Is voting for Republicans or Democrats worthless?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Grambler
And if ron paul were establishment then the establishment wouldnt have purposefully screwed him over.

If Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian the Republican Party couldn't have screwed him over.

Thats not true at all.

You dont think the republicans and democrats dont work together to screw over third parties?

And this is irrelevant.

The point is not all republicans or democrats are establishment and worthless to vote for.

Not all third parties candidates are not establishment.

Was former cia assett evan mcmullen not establishment merely becauise he ran as independent?

Again, this is my point.

To claim to reject ALL republicans or democrats because they are establishment is over simplistic and incorrect.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: DBCowboy

So I assume that you voted for no republicans then.

Strange considering your posts going in to tgbe leection.

Why even bother to ever posyt anything about the dems at all? They are just the same as republicans, so why play the game?

As far as paul, I disagree.

Paul could have acheived real change, he was stymied by establishment republicans.

To not vote for him becuase an r was beside his name and claim that makes him establishment seems counter productive and inaccurate to me.

I voted mostly republican. Voted 1 democrat, voted one Constitutionalist.

Just because I call it a game does not mean I don't play.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: DBCowboy

So I assume that you voted for no republicans then.

Strange considering your posts going in to tgbe leection.

Why even bother to ever posyt anything about the dems at all? They are just the same as republicans, so why play the game?

As far as paul, I disagree.

Paul could have acheived real change, he was stymied by establishment republicans.

To not vote for him becuase an r was beside his name and claim that makes him establishment seems counter productive and inaccurate to me.

I voted mostly republican. Voted 1 democrat, voted one Constitutionalist.

Just because I call it a game does not mean I don't play.

But do you think it is worthless to play that game?

I would think not, though i could be wrong.

The point is your votes for dems or repubs were not worthless as long as you had reasons for voting for those people.

originally posted by: Grambler
You dont think the republicans and democrats dont work together to screw over third parties?

They cannot change the national election laws regarding debates at the last minute or manipulate super delegates like they did recently to hose other candidates who didn't have the nuts to run Independent.

To claim to reject ALL republicans or democrats because they are establishment is over simplistic and incorrect.

I do claim that and frankly your opinion doesn't matter to me when I formulate my own opinion, just as mine shouldn't matter to anyone else.

a reply to: Grambler

What I think we can all agree on is Republicans and Democrats have an unfair advantage do to obscene campaign finance laws.


5 billion spent on liars to manipulate people through advertising is embarrassing to me.

Of course I dont agree in not voting, but it is obscene the way we do elections.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: DBCowboy

So I assume that you voted for no republicans then.

Strange considering your posts going in to tgbe leection.

Why even bother to ever posyt anything about the dems at all? They are just the same as republicans, so why play the game?

As far as paul, I disagree.

Paul could have acheived real change, he was stymied by establishment republicans.

To not vote for him becuase an r was beside his name and claim that makes him establishment seems counter productive and inaccurate to me.

I voted mostly republican. Voted 1 democrat, voted one Constitutionalist.

Just because I call it a game does not mean I don't play.

But do you think it is worthless to play that game?

I would think not, though i could be wrong.

The point is your votes for dems or repubs were not worthless as long as you had reasons for voting for those people.

Sometimes it is worthless. But that doesnt change you should try.

It reminds me of the scene where Lawrence has to shoot the man for robbery, who he just save because the tribe of arabs was going to leave him to die when his camel got dehydrated..in Lawrence of Arabia.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Cool.

I was interested in discussing why people think voting repub or dem is always worthless, but seeing as how you have your opinion and dont care about others and dont think we should care about yours, i guess nothing left to discuss.

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: [post=23934879]Gramconstituooalist
I vote for the libertarian candidates and there were 2 green party candidates on the ballot in my state.

NY had Larry Sharpe.

The solution is to vote for the only alternatives until the parties are all reduced in power and size

Republicans and Dems are really just 2 semi right wong globalist parties protecting their own interest

At least the Green party has politicians running on real prpgressive agenda and the libertarians are running on a true constitution Liberal agenda

Too risky in my opinion. I don't know how popular my opinion is, but why would I take my vote away from Trump, for instance, to put it towards the third party guy and risk Clinton winning?

I can still remember my mom getting pissed off in 1991 (I was 12) and overhearing her telling someone on the phone that Ross Perot was gonna mess up the election and give it to Bill Clinton if he didn't drop out.

Final popular vote:
Clinton - 44,909,806
Bush I - 39,104,550
Perot - 19,743,821

This begged the question, how many of Perot's votes would have gone to Bush I? Clinton? The next election, Perot got 8 million votes which wouldn't have been enough for Dole to win either way, but we haven't had another guy gain enough national attention to run like that since, and it's probably because nobody wants to feel like they're throwing away their vote on a party that can't win, when they have a shot at helping elect the party that DOES have a shot at winning.

a reply to: Grambler

There are some individuals in both parties I would vote for, but the parties as a whole are two sides of the same worthless tin coin.


The RNC and the DNC are only interested in money and power, and really don't give a rip about us beyond giving us enough crumbs to keep coming back for more.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: [post=23934879]Gramconstituooalist
I vote for the libertarian candidates and there were 2 green party candidates on the ballot in my state.

NY had Larry Sharpe.

The solution is to vote for the only alternatives until the parties are all reduced in power and size

Republicans and Dems are really just 2 semi right wong globalist parties protecting their own interest

At least the Green party has politicians running on real prpgressive agenda and the libertarians are running on a true constitution Liberal agenda

Too risky in my opinion. I don't know how popular my opinion is, but why would I take my vote away from Trump, for instance, to put it towards the third party guy and risk Clinton winning?

I can still remember my mom getting pissed off in 1991 (I was 12) and overhearing her telling someone on the phone that Ross Perot was gonna mess up the election and give it to Bill Clinton if he didn't drop out.

Final popular vote:
Clinton - 44,909,806
Bush I - 39,104,550
Perot - 19,743,821

This begged the question, how many of Perot's votes would have gone to Bush I? Clinton? The next election, Perot got 8 million votes which wouldn't have been enough for Dole to win either way, but we haven't had another guy gain enough national attention to run like that since, and it's probably because nobody wants to feel like they're throwing away their vote on a party that can't win, when they have a shot at helping elect the party that DOES have a shot at winning.

You may be surprised that the only administrations who oversaw a balanced budget were democratic.

a reply to: LSU2018

You are not voting to win, you are voting to try and change the paradigm, 5% of the national vote and you get matching funds for that third party which allows them to get a real challenge going for the house and the senate seats.


Yea its only for 4 years but the change has to begin somewhere.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Grambler

There are some individuals in both parties I would vote for, but the parties as a whole are two sides of the same worthless tin coin.


The RNC and the DNC are only interested in money and power, and really don't give a rip about us beyond giving us enough crumbs to keep coming back for more.

In general, I agree with you at the national establishment level.

I dont think my township dems or repubs really fall into the two sides of the same coing thing, nor do people like gabbard or ron paul in my opinion.

But basically you are making the same point I am

I am just confused by those who think that ALL repubs and dems are worthless and should not be voted for.

Your question can be answered with a question: has anything changed, concerning those in power, in the past, say 60 years?

Not really, unless you note that what has changed is that we have had more and more rights and privledges quietly taken from us and have fallen for more and more manipulation of us.

I think the answer is yes, it's pointless, and until we stop voting in the same people (individuals controlled by big money/special interest groups), can even be argued that it's harmful.

With so many ignorant people ( mostly youths and people too stupid to get an id ) voting for free crap the vote has become useless to people who don't mind working but want to keep what they earn. I did vote in hopes that the tax breaks will stay and my customers would stop buying Chinese crap over my companies stuff. Pretty scared about it already started looking through my laborers to see who I will have to cut first if things go south for health care and tax cuts. Had 23 employees when Obama was president at 48 now and doing great, but now the anti-business money grubbers have taken the house my optimism has plummeted.

originally posted by: Grambler
I was interested in discussing why people think voting repub or dem is always worthless...

We already covered that in several other threads; because nothing ever changes.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Grambler
I was interested in discussing why people think voting repub or dem is always worthless...

We already covered that in several other threads; because nothing ever changes.

I assumed despite that your participation on this thread meant you weren’t opposed to discussion

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Grambler

S&F

Is voting for Republicans or democrats worthless? No. At this current time, voting for a third party is worthless because it takes votes away from the other guy and we haven't reached a point where Americans favor a third party candidate enough to vote him in.

Voting is not worthless. People supporting 3rd parties 8s the only way to bring the message out since there is no super packs.


Voting is personal and only not voting is detrimental in the sense that it allows extremism a larger voice. If all the normal people dont vote because they are normal and dont want to join a political tribe, only extreme views will be voting.

If a third party gets a tough votes to swing an election future candidates will look at how they can sway those voters with some of the ideas presented...

A lot of rural Republican areas have significant libertarian philosophy in the population. Even vermont or new Mexico blue states do.

That helps drive policy believe it or not.

I don't disagree. I just don't think people are willing to vote for a third party, knowing it could cause the "lesser of two evils" to lose. I wouldn't risk it. Would you? Now, if a candidate gained enough national attention and stood a chance of winning, and shared policies and ideas I liked, then I would probably give them my vote.

originally posted by: Grambler
I assumed despite that your participation on this thread meant you weren’t opposed to discussion
.

I'm not opposed to discussion, but I am not going to be swayed from my opinion the matter. This isn't something that came to me yesterday, it's from participating in the process at many levels, seeing how they function on a granular level and being disgusted that both sides pay lip service and have basically a track record of doing nothing and in many cases the exact opposite of what they promised.

originally posted by: KansasGirl
Your question can be answered with a question: has anything changed, concerning those in power, in the past, say 60 years?

Not really, unless you note that what has changed is that we have had more and more rights and privledges quietly taken from us and have fallen for more and more manipulation of us.

I think the answer is yes, it's pointless, and until we stop voting in the same people (individuals controlled by big money/special interest groups), can even be argued that it's harmful.

Again that is oversimplified the in my opinion

So no republicans or democrats ever were worth voting for because they have all only ever done bad things for 60 years?

Voting Ron Paul was worthless cause republicans all suck

Explain to me how rejecting Ron paul helped solve the problem you are outlining

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Grambler
I assumed despite that your participation on this thread meant you weren’t opposed to discussion
.

I'm not opposed to discussion, but I am not going to be swayed from my opinion the matter. This isn't something that came to me yesterday, it's from participating in the process at many levels, seeing how they function on a granular level and being disgusted that both sides pay lip service and have basically a track record of doing nothing and in many cases the exact opposite of what they promised.

I don’t disagree with any of that

I would say that would apply to most third party candidates as well

But I disagree that this means anyone with and r or d next to their name is establishment and should be rejected