here. You mentioned that if things were done this way, it would get us away from the 2-party system and allow the third party candidates into the debates. They actually are supposed to be in the debates, but they (the mainstream parties) won't allow them. What happened to Jill Stein the other day is a perfect example of this. If you haven't already, you should watch that video I linked here.

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

By you trying to discredit third party candidates is a way of you trying to get me, others to say oh, ok then, I’ll vote dem or repub instead. Not gonna happen.

All I'm saying about 3rd party candidates is that they have no chance of winning, and that voting for them instead of voting for a frontrunner makes it more likely that the other frontrunner will win, which is a fact.  Once again, I am not trying to get *you* to vote for a frontrunner.  The only people I'm trying to get to vote for a frontrunner are the people who prefer Obama to Romney.  The fact that it's not going to happen in your case does not bother me.  As far as people who prefer Obama to Romney, I hope it will happen.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

That is absolutely NOT TRUE. You are lying. I have never said that people should not vote for those two. Nor have I said I think people should vote a certain way.

Go back and read your own posts.  You have told me repeatedly that if I like the Green candidate better than the Democrat then I should vote for the Green candidate instead of the Democrat, even though the Green candidate won't win anyway and my goal is to defeat Romney.  You also made a general appeal to all viewers of your post that they should vote for whichever candidate they like the best even if it's a 3rd party candidate who doesn't have a chance of winning.  You have been telling them to do this even though, if the people who prefer Obama to Romney do it, it will mean Romney's victory.  So I did not lie, and, since everyone can go back and read your posts, you are not going to be able to convince anyone that what I said isn't true, except maybe yourself, if you want to be in denial, or if you don't remember what you posted, or you don't want to go back and read it.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

I have said that folks should vote third party IF THEY FEEL THAT IS THE BEST CANDIDATE. IF is the operative word here.

Exactly.  Even if it's a candidate who has no chance of winning.  Even if voting for that candidate makes it more likely that the candidate who the voter dislikes the *most* will win.  That means that you are telling people to vote in a certain way.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

No, it is the perfect place to have your voice heard.

You already said this and I already responded to it, and you are ignoring my arguments about why it is not a perfect, or even a good place, to take that kind of action, in the circumstances I specified.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

Proof please. They both cause suffering. Does it matter who is better at it? Ask the people who have been affected by our messed up government meddling in other countries affairs. Do you think they give a crap whether or not the person who caused their suffering is a republican or democrat??

You need to look and judge for yourself.  I am taking literally thousands of facts into consideration when I make this determination, and I'm not going to attempt to list them.  I have spent years paying attention to things that happen, and their causes.  What I have found is that, when Republican policies are implemented, more suffering occurs worldwide as a result.  Yes, it matters whether Democrats or Republicans cause more suffering.  One of them is about to become President, and we can choose which one.  I do think that people around the world care whether we elect the one who will cause them less suffering or the one who will cause them more suffering.  One or the other of them is going to win.  I doubt if the people around the world who will suffer care much about abstract exercises such as using one's vote to make a point about neither major candidate being adequate.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

OK, so you’d rather vote to keep a republican out of office instead of voting for the person you feel can do the best job of fixing this country?

Since the person I think is the best has no chance of winning -- Yes.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

Why don’t you vote for your green party candidate instead.

I've answered this question about a hundred times in this discussion.  I've explained it and explained it and explained it.  Do you really still not know the answer?

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

I almost spit out my water.

Why?  I have clarified several times during this discussion that people who have no preference between the two major candidates -- such as yourself -- might as well vote 3rd party.  I fully support you.  There is no reason for you to vote for one of the major 2.  How could you?  You have no preference.  If they were the only 2 running, you'd stay home, right?  Oh, I forgot, we mustn't mention hypotheticals.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

That sounds so innocent when you write it like that, but we all know that’s not how it went.

Actually that's exactly how it went.  That's what I've been doing the whole time.  You have tried to make what *you* have said sound innocent, but I think the advice you have given people is very harmful.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

You are. You like the green party candidate the best, but aren’t voting for her because she doesn’t have a chance of winning. So, you are voting for Obama to help keep Romney out of office.

I am not compromising my integrity or values AT ALL.  How ironic that you are the one who accused me of being insulting.  There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with voting for the better of the two candidates who can potentially win. 

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

This all started with you saying your nonsense and continued with me responding to it.

My rationale makes perfect sense.  You won't even read the logical argument in defense of it.  In any case, if you want me to stop saying 'xyz' then all you need to do is stop repeating 'uvw.'

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

No, there are 16+ potential winners.

As you've admitted, only 2 have a chance of actually winning.  That's what I mean by potential winners.  If you want to count the other 14+ then you shouldn't leave out the other 7+ billion who could be write-ins. 

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

IF a person feels an option other than a dem or repub can do a better job. What's wrong with that? Don't try and be tricky with semantics.

What's wrong with it?  Again, this is a question I've answered quite a number of times now.  I've explained it again and again.  It isn't tricky.  And it certainly isn't semantics.  It's just facts.  Voting 3rd party instead of for the front runner makes it more likely that the other front runner will win, whose views are probably further from the voter's views.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

If I vote for a third party because I feel they can do the best job, then yes, I would also feel they would make the best president. Yep, you betchya.

I know.  And what I am saying is that this is not a good enough argument.  If they have no chance of winning, then voting for them can not result in them becoming President.  So whether or not they would make the best President becomes irrelevant.

{I'd repeat my disclaimer that I am not talking specifically about who *you,* or others who have no preference between the 2 major candidates, vote for, but I'm afraid you'd misunderstand again and think I was trying to disclaim something on *your* behalf.  For others reading the thread (if any at this point), I am speaking in general about voters who have a preference between the 2 major candidates.}

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

Yeah, I see what you’re saying alright. You think that voting for a candidate to keep the other out of office is the most important thing when choosing a candidate.

Correct.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

You should not be voting.

I certainly should be voting.  And so should a whole lot of other people who know that Obama would be better than Romney.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

No. All I have said all along is that folks should vote for the candidate he/she feels is the best person for the job. I’ve said that over and over. That person can be independent, democrat, green party, republican, whatever. I have also said that I think it’s ridiculous to vote for someone just because they have a better chance of winning even though you like someone better and/or want to keep someone else out of office, which is what you are doing. No, what you are doing is not a worthy goal. A worthy goal is to vote for someone who is going to cut spending, create jobs, bring our troops home, reform healthcare, audit the fed, the list could go on.

Don't you see??  The person is NOT going to cut spending, create jobs, bring our troops home, reform healthcare, or audit the fed.  Because they are not going to become President!  Ugh, this is getting very frustrating.  There is nothing ridiculous about voting for the better of the 2 candidates who has a chance of winning.  It does, however, seem a little ridiculous to vote for someone (who has no chance of winning) on the basis that they will cut spending, create jobs, healthcare, etc, even though you know they will not do any of those things because they will not win.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

Not if she has supporters that don't believe in her, like you. You should stop saying that you like her the best. She doesn’t need someone like you as a supporter. She needs supporters who agree with her and want her to win and will vote for her. As far as I’m concerned, you don’t like her at all.

You can say I don't like her if you want, but the fact remains that I do like her the best.  She cares about the environment, etc, and so do I, but the worst thing I could do for the environment, etc, is vote for her instead of the person who can keep Romney out.  Are you implying that she could win if everyone who liked her the best voted for her?  I don't think that's correct.  She's too far to the left for most people.  Most people are in the middle.  She wouldn't win against Romney.  Obama is close enough to the center to be electable.  I'm not calling myself her "supporter."  I just like her the best.  I wish there were enough left-wingers in America to elect her.  I agree with her views on the nation, but I don't agree with her decision to stay in the race to the end.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

If you are an Obama supporter such as yourself. Romney supporters would see that differently. You are terrified of Romney being president, aren't you. What about him scares you so much??? I'd love to hear this.

Correct.  And correct.  And yes I am.  And you should go back to page one of this thread and read my post(s).  I'm on the opposite side of pretty much every issue, relative to Romney.  I agree with Obama about most issues.  I agree with Jill Stein on even MORE issues, but she's not an electable option. 

Drat, I have to get in the car again.  I'll have to respond to the rest of your post later.

Edited by Sustainer - 10/20/12 at 11:11am

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

You seem to want an election system which has only two candidates. You can't say with a straight face that you wish you could vote third party. I don't want to be lumped in with you as a third party supporter. You are a disgraceful, supposed third party supporter. We don't need people like you among us. Just stay in Obama-land.

No I absolutely do not want an election system which has only two candidates.  And I can say with an absolutely straight face that I wish I could vote third party without it causing my arch-enemy to become President.  I'd rather have a Green Party President than a Democrat.  Again, I'm not calling myself a 3rd party "supporter" in this election.  

I am not doing or advocating anything even remotely disgraceful.  Either Obama or Romney will win, and I'd rather have Obama than Romney, so I'm going to vote for Obama.  

