http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/10/10/the-mass-insanity-of-american-voters/0/

It's a long read but should be required.

Whatever you do, do not waste your vote. Do not vote for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.

That's right...cast your vote for the non-establishment "other guy" so we can get rid of the phony warmongering liberals and the eeeeevil warmongering neo-cons. Well, it sounds good anyway.

believer;1295494 wrote:That's right...cast your vote for the non-establishment "other guy" so we can get rid of the phony warmongering liberals and the eeeeevil warmongering neo-cons. Well, it sounds good anyway.

Who then...John Anderson? Or maybe Ross Perot? Those were the days of righteous 3rd Party types

BGFalcons82;1295501 wrote:Who then...John Anderson? Or maybe Ross Perot? Those were the days of righteous 3rd Party types

Exactly. Now we have Roseanne Barr & Peta Lindsay for the far left loons, Jack Fellure & Virgil Goode for the far right loons, and finally Gary Johnson for the few but proud libertarian crowd.

A vote for Johnson sounds enticing until you realize that (a) he stands a snowball's chance in hell of winning and (b) nearly every vote cast for Johnson simply helps insure that we get to enjoy for more years of Obama ineptitude.

Yes, yes, yes "the lesser of two evils" argument may be lame but it's also pragmatic.

I'd rather help steer the ship at least slightly in the right direction than assist - by default - in ramming the boat into the inevitable iceberg that lies dead ahead.

Actually in quite a few of the battleground states polling has shown that he is taking more votes from Obama than Romney. Non intervention, anti drug war, social issues. Quite a few liberals are disappointed with Obama also.

As for Romney. This guy has spent the last two weeks already distancing himself from his "severe conservative" days and you hope he may be a fraction different than Obama. The only difference is how they will spend and dig us deeper in debt.

The Republican party wasted a nomination on Romney. The only way this is competitive is because Obama just so happens to be an equally bad candidate.

believer;1295594 wrote:A vote for Johnson sounds enticing until you realize that (a) he stands a snowball's chance in hell of winning and (b) nearly every vote cast for Johnson simply helps insure that we get to enjoy for more years of Obama ineptitude.

Yes, yes, yes "the lesser of two evils" argument may be lame but it's also pragmatic.

I'd rather help steer the ship at least slightly in the right direction than assist - by default - in ramming the boat into the inevitable iceberg that lies dead ahead.

Your response is the entire point of the article.

FatHobbit;1295722 wrote:Your response is the entire point of the article.

Sour grapes is what it is. Unless you can find a viable 3rd party candidate that can challenge these guys, they simply don't care about your vote. Look at Mitt Romney's moment of candor - these people don't worry about the votes they aren't going to get. The ONLY thing that gets a politician's attention is re-election.

If you want to change behaviors, then FIRST start but firing the incumbents.

gut;1295725 wrote:Sour grapes is what it is. Unless you can find a viable 3rd party candidate that can challenge these guys, they simply don't care about your vote. Look at Mitt Romney's moment of candor - these people don't worry about the votes they aren't going to get. The ONLY thing that gets a politician's attention is re-election.

If you want to change behaviors, then FIRST start but firing the incumbents.

Okay. So we fire Obama. Then what? Fire Romney in 4 years because he's terrible. Then what? Fire the democrat in office in 4 years because he sucks. Then what? Fire the republican in office in 4 years because he sucks. Then what?

The thing about the article is that it presupposes that Obama has violated the Constitution and International Law per se and that Romney would do the same when there are plenty of reasonable people who don't think that's the case.

believer;1295594 wrote:A vote for Johnson sounds enticing until you realize that (a) he stands a snowball's chance in hell of winning and (b) nearly every vote cast for Johnson simply helps insure that we get to enjoy for more years of Obama ineptitude.

From the article:

Voting isn’t a horse race. It’s not about picking a winner. Chances are, if everyone just stopped thinking, “I really like this alternative candidate, but I won’t vote for him because he’s ‘unelectable’,” and instead just voted their conscience, then he wouldn’t be unelectable, the establishment order could no longer be sustained, and the door would be opened to the possibility that the country might see real, meaningful, significant change.

believer;1295594 wrote:Yes, yes, yes "the lesser of two evils" argument may be lame but it's also pragmatic.

No, it's just lame. And the reason our country is in a world of shit going forward. Your grandkids are fucked.

believer;1295594 wrote:I'd rather help steer the ship at least slightly in the right direction than assist - by default - in ramming the boat into the inevitable iceberg that lies dead ahead.

Maybe it's just going to take the boat ramming in to the iceberg before real change finally happens. Or, we're just destined to collapse because there are far too many people who treat voting like a horse race.

justincredible;1295728 wrote:Okay. So we fire Obama. Then what? Fire Romney in 4 years because he's terrible. Then what? Fire the democrat in office in 4 years because he sucks. Then what? Fire the republican in office in 4 years because he sucks. Then what?

Yep. And if and when you shitty candidate gets elected, we'll fire him too.

You see, it doesn't send any sort of message to talk about, even vote for, someone else. They actually have to take the job from someone else for people to notice.

