Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
jmurph wrote: On the other hand, straight ticket voting is probably going to destroy a lot of moderate Republicans as Dems turn out against Trump. Meanwhile, extremists will retain their offices is heavy red areas. Any guess as to what message that will send the party?
Fix the primary system?
That will not fix the real problem, which is the republican party members themselves.
Trump didn't win the nomination through some weird rule in the primary system. He won by getting more votes than any other candidate, by being supported by more republican party members who voted in those primaries.
The GOP needs to look at themselves very hard and figure out how the messages they have been putting out have affected their voter base and whether that is the direction they want their party to go.
Making all primaries open would prevent the extremes of either party from fielding candidates that are not viable in a general election.
jmurph wrote: On the other hand, straight ticket voting is probably going to destroy a lot of moderate Republicans as Dems turn out against Trump. Meanwhile, extremists will retain their offices is heavy red areas. Any guess as to what message that will send the party?
Fix the primary system?
That will not fix the real problem, which is the republican party members themselves.
Trump didn't win the nomination through some weird rule in the primary system. He won by getting more votes than any other candidate, by being supported by more republican party members who voted in those primaries.
The GOP needs to look at themselves very hard and figure out how the messages they have been putting out have affected their voter base and whether that is the direction they want their party to go.
Trump wouldn't have had his success if he didn't have the clown car of 17 candidate, $2 billion of free media attention drowning out the oxygen of the room and an inconsistent primary system that allowed non-party members to vote.
Those are major (not only) factor to Trump's rise.
The GOP party does need an overhaul, but the main grievance against the establishment GOP party is the fact that the GOP voters weren't appreciated.
Why do you think the Tea party occured?
That's a funny argument. 17 candidates hurt everybody but Trump. Why did splitting the base that much not harm Trump? Because a very large proportion of the base supported what he was saying and how he was saying it. Even when it narrowed down to 4 candidates Trump crushed them completely. Media attention on Trump would have done nothing to win him the primary if he weren't saying things that GOP members wanted to hear. And they wanted to hear those things because that is what the GOP has been hinting at and heading towards for years and so people with those views are the people who have been drawn to the GOP.
Of course GOP voters weren't appreciated. They have consistently voted for a party whose own policies will often actively harm their standard of living and are completely detached from factual basis. They chose to vote for a party who, even if they did 100% do what they said, would often harm those who voted for them.
As for the Tea Party, that was the awakening of the angry, white, nationalistic, xenophobic voter base that wants big, idiotic displays like governmental shutdowns over effective governance. It was the emergence into the dawn of the voter base that would later propel Trump to the candidacy. The Tea Party was a warning, but not a warning that you must listen to your base, but rather that your base is not who you think it is.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/25 14:31:21
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
jmurph wrote: On the other hand, straight ticket voting is probably going to destroy a lot of moderate Republicans as Dems turn out against Trump. Meanwhile, extremists will retain their offices is heavy red areas. Any guess as to what message that will send the party?
Fix the primary system?
That will not fix the real problem, which is the republican party members themselves.
Trump didn't win the nomination through some weird rule in the primary system. He won by getting more votes than any other candidate, by being supported by more republican party members who voted in those primaries.
The GOP needs to look at themselves very hard and figure out how the messages they have been putting out have affected their voter base and whether that is the direction they want their party to go.
Making all primaries open would prevent the extremes of either party from fielding candidates that are not viable in a general election.
Incumbent Republican Governor Roemer was so disliked and in-effective, Republicans in the state were looking for "Anyone but Buddy!". Democrat Edwin Edwards, already governor for 3 terms prior to Buddy, was not well liked in the north half of the state (Red half/Blue Half situation). That opened the door for a former KKK Grand Wizard to not only slip into second place, but force the run-off with Edwards. This may have been the perfect storm of craziness, but gak happens, right?
Open Primaries do not always prevent nut jobs from running in a general election.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/25 14:35:27
NinthMusketeer wrote: He isn't helping Trump by voting for him, he has indirectly helped Trump by supporting the Republican attitudes which led to his candidacy. Even if Trump gets 100% of the electoral votes him winning those by 48% sends a very different message than if he wins with 90%. Accordingly voting for/against him (or any candidate) may not change the outcome but does matter. But at this point I am looking past this election and making light of the fact that the Republican outlook created Trump's candidacy (among other issues) and continuing that outlook will rather predictably continue to produce the same results. Whembly isn't going to like those results which is why I draw such amusement from his part in making them happen.
To be fair to Whembly, he has stated he's also voting third party down ballot, as well. So he's not just blindly supporting the Republican party that created the situation that allowed for Trump to happen. So, at least Whembly is walking the walk when it comes to the whole protest vote thing, whereas others are just talk because they're still otherwise good little party members down ballot.
Yeah, but my pushback on Whembs has always been that he's positioned himself as anti-Trump/HRC, which is his prerogative, but he uses that to sit in the cheap seats and take pot shots with the fall back that, "Hey, I don't like______ either!"
Now that in and of itself is fine, as both main stream candidates have more than enough moles to point to. The problem I have with this mindset is that what choice does that leave? Gary Johnson? Dr. Jill Stein? You're fething kidding, right? These are the "attractive" alternatives? I'd rather vote for a rock. It's this false "it's not binary" narrative that I don't buy for a minute. This is a binary POTUS race between two individuals. One is so, just foul, that he's an embarrassment to his own party and the other is a skilled and experienced politician with all the "ewws!" that come with that profession. There's protest voting and then there's wasting a vote that should be used to shut down the rise of an ugliness that threatens our country and way of life. Yes, I believe Trump and his ilk to be that toxic. His comment that he's voting Libertarian in a congressional race is spot on, this is how protest voting should be done and is exactly how third parties will potentially rise, not from burning votes in a high-stakes POTUS election.
That said, I do enjoy tilting with the man!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/25 14:41:30
jmurph wrote: On the other hand, straight ticket voting is probably going to destroy a lot of moderate Republicans as Dems turn out against Trump. Meanwhile, extremists will retain their offices is heavy red areas. Any guess as to what message that will send the party?
Fix the primary system?
That will not fix the real problem, which is the republican party members themselves.
Trump didn't win the nomination through some weird rule in the primary system. He won by getting more votes than any other candidate, by being supported by more republican party members who voted in those primaries.
The GOP needs to look at themselves very hard and figure out how the messages they have been putting out have affected their voter base and whether that is the direction they want their party to go.
Making all primaries open would prevent the extremes of either party from fielding candidates that are not viable in a general election.
Incumbent Republican Governor Roemer was so disliked and in-effective, Republicans in the state were looking for "Anyone but Buddy!". Democrat Edwin Edwards, already governor for 3 terms prior to Buddy, was not well liked in the north half of the state (Red half/Blue Half situation). That opened the door for a former KKK Grand Wizard to not only slip into second place, but force the run-off with Edwards. This may have been the perfect storm of craziness, but gak happens, right?
Open Primaries do not always prevent nut jobs from running in a general election.
As for the Tea Party, that was the awakening of the angry, white, nationalistic, xenophobic voter base that wants big, idiotic displays like governmental shutdowns over effective governance. It was the emergence into the dawn of the voter base that would later propel Trump to the candidacy. The Tea Party was a warning, but not a warning that you must listen to your base, but rather that your base is not who you think it is.
Eh, the Tea Party was very much the inevitable result of the far right talking heads on radio and tv that trained their listeners to hate all the Dems, to believe that any compromise is actually surrender, and that Chris Christie is a traitor to the party for being seen in the same state as Obama after the hurricane hit.
BigWaaagh wrote: The problem I have with this mindset is that what choice does that leave? Gary Johnson? Dr. Jill Stein? You're fething kidding, right? These are the "attractive" alternatives?
Hey, man, don't go and forget Joe Exotic!
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
As for the Tea Party, that was the awakening of the angry, white, nationalistic, xenophobic voter base that wants big, idiotic displays like governmental shutdowns over effective governance. It was the emergence into the dawn of the voter base that would later propel Trump to the candidacy. The Tea Party was a warning, but not a warning that you must listen to your base, but rather that your base is not who you think it is.
Eh, the Tea Party was very much the inevitable result of the far right talking heads on radio and tv that trained their listeners to hate all the Dems, to believe that any compromise is actually surrender, and that Chris Christie is a traitor to the party for being seen in the same state as Obama after the hurricane hit.
BigWaaagh wrote: The problem I have with this mindset is that what choice does that leave? Gary Johnson? Dr. Jill Stein? You're fething kidding, right? These are the "attractive" alternatives?
Hey, man, don't go and forget Joe Exotic!
I love me some mullet!!!!
