Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Trump Family hit with civil RICO suit this AM....

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by sovietgator, Oct 29, 2018.

  1. HallGator

    HallGator Senile Mod Moderator VIP Member

    49,462
    1,606
    2,508
    Apr 3, 2007
    Outer Limits

    I'm no spring chicken and I've come to the opposite conclusion after many years. I will not vote for anyone I feel does not deserve my vote. If my vote is a foregone conclusion then so be it. Feeling good has to do with moral underpinnings in this case.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  2. danmann65

    danmann65 GC Legend

    854
    179
    288
    May 22, 2015
    Voting for the status quo is wasting your vote. Both parties are in lockstep in supporting big business and opposed to American labor. They disagree on small silly side issues that both sides think are important but arent.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. danmann65

    danmann65 GC Legend

    854
    179
    288
    May 22, 2015
    So if you cant get to your desired weight immediately, do you not diet an exercise. 3rd party voting is like diet and exercise if you do it long enough you will see change.
     
  4. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    6,845
    476
    478
    Dec 9, 2010
    It is honestly unlikely that we will see change because it is not the optimal economic response. A first-past the post system with no proportional representation is always going to coalesce into a two-party system. If there are substantial enough political differences, you might get states in which the two parties differ, but there will always be two, and we haven't seen much movement towards localized third parties either. At best, you might stand some hope of seeing a change in your favored of the two parties because you become an occasional voter for them (occasional voters hold all the power in our system). But that would require a variety of conditions (a large group to do it that are willing to return to the main party, that group having a big presence in the states that actually matter, which are few, and some ideological consistency in those that feel left out by the parties). As of yet, none of the three are true.
     
  5. danmann65

    danmann65 GC Legend

    854
    179
    288
    May 22, 2015
    I honestly dont have any great love for our current system. I would be fine with one proportional and one appointed by the states. Our system is broken. We need to fix it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. grumpygator77

    grumpygator77 Senior

    274
    62
    248
    Nov 26, 2017
    I've been around a long time. I've not seen any change brought about by a third party candidate.
    I'll admit the two party system has it's problems. But it's workable.

    As far as the diet analogy, since it's football season, I'll give you my take. Pounding the ground game all game long will eventually take it's toll on the opposing team's D. Not much value to it that if the score at the half is you: 3 -- your opponent: 52. You may score a few times in the 4th but the result is the same.
     
  7. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    6,845
    476
    478
    Dec 9, 2010
    Oh absolutely agreed. I think of my own personal history. I have lived in 3 states in my life: a hard red state, a hard blue state, and Florida. The hard red and blue states have a combined 14 congressional districts. Not a single one is competitive (both have exactly one district controlled by the non-dominant party gerrymandered to contain as many members of that party as possible). They have a combined 4 Senators. None of them are in any danger of being voted out of office. Neither is likely to see any competitive Presidential general election campaigns in the future and haven't for well over a decade, at least. That means that there is very little incentive for either party to address the needs of that state nationally and very little reason for your average voter to even care enough to vote (I will be voting in an election with 1 national candidate on the ballot from either party, he is not opposed by anybody from either party or anybody with any chance of even getting within sight of the main candidate).

    And here is the ultimate irony: on a local level, both work better than Florida. Neither dominant party currently controls the Governor's chair in either state. Both opposing parties ran a very good and moderate candidate against a far poorer candidate from the dominant party and both states voted for the better candidate. Florida, due to its position as 1 of 11 states that even vaguely matter in Presidential politics, has a completely dysfunctional electorate, fueled by tens of millions of dollars of political advertisements by both parties every four years. The elections in Florida are completely controlled by the opinions of those that are least likely to show up, because whichever side gets more occasional voters wins (all that political advertising has limited the less partisan sections of the electorate to an almost inconsequential minority). As such, in that environment, both parties chose their optimal candidate. However, I don't think a strong argument can be made that either candidate was the best candidate from a purely governmental perspective on the ballot. But, as Democrats learned in a very long and hard lesson over the past 2 decades, the Florida electorate (just like the electorates of the other 11 states that matter in Presidential elections) generally don't reward good governance. They will simply reward whoever can get their occasional voters to show up at the polls.
     
  8. fastsix

    fastsix Premium Member

    7,044
    609
    833
    Apr 11, 2007
    Seattle
    A third party gains traction by starting out at the local level. Libertarian and Green Party candidates being trotted out every 4 years for a presidential run is a waste of time, money, and votes. Barring a "superstar" candidate who could win on name recognition or reputation, they will never win without first establishing their party on a local, then state, and then federal level. Prove to me you're a real party with a real platform and the experience to get it done and I'll think about voting for you. Until then I think you're just in it for the money, of which there is plenty to be gained.

    What Happened to Jill Stein’s Recount Millions?

    Shortly after the 2016 election, Jill Stein raised more than $7 million from shell-shocked liberals eager to pursue a swing-state recount. Nearly two years later, the U.S. Green Party’s last candidate for president is still spending that money.

    Ongoing litigation, travel costs, and staff salaries are also likely to eat up whatever is left, meaning those who donated to Stein are unlikely to receive a once-promised chance to vote on how the post-recount money would be spent. Nor have donors been given much of a window into how Stein is actually spending their donations.
     
  9. intimigator1

    intimigator1 GC Hall of Fame

    4,723
    218
    298
    Apr 8, 2007
    Male' Maldives
    This is a very good analogy! Very well done using the football scenario.
     
  10. HallGator

    HallGator Senile Mod Moderator VIP Member

    49,462
    1,606
    2,508
    Apr 3, 2007
    Outer Limits

    No, it allows me to vote for the person I felt was most qualified. I didn't feel particularly good about it but the two main party choices were both unacceptable in my book and my other choice was not to vote. I heard the kind of argument you are putting forth many times before the election but if I had it to do over again I would do the same thing.
     
  11. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    3,457
    327
    323
    Apr 16, 2007
    Your stand makes sense if you saw Trump and Clinton as "equally bad". Or if you believed enough voters from both sides would give an an independent or 3rd party candidate a chance.

    I saw Trump as Caligula, with the 3rd party options there mostly attracting people that would vote for the only candidate that could stop Trump. Jill Stein in particular, as it turned out, may have even been a Russian plant.

    I like Gary Johnson, even after his Alleppo moment. But not enough to waste my vote on him, esp considering his campaign had essentially collapsed.
     
  12. gatorknights

    gatorknights GC Hall of Fame

    22,172
    1,210
    983
    Apr 8, 2007
    Gainesville, FL
    I'm surprised it took this long for someone to come after him on RICO violations. I would have thought that would have happened decades ago against his development activities, and possibly trump university as well.
     
  13. OaktownGator

    OaktownGator Guardian of the GC Galaxy Moderator VIP Member

    24,408
    1,601
    2,023
    Apr 3, 2007
    Trump as Caligula and HRC as Caligua Light.

    They were both really bad candidates, reflected in their worst ever approval ratings.