Romney vs. Obama

[Sterling]

Well at this point it's pretty much true. All the people who are voting late for him is not really going to
do much other then risk the worst of all candidates making a come back because you are taking
votes from Obama.

It like saying, I'm voting for a 3rd party in the last second because it's there and risk the one you didn't
like most to possibly win.

Plus iirc, he wants to get rid of most if not all government support, which is pretty crazy because
some people need that help. When I mean support, I mean like the welfare stuff.

First of all, that's the kind of mentality people have. I say it's horse crap. Just because you perceive I'm taking away votes, doesn't mean I'm giving them to Romney. I'm voting for Gary and against Romney and Obama. Because I'm voting for who I want to win, I'm somehow a bad person because I could have voted for someone who "will" win. That "will" part would be debatable if more people would vote for the candidate that's best and not the one that's most likely to win. It's a 3 party system, not a two party one, yet people still refuse to vote for that 3rd candidate because "he has no chance", yet it's us who give him that chance because we're the ones that ultimately decide.

That second part is still horse crap. I'm not voting at the last second. I'm voting with an informed and carefully weighed decision. It's not just you who thinks this way either. Almost everyone I've talked to think like this and I'm sick of it. People with this "screw the other party" line of thought are the ones who consistently let people into office that screw this country up.

This last statement is complete bull. Check this, Gary is very liberal on social issues. He supports reform, but most definitely not complete removal of stateside welfare. I know I don't support the massive foreign help packages we give out like Halloween candy. It's a waste of resources we could be using now to pick our own asses off the ground.

 

[Gahars]

i really dont wanna turn this into a conspiracy thread, specially in gbatemp =/ Derailing arguments, in my GBAtemp? It's more likely than you think.


no, i didnt, i did mean covert. actually if you're gonna fake elections without hiding it, just make it a coup.
actually, it could even be said that the us did a cover coup. but i'm really not gonna go there ...So why bring it up in the first place?


note true, not always, not most times. true sometimes, like china. Would you care to provide some examples of when it's not true? Just curious.


again, note always, and the same could be said about the us, but like you said above, the difference between that and china, is one trying to cover it up and the other not even bothering. So you're still clinging onto this improbable notion of a cover up? Very well, then.


that's pretty biased, i'm sure you could better than that. Ah, you got me! I am biased against oppressive regimes and dictatorships. Whoops.


yes, yes, yes. seriously, in all honesty, are you questioning the ability of covering things up in the states? and wasting money in a place like the sates?
come on, anyone should be able to see that. i've studied as a history major, so from my point of you, i could tell you, yes. but you dont have to even do that to be able to see those things. Yes and yes. First of all, the problem with cover ups is that the bigger something is, the harder it is to keep it covered up. If you studied history, you should know that our government has had its struggles with bureaucracy and inefficiency at many levels. Now it's all of a sudden able to pull an operation like this off for an extended period of time without any hitches whatsoever? As for your second point, there's a difference between wasting money and essentially shoveling it into a furnace. If the results were all decided ahead of time, why not keep campaign costs at a consistent, moderate level? Surely that would be enough to maintain the facade. Why increase the amount being spent each election when that money could be spent on other enterprises (like hiring better burglars or more efficient dry cleaning)?

occam's razor is usually a fallacy. =/ To quote Lana Kane, "Nooooope." (Or at the very least, no, not in this context, and that doesn't give you an excuse to ignore the point).

again, i'm not necessarily saying it is actually happening, i'll just say that it is possible for the sake of argument. Possible, sure, in the same sense that it's "possible" for pigs to sprout wings and take flight.
i'm not even gonna go into saying that most media is collectively owned, or bring up more possibilities,
but i'll maintain that if they wanted whoever was in power in the sates, would have the capabilities to do that. "I'm not saying it's x, but I'm saying it's x."

i'll just spare the other people in gbatemp this whole discussion.
so if you ask me if i think it's possible, i answer yes, i think it is. In an argument, I believe we call that "the gentleman's retreat."

 

[KingVamp]

First of all, that's the kind of mentality people have. I say it's horse crap. Just because you perceive I'm taking away votes, doesn't mean I'm giving them to Romney. I'm voting for Gary and against Romney and Obama. Because I'm voting for who I want to win, I'm somehow a (bad person)<-no one said that because I could have voted for someone who "will" win. That "will" part would be debatable if more people would vote for the candidate that's best and not the one that's most likely to win. It's a 3 party system, not a two party one, yet people still refuse to vote for that 3rd candidate because "he has no chance", yet it's us who give him that chance because we're the ones that ultimately decide.

Honestly, as it stands now, do you really think he has a chance? I see if he had momentum from the get go. I just worry that we could get the worst of them all, 'cause of votes that seem like it's a shot in the dark (very unlikely) of the chance of them getting elected.

First of all, that's the kind of mentality people have. I
That second part is still horse crap. I'm not voting at the last second. I'm voting with an informed and carefully weighed decision. It's not just you who thinks this way either. Almost everyone I've talked to think like this and I'm sick of it. People with this "screw the other party" line of thought are the ones who consistently let people into office that screw this country up.

Look man, I'm just trying to be realistic here and work on the best, most likely possibility.

This last statement is complete bull. Check this, Gary is very liberal on social issues. He supports reform, but most definitely not complete removal of stateside welfare. I know I don't support the massive foreign help packages we give out like Halloween candy. It's a waste of resources we could be using now to pick our own asses off the ground.

Ok, you got me. I need to do more research on him.

 

[Sterling]

The whole reason he doesn't have a chance is because of the stigma the Independent Party has attached to it. Basically "They can't win because the Democrats and the Republicans exist". This 3rd party barely has any sway in the voting process because nobody believes they can win. Even if they're the best for the job, all I hear from people in my circle is, "Oh, he can't win because no one will vote for him. I want to vote for him, but since no one else is, I won't." It's infuriating how unbelievably stupid pack mentalities make people. It'll reduce even the most sane and intelligent person to a drooling Romenytard, or Obamahound.

If people would change this silly sentiment, then we'd have a valid 3rd option instead of this pile that's reminiscent of the British Royal Family. It's like that token black guy you see in every movie. It's there to satisfy the people who want it there, even if it's only a figurehead.

 

[Deleted-185407]

Honestly, as it stands now, do you really think he has a chance? I see if he had momentum from the get go. I just worry that we could get the worst of them all, 'cause of votes that seem like it's a shot in the dark (very unlikely) of the chance of them getting elected.

Look man, I'm just trying to be realistic here and work on the best, most likely possibility

I don't live in America, but it even sickens me how often people won't vote for people who "don't stand a chance".

You're the reason they "don't stand a chance". Quit being a coward, vote for the person you trust and actually believe in, and you'll start seeing real changes. Why are you piggy-backing off other people's decisions? That's not how democracy should work. By not voting who you actually want in office, you're effectively turning your own country into a dictatorship, and only then are you actually wasting your vote.

Want your real choice of candidate to have a chance of winning? Start telling everyone you know about your choice, and tell them why they're a better choice, and tell them they have an excellent chance of winning, so long as you vote for them. The only way the two-party system will be beaten is if the voters stop being so negative and stop letting themselves be bullied into thinking their votes only count if it's for one of the two big parties.

I wish people were more informed about politics sometimes. If I was able to vote there, I'd also vote for Gary Johnson, because while I don't agree with all of his policies, I agree with most, and he definitely seems far more trustworthy and consistent than both Romney or Obama. I can't trust people who flip flop constantly on issues or who betrayed me with bills that give them to right to kill me whenever they want.

