• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

This really tempts me to vote for Hillary

ksen said:
braces_for_impact said:
Stein?! How can anyone who's a science enthusiast vote for Stein?
Click to expand...
I don't know man, how can anyone that's a non-interventionist vote for Clinton?
Click to expand...

It's a two-handed process...

I will vote for her and hope to survive the ensuing nuclear holocaust, then pray that the SCOTUS and congress start reforming election funding so we might eventually get to elect a sane, visionary President.
 
untermensche said:
ksen said:
Florida.
Click to expand...

We saw in Florida in 2000 how not voting for one of the "2 Party" candidates can effect the outcome.

A vote for Stein is a vote not for Hillary and not for Trump.

So in the matter of Hillary v. Trump it is equivalent to staying home.
Click to expand...

Not quite. It is the equivalent of staying home and not changing who gets elected, but making your voice heard. And if enough people do it, it could put the Greens on a stronger standing next time around.
 
If Trump does win, we Canadians have decided to build a great big border wall to keep you Americans out, and Donald Trump will pay for it.
 
Jolly_Penguin said:
If Trump does win, we Canadians have decided to build a great big border wall to keep you Americans out, and Donald Trump will pay for it.
Click to expand...

He probably would, if you promised to put his name on it.

In YUUUGE gold letters...
 
Jolly_Penguin said:
untermensche said:
We saw in Florida in 2000 how not voting for one of the "2 Party" candidates can effect the outcome.

A vote for Stein is a vote not for Hillary and not for Trump.

So in the matter of Hillary v. Trump it is equivalent to staying home.
Click to expand...

Not quite. It is the equivalent of staying home and not changing who gets elected, but making your voice heard. And if enough people do it, it could put the Greens on a stronger standing next time around.
Click to expand...


Yeah! Instead of 2.5% of the vote, they might get 3% of the vote!
 
Jolly_Penguin said:
If Trump does win, we Canadians have decided to build a great big border wall to keep you Americans out, and Donald Trump will pay for it.
Click to expand...
It really isn't that big of an issue. The only time Trump supporters go to Canada is to kill a bear or moose. Just put a sign out front saying "Canada has no more Bear and Moose."
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Jolly_Penguin said:
If Trump does win, we Canadians have decided to build a great big border wall to keep you Americans out, and Donald Trump will pay for it.
Click to expand...
It really isn't that big of an issue. The only time Trump supporters go to Canada is to kill a bear or moose. Just put a sign out front saying "Canada has no more Bear and Moose."
Click to expand...

Why don't we just tell them that there's black people up here? They'll get scared and keep away.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
Why don't we just tell them that there's black people up here? They'll get scared and keep away.
Click to expand...

Or muslims, or Mexicans, or... they're pretty much scared shitless of anything that moves.
 
Harry_Bosch said:
untermensche said:
It would be insanity to bitch about the Nader voters as some do.

A Nader vote did not negate one Gore vote. It did not add to Bush.

It was no different from not voting at all.

To bitch about the small amount of people who voted for Nader and not focus on the people who stayed home because Gore did not speak to them or attract them is insanity.
Click to expand...

Gore ran a terrible campaign. No doubt about it. I think that he probably focused too much on the environment (an issue that I care about). Exit polls showed that Nader voters in Florida would have voted for gore 40% of the time, Bush 20% of the time, stayed home the remaining 40%. So, 40% of Nader voters in Florida would have voted for Gore. That's more than 40,000 votes. Gore only lost Florida by 253 votes. We can't afford the same with Trump. Sure, the increase of third party candidates increases overall voter turnout and helps dems. But we'll be in worse shape if dems take congress and Trump takes the white house.
Click to expand...

There is no "would have".

That is an imaginary fairy tale for children.

There is only what happened. A tale for adults.

And what happened is some people didn't vote for Gore or Bush and voted for Nader.

These votes had ABSOLUTELY NO effect on Gore v Bush because they were votes for neither.
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
Something in my brain told me that Gore won the debates and I began to think that he'd slam Bush in the polls, but then the news media told everyone how Bush was a cowboy who you could sit down and have a beer with.
Click to expand...

Makes you wonder how many of the people who voted for him ended up sitting down and having a beer with him.
 
untermensche said:
Harry_Bosch said:
Gore ran a terrible campaign. No doubt about it. I think that he probably focused too much on the environment (an issue that I care about). Exit polls showed that Nader voters in Florida would have voted for gore 40% of the time, Bush 20% of the time, stayed home the remaining 40%. So, 40% of Nader voters in Florida would have voted for Gore. That's more than 40,000 votes. Gore only lost Florida by 253 votes. We can't afford the same with Trump. Sure, the increase of third party candidates increases overall voter turnout and helps dems. But we'll be in worse shape if dems take congress and Trump takes the white house.
Click to expand...

There is no "would have".

That is an imaginary fairy tale for children.

There is only what happened. A tale for adults.

And what happened is some people didn't vote for Gore or Bush and voted for Nader.

These votes had ABSOLUTELY NO effect on Gore v Bush because they were votes for neither.
Click to expand...

Here's the last that I'll say on the issue: if Johnson/Stein get Trump elected, I hope that the dems go back to the middle. The dems have made many concessions to the left, dramatically changed the platform. It's been my opinion that dems should adopt a strategy of targeting the middle, not the left. We know that moderates vote, and they make their vote count. It's always been my opinion that moderates decide elections, not the far left. But the dems didn't listen to me. I hope to hell that I'm wrong. The worst part is that there are many moderate republicans ready to bolt Duffy Donald. But the dems are moving left, hoping to capture a very difficult to please group.

Little known fact: there are more registered democrats than republicans. And yet republicans win far more elections than dems. Even with a crazy person running their party, they will unite for a higher purpose. Again, I hope that I am wrong......
 
Harry_Bosch said:
untermensche said:
There is no "would have".

That is an imaginary fairy tale for children.

There is only what happened. A tale for adults.

And what happened is some people didn't vote for Gore or Bush and voted for Nader.

These votes had ABSOLUTELY NO effect on Gore v Bush because they were votes for neither.
Click to expand...

Here's the last that I'll say on the issue: if Johnson/Stein get Trump elected, I hope that the dems go back to the middle. The dems have made many concessions to the left, dramatically changed the platform. It's been my opinion that dems should adopt a strategy of targeting the middle, not the left. We know that moderates vote, and they make their vote count. It's always been my opinion that moderates decide elections, not the far left. But the dems didn't listen to me. I hope to hell that I'm wrong. The worst part is that there are many moderate republicans ready to bolt Duffy Donald. But the dems are moving left, hoping to capture a very difficult to please group.

Little known fact: there are more registered democrats than republicans. And yet republicans win far more elections than dems. Even with a crazy person running their party, they will unite for a higher purpose. Again, I hope that I am wrong......
Click to expand...

There is no "getting Trump elected".

There is just an election.

And if Hillary wants to win she has to get the most votes in the right States. The votes she gets are the only votes she deserves.

And if somebody doesn't vote for Hillary but votes third or fourth party then in the contest between Hillary and The Donald that vote is meaningless. The contest is decided by other people.

There is nobody getting somebody else elected. That too is a childish fairy tale.
 
Juma said:
ksen said:
I don't know man, how can anyone that's a non-interventionist vote for Clinton?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Because NOTHING is worse that having Trump as president.

And nobody have any idea of what interventions Trump may unleash..
Click to expand...

The choice is between a run-of-the-mill interventionist. Somebody like Obama.

Or a loose cannon. A complete unknown.

Somebody that could take us to a nuclear confrontation.

For the sane not much of a choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom