quote:

You haven't proved a single one of your three statements. Pointing that out isn't a circular argument.
As for history proving you right that independent candidates are unelectable, try telling that to Bill Walker

quote:


If you had two pieces of shit walk in and only two, for a job that was absolutely vital to your firm....and you were certain both were inept....why would you hire the least inept?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blank101

quote:

DesideriScuri
While that is true, it's immaterial. To get a 3rd party going, you don't need to win the election right out of the gate. It could take a few general elections, but if there are people who are actually fed up with the two parties, and voting against a candidate, it could gain traction and garner more and more voters.
If you're not voting for someone that represents you and your values, how do parties ever know what you need, as it pertains to representation? If you agree with 10% of the GOP planks and 0% of the Democrat planks, does your vote come with a footnote explaining your views?

You're right a third party needing to garner more and more attention, but its hard justifying throwing away your vote for x number of elections until that party has enough popularity. If a third party were to emerge right after an election, perhaps enough people would know about them come four years to get a snowball rolling in their favor. Take 2016 for example...are our votes really worth allowing Hillary or Trump into office?
On a side note, I thought some of the more interesting candidates for their respective parties were Mike Huckabee and Martin O'Malley, but its too bad they dropped out of the running so early.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: mousekabob

quote:

If you had two pieces of shit walk in and only two, for a job that was absolutely vital to your firm....and you were certain both were inept....why would you hire the least inept?

At almost every place I have ever worked, we always do this. We never ever select the person who is good for the job because well...there is never, ever a good person who applies for the open positions. We always always always select the least inept person for the job.
People who are good for jobs never apply. They know their worth.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigjb62

quote:

I have a dumb question?

Why would you ever vote for someone....hire someone....anyone....who wasn't the best choice for the job?

If you had two pieces of shit walk in and only two, for a job that was absolutely vital to your firm....and you were certain both were inept....why would you hire the least inept?

(I just don't get that whole thing).

It's obvious your not one of the brightest bulbs on collarchat but even you're not that dumb so I'm not falling for your bullshit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blank101

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blank101

quote:

If voting for a 3rd party is such a dumb thing, how is it a President was elected in 1860 from a party that was a new 3rd party 4 years prior?

We don't have enough voters to make voting for a third party viable. The majority of people who vote go democrat or republican.

Well, I would submit a slightly different take on that.....

We have 330 million folks here in the U.S., certainly half or near are eligible to vote.

If we had 10 (as in....1 less than 11) eligible voters....I would imagine that would be certainly enough to make voting for a 3rd party....valid....but we don't.....we have 15+ million times that.

How is it that you deduce that 15+ million times 10 is not enough for a valid 3rd party candidate?

(Am I missing sumpin here?)

Of our 330 million citizens, only 50 to 60 percent of eligible voters have cast a vote in election years since the 30's. Add to that the fact that popular vote doesn't matter. A third party has no chance of winning enough of the electoral votes/states. Unless we get the other 40% to vote, third parties have NO chance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blank101

quote:

If voting for a 3rd party is such a dumb thing, how is it a President was elected in 1860 from a party that was a new 3rd party 4 years prior?

We don't have enough voters to make voting for a third party viable. The majority of people who vote go democrat or republican.

While that is true, it's immaterial. To get a 3rd party going, you don't need to win the election right out of the gate. It could take a few general elections, but if there are people who are actually fed up with the two parties, and voting against a candidate, it could gain traction and garner more and more voters.

If you're not voting for someone that represents you and your values, how do parties ever know what you need, as it pertains to representation? If you agree with 10% of the GOP planks and 0% of the Democrat planks, does your vote come with a footnote explaining your views?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigjb62

quote:

You're arguing about voting for evil.

It's makes sense if you only have two choices and one of those choices is less evil than the other then it's a no brainier.

There are more than 2 choices, though. There were more than 2 choices in 2012, too. Since you've already acknowledged that Ross Perot ran and received votes, you have to acknowledge there are more than 2 choices. Unless you get to explain your vote, voting for the lesser of two evils signals that you agree with the lesser of two evils.

quote:

quote:

If voting for a 3rd party is such a dumb thing, how is it a President was elected in 1860 from a party that was a new 3rd party 4 years prior?

I never said voting for a 3rd party was dumb. If there was a 3rd party candidate that had a chance of becoming president and I liked him/her well enough or was the lesser of three evils then I would cast my vote for that person but since there is virtually no chance a 3rd party candidate will get elected now or anytime in the near future it's really a moot point.

There is virtually no chance a 3rd party candidate will get elected now or any time in the near future because people take the myopic view that because not enough people vote 3rd party, they're not going to either. It's a self-sustaining defeatist attitude.

