CDZ What choice have folks who find Trump detestable and Mrs. Clinton unacceptable?

[flacaltenn]

Folks who vote to win are the real losers. Because they are consuming whatever wanna bee power whores the parties are offering.

The "power whores" have delivered the greatest standard of living in the history of the planet. The greatest accumulation of wealth by a people ever. The greatest military the planet has ever assembled. And one of the most benevolent societies in the history of the planet (if not the most benevolent).

I give the American voter an A+.

As far as picking Gary Johnson out of a line up -- same was true of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Or Barack Obama for that matter. And it's the MEDIA and the partisan FEC who designs "the lineup". This year, they are going to have a very hard EXCLUDING Gary Johnson from the everything Trump/Hilary reporting.. And the FEC is gonna get a LOT of pressure to recognize that ANY party that works to place a candidate on 50 state ballots -- SHOULD be included in the debates.

I 100% agree with you. I would love to see Gary Johnson on the debate stage with HRC and Donald Trump.

The Commission of Presidential Debates is the primary culprit.

The debates have been set:

First presidential debate:
Monday, September 26, 2016
Wright State University, Dayton, OH

Vice presidential debate:
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Longwood University, Farmville, VA

Second presidential debate:
Sunday, October 9, 2016
Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO

Third presidential debate:
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV

The media made a crapload of money on those Rep/Dem primary debates. And THEY were allowed to frame the issues and the discussion. We are rapidly approaching the point where the PARTIES are greater threat to the Democratic process than the candidates.

And more parties will solve that?

I tell you what I think we should do is have the CPD put together 3-5 debates each cycle for each party (one per month starting in November and going to March the following year)

Have the box on the income tax state that the money will go for this purpose and watch it flood in--my guess you'll see millions for this enterprise--I know I would chunk money in for it.

Anyway, have the debates in the following format; a 90 minute debate. If you have the normal 5-7 candidates, that is 13-18 minutes per candidate. So Bob Scheefer or whomever asks, "Mr. Romney, what is your plan to eliminate poverty. You have 3 minutes". So you get Gov. Romney unfiltered for 3 mins. After that, "Mr. Brown, your plan to eliminate poverty. 3 mins. Go." After that, "Ms. Haley, poverty, 3 mins, go."

On the next round, start with Ms. Haley "What is your plan to repair the VA. 3 mins" go. Then Brown, then Romney.

In the next GOP debate when there are usually less candidates, they get 15-20 mins each so you can ask 6-7 questions (different ones) that get a 3 min response each.

And eventually you get down to 2-3 candidates in March and you have a real substanative dissertation of the stances.

And this is happening for the Ds, the Libs, the R.s; everyone.

Meanwhile, FOX, CNN, MSNBC or whomever are having their made-for-TV crap too which you cannot totally eliminate.

What it will do is have an "official" period where a candidate has to say "Here is what I would do" without some guy on the end of the candidate row interrrupting or whatever.

What you would end up with is more unvarnished facts being put out there by the candidates who can't spend the entire time bitching about Obama's handling of Topic X.

"I give the American voter an A+."

I'm not sure how to respond to that. I'm just glad I wasn't drinking milk when I read it.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania – Americans know surprisingly little about their government, survey finds

The accomplishments you cite have all been under assault for decades, with the result being a shrinking middle-class and a growing percentage of our children being raised in poverty. Why? Because the American voter is an ass. A manipulable ass. An ignorant ass, as the above study shows so clearly. A+, huh. No wonder education is in the shape it's in. We reward ignorance with an A+. Congressional approval ratings hovering around 10% and re-election rates hovering around 90%? A+! Riiiight.

The decline is palpable…you can tell. We actually elect people to government that think there should be no government larger than it was in 1789. I was speaking of the Executive where we have had some visionaries in both parties.

As for the 10% approval rating and the 90% retention rate…blame gerrymandering and a mute Constitution that allows it.

Much harder to gerrymander with more than 2 parties you know. Not as easy to collude on WINNING... Also nothing in the Constitution that REQUIRES you keep the same 2 parties that are constantly dissing you and laughing at your futile attempts to reign them in...

I don’t recall seeing them laughing at futile attempts. And no there is nothing binding the American public to these two parties. In fact
We have more than 2 parties. At some point, isn’t the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Communist Party, the __________ Party responsible for growing it’s patronage? I know the two major parties collude to keep them down but at some point the Libertarians have to be accountable for not growing their ranks beyond whatever it is…. I think it’s become really convenient for smaller parties to just complain that they are not growing very much due to the Republicans and the Democrats. The Democrats moved away from being the caretakers so much during the Clinton years. As a result 5 of the last 6 times the American public was asked…they have voted for democrats to be President. Parties need to evolve to stay relevant. What new recipes are libertarians or greens coming up with to broaden their appeal?

After you spend over $15Mill on ballot access and court cases every cycle -- you are pretty fagged out. NONE of those other parties you mentioned have ever acheived 50 state ballot status. They are not organized enough. But we've WORKED with the Greens on Ballot Access issues.

Access to the media is one key issue. And THERE -- the Dem/Rep have the major advantage. The media works very hard to be EMBEDDED at the neck and ankles with the party elites. And they serve as willing sycophants to the main circus.. Because those connections are worth gold. Gary Johnson could adopt 4 Guatemalan orphans to make hats for his campaign and not get a camera.

The other of course is debate access. Which the partisan FEC controls. And NOW the major news organizations have a hand in that control.

Main problem is creeps like Kasich who go out of their way to use their power of office to BAR 3rd party candidates from their state ballots. What one person calls spoilers -- is what another calls CHOICE and FREEDOM.. No such thing as a wasted vote --- if you have convictions and principles..

 

[flacaltenn]

If a candidate is qualified and committed to a campaign, they are not "a spoiler"..

From the point of view of the 2 main parties -- any CONTROL they lose is "spoiling": their collusion.. Spoiling that for them -- especially when they hand you 2 very NEGATIVE choices --- guarantees that they notice you are paying attention, that you are NOT stupid, and that they need to MODIFY their behaviour.

You're all about making the excuse that if you don't like a politician -- you just vote them out. So why can't we punish or vote out parties that are becoming increasingly authoritarian and less democratic.

 

[candycorn]

The "power whores" have delivered the greatest standard of living in the history of the planet. The greatest accumulation of wealth by a people ever. The greatest military the planet has ever assembled. And one of the most benevolent societies in the history of the planet (if not the most benevolent).

I give the American voter an A+.

I 100% agree with you. I would love to see Gary Johnson on the debate stage with HRC and Donald Trump.

The Commission of Presidential Debates is the primary culprit.

The debates have been set:

First presidential debate:
Monday, September 26, 2016
Wright State University, Dayton, OH

Vice presidential debate:
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Longwood University, Farmville, VA

Second presidential debate:
Sunday, October 9, 2016
Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO

Third presidential debate:
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV


And more parties will solve that?

I tell you what I think we should do is have the CPD put together 3-5 debates each cycle for each party (one per month starting in November and going to March the following year)

Have the box on the income tax state that the money will go for this purpose and watch it flood in--my guess you'll see millions for this enterprise--I know I would chunk money in for it.

Anyway, have the debates in the following format; a 90 minute debate. If you have the normal 5-7 candidates, that is 13-18 minutes per candidate. So Bob Scheefer or whomever asks, "Mr. Romney, what is your plan to eliminate poverty. You have 3 minutes". So you get Gov. Romney unfiltered for 3 mins. After that, "Mr. Brown, your plan to eliminate poverty. 3 mins. Go." After that, "Ms. Haley, poverty, 3 mins, go."

On the next round, start with Ms. Haley "What is your plan to repair the VA. 3 mins" go. Then Brown, then Romney.

In the next GOP debate when there are usually less candidates, they get 15-20 mins each so you can ask 6-7 questions (different ones) that get a 3 min response each.

And eventually you get down to 2-3 candidates in March and you have a real substanative dissertation of the stances.

And this is happening for the Ds, the Libs, the R.s; everyone.

Meanwhile, FOX, CNN, MSNBC or whomever are having their made-for-TV crap too which you cannot totally eliminate.

What it will do is have an "official" period where a candidate has to say "Here is what I would do" without some guy on the end of the candidate row interrrupting or whatever.

What you would end up with is more unvarnished facts being put out there by the candidates who can't spend the entire time bitching about Obama's handling of Topic X.

"I give the American voter an A+."

I'm not sure how to respond to that. I'm just glad I wasn't drinking milk when I read it.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania – Americans know surprisingly little about their government, survey finds

The accomplishments you cite have all been under assault for decades, with the result being a shrinking middle-class and a growing percentage of our children being raised in poverty. Why? Because the American voter is an ass. A manipulable ass. An ignorant ass, as the above study shows so clearly. A+, huh. No wonder education is in the shape it's in. We reward ignorance with an A+. Congressional approval ratings hovering around 10% and re-election rates hovering around 90%? A+! Riiiight.

The decline is palpable…you can tell. We actually elect people to government that think there should be no government larger than it was in 1789. I was speaking of the Executive where we have had some visionaries in both parties.

As for the 10% approval rating and the 90% retention rate…blame gerrymandering and a mute Constitution that allows it.

Much harder to gerrymander with more than 2 parties you know. Not as easy to collude on WINNING... Also nothing in the Constitution that REQUIRES you keep the same 2 parties that are constantly dissing you and laughing at your futile attempts to reign them in...

I don’t recall seeing them laughing at futile attempts. And no there is nothing binding the American public to these two parties. In fact
We have more than 2 parties. At some point, isn’t the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Communist Party, the __________ Party responsible for growing it’s patronage? I know the two major parties collude to keep them down but at some point the Libertarians have to be accountable for not growing their ranks beyond whatever it is…. I think it’s become really convenient for smaller parties to just complain that they are not growing very much due to the Republicans and the Democrats. The Democrats moved away from being the caretakers so much during the Clinton years. As a result 5 of the last 6 times the American public was asked…they have voted for democrats to be President. Parties need to evolve to stay relevant. What new recipes are libertarians or greens coming up with to broaden their appeal?

After you spend over $15Mill on ballot access and court cases every cycle -- you are pretty fagged out. NONE of those other parties you mentioned have ever acheived 50 state ballot status. They are not organized enough. But we've WORKED with the Greens on Ballot Access issues.

Access to the media is one key issue. And THERE -- the Dem/Rep have the major advantage. The media works very hard to be EMBEDDED at the neck and ankles with the party elites. And they serve as willing sycophants to the main circus.. Because those connections are worth gold. Gary Johnson could adopt 4 Guatemalan orphans to make hats for his campaign and not get a camera.

The other of course is debate access. Which the partisan FEC controls. And NOW the major news organizations have a hand in that control.

Main problem is creeps like Kasich who go out of their way to use their power of office to BAR 3rd party candidates from their state ballots. What one person calls spoilers -- is what another calls CHOICE and FREEDOM.. No such thing as a wasted vote --- if you have convictions and principles..

How long can you sing the same song?

It’s always another person’s fault, another entity’s fault, another ________’s fault.

About 10 years ago, I heard that the libertarians were going to focus on one state. I think it was New Hampshire or Vermont and show the world what a libertarian controlled state would look like.

Free State Project | Liberty in Our Lifetime

I don’t want to derail the OP’s thread but really, I’ve been hearing about 3rd parties all my life. At some point, the man in the mirror is to blame.

 

[320 Years of History]

Not sure what your point is.

The point is that you've "put the cart ahead of the horse" by addressing a tactical concern before having concluded on the strategy's merit as something to do. Look at the thread title. It asks "what choice have folks" not "how can XYZ be achieved."

​

You've spoken to the challenges of "doing the thing" before presenting a case for "the thing's" being something to to do or not do. The merit of a strategy doesn't depend on the difficulty of achieving the tactics; the difficulty of executing on tactics affects the time frame and cost of achieving the goal.

We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.
-- John F. Kennedy​

Ahh, okay. Sorry.

I will say this though….I haven’t spoken to the challenge, I’ve explained the impossibility of it. It’s not going to happen. Sorry.

Red:
NP.

Blue:
I will say that for humanity, there are two kinds of impossibility:

• The kind given by the laws of nature, and
• The kind given by one's refusal to make it so.

"Impossible" and "not going to happen" are very different things. You may be right that it's not going to happen; I'm not even convinced that it or something similar will happen. Making it happen is far from impossible. The point of the thread is, for folks who have thought enough to have one/some, to identify potential strategies -- ideally ones that don't ask/force a person not to vote -- that can be followed at either an individual level or at some sort of group level and that can be used as a way to ensure that neither Trump nor Mrs. Clinton become President. There's now, as when I created the thread, little doubt in my mind that any number of the identified strategies, perhaps even all of them noted in the thread, won't be pursued by anyone. That said, the thread is for discussing not implementing the strategies, so whether they'll be undertaken or not doesn't matter.

 

[flacaltenn]

"I give the American voter an A+."

I'm not sure how to respond to that. I'm just glad I wasn't drinking milk when I read it.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania – Americans know surprisingly little about their government, survey finds

The accomplishments you cite have all been under assault for decades, with the result being a shrinking middle-class and a growing percentage of our children being raised in poverty. Why? Because the American voter is an ass. A manipulable ass. An ignorant ass, as the above study shows so clearly. A+, huh. No wonder education is in the shape it's in. We reward ignorance with an A+. Congressional approval ratings hovering around 10% and re-election rates hovering around 90%? A+! Riiiight.

The decline is palpable…you can tell. We actually elect people to government that think there should be no government larger than it was in 1789. I was speaking of the Executive where we have had some visionaries in both parties.

As for the 10% approval rating and the 90% retention rate…blame gerrymandering and a mute Constitution that allows it.

Much harder to gerrymander with more than 2 parties you know. Not as easy to collude on WINNING... Also nothing in the Constitution that REQUIRES you keep the same 2 parties that are constantly dissing you and laughing at your futile attempts to reign them in...

I don’t recall seeing them laughing at futile attempts. And no there is nothing binding the American public to these two parties. In fact
We have more than 2 parties. At some point, isn’t the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Communist Party, the __________ Party responsible for growing it’s patronage? I know the two major parties collude to keep them down but at some point the Libertarians have to be accountable for not growing their ranks beyond whatever it is…. I think it’s become really convenient for smaller parties to just complain that they are not growing very much due to the Republicans and the Democrats. The Democrats moved away from being the caretakers so much during the Clinton years. As a result 5 of the last 6 times the American public was asked…they have voted for democrats to be President. Parties need to evolve to stay relevant. What new recipes are libertarians or greens coming up with to broaden their appeal?

After you spend over $15Mill on ballot access and court cases every cycle -- you are pretty fagged out. NONE of those other parties you mentioned have ever acheived 50 state ballot status. They are not organized enough. But we've WORKED with the Greens on Ballot Access issues.

Access to the media is one key issue. And THERE -- the Dem/Rep have the major advantage. The media works very hard to be EMBEDDED at the neck and ankles with the party elites. And they serve as willing sycophants to the main circus.. Because those connections are worth gold. Gary Johnson could adopt 4 Guatemalan orphans to make hats for his campaign and not get a camera.

The other of course is debate access. Which the partisan FEC controls. And NOW the major news organizations have a hand in that control.

Main problem is creeps like Kasich who go out of their way to use their power of office to BAR 3rd party candidates from their state ballots. What one person calls spoilers -- is what another calls CHOICE and FREEDOM.. No such thing as a wasted vote --- if you have convictions and principles..

How long can you sing the same song?

It’s always another person’s fault, another entity’s fault, another ________’s fault.

About 10 years ago, I heard that the libertarians were going to focus on one state. I think it was New Hampshire or Vermont and show the world what a libertarian controlled state would look like.

Free State Project | Liberty in Our Lifetime

I don’t want to derail the OP’s thread but really, I’ve been hearing about 3rd parties all my life. At some point, the man in the mirror is to blame.

Actually the mirror analogy works for me and EVERYBODY.. When you wake up and you are living the movie Idiocracy and you wonder how you got there -- look in the mirror. Because there WERE CHOICES presented to you and YOU didn't want "to waste a vote" because your PARTY was more important than your principles..

We'll see what happens in a year when BOTH parties are fracturing multiple rifts and choosing to favor the unconventional and populist candidates.

 

[320 Years of History]

How long can you sing the same song?

It’s always another person’s fault, another entity’s fault, another ________’s fault.

About 10 years ago, I heard that the libertarians were going to focus on one state. I think it was New Hampshire or Vermont and show the world what a libertarian controlled state would look like.

Free State Project | Liberty in Our Lifetime

I don’t want to derail the OP’s thread but really, I’ve been hearing about 3rd parties all my life. At some point, the man in the mirror is to blame

Off topic the remarks above are; however, they are the kind of remarks that cannot be too often repeated.

Red:
I appreciate your being respectful enough to expressly note that you don't aim to create a new line of discussion deriving from your remarks above. The maturity you've shown in your discussions thus far indicate to me that you sincerely mean that. I just hope others will take the cue and limit their comments in response to the comments above to just one post.

 

[Elvis Obama]

"I give the American voter an A+."

I'm not sure how to respond to that. I'm just glad I wasn't drinking milk when I read it.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania – Americans know surprisingly little about their government, survey finds

The accomplishments you cite have all been under assault for decades, with the result being a shrinking middle-class and a growing percentage of our children being raised in poverty. Why? Because the American voter is an ass. A manipulable ass. An ignorant ass, as the above study shows so clearly. A+, huh. No wonder education is in the shape it's in. We reward ignorance with an A+. Congressional approval ratings hovering around 10% and re-election rates hovering around 90%? A+! Riiiight.

The decline is palpable…you can tell. We actually elect people to government that think there should be no government larger than it was in 1789. I was speaking of the Executive where we have had some visionaries in both parties.

As for the 10% approval rating and the 90% retention rate…blame gerrymandering and a mute Constitution that allows it.

No, I blame an electorate too ignorant to know what gerrymandering is. Nothing reflects the stupidity of the American electorate more than blithely accepting their representation being stolen from them by a system that a three year old could figure out is absurd. Oh sure, let's leave apportionment up to the victors of an election so they can use it to reinforce their grip on power. What could go wrong? And the fix is so easy. We're just too ignorant to insist on it.

Okay. How much time do you spend thinking about politics…how much time would you be willing to spend going to meetings, sitting on committees, holding hearings, attending hearings, speaking to groups about the evils of Gerrymandering….

Are you willing to leave your job for a week or two and picket your State Capitol in 4 years when in 50 states they should be redrawing boundaries…then are you willing to look at the boundaries and hold hearings, attend meetings, and try to figure out why they insisted on dividing that neighborhood on the other side of town but not this one near you????

Most people do not spend anywhere near as much time as we do on this stuff and (if you want to call this effort) would be willing to put in a tenth of the effort we put into this. They want to go home, turn on the game and try to figure out how to pay the mortgage in between at-bats.

This is probably the best argument for term limits; not the supposed corruption that magically lands on politicians. If you limit them to 6 years, they will care a lot less about party patronage (but they will also care a lot less about becoming a rep since their career will be doing something else).

My main objection to becoming an anti-gerrymandering evangelical is that the word has too many darn syllables. Five! C'mon, that's brutal. It doesn't fit on a t-shirt. No, I'm afraid I am a poor choice to play resurrectionist for democratic principles which probably never had general acceptance in the first place. I have too little patience.

There are no good arguments against term limits, imo. It would be better if we didn't need them, if we could be trusted to keep in the people who merit their positions and vote out the ones who don't. Clearly we cannot be trusted to do that job properly. Term limits creates a condition in which people are forced to go to Washington to do something, rather than to be something. Term limits are, unfortunately, no more easy to implement than anti-gerrymandering legislation. It does fit on a t-shit, though. And it's much simpler to understand than gerrymandering. Perhaps if Bill Gates ever decides to do something useful with his money he'll fund an effort to make some kind of systemic change in government, along with Buffet and Soros and Bloomberg and the other supposedly socially conscious billionaires. Launch a major ad campaign to get people mad at the right things. They're already mad. If we could only get them to be mad at something that made sense.

We’ll see.

As for term limits…
Anyone who is eligible to run for an office should be able to run for an office; let the people decide.

What the term-limit crowd should be pissed about is that every freaking commission we have is staffed by someone who is appointed. And while it’s true that they have to have congressional approval, the constitution didn’t envision all of these commissions that are, in fact, necessary for society to function (i.e. FAA, i.e.NASA, i.e. NPS). So a vote for the FAA security chief who is doing zilch to quell the 1.5 hour wait I had the other day did get voted on by the Senate but are you going to hold your senator accountable for this guy who will still have his job well after the senator may be term limited? In other words, the bureaucrat that is hurting you is not term limited but the Senator who voted to appoint him 3 years ago is losing his job…just cuz?

Anyone who is eligible to run for an office should be able to run for an office; let the people decide.

That's how it is, and how it has always been, and how it always will be. Bill Clinton can't run for the presidency because he is not eligible. He is term limited. Chris Christie will never again be the governor of NJ, because he is not eligible. Michael Bloomberg will never... well sometimes these things get a little fudged, but for the most part two terms means two terms.

And why? Because FDR made Congress nervous. He threatened their power, so they chopped the executive back to size. They weren't intending to make democracy work better, they just wanted to be more powerful. It caught on though, because it makes sense. It's still not that necessary. By the time Bloomberg finished his stolen third term in NYC people loathed him. It's a rare person who can stay popular enough to be elected three times.

Congress is different. It's removed from where you live. You can ignore these poisonous reptiles as they crawl in and out of the swamp. What you seem to be saying is that anyone who wants to get into the Congressional swamp should be allowed in. That the executive and legislative positions are different, and term limits for one type of job is different than term limits for the other. This is, imo, both true and nonsense, and is promoted exclusively by the people whose power is being threatened. As I said, ideally term limits should not be needed. The only reason we have term limits for the executive is that it caught on after FDR. The arguments against term limits for congress seem to be two:

1- We thwart the will of the voter. Good. The will of the voter is deserving of zero respect. The only voter worth respecting is an informed and engaged voter. Someone who carves out enough time to pay attention to such things. Someone who paid attention when they were taught the history and structure of their government in school and has spent the intervening years deepening and broadening that knowledge, in precisely the same way a lifelong baseball fan would spend their lives building on the knowledge they attained in childhood. If your government isn't worth the time you put into following a sport, then cool, just stay out of a voting booth.

2- Congress functions better when there is a system of seniority. I can hardly type that one for laughing so hard. OK, sure, theoretically an ideal congress would have a system of seniority. In reality? Our congress is a derelict vehicle rusting in a swamp. Who the hell cares whether Hillary or Trump gets the keys to the worthless thing? One will keep the destruction of our way of life to the same pace it's had for the last eight years. They other? Who the hell knows? Hey, let's not call this one WWIII, let's call it WW Trump!

Yeah, appointments of corrupt politicians are themselves corrupt. It sucks to be us. The only way to drain the swamp is to start by throwing out the lizard-bums at the ballot box, then we can get some anti-corruption people into office with enough like minded colleagues to make a difference. They'll root out the ones who are there by appointment.

 

[Never3ndr]

If a candidate is qualified and committed to a campaign, they are not "a spoiler"..

From the point of view of the 2 main parties -- any CONTROL they lose is "spoiling": their collusion.. Spoiling that for them -- especially when they hand you 2 very NEGATIVE choices --- guarantees that they notice you are paying attention, that you are NOT stupid, and that they need to MODIFY their behaviour.

You're all about making the excuse that if you don't like a politician -- you just vote them out. So why can't we punish or vote out parties that are becoming increasingly authoritarian and less democratic.

I'm actually a fan of only 2 candidates up for election in a "final" general election. However, I think that the "primary" season should actually be more of a free-for-all open to any candidate. The top two vote getters should then go head-to-head in a "final" general election. That way we still have our freedom of choice, but the president is still (in theory) voted for at the end of the day by the majority of the American public. I'm not super familiar with the voting system of other multi-party nations, but I think that this is similar to how it is conducted there (because I heard of this somewhere, I didn't just think of it on my own). I just don't feel that we should be in a situation where the president of the US has not been voted for by 51+% of the population, an increasingly likely scenario as third parties get more traction (like they will see in this election cycle).

 

[320 Years of History]

Some time back, I introduced in this thread a line of discussion around the idea that the GOP might actively adopt a "throw it to the House" strategy this election cycle. As the Trump candidacy implodes more and more, having to adopt that strategy seems the GOP's only real hope for obtaining someone whom they somewhat like, that is of course, if enough grassroots GOP-ers can get off their inane "I have to vote Republican because I'm a Republican" intransigence.

In the past week or so we have now observed nearly 100 (give or take) prominent Republicans assert they will not support Trump. A good number of them have also said they won't vote for Mrs. Clinton, which basically leaves Gary Johnson or simply abstaining from casing a vote for President. I presume too that for Republicans they also won't vote for Jill Stein, who may well pick the votes of a lot of disaffected Democrats seeing as she's the ideological alternative to Mrs. Clinton but without the attendant baggage Mrs. Clinton has.

So the question in my mind now is whether the GOP might deliberately adopt an "elect Johnson" strategy. That's not to say that without actively pursuing that end it may not result. Unintended outcomes certain can happen, but their odds of a given outcome happening increase when one endeavors to make it happen.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The decline is palpable…you can tell. We actually elect people to government that think there should be no government larger than it was in 1789. I was speaking of the Executive where we have had some visionaries in both parties.

As for the 10% approval rating and the 90% retention rate…blame gerrymandering and a mute Constitution that allows it.

Much harder to gerrymander with more than 2 parties you know. Not as easy to collude on WINNING... Also nothing in the Constitution that REQUIRES you keep the same 2 parties that are constantly dissing you and laughing at your futile attempts to reign them in...

I don’t recall seeing them laughing at futile attempts. And no there is nothing binding the American public to these two parties. In fact
We have more than 2 parties. At some point, isn’t the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Communist Party, the __________ Party responsible for growing it’s patronage? I know the two major parties collude to keep them down but at some point the Libertarians have to be accountable for not growing their ranks beyond whatever it is…. I think it’s become really convenient for smaller parties to just complain that they are not growing very much due to the Republicans and the Democrats. The Democrats moved away from being the caretakers so much during the Clinton years. As a result 5 of the last 6 times the American public was asked…they have voted for democrats to be President. Parties need to evolve to stay relevant. What new recipes are libertarians or greens coming up with to broaden their appeal?

