Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Sept 4, 2012 19:43:37 GMT -5
dj, I should have said "Republican Presidential candidate".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 4, 2012 19:47:31 GMT -5
dj, I should have said "Republican Presidential candidate". i think you did. but you didn't specify whether it was in the primaries or not. let me add another wrinkle to this, just to give you something to chew on. what kind of a primary process does California have: open or closed?
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Sept 4, 2012 19:51:20 GMT -5
We now have open primaries and a top two system.. we can vote for anyone!
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Sept 4, 2012 19:51:28 GMT -5
are you deranged? i voted for a Republican in the last three presidential races. i already said that like, 10x or something, on various boards here. if you can't accept that, you have some issues to sort out. i have no problem voting for Republicans whatosever, so long as they have a Libertarian stripe to them. many do. Romney is approximately as far from those positions as Obama. what reason can you give me to vote for EITHER? oh, and i am waiting for you to pony up on that bet. just name your terms. as i said, i will accept ANY terms you offer, provided that they are 1:1. right now, it is Gary Johnson, unless i find someone better, which is always possible. last election, i was going to vote for the Libertarian candidate, Barr if i remember right, right up until election, but i switched to yet another third party candidate when i found out, doing some last minute research, that he didn't support my perspective on a key issue. Vote me confused!
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Sept 4, 2012 19:55:25 GMT -5
dj, I should have said "Republican Presidential candidate". i think you did. but you didn't specify whether it was in the primaries or not. let me add another wrinkle to this, just to give you something to chew on. what kind of a primary process does California have: open or closed? Tell me what it is. I do not know. Maybe that will clarify some things for me. Indiana, we have to declare in the primary, and that is the only ticket you get.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Sept 4, 2012 19:56:34 GMT -5
And I do not consider Mitt a S*&itty candidate.
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Sept 4, 2012 20:00:37 GMT -5
Romney is a terrible candidate! The Republican party needed a salt of the earth guy.. they failed at that miserably.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 4, 2012 20:16:30 GMT -5
What will happen is what always happens when a quasi-legitimate 3rd party candidate runs, he pulls votes mostly from one side and the person that is actually furthest from your views gets elected. And I really don't know how to fix it. occasionally- and believe me, i know it is rare- a third party candidate WINS. it is even MORE rare for them to repeat that, but that sometimes happens TOO. and when it does, OFTEN, a third party becomes a major party and a major party is relegated to third. now, i realize that it has been nearly a century since this happened in any appreciable way. but have you NO faith man? Uhh, no I don't. Sorry dj. fairlycrazy is right. The problem is that a legitimate third-party candidate will skew the vote in favor of the one you absolutely don't want elected. And because the vast majority of the American public will never vote anything other than D or R, it is too risky to support a third-party candidate. Slightly off-topic, but I'm curious. I know you said Clinton got your vote, but who do you think was the last "well-qualified" candidate the Republicans ran? I'm almost thinking Nixon. It's too bad he had a couple of personal issues.... ;D
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 4, 2012 20:29:12 GMT -5
If you're ideologically torn, use the "brick test". Ask yourself: Would a brick be a better President than candidate x? Make a list of pros and cons. A brick wouldn't sign off on legislation to increase the US debt ceiling, for example. It wouldn't extend the Bush tax cuts, or extend unemployment benefits to fudge the U3 unemployment numbers, or enact RomneyCare, or enact ObamaCare. It wouldn't authorize new torture programs, or domestic spying programs, or sign off on 10% annual increases to DARPA's budget. It wouldn't start new wars, or flout the Geneva conventions, or legalize and order political assassinations. The brick wouldn't increase ethanol subsidies or order states to ignore their immigration laws, or hand a small army's worth of weapons to drug cartels. It wouldn't authorize the Fed to $4.2 trillion in QE, QE2, QE2.5 into the stock market, or embarrass the US by mouthing off to the British PM at the Summer Olympics, or grant amnesty to illegal aliens, or pass taxes that aren't called taxes, or stall pipeline construction, or champion carbon credits, or be beholden to the US military industrial complex. For those worried about social engineering, the brick wouldn't demand states accept gay "marriage", or demand states not accept gay "marriage", or change abortion laws, or prevent taxpayers from paying for contraceptives, or force taxpayers to pay for contraceptives, or pass new gun bans, or eliminate existing gun bans, or pressure states into introducing new topics into their school curricula, or pressure states to eliminate topics from their curricula, or shut down organic farms, or ban homeschooling, or implement "net neutrality", or pass PIPA and SOPA legislation, or encourage prayer in public places, or ban prayer in public places. It wouldn't fly around the world at a cost of hundreds of millions per year, jam up traffic, make embarrassing gaffes, offend world leaders, promise aid to foreign nations, bomb third-world backwaters, declare "Mission Accomplished", take credit for Navy SEAL operations, apologize for breaking false promises, end habeus corpus, or even station troops in foreign nations without congressional approval. After you've considered all this, if "brick" seems like it'd be a better candidate than either guy on the ticket: don't vote.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 4, 2012 20:33:45 GMT -5
After you've considered all this, if "brick" seems like it'd be a better candidate than either guy on the ticket: don't vote. Can't agree, Virgil. The problem is that someone WORSE than the brick WILL be elected. So best that we vote for someone who is only a little bit worse than a brick rather than risk having someone much worse than a brick.
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Sept 4, 2012 20:37:01 GMT -5
but who do you think was the last "well-qualified" candidate the Republicans ran
If you don't accept Bush Sr then probably Eisenhower.
Romney is a terrible candidate!
Romney's problems are just starting. I saw a show last night which focused on Mormon's and discussed why the writer and many ex-Mormons described Mormons as a cult. Personally I was disgusted that they would consider running a show like that this close to the election but on the other hand this isn't much different than the swift boat episodes that ran in 2004.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 4, 2012 20:45:53 GMT -5
but who do you think was the last "well-qualified" candidate the Republicans ranIf you don't accept Bush Sr then probably Eisenhower. I actually did like Bush Sr. when he ran in 1980. Reagan's election messed him up. And an Eisenhower is exactly what the Republicans need now. A moderate conservative willing to work both sides but who most importantly has enough personal popularity to ignore those who try to drag him far-right.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 4, 2012 21:04:49 GMT -5
occasionally- and believe me, i know it is rare- a third party candidate WINS. it is even MORE rare for them to repeat that, but that sometimes happens TOO. and when it does, OFTEN, a third party becomes a major party and a major party is relegated to third. now, i realize that it has been nearly a century since this happened in any appreciable way. but have you NO faith man? Uhh, no I don't. Sorry dj. fairlycrazy is right. The problem is that a legitimate third-party candidate will skew the vote in favor of the one you absolutely don't want elected. And because the vast majority of the American public will never vote anything other than D or R, it is too risky to support a third-party candidate. Slightly off-topic, but I'm curious. I know you said Clinton got your vote, but who do you think was the last "well-qualified" candidate the Republicans ran? I'm almost thinking Nixon. It's too bad he had a couple of personal issues.... ;D no, i don't use terms like "well qualified". i think that a sufficiently worldly grocery clerk should be able to run for president and win. but, if you are asking me, from my CURRENT PERSPECTIVE who i would have voted for at the time? i would have voted for McCain in 2000. i liked him that year. but ASSHOLE won, so i voted third party. i can explain why i didn't vote for ASSHOLE if anyone is interested, but i doubt anyone is. before that- i like GHWB in retrospect. never thought that much of Reagan. too simplistic a thinker for me. not very strategic. can't really say before that. i liked Ike tho. good moderate republican with a decent fear of the MIC. very stupid about communism, but it kinda went with the time. but i digress.....
