Does a vote for Neal Dikeman = a vote for "Beto" O'Rourke

[Harpy Eagle]

There are zero reasons not to vote for Neal Dikeman. The bullshit line that a vote for him is a vote for Beto is just the lie they tell people to keep a 3rd party from growing

Every vote for Neal Dikeman helps the next 3rd party candidate.

This is about the future, not the next two years.

If enough people who would have voted for Cruz vote for Dikeman, and O'Rourke does get in, then while not a vote for him, the end result is Senator O'Rourke just the same.

This is the same circular reason that the two parties use to keep the people voting for them.

a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...

 

[martybegan]

There are zero reasons not to vote for Neal Dikeman. The bullshit line that a vote for him is a vote for Beto is just the lie they tell people to keep a 3rd party from growing

Every vote for Neal Dikeman helps the next 3rd party candidate.

This is about the future, not the next two years.

If enough people who would have voted for Cruz vote for Dikeman, and O'Rourke does get in, then while not a vote for him, the end result is Senator O'Rourke just the same.

This is the same circular reason that the two parties use to keep the people voting for them.

a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...

I am not talking about the reasoning behind it, I am talking about the actual outcome.

If 30,000 people who would have voted for Cruz vote for Dikeman, and Cruz loses by 30,000 votes, what is the end result?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

How often do third parties win....even when they look exactly, like dikeman, like the two other parties?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There are zero reasons not to vote for Neal Dikeman. The bullshit line that a vote for him is a vote for Beto is just the lie they tell people to keep a 3rd party from growing

Every vote for Neal Dikeman helps the next 3rd party candidate.

This is about the future, not the next two years.

If enough people who would have voted for Cruz vote for Dikeman, and O'Rourke does get in, then while not a vote for him, the end result is Senator O'Rourke just the same.

This is the same circular reason that the two parties use to keep the people voting for them.

a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...

I am not talking about the reasoning behind it, I am talking about the actual outcome.

If 30,000 people who would have voted for Cruz vote for Dikeman, and Cruz loses by 30,000 votes, what is the end result?

The end result is that nothing really changes because the two parties are not all that much different and maybe next election more people will vote for the 3rd party as they noticed how many people did it the past election.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

How often do third parties win....even when they look exactly, like dikeman, like the two other parties?

Almost never...because of this..

a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

it all depends which matters more, your ideological purity, or your desire to not see a Democratic majority in the Senate

How long will we be forced to tolerare a shitty option out of fear of allowing an even more shitty option?

You have a choice:
Get robbed and beaten to the point of leaving facial scars or get robbed and beaten into a wheelchair where you will be dependent on your assailant to benevolently push your wheelchair for the rest of your life.

So, now I owe loyalty to the guy busting up my face for the sole reason that the alternative is paraplegia?

FUCK THIS SHIT!!!

At some point, we must break the cycle, consequences be damned.

Unless you are all telling me that we MUST tolerate one of the abusers for the sake of preserving the Union.

Why preserve the Union?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

How often do third parties win....even when they look exactly, like dikeman, like the two other parties?

Almost never...because of this..

a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...

Because third party candidates are just like the other worthless parties that are prancing around trying to offer trinkets.

 

[martybegan]

There are zero reasons not to vote for Neal Dikeman. The bullshit line that a vote for him is a vote for Beto is just the lie they tell people to keep a 3rd party from growing

Every vote for Neal Dikeman helps the next 3rd party candidate.

This is about the future, not the next two years.

If enough people who would have voted for Cruz vote for Dikeman, and O'Rourke does get in, then while not a vote for him, the end result is Senator O'Rourke just the same.

This is the same circular reason that the two parties use to keep the people voting for them.

a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...a third party cannot win because nobody will vote for them...I will not vote for a third party because they cannot win...

I am not talking about the reasoning behind it, I am talking about the actual outcome.

If 30,000 people who would have voted for Cruz vote for Dikeman, and Cruz loses by 30,000 votes, what is the end result?

The end result is that nothing really changes because the two parties are not all that much different and maybe next election more people will vote for the 3rd party as they noticed how many people did it the past election.

The end result in my scenario would be Senator O'Rourke.

The short term result of a strong 3rd party surge would be the candidate from the main party least like the 3rd party winning more elections.

Now some people believe the village has to be burned down before it can be re-built, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that strong 3rd party runs result more often than not in the person the least people like getting in.

Lincoln's 1860 election is a prime example of that.

 

[martybegan]

it all depends which matters more, your ideological purity, or your desire to not see a Democratic majority in the Senate

How long will we be forced to tolerare a shitty option out of fear of allowing an even more shitty option?

You have a choice:
Get robbed and beaten to the point of leaving facial scars or get robbed and beaten into a wheelchair where you will be dependent on your assailant to benevolently push your wheelchair for the rest of your life.

So, now I owe loyalty to the guy busting up my face for the sole reason that the alternative is paraplegia?

FUCK THIS SHIT!!!

At some point, we must break the cycle, consequences be damned.

Unless you are all telling me that we MUST tolerate one of the abusers for the sake of preserving the Union.

Why preserve the Union?

Then man the barricades. As I have said to lefties, if it's really that bad why aren't you instigating revolution?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The end result in my scenario would be Senator O'Rourke.

The short term result of a strong 3rd party surge would be the candidate from the main party least like the 3rd party winning more elections.

Now some people believe the village has to be burned down before it can be re-built, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that strong 3rd party runs result more often than not in the person the least people like getting in.

Lincoln's 1860 election is a prime example of that.

Seems that worked out ok...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

it all depends which matters more, your ideological purity, or your desire to not see a Democratic majority in the Senate

How long will we be forced to tolerare a shitty option out of fear of allowing an even more shitty option?

You have a choice:
Get robbed and beaten to the point of leaving facial scars or get robbed and beaten into a wheelchair where you will be dependent on your assailant to benevolently push your wheelchair for the rest of your life.

So, now I owe loyalty to the guy busting up my face for the sole reason that the alternative is paraplegia?

FUCK THIS SHIT!!!

At some point, we must break the cycle, consequences be damned.

Unless you are all telling me that we MUST tolerate one of the abusers for the sake of preserving the Union.

Why preserve the Union?

Then man the barricades. As I have said to lefties, if it's really that bad why aren't you instigating revolution?

A revolution needs support, and there are too many people like you on both sides that are content with the status quo.

 

[ptbw forever]

There are zero reasons not to vote for Neal Dikeman. The bullshit line that a vote for him is a vote for Beto is just the lie they tell people to keep a 3rd party from growing

Every vote for Neal Dikeman helps the next 3rd party candidate.

This is about the future, not the next two years.

If Beto wins Texas will be destroyed and 3rd party candidates have no prayer of getting 5% of the vote in a general. Look at California.

 

[martybegan]

The end result in my scenario would be Senator O'Rourke.

The short term result of a strong 3rd party surge would be the candidate from the main party least like the 3rd party winning more elections.

Now some people believe the village has to be burned down before it can be re-built, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that strong 3rd party runs result more often than not in the person the least people like getting in.

Lincoln's 1860 election is a prime example of that.

Seems that worked out ok...

Hindsight is 20/20. We could have ended up with a divided country.

and as for what could have happened after, here's a speculative historical fiction view of it:

Southern Victory - Wikipedia

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There are zero reasons not to vote for Neal Dikeman. The bullshit line that a vote for him is a vote for Beto is just the lie they tell people to keep a 3rd party from growing

Every vote for Neal Dikeman helps the next 3rd party candidate.

This is about the future, not the next two years.

If Beto wins Texas will be destroyed and 3rd party candidates have no prayer of getting 5% of the vote in a general. Look at California.

Exactly how does a US Senator destroy a state?

You are really just not a very smart person.

 

[martybegan]

it all depends which matters more, your ideological purity, or your desire to not see a Democratic majority in the Senate

How long will we be forced to tolerare a shitty option out of fear of allowing an even more shitty option?

You have a choice:
Get robbed and beaten to the point of leaving facial scars or get robbed and beaten into a wheelchair where you will be dependent on your assailant to benevolently push your wheelchair for the rest of your life.

So, now I owe loyalty to the guy busting up my face for the sole reason that the alternative is paraplegia?

FUCK THIS SHIT!!!

At some point, we must break the cycle, consequences be damned.

Unless you are all telling me that we MUST tolerate one of the abusers for the sake of preserving the Union.

Why preserve the Union?

Then man the barricades. As I have said to lefties, if it's really that bad why aren't you instigating revolution?

A revolution needs support, and there are too many people like you on both sides that are content with the status quo.

Or maybe still believe in working within the system.

It may need support to be SUCCESSFUL, but again if things are really that bad, barricades, man them.

 

[NightFox]

Yeah, I'm a sheep because I don't operate under the delusion that voting for insignificant political parties is going to incrementally break the Crime Family Duopoly's grip on power anytime soon.

No, you are a sheep because you will keep supporting the duopoly even though you seem to grasp it is not a good thing.

… but on the plus side of being a sheep, there's zero chance I'm going to become as humorless and petty as you appear to be, must be a product of that swollen sense of self importance you're always sportin'.

Too late, you are already there, as evidenced by the post I responded to that drew this reaction.

****WOOOSHHHHHH*****

Says the point as it goes sailing over your mucronate noggin', perhaps you need to wear some higher heeled pumps next time you decide to haunt the street corners.



"Folks, I've been straight for seventeen days... Not all in a row." -- Sam Kinison

 

[ptbw forever]

There are zero reasons not to vote for Neal Dikeman. The bullshit line that a vote for him is a vote for Beto is just the lie they tell people to keep a 3rd party from growing

Every vote for Neal Dikeman helps the next 3rd party candidate.

This is about the future, not the next two years.

If Beto wins Texas will be destroyed and 3rd party candidates have no prayer of getting 5% of the vote in a general. Look at California.

Exactly how does a US Senator destroy a state?

You are really just not a very smart person.

I am about 10 steps ahead of you every single day and I don't even try. I am a genius compared to you.

Senator Beto means a red district or 5 goes permanently blue and eventually the entire state goes blue from the flood of Democrat money in midterm after midterm and general after general(and that means Antifa will dominate the streets in fucking Texas, a MAJOR blow to freedom in this country). Senator Cruz means that Democrats will only spend as much money as they do in typical red states, and possibly less because the demographics in Texas are already favorable to Democrats today and if they still can't win they may never win.

Democrats have destroyed every single major city in this country and almost all of California.

I can't wait until Antifa clocks you in the head with a bike lock and MSNBC literally laughs at you as you fear for your life. It will be too late for you morons, but at least you will finally understand what has been obvious to me since high school.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I am about 10 steps ahead of you every single day and I don't even try. I am a genius compared to you.

.....

One common theme among smart people, they never feel to need to tell anyone how smart they are.

Something you low IQ folks on this forum will never understand.

 

[MisterBeale]

So, we know that both parties are unified in fucking us in the ass.

How do we break the cycle and rid the world of athoritarian, statist, spendthrift politicians?

You've Got to Stop Voting - by Mark E. Smith | FUBAR AND GRILL

#CommunityStandards #censorship #originalthought #jackdorsey


The Fairy Tale of Changing the State From Within
The Fairy Tale of Changing the State From Within - The Art of Not Being Governed

 

[ptbw forever]

I am about 10 steps ahead of you every single day and I don't even try. I am a genius compared to you.

.....

One common theme among smart people, they never feel to need to tell anyone how smart they are.

Something you low IQ folks on this forum will never understand.

Calling you stupid and understanding my strengths is not claiming to be smart.

I do think that my strengths are a match or more than a match for otherwise more intelligent people in the right situation, but you aren't one of those people. You are laughably ignorant and stupid.

Most of the people on this forum are not very smart(especially the Democrats, but pretty much all of the Republicans are very wrong in their logic every once and a while). You have to be an idiot to claim that there are actual geniuses on this forum, or any decent sized forum.