Support NeoGAF

[Dr. Feel Good]

Lets assume 1,000,000 more people felt like you and voted not pragmatically but through a strict prism of idealism and it did swing an election for a Republican. Say a Trump. What would you say to that?

Then I say good work on the Trump campaign for convincing the general public to vote for him. It means that I do not align with the popular vote, which is unfortunate. I'm not going to vote to play some game... leave gaming the system up the politicians. As a voter all I should have to care about is who aligns with my interest and who I stand behind. I don't give a shit if that's Batman or Super Mario. If that's who I believe can lead the country than so be it, and I will vote that way. If the general population feels otherwise, well then tough shit on me.

 

[WhateverItTakes]

Also, I'm getting tired of this "reciepts" bullshit. You can't even have a discussion on this fucking board right now without somebody asking for a bullet-point list and definitive proof and links, and videos to prove that your links aren't making shit up, etc...Makes discussion impossible. Who has time for that shit? Go look shit up yourself. That sort of instantaneous inquisition pile-on is a form of bullying, it is intended to stifle discussion, and it needs to go away. I'm not impressed by it at all.

No way dude. Receipts are important so lies and misinterpretations aren't spread as fact. It's to make sure you're careful what you're posting. I know it's made me have to think through what I'm typing so I'm not chatting shit. It's so a real debate can be had where people can attempt to change eachothers views from the source of then. It's so if someone makes a point I find surprising I can research further and maybe understand. It helps debate, prevents outright lying and tries to turn discourse away being a screeching match.

It's not intended to stifle discussion, it's makes it more authentic. You're allowed to say you have no link to back your claim up, or you don't have the time, but y'know, you'd look stronger if you did. In fact, discussion is more stifled by claims of bullying when people honestly want to look deeper in your position.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Then I say good work on the Trump campaign for convincing the general public to vote for him. It means that I do not align with the popular vote, which is unfortunate. I'm not going to vote to play some game... leave gaming the system up the politicians. As a voter all I should have to care about is who aligns with my interest and who I stand behind. I don't give a shit if that's Batman or Super Mario. If that's who I believe can lead the country than so be it, and I will vote that way. If the general population feels otherwise, well then tough shit on me.

Voting is literally a means of what's best for the country not what's best for your own "moral" code.

 

[FreedomFighter]

You realize that a third party candidate that just pops up every 4 years has almost statistically no chance to win right? That outside of satisfying a personal conscience that values purity of ideals above all else, it is throwing your vote away?

That the statistical probability for swinging an election, while low, is much, much more likely. Leading to an outcome worse then any of your preferred outcomes?

Lets assume 1,000,000 more people felt like you and voted not pragmatically but through a strict prism of idealism and it did swing an election for a Republican. Say a Trump. What would you say to that?

I reject this argument, despite the guy in my very avatar saying just that not too long ago on Democracy Now. I'm voting 3rd party. I certainly won't vote for Trump and I strongly dislike Hillary. I'm done with lesser evilism. I'm only voting for a candidate whose politics resonate with me personally. 3rd parties would have a much better chance if they were treated fairly and allowed to debate without jumping through extra hoops but that's another convo. If me or anyone else voting third party means Trump wins the election, then oh well. Like I said several times before, if Trump wins then he is the president America deserves to have.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

You realize that a third party candidate that just pops up every 4 years has almost statistically no chance to win right? That outside of satisfying a personal conscience that values purity of ideals above all else, it is throwing your vote away?

That the statistical probability for swinging an election, while low, is much, much more likely. Leading to an outcome worse then any of your preferred outcomes?

Lets assume 1,000,000 more people felt like you and voted not pragmatically but through a strict prism of idealism and it did swing an election for a Republican. Say a Trump. What would you say to that?

Well, that would suck, but it also is not my fault the system is set up so that duopoly is inevitable. I voted for Obama in '08 and '12 because he was the better candidate, just as I will begrudgingly vote for Clinton because I think she's better than anybody else on the ticket (and, indeed, to keep Trump out). But I vote based on my perception of the merits of the candidates, not based on the voting habits of those around me, because I believe this is a superior method for candidate selection. If others choose not to utilize that same heuristic, either due to fear of the opposition or simple disagreement with my analysis, that is their own choice, but I will not pretend I do not think mine the method that would result in superior selections more often than not.

 

[Dr. Feel Good]

Voting is literally a means of what's best for the country not what's best for your own "moral" code.

Isn't the formal definition of voting the expression of one's opinion?

 

[Jonm1010]

It's interesting that other modes of political expression that are not voting didn't come to mind for you

Are all the progressive groups that organize and fight for the issues liberals care about, but don't endorse or vote for any one particular candidate all of a sudden "not doing enough to stop a Trump presidency"? It would seem odd to go up to one of those folks, ask "but are you voting for Hillary tho?", and then when they say no, suddenly act like they're now de facto Trump supporters.

Obviously, I can't fully speak for the specific poster in this thread that everyone's talking to, but it's a common trend I've noticed. It's also weird, because a ton of voters outside the traditional two-party system are from groups that in theory should be in the Democratic base. But for some reason, people seem to have a hard time understanding why others might be skeptical of the mainstream Democrat that's trotted out every 4 years suddenly becoming a champion of progressiveness and willing to change the core assumptions of a system that's caused so much harm.

If someone responds to all of that and says "yeah whatever, Hillary is still better than Trump though, vote for her", that's fine (and most left-leaning folks, including myself would likely agree!), but I have no problem understanding why someone might still be skeptical and not want to fully support either of them. Those favorables are low for a reason, and it's not just because of right-wing conspiracies.

This comes off like an argument for why protest voting is misguided more then anything else.

Clearly those examples aren't working as intended.

I can understand why someone would do what they do in terms of protest voting, what I am still struggling with is the logic for why it best serves their goals most of the time. From an objective standpoint.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

This comes off like an argument for why protest voting is misguided more then anything else.

Clearly those examples aren't working as intended.

I can understand why someone would do what they do in terms of protest voting, what I am still struggling with is the logic for why it best serves their goals most of the time. From an objective standpoint.

The bargaining power of the vote I presume. "If Hillary really wants our vote she has to give us more concessions".

 

[Stinkles]

A protest vote makes sense if both parties are equally evil or if the results would be negligible in terms of difference.

 

[Jonm1010]

I reject this argument, despite the guy in my very avatar saying just that not too long ago on Democracy Now. I'm voting 3rd party. I certainly won't vote for Trump and I strongly dislike Hillary. I'm done with lesser evilism. I'm only voting for a candidate whose politics resonate with me personally. 3rd parties would have a much better chance if they were treated fairly and allowed to debate without jumping through extra hoops but that's another convo. If me or anyone else voting third party means Trump wins the election, then oh well. Like I said several times before, if Trump wins then he is the president America deserves to have.

Let me ask you a question, what do you do during the other roughly 1500 days between presidential elections to build momentum for viable third party candidates or to move the major parties to those positions?

Because this post in isolation comes off incredibly selfish. Incredibly privileged. Reeking of special snowflake syndrome.

 

[Mael]

A protest vote makes sense if both parties are equally evil or if the results would be negligible in terms of difference.

from what I've seen it's kinda like not voting or voting null. You don't care about the result and you're ok with whatever the result ends up being.

 

[Jonm1010]

The bargaining power of the vote I presume. "If Hillary really wants our vote she has to give us more concessions".

And I would ask where is the evidence of this being the optimal way to achieving that?

All of the third party candidates that siphoned votes for two decades managed to do less in terms of building support for liberal policies and moving the Democratic party in that time then Bernie did in one election cycle.

To me that is a hell of an indictment of the notion that protest voting is a viable way of building momentum on liberal platforms.

 

[FreedomFighter]

Let me ask you a question, what do you do during the other roughly 1500 days between presidential elections to build momentum for viable third party candidates or to move the major parties to those positions?

Because this post in isolation comes off incredibly selfish. Incredibly privileged. Reeking of special snowflake syndrome.

I mean, if you want to dish out insults because people have no interest in voting for your preferred candidate, do your worst.

I'm sticking with my decision and I'm perfectly ok with it. I'm not voting for any candidate that I dislike. And I dislike Hillary just as much, if not more, than Trump.

If anything, this is an indictment of the entire political system. Perhaps direct your anger at it; cause your approach sure isn't going to convince people to see things your way.

EDIT: Didn't answer your question, my bad. I believe the platforms 3rd parties run on would resonate with many people if those parties got the same exposure as Reps and Dems. They need to be allowed equal footing in debates and primaries like those parties. They're basically shut out of everything.

 

[Dr. Feel Good]

Let me ask you a question, what do you do during the other roughly 1500 days between presidential elections to build momentum for viable third party candidates or to move the major parties to those positions?

Because this post in isolation comes off incredibly selfish. Incredibly privileged. Reeking of special snowflake syndrome.

Spare the "millennial snowflake" crap. Nothing about his post comes off entitled.

I love Pepsi. Am I going to go around campaigning for Pepsi to overtake Coke in my spare time? Do I give out samples of Pepsi to all my friends so they can truly see how great Pepsi is? I don't sit in my bed at night thinking "why is everyone buying Coke? It doesn't make any sense! I've got to make more people drink Pepsi!" Why? Because that's the job of the people who run Pepsi.

End of the day when I go into a store I pick a Pepsi because that's what I like and enjoy. Props to those who go in an enjoy a Coca-Cola... or an RC-Cola, or heaven forbid a Shasta. That's their choice.

 

[yanipheonu]

Isn't the formal definition of voting the expression of one's opinion?

In an ideal world. In this world, gaming the system and voting strategically are unfortunately realities if you want anything to get done democratically.

 

[Jonm1010]

Well, that would suck, but it also is not my fault the system is set up so that duopoly is inevitable. I voted for Obama in '08 and '12 because he was the better candidate, just as I will begrudgingly vote for Clinton because I think she's better than anybody else on the ticket (and, indeed, to keep Trump out). But I vote based on my perception of the merits of the candidates, not based on the voting habits of those around me, because I believe this is a superior method for candidate selection. If others choose not to utilize that same heuristic, either due to fear of the opposition or simple disagreement with my analysis, that is their own choice, but I will not pretend I do not think mine the method that would result in superior selections more often than not.

Its not your fault the system is set up that way but it would be on you for contributing to the driving factor that swung a vote.

So in your mind, the ability to get elected and the consequences of your vote doesn't enter your voting calculus? That comes off really selfish for a person that seemingly is concerned about the utilitarian good of society.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Spare the "millennial snowflake" crap. Nothing about his post comes off entitled.

I love Pepsi. Am I going to go around campaigning for Pepsi to overtake Coke in my spare time? Do I give out samples of Pepsi to all my friends so they can truly see how great Pepsi is? I don't sit in my bed at night thinking "why is everyone buying Coke? It doesn't make any sense! I've got to make more people drink Pepsi!" Why? Because that's the job of the people who run Pepsi.

End of the day when I go into a store I pick a Pepsi because that's what I like and enjoy. Props to those who go in an enjoy a Coca-Cola... or an RC-Cola, or heaven forbid a Shasta. That's their choice.

Because god knows voting has the same effect on everyone around you as picking a soft drink... oh wait.

Your vote doesn't just affect you.

 

[Dr. Feel Good]

In an ideal world. In this world, gaming the system and voting strategically are unfortunately realities if you want anything to get done democratically.

Well that's a problem of the system then, no? Maybe the world needs to have a Trump in office to see how the system needs to change.

And I hate that I even have to say this, but again before people just attack me, I am someone who is voting for Hillary. And have never been a Bernie supporter. But I understand the rhetoric that he spreads and understand why it resonates with people.

 

[Mael]

And I dislike Hillary just as much, if not more, than Trump.

I'd really like to get an explanation why some could feel this way without having to deal with conspiracy theories and other claptrap.

 

[BobbyRobby]

If you think voting third party is selfish, stop hurling insults at people who do.

That's selfish. It doesn't change minds. If anything, it makes people more solidified in their stance. So you are being counter-productive or, at best, accomplishing nothing which is even less than voting third party.

Is venting that important to you guys?

 

[Jonm1010]

If anything, this is an indictment of the entire political system. Perhaps direct your anger at it; cause your approach sure isn't going to convince people to see things your way.

EDIT: Didn't answer your question, my bad. I believe the platforms 3rd parties run on would resonate with many people if those parties got the same exposure as Reps and Dems. They need to be allowed equal footing in debates and primaries like those parties. They're basically shut out of everything.

So what are you doing to achieve that? On the one hand you are admitting the lack of exposure is preventing the third party candidates you support to gain the necessary exposure to have a chance to win, and on the other telling me to direct my ire at the system. So what are YOU doing?

I mean, if you want to dish out insults because people have no interest in voting for your preferred candidate, so your worst.

I'm sticking with my decision and I'm perfectly ok with it. I'm not voting for any candidate that I dislike. And I dislike Hillary just as much, if not more, than Trump.

Oh for fuck sake.

 

[Jonm1010]

Spare the "millennial snowflake" crap. Nothing about his post comes off entitled.

I love Pepsi. Am I going to go around campaigning for Pepsi to overtake Coke in my spare time? Do I give out samples of Pepsi to all my friends so they can truly see how great Pepsi is? I don't sit in my bed at night thinking "why is everyone buying Coke? It doesn't make any sense! I've got to make more people drink Pepsi!" Why? Because that's the job of the people who run Pepsi.

End of the day when I go into a store I pick a Pepsi because that's what I like and enjoy. Props to those who go in an enjoy a Coca-Cola... or an RC-Cola, or heaven forbid a Shasta. That's their choice.

Choosing Coke over Pepsi isn't the possible difference between reinstating the gutted parts of the voting rights act, eliminating Citizens United, and improving healthcare.

Your vote doesn't just affect you..

 

[xxracerxx]

I'm sticking with my decision and I'm perfectly ok with it. I'm not voting for any candidate that I dislike. And I dislike Hillary just as much, if not more, than Trump.

Why do you dislike Clinton more than Trump?

 

[MIMIC]

Voting is literally a means of what's best for the country not what's best for your own "moral" code.

You are literally just making up your own definition of what voting is.

 

[Dr. Feel Good]

Because god knows voting has the same effect on everyone around you as picking a soft drink... oh wait.

Your vote doesn't just affect you.

I think it's naive to think most people are not more or less driven on a selfish basis. Why do you think Trump has the supporters he has? I guess I'm of the camp that believes if the general population votes Trump into office who am I to say that they are wrong? That's democracy. The people have spoken. It didn't go the way I wanted, oh well, the world will move on and adjust accordingly like it always has.

 

[Ty4on]

I reject this argument, despite the guy in my very avatar saying just that not too long ago on Democracy Now. I'm voting 3rd party. I certainly won't vote for Trump and I strongly dislike Hillary. I'm done with lesser evilism. I'm only voting for a candidate whose politics resonate with me personally. 3rd parties would have a much better chance if they were treated fairly and allowed to debate without jumping through extra hoops but that's another convo. If me or anyone else voting third party means Trump wins the election, then oh well. Like I said several times before, if Trump wins then he is the president America deserves to have.

A third party isn't really viable in a system like the US' where winner take all electoral votes of a state. It will always favor a two party system. Getting a third party big enough to hit the debates wouldn't really fix that issue. Either they split the vote and let the other side win in a landslide, they steal from both sides and make no difference or they kill/replace a party.

 

[excelsiorlef]

You are literally just making up your own definition of what voting is.

Perhaps I should have said ought to be rather than is.

Voting does in fact impact more than just yourself.

 

[Jonm1010]

Well that's a problem of the system then, no? Maybe the world needs to have a Trump in office to see how the system needs to change.

Yeah, because electing possible borderline authoritarians always leads to a clean transition into harmonious progressive citizenry and government.

Come on man.

I said it yesterday but lets just look at history. "Burning it down in the hopes of seeing a utopia rise from the ashes" is much more likely to give you a Lenin, Mussolini, Erdogan or Hitler then an FDR.

 

[Dr. Feel Good]

Choosing Coke over Pepsi isn't the possible difference between reinstating the gutted parts of the voting rights act, eliminating Citizens United, and improving healthcare.

Your vote doesn't just affect you..

My analogy there was more related to how you are saying the only way to justify a third party vote is if I the voter is actively engaged in progressing the party and its message in off-season election periods. Why the hell would I do that? I don't expect democrats or republicans to be out there improving the status and future outlook of their party either, and I doubt you do. I don't care about the party system. I see someone and I look at their stances and weight them accordingly and that's what justifies my vote. Period.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Its not your fault the system is set up that way but it would be on you for contributing to the driving factor that swung a vote.

So in your mind, the ability to get elected and the consequences of your vote doesn't enter your voting calculus? That comes off really selfish for a person that seemingly is concerned about the utilitarian good of society.

There are a great many things that factor into the utilitarian good of society beyond that which emerges from law and jurisprudence, but besides that, I could as well chide my fellow Americans for valuing lowest common denominator brand recognition and marketing over substance and not doing what I think is their due diligence and considering candidates that fall outside the moneyed binary. Inevitability emerges partially from a fear of risk-taking, yet risk is inherent to all worthwhile progress.

 

[yanipheonu]

Well that's a problem of the system then, no? Maybe the world needs to have a Trump in office to see how the system needs to change.

Well yes, but here's the thing about politics.

It's imperfect largely because it reflects the imperfect people and leaders who created it.

Would a move away from FPTP to another voting system potentially make it so people's voices matter more, and more third parties are counted? Perhaps. I'm all for election reform.

But all forms of voting have their flaws. What you gain in more third parties and a more voices being heard is perhaps a weaker government with no majority to pass laws more easily. (Not that the States don't already have problems passing bills under the current system lol)

Pretending any other form of voting would be without flaws is naive. Pretending the vote is simply an ideal statement of opinion is naive. People and their political systems are nowhere near that ideal.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I think it's naive to think most people are not more or less driven on a selfish basis. Why do you think Trump has the supporters he has? I guess I'm of the camp that believes if the general population votes Trump into office who am I to say that they are wrong? That's democracy. The people have spoken. It didn't go the way I wanted, oh well, the world will move on and adjust accordingly like it always has.

So literally moral relativism?


You act as if an election has no more impact than your favorite sports team losing.

 

[Zeus Molecules]

All Hillary had to do was go and get a progressive liberal for a Vice President..... It would of been the easiest fixer upper of the parties split. Instead she doubled down with a neo-liberal vice president nominee who is pro big business.

People keep saying they'll come around, As if a minority of liberals voting with their conscious ever cost the democrat nominee the white house in what should of been an easy win before...... oh wait Nader.

 

[Clefargle]

I think it's naive to think most people are not more or less driven on a selfish basis. Why do you think Trump has the supporters he has? I guess I'm of the camp that believes if the general population votes Trump into office who am I to say that they are wrong? That's democracy. The people have spoken. It didn't go the way I wanted, oh well, the world will move on and adjust accordingly like it always has.

And you are one of those people right? Unless you don't live in the US

 

[MIMIC]

Perhaps I should have said ought to be rather than is.

Voting does in fact impact more than just yourself.

And that works both ways (unless you think your candidate of choice has no impact on those who didn't vote for him/her)

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

All Hillary had to do was go and get a progressive liberal for a Vice President..... It would of been the easiest fixer upper of the parties split. Instead she doubled down with a neo-liberal vice president nominee who is pro big business.

They booed Bernie man, it has nothing to do with progressive/liberal at all. It is all about anti-Clinton, anti-establishment, anti.

 

[Mael]

They booed Bernie man, it has nothing to do with progressive/liberal at all. It is all about anti-Clinton, anti-establishment, anti.

Guess this goes to show they didn't give a shit about Sanders or his message.

 

[Dr. Feel Good]

So literally moral relativism?


You act as if an election has no more impact than your favorite sports team losing.

No I don't even care about sports. I'm not competitive. Hillary losing doesn't ruin my day. Or week. Or life. I understand that Trump in office can ruin others lives, and likely Hillary in office will ruin others lives as well (in different ways than Trump). So I'm of the stance that if that's the way people feel the country needs to go to advance us as a society than that's the society we live within. I voted for who I cared for and stood behind, sucks other people didn't either. Life goes on.

 

[Zeus Molecules]

They booed Bernie man, it has nothing to do with progressive/liberal at all. It is all about anti-Clinton, anti-establishment, anti.

Welp...... its too late now. She's gonna need a hell of a speech to get things back on track. I am talking shining city on the hill, Change you can believe/yes we can levels of a speech.

 

[Mael]

and likely Hillary in office will ruin others lives as well (in different ways than Trump).

So that people understand your point, can you expand on that?

 

[excelsiorlef]

And that works both ways (unless you think your candidate of choice has no impact on those who didn't vote for him/her)

Ummm yes no shit.

But again literally two options here Clinton or Trump.

That's it. That's what you get.

So yes voting for Clinton will for example help prevent Trump supporters, in government and out, from oppressing women, minorities and LGBTQ folk. That is one effect.

 

[FreedomFighter]

I'd really like to get an explanation why some could feel this way without having to deal with conspiracy theories and other claptrap.

Oh, please go ahead somewhere with that silly ass conspiracy theory crap. That's just code for "you don't have the same opinion as most of us do, so you're a conspiracy theorist."

So what are you doing to achieve that? On the one hand you are admitting the lack of exposure is preventing the third party candidates you support to gain the necessary exposure to have a chance to win, and on the other telling me to direct my ire at the system. So what are YOU doing?

If you're asking me if I'm campaigning for third parties; no I am not.

Oh for fuck sake.

Yeah, I said it. If it bothers you, tough shit.

Why do you dislike Clinton more than Trump?

Thanks for asking a straightforward question without any insults embedded.

I dislike Trump because he's a raging idiot, bigot, and xenophobe - a political joke who has, by some miracle, become a political reality. It's hard to imagine such a buffoon could be president but this just might actually happen.

I dislike Hillary because I think she's an undeniable corporatist and massively jingoistic warhawk with at least one psychopathic tendency (i.e. "We came, we saw, he died" *cackle* re: a 70 year old man sodomized with a knife and killed). Listened to her Brookings and AIPAC speeches just reinforces my dislike for her.

In the end, I think they're equally bad for different reasons. However, I think Trump has no clue what he's doing, but Hillary will be very calculated in her presidency - she'll be like Obama, continue a lot of the Bush policies and even double down on things like extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention, drone strikes, torture, etc. but get a pass because he's an excellent orator, had plenty of swag, and was the first Black president. Clinton would get the same type of pass for the same reason (gender in lieu of race). I think this makes her more dangerous. I very might well be wrong in this assessment, but I'll have to wait and see how it plays out.

 

[Dangansona]

I mean, if you want to dish out insults because people have no interest in voting for your preferred candidate, do your worst.

I'm sticking with my decision and I'm perfectly ok with it. I'm not voting for any candidate that I dislike. And I dislike Hillary just as much, if not more, than Trump.

If anything, this is an indictment of the entire political system. Perhaps direct your anger at it; cause your approach sure isn't going to convince people to see things your way.

EDIT: Didn't answer your question, my bad. I believe the platforms 3rd parties run on would resonate with many people if those parties got the same exposure as Reps and Dems. They need to be allowed equal footing in debates and primaries like those parties. They're basically shut out of everything.

Spare the "millennial snowflake" crap. Nothing about his post comes off entitled.

I love Pepsi. Am I going to go around campaigning for Pepsi to overtake Coke in my spare time? Do I give out samples of Pepsi to all my friends so they can truly see how great Pepsi is? I don't sit in my bed at night thinking "why is everyone buying Coke? It doesn't make any sense! I've got to make more people drink Pepsi!" Why? Because that's the job of the people who run Pepsi.

End of the day when I go into a store I pick a Pepsi because that's what I like and enjoy. Props to those who go in an enjoy a Coca-Cola... or an RC-Cola, or heaven forbid a Shasta. That's their choice.

If you think voting third party is selfish, stop hurling insults at people who do.

That's selfish. It doesn't change minds. If anything, it makes people more solidified in their stance. So you are being counter-productive or, at best, accomplishing nothing which is even less than voting third party.

Is venting that important to you guys?

Glad this is being said.

 

[Dr. Feel Good]

So that people understand your point, can you expand on that?

I just meant indirectly, as with any President in the history of the United States. Say a war starts while she's in office, she could say give the go ahead to drop bombs with fall out of innocent people. That ruined those people's lives. I didn't mean that her being in office leads to literally ruining someone's life immediately just because she's in office (as say Trump with deportation for families as an example).

 

[Mael]

Oh, please go ahead somewhere with that silly ass conspiracy theory crap. That's just code for "you don't have the same opinion as most of us do, so you're a conspiracy theorist."

No, please don't run from it.
Explain how a career politician like Clinton is worse than a serial con man like Trump.
It always go back to stuffs like Lybia or explaining how Trump don't really think what he says or some other crap like that.
I'd really like to know.

 

[excelsiorlef]

No I don't even care about sports. I'm not competitive. Hillary losing doesn't ruin my day. Or week. Or life. I understand that Trump in office can ruin others lives, and likely Hillary in office will ruin others lives as well (in different ways than Trump). So I'm of the stance that if that's the way people feel the country needs to go to advance us as a society than that's the society we live within. I voted for who I cared for and stood behind, sucks other people didn't either. Life goes on.

So again literally moral realitivism.

I didn't say you cared about sports, I meant a proverbial you.

You act like an election has the same impact as the outcome of a sports match.

 

[Nickle]

They booed Bernie man, it has nothing to do with progressive/liberal at all. It is all about anti-Clinton, anti-establishment, anti.

Who is "they"? There are always going to be extreme people who hate Hilary no matter what, but there are far more people who do care about the decisions that Hilary makes when deciding to vote for her.

 

[FreedomFighter]

No, please don't run from it.
Explain how a career politician like Clinton is worse than a serial con man like Trump.
It always go back to stuffs like Lybia or explaining how Trump don't really think what he says or some other crap like that.
I'd really like to know.

Run from what? Did you read?

A third party isn't really viable in a system like the US' where winner take all electoral votes of a state. It will always favor a two party system. Getting a third party big enough to hit the debates wouldn't really fix that issue. Either they split the vote and let the other side win in a landslide, they steal from both sides and make no difference or they kill/replace a party.

Having more than two parties works well in so many other nations.

 

[Zeus Molecules]

Oh, please go ahead somewhere with that silly ass conspiracy theory crap. That's just code for "you don't have the same opinion as most of us do, so you're a conspiracy theorist."

If you're asking me if I'm campaigning for third parties; no I am not.

Yeah, I said it. If it bothers you, tough shit.

Thanks for asking a straightforward question without any insults embedded.

I dislike Trump because he's a raging idiot, bigot, and xenophobe - a political joke who has, by some miracle, become a political reality. It's hard to imagine such a buffoon could be president but this just might actually happen.

I dislike Hillary because I think she's an undeniable corporatist and massively jingoistic warhawk with at least one psychopathic tendency (i.e. "We came, we saw, he died" *cackle* re: a 70 year old man sodomized with a knife and killed). Listened to her Brookings and AIPAC speeches just reinforces my dislike for her.

In the end, I think they're equally bad for different reasons. However, I think Trump has no clue what he's doing, but Hillary will be very calculated in her presidency - she'll be like Obama, continue a lot of the Bush policies and even double down on things like extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention, drone strikes, torture, etc. but get a pass because he's an excellent orator, had plenty of swag, and was the first Black president. Clinton would get the same type of pass for the same reason (gender in lieu of race). I think this makes her more dangerous. I very might well be wrong in this assessment, but I'll have to wait and see how it plays out.

I kind of agree with this, but I will say this Trump is just as incapable (perhaps even more so) than Bush. and look what that idiot did to America and the world....... Either way we're fucked

 

[Jonm1010]

There are a great many things that factor into the utilitarian good of society beyond that which emerges from law and jurisprudence, but besides that, I could as well chide my fellow Americans for valuing lowest common denominator brand recognition and marketing over substance and not doing what I think is their due diligence and considering candidates that fall outside the moneyed binary. Inevitability emerges partially from a fear of risk-taking, yet risk is inherent to all worthwhile progress.

Except choosing the lesser candidate with some but not all of a persons ideals, that has a chance of winning, is infinitely better at pushing at least some liberal policies then the candidate that has statistically zero chance.

Is it the outcome you value or the purity of your personal process to match your ideals?

Because as the current situation of the American system stands, if you are a heavy liberal, that is a trade off you have to make. A choice you must make. That is until a candidate of that level of purity becomes both viable and available.