So who are you voting for?

southernbelle0915

thisismynickname said:

southernbelle0915 said:

@thisismynickname - re. the meme....says the guy who wants your vote. "people don't care about you, but I do." Come on, he's a politician. 

Look, I get the appeal. Ideally, everyone wants a perfect candidate rather than choosing between "the lesser of two evils". Of course. But realistically, the next POTUS is going to be President Clinton or President Trump. Gary Johnson is not going to win the Presidency. He's just not.

So if you're in a swing state, it's my opinion that you are tossing away your vote that could swing the election one toward a President Trump or a President Clinton in favor of someone you know is going to lose. 

So what if he's a politician. He's not wrong. I had a civil Facebook discussion with some former coworkers who had the stance of, "But you can't vote for Trump and only Hilary can beat him; think of what would happen to so many people if he became president." That's exactly what "silencing my vote so theirs can be louder" is. 

If every single person who was more voting against someone instead of for someone voted for Johnson or Stein, Johnson or Stein would be President. 

Check out who Iceland just elected president- an Independent. Sure, it's a small nation, but there was political upheaval that led the public to support someone largely non-political. 

Continuing to vote for a major party candidate when you don't support their platform is just reinforcing the cycle of us getting unpopular candidates. (But again, if you largely do identify with one of the major party candidates, then good on you.) 

But he IS wrong and he's trying to create and "us and them" mentality. I care about people who I know are voting for him. And it's not coming from a selfish place. It's actually the exact opposite. I'm putting aside my own idealism in favor of the candidate who actually has a chance at winning. 

Gary Johnson will not be President. Mathematically he does not have a chance. Maybe some day an Independent could win, but not today. So it's going to be Clinton or Trump. 

I don't like the two party system either. Despite not liking it, I admit I haven't personally done any actual work (no, FB posts/commenting doesn't count) to change it. I'm accepting that it's America's reality at the moment and voting accordingly. 

Personally, it's more important to me that we don't have a narcissistic, inexperienced, racist lunatic with nuclear codes than to say "hey, btw I don't like the two party system. so there!" with a vote for someone who isn't going to win. Also, I like Hilary Clinton and agree with her more than I disagree with her, so I'm not just voting against Trump.

STARMOON44

Major lol at if everyone who was voting against someone instead of for someone then stein or Johnson would win. I think you are vastly underestimating the number of people who are genuinely excited to vote for trump and Hillary, and completely out of touch with how little many of use care for stein and johnsons fringe policies. 

ei34

I felt the Bern in the primary but will be voting for Clinton in November. 

kylexo

STARMOON44 said:

Major lol at if everyone who was voting against someone instead of for someone then stein or Johnson would win. I think you are vastly underestimating the number of people who are genuinely excited to vote for trump and Hillary, and completely out of touch with how little many of use care for stein and johnsons fringe policies. 

Right?! I can't speak to the other side of the aisle on this, but for me, HRC is someone I am super excited to vote for (and I was in the primaries too). The fact that she's a lady is some real delicious icing on what was already (to me) a dope ass cake.

thisismynickname2

STARMOON44 said:

Major lol at if everyone who was voting against someone instead of for someone then stein or Johnson would win. I think you are vastly underestimating the number of people who are genuinely excited to vote for trump and Hillary, and completely out of touch with how little many of use care for stein and johnsons fringe policies. 

41% voting for Clinton is not a majority. So, sorry, despite what this little Knot poll says about the political ideals of TK users, the majority of people in this country don't plan to vote for her. It's only through the magic of the electoral college that she's probably going to win, which is inherently not fair. 

So having a whole bunch of people (not just here, but more in Facebook land and other sites) insist that I must give up my views to vote for someone only a minority want, is illogical. (The same math applies to Trump voters who want third-party voters to vote for him so Clinton won't win.)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

Edit to add- I don't know much about Stein and what little I know, I don't like. But to call Johnson "fringe" means you've never read his stances. Fiscal conservancy appeals to a lot of people. Social acceptance appeals to a lot of people. Non-interventionist policies appeal to the majority of the Military (more polls!). To combine all these ideals into one candidate shouldn't be such a radical concept. Fringe? Hardly. 

STARMOON44

thisismynickname said:

STARMOON44 said:

Major lol at if everyone who was voting against someone instead of for someone then stein or Johnson would win. I think you are vastly underestimating the number of people who are genuinely excited to vote for trump and Hillary, and completely out of touch with how little many of use care for stein and johnsons fringe policies. 

