That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
Ahhh, the hubris. They aren't Hillary's votes - they never were. Why not blame all the Hillary voters for not supporting Johnson?Isgrimnur wrote:Most votes wins. A vote assumed for Hillary taken from her and moved to Trump would be a 2-vote swing in Trump's favor. A vote taken from her and moved to a 3rd party results in a 1-vote swing to Trump's favor.
How do you feel about them being effectively blocked from the debates?stessier wrote: We just need better third party candidates for presidential election.
Yeah, that really stinks. I hate the whole debate commission thing. I think a better rule is if you are on enough ballots to theoretically get an EC win, you should be in. Alternatively, anyone polling above 1%. Yeah, some of the people you'll end up with will have wacky ideas, but others will have ideas worth, you know, debating.Smoove_B wrote:How do you feel about them being effectively blocked from the debates?stessier wrote: We just need better third party candidates for presidential election.
Yeah, one Senator and one delegate (not Representative) in the House. And both of them independents, not Libertarian or Green or Constitution or American Freedom or Communist or Prohibition or whathaveyou. I'm not impressed.stessier wrote:Third party candidates already win in Congress. We just need better third party candidates for presidential election.
"I ran as a third-party candidate. I'm the longest-serving independent in the history of the United States Congress. I know more about third-party politics than anyone else in the Congress, okay? And if people want to run as third-party candidates, God bless them! Run for Congress. Run for governor. Run for state legislature. When we're talking about president of the United States, in my own personal view, this is not time for a protest vote. This is time to elect Hillary Clinton and then work after the election to mobilize millions of people to make sure she can be the most progressive president she can be."
I'm sure those lefties who voted for Nader were happy with their role in electing President Bush.stessier wrote:And I'm saying there is no "assumed". There is no moral jeopardy in voting for your desired candidate.
Yet another thing I disagree with Sanders on. *Yawn*Defiant wrote:Looks like Sanders agrees.
"I ran as a third-party candidate. I'm the longest-serving independent in the history of the United States Congress. I know more about third-party politics than anyone else in the Congress, okay? And if people want to run as third-party candidates, God bless them! Run for Congress. Run for governor. Run for state legislature. When we're talking about president of the United States, in my own personal view, this is not time for a protest vote. This is time to elect Hillary Clinton and then work after the election to mobilize millions of people to make sure she can be the most progressive president she can be."
As happy as all those who didn't vote for Nader. Had the done that, Bush never would have been elected.gbasden wrote:I'm sure those lefties who voted for Nader were happy with their role in electing President Bush.stessier wrote:And I'm saying there is no "assumed". There is no moral jeopardy in voting for your desired candidate.
*scratches head*. Took me a few seconds to understand what you were saying, but you're claiming that if everyone who was a leftist had voted for Nader he would have won? I'll admit, that's a new one for me.stessier wrote:As happy as all those who didn't vote for Nader. Had the done that, Bush never would have been elected.gbasden wrote:I'm sure those lefties who voted for Nader were happy with their role in electing President Bush.stessier wrote:And I'm saying there is no "assumed". There is no moral jeopardy in voting for your desired candidate.
And yet, this was the closest we ever got...El Guapo wrote:Me, I am planning to vote unicorn, since if everyone changed the laws so that unicorns could be president, and made unicorns real, and all voted for a unicorn, then a unicorn would be president, so it is meaningful and prudent for me to vote for a unicorn.
So...all those millenials that will cast a "protest vote" for Johnson will sleep well at night knowing they helped elect Trump?stessier wrote:There is no moral jeopardy in voting for your desired candidate.
No, they're ok, because something that would never happen in a million years could have happened in a way to make their vote meaningful.gilraen wrote:So...all those millenials that will cast a "protest vote" for Johnson will sleep well at night knowing they helped elect Trump?stessier wrote:There is no moral jeopardy in voting for your desired candidate.
Hillary Clinton’s lead in the polls has been declining for several weeks, and now we’re at the point where it’s not much of a lead at all. National polls show Clinton only 1 or 2 percentage points ahead of Donald Trump, on average. And the state polling situation isn’t really any better for her. On Thursday alone, polls were released showing Clinton behind in Ohio, Iowa and Colorado — and with narrow, 3-point leads in Michigan and Virginia, two states once thought to be relatively safe for her.
It’s also become clearer that Clinton’s “bad weekend” — which included describing half of Trump supporters as a “basket of deplorables” on Friday, and a health scare (followed by news that she had been diagnosed with pneumonia) on Sunday — has affected the polls. Prior to the weekend, Clinton’s decline had appeared to be leveling off, with the race settling into a Clinton lead of 3 or 4 percentage points. But over the past seven days, Clinton’s win probability has declined from 70 percent to 60 percent in our polls-only forecast and by a similar amount, from 68 percent to 59 percent, in our polls-plus forecast.
http://www.yesimright.com/liberal-host- ... the-drain/"Whah, Holman! Y'all have a tetch of the vapors? Shall I fetch you a julep or two?Holman wrote:So... the big scoop is that openly conservative Joe Scarborough had conservative guests on his conservative show, and they all criticized Clinton?
I'll be on my fainting couch.
Ah'll have a thurd! Ah huhd that that terrib'l Mistah Scarbo-ruh has been unkind a'gin!Default wrote:"Whah, Holman! Y'all have a tetch of the vapors? Shall I fetch you a julep or two?Holman wrote:So... the big scoop is that openly conservative Joe Scarborough had conservative guests on his conservative show, and they all criticized Clinton?
I'll be on my fainting couch.
it's actually not a conservative show, they have good discussions - I'm a liberal Democrat, and even I like it. Also, Scarborough is old-school Republican, he didn't support Clinton to begin with. Only a website with a sidebar "Is BlackLivesMatter a racist organization" would call him a "liberal host".Holman wrote:So... the big scoop is that openly conservative Joe Scarborough had conservative guests on his conservative show, and they all criticized Clinton?
I'll be on my fainting couch.
Whah, he certunleh is such an uncouth beast! Heyeh, let me freshen thet for y'all...Holman wrote:Ah'll have a thurd! Ah huhd that that terrib'l Mistah Scarbo-ruh has been unkind a'gin!Default wrote:"Whah, Holman! Y'all have a tetch of the vapors? Shall I fetch you a julep or two?Holman wrote:So... the big scoop is that openly conservative Joe Scarborough had conservative guests on his conservative show, and they all criticized Clinton?
I'll be on my fainting couch.
Careful there. No need to drag those lovely ladies into this.em2nought wrote:Uh oh, the liberal media's MSNBC is starting to turn on the Golden Girl
Sorry, I know you're got a er, crush. lolhepcat wrote:Careful there. No need to drag those lovely ladies into this.em2nought wrote:Uh oh, the liberal media's MSNBC is starting to turn on the Golden Girl
p.s. The site you linked to makes Fox News look...well...fair and balanced.
Why do you keep spilling the beans?hepcat wrote:Could we get a translator in here?
Anyway, I think it's telling that people who oppose Trump use easily verified facts to denounce the man, while Trumputin supporters rely on conspiracy theories.
hepcat wrote:Could we get a translator in here?
It's a question of head vs. heart. (Please refrain from making Hillary head quips.)hepcat wrote:Could we get a translator in here?
Anyway, I think it's telling that people who oppose Trump use easily verified facts to denounce the man, while Trumputin supporters rely on conspiracy theories.
None of the existing third parties have ever elected a candidate to Congress.stessier wrote:Third party candidates already win in Congress. We just need better third party candidates for presidential election.
Celebrities are getting in on this.Moliere wrote:hepcat will be happy that Hillary is shaming millennials who might vote outside the 2 party duopoly.
While still optimistic that the race will turn decisively back in Mrs. Clinton’s favor after the debates, leading Democrats have been alarmed by the drift of young voters toward the third-party candidates.
The principal “super PAC” supporting Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy, Priorities USA Action, has concluded from its polling and other research that the reluctance to embrace the Democratic nominee among those who intensely dislike Mr. Trump is not going away and must be confronted.
“We’ll be launching a multimillion-dollar digital campaign that talks about what’s at stake and how a vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for Donald Trump, who is against everything these voters stand for,” said Justin Barasky, a strategist for Priorities USA.
29. She is annoyed by airline bag fees.
Wouldn't these apply to like 100% of the population, including Trump?74. She did not kill Vince Foster.
OTOH, she and Bill are 66% of everyone accused of killing Vince Foster. Their innocence is significant.Defiant wrote:The Progressive Case for Hillary Clinton Is Pretty Overwhelming
It's not an exhaustive list, and a handful of the reasons listed aren't particularly persuasive:
29. She is annoyed by airline bag fees.Wouldn't these apply to like 100% of the population, including Trump?74. She did not kill Vince Foster.
Actually, I don't think it would apply to Trump. He flies on his own plane, and since he usually heads home to sleep in his own bed most nights, he probably doesn't need to worry about his literal baggage any more than his metaphorical baggage.Defiant wrote:Wouldn't these apply to like 100% of the population, including Trump?29. She is annoyed by airline bag fees.
An ex CIA director should certainly know better than to share a secret with a democrat. I mean just look at the prime example who thinks "C" on a file folder stands for cookie.Defiant wrote:George H.W. Bush to vote for Hillary
