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.
We've been duped by the two-party platform, which is now dying a slow and ugly death in 2016. It's party before country on both sides of the isle.
It's a sad state of affairs, but it was a matter of time before it happened. The United States is a country where the majority of voters are low-info types, and lack the critical thinking skills to make informed decisions.
"Lesser of two evils" has gotten us exactly where we are. I'll never do it again. I'll vote third party or write someone in, and continue hoarding while being entertained by the Springer show.
I'd love to vote third party to stick it to The Man and fight "the machine" too, the problem is the third party system is very fractured in America. In 2000, we had the Green Party with Nader as the nominee as the most successful at 2.74%, Buchanan as the Reform Party nominee get .43%, Browne as the Libertarian Party nominee at 0.36% and Constitution, National Law and other parties share the remaining 0.22% of the vote. In 2004 Nader ran on his own and got nearly .4% of the vote, Badnarik for the Libertarian Party get .32%, Peroutka run for the Constitution Party garner .12% of the vote, Cobb for the Green Party get .1% of the vote, while the Peace and Freedom, Socialist, Socialist and other parties combine for another .08% of the vote. In 2008 we saw Nader run on his own and get 0.56% of the vote, Barr for the Libertarian Party garner .4% of the vote, Baldwin get .15% for the Constitution Party, McKinney gain .12% of the vote and another .18% going to other parties and independent candidates. In 2012 Johnson ran for the Libertarian Party getting 1% of the vote, Stein for the Green Party garner .36%, Goode get .1% for the Constitution Party, Barr get .05% of the vote for the Peace and Freedom Party, Anderson garner .03% for the Justice Party, Hoefling gain .03 for the America's Party and another .17% going to various independent candidates. For 2016, it's still early to tell but there's a lot already...
Green Party Candidates:
Darryl Cherney
Kent Mesplay
Jill Stein
Libertarian
Gary Johnson
John McAfee
American Freedom Party: Bob Whitaker
America's Party AND Constitution Party: Tom Hoefling
Independent America Party: Farley Anderson
Money Free Party: Steve Saylor
Nutrition Party: Rod Silva
Party for Socialism and Liberation: Gloria La Riva (note: also a potential Peace and Freedom Pary nominee)
Prohibition Party: James Hedges
Socialist Party USA: Mimi Soltysik
Veterans Party of America: Chris Keniston
Workers World Party: Monica Moorehead (note: also a potential Peace and Freedom Pary nominee)
Other (no declared Party)
Dan Bilzerian
Guy Anthony De Marco
Guy Schwartz
Jesse Ventura
Merlin Miller
Michael Bloomberg
Ron White
Terry Jones
Zoltan Istvan
Quite frankly having all of these third party just fractures the vote all too much. Even H. Ross Perot (the last independent third party candidate to get 10% (or more of the vote)) didn't win a state. The only time we've seen that in the last 100 years were the Dixiecrat platforms from 1948 and again 1968 that ran on one policy platforms (similar to some of the potential 2016 third parties.) We need to thin the herd of the third parties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohhwanderlust
Exactly...to me, it's like I'm being asked which I'd prefer: being stabbed to death, or burned alive? Which one do I choose??
How about I NOT be gruesomely murdered at all? I think I'll go ahead and write in that option.
The issue though is that we aren't getting murdered whether stabbed or burned. Maybe metaphorically. The issue is as I mentioned, we have a fractured system of more than one third party which divides the non-establishment vote. Until we get any credible third party that can effect the electoral map (and not in a Nader v. Gore way,) we will have to chose the lesser of two evils and that means I hold my nose (and hope I don't turn blue) and vote Democrat (if HRC gets the nomination). Hey, I hate it too but there's an old saying, "Don't hate the player, hate the game."
He wants to make sure that Muslims that are coming into our country are vented. The USA is a country of immigrants - and there's no denying that. We're all here because of our ancestors wanted to do better than they were doing in their country of origin and came to the USA... But they came here with the hopes and dreams of living here and abiding by the laws of the land - they DIDN'T WANT TO COME HERE TO KILL THOSE THAT WERE HERE ALREADY!
Trump just wants to make sure that those that come here have the same thoughts as our ancestors had - to make a better life for themselves.
And who's to say they weren't radicalized until AFTER the move? We're the Boston Marathon bombers Muslims who became radicalized in the US and NOT immigrants? What about those who shot up the San Bernadino hospital? Not all Muslims who have tried to commit terrorist acts aren't immigrants. But you already knew that.
The fact is, Trump is pandering to the low information racists the same way Wallace did in 1968. It only has limited appeal. I can give Trump most of the historic red states in the south including Texas and even mid-west but the purple states he needs, I have little proof he can other than pollsters going off the primaries which is never a sound logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skold
What are you smoking and on what planet? Do you really eat up all of the garbage the lib media spoon feeds you?
Trump never said he wants to fight "Muslims" in America, much less "cap" them. He obviously said that he wants to stop/screen those who want to come into our country to do us harm, like ISIS attacks, ya know. Those ISIS type militants we would most surely all be willing to fight if need be if they are already in the US.
I don't know what American would hope for any different.
I don't, part of it is what Trump said. The sick part with Trump is it rhetoric and should be taken as such or is it honest? I can't tell, "lib media" or not.
As I mentioned before, the ISIS militant screening is hard to do when it comes to immigrants, why because of social media. Besides the attacks I mentioned, how many stories have we heard of young Muslims becoming radicalized online and trying to fly away to the Middle East to join ISIS? It's not just an immigrant problem. The immigrants are the least of our worries in this aspect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
I'm a Sanders supporter. She is a war monger and it is the reason I can not vote for Trump either.
Finally, we have someone who isn't on the "left" admit this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Hillary helped arm them, got Americans killed in the process and then lied about it.
She wasn't the only one, she's just the figure head of it. Benghazi was a SNAFU'd fuster-cluck all around including Hillary. That said, she isn't the only blame her. Part of it goes to the armed services committee and even more goes to the CIA for fumbling so bad. Not saying Hillary is a saint, just painting the full picture here.
He wants to make sure that Muslims that are coming into our country are vented. The USA is a country of immigrants - and there's no denying that. We're all here because of our ancestors wanted to do better than they were doing in their country of origin and came to the USA... But they came here with the hopes and dreams of living here and abiding by the laws of the land - they DIDN'T WANT TO COME HERE TO KILL THOSE THAT WERE HERE ALREADY!
Trump just wants to make sure that those that come here have the same thoughts as our ancestors had - to make a better life for themselves.
Lol at the irony of that statement. The country was pretty much founded on "killing those that were here already".
...And the people who were here already ended up thoroughly "vented" (as in full of holes).
And not all the ancestors who helped found the country came here with dreams. Some were actually cast into a nightmare.
Somehow I feel Hillary is even more likely to start another war than pretty much any other past President since FDR, even more than W.
I'm not supporting Trump. But given what Libya is today (nothing to do with benghazi, mind you), it's hard to believe she actually, still, consider the war she architected a "exercise of smart power". Even Bush and those around him, including his brother, are at least trying to concoct excuses whenever the whole Iraq business pops into conversation. She somehow acted as if Libya were some sort of glorious record of hers.
He'd make an excellent running mate for Trump/Drumpf -- only he's black (which takes away votes from his peanut gallery)
I "recommend" the guy discussed below as at least UN Ambassador -- if not his Veep
ALSO a *Warning, language* -- and violence besides
(Dallas Airport Fight video on YouTube)
On second though I will NOT link it, for fear that's the proverbial bridge too far. But you still easily find the video.
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.
I think I'll go ahead and write in that option.
