Uh, this is the site where 90% of the people on this forum are doing the exact same thing as Ptown, but towards the other candidate. The only praising of Trump I've seen is the occasional CC-derping of "He speaks his mind!" and "He's a businessman!" and virtually everything else is solely about Hillary and her general corruptness.

That's the end result of a "lesser of two evils" election. No one has much of anything to say about their candidate and it's all about how the other one is somehow inferior.

I also am voting for Clinton because I think Trump is that bad.

Normally in a situation, I'd go for principle and vote 3rd party if I like neither of the candidates. In this case, I like neither but Trump would be a national embarrassment if he won.

I'm taking the corrupt Clinton over the moron disaster that is Trump.

I would cut my own dick off before I'd vote for Hillary Clinton

That being said, certainly not voting for Trump.

I still have no idea who I'll be voting for.

I know who I will be voting AGAINST and that is Hillary.

But, at the same time, I can't seem to bring myself to want to vote for Trump. I want my vote to count towards something, I don't want it wasted (for lack of a better word) by voting 3rd party, but it's seriously looking like that's the best option for people like me.
I'm really thinking that whoever votes for Trump it will be because they are voting against Hillary, not "for" Trump. It's all a screwed up mess :/

CenterBHSFan;1802536 wrote:I still have no idea who I'll be voting for.

I know who I will be voting AGAINST and that is Hillary.

But, at the same time, I can't seem to bring myself to want to vote for Trump. I want my vote to count towards something, I don't want it wasted (for lack of a better word) by voting 3rd party, but it's seriously looking like that's the best option for people like me.
I'm really thinking that whoever votes for Trump it will be because they are voting against Hillary, not "for" Trump. It's all a screwed up mess :/

That's just how it really is. When I need a bit of amusement, going to comment sections of poli sites usually is good for a laugh and I'm pretty sure that on both sides, the main impetus to voting for a candidate is to keep the other one out. Left-leaning sites are basically "anyone but Trump"; right-leaning sites are "anyone but Hillary". Even if you knew nothing about either candidate, it wouldn't take long to realize that the main virtue both are labeled with is simply that they aren't the other one.

Maybe because of the high volume of particularly independents or those center left to center right, who are disgusted by both candidates this is the perfect year to vote 3rd party. Let's face it we're not going from no viable 3rd party to a multi-party system over night. Perhaps this can be the election that starts to lead the transition. Is there a chance Johnson or Stein can win, no. What does have a chance, because of the extremely high negatives of the major party candidates, is a record level of turnout for a 3rd party. It could be the transitional election that starts a realistic national conversation about a 3rd party. Is progress toward a viable 3rd party worth a Trump Presidency though? That's what I struggle with when I think of my own vote.

rocketalum;1802543 wrote:Let's face it we're not going from no viable 3rd party to a multi-party system over night.

Perot got about 20% of the popular vote in '92, and that didn't lead to squat.

And they raised the bar because of that - VERY difficult to poll 15% to get on stage when the media essentially ignores 3rd party. It should be more than 0, but 15% seems a bit much given the way the game is rigged. Hopefully the Libertarians win their lawsuit.

Although it's somewhat of a joke, to begin with, that debates consisting of 90 second platform talking points has influence at all (better than 30 second tv ads, I suppose).

rocketalum;1802529 wrote:How is PTown not answering the question? You kind of trapped him into a no win situation where you were going to jump on him the moment he mentioned Trump but he's admitting Trump is the only reason he supports Hillary. So if Trump is the reason to vote Hillary you kind of have to mention his name in your response.

And I get it, I'm kind of there with him. I HATE the idea of Hillary as President and last summer was in a "I'll vote for anyone over her" frame of mind. But then the GOP had to call my bluff by nominating a reality show entertainer as the nominee.

Pretty simple, he was given 5 legitimate questions about Hillary and he couldn't even answer one of them. He had to go on a rant about Trump. Nobody asked him why he is voting for Hillary and not trump.

Just 100% pure deflection, because he knows the truth to those answers and doesn't want to admit to it.

I feel like i also have to keep going on record to say I'm voting for Gary Johnson and think Donald trump is an idiot. If you asked me why I think trump sucks ass I wouldn't ***** foot around and talk about Hillary. Ptown is a partisan coward.

Heretic;1802530 wrote:Uh, this is the site where 90% of the people on this forum are doing the exact same thing as Ptown, but towards the other candidate. The only praising of Trump I've seen is the occasional CC-derping of "He speaks his mind!" and "He's a businessman!" and virtually everything else is solely about Hillary and her general corruptness.

That's the end result of a "lesser of two evils" election. No one has much of anything to say about their candidate and it's all about how the other one is somehow inferior.

I get this. I understand why either side would vote against the other candidate whether they are going third party or toeing the party line. However, when you come off as a smug superior partisan like ptown I actually expect a legitimate response. Nobody asked why he is voting for Hillary. We already know why, and I get it. Until he can answer legitimate questions about the person he is voting for he is pretty much a partisan coward.

I can already see it now. If Hillary performs poorly in office the new deflection will be "well at least it's not trump." We may finally see an end to the Bush deflection.

It is pretty easy to vote for Trump in this race. When you look at the major issues of the day, he will clearly be better than Clinton.

Supreme Court: he released his list of potential nominees; they are all excellent choices and would be imminently better than any of the liberals Clinton would propose that would tip the balance in favor of radical liberal policies for a generation.

Taxes: his tax approach would be far superior to the anti-growth policies of a leftist Clinton regime. And repatriating $2 trillion would do wonders for the economy; especially when companies put it to work instead of hoarding as has been happening for 8 years under the marxist regime currently in charge that attacks capital at every turn.

Immigration: Stop the bleeding first, then fix the problem for real; vs. continue the open borders in order to register more free-loading democrat voters.

obamaKare: Trump will sign the bill to repeal, as opposed to obama who vetoed such bull last winter, and Clinton who would do the same. Perhaps the single greatest legislative victory FOR THE PEOPLE would be to bury obamaKare in its entirety.

Law enforcement: Trump will have the backs of the police, as opposed to obama/clinton regimes who continue to meddle and use the DOJ to dismantle and disenfranchise local police departments.

Military: Trump will respect the military and do all he can to rebuild it and let the leaders do their jobs. Clinton will continue the disastrous policies of obama.

Foreign policy: everything Clinton has touched has turned to shit. I will gladly take my chances with Trump.

Regulations: Trump will get the un-elected bureaucrats off the ass of business so maybe companies will start investing and innovating again. It is long past time to put the beatdown on EPA, NLRB, DOL, MSHA, OSHA and others who continue to drive business offshore. Clinton will only serve up more the same and allow these radicals to continue their assault on almost every industry we have.

I could go on and on ...........but if you take Trump's personality out of it, and just look at what will actually happen, there is no one in their right mind who could pick Clinton over Trump. When you then add in the fact that she is a criminal, serial liar, money-launderer, bitch, and her personal ambition ALWAYS trumps America's interests, it is a pretty simple choice.

The FBI director is going to get absolutely grilled tomorrow on the hill. Can't wait to watch this POS squirm.

Not sure why he is taking the fall; he should have just referred it to the DoJ and let those political hacks take the heat.

sleeper;1802573 wrote:The FBI director is going to get absolutely grilled tomorrow on the hill. Can't wait to watch this POS squirm.

Unless that was his plan all along. He went out and toed the company line and said what he was supposed to say.....while basically spelling out "gross negligence" for anyone who cared to listen.

QuakerOats;1802574 wrote:Not sure why he is taking the fall; he should have just referred it to the DoJ and let those political hacks take the heat.

gut;1802575 wrote:Unless that was his plan all along. He went out and toed the company line and said what he was supposed to say.....while basically spelling out "gross negligence" for anyone who cared to listen.

I don't know why he is taking the fall but he deserves to be grilled for giving Hillary a pass. It does seem he provided a lot of good evidence that didn't match his conclusion so maybe he was told to fall on the sword or else; but he wanted to get his point across.

