Wasted votes

[Captain Morgan]

Cause your feelings seem to over ride the nation ?

I'm all for getting rid of the IRS and a ton of other goverment programs that are BS
BUT does he really have a chance of winning ? NO

Sometimes making a stand is admiral and some times it a waste and people must choose wiseley but some people dont

So, how is it that my feelings about what is best for the nation are self centered, yet your feelings about what is best for the nation are selfless?

 

[sepe]

Get over the death thing

Did I say that ? Stop being like the big 0 and put words into peoples mouths

And screw goverment jobs, that means unions, screw unions also !



Gotta go, its late and I have a job and have to work in a few hrs

You didn't say it, you implied it and your little list you rattled off doesn't make any sense to justify your statement...then again, I wouldn't expect someone voting Romney because he isn't Obama to make much sense.

 

[Lex Concord]

Get over the death thing

Did I say that ? Stop being like the big 0 and put words into peoples mouths

With the implication taken by more than one poster, you do yourself a disservice by failing to clarify.

 

[Stschil]

You must need more Capt Morgan ?

Lots of options but you missed one, What is best for the country !
Every once in a while you may need to do a little evil for the greater good

Thanks for the synopsis of the Republican Party viewpoint

The nation is more important than pantie waste feeling over something people get but hurt over cause they dont get everything they want

All who value liberty in the main over temporary comfort have every right to be butthurt over the constant barrage of messages like yours

This nation has had nor ever will have the perfect person in any office from any party.

And like grandma said "beggers cant be chooseres and sometimes you need to take what you can get "

Why should a Nation founded on the principle of the Power of the People have to beg? It's the government that should beg the will of the governed, not the other way around.

Marxian socialist ?

Capitalist ?

Or a wasted vote ?

What do you REALLY want ? (think hard)

Anyone that votes for the greater of two evils or a hole in the wall vote cause they have a burr in their behind and he wins ?
YOU WILL BE PARTIALLY REPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS TO THIS NATION CAUSE OF HIS SOCIALIST IDEALS !
And I wish they would pay the price but the law will not allow it

So, those who vote for the lessor of the evils only should pay half the price? What a bargain! We can continue to support the contraction of freedom and the expansion of government at 50% off!!!! (Offer void where prohibited. Check local listings for a participating State)

People need to look beyond the globe that surrounds their head and look at the bigger picture !!

Riiiiggggght, Bush I, Dole, BushII, and McCain were stellar examples of the Republican Party's ability to see the big picture

Dirka Dirka
So many self centered people in this country

Hello Pot, meet Kettle

Please tell us again, Whose panties are in a twist?

 

[JimmyR]

The issue is we live in a 2* party system- we have plenty of political parties, but in terms of presence on the national stage, we have two that dwarf all the others combine. I think what Rude1 is suggesting is that, statistically, people who vote for the smaller party candidates are voting for people who historically have no chance of winning. Thus, a conservative vote for a third party may, in larger quantities, may hurt a Republican's votes on election night. People who support those from the larger parties then tend to blame people who vote for the smaller parties for "wasting their votes."

Lets use names, cause otherwise this will get confusing.

buckstopshere is voting for Gary Johnson. Lets pretend he has 1000 of his family, friends, and associates that also vote for Johnson. Johnson historically has no chance of winning, based on past experiences (not even a ridiculously popular Teddy Roosevelt could win the POTUS as a third party). If Mitt Romney loses, then many of the people who will vote for him, Rude1 and myself, for example, may feel like buckstopshere's vote was wasted, because it contributed to a mutual enemy being elected.

The fundamental issue is that we are dealing with presumptions of what will happen based on what has happened. Things change, and we may be surprised when a third party candidate rises up and gains national prominence. That person will never get there if people do not continue to support the smaller third party candidates. The "wasted vote" argument, while probably correct in the short term, only perpetuates the dominance of the larger parties in the long term. I do not see it as selfish to support a third party candidate, if that is who you feel would best do the job. I do agree with Rude1, though, that one must balance the needs of the future with the needs of the present. Only the person can make that call.

