Stein and Johnson would want to discuss issues of substance in a debate and will therefore be prevented from debating.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
I would just point out that Trump has not started his attack on Clinton, assuming it's still coming, it will be a long campaign season. imo, given Americans' memory capacity, he would be wise to wait until Sept to begin attacks; who knows what could happen before then anyway.
Actually Johnson was nominated on May 29 at a Libertarian Party convention in Florida.
It will not be surprising if the GOP pushes Trump out in favor of Paul Ryan, who would be better for the GOP and far worse than Trump for the 99%.
Wall Street will fight tooth and nail to keep Clinton in the race. The Clintons are the best return on investment (ROI) Wall Street has ever seen.
If Trump & sHillary are the "major party" nominees then this year's election is an excellent opportunity for the two major "third parties" - the Greens & the Libertarians - to gather strength.
Which would be a marvelous thing!
Thinking that if HRC is president in four years time - we will be at war - and have to vote for "America" as embodied by our patriotic leader. Maggie Thatcher did exactly this to gain reelection - remember the Falklands war with Argentina. Thatcher insisted that she was a woman with balls; Clinton has the the same arrogant manner. HRC has shown that she is a fascist abroad every bit as much as Trump is at home. That leaves Jill Stein.
Your argument that Donald Trump is put up to be a terrible boogey man possibly makes sense if Democratic Party presidents like Bill Clinton and Barak Obama and potentially Hillary Clinton are significantly more effective at implementing the establishment's self-centered wishlist than are the Republican presidents.
However what scares me far more than this year's boogey man is the possibility that the Green Party might not break the 15% of votes barrier this election.
With both Stein and Johnson running it is likely neither will reach 15% to get into the debates. If only one of them was running that person might have a chance of getting into the debates. So, as it is now Stein and Johnson are fighting each other for third party votes. However, assuming that Sanders winds up endorsing Clinton and working to get her elected it seems likely that Stein will eventually lose most of her support. If Clinton or Trump ran ads on some of the Libertarian Party's extreme positions Johnson also would probably lose most of his support. And then there is the question of the FBI and Clinton's e-mails and the effort of some Republicans to stop Trump from being the nominee. A lot of different things could happen between now and the election.
Anyone remember the Bible's tale of King Solomon? Renown for his wisdom, Solomon's supposed solution to two women arguing over the same baby was to threaten to cut the baby in half. He knew that the child's real mother would rather concede "ownership" than let the baby die.
Another historical item that comes to mind was the Dread Scott Decision by which Black individuals were conceived to hold 3/5ths the rights of white citizens.
Now using these two examples, I'd like to put forth the proposition of PROPORTIONAL RULING bodies.
Instead of a singular President, mandate that polls be taken in every corner of the nation (including its belly button, the Mid-west, and its toes, Alaska and Hawaii). Then, with those results tabulated, if Hillary gets 43%, then she weighs in with a 43-per cent leverage on ANY decisions that will impact this nation. Perhaps Trump will get 38%, and Jill Stein and Gary Johnson about 10% each.
Sure, this new Presidential "Parliament" arrangement will cost a bit more in the way of Secret Service protections, and lots might be cast for who sleeps in which bedroom in the big White House. On the plus side, no decision will carry the imprimatur of just one flawed individual, neither that "unitary executive's" call to coax Intelligence to line-up with his or her mandates, or a court (not to mention a full court press) chiefly composed of sycophants.
The New Presidential Plurality: Solution to various vote count anomalies, unfair Press coverage, coin toss wins and losses, assorted misrepresentations and other acts of malfeasance. (And my "Modest Proposal" for Election Conundrum, 2016.)
Exactly. How could it be missed by this staff writer? It is a 5 person race.!!
I will, too, IF Bernie is not on the ballot or if he concedes to Her Majesty.
You have stated my deepest fears. Paul Ryan is such a callous ghoul and water-carrier for ANY industrial entity... a disgusting example of a morally wounded excuse for a human being.
Here's a nightmare scenario in the works: If it's more than a 2 way race it's frightenly possible no candidate will get the required delegates and the House will pick the next president - Trump, Cruz, Duke, Gingrich...
You might want to revisit the history (and the spelling) of the Dred Scott decision as well as the history of the three-fifths concept. I think you have conflated the two.
The Three-fifths Compromise of 1787 was enacted by the Constitutional Convention as a plan to determine a state’s representation in the U. S. House of Representatives. The compromise was proposed as a way to gain support for the new government structure from the Southern states. It allowed a state to count slaves as three-fifths of a person--even though slaves had no right to vote--when determining its population.
The Dred Scott case, which was decided in 1857, had nothing to do with the three-fifths concept. In Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress lacked the power to prohibit slavery in its territories. It also concluded that people of African ancestry were not citizens and therefore lacked the ability to bring suit in federal court.
Thank you EnemyofWar.
I addition to supporting progressive economics, Jill Stein is also excellent on the environment, peace/anti-militarism, and in opposition to universal surveillance and attacks on whistle blowers.
The Democrat Party establishment, pundits, and many in the mainstream media, will, no doubt, insist that the CNN/ORC survey proves that progressives have no choice but to fall in line and vote for Hillary Clinton. No doubt this will increase their venomous vilification of progressives who hint at wanting concessions from Hillary and/or the possibility of voting for Jill Stein.
What I find most insidious is that members of the establishment Democrat Party propaganda machine craft their attacks in a manner designed to undermine the support Sanders built for progressive economics by portraying the progressive movement as only serving the interests of racism, xenophobia, and fascism as embodied by Donald Trump.
Donald Trump probably isn't running. He's in civil court dealing with a purported four sexual assaults of the same 13 year old girl. It looks like she has the witnesses.
This means that Paul Ryan is probably the nominee.
Hillary won't have a prayer against him. Well, maybe one chance, and she can either take that chance or else she might as well give up. Over. Finis. No chance.
That chance is making Bernie Sanders her vice-presidential candidate.
This is a little over analyzed because in the Monmouth poll Clinton's lead increased from 7 points against just Trump to 8 points when Stein and Johnson are included. In the CNN poll Clinton lost a point of her lead over Trump when Stein and Johnson were included. So it seem unclear whether the inclusion of the third party candidates helps or hurts Clinton, or makes no difference at all. From all the polls it appears the Clinton leads Trump by about 6 points regardless of whether Stein and Johnson are included in the poll. And during the last month Trump has been trending downward and Clinton upward.
Very curious heading, given that the "lead" drops only from five points to four points -- with a margin of error of about three points. Not much of a lead, I would say.