Third Party Follies

When Jim Webb quit the Democratic presidential race on Oct. 20 amid low poll numbers and a minimal debate presence, the former Virginia senator left open the possibility he'd return for a White House run in a different political guise. Now he appears to be edging closer to making good on it.

On Saturday morning, Webb used Twitter and his Facebook page to attack Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton for her handling of Libya during her time as secretary of state.

There's no ensuring that Webb would be a spoiler for Clinton even as he attacks her. Although he ran as a Democrat to serve in the Senate, he is a highly decorated Vietnam veteran who also served for a time as President Reagan's secretary of the navy and has won conservative plaudits. Even Saturday's attack echoed the talking points of Republican candidates and groups.

His public statements, meanwhile, have focused economic populism and breaking the monopoly of the two-party system.

Who? You could have just posted this is Random P&R, this guy is a nobody, how would he even pay for a run?

Who? You could have just posted this is Random P&R, this guy is a nobody, how would he even pay for a run?

He'd be funded by Donald Trump.

I'm glad I'm not voting this time, I refuse to vote if it's Hillary and trump running.

?
Not voting does nothing. Vote for anyone else.

Which still does nothing.

Which still does nothing.

Sure it does. It counts with regards to voter turnout, which is a measure of voter/political apathy.

I believe if you don't vote you can't ***

I will always vote because

Former New Mexico governor and big cannabis CEO Gary Johnson is running for president as a Libertarian, he announced today. He’s not going to win, but he will probably make Rand Paul even less of a viable presidential contender than he already is.

Johnson also ran for president in 2012, initially declaring his candidacy as a Republican, then switching to the Libertarian ticket. He didn’t do so well back then. In October, he teased a 2016 run on his blog, rehashing his long-held support for a very small federal government and calling out Paul for abandoning his own Libertarian principles.

Paul, of course, is the scion of Ron Paul, the most recognizable Libertarian in America. The elder Paul’s own failed but energetic presidential bids demonstrated the awkward position of official Libertarianism in national politics: a movement that walks a fine line between rejecting the existing political system and trying claim influence over the mainstream Republican Party.

Rand Paul’s aim was to be the Electable Libertarian: principled enough to support scaling back the drug war, to name one example, but not so principled that he wants to fully legalize drugs, like his dad did. Johnson, on the other hand, called for legalizing weed way back in 1999, and is so enthusiastic about the plant that he became CEO of a Nevada-based cannabis company in 2014. (He resigned in order to run earlier this week).

With poll numbers that have barely kept him out of the wings on the Republican debate stage, Rand Paul shows no sign of being convincingly electable. Johnson’s bid suggests Paul hasn’t convinced people on the Libertarian front, either.

The right to vote has been paid for in the blood of our forefathers and now mothers, it is disrespectful not to vote.

The right to vote has been paid for in the blood of our forefathers and now mothers, it is disrespectful not to vote.

Yeah how dare people exercise their right to choose not to vote. It is almost like blood was spilt for that option too. Oh, wait, it was.

So I should vote for someone even if I don't like my choices at all? Just because one of them is going to get picked either way? That sounds like some 3rd world ***to me. Now if they had an option on the ballot to pick neither because I don't like my choices I'd probably go and vote to show how I feel. I'd honestly love to see what % that would be in a national election. BTW Nevada does have this option but is the only US State with it.

Which is probably a good thing because if they were to lazy to go vote they were probably to lazy to really look into what a candidate stood for and would of just went by who sounded cooler in the little bit they did see/hear, what their friends told them or just well there the Dem or Rep candidate and I side with such and such party so must vote for that party 100%.

Hell our elected officials have the right to abstain from voting on things why shouldn't regular citizens.

It is ironic how you place the judgement on people doing something different from yourself, and then it is up to these people to meet your standards of integrity. Through mass effort while all you need do is press a button in a booth and call it a day.

It is beyond pathetic already. Stop insulting our intelligence like you have the answers of morality and give us a break. The only thing disrespectful is to speak for the dead. Voting or not has nothing to do with disrespecting blood shed and lives given for freedom. Suggesting what is right and wrong ways to exercise freedom does though.