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

ROTFLMAO!!!!! Are you serious? Puh-lease. Like I said above, I am not trying to convince anyone to do anything. Where do you get this??? All I have said all along is that people should vote third party if that is what they prefer, regardless of the fact that they feel they can win or not.

Your last sentence quoted above ("All I have said all along is that people should vote third party if that is what they prefer, regardless of the fact that they feel they can win or not") contradicts your fourth sentence quoted above ("I am not trying to convince anyone to do anything").  So, yes, I am serious.

Ugh!  I have to get in the car *again*!  Busy day.  More later...

[Adaline'sMama]

IMO, the best candidate is the candidate that will keep the worst candidate out of office. 

In this case: I am super, super in to keeping my reproductive rights as a woman. I dont care who I have to vote for to make sure that Romney is not elected and will not f- with my reproductive rights. Period. It's not always about the "best candidate"- sometimes it's straight up about keeping what we have fought for. I know that under the current administration, there will be no change in women's reproductive rights, so I vote to keep the current administration in.

Plus, I like Obamacare. I wish it was better, but Im proud that it's going into effect. I just found out that most insurance policies now give away free breast pumps to women who are pregnant, with out having to show that you are going back to work. How freakin' awesome is that?

[erinmattsmom88]

But, do you realize why it's very frustrating to hear that some people are only voting to keep someone else out of office? My wish is that people would vote to make this country better and pick the best candidate for the job whether it be democrat, independent, republican, green party, etc. It's a shame because there are some really great people who want to do great things, and it sounds like people just want to vote to keep someone else out of office. I understand what you and Sustainer are saying to a point. Believe me, I think Romney is 100% horrible. He is a war mongering who is totally out of touch with a majority of this country. There is a sliver of something that I kinda maybe sorta like about Obama. I'm sure Sustainer will jump all over me because I just wrote that. But, I am 100% on board with someone else and that's why I am voting for him.

There are some good aspects about Obamacare, but I just am really scared of the whole you have to buy this or get penalized (actually taxed) thing that will take affect in 2014. That will not solve the healthcare problem, as far as controlling costs are concerned.Obama should actually make healthcare a single-payer system that everyone has to pay into, like Medicare. I wouldn't mind that at all. Keep it simple. He is all over the place with Obamacare and it's crazy. I do like the free breast pumps for pregnant women. I sure as hell wish they had that when I was pregnant with my kids.

[erinmattsmom88]

Oh, to clarify, my kinda, sorta, maybe like about Obama is not Obamacare. The don't get it or get taxed makes me not like it as a whole.

[Adaline'sMama]

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

But, do you realize why it's very frustrating to hear that some people are only voting to keep someone else out of office? My wish is that people would vote to make this country better and pick the best candidate for the job whether it be democrat, independent, republican, green party, etc. It's a shame because there are some really great people who want to do great things, and it sounds like people just want to vote to keep someone else out of office. I understand what you and Sustainer are saying to a point. Believe me, I think Romney is 100% horrible. He is a war mongering who is totally out of touch with a majority of this country. There is a sliver of something that I kinda maybe sorta like about Obama. I'm sure Sustainer will jump all over me because I just wrote that. But, I am 100% on board with someone else and that's why I am voting for him.

There are some good aspects about Obamacare, but I just am really scared of the whole you have to buy this or get penalized (actually taxed) thing that will take affect in 2014. That will not solve the healthcare problem, as far as controlling costs are concerned.Obama should actually make healthcare a single-payer system that everyone has to pay into, like Medicare. I wouldn't mind that at all. Keep it simple. He is all over the place with Obamacare and it's crazy. I do like the free breast pumps for pregnant women. I sure as hell wish they had that when I was pregnant with my kids.

But I guess that's the thing, Im not 100% on board with anyone- so I'm going to cast my vote in the direction that is most likely to yield the kind of results I want to see. 

[mtiger]

So here is what we have. People who are voting the lesser of two evils (In THEIR opinion - because some do believe that Romney is that person), and people who are working to change our candidate profile to include real options.
 

[Sustainer]

You mayn't believe this, but when I got back home, the power was out, and it wasn't restored until midnight.  You probably think God is telling me to shut up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

Yes you did back down and I don't care about whatever reasons you had for not "hunting up links".

Um, no, I did NOT back down. If you don't care what my reasons were (including literally NOT having any time to do it) then that is *your* problem.

By the way, you should really stop quoting yourself saying "Me asking you for this doesn't mean I'm a conspiracy theorist." It's one of the sillier things you've said. One wouldn't think you'd want to keep drawing attention to it.

