gut;1262976 wrote:Call it picking between the lesser of two failures. The time to affect change is not now, eventually it's put-up or shut-up time. You don't stay the course because the alternative may only be marginally better, you do what you can to stop or slow the bleeding NOW.

Picking between the lesser of two failures hasn't stopped or slowed the bleeding in recent history. The alternative hasn't been marginally better. It's been just as bad.

Voting for the "lesser of the failures" is something people have been trying to do for a couple decades now. It hasn't fixed anything, or even curtailed the problem. It changes the reasons for the problem. Given that people have been doing the same thing for decades, wouldn't it appear silly to expect a different result this time? Wasn't that Einstein's definition of insanity?

gut;1262976 wrote: The only appropriate response, at this point in time, is to boot out any incumbents (Congress included) who aren't doing the job.

We've been doing this for years as well, but all we've done is replace them with the pawns of an equally failed party.

gut;1262976 wrote:Throwing away your vote doesn't send any sort of message when failures get re-elected as a result.

1. If you don't think so, then you're not listening. It's telling you that a growing percentage of the population is EQUALLY tired of BOTH failed parties. You continue to insist that you're supporting the marginally better candidate. Those who are voting third party are telling you that they disagree ... that both are equally damaging, and that they don't agree with you, but neither party is listening.

gut;1262976 wrote:I don't see how failing to hold someone accountable is going to magically make them accountable.

I agree, which is why I don't understand how voting for either of the major parties, both of whom have been absurdly irresponsible when in power, will do anything but reward their recent history of irresponsibility.

O-Trap;1262990 wrote:
I agree, which is why I don't understand how voting for either of the major parties, both of whom have been absurdly irresponsible when in power, will do anything but reward their recent history of irresponsibility.

Let me put it another way. Throwing away your vote on someone with no chance of winning is effectively the same as staying home. Look at the focus and attention paid to people who don't vote and you get an idea for the impact of your "protest vote". They do try to do some raw-raw to motivate their base to vote, but very little goes into motivating an unlikely and undecided voter.

A third party is not going to magically emerge on election day, even though we've had a few get a not insignificant number of votes. The ONLY message that can be effectively sent on election day is firing the incumbents who aren't doing the job, because politicians care about first and foremost being re-elected.

gut;1263001 wrote:A third party is not going to magically emerge on election day, even though we've had a few get a not insignificant number of votes. The ONLY message that can be effectively sent on election day is firing the incumbents who aren't doing the job, because politicians care about first and foremost being re-elected.

I disagree with none of this. Those who refuse to vote for the two failures in contention currently don't expect an overnight emergence of a third-party candidate. I believe what they DO expect is that their consistency will, over time, bring a gradual emergence. If I thought there was any possibility for either major candidate to curtail the current emergency, I might be at least open to voting for them ... that is, if I actually believed one to be better than the other, even nominally, I might grant at least consideration. However, I see it as pulling a knife out of a puncture wound and putting a different knife of the same make and model back into the wound. It solves nothing.

My vote isn't even a "protest vote." I'm not trying to protest anything. I'm simply voting for a candidate I think is best. Since the two main candidates' parties have been so horribly damaging, you'll excuse my not voting for either.

Suppose 13 of us were in a room, and we were presented with three options of what to eat, but we all had to eat the same thing. The options were a stranger's dung, another stranger's dung, or kielbasa. There was a heated debate between two groups of 6 over whether to vote for vomit or dung, and you alone were the person who is willing to vote for kielbasa. Are you going to vote for either "shitty" option just because they're more likely to win and because people who support voting for it say that pile A is just a little bit less smelly than pile B?

Or are you going to still vote for kielbasa and be pissed at everyone else for forcing you to eat dung, regardless of which pile?

But you don't get to have kielbasa. So, hey, if you're indifferent to choking down dry grassy dung vs. drinking monkey diahrea, be my guest.

Answer me this. If you have a failure working for you, do you allow that person to continue to fester and infect your company's culture because of your fear/paralysis to give someone else a chance? Do you allow this person to continue to damage your company for years on the hope a satisfactory replacement some day emerges?

The choice this election is either to tolerate and enable failure, or give someone else a chance. I reject the idea that everyone running as a Republican is indoctrinated and more of the same. That's a cop out. Hell, Ron Paul is a Republican, so all the Paulbots on here (and I don't know if that's you) making this argument are completely hypocritical.

Second, we need someone pragmatic and willing to compromise to help turn this around. The type of candidate/approach many on here are advocating would also be an abject failure. Sadly, it's baby steps. It currently is not the right environment for the sort of candidate many would want to succeed. It's no different in business or sports - the best man you may ultimately want for the job likely may not be the best fit currently.

And may I also assume you will be writing in candidates for the House and Senate as well? State and local government also? You're not voting for any Dem or Repub out there because by proxy they are all failures, regardless of their individual views and efforts?

gut;1263070 wrote:But you don't get to have kielbasa.

Kielbasa is on the ballot. If everyone else is going to be a moron, I'm not going to follow suit out of some mythical damage control.

gut;1263070 wrote:So, hey, if you're indifferent to choking down dry grassy dung vs. drinking monkey diahrea, be my guest.

That's the thing. You continue to presume a difference which I don't see as existing. The two piles of dung look the same. Why would I care which one loses or wins unless both lost to the kielbasa?

gut;1263070 wrote:Answer me this. If you have a failure working for you, do you allow that person to continue to fester and infect your company's culture because of your fear/paralysis to give someone else a chance? Do you allow this person to continue to damage your company for years on the hope a satisfactory replacement some day emerges?

Not at all. I fire him in lieu of someone competent. "Competence" is not a choice being granted by the two parties.

gut;1263070 wrote:The choice this election is either to tolerate and enable failure, or give someone else a chance.

No, the choice is to tolerate old failure or new failure, which can be established by the fact that the parties whose party lines are failures are backing said candidates.

Is it possible that either candidate could pull off their mask and suddenly reveal they're going to now be John Q. Liberty? Sure, but as of right now, the political party machines have spit out two candidates the likes of which we've seen before.

Same human with the same diet. Just the next pile of dung.

gut;1263070 wrote:I reject the idea that everyone running as a Republican is indoctrinated and more of the same.

Not everyone running, no. Anyone who actually can get nominated? Certainly seems that way. Same with the Democrat Party.

gut;1263070 wrote:That's a cop out. Hell, Ron Paul is a Republican, so all the Paulbots on here (and I don't know if that's you) making this argument are completely hypocritical.

I'm actually a Libertarian. Ron Paul is a Constitutional Republican. As such, his views and Libertarian views line up a lot at the Federal level, but I wouldn't vote for the guy if it was for a state or local position.

However, this last primary made it pretty clear that if you don't tow the party line, you're not getting nominated, so the cycle continues that the Republican Party spits out another nominee that fit their busted mold.

gut;1263070 wrote:Second, we need someone pragmatic and willing to compromise to help turn this around.

For Federal fiscal responsibility.
Against global militarization.
For free market.
Against personal liberty regulation.

Sounds like a compromise between the two parties' positions, don't you think?

gut;1263070 wrote:The type of candidate/approach many on here are advocating would also be an abject failure. Sadly, it's baby steps. It currently is not the right environment for the sort of candidate many would want to succeed.

And the longer that people continue to vote for the "lesser failure," the longer it will be before such a time comes.

gut;1263070 wrote:It's no different in business or sports - the best man you may ultimately want for the job likely may not be the best fit currently.

How would the "best" be a lesser fit than someone who wasn't nearly as good? I'm curious what you mean by the statement.

gut;1263070 wrote: And may I also assume you will be writing in candidates for the House and Senate as well?

I'm not writing in a candidate even at the Federal level, as I believe there is a man on the ballot who would indeed be a good fit.

If not, I would indeed write in at any level.

gut;1263070 wrote:State and local government also?

If the options on the ballot are detrimental to their constituency, yes.

gut;1263070 wrote:You're not voting for any Dem or Repub out there because by proxy they are all failures, regardless of their individual views and efforts?

Not at all. If, at the state or local level, a local branch of a party has established itself as able to nominate a candidate who isn't a cookie-cutter representation of the party's detrimental positions, then I'd vote for a Republican, Democrat, or other.

O-Trap;1263093 wrote:You continue to presume a difference which I don't see as existing. The two piles of dung look the same.

Ahhhhh! They look the same, except you already know one tastes like complete shit. The other may look like shit, but it could actually be chocolate mouse. Always choose a potential failure over a known failure. Always. You have 0 chance of winning with a proven failure.

O-Trap;1263093 wrote:No, the choice is to tolerate old failure or new failure, which can be established by the fact that the parties whose party lines are failures are backing said candidates.

So parties don't and have never changed? They don't have sudden sea changes overnight, and it doesn't happen without a push in that direction. Again, incumbents feel no pain over losing your vote when they get re-elected anyway.

O-Trap;1263093 wrote: I'm actually a Libertarian. Ron Paul is a Constitutional Republican. As such, his views and Libertarian views line up a lot at the Federal level, but I wouldn't vote for the guy if it was for a state or local position.

But he's a Republican, one with a long and unsuccessful track record in Congress. I find your support of him completely inconsistent with everything you've said about every candidate just being more of what we've seen.

O-Trap;1263093 wrote: However, this last primary made it pretty clear that if you don't tow the party line, you're not getting nominated, so the cycle continues that the Republican Party spits out another nominee that fit their busted mold.

It's beside the point, but Ron Paul is completely unelectable with some crazy ideas. He has 0 history of consensus building in politics, really. About the only possible outcome with Ron Paul is gridlock, an outcome that's arguably worse than either Romney or Obama.

O-Trap;1263093 wrote: And the longer that people continue to vote for the "lesser failure," the longer it will be before such a time comes.

A continued pattern of voting for the better of two candidates eventually gets you to the same place. The question is if allowing a failure to continue gives you the chance to sort things out. Either you vote for small/incremental improvements or you do nothing. Doing nothing always ends in destruction.

O-Trap;1263093 wrote: How would the "best" be a lesser fit than someone who wasn't nearly as good? I'm curious what you mean by the statement.

Different scenarios require different skills set. You don't hire a cost-cutting CEO when your company is in growth mode. And if you're waiting for a one-size-fits-all candidate to emerge, such people really don't exist. You will not find someone who is the best in all scenarios. Economics is in the forefront right now, but the country is divided. You need someone who is pragmatic and can lead - that's not Ron Paul and it's not Obama.

O-Trap;1263093 wrote: Not at all. If, at the state or local level, a local branch of a party has established itself as able to nominate a candidate who isn't a cookie-cutter representation of the party's detrimental positions, then I'd vote for a Republican, Democrat, or other.

Again, this is projecting a line of thought or potential based on a nomination. At the national levels, you will never agree with a platform candidate because a nominee is going to be an amalgamation of people with differing points of views. What you're really saying here is you reject the process of consensus building. That may be fine and dandy but it doesn't build bridges. And back to the point I keep repeating - without a cultural change, you can't have someone that reflects the majority of your views capable of building a consensus. Such people never affect change because their own rejection of the consensus building process is precisely what prevents them from gaining consensus to make inroads.

Remember the etch-a-sketch comment? Well, you should know better by now, anyway, than to have such certain opinions of what someone is going to do based on campaigns for and against them.

gut;1263126 wrote:Ahhhhh! They look the same, except you already know one tastes like complete shit. The other may look like shit, but it could actually be chocolate mouse. Always choose a potential failure over a known failure. Always. You have 0 chance of winning with a proven failure.

The same stranger took the dump we experienced from 2000 to 2008. I'm doubting dung from the same guy so recently, eating the same diet (topic importance and traditional voter positions), and which smells the same (one could compare smell to campaign promises and debate statements), is going to taste differently. Again, Einstein would call me crazy.

gut;1263126 wrote:So parties don't and have never changed? They don't have sudden sea changes overnight, and it doesn't happen without a push in that direction. Again, incumbents feel no pain over losing your vote when they get re-elected anyway.

Nobody is "losing" my vote. That's the thing. This idea that a vote for neither is a vote for one is logically nonsensical.

If I see a party start changing for the better, maybe I'll lend credence to a candidate they churn out.

gut;1263126 wrote:But he's a Republican, one with a long and unsuccessful track record in Congress.

Unsuccessful because he's an atypical Republican, so garnering support from the conventionalist Republicans in Congress is virtually futile, never mind the Democrats.

As for how he got in, a smaller segment of the national constituency has shown that they will elect someone who goes against the grain of he current Republican default. Those are people whose nomination I might hear out.

gut;1263126 wrote:I find your support of him completely inconsistent with everything you've said about every candidate just being more of what we've seen.

Just as you've said yourself, change is gradual. Him being elected by a small segment of the population doesn't validate the notion that the candidate nominated by the national whole is any different. In fact, the very revelation that the majority of the party across the nation voted for the conventional candidate over the alternative only solidifies the fact that the current candidate is likely no different than the ones in recent history.

gut;1263126 wrote:It's beside the point, but Ron Paul is completely unelectable with some crazy ideas.

Logical consistency throughout all of his policy positions is a crazy idea in government, but if you translate it to any other part of life, it becomes the most logical one. Funny how that works.

gut;1263126 wrote:He has 0 history of consensus building in politics, really.

Because consensus building has been the better option thus far?

gut;1263126 wrote:About the only possible outcome with Ron Paul is gridlock, an outcome that's arguably worse than either Romney or Obama.

Explain.

gut;1263126 wrote:A continued pattern of voting for the better of two candidates eventually gets you to the same place.

Again with the assumption that a party whose track record is no better somehow produces a better candidate.

And your statement is not even necessarily true. Suppose you have candidate X, whose policy is somehow quantified to benefit the country to the tune of -3. You have the other, whose policy is quantified in the same way to benefit the country to the tune of -2.5. Both build negatively, so both actually take you further from where you wish to go. Not the same as even voting for a +0 candidate.

gut;1263126 wrote:The question is if allowing a failure to continue gives you the chance to sort things out. Either you vote for small/incremental improvements or you do nothing. Doing nothing always ends in destruction.

Neither candidate is an improvement. If we were to speak to either deficit spending or militarization of the world, each president over the last several decades has taken us further and further away from improvement, to varying degrees, I'll admit. However, even if Romney would leave the country better than Obama would in the next four years (based on his support of increased military presence overseas and increased surveillance on the general public at home, that's unlikely), that doesn't mean he'd leave it better than it is today.

gut;1263126 wrote: Different scenarios require different skills set. You don't hire a cost-cutting CEO when your company is in growth mode.

Of course not. He wouldn't be the best option. Fit plays a role in defining "best." As such, you're not going to ever find a "best" applicant who is a bad fit. If it's a bad fit, he's not the best applicant for the job.

gut;1263126 wrote:And if you're waiting for a one-size-fits-all candidate to emerge, such people really don't exist.

Of course not. If they did, we'd have someone hired (or in the non-parallel case, elected) with unanimity.

gut;1263126 wrote:You will not find someone who is the best in all scenarios. Economics is in the forefront right now, but the country is divided. You need someone who is pragmatic and can lead - that's not Ron Paul and it's not Obama.

I do find it interesting that you try to defend a position that we don't know whether or not Romney will be as bad as Obama, but you so readily assert that you know how a Paul presidency would turn out.

I'd suggest that a person whose CONSISTENT positions over time have fit into both major parties' ideologies would be a better fit than someone who tows the party line at every turn, and is therefore almost categorically opposite the other party on every talking point.

gut;1263126 wrote:Again, this is projecting a line of thought or potential based on a nomination. At the national levels, you will never agree with a platform candidate because a nominee is going to be an amalgamation of people with differing points of views. What you're really saying here is you reject the process of consensus building.

Not at all. Just the false dichotomy we have currently. The same logic can be applied the other way around.

gut;1263126 wrote:That may be fine and dandy but it doesn't build bridges.

If by "consensus" you mean something equitable to compromise, then the notion that the Republican candidate who intends to embody the categorical opposite of the traditional Democrat candidate?

gut;1263126 wrote:And back to the point I keep repeating - without a cultural change, you can't have someone that reflects the majority of your views capable of building a consensus. Such people never affect change because their own rejection of the consensus building process is precisely what prevents them from gaining consensus to make inroads.

The fact that Paul IS actually able to build a consensus based on policy is actually why he was finishing 2nd in many of the Democrat straw polls earlier this year. Given that the two main parties adopt some element of a free society (which Paul's ideology supports), but unwaveringly reject others, attests to the fact that Paul has common ground with both main parties. It also attests to the notion that the majority of both parties are every bit as unwilling to find consensus unless it's on an issue they seem to care about less.

gut;1263126 wrote:Remember the etch-a-sketch comment? Well, you should know better by now, anyway, than to have such certain opinions of what someone is going to do based on campaigns for and against them.

If a man lies about his intentions for the position, why should I assume he would actually be better than he says he will?

FWIW, I'm with Otrap here. I'm not going to vote for Mitt just because I hate Obama. A candidate is going to have to earn my vote. And if I'm not happy with either of them I will vote for someone else until one of the two party candidates doesn't suck.

How many bills has Paul sponsored that became law? That's a track record of failure. Regardless, he's not a choice up for consideration. I struggle to see your admiration for consistency over leadership.

When you two candidates are vying for consensus, and you choose a third, you are not part of the consensus process. You have no impact. Imagine a meeting of your company's executive team, and one person always chooses Option C from two alternatives. If that person isn't eventually fired, they've marginalized themselves.

By definition, the consensus candidate won't fit anyone's "ideal" candidate, but they are the best fit for the job to bridge those gaps. It's compromise that people are buying into. You're displaying an attitude not to compromise which, again, is to say you are removing yourself from the consensus building process.

And LMAO at finishing 2nd as evidence of building consensus. Again, I find it fascinating that you so easily decided Romney will be failure when has actually has a track record of compromise and building consensus. And you reject Paul Ryan when he's one of the few people with a plan and one of the few willing to get things moving in the right direction.

I'm at a complete loss as to how someone can say the two choices are identical. At best it is lazy analysis, but it looks a lot more like childish stubborness.

Let's just say you are right about Paul. What would make Mitt better than Johnson? Johnson has a better record as governor, has leadership experience in private sector. He would be able to attract dems on a lot of social issues and anti intervention stance.

Let's face it Mitt won because of money and the republicans idiotic stance on going with a guy cause its his turn.

FatHobbit;1263202 wrote:. And if I'm not happy with either of them I will vote for someone else until one of the two party candidates doesn't suck.

What you actually will do is endorse the status quo by omission. I'm really at a loss to understand how someone expects things to change by allowing the present course to take us further adrift. You enable things to become more entrenched and actually make it less likely for a better/different candidate to emerge. No, instead you will sit back and let other people determine the direction of this country and then complain about it.

You want to send a message, show them results matter more than campaigning. How do you expect things to change when you allow failures to be re-elected? The path you are choosing is to endorse the status quo until things get so bad that someone new can rise from the ashes, and gambling that won't be too late.

gut;1263225 wrote:What you actually will do is endorse the status quo by omission. I'm really at a loss to understand how someone expects things to change by allowing the present course to take us further adrift. You enable things to become more entrenched and actually make it less likely for a better/different candidate to emerge. No, instead you will sit back and let other people determine the direction of this country and then complain about it.

You want to send a message, show them results matter more than campaigning. How do you expect things to change when you allow failures to be re-elected? The path you are choosing is to endorse the status quo until things get so bad that someone new can rise from the ashes, and gambling that won't be too late.

It's thinking like this that guarantees a third pary is not viable. You try to blame me, but I blame the republicans for not having a better candidate. I have not quite made up my mind as to who I will vote for, but I will not just vote for someone if the best thing you can say about him is "at least he is not Barrack."

pmoney25;1263220 wrote: Let's face it Mitt won because of money and the republicans idiotic stance on going with a guy cause its his turn.

Bull. If you think the primaries indicated Mitt got the nod because it was "his turn" you weren't paying attention, and I also think being a two-time loser was actually a detriment to overcome. That's generally been the formula with primaries - win the nomination by appealing to the base and then win the election by moving toward center (hence the infamous etch-a-sketch comment). It's a broken system, but it is what it is.

And you're naive to think the ability to raise funds should be ignored. Reality is you needed someone that could negate Obama's finance advantage to have a chance. Again, part of the broken system but that's reality and it's the primary reason Mitt is a better choice than Gary Johnson.

FatHobbit;1263229 wrote:It's thinking like this that guarantees a third pary is not viable

Garbage. It's the lack of interest and demand in the primaries that prevents a viable third party. Oh wait, we do have the Tea Party. No, the destructive thinking is the belief that sitting on your duff for 4 years and then voluntarily disenfranchising yourself is remotely a viable path to a third party. The bus driver is asleep at the wheel and you'll just sit there until someone comes forward - not just anyone, mind you, but you'll wait and I'm sure everything will be just fine.

You're putting the cart before the horse. The general election will never serve to launch a third party. You can never hope to build the necessary support and momentum in a few months every 4 years. It's not a time for talk, but for decisions.

Please share, honestly. I'm curious to what all you third party advocates do with your time and money to contribute to the formation of a viable third party. Because such inaction is what guarantees a third party is not viable.

gut;1263216 wrote:How many bills has Paul sponsored that became law? That's a track record of failure. Regardless, he's not a choice up for consideration. I struggle to see your admiration for consistency over leadership.

Leadership is saying whatever is most convenient at the time?

News to me.

gut;1263216 wrote:When you two candidates are vying for consensus, and you choose a third, you are not part of the consensus process.

I am if that third option actually works with elements of the two main ones. The third one embodies agreement with each of the two major parties' talking points.

Paul's platform was essentially the orange to the Republicans' yellow and the Democrats' red. Not sure how that doesn't scream consensus.

gut;1263216 wrote:You have no impact. Imagine a meeting of your company's executive team, and one person always chooses Option C from two alternatives. If that person isn't eventually fired, they've marginalized themselves.

Actually, if Option A and Option B were tried over and over and over again, and perpetually failed, even with insignificant tweaks, then Option C is worth a shot, and the members who continued hitting their heads against the same wall in hopes that it won't hurt this time are the ones who are proven to be a liability to the company.

We've tried A and we've tried B. A combination of going back and forth between them has gotten us to where we are today. Insanity, remember?

gut;1263216 wrote:By definition, the consensus candidate won't fit anyone's "ideal" candidate, but they are the best fit for the job to bridge those gaps. It's compromise that people are buying into. You're displaying an attitude not to compromise which, again, is to say you are removing yourself from the consensus building process.

My attitude is one that supports Federal fiscal responsibility, free market, non-interventism, and unrestricted personal liberties. The former two are common talking points from the Republicans. The latter two are common talking points from the Democrats. How does that not sound like compromise?

gut;1263216 wrote:And LMAO at finishing 2nd as evidence of building consensus.

You can LYAO all you want, but the fact that his platform established enough commonality with DEMOCRAT voters for so many to vote for him is documented evidence that his position certainly seems more conducive to being heard by both sides.

gut;1263216 wrote:Again, I find it fascinating that you so easily decided Romney will be failure when has actually has a track record of compromise and building consensus.

The guy has a track record of convenience. He has a track record of supporting whatever is popular ... ie the 'Etch-a-Sketch'. His political position is like Play-Doh. He'll bend and mold however you want him to, so long as it means you'll support him.

gut;1263216 wrote:And you reject Paul Ryan when he's one of the few people with a plan and one of the few willing to get things moving in the right direction.

Let's take a look at his recent track record:

Supported:
TARP
Auto industry bailouts
Unemployment extension
Housing subsidies
Permanence of the PATRIOT Act
No Child Left Behind
Indefinite troop stationing in Iraq (which costs money AND takes dollars out of our economy and puts them in the Iraqi economy)
Both GWB's and Obama's stimuli

That's your idea of someone willing to get things moving in the RIGHT direction? What in there stands in contrast to what Obama has done in office?

gut;1263216 wrote:I'm at a complete loss as to how someone can say the two choices are identical.

See above.

gut;1263216 wrote:At best it is lazy analysis, but it looks a lot more like childish stubborness.

Nah, it's actually a combination of observing trends and using factual information, as above.

gut;1263237 wrote:Please share, honestly. I'm curious to what all you third party advocates do with your time and money to contribute to the formation of a viable third party. Because such inaction is what guarantees a third party is not viable.

I've donated in the four-figure range to the Libertarian Party this year, and I also run a digital marketing campaign for it.

Why?

O-Trap;1263260 wrote:I've donated in the four-figure range to the Libertarian Party this year, and I also run a digital marketing campaign for it.

Why?

Because that's how you affect real change (and good for you, I don't suspect others can claim as much). And not by disenfranchising yourself on the election day.

Go back to my executive management example - the guy who shows up in the 11th hour with a new option brings no value to the table.

And I'm sorry, I just don't bother with nested quotes. I can't respond efficiently in that form.

gut;1263279 wrote:Because that's how you affect real change (and good for you, I don't suspect others can claim as much). And not by disenfranchising yourself on the election day.

Even something as small as a vote does something, even small. Eventually, enough small somethings become a larger something. It's that slow change you were referring to.

I don't vote for the conventional Republican, not just because I disagree with him on certain fundamental views, but because I believe the party is putting guys up there that are headed the wrong direction -- not because they aren't headed enough in the right one.

gut;1263279 wrote:Go back to my executive management example - the guy who shows up in the 11th hour with a new option brings no value to the table.

The first time, it's certainly inconvenient, but long-term, it's not valueless. However, at the next meeting it is no longer new. If the prior option(s) have not worked, the new one should be engaged at subsequent meetings.

In the corporate example, outside-the-box ideas are virtually the antithesis of conventional wisdom, and they are rarely taken seriously to start. They take time, but they also take persistence. If my employee has the idea, but never pushes it or develops it with consistency, even against the grain of traditional convention, it will never be something that others can see play out, so they won't jump on board. But if the idea has a logical consistency to it, even at the 11th hour, it's not worthless. It's just inconvenient.

gut;1263279 wrote: And I'm sorry, I just don't bother with nested quotes. I can't respond efficiently in that form.

No worries. I tend to think in compartmental terms and address individual thoughts as such. I don't hold it against anyone. Just the way I think.

O-Trap;1263282 wrote:However, at the next meeting it is no longer new. If the prior option(s) have not worked, the new one should be engaged at subsequent meetings.

In the corporate example, outside-the-box ideas are virtually the antithesis of conventional wisdom, and they are rarely taken seriously to start. They take time, but they also take persistence. If my employee has the idea, but never pushes it or develops it with consistency, even against the grain of traditional convention, it will never be something that others can see play out, so they won't jump on board. But if the idea has a logical consistency to it, even at the 11th hour, it's not worthless. It's just inconvenient.

But it's not option C again and again. It's always a different person or different party. That's useless and unproductive. Impractical ideas add 0 value. We've all seen people who throw out lots of ideas but lack initiative. The guy incapable of discussing viable options has no place on my management team.

I think you under the illusion re-elected incumbents are somehow going to notice or care about your protest vote. They become entrenched until they retire, never accountable to you. You've got to put in the work to present a viable option, and that takes time. In the interim, all you can do is fire the failures. At least you give yourself a chance for interim success with that approach.

I mean, do you think the Repubs didn't notice when they got massacred in 2008? You think both Dems and Repubs didn't take note of 2010? When people see their colleagues getting fired for not doing the job, the notice a HELL OF A LOT MORE than some inconsequential protest votes on the margin.

gut;1263287 wrote:But it's not option C again and again. It's always a different person or different party. That's useless and unproductive.

For such a case, I agree. Supporting a candidate with a different ideology each time, particularly as an underdog candidate, is unproductive.

Supporting candidates with the same ideology each time, however, and developing the framework to spread that ideology in the "off-season," is not, I would contend.

gut;1263287 wrote:Impractical ideas add 0 value. We've all seen people who throw out lots of ideas but lack initiative. The guy incapable of discussing viable options has no place on my management team.

I'm actually okay with having a guy who is like a shotgun of ideas, most of which end up as pie in the sky, so long as he's willing to follow up and either confirm or deny the idea's plausibility. Every now and then, those people are goldmines. That's the outside-the-box thinking I was referring to earlier. Usually, outside-the-box ideas start out as seemingly nonviable.

gut;1263287 wrote:I think you under the illusion re-elected incumbents are somehow going to notice or care about your protest vote.

Not at all, as my vote isn't for the purpose of protest. It's merely the exercise available to me to support whichever option I think is best for the nation. I do it to support my pick; not to make a statement against those who are not my picks.

gut;1263287 wrote:I mean, do you think the Repubs didn't notice when they got massacred in 2008? You think both Dems and Repubs didn't take note of 2010? When people see their colleagues getting fired for not doing the job, the notice a HELL OF A LOT MORE than some inconsequential protest votes on the margin.

This might be where you and I differ. I don't think most of them get fired for not doing their jobs. I think most get fired (or massacred, as the case may be) because of a tableau of sorts that either vilifies the incumbent. Because of this, if the voter is unhappy with his situation, said voter is given scene by which he can justify attributing his woes to the actions of the incumbent.

So, I think it's less that people don't do their jobs and more that voters are able to be convinced that they're not doing their jobs. Now, by this, I'm not saying the incumbents ARE doing their jobs. I'm just saying that isn't the cause for them getting ousted for someone else who has the potential to do an equally poor job, but has the PR team to paint him in a different light.

I suppose my skepticism of the idea that politicians are ousted for not doing their job stems from the belief that most voters are blissfully ignorant and are convinced that they are justified in voting that way.

Or to quote Tommy Lee Jones from Men In Black, "A person is smart; people are stupid."

O-Trap;1263308 wrote: I suppose my skepticism of the idea that politicians are ousted for not doing their job stems from the belief that most voters are blissfully ignorant and are convinced that they are justified in voting that way.

That makes sense and I don't really disagree about how voters are manipulated. I guess my question is, in an election such as this when the economy is absolutely front and center (and in 2008 if you want to talk about the wars), is there really a difference? I suppose I can agree most voters aren't looking at the record, and it sends a mixed message to fire incumbents wholesale. But I think sometimes we don't give voters enough credit (and I'm as guilty as anyone).

But I also disagree that we aren't seeing change. A lot of Tea Party folk got elected in 2010 and have taken a pretty hard-line stance on a balanced budget. Romney/Ryan and plenty of other Repubs are talking the talk that we honestly haven't heard in a very long time. And the Dems are having no problem pitting this election as a choice between more govt and more redistribution vs something going away from European-style socialism. I think this is a hugely critical vote. This, IMO, is a referendum on a path to becoming more like Europe. You either take this opportunity to say NO!, or you wait and hope someone is up to the task 4 years (or more) from now.

Yeah, I don't like everything Romney/Ryan are about, but I am confident they're going to at least have the tough debates (how successful they are depends on how effective their leadership is). We need to have those debates, in earnest, NOW. I can't remotely envision an outcome with Obama (and, god forbid, another Dem House & Senate) where we are better positioned for a game changer 4 years down the road. And WHAT IF Hillary runs after 4 more years of Obama? We're talking 8, maybe 12 more years before "your guy" gets in. The damage could be irreversible.

We absolutely could use a 3rd party. But where has that sort of "hope and change" gotten us the last 4 years? I mean, do you REALLY want to roll those dice? In your business, would you really chase rainbows while the company falls apart?

I have said it before and I'll say it again....if you want to build a third party, you start at the grassroots level. The tea party could very well be a third party if the Republicans ignore their calls for a balanced budget. Meanwhile, they gain strength by being mostly supportive of a major party platform. If an when a break is necessary, they will be a force to be reckoned with. Heck, they already are.

HitsRus;1263413 wrote:I have said it before and I'll say it again....if you want to build a third party, you start at the grassroots level. The tea party could very well be a third party if the Republicans ignore their calls for a balanced budget. Meanwhile, they gain strength by being mostly supportive of a major party platform. If an when a break is necessary, they will be a force to be reckoned with. Heck, they already are.

Would you say that the Republican Party as a whole is not currently treating a balanced budget like a priority?

O-Trap;1263443 wrote:Would you say that the Republican Party as a whole is not currently treating a balanced budget like a priority?

They come a heck of a lot closer than Obama. I'd like to see what they do with the POTUS and control of the House and Senate.

Ryan's budget is a start in the right direction. We aren't going to balance the budget without taking on entitlements, and I get what you say about leadership but you can't get elected on that truth, Americans can't handle it. You have to chip away gradually. I think 4 years would be an aggressive and optimistic target. The cultural change is really more than Washington, it's America.