or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Activism and News › Random Chatter on 2012 Presidential Elections
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Random Chatter on 2012 Presidential Elections - Page 5

post #81 of 172

CatsCradle, yes. I wasn't go to mention the real folks who control everything, but since you mentioned it!! Yes, our politicians are mere puppets. The central bank, federal reserve, and multi-national corporations rule. They were my "etc" winky.gif

 

Turquesa, I agree with you 200%.

post #82 of 172
Quote:
 
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.

 If people continue to feel this way, then we deserve what we get.

 

Quote:
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.

 

Since there ARE other choices, why should I care about ruining the chances for Dems and Repubs? I should vote for who I feel is best for the job. If more people did this, it would send a message. A lot of us "conspiracy theorists" aka not supporters of Obama or Romney wish more people would do this. It's funny that you call me that because I don't support either major party. Ron Paul supporters and other third party supporters are called this because we don't agree with the establishment and/or conform to the mainstream. We have to be called something, right? You have me motivated to head to the polls in November. I wasn't going to out of frustration, but I have to do my part.

 

Quote:
 

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 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.

 Those polls are not reliable. I communicate with people as well, and I'm not saying that there aren't people who prefer Obama and Romney. What I'm saying is, is that you cannot rely on the results of elections. There is soooo much fraud out there. How do you explain all the dead people who vote?

 

 

Quote:

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.

 That is not even close to being fact. Who reported this? Where did you get this information?

 

 

Quote:
 

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.

 

 

No, I'm not saying he would have been named the winner. But, the results were much different than what was being reported by the MSM. They wouldn't even read aloud his votes during the convention. When individual states were reading who got what, after a few states went by they started turning off the microphones when Ron Paul's votes were attempting to be read aloud. That's a fact. How do you explain that? Why did they do that? No, Ron Paul being ignored by the media is not specifically election fraud. But, like I wrote above, dead people voting is. The playing field should have been even and it wasn't. That was by design.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
post #83 of 172

Thanks everyone, for your comments!  This is the MDC that I love.  I admit that I've been visiting here less because I'm in interested in the political right now and I'm appreciative of everyone's comments here.

post #84 of 172

You know, if you live in the united states, as women we've only had the right to vote for 92 years (that is still less than half the time federal elections have been held). A whole lot of women busted their ass to make sure we have that right, and IMO the least we can do is go out and take the time to exercise our right to do something that people fought so hard for.

post #85 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

 If people continue to feel this way, then we deserve what we get.

 

If people who are further left than Obama vote for a third party, or don't vote, and we get Romney, then perhaps those people deserve what they get.  Those of us who vote for Obama will not deserve to get Romney, but if he wins, then we will get him anyway.  irked.gif

 

The majority of the population prefers Obama or Romney to anyone else running, and that's all there is to it.  If people voted for whichever candidate they liked best, regardless of which one they thought had a better chance, the winner would still be Obama or Romney.

 

Most people are centrists.  They are not extremists.  A candidate who is far to the left of Obama, therefore, would not have a chance, nor would a candidate significantly to the right of Romney.

 

 

Quote:

Since there ARE other choices, why should I care about ruining the chances for Dems and Repubs? I should vote for who I feel is best for the job. If more people did this, it would send a message.

Why should you care?  Because the next President is going to be either the Democrat or the Republican.  And one of them probably has views closer to your own.  The President's decisions will affect you and other people you care about.  None of the other choices has a chance of winning.  They aren't real options.  It's almost like going into a restaurant where hamburgers, pizza, and salad are all on the menu, but the cook is NOT going to make you a salad, so at the end of the day the server is going to bring you either a hamburger or pizza.  You can either insist on a salad until you're blue in the face, and the server will bring you a hamburger or pizza randomly, or you can tell the server whether you'd rather have a hambuger or pizza.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

A lot of us "conspiracy theorists" aka not supporters of Obama or Romney wish more people would do this. It's funny that you call me that because I don't support either major party. Ron Paul supporters and other third party supporters are called this because we don't agree with the establishment and/or conform to the mainstream. We have to be called something, right?

 

Um... wow.  Okay, the reason I asked if you were a consipiracy theorist had absolutely NOTHING to do with whether you supported Obama or Romney or whether you supported a third party candidate.  It also had absolutely nothing to do with whether you agree/conform to mainstream establishment.  The ONLY reason I asked about you being a conspiracy theorist is that you said the next President has already been pre-determined and that voting has no actual effect on the outcome of the election.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

You have me motivated to head to the polls in November. I wasn't going to out of frustration, but I have to do my part.

 

If you weren't going to vote, and now you are, then I'm glad I brought that about, even though it's based on your complete misinterpretation of my comments.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

 

That is not even close to being fact. Who reported this? Where did you get this information?

 

I'd refer you to ANY poll out there, but you've already declared them all to be unreliable.  Can you produce a single nationwide, randomized poll of a large sample, that shows anything OTHER than the vast majority of voters saying they support Obama or Romney?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

How do you explain all the dead people who vote?

 

Exactly how many dead people vote?  And what is your source for that data?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adaline'sMama View Post

You know, if you live in the united states, as women we've only had the right to vote for 92 years (that is still less than half the time federal elections have been held). A whole lot of women busted their ass to make sure we have that right, and IMO the least we can do is go out and take the time to exercise our right to do something that people fought so hard for.

 

thumb.gif

post #86 of 172
Quote:

 The majority of the population prefers Obama or Romney to anyone else running, and that's all there is to it.

 You can't prove this. There is no way objectively this can be proven.

 

 

Quote:

 Why should you care? Because the next President is going to be either the Democrat or the Republican.

 This cycle, yes. But maybe not in the future. I should say, hopefully not.

 

 

Quote:
The President's decisions will affect you and other people you care about 

 Which is more of a reason why I will continue to vote for whomever I feel is best for the job, not for who has the best chance of winning, or as you say, the "only" chance of winning.

 

 

Quote:
 None of the other choices has a chance of winning. They aren't real options.

 

How ignorant of you to say something like this. They absolutely ARE real options. You're insulting a large population out there who vote Libertarian, Green party, Constitution, American Third Position, Objectivist, Peace and Freedom, and the list goes on. I guess whoever votes for these parties isn't real??

 

Quote:
  It's almost like going into a restaurant where hamburgers, pizza, and salad are all on the menu, but the cook is NOT going to make you a salad, so at the end of the day the server is going to bring you either a hamburger or pizza. You can either insist on a salad until you're blue in the face, and the server will bring you a hamburger or pizza randomly, or you can tell the server whether you'd rather have a hambuger or pizza.

 

Why is the salad on the menu? I guess that's not a real option. Why is it there? Because it IS an option. They need to fire the cook.

 

Quote:
 

I'd refer you to ANY poll out there, but you've already declared them all to be unreliable. Can you produce a single nationwide, randomized poll of a large sample, that shows anything OTHER than the vast majority of voters saying they support Obama or Romney?

Can you? An objective one that is not bought and paid for by special interest groups? My guess would be no.

 

Quote:
Exactly how many dead people vote? And what is your source for that data? 

 It's all over the internet. Here's one for you... http://www.infowars.com/voter-fraud-dead-people-cast-over-950-ballots-in-south-carolina/

 

And another... http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA636.html

 

And another... http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/11/video-nh-poll-workers-shown-handing-out-ballots-in-dead-peoples-names/

 

And another... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/30/federal-court-rules-against-texas-voter-id-law/

 

And to think that there are so many people out there that don't think ID should be presented at the polls. Makes you wonder, doesn't it??

post #87 of 172
Quote:

 

You know, if you live in the united states, as women we've only had the right to vote for 92 years (that is still less than half the time federal elections have been held). A whole lot of women busted their ass to make sure we have that right, and IMO the least we can do is go out and take the time to exercise our right to do something that people fought so hard for.

 Well, apparently my vote isn't a "real" one if I don't vote democrat or republican. Apparently, I'm just supposed to settle for the candidate who is doing better in the polls. Do you think those who fought for the right for women to vote would feel the same way? Do you think those women who sacrificed so much and fought so hard for that right would say, "Now that we have the ability to vote, we'll just choose the one who has the better chance of winning". I think not.

post #88 of 172
post #89 of 172

Many years ago, there was an important election. The candidates were Hitler, Mao Zedong, and Gandhi. Now, for one reason or another, Hitler and Mao were strong in the polls. Most of the country favored one or the other, while Gandhi had a small loyal following.  Folks would say, "Gandhi will never win. Not enough voter support. Mao or Hitler are in the lead, and one will certainly be voted our leader. You must choose which one and cast your vote. There are only two real candidates in this election."

 

I was a young lady then, and it was difficult to speak out against the majority. All of my family, friends, and fellow citizens thought I would be wasting my time if I voted for Gandhi. They said it would do no good, and that I was an idiot for thinking my little minority vote would change anything. Still, I could not put my good name behind a candidate that did not measure up to my standards.  So I voted for Gandhi.

 

Gandhi did not win that election. The folks were right, and my little vote did not change anything. My vote did not matter to anybody.

 

Except me. My vote mattered to me.

 

*************************************************************

Some of us just cannot support either Romney or Obama. One will be elected this time year, but we cannot in good conscience vote for either one. My vote, my word, means something to ME, and I would disappoint MYSELF if I compromised my integrity.

 

Now, I realize I may have upset you when I attacked Obama. Maybe my post was rude. However, I do not agree with your relentless attacks against the third party voters. It surprises me that someone with your signature (no vax/ no circ) could be this hostile toward those of us who are choosing the unconventional path.

post #90 of 172

I dont give a crap what party you vote for (thats not really true, I dont have republican friends for a reason) , but go to the polls and vote! 

 

I dont believe in saying that third party candidates are never going to win, but in my honest opinion, most of them are a bit off their rocker. Im much further left than Obama, but I cant stand behind Libertarians or even most of the time Green Party candidates because I just simply dont believe in their ability to not get pushed around once they are in office. 

post #91 of 172
Quote:

I dont believe in saying that third party candidates are never going to win, but in my honest opinion, most of them are a bit off their rocker. 

Why are third party candidates off their rocker?

 

I'm sure Sustainer will follow with her big thumbs up on that one too.

 

post #92 of 172

In my honest opinion, I have never heard a third party candidate make a speech that did not make me think they were a solid person. Its my opinion. If you want people to be respectful of yours, be respectful of mine. And mine is that I think most third party candidates are a bit off their rocker.. as in full of conspiracy theories and lots of ideas that I think are nice in theory but I seriously have my doubts about them implementing them. That is my opinion, it's why I dont vote for third party candidates, even though I lean way further left than any democrat that has run for president. 

post #93 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adaline'sMama View Post

In my honest opinion, I have never heard a third party candidate make a speech that did not make me think they were a solid person. Its my opinion. If you want people to be respectful of yours, be respectful of mine. And mine is that I think most third party candidates are a bit off their rocker.. as in full of conspiracy theories and lots of ideas that I think are nice in theory but I seriously have my doubts about them implementing them. That is my opinion, it's why I dont vote for third party candidates, even though I lean way further left than any democrat that has run for president. 


 I can accept this. At least you're not telling me that my vote is worthless!

post #94 of 172
Quote:
 In my honest opinion, I have never heard a third party candidate make a speech that did not make me think they were a solid person. Its my opinion. If you want people to be respectful of yours, be respectful of mine

 

You're asking me to be respectful of your opinion? That's ironic considering the fact that it is obvious I support a third party candidate and you call third party candidates "off their rocker" who are full of conspiracy theories. Where's the respect there? How have I been disrespectful of your opinion? All I asked was why do you feel that third party candidates are off their rocker. It was a simple question. I haven't once said anything negative about your political leanings (unlike you) so I really don't know what you're talking about.

 

 

Quote:
 And mine is that I think most third party candidates are a bit off their rocker.. as in full of conspiracy theories and lots of ideas that I think are nice in theory but I seriously have my doubts about them implementing them.

 

What kind of conspiracy theories? And, it's not disrespectful to ask that, btw. If you're going to make a statement like that you should be prepared to back it up.

post #95 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

You can't prove this. There is no way objectively this can be proven.

If you're such a conspiracy theorist that you won't accept ANY independent pollster who asks thousands of registered voters all over the country who they're voting for and then reports what they say, then, no, there's no proof you're going to accept.  Whether you accept it or not, though, it is the truth. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

 

This cycle, yes. But maybe not in the future. I should say, hopefully not.

Finally.  Something we agree on.  I was talking about this cycle.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

 

Which is more of a reason why I will continue to vote for whomever I feel is best for the job, not for who has the best chance of winning, or as you say, the "only" chance of winning.

 

Which is where your argument breaks down.  If you accept that either the Democrat or the Republican is going to be the next President in THIS CYCLE, and if you accept that this person is going to make decisions which affect you and those you care about, then all voting 3rd party does is help the candidate with views *further* from your own become the winner.

 

As I say every 4 years, this is not an abstract exercise.  It has concrete, real world consequences.  We need to be pragmatic.  The world is counting on us.  Our vote will make a difference in how much people suffer.

