US Politics - Pretending that the Iowa caucuses matter for some reason

[Shryke]

Romney will stick to his most recent flip, but after 6 months in office, who knows what he'd do. One Dem-victory in the midterms and he'll be rushing to get ahead of whatever wind is blowing.

Unless Romney plans to ask the taxpayers for his money back, the stimulus is done and dead. Obama is unlikely to get anything similar through again. Romney will be pushing budget cuts, but he is unlikely to follow through on them.

Why is he unlikely to follow through on them?

Look, you seem to have this weird idea that Romney is moderate. Romney is not. Romney is whatever he feels he needs to be to get and keep power. If Romney wins, the same voters pushing him to victory will very likely sweep the GOP into control of both houses. And that means Romney will be putting pen to paper on some very conservative legislation because he's got no reason to fight his party on anything in that situation.

Right, but ultimately, we're not in Iraq, neither candidate will get us out of Afghanistan, and both will get us into a war with Iran.

Why would Obama get the US into a war with Iran?

Possibly - more likely, Romney would say that he doesn't think it's an issue for the federal government, or that he supports SeperateButEqualUnions, and Obama would say that he's looking at the issue. Neither one is going to do anything either way though.

Yeah, cause no one repealed DADT. Romney will couch his anti-gay stance in states rights bullshit like the GOP always does when trying to appear "moderate", Obama will continue his dance of being pro-gay-rights in a quiet enough way to not turn off any moderates.

And the issue that always gets neglected, the police state we live in - Romney and Obama both want to expand it, both believe that the executive branch should be hamstrung by pesky things like 'trials', 'evidence', and 'due process', but should have the power to murder or detain anyone, anywhere, by saying "he looked like a terrorist".

Problem is, no one will come out anti-security-state because the electorate, by and large, supports it.

[Fez]

Romney will stick to his most recent flip, but after 6 months in office, who knows what he'd do. One Dem-victory in the midterms and he'll be rushing to get ahead of whatever wind is blowing.

He may change if the 2014 midterm were particularly good for Democrats but in the meantime he could do a lot to undermine the Affordable Healthcare Act and Republicans in Congress will surely be pushing him to do that.

Unless Romney plans to ask the taxpayers for his money back, the stimulus is done and dead. Obama is unlikely to get anything similar through again. Romney will be pushing budget cuts, but he is unlikely to follow through on them.

It still points to a substantive difference between the two. As far as budget cuts, to most areas I think he will go through with whatever McConnell/Cantor (yes I see Boehner losing his Speakership in the next year, or possibly right after the election) are pushing. And he will undo the defense sequestration that Obama has said must happen if no deficit deal is ever done.

Right, but ultimately, we're not in Iraq, neither candidate will get us out of Afghanistan, and both will get us into a war with Iran.

Unless Iran directly attacked the US (which would be cause for war) or Israel (which may or may not be) I don't see Obama getting us into a war with Iran (covert actions are possible though). Romney I could see starting a bombing campaign at the very least for less then that.

Possibly - more likely, Romney would say that he doesn't think it's an issue for the federal government, or that he supports SeperateButEqualUnions, and Obama would say that he's looking at the issue. Neither one is going to do anything either way though.

No way; if Romney said anything close to that the religious right would find an emergency third party candidate and Obama might get a sweep of the electoral college. Also Romney would not have ended DADT or stopped DoJ from continuing to defend DOMA, Obama did; that's a big difference. Also I'm still of the mind that after the election, when regardless of what the outcome is Obama doesn't need to worry about another election ever again, he is going to come out in favor of gay marriage.

And the issue that always gets neglected, the police state we live in - Romney and Obama both want to expand it, both believe that the executive branch should be hamstrung by pesky things like 'trials', 'evidence', and 'due process', but should have the power to murder or detain anyone, anywhere, by saying "he looked like a terrorist".

Now that is certainly true and its one of the Left's biggest disappointments with Obama. And for that it is useful to have someone like Ron Paul hanging around. The problem is all the other stuff that a Ron Paul presidency would lead to, but this is something that does need to be talked about that isn't.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

What campaign have you been watching?

Healthcare: Obama will agree with old-Romney. But this will be an attack, since Romney is running as fast as he can from his previous stance on healthcare. The GOP has also staked out a hardcore anti-ACA stance, so that will come up.

The GOP has, but Romney won't be able to pull a convincing debate about it. He'll try his hardest to pretend it doesn't exist, and Obama will let him, because he doesn't want the thing overturned

Fiscal policy: Romney will come down for "slashing the budget". Obama will come down against this.

Romney will be unable to identify anything other than the EPA that he would actually cut. They might piffle over the EPA, but that's it.

Foreign Militarism: Romney will want to bomb Iran or some such. Obama will not. Romney will probably also try to come down anti-Lybia-intervention at the same time, cause cognitive dissonance doesn't effect the average voter.

Romney will say "everything is on the table" to keep Iran from nuclear weapons. This is and has been Obama's position from the get-go

Support for Israel: Obama will come down pro-Israel. Romney will try and paint Obama as anti-Israel for not being pro-Israel enough.

Both will do the same to each other. Points to Obama if he points out that Romney believes his spiritual ancestors abandoned Israel millennia ago.

Gay marriage: I can't even take you seriously on this one. The GOP will continue to stake out an anti-gay platform. Obama will either essentially say nothing or tout his ending of DADT and his desire to get rid of DOMA.

The GOP is anti gay marriage, as is Obama. Romney will not be able to seriously debate against civil unions and will pretend it doesn't exist.

Campaign finance: This won't even be talked about I imagine.

With both candidates in the pocket of Goldman Sachs? Believe that it will not and no debate moderator will even bring it up.

The economy: Same as financial stuff above. Romney will be pro-huge-austerity, Obama will be somewhere been anti-austerity and alot-less-austerity-then-Romney. Also the usually pro/anti-regulation stuff, the whole "job creators" bullshit from Romney and Obama will continue to pin the bad economy on the GOP being obstructionists.

Like I said, platitudes without substance. Romney will not be able to nail down any actual budget cuts, and will simply talk about "runaway bureaucrats", naming the EPA specifically, but not naming anything he would actually do. He might also talk about "cutting taxes" but will not be able to locate any specific taxes to cut Obama will not be able to nail down any new spending, cuts or anything at all. He might talk about "the wealthiest americans paying their fare share", but it is doubtful he will propose any specific tax increases.

[lupis42]

Look, you seem to have this weird idea that Romney is moderate. Romney is not. Romney is whatever he feels he needs to be to get and keep power.

I'm not suggesting that Romney is moderate, I agree that Romney will do whatever he thinks necessary to get and keep power - just like Obama. But elected officials don't gain power by cutting budgets - the Tea Party has a relatively strong hold on the Republicans as a whole at the moment, but Romney isn't one of them, he represents exactly what they were opposed to within the Republican party, so there's not going to be a ton of sudden agreement if he gets elected.

Why would Obama get the US into a war with Iran?

Because Obama, like MittSantorGingBachmaPerry, believes that the US should be a player on the world stage, and doesn't like Iran one bit. Obama will try 'diplomacy', 'sanctions', drone strikes, and invasion to prevent Iran from developing nuclear capability - he's said it before too. Incidentally, our tendency to topple governments we don't like is why Iran wants nukes so badly.

Yeah, cause no one repealed DADT. Romney will couch his anti-gay stance in states rights bullshit like the GOP always does when trying to appear "moderate", Obama will continue his dance of being pro-gay-rights in a quiet enough way to not turn off any moderates.

No question that Obama will be better for gay rights, but in the election, it will mostly be a hill for anyone who sounds too extreme to die on, and neither federal recognition nor a federal ban have enough support to pass. A strongly tilted congress could swing that, but I don't see congress changing nearly as radically any time soon.

Problem is, no one will come out anti-security-state because the electorate, by and large, supports it.

Unfortunately, most of the people who were most vocal in criticising Bush over the police state have been unwilling to do the same to Obama, despite his total support for Bush's policies on that front.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Santorum...

:facepalm:

:vomit:

Good grief.

[Shryke]

The GOP has, but Romney won't be able to pull a convincing debate about it. He'll try his hardest to pretend it doesn't exist, and Obama will let him, because he doesn't want the thing overturned

What? Obama is already congratulating Romney for coming up with the idea. Obama is gonna be touting the ACA and Romney's help in making it happen from the highest rafters. It's one of his best lines of attack on the guy.

