| reply to pnh102
Re: Freedom vs. Security While I agree, your Republicans started this mess.
The only way you start fixing the problem is voting against both of the entrenched parties. |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by osravens:While I agree, your Republicans started this mess. If you are talking about the USA PATRIOT Act, then please consider that the core of it was proposed by Joe Biden after the OKC Bombing in 1995.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_···security
I agree that neither party is a saint on personal freedom issues, but to blame one and ignore the other is wrong to do.
--
USA 2012 - the mooches won. |
|
| And the Patriot Act received 1 vote against it in the Senate (from Russ Feingold of Wisconsin). Vote them all out.
I'm saying it's inconsistent to support personal freedom and vote for either of them. You had a line about Mitt Romney in your signature. I'm proud to say I voted for neither of the major candidates, and this was a major reason. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to osravens
said by osravens:While I agree, your Republicans started this mess.
And your Democrats have done nothing to change this mess and in fact have made it increase in scope just as much. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to osravens
said by osravens:I'm saying it's inconsistent to support personal freedom and vote for either of them. You had a line about Mitt Romney in your signature. I'm proud to say I voted for neither of the major candidates, and this was a major reason. The reason of course was because voting for an idealistic third party candidate who agrees 100% with my views but who has absolutely no chance of winning has the same net effect as voting for the candidate with whom I disagree with on 99.9999999% of the issues.
If you find my argument specious, then please ask all the people who voted for Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 how they felt about Bill Clinton winning in those elections. Or look at Florida in 2000. 98k people in that election voted for Ralph Nader. How do you think they felt about Bush winning that state and the Presidency by 537 votes? Even if you blame that on fraud, had all (or even half of) 98k of those people voted for Al Gore, he would have won that state by a comfortable margin.
I'm not going to blame people who voted for third party candidates for Romney losing (3 million or so fewer GOP voters showed up in 2012 than in 2008). But I am simply presenting to you the mathematical reasoning behind my consistently voting the way I do. Perhaps we should change things to allow for instant run-off voting and requiring that the winner of such a contest receive a majority of the votes. But until that happens, I have to accept voting for third party candidates for what it is, a vote for the guy i disagree with the most.
--
USA 2012 - the mooches won. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to NOCTech75
said by NOCTech75:said by osravens:While I agree, your Republicans started this mess.
And your Democrats have done nothing to change this mess and in fact have made it increase in scope just as much. And not only that... this is another Democrat proposing this.
Where's the freedom?
--
USA 2012 - the mooches won. |
|
redholm
join:2004-10-31
Sunnyvale, CA Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to pnh102
pnh102 do you live in one of the swing states?
Your signature says Maryland which is a solid blue state. I think your vote did not matter, Obama was going to win the state no matter what. You could safely vote for the candidate you agree most with.
I am in California also a solid blue state, I did safely vote for the 3rd party candidate I agreed most with. I would not have done so if I lived in Florida, to close to call.
A vote for a candidate is never wasted in my book, a vote against a candidate is only valid if there is a close election otherwise it is just a empty gesture (assumption winner get all electoral votes).
/edit added assumption |
|