The Tea Party, btw, arose under GWB's term. It was a conservative push back to Bush's abandonment of conservative principles with his expansion of the government and lack of fiscal discipline.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/25 14:49:54
Howard A Treesong wrote: Astonishing how people are talking about the next president being 'most unpopular ever' already given last but one was George Bush!
Things seems to fall apart in the establishment parties, The Republican party elite has totally lost control of their base and their brethren in the Democratic party is finding it harder to control their base too, interesting times ahead.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/25 14:51:57
Howard A Treesong wrote: Astonishing how people are talking about the next president being 'most unpopular ever' already given last but one was George Bush!
Things seems to fall apart in the establishment parties, The Republican party elite has totally lost control of their base and their brethren in the Democratic party is finding it harder to control their base too, interesting times ahead.
that's true for the republicans, but for the democrats, they'll always rally around their candidate to keep the republicans out. the democrats might not like their girl, but she's still left and more progressive than anyone the right has and won't threaten or try to undue 100 years of social progress.
NinthMusketeer wrote: He isn't helping Trump by voting for him, he has indirectly helped Trump by supporting the Republican attitudes which led to his candidacy. Even if Trump gets 100% of the electoral votes him winning those by 48% sends a very different message than if he wins with 90%. Accordingly voting for/against him (or any candidate) may not change the outcome but does matter. But at this point I am looking past this election and making light of the fact that the Republican outlook created Trump's candidacy (among other issues) and continuing that outlook will rather predictably continue to produce the same results. Whembly isn't going to like those results which is why I draw such amusement from his part in making them happen.
To be fair to Whembly, he has stated he's also voting third party down ballot, as well. So he's not just blindly supporting the Republican party that created the situation that allowed for Trump to happen. So, at least Whembly is walking the walk when it comes to the whole protest vote thing, whereas others are just talk because they're still otherwise good little party members down ballot.
Yeah, but my pushback on Whembs has always been that he's positioned himself as anti-Trump/HRC, which is his prerogative, but he uses that to sit in the cheap seats and take pot shots with the fall back that, "Hey, I don't like______ either!"
So... I can't point out how bad both Clinton and Trump? I must choose one or the other?
Now that in and of itself is fine, as both main stream candidates have more than enough moles to point to. The problem I have with this mindset is that what choice does that leave? Gary Johnson? Dr. Jill Stein? You're fething kidding, right? These are the "attractive" alternatives?
"attractive"?? Who's arguing for that?
I've explained my #NeverTrumpClinton positions... PM if you don't want to go back in earlier posts. Suffice to say, my vote for #TeamJohnson is more about this hope to raise a 3rd party option than voting forJohnson.
I'd rather vote for a rock.
That's your prerogative...
It's this false "it's not binary" narrative that I don't buy for a minute. This is a binary POTUS race between two individuals. One is so, just foul, that he's an embarrassment to his own party and the other is a skilled and experienced politician with all the "ewws!" that come with that profession. There's protest voting and then there's wasting a vote that should be used to shut down the rise of an ugliness that threatens our country and way of life. Yes, I believe Trump and his ilk to be that toxic. His comment that he's voting Libertarian in a congressional race is spot on, this is how protest voting should be done and is exactly how third parties will potentially rise, not from burning votes in a high-stakes POTUS election. That said, I do enjoy tilting with the man!
You have the right to vote however you want... but I must reject vehemently that voting #NotTrumpClinton is somehow "wasting a vote". Ouze said it better in his previous posts, voting for whomever is never a wasted vote.
The Tea Party, btw, arose under GWB's term. It was a conservative push back to Bush's abandonment of conservative principles with his expansion of the government and lack of fiscal discipline.
Uh... you're kidding... right?
The Tea Party arose AFTERthe 2008 election....
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/25 15:20:07
Howard A Treesong wrote: Astonishing how people are talking about the next president being 'most unpopular ever' already given last but one was George Bush!
And it's just plain wrong. I mean she's at 43% favorable. She's by no means popular, but it's not like 90% of America hates her. And I can almost garuntee that it her rating will shoot up after the election. It was the same thing while she was a senator, unpopular during elections, popular all other times. She was popular (high 60s) during her SoS time as well.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
NinthMusketeer wrote: He isn't helping Trump by voting for him, he has indirectly helped Trump by supporting the Republican attitudes which led to his candidacy. Even if Trump gets 100% of the electoral votes him winning those by 48% sends a very different message than if he wins with 90%. Accordingly voting for/against him (or any candidate) may not change the outcome but does matter. But at this point I am looking past this election and making light of the fact that the Republican outlook created Trump's candidacy (among other issues) and continuing that outlook will rather predictably continue to produce the same results. Whembly isn't going to like those results which is why I draw such amusement from his part in making them happen.
To be fair to Whembly, he has stated he's also voting third party down ballot, as well. So he's not just blindly supporting the Republican party that created the situation that allowed for Trump to happen. So, at least Whembly is walking the walk when it comes to the whole protest vote thing, whereas others are just talk because they're still otherwise good little party members down ballot.
Yeah, but my pushback on Whembs has always been that he's positioned himself as anti-Trump/HRC, which is his prerogative, but he uses that to sit in the cheap seats and take pot shots with the fall back that, "Hey, I don't like______ either!"
So... I can't point out how bad both Clinton and Trump? I must choose one or the other?
Now that in and of itself is fine, as both main stream candidates have more than enough moles to point to. The problem I have with this mindset is that what choice does that leave? Gary Johnson? Dr. Jill Stein? You're fething kidding, right? These are the "attractive" alternatives?
"attractive"?? Who's arguing for that?
I've explained my #NeverTrumpClinton positions... PM if you don't want to go back in earlier posts. Suffice to say, my vote for #TeamJohnson is more about this hope to raise a 3rd party option than voting forJohnson.
I'd rather vote for a rock.
That's your prerogative...
It's this false "it's not binary" narrative that I don't buy for a minute. This is a binary POTUS race between two individuals. One is so, just foul, that he's an embarrassment to his own party and the other is a skilled and experienced politician with all the "ewws!" that come with that profession. There's protest voting and then there's wasting a vote that should be used to shut down the rise of an ugliness that threatens our country and way of life. Yes, I believe Trump and his ilk to be that toxic. His comment that he's voting Libertarian in a congressional race is spot on, this is how protest voting should be done and is exactly how third parties will potentially rise, not from burning votes in a high-stakes POTUS election.
That said, I do enjoy tilting with the man!
You have the right to vote however you want... but I must reject vehemently that voting #NotTrumpClinton is somehow "wasting a vote". Ouze said it better in his previous posts, voting for whomever is never a wasted vote.
The Tea Party, btw, arose under GWB's term. It was a conservative push back to Bush's abandonment of conservative principles with his expansion of the government and lack of fiscal discipline.
Uh... you're kidding... right?
The Tea Party arose AFTERthe 2008 election....
As far as arguing for third party options to be attractive, if you're against X and Y, then it must be because option Z is simply better or more "attractive". Otherwise, if that's not the case...as is obvious in this situation...quit kidding yourself with there being benefit to wasting a vote when no third option exists, suck it up and pick the dog you see with the least fleas. Vote Libertarian where it matters, don't waste a vote letting Trump into the White House. If you take away a-l-l the "he did, she did" crap and just look at the candidates and what they propose doing, the actual governing thing, there's no choice and the lie of false equivalency becomes a non-starter.
No, not kidding. While true that it, TP, gained prominence after Obama became POTUS, the origins of the Tea Party movement emerged from the "ashes" of Ron Paul's 2008 presidential primary campaign. Ron Paul himself has stated that its origin was on December 16, 2007, when supporters held a 24-hour record breaking, "moneybomb" fundraising event on the Boston Tea Party's 234th anniversary, but that others, including Republicans, took over and changed some of the movement's core beliefs.
I've always said, the Tea Party's epitaph is going to be: "We had a great idea and we let the loons feth it up."
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/25 17:52:39
NinthMusketeer wrote: He isn't helping Trump by voting for him, he has indirectly helped Trump by supporting the Republican attitudes which led to his candidacy. Even if Trump gets 100% of the electoral votes him winning those by 48% sends a very different message than if he wins with 90%. Accordingly voting for/against him (or any candidate) may not change the outcome but does matter. But at this point I am looking past this election and making light of the fact that the Republican outlook created Trump's candidacy (among other issues) and continuing that outlook will rather predictably continue to produce the same results. Whembly isn't going to like those results which is why I draw such amusement from his part in making them happen.
To be fair to Whembly, he has stated he's also voting third party down ballot, as well. So he's not just blindly supporting the Republican party that created the situation that allowed for Trump to happen. So, at least Whembly is walking the walk when it comes to the whole protest vote thing, whereas others are just talk because they're still otherwise good little party members down ballot.
Yeah, but my pushback on Whembs has always been that he's positioned himself as anti-Trump/HRC, which is his prerogative, but he uses that to sit in the cheap seats and take pot shots with the fall back that, "Hey, I don't like______ either!"
