Does anybody on this board want Trump to be President?

[89Hen]

Exactly.

It's like the political version of "nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded".

Ganny and Ivytalk striking their establishment pose:

Voting third party is so anti-establishment. You're a real pioneer.

[GannonFan]

I agree. This idea that just voting for somebody, anybody, other than a GOP'er or a Dem and that will change the political spectrum is just naïve and simplistic. As much as we rightfully decry both major parties today, they are fairly broad enough in their umbrella of ideas and positions that they fill much of the electorate's wants and desires from a political party. Sure, they're not perfect, but they give enough of a way for people of differing views to come together that they, begrudgingly, work. For a third party to be reaslistic, that third party would need to be very clear in what they offer that the other parties don't offer, and that's hard to do considering the ground those two parties already cover. And for it to be further realistic, the third party would actually need to be a viable contender to win, not only the Presidency, but actual seats in Congress and at the state level. Right now, it just doesn't exist, and throwing your vote to a random non-GOP non-Dem candidate in the Presidential election amounts to doing just a sliver more than nothing. The fact that a third party hasn't coalesced in the past 30-40 years, to me, just means that there isn't really the need for one - people are content enough with being able to pick from one of the two parties, despite the angst on this board that that shouldn't be the case.

How do you expect them to be a viable contender if you cast them aside from the get go?

I haven't casted anyone aside from the get go, the electorate has. What do you (and kalm) have against voters?

There's been times in our history when third parties have gotten tremendously further than they have today, but those parties have also been very transitory - the main points that helped those parties come into existence were absorbed by the two major parties and the need for the third parties fell away. You see that happen often in the other countries where multiple parties exist - the setup of the parliamentary systems there keep the other parties in existence, but you still see it generally fall to two parties that dominate at any point in time. If there was such a great need for a third party, and if the electorate was so committed to the idea that we should have one, then we would have one. The absence of it means that the need and the want aren't there in any great extent. Again, the electorate has spoken.

[houndawg]

How do you expect them to be a viable contender if you cast them aside from the get go?

I haven't casted anyone aside from the get go, the electorate has. What do you (and kalm) have against voters?

There's been times in our history when third parties have gotten tremendously further than they have today, but those parties have also been very transitory - the main points that helped those parties come into existence were absorbed by the two major parties and the need for the third parties fell away. You see that happen often in the other countries where multiple parties exist - the setup of the parliamentary systems there keep the other parties in existence, but you still see it generally fall to two parties that dominate at any point in time. If there was such a great need for a third party, and if the electorate was so committed to the idea that we should have one, then we would have one. The absence of it means that the need and the want aren't there in any great extent. Again, the electorate has spoken.

That's what we get for a trillion dollars in taxes - why not switch to a Parliamentarian guvmint? Get some new snouts in the trough.

[Ibanez]

How do you expect them to be a viable contender if you cast them aside from the get go?

I haven't casted anyone aside from the get go, the electorate has. What do you (and kalm) have against voters?

There's been times in our history when third parties have gotten tremendously further than they have today, but those parties have also been very transitory - the main points that helped those parties come into existence were absorbed by the two major parties and the need for the third parties fell away. You see that happen often in the other countries where multiple parties exist - the setup of the parliamentary systems there keep the other parties in existence, but you still see it generally fall to two parties that dominate at any point in time. If there was such a great need for a third party, and if the electorate was so committed to the idea that we should have one, then we would have one. The absence of it means that the need and the want aren't there in any great extent. Again, the electorate has spoken.

I don't have anything against them. I just find it comical when people say they don't like a party or a certain congressperson but then do nothing to vote them out. Or challenge the status quo.

[Skjellyfetti]

Or be an avowed "independent" like Gannonfan... and vote Democratic and Republican in alternate years and think that we don't need a third party.

[GannonFan]

Or be an avowed "independent" like Gannonfan... and vote Democratic and Republican in alternate years and think that we don't need a third party.

There's things I like about both parties and things I don't like about both parties, hence the independence. I just don't think the things I like would stand apart enough on their own to be a sustained third party. Again, the reason why we don't have a third party in this country is that the things the third parties have coalesced around in the past are ultimately absorbed and adopted by the remaining two parties. Third parties, in our country, are transitory, plain and simple.

[SDHornet]

Well since both parties are hell bent on increasing the size of government and issuing government handouts to big banks, defense industry, big oil, big pharma, big insurance, big businesses, and handouts to the leeches/deadbeats of society (I'm sure I missed lots of others); I think there is plenty appeal and "room" for a coherent and well organized of a 3rd party.

[kalm]

Well since both parties are hell bent on increasing the size of government and issuing government handouts to big banks, defense industry, big oil, big pharma, big insurance, big businesses, and handouts to the leeches/deadbeats of society (I'm sure I missed lots of others); I think there is plenty appeal and "room" for a coherent and well organized of a 3rd party.

My....

Ese?

[JohnStOnge]

It is funny to see the anti-Hillary hate on here, when her views/stances, if you put them in a pretty white male, would align closer to most on this board than any other candidate running.

See Rand Paul.

[JohnStOnge]

If she were a white male republican, Z, Ballsack, BDMBFK, JSO, and their zombie crowd would be jacking their meat so fast that Russian spy satellites infrared cameras would think it was a sneak attack.

Hillary clearly plays to the "class envy" thing. She is clearly pro abortion. She clearly believes in higher taxation. There is no doubt that if she were to be put into the position of being able to nominate a Justice to the Supreme Court she'd pick a liberal who has no respect for the original understanding of the Constitution. I don't know what the hell you're talking about. No matter what she looks like or what her sex is her positions on issues are completely unacceptable.

[JohnStOnge]

Hillary to go up against him, I think he ends up being a terrific campaigner and could easily make Hillary sweat this thing out next year.

If he gets the nomination the Democrats will destroy him. It'll be the biggest landslide win for the Democrats in my lifetime. And the Republicans will lose House and Senate seats as well.

[BDKJMU]

Hillary to go up against him, I think he ends up being a terrific campaigner and could easily make Hillary sweat this thing out next year.

If he gets the nomination the Democrats will destroy him. It'll be the biggest landslide win for the Democrats in my lifetime. And the Republicans will lose House and Senate seats as well.

Yeah thats what the majority of pundits are saying. When Trump took over the lead in the polls back in Aug? virtually EVERYONE said he'd be done by Jan. And yet virtually every majority pundit prediction on Trump has been wrong. So if the majority of pundits keep being wrong on their Trump predictions over and over and over, what makes you think tbey are all of a sudden going to become right if its Trump v Hillary?

[Skjellyfetti]

what makes you think tbey are all of a sudden going to become right if its Trump v Hillary?

A Republican primary is not the same as a general election.

Trump would have to make up A LOT of ground where Romney and McCain failed.

These are swing states that are middle of the road.

It's going to be exceedingly difficult for a hardline candidate to rack up swing states. And, if a Republican candidate is going to win... they're going to have to do very, very well in swing states.

If Democrats lose Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. They'll still win, all else equal. These are the kind of states that Trump will struggle with more than other states.

He'll do well in solidly red states but will lose every single swing state, imo.

[houndawg]

Hillary to go up against him, I think he ends up being a terrific campaigner and could easily make Hillary sweat this thing out next year.

If he gets the nomination the Democrats will destroy him. It'll be the biggest landslide win for the Democrats in my lifetime. And the Republicans will lose House and Senate seats as well.

I'd say this is a foregone conclusion given the conks don't have anybody who can achieve half the polling numbers of a professional buffoon.

[Baldy]

If she were a white male republican, Z, Ballsack, BDMBFK, JSO, and their zombie crowd would be jacking their meat so fast that Russian spy satellites infrared cameras would think it was a sneak attack.

For whatever reason JSO takes out the name of the person when he quotes shit. I'm not wasting my time to back through the thread and see who the idiot was, but a quote that dumb has to be from someone as stupid as boogereatingdawg. amirite?

[houndawg]

If she were a white male republican, Z, Ballsack, BDMBFK, JSO, and their zombie crowd would be jacking their meat so fast that Russian spy satellites infrared cameras would think it was a sneak attack.

Hillary clearly plays to the "class envy" thing. She is clearly pro abortion. She clearly believes in higher taxation. There is no doubt that if she were to be put into the position of being able to nominate a Justice to the Supreme Court she'd pick a liberal who has no respect for the original understanding of the Constitution. I don't know what the hell you're talking about. No matter what she looks like or what her sex is her positions on issues are completely unacceptable.

You don't know what anybody is talking about outside fox news John. Its part of what makes you you.

[kalm]

For whatever reason JSO takes out the name of the person when he quotes shit. I'm not wasting my time to back through the thread and see who the idiot was, but a quote that dumb has to be from someone as stupid as boogereatingdawg. amirite?

Funny thing is, she could just tone down her Democratic Primary rhetoric, and throw a few bones about the failures of Obama, and probably win the Republican Primary too.

[houndawg]

For whatever reason JSO takes out the name of the person when he quotes ****. I'm not wasting my time to back through the thread and see who the idiot was, but a quote that dumb has to be from someone as stupid as boogereatingdawg. amirite?

You're up early for a fellow that never had to learn how to calculate his weekly pay, Balsack. Hangseng take a drop overnight?

[kalm]

How do you expect them to be a viable contender if you cast them aside from the get go?

I haven't casted anyone aside from the get go, the electorate has. What do you (and kalm) have against voters?

There's been times in our history when third parties have gotten tremendously further than they have today, but those parties have also been very transitory - the main points that helped those parties come into existence were absorbed by the two major parties and the need for the third parties fell away. You see that happen often in the other countries where multiple parties exist - the setup of the parliamentary systems there keep the other parties in existence, but you still see it generally fall to two parties that dominate at any point in time. If there was such a great need for a third party, and if the electorate was so committed to the idea that we should have one, then we would have one. The absence of it means that the need and the want aren't there in any great extent. Again, the electorate has spoken.

The voters don't knowingly cast anyone aside. Face it, the noble average voter doesn't care all that much and has at best a peripheral knowledge of candidates. They watch the establishment controlled media and check boxes based on name recognition.

Even those that follow politics can be blinded by partisanship or low information depending upon selective news sources.

If enough people get fed up with the status quo, maybe, just maybe, enough will start to vote 3rd party and the establishment will have to take notice....and then do everything they can to absorb the insurgency again.

(So in a way, I see what you're saying. )

[houndawg]

For whatever reason JSO takes out the name of the person when he quotes ****. I'm not wasting my time to back through the thread and see who the idiot was, but a quote that dumb has to be from someone as stupid as boogereatingdawg. amirite?

Funny thing is, she could just tone down her Democratic Primary rhetoric, and throw a few bones about the failures of Obama, and probably win the Republican Primary too.

Absolutely.

Fvcking Donald Trump is a veritable Gulliver among the Lilliputians. Hillary would make very short work of those midgets.

[houndawg]

I haven't casted anyone aside from the get go, the electorate has. What do you (and kalm) have against voters?

There's been times in our history when third parties have gotten tremendously further than they have today, but those parties have also been very transitory - the main points that helped those parties come into existence were absorbed by the two major parties and the need for the third parties fell away. You see that happen often in the other countries where multiple parties exist - the setup of the parliamentary systems there keep the other parties in existence, but you still see it generally fall to two parties that dominate at any point in time. If there was such a great need for a third party, and if the electorate was so committed to the idea that we should have one, then we would have one. The absence of it means that the need and the want aren't there in any great extent. Again, the electorate has spoken.

The voters don't knowingly cast anyone aside. Face it, the noble average voter doesn't care all that much and has at best a peripheral knowledge of candidates. They watch the establishment controlled media and check boxes based on name recognition.

Even those that follow politics can be blinded by partisanship or low information depending upon selective news sources.

If enough people get fed up with the status quo, maybe, just maybe, enough will start to vote 3rd party and the establishment will have to take notice....and then do everything they can to absorb the insurgency again.

(So in a way, I see what you're saying. )

They'd have to right now if we'd switch over to a Parliamentarian guvmint.

[Baldy]

For whatever reason JSO takes out the name of the person when he quotes ****. I'm not wasting my time to back through the thread and see who the idiot was, but a quote that dumb has to be from someone as stupid as boogereatingdawg. amirite?

You're up early for a fellow that never had to learn how to calculate his weekly pay, Balsack. Hangseng take a drop overnight?

And you're even more confused than when your nurse changed your diaper and rocked you to sleep last night.

[houndawg]

You're up early for a fellow that never had to learn how to calculate his weekly pay, Balsack. Hangseng take a drop overnight?

And you're even more confused than when your nurse changed your diaper and rocked you to sleep last night.

Your heart ain't in it nomore, Balsdry..

Take a lesson from your boy Donald and don't become boring.


Fvcking conks have gone pussy on us without Tman around to tell them what they think.

[GannonFan]

The voters don't knowingly cast anyone aside. Face it, the noble average voter doesn't care all that much and has at best a peripheral knowledge of candidates. They watch the establishment controlled media and check boxes based on name recognition.

Even those that follow politics can be blinded by partisanship or low information depending upon selective news sources.

If enough people get fed up with the status quo, maybe, just maybe, enough will start to vote 3rd party and the establishment will have to take notice....and then do everything they can to absorb the insurgency again.

(So in a way, I see what you're saying. )

They'd have to right now if we'd switch over to a Parliamentarian guvmint.

I don't see how a Parliamentarian government style would change anything at this point in time. Heck, even in most Parliamentarian governments, even if they have a multitude of political parties, you still in the end wind up with two parties emerging as the dominant ones. Even worse, if we moved to a Parliamentarian government right now there would be a GOP President ( Prime Minister Trump if you will) as the GOP already dominates the legislature. Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants for people who decry the status quo and think that change would alleviate all our problems. We don't have the problems we do today in America because of the Executive branch of government - I think having that structure is a good thing.

[houndawg]

They'd have to right now if we'd switch over to a Parliamentarian guvmint.

I don't see how a Parliamentarian government style would change anything at this point in time. Heck, even in most Parliamentarian governments, even if they have a multitude of political parties, you still in the end wind up with two parties emerging as the dominant ones. Even worse, if we moved to a Parliamentarian government right now there would be a GOP President ( Prime Minister Trump if you will) as the GOP already dominates the legislature. Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants for people who decry the status quo and think that change would alleviate all our problems. We don't have the problems we do today in America because of the Executive branch of government - I think having that structure is a good thing.

Wider representation of views.