Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
How it could come to be that these are our two choices, and what this says about our political system, our society, and our future.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Only Important Story Regarding this Election
- Thread starter Kilgore Trout
- Start date
Well, in Trump's case he fought his way through about 20 other candidates.
In Hillary's, she stole the primary from everyone else.
I had this question in the 1990's, and that was when we had 3 candidates. Seeing how the 3rd candidate (which I voted for) really just siphoned votes away from what would've been my alternate candidate, it really made it clear to me that 3rd party votes are a waste.
So really ever since that election, I've been asking / wondering about what is stated above. Given that it takes millions (if not billions) of dollars to even be considered as a viable choice and that political influence seemingly matters way more than issues that voters say they care about, I think I know the answer, but perhaps not.
This current election IMO would've been better off if Bernie and Trump ran independent, and Hillary and Cruz ran in their party. Kinda need 4 candidates to get a good picture of how things would really play out, two from the middle (left center and right center) and two from the more extreme position.
Though obviously would help if media didn't show collective favoritism and rest of the world wasn't weighing in with their opinions or intended actions if one candidate is elected, not to their liking, along with no hacked emails or no leaks of tapes for things being said in private.
But all this is likely not to be had, so ... here we are.
Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
Human animal nature. The people get reflections of their own nature in these candidates.
Last time I checked, there were more than two choices on the ballot.
Trump is channeling peoples first and second circuit concerns (if we're getting all Tim Leary), and as such he is not creating the itch, but offering the correct product to resolve it. I think Hillary is a weak candidate for that reason mostly, she doesn't address ground level concerns because she is so far removed from them she wouldn't know them if it bit her in the tail end.
Not for real, lol. Mostly, they are just siphoning votes from the other two candidates. I mean, I'm sort of with and against the 3rd party for various reasons, but the reality is what it is. At this point, we should be happy there are even Republicans, it seems the Dems want it one party.
Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
Yes, unfortunately the minority isn't heard enough because it's supporters are in the minority. The minority will suffer from the majority.
So long as this mentality persists, we will maintain a two-party system. To those of you who actually want that to change, recognize it is little more than an excuse, and stop telling this rubbish story.
The fact of it is that most people do not have centrist views, so they are polarized to one side. I'll only vote Republican this year for the fact of the 2nd Amendment, and I'm a constitutionalist. I feel that Hillary is too involved in scams to be a serious candidate. As far as say the Green Party (SJW central) or the Libertarians, well I'm just anti-SJW period. I do not think social justice does anything good for anyone, it just creates special classes and enemies. It widens the divide and causes resentment, so who needs it?
I rather vote Trump to keep Hillary out, where the single percentage point might make a difference. If the election wasn't close, or those other parties were offering better candidates I'd probably think twice... But, not this year..
Yes but no since they were contending in a different system. If the republicans didn't have a winner take all system the primary would have played differently. To be fair though trump did have the popular vote.
No Trump lucked out by getting the Republicans so riled up the majority split the ticket against him. Majority of Republicans not wanting Trump is not winning the popular vote. Democrats were a closer race so what your saying here is unfounded. Trumps the one that stole the primary but I blame the Republicans for that mess.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Yes this is just what i have been thinking all along, bloody sad, not just for the US but every other country.
IMO, you're the one telling a rubbish story. I voted third party (in the 90's), and for a candidate that got around 3 times the amount of votes as the two other 3rd party candidates in this election, combined.
Given how lame both of the top candidates are, this would've been the ideal election cycle for 3rd party takeover. But it's abundantly clear that media and other political interests have either very little or no interest in a 3rd party takeover. Not to mention, if such a person did win, who would be their allies on the hill? They'd likely be played like a fiddle and it would be viewed by MSM as an experiment that didn't work out.
There are more than 2 choices on the ballot. I agree with this. There are currently only 2 viable, realistic choices, which is the part I think you dispute. I'm pretty sure @Kilgore Trout doesn't dispute this, nor do I. One of those two, either-or, I would say have around a 99% chance of being the next POTUS. I'm thinking @Kilgore Trout would go as high as 100% chance.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
You really think a person raised in the middle class is far removed but Trump is in touch with them? I think Trump has made himself into a parity of the poor white male. But the notion that a guy born into wealth, who has spent his whole life with wealth is more in touch is absurd.
