vote Donald trump!?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Then you may as well stay home and get some sleep.

So my vote doesn't matter? People died for suffrage to no avail? I don't think so. I will perform my ethical duty, whether it is effectual or not.

Glad to hear you're voting third-party, even if it's the opposite of mine (I lean Libertarian, and will be voting as such this election unless my vote can help stop Trump more directly).

[Thumpalumpacus]

SCOTUS is not important to me, it's a corrupt bourgeois body which has protected the privileged and oppressed the masses for generations.

It's certainly not perfect, but it does wield much power. Refusing to wield a vote to better its record doesn't seem very productive, to me.

[MyGLeonTrotsky]

First off, the US has not declared a war since 1941.  Seems to be an obsolete concept. 

Second.  In all the campaign speeches and announcements that subject has not come up. 

Now you, with your NEWSMAX/DRUDGE REPORT sources seem to have a window into her mind that I lack.

So who is she going to declare war on?  Or will you know it when you see it?

I certainly don't read Newsmax or Drudge Report. I am a Trotskyist, I am a real leftist, unlike Clinton. Instead of answering the question, you go off into technicalities, again to avoid the question.

She has been more hawkish against China, Russia, Syria, Iran and Cuba than Mr. Obama has. She wants to declare war 'against ISIS' as well, whatever that means. 

Here is a list of her positions historically:

• http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_...Policy.htm

• CLINTON: What Secretary Carter is looking at is the constant pressure that Russia's putting on our European allies. I think what Secretary Carter is seeing is that we got to get NATO back working for the common defense. We've got to do more to support our partners in NATO, and we have to send a clear message to Putin that this kind of belligerence will have to be responded to. Source: MSNBC Democratic primary debate in New Hampshire , Feb 4, 2016

• CLINTON: Assad has killed, by last count, about 250,000 Syrians. The reason we are in the mess we're in, that ISIS has the territory it has, is because of Assad. We now finally have a strategy and a commitment to go after ISIS. And we finally have a U.N. Security Council Resolution bringing the world together to go after a political transition in Syria. If the United States does not lead, there is not another leader. There is a vacuum. And we have to lead, if we're going to be successful. Source: 2015 ABC/WMUR Democratic primary debate in N.H. , Dec 19, 2015 

• Q: Should we believe that the U.S. relationship with China under a Hillary Clinton administration would be less one of cooperation and engagement and one more akin to confrontation?A: No, absolutely not. It would be a position where we would operate from strength with a coherent policy about what our interests were and what we hope to achieve. Source: 2007 Democratic radio debate on NPR , Dec 4, 2007 

• I think many people are mistaken about how much money we spend on foreign aid. We spend 1%, and many believe we spend 25%. That 1% investment has made a difference in solving problems but also in helping America to be stronger by solving problems around the world. We sometimes learn lessons we can bring home. I want us to continue to be a leader, and you don’t lead from behind walls. You don’t lead by walking away from the world. I think you lead by remaining engaged and trying to shape events. Source: Unique Voice, p.111-12 , Feb 3, 1997

• CLINTON: I told the president that I hoped he would be able to move toward diplomatic relations with Cuba. And there are no better ambassadors for freedom, democracy and economic opportunity than Cuban Americans. I'm looking forward to following the president's trip. I think meeting with dissidents is important. The Cuban people deserve be able to move towards democracy where they pick their own leads. Both Castros have to be considered authoritarian and dictatorial because they are not freely chosen by the people. I hope someday there will be leaders who are chosen by the Cuban people. Source: 2016 PBS Democratic primary debate in Miami , Mar 9, 2016

• CLINTON: I think we have achieved a great deal with the Iranian nuclear agreement. That has to be enforced absolutely with consequences for Iran at the slightest deviation from their requirements under the agreement. I do not think we should promise or even look toward normalizing relations because we have a lot of other business to get done with Iran. Yes, they have to stop being the main state sponsor of terrorism. Yes, they have to stop trying to destabilize the Middle East, causing even more chaos. Source: 2016 PBS Democratic debate in Wisconsin , Feb 11, 2016

• "In retrospect, I'm not sure our restraint was the right choice. It did not stop the regime from ruthlessly crushing the Green Movement, which was exceedingly painful to watch. More strident messages from the United States would probably not have prevented the outcome and might even have hastened it, but there's no way of knowing now if we could have made a difference." (Page 423) Source: Wall Street Journal on Hard Choices, by Hillary Clinton , Jun 17, 2014

• "Like many other young people around the world, some of President Obama's aides in the White House were swept up in the drama and idealism of the moment as they watched the pictures from Tahrir Square on television. I shared the feeling. It was a thrilling moment. But along with Vice President Biden, Secretary of Defense Bob Gates and National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, I was concerned that we not be seen as pushing a longtime partner out the door, leaving Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the region to an uncertain, dangerous future. (Pages 339-340) Source: Wall Street Journal on Hard Choices, by Hillary Clinton , Jun 17, 2014

• On a visit to Gaza City in 1998, Hillary met with Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat and his wife and declared, well ahead of the official line from the White House, her support for a Palestinian state. Her husband’s spokesperson had to distance him from her comment.As a senator, however, one of her first major speeches was to AIPAC, the Israeli lobby group where she pledged to work to send more money, not for peacekeeping, or to both sides, but for Israel’s military. (She’s spoken to AIPAC many times since.)On the fortieth anniversary of the Israeli occupation of West Bank and Gaza, Clinton joined the rest of the Senate in sending a message of congratulations and support to the Israeli government. No encouraging message went to the Palestinians still enduring occupation.Source: The Contenders, by Laura Flanders, p. 34 , Nov 11, 2007

• • "Israel is our strongest ally into the Middle East. Now, more than ever, all democratic nations stand behind Israel as it fights against terrorism and for the principles all democracies share. Democratic nations throughout the world must understand that turning their backs on Israel at this time would hurt all freedom loving nations."
  (Senator Hillary Clinton, letter to Colin Powell, April 9, 2002)
  • "I believe it is our obligation as friends and supporters and allies of Israel to support Israel's efforts for peace, stability and security. Now, this means doing more than providing Israel with economic aid so that it can remain strong in the face of ongoing threats. We must also demand that President Abbas dismantle the structure of terror that the Palestinian leadership has employed for so long."
  (Senator Hillary Clinton, American Israel Public Affairs Committee Policy Conference, May 24, 2005) Source: The Case for Hillary Clinton, by Susan Estrich, p.210-211 , Oct 17, 2005

• Q: You are for a regime change in Syria. But as we have learned in Libya, getting rid of longtime dictators can lead to problems?.CLINTON: Libya is a little different [than Syria]. Libya actually held elections. They elected moderates. They have tried to piece together a government against a lot of really serious challenges internally coming from the outside with terrorist groups and other bad actors. Let's remember what was going on at the time. This was at the height of the Arab spring. The people in Libya were expressing themselves, were demanding their freedom, and Gadhafi responded brutally. Now, they had an election, and it was a fair election, it met international standards. That was an amazing accomplishment for a nation that had been so deprived for so long. This doesn't happen overnight. And, yes, it's been a couple of years. I think it's worth European support, Arab support, American support to try to help the Libyan people realize the dream that they had when they went after Gadhafi. Source: 2016 CNN Town Hall on eve of South Carolina primary , Feb 23, 2016

• Q: How long are US troops going to be in Afghanistan?CLINTON: The president decided to leave more troops than he had originally planned in Afghanistan. We have a cooperative government there. The Afghan army is fighting and taking heavy losses defending Afghan territory. I would have to make an evaluation based on the circumstances at the time I took office as to how much help they continue to need. It's not just the Taliban. We are seeing, fighters claiming to be affiliated with ISIS. We've got an arc of instability from North Africa to South Asia, and we have to pay close attention to it. We have to build coalitions, something I did to take on the Iranian nuclear program, and what I will do as president. Source: MSNBC Democratic primary debate in New Hampshire , Feb 4, 2016 

• Clinton said she urged Obama to take a tougher line with Russian President Vladimir Putin shortly before she left office in 2012: "With all this in mind, I suggested we set a new course. The reset had allowed us to pick off the low-hanging fruit in terms of bilateral cooperation. And there was no need to blow up our collaboration on Iran or Afghanistan. But we should hit the pause button on new efforts. Don't appear too eager to work together. Don't flatter Putin with high-level attention." (Page 244) Source: Wall Street Journal on Hard Choices, by Hillary Clinton , Jun 17, 2014

• In a June 2007 debate in South Carolina she again drew a sharp contrast with Obama when he unexpectedly pledged that, as president, he would willingly meet with the leaders of such rogue nations as Iran and North Korea without preconditions during his first term in office. "Well, I will not promise to meet with the leasers of these countries during my first year." Clinton interjected. "I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse."This looked like another Obama gaffe. The following day, her campaign recruited former secretary of state Madeleine Albright to lead the attack against Obama. During a telephone interview, she launched a personal attack on Obama, [saying], "I thought he was irresponsible and frankly naive." Source: The Battle for America 2008, by Balz & Johnson, p. 83-84 , Aug 4, 2009

• President-elect Obama, on Dec. 1, introduced his National Security and Foreign Policy teams, stating: "I have known Hillary Clinton as a friend," he says. I am mindful of the fact that she was President-elect Obama's rival and the wife of President Clinton, who signed the extraterritorial Torricelli and Helms Burton Acts against Cuba. During the presidential race she committed herself to these laws and to the economic blockade. I am not complaining, I am simply stating this for the record. Source: Obama and the Empire, by Fidel Castro, p. 13 , Dec 4, 2008

She supported the war in Iraq, Syria, Libya and supported the war against Serbia in the 1990s. She's a friend of Henry Kissenger and Madeleine Albright, two of the world's most notorious war criminals.
How could you not interpret this as saying she is pro-war and anti-peace?

