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: 3
23
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   
I am always laughed at by the "older" adults in my life for wanting to vote third party. It's always "You might as well not even vote. You're throwing your vote away." Really??? If a third party candidate represents me better than a red or blue... then why shouldn't I vote for them?

Help me understand this line of thinking.




posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: saintdopeium

"It's the way my daddy, and his daddy, and his daddy afore him did it, that's good enough for me!"



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: saintdopeium

I agree. Vote for the candidate of your choice regardless of party label. That's your right as an American citizen!



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tearman
I know you say you don't like Sanders because of socialism. But which of his ideas specifically are so terrible that you can't consider him viable.


Gonna interject here... It's easy to just scream SOCIALISM! So I'll break it down.
Bernie Sanders has no concept of monetary policy. None whatsoever! He thinks our fiat currency inflation bubble is great. He claims to "fight the FED" but has gone soft multiple times leaving Ron Paul high and dry on multiple bills. He can identify a problem very well. His solutions and execution suck. He may not be controlled by corporate interests and wall street. But he is for the establishment, expansion of government and it's powers. It's the only way to implement all these new social programs.

I don't think the man actually knows how the economy works.

Example:
You raise minimum wage to $15 and it will create less demand for those jobs. Even if you raise it in increments. It's simple supply and demand. When a company raises the cost of a product, demand for said product goes down. Labor being the product in this case. Your employer pays you depending on the revenue you generate for the company. No outside factor should dictate this.

You give everyone free college and the job market will be diluted with a bunch of degrees that have no economic value. Not everyone needs a college education. This is basically saying after 12 years of government controlled education(programming) you're still not smart enough to function in society. The student debt problem is because the government got into the business of issuing student loans in the first place. Giving them more power is not the solution.

The government has payed trillions of dollars fighting poverty over decades with no change. His solution? Throw more money at it. Poverty is not a financial issue it's a social issue. You'd think a socialist would understand this.

No offense but...
Watching people being manipulated by Bernie Sanders is like watching a bunch of children being manipulated by a shady individual with promises of free candy inside his van.

I won't claim to have solutions. Just an individual that actually took the time to research Bernie Sanders(BS) and didn't like what I saw. I feel the political spectrum has become to radicalized on both sides of the aisle. We need a viable 3rd or 4th party soon or we will end up a full blown plutocracy under Trump or just another USSR under Bernie. I have no desire to travel down either path.
Perhaps I'm just becoming a cynical old man...

Right there with you OP us libertarian's are not really represented.
edit on 1-2-2016 by JAY1980 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-2-2016 by JAY1980 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: JAY1980

While I can't support a candidate like Rand Paul due to my aversion to isolationism in today's dangerous world, I agree entirely that Sander's brand of socialism and his approach to governing is without any viability at all. He literally wants the Federal Government to take over all aspects of our lives in a reckless tax and spend spree that would expand every program now in existence funded by the Feds. and then he'd add others along the way. This fellow hasn't any idea how to pay for all of this except to go after Wall Street corporations and small businessmen soaking them dry and leaving little or no investment potential or room for growth. The national debt would spin out of control and the futures of our children and grand children would be mortgaged for generations to come.

With no more incentive to support the free enterprise foundation upon which we were founded, the economy would collapse under a sea of crippling debt, and there would no longer be sufficient jobs to maintain anything resembling a viable economy. Depression or, at best, a deep recession would be the end result of such madness.

Bernie Sanders simply must NOT become president of the United States. Period!



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: kendix1960

I have a hard time casting my vote with Rand as well...
Being isolationists in today's world isn't a very economical either. It may have worked in the 30's but not in today's global economy. Same goes for socialism, communism, and capitalism. All these systems are outdated 19th century mechanism's. Not suited for for a 21st century.

Like the OP mentioned there really isn't a viable option this cycle. Our options are dwindled down to a small group of less or lesser evils. Starting to think it should be changed to "evil and slightly less evil".



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: JAY1980

Thing is, it didn't work in the 30's.

It's never worked, it just took longer to bite one in the butt in years past.

Now? Technology has rendered it a useless policy.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: JAY1980

Our options are limited this election cycle for sure.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull
Your right it didn't really work then either. Just took longer to take effect...
I retract my statement.

I certainly wasn't suggesting we become isolationists again.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: JAY1980

With global terrorism still raging and Putin and Iran threatening the M.E. region as well as American interests around the world, I strongly agree that his is no time to become isolationist. Sometimes I wonder if Rand Paul really understands these things. If we followed his policies in this particular area, we'd really be playing right into the hands of those who threaten our collective security interests.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: JAY1980
a reply to: kendix1960

I have a hard time casting my vote with Rand as well...
Being isolationists in today's world isn't a very economical either. It may have worked in the 30's but not in today's global economy. Same goes for socialism, communism, and capitalism. All these systems are outdated 19th century mechanism's. Not suited for for a 21st century.

Like the OP mentioned there really isn't a viable option this cycle. Our options are dwindled down to a small group of less or lesser evils. Starting to think it should be changed to "evil and slightly less evil".



Rand is a lot less isolationist than his dad who I couldn't get behind because of it. I am one of a few pro-war (not an entirely accurate description but, sufficient for the moment) libertarians because our enemy has declared war on us.

I should also clarify that neither has an economic isolationist bone in their bodies. Protectionism is antithetical to classical liberalism.

No country can be truly autarkic.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Thank you for another look at Rand Paul. I actually like him as a person. But he's still too isolationist for me. I agree that his father was much more so however. My candidate, at least for the time being, is Marco Rubio. I only wish Carly Fiorina had been given more of a chance to get her views out there because there is no doubt in my mind that she could defeat either Clinton or Sanders. Rubio probably can also as he'll dig deeply into Clinton's Hispanic support and garner many votes from that community. He'll also be a clear contrast to the socialist candidate, Bernie Sanders.

Lets hope Trump doesn't come back too strongly in New Hampshire. Time to be rid of that racist zenophobic once and for all!



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: kendix1960

I do like what Fiorina has to say and Rubio has made some headway with me for a variety of reasons.

That all said, considering how much dirt has been drudged up on Cruz (enough to give me pause), his Iowa win is impressive.

It will come down to NH.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Hopefully New Hampshire voters will dump the Trump again following the example set by Iowa voters. Cruz just doesn't impress me at all, but I hope Marco Rubio continues to rise in the polls as he did in Iowa. I think he can beat either Clinton or Sanders, and he'd be the best compromise candidate the republicans could nominate overall.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

I just love Carly Fiorina. Only wish she could find more air time to get her message across. She'd destroy either Clinton or Sanders in any face to face debate. I'd love to see it!



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus
T'iss the season you know. Or it will shortly be coming. It has long gone past choosing somebody who will change things or make things better if you have not noticed, now is as good a time as any. I would post a George Carlin vid for you, but even that has been done to death.

Basically your best option is to pick the guy or gal who will not # up things as badly as the next guy or gal, and even that may be a challenge, you know kind of like picking the best of the worst. Or like picking and choosing which is the least crappiest option given to you all, among all the crappy option presented before you. Pretty slim pickings that's for sure.

And also you know what they say, most things don't end with a bang, but with a whimper. But hey, its to be expected.


edit on 2amWednesdayam032016f3amWed, 03 Feb 2016 02:36:01 -0600 by galadofwarthethird because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 02:45 AM
link   
a reply to: galadofwarthethird

The good choices are slim to be sure but there are some decent candidates out there like Rubio, Kasich, Christie, and Fiorina. Don't give up and stay engaged. Someone good will emerge. Just stay away from Trump and Cruz, as well as Clinton and Sanders. That bunch is a rogue's gallery!



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: kendix1960
No it wont. No one will emerge, there is no such thing, even the concept of such a thing is hubris. Its like playing the lottery to get rich, you know just keep on hoping. Basically its all rigged, a system that gets richer by those playing the system hoping to get richer. That is the secret of it all.

The best thing to do is get rid of all government and get rid of all taxes all of it is useless, and yes all of the process still would exist without it, only fools would think it would not. Anything less then that is pointless.

But we got to be realistic here, and really you people need something to tie you all up without the red vs blue dichotomy what would people do? I do believe the answer to this dilemma is to do nothing as it will all in time extinguish itself out one way or another.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: galadofwarthethird

I choose optimism over pessimism. I don't believe problems disappear by ignoring them. I'll remain hopeful that we can do better and will continue to try. Stay engaged!



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: avgguy
I'll "waste" my vote on Paul. He seems like the only candidate that admits that there's a constitution to follow.


I think he the only one that doesn’t campaign on hate and authoritarianism
Trump: Muslims and Immigrants
Cruz: Gays
Sanders: The Rich
Rubio: Iran and pot smokers
Hillary: Gun owners and constitutionists.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join