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.
The USA and the UK really are two countries separated by a common language.
In all honesty, it seems like a really common sense thing, and it surprises me that the USA does not have it.m
Anyway, there you go.
To me, not being able to vote against your party for specific things seems like not common sense.
Apologies for not making my original post clear, but I have no problems with parties working together in Congress or Parliament for the national good, it's when it comes to national or local elections, then you shouldn't be voting for the GOP if you're a D and vice versa. Otherwise, what was the point of joining a party in the first place if you're going to vote for the other party?
If you're a GOP member and don't like Trump, then don't vote on Tuesday, abstain - that's what I would do....
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Here something... a focus group by Frank Luntz on 60 minutes last weekend:
Focus group reflects nation's dark mood ahead of Election Day
In two days, American voters will send a president to the White House, but both the leading candidates have the highest disapproval ratings in U.S. history.
The following script is from “The National Mood,” which aired on Nov. 6, 2016. Steve Kroft is the correspondent. L. Franklin Devine, Maria Gavrilovic, Michael Karzis and Graham Messick, producers.
Spoiler:
In two days, Americans will go to the polls and hopefully bring down the curtain on a contentious presidential campaign that’s been going on now for a year-and-a-half. It is no secret that most Americans are angry and disappointed with the process and the choices that they have been offered. That was confirmed last week in a CBS News/New York Times poll that found 82 percent of likely voters more disgusted than excited about the election.
We asked Republican pollster, public opinion analyst and CBS News consultant Frank Luntz if he could put faces and voices to this dark national mood by scientifically selecting a focus group that would reflect those polling results. And he did.
Some members leaned towards Trump. Some leaned towards Clinton. Some were uncommitted and most of them had an unfavorable opinion of both presidential candidates.
On Thursday night, Frank Luntz began assembling a small group of carefully selected voters. He has spent decades doing market research, sampling public opinion and developing the right phrases and approaches to reshape it. And he has used the raw data from these focus groups to develop strategies for Republican candidates, corporations in crisis and celebrities in need of image makeovers. He is at the top of his field and a familiar face in boardrooms and newsrooms.
Frank Luntz: So let’s do a vote, let’s do a vote, how many of you are voting for your candidate? Raise your hands. Three. How many of you are voting against a candidate? Everybody else.
Luntz has conducted hundreds of these focus groups during the campaign with registered voters all over the country. And everywhere he’s been, he’s heard pretty much the same thing.
Frank Luntz: I want you to describe how you feel about this political process with the election only hours away. I want you to give me a word or phrase.
Male Voice: Not substantive.
Female Voice: Terrified.
Male Voice: Too long.
Female Voice #3: Terrified.
Male Voice #2: It’s rigged.
Male Voice #3: Exasperating.
Female Voice #2: Circus.
Male Voice #2: Disturbed.
Female Voice #3: Horrifying.
Male Voice #3: Disheartened.
Male Voice #3: Annoyed.
Male Voice: Disgusted.
Frank Luntz: This is horrible.
Steve Kroft: Who are these people that we saw?
Frank Luntz: These are 23 people representing all aspects of the political spectrum, all aspects of economic life, all age groups. I was looking for people that could have a legitimate conversation about these presidential campaigns and not just totally smear this candidate or this candidate. And here is my problem.
Steve Kroft: They smeared both candidates?
Frank Luntz: They smeared both candidates. We began with Trump.
Frank Luntz: A word or phrase to describe Donald Trump?
Male Voice: Unworthy.
Female Voice: Immature.
Male Voice: Racist.
Male Voice: There’s no words to describe him.
Female Voice: Nightmare.
Female Voice: The kinda pig that every woman has always had to deal with. That a**hole.
Frank Luntz: And I thought, “Oh my God. I recruited only pro-Hillary or mod-- or-- neutral towards Hillary.” And then we moved to the Clinton conversation, and it was just as bad.
Frank Luntz: Gimme a word or phrase to describe Hillary Clinton?
