It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: Grambler
And if ron paul were establishment then the establishment wouldnt have purposefully screwed him over.
If Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian the Republican Party couldn't have screwed him over.
originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: DBCowboy
So I assume that you voted for no republicans then.
Strange considering your posts going in to tgbe leection.
Why even bother to ever posyt anything about the dems at all? They are just the same as republicans, so why play the game?
As far as paul, I disagree.
Paul could have acheived real change, he was stymied by establishment republicans.
To not vote for him becuase an r was beside his name and claim that makes him establishment seems counter productive and inaccurate to me.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: DBCowboy
So I assume that you voted for no republicans then.
Strange considering your posts going in to tgbe leection.
Why even bother to ever posyt anything about the dems at all? They are just the same as republicans, so why play the game?
As far as paul, I disagree.
Paul could have acheived real change, he was stymied by establishment republicans.
To not vote for him becuase an r was beside his name and claim that makes him establishment seems counter productive and inaccurate to me.
I voted mostly republican. Voted 1 democrat, voted one Constitutionalist.
Just because I call it a game does not mean I don't play.
originally posted by: Grambler
You dont think the republicans and democrats dont work together to screw over third parties?
To claim to reject ALL republicans or democrats because they are establishment is over simplistic and incorrect.
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: DBCowboy
So I assume that you voted for no republicans then.
Strange considering your posts going in to tgbe leection.
Why even bother to ever posyt anything about the dems at all? They are just the same as republicans, so why play the game?
As far as paul, I disagree.
Paul could have acheived real change, he was stymied by establishment republicans.
To not vote for him becuase an r was beside his name and claim that makes him establishment seems counter productive and inaccurate to me.
I voted mostly republican. Voted 1 democrat, voted one Constitutionalist.
Just because I call it a game does not mean I don't play.
But do you think it is worthless to play that game?
I would think not, though i could be wrong.
The point is your votes for dems or repubs were not worthless as long as you had reasons for voting for those people.
originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: [post=23934879]Gramconstituooalist
I vote for the libertarian candidates and there were 2 green party candidates on the ballot in my state.
NY had Larry Sharpe.
The solution is to vote for the only alternatives until the parties are all reduced in power and size
Republicans and Dems are really just 2 semi right wong globalist parties protecting their own interest
At least the Green party has politicians running on real prpgressive agenda and the libertarians are running on a true constitution Liberal agenda
originally posted by: LSU2018
originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: [post=23934879]Gramconstituooalist
I vote for the libertarian candidates and there were 2 green party candidates on the ballot in my state.
NY had Larry Sharpe.
The solution is to vote for the only alternatives until the parties are all reduced in power and size
Republicans and Dems are really just 2 semi right wong globalist parties protecting their own interest
At least the Green party has politicians running on real prpgressive agenda and the libertarians are running on a true constitution Liberal agenda
Too risky in my opinion. I don't know how popular my opinion is, but why would I take my vote away from Trump, for instance, to put it towards the third party guy and risk Clinton winning?
I can still remember my mom getting pissed off in 1991 (I was 12) and overhearing her telling someone on the phone that Ross Perot was gonna mess up the election and give it to Bill Clinton if he didn't drop out.
Final popular vote:
Clinton - 44,909,806
Bush I - 39,104,550
Perot - 19,743,821
This begged the question, how many of Perot's votes would have gone to Bush I? Clinton? The next election, Perot got 8 million votes which wouldn't have been enough for Dole to win either way, but we haven't had another guy gain enough national attention to run like that since, and it's probably because nobody wants to feel like they're throwing away their vote on a party that can't win, when they have a shot at helping elect the party that DOES have a shot at winning.
originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Grambler
There are some individuals in both parties I would vote for, but the parties as a whole are two sides of the same worthless tin coin.
The RNC and the DNC are only interested in money and power, and really don't give a rip about us beyond giving us enough crumbs to keep coming back for more.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: Grambler
I was interested in discussing why people think voting repub or dem is always worthless...
We already covered that in several other threads; because nothing ever changes.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Grambler
S&F
Is voting for Republicans or democrats worthless? No. At this current time, voting for a third party is worthless because it takes votes away from the other guy and we haven't reached a point where Americans favor a third party candidate enough to vote him in.
Voting is not worthless. People supporting 3rd parties 8s the only way to bring the message out since there is no super packs.
Voting is personal and only not voting is detrimental in the sense that it allows extremism a larger voice. If all the normal people dont vote because they are normal and dont want to join a political tribe, only extreme views will be voting.
If a third party gets a tough votes to swing an election future candidates will look at how they can sway those voters with some of the ideas presented...
A lot of rural Republican areas have significant libertarian philosophy in the population. Even vermont or new Mexico blue states do.
That helps drive policy believe it or not.
originally posted by: Grambler
I assumed despite that your participation on this thread meant you weren’t opposed to discussion
.
originally posted by: KansasGirl
Your question can be answered with a question: has anything changed, concerning those in power, in the past, say 60 years?
Not really, unless you note that what has changed is that we have had more and more rights and privledges quietly taken from us and have fallen for more and more manipulation of us.
I think the answer is yes, it's pointless, and until we stop voting in the same people (individuals controlled by big money/special interest groups), can even be argued that it's harmful.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: Grambler
I assumed despite that your participation on this thread meant you weren’t opposed to discussion
.
I'm not opposed to discussion, but I am not going to be swayed from my opinion the matter. This isn't something that came to me yesterday, it's from participating in the process at many levels, seeing how they function on a granular level and being disgusted that both sides pay lip service and have basically a track record of doing nothing and in many cases the exact opposite of what they promised.