And I call horseshit on the idea a lot of people won't vote for someone because "they aren't electable". Another way of saying that is they just don't like your guy. Or usually someone is "not electable" because of positions on one or more issues, which is sort of the point of a primary. Plenty of people voting for their guy in the primaries.

The election process is one of consensus building. You can participate in that process, or you can whine about your horse bringing up the rear.

BoatShoes;1295731 wrote:The thing about the article is that it presupposes that Obama has violated the Constitution and International Law per se and that Romney would do the same when there are plenty of reasonable people who don't think that's the case.

The NDAA doesn't violate the Constitution?

gut;1295733 wrote: You see, it doesn't send any sort of message to talk about, even vote for, someone else. They actually have to take the job from someone else for people to notice.

How can they take their job without talking about them and voting for them?

Look, I know Johnson has zero shot at winning this election. IDGAF about 2012. Getting enough (5%, I think) of the popular vote will give the Libertarian party a huge chunk of change that can be used for running a legit, nationwide campaign in 2016.

justincredible;1295728 wrote:Okay. So we fire Obama. Then what? Fire Romney in 4 years because he's terrible. Then what? Fire the democrat in office in 4 years because he sucks. Then what? Fire the republican in office in 4 years because he sucks. Then what?

Repeat for the rest of our lives. Short-term thinking wins out against the long-term.

justincredible;1295736 wrote:The NDAA doesn't violate the Constitution?

Not according to the opinion of some of the best lawyers in the world advising Congress and the President and that's why we have the Courts to settle the matter. That is just it...reasonable minds can disagree.

queencitybuckeye;1295760 wrote:Repeat for the rest of our lives. Short-term thinking wins out against the long-term.

Ain't it a bitch?

justincredible;1295766 wrote:Ain't it a bitch?

It's all but hopeless. All I can do is try to minimize the damage such thinking inflicts on my life and not have a stroke thinking about it too much.

queencitybuckeye;1295767 wrote:It's all but hopeless. All I can do is try to minimize the damage such thinking inflicts on my life and not have a stroke thinking about it too much.

Haha, I'm not to the point of having a stroke. Yet. I do have some hope for the future, even if it is just a tiny bit.

justincredible;1295769 wrote:Haha, I'm not to the point of having a stroke. Yet.

I have 30 or so years on you, be patient.

BoatShoes;1295762 wrote:Not according to the opinion of some of the best lawyers in the world advising Congress and the President and that's why we have the Courts to settle the matter. That is just it...reasonable minds can disagree.

Yes that's why we have courts.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/13/1131186/-Judge-Rules-Permanently-Against-Obama-s-Unconstitutional-NDAA

1. Let's assume Obama has in fact trample on and violated the Constitution. To my knowledge, Mitt Romney has not. Say what you want about his policies, many of which I disagree with, but Romney is different from Obama in that respect.

2. It really is "voting for the lesser of two evils". Politics is a filthy, dirty business. At some point it's wiser to compromise on strategy while still holding fast to your principles. This was Rand Paul's point a few months back when he endorsed Romney. Otherwise you have millions of people voting for their next-door neighbor, their uncle, a few for Santa Claus, etc.

I mean, where is the magic line where someone is no longer electable? My relative may be the most principled, stand-up politician out there, but if he's not on the ballot should I still vote for him? A few on this forum have lamented several of Gary Johnson's positions, but will still vote for him because . . . wait for it . . . he's the lesser of three evils.

3. The article's comparison to Hitler and Stalin was pretty lame. Both were dictators holding most or all of the power of their government. We actually still have access to Congress and every two years can hold one branch of our government accountable. We can influence state and local races immensely. Just because the presidency (one branch) is not what we want, doesn't mean we should pout and protest and take our ball home.

I think if you are a rational human being you will never agree 100% with any candidate. I just want a candidate who takes the term small government seriously. One who does so on Social and Fiscal issues and the two main candidates do not take it seriously.

Neither candidate is honest on how hard it is going to be to get back on track. Romney keeps telling people if you just cut taxes, everything will be ok and Obama tells people if you just tax rich people a little more, everything will be ok. Paul Ryan wants to balance the budget in 30 years and he is considered the fiscal hawk of the party. Romney wants to repeal Obamacare and then take that money and give it to the Pentagon. Both candidates are just trying to kick the can down the road.

You can keep saying I am throwing my vote away or that I am just reelecting Obama but so what. I am not going to vote for someone who I think will dig us deeper in the hole and that's why I won't vote for Obama or Romney.

jhay78;1295803 wrote:I mean, where is the magic line where someone is no longer electable? My relative may be the most principled, stand-up politician out there, but if he's not on the ballot should I still vote for him? A few on this forum have lamented several of Gary Johnson's positions, but will still vote for him because . . . wait for it . . . he's the lesser of three evils.

I'm voting for Johnson because I find nothing about him "evil."

I'm voting Mitt Romney and then writing-in Ron Paul or Gary Johnson for every other office on the ballot (except maybe Brown/Mandel). That'll show em!