The 2018 US Mid-Term Elections Thread

[Danoff]

It was directed at @Joey D who said he voted libertarian in most elections. The libertarian party isnt large enough to get a foothold in politics. In my logic a vote for one of the 2 larger parties would have more impact then your single vote for a party that barely can get 1%. It would be much better if it werent that way and it definately should not deter someone from voting what he/she wants. It is just a fact of the current reality.

When you demonstrate that there is nothing your party can't do to lose your vote, your vote truly does not matter. Casting a vote for one party or the other every time, never switching, sends the signal that your vote is guaranteed, and you will not have any influence in the party's behavior at that point.

Voting third party sends a much stronger signal. You're indicating exactly what any party needs to do or say to bring your vote into the fold. Your views are clear, and your vote must be won. If anything, your vote is "lost in obscurity" when you vote for one of the major parties.

Pen Jillette said it best in a big rant about casting votes outside the system. He says it a little in the video below, but I'm sad that I can't find the right video. Someone posted it on GTPlanet years back, maybe that person is reading this and can find it.

 

[PocketZeven]

If everyone thought like that there would be no Abraham Lincoln. The Republican Party was only formed 5 or 6 years before Lincoln was elected and it went on to dominate the presidency for 6 or 7 decades.

What does Lincoln have to do with it? I am specifically referencing the current climate in us elections.

I am from the Netherlands and every single party that receives enough votes gets a seat in the cabinet. there are currently about 13 parties in our "senate". The "biggest party" in our senate currently only has 22% of the seats. And needs to work with other parties to gain a 51% (76 of 150 seats) to form a majority government. The current majority has 4 parties. The biggest pro is that parties must compromise to eachother to form a majority, but that means automatically the biggest con is ofcourse the concessions that parties have to make to compromise. But in my opinion this system much better represents the people then a 2 party systems that the us essentially currently has. So in our system every little vote does have more impact. And it is less likely one has to vote between 2 or more evils.


edit: corrected spelling

 

[Johnnypenso]

What does Lincoln have to do with it? I am specifically referencing the current climate in us elections.

I am from the Netherlands and every single party that receives enough votes gets a seat in the cabinet. there are currently about 13 parties in our "senate". The "biggest party" in our senate currently only has 22% of the seats. And needs to work with other parties to gain a 51% (76 of 150 seats) to form a majority government. The current majority has 4 parties. The biggest pro is that parties must compromise to eachother to form a majority, but that means automatically the biggest con is ofcourse the concessions that parties have to make to compromise. But in my opinion this system much better represents the people then a 2 party systems that the us essentially currently has. So in our system every little vote does have more impact. And it is less likely one has to vote between 2 or more evils.


edit: corrected spelling

I forgot that anything that hasn't happened in the last 24 hours is now irrelevant. My bad.

 

[PocketZeven]

I forgot that anything that hasn't happened in the last 24 hours is now irrelevant. My bad.

Instead of enlighting me with your conservative point of view. You chose to be a troll.

 

[Biggles]

I'd say that is to each individual to determine. It's ultimately about what they want to "say". Do they want to say that they will vote for someone like Hillary to prevent someone like trump from taking office? Or do they want to say that they will not vote for someone like Hillary after what happened to Bernie? They have to decide what signal to send and then send it. Too often I feel as though people forget that they have the choice to send this signal, and that's what I'm really getting at. It's not a wasted vote when casting it for Bernie, it tells the DNC something very important. Maybe the individual decides that it's not a statement worth making, but I want them to at least think about the statement. How far did you stray from your beliefs to try to manipulate a bad system? (rhetorical question in case there was any doubt)

Voting for Bernie in the primaries sent a signal to the DNC, but voting for Trump, or more likely, not voting at all in the GE helped elect Trump - that's undeniable. Another example would be Democrats who voted for Nader in the 2000 election.

Syndicated columnist Marianne Means said of Nader's 2000 candidacy:

His candidacy was based on the self-serving argument that it would make no difference whether Gore or George W. Bush were elected. This was insane. Nobody, for instance, can imagine Gore picking as the nation's chief law enforcement officer a man of [John] Ashcroft's anti-civil rights, antitrust, anti-abortion and anti-gay record. Or picking Bush's first choice to head the Labor Department, Linda Chavez, who opposes the minimum wage and affirmative action.

Sierra Club president Carl Pope sent an open letter to Nader, dated October 27, 2000, defending Al Gore's environmental record and calling Nader's strategy "irresponsible." He wrote:

You have also broken your word to your followers who signed the petitions that got you on the ballot in many states. You pledged you would not campaign as a spoiler and would avoid the swing states. Your recent campaign rhetoric and campaign schedule make it clear that you have broken this pledge... Please accept that I, and the overwhelming majority of the environmental movement in this country, genuinely believe that your strategy is flawed, dangerous and reckless.

