4 ms·

Personally, I'd probably align most with Gary Johnson, but feel like he has virtually no chance of winning, so there's no point in wasting my vote. Like most A

by aliston 10y ago

Personally, I'd probably align most with Gary Johnson, but feel like he has virtually no chance of winning, so there's no point in wasting my vote. Like most Americans in this election cycle, I'm voting for the lesser of two evils. I think there are lots and lots of folks in Silicon Valley that feel the same way. One thing that I've never really understood is why the valley apparently leans so far left. On its face, the sorts of policies that the left tends to advocate for would run counter to the things that Silicon Valley stands for: higher taxes, more regulation of businesses, more intervention in housing markets, higher marginal tax rates on "the rich" (AKA a middle class salary here) etc. I assume that those who vote on the left either feel there are more important issues at stake, that those aren't really things the left stands for, or have enough money that it doesn't matter... would be curious to hear someone explain their reasoning, though.

Miner49er 10y ago
It doesn't matter if he has a chance to win. If you don't live in a swing state a vote for Gary most definitely counts more then a vote for a candidate of a major party, because if he gets above 5% of the popular vote the Libertarian party gets funding from the government and more recognition. It's the first step to end the 2 party system we have now. You should vote for who you like best, not who you think actually has a chance to win. Gary can still do really well if he gets into the debates. Who knows, in a few months it might actually seem like he has a chance to win.
- dllthomas 10y ago
  We're not really going to "end the 2 party system" unless we move from first-past-the-post. We may change which two parties (or, my more realistic hope, change up the particular alliances that make up the two parties).
actsasbuffoon 10y ago
I appreciate the frank nature of your post. As a left leaning person (though I lean right on nuclear power, drugs, and a few other issues) I'll try to answer as honestly as possible. > higher taxes I'm fine with higher taxes for some purposes. As a fairly high income earner, my tax bill hurts quite a bit. Still, when I was a kid I had a single mom. She had to go on welfare for a little while, and it was rough on her. I think it's the first time I ever saw her cry. Obviously there are some people who abuse the system, but I feel like we have to keep providing anyway. The money that we collected for those few months kept us from being homeless. I like to think it as an investment in my future by the tax payers. I've paid more in now than I took, so it worked out. > more regulation of businesses Not always a good thing, but I can get behind some regulations. I think the repeal of Glass-Steagall was probably a mistake (thanks, Bill), and likely contributed to the 2008 bubble burst. Things like the FDA, and OSHA seem like examples of good regulation. They're certainly imperfect, and have made mistakes. On the whole though, I think they've been a net positive. > more intervention in housing markets Not much of an opinion on this one. > higher marginal tax rates on "the rich" (AKA a middle class salary here) etc. Hillary's plan calls for a 4% tax hike on incomes over $5 million. Software developer salary is pretty good, but I don't think anyone's salary is that high.

by aliston 10y ago

Miner49er 10y ago

It doesn't matter if he has a chance to win. If you don't live in a swing state a vote for Gary most definitely counts more then a vote for a candidate of a major party, because if he gets above 5% of the popular vote the Libertarian party gets funding from the government and more recognition. It's the first step to end the 2 party system we have now. You should vote for who you like best, not who you think actually has a chance to win. Gary can still do really well if he gets into the debates. Who knows, in a few months it might actually seem like he has a chance to win.

dllthomas 10y ago
We're not really going to "end the 2 party system" unless we move from first-past-the-post. We may change which two parties (or, my more realistic hope, change up the particular alliances that make up the two parties).

actsasbuffoon 10y ago

I appreciate the frank nature of your post. As a left leaning person (though I lean right on nuclear power, drugs, and a few other issues) I'll try to answer as honestly as possible. > higher taxes I'm fine with higher taxes for some purposes. As a fairly high income earner, my tax bill hurts quite a bit. Still, when I was a kid I had a single mom. She had to go on welfare for a little while, and it was rough on her. I think it's the first time I ever saw her cry. Obviously there are some people who abuse the system, but I feel like we have to keep providing anyway. The money that we collected for those few months kept us from being homeless. I like to think it as an investment in my future by the tax payers. I've paid more in now than I took, so it worked out. > more regulation of businesses Not always a good thing, but I can get behind some regulations. I think the repeal of Glass-Steagall was probably a mistake (thanks, Bill), and likely contributed to the 2008 bubble burst. Things like the FDA, and OSHA seem like examples of good regulation. They're certainly imperfect, and have made mistakes. On the whole though, I think they've been a net positive. > more intervention in housing markets Not much of an opinion on this one. > higher marginal tax rates on "the rich" (AKA a middle class salary here) etc. Hillary's plan calls for a 4% tax hike on incomes over $5 million. Software developer salary is pretty good, but I don't think anyone's salary is that high.