2012 Presidential Election

dadudemon

Originally posted by Oliver North
http://americanextremists.thecomicseries.com/images/comics/57/ad53a009c8d79ef5cbdc76cfc641874c351768157.png

Hey, I tried to convince others of many of Ron Paul's ideas. smile

My political reach is just not that great. I need more power...and influence.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Gary Johnson definitely. Jill Stein is also up there but not so much.

I'm not down with spreading out our broke country via our foreign policy such as the soviets did. I don't support assassinating American citizens either. Not a big fan of indefinite detention. Not a big fan of the federal reserve. Not a big fan of crony capitalism and corporate/bank welfare. Also, **** the drug war.

Not a big fan of choosing between a douche and a turd sandwich so I'll just choose freedom and the constitution.

Goldman sachs or Freedom. Hmmm. Tough choice.

Nicely said.

red g jacks

Originally posted by Oliver North
http://americanextremists.thecomicseries.com/images/comics/57/ad53a009c8d79ef5cbdc76cfc641874c351768157.png that's even more convincing than the first one you posted. i guess the green party has a chance at winning now.

red g jacks

i like how the phrase "doing the right thing" is used, as if the choice were that cut and dry.

on the one hand i can be more or less certain that if i vote for ralph nader he will lose the election and the republicans will be one vote closer to winning.

on the other hand if i vote for obama his policies might not completely fit my point of view but at least i've got decent odds, and i definitely prefer him to romney.

i don't think the nader vote is so clearly the 'right' move.

Oliver North

Originally posted by red g jacks
i like how the phrase "doing the right thing" is used, as if the choice were that cut and dry.

on the one hand i can be more or less certain that if i vote for ralph nader he will lose the election and the republicans will be one vote closer to winning.

on the other hand if i vote for obama his policies might not completely fit my point of view but at least i've got decent odds, and i definitely prefer him to romney.

i don't think the nader vote is so clearly the 'right' move.

I understand the calculus, the point is that this type of behaviour empowers the very individuals you disagree with and is essentially counter-democratic. Major parties deliberately feed on the fears their base has of the "other party", if you vote by that fear, you entrench the tactics.

Romney might be the least unattractive choice to you, but you are still capitulating to the fear of a Republican president that prevents the people you would want to vote for from ever being a major contender.

Try this: In what situation, if not an election where you disagree with both major candidates, would you vote for Nader? There will never be a time when the Democrats wont try to scare you about how bad the Republicans are, so when would your calculus ever allow you to vote your conscience rather than some cynical "pragmatism"? If you treat democracy like a team sport, how will you ever actually cast a vote you believe in?

red g jacks

i understand the scare tactics as well, but i'm mostly voting from a point of view of what i think is in my best interest. it's not pure fear mongering. there's a noticeable difference between the two parties, as far as i'm concerned.

as to your question, i would vote for nader or some other third party candidate i liked if i saw they had any serious momentum. even if it wasn't enough to win, if i thought it could be built upon and possibly turned into something viable at some point in the future, then i'd want to spur that momentum on. but i don't see that in anyone, and i don't personally have the means/time/know-how to try and create that kind of momentum for the obscure candidates i might take a shining to.

so i weigh the options i'm presented. i don't honestly think a candidate has ever existed, 3rd party or otherwise, who i've agreed with 100% of the time, or who i thought would make an absolutely perfect leader. so there's always some measure of compromise involved. i'd just like to actually get something out of my compromise.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by Oliver North
I understand the calculus, the point is that this type of behaviour empowers the very individuals you disagree with and is essentially counter-democratic.

But if everyone voted for the person who best matched their beliefs we'd all just vote for ourselves every time, all candidates represent a compromise. Democracy is built on that kind of calculus.

Darth Jello

red g jacks

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Well would you rather vote for what you want and not get it or would you rather vote for what you don't want and get it?the wording of your question is everything. it's not a choice between 'want' and 'don't want,' it's a choice between 'want' and 'want more.' i want obama to win, because i know that it's either him or romney. i'd rather have someone further to the left but that doesn't seem a viable option.

as an imperfect analogy: say you have 5 dollars which have to be spent gambling. 5 dollars is enough for 1 lotto ticket, or enough for 1 game of blackjack. the jackpot for the lotto is obviously much better. but the odds are such that you might as well throw your money into the nearest sewer.
why assume that your interpretation of the candidates = my interpretation?

Oliver North

Originally posted by red g jacks
as to your question, i would vote for nader or some other third party candidate i liked if i saw they had any serious momentum. even if it wasn't enough to win, if i thought it could be built upon and possibly turned into something viable at some point in the future, then i'd want to spur that momentum on. but i don't see that in anyone, and i don't personally have the means/time/know-how to try and create that kind of momentum for the obscure candidates i might take a shining to.

so you wont vote for and give momentum to a person you'd want to win because nobody has voted for them to give them the momentum they need to be viable.

This is conceptually what is known as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

or, maybe...

http://deadhomersociety.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/trashofthetitans5.png

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But if everyone voted for the person who best matched their beliefs we'd all just vote for ourselves every time

If you extend a small part of the logic I was using to a ludicrous point, sure.

Though, I'm fairly confident there is a wealth of ideological space between "vote against the person you don't like most" and "only vote for yourself".

red g jacks

it takes more than me or a handful of other people deciding to vote for a 3rd party candidate to gain the sort of momentum i'm talking about. so if you're talking about the work necessary to mount a serious political campaign capable of both reaching many and speaking to many, then yes, somebody else will have to do it.

Oliver North

you should put that on a bumper sticker

red g jacks

in all all seriousness though i would have probably agreed with you only a year ago. i used to spend a fair amount of time thinking about if there was a way for any 3rd party to tap into the general cynicism and disillusion that defines how many americans think about the 2 party system.

but it seems to me there's no forseeable unity among the disenfranchised, no one single message that speaks to most of them other than a dissatisfaction with the current system. each 3rd party has their series of pet interests, and i don't think there's one overarching message that most of them can unite under as a political platform, so it almost seems inevitable that they will remain fringe parties.

so in reality i'm somewhat dissatisfied with the current system, but not necessarily dedicated to any one fringe party's message. thus i'm only actually interested in viable solutions.

Oliver North

how do you justify willful participation in such a broken system then?

like, I tend to agree with all of that, but I would say the logical conclusion is either voting for a party whose special interests are important to you (in my case, I'd vote for the Pirate party if they ran candidates here) or total non-involvement. otherwise don't you just entrench the system you oppose?

red g jacks

because the system falls short of what i'd like it to be, but i still prefer having limited political sway to having no political sway.

red g jacks

i tried to edit this in but the time limit expired.

as for just picking an obscure candidate i like: let's look at that with a broader goal in mind, since your argument is mostly based on the broader implications of people like me using pragmatic reasoning to support one of the two major parties.

say i decide to vote nader, and each other disillusioned voter decides to pick either their ideal candidate or not vote at all. what we then would seemingly end up with is many fringe parties along with the two major ones, rather than any one strong contender for a 'third option.'

since our system is based on winning elections alone, and we have no parliament to help give representation to the smaller parties that still have a somewhat sizable turnout, this result seems more or less indistinguishable from the way things currently are.

Archaeopteryx

Originally posted by red g jacks
i tried to edit this in but the time limit expired.

as for just picking an obscure candidate i like: let's look at that with a broader goal in mind, since your argument is mostly based on the broader implications of people like me using pragmatic reasoning to support one of the two major parties.

say i decide to vote nader, and each other disillusioned voter decides to pick either their ideal candidate or not vote at all. what we then would seemingly end up with is many fringe parties along with the two major ones, rather than any one strong contender for a 'third option.'

since our system is based on winning elections alone, and we have no parliament to help give representation to the smaller parties that still have a somewhat sizable turnout, this result seems more or less indistinguishable from the way things currently are.

Having read through your arguments your arguments your logic is flawed. You are assuming that by voting for Nader (who isn't runnung) you are taking away a vote from Obama. Looking at his track record Obama is hardly distinguishable from Bush...or as one pundit put it "under Obama all the change we've had is lack of hope" Therefore if there were no third party candidates and my only choices were Obama and Romney I wouldn't bother to vote.

Oliver North

he's afraid of a Romney white house though. he sees non-participation as a vote for Romney.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by Oliver North
If you extend a small part of the logic I was using to a ludicrous point, sure.

Though, I'm fairly confident there is a wealth of ideological space between "vote against the person you don't like most" and "only vote for yourself".

You don't have to take it that far. In an all or nothing race like a presidential election the compromise party will always beat a dozen fragmented parties. Do you believe there will every be as many people who believe that the Pirate Party is the perfect match for their beliefs as there are people who believe the Liberal Democrats are a good match for their beliefs?

By not voting for yourself you've already start making compromises both ideologically and practically. I can understand not wanting to make extreme ideological compromises but why shoot yourself in the foot for no reason?

Oliver North

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You don't have to take it that far. In an all or nothing race like a presidential election the compromise party will always beat a dozen fragmented parties. Do you believe there will every be as many people who believe that the Pirate Party is the perfect match for their beliefs as there are people who believe the Liberal Democrats are a good match for their beliefs?

By not voting for yourself you've already start making compromises both ideologically and practically. I can understand not wanting to make extreme ideological compromises but why shoot yourself in the foot for no reason?

I guess I would say that voting for someone you don't support, just to prevent someone else you don't support from winning, is exactly shooting yourself in the foot.

Especially in the current context. How many times would one have to vote Democrat before the Pirate party is relevant politically? If you think the system is broken and biased against outside views and opinions, it seems to me, that falling into the partisan politics of "OMG the other guy will be so much worse" ensures that you will never do anything to challenge the system. It will remain broken specifically because of the actions you take.

Even in a straight winner-take-all vote like this, special interest parties taking large amounts of votes in a riding, especially a key one, will force the major parties to at least address the issues that party represents. If the people of Ohio suddenly felt like IP reform was the most pressing issue of the day and therefore voted 10-15% in favor of the Pirate party, during the next election cycle, the mainstream parties would not be able to ignore the issue.

Oliver North

Originally posted by red g jacks
say i decide to vote nader, and each other disillusioned voter decides to pick either their ideal candidate or not vote at all. what we then would seemingly end up with is many fringe parties along with the two major ones, rather than any one strong contender for a 'third option.'

just so I don't feel like I am making a strawman of your opinion, you are saying:

1) you wont vote for a third party until it has momentum
2) even if everyone who was disillusioned voted for third parties, this would not be enough momentum for you to consider voting for them

Can you explain how you aren't propping up the system you admitted was broken?

Originally posted by red g jacks
since our system is based on winning elections alone, and we have no parliament to help give representation to the smaller parties that still have a somewhat sizable turnout, this result seems more or less indistinguishable from the way things currently are.

how many times do you have to vote for Obama before he grants more parliamentary-like powers that allow third parties full participation in the American political process?

Darth Jello

Originally posted by red g jacks
why assume that your interpretation of the candidates = my interpretation?

What interpretation? There's interpretation and there's reality. Obama could have passed every piece of legislation he wanted by putting pressure on the senate and house via legitimate threats of f investigation by feds. He could have proposed a simple healthcare reform by folding every government health program under Medicare and then removing the age requirement. He could've have started from a position of strength by having the entire previous administration either at the Hague or at the gallows for treason and war crimes.
Instead he sat back and hired back the worst of the Clinton years and enacted the worst agendas of the Heritage Foundation and the Reagan/Bush/Clinton regime of globalization while folding to every complaint from the other party.

You're basically telling me to vote for Mussolini because if Hitler gets elected we'll be much worse.

red g jacks

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Having read through your arguments your arguments your logic is flawed. You are assuming that by voting for Nader (who isn't runnung) you are taking away a vote from Obama. Looking at his track record Obama is hardly distinguishable from Bush...or as one pundit put it "under Obama all the change we've had is lack of hope" Therefore if there were no third party candidates and my only choices were Obama and Romney I wouldn't bother to vote. if we're talking about my vote, then that's not a logical error. you're just disagreeing with my premise that the difference between the democratic and republican parties is significant enough to warrant my attention.

when i talked about how others might vote in the post you quoted, i'm not assuming that each vote for nader would otherwise go to obama or romney. i'm just assuming that the more specific people are about their political candidates the more splintering there would be.
Originally posted by Oliver North
he's afraid of a Romney white house though. he sees non-participation as a vote for Romney. i wouldn't say that i'm afraid. obama is simply closer to my political ideology than romney is.

Originally posted by Oliver North
just so I don't feel like I am making a strawman of your opinion, you are saying:

1) you wont vote for a third party until it has momentum
2) even if everyone who was disillusioned voted for third parties, this would not be enough momentum for you to consider voting for them1) correct
2) i was just speculating on how your ideology might play out if put into practice en masse. you're saying i should vote for the fringe party that most closely resembles my political leaning, and i'm saying that if everyone is super specific in that regard then that would only lead to numerous fringe parties rather than any one serious contender. thus in order to get the kind of momentum i spoke about earlier, it seems inevitable that those fringe groups would need to compromise with each other.

well the nature of that question really depends on if what i describe is true. if you agree with my description then i hardly see how that dilemma is a result of my rhetoric. if you think i'm manufacturing the problem to rationalize my vote then that would be propping up the system.

otherwise, i might be doing my small part to prop up the system by being part of a large group of people who vote mainstream. but since i don't really see an effective alternative to that, it's not a very compelling allegation.
which party should i vote for that is looking to create an american parliament?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
What interpretation? There's interpretation and there's reality. Obama could have passed every piece of legislation he wanted by putting pressure on the senate and house via legitimate threats of f investigation by feds. He could have proposed a simple healthcare reform by folding every government health program under Medicare and then removing the age requirement. He could've have started from a position of strength by having the entire previous administration either at the Hague or at the gallows for treason and war crimes.
Instead he sat back and hired back the worst of the Clinton years and enacted the worst agendas of the Heritage Foundation and the Reagan/Bush/Clinton regime of globalization while folding to every complaint from the other party.

You're basically telling me to vote for Mussolini because if Hitler gets elected we'll be much worse. i'm not telling you to do anything. i just disagree that there's no difference between a president obama and a president romney.

Darth Jello

The difference is how much the rich cheat you out of your wealth and your health and how much a bunch of Bronze Age religious Jew hating child ****ers tell you how to live.
The problem is the fact that we have to decide "how much" rather than not at all.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Darth Jello
The difference is how much the rich cheat you out of your wealth and your health

I dunno...living until I'm 80 (as opposed to 18 in paleolithic times or 34 in the middle ages) sounds great. And it is very weird to think that some rich white guy can cheat me out of my health when I literally have direct control over my health in almost every single way.

Stoic

President Obama just lit Romney up, and tore him a new hole in his ass.

red g jacks

this is honestly sort of making me reconsider my stance outlined earlier in this thread:

v96Y8r2UPic&feature=player_embedded

Barker

I got Stein in one of those poll things so her.

I live in Utah though so the state is going to Romney anyway

ThorinWoofer

I'll be voting for the guy from Hawaii, by way of Kenya. Okay thanks.

Stoic

Originally posted by red g jacks
this is honestly sort of making me reconsider my stance outlined earlier in this thread:

v96Y8r2UPic&feature=player_embedded

Yes I was slightly baffled at the people saying Aye, and then turning around and also saying No. Like WTF? Is the capitol of Israel Tel Aviv, or is it being considered Jerusalem?

Nemesis X

Obama has made promises he never kept and has instead been making new ones that, IMO, suck. He's not getting my vote this year.

Stoic

Originally posted by Nemesis X
Obama has made promises he never kept and has instead been making new ones that, IMO, suck. He's not getting my vote this year.

Have you ever considered the other parties involvement in him not being able to get things passed?

Tzeentch._

Originally posted by Nemesis X
Obama has made promises he never kept and has instead been making new ones that, IMO, suck. He's not getting my vote this year. You're not old enough to vote anyway

Nemesis X

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
You're not old enough to vote anyway

I'm 19, Blaxelfloss.

Tzeentch._

way too young

Lord Lucien

Anyone watch the Clinton speech?

i5knEXDsrL4

Nemesis X

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
way too young

Not sure if misinformed or just plain trolling.

Lord Lucien

Originally posted by Nemesis X
Not sure if misinformed or just plain trolling. Are you even old enough to know what trolling is?

Nemesis X

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Are you even old enough to know what trolling is?

12 years old I take you being what with joining in late to side with somebody just to feel neat and hope for a foot rub from the guy with the cheek that which you plant what your lord gave you to eat.

Lord Lucien

Originally posted by Nemesis X
12 years old I take you being what with joining in late to side with somebody just to feel neat and hope for a foot rub from the guy with the cheek that which you plant what your lord gave you to eat. Only a 12 year old who can't vote would have such shitty punctuation. Go back to Minnesota, ya minor.

Nemesis X

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Only a 12 year old who can't vote would have such shitty punctuation. Go back to Minnesota, ya minor.

I guess it would take a brat to know another, wouldn't it? The democrats sure are lucky to have you.

XvampbenjiiX666

I'm voting for Cthulu and Death.

Omega Vision

Originally posted by XvampbenjiiX666
I'm voting for Cthulu and Death.
That's so original.

XvampbenjiiX666

I know, just like the song "Elect Death for President".

Oliver North

that is so dark

dadudemon

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's so original.

Originally posted by Oliver North
that is so dark

Why are you two acting like douches to that guy? erm

Oliver North

I'm just following along because it was funny

XvampbenjiiX666

Ha no one is trying to be dark or original. More like sarcastic. No matter who wins, we will all be ****ed in the ass. So lighten up.

Lord Lucien

Originally posted by Nemesis X
I guess it would take a brat to know another, wouldn't it? The democrats sure are lucky to have you. The Dems can always count on the vote of a Canadian! Huzzah!

Nemesis X

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The Dems can always count on the vote of a Canadian! Huzzah!

Only so you can enjoy our suffering from Obama's free health care bill that's no different than Canada's, jerk.

Lord Lucien

Ever heard of Mountiefest Destiny? One health care bill at a time.

Mr Parker

I hit the last option because its the truth.Voting IS a waste of time.We dont put these people in office,they are selected for us by the establishment.They had it rigged for romney to win the republican nomination.

