Wouldn't Scoff At Possible 3rd Party

[Kathianne]

It's not just Republicans, nor just Democrats, folks that have observed the failings of both parties for years are beginning to say, "I can't be part of 'that' party anymore:

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/party-724083-democrats-economic.html


What happened to my party?

July 31, 2016
Updated 12:00 a.m.


By JOEL KOTKIN / STAFF COLUMNIST


The nomination of Hillary Clinton has been secured, but the future of the Democratic Party is far from certain. Despite the patina of unity at the end, the Democrats, like their GOP adversaries, seem divided as to their future direction. Each party is being pulled to the extremes by an increasingly unruly base which regards its own establishment as a cesspool of corruption, influence-peddling and naked opportunism.

The devolution of the parties is reflected generally in the record distaste among the electorate toward the two nominees. Nebraska Republican Sen. Ben Sasse recently remarked, “There are dumpster fires in my town more popular than these awful candidates.” Count me among those looking for some smoldering garbage.

For virtually all of my adult life, I have been a registered Democrat. But as the party has abandoned critical commitments to color-blind racial equality, upward mobility and economic growth, I have moved on to become a registered independent. This makes me part of the fastest-growing “party” in America – the politically homeless.

...

[Gunny]

It's called winning. The only party I belonged to was the Democrat party. I dumped them quick. But I'm not joining a lost cause. It's too late. You're talking about introducing American Indians into the Civil war. The third party has ZERO chance of doing anything but screwing it up for the rest of us. And we have the last 8 years to prove it.

[Kathianne]

It's called winning. The only party I belonged to was the Democrat party. I dumped them quick. But I'm not joining a lost cause. It's too late. You're talking about introducing American Indians into the Civil war. The third party has ZERO chance of doing anything but screwing it up for the rest of us. And we have the last 8 years to prove it.

I'm but one, it seems though that more are leaving both parties. One vote at a time.

[Gunny]

I'm but one, it seems though that more are leaving both parties. One vote at a time.

If only it was that easy.

[Kathianne]

If only it was that easy.
actually it is, if only those that really want alternatives to these parties and these types of candidates ever again would man up. It's so much easier though to say, 'I don't like them, but it's time to gather our wagons and drink our gatorade! I'll never drink their kool-aid!'

[Elessar]

A big point is....if a 3rd party wants to make it's presence known and establish a base,
why wait until an election year?

Hold off during the primaries and caucuses to see how the winds blow?

They are building with mud doing things this way instead of a solid foundation.

[Kathianne]

A big point is....if a 3rd party wants to make it's presence known and establish a base,
why wait until an election year?

Hold off during the primaries and caucuses to see how the winds blow?

They are building with mud doing things this way instead of a solid foundation.

I've been saying since last summer that it won't happen this year. The seeds are likely sown though, we'll know more when stats come out on registered voters and how many are now 'independents' having come from both parties.

My vote won't matter in a basically red state, same with no Hillary in a blue state. However, the more folks leave behind the vestiges of party, the less influence those parties have.

It's going to be the populists v the socialists this time, but many aren't either of those.

[Gunny]

actually it is, if only those that really want alternatives to these parties and these types of candidates ever again would man up. It's so much easier though to say, 'I don't like them, but it's time to gather our wagons and drink our gatorade! I'll never drink their kool-aid!'

It's not that easy. Not at all. There is no established 3rd party. Just a bunch of kooks on the fringe. No personal offense intended, bu the guy you are touting is a nutcase. I wouldn't vote for ANYONE from NM.

At the risk of repeating myself. I expect Christ's return more than a 3rd party doing anything but screwing things up. You cannot establish and consolidate a 3rd party in 3 months. What you CAN do is damage control.

I'm not voting FOR anyone. You know full well how I feel about Trump. I'm just not willing to take my ball and go home because the game ain't going my way. I'm voting against Hilary and I'm going to hold my nose and vote for the person who has the best possible chance of keeping her out. Barring a miracle, that's Trump.

I've heard this third party thumping last two elections and now this one. Look at your result. Eight years of an unAmerican weasel stabbing us in the back at every step. So let's add 4 more because of individual so-called principle? What principle(s) would that be? You hate Trump?

This is not about you as an individual. It's about trying to save our nation from more disaster. I am NOT a team player and got 21 years of fitness reports to prove it. But when it's a team sport you play with the team or you lose.

[Kathianne]

It's not that easy. Not at all. There is no established 3rd party. Just a bunch of kooks on the fringe. No personal offense intended, bu the guy you are touting is a nutcase. I wouldn't vote for ANYONE from NM.

At the risk of repeating myself. I expect Christ's return more than a 3rd party doing anything but screwing things up. You cannot establish and consolidate a 3rd party in 3 months. What you CAN do is damage control.

I'm not voting FOR anyone. You know full well how I feel about Trump. I'm just not willing to take my ball and go home because the game ain't going my way. I'm voting against Hilary and I'm going to hold my nose and vote for the person who has the best possible chance of keeping her out. Barring a miracle, that's Trump.

I've heard this third party thumping last two elections and now this one. Look at your result. Eight years of an unAmerican weasel stabbing us in the back at every step. So let's add 4 more because of individual so-called principle? What principle(s) would that be? You hate Trump?

This is not about you as an individual. It's about trying to save our nation from more disaster. I am NOT a team player and got 21 years of fitness reports to prove it. But when it's a team sport you play with the team or you lose.

Sorry, it is that simple. As things stand right now, if all those registered as independent voted for any candidate other than one of the parties, it would be up for grabs.

If this cycle keeps going where it has been and the disgusted keep leaving.whether by bothering to change registration or not, the parties are in a very bad place.

BTW, you rare where you choose to be, viting for Trump.You're just reluctant to go against the herd rather than the pack.

[Kathianne]

Seeing 'independent' as the beginning. I didn't realize that by end of June, there's more 'independents' than there are in each of the two major party. Granted, even with crazy right and looney left, there's likely more diversity within the 'independents' than the parties, but for how long?

http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/01/no-party-owns-my-vote/


No Party Owns My Vote (http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/01/no-party-owns-my-vote/)


Insisting ‘no vote is a vote for the Greater Evil’ takes voters for granted, as if they are shirking their duty to the party. But parties have to earn allegiance. They’re not entitled to it.



Comedian Trevor Noah recently went off on Bernie Sanders supporters (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trevor-noah-bernie-sanders-donald-trump_us_578cf657e4b0c53d5cfa3c2e?section=politics ), saying, “If you’re a Democrat and you say, ‘I’m not voting for Hillary,’ then you are voting for Trump…Let’s not beat around the bush ― not voting is voting.”

This wouldn’t be the first time “The Daily Show’s” host has said something untrue, but many who have thrown in support for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump are making this argument: “If you don’t vote for , it’s the same as voting for [insert super evil villain here].”


Trump and Clinton supporters want to get as many people to vote for their nominees as possible, and it makes sense to them to pressure friends and audiences, especially if they have voted for their party’s nominee before. People who held their nose and voted for Mitt Romney (such as myself) are prime targets for GOP pressure. If I’ve voted for a lousy party nominee before, I’m likely to cave again, so the Trump-pushers will not relent. The same dynamic is in play on the Democrat side.

But let’s get this straight, because accuracy matters: The neither votes are [I]no vote (at least to Hillary and Trump), not a vote for the “other” candidate. It means the pool of voters for the major party nominees is smaller, not that someone you think should bevoting for your candidate isn’t, thereby swinging the election. A non-vote does not carry the same weight as an actual vote for the “other” candidate, so the meme Noah is pushing onto Bernie supporters, the same one being thrust in the faces of NeverTrumpers or the Trump-hesitant, is simply false.

No Means No

Exemplifying the ignorance of dissenters’ motivations that prevails among loyalist pundits, a flurry of tweets came out several days ago pronouncing #NeverTrump dead (https://t.co/JpIUBIvbHt). These opinionators, including Trump himself, haven’t been listening to the NeverTrump camp, but simply assuming that once a candidate has the nomination locked down, the dissenting factions would fall in line and the party will “unify” behind its nominee. But NeverTrump didn’t mean “We’ll never let him become the nominee.” NeverTrump means we will never vote for him, not even in the general election.

The neither vote is an important statement that apparently flies over the heads of these pundits: that neither candidate is fit to be president. This narrow, binary way people like Noah view the election ignores the possibility, indeed the likelihood, that principled voters may think neither candidate has the competence and character necessary for the Oval Office, and as such neither deserves their votes (Noah himself admits “you’re not living in a two-party world” and “there is nuance”).


Democracy is supposed to give us a voice, but pressured speech made by engendering a feeling of obligation to a political party, or to the candidate that claims to share a few inches of common ground with your beliefs, or to a nebulous democratic ideal of mass participation, just makes anger and resentment fester. Conscientiously withholding a vote can speak, too, particularly if one can articulate why he chose to do so.

You Don’t Own My Vote, You Earn It

The arrogance that leads to party loyalists’ implicit belief that the party is entitled to the votes of all who call themselves Republican or Democrat is likely part of what turns off so many from identifying with either party. As of June, 39 percent of Americans consider themselves Independent (http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx), a fraction 8 percentage points greater than those who consider themselves Democrats (31 percent) and 11 percentage points greater than those who identify as Republican (28 percent).

So I’m in plentiful company when I object to this assumption that I must score for Team GOP, or that Bernie supporters must score for Team Democrat. The party establishment and party loyalists take my vote for granted. It should not be. I became a Republican because I most identify with its party platform compared to that of the Democrats, not so I could score for the team by just checking the (R) boxes down the ballot (although I do vote, and mostly vote Republican). My state has open primaries, so my party affiliation doesn’t grant me any special access. It’s literally just a title.

My past votes for Republicans do not put me under some special obligation to vote for a candidate I see as unfit for office, or any candidate, for that matter. One could argue Trump isn’t even playing for our “team” (let’s call it Team Pseudo-Conservative). He’s playing for his own, or some new version of the team with a bench that’s becoming more and more hostile to folks like me. So why should I score for him?


The GOP is not entitled to my vote. The Democrat Party is not entitled to the votes of all Democrats. My vote belongs to me alone, and candidates must earn it. If no candidate earns it (and that includes third-party candidates), I have not been deprived of my political influence. That’s an argument made both to the less politically involved to “rock the vote” and a desperate plea to the Trump or Clinton-hesitant: YOU MUST CHOOSE, and if you do not choose one, then by default you choose the other.

Indeed, to pressure into voting those who do not believe a nominee deserves their vote is to inhibit them from expressing their real positions toward the candidates and the democratic process. I, for one, choose to let my silence speak, even if few can hear it.

[Gunny]

Seeing 'independent' as the beginning. I didn't realize that by end of June, there's more 'independents' than there are in each of the two major party. Granted, even with crazy right and looney left, there's likely more diversity within the 'independents' than the parties, but for how long?

http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/01/no-party-owns-my-vote/



I've been an independent since 80. It means nothing without a plan and a party. The numbers mean nothing if you can't consolidate your force and direct it. Third party voters means nothing because they don't have a real party. They're all over the pattern and have everyone all over the place. There's no concerted effort to win.

Don't mistake my wanting to win for liking either of the current parties in power. I'm just not going with sure fails. I can't stand the Dems or Republicans. They're just bureaucrats and make me sick. But at least the GOP sits on their hands and does nothing. The Dems try to tear apart the Constitution at every step. I'll take nothing, thanks.

You 3 party types need to do something beside complain at the last minute. While you tout 3rd parties, there really is no 3rd party. Just a bunch of people wasting their votes on whoever for nothing. Nobody cares. Be forgotten next week and back to business as usual for the bureaucrats.

[Kathianne]

I've been an independent since 80. It means nothing without a plan and a party. The numbers mean nothing if you can't consolidate your force and direct it. Third party voters means nothing because they don't have a real party. They're all over the pattern and have everyone all over the place. There's no concerted effort to win.

Don't mistake my wanting to win for liking either of the current parties in power. I'm just not going with sure fails. I can't stand the Dems or Republicans. They're just bureaucrats and make me sick. But at least the GOP sits on their hands and does nothing. The Dems try to tear apart the Constitution at every step. I'll take nothing, thanks.

You 3 party types need to do something beside complain at the last minute. While you tout 3rd parties, there really is no 3rd party. Just a bunch of people wasting their votes on whoever for nothing. Nobody cares. Be forgotten next week and back to business as usual for the bureaucrats.

Sorry, but anyone voting for the two 'main' candidates if voting for sure fail-whichever one prevails. As I said, herd v pack.

[Gunny]

Sorry, but anyone voting for the two 'main' candidates if voting for sure fail-whichever one prevails. As I said, herd v pack.

Andy anyone voting for some alleged 3rd party might as well save the gas and stay home. There's no integrity nor principle to allowing Hitlery to win. Y'all don't want to look at the long term effects of your actions. You're fighting a battle with no sight of winning the war. Winning the war is what counts.

As I said, I don't like the 2 party system we have. But just going rogue is going to accomplish nothing. Where was this alleged 3rd party 4-8 years ago building up its army to take over? Nowhere is where.

[Kathianne]

Andy anyone voting for some alleged 3rd party might as well save the gas and stay home. There's no integrity nor principle to allowing Hitlery to win. Y'all don't want to look at the long term effects of your actions. You're fighting a battle with no sight of winning the war. Winning the war is what counts.

As I said, I don't like the 2 party system we have. But just going rogue is going to accomplish nothing. Where was this alleged 3rd party 4-8 years ago building up its army to take over? Nowhere is where.

Gunny, you're the one just hedging their bets, going the 'not my fault' route in every way possible. You've repeatedly claimed to not like/trust Trump since the beginning. You've railed against the two party system. You claim to have been independent for over a decade. Yet, you argue all the reasons to keep on doing the same binary choice and ridiculing anyone who doesn't get in line.

You just want to lead the herd.

[Gunny]

Gunny, you're the one just hedging their bets, going the 'not my fault' route in every way possible. You've repeatedly claimed to not like/trust Trump since the beginning. You've railed against the two party system. You claim to have been independent for over a decade. Yet, you argue all the reasons to keep on doing the same binary choice and ridiculing anyone who doesn't get in line.

You just want to lead the herd.

I'm not sure where the disconnect is here. I don't like Trump. I don't like the 2 party system. I HATE the bureaucracy.

What I am smart enough to do is win a war. And piling in at the last second because you don't like the choices isn't how. You take what you've got and you go. Talking time's over. You engage or capitulate.

I get a sh*tty Lance Corporal, I've got figure out what to do with it. I ain't getting a different one.

But I know how to step up when I have to. You're no different than anyone else. Just part of a "herd". You really think you're going to make a difference? Not in this lifetime. You change the system and you do it the right way. Doing some pointless sh*t s NOT the right way. History backs me up.

And trust me, I don't want to be in charge of sh*t. What I've learned over the years is is that you don't take charge when the time comes, you get beat down. Ain't no one taking charge here. Just a bunch of disaffected people who sat around and did nothing and are now bitching about their choices.

[Kathianne]

I'm not sure where the disconnect is here. I don't like Trump. I don't like the 2 party system. I HATE the bureaucracy.

What I am smart enough to do is win a war. And piling in at the last second because you don't like the choices isn't how. You take what you've got and you go. Talking time's over. You engage or capitulate.

I get a sh*tty Lance Corporal, I've got figure out what to do with it. I ain't getting a different one.

But I know how to step up when I have to. You're no different than anyone else. Just part of a "herd". You really think you're going to make a difference? Not in this lifetime. You change the system and you do it the right way. Doing some pointless sh*t s NOT the right way. History backs me up.

And trust me, I don't want to be in charge of sh*t. What I've learned over the years is is that you don't take charge when the time comes, you get beat down. Ain't no one taking charge here. Just a bunch of disaffected people who sat around and did nothing and are now bitching about their choices.


Where your argument fails is that you are claiming to have been against the system you are now supporting by action, for years longer than anyone here. What have you done to lead to change, other than bitching about the system, then arguing to support the same?

[Gunny]

Where your argument fails is that you are claiming to have been against the system you are now supporting by action, for years longer than anyone here. What have you done to lead to change, other than bitching about the system, then arguing to support the same?

My argument does not fail. It is perfectly logical. What are YOU doing to lead to a change? Screwing us over. Brilliant strategy.

Where your argument fails is that it is futile and pointless. You're not going to change a thing 3 minutes from touchdown.

[Kathianne]

My argument does not fail. It is perfectly logical. What are YOU doing to lead to a change? Screwing us over. Brilliant strategy.

Where your argument fails is that it is futile and pointless. You're not going to change a thing 3 minutes from touchdown.

Not necessarily. The perfect storm of this election, the awakening of a huge number of uninformed and previously uninvolved folks, has had an impact on many previously partisan voters-those that are informed and actually have a philosophical framework they've used to form their positions. It remains to be seen where they go and how they vote.

Change happens when the paradigm changes, this election is perhaps one of those.

Certain? I'm smart enough to never claim certainty.

[Gunny]

Not necessarily. The perfect storm of this election, the awakening of a huge number of uninformed and previously uninvolved folks, has had an impact on many previously partisan voters-those that are informed and actually have a philosophical framework they've used to form their positions. It remains to be seen where they go and how they vote.

Change happens when the paradigm changes, this election is perhaps one of those.

Certain? I'm smart enough to never claim certainty.

So what sounds good? Chinese or seafood? Have to wait a bit, but I'm hungry.

You ain't changing no paradigm princess. The people that think they are need a clue. The matrix is what is it is. You can change it only from the ground up. Y'all want to change it from the top. Never going to work.

[crin63]

actually it is, if only those that really want alternatives to these parties and these types of candidates ever again would man up. It's so much easier though to say, 'I don't like them, but it's time to gather our wagons and drink our gatorade! I'll never drink their kool-aid!'

Regardless of 3rd party opinion, Libertarians picked the wrong guy for this cycle. Austin Peterson would have had more crossover appeal. I don't think any of my Conservative friends who have been drummed out of the Republican Party can vote for Johnson.



A big point is....if a 3rd party wants to make it's presence known and establish a base,
why wait until an election year?

Hold off during the primaries and caucuses to see how the winds blow?

They are building with mud doing things this way instead of a solid foundation.

I've been saying this for the last 8 years. A 3rd party has to start the 2nd year in a new administration. The 1st year is likely to be a honeymoon period and some political burnout. They have to establish who their P, VP, AG, and other principals would be out the gate. Then start campaigning. Doing a couple rallies a month with people who neither side can ignore. They have to rock the boat hard to get traction. They also have to be a genuine alternative to the current mess.

[Abbey Marie]

When people are unhappy with the established 2 parties, the parties evolve to attempt to surmount that discontent. This is why Hillary is mimicking Bernie, and why we have Trump right now instead of Jeb Bush. And why a 3rd party never gets any serious traction.

[Elessar]

I've got to agree with Gunny.

Winning the 'war' is to be able to secure the Supreme Court against this influx
of ridiculous liberal influence and to safeguard future generations.

I've pinched my nose many times in the past and cast a vote.

No candidate is going to 100% echo our individual desires, so to me
sitting out or going toward a person who does not have a snowball's chance in hell
is just allowing a less than desirable person into the door.

[Kathianne]

I've got to agree with Gunny.

Winning the 'war' is to be able to secure the Supreme Court against this influx
of ridiculous liberal influence and to safeguard future generations.

I've pinched my nose many times in the past and cast a vote.

No candidate is going to 100% echo our individual desires, so to me
sitting out or going toward a person who does not have a snowball's chance in hell
is just allowing a less than desirable person into the door.

Your argument only holds water if one assumes Trump's being honest with his 'list like this' or 'additions' or 'along the lines...' I've yet heard one consistent stand on anything but a wall and Mexico paying for it. Sure hope if he wins, that at least happens.

[revelarts]

Your argument only holds water if one assumes Trump's being honest with his 'list like this' or 'additions' or 'along the lines...' I've yet heard one consistent stand on anything but a wall and Mexico paying for it. Sure hope if he wins, that at least happens.


You know i was fairly certain that Obama would not follow trough with his promises based on his congressional record and the people he'd gathered around him pre election. And he performed as expected.

but with Trump it's hard to tell.
I suspect he'll actually break ground on a wall. but he won't finish it.
And he'll blame Mexico, the congress and Texas for it.

Or if it does stall and people don't give him a pass and start to give him grief over it, he'll gin up enough fearful public support to shame congress into making something happen just before he leaves office.

What a horror show to imagine this guy as president.

[Kathianne]

You know i was fairly certain that Obama would not follow trough with his promises based on his congressional record and the people he'd gathered around him pre election. And he performed as expected.

but with Trump it's hard to tell.
I suspect he'll actually break ground on a wall. but he won't finish it.
And he'll blame Mexico, the congress and Texas for it.

Or if it does stall and people don't give him a pass and start to give him grief over it, he'll gin up enough fearful public support to shame congress into making something happen just before he leaves office.

What a horror show to imagine this guy as president.

I can't picture anything but disaster for the next 4 years, doesn't matter which prevails.

[Kathianne]

Leaders lead. Right? That's the right refrain? Flirts with trashing Ryan, McCain, and Ayotte. Uses the term, "I'm just not there yet" mimicking what Ryan said prior to endorsing.

Trump is leading his supporters away from re-election. Weird, but I'm sure there's a great reason that will be explained. There's must be good reasons for wanting to get rid of majorities in Congress. Can't wait to hear how it helps him, other than reinforcing his vindictive nature and think skin.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-refuses-to-endorse-paul-ryan-in-gop-primary-im-just-not-quite-there-yet/2016/08/02/1449f028-58e9-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html


Trump refuses to support Paul Ryan, John McCain in upcoming Republican primaries By Philip Rucker (http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/philip-rucker) August 2 at 5:47 PM

...

[Black Diamond]

You know i was fairly certain that Obama would not follow trough with his promises based on his congressional record and the people he'd gathered around him pre election. And he performed as expected.

but with Trump it's hard to tell.
I suspect he'll actually break ground on a wall. but he won't finish it.
And he'll blame Mexico, the congress and Texas for it.

Or if it does stall and people don't give him a pass and start to give him grief over it, he'll gin up enough fearful public support to shame congress into making something happen just before he leaves office.

What a horror show to imagine this guy as president.

Get ready for the horror.

[Kathianne]

Leaders lead. Right? That's the right refrain? Flirts with trashing Ryan, McCain, and Ayotte. Uses the term, "I'm just not there yet" mimicking what Ryan said prior to endorsing.

Trump is leading his supporters away from re-election. Weird, but I'm sure there's a great reason that will be explained. There's must be good reasons for wanting to get rid of majorities in Congress. Can't wait to hear how it helps him, other than reinforcing his vindictive nature and think skin.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-refuses-to-endorse-paul-ryan-in-gop-primary-im-just-not-quite-there-yet/2016/08/02/1449f028-58e9-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html



I noticed the 'refuses to endores' and did wonder if any of these three would have asked for Trump's endorsement. Well the answer from Ryan is now 'there.':

Unity! Good thing the head of the party keeps up with false statements whether aimed at members of his own party or the NFL. He's like a bad 'name dropper,' and those he names keep publically distancing themselves.
<twitterwidget class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" id="twitter-widget-3" data-tweet-id="760595171528540160" style="padding: 0px; margin-top: 10px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: georgia, &quot;times new roman&quot;, serif; font-size: 12.16px; line-height: 18.24px; position: static; visibility: visible; display: block; transform: rotate(0deg); max-width: 100%; width: 520px; min-width: 220px; margin-left: 40px !important;"><article class="MediaCard MediaCard--mediaForward customisable-border" data-scribe="component:card" dir="ltr">View image on Twitter (http://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/760595171528540160/photo/1)https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Co4tRrmW8AA_qTM.jpg:large (http://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/760595171528540160/photo/1)


</article>

Follow (https://twitter.com/JakeSherman)
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/744920826890199040/R6wpLzf4_normal.jpgJake Sherman
✔@JakeSherman (https://twitter.com/JakeSherman)

.@SpeakerRyan (https://twitter.com/SpeakerRyan) RESPONDS!!!
2:56 PM - 2 Aug 2016 (https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/760595171528540160)




</twitterwidget>

[fj1200]

A big point is....if a 3rd party wants to make it's presence known and establish a base,
why wait until an election year?

Hold off during the primaries and caucuses to see how the winds blow?

They are building with mud doing things this way instead of a solid foundation.

False premise. They're building their base all the time it's just that there is typically little need for a third option for the most part because of our system of representative government IMO. And Johnson/Libertarians didn't wait to see if a trump came along, they were going to run their primary regardless.

[fj1200]

Regardless of 3rd party opinion, Libertarians picked the wrong guy for this cycle. Austin Peterson would have had more crossover appeal. I don't think any of my Conservative friends who have been drummed out of the Republican Party can vote for Johnson.

There are at least three here who can and likely will vote for Johnson.


I've been saying this for the last 8 years. A 3rd party has to start the 2nd year in a new administration. The 1st year is likely to be a honeymoon period and some political burnout. They have to establish who their P, VP, AG, and other principals would be out the gate. Then start campaigning. Doing a couple rallies a month with people who neither side can ignore. They have to rock the boat hard to get traction. They also have to be a genuine alternative to the current mess.

Disagree. Third parties will never, IMO, last. Even if Johnson were to win the Libertarians won't win any local elections and he'll end up working with the Republicans in Congress as they are closest to him ideologically. A third POTUS option is either driven by personality (Perot) or circumstances (Johnson) with an accompanying issue like deficits and trade (Perot) or awful main party options (Johnson).

[fj1200]

I've got to agree with Gunny.

Winning the 'war' is to be able to secure the Supreme Court against this influx
of ridiculous liberal influence and to safeguard future generations.

I've pinched my nose many times in the past and cast a vote.

No candidate is going to 100% echo our individual desires, so to me
sitting out or going toward a person who does not have a snowball's chance in hell
is just allowing a less than desirable person into the door.

Question: Did we win the war with Hoover?

[Gunny]

False premise. They're building their base all the time it's just that there is typically little need for a third option for the most part because of our system of representative government IMO. And Johnson/Libertarians didn't wait to see if a trump came along, they were going to run their primary regardless.

F*cker. fj1200 next time you decide to take leave you WILL put in a chit. This going AWOL on my ass leaves me with no one to argue with. I'll need 3 carbon copies and no typo's.

And, it's denied any-damned-way.

[Abbey Marie]

There are at least three here who can and likely will vote for Johnson.
...




What is his platform? An free ounce of weed for every American? ;)
:420:

(I still think that icon looks like a guy giving someone a, well, you know).

[crin63]

What is his platform? An free ounce of weed for every American? ;)
:420:

(I still think that icon looks like a guy giving someone a, well, you know).

The campaign slogan: "Hi I'm Gary Johnson and I smoke weed, well sometimes".

[Kathianne]

Yeah, he's 'out there' on some issues, then again considering the two main parties, I can live with:

<center>I view government in the same way as philosopher Ayn Rand</center>Without exception, I am a civil libertarian. I believe in the supremacy of individual rights and personal freedoms above unwarranted government interference or control.
Overall, I think I view big government in the same way that the novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand did--that it really oppresses those that create, if you will, and tries to take away from those that produce and give to the non-producers.
<center style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Tinos; font-size: medium;">Source: Seven Principles, by Gary Johnson, p. 31 , Aug 1, 2012
</center><center>Seven Principles of Good Government for work & life</center>I base my decisions, both personally and professionally, on seven principles that I've derived from my experiences.


Become reality-driven. Don't kid yourself or others. Base your decisions and actions on what's what.
Always be honest and tell the truth. It is extremely difficult to damage people who are willing to tell the truth.
Always do what's right and fair. Remember, the more you accomplish, the louder your critics become. Learn to ignore them. Maintain your integrity and continue to do what's right.
Determine your goal. Develop a plan to reach that goal. Then act--don't procrastinate.
Make sure everyone who ought to know what you're doing, knows what you're doing.
Don't hesitate to deliver bad news. Acknowledge mistakes immediately. There may still be time to salvage things or make corrections.
Be willing to do whatever it takes to get the job done. If your job doesn't excite you enough to follow this principle, resign and find a job you love.

<center style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Tinos; font-size: medium;">Source: Seven Principles, by Gary Johnson, p. 5-7 (http://www.ontheissues.org/Seven_Principles.htm) , Aug 1, 2012
</center>

<center>Favorite philosopher: Milton Friedman</center>Q: You claim to advocate capitalism. So, who in America is your favorite businessman?
A: Steve Jobs comes to mind--he represents incredible innovation. Maybe Bill Gates. I didn't have any business heroes growing up. One of the realities of my life is that those I thought were heroes were not.
Q: Who is your favorite political philosopher?
A: [Chicago economist and Free to Choose author] Milton Friedman.
<center style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Tinos; font-size: medium;">Source: Interview by Scott Holleran on scottholleran.com blog , Aug 21, 2011
</center><center>Tea Party insures that Republicans are part of the solution</center>Q: What role do you think the Tea Party will play in the 2012 elections?
A: By giving voice to millions of Americans who are not satisfied with the traditional parties. And insuring that Republicans who are nominated will be part of the solution, not the problem.
<center style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Tinos; font-size: medium;">Source: 2011 Republican primary debate on Twitter.com , Jul 21, 2011
</center><center>Calls himself classical liberal; others prefer libertarian</center>Johnson calls himself a "classical liberal," though others might prefer "libertarian." He favors legalizing marijuana (he says he toked up as recently as 2008) and prostitution and supports a woman's right to choose, liberal immigration reform and an anti-war foreign policy--even as he's called for draconian spending cuts and for dropping the corporate tax rate to zero as a means to jumpstart jobs creation.
<center style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Tinos; font-size: medium;">Source: Tim Dickinson in Rolling Stone Magazine , Jun 15, 2011
</center><center>Majority of America is fiscal conservative & social liberal</center>Q: Are you a Republican or a libertarian?
A: The majority of Americans are classical liberals--fiscal conservatives and social liberals--who believe that the best government is the government that rules the least and the best that government can do for me, the individual, is to allow me as an individual to make the choices and the decisions that only I can make. When that crosses over the line and I potentially can do harm to others, that's when the government needs to step in.
<center style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Tinos; font-size: medium;">Source: Tim Dickinson in Rolling Stone Magazine , Jun 15, 2011


<center>Raise the retirement age to 70 or 72</center>One last issue that needs a dose of reality is our country's approach to Social Security and other entitlement programs. I've been on the record about this problem for years. As ABC News noted in 2010:
"Citing a story in USA Today which reported that a rash of retirements in 2009 is pushing Social Security to the brink, Johnson said the retirement age needs to be raised perhaps to 70 or 72. "This is the reality, we're broke," said Johnson. "We're broke."
That's STILL the reality.
<center>Source: Seven Principles, by Gary Johnson, p. 76 , Aug 1, 2012
</center><center>A portion of Social Security ought to be privatized</center>Social Security really needs to be reformed. Medicaid probably needs to be capped when it comes to the states. Medicare, there needs to be some sort of means testing.
The [Social Security] retirement age needs to be raised. A portion of Social Security ought to be privatized, if not all. And there probably needs to be some means testing. It's a Ponzi scheme that's not sustainable.
<center>Source: Seven Principles, by Gary Johnson, p.107 , Aug 1, 2012
</center><center>Replace the payroll tax with FairTax</center>We need to get rid of payroll taxes. Look at it from the perspective of employers for a moment. When they want to hire someone, it costs more than just the wage they're paying. They have to pay payroll taxes, including for Social Security and Medicare. That cost is about 10% of the wages they pay an employee. Remove that burden, and employers will be able to hire 10% more people. With an unemployment rate of 10%, why wouldn't we jump at this chance? The Fair-tax replaces employment and payroll taxes.
<center>Source: Gary Johnson, "America moving again" in The Washington Times , Feb 2, 2012
</center><center>Raise the retirement age; plus means testing</center>Q: You told the Wall Street Journal last year that you support means testing for Social Security, for which you said you would raise the eligibility age.
A: I would cut Social Security by raising the retirement age and have common sense means testing that's fair. I would scrap the entire federal tax system and replace it with the FairTax--a one-time consumption tax, with no more Medicare and unemployment payroll deductions--so we'd replace all federal taxes, abolishing the IRS.
<center>Source: Interview by Scott Holleran on scottholleran.com blog , Aug 21, 2011
</center><center>Reform all entitlements, including Social Security</center>Q: You all support balancing the budget! But what entitlements would you go after?
Johnson: Medicaid and Medicare and reforming Social Security.
Bachmann: Obamacare, the largest entitlement and spending program in our country's history.
Gingrich: Also, fraud in Medicaid and Medicare are rampant. We should stop paying the crooks.
Cain: I would focus on major entitlement reform. This would focus on programs similar to Social Security.
<center>Source: 2011 Republican primary debate on Twitter.com , Jul 21, 2011
</center><center style="visibility: visible; opacity: 1;"><iframe id="sovrn_ad_unit_327692_async" margin="0" padding="0" frameborder="0" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" src="about:blank" data-zid="327692" class="sovrn_ad_unit" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: none; width: 300px; height: 250px; overflow: hidden;"></iframe>Open to personal accounts for Social Security
</center>Governor Johnson's website lists some major entitlement reform proposals, including to fix Social Security by changing the escalator from being based on wage growth to inflation.
Governor Johnson has also said that he would be open to personal accounts for Social Security, as well as means testing the program.
<center>Source: Club for Growth 2012 Presidential White Paper #9: Johnson , Jul 21, 2011
</center><center>Change escalator from wage-based to inflation-based</center>
We must act now to:

Balance the Budget. The math is simple: Federal spending must be cut not by millions or billions, but by trillions. And it must be done today. It's time to:

Reassess the role of the federal government and identify responsibilities that can be met more efficiently by the private sector.


Enact Responsible Entitlement Reform: Most people in Washington seem to think that we can control spending and balance the budget without reforming Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. This is lunacy.

Fix Social Security by changing the escalator from being based on wage growth to inflation. It's time for Social Security to reflect today's realities without breaking trust with those soon to retire.


Audit the Federal Reserve: We have a right to understand the process by which our currency is being created and managed.

Get the Federal Reserve out of the business of propping up the stock market through quantitative easing.


<center>Source: Presidential campaign website, garyjohnson2012.com, "Issues" (http://www.ontheissues.org/2012_Pres_Web.htm) , May 2, 2011
</center><center>Maintain long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare.</center>Johnson adopted the National Governors Association position paper:
The IssueWith the first federal budget surplus in a generation and estimates of non-Social Security surpluses ranging from $750 billion to $1.9 trillion over the next decade, the issue is whether Congress and the President will agree to dedicate a portion of the projected surplus to tax cuts and, if so, what the impacts on states might be.

Tax issues raise several concerns for states.

How much of the potential non-Social Security surplus should be dedicated to tax cuts and breaks?
Absent any consensus on long-term legislation to ensure solvency of Social Security and Medicare, would major federal revenue losses for tax cuts risk shifting substantial entitlement burdens to states?
How would federal tax changes affect state income taxes?
What are key elements for states of any future major tax bill? In school construction? For retirement? For housing and economic development? For health care?

NGA’s PositionNGA opposes reductions from current discretionary spending levels or changes that could risk the long-term solvency of the nation’s Social Security and Medicare systems. NGA supports provisions to ensure reduced barriers to state and local capital finance through tax-exempt bonds and to ensure maximum flexibility in setting and maintaining state retirement plans and programs.
<center>Source: National Governors Association "Issues / Positions" 01-NGA16 (http://www.ontheissues.org/Notebook/Note_01-NGA16.htm) on Aug 1, 2001
</center></center>

[Drummond]

If Conservatives look for an alternative to the GOP, and decide to vote for it, then the GOP voter base is weakened.

The GOP is the only major Conservative Party in America at all likely to oust the Dems from power. They definitely can't do it if their voters defect to another, more minor, political force. The Dems therefore win by default.

Guarantee that the Dems will be weakened by at least as much as the GOP, if not more, and MAYBE, there's a case for such sabotage. Without such a guarantee, nor any grounds for believing in it, then the Dems win.

Those considering such sabotaging actions ... how willing are they to see their alleged OPPOSITION win through, AGAIN, for the sake of a principled stand that cannot be translated into real, political power ??

[Gunny]

Leaders lead. Right? That's the right refrain? Flirts with trashing Ryan, McCain, and Ayotte. Uses the term, "I'm just not there yet" mimicking what Ryan said prior to endorsing.

Trump is leading his supporters away from re-election. Weird, but I'm sure there's a great reason that will be explained. There's must be good reasons for wanting to get rid of majorities in Congress. Can't wait to hear how it helps him, other than reinforcing his vindictive nature and think skin.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-refuses-to-endorse-paul-ryan-in-gop-primary-im-just-not-quite-there-yet/2016/08/02/1449f028-58e9-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html



You are correct. Leaders lead. They get the mission accomplished by going from Point A to Point B. They don't allow their personal problems to take those they are leading to Point C just because they don't like Point B.

Bottom line is to accomplish the mission. In this case, the Supreme Court and 4 years with a criminal as President. There's no leadership there. There's no leadership going rogue. Leadership is you assess your assets, the mission, and make a plan and carry it out.

I don't consider Trump any kind of leader. He's a boss. A contractor. They "lead" by bullying. But if that's what we have to accomplish the mission with, then you make do.

[fj1200]

F*cker. @fj1200 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=728) next time you decide to take leave you WILL put in a chit. This going AWOL on my ass leaves me with no one to argue with. I'll need 3 carbon copies and no typo's.

And, it's denied any-damned-way.

As I saw on a t-shirt this past weekend; I don't argue, I explain why I'm correct. ;)


What is his platform? An free ounce of weed for every American? ;)

In one word; Liberty. In a bunch of words; Kathianne posted what is freely available on your interwebinator machine. I suppose you might need an upgrade from your Minitel (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/jun/28/minitel-france-says-farewell) though. :eek: I do recall you not wanting to vote for a real estate developer though so I would presume your remaining viable option is Johnson/Weld.


If Conservatives look for an alternative to the GOP, and decide to vote for it, then the GOP voter base is weakened.

If anything the GOP base is being weakened because it's current candidate for POTUS is not actually conservative.