Octopus Overlords

RunningMn9 wrote:If President Hillary Clinton is worse to you than President Donald Trump, than you would be a fool to not vote for Trump (because avoiding President Hillary Clinton is in your best interest).

If President Donald Trump is worse to you than President Hillary Clinton, than you would be a fool to not vote for Clinton (because avoiding President Donald Trump is in your best interest).

President Donald Trump is so much worse to me than President Hillary Clinton, that even living in a "safe" state, I will enthusiastically vote for her.

Zarathud wrote:Bernie's supporters who actually vote for Trump are unclear on the concepts Bernie supported.

Holman wrote:My voting isn't enough. I live in a swing state, and I'll be volunteering for Clinton and GOTV campaigning in the fall.

LordMortis wrote:I disagree with conclusion and implied premises: Accept that the goal is to defensively keep out the worse of two evils for this election is to my way of thinking why the evils keep getting worse.

RunningMn9 wrote:

LordMortis wrote:I disagree with conclusion and implied premises: Accept that the goal is to defensively keep out the worse of two evils for this election is to my way of thinking why the evils keep getting worse.

You can disagree all you want. There are only two possible outcomes: President Trump or President Clinton. That's it.

We can all WANT more possible outcomes, but there aren't any. I don't want *either* of these two people to be President. But only one of them is legitimately dangerous. And that I cannot abide.

Defiant wrote:Jill Stein thinks Wi-Fi could be dangerous for our brains

Kraken wrote:I had intended to cast my protest vote for Stein, but the level of crazy that she's reached over the past several weeks has made that impossible. It's odd because she never devolved into that in her gubernatorial campaigns; this is a side of Jill Stein I've never seen before.

I can't support Johnson, either; like Samantha Bee said, "I agree with every other thing that you say," but the other half is anathema. Sorry, but unless he explicitly disavows it he is a big-L Libertarian Loony.

That leaves me with two choices: Write in Sanders, or vote for Clinton.

I have decided to hit the reset button on Hillary Clinton because I like the Democratic platform. She has until November to convince me that she believes in it and will fight for it, and I'm going to try not to let my natural distrust/dislike of her color my judgment between now and then. I want her to convince me.

My vote only matters to me since the odds of MA going for anyone other than Clinton are approximately equal to the odds of our moon deciding to go orbit Saturn for awhile. This makes it doubly vexing that I still don't have anyone to vote for with a clear conscience.

Captain Caveman wrote:

Kraken wrote:I had intended to cast my protest vote for Stein, but the level of crazy that she's reached over the past several weeks has made that impossible. It's odd because she never devolved into that in her gubernatorial campaigns; this is a side of Jill Stein I've never seen before.

I can't support Johnson, either; like Samantha Bee said, "I agree with every other thing that you say," but the other half is anathema. Sorry, but unless he explicitly disavows it he is a big-L Libertarian Loony.

That leaves me with two choices: Write in Sanders, or vote for Clinton.

I have decided to hit the reset button on Hillary Clinton because I like the Democratic platform. She has until November to convince me that she believes in it and will fight for it, and I'm going to try not to let my natural distrust/dislike of her color my judgment between now and then. I want her to convince me.

My vote only matters to me since the odds of MA going for anyone other than Clinton are approximately equal to the odds of our moon deciding to go orbit Saturn for awhile. This makes it doubly vexing that I still don't have anyone to vote for with a clear conscience.

There's another reason for someone with your political leanings to vote for Clinton in a state where the winner isn't in doubt. Trump needs to lose by the largest margin possible.

Margins usually don't matter aside from perceived but mostly imaginary "mandates", but in this case the larger the margin, the larger the rejection of the Trump's repulsive brand of politics. Which theoretically should reduce the chances we see future imitators.

Well, first of all, NAFTA. Would I have signed it or not? My skepticism says that maybe I wouldn't have signed it, because these trade agreements are just laden with crony capitalism. Would I have signed or implemented the Trans-Pacific Partnership? I've got to tell you, I think it's laden with crony capitalism. Free market really is the answer. It's the answer to unifying the whole planet, in my opinion, and if China wants to subsidize the goods that it sells to the United States, who benefits from that? Well, we do. And at the end of the day, who pays for any sort of tariffs? We do.

“The Stein/Baraka campaign believes a new inquiry is necessary.”

Well, Russian aggression meaning what, exactly? (References Crimea and Ukraine.) These are highly questionable situations. Why are we — Russia used to own Ukraine. Ukraine was historically a part of Russia for quite some period of time, and we all know there was this conversation with Victoria Nuland about planning the coup and who was going to take over.

Defiant wrote:Jill Stein insists Trump is less dangerous than Clinton – and attacks Bernie Sanders as a DC insider

Admitting Trump is the worst possible thing that could happen to the country, she also says that the binary options amount to “death by gunshot or death by strangulation.”

While she describes Trump as a danger she also believes he’s nothing more than a moron who has destroyed the GOP. Clinton, on the other hand, she considers a greater threat.

“Donald Trump, I think, will have a lot of trouble moving things through Congress,” Stein says. “Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, won’t … Hillary has the potential to do a whole lot more damage, get us into more wars, faster to pass her fracking disastrous climate program, much more easily than Donald Trump could do his.”

While Stein might seem like the liberal option to moderate Clinton values, she also took a few punches at progressive leader Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) as another Washington insider.

“I’ve tried to talk with Bernie, but, you know, Bernie is — he is a team player,” she said, saying he refuses to speak to her. “I think he’s on the wrong team, perhaps because he’s been in Washington, D.C., too long, because he used to really understand independent politics and why we cannot have a viable political system unless we have independent political parties.” She concludes that it could be “a generational thing.”

LordMortis wrote:

“Donald Trump, I think, will have a lot of trouble moving things through Congress,” Stein says. “Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, won’t … Hillary has the potential to do a whole lot more damage, get us into more wars, faster to pass her fracking disastrous climate program, much more easily than Donald Trump could do his.”

malchior wrote:My mind went to the same place - how do you not understand fundamental dynamics of Congress WHILE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT? It is unreal.

GreenGoo wrote:

malchior wrote:My mind went to the same place - how do you not understand fundamental dynamics of Congress WHILE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT? It is unreal.

And potentially winning, a la Drumpf. Stein almost certainly has a better understanding of how governance occurs than Drumpf.

Votes cast for candidates who did not win
Excess votes cast for winning candidates

pr0ner wrote:Here's an interesting article I found thanks to Seth McFarlane election opining (will be posted in another thread) giving a mathematical analysis negating the idea of throwing your vote away.