PDA

View Full Version : Chelene Nightangale information


spetsnaz
10-20-2010, 1:31 PM
so hey everyone ive been checking up on politics and am wondering on what are peoples opinions, comments, questions about chelene nightangle the American independent canadaite for governor. now i personally believe she wont win but am still throwing my support for her. just wondering what people here think or know anything about her? would love to hear the comments on this topic.

http://www.nightingaleforgovernor.com/

OleCuss
10-20-2010, 1:35 PM
She had a presence on CalGuns. It wasn't a good experience. I'm not sure whether it was a staff issue or whether it was her.

One CalGuns member pointed out that there had been some significant management/ethical problems in some of her dealings. She also has some rather nutty statements out there.

I suspect I could like her as a person but I don't see voting for her. The nuttiness and ethics issues being the biggest. Flip side is that Jerry Brown is nuts as well - don't know about Whitman.

About the only governor vote I might be able to be proud casting would be for Ogden - but there's no chance he'll win, either.

Edit: I heard snippets of Chelene's interview on KFIV/1360 am and the parts I heard were pretty good. The parts I didn't hear may have been utterly insane but since I didn't hear them I don't know.

taperxz
10-20-2010, 1:37 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=343103&highlight=chelene+nightengale

spetsnaz
10-20-2010, 1:39 PM
really? didnt think shes ever been on calguns or on an online forum for that matter

spetsnaz
10-20-2010, 1:41 PM
dale ogden? the guy is a libertarian though. ive never found something i like in them. they sound too good to be true something is always off somewhere there.

pretty interesting website. has a libertarian kept their word though? how are they on gun rights and muscle car rights? (smog ect)?

http://dalefogden.org/

GrizzlyGuy
10-20-2010, 1:57 PM
dale ogden? the guy is a libertarian though. ive never found something i like in them. they sound too good to be true something is always off somewhere there.

pretty interesting website. has a libertarian kept their word though? how are they on gun rights and muscle car rights? (smog ect)?

http://dalefogden.org/

See here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=5092962&postcount=6) for his position on gun rights. I can't imagine anyone better for gun rights or for muscle cars (http://dalefogden.org/):

We need to (a) abolish useless and harmful state licensing and regulatory agencies and repeal thousands of useless and often harmful regulations, creating a rational, business-friendly state... Repeal the global warming (i.e., carbon limits) laws that the idiots in the state legislature have already passed and that our idiot-in-chief Governor signed. Check out this article (11/20/2009) and this one (12/9/2009) [Climategate: Gore falsifies the record], about the “stolen” emails admitting that the climate “scientists” distort and hide data. The scandal grows each day as the self-anointed climate “scientists” and others (e.g., Al Gore) who have perpetrated this fraud try to ignore the evidence and continue their efforts to scam the citizens of the world.

steadyrock
10-20-2010, 2:08 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=343103&highlight=chelene+nightengale

Post #8 in that thread encapsulates it. She is a complete goon.

I won't be voting for Whitman. I probably won't be voting for Brown. I definitely won't be voting for Nightingale.

Looks like it may be Ogden. I have a few fundamental issues with the Libertarians, but I think at this point they could do this state some real good.

Mikeb
10-20-2010, 2:17 PM
I can't vote for Whitman and as an Oakland resident I won't vote for Brown. I'll probably vote for Nightengale what the heck.
Mike

spetsnaz
10-20-2010, 2:37 PM
i really cant vote for any of them. this "election" is really a joke. we can never have a good person with us you know. for the people its quite disturbing how you cant have a good candidate run for something!!! im currently looking into dan ogden but i still need to do some research on this libertarian thing. i have issues with liberals so i hope this guy has no liberal ties or anything with the democrat party.

jamesonamac
10-20-2010, 2:48 PM
I am voting Nightengale. I don't care if she seems a little nutty, I don't care if she will get beat up in Sac. She is still better then Meg Whitless or Jerry Moonbeam Brown. She is certainly better than either on the 2nd Amendment.

OleCuss
10-20-2010, 2:51 PM
i really cant vote for any of them. this "election" is really a joke. we can never have a good person with us you know. for the people its quite disturbing how you cant have a good candidate run for something!!! im currently looking into dan ogden but i still need to do some research on this libertarian thing. i have issues with liberals so i hope this guy has no liberal ties or anything with the democrat party.