 

Third party voting was a major reason we ended up with George W. Bush twice. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

 

How ignorant of you to say something like this. They absolutely ARE real options. You're insulting a large population out there who vote Libertarian, Green party, Constitution, American Third Position, Objectivist, Peace and Freedom, and the list goes on. I guess whoever votes for these parties isn't real??

Oh for the love of all that is holy. Why do you keep insisting on taking my words and using them to say something completely ridiculous? And I'M the one who's saying ignorant things??

 

<sarcasm> Yeah, that's what I was saying. People who vote for third party candidates AREN'T REAL PEOPLE. </sarcasm>

 

What the H***???

 

<sarcasm> And when I question whether you're a conspiracy theorist, it has nothing to do with your statement that the votes that people cast have no impact on the outcome of elections. I'm just saying you're a conspiracy theorist because you support third parties, right? </sarcasm>

 

Enough is enough. Cut it out.

 

Third party candidates are not real options because they're not going to win. YOU'VE ALREADY CONCEDED THIS. It's like ordering the salad in the hamburger restaurant. You're not gonna get it. So you might as well express a preference between the two things you *can* get. All of those third party candidates are going to get less than 5% of the vote, combined. It happens every Presidential election. The last time 3rd party took more than that was when Ross Perot ran. He was so popular that he was in the debate. And even he didn't win the electoral votes of a single state. You can't actually *have* one of those candidates as the next President. Not gonna happen. All they will do is take crucial votes from the two potential winners who are virtually tied (each of them having at least 45% of the voters sewn up). That's what "they aren't real options" means.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

 

Why is the salad on the menu? I guess that's not a real option. Why is it there? Because it IS an option. They need to fire the cook.

Correct, it is not a real option.  Until we "fire the cook" (get instant run-off voting and convince the American people that our country should go in a certain direction) there are only two potential outcomes.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

 

Can you? An objective one that is not bought and paid for by special interest groups? My guess would be no.

 

Since you've already declared that NONE of the polls are objective, then obviously the answer is going to be no as far as you are concerned.  But of course, you didn't answer the question.  You just evaded it.  What is YOUR evidence that the majority of American voters support candidates *other* than Obama or Romney?  What do you base that contention on?

 

 

Just reading the words in the links, it looks like 950 voters in South Carolina are accused of being dead.  Do you know how many people vote in South Carolina?  If I felt like it I could get you links about the independent investigations that were only able to find about a dozen cases of voter fraud nationwide.  But of course you only accept information that agrees with what *you* think.

 

And don't ever link me to Fox news as a source for *anything.*  And *you're* the one complaining about sources that aren't objective??

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

 

And to think that there are so many people out there that don't think ID should be presented at the polls. Makes you wonder, doesn't it??

 

The new voter I.D. laws are targeted at Democrats.  One Republican leader came right out and said "yay we passed a voter I.D. law that will bring about Romney's election!"  People who can't afford a car, and don't have a driver's license, are more likely to be Democrats.  A few months before a Presidential election, you can't just suddely decide that everyone has to bring photo I.D. to the polls.

 

I have to get in the car now, but I'll respond to other posts later.

post #96 of 172
Quote:

 

If you're such a conspiracy theorist that you won't accept ANY independent pollster who asks thousands of registered voters all over the country who they're voting for and then reports what they say, then, no, there's no proof you're going to accept. Whether you accept it or not, though, it is the truth.

 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.

 

Quote:
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

 

Which is more of a reason why I will continue to vote for whomever I feel is best for the job, not for who has the best chance of winning, or as you say, the "only" chance of winning.

 

Which is where your argument breaks down. If you accept that either the Democrat or the Republican is going to be the next President in THIS CYCLE, and if you accept that this person is going to make decisions which affect you and those you care about, then all voting 3rd party does is help the candidate with views *further* from your own become the winner.

 

As I say every 4 years, this is not an abstract exercise. It has concrete, real world consequences. We need to be pragmatic. The world is counting on us. Our vote will make a difference in how much people suffer.

 

Third party voting was a major reason we ended up with George W. Bush twice.

