What's the "conservative" explanation?

[Firehaus]

I voted 3rd party as well. There was no conservative president on the ticket, so I wrote one in.

It's not about "individual principles", I wasn't going to vote for a populist/socialist grifter with a glaring personality disorder that was compromised by other nations. Sad, but true.

Now here we are, with a president who "transferred" his business interests to a trust that lists him both as the beneficiary and the grantor, with the trustee as his son (this is a defective trust, by the way), who still maintains all business interest, declared to still maintain all business interests, started a crypto currency that other nations heavily invest in at his own personal profit, and has issued executive orders pledging to defend nations immediately after receiving gifts of 400-500million from them.

Now, once elected, spending has ramped up to new highs, just like his last term (as some of us predicted, *cough* *cough*), and he is promising to print money to send directly to people, and for no fucking reason whatsoever, which is the cardinal sin of any real conservative if there was one.

Let me repeat: There was no conservative to vote for on the ticket for 2024.

I disagree, your individual principle on this matter is a hatred for Trump. You?ll never vote for him, but what about the conservative judges that get nominated from having him in office? Remaking the judicial branch with more conservative judges is as important or more for true change to happen.

Look at how many liberal judges keep using their bench to stop everything Trump, but you probably get a smile from it every time it happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Firehaus]

Democrats get elected because more people voted for them based on our electoral college. You can try to explain that away and blame people like me all you want but the reality is that if the Republican party put forth a better candidate then the Democrat wouldn't have won. But you continue voting for the candidate you KNOW sucks and this is your tepid approval of their choice for candidate. Why would they change? Their "Turd Sandwich" candidate _almost_ beat the "Giant Douche" candidate so what reason do they have to blow it up and change their flawed system?

I also find it interesting that you think that you voting Republican no matter who the candidate they put forward is somehow not being a cog in the very machine you bemoan in the same breath. If more people thought the way I did & voiced that with their vote (for the best possible candidate available to them regardless of affiliation) then BOTH parties would have to realize they've been out-of-touch for far too long and need to change.

Also, what about what I just said allows you to so confidently label me a "conservative" to tell me I'm voting wrong? I'm an American first and foremost and I fail to see how voting for the best candidate for the country (as I see it) can be faulted so confidently. If being a conservative means I have to hold my nose as I pull the proverbial lever for an inferior candidate (even if the best option available is a 3rd party candidate) then I guess I'm not a conservative. I don't see myself as such anyway so that fits my way of thinking. I also don't particularly like being put in a box where I MUST think a certain way on dozens of topics and not have a mind of my own on the individual topics. It's kind of silly that we as individuals are expected to conform this way and support every single aspect of our affiliation.

Again, if either party wants my vote they'd stop putting for Giant Douche & Turd Sandwich as my only choices. I'm not casting my vote as a spite vote because someone else thinks I should because it's what they did and I should just get in line and vote for an inferior candidate so that an even more inferior candidate doesn't win when the best option (the way I see it) is also on the list of options. That isn't logical and I'm not adding to the problem by doing so.

(credit to South Park for so perfectly nailing our presidential choices going back over 2 decades ago now in an obvious case of the more things change, the more they stay the same to anyone who bothers looking)

Thank you for making my point about people who vote more conservative than liberal self fracturing stick while making it about you and misgendering your political stance.

Do you think more people voted for Trump in 2016 for him or the Supreme Court seats?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FoxtArt]

* The house of reps now blocks the introduction of conservative bills without Trump's personal seal of approval, requiring the use of discharge petitions to get around him. In reaction, they intend to make the discharge petition impossible so that Trump fully controls the House of Representatives.

* The judiciary... Appointments are not just about (R) and (D). See e.g. Aileen Cannon for reference. If your judiciary appointments are entirely sycophants... you've eroded and destroyed the fragile check-and-balance that was. I want judges who uphold the Constitution. Will his sycophants do that? Absolutely not.

This candidate has effectively undermined all our checks and balances to the point that there are essentially none. Ironically, some see that as a "bonus".

Meanwhile, conservatives/federalists are appalled by the spending, the expansion, and consolidation of federal power and the executive. Everything that people praise Trump for, every judicial ruling that is bent to justify his unconstitutional behavior, will ultimately come back around with the next POTUS to cause great harm. The opinions that ultimately come out to justify extra-judicial killing, domestic terror labeling, personal financial interest, even tarriffs, all of these will give your upcoming liberal president even greater power. People forget this shit.

[Jer]

Thank you for making my point about people who vote more conservative than liberal self fracturing stick while making it about you and misgendering your political stance.

Do you think more people voted for Trump in 2016 for him or the Supreme Court seats?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, your point was based on how conservatives vote. My statement was pretty clearly that I'm not a conservative. However you want to label that.

We do agree on one point though... people not voting for a particular candidate can cause them & their party to lose. If the parties themselves understood this they would put forth better candidates to earn those "lost" votes.

[theGinsue]

Magnets……..it’s all about magnets.

Uh, I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you on this. Fletch says ball bearings - it's all about ball bearings these days.

[Firehaus]

No, your point was based on how conservatives vote. My statement was pretty clearly that I'm not a conservative. However you want to label that.

We do agree on one point though... people not voting for a particular candidate can cause them & their party to lose. If the parties themselves understood this they would put forth better candidates to earn those "lost" votes.

When was the last time a 3rd party person came close to winning a percentage close to the Republicans or Democrats? Ross Perot?

That?s how Clinton was elected.

You can argue semantics, but generally you have the Republicans/ Conservatives or the Democrats/ Liberals to vote for who actually have a chance of winning the election.

I understand your point and it?s not necessarily wrong, but it?s idealistic. I?m a realist.

I remember in 2008 at the intersection of Wads & I-70 in Arvada there would be protesters every weekend protesting Bush and the Iraq war.

Obama won and no more protesters. Did the war stop? Did the bombs and killing of children stop? No. Their candidate was elected and that?s all that mattered. That?s the liberal hive mind at work. That is who we are up against.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FoxtArt]

When was the last time a 3rd party person came close to winning a percentage close to the Republicans or Democrats? Ross Perot?

That?s how Clinton was elected.

You can argue semantics, but generally you have the Republicans/ Conservatives or the Democrats/ Liberals to vote for who actually have a chance of winning the election.

I understand your point and it?s not necessarily wrong, but it?s idealistic. I?m a realist.

I remember in 2008 at the intersection of Wads & I-70 in Arvada there would be protesters every weekend protesting Bush and the Iraq war.

Obama won and no more protesters. Did the war stop? Did the bombs and killing of children stop? No. Their candidate was elected and that?s all that mattered. That?s the liberal hive mind at work. That is who we are up against.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A party needs to consider both independent voters and voter sentiment/motivation. The primary reason an election is lost is that many voters stay home. 2026 and 2028 will be a blood bath for the GOP, and not because of third-party votes, and it absolutely deserves it.

Honestly, I believe preference voting is a way forward, despite the knee-jerks and screams that people like Trump wouldn't make it into office, that's exactly the point. The bottom-of-the-barrel of political corruption probably wouldn't make it into office. Maybe, just maybe, a candidate that isn't a controversial extreme would be in office, oh, the humanity.

[Jer]

When was the last time a 3rd party person came close to winning a percentage close to the Republicans or Democrats? Ross Perot?

That?s how Clinton was elected.

You can argue semantics, but generally you have the Republicans/ Conservatives or the Democrats/ Liberals to vote for who actually have a chance of winning the election.

I understand your point and it?s not necessarily wrong, but it?s idealistic. I?m a realist.

I remember in 2008 at the intersection of Wads & I-70 in Arvada there would be protesters every weekend protesting Bush and the Iraq war.

Obama won and no more protesters. Did the war stop? Did the bombs and killing of children stop? No. Their candidate was elected and that?s all that mattered. That?s the liberal hive mind at work. That is who we are up against.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your stated stance actually proves my point. You vote party lines and nothing will ever change because your voting FOR the current broken way of doing things. Doing the same thing that's always been done and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity. You're happy with the way things have gone? If not, why keep voting for the same way of doing things? Like it or not, your vote for the (R) party is a vote of approval, tepid as you may think it is. My vote couldn't be more clear as to how NOT a vote for either (D) or (R) it is. If more people did it and that low percentage you talk about went up... things would change as soon as others saw it was a viable option. That won't happen if nobody votes their mind and just votes so "they other guy" doesn't win.

Now just imagine if BOTH sides of the aisle who claim their party no longer represents them (or any other sane member of their party) actually voted logically for the person who was the best candidate. This idea that you can only vote (D) or (R) even if you don't like the candidate is quite literally the ONLY reason we don't have any other choices. I fully understand that my vote may be "wasted" in your eyes but it's my vote. Fortunately, as stated, I don't care what others think about how I voted. I voted for the person best for the job because I firmly believe that's the vision by which this country was founded. I sleep like a baby at night knowing that. I have zero reservations about voting for the person I believe best fits the role of the leader of these United States.

I just wish others who consider themselves Americans would take the same logical approach and stop overthinking themselves into voting for the same crappy government. Politics as usual. So many of them are 100% unwilling to compromise in any way... until it comes to the most important aspect of our nation. Then they get all "well, I compromised because I'm realist" and other such lame excuses for not having the courage to vote as 100% uncompromising as they claim to do everything else. Not sure how they sleep at night voting for a candidate that isn't the best one on the ballot simply because of party affiliation but... here we are. That seems pretty un-American.

Somehow many have convinced themselves that this is the most logical approach. For me, it seems to make the least logical sense for a single person to be that concerned about everyone how else is voting and then basing their decision solely on that data point. I vote for who I think is the best candidate and if others did the same we'd be in a better place in term of options. I know I keep saying that same thing but even as basic if an idea it seems to be lost upon a majority of voters so it seems that it needs to be said repeatedly. For me, I value this country FAR more than any political party. Not sure why anyone would choose a political party over the country, especially when said party has shown it will choose itself over the country at every possible turn.

Do you think if George Washington were alive today he'd be urging people to vote for a crappy candidate of one party just to block the other party from winning? No chance.

[Firehaus]

Do you think if George Washington were alive today he'd be urging people to vote for a crappy candidate of one party just to block the other party from winning? No chance.

I think if George Washington were alive today there would be mass executions for treason.

I think after all this back and forth my original statement stands.

Democrats vote Democrat no matter what, people that vote Republican self fracture due to strong ideology differences within the conservative movement weakening the conservative voting block getting Democrats elected.

You can self justify it all you want about why & how you choose to vote, but it doesn?t change the end result.

Is the current administration perfect, no.

Is the current administration better than Biden & Kamala, 100%.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aloha_Shooter]

Game theory and history will tell you that third party candidacies just enable the most effective plurality to win. Bill Clinton won both his elections with a plurality, not a majority, in key states and there's a lot of evidence that Perot's candidacy is what he needed to win. Certainly, Carville and Clinton believed that since they supported Perot's candidacy and even fed Perot misinformation to blame some of their own dirty tricks on Bush and Dole.