OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

[2112]

They need to be sat down and made to understand that the lesser of two evils is, in this instance, 10s of millions of fucktons less evil.

Respectfully, this attitude is just as wrong as the ones driving people to actually give any thought to Trump.

Deciding to vote for the "Lesser" of two evils is still...Evil.

The choice is to refuse to vote for either steaming pile of shit. If enough of the voters who say that they are "...unhappy..." with the choices that are foisted upon us by a deaf political party refuse to vote for those choices, then the message will be clear.

The problem is the attitude of: " You are wasting your vote...", " You are giving a vote to (whomever the opponent is...", etc...

I run into this with my wife who is far more conservative than I, a registered republican, is. I have refused to vote for either party since 2000. I was disgusted with how the vote turned out (even though I voted for Bush) and felt that the process had been corrupted to reflect what a few wanted, rather than the majority.

I never felt Gore would have been better ( He is a chump), I just felt that Bush did not reflect the wishes of the people and the whole "Hanging Chad" shit was just...shit.

From that point on I have refused to support either party since they seem incapable of producing a candidate that reflects the views of the majority of the voters. The candidates are reflective of the reactionary mindset of the political parties:

My wife says I am wasting my vote by voting third party, she says that my vote was an implicit vote for Obama. She, and many others, are incapable of seeing just what that vote represents: My refusal to let political parties from either side produce Presidential candidates one would not consider hiring into a position of trust. Or are incapable of doing a good job, they just fit the optics of the party and play into the stupidity of our voters.

Wanna beat the republicans but know HRC won't get the job done? Bring in the black man. Sure way to get the voters to vote for your side.

Wanna beat the current crop of republicans in 2016? Bring in the woman whom you refused to support eight years ago. Why the refusal to support her?

You. Did. Not. Trust.Her

and,

You. Did. Not. Like.Her

She has not changed, she will not change, she is no better than Trump. She just says things you like to hear and Trump does not.

Trump is the Anti-Hillary: The republican well is dry and Trump played on that, and the emotions of people who are tired of one thing or another. He says what many want to hear, he plays upon deep-seated prejudices and, like a puppeteer, pulls the right strings to get the reaction he wants.

From stupid, unthinking voters.

And he plays right into HRC's hands every time he opens his mouth.

This does not make HRC the best choice, this just makes her a bit more desirable, to many, as a candidate. Unfortunately, she is still a steaming pile of shit and unfit to be president. Her best quality is that she is a woman.

And if you tell me she will be a great president, or even better than Trump, then I ask you why you did not vote for her in 2008, but instead threw your vote in for an inexperienced person like Obama, and then tell you that you are full of shit.

She is merely the best smelling pile of shit the Dems could produce. That we have Trump and HRC as viable candidates is more of an indictment upon the voters that anything else. Shame on us.

Shame on us for accepting that the best choice we have is the "Lesser of Two Evils..."

I won't. I have not for more than a decade. A third party candidate is the "Lesser" evil than either of those two.

I hope that one day the majority of voters will stop eating the shit that is being force-fed to us by the Reps and Dems, the Conservatives and the Liberals, etc... and raise a clamor for real leaders. Not just the best minority, or the best bigot.

How about we stop voting for the "Lesser of the Two Evils" and start casting our votes in a manner that sends a message that we are tired of steaming piles of shit. Get enough people to vote for anyone but HRC or Trump (or whomever is the next pile of shit they produce), and it will send a message.

Settling for the "Lesser of Two Evils" just tells them that you will take your shit and eat it in any flavor they serve.

Sorry for the rant...

Wait...No I'm not.

 

[tiger roach]

I would happily vote 3rd party if there was a 3rd party candidate worth voting for. There isn't.

One of the things I read before each election is a newspaper supplement the League of Women Voters puts out. They send a short list of policy questions to each candidate and print their responses. Most of the the Green and Libertarian candidates don't even bother to respond to it.

 

[jelloman]

Respectfully, this attitude is just as wrong as the ones driving people to actually give any thought to Trump.

Deciding to vote for the "Lesser" of two evils is still...Evil.

The choice is to refuse to vote for either steaming pile of shit. If enough of the voters who say that they are "...unhappy..." with the choices that are foisted upon us by a deaf political party refuse to vote for those choices, then the message will be clear.

The problem is the attitude of: " You are wasting your vote...", " You are giving a vote to (whomever the opponent is...", etc...

I run into this with my wife who is far more conservative than I, a registered republican, is. I have refused to vote for either party since 2000. I was disgusted with how the vote turned out (even though I voted for Bush) and felt that the process had been corrupted to reflect what a few wanted, rather than the majority.

I never felt Gore would have been better ( He is a chump), I just felt that Bush did not reflect the wishes of the people and the whole "Hanging Chad" shit was just...shit.

From that point on I have refused to support either party since they seem incapable of producing a candidate that reflects the views of the majority of the voters. The candidates are reflective of the reactionary mindset of the political parties:

My wife says I am wasting my vote by voting third party, she says that my vote was an implicit vote for Obama. She, and many others, are incapable of seeing just what that vote represents: My refusal to let political parties from either side produce Presidential candidates one would not consider hiring into a position of trust. Or are incapable of doing a good job, they just fit the optics of the party and play into the stupidity of our voters.

Wanna beat the republicans but know HRC won't get the job done? Bring in the black man. Sure way to get the voters to vote for your side.

Wanna beat the current crop of republicans in 2016? Bring in the woman whom you refused to support eight years ago. Why the refusal to support her?

You. Did. Not. Trust.Her

and,

You. Did. Not. Like.Her

She has not changed, she will not change, she is no better than Trump. She just says things you like to hear and Trump does not.

Trump is the Anti-Hillary: The republican well is dry and Trump played on that, and the emotions of people who are tired of one thing or another. He says what many want to hear, he plays upon deep-seated prejudices and, like a puppeteer, pulls the right strings to get the reaction he wants.

From stupid, unthinking voters.

And he plays right into HRC's hands every time he opens his mouth.

This does not make HRC the best choice, this just makes her a bit more desirable, to many, as a candidate. Unfortunately, she is still a steaming pile of shit and unfit to be president. Her best quality is that she is a woman.

And if you tell me she will be a great president, or even better than Trump, then I ask you why you did not vote for her in 2008, but instead threw your vote in for an inexperienced person like Obama, and then tell you that you are full of shit.

She is merely the best smelling pile of shit the Dems could produce. That we have Trump and HRC as viable candidates is more of an indictment upon the voters that anything else. Shame on us.

Shame on us for accepting that the best choice we have is the "Lesser of Two Evils..."

I won't. I have not for more than a decade. A third party candidate is the "Lesser" evil than either of those two.

I hope that one day the majority of voters will stop eating the shit that is being force-fed to us by the Reps and Dems, the Conservatives and the Liberals, etc... and raise a clamor for real leaders. Not just the best minority, or the best bigot.

How about we stop voting for the "Lesser of the Two Evils" and start casting our votes in a manner that sends a message that we are tired of steaming piles of shit. Get enough people to vote for anyone but HRC or Trump (or whomever is the next pile of shit they produce), and it will send a message.

Settling for the "Lesser of Two Evils" just tells them that you will take your shit and eat it in any flavor they serve.

Sorry for the rant...

Wait...No I'm not.

 

[jp_nyc]

I initially thought he should have called them out publicly, but I realized putting them on the defensive wouldn't have helped. I don't think the fire side chat thing has been employed in my lifetime, but I would welcome it. Let the President address the nation without the constant interruption of the applause when giving the state of the union. The other party can have their rebuttal afterwards, but having the President making their case directly to the people on a regular basis makes sense.

IMHO he should have been out barnstorming the country to drum up support from day one. Obama is the best speaker American politics has had since JFK. That’s what got him elected. He didn’t need to call out the GOP or go to war. He just needed to put the momentum of his campaign to work. Instead he shifted gears to technocratic rose garden press conferences, which he’s terrible at.

 

[Kerouac]

This does not make HRC the best choice, this just makes her a bit more desirable, to many, as a candidate. Unfortunately, she is still a steaming pile of shit and unfit to be president. Her best quality is that she is a woman.

Not only is that untrue, that's the same sort of misogynistic bullshit that Trump and his camp have been spewing for months. Clinton is the most qualified for the job. It's that simple. She may not be likable, but she can do the job and there is not a single other candidate on the ballot that can. Pulling the woman card is dismissive and frankly, reflects a poor understanding of the political process.

 

[smurfco]

Yeah Hillary Clinton isn't great but come on. I can't remember who said it but someone said that being undecided between these two at this point is like being on a plane and the flight attendant says "tonight's dinner choices are chicken or a cup of diarrhea" and you hesitate and ask how the chicken is cooked

 

[2112]

I would happily vote 3rd party if there was a 3rd party candidate worth voting for. There isn't.

One of the things I read before each election is a newspaper supplement the League of Women Voters puts out. They send a short list of policy questions to each candidate and print their responses. Most of the the Green and Libertarian candidates don't even bother to respond to it.

You are missing the point: Don't vote for the third party candidate because he/she is "good", vote for the candidate to send the message that you will no longer accept the shit they foist upon us.

Plus: Why not vote third party? Are you really going to tell me that Trump or HRC are better? Really?

This election is not about who can do the job better. I think the general consensus is that both are crappy. This election is about the political parties proving that by voting for Trump or HRC, the voters are, essentially, stupid, stupid sheep who are easily led and incapable of doing anything other than what they party tells them to do.

As far as the League of Women Voters thingy? It is just like any other pap that is published by our favorite political action group: Ask questions that are skewed to reflect a minority and then, as the shepherd does: Lead the sheep in the direction you want them to go.

Most third party candidates probably do not have the time to pander to this type of shit because organizations like the League of Woman Voters are merely regurgitating "action items!" that reflect their narrative.

Do not take this as a specific attack upon the League of Women Voters, but more of an attack on any group of that sort, be it the League or Woman Voters or the Apple Valley Little League:

They have an agenda that is not reflective of the whole, merely a part.

 

[jelloman]

Not only is that untrue, that's the same sort of misogynistic bullshit that Trump and his camp have been spewing for months. Clinton is the most qualified for the job. It's that simple. She may not be likable, but she can do the job and there is not a single other candidate on the ballot that can. Pulling the woman card is dismissive and frankly, reflects a poor understanding of the political process.

She has a long history of entitlement and evasion...

As first lady she tried to ram through a health care initiative that fell flat, and she blamed a "vast right wing conspiracy" when her husbands infidelity became public...

Under investigation for the Whitewater mess she repeatedly ignored a federal subpoena for records that suddenly turned "under a pile of books in the reading room" wheno she had no choice...

She carpet bagged her way into the Senate and then did nothing to represent the people of her state...

As Secretary of state she "negotiated" with 112 countries, but has very few actual accomplishments to show for it...

The, when terrorists were attacking an embassy she failed to react in time to save her staff, was complicit with Obama in blaming a YouTube video for the attack, and, when Congress demanded an explanation, declared " what difference does it make now?"...

None of this has anything to do with misogyny...and if this is how the political process works this country is completely fucked...

She does have an enviable record for children's and women's issues, I grant that, but that does not qualify you to be president...

This election has NOTHING to do with being qualified...it's nothing more than choosing which heaping pile of steaming shit stinks less...and that is a crime against the American people perpetrated by BOTH political.parties...

The whole system sucks...

 

[micwalt]

I didn't vote for Obama over Clinton in the primaries in '08 because I didn't like or trust her. I voted the way I did specifically because she is more hawkish than he and she supported the individual mandate for insurance while he did not.
She is supremely qualified for the job, reflects my views on many issues, and has the balls to fight the obstructionist Congress.

 

[Flamencology]

Respectfully, this attitude is just as wrong as the ones driving people to actually give any thought to Trump.

Deciding to vote for the "Lesser" of two evils is still...Evil.

The choice is to refuse to vote for either steaming pile of shit. If enough of the voters who say that they are "...unhappy..." with the choices that are foisted upon us by a deaf political party refuse to vote for those choices, then the message will be clear.

The problem is the attitude of: " You are wasting your vote...", " You are giving a vote to (whomever the opponent is...", etc...

I run into this with my wife who is far more conservative than I, a registered republican, is. I have refused to vote for either party since 2000. I was disgusted with how the vote turned out (even though I voted for Bush) and felt that the process had been corrupted to reflect what a few wanted, rather than the majority.

I never felt Gore would have been better ( He is a chump), I just felt that Bush did not reflect the wishes of the people and the whole "Hanging Chad" shit was just...shit.

