Thank you ladies for being understanding of my beliefs.
I will try to address the majority of your concerns without writing a novel...
I feel that at this election, as PP previously mentioned, to not vote at all would be to cast a vote for the opposite party. My best co-worker friend is a Democrat, and we have discussed this (and previous) elections from our opposing viewpoints. The one thing that I have learned is that our viewpoints do not actually oppose on as many points as the media would have us believe.... I am far more moderate (dare I say rational?) Than my current party choice, and so is she.
My major hope for Trump is that his more ludicrous and offensive ideas will not make it past our checks and balances. I understand that there may be impacts to the economy/stock market, but many had that concern before Obama was in office as well. While we did see a financial impact (losing the AAA credit rating)... the stock market went through its normal fluctuations, and the sky did not fall. Did business close? Yes. Did others open? Yes. I think this concern exists at every election.
As far as foreign policy goes, I will readily admit this is an area I do not know much about, so I cannot say much there.
I would also like to say that many past presidents have done good things that are not directly lined up with their party's campaign points, which I think are beneficial to us as a society. I think Obama's credit card legislature has been fantastic, and for me was an unexpected boon. Bush Sr. And Jr. both made expansions to SNAP/Food stamps, which I think are fantastic and need support.
Obviously we all have different things driving our votes, and I respect that greatly as our right as Americans. As long as you put thought and a mindful choice into your vote, that is all I ask from someone; even if we do not agree.
I'm getting a lot of consistent feedback that I wait and spend 16 years establishing libertarian locals before naïvely voting in a presidential election. There is variety in stances within my local & state government; I can find people who closely match my views across 3 parties. I don't need to establish a new moderate base, I have one. It doesn't extend to the presidential race. ( Green party is probably a little different, base-wise)
I agree with Johnson on >90% of issues, and Trump on <50%. I don't vote just because if I don't vote for one choice, the other one will win. I agree with PPS, the 'I have to vote to cancel someone else's vote' is the new American process. It's a middle school process. Remember when you voted on homecoming by putting quarters for negative votes, and pennies were positive? That's what I'm hearing the best option is.
I align very closely with a candidate, so I'll vote for that one. If Hillary wins the state, I'll live. I'll be disappointed. If Trump wins the state, I'll be very marginally less disappointed (I'm with @WinchesterGirl on the checks & balances). I don't think I'm selfishly letting my fellow citizens down by not putting quarters in the poplar kid's jar... Because we aren't 11.
ETA: yes, to the electoral process having a huge impact. Gary's not going to win anything this election. A higher showing may motivate the elephants and donkeys to move in that direction, though. That's best case for my vote; move the two large parties stances slightly in the next round.
I'm not going to argue because I'd rather you vote for Johnson than Trump.
that said, i have mentioned this before but i agree checks and balances will keep trump from doing much but I'm less worried about trump than the terrible bigots supporting him that will be empowered. I do believe it's putting minority lives in danger which personally does affect my family directly.
Also anyone who is bragging about cutting taxes more than Reagan must have forgotten the 16 years it took us to get out of that fuxking mess.
I have enjoyed reading the very civil discussion so far, thanks ladies. I spent some time trying to find a summary of his tweets, but failed. Regardless, I am anti-Trump for many reasons, but his position on childhood vaccines is ridiculous and downright dangerous. He completely falls into the celebrity with no medical background proclaiming vaccines cause autism category. This and his views on women and immigration made my choice easy. If you haven't seen his tweets they are easy to Google. My FB feed had a summary of them at one point, but I failed in finding it by searching.
A higher showing may motivate the elephants and donkeys to move in that direction, though. That's best case for my vote; move the two large parties stances slightly in the next round.
Doubtful - all that Nader accomplished in 2000 was to elect Bush over Gore.
A higher showing may motivate the elephants and donkeys to move in that direction, though. That's best case for my vote; move the two large parties stances slightly in the next round.
Doubtful - all that Nader accomplished in 2000 was to elect Bush over Gore.
It also forced the Democratic party to change in order to appeal to their voter base again. IE; move their stances slightly in the next round.
"We’re in the season of protest vote advocacy, with writers of all political stripes making arguments for third-party candidates (Jill Stein, Gary Johnson), write-in votes (Bernie Sanders, Rod Silva), or refusing to vote altogether (#NeverTrump, #BernieOrBust.) For all the eloquence and passion and rage in these arguments, however, they suffer from a common flaw: there is no such thing as a protest vote.
The authors of these pieces rarely line up their preferred Presidential voting strategies — third-party, write-in, refusal — with the electoral system as it actually exists. In 2016, that system will offer 130 million or so voters just three options:
A. I prefer Donald Trump be president, rather than Hillary Clinton.
B. I prefer Hillary Clinton be president, rather than Donald Trump.
C. Whatever everybody else decides is OK with me.
That’s it. Those are the choices. All strategies other than a preference for Trump over Clinton or vice-versa reduce to Option C.
People who believe in protest votes do so because they confuse sending a message with receiving one. You can send any message you like: “I think Jill Stein should be president” or “I think David Duke should be president” or “I think Park Eunsol should be president.”
Similarly, you can send any message you like by not voting. You can say you are sitting out the election because both parties are neo-liberal or because an election without Lyndon LaRouche is a sham or because 9/11 was an inside job. The story you tell yourself about your political commitments are yours to construct.
But it doesn’t matter what message you think you are sending, because no one will receive it. No one is listening. The system is set up so that every choice other than “R” or “D” boils down to “I defer to the judgment of my fellow citizens.” It’s easy to argue that our system shouldn’t work like that. It’s impossible to argue it doesn’t work like that."
It makes my physically ill just thinking about Trump being elected. I will be sure to vote for Clinton despite the fact that Trump probably doesn't stand a chance at winning in my state. You never know though, surprisingly there's actually a ton of signs, banners, paintings etc. in this neighborhood that are in support of Trump. H and I can't discuss politics with each other because we can't keep it civil when we do lol we always disagree. Every. single. time. I keep trying to explain to him that a low income family like ours is one Trump could give 2 shits about. I feel like Clinton really cares about families like mine and particularly about kids with disabilities and/or who are minorities in low income areas. A few years ago, she actually came to visit one of the schools right down the street from the one my DS is currently attending. Would Trump ever dream of stepping foot anywhere near the shitty ghetto neighborhood where my DS goes to school? Yeah I don't think so.
@scifichick09 You're making the same point as several PPs. Points for finding a logical article. I liked it. It talks about 3rd party voting as a boycott, which is what I'm doing:
"The first theory of change, the boycott, assumes that if people simply refuse to vote, it will threaten the establishment with loss of legitimacy. This will in turn cause that establishment to become more responsive to the demands of the boycotters."
They go on to say that it doesn't work in the US because voter turn out is so poor, the parties don't have to cater to their constituents. This is true. This is why @MissMerciBeaucouphas belittling shared the effect of Nader at me. The article talks about Nader's blurry impact too. The boycott vote doesn't work well. Meekly voting GOP and sending letters to Congress about disliking their financial stances doesn't work well either.
This round, the GOP is already trying to re-appeal to their voters. The fact that such an out-there, anti-establishment candidate got the party nomination is pretty clear sign that they had to make changes in order to stay relevant. (Otherwise, The per-party-standard Cruz would be up there) If we're going to have any change in the GOP, the time will be relatively soon.
I am aware of the impact of my 3rd party vote. I'm an ENTP with a rare-for-us conviction. No one needs to continue undermining my decision to vote 3rd party. I suppose it's entertaining, but it won't change my mind on my hot-button issue, which boils down to our fed government's spending per GDP. I wouldn't try selling gun control to @WinchesterGirl either.
I'm also not sure why people are degrading my decision at all. Some of you are probably social and fiscal liberals, and would find it incomprehensible if I voted for Trump based only on his marginally closer alignment on finances and debt.
ETA: So I'm actually defecting, not boycotting. Whoops.
@Lafreeman21 I suppose I should've put more context to my post. I wasn't trying call you out specifically, that's why I didn't tag you. I'm sure there are more than a few people on this board voting for third party or not at all. I was just trying to make a point about why I feel the third party, or non-vote, is a wasted vote. And I felt that article laid out pretty well how I felt. I know very few 3rd party voters (or non-voters), if any, will change their minds and vote either Trump or Hillary, but I was just laying it out there in hopes that maybe I could change just one persons mind. I'm very sorry if I offended you, that was not my intention.
@scifichick09 You're making the same point as several PPs. Points for finding a logical article. I liked it. It talks about 3rd party voting as a boycott, which is what I'm doing:
"The first theory of change, the boycott, assumes that if people simply refuse to vote, it will threaten the establishment with loss of legitimacy. This will in turn cause that establishment to become more responsive to the demands of the boycotters."
They go on to say that it doesn't work in the US because voter turn out is so poor, the parties don't have to cater to their constituents. This is true. This is why @MissMerciBeaucouphas belittling shared the effect of Nader at me. The article talks about Nader's blurry impact too. The boycott vote doesn't work well. Meekly voting GOP and sending letters to Congress about disliking their financial stances doesn't work well either.
This round, the GOP is already trying to re-appeal to their voters. The fact that such an out-there, anti-establishment candidate got the party nomination is pretty clear sign that they had to make changes in order to stay relevant. (Otherwise, The per-party-standard Cruz would be up there) If we're going to have any change in the GOP, the time will be relatively soon.
I am aware of the impact of my 3rd party vote. I'm an ENTP with a rare-for-us conviction. No one needs to continue undermining my decision to vote 3rd party. I suppose it's entertaining, but it won't change my mind on my hot-button issue, which boils down to our fed government's spending per GDP. I wouldn't try selling gun control to @WinchesterGirl either.
I'm also not sure why people are degrading my decision at all. Some of you are probably social and fiscal liberals, and would find it incomprehensible if I voted for Trump based only on his marginally closer alignment on finances and debt.
So just on a interesting side note: Hillary's financial plan puts us less in debt than Trump's.
"The latest estimate shows Clinton’s economic plan would add $200 billion to the national debt over the next decade, while Donald Trump’s would add $5.3 trillion – or 26.5 times as much as Clinton’s – according to a new report from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB)."
Here is more of the article if anyone would like to read it.
@scifichick09 Gotcha. I was just starting to feel like 8 ppl were belittling my decision making process. I don't usually get that for the political issues that I care about. It seems more rampant in debates about affirmative action and such.
It was a good article. It brings up most of the shortcomings in what I'm doing. I'm hoping that defecting will work better than the article expects, this election. I would prefer any 3rd party voters to think about what they're doing and why vs emotional "I'm moving to Canada!" style votes also
In the meantime, this is my fave (politics)facebook thing right now:
It at least gets you to focus on the positives and what you care about.
Well I support third party voting and have done so myself in the past. The two party system that this go around obviously failed to deliver candidates to either party that inspire the masses of Americans will never ever change as long as most people feel locked into the two party system. Voter turnout sucks worse and worse it seems with 2008 as a historic exception. I've been hearing people describe elections as the lesser of two evils since high school and I'm 40 now. I think more people should feel free to vote other and their conscience and break the power lock of the donkeys and elephants. Voicing your true beliefs about who should lead your nation isn't a wasted vote - it is your right in a democratic system.
@skiingstark I don't give much weight to the man's current version of a financial plan. It's a mess, and he changes plans on the fly. He has specifics on the tax side, not so specific on the where reductions would come side. I think he's fiddling with the penny plan right now? The campaign sells better if he just talks about cutting taxes (which people like!) without mentioning spending cuts (which people don't like!)
He at least has a platform partially based on reducing spending. His half-ass plan doesn't accomplish that, but it's a goal.
Clinton has a fully formed budget plan. She is supportive of expanding both tax collection and tax spending, and doesn't show any indication to reduce or slow the growth of the national debt. Reducing spending is not a goal for her.
(Edit: One candidate has a complete financial plan to do exactly the opposite of what I want, the other has a incomplete/bad plan to do what I want). Ergo, I have marginally closer alignment with Trump.
The thing with third parties in the US is that our constitutional structure makes it nearly impossible for one to succeed at the Presidential level. Even at the state level, it's quite hard for them to gain traction because the Electoral College keeps the types of coalition governments common in other countries from becoming necessary. Therefore, in terms of determining the outcome of a national election, a third party vote really does serve as a vote against the candidate you would have settled for otherwise (likely Hillary for Jill Stein fans and Trump for Johnson fans).
Now conscience is a whole other thing. I totally understand that some may feel driven by conscience to a third party candidate. I just hope they do their research (like you clearly have, @Lafreeman21). Jill Stein's platform is VERY different from Bernie Sanders', and quite frankly, a bit wacky. Many liberals who refuse to support Hillary might chose to abstain rather than make a conscience vote for Stein if they did a bit more research.
I agree with you about the electoral college obstruction @Xstatic3333. I almost ended my post by saying "do away with winner take all elections" but I felt like a politician ending with a call to action lol
So maybe all the third parties need to coalition a referendum vote or something of the sort. Probably would require a constitutional amendment, actually.
@Lafreeman21 I wasn't belittling you, I was pointing out the reality of what a 3rd party candidate accomplished in the 2000 election.
Separately, I actually would have preferred it if the 3rd party candidates were included in the debates, because I think it would give a more clear view of how ready they are to handle the presidency. And given the recent interviews with Gary Johnson - it seems like he needs to hit the books a little.
@MissMerciBeaucoup I have a style of debate I like. I enjoy when people throw facts at me. The article on 3rd party votes was great; I could re-examine my viewpoint and test it. The deficit comparison between Trump and Hillary was great; I could re-examine my viewpoint and test it. I didn't know his plan sucked as much as it does; I learned something.Talking about electoral colleges and the logistics of why 3rd parties fail, okay. If you throw new information at me, I may change my opinion. When you say "And given the recent interviews with Gary Johnson - it seems like he needs to hit the books a little."
I mean, source? What am I to research based on a barb? It's inflammatory, so you feel like you won and got a punch in, but it doesn't make me question my assumptions.
Barbs and slurs is not something I find compelling to research; it's like a degeneration into being just emotional. I trynot to act inflammatory towards someone or their ideas during a debate to make them feel attacked or stupid; even when I disagree. I like when both parties can explain our viewpoints and bring up data and grill each other on logic, not throw slurs. It can be so much fun. Even with people with extremely different political views. Mexican nationals on handgun laws, Swedes on social programs.
People get barb-y. It happens. But I feel like we're missing the point of a political discussion once we start trying to hurt the other person or make them look stupid. I can't really debate with you, because you haven't shared many of your opinions, you've mostly just jabbed at my thoughts. I agreed with your stance and reasoning for 3rd party debate presence, but I don't have much else to go off. The fund managers you work for are voting Hillary, presumably because the company's best interests would be better served by her? I'm not clear if their voting would be motivated much by the impact on the firm's taxes, seems like they would still vote based on the personal impact. Voters don't understand what a drive to bring back manufacturing would do to cost of living... That's a bit interesting. It's quite likely, campaigns pander simplified things to the public. But it's still rolled into a barb on at Trump, not a selling pitch for any particular viewpoint.
Meh, debates can be fun. Parts of this one were fun. I learned something new about Trump's budget. I saw a very coherent article about impacts of 3rd party voting, and how emotion is not a good driver for it.
@MissMerciBeaucoup I have a style of debate I like. I enjoy when people throw facts at me. The article on 3rd party votes was great; I could re-examine my viewpoint and test it. The deficit comparison between Trump and Hillary was great; I could re-examine my viewpoint and test it. I didn't know his plan sucked as much as it does; I learned something.Talking about electoral colleges and the logistics of why 3rd parties fail, okay. If you throw new information at me, I may change my opinion. When you say "And given the recent interviews with Gary Johnson - it seems like he needs to hit the books a little."
I mean, source? What am I to research based on a barb? It's inflammatory, so you feel like you won and got a punch in, but it doesn't make me question my assumptions.
Barbs and slurs is not something I find compelling to research; it's like a degeneration into being just emotional. I trynot to act inflammatory towards someone or their ideas during a debate to make them feel attacked or stupid; even when I disagree. I like when both parties can explain our viewpoints and bring up data and grill each other on logic, not throw slurs. It can be so much fun. Even with people with extremely different political views. Mexican nationals on handgun laws, Swedes on social programs.
People get barb-y. It happens. But I feel like we're missing the point of a political discussion once we start trying to hurt the other person or make them look stupid. I can't really debate with you, because you haven't shared many of your opinions, you've mostly just jabbed at my thoughts. I agreed with your stance and reasoning for 3rd party debate presence, but I don't have much else to go off. The fund managers you work for are voting Hillary, presumably because the company's best interests would be better served by her? I'm not clear if their voting would be motivated much by the impact on the firm's taxes, seems like they would still vote based on the personal impact. Voters don't understand what a drive to bring back manufacturing would do to cost of living... That's a bit interesting. It's quite likely, campaigns pander simplified things to the public. But it's still rolled into a barb on at Trump, not a selling pitch for any particular viewpoint.
Meh, debates can be fun. Parts of this one were fun. I learned something new about Trump's budget. I saw a very coherent article about impacts of 3rd party voting, and how emotion is not a good driver for it.
Sounds like you are a touch sensitive to be having political discussions in an online forum. Where you think I was throwing slurs or barbs, trying to hurt you, make you look stupid? I mean seriously I have no idea what you are talking about. I thought we were all having a lovely and civil discussion on here and I kept it respectful at all times - as did all the other ladies on this board. I didn't share enough of my opinions? Whatevs - I certainly chimed in a bunch on this thread at various points, one of which specifically in response to a PP who was looking for the business/investment perspective on the candidates. I kept it brief and high level, because I don't assume that everyone is interested in hearing more about my view on it, and frankly didn't want to delve deep into economics as I know that isn't always an interesting topic for everyone. I don't debate the way you would like? Well wow, let me rectify that immediately. I assumed that anyone who would jump in on a political thread like this would be up to date on the current happenings of their preferred candidate and probably the others in the race as well. So when I said "And given the recent interviews with Gary Johnson - it seems like he needs to hit the books a little." I was referring to the much publicized interview and forum with him of late, where he in one instance didn't know what Aleppo was, and in another, couldn't name one world leader that he admired. I wouldn't be so didactic as to tell you or anyone else on this board the news of the week regarding their candidate (I assumed you would be already aware). Since foreign policy is really an important part of being the president, yeah, I think he should probably read up on the most basic questions regarding that. That was my point.
He'a making a complete fool of himself and chance for 3rd party candidate to be taken seriously.
The President's main job responsibility these days is foreign policy and how we interact on a global scale. He has CLEARLY shown he knows nothing about what is happening in the world.
Me: 36, H: 37 FTM, 2 Furbabies married 03/17/07 lived in Houston, Austin, Los Angeles and NYC due: 2/15/17
@MissMerciBeaucoup I quoted you where I thought was mainly a barb, and explained why I didn't think it added value. You continue to discuss me instead of my views, now also bringing in the theory that I'm a touch sensitive, alluding that I need to study the news of the week on my candidate, and mocking me having preferences on debate styles. I have no respect for that style of debate; It's emotion-based and it won't convince me to consider my viewpoint. It works as well as criticising grammar.
Now that you've specified foreign policy weakness was your point, I can investigate that some. Maybe it'll be convincing enough that I'll change my view.
@Lafreeman21 I think the big recent Gary Johnson event most were recently referring to was when it came out in an interview that he doesn't know what Aleppo is. Given that city's importance to current world events, many found that extremely disturbing. Might be worth looking into. In all honesty I don't know much else about him, aside from the fact that, of course, he's a Libertarian. I spent more time looking into Jill Stein.
@Xstatic3333 yeah, he's missed the world leader quiz question too. Maybe he's even more isolationist than he claims, lol. Trump makes gaffes like a hobby. Clinton doesn't seem to often. She had a basket of deplorables, but I dunno of others. She seems like a solid candidate for her party, it's just diametrically opposite my views.
So here is a fun question I like to ask my classes, that I thought would be cool to find out what you guys think:
Normally people debate on what the size govt should be (that is one of the most basic differences between the parties).... how I like to ask the question.... What do you believe the govt should do? The size is irrelevant, the size is whatever is needed for what you believe the govt should be involved in. So what do you guys think the govt should be involved in?
@skiingstark I believe that as a society we have basic human rights: food, water, shelter, education, healthcare, a living wage etc. and the government is there to ensure these things are available to all citizens at an equal level.
I clearly rly believe in large government and that government spending helps the economy more than wealthy people being taxed less. I'm personally in a pretty shit tax situation because of where I live an our dual income, but don't mind as long as I feel like my money to going to the betterment of society.
This is going to sound like I'm defending Trump, but honestly I blame the policy makers that came long before him that designed the tax code.
Theres not a single person or business out there that doesn't exploit the tax code for as many deductions as possible, and absolutely no one pays more tax than they owe legally.
This is a huge problem within the tax code that politicians have refused to fix for generations, and its killing the middle class. Both sides of the aisle are to blame for these loopholes. When a millionaire (or billionaire in Trumps case) are in a lower tax bracket than an average middle class family, the country as a whole suffers.
I totally thought there was a limitation on losses. I mean I've never had enough to carry over for years but I can't believe you can indefinitely claim business losses until they're fully accounted for.
I totally thought there was a limitation on losses. I mean I've never had enough to carry over for years but I can't believe you can indefinitely claim business losses until they're fully accounted for.
There is for many/most circumstances. It appears Trump exploited a massive, yet legal, loophole that existed to provide tax breaks for large-scale developers, and that loophole has been in place since at least 1998 under an entirely different administration.
When politicians talk about creating jobs (ie economic growth) what that boils down to is typically tax incentives for different industries. They exist for small businesses (tax breaks for many of their first years even if profitable) all the way to large corporations who can write off expenses and losses that we can't imagine. The US Tax Code is so complex that the average American doesn't even bother to learn it all, as very little of it applies to them. Which in turn means voters (and frankly their elected representatives) arent capable of seeing it as a major voting issue, and these laws, tax loopholes, and incentives get passed under the radar all the time. It certainly doesn't get the media fanfare as social issues or military spending does in an election year. It's not until someone like Trump gets called out that anyone had any clue things like this are incredibly common, so voters get angry and start shouting "someone didn't pay taxes!" But have zero knowledge of *why* that was allowed to happen, and how many years that law has been in place, and it turns into a superficial battle cry of sorts. I doubt it will mean people will educate themselves further on the topic, as most still vote on their key issues anyways, everything else is just fodder to take down an opponent when it's convenient for them.
I have a question that is unrelated to the candidates and more about the electoral process in the US - because I am a US citizen that just declared citizenship (dad didn't register my birth because he thought he had lost his citizenship) so this is the first election that I'll be participating in. I have an idea of which candidate I'll vote for but the process sounds different than the Canadian system. From what I understand I'll vote on propositions? Where can I find out more about the propositions I'm likely to find on my ballot (in Texas)? And the general electoral process? The Canadian education system is great, but doesn't teach the US electoral process...
---TW BFP and MC mentioned - scroll down past the Lilo and Stitch gif to avoid ---
You will have the opportunity to vote yearly, not just for the presidential cycles. There are midterm elections for when there are open seats available for representatives and congress (for example), as well as city, county, and district positions.
This website gives an overview of the entire process, including the electoral college:
Just a reminder, in TX you need to be registered to vote, and there's a deadline to register which is probably in the very near future. I'm not sure of that process for your state, but maybe someone local can chime in to make sure you're all set otherwise maybe with some googling you can find out as well.
And btw, thank you for taking the time to learn about what you're voting for! I don't mean that to be condescending, but it's so important and it made me happy to see someone reach out for clarification
@yogadevil - no propositions would make it a simpler process the first time through - thanks for the links. And I am registered to vote, though thanks for checking, I think the deadline is this week or next.
---TW BFP and MC mentioned - scroll down past the Lilo and Stitch gif to avoid ---
I was reading that trump is also being accused of having people repay him through his foundation so they could both get the tax write off on it. But using that money for personal stuff and claiming the business didn't get the money to claim it as a loss.
I ask this with all sincerity. In light of the latest Trump video speaking about women, do those of you who planned to vote for him still plan to do so?
And if so would you care to explain?
I'm curious to hear the other side of this.
Me: 36, H: 37 FTM, 2 Furbabies married 03/17/07 lived in Houston, Austin, Los Angeles and NYC due: 2/15/17
Re: The Politics Post
I will try to address the majority of your concerns without writing a novel...
I feel that at this election, as PP previously mentioned, to not vote at all would be to cast a vote for the opposite party. My best co-worker friend is a Democrat, and we have discussed this (and previous) elections from our opposing viewpoints. The one thing that I have learned is that our viewpoints do not actually oppose on as many points as the media would have us believe.... I am far more moderate (dare I say rational?) Than my current party choice, and so is she.
