I would venture to say that if I were alive during every presidential campaign in the history of the US, I would vote for every other candidate regardless of party over Trump.
(including Nixon)
(including Nixon)
Last edited:
Against Long Standing Policy.
- Thread starter TUMe
- Start date
The problem isn't that there's two lousy choices. It's that there's FOUR lousy choices. The libertarian platform largely doesn't resonate with the general populous. If it had, 2016 would have been their best chance ever to run a good candidate. So either the candidate they ran is crud, or it's their platform, or both.
The problem with the libertarians is a lack of talent and it isn't entirely their fault. It's the power structure. If you're a smart person with libertarian leanings who wants to move up in the world do you go work for the LP or the GOP? You go work for the GOP. That's how they end up with unserious retread candidates like Johnson, who I might still end up voting for.
Wow, I am unpopular for voting the way I want to.
If I vote for someone not from the two parties that are in a death-grip the I am hurting myself!! I must be un-American.
The lesser of two evils is still evil. I can't follow the logic. My vote won't make Trump or Clinton the president. As one of the flurry of posts indicates, it is indeed a protest. It is a freedom of speech way of quietly saying to both parties "look you have to do better than this." You have nominated two bad candidates and I am not going to pick one.
The fact is Oklahoma will go Trump. My voting for HRC or Trump will not change that. Last time Johnson got 1% and if he gets 5% then there is a message there. If Trump is the worst candidate ever, then Gary Johnson must be better than him. But I am voting for "none of the above" between the major party candidates.
Thanks for the advice about hurting myself, but it's my vote and I will damn well cast it the way I want to.
If I vote for someone not from the two parties that are in a death-grip the I am hurting myself!! I must be un-American.
The lesser of two evils is still evil. I can't follow the logic. My vote won't make Trump or Clinton the president. As one of the flurry of posts indicates, it is indeed a protest. It is a freedom of speech way of quietly saying to both parties "look you have to do better than this." You have nominated two bad candidates and I am not going to pick one.
The fact is Oklahoma will go Trump. My voting for HRC or Trump will not change that. Last time Johnson got 1% and if he gets 5% then there is a message there. If Trump is the worst candidate ever, then Gary Johnson must be better than him. But I am voting for "none of the above" between the major party candidates.
Thanks for the advice about hurting myself, but it's my vote and I will damn well cast it the way I want to.
Here's how George W. Bush's former chief White House ethics lawyer sees Comey's actions.
"..That is why, on Saturday, I filed a complaint against the F.B.I. with the Office of Special Counsel, which investigates Hatch Act violations, and with the Office of Government Ethics. I spent much of my career working on government and lawyers’ ethics, including as the chief White House ethics lawyer for George W. Bush. I never thought that the F.B.I. could be dragged into a political circus surrounding one of its investigations. Until this week...."
"..That is why, on Saturday, I filed a complaint against the F.B.I. with the Office of Special Counsel, which investigates Hatch Act violations, and with the Office of Government Ethics. I spent much of my career working on government and lawyers’ ethics, including as the chief White House ethics lawyer for George W. Bush. I never thought that the F.B.I. could be dragged into a political circus surrounding one of its investigations. Until this week...."
And how do the lawyers and agents who investigated Clinton view his decision not to indict this summer?https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxn...on-emails-says-insider.amp.html?client=safari
The effort by dems to make this situation about Comey rather than about Clinton is really impressive spin.
Last edited:
This is a lot like when a referee makes a bad call then makes a "make-up call." It's messy. The previous play is under review.
I have not really been addressing the specifics of the fact that I am in a red state, and my vote for Hillary did nothing to sway the vote towards her. I am addressing it as if we had a popular vote with no delegates involved. Not because I want that, but because the argument becomes a bit purer that way.
The issue is that you are going to get one of those two evils. There is no way on God's green earth that we are going to have a president other than either the democratic party candidate or the republican party candidate. Our only real choices as far as who will win are Trump & Hillary. If you feel(which I do) that the worst evil is an incredibly bad evil, much worse in it's effects than the lesser evil, then that is the way I will vote. (Notice I said effects not how evil the person is.)
In no way have I ever had to make this argument before, and I hope I never have to make it again. I disagree with this argument 999 million times out of a 1000.
The issue is that you are going to get one of those two evils. There is no way on God's green earth that we are going to have a president other than either the democratic party candidate or the republican party candidate. Our only real choices as far as who will win are Trump & Hillary. If you feel(which I do) that the worst evil is an incredibly bad evil, much worse in it's effects than the lesser evil, then that is the way I will vote. (Notice I said effects not how evil the person is.)
In no way have I ever had to make this argument before, and I hope I never have to make it again. I disagree with this argument 999 million times out of a 1000.
I don't care either way, because I suspect that, like pretty much every other thing that's been released via the FBI or wikileaks, this stuff is rather innocuous. I could be wrong of course, but it's a gut feeling.
That is my only other protest vote. I voted in 1972 for George McGovern. I had figured out Nixon before most people and he carried every state but one. As a Republican I voted for a Democrat for president.
Nixon got us out of Vietnam. Through out the first term, you could take the number of troops in VN and divide it by the rate at which we were withdrawing them and come up with X. Within a margin of error, X always was very close to the number of months to next election. People were still going over, but after a point more were coming back than going over. It's not hard to win by ending the most unpopular war in US history. But if you do it too soon or too late some of the effect is lost.
Of course he turned out to be paranoid. Who cheats when you are easily winning? Why trying to figure out the other party's strategy when it isn't working?
PS: Buchanan was pretty bad too. He believed succession was wrong but that he shouldn't do anything to prevent it.
Last edited:
I still probably identify more with a libertarian platform than the republican one. But Johnson is also just a dolt. Country before ideology.
FWIW I don't think there's many Stein "protest" voters. Those cuckoos actually more stand with what she stands for. Like much of Perot's voters. Third parties actually can represent an affirmative vote for a candidate instead of a temper tantrum vote. And I can respect that.
I'm not sure using your vote to make a point is a temper tantrum. I guess either view is very subjective. But the other choices are vote for someone you don't want or stay home.
Change the subject a bit. What our system has evolved to is strange. There are three groups. The Republicans, the Democrats and Independents in every presidential election. This is especially true when the incumbent is not running. The Independents usually decide the outcome. But first the two parties have their primary circus. Then the middle group gets to pick the winner. But they only get to pick from two, the choice of each party. Yes, some states do let independents vote in primaries, but party organization and strong ideological groups have a big say.
Amazing when you look at it that way.
If refusing to vote for 1) a bafoon or 2) a completely corrupt person with no moral compass is a temper tantrum then I'll be standing in the corner stomping my feet a week from tomorrow....but I'll cast my vote with a clear conscious for someone I consider to be a good and honest person.
I would vote for you before I would consider the other two....and we've never met.
Donna Brazile I story repeats itsself:
Trump thinks he is Hugh Hefner or larry flint
Hillary is Lorena helmslyor Elmira gulch
Last edited:
Astro, if you haven't groped more than two or three women, don't insult handicapped people or if you haven't lost 33,000 emails or is it 250,000, weren't shot at by a little girl with flowers, if you haven't called a man with 8 [?] years in the Hanoi Hilton not a hero or if you haven't handled classified documents carelessly for your personal reasons, then I would write your name on the ballot which would do about as much good as voting Johnson, but alas, computers like the card marked in the little box.
Funny story....I work with a huge Bernie guy. I was joking with him (sort of) that Hillary would cheat and get the questions ahead of time from CNN in their "town hall" debate. He bought me lunch today after the news broke that she did just that.
I didn't say said *not voting* is a temper tantrum. On the contrary I've said I can respect people not being able to cast an affirmative ballot and that the right to vote necessarily includes the right to abstain.
There is no record of how many people choose not to vote because of the candidates as opposed too being to lazy or disconnected. There is a record of the number of people, even if it is only a few percent, who voted third party this time as compared to last time.
When I go vote there will be three options on the ballot. All I have the right to vote for. I guess you are saying that one options can be voted only if you are throwing a tantrum? There are lots of ways to show you protest something. I simply don't understand why it is wrong to vote for a third party because you find neither of the other two acceptable. Trump voters are throwing a tantrum. Lot's of HRC voter wouldn't be voting for her if they weren't against Trump. When around 140 million or so votes are counted my vote against both of the anointed candidates will most likely not decide the election. But it is what I, in good conscience, feel I want to do. So I guess you can't respect the people who vote for option three?
Actually writing in any name on an Oklahoma ballot will invalidate the ballot. Sorry Aston!
But honestly, were any of those questions not expected and would it have made any difference in the outcomes of the debates? They were all questions any candidate should reasonably expect in any Presidential debate. What about the other 2 debates? HRC schooled Trump on the Mosul question in debate 3 and made him look very naive on the issue of Middle East politics.
The DNC and the RNC have YUUUUGE problems. The DNC chair is often loose with words and does things they don't need to do. Especially this year. Wasserman-Schulz didn't need to do anything to Bernie. All she simply had to say is "Bernie Sanders has not been a member of the Democratic party for the past 31 years. He registered as a member of the party only to run in our primaries because he understands the difficulty of campaigning and getting elected as an independent in our current political climate." That says enough. The RNC chair has a bigger issue...there is no unified party message. No one is on the same page. Trump simply attacked everyone on the primary stage and no one fought back. They just stood there and took it...except for Kasich.
It only invalidates the vote for that office I think. The rest of the ballot still counts
Huh? Everyone's biggest criticism of Kasich was his "I'm above all of this" act and that he was the only one refusing to criticize Trump. A lot of people thought he was positioning himself as Trump's vp.
For what is worth, report has it Kasich turned down the VP job which would be "the most powerful vice president in history."
I do think there was a problem with Kasich going after Trump and Rubio waiting too long to go after him. Rubio needs more time to mature. I lost a lot of interest in Rubio after reading his book.
I do think there was a problem with Kasich going after Trump and Rubio waiting too long to go after him. Rubio needs more time to mature. I lost a lot of interest in Rubio after reading his book.
I'm not sure what Trump has to do with this. Brazile and the Clinton campaign colluded to get the questions prior to her CNN town hall debate with Bernie Sanders. It's just another example of the Clinton camp cheating or using questionable ethics....which is the bigger issue. You can only dismiss so much sleaze....or so I used to think.
The reason I say Kasich didn't take it is because he refused to endorse Trump after the primaries and still has not. He even mentioned yesterday he wrote in John McCain on his ballot. He refused to be a part of the circus that was the RNC convention, in his home state. I admire him for sticking to his principles. He even met with Obama shortly after to discuss TPP. His response was he was putting country before party. Every other GOP primary candidate caved...even Cruz whose wife and father were the target of Trump's insults. I had some respect for Cruz when he didn't overtly endorse Trump at the convention and when he said he couldn't because his family came first. The of course he caved because his own political future was in doubt. I am even pissed at McCain, who I felt was the last sane GOP senator left. He caved, even after Trump insulted his service in Vietnam. Seriously, what are the principles these men are supposedly trying to fight for? It's almost like they are afraid to stand up to the playground bully, even in numbers. Maybe standing up to him you send the message to the GOP voters that Trump is unacceptable and we don't accept it. And everyone wants to rip HRC and the DNC, but didn't Cruz and Kasich collude to try and win some states at the end of the primary process to keep Trump from getting to the needed number of delegates for the nomination?
That was supposed to be extreme irony. Kasich has a future. He wouldn't throw it away running with Trump. I am a "not now, not ever" when it comes to Trump.
