Irrelevant. Media ignores them anyway. And if any good third party rises and gets enough votes, then it means that no candidate scores more than 50% of the electoral college, then the House of Representatives chooses the president. What a crazy system, it encourages a two party system very heavily.There are third party choices in some states,
I think you're missing the point. With multiple parties there are more choices along the crazy continuum, that doesn't mean any of them aren't crazy.Yeah, if that's your main measure of this election (and it is!), then that shows the problem quite accurately.
One thing that helps perpetuate it is the commission for debates:Or you guys can quit this silly notion of a two party system...
That would be more difficult than it seems. Most states choose electors by a winner-take-all plurality, so it would take a very even 3-party race to have an election go to the House. Any combination of 2 candidates significantly ahead of a third nationally results in the 3rd candidate getting zero electors. See Ross Perot in 1992 when he got 19% of the popular vote and zero electors.Irrelevant. Media ignores them anyway. And if any good third party rises and gets enough votes, then it means that no candidate scores more than 50% of the electoral college, then the House of Representatives chooses the president.
Do you have any sources for that? Because his website doesn't say that. Just picking the first one:"In Johnson’s America, corporations will be completely in charge of the environment, health care, retirement, trade and wages,"
That's what I meant by borderline anarchist.
https://www.johnsonweld.com/environmentWe need to stand firm to protect our environment for our future generations, especially those designated areas of protection like our National Parks. Consistent with that responsibility, the proper role of government is to enforce reasonable environmental protections. Governor Johnson did that as Governor, and would do so as President.
Governor Johnson believes the Environmental Protection Agency, when focused on its true mission, plays an important role in keeping the environment and citizens safe.
Johnson does not, however, believe the government should be engaging in social and economic engineering for the purpose of creating winners and losers in what should be a robust free market. Preventing a polluter from harming our water or air is one thing. Having politicians in Washington, D.C., acting on behalf of high powered lobbyists, determine the future of clean energy innovation is another.
Not to quibble over definitions, but there are two ways to take the word "inspire" and "convince me that they can and will do the job" fits one of them (inspire confidence in their ability). However, the other way to read "inspire" is what most people react to and I realize that's what your point was. I personally fall more toward your end of the spectrum, but politicians and marketteers known they can't reach people like you and me, so they don't really try. When you are looking for content with substance, 99% of what you seen in a campaign is irrelevant noise.IMHO it's the candidate's job to convince me that they can and will do the job. Inspiration is preferred but optional.
I think it's:"Of course I'm mad, we're all mad"
(Dark side of the moon)
Let's set the story straight on that again.Where does the moderator Lester Holt get the idea he can "correct" Trump about his position on going into the Iraq War? Somehow Trump going on the Howard Stern Show (keep in mind this is a comedy show with shock jock insanity including prank calls and strippers) and saying "maybe" he would go into Iraq is somehow legally binding? Hillary Clinton was in a position of power and used it to get us into Iraq with her terrible decision to vote yes. Anyone who tries to avoid the idea that Clinton is a warhawk is really drinking the establishment media kool-aid.
Hillary Clinton Told the Truth About Her Iraq War Vote
Her foreign policy judgment can’t be understood without that context.
The evidence is clear. On Oct. 10, 2002, during the Senate debate on a resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Clinton rose to express her highly qualified support. First, though, she criticized the idea of attacking Saddam then and there, either alone or “with any allies we can muster.” Such a course, she said, “is fraught with danger,” in part because “it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us,” legitimizing invasions that Russia might launch against Georgia, India against Pakistan, or China against Taiwan.
“So,” she continued, “the question is, how do we do our best to both diffuse the threat Saddam Hussein poses to his people, the region, including Israel, and the United States—and, at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations.”
She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.
“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”
Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”
She added, “This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. … My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose.” A vote for the resolution, she argued, “is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.”
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/27/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-debate-poll/(CNN)Hillary Clinton was deemed the winner of Monday night's debate by 62% of voters who tuned in to watch, while just 27% said they thought Donald Trump had the better night, according to a CNN/ORC Poll of voters who watched the debate.