So... I can't point out how bad both Clinton and Trump? I must choose one or the other?
Now that in and of itself is fine, as both main stream candidates have more than enough moles to point to. The problem I have with this mindset is that what choice does that leave? Gary Johnson? Dr. Jill Stein? You're fething kidding, right? These are the "attractive" alternatives?
"attractive"?? Who's arguing for that?
I've explained my #NeverTrumpClinton positions... PM if you don't want to go back in earlier posts. Suffice to say, my vote for #TeamJohnson is more about this hope to raise a 3rd party option than voting forJohnson.
I'd rather vote for a rock.
That's your prerogative...
It's this false "it's not binary" narrative that I don't buy for a minute. This is a binary POTUS race between two individuals. One is so, just foul, that he's an embarrassment to his own party and the other is a skilled and experienced politician with all the "ewws!" that come with that profession. There's protest voting and then there's wasting a vote that should be used to shut down the rise of an ugliness that threatens our country and way of life. Yes, I believe Trump and his ilk to be that toxic. His comment that he's voting Libertarian in a congressional race is spot on, this is how protest voting should be done and is exactly how third parties will potentially rise, not from burning votes in a high-stakes POTUS election.
That said, I do enjoy tilting with the man!
You have the right to vote however you want... but I must reject vehemently that voting #NotTrumpClinton is somehow "wasting a vote". Ouze said it better in his previous posts, voting for whomever is never a wasted vote.
The Tea Party, btw, arose under GWB's term. It was a conservative push back to Bush's abandonment of conservative principles with his expansion of the government and lack of fiscal discipline.
Uh... you're kidding... right?
The Tea Party arose AFTERthe 2008 election....
As far as arguing for third party options to be attractive, if you're against X and Y, then it must be because option Z is simply better or more "attractive". Otherwise, if that's not the case...as is obvious in this situation...quit kidding yourself with there being benefit to wasting a vote when no third option exists, suck it up and pick the dog you see with the least fleas. Vote Libertarian where it matters, don't waste a vote letting Trump into the White House. If you take away a-l-l the "he did, she did" crap and just look at the candidates and what they propose doing, the actual governing thing, there's no choice and the lie of false equivalency becomes a non-starter.
This been beaten ad nauseam here... so, let's agree to disagree. Cool?
No, not kidding. While true that it, TP, gained prominence after Obama became POTUS, the origins of the Tea Party movement emerged from the "ashes" of Ron Paul's 2008 presidential primary campaign. Ron Paul himself has stated that its origin was on December 16, 2007, when supporters held a 24-hour record breaking, "moneybomb" fundraising event on the Boston Tea Party's 234th anniversary, but that others, including Republicans, took over and changed some of the movement's core beliefs.
Naw... the movement as we understand it now started in 2009, which looks nothing like the disparate groups that you're referencing.
NinthMusketeer wrote: He isn't helping Trump by voting for him, he has indirectly helped Trump by supporting the Republican attitudes which led to his candidacy. Even if Trump gets 100% of the electoral votes him winning those by 48% sends a very different message than if he wins with 90%. Accordingly voting for/against him (or any candidate) may not change the outcome but does matter. But at this point I am looking past this election and making light of the fact that the Republican outlook created Trump's candidacy (among other issues) and continuing that outlook will rather predictably continue to produce the same results. Whembly isn't going to like those results which is why I draw such amusement from his part in making them happen.
To be fair to Whembly, he has stated he's also voting third party down ballot, as well. So he's not just blindly supporting the Republican party that created the situation that allowed for Trump to happen. So, at least Whembly is walking the walk when it comes to the whole protest vote thing, whereas others are just talk because they're still otherwise good little party members down ballot.
Yeah, but my pushback on Whembs has always been that he's positioned himself as anti-Trump/HRC, which is his prerogative, but he uses that to sit in the cheap seats and take pot shots with the fall back that, "Hey, I don't like______ either!"
So... I can't point out how bad both Clinton and Trump? I must choose one or the other?
Now that in and of itself is fine, as both main stream candidates have more than enough moles to point to. The problem I have with this mindset is that what choice does that leave? Gary Johnson? Dr. Jill Stein? You're fething kidding, right? These are the "attractive" alternatives?
"attractive"?? Who's arguing for that?
