Originally posted by Koros
reply to post by projectvxn
If Obama and Romney were the only two choices, you may have a point. But, they aren't. So, your moral grandstanding means exactly squat.
Originally posted by frazzleA candidate's lack of ability to win is not a reason not to vote for him. A vote for a third-party candidate, in this election, helps guarantee future funding for that party and sends a message that a break from the two-party system is needed.
Originally posted by Koros
reply to post by projectvxn
If Obama and Romney were the only two choices, you may have a point. But, they aren't. So, your moral grandstanding means exactly squat.
They are the only two VIABLE choices so grandstanding for third party candidates means exactly squat.
Well then have your cake and eat it too. Another cliche especially for you.
A candidate's lack of ability to win is not a reason not to vote for him. A vote for a third-party candidate, in this election, helps guarantee future funding for that party and sends a message that a break from the two-party system is needed.
So, please, unless your only criteria for voting is being able to say you backed the winning horse, get out there and vote for someone.
Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
reply to post by randyvs
At least (if not more often) voting changes the president every 8 years.
I see things being changed about ever 2 years as a direct result of voting.
Do I like these changes? Most times no, but I do see the changes.
Originally posted by Koros
reply to post by frazzle
At this point, I can see that you are so convinced that the entire system is out to get you that I won't bother trying to change your mind. Enjoy living in your bubble of self-righteousness while the very people you espouse to distrust are given free reign to decide your fate with your approval.
Obviously we’re not a democracy, but many people seem to think that we’re a republic where we can exercise our supreme power through our elected representatives. Of course to exercise your supreme power through your elected representatives, you have to have supreme power over them in the first place, and I contend that the Constitution did not give the people of the United States any power over our elected federal representatives at all. None.
Originally posted by frazzleSo, the basis for your opinion is the opinion of another person? That is what you are going to go with?
Originally posted by Koros
reply to post by frazzle
At this point, I can see that you are so convinced that the entire system is out to get you that I won't bother trying to change your mind. Enjoy living in your bubble of self-righteousness while the very people you espouse to distrust are given free reign to decide your fate with your approval.
You, otoh, are convinced that you must vote someone into power and give them your permission to further abuse you (and me) .... without recourse.
electionboycott2012.org...
Obviously we’re not a democracy, but many people seem to think that we’re a republic where we can exercise our supreme power through our elected representatives. Of course to exercise your supreme power through your elected representatives, you have to have supreme power over them in the first place, and I contend that the Constitution did not give the people of the United States any power over our elected federal representatives at all. None.
Got that? NONE.
Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by randyvs
When you do not vote the only message you are saying is " I will let someone else decide for me." At the end of the day even if your voice wasn't with the crowd that won at least you used it.