 

[buckstopshere]

The issue is we live in a 2* party system- we have plenty of political parties, but in terms of presence on the national stage, we have two that dwarf all the others combine. I think what Rude1 is suggesting is that, statistically, people who vote for the smaller party candidates are voting for people who historically have no chance of winning. Thus, a conservative vote for a third party may, in larger quantities, may hurt a Republican's votes on election night. People who support those from the larger parties then tend to blame people who vote for the smaller parties for "wasting their votes."

Lets use names, cause otherwise this will get confusing.

buckstopshere is voting for Gary Johnson. Lets pretend he has 1000 of his family, friends, and associates that also vote for Johnson. Johnson historically has no chance of winning, based on past experiences (not even a ridiculously popular Teddy Roosevelt could win the POTUS as a third party). If Mitt Romney loses, then many of the people who will vote for him, Rude1 and myself, for example, may feel like buckstopshere's vote was wasted, because it contributed to a mutual enemy being elected.

The fundamental issue is that we are dealing with presumptions of what will happen based on what has happened. Things change, and we may be surprised when a third party candidate rises up and gains national prominence. That person will never get there if people do not continue to support the smaller third party candidates. The "wasted vote" argument, while probably correct in the short term, only perpetuates the dominance of the larger parties in the long term. I do not see it as selfish to support a third party candidate, if that is who you feel would best do the job. I do agree with Rude1, though, that one must balance the needs of the future with the needs of the present. Only the person can make that call.

My suggestion really is you all need to get over yourself. My vote is my vote and I'm not going to allow either party to pin their loss on me.

The die hard GOPers on this board love to point out how Perot gave the election to Clinton (I don't agree but not the point) but never do I see them point out that it was Nader who gave Bush Jr FL against Gore (I don't agree with this either but not the point).

Gary Johnson will pull votes from both parties. It's funny how he is mocked at every turn about only getting 1% of the vote but then everyone is afraid he's going to spoil the party for their candidate.

If you want my vote, it's easy to get. End the Fed, Honor the 10th, repeal the patriot act, NDAA, SOPA, end the wars, move to a commodity backed currency system and get unions out of government jobs especially the military.

If that's not on your agenda, I will not give you my approval by voting for you.

 

[sepe]

The issue is we live in a 2* party system- we have plenty of political parties, but in terms of presence on the national stage, we have two that dwarf all the others combine. I think what Rude1 is suggesting is that, statistically, people who vote for the smaller party candidates are voting for people who historically have no chance of winning. Thus, a conservative vote for a third party may, in larger quantities, may hurt a Republican's votes on election night. People who support those from the larger parties then tend to blame people who vote for the smaller parties for "wasting their votes."

Lets use names, cause otherwise this will get confusing.

buckstopshere is voting for Gary Johnson. Lets pretend he has 1000 of his family, friends, and associates that also vote for Johnson. Johnson historically has no chance of winning, based on past experiences (not even a ridiculously popular Teddy Roosevelt could win the POTUS as a third party). If Mitt Romney loses, then many of the people who will vote for him, Rude1 and myself, for example, may feel like buckstopshere's vote was wasted, because it contributed to a mutual enemy being elected.

The fundamental issue is that we are dealing with presumptions of what will happen based on what has happened. Things change, and we may be surprised when a third party candidate rises up and gains national prominence. That person will never get there if people do not continue to support the smaller third party candidates. The "wasted vote" argument, while probably correct in the short term, only perpetuates the dominance of the larger parties in the long term. I do not see it as selfish to support a third party candidate, if that is who you feel would best do the job. I do agree with Rude1, though, that one must balance the needs of the future with the needs of the present. Only the person can make that call.

The people not voting for Romney or Obama understand the way you feel and as buckstopshere says, get over yourselves. If your candidate loses, it is because your candidate was flawed to the point they couldn't attract enough attention from the independents and 3rd party voters. If your candidate loses, you have nobody to blame but your candidate and their campaign. If you support a candidate that gets pimped by any of the MSM and they still can't win, maybe it is their ideals that are to blame. Those of us voting for someone that has consistently shown principles aren't to blame because your candidate sucks (which both Obama and Romney do). If we're going to vote "anybody but the current moron", we're ALWAYS going to be stuck in a cycle of politicians. That cycle is a lose-lose.

 

[poptab]

Well I tried to rep sepe for that oh so appropriate video clip but I have to spread the rep around.

"Every once in a while you may need to do a little evil for the greater good"
That sounds like something Hitler would say.

If we add a bunch of little evils up what do you get? Not the greater good I'm guessing.

 

[2A_Tom]

Get over the death thing

Did I say that ? Stop being like the big 0 and put words into peoples mouths

And screw goverment jobs, that means unions, screw unions also !



Gotta go, its late and I have a job and have to work in a few hrs

I am glad that you realize that it is 0 not O.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Like I said we will never have what everyone wants

The Rep party died about 30yrs ago
It took 200+ years to get to that point,maybe another 100 and a libertarian candidate will be feasable but not now

Sorry to pee in your Paul wheaties

You haven't peed in my Wheaties; the neocons have. The only reason a libertarian candidate isn't feasible right now is because Bush and Obama have made people dependent on big government. Libertarians would shell shock nearly 50% of the nation--and that's exactly what we need. The economy is on cocaine and we're going to come down from that high very very quickly. We desperately need a candidate that is going to see that the private banking cartel never again rules our money.

Romney isn't going to make government any smaller, my friend. He's not a conservative. You can't believe a word he says on television---look at his track record in Massachusetts! He practically wrote Obamacare! He's also anti-gun, and wants to send countless more American soldiers to their deaths for nothing!

Don't mistake socialism for fascism. If we were facing a socialist threat, no one in America would be forced to buy private health coverage. Obama was a socialist as a young man, but, like his opponent, has obviously found fascism to be much more lucrative.

We'll have to agree to disagree. The right thing for America is voting for a candidate who represents freedom. It will only take 100 years to elect a man our founding fathers would be proud of if we fail to awaken as a people.

 

[poptab]

You haven't peed in my Wheaties; the neocons have. The only reason a libertarian candidate isn't feasible right now is because Bush and Obama have made people dependent on big government. Libertarians would shell shock nearly 50% of the nation--and that's exactly what we need. The economy is on cocaine and we're going to come down from that high very very quickly. We desperately need a candidate that is going to see that the private banking cartel never again rules our money.

Romney isn't going to make government any smaller, my friend. He's not a conservative. You can't believe a word he says on television---look at his track record in Massachusetts! He practically wrote Obamacare! He's also anti-gun, and wants to send countless more American soldiers to their deaths for nothing!

Don't mistake socialism for fascism. If we were facing a socialist threat, no one in America would be forced to buy private health coverage. Obama was a socialist as a young man, but, like his opponent, has obviously found fascism to be much more lucrative.

We'll have to agree to disagree. The right thing for America is voting for a candidate who represents freedom. It will only take 100 years to elect a man our founding fathers would be proud of if we fail to awaken as a people.

Kennedy tried that and he got assassinated. Come to think of it Regan tried it too. HMMMMMM

 

[TheRude1]

I would like to start with: it is impossible for me to get my panties in bunch. I go comando so that that never happens, that and I like the feeling of my junk swinging

It would take hrs to go through and quote everyones concerns with my statements on this thread

I do believe we need another party maybe even two ? But we don't need six.
If at this time we did not have the global threat of Islamic extremism half of the world in a finacial decline and the other half heading down hill and it was a hudrum world with no real problems(the kind that destroy nations) voting for a third party would not be an issue.

And I in no way can/could/would blame a person for following his/her conscience but now is not some humdrum world !
In my opinion this nation is on the edge of an abyss that has no bottom and I fear another four yrs of the big0 in office we will fall off of it, like he said to Putin"after the election I will have more flexibility" Seeing how that was said to a Communist,thats kinda scarry and I hope it scares others also

But we are not in a humdrum world and we have two primary party system and we have to deal.A vote for a third party will be a wasted vote and be just one vote closer to the edge and I dont want that to happen.
I want my son growing up in the same kind of country I did and that is rapidly disapearig

If someone REALLY want to support a third party with just a vote than you are only doing the bare minimum.
If you really want a third party to be victorious you need to give time, money and devotion.
Any third party people doing that ? Or just running your pie hole about the vote you are going to cast ?

0h I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN I am a conservative. I would gladly vote for a Dem or Lib if we can find another Zell Miller from Gorega. Old school

The world,country and people that run the parties have changed but the names havent

If you would like to continue to flame me feel free cause I will not be here cause I will not change my mind and appears I will not change anyone elses
Seems borderline worthless dont it ?

Or just look me up at a meet or drop me a PM

And yes now that you mention it, the big 0 is a faciest not a socialist, thank you

 

[ATM]

HA! If it was "a humdrum world with no real problems", we wouldn't need a third party, now would we?

I find this notion quite amusing.

 

[femurphy77]

Tried it, results tell me what I already knew. If either of the two major party candidates get elected, I'll be one of the ones at fault.

 

[TheRude1]

And I almost forgot

If someone does what they feel they need to do and not is what is needed and the big 0 gets in and really starts his fundamentall change of this country

They will have no privalage to complain in any way cause they helped

He has already went after the 2nd once, but was foiled by some agents telling the truth or otherwise he may have gotten away with it and where would we be now ?

 

[ATM]

...They will have no privalage to complain in any way cause they helped

But you will be able to righteously complain because you voted for someone else who also lost?

I'm still laughing here.

 

[GREEN607]

I have been a Ron Paul supporter for many years. I admire and respect him more than any other politician in the United States. I had vowed to write him in on my ballot, however, write-ins don't count. It amazes me, how many Paul people, are now Johnson huggers. Go figure.

A vote for Gary Johnson counts. You mean "it will be counted." But, it won't count for anything except in your 'ego'. And since you obviously weren't intent on voting for BO... it won't be a vote he lost, either.

We desperately need a non-Republicrat in office if we ever expect things in the country to change.

But since Johnson is not 'statistically electable' this time around..... your vote IS wasted. Sorry, but that's the inconvenient TRUTH.

 

[ATM]

But since Johnson is not 'statistically electable' this time around..... your vote IS wasted. Sorry, but that's the inconvenient TRUTH.

The inconvenient truth is that if many of us do not vote outside the establishment parties this time around and then again next time, nobody else will ever achieve 'statistical electability' to the masses who are just waiting around for it to magically happen.

We have to make it feel safer for them to jump on the bandwagon because they not only lack the fortitude to help get there, they deride those attempting to make it more viable for them to do so next time.

These perpetual victims of their own naysaying are far too content being ruled.

 

[1nthechmber]

A vote for anyone(this time anyway)other than Romney,is a vote for obama....sorry.

 

[TopDog]

Stand on the idealistic moral high ground all you want. The reality is this, if you vote for anyone but Romney for president you are helping to elect Obama. It is the reality of the beast of the two party system. Yes the only way to break the two party system to vote for someone else. But you dont have the backing to break that chain this time around.

Your only choice to effect the out come of the presidential election of 2012 is to vote for or against Obama. This futile meandering of all the choices is one of many causes for people to just say screw it and stay home, many will feel they are doomed to another four years of the self serving God like Obama and just say screw it. I know others that are planning to do that for this election and I cant change their minds.

You would have to change America before the two party system would fall to a better system where people actually had real choices.

As active as I have been for years in the election process, I am close to just saying screw it myself, set home on election day and wait to watch Rome burn.