My major hope for Trump is that his more ludicrous and offensive ideas will not make it past our checks and balances. I understand that there may be impacts to the economy/stock market, but many had that concern before Obama was in office as well. While we did see a financial impact (losing the AAA credit rating)... the stock market went through its normal fluctuations, and the sky did not fall. Did business close? Yes. Did others open? Yes. I think this concern exists at every election.
As far as foreign policy goes, I will readily admit this is an area I do not know much about, so I cannot say much there.
I would also like to say that many past presidents have done good things that are not directly lined up with their party's campaign points, which I think are beneficial to us as a society. I think Obama's credit card legislature has been fantastic, and for me was an unexpected boon. Bush Sr. And Jr. both made expansions to SNAP/Food stamps, which I think are fantastic and need support.
Obviously we all have different things driving our votes, and I respect that greatly as our right as Americans. As long as you put thought and a mindful choice into your vote, that is all I ask from someone; even if we do not agree.
I agree with Johnson on >90% of issues, and Trump on <50%. I don't vote just because if I don't vote for one choice, the other one will win. I agree with PPS, the 'I have to vote to cancel someone else's vote' is the new American process. It's a middle school process. Remember when you voted on homecoming by putting quarters for negative votes, and pennies were positive? That's what I'm hearing the best option is.
I align very closely with a candidate, so I'll vote for that one. If Hillary wins the state, I'll live. I'll be disappointed. If Trump wins the state, I'll be very marginally less disappointed (I'm with @WinchesterGirl on the checks & balances). I don't think I'm selfishly letting my fellow citizens down by not putting quarters in the poplar kid's jar... Because we aren't 11.
ETA: yes, to the electoral process having a huge impact. Gary's not going to win anything this election. A higher showing may motivate the elephants and donkeys to move in that direction, though. That's best case for my vote; move the two large parties stances slightly in the next round.
Married: 10/10
EDD: 8/27/16 MMC 1/16
Rainbow Boy: 2/04/17
TTC: 4/18 BFP: 1/2/19
EDD: 9/6/19
that said, i have mentioned this before but i agree checks and balances will keep trump from doing much but I'm less worried about trump than the terrible bigots supporting him that will be empowered. I do believe it's putting minority lives in danger which personally does affect my family directly.
Also anyone who is bragging about cutting taxes more than Reagan must have forgotten the 16 years it took us to get out of that fuxking mess.
Married: 10/10
EDD: 8/27/16 MMC 1/16
Rainbow Boy: 2/04/17
TTC: 4/18 BFP: 1/2/19
EDD: 9/6/19
"There's No Such Thing As A Protest Vote"
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/clay-shirky/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-protest-vote_b_11391710.html
"We’re in the season of protest vote advocacy, with writers of all political stripes making arguments for third-party candidates (Jill Stein, Gary Johnson), write-in votes (Bernie Sanders, Rod Silva), or refusing to vote altogether (#NeverTrump, #BernieOrBust.) For all the eloquence and passion and rage in these arguments, however, they suffer from a common flaw: there is no such thing as a protest vote.
The authors of these pieces rarely line up their preferred Presidential voting strategies — third-party, write-in, refusal — with the electoral system as it actually exists. In 2016, that system will offer 130 million or so voters just three options:
A. I prefer Donald Trump be president, rather than Hillary Clinton.
B. I prefer Hillary Clinton be president, rather than Donald Trump.
C. Whatever everybody else decides is OK with me.
That’s it. Those are the choices. All strategies other than a preference for Trump over Clinton or vice-versa reduce to Option C.
People who believe in protest votes do so because they confuse sending a message with receiving one. You can send any message you like: “I think Jill Stein should be president” or “I think David Duke should be president” or “I think Park Eunsol should be president.”
Similarly, you can send any message you like by not voting. You can say you are sitting out the election because both parties are neo-liberal or because an election without Lyndon LaRouche is a sham or because 9/11 was an inside job. The story you tell yourself about your political commitments are yours to construct.
But it doesn’t matter what message you think you are sending, because no one will receive it. No one is listening. The system is set up so that every choice other than “R” or “D” boils down to “I defer to the judgment of my fellow citizens.” It’s easy to argue that our system shouldn’t work like that. It’s impossible to argue it doesn’t work like that."
ME: 25, DH: 27
TTC #1 since 09/2015
Miscarriage @ 10 wks 02/28/2016
BFP 05/28/2016!
"The first theory of change, the boycott, assumes that if people simply refuse to vote, it will threaten the establishment with loss of legitimacy. This will in turn cause that establishment to become more responsive to the demands of the boycotters."
They go on to say that it doesn't work in the US because voter turn out is so poor, the parties don't have to cater to their constituents. This is true. This is why @MissMerciBeaucouphas belittling shared the effect of Nader at me. The article talks about Nader's blurry impact too. The boycott vote doesn't work well. Meekly voting GOP and sending letters to Congress about disliking their financial stances doesn't work well either.