From that point on I have refused to support either party since they seem incapable of producing a candidate that reflects the views of the majority of the voters. The candidates are reflective of the reactionary mindset of the political parties:

My wife says I am wasting my vote by voting third party, she says that my vote was an implicit vote for Obama. She, and many others, are incapable of seeing just what that vote represents: My refusal to let political parties from either side produce Presidential candidates one would not consider hiring into a position of trust. Or are incapable of doing a good job, they just fit the optics of the party and play into the stupidity of our voters.

Wanna beat the republicans but know HRC won't get the job done? Bring in the black man. Sure way to get the voters to vote for your side.

Wanna beat the current crop of republicans in 2016? Bring in the woman whom you refused to support eight years ago. Why the refusal to support her?

You. Did. Not. Trust.Her

and,

You. Did. Not. Like.Her

She has not changed, she will not change, she is no better than Trump. She just says things you like to hear and Trump does not.

Trump is the Anti-Hillary: The republican well is dry and Trump played on that, and the emotions of people who are tired of one thing or another. He says what many want to hear, he plays upon deep-seated prejudices and, like a puppeteer, pulls the right strings to get the reaction he wants.

From stupid, unthinking voters.

And he plays right into HRC's hands every time he opens his mouth.

This does not make HRC the best choice, this just makes her a bit more desirable, to many, as a candidate. Unfortunately, she is still a steaming pile of shit and unfit to be president. Her best quality is that she is a woman.

And if you tell me she will be a great president, or even better than Trump, then I ask you why you did not vote for her in 2008, but instead threw your vote in for an inexperienced person like Obama, and then tell you that you are full of shit.

She is merely the best smelling pile of shit the Dems could produce. That we have Trump and HRC as viable candidates is more of an indictment upon the voters that anything else. Shame on us.

Shame on us for accepting that the best choice we have is the "Lesser of Two Evils..."

I won't. I have not for more than a decade. A third party candidate is the "Lesser" evil than either of those two.

I hope that one day the majority of voters will stop eating the shit that is being force-fed to us by the Reps and Dems, the Conservatives and the Liberals, etc... and raise a clamor for real leaders. Not just the best minority, or the best bigot.

How about we stop voting for the "Lesser of the Two Evils" and start casting our votes in a manner that sends a message that we are tired of steaming piles of shit. Get enough people to vote for anyone but HRC or Trump (or whomever is the next pile of shit they produce), and it will send a message.

Settling for the "Lesser of Two Evils" just tells them that you will take your shit and eat it in any flavor they serve.

Sorry for the rant...

Wait...No I'm not.

I like Clinton well enough, and I like her a hell of a lot more than either of the 3rd party candidates, and I like her a thousand times more than Trump.

I'd vote for Obama for a 3rd term, if I could. Alas.

For almost most every single one of Obama's failings, I blame the GOP. Honestly. IMHO, American conservatism, as it presently exists, should be eviscerated and thrown on the shit pile of history. Legitimately; in 100 years, those who obstructed Obama, supported Trump, etc., will be viewed similarly as those who opposed the civil rights movements of the 60s, various LGBTQ rights movements,, etc.

I'm totally fine with your choice not to vote. In fact, I'm happy to hear it.

 

[Kerouac]

She has a long history of entitlement and evasion...

As first lady she tried to ram through a health care initiative that fell flat, and she blamed a "vast right wing conspiracy" when her husbands infidelity became public...

Under investigation for the Whitewater mess she repeatedly ignored a federal subpoena for records that suddenly turned "under a pile of books in the reading room" wheno she had no choice...

She carpet bagged her way into the Senate and then did nothing to represent the people of her state...

As Secretary of state she "negotiated" with 112 countries, but has very few actual accomplishments to show for it...

The, when terrorists were attacking an embassy she failed to react in time to save her staff, was complicit with Obama in blaming a YouTube video for the attack, and, when Congress demanded an explanation, declared " what difference does it make now?"...

None of this has anything to do with misogyny...and if this is how the political process works this country is completely fucked...

She does have an enviable record for children's and women's issues, I grant that, but that does not qualify you to be president...

This election has NOTHING to do with being qualified...it's nothing more than choosing which heaping pile of steaming shit stinks less...and that is a crime against the American people perpetrated by BOTH political.parties...

The whole system sucks...

Parts of her healthcare initiative fell through, but she was able to provide more care for women and children, as working to improve the adoption guidelines, funding, and placement, especially for children with special needs.

If you don't think there isn't a vast right wing conspiracy against the Clinton's, I don't know what to tell you. The GOP has spent the better part of two decades now actively opposing anything that either Bill or Hillary do.

