# Random Chatter on 2012 Presidential Elections



## Turquesa

OK, U.S. voters. Since we've been given the green light to engage in respectful political discussion, what are your thoughts on the coming election?

Here are some discussion starters. You can run with any or none of these!

1. Whether or not you're a Republican, one *could* end up President in 2012. Whom do you think will end up running? Is there anyone you're hoping to see win the primaries?
2. If you voted for Obama, how has he measured up? Is he what you hoped for in 2008? What strategies do you think he needs to adopt to win 2012 votes?
3. What are the BIGGEST issues that will affect your voting decisions in 2012?
4. Independents, who's your candidate and why?

Sorry this isn't more focused. I'm sure our discussions will get there in the coming months!


----------



## Imakcerka

Ok I'll bite. These elections make a mockery or our intelect... I'm not excited about this at all. It's more Hollywood to me now and akin to watching Dancing with the stars hoping Nancy Grace rips through her dress. It's all about who is the star Megalomaniac in the Circus. Who can make people believe in them. Since they've done such a lovely job... collectively this Disabled Veteran will not vote. Unamerican? Then give me back the time I served.


----------



## Sustainer

I'm voting for Obama, for the same reason I've always voted for Democrats: he's better than the Republican.

Romney is my nightmare. He's been Numero Uno on my s*** list since his infamous firing of the Mass. Public Health Council members in the Spring of '06 when the council tried to halt the practice of infant formula being marketed in hospital maternity wards. (Quote from article in Mothering Magazine: "Less than two weeks later, Romney announced a deal with Bristol-Myers Squibb, the world's largest formula manufacturer, to build a $66 million pharmaceutical plant in Devens, Massachusetts." Coincidence?) http://banthebags.org/27

I never expected Obama to be the messiah that many people hyped him as, so I have not been disappointed in him. In fact, I think he has accomplished a surprising number of progressive measures, considering how much the Republicans have fought him.

The issues I vote on are the usual suspects: health, education, human rights, etc.

The polls are frighteningly close, so I think it's high time we had this conversation. I hope more people will participate.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum

Whoa....blast from the past! Hi Sustainer!  Nice to see you.

I'll jump in. LOL

I voted for Obama in 2008. Am I 100% happy? Nah. But then I don't think I would be with anyone. I am however satisfied enough that I will vote for him again. I think he has done what he could with the amount of opposition he has faced, and I would love to see what he can do with another 4 years.

Romney makes my eye twitch. And that's all I can say about that.

I also don't watch network TV, so I am not getting bombarded with ads, which I think lets me do my homework more, and from a lot of different sources..

But, I know I'm a big, fact liberal, so I know I am biased.


----------



## anjsmama

I am somewhat of a political moderate, although I usually lean towards conservative and consider myself a Republican, I tend to lean heavily toward liberal when it comes to issues of human rights.

I voted for Obama in 2008, not because I liked what he presented at all, but rather because I saw the McCain/Palin team as the world's fastest route to destroy the country.

I will not vote for Obama in 2012. I also absolutely will not vote for Romney, who as a PP said, makes my eye twitch! Truthfully, I was really hoping that Ron Paul would run independently if he didn't win the Republican nomination, and I think he would be one of the first outside of the two parties to have a legitimate chance. However, his campaign maintains he will not run independent. I will not try to vote "lesser of two evils" again... what a broken system.

I will vote for Ron Paul in 2012 even if I have to write it in, because he is the only person in the current political system I believe has the best interests of both the people and the world in mind. He is not blind to what is happening around us, nor is he trying to cover it. In fact, he has predicted the financial collapse and the food crisis and has proposed solutions to both. He has an open stance on health freedom as well - that Americans should be allowed to make our own choices involving food, vaccines, and medical interventions or lack there of. My vote probably won't "matter" in a true sense, but I won't contribute to the election of either Obama or Romney.


----------



## imagine21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *anjsmama*
> 
> Ron Paul in 2012 ...He has an open stance on health freedom as well - that Americans should be allowed to make our own choices involving food, vaccines, and medical interventions or lack there of.


But, Ron Paul doesn't believe in women having *reproductive* freedom of choice. I wouldn't call that health freedom. I could never vote for someone who is anti-choice. I'll be voting for Obama, like I did in 2008. Is he perfect? No, but he beats the alternatives.


----------



## Adaline'sMama

I'll bite. I voted for Obama in 2008 and Ill vote for him again. Im not completely satisfied with him, but I wouldn't be completely satisfied with anyone. I honestly dont think our country is run on true democracy, and Im not a big believer in our cooperate sponsored American government, but I vote because women fought for my right to do so and I feel like if I don't get my ass to the polls they fought for absolutely nothing. I vote primarily on reproductive freedom keeping as many social services as we can- so it's pretty unlikely that a republican candidate will ever get my vote.


----------



## MrsMike

I voted for Obama in 2008. I will vote for Obama in 2012. I think he has done well, especially given what he has had to work with/against in Congress. The thought of a Romney presidency makes me shudder. He is bad, bad news.


----------



## moonshoes

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *imagine21*
> 
> But, Ron Paul doesn't believe in women having *reproductive* freedom of choice. I wouldn't call that health freedom. I could never vote for someone who is anti-choice. I'll be voting for Obama, like I did in 2008. Is he perfect? No, but he beats the alternatives.


Different strokes for different folks I could be et vote for a candidate who doesn't believe in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, I will not vote for Obama. He supported legal infanticide as a senator, and is so deep in the pocket of Planned Parenthood it is downright sickening. He also has deliberately stepped on religious freedom rights for Catholics with the HHS Mandate.

This is NOT meant to start a debate on abortion and/or. Planned Parenthood, I am simply stating my point of view. Anyway, I will vote for Romney.


----------



## moonshoes

Sorry for the typos iPad keyboarding issues.


----------



## Sustainer

Before we start throwing around words like "infanticide" I'd like you to clarify whether we're talking about a baby that has been born and whose body is therefore independent of the mother's body. I strongly doubt he would support the legalized termination of the life of such.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


> He also has deliberately stepped on religious freedom rights for Catholics with the HHS Mandate.


I'm the one paying for your health insurance so I get to dictate your medical options? I think it's stretching it to call that religious freedom.

The patient is the one whose freedom is at stake and who should not be subject to the personal religious beliefs of the employer as far as health care options.

What if someone's religion involved the belief that women should not receive any health care at all? Would they have the "right" to provide health insurance only for their male employees?


----------



## moonshoes

No, non no. You are incorrect, but this is not the place for a debate over health insurance.

Obama, as a state senator, voted against a law which would require a doctor, other than the abortionist, to determine if a baby should be given life-sustaining treatment should he/she survive an abortion. This is common in late-term abortions. But again, this is not a place to debate abortion and it is not my intention to do so. I am simply stating that while many will vote a straight pro-abortion ticket, many of us will vote pro-life.

And before you are offended by my use of "pro-abortion" - it is just as annoying when I am called"anti-choice."


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum

Abortion debate is not allowed. Hasn't been, for like....ever.  So, let's leave that out.

For respect's sake, and the sake of being able to continue the conversation - stick to the terms pro-choice, pro-life. If you have used pro-abortion/anti-life or anti-choice, please edit accordingly and ASAP.

I think another thread can be started for the discussion of health insurance - let's just keep this on the presidential candidates/election.


----------



## Sustainer

Not to debate abortion itself but simply to clarify terminology:

Presumably we may say "against my right to choose" if we're not allowed to use the term "anti-choice"?

("Anti-choice" is, at least, accurate... I don't think a person on that side of the debate would deny that they oppose women having a legal choice.)

"Pro-abortion" is inaccurate because pro-choice individuals are NOT pro-abortion.

Do you really think that "pro-life" is a neutral term? You don't think it implies that pro-choice individuals are "anti-life"?

Personally I reserve terms like "anti-abortion" for those people who are personally against the procedure, and therefore would not have one HERSELF. Anti-choice only describes those who think they should have the right to make that choice for all women by outlawing the procedure outright.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonshoes*
> Obama, as a state senator, voted against a law which would require a doctor, other than the abortionist, to determine if a baby should be given life-sustaining treatment should he/she survive an abortion.


Just for clarity's sake, since infanticide is a serious charge, this is not the same as supporting infanticide.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum

Extending the respect to other posters by identifying them as they choose to identify themselves goes a long way toward furthering the conversation - and ensuring that it doesn't go down in flames.

None of the terms are neutral. None.

I would say that people would argue that they are not anti-choice. In fact I have seen that very argument on this board.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AdinaL*
> 
> Extending the respect to other posters by identifying them as they choose to identify themselves goes a long way toward furthering the conversation - and ensuring that it doesn't go down in flames.


I do see the value in that. Of course, when the phrase "anti-choice" was used in this conversation, it was in reference to a politician, not a poster.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AdinaL*
> 
> None of the terms are neutral. None.
> 
> I think pro-choice is pretty straightforward, and doesn't imply that those on the other side are against something they aren't against.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *AdinaL*
> I would say that people would argue that they are not anti-choice. In fact I have seen that very argument on this board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, some people who have an ethical problem with abortion and wouldn't have the procedure themselves are NOT anti-choice, and I don't object to calling them something else (although I wouldn't, voluntarily, call even them "pro-life" because that term would still be offensive in its implications about the other side). But if a person's position is that women should not have a legal choice, I don't know how they could disclaim the term "anti-choice."
> 
> I'm only posting this for the record, though. I'm happy to let the matter drop and concede your restrictions. Thank you for clarifying.
Click to expand...


----------



## sarafi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sustainer*
> 
> although I wouldn't, voluntarily, call even them "pro-life" because that term would still be offensive in its implications about the other side). But if a person's position is that women should not have a legal choice, I don't know how they could disclaim the term "anti-choice


Either one, "pro-life" or "pro-choice" can be taken as offensive by either side. You stated that you have a hard time accepting your opposition's views as anything but "anti-choice", and yet another person can have a hard time with the fact that they feel a fetus is a life, and so therefore can't see themselves as anything but "pro-life". There's no sense arguing about people's feelings 

The point is to move on, use the names each groups uses to self-identify, and then have an actual conversation about the issue.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sarafi*
> another person can have a hard time with the fact that they feel a fetus is a life, and so therefore can't see themselves as anything but "pro-life".


The problem with "pro-life" isn't that the "pro-life" people are motivated by their belief in the sanctity of life. The problem is the implication that the people on the other side of the issue are against life.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sarafi*
> The point is to move on, use the names each groups uses to self-identify, and then have an actual conversation about the issue.


I already expressed my readiness to move on, abide by Adina's stipulations, and continue the conversation about the 2012 Presidential election.


----------



## philomom

Love Obama. He's a smart man and a good father. He's had a tough road with the economy and the split between the houses but he's hanging in. Love that he is pro-choice and for gay marriage, too!


----------



## Smokering

I hope this doesn't cross the abortion-debate line, but I can respond to this:

Quote:


> The problem with "pro-life" isn't that the "pro-life" people are motivated by their belief in the sanctity of life. The problem is the implication that the people on the other side of the issue are against life.


The problem applies both ways. "Pro-choice" implies that the people on the other side are against choice. Both "life" and "choice" are very powerful connotation words. No-one wants to consider herself against life - it connotes frolicking children and smiling babies and verdant pastures and what-have-you; and nobody wants to consider herself against choice, especially in a country which prides itself on freedom and individuality.

"Anti-choice" is, for one thing, a negative statement of the position (we talk about people being "anti-", as in negative, angry and bitter); for another, it connotes people who are anti-choices in general. "Anti-choice" sounds like pro-uniformity, pro-drones and clones, pro-Big Brother and mindless sheeple, anti-forty-one-flavours, anti-creativity, anti-individuality.

I am pro-life, and I call myself pro-life because the point is that I believe in the humanity of the unborn child. Yes, this thinking leads to laws which prevent women exercising one choice (not choices in general), to kill said child; but the point is not to deprive women of choice just for the heck of it, it is to protect to lives of unborn children. Similarly, you are (I'm assuming) pro-choice, and call yourself that because you believe in women's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. That thinking leads to laws which cause the deaths of unborn children (ending those lives, but not life in general); but (again, I assume) the point is not to kill fetuses just for the heck of it, it is to protect women's rights not to carry a pregnancy to term. The name of the movement should reflect the philosophy of the movement, not its necessary consequences.

For the record, I also strongly dislike the use of the term "anti-life". I believe pro-choicers are sincerely advocating for what they believe to be the rights and welfare of women, and that they generally believe deaths of the fetuses to be a regrettable consequence, necessary for the greater good but by no means desirable. I also believe pro-lifers are sincerely advocating for what they believe to be the rights and welfare of unborn babies, and that they generally believe the distress of an unwanted pregnancy to be a regrettable consequence, necessary for the greater good but by no means desirable. There are a few extremists on both sides (the woman who had multiple abortions for an art project, people who believe women should not have access to contraceptives or higher education) who can legitimately be called "anti-life" and "anti-choice"; but very few.

And any discussion of abortion in which the other side is referred to as "anti-[positive connotation word]", in my experience, gets everyone's hackles up very quickly and results in each side demonizing the other and a flame war (or mod slap, heh).

In other words: yes, I think there's good reason for the rule. It's not just about courtesy, but about understanding the point of view of the other side.


----------



## Sustainer

double post


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Smokering*
> 
> The problem applies both ways. "Pro-choice" implies that the people on the other side are against choice. Both "life" and "choice" are very powerful connotation words. No-one wants to consider herself against life - it connotes frolicking children and smiling babies and verdant pastures and what-have-you; and nobody wants to consider herself against choice, especially in a country which prides itself on freedom and individuality.


But the people on the other side ARE against women having a legal choice. I'm not saying that they should have to identify *themselves* as anti-choice, but when *we* refer to them as anti-choice, it is not inaccurate in the way that it is when they call us "pro-abortion." If they truly pride themselves on American freedom and individual responsibility, all that says is that they may want to rethink their position on this issue. If they're going to stand behind an assertion that women should be denied access to a medical procedure that allows us control over our own reproduction, they should at least acknowledge that they are proposing a limit on freedom and individual choice.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Smokering*
> 
> I am pro-life, and I call myself pro-life because the point is that I believe in the humanity of the unborn child.


But a pro-choice person may also believe that the fetus is human. What distinguishes a pro-choice person is the understanding that there is no thing nor no ONE whose right to live extends to a right to live inside of a person's body without her consent.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Smokering*
> 
> The name of the movement should reflect the philosophy of the movement, not its necessary consequences.


There is a distinction, though. There are two groups of people who find abortion to be more negative than positive. One group think it is ethically questionable and claim that they would never choose to have an abortion themselves. The other group believes that every woman should be denied the legal opportunity to make the choice for herself. I think these groups should have different and appropriate names.

I also cannot concede that every person who wants to outlaw abortion is motivated by a desire to protect life. There is, unfortunately, a large group of sexists on your side of the argument, who are motivated by a desire to keep women from controlling our own reproduction or our own bodies, and most of these sexists could quite frankly give a hang about the fetus itself. They may try to use the fetus to forward their argument, but only as an attempt to hide the fact that their actual motivation is misogyny.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Smokering*
> 
> And any discussion of abortion in which the other side is referred to as "anti-[positive connotation word]", in my experience, gets everyone's hackles up very quickly and results in each side demonizing the other and a flame war (or mod slap, heh).


Once again, I've already conceded this and expressed a desire to move on. I think it's a good idea to get away from this topic now. We're walking too close to the line. Let's discuss the candidates and the election in general.


----------



## Smokering

I'm sorry, I can't respond to your statements without getting into abortion-debate territory, but I think you're still missing the point. Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss this further.


----------



## Sustainer

I comprehended what you said. Continuation of the topic between us is unnecessary. We just disagree with each other.


----------



## loveandgarbage

First,







to Sustainer. That's all I'll say on that topic!

I voted for Obama in 2008 and will do so again this election. I'm a born and bred democrat but these days identify more with liberalism because we all know democrats aren't all that liberal (Obama included). I think many of us who were Obama supporters in 2008 are disappointed with his term in office. But he was dealt a tough hand-- failing economy, two wars, and of course the usual pressures and compromises of being head of state. I do fault him for not speaking out sooner on gay marriage, though.


----------



## Smokering

Quote:


> I comprehended what you said.


I'll accept that if you admit that your own argument in paragraph 1, post #23 undercuts your objection to "anti-life", making the terms "anti-life" and "anti-choice" equally acceptable (in general discourse; not on MDC, obviously, due to the UA). Otherwise, no, I don't think you have comprehended my point at all. That doesn't mean we have to keep discussing it; but don't just claim victory and walk away. That's rude.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Smokering*
> 
> I'll accept that if you admit that your own argument in paragraph 1, post #23 undercuts your objection to "anti-life", making the terms "anti-life" and "anti-choice" equally acceptable (in general discourse; not on MDC, obviously, due to the UA). Otherwise, no, I don't think you have comprehended my point at all. That doesn't mean we have to keep discussing it; but don't just claim victory and walk away. That's rude.


I do not accept that "anti-life" and "anti-choice" are equally acceptable. Pro-choice people are not in any way anti-life. However, the people who I, in general discourse, refer to as "anti-choice" ARE against a woman's right to choose. I did not "claim victory" in that argument. I said that you and I disagree.

As far as here on MDC in the discussion of the 2012 presidential election, I appreciate(d) Adina's arguments that, for the sake of a smoother debate, we shall not use the terms "anti-choice," "anti-life" or "pro-abortion." I concede(d) that.

I'd like to move on with the discussion of the candidates.


----------



## CatsCradle

Okay, I'll jump in!

I've been alive under 9 different presidents (could have been 10, but Kennedy was assassinated a week before I was born). I guess I've become somewhat jaded about the political process after all these years, given that local government, the judicial branch and Congress tend to have more impact on my personal life (and I believe the lives of others) than a single figurehead like the president. That being said, presidents can influence the course of all these branches by appointments and/or rhetoric. These days, when choosing someone, I tend to look at what I think is the big picture as opposed to specific ideologies espoused by these individuals.

I have voted Democratic throughout the years and will probably continue to do so as long as the party's position is in vague line with my overall values. Like someone upthread said, I didn't view Pres. Obama as any kind of savior in 2008 even though I voted for him, so while I don't agree on all the things he has done, I think he has done a decent job with the tools (or lack thereof) that he has had given the economic mess that we were in four years ago. I'm not particularly fond of some of his policies (the Drone issue bothers me a lot), but I think overall he is an intelligent, decent human being who really can connect to the people on a lot of levels. I have absolutely no feelings about the individual Romney (other than the hilarious etch-a-sketch analogy and what I perceive to be his total deer-in-headlights view of working class and poor people), but if he does get into office, we can expect more Citizens United and Wisconsin union-busting thinking to prevail and that bothers me a lot. And no, I'm not a communist or a socialist, but I do believe that slow erosion of "We the People" is a result of special interests, especially corporate interests. Maybe Pres. Obama is not the best person to steer us from this, but he's the best person in this election cycle.


----------



## Smokering

Quote:


> I do not accept that "anti-life" and "anti-choice" are equally acceptable. Pro-choice people are not in any way anti-life. However, the people who I, in general discourse, refer to as "anti-choice" ARE against a woman's right to choose.


Sigh. Let's recap the arguments, shall we? You denied or ignored my argument that "choice" and "life" are powerful connotation words; meaning, presumably, that you are in favour of the words "choice" and "life" being used with the assumption that everyone knows they're referring to the specific political issues.

Then you stated that you think it's acceptable to refer to a group not by its stated overriding principle ("pro-life" or "pro-choice"), but by a consequence of the legal ramifications of that principle, as phrased by the opposition. Then you went so far as to say that the other side should be OK with that. So, to turn your own argument on its head, blue text mine:

Quote:


> But the people on the other side ARE against fetuses having a legal right to life. I'm not saying that they should have to identify *themselves* as anti-life, but when *we* refer to them as anti-life, it is not inaccurate .... If they're going to stand behind an assertion that fetuses should be denied access to legal rights which prevent them being killed, they should at least acknowledge that they are proposing to take away life.


Tomayto, tomahto.

Quote:


> I did not "claim victory" in that argument. I said that you and I disagree.


You also claimed to have comprehended my argument, which I do not see from your replies to have been the case. It came off as a very condescending "I know what you're saying, although I won't demonstrate that in my response, but I'll be the bigger person and move on now, because I just had the last word". If you want to rebut my arguments, that's cool; if you want to stop discussing it, stop discussing it; but please don't ignore my points while claiming you know what I meant.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum

Onward, yon debaters!!! Let's move on. Please.


----------



## CatsCradle

I did, AdinaL!


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Smokering*
> 
> Let's recap the arguments, shall we? You denied or ignored my argument that "choice" and "life" are powerful connotation words;


Oh for God's sake.

Yes, "choice" and "life" are powerful connotation words. I'll give you that.

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *Smokering*
> 
> Then you went so far as to say that the other side should be OK with that.


I did not say that the other side should be okay with it. I said that people who think that women shouldn't have a legal right to choose abortion should acknowledge that they are against women having a legal right to choose abortion. The legal question at stake is whether or not women should have abortion as a legal choice. People on your side of the debate say "no." They want there to be a law that women cannot have that choice.

Quote:



> But the people on the other side ARE against fetuses having a legal right to life. I'm not saying that they should have to identify *themselves* as anti-life, but when *we* refer to them as anti-life, it is not inaccurate .... If they're going to stand behind an assertion that fetuses should be denied access to legal rights which prevent them being killed, they should at least acknowledge that they are proposing to take away life.


The argument doesn't work the other way. As I said before, what pro-choice people recognize is that any right a fetus might have to live does not extend to a right to live inside of someone's body. Being inside someone's body is a privilege that requires the consent of the mother. Women are not incubators. We have rights too. That's all. Pro-choice people, as I said before, are not against life in any way, shape, or form. People on your side of the argument *are* against women having a choice to terminate their pregnancy. So anti-choice isn't as inaccurate as anti-life. The goal of a pro-choice person is not to take away lives. The goal of a pro-choice person is to keep a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy legal. The goal of someone on your side of the argument is to make that choice illegal.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Smokering*
> 
> You also claimed to have comprehended my argument, which I do not see from your replies to have been the case.


It may be hard for you to believe that I can understand your argument and still disagree with it at the same time, but I assure you that it is true. I understand your argument. I just don't agree with it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Smokering*
> 
> "I know what you're saying, although I won't demonstrate that in my response, but I'll be the bigger person and move on now, because I just had the last word". If you want to rebut my arguments, that's cool; if you want to stop discussing it, stop discussing it; but please don't ignore my points while claiming you know what I meant.


The reason I keep trying to move on is that that's what Adina wants us to do. Otherwise I'd be glad to respond more fully and I wouldn't have any objection to the debate continuing. I responded to you as fully as I could without crossing over the line that Adina does not want us to cross. You acknowledged yourself that it is difficult to discuss the terminology issue without getting too close to debating abortion itself, which we are not supposed to do. You invited me to follow you elsewhere. I declined. I explained that there is no need for you to clarify to me further because I already understand your arguments. We just disagree. Neither of us is going to get the other to change her mind.

I accepted Adina's regulation that we use the words she wants us to use. Let's move on.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum

Sustainer and Smokering - I have asked you several times to move on. If you cannot do that, I will remove access to this thread for both of you. You can move it to PM, you can start a new thread to discuss terms and how they are viewed (keeping in mind that abortion debate is still not okay), or you can just agree to disagree. Whatever you choose, it needs to stop on this thread now.


----------



## Sustainer

I have agreed to disagree.


----------



## Viola

I didn't think McCain was that bad, but then he or whoever it is that controls these things, chose Palin as a running mate, and that was a sign to me that they didn't really care about the Office. I don't know what to think about Romney. I don't like his public persona, I don't agree with a lot of his platform, so I'm sure I'll vote for Obama. I've been listening to conservative talk radio a bit these last few months, trying to get a handle on what the thinking is, and today I heard a guy saying that there aren't 50 million uninsured people in the US, the number is more like 15 million, and there are options for them-we can expand Medicaid. I don't get it. I don't see how that could be viable unless they drastically changed the income requirements, which I don't see happening. It's like there is a complete disconnect with reality. What I think is interesting is that a lot of Obama supporters aren't happy with the Affordable Health Care Act either.


----------



## Viola

This has been going around Facebook: http://www.isidewith.com/


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Viola*
> 
> This has been going around Facebook: http://www.isidewith.com/


That gave me

#1 Jill Stein 84%

#2 Barack Obama 80%

Then some people I've never heard of.

Ron Paul, fourth from the bottom.

Mitt Romney, second from the bottom, 27%. No agreement on any major issues.

About what I'd expect. I will be voting for Obama. He and Romney are the only ones with a chance of winning. If we do anything other than vote for Obama, the only effect will be that Romney will win.


----------



## Sustainer

Well, the nominees are now official. What did everyone think of the speeches at the conventions?


----------



## Sustainer

Just watched the first debate. Boy did I get tired of seeing Romney's smirk. And is it just me, or did he insist on having the last word on practically every topic, no matter which of them spoke first?

C'mon people, let's get this discussion rolling again!


----------



## Adaline'sMama

Grrr, Romney, changed his WHOLE ENTIRE tax plan according to what he said in the debates. And please, if he didnt know that there are tax deductions for moving corporations overseas, he DOES need a new accountant.

Also, did anyone know that a few years ago he completely fired three people for wanting to ban formula giveaway bags at hospitals? What a douchebag.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama* 

Grrr, Romney, changed his WHOLE ENTIRE tax plan according to what he said in the debates.

He didn't really change his plan. He's just lying about what it is.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> 
> And please, if he didnt know that there are tax deductions for moving corporations overseas, he DOES need a new accountant.












Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> 
> *Also, did anyone know that a few years ago he completely fired three people for wanting to ban formula giveaway bags at hospitals? What a douchebag. *


Yup. I mentioned it on page one of the discussion. Hope you don't mind me making your text a little bigger when I quote you, though.










Something that surprised me in the debate, especially considering the current condition of the environment, was Romney's willingness to come right out and say "I like COAL" and to actually *criticize* the President for supporting green energy. If that is the attitude that appeals to the populace, then that is very frightening.


----------



## baileyb

Quote:
Originally Posted by *anjsmama* 

I am somewhat of a political moderate, although I usually lean towards conservative and consider myself a Republican, I tend to lean heavily toward liberal when it comes to issues of human rights.

I voted for Obama in 2008, not because I liked what he presented at all, but rather because I saw the McCain/Palin team as the world's fastest route to destroy the country.

I will not vote for Obama in 2012. I also absolutely will not vote for Romney, who as a PP said, makes my eye twitch! Truthfully, I was really hoping that Ron Paul would run independently if he didn't win the Republican nomination, and I think he would be one of the first outside of the two parties to have a legitimate chance. However, his campaign maintains he will not run independent. I will not try to vote "lesser of two evils" again... what a broken system.

I will vote for Ron Paul in 2012 even if I have to write it in, because he is the only person in the current political system I believe has the best interests of both the people and the world in mind. He is not blind to what is happening around us, nor is he trying to cover it. In fact, he has predicted the financial collapse and the food crisis and has proposed solutions to both. He has an open stance on health freedom as well - that Americans should be allowed to make our own choices involving food, vaccines, and medical interventions or lack there of. My vote probably won't "matter" in a true sense, but I won't contribute to the election of either Obama or Romney.

This pretty much sums up what I would've posted but to be honest I am kind of over the whole thing. DH and I are election judges in our tiny township and I get a bigger kick out of counting the votes at the end of the night and getting to know how everyone voted before everyone else does, haha.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Sustainer* 

Just watched the first debate. Boy did I get tired of seeing Romney's smirk. And is it just me, or did he insist on having the last word on practically every topic, no matter which of them spoke first?

C'mon people, let's get this discussion rolling again!









I can't believe how angry the president looked. Although I don't think he was as prepared as he should've been, but also I don't think ANYONE expected Romney to do or say what he did. I felt bad for the moderator. There was like no rhyme or reason to the format. The moderator was kind of a doormat. I get why Romney kept insisting on having the last word if Obama really was lying but I don't really know either way if what Romney said was true or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Sustainer* 

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> 
> Grrr, Romney, changed his WHOLE ENTIRE tax plan according to what he said in the debates.
> 
> He didn't really change his plan. He's just lying about what it is.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> 
> And please, if he didnt know that there are tax deductions for moving corporations overseas, he DOES need a new accountant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> 
> *Also, did anyone know that a few years ago he completely fired three people for wanting to ban formula giveaway bags at hospitals? What a douchebag. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup. I mentioned it on page one of the discussion. Hope you don't mind me making your text a little bigger when I quote you, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something that surprised me in the debate, especially considering the current condition of the environment, was Romney's willingness to come right out and say "I like COAL" and to actually *criticize* the President for supporting green energy. If that is the attitude that appeals to the populace, then that is very frightening.
Click to expand...

Did he fire them for wanting to give formula away or because the people wanted to ban giving it away?

That was weird when Romney just kind of blurted out, "I like coal!" I thought, huh? But then again 90 billion on green energy that didn't seem to go anywhere (that I know of) is a little excessive.


----------



## Adaline'sMama

He fired them for wanting to ban formula give away bags.

Also, we arent burning clean coal- go visit the people of eastern kentucky and ask their doctors if we are burning clean coal. We arent.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:

Originally Posted by *BaileyB* 
I get why Romney kept insisting on having the last word if Obama really was lying but I don't really know either way if what Romney said was true or not.

The candidates always accuse each other of lying. That's a given. But no matter how much one debater objects to what the other just said, they are supposed to take turns with being the first person who gets to speak and being the last person who gets to speak. They're supposed to get to speak first as many times as the other person, and, more importantly, they're supposed to get to speak last as many times as the other person. And, overall, they're supposed to get to speak as many times as the other person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *BaileyB* But then again 90 billion on green energy that didn't seem to go anywhere (that I know of) is a little excessive.

What seems excessive to me are the tax giveaways and corporate welfare that the Republicans want for the already-rich oil companies.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> 
> He fired them for wanting to ban formula give away bags.


Correct.

http://banthebags.org/27/

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> 
> Also, we arent burning clean coal- go visit the people of eastern kentucky and ask their doctors if we are burning clean coal. We arent.


Also true. There is no such thing as clean coal.


----------



## MrsMike

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BaileyB*
> 
> This pretty much sums up what I would've posted but to be honest I am kind of over the whole thing. DH and I are election judges in our tiny township and I get a bigger kick out of counting the votes at the end of the night and getting to know how everyone voted before everyone else does, haha.
> 
> I can't believe how angry the president looked. Although I don't think he was as prepared as he should've been, but also I don't think ANYONE expected Romney to do or say what he did. I felt bad for the moderator. There was like no rhyme or reason to the format. The moderator was kind of a doormat. I get why Romney kept insisting on having the last word if Obama really was lying but I don't really know either way if what Romney said was true or not.
> 
> Did he fire them for wanting to give formula away or because the people wanted to ban giving it away?
> 
> That was weird when Romney just kind of blurted out, "I like coal!" I thought, huh? But then again 90 billion on green energy that didn't seem to go anywhere (that I know of) is a little excessive.


The problem with Romney is that he completely changes position nearly everyday.

90 billion in green energy? I guess you're referring to Solyndra. That is a big talking point and it's not widely understood. Solyndra was Bush's baby. He chose that company among many applicants for part of a loan program. There were loose ends with the loan when Obama took office. Obama's administration tied up those loose ends and expanded some of the loan under the stimulus act. At the time, Solyndra was extremely promising. Most solar companies, including those in China who we were competing with, used silicone in their products.Silicone was incredibly expensive at the time. Solyndra came up with a new technique that didn't require silocone. It did well for a while, but then the prices of silicone dropped dramatically and Solyndra was left having the more expensive product. So, it failed eventually. Interesting fact - the very conservative Walton (Wal-Mart) family invested in Solyndra big time. You never hear about that...

Worldwide, oil companies received 409 billion dollars in subsidies in 2010. Think about it - what should we invest in? Should we invest in renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar, which have a less negative environmental impact. Should we invest in fossil fuels, which we know harms the environment, and are not renewable and WILL run out. What will we do when the oil runs out if we're not prepared to move towards renewable energy. It's a damn shame that the environment has become such a political pawn and that there are large groups of people who think environmentalism is akin to slaughtering babies on some satanic altar.

P.S. Clean coal is like clean poop.


----------



## loveandgarbage

Romney scares me. Why would he want to be in charge of the federal government if he doesn't seem to believe it has a purpose, and instead wants to give all power to the states? Really curious about that one.


----------



## CatsCradle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *loveandgarbage*
> 
> Romney scares me. Why would he want to be in charge of the federal government if he doesn't seem to believe it has a purpose, and instead wants to give all power to the states? Really curious about that one.


Kingship. 

I often scratch my head too at all the people running for government positions who toot about being against government, but accept the benefits of their positions and accept any and all deals that they can get from those positions. They are central to the problem.


----------



## Sustainer

I think it's prestige he's after.

Bill Maher's theory is that he wants to be the first Mormon president.

Here's Jon Stewart on the green energy issue:


----------



## beckybird

Obama or Romney? Oromney or Robama? Lol, they are both terrible, so my vote goes to NEITHER!!!!!





For all you Obama lovers out there, PLEASE read this and let me know what you think. I haven't fact checked this yet, since I just came across it last night. Love to know how wrong it is (or isn't) http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2012/10/can-it-all-be-coincidence.html *Read* it, *read* it, please debunk it if you can. Don't dismiss it because you don't like what it says. Prove it's wrong. For all of you science lovers out there, ignore your emotions and judge based on facts alone. Can it be done? I do it all the time. I used to like Rand Paul, but when he endorsed Romney I changed my opinion immediately. You do realize it's ok to change your opinion if you're presented with facts that debunk your opinion? Shouldn't we all strive to learn the truth, and not accept anything less? Why so many excuses for these lying politicians? Just because you "like the guy", you overlook the lies and broken promises?









Obama's promise to label GMOs? Lied about it. Put Monsanto's Michael Taylor in the FDA. How's that for a promise. That's abominable. 



 He's a liar folks, admit it to yourselves. I would divorce my husband if he lied to me like this! Stop making excuses for the man and see him for who he really is. It is unacceptable to vote for him just because you don't like the other guy. Is that what our country has come down to, voting for the lesser of two evils? We deserve better.

Republican or Democrat, nothing will change no matter who is in office. With Bush, the country got a stimulus check, and with Obama the country got a free phone. Whoop de do, the country is failing because of terrible decisions throughout the years, and I don't know how it can be saved as long as we are stuck with these awful choices. All the promises a candidate makes on the campaign trail are lies, plain and simple. Obama lied about many of his promises, and Romney will do the same if he's elected.

They. are. all. liars. Banker-bailout lying, Wall Street-funded actors. USA has become a terrible reality show. Watch as the Constitution is shredded! It's so entertaining! (NDAA, look it up)


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:

Originally Posted by *BeckyBird* 

It is unacceptable to vote for him just because you don't like the other guy.

Boloney. It is NECESSARY to vote for him because the other guy is worse.

Either Obama or Romney is going to become president. It is our DUTY to vote for the better of the two.

If we don't vote for Obama, then Romney will win. It is a FACT that if there aren't enough people who vote for Obama, then Romney will win. We must face that fact. It would be foolish and, indeed, catastrophic not to face that fact. If we allow the worse of the two "evils" (if you will) to win, that would be -- say it with me -- WORSE. We must do the best we can do with the situation that we have. When the only real choices are A and B; and A is better than B; the only intelligent thing to do is vote for A. Otherwise, B will win. And that would be worse. WORSE, get it? I explain this to people every four years, and it is so simple, but there are always people who don't get it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *BeckyBird* 

Quote:


> Republican or Democrat, nothing will change no matter who is in office. With Bush, the country got a stimulus check, and with Obama the country got a free phone.


Not true. If you really pay attention, it is clear that different Presidents have different effects on the world, and those effects are numerous and profound. The country got a lot more than a free phone under Obama. It is blatant ignorance to suggest that the only benefits from him were as frivolous as free phones.

The economy is in trouble right now because of failed Republican policies. Obama has been turning things around. If we put a Republican back in office, he would take us back to the failed policies that put us in a bad position.

Obama accomplished many of his promises. He tried to accomplish others, but he was blocked by the Republicans in Congress.

It is a waste of time to complain that both candidates are unacceptable. There is no "none of the above" option. Hold your nose and vote for the better one.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum

Also, the phone thing...not accurate.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/09/27/924011/the-truth-about-the-obama-phone/

Biased source, I admit, but links to fact check.


----------



## JollyGG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *loveandgarbage*
> 
> Romney scares me. Why would he want to be in charge of the federal government if he doesn't seem to believe it has a purpose, and instead wants to give all power to the states? Really curious about that one.


Because we are "The United States of America". Notice the name of our country. We are supposed to be a untied grouping of states. The original intention and structure of our government was for the states to have the majority of the power. Federal government was supposed to be there for issues that absolutely needed to be uniform throughout the states.

States rights is about putting the power in the hands closest to those of the people as possible. So governance decisions should be made at the lowest level possible.

So a decision about your local school should be made at your school, if it needs to be made higher than that it should be made at your school board level, if it needs to be made higher than that it should be made at your state level, only if it cannot be handled at a more local level should it be handled at a federal level.

Honestly, both parties are in favor of too big of government for my taste.


----------



## beckybird

You're right AdinaL!

"There is, in fact, a government program that will provide low-income people with a free or low cost cell phone. It was started in 2008 under George W. Bush. "

LOL, so Bush gave the country both the stimulus check AND the phone! I guess Obama gave us nothing, except a continuation of Bush's wars, plus a few new (undeclared) wars, continuation of Patriot Act, Guantanamo, and the all-new fabulous NDAA. Romney is guaranteed to continue these as well.

Sorry Sustainer, I can't vote for either. Blue crap or red crap is still just.......crap. How do you expect me to vote when I can't tell which one is worse? Did it ever occur to any of you that there might be people who influence whatever pres is in office, so no matter who fills the seat the same agenda will continue?

In closing,



> "The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy."
> 
> - Carrol Quigley, Tragedy and Hope


Open your mind for a second and ask yourself if this might be true. I believe it is. Until more people realize we've been fooled, nothing will change. Our country will continue to deteriorate, one president at a time.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JollyGG*
> 
> Because we are "The United States of America". Notice the name of our country. We are supposed to be a untied grouping of states. The original intention and structure of our government was for the states to have the majority of the power.


Under the Articles of Confederation, perhaps. When we adopted the Constitution, the country evolved. It was settled that more control should be held at the national level. This gives us more consistency. If I have the legal right to exercise a certain freedom, I should not lose that right when I cross the border into New Jersey.

You mention schools. A child in one part of the country should not be in a worse public school system than a child in another part of the country, just because of the local community. All public school children should have equal opportunity.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeckyBird*
> 
> How do you expect me to vote when I can't tell which one is worse?


Well, you could do more research. It is obvious from many of your comments, such as 'If Obama didn't give us free phones then I guess he didn't give us anything,' that you lack a great deal of information about the candidates. However, I was not specifically trying to get YOU to vote. My goal was to encourage anyone who might be reading the post. If you really can't tell which of the two major candidates is worse, then feel free not to vote for either of them. I was only responding to *your* comment that *we* would not be justified in voting for the better of the two candidates who have a chance of winning.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeckyBird*
> 
> Until more people realize we've been fooled, nothing will change. Our country will continue to deteriorate, one president at a time.


If you have a plan that would result in a better candidate than Obama having a chance to win a Presidential election, I would be very open to hearing it. In the mean time, in this particular election that is taking place in less than a month, the only possible winners are Obama and Romney, so the only effective action we can take as voters is to vote for the better one.


----------



## beckybird

Oh my goodness, from now on I will let you know when I'm being sarcastic, ok? (re: phone issue) I could care less about the silly phones, especially since I didn't even get one! What's more important than this distraction is Obama's newest gift to the country.....NDAA. Do you know anything about that? It's much more important than an argument over a free trinket.

You do realize there are more than 2 parties in the country, right? Maybe voting for a third party candidate would be a great way to show our distaste for the Republicans and Democrats. If I cannot support the policies presented by either Republican and Democrat candidates, then why should I (or anybody) be expected to vote for the "better one"? How about neither? If you were pro-(fill in the blank) and both candidates were not, how could you live with yourself if you voted against something you believed in? This is my situation, and I don't like to be bullied into doing something I'm not comfortable with, thank you.

So, the plan:

Look up Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. If you like him better than Oromney or Robama, why not vote for him. And please don't patronize me--I KNOW one of those clowns will win and Gary Johnson won't have a chance. Please, I know. I know. I know.

I know! But if you are looking for a change in the system, you actually have to do something to change the system. Change must begin with the first step.

If you think voting third party is a waste, please read this. If you want to continue to debate with me, you should to know my side. Here's a snippet: "We have been deluded in this country into thinking that a Third Party won't work. How? Well, first we're told that if we vote for a third party, we'd be wasting our vote."

Read on if you want to know more about why voting third party is not a waste at all. http://www.nysthirdparty.com/why.html


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeckyBird*
> 
> You do realize there are more than 2 parties in the country, right?


There are only two parties that have a chance of winning the Presidential election.

Quote:


> Maybe voting for a third party candidate would be a great way to show our distaste for the Republicans and Democrats.


I agree with the Green Party more than I agree with the Democratic Party. But if I actually VOTED for the Green Party, that would be a great way to help the Republican candidate, whose views are further away from the Green Party's views, defeat the Democratic candidate, whose views are closer to the Green Party's views. The Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate are the only candidates with a chance to win the Presidential election.

Quote:


> If I cannot support the policies presented by either Republican and Democrat candidates, then why should I (or anybody) be expected to vote for the "better one"?


Because one of them is going to be the President. And we have a choice which one. And one is better and the other is worse. No one else has a chance of winning. Either the Democrat is going to win or the Republican is going to win. I really don't know how to state this any clearer.

Quote:


> How about neither?


Because that's not an option. "Neither" is not one of our realistic choices. I hate to have to be the one to tell you, but one of them is going to win. Either the Democrat or the Republican.

Quote:


> If you were pro-(fill in the blank) and both candidates were not, how could you live with yourself if you voted against something you believed in?


Very easily. Because there are only 2 real choices, and one of them is better and the other is worse. So I'm going to pick the better one. That's all there is to it. To my knowledge, there is not a single other person on this Earth who has the exact same opinion that I have about every issue under the sun.

Quote:


> I don't like to be bullied into doing something I'm not comfortable with, thank you.


Maybe you didn't see what I said in my last post, but I am not specifically trying to get YOU to vote for the Democrat or the Republican. Do whatever you want in the election. I have simply been defending my own position and my own decision. You are the one who has been saying things like "Stop making excuses for the man and see him for who he really is. It is unacceptable to vote for him just because you don't like the other guy."

Quote:


> why not vote for him. And please don't patronize me--I KNOW one of those clowns will win and Gary Johnson won't have a chance. Please, I know. I know. I know.
> 
> I know! But if you are looking for a change in the system, you actually have to do something to change the system.


 Yup, you just answered your own question. Why not vote for him? Because he's not going to win. He can't win against Obama and Romney. As you said, he doesn't have a chance. And you know that. And here's what you need to realize:

Voting for a third party candidate will NOT change the system. Not at all. Not even a little bit. It won't have any effect on it. The ONLY thing that a voter would accomplish by voting for a third party candidate instead of voting for someone who actually has a chance of winning, is to make it more likely that the next President will be the candidate whose views are FURTHER from that voter's views, instead of the viable candidate whose views are closer to the voter's views. That's it.

I am in favor of changing the election system so that more than 2 parties have a chance. But the actions that need to be taken to bring about such a change cannot be taken in the voting booth. What we need to do is educate the public about instant run-off voting, and then demand instant run-off voting from our Congress members. In the mean time, we're just going to make matters worse if we allow the worse of the two viable candidates to win, by casting our vote for someone other than the better of the two viable candidates.


----------



## JollyGG

Actually a third party candidate has won the presidency before and one will probably win again. This elections cycle? Probably not.

The first two major political parties in this country were the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists eventually became a minor political party and eventually ceased. The Democratic-Republicans became the Democrats and Republicans. This happened when a third party (Republican - Abraham Lincoln) won the presidential race.

Check out this chart - there has been more than once that a third party candidate got a significant portion of the votes - http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/3rdparties.html

With the polarity that our parties are exhibiting right now I'm guessing it won't be long before we see some new political parties take the forefront. It's possible that with the information systems available to most Americans that it won't be a single party replacing another major party this time, but an increase in all third party voters resulting in something other than a two party system.


----------



## beckybird

Thanks JollyGG.

Sustainer, let's declare this a stalemate. We disagree, and that's that.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JollyGG*
> 
> Actually a third party candidate has won the presidency before and one will probably win again. This elections cycle? Probably not.


Let's make that definitely not. I think it's risky to suggest otherwise. The contest between Obama and Romney is too close to mess around. Obama is going to need every vote he can get, especially in swing states. The 3rd party candidates are going to get about 2% of the vote. Combined. In other words, no where near enough to win even a single state's electoral votes, but just enough to tip the scale between Obama and Romney.

In modern times, no third party candidate has won the presidency, and I don't see how it could happen in the near future without instant run-off voting. There are too many voters in this country who would be called "moderates." Voters who find themselves right between the Republican Party ideology and the Democratic Party ideology. They're going to keep voting for one or the other. There aren't enough people who are further left than the Democratic party. There aren't enough people who want drastic change. I wish there were. I wish a 3rd party candidate could win.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JollyGG*
> The first two major political parties in this country were the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists eventually became a minor political party and eventually ceased. The Democratic-Republicans became the Democrats and Republicans. This happened when a third party (Republican - Abraham Lincoln) won the presidential race.


Yes, there have been gradual changes in political parties over the centuries, and I'm not saying that's not still happening. Right now the Republican party is going in a Tea Party sort of direction. It has moved further to the right. The Democratic party has moved further to the center. That gives the Democratic party an advantage. Over the decades, the two major parties have vaccilated back and forth in this manner. One will move toward the center as the other moves closer to its extreme. Usually the party closer to the center wins. In a way, I would love it if the Occupy movement influenced the Democrats in a left-ward direction, but in another way I recognize that this would make them less electable. Be that as it may, our country IS making progress. Gay people, for example, used to be treated like lepers. Now, the majority of the country is accepting. We have President Obama to thank for a lot of the progress in gay rights. Things do slowly change. We do the best we can with a country that is still too right-wing and has to be "dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century," to quote Berke Breathed.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JollyGG*
> 
> It's possible that with the information systems available to most Americans that it won't be a single party replacing another major party this time, but an increase in all third party voters resulting in something other than a two party system.


I hope enough people can be convinced to demand an instant run-off voting system insistently enough that a 3rd party candidate would have a chance in the modern political climate. I hope we'll be able to elect a truly progressive President some day. But as far as the election coming up in less than a month, not gonna happen. And I hope my fellow progressives will NOT vote for a 3rd party for President this year, especially in swing states, because if they voted for a 3rd party instead of Obama, it would ensure that Romney will be our President for the next four years.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeckyBird*
> 
> We disagree, and that's that.


I agree to disagree.


----------



## mtiger

I really dislike when people insist that there is A "right" vote and A "wrong" vote. What *I* consider "right" or "wrong" may be quite different than what the next person thinks. That does not actually make *either* of our opinions right, OR wrong. We are all different people, with different points of view, and different things that are important to us. So please - don't insult the rest of us who don't agree with whatever POV you espouse by telling us we are "wrong". Thank you.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtiger*
> 
> What *I* consider "right" or "wrong" may be quite different than what the next person thinks. That does not actually make *either* of our opinions right, OR wrong. We are all different people, with different points of view, and different things that are important to us.


Obviously. In MY OPINION, when this country moves in a "left-ward" direction, it is moving in the right direction, and voting for Obama is the right thing for progressives to do. So that's what I'm going to say. I'm not going to start every sentence with "In my opinion, ..." because it is obvious that what I am saying is my opinion. Someone who holds opposite opinions from mine is free to say "I disagree. Moving in a conservative direction is the right way to go. Voting for _____ is the right thing to do. Here's why."


----------



## mtiger

Your opinion is yours. Doesn't make it right, or wrong. I deal with opinions like this all the time - from both sides of the aisle. And I can tell you that the brow-beating does nothing to encourage me to vote in the manner you think I should. If anything, it spurs me to do the opposite. I *respect* your opinion. But you give the impression that you do not reciprocate. That is not MY problem.


----------



## erinmattsmom88

Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same. Nothing will change no matter who gets elected. Dems and Repubs argue and have argued about the same things for decades and nothing ever gets fixed. It's all a circus. There really is no point in voting. Watched the VP debate last night and it was a disgrace. Joe Biden acted like a fool. The only truth he spoke of was the fact that Iran is no where near developing a nuclear weapon, which is ironic because Ron Paul got berated, booed, and made to look like an idiot and liar earlier this year for saying the same thing. If I vote, I'm writing in Ron Paul.


----------



## mtiger

I don't disagree, erinmattsmom.


----------



## CatsCradle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same. Nothing will change no matter who gets elected. Dems and Repubs argue and have argued about the same things for decades and nothing ever gets fixed. It's all a circus. There really is no point in voting. Watched the VP debate last night and it was a disgrace. Joe Biden acted like a fool. The only truth he spoke of was the fact that Iran is no where near developing a nuclear weapon, which is ironic because Ron Paul got berated, booed, and made to look like an idiot and liar earlier this year for saying the same thing. If I vote, I'm writing in Ron Paul.


I totally understand the frustration of the American public with politics. I've been voting for over 30 years and things sort of stay the same generally speaking.

That being said, I've very invested in this election cycle because the most important issue to me at this point is the Supreme Court. Presidents are directly responsible for appointments to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court decisions impact all of us in one way or another. The legislative branch and the executive branch can continue to get nothing done per se, but a handful of Supreme Court decisions can ultimately determine our freedoms (or non-freedoms) for years to come. One presidential appointment in the event of a justice vacancy can tip the balance. This is a very serious issue for me.

I don't think that the electorate thinks about these types of issues when voting or choosing not to vote. The candidates rarely touch on this because it is not sexy. Plus, a lot of people have a short attention span. They'd rather treat politics like reality T.V. For me, the last few weeks have been like watching American Idol or something. The general chatter is always about who had the best performance and who looked better, etc. I don't blame the politicians as much as I blame the American people. It's all about rooting for the team and seeing the other guy/gal mess up. This discourse is limited to talking points and generalizations about the other side.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:
Originally Posted by *mtiger* 

Your opinion is yours. Doesn't make it right, or wrong. I deal with opinions like this all the time - from both sides of the aisle.

You already said this and I already responded to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *mtiger* 

I *respect* your opinion. But you give the impression that you do not reciprocate.

I respect everyone's right to have their own opinion and to express their own opinion. I don't have to respect the opinion itself if I don't find it to be an idea that is particularly worthy of respect. If I think it is based on illogic then I will respond to it in a way I find appropriate. If I declare that voters should take a certain action and someone disagrees, that person is free to say "there's no way I'm doing that. Here's why. Oh, and voters should do this other thing. Here's why." And then, yeah, I will debate with the person. I will never cross the line into personal attack. I will never say "you're a stupid jerk." But ideas are fair game.

People may vote however they please. I only hope that it will be an educated, informed choice, that the person goes into with their eyes open, knowing the consequences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same. Nothing will change no matter who gets elected. Dems and Repubs argue and have argued about the same things for decades and nothing ever gets fixed. It's all a circus. There really is no point in voting.

This seems to be a widely held misconception. There are actually profound differences between the two parties. And, as I said before, if you pay attention to world events and their causes, it should be clear that the consequences of Republicans holding office are very different from the consequences of Democrats holding office.

It is not true that nothing ever gets improved.

I think it's very important to vote. It really does make a difference. I've seen huge differences in the world (for better or for worse) after each change of administration, time and time again.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> The only truth he spoke of was the fact that Iran is no where near developing a nuclear weapon


I think Biden spoke a great deal of truth about a major women's rights issue which, for various reasons, I don't think I care to specifically name again in this particular thread.







Let's just say that Supreme Court Justice appointees will have an effect on this issue. (See page 2 of this thread if you don't know what I mean.)


----------



## erinmattsmom88

FYI, my earlier post wasn't a direct reply to anybody specific. I just felt like adding my







to the conversation.









Ugh, women's issues. In my opinion, creating jobs, pulling out of these senseless wars, protecting our freedoms, and stopping the ridiculous overspending should be priority right now. Those are umbrella issues and affect many other aspects of the problems we face currently. Neither major party has much of a solution, as these problems continue year after year. So, no, nothing ever changes. The players of the game change, not the game. Ron Paul was the only one with real ideas and solutions... and some common sense. Our society can't handle it. Everyone said yeah, he's smart and makes sense, but will never get elected. If all the people who said he can't get elected join those of us who support him, things would be a whole lot different. Then, you'd see change.


----------



## CatsCradle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> FYI, my earlier post wasn't a direct reply to anybody specific. I just felt like adding my
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ugh, women's issues. In my opinion, creating jobs, pulling out of these senseless wars, protecting our freedoms, and stopping the ridiculous overspending should be priority right now. Those are umbrella issues and affect many other aspects of the problems we face currently. Neither major party has much of a solution, as these problems continue year after year. So, no, nothing ever changes. The players of the game change, not the game. Ron Paul was the only one with real ideas and solutions... and some common sense. Our society can't handle it. Everyone said yeah, he's smart and makes sense, but will never get elected. If all the people who said he can't get elected join those of us who support him, things would be a whole lot different. Then, you'd see change.


I guess I'm a little more cynical simply because our government is a tri-parte government. Ron Paul may have good ideas according to some, but he would not be king and would not be able to make the changes without the approval/consent of the other two parts of government.

My firm belief is that the electorate has to change.  You could put Gandhi or Jesus Christ in the office of president, but it is about more than just the president. People are very divided in this country about how things should be. The real power, in my opinion, sits with the legislature, and we see what kind of people are getting voted into that from various districts. A lot of whack jobs, in my opinion. Question for me is: what is the office of the president going to directly affect? Ideas and talk of solutions only go so far. Given the current landscape and the 50/50 divide in this country on very stark issues, I'm not confident that a sitting president would do much, really, except for the reasons I cited in a previous post.


----------



## erinmattsmom88

CatsCradle, I agree with your last post, and I'm cynical too! Can ya tell?


----------



## erinmattsmom88

Sustainer, I think it would be important to vote if voting had an actual impact on elections.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> 
> 
> protecting our freedoms, and stopping the ridiculous overspending should be priority right now.
> 
> That includes the freedoms that women have rights to. Important ones.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> Those are umbrella issues and affect many other aspects of the problems we face currently. Neither major party has much of a solution, as these problems continue year after year. So, no, nothing ever changes. The players of the game change, not the game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we always have problems. A new President never means the world will suddenly be filled with rainbows. That does not mean that nothing ever changes, however. If you look at the world through a narrow lens, things might generally seem the same. If you look at your own life and the area you live in, you might feel that gas prices are always high and so forth, no matter who the President is. So you might think that it doesn't make a difference who the President is. You have to use a wide lens and really pay attention to things that go on in the world, and what causes them, and what affects them, and pay attention to laws that Congress passes, and executive orders that the President issues, and Supreme Court Justices who are appointed, and the decisions that they make, and the effects that result from all of these things. The party that is in power does make a difference. Yes, there's always corruption, too, and there always will be, but we can't just write off the two most prominent political parties.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> Ron Paul was the only one with real ideas and solutions... and some common sense. Our society can't handle it. Everyone said yeah, he's smart and makes sense, but will never get elected. If all the people who said he can't get elected join those of us who support him, things would be a whole lot different. Then, you'd see change.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Not true. A lot of people think Ron Paul's ideas make sense, but not everyone. It is true that he could never get elected. Even if everyone who thought he was the one with the right solutions voted for him, he would still not win. Maybe it doesn't seem like it from your point of view, but it is actually only a minority of people who like Ron Paul the best.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> Sustainer, I think it would be important to vote if voting had an actual impact on elections.


If you vote for one of the candidates who has a chance of winning, voting is everything. Even more so in swing states.

Are you a conspiracy theorist who thinks there's a corrupt person who puts the country's votes in the trash and then just picks the candidate they like to be the winner? That would have to be a pretty massive conspiracy with all the votes that are collected all over the country and all the different districts that report in. Even if I thought that was a possibility, I would still vote based on the possibility that it was not true. I think there is a lot of evidence that elections actually do reflect the preferences of the voters. When it seems like the country is pretty evenly divided, the election usually ends up being close, etc.


----------



## beckybird

Quote:


> Are you a conspiracy theorist who thinks there's a corrupt person who puts the country's votes in the trash and then just picks the candidate they like to be the winner?


You say this like there's never been a case of voter fraud! Come on! Remember George W. Bush term #1, and George W. Bush term #2? Imagine how you'll feel if Obama loses the same way as Gore or Kerry.

There was also voter fraud with Ron Paul and the GOP this year. I guess it doesn't matter now, so we should forget about it and move on, right? It only matters if it happens to the guy you like. (the general "you")


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeckyBird*
> 
> You say this like there's never been a case of voter fraud! Come on! Remember George W. Bush term #1, and George W. Bush term #2? Imagine how you'll feel if Obama loses the same way as Gore or Kerry.


No I don't. Certainly there have been such cases, but if all you're talking about are Florida in 2000 and Ohio in '04, then how can you say voting doesn't matter? If the thousands of Floridians who voted for Nader in 2000 had voted for Gore instead, then the 300 disputed votes that the Republicans and Democrats argued over wouldn't have mattered. The closer the election is, the easier it is for the results to be fudged, and the more important it is that we get every vote we can get, and the more every vote matters.

You think I haven't imagined how I'll feel if the same thing happens again? Why do you think I'm here trying to get people to vote for Obama?

It's already beginning. Republicans in power are already trying to disenfranchise Democratic voters in key states.

I can't control what the people who count the votes do, but I can control what I do as a voter. If Obama isn't re-elected, it won't be because I didn't do my part.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeckyBird*
> 
> There was also voter fraud with Ron Paul and the GOP this year. I guess it doesn't matter now, so we should forget about it and move on, right? It only matters if it happens to the guy you like. (the general "you")


If that's true then it does matter. It always matters, whoever it happens to. Do you really think, though, that if everything had been done honestly, correctly, and above-board, that Ron Paul would have defeated Romney for the nomination? Is there evidence that there was *that* much fraud? I mean, the race wan't even close. There was no question who the winner was. Why is this the first noise I've heard that a popular candidate was wronged to such an extent?


----------



## erinmattsmom88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sustainer*
> 
> Yes, we always have problems. A new President never means the world will suddenly be filled with rainbows. That does not mean that nothing ever changes, however. If you look at the world through a narrow lens, things might generally seem the same. If you look at your own life and the area you live in, you might feel that gas prices are always high and so forth, no matter who the President is. So you might think that it doesn't make a difference who the President is. You have to use a wide lens and really pay attention to things that go on in the world, and what causes them, and what affects them, and pay attention to laws that Congress passes, and executive orders that the President issues, and Supreme Court Justices who are appointed, and the decisions that they make, and the effects that result from all of these things. The party that is in power does make a difference. Yes, there's always corruption, too, and there always will be, but we can't just write off all of the Democrats and Republicans.
> 
> Not true. A lot of people think Ron Paul's ideas make sense, but not everyone. It is true that he could never get elected. Even if everyone who thought he was the one with the right solutions voted for him, he would still not win. Maybe it doesn't seem like it from your point of view, but it is actually only a minority of people who like Ron Paul the best.
> 
> If you vote for one of the candidates who has a chance of winning, voting is everything. Even more so in swing states.
> 
> Are you a conspiracy theorist who thinks there's a corrupt person who puts the country's votes in the trash and then just picks the candidate they like to be the winner? That would have to be a pretty massive conspiracy with all the votes that are collected all over the country and all the different districts that report in. Even if I thought that was a possibility, I would still vote based on the possibility that it was not true. I think there is a lot of evidence that elections actually do reflect the preferences of the voters. When it seems like the country is pretty evenly divided, the election usually ends up being close, etc.


Oh my.

I will never vote for someone because they have a better chance of winning. There are more than two parties to choose from.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. But, yes, I do think there is massive corruption. Our next president has already been pre-determined. What is your evidence that elections reflect the preferences of voters? Please do not reference anything from MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, NBC, etc, etc. MSM is bought and paid for by both major political parties. Major bias going on there. Please find real evidence before you answer. Voter fraud is alive and well in this country.

How do you know only a minority of people only like Ron Paul? He had several thousand people at every single rally of his during the republican primary season. The others not so much. It was hardly ever reported because the MSM ignored him. You should search on youtube... Ron Paul being ignored by the media. Also, search for the jon stewart segment about it. That was funny, but sooooo true.


----------



## erinmattsmom88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sustainer*
> 
> If that's true then it does matter. It always matters, whoever it happens to. Do you really think, though, that if everything had been done honestly, correctly, and above-board, that Ron Paul would have defeated Romney for the nomination? Is there evidence that there was *that* much fraud? I mean, the race wan't even close. There was no question who the winner was. Why is this the first noise I've heard that a popular candidate was wronged to such an extent?


Because the MSM doesn't want the public to know ANYTHING. They are controlled by a higher power (White House, etc). Yes, there WAS THAT MUCH fraud. Ron Paul was ignored by the media and by his own party. Don't rely on CNN or Fox News for what is really happening in the world. Please look deeper.


----------



## CatsCradle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> Because the MSM doesn't want the public to know ANYTHING. *They are controlled by a higher power (White House, etc)*. Yes, there WAS THAT MUCH fraud. Ron Paul was ignored by the media and by his own party. Don't rely on CNN or Fox News for what is really happening in the world. Please look deeper.


The only higher power that controls things, in my opinion, are powerful corporations. Money controls. The White House and other governmental officials (from both parties) are always doing damage control when it comes to what is presented about them in the media.

Corporations are considered "people" and are very powerful people at that. The most powerful things in America. I'm not talking directly to you erinmattsmom88, just the general board...but if this country goes down in flames, it is will not be because of a single president, but because of corporate interests. People give these entities a free pass. Everyone keeps talking about the big bad government, but financial interests really control the strings (how money is spent, who and what gets it, who is the talking piece).

Politicians are laughable, in my opinion. They are total puppets, all of them. Look behind the curtain and see who is pulling the strings. If you can deal with the puppetmaster, you can deal with the puppet.


----------



## Turquesa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> If I vote, I'm writing in Ron Paul.


 If??? No! Vote! Please vote. I don't even care for Ron Paul. But please vote!

Casting a vote for *anybody* is casting a vote that our leaders are accountable, and we Americans are watching them. I'm convinced that when these "leaders" see low voter turn-out, they see apathy. And when they see apathy, they see a license to do whatever the heck they want. I don't care if people write in Mickey Mouse so long as those voter turn-out numbers increase...


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> I will never vote for someone because they have a better chance of winning. There are more than two parties to choose from.


It's not that the Democrat and Republican have a *better* chance of winning. It's that the Democrat and Republican are the *only* ones with a chance of winning. There are only two real choices in this election.

Ask yourself who you would vote for if the Democrat and the Republican were the only ones running (and write-ins weren't allowed). If your answer is "I wouldn't vote," (but, please, if you live in a swing state, please make sure you've done your research before you come to that conclusion) then by all means vote for a third party. However, if your answer would be "Obama," then I think people need to realize that voting for a third party instead of Obama results in Romney having a better chance of winning. Especially if you're in a swing state.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> Our next president has already been pre-determined.


That's quite a claim, especially for someone who says they're not a conspiracy theorist. What is YOUR proof that that is true? If I really believed such a thing myself, I doubt I would bother participating in a thread like this, so I'm scratching my head a little.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> What is your evidence that elections reflect the preferences of voters?


As I said, my judgment is based on my perception that the views of the country tend to match the outcome of the election. You might not consider my evidence to be hard enough. I am not a professional pollster. I read the results of polls that others take. Also, anecdotally, I communicate with people (not just in my local area, but via the internet which extends throughout the country and beyond) and I get a sense, through all such research, of which candidate seems to be more popular or whether there's a fairly even divide. Usually the outcome of the election reflects this. I'm not saying that more than half of voters wanted George W. Bush to be elected. What I'm saying is that I was able to predict that it would be a close election.

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> How do you know only a minority of people only like Ron Paul? He had several thousand people at every single rally of his during the republican primary season. The others not so much.
> 
> That's hardly proof that he was preferred by a majority of Republican voters. Most of the voters in this country, when asked who they support for President, say "Romney" or "Obama." That is a fact.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> Because the MSM doesn't want the public to know ANYTHING. They are controlled by a higher power (White House, etc). Yes, there WAS THAT MUCH fraud. Ron Paul was ignored by the media and by his own party. Don't rely on CNN or Fox News for what is really happening in the world. Please look deeper.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not watch MSNBC or Fox. So are you, in fact, claiming that Ron Paul would have been named as the winner of the Republican primary if it were not for election fraud? Proof, please? By the way, Ron Paul being ignored by the media does not count as election fraud.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *CatsCradle*
> 
> ...but if this country goes down in flames, it is will not be because of a single president, but because of corporate interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I agree with this, with a slight revision. I would add that if a President promotes the corporate interests that end up sending our country down in flames, then that President would bear partial responsibility for our destruction.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Turquesa*
> 
> I don't care if people write in Mickey Mouse so long as those voter turn-out numbers increase...


I do care who people vote for, but I agree with you to the extent that voting for someone other than Obama or Romney is better than not voting at all.


----------



## erinmattsmom88

CatsCradle, yes. I wasn't go to mention the real folks who control everything, but since you mentioned it!! Yes, our politicians are mere puppets. The central bank, federal reserve, and multi-national corporations rule. They were my "etc"









Turquesa, I agree with you 200%.


----------



## erinmattsmom88

Quote:


> It's not that the Democrat and Republican have a *better* chance of winning. It's that the Democrat and Republican are the *only* ones with a chance of winning. There are only two real choices in this election.


 If people continue to feel this way, then we deserve what we get.

Quote:


> Ask yourself who you would vote for if the Democrat and the Republican were the only ones running (and write-ins weren't allowed). If your answer is "I wouldn't vote," (but, please, if you live in a swing state, please make sure you've done your research before you come to that conclusion) then by all means vote for a third party. However, if your answer would be "Obama," then I think people need to realize that voting for a third party instead of Obama results in Romney having a better chance of winning. Especially if you're in a swing state.


Since there ARE other choices, why should I care about ruining the chances for Dems and Repubs? I should vote for who I feel is best for the job. If more people did this, it would send a message. A lot of us "conspiracy theorists" aka not supporters of Obama or Romney wish more people would do this. It's funny that you call me that because I don't support either major party. Ron Paul supporters and other third party supporters are called this because we don't agree with the establishment and/or conform to the mainstream. We have to be called something, right? You have me motivated to head to the polls in November. I wasn't going to out of frustration, but I have to do my part.

Quote:


> As I said, my judgment is based on my perception that the views of the country tend to match the outcome of the election. You might not consider my evidence hard enough. I am not a professional pollster. I read the results of polls that others take. Also, anecdotally, I communicate with people (not just in my local area, but via the internet which extends throughout the country and beyond) and I get a sense, through all such research, of which candidate seems to be more popular or whether there's a fairly even divide. Usually the outcome of the election reflects this. I'm not saying that more than half of voters wanted George W. Bush to be elected. What I'm saying is that I was able to predict that it would be a close election.


 Those polls are not reliable. I communicate with people as well, and I'm not saying that there aren't people who prefer Obama and Romney. What I'm saying is, is that you cannot rely on the results of elections. There is soooo much fraud out there. How do you explain all the dead people who vote?

Quote:


> That's hardly proof that he was preferred by a majority of Republican voters. Most of the voters in this country, when asked who they support for President, say "Romney" or "Obama." That is a fact.


 That is not even close to being fact. Who reported this? Where did you get this information?

Quote:


> I do not watch MSNBC or Fox. So are you, in fact, claiming that Ron Paul would have been named as the winner of the Republican primary if it were not for election fraud? Proof, please? By the way, Ron Paul being ignored by the media does not count as election fraud.


No, I'm not saying he would have been named the winner. But, the results were much different than what was being reported by the MSM. They wouldn't even read aloud his votes during the convention. When individual states were reading who got what, after a few states went by they started turning off the microphones when Ron Paul's votes were attempting to be read aloud. That's a fact. How do you explain that? Why did they do that? No, Ron Paul being ignored by the media is not specifically election fraud. But, like I wrote above, dead people voting is. The playing field should have been even and it wasn't. That was by design.


----------



## CatsCradle

Thanks everyone, for your comments! This is the MDC that I love. I admit that I've been visiting here less because I'm in interested in the political right now and I'm appreciative of everyone's comments here.


----------



## Adaline'sMama

You know, if you live in the united states, as women we've only had the right to vote for 92 years (that is still less than half the time federal elections have been held). A whole lot of women busted their ass to make sure we have that right, and IMO the least we can do is go out and take the time to exercise our right to do something that people fought so hard for.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> If people continue to feel this way, then we deserve what we get.


If people who are further left than Obama vote for a third party, or don't vote, and we get Romney, then perhaps those people deserve what they get. Those of us who vote for Obama will not deserve to get Romney, but if he wins, then we will get him anyway.









The majority of the population prefers Obama or Romney to anyone else running, and that's all there is to it. If people voted for whichever candidate they liked best, regardless of which one they thought had a better chance, the winner would still be Obama or Romney.

Most people are centrists. They are not extremists. A candidate who is far to the left of Obama, therefore, would not have a chance, nor would a candidate significantly to the right of Romney.

Quote:


> Since there ARE other choices, why should I care about ruining the chances for Dems and Repubs? I should vote for who I feel is best for the job. If more people did this, it would send a message.


Why should you care? Because the next President is going to be either the Democrat or the Republican. And one of them probably has views closer to your own. The President's decisions will affect you and other people you care about. None of the other choices has a chance of winning. They aren't real options. It's almost like going into a restaurant where hamburgers, pizza, and salad are all on the menu, but the cook is NOT going to make you a salad, so at the end of the day the server is going to bring you either a hamburger or pizza. You can either insist on a salad until you're blue in the face, and the server will bring you a hamburger or pizza randomly, or you can tell the server whether you'd rather have a hambuger or pizza.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> A lot of us "conspiracy theorists" aka not supporters of Obama or Romney wish more people would do this. It's funny that you call me that because I don't support either major party. Ron Paul supporters and other third party supporters are called this because we don't agree with the establishment and/or conform to the mainstream. We have to be called something, right?


Um... wow. Okay, the reason I asked if you were a consipiracy theorist had absolutely NOTHING to do with whether you supported Obama or Romney or whether you supported a third party candidate. It also had absolutely nothing to do with whether you agree/conform to mainstream establishment. The ONLY reason I asked about you being a conspiracy theorist is that you said the next President has already been pre-determined and that voting has no actual effect on the outcome of the election.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> You have me motivated to head to the polls in November. I wasn't going to out of frustration, but I have to do my part.


If you weren't going to vote, and now you are, then I'm glad I brought that about, even though it's based on your complete misinterpretation of my comments.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> That is not even close to being fact. Who reported this? Where did you get this information?


I'd refer you to ANY poll out there, but you've already declared them all to be unreliable. Can you produce a single nationwide, randomized poll of a large sample, that shows anything OTHER than the vast majority of voters saying they support Obama or Romney?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> How do you explain all the dead people who vote?


Exactly how many dead people vote? And what is your source for that data?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> 
> You know, if you live in the united states, as women we've only had the right to vote for 92 years (that is still less than half the time federal elections have been held). A whole lot of women busted their ass to make sure we have that right, and IMO the least we can do is go out and take the time to exercise our right to do something that people fought so hard for.


----------



## erinmattsmom88

Quote:


> The majority of the population prefers Obama or Romney to anyone else running, and that's all there is to it.


 You can't prove this. There is no way objectively this can be proven.

Quote:


> Why should you care? Because the next President is going to be either the Democrat or the Republican.


 This cycle, yes. But maybe not in the future. I should say, hopefully not.

Quote:


> The President's decisions will affect you and other people you care about


 Which is more of a reason why I will continue to vote for whomever I feel is best for the job, not for who has the best chance of winning, or as you say, the "only" chance of winning.

Quote:


> None of the other choices has a chance of winning. They aren't real options.


How ignorant of you to say something like this. They absolutely ARE real options. You're insulting a large population out there who vote Libertarian, Green party, Constitution, American Third Position, Objectivist, Peace and Freedom, and the list goes on. I guess whoever votes for these parties isn't real??

Quote:


> It's almost like going into a restaurant where hamburgers, pizza, and salad are all on the menu, but the cook is NOT going to make you a salad, so at the end of the day the server is going to bring you either a hamburger or pizza. You can either insist on a salad until you're blue in the face, and the server will bring you a hamburger or pizza randomly, or you can tell the server whether you'd rather have a hambuger or pizza.


Why is the salad on the menu? I guess that's not a real option. Why is it there? Because it IS an option. They need to fire the cook.

Quote:


> I'd refer you to ANY poll out there, but you've already declared them all to be unreliable. Can you produce a single nationwide, randomized poll of a large sample, that shows anything OTHER than the vast majority of voters saying they support Obama or Romney?


Can you? An objective one that is not bought and paid for by special interest groups? My guess would be no.

Quote:


> Exactly how many dead people vote? And what is your source for that data?


 It's all over the internet. Here's one for you... http://www.infowars.com/voter-fraud-dead-people-cast-over-950-ballots-in-south-carolina/

And another... http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA636.html

And another... http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/11/video-nh-poll-workers-shown-handing-out-ballots-in-dead-peoples-names/

And another... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/30/federal-court-rules-against-texas-voter-id-law/

And to think that there are so many people out there that don't think ID should be presented at the polls. Makes you wonder, doesn't it??


----------



## erinmattsmom88

Quote:


> You know, if you live in the united states, as women we've only had the right to vote for 92 years (that is still less than half the time federal elections have been held). A whole lot of women busted their ass to make sure we have that right, and IMO the least we can do is go out and take the time to exercise our right to do something that people fought so hard for.


 Well, apparently my vote isn't a "real" one if I don't vote democrat or republican. Apparently, I'm just supposed to settle for the candidate who is doing better in the polls. Do you think those who fought for the right for women to vote would feel the same way? Do you think those women who sacrificed so much and fought so hard for that right would say, "Now that we have the ability to vote, we'll just choose the one who has the better chance of winning". I think not.


----------



## erinmattsmom88

Sustainer, here's some good reading for you...

http://thestephenbeldingreport.blogspot.com/2012/08/obama-vs-romney-outcome-is.html#!/2012/08/obama-vs-romney-outcome-is.html

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/12645-rnc-disenfranchises-delegates-rigs-rules-to-nominate-romney


----------



## beckybird

Many years ago, there was an important election. The candidates were Hitler, Mao Zedong, and Gandhi. Now, for one reason or another, Hitler and Mao were strong in the polls. Most of the country favored one or the other, while Gandhi had a small loyal following. Folks would say, "Gandhi will never win. Not enough voter support. Mao or Hitler are in the lead, and one will certainly be voted our leader. You must choose which one and cast your vote. There are only two real candidates in this election."

I was a young lady then, and it was difficult to speak out against the majority. All of my family, friends, and fellow citizens thought I would be wasting my time if I voted for Gandhi. They said it would do no good, and that I was an idiot for thinking my little minority vote would change anything. Still, I could not put my good name behind a candidate that did not measure up to my standards. So I voted for Gandhi.

Gandhi did not win that election. The folks were right, and my little vote did not change anything. My vote did not matter to anybody.

Except me. My vote mattered to me.

*************************************************************

Some of us just cannot support either Romney or Obama. One will be elected this time year, but we cannot in good conscience vote for either one. My vote, my word, means something to ME, and I would disappoint MYSELF if I compromised my integrity.

Now, I realize I may have upset you when I attacked Obama. Maybe my post was rude. However, I do not agree with your relentless attacks against the third party voters. It surprises me that someone with your signature (no vax/ no circ) could be this hostile toward those of us who are choosing the unconventional path.


----------



## Adaline'sMama

I dont give a crap what party you vote for (thats not really true, I dont have republican friends for a reason) , but go to the polls and vote!

I dont believe in saying that third party candidates are never going to win, but in my honest opinion, most of them are a bit off their rocker. Im much further left than Obama, but I cant stand behind Libertarians or even most of the time Green Party candidates because I just simply dont believe in their ability to not get pushed around once they are in office.


----------



## erinmattsmom88

Quote:


> I dont believe in saying that third party candidates are never going to win, but in my honest opinion, most of them are a bit off their rocker.


Why are third party candidates off their rocker?

I'm sure Sustainer will follow with her big thumbs up on that one too.


----------



## Adaline'sMama

In my honest opinion, I have never heard a third party candidate make a speech that did not make me think they were a solid person. Its my opinion. If you want people to be respectful of yours, be respectful of mine. And mine is that I think most third party candidates are a bit off their rocker.. as in full of conspiracy theories and lots of ideas that I think are nice in theory but I seriously have my doubts about them implementing them. That is my opinion, it's why I dont vote for third party candidates, even though I lean way further left than any democrat that has run for president.


----------



## beckybird

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> 
> In my honest opinion, I have never heard a third party candidate make a speech that did not make me think they were a solid person. Its my opinion. If you want people to be respectful of yours, be respectful of mine. And mine is that I think most third party candidates are a bit off their rocker.. as in full of conspiracy theories and lots of ideas that I think are nice in theory but I seriously have my doubts about them implementing them. That is my opinion, it's why I dont vote for third party candidates, even though I lean way further left than any democrat that has run for president.


 I can accept this. At least you're not telling me that my vote is worthless!


----------



## erinmattsmom88

Quote:


> In my honest opinion, I have never heard a third party candidate make a speech that did not make me think they were a solid person. Its my opinion. If you want people to be respectful of yours, be respectful of mine


You're asking me to be respectful of your opinion? That's ironic considering the fact that it is obvious I support a third party candidate and you call third party candidates "off their rocker" who are full of conspiracy theories. Where's the respect there? How have I been disrespectful of your opinion? All I asked was why do you feel that third party candidates are off their rocker. It was a simple question. I haven't once said anything negative about your political leanings (unlike you) so I really don't know what you're talking about.

Quote:


> And mine is that I think most third party candidates are a bit off their rocker.. as in full of conspiracy theories and lots of ideas that I think are nice in theory but I seriously have my doubts about them implementing them.


What kind of conspiracy theories? And, it's not disrespectful to ask that, btw. If you're going to make a statement like that you should be prepared to back it up.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> You can't prove this. There is no way objectively this can be proven.


If you're such a conspiracy theorist that you won't accept ANY independent pollster who asks thousands of registered voters all over the country who they're voting for and then reports what they say, then, no, there's no proof you're going to accept. Whether you accept it or not, though, it is the truth.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> This cycle, yes. But maybe not in the future. I should say, hopefully not.


Finally. Something we agree on. I was talking about this cycle.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> Which is more of a reason why I will continue to vote for whomever I feel is best for the job, not for who has the best chance of winning, or as you say, the "only" chance of winning.


Which is where your argument breaks down. If you accept that either the Democrat or the Republican is going to be the next President in THIS CYCLE, and if you accept that this person is going to make decisions which affect you and those you care about, then all voting 3rd party does is help the candidate with views *further* from your own become the winner.

As I say every 4 years, this is not an abstract exercise. It has concrete, real world consequences. We need to be pragmatic. The world is counting on us. Our vote will make a difference in how much people suffer.

Third party voting was a major reason we ended up with George W. Bush twice.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> How ignorant of you to say something like this. They absolutely ARE real options. You're insulting a large population out there who vote Libertarian, Green party, Constitution, American Third Position, Objectivist, Peace and Freedom, and the list goes on. I guess whoever votes for these parties isn't real??


Oh for the love of all that is holy. Why do you keep insisting on taking my words and using them to say something completely ridiculous? And I'M the one who's saying ignorant things??

<sarcasm> Yeah, that's what I was saying. People who vote for third party candidates AREN'T REAL PEOPLE. </sarcasm>

What the H***???

<sarcasm> And when I question whether you're a conspiracy theorist, it has nothing to do with your statement that the votes that people cast have no impact on the outcome of elections. I'm just saying you're a conspiracy theorist because you support third parties, right? </sarcasm>

Enough is enough. Cut it out.

Third party candidates are not real options because they're not going to win. YOU'VE ALREADY CONCEDED THIS. It's like ordering the salad in the hamburger restaurant. You're not gonna get it. So you might as well express a preference between the two things you *can* get. All of those third party candidates are going to get less than 5% of the vote, combined. It happens every Presidential election. The last time 3rd party took more than that was when Ross Perot ran. He was so popular that he was in the debate. And even he didn't win the electoral votes of a single state. You can't actually *have* one of those candidates as the next President. Not gonna happen. All they will do is take crucial votes from the two potential winners who are virtually tied (each of them having at least 45% of the voters sewn up). That's what "they aren't real options" means.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> Why is the salad on the menu? I guess that's not a real option. Why is it there? Because it IS an option. They need to fire the cook.


Correct, it is not a real option. Until we "fire the cook" (get instant run-off voting and convince the American people that our country should go in a certain direction) there are only two potential outcomes.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> Can you? An objective one that is not bought and paid for by special interest groups? My guess would be no.


Since you've already declared that NONE of the polls are objective, then obviously the answer is going to be no as far as you are concerned. But of course, you didn't answer the question. You just evaded it. What is YOUR evidence that the majority of American voters support candidates *other* than Obama or Romney? What do you base that contention on?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> It's all over the internet. Here's one for you... http://www.infowars.com/voter-fraud-dead-people-cast-over-950-ballots-in-south-carolina/
> 
> And another... http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA636.html
> 
> And another... http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/11/video-nh-poll-workers-shown-handing-out-ballots-in-dead-peoples-names/
> 
> And another... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/30/federal-court-rules-against-texas-voter-id-law/


Just reading the words in the links, it looks like 950 voters in South Carolina are accused of being dead. Do you know how many people vote in South Carolina? If I felt like it I could get you links about the independent investigations that were only able to find about a dozen cases of voter fraud nationwide. But of course you only accept information that agrees with what *you* think.

And don't ever link me to Fox news as a source for *anything.* And *you're* the one complaining about sources that aren't objective??

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> And to think that there are so many people out there that don't think ID should be presented at the polls. Makes you wonder, doesn't it??


The new voter I.D. laws are targeted at Democrats. One Republican leader came right out and said "yay we passed a voter I.D. law that will bring about Romney's election!" People who can't afford a car, and don't have a driver's license, are more likely to be Democrats. A few months before a Presidential election, you can't just suddely decide that everyone has to bring photo I.D. to the polls.

I have to get in the car now, but I'll respond to other posts later.


----------



## erinmattsmom88

Quote:


> If you're such a conspiracy theorist that you won't accept ANY independent pollster who asks thousands of registered voters all over the country who they're voting for and then reports what they say, then, no, there's no proof you're going to accept. Whether you accept it or not, though, it is the truth.


 I'm waiting for you to give me one. Just one. Yep, I don't feel that there are any out there that are reliable. You say there are. OK then, show me the error of my ways and give me one. I will research it on my own and go from there. Me asking you for this doesn't mean I'm a conspiracy theorist. That's ridiculous. Please STOP calling me that. Give me something solid and I will take the time to look into it. That's all I'm asking. I gave you information to look into after you asked for it. Now you return the favor.

Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> Which is more of a reason why I will continue to vote for whomever I feel is best for the job, not for who has the best chance of winning, or as you say, the "only" chance of winning.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is where your argument breaks down. If you accept that either the Democrat or the Republican is going to be the next President in THIS CYCLE, and if you accept that this person is going to make decisions which affect you and those you care about, then all voting 3rd party does is help the candidate with views *further* from your own become the winner.
> 
> As I say every 4 years, this is not an abstract exercise. It has concrete, real world consequences. We need to be pragmatic. The world is counting on us. Our vote will make a difference in how much people suffer.
> 
> Third party voting was a major reason we ended up with George W. Bush twice.
Click to expand...

 Why does my argument break down here? Now is the time to start standing up for what I believe in. I am not just going to "accept" anything. My actions now will affect the future, my children's future. Yes, third party won't get elected this cycle. But, hopefully someday he/she will. I stated originally that there is no difference in dem or repub. I stand by that statement. So, really, voting for one IS voting for the other. It doesn't matter. So, if voting third party does only one good thing this time, which would be raising awareness that there are other options, better options, people with better ideas, solutions to our problems, than it was worth it to me... any many others. This statement irks me... "The world is counting on us. Our vote will make a difference in how much people suffer". More of a reason why you should NOT vote Dem or Repub. Neither party cares about "the world" or the citizens of this country. Barack Obama does not care about you, me, or anyone. Same for Mitt Romney. They are following an agenda set by the real rulers of the world... the ones with the money and they don't care about us. Deal with it.

Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> How ignorant of you to say something like this. They absolutely ARE real options. You're insulting a large population out there who vote Libertarian, Green party, Constitution, American Third Position, Objectivist, Peace and Freedom, and the list goes on. I guess whoever votes for these parties isn't real??
> 
> 
> 
> Oh for the love of all that is holy. Why do you keep insisting on taking my words and using them to say something completely ridiculous? And I'M the one who's saying ignorant things??
> 
> <sarcasm> Yeah, that's what I was saying. People who vote for third party candidates AREN'T REAL PEOPLE. </sarcasm>
> 
> What the H***???
> 
> <sarcasm> And when I question whether you're a conspiracy theorist, it has nothing to do with your statement that the votes that people cast have no impact on the outcome of elections. I'm just saying you're a conspiracy theorist because you support third parties, right? </sarcasm>
> 
> Enough is enough. Cut it out.
> 
> Third party candidates are not real options because they're not going to win. YOU'VE ALREADY CONCEDED THIS. It's like ordering the salad in the hamburger restaurant. You're not gonna get it. So you might as well express a preference between the two things you *can* get. All of those third party candidates are going to get less than 5% of the vote, combined. It happens every Presidential election. The last time 3rd party took more than that was when Ross Perot ran. He was so popular that he was in the debate. And even he didn't win the electoral votes of a single state. You can't actually *have* one of those candidates as the next President. Not gonna happen. All they will do is take crucial votes from the two potential winners who are virtually tied (each of them having at least 45% of the voters sewn up). That's what "they aren't real options" means.
Click to expand...

 No, I should say to you, enough is enough. I'm not twisting your words at all. You are being insulting by saying the above over and over. You are totally wrong about this. Don't you see what is wrong with what you are saying? You're saying to accept that there are only two choices (because they are the only ones who have a chance at winning), even though there are more than two choices. I want the damn salad! And eventually I am going to get it. ACCEPT THAT. I know that either Obama or Romney will win THIS CYCLE. As long as more and more people start voting third party NOW, the message will get sent. It will gain those parties higher visibility, more supporters, more invitations to debates, more spots on ballots, more money etc. This time is NOW to make the change.

Quote:


> Just reading the words in the links, it looks like 950 voters in South Carolina are accused of being dead


 Did you read the article? Apparently not. What about the other articles? Accused of being dead? I think the number was more like 953. Just one dead person voting is too much, don't you think?

Quote:


> If I felt like it I could get you links about the independent investigations that were only able to find about a dozen cases of voter fraud nationwide.


If you felt like it? It's funny. You expect me to back up my statements, but when someone asks that of you, you back down. Hmmm. You don't look very credible right now. If I felt like it, I could continue sending you links. But, since you aren't willing to put forth the effort after asking that of me, you can go and do it yourself. Oh, sorry to break it to you, but there were more than just 12 cases of voter fraud over the last... forever.

Quote:


> But of course you only accept information that agrees with what *you* think.


 REALLY? Look who's talking. Seriously???????

Quote:


> And don't ever link me to Fox news as a source for *anything.* And *you're* the one complaining about sources that aren't objective??


Obviously you didn't read that one either. Every once and a long while they report on something mostly truthful. It's worth the read.

Quote:


> The new voter I.D. laws are targeted at Democrats


 Typical response. Voter ID laws are VERY necessary. The ID law is targeted at everyone who doesn't have one. There is no reason why every American citizen shouldn't have ID. A license here in Georgia costs $20 and lasts for 5 years. Same goes for a Georgia ID. A Georgia ID to be used for voting purposes only is FREE and lasts for 8 years. Everyone should be asked to present their ID at the voting booth, PERIOD.

Quote:


> One Republican leader came right out and said "yay we passed a voter I.D. law that will bring about Romney's election!"


 Yeah, Romney has a track record for passing laws suddenly to suit his needs. It happened on live tv during the republican convention.

Quote:


> People who can't afford a car, and don't have a driver's license, are more likely to be Democrats. A few months before a Presidential election, you can't just suddely decide that everyone has to bring photo I.D. to the polls.


Everyone should present ID. Like I wrote above, in my state, you can get a voter ID for free if you can't afford $20. There is no excuse. Whether it's a few months before, or a year before, that law SHOULD be passed NOW. I don't understand the resistence to this. It is very shady. Anytime I have voted in the past, I was always asked for my ID. Do I have a problem with that? No. I certainly wouldn't want someone voting on my behalf, dead or alive.


----------



## JollyGG

Actually there is significant evidence that whenever a third party candidate gains significant ground it changes political objectives in Washington. When third party candidates such as Ross Perot make inroads, yes, they do impact the election. Though perhaps not as much as people think since many who vote for them may not have otherwise voted. However, they really impact politics. It makes the politicians pay attention. They look at the the issues that are attracting people and start incorporating the ideas that they can into their own platforms.

So no, voting for a third party candidate doesn't mean they have any chance of winning the presidency. It does mean that their ideas have a darn good chance of getting heard and making a difference.

Gary Johnson is showing surprising success this election cycle. Odds are good that he will get between 2-4% of the electorate. Whichever candidate ultimately wins is going to take a hard look and try to figure out what about him appeals to that block of voters. I think in this case they will find that it is his focus on fiscal issues and reducing the federal budget. Just perhaps candidates will take that information and pay more than lip service to reducing the rate that our deficit is growing.

For some people getting their voice heard in this manner is more important than choosing the next president. There are lots of ways to impact public policy. Choosing the "right" presidential candidate is only one of those ways. Choosing another method of effecting change is equally as important to some people and they are in no way as idiotic as you seem to be painting them for thinking this way. Just a tiny bit of research on the impact of third party candidates in our system would have gotten you plenty of information about the impact they can have. Voters know perfectly well they aren't voting for the next president when they vote for a trailing third. They aren't stupid. They simply are effecting change differently than you prefer to do so.

Basically, they are demanding the salad, not in the hopes of getting a salad. Instead they are demanding a salad to highlight the fact that the salad has something to offer. They are bringing the lack of salad to the managers attention. They are demanding that the chef, at least, add a piece of lettuce to the top of the burger.


----------



## erinmattsmom88

Rock on, JollyGG!! You articulated more effectively what I am trying to say at this point in the thread. My emotions are taking over my ability to do that. I am growing more and more frustrated with the attitudes that someone like Sustainer has. This is a huge problem.


----------



## beckybird

Some might say you are a conspiracy theorist if you don't vaccinate. I mean, why would the CDC and thousands of doctors and nurses be lying to you? Do you really think thousands of people are "in" on this, and want to deliberately harm your kids? http://www.web2carz.com/trends/offline/1233/when-conspiracy-theories-kill (when conspiracy theories kill)

"So believe what you want about who killed Kennedy, or who really caused 9/11, or whether there were alien autopsies conducted at Area 51. The relative insanity of your theories affects no one but the people who are forced to listen to you rant. But when it comes to immunizations, your misinformed paranoia actually matters."

Don't you just love how they throw aliens in there? And insanity? Gotta love it. This is what many no-vax parents have to deal with.

If you don't like to be called a "conspiracy theorist", then maybe it's not nice to call others one!

(I don't vaccinate either, so I'm using this to demonstrate a point. You are treating us the way some people might treat you!)


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

Do you think those women who sacrificed so much and fought so hard for that right would say, "Now that we have the ability to vote, we'll just choose the one who has the better chance of winning".

We choose *one OF THE ONES* who has *A* CHANCE of winning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *BeckyBird* 
we cannot in good conscience vote for either one. My vote, my word, means something to ME, and I would disappoint MYSELF if I compromised my integrity.

When only two candidates have a chance of winning, we can, in good conscience, vote for the better one. I am not compromising my integrity even one little bit by voting for the better of the two candidates, when it is certain that one of them is going to become the next President. If I cast my vote for the Green Party instead of for Obama, and enough other people did the same that it caused Romney to win, I would feel ashamed of myself.

I do not agree with your relentless attacks against the third party voters. It surprises me that someone with your signature (no vax/ no circ) could be this hostile toward those of us who are choosing the unconventional path.

I've been through this twice before. In 2000, I tried to get people to vote for Gore instead of Nader. George W. Bush would not have become President if all the people who voted for Nader had voted for Gore (or even if just 400 Florida Nader voters had voted for Gore). *There would not have been an Iraq war.* The environment would not be as bad as it is. And so on. And so forth. In 2004 I tried to get people to vote for Kerry. George W. Bush would not have been re-elected if more people had voted for Kerry.

I have no problem with unconventionality. I'm unconventional myself. But Obama and Romney are in a dead heat. I don't want history to repeat itself. If not enough people vote for Obama, Romney is going to become the next President. The only thing accomplished by voting 3rd party instead of voting for Obama is that it helps Romney win. It certainly doesn't accomplish actually getting a 3rd party candidate into office. It just becomes part of that 2% that pushes Romney over the edge. Republicans *know* this. They pay for ads for 3rd party liberal candidates. Our system is not set up for 3rd party voting. We don't have an instant run-off. If we did, I could see the point. Nothing would make me happier in an election than a Green Party win.

We're *all* going to be affected by whoever gets voted in. Voting isn't just a personal choice. We don't each get to have our own personal President. Our vote affects *everyone.* If I pick Coke or Pepsi I'm just picking for ME. But when I vote for President I'm picking for *everyone.* In my opinion, if Romney is allowed to win, *everyone* will get screwed.

Third party voting frustrates me because, the way our system is set up, it isn't a logical choice. It's self-defeating. We need to learn from recent history. It's just so *unnecessary* to allow Romney to win when WE'VE GOT enough voters who would rather have Obama as President than Romney. They just need to *vote that way*! Casting a vote for a 3rd party instead of Obama, and thus allowing Romney to become the next President, is something I consider to be a tragic waste.

P.S. I don't think that a 3rd party voter's vote is worthless. However, if the 3rd party voter WOULD be voting for Obama if Romney and Obama were the only candidates running (and write-ins weren't allowed) then I would consider a third party vote to be worse than worthless. I would consider it actually harmful, because it would act as a vehicle to bring Romney into power. Especially if the voter is in a swing state. But, if the voter would not be voting at all if the only candidates running were Obama and Romney (and write-ins weren't allowed), then I suppose the vote would have some slight value as a "making a point" kind of symbolic action.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

Why are third party candidates off their rocker?

I'm sure Sustainer will follow with her big thumbs up on that one too.

For crying out loud my favorite candidate running in this election is a 3rd party candidate! But if I and the other voters who like her the best actually vote for her, Romney will win instead of Obama, and I like Romney less than Obama, and Romney and Obama are the only potential winners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

I'm waiting for you to give me one. Just one.

Correction: You're waiting for me to give you one *that you will accept as objective.* And there aren't any. And I'm waiting for you to give me one that says anything other than the majority of voters supporting Obama or Romney. And I won't even hold it to as high a standard as you evidently have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

Me asking you for this doesn't mean I'm a conspiracy theorist. That's ridiculous.

Yes, it certainly would be ridiculous if I said you were a conspiracy theorist simply because you asked for polling data. Thank god I never said such a thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

Why does my argument break down here?

Because it's illogical to choose the person you think is best for the job if that person is not one of the people who has a chance of winning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

My actions now will affect the future, my children's future.

Another thing we agree on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

Yes, third party won't get elected this cycle. But, hopefully someday he/she will.

When we get to the election that a third party candidate actually has a realistic chance of winning in, that will be the time to vote 3rd party.

Right now, voting 3rd party just takes us in the *opposite* direction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

I stated originally that there is no difference in dem or repub. I stand by that statement.

I stated something before too, but maybe you missed it. I said that if you really think there is no difference between the Republican and the Democrat, then go right ahead and vote 3rd party. I fully support you. The only thing I ask 3rd party voters is that, if they live in a swing state, please make sure to do adequate research to determine that the Republican and the Democrat really are equal choices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

So, if voting third party does only one good thing this time, which would be raising awareness that there are other options, better options, people with better ideas, solutions to our problems, than it was worth it to me... any many others.

~~Disclaimer: The following statement applies only to people who *would* vote for Obama if Romney and Obama were the only candidates running and write-ins weren't allowed. It does not apply to people who think Republicans and Democrats are equal in terms of the benefits and harm they would bring the world.~~

The voting booth is not an effective forum for raising this kind of awareness. There are so many more effective media for raising awareness. Use them. Take action on the other 364 days of the year. The voting booth is a dangerous place to make this kind of statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

This statement irks me... "The world is counting on us. Our vote will make a difference in how much people suffer". More of a reason why you should NOT vote Dem or Repub. Neither party cares about "the world" or the citizens of this country. Barack Obama does not care about you, me, or anyone. Same for Mitt Romney. They are following an agenda set by the real rulers of the world... the ones with the money and they don't care about us. Deal with it.

Heaven grant me patience! You are the one who needs to deal with the fact that ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO WIN. They are our only two actual choices. The fact that the world is counting on us to minimize their suffering is a reason TO vote for the Democrat or the Republican, whichever one we determine to be the better one after researching them. It's rather frustrating that you've admitted that one of these two is going to win, and yet you do not accept the inevitable conclusion that results, which is that we should choose between the two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

I'm not twisting your words at all.

<sarcasm> Oh no, of course not. </sarcasm>

You said that voting has no effect on the outcome of the election. You said the winner has already been pre-determined. So I asked if you were a conspiracy theorist.

You then said that I was calling all people who support 3rd parties conspiracy theorists.

I said that Obama and Romney are our only real choices because they are the only ones with a chance of winning.

You then said that what I was saying was that people who vote 3rd party AREN'T REAL.

<sarcasm> Yeah, you're not twisting my words at all. </sarcasm>








Wow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

You are being insulting by saying the above over and over. You are totally wrong about this. Don't you see what is wrong with what you are saying? You're saying to accept that there are only two choices (because they are the only ones who have a chance at winning), even though there are more than two choices. I want the damn salad! And eventually I am going to get it. ACCEPT THAT. I know that either Obama or Romney will win THIS CYCLE. As long as more and more people start voting third party NOW, the message will get sent.

I'm not being insulting. I'm just saying the truth. You disagree with it and you're bothered by it, so you're taking it as a personal insult. I'm giving factual information. And I'm not wrong. I'm right. Don't YOU see what is wrong with what YOU are saying?? There IS a difference between the Democrat and the Republican, and most of us recognize that. They are the only two with a chance of winning, so most of us are going to vote for the one that we think is better than the other one. You really don't see the sense of that? Yes, I am saying that we should accept that there are only two choices who have a chance of winning. Since it is true (and you have conceded that it is true), why shouldn't we accept it? Why do you have a problem with accepting the truth? It is folly not to accept it. As I said, you can insist on the salad until you're blue in the face, but you're not going to get it in this election, and you know that. You've admitted it. I share your hope that we will eventually be able to elect a 3rd party President. If liberals vote 3rd party in this election, Romney will win. And we'll end up with policies that are more conservative. Further from our goals. Yes, I am saying this specifically from the point of view of a liberal. I am explaining the reason I am voting the way I am, and why I hope others who are like-minded will vote the same way.

Apparently the only way you can justify trying to get everyone not to vote for a candidate who has a chance of winning is to be in denial about the fact that either the Democrat or the Republican is going to win.

If you felt like it? It's funny. You expect me to back up my statements, but when someone asks that of you, you back down. Hmmm. You don't look very credible right now. If I felt like it, I could continue sending you links. But, since you aren't willing to put forth the effort after asking that of me, you can go and do it yourself. Oh, sorry to break it to you, but there were more than just 12 cases of voter fraud over the last... forever.

I did not back down. I had several reasons for not hunting up links. For one thing, I had to get in the car. For another, I had a feeling you would not accept the information if it didn't agree with your theory. For another, it is not central to my argument. I am not the one claiming that there were only about a dozen cases of voter fraud discovered nationwide. An independent investigation came to that conclusion. I don't think I really need to counter Faux News.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

REALLY? Look who's talking. Seriously???????

Yes, really. Seriously. If someone demonstrated to me that every major poll that has been taken indicates that Romney doesn't have a chance of winning, I would not say "that can't be credible because it isn't what I already think." I would say "awesome." I am very careful about following accurate facts without prejudice. I want to know what is correct and true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

The ID law is targeted at everyone who doesn't have one.

And most of them just happen to be Democrats. And the new laws just happen to be in swing states with Republican leaders.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

There is no reason why every American citizen shouldn't have ID.

How about: Because we aren't living in Nazi Germany

If the government wanted people to have to present photo I.D. at the voting booth, it should have been decided 3 years ago, and every citizen should have been GIVEN the required ID. The rule should not be decided on and implemented right before a Presidential election.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *JollyGG* 

Actually there is significant evidence that whenever a third party candidate gains significant ground it changes political objectives in Washington. When third party candidates such as Ross Perot make inroads, yes, they do impact the election. Though perhaps not as much as people think since many who vote for them may not have otherwise voted. However, they really impact politics. It makes the politicians pay attention. They look at the the issues that are attracting people and start incorporating the ideas that they can into their own platforms.

They usually get less than 5% of votes, combined. And that's what will happen this year. Perot was more popular. There is no 3rd party candidate this year who is anywhere near as popular as he was. The politicians do not really pay much attention to the 3rd party candidates or their policies when they total less than 5%. The only aspect they are interested in is the fact that the tiny percentage tipped the scales for the frontrunners. It does help raise awareness of certain issues when 3rd party candidates run during the primary season for a while. But the ones who really care about which direction the country is headed drop out before the general election so as not to take votes from the candidate who has a chance of winning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *JollyGG* 

So no, voting for a third party candidate doesn't mean they have any chance of winning the presidency. It does mean that their ideas have a darn good chance of getting heard and making a difference.

Unfortunately, the main difference they make if they stay in the race through the general election and have their names put on the ballot, is they help the candidate whose views are *further* from their own win the election, by taking votes from the candidate whose views are closer to their own who has a chance of winning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *JollyGG* 

Whichever candidate ultimately wins is going to take a hard look and try to figure out what about him appeals to that block of voters.

Gore took a look at Nader and tried to appeal to the voters who were further to the left. It was a mistake. He lost the crucial centrist voters. There are a lot more of them and they're more inclined to switch to the other guy. He shouldn't have to make himself appealing to left-wingers. It should be clear to left-wingers that their best course of action is to vote for the Democrat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *JollyGG* 

For some people getting their voice heard in this manner is more important than choosing the next president.

This is something I have said in the past: Four years from now, if you can honestly say "Man, I hate what President Romney has done to the world, *but it was worth it to me* to use my vote to make a statement instead of using it to actually have an effect on the outcome of the election" then you did the right thing. If you can't honestly say that, then you did the wrong thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *JollyGG* 

Just a tiny bit of research on the impact of third party candidates in our system would have gotten you plenty of information about the impact they can have.

I know that the main impact they have is President George W. Bush (and the Iraq war and everything else that went with him) instead of President Gore (and a healthier environment, etc.).

Quote:

Originally Posted by *JollyGG* 

They aren't stupid.

I know that 3rd party voters are not stupid. I'm not saying that they are. I wouldn't bother trying to convince them not to vote 3rd party if I thought they were stupid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *JollyGG* 

Basically, they are demanding the salad, not in the hopes of getting a salad. Instead they are demanding a salad to highlight the fact that the salad has something to offer.

I know that that is what they are doing. But they are going to get a hamburger or pizza. In the case of hamburgers and pizza, maybe it doesn't make much difference, but in the case of Romney and Obama, it does.

Regarding conspiracy theorists: I just want to clarify one more time that I am *not* saying that 3rd party voters are conspiracy theorists. My comments have been grossly misrepresented. When I read a post saying "voting has no effect on the election -- the winner has already been pre-determined," I *asked* if the poster was a conspiracy theorist.


----------



## erinmattsmom88

Quote:

We choose *one OF THE ONES* who has *A* CHANCE of winning.

We should choose who we feel is best for the job.

Quote:

Third party voting frustrates me because, the way our system is set up, it isn't a logical choice. It's self-defeating. We need to learn from recent history. It's just so *unnecessary* to allow Romney to win when WE'VE GOT enough voters who would rather have Obama as President than Romney. They just need to *vote that way*! Casting a vote for a 3rd party instead of Obama, and thus allowing Romney to become the next President, is something I consider to be a tragic waste.

P.S. I don't think that a 3rd party voter's vote is worthless

Huh???

You don't think a third party vote is worthless, but it's a tragic waste and not a logical choice. You don't make any sense.

I guess you'll feel this way only if your candidate doesn't get elected, right?

Quote:

However, if the 3rd party voter WOULD be voting for Obama if Romney and Obama were the only candidates running (and write-ins weren't allowed) then I would consider a third party vote to be worse than worthless. I would consider it actually harmful, because it would act as a vehicle to bring Romney into power. Especially if the voter is in a swing state. But, if the voter would not be voting at all if the only candidates running were Obama and Romney (and write-ins weren't allowed), then I suppose the vote would have some slight value as a "making a point" kind of symbolic action.

Stop with the hypotheticals. Face it... there are more than two choices and us third party voters will vote third party without caring about who it helps this election.

Quote:

For crying out loud my favorite candidate running in this election is a 3rd party candidate! But if I and the other voters who like her the best actually vote for her, Romney will win instead of Obama, and I like Romney less than Obama, and Romney and Obama are the only potential winners.

That's terrible. You should be supporting the candidate you feel is best for the job. That woman needs your support. How awful.

Quote:

Correction: You're waiting for me to give you one *that you will accept as objective.* And there aren't any. And I'm waiting for you to give me one that says anything other than the majority of voters supporting Obama or Romney. And I won't even hold it to as high a standard as you evidently have.

That's not what I asked. This is what I asked... I'm waiting for you to give me one. Just one. Yep, I don't feel that there are any out there that are reliable. You say there are. OK then, show me the error of my ways and give me one. I will research it on my own and go from there. Me asking you for this doesn't mean I'm a conspiracy theorist. That's ridiculous. Please STOP calling me that. Give me something solid and I will take the time to look into it. That's all I'm asking. I gave you information to look into after you asked for it. Now you return the favor.

Ok, so.... I'm waiting....

Quote:

Yes, it certainly would be ridiculous if I said you were a conspiracy theorist simply because you asked for polling data. Thank god I never said such a thing.

You didn't "say" specifically that I am, but the fact that you have asked me more than once if I am means that you are thinking it and it's offensive.

Quote:

Because it's illogical to choose the person you think is best for the job if that person is not one of the people who has a chance of winning.

Wrong.

Quote:

When we get to the election that a third party candidate actually has a realistic chance of winning in, that will be the time to vote 3rd party.

Right now, voting 3rd party just takes us in the *opposite* direction.

Wrong again. Now is the time. If no one starts voting third party, then we'll never get there. The squeaky wheel gets the oil. If no one votes third party, how will third party ever win an election? How will it gain the exposure necessary to be in the running. How will your candidate be successful in the future if no one votes for her? If women didn't assert themselves long ago for the right to vote, it wouldn't have happened when it did (used that specifically as an example, as someone else did a few posts back).

Quote:

I stated something before too, but maybe you missed it. I said that if you really think there is no difference between the Republican and the Democrat, then go right ahead and vote 3rd party.

I am and I've been telling you that I will be voting third party. But, for some reason, you feel the need to keep telling me they have no chance, are not a real option, are illogical, a waste, worthless, etc. You are essentially saying this about me and it's offensive. Do I say this about you? NO. Go ahead and vote for Obama. I don't care. I am voting for RON PAUL. I know a third party will not win THIS CYCLE, but in the future, they will. Again, now is the time to start sending the message that there are a lot of Americans who are beginning to get fed up with the status quo and want something different, someone who can take this country in a different direction because we are headed and have been heading down a path of destruction. This country is sooo messed up.

Quote:

Disclaimer: The following statement applies only to people who *would* vote for Obama if Romney and Obama were the only candidates running and write-ins weren't allowed. It does not apply to people who think Republicans and Democrats are equal in terms of the benefits and harm they would bring the world.~~

What authority do you have to disclaimer anything I have to say. Again, stop with the hypotheticals. Yeah, they're equal alright... in that they both suck and are terrible choices.

Quote:

The voting booth is not an effective forum for raising this kind of awareness.

YES IT IS. You were the one who said that elections reflect what the people prefer. Well, if I prefer a third party for reasons stated previously then what better way to tell the world this than by voting for a third party candidate. Sheesh.

Quote:

There are so many more effective media for raising awareness. Use them. Take action on the other 364 days of the year.

I will and have.

Quote:

The voting booth is a dangerous place to make this kind of statement.

No, it's the perfect place.

Quote:

You are the one who needs to deal with the fact that ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO WIN

I have already stated that fact. I have "dealt with it". Still voting third party though.

Quote:

They are our only two actual choices.

I've heard this before.

Quote:

The fact that the world is counting on us to minimize their suffering is a reason TO vote for the Democrat or the Republican, whichever one we determine to be the better one after researching them. It's rather frustrating that you've admitted that one of these two is going to win, and yet you do not accept the inevitable conclusion that results, which is that we should choose between the two.

Are we the United States of the World? No, the world wants us to back off and the Dem and Repub parties can't get that through their thick skulls. We are causing their suffering. I have done my research, have you? How have I not accepted that one of those fools is going to win? Doesn't matter to me. I am still voting third party. You need to accept that you are not going to convince me otherwise. I am not and will never compromise my integrity and values just to help a poor choice win just so the other doesn't. Give me a break.

Quote:

I'm not being insulting. I'm just saying the truth.

Whether you are speaking the truth or lying you ARE being insulting.

Quote:

You disagree with it and you're bothered by it, so you're taking it as a personal insult. I'm giving factual information.

I'm not bothered by the fact that ObamnaRomney is going to win this election cycle. I've grieved already. I'm over it. What I am bothered by is your logic about why one should not vote third party.

Quote:

Don't YOU see what is wrong with what YOU are saying?? There IS a difference between the Democrat and the Republican, and most of us recognize that.

No and no there isn't.

Quote:

They are the only two with a chance of winning, so most of us are going to vote for the one that we think is better than the other one.

I've also heard this before.

Quote:

You really don't see the sense of that?

No, because it doesn't make sense.

Quote:

Yes, I am saying that we should accept that there are only two choices who have a chance of winning. Since it is true (and you have conceded that it is true), why shouldn't we accept it? Why do you have a problem with accepting the truth? It is folly not to accept it. As I said, you can insist on the salad until you're blue in the face, but you're not going to get it in this election, and you know that. You've admitted it.

I have not told anyone not to accept anything. I only speak for myself. Again, I've heard this all before and I'm bored. You keep repeating that third party is not going to win this election cycle, and EVERYONE KNOWS THIS ALREADY. Please stop repeating yourself. Your argument does not gain any ground or increase credibility when you keep repeating yourself. In an attempt to make me look like I am being a hypocrite, you keep saying that I admit third party won't win. I never said they were going to win. I didn't nor do I need you to tell me that. I'm still voting third party.

Quote:

I share your hope that we will eventually be able to elect a 3rd party President.

If you REALLY do, then you should vote for that third party candidate. Actions speak louder than words.

Quote:

Apparently the only way you can justify trying to get everyone not to vote for a candidate who has a chance of winning is to be in denial about the fact that either the Democrat or the Republican is going to win.

I'm not trying to get anyone to do anything. YOU ARE. I'm not in denial about anything.

Quote:

I did not back down. I had several reasons for not hunting up links. For one thing, I had to get in the car. For another, I had a feeling you would not accept the information if it didn't agree with your theory. For another, it is not central to my argument. I am not the one claiming that there were only about a dozen cases of voter fraud discovered nationwide. An independent investigation came to that conclusion. I don't think I really need to counter Faux News.

Yes you did back down and I don't care about whatever reasons you had for not "hunting up links".

Quote:

For another, I had a feeling you would not accept the information if it didn't agree with your theory.

Remember when I said this... I'm waiting for you to give me one. Just one. Yep, I don't feel that there are any out there that are reliable. You say there are. OK then, show me the error of my ways and give me one. I will research it on my own and go from there. Me asking you for this doesn't mean I'm a conspiracy theorist. That's ridiculous. Please STOP calling me that. Give me something solid and I will take the time to look into it. That's all I'm asking. I gave you information to look into after you asked for it. Now you return the favor.

Quote:

I am not the one claiming that there were only about a dozen cases of voter fraud discovered nationwide. An independent investigation came to that conclusion. I don't think I really need to counter Faux News.

But you mentioned it. My link to Faux News was one of several. I guess if it came from CNN you would have been ok with that.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

The ID law is targeted at everyone who doesn't have one.

And most of them just happen to be Democrats. And the new laws just happen to be in swing states with Republican leaders.

Who cares if most of them just happen to be Democrats. The fact remains that there needs to be a voter ID law. Everyone should be showing ID at the polls. It seems that you don't agree with this.

Quote:

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> There is no reason why every American citizen shouldn't have ID.
> 
> How about: Because we aren't living in Nazi Germany
> 
> If the government wanted people to have to present photo I.D. at the voting booth, it should have been decided 3 years ago, and every citizen should have been GIVEN the required ID. The rule should not be decided on and implemented right before a Presidential election.


 WHAT?????? Nazi Germany, huh? That's where we're headed, btw. Why 3 years ago? Why not 9 months ago or 5 days ago or 20 years ago. Who cares. It needs to be a law, and it just so happens that a big election is coming up. More of a reason it needs to be done.


----------



## mtiger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sustainer*
> 
> Those of us who vote for Obama will not deserve to get Romney, but if he wins, then we will get him anyway.


I would hazard a guess that those who support Romney feel the same way about Obama winning.

What I find objectionable is being told that there is only one RIGHT way to vote, and that is for Obama. That may be your opinion, but that does not make it right.

Of course, this thread has also reminded me why I tend to not discuss politics. So I do thank you for that.


----------



## erinmattsmom88

Here are some polls from earlier this year. Even though Ron Paul was running for the republican ticket at the time, he was treated as a third party candidate so essentially he was. Yeah, they aren't treated very well. Case in point, Sustainer's attitude. A few of these polls had him up against Obama. So, for all you heard about Ron Paul having no chance of winning, here ya go. The RNC DID NOT want Paul as the nominee and guess what, he's not. He was treated very poorly and unfairly. So much for voter preferences. He should be officially running third party because he could do some serious damage!! Yep, damage. Maybe that will tell the establishment on both sides that we want something new and different. I hear and read about so many people who say they voted for Obama last time, aren't happy with him, but are voting for him anyway because they hate Romney more. I also hear/read that people aren't voting for Obama because he wasn't who they thought he was/was going to do. Some people are voting for Romney because they don't want Obama. Maybe if we changed our way of thinking, and looked into the fact that there are other options out there, not the status quo, maybe then real change will happen in this country. The time is now to vote for third party, if that's your preference. Don't wait until they poll 40%. Start now. They only way he/she can get there is if people start voting third party... if they feel it is what they want. Baby steps. People are so afraid of that change though, but ironically, they say they want change. Make a difference. If you don't 100% agree with a candidate, don't for him/her. Simple as that. Vote for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or Rosanne Barr (yes, she is running!) or Jill Stein or Merlin ****** or Virgil Goode. They are just as good if not better... better in my opinion... than the two current mainstream choices. If you feel that Romney is your guy or Obama is, then go ahead and vote for him. If you feel that one of those candidates is the right one, I support you. Just be 100% sure of your decision. That's all I've been trying to say. I am 200% sure Ron Paul is the right guy and I am voting for him. I am trying to raise awareness of the other choices, whereas someone else is trying to force feed only two out of the many choices to me and trying to persuade me to vote for them because they are the only ones who have a chance. She hasn't given me any other reason. She is telling me that my vote, which would be for a third party candidate is illogical, a tragic waste, worthless, etc. To me, that is un-American. We have the right and freedom to voice our preference at the polls, which by the way is the absolute best way to do this, unlike what someone else said. I was told to use any other day during the year EXCEPT election day to send a message. Does that sound right? No, it is very wrong.

http://reason.com/poll/2012/01/13/ron-paul-rising-evidenc-from-national-po

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0228/Ron-Paul-poll-shocker-He-beats-Obama-head-to-head

http://www.policymic.com/articles/3057/why-ron-paul-s-rise-to-the-top-of-iowa-polls-makes-sense

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/21/poll-paul-in-top-spot-in-iowa-gop-battle/

http://www.dailypaul.com/248818/attention-rnc-delegates-ron-paul-beats-obama-and-romney-with-58-favorability-in-national-poll

http://www.dailypaul.com/249510/paul-vs-obama-poll-2-results

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/02/facebookpolitico-poll-ron-paul-on-top-with-missouri-113816.html

http://rt.com/usa/news/poll-ron-paul-obama-467/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/12/19/143963906/polls-show-ron-paul-rising-in-iowa-as-gingrich-swoons

This happened ALL. THE. TIME... http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread739397/pg1


----------



## erinmattsmom88

Found a few typos... *They* only way he/she can get there is if people start voting third party... if they feel it is what they want. Baby steps. People are so afraid of that change though, but ironically, they say they want change. Make a difference. If you don't 100% agree with a candidate, don't ____ for him/her.

They should be *the*. The blank should read *vote*.


----------



## erinmattsmom88

Hey Sustainer, check this out...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/16/green-party-candidate-arrested-outside-debate-site/

Is this the third party candidate that is your favorite?

Quote:


> For crying out loud my favorite candidate running in this election is a 3rd party candidate!


How do you feel about this? Thoughts??


----------



## erinmattsmom88

Quote:


> Difficult for any other party to get 15% in the polls when they aren't even brought up in the polls! The Commission on Presidential Debates was founded by the Republicans and Democrats. Of course, they don't want any other party in a debate. I think the American people would be better served if other parties such as the Libertarian party would be able to get more time.


 Exactly my point.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

We should choose who we feel is best for the job.

You already expressed this opinion. I think at this point we need to just agree to disagree on this one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

You don't think a third party vote is worthless, but it's a tragic waste and not a logical choice.

I already clarified this, but I'll do it again. I find it illogical, tragic, and wasteful *if* the voter *would* be voting for the Democrat if a 3rd party were not an option. If the voter sees no difference between the Democrat and the Republican, then I think the word I'd use to describe a 3rd party vote would be "harmless."

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

Stop with the hypotheticals. Face it... there are more than two choices and us third party voters will vote third party without caring about who it helps this election.

I'm not going to stop using hypotheticals. When it comes to what I am saying, they matter. Maybe you need to start with them. Avoiding them might be one of the things keeping you from considering other ideas. As I've said many times now, there are only two choices that have a chance of winning. If you really don't care who you are helping to win (and that would help explain such actions), then that is one of the things that is tragic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 
That's terrible. You should be supporting the candidate you feel is best for the job. That woman needs your support. How awful.

You're not going to get it no matter how many times I explain it, are you.

*Action:* I, and the other voters who like the Greens more than the Dems, vote for the Greens *------------------>* *Result:* Romney becomes the next President
*Action:* I, and the other voters who like the Greens more than the Dems, vote for the Dems *------------------> Result:* Obama will be President for the next 4 years

*Comparison of two possible results:*

President Romney
World ------------------> Hell in handbasket

President Obama
Better than President Romney.

*Therefore:*
Better action
Vote for Dem.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reason the Green candidate is the candidate I like the best is that, of all the candidates running, her views are the closest to my own. If I were just going to vote for the person whose views were closest to my own, without giving any regard to how possible it is that the person could actually win the election, then I would just write in my own name.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

Ok, so.... I'm waiting....

I don't know why I'm even bothering to type this when you already said that in your opinion all of the polls are unreliable, but if you go to realclearpolitics.com and click on one of the pull down menus on the left, you should be able to find a whole slew of polls, conducted by many different independent pollsters. They all say pretty much the same thing. About 45%, or maybe a little more, of registered voters support Obama, and ditto for Romney. And you don't really need me to tell you this. You could have just gone to Google or something at any time and searched for "2012 presidential poll" or something like that and you'd probably get hundreds of results. And every poll would tell you pretty much the same thing. Add the Obama supporters to the Romney supporters and it will probably be more than 90%. I'm not going to hold my breath for you to provide any evidence that anything other than this is true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

You didn't "say" specifically that I am, but the fact that you have asked me more than once if I am means that you are thinking it and it's offensive.

Here's what you need to realize. The ONLY time I mention conspiracy theories is when you say things like "voting has no effect on the outcomes of elections" and "the next President has already been pre-determined" and "all polls are invalid." When you say things like this, you should be prepared for people to ask you if you're a conspiracy theorist. However, I NEVER accuse you of being a conspiracy theorist simply as a result of you saying that you support 3rd parties, or you're unconventional, or you don't follow the mainstream, or you want to see a poll. It's pretty silly for you to keep trying to put such words in my mouth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

Wrong.

Again, I think we just need to agree to disagree at this point. We can keep saying "you're wrong" at each other all day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

Now is the time. If no one starts voting third party, then we'll never get there. The squeaky wheel gets the oil. If no one votes third party, how will third party ever win an election? How will it gain the exposure necessary to be in the running. How will your candidate be successful in the future if no one votes for her?

Now is the time to advocate for election reform and run-off voting. If I, and the other voters who share my views, vote Green next month, the next President will be the one who will take us in the opposite direction from the way we want to go. If I, and the other voters who share my views, vote Dem next month, the next President will take us, in slow baby steps, slightly in the direction that we want to go. If I want to get the country to the place where it will eventually elect a Green, I need to take it in the right direction. Taking it in the opposite direction will delay the eventual election of a Green.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

I am and I've been telling you that I will be voting third party. But, for some reason, you feel the need to keep telling me they have no chance, are not a real option, are illogical, a waste, worthless, etc. You are essentially saying this about me and it's offensive. Do I say this about you? NO. Go ahead and vote for Obama. I don't care. I am voting for RON PAUL.

And I repeat. Go ahead and vote for him. I have been saying from the very beginning of this conversation that I am not specifically trying to get YOU to vote for anyone else. As for my general comments about 3rd party candidates not having a chance, not being real options, and about choices that seem to me to be illogical or wasteful (I never said worthless), I have simply been responding to the general arguments that you have been making about how you think people should vote. You HAVE been saying that people should NOT vote for Obama or Romney. I have simply been defending my own rationale.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

What authority do you have to disclaimer anything I have to say.

My disclaimer does not refer to anything *you* are saying. My disclaimer only applies to what *I* am saying. Me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

No, it's the perfect place.

Not when casting the vote for a 3rd party candidate instead of the Dem/Rep (whichever has views closer to your own) results in the election of a President whose views are *further* from your own. But as I said, this does not apply to you. The Dem and the Rep are the same to you. So you should go right ahead and vote 3rd party. This is what my disclaimer meant. But you evidently didn't understand my disclaimer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

Are we the United States of the World? No, the world wants us to back off and the Dem and Repub parties can't get that through their thick skulls. We are causing their suffering. I have done my research, have you? How have I not accepted that one of those fools is going to win? Doesn't matter to me. I am still voting third party. You need to accept that you are not going to convince me otherwise. I am not and will never compromise my integrity and values just to help a poor choice win just so the other doesn't.

The actions of the President of the United States greatly affect the entire world. Yes, we cause them suffering. That is my point. Yes, I have done my research, and this is what I have found: Republicans cause more suffering than Democrats. That is why I feel it is my duty to keep Republicans out of office. The effective means of achieving this result is to vote for the Democrat. Again, I am not trying to convince you not to vote 3rd party. I have only been explaining the general reasons for voting for Democrats and explaining why I don't think people who prefer Obama to Romney should vote for someone other than Obama. I would never compromise my integrity or values either. Are you implying that you think I am compromising my integrity or values by voting for the better of the two electable options?

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

no there isn't.

That's your opinion. I don't see how anyone who researched them could fail to see a difference between the Democrat and the Republican. But whatever. Vote 3rd party. Again, my argument against voting 3rd party only applies to the people who *do* see the difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

No, because it doesn't make sense.

Actually it does. It's very basic logic. But you obviously don't see it.

Of course, in order to agree with the conclusion, you would have to agree with the premise that either the Democrat or the Republican is better than the other, and you don't agree with that premise, so it makes sense that you don't agree with the conclusion. However, one would hope that you should at least be able to see that *for voters who agree with the premise,* the conclusion represents the action that we should take.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

Please stop repeating yourself.

If you would, then I could. Nothing would make me happier than to not have to go round and round in circles like this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

Your argument does not gain any ground or increase credibility when you keep repeating yourself.

Neither does yours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

In an attempt to make me look like I am being a hypocrite, you keep saying that I admit third party won't win.

I keep having to point this out because you keep making arguments that deny the reality of there being only 2 potential winners. You keep emphasizing that there are more than two choices, and you imply that the right thing to do is vote for one of the ones who is better than the Republican or the Democrat. And why? Because the 3rd party candidate would make the best President.
(Even though the 3rd party candidate cannot become President as a result of this election. Do you see what I'm saying? Probably not.)

And you imply that there's no good reason to vote for the Democrat or the Republican. Even though many of us do think one is better than the other, and one of them will be President, so we want the better one, and the one we vote for could actually win, thereby preventing the worse one from becoming President. Which is a worthy goal. Thank you very much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

I never said they were going to win. I didn't nor do I need you to tell me that. I'm still voting third party.

And that's fine. Go ahead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

If you REALLY do, then you should vote for that third party candidate.

I really do. And no I shouldn't. She wouldn't win. And failing to vote for Obama would result in the worst possible outcome: President Romney. I will continue to advocate an election system under which I could vote for a 3rd party candidate without helping the Republican win.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

I'm not trying to get anyone to do anything.

Then why do you keep trying to convince me (and others) to vote 3rd party?

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

Yes you did back down and I don't care about whatever reasons you had for not "hunting up links".

Um, no, I did NOT back down. If you don't care what my reasons were (including literally NOT having any time to do it) then that is *your* problem.

By the way, you should really stop quoting yourself saying "Me asking you for this doesn't mean I'm a conspiracy theorist." It's one of the sillier things you've said. One wouldn't think you'd want to keep drawing attention to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

Who cares if most of them just happen to be Democrats.

Because I was being sarcastic. They DON'T "just happen" to be Democrats. The Democrats are being targeted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

The fact remains that there needs to be a voter ID law.

That's not a fact. It's an opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

Nazi Germany, huh?

Yeah. As in, "Papers, please."

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

Why not 9 months ago or 5 days ago or 20 years ago. Who cares. It needs to be a law, and it just so happens that a big election is coming up.

5 days ago? 'Who cares?' It doesn't "just so happen" that there's a big (close) election coming up very very soon. They are purposely doing it now so that people won't have time to conform to the law. You'd think someone who doesn't trust authority would be open to this conjecture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *mtiger* 

I would hazard a guess that those who support Romney feel the same way about Obama winning.

Obviously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *mtiger* 

What I find objectionable is being told that there is only one RIGHT way to vote, and that is for Obama.

All I have been doing is expressing my opinion of who I think should be voted for, and explaining my reasons for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *mtiger* 

Of course, this thread has also reminded me why I tend to not discuss politics.

It has reminded me of the same thing. I have subjected myself to quite an ordeal, because I believe speaking out is the right thing to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

Here are some polls from earlier this year. Even though Ron Paul was running for the republican ticket at the time, he was treated as a third party candidate so essentially he was.

I meant general election polls in which people express who they support for President in the November election.

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

I hear and read about so many people who say they voted for Obama last time, aren't happy with him, but are voting for him anyway because they hate Romney more.

You are criticizing the above argument, even though it is a PERFECTLY VALID argument! Romney is going to be the next President if we don't vote for Obama. And we hate Romney more. So that is the only reason that we need. Our decision is fully justified on that basis.

Quote:

Quote:Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*

Maybe if we changed our way of thinking, and looked into the fact that there are other options out there, not the status quo, maybe then real change will happen in this country.

And here's another instance when I need to point out that those other options aren't actual possibilities in this election, and that voting for them will have an unintended and undesirable effect.

Quote:

Quote:Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*

The time is now to vote for third party, if that's your preference. Don't wait until they poll 40%. Start now.

And this is you NOT trying to get people to vote a certain way, right? /sarcasm

Quote:

Quote: Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*

People are so afraid of that change though, but ironically, they say they want change. Make a difference.

I don't want change in the wrong direction. The difference it would make if I voted 3rd party is that Romney would win.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

If you don't 100% agree with a candidate, don't for him/her. Simple as that.

This is an incredibly harmful thing to say to people. It would be horrible if people took this advice.

It's as simple as THIS -- and I really do hate to sound like a broken record! -- but there are exactly two candidates who can come out of this election as President-elect -- and they are TIED in popularity right now -- and we need to choose the better one. Otherwise: disaster for the world for the next 4 to 8 years. This is not a scare tactic. It's just the unavoidable fact of the matter. It would be dangerous to avoid or deny it. Remember George W. in 2000 and 2004. Don't repeat history's mistake. Please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

Vote for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or Rosanne Barr (yes, she is running!) or Jill Stein or Merlin ****** or Virgil Goode.

Or just write in your own name, right? After all, that's the only person you can really 100% agree with. Keep in mind that the candidates named above have the same chance of winning (zero) as you do. So you might as well write in yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 
trying to persuade me to vote for them because they are the only ones who have a chance. She hasn't given me any other reason.

Again, I'm not trying to get YOU to vote for the Dem or the Rep. And as far as my general argument for other people to vote for one of them, no other reason is needed than "they are the only ones who have a chance." That is a good enough reason.

You are advocating voting for people who have no chance of winning, because it would be better if they did win (even though they have no chance to). You haven't given any other reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

She is telling me that my vote, which would be for a third party candidate is illogical, a tragic waste, worthless, etc.

I never said worthless. And I actually said that *your* vote (the vote of a person who has no preference between the Dem and the Repub) has some value as a 3rd party vote.


----------



## CatsCradle

Guys/Gals (assuming there may be guys here): Look, I agree with a lot or the points here from both sides. I'm busy and can't keep up with the multi-quoting, etc. You seem to be having a debate between yourselves and that's legitimate, but my eyes glaze over when we/you start mincing words. This whole debate looks like a bid protest in New Jersey. Eyes glaze over. Start collecting thoughts and make a closing statement!










That being said, my profession is law and I have very REAL CONCERNS about how laws are interpreted in this country and how it will effect all us in the long term. Being a lawyer, I have to always consider what is best for the client (within certain perimeters). You know, I used to have certain moral considerations when I was younger and I always made decisions based on base morals. I didn't have any strategy. I thought that I could prevail simply on the issues. Things are much more complex than that. I still have the same beliefs and morals that I did then, but I've learned that there are round-about ways to get there. People don't want to smashed in the face with ideas. People are slow to change. There is a way to change attitudes and persuasions. I operate within the system because it gets me a better result, in my experience. People who once held staunch views are questioning those views, and they don't know why! It is a slow process and I'm willing to take the risks (i.e. voting for the person who is most likely to make those changes - Supreme Court - or otherwise) in order to effectuate the changes that I REALLY WANT.

There's something to be said about the underground. You may make fun me for voting for "THE MAN" but I am sincerely working to make real changes, even if it is not what you want to hear or the method you want to employ. Good luck to you. I'm doing my own underground work. I don't need random people on the internet telling me I'm a robot, Obamobot, and whatever term you want to apply to people you know nothing about and therefore are not qualified to diss.









Edited for huge spelling errors. Also edited to say: you can pick apart my post and multi-quote me or whatever. Not going to change how I feel or what I believe. And likewise, I don't feel compelled to convince people about my own feelings on the subject. It has been an interesting discussion and I'll leave it at that.


----------



## erinmattsmom88

Quote:


> I already clarified this, but I'll do it again. I find it illogical, tragic, and wasteful *if* the voter *would* be voting for the Democrat if a 3rd party were not an option. If the voter sees no difference between the Democrat and the Republican, then I think the word I'd use to describe a 3rd party vote would be "harmless."'
> 
> I'm not going to stop using hypotheticals. When it comes to what I am saying, they matter. Maybe you need to start with them. Avoiding them might be one of the things keeping you from considering other ideas. As I've said many times now, there are only two choices that have a chance of winning. If you really don't care who you are helping to win (and that would help explain such actions), then that is one of the things that is tragic.


*Yes, you need to stop. No, your hypothetical situations don't matter because they don't apply to this election cycle. The fact is, is that there are more than two options, period. That is fact. I'm not avoiding anything because I am living in reality. You are not. I'm not avoiding the fact that there are 16+ presidential candidates this cycle. How about this, when there are only two, I will consider one. Does that work for you? Until then, I am going to learn about each candidate and what they have to potentially offer this country, and I will choose the one that I like best&#8230; no matter what party they are affiliated with. For you to say&#8230; "Avoiding them might be one of the things keeping you from considering other ideas" is outrageous. I have considered all 16 candidates'ideas. So you are way off.*



*Quote:*


> *Quote:*
> 
> *Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 http://www.mothering.com/community/...2012-presidential-elections/100#post_17143334*
> 
> *That's terrible. You should be supporting the candidate you feel is best for the job. That woman needs your support. How awful.*
> 
> 
> 
> *You're not going to get it no matter how many times I explain it, are you.*


 

*Yeah, because it doesn't make sense that you are not voting for your preference.*



*Quote:*


> *Action: I, and the other voters who like the Greens more than the Dems, vote for the Greens ------------------> Result: Romney becomes the next President*
> 
> *Action: I, and the other voters who like the Greens more than the Dems, vote for the Dems ------------------> Result: Obama will be President for the next 4 years*
> 
> *Comparison of two possible results:*
> 
> *President Romney*
> 
> *World ------------------> Hell in handbasket*
> 
> *President Obama*
> 
> *Better than President Romney.*
> 
> *Therefore:*
> 
> *Better action*
> 
> *Vote for Dem.*


 

*I didn't bother reading this whole list because Romney and Obama will both send this country to hell in a handbasket.*



*Quote:*


> *The reason the Green candidate is the candidate I like the best is that, of all the candidates running, her views are the closest to my own.*


 

*Which is why you should VOTE FOR HER.*



*Quote:*


> * If I were just going to vote for the person whose views were closest to my own, without giving any regard to how possible it is that the person could actually win the election, then I would just write in my own name.*


 

*So, when you look at a candidate and make a decision on whether or not to vote for him/her, you first look at whether or not they can win?? That's pathetic.*



*Quote:*


> *Quote:*
> 
> *Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 http://www.mothering.com/community/...2012-presidential-elections/100#post_17143334*
> 
> *Ok, so.... I'm waiting....*
> 
> *I don't know why I'm even bothering to type this when you already said that in your opinion all of the polls are unreliable.*


 

*I told you that if you give me one poll to look at, I'd be glad to check it out and look into it further. You are delaying and deflecting back at me. I flat out told you to give me some information and I would read about it/look into it. Did you skip over that part the 3-4 times I reminded you of me saying this??? Did YOU check into all the links I sent you?? I doubt it. You can dish it out, but you can't take it.*



*Quote:*


> *but if you go to realclearpolitics.com and click on one of the pull down menus on the left, you should be able to find a whole slew of polls, conducted by many different independent pollsters. They all say pretty much the same thing. About 45%, or maybe a little more, of registered voters support Obama, and ditto for Romney.*


 

*What are the choices in these polls? Romney and Obama, right? What about the others? I sent you links to many polls that Ron Paul was either leading or close to leading earlier this year. Some of them had him up against your buddy Obama, which showed Ron Paul would have a much better chance of beating Obama than Romney did. He was essentially a third party candidate. You said third party candidates don't have a chance at winning and are essentially unelectable. Well, those polls tell a different story. However, like I said earlier, the RNC was not going to allow Ron Paul to be the candidate because Ron Paul would not have put up with all the crap that goes on. He wanted to audit the fed, cut spending by 1 trillion in his first year, bring the troops home, decrease the size of the federal government, etc, etc and the establishment didn't like that. So, they took those polls, got rid of them, and then quickly followed with BS polls from who knows where to make it look like he was at the bottom of the pack or close to it. This happened over and over again and everyone knows it.*

Quote:


> And you don't really need me to tell you this. You could have just gone to Google or something at any time and searched for "2012 presidential poll" or something like that and you'd probably get hundreds of results. And every poll would tell you pretty much the same thing. Add the Obama supporters to the Romney supporters and it will probably be more than 90%. I'm not going to hold my breath for you to provide any evidence that anything other than this is true.


*Wow. If I had told you to just google stuff after you asked me to specifically give you proof of what I was saying, you would have jumped all over that accusing me of "avoiding" your requests. I went to the trouble of providing you specific information you asked for, and when I ask that of you, you tell me to google it. Not surprising.*

Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* http://www.mothering.com/community/...2012-presidential-elections/100#post_17143334
> 
> Now is the time. If no one starts voting third party, then we'll never get there. The squeaky wheel gets the oil. If no one votes third party, how will third party ever win an election? How will it gain the exposure necessary to be in the running. How will your candidate be successful in the future if no one votes for her?
> 
> Now is the time to advocate for election reform and run-off voting.


*Specify "election reform". Does that mean equal the playing field for ALL the candidates?? That would be great!*



*Quote:*


> * If I, and the other voters who share my views, vote Green next month, the next President will be the one who will take us in the opposite direction from the way we want to go. If I, and the other voters who share my views, vote Dem next month, the next President will take us, in slow baby steps, slightly in the direction that we want to go. If I want to get the country to the place where it will eventually elect a Green, I need to take it in the right direction. Taking it in the opposite direction will delay the eventual election of a Green.*


 

*Not voting for the green party now&#8230; if that's who you like&#8230; IS delaying an eventual election of a green party candidate. If that party doesn't get the votes, when is it going to happen??? Saying that voting for a democrat will get a green party elected does NOT MAKE ANY SENSE!*



*Quote:*


> *Quote:*
> 
> *Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 http://www.mothering.com/community/...2012-presidential-elections/100#post_17143334*
> 
> *I am and I've been telling you that I will be voting third party. But, for some reason, you feel the need to keep telling me they have no chance, are not a real option, are illogical, a waste, worthless, etc. You are essentially saying this about me and it's offensive. Do I say this about you? NO. Go ahead and vote for Obama. I don't care. I am voting for RON PAUL.*
> 
> 
> 
> *And I repeat. Go ahead and vote for him. I have been saying from the very beginning of this conversation that I am not specifically trying to get YOU to vote for anyone else.*


 

*By you trying to discredit third party candidates is a way of you trying to get me, others to say oh, ok then, I'll vote dem or repub instead. Not gonna happen.*





*Quote:*


> *As for my general comments about 3rd party candidates not having a chance, not being real options, and about choices that seem to me to be illogical or wasteful (I never said worthless), I have simply been responding to the general arguments that you have been making about how you think people should vote. You HAVE been saying that people should NOT vote for Obama or Romney. I have simply been defending my own rationale.*


 

*That is absolutely NOT TRUE. You are lying. I have never said that people should not vote for those two. Nor have I said I think people should vote a certain way. That's what YOU have been doing. WOW. I have said there is no difference in the parties, neither one will do a good job, both will take this country down a path of destruction, but nowhere did I tell you or anyone else&#8230; "Please don't vote for Obama or Romney". I never said there are only two options. You did. I have only encouraged folks to look into the fact that there are other options besides the status quo. I have said that folks should vote third party IF THEY FEEL THAT IS THE BEST CANDIDATE. IF is the operative word here. You are a piece of work. Wow.*





> *Quote:*
> 
> *Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 http://www.mothering.com/community/...2012-presidential-elections/100#post_17143334*
> 
> *No, it's the perfect place.*
> 
> *Not when casting the vote for a 3rd party candidate instead of the Dem/Rep (whichever has views closer to your own) results in the election of a President whose views are *further* from your own. But as I said, this does not apply to you. The Dem and the Rep are the same to you. So you should go right ahead and vote 3rd party. This is what my disclaimer meant. But you evidently didn't understand my disclaimer.*


 

*No, it is the perfect place to have your voice heard. Didn't you say the election results show the preference of the voters? Yes, you did.*



*Quote:*


> *Quote:*
> 
> *Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 http://www.mothering.com/community/...2012-presidential-elections/100#post_17143334*
> 
> *Are we the United States of the World? No, the world wants us to back off and the Dem and Repub parties can't get that through their thick skulls. We are causing their suffering. I have done my research, have you? How have I not accepted that one of those fools is going to win? Doesn't matter to me. I am still voting third party. You need to accept that you are not going to convince me otherwise. I am not and will never compromise my integrity and values just to help a poor choice win just so the other doesn't.*
> 
> *The actions of the President of the United States greatly affect the entire world.*


 

*Yeah, I know this.*



*Quote:*


> *Yes, we cause them suffering. That is my point. Yes, I have done my research, and this is what I have found: Republicans cause more suffering than Democrats.*


 

*Proof please. They both cause suffering. Does it matter who is better at it? Ask the people who have been affected by our messed up government meddling in other countries affairs. Do you think they give a crap whether or not the person who caused their suffering is a republican or democrat??*



*Quote:*


> *That is why I feel it is my duty to keep Republicans out of office.*


 

*OK, so you'd rather vote to keep a republican out of office instead of voting for the person you feel can do the best job of fixing this country?*



*Quote:*


> *The effective means of achieving this result is to vote for the Democrat.*


 

*Why don't you vote for your green party candidate instead.*

Quote:


> Again, I am not trying to convince you not to vote 3rd party.


*I almost spit out my water.*



*Quote:*


> *I have only been explaining the general reasons for voting for Democrats and explaining why I don't think people who prefer Obama to Romney should vote for someone other than Obama.*


 

*That sounds so innocent when you write it like that, but we all know that's not how it went.*



*Quote:*


> *Because I would never compromise my integrity or values either.*


 

*You are. You like the green party candidate the best, but aren't voting for her because she doesn't have a chance of winning. So, you are voting for Obama to help keep Romney out of office. You should not be voting at all. People like this should not vote.*



*Quote:*


> *Are you implying that you think I am compromising my integrity or values by voting for the better of the two electable options?*


 

*Yes. See above.*

Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* http://www.mothering.com/community/...2012-presidential-elections/100#post_17143334
> 
> Please stop repeating yourself.
> 
> If you would, then I could. Nothing would make me happier than to not have to go round and round in circles like this.


*This all started with you saying your nonsense and continued with me responding to it.*



*Quote:*


> *Quote:*
> 
> *Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 http://www.mothering.com/community/...2012-presidential-elections/100#post_17143334*
> 
> *In an attempt to make me look like I am being a hypocrite, you keep saying that I admit third party won't win.*
> 
> *I keep having to point this out because you keep making arguments that deny the reality of there being only 2 potential winners.*


 

*No, there are 16+ potential winners.*

Quote:


> You keep emphasizing that there are more than two choices, and you imply that the right thing to do is vote for one of the ones who is better than the Republican or the Democrat.


 IF a person feels an option other than a dem or repub can do a better job. What's wrong with that? Don't try and be tricky with semantics.

Quote:


> And why? Because the 3rd party candidate would make the best President.


*See above. If I vote for a third party because I feel they can do the best job, then yes, I would also feel they would make the best president. Yep, you betchya.*



*Quote:*


> * (Even though the 3rd party candidate cannot become President as a result of this election. Do you see what I'm saying? Probably not.)*


 

*Yeah, I see what you're saying alright. You think that voting for a candidate to keep the other out of office is the most important thing when choosing a candidate. You should not be voting.*

Quote:


> And you imply that there's no good reason to vote for the Democrat or the Republican. Even though many of us do think one is better than the other, and one of them will be President, so we want the better one, and the one we vote for could actually win, thereby preventing the worse one from becoming President. Which is a worthy goal. Thank you very much.


