57Brave
Well-known member
After fetching the Big Macs and Chicken McNuggets he shares a political stage with Mike Ditka and Mike Tyson.
Don't know how much more one can be politically toast
The Don
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
After fetching the Big Macs and Chicken McNuggets he shares a political stage with Mike Ditka and Mike Tyson.
Don't know how much more one can be politically toast
sturg33
I
Yawn.
Let's see.
She a serial liar. I mean seriously... do you deny this?
She first claimed Bill's affairs was a right wing conspiracy theory. Then she tried to discredit his victims. Then she ended up forgiving him for political gain. Then she has the audacity to tell woman that she is a strong female leader. She has no spine
She has been on both sides of every issue whatever is politically expedient. She has no integrity.
She used to be against gay marriage... now she screeches about how homophobic republicans are
Her foreign policy record is not only deplorable. But it is abysmal. She's been wrong about every stance she's taken. There's not a war she's not ready to fight
She lied about Bengazi. She told the American people it was a video after telling her family it was terrorism.
She is the only 1st lady in US history to ever be subpoenaed due to corruption... then separately was the only first lady to ever be finger printed by the FBI due to corruption
You make your tireless comments about Ron Paul's newsletters... but you excuse a presidential candidate who is currently under FBI investigation because she can't remember which email server to use.
She screeches about the evils of big business while she also served on Walmart's board of directors
She supported the Patriot Act... so she doesn't give **** about American rights
In 2008... she went at Obama for being too anti-gun. Now in 2016, she's going after Sanders for being too moderate.
She lied about being under sniper fire in Bosnia
She makes speeches to Goldman and refuses to release transcripts (wonder what she could be saying in there!)
Her family has made an absolute fortune despite her living a career in government. I look forward to seeing the documentary "Clinton Cash"
Her best argument to support her is that she is a woman
She thinks women make 77% of men
57Brave
Well-known member
you missed one:
“My own feeling is you have a 68-year-old woman running for president who has intense coughing fits in public, and I think the question is, ‘What’s that about?’” said Tucker Carlson, editor of the conservative Daily Caller, which has highlighted the former secretary of state’s cough. “I’m not a physician. I couldn’t hazard a guess. But as of this morning, she’s likely to win. So I’d love to know. It’s a legitimate question.”
...
However, from 2007 till now, and especially this year, the Drudge Report has posted 20-odd cough links to various news and opinion outlets, treating the cough as a serious problem—many on the right side of the ideological divide such as The Weekly Standard, Breitbart News, The Washington Free Beacon and Heat Street, among others, although the nominally liberally Salon has also trafficked in coughing coverage.
“My own feeling is you have a 68-year-old woman running for president who has intense coughing fits in public, and I think the question is, ‘What’s that about?’” said Tucker Carlson, editor of the conservative Daily Caller, which has highlighted the former secretary of state’s cough. “I’m not a physician. I couldn’t hazard a guess. But as of this morning, she’s likely to win. So I’d love to know. It’s a legitimate question.”
...
However, from 2007 till now, and especially this year, the Drudge Report has posted 20-odd cough links to various news and opinion outlets, treating the cough as a serious problem—many on the right side of the ideological divide such as The Weekly Standard, Breitbart News, The Washington Free Beacon and Heat Street, among others, although the nominally liberally Salon has also trafficked in coughing coverage.
sturg33
I
No... I dind't miss that one. I didn't include it
sturg33
I
But why shouldn't I vote for him? Because he's not going to win?
In theory you shouldn't. You should vote for the lesser of two evils.
you can vote for Johnson if it makes you feel good but it's still a waste of a vote
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
But why? If Trump and Hillary are so unfavorable why aren't Stein or Johnson viable candidates? The lesser of 2 evils thing is a lie from the 2 parties to keep the sheep in line.
Trump currently is polling at 61.1% unfavorable and and Clinton at 56.6% unfavorable. With such strong unfavorability why don't people vote for Johnson ro Stein?
sturg33
I
So should I not root for the Braves because they won't win the world series?
Why shouldn't I vote for who I want to be President. I detest Trump and Hilary.
Hey... if my options were Hitler or Stalin... do i still have to choose lesser of two evils? Who the hell is less evil between those?
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
I think if one is voting for an organized party, whether it be the Libertarian Party or the Green Party or the American Communist Party, a person isn't throwing their vote away because they are voting for a set of principles. I differentiate that between voting for John Anderson in 1980 or Ross Perot in 1992 because those efforts were personality-driven and the "parties" they supposedly led were merely shells where their personas could land. I don't know if there will ever be a successful third (or fourth) party in this country because of the way Congress and the Presidency is set up, but if overall voting can do things like generate a future spot on the debate stage by reaching thresholds, I think it's actually a good thing to vote one's conscience. My only caveat, as stated above, is to avoid personality-driven efforts (Anderson, Perot, Nader).
Let's say you and nine of your friends are going to dinner, you all have to go. Well the first five vote for a hamburger joint that you absolutely hate. You despise it. The other four guys vote for an Italian place which you can tolerate but you wouldn't necessarily prefer it. So with the tenth vote you say 'hooters'
You weren't going to go to hooters. It didn't have the votes. So instead of an Italian place that you can tolerate you're stuck with a hamburger joint that you hate. Hooters was a waste of a vote.
How is voting for hooters not a waste of a pick?
The choices are trump or Clinton. Any other choice would be voting for hooters.
You weren't going to go to hooters. It didn't have the votes. So instead of an Italian place that you can tolerate you're stuck with a hamburger joint that you hate. Hooters was a waste of a vote.
How is voting for hooters not a waste of a pick?
The choices are trump or Clinton. Any other choice would be voting for hooters.
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
But wait, isn't Hooters always the correct choice on a question like this, no matter the other choices.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
By voting for Hooters, you expressed your choice and people now know your preferences. Plus, this isn't really apples-to-apples. People are going to eat dinner every night and the choices will vary from night-to-night. Some nights, everyone might agree, "Hooters it is!"
My point here is that in a democracy (and that is what we have), third parties are often "movement based" before being absorbed into one of the major parties. Both the Green and Libertarian parties have histories and if people believe in the causes espoused by those parties, their votes could elevate the visibility of those parties and promote policies advocated by them. Unless we go to parliamentary government, we're likely to have a pretty static two-party system. But we can't let those parties become ossified. New ideas are always needed and often times those ideas come from outside the two principal parties' platforms.
sturg33
I
krg, that type of thinking is why we have what we have. The lesser of two evils, always just leads to worse and worse candidates every year.
There are tons of reasons to vote third part... at 50 has already described.
- I vote based on my prinipals and am proud to vote that way
- Higher support helps the libertarian party more in future elections - it legitimizes it
- If a candidate receives 5% of the vote, they are entitled to some of the federal funding that currently only R and D share
- I can proudly say that I did not support either Trump or Hilary bc I'm not a sheep
The thing is, if you polled the majority of Americans, their views line up with Johnson more than either Hilary or Trump... If EVERYONE voted on their preference, Johnson would win. But the media reminds us that we can't do that... And you fall in line. The fact that he's going to be on all 50 state ballots and they won't let him debate is crime, IMO
There are tons of reasons to vote third part... at 50 has already described.
- I vote based on my prinipals and am proud to vote that way
- Higher support helps the libertarian party more in future elections - it legitimizes it
- If a candidate receives 5% of the vote, they are entitled to some of the federal funding that currently only R and D share
- I can proudly say that I did not support either Trump or Hilary bc I'm not a sheep
The thing is, if you polled the majority of Americans, their views line up with Johnson more than either Hilary or Trump... If EVERYONE voted on their preference, Johnson would win. But the media reminds us that we can't do that... And you fall in line. The fact that he's going to be on all 50 state ballots and they won't let him debate is crime, IMO
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
The parties really do tend to be platform driven, except for the Republicans and Democrats, who I have insisted for years are more money and power driven and don't give a rat's arse about the issues they claim to support, except as lip service to get more votes, which is IMO always their #1 priority. Remember what sturg told us after he actually spoke with Ron Paul back in 2012 (that's the correct year, isn't it sturg?), he said the Repubs didn't even care about the abortion issue except as a tool to get votes. Did you guys just not believe him or was this another example of "matador defense" or maybe more like "teenager selective hearing". I absolutely did believe sturg. Remember how Repubs absolutely hated the idea of stem cell research until Nancy Reagan came out in favor of it because Ronnie needed something radical to help him in his battle against Alzheimer's? Remember how Repubs hated all things same sex relations and especially same sex marriage until they found out Dick Cheney's daughter was gay and had a life partner and then they pretty much stopped talking about it, either out of deference to their party's leaders at the time or maybe because they didn't want to get a quail hunting invitation in the mail. How vital were those issues after it affected them or someone they cared about and/or wanted to support, as opposed to when it was some nameless, faceless, gay folks?
As for the Dems, Bernie isn't really a Dem, he, IMO is much more of a Progressive (and I'm going from the historical reference than the current definition) but even though I like Bernie, I"ve always said he is much more of a niche candidate, one who shouldn't get more than 15%-20% of the vote in any primary, yet see how much support he had, even with Hilldog rigging and/or illegally influencing primary after primary. That shows a LOT of Dems don't like Hilldog any more than most Repubs do. Their voices went largely unheard or uncared about, just like Ron Paul's supporters' voices in past primaries.
As for the personality or ego driven angle, which is how I'm taking part of what you said, isn't ego always at least a partial, and usually THE main reason people run for president?
In a political climate where the power bosses, or whomever is pulling the strings behind the scenes is determining the final candidates, no matter whether the people like their choices or not isn't now the most important time ever to vote conscience that we've ever known in this nation? The game is more rigged than the NBA, and all this "well I"m voting for Candidate A because I hate Candidate B so much or because I feel like Candidate B will bring about the Zombie Apocalypse" is just perpetuating the same old BS political system that's destroying this country.
Sure, voting conscience over "getting to be on the winning side" may seem like a waste at first, maybe it even is a waste of a vote in some peoples' eyes, but if people would do that and stick with it, it WOULD start to make a difference and probably before most people realize and hey if voting your conscience causes the Zombie Apocalypse to happen because Trump/Hilldog (whichever one you feel would most rapidly usher in the "ZA") then maybe a "ZA" is exactly what we need. Hey, I vote in OK, where they would vote for the Repub candidate, even if it was the anti-christ and they knew it" and you can bet your arse I'm going to vote for whomever I feel is best, not the least worst.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
Good points. I just read a good article by Michael Kazin (progressive historian) in The Nation about the overrating of "the establishment" throughout American history and I've linked it. I guess my main point is that in a two-party system, there has to be a way to inject new ideas into the system or we'd still all be wearing William McKinley buttons. I'm going to be reading James Sundquist's Dynamics of the Party System this summer. It's a book from the 1970s regarding party organization and re-organization in American history. Think of how the South was solidly Democratic until the mid-1960s and slowly turned Republican over the next five decades. A healthy democracy requires on-going updating to face emerging challenges and you're right, the two major parties are all about winning elections more than they are about governing (or not governing). Boris Johnson is the latest fraud in that respect.
As per the personality-driven third party, the people I mentioned really weren't about building an on-going enterprise. They simply threw themselves in and told people to vote for them "because I'm me." Of course it takes a healthy ego to run for President. One of my smart a** sayings is that everyone who ascends in politics is standing on a pile of figurative dead bodies (I hope they aren't literal dead bodies) and if you don't have a healthy ego, you'll likely blanch at the sight of political blood. As Lenin said (and I likely paraphrase), "You can't make an omelet if you don't break some eggs." I frankly don't know if it was Lenin or Boris Badenov who uttered that line. But in each of those instances, especially in the cases of Anderson and Perot, the party they represented became an empty shell in their absence.
Anyway, here's the Kazin article: https://www.thenation.com/article/we-know-we-hate-the-establishment-but-do-we-know-what-it-is/
Link to Sundquist book: https://smile.amazon.com/Dynamics-P...=UTF8&pldnNewCustomer=1&ref_=smi_ge_s_cnf_smi
57Brave
Well-known member
except we're not voting for a President to be inaugurated in 2021 or 2029
but a POTUS to be in office January 2017-January 2021.
I hate the notion of tanking in sports. To apply that notion to governance is to me inconceivable.
Be it Dog Catcher or President
Does anyone have the names of Libertarian or Green Party candidates for anything other than POTUS ?
Local, state or national legislative
Politics is best worked from the ground up
but a POTUS to be in office January 2017-January 2021.
I hate the notion of tanking in sports. To apply that notion to governance is to me inconceivable.
Be it Dog Catcher or President
Does anyone have the names of Libertarian or Green Party candidates for anything other than POTUS ?
Local, state or national legislative
Politics is best worked from the ground up
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
For sturg, the Bill Maher interview with Gary Johnson from last night.