Who you would/will vote for in the American Presidential Election. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Who you would/will vote for in the American Presidential Election.

Trump
26
38%
Clinton
24
35%
Johnson
2
3%
Stein
4
6%
No one
12
18%
#14720838
With the debates coming up and tension over the different parties supporters soaring, I wanted to know who the good people of this website would/will vote for or whether you would vote at all. Please commenting reasoning.
#14720897
Zionist Nationalist wrote:I was just expressing my opinion


Yes, and I always find it odd that people do that on a debate forum, when they should actually present arguments to support claims.

this party is not gonna change anything since any third party have no chance of ever winning the elections in the US.


You are correct for the foreseeable future, but I would not vote for H. Clinton (as she represents the status quo) and I would not vote for Trump because I am not a bigot or suffering from brain damage or a conservative voting for "the lesser evil".

Voting for the green party still sends a message that ecological issues are important. It may be a drop in the bucket, but doing a little is still better than doing nothing (i.e. Clinton) . And it is definitely better than making things worse (i.e. Trump).
#14720914
VI wrote:Voting third party is the definition of doing nothing. People voting third party are more interested in their precious little conscience than making a decision.


This current political situation in the US disproves that.

The right flank of the Republicans were damned close to going to a third party TEA Party. The GOP, instead, took a rightward turn and absorbed the potential dissidents. The result has been the Republican Party forced to take seriously positions that Ike claimed were "stupid," and dangerous for America, and Bush 41 becoming a Democrat.

So the threat of a third party forced the Republicans to be that party. Let's look what it did to the Democrats:

The Democrats happily moved to the right, as they had been doing, and became a comfortable place for Bushs and Eisenhowers. That is to say, it's become a center-right party.

The left flank for the Democrats, this time, rallied to Bernie and the party had to concede in order to stop its left from going third party. But even then, the left typically simply does not vote when they don't like the platform, which allows the Democrat snakes to move to the right. Or they hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, again allowing a snake to the right.

The structure, then, are TEA Baggers leading a congo-line to fascism and people reluctantly falling in line, "to help."

The only thing that will stop it, constitutionally, will be to apply the legitimate threat of third parties on the left to stop the moderates and social democrats from compromising their way to the right.
#14720925
I would like to point out that a Trump vote is not a protest vote. It is not screw-you vote, unless you are saying 'screw you' to your neighbors (and likely yourself). It fails completely as any kind of accelerationist ploy; yes, you are succeeding in making things marginally worse for most people, but not sufficiently so as to topple the system or bring the revolution any closer.

The tea partiers had it right from a tactical point of view: seize control of the local party apparatus and push your agenda upward. They ultimately failed because of their success - their chosen congressional advocates had (like the movement itself) no coherent agenda. They simply exhausted themselves in contradiction. A pointed lesson.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9

You might want to look up what 'ideation' means[…]

Supposedly Iran sent information on their attack […]

No, just America. And I am not alone . Althoug[…]

This reminds me of a Soviet diplomat who was once[…]