So Your Eyeing a Third Party Candidate This Time Around

[Perknose]

Before you pull that lever, have you taken a close enough look? John Oliver did.

 

[MongGrel]

I might have changed my vote to Joe Exotic for grins and giggles recently.

Nah.

 

[Jaskalas]

So there's no getting around just how painful this election really is.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Funnier than other John Oliver videos I've seen (not saying much), but it still neglects to address that people are voting for unelectable candidates not because they particularly love them, but because they at least promote values not found in either of the major party candidates. #FeelTheJohnson

 

[glenn1]

Funnier than other John Oliver videos I've seen (not saying much), but it still neglects to address that people are voting for unelectable candidates not because they particularly love them, but because they at least promote values not found in either of the major party candidates. #FeelTheJohnson

This principle seems to elude the supporters of major party candidates. If you want to appeal to those who would vote for minor party candidates then nominate someone who holds positions we can vote for rather than thinking they'll just comply when you start talking about the "lesser of two evils" over and over. Or select a candidate that holds positions that third party voters would oppose and accept that you probably won't get those voters. The idea that we should compromise our values to accommodate yours is baffling.

 

[Sunburn74]

I find Jill Stein to be an embarrassment as a health care provider.

In regards to Gary Johnson and libertarianism, what is there to say? He clearly is unqualified for the position from so many standpoints, mostly ignorance and compassion for other people. his foreign policy position is basically that the dumber you are as an individual the better your foreign policy will be and that the only way American interests are threatened is if they are physically landing on our shores (which clearly is an erroneous way of doing things. Think WW2 for example or the Syria situation today. Had the Japanese not attacked who's to say what Europe and africa woud look like now, and the Syrian situation we could have minimally intervened before the Russians did rather than create the essentially unsolvable situation we have today)

Furthermore the very core concepts libertarianism I just dont believe in it. Libertarianism at its core believes that if you leave people alone they will do good and act justly in their own best interest. I think history clearly states the opposite about human behavior. Yes we will act in our best interests but often it's selfish and destructive thus we felt the need to from governments to heavily manage those interests. At its core and purest form, libertarianism actually argues for the dissolution of countries entirely leaving all sovereignty at the individual level. I just can't get with that.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I find Jill Stein to be an embarrassment as a health care provider.

In regards to Gary Johnson and libertarianism, what is there to say? He clearly is unqualified for the position from so many standpoints, mostly ignorance and compassion for other people. his foreign policy position is basically that the dumber you are as an individual the better your foreign policy will be and that the only way American interests are threatened is if they are physically landing on our shores (which clearly is an erroneous way of doing things. Think WW2 for example or the Syria situation today. Had the Japanese not attacked who's to say what Europe and africa woud look like now, and the Syrian situation we could have minimally intervened before the Russians did rather than create the essentially unsolvable situation we have today)

Furthermore the very core concepts libertarianism I just dont believe in it. Libertarianism at its core believes that if you leave people alone they will do good and act justly in their own best interest. I think history clearly states the opposite about human behavior. Yes we will act in our best interests but often it's selfish and destructive thus we felt the need to from governments to heavily manage those interests. At its core and purest form, libertarianism actually argues for the dissolution of countries entirely leaving all sovereignty at the individual level. I just can't get with that.

Considering how we gave Stalin the resources he needed to turn the USSR into a superpower (and ultimately kill more than Hitler managed), it probably would have been roughly break-even wrt loss of human life. We also turned our backs of the millions killed by the British during WW2 (Bengal famine), potentially at a rate even higher than that of the Holocaust, but hey, the lesser of two evils is still the "good" side am I right?

Contemporary "compassion" means caring only about things that have immediate potential to affect us. We care about Syria right now, we don't give a shit about the vast majority of Africa. Interestingly, China's brand of politically-authoritarian brand of capitalism is doing far more for that continent than our foreign aid, charity, and meddling have. What "minimal" intervention do you think we should have engaged in anyways?

 

[MongGrel]

Considering how we gave Stalin the resources he needed to turn the USSR into a superpower (and ultimately kill more than Hitler managed), it probably would have been roughly break-even wrt loss of human life. We also turned our backs of the millions killed by the British during WW2 (Bengal famine), potentially at a rate even higher than that of the Holocaust, but hey, the lesser of two evils is still the "good" side am I right?

Contemporary "compassion" means caring only about things that have immediate potential to affect us. We care about Syria right now, we don't give a shit about the vast majority of Africa. Interestingly, China's brand of politically-authoritarian brand of capitalism is doing far more for that continent than our foreign aid, charity, and meddling have. What "minimal" intervention do you think we should have engaged in anyways?

Shit happens on a daily basis of course.

Stalin sucked and killed a lot of people, Mao sucked and killed a lot of people, a lot of countries/movements did things in purges at one time or another. Japan factored in on beating the piss out of China even before WWII officially started, there was a huge list of misdeeds there.

Patten wanted to invade Russia at the end of WWII of course.

Daesh is currently getting beat up a bit atm.

China has been prepping Africa for a possible expansion there a long time now.

 

[Sunburn74]

Considering how we gave Stalin the resources he needed to turn the USSR into a superpower (and ultimately kill more than Hitler managed), it probably would have been roughly break-even wrt loss of human life. We also turned our backs of the millions killed by the British during WW2 (Bengal famine), potentially at a rate even higher than that of the Holocaust, but hey, the lesser of two evils is still the "good" side am I right?

Contemporary "compassion" means caring only about things that have immediate potential to affect us. We care about Syria right now, we don't give a shit about the vast majority of Africa. Interestingly, China's brand of politically-authoritarian brand of capitalism is doing far more for that continent than our foreign aid, charity, and meddling have. What "minimal" intervention do you think we should have engaged in anyways?

It's not about good or evil. Nothing we do overseas is in regards to that actually. It's more that threats that need intervention may not necessarily be here and strong foreign monitoring and timely intervention may needed to prevent major conflict escalations. Gary Johnsons basic position is pull out of all these countries, don't monitor threats abroad and wait till grevious injury occurs here physically before we respond. That is stupid to me especially as threats are less and less organized today coming in the form of individuals and organizations rather than countries and coalitions. I'm not a war mongerer in any sense but it's clear you have to monitor stuff overseas (nuclear proliferation for example) and not just out your head in the sand. If you're really about America's best interest you have to grasp that we're living in an increasingly interconnected world and we have to be knowledgeable about what's happening in other places.

 

[MongGrel]

It's not about good or evil. Nothing we do overseas is in regards to that actually. It's more that threats that need intervention may not necessarily be here and strong foreign monitoring and timely intervention may needed to prevent major conflict escalations. Gary Johnsons basic position is pull out of all these countries, don't monitor threats abroad and wait till grevious injury occurs here physically before we respond. That is stupid to me especially as threats are less and less organized today coming in the form of individuals and organizations rather than countries and coalitions. I'm not a war mongerer in any sense but it's clear you have to monitor stuff overseas (nuclear proliferation for example) and not just out your head in the sand. If you're really about America's best interest you have to grasp that we're living in an increasingly interconnected world and we have to be knowledgeable about what's happening in other places.

Gary Johnson would pull out of all countries because he has no clue about foreign policy to begin with.

Isolationism is just not going to work in this day and age.

Trump saying the military is weak is a buncha BS also, as far as some things, the US is still way more advanced.

He just has no clue.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

It's not about good or evil. Nothing we do overseas is in regards to that actually. It's more that threats that need intervention may not necessarily be here and strong foreign monitoring and timely intervention may needed to prevent major conflict escalations. Gary Johnsons basic position is pull out of all these countries, don't monitor threats abroad and wait till grevious injury occurs here physically before we respond. That is stupid to me especially as threats are less and less organized today coming in the form of individuals and organizations rather than countries and coalitions. I'm not a war mongerer in any sense but it's clear you have to monitor stuff overseas (nuclear proliferation for example) and not just out your head in the sand. If you're really about America's best interest you have to grasp that we're living in an increasingly interconnected world and we have to be knowledgeable about what's happening in other places.

Putting aside the Barbary Wars, Islamic terror never threatened us until we started getting involved in their world. Eisenhower and Reagan's interventions did more to directly create terrorist groups that hate us than non-intervention ever did. What threat do you think Assad or ISIS realistically present to us?

 

[Sunburn74]

Putting aside the Barbary Wars, Islamic terror never threatened us until we started getting involved in their world. Eisenhower and Reagan's interventions did more to directly create terrorist groups that hate us than non-intervention ever did. What threat do you think Assad or ISIS realistically present to us?

Arms and nuclear proliferation is a concern especially when you're talking about small organizations that would like to cause serious harm to American interests. I can't comment on Assad. Isis at least with propaganda militarizes dissidents here to engage in terror either with small arms or with more sinister planning. Regardless these are just a few general arguments why Gary Johnsons foreign policy is very short sighted. Operatives overseas are very necessary as we don't live in isolation and our enemies are becoming harder and harder to find. Heck for reference the FBI just broke up a plot by 3 white supremacists essentially to blow up an apartment building holding African immigrants here. Under Gary Johnson I'm not sure he'd even keep the FBI around based on his rhetoric.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Arms and nuclear proliferation is a concern especially when you're talking about small organizations that would like to cause serious harm to American interests. I can't comment on Assad. Isis at least with propaganda militarizes dissidents here to engage in terror either with small arms or with more sinister planning. Regardless these are just a few general arguments why Gary Johnsons foreign policy is very short sighted. Operatives overseas are very necessary as we don't live in isolation and our enemies are becoming harder and harder to find. Heck for reference the FBI just broke up a plot by 3 white supremacists essentially to blow up an apartment building holding African immigrants here. Under Gary Johnson I'm not sure he'd even keep the FBI around based on his rhetoric.

Nuclear proliferation is happening whether we like it or not; see North Korea and Pakistan. From a quick Google, it looks like Johnson's position of nuclear proliferation isn't that different from mainline American politicians, but I don't really care about Johnson himself. The stuff on domestic terrorism seems like a silly strawman; who exactly is saying that domestic terrorism doesn't matter and that we shouldn't have investigative forces or police?

 

[MongGrel]

News Flash, but not really.

Real Time With Bill Maher: Some very sobering things to say about Trump and the state of this race

Munchs on a PBJ.

 

[Perknose]

News Flash, but not really.

Real Time With Bill Maher: Some very sobering things to say about Trump and the state of this race

Munchs on a PBJ.

Bill Maher still brings it on an extremely high level. He and John Oliver are at the forefront of illuminating our politics with insight and humor. The humor is like candy coating on needed medicine, for those who might not pay close enough attention otherwise.

I had wandered away from him for some years but came back to him this election cycle. Trump made it so.

 

[PokerGuy]

If ever there was an election where a viable third party candidate would have been a god-sent, it is this one. How wonderful would it be if there was an even remotely viable third party option this time around? Unfortunately, there isn't. It's either the scumbag crook or the jackass.

 

[Perknose]

I It's either the scumbag crook or the jackass.

Crook vs jackass? Trump isn't running against himself.

 

[glenn1]

This election has been useful because Trump isn't the only one saying "politically incorrect" things. Having him as the GOP candidate has also freed up the left to fully and joyfully vent their contempt for the other half of the country. Which I suppose in a way is good because both parties are now operating on the same model of no compromise, winner take all, the means are justified because the ends of denying the evil people on the other side any legitimacy trumps all. So if you've enjoyed the last few years where one party gaining power means they toss aside any limits to forcefully impose their will upon whatever they govern (see the union crushing of Scott Walker in Wisconsin, or Obamacare on a straight party line vote using "reconcilliation" rather than normal order) is now being normalized as the new standard. Congratulations I suppose?

 

[thraashman]

I might have changed my vote to Joe Exotic for grins and giggles recently.

Nah.

Joe probably has a more intelligent fiscal policy than Gary Johnson and I doubt he'd pander to Sandy Hook truthers like Jill would.

 

[PokerGuy]

Crook vs jackass? Trump isn't running against himself.

Correct

 

[Sunburn74]

Nuclear proliferation is happening whether we like it or not; see North Korea and Pakistan. From a quick Google, it looks like Johnson's position of nuclear proliferation isn't that different from mainline American politicians, but I don't really care about Johnson himself. The stuff on domestic terrorism seems like a silly strawman; who exactly is saying that domestic terrorism doesn't matter and that we shouldn't have investigative forces or police?

Gary Johnson is. He did an interview with the freakonomics podcast guys where he specifically described markedly reducing the size of the US military, and pulling CIA operatives and almost all US embassy staff overseas to just the amounts needed to specifically defend immediate US borders. I almost threw my phone down in disgust. With domestic terrorists the concern is their getting their hands on stuff that can cause mass terror like biological weapons , nuclear weapons, etc again it's individuals and organizations that would do this sort of thing and thst is a much harder thing to monitor. I'm not arguing that its a huge threat but rather that pretending these people don't exist is stupid and dangerous.

Again this is the same guy who said he would get rid of the US census bureau....

 

[glenn1]

Gary Johnson is. He did an interview with the freakonomics podcast guys where he specifically described markedly reducing the size of the US military, and pulling CIA operatives and almost all US embassy staff overseas to just the amounts needed to specifically defend immediate US borders. I almost threw my phone down in disgust. With domestic terrorists the concern is their getting their hands on stuff that can cause mass terror like biological weapons , nuclear weapons, etc again it's individuals and organizations that would do this sort of thing and thst is a much harder thing to monitor. I'm not arguing that its a huge threat but rather that pretending these people don't exist is stupid and dangerous.

Again this is the same guy who said he would get rid of the US census bureau....

No one is here advocating for Johnson or any other 3rd party candidate. The reasons you're citing are just as valid to you in deciding your vote as mine or anyone else making the decision who to vote for. I do hope that you've found someone else that you can wholeheartedly vote FOR instead of just casting your vote against someone.

 

[Sunburn74]

No one is here advocating for Johnson or any other 3rd party candidate. The reasons you're citing are just as valid to you in deciding your vote as mine or anyone else making the decision who to vote for. I do hope that you've found someone else that you can wholeheartedly vote FOR instead of just casting your vote against someone.

Granted and understood. Really more a criticism of the non trivial 9-10% of people and disturbingly high number of young people who are likely going to vote for him based on his simple platform of legalizing marijuana and other minor social changes.

What's annoying to me is the spoiler role he clearly is playing in this election when he'd be better off negotiating for inclusion of his policies by the winning camp rather than letting them die in the vine. Life ultimately is about working with other people.

 

[NesuD]

Putting aside the Barbary Wars, Islamic terror never threatened us until we started getting involved in their world. Eisenhower and Reagan's interventions did more to directly create terrorist groups that hate us than non-intervention ever did. What threat do you think Assad or ISIS realistically present to us?

Wow did you seriously post that? Kind of left a few democrats off that list there didn't ya bub, Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter to be precise. I seem to recall an intervention that cost 49,000 American Servicemen their lives. Pretty sure Kennedy sent the first advisors there and Johnson escalated American involvement.

 

[fskimospy]

This principle seems to elude the supporters of major party candidates. If you want to appeal to those who would vote for minor party candidates then nominate someone who holds positions we can vote for rather than thinking they'll just comply when you start talking about the "lesser of two evils" over and over. Or select a candidate that holds positions that third party voters would oppose and accept that you probably won't get those voters. The idea that we should compromise our values to accommodate yours is baffling.

Did you watch the video? Oliver is saying many of the same things I've been saying for months now, it's not the 'lesser of two evils', it's the 'lesser of four evils'. Both Johnson and Stein's signature positions aren't just bad ideas, they are breathtakingly incompetent ones that not only wouldn't work just from a logical/legal perspective, but the candidates seem to know so little about the federal government that they didn't even seem to realize that they wouldn't work. Think about how insane that is.

Regardless of what you think of Clinton, both Johnson and Stein are lazy, flailing morons who can't even be bothered to get the basic facts on their signature positions right. I mean as a third party candidate you don't need to have well thought out positions on everything, but surely it isn't too much to ask to have a well thought out position on ONE thing.