2016 Presidential Race
- Thread starter Theirb123
- Start date
- Status
So tell me when the last time a third party candidate was even competitive, say greater than 10% of the electoral college... I'll help you, it was Ross Perot and helped Bill Clinton into office. Any others you can think of?
Third party candidates can't win in today's environment. The media won't let it happen.
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 726
Gonna have to disagree on this. The GOP "party" wants nothing to do with Trump and would love to see him roast. Even at the expense of the election. They would gladly trade another 4 years of not being in the WH in exchange for being in control of both houses again. I agree however, that both parties love nothing more than to promote fear mongering among their members. A third party will never be viable as long as the two main parties work to keep the public focused on each other. Which I think, might be a contributing factor as to why Trump is so popular among voters of all stripes.
Red Flag 1
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
- Messages
- 7,588
Time for Trump to speak to the strengths of our Nation. Solid words of his vision to support and enhance our standing amoung our allys world wide. No need to focus on anti Democrat verbage, let them do that to themselves. The time will come for words about who ends up the front runner in the other camp; now is not the time for that retoric. We need to see depth from Trump, not venom.
Devildoc
Verified Military
Not just the media. To the victors go the spoils; the RNC and the DNC have the monopoly and write campaign rules and laws. There are and have been dozens and dozens of political parties, none of which could gain enough traction for long enough to make any significant inroads into third party viability. Oh, sure, Perot and Nader have made some noise, but they are statistical anomalies.
Now in full disclosure, at the state level the rules and laws for each municipality and state are different, and there are many third party politicians holding office.
I think most of us are in this thread.
And why is that? Yeah, back to what I said. Time to play chess, not checkers, long view and all.
Last edited by a moderator:
Devildoc
Verified Military
I was asked to read the following article by Rush Limbaugh (not someone I read, BTW). Interesting read and underscores some points made in other posts on how Trump might be able to win (given certain events go down for him).
My Gut: Trump Beats Hillary in Landslide - The Rush Limbaugh Show
My Gut: Trump Beats Hillary in Landslide - The Rush Limbaugh Show
I think Mrs Trump has a lot of substance. Just saying...
This is in no way a backing of Hillary- but let's say Trump gets the nom (almost assured at this point) and goes to a general against Clinton.
It's the classic ethical conundrum, because when you pick 'the lesser of two evils', you're still choosing an evil.
All things remaining equal- wouldn't we want a prior Secretary of State with decades of political experience over a businessman with zero political experience? I am not trying to create a strawman here, but equivocating international business experience and geopolitics isn't a good practice.
So I get it- Hillary is a 'criminal', a liar, awful satan incarnate, whatever. Isn't that better than the reality TV guy that spends his time getting into twitter wars?
It's the classic ethical conundrum, because when you pick 'the lesser of two evils', you're still choosing an evil.
All things remaining equal- wouldn't we want a prior Secretary of State with decades of political experience over a businessman with zero political experience? I am not trying to create a strawman here, but equivocating international business experience and geopolitics isn't a good practice.
So I get it- Hillary is a 'criminal', a liar, awful satan incarnate, whatever. Isn't that better than the reality TV guy that spends his time getting into twitter wars?
Florida173
SOF Support
Of course not. There isn't a doom and gloom situation here. The GOP is going to support whomever it ends up being, regardless if Trump is an insurgent. Just got done listening to Newt talk about it and he is fully supportive too. So who specifically can people name that would be representative of the GOP that we all prefer and respect ('81 and '95 GOP) that won't support Trump?
Not following.
I understand that the GOP will support whomever becomes the nominee, and Trump is the presumptive nominee. I don't support the Republican party in just about any tangible way, just like I don't support the Dem party either.
My question was, "all things remaining equal, and assuming that Hillary and Trump get their respective party's nominations and go to a general election against one another,, wouldn't it make sense to vote for the candidate with actual experience as opposed to the candidate which has none"?
Or maybe more succinctly- why on earth would I vote for Trump in a head to head with Hillary?
Florida173
SOF Support
We got Eisenhower in 1952 out of a contested convention against three "experienced" politicians. So what is your point? We should get Hillary because she has manipulated her career in politics for this long?
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 726
Experience in what? Violating federal laws regarding the handling of classified information? Denying aid to American assets under siege in a foreign county? Using her position at the DOS for personal financial gain? She has experience in failure and bad judgement, while avoiding taking responsibility for those failures. Her failures go beyond conservative talking points into outright failure of her duty.
At least with Trump, he has business experience and knows when to listen to those that advise him. Why would you vote for him over her? At the very least, one candidate respects and uses the law. Not just outright disregard it because they feel above it and the citizens.
Last edited:
Florida173
SOF Support
I honestly think you are going to start seeing that from here on out. Trump doesn't need to run against the party anymore. It's definitely time to come together and begin that platform. Newt was actually suggesting another "Contract with America." I think that would be a defining moment for the future of the GOP.
We just need to get rid of all the bullshit arguments that should be state issues. President should be there for leadership in the decisions, but ultimately let the States and markets decide on shit, like min. wage.
Brill
SOF Support
I would argue no simply because her foreign policy "experience" is mingled by a Federal criminal investigation of public corruption which questions her experience vs judgement. Additionally, her fundraising is apparently international business...and business was good.
Also, let us not forget the "reset" fuck up with Lavrov and Obama apology tour (an experienced foreign policy expert would have informed POTUS those were bad ideas).
Last edited:
Trump is going to get shredded in the debates. He was good in the 12,000 republican debates when it was home turf and nobody wanted to earn his ire, but when pressed just a little bit he falls apart. For all her faults, Hillary is a really good debater, and Trump really isn't. It's going to be "Proceed, Governor" times ten.
Brill
SOF Support
He just needs to bring her some nickel plated jewelry for the first debate. Don't say a word...just hold them up...hand them to her.
That is a true statement about Eisenhower. However, I am not sure why you bring it up- to compare getting Eisenhower (a 5 star General) over other 'experienced' politicians to Trump? I don't think this is a stretch, here- but Trump is no Eisenhower. And I don't have a point, I have questions. Namely, "why pick a guy with zero experience over someone else with relevant experience." It is extremely apparent that you are personally vested in speaking out against Clinton- I am glad that we have people so passionate about things like this.
Experience in international politics. I understand your rhetoric here, and the way you classify her failures. I wouldn't even say I disagree with some of your points. I suppose it's fine to bash Clinton, but I noticed the only thing you said about Trump is that he would listen to those that advise him.
Can you point/link to an international business decision that was as momentous for Donald Trump (for good or for bad) as Benghazi was for Clinton? Business is business- make the wrong call, file for bankruptcy, no one dies, you get to start over. Not so in politics, and that's apparent with Clinton's missteps and failures. As it stands though, Trump hasn't made a single call, because he's never played the game. And I know the "butbutbutbutbut Hillary is a criminal/witch/actually al Sadr in drag" routine. I get it.
Even if Hillary made 1 call that was right as SecState (and there were probably more than one that she made correctly, regardless of your personal feelings), then she is 100% more experienced than Trump. Even the calls she made that were wrong (and there are a ton) make her more experienced than Trump. You want me to believe that some amateur politician is supposed to figure out how to run America as he goes? Because he was a successful (debatable) businessman?
It's apparent that you too are personally vested in speaking out against Clinton, and that's all good. Again, I am not for/against any single candidate. Don't know who I am voting for, trying to figure it out.
lol! Double points for the Pres Obama shade AND a Trump endorsement.
@amlove21
I agree with you about taking personal feelings out of the mix. Here's my POV. Hillary Clinton has never acted in the best interests of the country. She's always acted in her own best interests. Experience? I think the major problems that we are facing are primarily financial in nature. The economy, true unemployment, the new housing bubble, the second .com bubble, all financial problems and all the direct result of politicians spending "free" money. It's free money because they can just tax us more. The last three consecutive years we have raised more revenue via taxes than ever in history. We've also raised the debt faster than ever before. Why? Bloated government, means tested welfare programs, yes, a war and other inefficiencies that cause us to spend money faster than we can even borrow it, let alone earn it.
I've said for years that we needed a big time business person in the White House. Trump is certainly not the best choice, but the better choices aren't running. We need someone that understands business, finance, and fiscal responsibility. There isn't a single career politician that is going to make the necessary changes. They've all learned how to spend other people's money and borrow more.
If you want someone that is going to continue down the path set out by politicians for the last 20 years, vote for Hillary, that's what she's experienced at. Working the system and spending other people's money. Whether you agree with his platform or not (I do agree with most of it) Trump will necessarily bring fiscal discipline and Government reduction to the table. That's all he knows, and all he needs to know. His advisors can fill in the gaps just like everyone else's. The difference is that he will listen to his.
Oh, btw, he crushed the GOP opposition with very little in the way of spending. That's a sure sign that he is efficient and fiscally disciplined.
I agree with you about taking personal feelings out of the mix. Here's my POV. Hillary Clinton has never acted in the best interests of the country. She's always acted in her own best interests. Experience? I think the major problems that we are facing are primarily financial in nature. The economy, true unemployment, the new housing bubble, the second .com bubble, all financial problems and all the direct result of politicians spending "free" money. It's free money because they can just tax us more. The last three consecutive years we have raised more revenue via taxes than ever in history. We've also raised the debt faster than ever before. Why? Bloated government, means tested welfare programs, yes, a war and other inefficiencies that cause us to spend money faster than we can even borrow it, let alone earn it.
I've said for years that we needed a big time business person in the White House. Trump is certainly not the best choice, but the better choices aren't running. We need someone that understands business, finance, and fiscal responsibility. There isn't a single career politician that is going to make the necessary changes. They've all learned how to spend other people's money and borrow more.
If you want someone that is going to continue down the path set out by politicians for the last 20 years, vote for Hillary, that's what she's experienced at. Working the system and spending other people's money. Whether you agree with his platform or not (I do agree with most of it) Trump will necessarily bring fiscal discipline and Government reduction to the table. That's all he knows, and all he needs to know. His advisors can fill in the gaps just like everyone else's. The difference is that he will listen to his.
Oh, btw, he crushed the GOP opposition with very little in the way of spending. That's a sure sign that he is efficient and fiscally disciplined.
- Status
Similar threads
