It's worked out pretty shitty with Obama - but better than the alternative. What pressure do YOU put on elected officials? Or is it no longer your responsibility after you smugly decline to participate in electing anybody?
Have you people ever seen her opponent? Seriously, you guys sound like total dumbshits arguing how violent Hillary Clinton is when her (actual) opponent wants to drop nuclear bombs on the Middle East. As you know, I'm no fan of her hawkishness, but she's patently less aggressive than the shaved orangutan she's running against. (ps. Nobody gives half a turd what Johnson thinks, if indeed he does at all.)
So Romney would have been a bigger war monger than Obama has been? I suppose, maybe, if you squint hard. I'm guessing more "draw". Well, see, your phrasing of that basically puts ALL non-eventual-winner voters (and non-voters) in the same bucket, which is, to borrow a term "mother********ing childish". You're performing an act of me-tooism that is expressly against your stated principles. There's a word for that.
I have to be a highly successful and decorated German professional striker turned coach that has coached high-calibre teams such as the German NT and Bayern Munich before going on to coach the USMNT for upwards of five years to be nobody? You have high standards.
I AM NOT A TROLL. I know nothing about football and all my opinions on the subject are henceforth invalidated obv, usmnt.
Wait, so the "long term project" that is "getting debate/major party/whatever status" is a quadrennial wedge issue? Or is it only your thing that's a Right and Proper Long Term Project?
This thread looked like it was running around in circles, so I thought I'd interject with my own unique brand of helpfulness.
Oh. You're very into helpfulness these days. You should make sure you precede all such comments with your Captain Helpful (or whatever it was) graphic.
In the 'real world': 1- Your vote isn't going to decide anything. No single vote does, not even in very close elections. This one isn't that close. 2- Your vote will only identify which 'team' you have chosen. In your case, 'team Hillary" and the Democratic party. 3- Your vote for Stein or Johnson would have had greater statistical significance than voting for Hillary since there are fewer Stein/Johnson voters than Hillary voters. 4- If you advocated for Stein/Johnson, you would have greater say in the policies that will emerge than voting for Hillary. The idea that not casting your individual secret ballot in favor of Hillary will somehow deprive you having supposed "influence" on what Hillary does (a idea proposed by Knave which you repped) has no logical basis. But if you managed to convince enough people around you to vote for Johnson or Stein, you might make a difference in whether they can get 5% of the vote -- the threshold for qualifying their respective political parties for public campaign financing and, thereby, the means to have a greater voice and impact on what policies are pursued.
If you (not you specifically; the general you) are attempting to replace one of the major parties with a currently small/irrelevant party, and your praxis consists only of voting for said small/irrelevant party's presidential nominee every four years, then you suck at long term projects. Might as well do nothing.
The sad part about this post is you actually believe it. Only one candidate has participated in the chaos in the middle east every chance they got,and that is Hillary Clinton. Oh yeah and that same person has been on record saying they would go to war with Russia and Iran.
He wants to nuke the Middle East? LOL Just like Trump loves the KKK and he and Putin are best friends. Keep slurping down that MSM propaganda they keep feeding you.