Sam Elliott Ad: 'It's Time To Be A Man And Vote For A Woman'
By: Susie Madrak (Crooks and Liars)
The 80-year-old actor, known for his down-home delivery in Westerns and other movies and TV shows, implored voters to embrace the "courage" of the Democratic nominee and avoid the "lies and hate" of Donald Trump.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Pretty much everybody loves Sam Elliott, so here's hoping this has a positive effect.
Sam Elliott swears by Kamala Harris in a new campaign ad. (Watch it below.) The 80-year-old actor, known for his down-home delivery in Westerns and other movies and TV shows, implored voters to embrace the "courage" of the Democratic nominee and avoid the "lies and hate" of Donald Trump.
"Are we really going back down that same fucking broken road?" Elliott says in the video put out by the Lincoln Project on Monday.
The imagery is often the stock stuff you might find in other campaign commercials ― wilderness, farms and the American flag ― but Elliott's words penetrate as if they flew out of a crackling campfire. "It's time to be a man and vote for a woman," Elliott says.
We hear ya, pardner.
Always one of my favorites
I applaud everyone who votes regardless of who they vote for.
I respect the choice of millions to vote for Harris and will accept her as My President if she wins the election.
But "we the people" are only voting for her because she is a woman or because we hate Trump, then the elephant in the room still needs to be addresed.
Are Trump and Harris really the best the U.S. can do?
I personally hope not.
No Democrat would be the "best" for you. Maybe no Republican too. Biden wasnt the "best", Harris is not the "best", Trump certainly isnt the "best", so where do we find this best?
Trump is the most unfit for office presidential candidate in American history. That is all people need to know when they go in to vote.
And that's the only reason I need to vote for Harris. I think she will find her footing and lead this country. But I do believe it's going to be painful
As Stephanie Ruhle stated on Bill Maher’s show, Harris is not running for Perfect, she’s running for President, and her opponent is unacceptable on every level.
I dont get people who say that Harris has to prove herself before they will vote for her. Look at the alternative.
If someone gives you the choice between eating a box of razor blades or eating a bug, is that really a hard choice ?
Probably a YUGE understatement
I think it will be a LOT less painful than the alternative. I know Harris will be a standard normal politician as most prior Presidents have been. There will be ups and downs, but a lot fewer downs than if we had an incompetent petulant convicted felon in the job.
I think this coming election is divided between a vote for normalcy (Harris) and a vote for lunacy (Trump). Sadly, I know there are millions of Americans who are so disillusioned and bitter about American politics that they would rather vote for lunacy because they believe everything is already broken anyway so electing what amounts to a lunatic arson to run the country to burn it all down seems like the best choice to them. And while some of their complaints are valid, they prove themselves truly anti-American and anti-constitution by making such an insane choice.
I have no doubt about that.
I don't understand burning it all down before you've replaced that thing you've burnt down
It's the mindset of a lynch mob. Some loud ignorant voice has convinced them of someone's guilt so without facts, without trial, the mob grabs the supposed guilty person and strings them up in their frothing rage very likely killing an innocent person on the words of a snake oil salesman. Same with the MAGA mob, a loud ignorant voice has convinced them everything is shit and everything needs to be burned down so they can supposedly "make their country great again" but all they'll be left with is a destroyed economy, burned down infrastructure and a fat greasy orange pig fucker sitting on a crumbling gold painted throne.
I think you would agree that is nothing to brag about. We are in the "dark ages" of modern American history.
I'm so tired of that loud ignorant voice and that loud ignorant face.
Of course not, but one of them will be the next PotUS. The immediate issue is picking the individual (of those two) who is best suited to be PotUS. The elephant in the room problem cannot be addressed in the next 45 days (if at all) so it is only rational to focus on the decision at hand.
THANK YOU!
T G
I agree
I am beginning to believe it will be Harris and guess I now hope for the Republicans to maintain the House and maybe take the Senate
Stalemate is slightly better than chaos
Maybe the country will find better candidates in 2028
Now before certain heads explode, am I being sarcastic or not?
Stay tuned for an update tomorrow
Gridlock is good given our politicians suck and they have worked around most of the constitutional checks and balances so that they can operate in a partisan, unstatesmanlike manner. Partisan gridlock is the only real check that exists right now.
I think what is best for the longer term is for the GOP to fail miserably in 2024. I believe it will take a spectacular failure to trigger an overhaul of the GOP to break free of the Trump parasite and hopefully recover the principles and integrity that the GOP once had.
LOL and maybe pigs will learn to fly
That's one possibility.
But OTOH, maybe the country will find worse candidates in 2028!
Our trend has been to go from bad to worse. However, the Ds have just now made a step in the right direction by going from Biden to Harris.
Krishna
Unfortunately, it is likely that you are more correct on that prediction than I am
Trump will not be trumped, hes in a league of his own
We know you're going to throw away your vote. Why keep reminding us?
Any vote is not 'thrown away'.
If you actually believe that nonsense, then every person who ever voted for someone who didn't win also 'threw their vote away".[✘]
If I vote for neither "loser" that is not a vote thrown away, but rather a vote of conscience knowing that one of the "losers" will be elected president
Why dont you just "pretend" that you went and voted then? Same outcome.
It's throwing away your vote.
Why dont you just "pretend" that you went and voted then? Same outcome.
That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever seen in a comment.
Just because I do not want to vote for either major party candidate for President does not mean that there are not numerous down ballot races and initiatives on the ballot that I will be voting for.
Think before you make a general directive
Tessy
No it is declining to vote for either loser.
There are many other ballot races and initiatives worth voting for on the ballot
LOL
Ok just pretend you voted for president.
[✘]
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, you can have the last word.
Obviously you haven't been on social media for long!
(Not that there's anything wrong with that
)
To quote Mark Twain, "we have the best government money can buy."
fineline
You are unfortunately closer to the truth than most people think
To quote Mark Twain, "we have the best government money can buy."
He said a lot of wise things-- a few were about politics;
Here's another I like:
Suppose I was an idiot. And suppose I was a member of Congress. But I repeat myself!
Here's another. I liked it so much that I said it to someone long ago (on another site) knowing full well I would get another mark towards suspension. I did ...and in that particular case I thiought it was worth it!
It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
(Mark Twain)
ALWAYS enjoyed Sam Elliott. Not too long ago watched him in Ghost Rider, then Up in the Air, and recently Did You Hear About the Morgans?. Great voice, and great delivery of it.
We are told that life was so much better under Trump, from 2017 through 2020 , that we should vote for him. But the years 2017 - 2020 ended , didnt they? Time only flows one way. Something happened at the beginning of 2021 , right? Trump disqualified himself through his attempt to steal the election. In terms of his fitness for office 2017-2020 has been negated.
Right after Jan 6th there were a LOT of Republicans who said Trump should never be allowed in office again. Their thinking was clear, but it was short lived. As soon as Trump started to re-imerge, almost all of them fell in line out of fear of what MAGA could do to their personal political careers. But their fear for their own interests doesnt make Trump any less disqualified.
Was it really, tho?
I dont think there was much lasting difference between 2017-2020 and 2021-2024, no. The only real difference was the inflation rate, which is a real thing, but this was hardly the only period in US history when there has been high inflation, but it is the only period when we've had an abomination like Trump running for president. We can recover from inflation. Can we recover from the national dishonor that is the result of putting a traitor back in office?
I'm concerned about the threat to our democracy
Trump is a bad choice, but Harris would turn out to be infinitely worse. The left is losing every demographic except young females and the American people can see through Kamala's lies, evasiveness, and flip-floppery. If the democrats had forced Biden out earlier and ran a campaign where a better candidate could be on the ballot, they might have had a chance to win, with someone like Tulsi Gabbard, when they had the chance. There is a good reason Tulsi left the democrat party.
Tulsi Gabbard is an unstable , erratic person who was brought up in a religious cult and still thinks that way.
Why, precisely?
Because she is a DINO and went to the dark side.
While I tremendously respect Sam Elliott as a actor, I cannot in good conscience agree with his views on Kamala Harris, but that's just me.
Where better to get political choice advice than Hollywood, the land of transparency, income equality and high moral standards?
Actually it is an easy choice this time
Donald Trump wont give you the shirt off his back, but he will sell it to you. . He is now selling swatches of the suit he wore when he gave his RNC acceptance speech.
Presidential enough for you?
Trump gifts Pennsylvania mom of three with $100 at grocery store checkout: 'Complete surprise' | Fox News
That's probably more than Joe has given his own granddaughter in Arkansas since she was born.
I don't collect suit swatches, but what does that have to do with celebrity endorsements?
I think Hollywood endorsements are at least, if not more , as credible as Trump selling rubes 1 inch swatches of his suit they can frame and hang on their living room walls.
His position is that Trump is unfit and therefore Harris, not Trump, should be the next PotUS.
You disagree with that??
Not Trump is NOT a reason.
For a group of low information voters a "D" is all the reason they need.....And all the sheep bleated "vote blue no matter who"
I disagree with his assertion that Harris is fit to be president. I believe she is not. I also agree that Trump is unfit as well. That being said I don't plan on voting for either one.
Yes, it is!
I don't think I can survive 4 years under that tyrant
Yeah, we've seen that mentality in the last four years, and it ain't good.
That is absurd. If there are only two viable choices and one of them is unfit, it is entirely rational to vote for the other.
Good grief, Ed. On what grounds is Harris unfit to be PotUS?
Is that all you have George? You defend voting for Trump by claiming that those who vote for Harris are necessarily merely engaging in blind partisanship?
That would suggest that you are oblivious to the profound negatives of Trump and the reasons he is unfit to hold any political position of power.
Instead of platitudes, make an actual argument for why people should vote for Trump. Make your case as to why it makes sense to ignore:
and return this traitor to the presidency.
[deleted][✘]
And with that platitude bullshit you demonstrate that you have nothing to offer.
Of course it is...
You're free to throw away your vote just like Robert
How so? To not want to vote for a convicted felon rapist traitor?
What exactly is that 'mentality'?
What ain't good about it? Not supporting a traitor?
JFC pay attention. That voting for Biden was a good idea cuz "but Trump". The same applies to Harris.
It's never good to support a convicted felon rapist traitor.
Would you rather someone vote for Trump because he is not Harris?
Of course I can not be sure but it might be a comment about seeing the same comment 10 or so times a day that just gets boring and there is no good reason to continue a conversation that has been had at least a dozen times before since nothing will come of it by having it again.
Ergo the dead horse.
Does it completely escape your attention that I am rebutting the same, boring repeated comments and claims?
Trump supporters continue to defend Trump and continue to make the same feeble, vague claims against Harris. So naturally the rebuttals will be repeated as well.
This is a discussion / debate forum. Whining that rebuttals appear is pretty pathetic.
Instead of constantly complaining stand up and make an actual argument.
Does it completely escape you that we know what you are doing and repeating on a daily basis and your commentary gets a little...............um..........tedious and boring? You are changing NO ONE'S mind.
Of course my rebuttals will not change the mind of a Trump supporter. IMO anyone who is still supporting Trump is unreachable with fact and logic so I do not even try.
My rebuttals are in response to claims and comments made by Trump supporters. They are a counter to the bullshit put forth by Trump supporters so that in this forum those comments do not get to stand unchallenged.
If you cannot stand to see rebuttals then I suggest you cease with the repetitious supportive claims and comments for Trump.
As long as Trump is a figure in American politics people will be repeating themselves about his total lack of character and ethics, and well, decency. To do otherwise is to normalize the abomination.
It isn't me whose commentary looks foolish and like continuous "nuh uh'isms". I am sorry but you are, indeed, beating a dead horse. But kudos for the effort I suppose.
They serve no purpose and only highlight the comments that you are "rebutting" and keeping them alive.
Tig is talking about substance and you and some of the others are talking about him.[✘]
You are not changing anyone's mind either so don't you find your commentary gets a little ....um.....tedious and boring?
I have to hand it to TiG - he has the patience of Job - I admire and respect his not letting bullshit go unchallenged and his honest and detailed and truthful and factual comments/articles.
You, et. al. pollute this site with comments designed to support Trump directly or indirectly by trying to beat down his opponent. You have the right to do that.
I have the right to provide a counterpoint. I have a right to put forth a challenge or an argument against your post.
Sure, I understand why you do not want your nonsense to be challenged. It is probably embarrassing to see the absurdity of these comments exposed. Especially when you have no rebuttal and simply go personal in lieu of an argument.
You have the option to cease putting forth your pro-Trump posts. If you do not make such posts then obviously there will be no challenge. And you can continue to put forth your pathetic posts and have them be ripped to shreds.
Your choice. Quit whining.
[deleted][✘]
[deleted][✘]
"On what grounds is Harris unfit to be PotUS?"
I'll just start with the main ones.
1. Price of gas.
2. Price of groceries.
3. Wide open border and associated. illegal immigrants crisis.
4. Afghanistan evacuation fiasco.
5. Lies.
6. Flip flopping on issues.
7. Housing and mortgage costs.
There are more, but that's enough for starters.
[✘]
Of course you cherrypick my ending comments after I have made my rebuttals. You play that pathetic little game instead of standing up and dealing with my actual challenges such as:
[✘]
Some may believe that about your comments.
You think Harris set the price of gas? Not only is this not under Harris' control but it is not even under Biden's. A PotUS has very little control over the price of gas. The USA has been producing crude and refining fuel under Biden at a level higher than under Trump, but the price of crude oil (which we must import because most of our refinement is based on sour crude and we produce mainly sweet crude) has been high largely due to the pandemic and the Ukraine war.
Also, how does this make Harris unfit?
The PotUS/VP do not set the prices for groceries. That is predominantly a function of our market-based economy. The pandemic was the main trigger and inflation from government spending is indeed a factor. Trump spent more in his four years than Biden. I am definitely against fiscal irresponsibility and both parties suck in this regard. Further, since when does disagreement on fiscal concerns translate into being unfit for office?
The border is NOT wide open and you know that as well as anyone else. The border patrol has had a record number of encounters but the number of illegals in this nation has remained relatively stable since the high established during the Bush presidency.
Why is Harris unfit because of this mess?
I cannot believe you actually stated this. You have the most prolific liar probably in our nation's history in Trump and you think that normal, minor campaign falsehoods by Harris makes her unfit ??? You think she is any different from any other politician in this regard?
Would you prefer someone to stubbornly stick to positions that they determined were wrong or not appropriate at the time? Do you want a leader who is so bullheaded that they do not modify their positions based on changing circumstances and new information? If so, Trump is your man because that asshole never admits he was wrong, never adjusts.
And yet again, you attribute this to the PotUS/VP. The Executive branch had very little control over the economy. We are a nation with a capitalist market-based economy. Real estate and mortgage prices/rates are a function of the market and the Fed. As noted above, you can properly blame Congress and the President for continued borrowing and spending and thus a portion of inflation, but the rest is a function of market dynamics.
I did not ask why you dislike her policies. That was a given. I am sure I will dislike a number of her initiatives too. I asked you to explain why you claim she is unfit to be PotUS.
Harris is clearly fit to serve as PotUS based on the standard set by the history of our presidents:
Why, specifically, is she unfit ?
Trump is unfit not because of his policies but because of his actions and his demonstrably abysmal character:
You responding with strictly personal platitudes and running away from challenges is not adding anything of value to the site.
Put forth an argument. Take a stand and back it up with fact and logic.
Even if Trump gets elected, we'll probably all survive, unless there's another pandemic that he downplays and dismisses personal safety and recommends injecting bleach again. Sure, it's likely that tens of thousands of Americans died because they listened to Trumps advice on Covid, but the country is still here and it will still be here four years from now even if he wins in November and the one bonus is that he won't be able to run again so we'll never have to think about that fat greasy fucking loser rapist felon traitor again which will be such a huge relief.
[deleted][✘]
Thank-you for your words of encouragement. I'll tone down the hyperbole
Of course, there are those that Trump is unfit, but that is just uninformed blind partisanship on their part.
which of these points is untrue? i'm going to have to ask you to be specific.
[✘]
we have four more months of this bs. Two until the election and two more as Trump tries Insurrection II
Do better than making mere claims.
Trump is demonstrably unfit and I (unlike you) have made a very detailed, clear case.
So make your case as to why Trump is fit to be PotUS.
I remain amazed that people who clearly have no argument and no chance of ever making a cogent argument continue to make these pointless, unsubstantiated claims. To what end?
