Do you hate Trump? Do you hate Hillary? We have the candidate for you. Should we formally endorse this man for Pres?

agip wrote:

remember that lefty supporters of third party candidate Ralph Nader gave us the worst president since WW2. A completely incompetent fool, george bush 2.

Those who voted for Nader are guilty of electing GW2.

If any moderate or lefty types vote for Stein or the libertarian, you are voting for Trump and have as much culpability as those lefties who voted for Nader but really voted for Bush.

Be brave. Be adult. Don't vote for Trump via a third party, moderates.

Johnson has pulled equally from both. Voting for Johnson is not a vote for anyone other than Johnson (perhaps it is also a vote against the 2 party system).

Continuing to vote for sh*tty candidates because the other one is worse only leads to more shitty candidates.

And insulting people's intelligence because they (correctly) don't see politics as an X or ~X proposition isn't exactly endearing towards your cause.

You deny that lefty supporters of Nader elected bush2? I'd like to hear your rationalizing of that sordid affair.

Johnson is not Nader. His policies on the whole are fairly moderate and appeal to people on both sides. Republicans will say it's a vote for Hillary, Democrats will say it's a vote for Trump. So which is it? When does it become a vote for Johnson?

Rojo I think you ought to put the other very popular political thread back up.

agip wrote:

remember that lefty supporters of third party candidate Ralph Nader gave us the worst president since WW2. A completely incompetent fool, george bush 2.

Those who voted for Nader are guilty of electing GW2.

.....

Well, somewhat true ..... But technically, SCOTUS is what gave this country its worst president since WW2.

I know two of Weld's children and they both dislike his politics and are embarrassed to be associated with him.

Agip wrote:

D3 guy wrote:

Johnson has pulled equally from both. Voting for Johnson is not a vote for anyone other than Johnson (perhaps it is also a vote against the 2 party system).

Continuing to vote for sh*tty candidates because the other one is worse only leads to more shitty candidates.

And insulting people's intelligence because they (correctly) don't see politics as an X or ~X proposition isn't exactly endearing towards your cause.

You deny that lefty supporters of Nader elected bush2? I'd like to hear your rationalizing of that sordid affair.

I'll sort of deny it. The Democratic and largely Jewish voters of Palm Beach who voted for anti-Semite Pat Buchanan on the notorious "butterfly ballot" arguably had a more direct role by failing to vote for their intended choice, Al Gore (although I don't blame them for getting confused by the ballot design). The Florida Democrats who didn't vote at all also played a much bigger role than the Nader voters who did. And the traditional Republican voters (like me) who -- unlike me -- didn't recognize or care enough that the Republican candidate was an incurious dope also played a big role.

Voting for a third-party candidate, especially in a likely swing state in a likely close election, can be a bit of a gamble. The 19% who voted for Ross Perot in 1992 certainly had a very significant effect on the vote distribution, although there's good reason to believe that his candidacy did not ultimately change the outcome. (If he hadn't temporarily withdrawn from the campaign, the outcome might very well have been different.) Significant numbers of third-party votes do make a statement, and that can have a positive effect on future elections and the future direction of political parties. (That Mitt Romney, of all people, is talking about voting for Garry Johnson is something that Republicans should take seriously.) I don't blame the Naderites for electing bush2; I blame the bush2 voters (with a little help from five Supreme Court justices) -- especially the bush2 voters in 2004, who had every reason to know about his decisions to invade a sovereign country under false pretenses, authorize systematic torture and indefinite detention, and completely bust the budget on both the expense and revenue sides.

As I suggested in my earlier post, I'm starting to come around to the view that Donald Trump is simply too manifestly unfit to justify taking the third-party route this year. I can express my displeasure for people like Hillary Clinton some other time. But if I do vote for Garry Johnson, it will be a thoughtful choice with awareness of the risks; I'm not going to take the blame for electing Donald Trump, which is a very different choice.

You're traditional Republican? So did you vote for McCain, Mitt, Bush, Bush Sr?

I'll be voting Jill Stein. I understand this site is frequented mostly by conservatives, at least the people who post in these threads, but for the first time in my life a democratic presidential candidate is so distasteful to me, I can't even vote for her to stop Trump, who is just about as distasteful, from being elected. I understand if enough people do this, Trump could win (although he's losing fiscal conservatives to Johnson), but I can't in good conscience tell my students that I voted for Clinton.

Where in the constitution does it say war crimes are okay? Thats what Trump publically admitted he was okay with.

Where in the Constitution does it say steal from the poor to give to the rich? And block minorities/students from voting? He and his GOP fully support those as well.

Youre nuts if you think he or any Republican would be a good fit.

Although I dont like Ms Clinton I'll take four years of herif it means our country will not nominate reactionary candidates to the Supreme Court.

........ wrote:

You're traditional Republican? So did you vote for McCain, Mitt, Bush, Bush Sr?

I said that I was a "traditional Republican" in 2000, when I chose not to vote for bush2. Before that, I had supported Richard Nixon (in 1972), Ronald Reagan (in 1976, when he didn't get the nomination, as well as in 1980 and 1984), and George Herbert Walker Bush (in both 1988 and 1992). In 1996, I voted, but not for President, since I couldn't honestly say that Bob Dole would be a better President than Bill Clinton, who had opposed his own party on significant issues, including free trade and welfare reform, and had generally exercised a degree of fiscal conservatism not previously associated with his party. (Clinton's second term was, in my view, a disaster, but not because of fiscal or other broad policy choices, but because he repeatedly lied, obstructed and sought to discredit the work of the independent prosecutor, and -- literally and figuratively -- soiled the Office of the President, leading to his impeachment.)

In 2000, I voted for the Libertarian candidate, which was quite a step for me, because I had never voted for any candidate for federal office other than a Republican. (If John McCain had been the Republican nominee that year, I would certainly have voted for him over Al Gore.) In 2004, I voted for John Kerry -- an easy choice when the opponent was by far the worst President since at least as far back as Warren Harding, although it still felt almost sinful to cast a vote for a Democrat after all those decades.

In 2008, my top two choices in the entire field were Barack Obama and John McCain; I would have voted for either of them over any of the other candidates of either major party. Ultimately, though, it became an easy choice to vote for Obama (a truly brilliant and thoughtful man) over McCain (who had, by then, largely sold out to the new right of the Republican Party, perhaps most notably in his inexcusably irresponsible choice of running mate). 2012 was somewhat similar; I remained generally very impressed by Obama, who had to deal with a dysfunctional Congress, and Romney (like McCain four years earlier) had largely thrown in his lot with the right wing of his party -- rather different from the Mitt Romney who had governed Massachusetts.

I remain entirely open to returning to Republican candidates, but the party is now dominated by fiscally irresponsible and socially wacky individuals, and it's difficult to turn around a major political party very quickly. (The Democratic Party may now seem more like the party of Abraham Lincoln than the Republican Party does, but that didn't happen overnight.) Gerrymandering of Congressional districts has largely ossified the composition of Congress, and campaign financing laws continue to tilt elections in favor of incumbents. So I'm disheartened by current circumstances. There have been, and still are, some excellent leaders from both parties. I would love to see some more Republicans like the old firebrand Alan Simpson and even the younger version of John McCain. On the Democratic side, I continue to have great regard for Barack Obama, and there are still tough-minded fiscal hawks like Erskine Bowles and sharp regulatory moderates like Cass Sunstein in the party. But both parties have generally staked out pretty extreme positions, and their legislative leaders appear to lack the incentives, thoughtfulness, and statesmanship to achieve productive compromises.

Sasha Pachev wrote:

I usually vote Republican, but in this election if Trump gets the nomination, I am voting for a third party candidate. Not Libertarian, though.

Trump already has the nomination, all the other Republican candidates dropped out

Johnson is pro-doping and to the left of Hillary on National Defense. Serious conservatives agree he is a loon.

Letsrun should urge a write in campaign for Mitt Romney.

If not Romney, I am starting to come around to the idea of holding my nose and voting for Trump. If Trump wins, that means Republicans held the House and Paul Ryan essentially runs the country British-style.

Hillary Clinton is awful.

If Trump wins, "American exceptionalism" takes on a whole new meaning that is nothing to be proud of and is akin to doom.

This business about how "awful" Hillary is is a carefully cultivated myth. She'd be a slightly better than average president.

Johnson is a reasonable man and would be a competent chief executive. However, the Liberatrian Party is batsh*t crazy:

https://www.lp.org/platform

You can boil to down to: "The free market will solve everything." I know some on LRC will be absolutely creaming their pants at that prospect, but it's an absolute fantasy. Sure, it sounds perfectly logical, but think of all the illogical people you meet during the day. It would end up being a disaster.

Agip wrote:

D3 guy wrote:

Johnson has pulled equally from both. Voting for Johnson is not a vote for anyone other than Johnson (perhaps it is also a vote against the 2 party system).

Continuing to vote for sh*tty candidates because the other one is worse only leads to more shitty candidates.

And insulting people's intelligence because they (correctly) don't see politics as an X or ~X proposition isn't exactly endearing towards your cause.

You deny that lefty supporters of Nader elected bush2? I'd like to hear your rationalizing of that sordid affair.

It happened, but it only happened in two states: New Hampshire and Florida.

Thus far (New Hampshire and Florida), it does not seem to be swinging states this time.

Yes, endorse Johnson. He is the only common sense candidate in the race. Plus he is a fellow endurance sport athlete.

Conservartism doesn't mean busting the budget on military spending and waging war all around the globe. Its a big reason the term "neoconservatism" was coined. Its like what new country is to old country.

Frank Marshall Davis wrote:

Johnson is pro-doping and to the left of Hillary on National Defense. Serious conservatives agree he is a loon.

Letsrun should urge a write in campaign for Mitt Romney.

If not Romney, I am starting to come around to the idea of holding my nose and voting for Trump. If Trump wins, that means Republicans held the House and Paul Ryan essentially runs the country British-style.

Hillary Clinton is awful.