Libertarian?!

[Darkpriest667]

Voters don't want satirical trolls. They want actual change from a serious candidate. This is why you don't see Steven Colbert or Mark Levine running for office. And it's why the LP will never gain serious consideration as long as it tries to legitimize VS....


Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Joke's on you Steven Colbert DID run for President in 2008.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert_2008_presidential_campaign

 

[rotor]

This is the kind of bullshit that keeps you in a 2 party system. I'm voting for Jo Jorgenson just like I voted for Gary Johnson.


For everyone, it's better to vote for your principles than vote against someone else's.



His persona is a satirical troll. If you listen to him actually speak, unlike most of these people in this thread, he's quite eloquent.

Another what if question just for you, let's say that the entire presidential election between Trump and Biden came down to one vote, if you voted Jorgenson, Biden would win, if you voted Trump, Trump would win. Who would you vote for?

 

[Darkpriest667]

Rotor,

You realize that the electoral college almost exclusively prevents that scenario.

 

[rotor]

Rotor,

You realize that the electoral college almost exclusively prevents that scenario.

Yes, but it is a question of principles, not reality. The old story that anyone can become a whore if the price is right.

 

[Darkpriest667]

Yeah my principles are I vote for who I believe in. I don't believe in Trump, especially when it comes to the 2nd amendment. See: Bump Stocks.

 

[Dave68]

Part of the problem is that you have to defeat the ranking members of your party in the primaries if you want change. A freshman senator or representative doesn’t carry much influence. So if the ranking party members are not from your state or district, your vote carries less weight.

 

[rotor]

Yeah my principles are I vote for who I believe in. I don't believe in Trump, especially when it comes to the 2nd amendment. See: Bump Stocks.

So, if you had that magical power Biden would win. Have you heard the one about cutting off your nose despite your face. Bump stocks suck but how about Beto as the new gun dictator?
Sometimes we have to face reality. It is easy to vote your principle when you think your one vote won't change the outcome and you can feel good about yourself. But what if it did change the outcome?
I was there too in my younger days, Ross Perot. Now I consider it a stupid vote.

 

[Axxe55]

So, if you had that magical power Biden would win. Have you heard the one about cutting off your nose despite your face. Bump stocks suck but how about Beto as the new gun dictator?
Sometimes we have to face reality. It is easy to vote your principle when you think your one vote won't change the outcome and you can feel good about yourself. But what if it did change the outcome?
I was there too in my younger days, Ross Perot. Now I consider it a stupid vote.

Exactly. I actually believed in Ross Perot. That was the very reason I voted for him. But I was much younger, and still an idealist at that time! Time and the real world showed me the error of my ways.

 

[oldag]

This is the kind of bullshit that keeps you in a 2 party system. I'm voting for Jo Jorgenson just like I voted for Gary Johnson.


For everyone, it's better to vote for your principles than vote against someone else's.



His persona is a satirical troll. If you listen to him actually speak, unlike most of these people in this thread, he's quite eloquent.

Dear sir. Some of those frequenting this forum for idea exchange are perfectly capable of exhibiting an exquisite degree of eloquence. Some even to a grandiose scale of verbosity and wit.

However, given the pressing demands of the day upon our most valuable element (heretofore known as time), we choose to forgo such elegance in the written word.

Sincerely yours,
Oldag, Esquire.

 

[Dave68]

In 92 I didn’t consider my vote for Perot to be a waste. He was the only candidate opposing NAFTA at the time and carried 19% of the popular vote.

 

[G O B]

If you vote for an impossibility, your candidate will lose, and you will have thrown away your precious right to a meaningful election. Before you cast that vote away, make sure it will mean something.

 

[Axxe55]

In 92 I didn’t consider my vote for Perot to be a waste. He was the only candidate opposing NAFTA at the time and carried 19% of the popular vote.

I didn't think it was a wasted vote in 1992, but upon reflection based on the years past, I do wonder.

 

[Axxe55]

If you vote for an impossibility, your candidate will lose, and you will have thrown away your precious right to a meaningful election. Before you cast that vote away, make sure it will mean something.

That is one to look at it of course. But, the right to vote is sacred, and a person should be afforded to vote for whomever they so choose to vote for. Even if we disagree with that choice. Only the person voting can decide whether they threw away their vote. That is not for your or anyone else to decide. Meaningless? The very fact that a person voted, regardless of who they voted for, has meaning. It meant something to that person.

 

[oldag]

That is one to look at it of course. But, the right to vote is sacred, and a person should be afforded to vote for whomever they so choose to vote for. Even if we disagree with that choice. Only the person voting can decide whether they threw away their vote. That is not for your or anyone else to decide. Meaningless? The very fact that a person voted, regardless of who they voted for, has meaning. It meant something to that person.

