To vote, or not to vote: That is the question

Bucky · Sep 30, 2016

Cardinal said:
Um....one of those options does not contain "nuclear WWIII and bring on the end of the world." How are you putting "my business shuts down" in one column and "nuclear armageddon" in the other and concluding, "Yep, looks the same to me!"

The candidate most likely to get us into nuclear war is Hillary Clinton. She has a proven record of authorizing wars and conflicts in the middle east.

Dragonfly · Sep 30, 2016

Bucky said:
The candidate most likely to get us into nuclear war is Hillary Clinton. She has a proven record of authorizing wars and conflicts in the middle east.

Good god.....fearmonger much???/ :roll:

Glowpun · Sep 30, 2016

Patrickt said:
I'll vote. Since I'm an American I don't think either candidate from the two major parties is worth voting for. I will vote though because I would like to see whichever corrupt, lying, self-centered, greedy clown gets elected to take office with a 35% of the vote mandate.

If you don't vote, then one of the twits can say, "I have 60% of the vote and have a mandate to destroy America," even is the voter turnout is the lowest percentage of eligible voters ever.

From overseas, how is it that Americans only have a choice of voting between bad and worse? We look upon America as being in the throes of a decline, as all nations eventually go into a decline.
And choosing either one of those candidates is a sign of the beginning of the decline of that country.

And what is even worse are the millions of lemming Americans who will blindly go with the crowd.

Bucky · Sep 30, 2016

Dragonfly said:
Good god.....fearmonger much???/ :roll:

Hillary had not hesitation in authorization the war in Iraq. If you blame Bush, then how is it that she was so easily manipulated yet Trump, the average joe billionaire was able to see differently?

Sometimes it is hard to see the picture when you are in the frame. Hillary has tunnel vision.

Glowpun · Sep 30, 2016

Dragonfly said:
Good god.....fearmonger much???/ :roll:

No, the person who will likely push the nuclear button is Trump because he has proved himself to be thin-skinned, erratic, grandiose, delusional, a sniffler, and paranoid--signs at his age of possibly in the beginning of mental health issues. Old Vulcan saying, be very aware of anyone who deifies itself for only ill can be had.

Glowpun · Sep 30, 2016

I see that those who polled put political party first before the country, shades of Nazi Germany.

Opopanax · Sep 30, 2016

BrewerBob said:
Voting third party isn't throwing your vote away because at least you will be counted in the popular vote. Yes, either Trump or Hillary is going to be the next President. But whichever one of them it is I sure as hell don't want them to think they have a "mandate". The smaller percentage of the popular vote they have the more on ice they will feel they are. I want him or her to wake up every morning in the White House knowing that they didn't get the majority of the votes. And voting third party plays a very small, but tangible, role in doing that. If you stay home instead of voting 3rd party that helps the winner's popular vote numbers.

It's a throwaway in a Presidential election. You're not making any statement. Nobody gives a damn about the third party candidates once but every four years. Then they slip back into oblivion until another four years later whn they come along squawking again about what's wrong with the major parties, while in the time leading up to the squawking they've done nothing to build local bases. They get more coverage now just because the internet can amplify a voice, but their chances are the same: zip.

If my candidate is going to lose, I'd like it to be because the other side won of its own merits, not because some hopeless third party got enough votes to swing a couple of states.

Opopanax · Sep 30, 2016

Glowpun said:
From overseas, how is it that Americans only have a choice of voting between bad and worse? We look upon America as being in the throes of a decline, as all nations eventually go into a decline.
And choosing either one of those candidates is a sign of the beginning of the decline of that country.

And what is even worse are the millions of lemming Americans who will blindly go with the crowd.

And I suppose that whatever country you're from always gets the best possible two people?

What is with this notion that we're guaranteed candidates who are pure and unsullied? Flawed is a human thing, not an American thing. I don't suppose I need begin to tick off the hundreds of European or Asian leaders throughout history, or even in current times who are less than pristine.

One does not get to personally hand select their nation's leader. You're given the choice of who gets the most votes and you vote for the best one, or the least-bad one. And you get one vote, just like everyone else. And at the end, tens of millions of people are not going to get their way. It's the way it's always been and it's the way it's always going to be.

