For The "Bernie or Busters"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-06-2016, 11:38 PM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
(10-06-2016 01:25 PM)Adrianime Wrote:  I can understand the desire to vote for a person who is all but gauranteed to lose. But ultimately I feel like if you want to affect the actual outcome, strategically voting makes sense more-so over simply voting for who you like best. I personally like Hillary Clinton, but not so much that I care if she becomes pres. or not. I do however strongly care that Trump does not become president. When a future of president Trump is at stake (steak, bahahaha), I think it's important to vote. I felt the same way about VP Palin (I actually liked McCain though). It wasn't so much that I had any special feelings about Obama. But Palin was a big fat helllll to the no.

I get wanting to vote for who you REALLY want to win. But when that isn't a realistic outcome, I think voting for the most desirable plausible outcome makes the most sense. And not doing so is stubborn, and possibly harmful if you personally do rate one outcome as being much more harmful than the other. Not doing what you can to stop it isn't very responsible IMO. But I also don't hold it against those who choose to do what they will. As they say, "It's a free country."

"You work with what you are given"

... and so it goes. How can any viable alternative gain traction if voters use that logic -- which they do?

Vote your conscience. The two major parties track returns and will surely notice third parties siphoning the votes, and at that point they can either act to quash the upstarts, or modify their stances in order to retain large voter rolls.

My vote counts even if I vote for the loser. If my candidate loses, it doesn't mean my vote was irrelevant, it means I got out-voted (caveats about the Electoral College here -- there's an institution that epitomizes obsolesence.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
11-06-2016, 12:50 AM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
(10-06-2016 11:38 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(10-06-2016 01:25 PM)Adrianime Wrote:  I can understand the desire to vote for a person who is all but gauranteed to lose. But ultimately I feel like if you want to affect the actual outcome, strategically voting makes sense more-so over simply voting for who you like best. I personally like Hillary Clinton, but not so much that I care if she becomes pres. or not. I do however strongly care that Trump does not become president. When a future of president Trump is at stake (steak, bahahaha), I think it's important to vote. I felt the same way about VP Palin (I actually liked McCain though). It wasn't so much that I had any special feelings about Obama. But Palin was a big fat helllll to the no.

I get wanting to vote for who you REALLY want to win. But when that isn't a realistic outcome, I think voting for the most desirable plausible outcome makes the most sense. And not doing so is stubborn, and possibly harmful if you personally do rate one outcome as being much more harmful than the other. Not doing what you can to stop it isn't very responsible IMO. But I also don't hold it against those who choose to do what they will. As they say, "It's a free country."

"You work with what you are given"

... and so it goes. How can any viable alternative gain traction if voters use that logic -- which they do?

Vote your conscience. The two major parties track returns and will surely notice third parties siphoning the votes, and at that point they can either act to quash the upstarts, or modify their stances in order to retain large voter rolls.

My vote counts even if I vote for the loser. If my candidate loses, it doesn't mean my vote was irrelevant, it means I got out-voted (caveats about the Electoral College here -- there's an institution that epitomizes obsolesence.)
I would encourage people to do whatever they want--or vote for whoever they want if they really aren't scared or worried of a trump presidency (moreso than a Clinton one).

Honestly I'm not too worried about a Trump presidency, in that, i don't think it will happen. We (Americans) can't be that unintelligent. Not necessarily in the "vote against trump" camp. But I'd like to see the "vote for trump" camp to be extremely small. We will see though.

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2016, 01:02 AM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
(11-06-2016 12:50 AM)Adrianime Wrote:  
(10-06-2016 11:38 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  ... and so it goes. How can any viable alternative gain traction if voters use that logic -- which they do?

Vote your conscience. The two major parties track returns and will surely notice third parties siphoning the votes, and at that point they can either act to quash the upstarts, or modify their stances in order to retain large voter rolls.

My vote counts even if I vote for the loser. If my candidate loses, it doesn't mean my vote was irrelevant, it means I got out-voted (caveats about the Electoral College here -- there's an institution that epitomizes obsolesence.)
I would encourage people to do whatever they want--or vote for whoever they want if they really aren't scared or worried of a trump presidency (moreso than a Clinton one).

Honestly I'm not too worried about a Trump presidency, in that, i don't think it will happen. We (Americans) can't be that unintelligent. Not necessarily in the "vote against trump" camp. But I'd like to see the "vote for trump" camp to be extremely small. We will see though.
Trump is already statistically tied and in some polls even ahead of Clinton not only nationally, but in very important swing states like Florida and blue states like Pennsylvania. At what point are you going to start worrying, if not now?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2016, 01:08 AM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
(11-06-2016 01:02 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(11-06-2016 12:50 AM)Adrianime Wrote:  I would encourage people to do whatever they want--or vote for whoever they want if they really aren't scared or worried of a trump presidency (moreso than a Clinton one).

Honestly I'm not too worried about a Trump presidency, in that, i don't think it will happen. We (Americans) can't be that unintelligent. Not necessarily in the "vote against trump" camp. But I'd like to see the "vote for trump" camp to be extremely small. We will see though.
Trump is already statistically tied and in some polls even ahead of Clinton not only nationally, but in very important swing states like Florida and blue states like Pennsylvania. At what point are you going to start worrying, if not now?

From what I read the polls have changed, hillary is up by 11 points.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2016, 01:09 AM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
(11-06-2016 12:50 AM)Adrianime Wrote:  I would encourage people to do whatever they want--or vote for whoever they want if they really aren't scared or worried of a trump presidency (moreso than a Clinton one).

This is where I am, though "scared" isn't really the right word; my sentiment is more along the lines of I don't want this twat representing me to the world, I don't like people who insult my intelligence with wild promises they cannot fulfill, and I don't think he has the personality-type that bespeaks good leadership skills.

I live in Texas. If the polling shows the state teetering between the two candidates, I will hold my nose and vote not for Clinton but against the Chump.

If the state has either major candidate far ahead (and I think it will, for Trump) I will probably vote for Johnson. I don't want to be a Naderite installing a dipshit for sake of principle, but if I know my vote will be outweighed, I will spend it as I see fit ... as I have done in the last five elections.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2016, 01:27 AM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
(11-06-2016 01:08 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  From what I read the polls have changed, hillary is up by 11 points.
Where? Nationally? The two most recent polls have her up by 3 and 4 points respectively, which is within the margin of error. The last poll I could find that had her up by 11 points was conducted in April.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2016, 03:48 AM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
Quote:For me those bad points are enough not to vote for her. Having someone even sympathetic to the Anti-Vax movement in a position to set national policy is a no go we can very quickly lose 120 years of progress. That is a hill I am willing to die on.

I respect what you're saying. I see how this could be a single issue disqualifier. I would like to see her held to her feet to the fire on this and see if she'll come out on the side of reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2016, 05:34 AM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
Ever notice??

The "If you vote for (whovever) - it's really a vote for (the guy they want you to vote for)" --- is expressed in a pleading, yet somehow at the same time, condensending tone???

It's very familiar. It reminds one of the "Why do you hate god"? drivel one expects from fundies and zealots...............

.............

Piss off...

..........

A vote is a vote, and it's a vote for who the voter wishes to vote for.

And that's probably NOT your guy.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like onlinebiker's post
11-06-2016, 07:05 AM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
It's not supposed to be a popularity contest. (Although it is). It is supposed to be a decision regarding who will have better long term effect on the country.

This whole crap of having elections where candidates tear each other down instead of discussing the future is sadly affecting everyone's thinking.

What a shame.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Dom's post
11-06-2016, 09:04 AM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
(10-06-2016 11:38 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(10-06-2016 01:25 PM)Adrianime Wrote:  I can understand the desire to vote for a person who is all but gauranteed to lose. But ultimately I feel like if you want to affect the actual outcome, strategically voting makes sense more-so over simply voting for who you like best. I personally like Hillary Clinton, but not so much that I care if she becomes pres. or not. I do however strongly care that Trump does not become president. When a future of president Trump is at stake (steak, bahahaha), I think it's important to vote. I felt the same way about VP Palin (I actually liked McCain though). It wasn't so much that I had any special feelings about Obama. But Palin was a big fat helllll to the no.

I get wanting to vote for who you REALLY want to win. But when that isn't a realistic outcome, I think voting for the most desirable plausible outcome makes the most sense. And not doing so is stubborn, and possibly harmful if you personally do rate one outcome as being much more harmful than the other. Not doing what you can to stop it isn't very responsible IMO. But I also don't hold it against those who choose to do what they will. As they say, "It's a free country."

"You work with what you are given"

... and so it goes. How can any viable alternative gain traction if voters use that logic -- which they do?

Vote your conscience. The two major parties track returns and will surely notice third parties siphoning the votes, and at that point they can either act to quash the upstarts, or modify their stances in order to retain large voter rolls.

My vote counts even if I vote for the loser. If my candidate loses, it doesn't mean my vote was irrelevant, it means I got out-voted (caveats about the Electoral College here -- there's an institution that epitomizes obsolesence.)

That also depends on what your "Vote Goal" is.

If your goal is to support your candidate at all cost, then you can do that. It's not a total waste because as you say you've made your voice heard but realistically you've only empowered your vote with about 10% of it's power, kind of like flag waving, you supported your candidate but only superficially effected the outcome. But if your goal is to support "in the best interest of our country's future" from the ones who are the viable candidates, then you can do that by selecting from what is actually offered.

I see the first as voting for your self interests (it's certainly your vote and you can do with it what you want) but the second is voting for everyone's interest.

Again, I'm voting Clinton because I think she's the best person for the job at hand but even if I thought that Bernie was I would still vote for the best person available to me to actually win who will be seating 2 seats on the SCOTUS bench. Both are voting my conscience and voting in the best interest of my country. IMO

[Image: dnw9krH.jpg?4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: