No, voting for Trump or Clinton is wishing for them to somehow become something more human like. DO something to change the norm.
Exactly, you're wishing.
No, voting for Trump or Clinton is wishing for them to somehow become something more human like. DO something to change the norm.
And you have your mind made up. Who am I to convince you? Until you can definitively show me a ream of real evidence that can convince me otherwise, I will continue to know that I remain far more objective about these things than you do.
Well then by all means tell me what you would have people do. Concrete steps that don't involve just hoping that half the country suddenly votes the way you want them to.
Seriously? Have you been following along?
NO, NO, NO!!!! there is no candidate that HAS your vote until you give it to them in the booth. A vote for a green party can is just that a vote for that person, not a vote for the other candidate. This twisted way of thinking that a vote for Johnston is a vote for Clinton is nothing more than a scare tactic to keep people in line. Everyone that hates Clinton but still votes for her instead of voting their heart is EXACTLY what they want you to do. There has to come a time when you stop worrying about you don't like or want in the here-and-now and worry about the future. The reason both Clinton and Trump act the way they do is because they know when it comes time to bite the bullet Americans would rather bend over and take a big fat spiked one up their ass then do something that might be for the better good. It is the every people that guilt others into voting for one of the major two that is a huge part of the very problem they claim to despise.
To all those that are planning on staying home this election, PLEASE don't! If you hate the major two, do yourself and the rest of us a favor and vote a third party. Don't stay home and complain that there is no good candidate, DO something! In 2012 54.9% of those able to vote in the US did. If the other 45.1% voted for a 3rd party candidate would not have a Trump of Clinton in the White House. Don't be part of the problem be a part of the solution!
I'm not the one fear mongering & dog whistling bigotry & hatred. I'm not conflicted as to whether I should vote for that or not. I'm on board with Yes we can & stronger together. It somehow wasn't a difficult choice.
I agree completely. Vote for whomever you feel best represents what you want. If you think Clinton is great then vote for her, same goes for Trump. But voting for either of them just because you don't want the other one or not voting because you don't like either of them and you think a third party vote is a wasted vote is wrong in my opinion.
I am sure that the number of people that would rather have a third party candidate like Johnson or Stein is far greater than the 0.99 and 0.36 percent that they received in 2012. Simply based on the popular vote Obama won by 3.87% in 2012. If a third party had received even 5% of the vote in 2012 then I believe that there would be a difference today in the platforms of the major parties to try to capture that 5%.
So sure in our dominant two party system a third party may never be able to win but they can definitely exert pressure to change the majors. I will shocked if the support Sanders received this year doesn't affect the Dem platform in the coming years.
Do you think Nader voters in Florida preferred GWB over Al Gore? That's what their vote got them. Something tells me if you asked them to all vote again knowing the consequences Al Gore would have won Florida easily.
I can't understand for the life of me why voting strategically would be 'wrong'. If you have three candidates available and your preference is 1.....2...................................3 why would you vote for 1 instead of 2 if that made 3 winning more likely? There's a reason people don't do this.
I would hope that they were sure enough in their vote to be satisfied with it no matter the result. In that specific example what happened with the Dem party, Nader and Florida after the election? In 2004 was Kerry a better fit than Nader for them, were people like you and see that voting third party got them a worse result in their mind so they voted Dem, did the Dem party change their message a bit to try to capture the Nader votes that literally lost them the entire election or did nothing happen because there were so few Nader voters anyway?
I don't know that anyone has the answer and both the Dems and Nader had a lower percentage of the vote in 2004 than 2000 in Florida so it is hard to see at a glance if there may have been a swing from Nader, not that it would be easy to see when looking at so few votes anyway.
What is the source of this core belief that Hillary and Bill are the most corrupt, evil, lying politicians in history? I know that so much was built up decades ago via Newt's coalition through unfounded conspiracies and accusations that persisted well beyond investigations that turned up nothing.
This type of incessant and unfounded train of accusations is a well-publicized strategy championed by the Republicans, and it has survived despite any real factual basis. This has inculcated within the typical conservative mind the feeling that the mere presence of persistent accusations is evidence of truth alone.
I don't really like Hillary, but this core belief that she is a grand liar unique in our political history is pure delusional fantasy. Despite the legality and common nature of her and Bill's corporate speeches and fees, I do find these things distasteful for people in their position--but again, it is for whatever reason activity that no one--especially conservatives--hold against any other politician. I find her cold and distant, but that in no way disqualifies her from being president or from any of the positions under which she has served admirably. The major issue that I don't like about her candidacy is that I don't like this dynastic nature of the presidency--I thought Bill was great for the time, but I do not want another Clinton, I do not want another Bush--outside of policy, I simply don't want to see the presidency under the control of a very small handful of families. That is, in fact, my only real complaint against Hillary.
I see those issues in the words of "Hillary is a corrupt liar!" types of people because such people never have a foundation from which to base these beliefs. It is decades of brainwashing, because they will always point to tired old fantasy bullshit cooked up by a coalition that only ever cared about perception over substance. When one begins their defense of such beliefs with "whitewater" or "vince foster," you know the individual is mired in a "feelings" structure of facts being secondary to repeated accusations entirely void of substance. Weak-minded people are susceptible to such tactics.
Even the core of the republican party has publicly admitted that the Bengazi charges against her were nothing more than a political farce. But this little nugget festers in the contemporary conservative brain. Who cares if the accusations are a sham? They were made, and she's already had a history of accusations--therefore true!
Trump is a fascist. That is plain to anyone that is paying attention. Any support of Trump, for any reason whatsoever, is a clear endorsement of fascism. Period.
Even if Hillary were the evil god-hating liar that small-minded republicans believe her to be, that is no excuse for supporting fascism in the US. In a way, this is why Trump is the enema that the repub party needs--take the chaff out with him. Hopefully his disastrous candidacy will live on in book deals and re-education camps such that his acolytes can fully embrace the new order, leaving the repub party forever and disappearing into their own insignificant and properly marginalized communes in remote areas of Montana and Wyoming, taking pictures next to Trump cardboard cutouts over the next decade while shoveling piles of money into his coffers, promising to win back the country, again! some day....some day.
iirc, the majority of Nader votes were in districts that Gore either won or Bush ran away with. None of those votes actually affected the election for either of the other two candidates.
Clearly, to a lot of you, elections are simply popularity contests because it's obviously not about policies.
An America first policy is exactly the reason to vote Trump.
But as a person he's just horrible, and if half the reports are true re: nukes, etc...
Zooooommmmmm!
Right over your head.
As a Nader voter in Pennsylvania in 2000 I was not satisfied with the result, I can tell you that for sure. I vowed never to make that mistake ever again.
Wtf? No, your analysis is just plain wrong. You do realize that all of the votes statewide are tallied, right? You'd need to look at Nader's votes state wide. They don't count the number of counties you won to determine the winner of the state - they count all the votes added together.You're right. Nader votes didn't matter.
If all Nader votes went Gore, it would have only mattered in Madison County; and only adding 54 votes, winning by 31. Bush still wins the rest of the counties he won, over Gore+Nader votes combined.
"America first" isn't a policy, it's a slogan.
Then you are a terrible listener.
That label is attached to a set of policies.
It really is astounding that the mostly cooked up fears about how corrupt and dangerous Hillary Clinton is blinds them to the extreme perils presented by the demagogue atop their very own party. You dont have to use your imagination to prove how dangerous Trump is, you merely have to listen to the words coming out of his own mouth. He's a bull in a china shop, and the China shop is our country.