This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Once again I think we should remember that our message board is comprised almost entirely of middle class and upper middle class white males.Smack Tripper said:
We will see. I think turnout rises when you "love" your candidate - not when you "hate" the opponent. People want you to beat a bad opponent - but not necessarily enough to get off the couch.
This has been pointed out several times and it's consistently ignored. Doesn't fit what they want to hear.
The majority of which lean right and one has any doubt of that look at ratio of comments from conservatives versus liberals/progressives in this thread or any other political thread.
Was your anti-Hillary stance a recent development or were you in that camp from the get go? If the latter, and I assume there are a lot of voters who stand with you, that doesn't change the equation on the current situation. The concern is folks who were leaning Hillary for whatever reason who are now deciding to vote against her or not at all. I'd like to see what those numbers look like.I live in the important swing state of PA and will never vote Hillary or Trump.. as of now I'm Gary Johnson or nobody.. If Biden were to become the nominee, I would vote for him .. but NEVER Hillary
i was more neutral on Clinton until the last few years and now realize what a corrupt, horrible person she is..
Whoa, this is a stunner. A right-leaning (presumably) middle-aged white male who refuses to vote for Clinton?I live in the important swing state of PA and will never vote Hillary or Trump.. as of now I'm Gary Johnson or nobody.. If Biden were to become the nominee, I would vote for him .. but NEVER Hillary
Then don't complain when the two major parties continue to give us losers for nominees.
I understand that, and I'm glad you're not voting for Trump
Well this time I'm both going to vote Hillary and complain about it.
You know the answer to this. You can chose not to follow through with it. You may be right that the threat of a Trump victory is enough not to make it worth it. But by voting for either of these two losers your complaints will ring hollow the next time we have to pick between the giant ##### and the turd sandwich.
I see people make this argument all the time, and nobody ever explains how to get from point A to point B, or why point B necessarily follows from point A. It's a classic "collect underpants/???/profit!" type of argument.
If third party voting goes down because the major parties give us better nominees then I consider that a good outcome.
I hope you're right that this year is an aberration. I know I may seem like a crank; but I'm really not (or at least I'd like to think so). I've never voted third party in a Presidential election before; but I do plan to this year. I don't have a problem in principle with voting for candidates from the two major parties; but they need to be acceptable ones.
Except that this doesn't appear to be the case at all. The candidates in 1984 and 2004 were both IMO weaker than the ones in 1980 and 2000 (weaker Dems, Rs were the same). I think its much more likely that the third party candidates went away four years later because people realized it's stupid to vote for them for president in our current system. Or that it's just coincidence. Only thing we can say for certain is that there's zero evidence that the candidacies of Anderson, Perot and Nader did anything to help the third party movement.
Not smart IMO. She should be going after the Trump Foundation stuff, not this. Trump Foundation scandal is much easier to understand and much harder to defend. And they need to focus media and public attention on a small handful of things, not wide-reaching stuff that gets lost of the forest Trump-related sleaze and scandal.
I'm not sure Kerry was a weaker candidate than Gore. Of course, the obvious counterargument to this is "scoreboard". But Kerry had the Swift Boat attacks which was dirty pool.
Part of the strategic problem camp Clinton has is picking a target of focus and honing the message. They are just chasing Trump around with each piece of b.s. he drops, creating a breadth of justifiable questions/concerns, but never really zeroing in on anything for long before moving on to the next thing with him. Not saying it's easy, but they really need to narrow the aperture on what to attack him on, or else it all gets lost in the confusing shuffle of Donald's endless supply of awfulness.
You understand though, don't you. If we're going to talk corruption, let's talk about it. It's a spot on tweet storm under Hillary's handle, I just think there's no way she would or ever think about these issues this way herself.
Sure, just saying I would have gone after the Foundation first and tried to give that some legs. I know the Newsweek article on the Org came out yesterday but so did that Atlantic article on the Foundation and I thought that hit much harder and was much more damning of Trump's character and dealings.
IMO one of the purposes of campaigns is to educate people. I personally could not be happier that Hillary's teams of pros are bringing these structures and mechanisms to the fore. The people should know how this stuff works and Brava to her for okaying it. I just hope that supporters and reporters keep pressing beyond Trump when all is said and done. I personally think reporting, investigation and criminal enforcement is where stopping corruption occurs, and it is much more important than campaign spending/contribution limits and such.
Hasn't he already said no? Trump will not even go blind trust, he will just hand over control to his children, I see next to no difference.
'Not giving us losers' was the excuse primary voters made for voting Trump. I fail to see how helping to elect Trump fixes the problem. One of these two candidates will be President so you are either helping defeat Trump or you are helping to elect him.
I'm sure he's still the butt of hater jokes....that's why they are haters, right?The General said:
I fail to see how electing Hillary fixes the problem either. To be clear "the problem" being the two major parties nominating terrible candidates. Now, if you want to argue that stopping Trump is more important, that's fine. I'm not even going to attempt to dissuade of you that. It's a perfectly reasonable position. But it doesn't address the problem of what happens after 2016.
Stein is a disaster. Johnson would probably be in over his head if he ever somehow wound up as POTUS but he's reasonably intelligent and seems like a decent man.
My guess is their research has more nuggets on the business than the foundation, but who knows. Like I wouldn't be shocked if they have a lot more stuff on his relationship with Qaddafi or the Russian oligarchs.
I like Gary, seems like a decent guy with good intentions, but he's fails to understand that his ideas would be destructive as President and he's woefully unprepared to deal with foreign policy.
Cutting off the "he fails to understand that his ideas would be destructive as President and he's woefully unprepared to deal with foreign policy" party of that post is a nice trick. Reminds of the Trump campaign doing this.
Hm, if we discuss Gary Johnson there's a chance a policy discussion could break out. I'm not sure if the thread is ready for that.
No, some random donor (who apparently is no fan of Clinton) told Colin Powell that Clinton hates that Obama beat her in an election eight years ago.
