bryce28 Wrote: :) Do you think Hilary will get more support from the GOP lot than Johnson? That's been one of the biggest hurdles of Obama's POTUS career; the GOP has stonewalled him every single chance they get, and they will do the same to Hilary, every single chance they get. So no, I don't think an independent would have worse luck with congress than a Democrat. In fact, I think it's entirely situational, but in this exact scenario, I think Gary would do better than Hilary with the current congressional members.
I hate to break it to you, but you are living in a fantasy land if you think a President Johnson would be able to bring together Democratic and Republican Senators and Congressmen and actually accomplish one single thing.
As I've tried to explain - the separation of powers makes it very difficult for someone who isn't a member of a major political party to achieve any of their agenda in the national arena. That is why we have never had a President who wasn't a member of a major political party since George Washington.
And the problem about "current Congressional members" is that "current" is fluid and always changing. The Senate will very likely flip to the Democrats in 2016 based off the sheer number of seats Republicans are defending, especially with a number of them in reliably blue states.
bryce28 Wrote: It doesn't sound like we will see eye to eye on this issue. I don't see the Libertarian or Independent party candidates as "we're angry" candidates. I see them as serious candidates. Johnson was a two term governor. That automatically gives him more authority to talk about how government operates over Trump. How can Johnson not be a serious candidate, but Donald Trump is?
Trump is a serious candidate because millions of people voted for him in the primaries. Millions of people did not vote for Johnson or Stein.
Look - the nonprofit and independent Commission on Presidential Debates sets the conditions for who gets to participate in the nationally televised debates. Johnson nor Stein met those conditions.
bryce28 Wrote: Sure there of course would be growing pains and it might take a cycle or two for a 3rd and potential 4th candidate to get taken seriously enough to actually win. But that doesn't mean we should be so pessimistic as to think it's a fool's errand to even think about it, let alone talk about it, and try to make it happen. It should happen. We deserve more choices. I fail to understand how more choices equals = a worse election process.
It has absolutely nothing to do with pessimism; it has to do with realism and an understanding of how the Federal government operates.
A 3rd or 4th Party candidate getting the 270 Electoral College votes (which, by the way, I am no big fan of) will be a herculean task that is all but impossible. Getting rid of the Electoral College is an entirely different discussion though since it would require a Constitutional Amendment.
Show me how a 3rd or 4th Party candidate can get to 270 and maybe I'll change my position, but I warn you that you aren't going to be able to do that. Hence why I say that voting for a 3rd or 4th Party candidate to be President is wasting ones vote.
I'm not disagreeing with you that we should have more choices at the national level, but our Constitution is not set up for that. It just isn't.
bryce28 Wrote: Also, doesn't take a history buff to have an opinion on this, would you not agree with that? As you pointed out, debates are only 56 some odd years old. And the rules have continuously changed and been updated ever since. So why not allow another candidate or two in? If they are so inconsequential, what's the harm? If your D or R candidate is strong enough, they should not fear the "spoiler" effect. That only means that the 'outside' candidate is doing something for a certain demographic that the main 2 are not. That's important to have in this system, else we exclude voters that don't necessarily think straight down party lines (like millions of free thinking Americans).
Another candidate or two are allowed in if they meet the threshold set by the nonpartisan commission that sets the rules. The D or R candidates have nothing to do with those rules. And the rules are set up that way so the debates aren't a clown show with 25 people clamoring to be the loudest voice in the room.
bryce28 Wrote: Also, I'm not throwing the founders around like it's gospel. I also dislike that. But it's far too convenient on the flip side to disregard anything that doesn't jive with your argument by discrediting thing from jump street. They owned slaves?! Nothing they said has any relevance anymore. ..That's a logical fallacy.
Did I ever say that your argument isn't valid?
The slave remark was because I can't stand it when anyone (not just you) talks about our "Founding Fathers" like there were a monolith. The 55 men who wrote our Constitution were 55 different human beings who debated and compromised to write our founding document. Many of the Founders loathed slavery more than anything while southern Founders refused to do anything unless they could keep their slaves.
I also never said that nothing they said has any relevance anymore. There are many, many things I love about various founding fathers and things I loathe about many others.
Accusing me of using a logical fallacy is a bit of a stretch. I haven't distorted anyone's opinions nor have I changed the subject (Red Herring/Strawman). All I said was that I don't like it when people talk about our Founders like there are a single entity and explained that they were human just like all of us.
bryce28 Wrote: I think you might be against this idea because you simply don't care for Johnson, and you seem to be a Hilary voter, at least in part because you fear Trump. Fair enough. But what if you take the personal attachments away? And assume that you would not vote for either the (R) or (D) candidate. That you equally fear and distrust and loathe both. But you absolutely love a candidate that you feel could have a real shot, if he or she were able to get the same chance as the other two? You are telling me there's no way you would not be FOR that becoming a reality?
My argument is both for this election, and all the elections to come.
7.2% could (and I think would) very likely turn into 15-20% overnight, if he were on the stage. Then he is extremely serious. And people are talking about him. Currently, only the very plugged in even have the slightest iota who he is, let alone that he is running. And he is still getting upwards of 10% without virtually any press whatsoever. Color me impressed. And I mention Johnson over Stein as he is the only of the two to have their name on every US State's voting ballot.
I think you're giving way (way) too much weight into how a debate may change someone's vote. If Johnson or Stein or any other candidate other than Secretary Clinton and Donald Trump were polling well enough to meet the standards set by the nonpartisan committee hosting the debates then I would have zero problem with them being on the debate stage.
Gary Johnson has every right to run for President and anyone who wants to vote for him has every right to vote for him. What he doesn't have a right to do is dictate what the rules are to make the debate stage. If he doesn't like those rules then he should convince enough people that the rules should be changed.
Let's say that Johnson made the debate stage and started polling at 25% overnight. Is that anywhere close where he would need to be to actually win the 270 Electoral College votes to win the Presidency? All that would do is split the Republican ticket even more and give Hillary Clinton a landslide victory in November because 99.99999% of self described Democrats would ever vote for someone like Johnson. The end result would be the exact opposite of what you wanted - a Democratic President and a super majority of Democratic legislatures.