logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Voting for the lesser of two evils?, ...or are you voting third party?
Who are you voting for?
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total Votes: 11
Guests cannot vote 
JohnfrmCleveland
post Oct 4 2016, 08:57 PM
Post #1


********
Master Debater

Sponsor
September 2009

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,459
Member No.: 8,090
Joined: November-1-07

From: Cleveland, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Like many of you, I'm not happy with either major-party candidate. So I thought it would be interesting to go through everybody's thought process on who they are voting for and, more importantly, why.

Trump's negatives, we are all familiar with. He's a bit nuts, a liar, and he has no real political track record to go on.

Clinton's negatives are more subjective. If you like Machiavellian politics, you might be OK with her running the country. (I don't.) I have been following Sanders' campaign, and by extension Jill Stein, since the beginning, so my news feeds have been full of anti-Hillary stuff, ranging from the things that can no longer be denied to the outlandish - and some things that were once thought outlandish, but have recently been clearly demonstrated (primary-fixing, etc.). The list is long, so I won't bring everything up in the initial post.

So, who are you voting for (or leaning toward), and why?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 13)
AuthorMusician
post Oct 4 2016, 10:23 PM
Post #2


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,355
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



So, who are you voting for (or leaning toward), and why?
I know that a lot of Sanders supporters don't like this take, but I've always been on the side of who can actually get stuff done as POTUS, which is Clinton. She has a lot of experience with staring down her opposition and handing them their arses in a sling, reminiscent of LBJ.

I'm assuming that Congress will remain in Republican control, but even if it doesn't, there are a lot of Democrats in Congress who need to get their butts kicked into gear.

On the international scene, Clinton actually knows most of the players from her years as Secretary of State. I can't wait to see Putin's face when she shows up at his door with this message: You thought Obama was bad; meet your muthah flucking new POTUS, arse wipe.

Or something to that effect.

It's only politics about the email, the primaries, the Benghazi crapola, the health flap and pretty much all criticism flung her way. Established white-guy conservative politicians have always hated her, and this is a big reason I want her in the White House. These geniuses (sarcasm) need quite a few come-to-Jesus meetings, and Clinton is the one to do it.

Sanders is just too easy to ignore. He's also too idealistic to bring about effective compromise, wanting instead to get the whole deal, and this means getting nothing. Obama got a poorly designed healthcare deal based on Romneycare, and so the system is failing. However, Clinton won't put up with the tricks that Republicans play. Will this mean we'll get a healthcare system that works? I don't know, but I do know her chances of pulling it off are way better than pretty much those of anybody else.

That's just one of many things I think she'll be better at than Obama or Sanders, not to mention Trump. So it's not the lesser of two evils to me. It's a clear choice.

Also, she's the Democratic nominee. I'd vote for Sanders, if he had made it, due to the Party platform. I'm just happier that it's Clinton. It'll be very interesting to have a former POTUS as FGOTUS, on top of (heh, what filthy minds y'all have) the first female POTUS.

If through some bizarre twist of fate Trump gets elected, it'll be interesting too. But that's just not going to happen. Why am I so certain of that? Don't know, other than the universe abhors a vacuum. One huge, luxurious vacuum, best one in the world.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnfrmCleveland
post Oct 5 2016, 12:23 AM
Post #3


********
Master Debater

Sponsor
September 2009

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,459
Member No.: 8,090
Joined: November-1-07

From: Cleveland, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Something is amiss with the poll. It says three votes, but there is only one (for Trump), and I voted for Jill Stein. If you are voting, please check before and after and tell me if it worked right.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Oct 5 2016, 02:04 AM
Post #4


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,312
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



I was leaning towards Gary Johnson, but he had another Aleppo moment. I was willing to write off the first one...stuff happens (and Syria would have been a better reference for that particular issue, not Aleppo...I had to stop and think about it for a second), but then he had another one. It's not 'I can see Russia from my house', but it's closer to that than I would like.

But I am more aligned with the Libertarian platform, so probably still go that way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 5 2016, 11:19 AM
Post #5


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,355
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 4 2016, 10:04 PM) *
I was leaning towards Gary Johnson, but he had another Aleppo moment. I was willing to write off the first one...stuff happens (and Syria would have been a better reference for that particular issue, not Aleppo...I had to stop and think about it for a second), but then he had another one. It's not 'I can see Russia from my house', but it's closer to that than I would like.

But I am more aligned with the Libertarian platform, so probably still go that way.

I felt the same way in 2000 but came to my senses about this time of year for that election season. I've never felt remorse for having gone with Gore, and in point of fact, began looking more at party platforms than individual candidates for making my voting decisions.

Back then we got GWB, despite the will of the people. The likelihood of that happening again is very low with a split SCOTUS and the probability that Trump will continue to mess up, but what if it looks too close to call in November? Still willing to bow out of this fight by voting Libertarian?

That's a question directed toward a more general concept, not you in particular, Hobbes. I do see a danger of the politically green millennials sticking with Johnson, if for no better reason than the Libertarian stance on legalizing recreational weed. If Trump wins, that will be a big reason why. Of course the other big reason was demonstrated in last night's VP debate: ignoring the 500-pound orangutan in the race, which was Pence's strategy.

La-la-la-la, ain't no such thing as Trump. He never dissed anyone; YOU are the disrespectful ones!!!!!! HE NEVER SAID THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's very, extremely, quintessentially pathetic to witness what the GOP has become. It's also highly dangerous, like sitting on a pressure cooker bomb. Hopefully Trump will continue to crumble, but so many have ridden similar waves into power . . . like a horrific dream.

I would not be surprised. Worried to distraction, but not surprised.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnfrmCleveland
post Oct 5 2016, 11:50 AM
Post #6


********
Master Debater

Sponsor
September 2009

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,459
Member No.: 8,090
Joined: November-1-07

From: Cleveland, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 5 2016, 07:19 AM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 4 2016, 10:04 PM) *
I was leaning towards Gary Johnson, but he had another Aleppo moment. I was willing to write off the first one...stuff happens (and Syria would have been a better reference for that particular issue, not Aleppo...I had to stop and think about it for a second), but then he had another one. It's not 'I can see Russia from my house', but it's closer to that than I would like.

But I am more aligned with the Libertarian platform, so probably still go that way.

I felt the same way in 2000 but came to my senses about this time of year for that election season. I've never felt remorse for having gone with Gore, and in point of fact, began looking more at party platforms than individual candidates for making my voting decisions.

Back then we got GWB, despite the will of the people. The likelihood of that happening again is very low with a split SCOTUS and the probability that Trump will continue to mess up, but what if it looks too close to call in November? Still willing to bow out of this fight by voting Libertarian?



I don't consider voting third party bowing out of the fight. It's a fight that has to be fought eventually, and it's arguably more important than the normal squabbles we have every four years about which of our two major parties is better, Republican or Republican Lite.

I had my fill of that squabble this year, when the party I normally align with slanted (or just plain fixed) the primaries. I can't really think of anything worse for a democracy than unfair elections. Plus, Hillary is as close to a Republican as one can get on the important issues, so I really couldn't stomach what was getting crammed down my throat this time. With any other opponent, she would be getting crushed, and rightfully so. She's not deserving of the office.

*************************

Aleppo Moment #3: Gary Johnson: I can't start wars with places if I can't find them on a map. (Not an exact quote, but they got the gist of it correct.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 5 2016, 01:00 PM
Post #7


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,355
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(JohnfrmCleveland @ Oct 5 2016, 07:50 AM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 5 2016, 07:19 AM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 4 2016, 10:04 PM) *
I was leaning towards Gary Johnson, but he had another Aleppo moment. I was willing to write off the first one...stuff happens (and Syria would have been a better reference for that particular issue, not Aleppo...I had to stop and think about it for a second), but then he had another one. It's not 'I can see Russia from my house', but it's closer to that than I would like.

But I am more aligned with the Libertarian platform, so probably still go that way.

I felt the same way in 2000 but came to my senses about this time of year for that election season. I've never felt remorse for having gone with Gore, and in point of fact, began looking more at party platforms than individual candidates for making my voting decisions.

Back then we got GWB, despite the will of the people. The likelihood of that happening again is very low with a split SCOTUS and the probability that Trump will continue to mess up, but what if it looks too close to call in November? Still willing to bow out of this fight by voting Libertarian?



I don't consider voting third party bowing out of the fight. It's a fight that has to be fought eventually, and it's arguably more important than the normal squabbles we have every four years about which of our two major parties is better, Republican or Republican Lite.

I had my fill of that squabble this year, when the party I normally align with slanted (or just plain fixed) the primaries. I can't really think of anything worse for a democracy than unfair elections. Plus, Hillary is as close to a Republican as one can get on the important issues, so I really couldn't stomach what was getting crammed down my throat this time. With any other opponent, she would be getting crushed, and rightfully so. She's not deserving of the office.

*************************

Aleppo Moment #3: Gary Johnson: I can't start wars with places if I can't find them on a map. (Not an exact quote, but they got the gist of it correct.)

That's fine, since as I wrote, the concept is for a more general idea than an individual's voting choice. However, I do need to point out that equating Clinton with Trump is not right, as in being wrong.

Examples: Clinton knows that nukes can't be used; Trump did not and very well might still think that we should. Clinton knows that racism is still a problem; Trump does not and never will. Clinton knows that young adults have enormous problems with establishing themselves; Trump does not with his silver spoon up his nose (maybe unfair but still funny). Clinton knows that cutting taxes for the middle classes and raising them for the upper classes needs to be done; Trump only pays it lip service.

Another thing to consider is Pence. It's likely that he'll actually be running things, similar to Cheney leading GWB into Iraq and torture. Kaine, and more significantly the Democratic Party, knows the VP should never do the leading, except when absolutely necessary--as laid out in our Constitution. Break the ties and become Prez if the current one dies or is assassinated. Got experience with that.

Given the history of the GOP with GWB's admin and Trump's thinking as demonstrated by his talking, equating Clinton to Trump is worse than apples to oranges. It's apple juice to hemlock tea.

So even if Clinton represents business as usual, it's a whole lot better than the alternative. I don't think it will be business as usual with Clinton and actually one of the best things that could happen to our country at this juncture of national and world issues.

Note also that Sanders has a strong voice in the Party. How can that happen if it's so crooked? Contrast this with the Bush family's voice in the GOP. It's so bad that they've dropped out and will likely vote for Clinton.

I am very interested in how having two presidential forces in the White House will turn out, and I'm expecting great things from it. With Trump and the GOP, I expect more war and worldwide depression. With Johnson and the Libertarian Party, I expect nothing but the sounds of sucking teeth. The Greens aren't even on the radar, probably because ecological problems are on their ways to resolution via alternative energy and the proven superiority of electrical motors over internal combustion engines. Next will be the superiority of electrical HVAC over methane. Also next will be locally produced food and goods, as evidenced by the high overhead of shipping worldwide leading to bankruptcy.

But I jump farther ahead than people can see at this time. Nevertheless, Clinton does not equal Trump. She is far better. The Democratic Party is far better than the Republican. You know, if the future means anything other than Armageddon.

But go ahead and vote for Johnson. It's your choice and the choice of many others who find themselves hung up on the horns of political dilemma. Or don't vote at all, which I see as a viable choice this time as a protest. But that does drop the ball on local races, so writing-in some other name for POTUS strikes me as more appropriate and better than choosing Johnson.

What about writing-in Sanders for Prez? I suppose that doesn't work if the Party is the big problem. But still, swinging from Sanders to Johnson seems pretty extreme to me. Sort of like swinging from Democratic to Republican in 1980, maybe in the hope that the Rust Belt could be saved. It didn't work out so well for those with that hope.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Oct 5 2016, 05:06 PM
Post #8


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,330
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(JohnfrmCleveland @ Oct 5 2016, 06:50 AM) *
I had my fill of that squabble this year, when the party I normally align with slanted (or just plain fixed) the primaries. I can't really think of anything worse for a democracy than unfair elections. Plus, Hillary is as close to a Republican as one can get on the important issues, so I really couldn't stomach what was getting crammed down my throat this time. With any other opponent, she would be getting crushed, and rightfully so. She's not deserving of the office.


