My Vote is for sale!

[*PhilHos*]

Not really, but I was hoping to get your attention (though, if you pay me enough, I'll vote for whomever you want me to vote, even Hillary Clinton).

Anyway, right now, my plan is to vote for Donald Trump. Not because I like him or think he'll do the best job for president, but rather because with my vote for Trump, I'm sending a message to Washington that I'm fed up with the current state of politics here in America. Now, I recognize that if Trump wins, that may not be the message that is received, but my expectations are that no matter who wins, things will pretty much stay the same.

With that said, I would really rather have my vote go to someone I favor instead of just sending a message. So, with that said, I want you to convince me to vote for a 3rd party candidate. I don't care if they have a chance at winning. Just convince me, a conservative Republican not in favor of Trump, that [fill in the blank] would be a good choice.

Please don't tell me not to vote for Trump and why, because the whole point of this thread is that I want to vote FOR someone. The last time I voted FOR someone and not against someone was when I voted for George W. Bush.

So, have at it.

[Benton]

(08-10-2016, 01:19 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Not because I like him or think he'll do the best job for president, but rather because with my vote for Trump, I'm sending a message to Washington that I'm fed up with the current state of politics here in America.

...
Please don't tell me not to vote for Trump and why, because the whole point of this thread is that I want to vote FOR someone. 

Well. No, I'm going to anyway.



Not why you shouldn't vote for Trump. I honestly think everyone should vote for the candidate that reflects their values the most. If Trump's and yours are parallel, go for it.

But to the first line above, that's not the message that will be heard. The message that comes through is the same one that's guided our political landscape for 30ish years. If you want to get elected, you have to do three things: lie, spend the most and have an interesting personality. That's the message that's been sent since around the Reagan era.

Tell the people what they want to hear. And if they find out the truth, deflect it.

Spend gobs of cash slinging mud. You may not be the best candidate, but make sure everyone knows just how horrible the other guy is.

Play it up for the camera. It got JFK elected. And Reagan, Clinton, W, Barack. Have a beer, shoot some hoops, play the sax, tell some jokes. Policy? Who cares, just show them you're interesting. Nobody likes boring people like McCain or Dole — give them some excitement.

You want you vote to send a message that you're tired of the same old thing? Vote third party. You want your vote to continue the cycle of electing dishonest, morally bankrupt people that are fun, vote for Trump or Clinton.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-10-2016, 01:36 PM)Benton Wrote: Well. No, I'm going to anyway.



Not why you shouldn't vote for Trump. I honestly think everyone should vote for the candidate that reflects their values the most. If Trump's and yours are parallel, go for it.

But to the first line above, that's not the message that will be heard. The message that comes through is the same one that's guided our political landscape for 30ish years. If you want to get elected, you have to do three things: lie, spend the most and have an interesting personality. That's the message that's been sent since around the Reagan era.

Tell the people what they want to hear. And if they find out the truth, deflect it.

Spend gobs of cash slinging mud. You may not be the best candidate, but make sure everyone knows just how horrible the other guy is.

Play it up for the camera. It got JFK elected. And Reagan, Clinton, W, Barack. Have a beer, shoot some hoops, play the sax, tell some jokes. Policy? Who cares, just show them you're interesting. Nobody likes boring people like McCain or Dole — give them some excitement.

You want you vote to send a message that you're tired of the same old thing? Vote third party. You want your vote to continue the cycle of electing dishonest, morally bankrupt people that are fun, vote for Trump or Clinton.

I will consider what you say, but I don't think it's going to change my mind. I "hear" what you're saying that Trump is just more of the same, but I still think it'll send a message if he's elected. Maybe not, but I still want to try. Who knows? Maybe I'll wake up one Tuesday morning and decide that sending the message is not worth Trump being president or that it just won't be heard at all.

[BmorePat87]

Gary Johnson has the most executive experience within the government of any candidate. Having no experience isn't the solution is fighting "the way Washington works". Having people who have proven that they can get elected twice in a blue state with red values is a better start.

He will advocate for socially liberal beliefs, but so is every other candidate. He is by far the most fiscally conservative candidate and respects the Constitution.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

1 question you should ask yourself,

Who would you rather have nominating Supreme Court Justices?

That's it.

The next president is going to nominate 2-4 Supreme Court Justices. These Justices are going to interpret law for the next 40 years.

[Rotobeast]

(08-10-2016, 01:53 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Gary Johnson has the most executive experience within the government of any candidate. Having no experience isn't the solution is fighting "the way Washington works". Having people who have proven that they can get elected twice in a blue state with red values is a better start.

He will advocate for socially liberal beliefs, but so is every other candidate. He is by far the most fiscally conservative candidate and respects the Constitution.

This...
Also couple it with the fact that a Dem or Rep will bang heads and never get any policy through, just because of the spite opposing parties have against one another.

With Johnson being a Libertarian, both sides would be able to work with him, without being perceived a traitor.

He and Weld both made their state economies thrive.
Johnson went in with a deficit and left them with a billion dollar surplus.

If the idea of getting things done doesn't sway you, I'm not sure what will.



Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[*PhilHos*]

(08-10-2016, 01:53 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He will advocate for socially liberal beliefs,... He is by far the most fiscally conservative candidate and respects the Constitution.

Can you expound on the above?

[Aquapod770]

(08-10-2016, 03:59 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Can you expound on the above?

Socially liberal:

He's pro-choice (but has stated before that he is personally pro-life, but the current law of the land is the opposite). 

He's pro-gay marriage. 

Wants to make it easier to get work visas for immigrants, but supports a "1 strike you're out" policy. 


Fiscally conservative: 

Wants to cut government spending by 25% across the board. 

Completely eliminate the income tax (and IRS) and replace it with a 23% consumption tax. 

Eliminate the department of education. 






With that said, Johnson isn't the most libertarian candidate ever.  Although his version of "libertarian light" is still way better than the big government policies of Trump and Hilldog. You want to actually send a message in November? Vote 3rd party. This is the first election in a while that both major parties have nominated such unlikable candidates. If people didn't just vote along party lines I'd say a 3rd party would have a legitimate shot at getting ~30% of the popular vote. 

[Benton]

(08-10-2016, 03:59 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Can you expound on the above?

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

Taxes

Quote:

• Current tax code penalizes productivity & investment. (Jan 2016)
• 23% national sales tax while eliminating the IRS. (May 2012)
• Get rid of income tax and capital-gains tax. (Feb 2012)
• FairTax on all new goods & services, with prebates for poor. (Feb 2012)
• FairTax would absolutely reboot the American economy. (Sep 2011)
• Replace tax system with a FairTax. (Sep 2011)
• Replace job-killing tax code with FairTax. (Sep 2011)
• Reduce state personal income tax from 8.5% to 8%. (Jul 2011)
• No national sales tax or VAT. (Feb 2000)
  

SS, Welfare

Quote:

• Raise the retirement age to 70 or 72. (Aug 2012)
• A portion of Social Security ought to be privatized. (Aug 2012)
• Replace the payroll tax with FairTax. (Feb 2012)
• Raise the retirement age; plus means testing. (Aug 2011)
• Reform all entitlements, including Social Security. (Jul 2011)
• Open to personal accounts for Social Security. (Jul 2011)
• Change escalator from wage-based to inflation-based. (May 2011)
• Maintain long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare. (Aug 2001)
  • Impose gross income cap on welfare recipients. (Jul 2011)
  • Maintain federal Social Services Block Grant funding. (Sep 2001)
  • Maintain flexibility & funding levels for TANF block grants. (Sep 2001)
    
  
  

As far as the socially liberal...

Quote:

• Let people drive 75 mph & buy beer on Sundays. (Nov 2011)
• Favorite philosopher: Milton Friedman. (Aug 2011)
• Tea Party insures that Republicans are part of the solution. (Jul 2011
  

[Belsnickel]

(08-10-2016, 03:59 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Can you expound on the above?

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-On-the-issues

[*bfine32*]

(08-10-2016, 02:07 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: 1 question you should ask yourself,

Who would you rather have nominating Supreme Court Justices?

That's it.

The next president is going to nominate 2-4 Supreme Court Justices. These Justices are going to interpret law for the next 40 years.

This is my #1 concern; as the 4 years will pass relatively quickly. But the face of the SCOTUS will change. Hopefully, the Legislative Branch can be a little more pro-active and stop the Judicial Branch from having to make laws.

[BmorePat87]

(08-10-2016, 03:59 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Can you expound on the above?

Benton and Aquapod did a great job answering for me, but definitely check out the image linked in the thread Matt just responded with. Great side by side comparison of the candidates on the issues. 

I'd also recommend isidewith.org

With regards to my Constitution comment, this is obviously heavily influenced by my personal ideology since he comes the closest to it, but he seems to demonstrate the most respect for protecting the rights of the individual, limiting government within traditionally interpreted constitutional boundaries, and respects everyone's first amendment rights. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-10-2016, 03:25 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: This...
Also couple it with the fact that a Dem or Rep will bang heads and never get any policy through, just because of the spite opposing parties have against one another.

With Johnson being a Libertarian, both sides would be able to work with him, without being perceived a traitor.

He and Weld both made their state economies thrive.
Johnson went in with a deficit and left them with a billion dollar surplus.

If the idea of getting things done doesn't sway you, I'm not sure what will.



Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

Or neither party would work with a Libertarian so during the next election cycle they can tell the voters 3rd party politicians can't get things done and they alone can fix stuff. 

[NATI BENGALS]

23% national sales tax while eliminating the IRS. (May 2012)
Get rid of income tax and capital-gains tax. (Feb 2012)

Wow. That sounds like a massive tax break to the super rich. And a tax increase that the lower and middle class would be paying for.

[Aquapod770]

(08-10-2016, 06:37 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: 23% national sales tax while eliminating the IRS. (May 2012)
Get rid of income tax and capital-gains tax. (Feb 2012)

Wow. That sounds like a massive tax break to the super rich. And a tax increase that the lower and middle class would be paying for.

Noticed you left this one out...

Quote:

• FairTax on all new goods & services, with prebates for poor. (Feb 2012)
  

Essentially it would be a tax break for everyone. Well unless you don't pay income tax.

[*Nately120*]

(08-10-2016, 01:19 PM)PhilHos Wrote: The last time I voted FOR someone and not against someone was when I voted for George W. Bush.

So, have at it.

In the light of this information I choose to decline.

[NATI BENGALS]

(08-10-2016, 06:40 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Noticed you left this one out...


Essentially it would be a tax break for everyone. Well unless you don't pay income tax.

So if you are below the poverty level they will give you a check each month. If you are in the middle class you pay the same tax as the super rich. Except the middle class I imagine buys a lot more good collectively than the super rich. So while it costs more for a middle class family to feed and clothe their family the super rich can play at the casino and risk the retirements of anyone below them because no capital gains tax gives them no incentive to hold on to an investment. 

This sounds like one of the worst tax ideas i have heard. First time hearing about so i really dont know much. But my initial reaction is a billionaire makes all their money tax free, invests tax free, they just have to pay a little more for the extravagant goods they buy ,the Mcdonalds or whatever food they are eating on their jet will cost a little more for everybody , and that is going to provide enough money to pay for national defense and infastructure? Color me skeptical

[NATI BENGALS]

(08-10-2016, 07:04 PM)Nately120 Wrote: In the light of this information I choose to decline.

That was right where i began to question the decision making skills as well.

[Aquapod770]

(08-10-2016, 07:08 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: So if you are below the poverty level they will give you a check each month. If you are in the middle class you pay the same tax as the super rich. Except the middle class I imagine buys a lot more good collectively than the super rich. So while it costs more for a middle class family to feed and clothe their family the super rich can play at the casino and risk the retirements of anyone below them because no capital gains tax gives them no incentive to hold on to an investment. 

This sounds like one of the worst tax ideas i have heard. First time hearing about so i really dont know much. But my initial reaction is a billionaire makes all their money tax free, invests tax free, they just have to pay a little more for the extravagant goods they buy ,the Mcdonalds or whatever food they are eating on their jet will cost a little more for everybody , and that is going to provide enough money to pay for national defense and infastructure? Color me skeptical

"A little more" 

Let's use your example of a jet. A low end private jet costs about 4 million dollars. (http://www.privatejetcosts.net) 

4 million means this fictional evil 1%'er will be paying $920,000 alone in taxes on that jet. 

Now let's say Joe is buying a new car for $15,000. His price just went up $3,450 because of this huge tax cut for the rich. 

If you're bad with your money and buy a lot of pointless things, sure you'll end up paying a lot in taxes. I would hope most middle class Americans aren't spending 100% of their income each year.  

Let's do another example: Joe and his wife make $100,000 a year, so when they file their taxes currently their income is taxed at 25%. That's $25,000 in income taxes alone (ignoring deductions for the sake of time and simplicity). Let's say they spend all $75,000 they have left. If they made and spent that same amount under the Fairtax plan they'd pay $17,250 in taxes, or $7,750 less in taxes then they currently do. 

[Rotobeast]

(08-10-2016, 06:24 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Or neither party would work with a Libertarian so during the next election cycle they can tell the voters 3rd party politicians can't get things done and they alone can fix stuff. 

Always possible...
He has some support from outside his party though.
I don't know if any are Democrats or not.