This round, the GOP is already trying to re-appeal to their voters. The fact that such an out-there, anti-establishment candidate got the party nomination is pretty clear sign that they had to make changes in order to stay relevant. (Otherwise, The per-party-standard Cruz would be up there) If we're going to have any change in the GOP, the time will be relatively soon.
I am aware of the impact of my 3rd party vote. I'm an ENTP with a rare-for-us conviction. No one needs to continue undermining my decision to vote 3rd party. I suppose it's entertaining, but it won't change my mind on my hot-button issue, which boils down to our fed government's spending per GDP. I wouldn't try selling gun control to @WinchesterGirl either.
I'm also not sure why people are degrading my decision at all. Some of you are probably social and fiscal liberals, and would find it incomprehensible if I voted for Trump based only on his marginally closer alignment on finances and debt.
ETA: So I'm actually defecting, not boycotting. Whoops.
Married: 10/10
EDD: 8/27/16 MMC 1/16
Rainbow Boy: 2/04/17
TTC: 4/18 BFP: 1/2/19
EDD: 9/6/19
ME: 25, DH: 27
TTC #1 since 09/2015
Miscarriage @ 10 wks 02/28/2016
BFP 05/28/2016!
"The latest estimate shows Clinton’s economic plan would add $200 billion to the national debt over the next decade, while Donald Trump’s would add $5.3 trillion – or 26.5 times as much as Clinton’s – according to a new report from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB)."
Here is more of the article if anyone would like to read it.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-v-hillary-clinton-comparing-the-cost-of-their-plans/
Married to my Soul Mate since 09/06/09
It was a good article. It brings up most of the shortcomings in what I'm doing. I'm hoping that defecting will work better than the article expects, this election. I would prefer any 3rd party voters to think about what they're doing and why vs emotional "I'm moving to Canada!" style votes also
In the meantime, this is my fave (politics)facebook thing right now:
It at least gets you to focus on the positives and what you care about.
Married: 10/10
EDD: 8/27/16 MMC 1/16
Rainbow Boy: 2/04/17
TTC: 4/18 BFP: 1/2/19
EDD: 9/6/19
He at least has a platform partially based on reducing spending. His half-ass plan doesn't accomplish that, but it's a goal.
Clinton has a fully formed budget plan. She is supportive of expanding both tax collection and tax spending, and doesn't show any indication to reduce or slow the growth of the national debt. Reducing spending is not a goal for her.
(Edit: One candidate has a complete financial plan to do exactly the opposite of what I want, the other has a incomplete/bad plan to do what I want). Ergo, I have marginally closer alignment with Trump.
Married: 10/10
EDD: 8/27/16 MMC 1/16
Rainbow Boy: 2/04/17
TTC: 4/18 BFP: 1/2/19
EDD: 9/6/19
Now conscience is a whole other thing. I totally understand that some may feel driven by conscience to a third party candidate. I just hope they do their research (like you clearly have, @Lafreeman21). Jill Stein's platform is VERY different from Bernie Sanders', and quite frankly, a bit wacky. Many liberals who refuse to support Hillary might chose to abstain rather than make a conscience vote for Stein if they did a bit more research.
So maybe all the third parties need to coalition a referendum vote or something of the sort. Probably would require a constitutional amendment, actually.
Separately, I actually would have preferred it if the 3rd party candidates were included in the debates, because I think it would give a more clear view of how ready they are to handle the presidency. And given the recent interviews with Gary Johnson - it seems like he needs to hit the books a little.
I do agree with inclusion in debates being helpful to help judge a candidate's readiness. It helps a lot with primary debates.
Married: 10/10
EDD: 8/27/16 MMC 1/16
Rainbow Boy: 2/04/17
TTC: 4/18 BFP: 1/2/19
EDD: 9/6/19
I mean, source? What am I to research based on a barb? It's inflammatory, so you feel like you won and got a punch in, but it doesn't make me question my assumptions.
Barbs and slurs is not something I find compelling to research; it's like a degeneration into being just emotional. I try not to act inflammatory towards someone or their ideas during a debate to make them feel attacked or stupid; even when I disagree. I like when both parties can explain our viewpoints and bring up data and grill each other on logic, not throw slurs. It can be so much fun. Even with people with extremely different political views. Mexican nationals on handgun laws, Swedes on social programs.
People get barb-y. It happens. But I feel like we're missing the point of a political discussion once we start trying to hurt the other person or make them look stupid. I can't really debate with you, because you haven't shared many of your opinions, you've mostly just jabbed at my thoughts. I agreed with your stance and reasoning for 3rd party debate presence, but I don't have much else to go off. The fund managers you work for are voting Hillary, presumably because the company's best interests would be better served by her? I'm not clear if their voting would be motivated much by the impact on the firm's taxes, seems like they would still vote based on the personal impact. Voters don't understand what a drive to bring back manufacturing would do to cost of living... That's a bit interesting. It's quite likely, campaigns pander simplified things to the public. But it's still rolled into a barb on at Trump, not a selling pitch for any particular viewpoint.