The argument is not entirely straightforward but, I would say there's a strong argument that a loss of Democratic votes to Nader caused Gore to lose the election to Bush ... which led to 8 years of Republican rule & the Iraq war.

In the US you're stuck with a duolithic system which is extremely unfriendly to fringe views, partly a function of the sheer size of the country. I trust you to keep soldiering on though Danoff ... 👍

 

[McLaren]

It was directed at @Joey D who said he voted libertarian in most elections. The libertarian party isnt large enough to get a foothold in politics. In my logic a vote for one of the 2 larger parties would have more impact then your single vote for a party that barely can get 1%. It would be much better if it werent that way and it definately should not deter someone from voting what he/she wants. It is just a fact of the current reality.

Restraining yourself to just either Dem or Rep can lead to folks ending up voting on the “lesser of evils”.

That’s how we got Trump.... My vote going to a third party at least meant neither he or Clinton could use my vote towards their success. My vote narrowed the gap for either and my candidate that much more.

 

[PocketZeven]

Restraining yourself to just either Dem or Rep can lead to folks ending up voting on the “lesser of evils”.

That’s how we got Trump.... My vote going to a third party at least meant neither he or Clinton could use my vote towards their success. My vote narrowed the gap for either and my candidate that much more.

I understand that mindset, however you still end up with one of 2 evils. That was the point of my comment. But for the long term I really hope that at least the libertarian party can change up the 2 party system in the future and hopefully other people will follow suit and create their own political parties.

I really hoped that with this election the republican could turn away from Trump a little to move away from the trump party. Instead the ones who didnt want backing of Trump got ousted. This in my view is the real loss of this election. Trump consolidating his grip on the republican party and shifting towards the party of Trump.

 

[huskeR32]

Glad to get the dub down here in Texas and get Cruz instead of Beta Francis.

 

[McLaren]

I understand that mindset, however you still end up with one of 2 evils.

Uh, which is exactly why people shouldn’t stick to one or the other. I gave another party 1 more vote towards having a higher impact and kept the other 2 from strengthing their grip. Whether or not my candidate obviously will lose doesn’t matter to me.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Instead of enlighting me with your conservative point of view. You chose to be a troll.

I've tried, numerous times, numerous, numerous times, and it's always met with a wall of dismissal. My impression is that if something isn't identical, it's dismissed as irrelevant. And let's not paint me into a neat little conservative box shall we?

 

[PocketZeven]

I've tried, numerous times, numerous, numerous times, and it's always met with a wall of dismissal. My impression is that if something isn't identical, it's dismissed as irrelevant. And let's not paint me into a neat little conservative box shall we?

You are the person who likes to compare apples with pears. It seems you prefer to counter my point or opinion with something of the opposition doing something vaguely similar instead of actually telling your own point of view or opinion.

but isnt it already obvious you are pro-Trump? I am neither pro democrat or republican, I am just in disbelief how a potus can lie so much and get away with it. I personally admired McCain and even Bush.

Uh, which is exactly why people shouldn’t stick to one or the other. I gave another party 1 more vote towards having a higher impact and kept the other 2 from strengthing their grip. Whether or not my candidate obviously will lose doesn’t matter to me.

I respect that choice fully. But out of curiosity if there were no other options, would you have voted Trump or Clinton? And which one would you have voted with hindsight? And which candidate in the primaries was you favorate?

 

[Jezza819]

I understand that mindset, however you still end up with one of 2 evils. That was the point of my comment. But for the long term I really hope that at least the libertarian party can change up the 2 party system in the future and hopefully other people will follow suit and create their own political parties.

I really hoped that with this election the republican could turn away from Trump a little to move away from the trump party. Instead the ones who didnt want backing of Trump got ousted. This in my view is the real loss of this election. Trump consolidating his grip on the republican party and shifting towards the party of Trump.

You could almost make the case now that the Republican Party could be subdivided into "TR" which would be those that have bought in or have been bought into agreeing with Trump 100% of the time regardless of how outlandish and absurd it is. Then you've got "RR" which could be Regular Republicans or maybe Rational Republicans that still have a mind of their own and try to survive through the bull crap.

 

[Danoff]

Voting for Bernie in the primaries sent a signal to the DNC, but voting for Trump, or more likely, not voting at all in the GE helped elect Trump - that's undeniable. Another example would be Democrats who voted for Nader in the 2000 election.

Syndicated columnist Marianne Means said of Nader's 2000 candidacy:

His candidacy was based on the self-serving argument that it would make no difference whether Gore or George W. Bush were elected. This was insane. Nobody, for instance, can imagine Gore picking as the nation's chief law enforcement officer a man of [John] Ashcroft's anti-civil rights, antitrust, anti-abortion and anti-gay record. Or picking Bush's first choice to head the Labor Department, Linda Chavez, who opposes the minimum wage and affirmative action.

Sierra Club president Carl Pope sent an open letter to Nader, dated October 27, 2000, defending Al Gore's environmental record and calling Nader's strategy "irresponsible." He wrote:

You have also broken your word to your followers who signed the petitions that got you on the ballot in many states. You pledged you would not campaign as a spoiler and would avoid the swing states. Your recent campaign rhetoric and campaign schedule make it clear that you have broken this pledge... Please accept that I, and the overwhelming majority of the environmental movement in this country, genuinely believe that your strategy is flawed, dangerous and reckless.

The argument is not entirely straightforward but, I would say there's a strong argument that a loss of Democratic votes to Nader caused Gore to lose the election to Bush ... which led to 8 years of Republican rule & the Iraq war.

In the US you're stuck with a duolithic system which is extremely unfriendly to fringe views, partly a function of the sheer size of the country. I trust you to keep soldiering on though Danoff ... 👍

If you see a big difference between Bush and Gore, and one of them represents you far better than the other, then by all means vote for that one. If you don't see so much of a difference (and I don't, still), then trying to manipulate the margins is the destruction of your voice.

 

[PocketZeven]

You could almost make the case now that the Republican Party could be subdivided into "TR" which would be those that have bought in or have been bought into agreeing with Trump 100% of the time regardless of how outlandish and absurd it is. Then you've got "RR" which could be Regular Republicans or maybe Rational Republicans that still have a mind of their own and try to survive through the bull crap.

Thats what happened in one of the large (moderate) rightwing parties (which I support) in our crountry. One of the members of the party started to preach anti-islam hatespeachand eventually was ousted from the party, only to form his own party. In the past year he actually got 19 seats out of 150 in the dutch senate. The rightwing party (33) did everything to form a coalition without him to form a majority.

I am really curious how many pro-trump politicians there are actually in the republican party and how many are reluctantly pro-trump? Although they will never do it out of fear of losing a majority vs the democrats, it would be the right moment to form a seperate moderate party to distance themselves from Trump. It might be even possible to get some moderate democrats to join. I saw some polls a few weeks ago that independants actually form about 30-40%, democrats around 30% and republicans about 25-30% of voters. That should means there is majority that is perhaps moderate or perhaps more extreme then both parties.

 

[Biggles]

I really hoped that with this election the republican could turn away from Trump a little to move away from the trump party. Instead the ones who didnt want backing of Trump got ousted. This in my view is the real loss of this election. Trump consolidating his grip on the republican party and shifting towards the party of Trump.

This is really the most important take-away from the mid-terms IMO. The GOP is now totally, unquestionably the party of Trump. Although the Democrats took back the House & received, nationwide, far more votes than Republicans, it was hardly a "blue wave". Republican moderates, at least men, have consolidated their support behind Trump & it appears they are now more enthusiastic than previously. There's no turning back &, I think, no prospect of any viable challenge from within the GOP to Trump leading up to 2020.

I've been forced to reassess my view of Trump - I once described him as an "idiot-savant" - now I'm starting to see the savant part more clearly. His success in absorbing the Republican party & re-setting American politics is impressive & disturbing.

 

[TexRex]

Well that is what those of a certain persuasion like to call him, right?

Sure, they could instead employ other popular pejoratives among that group such as the one that suggests the target of their denigration consumes a substantial enough quantity of soy products that their body's testosterone production has been adversely affected, or better yet, the one that suggests the target of their denigration participates in the fetishistic sexual convention of letting a presumably more sexually capable man--typically one with a naturally dark complexion indicating their line having only relatively recently travelled from the African continent and who happens to be endowed with something not entirely unlike a telephone pole--plow their female partner into oblivion, but neither of those present as a clever play on their target's given name.

Though, I actually have seen the latter employed in addition to the one originally utilized here, and in such a manner that it does indeed fit with the target's surname (which is to say that "O'" was placed before the abbreviated form of said pejorative).

 

[Johnnypenso]

You are the person who likes to compare apples with pears. It seems you prefer to counter my point or opinion with something of the opposition doing something vaguely similar instead of actually telling your own point of view or opinion.

Seems like you're complaining about me pointing out weaknesses in your arguments.

but isnt it already obvious you are pro-Trump? I am neither pro democrat or republican, I am just in disbelief how a potus can lie so much and get away with it. I personally admired McCain and even Bush.

It's hard to be objective about someone if you think you have them painted into a nice, neat little box. Sounds like a real, avid Trump supporter.

When it comes to Trump I defend those positions which are similar to mine. That doesn't mean I like him personally or that I agree with everything he does.

I don't think anyone here is under the illusion that Trump isn't massively flawed as a human being and as a leader. That doesn't make him Adolph Hitler reincarnated.

I don't support Trump as a human being, he's overall rather despicable in that department, but I am in favour of tax cuts, better, freer trade deals, eliminating bad and punitive tax policy on corporations, strong borders, low unemployment, high GDP growth, exploding stock markets, reigning in the North Koreans, sanctioning Iran into revolution, coercing Europe into more financial support for their collective defense etc. I don't pay much attention to the rhetoric on any side of the political aisle other than for comic relief.

 

[PocketZeven]

This is really the most important take-away from the mid-terms IMO. The GOP is now totally, unquestionably the party of Trump. Although the Democrats took back the House & received, nationwide, far more votes than Republicans, it was hardly a "blue wave". Republican moderates, at least men, have consolidated their support behind Trump & it appears they are now more enthusiastic than previously. There's no turning back &, I think, no prospect of any viable challenge from within the GOP to Trump leading up to 2020.

I've been forced to reassess my view of Trump - I once described him as an "idiot-savant" - now I'm starting to see the savant part more clearly. His success in absorbing the Republican party & re-setting American politics is impressive & disturbing.

My pov is that too many americans believe in the myth that he is some ubersuccesful businessman. But he actually was mostly a genius in dubious marketing himself that way. If you study his career he has failed miserably on multiple occasions, only to be saved by his TV persona that led to the apprentice. The only reason he is still rich is his dubious dealings and overselling his worth and scamming people around him. Just study his case in atlantic city. He managed to keep his wealth while numerous companies and junk bondholders went down.

Seems like you're complaining about me pointing out weaknesses in your arguments.

It's hard to be objective about someone if you think you have them painted into a nice, neat little box. Sounds like a real, avid Trump supporter.

Perhaps, but essentially your always counter with an even weaker and sometimes unrelevant argument, instead of giving your own opinion, that most others in this thread do.


So is that a yes or no? Still no answer?

Edit: finished sentence.

 

[McLaren]

I respect that choice fully. But out of curiosity if there were no other options, would you have voted Trump or Clinton? And which one would you have voted with hindsight? And which candidate in the primaries was you favorate?

I would have done what half of America’s voters did; not vote at all.

I prefer Trump over Hillary, but voting for one only to spite the other is again, how we got Trump. I have no intention of using my vote in such a way; that’s not what the right to vote should be used for.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Perhaps, but essentially your always counter with an even weaker and sometimes unrelevant argument, instead of giving your own opinion, that most others in this thread do.


So is that a yes or no? Still no answer?

Opinions are overrated. For example, I gave you three above on Trump and you completely ignored them. I prefer statistics and logic.

 

[Danoff]

I would have done what half of America’s voters did; not vote at all.

I prefer Trump over Hillary, but voting for one only to spite the other is again, how we got Trump. I have no intention of using my vote in such a way; that’s not what the right to vote should be used for.

I concur. Abstaining is still better than voting for someone you don't support.

 

[DK]

What do you expect from a pig but a grunt?

 

[TTM]

Well that is what those of a certain persuasion like to call him, right?

Sure, they could instead employ other popular pejoratives among that group such as the one that suggests the target of their denigration consumes a substantial enough quantity of soy products that their body's testosterone production has been adversely affected, or better yet, the one that suggests the target of their denigration participates in the fetishistic sexual convention of letting a presumably more sexually capable man--typically one with a naturally dark complexion indicating their line having only relatively recently travelled from the African continent and who happens to be endowed with something not entirely unlike a telephone pole--plow their female partner into oblivion, but neither of those present as a clever play on their target's given name.

Though, I actually have seen the latter employed in addition to the one originally utilized here, and in such a manner that it does indeed fit with the target's surname (which is to say that "O'" was placed before the abbreviated form of said pejorative).

I didn’t say anything about black people, but ok.
Entertaining read though.

 

[Biggles]

I concur. Abstaining is still better than voting for someone you don't support.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ar...-potential-spoiler-for-sinema-in-ironic-twist

You're a stubborn guy.

Let's say it's 2020. Trump has just launched a pre-emptive attack on Iran. He's appointed two more Supreme Court justices who are set to repeal Roe vs Wade & protections for gay marriage. He's attempting to have Jim Acosta & other members of the Fake News arrested. He's building a wall on the border with Mexico, rounding up millions of undocumented workers & enacting aggressive protectionist trade barriers. You can vote for the Libertarian candidate, whose platform you agree with 95% ... or you can vote Democrat to actually get rid of Trump?

 

[TexRex]

I didn’t say anything anout black people, but ok.
Entertaining read though.

I didn't say you did. What I said was that you could have employed a couple of other pejoratives popular among those who use the one you did, one of which typically implements black people as part of the convention being suggested, but opted not to, perhaps because the one you chose to employ so neatly plays off of the individual's given name.

Edit:

You're a stubborn guy.

I mean...to be fair; pot, kettle.

 

[TTM]

I didn't say you did. What I said was that you could have employed a couple of other pejoratives popular among those who use the one you did, one of which typically implements black people as part of the convention being suggested, but opted not to, perhaps because the one you chose to employ so neatly plays off of the individual's given name.

Don’t be coy now
So, why bring it up then?
That’s kinda racist. Passively Aggresive racist sounding to me.

 

[Danoff]

Let's say it's 2020. Trump has just launched a pre-emptive attack on Iran. He's appointed two more Supreme Court justices who are set to repeal Roe vs Wade & protections for gay marriage. He's attempting to have Jim Acosta & other members of the Fake News arrested. He's building a wall on the border with Mexico, rounding up millions of undocumented workers & enacting aggressive protectionist trade barriers. You can vote for the Libertarian candidate, whose platform you agree with 95% ... or you can vote Democrat to actually get rid of Trump?

Kinda depends on what the Democrat wants to do...

 

[TexRex]

Don’t be coy now
So, why bring it up then?
That’s kinda racist. Passively Aggresive racist sounding to me.

I'm not being coy; my cards are on the table and you've already referred to them, though you've done so in a manner that demonstrates your misreading of them.

It's also worth noting that the pejorative to which I've referred isn't by any means of my own creation, and I've only recently come to know the circumstances that surround its conception and rise to common use thanks to an article I read because I was interested in how it came to be so popular.

Link. (*appropriate warnings applicable*)

Mind you the article uses the word repeatedly (even in the address), and I'd rather not be in violation of this site's code of conduct should use of the word itself be inappropriate even though it's not one of the more traditional profanities. This is why I've opted to describe its use in the most clinical manner I can muster rather than use it in its shortened form or even in its traditional configuration.

Should you choose to read the article, you'll likely find that racism was pivotal in its conception as a pejorative, though I presently find myself of the belief that you are already abundantly aware, and I have the nagging suspicion that your use of the pejorative you chose is indicative of a propensity to use the ones to which I've already referred. In that event, that you didn't use it here suggests you're privy to the aforementioned code of conduct and didn't want to be found in violation of it.

 

[TTM]

I'm not being coy; my cards are on the table and you've already referred to them, though you've done so in a manner that demonstrates your misreading of them.

It's also worth noting that the pejorative to which I've referred isn't by any means of my own creation, and I've only recently come to know the circumstances that surround its conception and rise to common use thanks to an article I read because I was interested in how it came to be so popular.

Link. (*appropriate warnings applicable*)

Mind you the article uses the word repeatedly (even in the address), and I'd rather not be in violation of this site's code of conduct should use of the word itself be inappropriate even though it's not one of the more traditional profanities. This is why I've opted to describe its use in the most clinical manner I can muster rather than use it in its shortened form or even in its traditional configuration.

Should you choose to read the article, you'll likely find that racism was pivotal in its conception as a pejorative, though I presently find myself of the belief that you are already abundantly aware, and I have the nagging suspicion that your use of the pejorative you chose is indicative of a propensity to use the ones to which I've already referred. In that event, that you didn't use it here suggests you're privy to the aforementioned code of conduct and didn't want to be found in violation of it.

Why you have to bring up their race though? You don’t have to appropiate every single, minute detail.
You sound like a racist to me. You are a racist. Just a passive-aggresive one

 

[TexRex]

Why you have to bring up their race though? You don’t have to appropiate every single, minute detail.

It's key in the use of the pejorative. I didn't have to be hyper-clinical in my description of the alternate pejorative, which itself isn't likely inappropriate with regards to the aforementioned code of conduct, but I did so because it's key in the use of the pejorative.

Note: I've reported the quoted post because the language I omitted in quoting it constitutes a personal attack.