Red Mosquito

tragabigzanda wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:So you agree with all that, but still want to do the opposite?

Precisely.

cutuphalfdead wrote:As far as third parties in Presidential elections go, I think Perot and Nader are about as successful as you can expect them to be in the modern political climate. So best case scenario, they don't really do shit.

Depends on your metric, and some things are tough to quantify. The pull I felt from Nader as an idealistic 20-year-old was profound; it made me pay attention in a way I wasn't before. Not sure how that translates to polls, the electoral college, campaign finance reform, etc. But it certainly has value.

Sure, and I was a few years younger but the Nader campaign had a very similar effect on me.

But that intangible, touch at your feelings kind of effect is about all that can be said about the positive effects of the Nader campaign.

cutuphalfdead wrote:As far as third parties in Presidential elections go, I think Perot and Nader are about as successful as you can expect them to be in the modern political climate. So best case scenario, they don't really do shit.

Going back to what you said about starting small, the most successful third party presidential candidacies are ones that have strong support in a region. And that's wholly due to the first past the post structure that the Constitution lays out. The last few third party candidates to win non-trivial electoral voters were all Southern segregationists like Wallace and Thurmond who had united support in the Deep South even though they didn't outside of it.

Perot's run was somewhat defensible because he was at least running a unique campaign that didn't neatly fit into either narrative of the two major parties. It did jack shit for electoral votes but he did get a large enough share to get in the debates and get federal funding to build the Reform Party, although he did a terrible job at that after the fact.

The most destructive and counterproductive type of third parties in the US are the ones that run explicitly to the left or right of the major parties. Ralph Nader will be the feature example of our lifetime, and Jill Stein's going down the same path. Gary Johnson and the Libertarians are more complicated, as they traditionally campaign on some things that get ignored by both parties, though that's becoming less of a case these days.

tragabigzanda wrote:

Green Habit wrote: Perot's run was somewhat defensible because he was at least running a unique campaign that didn't neatly fit into either narrative of the two major parties. It did jack shit for electoral votes but he did get a large enough share to get in the debates and get federal funding to build the Reform Party, although he did a terrible job at that after the fact.

I had no idea a Reform Party was launched from that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Pa ... of_America

cutuphalfdead wrote:As far as third parties in Presidential elections go, I think Perot and Nader are about as successful as you can expect them to be in the modern political climate. So best case scenario, they don't really do shit.

I think if the Perot from 1992 were running in this election, he'd have a cracking good chance of winning. Well, the popular vote, anyway.

cutuphalfdead wrote:I'd leave the ballot blank before voting Johnson/Weld. Same thing with Stein/whomever.

That's actually exactly where I am. I'm voting in the locals but it is what it is after that. I really don't have a candidate I feel is worth voting for.

I'm mostly going to vote on the ballot initiatives.

I still think the Supreme Court is well worth voting for HRC.

cutuphalfdead wrote:I still think the Supreme Court is well worth voting for HRC.

This is true, but I know there will be some rulings that I won't agree with if/when the balance of power tips to Democratic appointees.

The possibility for either candidate to choose the next three supreme court justices is probably disastrous. Those old fuckers need to stop hanging on until they're dead.

BurtReynolds wrote:The possibility for either candidate to choose the next three supreme court justices is probably disastrous. Those old fuckers need to stop hanging on until they're dead.

If Trump were to win, barring death he might only get to replace Scalia. Ginsburg sure as hell isn't going to let him replace her, and I seriously doubt Breyer would, either. Thomas is still young enough, and Kennedy's sensibilities strike me as conflicting with Trump.

If Clinton wins I think Ginsburg retires no later than 2018, and Breyer might as well. Both have to be aware that the GOP could have good odds to retake the Senate in 2018 if they lose it in 2016. Kennedy would be a real wild card--I think there's a small but non-zero chance he'd retire even with Clinton in office, especially if she gets re-elected.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

spike wrote:

theplatypus wrote:He doesn't want to say

It's the principal of it.

It's your right as an American not to.

Jesus. I relinquish my Mantle of Earnestness to the whole lot of you.

The secret ballot is a pillar of the democratic process, trag.

Bi_3 wrote:

4/5 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote: Smart regulations should always be the goal, but globalization is here to stay, so free trade is a given.

I guess what I come back to is that even though those agreements aren't close to perfect, and as long as the US insists on being so protectionist they never will be, I think they are better than ripping them up, especially by someone like Trump who has been very consistent in promoting his total misunderstanding of trade and desire to bring back jobs that have no business coming back to this country. So I am fairly convinced that anything he would attempt to do in place of those agreements would be far worse and negatively impact both this nation and other nations. I suppose if a supporter of free trade were talking about getting rid of them I'd be more open to it because what they'd do instead would be an improvement; what Trump would (want) do regarding international trade would be an unmitigated disaster in my opinion.

I agree with you on most of this, it appears he has no understanding of even 101-level economics or maybe just an inability to communicate it, but Trump would no more be the author of those agreements than Obama is the author of the ACA, and it would be a mistake to oppose something just because he supports it (not that you are implying that).

While this is true I guess my belief is that ANY changes that would be made under his leadership would lead to more protectionism, not less, and that would be moving us in the wrong direction. A Trump victory could be seen as a mandate for protectionism and with the current anti-trade climate in this country I don't think it's unrealistic to think that Trump winning would give cover to lots of congressmen who could cast votes supporting import quotas, tariffs, and export subsidies.

tragabigzanda wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:It might not be rude to ask, but it's definitely rude to press the issue. At least that's what I was taught.

I mean, at this point I'm just arguing for the principle of the thing -- I don't really care in the grand scheme of things. But why come to a thread about the election and say "I voted." Big whoop. I took a dump this morning, it's not post-worthy. I come to this thread for the education offered by an open discourse.

But I don't mean to press the issue. Was mostly just hoping that Spike could see the benefit to voting Johnson/Weld in a state that would certainly go democrat; or possibly be made to understand why he wouldn't make such a vote.

No biggy. Rogue One is gonna be awesome.

no biggy

spike wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:It might not be rude to ask, but it's definitely rude to press the issue. At least that's what I was taught.

I mean, at this point I'm just arguing for the principle of the thing -- I don't really care in the grand scheme of things. But why come to a thread about the election and say "I voted." Big whoop. I took a dump this morning, it's not post-worthy. I come to this thread for the education offered by an open discourse.

But I don't mean to press the issue. Was mostly just hoping that Spike could see the benefit to voting Johnson/Weld in a state that would certainly go democrat; or possibly be made to understand why he wouldn't make such a vote.

No biggy. Rogue One is gonna be awesome.

no biggy

*no bigly

Hillary's speech at the Al Smith thing was funny

I have fallen for her

all she has to say now is:

Free, Universal healthcare for all; and
Free, Universal college education for all

and I will re-name myself Hillary in her honor

As I said elsewhere, this is this generation's version of Nixon's Enemies List.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... sults.html

Green Habit wrote:As I said elsewhere, this is this generation's version of Nixon's Enemies List.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... sults.html

“Don’t like @SamuelLJackson’s golf swing. Not athletic”

too far, Donald. Too far.

BurtReynolds wrote:

Green Habit wrote:As I said elsewhere, this is this generation's version of Nixon's Enemies List.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... sults.html

“Don’t like @SamuelLJackson’s golf swing. Not athletic”

too far, Donald. Too far.

No, this is too far--and you should agree as a fan of an NFC South rival.

Breitbart coordinated with liberal activist and organizer who disrupted GOP primary campaign events

What a roller coaster ride