Voting For A 3rd Party Is Voting For Obama.

[sixpence]

[quote name='Freedom' timestamp='1351121463' post='2497196']

If what you're saying is not voting at all, then your duty is to get involved and vote for Romney, because he is the best of the two.
[/quote]

Following your argument that I should not vote for a third party candidate Because they do not have a chance of winning, even if they are the better option morally; I should also not vote for Romney, because he has no chance of winning (in my state) either. Given that I essentially have no choice, except to support Obama (or oppose him to no effect), I don't see why it should matter to you what manner I should oppose him, given that the intention is there, and that either way will not effect the outcome.

I am not trying to be difficult/annoying. I truly don't get it.

[Winchester]

Ruck Fomney.

[BG45]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1351133817' post='2497381']

i think your sanity said something about "i can't stand the school anymore" and was scared to come back.

also: obviously those candidates are the debbil because their colors are just like Obama's.
[/quote]

After 9 years, that may be what it said. And I guess their colors are; but Obama never claimed to be God. Celestia and Luna are essentially Pagan Deities.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1351134198' post='2497385']

After 9 years, that may be what it said. And I guess their colors are; but Obama never claimed to be God. Celestia and Luna are essentially Pagan Deities.
[/quote]
In the same sense that C.S. Lewis Or J.R.R. Tolkein can have quasi-deity entities in a world that is clearly fantasy.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1351134198' post='2497385']

After 9 years, that may be what it said. And I guess their colors are; but [b]Obama never claimed to be God[/b]. Celestia and Luna are essentially Pagan Deities.
[/quote]

are you sure?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1351134116' post='2497383']

Following your argument that I should not vote for a third party candidate Because they do not have a chance of winning, even if they are the better option morally; I should also not vote for Romney, because he has no chance of winning (in my state) either. Given that I essentially have no choice, except to support Obama (or oppose him to no effect), I don't see why it should matter to you what manner I should oppose him, given that the intention is there, and that either way will not effect the outcome.

I am not trying to be difficult/annoying. I truly don't get it.
[/quote]

Truth be told, this whole argument depends on your state of residence. I live in a very Obama-friendly state, so I could very easily vote for anyone without worrying about the possible outcome. If I lived in Ohio or Florida my vote would be more important than it is here.

Still, as I think everyone here agrees, votes are about more than simply electing someone into office.

[sixpence]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1351134381' post='2497390']
votes are about more than simply electing someone into office.
[/quote]

such as?

[BG45]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1351134321' post='2497388']
In the same sense that C.S. Lewis Or J.R.R. Tolkein can have quasi-deity entities in a world that is clearly fantasy.
[/quote]

Point taken.
[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1351134376' post='2497389']

are you sure?
[/quote]

Not 100%...

[qfnol31]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1351134582' post='2497394']

such as?
[/quote]
They also stand as a witness to what you find important. People do often look at votes and what sways voters, though they just as often ignore them...

[Sylvanna Imbris]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1351130833' post='2497313']
yeah politics is dirty. yeah romney smells of elderberries. but he's the best choice we have. wake up peeps. a third party choice is not a viable choice...not this time. smell of elderberries it up and get the murdering bastard out of the white house. then immediately start laying the grass-roots framework to build up a true pro-life candidate to run against romney in 4 years.
[/quote]
[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1351131295' post='2497321']
and that's what everyone said 4 years ago, and had great momentum and then we still got stuck with someone like romney.
[/quote]
[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1351132599' post='2497346']
I think almost everyone in this thread would like my neighbor. He has two signs up. One just says "November 6th". The other he changes daily as a count down until he can stop hearing about the elections.
[/quote]
I think this progression sounds about right. If you vote for Romney because he's the lesser of 2 evils, we can say we'll start a grassroots campaign to get someone better, but after the elections are over people lose interest. We are all going to be as relieved as BG's neighbor and reluctant to start political debate again and nothing will improve. But if enough people vote 3rd party now, perhaps both parties will see that there is now a group of voters that they can win to their side by providing better candidates and third party candidates will see that they might actually have a chance to break the two-party hold.

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1351134660' post='2497396']
They [i][votes][/i] also stand as a witness to what you find important.
[/quote]
Exactly.
If no one votes third party, I think that the Republican party will conclude that American’s don’t [i]really[/i] care about pro-life issues anymore since 'everyone' chose either Obama or the not-so-pro-life Romney.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Sylvanna Imbris' timestamp='1351136330' post='2497420']
...But if enough people vote 3rd party now, perhaps both parties will see that there is now a group of voters that they can win to their side by providing better candidates and third party candidates will see that they might actually have a chance to break the two-party hold.
...
If no one votes third party, I think that the Republican party will conclude that American’s don’t [i]really[/i] care about pro-life issues anymore since 'everyone' chose either Obama or the not-so-pro-life Romney.
[/quote]

SOMEONE GETS IT!!!!!!

[MIKolbe]

I scanned through this thread and couldn't find it...maybe I missed it...if not, could someone help explain this simply to me?

1) Could someone explain if person X votes for a 3rd party it is a vote for Obama?

2) Could someone explain if person Q votes for a 3rd party it is a vote for Obama?

19) If, in fact, a vote for a 3rd party IS a vote for Obama, is it then not a vote for the 3rd party candidate?

5) Explain the statistical significance between just person X's and person Q's one vote?


91) would you agree with this?

[i]a- Each moral decision ought to be based on the natural law.
b- Each moral decision should be unaffected by the trends of how other people make the same moral decision.
c- Voting is a moral act.[/i]

[i]Therefore, the act of voting ought to be based on the natural law and be unaffected by the trends of how other people vote.[/i]

16) If you do not agree with # 91, how would you vote in this hypothetical situation... [i]Abortion is illegal in your state. The ballot in the coming election will present voters with three options: preserve the ban, allow some abortions (cases of rape, etc.), or totally legalize abortion. Polling shows that 46% of people are in favor of legalization, 43% favor allowing for some abortions, and 11% favor preserving the ban. [/i]

How do you vote?




kinda a shotgun approach..sorry about that. break into other threads if you like...

[Aloysius]

Q actually had a decent theoretical reasoning that amounted to voting for the loser being a material cooperation in the winner; so therefore the third party vote is a vote for whoever wins; so if you're assuming Obama will win

I disagreed with him, but he did give a decent theoretical argument haha. but I destroyed it with my amesome theatrics (not as much logic as theatrics lol, about Polish men on horses fighting Nazi tanks).

I saw earlier groo claimed no one had responded to dUSt's reasons for Romney being better; I know I did, though I'm not sure which thread it is to be found on as the firestorm I erupted with the Don't Vote for Romney thread exploded onto 3 or 4 threads by now lol. Basically dUSt's argument is an argument for electing George Bush in the year 2000 over Barack Obama; and even that argument would only be sound if things like the partial birth abortion ban were under threat in any way legislatively right now, which they are not, they are settled law with no feasible looming legislative threat from anyone (all the people that are most outraged are focusing more on getting around the laws than spending lobbying money in a futile attempt to overturn that particular law; legislatively they've conceded that point in my estimation, though you might find some small bits of rhetoric about it from time to time; you certainly won't see Barack Obama touching that with a ten foot pole though). He ignored the parts of my post where I showed Romney is actually in favor of Obama-care (basing many arguments off of the premise that Romney would repeal it), he ignored the parts of my post where I illustrate he is highly likely to maintain the HHS mandate (basing many arguments off of the premise that Romney would repeal it); he ignored the parts of my post where I illustrated that Romney will actually maintain the pro-choice position (health-of-the-mother exemption, his decades-long pro-choice record, and what I didn't include on my original post: he specifically said he does not foresee signing any legislation regarding abortion during his administration)

I granted him the Mexico City policy because that is the bone the Republican's always throw to us when they get in office, but the Mexico City policy, when in place, is always worked around very easily because all funds are fungible; the only way to really stop tax dollars from funding abortions is to stop all of that kind of aid, because when the aid does get sent out, it gets used for abortions and sterilizations regardless of whether the Mexico City Policy is in place. You might as well start a policy that says foreign aid can't be given to fund dictators' desert swimming pools... it's largely as empty as the "gender-selective abortion ban" of recent legislative memory... a pointless policy that doesn't actually succeed at anything but makes everyone feel good.

Anyway, don't let it be said that I brushed off or ignored any arguments that Romney is better. I always try to be a fair debater, I always do my best to respond to any arguments of the other side, I absolutely read dUSt's post because it was well researched and made some good counter-points to my arguments (unlike a lot of the posts here which are basically just saying "boo, hiss, how dare you suggest not voting for Romney!")

Edited October 25, 2012 by Aloysius

[dUSt]

I think this is going to be one of those "I told you so" threads someone looks back on in about 4 years.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1351132299' post='2497340']
i know we disagree sometimes, but ---- i heart you.
[/quote]I don't think we've ever disagreed. You just haven't acknowledged your agreement with everything, [b]yet. SOON![/b]



Back on topic. I would of posted this last night, but I can't accept harshing a good buzz by debating on the web with sober people.


It's complete fantasy to think you are sending some sort of clear message by voting for a third party Presidential Canidate. The Presidential Candidates are running on a broad range of issues. Who the hell knows what specific policy you're voting for or against? Think about it.

Either Barak or Mitt will be the next President. I live in Florida, so my perspective on the value of my vote is probably over-inflated. One of these two men WILL be President next year and either the D or R party will gain the additional politcal clout. Is there a preference for either Party? There's plenty of opinion being posted here and elsewhere. Quit crying and make a decision in this specific question.

If you like 3rd Party platforms or politicians, then pay attention and support them next month, next year, next local election. It's way too late in the game and a lazy cop-out if you think everything is decided by just the Presidency. Although I think Aloy is extreme (bording on hysterical fantasy) about the political outcome and effects of the Presidential Election, he has displayed an exemplary course of action with his participation in the political community with his efforts, his time, his knowledge. Politics is a LONG game, played out over months, years, generations. It isn't all said and done with the few months around a Presidential Election every four years, and it isn't all done just in the voting booth.