You know all votes are counted, and a vote for a presidential candidate is a vote is a poll of the constituents right?
Jo Jorgensen fits better to the issues I care about than any other candidate. If that's not how you vote, then you are attempting to hand the president to someone you don't even like.
And by voting for a third party that has no chance of winning this helps how?
If you don't want Biden in office, vote for Trump.
I'd you don't want Trump in office, vote Biden.
If you want the candidate you like the least in office, vote third party.
The system is broken but playing this "moral high ground" is simply picking the hill you want to die on.
You want change? Vote third party down ballot.
>You want change? Vote third party down ballot.
Your logic is astounding. Here you advocate voting third party.
>If you want the candidate you like the least in office, vote third party.
Here in the same comment you suggest otherwise.
I'm not taking a moral high ground. I'm voting for a candidate that meets has the most ideologies that align with mine. Frankly I see no difference between Biden or Trump ideologically.
>If you don't want Biden in office, vote for Trump.
>I'd you don't want Trump in office, vote Biden.
You know, if I don't want either there is another option. Jo Jorgensen.
>>You want change? Vote third party down ballot.
>
>Your logic is astounding. Here you advocate voting third party.
You are being purposefully dense.
The only place the third party stands a chance is in local elections. If you can't see this I can understand why you believe in Jo.
>Here in the same comment you suggest otherwise.
For the president...
>I'm not taking a moral high ground. I'm voting for a candidate that meets has the most ideologies that align with mine. Frankly I see no difference between Biden or Trump ideologically.
Then throw your vote away.
Your no better than a Bernie bro shilling for socialism.
>>If you don't want Biden in office, vote for Trump.
>
>>I'd you don't want Trump in office, vote Biden.
>
>You know, if I don't want either there is another option. Jo Jorgensen.
Yep, a terrible choice and you won't get what you want, there's not a single chance Jo is going to win.
She's wants to *increase* immigration.
She wants to allow a temporary amnesty to illegals while saying she also wants them to be deported after serving a sentence from breaking the law... You know like illegally immigrating isnt a crime....
She wants to increase work visas.
She wants to make the citizenship test *easier*.
She wants to remove pricing regulations on life saving drugs.
She wants to remove the government from providing mental healthcare and make it private when this country is in the middle of a massive mental health crisis.
**she wants to give foreigners the right to vote after 2 years living here**
She wants to remove political donation limits.
She wants to put a put tests in place to determine if you should be allowed to vote (found unconstitutional already)
She wants to allow social media to go unregulated.
She want to have requirements for vaccination of children in schools removed.
She wants to shut down US funded space flight.
She wants to remove many if the rules and regulations that prevents a corporate monopoly for existing.
The only thing she makes sense on is gun....
>She's wants to increase immigration.
Me too. We don't need immigrants living in secret avoiding taxes, even if incidentally because of the lower opportunities for above the table jobs.
>She wants to allow a temporary amnesty to illegals while saying she also wants them to be deported after serving a sentence from breaking the law... You know like illegally immigrating isnt a crime....
You just described a sentence and then claim the idea is treating it like it's not a crime. Again with your faulty logic.
>She wants to increase work visas.
Good
>She wants to make the citizenship test easier.
They should be no harder than an 8th grader is required to pass on to 9th grade. Currently only about half of high school graduates could pass the citizens test, and I feel I'm being generous.
>She wants to remove pricing regulations on life saving drugs.
Just life saving? I was hoping for less regulations all around. I need to look into this.
>She wants to remove the government from providing mental healthcare and make it private when this country is in the middle of a massive mental health crisis.
You're doing a great job of making her sound anti socialist while claiming my support of her is socialism. There's the cracks in your logic again.
The current government has practically already done this. This is low hanging fruit for a libertarian. I like to keep in mind that the government employees are rarely the top of their classes and that goes for healthcare workers as well. Making them private will lower the price. And, it will streamline care as you'll be directed to specialized care for your individual needs instead of being assigned one based on where you live.
>she wants to give foreigners the right to vote after 2 years living here
I agree on the local level. We seek to tax them so they should be represented.
>She wants to remove political donation limits.
They already don't exist for large donors. She just wants to make it clear.
Many of her stances violate the constitution of the United States...
She doesn't have the power to do the things you want her to do as president.
Throw your vote away.
>A president has the power to lead. Some of her ideas would take a constitutional convention. I think we need one for a host of reasons.
Leadership doesn't equal the power to call a constitutional convention and even than it requires a 2/3 vote from Congress to change it.
She doesn't have the power to make laws, she doesn't have the power to interpret laws.
She doesn't have the influence or power to make that vote happen, especially when she would be fighting BOTH parties that have power.
You have a very flawed perception of what a president can and cannot due in office.
>She doesn't have the influence or power to make that vote happen, especially when she would be fighting BOTH parties that have power.
You just can't know that.
>You have a very flawed perception of what a president can and cannot due in office.
I don't know where you think my perception is, but it's less flawed then your logical arguments.
>>She doesn't have the influence or power to make that vote happen, especially when she would be fighting BOTH parties that have power.
>
>You just can't know that.
She wouldn't be third party if other supported her ideas...
>
>>You have a very flawed perception of what a president can and cannot due in office.
>
>I don't know where you think my perception is, but it's less flawed then your logical arguments.
You have not given one example of how anything she said would be achievable.
You claim my logic is flawed?
All you've done is say "I agree with her" and parroted her illogical talking points.
I've told you why her pipe dreams are unachievable from the office she is running for and your response has been "but we can just change it".
>You have not given one example of how anything she said would be achievable.
I did, you just didn't like it. You even gave a quote of mine to prove it in your last comment.
>You claim my logic is flawed?
It is, but not because you can't count to one, that's a different issue.
>your response has been "but we can just change it".
I never said that.
>Still waiting on you answer a single question about HOW...
>>>A president has the power to lead. Some of her ideas would take a constitutional convention. I think we need one for a host of reasons.
>>Leadership doesn't equal the power to call a constitutional convention and even than it requires a 2/3 vote from Congress to change it.
>>She doesn't have the power to make laws, she doesn't have the power to interpret laws.
>>She doesn't have the influence or power to make that vote happen, especially when she would be fighting BOTH parties that have power.
>>You have a very flawed perception of what a president can and cannot due in office.
I don't know why you are waiting. Let me do the leg work for you. I don't mind. So here we have you quoting me answering your question. So I know you read it. Then it's followed by you not liking the answer and not understanding what leadership could look like.
>>>She doesn't have the influence or power to make that vote happen, especially when she would be fighting BOTH parties that have power.
>>You just can't know that.
Then for fun, I have quoted you, quoting me, quoting you stating that I think you're wrong. I'm not asking for proof that your correct. I'm insisting that there's no way you could know what kind of leader she could be.
[but you're wrong](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_of_the_president_of_the_United_States)
Do some reading on what a president can actually do in office and see if you can fit what she is claiming she will do into the powers granted by the constitution to the president.
Leadership doesn't seem to be a concept you understand. I'm not an elementary school teacher and I freely admit it is my failure that I can not get you to understand the concept. My apologies.
You seem to be misunderstanding what a president istheir powers responsibilities and what they are legally allowed to do you keep wanting things that are illegal under the Constitution of the United States of America so maybe you need to go back to school and learn how to read the document you're voting for somebody to enforce
I don't misunderstand anything about presidential powers. You don't understand leadership and it's my failure that I can't explain it to you. The fact that you keep circling back is proof that the concept evades you.
The power of the Executive Branch is vested in the President of the United States, who also acts as head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress and, to that end, appoints the heads of the federal agencies, including the Cabinet. The Vice President is also part of the Executive Branch, ready to assume the Presidency should the need arise.
The Cabinet and independent federal agencies are responsible for the day-to-day enforcement and administration of federal laws. These departments and agencies have missions and responsibilities as widely divergent as those of the Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency, the Social Security Administration and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Including members of the armed forces, the Executive Branch employs more than 4 million Americans.
The President
The President is both the head of state and head of government of the United States of America, and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.
Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments — each led by an appointed member of the President’s Cabinet — carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government. They are joined in this by other executive agencies such as the CIA and Environmental Protection Agency, the heads of which are not part of the Cabinet, but who are under the full authority of the President. The President also appoints the heads of more than 50 independent federal commissions, such as the Federal Reserve Board or the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as federal judges, ambassadors, and other federal offices. The Executive Office of the President (EOP) consists of the immediate staff to the President, along with entities such as the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of the United States Trade Representative.
The President has the power either to sign legislation into law or to veto bills enacted by Congress, although Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds vote of both houses. The Executive Branch conducts diplomacy with other nations, and the President has the power to negotiate and sign treaties, which also must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. The President can issue executive orders, which direct executive officers or clarify and further existing laws. The President also has unlimited power to extend pardons and clemencies for federal crimes, except in cases of impeachment.
With these powers come several responsibilities, among them a constitutional requirement to “from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” Although the President may fulfill this requirement in any way he or she chooses, Presidents have traditionally given a State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress each January (except in inaugural years) outlining their agenda for the coming year
Jesus fucking Christ... It's not complicated.
>Jesus fucking Christ... It's not complicated.
Longest wall of text out of you... Nah, rather simple compared to the concept of leadership. Leadership is so complicated that I'm not even going to pretend to try and educate you on it. I'm simply not that well equipped to communicate at such an elementary level. I'm told I come off as condescending and you don't deserve that.
Btw just like everyone else you try and argue with tells you, you ignore anything you don't like to hear.
You're the perfect fit for the useless third party
>You're the perfect fit for the useless third party
Thank you. And to think this whole time I thought you were trying to get me to vote for a Democrat or Republican. I now realize you never took a stand on either. Giving me no reason to vote otherwise. Thanks for the exercise.
And this way you get to complain because you won't win and now "it's not your fault" no mater who wins "because I didn't vote for them".
It's just so sad that you could be a useful participate in society but instead decided to be willfully antagonistic and will waste your life in a bubble of impotent contraindications.
>She wants to put a put tests in place to determine if you should be allowed to vote (found unconstitutional already)
I am against this and haven't seen it mentioned on her literature.
>She wants to allow social media to go unregulated.
Good
>She want to have requirements for vaccination of children in schools removed.
Good. Especially since I'm one of those people who almost died reviving a vaccine.
>She wants to shut down US funded space flight.
Good. Elon Musk is doing a great job. Imagine if he had more competition.
>She wants to remove many if the rules and regulations that prevents a corporate monopoly for existing.
Great. These monopolies still exists in the form of hedge funds. They need to be transparent on who owns what.
>The only thing she makes sense on is gun....
Not the only
She wants to eliminate laws that create victimless crime.
She wants our troops returned home.
https://www.isidewith.com/candidates/jo-jorgensen/policies/electoral
>>She wants to put a put tests in place to determine if you should be allowed to vote (found unconstitutional already)
>
>I am against this and haven't seen it mentioned on her literature.
>>She wants to allow social media to go unregulated.
>
>Good
So you're fine with large corporations controlling what can and can't be said on a *platform*?
You're fine with allowing limitations on free speech?
You do understand that a *platform* can't act as a *publisher* without crossing liability laws right?
>>She want to have requirements for vaccination of children in schools removed.
>
>Good. Especially since I'm one of those people who almost died reviving a vaccine.
So because your parents weren't smart enough to get you a medical exemption we should allow everyone to refuse vaccination and allow antiquated diseases to resurface?
Especially with her want to increase immigration how would you prevent the spread of those diseases without herd immunity?
>>She wants to shut down US funded space flight.
>
>Good. Elon Musk is doing a great job. Imagine if he had more competition.
And so are the other *national and international* space agencies, how can spaceX compete with these space program when they don't have to turn a profit? Not all science is profitable yet corporations must turn a profit. How will that work?
>>She wants to remove many if the rules and regulations that prevents a corporate monopoly for existing.
>
>Great. These monopolies still exists in the form of hedge funds. They need to be transparent on who owns what.
Do you understand what a hedge fund is? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedge_fund
They are high risk investments not industry controlling monopolizing entities.
>>The only thing she makes sense on is gun....
>
>Not the only
No, that's the only one.
>She wants to eliminate laws that create victimless crime.
She can't do that, she isn't Congress.
>She wants our troops returned home.
Yet she also states that military actions and decision are the territory of Congress and that anything else is unconstitutional... Which is it?
She is a terrible candidate that is only appealing to people who have no understanding of what she could even do in office or how the electoral system works in this country.
>So you're fine with large corporations controlling what can and can't be said on a platform?
If I own a billboard I should be able to pick and choose what messages it displays. Yes, absolutely, the owner of a service should be allowed to control what image is represented when that service is presented.
>You're fine with allowing limitations on free speech?
Free speech is that the government can't imprison you for your ideas. It has nothing to do with the private market.
>You do understand that a platform can't act as a publisher without crossing liability laws right?
Preventing or limiting user published works is the exact opposite of acting as a publisher.
>So because your parents weren't smart enough to get you a medical exemption we should allow everyone to refuse vaccination and allow antiquated diseases to resurface?
My parent's intelligence is not in question. How would they know my allergies if I'd not been exposed to something before? The risk of medical procedures should be judged by the individual not be forced by a government with threat of imprisonment.
>Especially with her want to increase immigration how would you prevent the spread of those diseases without herd immunity?
Why would I not rely on herd immunity? It's your loaded question so I'm going to have to unload it by asking: why would people not elect to get vaccines on their own? What you are suggesting is that you wouldn't get your kids vaccinations if the government didn't threaten you with imprisonment.
>>She wants to eliminate laws that create victimless crime.
>She can't do that, she isn't Congress.
She can defund enforcement of those laws. Are you pretending Obama didn't do just that with marijuana?
>>She wants our troops returned home.
>Yet she also states that military actions and decision are the territory of Congress and that anything else is unconstitutional... Which is it?
I see nothing contradictory here. Bringing troops home because we are not at war seems like exactly what the commander in chief is supposed to do. Policing foreign affairs should not be the job if the US. If we're not in an active war then there's no reason to involve Congress in that decision.
>She is a terrible candidate that is only appealing to people who have no understanding of what she could even do in office or how the electoral system works in this country.
It seem by this last definition you presented that she should appeal to you. She appeals to me anyway so by no means is your definition absolute.
Fucking hell are you dense as a brick
**NO PRESIDENT HAS THE POWER OR AUTHORITY TO DO WHAT YOU WANT HER TO DO**
but nope, keep trying to twist my words to try and extract meanings that aren't there.
I'm not twisting any words. You are presenting assumptions about what I said and me as a person.
You also are constantly contradictory. It's a common tactic in arguing so you can claim a favorable result no matter what side of an issue you're on. You're just not very good at it. You probably don't truly realize your doing it. I suspect someone you have discussions with regularly does this to you all the time. So it's a pattern of argument your mimicking, because to you, the other person seems to be constantly be on the favorable end of of arguments.
I hope in the future you can think about the implications of concepts and not focus so much on a specific word meaning. Words have lots of meanings and nuance just like whole concepts.
Since you don't seem to understand what a president can and can't do...
The power of the Executive Branch is vested in the President of the United States, who also acts as head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress and, to that end, appoints the heads of the federal agencies, including the Cabinet. The Vice President is also part of the Executive Branch, ready to assume the Presidency should the need arise.
The Cabinet and independent federal agencies are responsible for the day-to-day enforcement and administration of federal laws. These departments and agencies have missions and responsibilities as widely divergent as those of the Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency, the Social Security Administration and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Including members of the armed forces, the Executive Branch employs more than 4 million Americans.
The President
The President is both the head of state and head of government of the United States of America, and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.
Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments — each led by an appointed member of the President’s Cabinet — carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government. They are joined in this by other executive agencies such as the CIA and Environmental Protection Agency, the heads of which are not part of the Cabinet, but who are under the full authority of the President. The President also appoints the heads of more than 50 independent federal commissions, such as the Federal Reserve Board or the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as federal judges, ambassadors, and other federal offices. The Executive Office of the President (EOP) consists of the immediate staff to the President, along with entities such as the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of the United States Trade Representative.
The President has the power either to sign legislation into law or to veto bills enacted by Congress, although Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds vote of both houses. The Executive Branch conducts diplomacy with other nations, and the President has the power to negotiate and sign treaties, which also must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. The President can issue executive orders, which direct executive officers or clarify and further existing laws. The President also has unlimited power to extend pardons and clemencies for federal crimes, except in cases of impeachment.
With these powers come several responsibilities, among them a constitutional requirement to “from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” Although the President may fulfill this requirement in any way he or she chooses, Presidents have traditionally given a State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress each January (except in inaugural years) outlining their agenda for the coming year
40 comments
33 u/CTU 07 Aug 2020 02:38
16 u/electronicoffee 07 Aug 2020 07:45
15 u/XxTyraelxX 07 Aug 2020 05:57
5 u/CptHammer_ 07 Aug 2020 01:49
-1 u/thepyrodex 07 Aug 2020 13:49
1 u/[deleted] [OP] 07 Aug 2020 13:49
5 u/CptHammer_ 07 Aug 2020 15:01
-2 u/thepyrodex 07 Aug 2020 15:21
3 u/CptHammer_ 07 Aug 2020 15:35
0 u/thepyrodex 07 Aug 2020 16:08
0 u/CptHammer_ 07 Aug 2020 16:29
1 u/thepyrodex 07 Aug 2020 16:36
1 u/CptHammer_ 07 Aug 2020 16:39
0 u/thepyrodex 07 Aug 2020 16:49
0 u/CptHammer_ 07 Aug 2020 16:53
0 u/thepyrodex 07 Aug 2020 17:16
0 u/CptHammer_ 07 Aug 2020 18:22
0 u/thepyrodex 07 Aug 2020 18:30
0 u/CptHammer_ 07 Aug 2020 18:59
0 u/thepyrodex 07 Aug 2020 19:02
1 u/CptHammer_ 07 Aug 2020 19:03
0 u/thepyrodex 07 Aug 2020 19:11
0 u/CptHammer_ 07 Aug 2020 20:47
0 u/thepyrodex 07 Aug 2020 20:59
0 u/CptHammer_ 07 Aug 2020 21:04
0 u/thepyrodex 07 Aug 2020 23:03
0 u/CptHammer_ 07 Aug 2020 23:13
0 u/thepyrodex 07 Aug 2020 23:28
0 u/thepyrodex 07 Aug 2020 23:05
0 u/CptHammer_ 07 Aug 2020 23:10
1 u/thepyrodex 07 Aug 2020 23:31
4 u/CptHammer_ 07 Aug 2020 16:37
0 u/thepyrodex 07 Aug 2020 17:12
1 u/CptHammer_ 07 Aug 2020 18:48
0 u/thepyrodex 07 Aug 2020 19:09
0 u/CptHammer_ 07 Aug 2020 21:00
1 u/thepyrodex 07 Aug 2020 23:02
2 u/KalaiProvenheim 07 Aug 2020 11:34
2 u/GreatWhiteNorthBear 07 Aug 2020 13:05
1 u/ExtraPockets † 07 Aug 2020 08:18