---

So my vote doesn't matter? People died for suffrage to no avail? I don't think so. I will perform my ethical duty, whether it is effectual or not.

Glad to hear you're voting third-party, even if it's the opposite of mine (I lean Libertarian, and will be voting as such this election unless my vote can help stop Trump more directly).

I might vote Gary Johnson, I am still looking at the polls. If he gets high enough margins, then I will vote for him.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Glad to hear you're voting third-party, even if it's the opposite of mine (I lean Libertarian, and will be voting as such this election unless my vote can help stop Trump more directly).

I might vote Gary Johnson, I am still looking at the polls. If he gets high enough margins, then I will vote for him.

You should probably vote your conscience, rather than looking at polls. I am watching them in case the margin here in Texas is so small that my vote might help keep Trump out of office. That is my first concern right now. If my vote won't affect the state's electoral college voting (and it probably won't), then I will vote Johnson in a losing cause, if only to send a message.

That's the only reason polls matter to me.

[Rhondazvous]

So my vote doesn't matter? People died for suffrage to no avail? I don't think so. I will perform my ethical duty, whether it is effectual or not.

Glad to hear you're voting third-party, even if it's the opposite of mine (I lean Libertarian, and will be voting as such this election unless my vote can help stop Trump more directly).

Third-party candidates are not even o the ballot in every state, so there's no way they can when. I think what may end up happening is, since victory for the presidency requires more than a simple majority. so if neither Trump nor Clinton make enough votes it will be possible for something else to happen. What that something else might be, I couldn't tell you.

[abaris]

I am a Trotskyist, I am a real leftist, unlike Clinton.

You're a Trotskyst? I thought they died out when he showed his true colors at Kronstadt. At least they should have. The Kronstadt rebellion was the only incident of commoners really trying to take over. Trotsky put an end to that. And a brutal one for that matter.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Third-party candidates are not even on the ballot in every state, so there's no way they can when.

Gary Johnson is on the ballot in all fifty states. Hopefully the Greens can use the exposure they're getting this election cycle with Jill Stein -- coupled with the tepid support Hillary is getting from many Dems -- to get there as well. We need alternatives to the two parties today, and I don't care much if they aren't in line with my own views. To me, it's more important to break the binary stranglehold than it is for me to get my particular way.

Ballot access is obviously a key weakness in American democracy which needs to be addressed, you're right; they should not be so restrictive, and they certainly should not (in the case of federal elections) be left to the states to define. One reason why I am registered as a Libertarian is because I want that party to be represented on the ballot even if I don't vote for their candidate. Many states require minimum registration numbers for ballot access, or require a petition with sufficient signatures, in order to place a candidate on the ballot.

What that means is that getting the word out about your candidate so that the various state ballot requirements may be met is the way forward. Such requires a grass-roots effort. But it can be and has been done.

I  think what may end up happening is, since victory for the presidency requires more than a simple majority. so if neither Trump nor Clinton make enough votes it will be possible for something else to happen. What that something else might be, I couldn't tell you.

No, a simple majority is not required. A plurality suffices -- either candidate can win with less than 50% of the vote so long as they have more votes than their opponents.

[madog]

I often wonder if voting based on voting on the worst of two evils is what undermines democracy?

Are you just fulfilling the voting trend and getting Presidents that are the worst of two evils rather than the best man/woman for the job?

Might be an impossible dream but would a trend for honest voting eventually lead to a more democratic society ...

To be clear its only a thought, but I have suspicions that democracy wasn't intended to be a chess game between two powerful political parties ....

[Mister Agenda]

We only ever have a choice between evils, no politician is perfect.

[madog]

We only ever have a choice between evils, no politician is perfect.

I agree, but we have the same here in the UK where people vote tactically .... I just wonder if that has gradually turned democracy into a two horse race?

Just noticed some say it is some how wrong or stupid to vote by conscience because it might help one or the other of two bad choices .... 

While that continues it will always be the choice between the two main parties ....

It might be uncomfortable and appear a waste of a vote to vote for an outsider, but is it?

If everyone voted by conscience maybe when you have two bad choices like between Trump and Clinton an outsider could actually win?