 

[suppow]

lol, you just made me notice all my tipos ^^;

btw, i wouldnt consider it an argument since i'm not trying to convince you,
or win anything. my effort was in trying to explain my answer since i thought you were asking something.
you're obviously pretty conviced in what you think, and personally i dont like telling others what to think and etc.

i thought you were asking if someone could think that was possible, i do so i said so,
and then i was just trying to explain why (i do),
and honestly not trying to get you to think i'm right and you're wrong, and for you to think like me, that's up to you on your own.
and if you wanna think you won whatever argument and that makes you happy,
then be my guest you wouldnt be taking anything from me.

if you're actually interested in the subject, and whether it's plausible or not,
i know a few things and have been a few places and maybe i could have something interesting to say from my own point of view for you tu judge,
if you're on a debunking mindest however, and not that interested on the matter, then it's just a waste of time
and i'd suggest finding something more fun and productive to do (yes it can be both at the same time)

 

[DiscostewSM]

So, does your vote really count? Well, some might think otherwise when you've got news organizations declaring who the winner of the 2012 election is with 99% of the precincts having reported, 2 weeks prior to any of them actually doing so.

 

[BlueStar]

What's more likely? That they're testing their election graphics with dummy data and accidentally put them on network rather than a test server, or that there's a vast Illuminati conspiracy that includes the graphics guy?

They're not very bright these conspiracy people are they, they slip up on a daily basis that allows paranoid basement dwellers to OBVIOUSLY see what they're doing.

 

[Lacius]

I wish more people didn't have the mentality of "Oh, I agree with this guy the most, but I won't vote for him because he doesn't have a chance."

Actually, if one wishes to actually have a say in who wins the presidential election, this is the logical mentality to have. Voting for Gary Johnson has about as much of an influence on who wins the presidential election as writing in "Mickey Mouse."

If more people decided to vote for the choice the agree with most then that 3rd choice might actually matter.

You're making the bold assumption that if you made everyone in the United States aware of Gary Johnson and other third-party candidates, a significant number of them would agree with their positions and change their votes; I'd like to see evidence of this, because I think you're underestimating how many people legitimately align with one of the two major political parties.

Don't get me wrong; I think we should have a multi-round voting system, which would actually make it possible for more third-party candidates to win. However, you're assuming a lot if you think the majority of people actually agree with Gary Johnson and just aren't voting for him because it's impossible for him to win. I have a feeling that if we were to even the playing field and implement a multi-round voting system, you'd still mostly see Democrats and Republicans in office.

Suffice it to say, you're deluding yourself if you think Gary Johnson hasn't already lost the election, and you're throwing your vote away if you're not voting for one of the two viable candidates.

My parents are prime examples. They vote strictly Republican just to cockblock the other party without ever considering the ideas of merit that the other party has, or because that independent choice they agree with the most doesn't have a chance. It's fucking dumb.

My political views aside, if your parents completely disagree with the Democrats and at least somewhat agree with the Republicans, then what they do is logical. Again, this is why we should have a multi-round system.

Just because you perceive I'm taking away votes, doesn't mean I'm giving them to Romney. I'm voting for Gary and against Romney and Obama.

If a significant number of people vote for a third-party candidate but they agree more with Obama than Romney, then these people voting for a third-party candidate are helping Romney by removing likely Obama voters from the electorate.

If you have an election between Candidate A and Candidate B, and you're somehow able to get Candidate B's supporters to divide their votes between Candidate B and Candidate C, then people voting for Candidate C benefits Candidate A.

Because I'm voting for who I want to win, I'm somehow a bad person because I could have voted for someone who "will" win. That "will" part would be debatable if more people would vote for the candidate that's best and not the one that's most likely to win.

No, it's not immoral to vote for Gary Johnshon. However, if your preferential order of presidential candidates, for example, is 1. Gary Johnson, 2. Barack Obama, and 3. Mitt Romney, then it is illogical for you to vote for Gary Johnson when your #1 choice is impossible and you prefer #2 to #3.

It's a 3 party system, not a two party one, yet people still refuse to vote for that 3rd candidate because "he has no chance", yet it's us who give him that chance because we're the ones that ultimately decide.

It's a two-party system because ~99% of the electorate vote for someone in one of the two political parties. You're lying to yourself if you think it's a three-party system.

The whole reason he doesn't have a chance is because of the stigma the Independent Party has attached to it. Basically "They can't win because the Democrats and the Republicans exist". This 3rd party barely has any sway in the voting process because nobody believes they can win.

Again, that's a bold assumption to say that the whole reason third-party candidates don't have a chance is because people don't think they can win and that if everyone who supports Gary Johnson were to vote for Gary Johnson despite this mentality, he would come close to winning. I'd like to see some evidence of this.

My whole point is that your single vote for Gary Johnson is not going to change the fact that ~99% of people who vote are going to vote for Obama or Romney. No offense, but if your goal is to throw your vote away in defiance because you're angry your guy can't win, then you will accomplish this goal by voting for Gary Johnson. If, however, your goal is to make your preferential order of presidential candidates heard, voting for Gary Johnson will not accomplish this goal.

 

[Sterling]

Actually, if one wishes to actually have a say in who wins the presidential election, this is the logical mentality to have. Voting for Gary Johnson has about as much of an influence on who wins the presidential election as writing in "Mickey Mouse."


You're making the bold assumption that if you made everyone in the United States aware of Gary Johnson and other third-party candidates, a significant number of them would agree with their positions and change their votes; I'd like to see evidence of this, because I think you're underestimating how many people legitimately align with one of the two major political parties.

Don't get me wrong; I think we should have a multi-round voting system, which would actually make it possible for more third-party candidates to win. However, you're assuming a lot if you think the majority of people actually agree with Gary Johnson and just aren't voting for him because it's impossible for him to win. I have a feeling that if we were to even the playing field and implement a multi-round voting system, you'd still mostly see Democrats and Republicans in office.

Suffice it to say, you're deluding yourself if you think Gary Johnson hasn't already lost the election, and you're throwing your vote away if you're not voting for one of the two viable candidates.


My political views aside, if your parents completely disagree with the Democrats and at least somewhat agree with the Republicans, then what they do is logical. Again, this is why we should have a multi-round system.


If a significant number of people vote for a third-party candidate but they agree more with Obama than Romney, then these people voting for a third-party candidate are helping Romney by removing likely Obama voters from the electorate.

If you have an election between Candidate A and Candidate B, and you're somehow able to get Candidate B's supporters to divide their votes between Candidate B and Candidate C, then people voting for Candidate C benefits Candidate A.


No, it's not immoral to vote for Gary Johnshon. However, if your preferential order of presidential candidates, for example, is 1. Gary Johnson, 2. Barack Obama, and 3. Mitt Romney, then it is illogical for you to vote for Gary Johnson when your #1 choice is impossible and you prefer #2 to #3.

Again, that's a bold assumption to say that the whole reason third-party candidates don't have a chance is because people don't think they can win and that if everyone who supports Gary Johnson were to vote for Gary Johnson despite this mentality, he would come close to winning. I'd like to see some evidence of this.

My whole point is that your single vote for Gary Johnson is not going to change the fact that ~99% of people who vote are going to vote for Obama or Romney. No offense, but if your goal is to throw your vote away in defiance because you're angry your guy can't win, then you will accomplish this goal by voting for Gary Johnson. If, however, your goal is to make your preferential order of presidential candidates heard, voting for Gary Johnson will not accomplish this goal.

Maybe I am a little angry. At the same time though, I hear all these people whining and complaining about one party or the other. Yet nobody does anything to change their minds. We haven't had a good president with an honest plan since Clinton. People keep wanting things to get better and yet they're about to put the same person in office when I've only seen a marginal improvement over the last 4 years. Romney is going to fuck us all over. I can practically hear my parents excusing Romney because he took over "Obama's mess" (which also just so happens to be a typical Republican thing from what I've seen). Obama isn't going to do much better than he has over the last 4 years (though I doubt we'll see much bad happen *crosses fingers*). People keep putting the same mistakes into office because they:

A) Don't like the other party and try to cockblock.
B) Don't even consider the other potential choice.
C) In these cases, they actually like the candidate.
D) Some combination of the above.

My parents are the types of people who refer to Obama as a socialist fuck if that's any indication. Heads stuck up their asses in the most literal way possible.

As for my preferred candidate, I'd say screw the big two and go all in on GJ. I can't stand either of them and I'd rather not vote if I had to mark them on the ticket.

Honestly, my problem is the fact that no one considers him, more than that he'd have a chance of winning. When I get blank stares from people that are in to politics who have no idea who he is I know that something is wrong there.

My whole entire argument is that tossing your vote at one of the big two because that 3rd party candidate you agree with the most "can't win" is a cowardly mentality. If you agree with Obama or Romney, then vote for them. If you don't and you haven't considered the 3rd possibility because he "can't win" then it's most certainly going to be over before its starts. You'd be surprised at how many people here in Texas can get behind the 3rd party. I witnessed it when I went to a Ron Paul rally here. There are so many disgruntled people that continue to vote for either party because "it's better than the alternative" even though they just don't like either one that boggles me. It's not going to change anything if we keep it up.

 

[Coltonamore]

Obama is better then Romney, because Romney is stupid in his way to get us to vote for him.
and two Obama is better even if hes pissed off people in the past.
All I have to say is Obama shod be in again because Romney sucks.

 

[stomp_442]

Sweet, can I throw my two cents in here too?

Romney is better then Obama, because Obama is stupid in his way to get us to vote for him.
and two Romney is better even if hes pissed off people in the past.
All I have to say is Romney shod be in because Obama sucks.

 

[Sterling]

Sweet, can I throw my two cents in here too?

You made this clear a few pages back... >.>

 

[stomp_442]

Bill Clinton was not a good president. The only reason he was elected was because ross perot stole votes away from daddy bush. billy bob was the most corrupt US president in history.

 

[Sterling]

Bill Clinton was not a good president. The only reason he was elected was because ross perot stole votes away from daddy bush. billy bob was the most corrupt US president in history.

Yeah, no. I was much younger at the time, so I had to accept such nonsense like this from my parents, but now that I'm older, I can see that this is complete BS. Try harder please.

 

[DiscostewSM]

It's unfortunate that the media focuses on only those 2 groups, the Democrats and Republicans, and since people get the most informed about politics by the media, the remaining candidates don't get any spotlight when they probably should.

 

[Deleted-185407]

For a country that touts itself as the "land of opportunities", it's quite disgraceful to read defeatist attitudes.

 

[Lacius]

Maybe I am a little angry. At the same time though, I hear all these people whining and complaining about one party or the other. Yet nobody does anything to change their minds.

Actually, there are plenty of changes going on within both parties. For example, I've been critical of the Democratic Party in the past because it didn't take a hard-line position on same-sex marriage; however, that's changed as more Democrats have taken pro-gay marriage positions. You also see Democrats taking more lenient positions on drugs these days. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say, "Both parties suck and they aren't going to change."

We haven't had a good president with an honest plan since Clinton.

I respectfully disagree; I believe President Obama has been a good President with an honest plan for this country. Could you show me specifically how you think that's not the case?

People keep wanting things to get better and yet they're about to put the same person in office when I've only seen a marginal improvement over the last 4 years.

I'm assuming you're referring to the economy, and I think it's incorrect to call the Stimulus' effect on the economy a "marginal improvement." Keep in mind five things:

1. The economy was in a worse place than we thought when the Stimulus was enacted. Most people, even Obama and the Democrats, agree in hindsight that the Stimulus should have been more.

2. The economy was so bad when President Obama took office that it's going to take time to fully recover. Anyone who claims otherwise is just silly.

3. Regardless, the Stimulus worked.

4. Romney's jobs plan is to decreases taxes, disproportionately for the rich, which isn't a very good form of economic stimulus.

5. What's Gary Johnson's jobs plan? Because last time I checked, he was against stimulus.

I can't stand either of them and I'd rather not vote if I had to mark them on the ticket.

Good, because that's essentially what you're doing when you vote for Gary Johnson.

Honestly, my problem is the fact that no one considers him, more than that he'd have a chance of winning. When I get blank stares from people that are in to politics who have no idea who he is I know that something is wrong there.

Plenty of people, myself included, consider Gary Johnson and decide they don't agree with him on policy. But when making an informed decision on whom to vote for, the fact that Gary Johnson has a 0% chance of winning is something worth taking into consideration.

My whole entire argument is that tossing your vote at one of the big two because that 3rd party candidate you agree with the most "can't win" is a cowardly mentality.

For the reasons I outlined in my last post, it's not a cowardly mentality; it's a logical one.

You'd be surprised at how many people here in Texas can get behind the 3rd party. I witnessed it when I went to a Ron Paul rally here. There are so many disgruntled people that continue to vote for either party because "it's better than the alternative" even though they just don't like either one that boggles me. It's not going to change anything if we keep it up.

Roughly 99% of people are never going to vote for a third-party candidate, whether it's because they align with one of the two major parties, because they don't see the third-party candidates as viable, or some combination of the two. This means the only solution to the problem you've outlined is a multi-round voting system, not throwing one's vote away by voting for Gary Johnson. Again, you'd accomplish the same thing by writing in "Mickey Mouse."

 

[Sterling]

Actually, there are plenty of changes going on within both parties. For example, I've been critical of the Democratic Party in the past because it didn't take a hard-line position on same-sex marriage; however, that's changed as more Democrats have taken pro-gay marriage positions. You also see Democrats taking more lenient positions on drugs these days. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say, "Both parties suck and they aren't going to change."


I respectfully disagree; I believe President Obama has been a good President with an honest plan for this country. Could you show me specifically how you think that's not the case?


I'm assuming you're referring to the economy, and I think it's incorrect to call the Stimulus' effect on the economy a "marginal improvement." Keep in mind five things:

1. The economy was in a worse place than we thought when the Stimulus was enacted. Most people, even Obama and the Democrats, agree in hindsight that the Stimulus should have been more.

2. The economy was so bad when President Obama took office that it's going to take time to fully recover. Anyone who claims otherwise is just silly.

3. Regardless, the Stimulus worked.

4. Romney's jobs plan is to decreases taxes, disproportionately for the rich, which isn't a very good form of economic stimulus.

5. What's Gary Johnson's jobs plan? Because last time I checked, he was against stimulus.


Good, because that's essentially what you're doing when you vote for Gary Johnson.


Plenty of people, myself included, consider Gary Johnson and decide they don't agree with him on policy. But when making an informed decision on whom to vote for, the fact that Gary Johnson has a 0% chance of winning is something worth taking into consideration.


For the reasons I outlined in my last post, it's not a cowardly mentality; it's a logical one.


Roughly 99% of people are never going to vote for a third-party candidate, whether it's because they align with one of the two major parties, because they don't see the third-party candidates as viable, or some combination of the two. This means the only solution to the problem you've outlined is a multi-round voting system, not throwing one's vote away by voting for Gary Johnson. Again, you'd accomplish the same thing by writing in "Mickey Mouse."

Yeah, I'm not referring to the economy. That's improved beyond what I can see. You've done enough to convince me that Obama hasn't exactly left Bush's shit to rot. He's done a great clean-up. TBH, I'd much rather have Obama in office than Romney.

If that's what I'm doing, then I guess that's what I'm doing. I don't see it that way though. I see it as taking a stand for what I believe in.

Yeah, I got ya'. It's worth something, but at the same time, I don't believe either of the big two are worth my time. So it's either toss my vote in behind something I believe in, or give up. Any way you look at it, the former is a much better candidate for my time.

You'd be surprised by how many logical things I consider to be cowardly. Just because it's the logical thing to do, doesn't make it any better in my eyes.

I'm not sure if I can believe or agree with that percentage you posted. I understand that too. Most of the people I've talked to who agree with GJ are about my age. The younger generation will ultimately decide, and I do hope that system you've proposed is implemented. That sounds like a nice compromise.

 

[Lacius]

I'm not sure if I can believe or agree with that percentage you posted.

In 2008, votes for Obama and McCain accounted for 98.59% of the electorate. The percentage is accurate.