In theory, of course.

In practicality? Different story.

 

[seeker_two]

Joke's on you Steven Colbert DID run for President in 2008.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert_2008_presidential_campaign

Did he win?.....

 

[Big Green]

If you vote for an impossibility, your candidate will lose, and you will have thrown away your precious right to a meaningful election. Before you cast that vote away, make sure it will mean something.

When I vote, regardless of who I vote for, it is never throwing away anything, certainly not a “right to a meaningful election.”

If I hold my nose and vote for socialism-light over full strength, does my vote “mean something?” To me it doesn’t. The GOP and Dems have the same destination, one is taking the scenic route and the other has the accelerator to the floor.

I would argue that enough people voted actual principles we’d be better off in the long run. Would we get some bad candidates and some bad years? Yes, it wouldn’t be an overnight return to limited government though neither has the slide into big government been overnight. The voting for the lesser of two evils, just because they have a “R” beside their name is part of the reason we are in this mess.

 

[rotor]

When I vote, regardless of who I vote for, it is never throwing away anything, certainly not a “right to a meaningful election.”

If I hold my nose and vote for socialism-light over full strength, does my vote “mean something?” To me it doesn’t. The GOP and Dems have the same destination, one is taking the scenic route and the other has the accelerator to the floor.

I would argue that enough people voted actual principles we’d be better off in the long run. Would we get some bad candidates and some bad years? Yes, it wouldn’t be an overnight return to limited government though neither has the slide into big government been overnight. The voting for the lesser of two evils, just because they have a “R” beside their name is part of the reason we are in this mess.

The assumption is that people are intelligent enough to even have principles. I remember the old Jay Leno street interviews. The average IQ is 100, that means 1/2 of the people are below that. Their principle is "what can I get out of this". The days of do not ask what your country can do for you are over.

 

[RaySendero]

..... The voting for the lesser of two evils, just because they have a “R” beside their name is part of the reason we are in this mess.

Gosh, I don't know how one could be that wrong!
If Dems would have won the last Presidential election,
We would be in an even GREATER MESS!

 

[Big Green]

Gosh, I don't know how one could be that wrong!
If Dems would have won the last Presidential election,
We would be in an even GREATER MESS!

Have you seen Congress and local politicians these days?

 

[candcallen]

A representative Democracy like ours, at the federal level at least, cannot be a 3 party system.

ETA the only way it would work is with a requirement of a run off election. End of edit


It's not set up that way. We are not a parliamentarian type of government where you cobble together a national leader. That's how you got Hitler, and most dysfunctional European so called democracies and the Israeli system works. At any time the "president" doesn't swallow enough cockjuice from the right people a vote of no confidence can throw the country into turmoil like Israel and The Brits have experienced. In both cases if the people actually got what they wanted in the first place they wouldnt have had the issues they did.

You also cannot have a straight democracy cause that's mob rule. 50 percent plus 1 OF THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY VOTED usually mean....well you know what that would mean if clinton won and will mean if Biden wins.

We have the best system possible. Your 3rd party candidates are usually only a couple issues off of the main stream so they run nationally as a R or D and see how their ideas play. If they dont win, they take the strength of their votes received from that contribute to building the national platform for their party. If they are really strong they can cobble together possibly being their parties candidate.

That's the place for that at the national level. Otherwise YOU ALWAYS GET THE WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOME, EVERYONE SUFFERS WHILE YOU STROKE YOUR PRINCIPLES AND SQUIRT ONYOUR SELF FOR 4 YEARS TELLING YOURSELF HOW BIG AND STRONG YOU ARE.

I'm sorry but that's they way our system works. You wanna change it? Start your 3rd party nationally in local elections and build its base and power and get Senators and Representatives elected and they together build their power to the point they can actually influence policy and legislation and change our representative democracy to a cesspool European democracy where 25 percent, or less, of the people control everything. In the end that's what you will get if we go there. FOR A LOOK AT IT JUST LOOK AT THE DEMS. THEIR ABOLITION OF THE ELECTORAL CONGRESS, STACKING SUPREME COURT, DC STATE HOOD AND IMMIGRATION POLICIES ARE MEANT TO GET THEM THERE. It's the only way such radicals can control everyone, or a British like system. The Founders were smart enough or lucky enough to dislike it enough to build a better way.

You can help them if you want, I wont.

Your principles will have us both outlawed if they win. History shows when socialist or communists consolidate their power dissenters gotta go along with the marxist activists that got them in power. What a fine gallows that will be. Maybe we can pull the lever on each other.