There has been a Libertarian in Congress for a week now and the Constitution has not spontaneously combusted
He also hasn't accomplished anything.
Neither had Obama, but people only use the experience excuse if it runs in their favor.
I love that one it was stupid when it was used against Bernie and its stupid to use against Amash.
In the abstract, if someone has passed a lot of legislation I don't agree with, I'll happily go with "no key legislation and a bunch of positions I agree with"
I would agree with that. Yeah I would rather be voting for someone that I agree with over someone who has passed a lot of legislation. I’m in Texas so Trump is winning here no matter what I do with my vote. Maybe I will contribute to Amash just so I don’t feel bad for continuing the more of the same trajectory
So the first half of your post directly contradicted the second half of the post. You believe in voting for what you believe in, but then want to contribute to Amash who likely stands in direct contrast to all of your stated social safety net positions. Interesting...
But I suspect Amash stands in unity with some positions he may hold such as skepticism of foreign intervention, civil liberties, criminal justice reform, drug legalization, etc.
There has been a Libertarian in Congress for a week now and the Constitution has not spontaneously combusted
He also hasn't accomplished anything.
Neither had Obama, but people only use the experience excuse if it runs in their favor.
I love that one it was stupid when it was used against Bernie and its stupid to use against Amash.
In the abstract, if someone has passed a lot of legislation I don't agree with, I'll happily go with "no key legislation and a bunch of positions I agree with"
I would agree with that. Yeah I would rather be voting for someone that I agree with over someone who has passed a lot of legislation. I’m in Texas so Trump is winning here no matter what I do with my vote. Maybe I will contribute to Amash just so I don’t feel bad for continuing the more of the same trajectory
So the first half of your post directly contradicted the second half of the post. You believe in voting for what you believe in, but then want to contribute to Amash who likely stands in direct contrast to all of your stated social safety net positions. Interesting...
More because I believe in third parties. I mean the democrats don’t support everything I want but I’ve been giving them my votes all these years.
Of course if there is a chance that Biden could win Texas I will definitely throw my vote at him because that would be a huge FU to trump. As for your other post. If all that someone is doing in Congress is advocating for positions I believe in and can’t get legislation sponsored that’s fine with me at least they are a voice . As far as contrarianism goes I also have no problem with that. Obviously what we have been doing for hundreds of years is flawed or we wouldn’t have Trump
There has been a Libertarian in Congress for a week now and the Constitution has not spontaneously combusted
He also hasn't accomplished anything.
Neither had Obama, but people only use the experience excuse if it runs in their favor.
I would argue Obama sponsored and co-sponsored more legislation in his short senate career than Amash has during his time as a Libertarian.
He's been in Congress for a decade
As a Republican...
I'm not sure what this cheeky merry-go-round is about, but my points are this:
- If someone is considering voting for Amash, they'll consider his positions and full record
- I bring up the Libertarian-in-Congress point to (1) express joy at a milestone and (2) counter inane, convoluted arguments about third parties
The points about third party in the presidential race are not inane, it's spot on. Right now, third parties are simply spoilers. But if we had three viable parties, you would have every election decided by the House. Is that really want we want? Do we want a repeat of 1824? I think not.
There has been a Libertarian in Congress for a week now and the Constitution has not spontaneously combusted
He also hasn't accomplished anything.
Neither had Obama, but people only use the experience excuse if it runs in their favor.
I would argue Obama sponsored and co-sponsored more legislation in his short senate career than Amash has during his time as a Libertarian.
He's been in Congress for a decade
As a Republican...
I'm not sure what this cheeky merry-go-round is about, but my points are this:
- If someone is considering voting for Amash, they'll consider his positions and full record
- I bring up the Libertarian-in-Congress point to (1) express joy at a milestone and (2) counter inane, convoluted arguments about third parties
The points about third party in the presidential race are not inane, it's spot on. Right now, third parties are simply spoilers. But if we had three viable parties, you would have every election decided by the House. Is that really want we want? Do we want a repeat of 1824? I think not.
That would mean Amash piled up some electoral votes and I'd be stoked as hell. If the polling starts moving in this direction and Biden is running third, I'm finding you to help move Ds to Amash so we can avoid this scenario.
As a side note, if the rules stink someone should amend the rules. If you're pointing out a flaw in the system, maybe someone should move to change it. If no one cares enough to, then yeah we live with the process if that's how it plays out.
There has been a Libertarian in Congress for a week now and the Constitution has not spontaneously combusted
He also hasn't accomplished anything.
Neither had Obama, but people only use the experience excuse if it runs in their favor.
I would argue Obama sponsored and co-sponsored more legislation in his short senate career than Amash has during his time as a Libertarian.
He's been in Congress for a decade
As a Republican...
I'm not sure what this cheeky merry-go-round is about, but my points are this:
- If someone is considering voting for Amash, they'll consider his positions and full record
- I bring up the Libertarian-in-Congress point to (1) express joy at a milestone and (2) counter inane, convoluted arguments about third parties
The points about third party in the presidential race are not inane, it's spot on. Right now, third parties are simply spoilers. But if we had three viable parties, you would have every election decided by the House. Is that really want we want? Do we want a repeat of 1824? I think not.
That would mean Amash piled up some electoral votes and I'd be stoked as hell. If the polling starts moving in this direction and Biden is running third, I'm finding you to help move Ds to Amash so we can avoid this scenario.
Your wistful thinking doesn't change the the consequences if having a viable third party. I don't want the House deciding.
There has been a Libertarian in Congress for a week now and the Constitution has not spontaneously combusted
He also hasn't accomplished anything.
Neither had Obama, but people only use the experience excuse if it runs in their favor.
I would argue Obama sponsored and co-sponsored more legislation in his short senate career than Amash has during his time as a Libertarian.
He's been in Congress for a decade
As a Republican...
I'm not sure what this cheeky merry-go-round is about, but my points are this:
- If someone is considering voting for Amash, they'll consider his positions and full record
- I bring up the Libertarian-in-Congress point to (1) express joy at a milestone and (2) counter inane, convoluted arguments about third parties
The points about third party in the presidential race are not inane, it's spot on. Right now, third parties are simply spoilers. But if we had three viable parties, you would have every election decided by the House. Is that really want we want? Do we want a repeat of 1824? I think not.
That would mean Amash piled up some electoral votes and I'd be stoked as hell. If the polling starts moving in this direction and Biden is running third, I'm finding you to help move Ds to Amash so we can avoid this scenario.
Your wistful thinking doesn't change the the consequences if having a viable third party. I don't want the House deciding.
"Look at this bad process"
"Oh...yeah, wow, that is a bad process. Is someone trying to change that?"
"No, we'll just use it as a cudgel to threaten people who could still trigger the bad process if they don't allow themselves to be bullied"
"Ah, yes...very logical indeed"
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,536
There has been a Libertarian in Congress for a week now and the Constitution has not spontaneously combusted
He also hasn't accomplished anything.
Neither had Obama, but people only use the experience excuse if it runs in their favor.
I would argue Obama sponsored and co-sponsored more legislation in his short senate career than Amash has during his time as a Libertarian.
He's been in Congress for a decade
As a Republican...
I'm not sure what this cheeky merry-go-round is about, but my points are this:
- If someone is considering voting for Amash, they'll consider his positions and full record
- I bring up the Libertarian-in-Congress point to (1) express joy at a milestone and (2) counter inane, convoluted arguments about third parties
The points about third party in the presidential race are not inane, it's spot on. Right now, third parties are simply spoilers. But if we had three viable parties, you would have every election decided by the House. Is that really want we want? Do we want a repeat of 1824? I think not.
That would mean Amash piled up some electoral votes and I'd be stoked as hell. If the polling starts moving in this direction and Biden is running third, I'm finding you to help move Ds to Amash so we can avoid this scenario.
Your wistful thinking doesn't change the the consequences if having a viable third party. I don't want the House deciding.
"Look at this bad process"
"Oh...yeah, wow, that is a bad process. Is someone trying to change that?"
"No, we'll just use it as a cudgel to threaten people who could still trigger the bad process if they don't allow themselves to be bullied"
"Ah, yes...very logical indeed"
Has there ever been a worse time to attempt to change the system than with someone as inept and dangerous as Donald Trump on the ballot? I would like more choices as well, but this is sure as hell not the time to experiment with that. Good grief. You people better come to your senses in the next 6 months.
There has been a Libertarian in Congress for a week now and the Constitution has not spontaneously combusted
He also hasn't accomplished anything.
Neither had Obama, but people only use the experience excuse if it runs in their favor.
I would argue Obama sponsored and co-sponsored more legislation in his short senate career than Amash has during his time as a Libertarian.
He's been in Congress for a decade
As a Republican...
I'm not sure what this cheeky merry-go-round is about, but my points are this:
- If someone is considering voting for Amash, they'll consider his positions and full record
- I bring up the Libertarian-in-Congress point to (1) express joy at a milestone and (2) counter inane, convoluted arguments about third parties
The points about third party in the presidential race are not inane, it's spot on. Right now, third parties are simply spoilers. But if we had three viable parties, you would have every election decided by the House. Is that really want we want? Do we want a repeat of 1824? I think not.
That would mean Amash piled up some electoral votes and I'd be stoked as hell. If the polling starts moving in this direction and Biden is running third, I'm finding you to help move Ds to Amash so we can avoid this scenario.
Your wistful thinking doesn't change the the consequences if having a viable third party. I don't want the House deciding.
"Look at this bad process"
"Oh...yeah, wow, that is a bad process. Is someone trying to change that?"
"No, we'll just use it as a cudgel to threaten people who could still trigger the bad process if they don't allow themselves to be bullied"
"Ah, yes...very logical indeed"
So what process are you proposing to change? The Electoral College? The more practical solution is a change in the makeup/priorities of the party. You're seeing that happen today. The problem you have is that Libertarian party is further from the mainstream than ever. The GOP has gone populist and the Democrats are a mix of Rockefellers and Progressive.
There has been a Libertarian in Congress for a week now and the Constitution has not spontaneously combusted
He also hasn't accomplished anything.
Neither had Obama, but people only use the experience excuse if it runs in their favor.
I would argue Obama sponsored and co-sponsored more legislation in his short senate career than Amash has during his time as a Libertarian.
He's been in Congress for a decade
As a Republican...
I'm not sure what this cheeky merry-go-round is about, but my points are this:
- If someone is considering voting for Amash, they'll consider his positions and full record
- I bring up the Libertarian-in-Congress point to (1) express joy at a milestone and (2) counter inane, convoluted arguments about third parties
The points about third party in the presidential race are not inane, it's spot on. Right now, third parties are simply spoilers. But if we had three viable parties, you would have every election decided by the House. Is that really want we want? Do we want a repeat of 1824? I think not.
That would mean Amash piled up some electoral votes and I'd be stoked as hell. If the polling starts moving in this direction and Biden is running third, I'm finding you to help move Ds to Amash so we can avoid this scenario.
Your wistful thinking doesn't change the the consequences if having a viable third party. I don't want the House deciding.
"Look at this bad process"
"Oh...yeah, wow, that is a bad process. Is someone trying to change that?"
"No, we'll just use it as a cudgel to threaten people who could still trigger the bad process if they don't allow themselves to be bullied"
"Ah, yes...very logical indeed"
So what process are you proposing to change? The Electoral College? The more practical solution is a change in the makeup/priorities of the party. You're seeing that happen today. The problem you have is that Libertarian party is further from the mainstream than ever. The GOP has gone populist and the Democrats are a mix of Rockefellers and Progressive.
Award victory to whomever gets a plurality, not a majority. Or leave it the way it is. It doesn't affect how I vote.
There has been a Libertarian in Congress for a week now and the Constitution has not spontaneously combusted
He also hasn't accomplished anything.
Neither had Obama, but people only use the experience excuse if it runs in their favor.
I would argue Obama sponsored and co-sponsored more legislation in his short senate career than Amash has during his time as a Libertarian.
He's been in Congress for a decade
As a Republican...
I'm not sure what this cheeky merry-go-round is about, but my points are this:
- If someone is considering voting for Amash, they'll consider his positions and full record
- I bring up the Libertarian-in-Congress point to (1) express joy at a milestone and (2) counter inane, convoluted arguments about third parties
The points about third party in the presidential race are not inane, it's spot on. Right now, third parties are simply spoilers. But if we had three viable parties, you would have every election decided by the House. Is that really want we want? Do we want a repeat of 1824? I think not.
That would mean Amash piled up some electoral votes and I'd be stoked as hell. If the polling starts moving in this direction and Biden is running third, I'm finding you to help move Ds to Amash so we can avoid this scenario.
Your wistful thinking doesn't change the the consequences if having a viable third party. I don't want the House deciding.
"Look at this bad process"
"Oh...yeah, wow, that is a bad process. Is someone trying to change that?"
"No, we'll just use it as a cudgel to threaten people who could still trigger the bad process if they don't allow themselves to be bullied"
"Ah, yes...very logical indeed"
Has there ever been a worse time to attempt to change the system than with someone as inept and dangerous as Donald Trump on the ballot? I would like more choices as well, but this is sure as hell not the time to experiment with that. Good grief. You people better come to your senses in the next 6 months.
There has been a Libertarian in Congress for a week now and the Constitution has not spontaneously combusted
He also hasn't accomplished anything.
Neither had Obama, but people only use the experience excuse if it runs in their favor.
I would argue Obama sponsored and co-sponsored more legislation in his short senate career than Amash has during his time as a Libertarian.
He's been in Congress for a decade
As a Republican...
I'm not sure what this cheeky merry-go-round is about, but my points are this:
- If someone is considering voting for Amash, they'll consider his positions and full record
- I bring up the Libertarian-in-Congress point to (1) express joy at a milestone and (2) counter inane, convoluted arguments about third parties
The points about third party in the presidential race are not inane, it's spot on. Right now, third parties are simply spoilers. But if we had three viable parties, you would have every election decided by the House. Is that really want we want? Do we want a repeat of 1824? I think not.
That would mean Amash piled up some electoral votes and I'd be stoked as hell. If the polling starts moving in this direction and Biden is running third, I'm finding you to help move Ds to Amash so we can avoid this scenario.
Your wistful thinking doesn't change the the consequences if having a viable third party. I don't want the House deciding.
"Look at this bad process"
"Oh...yeah, wow, that is a bad process. Is someone trying to change that?"
"No, we'll just use it as a cudgel to threaten people who could still trigger the bad process if they don't allow themselves to be bullied"
"Ah, yes...very logical indeed"
So what process are you proposing to change? The Electoral College? The more practical solution is a change in the makeup/priorities of the party. You're seeing that happen today. The problem you have is that Libertarian party is further from the mainstream than ever. The GOP has gone populist and the Democrats are a mix of Rockefellers and Progressive.
Award victory to whomever gets a plurality, not a majority. Or leave it the way it is. It doesn't affect how I vote.
Right but that's a fantasy. There will not be a change to the EC under this Constitution. Once you get out of the first 10-15 states, there's no chance the mid to small states give up their influence. And certainly no way to get 2/3 of legislatures to do so. So you're back to...three viable parties = House decision.
There has been a Libertarian in Congress for a week now and the Constitution has not spontaneously combusted
He also hasn't accomplished anything.
Neither had Obama, but people only use the experience excuse if it runs in their favor.
I would argue Obama sponsored and co-sponsored more legislation in his short senate career than Amash has during his time as a Libertarian.
He's been in Congress for a decade
As a Republican...
I'm not sure what this cheeky merry-go-round is about, but my points are this:
- If someone is considering voting for Amash, they'll consider his positions and full record
- I bring up the Libertarian-in-Congress point to (1) express joy at a milestone and (2) counter inane, convoluted arguments about third parties
The points about third party in the presidential race are not inane, it's spot on. Right now, third parties are simply spoilers. But if we had three viable parties, you would have every election decided by the House. Is that really want we want? Do we want a repeat of 1824? I think not.
That would mean Amash piled up some electoral votes and I'd be stoked as hell. If the polling starts moving in this direction and Biden is running third, I'm finding you to help move Ds to Amash so we can avoid this scenario.
Your wistful thinking doesn't change the the consequences if having a viable third party. I don't want the House deciding.
"Look at this bad process"
"Oh...yeah, wow, that is a bad process. Is someone trying to change that?"
"No, we'll just use it as a cudgel to threaten people who could still trigger the bad process if they don't allow themselves to be bullied"
"Ah, yes...very logical indeed"
So what process are you proposing to change? The Electoral College? The more practical solution is a change in the makeup/priorities of the party. You're seeing that happen today. The problem you have is that Libertarian party is further from the mainstream than ever. The GOP has gone populist and the Democrats are a mix of Rockefellers and Progressive.
Award victory to whomever gets a plurality, not a majority. Or leave it the way it is. It doesn't affect how I vote.
Right but that's a fantasy. There will not be a change to the EC under this Constitution. Once you get out of the first 10-15 states, there's no chance the mid to small states give up their influence. And certainly no way to get 2/3 of legislatures to do so. So you're back to...three viable parties = House decision.
Then fine. This is like the "experience" argument where people only wield it if it works in their candidate's favor. In June '92, Clinton was running third. There is no chance Ds would have considered throwing in the towel if that persisted, nor should they.
There has been a Libertarian in Congress for a week now and the Constitution has not spontaneously combusted
He also hasn't accomplished anything.
Neither had Obama, but people only use the experience excuse if it runs in their favor.
I would argue Obama sponsored and co-sponsored more legislation in his short senate career than Amash has during his time as a Libertarian.
He's been in Congress for a decade
As a Republican...
I'm not sure what this cheeky merry-go-round is about, but my points are this:
- If someone is considering voting for Amash, they'll consider his positions and full record
- I bring up the Libertarian-in-Congress point to (1) express joy at a milestone and (2) counter inane, convoluted arguments about third parties
The points about third party in the presidential race are not inane, it's spot on. Right now, third parties are simply spoilers. But if we had three viable parties, you would have every election decided by the House. Is that really want we want? Do we want a repeat of 1824? I think not.
That would mean Amash piled up some electoral votes and I'd be stoked as hell. If the polling starts moving in this direction and Biden is running third, I'm finding you to help move Ds to Amash so we can avoid this scenario.
Your wistful thinking doesn't change the the consequences if having a viable third party. I don't want the House deciding.
"Look at this bad process"
"Oh...yeah, wow, that is a bad process. Is someone trying to change that?"
"No, we'll just use it as a cudgel to threaten people who could still trigger the bad process if they don't allow themselves to be bullied"
"Ah, yes...very logical indeed"
So what process are you proposing to change? The Electoral College? The more practical solution is a change in the makeup/priorities of the party. You're seeing that happen today. The problem you have is that Libertarian party is further from the mainstream than ever. The GOP has gone populist and the Democrats are a mix of Rockefellers and Progressive.
Award victory to whomever gets a plurality, not a majority. Or leave it the way it is. It doesn't affect how I vote.
Right but that's a fantasy. There will not be a change to the EC under this Constitution. Once you get out of the first 10-15 states, there's no chance the mid to small states give up their influence. And certainly no way to get 2/3 of legislatures to do so. So you're back to...three viable parties = House decision.
Then fine. This is like the "experience" argument where people only wield it if it works in their candidate's favor. In June '92, Clinton was running third. There is no chance Ds would have considered throwing in the towel if that persisted, nor should they.
That experience comment was about Amash being a libertarian for a minute. It was a dig at Libertarians, not Amash.
Regardless, I don’t see how these arguments are the same. I’m always against third parties for the same practical purpose I outlined. The Constitution isn’t changing.
There has been a Libertarian in Congress for a week now and the Constitution has not spontaneously combusted
He also hasn't accomplished anything.
Neither had Obama, but people only use the experience excuse if it runs in their favor.
I would argue Obama sponsored and co-sponsored more legislation in his short senate career than Amash has during his time as a Libertarian.
He's been in Congress for a decade
As a Republican...
I'm not sure what this cheeky merry-go-round is about, but my points are this:
- If someone is considering voting for Amash, they'll consider his positions and full record
- I bring up the Libertarian-in-Congress point to (1) express joy at a milestone and (2) counter inane, convoluted arguments about third parties
The points about third party in the presidential race are not inane, it's spot on. Right now, third parties are simply spoilers. But if we had three viable parties, you would have every election decided by the House. Is that really want we want? Do we want a repeat of 1824? I think not.
That would mean Amash piled up some electoral votes and I'd be stoked as hell. If the polling starts moving in this direction and Biden is running third, I'm finding you to help move Ds to Amash so we can avoid this scenario.
Your wistful thinking doesn't change the the consequences if having a viable third party. I don't want the House deciding.
"Look at this bad process"
"Oh...yeah, wow, that is a bad process. Is someone trying to change that?"
"No, we'll just use it as a cudgel to threaten people who could still trigger the bad process if they don't allow themselves to be bullied"
"Ah, yes...very logical indeed"
So what process are you proposing to change? The Electoral College? The more practical solution is a change in the makeup/priorities of the party. You're seeing that happen today. The problem you have is that Libertarian party is further from the mainstream than ever. The GOP has gone populist and the Democrats are a mix of Rockefellers and Progressive.
Award victory to whomever gets a plurality, not a majority. Or leave it the way it is. It doesn't affect how I vote.
Right but that's a fantasy. There will not be a change to the EC under this Constitution. Once you get out of the first 10-15 states, there's no chance the mid to small states give up their influence. And certainly no way to get 2/3 of legislatures to do so. So you're back to...three viable parties = House decision.
By the way, are you going to try and convince DEMOCRATS that THEY should be afraid of the HOUSE selecting the President? What exactly is the scenario where Biden wins a plurality and doesn't get inaugurated?
There has been a Libertarian in Congress for a week now and the Constitution has not spontaneously combusted
He also hasn't accomplished anything.
Neither had Obama, but people only use the experience excuse if it runs in their favor.
I would argue Obama sponsored and co-sponsored more legislation in his short senate career than Amash has during his time as a Libertarian.
He's been in Congress for a decade
As a Republican...
I'm not sure what this cheeky merry-go-round is about, but my points are this:
- If someone is considering voting for Amash, they'll consider his positions and full record
- I bring up the Libertarian-in-Congress point to (1) express joy at a milestone and (2) counter inane, convoluted arguments about third parties
The points about third party in the presidential race are not inane, it's spot on. Right now, third parties are simply spoilers. But if we had three viable parties, you would have every election decided by the House. Is that really want we want? Do we want a repeat of 1824? I think not.
That would mean Amash piled up some electoral votes and I'd be stoked as hell. If the polling starts moving in this direction and Biden is running third, I'm finding you to help move Ds to Amash so we can avoid this scenario.
Your wistful thinking doesn't change the the consequences if having a viable third party. I don't want the House deciding.
"Look at this bad process"
"Oh...yeah, wow, that is a bad process. Is someone trying to change that?"
"No, we'll just use it as a cudgel to threaten people who could still trigger the bad process if they don't allow themselves to be bullied"
"Ah, yes...very logical indeed"
So what process are you proposing to change? The Electoral College? The more practical solution is a change in the makeup/priorities of the party. You're seeing that happen today. The problem you have is that Libertarian party is further from the mainstream than ever. The GOP has gone populist and the Democrats are a mix of Rockefellers and Progressive.
Award victory to whomever gets a plurality, not a majority. Or leave it the way it is. It doesn't affect how I vote.
Right but that's a fantasy. There will not be a change to the EC under this Constitution. Once you get out of the first 10-15 states, there's no chance the mid to small states give up their influence. And certainly no way to get 2/3 of legislatures to do so. So you're back to...three viable parties = House decision.
By the way, are you going to try and convince DEMOCRATS that THEY should be afraid of the HOUSE selecting the President? What exactly is the scenario where Biden wins a plurality and doesn't get inaugurated?
Yeah for sure. The House is a rabble. It flips all the time. Any Democrat would be short sighted to make that argument based on the majority today, especially when gerrymandering continues to be a problem all over the country. I'm sure some idiots would make that argument, but not me.
A Democrat installed by a House majority would be hamstrung in ways a Republican wouldn't. There would be constant questioning of the administration's legitimacy, no matter that the rules are clearly spelled out in the constitution. Fox News would champion tea party-style rallies from day one. Eventually mainstream pundits would go along for the ride.
___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,536
There has been a Libertarian in Congress for a week now and the Constitution has not spontaneously combusted
He also hasn't accomplished anything.
Neither had Obama, but people only use the experience excuse if it runs in their favor.
I would argue Obama sponsored and co-sponsored more legislation in his short senate career than Amash has during his time as a Libertarian.
He's been in Congress for a decade
As a Republican...
I'm not sure what this cheeky merry-go-round is about, but my points are this:
- If someone is considering voting for Amash, they'll consider his positions and full record
- I bring up the Libertarian-in-Congress point to (1) express joy at a milestone and (2) counter inane, convoluted arguments about third parties
The points about third party in the presidential race are not inane, it's spot on. Right now, third parties are simply spoilers. But if we had three viable parties, you would have every election decided by the House. Is that really want we want? Do we want a repeat of 1824? I think not.
That would mean Amash piled up some electoral votes and I'd be stoked as hell. If the polling starts moving in this direction and Biden is running third, I'm finding you to help move Ds to Amash so we can avoid this scenario.
Your wistful thinking doesn't change the the consequences if having a viable third party. I don't want the House deciding.
"Look at this bad process"
"Oh...yeah, wow, that is a bad process. Is someone trying to change that?"
"No, we'll just use it as a cudgel to threaten people who could still trigger the bad process if they don't allow themselves to be bullied"
"Ah, yes...very logical indeed"
Has there ever been a worse time to attempt to change the system than with someone as inept and dangerous as Donald Trump on the ballot? I would like more choices as well, but this is sure as hell not the time to experiment with that. Good grief. You people better come to your senses in the next 6 months.
Yes, I said "you people."
Eh, future of our democracy at's stake. Who gives a shit amirite?
There has been a Libertarian in Congress for a week now and the Constitution has not spontaneously combusted
He also hasn't accomplished anything.
Neither had Obama, but people only use the experience excuse if it runs in their favor.
I would argue Obama sponsored and co-sponsored more legislation in his short senate career than Amash has during his time as a Libertarian.
He's been in Congress for a decade
As a Republican...
I'm not sure what this cheeky merry-go-round is about, but my points are this:
- If someone is considering voting for Amash, they'll consider his positions and full record
- I bring up the Libertarian-in-Congress point to (1) express joy at a milestone and (2) counter inane, convoluted arguments about third parties
The points about third party in the presidential race are not inane, it's spot on. Right now, third parties are simply spoilers. But if we had three viable parties, you would have every election decided by the House. Is that really want we want? Do we want a repeat of 1824? I think not.
That would mean Amash piled up some electoral votes and I'd be stoked as hell. If the polling starts moving in this direction and Biden is running third, I'm finding you to help move Ds to Amash so we can avoid this scenario.
Your wistful thinking doesn't change the the consequences if having a viable third party. I don't want the House deciding.
"Look at this bad process"
"Oh...yeah, wow, that is a bad process. Is someone trying to change that?"
"No, we'll just use it as a cudgel to threaten people who could still trigger the bad process if they don't allow themselves to be bullied"
"Ah, yes...very logical indeed"
So what process are you proposing to change? The Electoral College? The more practical solution is a change in the makeup/priorities of the party. You're seeing that happen today. The problem you have is that Libertarian party is further from the mainstream than ever. The GOP has gone populist and the Democrats are a mix of Rockefellers and Progressive.
Award victory to whomever gets a plurality, not a majority. Or leave it the way it is. It doesn't affect how I vote.
Right but that's a fantasy. There will not be a change to the EC under this Constitution. Once you get out of the first 10-15 states, there's no chance the mid to small states give up their influence. And certainly no way to get 2/3 of legislatures to do so. So you're back to...three viable parties = House decision.
By the way, are you going to try and convince DEMOCRATS that THEY should be afraid of the HOUSE selecting the President? What exactly is the scenario where Biden wins a plurality and doesn't get inaugurated?
Yeah for sure. The House is a rabble. It flips all the time. Any Democrat would be short sighted to make that argument based on the majority today, especially when gerrymandering continues to be a problem all over the country. I'm sure some idiots would make that argument, but not me.
If the House flips to Republicans in November, the 1824 election is the last thing you're gonna be thinking about
There has been a Libertarian in Congress for a week now and the Constitution has not spontaneously combusted
He also hasn't accomplished anything.
Neither had Obama, but people only use the experience excuse if it runs in their favor.
I would argue Obama sponsored and co-sponsored more legislation in his short senate career than Amash has during his time as a Libertarian.
He's been in Congress for a decade
As a Republican...
I'm not sure what this cheeky merry-go-round is about, but my points are this:
- If someone is considering voting for Amash, they'll consider his positions and full record
- I bring up the Libertarian-in-Congress point to (1) express joy at a milestone and (2) counter inane, convoluted arguments about third parties
The points about third party in the presidential race are not inane, it's spot on. Right now, third parties are simply spoilers. But if we had three viable parties, you would have every election decided by the House. Is that really want we want? Do we want a repeat of 1824? I think not.
That would mean Amash piled up some electoral votes and I'd be stoked as hell. If the polling starts moving in this direction and Biden is running third, I'm finding you to help move Ds to Amash so we can avoid this scenario.
Your wistful thinking doesn't change the the consequences if having a viable third party. I don't want the House deciding.
"Look at this bad process"
"Oh...yeah, wow, that is a bad process. Is someone trying to change that?"
"No, we'll just use it as a cudgel to threaten people who could still trigger the bad process if they don't allow themselves to be bullied"
"Ah, yes...very logical indeed"
Has there ever been a worse time to attempt to change the system than with someone as inept and dangerous as Donald Trump on the ballot? I would like more choices as well, but this is sure as hell not the time to experiment with that. Good grief. You people better come to your senses in the next 6 months.
Yes, I said "you people."
Eh, future of our democracy at's stake. Who gives a shit amirite?
There has been a Libertarian in Congress for a week now and the Constitution has not spontaneously combusted
He also hasn't accomplished anything.
Neither had Obama, but people only use the experience excuse if it runs in their favor.
I would argue Obama sponsored and co-sponsored more legislation in his short senate career than Amash has during his time as a Libertarian.
He's been in Congress for a decade
As a Republican...
I'm not sure what this cheeky merry-go-round is about, but my points are this:
- If someone is considering voting for Amash, they'll consider his positions and full record
- I bring up the Libertarian-in-Congress point to (1) express joy at a milestone and (2) counter inane, convoluted arguments about third parties
The points about third party in the presidential race are not inane, it's spot on. Right now, third parties are simply spoilers. But if we had three viable parties, you would have every election decided by the House. Is that really want we want? Do we want a repeat of 1824? I think not.
That would mean Amash piled up some electoral votes and I'd be stoked as hell. If the polling starts moving in this direction and Biden is running third, I'm finding you to help move Ds to Amash so we can avoid this scenario.
Your wistful thinking doesn't change the the consequences if having a viable third party. I don't want the House deciding.
"Look at this bad process"
"Oh...yeah, wow, that is a bad process. Is someone trying to change that?"
"No, we'll just use it as a cudgel to threaten people who could still trigger the bad process if they don't allow themselves to be bullied"
"Ah, yes...very logical indeed"
So what process are you proposing to change? The Electoral College? The more practical solution is a change in the makeup/priorities of the party. You're seeing that happen today. The problem you have is that Libertarian party is further from the mainstream than ever. The GOP has gone populist and the Democrats are a mix of Rockefellers and Progressive.
Award victory to whomever gets a plurality, not a majority. Or leave it the way it is. It doesn't affect how I vote.
Right but that's a fantasy. There will not be a change to the EC under this Constitution. Once you get out of the first 10-15 states, there's no chance the mid to small states give up their influence. And certainly no way to get 2/3 of legislatures to do so. So you're back to...three viable parties = House decision.
Then fine. This is like the "experience" argument where people only wield it if it works in their candidate's favor. In June '92, Clinton was running third. There is no chance Ds would have considered throwing in the towel if that persisted, nor should they.
That experience comment was about Amash being a libertarian for a minute. It was a dig at Libertarians, not Amash.
Regardless, I don’t see how these arguments are the same. I’m always against third parties for the same practical purpose I outlined. The Constitution isn’t changing.
Yep. The Electoral College forces the two party system to happen. Dreaming of a third party to create change is a fantasy. Energy focused on getting big cash and corporate money out of politics is a much better path to go on.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,536
There has been a Libertarian in Congress for a week now and the Constitution has not spontaneously combusted
He also hasn't accomplished anything.
Neither had Obama, but people only use the experience excuse if it runs in their favor.
I would argue Obama sponsored and co-sponsored more legislation in his short senate career than Amash has during his time as a Libertarian.
He's been in Congress for a decade
As a Republican...
I'm not sure what this cheeky merry-go-round is about, but my points are this:
- If someone is considering voting for Amash, they'll consider his positions and full record
- I bring up the Libertarian-in-Congress point to (1) express joy at a milestone and (2) counter inane, convoluted arguments about third parties
The points about third party in the presidential race are not inane, it's spot on. Right now, third parties are simply spoilers. But if we had three viable parties, you would have every election decided by the House. Is that really want we want? Do we want a repeat of 1824? I think not.
That would mean Amash piled up some electoral votes and I'd be stoked as hell. If the polling starts moving in this direction and Biden is running third, I'm finding you to help move Ds to Amash so we can avoid this scenario.
Your wistful thinking doesn't change the the consequences if having a viable third party. I don't want the House deciding.
"Look at this bad process"
"Oh...yeah, wow, that is a bad process. Is someone trying to change that?"
"No, we'll just use it as a cudgel to threaten people who could still trigger the bad process if they don't allow themselves to be bullied"
"Ah, yes...very logical indeed"
Has there ever been a worse time to attempt to change the system than with someone as inept and dangerous as Donald Trump on the ballot? I would like more choices as well, but this is sure as hell not the time to experiment with that. Good grief. You people better come to your senses in the next 6 months.
Yes, I said "you people."
Eh, future of our democracy at's stake. Who gives a shit amirite?
It is not tho
Oh, but it is. Turn on the news. We are inching closer and closer by the hour.
There has been a Libertarian in Congress for a week now and the Constitution has not spontaneously combusted
He also hasn't accomplished anything.
Neither had Obama, but people only use the experience excuse if it runs in their favor.
I would argue Obama sponsored and co-sponsored more legislation in his short senate career than Amash has during his time as a Libertarian.
He's been in Congress for a decade
As a Republican...
I'm not sure what this cheeky merry-go-round is about, but my points are this:
- If someone is considering voting for Amash, they'll consider his positions and full record
- I bring up the Libertarian-in-Congress point to (1) express joy at a milestone and (2) counter inane, convoluted arguments about third parties
The points about third party in the presidential race are not inane, it's spot on. Right now, third parties are simply spoilers. But if we had three viable parties, you would have every election decided by the House. Is that really want we want? Do we want a repeat of 1824? I think not.
That would mean Amash piled up some electoral votes and I'd be stoked as hell. If the polling starts moving in this direction and Biden is running third, I'm finding you to help move Ds to Amash so we can avoid this scenario.
Your wistful thinking doesn't change the the consequences if having a viable third party. I don't want the House deciding.
"Look at this bad process"
"Oh...yeah, wow, that is a bad process. Is someone trying to change that?"
"No, we'll just use it as a cudgel to threaten people who could still trigger the bad process if they don't allow themselves to be bullied"
"Ah, yes...very logical indeed"
Has there ever been a worse time to attempt to change the system than with someone as inept and dangerous as Donald Trump on the ballot? I would like more choices as well, but this is sure as hell not the time to experiment with that. Good grief. You people better come to your senses in the next 6 months.
Yes, I said "you people."
Eh, future of our democracy at's stake. Who gives a shit amirite?
It is not tho
Oh, but it is. Turn on the news. We are inching closer and closer by the hour.
No, no, and also no. Counterpoint: Turn off the news.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,536
Comments
- If someone is considering voting for Amash, they'll consider his positions and full record
- I bring up the Libertarian-in-Congress point to (1) express joy at a milestone and (2) counter inane, convoluted arguments about third parties
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Oh...yeah, wow, that is a bad process. Is someone trying to change that?"
"No, we'll just use it as a cudgel to threaten people who could still trigger the bad process if they don't allow themselves to be bullied"
"Ah, yes...very logical indeed"
Yes, I said "you people."
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
"...I changed by not changing at all..."