The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Why I will be voting 3rd party - pt2

The problems with voting for a third party candidate is that you only ensure that things you feel are important will never be addressed. In our system of government, majorities are important. Neither party is ideal because people in general are far from ideal. We are, all of us, broken. So, decide which party best matches your values, and vote for EVERY candidate from that party, city, state, and federal.

Divide and conquer applies to politics as well as to war.

Well, I agree with your last line.

My view is however, its time to divide and conquer the GOP. Because we dont really have two parties anymore, the GOP and Dems are the same in all but name... and a handful of socially charged wedge issues that dont really, when it comes down to it, matter in most peoples lives.

If the GOP actually stood for anything other than corruption, I would agree with you. We obviously cannot always get what we want. However, the two major parties have taken the "we can do what we want, because the other guy is just as bad" to the ultimate extreme.

Until enough people start defecting from the main two to start skewing elections on a regular basis (think Greens, Gore in 2000) nothing will change.

As with any monopoly, prices go up and quality goes down. We are paying an extremely high price, for extremely poor quality because so many of us fall into the "I have to vote for someone who can win" trap. Voting for trash, is the same as endorsing trash.

I will vote for someone who I do not agree with 100%, or even 80%, or sometimes even 60%.

I will however no longer vote for human trash, just because the "other guy is even worse". Hopefully enough people stop voting for trash, that we stop getting trash elected officials. Its not gonna be today, and its not going to be tomorrow... can just hope it happens at some point.

More...

Romney ties to voting machine company

Meanwhile in North Carolina 583 democrats OVER the age of 112 voted!
http://www.examiner.com/article/north-carolina-registers-over-583-democrat-votes-over-the-age-of-112

If the corporate parties want our vote they will endorse Instant Runoff Voting legislation to get it. The issue is that this makes them vulnerable to actually losing out to real choice, something they are desperate to prevent

"Until enough people start defecting from the main two to start skewing elections on a regular basis (think Greens, Gore in 2000) nothing will change. "

Sadly, it won't happen.

An intelligent voter is vastly outnumbered by idiots, non-citizens, and even the dead. ( who all still vote )

I imagine the intelligent voter as a lone palm tree on a beach somewhere, defiantly staring down an incoming tidal wave. Their heart is in the right place, but in the end the tidal wave will win.

One can vote against the accepted standard all we want, but we'll still get crushed by that tidal wave. :|

Well, only time will tell. I hope you are wrong, but its obviously something that cant be proven way one or another. All we can do is work to raise the disgust level of people in general via awareness, and provide an alternative.

I think there is some hope. The hope lies in a new and changed messaging. Before, the message was "if enough people do it, we can win!" which while technically true, isnt very emotionally compelling.

With the new message of "your guy WONT win, but it doesnt matter. By voting for the D/R guy you are endorsing an almost unimaginable level of evil and corruption.. its not about winning." I think there might be some traction. Levels of disgust and distrust of the FedGov are rising to heights not seen since the Civil War , and for good reason.

Finding people willing to vote 3rd party in the vain hope of someday winning is a tough proposition. Finding people willing to stop endorsing the status quo, out of sheer disgust without the hope of winning is, psychologically, a much easier proposition.

Time will tell whether it will enough.

this just in: obama fucking over the military
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/20...sentee-ballots/

One thing about Romney. at least he doesnt hate america

According to the article Obama has not interfered with over seas militray people voting in a timely manner. Nor has he had anything todo against 6 of the 8 swing states since the state sectary are repubs. If this is your smoking gun then it lacks wieght and logic.

I think he was pointing out the second page of the article where they show that, while Obama isn't interfering with the military ballots, his administration only started helping grease the wheels of the process when polling data suggested that those votes could help him rather than hurt him, as the original assessment of that voting group showed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting I can guarantee that RMoney would have never even made it past the primaries if we had this in most states, and even if he had, these guys would seem unelectable compared to the entire field

Hmm, interesting concept. I cant see any reason off the top of my head not to use it, it probably would be a lot better than our current way.