Male Voice: Corrupt.
Male Voice: Entitled liar.
Male Voice: Train wreck.
Male Voice: Scandalous.
Female Voice: Dishonest.
Steve Kroft: One of the things that struck me is that I knew that there were Republicans, and I knew there were Democrats, and I knew that there were people that-- were undecided. But I really couldn’t tell who was who.
Frank Luntz: Because the Republicans are mad at Trump, and the Democrats are mad at Clinton. And the Bernie Sanders people are mad at everybody. When has that ever happened?
Frank Luntz traces the toxic political atmosphere back to the 2000 presidential election. Al Gore won the popular vote, but after six weeks and a Supreme Court decision -- George W. Bush became president.
Frank Luntz: And in that six weeks, we came from being Democrats and Republicans to being outraged, to believing that the other side is trying to steal the election. And when the election was over, there was no coming together. There was no honeymoon. And from that point on, the goal has been to delegitimize. Not to respect and-- and at least to listen to, but to delegitimize the opposition. And now today in 2016, hours from now, it will be tens of millions of people who will believe that the loser should have won, that the election was rigged, and that the winner is illegitimate.
Frank Luntz: Tell me something positive about this campaign season.
Female Voice: Something positive about this campaign season. Wow. I would say-- dang it.
Frank Luntz: You can’t come up with anything?
Female Voice: It’s hard to say something positive when you have people who are mad as hell. It’s very hard to find positivity when people are pissed.
But Luntz was much less concerned about the negativity than he was about the tenor of the discussion. There was a deep unfocused anger that crossed political, racial and economic boundaries. Something he says is much more dangerous.
Frank Luntz: How did we get to this point where everyone of you with different backgrounds, different politics, different objectives, all of you gave me a negative reaction? How did we get here? One at a time no more talking over each other.
Female Voice: Bernie was cheated out of the election, that’s how.
Male Voice: He was not cheated out of the election.
Female Voice: He was cheated. He was cheated.
Frank Luntz: How did we get here?
Male Voice: It’s our fault. You saw it here, everybody’s arguing. I’m afraid to even bring up a point. I’m not pro-Trump, but I see why people like it. And you know, if I say that, I’m gonna be, you know, ostracized.
Male Voice: My biggest fear is that these candidates aren’t a mistake. That the American people have elected the future of America, what we aspire to be and what we are deep down inside. I think Trump has gotten so much traction at this point because deep down inside there are a lot of Americans that feel the exact same way as him--
Male Voice: Deep down our country is divided, I’m sorry. We are not united. We are at each other’s throats. And I’m sorry. Maybe this is what it is. Maybe these are the candidates that we want.
Frank Luntz: I want to listen to them. I want to ask them questions, and then sit back, and let it all roll over me. And the problem is people become so angry. And they become so vicious.
Steve Kroft: This is new? You’ve been doing this a long time.
Frank Luntz: It’s never been like this. Look, I did this for you 18 years ago. We were talking about the impeachment of a president, and each person spoke their turn. No one talked over each other. Nobody yelled at each other.
Frank Luntz: Today, there’s none of that.
Male Voice: So if they disagree with you, their opinion shouldn’t matter. But you say people who don’t support Donald Trump shouldn’t talk so much.
Frank Luntz: It took two minutes for them to explode. It took five minutes to actually get to the point where I lost control.
Male Voice: And guess what happened with Clinton.
Frank Luntz: Stop, stop, stop.
Steve Kroft: One way to look at this is, OK, people are upset. And they’re just blowing off steam.
Frank Luntz: That was not blowing off steam. That got way too personal. They got way too strong with each other. And this is now my craft. This is what I’ve done for over two decades. That’s not blowing off steam. That is a deep-seated resentment.
Frank Luntz: Is this America? Are you – look around. Are you America? Yes or no?
Voices: Yes.
