America - The Official Thread

[AnthonyD1993]

This should be a sign to finally give the 3rd parties a chance.

This election should have been the year for this to happen in the first place. Given that the Clinton name leaves a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths (especially Monica Lewinsky, but that's a whole different scandal) and Hillary's e-mail scandal pissed off a boatload of people, she shouldn't have even been the nominee for the Dems. Couple that with the Trump and Republican candidate circus and now the Russia scandal that nobody wants to shut up about (which I personally don't care about) and it's a wonder of how either became the standard barer for the 2016 election. Yet even then, with arguably the two worst candidates that either party has put forth in years (in the same election no less!) it turned into people voting for whoever they didn't want less instead of voting for the best actual candidate.

Now I have met several people that were adamantly pro-Trump or pro-Clinton, but I've also meant plenty that voted for one or the other simply because they didn't like either candidate but voted for the one that they could tolerate the most. From my experience, the majority of the people picking between two candidates they cannot stand and voting the one they think sucks less instead of actually voting for one they actually agree with simply because the one they want won't win is why third parties tend to do terribly here.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Ok, let's dig in then. What makes him a clown (other than not having an R or D next to his name while running for pres)?

BTW, Bush Jr. became president after being governor of Texas. Obama became president after being a Senator.

Alright then. I don't think Gary Johnson showed up for some of the nationally televised debates. He himself said not being in a debate would be bad for his campaign. How can people know what he even is about if didn't have or take the opportunity to show what he was about? That's a gaffe if you want to run for President of the United States. He hasn't really shown much prowess in handling foreign policy. At least Hillary had that in her resume as being Secretary of State. Obama was chairman of a foreign relations committee too while being Senator. So Obama had that going for him.

Bush Jr had the benefit of a President leaving the office with a scandal on his back and an economy slowing down, and had Bush to his name during a time when Americans weren't tired of the usual suspects in politics. Obama had the benefit of an unpopular President along with a party that was tarnished at the time, and an economy in need of serious help, his oratory skills, and the way he campaigned. Gary Johnson? He seemed like dry toast compared to Obama. At least Bush had some personality, even if his policies are something I don't agree with.

Another thing going against Gary Johnson was that he was a Libertarian. Most people don't know what that is exactly. And personally I don't think I do either. Is it just no government in anything? Or just limited? If that's the case then isn't that what Republicans are about? At least at face value? But that's for another topic I guess. Personally I think governments and the people they govern should form a social contract. Where the government works to ensure the populace is taken care of. From my understanding of it, Libertarianism seems cruel. But was Gary Johnson a Libertarian 100%?

At least with Obama we knew he was a moderate Democrat, he said and acted as such.

Ok fine maybe me putting Gary Johnson in the clown pile was too much for you and others, but he was not a 3rd party candidate I can find myself, nor many others clamor for. Maybe if he did presented himself better he could have had a chance.

Why do you say that I think a person not having a D or R next to their name makes them a clown by the way?

Edit: Correction for my mistake, Gary Johnson was not invited to the major debates due to lack of polling numbers, not of him willingly not going.

 

[DDastardly00]

AFAIK Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were not invited to the debates. Blame the criteria for the debates not the candidates themselves. I think the rules need to be changed to allow 3rd party candidates to participate more easily.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/johnson-stein-debate_us_57dc4f7de4b0071a6e07777c

 

[sumbrownkid]

AFAIK Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were not invited to the debates. Blame the criteria for the debates not the candidates themselves. I think the rules need to be changed to allow 3rd party candidates to participate more easily.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/johnson-stein-debate_us_57dc4f7de4b0071a6e07777c

Got ninja'd before I corrected myself.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm not sure how that's me backing away from my statement of me being fine with 3rd party candidates so long as they weren't clowns?

Gary Johnson may have been a fine Governor, but being President of the United States is a different beast altogether. You don't have one state to worry about, you have 50, and then stack on multiple branches, and international relations. He was much better than Jill Stein and Trump, but he didn't particularly impress or convey his platform well. But like I said, media had alot to do with it.

"Mr. Trump, what would you do about the situation in Aleppo?"

"I don't like Aleppo. Foreign countries are bad, very, very bad. I was talking to a friend of mine, a really high up person in Aleppo and he told me to build a wall, a big beautiful wall, about 20 feet high. And I'd build it right here in America, the greatest country in the world. Crooked Hilary wants to give our country away to Aleppo. She's a terrible American"

Note: Purely fictional

 

[DDastardly00]

Got ninja'd before I corrected myself.

Saw that after I posted, sorry.

As partisan as politics is today, there is always one thing the R's and the D's will agree on, every time too, and that is shutting out a 3rd party presidential candidate from having any sort of meaningful chance at wining the office of the POTUS.

 

[sumbrownkid]

"Mr. Trump, what would you do about the situation in Aleppo?"

"I don't like Aleppo. Foreign countries are bad, very, very bad. I was talking to a friend of mine, a really high up person in Aleppo and he told me to build a wall, a big beautiful wall, about 20 feet high. And I'd build it right here in America, the greatest country in the world. Crooked Hilary wants to give our country away to Aleppo. She's a terrible American"

Note: Purely fictional

Still read it in his voice though.

@DDastardly00 Nothing to apologize for man. 👍

 

[Danoff]

Alright then. I don't think Gary Johnson showed up for some of the nationally televised debates. He himself said not being in a debate would be bad for his campaign. How can people know what he even is about if didn't have or take the opportunity to show what he was about? That's a gaffe if you want to run for President of the United States. He hasn't really shown much prowess in handling foreign policy. At least Hillary had that in her resume as being Secretary of State. Obama was chairman of a foreign relations committee too while being Senator. So Obama had that going for him.

Bush Jr had the benefit of a President leaving the office with a scandal on his back and an economy slowing down, and had Bush to his name during a time when Americans weren't tired of the usual suspects in politics. Obama had the benefit of an unpopular President along with a party that was tarnished at the time, and an economy in need of serious help, his oratory skills, and the way he campaigned. Gary Johnson? He seemed like dry toast compared to Obama. At least Bush had some personality, even if his policies are something I don't agree with.

Another thing going against Gary Johnson was that he was a Libertarian. Most people don't know what that is exactly. And personally I don't think I do either. Is it just no government in anything? Or just limited? If that's the case then isn't that what Republicans are about? At least at face value? But that's for another topic I guess. Personally I think governments and the people they govern should form a social contract. Where the government works to ensure the populace is taken care of. From my understanding of it, Libertarianism seems cruel. But was Gary Johnson a Libertarian 100%?

At least with Obama we knew he was a moderate Democrat, he said and acted as such.

Ok fine maybe me putting Gary Johnson in the clown pile was too much for you and others, but he was not a 3rd party candidate I can find myself, nor many others clamor for. Maybe if he did presented himself better he could have had a chance.
...
Edit: Correction for my mistake, Gary Johnson was not invited to the major debates due to lack of polling numbers, not of him willingly not going.

I rest my case. Zero substance. You just demonstrated a remarkable degree of bias in favor of the 2-party system.

Why do you say that I think a person not having a D or R next to their name makes them a clown by the way?

Pretty much what you wrote above.

 

[sumbrownkid]

I rest my case. Zero substance. You just demonstrated a remarkable degree of bias in favor of the 2-party system.



Pretty much what you wrote above.

Ok dude, if that what's you think. We're just gonna have to disagree here. I still don't see how I have a bias against 3rd party candidates if I think they aren't something I can jive with policy wise. If anything I have a bias against Republicans.

 

[Danoff]

Ok dude, if that what's you think. We're just gonna have to disagree here.

We probably should. But you sent me a PM so I'll give it a go.

I still don't see how I have a bias against 3rd party candidates if I think they aren't something I can jive with policy wise. If anything I have a bias against Republicans.

Here is what I consider to be 2-party bias from your previous post:

I don't think Gary Johnson showed up for some of the nationally televised debates.

I know you corrected this after the fact, but the fact that you didn't make yourself aware of how wrong this is before the election says to me that you didn't even honestly consider going outside the 2-party system.

He hasn't really shown much prowess in handling foreign policy.

Like anyone who comes to the election process as a governor. Secretary of state is a better office to demonstrate that sort of thing... or you could demonstrate incompetence, which Hillary did. Likewise, Trump had absolutely ZERO prowess demonstrated in handling foreign policy before running. If you're going to hold this against 1 of all of the candidates that ran for president, Hillary would have been the natural choice.

Bush Jr had the benefit of a President leaving the office with a scandal on his back and an economy slowing down, and had Bush to his name during a time when Americans weren't tired of the usual suspects in politics.

Are you actually using this to try to establish that being governor is not a good position from which to be campaigning for the presidency? You're "excusing" Bush of the poor form of running for president as governor of a state (for poor reasons) in order to hold it against the 3rd party guy? And yet secretary of state and reality show host are both far weaker positions to be running from. My head pretty much exploded at this point, it's a wonder I managed to finish reading.

Gary Johnson? He seemed like dry toast compared to Obama. At least Bush had some personality, even if his policies are something I don't agree with

Is this... like... a reason?

Another thing going against Gary Johnson was that he was a Libertarian. Most people don't know what that is exactly.

In other words, another thing going against a third party candidate is that they were a third party candidate. Nice.

Ok fine maybe me putting Gary Johnson in the clown pile was too much for you and others, but he was not a 3rd party candidate I can find myself, nor many others clamor for.

As best I can tell, the 3rd party candidate you clamor for is one who is running within one of the 2 parties... currently... not in the past, like Gary Johnson... because that would still be insufficient.

 

[polysmut]

Gary Johnson may have been a fine Governor, but being President of the United States is a different beast altogether. You don't have one state to worry about, you have 50, and then stack on multiple branches, and international relations.

What would be the ideal previous experience before taking office as President?

Interestingly, as I don't doubt you're aware, one President came to office with previous experience of being POTUS and one other President went on to become Chief Justice of the United States.

 

[Johnnypenso]

What would be the ideal previous experience before taking office as President?

Peanut farmer, actor, lawyer, school teacher, General, soldier, university president, engineer...to name a few.

 

[polysmut]

Peanut farmer, actor, lawyer, school teacher, General, soldier, university president, engineer...to name a few.

On top of those jobs, I think 43 of them had also held public office. 44 if you count Grover Cleveland twice, but that would be daft.

 

[samurai8juice]

On top of those jobs, I think 43 of them had also held public office. 44 if you count Grover Cleveland twice, but that would be Taft.

fixed.

Taylor, Grant, Taft, Hoover, Eisenhower, and now Trump had never held public office before becoming President.

Whether General, Attorney, Appointee, or Businessman.

Hoover was an appointee, if you want to count that as public office.

 

[Grayfox]

What would be the ideal previous experience before taking office as President?

Being in the military IMO, before you declare war you should experience it first hand.

 

[Imari]

Being in the military IMO, before you declare war you should experience it first hand.

At the risk of going all Starship Troopers, I sort of agree. Those serving in the military have nominally at least demonstrated an interest in the country above the self.

 

[UKMikey]

I don't understand this tweet.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/t...few-republicans-on-healthcare/article/2628937



Isn't it the Democrats' job to obstruct the repeal of bills they agree with? How did they let him down?

 

[Touring Mars]

I don't understand this tweet.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/t...few-republicans-on-healthcare/article/2628937



Isn't it the Democrats' job to obstruct the repeal of bills they agree with? How did they let him down?

Trump is trying to portray healthcare reform as a bipartisan issue (which it arguably should be), and therefore expects that at least some Democrats will get on side, though that appears to be wishful thinking. With absolutely no support from the Democrats at all, it is going to be a tall order to repeal (let alone replace) the PPACA given that the Republicans appear split between those who just want rid of it and those who want rid of it but not at the cost of replacing it with something just as bad.

 

[samurai8juice]

At the risk of going all Starship Troopers, I sort of agree. Those serving in the military have nominally at least demonstrated an interest in the country above the self.

And if they were in the military during a war, they know the process and they have firsthand experience. It's not just numbers on paper to them.

On an additional note, about 100 of the 538 congresspeople have served in the military.

 

[WhoosierGirl]

Being in the military IMO, before you declare war you should experience it first hand.

Or experience child birth before legislating birth control.

 

[Danoff]

Being in the military IMO, before you declare war you should experience it first hand.

I think that might lead to more war rather than less.

Or experience child birth before legislating birth control.

It's a funny comment. But of course if there is a moral issue it's a transgender issue... I mean... a crossgender issue... like... an issue that spans both genders.

 

[WhoosierGirl]

I think that might lead to more war rather than less.



It's a funny comment. But of course if there is a moral issue it's a transgender issue... I mean... a crossgender issue... like... an issue that spans both genders.

It was meant to be as absurd as the comment I responded to, for the reason you wrote above.

 

[ryzno]

After missing the vote for the ACA due to a surgery to remove a blood clot in his eye, Senator John McCain has been diagnosed with brain cancer.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/342849-john-mccain-diagnosed-with-brain-cancer

 

[TenEightyOne]

After missing the vote for the ACA due to a surgery to remove a blood clot in his eye, Senator John McCain has been diagnosed with brain cancer.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/342849-john-mccain-diagnosed-with-brain-cancer

Well, that's horrible news that nobody wants to hear. A particularly nasty cancer too - I hope commentators are able to leave politics aside in this matter.

 

[BobK]

Or experience child birth before legislating birth control.

Why would anybody want to legislate birth control in the first place?

 

[Dotini]

Why would anybody want to legislate birth control in the first place?

Some nations have too much population, and so legislate to correct for that. Others have too little, and write laws to encourage population growth.

 

[UKMikey]

Some nations have too much population, and so legislate to correct for that. Others have too little, and write laws to encourage population growth.

Sometimes they're even the same country as I found out when I holidayed in Singapore last year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popul...Have_Three_or_More_.28if_you_can_afford_it.29

 

[Grayfox]

Why would anybody want to legislate birth control in the first place?

Because Bible.

 

[Danoff]

Some nations have too much population, and so legislate to correct for that. Others have too little, and write laws to encourage population growth.

Neither of which is appropriate for government, of course, and both of which are rights violations.

 

[WhoosierGirl]

Why would anybody want to legislate birth control in the first place?

It has been going on a very long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_reproductive_rights_legislation

And currently,

http://time.com/money/4634382/obamacare-repeal-what-happens-birth-control/

Because Bible.

Because, the First amendment of the US Constitution