Random Chatter on 2012 Presidential Elections - Page 4

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by JollyGG 

Actually a third party candidate has won the presidency before and one will probably win again. This elections cycle? Probably not.

Let's make that definitely not.  I think it's risky to suggest otherwise.  The contest between Obama and Romney is too close to mess around.  Obama is going to need every vote he can get, especially in swing states.  The 3rd party candidates are going to get about 2% of the vote.  Combined.  In other words, no where near enough to win even a single state's electoral votes, but just enough to tip the scale between Obama and Romney.

In modern times, no third party candidate has won the presidency, and I don't see how it could happen in the near future without instant run-off voting.  There are too many voters in this country who would be called "moderates."  Voters who find themselves right between the Republican Party ideology and the Democratic Party ideology.  They're going to keep voting for one or the other.  There aren't enough people who are further left than the Democratic party.  There aren't enough people who want drastic change.  I wish there were.  I wish a 3rd party candidate could win. 

Originally Posted by JollyGG
The first two major political parties in this country were the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists eventually became a minor political party and eventually ceased. The Democratic-Republicans became the Democrats and Republicans. This happened when a third party (Republican - Abraham Lincoln) won the presidential race.

Yes, there have been gradual changes in political parties over the centuries, and I'm not saying that's not still happening.  Right now the Republican party is going in a Tea Party sort of direction.  It has moved further to the right.  The Democratic party has moved further to the center.  That gives the Democratic party an advantage.  Over the decades, the two major parties have vaccilated back and forth in this manner.  One will move toward the center as the other moves closer to its extreme.  Usually the party closer to the center wins.  In a way, I would love it if the Occupy movement influenced the Democrats in a left-ward direction, but in another way I recognize that this would make them less electable.  Be that as it may, our country IS making progress.  Gay people, for example, used to be treated like lepers.  Now, the majority of the country is accepting.  We have President Obama to thank for a lot of the progress in gay rights.  Things do slowly change.  We do the best we can with a country that is still too right-wing and has to be "dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century," to quote Berke Breathed. 

Originally Posted by JollyGG

It's possible that with the information systems available to most Americans that it won't be a single party replacing another major party this time, but an increase in all third party voters resulting in something other than a two party system.

I hope enough people can be convinced to demand an instant run-off voting system insistently enough that a 3rd party candidate would have a chance in the modern political climate.  I hope we'll be able to elect a truly progressive President some day.  But as far as the election coming up in less than a month, not gonna happen.  And I hope my fellow progressives will NOT vote for a 3rd party for President this year, especially in swing states, because if they voted for a 3rd party instead of Obama, it would ensure that Romney will be our President for the next four years.

Originally Posted by BeckyBird

We disagree, and that's that.

I agree to disagree.

Edited by Sustainer - 10/12/12 at 1:49pm

[mtiger]

I really dislike when people insist that there is A "right" vote and A "wrong" vote. What *I* consider "right" or "wrong" may be quite different than what the next person thinks. That does not actually make *either* of our opinions right, OR wrong. We are all different people, with different points of view, and different things that are important to us. So please - don't insult the rest of us who don't agree with whatever POV you espouse by telling us we are "wrong". Thank you.
 

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by mtiger

What *I* consider "right" or "wrong" may be quite different than what the next person thinks. That does not actually make *either* of our opinions right, OR wrong. We are all different people, with different points of view, and different things that are important to us.

[mtiger]

Your opinion is yours. Doesn't make it right, or wrong. I deal with opinions like this all the time - from both sides of the aisle. And I can tell you that the brow-beating does nothing to encourage me to vote in the manner you think I should. If anything, it spurs me to do the opposite. I *respect* your opinion. But you give the impression that you do not reciprocate. That is not MY problem.
 

[erinmattsmom88]

Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same. Nothing will change no matter who gets elected. Dems and Repubs argue and have argued about the same things for decades and nothing ever gets fixed. It's all a circus. There really is no point in voting. Watched the VP debate last night and it was a disgrace. Joe Biden acted like a fool. The only truth he spoke of was the fact that Iran is no where near developing a nuclear weapon, which is ironic because Ron Paul got berated, booed, and made to look like an idiot and liar earlier this year for saying the same thing. If I vote, I'm writing in Ron Paul.

[mtiger]

I don't disagree, erinmattsmom.