After you spend over $15Mill on ballot access and court cases every cycle -- you are pretty fagged out. NONE of those other parties you mentioned have ever acheived 50 state ballot status. They are not organized enough. But we've WORKED with the Greens on Ballot Access issues.

Access to the media is one key issue. And THERE -- the Dem/Rep have the major advantage. The media works very hard to be EMBEDDED at the neck and ankles with the party elites. And they serve as willing sycophants to the main circus.. Because those connections are worth gold. Gary Johnson could adopt 4 Guatemalan orphans to make hats for his campaign and not get a camera.

The other of course is debate access. Which the partisan FEC controls. And NOW the major news organizations have a hand in that control.

Main problem is creeps like Kasich who go out of their way to use their power of office to BAR 3rd party candidates from their state ballots. What one person calls spoilers -- is what another calls CHOICE and FREEDOM.. No such thing as a wasted vote --- if you have convictions and principles..

How long can you sing the same song?

It’s always another person’s fault, another entity’s fault, another ________’s fault.

About 10 years ago, I heard that the libertarians were going to focus on one state. I think it was New Hampshire or Vermont and show the world what a libertarian controlled state would look like.

Free State Project | Liberty in Our Lifetime

I don’t want to derail the OP’s thread but really, I’ve been hearing about 3rd parties all my life. At some point, the man in the mirror is to blame.

Actually the mirror analogy works for me and EVERYBODY.. When you wake up and you are living the movie Idiocracy and you wonder how you got there -- look in the mirror. Because there WERE CHOICES presented to you and YOU didn't want "to waste a vote" because your PARTY was more important than your principles..

We'll see what happens in a year when BOTH parties are fracturing multiple rifts and choosing to favor the unconventional and populist candidates.

Like him or not, Trump at least started a movement towards that. He is obviously not your daddy's Republican. That's why the BOTH party elites hate them. The GOP can't control him and he has just flat out stolen the Dem's playbook.

 

[flacaltenn]

How long can you sing the same song?

It’s always another person’s fault, another entity’s fault, another ________’s fault.

About 10 years ago, I heard that the libertarians were going to focus on one state. I think it was New Hampshire or Vermont and show the world what a libertarian controlled state would look like.

Free State Project | Liberty in Our Lifetime

I don’t want to derail the OP’s thread but really, I’ve been hearing about 3rd parties all my life. At some point, the man in the mirror is to blame

Off topic the remarks above are; however, they are the kind of remarks that cannot be too often repeated.

Red:
I appreciate your being respectful enough to expressly note that you don't aim to create a new line of discussion deriving from your remarks above. The maturity you've shown in your discussions thus far indicate to me that you sincerely mean that. I just hope others will take the cue and limit their comments in response to the comments above to just one post.

Perhaps YOU should read the title of the thread and the OP. The debate HERE is about alternative choices. Don't know how DISCUSSING 3rd parties would worry anyone about derailment. Except for the rabid partisans who feel they OWE their votes to the 2 main parties.

 

[flacaltenn]

Much harder to gerrymander with more than 2 parties you know. Not as easy to collude on WINNING... Also nothing in the Constitution that REQUIRES you keep the same 2 parties that are constantly dissing you and laughing at your futile attempts to reign them in...

I don’t recall seeing them laughing at futile attempts. And no there is nothing binding the American public to these two parties. In fact
We have more than 2 parties. At some point, isn’t the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Communist Party, the __________ Party responsible for growing it’s patronage? I know the two major parties collude to keep them down but at some point the Libertarians have to be accountable for not growing their ranks beyond whatever it is…. I think it’s become really convenient for smaller parties to just complain that they are not growing very much due to the Republicans and the Democrats. The Democrats moved away from being the caretakers so much during the Clinton years. As a result 5 of the last 6 times the American public was asked…they have voted for democrats to be President. Parties need to evolve to stay relevant. What new recipes are libertarians or greens coming up with to broaden their appeal?

After you spend over $15Mill on ballot access and court cases every cycle -- you are pretty fagged out. NONE of those other parties you mentioned have ever acheived 50 state ballot status. They are not organized enough. But we've WORKED with the Greens on Ballot Access issues.

Access to the media is one key issue. And THERE -- the Dem/Rep have the major advantage. The media works very hard to be EMBEDDED at the neck and ankles with the party elites. And they serve as willing sycophants to the main circus.. Because those connections are worth gold. Gary Johnson could adopt 4 Guatemalan orphans to make hats for his campaign and not get a camera.

The other of course is debate access. Which the partisan FEC controls. And NOW the major news organizations have a hand in that control.

Main problem is creeps like Kasich who go out of their way to use their power of office to BAR 3rd party candidates from their state ballots. What one person calls spoilers -- is what another calls CHOICE and FREEDOM.. No such thing as a wasted vote --- if you have convictions and principles..

How long can you sing the same song?

It’s always another person’s fault, another entity’s fault, another ________’s fault.

About 10 years ago, I heard that the libertarians were going to focus on one state. I think it was New Hampshire or Vermont and show the world what a libertarian controlled state would look like.

Free State Project | Liberty in Our Lifetime

I don’t want to derail the OP’s thread but really, I’ve been hearing about 3rd parties all my life. At some point, the man in the mirror is to blame.

Actually the mirror analogy works for me and EVERYBODY.. When you wake up and you are living the movie Idiocracy and you wonder how you got there -- look in the mirror. Because there WERE CHOICES presented to you and YOU didn't want "to waste a vote" because your PARTY was more important than your principles..

We'll see what happens in a year when BOTH parties are fracturing multiple rifts and choosing to favor the unconventional and populist candidates.

Like him or not, Trump at least started a movement towards that. He is obviously not your daddy's Republican. That's why the BOTH party elites hate them. The GOP can't control him and he has just flat out stolen the Dem's playbook.

Tactics and playbooks are great for sports teams. Have no real meaning to moving America out of this partisan nightmare that is descending rapidly on us. Trump is a wild card in a suit. That's all he is. He's a politically void vessel that will turn politics into the Idiocracy movie.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I don’t recall seeing them laughing at futile attempts. And no there is nothing binding the American public to these two parties. In fact
We have more than 2 parties. At some point, isn’t the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Communist Party, the __________ Party responsible for growing it’s patronage? I know the two major parties collude to keep them down but at some point the Libertarians have to be accountable for not growing their ranks beyond whatever it is…. I think it’s become really convenient for smaller parties to just complain that they are not growing very much due to the Republicans and the Democrats. The Democrats moved away from being the caretakers so much during the Clinton years. As a result 5 of the last 6 times the American public was asked…they have voted for democrats to be President. Parties need to evolve to stay relevant. What new recipes are libertarians or greens coming up with to broaden their appeal?

After you spend over $15Mill on ballot access and court cases every cycle -- you are pretty fagged out. NONE of those other parties you mentioned have ever acheived 50 state ballot status. They are not organized enough. But we've WORKED with the Greens on Ballot Access issues.

Access to the media is one key issue. And THERE -- the Dem/Rep have the major advantage. The media works very hard to be EMBEDDED at the neck and ankles with the party elites. And they serve as willing sycophants to the main circus.. Because those connections are worth gold. Gary Johnson could adopt 4 Guatemalan orphans to make hats for his campaign and not get a camera.

The other of course is debate access. Which the partisan FEC controls. And NOW the major news organizations have a hand in that control.

Main problem is creeps like Kasich who go out of their way to use their power of office to BAR 3rd party candidates from their state ballots. What one person calls spoilers -- is what another calls CHOICE and FREEDOM.. No such thing as a wasted vote --- if you have convictions and principles..

How long can you sing the same song?

It’s always another person’s fault, another entity’s fault, another ________’s fault.

About 10 years ago, I heard that the libertarians were going to focus on one state. I think it was New Hampshire or Vermont and show the world what a libertarian controlled state would look like.

Free State Project | Liberty in Our Lifetime

I don’t want to derail the OP’s thread but really, I’ve been hearing about 3rd parties all my life. At some point, the man in the mirror is to blame.

Actually the mirror analogy works for me and EVERYBODY.. When you wake up and you are living the movie Idiocracy and you wonder how you got there -- look in the mirror. Because there WERE CHOICES presented to you and YOU didn't want "to waste a vote" because your PARTY was more important than your principles..

We'll see what happens in a year when BOTH parties are fracturing multiple rifts and choosing to favor the unconventional and populist candidates.

Like him or not, Trump at least started a movement towards that. He is obviously not your daddy's Republican. That's why the BOTH party elites hate them. The GOP can't control him and he has just flat out stolen the Dem's playbook.

Tactics and playbooks are great for sports teams. Have no real meaning to moving America out of this partisan nightmare that is descending rapidly on us. Trump is a wild card in a suit. That's all he is. He's a politically void vessel that will turn politics into the Idiocracy movie.

I hate to tell you, but the idiocracy is already here.

Trump notwithstanding, you know , our first President didn't know much about governing a nation either. Instead Washington put experts in place and let them do their jobs, being a referee when needed, but in many important decisions of the time, he didn't have any major feelings one way or the other.

So, maybe an "empty vessel" President is exactly what we need.

I actually liken Trump to a football coach we had at the U of A a few years ago. Obviously talented, very good at finding talented people , putting them in the right position to succeed, and has a lot of success, but at the same time he said and did stupid shit that ultimately caused him to lose his job even though he was successful at that job.

But that's the catch 22 with politics in this country today. Without his big mouth, he would have never made it this far, while at the same time his big mouth has led many of us to say "no he's too crazy"

 

[320 Years of History]

How long can you sing the same song?

It’s always another person’s fault, another entity’s fault, another ________’s fault.

About 10 years ago, I heard that the libertarians were going to focus on one state. I think it was New Hampshire or Vermont and show the world what a libertarian controlled state would look like.

Free State Project | Liberty in Our Lifetime

I don’t want to derail the OP’s thread but really, I’ve been hearing about 3rd parties all my life. At some point, the man in the mirror is to blame

Off topic the remarks above are; however, they are the kind of remarks that cannot be too often repeated.

Red:
I appreciate your being respectful enough to expressly note that you don't aim to create a new line of discussion deriving from your remarks above. The maturity you've shown in your discussions thus far indicate to me that you sincerely mean that. I just hope others will take the cue and limit their comments in response to the comments above to just one post.

Perhaps YOU should read the title of the thread and the OP. The debate HERE is about alternative choices. Don't know how DISCUSSING 3rd parties would worry anyone about derailment. Except for the rabid partisans who feel they OWE their votes to the 2 main parties.

Are you truly of the mind the other member's remarks quoted in this post are themed on third parties?

BTW, I wrote the OP and thread title.

 

[flacaltenn]

How long can you sing the same song?

It’s always another person’s fault, another entity’s fault, another ________’s fault.

About 10 years ago, I heard that the libertarians were going to focus on one state. I think it was New Hampshire or Vermont and show the world what a libertarian controlled state would look like.

Free State Project | Liberty in Our Lifetime

I don’t want to derail the OP’s thread but really, I’ve been hearing about 3rd parties all my life. At some point, the man in the mirror is to blame

Off topic the remarks above are; however, they are the kind of remarks that cannot be too often repeated.

Red:
I appreciate your being respectful enough to expressly note that you don't aim to create a new line of discussion deriving from your remarks above. The maturity you've shown in your discussions thus far indicate to me that you sincerely mean that. I just hope others will take the cue and limit their comments in response to the comments above to just one post.

Perhaps YOU should read the title of the thread and the OP. The debate HERE is about alternative choices. Don't know how DISCUSSING 3rd parties would worry anyone about derailment. Except for the rabid partisans who feel they OWE their votes to the 2 main parties.

Are you truly of the mind the other member's remarks quoted in this post are themed on third parties?

BTW, I wrote the OP and thread title.

Of course I am "of the mind". And clearly her dismissal of 3rd party efforts is "on topic".

I've spent 20 years of my life working on 3rd party ballot access and choice. Most of us that do -- consider it a civic duty to OPEN up access to the political system so that we don't have to cower in fear over choices like ClinTrump.. OR -- the next random draw of arrogant, power hungry meglomaniacs.

The party duopoly has BECOME the tyranny that the founders warned us about.

 

[320 Years of History]

How long can you sing the same song?

It’s always another person’s fault, another entity’s fault, another ________’s fault.

About 10 years ago, I heard that the libertarians were going to focus on one state. I think it was New Hampshire or Vermont and show the world what a libertarian controlled state would look like.

Free State Project | Liberty in Our Lifetime

I don’t want to derail the OP’s thread but really, I’ve been hearing about 3rd parties all my life. At some point, the man in the mirror is to blame

Off topic the remarks above are; however, they are the kind of remarks that cannot be too often repeated.

Red:
I appreciate your being respectful enough to expressly note that you don't aim to create a new line of discussion deriving from your remarks above. The maturity you've shown in your discussions thus far indicate to me that you sincerely mean that. I just hope others will take the cue and limit their comments in response to the comments above to just one post.

Perhaps YOU should read the title of the thread and the OP. The debate HERE is about alternative choices. Don't know how DISCUSSING 3rd parties would worry anyone about derailment. Except for the rabid partisans who feel they OWE their votes to the 2 main parties.

Are you truly of the mind the other member's remarks quoted in this post are themed on third parties?

BTW, I wrote the OP and thread title.

Of course I am "of the mind". And clearly her dismissal of 3rd party efforts is "on topic".

....

Well, you directly answered the question I asked. TY for that.

Blue:
How you can think the member's comments are themed on third parties and not on people's abnegation of their own role in their own failures is astounding. The member begins and ends the post writing that the blame is to be found "in the mirror" and not elsewhere. The reference to 3rd parties is but the vehicle for illustrating that theme. You posited three reasons for why 3rd parties aren't more successful in U.S. politics:

• Assigning blame to the media:
  • "Access to the media is one key issue. And THERE -- the Dem/Rep have the major advantage. The media works very hard to be EMBEDDED at the neck and ankles with the party elites. And they serve as willing sycophants to the main circus.. Because those connections are worth gold. Gary Johnson could adopt 4 Guatemalan orphans to make hats for his campaign and not get a camera."
• Assigning blame to the FEC:
  • "The other of course is debate access. Which the partisan FEC controls. And NOW the major news organizations have a hand in that control."
• Assigning blame to individuals:
  • "[C]reeps like Kasich who go out of their way to use their power of office to BAR 3rd party candidates from their state ballots."

The other member's post in reply to your remarks thematically say, "Enough with blaming 3rd parties' failure to gain more votes and interest than they do on "whatever" other than own poor choices, be they the choice to offer insufficiently compelling policy positions, the choice to pursue a given unsuccessful strategy in order to gain greater ballot access, media attention or "whatever," and so on."

Third parties are the illustrative context for the theme of the member's post, but they are not the subject of the post. That may or may not be her intent when she wrote the post; however, that is what the compositional structure of her post makes it be about. There's no mistaking the somewhat dismissive tone in her post and with regard to 3rd parties' relative insignificance in America, but that's the tone and implication of the member's remarks, not their topic. While the tone is there, tone rarely replaces or creates the topic of any passage,** it only "surrounds" a topic. I cannot read the member's mind; I can only read her written words and interpret them (thus her meaning) using the compositional structure and grammatical rules and conventions of English.


**Note:
Occasionally tone can override topical denotation in a few specific instances such as when a writer uses one of several literary devices, notable examples of which include pun, malapropism, irony and hyperbole -- and using syntax, inflection and/or punctuation to cue the reader to construe that the given device is being used. Those and other similar literary devices aren't relevant here, but I included this note to provide clarification on why I wrote "rarely."

 

[candycorn]

Much harder to gerrymander with more than 2 parties you know. Not as easy to collude on WINNING... Also nothing in the Constitution that REQUIRES you keep the same 2 parties that are constantly dissing you and laughing at your futile attempts to reign them in...

I don’t recall seeing them laughing at futile attempts. And no there is nothing binding the American public to these two parties. In fact
We have more than 2 parties. At some point, isn’t the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Communist Party, the __________ Party responsible for growing it’s patronage? I know the two major parties collude to keep them down but at some point the Libertarians have to be accountable for not growing their ranks beyond whatever it is…. I think it’s become really convenient for smaller parties to just complain that they are not growing very much due to the Republicans and the Democrats. The Democrats moved away from being the caretakers so much during the Clinton years. As a result 5 of the last 6 times the American public was asked…they have voted for democrats to be President. Parties need to evolve to stay relevant. What new recipes are libertarians or greens coming up with to broaden their appeal?

After you spend over $15Mill on ballot access and court cases every cycle -- you are pretty fagged out. NONE of those other parties you mentioned have ever acheived 50 state ballot status. They are not organized enough. But we've WORKED with the Greens on Ballot Access issues.

Access to the media is one key issue. And THERE -- the Dem/Rep have the major advantage. The media works very hard to be EMBEDDED at the neck and ankles with the party elites. And they serve as willing sycophants to the main circus.. Because those connections are worth gold. Gary Johnson could adopt 4 Guatemalan orphans to make hats for his campaign and not get a camera.

The other of course is debate access. Which the partisan FEC controls. And NOW the major news organizations have a hand in that control.

Main problem is creeps like Kasich who go out of their way to use their power of office to BAR 3rd party candidates from their state ballots. What one person calls spoilers -- is what another calls CHOICE and FREEDOM.. No such thing as a wasted vote --- if you have convictions and principles..

How long can you sing the same song?

It’s always another person’s fault, another entity’s fault, another ________’s fault.

About 10 years ago, I heard that the libertarians were going to focus on one state. I think it was New Hampshire or Vermont and show the world what a libertarian controlled state would look like.

Free State Project | Liberty in Our Lifetime

I don’t want to derail the OP’s thread but really, I’ve been hearing about 3rd parties all my life. At some point, the man in the mirror is to blame.

Actually the mirror analogy works for me and EVERYBODY.. When you wake up and you are living the movie Idiocracy and you wonder how you got there -- look in the mirror. Because there WERE CHOICES presented to you and YOU didn't want "to waste a vote" because your PARTY was more important than your principles..

We'll see what happens in a year when BOTH parties are fracturing multiple rifts and choosing to favor the unconventional and populist candidates.

Like him or not, Trump at least started a movement towards that. He is obviously not your daddy's Republican. That's why the BOTH party elites hate them. The GOP can't control him and he has just flat out stolen the Dem's playbook.

He stole the Democrat’s playbook? Funny, when Hillary calls the plays she gets 90+ % support of Blacks, 80+% of Hispanics, College Educated women, Single Women, Single Men. Asians, GLBT.

Trump would be lucky to get 90 votes from blacks, 80 votes from Hispanics and any votes from the other blocks.

 

[candycorn]

How long can you sing the same song?

It’s always another person’s fault, another entity’s fault, another ________’s fault.

About 10 years ago, I heard that the libertarians were going to focus on one state. I think it was New Hampshire or Vermont and show the world what a libertarian controlled state would look like.

Free State Project | Liberty in Our Lifetime

I don’t want to derail the OP’s thread but really, I’ve been hearing about 3rd parties all my life. At some point, the man in the mirror is to blame

Off topic the remarks above are; however, they are the kind of remarks that cannot be too often repeated.

Red:
I appreciate your being respectful enough to expressly note that you don't aim to create a new line of discussion deriving from your remarks above. The maturity you've shown in your discussions thus far indicate to me that you sincerely mean that. I just hope others will take the cue and limit their comments in response to the comments above to just one post.

