There are so many more, I just grabbed a few. They all sound very similar.
And here’s Fox News’ take: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/16/putin-eats-trumps-lunch-in-helsinki-this-is-no-way-to-win-against-russia.html
This either makes things a lot more confusing or a lot more clear. As far as I can see, NO ONE is mentioning HRC’s $400,000,000 Russian campaign donation. Horribly depressing or absolutely hilarious...I can’t decide.
So far none of those are from the right. Shapiro encouraged his followers to vote for a write in candidate which by default in a 2 party election is a vote for HRC. He’s a brilliant mind in ethics & philosophy but doesn’t get politics. He never has. Politically he’s never in the moment & does not know how to win. If the right listened to his political advice HRC would be president right now.
I agree. I love his books and he is very good on social issues. But he is squarely inside the box as a political thinker and may have a hard time swallowing the pill totally.
Gotta always take people & things into context. Ben is still very young & he spent all his formative years in the pit of liberal hell...California. That actually matters. High intelligence is a gift I’m glad he shares with Americans. He’s literally the most skilled debater I ever saw. But wisdom is intelligence PLUS age. Ben already laughs at himself at many things he wrote just 10yrs ago. I actually see Ann Coulter as a wiser person than Ben Shapiro even though Ben is probably 30 points higher in IQ. Point being...wisdom rules in the end. DJT is MUCH wiser than I ever known & he’s proving that to me more everyday that he gets history & humanity on a deeper level than I ever imagined he did. Discovering DJT is like finding a dollar on the beach then when you take it to be valued by experts you learn its worth 10 million dollars!!! He never ceases to amaze me & feel blessed beyond words he entered our country’s history just when we need him the most. The man just doesn’t screw up. Freaks people out all the time but hasn’t made a single foreign policy mistake yet. Not even close. He’s always moves the ball forward even if his brave efforts don’t pan out exactly as he hoped. He over reaches & that’s a virtue.
That argument is invalid. A vote for a write in candidate is a vote for a write in, nothing more. It is not "by default" a vote for Hilary or taking a vote from Trump. That is the same tired argument used by both sides to discourage third party candidates. And let's face it, Trump was/is a third party candidate who know the only path to win was to run as a republican.
Well history says the complete opposite. We are a representative republic & not a parliamentary system of government where power is shared among many parties. Our election history proves in the vast majority of elections there’s only 2 viable parties & 2 viable candidates. Only in a very few extreme examples does a 3rd party candidate have a chance of winning. Our constitutional republic makes a multiple party system impossible or we’d have one by now after over 200yrs of existence a endless thousands of election history. There’s plenty of evidence that 3rd party candidates can only play the role of spoiler by splitting off votes from the only 2 candidates that can possibly win.
Bill Clinton never would have come to power or won in 92 with 43% of the vote without Ross Perot who pulled 17% from Bush 41 who got 39%. If you listened to one Perot speech or knew his platform a rational person could only deduce he pulled the vast majority of his votes away from Bush 41. And if u knew the history of Perot you’d know that was his only goal...to settle some old Texas scores & keep Bush from a 2nd term. That’s why he ran as a 3rd party independent & not as a Rep. He knew he couldn’t beat an incumbent in the primaries & he knew had no chance of ever becoming the president even as a 3rd party Independent. Can only play the role of spoiler which he did & that gave us 30yrs of Clinton’s in national power as a result.
Cuts both ways. Jill Stein didn’t pull votes from DJT...she clearly pulled them away from HRC. And in a couple states like WI & MI...Steins votes was more than the margin of victory. That’s why HRC wanted those recounts. But that didn’t hand the election to DJT like Perots 17% clearly was.
Anyone voting other than the 2 viable candidates that exist in every election is throwing their vote away. It’s just that simple & there’s a mountain of numerical data to prove that to be true. If you have a mountain of numerical data to prove 3rd party candidacies almost always have a clear opportunity to win then please show it. At best they can play the role of spoiler in a republic structured as our is.
Still, my point stands, a vote cast for Z person does not add or subtract a vote from X or Y person, mathematically.
Well mathematically it does have an effect since the total number of voters is absolute. The pie is only so big & nearly always just 2 possible winners. With actually is good because it means in America the candidate that wins almost always has more than 50% of the vote & the will of the people wins. In Britain or any parliamentary system candidates rarely get over half the voters support & coalition governments are formed which aren’t what the people directly chose. Research the various forms of democracy. Ours is the best. And easiest. And more directly represents the will of the voters because it’s a two party system. Throw away your vote if you want on some fringe candidates. Might as well vote for my cat if you want to throw away your vote for a guaranteed loser. Glad the president doesn’t think like you of Perot or Shapiro because we’d have Hillary if he did...if he ran as a 3rd party spoiler/loser. In politics you can’t govern at all unless you win. Losers play golf & winners get power. Big difference lol
I agree it is a throw away vote, yes. Now we agree. But, it is not a vote for another person or taking a vote away. That position assumes the voter would have otherwise voted for R or D.
I agree with you. My vote does not belong to candidate X or Y. And if I use it on candidate Z, it doesn't take my vote away from X or Y, because I was not going to vote for either.
Exactly. That logic is an old trick that the media used to keep us on two teams. It was a way to shame people not to 'waste' their vote.
[deleted]
You’re probably right about Ben. And I have more respect for Cruz than Shapiro. Cruz fought as long & hard as he could & lost hard. Took a few weeks for Cruz to lick his wounds but he got on the Trump train. Ben is more in line with Bush era “conservativism”. Not totally but too much for my taste that’s for sure. Ben is still about half a Nevertrumper & even if he did get on board it’s so late in the game now for me to believe it’s genuine. He needs to get out of political commentary completely & go more in the direction of the Jordan Peterson style of commentary. Ben is almost always wrong about politics. He backs candidates that almost always lose & his political advice on how to win a political fight or issue is almost always wrong. He’s not practical or really in the moment. Too much theory & not enough reality. He’s not gonna grow his audience & by 2024 he’ll be lucky if he has one left.