Johnson up double digits: Can he break the 15% threshold?

[Dittohead not!]

No...the same cannot be said about Trump...except, maybe, in your dreams.



Sorry, but that is not going to happen. Face reality. We are a "two-party" country. All the rest is just window dressing.

A few more candidates like Trump, and we're likely to become a one party country.

 

[Mycroft]

A few more candidates like Trump, and we're likely to become a one party country.

Oh...don't worry. Your Democrats aren't going to roll over and die.

LOL!!

 

[Dittohead not!]

Oh...don't worry. Your Democrats aren't going to roll over and die.

LOL!!

"Your" Republicans just might if they continue to nominate candidates like Trump.

Come to think of it, "my" Democrats just might, too, if Clinton proves as much of a disaster as the Republicans think she will.

And, just maybe the country will be better off with a multiple party system, or perhaps with no party at all. George Washington warned us about political parties, after all.

But, the people who can only see right and left, and never straight ahead, will have to re adjust their thinking somewhat.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Is he even less presidential than Trump? That would be difficult to accomplish.

He is not ready for prime time.

 

[Mycroft]

"Your" Republicans just might if they continue to nominate candidates like Trump.

Come to think of it, "my" Democrats just might, too, if Clinton proves as much of a disaster as the Republicans think she will.

And, just maybe the country will be better off with a multiple party system, or perhaps with no party at all. George Washington warned us about political parties, after all.

But, the people who can only see right and left, and never straight ahead, will have to re adjust their thinking somewhat.

Yes...George did warn us, but it doesn't matter. It won't change no matter how much you wish it will.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Yes...George did warn us, but it doesn't matter. It won't change no matter how much you wish it will.

On that, I'm afraid you're right.
The best we could hope for would be an end to the stupid hyperpartisanship that is rendering the government dysfunctional.

 

[Mycroft]

On that, I'm afraid you're right.
The best we could hope for would be an end to the stupid hyperpartisanship that is rendering the government dysfunctional.

Oh...I kind of like a dysfunctional government...except I don't see our government as dysfunctional. Bloated, overbearing, over-powerful...yes...but it functions quite well.

But, of course, I know what you really mean. You want a government that "governs" more. If it can't, then it's not working, right?

I don't. I want one that governs less.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

The same could be said of Donald Trump.

Meanwhile, perhaps Johnson could get enough support to make the voters wake up and smell the coffee and say, "Hey, maybe we don't have to just accept whatever the two major parties give us after all."

I will scream this from every mountain top if I have to.

Duvergers law makes the chances of a third party successfully winning an election low if nigh on impossible.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Oh...I kind of like a dysfunctional government...except I don't see our government as dysfunctional. Bloated, overbearing, over-powerful...yes...but it functions quite well.

But, of course, I know what you really mean. You want a government that "governs" more. If it can't, then it's not working, right?

I don't. I want one that governs less.

I don't want a government that "governs more."

I want one that is more concerned with the good of the country than the good of the party.

Right now, it's all about party.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I will scream this from every mountain top if I have to.

Duvergers law makes the chances of a third party successfully winning an election low if nigh on impossible.

OK, had to look that one up:

In political science, Duverger's law holds that plurality-rule elections (such as first past the post) structured within single-member districts tend to favor a two-party system and that "the double ballot majority system and proportional representation tend to favor multipartism."

That does seem to be holding true, doesn't it?

I suppose the hyperpartisanship of the past few years may be here to stay.

 

[Jack Hays]

OK, had to look that one up:



That does seem to be holding true, doesn't it?

I suppose the hyperpartisanship of the past few years may be here to stay.

Single member districts push toward a two-party system, but that's a rule for normal times. In a realignment, one party may disappear and be replaced.

 

[Jack Hays]

No he cannot. His open and unabashed support for the TPP is preventing him from breaking the ceiling.

His open and unabashed support for the TPP is why the country needs him.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't want a government that "governs more."

I want one that is more concerned with the good of the country than the good of the party.

Right now, it's all about party.

sigh...

This "good of the country" thing you speak of is useless. The good of the country means different things to different people...and to different Parties. So, of course, as long as we have different parties...doesn't even matter how many we have...there will always be disagreement, conflict and opposition about what is good for the country and we will always have a, as you describe it, "dysfunctional government".

As for myself, I don't really care that much about parties...I'd rather see more honest and honorable politicians in ALL parties. With those kinds of people in Washington we will see better compromises...better deals...being made that everyone can accept.

But the first and most important thing we need is politicians who want to reduce the size, scope and power of the government.

 

[Dittohead not!]

sigh...

This "good of the country" thing you speak of is useless. The good of the country means different things to different people...and to different Parties. So, of course, as long as we have different parties...doesn't even matter how many we have...there will always be disagreement, conflict and opposition about what is good for the country and we will always have a, as you describe it, "dysfunctional government".

As for myself, I don't really care that much about parties...I'd rather see more honest and honorable politicians in ALL parties. With those kinds of people in Washington we will see better compromises...better deals...being made that everyone can accept.

But the first and most important thing we need is politicians who want to reduce the size, scope and power of the government.

Then the thing to do is to vote out all of the incumbents in Congress regardless of party. All they're interested in is promoting their respective parties and getting reelected. None of them from either party is really in favor of reducing the size of the federal government.

 

[SDET]

Hah, watch Johnson sneak in and become our next president. I'm not a supporter of his, but that would be one of the funniest things to happen maybe ever.

I don't think much of Johnson, but he is an improvement over Clinton or T-Rump.

 

[Mycroft]

Then the thing to do is to vote out all of the incumbents in Congress regardless of party. All they're interested in is promoting their respective parties and getting reelected. None of them from either party is really in favor of reducing the size of the federal government.

Oh...there are some good ones...mostly on the right...but yeah, getting rid of those who are just in it for themselves is a good place to start. Then, work on getting the Democrats to stop trying to grow government.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Oh...there are some good ones...mostly on the right...but yeah, getting rid of those who are just in it for themselves is a good place to start. Then, work on getting the Democrats to stop trying to grow government.

that's only half of the job.
We also have to work on getting the Republicans to stop trying to grow government.

 

[Mycroft]

that's only half of the job.
We also have to work on getting the Republicans to stop trying to grow government.

As I said...it is a good place to start.

 

[radcen]

Oh...I kind of like a dysfunctional government...except I don't see our government as dysfunctional. Bloated, overbearing, over-powerful...yes...but it functions quite well.

But, of course, I know what you really mean. You want a government that "governs" more. If it can't, then it's not working, right?

I don't. I want one that governs less.

If by "dysfunctional" you mean divided and hindered I agree with you. I don't want either party to ever have a free hand to do whatever they want. But, to me "dysfunctional" means that absolutely nothing meaningful gets done other than keeping itself going. That's not serving us well.

 

[Mycroft]

If by "dysfunctional" you mean divided and hindered I agree with you. I don't want either party to ever have a free hand to do whatever they want. But, to me "dysfunctional" means that absolutely nothing meaningful gets done other than keeping itself going. That's not serving us well.

Well, you'll have to verify with Dittohead not! about the meaning of "dysfunctional"...since it's his term.

But to me, it means that our government is not functioning. Now, there are many things our government does...legislation is just one part. That one part may not be working the way any individual thinks it should...based on their bias...but that doesn't mean the "government" is dysfunctional.

 

[radcen]

Well, you'll have to verify with Dittohead not! about the meaning of "dysfunctional"...since it's his term.

But to me, it means that our government is not functioning. Now, there are many things our government does...legislation is just one part. That one part may not be working the way any individual thinks it should...based on their bias...but that doesn't mean the "government" is dysfunctional.

I was thinking specifically Congress and legislation, but I get your point.

 

[radcen]

Oh...there are some good ones...mostly on the right...but yeah, getting rid of those who are just in it for themselves is a good place to start. Then, work on getting the Democrats to stop trying to grow government.

From my vantage point, government grows under Reps, too. Just in different areas.

 

[Mycroft]

From my vantage point, government grows under Reps, too. Just in different areas.

I agree, though the Democrats are more inclined to do so. But, as I said, this is a good place to start.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Well, you'll have to verify with Dittohead not! about the meaning of "dysfunctional"...since it's his term.

But to me, it means that our government is not functioning. Now, there are many things our government does...legislation is just one part. That one part may not be working the way any individual thinks it should...based on their bias...but that doesn't mean the "government" is dysfunctional.

Dysfunctional, when applied to Congress means that absolutely nothing meaningful gets done other than keeping itself going.

and the government, in particular the Congress is dysfunctional due to extreme partisanship.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I agree, though the Democrats are more inclined to do so. But, as I said, this is a good place to start.

or, at least Democrats are more up front about their agenda.