Meh, debates can be fun. Parts of this one were fun. I learned something new about Trump's budget. I saw a very coherent article about impacts of 3rd party voting, and how emotion is not a good driver for it.
Married: 10/10
EDD: 8/27/16 MMC 1/16
Rainbow Boy: 2/04/17
TTC: 4/18 BFP: 1/2/19
EDD: 9/6/19
He'a making a complete fool of himself and chance for 3rd party candidate to be taken seriously.
The President's main job responsibility these days is foreign policy and how we interact on a global scale. He has CLEARLY shown he knows nothing about what is happening in the world.
FTM, 2 Furbabies
married 03/17/07
lived in Houston, Austin, Los Angeles and NYC
due: 2/15/17
Now that you've specified foreign policy weakness was your point, I can investigate that some. Maybe it'll be convincing enough that I'll change my view.
Married: 10/10
EDD: 8/27/16 MMC 1/16
Rainbow Boy: 2/04/17
TTC: 4/18 BFP: 1/2/19
EDD: 9/6/19
Married: 10/10
EDD: 8/27/16 MMC 1/16
Rainbow Boy: 2/04/17
TTC: 4/18 BFP: 1/2/19
EDD: 9/6/19
Normally people debate on what the size govt should be (that is one of the most basic differences between the parties).... how I like to ask the question.... What do you believe the govt should do? The size is irrelevant, the size is whatever is needed for what you believe the govt should be involved in. So what do you guys think the govt should be involved in?
Married to my Soul Mate since 09/06/09
I clearly rly believe in large government and that government spending helps the economy more than wealthy people being taxed less. I'm personally in a pretty shit tax situation because of where I live an our dual income, but don't mind as long as I feel like my money to going to the betterment of society.
I 100% agree with @PerraSucia. I don't have much else to add, as she basically summed up how I feel.
Trickle down economics doesn't work, IMO
ME: 25, DH: 27
TTC #1 since 09/2015
Miscarriage @ 10 wks 02/28/2016
BFP 05/28/2016!
Wow, big news about Trump's taxes. He really should just release his tax returns like every other person who ran for president in our modern times.
Married to my Soul Mate since 09/06/09
Theres not a single person or business out there that doesn't exploit the tax code for as many deductions as possible, and absolutely no one pays more tax than they owe legally.
This is a huge problem within the tax code that politicians have refused to fix for generations, and its killing the middle class. Both sides of the aisle are to blame for these loopholes. When a millionaire (or billionaire in Trumps case) are in a lower tax bracket than an average middle class family, the country as a whole suffers.
When politicians talk about creating jobs (ie economic growth) what that boils down to is typically tax incentives for different industries. They exist for small businesses (tax breaks for many of their first years even if profitable) all the way to large corporations who can write off expenses and losses that we can't imagine. The US Tax Code is so complex that the average American doesn't even bother to learn it all, as very little of it applies to them. Which in turn means voters (and frankly their elected representatives) arent capable of seeing it as a major voting issue, and these laws, tax loopholes, and incentives get passed under the radar all the time. It certainly doesn't get the media fanfare as social issues or military spending does in an election year. It's not until someone like Trump gets called out that anyone had any clue things like this are incredibly common, so voters get angry and start shouting "someone didn't pay taxes!" But have zero knowledge of *why* that was allowed to happen, and how many years that law has been in place, and it turns into a superficial battle cry of sorts. I doubt it will mean people will educate themselves further on the topic, as most still vote on their key issues anyways, everything else is just fodder to take down an opponent when it's convenient for them.
Me: 33 & DH: 33
Married: 07/2006
TTC: 10/2015
BFP #1: 11/2015, MC 12/2015 (7 weeks)
BFP #2: 06/2016, EDD 2/15/2017
I believe TX doesn't have props on their ballot this cycle:
https://ballotpedia.org/Texas_2016_ballot_measures
You will have the opportunity to vote yearly, not just for the presidential cycles. There are midterm elections for when there are open seats available for representatives and congress (for example), as well as city, county, and district positions.
This website gives an overview of the entire process, including the electoral college:
https://www.usa.gov/election
Just a reminder, in TX you need to be registered to vote, and there's a deadline to register which is probably in the very near future. I'm not sure of that process for your state, but maybe someone local can chime in to make sure you're all set otherwise maybe with some googling you can find out as well.
And btw, thank you for taking the time to learn about what you're voting for! I don't mean that to be condescending, but it's so important and it made me happy to see someone reach out for clarification
Me: 33 & DH: 33
Married: 07/2006
TTC: 10/2015
BFP #1: 11/2015, MC 12/2015 (7 weeks)
BFP #2: 06/2016, EDD 2/15/2017
Which would be SUPER gnarly if true.
https://www.npr.org/2016/10/04/495839747/on-your-mark-give-birth-go-back-to-work?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=202604
I know this is one of my major voting issues.
Married to my Soul Mate since 09/06/09
And if so would you care to explain?
I'm curious to hear the other side of this.
FTM, 2 Furbabies
married 03/17/07
lived in Houston, Austin, Los Angeles and NYC
due: 2/15/17