IMPORTANT: A message for those who support 3rd party candidates

[Rokkitsci]

It was neutral between the two parties and completely jacked up bias versus any other party.

No it is "not jacked up bias" against a third party.

It is a well-reasoned opinion (which I happen to share) that says in these times of crisis with only TWO possible outcomes, a person should pitch in an either support the side he MOST agrees with, or fight against the side he most OPPOSES.

This is analagous to the alliance between USSR/GB/USA in WWII - just because we HATED most everything the USSR stood for, we hated Germany even more. So we made a decision based on the concept of 'greater good' and decided to pursue our opposition to the USSR AFTER we had defeated the GREATER evil of Nazi Germany.

IF you don't think the nation today is facing an economic crisis, the toss your vote away and happily join the multitude of useful idiots who made this disaster possible in the first place.

Of course in YOUR respect, you have no use for third parties except for the fact that in THIS election they are more detrimental to the Romney campaign because they give additional avenues for people who oppose Obama to dilute their votes. If the situation were reversed (how would you like for Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton to be on the ballot?) you would be crying like a baby they were trying to 'seal the deal' for Romney.

Conservatives are well aware of third party power - Ross Perot gave the first election to Bill Clinton. And it is arguable that Ralph Nader was instrumental in Al Gore's defeat.

Voting third party in a close national election says that you are too hard-headed and narcissistic to vote for the greater good. You would prefer a greater evil to not getting your last desire.

There are really only two situations where a person can be intellectually honest with himself voting for a third party in such a circumstance.
1) - He really really really doesn't see any difference between the two probable candidates (either through stupidity or purposeful lack of ideology)
2) - He lives in a state where the mathematical certainty is that his vote makes no difference at all and so can indulge his inner desire to 'make a statement.'

 

[Maenad]

I cannot, in good conscience, vote for people I do not want in office.

for Romney voters out there... what would you tell me if I implored you to vote for Obama?
Obama voters... what would you tell me if I implored you to vote for Romney?
most likely, you'd all tell me to get bent..

with that in mind.... get bent....I'm not voting for either Romney of Obama.. I already cast for Johnson and i'm happy with my vote.


were in not for a 3rd party, I wouldn't be voting for a President in this election.

Then you may as well stay home.

 

[Maenad]

Actually, I attend a private German school (Auslandsschule). I take it you have only lived in the U.S. and really don't know much about politics outside of it (I don't do much either, other than the particular cases of Germany and Nicaragua). As you said, elections are about getting your part/voice in/heard, thus, we conclude that we ought to vote for the party the agrees the most with our positions.

Well, there you have it. You were aught by people who have no understanding of our election process. Actually, I have traveled the world. And one thing I notice is that people who do not live in this country, pay no taxes here, have no commitment to the US as anything other than an ATM, ALWAYS want a controlling interest in US elections, and they are NOT wanting to vote green! Someone did you a great disservice. They convinced you to throw your vote away. Well, I don't throw my vote away. That vote is too precious and too hard earned!

 

[Maenad]

Yeah....ummm... go suck an egg.

I will vote for the person I believe is best qualified to represent my views and what I think is best for the country and the world.

How dare you try to tell people how to vote, or who not to vote for.

Voting for a person you do not like, or even hate, is by far the worst hypocrisy going. It's a lie, and that's truly a "wasted vote".

This chicken-little shy is falling sh!t people scream about is pathetic and childish.

To suggest one man can destroy a country is just utter nonsense. We have a checks and balances government with three branches.

If this country is doomed for complete failure it won't be because of one man, it will be because of the entire political system.

By voting for Dem or Rep you're voting for the entire system and therefore supporting the very thing which might destroy the country.

So choke on that for a while.

I don't think he is telling you who to vote for. I think he is telling you that there are certain choices that will not win and to vote in that direction is to throw your vote away. He is right. NO ONE who wants Obama out of office will get him out by voting green. A green vote is a vote for no one.

 

[Maenad]

No it is "not jacked up bias" against a third party.

It is a well-reasoned opinion (which I happen to share) that says in these times of crisis with only TWO possible outcomes, a person should pitch in an either support the side he MOST agrees with, or fight against the side he most OPPOSES.

This is analagous to the alliance between USSR/GB/USA in WWII - just because we HATED most everything the USSR stood for, we hated Germany even more. So we made a decision based on the concept of 'greater good' and decided to pursue our opposition to the USSR AFTER we had defeated the GREATER evil of Nazi Germany.

IF you don't think the nation today is facing an economic crisis, the toss your vote away and happily join the multitude of useful idiots who made this disaster possible in the first place.

Of course in YOUR respect, you have no use for third parties except for the fact that in THIS election they are more detrimental to the Romney campaign because they give additional avenues for people who oppose Obama to dilute their votes. If the situation were reversed (how would you like for Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton to be on the ballot?) you would be crying like a baby they were trying to 'seal the deal' for Romney.

Conservatives are well aware of third party power - Ross Perot gave the first election to Bill Clinton. And it is arguable that Ralph Nader was instrumental in Al Gore's defeat.

Voting third party in a close national election says that you are too hard-headed and narcissistic to vote for the greater good. You would prefer a greater evil to not getting your last desire.

There are really only two situations where a person can be intellectually honest with himself voting for a third party in such a circumstance.
1) - He really really really doesn't see any difference between the two probable candidates (either through stupidity or purposeful lack of ideology)
2) - He lives in a state where the mathematical certainty is that his vote makes no difference at all and so can indulge his inner desire to 'make a statement.'

It is even arguable that the third party is there for the sole purpose of splitting the vote and controlling the election that way. In any case, a green vote is a vote for nothing.

 

[zhak]

Thanks Grimm For posting, it IMO was a very good Impartial post. I learned a long time ago, you can lead a Horse to water, but you cain't make it drink, same with elections.
Being only 11 days away from the vote for president , IMO- nothing anybody says or does is going to make a difference, most voters have made their choice.
Being in a swing state, I am concentrating More on working towards getting people to the polls to vote, who are registered, just not sure if they will vote this year or sit it out, for whatever reason, they may have.
I had NO Idea there were so many who register and then do Not follow thru on voting,
your candidate of your choice may receive better results from this than from voters......... voting their third party choice. I pursued this by calling the supervisor of Elections in My county, for info on how to do this.
If Interested, you might see the same results. Thanks again for your opinion.

 

[jamesrage]

Opinion noted not shared. Romney was as or more conservative than any of the other contenders on what really counts-the economy.

His conservatism is a lie he invented so that he might have somewhat a chance of becoming president.

Santorum was a social fascist and economic lefty. Newt is a pimp and its hard to fathom a guy who has had as many wives as he has had being seen as a real social conservative in his actions-why the bible thumpers were even considering him is a puzzle. Perry was a duffs.

Yes the republican party had bunch of candidates during their primaries whose function was to basically take a dive.

 

[Tafeldienst]

Well, there you have it. You were aught by people who have no understanding of our election process. Actually, I have traveled the world. And one thing I notice is that people who do not live in this country, pay no taxes here, have no commitment to the US as anything other than an ATM, ALWAYS want a controlling interest in US elections, and they are NOT wanting to vote green! Someone did you a great disservice. They convinced you to throw your vote away. Well, I don't throw my vote away. That vote is too precious and too hard earned!

I haven't thrown my vote away because I can't vote yet... My family actually pays U.S. taxes because my father works for the U.S. DoS. I do understand the U.S. Electoral System, I've read a lot about it and, to be honest, I don't like the EC. Oh, and, a vote in the U.S. isn't "hard earned"; voting over there is the easiest thing in the world (I know so because of my family's experience and ALL the ways they make it easy for people to vote). Come to a country where you don't get a ID during election cycles, don't appear in your district's voter list or know your ballot will end up in some dumpster after the numbers on the scrutiny act are "made nice" for the government party. You can keep on supporting the broken two party system; you are entitled to that opinion, but don't try to force it on others and criticize them for their opinions.

