Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

If You Are Independent, Please Read

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Independents from battleground states matter very much. As a fellow American, I urge you to do your civic duty and vote. Sure, you swung elections to George W Bush. Sure, you put Obama over the top. But, to sit out this election and reflect upon your in-action during the next four years or even the rest of your lives is very Un-American. If you dislike Obama’s policy and are too scared to vote for Romney, please reconsider even if it's a vote for a third party candidate. It may be a totally different outcome this time around, where hindsight is 20/20 and you could have made the difference. As Americans, “we” always say, “You have no right to complain, if you didn’t vote.”

Best Regards,
-au




posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by alternateuniverse
 


Thanks for letting me know if I vote Ron Paul I will be giving Willard the Rat Romney a vote...

Looks like as an Independent it is going to be an interesting election!



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Um vote for Gary Johnson (who will be on the ballot in all 50 states) or write-in Ron Paul, and if your feeling froggy even Cthulhu.....



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Johnson 2012

Robamney can go jump off a bridge holding hands.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by alternateuniverse
 


nevermind misread,
edit on 14-10-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by abeverage
 


Is that sarcasm? If you vote for Ron Paul, Johnson, or anyone else, your vote will be for whomever you vote for and no one else. Don't let idiots convince you otherwise. The two main candidates are so busy flipping percentages, blocking votes, letting people vote more than once, and letting the dead vote. that it doesn't really matter the only close to honest count where your voice will show is third party.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Be always careful of DILUTING the vote.

In a democracy, where 2 parties ruled, the 3rd party is nothing more than an invention by the party that sees itself as losing to the dominating party.

Thus, when a 3rd party is included, it will channel away from those whom are on the fence, to seemingly vote on a 'better' option than having a 'choice of no choice', DILUTING the vote for the popular choice and giving the loser a chance to win.

This had been nothing new in democracies, seen around the world.

I will not cast aspersions upon any candidate in the elections, even if they are 4th or 6th party candidate. The only issue is:- does that candidate have the support of the MAJORITY and the ability to garner full support from both parties in Congress to push bills or reforms necessary for the betterment of americans?

If so, by all means, he should be elected. BUT if not, the truth becomes clear - it had been an intention to manipulate the votes so that a less popular figure will win.

Still, the vote is secret and sacred. May all be wise. That vote will be crucial, for it determines the course of a society and even civilisation itself for the next 4 years.
edit on 14-10-2012 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Be always careful of DILUTING the vote.

In a democracy, where 2 parties ruled, the 3rd party is nothing more than an invention by the party that sees itself as losing to the dominating party.

Thus, when a 3rd party is included, it will channel away from those whom are on the fence, to seemingly vote on a 'better' option than having a 'choice of no choice', DILUTING the vote for the popular choice and giving the loser a chance to win.

This had been nothing new in democracies, seen around the world.

I will not cast aspersions upon any candidate in the elections, even if they are 4th or 6th party candidate. The only issue is:- does that candidate have the support of the MAJORITY, and the ability to garner support from both parties in Congress to push for legislation or reform to help americans?

If so, by all means, he should be elected. BUT if not, the truth becomes clear - it had been an intention to manipulate the votes so that a less popular figure will win. or a mere egoistical trip for himself and supporters that serves nothing to the nation.

Still, the vote is secret and sacred. May all be wise. That vote will be crucial, for it determines the course of a society and even civilisation itself for the next 4 years
edit on 14-10-2012 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by alternateuniverse
 



The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state. [citing In re Merriam's Estate, 36 N.E. 505, 141 N.Y. 479, affirmed U.S. v. Perkins, 16 S.Ct. 1073, 163 U.S. 625, 41 L.Ed 287]


Voting for the president of a foreign corporation is no more binding on that corporation than dropping your ideas into a suggestion box in the break room.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Electoral college members regularly sell their votes, even to members of the opposing party. Really think about that for a minute. There are 538 electoral college votes, they are the only votes that actually matter.

What's really sad is that even Wikipedia tells people about the lack of the popular vote meaning anything but people still insist that voting actually works...


A result of the present functionality of the Electoral College is that the national popular vote bears no legal or factual significance on determining the outcome of the election.


How many more reports of vote fraud need to be yelled out before people realize that this system is being manipulated?

Welcome to the post-glorious US of A, where freedom of speech is not limited to whether or not you vote but whether or not you are in a Constitution Free Zone.
edit on 14-10-2012 by Noncents because: double word



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Wow people actually think they still decide. The voting machines decide; voting is a waste of time. Who's getting in was decided years ago already.
edit on 14-10-2012 by r2d246 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
A) The function of the Electoral College is but only another layer of check and balances, made up of wise men, to ensure that the majority voted President gets the job, and in the event of a tie, to ensure all is done that the right individual heads the nation, and not some scam artiste whom had manipulated votes and fooling the masses to take that seat.

So far, the Electoral College had lived up to its expectations, and had voted along citizens' line without fear or favor.

Thus, the sacred votes do count in a free and honest election that had been the tradition of USA for 200+years, despite the unfounded and unsubstantiated outcry from those whom favor anarchy or with self serving party or foreign affiliations.

B.) Voting for the President or even legislatives are not as simple as just ticking beside a name into the ballot box. The vote represents the hope of the majority whom shares common aspirations in life as you. Only the best can be selected, and that shared hope lays with your sacred vote for every vote counts.

How do we determine the best? It is by its manifestoes, its DETAILED plan for the nation and People while in office, not some vague promises that can be easily brokened and unaccounted for.

In the past, not many were educated and easily fooled, but today, more are able to discern clearly on not just the own individual self pet issues, but judge the candidate upon broader issues of state that affects them all ultimately.

It seems a difficult task, but if the candidate focuses on the main and common aspirations of all humans, with detailed plans that are accountable and may work, he will stand out and be voted. The majority of masses are no longer fools and sheeps.

edit on 14-10-2012 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
So far, the Electoral College had lived up to its expectations, and had voted along citizens' line without fear or favor.


I'm sorry but Al Gore won the popular vote yet the electoral college gave the winning vote to Bush. There's more to that election besides the Florida issue.

Andrew Jackson got thousands more votes than John Quincy Adams but the college gave the popular vote to Adams.

Samuel Tilden beat out Rutherford B. Hayes by over 2,000 votes but the vote was given to Hayes, this may be outside of the college though, I am unsure of their involvement.

Benjamin Harrison lost to Grover Cleveland by over 92,000 votes but won the electoral college vote by 65 votes...

These men were given presidency when the people voted otherwise. The electoral college is not free from the corruption that has infected everything.
edit on 14-10-2012 by Noncents because: added quote.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by abeverage
 


Is that sarcasm? If you vote for Ron Paul, Johnson, or anyone else, your vote will be for whomever you vote for and no one else. Don't let idiots convince you otherwise. The two main candidates are so busy flipping percentages, blocking votes, letting people vote more than once, and letting the dead vote. that it doesn't really matter the only close to honest count where your voice will show is third party.


I do not "Willard The Rat" Romney to win but I am not overly fond of Obama and that is the sad state this country is in. We need a third candidate winner and kick out the Republican'ts and Democraps!

Problem is it wont matter or so it seems the same agenda goes through we don't have 1 person 1 vote democracy!



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by alternateuniverse
 



But, to sit out this election and reflect upon your in-action during the next four years or even the rest of your lives is very Un-American.



As Americans, “we” always say, “You have no right to complain, if you didn’t vote.”


I don't accept as true either of these statements.

One, is it true that choosing not to vote is un-American? If so then why? Would choosing not to vote be un-American because, meeting applicable requirements, there is a right to vote?

Would it be un-American if, say, a man or woman chose not to own a firearm despite that, meeting applicable requirements, there is a right to own firearms? Would not owning a firearm mean that a person does not have the right to defend against aggression?

Maybe you have a point in mind that justifies your evident belief that not voting is un-American, but I have know idea what it is.

Two, "we" is preceded by an "I" or "me". Put another way there is no such thing as a body of Americans that is not comprised of individual people. Do all these individual people who comprise the United States believe, "You have no right to complain if you did not vote"? I certainly don't, and I am a U.S. citizen. So much for we.

False dichotomies come to mind in that 1) depending on whether you voted you are either American or un-American and 2) depending on whether you voted you either have a right to complain or you do not have a right to complain.

With regard to point 1 I see no reason why exercising the right to choose what someone may decide is the lesser of two evils should be offerred as a valid option. It's sort of like the executioner asking you, "Would you prefer I cut off your head face up or face down?" Either way your head is coming off. And as for point 2, what right are you referring to? Rather, what absence of right are you referring to? I presume you were being as general as you were when invoking the we meme, but I have no idea what right you're talking about. No one may complain unless they cast a vote for the lesser of two evils? Only then you may complain, despite that you cast your lot with the lesser-of-two-evils candidate? Would you even have the right to complain if the lesser-of-two-evils candidate you voted for won? After all, your vote aided in putting him or her in office!


edit on 14-10-2012 by Kovenov because: type



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by alternateuniverse
 

Hate to tell you but if you are an independent, some states won't let you vote unless you re-register with a party affiliation of dem or rep. in the presidential election. I know for a fact, in Arizona you are SOL, unless you register again changing your affiliation.

So, people need to check with their state laws for voting before you get on peoples backs about voting. Just saying, you might very well be wasting people's time.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
You have the freedom to do whatever you like. How about putting your head in a guillotine for the next four years?

Originally posted by Kovenov
reply to post by alternateuniverse
 



But, to sit out this election and reflect upon your in-action during the next four years or even the rest of your lives is very Un-American.



As Americans, “we” always say, “You have no right to complain, if you didn’t vote.”


I don't accept as true either of these statements.

One, is it true that choosing not to vote is un-American? If so then why? Would choosing not to vote be un-American because, meeting applicable requirements, there is a right to vote?

Would it be un-American if, say, a man or woman chose not to own a firearm despite that, meeting applicable requirements, there is a right to own firearms? Would not owning a firearm mean that a person does not have the right to defend against aggression?

Maybe you have a point in mind that justifies your evident belief that not voting is un-American, but I have know idea what it is.

Two, "we" is preceded by an "I" or "me". Put another way there is no such thing as a body of Americans that is not comprised of individual people. Do all these individual people who comprise the United States believe, "You have no right to complain if you did not vote"? I certainly don't, and I am a U.S. citizen. So much for we.

False dichotomies come to mind in that 1) depending on whether you voted you are either American or un-American and 2) depending on whether you voted you either have a right to complain or you do not have a right to complain.

With regard to point 1 I see no reason why exercising the right to choose what someone may decide is the lesser of two evils should be offerred as a valid option. It's sort of like the executioner asking you, "Would you prefer I cut off your head face up or face down?" Either way your head is coming off. And as for point 2, what right are you referring to? Rather, what absence of right are you referring to? I presume you were being as general as you were when invoking the we meme, but I have no idea what right you're talking about. No one may complain unless they cast a vote for the lesser of two evils? Only then you may complain, despite that you cast your lot with the lesser-of-two-evils candidate? Would you even have the right to complain if the lesser-of-two-evils candidate you voted for won? After all, your vote aided in putting him or her in office!


edit on 14-10-2012 by Kovenov because: type



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by alternateuniverse
 


Politics should be like religion. Keep it to yourself, stop telling people what to do, let people make their own decisions and stop trying to force your beliefs on others!

If someone chooses not to vote, tough ****! That's THEIR decision, and you have no right whatsoever to be making statements about them being "un-American".

IMO, it's more un-American to be telling other people what to do, or how they should live their lives when it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

I'm all for debate, but ATS is not a political cheer leading arena.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sissel
reply to post by alternateuniverse
 

Hate to tell you but if you are an independent, some states won't let you vote unless you re-register with a party affiliation of dem or rep. in the presidential election. I know for a fact, in Arizona you are SOL, unless you register again changing your affiliation.

So, people need to check with their state laws for voting before you get on peoples backs about voting. Just saying, you might very well be wasting people's time.



I think there may be a misunderstanding on this. You typically (not all states) need to be a registered member of a party in order to vote in that party's primary, NOT to vote in the general election.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join