PDA

View Full Version : Why vote third or fourth party?



resister
10-29-2016, 06:23 PM
I wonder why third or 4th party voters choose to either throw their vote away or swing a tight race with a protest vote that will benefit the two they ostensibly resent?I just went on wiki to see when was the last time any of these had a chance...needless to say ,it was a long long time ago.Take jill stein for example,she has about 2% of the national vote.By my estimation a vote for her takes her from 2% to ...like 2.000000000000001%.So why throw away your vote?Or better yet,give it to those you profess to resent.Any thoughts?

Peter1469
10-29-2016, 06:35 PM
Some people have no use for either the GOP or the Dems.

MRogersNhood
10-29-2016, 06:36 PM
I guess to "stick it to the man."
Really the "stick it to the man" candidate this year is Trump.
And really "the man" needs it stuck to him for 30 years of corrupt screwing over of average America.
Believe me:Donald Trump is NOT who the Republican party wanted.They did not get what they wanted.They wanted Jeb! another lockstepping globalist shill where it doesn't matter what party it's the same crap.The Democrat party got who they wanted after some rigging the primaries because Bernie had quite the following.
In short: Republicans failed in their putsch for globalist candidate and Democrats succeeded.
To summarize: Hillary= to Democrats as Jeb! = to Republicans.
I could never get my head around ever voting for anyone I know is a globalist,elitist bastard.
Only reason Repubs selected Trump is they had no choice.the people spoke and loudly.Notice all the die-hards are denouncing him.
All the RINO globalists go against Trump and I say let them.
We'll take note of that when you come up for reelection.That will further turn the US away from destruction.

pjohns
10-29-2016, 06:56 PM
A "protest" vote is a nod to idealism.

But I am a pragmatist.

Some people say that they will never again vote for the lesser of two evils.

But I certainly will.

To help defeat the greater of two evils is the practical thing to do.

Green Arrow
10-29-2016, 08:41 PM
A "protest" vote is a nod to idealism.

But I am a pragmatist.

Some people say that they will never again vote for the lesser of two evils.

But I certainly will.

To help defeat the greater of two evils is the practical thing to do.

If you were being a pragmatist and doing the practical thing, you'd acknowledge that your singular vote isn't actually affecting the outcome of the election in any way, particularly given you live in Tennessee. Your "practical thing to do" is in reality worthless.

Green Arrow
10-29-2016, 08:54 PM
I subscribe to the views of both George Washington and John Quincy Adams.


Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.


This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.


The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.


Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.


It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.


There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
- George Washington (1732-1799), first U.S. President


Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.
- John Quincy Adams (1767-1848), sixth U.S. President

My vote isn't wasted because I base my vote on principle and morality. The person that gets my vote is the person I believe would make the best president and treat the U.S. with the best guidance and respect, regardless of that candidate's chance of victory.

resister
10-29-2016, 09:04 PM
I subscribe to the views of both George Washington and John Quincy Adams.


- George Washington (1732-1799), first U.S. President


- John Quincy Adams (1767-1848), sixth U.S. President

My vote isn't wasted because I base my vote on principle and morality. The person that gets my vote is the person I believe would make the best president and treat the U.S. with the best guidance and respect, regardless of that candidate's chance of victory.So your a protest voter based on principle?When this quote was made....lik 200 plus years ago...the population was a mere fraction of the current numbers...just sayin,food for thought

MRogersNhood
10-29-2016, 09:06 PM
I subscribe to the views of both George Washington and John Quincy Adams.


- George Washington (1732-1799), first U.S. President


- John Quincy Adams (1767-1848), sixth U.S. President

My vote isn't wasted because I base my vote on principle and morality. The person that gets my vote is the person I believe would make the best president and treat the U.S. with the best guidance and respect, regardless of that candidate's chance of victory.
That's all well and good.Are you voting for Washington? or Adams this time?

My guess as to the candidate that would: "treat the U.S. with the best guidance and respect, regardless of that candidate's chance of victory" Is The orange-hair Donald.


He has real potential to do good for the people unlike has been seen in a long,long,time.

Here's my prediction:Not quite as many votes as Reagan,does 2.5x better than Reagan for country.
Does not get shot.

Green Arrow
10-29-2016, 09:11 PM
That's all well and good.Are you voting for Washington? or Adams this time?

My guess as to the candidate that would: "treat the U.S. with the best guidance and respect, regardless of that candidate's chance of victory" Is The orange-hair Donald.

You would be wrong.


So your a protest voter based on principle?When this quote was made....lik 200 plus years ago...the population was a mere fraction of the current numbers...just sayin,food for thought

That food is more like sour milk. It's neither tasty, nor good for you.

The constitution was also made 200 plus years ago. Should we throw it out along with our entire system of government?

resister
10-29-2016, 09:15 PM
You would be wrong.



That food is more like sour milk. It's neither tasty, nor good for you.

The constitution was also made 200 plus years ago. Should we throw it out along with our entire system of government?Dude you just took a fork in the road,what does antuiqe voting principles have to do with the US Constitution?

MRogersNhood
10-29-2016, 09:19 PM
You would be wrong.



That food is more like sour milk. It's neither tasty, nor good for you.

The constitution was also made 200 plus years ago. Should we throw it out along with our entire system of government?

^On that absolutely not.
Also one should keep in mind this IS 2016,though.
There's organized (not liberal) I dunno,but there's organized subversives around.
They're on every internet forum.The News,the media.
I vote for against them.
Pray tell who's name you're writing in?
Is it Nathan Hale?
Aaron Burr?
Oh I know:Benedict Arnold!

Green Arrow
10-29-2016, 09:46 PM
Dude you just took a fork in the road,what does antuiqe voting principles have to do with the US Constitution?

You said (or at least implied) that the words of Washington and J.Q. Adams are no longer relevant because they were written around 200 years ago. So was the constitution.

It follows logically that if the words of Washington and Adams are no longer relevant because of age, neither is the constitution.

Green Arrow
10-29-2016, 09:47 PM
^On that absolutely not.

Then the wisdom I provided from J.Q. Adams and Washington is also relevant today.

resister
10-29-2016, 09:51 PM
You said (or at least implied) that the words of Washington and J.Q. Adams are no longer relevant because they were written around 200 years ago. So was the constitution.

It follows logically that if the words of Washington and Adams are no longer relevant because of age, neither is the constitution.
well here in Murika the constitution is alive and well.Your voting logic is stuck in the 1700's

MRogersNhood
10-29-2016, 10:02 PM
You said (or at least implied) that the words of Washington and J.Q. Adams are no longer relevant because they were written around 200 years ago. So was the constitution.

It follows logically that if the words of Washington and Adams are no longer relevant because of age, neither is the constitution.

Nobody well,at least nobody like me ever said or thought that.
I love the writings and accounts of Washington,Adams, and Jefferson.
Applying 1790 voting principles to 2016 is a different story.
That's something that defies logic.
There's what to the squared power more people now?

donttread
10-30-2016, 08:04 AM
I wonder why third or 4th party voters choose to either throw their vote away or swing a tight race with a protest vote that will benefit the two they ostensibly resent?I just went on wiki to see when was the last time any of these had a chance...needless to say ,it was a long long time ago.Take jill stein for example,she has about 2% of the national vote.By my estimation a vote for her takes her from 2% to ...like 2.000000000000001%.So why throw away your vote?Or better yet,give it to those you profess to resent.Any thoughts?

While your rhetoric may seem to make sense, your "lesser of two evils approach" has brought us to where we are today. The edge of a cliff. Your plan doesn't work in the real world. Admittedly we need to build 3rd party support from the ground up with local and state elections. However, in my view since the dems and repubs do exactly the same things once in power, voting for either of them is a wasted vote.

resister
10-30-2016, 08:12 AM
While your rhetoric may seem to make sense, your "lesser of two evils approach" has brought us to where we are today. The edge of a cliff. Your plan doesn't work in the real world. Admittedly we need to build 3rd party support from the ground up with local and state elections. However, in my view since the dems and repubs do exactly the same things once in power, voting for either of them is a wasted vote. So whats your master plan to fix it?Please do tell.

donttread
10-30-2016, 10:10 AM
Some people have no use for either the GOP or the Dems.


Hey ,I represent that remark.

pjohns
10-30-2016, 10:48 PM
If you were being a pragmatist and doing the practical thing, you'd acknowledge that your singular vote isn't actually affecting the outcome of the election in any way, particularly given you live in Tennessee. Your "practical thing to do" is in reality worthless.

In a sense, you are correct.

But I wish to "help defeat the greater of two evils," as I said.

And that would be Hillary Clinton, in my opinion.

She is not merely immoral (which would be bad enough), but entirely amoral, in my view.

donttread
10-31-2016, 07:16 AM
So your a protest voter based on principle?When this quote was made....lik 200 plus years ago...the population was a mere fraction of the current numbers...just sayin,food for thought


Pleanty enough people to prevent one vote from swinging an election. So the principal still stands.