 

[Maenad]

I haven't thrown my vote away because I can't vote yet... My family actually pays U.S. taxes because my father works for the U.S. DoS. I do understand the U.S. Electoral System, I've read a lot about it and, to be honest, I don't like the EC. Oh, and, a vote in the U.S. isn't "hard earned"; voting over there is the easiest thing in the world (I know so because of my family's experience and ALL the ways they make it easy for people to vote). Come to a country where you don't get a ID during election cycles, don't appear in your district's voter list or know your ballot will end up in some dumpster after the numbers on the scrutiny act are "made nice" for the government party. You can keep on supporting the broken two party system; you are entitled to that opinion, but don't try to force it on others and criticize them for their opinions.

WTF? That's what you just did.

Are you even old enough to vote? It sounds as though you are not. That's it. You're still just 'reading about it.' LOL. Never cast a vote in your life! And you don't even live here. Well here's a flash, the vote WAS hard earned. Many people died for it. Here's a bit of advice: Stay where you are. You wouldn't like it here. You might have to work.

I find it rather troubling that we have people working for the Deparment of State who truly don't believe in the US. What was the job, just a ticket to a socialist country for your family? If so, your father should hang it up! Or better yet, go to Benghazi!

 

[jonny5]

First, it's pains me to say this, but it's the unfortunate reality of politics in America... Barring the winner of the next election dying before being sworn in, the absolute reality is, that on inauguration day this January there are only 2 possible outcomes.. Either Barack Obama will be sworn in for a second term as President of the United States, or Mitt Romney will be sworn in and become America's 45th President. That's it folks... There is nothing anyone can say or do to change that reality... NOTHING.

On election day, I know from experience that there is nothing more righteous, or more honorable, than going to the polls and casting a vote of principal and conscience, for the candidate you truly believe in your heart, is the best and most qualified person to be President of the United States. I admire those who stand by their principals by voting for the person they truly believe in. It's a noble thing to do.

Unfortunately though, for a small but growing segment of Americans that do this in support of a 3rd party candidate, it comes at a cost. In doing so, a person surrenders their influence and effectively has no say in who will lead the country. In reality, it means that their votes truly won't count, and their efforts end up contributing absolutely nothing to the process of electing a president. Understandably, that's a price they are more than willing to pay for standing by their convictions and beliefs, but there's another very important cost that I hope you all will give serious consideration to before you vote... It's what it could cost the country and every single one of us, if the wrong person wins the election.

In a perfect world, a person should always cast their vote for the person they feel is best for the job without exception... But the world, including this country, are far from perfect and given how close we find ourselves to the edge of that ever looming financial cliff that we're currently on, it wouldn't take many steps in the wrong direction for us to go over the edge. I truly believe for the first time in my life, that a real potential exists, that the American economy could collapse due to mistakes, errors in judgment, or incorrect actions possibly taken by our president in the coming 4 years.

Understand, I'm not saying this will happen, nor do I believe it's likely to happen, I just believe that the possibility of the economy tanking due to presidential mis-steps now exists, which for me raises the importance of who we elect. If you believe as I do, that the country is in trouble, and how the economy is handled over the next 4 years is of great importance, I strongly urge you to take part in deciding which candidate would serve the country's best interests, by casting a vote that's capable of effecting the outcome of the coming election.

Even if you can't stand Barack Obama or Mitt Romney and believe that electing either would be a disaster, for the sake of the country, I hope you will hold your nose and cast your vote for the one you believe to be the better choice of the two... Because casting a vote for anyone else, is no different than if you had just stayed home, and this election is far to important to do that.

There's a lot riding on this election, so I really hope that those of you who had planned to vote for a 3rd party candidate, would please reconsider that decision... There's just too much to lose here.

Thanks.

You can have my vote when you earn it.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

First, it's pains me to say this, but it's the unfortunate reality of politics in America... Barring the winner of the next election dying before being sworn in, the absolute reality is, that on inauguration day this January there are only 2 possible outcomes.. Either Barack Obama will be sworn in for a second term as President of the United States, or Mitt Romney will be sworn in and become America's 45th President. That's it folks... There is nothing anyone can say or do to change that reality... NOTHING.

The current situation of america is a direct result of "picking the lesser of two evils" for generations.

No change will ever come while people continue to vote for people that don't represent them. A vote for a third party candidate is not a wasted vote. In terms of this election, yes, but it's not about this election, it's about every election after that. The more votes a third party receives, the more attention they can get from the media next time.

