This November instead of voting between the lesser of two shitlords, consider voting green.
As more people learn about Jill, the higher she climbs in the polls. If she hits 15% she will be allowed into the debates with the other two bozos.
This November instead of voting between the lesser of two shitlords, consider voting green.
As more people learn about Jill, the higher she climbs in the polls. If she hits 15% she will be allowed into the debates with the other two bozos.
Last edited by BananaCucho; July 1st, 2016 at 10:56 AM.
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
lol the US are fucked
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
trump #1
I am so proud right now
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
vote 4 trump. Make USA great again >)o.o)v
Vote 4 green party, make canada green again v(o.o(<
v)o.o)^
A rare Yuki in ultimate form
Yukitaka Oni ~Tafkal Hit Squad Member~
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
“good publicity is preferable to bad, but from a bottom-line perspective, bad publicity is sometimes better than no publicity at all. Controversy, in short, sells.”
― Donald J. Trump, Trump: The Art of the Deal
The conspiracies.....
Because lesser evils are still a net gain.
Ultimately either a straight out breaking point will be reached in which both parties implode on themselves or the system itself will be destroyed in all likelihood.
If you want to attempt to get a third party in you are probably better off trying to win a decent number of congressional seats before aiming for the presidency.
I agree with you that both parties are nearly the same since the American Political Spectrum is so small and continuously shrunk to the point that even a new-dealer is considered to be a socialist and radical.
In order to get a third party in straight to the presidency, at this point you would probably have to do a mass-movement not slowly move up in percentage of vote over a series of elections.
Considering that both Trump and Clinton's unfavorable ratings are so high, and polling is showing that an unprecedented number of Americans don't want either of them, this is the perfect year for a breakout candidate to surprise the two parties.
https://www.salon.com/2016/05/25/wher...ial_candidate/
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
The problem is there its a little late-game to be pushing for a mass-movement.
It's possible but extremely difficult and the amount of effort you would actually need is quite substantial.
Say if there were provisions made a year or two in advance in case of this outcome of TrumpVClinton, you probably could do it. But as a spur of the moment thing, trying to hit critical mass in this time as well as getting the participation needed would be very difficult.
Therefore I'm fine with playing the long-game with a lesser evil for the current time.
I'm not an accelerationist and find that risking a shorter-game could potentially have unforeseen consequences.
"Nearly half, 47 percent, of registered American voters would consider a third-party candidate if Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were the major party nominees, according to a new NBC/WSJ poll."
The 47% statistic doesn't tell us too much. Given that that poll appears to be just a basic telephone-based with only 1000people(not stated if regional or national either). We can't really infer to much. If anything what would occur if people actually did follow through in that and the percentage is accurate(both of which I doubt), I doubt all of them are liberal leaning and would vote for green, if anything there could also be a move towards the Libertarian party.
Nor Do I see that still being enough to win electoral votes even to cause one candidate to get <50% given the winner take all system in place in most.
Not necessarily.
I would say most people are aware of third parties as is even without their debate. And I doubt more-so that there are those who say and will actively act against the current parties who also don't know about third parties and a basic premise of positions such as green being left and less-authoritative and libertarian being right and less-authoritative than the current parties.
It also wouldn't be the first time a third party was in a debate, the current spectrum establishment or whatever you want to call it easily defeats them still.
". In 1980, Jimmy Carter strongly opposed the inclusion of independent candidate John Anderson, who had polled as high as 26 percent, in the debates. (Anderson would ultimately finish with less than 7 percent of the vote.) The League decided to include Anderson anyway, prompting Carter to drop out of the debates and leaving Anderson alone to debate Ronald Reagan. In 1984, the League held a press conference lambasting Reagan and Walter Mondale for rejecting dozens of potential debate moderators."
There is also much more than just 15% threshold
In addition to meeting the 15 percent threshold "as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations," the CPD mandates that candidates be Constitutionally eligible to be president and be on the ballot in enough states that it is mathematically possible to win the presidency.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/do-the-debates-unfairly-shut-out-third-parties/2/
The point is Paladin, while Clinton doesn't use the same hateful rhetoric Trump employs, I refuse to vote for someone I disgree with and who would be bad for the country.
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
I'm not arguing that a third party candidate wouldn't be a good thing to have in office.
I just feel that if we were to rush straight to presidency; it's far too late for that to occur, The third partys and their candidates(or anyone else running) should have made a very encompassing plan rather than just hoping for votes and appealing to dissatisified voters since clearly that approach hasn't work.
It would take a lot of funds and the candidates being decided much earlier and actively campaigning much early(probably would have to be as early as start of traditional party primaries). As well as a very large grassroots in addition to it.
Given the current state of affairs the most likely thing that would convince people to vote third parties would be to win either seats at the state or congressional level and gain enough to force both parties to hear them on issues in order to gain votes to pass legislation.
If you were to win let's say 10% of either or both houses of congress. That would prove to the electorate that they are viable for presidential as well and potentially cause enough traction to hit critical mass by the next presidential election.
Drone strikes are bad.
You know what else is bad? Abandoning S Korea and Becoming friends with N Korea, literally the worst dictatorship in the world.
You know what else is bad? Letting 10% of the syrian population be killed and helping the murderer.
"Sticking it to the man" doesn't actually help anything if there isn't a carefully though out process of what will we gain through this specific action rather than "sticking it to the man"
I would say most Brexit leave voters thought that way and a decent percentage(not saying all or even most) didn't realize the full repercussions given some of the comments I've seen by voters post-referendum.
When a person actively says.
Let's implement a system of internet censorship like China's Great Firewall solely to keep terrorist activity out.
I find that very disturbing. And one of the most harmful outcomes including beyond the United States if it's implemented[not a stretch given enough of a knee-jerk reaction by the populace if a few more major terrorist attacks occurred on US soil]