CDZ What choice have folks who find Trump detestable and Mrs. Clinton unacceptable?

[candycorn]

Well, one option is to not vote. The other currently existing option most likely will be Gary Johnson who will be on every ballot in the U.S.

• Is the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson a Plausible Alternative to Trump and Clinton?, by David French, National Review
  
• Gary Johnson on the Issues
  
• Libertarian Gary Johnson in double digits in race against Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump: poll
  
• Gary Johnson, Republican Presidential Candidate

I once was a Libertarian. I don't generally consider voting for a Lib, but suddenly I find myself having no choice but to consider the Libertarian candidate as I'm not keen enough on Mrs. Clinton's platform to commit now to voting for her and it's not likely Mr. Sanders will get the nomination.

Given that it's essentially too late for anyone else -- even if they have the ~$10M it costs to do so -- to register and actually get on all the ballots in the nation, Mr. Johnson is the only plausible alternative, unless one considers as plausible the possibility that the nation's dissatisfied voters will write in a person on their ballots and 50% +1 of voters do so, and they all write the same name. I don't know about you, but I'm not counting on that.

So what do you think of Gov. Johnson?

Johnson is okay, I would prefer a rand Paul, or Stephen dumaush. But if there is no third party general election ticket, then I do not vote in the general, I concentrate on senate and congress, if I can find candidates I like

There should be 4 or 5 parties participating in the process. Bring on the Socialists and the Constitutionalists. Force the winner to solicit "coalition" support. Just having a FEW elected officials that are NOT party whores would make a HUGE difference to the national dialogue and the workings of Congress and the Exec Branch. Just look at what one damn Socialist can do. Bernie was never EVER under the thumb of the party bosses. Neither was Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul for that matter.

And don't be mistaken -- there are 530 TOTALLY IRRELEVANT Congress critters. Because the 2 parties have FOUR people that RUN Capitol Hill. You don't have a pencil or a receptionist without their approval and NOTHING gets to the floor unless THEY want it to..

Elections will not change any of that. And don't kid yourself; having 4 or 5 parties means you have 4 or 5 party leaders and you end up with 520 members of Congress who are irrelevant.

What we need is regularly scheduled maintenance to the US Constitution to add voice to where it is silent so that the 4 individuals you mention are irrelevant. You put language into the document that states one house will have a floor vote on the business of the other house within 90 days of it's passage and it won't matter what Reid or McConnell want. Their Party members will have to vote up or down on the bill. No more shelving bills and letting them die.

Now, this won't transform the Congress into a law factory either. What you'll see is this on the evening news. "The Senate voted 98-0 to kill the House bill that would have repealed Obamacare" or "The Senate voted 98-0 to kill the House bill that would have repealed minimum wage laws." The politics are irrelevant. The Senate will never totally accept a House measure and likewise to the House. They will make their own bill for what they want to see happen and you'll have conferees hammer out legislation that they can agree on. If there is no Senate/House appetite for what the other house passed, you won't see squat passed.

What will happen is this though. You will see that the honorable Mr. Smith of Kentucky voted against the minimum wage or that the honorable Ms. Wesson of Colorado was not in favor of the ACA. It makes lawmakers accountable to their voters because they will have to vote.

As long as the Senate and the House and the Executive and the Courts are not hemmed in by any constitutional language, it's no-holds barred in how they behave, work, or not work.

If you don't believe me; true or false, the Senate could theorhetically never have another hearing to confirm a supreme court justice? If you say false, what constitutional provision is there that forces the Senate to act. They make their own rules. Therefore, the Senate could actually let nature take its course and let all the justices die off and we won't have a high court.

 

[flacaltenn]

Gary Johnson will be the nominee. We work EXTRAORDINALLY hard to get our candidate on all 50 state ballots.

According to Mr. Johnson's remarks this past weekend, he's already the 50 states' ballots. I don't know if he's on the territories and D.C.'s ballots.

Probably true. Last I heard there were STILL court challenges in a couple states. But if there is a challenge and the "deadline" rolls by -- I believe you are still on if you win. And lately -- we've been winning MOST of the court challenges thrown at us. For petty things, like having the wrong abbreviations for HWY or AVE on the petition forms. They will go to GREAT LENGTHS to preserve their duopoly..

IN FACT -- Mr Kasich is no friend of the Lib Party. He PERSONALLY as Gov intervened to knock his Libertarian challenger OFF the Ohio ballot at his last election..

 

[flacaltenn]

Well, one option is to not vote. The other currently existing option most likely will be Gary Johnson who will be on every ballot in the U.S.

• Is the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson a Plausible Alternative to Trump and Clinton?, by David French, National Review
  
• Gary Johnson on the Issues
  
• Libertarian Gary Johnson in double digits in race against Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump: poll
  
• Gary Johnson, Republican Presidential Candidate

I once was a Libertarian. I don't generally consider voting for a Lib, but suddenly I find myself having no choice but to consider the Libertarian candidate as I'm not keen enough on Mrs. Clinton's platform to commit now to voting for her and it's not likely Mr. Sanders will get the nomination.

Given that it's essentially too late for anyone else -- even if they have the ~$10M it costs to do so -- to register and actually get on all the ballots in the nation, Mr. Johnson is the only plausible alternative, unless one considers as plausible the possibility that the nation's dissatisfied voters will write in a person on their ballots and 50% +1 of voters do so, and they all write the same name. I don't know about you, but I'm not counting on that.

So what do you think of Gov. Johnson?

Johnson is okay, I would prefer a rand Paul, or Stephen dumaush. But if there is no third party general election ticket, then I do not vote in the general, I concentrate on senate and congress, if I can find candidates I like

There should be 4 or 5 parties participating in the process. Bring on the Socialists and the Constitutionalists. Force the winner to solicit "coalition" support. Just having a FEW elected officials that are NOT party whores would make a HUGE difference to the national dialogue and the workings of Congress and the Exec Branch. Just look at what one damn Socialist can do. Bernie was never EVER under the thumb of the party bosses. Neither was Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul for that matter.

And don't be mistaken -- there are 530 TOTALLY IRRELEVANT Congress critters. Because the 2 parties have FOUR people that RUN Capitol Hill. You don't have a pencil or a receptionist without their approval and NOTHING gets to the floor unless THEY want it to..

Elections will not change any of that. And don't kid yourself; having 4 or 5 parties means you have 4 or 5 party leaders and you end up with 520 members of Congress who are irrelevant.

What we need is regularly scheduled maintenance to the US Constitution to add voice to where it is silent so that the 4 individuals you mention are irrelevant. You put language into the document that states one house will have a floor vote on the business of the other house within 90 days of it's passage and it won't matter what Reid or McConnell want. Their Party members will have to vote up or down on the bill. No more shelving bills and letting them die.

Now, this won't transform the Congress into a law factory either. What you'll see is this on the evening news. "The Senate voted 98-0 to kill the House bill that would have repealed Obamacare" or "The Senate voted 98-0 to kill the House bill that would have repealed minimum wage laws." The politics are irrelevant. The Senate will never totally accept a House measure and likewise to the House. They will make their own bill for what they want to see happen and you'll have conferees hammer out legislation that they can agree on. If there is no Senate/House appetite for what the other house passed, you won't see squat passed.

What will happen is this though. You will see that the honorable Mr. Smith of Kentucky voted against the minimum wage or that the honorable Ms. Wesson of Colorado was not in favor of the ACA. It makes lawmakers accountable to their voters because they will have to vote.

As long as the Senate and the House and the Executive and the Courts are not hemmed in by any constitutional language, it's no-holds barred in how they behave, work, or not work.

If you don't believe me; true or false, the Senate could theorhetically never have another hearing to confirm a supreme court justice? If you say false, what constitutional provision is there that forces the Senate to act. They make their own rules. Therefore, the Senate could actually let nature take its course and let all the justices die off and we won't have a high court.

You need to recognize what POWER the Speakers and Maj/Minority hold over THEIR party members. They can completely WITHHOLD party support for your next election if you don't toe the line. Having 3rd party members or Independents in Congress allows them to SPEAK FREELY -- to the people, to the press and most importantly AGAINST the 4 Leaders that control EVERYTHING that goes on in Congress.

You cannot do those things if you are a Repub or a Dem,... Americans WILL get a novel perspective on issues and legislation from having even a HANDFUL of CongressCrittters that are not GAGGED and played like puppets.

 

[320 Years of History]

Libertarians and 3rd parties have won (as far as I know) zero states during the same period.

Well, there's a first time for everything, isn't there. LOL

This election cycle, with its two front runners having such high negatives, seems like as good a time as there's going to be for a third party candidate like Mr. Johnson to have a chance.

Speculating on just how he might actually attain the Presidency, I propose the following "strange bedfellows" scenario:

1. Mr. Johnson makes a major push to get his name known. That isn't all that hard to do if one thinks "outside the box." Indeed, taking a page from Kennedy's playbook, if Mr. Johnson can get a pop singer to release a catch tune that promotes him, he'd become quite well known almost overnight. You may recall that Sinatra did exactly that for JFK.
2. Mainstream Republicans, in their fit of dissatisfaction with Trump look at Mr. Johnson's stance on the issues and notice that although they aren't in lockstep with Republican ideas, they aren't very far from them, and some of them are identical to them.
3. Upon noticing the great degree of similarity, along with looking at Mr. Johnson's record as NM Governor, GOP mainstreamers decide Mr. Johnson is a far better compromise than is Trump, particularly since Libertarians would caucus with Republicans in Congress anyway.
4. Mainstream GOP leaders mount a campaign backing Mr. Johnson as the alternative to Trump.
5. Johnson doesn't win enough of the electoral college votes to win the Presidency outright, but he draws enough votes from Trump and the Democratic nominee that he throws the decision of who shall be President into the House of Representatives.
6. Given that the Republican held House must choose among the top three electoral vote getters, their choices will be Trump, Mr. Johnson and whomever the Democratic candidate is.
7. Of those three choices, the House lead by the establishment/mainstream will almost certainly choose Mr. Johnson. The man's a two-term Governor. It's not as though his views are strange, unknown or not conservative. In some areas they may not be as conservative as some REPs would like, but in all areas they are more conservative than are Trump's ideas and approaches.
8. Boom. Gary Johnson becomes President.

You'll note that the keys to that strategy are:

• Hillary Clinton becoming the Democratic nominee. Not a far fetched possibility, and a possibility that the GOP can help along by encouraging support for her over Mr. Sanders.
• Johnson drawing enough electoral votes from Mrs. Clinton (or Mr. Sanders if he runs, although appealing to core DEMs and Mr. Sanders' own base of young idealists is unlikely) to throw the decision into the House.
• Republican leaders who despise Trump get over the need to have a Republican in name in the White House and focus on the substance of what they want and don't want, thereby accepting a good compromise when they see it and acting to make it happen. This is probably the biggest hurdle to overcome among the three key pillars of the strategy I proposed.

Is it an unusual approach for Mr. Johnson? Sure it is. Does it give the GOP and other mainstream politicians and voters a far more tolerable/"less negative" alternative than Trump or Mrs. Clinton? Absolutely.

P.S.
No, I don't really want Johnson to become POTUS, but if the alternative is Trump, sure, I'll take Johnson instead. In a New York minute. LOL Of the remaining possibilities, Sanders is the one I prefer. He just makes more sense overall to me, even though he's far from perfect.

 

[320 Years of History]

As far as picking Gary Johnson out of a line up -- same was true of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Or Barack Obama for that matter.

Yes. That was so for every POTUS candidate at one point or another.

it's the MEDIA and the partisan FEC who designs "the lineup".

I don't know if I'd go that far.

going to have a very hard EXCLUDING Gary Johnson from the everything Trump/Hilary reporting.. And the FEC is gonna get a LOT of pressure to recognize that ANY party that works to place a candidate on 50 state ballots -- SHOULD be included in the debates.

Johnson needs to get his name recognition in polls high enough -- IIRC, 10% or 15% -- before the Presidential debates in order to get included in the debates. The mainstream GOP who vehemently oppose Trump can make that happen if they but will to do so. (see post #44)

One thing's certain...To make it happen, the GOP mainstream would have to do a far better job coordinating themselves than Mssrs. Cruz and Kasich did coordinating their "divide and conquer" strategy...talk about disastrous attempts and wasted efforts. Sheesh....

 

[candycorn]

Do not know him. He's a non-factor. You decide in one of the four boxes in our 2 party system.

Vote against the DEM by voting for the GOP
Vote against the GOP by voting for the DEM
Vote for the DEM
Vote for the GOP

I have no qualms voting for Ms. Clinton. I just haven't decided in what state to cast my ballot. j/k

That's a rather binary way of looking at what is clearly not a binary set of choices.

• The Binary Fallacy | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty
  
• False Dilemma

That is a rather unrealistic assessment of 2016 Presidential Politics. A vote for anyone other than Drumpf of Clinton is wasted in our system. If you wish to discuss better ways to elect the President, I'm all ears but in the current framework, a vote for Mr. Johnson is wasted in the final analysis. It may satisfy some internal desire to not lend support to either major party candidate and that is all well and good but our system is what it is; Sorry.

Not actually wasted. If you want to collect the "wasted" votes --- it would be every vote for the LOSING candidate of the 2 that the stupid parties offer.. Never wasted when you vote on PRINCIPLES. Only wasted if you value winning over REAL choice and principles.

Gary Johnson will be the nominee. We work EXTRAORDINALLY hard to get our candidate on all 50 state ballots. Against the myriad of hurdles and hoops and court challenges that the 2 parties throw at us. And as a 2 term Governor of New Mexico -- he has impeccable fiscal responsibility and is very socially liberal. Very attractive to the #NeverHilary as WELL AS the #NeverTrump crowds. He will likely pull 5 to 10% from BOTH parties this year because of the ARROGANCE of the parties and the AUTHORITARIAN candidates that are being offered.

America is not buy an Emperor from either the RIGHT nor the LEFT. Not yet anyways..

Like nearly all Americans, I couldn't pick Gary Johnson out of a police line-up and he has zero chance of ascention to the White House regardless of what states of disarray the major parties are in.

When I say "wasted" a vote, I say it is wasted in the sense that you know well before you enter the voting booth that there is no chance your candidate will win your state. While this has morphed into the case for all but 11-20 states quadrenially (sp?), that wasn't always the case. In my lifetime, California has gone from Red to Blue, as has Texas from blue to red. as has any number of other states.

Libertarians and 3rd parties have won (as far as I know) zero states during the same period.

Voting for them is wasting your vote in a real sense. If it satisfies some pact you have with yourself...so be it and more power to you. If you wish to effect change, you have to do so from inside the tent.

If you had a principled, serious public servant instead of Donald Drumpf who wasn't making a vanity play, one could fathom change from inside the tent of the GOP. It can take place. However, Drumpf is a pathetic toothache of a man interested in one thing, Donald Trump so there is no serious or, more importantly sustained (because change happens slowly I don't care who you are or whom you have leading it) figure acting as it's agent or party providing agency. I don't know who will challenge HRC in 2020 but I guarantee you one thing. If they have an R next to their name, they will be pro life, pro-small government (or at least say they are), pro increasing military spending, against entitlements for the poor, and above all else, be a Christian. I may not get 6 or 6 there but you get the idea.

Good luck to you and there is nothing wrong with voting your conscience. I think you're wasting your vote...but please don't let me stop you

Folks who vote to win are the real losers. Because they are consuming whatever wanna bee power whores the parties are offering.

The "power whores" have delivered the greatest standard of living in the history of the planet. The greatest accumulation of wealth by a people ever. The greatest military the planet has ever assembled. And one of the most benevolent societies in the history of the planet (if not the most benevolent).

I give the American voter an A+.

As far as picking Gary Johnson out of a line up -- same was true of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Or Barack Obama for that matter. And it's the MEDIA and the partisan FEC who designs "the lineup". This year, they are going to have a very hard EXCLUDING Gary Johnson from the everything Trump/Hilary reporting.. And the FEC is gonna get a LOT of pressure to recognize that ANY party that works to place a candidate on 50 state ballots -- SHOULD be included in the debates.

I 100% agree with you. I would love to see Gary Johnson on the debate stage with HRC and Donald Trump.

The Commission of Presidential Debates is the primary culprit.

The debates have been set:

First presidential debate:
Monday, September 26, 2016
Wright State University, Dayton, OH

Vice presidential debate:
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Longwood University, Farmville, VA

Second presidential debate:
Sunday, October 9, 2016
Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO

Third presidential debate:
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV

The media made a crapload of money on those Rep/Dem primary debates. And THEY were allowed to frame the issues and the discussion. We are rapidly approaching the point where the PARTIES are greater threat to the Democratic process than the candidates.

And more parties will solve that?

I tell you what I think we should do is have the CPD put together 3-5 debates each cycle for each party (one per month starting in November and going to March the following year)

Have the box on the income tax state that the money will go for this purpose and watch it flood in--my guess you'll see millions for this enterprise--I know I would chunk money in for it.

Anyway, have the debates in the following format; a 90 minute debate. If you have the normal 5-7 candidates, that is 13-18 minutes per candidate. So Bob Scheefer or whomever asks, "Mr. Romney, what is your plan to eliminate poverty. You have 3 minutes". So you get Gov. Romney unfiltered for 3 mins. After that, "Mr. Brown, your plan to eliminate poverty. 3 mins. Go." After that, "Ms. Haley, poverty, 3 mins, go."

On the next round, start with Ms. Haley "What is your plan to repair the VA. 3 mins" go. Then Brown, then Romney.

In the next GOP debate when there are usually less candidates, they get 15-20 mins each so you can ask 6-7 questions (different ones) that get a 3 min response each.

And eventually you get down to 2-3 candidates in March and you have a real substanative dissertation of the stances.

And this is happening for the Ds, the Libs, the R.s; everyone.

Meanwhile, FOX, CNN, MSNBC or whomever are having their made-for-TV crap too which you cannot totally eliminate.

What it will do is have an "official" period where a candidate has to say "Here is what I would do" without some guy on the end of the candidate row interrrupting or whatever.

What you would end up with is more unvarnished facts being put out there by the candidates who can't spend the entire time bitching about Obama's handling of Topic X.

 

[D Truth]

Trump almost lost me with the perverts in the bathroom thing... then I thought why the hell would I make my daughter use a public bathroom? Damn, that guy is smart.

If you really think about it, shopping at a business that doesn't have a public bathroom makes a lot of sense. If they are not paying for a bathroom, they are not passing the cost to the product the are selling. It's a better deal!

Then the report comes out, every living president(Bush's and Clinton's) thinks Trump is "bad"... sealed the deal for me. What the hell! for once in my life I'm voting republican.

Clinton, obviously a scumbag.

Simple choice really.

 

[Stephanie]

stay home. no law saying you have to vote for someone. I would never vote for Hillary, but I think I can give Trump a go. You people stuck us with that Junior Senator nobody Obama. I don't see how Trump can be any worse

 

[320 Years of History]

Trump almost lost me with the perverts in the bathroom thing... then I thought why the hell would I make my daughter use a public bathroom? Damn, that guy is smart.
Then the report comes out, every living president thinks Trump is "bad"... sealed the deal for me. What the hell for once in my life I'm voting republican.

Clinton, obviously a scumbag.

Simple choice really.

Oh, dear....

 

[flacaltenn]

As far as picking Gary Johnson out of a line up -- same was true of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Or Barack Obama for that matter.

Yes. That was so for every POTUS candidate at one point or another.

it's the MEDIA and the partisan FEC who designs "the lineup".

I don't know if I'd go that far.

going to have a very hard EXCLUDING Gary Johnson from the everything Trump/Hilary reporting.. And the FEC is gonna get a LOT of pressure to recognize that ANY party that works to place a candidate on 50 state ballots -- SHOULD be included in the debates.

Johnson needs to get his name recognition in polls high enough -- IIRC, 10% or 15% -- before the Presidential debates in order to get included in the debates. The mainstream GOP who vehemently oppose Trump can make that happen if they but will to do so. (see post #44)

10% or 15% won't be a problem this year. But in reality -- if you are Qualified on enough state ballots to win an electoral majority -- You should AUTOMATICALLY be included in the debates.

Believe me -- that effort pretty determines that you are a serious candidate. You have to collect a gosh awful number of signatures in some states to make it..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, one option is to not vote. The other currently existing option most likely will be Gary Johnson who will be on every ballot in the U.S.

• Is the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson a Plausible Alternative to Trump and Clinton?, by David French, National Review
  
• Gary Johnson on the Issues
  
• Libertarian Gary Johnson in double digits in race against Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump: poll
  
• Gary Johnson, Republican Presidential Candidate

I once was a Libertarian. I don't generally consider voting for a Lib, but suddenly I find myself having no choice but to consider the Libertarian candidate as I'm not keen enough on Mrs. Clinton's platform to commit now to voting for her and it's not likely Mr. Sanders will get the nomination.

Given that it's essentially too late for anyone else -- even if they have the ~$10M it costs to do so -- to register and actually get on all the ballots in the nation, Mr. Johnson is the only plausible alternative, unless one considers as plausible the possibility that the nation's dissatisfied voters will write in a person on their ballots and 50% +1 of voters do so, and they all write the same name. I don't know about you, but I'm not counting on that.

So what do you think of Gov. Johnson?

Johnson is okay, I would prefer a rand Paul, or Stephen dumaush. But if there is no third party general election ticket, then I do not vote in the general, I concentrate on senate and congress, if I can find candidates I like

There should be 4 or 5 parties participating in the process. Bring on the Socialists and the Constitutionalists. Force the winner to solicit "coalition" support. Just having a FEW elected officials that are NOT party whores would make a HUGE difference to the national dialogue and the workings of Congress and the Exec Branch. Just look at what one damn Socialist can do. Bernie was never EVER under the thumb of the party bosses. Neither was Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul for that matter.

And don't be mistaken -- there are 530 TOTALLY IRRELEVANT Congress critters. Because the 2 parties have FOUR people that RUN Capitol Hill. You don't have a pencil or a receptionist without their approval and NOTHING gets to the floor unless THEY want it to..

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

The Framers wisely rejected a democracy to avoid the perils of the very process outlined above, the notion of ‘coalition democracy’ in particular.

Real change can occur only at the very local level, not from the top down, not at the National level, and not by making changes to Congress, the political process, or electing someone president perceived to be an ‘outsider.’

 

[flacaltenn]

Libertarians and 3rd parties have won (as far as I know) zero states during the same period.

Well, there's a first time for everything, isn't there. LOL

This election cycle, with its two front runners having such high negatives, seems like as good a time as there's going to be for a third party candidate like Mr. Johnson to have a chance.

Speculating on just how he might actually attain the Presidency, I propose the following "strange bedfellows" scenario:

1. Mr. Johnson makes a major push to get his name known. That isn't all that hard to do if one thinks "outside the box." Indeed, taking a page from Kennedy's playbook, if Mr. Johnson can get a pop singer to release a catch tune that promotes him, he'd become quite well known almost overnight. You may recall that Sinatra did exactly that for JFK.
2. Mainstream Republicans, in their fit of dissatisfaction with Trump look at Mr. Johnson's stance on the issues and notice that although they aren't in lockstep with Republican ideas, they aren't very far from them, and some of them are identical to them.
3. Upon noticing the great degree of similarity, along with looking at Mr. Johnson's record as NM Governor, GOP mainstreamers decide Mr. Johnson is a far better compromise than is Trump, particularly since Libertarians would caucus with Republicans in Congress anyway.
4. Mainstream GOP leaders mount a campaign backing Mr. Johnson as the alternative to Trump.
5. Johnson doesn't win enough of the electoral college votes to win the Presidency outright, but he draws enough votes from Trump and the Democratic nominee that he throws the decision of who shall be President into the House of Representatives.
6. Given that the Republican held House must choose among the top three electoral vote getters, their choices will be Trump, Mr. Johnson and whomever the Democratic candidate is.
7. Of those three choices, the House lead by the establishment/mainstream will almost certainly choose Mr. Johnson. The man's a two-term Governor. It's not as though his views are strange, unknown or not conservative. In some areas they may not be as conservative as some REPs would like, but in all areas they are more conservative than are Trump's ideas and approaches.
8. Boom. Gary Johnson becomes President.

You'll note that the keys to that strategy are:

• Hillary Clinton becoming the Democratic nominee. Not a far fetched possibility, and a possibility that the GOP can help along by encouraging support for her over Mr. Sanders.
• Johnson drawing enough electoral votes from Mrs. Clinton (or Mr. Sanders if he runs, although appealing to core DEMs and Mr. Sanders' own base of young idealists is unlikely) to throw the decision into the House.
• Republican leaders who despise Trump get over the need to have a Republican in name in the White House and focus on the substance of what they want and don't want, thereby accepting a good compromise when they see it and acting to make it happen. This is probably the biggest hurdle to overcome among the three key pillars of the strategy I proposed.

Is it an unusual approach for Mr. Johnson? Sure it is. Does it give the GOP and other mainstream politicians and voters a far more tolerable/"less negative" alternative than Trump or Mrs. Clinton? Absolutely.

P.S.
No, I don't really want Johnson to become POTUS, but if the alternative is Trump, sure, I'll take Johnson instead. In a New York minute. LOL Of the remaining possibilities, Sanders is the one I prefer. He just makes more sense overall to me, even though he's far from perfect.

The MAIN point that Johnson has to make is that America is descending into greater and greater AUTHORITARIAN rule. Because of the ineptness and inaction of Congress -- the Chief Exec is usurping MORE and MORE power. Just like the 4 party hacks that run the Congress.

And here's the deal -- the 2 choices with those high negatives are re-tred power whores,. Ready to use the minions of the damned to MAKE and FORCE their deals.. If you (Stephanie are you listening) LOVED the use of the IRS and the other agencies to foil Tea Party organizations -- Your absolutely gonna ADORE how Trump uses and EXPANDS the power of govt to make his "deals" and PUNISH those that stand in the way or who didn't support him., Same is true really of the other "re-tread power whore". She's more than willing to use the same influence and threats to make "deals"..

 

[320 Years of History]

Longwood University

Off Topic:
Oh, my stars and garters! Whatever made them choose that place? LOL

Longwood was the locale of one of the most calamitous nights in my youth...one of the few I wish I could do over and do something entirely different. The occasion was a visit to my best friend who was in school in Charlottesville and as a fraternity pledge, he asked me to come down and visit him and go on the "roll" seeing as I'd pledged the same fraternity they year before. Stupid me; I went. There was lots of drinking, lots of women, and plenty of "experience that hindsight has shown I really didn't need to gain. LOL

 

[flacaltenn]

Well, one option is to not vote. The other currently existing option most likely will be Gary Johnson who will be on every ballot in the U.S.

• Is the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson a Plausible Alternative to Trump and Clinton?, by David French, National Review
  
• Gary Johnson on the Issues
  
• Libertarian Gary Johnson in double digits in race against Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump: poll
  
• Gary Johnson, Republican Presidential Candidate

I once was a Libertarian. I don't generally consider voting for a Lib, but suddenly I find myself having no choice but to consider the Libertarian candidate as I'm not keen enough on Mrs. Clinton's platform to commit now to voting for her and it's not likely Mr. Sanders will get the nomination.

Given that it's essentially too late for anyone else -- even if they have the ~$10M it costs to do so -- to register and actually get on all the ballots in the nation, Mr. Johnson is the only plausible alternative, unless one considers as plausible the possibility that the nation's dissatisfied voters will write in a person on their ballots and 50% +1 of voters do so, and they all write the same name. I don't know about you, but I'm not counting on that.

So what do you think of Gov. Johnson?

Johnson is okay, I would prefer a rand Paul, or Stephen dumaush. But if there is no third party general election ticket, then I do not vote in the general, I concentrate on senate and congress, if I can find candidates I like

There should be 4 or 5 parties participating in the process. Bring on the Socialists and the Constitutionalists. Force the winner to solicit "coalition" support. Just having a FEW elected officials that are NOT party whores would make a HUGE difference to the national dialogue and the workings of Congress and the Exec Branch. Just look at what one damn Socialist can do. Bernie was never EVER under the thumb of the party bosses. Neither was Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul for that matter.

And don't be mistaken -- there are 530 TOTALLY IRRELEVANT Congress critters. Because the 2 parties have FOUR people that RUN Capitol Hill. You don't have a pencil or a receptionist without their approval and NOTHING gets to the floor unless THEY want it to..

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

The Framers wisely rejected a democracy to avoid the perils of the very process outlined above, the notion of ‘coalition democracy’ in particular.

Real change can occur only at the very local level, not from the top down, not at the National level, and not by making changes to Congress, the political process, or electing someone president perceived to be an ‘outsider.’

Nope.. Not any more. It's become a top heavy govt with no one really in charge. Not even Congress can control or get compliance and oversight from the beast. Needs to reigned in before "locals" get any breathing room to make a diff. And there is NOTHING constitutional about being DOMINATED and ABUSED by 2 parties. NOTHING that says people don't have a right to pick NEW affilations and representation.,.

When you get to the point where the 2 parties COLLUDE over elections, it's seriously on the road to having the tyranny the Founders worried about in the PARTIES and NOT in the representatives who are basically IMPOTENT and USELESS.. The 2 parties refuse to run candidates in 'losing districts'. Resulting in about 10 to 15% of House seats going UNCONTESTED in any particular cycle. That's voter disenfranchisement. They dont give a good crap about a district if it doesn't have the potential to turn out 49% or more ...

 

[candycorn]

Libertarians and 3rd parties have won (as far as I know) zero states during the same period.

Well, there's a first time for everything, isn't there. LOL

This election cycle, with its two front runners having such high negatives, seems like as good a time as there's going to be for a third party candidate like Mr. Johnson to have a chance.

Speculating on just how he might actually attain the Presidency, I propose the following "strange bedfellows" scenario:

1. Mr. Johnson makes a major push to get his name known. That isn't all that hard to do if one thinks "outside the box." Indeed, taking a page from Kennedy's playbook, if Mr. Johnson can get a pop singer to release a catch tune that promotes him, he'd become quite well known almost overnight. You may recall that Sinatra did exactly that for JFK.
2. Mainstream Republicans, in their fit of dissatisfaction with Trump look at Mr. Johnson's stance on the issues and notice that although they aren't in lockstep with Republican ideas, they aren't very far from them, and some of them are identical to them.
3. Upon noticing the great degree of similarity, along with looking at Mr. Johnson's record as NM Governor, GOP mainstreamers decide Mr. Johnson is a far better compromise than is Trump, particularly since Libertarians would caucus with Republicans in Congress anyway.
4. Mainstream GOP leaders mount a campaign backing Mr. Johnson as the alternative to Trump.
5. Johnson doesn't win enough of the electoral college votes to win the Presidency outright, but he draws enough votes from Trump and the Democratic nominee that he throws the decision of who shall be President into the House of Representatives.
6. Given that the Republican held House must choose among the top three electoral vote getters, their choices will be Trump, Mr. Johnson and whomever the Democratic candidate is.
7. Of those three choices, the House lead by the establishment/mainstream will almost certainly choose Mr. Johnson. The man's a two-term Governor. It's not as though his views are strange, unknown or not conservative. In some areas they may not be as conservative as some REPs would like, but in all areas they are more conservative than are Trump's ideas and approaches.
8. Boom. Gary Johnson becomes President.

You'll note that the keys to that strategy are:

• Hillary Clinton becoming the Democratic nominee. Not a far fetched possibility, and a possibility that the GOP can help along by encouraging support for her over Mr. Sanders.
• Johnson drawing enough electoral votes from Mrs. Clinton (or Mr. Sanders if he runs, although appealing to core DEMs and Mr. Sanders' own base of young idealists is unlikely) to throw the decision into the House.
• Republican leaders who despise Trump get over the need to have a Republican in name in the White House and focus on the substance of what they want and don't want, thereby accepting a good compromise when they see it and acting to make it happen. This is probably the biggest hurdle to overcome among the three key pillars of the strategy I proposed.

Is it an unusual approach for Mr. Johnson? Sure it is. Does it give the GOP and other mainstream politicians and voters a far more tolerable/"less negative" alternative than Trump or Mrs. Clinton? Absolutely.

P.S.
No, I don't really want Johnson to become POTUS, but if the alternative is Trump, sure, I'll take Johnson instead. In a New York minute. LOL Of the remaining possibilities, Sanders is the one I prefer. He just makes more sense overall to me, even though he's far from perfect.

One of the things you're omitting from the formula is that, like me, there are millions upon millions of voters in enough states to deliver the Presidency to Secretary Clinton who are not voting against Trump or Johnson or anyone else. Call us the establishment or whatever...we're firmly in her camp and she isn't going anywhere...

The only thing that would allow your scenario to (in part) come true is whether Mr. Trump or Ms. Clinton end up intertwined in legal matters that shape the race.

 

[320 Years of History]

One of the things you're omitting from the formula is that, like me, there are millions upon millions of voters in enough states to deliver the Presidency to Secretary Clinton

Libertarians and 3rd parties have won (as far as I know) zero states during the same period.

Well, there's a first time for everything, isn't there. LOL

This election cycle, with its two front runners having such high negatives, seems like as good a time as there's going to be for a third party candidate like Mr. Johnson to have a chance.

Speculating on just how he might actually attain the Presidency, I propose the following "strange bedfellows" scenario:

1. Mr. Johnson makes a major push to get his name known. That isn't all that hard to do if one thinks "outside the box." Indeed, taking a page from Kennedy's playbook, if Mr. Johnson can get a pop singer to release a catch tune that promotes him, he'd become quite well known almost overnight. You may recall that Sinatra did exactly that for JFK.
2. Mainstream Republicans, in their fit of dissatisfaction with Trump look at Mr. Johnson's stance on the issues and notice that although they aren't in lockstep with Republican ideas, they aren't very far from them, and some of them are identical to them.
3. Upon noticing the great degree of similarity, along with looking at Mr. Johnson's record as NM Governor, GOP mainstreamers decide Mr. Johnson is a far better compromise than is Trump, particularly since Libertarians would caucus with Republicans in Congress anyway.
4. Mainstream GOP leaders mount a campaign backing Mr. Johnson as the alternative to Trump.
5. Johnson doesn't win enough of the electoral college votes to win the Presidency outright, but he draws enough votes from Trump and the Democratic nominee that he throws the decision of who shall be President into the House of Representatives.
6. Given that the Republican held House must choose among the top three electoral vote getters, their choices will be Trump, Mr. Johnson and whomever the Democratic candidate is.
7. Of those three choices, the House lead by the establishment/mainstream will almost certainly choose Mr. Johnson. The man's a two-term Governor. It's not as though his views are strange, unknown or not conservative. In some areas they may not be as conservative as some REPs would like, but in all areas they are more conservative than are Trump's ideas and approaches.
8. Boom. Gary Johnson becomes President.

You'll note that the keys to that strategy are:

• Hillary Clinton becoming the Democratic nominee. Not a far fetched possibility, and a possibility that the GOP can help along by encouraging support for her over Mr. Sanders.
• Johnson drawing enough electoral votes from Mrs. Clinton (or Mr. Sanders if he runs, although appealing to core DEMs and Mr. Sanders' own base of young idealists is unlikely) to throw the decision into the House.
• Republican leaders who despise Trump get over the need to have a Republican in name in the White House and focus on the substance of what they want and don't want, thereby accepting a good compromise when they see it and acting to make it happen. This is probably the biggest hurdle to overcome among the three key pillars of the strategy I proposed.

Is it an unusual approach for Mr. Johnson? Sure it is. Does it give the GOP and other mainstream politicians and voters a far more tolerable/"less negative" alternative than Trump or Mrs. Clinton? Absolutely.

P.S.
No, I don't really want Johnson to become POTUS, but if the alternative is Trump, sure, I'll take Johnson instead. In a New York minute. LOL Of the remaining possibilities, Sanders is the one I prefer. He just makes more sense overall to me, even though he's far from perfect.

One of the things you're omitting from the formula is that, like me, there are millions upon millions of voters in enough states to deliver the Presidency to Secretary Clinton who are not voting against Trump or Johnson or anyone else. Call us the establishment or whatever...we're firmly in her camp and she isn't going anywhere...

The only thing that would allow your scenario to (in part) come true is whether Mr. Trump or Ms. Clinton end up intertwined in legal matters that shape the race.

Red:
First of all, what I identified isn't a formula. I identified a strategy and a high level plan for effecting it. A formula is something entirely different from either of those things. That said, I know what you are referring to, and that's clearly more important in this context than whether it's called a strategy, formula or banana even.

I didn't omit anything of the sort that you've suggested. What you've identified is obvious and has nothing to do with the strategy or the rough plan I outlined for implementing it. You've stated nothing short of what is the wager each nominating party must make regarding whether a majority of the nation's electoral votes can be collected by their respective nominees. As things appear right now:

• The Democrats' wager will be that Mrs. Clinton can do so.
• The Republican's wager ostensibly will be that Trump can do so.
• The Libertarians wager will be that Mr. Johnson can do so.
• The Green Party's wager will be that whomever they nominate can do so.

The Republican's who don't want Trump to do so have only one wager, and that is finding someone who can prevent Mrs. Clinton and Trump from collecting enough electoral votes to force the decision into the House of Representative where the establishment GOP holds sway. So, of course, if the Democrats' wager pans out and Mrs. Clinton wins the required 270 electoral votes, it won't matter whether the strategy and plan to drive the decision into the House works, for clearly it will not have. Nonetheless, it, something very similar to it, or a meeting of the minds between Trump and the GOP mainstream, are the only real options the GOP mainstream have at the moment.

Lastly, you'll notice the thread question is, "what choice have folks" who are unwilling to support/vote for Trump or Clinton. The strategy and plan I outlined is one of the choices they have. What I've laid out is an actionable choice and course of action such individuals currently have available to them. Have you seen anyone else in the discussion here identify anything that directly answers the title question and that resembles a clear strategy and plan? I haven't.

I realize you want Mrs. Clinton to win the Presidential election. That's fine, and I have no problem with it. As I noted earlier, I don't want Trump or Mr. Johnson to win, but that I don't want them to win doesn't prevent me from being able to identify what strategic options the GOP currently have open to them and what it'd take for them to bring them to fruition.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War​

Part of knowing the enemy is knowing what options they have and then crafting one's own plan for countering them. So for you, myself and others who don't want Trump to win, and even though we may not be campaign strategists, the call of this thread is to try to think like one and present actionable strategies. The next step, if one wants to carry on the discussion is to identify actionable counters to one's strategy. Politics, war and chess have a lot in common.

P.S.
It is the discussion of stratagems and their counters that I find eminently more interesting than the puerile "I'm right; you're wrong and stupid" banter that typically passes for discussion/debate on USMB. There isn't a political strategy subforum on USMB, so here and the SDF subforum is where I dwell in the hope of finding a few well informed and deep thinking folks who will engage in strategic level civil discourse.


Blue:
Well, for now, that's so. The "two ton gorilla in the room" is, of course what the FBI determines it must do regarding her emails and home email server. Where Mrs. Clinton will go is to her lawyers' offices and a courtroom to plan and argue her defense.

I happen to think that if they indict her, her chances of winning the Presidency will be all but over. I honestly doubt the Democratic Party willfully would nominate a person who has an active and unresolved federal indictment against them. One can ask the American people to overlook quite a lot, and they often will, Donald Trump's success being a fine illustration of that, but open federal charges are not something enough voters will overlook to thereby allow a nominee to get the required 270 electoral votes.

Lastly, given that Mr. Sanders doesn't currently have a mathematical path to winning the Democratic Presidential nomination, it wouldn't surprise me to later find out that Mr. Sanders is remaining in the Democratic primary races largely (albeit quietly) hoping for and just in case the FBI do indict Mrs. Clinton.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

One thing to consider.... a vote for anyone else, or to not vote at all - is a vote for Clinton.
This is her Presidency to win. She is favored across nearly all demo's. And Trump is such a knot-head that he thinks he can win with a fractured Republican party. Dumb.
At this point, which could change, but unlikely - I believe Hillary will be the next President. Which is a national tragedy.
Democrats, like Republicans, are so blinded by partisan-party loyalty that they can't see they are voting in someone who is quite polar opposite of what they, themselves, believe in.
Hillary is a corporatist. That is not up for debate.
And for the third time in a role the Democrats will elect a corporatist/elitist to the White House.
The richest of the rich are smiling big.

 

[320 Years of History]

Shifting a bit away from Mr. Johnson directly and considering strategies that might be used by Mrs. Clinton to counter the "Johnson" one I proposed in post #44....

So when it comes to Democratic Party potential strategies, did nobody here find any coming out of Mrs. Clinton's interview on Face the Nation this past weekend and the events that transpired in the preceding week and that might be used to capitalize on the fractures in the GOP and the flanking move the Libertarians might be able to bring to bear? I certainly did -- about 1.5 or 2, depending on how one looks at/structures them -- but again, I'll give others a chance to toss their strategy proposals/ideas into the pot...but I won't wait forever.

 

[flacaltenn]

One of the things you're omitting from the formula is that, like me, there are millions upon millions of voters in enough states to deliver the Presidency to Secretary Clinton

Libertarians and 3rd parties have won (as far as I know) zero states during the same period.

Well, there's a first time for everything, isn't there. LOL

This election cycle, with its two front runners having such high negatives, seems like as good a time as there's going to be for a third party candidate like Mr. Johnson to have a chance.

Speculating on just how he might actually attain the Presidency, I propose the following "strange bedfellows" scenario:

1. Mr. Johnson makes a major push to get his name known. That isn't all that hard to do if one thinks "outside the box." Indeed, taking a page from Kennedy's playbook, if Mr. Johnson can get a pop singer to release a catch tune that promotes him, he'd become quite well known almost overnight. You may recall that Sinatra did exactly that for JFK.
2. Mainstream Republicans, in their fit of dissatisfaction with Trump look at Mr. Johnson's stance on the issues and notice that although they aren't in lockstep with Republican ideas, they aren't very far from them, and some of them are identical to them.
3. Upon noticing the great degree of similarity, along with looking at Mr. Johnson's record as NM Governor, GOP mainstreamers decide Mr. Johnson is a far better compromise than is Trump, particularly since Libertarians would caucus with Republicans in Congress anyway.
4. Mainstream GOP leaders mount a campaign backing Mr. Johnson as the alternative to Trump.
5. Johnson doesn't win enough of the electoral college votes to win the Presidency outright, but he draws enough votes from Trump and the Democratic nominee that he throws the decision of who shall be President into the House of Representatives.
6. Given that the Republican held House must choose among the top three electoral vote getters, their choices will be Trump, Mr. Johnson and whomever the Democratic candidate is.
7. Of those three choices, the House lead by the establishment/mainstream will almost certainly choose Mr. Johnson. The man's a two-term Governor. It's not as though his views are strange, unknown or not conservative. In some areas they may not be as conservative as some REPs would like, but in all areas they are more conservative than are Trump's ideas and approaches.
8. Boom. Gary Johnson becomes President.

You'll note that the keys to that strategy are:

• Hillary Clinton becoming the Democratic nominee. Not a far fetched possibility, and a possibility that the GOP can help along by encouraging support for her over Mr. Sanders.
• Johnson drawing enough electoral votes from Mrs. Clinton (or Mr. Sanders if he runs, although appealing to core DEMs and Mr. Sanders' own base of young idealists is unlikely) to throw the decision into the House.
• Republican leaders who despise Trump get over the need to have a Republican in name in the White House and focus on the substance of what they want and don't want, thereby accepting a good compromise when they see it and acting to make it happen. This is probably the biggest hurdle to overcome among the three key pillars of the strategy I proposed.

Is it an unusual approach for Mr. Johnson? Sure it is. Does it give the GOP and other mainstream politicians and voters a far more tolerable/"less negative" alternative than Trump or Mrs. Clinton? Absolutely.

P.S.
No, I don't really want Johnson to become POTUS, but if the alternative is Trump, sure, I'll take Johnson instead. In a New York minute. LOL Of the remaining possibilities, Sanders is the one I prefer. He just makes more sense overall to me, even though he's far from perfect.

One of the things you're omitting from the formula is that, like me, there are millions upon millions of voters in enough states to deliver the Presidency to Secretary Clinton who are not voting against Trump or Johnson or anyone else. Call us the establishment or whatever...we're firmly in her camp and she isn't going anywhere...

The only thing that would allow your scenario to (in part) come true is whether Mr. Trump or Ms. Clinton end up intertwined in legal matters that shape the race.

Red:
First of all, what I identified isn't a formula. I identified a strategy and a high level plan for effecting it. A formula is something entirely different from either of those things. That said, I know what you are referring to, and that's clearly more important in this context than whether it's called a strategy, formula or banana even.

I didn't omit anything of the sort that you've suggested. What you've identified is obvious and has nothing to do with the strategy or the rough plan I outlined for implementing it. You've stated nothing short of what is the wager each nominating party must make regarding whether a majority of the nation's electoral votes can be collected by their respective nominees. As things appear right now:

• The Democrats' wager will be that Mrs. Clinton can do so.
• The Republican's wager ostensibly will be that Trump can do so.
• The Libertarians wager will be that Mr. Johnson can do so.
• The Green Party's wager will be that whomever they nominate can do so.

The Republican's who don't want Trump to do so have only one wager, and that is finding someone who can prevent Mrs. Clinton and Trump from collecting enough electoral votes to force the decision into the House of Representative where the establishment GOP holds sway. So, of course, if the Democrats' wager pans out and Mrs. Clinton wins the required 270 electoral votes, it won't matter whether the strategy and plan to drive the decision into the House works, for clearly it will not have. Nonetheless, it, something very similar to it, or a meeting of the minds between Trump and the GOP mainstream, are the only real options the GOP mainstream have at the moment.

Lastly, you'll notice the thread question is, "what choice have folks" who are unwilling to support/vote for Trump or Clinton. The strategy and plan I outlined is one of the choices they have. What I've laid out is an actionable choice and course of action such individuals currently have available to them. Have you seen anyone else in the discussion here identify anything that directly answers the title question and that resembles a clear strategy and plan? I haven't.

I realize you want Mrs. Clinton to win the Presidential election. That's fine, and I have no problem with it. As I noted earlier, I don't want Trump or Mr. Johnson to win, but that I don't want them to win doesn't prevent me from being able to identify what strategic options the GOP currently have open to them and what it'd take for them to bring them to fruition.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War​

Part of knowing the enemy is knowing what options they have and then crafting one's own plan for countering them. So for you, myself and others who don't want Trump to win, and even though we may not be campaign strategists, the call of this thread is to try to think like one and present actionable strategies. The next step, if one wants to carry on the discussion is to identify actionable counters to one's strategy. Politics, war and chess have a lot in common.

P.S.
It is the discussion of stratagems and their counters that I find eminently more interesting than the puerile "I'm right; you're wrong and stupid" banter that typically passes for discussion/debate on USMB. There isn't a political strategy subforum on USMB, so here and the SDF subforum is where I dwell in the hope of finding a few well informed and deep thinking folks who will engage in strategic level civil discourse.


Blue:
Well, for now, that's so. The "two ton gorilla in the room" is, of course what the FBI determines it must do regarding her emails and home email server. Where Mrs. Clinton will go is to her lawyers' offices and a courtroom to plan and argue her defense.

I happen to think that if they indict her, her chances of winning the Presidency will be all but over. I honestly doubt the Democratic Party willfully would nominate a person who has an active and unresolved federal indictment against them. One can ask the American people to overlook quite a lot, and they often will, Donald Trump's success being a fine illustration of that, but open federal charges are not something enough voters will overlook to thereby allow a nominee to get the required 270 electoral votes.

Lastly, given that Mr. Sanders doesn't currently have a mathematical path to winning the Democratic Presidential nomination, it wouldn't surprise me to later find out that Mr. Sanders is remaining in the Democratic primary races largely (albeit quietly) hoping for and just in case the FBI do indict Mrs. Clinton.

Mr Sanders is fighting Hillary to almost a dead even TIE in ELECTED delegates. The contest is lopsided as it is because Sgt Schultz and the Party bosses put in a 15% barrier of UNELECTED delegates. With a lot of coin flips and card draws and other stunts that add up to massive voter disenfranchisement.. One superdelegate is equivalent to about 10,000 Joe Schmoe voters. It's a coronation, not an election. Unless Bernie can literally STEAL the superdelegates from Hilary the same way Obama did.

Being a nominee in the Dem party is now a PATRONAGE job. It's measured by how much money you've raised, how many times you've taken a bullet for cause and how willing you are to spin and deflect for the party..

In the Libertarian Debates (yes they were TELEVISED on Stossel) -- it was agreed by ALL the candidate that BERNIE was correct on about 1/2 of his issues. Ending Corporate Welfare, a higher bar to military interventions, support of ALL 10 of the Bill of Rights, etc.. So I suspect -- that if the Dem party simply erases his efforts to turn the party pink ---- there WILL be just as many #neverhiliary as #nevertrump voters looking at Johnson..

Our problem is -- Johnson has the charisma of a banana slug.. Or he USED to. He's loosened up a bit. He got a lot stuff DONE in New Mexico without making it ----- about him..

 

[sakinago]

Trump almost lost me with the perverts in the bathroom thing... then I thought why the hell would I make my daughter use a public bathroom? Damn, that guy is smart.

If you really think about it, shopping at a business that doesn't have a public bathroom makes a lot of sense. If they are not paying for a bathroom, they are not passing the cost to the product the are selling. It's a better deal!

Then the report comes out, every living president(Bush's and Clinton's) thinks Trump is "bad"... sealed the deal for me. What the hell! for once in my life I'm voting republican.

Clinton, obviously a scumbag.

Simple choice really.

Really good conversation up until this post