Voting anyone listed on the ballot that is not Trump or Clinton is NOT a subversion of the voting process. It is called exercising your right to vote. The Dems and Repubs unfairly control the debates and election process and many have the opionion that America desperately needs a 3rd and 4th party. So voting for Johnson or Stein could potentially have an affect on future elections and is the right of any voter. Civics 101.
Why now?
- Thread starter HALL85
- Start date
Losing the popular vote and winning the Electoral College while rare is not unprecedented.
I hope that the popular vote in each individual state is sufficient to produce a clear winner.
I hope that the popular vote in each individual state is sufficient to produce a clear winner.
Understood. However, that is not what is being discussed at this moment. A tie in the Electoral College that somehow made Gary Johnson the President would in my opinion be a subversion of the voting process. You are free to disagree.
So desperate to vote for someone that you will cast a vote for a fool like Gary Johnson or Jill Stein? Nice enough people but Intellectual midgets. Every time Johnson is interviewed he makes a fool of himself.
You continue to be very helpful in helping me make my decision. Thank you for your great opinion oh wise one. Your respect for others opinions is endless which tells me you fit the liberal definition to a T. Honesty and integrity do matter to some even though you clearly don't care about that. Two term governor without a blemish on his record who won reelection handily. Does not interview well and might be over the hill, but wins hands down against the other two in the experience, honesty and integrity vote. That does count for something but again so glad I now have your opinion. I'll consider your wise thoughts carefully for about a millisecond.
Interesting that you would bash the hell out of Clinton if she made the same comments as Johnson, but you excuse this daffy person as not being a good Interview. You say he was elected twice and that's good enough for you. Well, getting elected twice is not an indication of being a good leader or governor, I.e. Chris Christie. Could care less who you vote for. just pointing out your hypocrisy. Voting for Gary Johnson would be like voting for Chance the Gardner from the movie "Being There"
I'll go with the guy with the conscious (112) any day versus a guy whose a sheep.
And voting for Clinton is voting for more corruption. So go ahead and vote the Corrupt Line.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/karinag...sexism-that-is-clintons-problem/#523a39ff7390
http://www.forbes.com/sites/karinag...sexism-that-is-clintons-problem/#523a39ff7390
Cern, if you live in swing state and think like me & you do politically, then casting a vote for Johnson or Stein could be dangerous. I don't begrudge anyone really b/c it's their right, but giving a state to Trump that could have otherwise been won by Hillary is not cool. I agree with you there to a point b/c of how unfit & dangerous Trump is.
But if we're talking about NJ that is clearly going to go for Hillary by around 10 points at least, I don't see why you're against a person voting for the Green Party. You might not like Jill Stein herself, but I'm sure you can see the value in alot of what the Green Party stands for. It's not going to happen this year, but if the Green or Libertarian Party can hit 5% in voting, that will unlock $10 million in matching funds next time. That is invaluable money to an "upstart" third party. These small steps are one of the few ways that a viable third party could break through to the mainstream. There's value in that, and therefore there's value in starting the process. Some of us are tired of waiting.
Are you that much into the 2 party system and/or the Democratic party? Even if you are, I would think the way they swayed the primary process would sour you. Those are some shitty people in leadership that did not stay 9impartial like it was their duty to.
The same applies to the Libertarian Party, I just can't get riled up with support for their cause b/c their policies that are wrong cancel out any good they might be doing with their other policies.
Here is an actual piece of journalism from a liberal writer who seems to capture a lot of truth in his article about both major party candidates.
http://observer.com/2016/11/this-election-has-disgraced-the-entire-profession-of-journalism/
http://observer.com/2016/11/this-election-has-disgraced-the-entire-profession-of-journalism/
I don't begrudge anyone voting for a third party candidate. But please don't say how wonderful the third party candidate is when he is a stammering buffoon. In this history of this country, you have to go to Theodore Roosevelt for a legitimate third party candidate. All the others were not fit for the office. This year you had a legitimate third party candidate. His name was Bernie Sanders. Any real third party ideas will be adopted by either the Dems or the Republicans. That's how it works. And you see it here with some Bernie Sanders ideas being part of the democratic platform. I am a realist. Change comes from within the party, i.e. Tea Party for Republicans and Bernie for the Dems. Bernie would have had no impact as an independent. But as a Democrat, his impact was real and actually had a chance for the nomination.
agreed, but that's b/c the current system stifles those outside voices b/c the two parties control everything. I'm saying that my support is partly to start the slow process of perhaps one day breaking that grip that the two major parties have.
Frankly, Trump shows as blatantly as possible that either party can be overthrown by a candidate the party leaders want no part of.
BINGO. Talk to him 10 years ago, and he's a Democrat-lite. All of a sudden, he's a devout Christian who weighed in against the war in Iraq.
It's a shame HE didn't run as a third party candidate. As a celebrity, he would have gotten some juice, and the Republicans could have vetted a John Kasich (whom I'm writing in).