Thoughtful

[oddprimer]

Seems to me the worst idea is to imagine you can win nationally if you can't carry your state (Al Gore and Romney). Al Gore didn't have to lose TN, he chose to lose it.

Side note I hear the Romney campaign is being baptized into mormonhood because it is completely dead.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It ain't dead, just a lot of Barbara Streisand flying out there.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Fix the money. Remove the statutory limitations imposed by the Two Parties in charge. Find a candidate that is likable, and powerful, nation wide. Put him in a third party.

Next time I am voting Bull Moose!

[JAB]

Which is exactly what I said with, "So, what do you consider the odds on 70,000,000 roast beefs that day?"

First of all, there is no chance I will vote for Romney (or Obama) so voting for a third party is not taking my vote away from Romney or Obama because neither of then is going to get my vote, period, in the first place. Therefore, my vote going to someone else is not a default vote for Obama because it isn't taking one, single potential vote away from Romney. This whole, "A vote for X is a vote for Y," nonsense is a mantra that has been so oft repeated that people can't even seem to understand why it isn't true. How does that other saying go...something like, "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth."

What you folks aren't understanding is that I realize there aren't going to be 70,000,000 roasts beefs that day because the majority of the voting public will faithfully line up with their blinders on to eat their crap sandwich and talk about how delicious that mayo or mustard makes everything taste (or be happy that at least they got to have mayonnaise because they revile mustard so much.) Yes, I realize that it is almost certain (because there aren't 70,000,000 other people who will refuse to eat the crap sandwich) that, on November 2, I will end up with a crap sandwich sporting either mayonnaise or mustard, just like everyone else. My point is, when it comes to that, I really don't give a flying fig if my crap sandwich has mayonnaise or mustard on it as it will still be a crap sandwich, either way.

In other words, my response to, "A vote for anyone but Romney is a vote for Obama," would be:

No, but even if that were true, who cares? That's like saying, "If you don't choose mayonnaise on your crap sandwich then someone else will choose mustard for you?" Again, so what? So, you are okay with accepting a crap sandwich as long as you get to 'choose' mayonnaise instead of mustard? Doesn't really sound like much of a choice to me, anyhow.

I'm not going to go along and 'choose' to eat a crap sandwich regardless of the condiment selection. I might get held down and have it forced down my throat by either the mayonnaise or mustard crowd (or both, even) because I had the audacity to dare and ask for something different but at that point I really don't care, either way, whether someone else decides it should have mayo or mustard on it. I am at least going to ask for roast beef whether it does me any good or not and will willingly give up the illusion of having a choice to at least ask for something more palatable. If, ultimately, the outcome is going to be that I will have to eat a crap sandwich then what difference does it make - other than letting me 'feel good' that I was given a [mostly false and ultimately inconsequential] choice in the matter?

So, asking for roast beef doesn't default to choosing mustard (or mayo, for that matter.) It means I asked for roast beef, period.

Edited September 28, 2012 by JAB

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Being okay or not about your vote is different from saying one thing one way and then re-phrasing to say the same

thing again, but it still remains. It still doesn't change anything.

It's okay to not like things and stand your ground on principle. But the bottom line will still be the same.

[JAB]

Being okay or not about your vote is different from saying one thing one way and then re-phrasing to say the same

thing again, but it still remains. It still doesn't change anything.

It's okay to not like things and stand your ground on principle. But the bottom line will still be the same.

Where did I say my voting for 'other' would change the outcome? I know it won't. What I am saying is that choosing X does not equate to choosing Y over Z. It equates to choosing X, period.

Honestly, does any one of us really think our vote is going to change anything - regardless if we vote for Romney, Obama or a third party? I, for one, am not that naive. As long as the 'big two' parties have a stranglehold on the nation then none of our votes really matter because the status quo is not going to see any real change. It's just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Until people get fed up enough that a good candidate - and not just one of the two 'viable' but equally terrible candidates - could actually win then none of our votes make a difference, anyway. At least I can spend the next four years knowing that I didn't just go along with herd (regardless if it is a herd of elephants or a herd of donkeys.) That's all I am trying to say.

Edited September 28, 2012 by JAB

[Guest 6.8 AR]

and I never said I disagreed with you, either. I only stated the obvious. I agree about the idea of people

waking up and working grassroots to get a real candidate back in the running. Some might say the Tea Party

is a movement like that before they discount them by running along with what the media wants them to

believe.

I'd like to see less of the discounting and more of the action, wouldn't you?