Watch this third party man debate the Democrat and republican. He was easily defeated. [video=youtube;Jg9qB_BIjWY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg9qB_BIjWY[/video] What do we talk of in 2016 that we old timers also talked of in 1992? Lost jobs. We were griping jobs went overseas. Ross Perot gave a very sound answer by saying, make both sides follow the same rules. If the overseas nations follow our rules, this will stop. But then Perot lost by a landslide.
That's because of rhetoric spread by the main parties' lackeys. Such as "they can't win, so vote for one of the front runners!" Lol.
I agree, what I like even more is the common denominator which is build America back up not divide it and tear it down
Don't have time right now. I have to get ready for work. I hope at least some of you think about the predicament that we are in today and how we could actually make some changes in where our country is heading in the future. TTYL!
Agreed. The problem however is that in every election thats exactly what the 3rd party does. The only way I ever see that happening is with a fantastic candidate. This election was the perfect storm for this to take hold and it didnt. Which in itself is rather interesting.
For that reason, Gary lacks the ability to gather sufficient followers who will bankroll him. How many times has he asked me for money? ZERO
In December of 2011 Johnson quite the Republican Party and joined the Libertarian Party. He has been a Libertarian ever since. Since New Mexico's primaries are closed, he couldn't vote in either the Republican or Democratic Primaries. Johnson has switched parties just once and he has a permanent home as a Libertarian. Unlike another Presidential nominee who was a Democrat, then a Republican, then became an independent following that up as a member of my political party for a year or so, the Reform Party. Then a Democrat again, a Republican again, became an independent and finally a Republican once more in 2012.
Uh, was that a statement? Well, OK, then, in the spirit of this thread, who are you going to vote for, or, who would you have preferred if you don't want either Trump or Hilarity? I still think they're both just two sides of the same bad coin.... . "I know how to get you back in the White House!"
I will remind you later then to watch the debate. This is a model debate where the third party winner got to be in the debate. Perot was a very straight talker. I came close to voting for him. I was somewhat upset that Bush went with hiking taxes. Hiking taxes itself is not that much of a problem. But democrats use the dog and pony show it is a cure all. And their targets? You guessed it. Never the middle class nor the poor, they target one class. It reminds me of punishing Serena Williams for being an outstanding tennis player and ripping her off merely because she wins matches. So, if I forget, surely you will remind me to show you the video tomorrow. - - - Updated - - - Looks like Hillary really likes Donald Trump. Sure ... I mean, shocked are you?
I expect to vote for Stein ( Green Party) unless polling shows things uncomfortably close in Oregon (5 percentage points or less in the last available poll). Stein better represents my ideological views than Clinton, and I am a tad unhappy with the DNC this election cycle. I am not so unhappy as to contribute to a possible trump administration,however. If Clinton really needs my vote, she will get it. Trump is the single worst major party presidential candidate in my lifetime.
Explain Ross Perot who participated in the 1992 presidents debate with Clinton and Bush? [video=youtube;Jg9qB_BIjWY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg9qB_BIjWY[/video]
Back in 1992 the League of Woman's Voters sponsored the debates. Their threshold was 15% in the polls. At that time, October of 1992 the polls read Clinton 41%, Bush 30%, Perot 20%. Perot had been drawing as much as 30% in June of 1992. Since then the two major parties decided no more third party candidates would ever be allowed in the presidential debates again. They pulled the debates away from the League of Woman's voters and formed their bipartisan debate committee.The two major parties did this to ensure future debates would be only between the Republican and Democratic candidates. The debates were taken away to punish the League of Woman Voters for allowing Perot to participate. Perot was an independent candidate then, but it is the same as a third party candidate. The polls were fairly accurate as the final result was Clinton 43%, Bush 37%, Perot 19%. Don't worry, Johnson or Stein won't be allowed to be in the debates. Such is the monopoly of our two major parties in our political system. The idea is not to give the voters a clear choice of whomever, but to make them choose between their candidates and no others. Our election laws are written by Republicans and Democrats as a mutual protection act.
You explained very well why Johnson can't win. Yes, it has been THAT long ago that those debates were sponsored by the women. But keep in mind who women tend to vote for? I know many women who vote only for republicans. But nationwide, women seem to gravitate to Democrats. We can speculate their reasons, but "them's" the facts. My major point in this is to show how feckless it is to run as a 3rd party. And hoping congress will fix this is also equally futile. As you say, the two majors run the show. I don't like this. But I am not the agent of change. Maybe we can kick Trumps knee and he will jerk things around???
One more of my talking points that took me back to the 1992 debates. Notice the topics they discuss. Notice Clinton calling for FAIR taxes on the rich. But when taxes are raised over and over, they never once reach that magic point where Democrats will admit the rich pay fair share of taxes. Case in point. The vast share today of taxes are paid by the rich. They shoulder 90 percent of Governemnt costs. But do Democrats claim they pay fair share? You guessed it, They certainly do not. They do not intend to claim the rich pay a fair share till the rich hit the 100 percent mark. Me, It costs me nothing for the rich to shoulder the costs. But the national debt to me tells me that one of these days, kaboom, we will see our share going way up. Why not cut costs today and lessen the future blow?
I am in the "anyone but Hillary" camp. Like you, there are some things I like about Libertarian positions and some things I don't like. But I could not vote for Johnson this cycle because I do believe that he cannot win, and I think it is imperative to keep Hillary out of the White House. In short, her character makes her the worst presidential candidate to ever run in my lifetime and perhaps ever. I believe that what Americans really want is peace and prosperity. I do not believe Hillary would bring either. I think she is a reckless and irresponsible warhawk, and I believe she will continue policies that shrink the middle class in our country, concentrate wealth at the top, and grow the underclass. I think she is completely and totally owned by her "big money" donors. I do not believe she likes America or Americans - not working people, not the poor, not minorities, not gays, not anybody. Instead, I think her whole motivation is a quest for power, and she will shamelessly use people and lie to them to get what she wants. I think she is very good at doing this - diabolically good at it. Pathologically good at it. I don't know if she broke the law with the email server. We'll see. But what it does tell us unequivocally is that Hillary does not want you and I and the American people to know what she is doing. She doesn't believe we deserve to know, for we are just the stupid shleps that she uses. It also reveals an attitude that she, and she alone, is above the law. She wants to be able to lie to you and have no paper trail contradicting her. And, as we are also seeing, she is going to appoint people below her who will fall on their swords for her, no matter what. She has clearly expressed her intent to erode our gun rights. She will appoint judges to the Supreme Court who will not support the individual right to keep and bear arms. Finally, in true Clintonesque fashion, she has an agenda of ... nothing. Well, unless you consider the status quo "an agenda". But, of course, this is very convenient. She offers nothing, so there is nothing to criticize. Trump, on the other hand, does have an agenda, and so Hillary is free to attack his agenda. Clinton's agenda is nothing. Nothing to talk about, and, above all, with no agenda, nothing to criticize. This is a deliberate, calculated, and totally predictable platform for her. .... Nothing. On Trump ... Yes, he is a bit of a buffoon. OK. But ... I think he speaks his mind. Hillary does not. She's a phony. I think he wants American workers to have a fair chance. I don't believe Hillary gives a damn about them. I think he wants to defeat ISIS, but he does not want the U.S. being the world's policeman. Hillary is still committed to "regime change" in Syria and is willing to go into an air war with the Russians over it. I think he wants a secure border and controlled, legal immigration. Hillary will leave the borders wide open. I don't think he is owned by special interests. He most certainly is not owned by the Republican Establishment, which is an institution I don't care for much. Hillary, I believe, is totally owned. Trump has repeatedly expressed his respect and concern about our veterans. I'm sure Hillary would give the correct politically correct lip service about our vets, but I don't think she gives a damn about them either. So you asked for some reasons. There ya go! My two cents ...
Jill Stein, of the Green Party. The closest approximation, as I see it, to a populist left stance. This vote is intended as "no confidence" vote in the current direction of the Democratic Party.
Remember Perot, Anderson, were well known with all sorts of media hype. Wallace back in 1968 too. All gathered a lot of money, spent a lot on campaign ads, were on TV daily. All three were independents, not established third party candidates. What we have today is none of that. The Libertarian and Green Party never in their history has received one percent of the popular vote, they have no money, no media coverage, no media hype, all are unknown to the public at large. Wallace, Perot and Anderson were well known The electorate is so turned off by the idea of having to choose between Trump and Clinton that 15% of them would rater vote for a third party candidate they never heard of, didn't know they existed, has no idea what they stand for, no media, no money for campaign ads, no name reorganization whatsoever. The names doesn't matter, Johnson's name could be Jones and Stein's name Smith and their Parties could be Bread and Butter instead of Libertarian and Green. Under these circumstances third parties normally, in a normal election received between one to two percent of the total vote. 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 are normal recent elections where the above paragraph applied. The thing is as of today 15% of the electorate are willing to vote for Johnson and Stein just because their last name isn't Trump or Clinton. You have a phenomena where the two major parties will spend 3 billion plus dollars, dominate the news media, dominate TV ads, plain dominate period. You have Johnson and Stein maybe, just maybe spending 3 million together. Yet they are getting 15% of the vote, unknowns and unheard of's. When pollsters only offer a choice of two candidates, Trump and Clinton, the will not vote answer which is also unique to this year, receives 10-15% and other 10% plus. When given four candidates instead of two, those percentages drop way down into the 2 and 3 percent range. Then you have the Quinnipiac Poll which stated 54% of all Americans would never support Trump and 47% never support Clinton. The thing is you are correct, Johnson could never win. But the majority of Americans do not want Trump or Clinton to win either. One will because of our two party system which makes it virtually impossible due to money and our election laws for any third party candidate to win.
Shocked? Not in the least. Trump has been a "double-agent" nearly all his adult life, working both political parties for the best political advantage, and shoveling out donation money to everybody from "W" Bush and John McCain to Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. The word, "whore" comes to mind. Here's a desperately disgusting situation if there ever was one -- TWO whores running for the presidency... but only one is a "mole", secretly working for the other side... Donald Trump. . "Comrade Khrushchev was wrong! The Americans are burying themselves!"
I said it ALMOST happened before. Ross Perot? He was pretty successful with getting himself to become a household name. - - - Updated - - - I think I would consider Independent to be a 3rd party. At least they're not dems or reps.
Semantics maybe. Third parties have an infrastructure of some sorts. They been on the ballot before, some in just a handful of states, other on most state ballots. People have belonged to those parties for a long time. I still consider myself a Reform Party member. Independents, Wallace, Anderson, Perot in 1992 had no infrastructure at all prior to their bid to become president. Wallace was a Democrat and once he lost in 1968 went back to being a Democrat and ran again for the presidency as a Democrat in 1972 before being shot ended his candidacy. Anderson was the opposite, he was a Republican who after his independent run in 1980 went back to being a Republican. One can say neither Wallace or Anderson ever stopped being members of their party, they ran as independents against their own party's candidate. Perot as far as I know never belonged to either major party although I would say he leaned Republican. None of the three ever claimed a party label in 1968, 1970 or 1992. Perot did in 1996 with his Reform Party which was a third party run. The Reform Party went on to elected a governor in Minnesota and a couple of hundred state legislatures throughout the country. Third parties always have candidates for down ticket offices. An independent candidate is just that, no party, no down ticket candidates running for other offices. Yeah, for most people third party follows your definition, if they aren't a Republican or Democrat, they're third party. I may be one of a very few who considers independents and third parties as different and place them into different categories. Semantics.
Third party candidates have no chance because of how our political system is set up. If you want 3rd party candidates to have a chance you would need to use preference voting (ranking candidates) or runoffs. For the legislature you'd want proportional representation. The former option isn't viable with our constitution, but we could probably do preference voting.
