PDA

View Full Version : The Political Forums Political Poll



Pages : [1] 2 3

Chris
08-27-2016, 09:22 AM
Just interested in where members stand, or lean, not so much why, though if you want to argue, feel free.

zelmo1234
08-27-2016, 09:24 AM
(E) None of the above!

Common
08-27-2016, 09:27 AM
Im 55% trump 45% for not voting, I will vote for trump before any of the others

I am not a diehard trump supporter, I am a diehard anti clinton anything

Chris
08-27-2016, 09:27 AM
(E) None of the above!

Then punch that chad in the poll above so your non-vote counts!

Chris
08-27-2016, 09:28 AM
Im 55% trump 45% for not voting, I will vote for trump before any of the others

Then punch your ticket in the OP so your vote counts.

Chris
08-27-2016, 09:29 AM
Folks, please, don't just announce. Go to top, select an option and Vote Now...

https://i.snag.gy/wki0rO.jpg

Common
08-27-2016, 09:43 AM
Then punch your ticket in the OP so your vote counts.

I did before I posted

hanger4
08-27-2016, 09:46 AM
I'll vote Trump if it's close in my state.

Crepitus
08-27-2016, 09:56 AM
None of the above! (yes I voted)

In fact I firmly believe NOTA should be on the ballot and binding so we can flush and start over if need be. Like now.

Chris
08-27-2016, 09:59 AM
None of the above! (yes I voted)

In fact I firmly believe NOTA should be on the ballot and binding so we can flush and start over if need be. Like now.

Agree. And it should be binding such that parties must nominate new candidates and go from there.

Adelaide
08-27-2016, 10:34 AM
I goofed - I can't legally vote but I picked Johnson. Hope that is alright. I can edit the poll if not.

Chris
08-27-2016, 10:35 AM
I goofed - I can't legally vote but I picked Johnson. Hope that is alright. I can edit the poll if not.


This is a The Political Forums poll so you can legally vote!

The Xl
08-27-2016, 10:39 AM
In order:

Johnson




Stein
Trump












Clinton

95 percent chance I'll vote for Johnson, although their is a small chance I bite the bullet and vote Trump, as Hillary is historically dangerous when it comes to gun rights and foreign policy.

Chris
08-27-2016, 10:41 AM
In order:

Johnson




Stein
Trump












Clinton

95 percent chance I'll vote for Johnson, although their is a small chance I bite the bullet and vote Trump, as Hillary is historically dangerous when it comes to gun rights and foreign policy.



Sorry, but this isn't Chicago. Only one vote!! :D

The Xl
08-27-2016, 10:50 AM
Sorry, but this isn't Chicago. Only one vote!! :D

It'll be either Johnson or Trump. Most likely Johnson, and that's who I voted for.

Adelaide
08-27-2016, 10:55 AM
In order:

Johnson




Stein
Trump












Clinton

95 percent chance I'll vote for Johnson, although their is a small chance I bite the bullet and vote Trump, as Hillary is historically dangerous when it comes to gun rights and foreign policy.

Same, although I'd vote for Criminal/Crooked Hillary before I would Trump. Someone would have to hold a gun to my head for Trump.

Adelaide
08-27-2016, 10:56 AM
Sorry, but this isn't Chicago. Only one vote!! :D

Couple weeks ago I went to a farmer's market with my roomie and he suggested that I sign up to vote (they had registrations being done on the street). I refused to try, but it would be interesting to see if they'd let me considering I don't even have a green card yet...

Chris
08-27-2016, 11:00 AM
It'll be either Johnson or Trump. Most likely Johnson, and that's who I voted for.

I don't disagree with your ranking at all.

Chris
08-27-2016, 11:03 AM
Couple weeks ago I went to a farmer's market with my roomie and he suggested that I sign up to vote (they had registrations being done on the street). I refused to try, but it would be interesting to see if they'd let me considering I don't even have a green card yet...

Here you need a driver's license or state ID and some proof of residence in district, a phone bill or something.

(I should amend that to say the state accepts even student IDs and other forms of ID now. The court just rejected a stricter voter registration law so they had to open it up.)

OGIS
08-27-2016, 12:30 PM
Agree. And it should be binding such that parties must nominate new candidates and go from there.

Or the office remains vacant!

Chris
08-27-2016, 12:35 PM
Or the office remains vacant!

The process would become so expensive the parties would quickly abandon primary popularity contests and decide in cigar smoke filled backrooms again who to put forth as candidates.

Chloe
08-27-2016, 12:50 PM
Jill Stein, and if I didn't vote Jill Stein i'd write in.

OGIS
08-27-2016, 12:54 PM
The process would become so expensive the parties would quickly abandon primary popularity contests and decide in cigar smoke filled backrooms again who to put forth as candidates.

OK, you're right. That is an unintended consequence I had not thought about.

Hmmm... but on 2nd and 3rd thought, would that necessarily be a bad thing?

1 - Would they not strive to put their best "foot" forward?

2 - Consider that sheer quantity of elected offices held (at all levels) has an important effect on the "life" of the party (which as an organization has a life of it's own and follows the Darwinian maxim of "grow or die."

1 + 2 = quality at all levels?

Don
08-27-2016, 12:54 PM
We put too much emphasis on presidential elections. Its like we are voting for a stinking king and that's not the way it was supposed to be. The president is nothing more than the executive who carries out the laws passed by congress and in accordance with the constitution. If and When congress declares war then he is commander in chief. Congress has ceded way too much of its power to the executive and its time we reverse that trend. We should spend our time and money on getting the right Representatives and Senators in office. When we put them there and they don't live up to their promises we should recall or impeach them or at the very least make sure they only serve one term. They tend to want reelection and if they know they will be voted out they will do the right thing. We need to do the same thing with our state legislatures.

Don
08-27-2016, 12:59 PM
OK, you're right. That is an unintended consequence I had not thought about.

Hmmm... but on 2nd and 3rd thought, would that necessarily be a bad thing?

1 - Would they not strive to put their best "foot" forward?

2 - Consider that sheer quantity of elected offices held (at all levels) has an important effect on the "life" of the party (which as an organization has a life of it's own and follows the Darwinian maxim of "grow or die."

1 + 2 = quality at all levels?

I don't think so. If the Republican party had their way they would have dumped Trump and installed Paul Ryan even though Paul Ryan's sellout was a major reason Trump was voted for in the primaries.

Chris
08-27-2016, 01:08 PM
Jill Stein, and if I didn't vote Jill Stein i'd write in.


A Stein canvasser stopped by this morning. Normally I chase solicitors away but her question, which of four political issues would I think is number one issue caught my interest. I said I'm an anarchist, don't you have a choice for no government or less government. She said less corrupt corporate handout, her fourth item, fits that. Got me, OK, but I don't know if I'll vote, I can't vote for Clinton or Trump. She went into an argument similar to mine that you got to vote your conscience and that helps the third parties and maybe not this election but next, etc, and used Stein as example. I said that makes sense, maybe I'll vote for Johnson. We talked a bit. She knew her stuff. I wished her well.

Chris
08-27-2016, 01:10 PM
OK, you're right. That is an unintended consequence I had not thought about.

Hmmm... but on 2nd and 3rd thought, would that necessarily be a bad thing?

1 - Would they not strive to put their best "foot" forward?

2 - Consider that sheer quantity of elected offices held (at all levels) has an important effect on the "life" of the party (which as an organization has a life of it's own and follows the Darwinian maxim of "grow or die."

1 + 2 = quality at all levels?


I think it would be a good thing. Look what primary popularity drug in, Clump. So, yea, let them put their best foot forward.

Chris
08-27-2016, 01:11 PM
We put too much emphasis on presidential elections. Its like we are voting for a stinking king and that's not the way it was supposed to be. The president is nothing more than the executive who carries out the laws passed by congress and in accordance with the constitution. If and When congress declares war then he is commander in chief. Congress has ceded way too much of its power to the executive and its time we reverse that trend. We should spend our time and money on getting the right Representatives and Senators in office. When we put them there and they don't live up to their promises we should recall or impeach them or at the very least make sure they only serve one term. They tend to want reelection and if they know they will be voted out they will do the right thing. We need to do the same thing with our state legislatures.

Agree. Congress is where people should focus. Presidential elections are distractions.

OGIS
08-27-2016, 01:19 PM
I don't think so. If the Republican party had their way they would have dumped Trump and installed Paul Ryan even though Paul Ryan's sellout was a major reason Trump was voted for in the primaries.

Yeah, on the surface that might often occur. But I'm looking at this from a systems perspective assuming that the NOTA is universal and up and running. In other words, Chris' point is entirely valid: the process would be too expensive to keep throwing up venal incompetents who just got shot down when enough people voted NOTA. And the bureaucrats (not the politicians) who actually have career jobs in the party are going to do their best to insure that the organization they serve thrives.

Subdermal
08-27-2016, 06:04 PM
In order:

Johnson




Stein
Trump












Clinton

95 percent chance I'll vote for Johnson, although their is a small chance I bite the bullet and vote Trump, as Hillary is historically dangerous when it comes to gun rights and foreign policy.


I strongly urge you to act to prevent the historic danger.

This is not the year to make the contrarian statement. It will be meaningless to your liberties.

The Xl
08-27-2016, 06:23 PM
I strongly urge you to act to prevent the historic danger.

This is not the year to make the contrarian statement. It will be meaningless to your liberties.

You may be right, and I'm strongly considering it.

OGIS
08-27-2016, 06:47 PM
I strongly urge you to act to prevent the historic danger.

This is not the year to make the contrarian statement. It will be meaningless to your liberties.

Would that not depend on the state the person is in? For example, I'm leaning Johnson and my wife is leaning Stein, and both of our votes will be entirely meaningless here in winner-take-all California, because hell will freeze over before California's Electoral College votes go to anyone other than Clinton.

For those of us in the 48 winner-take-all states, and where there is a clearly favored winner (whether Trump or Clinton), we can safely vote our consciences without pragmatic consequences (at least as far as this election is concerned).

donttread
08-27-2016, 07:35 PM
Just interested in where members stand, or lean, not so much why, though if you want to argue, feel free.

Johnson.

NapRover
08-27-2016, 09:20 PM
Trump
he'll do better with the economy, immigration, military, vets, healthcare, scotus, protection of rights

Hal Jordan
08-27-2016, 09:22 PM
Trump
he'll do better with the economy, immigration, military, vets, healthcare, scotus, protection of rights

No, he won't.

Hal Jordan
08-27-2016, 09:24 PM
You may be right, and I'm strongly considering it.

Or, if you're that concerned about it...

http://balancedrebellion.com/

Chris
08-28-2016, 10:32 AM
Or, if you're that concerned about it...

http://balancedrebellion.com/


The youtube version which can be posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLAh3pui-CI

Chris
08-28-2016, 10:32 AM
Trump
he'll do better with the economy, immigration, military, vets, healthcare, scotus, protection of rights

Why do you believe that?

AZ Jim
08-28-2016, 10:45 AM
It's been argued that this forum is equally divided between cons and libs. With Clinton ahead in every poll in the country and this board running two to one for trump, I guess we now know better.

Chris
08-28-2016, 10:59 AM
It's been argued that this forum is equally divided between cons and libs. With Clinton ahead in every poll in the country and this board running two to one for trump, I guess we now know better.

Well, get your liberal buddies to vote, that will even things out.

My eye is on Johnson, Stein, NOTA, that's the more significant point being made.

Peter1469
08-28-2016, 11:04 AM
It's been argued that this forum is equally divided between cons and libs. With Clinton ahead in every poll in the country and this board running two to one for trump, I guess we now know better.

When people get into the voting booth it will hit them: they can't vote for a crook. At least the honest people.

OGIS
08-28-2016, 11:09 AM
Or, if you're that concerned about it...

http://balancedrebellion.com/

Damn.

Captain Obvious
08-28-2016, 11:13 AM
I'm souring on our political system. Not sure if I care anymore. It's a fucking joke.

AZ Jim
08-28-2016, 11:15 AM
When people get into the voting booth it will hit them: they can't vote for a crook. At least the honest people.Do you not realize that Trump is a HUGE liar and fraud? Wake up boy.

Chris
08-28-2016, 11:20 AM
Do you not realize that Trump is a HUGE liar and fraud? Wake up boy.

And do you realize Clinton is a huge liar and corrupt?

MisterVeritis
08-28-2016, 11:40 AM
I'll vote Trump if it's close in my state.
How would you know such a thing until after the election?

AeonPax
08-28-2016, 11:50 AM
I'm souring on our political system. Not sure if I care anymore. It's a fucking joke.
`
I became cynical about it when I was 25. What took you so long?

AZ Jim
08-28-2016, 11:52 AM
And do you realize Clinton is a huge liar and corrupt?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/

Chris
08-28-2016, 11:54 AM
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/

A liar is a liar is a liar. I don't need the opinions of politifact.

gamewell45
08-28-2016, 11:56 AM
There is no category that I can find that fits what i'm planning on doing. I'll be writing in my name for President come election day as I have done since 2000.

Chris
08-28-2016, 12:01 PM
There is no category that I can find that fits what i'm planning on doing. I'll be writing in my name for President come election day as I have done since 2000.

Rebel!

Peter1469
08-28-2016, 01:13 PM
Do you not realize that Trump is a HUGE liar and fraud? Wake up boy.

Watch the mouth old man. I am not your boy.

Hillary is a criminal. No ethical person will vote for her. I bet you will vote early and often for her.

Beevee
08-28-2016, 01:21 PM
Since you asked, I'm not voting because I can't.

Since you asked for a comment, mine would be that if all the people who can't vote could vote, the name of Donald trump would become a distant memory of the lunacy that pervades the US in it's eagerness to remove Democrats from office, irrespective of the eventual results of the GOP going rampant.

Chris
08-28-2016, 01:33 PM
Since you asked, I'm not voting because I can't.

Since you asked for a comment, mine would be that if all the people who can't vote could vote, the name of Donald trump would become a distant memory of the lunacy that pervades the US in it's eagerness to remove Democrats from office, irrespective of the eventual results of the GOP going rampant.


You can vote here. I said so. :)

Adelaide
08-28-2016, 01:35 PM
I am honestly surprised with how many chose Trump on the poll. But, I don't think this website properly represents the American public; we definitely lean right and libertarian.

MisterVeritis
08-28-2016, 01:38 PM
I am honestly surprised with how many chose Trump on the poll. But, I don't think this website properly represents the American public; we definitely lean right and libertarian.
Why so surprised? We have some smart people here. And some Clinton supporters.

AZ Jim
08-28-2016, 01:40 PM
A liar is a liar is a liar. I don't need the opinions of politifact.Of course not. Ignorance is bliss, right Chris.

FindersKeepers
08-28-2016, 01:42 PM
None of the above! (yes I voted)

In fact I firmly believe NOTA should be on the ballot and binding so we can flush and start over if need be. Like now.

I really wish we had better major party candidates -- it's hard to believe we got stuck with these two.

Because we did, however, I'll hold my nose and vote for Trump.

Here in KS, you might as well stay home. :grin:

MisterVeritis
08-28-2016, 01:44 PM
I really wish we had better major party candidates -- it's hard to believe we got stuck with these two.

Because we did, however, I'll hold my nose and vote for Trump.

Here in KS, you might as well stay home. :grin:
Republicans were not "stuck" with Trump. He defeated his many squishy opponents.
The corrupt Democrat machine coronated Lyin' Hidin' Washinton Insider Hillary. But that is none off my business.

Chris
08-28-2016, 01:44 PM
Of course not. Ignorance is bliss, right Chris.

Are you ignorant of Clinton's lies?

MisterVeritis
08-28-2016, 01:45 PM
Are you ignorant of Clinton's lies?
Don't be a tease. You know he is. He naps through them.

Chris
08-28-2016, 01:45 PM
I am honestly surprised with how many chose Trump on the poll. But, I don't think this website properly represents the American public; we definitely lean right and libertarian.


I think AZ Jim voted for Trump in the poll. :D

AZ Jim
08-28-2016, 01:51 PM
I think AZ Jim voted for Trump in the poll. :DI was the 5th vote for Hillary. You couldn't be more wrong, as usual. Why didn't you make it a public poll then you would know.

Chris
08-28-2016, 01:55 PM
I was the 5th vote for Hillary. You couldn't be more wrong, as usual. Why didn't you make it a public poll then you would know.

So I could vote for Clinton undetected.

https://i.snag.gy/E97HRS.jpg

Captain Obvious
08-28-2016, 01:55 PM
`
I became cynical about it when I was 25. What took you so long?

I'm a slow (but sure) learner.

Don
08-28-2016, 01:58 PM
I am honestly surprised with how many chose Trump on the poll. But, I don't think this website properly represents the American public; we definitely lean right and libertarian.

Don't forget the Bernie supporters who wouldn't vote for either Trump or Clinton. There are a few here on this board.

AZ Jim
08-28-2016, 02:04 PM
So I could vote for Clinton undetected.

https://i.snag.gy/E97HRS.jpg you are going to be superseded by football before long so get it all out of your system while you can.

Chris
08-28-2016, 02:08 PM
you are going to be superseded by football before long so get it all out of your system while you can.

I used to follow Da Bears.

AZ Jim
08-28-2016, 02:15 PM
I used to follow Da Bears.Figures.

Chris
08-28-2016, 02:41 PM
Figures.

Cardinals were great when they were at St Louis. Of course they originally came from Chicago.

Don
08-28-2016, 03:02 PM
The Cardinals are a very good team now. They have been knocking on the door for a few years now. They are my adopted team but second to my Denver Broncos.

Chris
08-28-2016, 03:25 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCC_4zhgjZA

Beevee
08-28-2016, 03:39 PM
Why so surprised? We have some smart people here. And some Clinton supporters.

As usual, you put the 'And' in the wrong place.

Standing Wolf
08-28-2016, 03:42 PM
I'm highly suspicious of the inordinately high "polling numbers" for Trump on this forum.

I sense a great disturbance in the sock puppet universe.

Crepitus
08-28-2016, 04:18 PM
I really wish we had better major party candidates -- it's hard to believe we got stuck with these two.

Because we did, however, I'll hold my nose and vote for Trump.

Here in KS, you might as well stay home. :grin:

If that is truely your plan then you are part of the problem.

Dr. Who
08-28-2016, 06:55 PM
I'm highly suspicious of the inordinately high "polling numbers" for Trump on this forum.

I sense a great disturbance in the sock puppet universe.
It does seem rather high. Perhaps it includes members that tend to lurk more than post.

Chloe
08-28-2016, 06:58 PM
based on the poll results I don't think we can describe this forum as a left leaning place, or maybe you could considering Trump is more democrat than anything. :smiley:

Dr. Who
08-28-2016, 07:03 PM
based on the poll results I don't think we can describe this forum as a left leaning place, or maybe you could considering Trump is more democrat than anything. :smiley:
I was thinking that this should dispel the myth that this forum is a leftist sanctuary.

PolWatch
08-28-2016, 07:39 PM
I was thinking that this should dispel the myth that this forum is a leftist sanctuary.

whodathunkit? I think people only need to read the threads to know that the majority of posters here are righties....in spite of those who weep & wail that they are outnumbered and picked on!

I will vote for Stein (if I vote at all). The major parties have given us the choice of someone we know has voted to send Americans to die for no reason except political expediency or someone that is a nut job that could send Americans to die because he was insulted on Twitter. What a choice! Voting for Stein or Johnson would mean not having to hold my nose while voting.

It doesn't matter because in Alabama Trump (or anyone running as a repub) really could shoot someone in the middle of NYC & his supporters would still vote for him.

Chris
08-28-2016, 07:47 PM
I don't buy that the poll shows anything other than quite a few are voting 3rd party if at all.

Why? For this simple reason: Trump is running to the left of Clinton. There is nothing inherently left or liberal in Democrats, nor right and conservative in Republicans.

AeonPax
08-28-2016, 08:16 PM
Don't forget the Bernie supporters who wouldn't vote for either Trump or Clinton. There are a few here on this board.
`
I'm one of those. Both candidates [are] ethically and morally corrupt.

MisterVeritis
08-28-2016, 08:18 PM
Why so surprised? We have some smart people here. And some Clinton supporters.

As usual, you put the 'And' in the wrong place.
Where would you place the "and" if you were allowed to?

MisterVeritis
08-28-2016, 08:19 PM
`
I'm one of those. Both candidates ethically and morally corrupt.
Nonsense. Lyin' Hidin' Washington Insider Hillary is corrupt. Trump is a businessman on a mission.

Dr. Who
08-28-2016, 08:35 PM
I don't buy that the poll shows anything other than quite a few are voting 3rd party if at all.

Why? For this simple reason: Trump is running to the left of Clinton. There is nothing inherently left or liberal in Democrats, nor right and conservative in Republicans.
I think that it's pretty safe to say that those who self-identify as social liberals are not voting for Trump.

Hal Jordan
08-28-2016, 11:04 PM
you are going to be superseded by football before long so get it all out of your system while you can.

Go Chiefs!

Captain Obvious
08-28-2016, 11:06 PM
Go Chiefs!

https://thenostalgiablog90s.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/chefs.png

Bethere
08-29-2016, 12:42 AM
And do you realize Clinton is a huge liar and corrupt?

psst... she had a private server!

Bethere
08-29-2016, 12:49 AM
It's been argued that this forum is equally divided between cons and libs. With Clinton ahead in every poll in the country and this board running two to one for trump, I guess we now know better.

most of whom won't even admit that they are republicans.

Bethere
08-29-2016, 01:02 AM
I don't buy that the poll shows anything other than quite a few are voting 3rd party if at all.

Why? For this simple reason: Trump is running to the left of Clinton. There is nothing inherently left or liberal in Democrats, nor right and conservative in Republicans.

trump is running to the left of clinton?

wow.

Peter1469
08-29-2016, 04:49 AM
trump is running to the left of clinton?

wow.

Some would say on foreign policy he is running left of Clinton.

Chris
08-29-2016, 06:46 AM
most of whom won't even admit that they are republicans.

^^Closet Republican.

Truth Detector
08-29-2016, 06:50 AM
Fascinating; this poll is turning out much like the general election should. :)

Chris
08-29-2016, 06:50 AM
trump is running to the left of clinton?

wow.

Foreign policy, trade protectionism, voice of the working man and the little guy. He's a populist. Remember too he's been friends with the Clintons, political supported and donate, and Bill is the one who told him run.

Truth Detector
08-29-2016, 06:51 AM
Foreign policy, trade protectionism, voice of the working man and the little guy. He's a populist. Remember too he's been friends with the Clintons, political supported and donate, and Bill is the one who told him run.

His populist message is hitting home with Democratic Union voters. ;)

Chris
08-29-2016, 07:03 AM
His populist message hits home withdrawing authoritarians.

Archer0915
08-29-2016, 07:26 AM
I am for Trump but if Clinton is Jailed, Libertarian.

Standing Wolf
08-29-2016, 07:35 AM
Some would say on foreign policy he is running left of Clinton.

Quite frankly, most Republicans never considered any degree of isolationism or military restraint to be a viable alternative before a Black Democrat became the Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief. I'm sure that if a Republican ever takes the office again - don't hold your breath - many will rediscover the appeal of starting and maintaining foreign wars in all sorts of fun places around the world.

FindersKeepers
08-29-2016, 07:37 AM
If that is truely your plan then you are part of the problem.


It's absolutely my plan. A vote for Trump is a vote against Hillary.

You can run out and vote third party -- but it will be a wasted vote.

Standing Wolf
08-29-2016, 07:48 AM
It's absolutely my plan. A vote for Trump is a vote against Hillary.

You can run out and vote third party -- but it will be a wasted vote.

You've always struck me as being a fair, reasonable and clear-eyed person, even when we disagreed about certain things. Can you honestly say that the prospect of a HRC Presidency frightens or puts you off so badly that you would consider putting an ignorant, childish, unprincipled, embarrassing troll like Trump in the White house to be preferable?

FindersKeepers
08-29-2016, 07:51 AM
You've always struck me as being a fair, reasonable and clear-eyed person, even when we disagreed about certain things. Can you honestly say that the prospect of a HRC Presidency frightens or puts you off so badly that you would consider putting an ignorant, childish, unprincipled, embarrassing troll like Trump in the White house to be preferable?

Unfortunately, yes.

Ignorant, unprincipled and embarrassing doesn't rise to the level of risk presented by a jingoist.

Archer0915
08-29-2016, 07:52 AM
Quite frankly, most Republicans never considered any degree of isolationism or military restraint to be a viable alternative before a Black Democrat became the Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief. I'm sure that if a Republican ever takes the office again - don't hold your breath - many will rediscover the appeal of starting and maintaining foreign wars in all sorts of fun places around the world.

Just do not get isolationism and nationalism confused. But still, I think you are talking about politicians and not the voters.

I really believe that if it were up to the voters (as in the voters had choices that were their choice not the party choice) it would look much different in this nation.

If democrats had a choice I really think things would be better as well.

It seems that the party chooses who they think can give them the most power and not who can actually do a good job for the citizens.

Standing Wolf
08-29-2016, 07:56 AM
Unfortunately, yes.

Ignorant, unprincipled and embarrassing doesn't rise to the level of risk presented by a jingoist.

So...it's not the fear that she's going to send out the National Guard to collect everyone's firearms, or the idea that she's going to issue an Executive Order banning opposite sex marriage or anything like that...rather it's her "jingoism" that makes her seem to you to be the lesser qualified candidate?

del
08-29-2016, 07:57 AM
handing out selling hats that say make america great again isn't jingoism?

on what planet would that be?

Standing Wolf
08-29-2016, 08:06 AM
Just do not get isolationism and nationalism confused. But still, I think you are talking about politicians and not the voters.

I really believe that if it were up to the voters (as in the voters had choices that were their choice not the party choice) it would look much different in this nation.

If democrats had a choice I really think things would be better as well.

It seems that the party chooses who they think can give them the most power and not who can actually do a good job for the citizens.

There is much truth in that. I believe that far too many politicians - perhaps even most of them - are pursuing an agenda that most of their constituents, if properly informed and educated rather than being misinformed and propagandized, would reject in an instant. Lobbyists and special interests have turned our political "leaders" into cheap hookers. To switch metaphors, politicians are cheerleaders for somebody else's team, attempting to rally support for laws and causes that will ultimately cut the very throats of those who fall for it.

Truth Detector
08-29-2016, 08:44 AM
Quite frankly, most Republicans never considered any degree of isolationism or military restraint to be a viable alternative before a Black Democrat became the Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief. I'm sure that if a Republican ever takes the office again - don't hold your breath - many will rediscover the appeal of starting and maintaining foreign wars in all sorts of fun places around the world.

This is a historically inaccurate statement and claim. Why do you make such historically inaccurate claims?

Truth Detector
08-29-2016, 08:51 AM
You've always struck me as being a fair, reasonable and clear-eyed person, even when we disagreed about certain things. Can you honestly say that the prospect of a HRC Presidency frightens or puts you off so badly that you would consider putting an ignorant, childish, unprincipled, embarrassing troll like Trump in the White house to be preferable?


Unfortunately, yes.

Ignorant, unprincipled and embarrassing doesn't rise to the level of risk presented by a jingoist.


So...it's not the fear that she's going to send out the National Guard to collect everyone's firearms, or the idea that she's going to issue an Executive Order banning opposite sex marriage or anything like that...rather it's her "jingoism" that makes her seem to you to be the lesser qualified candidate?

Fascinating; a jingoist trying to out-trump jingoism. :rofl:

What makes Hillary a completely unacceptable candidate for the White House is her complete disregard for the truth and the law. But if you think her recent rhetoric is not jingoistic, you're living in an alternate universe from the REAL world.

Nothing can identify the repugnant desperation of the Hillary camp than this ad:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvcgRlz2ftg

Truth Detector
08-29-2016, 08:52 AM
handing out selling hats that say make america great again isn't jingoism?

on what planet would that be?

:rofl: @ you whining about jingoism. Funny stuff!

Crepitus
08-29-2016, 08:55 AM
It's absolutely my plan. A vote for Trump is a vote against Hillary.

You can run out and vote third party -- but it will be a wasted vote.

Just keep on supporting that two party system. We will never get real change until.people stop.

FindersKeepers
08-29-2016, 09:16 AM
So...it's not the fear that she's going to send out the National Guard to collect everyone's firearms, or the idea that she's going to issue an Executive Order banning opposite sex marriage or anything like that...rather it's her "jingoism" that makes her seem to you to be the lesser qualified candidate?


It's less of an issue of "qualifications" than it is an issue of risk.

Under normal circumstances, we might consider a candidate with extensive political background to be superior to a candidate that stepped out of a gilded mansion to run for the Oval Office.

But, these are far from normal circumstances. No, I don't think she's going to confiscate guns or ban heterosexual marriage. I think she's a danger, however, to individual civil rights in the US and a greater danger to world peace.

The last time she ran for the highest office in the land, she made it clear that she could "totally obliterate" Iran should it make a move against Israel. Those are not the words of a cautious and considerate human being. Those are the words of a power-hungry tyrant.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-iran-idUSN2224332720080422

Or consider her victory whoop after taking down Gaddafi. "We came. We saw. He died!"

Obama has admitted Libya was a mistake -- Hillary -- never.

I will absolutely vote for an orange doofus to keep Hillary out of the office. I don't think Trump will win, but at least I'll know I made the moral choice.

FindersKeepers
08-29-2016, 09:17 AM
Just keep on supporting that two party system. We will never get real change until.people stop.

Move your third party candidates into a better position and I will.

Until then, it's all folly.

Chloe
08-29-2016, 09:20 AM
Move your third party candidates into a better position and I will.

Until then, it's all folly.

Do you really not see that the "better position" that you speak of is blocked by the two parties along with their complicit money partners?

FindersKeepers
08-29-2016, 09:20 AM
handing out selling hats that say make america great again isn't jingoism?

on what planet would that be?


Did you even read what you wrote?

I don't think so.

FindersKeepers
08-29-2016, 09:23 AM
Do you really not see that the "better position" that you speak of is blocked by the two parties along with their complicit money partners?

No it's not.

All it takes is positioning your lesser party candidates in local and state offices on a widespread basis in order to garner political recognition.

But, when a third party stands up, long before it's accomplished that, and runs a candidate for President, that third party is going to effectively split the vote of one of the two major parties.

Sometimes, it's better to think things through than to react emotionally.

This is one of those times.

Chloe
08-29-2016, 09:28 AM
No it's not.

All it takes is positioning your lesser party candidates in local and state offices on a widespread basis in order to garner political recognition.

But, when a third party stands up, long before it's accomplished that, and runs a candidate for President, that third party is going to effectively split the vote of one of the two major parties.

Sometimes, it's better to think things through than to react emotionally.

This is one of those times.

Do you not want the vote split away from the two major parties? What if there were four parties or five or six represented in congress? What if our next president wasn't a member of a party that the vast majority of the country has low approval of (FYI that's both major parties)? Putting in third party candidates locally is great but it doesn't elect president and senators, voters do through national elections, and when people that aren't part of the two party system can't get on a ballot or can't even get on a national stage to debate the two dominant money parties then it doesn't matter if your mayor is Green Party, libertarian, independent, or whatever else. The dominance of the two major parties in Washington DC stays the same.

Crepitus
08-29-2016, 09:29 AM
Nonsense. Lyin' Hidin' Washington Insider Hillary is corrupt. Trump is a businessman on a mission.
Trump is an egomaniac in search of self aggrandizement.

FindersKeepers
08-29-2016, 09:30 AM
Do you not want the vote split away from the two major parties? What if there were four parties or five or six represented in congress? What if our next president wasn't a member of a party that the vast majority of the country has low approval of (FYI that's both major parties)? Putting in third party candidates locally is great but it doesn't elect president and senators, voters do through national elections, and when people that aren't part of the two party system can't get on a ballot or can't even get on a national stage to debate the two dominant money parties then it doesn't matter if your mayor is Green Party, libertarian, independent, or whatever else. The dominance of the two major parties in Washington DC stays the same.

That's a whole lot of "what ifs."

The question you have to ask yourself is whether your candidate stands a real chance of winning. If she doesn't -- you know the effect your vote will have.

That's not even debatable.

FindersKeepers
08-29-2016, 09:31 AM
Trump is an egomaniac in search of self aggrandizement.


