Look here...Ivytalk wrote:OK. I'll put you down for Jill Stein.slycat wrote:I don't like Clinton and won't vote for her, but her on her deathbed would still be a better President than Trump.
There is exactly 0.00% chance he can carry a state. So what is respectable?AZGrizFan wrote:Maybe if we can get a third party candidate to make a respectable showing people like that will then, slowly, stop their current behavior and actually vote for the person best qualified for the job.
I think you're right about that89Hen wrote:There is exactly 0.00% chance he can carry a state. So what is respectable?AZGrizFan wrote:Maybe if we can get a third party candidate to make a respectable showing people like that will then, slowly, stop their current behavior and actually vote for the person best qualified for the job.
Ross Perot got 18.9% in 1992 and 8.4% in 1996 and that did absolutely nothing to the two party system. Gary Johnson will not get double digits, so I don't expect he will be anything but a footnote in Wikipedia in a year.
89Hen wrote: There is exactly 0.00% chance he can carry a state. So what is respectable?
Ross Perot got 18.9% in 1992 and 8.4% in 1996 and that did absolutely nothing to the two party system.
Sort of like the CIA crack cocaine thingy?dal4018 wrote:Dr.Bennet Omalu think she was poisoned he's the doctor that discovered CTE the cause of concussions for players in the NFL alive or dead.
I think analjelly and duncedawg will vote for her.Chizzang wrote:Look here...Ivytalk wrote:
OK. I'll put you down for Jill Stein.
There's only one person voting for Jill Stein on this entire forum
They aren't allowed to..Ivytalk wrote:I think analjelly and duncedawg will vote for her.Chizzang wrote:
Look here...
There's only one person voting for Jill Stein on this entire forum
Exactly. Getting a viable third party, even in small doses or steps, is critical to this country's survival. Imagine what their percentage would be if even HALF the people who said "I'd vote for Gary Johnson, but that's just a wasted vote" would ACTUALLY vote for Gary Johnson. Until we can get people to stop believing its a wasted vote, we get more of the same. Not sure how much more of the same this country can handle before it implodes.Skjellyfetti wrote:89Hen wrote: There is exactly 0.00% chance he can carry a state. So what is respectable?
Ross Perot got 18.9% in 1992 and 8.4% in 1996 and that did absolutely nothing to the two party system.
Entirely different. Ross Perot was an independent and not affiliated with any party.
If Gary Johnson gets 5% of the vote, it will open up public funding the Libertarian Party in 2020. That's huge. Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party have only raised a few million dollars. If he gets 5% - they will have 3 or 4 times as much money next cycle. It won't make them competitive in 2020. But, it will make them more competitive than they currently are. Baby steps.
Nailed it!Pwns wrote:Does the Parkinson's Disease theory fit everything?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKt5UBUVnyg
Holy hell I am agreeing more and more with AZ. Must be a Texas thing.AZGrizFan wrote:Exactly. Getting a viable third party, even in small doses or steps, is critical to this country's survival. Imagine what their percentage would be if even HALF the people who said "I'd vote for Gary Johnson, but that's just a wasted vote" would ACTUALLY vote for Gary Johnson. Until we can get people to stop believing its a wasted vote, we get more of the same. Not sure how much more of the same this country can handle before it implodes.Skjellyfetti wrote:
Entirely different. Ross Perot was an independent and not affiliated with any party.
If Gary Johnson gets 5% of the vote, it will open up public funding the Libertarian Party in 2020. That's huge. Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party have only raised a few million dollars. If he gets 5% - they will have 3 or 4 times as much money next cycle. It won't make them competitive in 2020. But, it will make them more competitive than they currently are. Baby steps.
Nope. Just means you're finally growing up and getting smarter.slycat wrote:Holy hell I am agreeing more and more with AZ. Must be a Texas thing.AZGrizFan wrote:
Exactly. Getting a viable third party, even in small doses or steps, is critical to this country's survival. Imagine what their percentage would be if even HALF the people who said "I'd vote for Gary Johnson, but that's just a wasted vote" would ACTUALLY vote for Gary Johnson. Until we can get people to stop believing its a wasted vote, we get more of the same. Not sure how much more of the same this country can handle before it implodes.
So this is what my 30s are aboutAZGrizFan wrote:Nope. Just means you're finally growing up and getting smarter.slycat wrote:
Holy hell I am agreeing more and more with AZ. Must be a Texas thing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yep. Welcome to adulthood, son.slycat wrote:So this is what my 30s are aboutAZGrizFan wrote: Nope. Just means you're finally growing up and getting smarter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
4.6 vs 4.3?AZGrizFan wrote:Imagine what their percentage would be if even HALF the people who said "I'd vote for Gary Johnson, but that's just a wasted vote" would ACTUALLY vote for Gary Johnson.
89Hen wrote:4.6 vs 4.3?AZGrizFan wrote:Imagine what their percentage would be if even HALF the people who said "I'd vote for Gary Johnson, but that's just a wasted vote" would ACTUALLY vote for Gary Johnson.
I'm okay with and agree with the need for a third party. But I think it would only be temporary, which isn't a bad thing. We almost need that third party right now to get the two existing parties to move from their pretty solidified spots (which are pretty much right next to each other). Politics has become very static and very much just about staying in power. There's nothing visionary about Hillary's current campaign, it's basically going on the premise of "I know how things work and I'll keep things exactly the same". Trump is a personal buffoon, but at least he's running on the idea that keeping things the same won't fix anything. But you have the establishment folks in the GOP like JSO that don't want change so they'll fight to keep what they have. A third party could actually pull one of the existing parties out of the status quo. I think it would eventually result in the third party being swallowed up by the major party that moves (I think we're always going to move back to a duopoly in politics) but it would shift the party. I'm all in for it. I was going to leave my vote blank for President this year, but I'm leaning towards Gary Johnson now. I'm a little dismayed by his weed-induced blanking on a simple question like Aleppo, but I could vote for the principle if not the person.AZGrizFan wrote:Exactly. Getting a viable third party, even in small doses or steps, is critical to this country's survival. Imagine what their percentage would be if even HALF the people who said "I'd vote for Gary Johnson, but that's just a wasted vote" would ACTUALLY vote for Gary Johnson. Until we can get people to stop believing its a wasted vote, we get more of the same. Not sure how much more of the same this country can handle before it implodes.Skjellyfetti wrote:
Entirely different. Ross Perot was an independent and not affiliated with any party.
If Gary Johnson gets 5% of the vote, it will open up public funding the Libertarian Party in 2020. That's huge. Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party have only raised a few million dollars. If he gets 5% - they will have 3 or 4 times as much money next cycle. It won't make them competitive in 2020. But, it will make them more competitive than they currently are. Baby steps.
You salute the rank, not the person.GannonFan wrote:I'm okay with and agree with the need for a third party. But I think it would only be temporary, which isn't a bad thing. We almost need that third party right now to get the two existing parties to move from their pretty solidified spots (which are pretty much right next to each other). Politics has become very static and very much just about staying in power. There's nothing visionary about Hillary's current campaign, it's basically going on the premise of "I know how things work and I'll keep things exactly the same". Trump is a personal buffoon, but at least he's running on the idea that keeping things the same won't fix anything. But you have the establishment folks in the GOP like JSO that don't want change so they'll fight to keep what they have. A third party could actually pull one of the existing parties out of the status quo. I think it would eventually result in the third party being swallowed up by the major party that moves (I think we're always going to move back to a duopoly in politics) but it would shift the party. I'm all in for it. I was going to leave my vote blank for President this year, but I'm leaning towards Gary Johnson now. I'm a little dismayed by his weed-induced blanking on a simple question like Aleppo, but I could vote for the principle if not the person.AZGrizFan wrote:
Exactly. Getting a viable third party, even in small doses or steps, is critical to this country's survival. Imagine what their percentage would be if even HALF the people who said "I'd vote for Gary Johnson, but that's just a wasted vote" would ACTUALLY vote for Gary Johnson. Until we can get people to stop believing its a wasted vote, we get more of the same. Not sure how much more of the same this country can handle before it implodes.
How 'bout 'dem apples!Cluck U wrote:GannonFan wrote:
BUT HEY, THAT CROOK GORDON IS OUT!
BUT THAT BUFFOON ROCHESTER WON.
Exact same situation here in Washington.Cluck U wrote:You salute the rank, not the person.GannonFan wrote:
I'm okay with and agree with the need for a third party. But I think it would only be temporary, which isn't a bad thing. We almost need that third party right now to get the two existing parties to move from their pretty solidified spots (which are pretty much right next to each other). Politics has become very static and very much just about staying in power. There's nothing visionary about Hillary's current campaign, it's basically going on the premise of "I know how things work and I'll keep things exactly the same". Trump is a personal buffoon, but at least he's running on the idea that keeping things the same won't fix anything. But you have the establishment folks in the GOP like JSO that don't want change so they'll fight to keep what they have. A third party could actually pull one of the existing parties out of the status quo. I think it would eventually result in the third party being swallowed up by the major party that moves (I think we're always going to move back to a duopoly in politics) but it would shift the party. I'm all in for it. I was going to leave my vote blank for President this year, but I'm leaning towards Gary Johnson now. I'm a little dismayed by his weed-induced blanking on a simple question like Aleppo, but I could vote for the principle if not the person.
My vote will get wasted in Delaware. I support Trump, but since this state will be going heavily to Liar, I probably will give help to a third party and vote for Johnson.
If the race in DE tightens, then I will vote Trump.
Anyone but Hillary.
BUT HEY, THAT CROOK GORDON IS OUT!
BUT THAT BUFFOON ROCHESTER WON.
Exactly where in Baltimore do you live?andy7171 wrote:I has pneumonia when I was 31 or 32. I was relatively in shape and working out regularly back then.
Anyway, it was not a bad case and just barely visible(liquid in the lung) on the xray.
I was flat on my back for 10 days. I would be completely exhausted climbing the stairs.
How does a 70 year old woman, recover from that shit in hours? Or even a couple days.
Eating babies, that's why I posted the pic.andy7171 wrote:I has pneumonia when I was 31 or 32. I was relatively in shape and working out regularly back then.
Anyway, it was not a bad case and just barely visible(liquid in the lung) on the xray.
I was flat on my back for 10 days. I would be completely exhausted climbing the stairs.
How does a 70 year old woman, recover from that shit in hours? Or even a couple days.