There were last minute rule changes at that joke RNC convention to counter Ron Pauls strategy of recruiting delegates and our corrupt court system though out the lawsuit of republican delegates that they filed against romney being told they could not be delegates of pauls.

People better wake the hell up and realise we are in nazi germany now.that our votes dont count.We now have the choice of having to choose between Hitler-Romney,or Stalin-Obama.Either way we are screwed and if you vote for either of these clowns you are the problem why america is in the mess that it is because either way,you are voting for evil.

the proof is in the pudding that Romney is no different that Obama.Think he is? get a clue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWDJEc92d38

this fact goes ignored by many posters here cause they are in denial.The establishment dont care if either of these 2 evil bastards gets in because they are both funded by goldman sachs and wall street there to serve them instead of us and neither believe in the constituion.people run away at this site and dodge these FACTS everytime.

you vote for either of these two bastards,again you are part of the problem.

in a perfect world,the two finalists would come down to a squareoff between Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.If only this was a country of the people,for the people and by the people thats the way it would be but its a country of the corporations,for the corporations,and by the corporations.

Lord Lucien

Originally posted by Mr Parker
People better wake the hell up and realise we are in nazi germany now.that our votes dont count.We now have the choice of having to choose between Hitler-Romney,or Stalin-Obama. I think there are still a few Jews left in America, so clearly your Nazi regime is slacking.

Omega Vision

Originally posted by Mr Parker

in a perfect world,the two finalists would come down to a squareoff between Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.If only this was a country of the people,for the people and by the people thats the way it would be but its a country of the corporations,for the corporations,and by the corporations.
In a perfect world, democratic choice would be between two people whose views and policies are almost indistinguishable from one another?

lA7B3vpIlmQ

Oliver North

Originally posted by Mr Parker
the proof is in the pudding that Romney is no different that Obama.Think he is? get a clue.

I agree, it sucks there isn't real choice between the two parties on a lot of major issue....

Originally posted by Mr Parker
in a perfect world,the two finalists would come down to a squareoff between Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.

lol... oh, nevermind...

Stoic

Originally posted by XvampbenjiiX666
Ha no one is trying to be dark or original. More like sarcastic. No matter who wins, we will all be ****ed in the ass. So lighten up.

Hmmm.......

Darth Jello

Anyone ready for voter intimidation from True the Vote?
I wish poll monitors had the ability to detain these fascist thugs.

Nemesis X

More than 130 prisoners escape Mexican prison near U.S. border. And if they managed to get across the border, they may not even go back thanks to Obama's "DREAM" Act since you don't need documents to come in here anymore no expression

Tzeentch._

Considering the dream act didn't exist before this year, you would have a point if violent illegal immigrants infiltrating the country hadn't been a problem until now.

It has been a problem before now.

The dream act doesn't make it significantly easier for "violent" illegal immigrants to hide out in America.

Jim Colyer

Mitt Romney understands economics and will go a long way toward getting America out of debt. He knows business and will stress the importance of creating new jobs. Mitt Romney 2012

Mindset

Bardock42

Originally posted by Jim Colyer
Mitt Romney understands economics and will go a long way toward getting America out of debt. He knows business and will stress the importance of creating new jobs. Mitt Romney 2012 When you say "he knows business" do you mean he knows how to be a "welfare queen" and beg for a lot of money from the taxpayers? Cause he does know that, I just don't see how that's a good basis for leading a country.

Oliver North

Darth Truculent

I say they should have Texas Hold Em poker tournament to determine the winner. Save a lot of tax payer dollars.

Mairuzu

Originally posted by Jim Colyer
Mitt Romney understands economics and will go a long way toward getting America out of debt. He knows business and will stress the importance of creating new jobs. Mitt Romney 2012

He certainly knows how to make Goldman Sachs richer, like Obama. He knows what it takes to get rich. I thought the only jobs government can make are tax paying government jobs? What good is that? Private sector creates jobs, no?

I dont see why anyone would vote for Obama or Romney unless they know for sure that they're getting a piece of the cake in tax payer money or via copy+paste from the fed.

Goldman Sachs 2012. They always win.

Robtard

Romney knows what it takes to get himself and his crowd richer, the guy was born with a platinum spoon in his mouth and has never gone a day without.

Mairuzu

Definitely looks like he would be one of those douche bag kids in some kardashian tv show, perhaps slightly less retarded. They're both bought and paid anyways.

FinalAnswer

Originally posted by Robtard
Romney knows what it takes to get himself and his crowd richer, the guy was born with a platinum spoon in his mouth and has never gone a day without.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/357/905/ce8.jpg

Oliver North

Ryan draws boos while speaking to the AARP

nBmCrtqjPwg

"You don't have to take my word for it..."

-They don't

... says something when the Reps are losing the elderly...

Robtard

John Stewart's coverage of Romney's "47%" speech: http://entertainment.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/20/13988300-jon-stewart-rants-about-romney-campaign-headquarters-aka-fox-news

Stoic

If this is true, and I'm not saying that it is, but according to the news; while giving a speech to the Latino community, he appeared to have taken a deep tan, or colored his face with makeup, and it was pointed out by the media as being a poor makeup job near in comparison to black face only in a tan colored flavor. As I watched, what I saw looked like a mask, because the color difference of the areas around his ears, and eye lids were clearly lighter. To be honest, I'm giving him the benefit of doubt, but it really looked as if he used makeup to draw closer to the Latino community. I didn't know what to call him or if I should have laughed.

I'm wondering if he should be in the running for America's next top *******?

Darth Jello

Just some thoughts on Romney/Ryan.

Romney avoided paying taxes and while governor of MA, held financial assets in companies that received contracts from the state of MA and gave them preferential treatment at a profit to himself. He also has $102 Million in an IRA which has a $30,000 annual contribution limit meaning that his investment skills would have to defy probability or he's just involved in some shady, shady shit. That's 20 to life right there.

Ryan is actually nastier. On January 20th, 2009, Ryan and 11 other GOP Congressmen had a secret 4 hour meeting with Frank Luntz and Newt Gingrich during which they colluded to block all legislation and destroy the US economy for financial and political gain (any wonder why these vermin, especially Eric Cantor seem to be shorting dollars every time the market goes down?). This is colloquially known as "treason" and common side effects include impeachment, trial, and execution.

Thoughts?

Tzeentch._

Sources?

REXXXX

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/357/905/ce8.jpg

Lulz were had at the viewing of this picture.

I'm voting for Obama myself. My interests lay with the Democrats (much to my parents' chagrin).

dadudemon

Originally posted by Oliver North
Ryan draws boos while speaking to the AARP

nBmCrtqjPwg

"You don't have to take my word for it..."

-They don't

... says something when the Reps are losing the elderly...

Since the dems have pretty much permanently lost the elderly, 2 or 3 not voting from Connecticut and California are not going to do much to change the outcome. lol

Oliver North

Originally posted by dadudemon
Since the dems have pretty much permanently lost the elderly, 2 or 3 not voting from Connecticut and California are not going to do much to change the outcome. lol

true, but how often do they boo the conservative nominees?

dadudemon

Originally posted by Oliver North
true, but how often do they boo the conservative nominees?

That's not fair: Ryan would get booed at an Evil Henchman's Conference. uhuh

Oliver North

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not fair: Ryan would get booed at an Evil Henchman's Conference. uhuh

its totally fair, evil henchman or not, someone thought it was a good idea to pick him for VP

dadudemon

Originally posted by Oliver North
its totally fair, evil henchman or not, someone thought it was a good idea to pick him for VP

I've searched and I do not find anything on this (other than amateur forum discussion).

Why was he chosen? For me, it seems almost self-destructive to Romney's campaign.

Darth Jello

A little fact about the 47% Shitt Romney Bullshit.

EVERYONE PAYS TAXES!!!!! Sales Tax, Property Tax, State Income tax employment related tax, income tax on benefits including welfare and unemployment insurance, and large gifts and winnings and Americorps awards and living stipends...

Even if you don't earn enough and get it all back, THE GOVERNMENT STILL EARNS INTEREST ON THAT MONEY. In other words, Shitt needs to shut up and since he has no other income other than dividends, start paying 91% on that.

Darth Jello

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Sources? Journalist Robert Draper. The meeting attendees were-
Frank Luntz
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA)
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA),
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX),
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX),
Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI)
Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA),
Sen. Jim DeMint (SC-R),
Sen. Jon Kyl (AZ-R),
Sen. Tom Coburn (OK-R),
Sen. John Ensign (NV-R)
Sen. Bob Corker (TN-R).
Newt Gingrich

Note that most of these guys were found to be shorting US dollars during the last pitched battle over the debt ceiling.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Darth Jello
A little fact about the 47% Shitt Romney Bullshit.

EVERYONE PAYS TAXES!!!!! Sales Tax, Property Tax, State Income tax employment related tax, income tax on benefits including welfare and unemployment insurance, and large gifts and winnings and Americorps awards and living stipends...

Even if you don't earn enough and get it all back, THE GOVERNMENT STILL EARNS INTEREST ON THAT MONEY. In other words, Shitt needs to shut up and since he has no other income other than dividends, start paying 91% on that.

Well, he was clearly talking about income taxes. Strawmanning his point is definitely not a very honest approach to the subject if you consider that's pretty much the only thing done by dems and cans.

deja vu

Also, I was part of that "47%" last year: I got paid back more than what I paid in so not only did I pay nothing in income taxes, the US Government paid me to just be a US Citizen, last year. It was awesome. So, please, continue to pay those taxes, people: I need to get mines.

Oliver North

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Sources?

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/wolcott/2012/03/The-Conspiracy-to-Commit-Legislative-Constipation

as one would expect, it isn't nearly what DJ makes it out to be

Oliver North

Originally posted by dadudemon
I've searched and I do not find anything on this (other than amateur forum discussion).

Why was he chosen? For me, it seems almost self-destructive to Romney's campaign.

Romney has been faced with a really weird problem. If he ran on his record from Massachusetts, he would likely fare well, as he was a very progressive Republican who made rather pragmatic choices while in office. I personally still don't think he would be a good candidate, but at least that Romney would appeal to a broader base of, generally, better informed voters than the ones who make the backbone of the parties voter base. The so called "low-information-voters" tend to be the type that would elect a houseplant so long as it had a D or an R in front of it.

However, because of this, and his general appearance as a Wall Street guy or as a Mormon, he has faced a lot of criticism from within the Tea Party and Evangelical wings of his base. This was seen in the primaries, of course. My suspicion is that Ryan is a nod to those people. His budget is like a Tea Party wet dream and he denounced Rand in order to prove his Christian credentials.

Its a terrible choice, however, because the people he is supposed to appeal to are already R voters and would never vote for a Dem, let alone a black one. We are talking about a group of voters who still emphasize that Obama's middle name is Hussein. Ryan is also stupid, and his budget is stupid, and he has a stupid face and is terrible as a speaker. I'm not sure, aside from trying to keep the base happy, why he would have been chosen.

Its just an altogether terrible Rep ticket this year. What it points out to me, however, is just how ****ed the American electorate is. Even with the literal worst campaign I can remember (worse than McCain/Palin by far... Maybe Dole?) some 40% of the electorate is still just a straight R voter. Like, they aren't even going conservative 3rd party. I'd say the same for progressives who still support Obama. some 80% of your population will never vote for anyone else, no matter how bad the choice is. This election should not be close at all...

dadudemon

Originally posted by Oliver North
Romney has been faced with a really weird problem. If he ran on his record from Massachusetts, he would likely fare well, as he was a very progressive Republican who made rather pragmatic choices while in office. I personally still don't think he would be a good candidate, but at least that Romney would appeal to a broader base of, generally, better informed voters than the ones who make the backbone of the parties voter base. The so called "low-information-voters" tend to be the type that would elect a houseplant so long as it had a D or an R in front of it.

However, because of this, and his general appearance as a Wall Street guy or as a Mormon, he has faced a lot of criticism from within the Tea Party and Evangelical wings of his base. This was seen in the primaries, of course. My suspicion is that Ryan is a nod to those people. His budget is like a Tea Party wet dream and he denounced Rand in order to prove his Christian credentials.

Its a terrible choice, however, because the people he is supposed to appeal to are already R voters and would never vote for a Dem, let alone a black one. We are talking about a group of voters who still emphasize that Obama's middle name is Hussein. Ryan is also stupid, and his budget is stupid, and he has a stupid face and is terrible as a speaker. I'm not sure, aside from trying to keep the base happy, why he would have been chosen.

Its just an altogether terrible Rep ticket this year. What it points out to me, however, is just how ****ed the American electorate is. Even with the literal worst campaign I can remember (worse than McCain/Palin by far... Maybe Dole?) some 40% of the electorate is still just a straight R voter. Like, they aren't even going conservative 3rd party. I'd say the same for progressives who still support Obama. some 80% of your population will never vote for anyone else, no matter how bad the choice is. This election should not be close at all...

These are all similar sentiments to what the other forum peeps were saying: it was an appeal to the conservative base to win over those people that Romney could not (due to Romney's progressive/moderate track record and his Mormon-ness).

However, I have not seen anything official from the Romney Campaign on why they chose Ryan (I am out of touch). It seems like a very detrimental choice.

Someone said to me, yesterday, "You know, if they would have just made Gary Johnson the primary and made Mitt the running mate, I may have voted R this November." I can agree to that. I am certainly not an Obama fan (but I'm not an Obama hater, either). I liked Romney in 08. I still think Romney would have been the best choice in '08, but it's a bit too late, now.

Maybe there is still some good Romney can do. I have my hopes up that Romney wins this election. I need an R in office for at least 4 years. I'll still vote for Gary Johnson, though. But out of the two big ones, I choose Romney.

red g jacks

Originally posted by Oliver North
This election should not be close at all... it sounds like you're implying obama should be crushing romney..

Oliver North

Originally posted by dadudemon
However, I have not seen anything official from the Romney Campaign on why they chose Ryan (I am out of touch). It seems like a very detrimental choice.

Because of the "Ryan Plan", Ryan has pick up the sort of folk hero status as an "expert" in economics.

Its a lot like the way people call Newt Gingrich an intellectual.

Romney wants to win the election by focusing on the economy, and making their ticket look like the best economic choice.

That both Ryan and Gingrich, the intellectual backbone of the Republican party , have few, if any, positions in which they would disagree with Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman is a point that at least Bill Maher has illuminated.

Originally posted by red g jacks
it sounds like you're implying obama should be crushing romney..

objectively, he should

Oliver North

-0-vajEFTXE

Its a low-blow, but w/e, funny as hell

Nemesis X

In his defense, Romney was only joking.

This isn't the first time the news would purposely make a presidential candidate look stupid.

Oliver North

still funny

Nemesis X

Originally posted by Oliver North
still funny

To me, it's still funny because that guy in the video makes me want to facepalm at democrats.

Oliver North

democr... wha....

Its a fairly decent joke, no?

EDIT: just to point out, this perfectly reflects what I was mentioning above: It is impossible to even laugh at something without it being a partisan thing...

Nemesis X

Originally posted by Oliver North
democr... wha....

Its a fairly decent joke, no?

EDIT: just to point out, this perfectly reflects what I was mentioning above: It is impossible to even laugh at something without it being a partisan thing...

He had the intent to make Romney look bad and tried to make his joke sound serious and then made a joke about his "serious question."

Oliver North

Originally posted by Nemesis X
He had the intent to make Romney look bad and tried to make his joke sound serious and then made a joke about his "serious question."

I suppose I can't debate what you find funny

Lord Lucien

But you can debate on where he dumped his sense of humor.

Nemesis X

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
But you can debate on where he dumped his sense of humor.

Your front yard maybe.

Lord Lucien

I don't have a yard.

red g jacks

Originally posted by Nemesis X
He had the intent to make Romney look bad and tried to make his joke sound serious and then made a joke about his "serious question." it's also possible he was unaware the quote was supposed to be a joke.

Oliver North

most news agencies published the quote yesterday as though it were not a joke, for instance:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-beverly-hills-fundraiser-20120922%2c0%2c2317962.story

Nemesis X

Originally posted by red g jacks
it's also possible he was unaware the quote was supposed to be a joke.

If that's true, it's ironic then how he calls Romney the idiot.

Oliver North

Originally posted by Nemesis X
If that's true, it's ironic then how he calls Romney the idiot.

and you find that irony more humorous than Romney's joke?

Nemesis X

Originally posted by Oliver North
and you find that irony more humorous than Romney's joke?

Originally posted by Oliver North
I suppose I can't debate what you find funny

To answer your question: yes.

Oliver North

Originally posted by Nemesis X
To answer your question: yes.

ladies and gentlemen, exhibit A, re:

Originally posted by Oliver North
EDIT: just to point out, this perfectly reflects what I was mentioning above: It is impossible to even laugh at something without it being a partisan thing...

Oliver North

Nemesis: How bad would a Republican candidate have to be before you would vote for Obama?

Like, what would Romney have to do to lose your vote?

red g jacks

it really doesn't read like a joke. and it seems like such an odd place for a politician to inject a joke - a story about your wife being trapped on a burning plane.

you gotta hand it to romney though, the thought of all those people suffocating cause some **** cracked his window down is pretty funny.

Darth Jello

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, he was clearly talking about income taxes. Strawmanning his point is definitely not a very honest approach to the subject if you consider that's pretty much the only thing done by dems and cans.

deja vu

Also, I was part of that "47%" last year: I got paid back more than what I paid in so not only did I pay nothing in income taxes, the US Government paid me to just be a US Citizen, last year. It was awesome. So, please, continue to pay those taxes, people: I need to get mines.

You work so regardless you pay income tax. The government then collects that tax and issues loans and invests in other commodities and projects etc.
Assuming you get a percentage or everything back because you haven't earned enough, does the government pay you dividends on those investments or do they keep the earned interest?
If the government earns interest off your money even if you get all of it back, can you honestly say that you haven't payed any income tax considering you money has worked for someone else?

I let you borrow a cow for a year and you milk it drink the milk, and make a mint making and selling cheese and Ice Cream, are you honestly going to say that I didn't contribute anything to you?

dadudemon

Originally posted by Darth Jello
You work so regardless you pay income tax.

Please show me where I am paying income tax.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Assuming you get a percentage or everything back because you haven't earned enough, does the government pay you dividends on those investments or do they keep the earned interest?

I got everything back and then some.

I paid like....-80% taxes last year. smile

So, I got much more than a year bond, at the highest payout possible. big grin

Originally posted by Darth Jello
If the government earns interest off your money even if you get all of it back, can you honestly say that you haven't payed any income tax considering you money has worked for someone else?

It doesn't bother me too much since I got all of it back with quite a bit of interest. Thanks for paying your taxes so I could have some of your money. *tips hat*

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I let you borrow a cow for a year and you milk it drink the milk, and make a mint making and selling cheese and Ice Cream, are you honestly going to say that I didn't contribute anything to you?

That's sounds like an unfair deal. I don't want not stinky poopoo cow. That means I'd have to feed it, clean it, clean up after it, wash it, etc. Keep your cow. I'll go invest in a business or something.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Oliver North
Because of the "Ryan Plan", Ryan has pick up the sort of folk hero status as an "expert" in economics.

Its a lot like the way people call Newt Gingrich an intellectual.

Romney wants to win the election by focusing on the economy, and making their ticket look like the best economic choice.

Cool. Thanks for the info.

Originally posted by Oliver North
That both Ryan and Gingrich, the intellectual backbone of the Republican party , have few, if any, positions in which they would disagree with Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman is a point that at least Bill Maher has illuminated.

Really? Do you have a list? Cause that seems bad.

Originally posted by Oliver North
objectively, he should

How is that objective?

Oliver North

Originally posted by dadudemon
Really? Do you have a list? Cause that seems bad.

personally, no, I don't have a list of their policy opinions, but which do you think they differ on?

War with Iran = Good
Poor people need to pay more tax and get less services = Good
The rich need lower tax rates = Good
Rape the environment = Good

There may be some nuance, sure, I'll give you that, but I don't think enough that would be really important.

Like, I'll even give it to Mitt, I think he is far more intelligent than he has to act to appeal to his base. I think the strategy is wrong though. he should do what the Democrats have realized: They don't have to appeal to the base, because they are in no risk of losing them.

I can only highlight other conversations I've had on this board, where people who are very much against many policies of Obama and actually support other candidates, but will still vote for Obama because he is the "only real choice" or whatever. Its where I ask "how many times do you have to vote for a Democrat before they do what you want?", which is basically me saying "you are an idiot for voting against your beliefs because you will never get what you want by supporting the status quo".

Originally posted by dadudemon
How is that objective?

well, like, I'm not even saying Obama is a better candidate or has run a spectacular campaign.

I guess, think of it like this: How many times has the Romney campaign decided it needs to "reboot" up until this point? They did it a couple of times in the primaries, the convention was supposed to be where you "met" Romney, they rebooted a couple of weeks after that, and then again following the leaked 47% video.

As a campaign, as a thing that is supposed to convince people this is a good leader and that you should vote for him, it has been abysmal. It has to be a product of the American system, because I couldn't imagine someone having so many major issues (that they have to "reboot" the campaign) and still being viable in Canada.

I guess I'd pose the question to you as well: how bad does it have to get before you don't vote for Romney?

Darth Jello

You don't need to compare Romney/Ryan to Palin/Gingrich on the petty differences. They all belong to the same Ayn Rand Objectivist cult of worshiping greed and wealth and psychopath idealization. Fundamentally, they all want a fascist dictatorship functioning on a feudal model with corporations take the role of lords where all money flows to them and 99% of the population are tied to the land, have no rights or entitlements as members of the parasite class and where people who can't work and aren't rich are allowed to die.
Just because some wild eyed republicunt throws in the word Jesus instead of invisible hand or bible instead of the fountainhead doesn't change the fact that it's the same shit.

Little Caesar

Lady Gaga just endorsed Obama.

Game over.

Oliver North

Originally posted by Darth Jello
You don't need to compare Romney/Ryan to Palin/Gingrich on the petty differences. They all belong to the same Ayn Rand Objectivist cult of worshiping greed and wealth and psychopath idealization. Fundamentally, they all want a fascist dictatorship functioning on a feudal model with corporations take the role of lords where all money flows to them and 99% of the population are tied to the land, have no rights or entitlements as members of the parasite class and where people who can't work and aren't rich are allowed to die.
Just because some wild eyed republicunt throws in the word Jesus instead of invisible hand or bible instead of the fountainhead doesn't change the fact that it's the same shit.

I wish you'd read Rand...

You know she was against Regan, yes?

Robtard

Speaking of Reagan and his wonderful "Reagan Years", the tax rate on the rich went from 70% (1980) all the way down to under 30% (1988).

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html#_edn10

dadudemon

Originally posted by Oliver North
Also, its not so much that his positions are bad, it is that he agrees with Palin/Bachman on pretty much all of them (and we were talking about Ryan and Gingrich, anyways)

FUUUUUUUUUUU!

You're right. I misread. Saw "Romney" in the first section I was reading in my own post. My bad.

Yes, I agree, Ryan and Gingrich are very difficult to distinguish from Palin/Bachman on those topics.

red g jacks

Originally posted by Oliver North
I can only highlight other conversations I've had on this board, where people who are very much against many policies of Obama and actually support other candidates, but will still vote for Obama because he is the "only real choice" or whatever. Its where I ask "how many times do you have to vote for a Democrat before they do what you want?", which is basically me saying "you are an idiot for voting against your beliefs because you will never get what you want by supporting the status quo".
practically speaking, i'd be a fool if i followed your advice. only when you invoke over-simplified dichotomies such as "voting for/against your beliefs" does it seem like a bad idea to factor a candidate's viability into your decision to vote.

Oliver North

Originally posted by red g jacks
practically speaking, i'd be a fool if i followed your advice. only when you invoke over-simplified dichotomies such as "voting for/against your beliefs" does it seem like a bad idea to factor a candidate's viability into your decision to vote.

I find that logic to be entirely circular though:

Why don't you vote for a third party?

- They aren't viable

Why aren't third parties viable?

- People don't vote for them

Why don't you vote for a third party?

- They aren't viable

Why aren't third parties viable?

- People don't vote for them

Why don't you vote for a third party?

- They aren't viable

Why aren't third parties viable?

- People don't vote for them

Why don't you vote for a third party?

- They aren't viable

Why aren't third parties viable?

- People don't vote for them

...

and so forth

If democracy, to you, is about lesser evils and not getting what you want, sure, I can't tell you to follow my advice and you might be foolish to.

red g jacks

i can see the criticism that it's circular, but a problem with that argument is that it assumes that there is a collective decision being made by everyone who doesn't vote for a 3rd party. as if my voting for a 3rd party would change their viability; when we both know it wouldn't. now you can say that if everyone had that philosophy then things might change... but in the meantime, me voting that way is not a sound strategy for getting what i want, which almost certainly involves voting for someone who can win an election.

as for a non-circular reason for why these third party candidates aren't viable: pooling interests generally gains more votes than staying true to a set of ideals which most people don't share.

another thing is that 'getting what you want' actually has a spectrum to it, it's not a simple yes/no equation. so i think the relevant question is which vote will yield the highest percentage of 'things i want.'

Archaeopteryx

A third challenger is and can be a viable thing. John Anderson did it in 1980 and Ross perot did it in 92.

The rules for the debates need to be changed. Any candidate on the ballot in say 30 or more states should be allowed to participate in the presidential debates.
That would certainly shake things up

Darth Jello

Originally posted by Oliver North
I wish you'd read Rand...

You know she was against Regan, yes?

I know that she was an inhuman, immoral, monstrous **** who idealized psychopaths and did as much damage in the 20th century as Hitler and Marx.

Lord Lucien

Ayn Rand hurt the world as much as Hitler did?

Omega Vision

Darth Jello tends to exaggerate and speak in hyperbole as a means of drawing attention to the fact that his beliefs are exaggerated and hyperbolic.

Really, aside from making a few thousand (because in all honesty that's about how many people have ever seriously followed Objectivism) anti-social people more anti-social and giving the world an example of how not to write a novel in the form of Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand accomplished nothing.

Even those politicians who are said to take cues from her or even claim to be disciples of hers are generally only partial believers and don't follow her philosophy to the extent that she hoped they would.

Archaeopteryx

Originally posted by Omega Vision

Even those politicians who are said to take cues from her or even claim to be disciples of hers are generally only partial believers and don't follow her philosophy to the extent that she hoped they would.

In the case of Paul Ryan I'd say that statement is incorrect.

Oliver North

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
In the case of Paul Ryan I'd say that statement is incorrect.

he actually had to disown Rand after someone brought up her opposition to religion.

Archaeopteryx

Originally posted by Oliver North
he actually had to disown Rand after someone brought up her opposition to religion.

I know, but his economic beliefs fall right in line with hers.

Bardock42

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I know that she was an inhuman, immoral, monstrous **** who idealized psychopaths and did as much damage in the 20th century as Hitler and Marx. Do you really know that though, or do you just say words cause you like words?

Archaeopteryx

And I really wish there was a political party with the economic philosiphy of the Greens and the social philosiphy of the Libertarians.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Oliver North
I find that logic to be entirely circular though:

Why don't you vote for a third party?

- They aren't viable

Why aren't third parties viable?

- People don't vote for them

Why don't you vote for a third party?

- They aren't viable

Why aren't third parties viable?

- People don't vote for them

Why don't you vote for a third party?

- They aren't viable

Why aren't third parties viable?

- People don't vote for them

Why don't you vote for a third party?

- They aren't viable

Why aren't third parties viable?

- People don't vote for them

...

and so forth

If democracy, to you, is about lesser evils and not getting what you want, sure, I can't tell you to follow my advice and you might be foolish to.

I disagree.

It goes like this:

Why don't you vote for a third party?

- They aren't viable

Why aren't third parties viable?

- People don't vote for them

That's wrong: people do vote for them. So why don't you actually vote for them?

- Not enough people vote for them so they are not viable.

Don't you see that as part of the reason they are not viable?

-Yes.

End of discussion. Now suck my...

-I'll stop you there. Have a nice day.

Archaeopteryx

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree.

It goes like this:

Why don't you vote for a third party?

- They aren't viable

Why aren't third parties viable?

- People don't vote for them

That's wrong: people do vote for them. So why don't you actually vote for them?

- Not enough people vote for them so they are not viable.

Don't you see that as part of the reason they are not viable?

-Yes.

End of discussion. Now suck my...

-I'll stop you there. Have a nice day.

When you are asked your opinion do you give it or do you try to say you have an opinion that is more popular?
FYI, you don't win anything if you manage to vote for the winner.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
When you are asked your opinion do you give it or do you try to say you have an opinion that is more popular?

I think your question is scary and makes little sense.

Why would I do anything other than give my opinion when someone asks for it? To do anything else other than give the opinion would be assholish (unless you are at work...then giving your opinion may not be a good idea...or if the guy asking your opinion is doing it to just argue or troll).

But, if it is an honest question for your opinion, you should just give it instead of being a dick about it. That's my opinion on your question, at least.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
FYI, you don't win anything if you manage to vote for the winner.

That makes no sense since your vote contributed to the winner winning.

Also, you don't win because you weren't the actual candidate...if you want to get all philosophical and smartassy. Do I win since I made that last comment?

Lord Lucien

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, you don't win because you weren't the actual candidate...if you want to get all philosophical and smartassy. Do I win since I made that last comment? VDW0ZnZxjn4

Omega Vision

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
I know, but his economic beliefs fall right in line with hers.
Which doesn't refute my statement that even those politicians who identify with Rand won't embrace all her views.

red g jacks

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
When you are asked your opinion do you give it or do you try to say you have an opinion that is more popular?
FYI, you don't win anything if you manage to vote for the winner. so just to be clear... it's not reasonable to consider whether a candidate might win when you're deciding whether or not to vote for them?

where would you draw the line, there? like, if you found some guy who's opinions matched yours perfectly who was asking people write him in as president, and he had maybe 1000 or so subscribers on his channel, would you jump on board that train?

what if there's one 3rd party candidate with whom you share a 75% rate of agreement on key issues, and another who rates at 85%. but the 75%er is much more popular and seems to have more momentum to his campaign. is it never relevant to consider which one has a better chance of winning before you cast your vote?