|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jul 27, 2015 9:13:04 GMT -5
I think the danger posed by Trump isn't so much that he might win the nomination but that he makes all the other Republican candidates look relatively moderate and reasonable by way of contrast. Only until they nominate one and the focus shifts to them compared to their Democratic competitor. I have a feeling if Trump doesn't get the nomination he might just continue to campaign on his own dime and poll in the 20% range, just enough to be taken seriously as a third party candidate, and Ross Perot his way into all the debates right up to election day. My dream situation is that Trump runs as an independent candidate and siphons off enough voters from the Republican nominee so that the Democratic nominee sails to an easy victory. |
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Jul 27, 2015 9:19:45 GMT -5
I think the danger posed by Trump isn't so much that he might win the nomination but that he makes all the other Republican candidates look relatively moderate and reasonable by way of contrast. Or the other candidates will try to emulate Trump and go full-on racist and build some casinos. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jul 27, 2015 9:20:22 GMT -5
"But what are you going to do about it? It's a two party system you have to vote for one of them."
"I believe I'll vote for a third party candidate"
"Go ahead, through your vote away!"
|
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Jul 27, 2015 9:27:37 GMT -5
I don't think you can break up the two-party system on the presidential level right away. Get a movement like Germany's Green party in the 80s in some city councils, some state legislatures first. Built the brand. Get some house members. Seems like nobody ever is willing to put in the effort to play the long game, and as a result 3rd party candidates automatically are jokes.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jul 27, 2015 9:38:36 GMT -5
I'm not a political historian and was making a joke at dupont's mention of Ross Perot as I remember that in school. He was the first third party canadate I can remember. But yes, it seems petty of most voters to discount someone based on them NOT being affiliated with some boys club. It shouldn't discount their potential and it's very reductive for Americans to judge a canadate by their ideas on their affiliations.
|
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jul 27, 2015 9:46:34 GMT -5
I'm not a political historian and was making a joke at dupont's mention of Ross Perot as I remember that in school. He was the first third party canadate I can remember. But yes, it seems petty of most voters to discount someone based on them NOT being affiliated with some boys club. It shouldn't discount their potential and it's very reductive for Americans to judge a canadate by their ideas on their affiliations. It's more of a practical matter. Unless there is a fundamental change in the election process, a third party candidate will not be elected. If you vote for a 3rd party candidate, knowing full well he has zero chance of winning (Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, etc), then you run the risk of the one of the big two that you really can't stand getting elected because of the closeness of the vote (ie. Al Gore vs. George W. Bush). In that situation, yes you are literally throwing away your vote. You may have won a battle by standing up for an ideal, and lost the war because the worst choice has gotten elected. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jul 27, 2015 9:51:21 GMT -5
I'm not a political historian and was making a joke at dupont's mention of Ross Perot as I remember that in school. He was the first third party canadate I can remember. But yes, it seems petty of most voters to discount someone based on them NOT being affiliated with some boys club. It shouldn't discount their potential and it's very reductive for Americans to judge a canadate by their ideas on their affiliations. It's more of a practical matter. Unless there is a fundamental change in the election process, a third party candidate will not be elected. If you vote for a 3rd party candidate, knowing full well he has zero chance of winning (Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, etc), then you run the risk of the one of the big two that you really can't stand getting elected because of the closeness of the vote (ie. Al Gore vs. George W. Bush). In that situation, yes you are literally throwing away your vote. You may have won a battle by standing up for an ideal, and lost the war because the worst choice has gotten elected. Thanks for the information. I didn't realize that third parties have their hands tied. I always just assumed it was one of those if you're not a republican or democrat you don't matter. Well assuming did it to me again lol |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jul 27, 2015 10:36:26 GMT -5
It's more of a practical matter. Unless there is a fundamental change in the election process, a third party candidate will not be elected. If you vote for a 3rd party candidate, knowing full well he has zero chance of winning (Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, etc), then you run the risk of the one of the big two that you really can't stand getting elected because of the closeness of the vote (ie. Al Gore vs. George W. Bush). In that situation, yes you are literally throwing away your vote. You may have won a battle by standing up for an ideal, and lost the war because the worst choice has gotten elected. Thanks for the information. I didn't realize that third parties have their hands tied. I always just assumed it was one of those if you're not a republican or democrat you don't matter. Well assuming did it to me again lol With the massive fund raising and political lobby support the major parties get, the third party candidates truly have their hands tied. They may well be the best choice, but our system has come down to choosing the lesser of the two major evils. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 27, 2015 10:50:22 GMT -5
I'm not a political historian and was making a joke at dupont's mention of Ross Perot as I remember that in school. He was the first third party canadate I can remember. But yes, it seems petty of most voters to discount someone based on them NOT being affiliated with some boys club. It shouldn't discount their potential and it's very reductive for Americans to judge a canadate by their ideas on their affiliations. It's more of a practical matter. Unless there is a fundamental change in the election process, a third party candidate will not be elected. If you vote for a 3rd party candidate, knowing full well he has zero chance of winning (Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, etc), then you run the risk of the one of the big two that you really can't stand getting elected because of the closeness of the vote (ie. Al Gore vs. George W. Bush). In that situation, yes you are literally throwing away your vote. You may have won a battle by standing up for an ideal, and lost the war because the worst choice has gotten elected. I think we live in an age, though, where the third party candidates have moved into the core parties. There's no way the Tea Party candidates represent the core Republican base ideals. Heck, they call themselves an entirely different party, but they are working from within the party. I think most see Sanders as being like a third party candidate, as well. He's basically Ralph Nader with a more well-rounded platform, yet he's working from within the Democratic Party. It may come down to Hillary and Jeb, but that's a lot less certain than it has been in recent political history. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jul 27, 2015 11:08:52 GMT -5
I think the danger posed by Trump isn't so much that he might win the nomination but that he makes all the other Republican candidates look relatively moderate and reasonable by way of contrast. I'll have to disagree with this.
As evidence I present ... the other Republican candidates.
Let's start with Huckabee ... Obama on Huckabee's Hitler comments: "Ridiculous if it weren't so sad"
(Huckabee, commenting on the recent anti-nuclear deal with Iran, said that Obama "will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven." Of course, the other Republican candidates leaped to Obama's defense and castigated Huckabee for being shrill and ... No, wait. They didn't do anything like that.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jul 27, 2015 11:18:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jul 27, 2015 11:21:27 GMT -5
I think the danger posed by Trump isn't so much that he might win the nomination but that he makes all the other Republican candidates look relatively moderate and reasonable by way of contrast. I'll have to disagree with this.
As evidence I present ... the other Republican candidates.
Let's start with Huckabee ... Obama on Huckabee's Hitler comments: "Ridiculous if it weren't so sad"
(Huckabee, commenting on the recent anti-nuclear deal with Iran, said that Obama "will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven." Of course, the other Republican candidates leaped to Obama's defense and castigated Huckabee for being shrill and ... No, wait. They didn't do anything like that.)
Hadn't heard about that. Always thought that Huckabee was nuts, but there are no words for that. It saddens me that most of these people are or were in positions of power. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jul 27, 2015 12:07:52 GMT -5
And Ted Cruz said that the Obama Administration will become the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism.It's a meme that Trump is crazier than the other GOP candidates. It's a very transparent and lazy meme that is very easy to disprove. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jul 27, 2015 13:34:54 GMT -5
Obama on Huckabee's Hitler comments: "Ridiculous if it weren't so sad"
(Huckabee, commenting on the recent anti-nuclear deal with Iran, said that Obama "will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven." Of course, the other Republican candidates leaped to Obama's defense and castigated Huckabee for being shrill and ... No, wait. They didn't do anything like that.)
Hadn't heard about that. Always thought that Huckabee was nuts, but there are no words for that. It saddens me that most of these people are or were in positions of power. I'm not surprised you hadn't heard about it. The mainstream media is all over every crazy thing that Donald Trump says. But a lot of the stupid things that most of the other contenders say gets scant coverage.
You heard all about his comments about McCain, dismissing his Vietnam service. And you also heard about, for example, Jeb Bush calling out Trump for being so disrespectful to Vietnam veterans.
But I bet you didn't see the letter that Jeb Bush sent to the leaders of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, thanking them for their "courage" in taking on John Kerry, who was called a coward because he "only" served two tours of duty in Vietnam.
The GOP contenders for the nomination constantly say all kinds of terrible things like Huckabee's "oven" statement. I see these stories on progressive news blogs, but the mainstream media ignores a lot of it and what they don't ignore, they marginalize it and let it disappear pretty quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jul 27, 2015 14:19:58 GMT -5
Hadn't heard about that. Always thought that Huckabee was nuts, but there are no words for that. It saddens me that most of these people are or were in positions of power. I'm not surprised you hadn't heard about it. The mainstream media is all over every crazy thing that Donald Trump says. But a lot of the stupid things that most of the other contenders say gets scant coverage.
You heard all about his comments about McCain, dismissing his Vietnam service. And you also heard about, for example, Jeb Bush calling out Trump for being so disrespectful to Vietnam veterans.
But I bet you didn't see the letter that Jeb Bush sent to the leaders of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, thanking them for their "courage" in taking on John Kerry, who was called a coward because he "only" served two tours of duty in Vietnam.
The GOP contenders for the nomination constantly say all kinds of terrible things like Huckabee's "oven" statement. I see these stories on progressive news blogs, but the mainstream media ignores a lot of it and what they don't ignore, they marginalize it and let it disappear pretty quickly.
You would think the "liberal news media" would be all over this stuff. Could it be that the "liberal news media" is just another lie from the right wing side? No, they wouldn't lie about that...would they? |
|
