The third evil: Not voting at all

[BlackAsCoal]

When you don't vote for the lesser evil, the greater evil wins.

And either way, evil wins. Why not vote for . . . just off the top of my head here . . . someone who ISN'T EVIL?!

Because, they can't win.

That means, you get nothing.

As opposed to getting . . . what? Bragging rights? "Look at the evil asshole who's running the country, instead of that other evil asshole who isn't. I picked the winning asshole!" Yay for you.

I SOO agree with that statement.

In fact, all of the war crimes, the illegal drone strikes, the illegal invasion of Libya, all the innocent children that have died, etc.

All of it, all that blood belongs on the hands of those who voted for the last President.


Likewise, for those who voted for W. and his neo-con agenda, when he led us into war, when he LIED, knowing full well there were no WMD in Iraq, and that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, the chaos in the middle east is now on the hands of those voters.

It's all because they did not do the research and understand who these people were.

Standing Ovation good brother.

 

[FA_Q2]

Screw bragging rights, they are the ones that possess the guilt and blame.

The truth is, if we keep going along with the idea of "voting for the lesser evil", then we have no right to complain that we're never offered any choice BUT evil. If we want good candidates, then at some point, we're going to have to demand them by actually VOTING for good candidates, even if it means knowing that the lemmings around us are only concerned with choosing the more popular cliff to jump off of.

What you are suggesting here is comparable to a game.

Let's say you run a marathon. The marathon has a planned path in which you must follow in order to win. But you don't like the route, so you create your own going through allies and cutting through back yards.

When you get to the finish line, you only think you won something, but because you didn't go by the rules of the game, you go home empty handed.

That's what voting in America has been about for a long time and continues today. Unless both parties piss everybody off at the same time, voting for a third party is just throwing your vote away. Sure, it may make you feel good, but you've accomplished nothing in the process.

Right now constituents in both parties are sending their leaders a message. It's not much, but it's a start, because if you really want to change our politics, the only place to do that is in the primaries.

As for decent candidates, you will never get them because of the media slander. Look at what they did to Romney going back to his high school years to bash the guy. Same thing with Bush's 20 year old DUI. Look at what they tried to do with Trump talking with women he dated 30 years ago for crying out loud. This is what the media does.

As long as we enjoy this kind of tabloid reporting and give them attention, you will never have a group of decent candidates. That's because these media clowns can make Pope John Paul look like a underhanded criminal if they wanted to.

You have accomplished is lessening the power of the party that is not supporting your wishes but can. IOW, if they continue to lose because you do not vote for them they WILL change. If you continue to vote for them then the one thing that is guaranteed is that they will not change - they are winning.

That is what your continued support for them garners - assured continuance of the policies that you may not support in fear of the other policies that you also do not support.

Not at all.

What people fail to realize is that not every Democrat believes in the same thing as other Democrats. Same holds true for Republicans.

This is why I always say the most important election is the primaries, because the primaries tells the party where their constituents are at.

At DumBama's first run, we ran McCain, a clear RINO. Conservatives stayed home. Did the RNC change or learn anything? No. Then we ran Romney, another RINO. Once again we lost. Did the RNC learn anything?

This strategy of "teaching the party a lesson" simply doesn't work. What would work is if we all stuck together against the liberal destruction machine no matter who ends up the nominee. That's what would really scare the hell out of the Democrats.

But as long as our factions have this attitude of "I'm taking my ball and going home" is simply music to the ears of the Democrats. They want us fighting; they want us hitting each other over the heads; they want us to vow to vote in an opponent, a third party, not at all. They love it!

I didn't vote for McCain, I voted against Obama. I didn't vote for Romney, I voted against Obama. I'm not going to vote for Trump, I'm voting to keep Hillary out of the White House.

Because they stayed home. I have REPEATEDLY stated that teaches them nothing. If they had voted for another party it would have been different - those votes would have stood behind another agenda and revealed what they were looking for. Staying home does nothing - there is no giant neon sign showing those prospective politicians what they need to do in order to regain that vote.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because they stayed home. I have REPEATEDLY stated that teaches them nothing. If they had voted for another party it would have been different - those votes would have stood behind another agenda and revealed what they were looking for. Staying home does nothing - there is no giant neon sign showing those prospective politicians what they need to do in order to regain that vote.

They're not looking to reagin the vote. That's the point.

So you vote third party and the Republicans lose three maybe four percent. What they know is that if they do what it takes to "regain" your vote standing behind a conservative, they will lose three or four percent of the establishment to a third party. It's a wash.

