• Is the GOP's stop Trump campaign too late? Speaker Ryan rules himself out as a last minute nominee
    159 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49965072]I am quite puzzled though, if voting third party is so pointless because so relatively few people will do it, then why some of you here so upset by those doing it? If we're not a threat, then what's the concern? After all, we're just "throwing our vote away", and not really counting either way?[/QUOTE] I'm not upset by people voting third party, just the ones calling people sheep and acting like "lesser evil" voting is a complete 180 from the real end goal of democracy, rather than just another way of looking at it [editline]19th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49965072]I don't like Trump or Clinton to any degree, though? Some others here have posted the same as well.[/QUOTE] "you" in a general sense, not literally you
surely the logic of "your independent isn't going to win, so you might as well vote for a mainstream party (99% of the time it's my party i suggest)" is just complete nonsense when the reason that someone is voting for an independent is because of dissatisfaction with mainstream parties
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49965126]surely the logic of "your independent isn't going to win, so you might as well vote for a mainstream party (99% of the time it's my party i suggest)" is just complete nonsense when the reason that someone is voting for an independent is because of dissatisfaction with mainstream parties[/QUOTE] which is why i'm not arguing that scorpius' logic is wrong, just that it's [I]his[/I] logic and that he shouldn't apply it to everyone
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49958849] Trump supporters are just a vocal minority in the GOP, not "the base"[/QUOTE] You'd be surprised by the amount of white trash out there. The white trash might not be the "base" of the GOP, but I'm pretty sure the GOP currently doesn't really have a "base", there's too many varying forms of conservatism The Republicans are just such a hot mess right now, it's amazing
[QUOTE=Atlascore;49965100]Third parties in the US do "suck", literally all you're doing is help the people opposite of your ideals get elected. The closest a third party candidate has gotten to being relevant in recent times was in the early 90's when Ross Perot ran, and all his presence did was weaken the Republican party, handing the election to Bill Clinton.[/QUOTE] If you want me to vote for your party quit letting your party leaders make shitty decisions. If you care so much about my vote sell me on the merits of your candidate, sell me on your public policy. Sell me on the efforts you're actually willing to go to see these decisions put into practice. If you actually cared about the issues these are the points you'd be arguing as opposed to trying to paint this with us or against us bullshit. What you're suggesting is merely a shortcut and dodging the actual work that needs to be done. I don't blame you because it's hard work and I prioritize a bunch of things over it myself. Plenty of people have it hard but there's always time to devote to making things better. If you want something changed you've really got to do it yourself. If you can't be assed to argue the issues or make a decent case for your candidate why should I drop support for the candidates I can be assed to support?
[QUOTE=Pascall;49959370] Regardless if it fits the "this guy is racist" standard that YOU have, it certainly fits mine so like I said people can do whatever the fuck they want but it will never make sense to me and, quite frankly, I don't want to personally associate with anyone who would gladly vote for Trump.[/QUOTE] He's a great example of what I call "latent racism". It's a subtext of white pride that stems from white guilt, the kind of racism that doesn't say "I hate minorities" but the kind that says "blonde hair will be uncommon by 2030! this is a bad thing!" It's [I]heavily implied[/I] racism, and he would be more vocal about it if it wasn't for all the "political correctness". There's a reason most of his supporters have profile pictures with confederate flags
I identify as an early 20th century Progressive/Roosevelt Democrat. Sanders fights for those same values. Why would I vote for someone who doesn't support my values? The ideals I believe in are more valuable to me than any Political Party in existence will be. Even if Bernie loses everything from here on out, I will not compromise my values just for the sake of "Party Unity" because I know that the candidate who doesn't support my ideals, won't support me if I up and decide to vote for them. "I stick my neck out for no party." Bernie or bust.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49965072]I am quite puzzled though, if voting third party is so pointless because so relatively few people will do it, then why some of you here so upset by those doing it? If we're not a threat, then what's the concern? After all, we're just "throwing our vote away", and not really counting either way? [editline]19th March 2016[/editline] I don't like Trump or Clinton to any degree, though? Some others here have posted the same as well.[/QUOTE] We don't live in a perfect world, thats why you gotta vote the "lesser of two evils", I rather vote in who I have 100% agreement with, but that doesn't work. What if the one of the most popular candidates is someone I don't agree with at all, and the other I agree with only on like 30%, I rather have 30% than 0%
[QUOTE=Atlascore;49965348]It's not about "unity" it's about preventing someone that has the total opposite of your values & ideals (along with incredibly regressive social policies) from getting into office.[/quote] That's why we're in this mess, because every time we focus only on beating the other party, we [b]all[/b] lose. [QUOTE=Atlascore;49965348]No one in this thread has given a solid reason for voting third party, practically nobody pays attention to these third parties, and the main stream media doesn't cover them at all so whatever message you're hoping to send isn't getting out.[/QUOTE] I'm not even voting for a third party, I'm writing Bernie's name in, on the off chance that other people write him in as well. I'm not trying to send a message, I'm just doing my duty as a soon to be Ex-Citizen. Besides, if everyone who voted for the party favorite this season, voted for the person who they thought was best for the job, we'd be in a better place. But of course, people cling to the idea that not voting for a particular party is throwing away their vote, while said people go and vote against themselves by electing the lesser of two evils. Hypocrisy thy name is America.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;49965348]It's not about "unity" it's about preventing someone that has the total opposite of your values & ideals (along with incredibly regressive social policies) from getting into office, Trump has literally nothing in common with your views, nor do any of the other remaining GOP candidates. Meanwhile on the Democrat's side you've got Hillary, who has very very little in common with your views but is still way closer to them than any Republican could ever be. No one in this thread has given a solid reason for voting third party, practically nobody pays attention to these third parties, and the main stream media doesn't cover them at all so whatever message you're hoping to send isn't getting out. They've also got no chance of winning anything significant anywhere, as it currently stands ONE representative in one state's house belongs to a third party.[/QUOTE] What I'm reading from articles is that the bigger the "bernie or bust" crowd is, the more influence they have over the Superdelegates deciding to go over to Sanders. Because as retarded as the DNC is, you still (hopefully) have to assume that they do actually want to, like, WIN the election, right?
[QUOTE=Atlascore;49965348]It's not about "unity" it's about preventing someone that has the total opposite of your values & ideals[/QUOTE] Quite frankly both of them clash with my ideals almost equally. I refuse to be convinced that voting third party is a waste of my vote because I dislike both candidates equally. If I had to pick one I'd probably pick Trump but like hell I'm going to vote for him.
RIP GOP, long live democratic party! 8 more years of democratic candidates! and 8 more years after that! Goodbye 5th/6th party system. 24 years of Obama, WOO!
If people actually voted third party you wouldn't be trapped in a two-party system. Shocker, I know.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49965908]RIP GOP, long live democratic party! 8 more years of democratic candidates! and 8 more years after that! Goodbye 5th/6th party system. 24 years of Obama, WOO![/QUOTE] A bit optimistic don't you think, for 8 more years after this cycle? [editline]19th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=EcksDee;49965461]What I'm reading from articles is that the bigger the "bernie or bust" crowd is, the more influence they have over the Superdelegates deciding to go over to Sanders. Because as retarded as the DNC is, you still (hopefully) have to assume that they do actually want to, like, WIN the election, right?[/QUOTE] IIRC, the Bernie or Bust group is insignificantly small amount of Bernie supporters. They just get a lot of attention due to saturating Reddit. [editline]19th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;49965309]We don't live in a perfect world, thats why you gotta vote the "lesser of two evils", I rather vote in who I have 100% agreement with, but that doesn't work. What if the one of the most popular candidates is someone I don't agree with at all, and the other I agree with only on like 30%, I rather have 30% than 0%[/QUOTE] Settling for the status quo doesn't ever change the status quo. No, it's not a perfect world and our political system is even more so imperfect but by continuously supporting it isn't going to change it or reform it for the better. [editline]19th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;49965154]You'd be surprised by the amount of white trash out there. The white trash might not be the "base" of the GOP, but I'm pretty sure the GOP currently doesn't really have a "base", there's too many varying forms of conservatism The Republicans are just such a hot mess right now, it's amazing[/QUOTE] Rural, middle to upper class white families is the GOP base. Sure, there's a lot of subgroups within the GOP but these traits I listed here cover the demographics for almost all of them. [editline]19th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49965093] "you" in a general sense, not literally you[/QUOTE] I'm guessing you think I'm the sole American on the planet that doesn't like both Clinton or Trump, I suppose then?
I can't wait for the GOP to implode and for the sane, reasonable center Republicans to rise up so I can identify with them instead of the libertarians. It's really what the conservatives need, to let go and begin again. A new century requires a new conservative movement.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49966389]I'm guessing you think I'm the sole American on the planet that doesn't like both Clinton or Trump, I suppose then?[/QUOTE] Are you actually [I]trying[/I] to misunderstand me? I literally said that "you" was not targeted at you specifically, and again you're acting like my point is about you Look, I can understand voting based on your ideals alone, regardless of a candidate's electability. Maybe because you're dissatisfied with the way the system works, and this is your way to have your voice heard. Maybe you think that's what democracy is about, and I can respect that. What I don't get is why you think "lesser evil" voting undermines the principles behind it. There is real merit to the logic behind voting like that, and it doesn't necessarily go against democracy itself. Let's say: Candidate A represents 100% of your interests, and has no votes Candidate B represents 50% of your interests, and has roughly half the votes Candidate C represents 12% of your interests, and has the other half Candidate A will never get elected, but I don't blame you for thinking it's your duty to vote for them. What bothers me is that you'd so vehemently deny any credit to the logic of going with the next best thing when the thing after that is much, much worse
[QUOTE=Moronic;49966060]If people actually voted third party you wouldn't be trapped in a two-party system. Shocker, I know.[/QUOTE] Not true. FPTP mathematically guarantees 2 parties.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49966527]Not true. FPTP mathematically guarantees 2 parties.[/QUOTE] It's not a very sustainable system. Already the American political system is showing a lot of strain due to it.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49966629]It's not a very sustainable system. Already the American political system is showing a lot of strain due to it.[/QUOTE] None of this is new. Political parties commit suicide every so often. One of the first parties, the federalists, committed political suicide when they opposed the war of 1812. The Democratic-Republicans were overtaken by a racist populist named Andrew Jackson in the 1830s (the Democratic-Republicans tried to stop him but ultimately couldn't). Jackson founded what is today the Democratic party. The Democrats became a bit like the ba'athists circa 2003 after the civil war, since most democrats were southerners and southerners essentially lost their statehood for a while. The republicans controlled for a while but the democrats got their steam back. Around the early 20th century the Democratic Party started being the pro-union anti-corporation party and people like Woodrow Wilson started breaking up trusts. Teddy Roosevelt got fed up with the republicans and made his own progressive party, and at that point the democrats began their transition from "Racist hicks" to "white upperclass progressives". The republicans oversaw the worst economic downturn in history during the 1920s, and became very unpopular for it, resulting in a constitutional amendment being passed to get the new Democrat president in office ASAP. FDR spent more money than any president prior and really inflated the size of the federal government. Around the 1950s through 1960s, the democrats had a big rift, where all the old racist democrats (dixiecrats) were unhappy with JFK and LBJ passing civil rights acts so they left and joined the republicans. At this point, blacks started almost categorically voting democrat because of the various civil rights acts. Some say that Eisenhower was the last president of that era of republicans before all the southerners joined the republicans. The republicans were still fairly centrist for a while, until the governor of california, Ronald Reagan, took us on a big neo-liberal christian awakening hayride and even dragged the democrats for to the left. After Reagan, the so-called 90s republicans worshipped him and everything they did had to contain some reference to him. They built a fake legacy to show that the republicans DO have a great president since Eisenhower, since their brand had been tainted by Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Bill Clinton was a center-left president who set the stage for the democrats to basically not rock the boat too much and let the republicans walk all over the democrats, and very very slowly did the democratic party progress to the liberal views it is just now starting to endorse (gay marriage, legalization of marijuana). Bernie Sanders has dragged the democratic party far to the left as well, and Donald Trump is another populist candidate like Andrew Jackson seeking to upset the 90s republicans and throw out that whole "Reagan Legacy" thing.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49966681]None of this is new. Political parties commit suicide every so often. One of the first parties, the federalists, committed political suicide when they opposed the war of 1812. The Democratic-Republicans were overtaken by a racist populist named Andrew Jackson in the 1830s (the Democratic-Republicans tried to stop him but ultimately couldn't). Jackson founded what is today the Democratic party. The Democrats became a bit like the ba'athists circa 2003 after the civil war, since most democrats were southerners and southerners essentially lost their statehood for a while. The republicans controlled for a while but the democrats got their steam back. Around the early 20th century the Democratic Party started being the pro-union anti-corporation party and people like Woodrow Wilson started breaking up trusts. Teddy Roosevelt got fed