Jill Stein wants to be "Plan B" for Sanders supporters; Gary Johnson won't fight her for them - Polidicks

realistically, can jill even make it in the debates at this point with the little support she has?

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;50796950] The electoral college should be abolished if we want to really make this country more of a democracy rather than a republic.[/QUOTE] You have no idea what a republic is vs a democracy if you think removing the electoral college changes what the US is. Either way, we're still voting on a representative - the presidency - in the end. That's what a republic is. [editline]29th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=TheDrunkenOne;50797739]realistically, can jill even make it in the debates at this point with the little support she has?[/QUOTE] Probably looking for some limelight given all the attention Gary Johnson and the LP has gotten recently.

"We can't vote a third party this election, we'll just hand the election to the republican nominee. Maybe we'll get a better chance next election" -past 6 or so elections If you hate both choices, but you vote one anyways, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM, if not the exact problem. It is your ignorance that is causing us to vote worse candidates every election. I will cry at every mountain, every skyscraper and every chance I get, VOTE THIRD PARTY, not even bullets will stop me from shouting these words. If you wanted the best chance to vote third party, this is it. This is the election you need to vote third party in. So to sum it up, [U][I][B]VOTE THIRD PARTY PEOPLE, GARY OR JILL 2016[/B][/I][/U]

[QUOTE=Megadave;50798882][U][I][B]VOTE THIRD PARTY PEOPLE, GARY OR JILL 2016[/B][/I][/U][/QUOTE] Issue with this thought: Even if everyone who supported them did vote for them they'd still be in the minority. Third-parties are simply not popular. If they want to be more popular they need to be focusing on ingraining themselves to the populace instead. That's the only chance they really have of becoming legitimate presidential candidates. Their issue is that they're focusing on getting straight to the top without fleshing their base out enough to be truly viable.

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;50798954]So empower them so they can make a difference next election and have a voice instead of repeating this same talk every 4 years?[/QUOTE] The problem is that it's considered that there's too much at risk in this election. Hillary might be shady and has shown she's incompetent in the past, but at the best she would implement progressive reform in many areas, and at the worst she would maintain the status quo. Trump at the best would maintain the status quo, and at the worst would have Congress pass his wacky proposals such as isolationism and having Mexico pay for a wall. Any vote for a third party or a write-in is a vote that could have instead be used to prevent Trump taking the election At the last election here, I voted third party. In the House election, I voted for an independent at #1 and Greens candidate at #2 before I got to the first major party candidate at #3. For the Senate election I did the same, where I voted Science Party #1, Sex Party #2, NXT #3 and Greens at #4 before I got to the first major party at #5. I can vote for third parties because our electoral system safely allows me to do so, without splitting the vote. But you don't have that luxury in America at the moment, and there's too much at risk to vote third party.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;50798890]Issue with this thought: Even if everyone who supported them did vote for them they'd still be in the minority. Third-parties are simply not popular. If they want to be more popular they need to be focusing on ingraining themselves to the populace instead. That's the only chance they really have of becoming legitimate presidential candidates. Their issue is that they're focusing on getting straight to the top without fleshing their base out enough to be truly viable.[/QUOTE] There's a huge problem with that plan - people rarely give a shit about non-presidential elections. The more local the election, the less people vote. And the people who do vote in those usually vote down the party line regardless of who actually is running. They just check down the list of one party or the other with no regard to who these people are (because they haven't any public campaigns, no televised debates, no ad campaigns, etc). It's impossible for 3rd parties to wiggle their way into that, especially when money is short at a local level for them. [editline]29th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=sb27;50798983]The problem is that it's considered that there's too much at risk in this election. [/QUOTE] Oh that's such bullshit. This is the most broken record phrase in America. Every fucking election is "too much risk", every election is "if [I]that[/I] person wins, the country will [I]fall apart[/I]" As much as I hate Trump, the presidency is not a fucking dictatorship for whomever is in it to do as they please to the populace.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious]Oh that's such bullshit. This is the most broken record phrase in America. Every fucking election is "too much risk", every election is "if [I]that[/I] person wins, the country will [I]fall apart[/I]" As much as I hate Trump, the presidency is not a fucking dictatorship for whomever is in it to do as they please to the populace.[/QUOTE] Off of the top of my head, Trump would repeal the PPACA without implementing any adequate alternative, and Congress would gladly allow it considering they've voted at least a hundred times to repeal it. Another is that Supreme Court appointment. I guess you're one of those people who believe a Trump presidency would lean more towards the status quo side, but we really don't know how many of Trump's proposals would be implemented. Is it worth the risk? I'm not echoing a Democratic Party scare campaign; I'm looking at Trump's proposals objectively, and they are concerning proposals because of the kinds of voter that Trump is using them to appeal to - rednecks, nationalists, racists etc.

