(June 29, 2016 at 6:57 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Everyone in a "safe" state who doesn't want to vote for either Clinton or Trump should vote for the third party candidate that suits them best, IMO, rather than not voting. Not only will it give that candidate / party a higher chance of being included in the debates in the next election, it will also increase voter turnout, and remember, there are *lots* of other things being voted on that day.

If you're not in a safe state, you probably have more pressure to vote either Clinton or Trump, depending on which way you tend to lean politically. Don't let people pressure you though; it's your vote, nobody else's. People will try and blame you if the election goes the "wrong" way, but try not to let that affect you, because millions of people decide the election, not one person.

This is my position in a nutshell. I will vote for Clinton if she closes the gap here in Texas to make it a contested state; but if it remains where it is, or widens (which is what I think will happen), then I will vote for Johnson in the hopes that a higher placing results in better respect for alternative parties of any stripe.

The two parties have been at it for a century-and-a-half, and look where we are now.

(June 29, 2016 at 4:56 pm)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote:

(June 29, 2016 at 12:56 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: The voting out of fear is totally true. I think it's very ironic when people constantly go on about Republican fear-mongering of one side of their mouth, and then with the other say that the world will totally collapse if you don't vote for the Democrat. The best reason that most people can come up for for voting Hillary Clinton is that you should be scared of Donald Trump. That is the definition of fear mongering.

Donald Trump is losing votes to Gary Johnson so Bernie people shouldn't fear voting for Jill Stein. Gary negates Jill's "spoiler effect". I bet the Bernie people will still get called sexiest for not voting fit Hilary even though they are voting for Jill.

I looked at a poll recently and was shocked to see Gary Johnson at 10%. That's what, 10 times higher then he got 4 years ago?

(June 29, 2016 at 4:09 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: A politician needs no more reason to do anything than a political reason. If that guides them into making the right decision, I'm not going to complain.

I learnt long ago to never expect character or principle from a politician of either party.

She hasn't made any decisions yet. So we don't know what she might do with LGBT rights. We do know it's probably not a priority for her though, considering that she has only supported marriage equality for a few years. If she had to make a deal on gay rights with a Republican congress in order to pass some bill or another, do you really think she's going to stand up for the LGBT community or is she more interested in advancing causes she's cared about for her whole career? On the other hand she's been committed to bombing middle eastern countries pretty much her whole life.

(June 29, 2016 at 9:32 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(June 29, 2016 at 4:56 pm)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote: Donald Trump is losing votes to Gary Johnson so Bernie people shouldn't fear voting for Jill Stein. Gary negates Jill's "spoiler effect". I bet the Bernie people will still get called sexiest for not voting fit Hilary even though they are voting for Jill.

I looked at a poll recently and was shocked to see Gary Johnson at 10%. That's what, 10 times higher then he got 4 years ago?

They not let third party candidates any more than a few votes. The voting machines are owned by big cooperations and they want Hilary to win at all costs. They can't stand the idea of the end of two party politics. We need to fight against electronic voting:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI

(June 30, 2016 at 1:13 am)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(June 29, 2016 at 4:09 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: A politician needs no more reason to do anything than a political reason. If that guides them into making the right decision, I'm not going to complain.

I learnt long ago to never expect character or principle from a politician of either party.

She hasn't made any decisions yet. So we don't know what she might do with LGBT rights. We do know it's probably not a priority for her though, considering that she has only supported marriage equality for a few years. If she had to make a deal on gay rights with a Republican congress in order to pass some bill or another, do you really think she's going to stand up for the LGBT community or is she more interested in advancing causes she's cared about for her whole career? On the other hand she's been committed to bombing middle eastern countries pretty much her whole life.

Tell us again why you think that self-correcting is bad. I find "I was wrong" much more refreshing than "I'm the Donald, I'm right no matter the facts."

As for bombing Middle Eastern countries, I'm not in accord with some of her foreign policy positions. But I'm not sure there's a better alternative on the ballot ... maybe you could help me out there? Last I checked, Trump was pretty cool with dropping nukes in Syria ... yet you're oddly silent about that.



Your mileage may vary. Objects in the mirror are smaller than they appear too.

I find it hard to believe that somebody who has changed their views as dramatically as Hilary has, at the age she is at, is sincere in their beliefs. If the polls theoretically showed equal marriage was not popular anymore Hilary would change her views. Need I remind people that this is same the Church going gun lover from the 2008 election? She's a chameleon.

This is a person who, although she said Iraq was a mistake, repeated the mistakes of Iraq in Libya. And she wants to repeat those mistakes again in Syria. And people have the audacity to tell me this election doesn't affect me. When I go on holiday to the Mediterranean, I don't want the beaches to be full of homeless migrants because the president is a puppet of al-Saud. America had the chance to elect a principled candidate in Bernie but they were too silly and the DNC too biased.

(June 30, 2016 at 4:28 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(June 30, 2016 at 1:13 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: She hasn't made any decisions yet. So we don't know what she might do with LGBT rights. We do know it's probably not a priority for her though, considering that she has only supported marriage equality for a few years. If she had to make a deal on gay rights with a Republican congress in order to pass some bill or another, do you really think she's going to stand up for the LGBT community or is she more interested in advancing causes she's cared about for her whole career? On the other hand she's been committed to bombing middle eastern countries pretty much her whole life.

Tell us again why you think that self-correcting is bad. I find "I was wrong" much more refreshing than "I'm the Donald, I'm right no matter the facts."

As for bombing Middle Eastern countries, I'm not in accord with some of her foreign policy positions. But I'm not sure there's a better alternative on the ballot ... maybe you could help me out there? Last I checked, Trump was pretty cool with dropping nukes in Syria ... yet you're oddly silent about that.



Your mileage may vary. Objects in the mirror are smaller than they appear too.

Hillary is cool with dropping nukes too.
http://www.antiwar.com/solomon/?articleid=10808
http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-cli...le/5494380
 So was Obama. In various debates they both have said that 'no options are off the table.' Every major presidential candidate in the last 50 years has said the same thing and every year someone brings it up against the candidate they don't like as though it's some terrible and unique position. It's really a non issue. This isn't my first rodeo and I pay attention to this stuff and remember. Besides, why is Donald Trump's nuke position being brought up in a discussion about whether Hillary will stick to her support about LGBT rights? It's not about changing positions, it's about how much commitment she has to those positions. I don't believe that Hillary cares about a position she barely has held. Presidents aren't dictators, they have to prioritize what they can get done. Obviously gay rights aren't a priority for Hillary.

Also, why even bring up Donald Trump and nukes as a reply to Hillary's position on LGBT rights? I don't support Trump and I'm not voting for him. Could it be that the best selling point for Clinton is fear mongering over Trump? In that case your cadidate sucks.

No matter how much you say you hate Donald the Hilary Cheer Squad will say you love him just for pointing how equally bad she is. They have selective reading skills. It's insane.

And let's not forget the ad hominem attacks. Because, you know, how dare you question Goddess Hilary. These people have nothing positive to say about Hilary. And with Correct the Record trolls out there, it's impossible to tell who is being a insulting to the intelligence for money and who genuinely thinks Hilary is an amazing candidate.

New information about Hilary's homebrew serve and its contents are revealed most days. It's hard to believe people voted for such scum. Yeah, Donald is worse - but only slightly.

(June 30, 2016 at 10:50 am)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote: No matter how much you say you hate Donald the Hilary Cheer Squad will say you love him just for pointing how equally bad she is. They have selective reading skills. It's insane.

She's not equally bad.  That's why.  I notice though that you have made about ten fucking anti-hillary topics, and not a single fucking anti-Trump topic.  I wonder why that is.   You can say you hate Trump all you want, but it's clear that you think Trump is a better choice, even if you don't support him.  That much is fucking obvious, no matter how much you say you hate him.  he doesn't get nearly the attention from you that Hillary does.

(June 30, 2016 at 11:00 am)Divinity Wrote:

(June 30, 2016 at 10:50 am)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote: No matter how much you say you hate Donald the Hilary Cheer Squad will say you love him just for pointing how equally bad she is. They have selective reading skills. It's insane.

She's not equally bad.  That's why.  I notice though that you have made about ten fucking anti-hillary topics, and not a single fucking anti-Trump topic.  I wonder why that is.   You can say you hate Trump all you want, but it's clear that you think Trump is a better choice, even if you don't support him.  That much is fucking obvious, no matter how much you say you hate him.  he doesn't get nearly the attention from you that Hillary does.

Maybe because there are already a thousand anti-Trump threads on these forums. Why make more? If you don't like both candidates, get on these forums and see that Trump is being well covered, it seems natural for him to make anti-Hillary threads. I'm glad they are there. It broadens the discussion being had on these forums.

Also, surprise surprise, defending Hillary by pointing out how bad Trump is. I'd like for once someone to actually defend Hillary's positions with something other then Trump fear mongering. I also probably spend more time bashing Hillary on here, because you know, it's not being done enough. Trump seems to be pretty well covered and I don't think I could say much about him that hasn't been said.