It's a zero sum gain. Or to look at it in the modern sense, Trump is going to chase away some conservatives and some establishments. When you consider the amount of Democrats that will fill that gap, they really don't lose much at all. In fact, they might gain voters this election between them, the Independents, and perhaps some new voters.

If we can keep the Congress and White House Republican regardless of what kind of Republican, we can work on changing the party from within. But we have to have unity between us first. That's how the Democrats beat us--unity.

I can't remember the last time one of "my" candidates ran for our party since Reagan.

 

[Skull Pilot]

 

[Cecilie1200]

Because they stayed home. I have REPEATEDLY stated that teaches them nothing. If they had voted for another party it would have been different - those votes would have stood behind another agenda and revealed what they were looking for. Staying home does nothing - there is no giant neon sign showing those prospective politicians what they need to do in order to regain that vote.

They're not looking to reagin the vote. That's the point.

So you vote third party and the Republicans lose three maybe four percent. What they know is that if they do what it takes to "regain" your vote standing behind a conservative, they will lose three or four percent of the establishment to a third party. It's a wash.

It's a zero sum gain. Or to look at it in the modern sense, Trump is going to chase away some conservatives and some establishments. When you consider the amount of Democrats that will fill that gap, they really don't lose much at all. In fact, they might gain voters this election between them, the Independents, and perhaps some new voters.

If we can keep the Congress and White House Republican regardless of what kind of Republican, we can work on changing the party from within. But we have to have unity between us first. That's how the Democrats beat us--unity.

I can't remember the last time one of "my" candidates ran for our party since Reagan.

They look to regain the vote IF they know the votes are actually going to be cast. That's the point. They don't care if you're going to stay home; that's fine with them. But if you're going to vote, they don't want you voting for someone else.

It is not always the case that "Republican lose maybe three or four percent" . . . unless people are dumb enough to buy into the marketing ploy that there are only two parties to choose from. Remember Ross Perot, the hand grenade with the Dumbo ears who gave us President Bill Clinton (for which I will never forgive the little pusbag, but that's neither here nor there)?

What they know is that if they can buffalo you into believing you HAVE to choose one of the two Big Parties, or just stay home, then they can do whatever they want, as long as they want, and flip you the bird.

 

[MisterBeale]

Because they stayed home. I have REPEATEDLY stated that teaches them nothing. If they had voted for another party it would have been different - those votes would have stood behind another agenda and revealed what they were looking for. Staying home does nothing - there is no giant neon sign showing those prospective politicians what they need to do in order to regain that vote.

They're not looking to reagin the vote. That's the point.

So you vote third party and the Republicans lose three maybe four percent. What they know is that if they do what it takes to "regain" your vote standing behind a conservative, they will lose three or four percent of the establishment to a third party. It's a wash.

It's a zero sum gain. Or to look at it in the modern sense, Trump is going to chase away some conservatives and some establishments. When you consider the amount of Democrats that will fill that gap, they really don't lose much at all. In fact, they might gain voters this election between them, the Independents, and perhaps some new voters.

If we can keep the Congress and White House Republican regardless of what kind of Republican, we can work on changing the party from within. But we have to have unity between us first. That's how the Democrats beat us--unity.

I can't remember the last time one of "my" candidates ran for our party since Reagan.

They look to regain the vote IF they know the votes are actually going to be cast. That's the point. They don't care if you're going to stay home; that's fine with them. But if you're going to vote, they don't want you voting for someone else.

It is not always the case that "Republican lose maybe three or four percent" . . . unless people are dumb enough to buy into the marketing ploy that there are only two parties to choose from. Remember Ross Perot, the hand grenade with the Dumbo ears who gave us President Bill Clinton (for which I will never forgive the little pusbag, but that's neither here nor there)?

What they know is that if they can buffalo you into believing you HAVE to choose one of the two Big Parties, or just stay home, then they can do whatever they want, as long as they want, and flip you the bird.

Elites care very much if you stay home.

It terrifies them.

That is why they made a law in Australia compelling people with a fine if they did not vote. They don't want the majority of the populace to see how illegitimate the system that the oligarchy has put in place. Which candidate wins, matters to them, but not as much as the appearance that the system has legitimacy. Remember, they own all the candidates. Once the people realize that none of the candidates represent their interests, they realize that the system is not legitimate.


Think about it for just one minute. If slaves in the antebellum south were allowed to vote for whom they would like to have be their slave master, and by doing so, it legitimized their slavery, do you think they would have voted? If you were enslaved, would have have voted for your master?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Because they stayed home. I have REPEATEDLY stated that teaches them nothing. If they had voted for another party it would have been different - those votes would have stood behind another agenda and revealed what they were looking for. Staying home does nothing - there is no giant neon sign showing those prospective politicians what they need to do in order to regain that vote.

