Trump, Clinton......

[plug]

The only way that you could make the declaration above with any amount of certainty would be if you were the only voter.

In any case, that's not the criteria. The criteria is that for a candidate to qualify they must be polling at 15% or above by a given date, IIRC (which is actually pretty generous given the circumstances). Johnson does not meet that threshold and the other two do, which is why they were onstage last night and he was not.

As far as it being "dumb", I didn't make this system, I just deal with it. Start your own country and then you can set the terms.

The IIRC put thos rules into place after Ross Perot. The IIRC is made up of Republicans and Democrats who want to keep a 2 party system. That is exactly what needs to change. Plus we all know the polls are rigged. If you are on the ballet for every state, you should be in the debates.

[Rylant]

I personally think they are both unqualified for different reasons. Trump may slam Hillary for having minimal business sense (which is true) but she can equally slam him for having minimal political sense. A president needs both.

If I was forced to pick one over the other, I'd roll the dice with Trump.
Like him or not, he recognizes that the US is in serious, serious trouble and he's correct in pointing out that politicians caused it.

Notice also how the left media jumps all over Trump's inaccuracies (and there are many of them, no doubt about it), but nobody corrects Hillary when she falsely accuses Trump of misogyny.
e.g. He didn't call ALL women pigs, as she claimed. He called 1 woman a pig. That's not the same thing, yet nobody pointed out that she blatantly stretched the truth specifically to make him look bad. Just like she did in all her attack ads.
Instead, they call her a brilliant politician for doing stuff like that. It's kind of comical.

Sorry partisans... every politician lies. Open your eyes.

Here's the difference, though. In all of my years following US politics, I have seen a lot of, what I would consider to be, "bad Presidential candidates". We have had Gore, Bush, Romney, Kerry, Bush, etc. I have had serious concerns about all of them. I also don't think that Clinton will be a particularly good President. However, like all of these other Bad Candidates before her, I think that Clinton can do the job. The thought of her having nuclear codes doesn't concern me; the thought of her negotiating trade deals doesn't concern me; the thought of her being a chief legislator or diplomat, doesn't concern me. Yes, I have no doubt that she will disappoint me regarding some of her policy stances and I am sure that she will disappoint me with the way she fails to fullfill her campaign promises. But, she will be able to do the job, just like Gore, Bush, Romney, Kerry, and Bush were or would have been able to.

Yes, Clinton may have exaggerated his "Pig" claim, but it isn't a stretch to say that he is mysoginistic; actually, I will flat out state it as a fact; he is.

Then, you have Donald Trump. Can he do the job? Do you trust him with control of the most powerful military machine in the world including the nuclear power the will be at his fingertips? Can you see him as a world diplomat? The name-calling that he gets into regularly, is the shit I stopped doing when I graduated from grade 2. How has he made it this far? He's racist, mysoginistic, a bully, pro-gun, pro-oil, pro-wall street and big bank, a climate change denier, narcissistic, and maybe worst of all, he is not an intelligent man, maybe bordering on stupid. He's a train wreck and I am legitimately baffled, as to how anybody can take him seriously.

Rylant

[Godin]

Here's the difference, though. In all of my years following US politics, I have seen a lot of, what I would consider to be, "bad Presidential candidates". We have had Gore, Bush, Romney, Kerry, Bush, etc. I have had serious concerns about all of them. I also don't think that Clinton will be a particularly good President. However, like all of these other Bad Candidates before her, I think that Clinton can do the job. The thought of her having nuclear codes doesn't concern me; the thought of her negotiating trade deals doesn't concern me; the thought of her being a chief legislator or diplomat, doesn't concern me. Yes, I have no doubt that she will disappoint me regarding some of her policy stances and I am sure that she will disappoint me with the way she fullfills her failed campaign promises. [b]But, she will be able to do the job, just like Gore, Bush, Romney, Kerry, and Bush were or would have been able to.[b/]

Yes, Clinton may have exaggerated his "Pig" claim, but it isn't a stretch to say that he is mysoginistic; actually, I will flat out state it as a fact; he is.

Then, you have Donald Trump. Can he do the job? Do you trust him with control of the most powerful military machine in the world including the nuclear power the will be at his fingertips? Can you see him as a world diplomat? The name-calling that he gets into regularly, is the shit I stopped doing when I graduated from grade 2. How has he made it this far? He's racist, mysoginistic, a bully, pro-gun, pro-oil, pro-wall street and big bank, a climate change denier, narcissistic, and maybe worst of all, he is not an intelligent man, maybe bordering on stupid. He's a train wreck and I am legitimately baffled, as to how anybody can take him seriously.

Rylant

Couldn't have said it better myself. I don't know how many times I have asked myself, 'how can a presidential candidate say that?' The one that takes the cake for me was, "I could shoot someone and not lose any voters". Definitely bordering on stupid.

[Instant Karma]

The IIRC put thos rules into place after Ross Perot. The IIRC is made up of Republicans and Democrats who want to keep a 2 party system. That is exactly what needs to change. Plus we all know the polls are rigged. If you are on the ballet for every state, you should be in the debates.

Apparently the organizers of the debates disagree with you, I expect for the same reason that I disagree as well, and I'm not affiliated with either political party. Everything that you disagree with is not the result of a nefarious conspiracy conceived in a star chamber.

I've seen Gary Johnson. I have nothing against the man, but he's not Jesus either. And that's what it would take for him to overcome the deficit he currently faces between now and Election Day.

If it "needs to change", then it will change. Mankind is an adaptive species, Amercans more adaptive than most.

But until enough people agree with you that it "needs to change", it will not. It's really that simple.

[plug]

Apparently the organizers of the debates disagree with you, I expect for the same reason that I disagree as well, and I'm not affiliated with either political party. Everything that you disagree with is not the result of a nefarious conspiracy conceived in a star chamber.

I've seen Gary Johnson. I have nothing against the man, but he's not Jesus either. And that's what it would take for him to overcome the deficit he currently faces between now and Election Day.

If it "needs to change", then it will change. Mankind is an adaptive species, Amercans more adaptive than most.

But until enough people agree with you that it "needs to change", it will not. It's really that simple.

What is really simple is that the IIRC is lead by retired heads of the DNC and the RNC, in fact people are trying to get their tax exempt status taken away because the are completely run by the RNC and the DNC. The 2 parties do not want a 3rd because their is 2 much money in politics. They have the system rigged.

[STONE.]

The problem with Johnson (or any third party really) is cyclical. They won't get the percentage needed to debate with the big two because they aren't ever seen enough to be relevant. The way for them to become relevant is to debate with the big two. They won't debate with the big two because they don't get the percentage....

This was the year where things might have changed -- but it would've taken a major GOP candidate to run against Trump. I was hoping for Cruz to turn third party. He would've split the Republican vote and might've opened the door for three in the future. A win-win. Didn't happen and we're stuck with two again.

[Instant Karma]

What is really simple is that the IIRC is lead by retired heads of the DNC and the RNC, in fact people are trying to get their tax exempt status taken away because the are completely run by the RNC and the DNC. The 2 parties do not want a 3rd because their is 2 much money in politics. They have the system rigged.

Yes, America is indeed a two-party system. After well over a century of it, I would think that would be pretty obvious to anyone. Yes, the Dems and the GOP tend to make the rules because they are the vested parties. Who exactly would you suggest make the rules in their stead?

It's not some nefarious conspiracy, it's just the system that has evolved over time.

The only way that will change is if one or both the parties fragment of their own accord (which I wouldn't rule out). But even if that were to happen, I expect that these fragments would coalesce into something that would roughly resemble their predecessors.

The fact is is that there are too many voters who strongly identify with one side or the other, and the centrists in turn gravitate to whichever side attracts them the most (or repels them the least, whichever way you want to look at it).

[STONE.]

Yes, America is indeed a two-party system. After well over a century of it, I would think that would be pretty obvious to anyone. Yes, the Dems and the GOP tend to make the rules because they are the vested parties. Who exactly would you suggest make the rules in their stead?

It's not some nefarious conspiracy, it's just the system that has evolved over time.

The only way that will change is if one or both the parties fragment of their own accord (which I wouldn't rule out). But even if that were to happen, I expect that these fragments would coalesce into something that would roughly resemble their predecessors.

The fact is is that there are too many voters who strongly identify with one side or the other, and the centrists in turn gravitate to whichever side attracts them the most (or repels them the least, whichever way you want to look at it).

Somewhat true. Their are institutional factors that make this much more of an issue -- and some of those factors are starting to change.
The Electoral college has most states supporting one candidate or the other entirely -- regardless of how close the vote is in that state. I'm pretty sure some states have started to split their votes -- so it gives more proportional representation. If that happens throughout America, you could see a third party start to steal a percentage of electoral college votes that actually makes a difference. And if that were to gain steam....

[iwinthings]

That"s me. And I suppose you're one of those idiots who dismisses any concept that they can't quite grasp as "dumb".

Clearly we have each other figured out.

no thats not me. youre wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, America is indeed a two-party system. After well over a century of it, I would think that would be pretty obvious to anyone. Yes, the Dems and the GOP tend to make the rules because they are the vested parties. Who exactly would you suggest make the rules in their stead?

It's not some nefarious conspiracy, it's just the system that has evolved over time.

The only way that will change is if one or both the parties fragment of their own accord (which I wouldn't rule out). But even if that were to happen, I expect that these fragments would coalesce into something that would roughly resemble their predecessors.

The fact is is that there are too many voters who strongly identify with one side or the other, and the centrists in turn gravitate to whichever side attracts them the most (or repels them the least, whichever way you want to look at it).

this sounds like how people defend(ed?) apartheid. gross

[Rylant]

Yes, America is indeed a two-party system. After well over a century of it, I would think that would be pretty obvious to anyone. Yes, the Dems and the GOP tend to make the rules because they are the vested parties. Who exactly would you suggest make the rules in their stead?

It's not some nefarious conspiracy, it's just the system that has evolved over time.

The only way that will change is if one or both the parties fragment of their own accord (which I wouldn't rule out). But even if that were to happen, I expect that these fragments would coalesce into something that would roughly resemble their predecessors.

The fact is is that there are too many voters who strongly identify with one side or the other, and the centrists in turn gravitate to whichever side attracts them the most (or repels them the least, whichever way you want to look at it).

It's a horribly broken system. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, and most concerning, the limitless amount of money that is involved in politics and elections has created a system that is no longer "for the people, by the people". What we have now is an oligarchy which, as you said, has evolved into a system where the people with the money make all of the decisions. They selfishly protect their own self-interests, and have set it up so it will be very difficult to change without something drastic happening. The corruption in US politics and growing gap of income inequality, is staggering. Something needs to change...

Rylant

[Instant Karma]

no thats not me. youre wrong.

Ahh, so it's okay for you to sum up people that you've never met in a single sentence, but it's not so okay for others to do the same to you.

I see where you're coming from.

this sounds like how people defend(ed?) apartheid. gross

Exactly the sort of clueless and hyperbolic retort that we've all come to expect from you, iwinthings.

[Instant Karma]

It's a horribly broken system. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, and most concerning, the limitless amount of money that is involved in politics and elections has created a system that is no longer "for the people, by the people". What we have now is an oligarchy which, as you said, has evolved into a system where the people with the money make all of the decisions. They selfishly protect their own self-interests, and have set it up so it will be very difficult to change without something drastic happening. The corruption in US politics and growing gap of income inequality, is staggering. Something needs to change...

Rylant

Well, if you have a plan to disabuse a couple of hundred million people of their closely-held political beliefs that doesn't include mass deportations and executions and wanton violations of habeus corpus, believe me I'm all ears.

But failing that, this is the system that we have. Democracy was a flawed system of government when this country only had 100 million citizens. Who would expect it to work better when that number triples over three or four generations?

I don't mean to just bag on you, Rylant, but basically every institution we have is seriously flawed and have been for quite some time, and it's not because people are just asleep at the switch.

[iwinthings]

Ahh, so it's okay for you to sum up people that you've never met in a single sentence, but it's not so okay for others to do the same to you.

I see where you're coming from.



Exactly the sort of clueless and hyperbolic retort that we've all come to expect from you, iwinthings.

not hyperbolic at all. go take a history lesson. im not wrong

[Instant Karma]

not hyperbolic at all. go take a history lesson. im not wrong

Whatever you say, pal.

[Rylant]

Well, if you have a plan to disabuse a couple of hundred million people of their closely-held political beliefs that doesn't include mass deportations and executions and wanton violations of habeus corpus, believe me I'm all ears.

But failing that, this is the system that we have. Democracy was a flawed system of government when this country only had 100 million citizens. Who would expect it to work better when that number triples over three or four generations?

I don't mean to just bag on you, Rylant, but basically every institution we have is seriously flawed and have been for quite some time, and it's not because people are just asleep at the switch.

Oh I am well aware that all systems are flawed. However, when you look at a system like "democracy", the US fails, pretty badly. The three fundamental principles of Democracy (Freedom, Control and Equality) are done so much better, in many other countries. The quality of Democracy in countries like Denmark, Finland and even Canada stay true to the spirit of what Democracy is supposed to be, and represent the people much more fairly and effectively. The biggest problem now, is that the decision making machine in the US is so powerful, that it might be virtually unfixable. The politicians who want to change the US for the better and do away with the money and corruption, are just not strong enough.

The people in power with the money are smart enough to realize, that the single only thing that might threaten the current system, is the general population getting pissed off enough, that they resort to drastic measure to facilitate change. The people in power with money are smart enough to keep the general population happy enough, that a drastic measure is highly unlikely. It's evolved into a terrifying reality.

Rylant