PV Voting for the viable candidate?

[brewguy]

I keep hearing a wasted vote or can they really win.

I don't understand where this comes from. The point of the election process is to vote for who you think will best run the country and who you like the best for the job. Why is everyone letting the MSM tell them who to vote for? The only person who should influence your vote is you!

If everyone goes out and votes the person they like then I guess we will really see who is the viable candidate and who is not. Instead everyone listens to the MSM and votes for who they selected.

At what point did we stop being able to think for ourselves?

[cucamelsmd15]

Originally Posted by brewguy

At what point did we stop being able to think for ourselves?

When we started letting the government and media think for us.

[wombat13]

Originally Posted by brewguy

At what point did we stop being able to think for ourselves?

I'm really getting tired of hearing this. I'm thinking for myself. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I am allowing the MSM to think for me.

I absolutely do not want Hillary to win the presidency. IMO, her anti-gun stances are just the tip of the iceberg. She has expressed views that I believe would be terrible for country (e.g., socialized medicine, confiscatory taxes). Her challengers for the Dem nomination aren't much better. Therefore, I am going to vote in such a way as to minimize the likelihood that Hillary wins.

In my estimation, RP will not garner more of the vote than Ross Perot did when he ran. Furthermore, I strongly suspect that RP will draw more votes from citizens who would have voted for Hillary's rival (whether it be Thompson, Giuliani, McCain, or Romney) than he will from Hillary. Therefore, I believe that voting for RP will have the effect of increasing the probability that Hillary will be elected and I will not cast a vote for him.

So go ahead and disagree with my reasoning, but please stop arguing that conservatives who don't back RP aren't thinking for themselves. It's tiresome and frankly such a weak argument that it doesn't make RP supporters look very bright.

[cucamelsmd15]

Originally Posted by wombat13

I'm really getting tired of hearing this. I'm thinking for myself. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I am allowing the MSM to think for me.

I absolutely do not want Hillary to win the presidency. IMO, her anti-gun stances are just the tip of the iceberg. She has expressed views that I believe would be terrible for country (e.g., socialized medicine, confiscatory taxes). Her challengers for the Dem nomination aren't much better. Therefore, I am going to vote in such a way as to minimize the likelihood that Hillary wins.

My assumption is that RP will not garner more of the vote than Ross Perot did when he ran. Furthermore, I assume that RP will draw more votes from citizens who would have voted for Hillary's rival (whether it be Thompson, Giuliani, McCain, or Romney) than he will from Hillary. Therefore, I believe that voting for RP will have the effect of increasing the probability that Hillary will be elected and I will not cast a vote for him.

So go ahead and disagree with my reasoning, but please stop arguing that conservatives who don't back RP aren't thinking for themselves. It's tiresome and frankly such a weak argument that it doesn't make RP supporters look very bright.

I dont think he is referring to you, me or anyone else here (save for Judge, maybe). I think he is however referring to the other 95% of the population of this country.

[beardman2]

Originally Posted by wombat13

I'm really getting tired of hearing this. I'm thinking for myself. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I am allowing the MSM to think for me.

I absolutely do not want Hillary to win the presidency. IMO, her anti-gun stances are just the tip of the iceberg. She has expressed views that I believe would be terrible for country (e.g., socialized medicine, confiscatory taxes). Her challengers for the Dem nomination aren't much better. Therefore, I am going to vote in such a way as to minimize the likelihood that Hillary wins.

In my estimation, RP will not garner more of the vote than Ross Perot did when he ran. Furthermore, I strongly suspect that RP will draw more votes from citizens who would have voted for Hillary's rival (whether it be Thompson, Giuliani, McCain, or Romney) than he will from Hillary. Therefore, I believe that voting for RP will have the effect of increasing the probability that Hillary will be elected and I will not cast a vote for him.

So go ahead and disagree with my reasoning, but please stop arguing that conservatives who don't back RP aren't thinking for themselves. It's tiresome and frankly such a weak argument that it doesn't make RP supporters look very bright.

But just think what would happen if enough people stopped voting against someone and started voting FOR someone.

[wombat13]

Originally Posted by beardman2

But just think what would happen if enough people stopped voting against someone and started voting FOR someone.

I'm not so sure that isn't what we've got now anyway. Nearly half the country agrees with Hillary!

However, I can't even consider a Dem until the party stops:

1. Trying to confiscate/heavily regulate guns. I know there are a few members on this board that claim that Dems don't want to confiscate guns; there are also many people who claim the holocaust never happened. Either way, it's hard to deny reality.
2. Advocating higher taxes on "the wealthy" as the solution to budget problems. My wife and I sacrificed our youth and took out a mountain of debt to get advanced education and make a better life for our family. My wife has eight years of post high-school education and three years of indentured servitude. Since we paid for our own educations, our student loan debt is larger than most people's mortgages. We've been working so hard for the last 15 years that we are in our early 30s and just now able to start a family. We are far from wealthy, but the Dems think we should be paying a lot more in taxes. For Christ's sake we paid more in federal income tax last year than I earned in my best year as a mechanical engineer in the late 1990s; but as far as the Dems are concerned we aren't paying our "fair share." Until the Dems stop this class warfare rhetoric they can go pi** up a rope.

Now I have a number of other problems with the Dems, but these two are the deal breakers. Consequently, my voting strategy is to prevent the Dems from advancing their agenda on these two points.

[XD45inAZ]

Originally Posted by brewguy

I keep hearing a wasted vote or can they really win.

I don't understand where this comes from. The point of the election process is to vote for who you think will best run the country and who you like the best for the job. Why is everyone letting the MSM tell them who to vote for? The only person who should influence your vote is you!

If everyone goes out and votes the person they like then I guess we will really see who is the viable candidate and who is not. Instead everyone listens to the MSM and votes for who they selected.

At what point did we stop being able to think for ourselves?

I think and vote for myself. Unfortunately we were screwed in the last election no matter who we voted for. Bush disappointed me

[brewguy]

Ok I don't fully understand.

If the majority of Republicans elected RP, are you saying Republicans would vote for Hilary over him or that if he runs as an independent he would hurt the results?

Wasn't Ross Perot third party? I don't see how that applies?

From what I can tell RP is the only stand out candidate, if you don't want to support him fine. But if you do support him how is that going to ruin the vote and get Hilary in office?

Originally Posted by wombat13

I'm really getting tired of hearing this. I'm thinking for myself. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I am allowing the MSM to think for me.

I absolutely do not want Hillary to win the presidency. IMO, her anti-gun stances are just the tip of the iceberg. She has expressed views that I believe would be terrible for country (e.g., socialized medicine, confiscatory taxes). Her challengers for the Dem nomination aren't much better. Therefore, I am going to vote in such a way as to minimize the likelihood that Hillary wins.

In my estimation, RP will not garner more of the vote than Ross Perot did when he ran. Furthermore, I strongly suspect that RP will draw more votes from citizens who would have voted for Hillary's rival (whether it be Thompson, Giuliani, McCain, or Romney) than he will from Hillary. Therefore, I believe that voting for RP will have the effect of increasing the probability that Hillary will be elected and I will not cast a vote for him.

So go ahead and disagree with my reasoning, but please stop arguing that conservatives who don't back RP aren't thinking for themselves. It's tiresome and frankly such a weak argument that it doesn't make RP supporters look very bright.

[brewguy]

Originally Posted by XD45inAZ

I think and vote for myself. Unfortunately we were screwed in the last election no matter who we voted for. Bush disappointed me

That is great you should. I still don't see why someone would not vote for the candidate that best represents them.

I admit I might be missing something here so please do explain it to me.

I'm also not saying RP best represents everyone but there are those saying he does but won't vote for him because of msm.

[AZXD]

I agree with the mentality of voting for someone over voting against someone. I also agree that the reference to voting based on what the MSM says is a reference to the 95% of the population and no individual on this forum. The simplistic approach to this is really quite simple, many in this nation are happy to live with blinders on and happily follow the person in front of them.
The MSM understands this and works this to advantage via influential powers.

[Example]
When a group of sheep stand in a field and one or two figure out that when the big truck comes, sheep leave and never return, one or two might realize something bad happens.
Thus when they spread the word among the heard about the big truck, a few listen and attempt to stay away from the truck.
However, within the heard we have truck drivers disguised as sheep. These truck drivers in disguise speak of a wonderful pasture with fresh grass and other enticing incentives, while at the same time calling the one or two who have realized what is going on insignifigant loosers, and propagandizers who offer poor choices.
The truck drivers in disguise do a very effective job at discrediting the knowledgable sheep and thus create sheeple who blindly follow the heard into the truck which heads quickly toward the slaughter house.
[/Example]

Do I think we are lead to the slaughter house? Absolutely not!
But I do believe that many in this country are equivalent to the sheep in the field. Absolutely!
They listen to the MSM (truck drivers in disguise) in a fashion not unlike the sheep in the field. They do not question why if the truck shows up and takes sheep away that, something bad might be happening. They do not question why the field hand always feeds the truck drivers in disguise first. They do not question much of anything. Until it is, sometimes, to late.

So when the MSM discredits a second tier candidate and states he/she cannot win, they are in effect truck drivers in the field.