Never Hillary

[str8line]

You can't vote against a candidate. The ballot doesn't work that way. You can only vote in the affirmative.

As far as Nader most people make the mistake of assuming that those people would have shown up to vote for Gore had Nader not run. I doubt that. Nader inspired people to get out and vote for him despite the inevitable loss. You think they would have bothered to go vote for a guy when they picked someone destined to lose over him? They would have abstained like the majority of Americans did. You can't blame Gore losing the election on Nader. You can probably blame it on Jeb and the SCOTUS but not on Nader.

Had they known how few of those Nader votes would have handed Gore the election I guarantee many Nader voters would have voted Gore.

Are you saying that a vote for Hillary isn't a vote against Trump?

 

[BYE]

No election is "normal".

It's like arguing if you want to be drowned in 5 miles of mud or 6 miles of mud. Sure, 6 miles is more mud (aka worse) but either way you lose as you are not making it out either way.

You feel one option is viable better than the other? OK, I can respect that. Vote for what you want. I encourage it. But I disagree, vehemently, that either option is viable.

Clinton is not viable, really? If you add, "She is not viable for me," then there's not much to argue with. You're comment, "No election is normal" sounds trite and empty. No one is normal. We're all unique snowflakes. Last election, I could have stayed home and been perfectly pleased with either candidate, and America would have run just fine. This is not a "normal" election. As Jerry Springer said, "Hillary Clinton belongs in the White House. Donald Trump belongs on my show." The faults that both candidates possess are of an entirely different type and threat. Furthermore, I see no third party candidate that is anywhere near as competent or experienced as Clinton. From all angles, Clinton is just fine.

 

[colton]

Surely no one vote has a meaningful impact on the elections, in a country with over 300m people. I don't really understand your point.

I vote based on which candidate I like best. So for me, Clinton is more appealing than either 3rd party candidate. I don't weigh in the effect of my vote on the election at large.

Exactly. You and I agree completely on this, I think. My post was in reply to str8line, though.

 

[colton]

Maybe you're too young to remember this, Colton, otherwise I'm not sure why you think I should only vote FOR a candidate and not AGAINST a candidate:

"The Green Party gained widespread public attention during the 2000 presidential election when the ticket composed of Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke won 2.7% of the popular vote. Nader was vilified by some Democrats, who accused him of spoiling the election for Al Gore. Nader's impact on the 2000 election has remained controversial."

I'm 46, so yes I remember that. But I'm saying that since you and I are individuals, not blocks of people, YOUR vote doesn't matter one iota, and neither does mine. Therefore we should at least vote for someone that we think is a good choice to be president. Not someone that we think is a bad choice, albeit a less bad choice than the other major party candidate.

 

[LogGrad98]

I'm 46, so yes I remember that. But I'm saying that since you and I are individuals, not blocks of people, YOUR vote doesn't matter one iota, and neither does mine. Therefore we should at least vote for someone that we think is a good choice to be president. Not someone that we think is a bad choice, albeit a less bad choice than the other major party candidate.

Agreed. I have unrealistic hope that this election could start the swing away from such a strong 2 party system and broaden our horizons.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

You can't vote against a candidate. The ballot doesn't work that way. You can only vote in the affirmative.

Is this a joke or semantics maybe? I'd say this entire election is going to be about voting against the candidate Americans least want to see in the White House. Lots of people voting for Hillary are only doing so to keep out Trump, and I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of Trump supporters vote for him simply because they hate Hillary and believe any alternative is better.

 

[fishonjazz]

What is your point? I never said the two party system doesn't bother me in its current state. Stopping Trump takes precedence over a symbolic vote for a third-party candidate... that should be the emphasis throughout our country at this point. That doesn't negate the need for a shakeup in our government.

This

 

[JazzGal]

It's fascinating seeing how people decide their vote. There are so many variables and opinions. I have enjoyed all the ideas and thoughts, and they have helped me clarify my own position. More accurately, they have helped me question my position. I am now not entirely sure what I will do on election day. I'm excited to find out.

I voted for Jill Stein in the last presidential election and planned to do so again this year. My reasoning has been that my vote in Utah is worthless if I am not voting Republican (and essentially worthless if I am), so I might as well get on the "third party" bandwagon and help prove there are those who would like a new party to emerge. I have become less enchanted with the third party candidates and am not sure I want to vote for any of them just to vote third party. I am not happy with the candidates of the major parties, yet I am certainly less unhappy with Clinton than Trump.

So I see value in picking a person over principle, or principle over a person, or voting against a person, or voting for a person. And that is now my problem - I see a lot of value in many of these options. And so I have a few weeks left to determine which one matters most to me. And yes, I realize that whatever I decide will have no impact on anything.

I cannot wait until this election is over, yet it has been absolutely captivating.

 

[franklin]

It's fascinating seeing how people decide their vote. There are so many variables and opinions. I have enjoyed all the ideas and thoughts, and they have helped me clarify my own position. More accurately, they have helped me question my position. I am now not entirely sure what I will do on election day. I'm excited to find out.

I voted for Jill Stein in the last presidential election and planned to do so again this year. My reasoning has been that my vote in Utah is worthless if I am not voting Republican (and essentially worthless if I am), so I might as well get on the "third party" bandwagon and help prove there are those who would like a new party to emerge. I have become less enchanted with the third party candidates and am not sure I want to vote for any of them just to vote third party. I am not happy with the candidates of the major parties, yet I am certainly less unhappy with Clinton than Trump.

So I see value in picking a person over principle, or principle over a person, or voting against a person, or voting for a person. And that is now my problem - I see a lot of value in many of these options. And so I have a few weeks left to determine which one matters most to me. And yes, I realize that whatever I decide will have no impact on anything.

I cannot wait until this election is over, yet it has been absolutely captivating.

Well said. I see nothing wrong with our two party system other than people like to be cliche about any and everything. Being anti-two party is up there with pretty much everything Trump spouts off about.

What I think the country needs is more swing states so I vote straight democrat every election and don't know or care what the candidates stand for.

 

[Hotdog]

Fair enough. The prison population, and the draconian sentences the justice system imposes, are outrageous. But that's a reflection of what the people want. If people did not vote for politicians who spout "tough on crime" nonsense, we wouldn't be in this situation. So first and foremost, we should look at ourselves, and not the government. The establishment's main worry is to keep their jobs and power. Change the criteria for that, and you'll change the political environment.

We can argue about which regulations make sense and which don't. But many of these are not increased restrictions by the government. Weed for example has pretty much always been banned (unless we're taking a long historical view, which makes no sense in this context). It has been banned because the population at large saw it as some evil drug that's luring their children, and they worked to stop it. The view on marijuana has very recently become more liberal by the majority of Americans. Consequently, you're seeing a trend of legalization across the country.

Again, this is not a discussion about the best possible candidate. It's about the candidates we have. And an establishment candidate, with all the flaws of the establishment, is a million times better than Donald Dump.

You left out basically everything that has to do with money.

A question Ive had for a while now is, is the country's massive debt really a problem or not? I honestly dont know. I wonder what your opinion is on that? It seems catastrophic to many Americans who know just basic math. Maybe there are really smart people out there that see an easy way out of it, but they arent sharing it. So no one really knows.

I think that a lot of people who will vote for Trump are those that have the national debt in mind. The left comes off as not really caring about the debt at all. Just willing to crank out more programs on top of the bloated ones already in place, in the name of social justice.

Trump is a dumb ***. Does come off as racist. But he is out there promising he'll fix the financial mess. And maybe that is what a lot of people care about first and foremost. And shouldnt they? Is it a real concern or not? I dont believe Trump can fix it. Im just saying that that could be part of why he is popular. Hillary isnt out there saying anything about it. Not promising anything. Its concerning that its not a major part of her campaign.

 

[babe]

This election is the opportunity America has to do a new revolution without guns.

The Trump support is about nothing less than dissatisfaction with the present course we are on, about throwing the bums out.

Trump appears to be something different from so ething a lot of people are just about done with.

 

[Siro]

You left out basically everything that has to do with money.

A question Ive had for a while now is, is the country's massive debt really a problem or not? I honestly dont know. I wonder what your opinion is on that? It seems catastrophic to many Americans who know just basic math. Maybe there are really smart people out there that see an easy way out of it, but they arent sharing it. So no one really knows.

I think that a lot of people who will vote for Trump are those that have the national debt in mind. The left comes off as not really caring about the debt at all. Just willing to crank out more programs on top of the bloated ones already in place, in the name of social justice.

Trump is a dumb ***. Does come off as racist. But he is out there promising he'll fix the financial mess. And maybe that is what a lot of people care about first and foremost. And shouldnt they? Is it a real concern or not? I dont believe Trump can fix it. Im just saying that that could be part of why he is popular. Hillary isnt out there saying anything about it. Not promising anything. Its concerning that its not a major part of her campaign.

I'm not an economist, so I don't know the ins and outs of the long term effects of the deficit. But I'm not overly worried. The deficit is not a problem as long as the government continues to make payments. And there is no reason why they couldn't if it keeps rising at its current rate of a couple of percentage points of the GDP. If this becomes a problem, then there are ways to remedy the situation. For example, you can legalize the millions of illegal workers in the US so they'd start paying taxes. You can also increase taxes on wealthy individuals or corporations. If a more conservative solution suits you better, then you can reduce the size of some of the entitlement programs, although that wouldn't go over will with the retiring boomers.

So I don't know, but it hardly seem big enough a problem to elect someone like Trump.

 

[Boris]

I'm not an economist, so I don't know the ins and outs of the long term effects of the deficit. But I'm not overly worried. The deficit is not a problem as long as the government continues to make payments. And there is no reason why they couldn't if it keeps rising at its current rate of a couple of percentage points of the GDP. If this becomes a problem, then there are ways to remedy the situation. For example, you can legalize the millions of illegal workers in the US so they'd start paying taxes. You can also increase taxes on wealthy individuals or corporations. If a more conservative solution suits you better, then you can reduce the size of some of the entitlement programs, although that wouldn't go over will with the retiring boomers.

So I don't know, but it hardly seem big enough a problem to elect someone like Trump.

I am not an economist an know nothing but my uneducated opinion is that deficit does not matter. I am also going to ignore the fact that deficit has ballooned under Obamacare-Clinton policies to levels never seen before. It does not matter folks an there are no side effects like crowding out private investment or creating a hoarding environment. Just ask Siri and Japan. Debt does not matter.

 

[Boris]

I can not believe anybody could vote for this crook. Look at what she madam Secretary of State an Obama have done to the Middle East. Obama promised us he would fix the Palestine Israel problem. What has he done?

What did Hillary do to the Middle East? She has created endless wars, created ISIS (fact), toppled what 6 regimes now and created more instability then GWB or McMullin could ever dream of, let's Russia devour a mother country, an gives Iran nukes plus ransom. She laughs this all off as she makes $13,000,000 for a single speech to a mid eastern king an than millions upon millions speaking to Goldman Sachs an other banksters she happily campaigned to bail out.