Never Trump

[JimLes]

Voting what you consider to be the lesser evil in is not voting for the country.

Then what is, in this situation? This is real life, not hypothetical. Ideally, you may dream of whomever running the country, but the cold hard reality is that it is Trump or Hilary come January, and there's no none-of-the-above option. You can't just say "They're both horrible and I'm not going to vote for either" and then pretend like you care about your country. It's like Aristotle says, ethics isn't about choosing between right and wrong, it's about choosing between two wrongs.

 

[candrew]

I believe she wins and handily. And that is going to lead to some HUGE meltdowns in my area lol.

Not to mention the down vote problems with Trump as the nominee. For Hillary to win a lot of the republican establishment will have to stay home. That KILLS all the "R" senators and congressmen that are up for re-election - so you could be looking at Hillary AND a democratic house and senate come November.

Ultimately I think the right will collectively hold their noses and fall in line with Trump - I don't think they'll have a choice.

 

[Stoked]

Not to mention the down vote problems with Trump as the nominee. For Hillary to win a lot of the republican establishment will have to stay home. That KILLS all the "R" senators and congressmen that are up for re-election - so you could be looking at Hillary AND a democratic house and senate come November.

Ultimately I think the right will collectively hold their noses and fall in line with Trump - I don't think they'll have a choice.

And Clinton will win handily but it will help down ballot Rs in minority thin areas.

Millennials, Latinos and women will turn out in droves against him.

 

[Stoked]

Then what is, in this situation? This is real life, not hypothetical. Ideally, you may dream of whomever running the country, but the cold hard reality is that it is Trump or Hilary come January, and there's no none-of-the-above option. You can't just say "They're both horrible and I'm not going to vote for either" and then pretend like you care about your country. It's like Aristotle says, ethics isn't about choosing between right and wrong, it's about choosing between two wrongs.

I agree that only one of them has a real shot of winning. But that does not mean that one suddenly becomes a vote for the country as a result.

You can phrase it however you want but I straight out reject the notion.

Also I can say that and it is as viable as you saying otherwise. Furthermore you can take your insinuation that I don't care about my country choke on it.

You want to play the lesser of two evils game fine. Go for it and watch us continue to sink because we voted for more of the same. I will start throwing my weight, as small as it is, behind better options down the road.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Hurt to mention? Every single person on this board knows the two party system blows. No one's supporting it.

Really? I don't think two party system blows. I think multi-party systems have their share of problems as well. Both have pros and cons.

It's not that simple.

 

[Stoked]

Really? I don't think two party system blows. I think multi-party systems have their share of problems as well. Both have pros and cons.

It's not that simple.

I think our two parties blow more than the system.

I will agree that both systems have pros and cons. But I vote for a multi party system when I look at what the Rs and Ds are. No thanks.

 

[JazzGal]

I've become somewhat liberal in the past few years, and I'd vote for Bernie if he had somehow been able to make it through (but it's over). I think Bernie is the best character guy in the race, and that matters to me. I will be voting for Jill Stein from the Green Party, just as I did in the last Presidential election. She's more liberal than I am, but I'm not sure I can bear to vote for Hilary. However, I'd take Hilary over Trump with no hesitation.

This election cycle has been crazy. Who woulda thunk it? I'm trying to be entertained instead of horrified, but it's not working so far.

I agree with Colton's philosophy of voting for the person that will let you sleep at night. We'd have far better representation if people would vote their conscience instead of trying to second-guess party politics.

 

[fishonjazz]

I've become somewhat liberal in the past few years, and I'd vote for Bernie if he had somehow been able to make it through (but it's over). I think Bernie is the best character guy in the race, and that matters to me. I will be voting for Jill Stein from the Green Party, just as I did in the last Presidential election. She's more liberal than I am, but I'm not sure I can bear to vote for Hilary. However, I'd take Hilary over Trump with no hesitation.

This election cycle has been crazy. Who woulda thunk it? I'm trying to be entertained instead of horrified, but it's not working so far.

I agree with Colton's philosophy of voting for the person that will let you sleep at night. We'd have far better representation if people would vote their conscience instead of trying to second-guess party politics.

Great post. I feel the same way.
I also think bernie is a better person (better character) than the other candidates, I would also rather have Hillary than trump (for me it's not even close) and I want to be entertained by the whole thing but I'm simply horrified instead.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I don't think people are realizing how much both parties are heading towards a split right now. I think that's what it will come down to, really. Who will unify their party + independents better? Trump or Hillary?

If Hillary can make concessions to Sanders supporters (or make him VP or something) I think it's over for Trump. BUT-- I'm fully expecting Hillary to take her left-wing support for granted, and move towards the centre. This is going to alienate the left, and they're going to vote in droves for a 3rd party candidate, whether Stein or Bernie if he goes Indy.

Same goes for Trump. If the RNC doesn't all get behind him ASAP, Hillary's movement to the right will win all of those votes, and his own voter-base will be split.

Which is more likely to split? That's the million dollar question. I think best case scenario is both to split, and prevent the oligarchic domination of the same two political parties year in/year out (which results in corrupt primary processes, slanted media coverage, etc.) Right now Germany has five political parties in its Bundestag, and it's dealing with political decisions with may more hostile ramifications than what the US is dealing with. And they're doing f-i-n-e. Canada also has 5 different parties in the parliament-- we are also doing fine. Also, the introduction of more political parties would likely lead to the deconstruction of oligarchic constructs like Citizens United, and a move towards a more ethical public funding of political campaigns (as opposed to members of congress spending 70% of their time making calls for donations).

 

[JimLes]

I agree that only one of them has a real shot of winning.

That's not what my post is about at all. I don't know how or where you got that.

I will start throwing my weight, as small as it is, behind better options down the road.

But what about this election? You can't possibly argue that two candidates with such vastly differing beliefs or policies are somehow identically bad for the country. That's a cop our or a lie or whatever you want to call it. You're abdicating your responsibility to choose the person who will likely lead your country(and unfortunately, have a great effect on my country and many others) so you can pretend to have a claim to some higher moral ground. It's like Spiderman having to choose between a bus full of kids or his girlfriend and choosing neither because they're both bad choices.

It's not that complicated. Either Hilary or Trump will be the president. Surely, "more of the same" and "roll back the years" can't result in the exact same outcome. Surely one of them is better than the other. And surely, if this is as important an election as everyone seems to think(including yourself), you have some moral obligation to choose.

 

[JimLes]

Right now Germany has five political parties in its Bundestag, and it's dealing with political decisions with may more hostile ramifications than what the US is dealing with. And they're doing f-i-n-e.

Ugh, Germany is hardly a good example of how a multiparty system is supposed to work. Two biggest parties are in a coalition that is an abomination to man and god, in order to better serve their corporate overlords. What's the point of elections if two parties making up 80% of the parliament will get in bed together? What happened to strong opposition? what's the point of elections then?

Germans really don't know how to do this democracy thing. I don't know why we even let them try again.

 

[♪alt13]

Then what is, in this situation? This is real life, not hypothetical. Ideally, you may dream of whomever running the country, but the cold hard reality is that it is Trump or Hilary come January, and there's no none-of-the-above option. You can't just say "They're both horrible and I'm not going to vote for either" and then pretend like you care about your country. It's like Aristotle says, ethics isn't about choosing between right and wrong, it's about choosing between two wrongs.

The Reform party balanced the federal budget in the 90's without getting anyone elected. Ross Perot forced both parties to address the issue lest they ceded those voters to the other party in the next cycle.