They're not looking to reagin the vote. That's the point.

So you vote third party and the Republicans lose three maybe four percent. What they know is that if they do what it takes to "regain" your vote standing behind a conservative, they will lose three or four percent of the establishment to a third party. It's a wash.

It's a zero sum gain. Or to look at it in the modern sense, Trump is going to chase away some conservatives and some establishments. When you consider the amount of Democrats that will fill that gap, they really don't lose much at all. In fact, they might gain voters this election between them, the Independents, and perhaps some new voters.

If we can keep the Congress and White House Republican regardless of what kind of Republican, we can work on changing the party from within. But we have to have unity between us first. That's how the Democrats beat us--unity.

I can't remember the last time one of "my" candidates ran for our party since Reagan.

They look to regain the vote IF they know the votes are actually going to be cast. That's the point. They don't care if you're going to stay home; that's fine with them. But if you're going to vote, they don't want you voting for someone else.

It is not always the case that "Republican lose maybe three or four percent" . . . unless people are dumb enough to buy into the marketing ploy that there are only two parties to choose from. Remember Ross Perot, the hand grenade with the Dumbo ears who gave us President Bill Clinton (for which I will never forgive the little pusbag, but that's neither here nor there)?

What they know is that if they can buffalo you into believing you HAVE to choose one of the two Big Parties, or just stay home, then they can do whatever they want, as long as they want, and flip you the bird.

Elites care very much if you stay home.

It terrifies them.

That is why they made a law in Australia compelling people with a fine if they did not vote. They don't want the majority of the populace to see how illegitimate the system that the oligarchy has put in place. Which candidate wins, matters to them, but not as much as the appearance that the system has legitimacy. Remember, they own all the candidates. Once the people realize that none of the candidates represent their interests, they realize that the system is not legitimate.


Think about it for just one minute. If slaves in the antebellum south were allowed to vote for whom they would like to have be their slave master, and by doing so, it legitimized their slavery, do you think they would have voted? If you were enslaved, would have have voted for your master?

I can't speak for Australia, but I think the elites here are just fine with people being apathetic and staying home . . . unless they're unable to get enough likely voters to support them, in which case we suddenly start seeing a rash of "Get Out The Vote" drives.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Elites care very much if you stay home.

It terrifies them.

That is why they made a law in Australia compelling people with a fine if they did not vote. They don't want the majority of the populace to see how illegitimate the system that the oligarchy has put in place. Which candidate wins, matters to them, but not as much as the appearance that the system has legitimacy. Remember, they own all the candidates. Once the people realize that none of the candidates represent their interests, they realize that the system is not legitimate.

The problem in our country is we have way too many people voting.

If it were up to me, only people knowledgable of politics and policies would be allowed to vote. That alone would give us a much better selection of candidates than we currently have. For the longest time, people have voted on candidates by the way they look, they way they smile, the way they laugh, their gender, their party, their ethnic background.........

So of course we will never get any real good candidates. A lot of people vote on representatives for every other thing EXCEPT issues and ideas.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Elites care very much if you stay home.

It terrifies them.

That is why they made a law in Australia compelling people with a fine if they did not vote. They don't want the majority of the populace to see how illegitimate the system that the oligarchy has put in place. Which candidate wins, matters to them, but not as much as the appearance that the system has legitimacy. Remember, they own all the candidates. Once the people realize that none of the candidates represent their interests, they realize that the system is not legitimate.

The problem in our country is we have way too many people voting.

If it were up to me, only people knowledgable of politics and policies would be allowed to vote. That alone would give us a much better selection of candidates than we currently have. For the longest time, people have voted on candidates by the way they look, they way they smile, the way they laugh, their gender, their party, their ethnic background.........

So of course we will never get any real good candidates. A lot of people vote on representatives for every other thing EXCEPT issues and ideas.

You're not wrong. There's a reason why voting used to be limited to property owners: having a stake in the system (beyond getting handouts) tends to motivate one to become informed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You're not wrong. There's a reason why voting used to be limited to property owners: having a stake in the system (beyond getting handouts) tends to motivate one to become informed.

What are you saying, that there really is no such thing as Obama Money???

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're not wrong. There's a reason why voting used to be limited to property owners: having a stake in the system (beyond getting handouts) tends to motivate one to become informed.

What are you saying, that there really is no such thing as Obama Money???

