I've made up my mind on whom I am voting for in November

I'm voting for that kat
from Alaska
ATS Thread
and I'm a Dog person

Originally posted by spoonbender
I'm voting for that kat
from Alaska
ATS Thread
and I'm a Dog person

I bet that cat would do a better job than Obama or Romney ever could.... I mean 15 years as mayor, that's more experience than both of them combined anyways

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786

Originally posted by AwakeinNM


Meanwhile, while a small number of people "vote their conscience", it ends up being within the margin of victory for the socialist pig that is in office now, So yeah, go right ahead and waste your vote for someone 99.9% of people have NEVER heard of. We need 4 more years of Obama and his "change". You do realize that he is changing the US to look like Stalinist USSR, right?

It's not my fault that no one has heard of Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. Maybe they should stop being lazy voters and do their research. We live in the information age. Ignorance and laziness is not an excuse.

"4 more years of Obama and his 'change'" versus 4 years of Romney and his? Sorry, I don't choose the lesser of two evils. There aren't many differences between the two of them, especially since Romney is only Conservative since he has flip-flopped on so many of his Liberal/Moderate views from the past. And Romney has flip-flopped on so many of his Liberal views from 2008.

Socialism? Stalinist USSR? Please save your Fox News partisan talking points for someone who isn't informed. It's not going to fly here. But you go ahead and waste your vote on Mitt Romney all because he's "anyone but Obama" as if you are really voting for someone different from him.

You're overlooking the FACT that people ARE lazy and ignorant. People are not going to change just because you're aware of who is running for President. I know who Gary Johnson is, and he'd make a good president, but he sabotaged his chances with his pro-pot stance. Sure, most people are on his side, but we're not ready to accept it as a political talking point.

I am not a fan of Romney in the least, but it is my hope that the Senate goes to the GOP and the House gets more GOP clout, and the GOP can actually get a bill out of committee - especially a bill to repeal Obamacare. At least maybe the Tea Party can keep the neocon faction in check long enough to get another strong Libertarian in the running for 2016. I'm looking to get someone in there who will do the least amount of damage.

FYI, I do not have cable. I don't know what the Fox talking points are, or anyone else's for that matter. I get my information from my knowledge of history.

Bottom line: You are wasting your vote on someone you know full well has zero chance. Why vote at all? Google "Ross Perot" to see what I mean.

I agree with 95% of her stances. She is what I thought Obama was going to be. Not sure she will get my vote or not.

I'm voting for Jill Stein, too. Not just because I have voted Green Party in every election for the past 24 years, but because, like you, she is closest of all of the candidates to my political beliefs.

(and Obama is likely to carry CA with out my vote anyway)

Double post...

reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786


I was just looking up Jill Stein's views online.

What does "a right to a job at a living wage" mean? Do you believe that people have a "right" to guaranteed income, even if they can't, won't or don't do meaningful work? And who do they have a right to get this money from? The government? From any employer they choose to sue for a job?

Do employers have a converse right to a decent day's work from every employee they pay? If not, then workers obviously have privileges others do not. This seems like it would certainly discourage people from actually running a business---one that would employ those right-worthy workers.

Do employers have a right to make a profit? If they have no such guarantee, how can the employee claim a "right to a living wage" even if the employer is losing money? Under than kind of a system, people who run businesses might become an endangered species. If people cannot be paid a "living wage," would the job be eliminated, so that no one is oppressed by a low-paid job? If so, competitors could open up overseas, and use the lower "living wage" in those countries to undercut american wages....

How would this look different from the world of unions and EEOC/OSHA we see right now?

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

FYI, I do not have cable. I don't know what the Fox talking points are, or anyone else's for that matter. I get my information from my knowledge of history.

I find it funny that people who spout the same Republican talking points over and over again claim to not watch Fox News. Fine. No cable. I'm sure then you at least have a radio or internet access and follow people like Rush Limbaugh. Maybe I was off on the Fox News comparison, but I'm willing to bet you listen to SOMEONE from the Right side of the aisle.

Knowledge of history? Then you'd know that Obama ISN'T taking us into Stalinist Russia territory. That's absolutely hilarious if it wasn't fear-mongering.

Bottom line: You are wasting your vote on someone you know full well has zero chance. Why vote at all? Google "Ross Perot" to see what I mean.

And there's my point. You'd rather me vote for the lesser of two evils, as I see it. If I don't, I shouldn't vote at all? You are strongly promoting the two-party system which is the problem. These people have zero chance because of apathetic voters and people like you. Shaming me for not voting Obama or Romney? Well in that case I'd be voting Obama.

And did you even bother to read my OP? I mean seriously. If you did you'd see I'd rather vote my conscience than vote for someone "Just because they aren't Romney." My vote DOES count and I'm going to make it count by voting who I agree with, not who can necessarily win. I don't vote like a sheep.

Originally posted by tovenar


What does "a right to a job at a living wage" mean? Do you believe that people have a "right" to guaranteed income, even if they can't, won't or don't do meaningful work?