Good advice
It says it is a speak your mind forum.
I believe they're prepared for the repeat incited former 'president' coup Part II
[✘]
When someone claims that Trump is fit for office or equivalent then there will likely be a rebuttal. If a dozen pro-Trump claims ensue on a day then it is reasonable in a forum like this that there be roughly the same number of rebuttals / challenges.
Quit whining and make an argument or at least contribute something thoughtful to the discussion.
Contribute something thoughtful to the topic instead of complaining about others rebutting nonsense.
Just as you are to throw yours away voting for Harris. It is still a free country.
[✘] /s
Yet I'm not throwing mine away.
Neither is anyone else who votes---for ANYONE.
[✘]
[✘]
And no matter what you may think, neither am I.
Of course you aren't.
It is one of the weakest arguments I have encountered here that if you don't vote for Trump or Harris you are wasting your vote. By that dubious (at BEST) "logic" all votes for the loser were wasted.
I consider it one of the oddest things I have heard.
[✘]
The only way your comment would make sense is if every candidate loses.
Of course not.
Some folks claim a vote for anyone other than Harris or Trump is a waste.
If that is true, then ANY vote for the person who loses is wasted.
It can not be both ways, that votes for someone who doesn't win (as long as they aren't the one of the two major party candidates only) is wasted but votes for whoever loses between Trump and Harris is not a waste.
The end result is exactly the same.
Thanks for the advice. I will give it the consideration it deserves
Yup, you are.
You just keep right on telling yourself that. Still changes nothing.
Since only Harris or Trump can win, a vote for any other candidate can definitely be described as a "waste".
waste -synonym - "fritter away"
waste defintion - Search (bing.com)
Voting for a third party in 2024 does not accomplish anything. It just goes the way of other third party votes.
We do need a third party, but to get one we need to do more than merely wait until election day and vote.
We need:
The Libertarian party is over 50 years old. It has never achieved the above other than arguably name recognition. It has accomplished almost nothing in all that time in terms of winning candidates. The only officials elected as Libertarians have been a handful at the local government level. We can discuss the other third parties in the USA but they are even more woeful than the Libertarian party. Thus history (and logic) shows us that merely voting for a third party candidate does not accomplish anything. Since it is done without the other elements in play, it is a wasted vote.
Those who abstain from voting D or R to 'send a message' are effectively sending a message directly to the trash can. The D and R parties do not care about anything other than their binary competition. It does not matter if 10 million of 80 million people vote as long as they get the results they want.
But if enough people abstained for one of the parties but not the other, a message might be sent. In 2024, one can only hope that many of the GOP voters will indeed NOT vote for Trump. If they did that, they might 'send a message' to the GOP that their nominee sucks and that they need to rethink this new MAGA version of the GOP.
Still, the stronger message in 2024 would be to vote against Trump by voting for Harris. And, in some cases like mine, one can vote against Trump and simultaneously vote for a decent presidential team of Harris-Walz.
I'm not telling myself anything. I'm stating the truth.
Your version of your truth, not mine.
You're so correct about the MSM coverage of trump.
Trump: Harris has more cognitive problems than Biden
Former President Trump said Tuesday that his opponent, Vice President Harris, has “ bigger cognitive problems ” than President Biden, who ended his campaign amid public concern over his mental acuity.
During a speech Tuesday in Savannah, Ga., Trump criticized the Biden administration’s handling of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, pointing specifically to the 13 service members who were killed during the chaotic withdrawal and to the military equipment left oversees.
Trump said world leaders are “laughing at us,” repeating a frequent refrain, before laying into Harris.
“We have to be respected. They laugh at us. All over the world, they’re laughing at us,” Trump said.
“And you know what they’re really laughing at? Kamala,” Trump continued, “because they can’t believe that she’s going to be president. They can’t believe.”
Trump seemed to reference criticism of his own cognitive abilities, before pivoting to Harris.
“You talk about cognitive problems? She’s got bigger cognitive problems than he has, in my opinion,” Trump said, referencing Biden.
The Hill has reached out to the Harris campaign for comment.
Harris and Trump remain locked in a tight race in key battleground states, but Harris holds an edge nationally, according to The Hill/Decision Desk HQ’s polling average . Harris leads by 3.9 percentage points, with 50 percent support to Trump’s 46.1 percent.
Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill. This iframe is not allowed
Nancy Pelosi Snaps After CNN Airs Nonsensical Trump Smear of Harris
Representative Nancy Pelosi scolded CNN’s Jake Tapper in an interview Tuesday for giving airtime to Donald Trump’s attack on Kamala Harris’s mental fitness.
Tapper brought up the subject by mentioning criticism of how the media has covered Trump’s apparent cognitive decline.
“I’m sure that you hear from progressive voters, Democratic voters who say—as I hear from them on social media—[that] the media made such a big deal out of Joe Biden’s alleged cognitive problems; why don’t they talk about Donald Trump’s cognitive problems?” Tapper said to Pelosi. “Well, Donald Trump talked about that just a second ago, and I want to get your reaction.”
Tapper played a clip of Trump at a rally claiming that Kamala Harris has “got bigger cognitive problems than [Biden] has, in my opinion.”
“Why would you even cover that?” replied Pelosi, clearly annoyed. “This is a person who is not on the level. He is their nominee for president. He is incompetent. Let’s not even talk about the silliness of it all, and the weirdness of it all, and the assault on women that it is.”
During the first presidential debate between Trump and President Biden in June, Tapper was criticized along with debate co-moderator Dana Bash for failing to challenge any of Trump’s false statements . Trump, who had attacked the network in the days leading up to the debate, was singing Tapper and Bash’s praises afterward. All of this adds to a long list of criticism of how Tapper and CNN handle political coverage .
Pelosi went on to pivot to an attack on Trump for tax cuts to the wealthy and adding $2 trillion to the national debt, as well as attacking his record on job creation.
Tapper pushed back, attributing Trump’s poor record on jobs to the effects of the Covid pandemic, but Pelosi disagreed and added, “It’s not because of Covid. We put $3 trillion into the economy when he was president, working with the Congress, working together.”
“What did he do with Covid? Denial, and delay. Responsible for thousand, and thousands, and thousands of people dying,” Pelosi added. “So if you’re going to forgive his job record because of Covid, make sure you attribute many of those deaths to him.”
Tapper smirked at Pelosi’s response, defending himself by adding, “Not forgiving anything, just noting the context.”
Pelosi again underlined that she felt Trump was “incompetent,” adding to forget about other adjectives like “silly,” “crazy” or “crooked.” The former speaker seemed to take issue with some of the messaging around Trump and Vance being “weird” and looked to drive her message about Trump’s ability to do the job of president.
Tapper followed by responding to the question of why they were covering this issue, telling Pelosi, “I run that clip because that’s the Republican presidential nominee and I thought you might have a reaction to it.”
The CNN anchor followed by asking about House Speaker Mike Johnson saying, “If we have a free, fair and safe election, we’re going to follow the Constitution.” Tapper pointed out the Republican leader’s seeming caveat on whether he would certify this November’s presidential election.
While Pelosi wouldn’t concede that Johnson might still be speaker come January when the certification is held, she noted that there would be greater security this time than during the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection following the election of President Biden and the defeat of former President Trump.
“Nobody could ever foresee that the president of the United States, disrespecting the office that he held, would incite an insurrection in the Capitol,” Pelosi added. “Assaulting our Capitol, our symbol of democracy to the world. Assaulting our Constitution, which called for the peaceful transfer of power. And assaulting the Congress of the United States violently, going after me, with a bullet [to put] in my head and a noose for his own vice president, who would not follow his instruction to ignore the Constitution and not honor his oath to protect and defend the Constitution.”
Pelosi summarized the stakes of the election by citing “The Star-Spangled Banner.”
“The National Anthem says, ‘Proof through the night that our flag is still there,'” the former House speaker said. “You’ve heard me say that again and again. And we, this is our night. We have to prove through the night that our flag is still there.”
There is only one version of the truth.
Bottom line is I do not accept your truth. End of discussion. Have a good evening.
[✘]
[✘]
You're wrong.
Following that logic, then why would it not make sense for a GOP leaning voter to do that but also vote for a third party candidate which would have the same result, AND would start to build that third party foundation you agree we need? If everything else you said is true about wasting a vote because one of the two major party candidates is going to win anyway, and most of the more rational Republicans and Independents don't vote for Trump, then what is the concern about them placing their vote on that third party candidate? Harris still wins and a message is sent, especially to the Republican Party.
Agreed, but what must we have before ANY of that can be built? We must have votes, in sufficient measure that builds a foundation for future investment in a viable third party. We need a clear message to the R & D parties that we have had it with their stranglehold on our election process, especially our presidential election process. I don't care which party that message starts with, in fact I agree that given the circumstances, it probably should start with the Republican Party until it comes back to its senses and away from Trump.
Senseless.
Because history has shown that enough voters do not abstain from one particular party and voters do not vote heavily for a third party. I was acknowledging a theoretical truth to emphasize that the logic itself is not wrong, but rather that it is impractical. History has shown that mere voting on election day does not produce a viable third party. It is, for example, theoretically possible to immediately turn the Libertarian viable by having GOP voters vote Libertarian in 2024. That is logical, but clearly impractical.
So, and this is the crux of my position, if someone in 2024 is trying to use their vote to actually make a difference, then the best way to do that is to vote for the D or R nominee they believe is best for the nation.
The part in red above is restating my theoretical point (logical but does not ever happen).
I am not concerned about people voting third party. My argument is about the practicality of their intent. If someone's intent is to make a difference, then merely voting third party on election day is a waste (demonstrated by history). If, on the other hand, their intent is simply to refuse to give their vote to someone they consider unfit to serve, then abstaining or voting third party makes (personal) sense.
This debate, just so you know, started because one of our members routinely ridicules voting for one of the two viable candidates this year. My argument is that voting for one of the two viable candidates is the only way to make a difference in 2024. And when the rebuttal of 'sending a message' and/or 'supporting a third party' is offered, my rebuttal to that has been that this has been done now for over 150 years and it has yet to make a difference. That waiting until election day to merely cast a third party vote is too little too late. And then I list what I believe is critical to be done well before we vote if we are to ever have a viable third party.
You quoted my list so I will not repeat it.
Then we will never have a viable third party. History proves this. The votes simply do not come and there is no reason to ever expect that they will spontaneously come. The votes are clearly not the trigger. The key trigger IMO is 'a dynamic, charismatic candidate who inspires people to vote for them'. That is the horse that needs be before the cart. The closest we have come to that recently is Ross Perot. Had he won, he would have established a viable third party and subsequent (future) votes for candidates of that party would then make a difference by keeping that party alive.
So I will close by repeating my 'however' point with the context I have established in this post.
If by some magic we have a huge shift of GOP voters from the GOP to third parties (ideally to a single third party) then yes indeed that would make a difference. My subtle point was that this is wishful thinking and wishful thinking is not an action plan.
Let's start with the first one.
Unfortunately I am unable to know if he is the historically because (going back in time) my knowledge of American presdents stops with JFK. (Well, maybe Eisenhower).
How do you know that? Are you familar with president Franklin Pierce? How about president Warren Gamliel Harding? President Buchanan?
If you're not familiar with them them don't feel bad-- I'm not familiar with them either!
But how can you say Trump was "historically by far the worst nominee of a major party in terms of character and ethics"-- when you're not familiar with many others?
Right. We need to feel strongly enough about sending a message to transcend the tribalism that entrenches us in the two-party system. Agreed. I also agree that it must go well beyond sending that message with a third party vote in 2024, including demanding fair ballot access, fair access to debate participation, and elimination of a winner take all electoral system in the States for Federal elections to allow more local representation to work its way towards building the list of things you agree are needed to field a viable third party going forward. In addition to showing support for third parties we need to break the chains the two major parties have placed on our electoral process.
Well neither of us can really know their intent, but fully 63% of adult voters feel that they are not properly represented by the two major parties and that a third party is needed, based on a recent Gallup poll. So if their intent is to act on that opinion (seems logical), how does voting for a third party not make practical sense? Granted they need to do more than just vote for that third party, they need to help grow it and make it more viable in the future.
Not if the difference we want to make is to break the choke-hold of the two-party monopoly on our Federal elections. For the 63% of Americans who think a third party is badly needed, how does settling for the lesser of two evils, or voting against one's convictions, make a difference in 2024? If we are focused on convincing people not to vote for Trump (which we both are) and we think a third party is needed (which we both do), then what difference should it make to us whether that non-vote for Trump is in the form of an abstention or a vote for a third party, which if you are correct is a "wasted vote" favoring Harris anyway?
Not wishing for anything here, just plain old thinking...
Thanks Tessy, so sweet! I love you too!
Meh...
I would agree if we did not have over 150 years of history showing that merely waiting until election day to vote does not break the choke-hold of the two party system.
In the meantime, I see a much higher short-term priority of ensuring Trump does not secure the power of the presidency. That is something that can be affected by voting for a viable candidate.
A worthy priority to be sure.
Perhaps, but clearly that is something that is directly affected by simply not voting for Trump. Whether that happens in the form of an abstention, a vote for a third party, or a vote for Harris, the result is the same. Trump does not secure the power of the presidency, it makes no difference. So to many the difference is that on principle a message can be sent that a viable third party is badly needed, and despite 150 years of history a new revolution of sorts is needed. Even though this election in itself is insufficient to see it through, it can be the start of the momentum necessary to transcend the history.
Great talking with you as usual my friend! Off to play some ball this morning. Last game of the season. Watch some football for me!
And our key difference is that the 150 years of history is an undeniably important factor. If people merely wait until election day and vote third party, they may feel better but they are not accomplishing anything in terms of actually getting a viable third party. Further, I submit that this 'feeling better' gives them a false feeling of accomplishment. It would be far better for all those voting third party to believe that merely voting on election day is not going to accomplish anything and thus encourage them to work to build a viable third party.
In other words, if people truly want a third party and truly believe that merely voting is insufficient, logically that should encourage them to act to build a viable third party in preparation for a future election.
Fair enough!
No it isn't
The ONLY official coin designed by @realDonaldTrump , available tomorrow 9.25.24. Be the first to secure yours!
Sign up for the waitlist to learn more info, only at realtrumpcoins.com
# TrumpCoins
OMG....he is getting truly ridiculous!
He is a con-man doing what con-men do. And his supporters (the marks) seem to be clueless as to how he is exploiting them.
In an advertisement for this in a video I saw Trump talks about his "beautiful face" being on the front of the coin.
now that's just laughable
I'm waiting for him to sell toilet paper with his face on it. Dont rule it out if it can make him a buck.
Which makes it not worth shit.
I thought somebody already did that
Clinton supporters did that in 2016. I still have a roll.
Why are you still holding onto it? Hoping for a big return on your investment?
You never know, it might actually be collector's item some day. I didn't buy it anyway. My best friend in Mississippi sent it to me as a joke. He was not a Trump supporter and neither was I.
Thanks for posting. It is a great Christmas idea for my liberal brother in law. Although he can never have enough MAGA tee shirts and hats.
Trump knows that this is the closest he’ll ever get to having his face on currency. He just might find his face watermarked on bankruptcy forms though.
And then there are the watches . . .
It always puzzles me that people care who celebrities endorse. It is worse if they are actually swayed by it. Making up your own mind seems to be a thing of the past.
It probably cant hurt. I have a feeling a lot of right wingers thought Sam Elliot was one of them based on some of the western characters he has played .
What is perplexing is that it can help.
I would have voted for Kamala no matter what, but you're right, it probably can't hurt.
The reality is that many people look up to celebrities and value their views and perspectives or believe the celebrity is better informed or "knows" what they're talking about, its why businesses have been using celebrity endorsements for as long as celebrities have existed. And let's face it, the majority of Americans aren't very informed when it comes to politics and policy, they often just regurgitate sound bites they heard from their favored Media "celebrity". Most people have busy lives trying to make ends meet and taking care of their families to be so invested in politics, though since the rise of Trump the political division lines have been amplified and used as a cudgel to browbeat others into submission or at least picking a side. And some want to be on the same "side" as their beloved celebrity.
To quote a famous politician...giving political advice:
Its the economy stupid!
I totally agree.
(Well, maybe mostly agree-- because Im not sure people were any more logical in the past!)