I feel for the guy a little if that's the case.

I don't really understand all the love for libertarianism. As a republican I'm a fan of limited govt intervention having it act more as a referee than a coach but a strong federal govt is still needed.

That party for instance is still strongly against the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 which ended Jim Crow because it was a direct example of a state & local system being overpowered by DC. Yet it absolutely had to be because it was oppressing people's on the basis of race and I think we all can agree Jim Crow was a terrible thing

The timeline of these particular events is much too compelling for him to do otherwise. The outcome was predetermined long ago.

Look, Obama wouldn't have been flaunting her on AF1 to North Carolina to help her campaign if he knew any other outcome was still a possibility.

Classyposter58;1802577 wrote:I don't really understand all the love for libertarianism. As a republican I'm a fan of limited govt intervention having it act more as a referee than a coach but a strong federal govt is still needed.

That party for instance is still strongly against the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 which ended Jim Crow because it was a direct example of a state & local system being overpowered by DC. Yet it absolutely had to be because it was oppressing people's on the basis of race and I think we all can agree Jim Crow was a terrible thing

The general distinctions between Republican and Libertarian policy are mostly on the civil liberties side. Republican platforms have been largely influenced by the Moral Majority in recent decades, which has accounted for it taking positions that would legislate against some personal liberties.

The official Libertarian platform agrees that there is still a place for government. It's not synonymous with anarchy. Perhaps there might be differences in what "strong" federal government means between you and the traditional Libertarian, though.

As for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Libertarian Party doesn't stand opposed to the entirety of it. In fact, the element of it that addressed Jim Crow laws would have been affirmed by the Libertarian Party, as libertarian philosophies generally reject any preferential or distinctive treatment by public entities. Segregation de jure would have been categorically opposed.

The problematic elements, so far as the Libertarian platform is concerned, come down to Title II and Title VII which outlaw discriminatory hiring and selling practices by private entities. On its face, these sound reasonably egalitarian from a social engineering standpoint. It becomes an issue because it would be encouraged by, quite literally, forcing people to behave accordingly with threat of monetary penalties and imprisonment.


That's the part that stands at odds with the general Libertarian platform: that even if I think someone is a racist scumbag, they have the right to be one, and they have the right to use their privately-owned property to that end. The Titles in question are an affront to the basic notion of property and the rights that revolve around actually owning property.

sleeper;1802531 wrote:I also am voting for Clinton because I think Trump is that bad.

Normally in a situation, I'd go for principle and vote 3rd party if I like neither of the candidates. In this case, I like neither but Trump would be a national embarrassment if he won.

I'm taking the corrupt Clinton over the moron disaster that is Trump.

^^^

O-Trap;1802582 wrote:The general distinctions between Republican and Libertarian policy are mostly on the civil liberties side. ....

...and social issues. No?

I was voting for Johnson but then he chose Weld. Now he's praising Clinton. So, back to the drawing board.

I wonder how many foreign governments have Hillary emails stuffed in their back pockets. They may make some mighty nice bargaining tools in negotiations with president Hillary.

majorspark;1802612 wrote:I wonder how many foreign governments have Hillary emails stuffed in their back pockets. They may make some mighty nice bargaining tools in negotiations with president Hillary.

this.......she is bought and paid for all over the world. Her policies will be laughed at and foreign governments wont respect her at all.

terrorism is going to ramp up big time.

gut;1802575 wrote:Unless that was his plan all along. He went out and toed the company line and said what he was supposed to say.....while basically spelling out "gross negligence" for anyone who cared to listen.

If it was his plan it has temporarily done significant damage to the credibility of the FBI as being an apolitical organization. I agree with you he is spelling something out. This is very unusual and he has made it obvious he is fighting political forces I'll give him that. It will remain to be seen if he uses congressional hearings under oath to further this or quelch it. He is walking a tight line.

Classyposter58;1802577 wrote:I don't really understand all the love for libertarianism.

At least he's not Trump/Hillary