Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

[Shrug]

There are also ppl who insist things have to be gluten freeze despite the fact they're not allergic to gluten. I worry about the potential effects of a loss of genetic diversification wrt gmos but they're not eo ipso harmful and are potentially Good

 

[JES]

You should look up Golden Rice, its produced because 1-2 million people in Africa and Asia die from Vitamin A deficiency every year. They genetically modified rice so that it includes Vitamin A which would / does greatly reduce the number of these deaths.

Your post also manages to link no scientific evidence that there is anything wrong with GMO foods, where as macle linked several articles based on scientific studies (and scientific opinions). At the end of the day GMO foods are just foods with a genetic sequence inserted into their DNA which alters their nutritional value or makes them resistant to certain pests (so you can use fewer chemicals), as a food company your goal is to sell more food, the best way to do this is by ensuring people live a longer life, purposely altering food to make it less healthy would be an objectively dumb business model. As for the inserted DNA sequence itself, it has no negative effect on the human body, it gets treated like the rest of the DNA (you poop it out).

By bringing up the Obama's you completely missed macle's point, Michelle Obama is a smart lady in a lot of areas, but I'm am relatively confident I know more about GMOs than Michelle Obama (I took an ethics of biology class as a lib ed. it was really interesting), and I am certain that she does not know as much about GMOs as the average scientist (which as macle pointed out think GMOs are safe). I also think its hilarious that GMOs aren't considered organic considering that previous to their existence organic meant lacking in the use of man-made chemicals / pesticides / etc. and now they aren't considered organic even though they consist entirely of organic material, and its not like GMOs are the first thing human's have altered the DNA of (we were selectively breeding for a long time, ex. bananas now vs the 50s).

This is getting extremely off topic considering this is the 2016 election thread, but I will say that I generally value scientific competence very highly when I'm considering a candidate. Thus its very difficult for me to consider voting for people who deny climate change (Republicans - or you know trying to fund conversion therapy with tax payer money (shout outs Mike Pence)) and makes me think the green party is an absolute joke. A party that was literally formed because of the scientific evidence for climate changes holds anti-vaccination (not Jill Stein afaik) and anti-GMO (yes Jill Stein) beliefs in spite of the fact that scientific evidence is pretty conclusive that vaccines do not cause autism and GMO foods are safe, but hey who cares that measels and whooping cough are coming back and that millions of lives could be saved by GMOs. Its utterly baffling to me when politicians and vast swaths of the population think that they are more informed than people that have spent years of their lives researching these topics.

I actually did post a link that lists the problems with GMOs. Feel free to cross check the findings on different sites. I think that with research, you'll find it checks out. Golden Rice sounds like a success story, and proves that GMOs can be beneficial, if done right, for the right reasons. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be Monsanto's goal ATM.

And while I'm still on the fence regarding vaccinations (I think the problem is cheap preservatives like Thimerasol, IIRC. Avoid this, and you avoid the problems), for the most part, I agree with Jill Stein more than I do Hillary Clinton on most issues.

We probably could go on for days debating this, but as you said, we're getting off topic. It'd probably be better if we either agree to disagree, or agree to start a new thread.

 

[Bughouse]

There's also nothing wrong with thimerosal.

Please learn what peer reviewed science is. You have proven yourself to be a raving idiot, willing to believe whatever conspiracy theory you read online regardless of the mountains of hard scientific evidence against it exists.

 

[JES]

There's also nothing wrong with thimerosal.

Please learn what peer reviewed science is. You have proven yourself to be a raving idiot, willing to believe whatever conspiracy theory you read online regardless of the mountains of hard scientific evidence against it exists.

I said like Thimerasol. Was I wrong to mention it without researching it? Yes, but I was quite frankly in a hurry, and just wanted to name an example, and go take a shower, okay? Do I get things wrong? Yes, I admit I'm fallible, just like any other human being, which you refuse to admit.

And want to call me a raving idiot? You have no idea how close I came to returning the favor. I won't even cross out those remarks, just delete them. I refuse to be nasty like you. And you haven't done a good job reviewing the evidence I've found that I might not always be off the mark. And your assertions while not 100% incorrect, does overlook things.

Why don't you try explaining Greg Palast's assertions away? He's a freelance journalist who works for the BBC and the Guardian who has been researching this for years, two mainstream media mediums that are hardly untrustworthy, and would never hire a conspiracy nut.

With enough research, you'll find his claims aren't completely unfounded at the very least.

In the meantime, while you analyze and crosscheck that video's claims to your hearts content, I need to put this Thimerosal thing to bed once and for all. I hate making incorrect assertions. Guess I'll go quickly to check for Sun and Moon news, and then get on that. :/

Edit: This is my conclusion: even though "Thiomersal is very toxic by inhalation, ingestion, and in contact with skin (EC hazard symbol T+), with a danger of cumulative effects", "the scientific consensus is that there is no scientific evidence supporting these claims, including the observation that the rate of autism continues to climb despite elimination of thiomersal from routine childhood vaccines.[7][30][31][32] Major scientific and medical bodies such as the Institute of Medicine[32] and World Health Organization,[33] as well as governmental agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration[13] and the CDC[34] reject any role for thiomersal in autism or other neurodevelopmental disorders."

So fears of thiomersal isn't completely unfounded, but it definitely does not cause autism. It'd probably be best to remove it from vaccinations completely just to be safe. I think it would help solve the whole argument, because the fact of the matter is that it is a toxic compound.

Then again, I found something I want to look into before I make a final decision.

Double edit:

I have found an assertion here that contradicts your assertion that Thimerasol is not dangerous, and we already know that it is toxic. There is no denying that.
"The Facts: The published scientific literature about Thimerosal can be divided into two distinct sets with opposite conclusions regarding its toxicity.

The first set is comprised of studies directly or indirectly supported by the pharmaceutical industry, showing that “there is no evidence of harm” from Thimerosal. These studies are the ones most often quoted by the Press. Most of these studies are statistical. In many cases, the data from which their conclusions are derived have been ‘lost’ or are unavailable or inconsistent. Significantly, the 2004 Institute of Medicine Vaccine Safety Review Committee, which defended Thimerosal, relied upon such statistical studies rather than the clinical evidence that the committee received.

The second set is comprised of hundreds of independent clinical and statistical studies demonstrating harm from Thimerosal. These studies are seldom quoted by the Press. Authors of these scientific papers include chemists, biologists, physicians and neurologists among others. Federal grants have often funded these studies. However, in many instances, when a researcher has concluded that Thimerosal causes harm, the grant has been withdrawn or ended. In one case, this happened after a researcher found an “autistic-like” condition in developing mice given injected mercury exposures like those human babies received from the CDC’s 1990’s immunization schedule. Independent researchers have lost jobs, been ostracized by peers, and/or had their medical licenses threatened, all because they dared to declare Thimerosal dangerous.

Published studies have shown that Thimerosal and its mercury breakdown product contribute to: Alzheimer’s, Cancer, Autism Spectrum Disorders, Attention Deficit Disorders, Bipolar Disorder, Asthma, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, Arthritis, Food Allergies, Premature Puberty, and Infertility."

In other words, I can't quite figure out what the fuck is going on here. But automatically trusting the mainstream press when the compound when "it was phased out from routine childhood vaccines in the European Union, and a few other countries in response to popular fears.[4]" means I can't really take assertion from either side as gospel, and neither should you. If you say that I shouldn't necessarily come to the conclusion that thimerosal should be banned, I'd agree.

At this point, I'd going to try to find these independent studies, and see if they have any validity, assuming they are even published in any articles online. I also need to do some more research. I have theories that people in the FDA and other similar organizations have either been paid off, or even people associated to with the Big Pharma might have been assigned positions in such organizations. It would explain a great deal. I also need to look up and see if there have been any benefits of for the scientists who did speak out against thimerosal. There are a lot of variables and what ifs, but then that is something I'm quickly finding out is par for the course when it comes to these sorts of things.

 

[UncleSam]

Saying GMOs are bad is kind of a weird claim to make but Bughouse is being a right cunt about it.

I'm generally suspicious of anything artificial until it's been proven to work but most GMOs are just genetically engineered versions of existing foods to be healthier and to address deficiencies in the world. I don't doubt that some companies either go too far or would if they could with them but that's no reason to be suspicious of good products that save lives the world over just because they were produced by a large corporation.

Just because something is toxic to ingestion or inhalation doesn't make it toxic or harmful to put in vaccinations. It just means we shouldn't eat it or smoke it.

 

[JES]

Saying GMOs are bad is kind of a weird claim to make but Bughouse is being a right cunt about it.

I'm generally suspicious of anything artificial until it's been proven to work but most GMOs are just genetically engineered versions of existing foods to be healthier and to address deficiencies in the world. I don't doubt that some companies either go too far or would if they could with them but that's no reason to be suspicious of good products that save lives the world over just because they were produced by a large corporation.

Just because something is toxic to ingestion or inhalation doesn't make it toxic or harmful to put in vaccinations. It just means we shouldn't eat it or smoke it.

You basically said what I've been thinking about Bughouse all day, but I didn't want to be the one to say it. I don't like being an @$$hole, and I don't like stooping to the levels as such @$$holes.

But GMOs aren't just engineered for the benefits of increased nutritional content, but also better resistance to herbicides. I believe that is where at least one of the problems come from. I'm guessing that the added genes harm us, or maybe not enough of a good job is used to wash off the herbicide. I also have to ask if maybe the plants absorb it. I shouldn't have to say that absorbing even trace amounts of herbicides such as Round-up, and then us ingesting it, would be very bad. All of it would need to be gone.

Not helping matters is, much to the consternation of many, was the appointment of Michael Taylor, former Vice President for Public Policy for Monsanto to the FDA. I think that if GMOs were only safe, I don't think we'd be seeing this sort of thing. You have to admit that given Monsanto's reputation, it is suspicious at the very least.

Edit: And now we might have a reason why there are no more independent investigations, and why we see only rave reviews for GMOs, and no reputable studies that show they might be harmful: because the GMO monopolies forbid it. Now then, I must read this, and see if I'm on the right track.

And you're that thimerosal might only be toxic when inhaled, eaten/drunk, or touched, but the last part makes me very suspicious. If simply touching it is harmful, should we really be putting the stuff in our bodies, let alone the little ones who are in the crucial evolutionary developmental stage?

Last word: it is perfectly okay to be skeptical. In fact, it is necessary, and helps prevent us from becoming influenced by lies. But being an ass is never acceptable.

 

[Bughouse]

This is a general election thread not a conspiracy theory and science denial thread. End of story.

 

[JES]

This is a general election thread not a conspiracy theory and science denial thread. End of story.

Ending the argument for fear of loosing, eh? Okay, okay, I kid, I kid!!! It's a joke! Don't 6-0 me in a battle, okay?

If you want to go at GMOs and Vaccinations in another thread, then I'm in!

But voter suppression and election fraud remains a valid topic (unless you can refute whatever I post, of course).

And science denial?! Hey!!! Not cool (or fair) man!!! Not cool at all!!!

 

[vonFiedler]

The idea that vaccines cause autism has been debuffed time and time again, and even suggesting something so fucking stupid comes with the stipulation that someone would be better off dead from polio than autistic. I won't fucking tolerate that stupidity, I don't care if I'm overstepping. Consider that a warning JES.

 

[Celticpride]

I'm not sure what this thread even is anymore but there's some pretty interesting state polls out there. I don't really give much weight to national polls because that's far too large a scope, but well run state polls are interesting.

Hillary looks to be up big in Virginia, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Colorado, Pennsylvania and Michigan, at least +6 in all of those iirc. This plus typical blue states puts her at 273 to start... aka she's in great position right now.

More worrisome for the GOP is that Trump is up by only 2 points in South Carolina. South Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Utah, and Texas are all in various degrees of play. Hillary is actually campaigning in all of those states too, where in a conventional race they might be fighting over Florida, Ohio and such. So not only is Trump losing in swing states badly, he's weakening in traditional conservative strongholds. Right now taking Georgia or SC would just be the cherry on top for Clinton.

Honestly it would be a miracle for Trump to win at this point. Margins of national polls be damned, unless these state polls start shifting soon Trump can literally sweep every current tossup state and still lose. If any Trump supporters frequent this thread I'd like to see a path to victory, because right now it looks like he's cooked in terms of the EC.

 

[manodelrey]

I'm not sure what this thread even is anymore but there's some pretty interesting state polls out there. I don't really give much weight to national polls because that's far too large a scope, but well run state polls are interesting.

Hillary looks to be up big in Virginia, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Colorado, Pennsylvania and Michigan, at least +6 in all of those iirc. This plus typical blue states puts her at 273 to start... aka she's in great position right now.

More worrisome for the GOP is that Trump is up by only 2 points in South Carolina. South Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Utah, and Texas are all in various degrees of play. Hillary is actually campaigning in all of those states too, where in a conventional race they might be fighting over Florida, Ohio and such. So not only is Trump losing in swing states badly, he's weakening in traditional conservative strongholds. Right now taking Georgia or SC would just be the cherry on top for Clinton.

Honestly it would be a miracle for Trump to win at this point. Margins of national polls be damned, unless these state polls start shifting soon Trump can literally sweep every current tossup state and still lose. If any Trump supporters frequent this thread I'd like to see a path to victory, because right now it looks like he's cooked in terms of the EC.

From what I have seen, Trump could be the first republican in forever to lose both arizona and georgia. If trump wasn't seen as a bad idea before, the fact that he can help contribute to massive losses in both house and senate races in places that should go republican should prove without a shadow of a doubt that he doesn't know what he is doing. He has yet to spend any money on ad campaigns as well. What a disgrace

 

[JES]

Moving on: Luckily, I've been saving this article for quite a while for the right time (okay, confession: I've been busy)
Joe Scarborough (of Morning Joe fame, not to mention former congressman) has basically come out, and said the GOP must dump Trump. And this is coming from a hardcore Republican.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ump-trump/?tid=ss_mail&utm_term=.17a28ab04aa4

Honestly though, I think the fact we have The Art of the Deal saying there is a significant chance Drumpf would start WW-III if President should have been enough to tell the GOP that things have gotten out of hand. Which is even worse and scarier than the prospect of a candidate telling their voters to go out and kill their rival.

The good news is that he looks like he is going to loose, and it looks like he rose a bit yesterday, and then dropped again. Guess he finally got stuck. One oddity is that Clinton and Stein are dropping, indicating voters appear to be switching over to Johnson. Strange, I think there are definitely former Trump supporters who finally decided enough was enough in there, but I'd think progressive independents would be going for Stein (edit: can't believe I accidentally put Johnson instead of Stein!)!

Assuming I'm even reading this right, of course. First time I'm looking at one of these:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...rump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

 

[manodelrey]

Hey Hillary sat the father of a terrorist who supports the taliban. How do we take advantage of this?- Trump supporter
Lets put Mark Foley behind me at our Florida rally. Not a chance in hell we don't fuck ourselves harder than clinton. I am amazing at fucking myself over, the best- Trump

Edit
Enjoy this take down of trump supporters from a never trump guy

 

[JES]

For some reason, early voting for Florida is supposed to start in a week. Before the debates, which should never happen. At least one of the debates should have passed (after September 26th), end of story. And I am pissed as a Primeape. This is a clear way of disenfranchising voters, and also will force me to make a rash decision, instead of seeing what happens in the debates. Whether I'm voting for Hillary to play it safe (I know my fellow independents will be pissed at me), or vote for Jill Stein and assume she'll continue to rise in the polls, while Trump will continue to drop like a meteor (taking a huge risk, and if my dad finds out, he'll be pissed), and I'm sure I'm not going to be the only one who is going to be unhappy that they will have to make a snap decision.

I can give a guess who is responsible (Rick Scott), and you can bet your Master Balls I'd like to drop an angry Mankey (or something equally nasty) into his office, and lock the door. Especially because he is only in office due to voter ignorance and gerrymandering. And given the fact that Rick Scott is very pro Trump, and is to chair a pro-Trump super PAC, it wouldn't surprise me if this was a way to get early voters to go out and vote for Trump before the Trump University case has a chance to torpedo his political ambitions once and for all. Given the stake of this election, this is a reckless, stupid move on the governor's part. I hope that this decision doesn't have play any crucial part in deciding the election.

And strangely, I can't find any articles on this.

And now I have to hurry up, and research what will be on the ballot. I'm sure there will be senators, congressmen and women, and new state laws to vote on. And if I can't research it fast enough, I might have to miss early voting, or make more snap decisions without enough research.

Sorry for venting off. But if anyone else is in a similar boat, than feel free to join in.

Speaking of the general debates, Trump is being a whiny little bitch, and trying to steer the direction and terms of the debates where he wants them to be.

Just when I think this election couldn't get any dirtier. I mean, really, the elections are more important than sports (and I really apologize to any sports fans). Do I think that the debates (and election cycle I guess) and sport season should be timed in a way so they don't get in the way of one another (if possible. I don't know anything about sports, or when games are scheduled)? Maybe not an invalid point for the future, if Trump or anyone else wants so push it after the election (assuming he's even available after the Trump U case). But can anything be done about it now? Doubt it. It would no doubt mean having to completely change the schedule for election cycles. But that is another story completely, and I honestly think that Trump just wants to be a whiny little bitch, because he's afraid of loosing, especially to a girl. Or would he prefer to be watching the games to being at the debates? Then again, if President, he wouldn't have time for games, so he probably should get use to it now.

Sorry to Trumpsters who like Trump if I go too hard on him, but yeah, in case you didn't get the memo, I might despise Hillary, but I not only hate Trump, but he outright scares me!

Edit: I realized while on my work shift that it is likely that the shortened, rushed, early voting plan would have happened whether Rick Scott had supported Trump or not, because he is clearly a dick who doesn't believe that voters should be given plenty of time to arrive at the right conclusion. And while, for all I know, given how dirty politics can be, it might not be off the mark, it's not like I have any certainty, and I should have tried looking up when the schedule was planned, to see if it was even a possibility. Unfortunately, I was at work, and couldn't make this sort of amendment without probably risking getting in trouble. I can already see that someone wasted no time responding, probably to chew me out for jumping the Sharpedo, and I can't blame them if that is the case. I'll read the no doubt scathing rebuttal later. It's not going to be as easy on my phone. And I'll have to apologize for perhaps being over zealous. Perhaps it wasn't such a good idea to type a semi-rushed post while very angry. :p

 

[Alfalfa]

For some reason, early voting for Florida is supposed to start in a week. Before the debates, which should never happen. At least one of the debates should have passed (after September 26th), end of story. And I am pissed as a Primeape. This is a clear way of disenfranchising voters, and also will force me to make a rash decision, instead of seeing what happens in the debates. Whether I'm voting for Hillary to play it safe (I know my fellow independents will be pissed at me), or vote for Jill Stein and assume she'll continue to rise in the polls, while Trump will continue to drop like a meteor (taking a huge risk, and if my dad finds out, he'll be pissed), and I'm sure I'm not going to be the only one who is going to be unhappy that they will have to make a snap decision.

I can give a guess who is responsible (Rick Scott), and you can bet your Master Balls I'd like to drop an angry Mankey (or something equally nasty) into his office, and lock the door. Especially because he is only in office due to voter ignorance and gerrymandering. And given the fact that Rick Scott is very pro Trump, and is to chair a pro-Trump super PAC, it wouldn't surprise me if this was a way to get early voters to go out and vote for Trump before the Trump University case has a chance to torpedo his political ambitions once and for all. Given the stake of this election, this is a reckless, stupid move on the governor's part. I hope that this decision doesn't have play any crucial part in deciding the election.

And strangely, I can't find any articles on this.

And now I have to hurry up, and research what will be on the ballot. I'm sure there will be senators, congressmen and women, and new state laws to vote on. And if I can't research it fast enough, I might have to miss early voting, or make more snap decisions without enough research.

Sorry for venting off. But if anyone else is in a similar boat, than feel free to join in.

Speaking of the general debates, Trump is being a whiny little bitch, and trying to steer the direction and terms of the debates where he wants them to be.

Just when I think this election couldn't get any dirtier. I mean, really, the elections are more important than sports (and I really apologize to any sports fans). Do I think that the debates (and election cycle I guess) and sport season should be timed in a way so they don't get in the way of one another (if possible. I don't know anything about sports, or when games are scheduled)? Maybe not an invalid point for the future, if Trump or anyone else wants so push it after the election (assuming he's even available after the Trump U case). But can anything be done about it now? Doubt it. It would no doubt mean having to completely change the schedule for election cycles. But that is another story completely, and I honestly think that Trump just wants to be a whiny little bitch, because he's afraid of loosing, especially to a girl. Or would he prefer to be watching the games to being at the debates? Then again, if President, he wouldn't have time for games, so he probably should get use to it now.

Sorry to Trumpsters who like Trump if I go too hard on him, but yeah, in case you didn't get the memo, I might despise Hillary, but I not only hate Trump, but he outright scares me!

Does early voting in Florida count as the real vote? Or as a pre-vote in an effort to boost the amount of money Trump supporters have if Trump wins?

 

[sunny004]

Does early voting in Florida count as the real vote? Or as a pre-vote in an effort to boost the amount of money Trump supporters have if Trump wins?

Early voting is actual voting for people who would otherwise be unable to vote November 8th, like people travelling or senior citizens/disabled persons.

 

[manodelrey]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-12/96-clinton-donations-went-clinton-foundation
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-judicial-watch/
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...ws-state-department-favors-clinton-foundation
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...ssed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
https://www.rt.com/usa/355447-clinton-emails-state-department-foundation/
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-clinton-foundation-scandals-attacks-224178
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foun...als-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

Just another day for Clinton I guess.
But expect more of this from the media

 

[Chou Toshio]

Okay, I seriously can't watch the news about Trump anymore without legitimately thinking he's trying to throw it (and maybe fuck up the Republican party to boot). It's like he's doing everything he can to shoot his campaign in the foot-- even moreso than before.

 

[manodelrey]

Hey look, potential news that could be used to help trump in pennsylvania and gain ground in a battle state
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nine-criminal-charges/?utm_term=.4174042cc074

Oh wait, he would rather whine about other republicans he has failed to win over and then try and promote censorship
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/764998650598686721
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/764870785634799617

Can't wait to hear Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham blame me for their candidate getting crushed by his own stupidity

 

[sunny004]

Hey look, potential news that could be used to help trump in pennsylvania and gain ground in a battle state
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nine-criminal-charges/?utm_term=.4174042cc074

Oh wait, he would rather whine about other republicans he has failed to win over and then try and promote censorship
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/764998650598686721
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/764870785634799617

Can't wait to hear Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham blame me for their candidate getting crushed by his own stupidity

I'm going to keep this post short, but I think Hannity is a fucking tool. Anyone else agree?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[manodelrey]

I'm going to keep this post short, but I think Hannity is a fucking tool. Anyone else agree?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

As an actual conservative (very rare to find those dwelling in the depths of the internet) I hope that he crashes and burns and doesn't return to any national stage again

 

[Rollout Shuckle]

By the way Donald Trump does not want people to kill Hillary Clinton: in fact the Trumps and the Clintons have been friends for many years at least as far back as Bill Clinton's campaign, so any claim Trump is making that voters should go out and kill Hillary is a fabrication.

In fact some journals suspect that Trump and Clinton are working together and that Trump is only there to ensure Hillary gets into office, which I think is absolutely right.

 

[RoadsterUFO]

Third Party News

- Gary Johnson has raised over $2.7 million in the month of August 2016.

- CNN will be hosting a Green Town Hall with Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka on Wednesday, August 17th at 9:00 P.M. EST

- Fusion will be hosting a Libertarian Town Hall with Gary Johnson and Bill Weld on Thrusday, August 18th at 8:00 P.M. EST

- Fox Business will be hosting a Libertarian Town Hall with Gary Johnson and Bill Weld on August 26th.

- The Debates Commission will be using the following polls to determine the 15% threshold for allowing a 3rd Party candidate into the debates: ABC-Washington Post; CBS-New York Times; CNN-Opinion Research Corporation; Fox News; and NBC-Wall Street Journal.

- The cutoff date for the debates is sometime after Labor Day. If a candidate doesn't reach the 15% threshold by the first debate, they can still be allowed to participate in the second and last debate provided if they're able to reach the threshold.

 

[Ampharos]

a vote for jill stein is a vote wasted, if she doesn't get into the debates (she won't) she has no shot of winning

i feel the same about gary johnson but i also think if he DOES get into the debates (which seems 50/50 at this point, according to the NY Times he's polling around 9% and needs to hit 15%) he'll steal away lots of conservatives who would otherwise hold their nose and vote for trump, so i don't think he's nearly as outlandish a prospect as stein

The fact of the matter, though, is that unless she's involved of a scandal of epic proportions (one that would have to dwarf the email scandal in size, severity, and clarity of ill intent), HRC is probably going to be president. That's not so much a statement of support as one of fact - Trump's tanking his own campaign, Johnson can steal Trump voters but it's incredibly unlikely he'll sway much of Hillary's camp given that his economic stance is literally the opposite of the Democratic platform, and no other 3rd party candidate is going to make it to the debates and thus won't have enough name-recognition with the average American.

 

[dice]

what constitutes a wasted vote? i believe that disavowing third party voters on the premise that their candidate isn't going to win is missing the point of why they're doing it. the 'pick the lesser of two evils' supposition forces voters into being complicit with a candidate that they may find vile and appalling. in lieu of this, a voter can opt to vote for neither candidate and make a stance. advocating for a third party makes reform all the more likely for the main parties. if no one voted atypically, why would anyone bother reconsidering their stances? republicans are lacking a conservative candidate. if that doesn't scream that reform is necessary, i don't know what does.

i have no qualms with who anyone votes for as long as it isn't trump--many of his views negatively affect me, and i'm shook from the plethora of outlandish statements he's provided. i'm just a proponent of voters simply following their consciences. if it leads them to someone outside of the two parties, so be it.