2016 Presidential Election

[Tea Ess]

On the other hand, your single vote for one of the two main candidates will not make a significant difference either. Even if the election did come down to a single vote, it would be close enough to be considered a tie and have to be decided through some other means I probably don't understand. But people still vote, because they have a small opportunity to change the government and want their voice to be heard.

Voting third party isn't so much actually believing that your candidate will win, it's putting your tiny vote behind someone who shares more of your views and making a minute change in the election results, and maybe making a slight difference in the long term. If other people make the same decision, it can make a larger difference.

Just for example, say I share 30% of Trump's views, 40% of Clinton's, and 75% of a third party candidate's. I can make a tiny difference and choose between two people I don't agree with on much, or make a tiny difference and pick someone that is more in line with what I believe. My candidate probably won't win, but it is possible, if enough people are unsatisfied with the other candidates, that the third party will get more attention, and maybe even make lasting changes in the political process/atmosphere.

[TigerShadow]

Voting third party isn't so much actually believing that your candidate will win, it's putting your tiny vote behind someone who shares more of your views and making a minute change in the election results, and maybe making a slight difference in the long term. If other people make the same decision, it can make a larger difference.

This, basically.

If voting for a winning candidate is all you care about, then you are representative of everything that is wrong with American politics, where victory is greater than principle.

Who exactly is gambling here?

Still you, who are willing to help put a despicable waste of human oxygen into office on the off-chance that he isn't saying what people want to hear just to get votes on this one issue—an issue on which, by the way, he also had a stance that you disagree with until suspiciously recently, and an issue on which the President has much less sway than he or she has on foreign policy and the control of the military. But hey, if you want to be a part of a voting bloc that throws away morality for a slim chance at victory on one issue over which Congress has more control anyway, more power to you.

[Pound Foolish]

Voting third party isn't so much actually believing that your candidate will win, it's putting your tiny vote behind someone who shares more of your views and making a minute change in the election results, and maybe making a slight difference in the long term.

What is the difference? Still waiting for someone to tell me.

or make a tiny difference and pick someone that is more in line with what I believe.

What is the difference?

This, basically.

So you agree voting for a third party makes a difference. What is the difference?

I asked you to tell me which programs or policies have been put through or stopped due to the pressure you mentioned resulting from third party voting. If third party voting makes a difference then that's interesting, maybe I will vote third party. First though, please show how it makes a difference.

[SirWhit]

SirWhit rant coming here. Rudeness to follow.

I have absolutely no respect for you if you support Donald Trump. The man is an obnoxious, bigoted, sociopathic liar who will say any dang thing he needs to in order to get elected. His plans are unviable and will cost the US $11 trillion in debt by 2026, according to the Tax Policy Center. When asked for details on his proposals, he just puffs up his ego, says something vague but tough, and basks in the applause.

And his rallies. Musn't forget those. He pretty much condones people beating up protestors at his rally, offers to pay legal fees for a man who did do that, is that someone who you want as President?

His tenous at best pro life positions have already been covered, I won't bother.

And his infamous wall. That's impractical and can't be done without seizing land from private owners. Sounds like small, conservative government to me!! /s He's also advocated waterboarding and other forms of interrogation that are considered torture, and basically has said the military will do what he says and break the law because...he's Trump!!!!! How awesome! Of course, we musn't forget to talk about his wonderful plan to somehow round up and deport millions of illegal immigrants in an efficient manner and start a registry for muslims!

Bottom line, if you support Trump, you are at best misguided and at worst an idiot. His plans are unworkable, and who even knows if he's actually conservative or not?

Rant over.

[Pound Foolish]

My gosh, if you're addressing me, I'm puzzled. You don't need to tell me Trump is beyond awful, you know I know that, yeesh. That you are even trying to convince me his plans are bad shows when I say I'll vote for Trump show you're evidently assuming a lot. Of course his plans are bad, duh, duh, duh.

If he becomes the candidate, then I'm stuck. I'm not sure why you people seem to be acting as if it's my fault I'll be stuck. If he's the candidate, the only other option will be Hillary. So far, no one has shown there are other options. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what voting third party does. I don't know for a fact it makes no difference, (though I'm pretty sure) as this is my first election. If it makes a difference then fine, I'm waiting for someone to explain what that difference is.

I will repeat. The issue that's deciding for me is murder. Should people be murdered. Well, no, they shouldn't. I really can't vote third party if I believe it's at the cost of human life.

Seriously, look. The choice is one person is for killing people, the other choice is someone who at least claims not to be. Which is the better choice?

If Hillary were in favor of pulling random people out of their homes and shooting them in the streets and Trump claimed not to be, despite being a sociopath, would you have a different position?

Would you say, "Trump claims not to be in favor of having people shot but he only very recently took on that opinion, he'll probably change it"?

If so, then isn't that a little extreme? Is there any issue that's worth shooting random citizens?

If not, then aren't you valuing born people above unborn?

PS, I am confused by your position, Blitz. Either Rubio or Trump? In all seriousness, are you joking? How in heck are those options equal? Trump must not be the nominee at all costs.

[Eleventh Doctor]

If you're against murder and for the dignity of human life then a vote for Trump is just as bad as a vote for Hillary. Trump has made it clear he will bring back wide scale waterboarding and torture. He has said he will kill the families of terrorists. He advocates violence against anyone opposed to him. He pays the legal fees of anyone charged with assault at his rallies.He defends his campaign manager against charges of assaulting a reporter. He has said he will make journalist who disagree with him disappear.

So if your focus is so narrow as you will vote for anyone who "might" be pro-life that you are willing to ignore Trump's blatant disregard for human life and dignity then go right ahead.

[SirWhit]

I'm not adressing you PF. It was a general message to anyone here who supports Trump.

[Miss Friendship]

What if someone blindly and unknowingly follows Trump because their friend advised them to? Are they still all the things you called them? @SW

[SirWhit]

Then they're misguided, like I said.

"at best misguided and at worst an idiot"

[Jimmy Barclay]

Hmmmmm, interesting topic. I'm in full agreement with PF here. If it comes down to the lesser of two evils, I feel it's our duty as Americans to make that tough choice, and attempt to do what's right for the existence of our country and it's freedoms-whatever that choice may entail. Sitting on your hands and pouting, refusing to vote, or voting on some worthless third party that has no shot, is childish, and irresponsible. None of chose to be put in this position of choosing between two monsters, that's the thing no one gets. It's like "Welll, since you would suggest voting for Trump, you're a misguiding bigot" Ummm, noo, we're Americans presented with a lousy presidential race. If you want to give up on your country and "Run to Canada" feel free, join the rest of conforming society and leave the proud Americans who have fought for their freedoms and rights to stand up and defend them again. Rant: Over.

[Pound Foolish]

Yes, I'm very aware Trump is a poor option. Again, no one needs to convince me of that. What needs to happen is for someone to show I have other options. Oh I don't know, maybe you're right. Maybe I really can't vote for Trump. But if I don't, what exactly do I do?

So far, from what I've seen, I can try to choose the lesser evil or I can do something that's about as useful as going mini golfing.

If I'm wrong, once again, I'm asking somebody to show me. What policies have been stopped, put through or at least changed due to pressure from third party voters. What presidents have been influenced by third party voters. I really and truly want to be informed. I don't pretend to know much at all about this, so somebody please tell me what I'm missing.

I'm not adressing you PF. It was a general message to anyone here who supports Trump.

Gotcha, sorry, thanks for clarifying.

@ Jimmy Barclay, I do see what you're saying, certainly.

[Eleventh Doctor]

That does nothing to address the fact that by voting for Trump you are doing just as much harm to our country as voting for Hillary. There are things other than vote for two awful candidates, you can get involved in local politics and make sure that the person representing you in Congress will be able to stand up to whoever gets elected but voting for either candidate is an awful decision.

[Pound Foolish]

So... what are you saying? It doesn't even matter if I vote third party? My gosh Good Dr., you do realize one of these two is going to be president, don't you? Yes I'll vote for someone in Congress I think can try and take on them, sure. That being said, we can't make our own options. There are only two potential winners. By voting for them, you do no harm. They are going to be elected no matter what one does. Unless you're aware of something that can stop them? The media has been trying to stop Trump nonstop with all their might and if anything it may have helped him.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I'm saying don't vote for an awful person, that's all. By voting for them you are endorsing them and normally if you just disagreed with them that'd be fine but Trump is going to do some truly awful things as president and you shouldn't connect yourself in anyway with those actions.

[Bethany Shepard]

Let me insert myself to bring you a laugh.

[Woody]

Well, folks, Donald Trump has a 50%* chance of becoming President. Canada is looking pretty cool right now (pun intended).

* Yes, I know that's not an accurate percentage, so shoot me.

[TigerShadow]

Meh. If he wins, he may very well wind up impeached within his first hundred days. If Hillary wins (because looking at the numbers and name recognition, at this point, excepting the event of divine intervention, Sanders doesn't have a prayer), she probably will be as well, if it turns out that Congress decides to hold her accountable for the things she does and has done. I'm just irritated that this trainwreck is the first Presidential election I'm going to vote in. At this point, I'm voting either third party or "none of the above" stapled to the candidates' foreheads.

The way I see it, the problems we're facing as a country are a macrocosm of the problems that the Alabama state government has been facing lately. (I would know, given that it's my home state and I keep up with the news fairly regularly.) "The people" have elected corrupt and greedy politicians, either because they're too lazy to be informed or because they swallow every buzzword they hear and care more about what politicians think on social issues on which they have little impact than on issues that are, politically speaking, far more important. "The people" soak up sensationalized news like sponges, and they don't care about actually being even tangentially informed on the issues or asking questions about what they're being force-fed. "The people" think that an establishment candidate would be the end of the world, and so they elect either the most obvious representation of the establishment in the field or a vain, blustering, petulant, racist, misogynistic bully and sit inside their echo chambers, refusing to ask even the most basic questions. As far as I'm concerned, we've dug our graves, and now we're going to lie in them—and we're still going to complain, not realizing the fact that we're still holding the shovels.

Anyway, it's 2:30 in the morning and I'm salty.

[NinjaHunter]

"The people" think that an establishment candidate would be the end of the world, and so they elect either the most obvious representation of the establishment in the field or a vain, blustering, petulant, racist, misogynistic bully

"The people" are always told that an establishment (read "moderate") candidate is required to appeal to the other side. For the Right at least, this usually results in lackluster results and the other side getting their way in the end. This frustration and perceived helplessness has given rise to an environment where Trump and his ilk can find an audience. The establishment is corrupt; this does not make the alternative any less corrupt.

In all of it, freedom of choice is being replaced by freedom from want or threat. When choice is thoroughly replaced by security Christians will suffer the full brunt of the world that killed Jesus. I for one do not look forward to this eventuality, no matter how much "progress" we think we've made.

...I still hope for the continuation of the American way of life. We as a nation have corrected some of our injustices, and we have expanded our concept of democracy, but at a price. It would be marvelous to know that these changes did not end up spoiling traditional liberties and tolerance for diverse individualism that mark us as Americans.

-Bill Ruger


Etc., etc.: I, Ninjahunter

[Eleventh Doctor]

In all of it, freedom of choice is being replaced by freedom from want or threat. When choice is thoroughly replaced by security Christians will suffer the full brunt of the world that killed Jesus. I for one do not look forward to this eventuality, no matter how much "progress" we think we've made.

Both of the remaining candidates are professing Christians, we don't need to debate whether they actually are or not but the point remains that in 2016 we just had the first non-Christian candidate win a Presidential primary (Bernie Sanders). Meanwhile in the Middle East the ancient Church is being destroyed and Christians are being forced to flee their homes but all of the candidates you support refuse to help them or let them into our country. So stop talking about persecution in this country until you step up and help Christians who are really being persecuted.

[Blitz]

In all of it, freedom of choice is being replaced by freedom from want or threat. When choice is thoroughly replaced by security Christians will suffer the full brunt of the world that killed Jesus. I for one do not look forward to this eventuality, no matter how much "progress" we think we've made.

Both of the remaining candidates are professing Christians, we don't need to debate whether they actually are or not but the point remains that in 2016 we just had the first non-Christian candidate win a Presidential primary (Bernie Sanders). Meanwhile in the Middle East the ancient Church is being destroyed and Christians are being forced to flee their homes but all of the candidates you support refuse to help them or let them into our country. So stop talking about persecution in this country until you step up and help Christians who are really being persecuted.

*Shrugs*
People don't see the world in a balanced outlook usually. Humans are beings of extremes.