Anyone here voting Biden/Harris...

[TwoForFlinching]

Still waiting. It's fine if you don't want to vote, I still don't understand why, I'm not here to promote one over the other. All of the other current attempts to overthrow the US by the left "Trumps" the Patriot Act. Is data collection by tech companies constitutional? The list goes on.

No need to wait on a suggestion from me on who I think people should vote for. That's not the conversation I started, nor is your vote any of my business. I merely offered a fair and balanced retort to the idea that one party is better than the other. They may be separate in their plans to control the people, but they're absolutely equal. It's Newtons third law.

 

[donner]

A vote for Jo Jorgenson or Kanye West or whoever is almost the same as a vote for Biden. Only TWO of the candidates on the ballot really have a chance of being elected; Biden or Trump. If you do vote for a third party candidate, for whatever reason, you take a vote away from Trump and increase the odds of a Biden win.

Not in oklahoma (or mississippi, for that matter). Unless you're worried about Trump's ego and *need* to win the popular vote, the likelihood that a third-party vote damages Trump in solidly red states is minimal. He probably faces a far bigger danger in voters who do not turn out to vote for him than he does in voters who turn out to vote for a third party candidate instead of him.

If you lived in Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Ohio, (maybe texas), or a state that allocates votes based on percentages, then your point would have some merit. But in regards to most of us here, the electoral college negates the damage to Trump.

 

[TerryMiller]

I'll probably vote Libertarian, Jo Jorgensen
My TDS doesn't allow me to see Trump as anything but a con man. I still don't understand what people see in him.

Re: Jo Jorgensen

As I asked others, is it "libertarian" to say one "MUST" do something?

But, regardless, if you vote for the Marxist Jorgensen, then you ARE voting for Biden.

 

[druryj]

@donner, point taken. You are correct. In fact, it doesn't really matter if I vote or not, Oklahoma will go red regardless. Perhaps it's simply the principle of the thing that drives many to vote in a solidly red state like Oklahoma. Maybe I just want to be part of the Red Wave and send a powerful message to the Democrats. As the election gets closer, my anxiety level goes up. I never thought I'd see the divide between the two main parties as great as it is today.

 

[TedKennedy]

A vote for Jo, or a vote for Joe, is simply that. It is one hundred percent a LIE that a vote for someone equals a vote for someone else.

By your confused logic, a vote for Trump is a vote for Kanye or whatever....

Bill Clinton did not win because too many people voted for Perot. Clinton won because NOT ENOUGH people voted for Perot.

 

[donner]

@donner, point taken. You are correct. In fact, it doesn't really matter if I vote or not, Oklahoma will go red regardless. Perhaps it's simply the principle of the thing that drives many to vote in a solidly red state like Oklahoma. Maybe I just want to be part of the Red Wave and send a powerful message to the Democrats. As the election gets closer, my anxiety level goes up. I never thought I'd see the divide between the two main parties as great as it is today.

The bigger impact on your not showing up is likely felt more down-ticket. The smaller, and more local, the race, the greater likelihood that your vote could change things. And yes, i think people should show up and vote on principle.

And one reason to vote third party is that some states actively make it harder for those candidates to get onto the ballot if they don't get enough votes in previous elections, i believe.

And, of course, it's a way of actively showing dissatisfaction with the candidate/party, as well.

 

[druryj]

A vote for Jo, or a vote for Joe, is simply that. It is one hundred percent a LIE that a vote for someone equals a vote for someone else.

By your confused logic, a vote for Trump is a vote for Kanye or whatever....

Bill Clinton did not win because too many people voted for Perot. Clinton won because NOT ENOUGH people voted for Perot.

Not quite the same; remember, only two of the candidates really have a shot. Whatever, I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just like many people; worried about what's going to happen. Vote for whoever you want; it's your right. Those of us who actually do vote do so for different reasons; I vote because for one, I feel obligated to do so.

Edited: Won't it be nice when it's all over and we can go back to being a gun forum? A group of like-minded people with a common interest? The election and things surrounding it have dominated the conversations here; much of the stuff in General Discussions actually belongs in the Political and Hot Topics section; I have pretty much stopped trying to move everything as this will all be over soon. I hope.

 

[donner]

Re: Jo Jorgensen
As I asked others, is it "libertarian" to say one "MUST" do something?

But, regardless, if you vote for the Marxist Jorgensen, then you ARE voting for Biden.

if she isn't speaking as an agent of the government, then 'must' is fine. It's akin to saying someone 'must' obey the bible, brush their teeth, etc. Nothing in it is compelling of the other person beyond an appeal to the sense of moral obligation.

and what about her statement makes her a marxist, exactly? Seems like the points she makes are solidly libertarian values in terms of smaller, less intrusive, government.

And finally, no, voting for her isn't a vote for Biden, especially not in Oklahoma. (And for no other reason than you presume a person voting for Jo would 1) show up to vote otherwise and 2) be guaranteed to vote for Trump otherwise.)

 

[TedKennedy]

Not quite the same; remember, only two of the candidates really have a shot. Whatever, I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just like many people; worried about what's going to happen. Vote for whoever you want; it's your right. Those of us who actually do vote do so for different reasons; I vote because for one, I feel obligated to do so.

I know, I'm simply looking at it from a mathematical/logical perspective.

We really don't have a prayer because a majority of voters believe there are only two choices.

Voters seem to believe BLM or Cops are the only two choices.

Funny....Jefferson said this would only work under the right circumstances.

 

[TerryMiller]

if she isn't speaking as an agent of the government, then 'must' is fine. It's akin to saying someone 'must' obey the bible, brush their teeth, etc. Nothing in it is compelling of the other person beyond an appeal to the sense of moral obligation.

and what about her statement makes her a marxist, exactly? Seems like the points she makes are solidly libertarian values in terms of smaller, less intrusive, government.

And finally, no, voting for her isn't a vote for Biden, especially not in Oklahoma. (And for no other reason than you presume a person voting for Jo would 1) show up to vote otherwise and 2) be guaranteed to vote for Trump otherwise.)

She is running for a chance to be an agent of the government, and thus, if she follows through with what she has stated in campaigning, then it might not be "fine."

Considering that the founders of Black Lives Matter are avowed Marxists and that their website has previously shown that (and may still), then I'd say that if she is supporting that movement, then she is a Marxist herself.

As for a vote for her NOT being a vote for Biden, I'd have to differ. 2016 was the latest instance where the popular vote total and the electoral vote total were different. I tend to believe that continued "differences" like that in the future might lead many to decide that the Constitution "must" be changed. Many already do, but I'd prefer that we not add to the numbers that believe in that change.