Has America become too dumb for democracy? I think there's a pretty good argument that it has. However, this election doesn't necessarily decide the fate of the nation for all time to come. It could, but that has been the case with every Presidential election.

earthworm · Sep 30, 2016

TurtleDude said:
if Ohio wasn't a toss up state I'd vote Johnson but since Hillary is even more loathsome than Trump I choose the bad hair day over the Clinton Crime Family

So you prefer hair over conservative lies ... Take the time to ''fact check'', then weigh the ''bad'' things about Mrs Clinton .. NOT perfect .. be she .. Do you think Ron Reagan was ''Mr Perfect'' ?

TurtleDude · Sep 30, 2016

earthworm said:
So you prefer hair over conservative lies ... Take the time to ''fact check'', then weigh the ''bad'' things about Mrs Clinton .. NOT perfect .. be she .. Do you think Ron Reagan was ''Mr Perfect'' ?

I oppose Shrillary based on what I think she is truthful about

I believe she wants to put SJWs on the bench-people who think the purpose of the court is not to decide facts or the law but to further the creeping crud of "social justice" which means getting rid of traditional concepts of freedom, due process, and property rights

I believe her when she says she wants to jack up taxes on those of us who already pay a large majority of the federal income taxes and all the federal death taxes

I believe her when she says that she wants justices to overturn Heller so she can eliminate an individual right of private citizens to keep and bear arms

and given her 25 year tradition of using public office to gain tremendous wealth, I believe she will put the oval office up for sale as her husband did and which she did with the SOS office

radcen · Sep 30, 2016

Gathomas88 said:
I'm seriously considering not voting in this upcoming election. The Republican candidate leaves much to be desired (to say the least) and the Democratic candidate is the worst in decades (which is saying something). Voting for a third party would be "throwing my vote away," and I don't particularly support Gary Johnson's ideology anyway, so I really fail to see the point in putting out the energy to go in that direction either.

I really don't see much in the way of other recourse here, but to simply abstain.

Don't get me wrong. I live in a pretty heavily Red State to begin with, so I doubt it'll make that much of a difference. However, it would feel like doing to something to protest what's happening right now, which is better than nothing.

We'll just have to wait and see whether I change my mind before the actual election arrives.

Anyone else feel the same way?

I really hate when people trot in and say, "You didn't offer my preferred poll option.", but really, there should be a simple 'Yes' option.

Anyway, yes, I am going to vote. I am going to vote for the best possible option(s) presented to me. Will they be ideal? Phfft!, of course not. "Best" is relative. The person I am probably going to vote for is, well, a pretty crappy choice. But, the other person is total crap, so there ya go. 'Pretty crappy' is better than 'total crap'. If nothing else, it's minimizing the loss.

To not vote because the options aren't ideal (or even good) is abdicating the responsibility of running of the country to others. Essentially, you have forfeited your right to complain when something happens that you don't like.

radcen · Sep 30, 2016

Gathomas88 said:
My thoughts exactly. Not voting, if it results in lower voter turn-out, sends a message all by itself.

Will the establishment actually care? Of course not. However, they're not going to care if I vote for a third party candidate, who's only going to lose, either. It's a wash in any eventuality. :shrug:

What message? "We don't care, so do whatever you want."?

radcen · Sep 30, 2016

chromium said:
All right, so anyone left wondering, the write-in ban or limited access was ruled constitutional in 'alan b burdick v morris takushi'

SCOTUS upheld Hawaii's ban on write-ins under the guise it would burden the state that is forced to hold elections, a decision i clearly don't agree with

I personally find that reprehensible. I believe a person should be allowed to vote for whomever they want. Provided it's a real person who is otherwise eligible to serve. No Mickey Mouse, etc.

Elections are supposed to be held for the people, not the convenience of the state.

earthworm · Sep 30, 2016

And what is even worse are the millions of lemming Americans who will blindly go with the crowd.[/QUOTE]
Decline ?
My left ear , decline ..lets have a little truth !
Name any nation on this planet what has always chosen the best candidate ! much less a good political system ..

