Politics I voted

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Denny, just curious: do you voluntarily live in California, or are you there for work?

I could never imagine moving back to my birth place. Even my life-long Liberal Hippie Bay Area-born pot-smoking father recently told me there's no way he'd move back there.

Good for you for voting! I voted Libertarian a while back when I voted for Bob Barr. He was an NRA executive officer/board of directors, and I didn't like the choice of the main candidates at the time (I believe it was Bush/Kerry 2004, IIRC).

Then I came to the realization that such a vote was a waste (my personal opinion regarding MY vote), and elected to vote for the lesser of the two evils.

But if it works for you, then good for you!
 
I voluntarily live in CA, but I wasn't born here. I wish I was. I'm glad nobody's building a wall or wanting to send me back to Chicago.

Bob Barr is the only Libertarian I did not vote for. He was a republican and still acted and sounded like one as the party candidate. I wrote in Ron Paul.

My vote is never a waste. It goes to someone worthy of my vote.
 
dviss1 said:
I can't stop watching it! Over and Over!!

Johnson's got tiger blood!!

:biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:
Click to expand...

If you think the system is stacked against Sanders, it's really stacked against 3rd parties. They'll make some excuse to keep Johnson off the debate stage when Hiliar and Trump go head to head.

If you think public funding of campaigns is a good idea, it will destroy any possibility of a 3rd party since they'll have NO money at all.

The Libertarians do not go around promising free shit to anyone. Corporations included.
 
For years I cast a protest vote for the candidates of the Socialist Workers Party. Often had to write them in. I knew of course they would not win elections but I voted for them citing what Eugene Debs said early 20th century, "it is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it". But I have developed differences, not just of emphasis, but of principle, with the Socialist Workers Party, among other things openly anti-trans comments. I figure if I cast a protest vote it should be with enthusiasm. Since I know the candidate won't win, vote for what I really want. If that is not the case, no point in a protest vote.

Now, I am voting for the person I find best qualified. There are things I don't like about Hillary Clinton, most specially her ties to corporate America. There are areas where I disagree with her; Iraq war obviously and death penalty. But she still seems the most competent, smart, knowledgeable, experienced, and calm person in the running. What really decided me was the attacks in Belgium. Trump was trying to find someone, anyone, to torture, Cruz suggested a "Warsaw ghetto" for Americans who are Muslim, Sanders seemed lost. I did not agree with every detail of Clinton's proposals but she really looked like the adult in the room. And Sanders' Daily News interview was very disappointing, they were not trick questions, he looked unprepared. So Clinton gets my vote, not for queen, for president.

The idea of a Clinton cult is laughable. Her biggest disadvantage is that she is not charismatic (she really isn't); that does not hurt her in office but does in campaigning. If anyone could be said to be a cult it is Trump; his supporters, when pointed out that he says things that are factually false, say it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter if he switches positions, what matters he is seen as "strong man" who will fix everything by the force of his personality. And blacks and women will again know their place.
 
upload_2016-5-23_9-41-56.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-5-23_9-41-56.png
    upload_2016-5-23_9-41-56.png
    89.7 KB · Views: 34
Was that for me, Denny? I am aware. But IMO it's not enough to just condemn bigotry or say there should be no laws regarding treatment. A start, not enough. Because in most states if I apply for a job they can legally ask me if I'm gay and refuse to hire me no matter how qualified I am. So at times intervention is needed, like employment nondiscrimination laws. And you can say marriage is personal but in reality marriage was an option for straights if they wanted while gay couples had no such option. I'm glad to see the denunciation of bigotry. You vote your conscience, good on you. I vote in part conscience, in part practicality. Long live democracy.
 
crandc said:
Was that for me, Denny? I am aware. But IMO it's not enough to just condemn bigotry or say there should be no laws regarding treatment. A start, not enough. Because in most states if I apply for a job they can legally ask me if I'm gay and refuse to hire me no matter how qualified I am. So at times intervention is needed, like employment nondiscrimination laws. And you can say marriage is personal but in reality marriage was an option for straights if they wanted while gay couples had no such option. I'm glad to see the denunciation of bigotry. You vote your conscience, good on you. I vote in part conscience, in part practicality. Long live democracy.
Click to expand...

Whoever refuses to hire you loses. Whoever hires you wins.

If some company refuses to hire anyone due to prejudice, boycott them. I'll join you.

You cannot legislate prejudice away. It only makes it hidden and insidious, which is worse.

Given the government's track record on gay rights, I don't see that pulling the lever for the status quo makes any sense at all.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/23/uniquely-nasty-govt-gay-cruelty

Documentary Uniquely Nasty Chronicles the Government's Long and Cruel War Against Gay Rights
For decades, the feds would actively try to destroy the lives of homosexuals.

The years between 1950 and 1980 were a notably harsh period for gays in American society. The federal government viewed gays, especially gay men, in the same way it viewed communists: as huge threats who could destroy American society.

(The LP ran the first openly gay person for president in 1980).

 
Denny Crane said:
If you think the system is stacked against Sanders, it's really stacked against 3rd parties. They'll make some excuse to keep Johnson off the debate stage when Hiliar and Trump go head to head.

If you think public funding of campaigns is a good idea, it will destroy any possibility of a 3rd party since they'll have NO money at all.

The Libertarians do not go around promising free shit to anyone. Corporations included.
Click to expand...

What? How the hell would they have no money when we'd publicly fund it? Make sense to me.
 
crandc said:
Was that for me, Denny? I am aware. But IMO it's not enough to just condemn bigotry or say there should be no laws regarding treatment. A start, not enough. Because in most states if I apply for a job they can legally ask me if I'm gay and refuse to hire me no matter how qualified I am. So at times intervention is needed, like employment nondiscrimination laws. And you can say marriage is personal but in reality marriage was an option for straights if they wanted while gay couples had no such option. I'm glad to see the denunciation of bigotry. You vote your conscience, good on you. I vote in part conscience, in part practicality. Long live democracy.
Click to expand...

Yeah.... Shillary just came around on that in 2012. Sanders has had his mind right for decades.
 
dviss1 said:
What? How the hell would they have no money when we'd publicly fund it? Make sense to me.
Click to expand...

The two parties write the rules so no 3rd party gets any money.

That's why you don't want the government controlling free speech. They will decide who gets to speak at all.
 
Fez Hammersticks said:
I'm still waiting for proof that you didn't vote for George W.
Click to expand...

Why would I vote for W?

I don't think he was as bad as many do, but I don't think he was all that good either. Well, he was fine when he was reading to kids in schools and hosting little league at the white house. Unfortunately, he spent money like a drunk sailor. Except a drunk sailor has to stop when his wallet is empty.
 
Denny Crane said:
Why would I vote for W?

I don't think he was as bad as many do, but I don't think he was all that good either. Well, he was fine when he was reading to kids in schools and hosting little league at the white house. Unfortunately, he spent money like a drunk sailor. Except a drunk sailor has to stop when his wallet is empty.
Click to expand...

Prove it Mr. I swear I'm not a Republican!
 
I didn't take pictures of my ballots back then.

Here's my 2012 ballot though:

upload_2016-5-23_20-20-18.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-5-23_20-20-18.png
    upload_2016-5-23_20-20-18.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 50
upload_2016-5-23_20-23-29.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-5-23_20-23-29.png
    upload_2016-5-23_20-23-29.png
    842.9 KB · Views: 49
upload_2016-5-23_20-24-24.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-5-23_20-24-24.png
    upload_2016-5-23_20-24-24.png
    386.3 KB · Views: 51
As far as the person who I like the most, it's certainly Gary Johnson. I also would love to see a shakeup in the 2 party system. However, I just have extreme fundamental problems with libertarianism that will keep me from voting for him. I wish the Dems could get someone half as honest as their candidate.
 
I have also heard Gary Johnson speak several times recently, in interviews, in the libertarian debates and on podcasts, and in all of them he repeated many of the exact same sentences. He is just as rehearsed as Hillary and has in my opinion some dangerous positions especially with regards to public education, scientific funding and taxation strategies that will increase the burden on the lower and middle class. As I stated earlier, I am fundamentally opposed to the L platform, so it's no wonder I don't value his plans.

On the other hand, I do like views on govt and drug policy and a few other topics of personal freedom. But I also believe the role of government is to protect those who are in historically abused groups like blacks, hispanics or the LBGT amongst us. I do believe his heart is in the right place, but his policies aren't. Just my two cents.
 
barfo said:
And the knives come out for Gary Johnson...

barfo
Click to expand...

It's great that "conservatives" don't like him.

The article talks about 7% increases in spending during his tenure. Yet...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson

During his tenure as governor, Johnson became known for his low-taxlibertarian views, adhering to policies of tax and bureaucracy reduction supported by a cost–benefit analysis rationale. He cut the 10% annual growth in the budget: in part, due to his use of the gubernatorial veto 200 times during his first six months in office.[2] Johnson set state and national records for his use of veto and line-item veto powers:[2] estimated to have been more than the other 49 contemporary governors combined,[4][5] which gained him the nicknames "Veto Johnson" and "Governor Veto".[6][7]

It's a start.

This site says government increased by 5% during his tenure. Even better.

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=210816

Well, no. Yes, the budget rose 5% per year during his time in office. Unfortunately that's a roughly 50% increase in the size of the State Government during those eight years.
 
And then here's another article from the same site, from 7 hours ago:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435804/gary-johnson-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-election-2016

Spending increased under Johnson, but there’s more to the story.

...

With so many Democrats in the legislature, Johnson’s main impact was in vetoing an astonishing 739 bills over his eight years in office. Nonetheless, Johnson’s agenda was stymied in other ways by the partisan makeup of his state’s legislature. Every year Johnson proposed school-choice vouchers and every year the Democrats in the legislature killed them.
 
FiveThirtyEight:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-johnson-hes-pulling-10-vs-trump-and-clinton/

Pay Attention To Libertarian Gary Johnson; He’s Pulling 10 Percent vs. Trump And Clinton

A Morning Consult survey published Tuesday and found Clinton getting 38 percent of the vote, Trump 35 and Johnson 10, with 17 percent undecided. A Fox News poll conducted from May 14-17 showed Trump leading over Clinton, 42 percent to 39 percent, but Johnson at 10 percent as well. Lest you think this is some fluky May development, a Monmouth University survey conducted in mid-March — while the political universe was still busy wringing its hands over the Republican nomination — found that in a three-way race, Clinton would get 42 percent, Trump 34 percent and Johnson 11 percent.

Given that Trump and Clinton are sporting historically high negative ratings, Johnson’s polling makes a fair bit of sense; Gary Johnson is neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton. He might not win a state, but he could make some noise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top