Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Minor Party Candidates for President

BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 11:29:37 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
This is a redo of an earlier post, but I have updated it. Added parts are in italics

So we know the 4 candidates for President who actually have the ability to win the electoral college (Clinton, Drumpf, Johnson, Stein), but in addition to these candidates who can actually win, there are other candidates for president who are on only a few state ballots. So here are just a few.

The newly formed American Delta Party (as in last month new) has nominated former Democratic Presidential Primary candidate and businessman Rocky De La Fuente for president and Michael Steinberg for Vice President. They have also been nominated by the Reform Party (the party founded by Ross Perot). They will be on the ballot in 9 states with 90 electoral votes.

Darell Castle, Attorney and Former Constitution Party VP candidate, has been nominated by the Paleoconservative and Christian right Constitution Party. His vice president is Scott Bradley, former administrator of Utah State University. They will be on the ballot in 20 States (183 Electoral votes)

The Party for Socialism and Liberation is a Revolutionary Socialist party on the ballot in 5 states with 62 electoral votes. Their nominee is Gloria La Riva, an Anti-War activist. Her running mate is activist and journalist Eugene Puryear. The pair also ran on the PSL ticket in 2008 and will appear on the Liberty Union Party line in Vermont. La Riva has also been nominated by the Peace and Freedom Party, but with Dennis Banks,the co-founder and long-time leader of the American Indian Movement, as her running mate. This ticket will appear on the ballot in California.

Independent Candidate Evan McMullin is a Former CIA agent and the Policy director for the House Republican caucus. He is running as an Anti-Trump alternative for Republicans who are opposed to Trump, but also opposed to Clinton and Johnson. His campaign is organized by Better for America.

The Socialist Workers Party, a Castroist party, has nominated Alyson Kennedy, a coal miner, and activist. Her running mate is Civil rights activist Osborne Hart. They are on the ballot in 3 states.

If you believe we should go back to the good old days of Prohibition, then Prohibition party candidate and former Tax James Hedges is for you. He is a staunch conservative who believes Alcohol should be illegal, and the first member of the Prohibition party to be elected to any public office since 1959. He is on the ballot in three states with 21 electoral votes.

The Socialist Party USA, the only descendant of the original Socialist Party of America to engage in electoral politics, has nominated National Party co-chair Mimi Soltysik and Angela Walker for President and Vice President. They will appear on the ballot in Colorado and in Michigan.

If you care about Veterans or consider yourself a moderate, and live in Mississippi, then Veterans Party candidate Chris Keniston is for you. He is only on the ballot in Mississippi.

If you are concerned about Nutrition, then meet Restauranter Rod Silva, founder of the Nutrition party and their Presidential candidate. He is on the ballot in Colorado.

Farley Anderson is the Candidate for the Paleoconservative, Pro-Gold Standard, Christian right Independent American Party. He is on the ballot in 3 states.

If you consider yourself a Conservative, then Meet Tom Hoefling, founder of America's Party, and their candidate. He is a conservative activist and former associate of conservative activist and former diplomat, Alan Keyes. They will be on the ballot in 3 states.

Monica Moorehead is the nominee for the communist Workers' World Party. Morehead also ran on the Workers' World Party ticket in 2000, with Gloria La Riva as her running mate (La Riva is now the nominee of the Party for Socialism and Liberation and the Peace and Freedom Party). Morehead is on the ballot in New Jersey

The Christian Democratic/Distributionist American Solidarity Party has nominated Mike Maturen for President and Juan Mu"oz for Vice President. They are pro-life, both in regard to abortion and capital punishment. They are on the ballot in Colorado.

These are just a few candidates running for president who are on the ballot in only a few states. These candidates represent all ends of the spectrum and some have good ideas, however at the end of the day, their campaigns are doomed to be futile and they will never be president, as it is impossible for them to win the electoral college.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 11:40:48 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 11:29:37 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:

I think these no-name candidates merely underscore the significance of American politics, while simultaneously highlighting the power the two-party system currently has.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 11:49:50 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 11:40:48 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 8/22/2016 11:29:37 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:

I think these no-name candidates merely underscore the significance of American politics, while simultaneously highlighting the power the two-party system currently has.

I have to agree. It would be better if the Left Candidates would unite behind Jill Stein and if the Right parties would nominate a unity candidate. Most of these parties exist because of disagreements about leadership.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 11:53:52 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 11:49:50 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 8/22/2016 11:40:48 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 8/22/2016 11:29:37 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:

I think these no-name candidates merely underscore the significance of American politics, while simultaneously highlighting the power the two-party system currently has.

I have to agree. It would be better if the Left Candidates would unite behind Jill Stein and if the Right parties would nominate a unity candidate. Most of these parties exist because of disagreements about leadership.

That would mark the demise of the two party system. I'm not sure if that would be good or bad. You've seen all those pseudo parties. It'd be a political mess. Not that that isn't the case already...
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 2:32:49 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 11:29:37 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:

The Christian Democratic/Distributionist American Solidarity Party has nominated Mike Maturen for President and Juan Mu"oz for Vice President. They are pro-life, both in regard to abortion and capital punishment. They are on the ballot in Colorado.

*Waves flag*
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 3:16:40 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 2:32:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/22/2016 11:29:37 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:

The Christian Democratic/Distributionist American Solidarity Party has nominated Mike Maturen for President and Juan Mu"oz for Vice President. They are pro-life, both in regard to abortion and capital punishment. They are on the ballot in Colorado.

*Waves flag*
?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 3:23:15 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 3:16:40 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 8/23/2016 2:32:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/22/2016 11:29:37 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:

The Christian Democratic/Distributionist American Solidarity Party has nominated Mike Maturen for President and Juan Mu"oz for Vice President. They are pro-life, both in regard to abortion and capital punishment. They are on the ballot in Colorado.

*Waves flag*
?

Distributism is my ideal economic system, and I love the old-school Christian traditionalists in the spirit of Tolkien, Belloc, Eliot, Chesterton, and Lewis, who are actually consistent and principled in their beliefs.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 4:12:34 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 3:23:15 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/23/2016 3:16:40 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 8/23/2016 2:32:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/22/2016 11:29:37 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:

The Christian Democratic/Distributionist American Solidarity Party has nominated Mike Maturen for President and Juan Mu"oz for Vice President. They are pro-life, both in regard to abortion and capital punishment. They are on the ballot in Colorado.

*Waves flag*
?

Distributism is my ideal economic system, and I love the old-school Christian traditionalists in the spirit of Tolkien, Belloc, Eliot, Chesterton, and Lewis, who are actually consistent and principled in their beliefs.

I admire certain aspects of distributionism, however it is centered on religion, while socialism can be reliously interpreted and with a broader focus.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 4:38:50 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 4:12:34 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 8/23/2016 3:23:15 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/23/2016 3:16:40 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
?

Distributism is my ideal economic system, and I love the old-school Christian traditionalists in the spirit of Tolkien, Belloc, Eliot, Chesterton, and Lewis, who are actually consistent and principled in their beliefs.

I admire certain aspects of distributionism, however it is centered on religion, while socialism can be reliously interpreted and with a broader focus.

I think that the broad focus actually hurts socialism incredibly, because it saps any ideological potency that it has. I also think that socialism has an odd view of human nature, and that the ideal is to subordinate economic life to the more human dimensions, which requires an appeal outside of economics. Materialism cannot, in my opinion, adequately defend human dignity, and far too much of socialism is purely materialistic.

Chesterton, I think, best explains the weakness of flexibility:

"The man we see every day -- the worker in Mr. Gradgrind's factory, the little clerk in Mr. Gradgrind's office -- he is too mentally worried to believe in freedom. He is kept quiet with revolutionary literature. He is calmed and kept in his place by a constant succession of wild philosophies. He is a Marxian one day, a Nietzscheite the next day, a Superman (probably) the next day; and a slave every day. The only thing that remains after all the philosophies is the factory. The only man who gains by all the philosophies is Gradgrind. It would be worth his while to keep his commercial helotry supplied with sceptical literature. And now I come to think of it, of course, Gradgrind is famous for giving libraries. He shows his sense. All modern books are on his side. As long as the vision of heaven is always changing, the vision of earth will be exactly the same. No ideal will remain long enough to be realized, or even partly realized. The modern young man will never change his environment; for he will always change his mind.

This, therefore, is our first requirement about the ideal towards which progress is directed; it must be fixed. Whistler used to make many rapid studies of a sitter; it did not matter if he tore up twenty portraits. But it would matter if he looked up twenty times, and each time saw a new person sitting placidly for his portrait. So it does not matter (comparatively speaking) how often humanity fails to imitate its ideal; for then all its old failures are fruitful. But it does frightfully matter how often humanity changes its ideal; for then all its old failures are fruitless. The question therefore becomes this: How can we keep the artist discontented with his pictures while preventing him from being vitally discontented with his art? How can we make a man always dissatisfied with his work, yet always satisfied with working? How can we make sure that the portrait painter will throw the portrait out of window instead of taking the natural and more human course of throwing the sitter out of window?

A strict rule is not only necessary for ruling; it is also necessary for rebelling. This fixed and familiar ideal is necessary to any sort of revolution. Man will sometimes act slowly upon new ideas; but he will only act swiftly upon old ideas. If I am merely to float or fade or evolve, it may be towards something anarchic; but if I am to riot, it must be for something respectable. This is the whole weakness of certain schools of progress and moral evolution. They suggest that there has been a slow movement towards morality, with an imperceptible ethical change in every year or at every instant. There is only one great disadvantage in this theory. It talks of a slow movement towards justice; but it does not permit a swift movement. A man is not allowed to leap up and declare a certain state of things to be intrinsically intolerable. To make the matter clear, it is better to take a specific example. Certain of the idealistic vegetarians, such as Mr. Salt, say that the time has now come for eating no meat; by implication they assume that at one time it was right to eat meat, and they suggest (in words that could be quoted) that some day it may be wrong to eat milk and eggs. I do not discuss here the question of what is justice to animals. I only say that whatever is justice ought, under given conditions, to be prompt justice. If an animal is wronged, we ought to be able to rush to his rescue. But how can we rush if we are, perhaps, in advance of our time? How can we rush to catch a train which may not arrive for a few centuries? How can I denounce a man for skinning cats, if he is only now what I may possibly become in drinking a glass of milk? A splendid and insane Russian sect ran about taking all the cattle out of all the carts. How can I pluck up courage to take the horse out of my hansom-cab, when I do not know whether my evolutionary watch is only a little fast or the cabman's a little slow? Suppose I say to a sweater, 'Slavery suited one stage of evolution.' And suppose he answers, 'And sweating suits this stage of evolution.' How can I answer if there is no eternal test? If sweaters can be behind the current morality, why should not philanthropists be in front of it? What on earth is the current morality, except in its literal sense -- the morality that is always running away?

Thus we may say that a permanent ideal is as necessary to the innovator as to the conservative; it is necessary whether we wish the king's orders to be promptly executed or whether we only wish the king to be promptly executed. The guillotine has many sins, but to do it justice there is nothing evolutionary about it. The favourite evolutionary argument finds its best answer in the axe. The Evolutionist says, 'Where do you draw the line?' the Revolutionist answers, 'I draw it HERE: exactly between your head and body.' There must at any given moment be an abstract right and wrong if any blow is to be struck; there must be something eternal if there is to be anything sudden. Therefore for all intelligible human purposes, for altering things or for keeping things as they are, for rounding a system for ever, as in China, or for altering it every month as in the early French Revolution, it is equally necessary that the vision should be a fixed vision. This is our first requirement."
- Orthodoxy -
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 5:08:13 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 11:29:37 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
This is a redo of an earlier post, but I have updated it. Added parts are in italics

So we know the 4 candidates for President who actually have the ability to win the electoral college (Clinton, Drumpf, Johnson, Stein), but in addition to these candidates who can actually win, there are other candidates for president who are on only a few state ballots. So here are just a few.


We all know that third party and independent runs for president this day-in-age is absolutely worthless. It only scalps potential voters from the main event; democrat vs republican.

Maybe we should start a semi-pro political league for these guys that continually insist on 72 virgin-ing voter bases for their individual sides of the liberal / conservative spectrum.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 7:21:04 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
According to DDO polls, Zoltan Istvan will win the election. Where is he?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 3:47:22 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 4:38:50 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/23/2016 4:12:34 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 8/23/2016 3:23:15 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/23/2016 3:16:40 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
?

Distributism is my ideal economic system, and I love the old-school Christian traditionalists in the spirit of Tolkien, Belloc, Eliot, Chesterton, and Lewis, who are actually consistent and principled in their beliefs.

I admire certain aspects of distributionism, however it is centered on religion, while socialism can be reliously interpreted and with a broader focus.

I think that the broad focus actually hurts socialism incredibly, because it saps any ideological potency that it has. I also think that socialism has an odd view of human nature, and that the ideal is to subordinate economic life to the more human dimensions, which requires an appeal outside of economics. Materialism cannot, in my opinion, adequately defend human dignity, and far too much of socialism is purely materialistic.

Chesterton, I think, best explains the weakness of flexibility:

"The man we see every day -- the worker in Mr. Gradgrind's factory, the little clerk in Mr. Gradgrind's office -- he is too mentally worried to believe in freedom. He is kept quiet with revolutionary literature. He is calmed and kept in his place by a constant succession of wild philosophies. He is a Marxian one day, a Nietzscheite the next day, a Superman (probably) the next day; and a slave every day. The only thing that remains after all the philosophies is the factory. The only man who gains by all the philosophies is Gradgrind. It would be worth his while to keep his commercial helotry supplied with sceptical literature. And now I come to think of it, of course, Gradgrind is famous for giving libraries. He shows his sense. All modern books are on his side. As long as the vision of heaven is always changing, the vision of earth will be exactly the same. No ideal will remain long enough to be realized, or even partly realized. The modern young man will never change his environment; for he will always change his mind.

This, therefore, is our first requirement about the ideal towards which progress is directed; it must be fixed. Whistler used to make many rapid studies of a sitter; it did not matter if he tore up twenty portraits. But it would matter if he looked up twenty times, and each time saw a new person sitting placidly for his portrait. So it does not matter (comparatively speaking) how often humanity fails to imitate its ideal; for then all its old failures are fruitful. But it does frightfully matter how often humanity changes its ideal; for then all its old failures are fruitless. The question therefore becomes this: How can we keep the artist discontented with his pictures while preventing him from being vitally discontented with his art? How can we make a man always dissatisfied with his work, yet always satisfied with working? How can we make sure that the portrait painter will throw the portrait out of window instead of taking the natural and more human course of throwing the sitter out of window?

A strict rule is not only necessary for ruling; it is also necessary for rebelling. This fixed and familiar ideal is necessary to any sort of revolution. Man will sometimes act slowly upon new ideas; but he will only act swiftly upon old ideas. If I am merely to float or fade or evolve, it may be towards something anarchic; but if I am to riot, it must be for something respectable. This is the whole weakness of certain schools of progress and moral evolution. They suggest that there has been a slow movement towards morality, with an imperceptible ethical change in every year or at every instant. There is only one great disadvantage in this theory. It talks of a slow movement towards justice; but it does not permit a swift movement. A man is not allowed to leap up and declare a certain state of things to be intrinsically intolerable. To make the matter clear, it is better to take a specific example. Certain of the idealistic vegetarians, such as Mr. Salt, say that the time has now come for eating no meat; by implication they assume that at one time it was right to eat meat, and they suggest (in words that could be quoted) that some day it may be wrong to eat milk and eggs. I do not discuss here the question of what is justice to animals. I only say that whatever is justice ought, under given conditions, to be prompt justice. If an animal is wronged, we ought to be able to rush to his rescue. But how can we rush if we are, perhaps, in advance of our time? How can we rush to catch a train which may not arrive for a few centuries? How can I denounce a man for skinning cats, if he is only now what I may possibly become in drinking a glass of milk? A splendid and insane Russian sect ran about taking all the cattle out of all the carts. How can I pluck up courage to take the horse out of my hansom-cab, when I do not know whether my evolutionary watch is only a little fast or the cabman's a little slow? Suppose I say to a sweater, 'Slavery suited one stage of evolution.' And suppose he answers, 'And sweating suits this stage of evolution.' How can I answer if there is no eternal test? If sweaters can be behind the current morality, why should not philanthropists be in front of it? What on earth is the current morality, except in its literal sense -- the morality that is always running away?

Thus we may say that a permanent ideal is as necessary to the innovator as to the conservative; it is necessary whether we wish the king's orders to be promptly executed or whether we only wish the king to be promptly executed. The guillotine has many sins, but to do it justice there is nothing evolutionary about it. The favourite evolutionary argument finds its best answer in the axe. The Evolutionist says, 'Where do you draw the line?' the Revolutionist answers, 'I draw it HERE: exactly between your head and body.' There must at any given moment be an abstract right and wrong if any blow is to be struck; there must be something eternal if there is to be anything sudden. Therefore for all intelligible human purposes, for altering things or for keeping things as they are, for rounding a system for ever, as in China, or for altering it every month as in the early French Revolution, it is equally necessary that the vision should be a fixed vision. This is our first requirement."
- Orthodoxy -

The problem with this however is that it is based in a purley religious motive and does not have a unifying goal: that of social justice.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 3:47:29 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 5:08:13 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/22/2016 11:29:37 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
This is a redo of an earlier post, but I have updated it. Added parts are in italics

So we know the 4 candidates for President who actually have the ability to win the electoral college (Clinton, Drumpf, Johnson, Stein), but in addition to these candidates who can actually win, there are other candidates for president who are on only a few state ballots. So here are just a few.


We all know that third party and independent runs for president this day-in-age ARE absolutely worthless. It only scalps potential voters from the main event; democrat vs republican

I detest that notion as it assumes that politicians are entitled to our votes. I am voting for Jill Stein, and if I had to choose between Trump and Clinton, I would still choose Jill Stein. Clinton will never get my vote, Trump will never get my vote

Maybe we should start a semi-pro political league for these guys that continually insist on 72 virgin-ing voter bases for their individual sides of the liberal / conservative spectrum.

Well Candidates for the various socialist parties and the Greens would not be willing to conceed in a primary to someone like Clinton and many of the conservative candidates are running on Anti-Trump campaigns.
RookieApologist
Posts: 469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 4:06:51 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
I'm torn on a daily basis whether to vote for Trump or just go with my conscience and vote for Darrell Castle, assuming he's on the ballot. I think there are merits to either argument (voting your conscience or voting to help take away a vote from someone you don't want in office). What I don't support is changing your stance or values to meet a candidate, or lying for the candidate to make them sound better.

Right now I'm likely to vote for Trump, even though I think he's a horrible candidate, and hardly conservative. I'd be doing so because I think Hillary is way worse and is basically a terrible person and that democratic policies in general are bad for the country.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 4:07:46 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 11:29:37 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
This is a redo of an earlier post, but I have updated it. Added parts are in italics

So we know the 4 candidates for President who actually have the ability to win the electoral college (Clinton, Drumpf, Johnson, Stein), but in addition to these candidates who can actually win, there are other candidates for president who are on only a few state ballots. So here are just a few.

The newly formed American Delta Party (as in last month new) has nominated former Democratic Presidential Primary candidate and businessman Rocky De La Fuente for president and Michael Steinberg for Vice President. They have also been nominated by the Reform Party (the party founded by Ross Perot). They will be on the ballot in 9 states with 90 electoral votes.

Darell Castle, Attorney and Former Constitution Party VP candidate, has been nominated by the Paleoconservative and Christian right Constitution Party. His vice president is Scott Bradley, former administrator of Utah State University. They will be on the ballot in 20 States (183 Electoral votes)

The Party for Socialism and Liberation is a Revolutionary Socialist party on the ballot in 5 states with 62 electoral votes. Their nominee is Gloria La Riva, an Anti-War activist. Her running mate is activist and journalist Eugene Puryear. The pair also ran on the PSL ticket in 2008 and will appear on the Liberty Union Party line in Vermont. La Riva has also been nominated by the Peace and Freedom Party, but with Dennis Banks,the co-founder and long-time leader of the American Indian Movement, as her running mate. This ticket will appear on the ballot in California.

Independent Candidate Evan McMullin is a Former CIA agent and the Policy director for the House Republican caucus. He is running as an Anti-Trump alternative for Republicans who are opposed to Trump, but also opposed to Clinton and Johnson. His campaign is organized by Better for America.

The Socialist Workers Party, a Castroist party, has nominated Alyson Kennedy, a coal miner, and activist. Her running mate is Civil rights activist Osborne Hart. They are on the ballot in 3 states.

If you believe we should go back to the good old days of Prohibition, then Prohibition party candidate and former Tax James Hedges is for you. He is a staunch conservative who believes Alcohol should be illegal, and the first member of the Prohibition party to be elected to any public office since 1959. He is on the ballot in three states with 21 electoral votes.

The Socialist Party USA, the only descendant of the original Socialist Party of America to engage in electoral politics, has nominated National Party co-chair Mimi Soltysik and Angela Walker for President and Vice President. They will appear on the ballot in Colorado and in Michigan.

If you care about Veterans or consider yourself a moderate, and live in Mississippi, then Veterans Party candidate Chris Keniston is for you. He is only on the ballot in Mississippi.

If you are concerned about Nutrition, then meet Restauranter Rod Silva, founder of the Nutrition party and their Presidential candidate. He is on the ballot in Colorado.

Farley Anderson is the Candidate for the Paleoconservative, Pro-Gold Standard, Christian right Independent American Party. He is on the ballot in 3 states.

If you consider yourself a Conservative, then Meet Tom Hoefling, founder of America's Party, and their candidate. He is a conservative activist and former associate of conservative activist and former diplomat, Alan Keyes. They will be on the ballot in 3 states.

Monica Moorehead is the nominee for the communist Workers' World Party. Morehead also ran on the Workers' World Party ticket in 2000, with Gloria La Riva as her running mate (La Riva is now the nominee of the Party for Socialism and Liberation and the Peace and Freedom Party). Morehead is on the ballot in New Jersey

The Christian Democratic/Distributionist American Solidarity Party has nominated Mike Maturen for President and Juan Mu"oz for Vice President. They are pro-life, both in regard to abortion and capital punishment. They are on the ballot in Colorado.

These are just a few candidates running for president who are on the ballot in only a few states. These candidates represent all ends of the spectrum and some have good ideas, however at the end of the day, their campaigns are doomed to be futile and they will never be president, as it is impossible for them to win the electoral college.

This is the year to vote third party.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 4:08:24 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 7:21:04 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
According to DDO polls, Zoltan Istvan will win the election. Where is he?

He isn't on the ballot anywhere in the US.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 4:09:29 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 4:07:46 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/22/2016 11:29:37 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
This is a redo of an earlier post, but I have updated it. Added parts are in italics

So we know the 4 candidates for President who actually have the ability to win the electoral college (Clinton, Drumpf, Johnson, Stein), but in addition to these candidates who can actually win, there are other candidates for president who are on only a few state ballots. So here are just a few.

The newly formed American Delta Party (as in last month new) has nominated former Democratic Presidential Primary candidate and businessman Rocky De La Fuente for president and Michael Steinberg for Vice President. They have also been nominated by the Reform Party (the party founded by Ross Perot). They will be on the ballot in 9 states with 90 electoral votes.

Darell Castle, Attorney and Former Constitution Party VP candidate, has been nominated by the Paleoconservative and Christian right Constitution Party. His vice president is Scott Bradley, former administrator of Utah State University. They will be on the ballot in 20 States (183 Electoral votes)

The Party for Socialism and Liberation is a Revolutionary Socialist party on the ballot in 5 states with 62 electoral votes. Their nominee is Gloria La Riva, an Anti-War activist. Her running mate is activist and journalist Eugene Puryear. The pair also ran on the PSL ticket in 2008 and will appear on the Liberty Union Party line in Vermont. La Riva has also been nominated by the Peace and Freedom Party, but with Dennis Banks,the co-founder and long-time leader of the American Indian Movement, as her running mate. This ticket will appear on the ballot in California.

Independent Candidate Evan McMullin is a Former CIA agent and the Policy director for the House Republican caucus. He is running as an Anti-Drumpf alternative for Republicans who are opposed to Drumpf, but also opposed to Clinton and Johnson. His campaign is organized by Better for America.

The Socialist Workers Party, a Castroist party, has nominated Alyson Kennedy, a coal miner, and activist. Her running mate is Civil rights activist Osborne Hart. They are on the ballot in 3 states.

If you believe we should go back to the good old days of Prohibition, then Prohibition party candidate and former Tax James Hedges is for you. He is a staunch conservative who believes Alcohol should be illegal, and the first member of the Prohibition party to be elected to any public office since 1959. He is on the ballot in three states with 21 electoral votes.

The Socialist Party USA, the only descendant of the original Socialist Party of America to engage in electoral politics, has nominated National Party co-chair Mimi Soltysik and Angela Walker for President and Vice President. They will appear on the ballot in Colorado and in Michigan.

If you care about Veterans or consider yourself a moderate, and live in Mississippi, then Veterans Party candidate Chris Keniston is for you. He is only on the ballot in Mississippi.

If you are concerned about Nutrition, then meet Restauranter Rod Silva, founder of the Nutrition party and their Presidential candidate. He is on the ballot in Colorado.

Farley Anderson is the Candidate for the Paleoconservative, Pro-Gold Standard, Christian right Independent American Party. He is on the ballot in 3 states.

If you consider yourself a Conservative, then Meet Tom Hoefling, founder of America's Party, and their candidate. He is a conservative activist and former associate of conservative activist and former diplomat, Alan Keyes. They will be on the ballot in 3 states.

Monica Moorehead is the nominee for the communist Workers' World Party. Morehead also ran on the Workers' World Party ticket in 2000, with Gloria La Riva as her running mate (La Riva is now the nominee of the Party for Socialism and Liberation and the Peace and Freedom Party). Morehead is on the ballot in New Jersey

The Christian Democratic/Distributionist American Solidarity Party has nominated Mike Maturen for President and Juan Mu"oz for Vice President. They are pro-life, both in regard to abortion and capital punishment. They are on the ballot in Colorado.

These are just a few candidates running for president who are on the ballot in only a few states. These candidates represent all ends of the spectrum and some have good ideas, however at the end of the day, their campaigns are doomed to be futile and they will never be president, as it is impossible for them to win the electoral college.

This is the year to vote third party.

Agreed, but vote for one who has the ability to win, not one of these candidates
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 4:40:10 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 4:08:24 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 8/23/2016 7:21:04 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
According to DDO polls, Zoltan Istvan will win the election. Where is he?

He isn't on the ballot anywhere in the US.

The transhumanist revolution will not fail!
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 5:34:43 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 3:47:29 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 8/23/2016 5:08:13 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/22/2016 11:29:37 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
This is a redo of an earlier post, but I have updated it. Added parts are in italics

So we know the 4 candidates for President who actually have the ability to win the electoral college (Clinton, Drumpf, Johnson, Stein), but in addition to these candidates who can actually win, there are other candidates for president who are on only a few state ballots. So here are just a few.


We all know that third party and independent runs for president this day-in-age ARE absolutely worthless. It only scalps potential voters from the main event; democrat vs republican

I detest that notion as it assumes that politicians are entitled to our votes. I am voting for Jill Stein, and if I had to choose between Trump and Clinton, I would still choose Jill Stein. Clinton will never get my vote, Trump will never get my vote

Maybe we should start a semi-pro political league for these guys that continually insist on 72 virgin-ing voter bases for their individual sides of the liberal / conservative spectrum.

Well Candidates for the various socialist parties and the Greens would not be willing to conceed in a primary to someone like Clinton and many of the conservative candidates are running on Anti-Trump campaigns.

You can detest my statement all you want, but prove me wrong. Name the independent, 3rd party candidate who beat out the republican and democratic parties and was elected as president of the U.S.

The novelty of a semi-pro government is pretty amusing still though.
NewLifeChristian
Posts: 1,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 6:25:35 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 11:29:37 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
This is a redo of an earlier post, but I have updated it. Added parts are in italics

So we know the 4 candidates for President who actually have the ability to win the electoral college (Clinton, Drumpf, Johnson, Stein), but in addition to these candidates who can actually win, there are other candidates for president who are on only a few state ballots. So here are just a few.

The newly formed American Delta Party (as in last month new) has nominated former Democratic Presidential Primary candidate and businessman Rocky De La Fuente for president and Michael Steinberg for Vice President. They have also been nominated by the Reform Party (the party founded by Ross Perot). They will be on the ballot in 9 states with 90 electoral votes.

Darell Castle, Attorney and Former Constitution Party VP candidate, has been nominated by the Paleoconservative and Christian right Constitution Party. His vice president is Scott Bradley, former administrator of Utah State University. They will be on the ballot in 20 States (183 Electoral votes)

The Party for Socialism and Liberation is a Revolutionary Socialist party on the ballot in 5 states with 62 electoral votes. Their nominee is Gloria La Riva, an Anti-War activist. Her running mate is activist and journalist Eugene Puryear. The pair also ran on the PSL ticket in 2008 and will appear on the Liberty Union Party line in Vermont. La Riva has also been nominated by the Peace and Freedom Party, but with Dennis Banks,the co-founder and long-time leader of the American Indian Movement, as her running mate. This ticket will appear on the ballot in California.

Independent Candidate Evan McMullin is a Former CIA agent and the Policy director for the House Republican caucus. He is running as an Anti-Trump alternative for Republicans who are opposed to Trump, but also opposed to Clinton and Johnson. His campaign is organized by Better for America.

The Socialist Workers Party, a Castroist party, has nominated Alyson Kennedy, a coal miner, and activist. Her running mate is Civil rights activist Osborne Hart. They are on the ballot in 3 states.

If you believe we should go back to the good old days of Prohibition, then Prohibition party candidate and former Tax James Hedges is for you. He is a staunch conservative who believes Alcohol should be illegal, and the first member of the Prohibition party to be elected to any public office since 1959. He is on the ballot in three states with 21 electoral votes.

The Socialist Party USA, the only descendant of the original Socialist Party of America to engage in electoral politics, has nominated National Party co-chair Mimi Soltysik and Angela Walker for President and Vice President. They will appear on the ballot in Colorado and in Michigan.

If you care about Veterans or consider yourself a moderate, and live in Mississippi, then Veterans Party candidate Chris Keniston is for you. He is only on the ballot in Mississippi.

If you are concerned about Nutrition, then meet Restauranter Rod Silva, founder of the Nutrition party and their Presidential candidate. He is on the ballot in Colorado.

Farley Anderson is the Candidate for the Paleoconservative, Pro-Gold Standard, Christian right Independent American Party. He is on the ballot in 3 states.

If you consider yourself a Conservative, then Meet Tom Hoefling, founder of America's Party, and their candidate. He is a conservative activist and former associate of conservative activist and former diplomat, Alan Keyes. They will be on the ballot in 3 states.

Monica Moorehead is the nominee for the communist Workers' World Party. Morehead also ran on the Workers' World Party ticket in 2000, with Gloria La Riva as her running mate (La Riva is now the nominee of the Party for Socialism and Liberation and the Peace and Freedom Party). Morehead is on the ballot in New Jersey

The Christian Democratic/Distributionist American Solidarity Party has nominated Mike Maturen for President and Juan Mu"oz for Vice President. They are pro-life, both in regard to abortion and capital punishment. They are on the ballot in Colorado.

These are just a few candidates running for president who are on the ballot in only a few states. These candidates represent all ends of the spectrum and some have good ideas, however at the end of the day, their campaigns are doomed to be futile and they will never be president, as it is impossible for them to win the electoral college.
Why so many parties? Why can't we just have a socially conservative economically liberal, economically conservative socially liberal, socially conservative economically conservative, and socially liberal economically liberal party? Then we can have independents.

A four-party system works the best, the other parties are simply unnecessary.
Pro-Life Quotes:

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."
- Ronald Reagan

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"A person is a person no matter how small."
- Dr. Seuss
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 8:49:14 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 3:47:22 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 8/23/2016 4:38:50 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I think that the broad focus actually hurts socialism incredibly, because it saps any ideological potency that it has. I also think that socialism has an odd view of human nature, and that the ideal is to subordinate economic life to the more human dimensions, which requires an appeal outside of economics. Materialism cannot, in my opinion, adequately defend human dignity, and far too much of socialism is purely materialistic.

Chesterton, I think, best explains the weakness of flexibility:

"The man we see every day -- the worker in Mr. Gradgrind's factory, the little clerk in Mr. Gradgrind's office -- he is too mentally worried to believe in freedom. He is kept quiet with revolutionary literature. He is calmed and kept in his place by a constant succession of wild philosophies. He is a Marxian one day, a Nietzscheite the next day, a Superman (probably) the next day; and a slave every day. The only thing that remains after all the philosophies is the factory. The only man who gains by all the philosophies is Gradgrind. It would be worth his while to keep his commercial helotry supplied with sceptical literature. And now I come to think of it, of course, Gradgrind is famous for giving libraries. He shows his sense. All modern books are on his side. As long as the vision of heaven is always changing, the vision of earth will be exactly the same. No ideal will remain long enough to be realized, or even partly realized. The modern young man will never change his environment; for he will always change his mind.

This, therefore, is our first requirement about the ideal towards which progress is directed; it must be fixed. Whistler used to make many rapid studies of a sitter; it did not matter if he tore up twenty portraits. But it would matter if he looked up twenty times, and each time saw a new person sitting placidly for his portrait. So it does not matter (comparatively speaking) how often humanity fails to imitate its ideal; for then all its old failures are fruitful. But it does frightfully matter how often humanity changes its ideal; for then all its old failures are fruitless. The question therefore becomes this: How can we keep the artist discontented with his pictures while preventing him from being vitally discontented with his art? How can we make a man always dissatisfied with his work, yet always satisfied with working? How can we make sure that the portrait painter will throw the portrait out of window instead of taking the natural and more human course of throwing the sitter out of window?

A strict rule is not only necessary for ruling; it is also necessary for rebelling. This fixed and familiar ideal is necessary to any sort of revolution. Man will sometimes act slowly upon new ideas; but he will only act swiftly upon old ideas. If I am merely to float or fade or evolve, it may be towards something anarchic; but if I am to riot, it must be for something respectable. This is the whole weakness of certain schools of progress and moral evolution. They suggest that there has been a slow movement towards morality, with an imperceptible ethical change in every year or at every instant. There is only one great disadvantage in this theory. It talks of a slow movement towards justice; but it does not permit a swift movement. A man is not allowed to leap up and declare a certain state of things to be intrinsically intolerable. To make the matter clear, it is better to take a specific example. Certain of the idealistic vegetarians, such as Mr. Salt, say that the time has now come for eating no meat; by implication they assume that at one time it was right to eat meat, and they suggest (in words that could be quoted) that some day it may be wrong to eat milk and eggs. I do not discuss here the question of what is justice to animals. I only say that whatever is justice ought, under given conditions, to be prompt justice. If an animal is wronged, we ought to be able to rush to his rescue. But how can we rush if we are, perhaps, in advance of our time? How can we rush to catch a train which may not arrive for a few centuries? How can I denounce a man for skinning cats, if he is only now what I may possibly become in drinking a glass of milk? A splendid and insane Russian sect ran about taking all the cattle out of all the carts. How can I pluck up courage to take the horse out of my hansom-cab, when I do not know whether my evolutionary watch is only a little fast or the cabman's a little slow? Suppose I say to a sweater, 'Slavery suited one stage of evolution.' And suppose he answers, 'And sweating suits this stage of evolution.' How can I answer if there is no eternal test? If sweaters can be behind the current morality, why should not philanthropists be in front of it? What on earth is the current morality, except in its literal sense -- the morality that is always running away?

Thus we may say that a permanent ideal is as necessary to the innovator as to the conservative; it is necessary whether we wish the king's orders to be promptly executed or whether we only wish the king to be promptly executed. The guillotine has many sins, but to do it justice there is nothing evolutionary about it. The favourite evolutionary argument finds its best answer in the axe. The Evolutionist says, 'Where do you draw the line?' the Revolutionist answers, 'I draw it HERE: exactly between your head and body.' There must at any given moment be an abstract right and wrong if any blow is to be struck; there must be something eternal if there is to be anything sudden. Therefore for all intelligible human purposes, for altering things or for keeping things as they are, for rounding a system for ever, as in China, or for altering it every month as in the early French Revolution, it is equally necessary that the vision should be a fixed vision. This is our first requirement."
- Orthodoxy -

The problem with this however is that it is based in a purley religious motive and does not have a unifying goal: that of social justice.

What is wrong with purely religious motives? As the whole excerpt explains, orthodox religious motives are unique in that they do not change beyond a point and are not subject to the tangents and derailment that materialist revolutions are. That's why the products of the Distributist movement while it lasted were real reforms which curtailed the influence of the wealthy and powerful. In some more Catholic countries and regions, entire sectors of the economy were transformed to follow a cooperative model. What have the results of the materialist revolutions been? Hellish, bureaucratic states that mill flesh instead of grist, or fleeting victories which soon collapse back into capitalistic control. England has long ago fallen to the most vicious brand of Capitalism, Scandinavia is in the process of doing so, while Malta, Portugal, Spain and parts of France still boast a heavy level of cooperatives and more dispersed means of productions.

And how on earth is social justice unifying? It's nebulous and ill-defined. I mean, look at the left right now. It's the furthest thing from unified, and the wedge that has shattered it seems to be none other than 'social justice'.

It's addressed in the argument. If the charge to justice is to be swift, then what is the immortal standard which defines justice and demands such profound urgency? If it is to be slow and gradual, how can any sense of 'justice' exist? How can the drive to political action and revolution be justified if everything is just 'following its course'?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 9:10:56 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 5:34:43 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/23/2016 3:47:29 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 8/23/2016 5:08:13 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/22/2016 11:29:37 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
This is a redo of an earlier post, but I have updated it. Added parts are in italics

So we know the 4 candidates for President who actually have the ability to win the electoral college (Clinton, Drumpf, Johnson, Stein), but in addition to these candidates who can actually win, there are other candidates for president who are on only a few state ballots. So here are just a few.


We all know that third party and independent runs for president this day-in-age ARE absolutely worthless. It only scalps potential voters from the main event; democrat vs republican

I detest that notion as it assumes that politicians are entitled to our votes. I am voting for Jill Stein, and if I had to choose between Drumpf and Clinton, I would still choose Jill Stein. Clinton will never get my vote, Drumpf will never get my vote

Maybe we should start a semi-pro political league for these guys that continually insist on 72 virgin-ing voter bases for their individual sides of the liberal / conservative spectrum.

Well Candidates for the various socialist parties and the Greens would not be willing to conceed in a primary to someone like Clinton and many of the conservative candidates are running on Anti-Drumpf campaigns.

You can detest my statement all you want, but prove me wrong. Name the independent, 3rd party candidate who beat out the republican and democratic parties and was elected as president of the U.S.

That's not the point I was making. I was saying that politicians do not have an entitlement to our votes.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 9:12:41 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 4:40:10 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 8/23/2016 4:08:24 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 8/23/2016 7:21:04 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
According to DDO polls, Zoltan Istvan will win the election. Where is he?

He isn't on the ballot anywhere in the US.

The transhumanist revolution will not fail!

Well you gotta get on the ballot first
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 9:16:54 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 9:10:56 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 8/23/2016 5:34:43 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/23/2016 3:47:29 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 8/23/2016 5:08:13 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/22/2016 11:29:37 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
This is a redo of an earlier post, but I have updated it. Added parts are in italics

So we know the 4 candidates for President who actually have the ability to win the electoral college (Clinton, Drumpf, Johnson, Stein), but in addition to these candidates who can actually win, there are other candidates for president who are on only a few state ballots. So here are just a few.


We all know that third party and independent runs for president this day-in-age ARE absolutely worthless. It only scalps potential voters from the main event; democrat vs republican

I detest that notion as it assumes that politicians are entitled to our votes. I am voting for Jill Stein, and if I had to choose between Drumpf and Clinton, I would still choose Jill Stein. Clinton will never get my vote, Drumpf will never get my vote

Maybe we should start a semi-pro political league for these guys that continually insist on 72 virgin-ing voter bases for their individual sides of the liberal / conservative spectrum.

Well Candidates for the various socialist parties and the Greens would not be willing to conceed in a primary to someone like Clinton and many of the conservative candidates are running on Anti-Drumpf campaigns.

You can detest my statement all you want, but prove me wrong. Name the independent, 3rd party candidate who beat out the republican and democratic parties and was elected as president of the U.S.

That's not the point I was making. I was saying that politicians do not have an entitlement to our votes.

Agreed, but thinking of this logically, voting for a candidate who has no realistic chance of winning is the same as simply not going to vote; either road you choose, at the end of the day your vote meant nothing as there is no 3rd or 4th place prize in presidential elections.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 9:22:56 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 9:16:54 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/23/2016 9:10:56 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 8/23/2016 5:34:43 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/23/2016 3:47:29 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 8/23/2016 5:08:13 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/22/2016 11:29:37 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
This is a redo of an earlier post, but I have updated it. Added parts are in italics

So we know the 4 candidates for President who actually have the ability to win the electoral college (Clinton, Drumpf, Johnson, Stein), but in addition to these candidates who can actually win, there are other candidates for president who are on only a few state ballots. So here are just a few.


We all know that third party and independent runs for president this day-in-age ARE absolutely worthless. It only scalps potential voters from the main event; democrat vs republican

I detest that notion as it assumes that politicians are entitled to our votes. I am voting for Jill Stein, and if I had to choose between Drumpf and Clinton, I would still choose Jill Stein. Clinton will never get my vote, Drumpf will never get my vote

Maybe we should start a semi-pro political league for these guys that continually insist on 72 virgin-ing voter bases for their individual sides of the liberal / conservative spectrum.

Well Candidates for the various socialist parties and the Greens would not be willing to conceed in a primary to someone like Clinton and many of the conservative candidates are running on Anti-Drumpf campaigns.

You can detest my statement all you want, but prove me wrong. Name the independent, 3rd party candidate who beat out the republican and democratic parties and was elected as president of the U.S.

That's not the point I was making. I was saying that politicians do not have an entitlement to our votes.

Agreed, but thinking of this logically, voting for a candidate who has no realistic chance of winning is the same as simply not going to vote; either road you choose, at the end of the day your vote meant nothing as there is no 3rd or 4th place prize in presidential elections.

There is no second place either, there is only one winner. By your logic voting for the candidate who has a lower chance of winning (in this election that is Trump, at least according to the current odds) is a wasted vote. At the end of the day your candidate didn't win, and so technically your vote was wasted.
And not voting does not appear in the final count. Your opinion has not been registered. A wise man once told me your vote is your voice, and by not voting you are silencing your voice. By voting, not matter who you vote for, you are expressing your voice. You are saying that these are the policies that I support, these are the policies I believe in, and this is what I want for my country.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 9:26:39 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 6:25:35 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
At 8/22/2016 11:29:37 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
This is a redo of an earlier post, but I have updated it. Added parts are in italics

So we know the 4 candidates for President who actually have the ability to win the electoral college (Clinton, Drumpf, Johnson, Stein), but in addition to these candidates who can actually win, there are other candidates for president who are on only a few state ballots. So here are just a few.

The newly formed American Delta Party (as in last month new) has nominated former Democratic Presidential Primary candidate and businessman Rocky De La Fuente for president and Michael Steinberg for Vice President. They have also been nominated by the Reform Party (the party founded by Ross Perot). They will be on the ballot in 9 states with 90 electoral votes.

Darell Castle, Attorney and Former Constitution Party VP candidate, has been nominated by the Paleoconservative and Christian right Constitution Party. His vice president is Scott Bradley, former administrator of Utah State University. They will be on the ballot in 20 States (183 Electoral votes)

The Party for Socialism and Liberation is a Revolutionary Socialist party on the ballot in 5 states with 62 electoral votes. Their nominee is Gloria La Riva, an Anti-War activist. Her running mate is activist and journalist Eugene Puryear. The pair also ran on the PSL ticket in 2008 and will appear on the Liberty Union Party line in Vermont. La Riva has also been nominated by the Peace and Freedom Party, but with Dennis Banks,the co-founder and long-time leader of the American Indian Movement, as her running mate. This ticket will appear on the ballot in California.

Independent Candidate Evan McMullin is a Former CIA agent and the Policy director for the House Republican caucus. He is running as an Anti-Drumpf alternative for Republicans who are opposed to Drumpf, but also opposed to Clinton and Johnson. His campaign is organized by Better for America.

The Socialist Workers Party, a Castroist party, has nominated Alyson Kennedy, a coal miner, and activist. Her running mate is Civil rights activist Osborne Hart. They are on the ballot in 3 states.

If you believe we should go back to the good old days of Prohibition, then Prohibition party candidate and former Tax James Hedges is for you. He is a staunch conservative who believes Alcohol should be illegal, and the first member of the Prohibition party to be elected to any public office since 1959. He is on the ballot in three states with 21 electoral votes.

The Socialist Party USA, the only descendant of the original Socialist Party of America to engage in electoral politics, has nominated National Party co-chair Mimi Soltysik and Angela Walker for President and Vice President. They will appear on the ballot in Colorado and in Michigan.

If you care about Veterans or consider yourself a moderate, and live in Mississippi, then Veterans Party candidate Chris Keniston is for you. He is only on the ballot in Mississippi.

If you are concerned about Nutrition, then meet Restauranter Rod Silva, founder of the Nutrition party and their Presidential candidate. He is on the ballot in Colorado.

Farley Anderson is the Candidate for the Paleoconservative, Pro-Gold Standard, Christian right Independent American Party. He is on the ballot in 3 states.

If you consider yourself a Conservative, then Meet Tom Hoefling, founder of America's Party, and their candidate. He is a conservative activist and former associate of conservative activist and former diplomat, Alan Keyes. They will be on the ballot in 3 states.

Monica Moorehead is the nominee for the communist Workers' World Party. Morehead also ran on the Workers' World Party ticket in 2000, with Gloria La Riva as her running mate (La Riva is now the nominee of the Party for Socialism and Liberation and the Peace and Freedom Party). Morehead is on the ballot in New Jersey

The Christian Democratic/Distributionist American Solidarity Party has nominated Mike Maturen for President and Juan Mu"oz for Vice President. They are pro-life, both in regard to abortion and capital punishment. They are on the ballot in Colorado.

These are just a few candidates running for president who are on the ballot in only a few states. These candidates represent all ends of the spectrum and some have good ideas, however at the end of the day, their campaigns are doomed to be futile and they will never be president, as it is impossible for them to win the electoral college.
Why so many parties? Why can't we just have a socially conservative economically liberal, economically conservative socially liberal, socially conservative economically conservative, and socially liberal economically liberal party? Then we can have independents.

A four-party system works the best, the other parties are simply unnecessary.

To quote James Maddison "Liberty is to faction what air is to fire...". That should answer the question of why there are so many parties.
Now as to why we cannot have a socially conservative, economically liberal party and an economically conservative, socially liberal party etc. is because that is simply not how politics work. Politics are not simply liberal conservative. Parties are formed around overall ideologies and sometimes these ideologies are not liberal or conservative, They can be socialist, nationalist, communist, conservative, libertarian, Christian democratic, liberal, green, fascist or a subset of any of these, or a combination of several of these.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 11:33:02 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 9:22:56 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 8/23/2016 9:16:54 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/23/2016 9:10:56 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 8/23/2016 5:34:43 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/23/2016 3:47:29 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 8/23/2016 5:08:13 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/22/2016 11:29:37 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
This is a redo of an earlier post, but I have updated it. Added parts are in italics

So we know the 4 candidates for President who actually have the ability to win the electoral college (Clinton, Drumpf, Johnson, Stein), but in addition to these candidates who can actually win, there are other candidates for president who are on only a few state ballots. So here are just a few.


We all know that third party and independent runs for president this day-in-age ARE absolutely worthless. It only scalps potential voters from the main event; democrat vs republican

I detest that notion as it assumes that politicians are entitled to our votes. I am voting for Jill Stein, and if I had to choose between Drumpf and Clinton, I would still choose Jill Stein. Clinton will never get my vote, Drumpf will never get my vote

Maybe we should start a semi-pro political league for these guys that continually insist on 72 virgin-ing voter bases for their individual sides of the liberal / conservative spectrum.

Well Candidates for the various socialist parties and the Greens would not be willing to conceed in a primary to someone like Clinton and many of the conservative candidates are running on Anti-Drumpf campaigns.

You can detest my statement all you want, but prove me wrong. Name the independent, 3rd party candidate who beat out the republican and democratic parties and was elected as president of the U.S.

That's not the point I was making. I was saying that politicians do not have an entitlement to our votes.

Agreed, but thinking of this logically, voting for a candidate who has no realistic chance of winning is the same as simply not going to vote; either road you choose, at the end of the day your vote meant nothing as there is no 3rd or 4th place prize in presidential elections.

There is no second place either, there is only one winner. By your logic voting for the candidate who has a lower chance of winning (in this election that is Trump, at least according to the current odds) is a wasted vote.


If you can't see the difference between voting for either the republican party or democrat party vs one of the other party nominees that barely make the ballot, you're either not being honest or you're dumb as a box of rocks.

If you didn't catch the hint of sarcasm from my first post with the whole semi-pro government statement, you're taking the topic way too seriously here.


And not voting does not appear in the final count. Your opinion has not been registered.


What, are you a self-checkout station at the grocery store or something? Unknown item in bagging area.

A wise man once told me your vote is your voice, and by not voting you are silencing your voice. By voting, not matter who you vote for, you are expressing your voice.


No, your voice is your voice; he doesn't seem very wise to me.


You are saying that these are the policies that I support, these are the policies I believe in, and this is what I want for my country.


OK great....but again, speaking purely from logic, if you vote for a candidate who ends the election with less than 3% of the vote; how influential are his, and your policy demands? Does that person even have the standing to negotiate a single policy into action with the winning party?

Again, just my personal, logic driven opinion.