^^ All except Nebraska and Maine.

Quote :

"The District of Columbia and 48 states have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the popular vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate), takes all of the state’s Electoral votes. Only two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those states, there could be a split of Electoral votes among candidates through the state’s system for proportional allocation of votes. For example, Maine has four Electoral votes and two Congressional districts. It awards one Electoral vote per Congressional district and two by the state-wide, “at-large” vote. It is possible for Candidate A to win the first district and receive one Electoral vote, Candidate B to win the second district and receive one Electoral vote, and Candidate C, who finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the two at-large Electoral votes. Although this is a possible scenario, it has not actually happened. "

7/17/2016 9:06:35 PM

Quote :

"it's more complex than that. In NC, which is a swing state that leans to Trump, a vote for Johnson is a vote for Hillary, or vice versa. And with an election that seems to be getting close, this makes a difference. In a state that's far more Republican, a vote for Johnson is at worst an abstain, since it has no effect on the electoral college vote. In a state with electoral college divided proportionally, it also doesn't really split the vote. It depends on historical models in your state, and how your state does electoral college votes."

You're talking about how an individual's vote translates to electoral votes and therefore national election results. Just consider the situation within a state -- any state. Referring to an individual with a single vote to cast, in my view, in any case, it is factually wrong to say that a vote for Johnson or other non-mainstream candidate is the same as a vote for Trump/Clinton. It is NOT.

Suppose I am a Trump supporter and I tell a friend or colleague who leans conservative that a vote for Johnson is "the same" as a vote for Hillary Clinton. This is wrong. If this person votes for Trump, as of course I (in this scenario) think he should, then that's a vote for Trump. If he votes for Clinton, then that's a vote for Clinton. If he votes for Johnson, then while his one possible vote is not adding to the Trump tally as I would prefer, it is also not taking anything away from other Trump votes nor is it adding votes to Clinton. If you consider the election as a two-horse race, then a vote for Johnson is the same as not voting, but it can also be a vote on principle. Yes, a vote for Johnson does less to help the Trump cause than a vote for Trump, but it also does less to hurt the Trump cause than a vote for Clinton, so how is it ever accurate to say it's "the same as. . ."

What am I missing? How is it any more complicated than this?

7/17/2016 9:39:58 PM

Because the assumption is that, by golly, why the hell wouldn't you vote for the guy with the R beside his name? Clearly, by voting for Johnson, you aren't putting your vote where it belongs: to Trump.

7/20/2016 12:31:32 AM

ted cruz non endorsement and saying "vote your conscience" got to help get to 15% right








[Edited on July 21, 2016 at 9:50 AM. Reason : l]

7/21/2016 9:43:58 AM

Marvin Bush, the brother of former President George W. Bush is supporting Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson for president

Quote :

"That’s why I’m voting libertarian, 100%, these two guys—and nobody knows about them, people think it is sort of a wasted vote—but, both Gary Johnson and Bill Weld were each successful two term governors who balanced their budgets,” Bush said. “So they’re fiscally conservative and their essential message is get bureaucracy off our backs. It used to be a part of what the Republicans believed.” Bush said some of his friends told him a vote for Gary Johnson would help Trump. “I don’t necessarily buy it, first of all, I want to have a conscience,” added Bush. “I want honest leadership. I want proven effective people running this country and so, I want to be able to go to bed at night and so I don’t really care about that.” Earlier, Bush said he worried about children who see Donald Trump tearing negatively into his opponents like he did his brother Jeb. “Some of these kids are saying, ‘hey the best way to win is to rip somebody’s ass apart,’ somebody else’s ass apart, and to run them down,” Bush said. “And so when Trump’s talking abou John McCain not being a hero, it’s very frustrating.” He added he thought Hillary Clinton was “one of the most dishonest people that’s ever been in politics.”"

7/27/2016 6:12:07 PM

Quote :

"CNN announced this morning that the cable network will hold another town hall discussion on Aug. 3 at 9 p.m. ET with the Libertarian Party White House ticket of former Govs. Gary Johnson and William Weld."

wonder if this town hall has anything to do with trump attacking CNN on twitter all damn day today

8/1/2016 8:10:05 PM

i like the johnson ticket. now idiots have the right to choose between a selfish asshole and a racist selfish asshole.

8/2/2016 2:29:00 PM

Wait who are you accusing of racism without evidence now?

8/2/2016 2:46:26 PM

i'd prefer johnson over clinton because as a progressive, big government that is ineffective ends up giving us a bad reputation. I'd rather just keep my money instead of having the democrats funnel it all to corporations under the guise of progressive policy.

8/2/2016 2:50:14 PM

What is your definition of "progressive" and what policies do you believe are "progressive"?

8/2/2016 2:53:11 PM

Healthcare as a right
Education as a right
Living wage as a right
Equal justice as a right

Environmental protection as a priority

War as a detriment to all of those things

8/2/2016 2:58:07 PM

You can sum it all up into "equality of outcome" as opposed to "equality of opportunity"

8/2/2016 3:39:28 PM

So what you label as "progressive" is just using other people's money to give away free shit.

The libertarian view, that I would agree with in this case, is that healthcare is not a right.

"Rights demand recognition, respect and restraint on the part of others, they do not demand action. When person A claims that he has a right to his life, person B's obligation is to recognize and refrain from harming it. A's right to life does not demand action on the part of B."

Rights are essentially things where it would be immoral to stop someone from doing something by the initiation of force.

8/2/2016 3:40:57 PM

Negative rights vs. positive rights

8/2/2016 3:42:20 PM

Quote :

"You can sum it all up into "equality of outcome" as opposed to "equality of opportunity""

We are talking about basic living conditions that enable people to have ANY opportunity. We are not talking about outcomes.

Even with equal opportunity, you would never end up with equal outcome. There would still be classes. The difference is that your outcome would be up to you and not predetermined based on the conditions you are given. Equal opportunity is also damn near impossible. Everyone starting off with a small loan of a million dollars would be equal opportunity. Everyone turning that into a multi billion dollar empire would be equal outcome.

Quote :

"is just using other people's money to give away free shit. "

We are not talking about free "shit" as in material things. We are talking about basic prerequisites for opportunity. You're talking about the money society enabled them to make. Society is like a club that has perks as well as membership fees. You want to have the perks without the fees but don't even want anyone else to have the perks. You cannot have opportunity for everyone without those basic necessities.

One with no food has no opportunity
One with no shelter has no opportunity

and obviously the more education you have the more opportunities open up.

[Edited on August 2, 2016 at 5:54 PM. Reason : k]

8/2/2016 5:52:52 PM

They'd have a lot more opportunity if big government wasn't legislating them out of work as hard as they could.

8/2/2016 6:24:35 PM

thats exactly what my original post was about

8/2/2016 6:26:40 PM

You may be a stupid Marxist, but that doesn't mean we have to disagree on everything.

8/2/2016 6:34:01 PM

Quote :

"We are talking about basic living conditions that enable people to have ANY opportunity."

This is an "equality of outcome" argument essentially, because you are already referencing people that have squandered their opportunities as victims, in comparison to people that made the most out of their opportunities as somehow having an obligation to work harder for not only themselves but for others.

This kind of thinking destroys personal incentive, personal responsibility, and only results in dependence on big government... which can destroy the family unit and result in cyclic poverty (i.e. democrats and black people).


[Edited on August 2, 2016 at 10:28 PM. Reason : .]

8/2/2016 10:28:18 PM

BEWTSTRAAAAPPPPPSSSSSS

8/3/2016 6:42:49 AM

^^why is it always about race with you?

8/3/2016 10:32:38 AM

i hope johnson does better tonight in town hall on CNN 9pm than the last one. some of the questions tripped him up that shouldnt have.

8/3/2016 10:51:44 AM

He's a horrible speaker.

8/3/2016 11:40:00 AM

Quote :

"This is an "equality of outcome" argument essentially, because you are already referencing people that have squandered their opportunities as victims, in comparison to people that made the most out of their opportunities as somehow having an obligation to work harder for not only themselves but for others."

Those who are born into poverty have not yet had the opportunities to squander. Do you really believe there is equal opportunity?

8/3/2016 12:54:36 PM

I'll probably tune in to the goofball show tonight

8/3/2016 1:03:50 PM

Quote :

"Those who are born into poverty have not yet had the opportunities to squander. Do you really believe there is equal opportunity?"

I believe there is equal opportunity for any able-bodied American to live comfortably, more or less. Naturally there can never be a perfect equality of opportunity, as everyone is different and born under different circumstances. Despite this everyone wants to move to America, because we have excellent economic mobility. I think it is more important to focus on equality of opportunity, because that is what made America great... rather than focus on equality of outcome, which will turn American into a socialist hell-hole.

8/3/2016 1:14:39 PM

hose who are born into poverty have not yet had the opportunities to squander. Do you really believe there is equal opportunity?

8/3/2016 1:23:22 PM

sometimes victims are actually victims, you know.

8/3/2016 1:29:09 PM

I think what leads people to initially accept these flawed concepts is the vagueness and feel-goodness of saying "victims need help, everyone should be healthy". When you treat everyone as equals and hold it under scrutiny, the logic just doesn't hold up.

In the Marxist way of thinking, if there is a person in a room with $5 and a person in a room with $1, the person with $1 is a victim. The person with $5 must have somehow cheated the person with $1.

Essentially "equality of opportunity" means if you make poor decisions you will be punished, if you make good decisions you will be rewarded. This is something we as a society are supposed to teach our children but I guess all the Berniebot socialists were in classrooms where "everyone is special". Like I said, that destroys incentive to work, breeds dependence on government, and leads to people thinking they are entitled to other people's money to subsidize their unhealthy lifestyles and poor choices.

8/3/2016 1:39:33 PM

Your gross oversimplifications are so educational, please do go on....

8/3/2016 1:43:52 PM

give it a few more generations of "starting on an equal playing field" and you're absolutely right. as it currently stands, shit was pretty fucked in the not too distant past which led us here. not making excuses for those who actually do screw up opportunities, but don't put everyone in the same category as if it's always been equal and everybody alive has not been a victim of something. if you intentionally neglect the other side of the coin, you're just as obtuse as the #SJW's.

8/3/2016 2:02:54 PM

were not talking about just giving things to the poor. we're talking about giving everyone the basic needs. then, there will be no excuses.

we can't blame decision making because decision making is a product of these basic things everyone needs. if you are a malnourished child, your cognitive development and decision making is permanently impacted.

8/3/2016 2:21:34 PM

Quote :

"we're talking about giving everyone the basic needs"

You're talking about forcing other people at gunpoint to pay for it.

I'm talking about making sure everyone can work for it if they want to.

8/3/2016 3:04:21 PM

At gunpoint

8/3/2016 3:07:41 PM

Liberals hate guns, unless its the government's forcing other people to pay for their moral posturing

8/3/2016 3:09:14 PM

Gary seriously just answered the question of how to cut the budget and still protect the US from terrorism with some shit about term limits

these are home run derby questions for any libertarian and these fucks keep grounding out

[Edited on August 3, 2016 at 9:27 PM. Reason : asdf]

8/3/2016 9:23:27 PM

this should be easy for them. just answer "that's not the role of the federal government" to every question.

8/3/2016 10:10:32 PM

Rep Rigell R-VA is the first member of Congress to endorse the Libertarian ticket in 2016

8/6/2016 8:39:18 PM

Quote :

" Gary seriously just answered the question of how to cut the budget and still protect the US from terrorism with some shit about term limits"

I get your point on the larger issue, but in trying to attract a larger following, he might have chosen to just address the more agreeable idea of closing military bases that the military says can be closed...but as noted that would probably require term limits.

8/6/2016 9:31:32 PM

his answer wasn't a bad one, it was just one that most voters won't follow

the guy is overall just uninspiring and total milquetoast

he also doesn't hold freedom of association as a principle, which is a major problem for me

8/6/2016 9:52:26 PM

First Appointment: Ron Paul as Fed Chair.

Shortest job ever!

8/7/2016 8:54:49 AM

^^ So are you just going to vote for Trump or not? Those are the only two options you have.

8/7/2016 10:45:01 AM

that makes no sense

i could leave that one blank. i could write in anything i want.

[Edited on August 7, 2016 at 10:51 AM. Reason : trump is not an option on the table for me]

8/7/2016 10:51:03 AM

Two options - Trump or no-Trump, is what I meant.

But hey write me in on your ticket. I'll serve you well.

8/7/2016 11:01:36 AM

Johnson was working on his standup act and tried to zing trump. said trump watchin da lympics to see how high the mexicans could pole vault

8/7/2016 11:15:25 AM

NRR would never consider Trump.

8/7/2016 12:43:40 PM

^He ain't lyin'!

8/7/2016 1:19:56 PM

people being let down by the libertarian ticket have nobody to blame but themselves

8/8/2016 11:45:16 AM

^what do you mean.

i think i retweeted austin petersen couple times so i did my part [/SJW logic]

8/8/2016 12:39:42 PM

i mean that if you put any stock in a libertarian ticket, you have no one but yourself to blame for being let down by the inevitable shitshow it will be

8/9/2016 9:05:42 AM