"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVAY

How tempting it is to quote one of Bouton's favorite directives to you at this moment.

---

Oh, I'll gfmyself if it makes you happy.:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVAY

I know that you advocate a third party vote...but for those of us who TRY to pick between one or another candidate who is actually going to be in a position of governing, there has to be a reason somewhere.

---

Not so much a reason as a justification. You've limited your options to Obama or Romney but you don't like either of them. So to satisfy your conscious you make your choice about the potential presidential appointees instead of the candidates themselves. That way you can vote with a clear conscious because your vote for Obama or Romney wasn't really a vote "for" Obama or Romney at all.

Not saying there's anything wrong with this approach. Everyone is free to decide their vote as they see fit. Most people just put their vote on red team/blue team autopilot.

There is the argument that, being that one or the other party will govern; and further, being that one of them is likely to be worse for the country; it behooves us all to vote for the one we think will do the most good, or the least evil.

I respect that argument, but do not agree with it. I think there ought to be some alternative to the evil of two lessers. Unless people start voting for such an alternative, it will never exist. Therefore, I will vote for it, even that vote contributes to a result that is arguably worse for the country in the short term.

there are substantial differences between the two candidates and the two parties; the differences in how they govern might be substantial.

notwithstanding, the differences are way oversold. despite the hysterical rhetoric on both sides, neither party is likely or apt to ruin things completely. and if either one takes their electoral mandate too far, voters will punish them for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

There is the argument that, being that one or the other party will govern; and further, being that one of them is likely to be worse for the country; it behooves us all to vote for the one we think will do the most good, or the least evil.

I respect that argument, but do not agree with it. I think there ought to be some alternative to the evil of two lessers. Unless people start voting for such an alternative, it will never exist. Therefore, I will vote for it, even that vote contributes to a result that is arguably worse for the country in the short term.

---

"Unless people start voting for such an alternative, it will never exist"

the alternative(s) will not be up for a vote, and/or the alternative(s) will not be up for a vote in enough numbers to have legislative/policy impact, so, yes, it will never exist at the legislative level.

I'd love to see Gary Johnson in the debates but they have the rules rigged where if he's not polling 15% he can't be in the debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

I'd love to see Gary Johnson in the debates but they have the rules rigged where if he's not polling 15% he can't be in the debate.

---

No thanks, that subsidy-loving, death-penalty-supporting, abortion-backing fraud needs to get out of the Libertarian Party, tbh....

trashing fact checkers as separate and less reliable than the facts, when their real strategy is

"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by facts"

We'll see if the Dems play it soft this week, or hardball by call out the Repugs as deceivers and liars.