Who do you side with?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-08-2012, 09:07 AM
RE: Who do you side with?
No need to send probes to Mars, I just found some intelligent life right here!
[Image: 49723184.jpg]
That's weird, the party association at the actual test is:
96% Democratic
87% Green
54% Libertarian
7% Republican
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2012, 09:16 AM
RE: Who do you side with?
(17-08-2012 07:13 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(16-08-2012 04:58 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Considering the fact that Jilly girl won't win no matter what, I am not going to throw my vote for her. The third party won't win, and that is why it is a decision between the two parties, Republicans and Democrats. Since when as voting ever been about what you really believe in?

This still doesn't explain the logic here... A vote matters only if the candidate voted for wins????

Candidate A wins by 10,000 votes in your state... You voted for candidate A.. If not, he only would of won by 9,999 votes. Your vote mattered more than a vote for anybody else in the race how?

I had these same conversations in 2008 and since. My sister back then told me, she was undecided at the time because she didn't want to vote for the loser.. I have no idea why this is of any concern to a person.

If millions of people stopped having the attitude of when does our vote really matter... it would then matter. As for now, eh.. but mattering or being thrown away are different. What some may say is a throw away can make an impact on the future elections. Maybe the rules have changed in the superpac era.. but before if a party received just 5% of the popular vote in a election, they would be benefited in federal funds in further election campaigns. I think Nader only got half of that in 2000.

It is to guarantee that the least harmful douchebag leads, not the more harmful one. Voting is about picking the lesser of two evils, not about choosing what you want. The reason the two parties have more power than the third party is because they have companies backing them up. You have to pick which fuck you want from the two companies, you are limited to two options that will actually be feasible or possible.

I am not voting for Obama because he will win. I am voting for Obama because I know he is one among two who have the ability to, so I'd rather vote for Obama then Romney.

Voting for what you believe in is naive, because what you believe does not matter to the government.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2012, 09:35 AM
RE: Who do you side with?
[Image: 49752464.jpg]

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2012, 10:26 AM
RE: Who do you side with?
(18-08-2012 09:16 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(17-08-2012 07:13 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  This still doesn't explain the logic here... A vote matters only if the candidate voted for wins????

Candidate A wins by 10,000 votes in your state... You voted for candidate A.. If not, he only would of won by 9,999 votes. Your vote mattered more than a vote for anybody else in the race how?

I had these same conversations in 2008 and since. My sister back then told me, she was undecided at the time because she didn't want to vote for the loser.. I have no idea why this is of any concern to a person.

If millions of people stopped having the attitude of when does our vote really matter... it would then matter. As for now, eh.. but mattering or being thrown away are different. What some may say is a throw away can make an impact on the future elections. Maybe the rules have changed in the superpac era.. but before if a party received just 5% of the popular vote in a election, they would be benefited in federal funds in further election campaigns. I think Nader only got half of that in 2000.

It is to guarantee that the least harmful douchebag leads, not the more harmful one. Voting is about picking the lesser of two evils, not about choosing what you want. The reason the two parties have more power than the third party is because they have companies backing them up. You have to pick which fuck you want from the two companies, you are limited to two options that will actually be feasible or possible.

I am not voting for Obama because he will win. I am voting for Obama because I know he is one among two who have the ability to, so I'd rather vote for Obama then Romney.

Voting for what you believe in is naive, because what you believe does not matter to the government.

If your vote doesn't effect which of the "lesser of two evil's" wins; what has your vote accomplished? Why does it matter if the choice CAN win? There still is no response to why is it reasonable to vote for a candidate whose ability to win is possible?

According to this test, I most believe in the path of Barrack Obama. I am not voting for Barrack Obama because my vote will matter .0001 to the chances of him being re-elected over Mitt. My vote in that case matters only in context to my state, which is Illinois. What would be naive is believing my vote for Obama or Romney had the slightest amount of impact in relation to the overall percentage of votes that way. I don't know what state you actually would vote in, but odds are it won't be a state that is close, it could be, but there is about just 7 states that really are on the fence.

I'm not looking at any election as just the current election. That's too short sighted on terms of impact. Third powers have no money or movements right now; There has been efforts, although, they failed and collapsed. The more influx of support and votes can benefit future elections. As I mentioned that 5% number before. There is also the 15% support rules that allow a candidate to be in the presidential debates.

I'm likely voting a bit further from something I believe in purely on issues. It's a matter of making the most impact with the vote. I could go with Rocky Anderson or Obama who I agree with more; or Jill Stein and the Green Party. I'll probably vote for Gary Johnson with the Libertarian party because with a lot of other voters, the vote actually has an impact on making a change. Especially if more people don't act stupid and right in Ron Paul apposed to voting for the Libertarian party which could grow from that.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2012, 10:30 AM
RE: Who do you side with?
(18-08-2012 10:26 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(18-08-2012 09:16 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  It is to guarantee that the least harmful douchebag leads, not the more harmful one. Voting is about picking the lesser of two evils, not about choosing what you want. The reason the two parties have more power than the third party is because they have companies backing them up. You have to pick which fuck you want from the two companies, you are limited to two options that will actually be feasible or possible.

I am not voting for Obama because he will win. I am voting for Obama because I know he is one among two who have the ability to, so I'd rather vote for Obama then Romney.

Voting for what you believe in is naive, because what you believe does not matter to the government.

If your vote doesn't effect which of the "lesser of two evil's" wins; what has your vote accomplished? Why does it matter if the choice CAN win? There still is no response to why is it reasonable to vote for a candidate whose ability to win is possible?

According to this test, I most believe in the path of Barrack Obama. I am not voting for Barrack Obama because my vote will matter .0001 to the chances of him being re-elected over Mitt. My vote in that case matters only in context to my state, which is Illinois. What would be naive is believing my vote for Obama or Romney had the slightest amount of impact in relation to the overall percentage of votes that way. I don't know what state you actually would vote in, but odds are it won't be a state that is close, it could be, but there is about just 7 states that really are on the fence.

I'm not looking at any election as just the current election. That's too short sighted on terms of impact. Third powers have no money or movements right now; There has been efforts, although, they failed and collapsed. The more influx of support and votes can benefit future elections. As I mentioned that 5% number before. There is also the 15% support rules that allow a candidate to be in the presidential debates.

I'm likely voting a bit further from something I believe in purely on issues. It's a matter of making the most impact with the vote. I could go with Rocky Anderson or Obama who I agree with more; or Jill Stein and the Green Party. I'll probably vote for Gary Johnson with the Libertarian party because with a lot of other voters, the vote actually has an impact on making a change. Especially if more people don't act stupid and right in Ron Paul apposed to voting for the Libertarian party which could grow from that.

If more people thought like you, then there wouldn't be two primary parties, now would there? It makes sense for me to choose between the two primaries, whether or not my vote is a minuscule part of the popular vote. I would rather be apart of the minuscule vote than apart of a minuscule party. I don't care about third party. I care about Obama winning over Romney (because both candidates are the only possibilities until the electoral college is removed).

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2012, 04:06 PM
RE: Who do you side with?
(20-07-2012 12:52 PM)StatiK Wrote:  Gary Johnson and Ron Paul.


Could have told you that without a test. Wink

This

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2012, 08:52 AM
RE: Who do you side with?
Jill Stein 91%

Stewart Alexander 81%

Gary Johnson 81%

Barrack Obama 68%

Ron Paul 60%

Mitt Romney 53%

Colorado voters 62%

People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to us who do

-Isaac Asimov
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2012, 11:13 AM (This post was last modified: 26-08-2012 11:31 AM by Near.)
RE: Who do you side with?
[Image: 63323895.jpg]

I've never even heard of Jill Stein, so that's pretty strange.

Contribute to the Community Resource!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: