I know nobody cares, but.......

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

In my opinion, voting for a third party is a cop-out, so I just cannot do it.

Why is voting for a third party "a cop out"?
How will things ever change if people discontented with both major parties don't even consider another option?
I've been voting for a minority 3rd party for years now (in Oz, not the US), with quite a few other discontented voters. That party currently holds the balance of power in the senate.

2 Replies

@msolga,

Precisely msO.

The NDP were the third party federally in Canada for decades. They are now the loyal opposition in Canada, having knocked the Liberals into a deep dark hole.

I'm glad people (occasionally including me) voted for them through the decades.

I think governments can get more done if they have more than one other party to negotiate with. Things that benefit citizens really seem to get done in situations of minority government.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

In my opinion, voting for a third party is a cop-out, so I just cannot do it. I will vote for Obama.

I'm stunned that the man who raises agnosticism to a religion would see not taking one of two proffered choices as a cop-out. Really? Some of us vote third party by preference because neither of the platforms presented by the Big Two represent our positions. There are people in this country who disagree as much with one side as the other and see both parties as flip sides of the same coin. I've been voting for third party candidates since John Anderson ran as an Independent in 1980. There's been an occasional reason to vote for the lesser of two evils such as voting against GWB twice but I can't fathom why you of all people would see voting one's conscience as a cop-out.

1 Reply

@msolga,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5133053)
Quote:
In my opinion, voting for a third party is a cop-out, so I just cannot do it.

Why is voting for a third party "a cop out"?

FOR ME...it would be a cop-out. For others it is not. In fact, for others it is the reasonable thing to do. For others...they should do it. FOR ME...I cannot, because I would consider it a cop-out.

Quote:

How will things ever change if people discontented with both major parties don't even consider another option?

One other way is through revolution...which, unfortunately, may be the way we go no matter who wins. If Obama wins, I expect all sorts of talk about pulling some states out of the Union. If Romney wins, I expect further disintegration of the safety-nets so important to our society. That may very well end up with riots in the streets...and carnage on Main Street.

Quote:

I've been voting for a minority 3rd party for years now (in Oz, not the US), with quite a few other discontented voters. That party currently holds the balance of power in the senate.

Good for you. But what is good for you may not be good for me. So I am talking about what I am willing and unwilling to do.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Beth, since you agree with Olga, perhaps you will read my reply to her.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Read jpb's response to you.

1 Reply

@JPB,

Quote:

I'm stunned that the man who raises agnosticism to a religion would see not taking one of two proffered choices as a cop-out. Really?

I do not raise agnosticism to a religion, JPB...and please do not be stunned by what I wrote. FOR ME...it is a cop-out. I hate the taste of liver. That does not mean I am saying that liver tastes lousy...but that it tastes lousy FOR ME.

Quote:

Some of us vote third party by preference because neither of the platforms presented by the Big Two represent our positions.

Good, that is what you should do. I don't have that problem.

Quote:

There are people in this country who disagree as much with one side as the other and see both parties as flip sides of the same coin.

I am a registered Independent. I have problems with both parties also. But I see one of them being elected in November...and I want to support the side I see as best for the agenda I do support.

Quote:

I've been voting for third party candidates since John Anderson ran as an Independent in 1980. There's been an occasional reason to vote for the lesser of two evils such as voting against GWB twice but I can't fathom why you of all people would see voting one's conscience as a cop-out.

I do not see it as a cop-out for people who do not see it as a cop-out. For me it would be a cop-out...so I will not do it.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Already have...and already have responded. Please read my response.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Your vision of the democrats being socialist is not valid. I just don't see it. Do you actually know anyone who is out there living high off the hog on the govt tit? A lot of middle income people and lower that I know are struggling. It's very difficult for middle income people to afford college. The income in lower income jobs has not gone up while costs have. Many social agencies have to turn to private people for funding. My brother is an attorney and works for the state legal services agency, their funding has been cut every year for the last 10 years. The wealth in this country has trickled up, not down. I see plenty of upper middle class people driving down the freeway in their $60k SUVs, on the way to the beach. On govt build roads, complaining about taxes. Poor saps.

It's easy to look at another group of people and blame all our problems on them. I think it's unfounded.

I can't wait for your reply.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

For what it's worth, I consider this faux pas by Romney to be purely the result of naked pandering to the particular audience he thought he was alone with. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but that's why I think he said it.

In the back room, alone with your cronies, is when your real beliefs come out. Pandering? I thought it sounded like it was off the cuff and from the heart.

On TV, in front of millions, in a debate, thats pandering.

0 Replies

@IRFRANK,

Good comments, Frank.

Asking for protection of the social network...for protection of the safety-net programs...is NOT socialism. (Not that I have anything against socialism1)

And for the last four decades we have been increasingly under the influence of the conservative agenda...and the disparity between the "have's" and "have not's" has increased...with the middle class becoming more and more eroded.

That is one of the reasons I am so concerned about the vote this year. If Romney wins...the far right will consider it huge endorsement of their policies...a mandate of cosmic proportions. The erosion of the middle class...and further indignities to the unfortunates unable to even rise that high will accelerate.

And with the ability to replace some of the moderate or liberal justices who will retire during the next four years...the conservative agenda will be ensconced for generations.

0 Replies

@engineer,

Quote:

I don't know that I could fake that level of contempt for people just to pander.

I'm sure Romney could, but it sounded sincere to me.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

I know lots of rural voters with guns and religion.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I realize that intelligent, reasonable people may take a different route...but I also get that intelligent, reasonable people may feel exactly as I do on the issue.

Most of us do! Razz

0 Replies

@IRFRANK,

Sure, and while it's no skin off my teeth if he talked of them dismissively it is so because I am not counting on any votes from them to become reelected.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

In a way I get what you are saying. The system is rigged for the two parties, and voting anything else is largely symbolic, which could be seen as a "cop-out" of sorts.

But voters in non-swing states really don't have much of the spoiler effect to worry about and I think symbolism happens to be the most influence they have anyway (due to their vote not really being worth a damn).

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

engineer wrote:
I don't know that I could fake that level of contempt for people just to pander.

Wasn't much different from the contempt Obama disclosed for rural voters with the "cling to guns and religion" comment though. Both thought they were behind closed doors preaching to the choir.

Obama was saying to his loyal minions that rural voters have faced hardship and retreated to sources of comfort, things like guns and religion, yet they must still reach out to them and not write them off. Romney was saying the opposite, that he will never get them to accept responsibility for their lives. I think those comments are fundamentally different.

2 Replies

@engineer,

Obama was saying to his loyal minions that rural voters have faced hardship and retreated to sources of comfort, things like guns and religion, yet they must still reach out to them and not write them off. Romney was saying the opposite, that he will never get them to accept responsibility for their lives. I think those comments are fundamentally different.

Thank you Engineer for posting this. I get sick and tired of people who think Obama was writing off ANY voting population.

Joe(gah)Nation

0 Replies

@engineer,

I can see a lot of differences too, but I think it was a similar example of privately expressing a level of contempt for people that was genuine, and was not pandering. But something he must filter in order to be a politician.

I guess what I was saying was that I think both genuinely have contempt for some demographics in America, and both let the presumed privacy of their moments let them get caught without enough filtering of their opinions.

But I do agree that the context of the contempt was not equal, Romney insulted more of America and more dismissively. Obama's comment, in comparison, makes me wonder more about how phony his religion is than anything else.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

So, your level of contempt for either man remains the same?

Joe(that must make things easy)Nation

1 Reply

I know nobody cares, but.......

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know