As bitter a pill as its going to have to be to swallow, I think you Yanks are going to have to vote Clinton to avoid self-inflicted damage on your country for the long term. Look at the constitutional turmoil we've suffered over here in the UK post-Brexit, with a recession and economic uncertainty looming in the distance. Our diplomatic standing is damaged, we're in a weak negotiating spot, and this is all before we have left the EU. We're stuck in this position, which is absolute nightmarish. You're in the lucky (contextually) position where you can avoid the chaos that a character like Donald Trump will cause. Hillary Clinton, to an outside observer, is an absolutely hateful politician. Her duplicity and irresponsibility in such important government positions makes her a very poor candidate; but at least she provides certainty. She's continuing on from an administration of established politics, and I think the stability she will provide is worth a transient wound for democracy, or whatever principles you have for disliking her. I think over the past 10 years or so that I've been aware of US politics, this is the real first time it's been the lesser of two evils. Avoid Trump NOW while you can - avoid the politics of a buffoon, and the malignance of the Republican party. He's an alienating character, that will be disastrous for your country's diplomacy, and domestically, he will be damaging to your suffering low-income families. I had really hoped Bernie would have been able to do it. I think it would have changed the face of American politics. But in the current situation, I think it would only be right to justify the work he has done to bring progressive politics to the Democratic platform. I think it would be a mockery of his efforts to throw that away by voting for fringe candidates. I think the two party system you have over there is deplorable, but there's time in the next election to worry about reforming your democratic makeup. Now is the time to push the progressive platform Bernie has worked for, and stop the backwards, foolish, and short-sighted politics of a bumbling idiot who is the exact opposite of the principals that the Sanders campaign fought so hard to arrive for. This emotional outburst against the Democrats is understandable and reasonable. I truly sympathise. But you're able to avoid something even worse happening. I'm living in a country that willingly shot itself in the foot because of some bloody-minded arrogance of superiority. Don't do that to yourselves. Don't try to take the moral high-ground at the cost of the country. Take 4 safe, mediocre years, over potential decades of uncertainty, and likely downturn, that we in the UK are facing right now, as a reality. We have real problems. Don't burden yourself with problems as well by allowing Trump into power - you have enough problems already without letting that maniac into power.

[QUOTE=sb27;50799048]Off of the top of my head, Trump would repeal the PPACA without implementing any adequate alternative, and Congress would gladly allow it considering they've voted at least a hundred times to repeal it. Another is that Supreme Court appointment. I guess you're one of those people who believe a Trump presidency would lean more towards the status quo side, but we really don't know how many of Trump's proposals would be implemented. Is it worth the risk? I'm not echoing a Democratic Party scare campaign; I'm looking at Trump's proposals objectively, and they are concerning proposals because of the kinds of voter that Trump is using them to appeal to - rednecks, nationalists, racists etc.[/QUOTE] No, I don't think Trump would lean toward the status quo. But I do think he doesn't have the power alone, through his position alone, to implement everything and anything he wants. Sure the GOP will probably loosely follow and try to push his policies through, but when the reality of things hit - like the actual legitimate cost of building a fucking wall that is already there - Trump will be hollow with ideas. Sure, he can appoint a supreme court person (even though it's abysmal that Obama hasn't done so as his constitutional job; thanks Congress) but ya know, we survived how many decades with Scalia. We'll survive whomever he puts in there too - and remember, he can't appoint anyone he pleases, all chosen must get vetted by the Senate for approval first. [editline]29th July 2016[/editline] Yeah I hate Trump but his election to the presidency will not start a thousand years of darkness across America.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50797021]Too bad every candidate is against it. Except Gary Johnson, but Libertarianism is awful. I respect his attitude though.[/QUOTE] Forgive the question but why exactly do you believe Libertarianism to be awful?

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;50799219]Forgive the question but why exactly do you believe Libertarianism to be awful?[/QUOTE] The seem to mix up Libertarians with anarchists, even though the LP pushed out all of the anarchists out of the party in the late 90s.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50799235]The seem to mix up Libertarians with anarchists, even though the LP pushed out all of the anarchists out of the party in the late 90s.[/QUOTE] But from the way he worded it, it sounded like he had a problem with the very concept of Libertarianism.

[QUOTE=Megadave;50798882]"We can't vote a third party this election, we'll just hand the election to the republican nominee. Maybe we'll get a better chance next election" -past 6 or so elections If you hate both choices, but you vote one anyways, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM, if not the exact problem. It is your ignorance that is causing us to vote worse candidates every election. I will cry at every mountain, every skyscraper and every chance I get, VOTE THIRD PARTY, not even bullets will stop me from shouting these words. If you wanted the best chance to vote third party, this is it. This is the election you need to vote third party in. So to sum it up, [U][I][B]VOTE THIRD PARTY PEOPLE, GARY OR JILL 2016[/B][/I][/U][/QUOTE] Yea, no. Learn what the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect"]Spoiler Effect[/URL] is. Voting third party will always be a waste of time until the election system is changed to something like [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting"]Instant-Runoff Voting[/URL]. You get two options in the presidential race, choose the one that you most align with. I'm voting Clinton, because while I think her character is garbage, I'm mostly okay with her policies, as opposed to Trump who has actually the worst character and policies that I've ever seen.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50796670]Right but when you vote for a candidate you're voting for their party.[/QUOTE]Uh, no, third party candidates are almost expected to deviate from the party platform here and there to get votes. Even if this were true for all political parties, the incentive to follow the party position simply isn't there at all; if they drop her from the party she could run as an independent and have the huge advantage of being the incumbent candidate if she did a good job. Entering into the 2020 election with a high approval rating would almost guarantee a second term. [QUOTE=BlackMageMari;50796845]EDIT: No, seriously, what was abusive about what he said? He didn't even mention you specifically, it was just a general thing.[/QUOTE]I'll level with you, I don't know what lavacano's thoughts are but for me, personally, Clinton supporters are fucking rabid and quick to try and bully others into submitting. I said it before and I'll say it again: if Clinton supporters really want me to compromise my principles I'll vote for Trump out of spite. Not that they could, but if they somehow managed to do it I'd much rather go down in flames pulling them right along with me. Or maybe the planets could align and Raptor Jesus convinces me to go Clinton/Trump, but I don't think that's going to happen. My interest in Bernie wasn't too big anyway, I disagree with him on a few things and the only thing he and my favorite have in common is social policy. As far as the economy is concerned Johnson's a libertarian through and through and I'm not really a fan of socialism to begin with. [QUOTE=IrishBandit;50799420]Yea, no. Learn what the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect"]Spoiler Effect[/URL] is. Voting third party will always be a waste of time until the election system is changed to something like [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting"]Instant-Runoff Voting[/URL].[/QUOTE]The point is to make a protest vote so electoral reform is a real issue, it's either that or simply don't vote because I [U]refuse[/U] to vote for Clinton or Trump.

[QUOTE=lavacano;50796655]Anybody but Trump. This includes Jill Stein, because if you actually read that AMA instead of just half-ass skimming it, the worst interpretation you can get about her homeopathy position is "well it's not like I can reasonably stop you, but lets make sure it's safe first". Same with her stance on GMOs.[/QUOTE] Why would you need to make sure water tablet are safe?

[QUOTE=Diet Kane;50796832]so when does Rocky IV happen?[/QUOTE] When Hillary gets killed by Vladmir Putin and Bernie has to train in Russia. [editline]30th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=lavacano;50796827]but what is it going to take to get this guilt trip bullshit to stop?[/QUOTE] Electing newer, more progressive Senators.

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;50799219]Forgive the question but why exactly do you believe Libertarianism to be awful?[/QUOTE] Libertarianism is basically a failed and discredited ideology by this point in time, much like socialism.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50800502]Libertarianism is basically a failed and discredited ideology by this point in time, much like socialism.[/QUOTE] Democratic socialism works, hence socialism isn't discredited.

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;50799242]But from the way he worded it, it sounded like he had a problem with the very concept of Libertarianism.[/QUOTE] He's probably a welfare leech, or a socialist. [editline]30th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;50800502]Libertarianism is basically a failed and discredited ideology by this point in time, much like socialism.[/QUOTE] Bollocks to that.

[QUOTE=viper shtf;50800701]He's probably a welfare leech, or a socialist. [editline]30th July 2016[/editline] Bollocks to that.[/QUOTE] libertarianism and all forms of anarcho-capitalism have been phased out entirely. it's never coming back, and it isn't even remotely popular anymore. what makes you think you're right and everyone else is wrong?

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50799587] I'll level with you, I don't know what lavacano's thoughts are but for me, personally, Clinton supporters are fucking rabid and quick to try and bully others into submitting.[/QUOTE] Define "rabid" and define "bullying". [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50799587]I said it before and I'll say it again: if Clinton supporters really want me to compromise my principles I'll vote for Trump out of spite. Not that they could, but if they somehow managed to do it I'd much rather go down in flames pulling them right along with me. [/QUOTE] No one cares.

[media]https://twitter.com/AlanKestrel750/status/758734246072586240[/media]

[QUOTE=The Vman;50801686] [/QUOTE] I don't see how her answer is nuts at all, this is what a bunch of people on right believe, and why they want trump, since his "make america great again" and saying he will bring jobs back to america.

[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;50801704]I don't see how her answer is nuts at all, this is what a bunch of people on right believe, and why they want trump, since his "make america great again" and saying he will bring jobs back to america.[/QUOTE] Well first of all [URL="https://laeffyblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/04/neoliberalism-fighting-phantoms/"]neoliberalism[/URL] doesn't exist (or at least not in the way anyone says it does). Secondly she seems to ignore the enormous ramifications of electing Trump to the world. Sorry, but even if you hate Clinton, she should still be elected instead of the most dangerous man to the United States in over a century. Only a very comfortable person who isn't really affected by political outcomes could believe such rubbish that being a spoiler to benefit Trump is somehow a good thing. She doesn't want to 'fan the flames of neo-fascism' yet is willing to fuck over the only option for the White House who isn't a 'neo-fascist', yet she claims that what she doing is a solution? Fuck off. Sorry, but anyone sane on the left should rather have 'neoliberalism' (lets ignore that it isn't really a thing for now - bu the clue to why you should stick with that is in the name) than 'neo-fascism'.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50801737]Well first of all [URL="https://laeffyblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/04/neoliberalism-fighting-phantoms/"]neoliberalism[/URL] doesn't exist (or at least not in the way anyone says it does). Secondly she seems to ignore the enormous ramifications of electing Trump to the world. Sorry, but even if you hate Clinton, she should still be elected instead of the most dangerous man to the United States in over a century. Only a very comfortable person who isn't really affected by political outcomes could believe such rubbish that being a spoiler to benefit Trump is somehow a good thing. She doesn't want to 'fan the flames of neo-fascism' yet is willing to fuck over the only option for the White House who isn't a 'neo-fascist', yet she claims that what she doing is a solution? Fuck off. Sorry, but anyone sane on the left should rather have 'neoliberalism' (lets ignore that it isn't really a thing for now - bu the clue to why you should stick with that is in the name) than 'neo-fascism'.[/QUOTE] Oh, okay, keep voting the same 2 fucking broken parties in, what a fucking great idea. Also, "most dangerous man to the United States in over a century" What? Do you even know how my government works? Do you really think that the president has that much power? The fuck. Hillary and Trump are both corrupted fucks, but I should vote for them? Why? Also, thanks for linking to a blog, what a great source.

I linked to my own blog, because I don't want to write out the same thing again. If you care to dispute the points I make there, I would like to hear it. I haven't seen any proper arguments what I have wrote there from a number of people so I assume you agree with me. And yes, I do know how your government works. In foreign policy, the President, since the 1950s onwards, has assumed almost dictatorial control. War hasn't been declared since 1941. Treaty requirements can be bypassed with sole-executive agreements. The power of the purse is very difficult to politically use and so has not been done so since the Vietnam War. The President is the Commander-in-chief of the US Army, and is the chief diplomat. All this is a disaster when a thin-skinned man with no experience in any office takes up the Presidency, with his most disastrous ideas in foreign policy. Please can you not fuck the entire of the Western world by electing this loon who wants to destroy NATO. [editline]30th July 2016[/editline] And again, it isn't due to a lack of will or collective amnesia why third parties can't get elected. It is because the entire system is stacked against them structurally. Only if one party calamitously collapses will they get replaced, and that doesn't seem likely and last happened over 150 years ago to the Whigs. Wasting your vote on Jill Stein, and, ironically, helping the worse of the two 'fucking broken parties' in isn't going to help anything at all.

[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;50801776] Hillary and Trump are both corrupted fucks, but I should vote for them? Why? [/QUOTE] You should vote for whoever aligns with your beliefs, with the understand that the FPTP system may result in the person who aligns least with your beliefs becoming president

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;50801866]Trump proportion = Trump votes / Total votes Hillary proportion = Hillary votes / Total votes Vote for Trump: Trump-Hillary Ratio = Other Trump votes + 1 : Other Hillary votes Vote for Hillary: Trump-Hillary Ratio = Other Trump votes : Other Hillary votes + 1 Vote for Third Party: Trump-Hillary Ratio = Other Trump votes : Other Hillary votes Be aborted 18 years ago: Trump-Hillary Ratio = Other Trump votes : Other Hillary votes Notice how a person voting third party does not help Trump any more than a person who does not exist. But keep on making those baseless guilt trips anyway with a side of "you're with us or against us".[/QUOTE] Did Al Gore help George W. Bush win? Yes or no? If you honestly believe that Al Gore wouldn't have received at least the required proportion of the votes that he would have won Florida with, you're absolutely deluded and there is no helping you. The Green Party has had a history of helping Republicans, and therefore Donald Trump, win. If you are stupid enough to actually believe that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are equally ideologically distasteful then you might be right that you aren't helping anyone win as you wouldn't have preferred either of them in office. But anyone being honest should know that isn't the case and take a hard look at what they are doing.

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;50801884]You're assuming the people voting third party were going to vote democrat in the first place.[/QUOTE] Yes, I am. Not all, of course, but a fair number would have if Jill Stein didn't run.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50801899]Yes, I am. Not all, of course, but a fair number would have if Jill Stein didn't run.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't vote if it was just Trump and Hillary, both are terrible, and picking one or the other is like asking if I rather be shot in the leg or the arm. And the whole vote for the popular one thats closer to your beliefs doesn't get shit done when both are fucking terrible and not even close, or just say they are but flip-flop every fucking election.