non, Stanley Kubrick directed the moon landing, you did not know that? ..........so this is a wonderful thread after a long ass very unproductive day.......what I can say is both sides here sound like Trump - lots of angry stupid screaming.......go do it - though , might of convinced me why Trump is a better selection regardless - Trump goes bankrupt all the time. He tells banks to go fuck themselves. He will probably clear the national debt by claiming chapter 11. Fuck the banks, God Bless America!
hold on hold on......thr right wants their semi-automatic weapons so they can tell Hillarys war machine to go fuck themselves when they riot in the street after nothing changes next president..........see thats why they want their guns - because a vote don't count.
Get a very powerful telescope or go to one and take a look at the moon where NASA says the landing was and all.
Jun 23, 16 8:06 pm ·
·
DUDES!
BOTH parties are war mongers. Trump is a war monger as anyone else is. He does it every day in business. Business is war.
It's how you do business. Destroy the competition or the competition destroys you. Then you own the losers and control them. (Acquisition) The idea is so that you take their assets, divest the liabilities. It's how its done. BUSINESS IS WAR !!!!
broad brush curtkram...Red vs Blue is a false dichotomy created around domestic issues that have no effect on the Oligarchy that owns them both...the illusion of choice...
Well this thread went to shit didn't it? What I wanted was a discussion on the sameness of the candidates and how they are working for the same interest. The oligarchy is not a freaky pie in the sky conspiracy theory. Did you all not read my subsequent post? Neither one of the candidates are going to do anything for us just the money people.
This thread demonstrates perfectly what the oligarchy wants. To keep us bitching between ourselves about some rigged election, rigged in the sense that we are feed the choice of candidates, and about who is the best candidate for us regular people all the while making money hand over fist in the shadows.
They love that we are to busy fighting amongst ourselves to find the truth. It is just what they want.
As long as I can remember the elections are a choice between the lesser of two evils. Now think about that. Why is that so? Why don't good honest people with the best interest of the common man ever run?
Has anything really changed for us folk in the last 50 years for the better. No. It is worse.
It use to be that a person men mostly could get a good paying factory job, while the wife was home with the kids, (yes women are equal and can do work too so don't start any of that crap) and still buy a house, save for retirement, go on vacations, all on one income. Can that be done now? No. Why not? Because of the policy of both the Republicans and Democrats. And who benefited from these policies? The money people and career politicians that is who.
The arguments about and between Democrats and Republicans does not matter.
We need to be more concerned about our loss of freedom and privacy.
WASHINGTON — The Senate rejected legislation Wednesday that would allow the FBI to search Americans' Internet browsing histories and email records without a warrant.
Supporters invoked the Orlando massacre to push for the measure, saying it would help federal agents identify terrorist suspects and thwart future attacks. But privacy rights advocates said the bill's sponsors were using the mass shooting as a way to expand government surveillance and get around constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Senators voted 58-38 to advance the legislation, falling two votes short of the 60 votes needed. The amendment by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Richard Burr, R-N.C., would have been added to a federal spending bill that included funding for the FBI. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., switched his vote from "yes" to "no" — a procedural move that will allow him to bring the legislation up again later
The reason "the US is not a democracy when it comes to voting" is due to gerrymandering. One party gets to determine district lines. This is why it's important to vote for the party not the person, and that distinction runs all the way down to local board elections: the party in power influences everything on down.
If you really want things to change, don't stamp your feet and refuse to vote. Vote for the lesser of two evils, then work - don't just comment on internet threads, actually go out in your community and work - toward changing the redistricting laws in the country.
Saying there's no difference in the two parties is idiotic. There are vast differences in the parties at the local level where it impacts your life.
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., opposed the amendment and decried what he said was the hypocrisy of defending gun rights while pushing for a measure that would undermine the constitutional prohibition against unlawful search and seizures. The Senate on Monday rejected plans to curb firearms, with many Republicans refusing to approve any legislation that would infringe on the broad right to bear arms.
