Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Are You Throwing Away Your Vote if You Vote for Someone Outside of the Two Established Parties?

Posted by   + Show Post

From the website, Butler on Business ...

Are you throwing away your vote if you vote for someone outside of the two established parties? Gary Johnson makes a strong case that we may be throwing away our future if we continue to elect these big-government politicians.

During today's interview with Butler on Business, Gary Johnson separates himself from both Obama and Romney and demonstrates that he is the clear alternative to the failed status quo.

Unlike Romney and Obama, former New Mexico Governor, Gary Johnson, wants to end the unconstitutional wars, repeal the Patriot Act, submit a balanced budget in 2013, end the Drug War, end cronyism, and fundamentally reform our tax system.

...and Gary Johnson promises to veto any legislation where expenses exceed revenue.

If Gary Johnson can poll 15% he will be on the national debate stage going heads up against Obama and Romney.


"Out of the three men running for president: Romney, Obama, and Gary Johnson...Governor Johnson is the only one of the three to have ever actually balanced a government budget."    - Alan Butler

Listen to Gary Johnson's complete interview with Butler on Business via the link below: http://www.butleronbusiness.com/2/post/2012/05/gov-gary-johnson-2012-presidential-nominee.html

by on May. 18, 2012 at 11:40 AM
Replies (31-40):
rachelrothchild
by on May. 23, 2012 at 4:41 PM


you rock

Slam dunk!

Quoting -Eilish-:


Quoting asfriend:


Quoting -Eilish-:

Let's see ...

When two candidates are being financed by the same big banks and big corporations that benefited from bail outs and have the ability to influence public policy?

               No, I'm not throwing my vote out by changing my paradigm.

When two candidates agree on endless, unconstitutional wars which now includes the homeland and makes US citizens suspect, and when those same two candidates agree that the ability to indefinitely detain and/or assassinate US citizens, AND both agree that deploying 60,000+ drones over US soil to spy (incidently) on US citizens is necessary for security ....

               No, I'm not throwing my vote away.

When two candidates agree on economic policy that "bails out" the rich on dime of the middle class, effectively eliminating the middle class, AND inflating (devaluing) our currency through unlimited printing of dollars, without any checks and balances on the FED ....

               No, I'm not wasting my vote ...

When the only "difference" between two candidates is on social policy which both parties have proved are only on their agenda to get votes and not for social justice, AND the Constitution doesn't even make room for the government to address these issues .....

               No, I'm not wasting my vote.

I am not willing to lower my standards, because the rest refuse to raise theirs. Integrity means standing up for what you believe even when you're the only one standing. Anyone who votes the lesser of two evils, or votes for one to spite the other, lacks integrity.

Excellent Dissertation

Horrible policy.

Integrity is a horrible policy? Wow! I finally understand you.



asfriend
by on May. 23, 2012 at 4:52 PM


Quoting -Eilish-:


Quoting asfriend:

 

Quoting -Eilish-:

Let's see ...

When two candidates are being financed by the same big banks and big corporations that benefited from bail outs and have the ability to influence public policy?

               No, I'm not throwing my vote out by changing my paradigm.

When two candidates agree on endless, unconstitutional wars which now includes the homeland and makes US citizens suspect, and when those same two candidates agree that the ability to indefinitely detain and/or assassinate US citizens, AND both agree that deploying 60,000+ drones over US soil to spy (incidently) on US citizens is necessary for security ....

               No, I'm not throwing my vote away.

When two candidates agree on economic policy that "bails out" the rich on dime of the middle class, effectively eliminating the middle class, AND inflating (devaluing) our currency through unlimited printing of dollars, without any checks and balances on the FED ....

               No, I'm not wasting my vote ...

When the only "difference" between two candidates is on social policy which both parties have proved are only on their agenda to get votes and not for social justice, AND the Constitution doesn't even make room for the government to address these issues .....

               No, I'm not wasting my vote.

I am not willing to lower my standards, because the rest refuse to raise theirs. Integrity means standing up for what you believe even when you're the only one standing. Anyone who votes the lesser of two evils, or votes for one to spite the other, lacks integrity.

Excellent Dissertation

Horrible policy.

Integrity is a horrible policy? Wow! I finally understand you.


You are like the person who slams on their brakes on the highway, to let someone turn left. You don't care that you caused a 15 car pile up behind you, you feel good about yourself, because you personally let someone turn left.

im23vaughn
by Bronze Member on May. 23, 2012 at 11:13 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting asfriend:

 

Quoting im23vaughn:

I would say no. As more and more people vote outside the conventional 2 party system, politicians will see that their constituents aren't happy. Eventually, what was 1% of the total national vote could swell to 5% of the national vote. Politicians would be forced to take notice & make changes. Also, the more who vote outside the traditional party lines, the more it encourages others to do the same.

Do I think if you vote for a 3rd party candidate your candidate will win? Most of the time no. But your vote isn't wasted.


From 1% to a whole 5%.

Okay now we're talking!

bouncing

I've notice you never have anything positive or of value to contribute. It's getting old & is really sad...

norwegianwood
by Member on May. 24, 2012 at 2:41 AM
1 mom liked this

 Let's see:

Notice you didn't mention the unions, the public sector unions, who BUY the representatives that sit across from them to 'negotiate' the benefits that have bankrupt just about EVERY state budget, rendering the 'taxpayer' NOT in the negotiations that directly affect THEIR costs and services. Banks and corporations provide revenue for the gov't to have AT ALL...unions, public sector unions, provide NO REVENUE AT ALL...between the two? I'll take the PROVIDERS over the takers every time.

The middle class is shrinking due to gov't spending and gov't regulation, period. It would be NO DIFFERENT under Paul or anyone else. LMAO The FACT is that consumers ALWAYS pay. Got that? Consumers pay. They pay the payroll taxes put onto corporations at the register as it's rolled into 'costs'. Companies are in business to make money, period. They have no other reason to invest their time or money, none. When their taxes are raised, when their costs are raised due to increased regulations or increases on minimum wage there is ONE winner and ONE loser: the gov't gets more revenue without having to raise taxes 'overtly' and the CONSUMER loses....ALL consumers, not just the poor, not just the middle class, ALL consumers pay more for the cost of living. That would not change under Paul or any other party.

 

LOL I love the whole 'unconstitutional' claim. Where in the constitution does it delineate how the congress must declare war? Oh...nowhere. Where does it delineate under what criteria? Oh, again, nowhere.

 

"Social Justice" is CODE for communist/marxist economics that have not only NEVER worked, but this statement of yours speaks to YOUR lack, which is logic...you suggest wars are 'bad' because they are 'unconstitutional' and then suggest that the constitution that is the foundation for our rights and liberties is not a sufficient document anyway....Which is it? Are you FOR the constitution or against it? If you are FOR the Constitution and the RIGHTS it protects to you then you understand that social justice is contrary to the very ideals that underly the framework of the Constitution: i.e. the Constitution secures equal opportunity, while social justice is all about 'equal outcomes' which, of course, require that those liberties, opportunities to be 'doled' out by some committee or group who deem themselves superior the free market of ideas and creativity. It's truly one or the other; they cannot co-exist.

 

The fact is that the two candidates are not sacrosanct on anything you've suggested they are, and ONE of them OPENLY acknowledges what he feels about the free market and the limited role gov't should play in it, while the other 'states' all this social justice and class warfare crap, while he takes money from wall street and bails them out...

I don't need to impugn another's integrity for voting, selfishly. I think it should not matter to me 'why' you vote how you vote. But trying to suggest that the FACTS are not the FACTS with regards to how it would split the vote and result in the worst candidate winning is just denial. It's a fact. Period. Anyone who would not vote for Obama, who either doesn't vote or votes for some third party instead, has 'in effect' voted FOR Obama. I don't care so much if that's what they choose to do, but it's the refusal to acknowledge that mathematical reality that infuriates me...

P

 

 

 

Quoting -Eilish-:

Let's see ...

When two candidates are being financed by the same big banks and big corporations that benefited from bail outs and have the ability to influence public policy?

               No, I'm not throwing my vote out by changing my paradigm.

When two candidates agree on endless, unconstitutional wars which now includes the homeland and makes US citizens suspect, and when those same two candidates agree that the ability to indefinitely detain and/or assassinate US citizens, AND both agree that deploying 60,000+ drones over US soil to spy (incidently) on US citizens is necessary for security ....

               No, I'm not throwing my vote away.

When two candidates agree on economic policy that "bails out" the rich on dime of the middle class, effectively eliminating the middle class, AND inflating (devaluing) our currency through unlimited printing of dollars, without any checks and balances on the FED ....

               No, I'm not wasting my vote ...

When the only "difference" between two candidates is on social policy which both parties have proved are only on their agenda to get votes and not for social justice, AND the Constitution doesn't even make room for the government to address these issues .....

               No, I'm not wasting my vote.

I am not willing to lower my standards, because the rest refuse to raise theirs. Integrity means standing up for what you believe even when you're the only one standing. Anyone who votes the lesser of two evils, or votes for one to spite the other, lacks integrity.

 

asfriend
by on May. 24, 2012 at 7:07 AM


Quoting im23vaughn:

 

Quoting asfriend:

 

Quoting im23vaughn:

I would say no. As more and more people vote outside the conventional 2 party system, politicians will see that their constituents aren't happy. Eventually, what was 1% of the total national vote could swell to 5% of the national vote. Politicians would be forced to take notice & make changes. Also, the more who vote outside the traditional party lines, the more it encourages others to do the same.

Do I think if you vote for a 3rd party candidate your candidate will win? Most of the time no. But your vote isn't wasted.


From 1% to a whole 5%.

Okay now we're talking!

bouncing

I've notice you never have anything positive or of value to contribute. It's getting old & is really sad...


Somebody has got to keep it real.

asfriend
by on May. 24, 2012 at 7:21 AM

(this pertains politically, I know nothing of the rest of your lives.)

The two of you can high 5 each other all you want, you are confusing integrity with abandonment.

You complete a task by performing it with integrity, not abandoning it. You are not working to make anything better, you are abdicating your responsibility as a citizen, for personal gratification.

You are not being virtuous, you're not a hero, you're not a role model for your kids, unless the model that you are promoting is, when you don't like the game, take your ball and go home.

A good role model says to take the situation that you are given, work to improve it, make it better, not walk away.

Quoting rachelrothchild:


you rock

Slam dunk!

Quoting -Eilish-:


Quoting asfriend:

 

Quoting -Eilish-:

Let's see ...

When two candidates are being financed by the same big banks and big corporations that benefited from bail outs and have the ability to influence public policy?

               No, I'm not throwing my vote out by changing my paradigm.

When two candidates agree on endless, unconstitutional wars which now includes the homeland and makes US citizens suspect, and when those same two candidates agree that the ability to indefinitely detain and/or assassinate US citizens, AND both agree that deploying 60,000+ drones over US soil to spy (incidently) on US citizens is necessary for security ....

 

\

 

norwegianwood
by Member on May. 24, 2012 at 7:47 AM
1 mom liked this

 You have it absolutely backward. That you would be more concerned with feeling personal gratification remaining righteous to your own convictions, knowing that in so doing, not only you but all of your countrymen and future countrymen will suffer a greater consequence is evidence of YOU taking care of your own 'personal gratification'...It's just a fact.

If I am walking down the street and I witness a person I KNOW to be a thief reaching for the pocket --and likely the wallet--of a person who really like, yet I do nothing because I have strong convictions about not butting into other people's business, and I do nothing to warn the one or to stop the other, my 'inaction' ASSISTED one and HANDICAPPED the other. That is just a FACT.