That's what I'm saying. Also, Obama does not have a "stash".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You're not wrong. There's a reason why voting used to be limited to property owners: having a stake in the system (beyond getting handouts) tends to motivate one to become informed.

What are you saying, that there really is no such thing as Obama Money???

That's what I'm saying. Also, Obama does not have a "stash".

Now I'm really confused:

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're not wrong. There's a reason why voting used to be limited to property owners: having a stake in the system (beyond getting handouts) tends to motivate one to become informed.

What are you saying, that there really is no such thing as Obama Money???

That's what I'm saying. Also, Obama does not have a "stash".

Now I'm really confused:

I'd say she's the one who's confused. Pretty much everyone has said it, as a matter of fact.

 

[FA_Q2]

You're not wrong. There's a reason why voting used to be limited to property owners: having a stake in the system (beyond getting handouts) tends to motivate one to become informed.

What are you saying, that there really is no such thing as Obama Money???

That's what I'm saying. Also, Obama does not have a "stash".

He only has to make the masses believe it is coming. Its actual ex stance is irrelevant

 

[TheOldSchool]

I don't mind when people choose not to vote. It just irritates me to no end when those same people try to open their mouths to bit@h, whine, and complain. Oh, NO - sorry, you forfeited that right when you sat your ass down on the sidelines and chose to do nothing.

 

[easyt65]

Personally, I usually encourage as many liberals as possible not to vote, but I haven't had to since 2013.

In 2014 a horrendous liberal turnout resulted in the historic, tecord-setting ass kicking the Dems got. Since then liberal turnout has only declined, while it was reported that more conservatives turned out to vote in the primaries this year than any other time.

If this trend continues for libs it is predicted turnout for them will be worse this year than 2014.

 

[MisterBeale]

Elites care very much if you stay home.

It terrifies them.

That is why they made a law in Australia compelling people with a fine if they did not vote. They don't want the majority of the populace to see how illegitimate the system that the oligarchy has put in place. Which candidate wins, matters to them, but not as much as the appearance that the system has legitimacy. Remember, they own all the candidates. Once the people realize that none of the candidates represent their interests, they realize that the system is not legitimate.

The problem in our country is we have way too many people voting.

If it were up to me, only people knowledgable of politics and policies would be allowed to vote. That alone would give us a much better selection of candidates than we currently have. For the longest time, people have voted on candidates by the way they look, they way they smile, the way they laugh, their gender, their party, their ethnic background.........

So of course we will never get any real good candidates. A lot of people vote on representatives for every other thing EXCEPT issues and ideas.

That's all right.

None of the candidates have time for "politics and policies" any way. D.C. is all about money, power, and catering to special interests anyway.

Special interests and lobbyists write the legislation, and none of these folks the people vote for even read it anyway, so why should it make a difference if the voters are "knowledgeable?" The folks running and representing them don't know shit either. They're just puppets, it's all an illusion and a shell game. Voting is meaningless, so let the kids participate in their popularity contest already.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're not wrong. There's a reason why voting used to be limited to property owners: having a stake in the system (beyond getting handouts) tends to motivate one to become informed.

What are you saying, that there really is no such thing as Obama Money???

That's what I'm saying. Also, Obama does not have a "stash".

He only has to make the masses believe it is coming. Its actual ex stance is irrelevant

Well, yeah. He can just say the "eeeeevil Republicans stole it".

 

[FA_Q2]

Personally, I usually encourage as many liberals as possible not to vote, but I haven't had to since 2013.

In 2014 a horrendous liberal turnout resulted in the historic, tecord-setting ass kicking the Dems got. Since then liberal turnout has only declined, while it was reported that more conservatives turned out to vote in the primaries this year than any other time.

If this trend continues for libs it is predicted turnout for them will be worse this year than 2014.

The trend will not continue.

The actual trend is that democrat voters turn out in presidential years and off years the opposing party turns out. The dems will be back this year and if the GOP wants to win they are going to have to deal with that.

 

[easyt65]

Personally, I usually encourage as many liberals as possible not to vote, but I haven't had to since 2013.

In 2014 a horrendous liberal turnout resulted in the historic, tecord-setting ass kicking the Dems got. Since then liberal turnout has only declined, while it was reported that more conservatives turned out to vote in the primaries this year than any other time.

If this trend continues for libs it is predicted turnout for them will be worse this year than 2014.

The trend will not continue.

The actual trend is that democrat voters turn out in presidential years and off years the opposing party turns out. The dems will be back this year and if the GOP wants to win they are going to have to deal with that.

And you can GUARANTEE the trend will not continue HOW?