Voting for a presidential candidate other than Obama or Romney

[PirateDeacon]

Are you serious? Do you know how much money the Democratic party and Republican party receive through lobbyists? It is an unfair fight. You cannot have a legitimate democracy if you don't have candidates who stand for the people, neither of major candidates have a vested interest in the good for the whole. They have vested interest in American corporatism.

 

[SkinsNDeacs]

Skins, "libertarian" was one of the big buzz words in the summer and the Libertarian Party hasn't capitalized even with a legit candidate. I bet Johnson isn't even carrying 30% of Ron Paul diehards. That's on the party if they want to fight the current system.

Where was libertarian a big buzz word and who thought they had any chance of getting more % than they ever got? Johnson is the most legit candidate to ever run as a Libertarian. It is all about equal ballot access and election funding...it doesn't matter who they run as long as the game is fixed.

 

[BeachBumDeac]

Are you serious? Do you know how much money the Democratic party and Republican party receive through lobbyists? It is an unfair fight. You cannot have a legitimate democracy if you don't have candidates who stand for the people, neither of major candidates have a vested interest in the good for the whole. They have vested interest in American corporatism.

Jesus H. Christ. Listen to yourself. You are the libertarian that makes everyone fucking hate libertarians.

Cut off your dreads and join the real world, kid.

 

[Wakelaw2006]

you mean recently appointed moderates like Alito and Sotomeyor?

All of which have to go through a confirmation process. Thank goodness there are checks and balances in place. Given the partisanship in Congress in recent years I feel safe in saying any USSC nominee is going to have to be decently moderate to stand any chance at being confirmed. Someone like Scalia would be DOA.

I think it all depends on who controls the Senate. We haven't had a confirmation hearing in recent memory where the Senate was not controlled by the same party as the President. As long as the nominee is qualified, he/she will get through when the Senate is controlled by the same party as the President (Qualified: Alito, despite the fact I disagree with many, many more of his opinions than I agree with. Not qualified: Harriet Miers, enough said). On the other hand, if we end up with a Senate controlled by the party opposite of the President, A) it will get ugly, and B) I think LK's premise is probably true.

 

[PirateDeacon]

No, I am in the real world. This is reality, if you can't see that our country doesn't have serious structural/monetary problems then you are not paying attention.

You should watch the movie Inside Job about the economic crisis in 2008. It is an eye-opening movie.

FWIW, I voted for Obama in 2008 and I have every right to complain about him. He has been an awful president. Very Bush-like.

That post was directed to Ph, by the way, not you. You just decided to freak out about it.

 

[bym051d]

It's just funny that a lot of people that like Obama don't even know why they are voting for him, they are just half-witted sheep.

Heh, heh... [insertcandidate] has some low knowledge voters.

You should vote for Romney because he's not a Muslim socialist atheist communist.

 

[PhDeac]

Republicans were falling all over themselves to identify with Ayn Rand and call themselves libertarians. And where did the Ron Paul people go? They're holding up Romney signs.

 

[PirateDeacon]

Heh, heh... [insertcandidate] has some low knowledge voters.

You should vote for Romney because he's not a Muslim socialist atheist communist.

They represent the majority of who votes. Most people don't take into account what they are actually voting for.

And Ph, yeah you are right but those people aren't the ones that truly want to see the parties be held accountable. A vote for Romney is just as bad, if not worse in some regards.

 

[SkinsNDeacs]

Republicans were falling all over themselves to identify with Ayn Rand and call themselves libertarians. And where did the Ron Paul people go? They're holding up Romney signs.

That has always been true. A lot of Republicans like to say they are Libertarians, followers of Rand and put up the "DON'T TREAD ON ME" flags but when pushed vote for the Republican. You act as if Ron Paul had a big chunk of the primary electorate. While they were vocal (like they were 4 years ago) they were fairly small.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

My wife is voting for Jill Stein if she can. I've personally never even heard of the lady

 

[PhDeac]

That has always been true. A lot of Republicans like to say they are Libertarians, followers of Rand and put up the "DON'T TREAD ON ME" flags but when pushed vote for the Republican. You act as if Ron Paul had a big chunk of the primary electorate. While they were vocal (like they were 4 years ago) they were fairly small.

Then you're making my point. I'm not hearing their voices for Gary Johnson. Where is Ron Paul out stumping for Gary Johnson? Where are the kids in the rEVOLution shirts holding Romney accountable? They'll raise a fuss during the Republican convention, but fall right in line. People who claim to be libertarians who aren't voting for the Libertarian Party candidate are your problem.

 

[PhDeac]

My wife is voting for Jill Stein if she can. I've personally never even heard of the lady

Haven't decided if you're going to let her out of the kitchen?

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Jesus H. Christ. Listen to yourself. You are the libertarian that makes everyone fucking hate libertarians.

Cut off your dreads and join the real world, kid.

I agree with him on most of that. It's impossible to get elected in this country without pandering to 1 of 2 voting bases and the biggest donors in those bases control them IMO. You think Romney and Obama have gotten a billion dollars each from individual donations? Hell no. What do you think it means when a candidate is willing to change their beliefs and platforms simply to get elected? That says to me that they consider the election itself more important than the reason they want to be elected.

 

[bym051d]

Haven't decided if you're going to let her out of the kitchen?

If they wanted her to vote, there'd be a precinct next to the clock on the oven, huh?

 

[SkinsNDeacs]

Then you're making my point. I'm not hearing their voices for Gary Johnson. Where is Ron Paul out stumping for Gary Johnson? Where are the kids in the rEVOLution shirts holding Romney accountable? They'll raise a fuss during the Republican convention, but fall right in line. People who claim to be libertarians who aren't voting for the Libertarian Party candidate are your problem.

could it be because Paul is not a Libertarian?

 

[ProfessorDeac]

In Maryland, my vote makes no difference anyway. So I'm changing my tune and voting for Rocky Anderson. I didn't know a thing about him until I watched that third party debate I linked a couple weeks ago. He just speaks my language on everything but abortion. Most important for me are ending the war on drugs, campaign finance reform (he doesn't accept any donations over $100), foreign policy (no interventionism, no unthinking support for Israel), and immigration (streamlined path to citizenship). And despite the opposite direction of our national dialogue on the debt, I agree with those who see it as a question of long term prosperity, not avoiding short term deficits; that we ought to be running bigger deficits now, spending on things that will allow the growing underclass to return to being middle class. THAT will lift us out of this rut. Anderson speaks that message.

Jill Stein takes mostly the same positions, but I'm just not comfortable voting for someone who obviously still sees herself as a protester. I don't find getting arrested becoming of a serious presidential candidate, and I'm simply not impressed with her speaking ability.

I was in Obama's camp going into the debates, but have been disappointed with him ever since. I, too, thought he performed poorly in the first debate, but unlike the rest of the country, I didn't like the new tone he took in the later debates. In short, I thought he was a jerk. He stooped to Romney's level, and looked even nastier doing it, probably because it's not in his nature to lie, interrupt, and make sarcastic personal attacks. I can't believe people liked the "horses and bayonets" crap; it was so insulting and juvenile. But I guess he thought he had to behave that way (and maybe he did). That whatever-it-takes attitude is probably behind his anti-progressive foreign policy, too--or who knows, maybe he really believes in murdering civilians with robots. Either way, when I was introduced to Anderson, I just felt like I woke up from trying to rationalize an Obama vote, and now I feel good about my vote. Nor am I helping to bring about a Romney presidency. Anderson/Rodriguez 2012!

 

[Skydog Deac]

In Maryland, my vote makes no difference anyway. So I'm changing my tune and voting for Rocky Anderson. I didn't know a thing about him until I watched that third party debate I linked a couple weeks ago. He just speaks my language on everything but abortion. Most important for me are ending the war on drugs, campaign finance reform (he doesn't accept any donations over $100), foreign policy (no interventionism, no unthinking support for Israel), and immigration (streamlined path to citizenship). And despite the opposite direction of our national dialogue on the debt, I agree with those who see it as a question of long term prosperity, not avoiding short term deficits; that we ought to be running bigger deficits now, spending on things that will allow the growing underclass to return to being middle class. THAT will lift us out of this rut. Anderson speaks that message.

Jill Stein takes mostly the same positions, but I'm just not comfortable voting for someone who obviously still sees herself as a protester. I don't find getting arrested becoming of a serious presidential candidate, and I'm simply not impressed with her speaking ability.

I was in Obama's camp going into the debates, but have been disappointed with him ever since. I, too, thought he performed poorly in the first debate, but unlike the rest of the country, I didn't like the new tone he took in the later debates. In short, I thought he was a jerk. He stooped to Romney's level, and looked even nastier doing it, probably because it's not in his nature to lie, interrupt, and make sarcastic personal attacks. I can't believe people liked the "horses and bayonets" crap; it was so insulting and juvenile. But I guess he thought he had to behave that way (and maybe he did). That whatever-it-takes attitude is probably behind his anti-progressive foreign policy, too--or who knows, maybe he really believes in murdering civilians with robots. Either way, when I was introduced to Anderson, I just felt like I woke up from trying to rationalize an Obama vote, and now I feel good about my vote. Nor am I helping to bring about a Romney presidency. Anderson/Rodriguez 2012!

The thing about it is that is so frustrating is that the things you list that you like about Anderson probably appeal to 70% of the electorate, but we never seem to have these guys at the head of a potentially winning ticket. The machine rolls on. Since the Supreme Court says we can have unlimited money for campaigns, the system won't change and the little guy, even though his policies better reflect America, will not be heard.

 

[seawolf2010]

In Maryland, my vote makes no difference anyway. So I'm changing my tune and voting for Rocky Anderson. I didn't know a thing about him until I watched that third party debate I linked a couple weeks ago. He just speaks my language on everything but abortion. Most important for me are ending the war on drugs, campaign finance reform (he doesn't accept any donations over $100), foreign policy (no interventionism, no unthinking support for Israel), and immigration (streamlined path to citizenship). And despite the opposite direction of our national dialogue on the debt, I agree with those who see it as a question of long term prosperity, not avoiding short term deficits; that we ought to be running bigger deficits now, spending on things that will allow the growing underclass to return to being middle class. THAT will lift us out of this rut. Anderson speaks that message.

Jill Stein takes mostly the same positions, but I'm just not comfortable voting for someone who obviously still sees herself as a protester. I don't find getting arrested becoming of a serious presidential candidate, and I'm simply not impressed with her speaking ability.

I was in Obama's camp going into the debates, but have been disappointed with him ever since. I, too, thought he performed poorly in the first debate, but unlike the rest of the country, I didn't like the new tone he took in the later debates. In short, I thought he was a jerk. He stooped to Romney's level, and looked even nastier doing it, probably because it's not in his nature to lie, interrupt, and make sarcastic personal attacks. I can't believe people liked the "horses and bayonets" crap; it was so insulting and juvenile. But I guess he thought he had to behave that way (and maybe he did). That whatever-it-takes attitude is probably behind his anti-progressive foreign policy, too--or who knows, maybe he really believes in murdering civilians with robots. Either way, when I was introduced to Anderson, I just felt like I woke up from trying to rationalize an Obama vote, and now I feel good about my vote. Nor am I helping to bring about a Romney presidency. Anderson/Rodriguez 2012!

You can't be serious........

 

[THE DEUCE]

I agree with your take but I am convinced that Obama was pressured by his base to give Mitt some of his own medicine. I was furious at the President's performance in the first debate bc he sat quiet while Mitt spewed 80% BS ( fact checked approved). For the record I stand with you on the opposition of robots killing civilians.

 

[PirateDeacon]

No one should ever laugh at someone for voting third-party. That vote is one vote closer to sanity in our government. It's idealistic and highly unprobable that a Libertarian candidate would win in this day in age but it is still the right thing to do for this country. They are the only ones that stand up against big government and the corporatist war machine.

For the others, I used to believe in what Obama said and I wish that I still could. He is a very smart man with uncanny charisma but that is a perfect recipe for a politician, which he obviously is. In no way has he transformed our government from the corruption that we endured under Bush, he has escalated it in many ways. The sick and demented drone-scheme that he has expanded is sickening. The NDAA legislation should make every American feel squeamish and uneasy. It is highly illegal and fascist.

And to the Romney hopefuls, what makes you seriously believe that he will reign in our insane spending habits? You can't start to cut down on the deficit and expand the wars.

The sobering fact that we have to ingest is that both parties don't act in our best interests, they are puppets for Wall Street and the banking cabal. This is the way it has been for a very long time and it is has only gotten progressively worse. Americans love to forget history but this has been going on for quite some time.

To sit there and blast others for supporting "real change" is saddening. You are simply playing as pawns in their scheme for complete monetary domination. And this sounds fucking nuts but it's not. The facts are all around us, these crooks commit these crimes in broad daylight and we do nothing about it.