Gary Johnson? Why or Why Not.

[FaustianSlip]

Pinkeye and crotch rot are more appealing than Trump/Pence. Regardless, as a queer woman, there's no fucking way I'm voting for anyone but Hillary. The Libertarians do nothing for me, and Jill Stein is basically the lady yelling about locally-grown kale at the co-op, has been cozy with anti-vaxxers, said that wi-fi can give children cancer, and has zero political experience beyond once holding a seat representing her neighborhood in Lexington, Massachusetts' town meeting. I'm also tired as hell of listening to her claim that there is no difference between Trump and Clinton, which is objectively untrue, makes her sound like a crazy person and something that (comparatively) rich, straight white people seem to be telling themselves to justify prioritizing ideological purity over the physical and legal welfare of POC, immigrants, Muslims and LGBT people.

If Bernie (with whom I had major issues, by the time all was said and done) had been the Democratic nominee, I would have considered it a moral and patriotic imperative to vote for him and keep Trump away from the the Oval Office and the nuke codes. He's not the nominee, Clinton is, and I feel the same way about her (although admittedly, I supported her in the primaries anyway, so I have zero heartburn about voting for her now).

The Libertarian and Green parties would also have more credibility if they bothered to do more than run vanity candidates every four years in presidential elections that we all know they can't possibly win, rendering their platforms and promises meaningless, since they will never be held accountable. And even then, the Greens are only on the ballot in 23 states to begin with, last I heard. Stein was bragging recently that the Greens are running 150 people for elected office nationwide. Nationwide. That's nothing when you consider just how many elected positions we have in this country at the municipal and state levels. If people really want a third party as much as they say, then running for dog catcher or state legislature is the way to get that started. But that's not as sexy as yelling about revolution, so very few people bother. This is also the problem with progressive voter turnout in midterm elections. Everyone wants to blather about how badly we need a third party, but no one actually wants to do the legwork and door knocking and phone banking for a few years to make it happen.

[Alicja]

Johnson is polling at around 12% according to CNN. If he keeps it up, the Libertarian Party could get federal funding. Good for them.

[RoseWilder]

@FaustianSlip: Great post!

This article makes a very compelling argument for how/why defeating Trump by a landslide (by voting for Clinton) would help the cause of Bernie Sanders supporters in the long run: 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/why-conservatives-and-progressives-share-an-interest-in-a-huge-trump-loss/494609/

 

[FaustianSlip]

I also think that from a moral standpoint, it's important to make a statement as a society by defeating Trump by as large a margin as possible. When the Leave crowd won the Brexit vote, bigots and far right groups were emboldened by what they saw as a validation by the public of their fucked up worldview. The end result? Tons of abuse hurled at people perceived as immigrants, physical attacks on immigrants, children of immigrants being mocked in school and on and on. And to the people who don't think that that could happen here if the election is close or if Trump wins, it's already happening. There's already a major uptick in public abuse and the impression in certain circles that it's perfectly fine to be open about your racism and bigotry because hey, one of the two presidential candidates does it on the regular with very little pushback.

[RoseWilder]

@FaustianSlip: Exactly. I want Trump to lose so badly that the GOP gets the message loud and clear that we will not tolerate candidates who are sexist, racist, bigots. 

I understand that some people are unhappy with Clinton as a potential candidate and they're mad at the DNC, and so they want to vote third party to send a message, but those issues can be addressed after we deal with Trump. You don't worry about a broken piece of furniture that needs repaired when the whole damn house is on fire. 

[VelociRapture]

56 minutes ago, RoseWilder said:

@FaustianSlip: Exactly. I want Trump to lose so badly that the GOP gets the message loud and clear that we will not tolerate candidates who are sexist, racist, bigots. 

I understand that some people are unhappy with Clinton as a potential candidate and they're mad at the DNC, and so they want to vote third party to send a message, but those issues can be addressed after we deal with Trump. You don't worry about a broken piece of furniture that needs repaired when the whole damn house is on fire. 

See, I honestly feel like the people supporting Trump aren't actually Republicans. Not true Republicans anyway. I might not agree with the Republican party on most things, but they aren't completely unhinged or completely unreasonable the way Trump and his supporters are. 

When I think Republican I think of the McCains - people who honestly care about the country and already pretty much realize that Trump was a massive mistake (even if John hasn't withdrawn his endorsement.)

I think true Republicans already understand a candidate like Trump or his outlook is not welcome by most Americans, but they honestly can't do much about it now. They can try to prevent it in the future, but I really don't think this is going to just die after the election either. The people who support Trump aren't going to go away after this - they've had a Presidential candidate validate all their darkest thoughts and feelings. They aren't going to just sit down, shut up, and go back to hiding their disgusting views after this.

[RoseWilder]

@VelociRapture: The GOP has homophobia, sexism and xenophobia built into their platform. They courted the racist voters for decades and I have no doubt they would/will continue to do so in the future for as long as it works. And there's this horrible rhetoric coming from a lot of GOP candidates, that if you're not a far-right Republican then you're evil, un-American, the enemy. 

I know there are individual Republicans who don't agree with Trump, and who aren't racist, sexist, homophobic and xenophobic. I do think there are some Republicans who care about this country. Some of them have actually spoken up and announced they will not vote for Donald Trump. Others have already left the party or are planning to do so now. But there are sadly a lot who have remained silent. I don't actually believe that John McCain is one of the Republicans who truly cares about this country. I don't think he would have chosen Sarah Palin as a running mate if he cared about this country. And I'm not impressed by any Republican who is appalled by Trump but still endorses him. Those are not politicians who truly care about this country. McCain cared about winning and did what he thought would help him win, the well-being of this country be damned. He's continuing to do what he thinks will help him win. I'm not impressed by that at all. 

I'm not really sure what you meant by true Republicans because the Republican party has not truly stood for what they claim to stand for (smaller government and being fiscally conservative) in a very long time. The current Repulican party bears little resemblence to true conservatism - they've morphed into a party that seems to be only about bigotry, trying to control people's personal lives, guns and obstructing everything President Obama tries to do. 

The bottom line is, and the entire point of the sentence in my post that you seem to be disagreeing with, is that I don't believe the GOP will be motivated to make their platform more inclusive, actually come up wtih solutions instead of obstructing all the time, stand up to the racist element of their party, and tone down the horrible rhetoric of "you're my enemy and you're un-American if you aren't a Republican", unless Trump loses really badly (and with any luck takes the House and Senate Republicans down with him.) 

[FaustianSlip]

I mean, if we're talking about whether or not they're traditional Republicans in the vein, of, say, Eisenhower, they clearly aren't. But the GOP hasn't been the party of Eisenhower or Lincoln since they got into bed with the evangelical right back in the '80s. That being said, the Tea Party folks, most of whom are the ones driving this Trump tidal wave, aren't even traditional neo-conservatives like Dubya et al. That being said, he has dragged various neo-conservatives onside, as evidenced by the pathetic toadying of people like McConnell and Ryan after they caved and endorsed him. A lot of other neo-conservatives, on the other hand, are Never Trumpers, and a number have actually endorsed Clinton. This is where the GOP split, if their is one, is going to start, IMHO.

I think in some ways, the rise of Trump is proving hugely instructive for a number of conservatives who were so blinkered and ignorant that they really, genuinely didn't realize just how racist their party and policies had become. Now they're being forced to gaze into the gaping maw of what they've created, and the reactions are ranging from denial to horror. I have a lot of respect for the lifelong Republicans who are now looking at Trump, understanding just how terrible and dangerous he is, and publicly endorsing Clinton in spite of disagreeing with her politically, because they know she'll be best for the country. That's what actual patriotism looks like.

My hope is that the Republican party will be so devastated by this election that they'll be forced to go back to basics and go back to what they actually used to be- a party about fiscal conservatism and small government, without this crazy social conservatism that the evangelical wing has been driving for years. Because while I'm a dyed-in-the wool Democrat, I'm a moderate, and there are some areas where I agree with the traditional Republican stance, but I can't vote for them as they are now, because I won't vote for women-hating bigots. And I do think our system is better and more effective when there are two healthy, robust parties that can both work together and stand apart. Right now, it's very clear that the GOP doesn't fit that bill at all.

[apple1]

This has nothing to do with Gary Johnson, but this thread has morphed into a whole nuther thing - after some (a?) poster took the thread down the road that anyone who doesn't vote Clinton is just as terrible as the Trump voters. Which statement is judgmental and destructive of conversation. But anyway...

History wise - I do not for a second believe that John McCain "chose" Palin as a running mate. Palin - whose beliefs, manners, positions on issues, nearly everything - differed from McCain - was, in my view, forced on McCain by the party in a misguided attempt to pander to the extreme right. (At the time, there was a fair bit of evidence to support this). It is my opinion that this is what cost McCain the election.

Enough of that.

FTR - and I have posted numerous times in this direction - I absolutely cannot stand Trump and will not support him in any way. Just for the record.

[VelociRapture]

1 hour ago, FaustianSlip said:

I mean, if we're talking about whether or not they're traditional Republicans in the vein, of, say, Eisenhower, they clearly aren't. But the GOP hasn't been the party of Eisenhower or Lincoln since they got into bed with the evangelical right back in the '80s. That being said, the Tea Party folks, most of whom are the ones driving this Trump tidal wave, aren't even traditional neo-conservatives like Dubya et al. That being said, he has dragged various neo-conservatives onside, as evidenced by the pathetic toadying of people like McConnell and Ryan after they caved and endorsed him. A lot of other neo-conservatives, on the other hand, are Never Trumpers, and a number have actually endorsed Clinton. This is where the GOP split, if their is one, is going to start, IMHO.

I think in some ways, the rise of Trump is proving hugely instructive for a number of conservatives who were so blinkered and ignorant that they really, genuinely didn't realize just how racist their party and policies had become. Now they're being forced to gaze into the gaping maw of what they've created, and the reactions are ranging from denial to horror. I have a lot of respect for the lifelong Republicans who are now looking at Trump, understanding just how terrible and dangerous he is, and publicly endorsing Clinton in spite of disagreeing with her politically, because they know she'll be best for the country. That's what actual patriotism looks like.

My hope is that the Republican party will be so devastated by this election that they'll be forced to go back to basics and go back to what they actually used to be- a party about fiscal conservatism and small government, without this crazy social conservatism that the evangelical wing has been driving for years. Because while I'm a dyed-in-the wool Democrat, I'm a moderate, and there are some areas where I agree with the traditional Republican stance, but I can't vote for them as they are now, because I won't vote for women-hating bigots. And I do think our system is better and more effective when there are two healthy, robust parties that can both work together and stand apart. Right now, it's very clear that the GOP doesn't fit that bill at all.

@RoseWilderThis is more what I was attempting to say. I fully realize how horrible their platform has been for so long, trust me. I observe with great caution because I'm a woman and my brother is LGBTQ - I can't afford not to pay attention to which candidates are good or bad for us.

There are many Republicans who seriously did not realize just how bad things were getting in their party over the years. This election has really shaken those people up because it's impossible to ignore at this point. The hate is just too public and prominent, which is why I think so many "true" Republicans (by that I mean the ones who believe in small Government, are fiscally conservative, and are practical enough to not want to burn the country to the ground to get their way) are jumping ship now.

My sympathy for them is, however, extremely limited. Because they helped create the climate and environment necessary for Trump's eventual rise to the candidacy. Had they been capable of standing firm in the wake of the Tea Party that may not have happened - but I also don't know how realistic that is to say because the Tea Party is so vocal and so good at drawing unhappy and scared people in. I honestly don't know how much they could have done to stop that faction from taking over to the extent they have.

And finally, McCain does strike me as someone who cares about the country - at least far more than people like Trump do. He has a solid history of trying to work across the aisle and in recent years he has been constantly criticized for not being conservative enough for his party. Yeah, he made seriously bad calls with his selection of Palin and for not withdrawing his Trump endorsement. I don't excuse either of those things and, yes, I would argue someone like Lindsey Graham is showing far greater patriotism and courage right now for calling out Trump endorsers - but the bulk of McCain's political and military careers do show he has a great love for the country. It saddens me a great deal to see him continue to endorse Trump because he is putting politics first. I really wouldn't have expected that out of him before.

And by mentioning "The McCains" I also was referring to his daughter Megan, who is pretty much the most reasonable Republican I have ever seen (fiscally conservative, but socially very liberal; I'm pretty sure she and her mom even posed for the "No H8" campaign.) She refuses to vote Trump and is pretty awesome at calling him out publicly too. I don't agree with her on everything, but she is absolutely a Republican I could get along with.

(And to be fair, maybe there really isn't a "true" Republican Party as we once knew it anymore. Which is extremely sad - they once stood for a lot of good things. But, again, this is what happens when people put personal gain or politics before their nation.)

2 minutes ago, apple1 said:

This has nothing to do with Gary Johnson, but this thread has morphed into a whole nuther thing - after some (a?) poster took the thread down the road that anyone who doesn't vote Clinton is just as terrible as the Trump voters. Which statement is judgmental and destructive of conversation. But anyway...

History wise - I do not for a second believe that John McCain "chose" Palin as a running mate. Palin - whose beliefs, manners, positions on issues, nearly everything - differed from McCain - was, in my view, forced on McCain by the party in a misguided attempt to pander to the extreme right. (At the time, there was a fair bit of evidence to support this). It is my opinion that this is what cost McCain the election.

Enough of that.

FTR - and I have posted numerous times in this direction - I absolutely cannot stand Trump and will not support him in any way. Just for the record.

Very true. I will say, however, that doesn't absolve McCain completely for subjecting us all to Sarah Palin. 

Moving on though, as for Johnson and third party - I don't think people are as horrible as (or even horrible in general) Trump supporters if they vote for Johnson or Stein. Trump supporters are truly in a class of their own due to the ugly and hateful rhetoric they've used. I've never heard or seen of anything like this in American political history. Only ugliness I've seen from Stein and Johnson is really just normal political maneuvering, which is far more preferable to Trump.

I am concerned about Trump's odds of winning if enough people vote third party to send a message to the Democrats though. I honestly am terrified of what could happen if he wins - terrified for everyone except conservative white Christian men, and I'm not even sure they're entirely safe from Trump either. He'll find a reason to go after them too if enough of them piss him off somehow. 

That said, I live in a state that is reliably blue in recent elections. I have friends who want to vote third party for various reasons - I haven't debated any of them because I feel strongly it's their right to do so. If we lived in a swing state I likely would take a much different view on the matter - but I would do so respectfully and politely. Unlike my debate with Trump supporters recently, but I feel like Trump supporters have earned that type of reaction at this point.

[Cleopatra7]

The problem with fiscal conservatism is that it is selective (i.e., focuses on entitlement spending) and never addresses slashing the defense budget, which makes up a huge percent of government spending. The US spends more on defense than the next eight countries combined:

http://books.sipri.org/product_info?c_product_id=496# 

(download the PDF and go to the graph on page 2)

The actual threats that our country faces are guerilla conflicts, non-state violence (i.e., terrorism), and cyber terrorism, but we're building these huge aircraft carriers and stealth bombers like we're expecting to launch a WW2 style ground invasion of China or something like that. The idea of having the largest military in the world is very attractive to many conservatives, and I think they would consider defense cuts to be non-negotiable, even in cases where the defense spending is not being used well, like this state of the art base in Afghanistan that was never used:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/a-brand-new-us-military-headquarters-in-afghanistan-and-nobody-to-use-it/2013/07/09/2bb73728-e8cd-11e2-a301-ea5a8116d211_story.html

To bring this back into what the OP was about, Johnson has said that he wants to return US military spending back to what it was in 2003, but that's still huge (remember, 2003 was when the Iraq War started and we were already in Afghanistan). He has also said he wants to reduce the number of US military bases abroad, although I'm not sure that's where the bulk of our military spending goes.

Farm subsidies, most of which goes to huge agrobusinesses and rich farmers that do not need extra aid, are another aspect of of spending that conservatives are loath to give up. Some farmers are actually paid not to grow anything through these subsidies, which average $20 billion per year. The farmers who receive these subsidies are small in number but well-organized, which is why this wasteful spending is never challenged, or is at least unsuccessful:

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21643191-crop-prices-fall-farmers-grow-subsidies-instead-milking-taxpayers

Farm subsidies hurt farmers in the developing world, who can't compete with subsidized crops in Western markets (almost all industrialized countries have subsidized agriculture, presumably because farming is often painted in romantic, nationalist terms). Johnson also opposes farm subsidies on free market grounds.

Basically, I'm skeptical about the entire notion of fiscal conservatism, because the entire concept is worthless when you don't challenge the military industrial complex or farm subsidies, among other things. This leads me to believe that everyone on the political spectrum likes spending money, just on different things. Conservatives prefer guns over butter, and progressives like butter over guns. I suppose libertarians like Johnson believe that the completely unencumbered free market would give people more butter and reduce the need for guns, but I've never understood how we're supposed to reach this libertarian utopia without everyone becoming a literal or metaphorical pirate (see the Galt's Gulch Chile debacle and the bitcoin bubble). 

[AuntK]

Nice guy, but he's a stoner. That's fine, but just don't want a stoner having the nuclear codes. Or Trump, either. He told USA Today he was giving it up for the campaign, but didn't say anything about beyond that.  Reefer and POTUS just don't mix, for my money, and I was a child of the 70s, so I have experience, shall we say?  Although I never inhaled!

[Florita]

19 hours ago, AuntK said:

Nice guy, but he's a stoner. That's fine, but just don't want a stoner having the nuclear codes. Or Trump, either. He told USA Today he was giving it up for the campaign, but didn't say anything about beyond that.  Reefer and POTUS just don't mix, for my money, and I was a child of the 70s, so I have experience, shall we say?  Although I never inhaled!

Johnson said he would not partake during his term if he’s elected.

Quote

 

“I want to be completely on top of my game, all cylinders.”

“I haven’t had a drink of alcohol in 29 years because of rock climbing and the notion of being the best that you can be, and in that same vein I’ve stopped using marijuana of any kind,” he said earlier in the interview.

 

The notion that someone who gets high on occasion is a "stoner" is like thinking someone who has a drink now and then is an alcoholic. I think we've moved beyond Reefer Madness. 

[sophie10130]

Did anyone happen to listen to the broadcast on NPR about Strategic Voting?

I think it's this one: http://www.wnyc.org/story/on-the-media-2016-08-05/

Basically, this dude set up a website in Canada (who has multiple left wing and multiple right wing parties and votes were being split between the liberal parties causing conservative candidates to win even though more people were voting liberal than conservative) and you input where you lived and I assume your political affiliation and it told you who to vote for. He was advocating something similar here.

He thinks we think of voting as our moral badge and that's not the way we should think about the Presidential candidate.

I think that's usually the fight people are having but it's couched in "you would vote for Hillary despite all the awful things she's done?" vs. "A vote for a third party is a vote for Trump" Instead I think people are in two camps: the camp who thinks voting is a moral obligation and that their vote is a badge of honor and the people who think of voting more pragmatically than emotionally.

It's an interesting argument for why voting for the lesser evil isn't necessarily the worst way to go about it.

I can see both sides. But I honestly think I can vote with my morals down ticket and get more done. This presidency doesn't just have the presidential candidate on the line, it also currently might have a future Supreme Court Justice or two on the line as well. And there's no way in hell I'm letting Donald Trump even THINK about what kind of Justices he wants up there. 

Anyway, his website worked. The liberals all got together and voted in a liberal candidate. 

[Peas n carrots]

LMAO don't trust a stoner with the nuke codes? Damn, there are so man closet pot smokers in high (pun intended) you would be surprised. I'd much rather have someone relaxed and slow to action with nukes than someone go apeshit over a tweet!

[Mela99]

On 7/4/2016 at 11:23 AM, bashfulpixie said:

Couldn't have said it better myself @louisa05.  That's one thing that drives me INSANE about the morons who vote based on who they think they'd enjoy having a beer with (see: George W Bush).  Seriously?  That's your criteria for the most powerful position in the country?  Awesome.  There's tons of people who would be interesting to get a drink with that I wouldn't trust to walk my dog, let alone be leader of the US.  

Stupid people hurt my head.

Lewis Black had a really funny bit about this. "If you could imagine yourself having a beer with that guy... VOTE FOR THE OTHER FUCKING PERSON. If you think they'd be fun to drink with, you better be fucking sure they're STILL DRINKING."

[feministxtian]

I looked into the Libertarian platform, and I have issues with what I consider to be the big thing...health care. I was a serious Bernie backer, and reluctantly will vote for Hillary just to keep the oompa loompa out of office. As an "anchor baby", albeit 50+ years ago and of the right "flavor", Latina, I am terrified that he will somehow find a way to do what he wants to do and deport me. There are databases that the information could be culled from...and there's no hiding that my mother was an undocumented immigrant from Cuba. 

As a student of history, particularly pre-world war 2, because of family history, I see many things repeating themselves, and it scares me shitless. Unfortunately, I think the oompa loompa knows exactly what he is doing with his bullshit. I do not think he's a stupid man. Insane, narcissistic, psychopathic, probably. Stupid, no. There is going to be another revolution here in the US...I pray it is a bloodless political one. 

[Black Aliss]

I have serious issues with the Libertarian platform, especially when it turns into a sort of cafeteria-style libertarianism where liberty stops at whatever point the espouser wants it to. Thus, you end up with "libertarians" like Rand Paul, who are anti-choice and anti-same-sex marriage. But, I absolutely support voting for a third-party candidate if you live in a state that is pretty much guaranteed to go blue or red. If your vote isn't going to make a difference in the outcome, then let it make a difference by making the 3rd party eligible for federal funds (which I assume even a true Libertarian wouldn't turn down).

However if there's even the slightest change that your state could go either way, <cough> Florida in 2000 <cough> then unless you really don't care who wins, it's just irresponsible to make a protest-vote. There's far too much at stake this year, and too many states that could go either way, to take chances.

[Buzzard]

If I'm asked right now, I say I'm voting for Johnson.  I want a third party, this two party thing has produced this shit show of an election and its time for another option.

[infooverload]

I recently heard a break down of the 2000s elections, which was interesting. A lot of forgotten factors and put the voting 3rd party candidate in a new light. So many considerations, I will say the debates seem to be a train wreck waiting to happen.

[VelociRapture]

Gary Johnson was unaware what Aleppo - a Syrian city and the center of the refugee crisis - is during a recent interview. Any thoughts about this? I'm curious what others think.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/gary-johnson-aleppo.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/

[turquoise]

16 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

Gary Johnson was unaware what Aleppo - a Syrian city and the center of the refugee crisis - is during a recent interview. Any thoughts about this? I'm curious what others think.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/gary-johnson-aleppo.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/

Anyone who wants to be president of the U.S. should be informed enough about current events to know what Aleppo is. I don't know if that mistake alone is enough to disqualify him from being president, but it does make me wonder about his ability to handle international issues. (Although I probably wouldn't vote for him in any case.) At least he admitted that he should have known instead of following up with doublespeak.

There really seems to be a double standard. Why does Gary Johnson get criticized for this, yet so many people still give Trump a pass on his obvious ignorance, again and again and again?

[VelociRapture]

2 hours ago, turquoise said:

Anyone who wants to be president of the U.S. should be informed enough about current events to know what Aleppo is. I don't know if that mistake alone is enough to disqualify him from being president, but it does make me wonder about his ability to handle international issues. (Although I probably wouldn't vote for him in any case.) At least he admitted that he should have known instead of following up with doublespeak.

There really seems to be a double standard. Why does Gary Johnson get criticized for this, yet so many people still give Trump a pass on his obvious ignorance, again and again and again?

I agree. If Trump's constant missteps and bad decisions haven't disqualified him then this definitely doesn't disqualify Johnson in any way - and I give him a lot of credit for owning the mistake pretty much immediately and saying he needs to do better. 

It is really frustrating that Cinammon Hitler keeps getting a free pass from a lot of people. Any other candidate saying this stuff would have been torn to shreds at this point.

[Florita]

Johnson gets ZERO press - until he makes a gaff. Now even the fluffy morning celebrity news shows are talking about him. I heard him compared to Sarah Palin - wow! 

Johnson's been polling well with millennials and supposedly drawing more from Clinton than Trump. Looks like it was time for the ruling class to step in and take him down a notch.

Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. - Saul Alinsky

[Buzzard]

Missing one question isnt really that big of a deal, to me.  He doesnt get briefings and hasnt really been prepped in the same way that the candidates from major parties get.  Once they said "Syria" he knew what they were talking about.  Its not like he said "what refugee crisis?"

I'd like to see him in the debates.  I like the idea of a libertarian candidate, but I honestly dont think he's the dude I want.  Regardless, its time we stop accepting two flavors of ice cream when there are other flavors.