Removable Mind · Sep 30, 2016

Gathomas88 said:
I'm seriously considering not voting in this upcoming election. The Republican candidate leaves much to be desired (to say the least) and the Democratic candidate is the worst in decades (which is saying something). Voting for a third party would be "throwing my vote away," and I don't particularly support Gary Johnson's ideology anyway, so I really fail to see the point in putting out the energy to go in that direction either.

I really don't see much in the way of other recourse here, but to simply abstain.

Don't get me wrong. I live in a pretty heavily Red State to begin with, so I doubt it'll make that much of a difference. However, it would feel like doing to something to protest what's happening right now, which is better than nothing.

We'll just have to wait and see whether I change my mind before the actual election arrives.

Anyone else feel the same way?

How about the poll questions like:

1) I will vote, but not for the nominee in my party.

2) I will not vote for any nominee. I find them all disgusting!

FieldTheorist · Sep 30, 2016

Gathomas88 said:
I'm seriously considering not voting in this upcoming election. The Republican candidate leaves much to be desired (to say the least) and the Democratic candidate is the worst in decades (which is saying something). Voting for a third party would be "throwing my vote away," and I don't particularly support Gary Johnson's ideology anyway, so I really fail to see the point in putting out the energy to go in that direction either.

I really don't see much in the way of other recourse here, but to simply abstain.

Don't get me wrong. I live in a pretty heavily Red State to begin with, so I doubt it'll make that much of a difference. However, it would feel like doing to something to protest what's happening right now, which is better than nothing.

We'll just have to wait and see whether I change my mind before the actual election arrives.

Anyone else feel the same way?

I'm voting for Hillary, despite my intense dislike of many of her political views, because the thought of Trump having access to nuclear weapons scares the **** out of me, and because I fought very hard with Bernie and his other supporters to get the DNC platform to include a small number of things that will help working families and people without economic clout.

But yeah, I feel your pain.

BrewerBob said:
Voting third party isn't throwing your vote away because at least you will be counted in the popular vote. Yes, either Trump or Hillary is going to be the next President. But whichever one of them it is I sure as hell don't want them to think they have a "mandate". The smaller percentage of the popular vote they have the more on ice they will feel they are. I want him or her to wake up every morning in the White House knowing that they didn't get the majority of the votes. And voting third party plays a very small, but tangible, role in doing that. If you stay home instead of voting 3rd party that helps the winner's popular vote numbers.

Yeah, I agree. If I were a Republican who hated Trump, I'd probably see if the Reform party or the Libertarian party were on the ballot in my state.

Henrin · Sep 30, 2016

I wouldn't vote even if I liked a candidate, but as it stands there isn't even a third party candidate that I like.

Henrin · Sep 30, 2016

Russell797 said:
Why is there no option for voting enthusiastically for either Clinton or Trump? I will vote enthusiastically for the Democrat and the ideology. I couldn't care less about the particular person or their idiosyncrasies. Voting for or against a person is so shallow a reason.

The ideology of democrats? Exactly what ideology would that be anyway?

Ikari · Sep 30, 2016

Gathomas88 said:
I'm seriously considering not voting in this upcoming election. The Republican candidate leaves much to be desired (to say the least) and the Democratic candidate is the worst in decades (which is saying something). Voting for a third party would be "throwing my vote away," and I don't particularly support Gary Johnson's ideology anyway, so I really fail to see the point in putting out the energy to go in that direction either.

I really don't see much in the way of other recourse here, but to simply abstain.

Don't get me wrong. I live in a pretty heavily Red State to begin with, so I doubt it'll make that much of a difference. However, it would feel like doing to something to protest what's happening right now, which is better than nothing.

We'll just have to wait and see whether I change my mind before the actual election arrives.

Anyone else feel the same way?

Nope. Not voting allows the establishment to win. Voting for the establishment allows the establishment to win. If one is disgusted with the establishment, the only choice is to vote third party.

I will never not vote because not voting is what the Republocrats really want.

Ikari · Sep 30, 2016

Gathomas88 said:
My thoughts exactly. Not voting, if it results in lower voter turn-out, sends a message all by itself.

The message being "don't worry about me, I don't matter"

Seriously, we already have almost half the people not voting....what message has that sent? And it's gone of for quite a few election cycles, have the Republocrats changed? You think the Republocrats care if you don't vote? No. They will keep some amount of people as party supporters, and that's really all the want. The guaranteed vote for them, and anyone that may cause problems should just stay at home.

Staying at home is a great way to tell the government "carry on, I'm not really going to get in your way" .

Cardinal · Sep 30, 2016

Ikari said:
The message being "don't worry about me, I don't matter"

Seriously, we already have almost half the people not voting....what message has that sent? And it's gone of for quite a few election cycles, have the Republocrats changed? You think the Republocrats care if you don't vote? No. They will keep some amount of people as party supporters, and that's really all the want. The guaranteed vote for them, and anyone that may cause problems should just stay at home.

Staying at home is a great way to tell the government "carry on, I'm not really going to get in your way" .

"My participation in the democratic process doesn't matter, and I'll prove it by not voting."

To those people I say, well done.

Moderate Right · Sep 30, 2016

Russell797 said:
Is not the candidate who supports their party affiliation and its ideology what is of paramount importance to you? You should vote for the ideology with which you align yourself most closely. The particular person embodying that ideology is of secondary concern.

And which ideology does Trump represent? Assuming that he represents the Republican side (a very big assumption), which I align myself more closely with, do I really want better SCOTUS appointments and some other conservative ideals while the national debt balloons even more than what Hillary's would, and then we all die from a nuclear WWIII?

Moderate Right · Sep 30, 2016

Cardinal said:
Um....one of those options does not contain "nuclear WWIII and bring on the end of the world." How are you putting "my business shuts down" in one column and "nuclear armageddon" in the other and concluding, "Yep, looks the same to me!"

Well, the thing is, "nuclear armageddon" is not guaranteed under Trump while the loss of my business is pretty much guaranteed under Clinton. That's what makes it about a 50/50 choice. If Trump can keep us away from "nuclear armageddon" then my business will probably thrive under Trump instead of folding under Clinton, as long as Trump stays away from large minimum wage increases.

By the way, the Iran Deal Obama made (assuming that Iran does not violate it) buys us 10 years of a non-nuclear Iran, after which Iran is free to make all the nuclear weapons it wants, which will bring us closer to armageddon as well. Whoever is president at that time will be left holding Obama's bag.

Cardinal · Sep 30, 2016

Moderate Right said:
Well, the thing is, "nuclear armageddon" is not guaranteed under Trump while the loss of my business is pretty much guaranteed under Clinton. That's what makes it about a 50/50 choice. If Trump can keep us away from "nuclear armageddon" then my business will probably thrive under Trump instead of folding under Clinton, as long as Trump stays away from large minimum wage increases.

By the way, the Iran Deal Obama made (assuming that Iran does not violate it) buys us 10 years of a non-nuclear Iran, after which Iran is free to make all the nuclear weapons it wants, which will bring us closer to armageddon as well. Whoever is president at that time will be left holding Obama's bag.

Donald doesn't understand why we can't use nuclear weapons, so I hope you'll excuse me if I place the possibility of nuclear armageddon measurably more in his camp than I do in hers. Also, my own line of work is specifically guaranteed to suffer under Trump, presuming it's able to survive at all. If there isn't global economic security, I don't sell my products. It's pretty much as simple that.

chromium · Sep 30, 2016

radcen said:
I personally find that reprehensible. I believe a person should be allowed to vote for whomever they want. Provided it's a real person who is otherwise eligible to serve. No Mickey Mouse, etc.

Elections are supposed to be held for the people, not the convenience of the state.

In this country, elections exist for the benefit of the politicians. In a way, that's always been the case. It's what the electoral college is for. In 1792, only wealthy white men voted. A lot of blood was spent to expand that "right", but now in recent years, aligned with their corporate interests, the politicians have found new ways to rig elections so that it doesn't matter who can vote, because they hate democracy. It's the one threat to their power. To someone like me with no interest in the names on the ballot, and not in a 'swing state' besides, this may as well be china. So much for 'the grand experiment'

To vote, or not to vote: That is the question

Are you going to vote?

No

I like the selection available, so yes

I dislike the selection available, but I will vote for my party

Unsure

Well-known member

Well-known member

warrior of the wetlands

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

Irremovable Intelligence

Respected On All Sides

Respected On All Sides