Question for people that voted for Trump in the primaries

[ivwshane]

Btw, can you name anyone that hasn't gotten rich off of tax payers? Just a point of fact, anyone who has a legit business makes money off of tax payers.

"good president" is a joke right? she has already established that she is a life long "public servant", someone who has gotten exceptionally wealthy at the expense of taxpayers, a woman who has no regard for ethics, morals, or even common decency....yet the good thing for her is that her adversary in this race is an especially easy target for sensationalist journalism because he is a typical braggart with far too much of a degree of self importance.

If you love excessive government spending on programs that do little to nothing to improve the working climate in this country, if you feel that the national debt is just a number that doesn't really matter anyway, if you truly believe the "wealthy" upper middle class paying 90% of their income would make all the difference and that they truly are out to help the working middle class, and if you figure that political dynasties are just fine then sure Hillary would be great.

But as others mentioned above there are many who are tired of jobs being off-shored, open trade agreements where the Washington elite benefit, and the do nothing perception of politicians, who are willing to vote for anyone but another insider.

This may be the first year I don't vote in a general election for president as there is no way I could vote for Hillary

Trump seems about toast unless the numbers for Hillary are low and his supporters come out in force for a major upset

 

[Blackjack200]

Instant runoff is a lot different than primaries. What it basically does is allow people to vote for their true preference without ensuring the election of their opponent. It's a way to avoid two parties without a parliamentary system.

But we already have more than two parties. What do you think would be different if people could vote their "true preference"?

I think you're suggesting that people would take the other parties more seriously, and that would give them more attention, and a better chance on the national stage. But if you look back at the major 3rd party candidates, they're all really horrible. I mean, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are truly awful candidates. They have pet causes, and are almost certainly incapable of governing the country. Johnson has already embarrassed himself with the limited attention he's gotten, and Stein is straight up fucking insane.

 

[fskimospy]

But we already have more than two parties. What do you think would be different if people could vote their "true preference"?

I think you're suggesting that people would take the other parties more seriously, and that would give them more attention, and a better chance on the national stage. But if you look back at the major 3rd party candidates, they're all really horrible. I mean, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are truly awful candidates. They have pet causes, and are almost certainly incapable of governing the country. Johnson has already embarrassed himself with the limited attention he's gotten, and Stein is straight up fucking insane.

Yes but I think this is a self fulfilling prophecy. Because third parties have no chance they attract bad candidates.

In our current system where you can only vote for one person the rational action is to always vote for one of the two parties. If you can vote for more than one person then you can vote your actual preference.

 

[MongGrel]

You've been duped if you believe that. It's not what the article says.

It's a bit sad these days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OdtJ7lNjIs

 

[Blackjack200]

Yes but I think this is a self fulfilling prophecy. Because third parties have no chance they attract bad candidates.

Yeah, I agree with that. But I think the good candidates just go to the major parties instead. Bernie Sanders is an example of a non mainstream candidate that got a lot of traction by joining a major party. He was able to get policy concessions from the eventual winner.

In our current system where you can only vote for one person the rational action is to always vote for one of the two parties. If you can vote for more than one person then you can vote your actual preference.

Not trying to be pedantic here, but can you give me an example where you would have preferred to vote for someone else, but voted 'D' or 'R' for practical reasons?

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, I agree with that. But I think the good candidates just go to the major parties instead. Bernie Sanders is an example of a non mainstream candidate that got a lot of traction by joining a major party. He was able to get policy concessions from the eventual winner.

Not trying to be pedantic here, but can you give me an example where you would have preferred to vote for someone else, but voted 'D' or 'R' for practical reasons?

I'm a bad example as I don't vote. As a thought experiment though I'm substantially to the left of Clinton. It's less effective for the presidency as it is a single office but at a minimum it would help transform the legislature to a multiparty system as it would obviate strategic voting.

So I guess I would say I would vote for a serious candidate to the left of the Democrats every time if I could. I know 'serious' sounds like a cop out, but I really think if these parties were more viable there would be more serious candidates.

 

[MongGrel]

I'm a bad example as I don't vote. As a thought experiment though I'm substantially to the left of Clinton. It's less effective for the presidency as it is a single office but at a minimum it would help transform the legislature to a multiparty system as it would obviate strategic voting.

So I guess I would say I would vote for a serious candidate to the left of the Democrats every time if I could. I know 'serious' sounds like a cop out, but I really think if these parties were more viable there would be more serious candidates.

