Y2HH Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:24 AM) This is pretty much how I see it. THAT point is view is more logical, yes. But it doesn't apply to most states. I think putting your voice into the system, even if it's "wasted" sends a message of protest. Yes, I used my vote to protest. I thought that was the point of the system...the point of having a voice, even if it's a small one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:16 AM) lol ok. see this is the reason this country is so divided. people like you won't see logic and reason if it smacks them in the face. Oh the irony! As for the results, I think this is a clear message to the GOP that the national party committee needs to "rig" the system so that the primaries aren't about all about appealing to the crazy right and then be forced back to the middle come election time. It's time to concede the gay marriage and abortion battles in order to win the war. It's time to fight back on the immigration message and give the American people a good reason why 100% amnesty isn't the answer, and if you oppose 100% amnesty you don't condone the killing and raping of little latino girls. I'm not very optimistic about the next 4 years. It's still a divided country, and i'm sad that we're becoming western Europe more and more by the day. "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country" has been completely flipped in 50 years. We are an entitled nation that now demands the Federal government play the role of babysitter and provider. That's sad. There's a place for that in the government's responsibilities, but not at the cost of losing that mentality of individualism and self-responsibility. I'm 100% in agreement with SS2k5 - give me a candidate that stays out of my wallet and out of my bedroom. Legalize drugs, stop the abortion fight, allow gay marriage, whatever. But if we're deciding government can't decide moral issues, then the government shouldn't be able to take my money in order to pay for governments supposed moral responsibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:25 AM) i was also just about to type that in response to Rock so why are you saying what you're saying to people living in Indiana and Illinois? These states were secure for each candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 10:26 AM) THAT point is view is more logical, yes. But it doesn't apply to most states. I think putting your voice into the system, even if it's "wasted" sends a message of protest. Yes, I used my vote to protest. I thought that was the point of the system...the point of having a voice, even if it's a small one. it literally just means we value two different things. you value your individual voice and opinion and the future over the good of the whole right NOW. there's merit to both, but the one thing that I won't back down on is that a vote for a third party candidate gives the opposite candidate a little boost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 10:27 AM) so why are you saying what you're saying to people living in Indiana and Illinois? These states were secure for each candidate. because... this is the message board i frequent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:26 AM) THAT point is view is more logical, yes. But it doesn't apply to most states. I think putting your voice into the system, even if it's "wasted" sends a message of protest. Yes, I used my vote to protest. I thought that was the point of the system...the point of having a voice, even if it's a small one. That was what I did in the Biggert/Foster election. I wrote-in a friend's name. I don't support Biggert, but Foster is bad himself and the difference between the two didn't amount to enough for me to care. I suppose on the whole I'm glad Foster won, but he wasn't going to do it with my vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:28 AM) it literally just means we value two different things. you value your individual voice and opinion and the future over the good of the whole right NOW. there's merit to both, but the one thing that I won't back down on is that a vote for a third party candidate gives the opposite candidate a little boost. What opposite candidate? You are locked into a this or that system. Me voting for Stein in cook county gave Romney zero boost whatsoever. None. It did however boost the support financially for one of the more viable third parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 10:32 AM) What opposite candidate? You are locked into a this or that system. Me voting for Stein in cook county gave Romney zero boost whatsoever. None. It did however boost the support financially for one of the more viable third parties. well not ZERO. popular vote still matters in the framing of the election Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:30 AM) That was what I did in the Biggert/Foster election. I wrote-in a friend's name. I don't support Biggert, but Foster is bad himself and the difference between the two didn't amount to enough for me to care. I suppose on the whole I'm glad Foster won, but he wasn't going to do it with my vote. That's your right under democracy and nobody has the right to tell you your opinion or actions were wrong. Anyone who does obviously doesn't understand freedom of choice in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:33 AM) well not ZERO. popular vote still matters in the framing of the election Yes and my vote went to the party I support. So I boosted my own choice and that's it. I took away a popular vote from both the republicans and democrats. You are still locked into a two party frame of mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 10:36 AM) Yes and my vote went to the party I support. So I boosted my own choice and that's it. I took away a popular vote from both the republicans and democrats. You are still locked into a two party frame of mind. i'm locked into a greater good, lesser of two evils frame of mind. but like i said, if a candidate comes along who's a viable third party choice, then I'll vote