The Jill Stein Campaign Thread

Discussion in 'Elections' started by ratdog, Aug 29, 2012.

  1. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Voting for someone you like less than other options out of fear is a wonderful strategy.
     
  2. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And that fine with me, I would love if Johnson got 2-3% of the vote and Jill got the same. fuck the Democratic and Republican parties.
     
    Q*bert Jones III repped this.
  3. That Phat Hat

    That Phat Hat Member+

    Nov 14, 2002
    Just Barely Outside the Beltway
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Japan
    I think the GOP will argue whatever it wants to regardless of numbers.

    More pertinent though, is the impracticality of voting for someone you agree with, but likely is unable to implement any of the things you agree on. The President is powerless without support in Congress.
     
    Auriaprottu repped this.
  4. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yup (as will the Democrats should the numbers not favor them). It's what teams do.

    Well, I suppose you could vote for someone you don't agree with, and then they can win and get support from Congress to implement, well, things you don't agree with. Not sure why you should do that though.

    I mean, let's say the pundits were saying that Republicans would control both the House and the Senate in the 2012 elections. Should people use that as their reason to vote for Romney over Obama if they agree with the latter? That would be silly.
     
  5. That Phat Hat

    That Phat Hat Member+

    Nov 14, 2002
    Just Barely Outside the Beltway
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Japan
    It's silly because you're presenting a false dilemma.

    Even if GOP has control of both houses, Obama has enough representation in both houses so that he has something to build coalitions on. On the other hand, the Greens don't have a member on any key committee, nor do they have a whip, and I don't think their foreign policy talent pool is exactly deep.
     
    Auriaprottu repped this.
  6. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Doesn't mean that they couldn't get something done on their top issues. Winning an election sends a signal after all.
     
  7. Auriaprottu

    Auriaprottu Member+

    Atlanta Damn United
    Apr 1, 2002
    The back of the bus
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--
    MasterShake29 because it's been a while since I posted here and you probably won't see my response otherwise

    In my case, it is indeed.

    I sided with Stein only 2% more than with Obama (92% to 90%), and I suspect that weed was what pushed Stein ahead.

    https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...-the-issues-quiz.1948128/page-4#post-26412370

    I side with Rmoney at 2%, but he's the other big dog in the race.

    The next highest percenage of agreement is 66%. That was Rocky Anderson- another candidate with no chance.

    So it's
    A slim to no chance at 92% that may result in being left with only 2% at some future point
    or
    An incumbent at 90%.

    What to do, what to do, what to do... :rolleyes:

    Would I rather vote for a viable candidate (an incumbent, no less) I agree with 90% of the time over a much less viable one that I agree with 92% of the time to prevent one that I agree with only 2% of the time from winning? You bet your ass I would. There are no moral victories, Shake- the world is about compromise.
     
    GiuseppeSignori and bigredfutbol repped this.
  8. Q*bert Jones III

    Q*bert Jones III The People's Poet

    Feb 12, 2005
    Woodstock, NY
    Club:
    DC United
    I'm not sure how things work in Alabama, but in most states future ballot access is based on present ballots cast. For example, in New York a third party needs to get 50,000 votes to guarantee ballot access for the next several years. So, if you live in a place where the results are not in doubt, a vote for a third party is really the best way to insure that you're vote isn't wasted.
     
  9. Auriaprottu

    Auriaprottu Member+

    Atlanta Damn United
    Apr 1, 2002
    The back of the bus
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--
    Not sure about Alabama myself wrt ballot access, but yeah, my national election vote's wasted here for sure.

    But this goes back to what I said earlier. Show me the rotting corpse of the GOP and mayyyybe it's all good. But you gotta show me the corpse first. Even then, I'd pretty much have to be assured that no one --no one-- would emerge to serve the interests of the White right wing Christian bloc before I could agree to do anything that would harm the only party big enough to keep them in check.
     
  10. Caesar

    Caesar Moderator
    Staff Member

    Mar 3, 2004
    Oztraya
     
    Funkfoot and ceezmad repped this.
  11. Mr. Bandwagon

    Mr. Bandwagon Member

    Terremotos
    May 24, 2001
    the Barbary Coast
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  12. White/Blue_since1860

    Orange14 is gay
    Jan 4, 2007
    Bum zua City
    Club:
    TSV 1860 München
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    Hey guys, could it be "your Greens" did steel this "Green new deal" slogan from our Greens?

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG][​IMG]
     
  13. Caesar

    Caesar Moderator
    Staff Member

    Mar 3, 2004
    Oztraya
    No. The "Green New Deal" is a global Green movement. Greens parties in many countries have adopted it, it's not specifically associated with any of them:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal

    Linking their economic policies with one of the greatest Keynesian cons ever perpetrated is fine unintentional comedy though.
     
  14. The Gribbler

    The Gribbler Member

    Jul 14, 1999
    Cedar Hill, Texas
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    Of all the arguments those wackos use, you're worried that this one might carry some sort of weight? I highly doubt it. They're really busy scaring people to the polls with god, gays, and guns and now socialism, so I dunno if Greens siphoning off a point or two really matters in a runaway race.

    That being said, I voted for Obama but some Greens for statewide office. Its not as if it'll be close with any statewide race in Texas right now.
     
    Q*bert Jones III repped this.
  15. Funkfoot

    Funkfoot Member+

    May 18, 2002
    New Orleans, LA
    I might vote for Stein if I didn't live in a swing state.
     
  16. Caesar

    Caesar Moderator
    Staff Member

    Mar 3, 2004
    Oztraya
    Behold the idiocy of FPP. It's only worth voting for a third party candidate if your vote is worthless anyway.
     
  17. Transparent_Human

    Oct 15, 2006
    Pale blue dot
    Club:
    Celtic FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Mauritius
    I never got my absentee ballot. (thanks Sandy/campus mail service!)

    Well +1 for Jill Stein in Massachusetts.
     
    Q*bert Jones III repped this.
  18. Funkfoot

    Funkfoot Member+

    May 18, 2002
    New Orleans, LA
    Not sure what FPP is. When this is over and we are dissecting the results, it would be interesting to see if 3rd party candidates got a greater percentage of the votes in states that were predicted to be a landslide for one of the two greater evils than in swing states where the vote was expected to be close. It's kind of a test between idealism and pragmatism. That internet quiz thing said Stein was the candidate I agree with most, but the danger of Romney getting elected is too great for me to ignore.
     
  19. Q*bert Jones III

    Q*bert Jones III The People's Poet

    Feb 12, 2005
    Woodstock, NY
    Club:
    DC United
    As a dyed in the wool Green Party USA activist, I have no problem with voters in very close states voting Democrat, just because the Right is so ridonkulously backward. It's not worth my headache to explain why my party didn't cost your party an election.

    With any luck, the Republicants split into two after this election and we finally get the multiparty democracy that everybody knows, deep down, is needed to save this country.
     
    Mr. Bandwagon repped this.
  20. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well to be fair, the Libertarian Party gets more votes than the Green Party (except the Nader year). So the Republicans also lose a segment of their votes to that 3rd Party.

    I do wonder if they feel the same, Ohio Libertarians are more likely to vote Republican because is close and Texas Libertarians more likely to vote their Party because it is a safe Republican state.

    I am in Illinois, so it is easy for me to vote Green (when the Democrats allow them to be in the ballot), I am not sure if I would do the same if I were in a swing state, so I guess I can/should not criticize people that do not vote for the Party they would like to.

    2008
    Green .12%
    Libertarian .40%

    2004 Green .10%
    Libertarian .38%

    2000
    Green (Nader) 2.74%
    Libertarian .36%
     
  21. JohnR

    JohnR Member+

    Jun 23, 2000
    Chicago, IL
    Am imaging a world wherein George W Bush never became President. That thought will forever keep me from voting for a 3rd party.
     
  22. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Republicans probably feel the same about Perot and Clinton, so yes FPP hurts 3rd Parties for sure.
     
  23. Caesar

    Caesar Moderator
    Staff Member

    Mar 3, 2004
    Oztraya
    FPP = First Past The Post.

    I can't believe that the birthplace of democracy still uses such an outdated system.
     
  24. tomwilhelm

    tomwilhelm Member+

    Dec 14, 2005
    Boston, MA, USA
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    True, but Clinton was a good president and Bush was one of the worst ever. I know some in the GOP won't see it that way, but it does actually matter in the long run. At least to moderate conservatives.
     
  25. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You need some History lessons on our Presidents, we had some really bad ones, Bush 2 may not even make the bottom 10. (Well maybe between 5 and 10).
     

Share This Page