Site

Categories

Discover and discuss the manliest content on the Web

This should be interesting.

25 comments

  • T-rex

    T-rex 3 years ago

    Let's be honest with ourselves, Gary Johnson (or any 3rd party candidate), regardless of how you feel about him, has a no shot of winning. There is nothing noble or moral about voting for anyone other the the two choices we are given (or abstaining). Sadly, for most of us this is all about casting a vote to stop the other side. There is a great need to organize to empower the electorate. But now is not the time in this very specific instance. Our progeny are counting on us. How big of a burden do we heap upon them?

    Reply

    • bean

      bean 3 years ago

      Agreed, and furthermore, I can totally get behind the idea of not voting for the lesser of two evils. However, my issue is the feasibility of a third party actually pulling it off! In my lifetime, I have seen Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, Ron Paul and realistically, Gary Johnson running third party campaigns that in retrospect, only push neutral votes to the actual winning campaign. The loosing partys votes were/will be negated by the "other guy". Again, I am not opposed to the idea of a third party. I suppose I am opposed to the idea ending up with the one I didnt want because a faction of my party took what they didnt like about my guy and went and voted for a lone wolf who seems to embody the best of both parties. I submit that IF the third party is to see victory, their uphill battle campaign must be initiated IMMEDIATELY following the previous election. The headstart that the traditional two party configuration must be overcome gradually instead of waiting until the standard run of the mill mid-term wind-up. This early start will get the ball rolling and by the time all the hooplah begins, they will have the necessary momentum to push headlong into the mainstream political arena. That being said, my assessment is that we have a lying, conniving, unhealthy, and incompitent option on one hand, and a verbal loose cannon bafoon who is likely to spout easily misquoted proverbs at any time, while sandwiched between the two is a campaign that is probably half decent, but because they dont have the momentum to be viable, will only garner the 20% or less of the total vote. I'll take the bafoon over liar and the realistic third place guy. In the meantime, the one candidate who has a chance to win will be in unnecessary limbo. Thoughts?

      (Sorry for all te run-ons and other such grammatical errors. I am typing as it rolls out of the cob-webs!)

      Reply

      • Chet_Manly

        Chet_Manly 3 years ago

        You made an excellent suggestion that I haven't heard elsewhere and that is that the libertarian (or whatever third party) needs to be organized in early 2018, have their selected canidate for 2020 ready to go and start aggressively pushing their platform to get name recognition. At least that is what I perceived you to be saying.

        The little guys can stand a chance but they will have to bust their tails and work much harder. I don't know a single person today that isn't interested in a third party choice for various reasons and personally, I'd love to see a third choice become a main stream option.

        Reply

        • Razorback

          Razorback 3 years ago

          This is indeed the only way it may become plausible. I fear one of the biggest hurdles will be raising the financial backing to gain the attention they would need. The media follows the money so until a third party can get the same Super PAC support the other candidates receive, it will remain an uphill battle to get the coverage necessary. The media does not give a damn about a party's position, morals, ethics, etc. Nor does it have any interest in the best thing for the people. It only cares about the money. As a friend of mine used to say, "If it don't make dollars, it don't make sense."

          Reply

    • Razorback

      Razorback 3 years ago

      I agree and this creates the dichotomy that I have personally. Being an Arkansan, I am all too familiar with the Clintons. I know people who worked for them from the governor's mansion all the way to the white house. Put short, they are not good people. In fact, they are horrible people. There is absolutely no way I could consciously vote for her.

      Trump is a disaster in almost every way. His only appeal is that he represents the collective middle finger of the American people who are fed up with our current government. But he is a buffoon and that makes him incredibly dangerous. I also dislike the slogan "Make American Great Again" because it is inaccurate. I believe our country is already great. Not without flaws, but better than most places in the world. If he had used "Make America Better Than Ever" I might have bought into the hype more.

      I am warming up to the Libertarian party. I do not agree with everything they believe in but much of it appeals to me. But to your point, it is not going to happen.

      Voting for Johnson would not be a wasted vote, per se, if that was the only way you could morally make a decision. Abstaining is another option if a person cannot consciously select one of the two front runners. A person is not required to vote and should not be made to feel compelled to vote for someone they do not like just to try and stop someone they like even less. But, like you pointed out, these options will not bode well for the future so we must sadly face the very real possibility that we do the unthinkable and decide which evil we are willing to bed with. Ugh.

      Reply

  • T-rex

    T-rex 3 years ago

    I have no problems with 3rd parties either. Voting for one now though throwing a vote away. Much too late in the game.

    The media would love nothing more than to split the republican vote. I know there are many so displeased with both, the idea of sitting it out in protest or voting 3rd party is the principled or attractive thing to do. But it is most certainly not. Trump is not at all reliable, BUT more importantly Hillary IS.

    I'm not going to defend the indefensible, but keep in mind the media is playing this exactly how they want to achieve their desired result. Consider the timing, sitting on stories to become the "October surprise." I fear we'll be looking back a couple years from now living through Obama-in-a-pantsuit, reflecting on how we got played. Let's not make that mistake.

    Reply

    • bean

      bean 3 years ago

      So did we relinquish our responsibility to be an informed citizenry or did the "informers" (media) become corrupt? Or both? And how do we mend it?

      Reply

      • elancaster65

        elancaster65 3 years ago

        Yes. And...yes.

        Reply

      • Razorback

        Razorback 3 years ago

        Short of a revolution, I honestly don't know. And trust me, I don't want that to happen.

        Reply

        • Chet_Manly

          Chet_Manly 3 years ago

          The only other idea short of violence and, a far shot though it may be, constitutionally aligned, is a convention of states. Perhaps with the type of electorate who will think outside the binary options a conventions of states could work, but I'm not sure our electorate is intelligent enough to process it yet.

          I can't agree enough on the violence. Once that occurs there is no way to stop it as countless revolutionaries have learned the hard way when they were consumed by the chaos they fomented. And the resolution to the first problem was usually much worse.

          Reply

          • Razorback

            Razorback 3 years ago

            "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

            ~John F. Kennedy

            Reply

  • 05tacoma 3 years ago

    If you like your guns you'd better pay attention to the down ticket. Hillary is going to be president. The fix for her was in before this ever started. The FIX is that ALL establishment politicians don't want this power structure upset, regardless of their party. The amount of money they make... board appointments, paid speeches, book deals, etc. etc. etc. is insane and they all get rich off the backs of Americans.

    Reply

    • Razorback

      Razorback 3 years ago

      Exactly. We have reached a point to where it is more like a single party focused on gaining as much wealth for themselves as possible. If the average citizen fully realized how much these individuals are making by bending the system, I would imagine the torches and pitchforks would be marching towards Washington.

      Reply

    • bean

      bean 3 years ago

      Ditto! I have been saying since the establishment republicans cowled down to the liberals thatthe reason they do so is because theu would rather have the status quo remain the same rather than upset the apple cart. And much more so since the candidates have become as polarized as they are. The rhinos would rather have Clinton and things be business as usual rather than loose their sweet deal.

      Reply

      • bean

        bean 3 years ago

        Ergo, term-limits!... BUT HOW!?

        Reply

        • Razorback

          Razorback 3 years ago

          Exactly, Why would you vote yourself out of a high-paying job? Not to mention one that legally allows you to conduct insider trading.

          Reply

          • bean

            bean 3 years ago

            At what point did their stipulations become up to them? What job in America, allows the employEES to dictate to the employERS the terms of said employment. (Realizing that the very fact that we are having a discussion on this topic, isbproof that they consider SERVICE equal to EMPLOYMENT...)

            Reply

        • Chet_Manly

          Chet_Manly 3 years ago

          I heard someone (sorry I can't recall a name) discussing the implementation of term limits through the convention of states. The conversation went further to need for limits set for the bureaucrats that essentially run the system. Limiting the time anyone spends in the apperate itself would be necessary, from congress and Supreme Court members, to those behind the scenes who can just "wait it out" and return to what they consider business as normal.

          That makes the most sense to me, for preventing Washington entrenchment, I only wish the convention of states idea had more traction.

          Reply

  • Titanheart

    Titanheart 3 years ago

    I think what a lot of people miss is that while voting for a third party may seem like tossing a vote in the toilet the longer term implications are that as third party candidates garner more votes, more attention must be paid to them.

    So many people still don't know that the Libertarian Party exists. I recently told a friend outright that she is backing the wrong party, that she is a Libertarian and doesn't realize it yet.

    Reply

    • Razorback

      Razorback 3 years ago

      I had this same thought. Is it a wasted vote if the results show that a third party received the support of millions of people? Wouldn't that bring more attention to the need for a third party? It would not affect this election or even the next one but if it built momentum every four years, it would have to be recognized at some point.

      But then I think of Ross Perot. He collected 19% of the vote overall, nearly 20 million votes. Yet he was denied even a single vote from the electoral college. Johnson won't even come close to getting 19% in this election.

      Reply

  • Cobrapilot

    Cobrapilot 3 years ago

    Wow. I honestly did not expect this on Gentlemint. I am surprised in a good way. I have kept my politics off of the Mint for the most part (it's obvious I like my firearms). For the past 9 years I have made it a point to consider all of the implications about voting for a third party candidate.
    So here it is, and then I'll drop it.
    I'm a Marine Corps officer, a combat veteran, a registered Libertarian, ...and I'm voting for Gary Johnson.

    Reply

    • Chet_Manly

      Chet_Manly 3 years ago

      Well, I respected you previously just based on the quality of your posts and comments, but my respect for you has grown even more for your having shared this.
      Thank you for your service and sacrifice.

      Reply

    • Razorback

      Razorback 3 years ago

      1) Thank you for your service.
      2) Thank you for being candid.

      I too try to keep politics off the Mint except in hopes of creating good, civil communication between the members (as demonstrated in this thread). That being said, I have found most members to lean more right than left but enjoy that we have a balance of both.

      I swear no allegiance to any political party. I have voted on all sides of the fence over the years by focusing on the most qualified candidate for any specific position from city to state to federal. That being said, I tend to lean more right primarily because, like you, I have an affection for firearms and the right to bear them.

      The Libertarian Party is new to me but I am trying to study and understand all of the positions. At this point, it is an attractive option. My concern, as others have stated above, is the odds of it happening this election. The best and only (and highly unlikely) hope would be that Johnson can secure enough electoral votes to force the race to be decided by the House. Sadly, I feel certain that would also end will a vote for Hillary simply because they would want to maintain the status quo and personal revenue stream (also stated above).

      Reply

      • bean

        bean 3 years ago

        Great responses. And I echo my friend's gratitude towards Cobrapilot. Your service to our country transcends party affiliation. Thank you. I too am fairly new to the libertarian option. I generally have the mindset that in "most" areas of life, a conservative approach is best, especially in times when things dont work out. Financially, socially, religiously and politically. I am not totally prepared to make that philosophy a blanket statement but the older I get, the more conservative I view myself and my experience. The libertarian view, as I understand it, calls my conservatism into question without going over the deep-end. In my life, I have seen in no particular order, the unwarranted collection of data by the fed in the name of the patriot act, the legalization of canabis, the ongoing abortion debate, an increasing entitlement expectation, a bathroom mixup and continued policing of the world by the US.

        My conservatism says wait a minute, does the fed need to record my grocery list textx from my wife? If they have this, what else do they have access to?... Should'nt illegal narcotics remain... I dont know... illegal? But then I learn that caffine, alcohol and a host of other intoxicants somehow become less important when theres a tax on them. Also, that the constitution doesnt directly address federal marijuana prohibition, and therefore should be decided by the individual states. (10th ammendment) Moving along, I find that the only reference to abortion in the constitution is that our LIFE is to be protected because it is endowed by a creator. I look at my generation and compare it to the ones before and those born after me and I see an unhealthy desire and a detrimental fulfillment of every quest for a handout, politically correct safe space and ___________matters group. We are unsure where to use the bathroom, but I sure dont want a genetic female with a flat chest, beard and a flannel jacked using the bathroom with my little girls any more than one whose genes spell out m-a-l-e. And dont forget that our military and philanthropy is wanted and moreover expected the world over while we recieve very little in return.

        How do the libertarians address these views? I have been told that the libertarian position is mainly like this: "do what you want on your porch, but stay off of mine". Now that I like. Thats fairly conservative. What I have a harder time whith is what do I tell my kids when someone trys to sell/give them LEGAL pot, teach them abortio is ok, they are guaranteed happiness and an easy life, they can or must go to restroom/shower room with whomever waltzes in behind/infront of them, that we as a nation run guns to bad people, set up programs in countries for nuclear energy capabilitites which is likely to lead to other junk...

        The libertarian position seems on one hand, like something I can get behind, but on the other hand, it makes me go ehhhh Im not sure thats such a great idea?

        Thoughts?

        Reply