Is it time to consider voting for the 3rd party candidate(s)?

[TxHoops]

I know many of you would be holding your nose when voting for Trump.  I know many Dems who feel the same about Hillary.  I have also heard time and again that not voting or voting Libertarian is a vote for Hillary.  This in my opinion is inherently flawed logic.  It is also held, in my estimation, by many who still believe Ross Perot cost GHWB the election in '92, the actual polling data be darned.  In fact, the reverse is just as likely to be true, Perot cost Clinton more votes.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Of course, you may prefer Trump to the Johnson/Weld ticket, which makes it a non-issue.  But if, like a huge block of voters, you think the two main parties offer horrible alternatives, would you consider voting for the 3rd party candidates?

[Englebert]

I will vote for whoever hurts Hillary's chances more. I would vote for Koko The Gorilla over Hillary. I'm dead serious. While y'all are laughing, I will explain. Koko's only ability would be to basically keep the status quo. I feel Hillary will inflict (more) major damage to this country. Koko will not have the ability to nominate a Supreme Court nominee. Koko will not have the ability to enact more of the Global Warming Lie legislation. Koko will not try to limit/eliminate 2nd Amendment rights. Koko will not have the ability to raise taxes. Koko will not try to turn this country more socialist than it's become. Koko will not have the ability to do a lot of things Hillary wants to do. Although this country severely needs a new direction, Koko at least would not have the ability to inflict more damage. 

Now, since it's clear I don't want Hillary in office, I must choose the best strategy to prevent her from occupying the White House. Johnson (or any of the other third party choices) has zero chance of beating either candidate. Therefore, a vote for third party means one less vote in opposition to Hillary. (No flawed logic here.) If Johnson was a more viable candidate, I would love to vote for him. I strongly disagree with some of his policies, but I also align with many of them. Same with Trump. I don't align with any of Hillary's policies...none that I can think of.

I would not be opposed to any non-Liberal, and I do mean any (including the clinically insane) gaining the White House over any Progressive Liberal. My choices will start with whoever is the most Capitalistic and working my way down to a slug before a Progressive Liberal. So to answer your question, I would consider a third party candidate. But that candidate would have to have a reasonable chance of preventing the Liberal from gaining the White House.

My answer pertains to this election only. I would love for this country to move to three or even four major parties. I don't see it happening in the near future, but the upside would be terrific. The problem is that the choices are basically dichotic...big government versus small government control. Everything else takes a back seat. Any third party that emerges will pull their majority of voters from one side, thus allowing the other side to dominate. A fourth party could combat that, but then one side will conglomerate to emerge as a superparty again. The other side would then pool, thus going back to two major parties. The best option would be to have about twenty choices in every election, choices up and down the spectrum. But many parties/politicians will always convince voters that we need the "together we stand" strategy to prevent the other side from winning, which will always lead back to a two party system.

[TxHoops]

27 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I will vote for whoever hurts Hillary's chances more. I would vote for Koko The Gorilla over Hillary. I'm dead serious. While y'all are laughing, I will explain. Koko's only ability would be to basically keep the status quo. I feel Hillary will inflict (more) major damage to this country. Koko will not have the ability to nominate a Supreme Court nominee. Koko will not have the ability to enact more of the Global Warming Lie legislation. Koko will not try to limit/eliminate 2nd Amendment rights. Koko will not have the ability to raise taxes. Koko will not try to turn this country more socialist than it's become. Koko will not have the ability to do a lot of things Hillary wants to do. Although this country severely needs a new direction, Koko at least would not have the ability to inflict more damage. 

Now, since it's clear I don't want Hillary in office, I must choose the best strategy to prevent her from occupying the White House. Johnson (or any of the other third party choices) has zero chance of beating either candidate. Therefore, a vote for third party means one less vote in opposition to Hillary. (No flawed logic here.) If Johnson was a more viable candidate, I would love to vote for him. I strongly disagree with some of his policies, but I also align with many of them. Same with Trump. I don't align with any of Hillary's policies...none that I can think of.

I would not be opposed to any non-Liberal, and I do mean any (including the clinically insane) gaining the White House over any Progressive Liberal. My choices will start with whoever is the most Capitalistic and working my way down to a slug before a Progressive Liberal. So to answer your question, I would consider a third party candidate. But that candidate would have to have a reasonable chance of preventing the Liberal from gaining the White House.

My answer pertains to this election only. I would love for this country to move to three or even four major parties. I don't see it happening in the near future, but the upside would be terrific. The problem is that the choices are basically dichotic...big government versus small government control. Everything else takes a back seat. Any third party that emerges will pull their majority of voters from one side, thus allowing the other side to dominate. A fourth party could combat that, but then one side will conglomerate to emerge as a superparty again. The other side would then pool, thus going back to two major parties. The best option would be to have about twenty choices in every election, choices up and down the spectrum. But many parties/politicians will always convince voters that we need the "together we stand" strategy to prevent the other side from winning, which will always lead back to a two party system.

If you believe Trump would be for small government, you haven't studied the man much or examined what little he has proposed in terms of concrete plans.  The type of policy you want to predominate an elected official's philosophy of government is simply not in his nature.  However, ironically, you do succinctly state the foundation of the Libertarian party (as little governs at involvement as possible).  

As for the logic (or flawed logic) of a non-vote or a 3rd party vote being a vote for Hillary, the following article does a decent job of explaining fallacy of that thinking:

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[TxHoops]

And by no means am I trying to discount or belittle your opinion or way of thinking.  On the contrary, I think it is a very pervasive way of thinking for the anti-Hillary folks.  I understand and appreciate the thought.  Just presenting another thought process and one I would argue is a more sound approach.  But we all have our own ways of processing things, right?

[Englebert]

17 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

If you believe Trump would be for small government, you haven't studied the man much or examined what little he has proposed in terms of concrete plans.  The type of policy you want to predominate an elected official's philosophy of government is simply not in his nature.  However, ironically, you do succinctly state the foundation of the Libertarian party (as little governs at involvement as possible).  

As for the logic (or flawed logic) of a non-vote or a 3rd party vote being a vote for Hillary, the following article does a decent job of explaining fallacy of that thinking:

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

I will disagree with the author's logic (or lack thereof) for voting third party. He delves into the theoretical of the long-term consequences without evaluating the immediate consequences. I find that very flawed logic. His long-term consequences are just based on the now, without factoring in the changes resulting from the current election winner. The actions of the winning party will consolidate the losing party voters.

[TxHoops]

And by the way, I really hope Johnson/Weld get to the 15 percent number so they can be a part of the debate process.  I know Perot took almost 20 percent of the vote, but even then there was not a situation like this where you had two candidates this unpopular squaring off. Not in the last 100 years have we had an election where a 3rd party has the potential to make a serious run.  Win or lose, it could be a huge improvement to our political process.  And it is just as possible or probable that their candidacy could be just as harmful to Hillary.  

And like it or not, without their impact and on the current trajectory, Trump's not going to win anyway.  You guys don't want to hear it but you will eventually find it to be true. 

[Englebert]

8 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

And by no means am I trying to discount or belittle your opinion or way of thinking.  On the contrary, I think it is a very pervasive way of thinking for the anti-Hillary folks.  I understand and appreciate the thought.  Just presenting another thought process and one I would argue is a more sound approach.  But we all have our own ways of processing things, right?

Never crossed my mind. If you would have called me ugly, stupid or some other name then...

And the reasons I have previously stated that I would puke when voting for Trump is that I am convinced that he is not a Conservative. He feels that he, as an elected government official, can cure the ills of the American people...a big government guy. We definitely agree on that. I feel I have a choice between two Liberals, Trump is just the lesser of the two evils. Cruz and Rand Paul were my first and second choices.

[TxHoops]

10 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I will disagree on the author's logic (or lack thereof) for voting third party. He delves into the theoretical of the long-term consequences without evaluating the immediate consequences. I find that very flawed logic. 

Here is another article by a conservative columnist that might make more sense.  You are correct about logic having nothing to do with the theoretical by the way.  Logic is more mathematical.  The conservative Mr. Wolf explains why the "theory" of the non-vote or 3rd party vote is inherently flawed:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[TxHoops]

9 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Never crossed my mind. If you would have called me ugly, stupid or some other name then...

And the reasons I have previously stated that I would puke when voting for Trump is that I am convinced that he is not a Conservative. He feels that he, as an elected government official, can cure the ills of the American people...a big government guy. We definitely agree on that. I feel I have a choice between two Liberals, Trump is just the lesser of the two evils. Cruz and Rand Paul were my first and second choices.

THAT I can definitely respect!  I suppose none of us agree completely with any candidate but I have a TON of respect for Mr. Paul.  

[Englebert]

10 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

And by the way, I really hope Johnson/Weld get to the 15 percent number so they can be a part of the debate process.  I know Perot took almost 20 percent of the vote, but even then there was not a situation like this where you had two candidates this unpopular squaring off. Not in the last 100 years have we had an election where a 3rd party has the potential to make a serious run.  Win or lose, it could be a huge improvement to our political process.  And it is just as possible or probable that their candidacy could be just as harmful to Hillary.  

And like it or not, without their impact and on the current trajectory, Trump's not going to win anyway.  You guys don't want to hear it but you will eventually find it to be true. 

I would also like to see a third party on the debate stage. If there was ever a time for a third party to make a run, this would be it.

[TxHoops]

3 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I would also like to see a third party on the debate stage. If there was ever a time for a third party to make a run, this would be it.

Amen.  More than anything, it appears to me that both parties are a mess in many ways.  I would like to see them both held accountable or turned on their ears. 

[TxHoops]

.

[TxHoops]

Another interesting thought: in talking to an ultra-conservative friend of mine today from West Texas, he is for the first time in his life not voting for the GOP candidate for President but voting for Johnson instead.  This is a guy who is one of the most politically active (literally and philosophically) people I know.  He has ran for and held offices as a Republican.  But he refuses to vote for Trump for a multitude of reasons.

Anyway, he and I go back many years and we were talking about the Libertarian ticket.  He knows I have been a big fan of Weld's for over 20 years.  I made a comment that I wish that ticket was inverted and Weld was the presidential candidate.  To which he immediately replied, "I wish all 3 tickets were inverted."

Truer words...

[Hagar]

Ironically, I'm on another forum, and (as it appears by their post) most of them are voting third party.  Ironic in the sense that we have very few third party supporters on this forum (again, per posts).  I have to side with Englebert on this issue.  As I've stated before, it's not just dislike, I'm scared of what she could possibly do as president.  An editorial I posted a while back, exhibits the reasons I fear her.  Readers Digest version:. If Trump is elected, Congress and the USSC will keep him in check.  But if Hillary is, and fills the seat on The Court, our three point check and balance is gone.   You may not agree Hoops, but if you look at it from the right, you can at least see our concern.  I'd sure rather have Bill running than her.

All that said, I'm convinced she's going to win, and Buddy, I sure hope I'm wrong.

[Hagar]

Oh, btw, one candidate for 3rd party brought up is Tom H.   Can't remember the last name (Holfling?) - something like that.  Very conservative I think.  Him & write ins.  Many folks plenty desperate. 

[thetragichippy]

Good conversation!

[Hagar]

22 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

Good conversation!

Isn't it great when folks when opposing views can have intelligent interaction?   Of course Hoops & Englebert are pole vaulting, while I'm trying to jump over a low hurdle lol.   The trouble is, finding folks who can merely "discuss" politics (like religion), is a rare thing.  And that's sad because we can learn a lot.

[TxHoops]

9 hours ago, REBgp said:

Ironically, I'm on another forum, and (as it appears by their post) most of them are voting third party.  Ironic in the sense that we have very few third party supporters on this forum (again, per posts).  I have to side with Englebert on this issue.  As I've stated before, it's not just dislike, I'm scared of what she could possibly do as president.  An editorial I posted a while back, exhibits the reasons I fear her.  Readers Digest version:. If Trump is elected, Congress and the USSC will keep him in check.  But if Hillary is, and fills the seat on The Court, our three point check and balance is gone.   You may not agree Hoops, but if you look at it from the right, you can at least see our concern.  I'd sure rather have Bill running than her.

All that said, I'm convinced she's going to win, and Buddy, I sure hope I'm wrong.

Here's another issue I have with your reasoning.  The voting for Trump because I'm concerned about the SCOTUS appointments.  Again, from my friend who is the West Texas neoconservative (I say neo because they don't consider anyone east of Dallas true conservatives - I kid, I kid).   I brought this point up yesterday and he told me the SCOTUS is one of the main reasons he WON'T vote for Trump.  My buddy is someone I would consider a legal scholar, as opposed to me where I consider myself a legal "enthusiast."   Anyway, he told me that to my surprise and immediately texted me the following article.  Again, from a conservative "rag" (I kid, I kid):

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[TxHoops]

38 minutes ago, REBgp said:

Isn't it great when folks when opposing views can have intelligent interaction?   Of course Hoops & Englebert are pole vaulting, while I'm trying to jump over a low hurdle lol.   The trouble is, finding folks who can merely "discuss" politics (like religion), is a rare thing.  And that's sad because we can learn a lot.

Amen.  One of the reasons I really enjoy my discussions with you.   We agree most of the time on sports, rarely on politics, but always in our enjoyment of our conversations on either...

And sometimes I even enjoy Nash

[new tobie]

3 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Here's another issue I have with your reasoning.  The voting for Trump because I'm concerned about the SCOTUS appointments.  Again, from my friend who is the West Texas neoconservative (I say neo because they don't consider anyone east of Dallas true conservatives - I kid, I kid).   I brought this point up yesterday and he told me the SCOTUS is one of the main reasons he WON'T vote for Trump.  My buddy is someone I would consider a legal scholar, as opposed to me where I consider myself a legal "enthusiast."   Anyway, he told me that to my surprise and immediately texted me the following article.  Again, from a conservative "rag" (I kid, I kid):

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

If hillary were to win, republicans will find that they should have went with Obama's pick

[stevenash]

8 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Here's another issue I have with your reasoning.  The voting for Trump because I'm concerned about the SCOTUS appointments.  Again, from my friend who is the West Texas neoconservative (I say neo because they don't consider anyone east of Dallas true conservatives - I kid, I kid).   I brought this point up yesterday and he told me the SCOTUS is one of the main reasons he WON'T vote for Trump.  My buddy is someone I would consider a legal scholar, as opposed to me where I consider myself a legal "enthusiast."   Anyway, he told me that to my surprise and immediately texted me the following article.  Again, from a conservative "rag" (I kid, I kid):

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

How much of that article is fact and how much is one individuals opinion?

[TxHoops]

14 minutes ago, new tobie said:

If hillary were to win, republicans will find that they should have went with Obama's pick

Consider that one in a long line of poor decisions made by the GOP...

[TxHoops]

11 minutes ago, stevenash said:

How much of that article is fact and how much is one individuals opinion?

Did you actually read it?  Obviously like most op-eds, it contains both.  I fully trust your ability to differentiate between the two.

[Englebert]

1 hour ago, TxHoops said:

Here's another issue I have with your reasoning.  The voting for Trump because I'm concerned about the SCOTUS appointments.  Again, from my friend who is the West Texas neoconservative (I say neo because they don't consider anyone east of Dallas true conservatives - I kid, I kid).   I brought this point up yesterday and he told me the SCOTUS is one of the main reasons he WON'T vote for Trump.  My buddy is someone I would consider a legal scholar, as opposed to me where I consider myself a legal "enthusiast."   Anyway, he told me that to my surprise and immediately texted me the following article.  Again, from a conservative "rag" (I kid, I kid):

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

I have to say, the author of the article did more to justify a reason to vote for Trump based on the Supreme Court pick(s) than nullify it. You can replace Trump's name with Obama and have the same arguments. He then goes on to question Trump's temperament and says there is no evidence that Trump will actually nominate a true Conservative. While this is true, I'm pretty sure everyone is fairly certain that Hillary will nominate a ultra-Liberal judge. That is known. Point...Trump. It is also known that Hillary will try to appoint anti-gun judge(s). Trump is unknown, but none of the judges he listed are anti-second amendment. Point...Trump. And I think the author severely downplays the damage that an ultra-Liberal Supreme Court will do to this country. This country, under Hillary with the backing of the Supreme Court, will continue to be flooded with illegal immigrants...and that number will grow substantially, considering her borderless attitude. Our country cannot sustain the government handouts being given now. We are $20 trillion in debt and climbing.

One equally great or possibly greater issue than illegal immigration in my opinion though is Hillary being afforded the ability to stack the court in favor of unconstitutional judges when evaluating the second amendment. I have zero doubt that Hillary will begin making unconstitutional executive orders banning certain guns, and this will be upheld by her stacked court. Assault weapons, although not defined, will be the first to go. (Which is ironic because hammers are the weapon of choice for more murders than "assault weapons".) Handguns will be the next target, as will gun manufacturers and ammunition manufacturers. She will enact orders in which you have to pay yearly fees to exercise your second amendment right (the only right that our forefathers found necessary to include the term "shall not be infringed".) But the biggest one will be mandatory background checks. The qualifications to own a gun will get tighter and tighter to the point that the Pope will not be able to pass a background check. These unlawful orders will be upheld by the stacked Supreme Court. There is no conspiracy theory here. The evidence for Hillary attempting all these things (and many more) are abundant. She will need a stacked court, and her being elected will almost guarantee it. Thus, I would vote, and highly encourage everyone to vote for Trump based on this one issue alone.

[Hagar]

5 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I have to say, the author of the article did more to justify a reason to vote for Trump based on the Supreme Court pick(s) than nullify it. You can replace Trump's name with Obama and have the same arguments. He then goes on to question Trump's temperament and says there is no evidence that Trump will actually nominate a true Conservative. While this is true, I'm pretty sure everyone is fairly certain that Hillary will nominate a ultra-Liberal judge. That is known. Point...Trump. It is also known that Hillary will try to appoint anti-gun judge(s). Trump is unknown, but none of the judges he listed are anti-second amendment. Point...Trump. And I think the author severely downplays the damage that an ultra-Liberal Supreme Court will do to this country. This country, under Hillary with the backing of the Supreme Court, will continue to be flooded with illegal immigrants...and that number will grow substantially, considering her borderless attitude. Our country cannot sustain the government handouts being given now. We are $20 trillion in debt and climbing.

One equally great or possibly greater issue than illegal immigration in my opinion though is Hillary being afforded the ability to stack the court in favor of unconstitutional judges when evaluating the second amendment. I have zero doubt that Hillary will begin making unconstitutional executive orders banning certain guns, and this will be upheld by her stacked court. Assault weapons, although not defined, will be the first to go. (Which is ironic because hammers are the weapon of choice for more murders than "assault weapons".) Handguns will be the next target, as will gun manufacturers and ammunition manufacturers. She will enact orders in which you have to pay yearly fees to exercise your second amendment right (the only right that our forefathers found necessary to include the term "will not be infringed".) But the biggest one will be mandatory background checks. The qualifications to own a gun will get tighter and tighter to the point that the Pope will not be able to pass a background check. These unlawful orders will be upheld by the stacked Supreme Court. There is no conspiracy theory here. The evidence for Hillary attempting all these things (and many more) are abundant. She will need a stacked court, and her being elected will almost guarantee it. Thus, I would vote, and highly encourage everyone to vote for Trump based on this one issue alone.

Your post reflects the same thing the editorialist did.  If Trump nominates another Scalia, that judge would still stand by the Constitution and not Trumps ideology.  If Hillary nominates another "progressive" (progressing where?), the Court will follow her lead, ergo, no restraints.  Just another opinion, but one I adhere to.