Pot kettle black, trumpneck. You calling libs looney is like Amy Winehouse calling Rachel McAdams ugly. What's good for the goose...
First off don't call me anything Trump, I didn't vote for him or Hildabeast. Your just making yourself look just like the two idiot's in the video, thinking your better then everyone else, well, your sure are NOT, now get over it!. If it was the opposite, and two Trumpsters were harasing and threatening a Hildabeast supporter, I'd call them the Looney Right.
When did we loose are freedom of speech, you sure seem to act like we have with all your idiotic post.
*you're
And "you're" no better for lashing out at Stein voters like me for electing Trump.
Oh gee, thanks for the information, I didn't understand that a vote for Johnson was in fact a vote for Johnson. I'm sure you actually do understand how 3rd party votes impacted this election.
Depends on where those votes were cast. My 3rd party vote had absolutely zero impact on the outcome of this election. None. Hillary got the electoral votes from my state. So neither my vote, nor my state helped elect Trump.
Yes, I understand how it works. The whole mindset surrounding the 3rd vote "campaign" at this particular time in history still applies though, IMO. I don't have any individuals in mind when I criticize that 3rd party "campaign". My disgust lies with the overall mindset, given the circumstances.
But 3rd party voters didn't lose the election for Hillary, nor did they win the election for Trump. Hillary's awful campaign failed to target voters in important states, and failed to bring out the numbers required. There were many, many registered voters who didn't vote. Perhaps they bear more responsibility than 3rd party voters, since they did absolutely nothing. But ultimately Trump won because Hillary can't run a campaign.
I personally think Trump won because of the hate campaign waged against Clinton. Some of the leaders of that campaign were 3rd parties and their voters.
It was not about the hate waged against Clinton but about the fact that she is just not likeable, flawed, and generally uninspiring. It is why she lost to Obama in 2008. The writing was on the wall but the entire democratic party establishment refused to acknowledge it.
I'm not denying that. I'm just saying why I think some blame lands on 3rd parties and 3rd party voters as well. I totally think there is a lot of blame to spread around to others as well! However, I do believe that the hate campaign against Hillary made the difference between Trump winning and losing. I could say the same about a couple of other factors as well, but that doesn't take responsibility off of 3rd parties.
blaming 3rd parties is a cop out. 3rd parties are allowed to exist and people have a right to a different option. if 3rd parties are forever relegated to "we'll vote for you, but only if we know x candidate is in the bag to win", they will never get the wheels moving. maybe what comes out of this is a bigger push towards an alternative. it took a long damn time, but if Jack Layton (Canadian federal NDP leader, for my american friends) hadn't died, I'm convinced he would have been PM.
BS is right; clinton didn't inspire. to be a leader at this level, you can't be just a good leader, you have to be able to project that quality. I always thought it was odd that the dem candidate this time was the failed one from last time.
Pot kettle black, trumpneck. You calling libs looney is like Amy Winehouse calling Rachel McAdams ugly. What's good for the goose...
First off don't call me anything Trump, I didn't vote for him or Hildabeast. Your just making yourself look just like the two idiot's in the video, thinking your better then everyone else, well, your sure are NOT, now get over it!. If it was the opposite, and two Trumpsters were harasing and threatening a Hildabeast supporter, I'd call them the Looney Right.
When did we loose are freedom of speech, you sure seem to act like we have with all your idiotic post.
*you're
And "you're" no better for lashing out at Stein voters like me for electing Trump.
Oh gee, thanks for the information, I didn't understand that a vote for Johnson was in fact a vote for Johnson. I'm sure you actually do understand how 3rd party votes impacted this election.
Depends on where those votes were cast. My 3rd party vote had absolutely zero impact on the outcome of this election. None. Hillary got the electoral votes from my state. So neither my vote, nor my state helped elect Trump.
Yes, I understand how it works. The whole mindset surrounding the 3rd vote "campaign" at this particular time in history still applies though, IMO. I don't have any individuals in mind when I criticize that 3rd party "campaign". My disgust lies with the overall mindset, given the circumstances.
But 3rd party voters didn't lose the election for Hillary, nor did they win the election for Trump. Hillary's awful campaign failed to target voters in important states, and failed to bring out the numbers required. There were many, many registered voters who didn't vote. Perhaps they bear more responsibility than 3rd party voters, since they did absolutely nothing. But ultimately Trump won because Hillary can't run a campaign.
I personally think Trump won because of the hate campaign waged against Clinton. Some of the leaders of that campaign were 3rd parties and their voters.
It was not about the hate waged against Clinton but about the fact that she is just not likeable, flawed, and generally uninspiring. It is why she lost to Obama in 2008. The writing was on the wall but the entire democratic party establishment refused to acknowledge it.
I'm not denying that. I'm just saying why I think some blame lands on 3rd parties and 3rd party voters as well. I totally think there is a lot of blame to spread around to others as well! However, I do believe that the hate campaign against Hillary made the difference between Trump winning and losing. I could say the same about a couple of other factors as well, but that doesn't take responsibility off of 3rd parties.
blaming 3rd parties is a cop out. 3rd parties are allowed to exist and people have a right to a different option. if 3rd parties are forever relegated to "we'll vote for you, but only if we know x candidate is in the bag to win", they will never get the wheels moving. maybe what comes out of this is a bigger push towards an alternative. it took a long damn time, but if Jack Layton (Canadian federal NDP leader, for my american friends) hadn't died, I'm convinced he would have been PM.
BS is right; clinton didn't inspire. to be a leader at this level, you can't be just a good leader, you have to be able to project that quality. I always thought it was odd that the dem candidate this time was the failed one from last time.
I'm not blaming the existence of 3rd parties. I'm blaming their hate campaign against Clinton at the precise time they did it and the precise way they did it (and the bullshit they conjured too). I don't consider any "normal circumstances" at the moment. I do not think that 3rd parties should be forever relegated to an option only if a particular one of two parties has a win in the bag (as a Canadian, that thought actually seems ludicrous, and I'm pretty sure you know that I don't support a 2-party system). I am specifically talking about the threat of Donald Trump. I would never say or think what I am now if the circumstances weren't very abnormal. But they were. They were extremely abnormal circumstances, and that is why I think the blame that is there to spread around is spread around in an abnormal way too. I do not think of this in sweeping terms. My feelings are very precisely focused in on the absurdity and horror of Trump and the election that he was in, and the one where 3rd parties (and the two main parties) just completely screwed the pooch. The 3rd parties and their supporters had a hand to play in the absurdity and overall bullshit that was the 2016 election, and I'm not going to let them off the hook (not that they care - they are still riding high on their delicate egos I'm sure).
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Pot kettle black, trumpneck. You calling libs looney is like Amy Winehouse calling Rachel McAdams ugly. What's good for the goose...
First off don't call me anything Trump, I didn't vote for him or Hildabeast. Your just making yourself look just like the two idiot's in the video, thinking your better then everyone else, well, your sure are NOT, now get over it!. If it was the opposite, and two Trumpsters were harasing and threatening a Hildabeast supporter, I'd call them the Looney Right.
When did we loose are freedom of speech, you sure seem to act like we have with all your idiotic post.
*you're
And "you're" no better for lashing out at Stein voters like me for electing Trump.
Oh gee, thanks for the information, I didn't understand that a vote for Johnson was in fact a vote for Johnson. I'm sure you actually do understand how 3rd party votes impacted this election.
Depends on where those votes were cast. My 3rd party vote had absolutely zero impact on the outcome of this election. None. Hillary got the electoral votes from my state. So neither my vote, nor my state helped elect Trump.
Yes, I understand how it works. The whole mindset surrounding the 3rd vote "campaign" at this particular time in history still applies though, IMO. I don't have any individuals in mind when I criticize that 3rd party "campaign". My disgust lies with the overall mindset, given the circumstances.
But 3rd party voters didn't lose the election for Hillary, nor did they win the election for Trump. Hillary's awful campaign failed to target voters in important states, and failed to bring out the numbers required. There were many, many registered voters who didn't vote. Perhaps they bear more responsibility than 3rd party voters, since they did absolutely nothing. But ultimately Trump won because Hillary can't run a campaign.
I personally think Trump won because of the hate campaign waged against Clinton. Some of the leaders of that campaign were 3rd parties and their voters.
It was not about the hate waged against Clinton but about the fact that she is just not likeable, flawed, and generally uninspiring. It is why she lost to Obama in 2008. The writing was on the wall but the entire democratic party establishment refused to acknowledge it.
I'm not denying that. I'm just saying why I think some blame lands on 3rd parties and 3rd party voters as well. I totally think there is a lot of blame to spread around to others as well! However, I do believe that the hate campaign against Hillary made the difference between Trump winning and losing. I could say the same about a couple of other factors as well, but that doesn't take responsibility off of 3rd parties.
blaming 3rd parties is a cop out. 3rd parties are allowed to exist and people have a right to a different option. if 3rd parties are forever relegated to "we'll vote for you, but only if we know x candidate is in the bag to win", they will never get the wheels moving. maybe what comes out of this is a bigger push towards an alternative. it took a long damn time, but if Jack Layton (Canadian federal NDP leader, for my american friends) hadn't died, I'm convinced he would have been PM.
BS is right; clinton didn't inspire. to be a leader at this level, you can't be just a good leader, you have to be able to project that quality. I always thought it was odd that the dem candidate this time was the failed one from last time.
Gonna have to disagree with you here. We have a 2 party system here, not proportional representation. The checks and balances are in the 3 branches, also represented by the 2 party system. Sure the occasional independent or libertarian slips through the cracks and finds a seat in Congress, but they usually end up finding their allegiances on one side of the aisle or the other. Voting 3rd party for President is a cop out. It does litte more than give the 3rd party voter the luxury of saying, "don't blame me, I didn't vote for so-and-so".
Pot kettle black, trumpneck. You calling libs looney is like Amy Winehouse calling Rachel McAdams ugly. What's good for the goose...
First off don't call me anything Trump, I didn't vote for him or Hildabeast. Your just making yourself look just like the two idiot's in the video, thinking your better then everyone else, well, your sure are NOT, now get over it!. If it was the opposite, and two Trumpsters were harasing and threatening a Hildabeast supporter, I'd call them the Looney Right.
When did we loose are freedom of speech, you sure seem to act like we have with all your idiotic post.
*you're
And "you're" no better for lashing out at Stein voters like me for electing Trump.
Oh gee, thanks for the information, I didn't understand that a vote for Johnson was in fact a vote for Johnson. I'm sure you actually do understand how 3rd party votes impacted this election.
Depends on where those votes were cast. My 3rd party vote had absolutely zero impact on the outcome of this election. None. Hillary got the electoral votes from my state. So neither my vote, nor my state helped elect Trump.
Yes, I understand how it works. The whole mindset surrounding the 3rd vote "campaign" at this particular time in history still applies though, IMO. I don't have any individuals in mind when I criticize that 3rd party "campaign". My disgust lies with the overall mindset, given the circumstances.
But 3rd party voters didn't lose the election for Hillary, nor did they win the election for Trump. Hillary's awful campaign failed to target voters in important states, and failed to bring out the numbers required. There were many, many registered voters who didn't vote. Perhaps they bear more responsibility than 3rd party voters, since they did absolutely nothing. But ultimately Trump won because Hillary can't run a campaign.
I personally think Trump won because of the hate campaign waged against Clinton. Some of the leaders of that campaign were 3rd parties and their voters.
It was not about the hate waged against Clinton but about the fact that she is just not likeable, flawed, and generally uninspiring. It is why she lost to Obama in 2008. The writing was on the wall but the entire democratic party establishment refused to acknowledge it.
I'm not denying that. I'm just saying why I think some blame lands on 3rd parties and 3rd party voters as well. I totally think there is a lot of blame to spread around to others as well! However, I do believe that the hate campaign against Hillary made the difference between Trump winning and losing. I could say the same about a couple of other factors as well, but that doesn't take responsibility off of 3rd parties.
blaming 3rd parties is a cop out. 3rd parties are allowed to exist and people have a right to a different option. if 3rd parties are forever relegated to "we'll vote for you, but only if we know x candidate is in the bag to win", they will never get the wheels moving. maybe what comes out of this is a bigger push towards an alternative. it took a long damn time, but if Jack Layton (Canadian federal NDP leader, for my american friends) hadn't died, I'm convinced he would have been PM.
BS is right; clinton didn't inspire. to be a leader at this level, you can't be just a good leader, you have to be able to project that quality. I always thought it was odd that the dem candidate this time was the failed one from last time.
Gonna have to disagree with you here. We have a 2 party system here, not proportional representation. The checks and balances are in the 3 branches, also represented by the 2 party system. Sure the occasional independent or libertarian slips through the cracks and finds a seat in Congress, but they usually end up finding their allegiances on one side of the aisle or the other. Voting 3rd party for President is a cop out. It does litte more than give the 3rd party voter the luxury of saying, "don't blame me, I didn't vote for so-and-so".
Yawn, it isn't a cop out. It is called a principled vote. Also, as I'm sure you read in the link you provided, "Duverger himself did not regard his principle as absolute. Instead, he suggested that plurality would act to delay the emergence of a new political force and would accelerate the elimination of a weakening force;[8] PR would have the opposite effect."
The article also talked about 3rd parties having the opportunity to gain prominence by exploiting an existing major party that is fractured down the middle over an issue. It could be argued that the current Republican party is pretty fractured, and an opportunity existed to make inroads. "A third party can enter the arena only if it can exploit the mistakes of a pre-existing major party, ultimately at that party's expense. For example, the political chaos in the United States immediately preceding the Civil War allowed the Republican Party to replace the Whig Party as the progressive half of the American political landscape. Loosely united on a platform of country-wide economic reform and federally funded industrialization, the decentralized Whig leadership failed to take a decisive stance on the slavery issue, effectively splitting the party along the Mason–Dixon line. Southern rural planters, initially attracted by the prospect of federal infrastructure and schools, aligned with the pro-slavery Democrats, while urban laborers and professionals in the northern states, threatened by the sudden shift in political and economic power and losing faith in the failing Whig candidates, flocked to the increasingly vocal anti-slavery Republican Party."
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Pot kettle black, trumpneck. You calling libs looney is like Amy Winehouse calling Rachel McAdams ugly. What's good for the goose...
First off don't call me anything Trump, I didn't vote for him or Hildabeast. Your just making yourself look just like the two idiot's in the video, thinking your better then everyone else, well, your sure are NOT, now get over it!. If it was the opposite, and two Trumpsters were harasing and threatening a Hildabeast supporter, I'd call them the Looney Right.
When did we loose are freedom of speech, you sure seem to act like we have with all your idiotic post.
*you're
And "you're" no better for lashing out at Stein voters like me for electing Trump.
Oh gee, thanks for the information, I didn't understand that a vote for Johnson was in fact a vote for Johnson. I'm sure you actually do understand how 3rd party votes impacted this election.
Depends on where those votes were cast. My 3rd party vote had absolutely zero impact on the outcome of this election. None. Hillary got the electoral votes from my state. So neither my vote, nor my state helped elect Trump.
Yes, I understand how it works. The whole mindset surrounding the 3rd vote "campaign" at this particular time in history still applies though, IMO. I don't have any individuals in mind when I criticize that 3rd party "campaign". My disgust lies with the overall mindset, given the circumstances.
But 3rd party voters didn't lose the election for Hillary, nor did they win the election for Trump. Hillary's awful campaign failed to target voters in important states, and failed to bring out the numbers required. There were many, many registered voters who didn't vote. Perhaps they bear more responsibility than 3rd party voters, since they did absolutely nothing. But ultimately Trump won because Hillary can't run a campaign.
I personally think Trump won because of the hate campaign waged against Clinton. Some of the leaders of that campaign were 3rd parties and their voters.
It was not about the hate waged against Clinton but about the fact that she is just not likeable, flawed, and generally uninspiring. It is why she lost to Obama in 2008. The writing was on the wall but the entire democratic party establishment refused to acknowledge it.
I'm not denying that. I'm just saying why I think some blame lands on 3rd parties and 3rd party voters as well. I totally think there is a lot of blame to spread around to others as well! However, I do believe that the hate campaign against Hillary made the difference between Trump winning and losing. I could say the same about a couple of other factors as well, but that doesn't take responsibility off of 3rd parties.
blaming 3rd parties is a cop out. 3rd parties are allowed to exist and people have a right to a different option. if 3rd parties are forever relegated to "we'll vote for you, but only if we know x candidate is in the bag to win", they will never get the wheels moving. maybe what comes out of this is a bigger push towards an alternative. it took a long damn time, but if Jack Layton (Canadian federal NDP leader, for my american friends) hadn't died, I'm convinced he would have been PM.
BS is right; clinton didn't inspire. to be a leader at this level, you can't be just a good leader, you have to be able to project that quality. I always thought it was odd that the dem candidate this time was the failed one from last time.
I'm not blaming the existence of 3rd parties. I'm blaming their hate campaign against Clinton at the precise time they did it and the precise way they did it (and the bullshit they conjured too). I don't consider any "normal circumstances" at the moment. I do not think that 3rd parties should be forever relegated to an option only if a particular one of two parties has a win in the bag (as a Canadian, that thought actually seems ludicrous, and I'm pretty sure you know that I don't support a 2-party system). I am specifically talking about the threat of Donald Trump. I would never say or think what I am now if the circumstances weren't very abnormal. But they were. They were extremely abnormal circumstances, and that is why I think the blame that is there to spread around is spread around in an abnormal way too. I do not think of this in sweeping terms. My feelings are very precisely focused in on the absurdity and horror of Trump and the election that he was in, and the one where 3rd parties (and the two main parties) just completely screwed the pooch. The 3rd parties and their supporters had a hand to play in the absurdity and overall bullshit that was the 2016 election, and I'm not going to let them off the hook (not that they care - they are still riding high on their delicate egos I'm sure).
You're painting 3rd parties with a pretty broad brush. I don't recall a hate campaign coming from Johnson/Weld against Clinton. In fact, Governor Weld stepped on his dick a little bit when a month before the election: "Libertarian vice presidential hopeful Bill Weld said Friday that he's "not sure anybody is more qualified than Hillary Clinton to be president of the United States," the latest misstep in what's been a painful week for the third-party ticket." (http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/30/politics/bill-weld-hillary-clinton-qualified/)
Also from CNN a couple of days before the election (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/06/politics/bill-weld-state-of-the-union-gary-johnson/): "Libertarian vice presidential nominee Bill Weld once again stuck up for Hillary Clinton, just days before his third-party bid finally faces off against her at the polls. "One of the issues in this campaign has been: Do you like the two-party monopoly? ... We don't," Weld said in an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper. "Having said all of that, I do see a big difference between the two other candidates." Weld said he wanted the Libertarian Party to earn at least 5% of the popular vote in the general election and thus qualify for federal funding and increased ballot access. But he also made sure to hammer home his problems with Donald Trump and his deep-seated respect for Clinton. He called Trump "totally unfit to be president" and said Clinton was "a perfectly reputable, professional, responsible candidate for president of the United States and deserves to be treated as such." "Frankly, I think Mrs. Clinton has been receiving a pretty raw deal," Weld said."
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Pot kettle black, trumpneck. You calling libs looney is like Amy Winehouse calling Rachel McAdams ugly. What's good for the goose...
First off don't call me anything Trump, I didn't vote for him or Hildabeast. Your just making yourself look just like the two idiot's in the video, thinking your better then everyone else, well, your sure are NOT, now get over it!. If it was the opposite, and two Trumpsters were harasing and threatening a Hildabeast supporter, I'd call them the Looney Right.
When did we loose are freedom of speech, you sure seem to act like we have with all your idiotic post.
*you're
And "you're" no better for lashing out at Stein voters like me for electing Trump.
Oh gee, thanks for the information, I didn't understand that a vote for Johnson was in fact a vote for Johnson. I'm sure you actually do understand how 3rd party votes impacted this election.
Depends on where those votes were cast. My 3rd party vote had absolutely zero impact on the outcome of this election. None. Hillary got the electoral votes from my state. So neither my vote, nor my state helped elect Trump.
Yes, I understand how it works. The whole mindset surrounding the 3rd vote "campaign" at this particular time in history still applies though, IMO. I don't have any individuals in mind when I criticize that 3rd party "campaign". My disgust lies with the overall mindset, given the circumstances.
But 3rd party voters didn't lose the election for Hillary, nor did they win the election for Trump. Hillary's awful campaign failed to target voters in important states, and failed to bring out the numbers required. There were many, many registered voters who didn't vote. Perhaps they bear more responsibility than 3rd party voters, since they did absolutely nothing. But ultimately Trump won because Hillary can't run a campaign.
I personally think Trump won because of the hate campaign waged against Clinton. Some of the leaders of that campaign were 3rd parties and their voters.
It was not about the hate waged against Clinton but about the fact that she is just not likeable, flawed, and generally uninspiring. It is why she lost to Obama in 2008. The writing was on the wall but the entire democratic party establishment refused to acknowledge it.
I'm not denying that. I'm just saying why I think some blame lands on 3rd parties and 3rd party voters as well. I totally think there is a lot of blame to spread around to others as well! However, I do believe that the hate campaign against Hillary made the difference between Trump winning and losing. I could say the same about a couple of other factors as well, but that doesn't take responsibility off of 3rd parties.
blaming 3rd parties is a cop out. 3rd parties are allowed to exist and people have a right to a different option. if 3rd parties are forever relegated to "we'll vote for you, but only if we know x candidate is in the bag to win", they will never get the wheels moving. maybe what comes out of this is a bigger push towards an alternative. it took a long damn time, but if Jack Layton (Canadian federal NDP leader, for my american friends) hadn't died, I'm convinced he would have been PM.
BS is right; clinton didn't inspire. to be a leader at this level, you can't be just a good leader, you have to be able to project that quality. I always thought it was odd that the dem candidate this time was the failed one from last time.
Gonna have to disagree with you here. We have a 2 party system here, not proportional representation. The checks and balances are in the 3 branches, also represented by the 2 party system. Sure the occasional independent or libertarian slips through the cracks and finds a seat in Congress, but they usually end up finding their allegiances on one side of the aisle or the other. Voting 3rd party for President is a cop out. It does litte more than give the 3rd party voter the luxury of saying, "don't blame me, I didn't vote for so-and-so".
Yawn, it isn't a cop out. It is called a principled vote. Also, as I'm sure you read in the link you provided, "Duverger himself did not regard his principle as absolute. Instead, he suggested that plurality would act to delay the emergence of a new political force and would accelerate the elimination of a weakening force;[8] PR would have the opposite effect."
The article also talked about 3rd parties having the opportunity to gain prominence by exploiting an existing major party that is fractured down the middle over an issue. It could be argued that the current Republican party is pretty fractured, and an opportunity existed to make inroads. "A third party can enter the arena only if it can exploit the mistakes of a pre-existing major party, ultimately at that party's expense. For example, the political chaos in the United States immediately preceding the Civil War allowed the Republican Party to replace the Whig Party as the progressive half of the American political landscape. Loosely united on a platform of country-wide economic reform and federally funded industrialization, the decentralized Whig leadership failed to take a decisive stance on the slavery issue, effectively splitting the party along the Mason–Dixon line. Southern rural planters, initially attracted by the prospect of federal infrastructure and schools, aligned with the pro-slavery Democrats, while urban laborers and professionals in the northern states, threatened by the sudden shift in political and economic power and losing faith in the failing Whig candidates, flocked to the increasingly vocal anti-slavery Republican Party."
I don't disagree with that.
Best case scenario: you have a 3rd party that replaces one of the 2 major parties. Then the displaced party would fall into irrelevance. And the 2 party status quo is maintained. That's not going to happen in a Presidential election. That's got to happen through a groundswell of 3rd party candidates displacing one of the majority parties at the county, state and federal levels before any 3rd party can put forth a serious campaign.
But there will never be a scenario where there are more than 2 majority parties represented in our government for an extended period of time. It's simply not structured or designed that way.
There are now two U.S. Senators (King and Sanders), and four major city Mayors. Hundreds of third-party officeholders exist at the local level (including those in nonpartisan positions who are affiliated with a third-party), including 146 Libertarian Party members[1] and 131 Green Party members.
Total number of elected offices: 537 (President, Vice President, 435 US House Members, 100 Senators). According to the Census data, there are more than 87,000 local and state governments constituting more than 511,000 offices.
Ballpark: 3rd parties hold 500 of the 500,000 elected positions in the US. 0.1% That's a long way to go before anyone takes a 3rd party or their Presidential candidate seriously.
That's true, it was actually a bunch of Johnson voters (many of which seemed to be confused Bernie supporters) who waged that war on social media, rather than the Libertarian party itself.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Pot kettle black, trumpneck. You calling libs looney is like Amy Winehouse calling Rachel McAdams ugly. What's good for the goose...
First off don't call me anything Trump, I didn't vote for him or Hildabeast. Your just making yourself look just like the two idiot's in the video, thinking your better then everyone else, well, your sure are NOT, now get over it!. If it was the opposite, and two Trumpsters were harasing and threatening a Hildabeast supporter, I'd call them the Looney Right.
When did we loose are freedom of speech, you sure seem to act like we have with all your idiotic post.
*you're
And "you're" no better for lashing out at Stein voters like me for electing Trump.
Oh gee, thanks for the information, I didn't understand that a vote for Johnson was in fact a vote for Johnson. I'm sure you actually do understand how 3rd party votes impacted this election.
Depends on where those votes were cast. My 3rd party vote had absolutely zero impact on the outcome of this election. None. Hillary got the electoral votes from my state. So neither my vote, nor my state helped elect Trump.
Yes, I understand how it works. The whole mindset surrounding the 3rd vote "campaign" at this particular time in history still applies though, IMO. I don't have any individuals in mind when I criticize that 3rd party "campaign". My disgust lies with the overall mindset, given the circumstances.
But 3rd party voters didn't lose the election for Hillary, nor did they win the election for Trump. Hillary's awful campaign failed to target voters in important states, and failed to bring out the numbers required. There were many, many registered voters who didn't vote. Perhaps they bear more responsibility than 3rd party voters, since they did absolutely nothing. But ultimately Trump won because Hillary can't run a campaign.
I personally think Trump won because of the hate campaign waged against Clinton. Some of the leaders of that campaign were 3rd parties and their voters.
It was not about the hate waged against Clinton but about the fact that she is just not likeable, flawed, and generally uninspiring. It is why she lost to Obama in 2008. The writing was on the wall but the entire democratic party establishment refused to acknowledge it.
I'm not denying that. I'm just saying why I think some blame lands on 3rd parties and 3rd party voters as well. I totally think there is a lot of blame to spread around to others as well! However, I do believe that the hate campaign against Hillary made the difference between Trump winning and losing. I could say the same about a couple of other factors as well, but that doesn't take responsibility off of 3rd parties.
blaming 3rd parties is a cop out. 3rd parties are allowed to exist and people have a right to a different option. if 3rd parties are forever relegated to "we'll vote for you, but only if we know x candidate is in the bag to win", they will never get the wheels moving. maybe what comes out of this is a bigger push towards an alternative. it took a long damn time, but if Jack Layton (Canadian federal NDP leader, for my american friends) hadn't died, I'm convinced he would have been PM.
BS is right; clinton didn't inspire. to be a leader at this level, you can't be just a good leader, you have to be able to project that quality. I always thought it was odd that the dem candidate this time was the failed one from last time.
Gonna have to disagree with you here. We have a 2 party system here, not proportional representation. The checks and balances are in the 3 branches, also represented by the 2 party system. Sure the occasional independent or libertarian slips through the cracks and finds a seat in Congress, but they usually end up finding their allegiances on one side of the aisle or the other. Voting 3rd party for President is a cop out. It does litte more than give the 3rd party voter the luxury of saying, "don't blame me, I didn't vote for so-and-so".
Yawn, it isn't a cop out. It is called a principled vote. Also, as I'm sure you read in the link you provided, "Duverger himself did not regard his principle as absolute. Instead, he suggested that plurality would act to delay the emergence of a new political force and would accelerate the elimination of a weakening force;[8] PR would have the opposite effect."
The article also talked about 3rd parties having the opportunity to gain prominence by exploiting an existing major party that is fractured down the middle over an issue. It could be argued that the current Republican party is pretty fractured, and an opportunity existed to make inroads. "A third party can enter the arena only if it can exploit the mistakes of a pre-existing major party, ultimately at that party's expense. For example, the political chaos in the United States immediately preceding the Civil War allowed the Republican Party to replace the Whig Party as the progressive half of the American political landscape. Loosely united on a platform of country-wide economic reform and federally funded industrialization, the decentralized Whig leadership failed to take a decisive stance on the slavery issue, effectively splitting the party along the Mason–Dixon line. Southern rural planters, initially attracted by the prospect of federal infrastructure and schools, aligned with the pro-slavery Democrats, while urban laborers and professionals in the northern states, threatened by the sudden shift in political and economic power and losing faith in the failing Whig candidates, flocked to the increasingly vocal anti-slavery Republican Party."
I don't disagree with that.
Best case scenario: you have a 3rd party that replaces one of the 2 major parties. Then the displaced party would fall into irrelevance. And the 2 party status quo is maintained. That's not going to happen in a Presidential election. That's got to happen through a groundswell of 3rd party candidates displacing one of the majority parties at the county, state and federal levels before any 3rd party can put forth a serious campaign.
But there will never be a scenario where there are more than 2 majority parties represented in our government for an extended period of time. It's simply not structured or designed that way.
There are now two U.S. Senators (King and Sanders), and four major city Mayors. Hundreds of third-party officeholders exist at the local level (including those in nonpartisan positions who are affiliated with a third-party), including 146 Libertarian Party members[1] and 131 Green Party members.
Total number of elected offices: 537 (President, Vice President, 435 US House Members, 100 Senators). According to the Census data, there are more than 87,000 local and state governments constituting more than 511,000 offices.
Ballpark: 3rd parties hold 500 of the 500,000 elected positions in the US. 0.1% That's a long way to go before anyone takes a 3rd party or their Presidential candidate seriously.
I totally agree with this but it has to start somewhere. Some of it is awareness. And much awareness can come with federally funds and equal ballot access, which requires the party to receive 5% of the vote. So my goal wasn't to have Gary Johnson become president (especially after Allepo and his inability to name a foreign leader he respected), but it was to have a 3rd party qualify for federal funds and be able to create the start of a groundswell. The game is absolutely rigged against 3rd parties (debates, campaign money, lack of media coverage), so it will take that ground game you mention, and electing local, county, and state officials. But federal funds to 3rd parties
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I totally agree with this but it has to start somewhere. Some of it is awareness. And much awareness can come with federally funds and equal ballot access, which requires the party to receive 5% of the vote. So my goal wasn't to have Gary Johnson become president (especially after Allepo and his inability to name a foreign leader he respected), but it was to have a 3rd party qualify for federal funds and be able to create the start of a groundswell. The game is absolutely rigged against 3rd parties (debates, campaign money, lack of media coverage), so it will take that ground game you mention, and electing local, county, and state officials. But federal funds to 3rd parties
The game is not rigged against 3rd party, the system is intentionally designed that way. There is a significant difference between these two statements.
"Duverger suggests two reasons this voting system favors a two-party system. One is the result of the "fusion" (or an alliance very much like fusion) of the weak parties, and the other is the "elimination" of weak parties by the voters, by which he means that voters gradually desert the weak parties on the grounds that they have no chance of winning."
I totally agree with this but it has to start somewhere. Some of it is awareness. And much awareness can come with federally funds and equal ballot access, which requires the party to receive 5% of the vote. So my goal wasn't to have Gary Johnson become president (especially after Allepo and his inability to name a foreign leader he respected), but it was to have a 3rd party qualify for federal funds and be able to create the start of a groundswell. The game is absolutely rigged against 3rd parties (debates, campaign money, lack of media coverage), so it will take that ground game you mention, and electing local, county, and state officials. But federal funds to 3rd parties
The game is not rigged against 3rd party, the system is intentionally designed that way. There is a significant difference between these two statements.
"Duverger suggests two reasons this voting system favors a two-party system. One is the result of the "fusion" (or an alliance very much like fusion) of the weak parties, and the other is the "elimination" of weak parties by the voters, by which he means that voters gradually desert the weak parties on the grounds that they have no chance of winning."
It's a feature, not a bug.
I agree with that comment. I don't think the US will ever escape its two party system unless it stops being a democratic republic and adopts some new system of government altogether, i.e. a parliamentary system. I guess you could say that a democratic republic is set up to rig itself against those who want more than two meaningful parties, lol.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Pot kettle black, trumpneck. You calling libs looney is like Amy Winehouse calling Rachel McAdams ugly. What's good for the goose...
First off don't call me anything Trump, I didn't vote for him or Hildabeast. Your just making yourself look just like the two idiot's in the video, thinking your better then everyone else, well, your sure are NOT, now get over it!. If it was the opposite, and two Trumpsters were harasing and threatening a Hildabeast supporter, I'd call them the Looney Right.
When did we loose are freedom of speech, you sure seem to act like we have with all your idiotic post.
*you're
And "you're" no better for lashing out at Stein voters like me for electing Trump.
Oh gee, thanks for the information, I didn't understand that a vote for Johnson was in fact a vote for Johnson. I'm sure you actually do understand how 3rd party votes impacted this election.
Depends on where those votes were cast. My 3rd party vote had absolutely zero impact on the outcome of this election. None. Hillary got the electoral votes from my state. So neither my vote, nor my state helped elect Trump.
Yes, I understand how it works. The whole mindset surrounding the 3rd vote "campaign" at this particular time in history still applies though, IMO. I don't have any individuals in mind when I criticize that 3rd party "campaign". My disgust lies with the overall mindset, given the circumstances.
But 3rd party voters didn't lose the election for Hillary, nor did they win the election for Trump. Hillary's awful campaign failed to target voters in important states, and failed to bring out the numbers required. There were many, many registered voters who didn't vote. Perhaps they bear more responsibility than 3rd party voters, since they did absolutely nothing. But ultimately Trump won because Hillary can't run a campaign.
I personally think Trump won because of the hate campaign waged against Clinton. Some of the leaders of that campaign were 3rd parties and their voters.
It was not about the hate waged against Clinton but about the fact that she is just not likeable, flawed, and generally uninspiring. It is why she lost to Obama in 2008. The writing was on the wall but the entire democratic party establishment refused to acknowledge it.
I'm not denying that. I'm just saying why I think some blame lands on 3rd parties and 3rd party voters as well. I totally think there is a lot of blame to spread around to others as well! However, I do believe that the hate campaign against Hillary made the difference between Trump winning and losing. I could say the same about a couple of other factors as well, but that doesn't take responsibility off of 3rd parties.
This happened on the conservative side as well though. The #Nevertrump movement was real and serious. The majority of establishment conservative thought leaders and publications were actively againt Trump. They even put up an independent candidate in Evan McMullin to try to knock Trump off in Utah and they had a real shot of succeeding. Trump overcame that opposition and if Hillary was a half decent candidate she could have overcome her third party obstacles as well. In the end she lost because she was not a good candidate and she did not run a good campaign.
Yup, plenty of blame to throw around. I am not disgusted by the Never Trump fools though, nor by Clinton (i never claimed she ran a good campaign. In the end she lost for a lot of reasons, but only some of them are gross. Plus, all the stuff spewed about Trump was true and justified).
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Yup, plenty of blame to throw around. I am not disgusted by the Never Trump fools though, nor by Clinton (i never claimed she ran a good campaign. In the end she lost for a lo5 of reasons, but only some of them are gross).
Yup, plenty of blame to throw around. I am not disgusted by the Never Trump fools though, nor by Clinton (i never claimed she ran a good campaign. In the end she lost for a lo5 of reasons, but only some of them are gross).
I like the new badass bars.
Haha, thank you. It's my first time in jail.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Palin,Beck,Walsh and now Rove. Congrats, mango Mussolini, you made me agree with Turdblossom on something and him a voice of reason. God you're terrible.
Where's Brad Pitt and BJ Novak when you need them?
if you just casually watch random segments, you would think he's a intelligent, well-mannered person. He mostly is. But then he comes out of nowhere at least twice making fun of people in the audiences weight. He's not a white supremacist. He's a body image supremacist.
Comments
BS is right; clinton didn't inspire. to be a leader at this level, you can't be just a good leader, you have to be able to project that quality. I always thought it was odd that the dem candidate this time was the failed one from last time.
www.headstonesband.com
Next question
see: Duverger's law for additional reading
The article also talked about 3rd parties having the opportunity to gain prominence by exploiting an existing major party that is fractured down the middle over an issue. It could be argued that the current Republican party is pretty fractured, and an opportunity existed to make inroads. "A third party can enter the arena only if it can exploit the mistakes of a pre-existing major party, ultimately at that party's expense. For example, the political chaos in the United States immediately preceding the Civil War allowed the Republican Party to replace the Whig Party as the progressive half of the American political landscape. Loosely united on a platform of country-wide economic reform and federally funded industrialization, the decentralized Whig leadership failed to take a decisive stance on the slavery issue, effectively splitting the party along the Mason–Dixon line. Southern rural planters, initially attracted by the prospect of federal infrastructure and schools, aligned with the pro-slavery Democrats, while urban laborers and professionals in the northern states, threatened by the sudden shift in political and economic power and losing faith in the failing Whig candidates, flocked to the increasingly vocal anti-slavery Republican Party."
https://www.google.com/amp/www.cnbc.com/amp/2016/12/07/us-steel-wants-to-accelerate-investments-bring-back-jobs-ceo-says.html
Also from CNN a couple of days before the election (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/06/politics/bill-weld-state-of-the-union-gary-johnson/):
"Libertarian vice presidential nominee Bill Weld once again stuck up for Hillary Clinton, just days before his third-party bid finally faces off against her at the polls.
"One of the issues in this campaign has been: Do you like the two-party monopoly? ... We don't," Weld said in an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper. "Having said all of that, I do see a big difference between the two other candidates."
Weld said he wanted the Libertarian Party to earn at least 5% of the popular vote in the general election and thus qualify for federal funding and increased ballot access. But he also made sure to hammer home his problems with Donald Trump and his deep-seated respect for Clinton.
He called Trump "totally unfit to be president" and said Clinton was "a perfectly reputable, professional, responsible candidate for president of the United States and deserves to be treated as such."
"Frankly, I think Mrs. Clinton has been receiving a pretty raw deal," Weld said."
Best case scenario: you have a 3rd party that replaces one of the 2 major parties. Then the displaced party would fall into irrelevance. And the 2 party status quo is maintained. That's not going to happen in a Presidential election. That's got to happen through a groundswell of 3rd party candidates displacing one of the majority parties at the county, state and federal levels before any 3rd party can put forth a serious campaign.
But there will never be a scenario where there are more than 2 majority parties represented in our government for an extended period of time. It's simply not structured or designed that way.
There are now two U.S. Senators (King and Sanders), and four major city Mayors. Hundreds of third-party officeholders exist at the local level (including those in nonpartisan positions who are affiliated with a third-party), including 146 Libertarian Party members[1] and 131 Green Party members.
Total number of elected offices: 537 (President, Vice President, 435 US House Members, 100 Senators). According to the Census data, there are more than 87,000 local and state governments constituting more than 511,000 offices.
Ballpark: 3rd parties hold 500 of the 500,000 elected positions in the US.
0.1%
That's a long way to go before anyone takes a 3rd party or their Presidential candidate seriously.
Congressional Republicans sucker punch American steel workers, scrapping 'Buy America' provision
"Duverger suggests two reasons this voting system favors a two-party system. One is the result of the "fusion" (or an alliance very much like fusion) of the weak parties, and the other is the "elimination" of weak parties by the voters, by which he means that voters gradually desert the weak parties on the grounds that they have no chance of winning."
It's a feature, not a bug.
^^
Chuck Jones, who is President of United Steelworkers 1999, has done a terrible job representing workers. No wonder companies flee country!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
https://mediamatters.org/video/2016/12/07/even-foxs-karl-rove-calling-out-dangers-trumps-inaccurate-boeing-tweet/214740