At least acknowledge it. It's so silly to continue to argue what logic disproves in every case.

P

Quoting asfriend:

(this pertains politically, I know nothing of the rest of your lives.)

The two of you can high 5 each other all you want, you are confusing integrity with abandonment.

You complete a task by performing it with integrity, not abandoning it. You are not working to make anything better, you are abdicating your responsibility as a citizen, for personal gratification.

You are not being virtuous, you're not a hero, you're not a role model for your kids, unless the model that you are promoting is, when you don't like the game, take your ball and go home.

A good role model says to take the situation that you are given, work to improve it, make it better, not walk away.

Quoting rachelrothchild:


you rock

Slam dunk!

Quoting -Eilish-:


Quoting asfriend:

 

Quoting -Eilish-:

Let's see ...

When two candidates are being financed by the same big banks and big corporations that benefited from bail outs and have the ability to influence public policy?

               No, I'm not throwing my vote out by changing my paradigm.

When two candidates agree on endless, unconstitutional wars which now includes the homeland and makes US citizens suspect, and when those same two candidates agree that the ability to indefinitely detain and/or assassinate US citizens, AND both agree that deploying 60,000+ drones over US soil to spy (incidently) on US citizens is necessary for security ....

 

\

 

 

imamomzilla
by on May. 24, 2012 at 8:52 AM

 Politics are a lot like horse races.

Personally, I would NEVER bet on a longshot. You're just pissing away your money.

While Romney is not perfect, he's better than the alternative. That other "favorite" will only send you and your grandkids to the poorhouse in feed bills.

mommy2b39465
by on May. 24, 2012 at 8:55 AM
1 mom liked this

I think yes. Not only are you throwing away your vote (I guess you could say that your opinion has been heard), you're taking votes away from one of the big guys. 

For us, we're not too crazy about the republicans right now, but we'd rather have them than Obama, hands down. If we voted for a 3rd party candidate, we'd just be helping to split the republican vote and help keep Obama in.

rachelrothchild
by on May. 24, 2012 at 10:11 AM

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this.  Everyone has the right to vote for the person who best represents them and their views/principles.  Just because we refuse to vote for Romney, doesn't mean we are "walking away".  Or are you talking about something else?

My responsibility as a citizen is to keep our government and our politicians in check.  If I feel that the candidates from the major two parties are not going to do what's best for this country and its citizens, uphold the constitution, and protect individual rights, it is my duty to vote for someone else.  Voting for the lesser of two evils is not responsible when there is a third, fourth, or even fifth viable option.

The rest of you are abandoning your responsibilities, not us.  I take this seriously.

Quoting asfriend:

(this pertains politically, I know nothing of the rest of your lives.)

The two of you can high 5 each other all you want, you are confusing integrity with abandonment.

You complete a task by performing it with integrity, not abandoning it. You are not working to make anything better, you are abdicating your responsibility as a citizen, for personal gratification.

You are not being virtuous, you're not a hero, you're not a role model for your kids, unless the model that you are promoting is, when you don't like the game, take your ball and go home.

A good role model says to take the situation that you are given, work to improve it, make it better, not walk away.

Quoting rachelrothchild:


you rock

Slam dunk!

Quoting -Eilish-:


Quoting asfriend:


Quoting -Eilish-:

Let's see ...

When two candidates are being financed by the same big banks and big corporations that benefited from bail outs and have the ability to influence public policy?

               No, I'm not throwing my vote out by changing my paradigm.

When two candidates agree on endless, unconstitutional wars which now includes the homeland and makes US citizens suspect, and when those same two candidates agree that the ability to indefinitely detain and/or assassinate US citizens, AND both agree that deploying 60,000+ drones over US soil to spy (incidently) on US citizens is necessary for security ....

 

\



Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)