2016 POTUS Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,708
Ahh, the season for the "do write-in/third party votes count" argument. Happens every election cycle.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Welfare queens aren't necessarily committing welfare fraud. Maybe that's where your confusion is. Abusing the system simply means the system is set up wrong. Which it is. It is a common place that people abuse the welfare system. I guess I don't know what you really do for a living so maybe you're shielded from that sort of thing and really do believe the propaganda that says this stuff is as rare as the boogie man. I can tell you first hand it is extremely common.
I believe this sort of thing exists, but it hardly represents the common welfare recipient, but is used to stigmatize all of them. As a matter of national policy making I'd say it's been grossly over represented to make an easy target for politicians twisting racial stereotypes to get the backing of angry voters.

Once again, the rapist immigrant tactic. There are obviously immigrants that are rapists, but Trump isn't going after rapists, he's going after immigrants. There is welfare system abuse, but politicians aren't going after abusers they're going after all welfare recipients.

Now welfare fraud is different. That implies that someone is circumventing the welfare system and receiving welfare money that they aren't entitled to. This also happens but it probably more rare then the other type I mentioned above. The fraud you really see is misreported income. I'm guessing the most common situation is the person who receives welfare and also has an income that is unreported (Cash tips, construction workers who get paid in cash). This is a type of welfare fraud that is fairly common. And at a much higher rate then the immigrant rapist and other bullshit.
From Wikipedia:
"Welfare queen" is a pejorative phrase used in the United States to refer to people, usually women, who are accused of collecting excessive welfare payments through fraud or manipulation.

That other kind of fraud, income under reporting is probably less stigmatized because they're actually working. If I had to say what the modern "welfare queening" looks like it'd be fraudulent SSI disability claims. Which is a problem. But I'm not going to every disabled person's house and see if they jump out of their wheel chair when I push it into a lake.


By the way some of those same questions could be asked of you. Are you such a Democratic homer that you are willing to vote for someone unfit to hold the presidency such as Hilary Clinton? By the way, I'm probably voting Rand Paul regardless. At least I know I'm voting for the right person. Even if the rest of American is treating this as some sort of a football game where they are rooting either for the blue team or the red team and don't give a shit who the player is for that particular team.
I've never understood why you've come to see me as some kind of schill for the Democrats. In the post you responded to I mention I would vote for Mitt Romney over the entire field of Republican and Democrat nominees.

I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012, for the same reasons you're voting for Rand. Although as a write in candidate Rand is kind of ideologically compromised. You might as well vote for Ron.

This election though, yes I am absolutely willing to vote for whoever is against the Republicans. Rand not withstanding (and he really isn't a republican by any modern definition) the party has come to oppose everything that conservatives have stood for. They're big government, big spending, surveillance state, war mongers. It's one thing to WGAS vote during Romney vs. Obama. But especially if Trump takes the nomination, I think every conservative owes it to themselves to bury the shithole party that turned its back on them.
 
Last edited:

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
No I'm equating that a negative vote toward one of the two parties will ultimately count since only the winner and loser will be in these ballots. A, lost vote of a write in will not be tabulated for a winner or loser of the two parties. It will not enhance or detract from either candidate. It will just go into the void as if you didn't vote. By voting for a third party it will be lost but will not effect a positive or negative within the two parties. If you vote for the Republican candidate in order to increase the count against the Democrat it wlll at least offset a positive vote for the them. If a vote is cast toward a third party neither the Republican or write will benefit. Nothing will be offset toward a democratic candidate. They will likely benefit because fragmenting voters doesn't hurt their position. Democrats will never lose their polorazation. They will vote for the donkey if that is who is on the ballot.
And the same can be said for Republicans.

It seems you are saying you would never vote for a democrate no matter who they run against if that is not polorization I don't know what is.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
And the same can be said for Republicans.