 

I have been reacting to you with the conspiracy theorist thing. The more you bring it up, the more I will. 

You have repeatedly quoted your own statement "Me asking you for this doesn't mean I'm a conspiracy theorist."  I've already pointed out that it would have been ridiculous for me to say that you asking for polling data is what makes you a conspiracy theorist, and I never said, implied or hinted any such thing.  It is absurd for you to suggest that my reason for questioning whether you're a conspiracy theorist is that you asked for polling data.  Every time you quote this particular sentence of yours, you draw attention to the fact that you said something that isn't terribly rational.  For your own sake, you may want to stop quoting it.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

How about that video of Jill Stein getting arrested yesterday? That’s your candidate, right?

She's the one whose views match my own the closest.  She was arrested for trying to get into the Presidential debate between Obama and Romney.  She thought she had the right to be a participant.  I agree with her vision of how the country should be run, but I do not support her attempt to force her way into the debate.  Sounds like the kind of symbolic protest you might support.  Is there any particular reason you keep bringing this up?

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Sure you were. Your tone was not sarcastic until I made your claim sound ridiculous. Now I will read your next line, which sounds awfully like what you said about those who don’t have ID happen to be democrats. You are changing your wording. Now you are saying they don’t happen to be democrats. The democrats are being targeted. Is that sarcasm too?

I'm not sure where your confusion lies.  But I'll try to explain.  From the very beginning of the discussion of that issue, I said that Democratic voters were being targeted.  Then you said something to the effect of "No, people without I.D. are being targeted."  Then I said, "Yeah, and they just happen to be Democrats."  When I said this, I was being sarcastic.  What I meant was that it was NOT a coincidence that they were Democrats.  I was reaffirming my original position, which is that Democrats are being targeted.  That is the position which I have consistently held throughout the discussion.  You never managed to make my claim sound ridiculous.  It's still fairly obvious to me that Democrats are being targeted.  If you don't understand sarcasm then I can see that you might get confused.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

And it needs to be a law. Don’t you think that people should be ID’d at the polls? And if not, I would love to hear why you don’t think so.

I already responded to this.  Go back and read my posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

No, trying to enact a voter ID law has been an ongoing thing for years. It always gains more exposure when an election nears.

The people trying to pass this law are trying to disenfranchise Obama voters and that's all there is to it.  One of them came right out and admitted it.  How do you explain that the states trying to pass these laws are the swing states that are controlled by Republicans?

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Don’t make it sound like you just jumped on this thread and are now in this heated debate suddenly. You have been posting on this thread since day one back in June.

Yes I have been participating in this thread since the beginning.  Since before things got warmed up.  I did it because I felt it was important to speak out.  I knew that it could become an ordeal.  I participate in these threads every 4 years and they always get spirited.  Then I made the decision to *stay* in the discussion.  I did not try to make it sound like I just jumped on the thread.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

You didn’t say anything about this November election and whether or not that specific poll was reflecting a general election, primary, caucus, etc. 

I was talking about the November election the whole time.  What I said is that, at this time (ever since the nominations, in fact), most people support Obama or Romney.  You said that I was incorrect about that.  I asked you what you based such a contention on.  If you don't want to back up that position, that's your choice.  It now sounds as if there might have been a misunderstanding about what each of us thought the other was saying.  I have no idea which Republican was polling ahead at the beginning of the primaries, and I don't care too much.  Throughout this discussion, I have been focusing on facing the reality of the current situation, and talking about what the best course of action is for voters to take now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

It’s perfectly valid to vote for someone just to keep the other out of office??

Of course it is!  Especially since that's the only effective action we CAN take.  *One* of those two is going to win.  There is no action I can take next month that will result in Jill Stein becoming President.  There IS an action I can take next month that will help keep Romney from becoming President.  For the nth time, here is my rationale for voting the way I'm going to vote, and it is very simple and completely justifiable:  One of two people is going to become President, and I'm going to choose the one I think is better.  That's it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Here’s another instance where I am going to point out that all the candidates are possibilities this election

You can't mean that they could possibly become President, because you've admitted Obama or Romney is going to win.  That's what I mean by "they aren't actual possibilities."

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

That statement in no way is convincing anyone to do anything. 

I hope you're right that they won't be convinced.  But you definitely are *trying* to get people to vote in a certain way.  Not for a certain candidate, but in a certain way.  On a certain basis, with a certain way of thinking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Do you see the part of that statement where it says vote third party IF THAT’S YOUR PREFERENCE????????????????

Yup.  And that means that you are trying to get people to do something. You are trying to get them to vote for whoever they like best, without giving any consideration to whether the person could win.  Even though voting for that person instead of the *electable* candidate they like better could make it more likely that the candidate they like worse, or worst, will become the next President.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Because that’s all you care about, right? Romney not winning? This reason is so bizarre. You must really hate him. Are you going to be one of those who riots if Obama doesn’t get elected? You know, I don’t recall anywhere that you have given a valid reason for choosing Obama over Romney. Valid meaning that you like Obamacare or like his foreign policy. Is there any other reason why you like Obama????

Romney not winning is my main goal in this election.  There is nothing bizarre about that.  Romney or Obama is going to be President, and I like Obama better.  Period.  Nothing bizarre about it.  I don't know why you don't see how reasonable it is.  I think it's more bizarre to vote for someone who can't win.  You might as well write in yourself.  Of course I'm not going to RIOT if Obama doesn't get reelected!  I don't know how your mind leaps to such absurd conclusions.  Even if my only reason for choosing Obama over Romney was that I disagreed with Romney *more,* that would be a valid reason for choosing Obama.  But, yes, there are other reasons I support Obama.  I do support universal healthcare.  I agree with most of Obama's positions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

WHAT?????????????

It would be horrible and harmful if people refused to vote for candidates they don't 100% agree with.  It's very, very simple.  One of two people is going to become President.  If we don't vote for the one we think is better, then the one we think is worse will become President. 

If I followed your advice, I couldn't even vote for Jill Stein.  There isn't a single candidate I agree with 100%.  But I still have a preference between the two people who could become President, and I am going to act on that preference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

And this is you not trying to convince me and others to vote for Obama, right? (sarcasm here)

Well I'm not trying to get *you* to vote for Obama, because I know you don't like him better than Romney, but certainly I am trying to convince other people to vote for Obama.  I have never said that I am not trying to get people to vote for Obama.  I hope I have made it pretty obvious that I am trying to convince people to vote for Obama.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

You are such a hypocrite!!!!

Not in the least.  I have clarified several times now that I am not trying to get *you* to vote for the Dem or the Repub.  The only people I'm trying to get to vote for Obama are the people who prefer him to Romney.  Since you have no preference between the two, I support your choice to vote 3rd party.  In your case, there's no reason not to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

That is a good enough reason???? What about their platforms on limited government, foreign policy, domestic issues, abortion, illegal immigration, education, ending the wars, defense spending, creating jobs, decreasing spending, fixing the economy??? Are those not issues worth mentioning as reasons why someone should vote for a specific candidate? Those are much more important than keeping someone out of office. So, what you are saying is that the only “good enough” reason to vote for someone is they have a better chance at winning than x, y, z and will keep the other one who has a good chance of winning out of office. Holy lord have mercy.

The fact that only the Democrat and the Republican have a chance of winning is a good enough reason to vote for the Democrat or the Republican instead of voting for a 3rd party.  People should definitely consider issues such as limiting government, foreign policy, domestic issues, abortion, immigration, education, war, defense spending, jobs, spending in general, and the economy, when they are deciding whether to vote for Obama or Romney.  If they think Obama and Romney are equal on all of the issues, then they should vote for whichever 3rd party candidate they agree with on the most issues that are important to them.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

I haven’t?? Well, just in case you may be right, here are my reasons why I am voting Ron Paul. Oh and before I continue, what are your reasons for voting for Obama, besides to keep Romney out of office?

Ron Paul wants to cut 1 trillion dollars from the deficit his first year in office. He wants to return power back to the states where they should have it. He wants to audit the fed. He wants to bring our troops home and end the wars that do nothing. He wants to uphold the constitution as it should be. He wants to reduce our taxes to 0%. He wants to end the war on drugs. He wants to keep the federal government out of our personal lives, homes, bedrooms.

None of this changes the fact that the only reason you have given for voting for him is that you think it would be better if he were President (even though he can't become President even if you vote for him).  All of the specifics that you just listed are just part of the reason that you think it would be better if he were President.  It is irrelevant that he says he would do all of those things as President, because he can't become President.  

My reason for voting for Obama is that I think the world will be a better place if he is President for the next 4 years than it would be if Romney were President.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

You have not once said that my vote for a third party has value.

Actually I did.  Post #100.  Third response.  Fifth paragraph.  Last sentence.

I'm going to make my kids lunch now.  Then I'll come back and respond to the rest of the posts.

Edited by Sustainer - 10/20/12 at 10:06am