Perhaps YOU should read the title of the thread and the OP. The debate HERE is about alternative choices. Don't know how DISCUSSING 3rd parties would worry anyone about derailment. Except for the rabid partisans who feel they OWE their votes to the 2 main parties.

Are you truly of the mind the other member's remarks quoted in this post are themed on third parties?

BTW, I wrote the OP and thread title.

Of course I am "of the mind". And clearly her dismissal of 3rd party efforts is "on topic".

I've spent 20 years of my life working on 3rd party ballot access and choice. Most of us that do -- consider it a civic duty to OPEN up access to the political system so that we don't have to cower in fear over choices like ClinTrump.. OR -- the next random draw of arrogant, power hungry meglomaniacs.

The party duopoly has BECOME the tyranny that the founders warned us about.

What grade would you give your “movement”?
Who is to be credited/blamed for that grade?
Why do they get the credit/blame?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I don’t recall seeing them laughing at futile attempts. And no there is nothing binding the American public to these two parties. In fact
We have more than 2 parties. At some point, isn’t the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Communist Party, the __________ Party responsible for growing it’s patronage? I know the two major parties collude to keep them down but at some point the Libertarians have to be accountable for not growing their ranks beyond whatever it is…. I think it’s become really convenient for smaller parties to just complain that they are not growing very much due to the Republicans and the Democrats. The Democrats moved away from being the caretakers so much during the Clinton years. As a result 5 of the last 6 times the American public was asked…they have voted for democrats to be President. Parties need to evolve to stay relevant. What new recipes are libertarians or greens coming up with to broaden their appeal?

After you spend over $15Mill on ballot access and court cases every cycle -- you are pretty fagged out. NONE of those other parties you mentioned have ever acheived 50 state ballot status. They are not organized enough. But we've WORKED with the Greens on Ballot Access issues.

Access to the media is one key issue. And THERE -- the Dem/Rep have the major advantage. The media works very hard to be EMBEDDED at the neck and ankles with the party elites. And they serve as willing sycophants to the main circus.. Because those connections are worth gold. Gary Johnson could adopt 4 Guatemalan orphans to make hats for his campaign and not get a camera.

The other of course is debate access. Which the partisan FEC controls. And NOW the major news organizations have a hand in that control.

Main problem is creeps like Kasich who go out of their way to use their power of office to BAR 3rd party candidates from their state ballots. What one person calls spoilers -- is what another calls CHOICE and FREEDOM.. No such thing as a wasted vote --- if you have convictions and principles..

How long can you sing the same song?

It’s always another person’s fault, another entity’s fault, another ________’s fault.

About 10 years ago, I heard that the libertarians were going to focus on one state. I think it was New Hampshire or Vermont and show the world what a libertarian controlled state would look like.

Free State Project | Liberty in Our Lifetime

I don’t want to derail the OP’s thread but really, I’ve been hearing about 3rd parties all my life. At some point, the man in the mirror is to blame.

Actually the mirror analogy works for me and EVERYBODY.. When you wake up and you are living the movie Idiocracy and you wonder how you got there -- look in the mirror. Because there WERE CHOICES presented to you and YOU didn't want "to waste a vote" because your PARTY was more important than your principles..

We'll see what happens in a year when BOTH parties are fracturing multiple rifts and choosing to favor the unconventional and populist candidates.

Like him or not, Trump at least started a movement towards that. He is obviously not your daddy's Republican. That's why the BOTH party elites hate them. The GOP can't control him and he has just flat out stolen the Dem's playbook.

He stole the Democrat’s playbook? Funny, when Hillary calls the plays she gets 90+ % support of Blacks, 80+% of Hispanics, College Educated women, Single Women, Single Men. Asians, GLBT.

Trump would be lucky to get 90 votes from blacks, 80 votes from Hispanics and any votes from the other blocks.

Trump using the Dem playbook of fighting dirty to win an election has exactly zero to do with monolithic Democratic voting blocs , nor has Hillary won the minority vote that consistently votes Democrat regardless of who the candidate is, even when it is against their best interest.

 

[candycorn]

After you spend over $15Mill on ballot access and court cases every cycle -- you are pretty fagged out. NONE of those other parties you mentioned have ever acheived 50 state ballot status. They are not organized enough. But we've WORKED with the Greens on Ballot Access issues.

Access to the media is one key issue. And THERE -- the Dem/Rep have the major advantage. The media works very hard to be EMBEDDED at the neck and ankles with the party elites. And they serve as willing sycophants to the main circus.. Because those connections are worth gold. Gary Johnson could adopt 4 Guatemalan orphans to make hats for his campaign and not get a camera.

The other of course is debate access. Which the partisan FEC controls. And NOW the major news organizations have a hand in that control.

Main problem is creeps like Kasich who go out of their way to use their power of office to BAR 3rd party candidates from their state ballots. What one person calls spoilers -- is what another calls CHOICE and FREEDOM.. No such thing as a wasted vote --- if you have convictions and principles..

How long can you sing the same song?

It’s always another person’s fault, another entity’s fault, another ________’s fault.

About 10 years ago, I heard that the libertarians were going to focus on one state. I think it was New Hampshire or Vermont and show the world what a libertarian controlled state would look like.

Free State Project | Liberty in Our Lifetime

I don’t want to derail the OP’s thread but really, I’ve been hearing about 3rd parties all my life. At some point, the man in the mirror is to blame.

Actually the mirror analogy works for me and EVERYBODY.. When you wake up and you are living the movie Idiocracy and you wonder how you got there -- look in the mirror. Because there WERE CHOICES presented to you and YOU didn't want "to waste a vote" because your PARTY was more important than your principles..

We'll see what happens in a year when BOTH parties are fracturing multiple rifts and choosing to favor the unconventional and populist candidates.

Like him or not, Trump at least started a movement towards that. He is obviously not your daddy's Republican. That's why the BOTH party elites hate them. The GOP can't control him and he has just flat out stolen the Dem's playbook.

He stole the Democrat’s playbook? Funny, when Hillary calls the plays she gets 90+ % support of Blacks, 80+% of Hispanics, College Educated women, Single Women, Single Men. Asians, GLBT.

Trump would be lucky to get 90 votes from blacks, 80 votes from Hispanics and any votes from the other blocks.

Trump using the Dem playbook of fighting dirty to win an election has exactly zero to do with monolithic Democratic voting blocs , nor has Hillary won the minority vote that consistently votes Democrat regardless of who the candidate is, even when it is against their best interest.

He’s winning? You better check your information there skippy.

As for Hillary winning the minority vote…you do realize that she has only run against other democrats except for the two landslides in NY State Senatorial elections…where she won the minority vote easily both times.