Who are you voting for?

[Surrealistik]

If you're a Republocrat you already have neigh unlimited money.

At least there's a modicum of campaign finance law in place as opposed to none, and again, the real question is if voting 3rd party, why Johnson over Stein if campaign finance reform is important to you?

 

[anatta]

Have to admit that I'm kind of surprised at this as Johnson will do nothing to address the blight of money in politics and legalized corruption which had always seemed like important primary issues to you. In fact he explicitly supports no limits on campaign donations/contributions and would probably end up making these issues worse if anything.

he' s libertarian of course. Campaign limits always wind up being unconstitutional -I think the only way out is public financing

 

[FieldTheorist]

Doubtful. And anything he could "make worse", will be leagues better than what Clinton or Trump will do.

The damage to social safety nets, which is the only thing a Johnson presidency could accomplish, I think would be pretty irreparable. Still, between him, Trump, and Hillary... Yeah, it'd be a closed pin election.

That's why I'm voting for Jill Stein, not perfect, but far better than the other three.

 

[Ikari]

At least there's a modicum of campaign finance law in place as opposed to none, and again, the real question is if voting 3rd party, why Johnson over Stein if campaign finance reform is important to you?

Not really. All that campaign finance law is in place to restrict others from raising the money the Republocrats have.

 

[azgreg]

That's disgusting, azgreg. This is the American political process and a vote for the leader of the free world, this process should still command some respect. You should vote for Four Roses.

I choose those two because it's going to take bottle of one of them to get me through election night.

 

[Lutherf]

 

[Fearandloathing]

Now that Clinton is officially the democrat nominee its a race between Clinton and her donor Trump.

Hillary Clinton
Donald Trump IE Hillary Clinton's donor
3rd party candidate( if your state doesn't screw 3rd party candidates out of ballot access.)
Staying home
Leaving that part of the ballot blank.Because there other races going on,ballot questions and etc.

We will fix your race problem, as soon as we figure out why you still have a race problem.




Canada

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSkqSv6fcSw

 

[Surrealistik]

Not really. All that campaign finance law is in place to restrict others from raising the money the Republocrats have.

Okay, even assuming you feel this to be the case, again, why Johnson over Stein if limiting money in politics is important to you?

 

[digsbe]

Trump and Hillary would be a disaster for the country. One of them will win but I'll probably vote 3rd party or write in just to make the statement. If enough people do it and if that number increases we may see more viable options and donations going to 3rd parties in future elections.

 

[jamesrage]

James, I hope the number of votes DT gets in the national election scares the CRAP out of the status quo on both sides of the aisle. That's my reasoning. It's time to turn our political model inside out. It reeks.

Do you think the status quo on both sides of the isle that Trump donated money to would have the crap scared out of them if he actually manages to curb stomp Clinton in the general election? I think a 3rd party candidate just winning the general is what it would take to scare the crap out of the status quo on both sides of the isle.

 

[MaggieD]

Do you think the status quo on both sides of the isle that Trump donated money to would have the crap scared out of them if he actually manages to curb stomp Clinton in the general election? I think a 3rd party candidate curb winning the general is what it would take to scare the crap out of the status quo on both sides of the isle.

Oh, I absolutely agree with you. But this sure isn't going to happen any time soon.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I'm voting for Johnson. I'm trying to help Jill Stein get on the ballot here in Wyoming, but I think Johnson has a better chance of scaring the two major parties and forcing them to change.

 

[der]

Trump without a doubt, he would make a great president. There hasnt been a single good candidate ever since Reagan, except for maybe Ron Paul. After 16 years of two of the worst presidents in history, there has to be a total 180 for the country to be saved. Finally a candidate who is not a warmonger and cares about workers issues, its like a miracle.

 

[Puigb]

President Thomas J. Whitmore from Independence Day.

 

[FieldTheorist]

I choose those two because it's going to take bottle of one of them to get me through election night.

No really, drink Four Roses. It'll be the only highlight of election day. We can hail further neoliberalism or else fascism-lite. It's great. America's a great country. Much proud.

 

[FieldTheorist]

Trump without a doubt, he would make a great president. There hasnt been a single good candidate ever since Reagan, except for maybe Ron Paul. After 16 years of two of the worst presidents in history, there has to be a total 180 for the country to be saved. Finally a candidate who is not a warmonger and cares about workers issues, its like a miracle.

Donald Trump, like Jesus, is all things to all people. That's because like the Bible, he says both "Yes, I think X, and I have the best X" and "No, I think not X, but I have the best X anyways."

 

[Cyrylek]

Have to admit that I'm kind of surprised at this as Johnson will do nothing to address the blight of money in politics and legalized corruption which had always seemed like important primary issues to you. In fact he explicitly supports no limits on campaign donations/contributions and would probably end up making these issues worse if anything.

(1) What "blight"? How much Jeb Bush had spent? And Trump? Celebrity and skillful messaging beat "money in politics", hands down.

(2) Yes, Johnson is pro-Citizens United. As any socialist with half a brain should be as well (the ACLU was). Even if you don't care about freedom of speech, what the SCOTUS decision actually did was allowing people to pool resources (whether in the form of corporations, unions or NGOs) for political speech, which otherwise would be given almost exclusively to political incumbents and wealthy individuals.

(3) This "legalized corruption" - why does it exist in the first place? Perhaps because the State is interfering with the works of economy and everyone is trying to make this interference benefit them, and not the other guy? Limit the functions of the State to its appropriate policing duties, and, with no goodies to redistribute and no power to fix the system, your elected officials will become incorruptible - not because they are suddenly angels, but because nobody will care to corrupt them.

Even putrid demagogues like Trump or Sanders will do only superficial damage, if put in charge. The power will be distributed throughout the society, not accumulated in a pair of unreliable hands. Diversification of the risk. That's what libertarians are trying to do.

 

[Cyrylek]

Trump without a doubt, he would make a great president. There hasnt been a single good candidate ever since Reagan, except for maybe Ron Paul. After 16 years of two of the worst presidents in history, there has to be a total 180 for the country to be saved. Finally a candidate who is not a warmonger and cares about workers issues, its like a miracle.

Trump is nothing like Reagan, on almost every count - immigration, trade, the role of America in the world, you name it. Reagan appealed to "our best hopes, not our worst fears". This jerk does exactly the opposite.

"Workers issues"? Seriously? What do you think will happen to "worker issues" if Trump actually starts a global trade war and/or actually deports the millions of "illegals". With the same idiotic reasoning - and the same faith in Big Government solutions - we have imposed heavy tariffs and blocked immigration at the end of the 1920s. How did that work for "workers", eh?

 

[Abbazorkzog]

 

[Surrealistik]

(1) What "blight"? How much Jeb Bush had spent? And Trump? Celebrity and skillful messaging beat "money in politics", hands down.

Anomalies and anecdotal exception aren't the rule. Money can be beaten, but it requires an immense disparity in candidate charisma and appeal. Several quality academic studies have demonstrated the toxic, democracy eroding influence of excess private money and lobbying in the political sphere; for example: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf:

"But the picture changes markedly when all three independent variables are included in the multivariate Model 4 and are tested against each other. The estimated impact of average citizens preferences drops precipitously, to a non-significant, near-zero level. Clearly the median citizen or “median voter” at the heart of theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy does not do well when put up against economic elites and organized interest groups. The chief predictions of pure theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy can be decisively rejected. Not only do ordinary citizens not have uniquely substantial power over policy decisions; they have little or no independent influence on policy at all."

(2) Yes, Johnson is pro-Citizens United. As any socialist with half a brain should be as well (the ACLU was). Even if you don't care about freedom of speech, what the SCOTUS decision actually did was allowing people to pool resources (whether in the form of corporations, unions or NGOs) for political speech, which otherwise would be given almost exclusively to political incumbents and wealthy individuals.

What it actually did was permit effectively unlimited campaign expenditures in the form of SuperPACs assuming they do not coordinate (yet they certainly do in practice), which obviously and in practice favours those parties with the most money to throw around.

(3) This "legalized corruption" - why does it exist in the first place? Perhaps because the State is interfering with the works of economy and everyone is trying to make this interference benefit them, and not the other guy? Limit the functions of the State to its appropriate policing duties, and, with no goodies to redistribute and no power to fix the system, your elected officials will become incorruptible - not because they are suddenly angels, but because nobody will care to corrupt them.

Because of ineffective and weak campaign finance laws that have been eroding ever since Buckley v Valeo in the 70s. Plenty of developed countries don't have nearly the same problem with special interests and regulatory capture that the US does despite their governments featuring immense influence or potential for influence over the economy, and it's precisely because they have sane limits on private money/spending in public politics. Divorcing a democratic government so wholly from powers of economic intervention such that it is no a target for de facto corruption and bribery is a pipe dream that will never happen as you will never find enough of the population willing to accept that, and if it incredibly ever does, it will not do so sustainably.

That's what libertarians are trying to do.

Right-wing libertarians are about putting power in the hands of the rich at the expense of democracy in the event they cannot abolish the ability of government to intervene economically. Gutting campaign finance law does not 'diversify risk' so much as it consolidates power in the hands of the wealthy.

 

[PoS]

I will be voting with an absentee ballot for Gary Johnson in all likelihood. Not that it will matter...

 

[Taylor]

Why are the last three options all the same?

 

[jamesrage]

Why are the last three options all the same?

The last three options are not the same.

 

[Van Basten]

That's easy, Hillary.

 

[der]

Trump is nothing like Reagan, on almost every count - immigration, trade, the role of America in the world, you name it. Reagan appealed to "our best hopes, not our worst fears". This jerk does exactly the opposite.

"Workers issues"? Seriously? What do you think will happen to "worker issues" if Trump actually starts a global trade war and/or actually deports the millions of "illegals". With the same idiotic reasoning - and the same faith in Big Government solutions - we have imposed heavy tariffs and blocked immigration at the end of the 1920s. How did that work for "workers", eh?

I wasnt comparing him to reagan, simply stating that Reagan was the last good president. But he can be compared to Reagan in regard that he is a political outsider who speaks directl to the people about the issues they most care about. In that way I think he will have a landslide victory as well.
As for the tarrifs and blocked immigration of illegals, it sounds all good to me. The EU tarrifs china and they are doing just fine without any tinfoil "trade wars" going on.
Lower taxes for the low and middle class and more jobs are precisely worker issues, the same workers that every other candidate ignored for such a long time for the sake of their corporate donors or their favorite minority/victim group of choice.