Romney will be unable to identify anything other than the EPA that he would actually cut. They might piffle over the EPA, but that's it.

Romney will want to cut whatever the current talking point for the GOP is. Department of Education is a big one. Taxes lowered, regulatory agencies slashed, the IRS is always a popular target, etc.

Romney will say "everything is on the table" to keep Iran from nuclear weapons. This is and has been Obama's position from the get-go

Romney will come down against Iran, as has been the movement of the entire GOP for awhile now. Obama will continue his "everything is on the table" stance which is literally how you say "I'm not gonna do anything, but I don't wanna be attacked for being a coward" in politics.

The GOP is anti gay marriage, as is Obama. Romney will not be able to seriously debate against civil unions and will pretend it doesn't exist.

Yeah, Obama is so anti-gay-marriage he worked to repeal DADT and is working on DOMA. :rolleyes:

Like I said, platitudes without substance. Romney will not be able to nail down any actual budget cuts, and will simply talk about "runaway bureaucrats", naming the EPA specifically, but not naming anything he would actually do. He might also talk about "cutting taxes" but will not be able to locate any specific taxes to cut Obama will not be able to nail down any new spending, cuts or anything at all. He might talk about "the wealthiest americans paying their fare share", but it is doubtful he will propose any specific tax increases.

Right, so they will be talking about 2 completely different things, as is normal for the parties.

Also, Obama and the Democrats are already proposing specific tax increases.

[Shryke]

I'm not suggesting that Romney is moderate, I agree that Romney will do whatever he thinks necessary to get and keep power - just like Obama. But elected officials don't gain power by cutting budgets - the Tea Party has a relatively strong hold on the Republicans as a whole at the moment, but Romney isn't one of them, he represents exactly what they were opposed to within the Republican party, so there's not going to be a ton of sudden agreement if he gets elected.

It doesn't matter what Romney is or is not, he is not gonna go against Congress when his party controls it. And if you think Congress will be more moderate, you haven't been paying attention.

Because Obama, like MittSantorGingBachmaPerry, believes that the US should be a player on the world stage, and doesn't like Iran one bit. Obama will try 'diplomacy', 'sanctions', drone strikes, and invasion to prevent Iran from developing nuclear capability - he's said it before too. Incidentally, our tendency to topple governments we don't like is why Iran wants nukes so badly.

Diplomacy/sanctions/covert actions? Shit, they are already doing all this. Invasion? Pfft. Not a chance if Obama is there. He's given no lip-service to the idea. The only way the US ends up there in that case is if Israel jumps on it first (which is a concern, but isn't dependant on who wins)

No question that Obama will be better for gay rights, but in the election, it will mostly be a hill for anyone who sounds too extreme to die on, and neither federal recognition nor a federal ban have enough support to pass. A strongly tilted congress could swing that, but I don't see congress changing nearly as radically any time soon.

In the election, the GOP will talk about it alot, the Democrats will try to not talk about it so vehemently that they turn off moderates. "Sanctity of Marriage" is a central plank of GOP policy, especially for an election. It's good red meat for the base.

[Ser Greguh]

In the end it will be Romney/Obama in the most boring debates ever.

Healthcare: I agree with my opponent

Fiscal policy: I agree with my opponent

Foreign Militarism: I agree with my opponent

Support for Israel: I agree with my opponent

Gay marriage: I agree with my opponent

Campaign finance: I agree with my opponent

The economy: I throw out a bunch of Rep/Dem platitudes of no substance painting my opponent as trying to sabotage America without actually taking any substantial position.

Seriously, dude, we get it. You don't see a difference between the parties, just as people who have acclimated their taste buds to gasoline can't tell the difference between whisky and vodka.

[TrackerNeil]

Isn't it suspicious that there's no evidence that Barack Obama is a lizard person? None whatsoever? Almost as if he was organizing a conspiracy to get rid of the evidence?

Exactly! There is always at least a bit of evidence that the average person is secretly reptilian, and the fact that there is no such evidence against our president only makes it more likely that Barack Obama is, in fact, a lizard man.

I'm not sure I agree that the Democrats are as ideologically coherent as the Republicans. There are about 10 conservative Democratic senators and 3 liberal Republican senators, and that right there tells you something. In addition, given that by most counts conservatives outnumber liberals, the party that courts liberals must of necessity cast its net to sweep up as many independents as possible. That has a moderating effect on policy. (Admittedly, I find self-identification tricky, but I think there's a point there.)