[CatsCradle]

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same. Nothing will change no matter who gets elected. Dems and Repubs argue and have argued about the same things for decades and nothing ever gets fixed. It's all a circus. There really is no point in voting. Watched the VP debate last night and it was a disgrace. Joe Biden acted like a fool. The only truth he spoke of was the fact that Iran is no where near developing a nuclear weapon, which is ironic because Ron Paul got berated, booed, and made to look like an idiot and liar earlier this year for saying the same thing. If I vote, I'm writing in Ron Paul.

I totally understand the frustration of the American public with politics.  I've been voting for over 30 years and things sort of stay the same generally speaking. 

That being said, I've very invested in this election cycle because the most important issue to me at this point is the Supreme Court.  Presidents are directly responsible for appointments to the Supreme Court.  Supreme Court decisions impact all of us in one way or another.  The legislative branch and the executive branch can continue to get nothing done per se, but a handful of Supreme Court decisions can ultimately determine our freedoms (or non-freedoms) for years to come.  One presidential appointment in the event of a justice vacancy can tip the balance.  This is a very serious issue for me. 

I don't think that the electorate thinks about these types of issues when voting or choosing not to vote.  The candidates rarely touch on this because it is not sexy.  Plus, a lot of people have a short attention span.  They'd rather treat politics like reality T.V.  For me, the last few weeks have been like watching American Idol or something.  The general chatter is always about who had the best performance and who looked better, etc.  I don't blame the politicians as much as I blame the American people.  It's all about rooting for the team and seeing the other guy/gal mess up.  This discourse is limited to talking points and generalizations about the other side. 

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by mtiger 

Your opinion is yours. Doesn't make it right, or wrong. I deal with opinions like this all the time - from both sides of the aisle. 

You already said this and I already responded to it.

 

Originally Posted by mtiger 

 I *respect* your opinion. But you give the impression that you do not reciprocate. 
 

I respect everyone's right to have their own opinion and to express their own opinion.  I don't have to respect the opinion itself if I don't find it to be an idea that is particularly worthy of respect.  If I think it is based on illogic then I will respond to it in a way I find appropriate.  If I declare that voters should take a certain action and someone disagrees, that person is free to say "there's no way I'm doing that.  Here's why.  Oh, and voters should do this other thing.  Here's why."  And then, yeah, I will debate with the person.  I will never cross the line into personal attack.  I will never say "you're a stupid jerk."  But ideas are fair game.  

People may vote however they please.  I only hope that it will be an educated, informed choice, that the person goes into with their eyes open, knowing the consequences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same. Nothing will change no matter who gets elected. Dems and Repubs argue and have argued about the same things for decades and nothing ever gets fixed. It's all a circus. There really is no point in voting.  

This seems to be a widely held misconception.  There are actually profound differences between the two parties.  And, as I said before, if you pay attention to world events and their causes, it should be clear that the consequences of Republicans holding office are very different from the consequences of Democrats holding office.  

It is not true that nothing ever gets improved.

I think it's very important to vote.  It really does make a difference.  I've seen huge differences in the world (for better or for worse) after each change of administration, time and time again.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

The only truth he spoke of was the fact that Iran is no where near developing a nuclear weapon

 

I think Biden spoke a great deal of truth about a major women's rights issue which, for various reasons, I don't think I care to specifically name again in this particular thread.    Let's just say that Supreme Court Justice appointees will have an effect on this issue.  (See page 2 of this thread if you don't know what I mean.)

Edited by Sustainer - 10/15/12 at 11:19am

[erinmattsmom88]

FYI, my earlier post wasn't a direct reply to anybody specific. I just felt like adding my  to the conversation.

Ugh, women's issues. In my opinion, creating jobs, pulling out of these senseless wars, protecting our freedoms, and stopping the ridiculous overspending should be priority right now. Those are umbrella issues and affect many other aspects of the problems we face currently. Neither major party has much of a solution, as these problems continue year after year. So, no, nothing ever changes. The players of the game change, not the game. Ron Paul was the only one with real ideas and solutions... and some common sense. Our society can't handle it. Everyone said yeah, he's smart and makes sense, but will never get elected. If all the people who said he can't get elected join those of us who support him, things would be a whole lot different. Then, you'd see change.

[CatsCradle]

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

FYI, my earlier post wasn't a direct reply to anybody specific. I just felt like adding my  to the conversation.

Ugh, women's issues. In my opinion, creating jobs, pulling out of these senseless wars, protecting our freedoms, and stopping the ridiculous overspending should be priority right now. Those are umbrella issues and affect many other aspects of the problems we face currently. Neither major party has much of a solution, as these problems continue year after year. So, no, nothing ever changes. The players of the game change, not the game. Ron Paul was the only one with real ideas and solutions... and some common sense. Our society can't handle it. Everyone said yeah, he's smart and makes sense, but will never get elected. If all the people who said he can't get elected join those of us who support him, things would be a whole lot different. Then, you'd see change.

I guess I'm a little more cynical simply because our government is a tri-parte government.  Ron Paul may have good ideas according to some, but he would not be king and would not be able to make the changes without the approval/consent of the other two parts of government.  

My firm belief is that the electorate has to change.  You could put Gandhi or Jesus Christ in the office of president, but it is about more than just the president.  People are very divided in this country about how things should be.  The real power, in my opinion, sits with the legislature, and we see what kind of people are getting voted into that from various districts.  A lot of whack jobs, in my opinion.  Question for me is:  what is the office of the president going to directly affect?  Ideas and talk of solutions only go so far.  Given the current landscape and the 50/50 divide in this country on very stark issues, I'm not confident that a sitting president would do much, really, except for the reasons I cited in a previous post.

[erinmattsmom88]

CatsCradle, I agree with your last post, and I'm cynical too! Can ya tell?

[erinmattsmom88]

Sustainer, I think it would be important to vote if voting had an actual impact on elections.

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

protecting our freedoms, and stopping the ridiculous overspending should be priority right now. 

 

That includes the freedoms that women have rights to.  Important ones.

 

 

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Those are umbrella issues and affect many other aspects of the problems we face currently. Neither major party has much of a solution, as these problems continue year after year. So, no, nothing ever changes. The players of the game change, not the game. 

 

Yes, we always have problems.  A new President never means the world will suddenly be filled with rainbows.  That does not mean that nothing ever changes, however.  If you look at the world through a narrow lens, things might generally seem the same.  If you look at your own life and the area you live in, you might feel that gas prices are always high and so forth, no matter who the President is.  So you might think that it doesn't make a difference who the President is.  You have to use a wide lens and really pay attention to things that go on in the world, and what causes them, and what affects them, and pay attention to laws that Congress passes, and executive orders that the President issues, and Supreme Court Justices who are appointed, and the decisions that they make, and the effects that result from all of these things.  The party that is in power does make a difference.  Yes, there's always corruption, too, and there always will be, but we can't just write off the two most prominent political parties.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Ron Paul was the only one with real ideas and solutions... and some common sense. Our society can't handle it. Everyone said yeah, he's smart and makes sense, but will never get elected. If all the people who said he can't get elected join those of us who support him, things would be a whole lot different. Then, you'd see change.

 

Not true.  A lot of people think Ron Paul's ideas make sense, but not everyone.  It is true that he could never get elected.  Even if everyone who thought he was the one with the right solutions voted for him, he would still not win.  Maybe it doesn't seem like it from your point of view, but it is actually only a minority of people who like Ron Paul the best.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Sustainer, I think it would be important to vote if voting had an actual impact on elections.

 

If you vote for one of the candidates who has a chance of winning, voting is everything.  Even more so in swing states.

Are you a conspiracy theorist who thinks there's a corrupt person who puts the country's votes in the trash and then just picks the candidate they like to be the winner?  That would have to be a pretty massive conspiracy with all the votes that are collected all over the country and all the different districts that report in.  Even if I thought that was a possibility, I would still vote based on the possibility that it was not true.  I think there is a lot of evidence that elections actually do reflect the preferences of the voters.  When it seems like the country is pretty evenly divided, the election usually ends up being close, etc.

Edited by Sustainer - 10/15/12 at 11:22am

[BeckyBird]

Are you a conspiracy theorist who thinks there's a corrupt person who puts the country's votes in the trash and then just picks the candidate they like to be the winner? 

You say this like there's never been a case of voter fraud! Come on! Remember George W. Bush term #1, and George W. Bush term #2?  Imagine how you'll feel if Obama loses the same way as Gore or Kerry.

There was also voter fraud with Ron Paul and the GOP this year. I guess it doesn't matter now, so we should forget about it and move on, right? It only matters if it happens to the guy you like.  (the general "you") 

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by BeckyBird 

You say this like there's never been a case of voter fraud! Come on! Remember George W. Bush term #1, and George W. Bush term #2?  Imagine how you'll feel if Obama loses the same way as Gore or Kerry.

 

No I don't.  Certainly there have been such cases, but if all you're talking about are Florida in 2000 and Ohio in '04, then how can you say voting doesn't matter?  If the thousands of Floridians who voted for Nader in 2000 had voted for Gore instead, then the 300 disputed votes that the Republicans and Democrats argued over wouldn't have mattered.  The closer the election is, the easier it is for the results to be fudged, and the more important it is that we get every vote we can get, and the more every vote matters.

 

You think I haven't imagined how I'll feel if the same thing happens again?  Why do you think I'm here trying to get people to vote for Obama?  

 

It's already beginning.  Republicans in power are already trying to disenfranchise Democratic voters in key states.

I can't control what the people who count the votes do, but I can control what I do as a voter.  If Obama isn't re-elected, it won't be because I didn't do my part.

Originally Posted by BeckyBird 

There was also voter fraud with Ron Paul and the GOP this year. I guess it doesn't matter now, so we should forget about it and move on, right? It only matters if it happens to the guy you like.  (the general "you") 

 

If that's true then it does matter.  It always matters, whoever it happens to.  Do you really think, though, that if everything had been done honestly, correctly, and above-board, that Ron Paul would have defeated Romney for the nomination?  Is there evidence that there was *that* much fraud?  I mean, the race wan't even close.  There was no question who the winner was.  Why is this the first noise I've heard that a popular candidate was wronged to such an extent?

Edited by Sustainer - 10/13/12 at 1:19pm

[erinmattsmom88]

Originally Posted by Sustainer 

 

Yes, we always have problems.  A new President never means the world will suddenly be filled with rainbows.  That does not mean that nothing ever changes, however.  If you look at the world through a narrow lens, things might generally seem the same.  If you look at your own life and the area you live in, you might feel that gas prices are always high and so forth, no matter who the President is.  So you might think that it doesn't make a difference who the President is.  You have to use a wide lens and really pay attention to things that go on in the world, and what causes them, and what affects them, and pay attention to laws that Congress passes, and executive orders that the President issues, and Supreme Court Justices who are appointed, and the decisions that they make, and the effects that result from all of these things.  The party that is in power does make a difference.  Yes, there's always corruption, too, and there always will be, but we can't just write off all of the Democrats and Republicans.

 

Not true.  A lot of people think Ron Paul's ideas make sense, but not everyone.  It is true that he could never get elected.  Even if everyone who thought he was the one with the right solutions voted for him, he would still not win.  Maybe it doesn't seem like it from your point of view, but it is actually only a minority of people who like Ron Paul the best.

 

If you vote for one of the candidates who has a chance of winning, voting is everything.  Even more so in swing states.

Are you a conspiracy theorist who thinks there's a corrupt person who puts the country's votes in the trash and then just picks the candidate they like to be the winner?  That would have to be a pretty massive conspiracy with all the votes that are collected all over the country and all the different districts that report in.  Even if I thought that was a possibility, I would still vote based on the possibility that it was not true.  I think there is a lot of evidence that elections actually do reflect the preferences of the voters.  When it seems like the country is pretty evenly divided, the election usually ends up being close, etc.

Oh my.

I will never vote for someone because they have a better chance of winning. There are more than two parties to choose from.  

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. But, yes, I do think there is massive corruption. Our next president has already been pre-determined. What is your evidence that elections reflect the preferences of voters? Please do not reference anything from MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, NBC, etc, etc. MSM is bought and paid for by both major political parties. Major bias going on there. Please find real evidence before you answer. Voter fraud is alive and well in this country.

 How do you know only a minority of people only like Ron Paul? He had several thousand people at every single rally of his during the republican primary season. The others not so much. It was hardly ever reported because the MSM ignored him. You should search on youtube... Ron Paul being ignored by the media. Also, search for the jon stewart segment about it. That was funny, but sooooo true.

[erinmattsmom88]

Originally Posted by Sustainer 

If that's true then it does matter.  It always matters, whoever it happens to.  Do you really think, though, that if everything had been done honestly, correctly, and above-board, that Ron Paul would have defeated Romney for the nomination?  Is there evidence that there was *that* much fraud?  I mean, the race wan't even close.  There was no question who the winner was.  Why is this the first noise I've heard that a popular candidate was wronged to such an extent?

Because the MSM doesn't want the public to know ANYTHING. They are controlled by a higher power (White House, etc). Yes, there WAS THAT MUCH fraud. Ron Paul was ignored by the media and by his own party. Don't rely on CNN or Fox News for what is really happening in the world. Please look deeper.

[CatsCradle]

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Because the MSM doesn't want the public to know ANYTHING. They are controlled by a higher power (White House, etc). Yes, there WAS THAT MUCH fraud. Ron Paul was ignored by the media and by his own party. Don't rely on CNN or Fox News for what is really happening in the world. Please look deeper.

The only higher power that controls things, in my opinion, are powerful corporations.  Money controls.  The White House and other governmental officials (from both parties) are always doing damage control when it comes to what is presented about them in the media.  

Corporations are considered "people" and are very powerful people at that.  The most powerful things in America.  I'm not talking directly to you erinmattsmom88, just the general board...but if this country goes down in flames, it is will not be because of a single president, but because of corporate interests.  People give these entities a free pass.  Everyone keeps talking about the big bad government, but financial interests really control the strings (how money is spent, who and what gets it, who is the talking piece).  

Politicians are laughable, in my opinion.  They are total puppets, all of them.  Look behind the curtain and see who is pulling the strings.  If you can deal with the puppetmaster, you can deal with the puppet.  :)

[Turquesa]

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

If I vote, I'm writing in Ron Paul.

 If???  No!  Vote!  Please vote.  I don't even care for Ron Paul.  But please vote!

Casting a vote for *anybody* is casting a vote that our leaders are accountable, and we Americans are watching them.  I'm convinced that when these "leaders" see low voter turn-out, they see apathy.  And when they see apathy, they see a license to do whatever the heck they want.  I don't care if people write in Mickey Mouse so long as those voter turn-out numbers increase...

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

I will never vote for someone because they have a better chance of winning. There are more than two parties to choose from.  

 

It's not that the Democrat and Republican have a *better* chance of winning.  It's that the Democrat and Republican are the *only* ones with a chance of winning.  There are only two real choices in this election.

 

Ask yourself who you would vote for if the Democrat and the Republican were the only ones running (and write-ins weren't allowed).  If your answer is "I wouldn't vote," (but, please, if you live in a swing state, please make sure you've done your research before you come to that conclusion) then by all means vote for a third party.  However, if your answer would be "Obama," then I think people need to realize that voting for a third party instead of Obama results in Romney having a better chance of winning.  Especially if you're in a swing state.

 

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Our next president has already been pre-determined. 

 

That's quite a claim, especially for someone who says they're not a conspiracy theorist.  What is YOUR proof that that is true?  If I really believed such a thing myself, I doubt I would bother participating in a thread like this, so I'm scratching my head a little.  

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

What is your evidence that elections reflect the preferences of voters? 

 

As I said, my judgment is based on my perception that the views of the country tend to match the outcome of the election.  You might not consider my evidence to be hard enough.  I am not a professional pollster.  I read the results of polls that others take.  Also, anecdotally, I communicate with people (not just in my local area, but via the internet which extends throughout the country and beyond) and I get a sense, through all such research, of which candidate seems to be more popular or whether there's a fairly even divide.  Usually the outcome of the election reflects this.  I'm not saying that more than half of voters wanted George W. Bush to be elected.  What I'm saying is that I was able to predict that it would be a close election.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

 How do you know only a minority of people only like Ron Paul? He had several thousand people at every single rally of his during the republican primary season. The others not so much. 

That's hardly proof that he was preferred by a majority of Republican voters.  Most of the voters in this country, when asked who they support for President, say "Romney" or "Obama."  That is a fact.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Because the MSM doesn't want the public to know ANYTHING. They are controlled by a higher power (White House, etc). Yes, there WAS THAT MUCH fraud. Ron Paul was ignored by the media and by his own party. Don't rely on CNN or Fox News for what is really happening in the world. Please look deeper.

 

I do not watch MSNBC or Fox.  So are you, in fact, claiming that Ron Paul would have been named as the winner of the Republican primary if it were not for election fraud?  Proof, please?  By the way, Ron Paul being ignored by the media does not count as election fraud.

Originally Posted by CatsCradle 

...but if this country goes down in flames, it is will not be because of a single president, but because of corporate interests.  

 

I agree with this, with a slight revision.  I would add that if a President promotes the corporate interests that end up sending our country down in flames, then that President would bear partial responsibility for our destruction.

Originally Posted by Turquesa 

I don't care if people write in Mickey Mouse so long as those voter turn-out numbers increase...

 

I do care who people vote for, but I agree with you to the extent that voting for someone other than Obama or Romney is better than not voting at all.

Edited by Sustainer - 10/14/12 at 10:44am