It seems you are saying you would never vote for a democrate no matter who they run against if that is not polorization I don't know what is.
It was an exercise about third party or write in ballots it had nothing to do with any position I may take in the future. As to the bolded comment it was directed at the democrat voter. They are least likely to cross over. It's the Republicans who are most likely to do a third party or write in vote. That is pretty well displayed by the various board members comments.
 
Last edited:

VA Cowboy

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
4,710
And criticize Sanders socialism all you like, (I do) but at least he's a guy who knows how to work with congress, unlike Cruz who threatens to shut down the government every time he spills his pudding.
There's worse things than 'shutting down Congress', which in most of those cases would only have shut down less than 20% of Congress. And the only shutting down was as a result of holding firm on not funding a bunch of crap the Dems/socialists wanted to shove through, which ultimately is what happened. If you don't fund the BS the Dems want passed then it's 'shutting down Congress'. Well good, shut it down.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
There's worse things than 'shutting down Congress', which in most of those cases would only have shut down less than 20% of Congress. And the only shutting down was as a result of holding firm on not funding a bunch of crap the Dems/socialists wanted to shove through, which ultimately is what happened. If you don't fund the BS the Dems want passed then it's 'shutting down Congress'. Well good, shut it down.
Cruz feels exactly the same way I'm sure, which is why he'd fail desperately as a president, because he can't reach across the aisle. He's gonna sit down and have a big pout when things don't go his way. Giving veto power to that clown could very well be catastrophic.
 

VA Cowboy

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
4,710
Cruz feels exactly the same way I'm sure, which is why he'd fail desperately as a president, because he can't reach across the aisle. He's gonna sit down and have a big pout when things don't go his way. Giving veto power to that clown could very well be catastrophic.
What's interesting is the only time we hear about reaching across the aisle is when it's a Republican. When Dems win they claim to have a mandate and don't feel the need or pressure to compromise.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
It was an exercise about third party or write in ballots it had nothing to do with any position I may take in the future. As to the bolded comment it was directed at the democrat voter. They are least likely to cross over. It's the Republicans who are most likely to do a third party or write in vote. That is pretty well displayed by the various board members comments.
Well most posters are Republicans so I don't know how that is proof of anything and it's no third party person of note that a Democrat could vote for.

And it still does not explain why you think Democrats are more polarized than Republicans which is my main issue.