No, that's not what it means. If it meant that it wouldn't say a "right to a JOB." Job being the key word there. If she meant what you asked, and I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion, then it would just say "a right to a living wage regardless of employment."

reply to post by tovenar


It simply means that if you do the work you get an honest day's pay. It doesn't mean you can go loaf around and still keep your job. If a business can't afford to pay their employees honest wages then they shouldn't stay in business.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM








FYI, I do not have cable. I don't know what the Fox talking points are, or anyone else's for that matter. I get my information from my knowledge of history.

And would it be presumptuous of me to bet that Rush, Sean, Levin, Glen Beck, Neil Boortz, Michael Medved on KKOB might help with your information gathering?

reply to post by AwakeinNM


I'd also like to say in regards to your "Why even vote" statement that it raises an interesting point (which is a bit like a political version of Pascal's wager in some ways) that if you are right and I am voting for a candidate that "nobody knows" then I'd imagine there aren't that many who are voting for her. So that being said, my voting for Jill Stein will not ultimately affect the outcome of the election. There won't be that many people voting for her taking votes away from, in this instance, Barack Obama.

reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786


your quote (Also, Barack Obama, as with many politicians, has been unflinchingly supporting of Israel and their actions and notoriously silent in regards to their actions. )
That is the most stupid thing i've ever read... And i've read some stupid things.

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786

Originally posted by tovenar


What does "a right to a job at a living wage" mean? Do you believe that people have a "right" to guaranteed income, even if they can't, won't or don't do meaningful work?

No, that's not what it means. If it meant that it wouldn't say a "right to a JOB." Job being the key word there. If she meant what you asked, and I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion, then it would just say "a right to a living wage regardless of employment."

So, the only jobs that should be offered are ones that would provide a decent living wage? Does that mean no part time jobs are allowed, no menial work? No one is allowed to wash cars for a living, if that work doesn't pay some threshold defined as a "living wage"? A living wage is whatever someone can live on. One person needs cable TV, another needs to get her nails done; someone else only needs a 6-pack at the end of the day.

So a slogan like "workers must be properly paid" doesn't really mean anything at all.

If the quote mean a particular dollar rate, then it shows a refusal to acknowledge economic reality: that jobs grow out of the action of adding value to a good or service. Any attempt to guarantee a wage (what else is a right, if not a form of guarantee) is addressing only one side of the equation. It doesn't say who will actually make the profit that eventually pays a given worker his "living wage." Either the worker earns it on his own, or someone else will have to take a loss providing his 'living wage.'

The implication seems to be "a right to a job at a living wage" regardless of market conditions. Who will pay the difference when market conditions wont produce enough excess value?

Has Jill Stein posted at least 2 years of tax returns?
Has Jill Stein Posted her College grades?
Does she have a USA birth certificate?

Is she going to provide all the information that everyone wants to know?
Inquiring Minds want to know.

Originally posted by tovenar


So, the only jobs that should be offered are ones that would provide a decent living wage? Does that mean no part time jobs are allowed, no menial work? No one is allowed to wash cars for a living, if that work doesn't pay some threshold defined as a "living wage"? A living wage is whatever someone can live on. One person needs cable TV, another needs to get her nails done; someone else only needs a 6-pack at the end of the day.

Again, you are inventing strawmen fallacies. I never said anything like what you are asking. A living wage does not include excesses. That's just ridiculous. A living wage means just that, a wage one can LIVE ON. Everything else is a privilege that comes with having extra money for it which would include saving up for things as it does now.

I know what you are trying to do. You are trying to paint this as some "Communism" thing and you are going to fall short 100%.

I will stick my neck out and make a prediction - despite the likelihood that I will most probably vote for a "3rd party" candidate I predict the next president will have either a D or an R after his (or her) name.

I expect we are now nearing that time of crossroads where another party could get into the White House, however there are several independent "3rd parties" now making good headway and our independent votes are spread around among them.

At this moment it is not like in the time of Ross Perot when we have one strong third-runner. I had a feeling a few months back that a thrid-party win would now again be possible, a good chance for a third-party to win if Ron Paul were to go onto an independent ticket if he failed to get the Republican nomination, but I believe those great power-players behind the curtain have taken that into account and given a popularity boost to our other independent parties in order to dilute the opposition to the Big Two.

I expect Gary Johnson will likely capture the majority of the independent voters, unless Paul decides to make an independent run, but whatever amount of votes any of them individually garner it will not make a dent in the outcome for the R & D guys.

reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786


Look, I'll leave it alone at this point. I don't think it's communist; just populist in the extreme. The idea of a "right to a job that pays a living wage" is a slogan that is aimed at voters who work for big companies---not at entrepreneurs, or at employees working for companies so small that you know how close your boss is to going out of business.

It doesn't show any awareness of market dynamics.

Third parties are always accusing the Big Two of sloganeering without any real commitment or plan or even any concern with facts. That's pretty much what I see going on with the Green Party here.

Originally posted by Papagrune
Has Jill Stein posted at least 2 years of tax returns?
Has Jill Stein Posted her College grades?
Does she have a USA birth certificate?

Is she going to provide all the information that everyone wants to know?
Inquiring Minds want to know.

I think i speak for 99.9% of all ATS members when i say " Who is Jill Stein ???"

You might as well vote for Ron Paul.

He won't win either.

----------
It's all about the Electoral College.

Clearly, some of you slept right through Civics class in high school.

Right on. Who cares?