It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I Support...None of the Above.

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Weird synchronicity, I was just thinking about this 'none of the above' scene from the Richard Pryor remake of Brewster's Millions. It doesn't matter how you vote anymore I'm afraid, your vote is now merely circumstantial evidence of voter intent, which is now legally OWNED by private companies and tabulated with proprietary software.
edit on 1-2-2016 by twitchy because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 03:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

I understand the frustration, there is always the Ron white protest vote for the LoLs.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 06:18 AM
link   
I'll "waste" my vote on Paul. He seems like the only candidate that admits that there's a constitution to follow.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 06:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus



I Support...None of the Above.




Politics does tend to rule in an election year and there are those head over heels for someone.

Unfortunately, our selection options are incredibly limited and horridly confined to a pair of septic tanks with nothing but floating turds.

...



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 06:30 AM
link   
a reply to: muse7

Don't hold your breath

www.forwardprogressives.com...

. A lot of his support is coming from younger voters: Look, you can twist numbers however you want, but the overwhelming political fact is this: Older Americans vote much more consistently, and in larger numbers, than younger Americans. Earlier I mentioned that 41 percent of Democrats wouldn’t support a candidate who identified as a socialist, meaning that 59 percent would. Well, when that poll was broken down by age, the numbers get even worse for Sanders. The largest demographic of voters who support a self-described socialist is the 18-29 crowd at 69 percent. But that’s also the demographic least likely to vote in 2016 no matter how “energized” they are. Now, when you get to Americans aged 50 and older, the support for a self-described socialist drops to 34 percent. In the end, while 59 percent of Democrats say they would support a candidate who calls themselves a socialist, the majority of that support is coming from a demographic that votes in the smallest numbers.

Read more at: www.forwardprogressives.com...



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

We once again have the paradigm that South Park highlighted, the choice between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich.





edit on 1-2-2016 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 06:47 AM
link   
I'll be voting libertarian like I did in 2012. I would have voted for Ron Paul and actually registered Republican just so I could go to the caucus and vote for him. When he dropped out of the race, I voted for Gary Johnson because he seemed to be the most viable alternative.

My point is if you don't want to vote for a Democrat or Republican, vote for a third party candidate and pay no attention to those who say you wasted your vote or threw it away. That is ridiculous because your vote is your opinion and your opinion cannot be thrown away or wasted.


edit on 2/1/2016 by N3k9Ni because: typo



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

This is interesting. I wonder if in this day and age of the media's microscope on every facet of these politicians' lives there could ever be an "ideal" candidate to vote for again. When you expose every politician to be human, you expose the myth of the benevolent politician. We all like to pretend we are holding out for this mythical creature, the benevolent politician, but we all know deep down no such thing exists. So at the end of the day, you have to suck it up and hope for the best.

As a corollary, I think this exposure is directly linked to the rapid decrease in voter participation in elections. The politicians haven't gotten crappier; they've always been crappy. We are just able to see their flaws more clearly now.
edit on 1-2-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

The "best" candidates aren't necessarily from the Dems or Reps...

Look at the other alternate ones. Some of them have ideas worthy of support. Until people, like yourself, start really looking at, and supporting third, fourth, or more, parties, nothing will ever change.

Just because they've got an R or a D beside their names, doesn't mean they're worth a damn. This year as a prime example.

Fredrick Douglass said it well:



The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.


Isn't it time, and past, that our endurance for the tyranny of a two party system failed?

I'll be "wasting" my vote on Gary Johnson, at least for the moment.
edit on 2/1/2016 by seagull because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

The best argument for apoliticality is that an election consisting of a small enough proportion of the populace is necessarily invalid and certainly unrepresentative of society.

It isn't pessimistic by my measure though, it probably isn't effective yet either.

For the moment, rather than boycott elections entirely, just vote for the closest adherent to your own philosophy. For me, that would be Johnson but, I am in a state where my vote doesn't matter so I can do so with imagined righteousness.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

I agree.

I can't stand Trump but I think his policies are MOSTLY correct. He just repeats mantras, doesn't get into specifics, insults people all day, and talks about his number as if this is a game to him.

