'Who do you choose?'

[PaperIz 7,354]

Just now, En_Sabah_Nur said:

I will vote for a dozen evils before I actively let the Supreme Court fall into the hands of the republicans again for another 30 or 40 years!!  

 

Yeah that's stupid.

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

Just now, PaperIz said:

Yeah that's stupid.

 

 

[PaperIz 7,354]

Just now, En_Sabah_Nur said:

 

 

If people voted for good politicians who actually care about real Americans, we wouldn't be stuck voting for these evil rats. It's our chance to break the cycle. I will never vote for someone I don't believe in.

[Toph 375]

4 minutes ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

Exactly ^^

Ralph Nader ring a bell for anybody here?!

Or is everyone here to young to Actually remember him?!?

 

Actually it was due to significantly lower democratic base turnout that year, and no they didn't all just decide to vote for Nader either (disenfranchised democrats). They just didn't vote at all. 

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

Just now, Toph said:

Actually it was due to significantly lower democratic base turnout that year, and no they didn't all just decide to vote for Nader either (disenfranchised democrats). They just didn't vote at all. 

Which is still just as bad, if true...  

 

[Toph 375]

Just now, En_Sabah_Nur said:

Which is still just as bad, if true...  

 

It's very true, but don't worry about that this year. Democratic turnout should be huge. 

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

2 minutes ago, PaperIz said:

If people voted for good politicians who actually care about real Americans, we wouldn't be stuck voting for these evil rats. It's our chance to break the cycle. I will never vote for someone I don't believe in.

That's the difference between idealism & realism!  And like I said I will not let the Supreme Court reverse every progressive decision they have previously made over the past half century, waiting on my idealistic candidate to actually win the White House!  

 

[PaperIz 7,354]

14 minutes ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

That's the difference between idealism & realism!  And like I said I will not let the Supreme Court reverse every progressive decision they have previously made over the past half century, waiting on my idealistic candidate to actually win the White House!  

 

IF WE VOTED FOR GOOD PEOPLE IT WOULDN'T BE IDEALISM

VOTING FOR EVIL WILL ONLY GET YOU EVIL

 

[Tycho 3,694]

39 minutes ago, PaperIz said:

It's not a throw away vote to use your vote for someone you actually believe in. The 2 party system is crooked and unamerican, and if we keep shaming people for wanting more than we'll always have a broken system with broken leaders. We should not accept evil and I won't.

"Hilary is the lesser of two evils" has been said but I can see what you mean by not wanting to contribute to any evil at all. Would the third party vote be popular? Do you think it's possible it could win?

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

20 minutes ago, PaperIz said:

IF WE VOTED FOR GOOD PEOPLE IT WOULDN'T BE IDEALISM

VOTING FOR EVIL WILL ONLY GET YOU EVIL

 

Well as long as we get PROGRESSIVE decisions out of the Supreme Court for the next half century, then I'm good then...  

 

[TrueWillis 45]

2 hours ago, SEANGT said:

....ANYway just gonna say I love Hillary since somebody needs to represent the silent majority that can't be bothered to argue with all these foolish people. She's a progressive that understands you can't always get what you want, doesn't make her evil. Makes her the best kind of liberal. This is a positive. Everything about her is great. 

EXACTLY

[Whispering 18,865]

2 hours ago, PaperIz said:

Yeah that's stupid.

It's stupid not to consider the Supreme Court. When they vote to take away your basic human rights, you won't think it is so stupid. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

2 hours ago, PaperIz said:

IF WE VOTED FOR GOOD PEOPLE IT WOULDN'T BE IDEALISM

VOTING FOR EVIL WILL ONLY GET YOU EVIL

 

No candidate will ever be wholly good. That is impossible. Everyone is a relative good to each other and others in the past. Every single election is a "lesser of two evils" if you consider that everyone who runs for president is pretty much evil. If they aren't evil, they are ineffective. We're pretty much never gonna get that "perfect" candidate who is calm, wise, collected, and not also a political pawn, or has no shady history. The closest we got to that was Obama, whose efforts while great were marred by political obstructionism via the Republican Party. (So the answer to even taking STEPS to reform/destroy this system is in this case not to vote for people who are so greedy for power that they cannot accept failure and will fight against their own people in order to have it). 

A broken system can NOT be changed over night, and idealistically electing someone who promises to do so is naive. Electing someone who is so against the system that they cannot operate in it in order to dismantle it is ineffective. Even Mother Bernie Sanders could not do this, and he knew this. Hillary is the best chance of even possibly getting close to progress on this. If you actually wish to stop this cycle or whatever, you have to realize that putting your foot in the ground and saying "No, I won't align myself with evil" will NEVER work. "Evil" isn't just going to go away in 2020 when new people run, nor will it in 2024, or 2040, or 2100. The democracy we have in 2100 (assuming we live that long) can look vastly different from how it does now, but the only way to even get ON that track or continue it in the current time is to vote for Hillary Clinton. If you think waging it out and hoping that the Green Party or Libertarian party become prominent enough to seriously compete and have a chance of winning, 1 you will be waiting a long time, and 2, you have put them on pedastals they don't deserve to be on. 

[PaperIz 7,354]

3 hours ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

Well as long as we get PROGRESSIVE decisions out of the Supreme Court for the next half century, then I'm good then...  

 

Well I can't sleep at night knowing I voted for someone I don't believe in. I'm glad the rest of you can just overlook your own morals and beliefs but I will not.

1 hour ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

No candidate will ever be wholly good. That is impossible. Everyone is a relative good to each other and others in the past. Every single election is a "lesser of two evils" if you consider that everyone who runs for president is pretty much evil. If they aren't evil, they are ineffective. We're pretty much never gonna get that "perfect" candidate who is calm, wise, collected, and not also a political pawn, or has no shady history. The closest we got to that was Obama, whose efforts while great were marred by political obstructionism via the Republican Party. (So the answer to even taking STEPS to reform/destroy this system is in this case not to vote for people who are so greedy for power that they cannot accept failure and will fight against their own people in order to have it). 

A broken system can NOT be changed over night, and idealistically electing someone who promises to do so is naive. Electing someone who is so against the system that they cannot operate in it in order to dismantle it is ineffective. Even Mother Bernie Sanders could not do this, and he knew this. Hillary is the best chance of even possibly getting close to progress on this. If you actually wish to stop this cycle or whatever, you have to realize that putting your foot in the ground and saying "No, I won't align myself with evil" will NEVER work. "Evil" isn't just going to go away in 2020 when new people run, nor will it in 2024, or 2040, or 2100. The democracy we have in 2100 (assuming we live that long) can look vastly different from how it does now, but the only way to even get ON that track or continue it in the current time is to vote for Hillary Clinton. If you think waging it out and hoping that the Green Party or Libertarian party become prominent enough to seriously compete and have a chance of winning, 1 you will be waiting a long time, and 2, you have put them on pedastals they don't deserve to be on. 

I know no candidate will be perfect but the fact we are being bullied and trapped and forced into voting for 2 of the most evil people I've ever seen is truly insane. We don't have to have evil candidates if we fight against the system thst breeds them, but all of you refuse to do it. That's why it continues. You choose evil and that's what you're getting. We should not and I will not accept that we have to pick someone evil as our leader.

1 hour ago, Whispering said:

It's stupid not to consider the Supreme Court. When they vote to take away your basic human rights, you won't think it is so stupid. 

It is stupid because you are forcing the system that causes it to happen. Vote for someone good and good will come, but instead you're forcing a corrupt and broken system and blaming the people like me who want to break free of it when you're the reason it's happening. 

 

3 hours ago, Tokyo said:

"Hilary is the lesser of two evils" has been said but I can see what you mean by not wanting to contribute to any evil at all. Would the third party vote be popular? Do you think it's possible it could win?

I voted 3rd party. I refuse to vote for someone I don't believe in. I do think a 3rd party could win if we could convince people they could. Everyone seems just fine stuck in the 2 party trap, but I won't be. The people who perpetuate the 2 party system are the ones who discourage people from voting 3rd party. They won't let themselves be free of it and do its their own damn faults that they're trapped.

[LibraLove 1,282]

12 hours ago, DrewStevens said:

And the only person who has 0 chances too. 

People should use their brains instead of their hearts when it comes to politics.

If they actually used their brains like I am and many others are, then the top two candidates would have no support when you logically look at who they are and what their records consist of. Both are terrible people with terrible records, who will ruin people's lives inside and outside of this country. This isn't a sport, we aren't "betting" on who will win. Jill is the only candidate that supports my ideals and is not funded by big interests that contradict those ideals. So, go ahead and vote for that all you want. Hope you're okay with the blood of innocents on your hands, be it minorities in this country or outside of this country who are afraid of blue skies because of possible drone strikes, which Hillary condones.

12 hours ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

Exactly ^^

Ralph Nader ring a bell for anybody here?!

Or is everyone here to young to Actually remember him?!?

 

I'm old enough to remember that and I'm old enough to know that that tired and trite comeback is absolutely untrue. My U.S. Senator, Al Gore, lost because he is a weak and uninspiring candidate, much like Hillary, who could not convince 200K+ REGISTERED DEMOCRATS in Florida to vote for him and not Bush. Al Gore also lost our home state of Tennessee, which Bill Clinton won handily TWICE, by less than 100K votes, which should not have even happened, but it dd. Had he actually won the state he represented, he would have been President.

You bring up the Supreme Court - if Trump wins and appoints conservative Justices, that will set us back to a pre-Obama Bush era court. No human rights, LGBT or Women's etc., were lost in those years and they will not be lost nowadays because the "Court of Public Opinion" has shifted so drastically to the left that people will not, and should not allow that to happen. Those rights were actually lost under a Democratic Presidency, Bill Clinton, when he and Hillary pushed for, supported and signed the Defense of Marriage Act, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Welfare Reform (which drastically impacted single mothers of all race, but mostly poor minorities), the Omnibus Crime Bill (which Hillary defended by equating African American people who resort to gangs and drugs to support themselves in downtrodden communities to dogs on a leash that need to be "brought to heel" - it drastically targeted and impacted people of color and basically created the Private Prison Industry, one of her big campaign donors), and NAFTA and CAFTA. 

So, again, past political records matter and actions still speak louder than words, which is all Trump has. Neither of them should be elected. They are both terrible. It is Clintonista policies that have given rise to people like Trump on the right, so how does it make sense to continue with more of the same that has sold people out and pushed more than 50% of the nation into poverty or the "working poor" with crappy, low wage, part-time jobs and no upward mobility??? That will only lead to something worse rising from the right, like Mike Pence who actually has establishment and voter backing, who will galvanize their base that is fractured now and more than likely win (since it's evident Hillary is weak since she's only a couple points ahead of a complete idiot). That totally makes sense.