You said Clinton wasn't qualified to be President and now you're saying her qualifications don't matter. Trump's entire campaign is out of the demagogue playbook. That's not Clinton politics as usual corruption, lies, and scandal. Your attempt to lump it all together is weak. It's not the same. Demagoguery on this level is incredibly dangerous and our place as a superpower makes it potentially world shattering. People around the world aren't terrified of Trump because he's the truth and whatever, it's because the world has seen this before and it ends really horribly. Nobody has to convince you. Read about history's tyrants and demagogues for yourself.
If anyone crams Ms. Clinton here it is only because we find Mr. Trump utterly detestable. There is some solace in electing a woman because it is an empowering act for 50% of the population. Physical strength and combat ability are becoming anachronisms for determining power, society is evolving to include women and that is a good thing. The fact that she has learned 'politics' and had advantages is part of being the pioneer. It will be a more level road for all in the future and we can have a larger population base to choose from on ability and merit. Every specter of a Trump win is disturbing. It dumbs us all down, elevates fear and hate over reason and removes us a step from a democracy of higher ideals. *whoever thinks Trump means lower taxes doesn't really know how the House works. The same GOP incumbents that have run tax legislation for the last 7 years will be in charge of it for at least the next 2. They do not give a rats ass about Mr. Trump.
You keep trying to convince me one is better than the other. You can quote a hundred books and reference millions of sources,but it doesn't change the fact is they are both terrible candidates.
I won't get offended with you, dude. I'll just say that if you have a progressive bone in your body, and maybe you don't, you are being really stupid, with all due respect. Oh, and no one is "cramming one candidate down your throat." Vote or don't vote, and if you don't, just don't complain if you don't like the consequences.
I'm not trying to convince you, just explaining the failure of your comparison. Mussolini and Anthony Weiner were both terrible political candidates for office and yet nobody would confuse them in the manner you've grouped Clinton and Trump. Fortunately it looks like you won't have to see what a Trump presidency looks like. Good luck.
Fair point. When Bernie was shafted by the DNC, it became apparent that there was no real candidate to rally behind. It is sickening though that we have lowered ourselves to fighting over these two candidates. .
Ive never understood this train of thought. I feel so unbelievably misrepresented by these two people but if I don't do something that I truly couldn't live with myself for doing I'm not allowed to identify mistakes or have opinions about what happens next? Because.....why? Conservative doesn't even apply to small government, less intervention, saving money, etc. anymore. It pretty much just means you're the anchor on society now, even at the direct opposition to core beliefs. Pro-life and conservative governing bodies don't jibe, despite an entire section of people that think that's what it means. To that end, the best candidate they could present is an arrogant loud-mouth with zero political experience. Not MY president, if it were up to me or you know, if our votes were truly counted. Liberal became the favored societal trend, one I'm not opposed to just to be 100% clear. Gay marriage, abortions, guns, refugees, I seriously just don't give a **** about what other people do. It doesn't affect me and quite frankly, I don't think it matters what I believe about them. Women deserve equal pay and less rape. I'm down for that. I just don't need 3 more agencies to oversee it, more taxes to pay for it and a slew of crybaby bleeding heart windbags to tell me about it. To that end, the best candidate they could present is a humanoid robot, a career politician (read: sleazebag) who is likely a high level criminal, with blood on her hands and many skeletons in her closet. Let's not forget, didn't represent the new age term of liberal for most of that career. The only and I mean ONLY solace is that there might be some kind of social upswing for women and frankly, I've heard about e-****ing-nough of it from my wife already and she's not even president yet. She said Michelle Obama in 4 years and I honestly couldn't tell if she was kidding. Not MY president here either. To be perfectly honest, it would take probably more than any candidate can offer to get my vote. A conservative governing, socially progressive and responsible adult who I feel I could both work for and drink a beer with to shoot the ****. Someone in between overshooting inexperience with radical babble and a lifelong, polished schlub. A true, middle of the road choice. Someone who came from our level and doesn't bend to the will of lobbyist, money and special interest groups. So I HAVE to choose between a selfish, egotistical maniac or a dirty, disconnected bottom feeder? again I ask, WHY?
Maybe it hasn't for the last 40 years. What I do know is that "small government", or the appearance of it is merely an illusion fed to people who live in small towns that is at least one tenth the size of a neighboring large city. Some cities are themselves not small with their billion dollar budget, and only use code words and simple models during election years to prop up the belief that governing can be simple and easy in order not to bog us dummies down with the details. Once the man behind the curtin is revealed, are you content with complaining about only having that fraud or the witch to choose from? The primary process this year was in plain sight for everyone to see. Instead of a "rigged" Bush v Clinton rematch cynics like me were expecting, Republican primary voters pulled a flying monkey out of their ass and achieved the unthinkable. Votes do count, despite whatever the numerically inferior Bernie bros were crying about. It's just no one cared enough to go the distance and only bandwagoned the fourth quarter.
The budget doesn't have to be small and honestly this doesnt answer my question. You're going to nitpick my opinion about how much voting matters? That's not what I'm talking about really.
In the last 84 years, voter turnout for presidential election is around 50-60%. 40-50% do not vote. If you don't vote, you don't have a voice. I believe that if closer to 80% of eligible folks voted, we have a vastly different political system today.
I disagree, wholeheartedly. My voice is dissatisfaction. You want 30-40% more voters, how about a candidate that isn't a raving lunatic or a piece of ****? I'm not picking between those two. I don't have to. And guess what? After I choose neither of them, I'm going to praise and complain appropriately. Not my fault this 2 party system exists. Not my fault the worst among us get put on a pedestal.
No one hear your dissatisfaction when you don't vote. The political system may not be representative of what the larger population want because about half of them don't vote.
You aren't hearing me now? Voting for Clinton would be approving of Clinton. Not voicing dissatisfaction. So again, I disagree. The least you could do is understand, I'm not even asking you to jump on board with me.
If you believe in progressive social values, which you appear to say, then an excellent reason to vote for Ms. Clinton is that she will appoint "progressive leaning" judges to lifetime seats on the Federal bench, including the Supreme Court. That has a societal impact for decades, a progressive impact, unlike the Roberts court, which is incredibly far to the right. In my opinion.
I didn't said vote for Clinton. I said vote. You can choose a 3rd party candidate. You can write down another name. The problem is there are too many people that do not vote... and if you don't vote, your complain is pretty much useless. Your power, collective power, is in your vote. Exercise it or lose it.
she might, who knows really. She has a fairly conservative record pertaining to social issues unless I'm mistaken. I have the right to vote no I have the right to NOT vote. Voting is inherently approving, something I don't of either major candidate. If it's a problem, then it's working imo. Your opinion is worth nothing more than mine because you voted.
LOL, of course you have the right to not vote. And as bloc of non-voter, you chooses to give the voter bloc that much more power over you. If you don't care about that, cool. If you do, which it sounds you do cause you are complaining, then well, there is something you could do about it than just complain.
She might? It's 10/2016 and you don't know what her positions are? She's always been a left-leaning moderate or a liberal pragmatic.
I really love how the establishment is getting angry that people are refusing to vote for either candidate. I heard one person quote: Not voting for the lesser of the two evil makes not voting a 3rd evil. Dafuq?? Abstaining from this **** storm is the wisest position. This is the most insecure election i've ever seen.
