Wait, what? You say that this silent majority is sick of being told the US sucks - so that's why they're supporting the guy/party who says the US sucks so therefore vote for him because he's going to Make America Great Again. That's some pretty strong doublethink going on there. And those who are sick of political correctness? I believe it, and I also believe they're sick of it because they don't like the fact they need to obfuscate their racist, sexist, homophobic beliefs behind coded language such as "religious freedom", "sanctity of marriage", "All Lives Matter", and other dog-whistles. "Ignoring the real problems with Hillary?" As if we haven't spent the past several months talking about her emails servers, and Bengahzi before that, and other hit-jobs before that. Where do you think all the debate points around these issues came from - that's right, the media. So don't sit there and try to blow smoke up our asses with some crybaby bullshit about how the media is ignoring the issues surrounding her. I will agree with you on one thing though: She's not the best candidate. She is however, without a doubt the most qualified person for the office of POTUS running, and that includes all the losers Trump beat in the GOP primary. About Obama: Yes, he made some missteps - thinking he could work with the obstructionist GOP Congress, who have made it abundantly clear that they're not willing to compromise a single inch on anything - immediately comes to mind. He inherited a ruinous, pointless war started by the previous administration and probably could have done a better job than he has to end it. But exacerbating race relations? No. Race relations are at a low point because a huge swath of the country is racist as fuck and absolutely detests the fact that the POTUS is a black man. Race relations are at a low point because we allow cops to shoot and kill whomever they want whenever they want with no repercussions - as long as "thugs and gangsters" (re: brown people) are kept in line. Race relations are at a low point because shitbags like Steve King are speaking at a major political convention inferring that non-white people have contributed nothing to civilization. They sure as fuck aren't at a low point because of anything Obama has done - unless you count not selling out and playing house nigger to appease racist whites as a strike against him. I agree though, that this election is going to say a lot about who we are as a country in 2016. And I hope we're a lot better than a country of reactionary white nationalism.
Whoops, sorry. You were just the convenient person to direct that question to, it's something I've been curious about for so long. I understand the platform for why someone would vote Republican this year and therefore vote for whoever is the Republican candidate (and am going to hold back any commentary I have on that, at least for the time being). What I don't 'understand is how Trump himself came to be the person to represent that platform and that party. Does it really come down to how he "likes his country"?
It comes down to the idea "I hate people and he hates people and thinks it's ok. So I will vote for him. " I'm mostly frightened by the concept of gay marriage and abortion issues in the Supreme Court , so I will most likely vote for Hillary to keep the Supreme Court more left leaning. I think they are both shit bag liars. But then again it seems anyone that makes it that far is in the same boat. In order to appease any large group you have to lie about something.
It just comes down to being most electable. It's not like Trump was winning every state primary by getting 90% of the vote. So, I don't think the "represents the party." Which, I guess is the statement that Cruz was trying to make. (At the same time, I don't think Cruz represents the party either.) Same deal with the national election. Since Reagan's second term, it's not like any candidate was winning 90% of the vote, so the elected President doesn't "represent the country." He or she is just the one who got the most votes. Nothing more, nothing less. The funny thing about both Trump and Clinton as candidates to me, along the lines of the absurd level JWags pointed out about Trump, is that is there ANYTHING that could happen at this point where you gasp and say "I did NOT see that coming."? It's just so absurd. Somebody could release pictures of Bill, Hillary, Monica and Yitzak Rabin doing lines in the oval office and having an orgy. Or, Trump could secretly have terminal cancer, have told Pence, "Hey, I won't make it past March - I'll get you in, and you take it from there." And, I think most of the nation would shrug, meh.
I think it's a combination of what a couple of people said. The hate for anyone from the political establishment this cycle is palpable on both sides. The PC argument I think plays a factor too. Yes there is a segment tired of PC bullshit because they'd rather just be up front racist. The concept of shutting down any and all debate with pc nonsense even when someone is truly trying to discuss possible solutions or legitimate ideas, has hurt meaningful discourse. Put the two thoughts together and you get someone like Trump in popularity even with the glaring deficiencies he has. As for him liking his country I think that boils down to his leadership style. The never admit fault or inadequacies until the game has been won. It's how businesses are run. Preempting everything with our past mistakes, slavery, imperialism, ect doesn't do anything but kneecap you before the conversation starts. Trump goes way over the deep end with zero humility though in my mind.
Jesus Christ Donald, if your insane negotiating strategy doesn't work you can't just declare bankruptcy and get the Baltic states back.
It's not just here but across all of social media and I really don't understand it at this point. Nobody is happy with the Republican or Democrat, everybody seems to say they are voting for one because they can't stand the other. Is anyone out here considering Johnson/Weld? These guys are on the same ticket and the only ones who have ever actually governed anything and they did it successfully. Check out this short video: Seriously, as bad as our two leading options are, how are people not talking about these guys as a viable option right now? It seriously defies logic.
I look to the money. This country always has been run by the industrial giants of the world. Look to see who the industries are pushing and you'll see how the presidency has been shaped. Maybe its no coincidence since 1990 we've only had 1 person not named Bush or Clinton in that office. I do wish we had a parliamentary system sometimes, I wish a third party could have more influence without having to win it all.
I think I'm voting for them. Not because they will win but because if every single person who chooses to avoid a viable third party option because they think it won't matter continues to do so, nothing will change. I will vote for them. I think a lot of people are more libertarian than they realize. You don't have to agree with 100% of their platform, but you can be sure they are more honest players than the other mainstream candidates. If they poll high enough, they will get on the big stage and that changes everything.
Me. My wife was raised sheltered (read: catholic and extreme right wing) and she's sweating out the last bits of idiocy with my help. It takes a while, but she's doing the death throws right now. Last night she asked me why I was going to vote Johnson even if he doesn't win (which I maintain he still might, but is irrelevant to my vote). She gave me the lesser of two evils argument, genuinely curious about why I'd give my vote to a losing ticket and having heard my previous argument about how "people died for my right to vote and I'm not going to put it on someone I don't like." Wanted to know, basically, in the end if I hoped my Johnson vote would achieve anything. I told her that, if nothing else, I wanted my one vote for that third party to register as someone who wanted someone other than the two major parties to win. My threshold for "success" was seeing 1,000,001 total votes for Johnson instead of 1,000,000. That my one vote would be one more number they'd have to change because of me, and that'd be enough of a difference for me to consider my civic duty accomplished. I encourage everyone else to consider the same. Because if the Trump campaign has taught us anything, it is to question what we've always been told. So I'm going to question what I've always been told, and I'm going to think Johnson will win this. But even if he doesn't, his mere presence as a legitimate 3rd option this year has permanently changed things.
People are not willing to take the leap like X-ray is. They think, "well I don't really want Trump / Clinton, but I DEFINITELY don't want Clinton / Trump." and, they feel voting Johnson is like not stopping the "other" one.
My only reluctance to a Johnson/Weld vote is my concern for the SCOTUS. I don't see J/W winning so I'm really afraid of what a Trump/Pence presidency would do for the court. I'm weighing voting my conscience for president vs voting my conscience for SCOTUS. They don't match up, exactly.
You guys tell me if you disagree but if you take all of the people who say the following: 1. I hate/don't like Clinton but will vote for her because Trump is a bigoted asshole who may start WWIII 2. I hate/don't like Trump but will vote for him because Clinton is lying sleazebag who will continue politics as usual 3. I can't vote for Johnson because it is a wasted vote/potentially damages the outcome of the SCOTUS issue, specifically Women's Rights and Gay Rights and have them all voting from Johnson/Weld then they will win in a landslide and you would have helped improve our lot as a nation for once instead of keeping things as the status quo. Not to mention you will all have what you want.
Except for the people who don't like Libertarians or Johnson. If there were a third party I thought was better, I would probably vote for them even if it was basically throwing my vote away, especially since I'm not in a swing state. But there isn't.
I think I'm voting for Johnson too. Perot won 19% of the vote in 1992, and still didn't manage to carry a single state. Johnson/Weld might do better, but the two of them have the combined charisma of a lamp post. Johnson is a moderate libertarian, which is still far too libertarian for my personal political views, but at least he's serious about tackling the debt and cutting military spending. I really hope that by 'free internet' he doesn't mean he wants to do away with net neutrality. But he probably does. Fucking libertarians. His policies on trade and the environment suck too. At least he doesn't lie, or lies less blatantly: No, it's not making a difference. I was hoping to move in the making a difference direction, but it's still preferable to Hillary's bullshit about how fracking is totally eco-friendly. I'll take him over the sociopath and I don't have time to not be an asshole Trump. At least I have an idea what his plan actually adds up to. Trump doesn't have one altogether, and there's no way Hillary takes so much as a paragraph of her own seriously.
Libertarians usually have 75% of their views and ideas being reasonable and 25% are bat shit nuts. Johnson seems like an ok guy, but he has the likeability of childhood leukemia.
That's a big IF. Hypothetically you're right. But the reality is that people are so aligned with a two party system that the chasm between hypothetical and real is quite wide.
It's a shame you don't have provisions in your constitution for a parliamentary system. We occasionally see a party start to drift toward the edges. What happens instead of the other party having to polarize is that the already-polarized party typically fractures, and a small group of the extreme people form a new party that eventually gets voted into non-existence in the new election cycle. It happened recently with the Wild Rose party in Alberta (our version of The Tea Party, kind of). I'm not sure how the US system gets back on track, given the state of the bases and the media. Sensible voices just get drowned out in the shouting.
The Tea Party isn't a political party, not really. They were a disaffected group of Republicans who have made nearly zero noise this cycle and likely died off with Ted Cruz's crash and burn.