[lupis42]

He may change if the 2014 midterm were particularly good for Democrats but in the meantime he could do a lot to undermine the Affordable Healthcare Act and Republicans in Congress will surely be pushing him to do that.

He could, but as long as the senate remains D, it's not going to happen. Frankly, if the Ds can't hold the senate with Romney in the WH, they probably also need instructions on how to piss.

It still points to a substantive difference between the two. As far as budget cuts, to most areas I think he will go through with whatever McConnell/Cantor (yes I see Boehner losing his Speakership in the next year, or possibly right after the election) are pushing. And he will undo the defense sequestration that Obama has said must happen if no deficit deal is ever done.

Romney might go along with them, but he might not, and I doubt that congress will be particularly successful in hammering out any major cuts one way ro the other.

Unless Iran directly attacked the US (which would be cause for war) or Israel (which may or may not be) I don't see Obama getting us into a war with Iran (covert actions are possible though). Romney I could see starting a bombing campaign at the very least for less then that.

See Tormund's post - Obama has already said he'll do whatever is necessary to stop Iran getting nukes. So will Romney. Iran doesn't want to be invaded by the US, and we've demonstrated that the best way to ensure that is to have nukes, so war is likely.

No way; if Romney said anything close to that the religious right would find an emergency third party candidate and Obama might get a sweep of the electoral college. Also Romney would not have ended DADT or stopped DoJ from continuing to defend DOMA, Obama did; that's a big difference. Also I'm still of the mind that after the election, when regardless of what the outcome is Obama doesn't need to worry about another election ever again, he is going to come out in favor of gay marriage.

Honestly, I've yet to see one whit of evidence that Obama gives a rat's ass. Defunding DOMA's defense is mostly a freebie for him - the only people who criticize him on it are Rs, and he needed to throw a bone to his people. But as long as gays consistently vote Democrat, he's got no reason to give them more than the absolute minimum effort, he's primarily interested in moderates.

Now that is certainly true and its one of the Left's biggest disappointments with Obama. And for that it is useful to have someone like Ron Paul hanging around. The problem is all the other stuff that a Ron Paul presidency would lead to, but this is something that does need to be talked about that isn't.

The thing is, most of the "stuff" that a Paul presidency might lead to isn't so terrible, especially since congress is going to continue thinking he's a kook. More to the point, the reason that this doesn't get talked about is that the people who opposed this stuff keep voting for Obama.

Take a look at your politics. Ask yourself a question: if a candidate fails to deliver on a key issue, will I jump ship to a third party, or even the other side? If the answer is no, congratulations: you are a "safe vote" and politicians make no effort to care about your opinions, because they don't stand to gain or lose anything by it.

[lupis42]

Diplomacy/sanctions/covert actions? Shit, they are already doing all this. Invasion? Pfft. Not a chance if Obama is there. He's given no lip-service to the idea. The only way the US ends up there in that case is if Israel jumps on it first (which is a concern, but isn't dependant on who wins)

I doubt Obama would put troops on the ground unless Iran fired first, but the great thing about sanctions and covert actions is that you can make it look like the other side fired first. Obama gets a great deal of political clout from being a 'war president', and he doesn't want to let Iran get nukes either.

Also, if Ron Paul won, Israel attacking Iran would probably not be enough to get us into it, which for my money is a solid reason to vote for him.

[Shryke]

He could, but as long as the senate remains D, it's not going to happen. Frankly, if the Ds can't hold the senate with Romney in the WH, they probably also need instructions on how to piss.

The hell? The Democrats are gonna have a hard enough time holding on to the Senate as is, considering who is up for re-election this time. If Romney wins, his coattails are very likely to sweep both houses.

Romney might go along with them, but he might not, and I doubt that congress will be particularly successful in hammering out any major cuts one way ro the other.

Why? Again, if you are counting on the Democrats holding on to congress for this to work, that is very unlikely with a Romney win.

See Tormund's post - Obama has already said he'll do whatever is necessary to stop Iran getting nukes. So will Romney. Iran doesn't want to be invaded by the US, and we've demonstrated that the best way to ensure that is to have nukes, so war is likely.

Obama said "nothing is off the table". That's how you say "No" without actually saying "No".