"Due process ought to apply as it relates to guns, but due process wouldn't apply as it relates to the internet activity of millions of Americans," Wyden said.
Donna, I commend you on your civic activism and optimistic attitude and passion. But remember gerrymandering happens on both sides of the isle. You are right local elections do have the most impact on us and it is important to vote for the best people and I do but it seems when politicians get further up the ladder they get more and more controlled by the party. Even at the local level do you really think that a politician in today's atmosphere would chose you over the parties interest?
My wife ran for school board and she is honest as the day is long with the very best of intentions for the kids. She is well respected with a long history of involvement in community and school affairs. But some people in the party had pet projects and positions that my wife did not agree with and was not in the best interest of the kids. She was told more or less that if she supported theses positions that she would get money and support. Well of course she didn't and guess what? The party poured money and support into another candidate that won. She would have won if she had played the parties game. And that was for school board!
I watched 'Mr. Smith goes to Washington" recently and it is just as appropriate today as when it was made. I doubt there are any "Mr.Smiths" in washington today although I am holding out hope for Elizabeth Warren. And while there are differences between the two parties the big picture does not change. My argument is that it is all a scam.
Ask yourself why are there only two parties? Why do the Dems. and the Repubs. work together to squash any third party? If competition and choices is good in every other aspect of business / commerce why not politics? It is because the oligarchy does not want competition they don't care which one is in office as long as one of them is because they control them all.
While being called an idiot hurts the sting is not unbearable coming from you. I enjoy your forum participation. This water too will pass beneath the bridge! HA
Take some of your passion and intellect to find out who the puppet masters are and their influence.
One party actively seeks invoking the Christian sky-daddy as an elected official. The other party doesn't.
This is where my republican tendencies ended back in the 80's, when the Republican party decided that it was the Christian morality police for the country.
go do it's chosen title concurs with Chomsky's view in that the division between Democrats and Republicans is between 'moderate' Republicans (ie what we call Democrats) and "insurgent" Republicans, both parties belonging to the same faction.
Which is hardly surprising given that Clinton is perceived to be one of the (and backed by) neocons. Clinton, who on a well balanced scale of with right wing at one extreme and left wing at another extreme, comes out as solidly right-wing. However, according to that logic above, the whole scale of the political system in the US has shifted right so that on one extreme is an extreme right wing and on the other is a milder closer-to-centre rightwing.
I wonder whether this is paralleled by the public's continual acceptance to "vote for the lesser evil" -pushing regressively the system further and further to the right- such that now their choice is between a ridiculously clownish parody of rightwing (Trump) and a seemingly might-be-acceptable-although-a-warmongering-lying-closer to centre-rightwing candidate.
Also,on a well balanced scale, Bernie Sanders was not really a leftie, he would be quite centrist. But on the exclusively right-wing warped scale, he was even demonized as a communist (heck, Obama is sometimes called a communist by really extreme eccentrics)
Donna, The only way to fix our current system is remove money from politics. If we had public funded elections, over turned citizens United, and prohibited campaign contributions we would begin to see canidates with the interest of the people. thoughtful candidates like Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Elizabeth Warren, etc would have an actual shot at winning. Again, while I may not agree with all of their views, I can respect them...what we have now is career politicians, crooks, corporate puppets, and hate mongers. Our current system cannot be fixed by playing along.
parties are coprorations and corporations are people. ideologies bind parties and often at the expense of people......techically I believe rhe US is actually a Republic? (trying to remember middle school social studies)
If each american paid a 5 dollar/year election tax we would have about 4 billion dollars to split among the candidates every 4 years. pretty simple solution.
There aren't two parties, It's that the other parties can't create a consensus to matter, or win local/state offices to do any effective change.
Remember to those that think there is no difference between the two, Bush[s] are the ones responsible for; Thomas, Alito and Roberts, they are responsible for Citizens United.
I hear you, go do it, and I totally agree. Which is why I say the lesser of two evils IS what has to drive our choices. Gerrymandering is a plague on our democratic process no matter which side of the aisle is doing it, but the Dems think I'm a human while the Republicans actively don't. There's no question in my mind that women, as well as people of color and lower economic class, are better off under Democratic leadership. Not *well* off, but *better* off.
I do think things slowly move towards getting better - I'm almost 50, and the world is better now than it was in most ways. But the Right has huge corruption and power issues while trying to live in a fantasy land of religion and guns and 50s-era gender roles. The Left has huge corruption and power problems too, but they aren't as bad for most people as the Right.
By refusing to participate at all you let other people make the decision.
And jla-x, our current system ALSO can't be fixed by refusing to engage. Voting for some pie-in-the-sky third party candidate IN THIS ELECTION is sitting it out.
Donna, I have voted in every election since I've been of voting age. I have always voted as a Democratic because of the reasons you point out, even though I have never felt that any represented my views in totality...I voted on their character...Hilary is flawed. TRUMP is more flawed than anyone I've ever seen including the alcoholic biker that lives across the street, even bush, but I can't support Hillary. She is a war hawk, a liar, and a corporate puppet imo. I actually really like Gary Johnson and agree with many of his positions (not all). He's a moderate gay liberal libertarian which is refreshing, he's also a genuinely nice guy from what I've seen. I believe in some socialism and some libertarianism. He's never going to win, but my vote is a protest vote in the direction of people with ideas over good marketing schemes and publicity.
The mentality that it's wrong to vote for a third party candidate in THIS SPECIFIC ELECTION seems like it is based on a ongoing lie. It is the lie propagated by politicians / media in almost EVERY election ie 'this is the most important election ever' or 'this election will fundamentally change the nation' or whatever. It can't be true - this election is not as important as the electoral battles between Jefferson and Adams, or as important as Lincoln's election, etc. Which election in the past 50 years has fundamentally changed the nation, for good or bad? This election seems like it's the most important because of recency bias. But I don't think it is.
Telling people you are part of the problem for voting third party does one thing in my mind - it perpetuates the two-party system by shaming people into voting for one of two similar candidates. How is anything going to change if people are continually told you are throwing away a vote by voting outside of the mainstream parties?
This thread probably seems strange to Europeans who have multiple, distinct parties to choose from...
jla, please stop being a parrot. If you are saying Hillary is "warmongering", I should say that Sanders supports domestic terrorism. He did NOT sign the Brady Bill.
Either way, this election you folks are between bad and bad. But at least youve been exposed to other parties (the Greens and the Libertarians (i dont like but better than the psycho and the racist ). Thus you would not have any more excuse in the next elections (that you "fucking don't care" won't be an excuse). There is much unrest...something has to give eventually.
I don't understand this mentality AT ALL. Have you guys seen the videos this morning of UK citizens who voted for Brexit and are now saying "But it was just a protest vote, I never actually thought we'd LEAVE! If I could vote again I'd vote to stay in!"
Voting against Hillary is voting FOR Trump, the guy who is worse than the biker meth head across the street from you. I'm really sorry to break it to you guys that sometimes you don't get a good choice, you get a bad one and a worse one.
I'm all for a change to the two-party system. Tell me how to *realistically* bring that about rather than your invisible "protest vote" that ushers in the era of a racist sentient cheeto being our president while the rest of the world laughs at and abandons us?
^ chatter, he probably felt it was his best chance of winning...it's incredibly difficult to battle the big parties as an independent. They are much much more politically and economically powerful than any third party.
Donna I think we do agree on the most important parts and I agree that the disenfranchised and minorities may be better off with the democrats but what I want to impress is that the party that you defend may be incrementally better than the other and the only choice for you as the least harmful is exactly my point they may give us a reach around but getting fucked is getting fucked non the less.
Voting for Trump is a vote for Trump. Voting for Johnson or Stein is just a vote for Johnson or Stein, not a vote for Trump. It's not a protest vote if you actually think Johnson, Stein (or any other third-party candidate) is the candidate who most reflects your views and would do the best job. So telling people they are throwing their vote away by voting third-party seems very strange to me.
jla-x, perhaps that also shows moral failing on his part. if it is not just about winning but about amassing a party with enough following pursuing an agenda of social justice, economic equity and environmental justice...then he should be joining hands of people of that ilk...not the Democrats. The idea that he could revamp the Democrats is akin to the idea that the leftists in Europe could revamp the EU (since we're on both topics here). These are institutions structured to favour big business, corporations and so on. That his inclusion within Clinton's admin will soften the blow...is that really enough? It would be a farce, especially after the pretense at a revolution only to turn around and join the Democrat ranks.
(representative democratic republic is what I would say we are. True democracy is the same as mob rule, minorities would never be represented in a true democracy.. think gays, blacks, other minority interests would NEVER get any traction. Our government is a representative system because it is thought that even though a democracy gives everyone a vote and sounds great, we do need smarter people making decisions than the average no-nothing hence the system of delegates and electoral college. The word republic comes from Latin res publica (public thing)... our government is rooted in ideas from ancient Rome (elected senate) and not like the "democracy" (rule of the people) of the ancient greeks. I have tutored in social studies/civics from elementary through high school.)
Sameoldoctor, she is...Obama continued building on the military industrial complex...nothing indicates that Hillary will change that. She is almost certainly going to exacerbate things since her political back scratching is decades deep. We have real problems and real enemies who want to kill us, I get that, but we need to slow the war machine down and invest in positive things like infrastructure and education...And stop fucking with other people's countries...Trump may usher in the Apocalypse though....which is bad...so I see where you coming from. Still think a protest vote is more valuable and democratic than a complacent Hillary vote.
exactly Andrew. and both Democrats and Republicans need each other for this illusion to persist. One needs to demonize the other so as to scare enough sheep into their pen and then count them, dividing up the profits accordingly.
People who tout third-party fantasies obviously have no clue how presidential elections actually work in the US.
First of all, unless you live in a swing state, your vote for president doesn't even really matter anyway. Each state (except Nebraska I think) is winner-take-all. If either of the two major-party candidates is expected to carry your state by a large margin, you may as well vote for Beyonce.
Secondly, a candidate needs a majority of votes in the Electoral College to become president. A mere plurality isn't sufficient. In the unlikely event some third-party candidate wins an entire state (fat chance) and deprives one of the two main candidates a clear majority, then the GOP-controlled House of Representatives gets to select Donald Trump as our next president.
The more likely scenario is that a third-party candidate tilts the balance in a swing state; see Florida in 2000. In that case, a vote for Nader was unequivocally a vote for Bush and all the disasters that followed.
The constitution and the Electoral College all but guarantee a two-party system. Personally, I think we'd be better off under a parliamentary system in which a multitude of political parties are forced to form coalitions and compromise with each other, but that obviously isn't going to happen between now and November, and even a parliamentary system can't guarantee that everything won't go completely off the rails (see: Brexit).
Yes, David, exactly! People voting "for" Ralph Nader elected Bush. This is historically accurate even if it doesn't align with some starry-eyed view of a land of happy free votes leaping through sunny flowered fields with unicorns!
Our "parliament" is the house and the senate. I'm not sure it has any relationship to the # of parties and the reason why we have a two party dem-GOP system. The structure of our parliament is bi-cameral, not bi-partisan. They are making that up.
two clowns from the same circus
Ricky, did they also fake the moon landing?
non, Stanley Kubrick directed the moon landing, you did not know that? ..........so this is a wonderful thread after a long ass very unproductive day.......what I can say is both sides here sound like Trump - lots of angry stupid screaming.......go do it - though , might of convinced me why Trump is a better selection regardless - Trump goes bankrupt all the time. He tells banks to go fuck themselves. He will probably clear the national debt by claiming chapter 11. Fuck the banks, God Bless America!
hold on hold on......thr right wants their semi-automatic weapons so they can tell Hillarys war machine to go fuck themselves when they riot in the street after nothing changes next president..........see thats why they want their guns - because a vote don't count.
.
this is the difference between democrats and republicans:
vote for gun toting religious fundamentalists or people who at least try to be a little less dumb? there is a difference.
fuck the banks, god bless america!
Ricky, did they also fake the moon landing?
Get a very powerful telescope or go to one and take a look at the moon where NASA says the landing was and all.
DUDES!
BOTH parties are war mongers. Trump is a war monger as anyone else is. He does it every day in business. Business is war.
It's how you do business. Destroy the competition or the competition destroys you. Then you own the losers and control them. (Acquisition) The idea is so that you take their assets, divest the liabilities. It's how its done. BUSINESS IS WAR !!!!
fuck the banks, god bless america!
broad brush curtkram...Red vs Blue is a false dichotomy created around domestic issues that have no effect on the Oligarchy that owns them both...the illusion of choice...
Well this thread went to shit didn't it? What I wanted was a discussion on the sameness of the candidates and how they are working for the same interest. The oligarchy is not a freaky pie in the sky conspiracy theory. Did you all not read my subsequent post? Neither one of the candidates are going to do anything for us just the money people.
This thread demonstrates perfectly what the oligarchy wants. To keep us bitching between ourselves about some rigged election, rigged in the sense that we are feed the choice of candidates, and about who is the best candidate for us regular people all the while making money hand over fist in the shadows.
They love that we are to busy fighting amongst ourselves to find the truth. It is just what they want.
divide and conquer!
As long as I can remember the elections are a choice between the lesser of two evils. Now think about that. Why is that so? Why don't good honest people with the best interest of the common man ever run?
Has anything really changed for us folk in the last 50 years for the better. No. It is worse.
It use to be that a person men mostly could get a good paying factory job, while the wife was home with the kids, (yes women are equal and can do work too so don't start any of that crap) and still buy a house, save for retirement, go on vacations, all on one income. Can that be done now? No. Why not? Because of the policy of both the Republicans and Democrats. And who benefited from these policies? The money people and career politicians that is who.
The arguments about and between Democrats and Republicans does not matter.
We need to be more concerned about our loss of freedom and privacy.
WASHINGTON — The Senate rejected legislation Wednesday that would allow the FBI to search Americans' Internet browsing histories and email records without a warrant.
Supporters invoked the Orlando massacre to push for the measure, saying it would help federal agents identify terrorist suspects and thwart future attacks. But privacy rights advocates said the bill's sponsors were using the mass shooting as a way to expand government surveillance and get around constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Senators voted 58-38 to advance the legislation, falling two votes short of the 60 votes needed. The amendment by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Richard Burr, R-N.C., would have been added to a federal spending bill that included funding for the FBI. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., switched his vote from "yes" to "no" — a procedural move that will allow him to bring the legislation up again later
go do it - i said this elsewhere and COC who is a smart kid will put this together
I had drinks with a friend of a friend who wrote the electoral process for a recent new government in the middle eastish...
She said - the USA is not a democracy when it comes to voting.
From an expert from the UN who writes electoral processes....
The country was the nation of most bad ass fighters, as the former soviet-stans say about that area (it ain't former soviet)
The reason "the US is not a democracy when it comes to voting" is due to gerrymandering. One party gets to determine district lines. This is why it's important to vote for the party not the person, and that distinction runs all the way down to local board elections: the party in power influences everything on down.
If you really want things to change, don't stamp your feet and refuse to vote. Vote for the lesser of two evils, then work - don't just comment on internet threads, actually go out in your community and work - toward changing the redistricting laws in the country.
Saying there's no difference in the two parties is idiotic. There are vast differences in the parties at the local level where it impacts your life.
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., opposed the amendment and decried what he said was the hypocrisy of defending gun rights while pushing for a measure that would undermine the constitutional prohibition against unlawful search and seizures. The Senate on Monday rejected plans to curb firearms, with many Republicans refusing to approve any legislation that would infringe on the broad right to bear arms.
"Due process ought to apply as it relates to guns, but due process wouldn't apply as it relates to the internet activity of millions of Americans," Wyden said.
jla-x, it is *not* same shit different assholes if you actually take time to think about it rather than posting George Carlin memes.
One party actively seeks invoking the Christian sky-daddy as an elected official. The other party doesn't.
Donna, I commend you on your civic activism and optimistic attitude and passion. But remember gerrymandering happens on both sides of the isle. You are right local elections do have the most impact on us and it is important to vote for the best people and I do but it seems when politicians get further up the ladder they get more and more controlled by the party. Even at the local level do you really think that a politician in today's atmosphere would chose you over the parties interest?
My wife ran for school board and she is honest as the day is long with the very best of intentions for the kids. She is well respected with a long history of involvement in community and school affairs. But some people in the party had pet projects and positions that my wife did not agree with and was not in the best interest of the kids. She was told more or less that if she supported theses positions that she would get money and support. Well of course she didn't and guess what? The party poured money and support into another candidate that won. She would have won if she had played the parties game. And that was for school board!
I watched 'Mr. Smith goes to Washington" recently and it is just as appropriate today as when it was made. I doubt there are any "Mr.Smiths" in washington today although I am holding out hope for Elizabeth Warren. And while there are differences between the two parties the big picture does not change. My argument is that it is all a scam.
Ask yourself why are there only two parties? Why do the Dems. and the Repubs. work together to squash any third party? If competition and choices is good in every other aspect of business / commerce why not politics? It is because the oligarchy does not want competition they don't care which one is in office as long as one of them is because they control them all.
While being called an idiot hurts the sting is not unbearable coming from you. I enjoy your forum participation. This water too will pass beneath the bridge! HA
Take some of your passion and intellect to find out who the puppet masters are and their influence.
On polyarchy or when the public don't (fucking) care
One party actively seeks invoking the Christian sky-daddy as an elected official. The other party doesn't.
This is where my republican tendencies ended back in the 80's, when the Republican party decided that it was the Christian morality police for the country.
This thread, like our country, is filled with all sorts of small-minded bigotry and hate and sadly it comes from both sides of the political spectrum.
go do it's chosen title concurs with Chomsky's view in that the division between Democrats and Republicans is between 'moderate' Republicans (ie what we call Democrats) and "insurgent" Republicans, both parties belonging to the same faction.
Which is hardly surprising given that Clinton is perceived to be one of the (and backed by) neocons. Clinton, who on a well balanced scale of with right wing at one extreme and left wing at another extreme, comes out as solidly right-wing. However, according to that logic above, the whole scale of the political system in the US has shifted right so that on one extreme is an extreme right wing and on the other is a milder closer-to-centre rightwing.
I wonder whether this is paralleled by the public's continual acceptance to "vote for the lesser evil" -pushing regressively the system further and further to the right- such that now their choice is between a ridiculously clownish parody of rightwing (Trump) and a seemingly might-be-acceptable-although-a-warmongering-lying-closer to centre-rightwing candidate.
Also,on a well balanced scale, Bernie Sanders was not really a leftie, he would be quite centrist. But on the exclusively right-wing warped scale, he was even demonized as a communist (heck, Obama is sometimes called a communist by really extreme eccentrics)
Donna, The only way to fix our current system is remove money from politics. If we had public funded elections, over turned citizens United, and prohibited campaign contributions we would begin to see canidates with the interest of the people. thoughtful candidates like Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Elizabeth Warren, etc would have an actual shot at winning. Again, while I may not agree with all of their views, I can respect them...what we have now is career politicians, crooks, corporate puppets, and hate mongers. Our current system cannot be fixed by playing along.
parties are coprorations and corporations are people. ideologies bind parties and often at the expense of people......techically I believe rhe US is actually a Republic? (trying to remember middle school social studies)
If each american paid a 5 dollar/year election tax we would have about 4 billion dollars to split among the candidates every 4 years. pretty simple solution.
There aren't two parties, It's that the other parties can't create a consensus to matter, or win local/state offices to do any effective change.
Remember to those that think there is no difference between the two, Bush[s] are the ones responsible for; Thomas, Alito and Roberts, they are responsible for Citizens United.
I hear you, go do it, and I totally agree. Which is why I say the lesser of two evils IS what has to drive our choices. Gerrymandering is a plague on our democratic process no matter which side of the aisle is doing it, but the Dems think I'm a human while the Republicans actively don't. There's no question in my mind that women, as well as people of color and lower economic class, are better off under Democratic leadership. Not *well* off, but *better* off.
I do think things slowly move towards getting better - I'm almost 50, and the world is better now than it was in most ways. But the Right has huge corruption and power issues while trying to live in a fantasy land of religion and guns and 50s-era gender roles. The Left has huge corruption and power problems too, but they aren't as bad for most people as the Right.
By refusing to participate at all you let other people make the decision.
And jla-x, our current system ALSO can't be fixed by refusing to engage. Voting for some pie-in-the-sky third party candidate IN THIS ELECTION is sitting it out.
B3, the alternative parties cannot gain traction because of reasons that have nothing to do with their ideas. The best advertisers win.
money buys ideology propaganda. maybe the gun owners will give up their guns when they start to believe in the govm'nt again?
Donna, I have voted in every election since I've been of voting age. I have always voted as a Democratic because of the reasons you point out, even though I have never felt that any represented my views in totality...I voted on their character...Hilary is flawed. TRUMP is more flawed than anyone I've ever seen including the alcoholic biker that lives across the street, even bush, but I can't support Hillary. She is a war hawk, a liar, and a corporate puppet imo. I actually really like Gary Johnson and agree with many of his positions (not all). He's a moderate gay liberal libertarian which is refreshing, he's also a genuinely nice guy from what I've seen. I believe in some socialism and some libertarianism. He's never going to win, but my vote is a protest vote in the direction of people with ideas over good marketing schemes and publicity.
The mentality that it's wrong to vote for a third party candidate in THIS SPECIFIC ELECTION seems like it is based on a ongoing lie. It is the lie propagated by politicians / media in almost EVERY election ie 'this is the most important election ever' or 'this election will fundamentally change the nation' or whatever. It can't be true - this election is not as important as the electoral battles between Jefferson and Adams, or as important as Lincoln's election, etc. Which election in the past 50 years has fundamentally changed the nation, for good or bad? This election seems like it's the most important because of recency bias. But I don't think it is.
Telling people you are part of the problem for voting third party does one thing in my mind - it perpetuates the two-party system by shaming people into voting for one of two similar candidates. How is anything going to change if people are continually told you are throwing away a vote by voting outside of the mainstream parties?
This thread probably seems strange to Europeans who have multiple, distinct parties to choose from...
jla, please stop being a parrot. If you are saying Hillary is "warmongering", I should say that Sanders supports domestic terrorism. He did NOT sign the Brady Bill.
Either way, this election you folks are between bad and bad. But at least youve been exposed to other parties (the Greens and the Libertarians (i dont like but better than the psycho and the racist ). Thus you would not have any more excuse in the next elections (that you "fucking don't care" won't be an excuse). There is much unrest...something has to give eventually.
Why did Sanders choose Democrats? TheGreens offered him the chance to pull forces together. There are some question marks on him, that is true.
I don't understand this mentality AT ALL. Have you guys seen the videos this morning of UK citizens who voted for Brexit and are now saying "But it was just a protest vote, I never actually thought we'd LEAVE! If I could vote again I'd vote to stay in!"
Voting against Hillary is voting FOR Trump, the guy who is worse than the biker meth head across the street from you. I'm really sorry to break it to you guys that sometimes you don't get a good choice, you get a bad one and a worse one.
I'm all for a change to the two-party system. Tell me how to *realistically* bring that about rather than your invisible "protest vote" that ushers in the era of a racist sentient cheeto being our president while the rest of the world laughs at and abandons us?
^ chatter, he probably felt it was his best chance of winning...it's incredibly difficult to battle the big parties as an independent. They are much much more politically and economically powerful than any third party.
+1 Donna
Donna I think we do agree on the most important parts and I agree that the disenfranchised and minorities may be better off with the democrats but what I want to impress is that the party that you defend may be incrementally better than the other and the only choice for you as the least harmful is exactly my point they may give us a reach around but getting fucked is getting fucked non the less.
Voting for Trump is a vote for Trump. Voting for Johnson or Stein is just a vote for Johnson or Stein, not a vote for Trump. It's not a protest vote if you actually think Johnson, Stein (or any other third-party candidate) is the candidate who most reflects your views and would do the best job. So telling people they are throwing their vote away by voting third-party seems very strange to me.
jla-x, perhaps that also shows moral failing on his part. if it is not just about winning but about amassing a party with enough following pursuing an agenda of social justice, economic equity and environmental justice...then he should be joining hands of people of that ilk...not the Democrats. The idea that he could revamp the Democrats is akin to the idea that the leftists in Europe could revamp the EU (since we're on both topics here). These are institutions structured to favour big business, corporations and so on. That his inclusion within Clinton's admin will soften the blow...is that really enough? It would be a farce, especially after the pretense at a revolution only to turn around and join the Democrat ranks.
I'm thinking of moving to the moon.
(representative democratic republic is what I would say we are. True democracy is the same as mob rule, minorities would never be represented in a true democracy.. think gays, blacks, other minority interests would NEVER get any traction. Our government is a representative system because it is thought that even though a democracy gives everyone a vote and sounds great, we do need smarter people making decisions than the average no-nothing hence the system of delegates and electoral college. The word republic comes from Latin res publica (public thing)... our government is rooted in ideas from ancient Rome (elected senate) and not like the "democracy" (rule of the people) of the ancient greeks. I have tutored in social studies/civics from elementary through high school.)
Sameoldoctor, she is...Obama continued building on the military industrial complex...nothing indicates that Hillary will change that. She is almost certainly going to exacerbate things since her political back scratching is decades deep. We have real problems and real enemies who want to kill us, I get that, but we need to slow the war machine down and invest in positive things like infrastructure and education...And stop fucking with other people's countries...Trump may usher in the Apocalypse though....which is bad...so I see where you coming from. Still think a protest vote is more valuable and democratic than a complacent Hillary vote.
One thing I've never found in the Constitution is the democratic and republican parties. Anyone?
exactly Andrew. and both Democrats and Republicans need each other for this illusion to persist. One needs to demonize the other so as to scare enough sheep into their pen and then count them, dividing up the profits accordingly.
or otherwise this
People who tout third-party fantasies obviously have no clue how presidential elections actually work in the US.
First of all, unless you live in a swing state, your vote for president doesn't even really matter anyway. Each state (except Nebraska I think) is winner-take-all. If either of the two major-party candidates is expected to carry your state by a large margin, you may as well vote for Beyonce.
Secondly, a candidate needs a majority of votes in the Electoral College to become president. A mere plurality isn't sufficient. In the unlikely event some third-party candidate wins an entire state (fat chance) and deprives one of the two main candidates a clear majority, then the GOP-controlled House of Representatives gets to select Donald Trump as our next president.
The more likely scenario is that a third-party candidate tilts the balance in a swing state; see Florida in 2000. In that case, a vote for Nader was unequivocally a vote for Bush and all the disasters that followed.
The constitution and the Electoral College all but guarantee a two-party system. Personally, I think we'd be better off under a parliamentary system in which a multitude of political parties are forced to form coalitions and compromise with each other, but that obviously isn't going to happen between now and November, and even a parliamentary system can't guarantee that everything won't go completely off the rails (see: Brexit).
David Cole, I agree about the parliamentary system being better.
Jesus.
Our "parliament" is the house and the senate. I'm not sure it has any relationship to the # of parties and the reason why we have a two party dem-GOP system. The structure of our parliament is bi-cameral, not bi-partisan. They are making that up.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.