41% voting for Clinton is not a majority. So, sorry, despite what this little Knot poll says about the political ideals of TK users, the majority of people in this country don't plan to vote for her. It's only through the magic of the electoral college that she's probably going to win, which is inherently not fair. 

So having a whole bunch of people (not just here, but more in Facebook land and other sites) insist that I must give up my views to vote for someone only a minority want, is illogical. (The same math applies to Trump voters who want third-party voters to vote for him so Clinton won't win.)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

Edit to add- I don't know much about Stein and what little I know, I don't like. But to call Johnson "fringe" means you've never read his stances. Fiscal conservancy appeals to a lot of people. Social acceptance appeals to a lot of people. Non-interventionist policies appeal to the majority of the Military (more polls!). To combine all these ideals into one candidate shouldn't be such a radical concept. Fringe? Hardly. 

What? What are you even taking about? You said if everyone not voting against someone voted for Stein or Johnson one of them would win. Now you're talking about an absolute majority? You're even more wrong if you're suggesting that if we all vote our "conscience" Stein or Johnson gets a majority. 

Also, the electoral college isn't magic. It's a system created for reasons that everyone knows the rules of. 

He's a fringe candidate. I'm well aware of his "stances". Must be nice to have so little chance you can just have "stances" instead of reality. 

SaintPaulGal

#I'mWithHer.  Full stop.  I favored her slightly during primary season and I am 100% in her now.  

I personally think the way forward out of the mire of "wasted" votes in our two-party system is instant runoff voting, also referred to as ranked choice voting. My local elections somewhat recently switched over to that style, and it makes so much sense!  For those who are unfamiliar, voters rank candidates in order of preference.  The ballots are counted looking at voters #1 choice first.  It someone gets sufficient votes to meet the threshold for election, they are the winner.  If not, the candidate who got the fewest votes is eliminated.  Now ballots of anyone who selected the eliminated candidate in the #1 spot are recounted looking at their #2 choice

A super-simplified version would be something like this, in a precinct with 5 voters:

Choice      Voter 1          Voter 2       Voter 3            Voter 4              Voter 5
#1            Trump           Trump         Bernie              Hilary                Hilary
#2            Johnson        Johnson       Stein                Johnson             Stein
#3            Castle           (write in)      Hilary               Stein                  Johnson

Round 1:  Trump and Hilary are tied (2 votes to 2).  Bernie has the fewest #1 votes and is eliminated.

Round 2:  Ballots that originally went to Bernie are redistributed.  Jill Stein moves to the top position on Voter 3's ballot.  In this case Trump and Hilary are still tied 2 to 2.  Stein is the candidate with the fewest votes so she is eliminated.  

Round 3:  Ballots that originally went to Stein are are redistributed.  Hilary moves to the top position on Voter 3's ballot.  The count is now 3 for Hilary and 2 for Trump.  Hilary has gained the majority and she is declared the winner.

madamerwin

@SaintPaulGal I totally agree! I really don't get why we DON'T do it this way. Australia's national elections are done this way, and I am pretty sure there are other countries as well. It would be a much more accurate way to gauge who the majority prefers.

southernbelle0915

thisismynickname said:

STARMOON44 said:

Major lol at if everyone who was voting against someone instead of for someone then stein or Johnson would win. I think you are vastly underestimating the number of people who are genuinely excited to vote for trump and Hillary, and completely out of touch with how little many of use care for stein and johnsons fringe policies. 

41% voting for Clinton is not a majority. So, sorry, despite what this little Knot poll says about the political ideals of TK users, the majority of people in this country don't plan to vote for her. It's only through the magic of the electoral college that she's probably going to win, which is inherently not fair. 

So having a whole bunch of people (not just here, but more in Facebook land and other sites) insist that I must give up my views to vote for someone only a minority want, is illogical. (The same math applies to Trump voters who want third-party voters to vote for him so Clinton won't win.)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

Edit to add- I don't know much about Stein and what little I know, I don't like. But to call Johnson "fringe" means you've never read his stances. Fiscal conservancy appeals to a lot of people. Social acceptance appeals to a lot of people. Non-interventionist policies appeal to the majority of the Military (more polls!). To combine all these ideals into one candidate shouldn't be such a radical concept. Fringe? Hardly. 

Ok three points:

1) Here's what you said on Page 1:

"If every single person who was more voting against someone instead of for someone voted for Johnson or Stein, Johnson or Stein would be President."

This is a super assuming statement with literally nothing to back it up. Even if most people were voting against Clinton/Trump, it doesn't mean they would automatically vote for Johnson/Stein. 

2) I am SO sick of people voting for 3rd party candidates playing the "if people don't support me, they don't care about me" (your meme) and "I'm giving up on my views and sacrificing my idealism." If you agree with any candidate 100% you are in a very tiny minority. 

3) Now the electoral college is the problem? Look, Gary Johnson isn't winning any way you slice it. Popular vote, electoral vote, only Connecticut voting, whatever. He's. Not. Winning. So vote for him if you want, but at least own it that you're not trying to elect the next president, you're voting on principle/to make a statement. And in a swing state, that is risky if you actually care who gets elected. 

spockforprez

southernbelle0915 said:

thisismynickname said:

STARMOON44 said:

Major lol at if everyone who was voting against someone instead of for someone then stein or Johnson would win. I think you are vastly underestimating the number of people who are genuinely excited to vote for trump and Hillary, and completely out of touch with how little many of use care for stein and johnsons fringe policies. 

41% voting for Clinton is not a majority. So, sorry, despite what this little Knot poll says about the political ideals of TK users, the majority of people in this country don't plan to vote for her. It's only through the magic of the electoral college that she's probably going to win, which is inherently not fair. 

So having a whole bunch of people (not just here, but more in Facebook land and other sites) insist that I must give up my views to vote for someone only a minority want, is illogical. (The same math applies to Trump voters who want third-party voters to vote for him so Clinton won't win.)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

Edit to add- I don't know much about Stein and what little I know, I don't like. But to call Johnson "fringe" means you've never read his stances. Fiscal conservancy appeals to a lot of people. Social acceptance appeals to a lot of people. Non-interventionist policies appeal to the majority of the Military (more polls!). To combine all these ideals into one candidate shouldn't be such a radical concept. Fringe? Hardly. 

Ok three points:

1) Here's what you said on Page 1:

"If every single person who was more voting against someone instead of for someone voted for Johnson or Stein, Johnson or Stein would be President."

This is a super assuming statement with literally nothing to back it up. Even if most people were voting against Clinton/Trump, it doesn't mean they would automatically vote for Johnson/Stein. 

2) I am SO sick of people voting for 3rd party candidates playing the "if people don't support me, they don't care about me" (your meme) and "I'm giving up on my views and sacrificing my idealism." If you agree with any candidate 100% you are in a very tiny minority. 

3) Now the electoral college is the problem? Look, Gary Johnson isn't winning any way you slice it. Popular vote, electoral vote, only Connecticut voting, whatever. He's. Not. Winning. So vote for him if you want, but at least own it that you're not trying to elect the next president, you're voting on principle/to make a statement. And in a swing state, that is risky if you actually care who gets elected. 

First bolded: Definitely. For me, it's not lesser of two evils, it's one evil and three other not-ideal options. The least not-ideal for me is Hillary Clinton. So many of my facebook friends are Libertarians (which is totally fine and I have some Libertarian principles as well) and they post memes constantly like, "You don't just have to choose between the two parties. LIBERTARIAN 2016." I think this election season more than any other, everyone knows they can choose a 3rd party. IT'S JUST THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO, cause the 3rd parties suck too. 

Second bolded: This is what H is doing. Even though some of Johnson's policies are ones he abhors. For example, with the hundreds of stories of abuse and corruption and death in private prisons, H vehemently disagrees (as do I) with Johnson on his stance of full privatization of prisons. Idk how H can vote for him, actually, based on that alone. (We are both very passionate about it.) But he is, just on principle as a third party because he feels the 3rd party movement needs more momentum in the form of votes. So... good luck with that, H. 

thisismynickname2

STARMOON44 said:

thisismynickname said:

STARMOON44 said:

Major lol at if everyone who was voting against someone instead of for someone then stein or Johnson would win. I think you are vastly underestimating the number of people who are genuinely excited to vote for trump and Hillary, and completely out of touch with how little many of use care for stein and johnsons fringe policies. 

41% voting for Clinton is not a majority. So, sorry, despite what this little Knot poll says about the political ideals of TK users, the majority of people in this country don't plan to vote for her. It's only through the magic of the electoral college that she's probably going to win, which is inherently not fair. 

So having a whole bunch of people (not just here, but more in Facebook land and other sites) insist that I must give up my views to vote for someone only a minority want, is illogical. (The same math applies to Trump voters who want third-party voters to vote for him so Clinton won't win.)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

Edit to add- I don't know much about Stein and what little I know, I don't like. But to call Johnson "fringe" means you've never read his stances. Fiscal conservancy appeals to a lot of people. Social acceptance appeals to a lot of people. Non-interventionist policies appeal to the majority of the Military (more polls!). To combine all these ideals into one candidate shouldn't be such a radical concept. Fringe? Hardly. 

What? What are you even taking about? You said if everyone not voting against someone voted for Stein or Johnson one of them would win. Now you're talking about an absolute majority? You're even more wrong if you're suggesting that if we all vote our "conscience" Stein or Johnson gets a majority. 

Also, the electoral college isn't magic. It's a system created for reasons that everyone knows the rules of. 

He's a fringe candidate. I'm well aware of his "stances". Must be nice to have so little chance you can just have "stances" instead of reality. 

We're going to agree to disagree. And geez, sarcasm alert on "magic." Condescending much?
Also, reading comprehension. I did not say an absolute majority want Johnson or Stein. I said an absolute majority DON'T WANT HILARY. 

STARMOON44

thisismynickname said:

STARMOON44 said:

thisismynickname said:

STARMOON44 said:

Major lol at if everyone who was voting against someone instead of for someone then stein or Johnson would win. I think you are vastly underestimating the number of people who are genuinely excited to vote for trump and Hillary, and completely out of touch with how little many of use care for stein and johnsons fringe policies. 

41% voting for Clinton is not a majority. So, sorry, despite what this little Knot poll says about the political ideals of TK users, the majority of people in this country don't plan to vote for her. It's only through the magic of the electoral college that she's probably going to win, which is inherently not fair. 

So having a whole bunch of people (not just here, but more in Facebook land and other sites) insist that I must give up my views to vote for someone only a minority want, is illogical. (The same math applies to Trump voters who want third-party voters to vote for him so Clinton won't win.)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

Edit to add- I don't know much about Stein and what little I know, I don't like. But to call Johnson "fringe" means you've never read his stances. Fiscal conservancy appeals to a lot of people. Social acceptance appeals to a lot of people. Non-interventionist policies appeal to the majority of the Military (more polls!). To combine all these ideals into one candidate shouldn't be such a radical concept. Fringe? Hardly. 

What? What are you even taking about? You said if everyone not voting against someone voted for Stein or Johnson one of them would win. Now you're talking about an absolute majority? You're even more wrong if you're suggesting that if we all vote our "conscience" Stein or Johnson gets a majority. 

Also, the electoral college isn't magic. It's a system created for reasons that everyone knows the rules of. 

He's a fringe candidate. I'm well aware of his "stances". Must be nice to have so little chance you can just have "stances" instead of reality. 

We're going to agree to disagree. And geez, sarcasm alert on "magic." Condescending much?
Also, reading comprehension. I did not say an absolute majority want Johnson or Stein. I said an absolute majority DON'T WANT HILARY. 

That is not at all what you said. 

""If every single person who was more voting against someone instead of for someone voted for Johnson or Stein, Johnson or Stein would be President."

short+sassy

SaintPaulGal said:

#I'mWithHer.  Full stop.  I favored her slightly during primary season and I am 100% in her now.  

I personally think the way forward out of the mire of "wasted" votes in our two-party system is instant runoff voting, also referred to as ranked choice voting. My local elections somewhat recently switched over to that style, and it makes so much sense!  For those who are unfamiliar, voters rank candidates in order of preference.  The ballots are counted looking at voters #1 choice first.  It someone gets sufficient votes to meet the threshold for election, they are the winner.  If not, the candidate who got the fewest votes is eliminated.  Now ballots of anyone who selected the eliminated candidate in the #1 spot are recounted looking at their #2 choice

A super-simplified version would be something like this, in a precinct with 5 voters:

Choice      Voter 1          Voter 2       Voter 3            Voter 4              Voter 5
#1            Trump           Trump         Bernie              Hilary                Hilary
#2            Johnson        Johnson       Stein                Johnson             Stein
#3            Castle           (write in)      Hilary               Stein                  Johnson

Round 1:  Trump and Hilary are tied (2 votes to 2).  Bernie has the fewest #1 votes and is eliminated.

Round 2:  Ballots that originally went to Bernie are redistributed.  Jill Stein moves to the top position on Voter 3's ballot.  In this case Trump and Hilary are still tied 2 to 2.  Stein is the candidate with the fewest votes so she is eliminated.  

Round 3:  Ballots that originally went to Stein are are redistributed.  Hilary moves to the top position on Voter 3's ballot.  The count is now 3 for Hilary and 2 for Trump.  Hilary has gained the majority and she is declared the winner.

We do something like this in Louisiana for our gubernatorial election.  There are a number of candidates who run for that office.  If ONE of them gets at least 50.1% of the vote (it might be a different percentage), they win.

However, that usually doesn't happen in the first go-round.  So they take the two candidates who got the most votes and then have a run-off in another election about a month or so later.

Then again, we are the state who elected Bobby Jindal to be our governor...twice (hiding face in shame).

charlottesmom0626

...I just came here to read this hot mess thread because people go APESHIT over politics and I love it. 

JeeGooDowster

Still wish Bernie was running.  I really don't want to vote for Crooked Hillary but no other choice...any other vote will get Trump in.

ei34

charlottesmom0626 said:

...I just came here to read this hot mess thread because people go APESHIT over politics and I love it. 

I don't find it hot-messy.  Some people follow politics more closely than others (I'm somewhere in the middle), but I feel like those that do have a lot to say play cleaner on TK than, say, Facebook.

And I'd take apeshit passion over apathy when it's something as important as who will be running our country. (NOT saying you're apathetic, just responding to "apeshit".)

DrillSergeantCat

I actually can't vote this year because I don't have an ID with an address matching what is on file with the voter registration department. I procrastinated too long to get it changed. 

SaintPaulGal

DrillSergeantCat said:

I actually can't vote this year because I don't have an ID with an address matching what is on file with the voter registration department. I procrastinated too long to get it changed. 

Here it is, folks!  For those who claim that voter ID laws don't actually disenfranchise anyone.  Such a travesty!  I am proud to live somewhere sane where there are probably a dozen ways to authenticate your same-day voter registration

hellohkb

JeeGooDowster said:

Still wish Bernie was running.  I really don't want to vote for Crooked Hillary but no other choice...any other vote will get Trump in.

That's how I feel too. I can't stand Trump and do NOT care for Gary Johnson in the slightest, so it has to be Hillary. I loved Obama and won't have the same excitement when I voted for him this year, but we can't win 'em all. 

hellohkb

SaintPaulGal said:

DrillSergeantCat said:

I actually can't vote this year because I don't have an ID with an address matching what is on file with the voter registration department. I procrastinated too long to get it changed. 

Here it is, folks!  For those who claim that voter ID laws don't actually disenfranchise anyone.  Such a travesty!  I am proud to live somewhere sane where there are probably a dozen ways to authenticate your same-day voter registration

Yeah, I couldn't vote in the California primary because I was in between moving and did not yet have an ID from that state. The state I moved from also did not allow me to vote through a mail-in ballot, apparently. I may have misread the information but I didn't have everything together to be able to vote.

MCmeow

Eh I'm voting for Jill stein. I'm in a blue state anyway. People may see it as throwing my vote away, I see it as third party candidates slowly (very slowly) being taken more seriously, to show that a large percentage of the country is not ok with the status quo. I'm proud of my right to vote which means having the freedom of voting for who I believe in and never voting out of fear.

And people who dislike Hillary are not going to be swayed by saying things like "she's competent" "she's experienced", because she is against key issues, and we can't reverse our knowledge on that. I rather her than Trump but she is still an enemy to environmentalists and people who want peace for Syrian children, among other things. I respect people voting for her over trump though.

STARMOON44

I don't get this argument about 3rd party candidates slowly being taken more seriously. Ross Perot received 19% of the popular vote. Ralph Nader certainly made an impact. They're not like some new thing we just need to learn more about. 

MCmeow

STARMOON44 said:

I don't get this argument about 3rd party candidates slowly being taken more seriously. Ross Perot received 19% of the popular vote. Ralph Nader certainly made an impact. They're not like some new thing we just need to learn more about. 

People who care enough about certain causes want to at least try to get the issues voiced in the media instead of what we're seeing now: Hillary fainting and Trump's tweets instead of policy. There is also the issue that third party candidates need at least 15% polling to get into the national debate stage. All this isn't necessarily because we think the third party candidate will win, we're trying to push issues that are being ignored. The Democratic Party may be on the better side of things most of the time but they are very cowardly and they act on issues when the polling is in their favor, this happened with gay marriage. So just because Ralph Nadar happened doesn't mean we need to stop trying and stop teaching. 

I get being apathetic to progressive issues and the Green Party, it's your right. But the argument is essentially that we will never stop trying to make our issues heard however we can.

STARMOON44

MCmeow said:

STARMOON44 said:

I don't get this argument about 3rd party candidates slowly being taken more seriously. Ross Perot received 19% of the popular vote. Ralph Nader certainly made an impact. They're not like some new thing we just need to learn more about. 

People who care enough about certain causes want to at least try to get the issues voiced in the media instead of what we're seeing now: Hillary fainting and Trump's tweets instead of policy. There is also the issue that third party candidates need at least 15% polling to get into the national debate stage. All this isn't necessarily because we think the third party candidate will win, we're trying to push issues that are being ignored. The Democratic Party may be on the better side of things most of the time but they are very cowardly and they act on issues when the polling is in their favor, this happened with gay marriage. So just because Ralph Nadar happened doesn't mean we need to stop trying and stop teaching. 

I get being apathetic to progressive issues and the Green Party, it's your right. But the argument is essentially that we will never stop trying to make our issues heard however we can.

Oh, I'm not saying stop trying. If that's what you believe by all means keep trying. I just don't think it's about 3rd party candidates slowly gaining acceptance so much as third parties doing the local ground work to get there. I'd personally love to vote for a Geeen candidate for mayor, but that's never an option where I live. 

And I do think 15% is reasonable as a cut off for the debates.

MCmeow

STARMOON44 said:

MCmeow said:

STARMOON44 said:

I don't get this argument about 3rd party candidates slowly being taken more seriously. Ross Perot received 19% of the popular vote. Ralph Nader certainly made an impact. They're not like some new thing we just need to learn more about. 

People who care enough about certain causes want to at least try to get the issues voiced in the media instead of what we're seeing now: Hillary fainting and Trump's tweets instead of policy. There is also the issue that third party candidates need at least 15% polling to get into the national debate stage. All this isn't necessarily because we think the third party candidate will win, we're trying to push issues that are being ignored. The Democratic Party may be on the better side of things most of the time but they are very cowardly and they act on issues when the polling is in their favor, this happened with gay marriage. So just because Ralph Nadar happened doesn't mean we need to stop trying and stop teaching. 

I get being apathetic to progressive issues and the Green Party, it's your right. But the argument is essentially that we will never stop trying to make our issues heard however we can.

Oh, I'm not saying stop trying. If that's what you believe by all means keep trying. I just don't think it's about 3rd party candidates slowly gaining acceptance so much as third parties doing the local ground work to get there. I'd personally love to vote for a Geeen candidate for mayor, but that's never an option where I live. 

And I do think 15% is reasonable as a cut off for the debates.

It used to be a lower percentage and kept going up as they got close to reaching it. Honestly I think it's much too high. But maybe we'll get there eventually with enough pressure. It becomes a chicken or the egg situation. Need publicity to be in the debates, need debates to gain publicity. Also I think it's healthy for Americans to see real issues being discussed from all sides (even from libertarians, ha) instead of a childish back and forth like what we will see pretty soon (mostly from trump)

photokitty

Years ago I believed the green party when they said Nader could get doing of the vote to create a three party system. So I voted for him. We lost our chance at what would have been our greenest president yet, Al Gore. He won the popular vote, but W won the electoral college. And that was the last time I would ever throw away my vote.

Personally, I think the biggest issue most of her critics have with Hillary is that she is a woman. She is held to an entirely different standard than all the men running were or are. People bitching about her not smiling enough has enraged me. DH really didn't know that strangers tell women to smile on a regular basis.  He admits that never happens to him walking down main street. I'm fed up with American women being expected to shut up, smile and look pretty. The way Hillary is treated compared to trump had pushed me over the edge.

And she knows what Allepo is and hasn't been off committing vandalism. #StopThePipeline

I'm looking forward to voting for a qualified candidate this fall, Hillary.