Honestly, I've yet to see one whit of evidence that Obama gives a rat's ass. Defunding DOMA's defense is mostly a freebie for him - the only people who criticize him on it are Rs, and he needed to throw a bone to his people. But as long as gays consistently vote Democrat, he's got no reason to give them more than the absolute minimum effort, he's primarily interested in moderates.

So you haven't seen any evidence, except the evidence you saw, which you ignored. Ok....

And gays vote Democrat because Democrats (as a party) support their rights/don't actively shit on them.

[TrackerNeil]

The thing is, most of the "stuff" that a Paul presidency might lead to isn't so terrible, especially since congress is going to continue thinking he's a kook. More to the point, the reason that this doesn't get talked about is that the people who opposed this stuff keep voting for Obama.

Umm...you think a president who's an utter crank can't cause a boat load of problems on his own, without help from Congress?

[Shryke]

I doubt Obama would put troops on the ground unless Iran fired first, but the great thing about sanctions and covert actions is that you can make it look like the other side fired first. Obama gets a great deal of political clout from being a 'war president', and he doesn't want to let Iran get nukes either.

Also, if Ron Paul won, Israel attacking Iran would probably not be enough to get us into it, which for my money is a solid reason to vote for him.

What? :lol: Ron Paul would be bludgeoned into it by Congress more then likely. Ron Paul doesn't have a chance anyway though, exactly because of this.

The thing is, most of the "stuff" that a Paul presidency might lead to isn't so terrible, especially since congress is going to continue thinking he's a kook. More to the point, the reason that this doesn't get talked about is that the people who opposed this stuff keep voting for Obama.

How would a highly ludicrous Ron Paul presidency not be horrible? If nothing else, he'll have control of foreign policy and regulatory appointments and he'll definitely fuck those to hell and back. And his anti-abortion, anti-civil-rights, pro-states-rights stances will be things a GOP congress will be very happy to help make happen.

Take a look at your politics. Ask yourself a question: if a candidate fails to deliver on a key issue, will I jump ship to a third party, or even the other side? If the answer is no, congratulations: you are a "safe vote" and politicians make no effort to care about your opinions, because they don't stand to gain or lose anything by it.

Maybe you should ask yourself how voting third-party will accomplish anything but helping the party you least like of the 2 that can actually win.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Obama said "nothing is off the table". That's how you say "No" without actually saying "No".

Ah, so when you say "I would be willing to use nuclear weapons against Iran", it actually means "I won't do anything about Iran.", unless you are a Republican, then it means "I will include nuclear strikes in the oath of office".

[Fez]

He could, but as long as the senate remains D, it's not going to happen. Frankly, if the Ds can't hold the senate with Romney in the WH, they probably also need instructions on how to piss.

Romney might go along with them, but he might not, and I doubt that congress will be particularly successful in hammering out any major cuts one way ro the other.

These two points are both related to what Shryke has already mentioned in this thread, which is that if Romney wins the 2012 election its almost certain that Republicans will also control both chambers of Congress and I don't see the filibuster surviving the next Senate rules package, regardless of which party is in charge. A Republican Congress is going to send Romney all sorts of things that he'll sign that Obama would veto. Even if Obama wins re-election the Senate could easily go Republican.

See Tormund's post - Obama has already said he'll do whatever is necessary to stop Iran getting nukes. So will Romney. Iran doesn't want to be invaded by the US, and we've demonstrated that the best way to ensure that is to have nukes, so war is likely.

It's bluster on Obama's part. There's no way we go to war with Iran unless they directly us or Israel. Now granted they could attack Israel because Israel just bombed their reactor, but that would happen independent of the US election and is a significant worry going forward.

Honestly, I've yet to see one whit of evidence that Obama gives a rat's ass. Defunding DOMA's defense is mostly a freebie for him - the only people who criticize him on it are Rs, and he needed to throw a bone to his people. But as long as gays consistently vote Democrat, he's got no reason to give them more than the absolute minimum effort, he's primarily interested in moderates.

Ending DADT wasn't a real risk, but it was a big move and one that a Republican wouldn't have made. You shouldn't discredit it so. DOMA is less of an issue, but its still something.

The thing is, most of the "stuff" that a Paul presidency might lead to isn't so terrible, especially since congress is going to continue thinking he's a kook. More to the point, the reason that this doesn't get talked about is that the people who opposed this stuff keep voting for Obama.

Take a look at your politics. Ask yourself a question: if a candidate fails to deliver on a key issue, will I jump ship to a third party, or even the other side? If the answer is no, congratulations: you are a "safe vote" and politicians make no effort to care about your opinions, because they don't stand to gain or lose anything by it.

A President can do an awful lot independent of Congress, and I shudder to think of what a President Paul would get up to.

As for my politics, right now no. But that's on the Republicans for providing such fucking crazy candidates that I could never support them and for making sure that since the alternative is so bad I'll never be comfortable throwing away my vote. I did vote for a Republican once, it was a local election, the Democrat was demonstrably corrupt and the Republican was a basic Northeast moderate (yes, they still exist at the local level). Provide an acceptable alternative and if the Democrat screws up enough I'll vote for it.

If Huntsman Jr. somehow won the nomination and it's revealed that Obama's done some things I find truly terrible, yeah I'd probably vote for Jr. or at least go third party. But that's because he's an acceptable alternative if I ever thought Obama went beyond the pale, the others aren't.

I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face.

[lupis42]

Why? Again, if you are counting on the Democrats holding on to congress for this to work, that is very unlikely with a Romney win.

Because Romney has already demonstrated that he isn't that great at getting the support of the general public. If the Democrats lose heavily,

Obama said "nothing is off the table". That's how you say "No" without actually saying "No".

So "I would be willing to do anything" means "I won't do anything" from Obama? This is your argument?

So you haven't seen any evidence, except the evidence you saw, which you ignored. Ok....

And gays vote Democrat because Democrats (as a party) support their rights/don't actively shit on them.

I'm not saying that gays should vote Republican, but the electorate doesn't do much for them, or the hardline christian nutjobs, because these are "safe" votes on each side. As long as that continues to be true, they aren't going to get much respect unless they start demonstrating or donating on a much larger scale.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Obama has already said he'll do whatever is necessary to stop Iran getting nukes. So will Romney. Iran doesn't want to be invaded by the US, and we've demonstrated that the best way to ensure that is to have nukes, so war is likely.

I think war is quite unlikely.

Sure, Obama has said he'll stop them from getting nukes. Okay, then why isn't he actually stopping them? Does he expect to get some reliable pre-announcement that they've "almost" got them, so that unless he bombs them right now, they will have them? It won't work that way. We'll just wake up one day, and Iran will have either detonated a weapon, or claim that it has one. And I don't think it makes a damn bit of difference whether it is Obama or Romney. We did a lot of blustering about North Korea, and guess what? They've got nukes, and there's no war.

The only real threat to attack Iran militarily to prevent it from acquiring a nuke will come from Israel, and that threat exists regardless of whom we elect.

[lupis42]

What? :lol: Ron Paul would be bludgeoned into it by Congress more then likely. Ron Paul doesn't have a chance anyway though, exactly because of this.

Given that he has possibly the best track record of anyone in Washington on not being bludgeoned into anything, I'm dubious. However, I'll agree that this is the thing most likely to cost him the GOP nomination.

How would a highly ludicrous Ron Paul presidency not be horrible? If nothing else, he'll have control of foreign policy and regulatory appointments and he'll definitely fuck those to hell and back. And his anti-abortion, anti-civil-rights, pro-states-rights stances will be things a GOP congress will be very happy to help make happen.

Because his first targets would be the police state - especially the massively corrupt and racist War on Drugs. More generally, our government has gotten way too bloated, and the bloodletting he'd bring would be no bad thing. As for foreign policy, I don't see what's wrong with 'live and let live'? He's already stated that he believes abortion and gay rights should be state issues, and while I disagree with that, I'm prepared to accept a president I don't like on some issues to get back some basic civil rights like the right to not be murdered by my government, or detained without charges or due process.

Maybe you should ask yourself how voting third-party will accomplish anything but helping the party you least like of the 2 that can actually win.

I view a choice between Romney and Obama the way I would a choice between arsenic and hemlock. The only winning move is not to play.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

Why would I give my vote to anyone with whom I disagree on core principles? If that means I vote "third-party" so be it. Hell, the US would be better served by a true multi-party system rather than the duopoly we've had for centuries.