Vote Independent

[Virgil Showlion]

In light of the sobering (but liberating) observation that the US cannot possibly do worse than elect another major party candidate to the White House in 2016, the time has come to take a serious look at declared Third Party Candidates (TPCs).

To help my American brethren escape the dialectic, each week I will profile two TPCs for your voting consideration in 2016.

All posters are welcome (and encouraged!) to post links and information about third-party candidates they might support.

Remember: there is a hard ceiling on the unsuitability of a candidate for the US Presidency, embodied by the inevitable nominees for the two major US parties. You risk nothing by voting for a third-party candidate. If ever there was a time to embrace radical change, this is it.




Note: Please be considerate and limit discussion of major party candidates to direct comparisons with TPCs. General criticism or support for major party candidates is not on topic here. Such views should be expressed in the many hundreds of threads devoted to them.

[Virgil Showlion]

Steve Kerbel

Occupation: Author, CEO
Platform: Libertarian
Profile:  2016.presidential-candidates.org/Kerbel/
Campaign Website:  stevekerbel2016.com/
Major Platform Features:

• Decriminalize Drug Use
  
• Draw Down US Foreign Engagements
  
• Ensure Border Identification for Every Person Entering the United States
• Eliminate Personal and Corporate Income Tax
• Eliminate the Federal Reserve

Social Stance: Libertarian

Tami Stainfield

Occupation: Computer Scientist, Political Studies Expert

Platform: Anti-Globalist

Profile:  2016.presidential-candidates.org/Stainfield/

Campaign Website:  tamistainfield.com/
Major Platform Features:

• Combat Globalist Influences
  
• Encourage "Buy America"
  
• Radically Reform US Immigration
• Eliminate the Patriot Act
• Eliminate All "Predictive Analytics Programs" Relating to Crime Prediction

Social Stance: Libertarian

Note: Holds some nonstandard views on technology that may be of concern to some voters.

[The Captain]

Thanks Virgil.

I HATE our two party system.  Every time I vote independent I feel like I'm throwing my vote away.

[billisonboard]

Apr 21, 2015 16:04:50 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Steve Kerbel

Occupation: Author, CEO
Platform: Libertarian
Profile:  2016.presidential-candidates.org/Kerbel/
Campaign Website:  stevekerbel2016.com/
Major Platform Features:

• Decriminalize Drug Use
  
• Draw Down US Foreign Engagements
  
• Ensure Border Identification for Every Person Entering the United States
• Eliminate Personal and Corporate Income Tax
• Eliminate the Federal Reserve

Social Stance: Libertarian

I wish his "About Steve" page gave me more information on whether he could successfully be Chief Executive of the United States. Insurance CEO is a little vague. I hate the "Vote for me because look at how lovely my family portrait looks" type thing but I would like to have a better since of who Steve is as a person.

Platform is a standard statement of general concepts. Sounds good but needs more depth.

Not sure if he is running strictly as an independent or is a candidate for the Libertarian Party nomination.

Give me more Steve.

[billisonboard]

Apr 21, 2015 16:04:50 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...

Tami Stainfield

Occupation: Computer Scientist, Political Studies Expert

Platform: Anti-Globalist

Profile:  2016.presidential-candidates.org/Stainfield/

Campaign Website:  tamistainfield.com/
Major Platform Features:

• Combat Globalist Influences
  
• Encourage "Buy America"
  
• Radically Reform US Immigration
• Eliminate the Patriot Act
• Eliminate All "Predictive Analytics Programs" Relating to Crime Prediction

Social Stance: Libertarian

Note: Holds some nonstandard views on technology that may be of concern to some voters.

Her web site demonstrates to me a lack of mental clarity that would make it impossible for me to seriously consider her as an appropriate holder of the office of President.

[Robert not Bobby]

Virgil, are you kidding me...Yeah independent, but there really is no one out there that is even remotely viable to carry that flag. It will be another contest between the Clinton's and Bushes (sp).

[Angel!]