I've explained my #NeverTrumpClinton positions... PM if you don't want to go back in earlier posts. Suffice to say, my vote for #TeamJohnson is more about this hope to raise a 3rd party option than voting forJohnson.
I'd rather vote for a rock.
That's your prerogative...
It's this false "it's not binary" narrative that I don't buy for a minute. This is a binary POTUS race between two individuals. One is so, just foul, that he's an embarrassment to his own party and the other is a skilled and experienced politician with all the "ewws!" that come with that profession. There's protest voting and then there's wasting a vote that should be used to shut down the rise of an ugliness that threatens our country and way of life. Yes, I believe Trump and his ilk to be that toxic. His comment that he's voting Libertarian in a congressional race is spot on, this is how protest voting should be done and is exactly how third parties will potentially rise, not from burning votes in a high-stakes POTUS election.
That said, I do enjoy tilting with the man!
You have the right to vote however you want... but I must reject vehemently that voting #NotTrumpClinton is somehow "wasting a vote". Ouze said it better in his previous posts, voting for whomever is never a wasted vote.
The Tea Party, btw, arose under GWB's term. It was a conservative push back to Bush's abandonment of conservative principles with his expansion of the government and lack of fiscal discipline.
Uh... you're kidding... right?
The Tea Party arose AFTERthe 2008 election....
As far as arguing for third party options to be attractive, if you're against X and Y, then it must be because option Z is simply better or more "attractive". Otherwise, if that's not the case...as is obvious in this situation...quit kidding yourself with there being benefit to wasting a vote when no third option exists, suck it up and pick the dog you see with the least fleas. Vote Libertarian where it matters, don't waste a vote letting Trump into the White House. If you take away a-l-l the "he did, she did" crap and just look at the candidates and what they propose doing, the actual governing thing, there's no choice and the lie of false equivalency becomes a non-starter.
This been beaten ad nauseam here... so, let's agree to disagree. Cool?
No, not kidding. While true that it, TP, gained prominence after Obama became POTUS, the origins of the Tea Party movement emerged from the "ashes" of Ron Paul's 2008 presidential primary campaign. Ron Paul himself has stated that its origin was on December 16, 2007, when supporters held a 24-hour record breaking, "moneybomb" fundraising event on the Boston Tea Party's 234th anniversary, but that others, including Republicans, took over and changed some of the movement's core beliefs.
Naw... the movement as we understand it now started in 2009, which looks nothing like the disparate groups that you're referencing.
It's real prominence started when the national rallies started in 2009 that made it difficult for the media to ignore.
Cool. I'd still like to change your mind on your vote, but I, too, feel like I'm typing the same arguments over and over again. If Trump wins, and that is still very, very possible, just remember your comments and wear it.
With regards to the Tea Party, it's increased prominence and profile of the movement is not being debated. The origin is. In addition to my previous statement on said topic, the origin of the movement can be seen in the beginning of Dubya's second term. Internal GOP protests from conservative corners of the party about the deficit and the rise in the National Debt, Bush's support for liberalized immigration policies and his multicultural vision of the GOP which dated back to his days in Texas. Splintering of the party started long before Obama stepped into the Oval Office. The tinder box moment was after the 2008 economic collapse and Bush's signing of TARP and the bank bailout.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/10/25 19:19:00
Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff privately told colleagues that President Barack Obama had falsely claimed he was unaware of Clinton’s use of a private email system while she was secretary of state, hacked emails reveal.
“We need to clean this up,” top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills told campaign chairman John Podesta in an email a month before Clinton’s campaign officially launched. She was responding to Obama’s claim that he found out about Clinton’s personal email address at “the same time everybody else learned it through news reports.”
“He has emails from her – they do not say state.gov,” Mills told Podesta.
The email came less than a week after the New York Times broke the story on Clinton’s use of a private email address to conduct official State Department business.
...
I thought this wasn't a big dealio... why freak out?
whembly wrote: This been beaten ad nauseam here... so, let's agree to disagree. Cool?
"1+1=3"
"No, 1+1=2"
"I SAY 3!"
"1+1=2, this is indisputable fact"
"LETS JUST AGREE TO DISAGREE"
Leaving it at "agree to disagree" grants your position legitimacy that it doesn't deserve. Voting third party is wasting your vote and showing a serious lack of understanding of how the US system works, and arguing that "both are equally bad" is just plain wrong. If you want to stop defending your bad arguments then that's fine, but we have no obligation to stop criticizing them.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
whembly wrote: This been beaten ad nauseam here... so, let's agree to disagree. Cool?
"1+1=3" "No, 1+1=2" "I SAY 3!" "1+1=2, this is indisputable fact" "LETS JUST AGREE TO DISAGREE"
Leaving it at "agree to disagree" grants your position legitimacy that it doesn't deserve. Voting third party is wasting your vote and showing a serious lack of understanding of how the US system works, and arguing that "both are equally bad" is just plain wrong. If you want to stop defending your bad arguments then that's fine, but we have no obligation to stop criticizing them.
I've justified my positions.
I can vote for a candidate simply by which sport teams they root for...
You're welcome to think they're wrong.
But, please drop the pretense that there's only one right answer and anything else deserves scorn and mockery.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/25 19:12:20
Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff privately told colleagues that President Barack Obama had falsely claimed he was unaware of Clinton’s use of a private email system while she was secretary of state, hacked emails reveal.
“We need to clean this up,” top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills told campaign chairman John Podesta in an email a month before Clinton’s campaign officially launched. She was responding to Obama’s claim that he found out about Clinton’s personal email address at “the same time everybody else learned it through news reports.”
“He has emails from her – they do not say state.gov,” Mills told Podesta.
The email came less than a week after the New York Times broke the story on Clinton’s use of a private email address to conduct official State Department business.
...
I thought this wasn't a big dealio... why freak out?
Gangsta Governance™ is coming ya'll.
I'm a federal employee. When I send and receive emails to anyone within our Outlook address book (which is not just our agency, but all of the agencies in our department), I don't see email addresses, just the names (to actually see the address, I would have to open their profile and check the technical information). So Obama had emails from her, but what was actually in the "from" field? I can't look this up myself, sorry. As a federal employee, wikileaks is off limits to me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/25 19:22:12
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff privately told colleagues that President Barack Obama had falsely claimed he was unaware of Clinton’s use of a private email system while she was secretary of state, hacked emails reveal.
“We need to clean this up,” top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills told campaign chairman John Podesta in an email a month before Clinton’s campaign officially launched. She was responding to Obama’s claim that he found out about Clinton’s personal email address at “the same time everybody else learned it through news reports.”
“He has emails from her – they do not say state.gov,” Mills told Podesta.
The email came less than a week after the New York Times broke the story on Clinton’s use of a private email address to conduct official State Department business.
...
I thought this wasn't a big dealio... why freak out?
Gangsta Governance™ is coming ya'll.
I'm a federal employee. When I send and receive emails to anyone within our Outlook address book (which is not just our agency, but all of the agencies in our department), I don't see email addresses, just the names (to actually see the address, I would have to open their profile and check the technical information). So Obama had emails from her, but what was actually in the "from" field? I can't look this up myself, sorry. As a federal employee, wikileaks is off limits to me.
It's how alias works in outlook. (really, in most email software).
I don't care whether Obama knew or understood the alias.
Someone had to change Clinton's alias when she had to change email accounts during her tenure of SoS (yes, she had a few), so it's possible that Obama himself was none the wiser.
My point, was Cheryl Mill's "oh gak" moment in that email string.
I'm willing to bet that the only person in America stupid enough to believe these actions constitute as "no intent" is apparently James Comey.
whembly wrote: But, please drop the pretense that there's only one right answer and anything else deserves scorn and mockery.
There is no pretense because there is only one right answer. Either Trump or Clinton will win the election, period. Your choice of vote is whether to vote in a way that makes it more or less likely that Trump (a clearly unqualified candidate, awful person, and worst choice) wins the election. Voting for a third-party candidate that has no hope of winning makes it more likely that Trump will win than voting for Clinton. By voluntarily increasing Trump's chances of winning you are stating through your actions, regardless of what words you say, that you are ok with Trump being president.
And yes, you have a legal right to vote for a candidate based on their favorite sports teams. If you do so we will criticize you for it, because it's a really stupid thing to do.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/25 19:29:50
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Speaking of sports teams, I'm off to the 'burbs to meet with some friends at Harry Caray's Steakhouse for some fine nosh, some fine beverages and to watch the Cubs in the World Series!!!!!! Peace out until tomorrow!
GO CUBS!!!!!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/25 19:32:46
whembly wrote: But, please drop the pretense that there's only one right answer and anything else deserves scorn and mockery.
There is no pretense because there is only one right answer. Either Trump or Clinton will win the election, period. Your choice of vote is whether to vote in a way that makes it more or less likely that Trump (a clearly unqualified candidate, awful person, and worst choice) wins the election. Voting for a third-party candidate that has no hope of winning makes it more likely that Trump will win than voting for Clinton. By voluntarily increasing Trump's chances of winning you are stating through your actions, regardless of what words you say, that you are ok with Trump being president.
And yes, you have a legal right to vote for a candidate based on their favorite sports teams. If you do so we will criticize you for it, because it's a really stupid thing to do.
... I hope it's okay with d-usa, because his response to another poster nailed it:
And I know I have stressed this before, but the voting system in the US is very different and whembly is not actually voting for president. He's just voting to decide who the 10 electors representing Missouri are going to vote for. And whoever wins the state, that person will get all 10 votes regardless of how many people actually vote for them. If Trump wins with 48% or with 98%, he will get all 10 votes for Missouri. And Trump WILL win Missouri, that's not even a question. So honestly it doesn't matter one bit who whembly votes for. If he votes for Trump it won't affect the outcome, and it doesn't matter if he votes for Hillary, if he votes for Johnson, if he votes for Stein, or if he spends the entire day in the bathroom sick and throwing up because he knows Trump or Hillary will be president.
There are a handful of states where your vote matters when it comes to electing the next POTUS, for the vast majority of us our votes don't make an impact. So whembly voting for Johnson honestly isn't any more or less #NeverTrump than any other alternaive. But he's not voting #ForTrump (at least that we know off).
Relapse wrote: This is kind of cool. Talking about the power of the "wasted" vote. This strikes a chord with me because I like neither Trump or Clinton.
Relapse wrote: This is kind of cool. Talking about the power of the "wasted" vote. This strikes a chord with me because I like neither Trump or Clinton.
I hope lots of liberals take this article to heart. I really do.
There is only one reality in Presidential elections. Either the Democratic candidate will win and become the next President or the Republican candidate will. You can either actively participate by voting for one or the other or you can passively participate by supporting a kingmaker.
Case in point: In Florida, Al Gore lost to George Bush by 537 votes. This gave George Bush enough Electors to win the Presidency. Ralph Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida as a 3rd party candidate. It's safe to assume that none of those people would have voted for George Bush. Because at least 538 those Nader voters chose not to vote for FOR Al Gore, they passively threw the election to George Bush. You can allocate blame among the other 3rd party candidates but they'd mostly cancel out leaving Nader to syphon off the most votes.
Today the reality is either Hillary Clinton will become our next President or Donald Trump will. Enough people "voting their conscience" in a swing State will throw the election to one or the other so why pretend otherwise? Put on your big boy pants then pick your poison and be done with it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/25 20:42:29
Relapse wrote: This is kind of cool. Talking about the power of the "wasted" vote. This strikes a chord with me because I like neither Trump or Clinton.
I hope lots of liberals take this article to heart. I really do.
There is only one reality in Presidential elections. Either the Democratic candidate will win and become the next President or the Republican candidate will. You can either actively participate by voting for one or the other or you can passively participate by supporting a kingmaker.
Case in point: In Florida, Al Gore lost to George Bush by 537 votes. This gave George Bush enough Electors to win the Presidency. Ralph Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida as a 3rd party candidate. It's safe to assume that none of those people would have voted for George Bush. Because at least 538 those Nader voters chose not to vote for FOR Al Gore, they passively threw the election to George Bush. You can allocate blame among the other 3rd party candidates but they'd mostly cancel out leaving Nader to syphon off the most votes.
Today the reality is either Hillary Clinton will become our next President or Donald Trump will. Enough people "voting their conscience" in a swing State will throw the election to one or the other so why pretend otherwise? Put on your big boy pants then pick your poison and be done with it.
That is completely false,
And as Utah has shown us, by voting 3rd party, we can actually elect one a 3rd party into office.
Evan McMullin could actually win the presidency because people like you can't see past the two party dictatorship. Sure it's a small shot, but voting for the best person for the job will get that person elected. Denying the big 2 their 270 electoral votes should remind them who they really work for and show how out of touch they really are.
But how would it be fair or even anything remotely approaching democracy for McMullin to become president by winning a single state? Not even a single state more than his opponent, or winning a single state but with more total popular votes than the other candidates but a single state.
If that were to happen, then your system is a lot more broken than being a two party system.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/25 21:11:40
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
I'd still like to change your mind on your vote, but I, too, feel like I'm typing the same arguments over and over again. If Trump wins, and that is still very, very possible, just remember your comments and wear it.