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 4, 2012 21:07:01 GMT -5
If you're ideologically torn, use the "brick test". Ask yourself: Would a brick be a better President than candidate x? Make a list of pros and cons. A brick wouldn't sign off on legislation to increase the US debt ceiling, for example. It wouldn't extend the Bush tax cuts, or extend unemployment benefits to fudge the U3 unemployment numbers, or enact RomneyCare, or enact ObamaCare. It wouldn't authorize new torture programs, or domestic spying programs, or sign off on 10% annual increases to DARPA's budget. It wouldn't start new wars, or flout the Geneva conventions, or legalize and order political assassinations. The brick wouldn't increase ethanol subsidies or order states to ignore their immigration laws, or hand a small army's worth of weapons to drug cartels. It wouldn't authorize the Fed to $4.2 trillion in QE, QE2, QE2.5 into the stock market, or embarrass the US by mouthing off to the British PM at the Summer Olympics, or grant amnesty to illegal aliens, or pass taxes that aren't called taxes, or stall pipeline construction, or champion carbon credits, or be beholden to the US military industrial complex. For those worried about social engineering, the brick wouldn't demand states accept gay "marriage", or demand states not accept gay "marriage", or change abortion laws, or prevent taxpayers from paying for contraceptives, or force taxpayers to pay for contraceptives, or pass new gun bans, or eliminate existing gun bans, or pressure states into introducing new topics into their school curricula, or pressure states to eliminate topics from their curricula, or shut down organic farms, or ban homeschooling, or implement "net neutrality", or pass PIPA and SOPA legislation, or encourage prayer in public places, or ban prayer in public places. It wouldn't fly around the world at a cost of hundreds of millions per year, jam up traffic, make embarrassing gaffes, offend world leaders, promise aid to foreign nations, bomb third-world backwaters, declare "Mission Accomplished", take credit for Navy SEAL operations, apologize for breaking false promises, end habeus corpus, or even station troops in foreign nations without congressional approval. After you've considered all this, if "brick" seems like it'd be a better candidate than either guy on the ticket: don't vote. you rule, Virgil.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 4, 2012 21:25:28 GMT -5
After you've considered all this, if "brick" seems like it'd be a better candidate than either guy on the ticket: don't vote. Can't agree, Virgil. The problem is that someone WORSE than the brick WILL be elected. So best that we vote for someone who is only a little bit worse than a brick rather than risk having someone much worse than a brick. Combine the facts that a) your vote won't change the outcome of the election, and b) your vote is a tacit endorsement of a leader who is admittedly worse than a brick, I stand by my assessment. In all honesty, book a week off work starting two days before the election and ending four days after. Rent a cabin somewhere in the Colorado wilderness. Bring your family, but no TV, radio, Internet, and make sure everyone knows your cell phone is emergencies only. Spend the week hiking, fishing, stargazing, making love to your wife, eating s'mores by a fire. Come back after the election and what will be will have been. Free your mind.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2012 21:25:51 GMT -5
I suppose I have voted for s*&tty candidates before. I don't like to skip lines.
I will happily split a ticket - so I'm not particularly loyal to my party, but I like voting in the primary, so I signed up. (Voting is my favorite)
But you can't vote for someone who isn't on your ballot. So, if someone is running unopposed, I will vote for them, because I like voting. If two candidates are running that I don't like, I'll pick what I perceive as the lesser evil.
Gary Johnson will be at the top of my ballot. But (as far as I know) there is no third party candidate for the House. I happen to like my Congressman, but if I didn't, I'd be stuck.
|
|
vandalshandle
Senior Member
Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten up a chump...
Joined: Oct 12, 2011 20:34:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,005
|
Post by vandalshandle on Sept 4, 2012 21:26:52 GMT -5
I voted for McGovern, who ran against Nixon. Do I really have to explain why? I mean, George was a political disaster, but the other option was a crook.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2012 21:26:58 GMT -5
That sounds like a lovely retreat, Virgil, but if you don't vote, you can't gripe. And I like to gripe.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2012 21:27:44 GMT -5
I don't feel "obligated" to vote for anybody. A politician has to earn my vote and just not assume they have it. And, there are times i have simply just choose to not vote at all in protest as well. And, if i cannot support my candidate, then i won't go and vote.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 4, 2012 21:28:17 GMT -5
Uhh, no I don't. Sorry dj. fairlycrazy is right. The problem is that a legitimate third-party candidate will skew the vote in favor of the one you absolutely don't want elected. And because the vast majority of the American public will never vote anything other than D or R, it is too risky to support a third-party candidate. Slightly off-topic, but I'm curious. I know you said Clinton got your vote, but who do you think was the last "well-qualified" candidate the Republicans ran? I'm almost thinking Nixon. It's too bad he had a couple of personal issues.... ;D no, i don't use terms like "well qualified". i think that a sufficiently worldly grocery clerk should be able to run for president and win. but, if you are asking me, from my CURRENT PERSPECTIVE who i would have voted for at the time? i would have voted for McCain in 2000. i liked him that year. but ASSHOLE won, so i voted third party. i can explain why i didn't vote for ASSHOLE if anyone is interested, but i doubt anyone is. before that- i like GHWB in retrospect. never thought that much of Reagan. too simplistic a thinker for me. not very strategic. can't really say before that. i liked Ike tho. good moderate republican with a decent fear of the MIC. very stupid about communism, but it kinda went with the time. but i digress..... I did like McCain in 2000 also. I think I mentioned on an earlier thread that I regarded him and GHWB alike in that it was much easier to respect them in their first runs for the nomination than in the years they actually got it. Reagan looked and sounded presidential, and he did have a personal warmth that a lot of people responded to (and maybe even that the country needed) but no, he would never be accused of being a thinker. I don't consider his presidency a success for a couple of reasons. And believe me, NOBODY needs to defend not voting for GWB. ;D
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 4, 2012 21:34:59 GMT -5
Can't agree, Virgil. The problem is that someone WORSE than the brick WILL be elected. So best that we vote for someone who is only a little bit worse than a brick rather than risk having someone much worse than a brick. Combine the facts that a) your vote won't change the outcome of the election, and b) your vote is a tacit endorsement of a leader who is admittedly worse than a brick, I stand by my assessment. a is granted, it won't change the election. I would contest b, however. It may indeed be as you say, but it is also a specific rejection of the one much worse than a brick. My primary reason for voting is often to maintain my right to complain. If I don't vote, I don't have the right to speak later. And I WILL be speaking later.... ;D
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 4, 2012 21:48:25 GMT -5
That sounds like a lovely retreat, Virgil, but if you don't vote, you can't gripe. Says who? Is there some physical or moral law I missed? If your school narrowed its choice of mascot down to a giant douche and a turd sandwich, and the student body was asked to vote, and you refused, you're saying you'd no longer consider yourself eligible to gripe about what the other students picked?
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Sept 4, 2012 21:50:41 GMT -5
In all honesty, book a week off work starting two days before the election and ending four days after. Rent a cabin somewhere in the Colorado wilderness. Bring your family, but no TV, radio, Internet, and make sure everyone knows your cell phone is emergencies only.
Spend the week hiking, fishing, stargazing, making love to your wife, eating s'mores by a fire. Come back after the election and what will be will have been.
If you only could have convinced 500+ a few Florida voters to do that in 2000 the US would be a different country today.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 4, 2012 22:01:07 GMT -5
If you only could have convinced 500+ a few Florida voters to do that in 2000 the US would be a different country today. True, but think of all the Bush jokes we wouldn't have either. Nahhh, bad trade. You're right. ;D
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 4, 2012 22:04:25 GMT -5
No it wouldn't. Or at least the difference wouldn't be predictable. Not only that, but unless my advice somehow persuaded Democrats far more often than Republicans, in order to net a difference of 500+ votes with any statistical reliability, I'd need to convince tens of thousands of voters to head to Colorado. Finally, the "bullet burn" margin of 500+ votes is heralded by the media precisely because it was a fantastically narrow spread. A statistical anomaly, unexpected and unprecedented in US history. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Sept 4, 2012 23:27:42 GMT -5
Past performance does not guarantee future results.True, this time it might only be 20 voters given all the voter ID requirements.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Sept 4, 2012 23:29:26 GMT -5
There's no real viable third party. And viable non pub/dem candiate just pulls votes from the closest candidate and usually ends up giving it to the other guy.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Sept 4, 2012 23:35:21 GMT -5
"After you've considered all this, if "brick" seems like it'd be a better candidate than either guy on the ticket: don't vote."
Yeah, People complain about the government not doing anything, but gridlock is good. It keeps all the batshit crazy legislation from getting passed. I expect we'll continue to have a divided government going forward.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Sept 4, 2012 23:40:39 GMT -5
"And an Eisenhower is exactly what the Republicans need now. A moderate conservative willing to work both sides but who most importantly has enough personal popularity to ignore those who try to drag him far-right."
Eisenhower was relly the last fiscal conservative we ever had in the white house.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Sept 5, 2012 1:23:06 GMT -5
Do any of you really hear what your saying..others are saying?? Not one positive comment for anyone is said..cry and moan . Nothing to do with partys and candidates anymore just piss and moan , moan and piss..and on and on..what is with you all..seriouse question..what am I misssing here..realize it is a tiny fraction of people but is that the only ones for the most part who participate in these type of chat programs..all very unhappy with life types..real bummer it is ...[shudder]
|
|