Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which is why years after Obama promised to get us out of the wars, we are still in them.
But you'll vote for Hillary. Sorry, not something I can understand.
The difference in Hillary and Cruz are minor. Your willing to vote for war. For Wall Street. I'm not voting for Cruz so your question is meaningless.
I'm voting for the mothers that got the knock on the front door that thier son or daughter wasn't coming home with absolutely no decent explanation why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
How much more disastrous than Libya?
The lesser or two evils is still evil.
If a vote for a 3rd party would change any of the above, I would do it. But because it won't, I will vote for Hillary. There are plenty of people who believe that George W. Bush won because people who could have supported Gore voted for Nader instead. One of many articles: Ralph Nader Was Indispensable To The Republican Party
Think about the deaths that resulted from Bush being president which might have been avoided if Gore had won.
You can roll your dice with Jill Stein or another 3rd party candidate and I will with Hillary.
If a vote for a 3rd party would change any of the above, I would do it. But because it won't, I will vote for Hillary. There are plenty of people who believe that George W. Bush won because people who could have supported Gore voted for Nader instead. One of many articles: Ralph Nader Was Indispensable To The Republican Party
Think about the deaths that resulted from Bush being president which might have been avoided if Gore had won.
You can roll your dice with Jill Stein or another 3rd party candidate and I will with Hillary.
Being that even Obama got us into new wars, I see no reason to believe Gore would have been any different. Hillary has already participated in new wars.
I actually believed Obama might be different. I was certainly wrong on that.
Even at that, those who voted Nader didn't lose the election for the (D)'s. Those that voted for Gore in the first place did.
What I find baffling is that most people think that the U.S. has only two parties, and that is what the Democratic and Republican parties want you to think, you must either vote for one or the other. We have 5 major political parties in the U.S. two of them I already mentioned, then there is, Libertarian, Green and the Constitution parties. If you don't like the democrat or republican candidates then look at some of the other options. 40%+ of voters say they are independent (unaffiliated) voters, that's a huge number of voters, you want to make a change from the years of status quo, then think outside the box. Vote your conscience.
The Dem and the GOP are both rigged. For all her behaviors, Clinton is not much different from a typical Republican, only with a fancy clothing disguise (with large pockets, literally and figuratively, for Wall Street money).
If we let a rigged system win, we'd be saying ok to what made it rigged. If the Dem loses because many Sanders supporters don't vote for Clinton as a result of being pissed off by her and the DNC, the super PACs, election frauds, media biases, etc., etc., then so be it: DNC needs to learn from its defeat so that in the Next Election it will think twice before it repeats history.
If Sanders supporters switch over to Clinton, it would be erasing everything we have being fighting for, and accepting what the corrupted DNC and biased media hand to us. Supreme court appointments? Whatever result, the DNC should have known better.
From the surface, Bernie is behind Clinton in pledged delegates, but if one recognized how unfair the race has been, how Clinton has been favored by everything big--big money interests, big media, big super PACs,.... , Bernie has coming much ahead.
What do you think the race would have been like up to now, if Clinton did not have the back of the big interests groups?
What I find baffling is that most people think that the U.S. has only two parties, and that is what the Democratic and Republican parties want you to think, you must either vote for one or the other. We have 5 major political parties in the U.S. two of them I already mentioned, then there is, Libertarian, Green and the Constitution parties. If you don't like the democrat or republican candidates then look at some of the other options. 40%+ of voters say they are independent (unaffiliated) voters, that's a huge number of voters, you want to make a change from the years of status quo, then think outside the box. Vote your conscience.
^^^ The media and the two parties try to convince you that a third party can't win, so people are led to think their votes for the thirt part, independents will be wasted.
Being that even Obama got us into new wars, I see no reason to believe Gore would have been any different. Hillary has already participated in new wars.
I actually believed Obama might be different. I was certainly wrong on that.
Even at that, those who voted Nader didn't lose the election for the (D)'s. Those that voted for Gore in the first place did.
How do you think the candidate you plan to vote for would have responded to events in the Middle East?
What do you mean that people who voted for Gore lost the election for the Democrats?
It would have been difficult to have picked a much weaker candidate if one had tried. Not even his own state would vote for him.
I agree about Bernie and have said several times that I support him. The question is who are you going to vote for if Bernie isn't the nominee? You apparently are going to support a 3rd party candidate. My question is what do you think your candidate will do with regard to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East? How will he or she avoid confrontation?
Gore was not a great candidate and who knows what he would have done in the wake of 9/11. But the fact remains that he might have been elected if Nader had not been in the race and that's the point. If you don't want Trump/Cruz to be the president and you're in a state where your vote matters, a vote for the third party is a vote for Trump/Cruz. It might also be a vote for principle and a vote that of your conscience, but don't delude yourself that you're not helping elect the GOP candidate.
From the surface, Bernie is behind Clinton in pledged delegates, but if one recognized how unfair the race has been, how Clinton has been favored by everything big--big money interests, big media, big super PACs,.... , Bernie has coming much ahead.
What do you think the race would have been like up to now, if Clinton did not have the back of the big interests groups?
In what way has the race been unfair? Sanders has raised more money than Clinton through individual donations, and more people have donated to his campaign than to hers. He's also had tens of thousands of people attend his rallies. The media is in his favor, not in hers, as it's to the media's benefit to have there be a "competition" between the two candidates -- it makes for better news stories.
Interesting how, despite more money raised, more individual donators, and more attendees at rallies, he's still behind in votes and delegates. There is no "unfairness" involved. More voters prefer her to him, period.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