Apr 21, 2015 16:04:50 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Tami Stainfield

Occupation: Computer Scientist, Political Studies Expert

Platform: Anti-Globalist

Profile:  2016.presidential-candidates.org/Stainfield/

Campaign Website:  tamistainfield.com/
Major Platform Features:

• Combat Globalist Influences
  
• Encourage "Buy America"
  
• Radically Reform US Immigration
• Eliminate the Patriot Act
• Eliminate All "Predictive Analytics Programs" Relating to Crime Prediction

Social Stance: Libertarian

Note: Holds some nonstandard views on technology that may be of concern to some voters.

You forgot to add the part where she is crazy as all get out.  Everyone please watch this video, it is awesomely hilarious (or sad because she is probably seriously mentally ill).  If you get bored or confused, just forward to 4:55

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 21, 2015 16:50:31 GMT -5 Robert not Bobby said:

Virgil, are you kidding me...Yeah independent, but there really is no one out there that is even remotely viable to carry that flag. It will be another contest between the Clinton's and Bushes (sp).

It's still incredibly early, and there are a lot of candidates.

Admittedly I'm not terribly impressed by the ones whose campaign websites I've visited, but all it takes is one diamond in the rough.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 21, 2015 17:05:13 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Apr 21, 2015 16:04:50 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Tami Stainfield

Occupation: Computer Scientist, Political Studies Expert

Platform: Anti-Globalist

Profile:  2016.presidential-candidates.org/Stainfield/

Campaign Website:  tamistainfield.com/
Major Platform Features:

• Combat Globalist Influences
  
• Encourage "Buy America"
  
• Radically Reform US Immigration
• Eliminate the Patriot Act
• Eliminate All "Predictive Analytics Programs" Relating to Crime Prediction

Social Stance: Libertarian

Note: Holds some nonstandard views on technology that may be of concern to some voters.

You forgot to add the part where she is crazy as all get out.  Everyone please watch this video, it is awesomely hilarious (or sad because she is probably seriously mentally ill).  If you get bored or confused, just forward to 4:55

Um...

She's multilingual.

That's something, right?

[Angel!]

Now I am just kind of sad for her. She has at least a dozen of these videos, she badly needs help.

[Virgil Showlion]

Ooookay.

Angel!: Since you were the one to eliminate candidate #2 from contention, the duty falls to you to find a suitable replacement among the listed candidates. Please, and thank you.

[Angel!]

If I have some time tomorrow I will work on that.  In the mean time, what does it take to have yourself listed at a 3rd party candidate?  It seems like something in that process should weed out mentally ill people who clearly are not qualified for the job.

[Robert not Bobby]

Apr 21, 2015 17:07:00 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 21, 2015 16:50:31 GMT -5 Robert not Bobby said:

Virgil, are you kidding me...Yeah independent, but there really is no one out there that is even remotely viable to carry that flag. It will be another contest between the Clinton's and Bushes (sp).

It's still incredibly early, and there are a lot of candidates.

Admittedly I'm not terribly impressed by the ones whose campaign websites I've visited, but all it takes is one diamond in the rough.

 Early days? This campaign has been going on for the last 8 months.

This is why I like the British Parliamentary system...you drop the writ and the election is in 5 weeks or so and it will not cost every front runner a few billion dollars.

But we have a different system...the primaries, the electoral college, etc.

Still, it really hasn't begun in earnest and I'm already moving on to other things.

[billisonboard]

Apr 21, 2015 17:22:16 GMT -5 Angel! said:

If I have some time tomorrow I will work on that.  In the mean time, what does it take to have yourself listed at a 3rd party candidate?  It seems like something in that process should weed out mentally ill people who clearly are not qualified for the job.

I am glad that there is not a "weeding out" process in place. Why, if the people of America wish to have Tami Stainfield be their president, should they be denied by ... who should have more power than the American people to make such a decision?

[Value Buy]

Apr 21, 2015 17:32:22 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Apr 21, 2015 17:22:16 GMT -5 Angel! said:

If I have some time tomorrow I will work on that.  In the mean time, what does it take to have yourself listed at a 3rd party candidate?  It seems like something in that process should weed out mentally ill people who clearly are not qualified for the job.

I am glad that there is not a "weeding out" process in place. Why, if the people of America wish to have Tami Stainfield be their president, should they be denied by ... who should have more power than the American people to make such a decision?

Isn't that how we wound up with the current President?

[Deleted]

Apr 21, 2015 17:22:16 GMT -5 Angel! said:

If I have some time tomorrow I will work on that.  In the mean time, what does it take to have yourself listed at a 3rd party candidate?  It seems like something in that process should weed out mentally ill people who clearly are not qualified for the job.

Problem is, anything that would do that would automatically disqualify probably 90% of existing politicians already in office...

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 21, 2015 17:22:16 GMT -5 Angel! said:

If I have some time tomorrow I will work on that.  In the mean time, what does it take to have yourself listed at a 3rd party candidate?  It seems like something in that process should weed out mentally ill people who clearly are not qualified for the job.

I agree with Billis: it's up to the voters. I don't want some panel of psychiatrists vetting who can and can't run for office.

Besides, I'm betting Ms. Stainfield could pass any qualifying exam they could throw at her. She's delusional, not mentally incompetent.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 21, 2015 18:14:58 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Apr 21, 2015 17:22:16 GMT -5 Angel! said:

If I have some time tomorrow I will work on that.  In the mean time, what does it take to have yourself listed at a 3rd party candidate?  It seems like something in that process should weed out mentally ill people who clearly are not qualified for the job.

Problem is, anything that would do that would automatically disqualify probably 90% of existing politicians already in office...

We'd have to rule out narcissism, pathological lying, lack of remorse, ruthless ambition, megalomania, etc. as disqualifying conditions, and we'd maybe get it down to only 20% of the current crop being rejected.

[dondub]

This should be moved to the Virgil's Current Events page. As a third party candidate of any stripe is not even remotely close to the White House, this thread is just the current one that helps to keep Virg from being a bored Canookian.

[billisonboard]

Apr 21, 2015 22:25:01 GMT -5 dondub said:

This should be moved to the Virgil's Current Events page. As a third party candidate of any stripe is not even remotely close to the White House, this thread is just the current one that helps to keep Virg from being a bored Canookian.

I think the fact that there is no chance for a third party candidate should be comforting enough for those who support either major party to not be afraid of a thread on Politics talking about them.

[marvholly]

Apr 21, 2015 18:20:12 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 21, 2015 18:14:58 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Problem is, anything that would do that would automatically disqualify probably 90% of existing politicians already in office...

We'd have to rule out narcissism, pathological lying, lack of remorse, ruthless ambition, megalomania, etc. as disqualifying conditions, and we'd maybe get it down to only 20% of the current crop being rejected.

Sorry Virgil

IMHO those disqualifications would eliminate 100% of the politicians going for ANY elected office on ALL levels.

[NoNamePerson]

Apr 21, 2015 18:14:58 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Apr 21, 2015 17:22:16 GMT -5 Angel! said:

If I have some time tomorrow I will work on that.  In the mean time, what does it take to have yourself listed at a 3rd party candidate?  It seems like something in that process should weed out mentally ill people who clearly are not qualified for the job.

Problem is, anything that would do that would automatically disqualify probably 90% of existing politicians already in office...

More like 99.9%!

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 22, 2015 8:07:58 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

How 'bout Bernie Sanders. Isn't he running?

He hasn't declared yet, and he may be running as a Democrat.

[thyme4change]

Apr 21, 2015 16:04:26 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Remember: there is a hard ceiling on the unsuitability of a candidate for the US Presidency, embodied by the inevitable nominees for the two major US parties. You risk nothing by voting for a third-party candidate. If ever there was a time to embrace radical change, this is it.

Except splitting the vote of the slightly less distasteful candidate and getting the worst of two evils.  

[happyhoix]

Apr 21, 2015 18:14:58 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Apr 21, 2015 17:22:16 GMT -5 Angel! said:

If I have some time tomorrow I will work on that.  In the mean time, what does it take to have yourself listed at a 3rd party candidate?  It seems like something in that process should weed out mentally ill people who clearly are not qualified for the job.

Problem is, anything that would do that would automatically disqualify probably 90% of existing politicians already in office...

If you throw on top of that mental evaluation, one that looks at your intelligence and education, I think that might eliminate pretty much the whole crop of candidates.

[billisonboard]

Apr 22, 2015 8:55:27 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

... Except splitting the vote of the slightly less distasteful candidate and getting the worst of two evils.  

I think this is something to take into account once the nominees are determined. It might really matter. However if it is simply tweedling between dum and dee, who cares.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 22, 2015 8:55:27 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Apr 21, 2015 16:04:26 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Remember: there is a hard ceiling on the unsuitability of a candidate for the US Presidency, embodied by the inevitable nominees for the two major US parties. You risk nothing by voting for a third-party candidate. If ever there was a time to embrace radical change, this is it.

Except splitting the vote of the slightly less distasteful candidate and getting the worst of two evils.  

You can't think that way.

You're going to get war with Iran, US engagement in Turkey and the Ukraine, zero action on patching up the US's porous southern border, new spending, negligible cuts to existing spending, higher healthcare costs, larger deficits, more executive office power, greater powers to intelligence agencies, further erosion of civil liberties, and a broadening divide between rich and poor regardless of which major party candidate makes it into the White House.

Ms. Clinton will win the 2016 Presidential race, hence she'll be the one reading the teleprompter while all of the above is accomplished.

Even so, supporting a third-party candidate might inspire some to run again, inspire others to throw their hat in the ring, convince other voters that they're not throwing their vote away. There always have to be "early adopters" with a long-term vision, and there's never been a better time.

[thyme4change]

Apr 22, 2015 9:15:05 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 22, 2015 8:55:27 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Except splitting the vote of the slightly less distasteful candidate and getting the worst of two evils.  

You can't think that way.

You're going to get war with Iran, US engagement in Turkey and the Ukraine, zero action on patching up the US's porous southern border, new spending, negligible cuts to existing spending, higher healthcare costs, larger deficits, more executive office power, greater powers to intelligence agencies, further erosion of civil liberties, and a broadening divide between rich and poor regardless of which major party candidate makes it into the White House.

Maybe the people in the white house know something we don't and military action in the mid-east is necessary.  Maybe patching up things on the border is an expensive waste of money.  Maybe a third party candidate wouldn't be able to overpower congress and get anything changed.  Maybe a third party candidate will implement things opposite of what they indicated they would, and they really have no one to answer to.  It isn't like "the party" will convince them to stick to the plan.  Third party seems like a big unknown.  Probably just as much a risk to the country as status quo. 

[The Captain]

Apr 22, 2015 9:15:05 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 22, 2015 8:55:27 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Except splitting the vote of the slightly less distasteful candidate and getting the worst of two evils.  

You can't think that way.

You're going to get war with Iran, US engagement in Turkey and the Ukraine, zero action on patching up the US's porous southern border, new spending, negligible cuts to existing spending, higher healthcare costs, larger deficits, more executive office power, greater powers to intelligence agencies, further erosion of civil liberties, and a broadening divide between rich and poor regardless of which major party candidate makes it into the White House.

Ms. Clinton will win the 2016 Presidential race, hence she'll be the one reading the teleprompter while all of the above is accomplished.

I cannot express clearly enough how much this thought makes me shudder...

Even so, supporting a third-party candidate might inspire some to run again, inspire others to throw their hat in the ring, convince other voters that they're not throwing their vote away. There always have to be "early adopters" with a long-term vision, and there's never been a better time.

So you're suggesting we allow our voices to become the "sacrificial lamb" for the greater good?

We need to get rid of the electorial college, limit campaign spending, and basically start from scratch IMHO.

[billisonboard]

Apr 22, 2015 9:24:01 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

... Maybe the people in the white house know something we don't and military action in the mid-east is necessary.  Maybe patching up things on the border is an expensive waste of money.  Maybe a third party candidate wouldn't be able to overpower congress and get anything changed.  Maybe a third party candidate will implement things opposite of what they indicated they would, and they really have no one to answer to.  It isn't like "the party" will convince them to stick to the plan.  Third party seems like a big unknown.  Probably just as much a risk to the country as status quo. 

Sure, sticking with the status quo is safer but maybe it is time for change.