Anyone that does not vote should not post in political threads to begin with.

It is just ranting if you do not even bother to do that.

But that is my opinion.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Yup, at the very least, get out and vote, it's kinda your civic duty. Even if you write in your dog/cat/whatever, you really should be a participating factor. Will my vote for hillary mean much illinois? No, definitely not. But It is one less vote for drumpf.

 

[fskimospy]

Anyone that does not vote should not post in political threads to begin with.

It is just ranting if you do not even bother to do that.

But that is my opinion.

Do you think your vote matters?

 

[Meghan54]

Do you think your vote matters?

I like to think mine does. Maybe it doesn't appear so in national elections, but in every national election, there are a host of local issues to be voted upon, usually with very small margins deciding the issue, such as school bonds, etc.

So, while it may appear to the unwashed that "your vote doesn't matter", in actuality, it could make a big difference where it ultimately it's the most felt...in local elections.

And as far as I can be concerned about the issue of not voting...not voting is your right, I suppose, but it does remove a lot of debate "authority" from one who doesn't vote. Why should anyone listen to those that cry about the political system if they're not invested enough in it to bother to vote?

 

[Puffnstuff]

I have to confess that I voted for "the Don" in the primary and then I switched parties and just voted for Hillary.

 

[ivwshane]

I have to confess that I voted for "the Don" in the primary and then I switched parties and just voted for Hillary.

That's pretty dirty.

 

[sontakke]

Do you think your vote matters?

That is what the population of Great Britain or Columbia thought and woke up with a big hangover :-(

 

[Blackjack200]

Anyone that does not vote should not post in political threads to begin with.

It is just ranting if you do not even bother to do that.

But that is my opinion.

I have more respect for eskimo than that. With all the shitposting on these boards, it's nice to have a few thoughtful posts to read here. Even if I do hope he votes this year. It's an unusually important year.

I like to think mine does. Maybe it doesn't appear so in national elections, but in every national election, there are a host of local issues to be voted upon, usually with very small margins deciding the issue, such as school bonds, etc.

So, while it may appear to the unwashed that "your vote doesn't matter", in actuality, it could make a big difference where it ultimately it's the most felt...in local elections.

And as far as I can be concerned about the issue of not voting...not voting is your right, I suppose, but it does remove a lot of debate "authority" from one who doesn't vote. Why should anyone listen to those that cry about the political system if they're not invested enough in it to bother to vote?

An individual vote doesn't matter much. What matters a little more is getting other people registered and motivated to vote so that their voices are heard. There's a reason that state legislatures in places like NC and FL are trying to disenfranchise voters and purge registrations. So I think you can make a difference by signing people up and speaking out against that shit. That said, have I put my money where my mouth is and done this volunteer work? No.

 

[sonoma1993]

I have been dumbfounded from the moment Trump started gaining traction in the primaries. I don't see how anyone can watch him speak and not realize what a fool the man is. I still don't understand how this nomination ever happened.

I don't get it either. There was much better qualify candidates running but for whatever reason people didn't pay much attention to them. I really liked John Kasich. He seemed level headed, has experience running a government.

 

[Blackjack200]

Eh, I want to take this a little bit more head on.

Yes. Your vote matters. Is it likely to be decisive? No, not on it's own. But it's decisive along with everyone else that votes with you. It's sort of a free rider problem. You can have the luxury of not bothering to vote for Clinton because you know that enough people are going to vote for her anyway, so you don't need to. But if enough people behaved that way, the results could be impacted. If I'm walking in the part, and I have a piece of garbage in my hands, I don't just drop it. I put it in a bin. Even though dropping the trash on the ground won't meaningfully contribute to the overall cleanliness of the park all that much, I still feel a responsibility to contribute my part.

 

[Jhhnn]

Do you think your vote matters?

Right wingers think theirs do & they vote every time like punching in at the job. That's why, if you're not one of them, that you need to vote. Otherwise, they get to run things. Into the dirt, that is.

 

[ivwshane]

Do you think your vote matters?

You would think that a guy like you who understands collective action issues would also understand the importance of their vote.

I suspect there is a bigger reason behind this.

 

[fskimospy]

You would think that a guy like you who understands collective action issues would also understand the importance of their vote.

I suspect there is a bigger reason behind this.

If you understand collective action that means you understand your vote doesn't matter.

 

[emperus]

"good president" is a joke right? she has already established that she is a life long "public servant", someone who has gotten exceptionally wealthy at the expense of taxpayers, a woman who has no regard for ethics, morals, or even common decency....yet the good thing for her is that her adversary in this race is an especially easy target for sensationalist journalism because he is a typical braggart with far too much of a degree of self importance.

If you love excessive government spending on programs that do little to nothing to improve the working climate in this country, if you feel that the national debt is just a number that doesn't really matter anyway, if you truly believe the "wealthy" upper middle class paying 90% of their income would make all the difference and that they truly are out to help the working middle class, and if you figure that political dynasties are just fine then sure Hillary would be great.

But as others mentioned above there are many who are tired of jobs being off-shored, open trade agreements where the Washington elite benefit, and the do nothing perception of politicians, who are willing to vote for anyone but another insider.

This may be the first year I don't vote in a general election for president as there is no way I could vote for Hillary

Trump seems about toast unless the numbers for Hillary are low and his supporters come out in force for a major upset

So, let me ask you, name one policy that the Republicans espouse that you think is good for the middle class. Just one. The Republicans control both chambers, name one law the have passed to help the middle class....crickets. But they did manage to have about 5 Benghazi investigations. Look at the last few pro business Supreme court rulings. How have those rulings helped the middle class?...crickets.

I believe Hilary is pro bank, pro war, but also has worked her life for poor children and poor families (health care, early education). She is probably the right of the Democratic party. The part where the sane republicans could be. If the Republicans grew up, treated their crazies like crazies, maybe we could have a functioning 2 party system. But we can't because the far crazy of the Republican party draws the Democrats further right on hosts of hosts of issues (Israel, war, etc. etc.)

It's amazing that people deride people who become "community organizers" and "public servants". Yes, let's look down on people who sacrifice for the betterment of other people. And FYI, Both Bill and Hillary went to Yale law school (the hardest school to get into). They would have been fine if they did or didn't become "public servants".

 

[glenn1]

So, let me ask you, name one policy that the Republicans espouse that you think is good for the middle class. Just one. The Republicans control both chambers, name one law the have passed to help the middle class....crickets. But they did manage to have about 5 Benghazi investigations. Look at the last few pro business Supreme court rulings. How have those rulings helped the middle class?...crickets.

I believe Hilary is pro bank, pro war, but also has worked her life for poor children and poor families (health care, early education). She is probably the right of the Democratic party. The part where the sane republicans could be. If the Republicans grew up, treated their crazies like crazies, maybe we could have a functioning 2 party system. But we can't because the far crazy of the Republican party draws the Democrats further right on hosts of hosts of issues (Israel, war, etc. etc.)

It's amazing that people deride people who become "community organizers" and "public servants". Yes, let's look down on people who sacrifice for the betterment of other people. And FYI, Both Bill and Hillary went to Yale law school (the hardest school to get into). They would have been fine if they did or didn't become "public servants".

Asks for reasons GOP is good for the middle class and then proceeds to cite things Clinton did for the poor. I think the middle class notices the lack of interest either party has for them. Or maybe the left can't distinguish the poor from middle class and thinks the middle class interests are exactly the same as the poor and on top of that are focused on trying to get back at the rich and further building out the welfare state.

 

[ivwshane]

If you understand collective action that means you understand your vote doesn't matter.

Ah, so you support everyone else taking responsibility. Not a good look for you.

 

[glenn1]

Ah, so you support everyone else taking responsibility. Not a good look for you.

Ironic you finally understand this concept when it comes to applying "collective action problem" to voting but still use it every time when it comes to increasing your own generosity and/or tax payments to further your social goals to help the poor, etc. I guess for you and the rest of the left the threshold for "collective action problem" is once it starts meaning you need to pull money out of your pocket to further your stated desires.

 

[fskimospy]

Ah, so you support everyone else taking responsibility. Not a good look for you.

Nope just understand how collective action works.

I'm very sad that you don't like my look.

 

[glenn1]

Ah, so you support everyone else taking responsibility. Not a good look for you.

Nope just understand how collective action works.

I'm very sad that you don't like my look.

That's OK, we all understand that it's "other taxpayers" is who you want to take responsibility whenever you or another progressive says "collective action problem." Save your money, you need it more than that poor person you claim to want to help.