2016 Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
#6,552
#6,552
Mr_Henley said:
I literally said in my post I will vote for Rand Paul or Gary Johnson. One of the two is sure to be there on Election Day. I'm foregoing my concession to just vote republican simply to vote against a democrat. I vote for candidates I believe represent my personal values. I refuse to simply vote against someone who doesn't. It's why we're in the mess we have now.

Yes, I will "forego my opportunity" to simply vote Rubio to keep Hilary from winning the nomination. If the Republicans can't produce someone I can support as the nominee, they don't get my vote. Period.

I'm not expecting a perfect candidate. I disagree with Rand on some things, just like I actually agree with Bernie Sanders on a few things. I can compromise to support a candidate. Rubio, Cruz, Trump? No thanks. I'll vote Libertarian, which is much closer to my truest beliefs.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree and would argue this is more the equivalent of a millenial attitude of "not getting what I want" and therefore choosing not to participate, because voting for Gary Johnson is a wasted vote.

Sure you can stand on YOUR principles and feel good about that, but recognize that in doing so what you're really saying is that the election is about YOU... and what YOU can support, which is essentially what you're saying above. jmo but this is is a larger contributor as to why "we're in the mess we have now" because some people are choosing to vote based on "what's best for them" instead of voting on "what's best for the country".

If people would have voted on what they felt was best for the country in the last election Obama would never have received a 2nd term. And if people will vote in the upcoming election based on what's best for the country (even though it may be a lesser of two evils in your opinion, and perhaps mine as well), then there's no way a crook like Hillary should ever stand a chance of getting elected.

Choosing not to use your vote in an effective way because YOU can't get behind a candidate is a selfish perspective. The election is to determine which electable candidate can best lead our country, and that's how votes should be made imo. Perhaps one day we may have a true three party system and that is fine with me, but we are clearly not there at this point. Thank goodness our founding fathers recognized that the Articles of Confederation was also not what was best for the country and chose to replace them a few years later with the Constitution of the United States of America.

Will climb down from my soapbox now.
 
#6,554
#6,554
IBlvNTmWrk said:
I respectfully disagree and would argue this is more the equivalent of a millenial attitude of "not getting what I want" and therefore choosing not to participate, because voting for Gary Johnson is a wasted vote.

Sure you can stand on YOUR principles and feel good about that, but recognize that in doing so what you're really saying is that the election is about YOU... and what YOU can support, which is essentially what you're saying above. jmo but this is is a larger contributor as to why "we're in the mess we have now" because some people are choosing to vote based on "what's best for them" instead of voting on "what's best for the country".

If people would have voted on what they felt was best for the country in the last election Obama would never have received a 2nd term. And if people will vote in the upcoming election based on what's best for the country (even though it may be a lesser of two evils in your opinion, and perhaps mine as well), then there's no way a crook like Hillary should ever stand a chance of getting elected.

Choosing not to use your vote in an effective way because YOU can't get behind a candidate is a selfish perspective. The election is to determine which electable candidate can best lead our country, and that's how votes should be made imo. Perhaps one day we may have a true three party system and that is fine with me, but we are clearly not there at this point. Thank goodness our founding fathers recognized that the Articles of Confederation was also not what was best for the country and chose to replace them a few years later with the Constitution of the United States of America.

Will climb down from my soapbox now.
Click to expand...

If the electoral college didn't exist, your point would be very valid. But I know TN will go red regardless. I would much rather help a third party gain visibility in the hopes that it may become a viable option in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,555
#6,555
IBlvNTmWrk said:
I respectfully disagree and would argue this is more the equivalent of a millenial attitude of "not getting what I want" and therefore choosing not to participate, because voting for Gary Johnson is a wasted vote.

Sure you can stand on YOUR principles and feel good about that, but recognize that in doing so what you're really saying is that the election is about YOU... and what YOU can support, which is essentially what you're saying above. jmo but this is is a larger contributor as to why "we're in the mess we have now" because some people are choosing to vote based on "what's best for them" instead of voting on "what's best for the country".

If people would have voted on what they felt was best for the country in the last election Obama would never have received a 2nd term. And if people will vote in the upcoming election based on what's best for the country (even though it may be a lesser of two evils in your opinion, and perhaps mine as well), then there's no way a crook like Hillary should ever stand a chance of getting elected.

Choosing not to use your vote in an effective way because YOU can't get behind a candidate is a selfish perspective. The election is to determine which electable candidate can best lead our country, and that's how votes should be made imo. Perhaps one day we may have a true three party system and that is fine with me, but we are clearly not there at this point. Thank goodness our founding fathers recognized that the Articles of Confederation was also not what was best for the country and chose to replace them a few years later with the Constitution of the United States of America.

Will climb down from my soapbox now.
Click to expand...

Wait wait wait. The fact that I am voting for Gary Johnson on Election Day because he closest represents MY, yes MY (me me me), personal views is being selfish?

A wasted vote? Give me a break. Go tell that to the millions who are physically able and decide they can't take 15 minutes out of their day to go press a few buttons. That's selfish.

So, I would be a better patriot and unselfish millennial herd member if I just voted Republican so that everyone else can get their way?

You're not gult tripping me into this "Old Guard" toe the party line way of thinking. I'm not being selfish, I'm being informed, and firm on my beliefs. I don't need to justify a vote for third party because "they have no chance to actually win". Save that **** for the Trump and Bernie ignorant partisan masses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#6,556
#6,556
Positives for Rubio:

1. He isn't a loon.

2. He isn't Trump or Cruz.

3. This is really an iffy "positive", but I don't think his election would send us spiraling down the rabbit hole of no return any faster than we already are. That is, I think he's a status quo candidate who would not drastically change anything for better or worse, except for one area I will address in the next section..

Negatives for Rubio:

1. Depending on your view of the other candidates and how much they would be able to accomplish(negatively or positively), being a status quo candidate can certainly be a negative.

2. This may partially tie into number one, but the guy is pretty blatantly a bought and paid for, establishment neocon puppet. He's going to do as his masters say. He's going to pretty much not differ from any presidents we've had lately in that regard.

3. With all the stuff above considered, I still might even think about voting for him rather than just voting Gary Johnson or simply abstaining. But this is my biggest problem with him that I honestly will likely be unable to get past. I think out of all the potential candidates, this guy is most likely to not only keep us involved in conflict and wars around the world, but introduce us to even more and more. His rhetoric combined with my belief that he'll be in the pockets of particular special interests groups and the military industrial complex seems to paint a pretty clear picture in my mind about what he's all about here. The prototypical chickenhawk. Perhaps my biggest issue out of all the issues for this country is the way we've handled foreign affairs and our failed interventionist policies, and he seemingly represents the not only continuation of said policies but the escalation of them as well.
 
#6,557
#6,557
UTCVol said:
If the electoral college didn't exist, your point would be very valid. But I know TN will go red regardless. I would much rather help a third party gain visibility in the hopes that it may become a viable option in the future.
Click to expand...

Why I voted Gary Johnson in 2012.

Will likely do the same thing (maybe write in Rand Paul) this time around.

My vote for the GOP candidate does not matter in Alabama but every vote for a non-nominee does matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,558
#6,558
MercyPercy said:
Positives for Rubio:

1. He isn't a loon.

2. He isn't Trump or Cruz.

3. This is really an iffy "positive", but I don't think his election would send us spiraling down the rabbit hole of no return any faster than we already are. That is, I think he's a status quo candidate who would not drastically change anything for better or worse, except for one area I will address in the next section..

Negatives for Rubio:

1. Depending on your view of the other candidates and how much they would be able to accomplish(negatively or positively), being a status quo candidate can certainly be a negative.

2. This may partially tie into number one, but the guy is pretty blatantly a bought and paid for, establishment neocon puppet. He's going to do as his masters say. He's going to pretty much not differ from any presidents we've had lately in that regard.

3. With all the stuff above considered, I still might even think about voting for him rather than just voting Gary Johnson or simply abstaining. But this is my biggest problem with him that I honestly will likely be unable to get past. I think out of all the potential candidates, this guy is most likely to not only keep us involved in conflict and wars around the world, but introduce us to even more and more. His rhetoric combined with my belief that he'll be in the pockets of particular special interests groups and the military industrial complex seems to paint a pretty clear picture in my mind about what he's all about here. The prototypical chickenhawk. Perhaps my biggest issue out of all the issues for this country is the way we've handled foreign affairs and our failed interventionist policies, and he seemingly represents the not only continuation of said policies but the escalation of them as well.
Click to expand...

You'd vote for him just so he can get that "Gator" call sign from the Secret Service.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,560
#6,560
MercyPercy said:
Positives for Rubio:

1. He isn't a loon.

2. He isn't Trump or Cruz.

3. This is really an iffy "positive", but I don't think his election would send us spiraling down the rabbit hole of no return any faster than we already are. That is, I think he's a status quo candidate who would not drastically change anything for better or worse, except for one area I will address in the next section..

Negatives for Rubio:

1. Depending on your view of the other candidates and how much they would be able to accomplish(negatively or positively), being a status quo candidate can certainly be a negative.

2. This may partially tie into number one, but the guy is pretty blatantly a bought and paid for, establishment neocon puppet. He's going to do as his masters say. He's going to pretty much not differ from any presidents we've had lately in that regard.

3. With all the stuff above considered, I still might even think about voting for him rather than just voting Gary Johnson or simply abstaining. But this is my biggest problem with him that I honestly will likely be unable to get past. I think out of all the potential candidates, this guy is most likely to not only keep us involved in conflict and wars around the world, but introduce us to even more and more. His rhetoric combined with my belief that he'll be in the pockets of particular special interests groups and the military industrial complex seems to paint a pretty clear picture in my mind about what he's all about here. The prototypical chickenhawk. Perhaps my biggest issue out of all the issues for this country is the way we've handled foreign affairs and our failed interventionist policies, and he seemingly represents the not only continuation of said policies but the escalation of them as well.
Click to expand...

In seriousness now (kinda) I think #1 and 2 are valid points. I'm not entirely positive he's as "establishment" as many claim him to be.

But in honesty, I don't think he's as apt to get us into trouble any more than Cruz or Trump. I think ego plays a lot with those two and they would end up being far more likely to get us into a protracted conflict than he would. I honestly don't know where people get this idea he's a warhawk when Trump and Cruz have been far more vocal about making sand glow and carpet bombing ISIS or whomever.

So my question to you, or others that have mentioned it before, is what leads you to believe of the GOP candidates he's the most likely to get us into conflict?
 
#6,561
#6,561
MercyPercy said:
Positives for Rubio:

1. He isn't a loon.

2. He isn't Trump or Cruz.

3. This is really an iffy "positive", but I don't think his election would send us spiraling down the rabbit hole of no return any faster than we already are. That is, I think he's a status quo candidate who would not drastically change anything for better or worse, except for one area I will address in the next section..

Negatives for Rubio:

1. Depending on your view of the other candidates and how much they would be able to accomplish(negatively or positively), being a status quo candidate can certainly be a negative.

2. This may partially tie into number one, but the guy is pretty blatantly a bought and paid for, establishment neocon puppet. He's going to do as his masters say. He's going to pretty much not differ from any presidents we've had lately in that regard.

3. With all the stuff above considered, I still might even think about voting for him rather than just voting Gary Johnson or simply abstaining. But this is my biggest problem with him that I honestly will likely be unable to get past. I think out of all the potential candidates, this guy is most likely to not only keep us involved in conflict and wars around the world, but introduce us to even more and more. His rhetoric combined with my belief that he'll be in the pockets of particular special interests groups and the military industrial complex seems to paint a pretty clear picture in my mind about what he's all about here. The prototypical chickenhawk. Perhaps my biggest issue out of all the issues for this country is the way we've handled foreign affairs and our failed interventionist policies, and he seemingly represents the not only continuation of said policies but the escalation of them as well.
Click to expand...

Yes. Your third point is why I could never vote for him in a general. I think he has a wealth of foreign policy knowledge, but he draws the same conclusions we've been seeing for the past two administrations. I'm honestly not sure what his foreign policy disagreements would be with Hillary in the debate.

Trump and Cruz are actually better on these points, but they've made some comments in regards to foreign policy that should frighten people. It may just be red meat for the base, but still concerning. Trump is probably making it up as he goes along, but he knows the base loves tough talk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,564
#6,564
I guess I was just born selfish, you know, with the right to cast my very own vote based on personal opinion or beliefs. Does someone want to go to the booth and press it for me? Just whomever has the best chance of winning within your preferred party, the party you predetermined to support, will do just fine.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#6,566
#6,566
Grand Vol said:
In seriousness now (kinda) I think #1 and 2 are valid points. I'm not entirely positive he's as "establishment" as many claim him to be.

But in honesty, I don't think he's as apt to get us into trouble any more than Cruz or Trump. I think ego plays a lot with those two and they would end up being far more likely to get us into a protracted conflict than he would. I honestly don't know where people get this idea he's a warhawk when Trump and Cruz have been far more vocal about making sand glow and carpet bombing ISIS or whomever.

So my question to you, or others that have mentioned it before, is what leads you to believe of the GOP candidates he's the most likely to get us into conflict?
Click to expand...

I think Trump is just making **** up as he goes along and just says tough things because it gets applause. I don't think Trump himself believes he'll do half the things he says he will.

I think Cruz is being the calculated, slimeball politician that he is. I certainly don't think I would enjoy his foreign policy, no doubt he would likely keep us down the same path of interventionist failures, but I do believe a lot of his rhetoric is simply tactical in nature.

Rubio, I see as young, inexperienced guy with something to prove and the support/control from from big business interests to turn his rhetoric into more disastrous foreign policy. I think unlike Trump and Cruz that he is somewhat genuine in his zealotry for war, and that's scary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,567
#6,567
UTCVol said:
If the electoral college didn't exist, your point would be very valid. But I know TN will go red regardless. I would much rather help a third party gain visibility in the hopes that it may become a viable option in the future.
Click to expand...

Completely understand and have no issues with this. My point is directed more at the swing states (e.g. FL, OH, etc.) where individuals are well aware that their vote can have an impact on the outcome.

Mr_Henley said:
Wait wait wait. The fact that I am voting for Gary Johnson on Election Day because he closest represents MY, yes MY (me me me), personal views is being selfish?
Click to expand...

Yes... that is absolutely the definition of selfish. I'm not sure how else you could see it.

Mr_Henley said:
A wasted vote? Give me a break. Go tell that to the millions who are physically able and decide they can't take 15 minutes out of their day to go press a few buttons. That's selfish.
Click to expand...

And your vote for Gary Johnson will have exactly the same impact on the election outcome as "the millions who are physically able and decide they can't take 15 minutes out of their day to go press a few buttons". Again, I'm not sure how else you could see it.

Mr_Henley said:
So, I would be a better patriot and unselfish millennial herd member if I just voted Republican so that everyone else can get their way?
Click to expand...

My point had nothing to do with "everyone else getting their way". Rather, it was everyone voting as to what they felt would be best for the country... period.

Mr_Henley said:
You're not gult tripping me into this "Old Guard" toe the party line way of thinking. I'm not being selfish, I'm being informed, and firm on my beliefs. I don't need to justify a vote for third party because "they have no chance to actually win". Save that **** for the Trump and Bernie ignorant partisan masses.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to "guilt trip" anyone, I'm just stating my opinion. However, if you don't understand the contradiction of "not being selfish" and "firm on MY beliefs" then you don't understand what selfish means.
 
#6,568
#6,568
UTCVol said:
Treon for court jester?
Click to expand...

That would be a massive misuse of Treon's invaluable skill. The skill to turn a somewhat successful organization into a dumpster fire singlehandedly. We obvious need to use him to infiltrate ISIS from the inside, and the problem will take care of itself.
 
#6,569
#6,569
What I think is best for the country is more Libertarian principles, not socialist ones.

I'm voting for a Libertarian. Kills two birds with one stone.


Are you going to continue to make an ass out of yourself trying to convince me, and everyone else, that me choosing to cast a vote for the man who best represents my beliefs, for POTUS, is selfish and not simply being informed and opinionated?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,570
#6,570
MercyPercy said:
That would be a massive misuse of Treon's invaluable skill. The skill to turn a somewhat successful organization into a dumpster fire singlehandedly. We obvious need to use him to infiltrate ISIS from the inside, and the problem will take care of itself.
Click to expand...

Can he bring the grand theft scooter guys with him as a getaway plan?
 
#6,571
#6,571
Maybe I am wrong and so selfish and short sighted that I can't understand your argument. It's doubtful.
 
#6,572
#6,572
MercyPercy said:
I think Trump is just making **** up as he goes along and just says tough things because it gets applause. I don't think Trump himself believes he'll do half the things he says he will.
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree with you, but I'll factor in ego as a huge part of that rhetoric. And I personally believe he would be the one to start slinging bombs in the name of "America!" if it came down to it.

MercyPercy said:
I think Cruz is being the calculated, slimeball politician that he is. I certainly don't think I would enjoy his foreign policy, no doubt he would likely keep us down the same path of interventionist failures, but I do believe a lot of his rhetoric is simply tactical in nature.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. You are spot on with the slimeball comments as I totally agree with you.

MercyPercy said:
Rubio, I see as young, inexperienced guy with something to prove and the support/control from from big business interests to turn his rhetoric into more disastrous foreign policy. I think unlike Trump and Cruz that he is somewhat genuine in his zealotry for war, and that's scary.
Click to expand...

Rubio has just as much experience as Cruz or Trump on the world stage. I don't disagree he could lead us into another conflict, but I don't think he's as quick to do so as people claim. I think he is very intelligent and looks for multiple angles to problem solving. While a couple of posters give him crap about the Gang of 8 thing, it took a lot of balls to cross party lines and set that up. And it showed a maturity to actually compromise on something rather than the standard partisan "NO!" answer to everything that came from across the aisle.

Of the three, I'd almost see him as the least likely to start crap just because 'Murica! However, I don't think he would be a President to be trifled with either.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top