Wow, an almost actual consensus among posters here in ATPN! I realize that voting for middle class representation is not the only issue at stake here, but it seems pretty fundamental to the maintenance of a stable economy within the country. Too bad people can't abandon the parties they actually don't even believe in to vote for a candidate that would represent the middle class. Is there one of those around?
Neither of them. Voting for the R or the D just ensures the continual fucking of the middle class.
No, you have to accept it or change it yourself. YOU have to change it, not this has to change.
As American hatred of self demands.... What is, is exactly what we want. Change that.
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 80,287
- 17,078
- 136
He wants to take money from the other 99% and redistribute it.
I dont know how thats better.
My pragmatic vote would be for Ohio Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur, my idealistic vote would be for Texas Congressman Ron Paul.
Londo_Jowo
Lifer
thraashman
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2000
- 11,103
- 1,550
- 126
There is no credible third party that can challenge the R or D.
And you guys fawning over Ross Perot... I voted for him the first time believe it or not. But aside from being right over the 'giant sucking sound', I specifically remember Gore destroying him in a debate the next election cycle. His defensive posture and his plan for 'grabbing one of them great plans in Congress' and getting it to work after Gore asked him to be specific on what he would do and he couldn't answer revealed him to be the phony he was.
Now on Ron Paul, I like some of his ideas. But his ideas for drastically cutting military spending and turtling up (i.e. going isolationist) in addition to cutting Israel loose are NON starters in my book and disqualify him from consideration, IMO. With defense related money floating through our economy, WTF do you think would happen to GDP if we make those drastic cuts all at once ??
Finally, here's the thing. How many of you honestly vote for a candidate that would be good for the country as opposed to you or your family's best interests? Be honest. I'm older, very cynical, and frankly vote wallet above all else. I'd like to be inspired, but I'm a highly practical, non-emotional person who has been scarred by the battles of the real world and I don't simply trust people to do the right thing. The idea of me voting for someone based on nothing more than 'hope' would never happen.
Flame suit is zipped up and ready. Bring it.
And you guys fawning over Ross Perot... I voted for him the first time believe it or not. But aside from being right over the 'giant sucking sound', I specifically remember Gore destroying him in a debate the next election cycle. His defensive posture and his plan for 'grabbing one of them great plans in Congress' and getting it to work after Gore asked him to be specific on what he would do and he couldn't answer revealed him to be the phony he was.
Now on Ron Paul, I like some of his ideas. But his ideas for drastically cutting military spending and turtling up (i.e. going isolationist) in addition to cutting Israel loose are NON starters in my book and disqualify him from consideration, IMO. With defense related money floating through our economy, WTF do you think would happen to GDP if we make those drastic cuts all at once ??
Finally, here's the thing. How many of you honestly vote for a candidate that would be good for the country as opposed to you or your family's best interests? Be honest. I'm older, very cynical, and frankly vote wallet above all else. I'd like to be inspired, but I'm a highly practical, non-emotional person who has been scarred by the battles of the real world and I don't simply trust people to do the right thing. The idea of me voting for someone based on nothing more than 'hope' would never happen.
Flame suit is zipped up and ready. Bring it.
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 36,045
- 30,333
- 136
Anybody that would flame you for voting for your family's best interests is retarded. But, do you consider what might be good for your family in the short term might be bad for it in the long term, and vice versa? That is the problem I have with many people, they are too willing to sell out the future of this country to spare themselves some minor short term pain.
yhelothar
Lifer
- Dec 11, 2002
- 18,407
- 39
- 91
How the F do you think we could continue to fund all of these wars and provide so much foreign aid to countries when we're on the verge of bankruptcy? And no, getting rid of Bush's tax cuts wouldn't come close to being able to cover for it.
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
Agreed. But to your comment about people willing to 'sell out' the country. Actually, I'm not so sure they are consciously thinking about it long term and maybe that is where the problem is... people REALLY need to start thinking a bit more before pulling the voting lever. A lot of people live day to day and are unable to connect the dots or look ahead 10-20 years. Frankly though, if we assume we have no viable 3rd parties that can win, it has been a lesser of two evils choice for years between R & D.
Londo_Jowo
Lifer
MagickMan
Diamond Member
- Aug 11, 2008
- 7,460
- 3
- 76
I voted for Perot in `92 and `96. I remember listening to him and thinking that what he said almost sounded prophetic. Turns out I was right. If we could somehow transport the man through time and get him into the next election he'd win, maybe by a landslide.
I was mocked voting for Perot in '92 and '96, only to be repeated with Paul in 2008 and possibly 2012, if I'm not completely apathetic by then. If it weren't for the eventual public outcry, we would have a Trans-Texas Corridor today... scary.
MagickMan
Diamond Member
- Aug 11, 2008
- 7,460
- 3
- 76
Agreed. I'm a pretty damned conservative person, and even I realize that we need to start cutting Defense if we're going to survive this. Start with an across the board 40% cut in defense spending by closing half of our foreign bases and pulling out of the M.E. entirely. Then we turn marijuana into a cash crop and levy a 100% federal tax on it. I'll bet we'd be running a budget surplus in under 3 years.
The problem is both sides of us are more interested in and focused on it NOT being the other party, to compromise on what we really want (someone for the middle class) and vote for the party we like 2nd best (republican/democrat).
IE the leftists are too interested in sticking it to the rich, and the rights are too interested in keeping the lefties from sticking it to the rich, and rather think you should just "work harder" instead of sticking it to somebody.
Both sides have solid examples of why their ideology is better. There's a hundred examples of government messing crap up-> hence the libertarian or conservative party. There's hundreds of cases of companies shafting the lower class-> hence the leftists.
We have to stop looking at only those scenarios and settling for "not that" though before we'll see the parties for who they really are.
I'm pretty sure we shouldn't count Hillary Clinton out yet. Bill was a master of doing enough of what both sides wanted, to make them happy. That's what people would be voting for if they saw "Clinton" on the ballot.
It could happen.
It seems everybody in Highschool was taught "well if you vote for a 3rd party you throw your vote away", everyone nodded it made sense. It wasn't until halfway through college I read a comment on slashdot where someone said, "no, the only way you throw your vote away is if you vote for someone you don't agree with 100%". +1 to that, too bad that nobody is able to come up with that themselves or else we wouldn't be stuck where we are now (rock and hard place between the left and right).
Last edited:
The total cost of wars since 2001 has only been a little over $1T. If you want to count the entire military industrial complex, that's how that number changed into $4T over night (about 6 months ago someone did that and everyone jumped on the bandwagon). But if you're to count the retirees and vet benefits and all the F-22 planes in that number, that doesn't fall under generally accepted accounting principles. Yes, the wars were superfluous, but not having gone there wouldn't have saved us from that a 1:1 debt::GDP ratio.
and edit: just to be clear I'm not opposed to cutting defense spending, it's a giant black hole in a lot of ways...I'm just against dis-honestness regarding the war in Iraq & Afghan; or to be specific saying if we hadn't been there our country wouldn't still be $13T in the hole.
Last edited:
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 36,045
- 30,333
- 136
This is one of the main reasons the righties are against the lefties, they simply appear interested in sticking it to the rich.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter