It's an interesting idea, but in reality, the only effect it's likely to have is to split the Democrat vote and guarantee Trump the win. A similar situation occurred in 1912, when Teddy Roosevelt ran on the Progressive Party ticket after losing the Republican nomination to Taft. The Republican vote was so divided that Woodrow Wilson ended up winning in a landslide.
If such a thing would result in a Trump victory, the blame would squarely lie with Hillary Clinton for failing to offer a viable alternative. These "lesser evil" scare tactics have been employed for decades by liberal activists, and the results have been disastrous (the electorate listened to them in 2008 and 2012, and there was no fundamental difference from the "greater evil"). I am thinking that people refusing to abide by "lesser evil" scare tactics may be keeping an eye on long term prospects, especially given that we are at the beginning of a process (the decaying two party system coming to its limits). Furthermore, the "lesser evil" logic has dangerous implications in itself, for if you are guaranteed to give a candidate your vote by default, then what incentive does that candidate have to listen to anything you say? The vote isn't earned in that case.
I think the problem lies not with the two party system itself, but with the political extremism and refusal to compromise present on both sides. It might just be because I'm paying closer attention, but it seems like the divide between the left and right is getting wider every year. There was a time when politicians were willing to compromise for the greater good, a time which seems to have passed when we entered the Information Age. With a list of who voted for what available at the push of a button, politicians today seem terrified to break party lines.
I think he'll be good for the campaign. He's well-known for being a devout Christian, which should guarantee Trump the evangelical vote. I absolutely agree with him on abortion. I'd love to see Planned Parenthood defunded. I disagree with him on LGBT issues. Like many Christians, he seems to forget that Jesus Christ never preached judgement and hate. However, I do agree with him and Trump that the federal government overstepped its bounds by legalizing gay marriage nationally. While I personally support gay marriage, I think such a divisive issue should have been left in the hands of the states and the people. I appreciate his commitment to not running negative, mud-slinging campaigns, but I don't think Trump will share that particular commitment. Obviously, I'm fairly conservative, so I do agree with him on most of the key issues. Neither he nor Trump is a perfect candidate, but I do believe that both are patriots, and have the best interests of America at heart.
Has anyone been watching the RNC? It's some... thing... I guess. *has to be nice* It could be worse? Maybe?
What is this? I don't even... https://twitter.com/tarastrong/status/755459731666313216 https://twitter.com/tarastrong/status/755460205245112320 https://twitter.com/tarastrong/status/755507707956826114 Why would they do this? Are they taking this seriously? This is one time that surreal actually applies to a situation.
I think that was almost certainly meant in jest. The point he seemed to be trying to make is that Russia seems to have no respect for Obama's administration.
Political polarization inevitably follows when any status quo is discredited. A cursory glance at the historical similarities between donors to both political parties also highlights both parties essentially being the same (they have differing tactics, but the ultimately defend the interests of the "one percent"). In fact, there is no fundamental difference between Obama and his predecessor, G.W. Bush. The time of an alleged "greater good" ultimately flowed from the Postwar boom and some other factors taken after 1974 that can't be repeated (expansion of foreign trade, easy access to credit combined with cheap consumer goods, etc.). Interestingly, facts remain what they are, even when they are discovered by Russians. No amount of complaining about "foreign interference" will get around the fact that Hillary Clinton "triumphed" in a rigged primary. Regarding her opposition to Donald Trump, she has no moral high ground upon which to stand. Pointing the finger at Trump isn't very convincing (as much as I loathe his policies). The blame will lie squarely with Hillary Clinton and the DNC should Trump win. There was no small amount of effrontery coming from Obama when he said to "vote" instead of "boo" (these people he was deriding did vote, and electoral fraud was employed against them). Any changes to the Democratic Party platform are mere words; we are not talking about a genuine party, as the platform is not binding on the party members. And I think it is safe to assume that more people are becoming aware that the Democratic Party really isn't all that democratic in nature. Sanders certainly played a pernicious role (I never trusted him to be sincere, and his recent actions prove this), but a good deal of people actually took his rhetoric seriously. These people are learning some rather harsh lessons through bitter experience (the discrediting of the two party system may be happening, but it isn't easy or linear in nature).
Our third party candidates have their fair share of issues as well. First off, Libertarians are Republicans with an extra helping of, "Screw you, I got mine." If you liked Sanders' policies, you should not like Gary Johnsons' platform. Also, libertarian policies don't work in reality - In business or In Government More examples Of it in Kansas Now, Jill Stein's policies are more aligned with Sanders. But she's a medical doctor and has questions about vaccinations. I'm not ready for that amount of crazy as the president. And she has even less chance of getting her policies in place than Sanders does. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...stein-on-vaccines-people-have-real-questions/ http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...s_not_the_savior_the_left_is_looking_for.html I hope I've linked to credible enough sources for you
Jill Stein lost any respect I had for her when she announced that if she were elected, she'd pardon Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning and appoint them to her Cabinet.
That's undoubtedly true, but focus on third party candidates is inevitably going to increase given the malaise with the main two (who act more like two wings of one party). How the process unfolds cannot be predicted with certainty, but the damage has already been done to the Republicans (in crisis since 2008) and the Democrats (2016 rigged primaries). This is undoubtedly true, given that the Libertarians are a far-right party. If their methods were actually effective, I feel it would be safe to assume that the US oligarchy in general would be much more supportive of them. Much to the chagrin of right-libertarians, governmental programs have also been quite successful (they won WWII, they pioneered space exploration and technology resulting form it, it plays a major role in R&D, etc.). I have the long view in mind; I haven't supported a single candidate of any party for 2016. The issue of "real questions" on vaccines belongs to the "foil hat" realm; we are dealing with something that has been roundly refuted on countless occasions. More people may be looking away from the "crazy" offered by Clinton (it seems she has sold weapons to ISIS) and Trump, but given the vacuum existing when it comes to alternatives, it is inevitable that other variants of "crazy" will be stumbled into by such people. It isn't ruled out that people could gravitate to the Greens and Libertarians (we have an issue of many people simply voting against the other person when it comes to Trump vs. Hillary, and that will also carry over in the near future). New political formations are also not ruled out, as what we are dealing with in the United States is not confined to that country alone (I reiterate that such processes overseas have resulted in Brexit, Jeremy Corbyn, Marine Le Pen, SYRIZA, PODEMOS, etc.).
Although I'm in Canada, which lends certain biases to me, I do want to point out a few things that warrant further discussion in this thread unrelated to the choice in candidates: Voting: I highly doubt that people here want a lecture on game theory, so I'll try to keep this succinct. The issue with low participation in the voting process is, basically, that despite theoretically being a secret ballot, in practice it behaves like a sequential, public vote. This means that unlike in a true secret ballot, the voter's decision is influenced by the rest of the voting body, albeit indirectly via pre-election polls. In practice, this makes the polls almost more important than the actual election, because a heavily lopsided poll discourages "truthful" voting, as it is perceived to matter less, whereas a balanced poll increases "serious" voter turnout. Polls also survey far smaller numbers of people, so you're more likely to make a difference in that regard too. tl;dr: Vote in polls if you want to influence the results of the election. It might be more effective than actually voting. Candidate Choice and Quizzes: While the quizzes are nifty and conveniently tell you who to vote for, there's a couple of caveats to them. The first, and most tin-foil, is that the quiz has inherent bias from it's creator. Even if it's direct quotes from each candidate's platforms, there is no guarantee that the selection of quotes isn't skewed. The actually relevant reason is that there quizzes make the assumption about the weights of the issues. A binary quiz is extremely inaccurate, because you might care about a single issue far more than the rest, be it abortion, net neutrality, whatever. Even with a 5-point scale, or even a continuous scale, the quiz doesn't take in to account the weights the candidate places on each issue. The only real way to gauge that is by actually studying the specifics of the rhetoric of each candidate, which can get a bit tedious. If you plan to vote, though, it's important enough to do. tl;dr: If you're planning to vote, actually read the platforms yourself, don't just take an alignment quiz and be done with it. This isn't D&D.
I'll admit, it was a bit of stretch for the supreme court to issue that all states will legalize gay marriage, but this idea was spawned from good intention. While some bigger issues have cropped up from it, like the transexual bathroom thing... It has weeded out a large sum of people, both citizens and those who are in power, out who are very prejudice against gays. The only obstical from that being a fully realized is jackasses like Westboro throwing their religious beliefs of being gay as evil.
This "stretch" was in fact perfectly legal under US law. As stated in the first section of the 14th Amendment: It is clearly stated that no state can deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection under the laws. This was referenced in the Obergfell v. Hodges ruling. Trump's "flip-flopping" on things like "bathroom bills" (going from implying that transgender bathroom use is not a problem to saying that states should decide) simply comes off as more opportunistic rhetoric (it's almost as if he is trying not to alienate people on both sides of the issue who have gravitated toward his campaign).
We're in difficult territory with this. Yes, all citizens are entitled to equal protection. Equal, as in nobody is treated unfairly. The problem arises when you have two groups with opposing views of what's right and fair. On the LGBT rights side, we have people demanding equal access to the bathroom of their identified gender. They want to feel safe. On the other side, we have folks trying, from their point of view, keep men out of the women's bathroom. They also want to feel safe. So that's where the problem arises: Who's more entitled to protection? According to the letter of the law, both are equal, so how can any law be made in favor of one without infringing on the rights of the other?
I'm on the side of the LGBT community. in my eyes, the fear that allowing them to go the bathrooms of their chosen gender will open the door for sexual predators seems a little unreasonable, though very much understandable. because to me, a Transgender individual is, in fact, a member of their chosen gender, even if they haven't gone through a transitional process yet. and then there's the fact that a sexual predator might not care about laws that would keep them out of one gender's bathrooms, and there are plenty of other, less conspicuous, places they could find victims. and not all sexual predators target those of the opposite gender. denying Transgender individuals the right to use the bathroom of their chosen gender wouldn't really make anyone safer.
