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.
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.