Exposed: The Obama Invasion of Syria

[Minimalist]

I live in Massachusetts, a republican president will never win here.

And yet you have had republicunt governors....including Mitt the Shitt.

Never say never.

[Psykhronic]

Governors, yes, but cmon, a president? I doubt it. I won't say never, fair, but I am in huuuuge doubt.

---

Yet, although they make it difficult, many of us still have the option of not voting for them.

You have the option to not vote for either. But the exercise of that option mathematically increases the chances of Republicans winning.

You can exercise the option you have. But you have no option to avoid the consequences of your exercise.

I'm aware of the consequences, but I think I have a bit of a "moral dilemma" - face possible negative consequences vs stay true to what I think is right, the latter tends to win...

[A Theist]

Governors, yes, but cmon, a president? I doubt it. I won't say never, fair, but I am in huuuuge doubt.

---

You have the option to not vote for either. But the exercise of that option mathematically increases the chances of Republicans winning.

You can exercise the option you have. But you have no option to avoid the consequences of your exercise.

I'm aware of the consequences, but I think I have a bit of a "moral dilemma" - face possible negative consequences vs stay true to what I think is right, the latter tends to win...

Nah...don't let these guys persuade you to vote against your principles. Why force yourself to accept something that you're not happy with? If you think a third party candidate is better suited for your vote then I say you should vote for that third party, or not vote at all if you're unhappy with the choices on the ticket.

[Anomalocaris]

Governors, yes, but cmon, a president? I doubt it. I won't say never, fair, but I am in huuuuge doubt.

---

You have the option to not vote for either. But the exercise of that option mathematically increases the chances of Republicans winning.

You can exercise the option you have. But you have no option to avoid the consequences of your exercise.

I'm aware of the consequences, but I think I have a bit of a "moral dilemma" - face possible negative consequences vs stay true to what I think is right, the latter tends to win...

I would never think that which imposes a greater negative consequence on humanity to be right.

[Psykhronic]

Thank you for your support, A Theist (how many times does anyone here say that? )

And Chuck - my mind is thinking of long term change as well. I think another party or two in America would benefit Americans. So I will do what I plausibly can to head in that direction.

[Minimalist]

Thank you for your support, A Theist (how many times does anyone here say that? )

He's one of the vote suppressors. How else will he ever get one of his nazis back in the white house?

Governors, yes, but cmon, a president?

They are both statewide votes. What difference are you asserting?

[festive1]

I'm with Psykhronic. I don't think I'll be able to vote for a Democrat because it's pretty clear they are just a bunch of spineless, pandering, fucks. I do see the point of not voting 3rd party as it aids the Republicans, who I would rather kneecap than help in any form or fashion. I wanted to vote Nader in 2000, but my Democrat boyfriend at the time convinced me it was a vote for Bush, so I ended up voting Gore. Not that it mattered, I was in Arkansas and no matter how I voted the electoral college was going to go to Bush. I figure I'm in a pretty strong Blue state, Michael Steele is the last great Republican I can remember from Maryland, and compared to the Tea Partiers he's pretty sane. So if my voting Green helps change the two party system...
How do we dismantle the two party system anyway? Don't they need a certain percentage of the popular vote to become official?? I must go Google and find this out. I've been upset about my choices for a long time, since I was first able to vote really. Screw the Occupy movement, what the US needs is a Dismantle-the-Two-Party-System Movement. We just need better options.
I'm going to Google, I'll report back if someone doesn't beat me to it.

ETA:
So it's done on a state by state basis, with each state having their own set of rules and regulations varying from, "You want to run? Awesome, dude! Get some signatures and we'll put you on the ballot!" to "You want to run? Here's 50 hoops you have to jump through. Including party member retention over a 4 year period, etc." aka, nigh on impossible. UNLESS, Congress changes the rules, which evidently they can Constitutionally. However, with the two party system in control of Congress, what incentive would they have to change it? Especially, considering the whole point is to get some of those fuck-heads out of office.

[Psykhronic]

Governors, yes, but cmon, a president?

They are both statewide votes. What difference are you asserting?

These republicans today, I seriously doubt they could garner the votes to take my state. Those that are elected for the state, such as Mittenz for governor and Browno for senator, tend to be moderate - dont get me wrong romney sucked as governor but he wasnt profoundly republican (same with scotty); his leanings became more skewed when he ran for president. However, I did just review some history and feel silly - we have voted for a republican president not too long ago. So I retract some of what I said. A moderate-ish republican (by today's standards) could probably win the vote here.

[Anomalocaris]

Two party system is like a black hole. You are inside it. You can imagine there is world of freedom outside. You can try to get out if you don't care for the consequences of trying and because you don't know how and why it pulls on you. But you will not escape because it does pull inexorbly on you even though you don't know why and how.

[A Theist]

Thank you for your support, A Theist (how many times does anyone here say that? )

I got your back my friend. Stick to your principles