Reading your post I wonder if you have actually ever listened to a Clinton speech.
Nope. I don't dispute that. I am pointing out that so long as people keep telling themselves that story nothing will change. What I have a hard time understanding is why so many continue to tell (and thus empower) narratives that they do not like. The story can be rewritten. The scene changes based on what people talk about. Why wouldn't someone want to facilitate that if they are one of the people fed up with the story of the red-and-blue? I really would encourage folks who don't like the two party system to start discussing the other things. That will help make change.
I really think it's because they think / realize the odds are stacked against them. Just take this election for example. Why wouldn't the media, if actually not biased, not be touting 3rd party candidates that are running and getting support? Lot of negative assertion in that question, LOL. But hopefully you understand the rhetorical inquiry. I see this current election cycle as the best opportunity for everyone but those firmly in (and working for) either Team Trump or Camp Clinton to be fully endorsing of third party candidates. Yet, who of national prominence is doing that? Literally, anyone? When what you are getting at is, why not everyone (other than paid shills of the two top ticket candidates)?
And that's just what's visible on the surface, the idea that media is not about to collectively throw it's weight behind 3rd party. Then there's all the political influence behind the scenes that arguably carries far more weight than whatever the media is up to, and arguably more weight than whatever the 2 primary campaigns are up to. That elusive entity could easily make it so 3rd party candidates are seen, at least this time around, as in America's best interest. Yet, when donations are reported (by the media of course), it is for only the 2 parties. There's the political influence within or favoring American politics, and then there's political influence outside or not favoring current American politics, and I've seen either nothing or very very little to show that such influence has any desire for America to go 3rd party.
Yet, I do clearly see around 6% of voting population that is saying they will vote for one of the other two 3rd party candidates on the ballot (I think Stein is on ballots).
And as a previous proud non-voter, I got to know that well over half of the U.S. population for at least the last 24 years has not voted for either of the 2 top candidates, so it is rather clear to me that the majority does not necessarily favor the 2 party system, at least when it comes to POTUS elections. If say Hillary (or Trump) wins, and even if they win in a truly historical landslide, it will actually translate into 40% (at most) of the population voted for them. I see it as being far more likely to be closer to 25%. And that's if they win.
Cassandra
Active Member
My view:
Simple:
That in the Anglo-Saxon martial culture. People like the one-on-one fights. Makes it more like a boxing game, like war. Not for nothing Americans describe it as a fight, a combat, not a contest.
Because this culture likes war much more than others. That is why Americans create themselves excuses to go to war all the time. They love the drama, the heroism, the excitement, the glory, even the self-pity.
American civilization is primarily a technological (better weapons) outer civilization, not an inner one. They call the military campaigns peace missions, but that is just window-dressing. Peace missions that kill millions of innocent people are more like lust murders. We go abroad to do some killing. No, not at home, that would be crime. But we do want guns so we can kill people if we have a legal excuse.
Just look at the endless parade of blood-soaked movies, TV-series, and blood-drenched computer games. The latest rage is zombies. That gives an excuse to enjoy seeing human beings killed on a large scale. You can use axes, chain-saws whatever. The US is the number one exporter of violence. The Brits are a good second and always in for a good fight as well. Just as mean, but a lot more sophisticated.
I can stand it, but I get nausea when they bring in Jesus to show their good intentions and make themselves look like victims suffering from being disliked. I do not like the self-pity of killers. A man should not murder and then cry in an attempt to be accepted as a sensitive human being. That totally ruins the effect. It really is an American thing to make Rambo cry.
Like this Trump guy insulting others. I say okay, he is a buffoon. But then he starts wining that he is being discriminated.
Really Donald, you believe your victims do not like you? That they fight back? That they do mean, mean things to you. Did they hurt your feelings? Does it make you feel a poor, poor Donald? Come buddy, man up, do not be a weeny.
Last edited: