Gennifer Flowers.

[Dill]

(10-11-2016, 10:23 PM)hollodero Wrote: That might be true. I still believe you kind of overestimate this aspect, though. You see the ocean of intellectual sluggishness in your country, you might have missed out on ours.
Of our 8.5 million people in this country, over 3 million read one and the same newspaper. Guess what kind of newspaper this might be. If your guesses lead you to a word like "sophisticated", you're on the wrong track.

I know Gary Johnson. He seems funny, a nice little funny meaningless clown. I don't know why you brought him up, I'd say people like him don't prove much - you have not seen what ran for president in OUR country. At least Johnson gets called out for knowing nothing, so that's a good sign.

The appeal of "outsiders" is a strange thing. It's almost as if people would not recognize the hard work a politician, let alone a president has to do. They would not trust a plumber without at least 5 years job experience to fix their toilet, yet they go for someone with no track record whatsoever to run the country. This kind of belief is strange. But maybe that's why her expertise and experience don't help Hillary - many people simply hold it against her. They found a magician who can fix stuff she and other politicians have learned to unintentionally sabotage. I know of course it's an empty smokescreen and the job is really about being knowledgeable, being insistent and working hard for small evolutional steps in an environment full of unpleasant facts and boundaries. Trump cannot change that. He can ignore it and cause complete chaos or he can let Pence run the show, but that's that. But I think people do not grasp any of these realities, which incidentally is also quite an American thing. (See: Climate change.)

I confess I probably know more about the Austro-Hungarian Empire than I do about contemporary Austria.  But I have assumed Austrians were not appreciably less "informed" than Germans or English.

Re: the allusion to Johnson--how likely is it that the leader of any Austrian party polling 9% would be unable to name the leader of a bordering country like Germany or Italy? How likely that he/she could retain that level of support if this were publicly known?  Just wondering.  Trump's grasp of international politics is not appreciably greater than Johnson's, and he has won the nomination of the Republican Party--a shot at the presidency. Only his vulgarity has put his election in doubt, not his ignorance.

Segue now to the puzzling "appeal of outsiders" you refer to; the failure to "grasp realities" you mention is an aspect of that general incuriosity and consequent low level of information regarding foreign policy I have been discussing.  Certainly every modern industrial nation has a substantial population (many rural) whose lives are secure and routine enough that what happens elsewhere doesn't much interest them, as well as proudly ignorant petit bourgeois nationalists and an unhappy portion of down-and-outs with Brownshirt tendencies, whose numbers can rise with stresses like immigration and recession.  I'm hardly implying such don't exist in European countries, and in greater proportion in some than others; I'm just pointing out that there seems to be 1) a larger number of "well-informed" to leaven policy discussions in European countries, and 2) I'll now add there is more deference (in general, despite exceptions) to knowledgeable leaders than one finds in the U.S.  

[Rotobeast]

Here I've been enjoying following this conversation and Johnson's entire body of work is reduced to two small moments.
One was a trap question from the get-go and the other because he doesn't get the same briefings and has a smaller amount of time (from running his campaign with less people and doing a ton of his own leg-work) to study the geography of Syria.
Take a moment to look up the date of the Aleppo question and then find the earliest date in a search for Gary speaking about his solutions for Syria.
Don't tell me he doesn't know anything about foreign policy.... Kerry hustled right over and done exactly as Johnson suggested should be done..

Furthermore... why are the children in Aleppo more important than any other children in the world ?
What about children in war-torn parts of Africa ?
Oh...that's right, we can't attempt to tea-bag the Russians there.
No oil pipelines to lay in those areas.
Israel has no interest in THAT region.

I would've thought you two wouldn't fall for the MSM portrayal of third-party candidates.

Even if Johnson is not considered quick witted, he has honesty and integrity going for him, and that's something neither of the other two have an ounce of.

I bid you Good Evening !


P.S. - Yes, I'm mad.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[hollodero]

oh jeez, I'm sorry mr. rotobeast, I really did mean your guy no harm. Look. I did not follow Johnson too much, he's after all - you have to simply admit that - pretty irrelevant, compared to what's at stake. As being not an US citizen and all that, I really do not care too awful much about him. I called him a clown since - that is my impression - he has kind of the habitus of one, and I don't mean that in a particular bad way. He seems to me like a mocker by nature, a treat I actually find quite likeable. I kind of like some of his or his party's ideas; others I simply consider completely absurd. But be it, he's not your next president and I just do not believe he or his party will ever rise to a level of real national relevance.

I did not intend to question his honesty or integrity in any way, but again, he seems to have a very litttle role in all this and he himself, I guess, knows that. And that's how he acts. Now you have to admit that those clips simply don't look too good and that it's not all on the lack of staff members. It was unprofessional (again, this coming from a country that as I mentioned is as neutral as can be), it kind of sticks, and that's that. I sure don't call him stupid because of that. I call him clownesque.

- If it's of any help, if I had to pick one of these three, I probably would pick him.

AS for your other points, that is kind of a specific attack on your foreign policies, and I just whole-heartedly agree that there are some troubling double standards going on. If Johnson talks about it, right now many people I guess are just not up to listening. We all are too busy wondering which kind of guy actually "grabs" women by and all that.

[hollodero]

(10-12-2016, 12:20 AM)Dill Wrote: I confess I probably know more about the Austro-Hungarian Empire than I do about contemporary Austria.  But I have assumed Austrians were not appreciably less "informed" than Germans or English.

We might not be, but are they so informed? A Brexit - from all I know - doesn't seem to be a very informed choice. Which is hilariously underpinned by the fact that the leader of the Brexit movement immediately after the vote a) admitted that his campaign basically consisted of a big bus of lies and b) completely jumped ship.
Just saying.

(10-12-2016, 12:20 AM)Dill Wrote: Re: the allusion to Johnson--how likely is it that the leader of any Austrian party polling 9% would be unable to name the leader of a bordering country like Germany or Italy? How likely that he/she could retain that level of support if this were publicly known? 

Oh my, things like that would be so very likely, you have no idea what runs around here. I might give you a taste later if I'm in the mood.

Concerning Johnson. I admit mr. rotobeast has a point. I actually do not believe Johnson is a complete dummy and it might be kind of unfair to reduce him to these clips alone. (Even more in times when Mr. Trump says the most unbelievable things on a nearly daily basis.)
Then, the 9% might as well just reflect the utter desperation of many voters who simply cannot go for Hillary or Trump. Last election he was at 1% or even less, and I don't think the gap is just his momentum alone. That is just some unique kind of shituation you have here. Congrats, by the way.

(10-12-2016, 12:20 AM)Dill Wrote: Segue now to the puzzling "appeal of outsiders" you refer to; the failure to "grasp realities" you mention is an aspect of that general incuriosity and consequent low level of information regarding foreign policy I have been discussing.  Certainly every modern industrial nation has a substantial population (many rural) whose lives are secure and routine enough that what happens elsewhere doesn't much interest them, as well as proudly ignorant petit bourgeois nationalists and an unhappy portion of down-and-outs with Brownshirt tendencies, whose numbers can rise with stresses like immigration and recession.  I'm hardly implying such don't exist in European countries, and in greater proportion in some than others; I'm just pointing out that there seems to be 1) a larger number of "well-informed" to leaven policy discussions in European countries, and 2) I'll now add there is more deference (in general, despite exceptions) to knowledgeable leaders than one finds in the U.S.  

I can agree to the jist that. We just fell a bit different regarding the numbers of well-informed people in Europe. Truth might be in the middle maybe, just--- don't overestimate it, that's all I'm saying at this point    

[*michaelsean*]

The good thing about Johnson is he doesn't have to really be all that great. He has no chance of winning, so mine and others votes for him are just a way to maybe get a third party enough votes to make them more relevant. They really need to concentrate on getting a house seat, and going from there.

[Rotobeast]

(10-13-2016, 02:03 AM)hollodero Wrote: oh jeez, I'm sorry mr. rotobeast, I really did mean your guy no harm. Look. I did not follow Johnson too much, he's after all - you have to simply admit that - pretty irrelevant, compared to what's at stake. As being not an US citizen and all that, I really do not care too awful much about him. I called him a clown since - that is my impression - he has kind of the habitus of one, and I don't mean that in a particular bad way. He seems to me like a mocker by nature, a treat I actually find quite likeable. I kind of like some of his or his party's ideas; others I simply consider completely absurd. But be it, he's not your next president and I just do not believe he or his party will ever rise to a level of real national relevance.

I did not intend to question his honesty or integrity in any way, but again, he seems to have a very litttle role in all this and he himself, I guess, knows that. And that's how he acts. Now you have to admit that those clips simply don't look too good and that it's not all on the lack of staff members. It was unprofessional (again, this coming from a country that as I mentioned is as neutral as can be), it kind of sticks, and that's that. I sure don't call him stupid because of that. I call him clownesque.

- If it's of any help, if I had to pick one of these three, I probably would pick him.

AS for your other points, that is kind of a specific attack on your foreign policies, and I just whole-heartedly agree that there are some troubling double standards going on. If Johnson talks about it, right now many people I guess are just not up to listening. We all are too busy wondering which kind of guy actually "grabs" women by and all that.

I do understand your limited exposure to Johnson and realize you have little cause to investigate him.
I've calmed a bit, but I just find it frustrating that he gets judged on those supposed gaffes, yet the other two have laundry lists of goofs or outright bullshit answers that go to the wayside.
I find Johnson's admission of not knowing the specific city of Aleppo refreshing.
He didn't make up an excuse.
If that's not the closest to honesty you're going to get out of a politician, I don't know what is.

Heck, one recent load of bullshit that Trump laid out was regarding the proposal to deposit nuclear waste within Yucca Mountain.
He said he knew all about it, but when pressured he didn't know shit (I know, big surprise).
Where was the airplay on that ?
You'd think a domestic issue would be in the forefront of a candidate's mind and the media would run with it, but nooooo... "Look Johnson's a goof....der...der... thanks for the check Hillary".

(ok, CNN finally had an article pop up, but not covered like Aleppo moment)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/10/05/politics/yucca-mountain-nevada-donald-trump/index.html

Shoot....look up the amount of bullshiters (average American citizens) that were willing to bomb the mythical city in Disney's Alladin.
Instead of admitting they knew nothing of the fabricated situation, they bolstered behind attack.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/americans-support-bombing-the-fictional-city-in-aladdin-a6779246.html

But....Aleppo....pffft..


Oh... regarding Johnson's relevance...

https://alibertarianfuture.com/2016-election/presidential-polls/poll-gary-johnson-beating-trump-head-to-head-matchup/
Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[hollodero]

(10-13-2016, 11:52 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: I do understand your limited exposure to Johnson and realize you have little cause to investigate him.
I've calmed a bit, but I just find it frustrating that he gets judged on those supposed gaffes, yet the other two have laundry lists of goofs or outright bullshit answers that go to the wayside.
I find Johnson's admission of not knowing the specific city of Aleppo refreshing.
He didn't make up an excuse.
If that's not the closest to honesty you're going to get out of a politician, I don't know what is.

Well, maybe calm a bit more. So I can outrage you once more.

Here's what's my problem with Gary Johnson. By none of his fault, the next president will either be Hillary or Trump. Voting for Johnson is - and probably for all good and noble reasons - staying out of this choice. Now maybe one can really feel it's equally bad either way - but most of you Gary Johnson supporters definitely do not feel that way. You know what's the responsible, common sense choice here. You know that Trump is a horrendous choice and a real danger. And Hillary is just an annoying pill. You do know, you don't fall for false equivalence. You even write about it in length.

So what do you have. A full blown Ralph Nader/Al Gore situation is what you have. If it's close and Trump makes it, most Johnson voters will just feel like kicking themselves in the ass. And others will feel like kicking them in the ass, too. It's not his fault, it wasn't Naders fault, it's just how your system works.

And the sad thing is, Johnson will not even get any credit for any Johnson vote. People will just take it as evidence how awful the other two candidates were. His voice won't be heard, he won't rise to relevance. It's just the system. Makes Ralph Naders and Gary Johnsons pointless characters in a presidential race even close supporters have to - have to - shy away from voting for. It's the system. But a vote for Johnson isn't even a vote against the system.

[Rotobeast]

(10-13-2016, 04:14 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, maybe calm a bit more. So I can outrage you once more.

Here's what's my problem with Gary Johnson. By none of his fault, the next president will either be Hillary or Trump. Voting for Johnson is - and probably for all good and noble reasons - staying out of this choice. Now maybe one can really feel it's equally bad either way - but most of you Gary Johnson supporters definitely do not feel that way. You know what's the responsible, common sense choice here. You know that Trump is a horrendous choice and a real danger. And Hillary is just an annoying pill. You do know, you don't fall for false equivalence. You even write about it in length.

So what do you have. A full blown Ralph Nader/Al Gore situation is what you have. If it's close and Trump makes it, most Johnson voters will just feel like kicking themselves in the ass. And others will feel like kicking them in the ass, too. It's not his fault, it wasn't Naders fault, it's just how your system works.

And the sad thing is, Johnson will not even get any credit for any Johnson vote. People will just take it as evidence how awful the other two candidates were. His voice won't be heard, he won't rise to relevance. It's just the system. Makes Ralph Naders and Gary Johnsons pointless characters in a presidential race even close supporters have to - have to - shy away from voting for. It's the system. But a vote for Johnson isn't even a vote against the system.

Oh...but I humbly disagree (big surprise).
Regardless of who wins, if Johnson gets 5% of the vote, the Libertarian Party will receive minority party status.
That's a step in the right direction towards ending the stranglehold the two current major parties have on the system.

As far as a Nader situation, I may NOW agree it possible.
Before, Johnson was taking equally from both candidates.
After Trumps debacle over his machismo and wondering hands, a lot more Republicans are moving to Johnson.
If we could only get Stein to pull a few more Clinton supporters...... but that's another story.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Dill]

(10-12-2016, 01:20 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Here I've been enjoying following this conversation and Johnson's entire body of work is reduced to two small moments.
One was a trap question from the get-go and the other because he doesn't get the same briefings and has a smaller amount of time (from running his campaign with less people and doing a ton of his own leg-work) to study the geography of Syria.
Take a moment to look up the date of the Aleppo question and then find the earliest date in a search for Gary speaking about his solutions for Syria.
Don't tell me he doesn't know anything about foreign policy.... Kerry hustled right over and done exactly as Johnson suggested should be done..

Furthermore...  why are the children in Aleppo more important than any other children in the world ?
What about children in war-torn parts of Africa ?
Oh...that's right, we can't attempt to tea-bag the Russians there.
No oil pipelines to lay in those areas.
Israel has no interest in THAT region.

Sorry my comments riled you, Roto; you are a good guy, and I don't want a flame war with you.

But I do stick by my point about Johnson's lack of foreign policy knowledge.

Neither of the questions he flunked was a "trap," and neither required any special briefing. It's no defense that Trump
says equally stupid things.

Perhaps many Americans know little of Aleppo, but what "average" Americans know is not the standard for president.  
(Could he not recognize Aleppo, but recognize names like Dabiq, Al Raqqa, or group names like Al Nusra? very doubtful.)
Whatever "proposals" he has put forward regarding the Middle-East, they do not appear based upon a long-standing familiarity with problems in a region which has been the storm center of U.S. foreign policy since 1979.

And someone running for president should be able to reel off a number of world leaders worthy of praise, as
many average Americans can.  Johnson may indeed be a great individual, someone I would be happy to have as a
friend and neighbor. I don't doubt he was a great governor, and I could vote for him at the local/state level over most any Republican. But I want someone running for president to know more than I do about foreign policy.

I don't understand why you think my comments presume greater concern for children of Syria than those of Africa or
wherever. Concern for children is not a zero sum game, as if empathy with children suffering one country automatically devalues children somewhere else.  If I band aid a child who has fallen off his bike on my sidewalk, it hardly means I think his life is more valuable the life of a child in Angola. 

 

[Dill]

(10-13-2016, 02:40 AM)hollodero Wrote: We might not be, but are they so informed? A Brexit - from all I know - doesn't seem to be a very informed choice. Which is hilariously underpinned by the fact that the leader of the Brexit movement immediately after the vote a) admitted that his campaign basically consisted of a big bus of lies and b) completely jumped ship.
Just saying.


Oh my, things like that would be so very likely, you have no idea what runs around here. I might give you a taste later if I'm in the mood.

Well I have no response to the Brexit point. If only the Brits knew how much they have disappointed me.

Whenever you get in the mood, I'd love to hear what's cooking in Austria--your chance to break my stereotypes.

[masterpanthera_t]

Well, this has been one thoroughly refreshing thread to read through, what with all the flowing conversations and deeply thought out posts.  Special props to hollodero and Dill for your engaging conversations full of unhurried attempts to deeply delve into points and counter points and to openly venture into topics with curiosity and proper deference to both the poster and the post.  Even though there was a brief incurring of Rotobeast's wrath, which I find to be a bit misplaced ( ), hollodero has capably shown his capacity at handling the disagreement and clarifying his position, therefore, my coming to his defense here is totally unnecessary.  I say all of that while wholeheartedly agreeing that Johnson's one "gaffe" involved not knowing the name of a city, and his subsequent reaction with honesty is something which I too find admirable and had found to be so the moment it was broadcast.  Especially in light of Hillary's outright falsification of "being under attack" in Bosnia, and the near deafening silence in terms of the media's focus on that topic (at least recently when it comes to the view of Hillary's "foreign policy" credentials).  

And to think that I almost skipped this thread completely owing to its title!

[hollodero]

(10-13-2016, 02:40 AM)hollodero Wrote: Oh my, things like that would be so very likely, you have no idea what runs around here. I might give you a taste later if I'm in the mood.

So, just for Dill - all others turn away your eyes - politicans from Austria who kept their electorate despite stuff.

First, you might know we have right-wing populist parties (currently 20%). Their leades regularly fall for satiric articles, citing them as if they were real. Their current leader cited such articles as evidence that 

- ISIS is sponsored by the US and possibly led by the CIA, and the US threatened Iran should they move against ISIS, including John Kerry saying to Iran "It's us who decides who gets bombed"
- the EU is going to forbid Wiener Schnitzel (more or less our national dish)
- the US threatens the EU with sanctions if we don't turn against Putin more sharply

...which all seems nothing compared to a leader of yet a second right-wing party (couldn't do with one here) in 2006 who was tricked into believing the socialist party planned to replace the summit crosses on top of our mountains with crescents. An accusation he didn't shy away from making live on TV in a national debate. Got 4,11% and seats in the parliament.

But wait...there's more.

Namely Frank Stronach, head of Magma, left Austria to make a fortune in Canada just to come back to save Austria. First he saved Austrian soccer, he bought teams and parts of other teams (sometimes just buying them players as a "gift"), made himself head of the league, all with the purpose of giving us the world cup title within ten years. After this failed oh so closely, he, increasingly marked by dementia, turned to politics. He bought (he literally bought, and he openly said so) the support of a few parliamentary members left behind from our big right-wing party bang (happened after they actually had to govern, therefore massively lost support and finally split in fragments), formed a party and - got 5.7% with no sustainable message whatsoever. But instead with absurd appearances on TV, where he could not remember the names of his own leading party members and mainly focused on insisting on some bogus, never existing agreements with the media. Parts of his actual demands were abandoning the EURO and introducing the death penalty (which might not sound strange to your ears, here it's unthinkable). He believed the date of our, i.e. his election will be seen as historic on the world. After he was disappointed after the election, he felt offended and withdrew financial support for his own party, leaving some clowns behind. His bizarre engagement culminates in the words of his current representant in the parliament, who actually said about his own party "I'm sure there's a strategy, I just don't know it yet."

And then there's this guy.



Yes, that is an old guy marrying a living sex doll 57 years younger than him. A behaviour that has become typical of this fella who for some truely unexplainable reasons made a fortune in the business world. He is a sad clown in the sense that he actually believes people laugh with him, when they just laugh about him. His face is on every TV camera he can spot, a constant embarassment for everyone included. His resumee also includes inviting star guests to the Opernball, including people like Brooke Shields, Kim Kardashian, Carmen Electra, Pamela Anderson and Ivanka Trump - often including lewd remarks about them from him.

And he ran for president twice, once reaching over 10% of the vote.

He ran on nothing, his last campaign contained mainly of being the cheapest choice, saving military chapels (a burning issue) and speculating whether as president he would declare war. He also let the world know about his fondness of sex toys and that he has a small weiner. And plenty more could be added about this special national embarassment.

So you see.

[masterpanthera_t]

(10-13-2016, 06:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: A behaviour that has become typical of this fella who for some truely unexplainable reasons made a fortune in the business world. He is a sad clown in the sense that he actually believes people laugh with him, when they just laugh about him. His face is on every TV camera he can spot, a constant embarassment for everyone included. His resumee also includes inviting star guests to the Opernball, including people like Brooke Shields, Kim Kardashian, Carmen Electra, Pamela Anderson and Ivanka Trump - often including lewd remarks about them from him.

And he ran for president twice, once reaching over 10% of the vote.

He ran on nothing, his last campaign contained mainly of being the cheapest choice, saving military chapels (a burning issue) and speculating whether as president he would declare war. He also let the world know about his fondness of sex toys and that he has a small weiner. And plenty more could be added about this special national embarassment.

So you see.

Wow.  I finally understand the origins of your question about right wing populism in the U.S and the rise of Trump.  You have some experience in seeing how that story actually goes, whereas for the U.S. it's still only imagination which leads to nightmare or dream based on the perceiver's viewpoint.

[Rotobeast]

(10-13-2016, 04:59 PM)Dill Wrote: Sorry my comments riled you, Roto; you are a good guy, and I don't want a flame war with you.

But I do stick by my point about Johnson's lack of foreign policy knowledge.

Neither of the questions he flunked was a "trap," and neither required any special briefing. It's no defense that Trump
says equally stupid things.

Perhaps many Americans know little of Aleppo, but what "average" Americans know is not the standard for president.  
(Could he not recognize Aleppo, but recognize names like Dabiq, Al Raqqa, or group names like Al Nusra? very doubtful.)
Whatever "proposals" he has put forward regarding the Middle-East, they do not appear based upon a long-standing familiarity with problems in a region which has been the storm center of U.S. foreign policy since 1979.

And someone running for president should be able to reel off a number of world leaders worthy of praise, as
many average Americans can.  Johnson may indeed be a great individual, someone I would be happy to have as a
friend and neighbor. I don't doubt he was a great governor, and I could vote for him at the local/state level over most any Republican. But I want someone running for president to know more than I do about foreign policy.

I don't understand why you think my comments presume greater concern for children of Syria than those of Africa or
wherever. Concern for children is not a zero sum game, as if empathy with children suffering one country automatically devalues children somewhere else.  If I band aid a child who has fallen off his bike on my sidewalk, it hardly means I think his life is more valuable the life of a child in Angola. 

 

FWIW... I don't dislike anyone here and rarely get even remotely upset on here.
Maybe it was because I regard the two of you as extremely well informed ?
Regardless, we can differ on opinion.
The comment concerning children didn't directly involved either of your two.
I'm going to label it a Trump-tangent that was remotely relative.
Call it a shot at the media for pumping concern for one group and not the other.
I, in no way, was questioning your compassion or character.

That out of the way, thank you for the compliment of being a nice guy.
I do try to be.

The one question I will leave you with is......

What current world leader would a Libertarian admire ?


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[hollodero]

(10-13-2016, 06:31 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Wow.  I finally understand the origins of your question about right wing populism in the U.S and the rise of Trump.  You have some experience in seeing how that story actually goes, whereas for the U.S. it's still only imagination which leads to nightmare or dream based on the perceiver's viewpoint.

Yeah I have, although that last guy is not really a good example for that. The comparison for Trump would be the right-wing party that currently holds 20% of the vote, probably sharply increasing.
People just forget so quickly, people are just so very unaware and misinformed. People swallow every lie, every outrageous claim. People - I say this often - are so easily manipulated and made believers in "left-wing conspiracies" and that the "truth" is hidden from them. And they feel so smart for going right-wing and knowing about the "truth", which just consists of BS that is plain offensive to the brains.

I have experience for the right-wing once got called out here and had to actually govern. I think I described once what followed then. It wasn't the "dream" and people quickly turned away in masses. Just to forget within a few years.

[hollodero]

(10-13-2016, 06:39 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: What current world leader would a Libertarian admire ?


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

Yeah, I draw a blank there too.

(10-13-2016, 04:42 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Oh...but I humbly disagree (big surprise).
Regardless of who wins, if Johnson gets 5% of the vote,  the Libertarian Party will receive minority party status.
That's a step in the right direction towards ending the stranglehold the two current major parties have on the system.

As far as a Nader situation, I may NOW agree it possible.
Before, Johnson was taking equally from both candidates.
After Trumps debacle over his machismo and wondering hands, a lot more  Republicans are moving to Johnson.
If we could only get Stein to pull a few more Clinton supporters...... but that's another story.

Then what? Then the chances of Trump winning would just rise. This parties, however, will never rise. You might dream of Johnson now getting close to 10%, next election 15, and 2024 will be a close race between three parties. But I believe it will never, never turn out that way until eternity if the system doesn't change. Ross Perot once got 19%, and it wasn't a revolution against the two-party system, it just killed the GOP chances. I think all of that is just a huge illusion.

And it's NOW we have to talk about.
It might just break down to that. Would you prefer

a) a president that isn't Donald Trump
or
b) a president Trump and a libertarian party that has reached minority party status.

Currently, it really boils down to that. (And it some way it always will.) Now if you honestly can say b) is your preference, it's THAT crucial they get some status here or Hillary is just an equally bad choice, then fine, go ahead and vote for him. Otherwise you make a nice, but un-wise choice here that indeed might heavily bite you. It's just how it is, the game is rigged against Gary Johnsons, and the Gary Johnsons are not the ones to change that.

-- If you want the system to change, I believe the only chance it does is from within the parties. And right now. You have a Bernie wing, and you have old-fashioned republicans who can't be happy about the whole Trump disaster and the situation as a whole. There and only there lies the chance for change. Gary Johnsons will ALWAYS be caught up in a fight between two major candidates as long as the system doesn't change, with majority voting and electoral college and a direct presidential race and all this stuff from 1800. And they will never get a say.

[Rotobeast]

(10-13-2016, 07:12 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, I draw a blank there too.


Then what? Then the chances of Trump winning would just rise. This parties, however, will never rise. You might dream of Johnson now getting close to 10%, next election 15, and 2024 will be a close race between three parties. But I believe it will never, never turn out that way until eternity if the system doesn't change. Ross Perot once got 19%, and it wasn't a revolution against the two-party system, it just killed the GOP chances. I think all of that is just a huge illusion.

And it's NOW we have to talk about.
It might just break down to that. Would you prefer

a) a president that isn't Donald Trump
or
b) a president Trump and a libertarian party that has reached minority party status.

Currently, it really boils down to that. (And it some way it always will.) Now if you honestly can say b) is your preference, it's THAT crucial they get some status here, then fine, go ahead. Otherwise you make a nice, but un-wise choice here that indeed might heavily bite you. It's just how it is, the game is rigged against Gary Johnsons, and the Gary Johnsons are not the ones to change that.

-- If you want the system to change, I believe the only chance it does is from within the parties. And right now. You have a Bernie wing, and you have old-fashioned republicans who can't be happy about the whole Trump disaster and the situation as a whole. There and only there lies the chance for change. Gary Johnsons will ALWAYS be caught up in a fight between two major candidates as long as the system doesn't change, with majority voting and electoral college and a direct presidential race and all this stuff from 1800. And they will never get a say.

I would like option C, which is honestly quite more likely than any chance of Johnson winning outright.

C.- Fudge the electoral votes, with a couple third-party candidates winning a few states, and send the decision to the House of Representatives.
Roll the dice, baby.
I think that would go in my favor.


As far as any change within parties....if it doesn't split, I can see the Republican party moving to being a little more giving on social issues to pull in some of the Libertarians.
The DNC has the game down pat, so they'll stick to their plan.

I don't care for the electoral college, to be honest.
I wouldn't mind going to an absolute rank voting system, but that will never happen.

For the record, I voted for Perot.
Bill never sent me a thank you letter.
That's why I can't vote for Hillary.



Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[hollodero]

(10-13-2016, 07:35 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I would like option C, which is honestly quite more likely than any chance of Johnson winning outright.

C.- Fudge the electoral votes, with a couple third-party candidates winning a few states, and send the decision to the House of Representatives.
Roll the dice, baby.
I think that would go in my favor.

So you basically admit there's no real option c) here.
Reality denies you an option c, it's not on the table for you. What you can choose from in your situation is whether you prefer option a) (then go Hillary) or b) (then go Johnson). That's it. Everything else is not a choice you have.
You can stay home, of course. A vote for Johnson is btw. not a sign that the system is broken and needs to change. The fact that half of the people do not vote at all is.

(10-13-2016, 07:35 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: As far as any change within parties....if it doesn't split, I can see the Republican party moving to being a little more giving on social issues to pull in some of the Libertarians.
The DNC has the game down pat, so they'll stick to their plan.

In the end it probably would need - as the most promising next step to me - maybe a charismatic candidate in a primary who runs on questioning the election cycle and overthrowing the voting system, including the two-party system. Which is overthrowing the majority voting rights. Which also is in the end the introduction of some kind of a parliamentary system (like in Europe, just better).
It would need to name the root of the situation you're in now, to discuss it. Which are these things.

(10-13-2016, 07:35 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I don't care for the electoral college, to be honest.
I wouldn't mind going to an absolute rank voting system, but that will never happen.

Yeah but you should.
In these times, when giving this factual choices for president (Johnson is none), you clearly need to see that the root for this situation lies within a system that has become too flawed to lean on.
You need more real, meaningful choices then just two candidates from the two parties. I think we agree on that. Hold that thought.
But right now, would you please do the sensible thing and do what's in your power to avoid Trump. No, sorry. I do get that your logic leads you to a different point, and I respect your logic. But... well, also consider mine. I feel I have quite an argument on my side, which is a possible Trump presidency.

And afterwards, immediately care about the voting system that led you to this choice you had to make.

[Rotobeast]

(10-13-2016, 08:09 PM)hollodero Wrote: So you basically admit there's no real option c) here.
Reality denies you an option c, it's not on the table for you. What you can choose from in your situation is whether you prefer option a) (then go Hillary) or b) (then go Johnson). That's it. Everything else is not a choice you have.
You can stay home, of course. A vote for Johnson is btw. not a sign that the system is broken and needs to change. The fact that half of the people do not vote at all is.


In the end it probably would need - as the most promising next step to me - maybe a charismatic candidate in a primary who runs on questioning the election cycle and overthrowing the voting system, including the two-party system. Which is overthrowing the majority voting rights. Which also is in the end the introduction of some kind of a parliamentary system (like in Europe, just better).
It would need to name the root of the situation you're in now, to discuss it. Which are these things.


Yeah but you should.
In these times, when giving this factual choices for president (Johnson is none), you clearly need to see that the root for this situation lies within a system that has become too flawed to lean on.
You need more real, meaningful choices then just two candidates from the two parties. I think we agree on that. Hold that thought.
But right now, would you please do the sensible thing and do what's in your power to avoid Trump. No, sorry. I do get that your logic leads you to a different point, and I respect your logic. But... well, also consider mine. I feel I have quite an argument on my side, which is a possible Trump presidency.

And afterwards, immediately care about the voting system that led you to this choice you had to make.

I will not lie, I have abstained from voting for a president before.
I'm not completely proud of it, but it was the choice I made at the time.

Now... take this as a compliment....

You could make a good bit of money working for Correct The Record.

You're really smooth.

I will not deviate from my vote though.
I am still going to hold out hope that Trump will continue to embarrass himself out of the election and WikiLeaks proves Hillary undeniably guilty of something horrid and they haul her off in chains.
Not to mention, there are supposed to be some bigger Republicans in line to support Johnson.
Probably lies, but meh...

Anyway, I'm rattling on.
My usefulness in conversation has dwindled to a drip, for this evening.

I bid you good evening.





Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[hollodero]

(10-13-2016, 08:34 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I will not lie, I have abstained from voting for a president  before.
I'm not completely proud of it, but it was the choice I made at the time.

Now... take this as a compliment....

You could make a good bit of money working for Correct The Record.

You're really smooth.

I will not deviate from my vote though.

Didn't expect you to.
And no, I could not work for them for they do a lousy job and have the most awful web page I've seen in a while. And I can bear witness to that just thanks to you and your mentioning that. Thanks for that one, I will never get this minute back.
Also, there really is no love lost here. I do not like Hillary Clinton. It's preferring the disgusting choice over the poisonous (and far more disgusting) one. The rest is just applying simple logic (or what I consider being that).
Oh btw. I think staying home is not that awful.

(10-13-2016, 08:34 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I am still going to hold out hope that Trump will continue to embarrass himself out of the election and WikiLeaks proves Hillary undeniably guilty of something horrid and they haul her off in chains.

That special part puzzles me.
After all, there is an undeniable chance that she actually is not guilty of something horrid. Yet you actually hope for it - and hope for the chains. That is a bit too far for me to grasp.

(10-13-2016, 08:34 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Not to mention, there are supposed to be some bigger Republicans in line to support Johnson.
Probably lies, but meh...

Big like in Chris Christie big?
Right now I don't know which of these embarrassed figures can help out here. And if they indeed do, they finally will end up swallowing Johnson.

(10-13-2016, 08:34 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I bid you good evening.

And good evening to you too.