It's not that we have to choose between Trump and Biden. It's that we GET to choose between Trump and Biden.
OT: If you were voting today, would it be Trump or Biden, and why??
- Thread starter Darryl Steight
- Start date
- Status
It's not that we have to choose between Trump and Biden. It's that we GET to choose between Trump and Biden.
Voting is always a lessor of two evils. That's how voting works.
No, there are others. You can vote by not voting, or you can always write in a protest vote.
The 2016 election was the last time I ever was hopeful that a 3rd party candidate would emerge, and it wasn't even close to happening. You had 2 candidates that most people didn't really want. There were a few polls that showed that only half the people voting for either candidate, was voting "FOR" them. In other words, half the supporters were just voting "AGAINST" the other. So you had half of America voting AGAINST somebody. Why wouldn't they just vote "FOR" a 3rd party instead (and no, not the Green party, but I digress...). I mean, if you really don't want the 2 main candidates, why not try the 3rd? Could it really be any worse? But no, it didn't happen, and it never will. So I just won't waste my time anymore.
I love how people act like this is a Trump or a Biden problem. They are a microcosm of the American public, specifically the baby boomers. They are America. They are what we are. All the negative things ya'll say about them could be applied to that whole generation.
George Carlin said it best - maybe it's not Congress who sucks, maybe it's the PUBLIC who sucks. As a people, we are generally selfish consumeristic 17shlts. Why wouldn't our elected officials be? Garbage in, garbage out.
All that to say, when you choose not to vote for your party candidate because of their morals or whatever, you're really just casting a vote for the other party. That reality is a mother 17er that a lot of you self-loathing, virtue signaling folks need to wake up to.
George Carlin said it best - maybe it's not Congress who sucks, maybe it's the PUBLIC who sucks. As a people, we are generally selfish consumeristic 17shlts. Why wouldn't our elected officials be? Garbage in, garbage out.
All that to say, when you choose not to vote for your party candidate because of their morals or whatever, you're really just casting a vote for the other party. That reality is a mother 17er that a lot of you self-loathing, virtue signaling folks need to wake up to.
I don't vote morals or if I like the guy. I vote for the guy who closely align with my political views and the one I think has the best chance of getting it done. I used to worry about personality and character, but I have learned humans no matter the generation are Son's of Bitches. No one is going to be perfect. They try to appear to be, but they have been a Son of a ***** more than once in their life. I don't care if he or sits in the oval office and masturbates as long as he or she gets the job done.
George Carlin
“I on the other hand, who did not vote, WHO DID NOT VOTE. Who in fact did not even leave the house on election-day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done, and have every RIGHT to complain as loud as I want, about the mess YOU created, that I had nothing to do with.”
Carlin also said:
“I on the other hand, who did not vote, WHO DID NOT VOTE. Who in fact did not even leave the house on election-day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done, and have every RIGHT to complain as loud as I want, about the mess YOU created, that I had nothing to do with.”
Its pretty stupid to vote for a person just because they are the candidate for a party you support.
...but to pull back further, its also pretty stupid to support a party. Why the 17 would anyone support an entire party instead of focusing on issues individually, valuing them, and then voting based on who aligns with the issues you value most?
There's no other choice. That's what makes what you suggest, stupidity of the highest order.
Let's get it back to MSU related.
Lobbying for Arnett to get a new contract after getting canned by Selmon only for Arnett to gin up Barbay and tell him that he was cheated and that he should take one of the hail state flags and pole-whip the Bryan building security guard, piss in Polk's cigar box, and **** on Jans' desk. Then spend the next 4 years telling everyone he didn't really get fired and Barbay was just peacefully protesting. There's your Trump vote.
Putting Leach's urn on the sideline at the 50 and hoping he wins us some games would be a Biden vote.
Either way...we gonna Emstate.
Lobbying for Arnett to get a new contract after getting canned by Selmon only for Arnett to gin up Barbay and tell him that he was cheated and that he should take one of the hail state flags and pole-whip the Bryan building security guard, piss in Polk's cigar box, and **** on Jans' desk. Then spend the next 4 years telling everyone he didn't really get fired and Barbay was just peacefully protesting. There's your Trump vote.
Putting Leach's urn on the sideline at the 50 and hoping he wins us some games would be a Biden vote.
Either way...we gonna Emstate.
I dont know what you are referring to with the jerking off comment, but the part in red is absolutely long past due for Presidential elections.
A vote in California should count the same as a vote in Mississippi. If someone votes for Trump in California, it shouldnt be a totally pointless vote that is worthless at the national level. That vote should count.
Everyone in the US should have an equal voice and equal influence when it comes to Presidential elections. 1 vote in New York should count the same as 1 vote in Alabama. 1 vote in Wisconsin should count the same as 1 vote in Arizona.
The Presidential election should count all votes equally. Simple as that.
I agree with the absurd spending on elections. There needs to be a deadline for when candidates have X% of support and everyone with that much support or more is given $5mm to spend on their campaign. Thats it. No dark money coming from PACs, no fundraising, no nothing. Everyone gets the same small amount of money to work with and has to figure out how to visit the country, pay staff, and advertise within that set amount of money.
Sure there is a choice. I can look at all the candidates and vote for the one that best aligns with the issues I care about the most. Ignore the party affiliation and simply look at what they say/want/have done.
I like it! Collectivism is weak and lazy no matter how it's applied and what party uses it.
I admire your idealism, but it's misplaced.
You can do more of this in local elections.
Wow, agreeing with you on a couple more things today but one for a slightly different reason.
Not having an electoral college would definitely favor Ds right now but that could change. It would force the Rs to campaign hard again in CA & NY. While it may take time I think it could grow support just due to exposure that just doesn't happen today....it definitely can't get worse. Also, it would force all candidates to campaign everywhere not just swing states.
Totally agree with the campaign spending issue. Problem is the real people with power will never let this happen and they aren't Ds or Rs....they are the Elite and they are chameleons.
No, it's not. If there is no good candidate on the ballot, don't vote or write in someone you admire. The only lessor of two evils choice is to vote for one of the evils, BY DEFINITION.
Yes. People don't realize that the main reason the two Parties hold the stances they do is because those are the ones that work for them in swing states/districts. Change the path to victory, and you change what they support. For good or bad?
Lol, ok Boomer. Whatever delusion you've got to sell yourself on today.
The Republican party is very fragmented right now because many within it are acting as "individuals". That seems to be one of the main differences in them and the Democrats who seem to be able to quietly squash all attempts at "individualism" among their ranks. So if you vote for a Democrat, regardless of what they say, they will always vote as they are instructed by the party in the end so in essence you voted for the "party". This is one reason that while I think Nancy Pelosi is one of the most despicable people to ever walk the halls of congress at the same time I think strictly from a party standpoint she may be one of the greatest Speakers of all time. I would pay good money to have eavesdropped on one of her "prayer meetings" with a Dem congressman attempting to go rogue on the party.
Electoral college is fine given that it roughly aligns with the way power is allocated via House and Senate. Disproportionate influence per population is an element in the design of the Senate and it is okay to have a little of that baked into a national election. Not perfect when we are so close to 50/50, but that will change over time and there's no sense in throwing the baby out with the bath water.
My beef would be that we are way overdue on increasing the size of the house. 1 rep covers far too many people and has more power and influence than the founders intended and before our population explosion. More reps would temper some of the louder voices right and left that get too much attention and influence these days. It would be a lot easier for us as citizens to get into our representatives' ears when they have less population to cover. Could also reduce the amount of money one needs to become a viable candidate making the elections more city sized vs managing good chunks of states.
To make it MSU related again...I'm okay with us having the same vote in conference matters that Alabama does despite us having far fewer fans. Their fans and dollars influence in other ways but if we didn't have our 1/14 vote along with some other smaller programs, we'd been kicked out long ago. That spirit is built into our constitution and is perfectly fine to retain in our presidential elections as well.
My beef would be that we are way overdue on increasing the size of the house. 1 rep covers far too many people and has more power and influence than the founders intended and before our population explosion. More reps would temper some of the louder voices right and left that get too much attention and influence these days. It would be a lot easier for us as citizens to get into our representatives' ears when they have less population to cover. Could also reduce the amount of money one needs to become a viable candidate making the elections more city sized vs managing good chunks of states.
To make it MSU related again...I'm okay with us having the same vote in conference matters that Alabama does despite us having far fewer fans. Their fans and dollars influence in other ways but if we didn't have our 1/14 vote along with some other smaller programs, we'd been kicked out long ago. That spirit is built into our constitution and is perfectly fine to retain in our presidential elections as well.
Well, the last time I voted for president there were more than two people on the ballot, and there was a write in option. I take it you have never voted.
Lol, there's the Liver we know. Completely shocked that the Party he shilled for for decades wound up right where they said they were going, yet still arrogant enough to not listen to the people who were right when he was wrong.
See what you did to SPS during football season Arnett? I hope you are happy.
Sure do, Boomer. Learned you're full of **** and a one trick pony.
. Took me too dang long, that's for sure. I hung on to hope for your generation and political ilk. But you convinced me, congrats.
Wouldn't doing away with the electoral college put much of the country in the same position they were in prior to the American revolution . I mean, while either would be awful, I would just as soon be under British rule as being ruled by California and New York.
I don't know how I feel about that yet, but damn that's an eye opening statement.
No worries for the dems at all next year because you can bet Obama's husband will put its name in the hat and if so, that thing will win hands down then the country is completely gone.
O
Or maybe, just maybe we could have more than two viable parties like modern countries do.
We need a parliamentary system with multiple parties, like every modern democracy has. Then we will all have an option we can vote for and like, and the winners can do the nose-holding compromises and such.
Almost all of those countries have proportional representation; ie if you have 4 parties who collectively get 35%/30%/20%/15% in a election, that's generally the percentage of legislative seats they get.
We have winner-take-all which makes it very, very hard for more than 2 parties to compete.
- Status
Latest posts
Get unlimited access today.