Nice cut and paste, I thought you didn't go for this. Lets all put up some talking points from the left or right and get nowhere.

"If Mitt Romney is elected, he will be the fourth Republican president in the Reagan regime."

More propaganda, there was only one Ronald Reagan. The Republicans have left the Reagan regime behind when Reagan left office.

I am surprised you so violently object to this article, from where I stand it was complimenting Romney. He is certainly undeserving being compared/associated with Reagan.

Derid says, "...the GOP and Dems are the same in all but name..."

Except for things like abortion, health care, size of government, taxes, welfare, defense spending, entitlements, government spending, and probably a number of things I'm forgetting.

If they were exactly the same, legislation would be passing by unanimous consent. Since it's not, I'm guessing they're not.

Abortion - social wedge issue designed to split and distract people away from things that really matter.

Health Care - Lots of rhetoric, but Bush Medicare Part D, Romneys promises to "save" ponzi scheme entitlements, and much much more... not a lot of difference. Health Individual Mandate was a GOP creation - the GOP doesnt like the current Obamacare because of 2 reasons 1) it was designed to create additional Dem constituencies of dependence, and 2) Its unpopular so can be siezed upon for political Capital.

Size of Govt - GOP may be for some sort of smaller Govt than the Dems... but its like comparing Saturn to Jupiter. One is larger than the other, but theyre still both huge. Both candidates fully endorse TSA, Homeland security, and an extremely large, unnecessary, and unbeneficial (to anyone but the ruling bureaucrats , contractors and privacy violating machine manufacturers ) police state.

Taxes - lots of rhetoric here, but mostly its focused on taxing the wealthiest, and its all rhetorical political smoke and mirrors. If the Dems really cared about it, it would have happened in Obamas first two years.

Defense spending - Obamas still spending 800B on defense. Romney would apparently increase it drastically - and while I was a big supporter of Romney's initial push regarding Naval spending and R&D , his latest push for vastly increasing land armaments has left me gaping at the utter stupidity.

Entitlements - GOP might have a slight edge here, since they would probably at least voucherize medicare....eventually...

Govt Spending - Hard to see how the GOP is going to reduce spending while saving entitlements and doubling the military. They both spend money like its water. In fact, saying that is probably inaccurate - because the Fed has, under Bush and Obama make sure that money is in fact more plentiful than water. Since water is a finite resource, digital currency without any tie to a real world commodity is infinite.

--

Legislation does not pass by unanimous consent all of the time, because though both parties basically function the same and are the same creatures of corruption - the beneficiaries of said corruption can be different. They fight over "show" issues, to determine who gets to dole out the goods. Both parties are, at this point, basically existing solely to extract wealth and power from the us, and hand it to their benefactors, friends, and cronies.

Both parties are about free handout to corrupt banksters. Both parties are about corporate welfare and subsidies to their constituents, both parties are happy to give free reign to the Monsantos of the world , both parties favor regulation that favors established business interests over the market competition.

Sure, there are some honest elements of each party. But those elements are not in control.

Both parties got caught breaking their own rules, to quash the grassroots at their own conventions.

Both parties are about more debt, less freedom, bankster bailouts, useless wars, and voodoo economics. Sure, there are some differences around the edges - and major differences of style and rhetoric.

But Obama looks very much like Bush, and I suspect Romney will look almost exactly like Obama. Except for a greater religious tilt to some policies and enforcement. Possibly a greater eagerness to shuffle off to more expensive, useless wars. Mitt would probably ease up on stifling energy regulations some, which would be a benefit.

Neither will address the fundamental issues in a meaningful way.

I disagree. This can only be called a deflection tactic if you believe that a child in incubation is just so much random tissue, as likely to become a toaster oven as it is to become a human. If, like me, you believe there is a much greater chance (nearly infinitely greater) of that tissue becoming a human, then aborting it is murder. The right not to be murdered is one of our founding principles. I don't think that can be dismissed out of hand as merely a partisan issue designed to divert attention, or as an issue that doesn't really matter. Next it will be ok to euthanize your grandparents because, "they don't really contribute any longer."

