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.
Its never stupid to vote for the candidate you align with the most. Whats stupid is ignorant folks prancing around like know it alls trying to tell others who to vote for.
I think this is one of those elections we have to look at who is going to do the best for our country. I'm still not sure on a 3rd party...still not sure on Trump. I just have a hard time voting for someone who is getting away with something my husband could go to jail for doing.
Unless something major changes between now and November, I'll be voting for Stein. I don't particularly like her and I understand she has no chance, but I'll cast my vote as a protest. I think the two party system is broken. Hillary is a war-hawking corporate shill and Trump is an evil megalomaniac - I can't vote for either of those, not even to protest the other one.
I'm so frustrated with both sides - as are many of my friends - that I was seriously considering just abstaining from voting at all. I'm leaning towards Gary Johnson, but I really disagree with his positions on privatizing prisons and schools. Otherwise I agree with most of his stances (or can at least tolerate them). I'll be researching a lot more in the next few months . . . but for now he is where I'm leaning.
One of the most important things about Johnson and Weld is that they are not running to rule, but to preside. Having the legislative branch controlled by R's and D's would certainly prevent them from doing any of the "crazier" libertarian things. Also, they would not try to run the schools at a federal level at all, but would leave things like schools and prisons (except Federal ones, obviously) to states.
No you're not, you may mark your ballot for Jill, but you will be putting the wicked witch of Benghazi into the WH, where she will put the final nail into America's coffin....
That's funny. Democrats tell me that if I vote for a "third-party" candidate, I am putting a lunatic Trump into the White House.
One of the most important things about Johnson and Weld is that they are not running to rule, but to preside. Having the legislative branch controlled by R's and D's would certainly prevent them from doing any of the "crazier" libertarian things. Also, they would not try to run the schools at a federal level at all, but would leave things like schools and prisons (except Federal ones, obviously) to states.
That's the way I'm leaning.
Every state has a Department of Education. 50 is enough, I think.
Johnson has made it clear that he will sign or not sign legislation that is presented to him, and that he will not "rule".
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 8 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,605,019 times
Reputation: 5697
I actually don't want to see either Trump or Clinton in the White House on January 20.
Yet I'm undecided until the last poll for Texas before the election comes out. This is because Texas may be a Deep Red state, but it also has a lot of minorities, especially Hispanics. Trump's rhetoric no doubt will encourage a huge voter registration drive among Hispanics (perhaps 25% of the state's voters are Hispanic at present, out of a total legal population that's 35 to 40% Hispanic). Add Blacks, probably another 12 which gives a small but significant change of turning Texas blue for at least 2016. If the spread between Trump and Clinton is under 5%, then I'm voting Clinton; 5 to 10%..mmm I'll flip a coin between Clinton and Jill Stein (or maybe write-in Bernie). Over 10%, I'll vote for Jill Stein or maybe write-in Bernie.
At this point in time I am voting for Johnson. His views are much closer to mine than either Clinton or Trump neither of whom I like in any shape or form.
Its never stupid to vote for the candidate you align with the most.
It is strategically stupid to vote for anyone who is not a nominee of one of the two major parties, because elections depend on the numbers and third-party candidates have no chance at all of winning, only of "spoiling".
There are only two candidates who have any chance of being elected President in 2016. If you don't vote for one of them, then you are, in essence throwing your vote away or to over to a candidate you might deeply regret having as your President.
It is strategically stupid to vote for anyone who is not a nominee of one of the two major parties, because elections depend on the numbers and third-party candidates have no chance at all of winning, only of "spoiling".
There are only two candidates who have any chance of being elected President in 2016. If you don't vote for one of them, then you are, in essence throwing your vote away or to over to a candidate you might deeply regret having as your President.
Thanks for calling thinking people with honest value systems "stupid". I'm sure you'll win tons of them over to the corrupt major parties. That's exactly what they are looking for. Someone supporting corrupt candidates to call them stupid.
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.