for them - but until that day, I'd rather us go slowly in the right direction than backwards, and i'll vote to support THAT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 So in 2016 will we see Julian Castro as the dem nominee? Talk about securing the Latino vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 yeah everyone's talking Clinton - but i doubt she'll run. I love Elizabeth Warren, but she's too liberal to do well unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:37 AM) i'm locked into a greater good, lesser of two evils frame of mind. but like i said, if a candidate comes along who's a viable third party choice, then I'll vote for them - but until that day, I'd rather us go slowly in the right direction than backwards, and i'll vote to support THAT. How is helping award a third party financial support for next election moving backwards? You make zero sense. Because of this election and the support they can continue to build the campaign for 2016 when they can insert in your words a "viable" candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOXOBAMA Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 My prediction for 2016. Hillary Clinton vs Marco Rubio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogan873 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) It's so disappointing to see some of the posts on Facebook and the like after the election. And as some of you have mentioned about those saying they are goijng to move to Canada or Europe...they just don't get it. There were many I know whose position was "anyone but Obama". So to them it didn't matter who the GOP rolled up there, that's who was going to get their vote. That's the problem with the two party system. For so many voters it didn't matter what Obama was promising or what Romney said he's do different. It was Democrat and Republican. Obama or the other guy. I've taken those tests online that ask a bunch of questions to see where you are in regards to political alliance. For the most part I end up leaning towards Democrat, but there are things that I believe that are opposite the Democratic way. If there wasn't a two party system, we as voters would probably pay a lot more attention to what the candidates believe in and say they will do. Obviously the party system will never go away, but it's a shame that so many voters are uninformed and for the most part don't want to be informed. Edited November 7, 2012 by pittshoganerkoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:41 AM) My prediction for 2016. Hillary Clinton vs Marco Rubio I don't think a woman will be a presidential candidate for at least 10 more years. He dems would do better choosing a minority like one of the castros IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 10:40 AM) How is helping award a third party financial support for next election moving backwards? You make zero sense. Because of this election and the support they can continue to build the campaign for 2016 when they can insert in your words a "viable" candidate. Not you - you're fine - you live in Illinois. I wish I'd mentioned that earlier cuz it would have saved us all this headache, but primarily i'm talking about people who live in contested states. In THOSE states a third party vote risks moving backwards (ie: the "other guy" of the two viable candidates winning). the solid red or blues can do whatever they want. it's NOT as big a deal in Illinois, and your point about the popular vote is well taken. Edited November 7, 2012 by Reddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOXOBAMA Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 I don't think a woman will be a presidential candidate for at least 10 more years. He dems would do better choosing a minority like one of the castros IMO. Actually, I would like to see Castro as the VP pick to Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pettie4sox Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 We do need a 3rd party option for sure. I am sick and tired of the D's and R's. People are so aligned with their party, that they'll vote for something that against their interests for loyalty sakes. F*** that! We all are different and have our different reasons for why we vote the way we do but this is America and that's what makes in great. FREEDOM! On a side note. Romney was like Kerry was in 2004. They had to throw someone out there but most our eyeing 2016 as a legitimate Presidential race. Romney won't last past the primaries next time for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 10:45 AM) Actually, I would like to see Castro as the VP pick to Clinton. Warren would be a great VP pick. Clinton's too old to do VP. I feel like she's either going to be done with politics, or go for president. doubt she'd settle for anything else at this point. Edited November 7, 2012 by Reddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Morning Comrades. I'm very pleased with last night. My contention that if you aren't happy with Democrats you can still reform them while in power appears to have worked out. Some great new senators elected, and excellent state democratic wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOXOBAMA Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Warren would be a great VP pick. Clinton's too old to do VP. I feel like she's either going to be done with politics, or go for president. doubt she'd settle for anything else at this point. I feel President Clinton helped Obama, so Hillary could be in a better position in 4 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogan873 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Is Chris Christie still highly thought of in the GOP as a candidate for 2016? I wonder how much damage was done when he praised the President. It's a shame that even in a time of crisis politics still rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOXOBAMA Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 AP RACE CALL: Montana Sen. Jon Tester wins re-election Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts