LMAO!
So then you are perpetuating the very system you also denigrate:
This is why I can't take you seriously.
You are not a man of your word.
You lie.
You embellish.
You exaggerate.
You evade.
Question for dipshit 3rd Party voters
- Thread starter LV426
- Start date
LMAO!
So then you are perpetuating the very system you also denigrate:
This is why I can't take you seriously.
You are not a man of your word.
You lie.
You embellish.
You exaggerate.
You evade.
We have the same system as a parliamentary system in our electoral college but once removed from legislators.
It is even made up of exactly the same number of voters as there are congresscritters and senators (along with 3 for DC given to them by 23rd Amendment). What our founding fathers did was create a system that allowed the selection of the executive by the same number of representatives, but the representative body was separate from the legislation thus creating an executive that was not beholden to the legislature for his job and therefore not an extension of the legislature in power, a separate but equal branch to build the checks and balances that are often absent in less constitutional governments.
It is even made up of exactly the same number of voters as there are congresscritters and senators (along with 3 for DC given to them by 23rd Amendment). What our founding fathers did was create a system that allowed the selection of the executive by the same number of representatives, but the representative body was separate from the legislation thus creating an executive that was not beholden to the legislature for his job and therefore not an extension of the legislature in power, a separate but equal branch to build the checks and balances that are often absent in less constitutional governments.
You said your "wife" "faces more discrimination than will ever know", but you didn't bother to say what discrimination because that would require specifics and you're faking it.
It's another example of your evasion tactics. You say something general and broad, and when I try to narrow it down, you play coy and evasive.
So all I can do is make guesses and assumptions based on the shit you post here because you aren't truthful with anyone about anything.
Simply put: A 3P POTUS will not be able to advance a single bit of their agenda so long as their party controls zero seats in the House and Senate.
The end.
So voting 3P is voting for authoritarianism because that's the only way a 3P POTUS could govern.
Rubbish. They would be able to offer a compromise solution like any other equal branch of the government. You assume they would magically have no common ground with either of the parties in congress, and from there you make more poor assumptions.
You don't understand how the system works. Voting 3rd party does not affect ballot positioning (varies by state). It gives the 3rd party enough votes so that the nominees of that party qualify for the general election ballot in the next election without having to use the petition/signature method.
Sometimes people vote 3rd party because they favor some of the policy views of that party and hope it might result in other parties adopting some of those policies--pro-abortion, individual liberties, responsible federal spending....
you are the guy that constantly gets banned for now being able to control his/her/its rage
I will never take advice from such a dipshit
no retard. this is you being a fucking idiot and not being able to remember who says what.
What "compromise solution"? This is all in the abstract.
Take me through the actual steps a 3P POTUS takes to reach a compromise solution?
And BTW - BIDEN HAS ALREADY DONE THAT. Multiple times. Like the BIF, for instance.
So you expect a 3P POTUS can win an election by running against both parties in Congress, but then has the Jedi mind trick ability to make all those D's and R's forget about what was said during the campaign, ditch their own party's platforms, and do what some random 3P POTUS with no allies in Congress wants?
You are fucking delusional.
AND BIDEN HAS ALREADY DONE THAT ANYWAY.
No Flash, YOU don't understand how it works.
Voting 3P for POTUS doesn't magically qualify 3P candidates downballot.
And it's the downballot races you need to win in order to do any of what you want.
You focus solely on the executive because you want an authoritarian to force both sides to compromise on something neither wants because you can't pass any of it legislatively due to the fact that the 3P is a grift and your ideas are stupid.
You're just as authoritarian as anyone; you want an authoritarian to force an abstract compromise between two ideologically divided sides.
Flash, the part you are skipping is that it only qualifies candidates for that specific race.
Voting a Gary Johnson for POTUS doesn't automatically qualify a Jary Gohnson for Senate.
You need more than just POTUS if you want to govern.
But I'm starting to think you don't want anyone to govern unless that person is you.
Really? Like what policies? The funny thing about 3P's is that they don't have policies, just reactions.
Has it?
What does "individual liberties" mean? More vague Flashspeak?
You have never ONCE defended or defined "responsible federal spending" because you support tax cuts.
Oh really?
Idaho becomes one of the most extreme anti-abortion states with law restricting travel for abortions
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/wome...abortion-state-law-restricts-travel-rcna78225
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
My definition of it is tax increased combined with decreased spending until there is no deficit. After that, no more deficit spending.
Actually, the Clinton admin. was the closest to do this in the last maybe 55 years.
Believe it or not we used to have responsible federal spending, even during Vietnam. Although one could argue that was a completely irresponsible thing to spend $ on.
Anyways, It would hurt, and bad.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
Unenforceable.
Look, I'll try to break it down into first grade terms for you because you clearly cannot think. Say I get elected as a Libertarian, and I want a budget that I can sign that doesn't overspend like we're pretending that monetary policy doesn't have an effect on inflation. Now I can compromise and work out a solution with the two parties in congress, I'd begin by working with the one that holds majority personally regardless of whether they see everything my way. I'd begin with the reality, folks elected me for a reason, and it wasn't to cave to your every demand, so we need to get together and make a compromise... and we'd go from there.
You continue to pretend that everybody in congress is just never going to speak to someone that isn't in their party, or that someone not in their party cannot align with one of the two major parties, it happens all the time with Independents elected to Congress, or do you not realize that Bernie Sanders only becomes a Democrat when he wants to run for President?
Congress understands that the nation cannot function without a budget, so does the President, so the only way to get things done will be with a compromise.
Pretending that because "Biden already does" I should vote for him over a third party candidate does not change that he also appoints folks that I think are idiots when it comes to the constitution, and pushes for more spending rather than less, and often appoints idiots incapable of their jobs just because they are an "equity" pick rather than someone capable of the job. There is no reason I should vote for him because he supposedly compromised with Congress. I don't think his policy and his appointments are good choices, I'll vote for someone else, thank you very much.
and you can find evidence of me supporting this retardo?
derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp
Again, you fail to understand how the system works. If the Libertarian Party (or any party) gets the required percentage of votes in 2024 then all candidates nominated by that party qualify to appear on the 2026 general election ballot. 3rd parties typically nominate candidates by state convention rather than direct primary. That includes governor, senator, representative, state senator and representative and all other partisan offices. President may vary.
Specifics vary by state. See your college sophomore American government text.
Nobody wants to give you any specific information because you always turn it into personal insults unrelated to the political debate and often based on false assumptions and poor memory. This post is a perfect example.