Can’t be less than the ones on welfare
The article is sourced from the Bureau of labor statistics
You can vote for Gary Johnson, or Gary shandling (isn’t he dead), Gary Cooper who is absolutely dead…or anyone else named Gary that you’d like and either Hillary or Trump will still become the next President. The bad part is, you would not have had a say in it. You threw your vote away in protest. I know…I know if enough people did that then the system would change. But…enough people will NEVER do that. So…
Hey, I have even lived through an honest a goodness third party contender who was smart and exceptionally wealthy. He tried taking down both Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton in 1992. He was on every ballot in every state and even had a great ground game. He spent nearly 2 billion dollars in his efforts. And…he got 19% of the vote for his trouble. he tried it again in 1996 and did even worse. Ross Perot could not catch a break.
I get it you are disillusioned with the two parties and especially the two knuckle heads that have captured their respective parties nomination. But, one of them will win and there will not be enough people voting for Gary Johnson to make a nickels worth of difference.
Finally, I hate to rain on your parade as you are a good poster and a smart guy. But age has taught be a thing or two about this game and I am passing it on to you. You can insult me for it, or ignore it but what I say will come to pass over and over again.
sadly.
Edit
If enough people vote for a third-party to make a difference, I suspect that third-party will have been made into something a lot like the first two parties.
Have you ever heard of someone talking about outlawing third parties?
Have you ever heard someone talking about mandating participation in the election process?
There are practical long-term reasons to vote 3rd party – greater vote share confers more legitimacy for the future, leading, perhaps, to a viable run some day. But that aside, some very rational people consider their vote a moral act in a deontological system, and are thus constrained by rigid principle. (If the foregoing sentence confuses you, have an adult sit you down and explain what “moral,” deontological," and “principle” mean.) You’ve been trying dissuade these people from their ethics for months now, and it doesn’t look like you’re going to succeed.
2 Likes
Yes, and that is the only reason. Unless of course you can tell me the last time a third party candidate for the Presidency actually won.
I would rather have people actually participate in the process and vote for either Trump or Hillary. A third party vote is really a waste as has been proven for decades upon decades.
Nonsense. Tell me, Zeb, are diehard, committed Republicans living in California - whose electoral votes will undoubtedly go to Hillary - wasting their vote for the GOP nominee every election year?
I am talking about Presidential elections, but you know that.
I am talking about presidential elections, too.
Every presidential election, it’s a given anymore that California will go blue and provide electoral votes to the Democratic nominee.
So, California Republicans are wasting their votes voting for the GOP candidate each election year?
Every financial advisor ever: Past results to not guarantee future performance.
Or, just because it’s never happened before doesn’t mean it won’t in the future. Ask the segregationists.
1 Like
Or the Federalists. Or the Whigs.
1 Like
One of the two major party candidates will win. When is the last time a third party candidate beat a republican in California? I don’t recall that ever happening do you? So why vote for a third party candidate?
On the other hand a republican has taken California in the past. Reagan won California and George HW Bush also won California in 1988. Granted they were both a while ago, but it can be done under the right circumstances with the right candidate. A third party vote is an automatic throwaway.
I’m not saying your basic premise is wrong, but if this is entirely true then shouldn’t the GOP have not panicked their faces off when Trump initially threatened a third party run last year?
True but this is not a stock it’s a Presidential election and a third party candidate is NOT going to win.
Why is this even an argument? Oh that’s right this is T Nation we can argue about anything.
Go vote your conscience third party, write in whatever. But come election day either Hillary or Trump will become president.
You miss the point - what is the point of the California Republican voting for the GOP nominee? What’s the purpose? By your lights, it’s meaningless, right?
1 Like
And they did that because they were concerned that Trump with all of his money could make a difference…not that he could actually win.
Same answer
One of the two major party candidates will win. When is the last time a third party candidate beat a republican in California? I don’t recall that ever happening do you? So why vote for a third party candidate?
On the other hand a republican has taken California in the past. Reagan won California and George HW Bush also won California in 1988. Granted they were both a while ago, but it can be done under the right circumstances with the right candidate. A third party vote is an automatic throwaway.
No one is claiming a third party has a chance to win.
Perfect then for the first time in a long time we actually agree.