*No. All I have said all along is that folks should vote for the candidate he/she feels is the best person for the job. I've said that over and over. That person can be independent, democrat, green party, republican, whatever. I have also said that I think it's ridiculous to vote for someone just because they have a better chance of winning even though you like someone better and/or want to keep someone else out of office, which is what you are doing. No, what you are doing is not a worthy goal. A worthy goal is to vote for someone who is going to cut spending, create jobs, bring our troops home, reform healthcare, audit the fed, the list could go on.*

Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* http://www.mothering.com/community/...2012-presidential-elections/100#post_17143334
> 
> If you REALLY do, then you should vote for that third party candidate.
> 
> I really do. And no I shouldn't. She wouldn't win.


*Not if she has supporters that don't believe in her, like you. You should stop saying that you like her the best. She doesn't need someone like you as a supporter. She needs supporters who agree with her and want her to win and will vote for her. As far as I'm concerned, you don't like her at all.*



*Quote:*


> *And failing to vote for Obama would result in the worst possible outcome: President Romney.*


 

If you are an Obama supporter such as yourself. Romney supporters would see that differently. You are terrified of Romney being president, aren't you. What about him scares you so much??? I'd love to hear this.

Quote:


> I will continue to advocate an election system under which I could vote for a 3rd party candidate without helping the Republican win.


You seem to want an election system which has only two candidates. You can't say with a straight face that you wish you could vote third party. I don't want to be lumped in with you as a third party supporter. You are a disgraceful, supposed third party supporter. We don't need people like you among us. Just stay in Obama-land.

Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* http://www.mothering.com/community/...2012-presidential-elections/100#post_17143334
> 
> I'm not trying to get anyone to do anything.
> 
> Then why do you keep trying to convince me (and others) to vote 3rd party?


*ROTFLMAO!!!!! Are you serious? Puh-lease. Like I said above, I am not trying to convince anyone to do anything. Where do you get this??? All I have said all along is that people should vote third party if that is what they prefer, regardless of the fact that they feel they can win or not.*



*Quote:*


> *Quote:*
> 
> *Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 http://www.mothering.com/community/...2012-presidential-elections/100#post_17143334*
> 
> *Yes you did back down and I don't care about whatever reasons you had for not "hunting up links".*
> 
> *Um, no, I did NOT back down. If you don't care what my reasons were (including literally NOT having any time to do it) then that is *your* problem.*
> 
> *By the way, you should really stop quoting yourself saying "Me asking you for this doesn't mean I'm a conspiracy theorist." It's one of the sillier things you've said. One wouldn't think you'd want to keep drawing attention to it.*


 

*I have been reacting to you with the conspiracy theorist thing. The more you bring it up, the more I will. Hey, did you read the links I sent you? How about that video of Jill Stein getting arrested yesterday? That's your candidate, right?*

*Where are the links you sent me? Oh, that's right, you haven't sent me any.*



*Quote:*


> *Quote:*
> 
> *Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 http://www.mothering.com/community/...2012-presidential-elections/100#post_17143334*
> 
> *Who cares if most of them just happen to be Democrats.*
> 
> *Because I was being sarcastic. They DON'T "just happen" to be Democrats. The Democrats are being targeted.*


 



*Sure you were. Your tone was not sarcastic until I made your claim sound ridiculous. Now I will read your next line, which sounds awfully like what you said about those who don't have ID happen to be democrats. You are changing your wording. Now you are saying they don't happen to be democrats. The democrats are being targeted. Is that sarcasm too?*

Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* http://www.mothering.com/community/...2012-presidential-elections/100#post_17143334
> 
> The fact remains that there needs to be a voter ID law.
> 
> That's not a fact. It's an opinion.


*And it needs to be a law. Don't you think that people should be ID'd at the polls? And if not, I would love to hear why you don't think so.*

Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* http://www.mothering.com/community/...2012-presidential-elections/100#post_17143334
> 
> Nazi Germany, huh?
> 
> Yeah. As in, "Papers, please."


*Yeah, in this day and age among voter fraud, intimidation, the increasing illegal alien population, etc, everyone should be ID'd. Our government created this monster.*

Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* http://www.mothering.com/community/...2012-presidential-elections/100#post_17143334
> 
> Why not 9 months ago or 5 days ago or 20 years ago. Who cares. It needs to be a law, and it just so happens that a big election is coming up.
> 
> 5 days ago? Who cares? It doesn't "just so happen" that there's a big (close) election coming up very very soon. They are purposely doing it now so that people won't have time to conform to the law. You'd think someone who doesn't trust authority would be open to this conjecture.


*No, trying to enact a voter ID law has been an ongoing thing for years. It always gains more exposure when an election nears.*



*Quote:*


> *Quote:*
> 
> *Originally Posted by mtiger http://www.mothering.com/community/...2012-presidential-elections/100#post_17143457*
> 
> *Of course, this thread has also reminded me why I tend to not discuss politics.*
> 
> *It has reminded me of the same thing. I have subjected myself to quite an ordeal, because I believe speaking out is the right thing to do.*


 

*Don't make it sound like you just jumped on this thread and are now in this heated debate suddenly. You have been posting on this thread since day one back in June.*

Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* http://www.mothering.com/community/...2012-presidential-elections/100#post_17143542
> 
> Here are some polls from earlier this year. Even though Ron Paul was running for the republican ticket at the time, he was treated as a third party candidate so essentially he was.
> 
> I meant general election polls in which people express who they support for President in the November election.


*You should have said what you meant. Earlier, you asked me to show you polls where a third party candidate polls high either in a leading or close to leading position. You didn't say anything about this November election and whether or not that specific poll was reflecting a general election, primary, caucus, etc. I gave you a bunch of examples where Ron Paul was on top if not close to the top many times. Now, you are going to change the rules. You sound like Romney. Well, why don't you google it yourself just like you told me to do. I'm sure you didn't read any of those polls.*



*Quote:*


> *Quote:*
> 
> *Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 http://www.mothering.com/community/...2012-presidential-elections/100#post_17143542*
> 
> *I hear and read about so many people who say they voted for Obama last time, aren't happy with him, but are voting for him anyway because they hate Romney more.*
> 
> *You are criticizing the above argument, even though it is a PERFECTLY VALID argument!*


 

*It's perfectly valid to vote for someone just to keep the other out of office??*

Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> Quote:Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> Maybe if we changed our way of thinking, and looked into the fact that there are other options out there, not the status quo, maybe then real change will happen in this country.
> 
> And here's another instance when I need to point out that those other options aren't actual possibilities in this election, and that voting for them will have an unintended and undesirable effect.


*Here's another instance where I am going to point out that all the candidates are possibilities this election, and voting for the one you like the best is the right thing to do.*

Quote:


> Quote:Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> The time is now to vote for third party, if that's your preference. Don't wait until they poll 40%. Start now.
> 
> And this is you NOT trying to get people to vote a certain way, right? /sarcasm


That statement in no way is convincing anyone to do anything. Do you see the part of that statement where it says vote third party IF THAT'S YOUR PREFERENCE????????????????

Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> People are so afraid of that change though, but ironically, they say they want change. Make a difference.
> 
> I don't want change in the wrong direction. The difference it would make if I voted 3rd party is that Romney would win.


*Because that's all you care about, right? Romney not winning? This reason is so bizarre. You must really hate him. Are you going to be one of those who riots if Obama doesn't get elected? You know, I don't recall anywhere that you have given a valid reason for choosing Obama over Romney. Valid meaning that you like Obamacare or like his foreign policy. Is there any other reason why you like Obama????*



*Quote:*


> *Quote:*
> 
> *Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 http://www.mothering.com/community/...2012-presidential-elections/100#post_17143542*
> 
> *If you don't 100% agree with a candidate, don't for him/her. Simple as that.*
> 
> *This is an incredibly harmful thing to say to people. It would be horrible if people took this advice.*


 

*WHAT?????????????*

Quote:


> It's as simple as THIS -- and I really do hate to sound like a broken record! -- but there are exactly two candidates who can come out of this election as President-elect -- and they are TIED in popularity right now -- and we need to choose the better one. Otherwise: disaster for the world for the next 4 to 8 years. This is not a scare tactic. It's just the unavoidable fact of the matter. It would be dangerous to avoid or deny it. Remember George W. in 2000 and 2004. Don't repeat history's mistake. Please.


*And this is you not trying to convince me and others to vote for Obama, right? (sarcasm here)*

Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* http://www.mothering.com/community/...2012-presidential-elections/100#post_17143542
> 
> trying to persuade me to vote for them because they are the only ones who have a chance. She hasn't given me any other reason.
> 
> Again, I'm not trying to get YOU to vote for the Dem or the Rep.


*You are such a hypocrite!!!!*

Quote:


> And as far as my general argument for other people to vote for one of them, no other reason is needed than "they are the only ones who have a chance." That is a good enough reason.


*That is a good enough reason???? What about their platforms on limited government, foreign policy, domestic issues, abortion, illegal immigration, education, ending the wars, defense spending, creating jobs, decreasing spending, fixing the economy??? Are those not issues worth mentioning as reasons why someone should vote for a specific candidate? Those are much more important than keeping someone out of office. So, what you are saying is that the only "good enough" reason to vote for someone is they have a better chance at winning than x, y, z and will keep the other one who has a good chance of winning out of office. Holy lord have mercy.*

Quote:


> You are advocating voting for people who have no chance of winning, because it would be better if they did win (even though they have no chance to). You haven't given any other reason.


*I haven't?? Well, just in case you may be right, here are my reasons why I am voting Ron Paul. Oh and before I continue, what are your reasons for voting for Obama, besides to keep Romney out of office?*

*Ron Paul wants to cut 1 trillion dollars from the deficit his first year in office. He wants to return power back to the states where they should have it. He wants to audit the fed. He wants to bring our troops home and end the wars that do nothing. He wants to uphold the constitution as it should be. He wants to reduce our taxes to 0%. He wants to end the war on drugs. He wants to keep the federal government out of our personal lives, homes, bedrooms. I could go on. If you're really interested, you should look him up. Ronpaul2012.com. dailypaul.com*



*Quote:*


> *Quote:*
> 
> *Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 http://www.mothering.com/community/...2012-presidential-elections/100#post_17143542
> 
> *
> 
> *She is telling me that my vote, which would be for a third party candidate is illogical, a tragic waste, worthless, etc.*
> 
> *I never said worthless. And I actually said that *your* vote (the vote of a person who has no preference between the Dem and the Repub) has some value as a 3rd party vote.*


 

*You have not once said that my vote for a third party has value.*


----------



## erinmattsmom88

This is the end of the road for me on this thread. Sustainer, it is clear that you want to vote for Obama to keep Romney out of office and that's the only reason you are voting for him. You like the green party candidate more, but because she has no chance of winning, you aren't voting for her. I can't understand this way of thinking. Not once have you given me another reason why you are voting for Obama. You also haven't stated anything that you would like to see change in this country so I have no idea where you are coming from. All I know is that you are voting for someone for a very wrong reason. I also know that you are trying to convince me that my voting for a third party is illogical and a tragic waste. So is what you are doing. You have spoken some untruths about me, asked things of me that you yourself won't reciprocate. You have tried to discredit, disrespect and devalue my reasons for voting for a third party. You don't for one second want to see the other side of things, that is clear. Yet, you accuse me of that. Anyone can read back these posts and realize that you are, in fact, trying to convince me to go your way. Then, you accuse me of the same when you are called out on it. I have never tried to persuade you or anyone else who has posted on this thread, or just read it to vote my way. I have merely stated that there are more than two options, and have encouraged folks to look into them. I have also encouraged folks to vote for the best for the job, and if they feel, for example, voting for the American Third Position candidate is the right thing to do, then I say they should do it. I have never flat out said on here that folks should not vote for either Obama or Romney. Nor have I said they must vote third party. However, you have incorrectly accused me of that.

Now as for me, I feel that voting for a third party is the right thing to do, for myself. I 200% agree with whom I have chosen, and I feel I can sleep at night knowing that I am about to do something good and have made the right decision. I will never vote for someone to keep someone else out of office. That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. There are more than two candidates running. Choosing from either the democrat side or the republican side because they are the only options that can win is sad. Pick the one you like and go for it. Sustainer has said she likes the green party candidate the best, but won't vote for her because she says she can't win. That is wrong. That's how I feel.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> * No, your hypothetical situations don't matter because they don't apply to this election cycle.*


This election cycle is when they *do* need to be considered. It's ironic that you're criticizing strategies as not applying to this election cycle, because you're the one giving advice about taking actions (voting 3rd party) that would be ineffective in this election cycle.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *The fact is, is that there are more than two options, period. That is fact. I'm not avoiding anything because I am living in reality. You are not. I'm not avoiding the fact that there are 16+ presidential candidates this cycle. How about this, when there are only two, I will consider one. Does that work for you? Until then, I am going to learn about each candidate and what they have to potentially offer this country, and I will choose the one that I like best&#8230; no matter what party they are affiliated with. For you to say&#8230; "Avoiding them might be one of the things keeping you from considering other ideas" is outrageous. I have considered all 16 candidates'ideas.*


Why do you keep repeating this? It just means that I have to keep repeating "only 2 of them have a chance of winning." Of course I'm living in reality. I'm perfectly aware of the fact that there are more than two candidates on the ballot, and I take into consideration the fact that only 2 of them have a chance of winning. There are actually more than 7 billion people you could vote for, because you can write in anyone you want. The only point I'm making is that the Democrat or the Republican is going to win, and it's a tight race between them, and I think one is better than the other, and I think it's important for people to vote for the one they prefer. And this point doesn't even apply to how you're going to vote, because you don't have a preference between the two, so vote third party and have a nice day, and could we PLEASE drop it?

As far as voters who do have a preference between the two potential Presidents, I maintain that it is important to consider the fact that if they would otherwise consider voting for Obama, then voting for a 3rd party instead, especially in a swing state, would benefit Romney.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *Yeah, because it doesn't make sense that you are not voting for your preference.*


It does make sense. Between the two people who actually have a chance of winning, I *am* voting for my preference. If my goal were to vote for the person whose views are closest to my own, regarless of whether the person has a chance of winning or not, I would just write in my own name.

Get it?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *I didn't bother reading this whole list because Romney and Obama will both send this country to hell in a handbasket.*


Okay, here's why you need to go back and read it. If you and I were only discussing who *you* should vote for, then I would agree that there is no reason for you to read it. However, you and I have also been discussing who *I* should vote for and who *other people* should vote for. If you want to continue discussing who people other than yourself should vote for, then you need to go back and read this first. Because this explains the logical argument for why people who have a preference between Obama and Romney should vote for Obama rather than voting for a 3rd party, even if they like the 3rd party better than Obama.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *Which is why you should VOTE FOR HER.*


Sigh. You need to go back and read the sentence that I wrote *after* the sentence that you quoted. And you also need to read the logical argument referenced above.

You seem to be looking at this issue with very narrow, black-and-white vision. Continually repeating "people should vote for whatever candidate they like best" and refusing to take any of the practical implications into account, is a rather simplistic, knee-jerk, middle-school level kind of thing to do.

As someone who has no preference between the two front runners, there is no reason *you* shouldn't vote 3rd party. But you need to understand that not everyone shares your opinion about Obama and Romney being equally bad. For those of us who have a preference between the two, there are legitimate reasons for us to vote for one of them, even if he isn't our very favorite of *all* the people we could vote for. It is illogical for you to be unwilling to concede this much.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *So, when you look at a candidate and make a decision on whether or not to vote for him/her, you first look at whether or not they can win?? That's pathetic.*


How on earth can you say this or even think it? If anything is pathetic, it's NOT looking at whether or not the candidate could potentially win. It is perfectly reasonable to consider whether or not the candidate could actually win. I want to have a positive effect on the outcome of the election which will determine who will actually be the President for the next four years. That is a very very VERY reasonable thing for a citizen to want to do.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *I told you that if you give me one poll to look at, I'd be glad to check it out and look into it further.*


That was after you had already declared all the polls out there to be unreliable. Why should I go to the time and trouble to look for a poll for you just so you can look at it and say it's unreliable? Especially since I don't really CARE whether you accept the polling data or not? There was no reason you needed to keep asking me for a poll. You could have looked for one just as easily as I could. It wasn't as if I had a particular poll in mind that I thought you would accept as reliable.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *What are the choices in these polls? Romney and Obama, right?*


No. The person is simply asked who they are going to vote for. The person says a name that is in their head. Their answer is recorded. That's why most polls have results like "forty-something percent: Obama, forty-something percent: Romney, one or two percent: one of the more popular third party candidates, one or two percent: another of the more popular third party candidates, one or two percent: "other."

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *I sent you links to many polls that Ron Paul was either leading or close to leading earlier this year.*


Are you talking about early in the primary season, when Republicans were deciding whether they wanted Romney or Paul or someone else to be the nominee?

Any nationwide poll taken NOW, asking people who they're going to vote for in November, is going to have results similar to what I just described above.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *You said third party candidates don't have a chance at winning and are essentially unelectable.*


In the modern political climate, once the Democratic and Republican candidates have been nominated, they become the only two candidates who have a chance to win in November. Show me a *recent* poll, taken after the conventions, that indicates who people are going to vote for for President in the general election in November.

If Paul had been nominated by the Republican party, he would have had a chance. Since he wasn't, he's dead in the water. You've conceded that he doesn't have a chance at this point and that was the only point I was making, so this argument should end now.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *So, they took those polls, got rid of them, and then quickly followed with BS polls from who knows where to make it look like he was at the bottom of the pack or close to it. This happened over and over again and everyone knows it.*


Do they? Here's why it seems unlikely to me: most people are moderate centrists. Ron Paul is very far from being either. Romney is more of both than Paul is. So I wasn't surprised when Paul did not become the nominee.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *Specify "election reform".*


Here's what I think needs to happen. Since more than 2 people are on the ballot for President every 4 years, people should not be restricted to voting for only 1 person. We should be allowed to RANK all of the candidates who are on the ballot, in order of our preference. It's called run-off voting or, more specifically, instant run-off voting, since we don't want to have to hold more than one election. I would specify that my #1 choice is the Green Party, then #2 Democrat, and so on. For me, Ron Paul would be near the bottom, since I don't share most of his views. Romney might be dead last, since I hardly share any of his views. When the #1 votes were counted and it was determined that the Green Party only got 5% or so of the votes, my second choice would become my vote. It could very easily be handled by a computer. Then, people wouldn't have to choose between voting for their favorite candidate who has no chance of winning, and holding their nose and voting for the better of the 2 candidates who had a chance of winning. It would free us from the 2-party system. Once we got away from the 2 party system, the 3rd party candidates could be allowed in the debate. This would get them more votes. They would also get more votes because people wouldn't be afraid to vote for them on the basis that they have no chance of winning and the worst candidate will end up winning. It would be *much* more fair. The day when a 3rd party candidate could actually have a chance of winning would come much sooner. We would be discussing many more issues and progress would happen faster. We would advance as a society. There is no end to the benefits. It would be great. We really really need to insist on it. Only being allowed to express one preference is unreasonable when there are more than 2 people running. We need a mass education campaign and we need to get everyone to insist that this be implemented. Another great benefit: we could stop having stupid arguments like this on message boards!







The relative merits of voting 3rd party vs. voting mainstream would become a moot point. I can't think of a single reasonable argument for NOT doing this.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *Not voting for the green party now&#8230; if that's who you like&#8230; IS delaying an eventual election of a green party candidate. If that party doesn't get the votes, when is it going to happen??? Saying that voting for a democrat will get a green party elected does NOT MAKE ANY SENSE!*


Voting for the Democrat would not get the Green party elected in *this* cycle, but neither would voting for the Green party. Voting for the Dem would take us *in the right direction.* Closer to environmentalism and liberalism (MY opinion of the right direction). Voting for the Green would only make it more likely that the Repub would win, which would take us further from environmentalism & other Green Party values. See?

---

Alright, believe it or not, I'm actually having technical problems typing another full paragraph here. I think I finally reached the limit! I'm going to click "submit" and then respond to the rest of your post in a new post.


----------



## erinmattsmom88

Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *Specify "election reform".*
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what I think needs to happen. Since more than 2 people are on the ballot for President every 4 years, people should not be restricted to voting for only 1 person. We should be allowed to RANK all of the candidates who are on the ballot, on order of our preference. It's called run-off voting or, more specifically, instant run-off voting, since we don't want to have to hold more than one election. I would specify that my #1 choice is the Green Party, then #2 Democrat, and so on. For me, Ron Paul would be near the bottom, since I don't share most of his views. Romney might be dead last, since I hardly share any of his views. When the #1 votes were counted and it was determined that the Green Party only got 5% or so of the votes, my second choice would become my vote. It could very easily be handled by a computer. Then, people wouldn't have to choose between voting for their favorite candidate who has no chance of winning, and holding their nose and voting for the better of the 2 candidates who had a chance of winning. It would free us from the 2-party system. Once we got away from the 2 party system, the 3rd party candidates could be allowed in the debate. This would get them more votes. They would also get more votes because people wouldn't be afraid to vote for them on the basis that they have no chance of winning and the worst candidate will end up winning. It would be *much* more fair. The day when a 3rd party candidate could actually have a chance of winning would come much sooner. We would be discussing many more issues and progress would happen faster. We would advance as a society. There is no end to the benefits. It would be great. We really really need to insist on it. Only being allowed to express one preference is unreasonable when there are more than 2 people running. We need a mass education campaign and we need to get everyone to insist that this be implemented. Another great benefit: we could stop having stupid arguments like this on message boards!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The relative merits of voting 3rd party vs. voting mainstream would become a moot point. I can't think of a single reasonable argument for NOT doing this.
Click to expand...

 Believe or not, I actually agree with what you're saying here, ONLY here though, and that is the only reason I am replying to this thread, after I said I was done. I like the idea of placing people in order of personal preference. That would equal the playing field, in a sense. Doing it that way would make it appear that everyone really does have an equal and fair chance, therefore, getting those third party people to not be afraid to vote for who they like versus who they feel will win. It's usually the case that third party people just won't vote because they feel that their candidate can't win, as opposed to you, who will drop your preference and vote for the lesser of two evils. I'm not afraid to vote third party NOW. I still think what you are doing is a wasted vote, as you feel mine is, but I like what you are presenting here. You mentioned that if things were done this way, it would get us away from the 2-party system and allow the third party candidates into the debates. They actually are supposed to be in the debates, but they (the mainstream parties) won't allow them. What happened to Jill Stein the other day is a perfect example of this. If you haven't already, you should watch that video I linked here.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *By you trying to discredit third party candidates is a way of you trying to get me, others to say oh, ok then, I'll vote dem or repub instead. Not gonna happen.*


All I'm saying about 3rd party candidates is that they have no chance of winning, and that voting for them instead of voting for a frontrunner makes it more likely that the other frontrunner will win, which is a fact. Once again, I am not trying to get *you* to vote for a frontrunner. The only people I'm trying to get to vote for a frontrunner are the people who prefer Obama to Romney. The fact that it's not going to happen in your case does not bother me. As far as people who prefer Obama to Romney, I hope it will happen.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *That is absolutely NOT TRUE. You are lying. I have never said that people should not vote for those two. Nor have I said I think people should vote a certain way.*


Go back and read your own posts. You have told me repeatedly that if I like the Green candidate better than the Democrat then I should vote for the Green candidate instead of the Democrat, even though the Green candidate won't win anyway and my goal is to defeat Romney. You also made a general appeal to all viewers of your post that they should vote for whichever candidate they like the best even if it's a 3rd party candidate who doesn't have a chance of winning. You have been telling them to do this even though, if the people who prefer Obama to Romney do it, it will mean Romney's victory. So I did not lie, and, since everyone can go back and read your posts, you are not going to be able to convince anyone that what I said isn't true, except maybe yourself, if you want to be in denial, or if you don't remember what you posted, or you don't want to go back and read it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *I have said that folks should vote third party IF THEY FEEL THAT IS THE BEST CANDIDATE. IF is the operative word here.*


Exactly. Even if it's a candidate who has no chance of winning. Even if voting for that candidate makes it more likely that the candidate who the voter dislikes the *most* will win. That means that you are telling people to vote in a certain way.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *No, it is the perfect place to have your voice heard.*


You already said this and I already responded to it, and you are ignoring my arguments about why it is not a perfect, or even a good place, to take that kind of action, in the circumstances I specified.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *Proof please. They both cause suffering. Does it matter who is better at it? Ask the people who have been affected by our messed up government meddling in other countries affairs. Do you think they give a crap whether or not the person who caused their suffering is a republican or democrat??*


You need to look and judge for yourself. I am taking literally thousands of facts into consideration when I make this determination, and I'm not going to attempt to list them. I have spent years paying attention to things that happen, and their causes. What I have found is that, when Republican policies are implemented, more suffering occurs worldwide as a result. Yes, it matters whether Democrats or Republicans cause more suffering. One of them is about to become President, and we can choose which one. I do think that people around the world care whether we elect the one who will cause them less suffering or the one who will cause them more suffering. One or the other of them is going to win. I doubt if the people around the world who will suffer care much about abstract exercises such as using one's vote to make a point about neither major candidate being adequate.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *OK, so you'd rather vote to keep a republican out of office instead of voting for the person you feel can do the best job of fixing this country?*


Since the person I think is the best has no chance of winning -- Yes.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *Why don't you vote for your green party candidate instead.*


I've answered this question about a hundred times in this discussion. I've explained it and explained it and explained it. Do you really still not know the answer?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *I almost spit out my water.*


Why? I have clarified several times during this discussion that people who have no preference between the two major candidates -- such as yourself -- might as well vote 3rd party. I fully support you. There is no reason for you to vote for one of the major 2. How could you? You have no preference. If they were the only 2 running, you'd stay home, right? Oh, I forgot, we mustn't mention hypotheticals.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *That sounds so innocent when you write it like that, but we all know that's not how it went.*


Actually that's exactly how it went. That's what I've been doing the whole time. You have tried to make what *you* have said sound innocent, but I think the advice you have given people is very harmful.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *You are. You like the green party candidate the best, but aren't voting for her because she doesn't have a chance of winning. So, you are voting for Obama to help keep Romney out of office.*


I am not compromising my integrity or values AT ALL. How ironic that you are the one who accused me of being insulting. There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with voting for the better of the two candidates who can potentially win.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *This all started with you saying your nonsense and continued with me responding to it.*


My rationale makes perfect sense. You won't even read the logical argument in defense of it. In any case, if you want me to stop saying 'xyz' then all you need to do is stop repeating 'uvw.'

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *No, there are 16+ potential winners.*


As you've admitted, only 2 have a chance of actually winning. That's what I mean by potential winners. If you want to count the other 14+ then you shouldn't leave out the other 7+ billion who could be write-ins.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> IF a person feels an option other than a dem or repub can do a better job. What's wrong with that? Don't try and be tricky with semantics.


What's wrong with it? Again, this is a question I've answered quite a number of times now. I've explained it again and again. It isn't tricky. And it certainly isn't semantics. It's just facts. Voting 3rd party instead of for the front runner makes it more likely that the other front runner will win, whose views are probably further from the voter's views.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *If I vote for a third party because I feel they can do the best job, then yes, I would also feel they would make the best president. Yep, you betchya.*


I know. And what I am saying is that this is not a good enough argument. If they have no chance of winning, then voting for them can not result in them becoming President. So whether or not they would make the best President becomes irrelevant.

{I'd repeat my disclaimer that I am not talking specifically about who *you,* or others who have no preference between the 2 major candidates, vote for, but I'm afraid you'd misunderstand again and think I was trying to disclaim something on *your* behalf. For others reading the thread (if any at this point), I am speaking in general about voters who have a preference between the 2 major candidates.}

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *Yeah, I see what you're saying alright. You think that voting for a candidate to keep the other out of office is the most important thing when choosing a candidate.*


Correct.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *You should not be voting.*


I certainly should be voting. And so should a whole lot of other people who know that Obama would be better than Romney.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *No. All I have said all along is that folks should vote for the candidate he/she feels is the best person for the job. I've said that over and over. That person can be independent, democrat, green party, republican, whatever. I have also said that I think it's ridiculous to vote for someone just because they have a better chance of winning even though you like someone better and/or want to keep someone else out of office, which is what you are doing. No, what you are doing is not a worthy goal. A worthy goal is to vote for someone who is going to cut spending, create jobs, bring our troops home, reform healthcare, audit the fed, the list could go on.*


Don't you see?? The person is NOT going to cut spending, create jobs, bring our troops home, reform healthcare, or audit the fed. Because they are not going to become President! Ugh, this is getting very frustrating. There is nothing ridiculous about voting for the better of the 2 candidates who has a chance of winning. It does, however, seem a little ridiculous to vote for someone (who has no chance of winning) on the basis that they will cut spending, create jobs, healthcare, etc, even though you know they will not do any of those things because they will not win.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *Not if she has supporters that don't believe in her, like you. You should stop saying that you like her the best. She doesn't need someone like you as a supporter. She needs supporters who agree with her and want her to win and will vote for her. As far as I'm concerned, you don't like her at all.*


You can say I don't like her if you want, but the fact remains that I do like her the best. She cares about the environment, etc, and so do I, but the worst thing I could do for the environment, etc, is vote for her instead of the person who can keep Romney out. Are you implying that she could win if everyone who liked her the best voted for her? I don't think that's correct. She's too far to the left for most people. Most people are in the middle. She wouldn't win against Romney. Obama is close enough to the center to be electable. I'm not calling myself her "supporter." I just like her the best. I wish there were enough left-wingers in America to elect her. I agree with her views on the nation, but I don't agree with her decision to stay in the race to the end.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> If you are an Obama supporter such as yourself. Romney supporters would see that differently. You are terrified of Romney being president, aren't you. What about him scares you so much??? I'd love to hear this.


