(July 28, 2016 at 8:21 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Not legally no, but considering the damage Trump would do in office, I would simply advise you to hold your nose and vote for Hillary to live to fight another day.

As I've said before, if I were in a swing state, I might vote Clinton, or at the very least I would abstain from voting for President and instead just vote for congressional / local appointments. However, since I'm in Massachusetts, a state which FiveThirtyEight gives Clinton a 98.3% chance of winning (with an expected 55.8% of the vote to Trump's 37.3% and Johnson's 5.2%), I can vote third party (with a lot of other people) and not risk the result changing.

(July 28, 2016 at 8:41 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(July 28, 2016 at 8:21 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Not legally no, but considering the damage Trump would do in office, I would simply advise you to hold your nose and vote for Hillary to live to fight another day.

As I've said before, if I were in a swing state, I might vote Clinton, or at the very least I would abstain from voting for President and instead just vote for congressional / local appointments. However, since I'm in Massachusetts, a state which FiveThirtyEight gives Clinton a 98.3% chance of winning (with an expected 55.8% of the vote to Trump's 37.3% and Johnson's 5.2%), I can vote third party (with a lot of other people) and not risk the result changing.

Yea, I see your point, but still, Trump is not a politician you simply beat by a hair, he literally needs the full repercussions of every vote to send the message that this is NOT the way a western leader behaves. It has to be way beyond the margin of error. Hillary will not get us into a third world war, Trump would.

(July 28, 2016 at 8:41 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(July 28, 2016 at 8:21 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Not legally no, but considering the damage Trump would do in office, I would simply advise you to hold your nose and vote for Hillary to live to fight another day.

As I've said before, if I were in a swing state, I might vote Clinton, or at the very least I would abstain from voting for President and instead just vote for congressional / local appointments. However, since I'm in Massachusetts, a state which FiveThirtyEight gives Clinton a 98.3% chance of winning (with an expected 55.8% of the vote to Trump's 37.3% and Johnson's 5.2%), I can vote third party (with a lot of other people) and not risk the result changing.

... but you're not yet qualified to vote, are you?

(July 28, 2016 at 8:31 pm)Bella Morte Wrote:

Brian37 Wrote:And right now there is only ONE politician running that is a danger to national and global stability.

Yeah, her name is Hilary.

Yea every month for the past year Hillary has insulted Mexicans, called captured Veterans losers, called for WW2 German mass deportation, blacklisted media, talked about women's periods and penis sizes in debates, and suggested we value the brutality of Saddam. Oh wait, that wasn't her.

The only difference between Trump and Kim Jong Un, for right now is our constitution. Other than that they share the same crappy hairdo and petulant narcissistic over bloated self absorbed egos.

(July 28, 2016 at 8:49 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(July 28, 2016 at 8:41 pm)Tiberius Wrote: As I've said before, if I were in a swing state, I might vote Clinton, or at the very least I would abstain from voting for President and instead just vote for congressional / local appointments. However, since I'm in Massachusetts, a state which FiveThirtyEight gives Clinton a 98.3% chance of winning (with an expected 55.8% of the vote to Trump's 37.3% and Johnson's 5.2%), I can vote third party (with a lot of other people) and not risk the result changing.

Yea, I see your point, but still, Trump is not a politician you simply beat by a hair, he literally needs the full repercussions of every vote to send the message that this is NOT the way a western leader behaves. It has to be way beyond the margin of error. Hillary will not get us into a third world war, Trump would.

I'm sorry but that's not how the election works. As long as Clinton gets more votes than he does, she will win. It doesn't have to be way beyond the margin of error.

Since you seem to like sending messages with votes, there's a message we can send this election which will change all future elections, and that is getting a third party, or possibly two, access to federal election funding. Lets give the two party system a shock. If you live in a safe state, you have that power this election.

(July 28, 2016 at 8:56 pm)The_Empress Wrote:

(July 28, 2016 at 8:41 pm)Tiberius Wrote: As I've said before, if I were in a swing state, I might vote Clinton, or at the very least I would abstain from voting for President and instead just vote for congressional / local appointments. However, since I'm in Massachusetts, a state which FiveThirtyEight gives Clinton a 98.3% chance of winning (with an expected 55.8% of the vote to Trump's 37.3% and Johnson's 5.2%), I can vote third party (with a lot of other people) and not risk the result changing.

... but you're not yet qualified to vote, are you?

No, but my wife is and she is planning on voting third party. Its easier to use the first person when explaining things like this than having to refer to my wife every time.

(July 28, 2016 at 10:46 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(July 28, 2016 at 8:56 pm)The_Empress Wrote: ... but you're not yet qualified to vote, are you?

No, but my wife is and she is planning on voting third party. Its easier to use the first person when explaining things like this than having to refer to my wife every time.

That makes sense. Thanks. And I, for one, appreciate the third-party vote. As a Californian, I might do the same, though I'm not yet familiar enough with Jill Stein or Gary Johnson to know how I'll vote exactly. I appreciate so many things about Hillary, but I'm pretty disillusioned with how this has all been playing out.

(July 28, 2016 at 10:53 pm)The_Empress Wrote:

(July 28, 2016 at 10:46 pm)Tiberius Wrote: No, but my wife is and she is planning on voting third party. Its easier to use the first person when explaining things like this than having to refer to my wife every time.

That makes sense. Thanks. And I, for one, appreciate the third-party vote. As a Californian, I might do the same, though I'm not yet familiar enough with Jill Stein or Gary Johnson to know how I'll vote exactly. I appreciate so many things about Hillary, but I'm pretty disillusioned with how this has all been playing out.

Gary Johnson is awesome same with Jill Stein. Though Gary is in the libertarian party not saying it's bad thing but
yeah he is great.

(July 28, 2016 at 11:43 pm)dyresand Wrote:

(July 28, 2016 at 10:53 pm)The_Empress Wrote: That makes sense. Thanks. And I, for one, appreciate the third-party vote. As a Californian, I might do the same, though I'm not yet familiar enough with Jill Stein or Gary Johnson to know how I'll vote exactly. I appreciate so many things about Hillary, but I'm pretty disillusioned with how this has all been playing out.

Gary Johnson is awesome same with Jill Stein. Though Gary is in the libertarian party not saying it's bad thing but
yeah he is great.

I'm sorry Dyres... but from what I've seen you post here, I'm not taking your word on this election. I'll do my own research. But thanks.

Funny how the "awesome" ones are the ones who don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

(July 28, 2016 at 8:32 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: I think Tibs is safe to vote for Stein or Johnson in MA.

FL voters, OH voters, PA voters---voting third party would be, IMO, cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Um, unless I am seriously in error, doesn't Massachusetts have a republicunt governor right now? 

Chickens.  Eggs.  And when to count them.