Johnson could be polling at 50% and they would still find a way to argue that he shouldn't be in the debates. The media needs to grow a set of nuts and get back to actual journalism instead of relaying the day's talking points. The 2 big parties need to be held to task for excluding other candidates from the debates, but the media won't touch that story or else their own debate access and participation and access to the candidates will be ripped away.
This is a winner take all democracy....at least separately within the two elected branches. That is the reason we have a two party system.
I don't think that's correct. Presidents have come from 5 different parties. George Washington was not a member of any political party, because they didn't exist then, and the Constitution says nothing about them either. They aren't necessary for the kind of system we have, they came about on their own. In 1832 4 parties got electoral college votes. In the next election a Democrat defeated 4 Whigs who got votes. From 1844 to 1860 either 3 or 4 parties got votes in each election. 1880 had 3 parties with votes, 1884, 1888, and 1892 each had 4, and that went on well into the 20th century. In 1912, for example, the Democratic, Progressive, Republican, Socialist, and Prohibition parties each had candidates in the election. T. Roosevelt formed the Progressive party after leaving the Republican party. In 1968 George Wallace of the American Independent party got 46 electoral votes. The last non-D/R to get electoral votes was in 1972.
After 1972 our elections look very boring. This two-party crap is a new thing for the country. It's not how the system was designed, the Ds and Rs decided to seize power and make it this way. They did that in 1988 to make sure that only they got elected.
It's not because some malign agency made it that way.
Yes it is. The malign agency is the Commission on Presidential Debates. Read the "Criticism" section of the above article. This part sounds pretty malign to me:
At a 1987 press conference announcing the commission's creation, Fahrenkopf said that the commission was not likely to include third-party candidates in debates, and Paul G. Kirk, Democratic national chairman, said he personally believed they should be excluded from the debates.
The vast majority of American electoral history is against you on this.
You have that exactly backwards. It's only the very recent history that is against 3rd parties, and it was manufactured to be this way by those in power in order for them to stay in power.
At worse, they muddy up the waters and only serve as spoilers for one of the candidates.
Considering that the country is supposed to choose between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich, hopefully they spoil both candidates.
I already knew this was true (although the last poll I saw had these people as a majority), that the major reason people are voting for either candidate is because they aren't the other one, they're voting against the other person instead of for the one they want.
The top concerns about each candidate are also pretty predictable. Trump supporters' biggest concern is his temperament, and Clinton supporters' biggest concern is her honesty. No surprises.
I literally laughed out loud at the last graph, and then became sad that this is the way it is:
If Trump wins, 59% of respondents will be disappointed or angry.
If Clinton wins, 49% of respondents will be disappointed or angry.
Look at the other lines in that graph though - among Trump supporters and Clinton supporters both, there is a non-zero number of people who will be disappointed if their candidate wins. Among Trump supporters there is even a non-zero number of people who will be *angry* if he wins. I don't know if those results reflect upon the intelligence of the respondents and their ability to comprehend the questions, or take into account the apparent fact that some Trump supporters are angry no matter what, but it's funny. It goes the other way too, for both groups of supporters there is a non-zero number of them who will be relived or excited if the other person wins. But according to the link to the actual study, and based on my expert analysis of the pixels in the graph, both of those results are probably within the margin of error (with the possible exception of Trump supporters who will be disappointed if he wins, which I can understand).
This election is a joke. I don't hold it against you or any of my other friends who wants to vote for Clinton or Trump, but I just can't stomach either of them and I don't like it when people try to tell me that voting for another candidate (as opposed to staying home and not voting at all, for example) is either a waste of a vote or a vote for some other candidate. Just like a lot of people are voting against one of the candidates, I'm voting against both of them.
The TL;DR school of political debate. Is it really any wonder that it's Clinton vs. Trump? People seem to like Trump because he matches their attention span, and they like Clinton because they forgot what she did.
Yes, I have a bias against someone who has shown that she is untrustworthy and dishonest based on her actions. It would be hard not to have a bias against someone like that, but you seem pretty willing to ignore it.
And it's not because people like me telling them that a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump. It's because they are both terrible candidates in their own right.
No, that's not the reason. The reason is because the entire system has been set up and run by the Democratic and Republican parties to make sure that they stay in power. That's why they call media outlets and yell at them and threaten the careers of journalists when they report negative things about their candidates or parties, it's why they deliver talking points to the media which the journalists just go on air and repeat, and it's why the media can't cover any candidate who is not a Democrat or Republican without taking flak from the 2 parties. It's why only those 2 parties are allowed to debate in prime time on TV, you can thank the Commission on Presidential Debates for that one. They set up the system with those rules to make sure that they stay in power, and the media helps them out by letting everyone know that there are only 2 candidates and that no one else a chance. And people like you happily take up the same line. After the announcement that only 2 candidates would be allowed to participate in the debate, NPR was kind enough to let Gary Johnson call in. Did you hear that? I'll forgive you if you missed it, because he was only on for about 90 seconds. She asked him to give the opening statement he would have given if he was allowed and he quickly made a case for himself, he got interrupted a few times by people trying to tell him that he really has no chance, and then they started up the music to play him off the air while he was in the middle of talking. This is one of 3 or 4 people who could even conceivably win the office of the president and they give him 90 seconds of air time with several interruptions and then play him off the air. You can't tell me that they media doesn't push the line that there are only 2 choices, and the reason they do that is because if they don't play along then they don't get interviews, they don't get debate sponsorships or get to supply moderators or get to air the debates, etc. It's a pay to play system, if the media plays along then they get the benefits from the Democratic and Republican parties, and if they don't then they get shunned. It's a pity that this country has a media that has no balls and takes all that shit, but that's the way it is.
Don't try to sit there and tell me that Gary Johnson would not be able to seriously challenge the two most disliked candidates in the history of presidential polling, because that's bullshit. But, we'll never know, will we? He doesn't get the airtime, he doesn't get the exposure, so we'll never know how people would have responded to him or how things would be different if the people taking polls listed his name first or if he was included in the televised debates. We'll never know, just like we'll never know why Clinton wanted all of her emails removed.
If you want people to take third party candidates seriously then you go find an actual popular individual who can grab votes from both the right and left sides of the country, who isn't corrupt, who garners enough respect in order to form compromises, and who has the ability to generate enough funds to run a successful national presidential campaign.
Why, just so that person can be roundly dismissed by the media and pundits on every major network while they tell everyone that this person has no chance and that you really only have 2 choices? I'd rather try to change the system. That's not going to happen if I vote for a Democrat or a Republican again. It was shameful how the media treated Sanders, he was dismissed throughout the entire process. While he was mounting his campaign and gaining ground r
Again, no third party option has any chance of winning.
And as long as the media and people like you keep trying to convince people that's true, they never will. I don't buy into it though, sorry.
Whether she broke the law or lied or whatever, she is still, by a wide wide margin, the far better option in this election.
Well, she did break the law, and she did lie, and I'm not willing to overlook that and vote for her. Is she better than Trump? Yes. But, sorry man, "better than Trump" is just not a reason to vote for someone to be the goddamn president. Seriously, the best thing that people can say about Clinton is that she is better than Trump. That's a major problem. But that doesn't stop you from trying to argue about her crimes and lies by saying that without knowledge of what she deleted (which she very obviously took pains to make sure that we don't know), we shouldn't judge her. We'll never know. Yeah, whatever, that's exactly the line she wants you to say. To me, that's enough to disqualify her. I don't want her in office doing shady shit behind everyone's back and covering it up and then saying "hey, you'll never know what I was doing so you shouldn't judge me for it." She's a lawyer, and she knows that if there's no body then she's not going to get convicted, so she's doing everything she can to get rid of the body. That's not someone I want leading the country, regardless of any opponent she faces.
Any vote for them is a vote for Trump.
That's always been such a stupid disingenuous line. It implies that those votes would automatically go for Clinton instead of the third party. That is completely wrong. Many Republicans might go third party, are you trying to suggest those are equivalent to Trump votes? Because they're fucking not. Trump DIDN'T GET THE DAMN VOTE, IT'S NOT A VOTE FOR HIM. A vote for him means that he has 1 more vote than Clinton, and that therefore Clinton needs TWO VOTES to counter that and win. She only needs one. It's not the same. Stop pushing that bullshit line and trying to convince everyone who believes your crap that they only have two choices. Let them vote for who they think represents their beliefs instead of trying to shame them or guilt them into voting for a lying criminal.
I don't know man. I would never vote for Clinton anyway, so when I'm told that I need to vote for her because the other side of the system has put up a dangerous candidate, it just seems so stupid. It seems like this is exactly how they have the system set up to work. The only way that Hillary Clinton would possibly be able to get elected is if the Republicans found someone even more detestable than her, which they have managed to do, and the real funny thing about it is that the only person that Donald Trump could conceivably beat is Hillary Clinton. This is a race to the bottom. It's a Shakespearean tragedy the likes of which we haven't seen before. George H. W. Bush is saying he's going to vote for Hillary Clinton. Keep reading that sentence until you realize that this is bizarro world that we're living in. If George H. W. Bush voting for Clinton isn't a sign that the 2 parties are so much more alike than they are different than I don't know what is.
I want off the ride. I want them to stop it so I can get off. I've had enough. I don't think they're going to stop it on their own though, there are too many people who have been in power for too long and the money is flowing like a river. The number of people who want real change are a very small minority in Congress. If they aren't going to stop it on their own, then maybe it just needs to be burned down and built again. That's Trump getting elected. It's obviously not the result that most people would want, but they aren't going to change on their own. You can't put a heroin addict in charge of a room full of heroin and leave them there and tell them not to get high, they're going to get high because they're addicted to it.
I was pleasantly surprised to see Bernie get so much support from running a campaign centered around the idea that there is too much money in politics. I also think that's the #1 problem, and I also think that is a much greater threat than Trump. Clinton to me is a perfect poster child for that threat, which is why I can't just hold my nose and vote for her. She's literally the exact problem that I want to move away from, it doesn't help me to vote for the specific problem that I'm trying to avoid. If the United States crashes and flames out in a blaze of glory, it will be because of money. It will be because so many people have their hands in the pie and everyone tries to take their share all at once and there's nothing left for anything else. Hillary Clinton is off taking 6-figure paychecks from banks for speeches which do not get disclosed, and then she turns around and says that we need to rein in and control the banks. She doesn't mean that. She's the kind of person who will negotiate a trade deal in secret, where the only reason any citizen knows anything about it is because of leaks to the press, and then she'll try to jam that down everyone's throat so that the people are bound by a law that was negotiated without their input and in fact specifically kept from them. That's not democracy. Then she's going to turn around and say she opposes that deal because of Bernie's stance. You think she means that? No, I don't think she does. I think she gets into office, passes some meaningless amendments to the deal which she'll call a victory for progressives, and then pass it and talk about what a great deal it is.
I'm just sick of it. When Candidate Obama made all of these grand speeches about privacy and made promises about government surveillance, and then he got into office and renewed the Patriot Act, I said that I wasn't going to vote for a Democrat or a Republican any more. They tricked me enough. Just because one of them has managed to nominate a dangerous candidate doesn't mean I'm going to come back to them like an abused wife. I'm done with them, they had decades to prove that they had the best interests of the country at heart and they keep showing that it's all about them. I can't do it, sorry. It sucks if Trump gets elected but even if that happens there's a silver lining - Clinton
The percentage of Muslims preferring Sharia in the US is often-cited as 51%
I feel the need to point out something else about that 51% figure. If 51% of American Muslims want sharia law, then in order for that to pass a vote America would have to be 100% Muslim.
So we shouldn't discriminate for some religions, but we should for other religions. Who gets to make the list of which religions are allowed?
One of the major aspects of Islam is Sharia and the (world-wide) Theocracy.
Cool story. But the entire Muslim world does not live under sharia law. Even the most populous Muslim country doesn't require sharia for everyone. Some Muslim-majority countries (such as Turkey, 95% Muslim) are secular. Somehow the Muslims aren't trying to overthrow everything. Maybe you're not qualified to talk about the major aspects of their religion.
Both directly contradict the US Constitution
Right, which is why we'll never have those laws here, which is why it's stupid to keep people out on the basis that they follow a religion where you believe that they want to live under those laws. If someone wants to live under sharia they aren't going to move the US any sooner than they would move to Japan. They have a range of options available that they can choose from, from sharia for everyone to all Muslim and no sharia.
For its higher level of living — "it is the economy, stupid".
Oh. So their religion teaches them that they can sacrifice their beliefs if they earn more money? You've studied a brand of Islam that I'm not very familiar with, but I'm glad that you're here to educate me about what's important to Muslims. Apparently they all want to live under sharia law, unless the economy there sucks, then they'll go live somewhere that is diametrically opposed to sharia and would violently resist it, but maybe they could make it happen anyway.
The percentage of Muslims preferring Sharia in the US is often-cited as 51%.
By who, you?
The problem is real...
Is it? Let's assume that 51% figure is accurate, for the sake of discussion. There are around 3.3 million Muslims living in the US. If 51% of them want sharia law, then about 1.6 million people in the US want sharia law. There are around 320 million people living in the US. My calculator tells me that about 0.52% of the US population wants to see sharia law here. Now, I don't have numbers right in front of me which say how many people in the US would vote against sharia law, but I think the problem is less real than you would like to believe.
Absent a coherent religion of some kind, the void is filled by dark superstitions (think "bad omens", witch-burning, and black cat-chasing), that are worse than even Islam.
That's one of the stupidest things I've read.
Tell me, do you believe that earthquakes and volcano eruptions are caused by vengeful gods, do you think there's an angry god shaking the earth and making fire shoot out of mountains? Because I don't believe that. And I have to say, that my lack of belief in a supernatural reason for things like earthquakes and volcanoes somehow did not get replaced with witchcraft and black cats. I actually think there's a scientific reason for it, believe it or not. I don't reach for a millennium-old book to teach me about things that we've only learned over the last couple hundred years. We aren't the nomadic tribal people that used to need a book of morals to keep everyone from killing each other or dying because they ate shellfish that was sitting out for a day because they didn't know that micro-organisms existed. It's pretty obvious that you shouldn't kill or steal from people. If you require the threat of divine punishment, or the promise of divine reward, to keep you from doing things that you know are wrong then I think you're the problem. So maybe you're right, maybe anyone who believes in that kind of crap should be kept out of the country.
You just don't like the fact that someone isn't seeing Clinton as the traitorous uber criminal that you think she is.
See what I mean about your imagination? You have a bias in favor of Clinton where you think that she would be qualified to lead the country, even though she preferred to violate law by deleting her communications instead of letting people see what the content was. You're also assuming what I think about her. She's not a traitor, she's just corrupt.
I'm actually inclined to agree with your sentiment. If anyone expressing a sincere religious belief were denied entry, I think that our country would be better for it. I don't think that's in keeping with the ideals that we claim to hold, but I do think our country would see a net positive if we simply denied entry to anyone who checked any box other than "None" under the religion question.
That federal protection applies to US citizens and residents. It is not applicable to those seeking to move in.
So would you say that denying entry to people based on their religion is in line with American ideals? In other words, would you consider it to be an "American" thing to do, as opposed to un-American?
such as a belief, that the only just and acceptable way of life is under a Theocracy.
If people believed that then I would wonder why they would voluntarily move to a country that is not a Theocracy. That would seem to be against their beliefs.
Discriminating based on race has nothing to do with discriminating based on religion. They're both discrimination, they're even both federally-protected classes, but really they have nothing to do with each other. Just like a board made of pine has nothing in common with a board made of cedar.
The other thing we know is that when you start from hating Clinton first and proceed from there, every conspiracy is as good as a fact.
That's really not that far off. When someone has had her credibility questioned for years, and she knows that, and she still decides to delete things which by law should have been saved, you have to wonder why she isn't just willing to come clean and let people see that she has nothing to hide. Again, they made the decision that deleting everything and dealing with the fallout from that was a better option than letting people see the content of the emails. I'm not suggesting anything about what was in the emails, but if I had a reputation like hers for dishonesty and I was trying to impress an entire country of voters I wouldn't want to give them any more reasons to think I'm dishonest unless that outcome is better than letting them see what I was doing. She's not a stupid woman, she weighed the risks and made the choice to deal with the fallout from deleting the emails rather than allow them to be seen.
Right, you're going to ignore the actions of one person because you don't like what another guy says, even though he can't even go several days without directly contradicting himself. You're going to assume that he's being straight-up and honest with what he says and that he means everything, while ignoring and minimizing the actions of the other person. Like I said, you're being disingenuous, your bias is clear, your mind is already made up regardless of what anyone says or does, but might as well deny your imagination anyway.
But presumably the swing, potential 3rd party vote this year is left-of-center Sanders supporters who basically (grudgingly) accept that the Clinton/Democratic platform is a pretty good approximation of Sanders' 'pull the Dems to the left' goal at the start of his campaign.
Actually assuming that Clinton would do anything that she promises in order to get elected is lunacy.
voting for a candidate that they dislike and/or distrust is worse than having a candidate they seriously dislike and distrust actually win.
But I seriously dislike and distrust Clinton.
Okay kids, it's not about how you feel - it's about what you want to happen
What I want to happen is that we elect a leader who isn't blatantly corrupt. It's kind of a pipe dream, I know, but that's what I want to happen. So it doesn't really help my goal if I go and specifically vote for someone who is corrupt.
probably some that she's glad to have been 'forced' to embrace.
Ha. You're a funny guy, I like you.
Yes, the two party system is a problem. No, voting for 3rd party spoilers within the 2 party system will not fix it.
It's not about voting for "spoilers", and calling a legitimate candidate a spoiler is a symptom of the problem. I'm not going to vote for the system to continue, sorry but I'm just not going to do that. I'm not going to play their idiotic game where they counter the single most disliked candidate in presidential polling history with the second most disliked candidate in presidential polling history and then come whining to me about how I need to vote for them to stop the catastrophe that they could have clearly avoided if they just hadn't nominated the goddamn second most disliked candidate in presidential polling history like she has some ordained right to the office of president. I'm not going to do it. If their actual goal was just to defeat Trump then there are a ton of candidates who would have no problem doing that, why should I feel obligated to vote for the candidate they chose who comes with a mountain of baggage and many very serious questions about her trust and credibility? I'm not going to play the game. I'm done, I'm going to vote for a smaller candidate and against the two-party system and have a clear conscience when I leave the poll. Expecting Democrats and Republicans to mount any serious effort to fix their own system is stupid, it's literally stupid. I'm not going to leave it up to them, neither of them deserve my vote. I'm voting for someone who would actually change the system instead of buying into it.
my job is to simply plant reasonable doubt about his
My mistake, I thought you were trying to have a rational debate. I didn't realize you were just trolling the other guy.
Technically right is the best kind of right
Haha, yeah it sure is, and totally makes your point very well. "The person I support said that 1.7 billion people who belong to a certain religion should not be allowed entry into the country based solely on that fact. Since religion is not a race, this is not racism, therefore the person I support totally does not have the same moral and ethical failings that racists have because he is discriminating against a large percentage of the world's population based on their religion instead of their race, which is totally different thinking and has nothing in common with any other form of bigotry or irrational intolerance."
I would award you a debate point, but you already pointed out that you're just here to insert FUD into other peoples' arguments.
Or, maybe you need a more explicit question that spells it out:
What could have been in the emails where they knew that getting caught deleting everything and dealing with the fallout from that was a better outcome than dealing with the content of the emails?
They made a choice. They made a calculated choice based on risk that getting caught deleting everything and having to talk about what they don't remember and reminding everyone that there's no proof and that you should just keep on trusting the Clinton machine (in the middle of her presidential campaign) was a better option and would hurt Hillary's brand less than if people saw what she was sending through email on a server that was not under the control of government.
And you're trying to suggest that they were talking about Boehner being drunk. They counted on people like you, you know. When they were making their decisions they were saying "we know that there are a lot of useful idiots out there who will help us, they will say stupid shit and make stupid comparisons to get people to forget and help us sweep everything under the rug". That's you they were talking about, you're the useful idiot that they counted on when they made the decision that deleting everything was going to result in less serious or fewer consequences. I hope you're at least getting compensated and not just doing that because you'd like to see people like her in charge of the country.
You're being very disingenuous about this. For example, given the list of things that we do know about Clinton as partially listed above, and also considering her behavior in the past, if I am a single-issue voter where I believe that the only thing at this point that matters is that people who are corrupt are not in charge of our country, then isn't Clinton worse than Trump? Your view of whom is better than the other is completely colored by your own biases or what you think the major threats to this country are, but you're still willing to state your opinions like they're facts.
Facts > speculation
And where do "your opinions" fall on that spectrum? Why should I care what you think? Just because you really believe something doesn't make it a fact.
But not many people are very rational these days.
No kidding. You're a prime example, but the problem with people like you is that you're just sure you're right. You don't even consider your own imagination to be part of the problem, instead you're sure that you're part of the solution and you have all the answers.
Sorry pal, but I'm not going to vote for someone who is blatantly corrupt to lead our country and then act like I'm doing The Right Thing (tm). I'm also not going to vote for Trump.
I did ask for actual quotes didn't I? And yet, you chose to paraphrase...
What Trump actually said, was that the judge... may have a conflict of interest.
I like how you call him out for paraphrasing Trump, and then follow that up by paraphrasing Trump.
Even so, if part of your argument involves bringing up the definition of racism as a way to claim that someone isn't technically racist, then you might want to consider choosing another battle to fight.
Whatever you do, one thing is extremely important. Make sure that you either vote for a Democrat, or a Republican. It's vitally important that you do so. There aren't any other options. If you want proof, just look at any media story. They will helpfully tell you not only that there aren't any other options, but they will even tell you who they predict to win and what people are thinking right now. But even though they might tell you that more than half of voters dislike both candidates, still, the system depends on you voting for one of those two. Smaller parties will not be able to win, there's no reason to even consider casting a vote for any party which does not control the Commission on Presidential Debates. If you voted for another party the entire system, including your personal finances, will probably collapse. Do your patriotic duty and vote for a Democrat or Republican, it doesn't particularly matter which one, and remember, next time we'll probably give you better choices so just suck it up and wait until then.
Don't worry, we'll change, it will be better next time, we promise we won't abuse you again.
Man, if only we had direct knowledge of what was in those emails. Oh well, it was probably nothing, right? They were probably just low on disk space or something. We can take her on her word, right?
Deleting emails seems trivial in that light.
But, how can you say that without direct knowledge of what was in the emails?
I dislike Trump but seriously just because he's the Republican candidate should not mean you are willing to overlook this kind of crap.
I can't stand that attitude, c'mon. "The second most disliked candidate in presidential polling history is corrupt as hell, so I guess we have to vote for the single most disliked candidate in presidential polling history."
No, you do not have to settle for someone you hate. Instead you can cast a vote for a smaller party, there is at least one on the ballet in all 50 states, and count your vote as a protest vote against the two-party system if you really don't believe someone in the smaller parties actually does represent your beliefs better (there's an argument to be made that a large percentage of Americans agree with the platform of the Libertarian party without knowing it).
You don't have to choose between Shitty and Shittier, vote against the entire system which would force you to choose between one of those two options while keeping the rest of the system in power.
The largest payload so far delivered, ~500kg. It hit the ground at 50+ kph.
The Curiosity rover weighed 899kg and was delivered via a soft landing, the delivery vehicle was basically hovering 25ft over the surface while it lowered the rover, waited 2 seconds to verify that the wheels were supporting weight, then severed the cables from the rover and flew 650m away to crash.
Apparently you haven't, not that it's necessary though considering his entire statement on Twitter was in the summary.
Musk knows how to get to mars with colonists.
That's not what he said. He said the spacecraft being designed is technically capable of going farther than Mars, which is why it needs a different name. That shouldn't be a massive surprise to anyone, that a spacecraft which is able to travel from Earth to Mars could also go to places other than Mars.
Slashdot Mirror
Johnson could be polling at 50% and they would still find a way to argue that he shouldn't be in the debates. The media needs to grow a set of nuts and get back to actual journalism instead of relaying the day's talking points. The 2 big parties need to be held to task for excluding other candidates from the debates, but the media won't touch that story or else their own debate access and participation and access to the candidates will be ripped away.
This is a winner take all democracy....at least separately within the two elected branches. That is the reason we have a two party system.
I don't think that's correct. Presidents have come from 5 different parties. George Washington was not a member of any political party, because they didn't exist then, and the Constitution says nothing about them either. They aren't necessary for the kind of system we have, they came about on their own. In 1832 4 parties got electoral college votes. In the next election a Democrat defeated 4 Whigs who got votes. From 1844 to 1860 either 3 or 4 parties got votes in each election. 1880 had 3 parties with votes, 1884, 1888, and 1892 each had 4, and that went on well into the 20th century. In 1912, for example, the Democratic, Progressive, Republican, Socialist, and Prohibition parties each had candidates in the election. T. Roosevelt formed the Progressive party after leaving the Republican party. In 1968 George Wallace of the American Independent party got 46 electoral votes. The last non-D/R to get electoral votes was in 1972.
After 1972 our elections look very boring. This two-party crap is a new thing for the country. It's not how the system was designed, the Ds and Rs decided to seize power and make it this way. They did that in 1988 to make sure that only they got elected.
It's not because some malign agency made it that way.
Yes it is. The malign agency is the Commission on Presidential Debates. Read the "Criticism" section of the above article. This part sounds pretty malign to me:
At a 1987 press conference announcing the commission's creation, Fahrenkopf said that the commission was not likely to include third-party candidates in debates, and Paul G. Kirk, Democratic national chairman, said he personally believed they should be excluded from the debates.
The vast majority of American electoral history is against you on this.
You have that exactly backwards. It's only the very recent history that is against 3rd parties, and it was manufactured to be this way by those in power in order for them to stay in power.
At worse, they muddy up the waters and only serve as spoilers for one of the candidates.
Considering that the country is supposed to choose between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich, hopefully they spoil both candidates.
Here's an article that has some graphics and things that show how fucked up this election cycle is:
http://www.npr.org/2016/09/21/...
I already knew this was true (although the last poll I saw had these people as a majority), that the major reason people are voting for either candidate is because they aren't the other one, they're voting against the other person instead of for the one they want.
The top concerns about each candidate are also pretty predictable. Trump supporters' biggest concern is his temperament, and Clinton supporters' biggest concern is her honesty. No surprises.
I literally laughed out loud at the last graph, and then became sad that this is the way it is:
If Trump wins, 59% of respondents will be disappointed or angry.
If Clinton wins, 49% of respondents will be disappointed or angry.
Look at the other lines in that graph though - among Trump supporters and Clinton supporters both, there is a non-zero number of people who will be disappointed if their candidate wins. Among Trump supporters there is even a non-zero number of people who will be *angry* if he wins. I don't know if those results reflect upon the intelligence of the respondents and their ability to comprehend the questions, or take into account the apparent fact that some Trump supporters are angry no matter what, but it's funny. It goes the other way too, for both groups of supporters there is a non-zero number of them who will be relived or excited if the other person wins. But according to the link to the actual study, and based on my expert analysis of the pixels in the graph, both of those results are probably within the margin of error (with the possible exception of Trump supporters who will be disappointed if he wins, which I can understand).
This election is a joke. I don't hold it against you or any of my other friends who wants to vote for Clinton or Trump, but I just can't stomach either of them and I don't like it when people try to tell me that voting for another candidate (as opposed to staying home and not voting at all, for example) is either a waste of a vote or a vote for some other candidate. Just like a lot of people are voting against one of the candidates, I'm voting against both of them.
The TL;DR school of political debate. Is it really any wonder that it's Clinton vs. Trump? People seem to like Trump because he matches their attention span, and they like Clinton because they forgot what she did.
Yes, I have a bias against someone who has shown that she is untrustworthy and dishonest based on her actions. It would be hard not to have a bias against someone like that, but you seem pretty willing to ignore it.
And it's not because people like me telling them that a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump. It's because they are both terrible candidates in their own right.
No, that's not the reason. The reason is because the entire system has been set up and run by the Democratic and Republican parties to make sure that they stay in power. That's why they call media outlets and yell at them and threaten the careers of journalists when they report negative things about their candidates or parties, it's why they deliver talking points to the media which the journalists just go on air and repeat, and it's why the media can't cover any candidate who is not a Democrat or Republican without taking flak from the 2 parties. It's why only those 2 parties are allowed to debate in prime time on TV, you can thank the Commission on Presidential Debates for that one. They set up the system with those rules to make sure that they stay in power, and the media helps them out by letting everyone know that there are only 2 candidates and that no one else a chance. And people like you happily take up the same line. After the announcement that only 2 candidates would be allowed to participate in the debate, NPR was kind enough to let Gary Johnson call in. Did you hear that? I'll forgive you if you missed it, because he was only on for about 90 seconds. She asked him to give the opening statement he would have given if he was allowed and he quickly made a case for himself, he got interrupted a few times by people trying to tell him that he really has no chance, and then they started up the music to play him off the air while he was in the middle of talking. This is one of 3 or 4 people who could even conceivably win the office of the president and they give him 90 seconds of air time with several interruptions and then play him off the air. You can't tell me that they media doesn't push the line that there are only 2 choices, and the reason they do that is because if they don't play along then they don't get interviews, they don't get debate sponsorships or get to supply moderators or get to air the debates, etc. It's a pay to play system, if the media plays along then they get the benefits from the Democratic and Republican parties, and if they don't then they get shunned. It's a pity that this country has a media that has no balls and takes all that shit, but that's the way it is.
Don't try to sit there and tell me that Gary Johnson would not be able to seriously challenge the two most disliked candidates in the history of presidential polling, because that's bullshit. But, we'll never know, will we? He doesn't get the airtime, he doesn't get the exposure, so we'll never know how people would have responded to him or how things would be different if the people taking polls listed his name first or if he was included in the televised debates. We'll never know, just like we'll never know why Clinton wanted all of her emails removed.
If you want people to take third party candidates seriously then you go find an actual popular individual who can grab votes from both the right and left sides of the country, who isn't corrupt, who garners enough respect in order to form compromises, and who has the ability to generate enough funds to run a successful national presidential campaign.
Why, just so that person can be roundly dismissed by the media and pundits on every major network while they tell everyone that this person has no chance and that you really only have 2 choices? I'd rather try to change the system. That's not going to happen if I vote for a Democrat or a Republican again. It was shameful how the media treated Sanders, he was dismissed throughout the entire process. While he was mounting his campaign and gaining ground r
Again, no third party option has any chance of winning.
And as long as the media and people like you keep trying to convince people that's true, they never will. I don't buy into it though, sorry.
Whether she broke the law or lied or whatever, she is still, by a wide wide margin, the far better option in this election.
Well, she did break the law, and she did lie, and I'm not willing to overlook that and vote for her. Is she better than Trump? Yes. But, sorry man, "better than Trump" is just not a reason to vote for someone to be the goddamn president. Seriously, the best thing that people can say about Clinton is that she is better than Trump. That's a major problem. But that doesn't stop you from trying to argue about her crimes and lies by saying that without knowledge of what she deleted (which she very obviously took pains to make sure that we don't know), we shouldn't judge her. We'll never know. Yeah, whatever, that's exactly the line she wants you to say. To me, that's enough to disqualify her. I don't want her in office doing shady shit behind everyone's back and covering it up and then saying "hey, you'll never know what I was doing so you shouldn't judge me for it." She's a lawyer, and she knows that if there's no body then she's not going to get convicted, so she's doing everything she can to get rid of the body. That's not someone I want leading the country, regardless of any opponent she faces.
Any vote for them is a vote for Trump.
That's always been such a stupid disingenuous line. It implies that those votes would automatically go for Clinton instead of the third party. That is completely wrong. Many Republicans might go third party, are you trying to suggest those are equivalent to Trump votes? Because they're fucking not. Trump DIDN'T GET THE DAMN VOTE, IT'S NOT A VOTE FOR HIM. A vote for him means that he has 1 more vote than Clinton, and that therefore Clinton needs TWO VOTES to counter that and win. She only needs one. It's not the same. Stop pushing that bullshit line and trying to convince everyone who believes your crap that they only have two choices. Let them vote for who they think represents their beliefs instead of trying to shame them or guilt them into voting for a lying criminal.
I don't know man. I would never vote for Clinton anyway, so when I'm told that I need to vote for her because the other side of the system has put up a dangerous candidate, it just seems so stupid. It seems like this is exactly how they have the system set up to work. The only way that Hillary Clinton would possibly be able to get elected is if the Republicans found someone even more detestable than her, which they have managed to do, and the real funny thing about it is that the only person that Donald Trump could conceivably beat is Hillary Clinton. This is a race to the bottom. It's a Shakespearean tragedy the likes of which we haven't seen before. George H. W. Bush is saying he's going to vote for Hillary Clinton. Keep reading that sentence until you realize that this is bizarro world that we're living in. If George H. W. Bush voting for Clinton isn't a sign that the 2 parties are so much more alike than they are different than I don't know what is.
I want off the ride. I want them to stop it so I can get off. I've had enough. I don't think they're going to stop it on their own though, there are too many people who have been in power for too long and the money is flowing like a river. The number of people who want real change are a very small minority in Congress. If they aren't going to stop it on their own, then maybe it just needs to be burned down and built again. That's Trump getting elected. It's obviously not the result that most people would want, but they aren't going to change on their own. You can't put a heroin addict in charge of a room full of heroin and leave them there and tell them not to get high, they're going to get high because they're addicted to it.
I was pleasantly surprised to see Bernie get so much support from running a campaign centered around the idea that there is too much money in politics. I also think that's the #1 problem, and I also think that is a much greater threat than Trump. Clinton to me is a perfect poster child for that threat, which is why I can't just hold my nose and vote for her. She's literally the exact problem that I want to move away from, it doesn't help me to vote for the specific problem that I'm trying to avoid. If the United States crashes and flames out in a blaze of glory, it will be because of money. It will be because so many people have their hands in the pie and everyone tries to take their share all at once and there's nothing left for anything else. Hillary Clinton is off taking 6-figure paychecks from banks for speeches which do not get disclosed, and then she turns around and says that we need to rein in and control the banks. She doesn't mean that. She's the kind of person who will negotiate a trade deal in secret, where the only reason any citizen knows anything about it is because of leaks to the press, and then she'll try to jam that down everyone's throat so that the people are bound by a law that was negotiated without their input and in fact specifically kept from them. That's not democracy. Then she's going to turn around and say she opposes that deal because of Bernie's stance. You think she means that? No, I don't think she does. I think she gets into office, passes some meaningless amendments to the deal which she'll call a victory for progressives, and then pass it and talk about what a great deal it is.
I'm just sick of it. When Candidate Obama made all of these grand speeches about privacy and made promises about government surveillance, and then he got into office and renewed the Patriot Act, I said that I wasn't going to vote for a Democrat or a Republican any more. They tricked me enough. Just because one of them has managed to nominate a dangerous candidate doesn't mean I'm going to come back to them like an abused wife. I'm done with them, they had decades to prove that they had the best interests of the country at heart and they keep showing that it's all about them. I can't do it, sorry. It sucks if Trump gets elected but even if that happens there's a silver lining - Clinton
The percentage of Muslims preferring Sharia in the US is often-cited as 51%
I feel the need to point out something else about that 51% figure. If 51% of American Muslims want sharia law, then in order for that to pass a vote America would have to be 100% Muslim.
I would say, it depends on the religion.
So we shouldn't discriminate for some religions, but we should for other religions. Who gets to make the list of which religions are allowed?
One of the major aspects of Islam is Sharia and the (world-wide) Theocracy.
Cool story. But the entire Muslim world does not live under sharia law. Even the most populous Muslim country doesn't require sharia for everyone. Some Muslim-majority countries (such as Turkey, 95% Muslim) are secular. Somehow the Muslims aren't trying to overthrow everything. Maybe you're not qualified to talk about the major aspects of their religion.
Both directly contradict the US Constitution
Right, which is why we'll never have those laws here, which is why it's stupid to keep people out on the basis that they follow a religion where you believe that they want to live under those laws. If someone wants to live under sharia they aren't going to move the US any sooner than they would move to Japan. They have a range of options available that they can choose from, from sharia for everyone to all Muslim and no sharia.
For its higher level of living — "it is the economy, stupid".
Oh. So their religion teaches them that they can sacrifice their beliefs if they earn more money? You've studied a brand of Islam that I'm not very familiar with, but I'm glad that you're here to educate me about what's important to Muslims. Apparently they all want to live under sharia law, unless the economy there sucks, then they'll go live somewhere that is diametrically opposed to sharia and would violently resist it, but maybe they could make it happen anyway.
The percentage of Muslims preferring Sharia in the US is often-cited as 51%.
By who, you?
The problem is real...
Is it? Let's assume that 51% figure is accurate, for the sake of discussion. There are around 3.3 million Muslims living in the US. If 51% of them want sharia law, then about 1.6 million people in the US want sharia law. There are around 320 million people living in the US. My calculator tells me that about 0.52% of the US population wants to see sharia law here. Now, I don't have numbers right in front of me which say how many people in the US would vote against sharia law, but I think the problem is less real than you would like to believe.
Absent a coherent religion of some kind, the void is filled by dark superstitions (think "bad omens", witch-burning, and black cat-chasing), that are worse than even Islam.
That's one of the stupidest things I've read.
Tell me, do you believe that earthquakes and volcano eruptions are caused by vengeful gods, do you think there's an angry god shaking the earth and making fire shoot out of mountains? Because I don't believe that. And I have to say, that my lack of belief in a supernatural reason for things like earthquakes and volcanoes somehow did not get replaced with witchcraft and black cats. I actually think there's a scientific reason for it, believe it or not. I don't reach for a millennium-old book to teach me about things that we've only learned over the last couple hundred years. We aren't the nomadic tribal people that used to need a book of morals to keep everyone from killing each other or dying because they ate shellfish that was sitting out for a day because they didn't know that micro-organisms existed. It's pretty obvious that you shouldn't kill or steal from people. If you require the threat of divine punishment, or the promise of divine reward, to keep you from doing things that you know are wrong then I think you're the problem. So maybe you're right, maybe anyone who believes in that kind of crap should be kept out of the country.
You just don't like the fact that someone isn't seeing Clinton as the traitorous uber criminal that you think she is.
See what I mean about your imagination? You have a bias in favor of Clinton where you think that she would be qualified to lead the country, even though she preferred to violate law by deleting her communications instead of letting people see what the content was. You're also assuming what I think about her. She's not a traitor, she's just corrupt.
I'm actually inclined to agree with your sentiment. If anyone expressing a sincere religious belief were denied entry, I think that our country would be better for it. I don't think that's in keeping with the ideals that we claim to hold, but I do think our country would see a net positive if we simply denied entry to anyone who checked any box other than "None" under the religion question.
That federal protection applies to US citizens and residents. It is not applicable to those seeking to move in.
So would you say that denying entry to people based on their religion is in line with American ideals? In other words, would you consider it to be an "American" thing to do, as opposed to un-American?
such as a belief, that the only just and acceptable way of life is under a Theocracy.
If people believed that then I would wonder why they would voluntarily move to a country that is not a Theocracy. That would seem to be against their beliefs.
it has nothing to do with racism.
Discriminating based on race has nothing to do with discriminating based on religion. They're both discrimination, they're even both federally-protected classes, but really they have nothing to do with each other. Just like a board made of pine has nothing in common with a board made of cedar.
The other thing we know is that when you start from hating Clinton first and proceed from there, every conspiracy is as good as a fact.
That's really not that far off. When someone has had her credibility questioned for years, and she knows that, and she still decides to delete things which by law should have been saved, you have to wonder why she isn't just willing to come clean and let people see that she has nothing to hide. Again, they made the decision that deleting everything and dealing with the fallout from that was a better option than letting people see the content of the emails. I'm not suggesting anything about what was in the emails, but if I had a reputation like hers for dishonesty and I was trying to impress an entire country of voters I wouldn't want to give them any more reasons to think I'm dishonest unless that outcome is better than letting them see what I was doing. She's not a stupid woman, she weighed the risks and made the choice to deal with the fallout from deleting the emails rather than allow them to be seen.
Right, you're going to ignore the actions of one person because you don't like what another guy says, even though he can't even go several days without directly contradicting himself. You're going to assume that he's being straight-up and honest with what he says and that he means everything, while ignoring and minimizing the actions of the other person. Like I said, you're being disingenuous, your bias is clear, your mind is already made up regardless of what anyone says or does, but might as well deny your imagination anyway.
But presumably the swing, potential 3rd party vote this year is left-of-center Sanders supporters who basically (grudgingly) accept that the Clinton/Democratic platform is a pretty good approximation of Sanders' 'pull the Dems to the left' goal at the start of his campaign.
Actually assuming that Clinton would do anything that she promises in order to get elected is lunacy.
voting for a candidate that they dislike and/or distrust is worse than having a candidate they seriously dislike and distrust actually win.
But I seriously dislike and distrust Clinton.
Okay kids, it's not about how you feel - it's about what you want to happen
What I want to happen is that we elect a leader who isn't blatantly corrupt. It's kind of a pipe dream, I know, but that's what I want to happen. So it doesn't really help my goal if I go and specifically vote for someone who is corrupt.
probably some that she's glad to have been 'forced' to embrace.
Ha. You're a funny guy, I like you.
Yes, the two party system is a problem. No, voting for 3rd party spoilers within the 2 party system will not fix it.
It's not about voting for "spoilers", and calling a legitimate candidate a spoiler is a symptom of the problem. I'm not going to vote for the system to continue, sorry but I'm just not going to do that. I'm not going to play their idiotic game where they counter the single most disliked candidate in presidential polling history with the second most disliked candidate in presidential polling history and then come whining to me about how I need to vote for them to stop the catastrophe that they could have clearly avoided if they just hadn't nominated the goddamn second most disliked candidate in presidential polling history like she has some ordained right to the office of president. I'm not going to do it. If their actual goal was just to defeat Trump then there are a ton of candidates who would have no problem doing that, why should I feel obligated to vote for the candidate they chose who comes with a mountain of baggage and many very serious questions about her trust and credibility? I'm not going to play the game. I'm done, I'm going to vote for a smaller candidate and against the two-party system and have a clear conscience when I leave the poll. Expecting Democrats and Republicans to mount any serious effort to fix their own system is stupid, it's literally stupid. I'm not going to leave it up to them, neither of them deserve my vote. I'm voting for someone who would actually change the system instead of buying into it.
my job is to simply plant reasonable doubt about his
My mistake, I thought you were trying to have a rational debate. I didn't realize you were just trolling the other guy.
Technically right is the best kind of right
Haha, yeah it sure is, and totally makes your point very well. "The person I support said that 1.7 billion people who belong to a certain religion should not be allowed entry into the country based solely on that fact. Since religion is not a race, this is not racism, therefore the person I support totally does not have the same moral and ethical failings that racists have because he is discriminating against a large percentage of the world's population based on their religion instead of their race, which is totally different thinking and has nothing in common with any other form of bigotry or irrational intolerance."
I would award you a debate point, but you already pointed out that you're just here to insert FUD into other peoples' arguments.
it was probably not much of anything.
Then why did they feel the need to delete it?
Or, maybe you need a more explicit question that spells it out:
What could have been in the emails where they knew that getting caught deleting everything and dealing with the fallout from that was a better outcome than dealing with the content of the emails?
They made a choice. They made a calculated choice based on risk that getting caught deleting everything and having to talk about what they don't remember and reminding everyone that there's no proof and that you should just keep on trusting the Clinton machine (in the middle of her presidential campaign) was a better option and would hurt Hillary's brand less than if people saw what she was sending through email on a server that was not under the control of government.
And you're trying to suggest that they were talking about Boehner being drunk. They counted on people like you, you know. When they were making their decisions they were saying "we know that there are a lot of useful idiots out there who will help us, they will say stupid shit and make stupid comparisons to get people to forget and help us sweep everything under the rug". That's you they were talking about, you're the useful idiot that they counted on when they made the decision that deleting everything was going to result in less serious or fewer consequences. I hope you're at least getting compensated and not just doing that because you'd like to see people like her in charge of the country.
You're being very disingenuous about this. For example, given the list of things that we do know about Clinton as partially listed above, and also considering her behavior in the past, if I am a single-issue voter where I believe that the only thing at this point that matters is that people who are corrupt are not in charge of our country, then isn't Clinton worse than Trump? Your view of whom is better than the other is completely colored by your own biases or what you think the major threats to this country are, but you're still willing to state your opinions like they're facts.
Facts > speculation
And where do "your opinions" fall on that spectrum? Why should I care what you think? Just because you really believe something doesn't make it a fact.
But not many people are very rational these days.
No kidding. You're a prime example, but the problem with people like you is that you're just sure you're right. You don't even consider your own imagination to be part of the problem, instead you're sure that you're part of the solution and you have all the answers.
Sorry pal, but I'm not going to vote for someone who is blatantly corrupt to lead our country and then act like I'm doing The Right Thing (tm). I'm also not going to vote for Trump.
I did ask for actual quotes didn't I? And yet, you chose to paraphrase...
What Trump actually said, was that the judge ... may have a conflict of interest.
I like how you call him out for paraphrasing Trump, and then follow that up by paraphrasing Trump.
Even so, if part of your argument involves bringing up the definition of racism as a way to claim that someone isn't technically racist, then you might want to consider choosing another battle to fight.
Whatever you do, one thing is extremely important. Make sure that you either vote for a Democrat, or a Republican. It's vitally important that you do so. There aren't any other options. If you want proof, just look at any media story. They will helpfully tell you not only that there aren't any other options, but they will even tell you who they predict to win and what people are thinking right now. But even though they might tell you that more than half of voters dislike both candidates, still, the system depends on you voting for one of those two. Smaller parties will not be able to win, there's no reason to even consider casting a vote for any party which does not control the Commission on Presidential Debates. If you voted for another party the entire system, including your personal finances, will probably collapse. Do your patriotic duty and vote for a Democrat or Republican, it doesn't particularly matter which one, and remember, next time we'll probably give you better choices so just suck it up and wait until then.
Don't worry, we'll change, it will be better next time, we promise we won't abuse you again.
Without direct knowledge what was in those emails
Man, if only we had direct knowledge of what was in those emails. Oh well, it was probably nothing, right? They were probably just low on disk space or something. We can take her on her word, right?
Deleting emails seems trivial in that light.
But, how can you say that without direct knowledge of what was in the emails?
I dislike Trump but seriously just because he's the Republican candidate should not mean you are willing to overlook this kind of crap.
I can't stand that attitude, c'mon. "The second most disliked candidate in presidential polling history is corrupt as hell, so I guess we have to vote for the single most disliked candidate in presidential polling history."
No, you do not have to settle for someone you hate. Instead you can cast a vote for a smaller party, there is at least one on the ballet in all 50 states, and count your vote as a protest vote against the two-party system if you really don't believe someone in the smaller parties actually does represent your beliefs better (there's an argument to be made that a large percentage of Americans agree with the platform of the Libertarian party without knowing it).
You don't have to choose between Shitty and Shittier, vote against the entire system which would force you to choose between one of those two options while keeping the rest of the system in power.
The largest payload so far delivered, ~500kg. It hit the ground at 50+ kph.
The Curiosity rover weighed 899kg and was delivered via a soft landing, the delivery vehicle was basically hovering 25ft over the surface while it lowered the rover, waited 2 seconds to verify that the wheels were supporting weight, then severed the cables from the rover and flew 650m away to crash.
Apparently you have read the article.
Apparently you haven't, not that it's necessary though considering his entire statement on Twitter was in the summary.
Musk knows how to get to mars with colonists.
That's not what he said. He said the spacecraft being designed is technically capable of going farther than Mars, which is why it needs a different name. That shouldn't be a massive surprise to anyone, that a spacecraft which is able to travel from Earth to Mars could also go to places other than Mars.