I stand by my opinion that Trumps first term was the best 4 years, policy wise, of this century.
If you simply looked at the data without the name of the President it would be almost impossible to argue.
Then look at what has fucked up in less than 2 years of his second term. I know…you didn’t vote for the bad. But you didn’t vote for the good either.
The biggest difference is that he didn’t have a bunch of sycophants around him in his first term.
I didn’t mention his second term, if you scroll up, you may even see me mention Klobuchar.
I did vote for the good. Third party.
I wasted my vote on a third party one time, and will never do it again.
Then you should say you were wrong in voting for the third party in 2016 since, in your words
I didn’t vote third party in 2016. I voted for Trump, and I stand by that he was much better than Hillary would have been.
If that was who you thought was the best candidate, why do think you wasted your vote?
Because we have a two party system and a third party vote only insures that the one you really don’t want wins. The only reason to vote third party is to give one “bitching rights”. At least they can say “I voted”.
The nearest we came was Perot in 1992 and he put Clinton in office. I wonder…had they voted for Bush, would he have won…Same thing in 2000…people voting for Ralph Nadar gave us GW Bush.
No, the only reason to vote third party is because you think that is the best candidate. I vote for and not against, and I refuse to vote for a candidate who I don’t think should be President, regardless of party and regardless that another candidate may be a millimeter better or worst. I voted 3rd party for Gary Johnson in 2016 because I thought he could bring financial good sense to the office. If I think neither person should be Prez, as I thought in 2020 and 2024, and I think no 3rd party candidate is viable, I just don’t vote for that office. Neither major party candidate in 2020 and 2024 should have been Prez, they were both bad just in different ways.
I have voiced my opinion on these two third-party candidates and how they affected the elections before. But, here I go again (nod to Ronald Reagan).
George H.W. Bush would have lost in 1992, regardless as to whether Perot had run or not. The economy was in the tank and there was a large perception that Bush was out of touch. In fact, Perot had dropped out of the race once, and when he re-entered the race Bush was already in trouble. I remember some Bush supporters hoping that Perot would pull some disaffected votes from Clinton and help Bush. Either way, the only thing that Perot accomplished in 1992 - and 1996 as well - was to deny Clinton a popular vote majority.
As for 2000, there is absolutely 100% no doubt in my mind whatsoever that had Ralph Nader not run Al Gore would have won Florida and the election, no questions asked.
Except that’s just the movie version. I really life, ni romance. She was a child.
