Again, The Orange Baboon

[Regina]

 You cannot sit there and complain about monopolies then do nothing. Say nothing get nothing.

I agree, but that's what I feel people are doing by voting for Hillary. This "lesser of two evils" mentality is trite and asinine, I'd rather not use cliches but in this case there's nothing for it, it's literally people trying the same shit they've tried for years and expecting a different result. I think to vote for Hillary, whose record is shady whatever way you cut it up, just because you're scared of Trump is really worrying. 

Instead, people could be coming together and voting for third parties, just to at least try something different.

[Jesster]

 You cannot sit there and complain about monopolies then do nothing. Say nothing get nothing.

I agree, but that's what I feel people are doing by voting for Hillary. This "lesser of two evils" mentality is trite and asinine, I'd rather not use cliches but in this case there's nothing for it, it's literally people trying the same shit they've tried for years and expecting a different result. I think to vote for Hillary, whose record is shady whatever way you cut it up, just because you're scared of Trump is really worrying. 

Instead, people could be coming together and voting for third parties, just to at least try something different.

I definitely agree with you to a point. I would absolutely love third parties to be a choice because the two-party system keeps failing us more every time.

I have something keeping me from falling in step with you though. I hate to fall back on the "you're throwing your vote away" argument there, but that is also true to some level by going with the third party vote. If both major candidates were entirely equal in how bad they were, I wouldn't care about wasting my vote to make the third party look better. I've done that before, but this year is different. Trump as president is going to make my personal life a living nightmare and I don't want to beat myself up later on for not trying to stop that. I'm no fan of Hillary, but the worst I see with her is that we will tread water and go nowhere at all for the next four years. I'd prefer a waste of space president over a terror.

[Minimalist]

This "lesser of two evils" mentality is trite and asinine,

Then do not come whining when the Greater of Two Evils wins.

[Brian37]

 You cannot sit there and complain about monopolies then do nothing. Say nothing get nothing.

I agree, but that's what I feel people are doing by voting for Hillary. This "lesser of two evils" mentality is trite and asinine, I'd rather not use cliches but in this case there's nothing for it, it's literally people trying the same shit they've tried for years and expecting a different result. I think to vote for Hillary, whose record is shady whatever way you cut it up, just because you're scared of Trump is really worrying. 

Instead, people could be coming together and voting for third parties, just to at least try something different.

No that is not what you'd be doing. You are thinking short term and quick fixes and unfortunately our McMedia long term is causing both parties voters to think in short term personality solutions. Reality in politics long term is much more mundane and boring. It isn't doomsday one bit at all, Trump would be though. Pick your battles, that change you want can happen but not by throwing away your vote.   There will be more elections after she wins and you can still be a voice to other state politicians as well as her. 

The system of checks and balances were not set up to create sudden changes, the founders didn't set everything up to value sudden coup. I think it was Churchill who said something like "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others"....... Bernie wouldn't have ended up supporting her if he really thought she was going to be that dangerous.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I agree, but that's what I feel people are doing by voting for Hillary. This "lesser of two evils" mentality is trite and asinine, I'd rather not use cliches but in this case there's nothing for it, it's literally people trying the same shit they've tried for years and expecting a different result. I think to vote for Hillary, whose record is shady whatever way you cut it up, just because you're scared of Trump is really worrying. 

Instead, people could be coming together and voting for third parties, just to at least try something different.

I definitely agree with you to a point. I would absolutely love third parties to be a choice because the two-party system keeps failing us more every time.

I have something keeping me from falling in step with you though. I hate to fall back on the "you're throwing your vote away" argument there, but that is also true to some level by going with the third party vote. If both major candidates were entirely equal in how bad they were, I wouldn't care about wasting my vote to make the third party look better. I've done that before, but this year is different. Trump as president is going to make my personal life a living nightmare and I don't want to beat myself up later on for not trying to stop that. I'm no fan of Hillary, but the worst I see with her is that we will tread water and go nowhere at all for the next four years. I'd prefer a waste of space president over a terror.

Given our Electoral College system, your reasoning only holds in battleground states. In a state dominated by Trumpeteers, a vote for Clinton may as well go to a third-party, and vice-versa.

I will hold my nose and for Clinton if Texas somehow becomes a battleground state. Otherwise I will vote Johnson, both to raise the Libertarian profile and to add my voice to those telling the two major parties that their offerings are unacceptable and they'd best change them.

[AFTT47]

I definitely agree with you to a point. I would absolutely love third parties to be a choice because the two-party system keeps failing us more every time.

I have something keeping me from falling in step with you though. I hate to fall back on the "you're throwing your vote away" argument there, but that is also true to some level by going with the third party vote. If both major candidates were entirely equal in how bad they were, I wouldn't care about wasting my vote to make the third party look better. I've done that before, but this year is different. Trump as president is going to make my personal life a living nightmare and I don't want to beat myself up later on for not trying to stop that. I'm no fan of Hillary, but the worst I see with her is that we will tread water and go nowhere at all for the next four years. I'd prefer a waste of space president over a terror.

Given our Electoral College system, your reasoning only holds in battleground states. In a state dominated by Trumpeteers, a vote for Clinton may as well go to a third-party, and vice-versa.

I will hold my nose and for Clinton if Texas somehow becomes a battleground state. Otherwise I will vote Johnson, both to raise the Libertarian profile and to add my voice to those telling the two major parties that their offerings are unacceptable and they'd best change them.

Thump, I love you man. I'm fucking drunk right now so there's that but you're reasoning is so practical and so like my own. Of course I'm reaLLY FUVCKING DRUNK BUT WE'LL NOT GO THERE.

There is a time to use your vote to take a stand and a time to recognize that you better use it more pragmatically.

I voted for Ronald Reagan twice and for the elder Bush once. I voted Republican eaRLY ON because I saw the Democrats as dangerously weak against the Soviet threat. That threat lessened after Gorbachev and shit. Then the elder Bush brushed off climate change in Rio in 1991 or so. I found this irresponsible and decided to vote for Ross Perot. Then I watched the debates and was blown away by Bill Clinton. I still voted for Perot (to send a message that I heard his cry for fiscal responsibility) but only after the polls made it clear that Clinton would win. If there was any doubt, I would have stuffed my Perot vote and voted for Bill Clinton.

The bottom line is that there is a time and place for "protest votes." The pragmatic (rational) person will carefully analyze the situation and decide whether the protest is more important than riskihg electing a dangerous nut like Trump. The rational person says' no.

[Jesster]

Given our Electoral College system, your reasoning only holds in battleground states. In a state dominated by Trumpeteers, a vote for Clinton may as well go to a third-party, and vice-versa.

I will hold my nose and for Clinton if Texas somehow becomes a battleground state. Otherwise I will vote Johnson, both to raise the Libertarian profile and to add my voice to those telling the two major parties that their offerings are unacceptable and they'd best change them.

Thump, I love you man. I'm fucking drunk right now so there's that but you're reasoning is so practical and so like my own. Of course I'm reaLLY FUVCKING DRUNK BUT WE'LL NOT GO THERE.

There is a time to use your vote to take a stand and a time to recognize that you better use it more pragmatically.

I voted for Ronald Reagan twice and for the elder Bush once. I voted Republican eaRLY ON because I saw the Democrats as dangerously weak against the Soviet threat. That threat lessened after Gorbachev and shit. Then the elder Bush brushed off climate change in Rio in 1991 or so. I found this irresponsible and decided to vote for Ross Perot. Then I watched the debates and was blown away by Bill Clinton. I still voted for Perot (to send a message that I heard his cry for fiscal responsibility) but only after the polls made it clear that Clinton would win. If there was any doubt, I would have stuffed my Perot vote and voted for Bill Clinton.

The bottom line is that there is a time and place for "protest votes." The pragmatic (rational) person will carefully analyze the situation and decide whether the protest is more important than riskihg electing a dangerous nut like Trump. The rational person says' no.

So I'm not taken the wrong way, I want to clarify that this was pretty much my point as well. I'm just not convinced that this is the time to go for that protest vote yet. I could be convinced otherwise, but I haven't been yet. We'll see.

[Minimalist]

WhIle the 3d party fans dream their dreams of glory let's see what the Orange Baboon is up to now.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/journali...the-media/

Journalists report increased threats and harassment at rallies as Trump declares war on ‘the media’

Welcome to 'Murrica where Drumpf's S.A. does his bidding.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...-5952.html



Meet the Greater of Two Evils.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Given our Electoral College system, your reasoning only holds in battleground states. In a state dominated by Trumpeteers, a vote for Clinton may as well go to a third-party, and vice-versa.

I will hold my nose and for Clinton if Texas somehow becomes a battleground state. Otherwise I will vote Johnson, both to raise the Libertarian profile and to add my voice to those telling the two major parties that their offerings are unacceptable and they'd best change them.

Thump, I love you man. I'm fucking drunk right now so there's that but you're reasoning is so practical and so like my own. Of course I'm reaLLY FUVCKING DRUNK BUT WE'LL NOT GO THERE.

There is a time to use your vote to take a stand and a time to recognize that you better use it more pragmatically.

I voted for Ronald Reagan twice and for the elder Bush once. I voted Republican eaRLY ON because I saw the Democrats as dangerously weak against the Soviet threat. That threat lessened after Gorbachev and shit. Then the elder Bush brushed off climate change in Rio in 1991 or so. I found this irresponsible and decided to vote for Ross Perot. Then I watched the debates and was blown away by Bill Clinton. I still voted for Perot (to send a message that I heard his cry for fiscal responsibility) but only after the polls made it clear that Clinton would win. If there was any doubt, I would have stuffed my Perot vote and voted for Bill Clinton.

The bottom line is that there is a time and place for "protest votes." The pragmatic (rational) person will carefully analyze the situation and decide whether the protest is more important than riskihg electing a dangerous nut like Trump. The rational person says' no.

Dear god, you're "I love you" drunk! Before you crash out, brotha, drink two eight-ounce glasses of water, and take two aspirins -- seriously, you love me even more tomorrow morning.

Votes, like any other expression of opinion, have different meanings based on their context.

What pisses me off is this idea that "I've got to vote for one of these two, and only them, for my vote to count." Just because your preference didn't win does not mean your vote didn't count, and just because you picked a winner doesn't mean you get a Brownie Button. And just because you voted for another party entirely doesn't mean it was insignificant. The two majors track voting patterns and will see a shift to third-parties as a threat. At that point they will either 1) do nothing, 2) take direct action against the threat (as they have for years now, by rigging the debate system so that others are rarely allowed in), or 3) change their positions to accommodate shifting voter preferences.

2) is already a fact. 1) will probably not happen, because they are jealous of their power and will not share it except with each other. But if it does happen, voter alienation will rise until an alternative is viable. It has happened before; it can happen again. 3) is highly unlikely, but it offers a slim hope for a more-responsive government.

Go grab some rest now, bud. Remember, two glasses of water and a couple aspirin!

[Thumpalumpacus]

WhIle the 3d party fans dream their dreams of glory

Mischaracterize much?

Just because your generation bit the hook doesn't mean that ours is doomed ... and it doesn't mean you should be so proud of your failure.

The system is broken. Quit defending it.