I think I can guarantee you that the Democrat party wants nothing to do with Ogden. Pretty close to polar opposites. . .

spetsnaz
10-20-2010, 2:58 PM
I think I can guarantee you that the Democrat party wants nothing to do with Ogden. Pretty close to polar opposites. . .

ogden said something along the lines of open borders and that's not something i like. i can make a compromise though.

steadyrock
10-20-2010, 3:09 PM
i really cant vote for any of them. this "election" is really a joke. we can never have a good person with us you know. for the people its quite disturbing how you cant have a good candidate run for something!!! im currently looking into dan ogden but i still need to do some research on this libertarian thing. i have issues with liberals so i hope this guy has no liberal ties or anything with the democrat party.

It's Dale Ogden (http://www.daleogden.org/), not Dan.

Libertarian != Liberal, and the Libertarian Party != the Democrat Party. If you're serious about researching the Libertarian Party's platform, have a look at http://www.lp.org/issues. Specifically, have a look at http://www.lp.org/issues/gun-laws and find out why Libertarians are a good fit with many Calgunners.

FWIW, I would advise those not voting for Brown to seriously consider giving your vote to Dale Ogden.

OleCuss
10-20-2010, 3:37 PM
ogden said something along the lines of open borders and that's not something i like. i can make a compromise though.

I don't know why he is for open borders, but with certain provisos, I am.

If we take away the welfare state, absolutely secure the borders, and stop requiring the government to function in all languages - then I'd like entry to the U.S. to effectively be a good background check and a promise that you will not sponge off the U.S. taxpayer or foment opposition to the American way of life.

Then lock them up and eventually boot them out never to return if they violate their commitment. But the U.S. taxpayer shouldn't pay a dime for their health care, food, schooling, etc. Their progeny should not be U.S. citizens unless their parent(s) are.

I don't fear immigrants. I fear the stupidity of our government on immigration issues.

Bizcuits
10-20-2010, 4:30 PM
She made some shell accounts on Calguns, posted and then used the shells to act like supporters. I believe was caught, called out on it, then repeated it.

She will not get my vote, actually didn't (absentee)

Lesser of two evils, I'll take Jerry.

boxbro
10-20-2010, 4:36 PM
Post #8 in that thread encapsulates it. She is a complete goon.

I won't be voting for Whitman. I probably won't be voting for Brown. I definitely won't be voting for Nightingale.

Looks like it may be Ogden. I have a few fundamental issues with the Libertarians, but I think at this point they could do this state some real good.

This post (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3600029#post3600029) from one of the threads I referenced there says it all.

OleCuss
10-20-2010, 4:40 PM
She made some shell accounts on Calguns, posted and then used the shells to act like supporters. I believe was caught, called out on it, then repeated it.

She will not get my vote, actually didn't (absentee)

Lesser of two evils, I'll take Jerry.

I think some of the shenanigans got blamed on campaign staff? I wasn't convinced.

J.D.Allen
10-20-2010, 4:51 PM
See here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=5092962&postcount=6) for his position on gun rights. I can't imagine anyone better for gun rights or for muscle cars (http://dalefogden.org/):

These quotes did it for me. If I could vote in CA, he would be getting my vote, chance to win or not!

J.D.Allen
10-20-2010, 4:52 PM
I don't know why he is for open borders, but with certain provisos, I am

This is a fairly standard libertarian position isn't it?

OleCuss
10-20-2010, 4:56 PM
This is a fairly standard libertarian position isn't it?

I'm actually not sure. I got disgusted with the Republicans and registered as a Libertarian - but Libertarians are pretty irrelevant electorally so I generally don't pay much attention to their platform or the beliefs of the individually irrelevant candidates.

But I think it is a generally conservative viewpoint: If you are willing to take care of yourself and not be a burden on others - and you're not going to be obnoxious or dangerous, then the marketplace will sort things out pretty well for everyone.

rabagley
10-20-2010, 5:04 PM
I remained registered with the Republican party. I keep hoping that it's possible to drag them away from being a regional party of limited national interest and back towards fiscal conservatism, liberty and freedom.

But then I get called a RINO all the time, so my efforts aren't very successful so far.

Nor-Cal
10-20-2010, 6:45 PM
Nightangale will have my vote!

1911 Fan
10-20-2010, 8:40 PM
Yes Nightingale has my vote . It can't get any nuttier than mw and jb.LOL.

stomper4x4
10-20-2010, 11:36 PM
Dale Ogden does support open borders to a point, however he did state

"However, the government should not take money from one group of individuals (taxpayers) and give it to others. We should not subsidize nor penalize immigrants."

Libertarians such as Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul are more strict on immigration issues than the typical libertarian platform.

Being a registered libertarian myself, I admit that this is one of the few issues I depart from the parties platform. I think the border needs to be locked down at least until the mess is cleaned up.

I can't vote for Meg or Brown out of principle. I always vote my conscience these days. I used to do the "lesser of the evils" thing between the two parties, but in my 20 years or so of voting, it's clear that has gotten us now where.

FERGUSON
10-21-2010, 8:36 AM
nightingale is getting my vote!!! she might actually take our constitution serious...

HowardW56
10-21-2010, 8:41 AM
Why vote for someone who doesn't have a chance.

I know this doesn't sound right, but vote for the candidate you find the least offensive that has a chance.

I don't really care for any politician, The last election when I was happy with my options to vote for was Regan for President...

Ideally you should vote for the candidate you like the most, realistically you should vote for the candidate you dislike the least that has a chance of winning the election.

boxbro
10-21-2010, 9:25 AM
It can't get any nuttier than mw and jb.LOL.

Sure it can.
CN is definitely the nuttiest of them all.

domino
10-21-2010, 9:27 AM
so hey everyone ive been checking up on politics and am wondering on what are peoples opinions, comments, questions about chelene nightangle the American independent canadaite for governor. now i personally believe she wont win but am still throwing my support for her. just wondering what people here think or know anything about her? would love to hear the comments on this topic.

http://www.nightingaleforgovernor.com/

she got my vote already...she is the only logical one to vote for, even though she wont win lol.

boxbro
10-21-2010, 9:31 AM
she got my vote already...she is the only logical one to vote for, even though she wont win lol.

Knowing she wont win, how can you call a vote for her logical ?

ZX-10R
10-21-2010, 10:11 AM
I honestly believe we will be only a two party country for a long time.

POLICESTATE
10-21-2010, 10:12 AM
My opinion. She's not any worse than Brown or Whitman and she likes guns and freedom. So I'm voting for her.

POLICESTATE
10-21-2010, 10:17 AM
Knowing she wont win, how can you call a vote for her logical ?

That's similar to the "voting for a third party is a wasted vote"

Not really. If you don't like what the two parties have to offer then voting for them is a wasted vote. Doesn't matter who wins really. That's a separate issue.

The problem with voting in America now is there are too many people who want to vote for who they THINK will win, and not who they really want. People like to feel they are on the winning side.

I'm voting for Nightingale because I like her stance on freedom and 2A, I feel that Brown represents a long list of crap I don't like, and the same goes for Whitman. For me to vote for either of those two would be wasting my vote.

Contrast this with the US Senate seat between Boxer and Fiorny or whatever her name is. I'm voting for the republican because there is no way I want to see Boxer remain in the senate, so even though I don't like anything about Whitman and I think she's a crook I feel the lesser of two evils makes sense in that particular race. But she's the only member of the 2 party system I am voting for, and only for that reason.

Logically people should vote for the person they feel best represents them. Any other vote is a wasted vote, extenuating circumstances aside that is.

boxbro
10-21-2010, 10:37 AM
That's similar to the "voting for a third party is a wasted vote"

Not really. If you don't like what the two parties have to offer then voting for them is a wasted vote. Doesn't matter who wins really. That's a separate issue.

The problem with voting in America now is there are too many people who want to vote for who they THINK will win, and not who they really want. People like to feel they are on the winning side.

I'm voting for Nightingale because I like her stance on freedom and 2A, I feel that Brown represents a long list of crap I don't like, and the same goes for Whitman. For me to vote for either of those two would be wasting my vote.

Contrast this with the US Senate seat between Boxer and Fiorny or whatever her name is. I'm voting for the republican because there is no way I want to see Boxer remain in the senate, so even though I don't like anything about Whitman and I think she's a crook I feel the lesser of two evils makes sense in that particular race. But she's the only member of the 2 party system I am voting for, and only for that reason.

Logically people should vote for the person they feel best represents them. Any other vote is a wasted vote, extenuating circumstances aside that is.

When you vote for someone because you think they have a chance at winning, then it's not a wasted vote.
When you vote for someone, knowing they can't win, it's not just a wasted vote, it's a waste of your time.
There is no logic in that vote, you might as well stay home and save your gas money.

POLICESTATE
10-21-2010, 11:01 AM
When you vote for someone because you think they have a chance at winning, then it's not a wasted vote.
When you vote for someone, knowing they can't win, it's not just a wasted vote, it's a waste of your time.
There is no logic in that vote, you might as well stay home and save your gas money.

Your argument assumes that we should vote based on popularity.

This is America, not American Idol.

If you don't vote according to your preferences, but instead vote according to who's popular then it's probably best you don't vote at all.

If you don't bother to vote because you don't care, then you don't get to complain about things IMO.

If you don't vote because you don't think your candidate will win then you might as well move out of the country and do the rest of us a favor, oh and don't bother complaining about how screwed up things are.

If people actually voted according to who they felt best represented their interests AND they actually spent a little bit of time researching the issues we would have a much stronger country than we do now.

Because both parties don't have the interests of the people at heart then voting for either of them IS a wasted vote because your vote, regardless of whether your choice wins or not, will "buy" you NOTHING except more of the same crap people are tired of.

Therefore, the only truly wasted vote is one for either the republican or democratic parties at this point. It would be in the best interests of us all, except for the big shot business folks, for both of these antiquated and corrupt parties to disband and two other parties take their place. Of course all the scum from the old parties would just join the new ones...

At least I know when I go vote I voted for the person I wanted to be in the office, and not for the person other people wanted in office.

Bizcuits
10-21-2010, 11:13 AM
nightingale is getting my vote!!! she might actually take our constitution serious...

I'm digging your name bro.

boxbro
10-21-2010, 12:06 PM
Your argument assumes that we should vote based on popularity.

No it assumes you should vote based on reality.

This is America, not American Idol.

I know this, but then you probably already knew that.
Nice strawman argument though.

If you don't vote according to your preferences, but instead vote according to who's popular then it's probably best you don't vote at all.

If you don't vote based on reality then you probably should waste your time in voting.

If you don't bother to vote because you don't care, then you don't get to complain about things IMO.

I think a non vote is every much a vote as anyone's, and they have just as much right to complain as anyone, the real differenc ebeing, they didn't waste their time.
But that's an entirely different discussion.

If you don't vote because you don't think your candidate will win then you might as well move out of the country and do the rest of us a favor, oh and don't bother complaining about how screwed up things are.

Voting and thinking that your candidate might not win is entirely different than voting and knowing they will not win.

If people actually voted according to who they felt best represented their interests AND they actually spent a little bit of time researching the issues we would have a much stronger country than we do now.

Probably, but that's not reality, now is it ?
There have been people that have done this all their lives and every one of their votes made no difference.
The problem is that too many people are stuck in the two party system and they will not budge from that.

Because both parties don't have the interests of the people at heart then voting for either of them IS a wasted vote because your vote, regardless of whether your choice wins or not, will "buy" you NOTHING except more of the same crap people are tired of.

You're gonna get that anyways.

Therefore, the only truly wasted vote is one for either the republican or democratic parties at this point. It would be in the best interests of us all, except for the big shot business folks, for both of these antiquated and corrupt parties to disband and two other parties take their place. Of course all the scum from the old parties would just join the new ones...

I don't see it changing any time soon.

At least I know when I go vote I voted for the person I wanted to be in the office, and not for the person other people wanted in office.

But you also know it makes no difference.
But whatever floats your boat.
My take is, why bother, but if it gives you peace of mind then at least it's worth that.
Just know it's not going to change the outcome of the election except that someone you dislike more than another might get into office.

stomper4x4
10-21-2010, 12:12 PM
When you vote for someone because you think they have a chance at winning, then it's not a wasted vote.
When you vote for someone, knowing they can't win, it's not just a wasted vote, it's a waste of your time.
There is no logic in that vote, you might as well stay home and save your gas money.

So we vote for someone based on their electability, and not on their positions on important issues, track record, credibility and so on?

As I said above, I prefer to vote for someone who I think best represents the American interests, which I believe to be pretty hard core constitutional values, and less government involvement.

When voting, why in the world would I care who anyone else is voting for? My obligation is to cast my vote for the person best qualified to do the job, not a person who is the most popular or spends the most money.

To not vote for the best candidate for the job is a waste of a vote in my opinion. Voting is not a race.

Let's imagine that everyone voted for who they really thought was best, instead of who they thought would win. Lets imagine that 3rd parties then captured 1/3 of all votes in the country. Not enough to win, but would that put the "Big Two" in notice? Would that have them looking over their shoulders? Absolutely!

So I could derive from this argument that voting based on popularity is letting down the country and depriving us of real choice.

Meplat
10-21-2010, 12:30 PM
i really cant vote for any of them. this "election" is really a joke. we can never have a good person with us you know. for the people its quite disturbing how you cant have a good candidate run for something!!! im currently looking into dan ogden but i still need to do some research on this libertarian thing. i have issues with liberals so i hope this guy has no liberal ties or anything with the democrat party.

Modern "liberals" are anything but liberal, they are totalitarian statists with Marxist/Socialist agendas. Libertarians are "classical liberals" you know, like jefferson and Franklin and those other guys on the coins (Rosevelt don't count)?

Libertarians basically believe in the maximum amount of freedom possible. You have the right to swing your fist anywhere you want as long as it doesn't run into someone elses' nose. You can have the beefiest muscle car you want as long as you don't use it to tear up the neighbors yard and flatten his cat. You have a right to carry an MP-5 as long as you don't shoot up a schoolyard. And prior restraint is not in their dictionary.

Meplat
10-21-2010, 12:41 PM
I have issues with the libertarian purists on borders and national defense also. But as far as borders are concerned most libertarians would agree that the requirements you mention need to be in place before we open the borders. People who want the defacto open borders we have now, without the restrictions, use the border issue to bash libertarians who actually have the courage to say what they believe. If you listen longer than a sound bite you find that libertarians are really for getting the immigration problem under control.

I don't know why he is for open borders, but with certain provisos, I am.

If we take away the welfare state, absolutely secure the borders, and stop requiring the government to function in all languages - then I'd like entry to the U.S. to effectively be a good background check and a promise that you will not sponge off the U.S. taxpayer or foment opposition to the American way of life.

Then lock them up and eventually boot them out never to return if they violate their commitment. But the U.S. taxpayer shouldn't pay a dime for their health care, food, schooling, etc. Their progeny should not be U.S. citizens unless their parent(s) are.

I don't fear immigrants. I fear the stupidity of our government on immigration issues.

Meplat
10-21-2010, 12:54 PM
Because if all the people who vote for the lesser of evils while actually agreeing withe a "fringe" candidate voted their true heart a "fringe" candidate COULD win now and then. And that would be such great medicine for the smug elites.

Also, it's the closest thing we have to a "none of the above" box in CA.;)

Knowing she wont win, how can you call a vote for her logical ?

SKSer
10-21-2010, 1:00 PM
So we vote for someone based on their electability, and not on their positions on important issues, track record, credibility and so on?

As I said above, I prefer to vote for someone who I think best represents the American interests, which I believe to be pretty hard core constitutional values, and less government involvement.

When voting, why in the world would I care who anyone else is voting for? My obligation is to cast my vote for the person best qualified to do the job, not a person who is the most popular or spends the most money.

To not vote for the best candidate for the job is a waste of a vote in my opinion. Voting is not a race.

Let's imagine that everyone voted for who they really thought was best, instead of who they thought would win. Lets imagine that 3rd parties then captured 1/3 of all votes in the country. Not enough to win, but would that put the "Big Two" in notice? Would that have them looking over their shoulders? Absolutely!

So I could derive from this argument that voting based on popularity is letting down the country and depriving us of real choice.

I agree 1000%

Im not voting for either one of those complete losers. Living with the attitude of "its never going to change" ensures that it never will, If our founders had this attitude, where would we be today? Im 99% sure the 3rd party candidate will not win, but they will get my vote anyway because, it has to start somewhere, if more people voted like this then maybe within 10-20 years we can break away from these two worthless parties, but it has to start somewhere. Or maybe the loser Brown will win and the Republicans will wake the eff up and give us a better choice next time.

The sad thing about people is, that they will devote countless hours reading about stupid worthless celebrity gossip that has absolutely nothing to do with their lives, but they will not dedicate even 1 hour to research about candidates and propositions that will change their lives and the lives of others. People should have to pass a test before they vote, that and people on any form of government assistance should have to give up their voting rights untill they become productive members of society. It is completely insane to let the people who are getting the free money keep voting for the people who are taking it away from others to give to them.

POLICESTATE
10-21-2010, 1:02 PM
No it assumes you should vote based on reality.

I know this, but then you probably already knew that.
Nice strawman argument though.

If you don't vote based on reality then you probably should waste your time in voting.

I think a non vote is every much a vote as anyone's, and they have just as much right to complain as anyone, the real differenc ebeing, they didn't waste their time.
But that's an entirely different discussion.

Voting and thinking that your candidate might not win is entirely different than voting and knowing they will not win.

Probably, but that's not reality, now is it ?
There have been people that have done this all their lives and every one of their votes made no difference.
The problem is that too many people are stuck in the two party system and they will not budge from that.

You're gonna get that anyways.

I don't see it changing any time soon.

But you also know it makes no difference.
But whatever floats your boat.
My take is, why bother, but if it gives you peace of mind then at least it's worth that.
Just know it's not going to change the outcome of the election except that someone you dislike more than another might get into office.

People can change reality, my point is that if you're just going to go with the flow then you aren't going to change anything. Sure one man voting against the establishment could be seen as Don Quixote taking on the windmills but one man can at some point change minds, and then you have more than one man. You have a group. And from there it can continue to grow, or not.

But we have to start somewhere.

I don't agree with your point of view anymore than you seem to agree with mine, and that's fine. Doesn't change the fact that I believe that people who complain about things being lame and then vote in a way that will just continue things being lame is ridiculous and waste.

The colonists decided to fight a war that most of them felt they would have a very difficult time of winning against what was the most powerful country in the world at the time. But they did it anyway and won.

We could do the same with voting if people were just willing to take a chance.

Ideas are capable of transforming reality, the evidence is all around you.

POLICESTATE
10-21-2010, 1:03 PM
I agree 1000%

Im not voting for either one of those complete losers. Living with the attitude of "its never going to change" ensures that it never will, If our founders had this attitude, where would we be today? Im 99% sure the 3rd party candidate will not win, but they will get my vote anyway because, it has to start somewhere, if more people voted like this then maybe within 10-20 years we can break away from these two worthless parties, but it has to start somewhere. Or maybe the loser Brown will win and the Republicans will wake the eff up and give us a better choice next time.

The sad thing about people is, that they will devote countless hours reading about stupid worthless celebrity gossip that has absolutely nothing to do with their lives, but they will not dedicate even 1 hour to research about candidates and propositions that will change their lives and the lives of others. People should have to pass a test before they vote, that and people on any form of government assistance should have to give up their voting rights untill they become productive members of society. It is completely insane to let the people who are getting the free money keep voting for the people who are taking it away from others to give to them.

You sir are a true patriot! :patriot: :thumbsup:

bandook
10-21-2010, 1:34 PM
Knowing she wont win, how can you call a vote for her logical ?

Thank goodness nutter-gale isn't going to win.

Having said that, democracy doesn't require us to pick the winning candidate. It requires us to vote our conscience and then see who wins.

We are in this state with our Senate and Governor options (at least on the Republican side) because a lot of people picked 'the person most likely to succeed' instead of who had demonstrated that they shared their values. (Campbell, DeVore, Poizner) .

nick
10-21-2010, 1:56 PM
Why vote for someone who doesn't have a chance.

I know this doesn't sound right, but vote for the candidate you find the least offensive that has a chance.

I don't really care for any politician, The last election when I was happy with my options to vote for was Regan for President...

Ideally you should vote for the candidate you like the most, realistically you should vote for the candidate you dislike the least that has a chance of winning the election.

Because this is the reason why quite a few good people don't have a chance and too many slimeballs do - instead of voting their conscience or interests most voters try to play kingmakers with their only 1 (one) vote.

nick
10-21-2010, 1:57 PM
Thank goodness nutter-gale isn't going to win.

Having said that, democracy doesn't require us to pick the winning candidate. It requires us to vote our conscience and then see who wins.

We are in this state with our Senate and Governor options (at least on the Republican side) because a lot of people picked 'the person most likely to succeed' instead of who had demonstrated that they shared their values. (Campbell, DeVore, Poizner) .

You beat me to it.

NightOwl
10-21-2010, 2:01 PM
No it assumes you should vote based on reality.
What reality do you live in where JB and Meg are both great candidates?
I know this, but then you probably already knew that.
Nice strawman argument though.
It's not a strawman, though your assertion that it is one, is a strawman. Well done.
If you don't vote based on reality then you probably should waste your time in voting.
Again, where is this reality where JB and Meg are great candidates?
I think a non vote is every much a vote as anyone's, and they have just as much right to complain as anyone, the real differenc ebeing, they didn't waste their time.
But that's an entirely different discussion.
I think you drank the Kool-Aid. A non-vote is not a vote, and no amount of wishing will make it so.
Voting and thinking that your candidate might not win is entirely different than voting and knowing they will not win.
Probably, but that's not reality, now is it ?
There have been people that have done this all their lives and every one of their votes made no difference.
The problem is that too many people are stuck in the two party system and they will not budge from that.
I don't recall the exact number, but it's something around 1100+ Libertarians are in office across the country. While that's not a whole lot, it's more than any party except the Republicans/Democrats. Also, the number goes up pretty consistently election after election. Since the Libertarian party was founded in the 70s, not as long ago as the two problem parties, they're making steady progress. I expect the number will go up again after this round of elections.
But you also know it makes no difference.
But whatever floats your boat.
My take is, why bother, but if it gives you peace of mind then at least it's worth that.
Just know it's not going to change the outcome of the election except that someone you dislike more than another might get into office.
Except that it does make a difference, because each election cycle more and more libertarians get into office. Perhaps enough people will decide they've had enough this time around, or maybe it'll just be a large enough percentage to boost the party into contention for the seat next time around due to greater public awareness, etc etc.

One person at a time, one vote at a time, and things can get better. But sticking with the "this candidate sucks less than the other" is an absolute guarantee that things will NOT improve, they'll just get worse less slowly. Less crappy is not better than completely crappy, when not crappy at all is an available option.

titankeith
10-21-2010, 2:13 PM
Your argument assumes that we should vote based on popularity.

This is America, not American Idol.

If you don't vote according to your preferences, but instead vote according to who's popular then it's probably best you don't vote at all.

If you don't bother to vote because you don't care, then you don't get to complain about things IMO.

If you don't vote because you don't think your candidate will win then you might as well move out of the country and do the rest of us a favor, oh and don't bother complaining about how screwed up things are.

If people actually voted according to who they felt best represented their interests AND they actually spent a little bit of time researching the issues we would have a much stronger country than we do now.

Because both parties don't have the interests of the people at heart then voting for either of them IS a wasted vote because your vote, regardless of whether your choice wins or not, will "buy" you NOTHING except more of the same crap people are tired of.

Therefore, the only truly wasted vote is one for either the republican or democratic parties at this point. It would be in the best interests of us all, except for the big shot business folks, for both of these antiquated and corrupt parties to disband and two other parties take their place. Of course all the scum from the old parties would just join the new ones...

At least I know when I go vote I voted for the person I wanted to be in the office, and not for the person other people wanted in office.

Well Said! the myopic two-party tow-the liners are the ones truly hurting this country. We'll NEVER get of of this quagmire as long as people keep voting for the lesser of two evils.

Meplat
10-21-2010, 2:18 PM
I was leaning Brown on 2A grounds and the fact that Whitman is a nauseating phony. But every time Brown opens his mouth I remember how bad it was the first time and how much damage he has done to the CA economy and I’m not sure I can actually do it. So, I guess I’d better start sorting out Ogden and Nightingale:(

POLICESTATE
10-21-2010, 2:25 PM
It just occurred to me, because I've seen a few references to Nightingale as being a loony, that Brown is a friggin' loony, hell most of the left-wing extremists are. The idea that I should have to pay money for people who don't work is LOONY!

And of course Brown, yes we all know what a picture of sanity Governor Moonbeam was the last time around. You can't teach an old dog new tricks.

And Whitman, she may not be a loony (that we know of) but she strikes me as a hypocrite with some sort of agenda, probably to feed her stupid ego.

Yeah I'll take the loony Nightingale any day, after all, I'm just another right-wing-loony-extremist so I guess she suits me just fine. :thumbsup:

Meplat
10-21-2010, 2:31 PM
Meg wants to be president. It's that simple.

It just occurred to me, because I've seen a few references to Nightingale as being a loony, that Brown is a friggin' loony, hell most of the left-wing extremists are. The idea that I should have to pay money for people who don't work is LOONY!

And of course Brown, yes we all know what a picture of sanity Governor Moonbeam was the last time around. You can't teach an old dog new tricks.

And Whitman, she may not be a loony (that we know of) but she strikes me as a hypocrite with some sort of agenda, probably to feed her stupid ego.

Yeah I'll take the loony Nightingale any day, after all, I'm just another right-wing-loony-extremist so I guess she suits me just fine. :thumbsup:

POLICESTATE
10-21-2010, 2:39 PM
Meg wants to be president. It's that simple.

OMG, I thought she'd settle for senator, which is still pretty bad but president? Yeah no, I don't think the country needs to be run like a business and that is all she knows.

titankeith
10-21-2010, 2:53 PM
Oh, and I got my issue of American Rifleman today...it's their voting issue and they score the politician's 2nd amendment scorecard...Whitman got an "?" Brown got a "D"
Yet some folks here actually believe he's pro gun rights...LMAO.

POLICESTATE
10-21-2010, 3:17 PM
Oh, and I got my issue of American Rifleman today...it's their voting issue and they score the politician's 2nd amendment scorecard...Whitman got an "?" Brown got a "D"
Yet some folks here actually believe he's pro gun rights...LMAO.

I'll tell you what bothers me about the NRA's so-called voting report card or whatever. If they won't endorse an R or D candidate they won't even bother to endorse a 3rd party candidate? WTF?

