Post by: Number7 on September 19, 2016, 03:23:40 PM
Gary Johnson has become a non choice for obvious reasons, so Libertarian is out for me.
Hilary Clinton was never a candidate for me and tens of millions of others.
Although entertaining, Donald Trump is nearly as bad a choice as Hilary Clinton but not from a resume standpoint. His resume isn't as full of failure as Hilary's. Bankruptcy in business is something I set aside from failure in Libya, Syria, the laughable Russian reset and the criminal enterprise of the Clinton Foundation.
Is anyone changing their choice??
Post by: Anthony on September 19, 2016, 03:36:20 PM
Select "Positions" to see specifics.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on September 19, 2016, 03:41:23 PM
Post by: Anthony on September 19, 2016, 04:05:46 PM
If the responses to the most recent terror don't help one decide..........
Well that is certainly telling. Obama, and Hillary are very unengaged, they won't call it terror, but keep talking "Lone Wolf" and "Workplace Violence". Trump is mad, calls it Islamic terror, and says he will stop it.
Post by: Lucifer on September 19, 2016, 04:09:04 PM
Well that is certainly telling. Obama, and Hillary are very unengaged, they won't call it terror, but keep talking "Lone Wolf" and "Workplace Violence". Trump is mad, calls it Islamic terror, and says he will stop it.
Sitting here watching the evening news, Hillary states that she will continue Obama's policies on dealing with ISIS.
Really?
Post by: Anthony on September 19, 2016, 04:24:59 PM
Sitting here watching the evening news, Hillary states that she will continue Obama's policies on dealing with ISIS.
Really?
Which is to allow it to keep happening and get worse. Import more Syrian, and Somali terrorists, and allow them to come in through open borders. More violence against U.S. citizens, rinse, and repeat.
Post by: Steingar on September 19, 2016, 06:05:56 PM
But since a Democratic POTUS is doing it, it must be a failure. And if Hillary became POTUS and did it, it would become a criminal conspiracy.
Part of me wants to see Trump elected. It can be fun watching a predicted disaster unfold. And perhaps we'd be better off without the GOP. Be careful what you wish for.
Post by: Anthony on September 19, 2016, 06:20:35 PM
Post by: Little Joe on September 19, 2016, 06:59:24 PM
ISIS has shrunk dramatically since we became involved.And you only believe that because a Democrat said it. If a Republican said it, you would say it is a lie. And you would be right because it is a lie.
Post by: bflynn on September 20, 2016, 03:36:04 AM
Post by: Number7 on September 20, 2016, 07:32:56 AM
I am not a Donald Trump-kin simply because i don't know what he really stands for, or intends to do other than a lot of generalities, but I am far more against Hilary Clinton because I feel her entire career is a window into her criminal soul.
Fifty-one days out and I have no idea how to pull the lever and that frightens me.
I really did believe it couldn't get worse than having to choose between McCain and Obama but the two parties took that as a challenge instead of a criticism.
Post by: bflynn on September 20, 2016, 09:58:04 AM
I am not a Donald Trump-kin simply because i don't know what he really stands for, or intends to do other than a lot of generalities
Do you ever know what a candidate will do? Did Obama advertise a fundamental change to how America works when he was running for president the first time?
Donald is a pretty open book. He's going to make deals. Some of them you will love and some of them you will despise, quite possibly in the same piece of legislation. You won't get everything you want but you will get some of it. Odds are pretty high we'll still have the bill of rights, which I assure you we would lose if Hillary was elected.
You can always abdicate your responsibility. Not many people will think poorly of you for doing that.
Post by: Mase on September 20, 2016, 11:01:13 AM
Do you ever know what a candidate will do? Did Obama advertise a fundamental change to how America works when he was running for president the first time?
Yes, he did. For anyone with eyes, ears and half a brain.
And so does Hillary.
Post by: JeffDG on September 20, 2016, 11:07:09 AM
Odds are pretty high we'll still have the bill of rights, which I assure you we would lose if Hillary was elected.Why do you say that?
Trump is openly hostile to the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments, and his "deals" will trade Supreme Court appointments for wall appropriations in a heartbeat!
Post by: Little Joe on September 20, 2016, 11:13:44 AM
Why do you say that?How do you know that?
... his "deals" will trade Supreme Court appointments for wall appropriations in a heartbeat!
Post by: LevelWing on September 20, 2016, 11:23:56 AM
Post by: Little Joe on September 20, 2016, 12:24:55 PM
I've been on the fence about voting for Trump since he became the nominee. As time has gone on, he hasn't made it easy for me to want to vote for him. He continually says dumb things. On the other hand, I will never vote for Hillary. So it's either write someone in or vote for Trump. I tend to lean towards Trump but only because Hillary would just be devastating for this country.In other words, you may vote for Trump because he is not Hillary.
I of course, respect that. But I think that some of us that came to the same conclusion earlier may be entitled to at least a mild apology.
Post by: LevelWing on September 20, 2016, 12:28:04 PM
In other words, you may vote for Trump because he is not Hillary.I haven't said I'd vote for him. He still has a lot of issues that I don't find acceptable. I'm not really interested in re-hashing all the arguments since we know what they are and where we stand on them. Besides, if Hillary keeps imploding like this I may not need to vote for Trump, he may win anyway.
I of course, respect that. But I think that some of us that came to the same conclusion earlier may be entitled to at least a mild apology.
Post by: JeffDG on September 20, 2016, 12:37:57 PM
How do you know that?He's all about the deals.
Tell me: Which is more important to Trump? His "Big, beautiful wall" or Supreme Court justices?
The critical part of negotiating great deals is to compromise that which is incidental to you for that which is important to you. Since Trump cares not a whit about the Court (so long as they keep letting him kick little old ladies out of their houses to build parking lots), he can trade that to Schumer (for whom Court appointments are very important) in exchange for something important to him (wall appropriations).
It's simply the way deals are made.
Post by: Little Joe on September 20, 2016, 12:40:43 PM
And I think the SC is more important to him than the wall.
He's all about the deals.
Tell me: Which is more important to Trump? His "Big, beautiful wall" or Supreme Court justices?
The critical part of negotiating great deals is to compromise that which is incidental to you for that which is important to you. Since Trump cares not a whit about the Court (so long as they keep letting him kick little old ladies out of their houses to build parking lots), he can trade that to Schumer (for whom Court appointments are very important) in exchange for something important to him (wall appropriations).
It's simply the way deals are made.
Post by: JeffDG on September 20, 2016, 12:43:46 PM
You are sounding more and more like a shill for the DNC all the time. Kicking old ladies out of their houses? Ha.Why? Because I don't support either Clinton, nor her donor? I'm somewhat impressed that the DNC managed to capture both major party nominations this year, but I'm no supporter.
And I think the SC is more important to him than the wall.Really?
He released a list of judges, with the specific caveat that he might pick one of the, or he might pick anyone else.
He talks about his wall all the time. He doesn't give two shits about the Supreme Court. He basically sits on the Democrat side on just about every issue that goes before the Court. He's pro-choice, pro-gun control, anti-free speech, and pro-eminent domain. Why wouldn't he appoint a liberal judge who supports his positions?
Post by: bflynn on September 20, 2016, 12:52:33 PM
Why wouldn't he appoint a liberal judge who supports his positions?
I'm not sure what you mean by "liberal judge who supports his positions", since the preceding 20 or so posts are agreeing that Trump has no hard positions, let alone positions that a liberal judge would agree with.
Do you think otherwise?
If Trump is elected, there will almost certainly also be a Republican Senate. His choice will have to be acceptable to them. That's ultimately why he can't appoint a liberal judge.
Post by: JeffDG on September 20, 2016, 12:56:30 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by "liberal judge who supports his positions", since the preceding 20 or so posts are agreeing that Trump has no hard positions, let alone positions that a liberal judge would agree with.All of Trump's positions, except when he's pandering to the electorate (ie. his positions when he's not running) are all liberal positions.
Do you think otherwise?
If Trump is elected, there will almost certainly also be a Republican Senate. His choice will have to be acceptable to them. That's ultimately why he can't appoint a liberal judge.
Also, I can't count the number of times I've heard Trumpalumpas tell me "But, but, Hillary----SUPREME COURT" as their only reason, but now the Senate will prevent all that? So, the Republicans in the Senate will have the backbone to vote down a liberal judge appointed by Trump, but will just go along with a Clinton appointed judge? That's your theory now?
Post by: asechrest on September 20, 2016, 12:57:10 PM
Post by: Anthony on September 20, 2016, 12:59:22 PM
Post by: JeffDG on September 20, 2016, 01:01:26 PM
Trump will not be appointing liberal, progressive Supreme Court Justices.Keep telling yourself whatever it takes to sleep at night.
He'll make the trade in a heartbeat.
Post by: Anthony on September 20, 2016, 01:06:48 PM
Keep telling yourself whatever it takes to sleep at night.
He'll make the trade in a heartbeat.
Fortunately, I know that you have neither a crystal ball, nor are clairvoyant. So until it happens you have no freakin clue. I've been to Toronto. IT SUCKS.
Post by: Steingar on September 20, 2016, 01:07:38 PM
Post by: bflynn on September 20, 2016, 01:08:58 PM
All of Trump's positions, except when he's pandering to the electorate (ie. his positions when he's not running) are all liberal positions.
Also, I can't count the number of times I've heard Trumpalumpas tell me "But, but, Hillary----SUPREME COURT" as their only reason, but now the Senate will prevent all that? So, the Republicans in the Senate will have the backbone to vote down a liberal judge appointed by Trump, but will just go along with a Clinton appointed judge? That's your theory now?
But you're not giving an example of any of Trump's "liberal" positions. Mind you, I'm a moderate, I'm ok with a little social liberalness. I'm not personally interested in hookers and blow, but I don't think they should be illegal.
Show me where I've ever said "but, but Hillary" about anything. My theory is that if Clinton is elected, that means the Democrats GOTV better and there will likely be a Democrat Senate who will very cheerfully confirm a justice to give a 5-4 majority against the Bill of Rights. Of course if there is a Republican Senate and Clinton were president, I'm sure they would have no qualms about slapping down any wildly liberal judges. But everyone knows that and this isn't what we're talking about, you're deflecting from having to answer for being called out to give Trump's positions.
Post by: Lucifer on September 20, 2016, 01:10:38 PM
Trump cut off the health insurance to his nephew who was busy dying in hospital. Great guy.
cite?
Post by: bflynn on September 20, 2016, 01:11:03 PM
cite?
Of course not.
Post by: Lucifer on September 20, 2016, 01:15:14 PM
Of course not.
I know. I just want to see what far left liberal smear site he got that from.
Post by: Steingar on September 20, 2016, 01:15:42 PM
cite?
Big surprise you haven't yet figured out how to look stuff up on the internet.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3382756/Donald-Trump-cut-medical-treatment-nephew-s-sick-baby.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3382756/Donald-Trump-cut-medical-treatment-nephew-s-sick-baby.html)
Post by: JeffDG on September 20, 2016, 01:21:10 PM
Fortunately, I know that you have neither a crystal ball, nor are clairvoyant. So until it happens you have no freakin clue. I've been to Toronto. IT SUCKS.Concur. Toronto sucks.
Thanks for demonstrating that you've completely run out of coherent arguments
Post by: Lucifer on September 20, 2016, 01:21:24 PM
Big surprise you haven't yet figured out how to look stuff up on the internet.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3382756/Donald-Trump-cut-medical-treatment-nephew-s-sick-baby.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3382756/Donald-Trump-cut-medical-treatment-nephew-s-sick-baby.html)
Daily Mail huh.........
(http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w464/flybywire1959/giphy_zpsgec4so1e.gif)
Post by: JeffDG on September 20, 2016, 01:24:40 PM
But you're not giving an example of any of Trump's "liberal" positions. Mind you, I'm a moderate, I'm ok with a little social liberalness. I'm not personally interested in hookers and blow, but I don't think they should be illegal.-Obamacare: Trump thinks the government should provide healthcare
Show me where I've ever said "but, but Hillary" about anything. My theory is that if Clinton is elected, that means the Democrats GOTV better and there will likely be a Democrat Senate who will very cheerfully confirm a justice to give a 5-4 majority against the Bill of Rights. Of course if there is a Republican Senate and Clinton were president, I'm sure they would have no qualms about slapping down any wildly liberal judges. But everyone knows that and this isn't what we're talking about, you're deflecting from having to answer for being called out to give Trump's positions.
-1st Amendment: He'll "loosen up" restrictions so he, as President, can sue people who say bad things about him
-2nd Amendment: Said Obama "Speaks for all of us" when he advocated for tighter gun control laws
-4th Amendment: Thinks Apple should have to build a back-door into their OS so the government can decrypt phones, with or without a warrant
-5th Amendment: "I love eminent domain", so he believes that all your property exists at the sufferance of the state.
Post by: Anthony on September 20, 2016, 01:49:33 PM
Concur. Toronto sucks.
Thanks for demonstrating that you've completely run out of coherent arguments
You've run out of them for months. Your obsession with Trump is the stuff of the Psych Unit.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on September 20, 2016, 02:02:55 PM
Quote
Any Republican has a difficult pathway to the presidency. On the electoral map, expanding blue blobs in coastal and big-city America swamp the conservative geographical sea of red. Big-electoral-vote states such as California, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey are utterly lost before the campaign even begins. The media have devolved into a weird Ministry of Truth. News seems defined now as what information is necessary to release to arrive at correct views.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440198/never-nevertrump-not-voting-trump-republican-suicide
Post by: Little Joe on September 20, 2016, 02:05:08 PM
Big surprise you haven't yet figured out how to look stuff up on the internet.Ok, so the guy that has no use for biased blogs with no credibility will believe them, if it supports his own agenda.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3382756/Donald-Trump-cut-medical-treatment-nephew-s-sick-baby.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3382756/Donald-Trump-cut-medical-treatment-nephew-s-sick-baby.html)
Post by: Rush on September 20, 2016, 02:12:07 PM
Big surprise you haven't yet figured out how to look stuff up on the internet.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3382756/Donald-Trump-cut-medical-treatment-nephew-s-sick-baby.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3382756/Donald-Trump-cut-medical-treatment-nephew-s-sick-baby.html)
So let's see, the brother was a ne'r do well who drank himself into an early grave. I think I'd not object to my parent cutting him out of the will. Why throw good money into an addict's hole? Then Trump pledged to pay for one of the alcoholic's grand baby's care, but the alcoholic brother's kids sued Trump. Well, I'd renig on a pledge to pay for my nephew's kid's care too if said nephew opened a lawsuit against me. Let the nephew pay for his own kid's care if it's going to be like that. It's not my responsibility. VERY LIKELY the kid got the care he needed and the problem now is the parent is stuck with the bills. Why should that be Donald's problem?
Now if anyone can show me evidence that Trump going back on his pledge actually caused the kid harm, that's different.
Post by: nddons on September 20, 2016, 02:36:46 PM
In other words, you may vote for Trump because he is not Hillary.Why are you entitled to an apology?
I of course, respect that. But I think that some of us that came to the same conclusion earlier may be entitled to at least a mild apology.
Post by: bflynn on September 20, 2016, 03:23:17 PM
-Obamacare: Trump thinks the government should provide healthcare
-1st Amendment: He'll "loosen up" restrictions so he, as President, can sue people who say bad things about him
-2nd Amendment: Said Obama "Speaks for all of us" when he advocated for tighter gun control laws
-4th Amendment: Thinks Apple should have to build a back-door into their OS so the government can decrypt phones, with or without a warrant
-5th Amendment: "I love eminent domain", so he believes that all your property exists at the sufferance of the state.
Quite a stretch to come up with 5 minor things. The problem is that you think that when Donald Trump says something, it means he believes in it. Although I'm sure he does love eminent domain since it has helped his business so much. Or you're projecting your own beliefs and seeing what you want to see in them.
Of course if you believed everything Donald Trump says, you'd be schizophrenic.
Post by: Little Joe on September 20, 2016, 03:36:23 PM
Why are you entitled to an apology?Bear in mind that my actual words were:
" may be entitled to at least a mild apology."
That was not exactly a demand for an abject apology and request for forgiveness.
But after months of being told that "but Hillary" is a lousy reason to vote for Trump, then finally he (and others) come around and say they "MAY" also vote for Trump, because he is not as bad as Hillary, then I at least expect some sort acknowledgement that I wasn't as stupid as they tried to make me feel.
And when I say "others", yes, I am including you.
Post by: Steingar on September 20, 2016, 06:47:46 PM
So let's see, the brother was a ne'r do well who drank himself into an early grave. I think I'd not object to my parent cutting him out of the will. Why throw good money into an addict's hole? Then Trump pledged to pay for one of the alcoholic's grand baby's care, but the alcoholic brother's kids sued Trump. Well, I'd renig on a pledge to pay for my nephew's kid's care too if said nephew opened a lawsuit against me. Let the nephew pay for his own kid's care if it's going to be like that. It's not my responsibility. VERY LIKELY the kid got the care he needed and the problem now is the parent is stuck with the bills. Why should that be Donald's problem?
Now if anyone can show me evidence that Trump going back on his pledge actually caused the kid harm, that's different.
Yeah, its the kid's fault that his parents disagree with their uncles and aunts about the disposition of the vast family fortune. The Donald had a heart of gold (to match his sharpies) for doing that. You bet.
Post by: nddons on September 20, 2016, 07:13:34 PM
Bear in mind that my actual words were:
" may be entitled to at least a mild apology."
That was not exactly a demand for an abject apology and request for forgiveness.
But after months of being told that "but Hillary" is a lousy reason to vote for Trump, then finally he (and others) come around and say they "MAY" also vote for Trump, because he is not as bad as Hillary, then I at least expect some sort acknowledgement that I wasn't as stupid as they tried to make me feel.
And when I say "others", yes, I am including you.
I truly hope you're not holding your breath.
You should understand that we all hit our conversion at different times. My disgust for Clinton exceeded my disgust for Trump when she completely skated from any charges related to her complete disregard for the law in handling top secret materials. And if that wasn't enough, that bitch's Basket of Deplorables comment spoke about people like me. So fuck her, she's going down, even if it means living with Trump for 4 years.
Post by: JeffDG on September 20, 2016, 08:47:50 PM
Quite a stretch to come up with 5 minor things.You mean Obamacare and 4 of 8 of the Bill of Rights are "minor things". Cool perspective.
The problem is that you think that when Donald Trump says something, it means he believes in it.But I thought his whole schtick was that he was a "straight shooter" who said what he thinks. Is that a load of shit?
Although I'm sure he does love eminent domain since it has helped his business so much.Using the power of the state to further your business interests is the definition of corruption.
Of course if you believed everything Donald Trump says, you'd be schizophrenic.If you say thing things Donald Trump says, you'd be dangerously mentally unstable. But if that's what you wanna vote for, like I said, whatever helps you sleep at night.
Post by: Little Joe on September 21, 2016, 04:41:25 AM
I truly hope you're not holding your breath.No, I am not holding my breath. I don't expect an apology.
But I do think that those that whined and called me names because I was voting for Trump, claiming that my only reason was "because he is Not Hillary", and then turn and say the same thing I did are hypocrites if they don't at least admit that they were too quick to judge me.
Post by: bflynn on September 21, 2016, 06:00:22 AM
You mean Obamacare and 4 of 8 of the Bill of Rights are "minor things".
I'm saying that those quotes don't mean what you think they mean. For example, Donald said "Obama speaks for all of us on gun control". but he also has criticized Hillary for wanting to do away with the 2nd Amendment. Let's compare quotes, ok?
Hillary:
- The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.
- Let's reverse the immunity. Let's put the gun makers and sellers on notice that they're not going to get away with it.
- We’ve got to rein in what has become almost an article of faith that almost anybody can have a gun anywhere at any time.
- I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry
Donald:
- Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed.
- I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons
- I will never let you down. I will protect our Second Amendment.
Maybe Trump will let us down. But I am quite sure that Hillary is moderating her position, if she had her way, she would probably want to remove guns from everyone. And I can't trust anything she says because she is a chronic manipulator and chronic liar. Every single word that comes out of her mouth is calculated to influence someone, without regards to the truth.
So, your fear mongering is misplaced and woefully transparent. People aren't going to flee Trump and go running to Clinton in order to keep their guns safe.
But none of this has anything to do with why I decided to vote for Trump.
Post by: asechrest on September 21, 2016, 06:39:01 AM
Here are some other quotes:
I don't believe there should be any restrictions when it comes to firearms. None. - 2011
If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. The first people who are going to be in line to turn in their guns are law-abiding citizens. Criminals are going to be left with guns. I believe that concealed carry is a way of reducing gun violence. - 2000
These atrocities have been happening in gun-free zones. - 2016
[He] believes Second Amendment rights are too fundamental to be denied without due process, and being put on a list arbitrarily by the government is certainly not due process. - 2016
He also vowed to veto any attempted reinstatement of the so-called "assault weapons" ban, arguing that it's something of a false category, and that such efforts would create a new class of criminal comprised almost entirely of law-abiding gun owners. - 2016
It turns out that single issue 2A voters who support Trump are supporting the wrong guy.
Post by: Little Joe on September 21, 2016, 06:47:32 AM
I wish those quotes had dates, so we could determine whether Trump's sudden deference to 2A is a recent change (I think it is).
Here are some other quotes:
I don't believe there should be any restrictions when it comes to firearms. None. - 2011
If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. The first people who are going to be in line to turn in their guns are law-abiding citizens. Criminals are going to be left with guns. I believe that concealed carry is a way of reducing gun violence. - 2000
These atrocities have been happening in gun-free zones. - 2016
[He] believes Second Amendment rights are too fundamental to be denied without due process, and being put on a list arbitrarily by the government is certainly not due process. - 2016
He also vowed to veto any attempted reinstatement of the so-called "assault weapons" ban, arguing that it's something of a false category, and that such efforts would create a new class of criminal comprised almost entirely of law-abiding gun owners. - 2016
It turns out that single issue 2A voters who support Trump are supporting the wrong guy.
Post by: asechrest on September 21, 2016, 07:04:27 AM
Ok, I give. Who's quotes were those? (they could be mine).
Gary Johnson.
Post by: Little Joe on September 21, 2016, 07:12:37 AM
Gary Johnson.There are many things I don't like about Gary Johnson. But there are more things I don't like about Trump. And there is almost nothing I like about Hillary.
Come Nov 8, I will decide whether I will vote for GJ or DT. But I will only vote for GJ if he has a chance of neutralizing Clinton. I won't vote for GJ if the numbers say that will hand the election to HC. On the other hand, if it looks like there is absolutely no way DT will win, then I will vote for GJ to "send a message".
(edit to change some accidental DJs to GJs). :-[
Post by: bflynn on September 21, 2016, 08:33:15 AM
There are many things I don't like about Gary Johnson. But there are more things I don't like about Trump. And there is almost nothing I like about Hillary.
Come Nov 8, I will decide whether I will vote for GJ or DT. But I will only vote for DJ if he has a chance of neutralizing Clinton. I won't vote for DJ if the numbers say that will hand the election to HC. On the other hand, if it looks like there is absolutely no way DT will win, then I will vote for GJ to "send a message".
Start with what state you live in. If it's, say...New York, then you can vote for Johnson without concern because there is no way Trump wins New York. If you're in someplace like Wisconsin, you probably ought to decide if you want to keep Hillary out of the White House.
Post by: Little Joe on September 21, 2016, 08:37:18 AM
Start with what state you live in. If it's, say...New York, then you can vote for Johnson without concern because there is no way Trump wins New York. If you're in someplace like Wisconsin, you probably ought to decide if you want to keep Hillary out of the White House.I am in Florida, which is an extremely important and volatile swing state. A very small percentage of votes swinging in one direction or the other can have a national impact. re: GWB/AG
Post by: bflynn on September 21, 2016, 09:42:13 AM
I am in Florida, which is an extremely important and volatile swing state. A very small percentage of votes swinging in one direction or the other can have a national impact. re: GWB/AG
I am in NC, which is pretty much the same.
I know people who are wasting their vote trying to "make a point". The only points they can make is that they're either irrelevant to the decision and Trump becomes president or they're irrelevant to the decision and Hillary becomes president.
I dunno, I think I might move to Canada either way. But in the meantime, the lesser of two weasels is Trump.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on September 21, 2016, 10:15:38 AM
Quote
The polling has drawn ever closer. More and more people wonder if those of us who are NeverTrump should finally yield knowing that we can beat Hillary Clinton. I am in an odd position. I am mindful that should Trump win, the Republican establishment will blame people like me for giving rise to Trump. Likewise, I know if Trump loses, the Republican establishment will blame people like me for giving rise to Trump and Trump supporters will blame people like me for his loss. I suppose I should say not that I’m in an odd position, but that I am in a no-win position.
One of the biggest "Never Trumpers" is starting to rethink things.
http://theresurgent.com/coming-to-terms-with-trump/
Post by: asechrest on September 21, 2016, 10:33:22 AM
I am in NC, which is pretty much the same.
I know people who are wasting their vote trying to "make a point". The only points they can make is that they're either irrelevant to the decision and Trump becomes president or they're irrelevant to the decision and Hillary becomes president.
I dunno, I think I might move to Canada either way. But in the meantime, the lesser of two weasels is Trump.
It's certainly not wasting your vote. Voting your conscience, and making a point, are completely valid and useful ways to utilize your vote. It is, perhaps, the difference between the vote as a simple tool, and the vote as a near-sacred civic duty.
Post by: SoonerAviator on September 21, 2016, 06:58:08 PM
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: Anthony on September 22, 2016, 04:34:24 AM
Still voting Johnson, I don't care about what his chances are.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Johnson is not a Libertarian. He is a straight up Liberal, Progressive. You'd be more honest if you voted for Hillary.
Post by: Anthony on September 22, 2016, 04:37:16 AM
I dunno, I think I might move to Canada either way. But in the meantime, the lesser of two weasels is Trump.
Canada? They are already past the tipping point of Liberal, Progressive insanity. Justin Trudeau? Seriously? He is left of Lenin.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on September 22, 2016, 04:38:44 AM
Johnson is not a Libertarian. He is a straight up Liberal, Progressive. You'd be more honest if you voted for Hillary.
more honest? maybe, but definitely an idiot.
Post by: bflynn on September 22, 2016, 05:25:29 AM
It's certainly not wasting your vote. Voting your conscience, and making a point, are completely valid and useful ways to utilize your vote. It is, perhaps, the difference between the vote as a simple tool, and the vote as a near-sacred civic duty.
That might be true. But voting for someone who will probably not carry a single state is still abdicating your participation in the decision.
Of course - I'm all for Hillary supporters voting for Johnson. Maybe he's a suitable replacement for Bernie?
Post by: Steingar on September 22, 2016, 05:39:52 AM
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on September 22, 2016, 05:47:32 AM
You guys certain you want to put the Libertoonians in power? They're pro choice, want to legalize drugs and get rid of the military. Actually, sounds good to me, but I suspect most of you would disagree.
In what way would Libertarians be worse than the DNC?
Post by: asechrest on September 22, 2016, 06:40:12 AM
Johnson is not a Libertarian. He is a straight up Liberal, Progressive. You'd be more honest if you voted for Hillary.
Impossible, according to most of you, since he's a staunch gun rights and 2A proponent, even dating back to his time as governor. If it helps you vote for Trump, though, whatever works.
Post by: asechrest on September 22, 2016, 06:45:27 AM
That might be true. But voting for someone who will probably not carry a single state is still abdicating your participation in the decision.
Of course - I'm all for Hillary supporters voting for Johnson. Maybe he's a suitable replacement for Bernie?
Voting for someone is, by definition, not abdicating your participation. Voting for someone who you believe to be unsuitable for the presidency is, in some respect at least, abdicating your civic duty, but at the very least is something that some voters are unable to suppress their gag reflex long enough to perpetrate.
Post by: Little Joe on September 23, 2016, 06:04:33 AM
Canada? They are already past the tipping point of Liberal, Progressive insanity. Justin Trudeau? Seriously? He is left of Lenin.That's why it always amazes me when conservatives say that if a liberal wins, they are moving to Canada.
Does "Out of the pot; and into the fire" ring any bells?
I can understand when liberals say they will move to Canada if a conservative wins. That invokes the phrase "bon voyage and good riddance" for me.
Post by: Anthony on September 23, 2016, 06:19:56 AM
That's why it always amazes me when conservatives say that if a liberal wins, they are moving to Canada.
Does "Out of the pot; and into the fire" ring any bells?
I can understand when liberals say they will move to Canada if a conservative wins. That invokes the phrase "bon voyage and good riddance" for me.
Canada, Australia, the UK, are the countries we can most relate to as former British colonies, and English speaking. Well Canada is forced multi cultural French and that is a lot of their problem, but I digress. The only thing that separates us from them is our CONSTITUTION. However, the Obama Admin, Hillary, and the Democrats do not follow the rule of law anymore so are minimizing the Constitutions importance. This needs to STOP. We are the last, and only bastion of non Communist freedom, although that has changed in the past eight years.
There is no where else to go. This is it, and our backs are against the wall. What happens when you threaten a cornered animal?
Post by: Little Joe on September 23, 2016, 06:39:21 AM
Canada, Australia, the UK, are the countries we can most relate to as former British colonies, and English speaking. Well Canada is forced multi cultural French and that is a lot of their problem, but I digress. The only thing that separates us from them is our CONSTITUTION. However, the Obama Admin, Hillary, and the Democrats do not follow the rule of law anymore so are minimizing the Constitutions importance. This needs to STOP. We are the last, and only bastion of non Communist freedom, although that has changed in the past eight years.It's a shame we can't come to a "trade agreement" with Canada. One side gets the conservatives, the other side gets the liberals.
There is no where else to go. This is it, and our backs are against the wall. What happens when you threaten a cornered animal?
Post by: Anthony on September 23, 2016, 06:44:16 AM
It's a shame we can't come to a "trade agreement" with Canada. One side gets the conservatives, the other side gets the liberals.
Canada, China and Mexico are our top three trading partners in that order.
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/toppartners.html
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on September 23, 2016, 06:44:58 AM
It's a shame we can't come to a "trade agreement" with Canada. One side gets the conservatives, the other side gets the liberals.
Usually you'd like a trade to be a win-win.
If Canada gets all the liberals would be a win for the USA, and a big LOSE for Canada.
Post by: Little Joe on September 23, 2016, 08:18:10 AM
Usually you'd like a trade to be a win-win.But Canadians love liberals. Yhey would perceive it as a win.
If Canada gets all the liberals would be a win for the USA, and a big LOSE for Canada.
Post by: bflynn on September 23, 2016, 08:33:56 AM
Voting for someone is, by definition, not abdicating your participation. Voting for someone who you believe to be unsuitable for the presidency is, in some respect at least, abdicating your civic duty, but at the very least is something that some voters are unable to suppress their gag reflex long enough to perpetrate.
Voting for someone that has no chance of winning is as effective as not voting at all. You might as well pee into the wind. Either way you wind up with warm gushy feelings right away and a harsh realization afterwards that you did nothing to help yourself.
Post by: bflynn on September 23, 2016, 08:34:52 AM
That's why it always amazes me when conservatives say that if a liberal wins, they are moving to Canada.
Does "Out of the pot; and into the fire" ring any bells?
I can understand when liberals say they will move to Canada if a conservative wins. That invokes the phrase "bon voyage and good riddance" for me.
What conservative has said that? If you mean me, you need to re-examine your political scale.
Post by: asechrest on September 23, 2016, 08:59:43 AM
Voting for someone that has no chance of winning is as effective as not voting at all.That depends entirely on your definition of effective.
You might as well pee into the wind. Either way you wind up with warm gushy feelings right away and a harsh realization afterwards that you did nothing to help yourself.
There is nothing warm and gushy about the recognition that both major parties put up such laughable, shit candidates, that a significant number of people refuse to vote for them on the premise that they are unfit for the position of president. Further, whether there is a harsh realization after the fact is up for debate, and dependent upon who wins and how the winning candidate actually performs.
We've bounced this around a lot here on the forums. It's fine if you use your vote as a simple tool to try to prevent the opposing candidate from winning. But there are others who refuse to validate an unfit candidate with their sacred pull of the lever.
Post by: Mr Pou on September 23, 2016, 09:09:09 AM
It's fine if you use your vote as a simple tool to try to prevent the opposing candidate from winning. But there are others who refuse to validate an unfit candidate with their sacred pull of the lever.
It's been since Ronnie that I've actually WANTED to vote for a candidate as they're all flawed in some way. I just try to be pragmatic and vote for the least damaging candidate. Sorry if that doesn't seem honorable, but I see no other way to go.
Post by: asechrest on September 23, 2016, 09:17:52 AM
It's been since Ronnie that I've actually WANTED to vote for a candidate as they're all flawed in some way. I just try to be pragmatic and vote for the least damaging candidate. Sorry if that doesn't seem honorable, but I see no other way to go.
I'm not the one making a subjective judgment about how folks vote. Voting for the least damaging candidate, according to your opinion, seems like a fine choice. The quality of the candidates this year is such that I cannot bring myself to vote for either of them, and probably intend to vote for the third-party candidate. That is also a completely valid use of the vote, and I hope that, if enough people follow suit, one or both of the parties will get some sort of message. Even if that isn't the result, I am comfortable with that choice.
Post by: Mr Pou on September 23, 2016, 10:17:00 AM
. The quality of the candidates this year is such that I cannot bring myself to vote for either of them, and probably intend to vote for the third-party candidate. That is also a completely valid use of the vote, and I hope that, if enough people follow suit, one or both of the parties will get some sort of message. Even if that isn't the result, I am comfortable with that choice.
Yes, both candidates are terrible, and yes, voting for a 3rd party candidate is a valid and honorable use of your vote. That said, I'm afraid the net effect won't be any different than taking a whizz in the ocean.
Post by: asechrest on September 23, 2016, 10:25:14 AM
Yes, both candidates are terrible, and yes, voting for a 3rd party candidate is a valid and honorable use of your vote. That said, I'm afraid the net effect won't be any different than taking a whizz in the ocean.
It may have no net effect on whether Trumplinton wins or loses, but that is not necessarily the only effect to consider. I am of the opinion that I don't know which candidate would be worse for the country, so I am content voting my conscience and letting the chips fall where they may.
Post by: nddons on September 23, 2016, 11:08:18 AM
That's why it always amazes me when conservatives say that if a liberal wins, they are moving to Canada.How many conservatives say they will do that? That's the childish game of liberals who hate the country, not conservatives who love it.
Does "Out of the pot; and into the fire" ring any bells?
I can understand when liberals say they will move to Canada if a conservative wins. That invokes the phrase "bon voyage and good riddance" for me.
Post by: Little Joe on September 23, 2016, 11:46:44 AM
How many conservatives say they will do that? That's the childish game of liberals who hate the country, not conservatives who love it.
What conservative has said that? If you mean me, you need to re-examine your political scale.I have heard quite a few people talk about (joke about?) moving to Canada if Clinton (or Trump) wins. When I visited Canada recently, I had one guy tell me that Canadians are expecting a huge immigration surge after the election, regardless of who wins.
Of course, (almost) nobody is going to actually do it,but a lot of people on both sides have talked about it.
Post by: Steingar on September 23, 2016, 01:24:12 PM
Post by: bflynn on September 23, 2016, 01:27:26 PM
Lots of drama. Either one of them will be constrained by Congress, so there will be a limit to the damage they can do. And don't tell me about the SCOTUS, since no-one really knows what the Donald will do.
Yes, but we can be pretty sure what Hillary will do.
Personally, I like the bill of rights.
Post by: bflynn on September 23, 2016, 01:28:56 PM
Yes, both candidates are terrible, and yes, voting for a 3rd party candidate is a valid and honorable use of your vote. That said, I'm afraid the net effect won't be any different than taking a whizz in the ocean.
A vote for a third party or a write in is effectively not voting at all. Your only choices are to vote for Hillary, vote for Trump or abdicate your participation in the decision. Third party is like not voting at all.
Post by: asechrest on September 23, 2016, 02:08:51 PM
A vote for a third party or a write in is effectively not voting at all. Your only choices are to vote for Hillary, vote for Trump or abdicate your participation in the decision. Third party is like not voting at all.
Not even close. Don't project it upon others as the only right or noble thing to do. Or even the only effective thing to do. Your approach is misplaced badnwagoning.
Once scenario is instructive to understand why what you say is not true. Let's imagine voting in a deep blue state. There is no way the Republican presidential candidate will win. So is a vote for said Republican, who has no chance of winning, a "wasted vote"? Should Republican voters just fail to go to the polls since their candidate will not win anyway? I assume you will agree their vote is not wasted. And if their vote isn't wasted, neither is a vote for a minor party candidate.
One of the primary reasons the vote is not wasted is because the cause and effect of voting is not solely based on choosing a winning candidate. In many respects an individual's vote is a statement of preference: who they believe has the best skills to run the country in the way in which that voter believes it should be run. Further, the effect of voting (or abstaining) is more than causing a candidate to win. Depending on the vote tally, the aftermath can cause incremental but meaningful changes that effect future elections.
If a third-party candidate garners enough votes to meaningfully effect the election, that is a public statement to the major parties. And, in fact, there is a good argument that simply settling for the lesser of two evils (which still leaves us with evil!), fails to send the appropriate message that could help change be implemented for the next election.
Post by: Little Joe on September 23, 2016, 02:12:49 PM
Voting for someone that has no chance of winning is as effective as not voting at all. You might as well pee into the wind. Either way you wind up with warm gushy feelings right away and a harsh realization afterwards that you did nothing to help yourself.Please don't try to talk Asechrest or any other liberal out of voting 3rd party.
Post by: asechrest on September 23, 2016, 02:17:49 PM
Please don't try to talk Asechrest or any other liberal out of voting 3rd party.
Don't worry. I am my own man. ;D
Post by: Little Joe on September 23, 2016, 02:19:54 PM
Don't worry. I am my own man. ;DNot married, huh? ;)
Post by: nddons on September 24, 2016, 06:26:15 AM
I have heard quite a few people talk about (joke about?) moving to Canada if Clinton (or Trump) wins. When I visited Canada recently, I had one guy tell me that Canadians are expecting a huge immigration surge after the election, regardless of who wins.Perhaps the immigrant surge will be from Mexico. I understand Trudeau has said that Mexicans will be admitted without the need for visas.
Of course, (almost) nobody is going to actually do it,but a lot of people on both sides have talked about it.
Post by: nddons on September 24, 2016, 06:27:50 AM
Not married, huh? ;)
