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.
Did you ever wonder why no one (pollsters) asks if you would never vote for Cruz or Sanders?
I don't understand your question, because I've seen nothing but pollsters polling the likely results for all the candidates, not just Hillary and Trump, but from the beginning it appeared that Hillary and Trump had the better numbers, and here we are..., apparently with the final choice of either Hillary or Trump.
Hillary at this point I can better understand or explain (whether I think she is highly qualified or not). How Trump has managed to do as well as he has, I will never really understand, because I just can't understand the reasons Trump supporters support him. They just don't make sense to me...
Here again is what you don't seem to understand, or maybe it is me, but let's look at this again with your analogy...
The reason we will get a Hillary is because of people like yourself. Your argument boils down to the argument of a 5 year old when caught doing something wrong..
I don't understand your question, because I've seen nothing but pollsters polling the likely results for all the candidates, not just Hillary and Trump, but from the beginning it appeared that Hillary and Trump had the better numbers, and here we are..., apparently with the final choice of either Hillary or Trump.
Hillary at this point I can better understand or explain (whether I think she is highly qualified or not). How Trump has managed to do as well as he has, I will never really understand, because I just can't understand the reasons Trump supporters support him. They just don't make sense to me...
While far from perfect Trump is the "protest" vote. I'm not sure why that has been so hard to understand.
Months ago the two main partied had their candidates hand picked....Bush and Hillary. At least one side of the equation said "No, no more tired retreads, wanting to continue the same failed paths".
While far from perfect Trump is the "protest" vote. I'm not sure why that has been so hard to understand.
Months ago the two main partied had their candidates hand picked....Bush and Hillary. At least one side of the equation said "No, no more tired retreads, wanting to continue the same failed paths".
Hard to ignore your comments entirely, but can we at least keep on track here?
The "protest vote" in the context of this thread if you care to follow is the vote for neither Hillary or Trump, as many have expressed that inclination. My point is simply that not voting for either Hillary or Trump has very definitive implications that it seems people so inclined don't recognize and/or refuse to accept. That's all...
Nothing all that hard to understand here if you boil it down to what our ultimate reality truly is in these regards.
Hard to ignore your comments entirely, but can we at least keep on track here?
You are the one that said they didn't understand Trumps support. I explained it to you.
Quote:
The "protest vote" in the context of this thread if you care to follow is the vote for neither Hillary or Trump, as many have expressed that inclination. My point is simply that not voting for either Hillary or Trump has very definitive implications that it seems people so inclined don't recognize and/or refuse to accept. That's all...
Nothing all that hard to understand here if you boil it down to what our ultimate reality truly is in these regards.
OK, so I saw that list of possible third party candidates... who on that list is sufficiently not looney tunes that you could vote for them? Or, since the third party actually has little chance of winning, does it matter which one, since it would be simply to send a message to the 2 big parties? Wouldn't it make more sense to get together and vote for just one or two of those third party candidates, IF any of them actually would be a good choice?
I go back and forth on this a lot. Bernie's vision for America is ideal nerds some tweaks to be pragmatic and a Congress to support it. Now Hillary don't know her probably a great person and has accomplished a lot. However, this election showed her political nature and I can't trust her in Office. Economically I think Trump is ideal for America, but worry on issues in regards to Environment, Peace/Stability, and Foreign Relations.
In a sense I rather see a strong Democratic/Independent Congress and Trump President. I lean on voting all Blue for Congess and Green for President.
That way Republicans would salvage Trump has President, Democrats have a strong representation, and in 4 year's Democrats change their tune and pick a candidate like Sanders to run...will win because the Republicans fell apart after Trump became President.
Trump vs. Hillary - Voting Green
Cruz vs. Hillary - Voting Blue
Kasich vs. Hillary - Voting Red
Kasich, or Trump, or Cruz, or 3rd Party Candidate vs. Bernie - Voting Blue
Here again is what you don't seem to understand, or maybe it is me, but let's look at this again with your analogy...
If you consider the winner of the race for POTUS as getting stabbed either in the back or in the front, then needless to say we ARE all going to get stabbed one way or another, right? Can we agree that we will have a new POTUS and he/she will either be Hillary or Trump for all practical purposes?
If we can agree on the above, we can understand one another and move on. Otherwise, you can't understand my point.
If we agree that the end result is either Hillary and/or Trump, the following options are all we have to consider;
A) We vote for the candidate that represents what most resonates with our view of what policies are best for America, which person will best guide America.
B) We vote for someone else or we don't vote at all, the "protest vote."
If A, end of discussion and as it should be.
If B, even if you think both Hillary and Trump are absolute pieces of sheet, we are all going to end up with one of them as POTUS regardless. THIS IS WHERE YOUR ANALOGY LOGIC FALTERS; we don't get to choose NOT to get stabbed. We ARE ALL GOING TO GET STABBED whether you like it or not, right???
I think the "getting stabbed" analogy is more than a little over-the-top or at least very typical political nonsense, but for purposes of this point I'm trying to make, it works as good as any. For any clear thinking person who understands what the ultimate result of this election is going to be, given those two choices, you either help decide on the choice, or you leave it to others to make that choice for you -- whether we like it or not. This is the truth of the matter.
I would also add that surely one is less "evil" than the other. There are simply too many political factors for any thinking person to consider them exactly equal. That too is nonsense, but of course out of frustration that neither is satisfactory, it may feel better to THINK we can somehow divorce ourselves from the final decision, the process in general. Not so. Feel better or not, that feeling is also misguided, because even the "protest vote" favors Hillary or Trump one way or another unless you really could care less which one becomes POTUS.
If that's you, if you could care less whether it is Hillary or Trump that becomes the next POTUS, then no doubt you can't understand what I am explaining here beginning with word one, because that too is ridiculous in my opinion. The two represent very different futures for America. I mean what can you otherwise be thinking, to suggest they are EXACTLY as good or as bad? I really don't know...
Finally, if you actually know better, and you might be more inclined to vote for Trump rather than Hillary if you do vote, then by all means, I encourage you not to vote or cast that protest vote. By doing so we will both feel better...
Yes, I understand that. What YOU are missing is that I will not condone it. I will not sit there and tell someone, "Well, I know you're going to stab me so....I guess I pick getting stabbed in the back."
No, what I'm telling them is, "I know you're going to stab me, but I'm telling you my choice is, and continues to be 'I choose not to be stabbed'."
What you are missing is that there will always be those who fall while trying to make a change. Changes do not happen overnight. That doesn't mean give up and say, "Welp, go ahead and stab me. I give you permission." It means that despite you knowing that, right now, no matter what you do, you're going to be stabbed, you are PAVING THE WAY by educating those around you that you DO have other choices. There IS more than choosing to be stabbed in the front or the back. Nothing will change until enough people realize that.
No, I'm not claiming that we are all Spartacus. The point is, it starts with one, then a few, then 10, then hundreds...those who stand up in the beginning take a huge risk, but more will follow. Eventually we will turn the tables on the elite.
Or we could just sit down like little cowards and allow them to keep stabbing us every 4 years because we can't see the forest through the trees.
OK, so I saw that list of possible third party candidates... who on that list is sufficiently not looney tunes that you could vote for them? Or, since the third party actually has little chance of winning, does it matter which one, since it would be simply to send a message to the 2 big parties? Wouldn't it make more sense to get together and vote for just one or two of those third party candidates, IF any of them actually would be a good choice?
Jill Stein.
If you throw up your arms and vote for what the two parties in power place before you, you will keep getting more of the same. If enough people begin voting for a 3rd party it will get noticed, and perhaps in the short term it would mean the big 2 would adopt some of the 3rd party's positions. There is power in numbers. This election should prove that without any doubt, regarding Trump and Sanders. It has to start somewhere.
If you throw up your arms and vote for what the two parties in power place before you, you will keep getting more of the same. If enough people begin voting for a 3rd party it will get noticed, and perhaps in the short term it would mean the big 2 would adopt some of the 3rd party's positions. There is power in numbers. This election should prove that without any doubt, regarding Trump and Sanders. It has to start somewhere.
Jill is alright, if you watch Third Party debates, however, Gary Johnson has a better stage presence (although not a great one) which would be good if a third party every go to go on stage with the Big 2. Jill is really bad at debating.
Gary also has some executive experience and a moderate record managing New Mexico.
Johnson had a pretty decent run in the last election, I imagine this election will be good for a front running third party to capitalize given how negatively-viewed our candidates are.
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.