As soon as one of the two main parties starts offering a candidate that isnt just awful, I will give them my vote. Until then I will vote for whom I think america needs, not play "who's going to f*** us less" games. I won't have any of that blood on my hands.

 

[Tafeldienst]

WTF? That's what you just did.

Are you even old enough to vote? It sounds as though you are not. That's it. You're still just 'reading about it.' LOL. Never cast a vote in your life! And you don't even live here. Well here's a flash, the vote WAS hard earned. Many people died for it. Here's a bit of advice: Stay where you are. You wouldn't like it here. You might have to work.

I find it rather troubling that we have people working for the Deparment of State who truly don't believe in the US. What was the job, just a ticket to a socialist country for your family? If so, your father should hang it up! Or better yet, go to Benghazi!

No, that's not what I did. I shared my opinion and what I was taught. YOU started making false statements about someone you don't even know (go figure, it's the internet!). My grandfather fought in WWII, my uncle in the Vietnam War and my father in Desert Storm, so show some respect for those who have served for their country instead of reinstating the good old view the world has of most Americans because of their ignorance and high noses. I've actually voted twice (albeit, in useless elections, I must admit). Even though you are an adult, you act in a childish manner and just spew disrespect around.

 

[johnny_rebson]

I've talked to Libertarians regarding who they will vote for this election.

The one thing they absolutely detest is someone telling them they need to vote for one of the two major party candidates. This really ticks them off.

If you tell them they have to vote for your major party candidate, I can pretty much guarantee that they are going to vote Libertarian on election day. Libertarians do not like being told what to do, especially with their vote.

 

[poweRob]

Well, there you have it. You were aught by people who have no understanding of our election process.

Says the female poster railing on third parties and not having much knowledge on how women got the right to vote.

Women's Right to Vote
Both the Prohibition and Socialist Parties promoted women's suffrage during the late 1800's. By 1916, both Republicans and Democrats supported it and by 1920, the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote had been ratified.​

Third parties, run. Third parties garner support and to try and pull that support their way, the two parties adopt the polices of third parties. So much for your condescending attitude promoting how much more intelligent you are than everyone who doesn't agree with a two party system.

Here's a few other gems showing why third party supporters aren't as irrelevant as you like to assume.

Child Labor Laws
The Socialist Party first advocated laws establishing minimum ages and limiting hours of work for American children in 1904. The Keating-Owen Act established such laws in 1916.

Immigration Restrictions
The Immigration Act of 1924 came about as a result of support by the Populist Party starting as early as the early 1890's.

Reduction of Working Hours
You can thank the Populist and Socialist Parties for the 40-hour work week. Their support for reduced working hours during the 1890's led to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Income Tax
In the 1890's, the Populist and Socialist Parties supported a "progressive" tax system that would base a person's tax liability on their amount of income. The idea led to ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913.

Social Security
The Socialist Party also supported a fund to provide temporary compensation for the unemployed in the late 1920's. The idea led to the creation of laws establishing unemployment insurance and the Social Security Act of 1935.

"Tough on Crime"
In 1968, the American Independent Party and its presidential candidate George Wallace advocated "getting tough on crime." The Republican Party adopted the idea in its platform and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 was the result. (George Wallace won 46 electoral votes in the 1968 election. This was the highest number of electoral votes collected by a third party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt, running for the Progressive Party in 1912, won 88 votes.)​

 

[Maenad]

No, that's not what I did. I shared my opinion and what I was taught. YOU started making false statements about someone you don't even know (go figure, it's the internet!). My grandfather fought in WWII, my uncle in the Vietnam War and my father in Desert Storm, so show some respect for those who have served for their country instead of reinstating the good old view the world has of most Americans because of their ignorance and high noses. I've actually voted twice (albeit, in useless elections, I must admit). Even though you are an adult, you act in a childish manner and just spew disrespect around.

So, that's it you represent the adolescent set. Your family members are admirable for their service to America. You have not served, so you are not admirable.

Let me tell you something about that socialist country you live in. The crown can do away with parliament or whatever body represents the people. It is in their constitution. I've read them all. So I know. You can always renounce your American citizenship and become a citizen of that socialist country. But, hey, you would have to wait two years for the health insurance to kick in, so you need to do it sooner rather than later.

