About the "If you don't vote for Hillary you are voting for Trump!" nonsense.

[Witchblade77]

No, gotta start thinking about the future. For analogy you can't start thinking about retirement when you are 60.

- - - Updated - - -



My body my choice and I'm not going to support either of those cunts.

Ivanka for president.

did you miss the rest of my post?

by your analogy, because one needs to think about retirement, one can just ignore what's happening right now.

you could AND SHOULD care both about the future AND understand and work with how the now is.

[Gamdwelf]

That's fine. Just don't be upset when the person you prefer between the two loses.

I don't prefer either.

Choosing to eat donkey shit or elephant shit is not a choice. I choose to not eat shit.

Sorry not sorry.

[klogaroth]

You should do one of 3 things: Vote for Trump, vote for Hillary, or abstain from voting (and understand the consequences of doing so). Voting for a third party candidate is asinine because the chances of them winning are like 1 in a million so you may as well just save yourself the time and energy and not vote.

Even if you hate them both, Trump and Hillary are different enough that you have to at least prefer one over the other. Vote for the lesser evil.

If you're playing a long enough game then voting for a third party candidate can have results. Just not in this election.

Abstaining signifies that you don't want either of the big two, but doesn't indicate what you do want. This may result in change, but unless you get in touch with a party and tell them what you do want they could just as easily move further away from what you're after.

Voting for an independent candidate can do one of two things. It can either lead to a new party starting to rise in the very long term, or it can lead to one of the big parties seeing the rise of that independent and shift their policies to try and win those voters.

Chances are you won't get what you want in this election though. It's a balance of how much you dislike your least favourite candidate against how much you like your favourite candidate. Can you cope with 4 years of your least favourite in the hope that either your favourite starts to build a platform, or your second favourite moves closer to your favourite.

[Gamdwelf]

did you miss the rest of my post?

by your analogy, because one needs to think about retirement, one can just ignore what's happening right now.

you could AND SHOULD care both about the future AND understand and work with how the now is.

I absolutely read the rest of the post. But complacency is not the solution to any problem.

[DeadmanWalking]

You should do one of 3 things: Vote for Trump, vote for Hillary, or abstain from voting (and understand the consequences of doing so). Voting for a third party candidate is asinine because the chances of them winning are like 1 in a million so you may as well just save yourself the time and energy and not vote.

Even if you hate them both, Trump and Hillary are different enough that you have to at least prefer one over the other. Vote for the lesser evil.

It isn't vote the lesser evil, it is vote your politics. If you are a Sanders supporter then you believe in legalized weed, legalized gay marraige, smaller military, gun control laws, freedom of choice, businesses not getting corporate tax welfare, socialized medicine and the rich paying more taxes, 'free' college. If Donald gets elected not only will none of that happen but the complete opposite will become the law of the land, not because Don stands against it but rather because his party will demand it. (Trump isnt really republican),

The Republicans will tear up Obama Care, keep weed illegal, make gay marraige illegal, larger military, make it easier to get high capacity guns, abotion outlawed, businesses get tax welfare and welfare recipients get cut off, Rich pay less taxes, no chance at 'free' college. If Trump wins the Republicans will cement their hold on the supreme court for upwards of 2 decades.

Vote your politics and vote to win. You can always try to get a bernie type later but if you lose this one, you lose for at least a decade.

[Poppincaps]

I don't prefer either.

Choosing to eat donkey shit or elephant shit is not a choice. I choose to not eat shit.

Sorry not sorry.

Sorry that you fail to understand that you don't have a choice. One of them will be president. Now you can have a hand in choosing which one gets the presidency or you can choose to abstain. I find it hard to believe that between 2 very different people that you truly don't prefer one over the other.

- - - Updated - - -

If you're playing a long enough game then voting for a third party candidate can have results. Just not in this election.

Abstaining signifies that you don't want either of the big two, but doesn't indicate what you do want. This may result in change, but unless you get in touch with a party and tell them what you do want they could just as easily move further away from what you're after.

Voting for an independent candidate can do one of two things. It can either lead to a new party starting to rise in the very long term, or it can lead to one of the big parties seeing the rise of that independent and shift their policies to try and win those voters.

Chances are you won't get what you want in this election though. It's a balance of how much you dislike your least favourite candidate against how much you like your favourite candidate. Can you cope with 4 years of your least favourite in the hope that either your favourite starts to build a platform, or your second favourite moves closer to your favourite.

Valid points. I don't believe that we'll ever see the rise of a new major third party unless something MAJOR happens, but the point about the two existing parties adopting the policies of a smaller third party to win over their voters is a valid one.

[TheTaurenOrc]

Well just because it bothers you doesn't mean it isn't true.

Take a look at the British general election, not Brexit. All those who voted LibDem and SNP instead of Labor, even though fundamentally they have very close political leanings, now have to endure a Conservative government much further to the right.

Sure they can bemoan that they didn't vote for the Conservatives, but if they used there heads and just voted for the larger party at their end of the political spectrum they would be in power.

This is even more exaggerated in US politics because any candidate outside of the Rep or Dems pales in comparison. Use your heads people, don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

[Gamdwelf]

Sorry that you fail to understand that you don't have a choice. One of them will be president. Now you can have a hand in choosing which one gets the presidency or you can choose to abstain. I find it hard to believe that between 2 very different people that you truly don't prefer one over the other.

- - - Updated - - -



Valid points. I don't believe that we'll ever see the rise of a new major third party unless something MAJOR happens, but the point about the two existing parties adopting the policies of a smaller third party to win over their voters is a valid one.

Honestly I feel trump is less deplorable than Clinton, but not enough to vote for him.

[belfpala]

And if you think Hilary is a right wing candidate then you are just being willfully beligerant and stubborn at your own expense.

Hillary is right-wing and authoritarian, at least compared to me. I don't see how that's being belligerent or stubborn.

This year my vote is essentially: known factor vs obviously crazy. Going with known factor. Add on, that I'll mostly be voting on local issues.

[May90]

Except littering isn't an election. The White House doesn't get "half clean" if I choose to "throw my bottle in the trash". It's all-or-nothing.

And no, "making an example" doesn't even really work. If that were the case, we would have had a major third party emerge after Ross Perot got almost 20% of the popular vote as an independent.

When you vote, you express your opinion on who you want to see as your president. When you support a candidate you don't like, you send a message, "I support this candidate", not a message, "I don't like this candidate, but the other candidate is worse" - the latter exists only in your head, but not in your actions. It is not all or nothing, it is voting honestly or voting dishonestly. Dishonesty in a society is never a good thing.

Why do you vote for one of the primary candidates? Because other people convinced you that only they can win. You have the ability to convince other people, same way, that it is not true. But since you've convinced yourself that it is true, you made it true.

One person rarely can change much. Many people can change a lot. But for that, each of them must take action. If everyone just says, "My vote won't count if I vote for a third party candidate, so I won't", then yes, the system will stagnate.

[Witchblade77]

I absolutely read the rest of the post. But complacency is not the solution to any problem.

focusing on changing the situation on a local level - where you can actualy make a difference? is not complacency. what you are suggesting on a federal level is akin to crossing the road on a red light, just because you.. think that cars are too far away to hit you, or assuming that they will break in time.

[DeadmanWalking]

I don't prefer either.

Choosing to eat donkey shit or elephant shit is not a choice. I choose to not eat shit.

Sorry not sorry.

Well, with a gun to my head and two piles of shit before me it isn't hard to decide which shit you would eat to survive. An Elephant's shit takes a lot longer time to consume. Don't complain when you chose neither and they force you to eat the elephant shit before pulling the trigger. In the end, if you are an American, you are going to eat a shit, it's just a matter of wether you get the shit that you prefer to the one you don't.

[Paula Deen]

I have YET to see a "Liberal" say that, I have actually heard quite a few Trump Supporters say it though.

Basically OP, cognitive bias.

[TheMediator]

I don't prefer either.

Choosing to eat donkey shit or elephant shit is not a choice. I choose to not eat shit.

Sorry not sorry.

That's not how it works. You're choosing to eat whatever shit is handed to you by not voting.

[Deleted]

Can't we just get everyone to vote for Dwayne Johnson or something?

[Derpleton]

The majority of americans do not want either Hillary or Trump as president.


Why don't the majority of americans choose their own candidate?

Because if that majority can't all agree on a candidate and we end up with say a 4 way split with no one with a majority electoral votes then our friends in the House of Representatives get to pick the president for us... yippie

[Kallisto]

But what if as a Bernie supporter you would rather have things shaken up for a few years than more of the same political garbage.

Then they are dumb as fuck if they think there will be any major shake up or any shake up will be in their benefit. If they want real change they need to hold their nose. Vote Hillary (since she is closest viable candidate to Bernie in policies) and build up a platform at local and state level politics by voting in representatives and campaigning for those who are closest to Bernie in outlook.

Trump would likely = a Supreme court that made the past few years look Liberal in comparison when it gets to 6 or 7 Conservative judges leading to a reactionary USA for the next couple decades

While Hillary = worst status quo (which for anyone on the left is better than the above.) while at best and if the bernie fans actually care beyond presidential elections they can push local and state levels towards a more Liberal outlook forcing change long term reform at a manageable level.

[Ruzan]

I think (hope) there will be a massive turnout for Trump in November.

[klogaroth]

the point about the two existing parties adopting the policies of a smaller third party to win over their voters is a valid one.

For a good example of this in action - look at the influence UKIP had on UK politics.

First past the post voting limited them to 3 seats in parliament, but the number of votes they got, combined with a rift in the Tory party, is what led to the brexit referendum. Neither a Tory nor Labour government would have called that referendum in normal circumstances. Granted there are differences in the UK and the big 2 aren't as dominant as the big 2 in the US, but you get the point. Short of an actual US example this one illustrates the point well enough.

A similar situation, where a major party is split on an issue and voters reinforce one side of that split by voting for an independent that supports a particular side could get results in US politics too.

(PS - Please no further discussion brexit from anyone, this is not the thread, it's just a convenient example for third party voting)

[Gamdwelf]

focusing on changing the situation on a local level - where you can actualy make a difference? is not complacency. what you are suggesting on a federal level is akin to crossing the road on a red light, just because you.. think that cars are too far away to hit you, or assuming that they will break in time.

I do that all the time. Sitting at a red light just cus it's the rules is obstensibly stupid and a waste of an individuals time.