What's new

Never Hillary

Just an additional point; I may have a different view of the government from some. I DON'T want a leader. I want an administrator and bureaucrat. I want someone who will act as a check on the people's worst/most irrational impulses, but I want them to be flexible enough to go with the flow as society's norms evolve. Hillary, imo, meets that bar, and thus, she gets my vote.
 
I agree. This is "our" fault. So I want to change it. Part of that, and the reason we are talking about it in this thread, is not putting the same people with the same ideas into power.

I disagree. They are certainly different but either way America loses. You disagree, I can respect that. But I won't fall in line. I think those that think like me are growing in number.


Cue the Dee Snider.
 
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.

Siro, your posts here prove you to be a eminently reasonable fellow.
 
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.

Yeah, you missed my point. My question is, why is a symbolic vote for Clinton more appealing to you than a symbolic vote for a third-party candidate? They both will have exactly the same impact on the election (i.e., none). I'm interested in your answer to that.
 
Yeah, you missed my point. My question is, why is a symbolic vote for Clinton more appealing to you than a symbolic vote for a third-party candidate? They both will have exactly the same impact on the election (i.e., none). I'm interested in your answer to that.

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.
 
Yeah, you missed my point. My question is, why is a symbolic vote for Clinton more appealing to you than a symbolic vote for a third-party candidate? They both will have exactly the same impact on the election (i.e., none). I'm interested in your answer to that.

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."
 
Maybe you're too young to remember this, Colton:

"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."

Colton is in his forties. I'm sure he remembers that!
 
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."

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top