Only one way to break that cycle. Vote for the person that best represents you and get to work on building that party. If all you ever do is pick between the lesser of two evils, you're always going to be given the choice of two evils to choose from.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blank101

quote:

DesideriScuri
While that is true, it's immaterial. To get a 3rd party going, you don't need to win the election right out of the gate. It could take a few general elections, but if there are people who are actually fed up with the two parties, and voting against a candidate, it could gain traction and garner more and more voters.

If you're not voting for someone that represents you and your values, how do parties ever know what you need, as it pertains to representation? If you agree with 10% of the GOP planks and 0% of the Democrat planks, does your vote come with a footnote explaining your views?

You're right a third party needing to garner more and more attention, but its hard justifying throwing away your vote for x number of elections until that party has enough popularity. If a third party were to emerge right after an election, perhaps enough people would know about them come four years to get a snowball rolling in their favor. Take 2016 for example...are our votes really worth allowing Hillary or Trump into office?

On a side note, I thought some of the more interesting candidates for their respective parties were Mike Huckabee and Martin O'Malley, but its too bad they dropped out of the running so early.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

You're right a third party needing to garner more and more attention, but its hard justifying throwing away your vote for x number of elections until that party has enough popularity.

How is it throwing away your vote?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

You have not answered the question. How is voting for a 3rd party throwing away your vote?

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

You have not answered the question. How is voting for a 3rd party throwing away your vote?

If a particular 3rd party is never ever in a zillion years likely to recover their deposit let alone make any dent at the bottom of the ladder, it's a joke vote and a waste.

I could vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party.
But it would be a wasted vote.
Why?
Because they have a proven track record of not gaining enough votes to retain their deposit most of the time.

If I didn't like the two front runners, I'd opt for a party that at least gets some notable votes that might stand a chance of becoming some sort of opposition to the front runners.
At least over here, we do have a bunch of parties that aren't up to much but are at least recognised as a possibility in the future.
American politics is such that 99% is taken up by the two main parties and Americans (generally) don't like to kick the status quo.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
DesideriScuri I consider you a reasonable man with a conservative way of thinking... but not a fanatic. I hope I am not putting you on the spot but the question I am going to ask is of importance in the coming election.

Thanks for the compliments. You are putting me on the spot, so to speak, but this is not something I'm shy about.

quote:

If, as it looks likely, Trump gets the nomination will you vote party over your misgivings? If not will you just not vote or consider voting for Clinton?
Butch

I won't vote for a party. Even if I did, I wouldn't be voting for Trump. I'm a Libertarian. That being said, I've stated on these boards that I'll vote for the person that best represents my beliefs in how government is supposed to be run. I don't know who the other candidates for President are going to be, but I have around 6 months for me to do my homework. I will vote for Hillary IF it turns out she's the one that best represents my beliefs in how government is supposed to be run.

I will no longer cast a vote against a candidate (vote for the "lesser of two evils"), but will only cast a vote in favor of the one who represents me best.

And THAT is what EVERY citizen (of any country) should do.....vote for the best person to do the job.

Sadly, none of the dozen or so Americans who might make a half decent President have stood for a party nomination this cycle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigjb62

quote:

So which of those three objections would apply if the Republican Illuminati decided to bankroll one of the nominees who dropped out of the race as an independent candidate?

Since it's your dumb question you answer it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigjb62

quote:

Got nothing, then. Thought so.

You seem to think what I said doesn't apply! I challenge you to show me where it doesn't! Or is this just another attempt at a circular argument that is so popular with dimwitocrats?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigjb62

quote:

No, it's putting the onus of proof on the individual who made a statement (or rather three massively generalised statements) and can't be bothered to make any effort to substantiate or prove a single one of them.

History proves mine. What else you got? A circular argument... I thought so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

You haven't proved a single one of your three statements. Pointing that out isn't a circular argument.
As for history proving you right that independent candidates are unelectable, try telling that to Bill Walker.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blank101

You were actually starting to understand it all for a little while, Cervix. Bravo.

As for Dizzy, I think you may of pinpointed our difference in logic. I'm fully aware that a vote is not about winning. However, I have no regrets going against that logic, and casting a vote in favor of a person who I realize will be the winner or the first runnerup.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix
I'd vote for you.
(Twice).

quote:

(I meant to say you're an ASSHOLE and....entirely inept....but I was fairly certain that would have gotten me tossed.....so....I didn't say you're an ASSHOLE and ENTIRELY inept...because...well...that would have been terribly rude...and uncouth...and I'm almost never uncouth).

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)