Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would not underestimate the Bernie supporters who consider the hilldebeast too dishonest and unethical to vote for.
Yeah but I think most Bernie voters also know that the Green Party won't be on the majority of the ballots so they probably won't truly muster a ton of support behind her.
Libertarians have no chance at anything. To me, they are simply another group of Democrats that can't admit their policies are failures. So they want to hatch on to Republican fiscal policies while still wanting to be liberal or enact liberal laws. It doesn't work.
Except these are 2 ex-republican governors who are "latching" on to democratic social policy.
I'm pretty sure they have been on all 50 states for 3 consecutive elections. I thought they were not on Oklahoma and Michigan in 2012, and possibly in 2008 as well.
I'm on the fence about Johnson, he's a great guy and was a great governor. He's a better choice then Trump or Clinton, but the Libertarian Party makes me nervous to say the least. If it was a more centrist party then it would be an easy pick for me. But so many of their candidates are crazy.
As a liberal, Libertarian support for mass immigration, and completely pure, neoliberal free trade is a little bit scary. I support these things to an extent, but we shouldn't let the market completely dictate our governmental policy.
Other than that, there is no country on earth where these policies have been tried and have worked. The idea that "everyone can just do what they want" may sound appealing to Republicans, but we would truely be dismantling our government at that point, damaging our economy.
The last thing to remember is that markets are not perfectly efficient so we need a strong safety net.
Libertarians have no chance at anything. To me, they are simply another group of Democrats that can't admit their policies are failures. So they want to hatch on to Republican fiscal policies while still wanting to be liberal or enact liberal laws. It doesn't work.
You don't really understand the LP, and that's the root of their problem, most people are not aware of their platform. Best to get it straight from the source, lp.org, rather than a partisan interpretation. Yes they are fiscally conservative, but because their platform believes the government doesn't belong and isn't constitutionally allowed to mandate or govern things that belong to the sovereignty of the state. As far as enacting laws, again, they are about getting government out of your life, not enacting more laws that need to be enforced by the federal government and the bureaucratic empires they tend to build.
I would not underestimate the Bernie supporters who consider the hilldebeast too dishonest and unethical to vote for.
The Bernie supporters will largely decide the winner of this election.
They are far more likely to support Trump or Stein than Johnson.
Johnson appeals to virtuallly nobody, and his poll numbers are grossly
inflated temporarily as some are still angry Trump won the GOP.
He will get well under 5%.
Johnson does not appeal to the Bernie crowd, because he's for a major
hair-clipping of the welfare state. He's against all socialist programs
(unlike Bernie and Trump), and against protectionist trade (unlike Bernie and Trump).
Stein is temporarily underrepresented because Bernie is still in the polls
but also because Stein is left out of many polls (that is because the media
doesn't want you to know another woman is in the race !)
She will gain and match Johnson.
Stein makes a lot more sense than Johnson, to anyone capable of logically
deducing cause and effect. The reasonable outcome of Johnson's irresponsible
policies is utter ruin for this country.
“In 1980, most people assumed that when liberal Republican John Anderson ran as an independent, he would hurt Reagan,” says Bimes. “But post-election analysis showed that he actually hurt Carter more by giving anti-Reagan Republicans a place to cast their votes instead of having to vote for Carter.”
I was around back then and remember that election. Nobody thought that Anderson would hurt Reagan. Anderson was more liberal than the Dem candidate and was clearly going to draw votes from Democrats.
As a liberal, Libertarian support for mass immigration, and completely pure, neoliberal free trade is a little bit scary. I support these things to an extent, but we shouldn't let the market completely dictate our governmental policy.
Other than that, there is no country on earth where these policies have been tried and have worked. The idea that "everyone can just do what they want" may sound appealing to Republicans, but we would truely be dismantling our government at that point, damaging our economy.
The last thing to remember is that markets are not perfectly efficient so we need a strong safety net.
Correct! Libertarianism is a belief left behind in a past century. History has already proven that unrestrained capitalism causes monopolies and exploitation of workers. Their fondness for the gold standard is also a archaic belief.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