 Why does my argument break down here? Now is the time to start standing up for what I believe in. I am not just going to "accept" anything. My actions now will affect the future, my children's future. Yes, third party won't get elected this cycle. But, hopefully someday he/she will. I stated originally that there is no difference in dem or repub. I stand by that statement. So, really, voting for one IS voting for the other. It doesn't matter. So, if voting third party does only one good thing this time, which would be raising awareness that there are other options, better options, people with better ideas, solutions to our problems, than it was worth it to me... any many others. This statement irks me... "The world is counting on us. Our vote will make a difference in how much people suffer". More of a reason why you should NOT vote Dem or Repub. Neither party cares about "the world" or the citizens of this country. Barack Obama does not care about you, me, or anyone. Same for Mitt Romney. They are following an agenda set by the real rulers of the world... the ones with the money and they don't care about us. Deal with it.

 

Quote:
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

 

How ignorant of you to say something like this. They absolutely ARE real options. You're insulting a large population out there who vote Libertarian, Green party, Constitution, American Third Position, Objectivist, Peace and Freedom, and the list goes on. I guess whoever votes for these parties isn't real??

Oh for the love of all that is holy. Why do you keep insisting on taking my words and using them to say something completely ridiculous? And I'M the one who's saying ignorant things??

 

<sarcasm> Yeah, that's what I was saying. People who vote for third party candidates AREN'T REAL PEOPLE. </sarcasm>

 

What the H***???

 

<sarcasm> And when I question whether you're a conspiracy theorist, it has nothing to do with your statement that the votes that people cast have no impact on the outcome of elections. I'm just saying you're a conspiracy theorist because you support third parties, right? </sarcasm>

 

Enough is enough. Cut it out.

 

Third party candidates are not real options because they're not going to win. YOU'VE ALREADY CONCEDED THIS. It's like ordering the salad in the hamburger restaurant. You're not gonna get it. So you might as well express a preference between the two things you *can* get. All of those third party candidates are going to get less than 5% of the vote, combined. It happens every Presidential election. The last time 3rd party took more than that was when Ross Perot ran. He was so popular that he was in the debate. And even he didn't win the electoral votes of a single state. You can't actually *have* one of those candidates as the next President. Not gonna happen. All they will do is take crucial votes from the two potential winners who are virtually tied (each of them having at least 45% of the voters sewn up). That's what "they aren't real options" means.

 No, I should say to you, enough is enough. I'm not twisting your words at all. You are being insulting by saying the above over and over. You are totally wrong about this. Don't you see what is wrong with what you are saying? You're saying to accept that there are only two choices (because they are the only ones who have a chance at winning), even though there are more than two choices. I want the damn salad! And eventually I am going to get it. ACCEPT THAT. I know that either Obama or Romney will win THIS CYCLE. As long as more and more people start voting third party NOW, the message will get sent. It will gain those parties higher visibility, more supporters, more invitations to debates, more spots on ballots, more money etc. This time is NOW to make the change.

 

Quote:
 Just reading the words in the links, it looks like 950 voters in South Carolina are accused of being dead

 Did you read the article? Apparently not. What about the other articles? Accused of being dead? I think the number was more like 953. Just one dead person voting is too much, don't you think?

 

Quote:
  If I felt like it I could get you links about the independent investigations that were only able to find about a dozen cases of voter fraud nationwide.

 

If you felt like it? It's funny. You expect me to back up my statements, but when someone asks that of you, you back down. Hmmm. You don't look very credible right now. If I felt like it, I could continue sending you links. But, since you aren't willing to put forth the effort after asking that of me, you can go and do it yourself. Oh, sorry to break it to you, but there were more than just 12 cases of voter fraud over the last... forever.

 

Quote:
 But of course you only accept information that agrees with what *you* think.

 REALLY? Look who's talking. Seriously???????

 

Quote:
 

And don't ever link me to Fox news as a source for *anything.* And *you're* the one complaining about sources that aren't objective??

 

Obviously you didn't read that one either. Every once and a long while they report on something mostly truthful. It's worth the read.

 

 

Quote:
The new voter I.D. laws are targeted at Democrats 

 Typical response. Voter ID laws are VERY necessary. The ID law is targeted at everyone who doesn't have one. There is no reason why every American citizen shouldn't have ID. A license here in Georgia costs $20 and lasts for 5 years. Same goes for a Georgia ID. A Georgia ID to be used for voting purposes only is FREE and lasts for 8 years. Everyone should be asked to present their ID at the voting booth, PERIOD.

 

Quote:
 One Republican leader came right out and said "yay we passed a voter I.D. law that will bring about Romney's election!"

 

 Yeah, Romney has a track record for passing laws suddenly to suit his needs. It happened on live tv during the republican convention.

