My Choice for President

[tango]

It is a "drather" vote... which is worse.. making your vote count against, more than for.

As one commentator I put it said, voting for "the lesser evil" is still a deliberate act in voting for an evil. Hence my increasing conviction that this election is the best time for as many as people as possible to vote third party. Staying home merely suggests the people don't care, but actively voting for someone else may swing the system enough to make even political types sit up and realise they are about to be thrown off the gravy train.

 

[MarkFL]

I struggle to come up with terms more charitable than "pathetic" when a country of over 300 million people fields two candidates whose main qualification for the highest office in the land is that they are not the other.

Any term more charitable than "pathetic" wouldn't actually capture the essence of it.

 

[visionary]

Voting for the "lessor evil" is a vote against a greater evil. No character in scripture was without the "lessor evil" aspect. Yet God chose the "lessor evil" Cyrus and called him His chosen.

 

[tango]

Voting for the "lessor evil" is a vote against a greater evil. No character in scripture was without the "lessor evil" aspect. Yet God chose the "lessor evil" Cyrus and called him His chosen.

True, but it still seems pretty pathetic for a country to field two candidates and present an option where you either vote for someone with flaws that would ordinarily disqualify them, for no reason other than because the other candidate has greater flaws, all the while being offered third parties and endless scare tactics that if you vote for someone you consider suitable you're wasting your vote and letting the greater evil in.

 

[visionary]

It is a dirty job but someone has to clean house. The corruption is almost complete. I would rather have a crass ballzy one who will stand up to crap and call it by name and do something about it, than a sold out who will only make things worse.

 

[MarkFL]

When I look upon the Trumpster, I only see crass ballzy.

 

[tango]

When I look upon the Trumpster, I only see crass ballzy.

I look at Trump and see a narcissistic egomaniac. Then I look at Clinton and see someone who shows catastrophically bad judgment and a propensity to lie at whatever level it takes to cover her tracks.

Yes, Trump appears to have said some pretty stupid stuff (his comments about the second amendment folks concern me greatly simply because, however much I disagree with Clinton, assassinating your opponents isn't the way we do things in the west). But from what I can see Trump has said a lot of stupid stuff and Clinton has done a lot of bad stuff. Hence, if I had to choose between the two, I'd choose Trump even if only on the basis that I'd rather have a crushed leg than a heart attack.

 

[Highlander]

One note, Tango, is that Trump was not calling for Hillary's assassination. His loud mouth cannot resist sarcasm and this was his way of referring to the political movement of the 2nd ammendment defense of a large group of people, including the NRA. He was referring to political pressure and not physical violence.

But, as long as we're talking in this vein, I would also remind everyone of what Hillary said in 2008 when she was running against Obama and starting to fall behind. She was asked by a reporter if she should just drop out of the race since Obama was well on his way to getting the nomination.

Hillary promptly dismissed this notion with an answer that was ignored by the media. In paraphrase, this is what she said: "My husband, Bill, was behind in the race when he was running for governor. In addition, Bobby Kennedy appeared to be on his way to the nomination in 1968, but then he was assassinated in June. And, since we are not yet in June, it will be foolish for me to drop out of the race when anything can still happen."

Hillary, as you can see, directly referred to the potential assassination of her political rival -- and the media had almost nothing to say about it. But, when Trump even loosely mentions the 2nd ammendment people, the media savages him all over in claiming he called for someone to assassinate Hillary with a gun.

It is always good to understand the exact context of things.

 

[tango]

One note, Tango, is that Trump was not calling for Hillary's assassination. His loud mouth cannot resist sarcasm and this was his way of referring to the political movement of the 2nd ammendment defense of a large group of people, including the NRA. He was referring to political pressure and not physical violence.

But, as long as we're talking in this vein, I would also remind everyone of what Hillary said in 2008 when she was running against Obama and starting to fall behind. She was asked by a reporter if she should just drop out of the race since Obama was well on his way to getting the nomination.

Hillary promptly dismissed this notion with an answer that was ignored by the media. In paraphrase, this is what she said: "My husband, Bill, was behind in the race when he was running for governor. In addition, Bobby Kennedy appeared to be on his way to the nomination in 1968, but then he was assassinated in June. And, since we are not yet in June, it will be foolish for me to drop out of the race when anything can still happen."

Hillary, as you can see, directly referred to the potential assassination of her political rival -- and the media had almost nothing to say about it. But, when Trump even loosely mentions the 2nd ammendment people, the media savages him all over in claiming he called for someone to assassinate Hillary with a gun.

It is always good to understand the exact context of things.

I've heard that explanation but to be honest I don't really buy it. I struggle to see his comments as relating to anything other than stopping Hillary once she was already elected president (assuming, of course, that actually happens).

Don't take my criticism of Trump as meaning I have any time for Hillary, to be brutally honest I think I'd vote for a turnip before I voted for either of them.

I won't argue with your point that there does seem a remarkable sense that the media is pushing a very specific agenda and ignoring anything that doesn't fit the agenda. Whether it's race issues, gun issues, it seems the media is immediately on hand to fan the flames.

 

[Highlander]

Trump has never been known as a violent man, but he does like to phrase things in sensational ways. He didn't mean for Hillary to be killed, but did mean that the anti-gun movement should be destroyed by patriotic 2nd amendment advocates.

As far as the media goes (the mass media), they essentially are the public relations/propaganda wing of the Democrat party. Even, among their numbers, the reporters, publishers, executives, etc., vote Democrat by 92-94%. The mass media is pretty much like Hollywood -- dominated & operated by leftists.

If Trump had a record like Hillary's, he would neve have been able to run for president. The mass media bends over backwards to defend Hillary -- a woman who they know, deep down, belongs in a federal pen and not the oval office.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Donald Trump did suggest that gun owners might want to defend their right to bear arms with their arms against Hillary Clinton. His words may produce works among his ardent followers.

 

[psalms 91]

I pray not and yet one more reason this man should not be elected.

 

[Josiah]

I'm leaning toward Darrell Castle..... I think that IF (big word there) the Republicans can hold on to both houses, he would be okay.

 

[Highlander]

Donald Trump did suggest that gun owners might want to defend their right to bear arms with their arms against Hillary Clinton. His words may produce works among his ardent followers.

If you are making the claim that citizens should threaten to shoot Hillary with their firearms, I think you should be expected to provide the direct quotation of him saying this. Such a bold claim demands nothing less.

In reality, if one of the candidates suggested the shooting of one of the other candidates, they would be taken into custody and questioned by the FBI. So you would need to show where Trump was questioned by the feds as well as provide the quote.

 

[Highlander]

I pray not and yet one more reason this man should not be elected.

So you feel that Trump should not be elected because an anonymous person claims he called for people to shoot Hillary? And you feel that hillary deserves to be elected -- a woman who wants to take your guns away?

If that is the case, I feel so very sad for our country's future.

 

[Highlander]

I would be very disappointed if you really are leaning toward electing Hillary, Josiah. Darrel Castle is one of the nutty offshoot off-tangent candidates that emerges from the woodwork virtually every election. Not him, personally, but his type.

There is absolutely no mathamatical possibility of one of these 3rd party nuts ever winning the presidency over the two major candidates. It simply does not happen.

If you vote for an off-shoot -- or decide to stay home and not vote -- you ARE voting for the other party. The 5 million Repubs who stayed home, and did not vote, in 2012 did not realize that their inaction actually WAS a vote. Every vote for Romney that failed to show was automatically -- in effect -- converted into a vote for Obama. That is why he won re-election. If Romney had received those 5 million absent votes, he would have won.

Likewise, anyone voting for the Libertarian party or Independent party, etc., are voting for Hillary. In the same light, anyone voting for another liberal, instead of Hillary, is voting for Trump.

To make your vote count the most, it's best to vote for either the Democrat or Republican -- and not waste it on 3rd party tangents.

 

[tango]

I would be very disappointed if you really are leaning toward electing Hillary, Josiah. Darrel Castle is one of the nutty offshoot off-tangent candidates that emerges from the woodwork virtually every election. Not him, personally, but his type.

There is absolutely no mathamatical possibility of one of these 3rd party nuts ever winning the presidency over the two major candidates. It simply does not happen.

If you vote for an off-shoot -- or decide to stay home and not vote -- you ARE voting for the other party. The 5 million Repubs who stayed home, and did not vote, in 2012 did not realize that their inaction actually WAS a vote. Every vote for Romney that failed to show was automatically -- in effect -- converted into a vote for Obama. That is why he won re-election. If Romney had received those 5 million absent votes, he would have won.

Likewise, anyone voting for the Libertarian party or Independent party, etc., are voting for Hillary. In the same light, anyone voting for another liberal, instead of Hillary, is voting for Trump.

To make your vote count the most, it's best to vote for either the Democrat or Republican -- and not waste it on 3rd party tangents.

The trouble with this thinking is that it does nothing more than entrench the already badly broken system whereby two major parties can field candidates that are so bad they would be comical if they weren't themselves serious about getting the job. Sooner or later the electorate has to give the establishment the metaphorical bloody nose and say enough is enough.

Given the choice between a narcissistic egomaniac and a pathological liar it doesn't seem remotely unreasonable to vote for "none of the above". It would appear there are enough Republicans who dislike Trump and enough Democrats who dislike Hillary that this election might just be the time a third party candidate makes significant headway.

 

[MoreCoffee]

With the voting system used in the USA voting for anybody but the major parties is the same in effect as not voting.

 

[psalms 91]

Yes, thaty is right

 

[Josiah]

I would be very disappointed if you really are leaning toward electing Hillary, Josiah. Darrel Castle is one of the nutty offshoot off-tangent candidates that emerges from the woodwork virtually every election. Not him, personally, but his type.

There is absolutely no mathamatical possibility of one of these 3rd party nuts ever winning the presidency over the two major candidates. It simply does not happen.

If you vote for an off-shoot -- or decide to stay home and not vote -- you ARE voting for the other party. The 5 million Repubs who stayed home, and did not vote, in 2012 did not realize that their inaction actually WAS a vote. Every vote for Romney that failed to show was automatically -- in effect -- converted into a vote for Obama. That is why he won re-election. If Romney had received those 5 million absent votes, he would have won.

Likewise, anyone voting for the Libertarian party or Independent party, etc., are voting for Hillary. In the same light, anyone voting for another liberal, instead of Hillary, is voting for Trump.

To make your vote count the most, it's best to vote for either the Democrat or Republican -- and not waste it on 3rd party tangents.

I agree is it not likely at all that any third-party candidate will win (BEST CASE scenario - neither major gets the 270 and the House votes for a third party, which I agree is not likely unless someone like Rubio were to enter JUST for this possibility - but the clock is quickly running out for that). But, IMO, voting for a horrible, unqualified "lesser evil" candidate is voting, supporting, endorsing an unqualified evil. And just perpetuates the "system" that brings evils for endorsement. I would agree that my voting for some third party would not help keep Hilary or The Donald out of the White House.... but it would be a protest to unqualified, BAD, choices..... a statement, if you will. I think it is likely a LOT won't vote at all for the top of the ticket - but sadly, that won't matter, the media won't even mention it, it will all be who gets the 270 Electorial Votes (regardless if 80% of Americans reject them BOTH by not voting - that won't be mentioned). BUT if these Third Party people get 10 maybe even 20% of the vote - THAT sends a message. THAT will get noticed. Especially since none of these is a self-funded zillionaire like Ross Perot - the last Third Party to get a significant vote.


I DO hope Trump wins ONLY because I think he's more LIKELY to appoint pro-life Supreme Court judges..... but he is such a loose cannon, who knows? And if he causes the Republicans to lose the Senate, it won't matter because those appointments won't get confirmed. That given, he is SCARY. Very scary. Hilary is less so, far less so.


SAD we are in this spot...... Something is terribly wrong; endorsing this does nothing to correct it.



- Josiah




.