Update - Gary going to be in the debates? My main points are still the same.
Jill Stein Issues New Hillary WW3 Warning
Don't Vote For Gary Johnson
Democrat Party Breaking Apart, Says Green Party Leader
In my opinion third parties are a good idea but not nearly as revolutionary the idea of having no parties at all. The latter is a very lofty goal and the former is more realistic, but never going to happen without ongoing political activism.
Petition: Allow third party candidates into the general election debates
There is many more I'm quite sure, but the two major ways of thinking duking it out here in 2016 is nationalism vs globalism.
Reply: Don’t Believe Trump’s Claims to Be Anti-War
Republican Voters More Antiwar then Democrats? Yes
And we were offered up 21 presidential candidates via the primaries. These two other parities offering up two more that could have easily fit in with the other 20 is not that big of a deal. Gary Johnson could easily have ran as a Republican or a Democrat as evinced by expert political strategist Roger Stone's analysis that he will likely have votes cast for him split fairly evenly among both parties. Jill Stein is very much akin to Sanders and could have ran as a Dem.
All that being said, I'm all for third parties but their viability is unrealistic until they are allowed into debates. And it would be fine and dandy to try and help that to happen by increasing their percentages if I thought the evidence indicated that Trump was the lessor of two evils, I do not. Hillary on the other hand is a proven liar, criminal, war-monger, and totalitarian globalist, to anyone willing to study the facts. My top post on my Trump blog provides a slew of evidence to support this contention and debunks a great deal of disinformation about Trump.
When the bunkum is out of the picture, what you are left with is a man who wants to audit the federal reserve and who has exposed: the rigged voting system, the controlled media, the Iraq war lies, and a bit of 9/11 truth with some promise to perhaps expose more. As argued by David Knight at Infowars and myself his raising of the missing 28 pages issue likely had a large role in the 28 pages being released.
The reason why anyone would vote for Trump is apparent from his speeches. Outside of his bombastic rambling style, Trump has identified the wealth draining policies that have impoverished the USA. He actually has a plan to bring jobs back into the country. He talks about the political corruption that has hurt the US economy (where the real unemployment rate is around 20%):And this way:
There are other speeches where Trump better explains his plan on using tariffs to bring back industry.
Like him or hate him, Donald Trump is the most anti-war candidate left. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders generally supported the 'humanitarian' intervention in Libya (that handed the country over to extremists), they continue to call for regime change in Syria (that would hand the country over to ISIS), they backed the coup in Ukraine that installed out-and-out fascists in Kiev (and are still 'standing strong against Russia'), and they backed the recent 'self defence' attack upon the people of Gaza.
Hillary is a neocon hawk. While Sanders, who rails against the disastrous occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, keeps essentially the same position on other conflicts as President 'proxy war' Obama.
Does this mean that Trump can be trusted at face value when it comes to war? Obviously not. However, the neocons and the establishment (pro-war) media hate him and are doing everything they can to undermine his campaign.