That was my point... I was using sarcasm, but that was my point. We aren't likely to get into a full-blown war with anyone who has an air force that isn't bested by the wing of a single US aircraft carrier. I think it is still prudent to have an effective deterrent force against a China or Russia, but it would be silly to focus exclusively on that.
If conflict with Russia ever gets to the point where A-10s are necessary on Russian soil, we're already glowing and the suitability of the A-10 would not be a significant problem.
Since A-10s need a forward base, the presumption is that you have the enemy air force taken care of before they even enter the air. They wouldn't do well at all against a Mig of any variety. If there are Migs flying around, you aren't setting up a forward air base. F35s are important for that initial phase of setting up air superiority.
I've come to the conclusion that the big two no longer represent my issues on the points that are most important to me. When I agree on a point with one of the major parties, it's typically on some wedge issue which doesn't seem quite as important. Watching them self-destruct has been more fun than anxiety-inducing. At the end of the day, I wouldn't feel good coming out of the voting booth contributing to either Trump or Clinton's vote count.
How so? It counts as revenue, does it not? It might not help the balance sheet if it's offset by liabilities, but I don't see why it doesn't improve their statement of cash flow.
Most states are pretty firmly in one camp or the other, and only in a handful of swing states will such thin margins even be considered.
The flipside to this is that, unless you live in a swing state, your vote doesn't matter. So if you are throwing your vote away anyhow, why not on someone who best aligns with your own interests?
I don't think you are giving Johnson a fair shake. Your first objection applies to all four national candidates. Your second criticism, that he's not informed, probably comes from sound bites you saw about his "Allepo moment", and then a few days later when he had a similar episode when asked about a foreign leader. I think you'll find that these two incidents are the exception and not the rule - but he does seem to freeze up when put on the spot at times. Sometimes he is visibly nervous. If he were auditioning for an acting gig, I'd be a lot more worried, but he's running for an administrative position. For that, he has two terms as governor to judge him on his merits.
Another thing to keep in mind: there is a small (and neither Clinton nor Trump gets to 270, sending the selection of the President to the House of Representatives.
That's sort of a best case scenario that would be extremely entertaining.
He had much better numbers than either Johnson or Stein and even he got soundly trounced.
He was running below Johnson heading into the first debate, which the major candidates unwisely invited him to. He also had millions to spend on prime time TV infomercials.
Johnson is woefully ignorant on foreign affairs
He's certainly not as strong as a former Secretary of State! I mean, few people alive are going to have as much expertise as Hillary in that department. But his brain farts notwithstanding, he was at least a governor from a border state. He's probably more qualified than Bill Clinton was in this area. I mean, this is why there is a Secretary of State - the president doesn't need to be an expert on all things. He could certainly smack Hillary around on immigration.
So I'm voting strategically.
Yes, but in the process you are supporting the status quo. That's fine if you think it is your best option, but I think we are on the wrong path in the areas of foreign policy, debt, civil liberties (especially domestic spying and the dual wars on drugs and terror), corporate and union money in politics, "free trade" rather than "free markets", etc. Hillary is essentially a living embodiment of the establishment.
And it's ignorant to not recognize and understand that.
Voting for a third party candidate who might get 2% of the vote is a waste of time.
The practical difference is exactly the same as voting for Trump in California. It's pointless and a waste of time, but millions will still do it. He can't win in CA - it's effectively a one-party state as far as presidential politics go and it's winner-take-all to boot.
There are far better ways to make yourself heard than through a protest vote for a fringe candidate.
I'd be terrible in politics, but I did donate money and if the Libertarians get enough votes they'll be marginally less "fringe" next time around, qualifying for federal funds and automatic ballot access.
It's an inevitable function of how our voting system is set up.
It's only set up that way because we keep voting for people who like it the way it is.
In this election Hillary is clearly the least worst option when the alternative is Trump
I'll agree that she's by far the more qualified candidate. But I'm not sure the country would be better off in the long term with her as president. Trump would, I think, be a disaster and would result in a lot of change. Some of that change might be good. At the very least, it would be a release of some steam. Hillary will continue with the status quo, pressure will continue to build up, and the next election will be even more dangerous than this one.
I wasn't comfortable with Bernie's demagoguery and pandering to the people who think all of life's problems begin on Wall Street, but I voted for him because he had a lot of other good points (mainly on foreign affairs, protection of liberty, and his amendment to end corporate and union citizenship). Don't get too hung up on a politician trying to toe the line on turning off a block of potential votes - all the incentives are wrong for that.
"America won't survive"? If a single President can send the system down the shitter, then the system wasn't as robust as we believed. This statement is way over the top.
I'm not going to defend Trump, but you are just speculating. He might go all Ronald Reagan and delegate everything, like he has done with his business. Who knows? He has no track record to judge him on. I reckon he'd be a disaster, but not in a world-ending sense.
My point wasn't to defend Trump, but rather to point out that the problems that brought him to prominence are not going to go away with the election of Clinton. In fact, they would probably continue to get worse. Letting off some pressure now might be preferable to letting it build, that's all.
I'd argue that the forces that created the possibility of a Trump/Sanders presidency are more dangerous than those candidates individually. As such, a vote for Hillary is probably worse in the long term. At least Trump would be such a disaster that it would force change. Trump might not be back next time, but someone adept at harnessing pent-up frustration and anger sure will be.
If you want your voice heard, you should probably vote for the person who you align with best.
Or to put it another way, you wouldn't tell a Trump voter in Massachusetts not to vote. Trump has a zero percent chance of winning in Massachusetts, but millions will still vote for him even though their vote is "wasted". You can say the same thing about Hillary voters in much of the south. Their candidate can't win in their state, but they'll still go out to the polls and make their voice heard.
The two-party lock-in is pure rhetorical garbage. I can't in good conscience vote for a completely unqualified demagogue or someone who is the closest thing to a living embodiment of the establishment.
I'm not a fan of Stein, but she seems like a reasonable alternative if you liked what Bernie was saying, and she's definitely not a career politician if that's a turn-off. She has no experience, but neither does Trump. Johnson is a pretty solid ticket. Yeah, he was a Republican governor, but in a Democratic state. And he apparently was not polarizing, getting elected to a second term and working hand-in-hand with the Democratic legislature to leave the state in good shape. His running mate Weld has a similar story in Massachusetts.
Your ire is directed to the wrong countries. The USA has been reducing it's nuclear stockpile since the 70s. Russia since the late 80s. The same is true of France, the UK - hell, even China has been stable since the 80s. The countries that you criticize have been doing the right thing, more or less, for decades. India, Pakistan, and North Korea are the ones building new capacity. Modernizing existing capacity is necessary - you can't very well maintain 50-year-old missiles in perpetuity.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the AC will function. But the system is not designed to contain flammable gas, so there's that...
That was my point... I was using sarcasm, but that was my point. We aren't likely to get into a full-blown war with anyone who has an air force that isn't bested by the wing of a single US aircraft carrier. I think it is still prudent to have an effective deterrent force against a China or Russia, but it would be silly to focus exclusively on that.
If conflict with Russia ever gets to the point where A-10s are necessary on Russian soil, we're already glowing and the suitability of the A-10 would not be a significant problem.
Since A-10s need a forward base, the presumption is that you have the enemy air force taken care of before they even enter the air. They wouldn't do well at all against a Mig of any variety. If there are Migs flying around, you aren't setting up a forward air base. F35s are important for that initial phase of setting up air superiority.
That'll really hurt us when we go to war with the Soviet Union rather than the people we've been fighting for the last 35 years.
Anyway, if the other side still has an air force, you can't exactly have an effective armored ground campaign.
Without the skills to use the most prevalent OS in the world
You are right! Those MS-DOS skills I learned in high school sure do come in handy!
I've come to the conclusion that the big two no longer represent my issues on the points that are most important to me. When I agree on a point with one of the major parties, it's typically on some wedge issue which doesn't seem quite as important. Watching them self-destruct has been more fun than anxiety-inducing. At the end of the day, I wouldn't feel good coming out of the voting booth contributing to either Trump or Clinton's vote count.
Thanks. That's an honest to goodness informative post.
How so? It counts as revenue, does it not? It might not help the balance sheet if it's offset by liabilities, but I don't see why it doesn't improve their statement of cash flow.
Most states are pretty firmly in one camp or the other, and only in a handful of swing states will such thin margins even be considered.
The flipside to this is that, unless you live in a swing state, your vote doesn't matter. So if you are throwing your vote away anyhow, why not on someone who best aligns with your own interests?
I don't think you are giving Johnson a fair shake. Your first objection applies to all four national candidates. Your second criticism, that he's not informed, probably comes from sound bites you saw about his "Allepo moment", and then a few days later when he had a similar episode when asked about a foreign leader. I think you'll find that these two incidents are the exception and not the rule - but he does seem to freeze up when put on the spot at times. Sometimes he is visibly nervous. If he were auditioning for an acting gig, I'd be a lot more worried, but he's running for an administrative position. For that, he has two terms as governor to judge him on his merits.
Another thing to keep in mind: there is a small (and neither Clinton nor Trump gets to 270, sending the selection of the President to the House of Representatives.
That's sort of a best case scenario that would be extremely entertaining.
And it's also a time-honored method to FUD with "wasting your vote" when you are worried that the third party candidate will draw from your own.
He had much better numbers than either Johnson or Stein and even he got soundly trounced.
He was running below Johnson heading into the first debate, which the major candidates unwisely invited him to. He also had millions to spend on prime time TV infomercials.
Johnson is woefully ignorant on foreign affairs
He's certainly not as strong as a former Secretary of State! I mean, few people alive are going to have as much expertise as Hillary in that department. But his brain farts notwithstanding, he was at least a governor from a border state. He's probably more qualified than Bill Clinton was in this area. I mean, this is why there is a Secretary of State - the president doesn't need to be an expert on all things. He could certainly smack Hillary around on immigration.
So I'm voting strategically.
Yes, but in the process you are supporting the status quo. That's fine if you think it is your best option, but I think we are on the wrong path in the areas of foreign policy, debt, civil liberties (especially domestic spying and the dual wars on drugs and terror), corporate and union money in politics, "free trade" rather than "free markets", etc. Hillary is essentially a living embodiment of the establishment.
And it's ignorant to not recognize and understand that.
That's not very nice.
Voting for a third party candidate who might get 2% of the vote is a waste of time.
The practical difference is exactly the same as voting for Trump in California. It's pointless and a waste of time, but millions will still do it. He can't win in CA - it's effectively a one-party state as far as presidential politics go and it's winner-take-all to boot.
There are far better ways to make yourself heard than through a protest vote for a fringe candidate.
I'd be terrible in politics, but I did donate money and if the Libertarians get enough votes they'll be marginally less "fringe" next time around, qualifying for federal funds and automatic ballot access.
It's an inevitable function of how our voting system is set up.
It's only set up that way because we keep voting for people who like it the way it is.
In this election Hillary is clearly the least worst option when the alternative is Trump
I'll agree that she's by far the more qualified candidate. But I'm not sure the country would be better off in the long term with her as president. Trump would, I think, be a disaster and would result in a lot of change. Some of that change might be good. At the very least, it would be a release of some steam. Hillary will continue with the status quo, pressure will continue to build up, and the next election will be even more dangerous than this one.
I wasn't comfortable with Bernie's demagoguery and pandering to the people who think all of life's problems begin on Wall Street, but I voted for him because he had a lot of other good points (mainly on foreign affairs, protection of liberty, and his amendment to end corporate and union citizenship). Don't get too hung up on a politician trying to toe the line on turning off a block of potential votes - all the incentives are wrong for that.
"America won't survive"? If a single President can send the system down the shitter, then the system wasn't as robust as we believed. This statement is way over the top.
Well, we'll see but that seems highly unlikely. I've been wrong about Trump every single time, though, so don't listen to me :)
I'm not going to defend Trump, but you are just speculating. He might go all Ronald Reagan and delegate everything, like he has done with his business. Who knows? He has no track record to judge him on. I reckon he'd be a disaster, but not in a world-ending sense.
My point wasn't to defend Trump, but rather to point out that the problems that brought him to prominence are not going to go away with the election of Clinton. In fact, they would probably continue to get worse. Letting off some pressure now might be preferable to letting it build, that's all.
My mistake - I was mislead by her "48 states" claim, which upon looking into counts write-ins.
could very well end democracy.
I'd argue that the forces that created the possibility of a Trump/Sanders presidency are more dangerous than those candidates individually. As such, a vote for Hillary is probably worse in the long term. At least Trump would be such a disaster that it would force change. Trump might not be back next time, but someone adept at harnessing pent-up frustration and anger sure will be.
If you want your voice heard, you should probably vote for the person who you align with best.
Or to put it another way, you wouldn't tell a Trump voter in Massachusetts not to vote. Trump has a zero percent chance of winning in Massachusetts, but millions will still vote for him even though their vote is "wasted". You can say the same thing about Hillary voters in much of the south. Their candidate can't win in their state, but they'll still go out to the polls and make their voice heard.
The two-party lock-in is pure rhetorical garbage. I can't in good conscience vote for a completely unqualified demagogue or someone who is the closest thing to a living embodiment of the establishment.
I'm not a fan of Stein, but she seems like a reasonable alternative if you liked what Bernie was saying, and she's definitely not a career politician if that's a turn-off. She has no experience, but neither does Trump. Johnson is a pretty solid ticket. Yeah, he was a Republican governor, but in a Democratic state. And he apparently was not polarizing, getting elected to a second term and working hand-in-hand with the Democratic legislature to leave the state in good shape. His running mate Weld has a similar story in Massachusetts.
I was only counting people on all 50 ballots, but yeah other states might have more regional candidates.
Your ire is directed to the wrong countries. The USA has been reducing it's nuclear stockpile since the 70s. Russia since the late 80s. The same is true of France, the UK - hell, even China has been stable since the 80s. The countries that you criticize have been doing the right thing, more or less, for decades. India, Pakistan, and North Korea are the ones building new capacity. Modernizing existing capacity is necessary - you can't very well maintain 50-year-old missiles in perpetuity.
We have 4 candidates.