Author Topic: Politics, Religion, etc.  (Read 99481 times)

Robb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4928
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #675 on: October 20, 2016, 10:15:32 am »
Hillary will win in a landslide.  Trump will be lucky to lose by 15 million votes.  Why watch?  This thing was over weeks ago.

JR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13654
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #676 on: October 20, 2016, 10:26:34 am »
Hillary will win in a landslide.  Trump will be lucky to lose by 15 million votes.  Why watch?  This thing was over weeks ago.

Just wondering Robb, does it look like Evan McMullin is going to win Utah?  That's starting to become a pretty amazing story.

Robb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4928
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #677 on: October 20, 2016, 02:26:18 pm »
I would say he is the favorite at this point.  Mormons, who are very conservative in general still aren't going to hold their nose and vote for someone of Trump's ilk.  And they aren't voting for McMullen because of his faith, they like him for his conservative approach.  I still haven't decided on him myself, but I am taking a close look.  I think if the election tightens and it looks like Trump has any chance of winning,  Utah will vote for him to try to keep Hillary out.  But if it stays like this with Hillary running away with it they'll vote for McMullen.  Just my opinion, could be dead wrong though. 

Bennett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7414
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #678 on: October 23, 2016, 02:03:06 pm »
Life-long Cubs fan Hillary Clinton changed her allegiance to the Mets when she moved to New York and ran for the Senate.  I wonder if she is changing back.

CurtOne

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27253
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #679 on: October 23, 2016, 02:04:18 pm »
She'll root for the Indians.  She needs Ohio.  Illinois and New York are in the bag.

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #680 on: October 23, 2016, 03:31:53 pm »
                     

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15854
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #681 on: October 26, 2016, 08:28:39 pm »
Uh, then how is it foolish for someone t vote for a 3rd party candidate?

And, if you answer, it would probably be best to move this to the Politics thread.

Odds are an estimate, and even a one in a hundred shot occasionally wins.  Voting for someone who had virtually zero chance makes no sense if there is another candidate that has a better chance of defeating someone that would be a disaster.

One large reason why the odds are 100 to 1 against is because of idiots who are allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

guest61

  • Guest
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #682 on: October 26, 2016, 08:33:14 pm »
They both suck and you all know it.
Agree Agree x 2 View List

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15854
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #683 on: October 26, 2016, 09:33:08 pm »
Absolutly.  But Hillary is so much worse than Trump that anyone that considers himself conservative on many issues is foolish to withhold his vote for Trump merely because he wants to make some statement that no one will ever hear.

JR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13654
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #684 on: October 26, 2016, 09:34:08 pm »
Perfect is fighting a far less formidable enemy than good when it comes to this election. 

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15854
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #685 on: October 26, 2016, 09:47:38 pm »
Compared to Hillary, Trump is good.

Playtwo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8788
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #686 on: October 26, 2016, 09:49:27 pm »
Idiot.

Playtwo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8788
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #687 on: October 26, 2016, 09:51:38 pm »
You're evidently not too bright either.

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #688 on: October 26, 2016, 10:23:01 pm »
Odds are an estimate, and even a one in a hundred shot occasionally wins.  Voting for someone who had virtually zero chance makes no sense if there is another candidate that has a better chance of defeating someone that would be a disaster.

One large reason why the odds are 100 to 1 against is because of idiots who are allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

Perfect being the enemy of the good....

So between Hillary and Trump, which one is "the good?"
« Last Edit: October 26, 2016, 10:29:20 pm by Jes Beard »

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #689 on: October 26, 2016, 10:28:40 pm »
Absolutly.  But Hillary is so much worse than Trump that anyone that considers himself conservative on many issues is foolish to withhold his vote for Trump merely because he wants to make some statement that no one will ever hear.

A write-in vote is a statement that no one will ever hear.

That is not remotely the case with a vote for the Libertarian Party.

In the entire history of the United States, never would the change of one vote alter the outcome of the election.  So with hundreds of millions of votes cast, never once has it happened.  Part of this is because of the nature of the electoral college system.  For your individual vote to determine the outcome of the election, not only would the outcome of the election have to depend on the Electoral College votes of your particular state, but the vote in your state would have to have been so close that changing your vote would change which candidate had the most votes in your state.

What DOES happen when you vote for a candidate is NOT that you determine the outcome of an election, but your vote gets added to a candidates vote total to help provide what the candidate and supporters will declare is a "mandate" if they win, or which will do little to nothing if they lose.  But a "mandate" for what if you vote for Hillary?  A mandate for more undeclared war in the Middle East with unreviewable kill-list drone strikes killing thousands of innocents who just happened to be nearby?  A "mandate" for or against trade agreements?  A "mandate" for or against increasing immigration from Syria and other war torn nations?  A "mandate" to be female?  Voting for Trump would produce even less of a "mandate" since the guy has taken multiple sides on virtually every issue.

Voting for a third party candidate, however, generally amounts to increasing the vote total for a very clear set of principles, which those holding office know they have to attend to if they hope to get those voters in the future and which those seeking office in the future know they have to promise to attend to in order to attract that large block of voters with clearly defined desires.

In fact if you vote for either Hillary or Trump the reasons for that vote will be so blurred by personality, character issues, and absolutely ambiguous, contradictory or clearly misrepresented positions each have taken, that no one, not even the winner, will be able to sort out what positions those voting for either of the two major candidates want pursued.

That is not the case with a vote cast for a Libertarian candidate.  It is quite clear what positions those in office, or in the future SEEKING office, will have to advance and pursue in order to win support of those voters.

If you truly want your vote to count and to make a difference, you actually need to vote for the third party candidate most closely reflecting your views.  Votes cast for either winner or the loser in the presidential race end up being lost in the noise and do nothing whatsoever.

Before you write this off as a foolish approach which would never make a difference in American politics, particularly when the 3rd party candidates never attract more than a couple of percentage points of the electorate, look again to our nation's history. 

In the 1920's the Socialists began drawing 2-3% of the vote, largely behind Eugene Debs.  The never reached 5%, only got to 4% once, and yet withing 15 years, 9 of the ten positions in their platform had been enacted into law as members of Congress and presidents sought to win over that identifiable block of voters which might well have been enough to turn the outcome of an election.

The problem with Nadar was not that he drew votes from Gore (and if Gore had been elected, 9/11 still would have happened, we still would have invaded Aghanistan and still would have invaded Iraq -- in other words, there would have been little difference), it is that he did not CONTINUE running and drawing 2-3% of the vote in support of clearly identifiable positions which one or both of the major parties would have had to embrace in order to attract those voters.

I'm a libertarian.  I believe in reducing the size, scope and power of government, particularly the central government; I believe government tries to regulate our lives far too much and does it very poorly; I believe government should stop picking winners and losers in the marketplace and allow consumers to decide outcomes; I believe conduct which does not directly hurt another person should be legal; and I believe that voting for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate, is the best way to register that set of concerns in such a manner as to assure that politicians pay attention to them.  It in fact is the ONLY way they will pay attention to them.