If the United States presidential election were held today, I would vote for:
Looks like someone has already voted from this IP. If you would like to vote please login and try again.
If the United States presidential election were held today, I would vote for:
0
Percentage of others that also voted for:
Independent candidate (Score:2)
Art Drew [independen...didate.org].
A wasted vote... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A wasted vote... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hillary Clinton is a felon.
Definition of a felon: a person who has been convicted of a felony.
No so, she isn't a felon. That's an absolute fact. Additionally your first sentence is equally false. There is a difference between extreme carelessness and gross negligence:
Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care,
Extreme carelessness can happen because of lack of thought and/or foresight, i.e without mens rea.
To be clear, I find Hillary's action with his email objectionable, but your description overstates the facts beyond what is true. She is not a felon (at least not yet) and extreme carelessness is not the same as gross negligence.
Re:A wasted vote... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A wasted vote... (Score:4, Insightful)
It won't happen. People like tribalism, especially in a representative democracy. If you were going to spend more than 5 minutes attention on who's running for president, you'd just do it yourself.
More importantly (Score:5, Insightful)
Every vote for a third party is a threat to a major party's political power.
As long as it's not enough of a threat to swing an election, they don't care.
What it DOES do that's useful, though, is tell them:
- Here's someone who cares enough to take the trouble to vote, but that (both of) you weren't able to attract to your candidate.
- and THAT (the STATED position of the minor party) is the direction you have to change in order to attract this voter later.
A vote worse than wasted--but only in America (Score:3)
A third-party vote is worse than wasted--but only in America
Okay, "only in America" is a bit of an exaggeration, but it's definitely true for the American presidential election as hard-coded into the Constitution. They couldn't invent everything and they missed the idea of coalition government. They went with a winner-take-all solution, and when you do the math, there are only two stable states: One party who always wins, or two balanced parties who share the wins. Elementary game theory. (Yeah they did inv
Re:A vote worse than wasted--but only in America (Score:4, Insightful)
You mentioned low voter turn out. Low voter turn out is actually a political strategy that is followed by both parties. Neither clearly state this, but it is a very big part of how many elections across the US are run. Presidential elections actually have relatively high voter turnout, for the USA. Often over 50% of the Voting Age Population (VAP) [wikipedia.org].
The reason for discouraging voters has to do with voters that are considered 'one issue voters [wikipedia.org]'.
When candidates and parties decide on their 'platforms', they really do so to ensure that voters will support the party or candidates in an election. The promises and stances included in a platform are done to attract voter support (and donations). Party organizations will do analysis of the voting districts and look at the demographics of each district. They will include 'planks' in the platform that maximize the votes in each of those districts. This is where one issue voters become important.
One issue voters are often extremely motivated to vote. They will make it to the polls come hell or high water. They tend to be obsessive about their one issue, after all, to them this one issue is the sole test that is used in their decision to support a candidate. Voters who decide based on multiple issues tend to be less obsessive about a candidate or party being in complete agreement with the voter's own opinions. These non-one issue voters are more reasonable if any one candidate doesn't pas a test or two, as long as there is a large concurrence of agreement between candidate and voter, that is acceptable.
So if you are trying to get a candidate elected you need to build a coalition of voters. Do your analysis of the population of your district and identify your one issue voters, and their numbers. If about 50% of the voting age population is going to vote, you need a little more than 1/2 of that to win. That means you need 25.1% of the VAP to turn out for your candidate. If you can add a few planks to your platform that will guarantee you get some one issue voters, you have the start of a strategy. Let's say you pick a side on the second amendment, doesn't matter which, either way you will get so many percentage points from one issue voters. Just make up some numbers for fun, say 3 points. Start going down the issues:
So you need 25.1 points and you are now at 15 points. Only 10.1 percentage points of reasonable and swing voters to win!
What does this have to do with low voter turnout? Because only 50% of the VAP shows up, the effect of the one issue voters in magnified. They become a much more important part of getting elected than their numbers compared to the entire population say that they should. The one issue voters show up and vote despite the blizzards, the tornadoes, and the hurricanes. If 100% of the VAP voted, those 15 percentage points from the one issue voters would not matter as much.
How do parties take advantage of this? Negative campaigning. Negative campaigning has been proven to not work. It almost never gets voters to change their minds, with the rare outlier exceptions (Willy Horton). However, negative campaigning does disgust and frustrate voters and is shown to reduce voter turnout [google.com].
So let's go back to our 50% of VAP turnout election where you have built a platform to get 15% of VAP from one issue voters and need only an additional 10.1% or more of VAP to win. What if you add a lot more negative adds and suppress v
Re: A wasted vote... (Score:4, Insightful)
In the mean time, you end up with a president who goes completely against the progressive cause you are trying to advance.
In four years, your progressive causes (health care, environmental protection, income inequality, marriage equality, etc) get set back by a decade.
But all that will be worth it as long as you send a message?
Re:A wasted vote... (Score:4, Funny)
never underestimate the power of stupid. Especially when it comes to Americans.
Re: (Score:3)
I think Hilary thinks she already knows it all and she knows whats best for everyone, and won't listen to anyone, whereas I think Trump knows the power of surrounding himself with smart people.
Which smart people has Trump surrounded himself with?
Thats why I think Trump won't be as bad a president as everyone seems to think (because it wont actually be his ideas that he pushes, he'll just say they are and take the credit).
Unless the people he surrounds himself with are fucking idiots, because Trump has no fucking clue, and then he is the first person to bail on the situation and any responsibility and try to blame someone else.
Has Trump ever taken responsibility for a single mistake he made?
Re:A wasted vote... (Score:5, Informative)
The way to create another party is from the ground up. How many Greens or Libertarians are there on your school board or your town council, or state house? Until they start appearing there, nothing much will happen on the national level.
The Libertarian Party has been working on this for quite some time: Nationwide, there are 145 Libertarians holding elected offices [lp.org]: 43 partisan offices, and 102 nonpartisan offices.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I can think of one for you: Jill Stein. That's a wasted vote. She won't win.
That's because her campaign posters are cave wall paintings.
Re:A wasted vote... (Score:4, Insightful)
It all depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to vote for the person who ultimately wins, then a vote for Jill Stein is a wasted vote, so was a vote for anybody but George W Bush in 2000 and 2004.
If your goal is for your vote to actually have a chance of making a difference in selecting a candidate you prefer A over one you don't B, then voting for candidate A can still be a wasted vote unless you live in a swing state. I live in California. Even if I loved Hillary, a vote for Hillary in California doesn't help her win. If I loved Trump, a vote for Trump in California doesn't help him win.
If you are a liberal in Florida or Ohio planning to vote for Jill Stein, you may want to think about what you are doing, but otherwise, it doesn't really matter.
If your goal is merely to express your preference, then there is no reason not to vote for whoever you want.
If your vote has a chance of effecting the outcome, you might have a hard choice to make. But your vote probably doesn't make a difference, so you probably don't need to think that hard.
If you really want to make a difference, establish residency in Florida at least 29 days before the election and register and vote there.
Re:A wasted vote... (Score:5, Interesting)
In a normal year that would be true. This year just about everywhere is a swing state.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: A wasted vote... (Score:4, Informative)
FiveThirtyEight has Trump at a 55% chance of winning Ohio. It's also not a complete coincidence that they have Trump at a 55% chance of winning the presidency.
http://projects.fivethirtyeigh... [fivethirtyeight.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No, that's what it *might* mean in swing states. In non-swing states, your vote (regardless of who it's for) doesn't affect the outcome of the general election.
Voting for Clinton in California does 0 to help her beat Trump. Voting for Trump in California does 0 to hurt Hillary. Why the hell would I voluntarily vote for either of these people, especially when I don't even get anything for it?
Voting for Hillary in California is like eating a turd for charity, and then finding out the charity was a scam and
Re: (Score:3)
Stein if you want real change.
Re:A wasted vote... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only wasted vote is one for someone you don't think should be president.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Email server? No one read the part where she and her leadership team at State were denied use of secure mobile devices for communication
*bashes head on table*
Is the rest of your comment this wrong? I didn't read it.
Re:A wasted vote... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because she's guilty as sin.
"Insufficient evidence" is not proof the investigation shouldn't have been carried out.
Trying to slide that one past with as few words as possible are we? Supporting Syrian rebels and having it blow up on us may be predictable but it is also gross mismanagement. So make your choice. Does Clinton lack accountability for the things done by her employees or is she directly culpable?
This is the point I start to doubt whether you're arguing in good faith. Hillary Clinton had access to more secure communication than anyone before her. She chose to bypass them. Gross negligence.
I would say "nice deflection" but actually it's painfully obvious. I don't advocate politically motivated twisting of circumstances to create a crime, but as someone running for president Hillary Clinton must be held to a higher legal standard than the rest of us. Rule of law. Rule of law. Rule of law. She is a criminal and the fact that she wasn't indicted is a shameful statement about the nature of the American government.
Re: (Score:3)
Because she's guilty as sin.
If she is guilty as sin the so are Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice [cnn.com].
Supporting Syrian rebels and having it blow up on us may be predictable but it is also gross mismanagement
So Operation Cyclone [wikipedia.org] didn't blow up in the US face?
Re:A wasted vote... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't worry. I'm sure the tenth Republican-led, million-dollar investigation will arrive at your preferred conclusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile Hillary... (Score:3, Insightful)
Meanwhile, Trump is a war profiteer
Hillary is vastly more a war profiteer, why do you think she started the war in Libya? Qaddafi at the time was gradually opening up to the west.
Oh that's right, you didn't realize Hillary is at a whole different level than Trump - Trump MAY have earned some money in the aftermath of 9/11, as did many New Yorkers. But only HILLARY was in the unique position to start a war from scratch and profit from it, which the Clinton foundation very much did...
And which she would con
Typical no-content response. (Score:3, Informative)
Failed to see a single actual counterpoint, just attacking the message instead of considering any of the points. But then I guess that's expected because you are a Democrat, and all you know how to do is vilify anyone who does not vote Democrat (for the record, I am a stringent Libertarian and have been my whole life). You don't even care anymore what the Democrats do, how they operate - you just support them because they exist. How sad!
I personally cannot reconcile my own support of minorities, law, and
Re:A wasted vote... (Score:4, Insightful)
The phrase you're looking for is "mens rea". It applies to some laws (murder-type laws, for instance, distinguish between killing someone on purpose and by accident).
But, and it's a big but, mens rea doesn't apply to ALL crimes. Security violations do not require mens rea to be demonstrated in as part of the crime. If you accidently leave an "EYES ONLY President" (all the way down to Top Secret", which isn't actually all that high a security classification when you get down to it) type document lying about in Starbucks, well, you're going to be nailed to a tree whether you meant to or not.
Unless your name is Hillary, of course. Then the FBI will say something to the effect of "well, we can't find a prosecutor who would try to win the case, so we're not going to recommend prosecution"....
Re: (Score:3)
Let's say you're in a Blue state. And let's say Jill Stein, in a Fluke of Nature, wins the popular vote in your state.
All of your state's electoral votes (unless you live in Maine or Nebraska) will then go to Jill Stein.
It doesn't matter what "color" your state normally is if a third party candidate manages to get the majority.
Seem impossible? Remember that Johnson and Weld (his running mate) were both Republican governors in Blue states and won re-elections by large margins in those Blue states.
What am I m
Voting Johnson, but not because I like him (Score:5, Insightful)
Like a lot of libertarians, I think Johnson isn't great as a nominee, but he's still better than Clinton or Trump. I'm voting for him primarily for the sake of the Libertarian Party to get/keep ballot access, and hopefully open doors for better future candidates than Johnson/Weld.
The funny thing is I keep getting told that if I vote for Johnson, then I'm voting for Clinton, or if I vote for Johnson, them I'm voting for Trump. I guess by voting for Johnson, I'm actually voting for all 3. Sorry, Jill Stein, no vote for you.
Republicans are certain that voting Libertarian takes away votes that they would otherwise be getting. The fact though is that when Johnson is offered as a third option in a presidential poll, Hillary's numbers actually do worse [realclearpolitics.com].
Re:Voting Johnson, but not because I like him (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Voting Johnson, but not because I like him (Score:5, Funny)
LOL. I always tell my liberal friends that.....
I ask them straight up, "if I didn't vote third party, how do you know I wouldn't vote for Trump?"
That always makes them silent with an angry, incredulous, confused, hurt look on their face. Worth it for that look alone.
Of course, I do the opposite to my Republican friends. The sad thing is, it's really easy to make an argument against either candidate.
Step in a dog turd to dodge a bullet. (Score:2)
Vote Hillary for the best chance of not electing a reckless incompetent bigot who will be outsmarted and taken advantage of by the despots he so admires. Voting for Hillary sucks, I know, but she won't fuck things up too badly. Just mildly, like Obama did. Trump will fuck things up beyond repair. And by "things" I mean "every damn thing, especially the US economy."
This is not a practice run, there are no backsies. Remember Brexit.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Brexit is going fairly smoothly.
Stock markets are level or above previous values, massive inwards investments are being confirmed, growth is expected to be higher than Germany or France.
Cameron lied that he wasn't a quitter then quit. He lied that he would immediately trigger Article 50, then didnt. And now he's gone.
Osborne lied that he would call an emergency budget, then didnt. Then he was sacked.
Carney lied that that he would need to cut interest rates and launch extra quantative easing, then didn't.
Still voting for Bernie. (Score:5, Funny)
Bernie. Only Bernie.
Re: Still voting for Bernie. (Score:2)
Actually, that's pretty much exactly how Bernie's plan would work.
Re:Still voting for Bernie. (Score:4, Funny)
It depends. (Score:2)
I'd have to check the latest polls. First-past-the-post demands strategic voting. My state is normally guaranteed for what I consider the lesser of two evils, so my usual strategy is to vote third party, to help send a message. This year, though, I'm seriously worried about the spoiler effect, and might end up voting for the major-party candidate that most closely aligns with me, if the risk of the split vote ending up throwing the win to the other side seems too high. I've certainly never seen the risk thi
Re: (Score:3)
> First-past-the-post demands strategic voting.
Bad bad bad.
Decades of Americans voting against who they most dont want, instead of voting for who they actually want, is exactly what has inevitably led to the current situation of having to choose between the 2 worst possible people in the whole USA.
Re:It depends. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, first-past-the-post is a bad bad system, because it inevitably leads to situations like this. The sensible response, however, is not to pretend we don't have first-past-the-post, because we do!
The sensible thing to do, from a game-theoretic viewpoint, is to vote strategically (because that's provably the best thing to do with FPTP), and, in the mean time, try to get other voting systems accepted. My city uses instant runoff (IRV) instead of FPTP. If more cities used IRV or Single Transferable Vote (STV) or similar, then we'd be able to talk about getting the state to do the same, and if enough states switch, then maybe we could get the country to switch. Then you could vote for your favorite candidate without worrying that you'll case the worser of two evils to triumph. In the meantime, however, vote using your brain, not your gut. You're supposedly a nerd, unless you're on the wrong site, so that shouldn't be a difficult concept.
(And again, "vote strategically" does not necessarily mean "vote for the lesser of two evils". That's simply one possible--albeit frequently useful--strategy of many.)
Write in Bernie Sanders (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Sanders is a career politician.
He is just more of the same corrupt systemic bullshit, but just comes in a prettier box than Clinton.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Write in Bernie Sanders (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sanders in the most principled and intelligent of the bunch!
So principled that he endorsed a candidate that he said wasn't qualified [cnn.com]. Of course he said she was qualified [washingtonpost.com] a day after making that statement...
Re:Write in Bernie Sanders (Score:4, Insightful)
So principled that he endorsed a candidate that he said wasn't qualified [cnn.com].
You can be the *most* X without being completely X.
Of course he said she was qualified [washingtonpost.com] a day after making that statement...
Sometimes people misspeak and/or are misunderstood. People aren't perfect. Neither is English. He did a pretty good job of clearing up what he meant. He also said right from the beginning that he would endorse the winner of the primary, and he did that.
Yes Bernie Sanders was the most principled candidate. That doesn't mean he will never violate any of his principles under any circumstances. Sometimes principles conflict. But endorsing Clinton he was actually keeping a promise he made, which is another principle. The whole situation is not ideal, but I think Bernie is about the least blameless person for the mess we are in.
Sometimes it's better to vote for the lesser of two evils. I am not sure if this is one of those times or not, but I can respect that Bernie clearly thinks it is, and I take him at his word, and I think it carries more weight than the typical politician saying "This is the most important election, because the electing the other guy would be the worst thing ever".
Re: (Score:2)
Write in votes are not counted in pretty much every state. You might as well protest vote for an actual candidate that will register as a vote for Not Hillary and Not Trump at the same time.
Re: (Score:3)
Sanders? [...]Are you sure he's everything you think he is?
Nope. Not sure at all. I just didn't see anyone else speaking out against corporate over-empowerment.
No vote (Score:4, Insightful)
I picked I would not vote, because I'm British not an American. But if I had the vote, I still wouldn't vote. The choice Americans have in this election is beyond abysmal. Whatever happens, I hope the world won't suffer from having two of the worst candidates ever running for American President.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The choice Americans have in this election is beyond abysmal.
When has it not been abysmal in recent history?
SMOD 2016! (Score:3)
I'm voting for the Sweet Meteor of Death in 2016. A civilization ending impact can't happen soon enough.
Deep sigh (Score:2)
2 bad choices; Trump may excel (Score:2)
Trump... appears to have no moral principles. The only thing Trump believes in, is Trump. That might work out for us. His internal motivation will be to excel as president, so that the whole country (or, at least half of it) will validate his greatness.
It's a gamble.
Hillary will be bad.
Trump might be bad (or, good).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
At least he appears to be a patriot. Hilary has already sold out the US several times just to enrich herself.
Don;t beleive me? Look at how/where all the Clinton Foundation money (i.e. campaign money) is coming from.
Re:2 bad choices; Trump may excel (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:2 bad choices; Trump may excel (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes Trump is an unknown but what you're describing is exactly what Hillary has ALREADY done many times. Hillary is already proven herself to be a known-fail. She's blatantly corrupt and most pundits agree she's already been pretty much the worst Secretary of State that the US has ever had.
Somehow people like you don't ever want to think about logically about this shit in that voting against Trump is a vote FOR something already proven worse. At least with Trump threre's a chance that he may be turn out to be OK, which we already know Clinton won't/can't be from her own previous record.
Re: (Score:3)
She sure does. I am not saying she comes clean on everything. I cited one example of hillary admitting that what she said was not true.
Can you cite a single example of Trump admitting that what he said wasn't true.
I campaigned hard against Hillary in the primary. I was a volunteer for the Bernie campaign, which is saying a lot because I have a job a wife and a 20 month old child. I don't need to be convinced that Hillary is a liar and a corrupt politician. The possibility of me voting for someone who c
Re: (Score:3)
...also... you may think Trump is a warmonger but he's clearly going to be turning inward mostly. Most other countried prefer Hilary to get in because they know a Trump government will be better for the US economy so worse for them.
I think that's an overly simplistic way to look at things. The world economy is not a zero sum game. For instance, when the US economy collapsed, it took down the rest of the world too, because they were so heavily invested in the American economy.
I don't think there is any reason to believe that Trump will be better for the economy. He has no fucking plan at all. Maybe having no plan is better than having a bad plan, and maybe Trump will just luck out and get a good economy regardless of his incompete
Re:2 bad choices; Trump may excel (Score:5, Insightful)
One silver lining, perhaps Johnson and Weld will guide the future of the GOP. The mainstream Republican party has lost it's way, and is imploding. If Mitt Romney endorses them, things could get interesting.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is this in the firehose section? (Score:2)
Why is this in the firehose section?
I'm Australian so it's Ok for me to be confused... (Score:2)
But Trump from his behavior is an ignorant populist, offers simplistic "solutions" and from his speaking and actions simply doesn't have it to be a president of a backward unpopulated island, let alone the US. Why is he being seriously considered for any position above dog catcher?
What did I miss?
Ranked choice FTW (Score:2)
I really like this ranked choice voting scheme where you essentially get to vote twice. If your first pick fails to win your vote is automatically reassigned to your 2nd pick.
It would put an end to this wasted vote crap people keep throwing around as an excuse to justify voting for some dumbass piece of shit they don't like.
FINALLY (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Transparency (Score:5, Funny)
Don't blame me (Score:4, Funny)
I voted for Kodos.
But seriously, the choices of front-running candidates is pretty much like selecting between Hitler or Stalin.
15% Required to be in Debates (Score:3)
Re:32% would vote clinton (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess. Scary isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well I for one am terrified at the thought of Clinton getting in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There you go making assumptions again.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously though, under Hillary, the stock market's not gonna collapse, and ISIS aren't going to overrun the country. She's not going to be able to pass any meaningful gun control and I highly doubt any 'upgrades' to Obamacare are in play 'til at least 2020. Hell, she probably won't even have the Senate either, which means the SC isn't in play til 2020 either.
Similarly, most of Trumps foreign policy BS will be steamrolled by DoD inertia, he's not going to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can attempt to rationalise it all you like, but what she did and continues to do is wrong on EVERY level.
There should NEVER be a different set of laws just because your'e rich.
The last time a country tried that, they rightly had a revolution and invented the Guillotine to deal with those fuckers.
Re:32% would vote clinton (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at how she keeps blatantly lying under oath and being caught out about the email server thing and totally getting away with it when literally anybody else trying that would already be in prison for a long stretch right now. Look at what the rewards coming to the GA and Comey are then tell me they aren't complicit as hell. Have you even taken a look at where the hundreds of millions of dollars going through the Clinton Foundation are coming from (and why) and going to?, or the number of people that around the Clintons that cross them in some way and keep mysteriously dying?
I know it all might sound totally paranoid, but trust me, just do your own research.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
“Experts have said it doesn’t appear Clinton violated federal laws,” CNN conceded.
The article (and the attorney general) are saying that Clinton didn't break any laws. You are claiming that she purgered herself, which is against the law. You are disagreeing with the article (and the attorney general) and are really going to have to be more specific about when and how she lied under oath, and continues to lie under oath, as you claim.
Re: (Score:3)
"We need to discredit HIllary Clinton so we're going to pound this stupid email thing into the ground over and over again."
"Well all right, but she clearly didn't violate any laws."
"That doesn't matter, we can make the FBI investigate it anyway. Just saying that she's under investigation is pretty good."
FBI, much later: "She clearly didn't violate any laws."
"Yeah yeah, whatever. What about this other thing? Did you investigate this other thing? She might h
Re:32% would vote clinton (Score:5, Funny)
It's not like she eats babies
Why is everyone so quick to make assumptions??
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It goes to show how stupid you are as well, as all of your insults apply to Trump as much, if not more so, than Hillary.
Mainly because while Hillary is far from perfect, you are quite willing to blame her for every thing subordinates, people not under her command but working for the same organization did. Not to mention ascribing evil intention and criminal motive for things without any shred of evidence beyond the fact that you don't like the outcome post fact.
Lets start with the obvious one - murder. D
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has no political experience so of course HIllary is going to have a lot more dirt already out. What we do know of Trump is that if he's not happy, he has no problem throwing a team of lawyers at you to ruin your life.
I can't stand HIllary either, I think it's a joke we've got Hillary and Trump as the two main party candidates. Crook or not, her "current" platform is far more closely aligned with my bel
Re:32% would vote clinton (Score:4, Insightful)
You should vote for who you most believe in (even if they can't win), not for/against a party or who you think has a chance of winning.
Decades of Americans doing "tactical voting" is exactly why we're in this mess now.
Re: (Score:3)
By tactical voting I mean people not voting for who they actually most want, but voting some other way for any reason (e.g voting for the most likely winning alternative to the person they most don't want to get in, or voting for someone else because they don't think the person they actually most like will get many other votes... so causing a chicken and egg situation).
I'd also include people that habitually only ever vote for one party (regardless of whether they agree with or even know their current polic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>> Trump has commited treason - he invited Russia to hack the emails
Clearly you are the one listening to blatantly false propaganda from one side.
Now go check what he ACTUALLY said.
Re:32% would vote clinton (Score:5, Interesting)
A) Save your son, but your daughter dies
B) Save your daughter, but your son dies
C) Save your children, but you die
D) Don't pick and let someone else choose who dies
There simply is no "good" choice, and you are probably going to end up regretting your decision one way or another no matter what you do.
Re:32% would vote clinton (Score:5, Funny)
Actually in option C you don't regret anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: 32% would vote clinton (Score:3)
Can't regret anything when you're dead. Option C is clearly the best choice, ethically, mathematically, and emotionally.
Re: (Score:2)
...control of the worlds most powerful country to a blatantly corrupt criminal who should already be in jail for treason, corruption and murder.
For some of the eligible voters, that's all they've ever known.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting point. It does seem that Americans now just automatically assume all these people are corrupt (which to be fair is probably a quite realistic assessment), but the problem is they have also become so complacent that they just allow people like Hilary to blatantly get away with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it that hard to acknowledge that both candidates are horrible? We have democrats saying "I can't believe anybody would vote for Trump" and Republicans saying "I can't believe anybody would vote for Hillary Clinton" as if they aren't in the same election.
It's like someone saying "I can't believe anybody would jump into freezing water" without acknowledging that they were on the Titanic.
I am not going to criticize anybody for their inevitably bad choices this election, because there are no good choices.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Clinton, obviously.
Trump is clearly a patriot, even if he is a buffoon, and as far as I know, he hasn;t had anyone killed or started a war for personal gain.
I guess Trump might have pulled a few questionable business moves in his time but Hilary has taken large-scale corruption and selling out the US to a whole other level.
Re: (Score:2)
> Trump has called on Russia to hack his political opponent for his own personal gain.
No he really didn't. Respond to what he actually said please, not the sensationalist liberal media headlines.
> Trump is also deeply tied into the American Mafia.
Cite references please.
Re: FACT: (Score:2)
Can't argue that, at least it seems that may be the case.