so basically bernie is going to the convention to make hillary agree to adopt some policies, which is like giving a hungry fat guy a donut if he agrees not to eat it.
that means your black and white choices are richest guy to go bankrupt four times and satan
now, if we elected jill stein, the benefits are just too good to be true:
shatter the two party system, and green is the most fitting color because it completes the three additive primaries
get most people to stop b****ing about voting for women in future elections because v*gina
basically the same policies as bernie sanders, so basically bernie sanders
I dunno, you should ask Cub why she decided to be the first one to throw around personal attacks. If she really is going to jump straight to that, it's obvious she doesn't want a real discussion.
deletedalmost 9 years
Why do Cronerboner and Foxie dislike each other I thought they were programmer buddies
i like how you addressed everything else i said and not one typo that i said is a typo
the lack of real information and real discussion from your end doesn't support your case as an informed voter. you can also read the first page for a rebuttal of your last sentence. just some information you mightve missed
Writing that 2002 was an election year and then calling me a low information voter (without providing your cherished "substance") is a good example of being a b!tch. Do keep in mind that you were the first one here to throw around personal attacks.
This whole thread is a waste of time in its unlikely hypotheticals because you might as well be hoping that George Washington will come back from the dead and win the election.
Seriously though, Jill is practically identical to Bernie, and if Bernie wasn't able to beat out Hillary while under the support of the Democratic circlejerk what makes you think a lesser-known version of him can win as a third party?
i won't post a dozen links because quality supersedes quantity.
deletedalmost 9 years
I'm not extreme right, but Jill Stein is by definition extreme left. Socialist economic polices, liberal leaning social policies, and liberal leaning environment policies.
Gary Johnson is far to the right on the economy, I'll give you that. But on social issues, Libertarians are actually pretty far to the left, like he and I are. Also, I would say he's pretty moderate on the environment, but you could say he's far to the right if you count that as economic issue like he does.
Extreme right-wingers don't hold the position that people should be allowed to marry who they want, put what they want in their bodies, sell their property as they wish, etc.
Though I guess that anyone's an extreme right-winger if you're that far left, I suppose. Hillary's practically a Republican, amirite?
you added the qualifier "small" before businesses, i didnt and i didnt see where gary johnson did either. maybe you can show me his exact policy position if i found the wrong one
and a flat tax would hurt smaller businesses more how assbackwards are republicans if taxes dont go up the more money you make, that means more money has to come from the bottom instead of the top, aka SMALL businesses
and id say look at the rest of the first world but i already did. maybe you can actually do that this time. its not a hypothetical at this point, its been done by the rest of the first world. after all, your only argument against socialist policies is that "they didnt work." you know what else didnt work? private health care. oh but lets ignore that
deletedalmost 9 years
What's wrong with some of the rest? Cutting taxes on small businesses and putting in a lower flat tax is a good idea. Get rid of the IRS. Taxes choke the f*ck out of small businesses. A flat tax is just a simpler system than the current bracket one, which would change based on your income.
Why should the government pay for healthcare? Why not put it to the private sector? We're already in debt, why make the government bigger and more inefficient then it is?
Also, I'll take Capitalism>Socialism (which doesn't work anywhere it's tried) anyday
the government makes money through taxes. that burden can be levied more heavily on the individual or businesses, you favor burdening the individual
if you see nothing wrong with cutting funding to healthcare programs and opposing federal health care, you can look at the rest of the first world for my response
Ayn Rand herself had major disagreements with Libertarian ideals but there is a fair amount of overlap between Objectivism and Libertarianism, so this is to be expected.
Citation needed.
Don't see why a presidential candidate should be getting involved in a marketplace issue.
This mostly boils down to your personal beliefs in economics.
1) disagree about religious funding 2) agrees that he gives lipservice to global warming but does little to nothing about it
on with the rest
deletedalmost 9 years
He does not support religious funding, in fact he does not believe the government should fun any organization. He is a protestant but "has never brought God into his decisions while in office."
He also admits global warming is real and man made, but does not think the government should subsidize any form of energy, from wind to solar to coal.
Eliminate corporate income tax as real way to create jobs. (Jun 2011) Lower the tax burden; eliminate corporate tax. (May 2011) Wanted to eliminate income and capital gains taxes in 2012 "Our America" superPAC, good way to get money out of politics
Strongly opposes Medicare and Medicaid, proposed halving funding in 2011, criticised ObamaCare as worse than the old system, generally running backwards from the rest of the civilized world on healthcare
Aligns with Ayn Rand Supports government religious funding Lacking on renewable energy front, mostly lipservice
deletedalmost 9 years
Exactly, Cub is getting the terms and numbers confused. Teddy Roosevelt actually gathered the most votes for a third party candidate, with 27.5% of the vote going towards him. There are many above Jill Stein from the third party.
Obviously I meant in this election cycle, and no Jill Stein is not the historically highest polling third party candidate.
Ross Perot is, with Nader coming in second.
Jill Stein is the highest polling third-party female however. Gary Johnson also did not poll at 1%, he received 1% of the vote, which was also better than what Jill Stein pulled in.
Checking Wikipedia real quick, Jill Stein ran for president in 2012 and is running 2016, never before that. That's ignoring the fact that there wasn't a presidential election in 2002.
Polling is a lot different than the actual vote, by the way. Jill Stein was polling at 3% in 2012 according to CNN but got 0.36% of the popular vote. Gary Johnson got between 4-5% steadily in 2012 and 1% of the popular vote.
jill stein polled at 3.5% in the 2002 general. gary johnson polled at 1% in 2012. you just outright lied and bringing up polling merely brings up the fact jill stein is historically the highest polling third party candidate.
talk to me more about pandering to low information voters while outright lying
here's the low information voter you're appealing to
In other words, if we're talking about who will be the next president, the only real discussion is between Trump and Hillary. If we're talking about reversing political polarization, Gary Johnson is the only relevant person.