The data shows that more Democrats believe in a 3rd party that Republicans and green party and libertarians get about the same amount of votes.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157427/americans-split-need-third-party.aspx
Republicans' and Democrats' support for a third party has fluctuated over the past nine years, but the two groups now have similar views, as they did a year ago. Now, 40% of Democrats support the concept of a third party, compared with 36% of Republicans
In the current survey, Gallup tested the support for three third-party candidates identified by name and party -- Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party), Jill Stein (Green Party), and Virgil Goode (Constitution Party) -- and found 1% support for each, with another 1% volunteering another third-party candidate's name.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
No I'm equating that a negative vote toward one of the two parties will ultimately count since only the winner and loser will be in these ballots. A, lost vote of a write in will not be tabulated for a winner or loser of the two parties. It will not enhance or detract from either candidate. It will just go into the void as if you didn't vote. By voting for a third party it will be lost but will not effect a positive or negative within the two parties. If you vote for the Republican candidate in order to increase the count against the Democrat it wlll at least offset a positive vote for the them. If a vote is cast toward a third party neither the Republican or write will benefit. Nothing will be offset toward a democratic candidate. They will likely benefit because fragmenting voters doesn't hurt their position. Democrats will never lose their polorazation. They will vote for the donkey if that is who is on the ballot.
You're provably wrong. Ross Perot was important enough to an election to cost the Republican candidate the vote, that was tabulated, people took notice of it.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
You're provably wrong. Ross Perot was important enough to an election to cost the Republican candidate the vote, that was tabulated, people took notice of it.
That isn't my position. He affected the Republician candidate only. Had those same votest stayed in the two party voting they would have the outcome differently. As such their vote counted for nothing except defeat for one of those candidates which made them allies of a party they didn't want in office. They destroyed an election by voting for someone that wasn't from a candidate from which the winner would emerge. Yes they affected the outcome but their vote was pointless except for being destructive.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
I wish there was a party for Fiscal responsibility and individual rights I would join that party in a second.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
That isn't my position. He affected the Republician candidate only. Had those same votest stayed in the two party voting they would have the outcome differently. As such their vote counted for nothing except defeat for one of those candidates which made them allies of a party they didn't want in office. They destroyed an election by voting for someone that wasn't from a candidate from which the winner would emerge. Yes they affected the outcome but their vote was pointless except for being destructive.
It sends a message to the party affected that the candidates they nominate are not acceptable. That's an end in and of itself.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
It sends a message to the party affected that the candidates they nominate are not acceptable. That's an end in and of itself.
Again, third party voting does affect election outcomes. If a person was so turned off by the Republican candidate that year they could have simply voted for the democratic opponent instead of Perot and accomplished the same thing. The fact that they voted for Perot simply solidified the democrat by taking votes away from the republican but their vote didn't accomplish what they thought it would. They didn't get Perot elected and their vote became pointless because the winner will almost always come from the Dems or Reps. Vote third party and you get nothing you just succeed in helping someone of the two parties get elected and that's it. Again you could have accomplished that by voting against someone in one of the major party's.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
Again, third party voting does affect election outcomes. If a person was so turned off by the Republican candidate that year they could have simply voted for the democratic opponent instead of Perot and accomplished the same thing. The fact that they voted for Perot simply solidified the democrat by taking votes away from the republican but their vote didn't accomplish what they thought it would. They didn't get Perot elected and their vote became pointless because the winner will almost always come from the Dems or Reps. Vote third party and you get nothing you just succeed in helping someone of the two parties get elected and that's it. Again you could have accomplished that by voting against someone in one of the major party's.
Voting third party sends a different message than voting Democrat. It shows the Republicans that we want a conservative but we don't consider their candidate to be one.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,463
Voting third party sends a different message than voting Democrat. It shows the Republicans that we want a conservative but we don't consider their candidate to be one.
It also sends the message that maybe the two party system is ready to undergo a change. Its why we see other parties pop up such as the Libertarians, Tea Party and socialists. Its why a socialist candidate such as Bernie is running under the name of a democrat. Or a libertarian leaning candidate is running as a Republican.

If a candidate doesn't represent what you want, I see no reason to vote for him.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Again, third party voting does affect election outcomes. If a person was so turned off by the Republican candidate that year they could have simply voted for the democratic opponent instead of Perot and accomplished the same thing. The fact that they voted for Perot simply solidified the democrat by taking votes away from the republican but their vote didn't accomplish what they thought it would. They didn't get Perot elected and their vote became pointless because the winner will almost always come from the Dems or Reps. Vote third party and you get nothing you just succeed in helping someone of the two parties get elected and that's it. Again you could have accomplished that by voting against someone in one of the major party's.
Nope.

When you vote for third party you are voting for a particular set of ideals, when they voted for Perot they did accomplish something it showed that they would vote for those ideals and what they felt was lacking in the republican candidate.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
It also sends the message that maybe the two party system is ready to undergo a change. Its why we see other parties pop up such as the Libertarians, Tea Party and socialists. Its why a socialist candidate such as Bernie is running under the name of a democrat. Or a libertarian leaning candidate is running as a Republican.

If a candidate doesn't represent what you want, I see no reason to vote for him.
Yep, there's nothing in the constitution about a "two party system" and I'd welcome any attempt to destabilize it.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Bottom line is the way the system is now the winner of the presidency will emerge from one of the two parties and voting for a third party candidate yields nothing toward changing that. Maybe it will at some point but for now that is the way it is. V o ting for ideals has a nice ring but it is still going to be buried in the election results. You will get self satisfaction and nothing else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom