Party Loyalty is Poison

[Mac-7]

If you vote for him regardless, your praise and criticism is irrelevant.

Trump represents my views more than any other candidate

Thats how adults decide who to vote for in a democracy

But you seem oblivious to that basic fact

 

[dblack]

Trump represents my views more than any other candidate

Thats how adults decide who to vote for in a democracy

Adults don't bury their heads in the sand when it comes to questions of integrity and character. Trump has none, but he's on your "side" in the culture war, so you look the other way. "Adult", my ass.

In the end, it just makes your "side" look that much worse.

 

[Mac-7]

Adults don't bury their heads in the sand when it comes to questions of integrity and character. Trump has none, but he's on your "side" in the culture war, so you look the other way. "Adult", my ass.

In the end, it just makes your "side" look that much worse.

Who are you voting for?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Who are you voting for?

He will never say, because it would be someone with no experience that would make them anywhere close to qualified, or it would be a politician with flaws like the rest of them.

Either way, they would have actual views, which dblack does not want to defend.

More fun to attack from a place where you weasle out of defending. Oldest trolling game on USMB.

 

[Mac-7]

Either way, they would have actual views, which @dblack does not want to defend.

Thats the key for people with a fence post stuck up their ass

They only want to attack but never defend

 

[dblack]

Who are you voting for?

I'm not voting for a candidate I don't trust just because he's on my "side". That point just seems to bounce right off your skull.

 

[dblack]

He will never say, because it would be someone with no experience that would make them anywhere close to qualified, or it would be a politician with flaws like the rest of them.

Either way, they would have actual views, which dblack does not want to defend.

More fun to attack from a place where you weasle out of defending. Oldest trolling game on USMB.

When there's not a candidate worth voting for on the ballot, I write someone in. But I don't vote for a candidate I know to be shitty, just because he's on my "side". That's killing us.

 

[dblack]

When there's not a candidate worth voting for on the ballot, I write someone in. But I don't vote for a candidate I know to be shitty, just because he's on my "side". That's killing us.

I know you guys really want to divert this into a personal pissing match, rather than addressing the topic. I'm not going to let you.

 

[Seymour Flops]

When there's not a candidate worth voting for on the ballot, I write someone in. But I don't vote for a candidate I know to be shitty, just because he's on my "side". That's killing us.

Who would you write in, for example?

If a majority wrote that person in, would we be saved from the killing? If so, how?

Or is it just a "none of the above vote?"

 

[Seymour Flops]

I know you guys really want to divert this into a personal pissing match, rather than addressing the topic. I'm not going to let you.

I am addressing the topic. If im not going to vote for someone who can and will impliment policies I approve of, who should I vote for instead?

Or are you advocating abstaining from voting?

 

[dblack]

Who would you write in, for example?

Justin Amash - at this point I'd probably also vote for Massie or Rand Paul. But answering your diversion question just lets you avoid the topic of the thread. You're saying - "If you can't offer me a better candidate, I'm going to vote for bad one anyway." - for ****'s sake, why does that make sense to you?

It's like if the Bloods and Crips moved into town and started a gang war, you'd be like 'Oh well, guess I should support the side that's least violent'. No. You'd reject both, right?

If a majority wrote that person in, would we be saved from the killing? If so, how?

Not sure what you mean by "the killing", but any of those I mentioned would be far, far better than Biden, Trump or Harris.

Or is it just a "none of the above vote?"

Sometimes it is. That's also far, far better than Biden, Trump or Harris.

 

[BrokeLoser]

I actually don't disagree. But that's also why I 'left' the GOP.

What party did you leave the GOP for?

 

[BrokeLoser]

Somebody more famous than me once said, 'voting for the lesser of two evils is STILL voting for evil.'

I am addressing the topic. If im not going to vote for someone who can and will impliment policies I approve of, who should I vote for instead?

Or are you advocating abstaining from voting?

dblack voted for Chase Oliver, he’s obviously not to be taken seriously when talking about voting standards.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

What party did you leave the GOP for?

I probably lean Libertarian but officially I remain unaffiliated. I have issues even with that party unfortunately. I get thrilled when I see people leave the Democrat party only to cringe when I see them say '...and now I'm a Republican!' You literally just escaped the grip of one party, why subject yourself to the OTHER!?! You do not need a tribe!

 

[dblack]

I probably lean Libertarian but officially I remain unaffiliated. I have issues even with that party unfortunately.

Having issues with a party, yet still voting for them is fine, depending on the candidate. No one will match your preferences perfectly. The problem is voting for an obviously bad candidate, simply because your "side" nominated him or her. That kind of corrosive "loyalty" is driven by the way we do elections. The lesser-of-two-evils conceit is used as a gun to the head of every voter: "vote for our jackass, or you'll get someone even worse!".

What makes matters worse is that both of the two entrenched parties fight every effort to reform our voting process so that LO2E isn't a factor. As I said, it's a gun to the head of all voters, and the partisans like holding the gun.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

Having issues with a party, yet still voting for them is fine, depending on the candidate. No one will match your preferences perfectly. The problem is voting for an obviously bad candidate, simply because your "side" nominated him or her. That kind of corrosive "loyalty" is driven by the way we do elections. The lesser-of-two-evils conceit is used as a gun to the head of every voter: "vote for our jackass, or you'll get someone even worse!".

What makes matters worse is that both of the two entrenched parties fight every effort to reform our voting process so that LO2E isn't a factor. As I said, it's a gun to the head of all voters, and the partisans like holding the gun.

I live in a very Republican area of a very Republican state, so knowing that I tend to vote however I want vs either of the two major parties. In '20 I voted for Rocky De La Fuente, not because of anything he advocated, but because 'Rocky' is one of my all-time favorite movies. Last year I voted for RFKJr only because earlier in the year I had signed a petition to get his name on the ballot, and I didn't want my earlier effort to have been in vain.

Honestly, this entire thread/argument makes so much sense to me that I'm literally struggling to understand how others aren't getting it. People just get so entrenched unfortunately.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Justin Amash - at this point I'd probably also vote for Massie or Rand Paul.

I like Rand Paul and Massie. But both of them made the same mistake you make, at least when it came to the BBB. By voting against continuing the Trump tax cut, they effectively voted for perhaps the largest tax increase in our nations history. I give you credit for not believing that that tax increase would not only be for Billionaires as the DNC claims.

I hope you don't disappoint.

I also give you credit for knowing that such a tax increase would have never been spent on paying down the national debt. So, what purpose to you see for that tax increase?

Why would you vote for either Thomas Massie or Ron Paul, when Justin Amash is so much more closely alligned with your beliefs?

If you can answer that question honestly, you will see for yourself the fallacy in your argument that you missed.

But answering your diversion question just lets you avoid the topic of the thread. You're saying - "If you can't offer me a better candidate, I'm going to vote for bad one anyway." - for ****'s sake, why does that make sense to you?

What I'm saying is that complaining that neither party is exactly in line with your ideology so you will vote for someone who has zero chance of winning is pretty silly.

It's like if the Bloods and Crips moved into town and started a gang war, you'd be like 'Oh well, guess I should support the side that's least violent'. No. You'd reject both, right?

Yes, I'd reject both. I also reject that horrible analogy to our political parties.

Not sure what you mean by "the killing", but any of those I mentioned would be far, far better than Biden, Trump or Harris.

I mean the killing that you talked about here in the post that I was directly responding to:

Would the killing of us stop if the majority voted by write-in for Amash or the others? Would Democrats then come to the table and work with One of those Republicans in a newfound spirit of bi-partisanship, since it isn't Trump?

They certainly did not to that with Bush the Younger, Bush the Elder, Reagan, Nixon, or Eisenhower.

Sometimes it is. That's also far, far better than Biden, Trump or Harris.

"None of the above" might make you feel good in the moment that you cast it. But no one will read that vote, much less reflect on why a voter would say "none of the above." You'd make yourself a non-entity. You'd disenfranchise yourself - unless the person you voted for had campaigned as a write-in, and stood at least a longshot chance of winning.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

When there's not a candidate worth voting for on the ballot, I write someone in. But I don't vote for a candidate I know to be shitty, just because he's on my "side". That's killing us.

So, basically what you are telling us is that you waste your vote on a candidate you know will never win and will not vote for someone who represents your own best interests because you don't trust them? That's one of the dumbest modes of operation I have ever heard! That's just plain retarded.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Justin Amash - at this point I'd probably also vote for Massie or Rand Paul. But answering your diversion question just lets you avoid the topic of the thread. You're saying - "If you can't offer me a better candidate, I'm going to vote for bad one anyway." - for ****'s sake, why does that make sense to you?

It's like if the Bloods and Crips moved into town and started a gang war, you'd be like 'Oh well, guess I should support the side that's least violent'. No. You'd reject both, right?

Not sure what you mean by "the killing", but any of those I mentioned would be far, far better than Biden, Trump or Harris.

Sometimes it is. That's also far, far better than Biden, Trump or Harris.

You need to seek counseling or call an elevator repair company. Your car is not reaching the top floor!

 

[BrokeLoser]

I probably lean Libertarian but officially I remain unaffiliated. I have issues even with that party unfortunately. I get thrilled when I see people leave the Democrat party only to cringe when I see them say '...and now I'm a Republican!' You literally just escaped the grip of one party, why subject yourself to the OTHER!?! You do not need a tribe!

While the third party sentiment is neat there’s really only two parties in the game with a chance to win so it only makes sense for people to toggle between those two…right?