Correct. And correct. And yes I am. And you should go back to page one of this thread and read my post(s). I'm on the opposite side of pretty much every issue, relative to Romney. I agree with Obama about most issues. I agree with Jill Stein on even MORE issues, but she's not an electable option.

Drat, I have to get in the car again. I'll have to respond to the rest of your post later.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> You seem to want an election system which has only two candidates. You can't say with a straight face that you wish you could vote third party. I don't want to be lumped in with you as a third party supporter. You are a disgraceful, supposed third party supporter. We don't need people like you among us. Just stay in Obama-land.


No I absolutely do not want an election system which has only two candidates. And I can say with an absolutely straight face that I wish I could vote third party without it causing my arch-enemy to become President. I'd rather have a Green Party President than a Democrat. Again, I'm not calling myself a 3rd party "supporter" in this election.

I am not doing or advocating anything even remotely disgraceful. Either Obama or Romney will win, and I'd rather have Obama than Romney, so I'm going to vote for Obama.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> *ROTFLMAO!!!!! Are you serious? Puh-lease. Like I said above, I am not trying to convince anyone to do anything. Where do you get this??? All I have said all along is that people should vote third party if that is what they prefer, regardless of the fact that they feel they can win or not.*


Your last sentence quoted above ("All I have said all along is that people should vote third party if that is what they prefer, regardless of the fact that they feel they can win or not") contradicts your fourth sentence quoted above ("I am not trying to convince anyone to do anything"). So, yes, I am serious.

Ugh! I have to get in the car *again*! Busy day. More later...


----------



## Adaline'sMama

IMO, the best candidate is the candidate that will keep the worst candidate out of office.

In this case: I am super, super in to keeping my reproductive rights as a woman. I dont care who I have to vote for to make sure that Romney is not elected and will not f- with my reproductive rights. Period. It's not always about the "best candidate"- sometimes it's straight up about keeping what we have fought for. I know that under the current administration, there will be no change in women's reproductive rights, so I vote to keep the current administration in.

Plus, I like Obamacare. I wish it was better, but Im proud that it's going into effect. I just found out that most insurance policies now give away free breast pumps to women who are pregnant, with out having to show that you are going back to work. How freakin' awesome is that?


----------



## erinmattsmom88

But, do you realize why it's very frustrating to hear that some people are only voting to keep someone else out of office? My wish is that people would vote to make this country better and pick the best candidate for the job whether it be democrat, independent, republican, green party, etc. It's a shame because there are some really great people who want to do great things, and it sounds like people just want to vote to keep someone else out of office. I understand what you and Sustainer are saying to a point. Believe me, I think Romney is 100% horrible. He is a war mongering who is totally out of touch with a majority of this country. There is a sliver of something that I kinda maybe sorta like about Obama. I'm sure Sustainer will jump all over me because I just wrote that. But, I am 100% on board with someone else and that's why I am voting for him.

There are some good aspects about Obamacare, but I just am really scared of the whole you have to buy this or get penalized (actually taxed) thing that will take affect in 2014. That will not solve the healthcare problem, as far as controlling costs are concerned.Obama should actually make healthcare a single-payer system that everyone has to pay into, like Medicare. I wouldn't mind that at all. Keep it simple. He is all over the place with Obamacare and it's crazy. I do like the free breast pumps for pregnant women. I sure as hell wish they had that when I was pregnant with my kids.


----------



## erinmattsmom88

Oh, to clarify, my kinda, sorta, maybe like about Obama is not Obamacare. The don't get it or get taxed makes me not like it as a whole.


----------



## Adaline'sMama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> But, do you realize why it's very frustrating to hear that some people are only voting to keep someone else out of office? My wish is that people would vote to make this country better and pick the best candidate for the job whether it be democrat, independent, republican, green party, etc. It's a shame because there are some really great people who want to do great things, and it sounds like people just want to vote to keep someone else out of office. I understand what you and Sustainer are saying to a point. Believe me, I think Romney is 100% horrible. He is a war mongering who is totally out of touch with a majority of this country. There is a sliver of something that I kinda maybe sorta like about Obama. I'm sure Sustainer will jump all over me because I just wrote that. *But, I am 100% on board with someone else and that's why I am voting for him.*
> 
> There are some good aspects about Obamacare, but I just am really scared of the whole you have to buy this or get penalized (actually taxed) thing that will take affect in 2014. That will not solve the healthcare problem, as far as controlling costs are concerned.Obama should actually make healthcare a single-payer system that everyone has to pay into, like Medicare. I wouldn't mind that at all. Keep it simple. He is all over the place with Obamacare and it's crazy. I do like the free breast pumps for pregnant women. I sure as hell wish they had that when I was pregnant with my kids.


But I guess that's the thing, Im not 100% on board with anyone- so I'm going to cast my vote in the direction that is most likely to yield the kind of results I want to see.


----------



## mtiger

So here is what we have. People who are voting the lesser of two evils (In THEIR opinion - because some do believe that Romney is that person), and people who are working to change our candidate profile to include real options.


----------



## Sustainer

You mayn't believe this, but when I got back home, the power was out, and it wasn't restored until midnight. You probably think God is telling me to shut up.

*Quote:*

*Quote:*

*Quote:*

*Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88*

*Yes you did back down and I don't care about whatever reasons you had for not "hunting up links".*

*Um, no, I did NOT back down. If you don't care what my reasons were (including literally NOT having any time to do it) then that is *your* problem.*

*By the way, you should really stop quoting yourself saying "Me asking you for this doesn't mean I'm a conspiracy theorist." It's one of the sillier things you've said. One wouldn't think you'd want to keep drawing attention to it.*





*I have been reacting to you with the conspiracy theorist thing. The more you bring it up, the more I will. *

*You have repeatedly quoted your own statement "Me asking you for this doesn't mean I'm a conspiracy theorist." I've already pointed out that it would have been ridiculous for me to say that you asking for polling data is what makes you a conspiracy theorist, and I never said, implied or hinted any such thing. It is absurd for you to suggest that my reason for questioning whether you're a conspiracy theorist is that you asked for polling data. Every time you quote this particular sentence of yours, you draw attention to the fact that you said something that isn't terribly rational. For your own sake, you may want to stop quoting it.*

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

*How about that video of Jill Stein getting arrested yesterday? That's your candidate, right?*

She's the one whose views match my own the closest. She was arrested for trying to get into the Presidential debate between Obama and Romney. She thought she had the right to be a participant. I agree with her vision of how the country should be run, but I do not support her attempt to force her way into the debate. Sounds like the kind of symbolic protest you might support. Is there any particular reason you keep bringing this up?

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

*Sure you were. Your tone was not sarcastic until I made your claim sound ridiculous. Now I will read your next line, which sounds awfully like what you said about those who don't have ID happen to be democrats. You are changing your wording. Now you are saying they don't happen to be democrats. The democrats are being targeted. Is that sarcasm too?*

I'm not sure where your confusion lies. But I'll try to explain. From the very beginning of the discussion of that issue, I said that Democratic voters were being targeted. Then you said something to the effect of "No, people without I.D. are being targeted." Then I said, "Yeah, and they just happen to be Democrats." When I said this, I was being sarcastic. What I meant was that it was NOT a coincidence that they were Democrats. I was reaffirming my original position, which is that Democrats are being targeted. That is the position which I have consistently held throughout the discussion. You never managed to make my claim sound ridiculous. It's still fairly obvious to me that Democrats are being targeted. If you don't understand sarcasm then I can see that you might get confused.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

*And it needs to be a law. Don't you think that people should be ID'd at the polls? And if not, I would love to hear why you don't think so.*

I already responded to this. Go back and read my posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

*No, trying to enact a voter ID law has been an ongoing thing for years. It always gains more exposure when an election nears.*

The people trying to pass this law are trying to disenfranchise Obama voters and that's all there is to it. One of them came right out and admitted it. How do you explain that the states trying to pass these laws are the swing states that are controlled by Republicans?

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

*Don't make it sound like you just jumped on this thread and are now in this heated debate suddenly. You have been posting on this thread since day one back in June.*

Yes I have been participating in this thread since the beginning. Since before things got warmed up. I did it because I felt it was important to speak out. I knew that it could become an ordeal. I participate in these threads every 4 years and they always get spirited. Then I made the decision to *stay* in the discussion. I did not try to make it sound like I just jumped on the thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

*You didn't say anything about this November election and whether or not that specific poll was reflecting a general election, primary, caucus, etc. *

I was talking about the November election the whole time. What I said is that, at this time (ever since the nominations, in fact), most people support Obama or Romney. You said that I was incorrect about that. I asked you what you based such a contention on. If you don't want to back up that position, that's your choice. It now sounds as if there might have been a misunderstanding about what each of us thought the other was saying. I have no idea which Republican was polling ahead at the beginning of the primaries, and I don't care too much. Throughout this discussion, I have been focusing on facing the reality of the current situation, and talking about what the best course of action is for voters to take now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

*It's perfectly valid to vote for someone just to keep the other out of office??*

Of course it is! Especially since that's the only effective action we CAN take. *One* of those two is going to win. There is no action I can take next month that will result in Jill Stein becoming President. There IS an action I can take next month that will help keep Romney from becoming President. For the nth time, here is my rationale for voting the way I'm going to vote, and it is very simple and completely justifiable: One of two people is going to become President, and I'm going to choose the one I think is better. That's it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

*Here's another instance where I am going to point out that all the candidates are possibilities this election*

You can't mean that they could possibly become President, because you've admitted Obama or Romney is going to win. That's what I mean by "they aren't actual possibilities."

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

That statement in no way is convincing anyone to do anything.

I hope you're right that they won't be convinced. But you definitely are *trying* to get people to vote in a certain way. Not for a certain candidate, but in a certain way. On a certain basis, with a certain way of thinking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

Do you see the part of that statement where it says vote third party IF THAT'S YOUR PREFERENCE????????????????

Yup. And that means that you are trying to get people to do something. You are trying to get them to vote for whoever they like best, without giving any consideration to whether the person could win. Even though voting for that person instead of the *electable* candidate they like better could make it more likely that the candidate they like worse, or worst, will become the next President.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

*Because that's all you care about, right? Romney not winning? This reason is so bizarre. You must really hate him. Are you going to be one of those who riots if Obama doesn't get elected? You know, I don't recall anywhere that you have given a valid reason for choosing Obama over Romney. Valid meaning that you like Obamacare or like his foreign policy. Is there any other reason why you like Obama????*

Romney not winning is my main goal in this election. There is nothing bizarre about that. Romney or Obama is going to be President, and I like Obama better. Period. Nothing bizarre about it. I don't know why you don't see how reasonable it is. I think it's more bizarre to vote for someone who can't win. You might as well write in yourself. Of course I'm not going to RIOT if Obama doesn't get reelected! I don't know how your mind leaps to such absurd conclusions. Even if my only reason for choosing Obama over Romney was that I disagreed with Romney *more,* that would be a valid reason for choosing Obama. But, yes, there are other reasons I support Obama. I do support universal healthcare. I agree with most of Obama's positions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

*WHAT?????????????*

It would be horrible and harmful if people refused to vote for candidates they don't 100% agree with. It's very, very simple. One of two people is going to become President. If we don't vote for the one we think is better, then the one we think is worse will become President.

If I followed your advice, I couldn't even vote for Jill Stein. There isn't a single candidate I agree with 100%. But I still have a preference between the two people who could become President, and I am going to act on that preference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

*And this is you not trying to convince me and others to vote for Obama, right? (sarcasm here)*

Well I'm not trying to get *you* to vote for Obama, because I know you don't like him better than Romney, but certainly I am trying to convince other people to vote for Obama. I have never said that I am not trying to get people to vote for Obama. I hope I have made it pretty obvious that I am trying to convince people to vote for Obama.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

*You are such a hypocrite!!!!*

Not in the least. I have clarified several times now that I am not trying to get *you* to vote for the Dem or the Repub. The only people I'm trying to get to vote for Obama are the people who prefer him to Romney. Since you have no preference between the two, I support your choice to vote 3rd party. In your case, there's no reason not to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

*That is a good enough reason???? What about their platforms on limited government, foreign policy, domestic issues, abortion, illegal immigration, education, ending the wars, defense spending, creating jobs, decreasing spending, fixing the economy??? Are those not issues worth mentioning as reasons why someone should vote for a specific candidate? Those are much more important than keeping someone out of office. So, what you are saying is that the only "good enough" reason to vote for someone is they have a better chance at winning than x, y, z and will keep the other one who has a good chance of winning out of office. Holy lord have mercy.*

The fact that only the Democrat and the Republican have a chance of winning is a good enough reason *to vote for the Democrat or the Republican instead of voting for a 3rd party.* People should definitely consider issues such as limiting government, foreign policy, domestic issues, abortion, immigration, education, war, defense spending, jobs, spending in general, and the economy, when they are deciding whether to vote for Obama or Romney. If they think Obama and Romney are equal on all of the issues, then they should vote for whichever 3rd party candidate they agree with on the most issues that are important to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

*I haven't?? Well, just in case you may be right, here are my reasons why I am voting Ron Paul. Oh and before I continue, what are your reasons for voting for Obama, besides to keep Romney out of office?*

*Ron Paul wants to cut 1 trillion dollars from the deficit his first year in office. He wants to return power back to the states where they should have it. He wants to audit the fed. He wants to bring our troops home and end the wars that do nothing. He wants to uphold the constitution as it should be. He wants to reduce our taxes to 0%. He wants to end the war on drugs. He wants to keep the federal government out of our personal lives, homes, bedrooms.*

None of this changes the fact that the only reason you have given for voting for him is that you think it would be better if he were President (even though he can't become President even if you vote for him). All of the specifics that you just listed are just part of the reason that you think it would be better if he were President. It is irrelevant that he says he would do all of those things as President, because he can't become President.

My reason for voting for Obama is that I think the world will be a better place if he is President for the next 4 years than it would be if Romney were President.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 



*You have not once said that my vote for a third party has value.*

Actually I did. Post #100. Third response. Fifth paragraph. Last sentence.

I'm going to make my kids lunch now. Then I'll come back and respond to the rest of the posts.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

Sustainer, it is clear that you want to vote for Obama to keep Romney out of office

I hope that's clear by now, since I said it in my very first post on this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

You like the green party candidate more, but because she has no chance of winning, you aren't voting for her.

Yup. Correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

I can't understand this way of thinking.

Apparently not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

All I know is that you are voting for someone for a very wrong reason.

You think it is is a wrong reason, inexplicably, but it is actually the most reasonable reason in the world. One of two people will be President and I'm picking the one I think is better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

I also know that you are trying to convince me that my voting for a third party is illogical and a tragic waste.

Absolutely incorrect, as I've clarified many times now. *Your* vote, or the vote of any one else who has no preference between the two candidates who actually have a chance of winning, is neither illogical nor a tragic waste. What I said was that, when someone does prefer Obama to Romney, and they don't vote for Obama, I find it to be illogical, tragic, and wasteful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

You don't for one second want to see the other side of things, that is clear.

Actually, there have been one or two people in this discussion who have made a case for voting 3rd party which was more reasonable than the case you made. I recognized the validity of what they said. It is still my opinion that it is better to vote for Obama.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

Anyone can read back these posts and realize that you are, in fact, trying to convince me to go your way.

I encourage everyone to re-read all of my posts and make their own determination about this. I trust that they will not close their eyes when they come to certain sentences, as you seem to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

I have never tried to persuade you or anyone else who has posted on this thread, or just read it to vote my way.

Voting "your way" means voting for the candidate that the voter likes the most, even if voting for that candidate only helps the candidate that the voter likes least become President. You have tried to persuade people to do this. I never said that you were trying to get people to vote for a *particular* candidate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

I have merely stated that there are more than two options, and have encouraged folks to look into them. I have also encouraged folks to vote for the best for the job, and if they feel, for example, voting for the American Third Position candidate is the right thing to do, then I say they should do it.

And then you said that you hadn't tried to get anyone to do *anything.*

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

I will never vote for someone to keep someone else out of office. That is the craziest thing I have ever heard.

If you say so.









Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

There are more than two candidates running.

...only 2 of whom have a chance of winning...

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

Choosing from either the democrat side or the republican side because they are the only options that can win is sad.

Not sad. Realistic. Reasonable. Practical. Effective. Sensible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

Believe or not, I actually agree with what you're saying here

I do believe it. It would be very odd if a 3rd party supporter did not support it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

I still think what you are doing is a wasted vote

It's only a waste from your perspective because you think Obama and Romney are equally bad. I don't think that they are.

No reasonable person could think it is wasteful to vote in a way that actually has an effect on which of the two candidates who has a chance becomes the President, IF one of the two is better than the other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

They actually are supposed to be in the debates, but they (the mainstream parties) won't allow them.

There are certain standards for who is allowed in the debate. They have to have attained a certain level of support from voters. Only Obama and Romney met the qualifications this year. When Ross Perot met the requirements, he was allowed in the debate. The way the system is set up now, with only 2 candidates having a chance to win, I actually think it would be a bad idea to include 3rd party candidates in the debate.

I support instant run-off voting, and when we have that, I will support 3rd party candidates in the debates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

But, do you realize why it's very frustrating to hear that some people are only voting to keep someone else out of office?

I wish *you* could realize how frustrating it is to hear someone say that people should vote for someone who has no chance of winning, even though the only effect of doing this instead of voting for the better of the 2 who have a chance of winning will be that the candidate *farthest* from the voter's views will become President!

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

My wish is that people would vote to make this country better and pick the best candidate for the job whether it be democrat, independent, republican, green party, etc.

If the candidate that a voter thinks would be the best for the job is a candidate who has no chance of winning, then voting for that candidate would NOT make the country better! In fact, since failing to vote for the preferred candidate out of the 2 who has a chance of winning will result in the *worse* of the 2 winning, the result is that the country will be made *worse*! Arg!

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

It's a shame because there are some really great people who want to do great things

It's a shame that we don't have instant run-off voting. But the way the system is set up now, those "great people" have no chance to do those "great things," no matter who their supporters vote for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

it sounds like people just want to vote to keep someone else out of office.

That's all we can do. There are only 2 people who can become President.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> 
> But I guess that's the thing, Im not 100% on board with anyone- so I'm going to cast my vote in the direction that is most likely to yield the kind of results I want to see.


Yeah, according to erinmattsmom, you shouldn't even vote.

Personally, even if I agreed 100% with a candidate who had no chance of winning, I wouldn't vote for them, because that would prevent me from using my vote to express my preference for the candidate I preferred out of the two candidates who had a chance of winning. I want to have a positive effect on the actual outcome. I vote on real world consequences, not abstract ideals. I don't want my vote to be symbolic when it can be effective instead. There clearly are exactly 2 potential results, and one is clearly better than the other. There has never been a Presidential election in which I didn't see a *huge* difference between the two candidates who had a chance of winning, and I don't expect that there ever will be. But even if there were only the tiniest of differences, I would still consider it more useful to use my vote to express my preference for the slightly better one, than to use it to express my support for a candidate I 100% agreed with, who had no chance of winning.


----------



## erinmattsmom88

Quote:


> You have tried to persuade people to do this. I never said that you were trying to get people to vote for a *particular* candidate.


I am not trying to PERSUADE anyone to do anything. I am offering and bringing to light a different way of approaching voting than what you are saying and trying to convince people to do.

If I said something like this, " *I hope I have made it pretty obvious that I am trying to convince people to vote for Obama*." Then, yes, you saying I am trying to persuade people to do something would be correct.



> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> I have merely stated that there are more than two options, and have encouraged folks to look into them. I have also encouraged folks to vote for the best for the job, and if they feel, for example, voting for the American Third Position candidate is the right thing to do, then I say they should do it.
> 
> 
> 
> And then you said that you hadn't tried to get anyone to do *anything.*
Click to expand...

 Nope. It's a suggestion, not a persuasion.

Sustainer, look, there are going to be people who agree with you and those who don't. Same goes for me. What you are trying to do is convince people to vote for Obama. You've said that. All I have been trying to do aside from telling you what *I* think is the error of *YOUR* ways, is to bring more exposure to third party candidates... because of people like you who think that there are only two choices. That's all. There are more than two. Third party candidates are the red-headed stepchild of elections. People like me, who support one, feel like they get the shaft time and time again. We are tired of it. We are tired of your way of thinking. We really, REALLY want change in this country and don't think the present administration is doing a good job. We also think Romney wouldn't do a good job either. We are getting louder because we need to. We want our voices heard. I am going to do that any way I can. By debating here, voting on November 6th, wearing my Ron Paul 2012 Restore America Now shirt, donating money when I can, whatever I have to do. We are here and we are growing. The MSM and current 2-party system are bought and paid for by the people who really call the shots, and don't want other ideas be known. Like Ron Paul, for instance. The real rulers don't want the Fed to be audited or NDAA to be repealed among many other things, and because Ron Paul is standing up to that, they are doing and have done all they can do to discredit, and make him and the others disappear. What happened to Jill Stein this week is a perfect example of that. She was exercising her first amendment rights. She is a presidential candidate who is on 85% of the ballots, yet wasn't "allowed" in the debate. Hmmm. What's going on here? "They" don't want independent thinkers. They want the voters of this country to believe there is a difference in dem or repub when really they control both parties. Look into who donates money to Obama and Romney... Wall Street. Here's an article about how Obama and Romney are similar... http://www.infowars.com/40-points-that-prove-that-barack-obama-and-mitt-romney-are-essentially-the-same-candidate/

Here's something else to read, pay close attention to the last two paragraphs... http://www.infowars.com/romney-and-obama-share-same-bankster-campaign-contributors/

So, you keep believing that your vote will matter to keep Romney out of office. I know better. A vote for Obama is a vote for Romney and vice versa. You've bought it hook, line and sinker.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

I am not trying to PERSUADE anyone to do anything. I am offering and bringing to light a different way of approaching voting than what you are saying and trying to convince people to do.

Go back and read your posts. Your wording has the intent of being persuasive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

If I said something like this, " *I hope I have made it pretty obvious that I am trying to convince people to vote for Obama*." Then, yes, you saying I am trying to persuade people to do something would be correct.

Just because you don't say "I'm trying to persuade people" doesn't mean you haven't tried to persuade people. The only difference between what you have been doing and what I have been doing is that I have *admitted* that I am trying to persuade people to vote for Obama, and you have been hypocritical about what you have been trying to do. You HAVE made it obvious that you have been trying to convince people to take a certain kind of action. You just haven't *said* that you have made it obvious that you're trying to persuade people. It doesn't need to be said. People can see that that's what you've been trying to do. It's senseless for you to keep saying that you *haven't* been trying to do it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> Nope. It's a suggestion, not a persuasion.


You said that people *should* vote a certain way. You said 'do this.' You even said that the way many of us vote -- which is to put the priority on choosing the better of the candidates who have a chance, when we might like another candidate who can't win even better -- is "terrible," "awful," "pathetic," "doesn't make sense," "compromises our integrity and values," that we "should not vote," that it's "ridiculous," "not worthy," "bizarre," that our "reasons have no validity," that it "is a very wrong reason," that it's the "craziest thing you ever heard of," that it's "sad," "wrong," and "a wasted vote." You said that I'm "disgraceful" because I said that I like another candidate better and I'm voting to re-elect the President. I could quote even more instances of you saying that people "should" vote your way (not for your candidate, but using your philosophy of voting), and of you saying to people reading your posts "do THIS." It went even further than persuasion. It was worded as a command.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> We are tired of your way of thinking.


And I am tired of people like you, every four years, telling people who prefer the Democrat to the Republican, not to vote for the Democrat unless they can honestly say that they agree with the Democrat ONE HUNDRED PERCENT and that they like the Democrat better than ALL of the other candidates who don't have a chance of winning. I am tired of candidates like George W. Bush becoming President for 8 years because people don't vote for the better candidate who can defeat him.

YOU may not think that Obama is any better than Romney, but that is YOUR opinion. Around 50% of voters DO think Obama is better than Romney. It is perfectly valid for us to vote for Obama. Yes, even if there's someone else, who has no chance of becoming President, who we would like even better.


----------



## erinmattsmom88

I'm so tired of you arguing needlessly over and over again about useless crap. You are so petty. I don't care whether you think I am trying to persuade anyone to do anything because I know I'm not. Me telling you you are disgraceful for your way of voting is not being persuasive. I just think that it's disgraceful. You can lump that into everything else I said. So, stop being so petty. I have come full circle with my posts. In my first post I said there is no difference in dem or repub, and I'm going to say it again. There is NO difference. I'm over the whole arguing over semantics crap that has taken over this thread.

So, like I said last time... there is no difference in the two mainstream parties. Keep believing that there is. Vote for Obama because you *think* he's not Romney. They are the same.

Quote:


> YOU may not think that Obama is any better than Romney, but that is YOUR opinion. Around 50% of voters DO think Obama is better than Romney.


 Nope I don't and it is both my opinion and it is also fact. Yeah, and those 50% are as clueless as you. No I'm not being persuasive here, just telling it like it is.

Quote:


> It is perfectly valid for us to vote for Obama. Yes, even if there's someone else, who has no chance of becoming President, who we would like even better.


 That is the worst reasoning for choosing to vote for someone. But, that's America today. Fixated on "winning". Winning wars, winning elections, winning debates, killing enemies (which usually only accomplishes killing innocent civilians). I guess doing what's right is not the goal these days.

Please do not respond to anymore of my posts. It's getting to be troll-like. And, yeah, I am trying to persuade you to stop responding to me.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

I'm so tired of you arguing needlessly over and over again about useless crap.

Then stop doing it. My responses to you have been just that: responses to things you have said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

You are so petty.

Not at all. I have just been responding to what you've said. And I've been discussing issues that are far from petty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

I don't care whether you think I am trying to persuade anyone to do anything because I know I'm not.

You can say you haven't been trying to persuade anyone to do anything. You can even *think* you haven't been trying to persuade anyone to do anything. It doesn't change the fact that you HAVE been trying to persuade people. Anyone reading this thread can see that you have been.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

In my first post I said there is no difference in dem or repub, and I'm going to say it again. There is NO difference.

That's your opinion. Since you hold that opinion, I support your decision to vote for a 3rd party. I do not share the opinion that there is no difference between the Democrat and the Republican. Neither do most people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

Nope I don't and it is both my opinion and it is also fact.








Sorry, but you do not get to classify that as a fact. It is an opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

Yeah, and those 50% are as clueless as you. No I'm not being persuasive here

No, you are not being persuasive here. Now you're just being INSULTING. You are saying that all of the people who think Obama is better than Romney are "clueless."

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

That is the worst reasoning for choosing to vote for someone.

I don't know why you have such a difficult time accepting something that is so reasonable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

Fixated on "winning". Winning wars, winning elections, winning debates, killing enemies (which usually only accomplishes killing innocent civilians).

It has nothing to do with competitiveness or fighting or someone being a "winner." It has to do with who is going to become the next President. Who can attain enough support. Who the majority of the population chooses for President.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

I guess doing what's right is not the goal these days.

My goal is absolutely to do what is right. And I think the right thing to do, when there are exactly two people who have enough support that they could be elected President, is to vote for the better one.

I don't think the right thing to do is vote for someone who has the support of so small a minority that they can't/won't be elected President, thus letting the worst candidate become President.

I agree that war mostly accomplishes the killing of innocent civilians. I think it was wrong to let George W. Bush -- the kind of person who would launch a preemptive war against Iraq on the basis of a false claim -- become President. If the people who had voted 3rd party had voted for Gore instead, the Iraq war would not have happened.

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> Please do not respond to anymore of my posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you post something I disagree with, you can bet your boots I'm going to respond to it. I have just as much right to express myself as you do. If you don't want me to respond to it, then don't say it.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> It's getting to be troll-like.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not YOUR website. If you post something and I respond to it, that does not make me a troll. You have been responding to my posts, so I am no more of a troll than you. But, of course, YOUR opinion is the "correct" one, right? And I am the one disagreeing with *you,* so that must mean that the troll is *me.* You are really revealing your true colors in this post. I thought you were "done" with this thread? And then you said you only came back to say you agreed with me about something. But you're still here, responding to things you disagree with me about.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> I am trying to persuade you to stop responding to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

As you've been saying to me throughout this entire discussion, "Not gonna happen. Deal with it."


----------



## Adaline'sMama

Erin- Let me get this straight. All of our opinions are just opinions, but your opinions are opinions AND facts. Gotcha.


----------



## erinmattsmom88

http://www.policymic.com/articles/14028/obama-vs-romney-polls-5-reasons-why-mitt-romney-and-barack-obama-are-exactly-the-same






http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ron-paul-mitt-romney-and-barack-obama-represent-the-same-one-party-system/











http://open.salon.com/blog/libbyliberalnyc/2012/09/01/15_sobering_similarities_between_obama_romney

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/remnant/2012/jul/9/romney-or-obama-does-who-wins-really-matter/

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/05/18/15_facts_that_even_obamas_biggest_supporters_should_be_able_to_admit_are_true/page/full/






http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/40-points-that-prove-that-barack-obama-and-mitt-romney-are-exactly-the-same


----------



## Adaline'sMama

When people use words like "exactly" to compare people, it makes them look like a fool. Obviously, Romney and Obama are not "exactly" a like.


----------



## erinmattsmom88

You democrats love to play the semantics game.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/ndaa-biggest-election-issue-no-ones-talking-about/

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/09/21/hypocrisy-not-democracy-in-america/






http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/15790898-452/romney-obama-share-same-foreign-policy.html

http://ivn.us/2012/07/17/100-ways-mitt-romney-is-just-like-barack-obama/


----------



## CatsCradle

With all due respect, erinmattsmom88, some of the links you provide are a little whacky. I clicked on one of the Youtube posts you linked above and the comments themselves are part and parcel everything crazy in this country (Lucifer, lack of love of Jesus, Obama as the anti-Christ). Just saying, there is thoughtful criticism and then there are the wack jobs. I'm much more apt to listen and consider intelligent and well-thought out advice and commentary based on reality than on off-the-wall postings by people whose intelligence I question immediately by links. A lot of folks out there are "afraid" for the wrong reasons, IMO. I'm not convinced, yet.


----------



## 95191

if more had even the basic understanding of how a bill becomes a law and the procedure to overturn a bill the choice would be very clear, sadly most of the electric lacks these skills and seem to think it would just be rainbows and unicorns and all magically turns out perfect on day one

even if you think what one tells you is the truth you should look at the real basic facts that have nothing to do with position but all to do with what laws really are....I have found most are completely clueless in this area









sadly most of the electric are also (as the rightfully call it) low information voters and often vote against their best interest- several red states get far more from the feds than they pay and I personally would love to see that change, perhaps that might wake of a voters but not like it would happen


----------



## erinmattsmom88

Wacky, huh? That's the word of choice around here. Wacky because the links I provided contain the truth? Yeah, that's pretty wacky.

So, did you just read the comments at the end of the articles/videos?

Maybe you read the first 10 and locked into a few foolish statements to make a generalized assumption over the articles you didn't read? Did you read and watch *all* the links I provided? I see nothing wacky about any of them. They all contain very serious content. There is nothing wacky about the NDAA. I provided links for people to read/watch the *article* or *video* not the damn comment section. Any information you find on the internet these days usually provides a comments section. It can be an article as useless as something about Kim Kardashian from Yahoo to something reputable from NPR, infowars.com, dailypaul.com, Veterans Today, etc. You will always get fools commenting on articles from any where about anything. Youtube is notorious for that. What did you think of the actual video? For you to deduce the links I sent to being wacky because of maybe a few idiots saying non-intelligent things who are probably trolls then I guess that's your problem. You should focus on the content of the video/article I sent if you are going to actually look into things. I wasn't providing links for you to read the comments section.

If you are going to surmise that the links I sent are off-the-wall because of the comments section then please do not comment further on them. I whole-heartedly disagree. The information I sent via links (because there is no other way to do this on here) are things I have come across while educating myself on what is really wrong with this country. What I have provided by the way is just a sliver of what else is out there. I have been told that my opinions are just that and not based on fact. So I have felt it necessary to provide information to the contrary. It is clear no one wants to take a step further to look into what I have provided. There is so much more, but clearly it is a waste of my time to give AdalinesMama and Sustainer this information, as they are unwilling to at least look into another viewpoint. Sustainer has a know-it-all, what I say is the gospel and everyone else is wrong, attitude. You all want to just repeat yourself, argue with folks and downplay the seriousness of the bigger issues that should be focused on in this election cycle, and discredit, devalue, and disregard the fact that there are other presidential candidates who want to actually fix these problems. So, you go ahead and say this " I'm much more apt to listen and consider intelligent and well-thought out advice and commentary based on reality than on off-the-wall postings" about everything I have provided so far. What exactly do you think is not off-the-wall? Tell me that now and if anything I have falls into that category I'd be glad to no longer provide a link to it. How about this, you provide ME with some information about how Obama and Romney are going to change the course of this country, in a positive way.

I'd like to have an intelligent and civil discussion as well without argument, but I haven't seen that yet from anyone on here. I'd like to have that discussion with that someone who will actually take another's viewpoint seriously and not be so one-sided. I have been asking for folks who disagree with me to give me information if they feel I am wrong, and all I have been getting is repetitive quotes over and over. But, I'm the bad guy I guess.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

You democrats love to play the semantics game.

I don't know why you think you're going to get anywhere by calling things "semantics."

You have been very emphatic about there being NO difference between Romney and Obama. A vote for one is a vote for the other.

It's ridiculous. They're two different people with different philosophies and different policies.

Obama did not fire the members of the Mass. Health Council who tried to end the marketing of formula in hospital L&D units. Romney did. That's a major reason many of us here at Mothering have a huge problem with Romney.

They are not atom-for-atom duplicates of each other.

But, of course, in order to convince people that considering 3rd party candidates is worthwhile, you need to convey the idea that it wouldn't matter even a tiny bit whether Romney or Obama was elected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

Wacky because the links I provided contain the truth?

Yeah. They're wacky because they're truthful. /sarcasm









Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

I have been told that my opinions are just that and not based on fact.

You really like to mischaracterize what people say, don't you. You didn't say that your opinion that neither Romney nor Obama is better than the other is *based* on fact -- you said it *is* a fact. So I pointed out that "Neither Romney nor Obama is better than the other" is an opinion, not a fact. I did not say that you were not *basing* your opinion on any facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

Sustainer has a know-it-all, what I say is the gospel and everyone else is wrong, attitude.

This from the person who refers to her opinion that neither Romney nor Obama is better than the other as a "fact." What I have been doing is expressing my opinions, mentioning facts that they are based on (without confusing the two), explaining my opinions, and giving logical rationales. It is true that I hold my opinions very strongly and that I express them forcefully, but there is a difference between that and the way you are characterizing me.

Here is YOUR WAY of deciding who to vote for:

1. You have to agree with your candidate *at least* 100%.

2. There can't be any candidate, no matter how obscure, who you think might be better than your candidate.

3. No consideration is to be given to whether or not your candidate could get enough votes from other people to actually be elected.

4. No consideration is to be given to the fact that failing to vote for the Democrat makes it more likely that the Republican will win, or vice versa.

5. No consideration is to be given to all the horrible things that could happen if a worse candidate is allowed to become President. Instead, the consideration must be given to all of the wonderful things your candidate would do if (s)he became President, even if your candidate cannot become President as a result of the election.

You have implied that anyone who doesn't vote your way is some sort of horrible, insane, idiotic person.

As opposed to what I have been saying, which is that if someone prefers Obama to Romney, I think it's illogical to vote for someone who has no chance of becoming President.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

You all want to just repeat yourself, argue with folks and downplay the seriousness of the bigger issues that should be focused on in this election cycle, and discredit, devalue, and disregard

You're calling the kettle black again. You have done just as much of these things as I have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88* 

I'd like to have an intelligent and civil discussion as well without argument, but I haven't seen that yet from anyone on here. I'd like to have that discussion with that someone who will actually take another's viewpoint seriously and not be so one-sided.

The pot is black.


----------



## Adaline'sMama

So, who's watching the debate tonight?


----------



## CatsCradle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> 
> So, who's watching the debate tonight?


I'll be watching it. Plus, picked up the new New Yorker today and there is a great article in there about so-called election fraud and the facts behind that. It was actually a good piece of journalism (I expect nothing less from the NYer). It is interesting to discover how the outcries of election fraud are based in deep-seeded ideas of racism. The dead people who were "voting" in Georgia and the Carolinas? Actually people with the same names as the dead people. One guy even said that he was notified of disqualification because his son had passed away but had the same name. Another woman in Ohio was told that she couldn't vote because her property was abandoned (but the abandoned property in question was a glitch on the city's database). Interesting how fact checking can bring the "truth" to light. People are finding ways to disenfranchise voters who may vote for the other side. Most often these are voters who don't have the power to contest a bigger piece of machinery with the funds to slap them down.


----------



## erinmattsmom88

Catscradle, looks like you only mentioned two *possible* instances of mistaken election fraud. Care to offer others?

I'm still waiting to hear why requiring ID at the polls is considered disenfranchising voters.

Quote:


> It is interesting to discover how the outcries of election fraud are based in deep-seeded ideas of racism.


 Are you speaking generally or are you specifically referring to me here? Better not be accusing ME specifically of racism because you are WAY out of line. I hope I have misunderstood you.


----------



## erinmattsmom88

So, I went to The New Yorker website and found where to click on this election fraud myth article (haven't read it yet). Directly above it was an opportunity to click on an article titled, The New Yorkers's endorsement of Obama. Gee, that isn't biased. How about something objective.


----------



## CatsCradle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> So, I went to The New Yorker website and found where to click on this election fraud myth article (haven't read it yet). Directly above it was an opportunity to click on an article titled, The New Yorkers's endorsement of Obama. Gee, that isn't biased. How about something objective.


One of the things that I appreciate about the New Yorker is that it has been more than critical about Obama's administrative polices in the past and continues to do so. I think the hallmark of good journalism is that one can be critical as well as positive. We seem to think if someone praises someone that they are incapable of being critical of same. The article today in the New Yorker which "endorsed" Obama laid out in pretty clear terms why it was supportive as well as noting in great length Obama's weaknesses and general disappointments. Courts do much the same thing when deciding cases, they do weight tests. They compare positives and negatives to reach a result. Read any Supreme Court decision and you'll see the same type of analysis throughout. I think there is a clear difference between analysis based on facts and blind allegiance.

Anyway, I wasn't talking about you when I referred to the racism in running through the voting law issues. Good lord, it was a general statement about how I feel and what I've read. I'm not attacking you specifically or inferring that you, specifically, are a racist. I find that during an election cycle such as this, people get mighty touchy. Read the article on voting fraud and if you want to accuse me of calling you a racist after that, then fine. In fact, throughout this thread I've been trying to offer my opinions and they have been largely ignored. Funny how ears are pricked when the word racism or any other similar word comes into the equation. Oh no, not me! I'm not a racist! Funny how an innocuous post can create such reaction. This has me scratching my head.

I find this whole entire thread and conversation incredibly disheartening. I don't have a lot of time to spend on MDC due to work and family issues, but generally I keep coming back because there are real discussions throughout MDC without the condescending attitudes that I've seen on this thread. It would serve me well not to post here anymore. For one, I'm busy. Further, it seems no matter what I say it will be potentially attacked as ignorant and biased. I'm a big girl. My feelings are not hurt. But I have the good sense to know when my words or thoughts no longer mean anything to anyone.


----------



## erinmattsmom88

CatsCradle, agreed.

I can appreciate what you say here...

Quote:


> One of the things that I appreciate about the New Yorker is that it has been more than critical about Obama's administrative polices in the past and continues to do so. I think the hallmark of good journalism is that one can be critical as well as positive.


 I did notice this. But, you have to admit, it was suspicious to see the election fraud article you mentioned, and then directly above it was an article about how the New Yorker endorses Obama. Was just trying to make a point.

As far as the racism goes, you're right about this...

Quote:


> Funny how ears are pricked when the word racism or any other similar word comes into the equation


 I admit as soon as I saw that word in your last post, I had to stop and re-read it a few times. I didn't come out and specifically accuse you of calling me a racist, as I did *ask* if you were speaking generally or specifically to me.

You can say this...

Quote:


> Oh no, not me! I'm not a racist! Funny how an innocuous post can create such reaction. This has me scratching my head.


 I know in my heart, which is all that matters by the way, that I'm not a racist. What gets my blood boiling is that I have found that the race card is too easily pulled in these types of conversations and it sickens and angers me to no end. I will stop there, as I just don't want to get any deeper into this. That explanation should be good enough.


----------



## nyssaneala

First time on this thread.

I voted early today in NC, and I voted for Obama. I have volunteered countless hours for his campaign, at the DNC, and knocked on hundreds of doors to help people register to vote, and help get people out to the polls to actually cast a vote.

I voted for Obama because:

- Affordable Health Care Act. It's not perfect. But it is a step in the right direction, and it is more than any previous president has done in the last 20 years.

- He thinks strategically, not spontaneously and unilaterally

- He actually has a foreign policy plan, and a fantastic Secretary of State

- The Romney/Ryan ticket has changed their stance on almost everything, leaving absolutely no idea on what they would really do if in office (although I think I have a pretty good idea, and it has special interests/big business written all over it).

- As a woman, I don't want to see my rights regress to the 1870's. I want my daughter to have the same rights that I had when she is a teenager and young adult.

- I absolutely do not support adding money to defense, and especially to the detriment of all other federally funded programs.

- It took years to get into this economic mess, and a Republican Congress has largely blocked Obama every step of the way in trying to get out of it. He needs more time (and hopefully something better than this do-nothing Congress).

- his long-term vision for the US, his focus on education and technology, creating jobs that pay well, etc. are much better than anything Romney has come up with.

I have also seen two instances of voter intimidation right outside the polls during early voting, both times directed at Democrats. In a swing state. All the Obama signs in my neighborhood have been stolen twice (never the Romney signs). My Obama car magnet was stolen in a Target parking lot, and my bumper sticker defaced, across the street from an early voting location. NOT COOL. And very, very childish.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> I have also seen two instances of voter intimidation right outside the polls during early voting, both times directed at Democrats. In a swing state. All the Obama signs in my neighborhood have been stolen twice (never the Romney signs). My Obama car magnet was stolen in a Target parking lot, and my bumper sticker defaced, across the street from an early voting location. NOT COOL. And very, very childish.


and besides you have one of the most backwards ways of voting!!! you can't vote straight ticket!! WOW.......I have a friend that moved to your state and could not believe it, nor could I--you have one of the lowest presidential voting counts in the nation---major crazy!!!!!









my friend has a special needs child and really fears what will happen if Mittens gets in, given she is on the boarder and with SC not participating in the AHC plans..... influx is her fear, not to mention state control not federal.......she is going to vote tomorrow and she knows how to *vote!*


----------



## philomom

OMG! Hilarious. A must see for all Whedon fans.


----------



## Viola

There were 4 Presidential Candidates on my ballot.


----------



## Sustainer

Everyone get out and VOTE today!


----------



## journeymom

I voted, Baby!!


----------



## Emaye

And 4 more years! It is over


----------



## Sustainer




----------



## Nursingnaturalmom




----------



## loveandgarbage

So happy today!


----------



## 95191

worked, *VOTED* &


----------



## Adaline'sMama

woot, woot!!

4 more years!

Our uteruses are safe from all the crazy "legitimate rape" spouting candidates. I feel SO much more comfortable having two more girls on the way.


----------



## Nursingnaturalmom

Too bad we aren't safe from agenda 21 or his socialist communist agenda.


----------



## beckybird

I Voted for big Johnson! (Gary)

I figured Obama would win. People do like him. Welp, sigh, I hope for a positive term.

Let's pray the next guy in 2016 won't abuse the NDAA that Obama has gifted us. " The Obama administration had threatened to veto the bill as long as it contained the indefinite detention provision, but changed course shortly before the final version was voted on by Congress." I don't like it. I wish Obama never signed the damn bill, since it includes an unconstitutional provision. Think about this--what will happen if a dastardly, rascally Republican is elected in 2016? He'll have a great time with that fun bill. Thanks Obama! I'm sure Bush is very proud! Also, thanks for appointing Monsanto's Michael Taylor to the FDA! You're on our side when it comes to GMOs..oh, wait, no you're not.) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/monsanto-petition-tells-obama-cease-fda-ties-to-monsanto/2012/01/30/gIQAA9dZcQ_blog.html

Your uterus is safe, but your food supply is not. Win? 



 Genetic Roulette, the dangers of GMO.


----------



## journeymom

Obama the Moderate Republican: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/11/obama_the_moderate_republican_what_the_2012_election_should_teach_the_gop.html?google_editors_picks=true

I had to look up NDAA. National Defense Authorization Act; it's the one Obama held his nose with one hand while he signed it with the other (pretty tricky, that): http://www.cracked.com/blog/ndaa-biggest-election-issue-no-ones-talking-about/

The Political Compass puts Obama and Romney nearly side-by-side on their political philosophy graph. http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012


----------



## Adaline'sMama

Yeah well, we win some we lose some. At least you can be openly gay in the military and we have a president that supports gay marriage, women's rights, and is making strides towards alternative energy.


----------



## erinmattsmom88

Quote:


> Your uterus is safe, but your food supply is not. Win?


Ha, time will tell. Get ready for some Franken-babies.

Quote:


> I had to look up NDAA. National Defense Authorization Act; it's the one Obama held his nose with one hand while he signed it with the other (pretty tricky, that): http://www.cracked.com/blog/ndaa-biggest-election-issue-no-ones-talking-about/
> 
> The Political Compass puts Obama and Romney nearly side-by-side on their political philosophy graph. http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012


Glad to see some are doing their homework.

I suppose if anything good came from the election is that hopefully Obama will continue to keep us out of Iran. Time will tell with that one too.

Well, the GOP picked another loser. Maybe they regret disenfranchising Ron Paul voters?


----------



## Adaline'sMama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> Ha, time will tell. *Get ready for some Franken-babies.*


What?!?


----------



## beckybird

Lol! GMOs are called FrankenFoods.

I encourage everyone to learn about GMOs and why they are dangerous. The Genetic Roulette documentary is a great place to start.






If this issue concerns you, then you'll understand why we are furious with Mr.Obama.

http://naturalsociety.com/will-obama-fulfill-his-2007-promise-to-label-gmos-video/

He not only broke his promise, but insulted us with the appointment of Michael Taylor. Michael Taylor....the former Vice President of Monsanto appointed by Obama as a senior adviser to the FDA back in 2009. Taylor is currently a Deputy Commissioner for Foods for the FDA.

This is devastating to those of us who abhor genetically modified organisms in our food supply.


----------



## beckybird

As for Agenda 21, would you listen to Rosa Koire? She's a Democrat and lesbian...not that this should or shouldn't matter, but it may be of interest to some of you. (She's not a stiff Conservative is what I'm hinting at.) She is an expert on Agenda 21 and the disastrous affect on the USA.

You can find her interviews/presentations all over YouTube. This is her website http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/ Democrats Against Agenda 21.

*Agenda 21 Is Not 'Right vs Left', It's A Liberty Issue *

Here is a snip from the CFR's own website. Agenda 21: "This UN program "is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment." It was adopted at the UN's Earth Summit from June 3-14, 1992." http://www.cfr.org/energyenvironment/agenda-21/p20576

Study up on GMOs first, and then Agenda 21 if you have the time (or energy, as it's exhausting.)


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nursingnaturalmom*
> 
> Too bad we aren't safe from agenda 21 or his socialist communist agenda.










Yeah after 4 years of his Presidency this has really turned into Russia.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeckyBird*
> 
> Your uterus is safe, but your food supply is not. Win?


It's a win because, under Romney, neither would have been safe. Nor would a lot of other things.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *journeymom*
> 
> The Political Compass puts Obama and Romney nearly side-by-side on their political philosophy graph.


I read the Political Compass's defense of why they placed Obama there, and I disagree with it. It's obvious they are biased and prefer 3rd party candidates. Obama isn't as far into the lower left corner as I am, but he's closer to me than he is to Romney.


----------



## journeymom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sustainer*
> 
> I read the Political Compass's defense of why they placed Obama there, and I disagree with it. It's obvious they are biased and prefer 3rd party candidates. Obama isn't as far into the lower left corner as I am, but he's closer to me than he is to Romney.


Everyone is biased. Why does their inclusion of 3rd party candidates causes you to disagree with their placement of Obama? Hundreds of thousands of people voted for 3rd party candidates on Tuesday. 46% of Americans want a 3rd party.

I'm not particularly attached to the Political Compass's estimations, and aside from Gary Johnson I hadn't heard of any of these other candidates. But I think it's important that they included Stewart Alexander on the graph; he's solidly in the lower left block, where that Socialist Devil, Barack Obama, is not.


----------



## beckybird

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sustainer*
> 
> It's a win because, under Romney, neither would have been safe. Nor would a lot of other things.


 My interpretation: With Romney, GMOs would still be an issue, along with women's rights. Is that correct? If so, then I agree.

Question: Do you agree with Obama's decision to appoint Michael Taylor to the FDA, while on his campaign trail he made promises to change GMO policies? Do you think he's done anything wrong here?

Just because you prefer him to the opposing Republican, does that make what he's actually done alright?

Let's all relax--Romney lost, and is already ancient history. Women are safe, breathe a sigh of relief. However, why on earth does Obama get a free pass for his GMO-friendly behavior? This is a HUGE deal! Your signature says "GO Organic", and if that's true, then how can you support what Obama has done? I get it, he's better than Romney. Let's move past that. But still, what he's done is not ok with me. I disagree with his actions concerning GMOs, and as someone who is pro-organic, how can you let this slide? Maybe GMOs are not important to you, and then this all makes sense to me--how and why you so easily dismiss this issue.

This is not an unfounded attack on Obama. He has done several things that I cannot support, and GMOs are just one. You know, I do think the Michael Taylor appointment would have happened with or without Obama, no matter who was president at the time....that's how powerful I believe corporations are in the US. But, as a fact, it was Obama who appointed him. It was Obama who gave hope to the non-GMO movement, and it was Obama who went back on his promise. I just am trying to understand why it's so easy to move past Obama's GMO mistakes.

To be clear, this IS an attack on Obama, BUT this would be the same attack on McCain, Bush, Romney, or Frosty the Snowman. The human being, name here, who appointed Michael Taylor to the FDA, is why I have a problem. I am trying to figure out why a go-organic person can so easily dismiss it. I don't understand.


----------



## erinmattsmom88

http://www.naturalnews.com/037310_Barack_Obama_Monsanto_lobbyist.html

Here is a quote from the article that is interesting... "Because this is an election season, people will say, "But what about Romney? Is he any better?" I see no indication that he is. The point, however, is that we are talking about a sitting president here, a president who presented himself, and was believed by many to be, an extraordinary departure from politics as usual.

Not only was that a wrong assessment, Obama was lying all along. He was, and he still is, Monsanto's man in Washington.

To those people who fight for GMO labeling, and against the decimation of the food supply and the destruction of human health, but still believe Obama is a beacon in bleak times:

Wake up.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *journeymom*
> 
> Why does their inclusion of 3rd party candidates causes you to disagree with their placement of Obama?


Please read what I wrote. It is not their inclusion of 3rd party candidates that causes me to disagree with their placement of Obama. I read their rationale for placing Obama where they did. It is similar to erinmattsmom's arguments in this thread that attempt to minimize the differences between Romney & Obama in order to make a case for voting third party (The Repub and Dem are exactly the same so the spoiler effect doesn't matter). Also, I know that Obama's views are closer to mine than they are to Romney's.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeckyBird*
> 
> My interpretation: With Romney, GMOs would still be an issue, along with women's rights. Is that correct?


Yes.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeckyBird*
> 
> Question: Do you agree with Obama's decision to appoint Michael Taylor to the FDA, while on his campaign trail he made promises to change GMO policies? Do you think he's done anything wrong here?


I disagree with the appointment, certainly. He did do something wrong. It's my biggest criticism of Obama.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeckyBird*
> 
> Women are safe, breathe a sigh of relief.


Yes!

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *BeckyBird*
> 
> However, why on earth does Obama get a free pass for his GMO-friendly behavior? This is a HUGE deal! Your signature says "GO Organic", and if that's true, then how can you support what Obama has done? I get it, he's better than Romney. Let's move past that. But still, what he's done is not ok with me. I disagree with his actions concerning GMOs, and as someone who is pro-organic, how can you let this slide? Maybe GMOs are not important to you, and then this all makes sense to me--how and why you so easily dismiss this issue.
> 
> He doesn't get a free pass. All I ever said was that he was better than Romney. And since Obama and Romney were my only choices, I voted for Obama. That doesn't mean I support everything he's done. I don't need to support everything a person has done in order to vote for that person. I just have to think they'd be better than the alternative. Yes, the GMO issue is a huge deal. I agree. I do not support what he has done on this issue. It's not okay with me either. I'm not letting it slide. I'm just glad that he wasn't replaced by the worse person. The GMO issue is very important to me. Romney probably would have required genetically modified DNA in all municipal water supplies (yes, I'm exaggerating), as well as doing horrible things with a bunch of other issues that are just as important to me as GMOs. I don't dismiss this issue at all. My biggest election result disappointment was that California didn't pass their GMO labeling law.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *BeckyBird*
> 
> This is not an unfounded attack on Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you've gotten your hands on a real criticism of him, for sure.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *BeckyBird*
> 
> I just am trying to understand why it's so easy to move past Obama's GMO mistakes.
> 
> I'm not moving past it. I'm just glad about other issues and I'm glad Romney didn't win.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *BeckyBird*
> 
> I am trying to figure out why a go-organic person can so easily dismiss it. I don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't dismiss it. Obama is just better than the other guy on other issues that I care just as much about.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> To those people who fight for GMO labeling, and against the decimation of the food supply and the destruction of human health, but still believe Obama is a beacon in bleak times:
> 
> Wake up.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

GMOs are not the only issue in the world. Very important, absolutely, but there are many other very important issues. I find Obama to be *much* better than Romney where most of them are concerned.


----------



## beckybird

Sustainer, thank you for taking the time to respond. We disagree on many issues, but I am glad to know that the GMO issue is important to you. This is an area where people from different political views can join together to help make a difference. I am open to any suggestions as to what we should do now. It seems like this will have to be a grassroots movement!


----------



## CatsCradle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeckyBird*
> 
> Sustainer, thank you for taking the time to respond. We disagree on many issues, but I am glad to know that the GMO issue is important to you. This is an area where people from different political views can join together to help make a difference. I am open to any suggestions as to what we should do now. It seems like this will have to be a grassroots movement!


Agreed. I think a lot of these issues are grassroots issues. As someone who cares deeply about food and the politics of food, I think it is going to take a lot more than where a president stands on the issue. I think that most good things have come from the bottom up, so to speak. Not enough people in America care about the GMO issue and it's likely that many people are unaware of it. We have a huge food crisis in America, and it is not being recognized by the general public. I think there needs to be education from the grassroots level. The more people know, the more people will become informed, the more people will demand action from politicians. I don't think you can expect politicians (most of them) to be versed in all the issues that important to a few that hold the knowledge. There has to be public demand. There has to be a resounding "No" we're not going to take this anymore.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeckyBird*
> 
> This is an area where people from different political views can join together to help make a difference.












Quote:



> Originally Posted by *BeckyBird*
> 
> I am open to any suggestions as to what we should do now.


Well, what worked for Monsanto was to inundate people with false information. So maybe we should try inundating people with correct information.

We have, on our side, the fact that, nationwide, 90% of people want GMO labeling. We need to loudly demand that our elected officials take action. We need protests and we need to speak out publicly. We need to spread the word and keep the issue alive.

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *BeckyBird*
> 
> It seems like this will have to be a grassroots movement!












Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CatsCradle*
> 
> I think that most good things have come from the bottom up, so to speak. Not enough people in America care about the GMO issue and it's likely that many people are unaware of it. We have a huge food crisis in America, and it is not being recognized by the general public. I think there needs to be education from the grassroots level. The more people know, the more people will become informed, the more people will demand action from politicians. I don't think you can expect politicians (most of them) to be versed in all the issues that important to a few that hold the knowledge. There has to be public demand. There has to be a resounding "No" we're not going to take this anymore.


----------



## beckybird

I know this thread was about the 2012 elections, but now that they are over, let's talk about GMO's lol!

I thought this might be of interest:

Washington County Bans GMO Cultivation

http://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/washington-county-bans-gmo-cultivation.html

Small steps!


----------



## Sustainer

I do think GMOs are relevant to the 2012 election discussion, since it was on the ballot in California. I was glad to hear about the county that banned GMOs. I hope Monsanto doesn't take them to court.


----------



## erinmattsmom88

Interesting... I saw a petition on the white house website titled... "Prevent Genetically Engineered & Modified organisms from being introduced into our bodies, food supply & environment." It only has 3800+ signatures and needs 25K by December 13th... not sure why the deadline? Anyway, just thought I'd add that to the conversation. Would anything be done if it reached the 25K signatures? I'm thinking... no. But, maybe if enough people sign it, there would be hope?


----------



## journeymom

If enough people sign it in time the Administration will read it and issue a response.

Why the deadline? I imagine they receive tons of these petitions all the time. It wouldn't be fair to the 30,000 people who signed the secession petition in the first few days after Obama was re-elected to have to compete for the Administration's attention with the petition to release the Area 51 records that's only gathered 3,000 signatures over several months. One issue is more time-sensitive and important to more people than the other issue? I dunno.


----------



## Dakotacakes

Also you get more chances than just one. If the GMO doesn't get the 25,000 by Dec 13, someone can start a new petition that says the same thing with a new deadline. In fact, I think those will be taken more seriously, after all the secession nonesense dies down and are given responses. Keep monitoring and watching for new petitions regarding this important issue.


----------

