goemaw.com

General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: MakeItRain on September 08, 2016, 12:18:22 PM

Title: Who you got?
Post by: MakeItRain on September 08, 2016, 12:18:22 PM
The real purpose for this is to see how many people will be voting for Hillary since no one is willing to cape up for her. We have ardent Trump supporters, Gary supporters, and Jill supporters. Who is riding for Hil? Anyone?

Also I'd prefer the people picking the sixth option only do so who have voted in one of the last two presidential elections, if you never vote and don't plan on doing so now either, GTFO.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: star seed 7 on September 08, 2016, 12:28:25 PM
Why not just add a never vote option instead of roiding out?
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 08, 2016, 12:30:19 PM
I'm voting for Gary. Honestly, him having no chance of winning probably has a lot to do with it.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: catastrophe on September 08, 2016, 12:31:28 PM
Why not just add a never vote option instead of roiding out?

Because they wouldn't click it.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: CNS on September 08, 2016, 12:31:47 PM
I only know two ppl that are excited to vote Hill.  Both are women, FWIW.  One even works for a non-profit that pushes for women's rights.  Both seem very obviously excited about what is/isn't between Hill's legs, and the historic component of that, rather than any actual issue. 


The other ppl I know looking to vote for her don't like that they are about to vote for her.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: catastrophe on September 08, 2016, 12:35:16 PM
Not planning to vote for Hilldawg, although there is still a chance she could change my mind.

I think not voting as a sign of protest is kinda dumb considering how few people vote anyway.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Asteriskhead on September 08, 2016, 12:44:10 PM
#TeamJill
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: CNS on September 08, 2016, 12:45:41 PM
Man, it seems that all the Trump betas were just trolling.   :dunno:
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on September 08, 2016, 12:47:02 PM
Can you add an undecided feature as of right now MIR?
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on September 08, 2016, 12:59:38 PM
I still haven't decided between Gary & Hillary. There are big things that are unpleasant about her, but I REALLY don't want Trump to win.

It is like the prisoner's dilemma. Do I vote for Hillary in the expectation that only her & Trump have a chance or do I just assume that Trump is winning Kansas and go ahead to use my vote as a protest/try to help the 3rd party get more prestige for next time?
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on September 08, 2016, 01:05:32 PM
I couldn't tell you one thing about Gary, other than he's going to lose.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: CNS on September 08, 2016, 01:09:56 PM
Low information voters are one of the major problems in our system, Wacks.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on September 08, 2016, 01:15:41 PM
Yeah, I know, just disgruntled with my parties option.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Asteriskhead on September 08, 2016, 01:24:23 PM
Yeah, I know, just disgruntled with my parties option.

So do some research. Don't mope.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 08, 2016, 01:26:36 PM
I couldn't tell you one thing about Gary, other than he's going to lose.

I look at a vote for Gary as more of a vote for his party than a vote for the man himself. If he actually had a chance to win, I'd have to take things like him not knowing what Aleppo is a lot more seriously. You don't really need to know anything about Gary, other than he's not a part of Trump's party and he's not Hillary Clinton. He can't win, anyway.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: CNS on September 08, 2016, 01:28:10 PM
He was a gov.  I mean, it seems like it might be easy enough to maybe look into that a little  :dunno:
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Asteriskhead on September 08, 2016, 01:29:35 PM
Your identity is [redacted], not republicancat08. You're not married to the god damn GOP. You don't owe the GOP anything, and the GOP doesn't give a eff about you, anyway. Take a look at all of the candidate's platforms and cast your vote for the person who most aligns with your beliefs. It's not hard, but it does take a little effort.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 08, 2016, 01:29:46 PM
Johnson gets a major mark down from me for not knowing what Aleppo was.   Pretty bad when a presidential candidate doesn't know what ground zero of a massive humanitarian crisis is.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: CNS on September 08, 2016, 01:31:12 PM
Well, Trump had a similar issue with an Iraq discussion a few months ago, and we all know how you feel about Hill and her foreign policy. 

Who's left, Dax?
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 08, 2016, 01:35:40 PM
There's still Jill Stein, I guess.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 08, 2016, 01:37:11 PM
Well, Trump had a similar issue with an Iraq discussion a few months ago, and we all know how you feel about Hill and her foreign policy. 

Who's left, Dax?

Yeah, can't vote for the earpiece or the hairpiece.  This sucks.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: CNS on September 08, 2016, 01:40:57 PM
Well, if we are eliminating ppl based on one stupid thing they have said, Jill wouldn't dismiss antivaxers due to there "still being a lot of questions that need to be answered" as to if vaccines cause autism and whatnot.

So, who you got now?

It seems we need to ignore half of what anyone is saying to figure out who to vote for. 

Hill: not willing to overlook security stuff with email.

Trump: specifically asked an international advisor 3 times in one hour why we can't just use nukes on others

Gary: didn't know what Alleppo was

Out of those three, I take Gary.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: ChiComCat on September 08, 2016, 01:45:10 PM
I'm voting Hillary and am not excited about it.  Trump is just catastrophic bad imo.  I would encourage people to vote Stein or Johnson if they like either candidate.  I hate the thinking that one of the major parties is entitled to your vote just because they have a more likely winner. 
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 08, 2016, 01:51:02 PM
Honestly, Jill's anti-vaxer friendly policy wouldn't even register among my concerns with the Green Party platform. Things like wanting a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides, ending high-stakes testing while also making college education free, eliminating uranium mines, fracking, tar sands extraction, etc would make basic living very difficult for the average American. I do like a lot of her stances on social policy.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: MakeItRain on September 08, 2016, 02:07:46 PM
That's a fair criticism of the GP platform, as a green myself I reconcile that by telling myself that the platform literally lives on the fringes of environmental policy simply as a way to distance ourselves from the Democratic party who have put special interests ahead of sound policy.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on September 08, 2016, 02:09:49 PM
Your identity is [redacted], not republicancat08. You're not married to the god damn GOP. You don't owe the GOP anything, and the GOP doesn't give a eff about you, anyway. Take a look at all of the candidate's platforms and cast your vote for the person who most aligns with your beliefs. It's not hard, but it does take a little effort.
Fair! Good point. :thumbs:
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on September 08, 2016, 02:12:27 PM
I guess I just look at a 3rd party vote, as a wasted vote, but that's kind of dumb too. There's no way he could be as bad as the other two options tho. Will do some research.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: michigancat on September 08, 2016, 02:30:40 PM
I'm very excited for a woman president. It will be good for American society, even if she is careless with classified info. I'm sure my take is influenced by the fact that I have two daughters and the fact that Trump is a complete buffoon (as I've mentioned before).
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Gooch on September 08, 2016, 02:40:13 PM
This poll is invalid without a Harambe option.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: CNS on September 08, 2016, 02:41:43 PM
So, an example of a woman as president for your daughters to see is more important than god knows what being left accessible to pretty much any state department with a moderate level of cyber ability?

That seems silly.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: MakeItRain on September 08, 2016, 02:43:35 PM
Would an ultra conservative woman president be good for American society?

Would a relatable, seemingly decent person who is s conservative like say Nikki Haley be as good, worse, or better for America than a win at all cost, me first, overly ambitious, shifting moderate/liberal?
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Trim on September 08, 2016, 02:44:37 PM
If you feel really strongly, I'll sell you my vote, both in this poll and the real election.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: chum1 on September 08, 2016, 02:52:54 PM
Oh, God. If I go through the trouble of registering and going to the polling place on election day, I'm casting my own damn vote, not someone else's. Unless it's like $100 or something.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: michigancat on September 08, 2016, 02:54:17 PM


So, an example of a woman as president for your daughters to see is more important than god knows what being left accessible to pretty much any state department with a moderate level of cyber ability?

That seems silly.

I've said many times that I think the government keeps too many secrets. I don't think I am any less safe because of Hillary's carelessness (or deliberate breaking of the law). So yeah, a female president is more important.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Trim on September 08, 2016, 02:55:32 PM
I'm expecting I'll be able to do it all by mail, so it's no extra effort for me.

How much do you really value who you got???
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: michigancat on September 08, 2016, 02:55:59 PM


Would an ultra conservative woman president be good for American society?

Would a relatable, seemingly decent person who is s conservative like say Nikki Haley be as good, worse, or better for America than a win at all cost, me first, overly ambitious, shifting moderate/liberal?

This is a good point.  I disagree with a lot of what she's done, but I don't find Hillary's policies/history objectionable enough to disqualify her in this election.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Cire on September 08, 2016, 03:00:09 PM
Hilary

Donald Trump isn't a serious candidate. 

Things aren't bad for me or people I know so Hilary is 4 more years of that.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: MakeItRain on September 08, 2016, 03:00:40 PM


Would an ultra conservative woman president be good for American society?

Would a relatable, seemingly decent person who is s conservative like say Nikki Haley be as good, worse, or better for America than a win at all cost, me first, overly ambitious, shifting moderate/liberal?

This is a good point.  I disagree with a lot of what she's done, but I don't find Hillary's policies/history objectionable enough to disqualify her in this election.

Thanks
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: catastrophe on September 08, 2016, 03:01:41 PM
I mean, she has definitely committed crimes that are punishable by jail time. That's pretty close to a DQ.

That said, what better way to show equality between women and men by electing a woman president just as corrupt as any other man to hold the office.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: MakeItRain on September 08, 2016, 03:02:36 PM
Things aren't bad for me or people I know so Hilary is 4 more years of that.

I'm still not voting for her but this is a great point. Hopefully she isn't serious about how she says she feels about the ACA though.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 08, 2016, 03:03:11 PM


So, an example of a woman as president for your daughters to see is more important than god knows what being left accessible to pretty much any state department with a moderate level of cyber ability?

That seems silly.

I've said many times that I think the government keeps too many secrets. I don't think I am any less safe because of Hillary's carelessness (or deliberate breaking of the law). So yeah, a female president is more important.

She was careless with classified information because she was trying to keep her own business secret from the press. If you don't like government secrets, that's actually a good reason to not vote for her. I think she's better overall than Trump, though.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: wetwillie on September 08, 2016, 03:07:30 PM
Gary Johnson appears to not be dying so I'm going to vote for him.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on September 08, 2016, 03:08:16 PM
Gary Johnson appears to not be dying so I'm going to vote for him.
Pffttt. Hillary will kill his ass if he does win.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: DQ12 on September 08, 2016, 03:40:07 PM
let he who hasn't committed a crime punishable by jail time cast the first stone
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: stunted on September 08, 2016, 03:48:37 PM
I'm very excited for a woman president. It will be good for American society, even if she is careless with classified info. I'm sure my take is influenced by the fact that I have two daughters and the fact that Trump is a complete buffoon (as I've mentioned before).

Ivanka is a better role model
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: renocat on September 08, 2016, 03:49:13 PM
2 voters for WUD.   I would not be suprised if he loses Kansas.  So I am starting the rumor he will name Brownback Ag. Secretary.   YIPPE NEW GOVERNOR!!
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: MakeItRain on September 08, 2016, 03:56:37 PM
I'm very excited for a woman president. It will be good for American society, even if she is careless with classified info. I'm sure my take is influenced by the fact that I have two daughters and the fact that Trump is a complete buffoon (as I've mentioned before).

Ivanka is a better role model

I'm guessing that rusty has higher aspirations for his daughters than third trophy wife. I certainly do.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: CHONGS on September 08, 2016, 04:08:02 PM
I'm very excited for a woman president. It will be good for American society, even if she is careless with classified info. I'm sure my take is influenced by the fact that I have two daughters and the fact that Trump is a complete buffoon (as I've mentioned before).

Ivanka is a better role model

I'm guessing that rusty has higher aspirations for his daughters than third trophy wife. I certainly do.
Ivanka is his daughter.  The one he wants to bone.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on September 08, 2016, 04:09:26 PM
I'm very excited for a woman president. It will be good for American society, even if she is careless with classified info. I'm sure my take is influenced by the fact that I have two daughters and the fact that Trump is a complete buffoon (as I've mentioned before).

Ivanka is a better role model

I'm guessing that rusty has higher aspirations for his daughters than third trophy wife. I certainly do.
Ivanka is his daughter.  The one he wants to bone.
Who doesn't? :love: :drool: :fatty:
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: stunted on September 08, 2016, 04:10:29 PM
I'm very excited for a woman president. It will be good for American society, even if she is careless with classified info. I'm sure my take is influenced by the fact that I have two daughters and the fact that Trump is a complete buffoon (as I've mentioned before).

Ivanka is a better role model

I'm guessing that rusty has higher aspirations for his daughters than third trophy wife. I certainly do.

it's a bit misogynist to dismiss her success and personality because of her beauty. and racist
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: 8manpick on September 08, 2016, 04:21:20 PM
I chose Hillary under the idea that I still lived in a state that won't clearly go democrat.  I'll vote because I think it is important on a local level, but there is a pretty good chance my presidential box goes unchecked.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: MakeItRain on September 08, 2016, 04:46:51 PM
I'm very excited for a woman president. It will be good for American society, even if she is careless with classified info. I'm sure my take is influenced by the fact that I have two daughters and the fact that Trump is a complete buffoon (as I've mentioned before).

Ivanka is a better role model

I'm guessing that rusty has higher aspirations for his daughters than third trophy wife. I certainly do.
Ivanka is his daughter.  The one he wants to bone.

Oh damn, my fault. I don't know much about her other than she is on the apprentice and doesn't seem as creepy as her big brothers.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Tobias on September 08, 2016, 04:52:17 PM
she's definitely the crown jewel of the fam
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: chum1 on September 08, 2016, 04:58:51 PM
No, she's awful just like the other Trumps.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: star seed 7 on September 08, 2016, 05:00:02 PM
She had all kinds of socialist crap in her convention speech  :curse:
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 08, 2016, 05:23:41 PM
She's a registered democrat. Couldn't even vote for Donald in the primary.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on September 08, 2016, 06:28:26 PM
I don't care what the candidate is registered as, if they don't crap themselves in a public forum, I'd vote for them right now. How pissed is Ross Pero? Sp*
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on September 08, 2016, 06:34:06 PM
I'm voting for Hillary because she's the most qualified candidate ever and idgaf about deleted emails.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on September 09, 2016, 09:37:25 AM
This is a great cheat sheet

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on September 09, 2016, 09:40:46 AM
How in the hell is ell a die hard Alabama fan and a flaming liberal at the same time? Doesn't add up.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 09, 2016, 09:42:22 AM
I strongly question the mental capacity of anyone who voluntarily votes for hill or don.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Cartierfor3 on September 09, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Not planning to vote for Hilldawg, although there is still a chance she could change my mind.

I think not voting as a sign of protest is kinda dumb considering how few people vote anyway.

I'll vote for every other office/amendment etc on the ballot
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: star seed 7 on September 09, 2016, 10:12:30 AM
I sent in the registration papers like 3 weeks ago and haven't heard anything. Probably voter suppression
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: catastrophe on September 09, 2016, 11:19:12 AM
Not planning to vote for Hilldawg, although there is still a chance she could change my mind.

I think not voting as a sign of protest is kinda dumb considering how few people vote anyway.

I'll vote for every other office/amendment etc on the ballot

So you really feel there is no presidential candidate you could vote for in good conscience, but you are confident enough in every other candidate running for other offices? Or is it more like you're just not voting because you don't like the republican nominee?
Title: Who you got?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 09, 2016, 12:14:41 PM
I'm voting for the ultra corrupt candidate who has aligned themselves and received massive monetary support from some of the worst people on the planet and will owe them copious favors when said person is elected president.  They are also a huge war monger, engaged in driving policy which has ostensibly destroyed huge swaths of the Middle East while kick starting the worst relations with the second largest nuclear power in the world and initiated a political climate that's driven the world closer to world war.   Not to mention this person is beholden to Wall Street and by political contribution numbers Big Oil. 

Why?  Because she's a women.

#cantarguewiththat
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on September 09, 2016, 12:32:36 PM
I'm voting for the ultra corrupt candidate who has aligned themselves and received massive monetary support from some of the worst people on the planet and will owe them copious favors when said person is elected president.  They are also a huge war monger, engaged in driving policy which has ostensibly destroyed huge swaths of the Middle East while kick starting the worst relations with the second largest nuclear power in the world and initiated a political climate that's driven the world closer to world war.   Not to mention this person is beholden to Wall Street and by political contribution numbers Big Oil. 

Why?  Because she's a women.

#cantarguewiththat

Its either that or Trump
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 09, 2016, 01:12:49 PM
I'm voting for the ultra corrupt candidate who has aligned themselves and received massive monetary support from some of the worst people on the planet and will owe them copious favors when said person is elected president.  They are also a huge war monger, engaged in driving policy which has ostensibly destroyed huge swaths of the Middle East while kick starting the worst relations with the second largest nuclear power in the world and initiated a political climate that's driven the world closer to world war.   Not to mention this person is beholden to Wall Street and by political contribution numbers Big Oil. 

Why?  Because she's a women.

#cantarguewiththat

Its either that or Trump

With Johnson and Trump you get very little of that.   

LOL suddenly ProgLibs want to start going full Rambo on Russia.   Putin:  Just not the right kind of dictator for Prog-Libs, not enough beheadings and subjugation of women.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 09, 2016, 01:21:51 PM
Libs:  Hey if you're not the kind of dictator who is willing to stand by and watch bound people accused of being gay get tossed off of five story buildings then you're just not a guy we can do business with.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on September 09, 2016, 01:22:14 PM
I'm voting for the ultra corrupt candidate who has aligned themselves and received massive monetary support from some of the worst people on the planet and will owe them copious favors when said person is elected president.  They are also a huge war monger, engaged in driving policy which has ostensibly destroyed huge swaths of the Middle East while kick starting the worst relations with the second largest nuclear power in the world and initiated a political climate that's driven the world closer to world war.   Not to mention this person is beholden to Wall Street and by political contribution numbers Big Oil. 

Why?  Because she's a women.

#cantarguewiththat

Its either that or Trump

With Johnson and Trump you get very little of that.   

LOL suddenly ProgLibs want to start going full Rambo on Russia.   Putin:  Just not the right kind of dictator for Prog-Libs, not enough beheadings and subjugation of women.

I don't give a crap about Russia, they are a sand fly
Title: Who you got?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 09, 2016, 01:23:21 PM
I'm voting for the ultra corrupt candidate who has aligned themselves and received massive monetary support from some of the worst people on the planet and will owe them copious favors when said person is elected president.  They are also a huge war monger, engaged in driving policy which has ostensibly destroyed huge swaths of the Middle East while kick starting the worst relations with the second largest nuclear power in the world and initiated a political climate that's driven the world closer to world war.   Not to mention this person is beholden to Wall Street and by political contribution numbers Big Oil. 

Why?  Because she's a women.

#cantarguewiththat

Its either that or Trump

With Johnson and Trump you get very little of that.   

LOL suddenly ProgLibs want to start going full Rambo on Russia.   Putin:  Just not the right kind of dictator for Prog-Libs, not enough beheadings and subjugation of women.

I don't give a crap about Russia, they are a sand fly

But the Dem party is obsessed with Russia and Putin.

BTW the British Military is telling their political leaders that by and large British elements of NATO operations would likely be no match for a full blown Russian military move in Eastern Europe. 
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: michigancat on September 09, 2016, 01:49:08 PM
I'm voting for the ultra corrupt candidate who has aligned themselves and received massive monetary support from some of the worst people on the planet and will owe them copious favors when said person is elected president.  They are also a huge war monger, engaged in driving policy which has ostensibly destroyed huge swaths of the Middle East while kick starting the worst relations with the second largest nuclear power in the world and initiated a political climate that's driven the world closer to world war.   Not to mention this person is beholden to Wall Street and by political contribution numbers Big Oil. 

Why?  Because she's a women.

#cantarguewiththat

nothing in your first paragraph makes her particularly unique in our modern 2-party system. The same could be said (basically) about all major-party candidates in my lifetime.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 09, 2016, 01:51:35 PM
I'm voting for the ultra corrupt candidate who has aligned themselves and received massive monetary support from some of the worst people on the planet and will owe them copious favors when said person is elected president.  They are also a huge war monger, engaged in driving policy which has ostensibly destroyed huge swaths of the Middle East while kick starting the worst relations with the second largest nuclear power in the world and initiated a political climate that's driven the world closer to world war.   Not to mention this person is beholden to Wall Street and by political contribution numbers Big Oil. 

Why?  Because she's a women.

#cantarguewiththat

nothing in your first paragraph makes her particularly unique in our modern 2-party system. The same could be said (basically) about all major-party candidates in my lifetime.

The scope and scale is unparalleled.   Even Nixon was chump change, the indiscretions of the Kennedy's child's play in comparison.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: cfbandyman on September 09, 2016, 01:51:44 PM
I'd vote for Hilldawg just to get Dax, FSD, KSUW & Co to give me 4 years of the gems they are already hitting me with in the Pit. Though I'm pretty sure Dax may have an aneurysm from the whole thing at that would make me.

Sad

Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: michigancat on September 09, 2016, 01:57:12 PM
I'm voting for the ultra corrupt candidate who has aligned themselves and received massive monetary support from some of the worst people on the planet and will owe them copious favors when said person is elected president.  They are also a huge war monger, engaged in driving policy which has ostensibly destroyed huge swaths of the Middle East while kick starting the worst relations with the second largest nuclear power in the world and initiated a political climate that's driven the world closer to world war.   Not to mention this person is beholden to Wall Street and by political contribution numbers Big Oil. 

Why?  Because she's a women.

#cantarguewiththat

nothing in your first paragraph makes her particularly unique in our modern 2-party system. The same could be said (basically) about all major-party candidates in my lifetime.

The scope and scale is unparalleled.   Even Nixon was chump change, the indiscretions of the Kennedy's child's play in comparison.

Nixon was chump change? :lol:
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 09, 2016, 01:58:13 PM
I'm voting for the ultra corrupt candidate who has aligned themselves and received massive monetary support from some of the worst people on the planet and will owe them copious favors when said person is elected president.  They are also a huge war monger, engaged in driving policy which has ostensibly destroyed huge swaths of the Middle East while kick starting the worst relations with the second largest nuclear power in the world and initiated a political climate that's driven the world closer to world war.   Not to mention this person is beholden to Wall Street and by political contribution numbers Big Oil. 

Why?  Because she's a women.

#cantarguewiththat

nothing in your first paragraph makes her particularly unique in our modern 2-party system. The same could be said (basically) about all major-party candidates in my lifetime.

The scope and scale is unparalleled.   Even Nixon was chump change, the indiscretions of the Kennedy's child's play in comparison.

Nixon was chump change? :lol:

We are talking about candidates, right? 
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: michigancat on September 09, 2016, 02:00:43 PM
How old do you think I am dax? :lol:

And yeah, the Watergate broke before his second term.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 09, 2016, 02:09:31 PM
Well, I suppose we can count incumbents.  Yay Rusty, you made a point! 
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: michigancat on September 09, 2016, 02:26:11 PM
Well, I suppose we can count incumbents.  Yay Rusty, you made a point! 

well I mean Nixon prolonged the Vietnam War in 68 so he could end the war after elected but yeah chump change and incumbent only.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vietnam-war-for-political-gainand-johnson-knew-about-it-newly-unclassified-tapes-suggest-3595441/?no-ist

Also not in my lifetime you adorable old coot!
Title: Who you got?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 09, 2016, 02:52:23 PM
Well, I suppose we can count incumbents.  Yay Rusty, you made a point! 

well I mean Nixon prolonged the Vietnam War in 68 so he could end the war after elected but yeah chump change and incumbent only.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vietnam-war-for-political-gainand-johnson-knew-about-it-newly-unclassified-tapes-suggest-3595441/?no-ist

Also not in my lifetime you adorable old coot!

While that's understood, that Nixon did prolong the war, he was also under great pressure to achieve "peace with honor", and he did set forth the process of "Vietmization" which withdrew U.S. Troops and got the Paris Peace Talks going.    Whereas Hillary is pretty much all about perpetual war and was by and large not a real diplomat as SOS.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 09, 2016, 03:01:22 PM
Hillary Clinton, she's barely worse than Richard Nixon so I'm voting for her.
-michigancat

Lol, wtf :lol:
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 09, 2016, 03:07:48 PM
Vote for Hillary - Champion of the Muslim Brotherhood! 
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Cartierfor3 on September 09, 2016, 03:17:00 PM
Not planning to vote for Hilldawg, although there is still a chance she could change my mind.

I think not voting as a sign of protest is kinda dumb considering how few people vote anyway.

I'll vote for every other office/amendment etc on the ballot

So you really feel there is no presidential candidate you could vote for in good conscience, but you are confident enough in every other candidate running for other offices? Or is it more like you're just not voting because you don't like the republican nominee?

I can't bring myself to vote for a pro-choice president. Local offices I don't think it makes as big an impact as someone appointing a supreme court justice.
Title: Who you got?
Post by: catastrophe on September 09, 2016, 03:18:53 PM
Alright, that is a fair point. That's my biggest gripe about Garebear.

Edit: Still, a pro choice libertarian president can appoint justices who don't believe in making up constitutional rights to shoehorn in stuff like we have now. My point being a pro choice justice could still overturn something like Roe v. Wade, leaving you with the same result.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: CNS on September 09, 2016, 03:20:19 PM
As long as there are ppl who let their religious wedge issues drive their vote, there will be what the right is now. 
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Cartierfor3 on September 09, 2016, 03:21:57 PM
As long as there are ppl who let their religious wedge issues drive their vote, there will be what the right is now.

so its religion's fault we're stuck with a 2 party system that picked Clinton and Donald freaking Trump?
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: CNS on September 09, 2016, 03:22:39 PM
As long as there are ppl who let their religious wedge issues drive their vote, there will be what the right is now.

so its religion's fault we're stuck with a 2 party system that picked Clinton and Donald freaking Trump?

Partly, at least, yes.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Cartierfor3 on September 09, 2016, 03:24:17 PM
interesting
Title: Who you got?
Post by: catastrophe on September 09, 2016, 03:26:43 PM
Back to my point: the current right to abortion debate is largely driven by religious groups, but it is ultimately just as much a states' rights question. And I suspect most wedge issues you mention are the same way.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: star seed 7 on September 09, 2016, 03:26:58 PM
Cf3, I luv u bro, but I absolutely can not understand being a one issue voter to ban something that has zero effect on you. If your religion doesn't like abortions then don't get one  :dunno:
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 09, 2016, 03:29:20 PM
Yeah, I just don't get people who think the government needs to put more non-violent offenders in jail.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: CNS on September 09, 2016, 03:31:11 PM
Or jam religious beliefs down our throats.

I mean, Should we at least look into if adulterers should be stoned to death too?
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Cartierfor3 on September 09, 2016, 03:31:23 PM
Cf3, I luv u bro, but I absolutely can not understand being a one issue voter to ban something that has zero effect on you. If your religion doesn't like abortions then don't get one  :dunno:

luv u 2
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: star seed 7 on September 09, 2016, 03:34:13 PM
 :blush:
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Cartierfor3 on September 09, 2016, 03:37:59 PM
Cf3, I luv u bro, but I absolutely can not understand being a one issue voter to ban something that has zero effect on you. If your religion doesn't like abortions then don't get one  :dunno:

I mean, also Syria and a wall between us and Mexico don't really impact me much either but I am allowed to have opinions on it. Police violence against African Americans doesn't impact ME but it impacts my fellow citizen and another human person with whom I share a space with. I can care about stuff that doesn't effect me if it effects someone else.
Title: Who you got?
Post by: catastrophe on September 09, 2016, 03:38:35 PM
Or jam religious beliefs down our throats.

I mean, Should we at least look into if adulterers should be stoned to death too?

Don't want this to become another abortion thread, but there is a big difference between thinking certain behavior should be punished and whether the federal government has a right to determine what is and isn't acceptable. I think Roe v. Wade is BS just like I think federal criminalization of marijuana is BS.

Lots of pro-lifers voting for president simply believe the states should decide the issue (though obviously they would also support local candidates who would restrict abortions).
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: CNS on September 09, 2016, 03:40:38 PM
For a country that prides itself on freedom, we sure have a bunch of ppl eager to limit the freedom of others.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: catastrophe on September 09, 2016, 03:40:58 PM
Cf3, I luv u bro, but I absolutely can not understand being a one issue voter to ban something that has zero effect on you. If your religion doesn't like abortions then don't get one  :dunno:

I mean, also Syria and a wall between us and Mexico don't really impact me much either but I am allowed to have opinions on it. Police violence against African Americans doesn't impact ME but it impacts my fellow citizen and another human person with whom I share a space with. I can care about stuff that doesn't effect me if it effects someone else.

Cruelty to animals, discrimination against minorities, etc., etc.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: catastrophe on September 09, 2016, 03:41:27 PM
For a country that prides itself on freedom, we sure have a bunch of ppl eager to limit the freedom of others.

What, because we have laws?
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Cartierfor3 on September 09, 2016, 03:44:57 PM
guys, we have a thread for this stuff. lets stick with MIR's topic of who you got
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: CNS on September 09, 2016, 03:49:03 PM
 :driving:
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: catastrophe on September 09, 2016, 03:49:13 PM
Got Garebear. Didn't vote on the survey because it would be a waste.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: star seed 7 on September 09, 2016, 03:52:17 PM
Cf3, I luv u bro, but I absolutely can not understand being a one issue voter to ban something that has zero effect on you. If your religion doesn't like abortions then don't get one  :dunno:

I mean, also Syria and a wall between us and Mexico don't really impact me much either but I am allowed to have opinions on it. Police violence against African Americans doesn't impact ME but it impacts my fellow citizen and another human person with whom I share a space with. I can care about stuff that doesn't effect me if it effects someone else.

I wouldn't understand a one issue voter for those either.

You essentially said if someone had exactly the views you share for every issue except they are pro-choice then you wouldn't vote for them. That's insane imo
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: star seed 7 on September 09, 2016, 03:56:08 PM
"There's no way I could ever vote for someone who is pro-gay sex" is pretty much the exact same thing
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: star seed 7 on September 09, 2016, 03:57:38 PM
I could never vote for someone who is pro-shellfish
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: star seed 7 on September 09, 2016, 04:01:32 PM
There is no way I could vote for someone that is pro-tattoo
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: catastrophe on September 09, 2016, 04:12:21 PM
"I could never vote for someone who wants to legalize puppy torturing"

"No way would I vote for someone who says anti-discrimination laws need to go"

Am I doing it right?
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: michigancat on September 09, 2016, 04:18:26 PM
I kind of get not voting someone who is pro-choice because you consider abortion murder. I don't know how you could really consider abortion murder and not do more about it than not vote for Hillary or Gary Johnson.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: catastrophe on September 09, 2016, 04:22:48 PM
You mean like vote Trump? :excited:
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: star seed 7 on September 09, 2016, 04:22:57 PM
Edn, I know you're dumb, but even you probably understand why those are ridiculous examples
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: catastrophe on September 09, 2016, 04:30:07 PM
My bad. I thought we were doing single issue things that have no direct impact on us voters.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: star seed 7 on September 09, 2016, 04:34:22 PM
Guess I was wrong, you don't know why it was ridiculous
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: MakeItRain on September 09, 2016, 04:36:55 PM
As long as there are ppl who let their religious wedge issues drive their vote, there will be what the right is now.

so its religion's fault we're stuck with a 2 party system that picked Clinton and Donald freaking Trump?

Sure is. If Christians could manage to mind their own business we could actually have a viable Republican party that could keep the democrats honest, but alas we're left with this poop.
Title: Who you got?
Post by: catastrophe on September 09, 2016, 04:40:54 PM
As long as there are ppl who let their religious wedge issues drive their vote, there will be what the right is now.

so its religion's fault we're stuck with a 2 party system that picked Clinton and Donald freaking Trump?

Sure is. If Christians could manage to mind their own business we could actually have a viable Republican party that could keep the democrats honest, but alas we're left with this poop.

It seems to me you are actually critiquing these Christians' non-adherence to their own religion as opposed to religion generally. Your post doesn't imply to me that you seriously believe a world free of religion would have produced better candidates this cycle.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: CNS on September 09, 2016, 04:41:42 PM
As long as there are ppl who let their religious wedge issues drive their vote, there will be what the right is now.

so its religion's fault we're stuck with a 2 party system that picked Clinton and Donald freaking Trump?

Sure is. If Christians could manage to mind their own business we could actually have a viable Republican party that could keep the democrats honest, but alas we're left with this poop.

It seems to me you are actually critiquing these Christians' non-adherence to their own religion as opposed to religion generally. Your post doesn't imply to me that you seriously believe a world free of religion would have produced better candidates this cycle.

No one is saying a world free of religion.  Just politics free of religion.

Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: MakeItRain on September 09, 2016, 04:42:04 PM
Got Garebear. Didn't vote on the survey because it would be a waste.

Are you intentionally weird?

Edn

wait, what? How in the hell did I miss this?
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: MakeItRain on September 09, 2016, 04:48:06 PM
As long as there are ppl who let their religious wedge issues drive their vote, there will be what the right is now.

so its religion's fault we're stuck with a 2 party system that picked Clinton and Donald freaking Trump?

Sure is. If Christians could manage to mind their own business we could actually have a viable Republican party that could keep the democrats honest, but alas we're left with this poop.

It seems to me you are actually critiquing these Christians' non-adherence to their own religion as opposed to religion generally. Your post doesn't imply to me that you seriously believe a world free of religion would have produced better candidates this cycle.

No I'm speaking to the fact that many Christians, particularly Conservative Christians feel like their beliefs should drive policy and how they live their lives. Most religious people live their own lives and don't make a career out of trying to live the lives of the entire country. In America conservative christians don't seem to understand that they can live full, righteous lives without worrying about how strangers want to live, its infuriating because its the biggest obstacle to a more efficient and accountable government.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: catastrophe on September 09, 2016, 04:48:27 PM
Got Garebear. Didn't vote on the survey because it would be a waste.

Are you intentionally weird?

Edn

wait, what? How in the hell did I miss this?

1. Sometimes (FYI - I actually did not vote because that is not an option on my phone)
2. Lib is wrong often enough I don't bother trying to correct him.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Kat Kid on September 09, 2016, 05:00:17 PM
As long as there are ppl who let their religious wedge issues drive their vote, there will be what the right is now.

so its religion's fault we're stuck with a 2 party system that picked Clinton and Donald freaking Trump?

Sure is. If Christians could manage to mind their own business we could actually have a viable Republican party that could keep the democrats honest, but alas we're left with this poop.

It seems to me you are actually critiquing these Christians' non-adherence to their own religion as opposed to religion generally. Your post doesn't imply to me that you seriously believe a world free of religion would have produced better candidates this cycle.

No I'm speaking to the fact that many Christians, particularly Conservative Christians feel like their beliefs should drive policy and how they live their lives. Most religious people live their own lives and don't make a career out of trying to live the lives of the entire country. In America conservative christians don't seem to understand that they can live full, righteous lives without worrying about how strangers want to live, its infuriating because its the biggest obstacle to a more efficient and accountable government.

lol you can't truly believe that.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: catastrophe on September 09, 2016, 05:02:41 PM
No I'm speaking to the fact that many Christians, particularly Conservative Christians feel like their beliefs should drive policy and how they live their lives. Most religious people live their own lives and don't make a career out of trying to live the lives of the entire country. In America conservative christians don't seem to understand that they can live full, righteous lives without worrying about how strangers want to live, its infuriating because its the biggest obstacle to a more efficient and accountable government.

I just don't see this as a religion issue, like, at all.  First, Christians probably make up a large segment (if not the majority) of every political party.  So your gripe is really with conservatives more so than conservative Christians.  Second, the "worrying about how strangers want to live" is in no way unique to religious groups.  Any law by its nature has some impact on how people are permitted to live their lives.  A green party member might want to regulate a household's use of water, energy, or fossil fuels, independent of any religious reason.  That still has a pretty substantial impact on how people choose to live.  There is also an ironic twist because conservatives in general want the federal government to be less involved in the practices of individuals and business than liberals.

People in a society are always going to want to "force" their beliefs on others in that society.  Those beliefs might happen to be based in religion, but they're usually based on something else.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: MakeItRain on September 09, 2016, 05:18:22 PM
As long as there are ppl who let their religious wedge issues drive their vote, there will be what the right is now.

so its religion's fault we're stuck with a 2 party system that picked Clinton and Donald freaking Trump?

Sure is. If Christians could manage to mind their own business we could actually have a viable Republican party that could keep the democrats honest, but alas we're left with this poop.

It seems to me you are actually critiquing these Christians' non-adherence to their own religion as opposed to religion generally. Your post doesn't imply to me that you seriously believe a world free of religion would have produced better candidates this cycle.

No I'm speaking to the fact that many Christians, particularly Conservative Christians feel like their beliefs should drive policy and how they live their lives. Most religious people live their own lives and don't make a career out of trying to live the lives of the entire country. In America conservative christians don't seem to understand that they can live full, righteous lives without worrying about how strangers want to live, its infuriating because its the biggest obstacle to a more efficient and accountable government.

lol you can't truly believe that.

I do. Now, I didn't say that our government would be completely efficient and accountable without the religious right poking their noses in, I said more efficient and accountable. Its either the meddlesome nature of conservative christians or its money and I feel like in a two party system, that is working properly, money doesn't create an imbalance. There would be/is plenty of money on both sides where it wouldn't be as obstructing as religion. We've always had money in politics, the religious right's jacking of the agenda is something that has happened the last twenty years and this is factually the least efficient our federal government, at least the legislative branch where the infiltration is worst, has ever been.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: MakeItRain on September 09, 2016, 05:20:58 PM
No I'm speaking to the fact that many Christians, particularly Conservative Christians feel like their beliefs should drive policy and how they live their lives. Most religious people live their own lives and don't make a career out of trying to live the lives of the entire country. In America conservative christians don't seem to understand that they can live full, righteous lives without worrying about how strangers want to live, its infuriating because its the biggest obstacle to a more efficient and accountable government.

I just don't see this as a religion issue, like, at all.  First, Christians probably make up a large segment (if not the majority) of every political party.  So your gripe is really with conservatives more so than conservative Christians.  Second, the "worrying about how strangers want to live" is in no way unique to religious groups.  Any law by its nature has some impact on how people are permitted to live their lives.  A green party member might want to regulate a household's use of water, energy, or fossil fuels, independent of any religious reason.  That still has a pretty substantial impact on how people choose to live.  There is also an ironic twist because conservatives in general want the federal government to be less involved in the practices of individuals and business than liberals.

People in a society are always going to want to "force" their beliefs on others in that society.  Those beliefs might happen to be based in religion, but they're usually based on something else.

I'm only familiar with our society and how conservative christians use their beliefs to attempt to drive government agenda and then they use the lie that the founders of the country intended it to be that way so it's okay.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: catastrophe on September 09, 2016, 05:23:01 PM
Well I guess you are entitled to your belief as to what beliefs are underlying conservatives' professed beliefs.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: MakeItRain on September 09, 2016, 05:25:05 PM
Not all conservatives, I was pretty clear about who I was talking out, sorry you didn't get that.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Kat Kid on September 09, 2016, 05:39:54 PM
I really don't believe that the primary problem with obstructionists like Tim Huelskamp is his faith or the faith of his followers.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: catastrophe on September 09, 2016, 05:41:57 PM
Right.  Not all conservatives, not all Christians, but all conservative Christians.

It's not just unique to conservatives, though.  Don't forget about the time Mormon sympathizer Bloomberg tried to ban large sodas.
Title: Who you got?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 09, 2016, 07:38:47 PM
Theocrats for Hillary!
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: MakeItRain on September 09, 2016, 09:23:53 PM
I really don't believe that the primary problem with obstructionists like Tim Huelskamp is his faith or the faith of his followers.

No he's an bad person but he often went to that rhetoric to make himself feel better about being an bad person. I mean look at this crap...

Quote
“The idea that Jesus Christ himself was degrading and demeaning is what they’ve come down to,” he said. "I can’t even stand to read the decisions because I don’t even think they’d pass law school with decisions like that.”

The supreme court justices didn't say a damn thing about Jesus being degrading and demeaning when they ruled DOMA was illegal, why did he? You can never lose when you use religion to rile up the religious right, no matter how outrageous the rhetoric is.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: steve dave on September 09, 2016, 09:28:21 PM
I can confirm tim doesn't give a crap about jesus christ of nazareth and that he is a huge bad person who did a good job riding the wave to the top (relative top for fowler ks demagogues)
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: star seed 7 on September 12, 2016, 06:38:25 PM
I sent in the registration papers like 3 weeks ago and haven't heard anything. Probably voter suppression

update:  received my voter confirmation today and the polling place is literally 50ft away.  i think i might be voting this year boys  :surprised:
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Cartierfor3 on September 28, 2016, 11:40:39 AM
I disagree with Obama on this

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-vote-vote-trump/story?id=42416587 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-vote-vote-trump/story?id=42416587)
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Cartierfor3 on September 28, 2016, 11:42:00 AM
I have grown to really like many thinks about President Obama, but he should know better than to attempt to bully voters and shame them for voting 3rd party or not voting.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: star seed 7 on September 28, 2016, 11:44:48 AM
I don't agree either cf3, but I wouldn't call it bullying. He has a team, and he wants that team to win.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Cartierfor3 on September 28, 2016, 11:47:23 AM
Saying you're either for us or for Trump is absolutely bullying.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: star seed 7 on September 28, 2016, 11:49:16 AM
Well I respectfully disagree  :shy:
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: treysolid on September 28, 2016, 11:55:21 AM
people who don't vote should absolutely be shamed.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: star seed 7 on September 28, 2016, 11:56:31 AM
people who don't vote should absolutely be shamed.

I don't agree with this either
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on September 28, 2016, 11:57:38 AM
people who don't vote should absolutely be shamed.

I don't agree with this either

Well people should at least be encouraged to vote.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: star seed 7 on September 28, 2016, 11:58:14 AM
Sure
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: treysolid on September 28, 2016, 12:04:11 PM
just my opinion. i know most see voting as a civic right, but i see it as a civic duty. in my opinion it's bad form to participate in the spoils of governance without having first gone through the rigors.

i don't want mandatory voting, but i'm not against shaming people who choose not to.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: _33 on September 28, 2016, 12:10:05 PM
I disagree with Obama on this

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-vote-vote-trump/story?id=42416587 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-vote-vote-trump/story?id=42416587)

Who non voters non votes are actually voting for depends on who the non voter would vote for if they voted.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: michigancat on September 28, 2016, 12:15:30 PM
I have grown to really like many thinks about President Obama, but he should know better than to attempt to bully voters and shame them for voting 3rd party or not voting.

saying a vote for a third party is a vote for trump is "bullying" and "shaming"? good grief
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: DQ12 on September 28, 2016, 12:23:04 PM
I disagree with Obama on this

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-vote-vote-trump/story?id=42416587 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-vote-vote-trump/story?id=42416587)

Who non voters non votes are actually voting for depends on who the non voter would vote for if they voted.
Exactly.  I don't think it's bullying, but I do think it's really stupid.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: DQ12 on September 28, 2016, 12:25:32 PM
And his bit where he equates "voting for third party candidates with no chance to win" to "not voting" is pretty anti-democratic.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: michigancat on September 28, 2016, 12:34:44 PM
Obviously a vote for third party or not voting isn't literally a vote for Trump and obviously voting third party isn't literally equal to voting for a third party. But both do give Trump a better chance of winning.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Kat Kid on September 28, 2016, 12:39:50 PM
And his bit where he equates "voting for third party candidates with no chance to win" to "not voting" is pretty anti-democratic.

I agree on one level, but he was talking to a specific audience, not the American people.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Cartierfor3 on September 28, 2016, 12:40:29 PM
I have grown to really like many thinks about President Obama, but he should know better than to attempt to bully voters and shame them for voting 3rd party or not voting.

saying a vote for a third party is a vote for trump is "bullying" and "shaming"? good grief

yes it is. its just as much a vote for Clinton as it is for Trump. which is that its not a vote for either of them.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: steve dave on September 28, 2016, 12:53:31 PM
as a strong Vote Against The Worst Candidate voter I agree with president Obama's statement and all people from both sides that make the same statement all the time.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: steve dave on September 28, 2016, 12:54:29 PM
I'm truly the last line of defense guys
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on September 28, 2016, 12:56:08 PM
I've been trying to convince a guy I work with to vote for Gary Johnson so that he doesn't vote for Trump. It isn't working so far.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: catastrophe on September 28, 2016, 01:06:03 PM
And his bit where he equates "voting for third party candidates with no chance to win" to "not voting" is pretty anti-democratic.

I agree on one level, but he was talking to a specific audience, not the American people.

What "specific audience" are you talking about? That statement from Obama pretty much epitomizes what I think is his biggest failing, that politics is really just an "us" versus "them" exercise and the people's job is solely to elect more good guys so they can beat down the bad guys.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Cartierfor3 on September 28, 2016, 01:18:41 PM
I'm truly the last line of defense guys

yeah that Nebraska swing state is a real doozy
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 28, 2016, 01:21:46 PM
I've been trying to convince a guy I work with to vote for Gary Johnson so that he doesn't vote for Trump. It isn't working so far.

Most of the Trump voters I know are upset he's the candidate because they don't think he will win. They like his policies just fine though and have no problem voting for him.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 28, 2016, 01:23:31 PM
I disagree with Obama on this

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-vote-vote-trump/story?id=42416587 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-vote-vote-trump/story?id=42416587)

You should, it's an intellectually empty statement made by a partisan crap head.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Asteriskhead on September 28, 2016, 01:54:31 PM
everyone needs to eff off with their "get in line or the sky is going to fall" bullshit.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Kat Kid on September 28, 2016, 01:58:40 PM
And his bit where he equates "voting for third party candidates with no chance to win" to "not voting" is pretty anti-democratic.

I agree on one level, but he was talking to a specific audience, not the American people.

What "specific audience" are you talking about? That statement from Obama pretty much epitomizes what I think is his biggest failing, that politics is really just an "us" versus "them" exercise and the people's job is solely to elect more good guys so they can beat down the bad guys.

There are a lot of things people think are zero sum that aren't zero sum, but elections are definitely zero sum.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: catastrophe on September 28, 2016, 02:08:17 PM
If we're ignoring the anti-Democratic notion and making this a purely logical exercise, then a vote for a third party or no vote is a vote against Hillary, not a vote for Trump.

Obama is way too smart of a person to say stuff that stupid.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: chum1 on September 28, 2016, 02:26:32 PM
I've been trying to convince a guy I work with to vote for Gary Johnson so that he doesn't vote for Trump. It isn't working so far.

No vote or a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump UNLESS that vote is otherwise definitely going to Trump with zero chance of going to Clinton.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: MakeItRain on September 28, 2016, 03:41:08 PM
I disagree with Obama on this

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-vote-vote-trump/story?id=42416587 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-vote-vote-trump/story?id=42416587)

You should, it's an intellectually empty statement made by a partisan crap head.

 :love:

everyone needs to eff off with their "get in line or the sky is going to fall" bullshit.

 :love:
Title: Who you got?
Post by: catastrophe on September 28, 2016, 03:46:09 PM
I've been trying to convince a guy I work with to vote for Gary Johnson so that he doesn't vote for Trump. It isn't working so far.

No vote or a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump UNLESS that vote is otherwise definitely going to Trump with zero chance of going to Clinton.

Interesting. No vote or a vote for a third party is the same as voting for Trump unless you would have voted for Trump otherwise, in which case it is a vote for Clinton.

So I guess if you are going to vote for a third party you may as well just vote Trump. BUT, if instead of just voting Trump because it's the same as voting for a third party, you decide you will vote for the third party, then BOOM: one less vote for Trump which means you just voted Hillary.

Thanks Obama.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: sys on September 28, 2016, 04:23:42 PM
mathematically, a non vote by anyone who dislikes trump or a  vote for a third party instead of clinton is .5 of a vote for trump, so i rate obama's statement as *mostly true*.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: DQ12 on September 28, 2016, 05:17:53 PM
Just Trim 3:16 it.  Vote for whoever you want, and if you don't want to vote for anyone, don't.  But this "you better vote and that vote better be for my person because if not then you'll be to blame when the bad candidate wins" rhetoric is silly.

If you want my vote, give me someone I want to vote for.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: catastrophe on September 28, 2016, 05:22:11 PM
This guy gets it.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Cartierfor3 on September 28, 2016, 05:22:59 PM
Just Trim 3:16 it.  Vote for whoever you want, and if you don't want to vote for anyone, don't.  But this "you better vote and that vote better be for my person because if not then you'll be to blame when the bad candidate wins" rhetoric is silly.

If you want my vote, give me someone I want to vote for.

 :thumbs:
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on September 28, 2016, 05:30:13 PM
I've been trying to convince a guy I work with to vote for Gary Johnson so that he doesn't vote for Trump. It isn't working so far.

No vote or a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump UNLESS that vote is otherwise definitely going to Trump with zero chance of going to Clinton.

Interesting. No vote or a vote for a third party is the same as voting for Trump unless you would have voted for Trump otherwise, in which case it is a vote for Clinton.

So I guess if you are going to vote for a third party you may as well just vote Trump. BUT, if instead of just voting Trump because it's the same as voting for a third party, you decide you will vote for the third party, then BOOM: one less vote for Trump which means you just voted Hillary.

Thanks Obama.

Well the guy is definetly voting for Trump unless I can convince him to vote for GJ (aka 42.579% of a vote for Clinton). He lives in KS so will it really matter either way?
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: sys on September 28, 2016, 05:45:29 PM
see if you can find a libertarian-leaning trumper in new hampshire or florida that you can flip.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on September 28, 2016, 05:47:47 PM
Do this country a favor and vote for Hillary, it's not that complicated.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: sys on September 28, 2016, 06:11:41 PM
Do this country a favor and vote for Hillary, it's not that complicated.

it really is that simple.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: michigancat on September 28, 2016, 06:15:13 PM
Just Trim 3:16 it.  Vote for whoever you want, and if you don't want to vote for anyone, don't.  But this "you better vote and that vote better be for my person because if not then you'll be to blame when the bad candidate wins" rhetoric is silly.

If you want my vote, give me someone I want to vote for.

the nerve of politicians trying to influence the outcomes of elections! Silly!
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: Asteriskhead on September 28, 2016, 07:34:11 PM
Do this country a favor and vote for Hillary, it's not that complicated.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

eff yourself.
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: catastrophe on September 28, 2016, 07:48:59 PM
I've been trying to convince a guy I work with to vote for Gary Johnson so that he doesn't vote for Trump. It isn't working so far.

No vote or a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump UNLESS that vote is otherwise definitely going to Trump with zero chance of going to Clinton.

Interesting. No vote or a vote for a third party is the same as voting for Trump unless you would have voted for Trump otherwise, in which case it is a vote for Clinton.

So I guess if you are going to vote for a third party you may as well just vote Trump. BUT, if instead of just voting Trump because it's the same as voting for a third party, you decide you will vote for the third party, then BOOM: one less vote for Trump which means you just voted Hillary.

Thanks Obama.

Well the guy is definetly voting for Trump unless I can convince him to vote for GJ (aka 42.579% of a vote for Clinton). He lives in KS so will it really matter either way?

Tell him to go to balancedrebellion(.com?). It matches up Trump supporters with Hillary supporters in your state and you cancel out each other's vote by both voting Gary.

At least he could be comforted by feeling responsible by taking a vote away from Hillary?
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: MakeItRain on September 28, 2016, 10:36:48 PM
Do this country a favor and vote for Hillary, it's not that complicated.

it really is that simple.

She should do the country a favor and quit
Title: Re: Who you got?
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on September 29, 2016, 08:47:58 AM
Not that it matters, because do what you want, but I'd love to hear why ell is so obsessed with Hillary. I think he wants to bang her.