 

 

Quote:
 People who can't afford a car, and don't have a driver's license, are more likely to be Democrats. A few months before a Presidential election, you can't just suddely decide that everyone has to bring photo I.D. to the polls.

Everyone should present ID. Like I wrote above, in my state, you can get a voter ID for free if you can't afford $20. There is no excuse. Whether it's a few months before, or a year before, that law SHOULD be passed NOW. I don't understand the resistence to this. It is very shady. Anytime I have voted in the past, I was always asked for my ID. Do I have a problem with that? No. I certainly wouldn't want someone voting on my behalf, dead or alive.

post #97 of 172

Actually there is significant evidence that whenever a third party candidate gains significant ground it changes political objectives in Washington. When  third party candidates such as Ross Perot make inroads, yes, they do impact the election. Though perhaps not as much as people think since many who vote for them may not have otherwise voted. However, they really impact politics. It makes the politicians pay attention. They look at the the issues that are attracting people and start incorporating the ideas that they can into their own platforms.

 

So no, voting for a third party candidate doesn't mean they have any chance of winning the presidency. It does mean that their ideas have a darn good chance of getting heard and making a difference.

 

Gary Johnson is showing surprising success this election cycle. Odds are good that he will get between 2-4% of the electorate. Whichever candidate ultimately wins is going to take a hard look and try to figure out what about him appeals to that block of voters. I think in this case they will find that it is his focus on fiscal issues and reducing the federal budget. Just perhaps candidates will take that information and pay more than lip service to reducing the rate that our deficit is growing.

 

For some people getting their voice heard in this manner is more important than choosing the next president. There are lots of ways to impact public policy. Choosing the "right" presidential candidate is only one of those ways. Choosing another method of effecting change is equally as important to some people and they are in no way as idiotic as you seem to be painting them for thinking this way. Just a tiny bit of research on the impact of third party candidates in our system would have gotten you plenty of information about the impact they can have. Voters know perfectly well they aren't voting for the next president when they vote for a trailing third. They aren't stupid. They simply are effecting change differently than you prefer to do so.

 

Basically, they are demanding the salad, not in the hopes of getting a salad. Instead they are demanding a salad to highlight the fact that the salad has something to offer. They are bringing the lack of salad to the managers attention. They are demanding that the chef, at least, add a piece of lettuce to the top of the burger.


Edited by JollyGG - 10/16/12 at 9:34am
post #98 of 172

Rock on, JollyGG!! You articulated more effectively what I am trying to say at this point in the thread. My emotions are taking over my ability to do that. I am growing more and more frustrated with the attitudes that someone like Sustainer has. This is a huge problem.

post #99 of 172

Some might say you are a conspiracy theorist if you don't vaccinate. I mean, why would the CDC and thousands of doctors and nurses be lying to you? Do you really think thousands of people are "in" on this, and want to deliberately harm your kids? http://www.web2carz.com/trends/offline/1233/when-conspiracy-theories-kill (when conspiracy theories kill)

"So believe what you want about who killed Kennedy, or who really caused 9/11, or whether there were alien autopsies conducted at Area 51. The relative insanity of your theories affects no one but the people who are forced to listen to you rant. But when it comes to immunizations, your misinformed paranoia actually matters."

 

Don't you just love how they throw aliens in there? And insanity? Gotta love it. This is what many no-vax parents have to deal with.

If you don't like to be called a "conspiracy theorist", then maybe it's not nice to call others one!

 

(I don't vaccinate either, so I'm using this to demonstrate a point. You are treating us the way some people might treat you!)

post #100 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

Do you think those women who sacrificed so much and fought so hard for that right would say, "Now that we have the ability to vote, we'll just choose the one who has the better chance of winning". 

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

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post
we cannot in good conscience vote for either one. My vote, my word, means something to ME, and I would disappoint MYSELF if I compromised my integrity.

When only two candidates have a chance of winning, we can, in good conscience, vote for the better one.  I am not compromising my integrity even one little bit by voting for the better of the two candidates, when it is certain that one of them is going to become the next President.  If I cast my vote for the Green Party instead of for Obama, and enough other people did the same that it caused Romney to win, I would feel ashamed of myself.

 

 


I do not agree with your relentless attacks against the third party voters. It surprises me that someone with your signature (no vax/ no circ) could be this hostile toward those of us who are choosing the unconventional path.

I've been through this twice before.  In 2000, I tried to get people to vote for Gore instead of Nader.  George W. Bush would not have become President if all the people who voted for Nader had voted for Gore (or even if just 400 Florida Nader voters had voted for Gore).  There would not have been an Iraq war.  The environment would not be as bad as it is.  And so on.  And so forth.  In 2004 I tried to get people to vote for Kerry.  George W. Bush would not have been re-elected if more people had voted for Kerry.  

 

I have no problem with unconventionality.  I'm unconventional myself.  But Obama and Romney are in a dead heat.  I don't want history to repeat itself.  If not enough people vote for Obama, Romney is going to become the next President.  The only thing accomplished by voting 3rd party instead of voting for Obama is that it helps Romney win.  It certainly doesn't accomplish actually getting a 3rd party candidate into office.  It just becomes part of that 2% that pushes Romney over the edge.  Republicans *know* this.  They pay for ads for 3rd party liberal candidates.  Our system is not set up for 3rd party voting.  We don't have an instant run-off.  If we did, I could see the point.  Nothing would make me happier in an election than a Green Party win.

 

We're *all* going to be affected by whoever gets voted in.  Voting isn't just a personal choice.  We don't each get to have our own personal President.  Our vote affects *everyone.*  If I pick Coke or Pepsi I'm just picking for ME.  But when I vote for President I'm picking for *everyone.*  In my opinion, if Romney is allowed to win, *everyone* will get screwed.

 

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.  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.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

Why are third party candidates off their rocker?

 

I'm sure Sustainer will follow with her big thumbs up on that one too.

 

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.  

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

 I'm waiting for you to give me one. Just one. 

 

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.

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

Me asking you for this doesn't mean I'm a conspiracy theorist. That's ridiculous. 

 

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.

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

 Why does my argument break down here? 

 

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.

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

My actions now will affect the future, my children's future. 

 

Another thing we agree on.

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

Yes, third party won't get elected this cycle. But, hopefully someday he/she will.

 

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.

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

I stated originally that there is no difference in dem or repub. I stand by that statement. 

 

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 fully support you.  The only thing I ask 3rd party voters is that, if they live in a swing state, please make sure to do adequate research to determine that the Republican and the Democrat really are equal choices.

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

So, if voting third party does only one good thing this time, which would be raising awareness that there are other options, better options, people with better ideas, solutions to our problems, than it was worth it to me... any many others. 

 

~~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.~~

The voting booth is not an effective forum for raising this kind of awareness.  There are so many more effective media for raising awareness.  Use them.  Take action on the other 364 days of the year.  The voting booth is a dangerous place to make this kind of statement.

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

This statement irks me... "The world is counting on us. Our vote will make a difference in how much people suffer". More of a reason why you should NOT vote Dem or Repub. Neither party cares about "the world" or the citizens of this country. Barack Obama does not care about you, me, or anyone. Same for Mitt Romney. They are following an agenda set by the real rulers of the world... the ones with the money and they don't care about us. Deal with it.

 

Heaven grant me patience!  You are the one who needs to deal with the fact that ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO WIN.  They are our only two actual choices.  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.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

 I'm not twisting your words at all.

 

 

<sarcasm> Oh no, of course not. </sarcasm>

 

You said that voting has no effect on the outcome of the election.  You said the winner has already been pre-determined.  So I asked if you were a conspiracy theorist.

 

You then said that I was calling all people who support 3rd parties conspiracy theorists.

 

I said that Obama and Romney are our only real choices because they are the only ones with a chance of winning.

 

You then said that what I was saying was that people who vote 3rd party AREN'T REAL.

 

<sarcasm> Yeah, you're not twisting my words at all. </sarcasm>

 

lol.gif  Wow.

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

You are being insulting by saying the above over and over. You are totally wrong about this. Don't you see what is wrong with what you are saying? You're saying to accept that there are only two choices (because they are the only ones who have a chance at winning), even though there are more than two choices. I want the damn salad! And eventually I am going to get it. ACCEPT THAT. I know that either Obama or Romney will win THIS CYCLE. As long as more and more people start voting third party NOW, the message will get sent. 

 

I'm not being insulting.  I'm just saying the truth.  You disagree with it and you're bothered by it, so you're taking it as a personal insult.  I'm giving factual information.  And I'm not wrong.  I'm right.  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.  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.  You really don't see the sense of that?  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 share your hope that we will eventually be able to elect a 3rd party President.  If liberals vote 3rd party in this election, Romney will win.  And we'll end up with policies that are more conservative.  Further from our goals.  Yes, I am saying this specifically from the point of view of a liberal.  I am explaining the reason I am voting the way I am, and why I hope others who are like-minded will vote the same way.

 

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.

 

 


 

If you felt like it? It's funny. You expect me to back up my statements, but when someone asks that of you, you back down. Hmmm. You don't look very credible right now. If I felt like it, I could continue sending you links. But, since you aren't willing to put forth the effort after asking that of me, you can go and do it yourself. Oh, sorry to break it to you, but there were more than just 12 cases of voter fraud over the last... forever.

 

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.

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

 

 REALLY? Look who's talking. Seriously???????

 

Yes, really.  Seriously.  If someone demonstrated to me that every major poll that has been taken indicates that Romney doesn't have a chance of winning, I would not say "that can't be credible because it isn't what I already think."   I would say "awesome."  I am very careful about following accurate facts without prejudice.  I want to know what is correct and true.

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

 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.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

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.

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by JollyGG View Post

Actually there is significant evidence that whenever a third party candidate gains significant ground it changes political objectives in Washington. When  third party candidates such as Ross Perot make inroads, yes, they do impact the election. Though perhaps not as much as people think since many who vote for them may not have otherwise voted. However, they really impact politics. It makes the politicians pay attention. They look at the the issues that are attracting people and start incorporating the ideas that they can into their own platforms.

They usually get less than 5% of votes, combined.  And that's what will happen this year.  Perot was more popular.  There is no 3rd party candidate this year who is anywhere near as popular as he was.  The politicians do not really pay much attention to the 3rd party candidates or their policies when they total less than 5%.  The only aspect they are interested in is the fact that the tiny percentage tipped the scales for the frontrunners.  It does help raise awareness of certain issues when 3rd party candidates run during the primary season for a while.  But the ones who really care about which direction the country is headed drop out before the general election so as not to take votes from the candidate who has a chance of winning.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyGG View Post

So no, voting for a third party candidate doesn't mean they have any chance of winning the presidency. It does mean that their ideas have a darn good chance of getting heard and making a difference.

 

Unfortunately, the main difference they make if they stay in the race through the general election and have their names put on the ballot, is they help the candidate whose views are *further* from their own win the election, by taking votes from the candidate whose views are closer to their own who has a chance of winning.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyGG View Post

Whichever candidate ultimately wins is going to take a hard look and try to figure out what about him appeals to that block of voters.

 

Gore took a look at Nader and tried to appeal to the voters who were further to the left.  It was a mistake.  He lost the crucial centrist voters.  There are a lot more of them and they're more inclined to switch to the other guy.  He shouldn't have to make himself appealing to left-wingers.  It should be clear to left-wingers that their best course of action is to vote for the Democrat.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyGG View Post

For some people getting their voice heard in this manner is more important than choosing the next president.

This is something I have said in the past:  Four years from now, if you can honestly say "Man, I hate what President Romney has done to the world, but it was worth it to me to use my vote to make a statement instead of using it to actually have an effect on the outcome of the election" then you did the right thing.  If you can't honestly say that, then you did the wrong thing.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyGG View Post

Just a tiny bit of research on the impact of third party candidates in our system would have gotten you plenty of information about the impact they can have. 

I know that the main impact they have is President George W. Bush (and the Iraq war and everything else that went with him) instead of President Gore (and a healthier environment, etc.).

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyGG View Post

They aren't stupid. 

I know that 3rd party voters are not stupid.  I'm not saying that they are.  I wouldn't bother trying to convince them not to vote 3rd party if I thought they were stupid.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyGG View Post

Basically, they are demanding the salad, not in the hopes of getting a salad. Instead they are demanding a salad to highlight the fact that the salad has something to offer. 

I know that that is what they are doing.  But they are going to get a hamburger or pizza.  In the case of hamburgers and pizza, maybe it doesn't make much difference, but in the case of Romney and Obama, it does.  

 

Regarding conspiracy theorists:  I just want to clarify one more time that I am *not* saying that 3rd party voters are conspiracy theorists.  My comments have been grossly misrepresented.  When I read a post saying "voting has no effect on the election -- the winner has already been pre-determined,"  I *asked* if the poster was a conspiracy theorist.


Edited by Sustainer - 8/11/13 at 4:16pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Activism and News
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Activism and News › Random Chatter on 2012 Presidential Elections