I'm not making the argument that it isn't used as a diversion, but to claim that it actually is just a diversion is different.

Its the difference between "will become", and "is".

Its not *what it *could become, but rather what it currently *is that is important. Sperm is unlikely to become a toaster either, and only likely to become a person.

Or maybe we are all genocidal maniacs. Perhaps Hugh Heffner should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity, his magazine being responsible for the deaths of untold trillions of people.

The abortion issue is just an unfortunate outcropping of the Catholic Church, and Pope Paul VI psychotic rambling titled "Humanae Vitae". For some unfortunate reason, protestants have taken up the Catholic line en masse.

Deciding a fertilized egg is a human, really has no relationship to killing your grandparents. Its a religious opinion. I have no objection to people who choose not to pursue abortions or contraception out of their religious beliefs of course, thats their call. I do not particularly care for having that view enforced on others at gunpoint though.

But so many people have made abortion their primary voting issue, and vote for candidates that are otherwise complete corrupt trash - but hey, theyre pro-life! - that I have a very difficult time not feeling a strong level of disgust at the issue in general. The issue is a magician's trick - they wave abortion in front of the electorate with one hand , while they pocket the electorate's money and liberty with the other.

I know you probably think differently on the issue Kaotic, and thats cool - I just have a hard time forgiving the "pro life" political movement for all the damage they have inadvertently caused in this country, and am somewhat peevish on the issue.

I am with Derid, abortion is a wedge issue that has nothing to do with running the country with all the existing people in it.

if abortion had been left up to the states, it wouldnt even be a wedge issue. roe v wade is what created this mess. federal government flouting the 10th amendment.

also, i bet you wouldnt consider it a wedge issue if it was illegal, and the pro abortion crowd were the protesters

these social wedge issues that many of you dismiss become precedent. the proverbial slippery slope.

where do you guys stand on partial birth abortion? i think if you are honest with yourselves you will see that it is a despicable practice. my solution is do the abortion, sterilize the mother.

even the one man with a plan- Ryan- said that instead of growing government 4.5% he and Romney would only grow it 3% per year.

no one says they will deport illegals
no one says they will close a bunch of military bases
no one says they will slash spending
no one says they will invoke some sort of protectionism
no one says they will end free trade
both say but wont hold china accountable for its egregious piracy etc
no one will face the reality that we are at war with islam
no one will deal with the civil war in mexico
both sides' cronies will enrich themselves

the list goes on and on. there are far more similarities than differences. if i werent already at the voting booth to try to reign in my union and prevent more taxes at the local and state level, i wouldnt bother

I agree abortion should have been left to the states. It should be fought out at the state level not the national level.

I dont know that you are right about whether I would call it a wedge issue if it was illegal. I really dont think its that important, theres like 15 current issues that are drastically more important.

I dont like partial birth abortion, or late term abortions. But I also dont think a single cell, or even a lump of cells that cannot live as a human is a human. If common sense reigned, it would be a State issue, and first trimester abortions would be legal in every state, third trimester abortions illegal, and the middle ground would vary by the best judgement of each state. If common sense reigned, anyhow.

I pretty much agree with your second post, except the war with Islam part. I can say I dont really care for Islam, but if we didnt poke our nose into their business... I honestly think they would be way to busy killing each other to ever bother us.

Reagan did the sensible thing after Beirut bombing, and said "ok lets GTFO". If we just let them kill each other and left it all alone, the constant strife will keep them weak for another several hundred years.

Agree.

I'm sure they would just leave us alone... Tell me again why Jefferson had to send the Marines to Tripoli?

They did that for money. Back before we even had a Navy. After the second Barbary war in 1815, never bugged us again for a long long time. In fact they still dont as a general rule, except for handfuls of fanatics.

I am busting your balls son.