Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

bludog

Is Voting Third Party Throwing Your Vote Away?

Recommended Posts

(Spoiler: Yes, And Here's Why)

 

This has been a hot topic in the LO Room since campaigning started, this year. Here is a good opinion piece, backed up by some politically savvy analysis.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/07/26/1552491/-Is-voting-third-party-throwing-your-vote-away-Spoiler-yes-and-here-s-why?detail=email&link_id=5&can_id=810b5cb3eca3ad9334878f48ae17937c&source=email-republicans-lose-their-minds-seeing-american-sniper-actor-at-the-dnc-heyhe-was-one-of-us&email_referrer=republicans-lose-their-minds-seeing-american-sniper-actor-at-the-dnc-heyhe-was-one-of-us___90272&email_subject=is-voting-third-party-throwing-your-vote-away-spoiler-yes-and-heres-why

(Last part of the article first)

How does a third party truly have a chance? By growing the base large enough so that your built-in support base is comparable to the others. Large enough that you can win significant numbers of governor seats and Congress seats. And this is something that neither the Green Party nor the Libertarian party has done, or will have done between now and November. Instead, they treat the Presidential race as an advertising campaign for their party, hoping to draw in a few more disenfranchised Republican or Democrat voters.

Let’s put this in concrete terms for Gary Johnson, the only third party blipping on the national poll radar. The current projections at fivethirtyeight as of this writing give Gary Johnson 0.6 electoral votes—in other words, he’ll be lucky to get a single Electoral College vote anywhere in the country. But it also gives him 7.7% of the popular vote. Right now, those same projections have a 1.4% gap between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, which means that the 7.7% of the population tilting at windmills to get a single Electoral College vote for Gary Johnson could very easily put Donald Trump in the White House.

Even if we graciously entertain the scenario where Gary Johnson wins the election: what happens next? His party has no influence in Congress, making him even less effective in office as Bernie Sanders would be.

- snip -

#NeverTrump only works if everyone votes for the same candidate. If the alternate parties continue grass-roots efforts to build strength, then there will come an election cycle when voting third party will make political sense. But it is not this cycle. We are stronger together, with Hillary—just keep swimming.

 

 

(First part of the article last)

Since Hillary clinched the 2016 Democratic nomination, and particularly since the DNC e-mails were leaked by WikiLeaks, a significant number of “Bernie or Bust” types have been pledging support for voting third party—either for the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson, or the Green Party’s Dr. Jill Stein. Between the two, Gary has capitalized better. His advertisements on Facebook preach to the disaffected: “If everyone who claimed to want a third party voted for me, I’d win!”

To borrow from an insurance commercial, “That’s not how it works. That’s not how any of this works!” There’s two big problems with the bill of goods that Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are trying to sell.

First, they both grossly overstate their potential. Political identity in the United States is complicated. According to the Pew Research Center, The pool of self-identified independent voters is larger than either Republicans and Democrats; but despite not being card-carrying members, they still tend to lean towards one party or another. With leanings factored in, 87% of Americans identify either directly or indirectly towards either the Republican or Democrat parties. That leaves 13% of the voting population to divvy up among third party, which ties into the second issue: party size and influence.

Second, the viability of a third party Presidential campaign is directly tied to the size and influence of the third party in question. A Presidential campaign timeline looks something like this (immensely simplified):

Step 1: Announce your are running.

Step 2: Win your party.

Step 3: Win enough Electoral College votes to win the national election.

If you are a Republican or Democrat, Step 3 is merely difficult—you have a pretty sizeable base, and you are pretty much guaranteed that some subset of that party base is going to vote for you no matter what, so winning means adding to that base in the right parts of the country to get enough votes. For any third party, they have no base to start from, which means their entire strategy revolves around Democrat and Republican attrition. In other words, they have to do twice as much work as your average Republican or Democratic candidate. In today’s political climate, a third party has zero chance of winning the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enthusiastically welcome third parties. I feel that they provide options for those who, for whatever reason, cannot vote for either candidate of the two main parties. I feel that third party candidates tend to hold mainstream candidates accountable for their promises and allegiances. Knowing that their supporters might go elsewhere is powerful motivation to 'walk the walk.'

 

Third (and fourth, and fifth) options tell mainstream candidates, "If you do not represent the voters and follow through on your promises, we WILL go elsewhere." Holding politicians accountable is crucial; too many politicians abandon their constituents' needs once elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent point of rebuttal, RR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a practical, tactical matter. I would agree, but I'm can easily imagine a Libertarian, or Green voter who is a true believer in their cause.

"the 7.7% of the population tilting at windmills"
"the 13% of the voting population to divvy up among third party..."


If these voters are genuinely aligned with the principles espoused in their chosen party, more power to them. I can appreciate the fact the they are participating in the process.

If it is so-called 'protest vote', then not so much.

Here's who are really throwing away their votes, and potentially handing Trump a victory..

The voting rate in the 2012 presidential election, per the United States Election Project, was 58.2 percent.

 

So here we have 41.8% of the eligible population that has not been sold on any particular party cause, victims of voter suppression, or are just apathetic.

 

There really is no excuse for apathy this year, but the Democrats could certainly do more to help the rest
of these non-participants get to the polls in Nov.


"His party has no influence in Congress, making him even less effective in office as Bernie Sanders would be."

huh? even less effective in office? Not true, look at the platform, ask Hillary, ask Debbie. He is influencing the party that has some influence. Hopefully, the party's influence will grow further if down ballot candidates are elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The important thing is to vote, but not just in the General election for president. Vote in all local elections and vote for the person who best represents your views. If you are not sure about a presidential election outcome and you feel the need to vote for the best of only two parties understanding that third parties don't really seem to count - I would say, make a very qualified vote understanding its full magnitude.

 

Always weigh the full magnitude behind your vote in everything you vote for - whether it is for the Mayor of your town or city, city council, the state legislature or US representative for your state.

 

I supported Bernie Sanders, and I was saddened when he didn't win the nomination. But I am very very impressed with the movement he started that I believe is just getting underway.

 

Hillary is well qualified / and much like Obama / her actions as president are mutable by both public pressure and pragmatism. I always knew this, even as a young boy. I have always followed politics going back to LBJ and Nixon.

 

When I was young during the Vietnam war when my brother was there in the military, I thought Nixon would get us out. That was the last time I ever thought about voting for a Republican - Nixon lied and turns out he was a big Dickhead -

 

albeit . he probably did not himself personally understand as much. Since then, I have tried to understand a lot of things. I would vote for a Republican for president if they made me think about the world in such a way

 

that I believed what they said was true and made sense, and that they would always honor their word. That has not happened since I was 7, when Nixon was elected. However, I will say I did and still do hold a great

 

respect for HW Bush.

 

 

I will likely vote for Hillary even though I could vote for the Green party candidate, knowing the full weight of such a vote will not count for much if anything since I live in California where I know Hillary will win by a landslide.

 

Hillary is qualified - what I think voters need to do is push her to do the right things. We do need to stand together and look at what we can change for the better. I will never throw my own vote away and become cynical.

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enthusiastically welcome third parties. I feel that they provide options for those who, for whatever reason, cannot vote for either candidate of the two main parties. I feel that third party candidates tend to hold mainstream candidates accountable for their promises and allegiances. Knowing that their supporters might go elsewhere is powerful motivation to 'walk the walk.'

 

Third (and fourth, and fifth) options tell mainstream candidates, "If you do not represent the voters and follow through on your promises, we WILL go elsewhere." Holding politicians accountable is crucial; too many politicians abandon their constituents' needs once elected.

Sure.. and because Hubert Humphrey and Al Gore were NOT EXACTLY perfect, Progressives defected to help Elect NIXON..and GW Bush.

 

At THIS point... any 3rd party has to be well over 10% in polls and much higher in SOME states to even have a VERY TINY shot.

Ron Paul.... the roots of Libertarian... WITH Koch $.. could not top 2-3% in general or get ANY eclectoral votes. Basically.. you may as well write in Bart Simpson or Bob Dylan,or yourself.

In Theory..... a spinoff from the GOP COULD aim more Center. The Dems HAVE filled a void in the center.. as shown in this convention while remaining good on Progressive stuff. Whole Trump still seems to have polls and Hillary got damaged by endless fake scandals and nasty slurs.... she's quite strong. Women are THE big Demographic. Angry Christian White guys.. are not. That's a factor here......along with Trump pandering SO hard to haters,losers, jerks. Trump already alienated a LOT of GOP.

 

Hillary should take it..... then next Cycle Liz Warren will be a force. For Repubs? Ryan and Kaisich have a chance but... they likely need to find someone better to go against Liz. 3rd parties? I doubt any make much challenge in the next several elections. You need infrastructure,funding, a LEADER, but all that sort of has to happen together to just get into the game. The Horse that's a 30-1 longshot in the Kentucky Derby is actually WAY above average and yet... needs HUGE luck to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Third (and fourth, and fifth) options tell mainstream candidates, "If you do not represent the voters and follow through on your promises, we WILL go elsewhere."

No, unfortunately, it does nothing of the kind. If your candidate can get enough votes to actually challenge the official nominee, sure, but if all you can get is a few percent, what it REALLY tells mainstream candidates is that they should TRY to get opposition voters to throw their votes away on someone who cannot win.

 

Republicans have been running this con on you folks for decades now.

 

The time for you to develop support for a third party is well BEFORE the election. Once it is clear that your candidate CAN NOT WIN, then voting for them anyway, knowing that in doing so you are HELPING the opposition, just looks like pouting.

 

The important thing is to vote, but not just in the General election for president. Vote in all local elections and vote for the person who best represents your views. If you are not sure about a presidential election outcome and you feel the need to vote for the best of only two parties understanding that third parties don't really seem to count - I would say, make a very qualified vote understanding its full magnitude.

 

Always weigh the full magnitude behind your vote in everything you vote for - whether it is for the Mayor of your town or city, city council, the state legislature or US representative for your state.

 

I supported Bernie Sanders, and I was saddened when he didn't win the nomination. But I am very very impressed with the movement he started that I believe is just getting underway.

 

Hillary is well qualified / and much like Obama / her actions as president are mutable by both public pressure and pragmatism. I always knew this, even as a young boy. I have always followed politics going back to LBJ and Nixon.

 

When I was young during the Vietnam war when my brother was there in the military, I thought Nixon would get us out. That was the last time I ever thought about voting for a Republican - Nixon lied and turns out he was a big Dickhead -

 

albeit . he probably did not himself personally understand as much. Since then, I have tried to understand a lot of things. I would vote for a Republican for president if they made me think about the world in such a way

 

that I believed what they said was true and made sense, and that they would always honor their word. That has not happened since I was 7, when Nixon was elected. However, I will say I did and still do hold a great

 

respect for HW Bush.

 

 

I will likely vote for Hillary even though I could vote for the Green party candidate, knowing the full weight of such a vote will not count for much if anything since I live in California where I know Hillary will win by a landslide.

 

Hillary is qualified - what I think voters need to do is push her to do the right things. We do need to stand together and look at what we can change for the better. I will never throw my own vote away and become cynical.

 

Peace!

Fantastic post.

 

Thank you for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, unfortunately, it does nothing of the kind. If your candidate can get enough votes to actually challenge the official nominee, sure, but if all you can get is a few percent, what it REALLY tells mainstream candidates is that they should TRY to get opposition voters to throw their votes away on someone who cannot win.

 

Republicans have been running this con on you folks for decades now.

 

The time for you to develop support for a third party is well BEFORE the election. Once it is clear that your candidate CAN NOT WIN, then voting for them anyway, knowing that in doing so you are HELPING the opposition, just looks like pouting.

I don't necessarily vote for candidates who can win. I vote for candidates who represent the issues that are important to me. If a candidate doesn't represent me, they will not get my vote....someone else will. If people want to think I'm pouting, whatever. People will think what they want anyway.

 

Republicans haven't been running any cons on me. I rarely talk politics with cons. It's pointless, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hear hear, RR.

 

If we're voting for a third party, generally it means that we consider BOTH major parties the opposition, and are doing everything within our meager power to prevent either of them from winning. Generally when I vote third party, it is because I see all my other options as equally unappealing, and feel most represented by the third-party candidate. On the occasion I have written in a candidate, it was because *none* of the options available, even third-party, were either appealing or on the ballot. (The rules for inclusion of 3rd-party candidates on ballots and in debates need to radically be changed.)

 

I know Trump is batshit crazy. But I am almost equally concerned with a Clinton presidency. This doesn't have to do with right-wing propaganda, either. Goodness knows I have defended her tenure as Secretary of State and the Benghazi situation many more times than once to conservatives I know. So she still has a chance to convince me that she really will uphold the party platform once elected. It's a very unlikely chance, but she, unlike Trump, still has one.

 

I am more than likely voting third party or write-in because both a Hillary and a Trump presidency fill me with great concern and don't have any faith, trust, or hope in either of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is. And here's why:

Jill Stien and Gary Johnson don't have what it takes to rally voters. They pop up every four years, lose their election, and then disappear. As if running for President is the only way to change the way things work. Apparently they missed the memo that if they want to be relevant in politics, they have to be active in those years there isn't an election. Bernie Sanders got it. Hillary Clinton got it. Even Donald Trump got it. Most people aren't voting for them, they're voting against the main two parties. Sure, they have some good ideas (even though sometimes they don't really know how things work, and don't know much about what they're talking about). Jill Stein has never held public office, and Gary Johnson hasn't held office in years (and never as a Libertarian). They'll both soon be forgotten about until 2020 rolls around.

Nobody is voting FOR Jill Stein, they're trying to stick it to Hillary for being picked the Democratic Nominee. Even if they agree with Stein on a lot of issues, they still aren't voting FOR her. After all, where was the support for her during the primaries? Attached to one of the major two parties. There's nothing wrong with voting AGAINST Hillary and Trump. But it's a wasted vote because it doesn't send a message to the major two parties at all. The only thing they care about is winning, and until you stop them winning they aren't going to hear the message at all. And if you're really against the major political parties, you should have been with Jill or Gary from the get-go. Imagine if Bernie won the nomination, and many Hillary voters refused to vote for him because their candidate didn't win.

A third party vote is a wasted vote, because it does nothing. The candidates for these parties are bland no-names that people only see pop up every four years. They can't reach 15%, or 5% because they don't rally the troops. They don't inspire anyone. They're very uninspiring. It's why John Kerry lost in 2004, despite the screw ups of George W. Bush. John Kerry had less charisma than one of those narrators in those old science videos you watched in high school. If Bernie Sanders ran on a third party ticket, then it might not be a wasted vote. But he's not. It's Jill Stein who often doesn't know what she's talking about, and supports homeopathic medicine. She has some good positions, but her movement is still at a sloth's pace. Every four years it stops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ask this: When is the average voter allowed to *hear* about third-party candidates? When does the press discuss them with any seriousness? When do they even devote time to main-party "underdogs"? When do any of them get equal time in debates? THAT is why third-party candidates don't appeal to the voters. Because political ads only do so much, and the press remains silent. The equal time regulations MUST be reinstated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't necessarily vote for candidates who can win. I vote for candidates who represent the issues that are important to me.

Yes, I know, You have explained that many times. The reality, however, is that in voting for someone who will not and can not win, you are helping to elect the person who LEAST represents your issues.

 

If a candidate doesn't represent me, they will not get my vote....someone else will. If people want to think I'm pouting, whatever. People will think what they want anyway.

 

True.

 

Republicans haven't been running any cons on me. I rarely talk politics with cons. It's pointless, really.

 

Cons hire people to post all over social media, to claim to be independents and "greens", and to spout progressive-sounding rhetoric and insults/lies/slander against the Democratic nominee in an attempt to influence people to waste their votes on Nader or Stein.

They spend a fortune on this tactic, and it worked with Nader, and the result was that America suffered under the greatest disaster of a Presidency in history.

 

The choice is - choose your "principles" and harm the country, or do what's right for the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know Trump is batshit crazy. But I am almost equally concerned with a Clinton presidency.

Why?

 

Yes, it is. And here's why:

 

Jill Stien and Gary Johnson don't have what it takes to rally voters. They pop up every four years, lose their election, and then disappear. As if running for President is the only way to change the way things work. Apparently they missed the memo that if they want to be relevant in politics, they have to be active in those years there isn't an election. Bernie Sanders got it. Hillary Clinton got it. Even Donald Trump got it. Most people aren't voting for them, they're voting against the main two parties. Sure, they have some good ideas (even though sometimes they don't really know how things work, and don't know much about what they're talking about). Jill Stein has never held public office, and Gary Johnson hasn't held office in years (and never as a Libertarian). They'll both soon be forgotten about until 2020 rolls around.

 

Nobody is voting FOR Jill Stein, they're trying to stick it to Hillary for being picked the Democratic Nominee. Even if they agree with Stein on a lot of issues, they still aren't voting FOR her. After all, where was the support for her during the primaries? Attached to one of the major two parties. There's nothing wrong with voting AGAINST Hillary and Trump. But it's a wasted vote because it doesn't send a message to the major two parties at all. The only thing they care about is winning, and until you stop them winning they aren't going to hear the message at all. And if you're really against the major political parties, you should have been with Jill or Gary from the get-go. Imagine if Bernie won the nomination, and many Hillary voters refused to vote for him because their candidate didn't win.

 

A third party vote is a wasted vote, because it does nothing. The candidates for these parties are bland no-names that people only see pop up every four years. They can't reach 15%, or 5% because they don't rally the troops. They don't inspire anyone. They're very uninspiring. It's why John Kerry lost in 2004, despite the screw ups of George W. Bush. John Kerry had less charisma than one of those narrators in those old science videos you watched in high school. If Bernie Sanders ran on a third party ticket, then it might not be a wasted vote. But he's not. It's Jill Stein who often doesn't know what she's talking about, and supports homeopathic medicine. She has some good positions, but her movement is still at a sloth's pace. Every four years it stops.

Perfectly put.

 

I ask this: When is the average voter allowed to *hear* about third-party candidates?

No one is stopping anyone from looking up and researching the candidate of their choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The choice is - choose your "principles" and harm the country, or do what's right for the country.

I respectfully disagree. If we just keep voting for candidates we don't like and don't trust, the respective parties will continue putting out similar candidates. Nothing will ever change.

 

The two main parties (and status quo politics) are what's harming the country. When half the country doesn't vote at all....and 44% of the voting population is registered as independents, there's a serious problem.

 

My choice in November will be "none of the above" in regard to the two major parties. I'm not sure if I'll vote third party or stay home, but it will be one or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No one is stopping anyone from looking up and researching the candidate of their choice.

True. However a lack of airtime in the mainstream media has always proven successful in limiting third parties. Neither the DNC nor RNC want third parties to be relevant; they have a vested interest in making sure there are only two options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disapprove of Hillary on several levels: Her past record for 8 yrs as co-president .... Attempting to re-acquire the highest job ... Her obligations to her Big Money donors .... Her past unconcern, or worse, for the expanding wealth gap, the growth of Plutocracy and the disappearing middle class.

 

That said, there is hope with Hillary since she has been pushed to the Left by Bernie. She has turned economically to the left in her campaign rhetoric to support labor unions ... Anti-TPP .... And forcing the very wealthy and the corporations they own, to pay their fair share of taxes. Hillary has been known to respond to public opinion but how much of it is empty pledges, remains to be seen.

 

So one reason I am voting for Hillary:-- There is a ray of hope. The more pressing reason, is that I see Mein Trumpf as the most dangerous candidate for president this country ever produced. I must make my vote count against him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respectfully disagree.

That wasn't an opinion - it is a fact.

 

If we just keep voting for candidates we don't like and don't trust, the respective parties will continue putting out similar candidates. Nothing will ever change.

 

If you keep voting for candidates without a snowball's chance in hell, the respective parties will continue to put out similar candidates. Nothing will change as a result of your wasted vote.

 

The two main parties (and status quo politics) are what's harming the country. When half the country doesn't vote at all....and 44% of the voting population is registered as independents, there's a serious problem.

 

I think voting should be mandatory.

 

My choice in November will be "none of the above" in regard to the two major parties. I'm not sure if I'll vote third party or stay home, but it will be one or the other.

 

Yes, I know - you will put your own desire to object ahead of the welfare of the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think voting should be mandatory.

 

I concur. But you might be surprised how many Liberals vehemently disagree.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I know - you will put your own desire to object ahead of the welfare of the country.

Not at all. Imo, the welfare of this country is diminished regardless of which candidate wins.

 

Hillary Clinton needs to show me she will follow through on the issues she never supported until Bernie pushed her leftward. Politicians promise a lot of things they never follow through on. If she proves me wrong, I'll be happy to vote for her in 2020. But she needs to show that she means what she says first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That wasn't an opinion - it is a fact.

 

If we just keep voting for candidates we don't like and don't trust, the respective parties will continue putting out similar candidates. Nothing will ever change.

 

If you keep voting for candidates without a snowball's chance in hell, the respective parties will continue to put out similar candidates. Nothing will change as a result of your wasted vote.

 

The two main parties (and status quo politics) are what's harming the country. When half the country doesn't vote at all....and 44% of the voting population is registered as independents, there's a serious problem.

 

I think voting should be mandatory.

 

My choice in November will be "none of the above" in regard to the two major parties. I'm not sure if I'll vote third party or stay home, but it will be one or the other.

 

Yes, I know - you will put your own desire to object ahead of the welfare of the country.

What is the point of voting if the votes never count?

 

The alleged ballot counting machines, in my opinion, are set up to allow election fraud. They have been indicated in a great many fraudulent elections. Further, there is fraud in the nominating process, selecting candidates who clearly don't represent the public. Third, as in 2000, if those in charge don't like the results, they can always have the USSC void the election and appoint the guy they want.

 

Unless these issues are at least addressed, asking people to vote is a waste of time. It doesn't matter who they vote for, the winner is selected by someone else.

 

If Hillary were really interested in winning against Trump she could easily move a bit to the left, and pick up a great many million voters, yet she refuses to budge. Why not come out in favor of support for the middle class, or support for education, or universal single payer health care, or come out against war? or any of a great many issues?

 

It looks like both Hillary and Trump are making it close in order for people to believe either could become president, and when Chuck Hagel makes his final selection it will be believable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all. Imo, the welfare of this country is diminished regardless of which candidate wins.

LOL - nice attempt to dodge responsibility. No one is talking about whether or not it would be "diminished", we are talking about which candidate would do THE MOST HARM. Your actions, in throwing away your vote, helps the candidate who would do THE MOST HARM. You can't escape or deny the consequences of your actions.

 

Hillary Clinton needs to show me she will follow through on the issues she never supported until Bernie pushed her leftward.

 

Vague accusations like this are meaningless.

 

Politicians promise a lot of things they never follow through on. If she proves me wrong, I'll be happy to vote for her in 2020. But she needs to show that she means what she says first.

 

And in the meantime, you will help Trump. Apparently you feel no need for TRUMP to prove his worth to you before you assist him in this election.

 

Isn't that interesting?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the point of voting if the votes never count? The alleged ballot counting machines, in my opinion, are set up to allow election fraud.

Yes, the cons who designed them, who BRAGGED about "delivering" the election to Bush, who argued AGAINST a paper trail and who argued AGAINST anyone being allowed to examine the code, have certainly rigged our elections in a most shocking way.

 

They have been indicated in a great many fraudulent elections. Further, there is fraud in the nominating process, selecting candidates who clearly don't represent the public.

 

I disagree.

 

Third, as in 2000, if those in charge don't like the results, they can always have the USSC void the election and appoint the guy they want.

 

Precisely - although the remaining con whores on the SC have seen the writing on the wall. Their decades of shitting on the Constitution to service their owners are over.

 

Unless these issues are at least addressed, asking people to vote is a waste of time. It doesn't matter who they vote for, the winner is selected by someone else.

 

This hasn't been mentioned, but early on, Clinton made a few telling comments about reforming the election system. I have high hopes that she intends to make a few critical changes, and with con criminal election fraud significantly decreased, the true liberal nature of this country will be revealed.

 

If Hillary were really interested in winning against Trump she could easily move a bit to the left, and pick up a great many million voters, yet she refuses to budge.

 

Where on earth did you get that idea?

 

Why not come out in favor of support for the middle class, or support for education, or universal single payer health care, or come out against war? or any of a great many issues?

 

You didn't even watch her speech, did you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL - nice attempt to dodge responsibility. No one is talking about whether or not it would be "diminished", we are talking about which candidate would do THE MOST HARM. Your actions, in throwing away your vote, helps the candidate who would do THE MOST HARM. You can't escape or deny the consequences of your actions.

I simply see things differently than you, Isabel. Is that allowed here? I don't want to fight with you. From all I've seen, we agree on most issues. It's only Hillary that we disagree on.

 

Vague accusations like this are meaningless.

Let me try to clarify: I need to make sure that Hillary is going to do what she claims she's going to do. Campaign promises don't sway me much, if ever. I need to make sure a candidate I'm supporting is going to 'walk the walk' regarding her campaign promises (many of which she hasn't supported in the past).

 

And in the meantime, you will help Trump. Apparently you feel no need for TRUMP to prove his worth to you before you assist him in this election.

 

Isn't that interesting?

 

Got it.

No, I speak out against Trump as much as I can. I think the guy would be a terrible president. Trump's already proven himself to an idiot. I won't be assisting him or voting for him. But my vote is my own. I've considered my options for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I speak out against Trump as much as I can. I think the guy would be a terrible president. Trump's already proven himself to an idiot. I won't be assisting him or voting for him. But my vote is my own. I've considered my options for a long time.

 

Only voting matters.

 

Jill Stein wants to help Trump win. The Greens are people.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...