They don't endorse Brown or Whitman, the least they could have done was endorse someone else, both Ogden and Nightingale are pro 2A. Maybe they couldn't make up their minds?

boxbro
10-21-2010, 4:47 PM
What reality do you live in where JB and Meg are both great candidates?

Another strawman.
I never said they were great candidates.

It's not a strawman, though your assertion that it is one, is a strawman. Well done.

You're confused

Again, where is this reality where JB and Meg are great candidates?

Another strawman.
I never said they were great candidates.

I think you drank the Kool-Aid. A non-vote is not a vote, and no amount of wishing will make it so.

And unfortunately for you and I, the horrible two party system virtually guarantees they both have the same result.

I don't recall the exact number, but it's something around 1100+ Libertarians are in office across the country. While that's not a whole lot, it's more than any party except the Republicans/Democrats. Also, the number goes up pretty consistently election after election. Since the Libertarian party was founded in the 70s, not as long ago as the two problem parties, they're making steady progress. I expect the number will go up again after this round of elections.

How many in California ?

Except that it does make a difference, because each election cycle more and more libertarians get into office. Perhaps enough people will decide they've had enough this time around, or maybe it'll just be a large enough percentage to boost the party into contention for the seat next time around due to greater public awareness, etc etc.

Yeah well what happens next time around doesn't with what happens this time this time around.
if you read my sig you'd k now I am no fan of the two party system.
I am however a realist.

One person at a time, one vote at a time, and things can get better. But sticking with the "this candidate sucks less than the other" is an absolute guarantee that things will NOT improve, they'll just get worse less slowly. Less crappy is not better than completely crappy, when not crappy at all is an available option.

They'll get worse before they get better.
Then again maybe that's necessary for the radical change you desire.
But it could mean complete devastation of our rights for a long long time by allowing the worst of two evils to get into office.

Meplat
10-21-2010, 6:59 PM
If I were doing the rating Meg would get an F and Jerry would get a C. But that's just on 2A. Brown is an environmental nut-whack. I don't really see how the global warming lion huggers can screw up CA any more than they already have, but then they have fooled me before.

I would not even consider Brown if a Governor could effect control of congress or SCOTUS nominations. But I think he would actually be supportive of bringing CA into compliance with McDonald.

Oh, and I got my issue of American Rifleman today...it's their voting issue and they score the politician's 2nd amendment scorecard...Whitman got an "?" Brown got a "D"
Yet some folks here actually believe he's pro gun rights...LMAO.

five.five-six
10-21-2010, 7:01 PM
she's a lier
she has nice boobs
she has my vote

Meplat
10-21-2010, 7:23 PM
she's a lier
she has nice boobs
she has my vote
:rofl:

Your honesty is refreshing!

BTW: What was that bodice jewelry she had on at the debate? It looked like she had a chest full of warts!

BBTW: I have nice boobs to. Will you vote fore me? But then I'm just a fat boy?

jaymz
10-21-2010, 7:29 PM
All of you that insist on voting for "the lesser of two evils" are simply making it harder to right the ship. All of us really need to vote for the person that you feel best represents how you feel the .gov should operate. It may not make a difference today, but it absolutely will make a difference tomorrow. This country did not go to hell overnight - it happened slowly and incrementally, fixing it will not be any different unless people keep voting strictly upon the "lesser evil" concept - then it will take much longer. Doing something over & over again (voting for "less evil"), yet expecting a different result (responsible government), as I'm sure you all know, is insanity. Stop the insanity and vote your consienc

five.five-six
10-21-2010, 7:30 PM
moobs?





http://cdn0.knowyourmeme.com/i/2270/original/political-pictures-do-not-want-surprised-guy.jpg?1242277575

jaymz
10-21-2010, 7:30 PM
All of you that insist on voting for "the lesser of two evils" are simply making it harder to right the ship. All of us really need to vote for the person that you feel best represents how you feel the .gov should operate. It may not make a difference today, but it absolutely will make a difference tomorrow. This country did not go to hell overnight - it happened slowly and incrementally, fixing it will not be any different unless people keep voting strictly upon the "lesser evil" concept - then it will take much longer. Doing something over & over again (voting for "less evil"), yet expecting a different result (responsible government), as I'm sure you all know, is insanity. Stop the insanity and vote your conscience.




Oh yeah - Nightingale's got my vote.

jaymz
10-21-2010, 7:37 PM
Weird... edited my first post and it duped.

bandook
10-21-2010, 7:44 PM
she's a lier
she has nice boobs
she has my vote

lier - one who lies down? :)

I don't think she'll be that grateful for you pulling the lever for her...