Male Voice: You know, we don’t-- we don’t know how to listen to each other—
Male Voice: Nobody will listen to any—
Male Voice: Can I say one thing? We don’t know how to listen to each other. You know, we go on Facebook all day and we just blast out messages into the ether. But we don’t actually take time to see what comes back.
Male Voice: Look at how social media is. I mean, there’s so much ugly stuff that we say to each other on social media where we attack each other, you know, we attack each other’s views, we attack each other’s, you know, heritage.
Steve Kroft: What’s happened in American culture? Why is there this lack of civility? Some people talked ab-- a lot of people mentioned social media.
Frank Luntz: It’s-- it is social media. But the first question is: Are you going to edit this? Or are you going to play the words they actually used? There were people in that focus group who used language that if my mom was still alive and I said it, she would literally cut me out of the will. There’s no self-censoring. So we now say exactly what we feel. And, goddamn it, you’re gonna listen to me. And that’s really what it is right now. You’re gonna listen to me. I’m not gonna learn from you. You’re gonna listen to me.
But the panel’s dissatisfaction was not just with social media…it was with all media…which they see as an enabler and part of the electoral process that delivered the two unpopular presidential candidates to their doorstep.
Frank Luntz: They’ve now dismissed all of you for your biases, for your focus on entertainment, for this battle for ratings and profitability rather than information and knowledge. And they simply now collect information to affirm themselves rather than to inform themselves. But when we don’t even agree on the same facts, then how can we possibly agree on the same solutions?
At one point in the focus group, Frank Luntz asked the participants to pick up devices he’d provided in order to track their collective responses to a series of news clips and campaign ads.
Frank Luntz: You’re going to start at zero. The more you want to vote for them, the higher you turn your dial, the less you want to vote for them, the lower you turn your dial. I want you to react second-by-second to every word, every phrase. Is that clear?
An overlay on the screen tracked their instantaneous responses by political affiliation. Republicans in red. Democrats in green. When you see the lines go down, they don’t like what they’re hearing.
Donald Trump: I moved on her like a b**h. But I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony t*ts and everything. She’s totally changed her look.
Billy Bush: Sheesh, your girl’s hot as sh*t. In the purple.
Donald Trump: Whoa! Whoa!
Billy Bush: Yes! The Donald has scored.
Male Voice: Based on those ads, based on those clips, you can’t. I mean, I can’t consciously and morally vote for Trump. I just can’t.
Frank Luntz: How can you?
Male Voice: Because Hillary’s worse. It’s that simple. It’s that simple.
Hillary Clinton: All I can tell you is in retrospect, if I used a government account and I had said, you know let’s release everything. Let’s let everybody in America see what I did for four years – we would have the same arguments. So that’s all I can say.
Interviewer: But did you try to wipe the whole server? You didn’t even answer the question.
Hillary Clinton: I – I mean – I don’t – I mean I have no idea. That’s why we turned it over –
Interviewer: You said you were in charge of it. You were the official in charge of it. Did you wipe the server?
Hillary Clinton: What, like with a cloth or something? No.
Frank Luntz: That was one of the lowest dialed moments that I have done in this entire campaign. Why was that so bad?
Female Voice: She was laughing. She-- she was, like, making fun of it. She thought it was like a joke. She didn’t take it seriously.
Frank Luntz: I feel like I’m a child of a divorce. These two candidates, the way they fight, the way they yell at each other, the way they make it personal, it’s like having your parents get divorced, and you don’t want to live with either of them. And the judge sits there and says, “Pick one or the other.” And you say, “How about the jury? Can I-- can I go there?” It’s awful.
But Luntz worries that voter disillusionment runs much deeper than Trump and Clinton.
Frank Luntz: How many of you would say that you’re mad as hell. Raise your hands. It’s just about everybody here. So what are you mad at?
Male Voice: I’m mad at the corruption, the money in politics, how they appease these big investors, it’s just—
Frank Luntz: What are you mad at?
Male Voice #2: Taxes. We’re paying through the nose.
Female Voice: We’re spending money in the wrong places. We should cut funding to the military and spend it on social programs.
Frank Luntz: What are you mad at?
Male voice: We’re not taking care of our own. Veterans, people going hungry and we’re all a nation of immigrants, but people are just walking in and getting social services, not contributing to the tax base.
Female Voice #3: They do pay taxes.
Male Voice #2: It’s an abomination.
Steve Kroft: You think they feel betrayed. By whom?
Frank Luntz: They were betrayed by politicians who didn’t keep their promises. They were betrayed by CEOs who left them behind, who shipped jobs overseas, didn’t give them the benefits that they thought they were going to get. They were betrayed by Social Security, which they don’t believe will exist when they retire. They were betrayed by things in their day-to-day life.
Frank Luntz: It’s election night and I’m the losing candidate. What do you want me to say?
Female Voice: “I accept the results.” And to walk away and help the country move forward in the right direction.
Frank Luntz: You lean towards Trump. You’ve said so many times.
Male Voice: Yes, sir.
Frank Luntz: Do you want Trump to say that the system isn’t rigged?
Male Voice: I want him - that’s correct. It’s not rigged. These are the results. Get behind the new person in charge.
Frank Luntz: What do you want the loser to say to the winner on Election Night?
Male Voice: “I know this has been a long campaign. But at the end of the day, these are the results. And we’ve thrown a lot of mud over the last year and some change. But it’s time for us to move on and become better and learn from this process.”
Frank Luntz: There is still the thinnest of threads that bind us together and the willingness, in certain situations, to listen and learn. But we’re one thread away from everything being cut. And that’s why Election Night is everything. I want to know what those two candidates are going to say. Please. Your words have power. Find words that unite. Find words that unify. Because if you don’t, the consequences on the 9th, on the day after, will be horrific.
I thought this bit was illuminating:
Frank Luntz: It’s-- it is social media. But the first question is: Are you going to edit this? Or are you going to play the words they actually used? There were people in that focus group who used language that if my mom was still alive and I said it, she would literally cut me out of the will. There’s no self-censoring. So we now say exactly what we feel. And, goddamn it, you’re gonna listen to me. And that’s really what it is right now. You’re gonna listen to me. I’m not gonna learn from you. You’re gonna listen to me.
I think Frank summarize this election succinctly:
"I feel like I’m a child of a divorce. These two candidates, the way they fight, the way they yell at each other, the way they make it personal, it’s like having your parents get divorced, and you don’t want to live with either of them. And the judge sits there and says, “Pick one or the other.” And you say, “How about the jury? Can I-- can I go there?” It’s awful.:
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/07 16:19:50
The USA and the UK really are two countries separated by a common language.
In all honesty, it seems like a really common sense thing, and it surprises me that the USA does not have it.m
Anyway, there you go.
Why not being able to vote others is common sense? Especially as HOW WOULD ANYBODY KNOW?
At least in Finland there's this thing called "vote confidiality" which means nobody but you knows whom you voted. So short of you telling nobody knows.
So even if it was illegal to vote another party just vote another party and say if asked you voted republican. Problem solved.
Would be extremely idiotic to make rule you cannot uphold.
Breotan wrote: A day and a half and counting. The question is, will this election be called early in the evening or will the results be unknown until a week later as recounts are done?
I'll answer the question with a question.
What specific reasons do you have for thinking that the election aftermath will be any less of a clusterfeth than the race has been to this point? Especially given Trump challenging the legitimacy of the election before the results are even known? If Trump wins, Clinton is more likely to stand down, but she'll still probably challenge something.
Unfortunately, I think our long, national reality show nightmare will keep airing new episodes after November 8.
Breotan wrote: A day and a half and counting. The question is, will this election be called early in the evening or will the results be unknown until a week later as recounts are done?
I'll answer the question with a question.
What specific reasons do you have for thinking that the election aftermath will be any less of a clusterfeth than the race has been to this point? Especially given Trump challenging the legitimacy of the election before the results are even known? If Trump wins, Clinton is more likely to stand down, but she'll still probably challenge something.
Unfortunately, I think our long, national reality show nightmare will keep airing new episodes after November 8.
Well... if the winner wins by 1 or 2 electoral votes.
Expect some fireworks as there's some electoral voters who promised not to vote for 'x' candidate, regardless if that candidate won his/her state.
The USA and the UK really are two countries separated by a common language.
In all honesty, it seems like a really common sense thing, and it surprises me that the USA does not have it.m
Anyway, there you go.
To me, not being able to vote against your party for specific things seems like not common sense.
Apologies for not making my original post clear, but I have no problems with parties working together in Congress or Parliament for the national good, it's when it comes to national or local elections, then you shouldn't be voting for the GOP if you're a D and vice versa. Otherwise, what was the point of joining a party in the first place if you're going to vote for the other party?
If you're a GOP member and don't like Trump, then don't vote on Tuesday, abstain - that's what I would do....
I guess that they think that the person that they are voting against is so far off the norm for what the party should stand for that the other person is actually closer. It's something that is missing a bit in American politics that let the extremes take over.
Frank Luntz: It’s-- it is social media. But the first question is: Are you going to edit this? Or are you going to play the words they actually used? There were people in that focus group who used language that if my mom was still alive and I said it, she would literally cut me out of the will. There’s no self-censoring. So we now say exactly what we feel. And, goddamn it, you’re gonna listen to me. And that’s really what it is right now. You’re gonna listen to me. I’m not gonna learn from you. You’re gonna listen to me.
Frank Luntz: It’s-- it is social media. But the first question is: Are you going to edit this? Or are you going to play the words they actually used? There were people in that focus group who used language that if my mom was still alive and I said it, she would literally cut me out of the will. There’s no self-censoring. So we now say exactly what we feel. And, goddamn it, you’re gonna listen to me. And that’s really what it is right now. You’re gonna listen to me. I’m not gonna learn from you. You’re gonna listen to me.
It's like every You Make Da Call thread....ever!
No. (at least when I was active there) YMDC had both sides relying on facts instead of just one side...
Well... if the winner wins by 1 or 2 electoral votes.
Hm, not so sure when one candidate claimed the election may be rigged no matter what.
If Trump loses, no matter the margin, I wouldn't be surprised he says something horrible again and tries to galvanize his supporters, who may be doing stupid things. He proved many times that he's a very bad loser and holds the grudge easily. Like some Chaos Dwarf.
I'm also expecting some drama after the 8th.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/07 16:34:43
Apologies for not making my original post clear, but I have no problems with parties working together in Congress or Parliament for the national good, it's when it comes to national or local elections, then you shouldn't be voting for the GOP if you're a D and vice versa. Otherwise, what was the point of joining a party in the first place if you're going to vote for the other party?
If you're a GOP member and don't like Trump, then don't vote on Tuesday, abstain - that's what I would do....
One of the side effects of a 2 party system is that, barring a few key issues, most candidates are drawn from the middle of the Left/Right spectrum. As are many/most voters.
I'm a registered Republican, but am middle of the road on some issues, left on some, right on others.
I can see a candidate that's too far to the right or left on some issues, and find myself voting for the other candidate. I choice we all have to make from time to time. There are candidates that may support 3/4 of my beliefs, but the other one is only about 1/2 of what I'm for. So, again, you make your choices.
Not voting, to me, is not acceptable. But I'm not one to tell someone else how to live their life. I'll just stand here and judge.
Breotan wrote: A day and a half and counting. The question is, will this election be called early in the evening or will the results be unknown until a week later as recounts are done?
I'll answer the question with a question.
What specific reasons do you have for thinking that the election aftermath will be any less of a clusterfeth than the race has been to this point? Especially given Trump challenging the legitimacy of the election before the results are even known? If Trump wins, Clinton is more likely to stand down, but she'll still probably challenge something.
Unfortunately, I think our long, national reality show nightmare will keep airing new episodes after November 8.
Challenges only happen when automatic recounts are involved. If things get too close to call in a State, expect recounts and court challenges to happen. Should the margin be wide enough then the State will be declared without issue. As long as we don't wind up with a situation like Florida in 2000 then any shouting match between Clinton and Trump will be irrelevant.
What I'm wondering is, will there be enough States with significant absentee voting to postpone the results and keep the rest of us waiting and stressed out for longer than is really necessary? There were three or four last time, if I recall correctly.
whembly wrote: Well... if the winner wins by 1 or 2 electoral votes.
Expect some fireworks as there's some electoral voters who promised not to vote for 'x' candidate, regardless if that candidate won his/her state.
You're talking about "faithless electors". A number of States have laws that prohibit this activity. Even if an elector breaks his/her pledge in such a State, I don't see any way for Trump or Clinton to mount a legal challenge to the results of the Electoral College. I doubt the courts will even touch it.
whembly wrote: Well... if the winner wins by 1 or 2 electoral votes.
Expect some fireworks as there's some electoral voters who promised not to vote for 'x' candidate, regardless if that candidate won his/her state.
You're talking about "faithless electors". A number of States have laws that prohibit this activity. Even if an elector breaks his/her pledge in such a State, I don't see any way for Trump or Clinton to mount a legal challenge to the results of the Electoral College. I doubt the courts will even touch it.
Most states has civil fines (can't find one that is criminal).
The fines are like $1000 if these electors go rogue.
Keep in mind that this has happened something like 150 times... but, in those cases it has never impacted a Presidential election.
This year? Dude... I wouldn't bet against that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/07 16:52:52
Not voting, to me, is not acceptable. But I'm not one to tell someone else how to live their life. I'll just stand here and judge.
The questions I always struggle with is: How do I know what a candidate stands for, how will their policies effect me and, more importantly, how can I believe the information that answers the first few questions. Media sources are clearly biased and the only true way to judge a candidate is by their past actions. But again I have a conundrum: How do I know the information about those past actions are correct, or being presented in a biased way?
It is exhausting sorting out these questions and has lead me to exercise my right to NOT vote. I have many ancestors who fought for that right for me to choose and since the choices are not ideal, I choose not to choose. I would love to vote, but until I can feel confident who I am voting on and how it WILL affect me, (I.e. we start to have a more transparent political system), no thank you. I also don't feel that it is right to vote for someone just to NOT vote for the other, For example, I do not want Trump to be POTUS, but that does not mean I want to vote for Hilary. Voting for the lesser of 2 evils is still voting for evil. I'll vote for a qualified candidate thank you very much. Since one is not currently running, my vote would be forfeit anyway.
And before someone says I'll have no right to complain, consider this: those who voted for a President DO NOT have the right to complain, since they are the ones who voted that candidate in and have to live with that.
Edit: besides, regular voters don't get to vote for Potus anyway, we vote for an Electoral college member to vote for us, but they can still vote for someone else, so what the feth is the point?
-
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/07 16:52:20
Not voting, to me, is not acceptable. But I'm not one to tell someone else how to live their life. I'll just stand here and judge.
The questions I always struggle with is:
How do I know what a candidate stands for, how will their policies effect me and, more importantly, how can I believe the information that answers the first few questions.
Media sources are clearly biased and the only true way to judge a candidate is by their past actions.
But again I have a conundrum: How do I know the information about those past actions are correct, or being presented in a biased way?
It is exhausting sorting out these questions and has lead me to exercise my right to NOT vote. I have many ancestors who fought for that right for me to choose and since the choices are not ideal, I choose not to choose. I would love to vote, but until I can feel confident who I am voting on and how it WILL affect me, (I.e. we start to have a more transparent political system), no thank you.
And before someone says I'll have no right to complain, consider this: those who voted for a President DO NOT have the right to complain, since they are the ones who voted that candidate in and have to live with that.
-
I would never tell you that if you didn't vote, you don't have the right to complain.
I simply hold that position myself to keep myself accountable and force my ass to the polls.
Your decision to engage the political process or not is simply your choice, your freedom.
Not voting, to me, is not acceptable. But I'm not one to tell someone else how to live their life. I'll just stand here and judge.
The questions I always struggle with is:
How do I know what a candidate stands for, how will their policies effect me and, more importantly, how can I believe the information that answers the first few questions.
Media sources are clearly biased and the only true way to judge a candidate is by their past actions.
But again I have a conundrum: How do I know the information about those past actions are correct, or being presented in a biased way?
-
How do you know anything is correct? How do you know anything exists? Perhaps you are a butterfly dreaming of posting on Dakka.
I get that there's reasons someone would decide not to vote, and I get that it's exhausting to sort through the mountains of bullcrap piling up on us constantly, but it's entirely possible to sift through enough to build a reasonably accurate picture of which candidate you'd prefer. See what's being said, what's not being said, what's on record and what's been debunked by third parties. That's the kind of logic that ends up in a survivalist bunker in the Rocky Mountains waiting for the sectoids to land their saucers and start probing people.
Apologies for not making my original post clear, but I have no problems with parties working together in Congress or Parliament for the national good, it's when it comes to national or local elections, then you shouldn't be voting for the GOP if you're a D and vice versa. Otherwise, what was the point of joining a party in the first place if you're going to vote for the other party?
If you're a GOP member and don't like Trump, then don't vote on Tuesday, abstain - that's what I would do....
One of the side effects of a 2 party system is that, barring a few key issues, most candidates are drawn from the middle of the Left/Right spectrum. As are many/most voters.
I'm a registered Republican, but am middle of the road on some issues, left on some, right on others.
I can see a candidate that's too far to the right or left on some issues, and find myself voting for the other candidate. I choice we all have to make from time to time. There are candidates that may support 3/4 of my beliefs, but the other one is only about 1/2 of what I'm for. So, again, you make your choices.
Not voting, to me, is not acceptable. But I'm not one to tell someone else how to live their life. I'll just stand here and judge.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're basically saying that:
a) America was wrong to abandon the Parliamentary system of the UK. You did after all have virtual representation
and
b) The Parliamentary system is better than the current American political set up.
Like I said, I could be wrong, but that's my interpretation of your post and I accept America's apology on behalf of the UK.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
To clarify, I would like to vote, but my vote would be uninformed, since even doing "research" doesn't tell me what I want to know with full certainty.
All the information I have seen so far tells me why I shouldn't vote for either candidate and that voting 3rd party is like not voting at all. I have never truly understood the political system and have no idea how an A-hole like Trump could EVER be considered or how the "best" of an establish party could be as corrupt as Clinton.
I am disappointed at Americans
But at the end of the day, I want to live in this country and therefore have to live with the people here. I have faith that there are more people that will make the right choice and if I am wrong, I'll still have to live with my choice to continue living here.
Not voting, to me, is not acceptable. But I'm not one to tell someone else how to live their life. I'll just stand here and judge.
The questions I always struggle with is:
How do I know what a candidate stands for, how will their policies effect me and, more importantly, how can I believe the information that answers the first few questions.
Media sources are clearly biased and the only true way to judge a candidate is by their past actions.
But again I have a conundrum: How do I know the information about those past actions are correct, or being presented in a biased way?
It is exhausting sorting out these questions and has lead me to exercise my right to NOT vote. I have many ancestors who fought for that right for me to choose and since the choices are not ideal, I choose not to choose. I would love to vote, but until I can feel confident who I am voting on and how it WILL affect me, (I.e. we start to have a more transparent political system), no thank you.
I also don't feel that it is right to vote for someone just to NOT vote for the other, For example, I do not want Trump to be POTUS, but that does not mean I want to vote for Hilary. Voting for the lesser of 2 evils is still voting for evil. I'll vote for a qualified candidate thank you very much. Since one is not currently running, my vote would be forfeit anyway.
And before someone says I'll have no right to complain, consider this: those who voted for a President DO NOT have the right to complain, since they are the ones who voted that candidate in and have to live with that.
Edit: besides, regular voters don't get to vote for Potus anyway, we vote for an Electoral college member to vote for us, but they can still vote for someone else, so what the feth is the point?
-
On your edit: it is rare than an electoral college member votes against their mandate. Very rare. That, by itself, isn't something you should let disenfranchise you.
Look, I'm not going to tell you to get off your ass and vote. If you feel strongly enough that not voting IS your protest vote, so be it. I'm also not one to say "If you didn't vote, don't complain!" Bitching is what makes America great.
Just be sure you're not missing out on some local election. Those can directly impact you, especially local ordinances. When I was in Galveston County, I wanted to vote 10 times against allowing red light cameras. feth you, coppers. You want to give me a ticket, put your ass in a car and park it by the intersection. If I do a California rolling stop before I turn right and no one is coming, who fething cares? You'd have given me a ticket if you were there? No, then feth your goddam camera ticket bs. Oh, that's a picture of my car? Here's a picture of a check I won't mail you!
Thoughts being that Trump is a fascist-in-the-making gak, period. Clinton was a student of, and very involved in, her husband's extremely successful and popular presidency and it's ability to work from the middle with an opposition legislation. That experience and it's lesson won't be lost. She also was on the front lines of the extreme partisanship we've seen during the Obama presidency and probably doesn't want to repeat that and have it hanging over her de facto historic presidency.
Senate going Dem to give some "ummmph" to her presidency and keep the religious Neanderthals out of the SCOTUS. One just exited, RIP, now no more please.
House to keep POTUS and Senate in check. If Clinton and Ryan can come together and I can very easily see this happening and get the economy...and government...moving with a bit of steam through compromise it will absolutely deflate the asshat fringe on both sides and get the country's focus back to the middle where it belongs and the government functioning as it should.
That said, however, brings me to my "I think this is how it's going to happen" outcome:
POTUS - Trump
Senate - Democrats
House - GOP
If I'm wrong on this, it's going to be the absolute happiest wrong I'll ever wear.
Galef wrote: To clarify, I would like to vote, but my vote would be uninformed, since even doing "research" doesn't tell me what I want to know with full certainty.
(snip)
But at the end of the day, I want to live in this country and therefore have to live with the people here. I have faith that there are more people that will make the right choice and if I am wrong, I'll still have to live with my choice to continue living here.
You don't have to vote for President at all, but still vote for the other races and ordinances on your ballot. Not sure if you didn't know that or not. Just leave that part blank. No harm, no foul.
You don't have to vote for President at all, but still vote for the other races and ordinances on your ballot. Not sure if you didn't know that or not. Just leave that part blank. No harm, no foul.
Or...write in Kronk Kronkington III, esquire.
LOL, I should write that in!
About the local stuff, I feel like I know less about that than the national stuff. I thought politics were boring in school, so it has only been the last few years that I have been remotely interested. Hell, I've only been following this thread because of the ridiculous media circus that is the current election. Had there been reasonable candidates the whole time, I probably would have treated all of this like I always do: as background noise. I go to work, come home to my family, paint minis, play 40k & watch movies. It's hard to get out of that apathy and "get involved" when I enjoy my life as it already is.
It doesn't help that every time I have voted, the "other guy" won, and every time I abstained from voting, the candidate I wanted to win actually won. So maybe that is it for me. If I don't vote, my preferred candidate will win, If I do vote, Trump might win.
-
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/07 17:21:41
Gee, a Clinton bashing story in a rag owned by Rupert Murdoch, and written by the same guy who wrote "Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington".
You genuinely deserve that clueless nob Gary Johnson as your candidate.
