Who is Voting/Not Voting in midterm?
#1
 x 0 x 0
Who is Voting/Not Voting in midterm?

- Apollo is definitely voting.  In the past, midterm wasn't big deal.  But with all focus on politics - this  year, will vote, even donated a small amount to team R as well.
#2
 x 0 x 1
Me
...
#3
 x 2 x 0
Ich.

   
Belief is NOT a Substitute for Knowledge.
#4
 x 0 x 0
I haven't voted in I couldn't tell you when......all a bunch of shit
I contain unprepared crude & raw humor
#5
 x 0 x 0
I'll probably vote for a non dem/repub so that it gets counted as a voting citizen that chose neither party. I'll probably go with Murray Sabrin.
"Joe Montana was ok... Geddy Lee was an average bass player...Neil Pert couldn't carry Dave Grohl's drumsticks" - Words of wisdom from (minor prophet) Etrius24 --- Added proverbs for 2014: "Rocky was watchable"
#6
 x 0 x 0
I live in a state that the Senate seat isn't up for vote. It's also a state run by Democrats. So I won't be voting.
What do we care more about, children or money? How come we have armed guards in banks protecting the money and there's no one in schools protecting the kids.
#7
 x 0 x 0
(11-02-2018, 06:39 AM)Runway JET Wrote:  I live in a state that the Senate seat isn't up for vote. It's also a state run by Democrats. So I won't be voting.

House seats ... not sure how competitive they are in your state - but there is some districts almost everywhere that are close.  
#8
 x 0 x 0
(11-02-2018, 01:25 AM)moonlitegram Wrote:  I'll probably vote for a non dem/repub so that it gets counted as a voting citizen that chose neither party.  I'll probably go with Murray Sabrin.

To me it is like those senators who show up to vote and does not vote YES or NO - but votes present.  Unless 3rd party is competitive - there is really two choice.   If you don't chose - choice is made for you by others.
#9
 x 0 x 0
It seems GOP has the Senate - because there aren't that many seats up for R to lose. So Senate you'll have Mitch M. as the leader. No change there - except may be GOP gain 2 or 3 seats.

House - afraid to say - increasing looks like it'll be Nancy Pelosi as the speaker. She is one of those politicians who is just simply divisive and can't get anything done. Career ultra left politician who wants to hold on to power till she is 100.

People should keep that in mind. Do you want Nancy Pelosi/Maxi Waters and few other nuts like that in charge of the House & doing daily "Trump smiled too much - so lets impeach him".
#10
 x 0 x 0
Some of these races are so close - get out there and vote

#11
 x 0 x 0
(11-02-2018, 02:28 PM)choochmmm9 Wrote:  Some of these races are so close - get out there and vote

Cooch you rooting for pelosi?
#12
 x 0 x 0
Before going out to vote: people should read today's job/economy number. It is a BLOWOUT quarter/month/year - however you slice it.

Before you pull the trigger - decide which party you think is best to carry that streak forward.
#13
 x 1 x 0
(11-02-2018, 09:17 AM)apollo04 Wrote:  
(11-02-2018, 01:25 AM)moonlitegram Wrote:  I'll probably vote for a non dem/repub so that it gets counted as a voting citizen that chose neither party.  I'll probably go with Murray Sabrin.

To me it is like those senators who show up to vote and does not vote YES or NO - but votes present.  Unless 3rd party is competitive - there is really two choice.   If you don't chose - choice is made for you by others.

Eh, I don't really agree with this perspective.

For one thing its self-fulfilling. If everyone thought this way, nothing would ever change and the same two parties would remain in power perpetually.  The only way to change that is for individuals to take the "risk" and vote differently.  And the more people that do this, the better the chance that momentum will carry into the next election, and the election after that until there are no long only two dominant parties.   My vote is purely a signal to both parties, and to others around me, that there are voting citizens not choosing republican or democrat. 

Additionally, the "risk" is so absurdly minimal that I'm not too worried.  I'm under no illusion that my vote is all that meaningful.  In my state it will be one of millions, and neither candidate is under any obligation to act in congress as they pledge in their campaign.  The amount of control I'm exerting over how the state is going to exert power over me is absurdly small.  Thus I'm perfectly fine with not giving a shit about casting a vote for whichever of the main party candidates I midly prefer over the other, and casting a vote for a third party. 

The two main parties are absolute garbage anyway and for the most part I don't care which gets in. 
"Joe Montana was ok... Geddy Lee was an average bass player...Neil Pert couldn't carry Dave Grohl's drumsticks" - Words of wisdom from (minor prophet) Etrius24 --- Added proverbs for 2014: "Rocky was watchable"
#14
 x 0 x 0
(11-04-2018, 03:37 AM)moonlitegram Wrote:  
(11-02-2018, 09:17 AM)apollo04 Wrote:  To me it is like those senators who show up to vote and does not vote YES or NO - but votes present.  Unless 3rd party is competitive - there is really two choice.   If you don't chose - choice is made for you by others.

Eh, I don't really agree with this perspective.

For one thing its self-fulfilling. If everyone thought this way, nothing would ever change and the same two parties would remain in power perpetually.  The only way to change that is for individuals to take the "risk" and vote differently.  And the more people that do this, the better the chance that momentum will carry into the next election, and the election after that until there are no long only two dominant parties.   My vote is purely a signal to both parties, and to others around me, that there are voting citizens not choosing republican or democrat. 

Additionally, the "risk" is so absurdly minimal that I'm not too worried.  I'm under no illusion that my vote is all that meaningful.  In my state it will be one of millions, and neither candidate is under any obligation to act in congress as they pledge in their campaign.  The amount of control I'm exerting over how the state is going to exert power over me is absurdly small.  Thus I'm perfectly fine with not giving a shit about casting a vote for whichever of the main party candidates I midly prefer over the other, and casting a vote for a third party. 

The two main parties are absolute garbage anyway and for the most part I don't care which gets in. 

So you're contradicting yourself?  You're saying "if everyone thinks that way - nothing will change" and then few lines later you're saying you're vote doesn't matter?

So i was watching news: forgot which state, but Dems are spending money pushing a libertarian candidate.  Why?  Because they know those votes splits Republican votes.  And apparently that's not all too uncommon - usually Libs/Dem push for libertarian candidates and hope they take in few percentage points off from R.
#15
 x 0 x 1
Grin


Because one thread is never enough .    


http://www.fieldchatter.com/forum/Thread-Are-you-voting-in-midterm

I
Belief is NOT a Substitute for Knowledge.
#16
 x 0 x 0
(11-04-2018, 06:36 PM)apollo04 Wrote:  
(11-04-2018, 03:37 AM)moonlitegram Wrote:  Eh, I don't really agree with this perspective.

For one thing its self-fulfilling. If everyone thought this way, nothing would ever change and the same two parties would remain in power perpetually.  The only way to change that is for individuals to take the "risk" and vote differently.  And the more people that do this, the better the chance that momentum will carry into the next election, and the election after that until there are no long only two dominant parties.   My vote is purely a signal to both parties, and to others around me, that there are voting citizens not choosing republican or democrat. 

Additionally, the "risk" is so absurdly minimal that I'm not too worried.  I'm under no illusion that my vote is all that meaningful.  In my state it will be one of millions, and neither candidate is under any obligation to act in congress as they pledge in their campaign.  The amount of control I'm exerting over how the state is going to exert power over me is absurdly small.  Thus I'm perfectly fine with not giving a shit about casting a vote for whichever of the main party candidates I midly prefer over the other, and casting a vote for a third party. 

The two main parties are absolute garbage anyway and for the most part I don't care which gets in. 

So you're contradicting yourself?  You're saying "if everyone thinks that way - nothing will change" and then few lines later you're saying you're vote doesn't matter?

So i was watching news: forgot which state, but Dems are spending money pushing a libertarian candidate.  Why?  Because they know those votes splits Republican votes.  And apparently that's not all too uncommon - usually Libs/Dem push for libertarian candidates and hope they take in few percentage points off from R.

So you're contradicting yourself?  You're saying "if everyone thinks that way - nothing will change" and then few lines later you're saying you're vote doesn't matter?

No, you're skipping over parts of my argument here.  The two statements don't contradict each other because they're not referring to the same thing.  The former is in reference to a scenario that occurs based on the actions of many people; i.e a scenario where enough people vote for a third party candidate to get them elected. 

The second statement is referring to my individual vote. The odds of my individual vote mattering, even in a swing state, are so astronomically small that it's ridiculous to assume my individual vote will ever have any significant effect on who gets elected.  And this actually remains true even if third party candidates pick up enough momentum to get elected.  My vote, even in that scenario, would still only be one vote of countless others.  Individually, my vote still doesn't really matter. 

But, with all that said, if every single person thought as you did and believed that voting for anyone that wasn't in one of the two main parties was a wasted vote, than the two main parties would be the only ones that got votes and the only ones elected.  So even though I know my individual vote is fairly meaningless, I cast it anyway as basically a giant gamble in the hopes that it will wind up in a pool of others that are either large enough to get someone elected, or at least large enough to inspire more people to vote third party the next election. 

But I'm under no impression that it's nothing other than a giant gamble.  But the cost of taking that gamble are virtually non-existent.  It took me all of 5 minutes to cast my vote and I don't worry about my vote not going to one of the other candidates because I know my vote isn't going to be the deciding factor in them being elected or not. So its a giant gamble with no entry fee. Sure...I'll play.

So i was watching news: forgot which state, but Dems are spending money pushing a libertarian candidate.  Why?  Because they know those votes splits Republican votes.  And apparently that's not all too uncommon - usually Libs/Dem push for libertarian candidates and hope they take in few percentage points off from R.

If the Dems are doing this, its a waste of money for them and I'm glad they're wasting their money.  Because it falsely assumes that libertarians would vote for the republican by default if they didn't have the libertarian option.  And this is a really dodgy assumption.   Libertarians are a pretty diverse group that come from various political backgrounds, they're not all former republicans.  Lots of them also hold principles that discourage them from voting in general.   The crossover rate isn't anything like it is for the Green party vs Democrats. 

There are plenty of libertarians that don't believe in voting, even for libertarian candidates.  There are also plenty that wouldn't vote for a non libertarian candidate.  And hell, looking at the state of the Cato/LP culture of libertarians, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there were plenty of libertarians that were so staunchly pro choice, that they'd considering voting democrat for that reason alone just to protect Roe v Wade. 

I mean I'm sure there are libertarians that would vote republican otherwise.  But again, the odds of any persons vote on its own having any significance in an election are so astronomically small, even in tightly contested races, that it's not worth fretting over.  Vote, don't vote, vote for who you want.  You can rest easy knowing that the outcome of the election will likely be exactly the same the next morning regardless of what you decide.
"Joe Montana was ok... Geddy Lee was an average bass player...Neil Pert couldn't carry Dave Grohl's drumsticks" - Words of wisdom from (minor prophet) Etrius24 --- Added proverbs for 2014: "Rocky was watchable"
#17
 x 0 x 0
Moonlite

Welcome back man

The libertarian angle on the right is no different than the green angle on the left.

What this country needs is a strong united third option. If you want the incumbents to listen to the people..... Present them with a scenario where the people get to actually have a voice and make changes to the status quo... We need a paradigm shift... A strong united third party consisting of greens, independents, progressives who realise there is not that much difference between the Dems and the GOP....

It would change politics in this country and it would give the power back to the voter. We would have a choice at the polls. Instead of bullshit party a or bullshit party B.
I might not change the world, but I sure won't ever let it change me. P.S.
#18
 x 0 x 0
And Neil Pert cannot carry Dave's drumsticks... Never could. (O;
I might not change the world, but I sure won't ever let it change me. P.S.
#19
 x 0 x 0
Melania worked on a tourist visa. ILLEGAL. All of Trumps kids are anchor babies.

a pollo is a chicken
...
#20
 x 0 x 0
(11-09-2018, 06:53 AM)Are We There Yet Wrote:  Melania worked on a tourist visa. ILLEGAL. All of Trumps kids are anchor babies.

a pollo is a chicken

Don't be a lying idiot like etrius.    


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)