And further, now that you have outed yourself as a kid, (wait, I outed you) I have no use for any further discussion with you.

 

[Maenad]

Says the female poster railing on third parties and not having much knowledge on how women got the right to vote.

Women's Right to Vote
Both the Prohibition and Socialist Parties promoted women's suffrage during the late 1800's. By 1916, both Republicans and Democrats supported it and by 1920, the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote had been ratified.​

Third parties, run. Third parties garner support and to try and pull that support their way, the two parties adopt the polices of third parties. So much for your condescending attitude promoting how much more intelligent you are than everyone who doesn't agree with a two party system.

Here's a few other gems showing why third party supporters aren't as irrelevant as you like to assume.

Child Labor Laws
The Socialist Party first advocated laws establishing minimum ages and limiting hours of work for American children in 1904. The Keating-Owen Act established such laws in 1916.

Immigration Restrictions
The Immigration Act of 1924 came about as a result of support by the Populist Party starting as early as the early 1890's.

Reduction of Working Hours
You can thank the Populist and Socialist Parties for the 40-hour work week. Their support for reduced working hours during the 1890's led to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Income Tax
In the 1890's, the Populist and Socialist Parties supported a "progressive" tax system that would base a person's tax liability on their amount of income. The idea led to ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913.

Social Security
The Socialist Party also supported a fund to provide temporary compensation for the unemployed in the late 1920's. The idea led to the creation of laws establishing unemployment insurance and the Social Security Act of 1935.

"Tough on Crime"
In 1968, the American Independent Party and its presidential candidate George Wallace advocated "getting tough on crime." The Republican Party adopted the idea in its platform and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 was the result. (George Wallace won 46 electoral votes in the 1968 election. This was the highest number of electoral votes collected by a third party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt, running for the Progressive Party in 1912, won 88 votes.)​

I hate to break this to you but green isn't socialist. And you yourself have admitted that changes came through one of the two major parties because green didn't have the clout!

 

[AlbqOwl]

I've talked to Libertarians regarding who they will vote for this election.

The one thing they absolutely detest is someone telling them they need to vote for one of the two major party candidates. This really ticks them off.

If you tell them they have to vote for your major party candidate, I can pretty much guarantee that they are going to vote Libertarian on election day. Libertarians do not like being told what to do, especially with their vote.

But they don't seem to understand that it ticks me off when they tell me I am selling out my libertarian (small "L") principles if I vote for a major party candidate and argue my convictions as to why that is best for America.

 

[Dragonfly]

Then you may as well stay home.

Why such bullsh!t?
We'll never change the system, nor will we ever change the utter crap the two party system has been offering us in terms of candidates by continuing to support them.

If you think Obama and Romney are pathetically weak candidates, you will guarantee more of the same sh!t candidates in the future by supporting them with your votes.

I will not stay home.
I will not waste my vote.
I will not vote for Rep/Dem.
I will not support the people/parties I don't like.
I will make sure my voice is heard.

 

[radcen]

Then you may as well stay home.

Just another way of being shortsighted. Stay home, because you're disapproving of the two choices, only ensures that in the future you will always be stuck with the same two choices.

 

[radcen]

Says the female poster railing on third parties and not having much knowledge on how women got the right to vote.

Women's Right to Vote
Both the Prohibition and Socialist Parties promoted women's suffrage during the late 1800's. By 1916, both Republicans and Democrats supported it and by 1920, the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote had been ratified.​

Third parties, run. Third parties garner support and to try and pull that support their way, the two parties adopt the polices of third parties. So much for your condescending attitude promoting how much more intelligent you are than everyone who doesn't agree with a two party system.

Here's a few other gems showing why third party supporters aren't as irrelevant as you like to assume.

Child Labor Laws
The Socialist Party first advocated laws establishing minimum ages and limiting hours of work for American children in 1904. The Keating-Owen Act established such laws in 1916.

Immigration Restrictions
The Immigration Act of 1924 came about as a result of support by the Populist Party starting as early as the early 1890's.

Reduction of Working Hours
You can thank the Populist and Socialist Parties for the 40-hour work week. Their support for reduced working hours during the 1890's led to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Income Tax
In the 1890's, the Populist and Socialist Parties supported a "progressive" tax system that would base a person's tax liability on their amount of income. The idea led to ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913.

Social Security
The Socialist Party also supported a fund to provide temporary compensation for the unemployed in the late 1920's. The idea led to the creation of laws establishing unemployment insurance and the Social Security Act of 1935.

"Tough on Crime"
In 1968, the American Independent Party and its presidential candidate George Wallace advocated "getting tough on crime." The Republican Party adopted the idea in its platform and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 was the result. (George Wallace won 46 electoral votes in the 1968 election. This was the highest number of electoral votes collected by a third party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt, running for the Progressive Party in 1912, won 88 votes.)​

I watched a show many years ago that addressed this. It was very interesting. Not technically the point of this thread, but it pointed out the influence that 3rd parties do have on politics. There conclusions fit right in with what you say here. 3rd parties can be catalyst for real and meaningful change.

Essentially, historically, most 3rd parties have been 1 or 2 issue parties. They rarely have platforms seriously any deeper than that. As these issue gain momentum and become popular, one or both of the major parties adopts them, and change does indeed happen. Then, once the change happens, the 3rd party that said change was about ceases to have a cohesive purpose, and ends up fading away. On the surface it appears the 3rd party failed, but in reality they did affect change, they just didn't get credit for it.

 

[poweRob]

I watched a show many years ago that addressed this. It was very interesting. Not technically the point of this thread, but it pointed out the influence that 3rd parties do have on politics. There conclusions fit right in with what you say here. 3rd parties can be catalyst for real and meaningful change.

Essentially, historically, most 3rd parties have been 1 or 2 issue parties. They rarely have platforms seriously any deeper than that. As these issue gain momentum and become popular, one or both of the major parties adopts them, and change does indeed happen. Then, once the change happens, the 3rd party that said change was about ceases to have a cohesive purpose, and ends up fading away. On the surface it appears the 3rd party failed, but in reality they did affect change, they just didn't get credit for it.

As a kind of an aside, Nader has been more effective at putting forth legislation outside of government than many inside of government could dream of.

 

[Bobcat]

Why such bullsh!t?
We'll never change the system, nor will we ever change the utter crap the two party system has been offering us in terms of candidates by continuing to support them.

If you think Obama and Romney are pathetically weak candidates, you will guarantee more of the same sh!t candidates in the future by supporting them with your votes.

I will not stay home.
I will not waste my vote.
I will not vote for Rep/Dem.
I will not support the people/parties I don't like.
I will make sure my voice is heard.

then you must face the likely result that by those actions you will be helping reelect obama, that may not be your goal, but that is the likely result . If you are OK with 4 more years of obozo and his cast of clowns, then vote 3rd party.

I know you don't like hearing that, but its the truth. How you deal with it is up to you.

 

[poweRob]

then you must face the likely result that by those actions you will be helping reelect obama, that may not be your goal, but that is the likely result . If you are OK with 4 more years of obozo and his cast of clowns, then vote 3rd party.

I know you don't like hearing that, but its the truth. How you deal with it is up to you.

Nice assumption that if Dragonfly were to in fact vote for a Dem or Repub that he would just automatically vote for Romney. What a wishful delusion to not only demonize third parties but to assume that all 100% of third parties votes would have been for Romney.

I know you don't like hearing that, but its the truth. How you deal with it is up to you.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

I may be way off here, but it seems to me that most people who would consider themselves "third-party" generally fall into the "small government Libertarian" category, or some approximation thereof. Perhaps it's just because of the 1992 Election, but it seems to me that third party candidates are socially liberal fiscal conseratives, and as such end up stealing votes from the Republican candidates by and large.

Does anyone have any numbers to deny this, or confirm it? I haven't done any deep research into this specific aspect, but again, just going off of my gut, it seems like a third-party vote is a vote for a Democrat.

 

[Redress]

Then you may as well stay home.

Bull****. For a third party to be successful in this country they need people to vote for them in enough numbers that people like you with a limited knowledge of history and sociology and psychology think they have an actual chance of winning. It is not the only thing third parties need to be successful, but it is a part. Your ignorant comment telling people who vote their beliefs to stay at home is just that, ignorant.