• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

we have a president who has no qualms about being treasonous to get elected

It means nothing, there was 32 other candidates and all that made up 6% ,like I said it means nothing. Simply go back and look at votes through the years for alternative candidates . It will show you that 6% means nothing, what can I say.

Johnson received 3.28% in 2016 vs.0.99% in 2012, the leading third party vote getter.
Stein received 1.07% in 2016 vs. 0.36% in 2012
Mullen received 0.54% in 2016 didn't run in 2012

Those three candidates received 4.88% of the vote in 2016 compared to just 1.35% in 2012. a three fold increase.

Those vote totals may mean nothing to you. But since Perot's last run in 1996, third party candidate in total averaged less than 1.5% of the total vote from 2000 thru 2012.

The question is, did those extra 4.5% above the norm 1.5% who decided not to vote for either of the major two party candidates because of the dislike factor of both in their minds, make a difference in the results of the 2016 election. What if the normal amount 1.5% voted third party instead of 6%, would Trump have won Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida? What if those extra 4.5% of the total electorate chose between the two major party candidates, would the results have been different in those four states? We don't know. But the possibility is there.

Trump won Michigan by 0.23%. 5.23% voted third party vs. 1.08% in 2012. The extra 4.15% of voters in that state who voted third party above the normal amount could have easily made up the 0.23 difference Clinton lost by if they had chosen between the two major party candidates. Same for the other 3 states I mentioned.
 
Johnson received 3.28% in 2016 vs.0.99% in 2012, the leading third party vote getter.
Stein received 1.07% in 2016 vs. 0.36% in 2012
Mullen received 0.54% in 2016 didn't run in 2012

Those three candidates received 4.88% of the vote in 2016 compared to just 1.35% in 2012. a three fold increase.

Those vote totals may mean nothing to you. But since Perot's last run in 1996, third party candidate in total averaged less than 1.5% of the total vote from 2000 thru 2012.

The question is, did those extra 4.5% above the norm 1.5% who decided not to vote for either of the major two party candidates because of the dislike factor of both in their minds, make a difference in the results of the 2016 election. What if the normal amount 1.5% voted third party instead of 6%, would Trump have won Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida? What if those extra 4.5% of the total electorate chose between the two major party candidates, would the results have been different in those four states? We don't know. But the possibility is there.

Trump won Michigan by 0.23%. 5.23% voted third party vs. 1.08% in 2012. The extra 4.15% of voters in that state who voted third party above the normal amount could have easily made up the 0.23 difference Clinton lost by if they had chosen between the two major party candidates. Same for the other 3 states I mentioned.
Sorry but we are just going around in circles, your claim was that the reason that there was a X% point amount of people who voted away from the two candidates, was because they couldn't/wouldn't vote for the two. I know you referred to 3rd party candidates but you also pointed out that we can make something out of the fact that x% of people didn't vote for the two candidate and voted for other people because of those two candidates. The only way you can get a picture with your premise is to use all the candidates other then the two top ones. Without that you have no argument. That would be all I'm saying . your a great debater, you bring facts to the debate. That works for me.
 
What if it turns out all of the claims about Trump and Russia were just unsubstantiated claims and your a **** flinging monkey?

LOL Struck a nerve I see. You do know that the FBI investigation and the special prosecutor is NOT about nothing. Trump has spent the last decade taking money form Russians, he uses the Russian law firm of the year, for his legal matters and his speech to NATO could have been written by Putin. I asked what do you think we should do when all of it is proven and get crickets.

Trump should have reassured America's allies that the United States remains fully committed to NATO. Allies wanted Trump to say that he unconditionally stands by NATO's Article 5, the principle that when one member is attacked, all members will come to its defense. Article 5 has been invoked only once in NATO's history, after 9/11.
But, no, Trump did not mention America's commitment to Article 5. Instead, in front of a monument honoring the 9/11 victims, Trump gave a dismal speech, scolding America's allies, telling them they should spend more money on defense, an issue that has been addressed in the proper forum and is in the process of being resolved.
The small-minded speech included more praise for the King of Saudi Arabia -- who successfully lavished thick adulation on the American president -- than on the Atlantic alliance and the principles and values that bind America and its allies.

Why Trump's Prime Minister shove pleased Putin (opinion) - CNN.com
 
LOL Struck a nerve I see. You do know that the FBI investigation and the special prosecutor is NOT about nothing. Trump has spent the last decade taking money form Russians, he uses the Russian law firm of the year, for his legal matters and his speech to NATO could have been written by Putin. I asked what do you think we should do when all of it is proven and get crickets.



Why Trump's Prime Minister shove pleased Putin (opinion) - CNN.com

no there still isn't much substantiated evidence, sorry i don't care about your (opinion) CNN article.

also not mad just want you to acknowledge that the most of this could very well be complete bs.
 
no there still isn't much substantiated evidence, sorry i don't care about your (opinion) CNN article.

also not mad just want you to acknowledge that the most of this could very well be complete bs.

Lotta bull**** being pushed by political propaganda arm of the DNC, AKA 'news' media.
 
That's what I thought. It's just your opinion.

It's the free worlds opinion also. Trump is aligning us with tyrants. Maybe that is what you want if so please leave. America cannot desert it's allies in the free world.
 
It's the free worlds opinion also. Trump is aligning us with tyrants. Maybe that is what you want if so please leave. America cannot desert it's allies in the free world.


Right
 
Back
Top Bottom