I was a Cruz guy from the beginning...

[asmo]

It's simply a question of omission. If one omits to vote for trump, they empower another voter who is voting Clinton. In effect, the popular vote comes down to whomever had a scant percentage of more votes. The majority of people are nullifying the other candidate's votes. The rub for non-voters is that if you have enough of them who would have otherwise voted for candidate A, Candidate B benefits by the omission. Any vote for a 3rd party candidate is effectively a self-nullifying vote which only benefits the "winner".

False dichotomy. Also, the definition of "win" is not universally defined and agreed to by all parties.

[asmo]

There is no surviving a Hillary presidency solely because of the Supreme Court. It will shift far left so hard and there will never be any recovery. You can kiss your firearm rights goodbye (and the cold dead hands molon labe bullshit is just that, bullshit) every single person here would be no different than the california residents. Oh, 15 round limit? Ok. 10 round limit? Ok. 5 round limit? Ok. At what point is your firearms worth more than spending time with your kids?

So.... it is paramount that people do not vote third party in critical swing states. Ignore the f'ing presidency, the executive honestly doesn't do that much.

Vote only for the Supreme Court... do you want it 6:3 conservative [Ruth is going to move to New Zealand I think! LOL], or 7:2 "progressive" [Chances are very high we will lose 2 more conservative justices in the next 8]?

The problem is, even if you get Gary Johnson elected 8 years from now (riiiiight, but lets pretend) your hillary court will have revoked every right you ever gave a damn about and Gary won't be able to do anything about it - he would get maybe 1 SCOTUS nomination in 8 years, probably of a conservative, so the court would stay 7:2 "progressive". When it comes down to it, the president doesn't have nearly the power people think they do.... the most important power they have is appointing justices.

I agree with everything above about judges having the power and that the next President will have a giant amount of 2nd order power. (and the molan labe bullshit)

What I am also saying is that Hillary will be the next President - start accepting, and preparing for, that eventuality. If I end up being wrong - so what.

[kidicarus13]

(and the cold dead hands molon labe bullshit is just that, bullshit) every single person here would be no different than the california residents. Oh, 15 round limit? Ok. 10 round limit? Ok. 5 round limit? Ok.

YEP

[Ah Pook]

There is no surviving a Hillary presidency solely because of the Supreme Court. It will shift far left so hard and there will never be any recovery. You can kiss your firearm rights goodbye (and the cold dead hands molon labe bullshit is just that, bullshit) every single person here would be no different than the california residents. Oh, 15 round limit? Ok. 10 round limit? Ok. 5 round limit? Ok. At what point is your firearms worth more than spending time with your kids?

So.... it is paramount that people do not vote third party in critical swing states. Ignore the f'ing presidency, the executive honestly doesn't do that much.

Vote only for the Supreme Court... do you want it 6:3 conservative [Ruth is going to move to New Zealand I think! LOL], or 7:2 "progressive" [Chances are very high we will lose 2 more conservative justices in the next 8]?

The problem is, even if you get Gary Johnson elected 8 years from now (riiiiight, but lets pretend) your hillary court will have revoked every right you ever gave a damn about and Gary won't be able to do anything about it - he would get maybe 1 SCOTUS nomination in 8 years, probably of a conservative, so the court would stay 7:2 "progressive". When it comes down to it, the president doesn't have nearly the power people think they do.... the most important power they have is appointing justices.

Uh hu. Right on the button. As much as I hate Trump, there is no other option.

[crays]

Popular vote...


...right...

Electoral College

Have you all forgotten that little twist? Vote your conscience, vote your heart...hell, vote twice.

Just don't vote HRC.

[CS1983]

False dichotomy. Also, the definition of "win" is not universally defined and agreed to by all parties.

How is it a false dichotomy? We live in a 2 party paradigm which demands pragmatism, not some ideological utopia where, "if we get enough, we can have a viable 3rd party candidate!" An assertion gratuitously made can be gratuiously denied, so at least draw out your argument.

In what way does it matter if "all parties" define win the same way? We don't live in a pure democracy (thank God) and at this point a win is more or less a loss for the other "side".

Popular vote...


...right...

Electoral College

Have you all forgotten that little twist? Vote your conscience, vote your heart...hell, vote twice.

Just don't vote HRC.

Hence, I qualified my statement with "popular vote". The electoral college is indeed a thing and if they were to vote against the popular vote, which may or may not work in the favor of Trump, it would be completely legit per the system. The question is whether or not the system is legit. I don't personally think it is.

Dr. Alan Keyes' videos from last "election" illustrate this problem (particularly the one about The Electoral Process):
https://www.youtube.com/user/keyesyt/videos

Let's be honest: the Republic is DEAD. It's a rotting, stinking corpse being crawled over with the maggots of society's gadfly population which has pushed people into accepting faggotry, at least cultural Marxism, indifferentism to anything of importance in lieu of continued entertainment, the complete lack of the rule of law and the oversight of an oligarchy, the continued repealing of previously held Constitutional rights by a revisionism of interpretation and sometimes complete lack of checks and balances (rather than a continued clarification, as is wont to be needed); at this point, the US is no more in line with the vision of its Founders than Lutheranism is in line with Martin Luther or Methodism is with Charles Wesley; the only thing we share with the past is, perhaps, a revolutionary spirit (which if history is a guide, is actually a bad thing). We got rid of a king and ended up with hundreds of kings. We gave power to the sheep to elect wolves... hard to be entirely sympathetic to the grand buffet which results.

If anything, we are at a point akin to Weekend at Bernie's, only instead of Bernie, we have the corpses of all the Founding Fathers being carried around by Paul Ryan types.

Yeah, General Washington, it's a slippery slope, so let's just go slowly down the path instead of jumping off the deck:


Or one can saunter down the path with a 3rd party candidate. Either way, the only way to go is down. I suppose, in the end, at least vote for the guy who will walk slowest.

[Aloha_Shooter]

False dichotomy. Also, the definition of "win" is not universally defined and agreed to by all parties.

No, it's not. The Clintons downplayed the dichtomy to their success in both 1992 and 1996. Wilson played it successfully in 1912. In all three cases, the worst of two bad choices got into office because someone better (but in an unelectable situation) split the vote. What did we get from that? In Wilson's case, the League of Nations and World War I as well as leftist and racist policies. In Clinton's case, we got the AWB, 2 ultra-leftwing SCOTUS justices who shouldn't even have been sitting in the appellate court, Enron, the housing bubble, disembowelment of the military and intelligence (just the entire national security apparatus) communities, embedded politicization of the DOJ, Somalia, and the spawning of Al Qaeda (resulting in two embassy bombings and the USS Cole). As bad as Bush the Elder was, NONE of the items I've mentioned would have occurred in a Bush second term. World War I probably would still have happened but there's a chance it wouldn't have ballooned the way it did if the League of Nations hadn't set up the network of alliances or had been set up with enough teeth to put down an aggressor.

I agree with everything above about judges having the power and that the next President will have a giant amount of 2nd order power. (and the molan labe bullshit)

What I am also saying is that Hillary will be the next President - start accepting, and preparing for, that eventuality. If I end up being wrong - so what.

Prepare, yes. Accept, no. The problem isn't with you being wrong -- that happens a lot -- the problem is the self-fulfilling prophecy that makes you right because of idiots who won't turn out to vote or who throw a possible anti-Clinton vote away by "voting their conscience." I understood why people voted their conscience in 1992 with Perot but by 1996 they should have realized just how bad Clinton was and how futile Perot's campaign was.

Uh hu. Right on the button. As much as I hate Trump, there is no other option.

Bingo. If you want to protect the Constitution, Trump gives me the willies but anything other than voting for him is basically a vote to strike out the Second Amendment -- and the First, Fourth, and Fifth for anyone who isn't solidly onboard the leftwing agenda train. Clinton's past history has shown how she misuses and abuses official powers, how she sells out the American citizenry to line her own pockets. You think the IRS and DOJ malfeasances under Obama were bad? Just wait until Hillary gets to control them.

[asmo]

Its interesting to see the number of people saying things along the lines of "the Republic is DEAD", who are also saying that your vote will fix things (or at least not make it worse). If the Republic is truly dead, then your vote doesn't really matter.

[Irving]

Its interesting to see the number of people saying things along the lines of "the Republic is DEAD", who are also saying that your vote will fix things (or at least not make it worse). If the Republic is truly dead, then your vote doesn't really matter.

Came to post the same observation. Not a very convincing argument for how important it is to vote for a guy that no one likes and no one trusts.

[Dave]