Do you honestly think any presidential candidate is different? It takes a certain type of person to seek the job in the first place.

Crepitus
08-29-2016, 09:32 AM
Just a side note:

Does anyone else find it amusing that the conservatives here bitch about how liberal this board has become yet the poll is nearly 3 to 1 for Trump?

Chris
08-29-2016, 09:32 AM
That's a whole lot of "what ifs."

The question you have to ask yourself is whether your candidate stands a real chance of winning. If she doesn't -- you know the effect your vote will have.

That's not even debatable.


Have to disagree. It's not just about winning but the person with the right principles and temperament winning. Clump doesn't meet those requirements.

Crepitus
08-29-2016, 09:33 AM
Do you honestly think any presidential candidate is different? It takes a certain type of person to seek the job in the first place.
He's got considerably more than his fair share.

Chris
08-29-2016, 09:34 AM
Just a side note:

Does anyone else find it amusing that the conservatives here bitch about how liberal this board has become yet the poll is nearly 3 to 1 for Trump?



Or even odder that the combination Johnson/Stein/NOTA/Undecided has tied Trump at 42% something even in this not so official poll?

Chloe
08-29-2016, 09:38 AM
That's a whole lot of "what ifs."

The question you have to ask yourself is whether your candidate stands a real chance of winning. If she doesn't -- you know the effect your vote will have.

That's not even debatable.

My vote will be my vote. If more people voted for what they believed in and not just to win then maybe we'd get the candidates we want and not the candidates we deserve.

Archer0915
08-29-2016, 10:23 AM
My vote will be my vote. If more people voted for what they believed in and not just to win then maybe we'd get the candidates we want and not the candidates we deserve.

We have been shown this cycle that the two major parties are a big issue followed by the idiots that follow them blindly! It realy should have been Trump v. Sanders! Trump got lucky and Sanders got screwed.

MrMike
08-29-2016, 12:40 PM
Im 55% trump 45% for not voting, I will vote for trump before any of the others

I am not a diehard trump supporter, I am a diehard anti clinton anything


That's pretty much the same position I've taken. I wonder how the heck we ended up with these two as our only choices in USA. Surely in our nation, we have better leadership options than what these two colluding political parties toss our way as primary election fodder.

We get the government we deserve. Obviously, it's apparent (with these two) that we don't deserve much...

FindersKeepers
08-29-2016, 12:50 PM
Have to disagree. It's not just about winning but the person with the right principles and temperament winning. Clump doesn't meet those requirements.
I wasn't aware a candidate with the right principles and temperament stood a chance of winning.Who might that be?

FindersKeepers
08-29-2016, 12:50 PM
My vote will be my vote. If more people voted for what they believed in and not just to win then maybe we'd get the candidates we want and not the candidates we deserve.

Oh, we'll get the candidate we deserve, all right.

Green Arrow
08-29-2016, 01:08 PM
Stein for sure.

Truth Detector
08-29-2016, 01:18 PM
Trump is an egomaniac in search of self aggrandizement.

LMAO; but dear leader isn't? Funny stuff; which is why I am voting for Trump, I love the conniptions Liberals will be going through have to say Mr. President to Trump.

Chris
08-29-2016, 01:20 PM
Oh, we'll get the candidate we deserve, all right.

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H. L. Mencken

Truth Detector
08-29-2016, 01:20 PM
Just a side note:

Does anyone else find it amusing that the conservatives here $#@! about how liberal this board has become yet the poll is nearly 3 to 1 for Trump?

Wrong; it's 16 to 23. Unless of course you want to pretend that supporters for Jill and Johnson are secret Trump supporters.

I am encouraged by this poll and think that it might get reflected in the general election. ;)

Chris
08-29-2016, 01:21 PM
LMAO; but dear leader isn't? Funny stuff; which is why I am voting for Trump, I love the conniptions Liberals will be going through have to say Mr. President to Trump.

Argument from hypocrisy.

Truth Detector
08-29-2016, 01:22 PM
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H. L. Mencken

I cannot say I am surprised that you like to quote this Fascist Nazi lover. :rofl:

Mencken opposed American entry into World War I and World War II. His diary indicates that he harbored strong racist and antisemitic attitudes, and was sympathetic to the Social Darwinism practiced by the Nazis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken

Chris
08-29-2016, 01:24 PM
I wasn't aware a candidate with the right principles and temperament stood a chance of winning.Who might that be?

Certainly not Clump. Johnson or Stein, depending on your principles and perspective, come closer.

Familiar with the economic concept of time preference? Those with high time preference take little risk for immediate gain while those with low time preference take much risk for greater long term rewards. High time preference is all about winning...the battle but losing the war.

FindersKeepers
08-29-2016, 01:25 PM
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H. L. Mencken

LOL - I hadn't heard that before. But, I like it.

Chris
08-29-2016, 01:25 PM
I cannot say I am surprised that you like to quote this Fascist Nazi lover. :rofl:

Mencken opposed American entry into World War I and World War II. His diary indicates that he harbored strong racist and antisemitic attitudes, and was sympathetic to the Social Darwinism practiced by the Nazis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken


Wow, nice straw man argument! But I'm really unimpressed.

nic34
08-29-2016, 01:26 PM
I guess we see how this forum slants now... the republicans lead with 23 votes.... :laugh:

Chris
08-29-2016, 01:27 PM
Johnson, Stein, NOTA, Undecided have pulled out ahead.

https://s17.postimg.org/6n4h60etb/giphy_1.gif

Chris
08-29-2016, 01:28 PM
I guess we see how this forum slants now... the republicans lead with 23 votes.... :laugh:

We can see how prejudice and preconception clouds mathematics.

Chris
08-29-2016, 01:31 PM
LOL - I hadn't heard that before. But, I like it.

Mencken was a member of the Old Right who resisted the likes of Hoover and FDR prior to the emergence of the New Conservatives with Buckley and Kirk and others.

Mencken has some weird ideas but some profound ones too.

FindersKeepers
08-29-2016, 01:33 PM
Certainly not Clump. Johnson or Stein, depending on your principles and perspective, come closer.

Familiar with the economic concept of time preference? Those with high time preference take little risk for immediate gain while those with low time preference take much risk for greater long term rewards. High time preference is all about winning...the battle but losing the war.

So, Stein has a low time preference that her followers are counting on growing for future runs? While I can see a draw there, I think it must be analyzed against a backdrop of whether that preference will result (by default) in an error that affects too many in a detrimental manner.

Hal Jordan
08-29-2016, 01:35 PM
I guess we see how this forum slants now... the republicans lead with 23 votes.... :laugh:

16 is not 23. And I thought Green Arrow had problems with numbers.

Truth Detector
08-29-2016, 01:35 PM
Argument from hypocrisy.

Stomp your little feet harder Chris. :biglaugh:

Truth Detector
08-29-2016, 01:36 PM
Wow, nice straw man argument! But I'm really unimpressed.

I enjoy your misplaced condescension; but it is no strawman to know that you enjoy quoting racist fascists that have little concept about liberty and our Constitution.

Hal Jordan
08-29-2016, 01:37 PM
That's a whole lot of "what ifs."

The question you have to ask yourself is whether your candidate stands a real chance of winning. If she doesn't -- you know the effect your vote will have.

That's not even debatable.

How do those candidates stand a chance of winning? Hint: Local and state offices are irrelevant to that. Another hint: It's the exact opposite of what you're suggesting.

Truth Detector
08-29-2016, 01:37 PM
I guess we see how this forum slants now... the republicans lead with 23 votes.... :laugh:

Yep; because Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, and NOTA are Republicans in loony liberal land. :biglaugh:

Truth Detector
08-29-2016, 01:39 PM
Mencken was a member of the Old Right who resisted the likes of Hoover and FDR prior to the emergence of the New Conservatives with Buckley and Kirk and others.

Mencken has some weird ideas but some profound ones too.

Wrong; Mencken was a racist leftist Fascist. But I can see why you would adore him.

Mencken had a general enthusiasm for militarism, though never in its American form. “War is a good thing,” he even once wrote, “because it is honest, it admits the central fact of human nature…. A nation too long at peace becomes a sort of gigantic old maid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken

Truth Detector
08-29-2016, 01:40 PM
So, Stein has a low time preference that her followers are counting on growing for future runs? While I can see a draw there, I think it must be analyzed against a backdrop of whether that preference will result (by default) in an error that affects too many in a detrimental manner.

Jill Stein and her platform is a leftist Communist wet dream; she is also a low information lunatic.

FindersKeepers
08-29-2016, 01:41 PM
How do those candidates stand a chance of winning? Hint: Local and state offices are irrelevant to that. Another hint: It's the exact opposite of what you're suggesting.

What are YOU suggesting?

The standard way is to grow interest in the party on the local and state level before trying to make a run for the White House.

What chance does an unknown third party candidate have without that?

It's all about getting the brand in front of the public, and candidates that come out of the blue, don't have a chance.

Elaborate please on what you mean by, "It's the exact opposite of what you're suggesting."

AZ Jim
08-29-2016, 01:47 PM
This Forum is 23 cons to 6 libs. Never want to hear that it is balanced again.

Truth Detector
08-29-2016, 01:51 PM
This Forum is 23 cons to 6 libs. Never want to hear that it is balanced again.

How is NOTA or a vote for Jill Stein anything related to Republicans? Even Gary Johnson would be a stretch. Good lord; your brain needs and enema. :rofl:

Chris
08-29-2016, 01:54 PM
Wrong; Mencken was a racist leftist Fascist. But I can see why you would adore him.

Mencken had a general enthusiasm for militarism, though never in its American form. “War is a good thing,” he even once wrote, “because it is honest, it admits the central fact of human nature…. A nation too long at peace becomes a sort of gigantic old maid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken



Once again with the ad hom.

Logic could be your friend.


...No, probably not.

Chris
08-29-2016, 01:55 PM
This Forum is 23 cons to 6 libs. Never want to hear that it is balanced again.



You mean 6 establishment Dems as opposed to conservatives and even liberals.

FindersKeepers
08-29-2016, 01:56 PM
This Forum is 23 cons to 6 libs. Never want to hear that it is balanced again.

Hmmm....

...what if some libs are secretly voting for Trump?

And, what if that repeats in the General?

AZ Jim
08-29-2016, 02:02 PM
How is NOTA or a vote for Jill Stein anything related to Republicans? Even Gary Johnson would be a stretch. Good lord; your brain needs and enema. :rofl:Your math needs help. Trump 16 + Johnson 7=23. Shall I use crayon?

AZ Jim
08-29-2016, 02:04 PM
Hmmm....

...what if some libs are secretly voting for Trump?

And, what if that repeats in the General?If you are honest with yourself, it is more likely that some of the chest beating Trumpies on here will pull the lever for HRC.

Truth Detector
08-29-2016, 02:04 PM
Your math needs help. Trump 16 + Johnson 7=23. Shall I use crayon?

What part of Gary Johnson would be a stretch did you have difficulty comprehending? DUH!

Truth Detector
08-29-2016, 02:05 PM
If you are honest with yourself, it is more likely that some of the chest beating Trumpies on here will pull the lever for HRC.

:rofl:

AZ Jim
08-29-2016, 02:05 PM
You mean 6 establishment Dems as opposed to conservatives and even liberals.No I meant what I posted.

FindersKeepers
08-29-2016, 02:08 PM
If you are honest with yourself, it is more likely that some of the chest beating Trumpies on here will pull the lever for HRC.


I guess it could happen either way -- I'm just thinking about the forum poll results.

nic34
08-29-2016, 02:08 PM
What part of Gary Johnson would be a stretch did you have difficulty comprehending? DUH!

Johnson is a republican that likes pot.

Your point?

NOTA and undecided don't count for either side....

Chris
08-29-2016, 02:11 PM
No I meant what I posted.

It didn't mean much, Jim.

hanger4
08-29-2016, 02:12 PM
This Forum is 23 cons to 6 libs. Never want to hear that it is balanced again.


Seriously AZ Jim ?? All seven of the Johnson votes are cons yet the 5 Stein aren't libs ?? I know at least 1 of the NOTA is lib, probably more.
Do you ever consider what you're about to post before posting ??

Chris
08-29-2016, 02:13 PM
Johnson is a republican that likes pot.

Your point?

NOTA and undecided don't count for either side....


A libertarian who ran and served as Republican in a Democrat state and is now running Libertarian.

NOTA and undecided along with third party votes are winning and show how fed up people are with the duopoly and the clown and criminal Clump.

Dr. Who
08-29-2016, 02:19 PM
Truth Detector has been thread banned, please do not respond to this member's posts.

Green Arrow
08-29-2016, 02:26 PM
What are YOU suggesting?

The standard way is to grow interest in the party on the local and state level before trying to make a run for the White House.

What chance does an unknown third party candidate have without that?

It's all about getting the brand in front of the public, and candidates that come out of the blue, don't have a chance.

Elaborate please on what you mean by, "It's the exact opposite of what you're suggesting."

Both major parties ran a presidential candidate their first year in existence. Why can't third parties do it that way too?

Besides, both the Green and Libertarian parties have been running candidates for state and local offices since they started.

Green Arrow
08-29-2016, 02:29 PM
This Forum is 23 cons to 6 libs. Never want to hear that it is balanced again.

Yes, because every member of the forum voted in that poll...

By the way, that's eleven liberals. You forgot to add Stein's votes.

Hal Jordan
08-29-2016, 02:30 PM
What are YOU suggesting?

The standard way is to grow interest in the party on the local and state level before trying to make a run for the White House.

What chance does an unknown third party candidate have without that?

It's all about getting the brand in front of the public, and candidates that come out of the blue, don't have a chance.

Elaborate please on what you mean by, "It's the exact opposite of what you're suggesting."

That may have been the standard way in a country where people pay attention to the local level. It's a whole different situation now, and has been for some time now. There is absolutely no focus on the local level. It's all on the national level. So, how do you raise support? Show up on the national level. What chance does a candidate have? The only chance. We're firmly in the world of the internet now, and the word is spreading. The support for third parties is growing. It's not happening on the local level, but the national level, because that's where all of the attention is. It's the only way to get the brand out in the modern world.

You're suggesting that voting third party is a wasted vote, when it's the only vote that truly matters now.

AZ Jim
08-29-2016, 02:49 PM
Seriously @AZ Jim (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1901) ?? All seven of the Johnson votes are cons yet the 5 Stein aren't libs ?? I know at least 1 of the NOTA is lib, probably more.
Do you ever consider what you're about to post before posting ??GF.

FindersKeepers
08-29-2016, 02:59 PM
That may have been the standard way in a country where people pay attention to the local level. It's a whole different situation now, and has been for some time now. There is absolutely no focus on the local level. It's all on the national level. So, how do you raise support? Show up on the national level. What chance does a candidate have? The only chance. We're firmly in the world of the internet now, and the word is spreading. The support for third parties is growing. It's not happening on the local level, but the national level, because that's where all of the attention is. It's the only way to get the brand out in the modern world.

You're suggesting that voting third party is a wasted vote, when it's the only vote that truly matters now.

Look how Nader threw the 2000 election to GWB. It's a spoiler.

When your candidate isn't even on the ballot in all states -- voting for her is sheer folly.That only means one thing -- she doesn't have enough widespread support to win. She's not even going to come close. She's way down in the polls.

That's why state and local activity is so important. If a candidate can't pull it out there -- how can anyone expect them to take home the big prize? What you suggest sounds good in theory, but it doesn't translate in practice.

This is Jill's map:

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/jillstein/pages/1709/attachments/original/1472239712/Ballot-Access-Map-August-28a.jpg?1472239712

FindersKeepers
08-29-2016, 03:02 PM
Both major parties ran a presidential candidate their first year in existence. Why can't third parties do it that way too?

Besides, both the Green and Libertarian parties have been running candidates for state and local offices since they started.

One of the reasons is mathematical.

If seven parties all run popular candidates, it increases the risk that a candidate that is not supported by the majority of voters could win. The vote is split too many ways.

hanger4
08-29-2016, 03:08 PM
GF.

Curmudgeon

Stop making stupid or misstatements and you won't be continuously pwnd.

Chris
08-29-2016, 03:12 PM
GF.

WOw, letting your Girl Friend fight for you. Oh my!

hanger4
08-29-2016, 03:17 PM
WOw, letting your Girl Friend fight for you. Oh my!

You maybe right, knowing Jim's propensity for ad-hom I took it as 'G_ _ F_ _ ked

Hal Jordan
08-29-2016, 03:25 PM
Look how Nader threw the 2000 election to GWB. It's a spoiler.

When your candidate isn't even on the ballot in all states -- voting for her is sheer folly.That only means one thing -- she doesn't have enough widespread support to win. She's not even going to come close. She's way down in the polls.

That's why state and local activity is so important. If a candidate can't pull it out there -- how can anyone expect them to take home the big prize? What you suggest sounds good in theory, but it doesn't translate in practice.

This is Jill's map:

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/jillstein/pages/1709/attachments/original/1472239712/Ballot-Access-Map-August-28a.jpg?1472239712

*sigh* Nader did not throw the election to anyone. That is a tired myth with no real basis in fact. It's propaganda to try to push people away from voting third party.

Gary Johnson wasn't on the ballot in all 50 states in 2012. How did he get there now? In part because of the votes he did receive in 2012, which put him and the Libertarian party in more of the public eye. You're working against yourself by bringing up the ballot thing.

Be honest, how many people know who their local representatives even are, much less pay enough attention to learn more about their party? Not very many. This extends to even the Senate and House. There's only one race that people pay enough attention to for political parties to get their positions out there.

In practice, in this age, it's impossible to take smaller prizes until you're at least visible in the running for the big prize. Welcome to 2016, where the old rules are dead or dying.

Chris
08-29-2016, 03:26 PM
You maybe right, knowing Jim's propensity for ad-hom I took it as 'G_ _ F_ _ ked

:D

Chris
08-29-2016, 03:29 PM
*sigh* Nader did not throw the election to anyone. That is a tired myth with no real basis in fact. It's propaganda to try to push people away from voting third party.

Gary Johnson wasn't on the ballot in all 50 states in 2012. How did he get there now? In part because of the votes he did receive in 2012, which put him and the Libertarian party in more of the public eye. You're working against yourself by bringing up the ballot thing.

Be honest, how many people know who their local representatives even are, much less pay enough attention to learn more about their party? Not very many. This extends to even the Senate and House. There's only one race that people pay enough attention to for political parties to get their positions out there.

In practice, in this age, it's impossible to take smaller prizes until you're at least visible in the running for the big prize. Welcome to 2016, where the old rules are dead or dying.


Gary Johnson has not succumb to the usual dive following conventions. He keeps gaining. Last one to accomplish that was perot, first run. Johnson is a point or two ahead of where Perot was at this time.

But he's got to get into the debates or it's all over.

CreepyOldDude
08-29-2016, 05:43 PM
It's absolutely my plan. A vote for Trump is a vote against Hillary.

You can run out and vote third party -- but it will be a wasted vote.

A vote for Trump is a vote for the loss of the USA's status as a world power, and reduction to also-ran status.

CreepyOldDude
08-29-2016, 05:47 PM
Trump
he'll do better with the economy, immigration, military, vets, healthcare, scotus, protection of rights


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::smiley_ROFLMAO::smi ley_ROFLMAO::smiley_ROFLMAO::smiley_ROFLMAO:

Green Arrow
08-29-2016, 06:04 PM
One of the reasons is mathematical.

If seven parties all run popular candidates, it increases the risk that a candidate that is not supported by the majority of voters could win. The vote is split too many ways.

As opposed to two candidates running that win with only 25% of the nation's support?

OGIS
08-29-2016, 06:13 PM
Unfortunately, yes.

Ignorant, unprincipled and embarrassing doesn't rise to the level of risk presented by a jingoist.

What kind of risk are you referring to? In my opinion, with Hillery we risk being sold to a corporation for the value of the chemicals in our bloodstreams; with Trump we risk nuclear war if he gets bent out of shape by a nasty tweet from Putin or whoever.

And with either (both) we risk some kind of censure from the other nations of the Earth.

OGIS
08-29-2016, 06:22 PM
Gary Johnson has not succumb to the usual dive following conventions. He keeps gaining. Last one to accomplish that was perot, first run. Johnson is a point or two ahead of where Perot was at this time.

But he's got to get into the debates or it's all over.

I would normally vote for a Libertarian candidate. But there is just something about Johnson that is off-putting. And no, I cannot put my finger on it.

Chris
08-29-2016, 06:31 PM
I would normally vote for a Libertarian candidate. But there is just something about Johnson that is off-putting. And no, I cannot put my finger on it.

He's got an odd sense of humor.

OGIS
08-29-2016, 07:08 PM
He's got an odd sense of humor.

Yes. That might be part of it.

Chris
08-29-2016, 07:10 PM
Yes. That might be part of it.

He's not my ideal libertarian candidate--that was Badnarik.

I just want his and even Stein's, who I disagree with economically, voices heard.

FindersKeepers
08-30-2016, 04:44 AM
*sigh* Nader did not throw the election to anyone. That is a tired myth with no real basis in fact. It's propaganda to try to push people away from voting third party.

Al Gore might not agree with you. :wink:




Be honest, how many people know who their local representatives even are, much less pay enough attention to learn more about their party? Not very many. This extends to even the Senate and House. There's only one race that people pay enough attention to for political parties to get their positions out there.

I know who my representatives are -- I don't know how many others do, however. Odds are -- if a person votes -- they know. And, those are the people we're talking about, after all. The voters. A disappointingly small number of citizens take the time to vote, but when they do, local issues usually convince them. Local issues directly affect property taxes, sale taxes and the voter's standard of living.


In practice, in this age, it's impossible to take smaller prizes until you're at least visible in the running for the big prize. Welcome to 2016, where the old rules are dead or dying.

I disagree. I think the old rules still have merit. It's the people like Chloe that participate at the local and state level that will bring the Green Party to the forefront in her area. When that happens in every state, it's time to run the third-party candidate. But, before that -- you still must deal at the state level with funding for primaries. If your state funds either or both of the major party primaries, but not third party primaries, you have a pretty large hurdle to overcome there as well.

As for me -- when you're able to run a candidate that actually has a chance of winning the General -- I'll consider voting for him/her. Until then, I will vote for someone who actually has a shot so my vote will not act as a spoiler.

FindersKeepers
08-30-2016, 04:51 AM
A vote for Trump is a vote for the loss of the USA's status as a world power, and reduction to also-ran status.


Could you elaborate, please, as to how those two things might come to pass?

FindersKeepers
08-30-2016, 04:55 AM
As opposed to two candidates running that win with only 25% of the nation's support?

Now, you're talking about a different thing altogether.

I've not seen any evidence that a third party candidate can bring non-voters out of the woodwork.

However, in the past two general elections, a candidate WAS able to inspire a larger voting block -- Obama had blacks who had never voted at all -- voting. Although Obama is not my favorite President, that was quite an accomplishment. And -- he was major party, of course.

Pushing third party candidates is an uphill battle and I think it's all a bunch of laboring over dunghills.

Wasted energy, save for the publicity the candidate garners in order to run in the future.

Hawkeyz
08-30-2016, 05:22 PM
Sunday I ran into a woman who has been a Never Trump vocal person on Facebook. During the primary she posted 1000 reasons why no one should ever vote for Trump. I asked her if she was ok, given that the next president was either going to be Trump or Hillary, and that Hillary is the worst idea in the history of bad ideas. She said, "I'm hoping that something comes out that makes it impossible for Hillary to win. If that happens, I won't vote for either. If it looks like she can win, I will vote for Trump - but don't tell anybody."

AZ Jim
08-30-2016, 05:31 PM
Sunday I ran into a woman who has been a Never Trump vocal person on Facebook. During the primary she posted 1000 reasons why no one should ever vote for Trump. I asked her if she was ok, given that the next president was either going to be Trump or Hillary, and that Hillary is the worst idea in the history of bad ideas. She said, "I'm hoping that something comes out that makes it impossible for Hillary to win. If that happens, I won't vote for either. If it looks like she can win, I will vote for Trump - but don't tell anybody."whoopie! A self confessed idiot, eh?

Hal Jordan
08-30-2016, 07:41 PM
Al Gore might not agree with you. :wink:

He might not. People tend to have trouble accepting responsibility.




I know who my representatives are -- I don't know how many others do, however. Odds are -- if a person votes -- they know. And, those are the people we're talking about, after all. The voters. A disappointingly small number of citizens take the time to vote, but when they do, local issues usually convince them. Local issues directly affect property taxes, sale taxes and the voter's standard of living.

Are you speaking only of your representatives in Congress, or all of your representatives? Maybe forty percent of voters know their representatives in Congress, while maybe ten percent know their local representatives (unless they're in the news a lot, which isn't usually for good things), and I'm being very generous with that. When's the last time you saw a protest being held for local issues? It just doesn't happen. People only get involved for national issues anymore. I'm not saying that's right, just how it is.




I disagree. I think the old rules still have merit. It's the people like Chloe that participate at the local and state level that will bring the Green Party to the forefront in her area. When that happens in every state, it's time to run the third-party candidate. But, before that -- you still must deal at the state level with funding for primaries. If your state funds either or both of the major party primaries, but not third party primaries, you have a pretty large hurdle to overcome there as well.

Should they still have merit? Yes, but they don't at the moment. The local is currently irrelevant. I would love for the focus to come back to the local, but it will take a lot of work undoing what the major parties have done.


As for me -- when you're able to run a candidate that actually has a chance of winning the General -- I'll consider voting for him/her. Until then, I will vote for someone who actually has a shot so my vote will not act as a spoiler.

Guess what. You have that in this election. It just requires you giving them a chance.

Hal Jordan
08-30-2016, 07:43 PM
Now, you're talking about a different thing altogether.

I've not seen any evidence that a third party candidate can bring non-voters out of the woodwork.

However, in the past two general elections, a candidate WAS able to inspire a larger voting block -- Obama had blacks who had never voted at all -- voting. Although Obama is not my favorite President, that was quite an accomplishment. And -- he was major party, of course.

Pushing third party candidates is an uphill battle and I think it's all a bunch of laboring over dunghills.

Wasted energy, save for the publicity the candidate garners in order to run in the future.

Nader brought out a lot of non-voters. That was where most of his votes came from.

Hal Jordan
08-30-2016, 07:46 PM
Sunday I ran into a woman who has been a Never Trump vocal person on Facebook. During the primary she posted 1000 reasons why no one should ever vote for Trump. I asked her if she was ok, given that the next president was either going to be Trump or Hillary, and that Hillary is the worst idea in the history of bad ideas. She said, "I'm hoping that something comes out that makes it impossible for Hillary to win. If that happens, I won't vote for either. If it looks like she can win, I will vote for Trump - but don't tell anybody."

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/23/23a2a6ee998024ea1820e89bcfe35745639f63e4c8f2f019ba 00e7fef4f3bedd.jpg

Tahuyaman
08-30-2016, 07:52 PM
I'm voting for Gary Johnson. If it's a close race in my state, which it won't be, I'll still vot for Johnson. The more I see him in interviews, the more I like his ideas.

If he can somehow get into the debates, he may make it interesting.

FindersKeepers
08-31-2016, 01:52 AM
He might not. People tend to have trouble accepting responsibility.

While I agree in general, when it comes to an election, we all share in the responsibility. None of us go blindly (or, at least we don't have to go blindly) into that voting booth. As adults and (hopefully) intelligent voters, it is also our responsibility to vote in a manner that will put the best person in office. Or, keep the worst person out.

At this point in time, that doesn't mean voting for a third-party candidate -- UNLESS -- that candidate has a fighting chance of winning. That's not possible in this election, so, to do so, means voting for (or against) one of the major candidates -- by default.



Are you speaking only of your representatives in Congress, or all of your representatives? Maybe forty percent of voters know their representatives in Congress, while maybe ten percent know their local representatives (unless they're in the news a lot, which isn't usually for good things), and I'm being very generous with that. When's the last time you saw a protest being held for local issues? It just doesn't happen. People only get involved for national issues anymore. I'm not saying that's right, just how it is.

I live in the country near a relatively small community. I know the vast majority of the local representatives (school board, City and County commissions) and I know the two district representatives very well, having been in business with one years ago and living a stone's throw from the other out here in the boonies.

We don't have local protests. The good-old-boy system is at work here -- but in Wichita, near here, they've had a few BLM protests and my dentist attended a couple. The Wichita Chief of Police invited BLM for a BBQ in the park and everyone had a good time. That's our kind of protest.



Guess what. You have that in this election. It just requires you giving them a chance.

There is no third party candidate in this election that has a chance of winning.

In reality, most progressive types that will vote for Stein -- if forced to choose between Trump and Hillary -- would choose Hillary. They don't like her, perhaps, but they see her as the lesser of the two evils.

When they pull that lever for Stein -- they'll be (by default) pulling the lever for Trump.

I know you want to avoid admitting that -- but, it's a fact.

My favorite candidate in this race is Evan McMullin, but he announced very late and he won't make the ballot in most states. Maybe next time? But, I'll be danged if I write him in, and waste my chance to vote against Hillary.

Some folks, good folks, are hanging their hats on ideology instead of reality.

If you think that's the moral high ground - by all means - vote third party.

I will not be joining you in that folly.

FindersKeepers
08-31-2016, 01:53 AM
Sunday I ran into a woman who has been a Never Trump vocal person on Facebook. During the primary she posted 1000 reasons why no one should ever vote for Trump. I asked her if she was ok, given that the next president was either going to be Trump or Hillary, and that Hillary is the worst idea in the history of bad ideas. She said, "I'm hoping that something comes out that makes it impossible for Hillary to win. If that happens, I won't vote for either. If it looks like she can win, I will vote for Trump - but don't tell anybody."


That is the sentiment that's skewing today's polls.

Mac-7
08-31-2016, 02:22 AM
I'm voting for Gary Johnson. If it's a close race in my state, which it won't be, I'll still vot for Johnson. The more I see him in interviews, the more I like his ideas.

If he can somehow get into the debates, he may make it interesting.

You may vote for johnson but what you get will be hillary

Chris
08-31-2016, 05:52 AM
You may vote for johnson but what you get will be hillary

Because Trump can't garner enough votes.

Subdermal
08-31-2016, 08:13 AM
Because Trump can't garner enough votes.

Now you got it.

And if you want that outcome, you'll waste your opportunity to prevent a Hillary Presidency by voting for Trump and at least being entertained for 4 years while the media has one apoplectic attack after another.

That alone is worth the effort.

Tahuyaman
08-31-2016, 09:26 AM
You may vote for johnson but what you get will be hillary

I agree. Even with all of her obvious corruption and integrity issues, she's our next president.

Chris
08-31-2016, 09:48 AM
Now you got it.

And if you want that outcome, you'll waste your opportunity to prevent a Hillary Presidency by voting for Trump and at least being entertained for 4 years while the media has one apoplectic attack after another.

That alone is worth the effort.

My point is Trump supporters are wasting their votes.

In order for him to garner enough votes he has to stand for things enough people appreciate and want. That's on him.

texan
08-31-2016, 12:59 PM
I made another Perotest vote.

Screw the establishment. The world won't end without you idiots! But if we let you continue down the path you have us on it might end with you idiots!

texan
08-31-2016, 01:05 PM
Is this poll an indicator in what Trump says about the polls? They are off, not exactly right in this race?

Trump has blue dog dems, most of the independents. He gets his republican base up who knows where this goes.

Chloe
08-31-2016, 01:14 PM
There's no way there are 20 Trump supporters on here.

midcan5
08-31-2016, 01:33 PM
Let's hear from an intelligent republican:

"I’m a Republican, but I believe that Hillary Clinton is the only qualified major party candidate in the race and she should become president. Yet to win, and certainly to succeed as president, she needs to demonstrate that she understands how much appearances matter, as well as facts and law, and that the president should not unnecessarily open herself up to attack."


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/31/opinion/the-real-clinton-foundation-revelation.html

hanger4
08-31-2016, 02:01 PM
Let's hear from an intelligent republican:

"I’m a Republican, but I believe that Hillary Clinton is the only qualified major party candidate in the race and she should become president. Yet to win, and certainly to succeed as president, she needs to demonstrate that she understands how much appearances matter, as well as facts and law, and that the president should not unnecessarily open herself up to attack."


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/31/opinion/the-real-clinton-foundation-revelation.html

Well that home-brew unsecured email server kind a threw that argument right da window.

OGIS
08-31-2016, 02:25 PM
I'm voting for Gary Johnson. If it's a close race in my state, which it won't be, I'll still vot for Johnson. The more I see him in interviews, the more I like his ideas.

If he can somehow get into the debates, he may make it interesting.

The problem is that the debate gatekeepers require 15% in the polls... and then gatekeeper polls do not include his name. Catch 22. The best catch there is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vgnBWjRGm0

Chris
08-31-2016, 02:30 PM
The problem is that the debate gatekeepers require 15% in the polls... and then gatekeeper polls do not include his name. Catch 22. The best catch there is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vgnBWjRGm0



The gatekeepers have told their peeps to prepare 3 podiums.

He really needs a bounce though. Oddly the conventions gave him a big bounce.

OGIS
08-31-2016, 02:45 PM
The gatekeepers have told their peeps to prepare 3 podiums.

He really needs a bounce though. Oddly the conventions gave him a big bounce.

Not odd at all; the conventions gave voters close looks at the liars and sociopaths that make up both major parties. Remember that old saw about fooling the people? Voters are looking in desperation for anyone other than Clinton and Trump. And Johnson, though he is somewhat odd to me, presents himself as honest, thoughtful, and deliberate in what he says. Hell, I saw an interview the other day where he actually admitted on camera that he did not know the answer to the question! A politician admitting he does not have all the answers? Dogs and cats living together!

Chris
08-31-2016, 02:46 PM
Not odd at all; the conventions gave voters close looks at the liars and sociopaths that make up both major parties. Remember that old saw about fooling the people? Voters are looking in desperation for anyone other than Clinton and Trump. And Johnson, though he is somewhat odd to me, presents himself as honest, thoughtful, and deliberate in what he says. Hell, I saw an interview the other day where he actually admitted on camera that he did not know the answer to the question! A politician admitting he does not have all the answers? Dogs and cats living together!


That's true, one look at the clown and the criminal would sway anyone.

Hal Jordan
09-03-2016, 01:11 AM
While I agree in general, when it comes to an election, we all share in the responsibility. None of us go blindly (or, at least we don't have to go blindly) into that voting booth. As adults and (hopefully) intelligent voters, it is also our responsibility to vote in a manner that will put the best person in office. Or, keep the worst person out.

To a point, you're right. However, ultimate responsibility falls on the candidates to show why they are worth voting for. Al Gore simply did not do that as well as Bush did. Also, your last sentence is completely false. Our responsibility is only to vote for the person that is best. Washington warned us of what we have now. If only we had listened.


At this point in time, that doesn't mean voting for a third-party candidate -- UNLESS -- that candidate has a fighting chance of winning. That's not possible in this election, so, to do so, means voting for (or against) one of the major candidates -- by default.

The only way for another candidate to win the election is for enough people to break their programming. Many people are breaking that programming in this election, thanks to the horrid candidates both major parties have put forth.




I live in the country near a relatively small community. I know the vast majority of the local representatives (school board, City and County commissions) and I know the two district representatives very well, having been in business with one years ago and living a stone's throw from the other out here in the boonies.

Congrats, you're one of the rare ones. Do you happen to live in a community where everyone knows everyone, or are you just lucky?


We don't have local protests. The good-old-boy system is at work here -- but in Wichita, near here, they've had a few BLM protests and my dentist attended a couple. The Wichita Chief of Police invited BLM for a BBQ in the park and everyone had a good time. That's our kind of protest.

I like that type of protest much better, nut it's still over a national issue, which proves my point.


There is no third party candidate in this election that has a chance of winning. [QUOTE]

Look again.

[QUOTE]In reality, most progressive types that will vote for Stein -- if forced to choose between Trump and Hillary -- would choose Hillary. They don't like her, perhaps, but they see her as the lesser of the two evils.

False, most would vote for another third party candidate or not vote at all.


When they pull that lever for Stein -- they'll be (by default) pulling the lever for Trump.

I know you want to avoid admitting that -- but, it's a fact.

No, Stein voters will be pulling the lever for Stein, not Trump. That's reality. I'm probably not voting for Stein myself, though.


My favorite candidate in this race is Evan McMullin, but he announced very late and he won't make the ballot in most states. Maybe next time? But, I'll be danged if I write him in, and waste my chance to vote against Hillary.

Is he on the ballot in your state? If so, you could vote for him and vote against Hillary and Trump. The only vote that is wasted is the one that is made because of party. Also, that goes against everything America was founded on. The USSR was the country that was supposed to be focused on the party line.


Some folks, good folks, are hanging their hats on ideology instead of reality.

Who?


If you think that's the moral high ground - by all means - vote third party.

It's the only moral ground in this election. Why vote for the Mafia or the Joker?


I will not be joining you in that folly.

Then you will contribute to the decline of the country. I'm sorry, but that's reality.

Captain Obvious
09-03-2016, 01:15 AM
I haven't gotten my new drivers license yet so I'm not registered to vote at this point.

Maybe I'll miss the deadline and won't have to bother.

FindersKeepers
09-03-2016, 03:42 AM
It's the only moral ground in this election. Why vote for the Mafia or the Joker?



Then you will contribute to the decline of the country. I'm sorry, but that's reality.

Something tells me that you really do understand the situation even though you're pretending not to.

You, too, will be voting for either the mafia or the Joker -- by default -- when and if you cast a vote at the polls. It's unavoidable.

Hal Jordan
09-03-2016, 11:11 AM
Something tells me that you really do understand the situation even though you're pretending not to.

You, too, will be voting for either the mafia or the Joker -- by default -- when and if you cast a vote at the polls. It's unavoidable.

I understand the situation all too well. People are supporting the decline of the country out of a misguided sense that they have no choice. The only reason that is, though, is that they refuse to make a choice.

If the only options were Hillary or Trump, I wouldn't vote. If you put a gun to my head and told me I had to pick one, I'd tell you to pull the fucking trigger. Tell me again how that means I would be voting for them. I will not support evil, and I am ashamed that so many in the country are willing to.

OGIS
09-03-2016, 11:25 AM
Why vote for the Mafia or the Joker?

For the only thing left: style.

Hal Jordan
09-03-2016, 11:30 AM
For the only thing left: style.

So Gotham will burn with style. Great.

OGIS
09-03-2016, 11:56 AM
So Gotham will burn with style. Great.

There was a brilliant scene in Lucifer's Hammer: the surfer dude (a very smart UCLA physics student) is surfing off of Santa Monica when he sees the fireball of the Pacific Strike go by overhead, and splash down over the horizon. He knows exactly what is coming in the next half hour (a wall of water 300 feet or more high), and that he cannot escape even if he starts paddling for shore immediately. So he turns the board west and starts paddling towards the strike... so he can catch the crest and ride the Ultimate Wave (he ends up, IIRC, smashing at 90 mph into the 30th floor of a skyscraper some five miles from the ocean.

Style.

Captain Obvious
09-03-2016, 12:12 PM
^^ I thought we had a rule against huge, obnoxious sigs.

OGIS
09-03-2016, 12:40 PM
^^ I thought we had a rule against huge, obnoxious sigs.

LOL, off topic threadjack (reported). But just to calm your fevered brow, already discussed with mods and fixed (it used to be even bigger). So none-issue. Cry moar little man.
16037

Hal Jordan
09-03-2016, 12:41 PM
There was a brilliant scene in Lucifer's Hammer: the surfer dude (a very smart UCLA physics student) is surfing off of Santa Monica when he sees the fireball of the Pacific Strike go by overhead, and splash down over the horizon. He knows exactly what is coming in the next half hour (a wall of water 300 feet or more high), and that he cannot escape even if he starts paddling for shore immediately. So he turns the board west and starts paddling towards the strike... so he can catch the crest and ride the Ultimate Wave (he ends up, IIRC, smashing at 90 mph into the 30th floor of a skyscraper some five miles from the ocean.

Style.

I don't think we've hit that point of no return yet. I think we still have a chance to save things without a revolution.

OGIS
09-03-2016, 12:45 PM
I don't think we've hit that point of no return yet. I think we still have a chance to save things without a revolution.

But... do we want to?

Tree of Liberty nourished by blood, etc. Perhaps it is time for a cull.

Hal Jordan
09-03-2016, 12:54 PM
But... do we want to?

Tree of Liberty nourished by blood, etc. Perhaps it is time for a cull.

Violence should be the last resort. If we crave that blood, it will be tainted and will only serve to poison the Tree of Liberty. Also, the blood doesn't have to be literal. If we were to take down the parties in power, spill their "blood", if you will, that would nourish the Tree of Liberty.

Chris
09-03-2016, 01:01 PM
Constitutional Convention 2.0.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

FindersKeepers
09-03-2016, 03:16 PM
If you put a gun to my head and told me I had to pick one, I'd tell you to pull the $#@!ing trigger..

That would be incredibly silly.

Neither one are worth killing yourself over.

Hal Jordan
09-03-2016, 04:36 PM
That would be incredibly silly.

Neither one are worth killing yourself over.

I didn't say anything about killing myself. I can't approve of evil, though, and that's what giving my vote to either one would be.

Chris
09-03-2016, 04:56 PM
I understand the situation all too well. People are supporting the decline of the country out of a misguided sense that they have no choice. The only reason that is, though, is that they refuse to make a choice.

If the only options were Hillary or Trump, I wouldn't vote. If you put a gun to my head and told me I had to pick one, I'd tell you to pull the fucking trigger. Tell me again how that means I would be voting for them. I will not support evil, and I am ashamed that so many in the country are willing to.


Voting for Clump is like pulling a trigger of a gun to your head. Though I usually just call it getting screwed.

Green Arrow
09-03-2016, 04:56 PM
Something tells me that you really do understand the situation even though you're pretending not to.

You, too, will be voting for either the mafia or the Joker -- by default -- when and if you cast a vote at the polls. It's unavoidable.

The only way that logic works mathematically is if the Johnson and Stein voters would vote Clinton or Trump if Clinton and Trump were the only candidates on the ballot. Then it could be argued that it is a loss for either Clinton or Trump for those specific voters to vote Stein or Johnson.

Even then, though, it doesn't follow logically or mathematically. If four people each have $20, and I decide to give Person A another $20, Person B doesn't suddenly have $40.

Subdermal
09-03-2016, 05:05 PM
I understand the situation all too well. People are supporting the decline of the country out of a misguided sense that they have no choice. The only reason that is, though, is that they refuse to make a choice.

If the only options were Hillary or Trump, I wouldn't vote. If you put a gun to my head and told me I had to pick one, I'd tell you to pull the $#@!ing trigger. Tell me again how that means I would be voting for them. I will not support evil, and I am ashamed that so many in the country are willing to.

:facepalm:

Hillary's SCOTUS appointments alone are reason to vote for Trump. POTUS is for 4 years. SCOTUS is far more impactful.

FindersKeepers
09-04-2016, 05:52 AM
The only way that logic works mathematically is if the Johnson and Stein voters would vote Clinton or Trump if Clinton and Trump were the only candidates on the ballot. Then it could be argued that it is a loss for either Clinton or Trump for those specific voters to vote Stein or Johnson.

That's exactly what it is, however. Because, we KNOW that one of the two major candidates will win. We KNOW that. It's a given. There is absolutely no doubt about that.


Even then, though, it doesn't follow logically or mathematically. If four people each have $20, and I decide to give Person A another $20, Person B doesn't suddenly have $40.

Your analogy fails.

OGIS
09-04-2016, 07:19 AM
That's exactly what it is, however. Because, we KNOW that one of the two major candidates will win. We KNOW that. It's a given. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

Questions: What was the consensus of opinion about which major party would win back in 1852, when the Whigs were supplanted by the new Republican Party? Was it assumed that either the Whigs or the Dems would win?

I haven't really researched those questions thoroughly, but here are a couple of links:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-political-parties-splinter/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-whigs-republicans-trump-civil-war-lincoln-flashback-perspec-0522-jm-20160519-story.html

Subdermal
09-04-2016, 08:56 AM
Questions: What was the consensus of opinion about which major party would win back in 1852, when the Whigs were supplanted by the new Republican Party? Was it assumed that either the Whigs or the Dems would win?

I haven't really researched those questions thoroughly, but here are a couple of links:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-political-parties-splinter/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-whigs-republicans-trump-civil-war-lincoln-flashback-perspec-0522-jm-20160519-story.html

You're attempting to equate the present entrenched two party system dynamic with a circumstance of the mid-1850's?

FindersKeepers
09-04-2016, 09:03 AM
Questions: What was the consensus of opinion about which major party would win back in 1852, when the Whigs were supplanted by the new Republican Party? Was it assumed that either the Whigs or the Dems would win?


I don't see a viable link to the 1852 election when the issue of slavery divided the entire nation. Both major parties today split, to some extent, the GOP over Trump/never-Trump and the Dems over Clinton/Sanders. It's unlikely either of those splits will accomplish anything permanent. In fact, the dems are mending fences and, while there is still opposition to Trump in some corners of the GOP, more are sliding to his side of the aisle.

There is nothing, whatsoever, to indicate that the GOP will split over this little bump in the road.

Which brings us right back around to the fact that a third party candidate will NOT win this election. There are only two viable candidates in the race, so (assuming a voter would choose one of them in a pinch), a vote for a third party candidate is a vote against the major party candidate the voter might have originally chosen.

In can be no other way.

And, the idea that third party candidates will EVER wield decisive power is counterfactual thinking. There's simply too much risk of a minority candidate becoming elected for that to ever work. Even if two different parties someday take precedence over our current two parties, the problem will remain. Only the party names will change.

Chris
09-04-2016, 09:08 AM
I don't see a viable link to the 1852 election when the issue of slavery divided the entire nation. Both major parties today split, to some extent, the GOP over Trump/never-Trump and the Dems over Clinton/Sanders. It's unlikely either of those splits will accomplish anything permanent. In fact, the dems are mending fences and, while there is still opposition to Trump in some corners of the GOP, more are sliding to his side of the aisle.

There is nothing, whatsoever, to indicate that the GOP will split over this little bump in the road.

Which brings us right back around to the fact that a third party candidate will NOT win this election. There are only two viable candidates in the race, so (assuming a voter would choose one of them in a pinch), a vote for a third party candidate is a vote against the major party candidate the voter might have originally chosen.

In can be no other way.

And, the idea that third party candidates will EVER wield decisive power is counterfactual thinking. There's simply too much risk of a minority candidate becoming elected for that to ever work. Even if two different parties someday take precedence over our current two parties, the problem will remain. Only the party names will change.


And, the idea that third party candidates will EVER wield decisive power is counterfactual thinking.

And yet, despite your dismissal of historical facts, it did happen.

All comparisons involve similarities and differences. The existence of such differences do not negate the similarities.

Lincoln was third party.

FindersKeepers
09-04-2016, 09:24 AM
And yet, despite your dismissal of historical facts, it did happen.

All comparisons involve similarities and differences. The existence of such differences do not negate the similarities.

Lincoln was third party.


I didn't say it didn't happen.

I said today's political environment was not similar.

OGIS
09-04-2016, 09:26 AM
You're attempting to equate the present entrenched two party system dynamic with a circumstance of the mid-1850's?

I'm just asking the question. I don't know. What do you think? Why or why not?

Chris
09-04-2016, 09:27 AM
I didn't say it didn't happen.

I said today's political environment was not similar.


We've known since Heraclitus that you can't step twice into the same river. Difference doesn't imply it can't happen again simply because the people are dissatisfied with the status quo.

FindersKeepers
09-04-2016, 09:33 AM
We've known since Heraclitus that you can't step twice into the same river. Difference doesn't imply it can't happen again simply because the people are dissatisfied with the status quo.



Sure, it could happen again, but if/when it does, the same cycle will run its course...a new major party will rise and two major parties will still dominate the scene.

Right now, however, it doesn't appear that either party is at risk of that happening.

FindersKeepers
09-04-2016, 09:38 AM
I'm just asking the question. I don't know. What do you think? Why or why not?

It's kind of silly to introduce a concept that you don't have a theory about.

If, for instance, you thought the two were similar, you could make your case, but to throw out a wild card and hope someone else makes it or breaks it is a bit futile, isn't it?

It'd be like me wondering if the current election bears any underlying significance to the first moon landing and then asking you if you would think about it and make a case either for or against it.

Certainly, you can do better.

Chris
09-04-2016, 09:40 AM
Sure, it could happen again, but if/when it does, the same cycle will run its course...a new major party will rise and two major parties will still dominate the scene.

Right now, however, it doesn't appear that either party is at risk of that happening.


That's probably true. One reason I have trouble even voting Libertarian Party is it seem antithetical for libertarians to be elected to government office.

Agree too, barring duo-disasters politically, it's highly unlikely to happen this time. But voting third party now could build momentum for future elections.

OGIS
09-04-2016, 09:41 AM
I don't see a viable link to the 1852 election when the issue of slavery divided the entire nation. Both major parties today split, to some extent, the GOP over Trump/never-Trump and the Dems over Clinton/Sanders. It's unlikely either of those splits will accomplish anything permanent. In fact, the dems are mending fences and, while there is still opposition to Trump in some corners of the GOP, more are sliding to his side of the aisle.

There is nothing, whatsoever, to indicate that the GOP will split over this little bump in the road.

Which brings us right back around to the fact that a third party candidate will NOT win this election. There are only two viable candidates in the race, so (assuming a voter would choose one of them in a pinch), a vote for a third party candidate is a vote against the major party candidate the voter might have originally chosen.

In can be no other way.

And, the idea that third party candidates will EVER wield decisive power is counterfactual thinking. There's simply too much risk of a minority candidate becoming elected for that to ever work. Even if two different parties someday take precedence over our current two parties, the problem will remain. Only the party names will change.

My vote for Johnson will be to preserve my moral position. I cannot, in conscience, vote for either of the two major parties.

As for 3rd party viability, at the risk of incurring the supercilious derpwrath of one of the "special" people here, I'll reference CGP Grey's take on the problems with first past the post voting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

FindersKeepers
09-04-2016, 09:52 AM
My vote for Johnson will be to preserve my moral position. I cannot, in conscience, vote for either of the two major parties.

As for 3rd party viability, at the risk of incurring the supercilious derpwrath of one of the "special" people here, I'll reference CGP Grey's take on the problems with first past the post voting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

I liked your video - but starting at the 5 minute mark, it totally backs my position of why voting third party is a losing prospect.

Thanks.

OGIS
09-04-2016, 09:58 AM
I liked your video - but starting at the 5 minute mark, it totally backs my position of why voting third party is a losing prospect.

Thanks.

I agree. But there are ethical (and self respect) reasons for voting 3rd party this year.

Arguments for having to vote for either of the two major candidates are similar to those heard from frat boys when debating over which of two diseased hookers to have touch you.

Chris
09-04-2016, 10:00 AM
Problem with the spoiler effect as presented in video is this.

Given, for example...

https://i.snag.gy/6tIOni.jpg

Just who is the gorilla and who the cheetah?

In this poll 20 people are third party, NOTA or undecided. You don't know if they're spoiling Trump or Clinton more.

OGIS
09-04-2016, 10:15 AM
Problem with the spoiler effect as presented in video is this.

Given, for example...

https://i.snag.gy/6tIOni.jpg

Just who is the gorilla and who the cheetah?

In this poll 20 people are third party, NOTA or undecided. You don't know if they're spoiling Trump or Clinton more.


Not until after the fact.

Chris
09-04-2016, 10:23 AM
And I think the point of the video in pointing out such problems is really an examination of political systems, which is saved for the next video on the series.

Our system is winner take all. It's conducive to duopolies. An alternative would be a proportional system like Canada has.

FindersKeepers
09-04-2016, 11:44 AM
And I think the point of the video in pointing out such problems is really an examination of political systems, which is saved for the next video on the series.

Our system is winner take all. It's conducive to duopolies. An alternative would be a proportional system like Canada has.

True, it is conducive to duopolies.

I've long advocated a different system, but, as long as we elect a single President, I can't see it changing. I think we'd be better served by geographically dividing the nation into an odd number of districts, say 5 or 7, and then electing a Head of State from each district. Our Founders could not begin to fathom the amount of citizens, the diversity, nor the eventual world power we would become, and one person can no longer represent the diverse needs we have.

Peter1469
09-04-2016, 01:28 PM
The Founders likely would have increased the size of the House as the population increased.

Green Arrow
09-04-2016, 01:30 PM
That's exactly what it is, however. Because, we KNOW that one of the two major candidates will win. We KNOW that. It's a given. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

The argument is that somehow not voting for one of them magically gives the other more votes.


Your analogy fails.

Please demonstrate mathematically how Trump or Clinton ends up with more votes because someone votes Johnson or Stein.

FindersKeepers
09-04-2016, 01:54 PM
The argument is that somehow not voting for one of them magically gives the other more votes.

Please demonstrate mathematically how Trump or Clinton ends up with more votes because someone votes Johnson or Stein.



Since you don't understand the concept -- do this -- OGIS posted a short video in post #239. The whole thing is good, but if you're pressed for time, at least start watching around the 5 min mark. It explains, quite succinctly, how voting third party is a very bad idea.

Mister D
09-04-2016, 01:56 PM
Since you don't understand the concept -- do this -- OGIS posted a short video in post #239. The whole thing is good, but if you're pressed for time, at least start watching around the 5 min mark. It explains, quite succinctly, how voting third party is a very bad idea.

Why don't you explain it to us? Paraphrase.

FindersKeepers
09-04-2016, 01:58 PM
Why don't you explain it to us? Paraphrase.

I've done it a number of times.

Perhaps the visuals will help.