up with the republicans and made his own progressive party, and at that point the democrats began their transition from "Racist hicks" to "white upperclass progressives". The republicans oversaw the worst economic downturn in history during the 1920s, and became very unpopular for it, resulting in a constitutional amendment being passed to get the new Democrat president in office ASAP. FDR spent more money than any president prior and really inflated the size of the federal government. Around the 1950s through 1960s, the democrats had a big rift, where all the old racist democrats (dixiecrats) were unhappy with JFK and LBJ passing civil rights acts so they left and joined the republicans. At this point, blacks started almost categorically voting democrat because of the various civil rights acts. Some say that Eisenhower was the last president of that era of republicans before all the southerners joined the republicans. The republicans were still fairly centrist for a while, until the governor of california, Ronald Reagan, took us on a big neo-liberal christian awakening hayride and even dragged the democrats for to the left. After Reagan, the so-called 90s republicans worshipped him and everything they did had to contain some reference to him. They built a fake legacy to show that the republicans DO have a great president since Eisenhower, since their brand had been tainted by Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Bill Clinton was a center-left president who set the stage for the democrats to basically not rock the boat too much and let the republicans walk all over the democrats, and very very slowly did the democratic party progress to the liberal views it is just now starting to endorse (gay marriage, legalization of marijuana). Bernie Sanders has dragged the democratic party far to the left as well, and Donald Trump is another populist candidate like Andrew Jackson seeking to upset the 90s republicans and throw out that whole "Reagan Legacy" thing.[/QUOTE] To be fair the "Party of Reagan" shit is so stupid when you consider that he probably couldn't win the nomination even if he really wanted to if he could run in the GOP of this decade. He'd be shouted out as a RINO in seconds. Plus too part of that legacy is always promising to cut taxes and spend tons of money on the military while simultaneously claiming to be "fiscally conservative", "small government" Maybe if Trump manages to demolish the republican party they can come back as an actually conservative party instead of the far right christian mess it is today.
[QUOTE=Durandal;49967112]To be fair the "Party of Reagan" shit is so stupid when you consider that he probably couldn't win the nomination even if he really wanted to if he could run in the GOP of this decade. He'd be shouted out as a RINO in seconds. Plus too part of that legacy is always promising to cut taxes and spend tons of money on the military while simultaneously claiming to be "fiscally conservative" Maybe if Trump manages to demolish the republican party they can come back as an actually conservative party instead of the far right christian mess it is today.[/QUOTE] fiscal conservatism is about spending on what you need and cutting what isn't needed and what is waste, also working at a balanced budget. regardless, building up the military while cutting everything else is fucking stupid.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49967160]fiscal conservatism is about spending on what you need and cutting what isn't needed and what is waste, also working at a balanced budget. regardless, building up the military while cutting everything else is fucking stupid.[/QUOTE] Yeah that's why I say they're so full of shit. They claim to be fiscally conservative and for smaller government yet blow huge swaths of money away on military spending, surveillance, and all sorts of other things that really clashes with the idea that they are indeed fiscally conservative small government party.
[QUOTE=Durandal;49967185]Yeah that's why I say they're so full of shit. They claim to be fiscally conservative and for smaller government yet blow huge swaths of money away on military spending, surveillance, and all sorts of other things that really clashes with the idea that they are indeed fiscally conservative small government party.[/QUOTE] Smaller government has different meanings, including being in regards to internal policy, where the states are left to mostly govern themselves internally while the federal government interacts with the outside world.
[QUOTE=Durandal;49967185]Yeah that's why I say they're so full of shit. They claim to be fiscally conservative and for smaller government yet blow huge swaths of money away on military spending, surveillance, and all sorts of other things that really clashes with the idea that they are indeed fiscally conservative small government party.[/QUOTE] Keeping a military as large as the US Armed Forces up to date with the latest equipment and ensuring adequate compensation of the veterans and comfortable living quarters for the individuals currently serving, as well as continuing research & development is something that is needed. So, they aren't completely full of shit. What I would consider military waste is something like the Star Wars program and the F-35. Start shutting down some bases and transfer the personnel to other bases, end the arms deals to foreign countries known to fund enemies of the U.S. They're already laying off some personnel as of last year iirc.
That's something I find weird, republicans are thought to be the fiscally responsible party. But guess which presidency is when the national debt began to skyrocket? Good ol' Reagan. And now we've got jokesters like Ted Cruz who think that we can cut taxes by a lot while still going to the middle east to kill the scary foreign people without acquiring a lot of debt just like with Bush's war.
Small government and American political parties in a nutshell: Democrats - small government abroad, big government at home GOP - small government at home, big government abroad At home, meaning spending money on welfare, education, social security, healthcare Abroad, meaning military spending, aggressive foreign policies, 'leading' military alliances [NATO] Of course, this is an [I][U]extreme[/U][/I] generalization and both the GOP and the Dems have some policies that flip what I listed here, but for the general consensus this is what the parties stand far. For those who want small government at home [I]and[/I] abroad, or want (for whatever reason) big government at home [I]and[/I] abroad, we have no candidates and we must make due with whichever party's candidate has the best balance when the norm is that they haven't any at all. [editline]19th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=LtKyle2;49967257]Keeping a military as large as the US Armed Forces up to date with the latest equipment and ensuring adequate compensation of the veterans and comfortable living quarters for the individuals currently serving, as well as continuing research & development is something that is needed. So, they aren't completely full of shit. What I would consider military waste is something like the Star Wars program and the F-35. Start shutting down some bases and transfer the personnel to other bases, end the arms deals to foreign countries known to fund enemies of the U.S. They're already laying off some personnel as of last year iirc.[/QUOTE] The easiest, and probably the mandatory, first step toward cutting wasteful military spending is seriously cutting back America's aggressive foreign policy and reorganizing our diplomacy around the world. The less conflicts we stir up or get involved in, the less sizable military is need and thus cuts in not just new shit programs like the F-35 but basic stuff like material, personnel and such can be pulled back drastically.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49967257]Keeping a military as large as the US Armed Forces up to date with the latest equipment and ensuring adequate compensation of the veterans and comfortable living quarters for the individuals currently serving, as well as continuing research & development is something that is needed. So, they aren't completely full of shit. What I would consider military waste is something like the Star Wars program and the F-35. Start shutting down some bases and transfer the personnel to other bases, end the arms deals to foreign countries known to fund enemies of the U.S. They're already laying off some personnel as of last year iirc.[/QUOTE] I would say you're right [QUOTE]For three years, the Army in numerous Congressional hearings has pushed a plan that essentially would have suspended tank building and upgrades in the U.S. for the first time since World War II. The Army suggested that production lines could be kept open through foreign sales. Each time, Congress has pushed back. In December, Congress won again in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 that funded $120 million for Abrams tank upgrades.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/01/28/pentagon-tells-congress-to-stop-buying-equipment-it-doesnt-need.html"]source[/URL] You can look it up on google about the pentagon and its tank problem and it seems to be a yearly thing and it doesn't matter if its a republican controlled congress or not almost all the republicans (and also almost all the democrats too) vote for more shit it doesn't need. [URL="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/9/lawmakers-force-pentagon-to-buy-tanks-keep-ships-a/?page=all"]"Lawmakers force Pentagon to buy tanks, keep ships and planes it doesn’t need"[/URL] (from 2013) [URL="http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-again-buys-abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want.html"]"Congress Again Buys Abrams Tanks the Army Doesn't Want"[/URL] (From 2014) I know hundreds of millions of dollars on unneeded tanks is a drop in the bucket in the massive several hundred billion dollarydoo defense budget but I'm willing to bet there is much more waste than that if you dig a little more. Plus too veteran care (from what I've heard) is pretty shit tier. Maybe Congress can stop buying tanks and do something about veteran care.
A case of waste that we can agree on, the problem in here lies in the people in power being bought by military contractors. Keeping a military up to date like I said is important, it doesn't have to be new units built every year like you pointed out but it still needs to be done every now and then. I guess what I'm trying to say is; increasing spending for the military is sometimes needed and should be cut when we don't need it. When someone says they're fiscally conservative and increase spending for the military doesn't mean they're necessarily full of shit. Sometimes it has to be done but obviously there is no present need for us to do so. The biggest fault is congress controlling the purse, when they should just be handing the budget to the military and letting them spend it themselves.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49967467]A case of waste that we can agree on, the problem in here lies in the people in power being bought by military contractors. Keeping a military up to date like I said is important, it doesn't have to be new units built every year like you pointed out but it still needs to be done every now and then. I guess what I'm trying to say is; increasing spending for the military is sometimes needed and should be cut when we don't need it. When someone says they're fiscally conservative and increase spending for the military doesn't mean they're necessarily full of shit. Sometimes it has to be done but obviously there is no present need for us to do so. The biggest fault is congress controlling the purse, when they should just be handing the budget to the military and letting them spend it themselves.[/QUOTE] This and this. Too often we see projects greenlit that serve no purpose other thsn to line contractor's pockets
Okay so let me ask this. If Trump gets the nomination, even if he doesn't win the general election, could that serve as a way to finally kick the GOP's ass into gear about unfucking their party. Or is this more of an issue that GOP voters are becoming more vocal and radical (not in the literal sense but more proactive in a negative way) with the current race/culture war plaguing the country. [editline]20th March 2016[/editline] I don't want Trump to win but I really want the establishment to fuck off with their bullshit too. Nothing ever changes in the GOP anymore.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.