Yep. I know Republicans who are voting for Hillary because they believe a Trump presidency will be the absolute end of the Republican party.
They are willing to take Hillary over Trump.

The Republican party has never been the same since Sarah Palin ran as VP.
Really, if Trump were a mute he'd be better off. But he just keeps talking.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Oct 5 2016, 05:07 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnfrmCleveland
post Oct 5 2016, 06:16 PM
Post #9


********
Master Debater

Sponsor
September 2009

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,459
Member No.: 8,090
Joined: November-1-07

From: Cleveland, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 5 2016, 09:00 AM) *
That's fine, since as I wrote, the concept is for a more general idea than an individual's voting choice. However, I do need to point out that equating Clinton with Trump is not right, as in being wrong.

Examples: Clinton knows that nukes can't be used; Trump did not and very well might still think that we should. Clinton knows that racism is still a problem; Trump does not and never will. Clinton knows that young adults have enormous problems with establishing themselves; Trump does not with his silver spoon up his nose (maybe unfair but still funny). Clinton knows that cutting taxes for the middle classes and raising them for the upper classes needs to be done; Trump only pays it lip service.

Another thing to consider is Pence. It's likely that he'll actually be running things, similar to Cheney leading GWB into Iraq and torture. Kaine, and more significantly the Democratic Party, knows the VP should never do the leading, except when absolutely necessary--as laid out in our Constitution. Break the ties and become Prez if the current one dies or is assassinated. Got experience with that.

Given the history of the GOP with GWB's admin and Trump's thinking as demonstrated by his talking, equating Clinton to Trump is worse than apples to oranges. It's apple juice to hemlock tea.


I didn't think that I was equating the two, I was just asking something along the lines of, "If the lesser of two evils is really, really evil, should we cast a vote for that evil, or try for real change?" Or, in the alternative, "Which is worse for the country, a buffoon or Machiavelli?" I've lived through buffoons running the country, but until this year I at least thought that elections were, on the whole, pretty fair.

Thank goodness for Wikileaks, eh?

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 5 2016, 09:00 AM) *
So even if Clinton represents business as usual, it's a whole lot better than the alternative. I don't think it will be business as usual with Clinton and actually one of the best things that could happen to our country at this juncture of national and world issues.


I know that people envision Hillary as standing up to Putin, but she never met a war she didn't like. She also hasn't met a business interest that she didn't like. Which is why I doubt that she has any intention of stacking the Court to overturn Citizens United. And with the benefit of hindsight, Bill wasn't exactly a champion of fairness, either.

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 5 2016, 09:00 AM) *
Note also that Sanders has a strong voice in the Party. How can that happen if it's so crooked? Contrast this with the Bush family's voice in the GOP. It's so bad that they've dropped out and will likely vote for Clinton.


What? Bernie (who speaks for the Progressive wing, which is a LOT of voters), has zero say. Hillary merely adopted his platform in an attempt to win votes. It's only temporary. Just this week, when it came out that Hillary disparaged Sanders' voters and Bernie had the temerity to say he was disappointed, she cancelled her joint appearances with him. And almost every Bernie voter I know (which is a lot, thanks to Facebook) is not going to heed his call to vote for Hillary.

I don't care what the Bushes are doing. Hillary stands for everything they stood for - fracking, war, oligarchy, you name it. If anything, they are jealous of the money the Clintons have raked in from Wall Street. And they are probably kicking themselves that they didn't think of using the State Department to funnel money into the Bush Foundation.

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 5 2016, 09:00 AM) *
I am very interested in how having two presidential forces in the White House will turn out, and I'm expecting great things from it. With Trump and the GOP, I expect more war and worldwide depression. With Johnson and the Libertarian Party, I expect nothing but the sounds of sucking teeth. The Greens aren't even on the radar, probably because ecological problems are on their ways to resolution via alternative energy and the proven superiority of electrical motors over internal combustion engines. Next will be the superiority of electrical HVAC over methane. Also next will be locally produced food and goods, as evidenced by the high overhead of shipping worldwide leading to bankruptcy.


The Greens are on the radar enough to have some dirty election tricks thrown their way.

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 5 2016, 09:00 AM) *
But I jump farther ahead than people can see at this time. Nevertheless, Clinton does not equal Trump. She is far better. The Democratic Party is far better than the Republican. You know, if the future means anything other than Armageddon.

But go ahead and vote for Johnson. It's your choice and the choice of many others who find themselves hung up on the horns of political dilemma. Or don't vote at all, which I see as a viable choice this time as a protest. But that does drop the ball on local races, so writing-in some other name for POTUS strikes me as more appropriate and better than choosing Johnson.

What about writing-in Sanders for Prez? I suppose that doesn't work if the Party is the big problem. But still, swinging from Sanders to Johnson seems pretty extreme to me. Sort of like swinging from Democratic to Republican in 1980, maybe in the hope that the Rust Belt could be saved. It didn't work out so well for those with that hope.


Johnson isn't smart enough to be President. Plus, he has some disastrous (economic) ideas of his own. He's only getting votes because a fair number of people call themselves Libertarian, but in my experience, Libertarians are philosophically all over the map. Some are anarchists, some are disaffected Republicans, some just want drugs legalized.

The Greens actually have a very reasonable platform. It's about 90% in sync with Sanders', with an emphasis on, of course, the ecology. I was hoping that Bernie would go there and start an immediately viable Progressive Party. Maybe he was afraid of getting droned once Hillary got elected...




QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 5 2016, 01:06 PM) *
QUOTE(JohnfrmCleveland @ Oct 5 2016, 06:50 AM) *
I had my fill of that squabble this year, when the party I normally align with slanted (or just plain fixed) the primaries. I can't really think of anything worse for a democracy than unfair elections. Plus, Hillary is as close to a Republican as one can get on the important issues, so I really couldn't stomach what was getting crammed down my throat this time. With any other opponent, she would be getting crushed, and rightfully so. She's not deserving of the office.


Yep. I know Republicans who are voting for Hillary because they believe a Trump presidency will be the absolute end of the Republican party.
They are willing to take Hillary over Trump.


That might be the silver lining if Trump manages to win. Both parties need to split into factions that actually represent the voters.

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 5 2016, 01:06 PM) *
The Republican party has never been the same since Sarah Palin ran as VP.
Really, if Trump were a mute he'd be better off. But he just keeps talking.


McCain/Palin isn't looking so crazy now. They would be killing Clinton/Kaine, I think. The trick, I guess, is to keep your crazy at the bottom of the ticket.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 6 2016, 01:43 PM
Post #10


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,355
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



I know that people envision Hillary as standing up to Putin, but she never met a war she didn't like. She also hasn't met a business interest that she didn't like. Which is why I doubt that she has any intention of stacking the Court to overturn Citizens United. And with the benefit of hindsight, Bill wasn't exactly a champion of fairness, either.

JFC, looks to me you're basing this take on GOP talking points. She voted to fund what became the Iraq adventure of the neocons, a very dickish bait-switch from the GOP. But was that an indication that HRC wanted that to happen? I didn't see it that way, but Republican leadership has crowed a lot about it. Therefore, I can conclude that you're agreeing with them.

Perhaps you're thinking of the Libyan War. Oh wait, it never was a war. Perhaps the Iranian War? Nope, that was McCain's desire that has not been realized, also from the war-mongering GOP. Maybe the first Gulf War of 1990-91 before you ever heard of HRC? I'm pretty sure she wasn't a hawk for Vietnam.

Maybe ask yourself this question: Why has Sanders joined forces with Clinton? Could it be that the Democratic Party is his best chance at getting some of his ideas realized? That's my take on it, especially when he joined the Party to make his POTUS run. And I, as with probably most Democrats, welcome his ideas. Our Party has been dragged to the right by an overly aggressive GOP for way too long. And their dancing with the devil has resulted in Trump, along with quite a few entertaining clowns like Palin.

I agree that a lot of progressive changes need to be made. However, first Trump needs to be trounced in order for the GOP to do some actual soul-searching. If the election comes out too close, that probably won't happen, and the next one they put up will likely be even worse than the orangutan. Maybe a smooth one like Pence. That wouldn't be good at all for progressive ideas.

On the other hand, soul-searching is what Democrats always do and why the Party is better equipped for handling the rapid pace of changes in this country and the world than any other party out there. It's also how the Party weathered Reagan and the subsequent reactionary GOP that used to refer to us as bleeding-heart liberals who can't make a buck. Seems that Party is still stuck on bad takes of reality, as evidenced by their continuing disdain for liberals who do know how to make a buck. Or is it disdain for those who make a buck honestly and willingly give back to society? If so, that's pretty darn sick.

Ergo, Trump and crew. It had to happen. It needs to be stopped. It'd be good to stop it definitively this time, but that will probably take several more election cycles involving the resurgence of backward idealism. Then I'll be dead, and to me it'll be moot. Younger people have more to gain and more to lose, so carry on. But don't give up. This is a very ancient fight that will always exist on this planet, this plane of existence. Trump just happens to be the focus for now.

Bill Clinton wasn't a fair politician? And Sanders is? That ignores every political reality that actually exists. FDR wasn't fair. Lincoln wasn't fair. It's like saying the sky isn't fair as a monster hurricane invades the East Coast. So I'll not spend time with a detailed rebuttal.

This post has been edited by AuthorMusician: Oct 6 2016, 01:44 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Oct 6 2016, 10:22 PM
Post #11


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



So, who are you voting for (or leaning toward), and why?

I'm voting for Hillary. As long as I can remember 3rd party candidates have held up their noses at the lack of purity of the main stream candidates. Of course they are right but to be a viable candidate you have to sufficiently satisfy a large variety of constituencies, most of whom are thinking goodies for my group. So you look for a decent experienced manager with some pure ideas beyond the inevitable political pragmatics.

Bernie expressed some important thoughts. Giving everyone a free college education wasn't one of them. I thought on the whole he was a lot better than many of his followers. The pure pretensions of the impure just doesn't appeal to me.

It's Hillary versus Donald. That's reality. Even if she is only a C+ candidate that's a Grand Canyon's worth of difference between her and her D- opponent.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnfrmCleveland
post Oct 7 2016, 02:42 AM
Post #12


********
Master Debater

Sponsor
September 2009

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,459
Member No.: 8,090
Joined: November-1-07

From: Cleveland, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 6 2016, 06:22 PM) *
So, who are you voting for (or leaning toward), and why?

I'm voting for Hillary. As long as I can remember 3rd party candidates have held up their noses at the lack of purity of the main stream candidates. Of course they are right but to be a viable candidate you have to sufficiently satisfy a large variety of constituencies, most of whom are thinking goodies for my group. So you look for a decent experienced manager with some pure ideas beyond the inevitable political pragmatics.

Bernie expressed some important thoughts. Giving everyone a free college education wasn't one of them. I thought on the whole he was a lot better than many of his followers. The pure pretensions of the impure just doesn't appeal to me.

It's Hillary versus Donald. That's reality. Even if she is only a C+ candidate that's a Grand Canyon's worth of difference between her and her D- opponent.


Interesting article about voting for third parties...

How Not To Waste Your Vote: A Mathematical Analysis

"People voting out of fear of the worst candidate is a self-perpetuating cycle."

In a nutshell, voting third party is the most effective way to move platforms in the direction you prefer. Now, I wouldn't bet a nickel on Hillary actually following through on any of her newfound progressive positions, because the woman will literally say anything to get a vote. She has flipped on the TPP, lied about her allegiance to frackers, flipped on gay marriage, flipped on the pipeline,... the list goes on and on. But at least she is trying to appeal to progressives by adopting some of Bernie's positions. The threat of Dem votes going to the Greens and the Libertarians is very real this election. She failed to realize that she wasn't automatically going to get the support of everybody to her left, and now she is trying (not very hard) to win them over. But she is still putting most of her chips on the fact(?) that she isn't as bad as Trump.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Oct 7 2016, 06:20 AM
Post #13


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



The above link struck me as a pretty windy piece that could have been summed up in a single paragraph (With a little edited improvement). My take from it, with the proper qualifiers, was what I already understood. If it is in a state with a close election you vote for the better of the major candidates. Usually it's two; occasionally it's three. If it's not a close contest, say a poll of 8% or more difference for one candidate right before the election, and you prefer an unelectable third party candidate, vote for him or her or even write somebody in. That makes sense because it can potentially move the discussion in the future to where you want it to be

The clueless part of that link is to suggest that any vote for a winning or losing candidate in a close race is a wasted vote because it had no individual effect on the outcome. That's after the fact thinking. Also that doesn't take into account that you are modeling behavior for others. It is perfectly reasonable to ask the question of someone discounting a person's individual vote, "Suppose everybody thought like you did?" Like it or not you are modeling collective behavior.

I admire the hell out of Nader but if it can be established that he really did determine the outcome of the 2000 election then his candidacy did the country a disservice. Certainly his campaign rhetoric was to discount any important difference between Bush and Gore, which was ridiculous. The AGW challenge would be the most obvious example.

I will be a California voter which of course is where Hillary will be a shoe-in. I will nevertheless vote for her because I think she's the best of the four on the merits. Trump of course is ridiculous, Johnson is pretty much clueless on foreign policy and Stein appears to be a one trick pony who is going to phase out fossil fuel by 2030. Hey, I'm going to phase out fossil fuel by 2025. That's even better. Vote for me! flowers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 7 2016, 01:36 PM
Post #14


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,355
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Here's an excerpt from an op-ed written by a Sanders supporter who figured out why she should put her support into the Clinton camp:

QUOTE
As president, Trump and his brand of extremism would have more than a cultural outlet. Through their appointees, presidents have power in our everyday lives. Cabinet appointments and department hires run powerful federal agencies including the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, Department of Defense, State Department, Department of Interior and more. Trump and his campaign have mentioned these right-wing extremists as potential appointees: Rudy Giuliani, Joe Arpaio, Sarah Palin, Ben Carson, Chris Christie and Forrest Lucas, oil executive and animal rights opponent for Department of Interior. Perhaps scariest of all, Myron Ebell, a leading climate-change denier, is expected to head Trumpís EPA. Trumpís running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, is a fundamentalist Christian who pushed extreme anti-LGBT and anti-reproductive rights legislation as governor. With an administration like this, dissidents like Sanders supporters would have little hope of exerting any kind of influence.


This reminded me of James G. Watt, the end-times Christian put in charge of the Dept. of the Interior by Ronald Reagan. Watt opened a lot of federal land and coastal regions to development, meaning mining, drilling and logging. Trump has said that he'd end the war on coal, which is of course stupid because the availability of cheap methane is what's hurting the coal industry. Nevertheless, it's worth thinking about how appointees in a Trump admin could seriously mess up our country and very likely the world.

The writer, Annabel Clark, makes many of the same arguments I've made in support of Clinton:

QUOTE
I intend to work my heart out to elect Clinton and give Sanders and Warren the best chance at success in bringing about needed change in Washington.

Noam Chomsky called Trump ďalmost a death knell for the human speciesĒ in May, but it didnít sink in then. Now, though, I do see Trump as the dangerous intruder with a gun threatening America, and itís difficult to think about anything else with less than five weeks left to stop him. I do hope fellow Bernie supporters will join me in fighting off the intruder.


I simply acknowledge that those who find it impossible to support either major-league candidate could avoid the problem by writing-in their real choice.

Voting third party is another way out, but maybe before doing so, consider what a President Trump could do directly to you before anyone can stop him. Clark lays it out well.

But then there's the option to vote directly against Trump by voting directly for Clinton. Too bad that didn't happen enough during the 2000 election season.

This post has been edited by AuthorMusician: Oct 7 2016, 01:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: September 19th, 2018 - 01:01 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.