Cruz is the Constitutional scholar who talks like an Evangelical car salesman is sales mode 24/7, can't be 'normal', but after this latest mailer stunt proved himself a scumbag.

Hilary.....do I even need to say anthing?

Bernie...Socialism, pure and simple, no solutions but a revisit of 19th Century Europe...with promises to fix things when he would be up against a hostile Republican Congress....bad move.

Rand Paul is actually the most sensible, logical, honest one, but he has no numbers.

I'll vote whoever the GOP nominee is as I won't don another 8 years of Leftists. So a false choice...again.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus



We are literally scraping the bottom of the barrel...


The bottom of the barrel has to be better than these candidates.

I am amazed that so many people look at the candidates and actually think one of them is what will fix the place and improve their lives. Some type of mental illness - it has to be more than a delusion.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Metallicus

This is interesting. I wonder if in this day and age of the media's microscope on every facet of these politicians' lives there could ever be an "ideal" candidate to vote for again. When you expose every politician to be human, you expose the myth of the benevolent politician. We all like to pretend we are holding out for this mythical creature, the benevolent politician, but we all know deep down no such thing exists. So at the end of the day, you have to suck it up and hope for the best.

As a corollary, I think this exposure is directly linked to the rapid decrease in voter participation in elections. The politicians haven't gotten crappier; they've always been crappy. We are just able to see their flaws more clearly now.

I think people are honestly waiting for a savior. It's much easier to dump our problems on that savior & let them fix everything, while we go about our daily lives.

In all honesty, it's one of the things that infuriates me the most w/my progressive friends and family. So many of them are smarter than I am, more rational than I am, and have better qualifications (and money) than I do. They can breakdown the details on most of these issues better than I ever could (I'm usually better at the bigger picture while being weak on the details).

But they all get a blank expression when I suggest they run for office or get more personally involved. It's literally like I start speaking a foreign language they don't care to learn. It djkhdskjhkhdkj infuriates me because if the smart & ethical people won't run, that only leaves the other people to run.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Yea I've had similar conversations with people too.

Oh btw, I expounded on these thoughts with this thread I made.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Why aren't you running?



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Just a side note, watching Trump speak right now live in IOWA, and he's hitting on all cylinders, without INSULTS.

Amazing talk he's giving.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Why aren't you running?

I've already stated that my plan is to run for something in the next 2 years or so. Or to "compromise" by starting a PAC, lobbying firm, or special interest group. I'm just getting my personal situation and finances straight, while also trying to work with other established groups to build my contacts.

Though, I'm also only 1 person. There are more than 20,000 American cities and towns; more than 2,000 counties, and thousands of other State & federal positions. If I'm the only one who runs for something, I won't be able to change crap (unless I'm in a position to filibuster everything, muahahahaha!).

Oh yeah, and I'm also an ideologue, a socialist that's more extreme than Bernie, a revolutionary that prefers the pen over the gun, and a person who wanted to take over the world just 10 years ago. In other words, be careful what you wish for LOL. I only stopped dreaming of being a dictator because of my religious beliefs. It's also a reason I like to keep good, spiritual people around me; they keep me in check. So, yeah...

I'm kind of an example of what I'm talking about. If the good, kind, and rational people won't run for office, that leaves the people like myself and worse to run for office.
edit on 1-2-2016 by enlightenedservant because: clarified 1 sentence



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Right on, Metalliicus! I would never vote for a candidate I can't stand either. In America, the right NOT to vote counts just as much as the right to vote.

Although I'm not a libertarian because I think candidates like Rand Paul are too isolationist for the times, I certainly respect your admiration for many of Rand's viewpoints.

Trump and Sanders would both destroy our country----one from the far right, and the other from the far left!
edit on 1-2-2016 by kendix1960 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

There is still a chance for Paul, Iowa isn't conclusive.




posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Leonidas
I am letting the debates do their job. I don't know who I would vote for yet, but - like the debates - I am eliminating candidates.

We'll see in six months who is still around worth considering.


That is sort of my problem. They have all eliminated themselves.




new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join