The General Election

[Danny Bateman]

https://twitter.com/theintercept/status/758367191783862273

Fun fact: Same woman he told to "be quiet" today.

 

https://twitter.com/Dudeguyy/status/758363845383557121

 

 

[TGHusker]

 

 

 

Anybody think it's a little silly that a third party candidate has to be polling above 15% before even being invited to debates?

What's more silly than that rule is that he isn't polling at 15% yet. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!!

 

very true - need money and exposure - Maybe if he would say some real wacko bird things he'd get some free media time. Nah, I don't think any candidate would do something like that

 

You mean if he would act like a totally incompetent imbecile who is completely unqualified to be elected to the most powerful position in the world.....he may actually get elected?

 

America deserves everything it gets.

 

Yea, kind of like that!

[BigRedBuster]

 

If people would stop thinking only in terms of R and D and actually look at issues and candidates, these types of candidates would have a chance.

No, if a lot more people agreed with you on the issues then these candidates would have a chance.

 

Or rather, the "R" would become an "L" and maybe, in this alter-world the "D" is an "S" -- but people will still fall into two camps, because those who oppose the socialist agenda aren't nitpicking wings of classical liberalism all the way to November.

 

But, demonstratively, not a lot of Americans are actually libertarian. And not a lot of Americans are, apparently, actually conservative. If either of these things were true, there's an extremely obvious place for those people to jump.

 

I do rather hope it'll happen, but it hasn't yet. If it doesn't materialize by November, I hope you guys will join us in voting for Hillary because you'll have a better time fighting for libertarianism in, well, a country that hasn't empowered Trump or his voter base.

 

You are assuming everyone looks at issues and makes educated decisions.

 

I'm going off of many conversations I have had since I went down this road of casting aside the two main candidates and looking for an alternative.

When I say that, immediately people say..."well, he doesn't have a chance because nobody will vote for him". When I ask why you aren't voting for him, almost all the time I get, "because nobody else is". It is almost never an issue based conversation. It's about not being an R or a D so you don't have a chance.

[Danny Bateman]

 

If people would stop thinking only in terms of R and D and actually look at issues and candidates, these types of candidates would have a chance.

No, if a lot more people agreed with you on the issues then these candidates would have a chance.

 

Or rather, the "R" would become an "L" and maybe, in this alter-world the "D" is an "S" -- but people will still fall into two camps, because those who oppose the socialist agenda aren't nitpicking wings of classical liberalism all the way to November.

 

But, demonstratively, not a lot of Americans are actually libertarian. And not a lot of Americans are, apparently, actually conservative. If either of these things were true, there's an extremely obvious place for those people to jump.

 

I do rather hope it'll happen, but it hasn't yet. If it doesn't materialize by November, I hope you guys will join us in voting for Hillary because you'll have a better time fighting for libertarianism in, well, a country that hasn't empowered Trump or his voter base.

 

 

Third-party candidates tend to actually underwhelm their stated support right now come election day. It's kind of a function of the culture we have here, that you two are discussing, whereby most people eventually feel pulled to one of the two main parties.

 

13% or whatever he's at now may be the high water mark for Johnson this year. Those polls tend to come down as we edge towards November, and are often more accurate at that point. Now, it is a unique election, with two uniquely polarizing major party candidates, so who knows. Perot did pull 18.3% in 1992.

 

Johnson doing so well is a function of the other two candidates, most certainly not increased support for Libertarian policies. I completely agree.

 

I'll eat a hat if Jill Stein gets above 1 or 2 percent.

 

But, good lord, let's hope most of their vote is localized in non-swing states. We don't need another election delivered by hanging chads. W looks downright benevolent compared to a Trump victory at this point...

[cm husker]

 

 

Why isn't that treason?

 

And, that's a very serious question.

 

 

Treason doesn't really work the way it should. Edward Snowden is guilty of treason. He should be a national hero.

That's an insane assessment of his actions. He, and no one person, should have the unilateral right to determine classification of state secrets.

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

If people would stop thinking only in terms of R and D and actually look at issues and candidates, these types of candidates would have a chance.

No, if a lot more people agreed with you on the issues then these candidates would have a chance.

 

Or rather, the "R" would become an "L" and maybe, in this alter-world the "D" is an "S" -- but people will still fall into two camps, because those who oppose the socialist agenda aren't nitpicking wings of classical liberalism all the way to November.

 

But, demonstratively, not a lot of Americans are actually libertarian. And not a lot of Americans are, apparently, actually conservative. If either of these things were true, there's an extremely obvious place for those people to jump.

 

I do rather hope it'll happen, but it hasn't yet. If it doesn't materialize by November, I hope you guys will join us in voting for Hillary because you'll have a better time fighting for libertarianism in, well, a country that hasn't empowered Trump or his voter base.

 

You are assuming everyone looks at issues and makes educated decisions.

 

I'm going off of many conversations I have had since I went down this road of casting aside the two main candidates and looking for an alternative.

When I say that, immediately people say..."well, he doesn't have a chance because nobody will vote for him". When I ask why you aren't voting for him, almost all the time I get, "because nobody else is". It is almost never an issue based conversation. It's about not being an R or a D so you don't have a chance.

 

 

Unfortunately, we're giving too much credit to a lot of voters.'

 

The well read ones who take is very seriously will sit down and assess candidates and their stances on issues and policy.

 

A lot of Americans watch some news, maybe catch the debates, and then vote D or R. They don't have time for the minutiae or the soul-searching. It's a difficult culture to change.

[Landlord]

 

 

Why isn't that treason?

 

And, that's a very serious question.

 

 

Treason doesn't really work the way it should. Edward Snowden is guilty of treason. He should be a national hero.

That's an insane assessment of his actions. He, and no one person, should have the unilateral right to determine classification of state secrets.

 

 

 

Fair rebuttal. Maybe I should have worded it as, "Snowden's actions were more patriotic than they were treasonous"

[zoogs]

You are assuming everyone looks at issues and makes educated decisions.

And you are assuming that if only they did, they'd vote for various minor parties catering to niche slices of the electorate.

 

I'm sure you know these people better than I do, but I don't think you're giving their argument enough credit. The reality is this country has shaped itself into these two coalitions. No, the negotiated party platforms don't represent every wing of each coalition equally well, and in some cases it barely represents them at all. Nonetheless, those are the options we as voters with particular preferences in a country where millions of other people have different ones, are left with.

 

If these coalitions realigned, then we'd all have a different decision calculus. That seems completely fair.

 

For example: traditionally, libertarians probably voted for Republican candidates. That would've been thinking about issues, not abandoning their views, but taking a strategic view of the choices that existed.

[Danny Bateman]

MAKE AMERICA OUTSOURCE AGAIN!

 

[HuskerNation1]

I've been traveling all day and have not had a chance to post, but it's comical looking at some of the posts on here about Trump's Russian remarks in his ONE-HOUR press conference. First off, when was the last time Hillary gave a lengthy press conference. Trump timed this press conference to steal some of the thunder from the DNC, and the media is besides itself with his request of the Russians to find Hillary's 33,000 deleted emails. For those that think Trump is a dumb guy, he's a master at manipulating the media. I spent the entire GOP primary process opposed to his antics and approach and by the end realized he's campaigning in a totally different way than any of us are accustomed to. Moreover, its puts the email scandal back in the news, and as Charles Krauthammer and others have pointed out, the Dems fell right into his trap: (Note-Krauthammer is not a huge Trump fan and never has been)

 

 

Instead of talking about Bill's speech last night, we are all now talking about Wikileaks and tying it to Hillary's email scandal. If Russia actually had such emails, it would be damaging for Hillary in potentially two ways:

 

1. It would require that all the emails were about wedding planning and completely unimportant information.

 

2. It would show that Hillary did compromise our country's best interests by allowing hackers into her private email server.

[HuskerNation1]

In other news, it looks like Bernie is once again leaving the Democratic Party and classifying himself as an Independent. He ran as a Democratic socialist for POTUS but I'm sure the fact that the Democratic party completely screwed him over makes him want to run as far away as possible from the word "Democrat."

 

http://heatst.com/politics/bernie-sanders-leaves-the-democratic-party/

[NM11046]

In other news, it looks like Bernie is once again leaving the Democratic Party and classifying himself as an Independent. He ran as a Democratic socialist for POTUS but I'm sure the fact that the Democratic party completely screwed him over makes him want to run as far away as possible from the word "Democrat."

 

http://heatst.com/politics/bernie-sanders-leaves-the-democratic-party/

So BNL- I'm assuming seeing the pattern and volume of your posts that your are a lifelong Dem? Guessing you have a Hillary bumpersticker on the car?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

So we're giving Trump credit for diverting media attention away from his bullsh#t qualifications and praising him because he's a master manipulator and that's the kind of person we want running this country?

[Danny Bateman]

So we're giving Trump credit for diverting media attention away from his bullsh#t qualifications and praising him because he's a master manipulator and that's the kind of person we want running this country?

 

I... don't think you understand.

 

He'll get the BEST deals.

 

Believe me.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

 

You are assuming everyone looks at issues and makes educated decisions.

And you are assuming that if only they did, they'd vote for various minor parties catering to niche slices of the electorate.

 

I'm sure you know these people better than I do, but I don't think you're giving their argument enough credit. The reality is this country has shaped itself into these two coalitions. No, the negotiated party platforms don't represent every wing of each coalition equally well, and in some cases it barely represents them at all. Nonetheless, those are the options we as voters with particular preferences in a country where millions of other people have different ones, are left with.

 

If these coalitions realigned, then we'd all have a different decision calculus. That seems completely fair.

 

For example: traditionally, libertarians probably voted for Republican candidates. That would've been thinking about issues, not abandoning their views, but taking a strategic view of the choices that existed.

 

 

I don't think he's assuming that, though. I would think that, if more people had the resources/time to research/vet each candidate, you'd probably see some people switch political affiliation.

 

The problem--totally understandable--is that most people don't know about the third party options because they're not getting as much coverage as the establishment candidates. They're not getting as much coverage as the establishment candidates because not many people support/don't know about the third party options.

 

As it stands, the only way a third party candidate can gain traction is if they're a mainstream name or are able to muster a groundswell of support as an unknown commodity. But, as it stands, the path most politicians see to the White House goes through either the Republican or Democratic party and so you won't see some of candidates with the aforementioned skills.