The Debate

[RickD]

Dang it Jac!

You beat me to the post!

[Danieltwotwenty]

But it doesn't matter, because this election isn't, never was, and never will be about her.

As far as I am concerned this election is about her. I think electing her would be disastrous for the country and I will do everything I can to prevent this, even if it means voting for Trump. I am afraid Trump will make a bad president, but not as bad as Clinton.

Why do people in your country see it as an either or, what about a third party?

I rarely vote for the two main parties in my country and we have a decent third party which is gaining ground and gaining seats. In fact there are probably a few parties that are doing this, a two party preferred system is crap.

Dan,

It's an either/or, because either Clinton will win, or Trump. Nobody else has a chance to win.

Some people(DBowling this means you ), throw their vote away on a 3rd or 4th party candidate.

Is it not this sort of mentality that traps you into a two party preferred system?

You should never cast your vote trying to stop someone being president, you should cast your vote for who you want president.

[RickD]

But it doesn't matter, because this election isn't, never was, and never will be about her.

As far as I am concerned this election is about her. I think electing her would be disastrous for the country and I will do everything I can to prevent this, even if it means voting for Trump. I am afraid Trump will make a bad president, but not as bad as Clinton.

Why do people in your country see it as an either or, what about a third party?

I rarely vote for the two main parties in my country and we have a decent third party which is gaining ground and gaining seats. In fact there are probably a few parties that are doing this, a two party preferred system is crap.

Dan,

It's an either/or, because either Clinton will win, or Trump. Nobody else has a chance to win.

Some people(DBowling this means you ), throw their vote away on a 3rd or 4th party candidate.

Is it not this sort of mentality that traps you into a two party preferred system?

You should never cast your vote trying to stop someone being president, you should cast your vote for who you want president.

We're already trapped in a two party system. It's just the reality of it.

One way to look at it, is to simply vote for whom we believe would be the best president. But realistically, if that person has no chance to win, we need to think about voting for the best option, who has a chance to win. That way it's a vote against the worst option.

Again, it's just the reality of it.

[Danieltwotwenty]

As far as I am concerned this election is about her. I think electing her would be disastrous for the country and I will do everything I can to prevent this, even if it means voting for Trump. I am afraid Trump will make a bad president, but not as bad as Clinton.

Why do people in your country see it as an either or, what about a third party?

I rarely vote for the two main parties in my country and we have a decent third party which is gaining ground and gaining seats. In fact there are probably a few parties that are doing this, a two party preferred system is crap.

Dan,

It's an either/or, because either Clinton will win, or Trump. Nobody else has a chance to win.

Some people(DBowling this means you ), throw their vote away on a 3rd or 4th party candidate.

Is it not this sort of mentality that traps you into a two party preferred system?

You should never cast your vote trying to stop someone being president, you should cast your vote for who you want president.

We're already trapped in a two party system. It's just the reality of it.

One way to look at it, is to simply vote for whom we believe would be the best president. But realistically, if that person has no chance to win, we need to think about voting for the best option, who has a chance to win. That way it's a vote against the worst option.

Again, it's just the reality of it.

I remember people used to say the same thing in our country.

[RickD]

Why do people in your country see it as an either or, what about a third party?

I rarely vote for the two main parties in my country and we have a decent third party which is gaining ground and gaining seats. In fact there are probably a few parties that are doing this, a two party preferred system is crap.

Dan,

It's an either/or, because either Clinton will win, or Trump. Nobody else has a chance to win.

Some people(DBowling this means you ), throw their vote away on a 3rd or 4th party candidate.

Is it not this sort of mentality that traps you into a two party preferred system?

You should never cast your vote trying to stop someone being president, you should cast your vote for who you want president.

We're already trapped in a two party system. It's just the reality of it.

One way to look at it, is to simply vote for whom we believe would be the best president. But realistically, if that person has no chance to win, we need to think about voting for the best option, who has a chance to win. That way it's a vote against the worst option.

Again, it's just the reality of it.

I remember people used to say the same thing in our country.

I know nothing about Aussie politics, but if you have 3 parties with a legitimate chance to win, then count yourselves fortunate. We have a two party monopoly here.

It kinda sucks, because I'd really like to vote for Jill Stein.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Dan,

It's an either/or, because either Clinton will win, or Trump. Nobody else has a chance to win.

Some people(DBowling this means you ), throw their vote away on a 3rd or 4th party candidate.

Is it not this sort of mentality that traps you into a two party preferred system?

You should never cast your vote trying to stop someone being president, you should cast your vote for who you want president.

We're already trapped in a two party system. It's just the reality of it.

One way to look at it, is to simply vote for whom we believe would be the best president. But realistically, if that person has no chance to win, we need to think about voting for the best option, who has a chance to win. That way it's a vote against the worst option.

Again, it's just the reality of it.

I remember people used to say the same thing in our country.

I know nothing about Aussie politics, but if you have 3 parties with a legitimate chance to win, then count yourselves fortunate. We have a two party monopoly here.

It kinda sucks, because I'd really like to vote for Jill Stein.

Well not quite yet, it is still gaining ground at this stage. But there are a few minor parties and independents that hold the balance of power in the senate and the house of reps (your congress).
So while they may not be able to win an election yet, they can still affect change and with time may one day win an election. More and more people are getting sick of two party preferred, I think by 2020 we will have a three party preferred and hopefully more in the future.

[RickD]

Is it not this sort of mentality that traps you into a two party preferred system?

You should never cast your vote trying to stop someone being president, you should cast your vote for who you want president.

We're already trapped in a two party system. It's just the reality of it.

One way to look at it, is to simply vote for whom we believe would be the best president. But realistically, if that person has no chance to win, we need to think about voting for the best option, who has a chance to win. That way it's a vote against the worst option.

Again, it's just the reality of it.

I remember people used to say the same thing in our country.

I know nothing about Aussie politics, but if you have 3 parties with a legitimate chance to win, then count yourselves fortunate. We have a two party monopoly here.

It kinda sucks, because I'd really like to vote for Jill Stein.

Well not quite yet, it is still gaining ground at this stage. But there are a few minor parties and independents that hold the balance of power in the senate and the house of reps (your congress).
So while they may not be able to win an election yet, they can still affect change and with time may one day win an election. More and more people are getting sick of two party preferred, I think by 2020 we will have a three party preferred and hopefully more in the future.

People here are tired of the antics of the two parties. That's precisely why Donald Trump, an outsider, has become so popular. People are just sick of the political establishment in both parties.

[Danieltwotwenty]

We're already trapped in a two party system. It's just the reality of it.

One way to look at it, is to simply vote for whom we believe would be the best president. But realistically, if that person has no chance to win, we need to think about voting for the best option, who has a chance to win. That way it's a vote against the worst option.

Again, it's just the reality of it.

I remember people used to say the same thing in our country.

I know nothing about Aussie politics, but if you have 3 parties with a legitimate chance to win, then count yourselves fortunate. We have a two party monopoly here.

It kinda sucks, because I'd really like to vote for Jill Stein.

Well not quite yet, it is still gaining ground at this stage. But there are a few minor parties and independents that hold the balance of power in the senate and the house of reps (your congress).
So while they may not be able to win an election yet, they can still affect change and with time may one day win an election. More and more people are getting sick of two party preferred, I think by 2020 we will have a three party preferred and hopefully more in the future.

People here are tired of the antics of the two parties. That's precisely why Donald Trump, an outsider, has become so popular. People are just sick of the political establishment in both parties.

Do you seriously believe that Trump is not going to be just a puppet for his own personal gain?
I am not saying Hillary is any better, I actually see no difference between them.

[RickD]

I remember people used to say the same thing in our country.

I know nothing about Aussie politics, but if you have 3 parties with a legitimate chance to win, then count yourselves fortunate. We have a two party monopoly here.

It kinda sucks, because I'd really like to vote for Jill Stein.

Well not quite yet, it is still gaining ground at this stage. But there are a few minor parties and independents that hold the balance of power in the senate and the house of reps (your congress).
So while they may not be able to win an election yet, they can still affect change and with time may one day win an election. More and more people are getting sick of two party preferred, I think by 2020 we will have a three party preferred and hopefully more in the future.

People here are tired of the antics of the two parties. That's precisely why Donald Trump, an outsider, has become so popular. People are just sick of the political establishment in both parties.

Do you seriously believe that Trump is not going to be just a puppet for his own personal gain?
I am not saying Hillary is any better, I actually see no difference between them.

How can he be a puppet and be for his own personal gain? Isn't that a conflict?

Honestly, I think Trump would appoint good people around him. He would need to heed their advice. Just like any other successful president would need to.

And yes, there's a difference between what would happen if Trump gets elected, and Hillary gets elected. Hillary would just be more of what Obama has given us. And trump will be something different. Better or worse than Obama? Who knows.

[Danieltwotwenty]

I guess it's all a matter of opinion, like you said nobody knows how Trump is going to be.
The Obama administration did quite well, especially since he had both arms tied behind his back. But that is just my opinion, only time will tell in the case of Trump or Hillary.

[Jac3510]

Is it not this sort of mentality that traps you into a two party preferred system?

No.

You should never cast your vote trying to stop someone being president, you should cast your vote for who you want president.

It's absurd to say that someone should never vote to prevent a person from becoming POTUS if you believe that election would be particularly harmful. More generally, sometimes we are forced by conscience and prudence to act in a manner that we wish we did not have to in order to prevent some terrible consequence. That's just life, and to suggest that we should never act except when the action is comfortable is unrealistic and psychologically and spiritually dangerous. Such an attitude opens one up for what is called "moral injury," and we ought not counsel people to go in that direction. Instead, we should counsel honesty and realism, always in every case. Prudence is a virtue, you know.

Do you seriously believe that Trump is not going to be just a puppet for his own personal gain?

I don't know that he is or isn't, but that doesn't enter into the equation. If it does, it is only in this way: liberals argue two self-contradictory points, that Trump is only in it for selfish game, and that he is dangerous and might start a world war. But if the former, he would not and cannot allow the latter (starting a world war would be terrible for his brand!); and if the latter, he cannot be the former.

The question is whether or not Trump is a minimally acceptable alternative to Clinton, and that is OBVIOUSLY true.

I am not saying Hillary is any better, I actually see no difference between them.

Then you have not been paying attention. They would treat trade differently. They would treat immigration differently. They would treat SCOTUS appointments differently. They will treat policing differently. They would treat Wall Street differently. They would treat the Federal Reserve differently. They would treat foreign policy differently. Moreover, while Trump may be bombastic and ultimately fail to pass his agenda, Clinton has a 30 year history of scandal, which includes the FBI director saying the way she handled our nations highest secrets in an "extremely careless" fashion. THAT is disqualifying for the presidency and a major difference. Her incompetence allowed one of our nation's ambassadors to be murdered, and then she tried to cover it up with a cover story about a video. ISIS, now a worldwide threat, came into prominence on her watch. In other words, she has failed on all counts. You simply cannot say that Trump fits in those categories. Moreover, there is a MAJOR difference in how they will be treated. Clinton will just not be vetted by the media, anymore than Obama has. She will have a rubberstamp for her policies in the Senate and House Democrats, and they'll routinely get enough Republicans to flip that she will get her entire agenda passed. That is, there will be no checks and balances. Against that, if Trump is elected, the media will be against him from day one and won't allow anything to go by without scrutiny. The Democrats will oppose absolutely everything he wants to do, and Republicans won't be inclined to play ball on a lot of things he wants. That means Trump will be forced to negotiate to get any of his agenda passed, which is actually good for the country. In other words, with Trump, there will be checks and balances.

In short, to say that there is no difference is just naive, or at least dishonest.

[abelcainsbrother]

I really don't understand why it seems ya'll doubt Trump will make a great President.The only way he won't is if he doesn't do the things he's running on and I see no reason why ya'll should think he won't. It will be good having America ran like a business instead of the way politicians have run it.

[Danieltwotwenty]

In short, to say that there is no difference is just naive, or at least dishonest.

I didn't mean no difference as in policy, I mean't no difference in both being corrupt. Sorry should have been more clear.

[Philip]

A third party COULD be great IF:

- It truly presented views and policies that offered considerably/collectively better alternatives to those favored by the two mainstream parties.

- IF the third party had the interest from the masses, in the proper numbers, to surge to victory - even if by a rather slim majority over the 2nd most popular candidate/party.

The problem in America has historically been that third party candidates can't typically attract adequate numbers, and so what they do is take away the ability of one of the other candidates to win - which might be good or bad, depending upon one's political slant. And so unless a third party candidate looks posed to truly have anywhere close to a chance at winning, really, voting for them is to essentially throw one's vote away, so as to help one of the other candidates. Typically, you can see which of the mainstream candidates that would be hurt the most by the third party candidate. Third party candidates typically have been very liberal, Greens, or Libertarian, or propelled mostly by one or two key issues. In '68, George Wallace had one of the most successful candidacies of any third-party candidate - worrying both Humphrey and Nixon. He was propelled by the "pissed off Joe Sixpack brigades." It's also why candidates who can't win their party's nomination can threaten a party's chosen candidate, if they decide to run third party. Of course, Trump had hinted, before his juggernaut, that he might do so.

Interestingly, George Washington didn't favor political parties - shockingly ( ), as he thought they would be divisive.

[RickD]

I guess it's all a matter of opinion, like you said nobody knows how Trump is going to be.
The Obama administration did quite well, especially since he had both arms tied behind his back. But that is just my opinion, only time will tell in the case of Trump or Hillary.

Dan,

If you only knew what you just said. Only die-hard, leftist liberals, with blinders on, think the Obama administration did well.

Just an FYI, Daniel "I'm not a liberal".