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

[Azadina]

Well, I think there is a level of evilness beyond which it doesn't matter which one is a lesser evil: supporting either is suicide.

Minorities might beg to differ, that it makes very big difference on whether Hillary appoints liberal judges into Supreme Court, preserving their current human rights. Or, Trump appointing hardcore conservatives, who will begin to overturn and remove those human rights.

Evil is somewhat subjective,

In my example I gave, the choice would be between a centrist who might make a good manager but pledges the annihilation of that I hold most dear, and a generally bad and unpredictable actor.

It is essentially a Sofie's Choice.

Sure, if you want to say that causing deliberate suffering on innocent people is "subjective evil".

[May90]

Minorities might beg to differ, that it makes very big difference on whether Hillary appoints liberal judges into Supreme Court, preserving their current human rights. Or, Trump appointing hardcore conservatives, who will begin to overturn and remove those human rights.

In this particular case, sure. But, I mean, in general: if I had to vote for someone, and I had two choices - Hitler and Stalin - then I wouldn't vote at all. Because, while I find Hitler a bit less evil than Stalin, both are evil to such an extent that I cannot even imagine aligning myself with either, for whatever reason.

[Theodarzna]

American system essentially remained unchanged ever since it was created, which was over two centuries ago. Maybe that's the reason the US is so bad at keeping up with time: because it is built on an ancient foundation which isn't competitive nowadays?

America is locked to its History. It was among many FIRSTS in the world and thus they remain thoroughly ensconced to it. When you are a young country with very little deep history, what little you have becomes that much more precious to them.

Europe can change because it has lots of history to hold onto and doesn't find any particular system of government that special.

America has little other than its system of government to give it a sense of history. To change it would be almost sacrilegious here.

[Mehrunes]

It's kind of like what happened with Brexit. If you cast your vote as troll or protest, and don't vote for the lesser of evils, then the result might end up trolling you.

Well, technically you're correct, but keep in mind that US has "protection" against things like that in the form of "brilliant" winner takes all system. So if you live in a state that's not a swing state, your protest vote or lack of vote doesn't matter anyway, republicans won't win unless a meteor rain wipes the urban centers in said state. Not particularly healthy for democracy, but it is what it is.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

And chances are, looking at his great list, he's bought into it fully.

Name one thing on the list that isn't true.

If you want to vote for someone who signed waivers that allowed US weapons to be given to armies in the Sudan who used 10 year old child soldiers, which most people in the west would consider a crime against humanity, then fine. Vote Clinton. Vote for Crimes against Humanity.

Just remember, when you are in that voting booth and pulling that lever or marking that piece of paper, that you will be voting for someone who specifically allowed US weapons to be given to armies with 10 year old child soldiers. Picture these children in the warzones of Sudan, fighting, killing, laying there maimed or dead, while you pull that lever for Clinton.

Then you can get back in your late model Toyota Corolla with the "I'm With Her" bumper sticker and head to your nearest Starbucks!

[PC2]

Minorities might beg to differ, that it makes very big difference on whether Hillary appoints liberal judges into Supreme Court, preserving their current human rights. Or, Trump appointing hardcore conservatives, who will begin to overturn and remove those human rights.

You're a fear monger. Human rights are not going anywhere.

[Theodarzna]

In this particular case, sure. But, I mean, in general: if I had to vote for someone, and I had two choices - Hitler and Stalin - then I wouldn't vote at all. Because, while I find Hitler a bit less evil than Stalin, both are evil to such an extent that I cannot even imagine aligning myself with either, for whatever reason.

HEY BUDDY! Its a two party system and you don't want Stalin. That's literally the best you can do in such elections. I'm not saying that I agree with Hitler on all the issues, or that we would be good friends, or that I agree with his choice of toppings on his burgers. But you gotta stop Stalin Amm' I right?

[Azadina]

You're a fear monger. Human rights are not going anywhere.

Only if you believe gays and such should not have any. Because majority of the Court being hardcore conservatives means it will be gone.

[Theodarzna]

Sure, if you want to say that causing deliberate suffering on innocent people is "subjective evil".

Which innocent people? The ones in Libya and Syria will likely have some words for you, or all those innocent people in Iraq that Hillary brought this current hell to with her vote.

Which innocent people?

[PC2]

Only if you believe gays and such should not have any. Because majority of the Court being hardcore conservatives means it will be gone.

Conspiracy theories are not allowed here.

[Azadina]

Conspiracy theories are not allowed here.

Their suffering is in your hands then. 4 of the judges already ruled against gay marriage, and the moment you tip the balance, it will be overturned.

And there's nothing stopping them from doing that either.

http://www.advocate.com/us-supreme-c...riage-equality

You can read their statements the last time. It's pretty despicable too.

[PC2]

You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

US Supreme court Conservatives are not conspiring to take away human rights. If you think they are you are a conspiracy theorist.

- - - Updated - - -

Their suffering is in your hands then. 4 of the judges already ruled against gay marriage, and the moment you tip the balance, it will be overturned.

And there's nothing stopping them from doing that either.

Marriage isn't a human right. It shouldnt even be dictated by government. As of right now it is a government eligibility based option.

[Ehrenpanzer]

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 they would have to burn their constitution and entire governmental system to the ground to be able to do that. Welcome to the irony of America invading Arabic countries to spread "democracy" when they don't even have it themselves

[Azadina]

Marriage isn't a human right. It shouldnt even be dictated by government. As of right now it is a government eligibility based option.

So you simply don't care if some people get discriminated against, and treated as sub human? What if you were discriminated against? Would you still have that "I don't care" attitude?

[PC2]

So you simply don't care if some people get discriminated against, and treated as sub human? What if you were discriminated against? Would you still have that "I don't care" attitude?

I don't want the government to have the power to legitimize or delegitimatize peoples adult relationships.

Just so you know, human rights are available to all humans regardless of status. As far as I know, that is not the case for marriage in any country.

[Azadina]

I don't want the government to have the power to legitimize peoples personal relationships.

Just so you know, human rights are available to all humans regardless of status. As far as I know, that is not the case for marriage in any country.

Then remove the government given benefits from it. All of them.

[PC2]

Then remove the government given benefits from it. All of them.

Yeah I don't see why special treatment is needed. People in a relationship already get perks like saving money through shared infrastructure.

[Mehrunes]

US Supreme court Conservatives are not conspiring to take away human rights. If you think they are you are a conspiracy theorist.

Because the same sex marriage ruling had no dissent whatsoever.

[DarkTZeratul]

I don't want the government to have the power to legitimize or delegitimatize peoples adult relationships.

The problem is that there are so many very important benefits linked to marriage that NEED to be formally legitimized in a legal sense. Even ignoring direct government benefits like taxes and whatnot, you've got crucial things like power of attorney, hospital visitation rights, child care, inheritance... You NEED to be able to have a legally binding contract establishing that you are paired together in order to ensure that things like this happen properly.

[Theodarzna]

Because the same sex marriage ruling had no dissent whatsoever.

Its established law now, precedent is a powerful thing in a Common Law system.