As far as being SoS and not accomplishing much, she did what Bush #2 couldn't do, and aid in the killing of Osama Bin Ladin. She toughened sanctions on Iran and North Korea. She repaired damaged relationships from the Bush years on the international stage.

Benghazi doesn't mean a damn thing, especially when you try to tie it to Clinton. There is no evidence of any kind that they could have prevented the attack on the embassy by any other means than security reinforcements, which the GOP denied funding for. The Benghazi Witch Hunt has cost the Amerian taxpayers millions, and Gowdy has even admitted it was a political ploy.

Clinton is a lawyer, a senator, a first lady, a secretary of state, and there has never been someone in American history with that kind of legacy to be running on. You don't have to like her and you certainly don't have to vote for her... but diminishing her capabilities is just sour grapes.

 

[2112]

Not only is that untrue, that's the same sort of misogynistic bullshit that Trump and his camp have been spewing for months. Clinton is the most qualified for the job. It's that simple. She may not be likable, but she can do the job and there is not a single other candidate on the ballot that can. Pulling the woman card is dismissive and frankly, reflects a poor understanding of the political process.

You call it misogynistic because you do not agree with it. So? Does not, in any way, make it misogynistic. Perhaps it is the truth and many refuse to accept it.

Lemme ask you where your vote was in 2008? HRC or Obama? If she is the "Most Qualified" as you, and many others aver, then where the fuck was she in 2008? Not on the final ballot even though she ran.

That in itself is an indictment of the "She is THE BEST FOR THE JOB!" pap that is being said. If she was you, and everybody else, would have voted for her eight years ago. But you did not, you voted for the inexperienced one...because he is black.

Now all you have is an undesirable woman to vote for so you throw your vote to her.

Pulling the misogynistic card is dismissive and avoids having to admit that her supporters are driven by their own prejudices when voting.

As for understanding the political process? I understand it, implicitly. Sheep are led to believe that the "Most Qualified" candidate this year was less qualified eight years ago and, instead, an inexperienced candidate was the "Most Qualified" then. But now she is ok.

Why not then?

Because she was far less desirable than the one candidate that was sure to beat the old white guy.

That is the political process and it is working quite well when we look at our choices and the blind support they garner.

Poor understanding of political process is saying that a candidate is "Most Qualified" now when she was "Most Qualified" eight years ago, but not as "qualified" as Obama.

You can accuse me of being anything you want to accuse me of. That does not mean you are correct, it just means you have chosen to allow your bias to judge me for my words. Not that they are wrong, they just don't fit the narrative that is important to you.

 

[sunvalleylaw]

I initially thought he should have called them out publicly, but I realized putting them on the defensive wouldn't have helped. I don't think the fire side chat thing has been employed in my lifetime, but I would welcome it. Let the President address the nation without the constant interruption of the applause when giving the state of the union. The other party can have their rebuttal afterwards, but having the President making their case directly to the people on a regular basis makes sense.

Mine either to my knowledge. But since that seems such a strength of his, and since fear is often allayed by information and familiarity, it seems like something that may have worked, if he could have figured out a way to get it broadcast so that enough people (his absolute haters would never be convinced) to tune in. (tune in, sounds so old skool).

 

[2112]

I like Clinton well enough, and I like her a hell of a lot more than either of the 3rd party candidates, and I like her a thousand times more than Trump.

I'd vote for Obama for a 3rd term, if I could. Alas.

For almost most every single one of Obama's failings, I blame the GOP. Honestly. IMHO, American conservatism, as it presently exists, should be eviscerated and thrown on the shit pile of history. Legitimately; in 100 years, those who obstructed Obama, supported Trump, etc., will be viewed similarly as those who opposed the civil rights movements of the 60s, various LGBTQ rights movements,, etc.

I'm totally fine with your choice not to vote. In fact, I'm happy to hear it.

Fine, place the blame on conservatism. I do place a lot of blame on the shoulders of conservatism. They deserve it for their narrow, inclusive views. I despise conservatism for how it tries to tell me how I should act.

Same reason I blame liberalism for their narrow views and their willingness to resort to prejudices and bias to get what they want.

Neither side is immune, one side just wraps themselves in the robes of enlightenment (while trying to control society to fit their narrative), and the other wraps itself in the Bible and core values that were never that valuable.

 

[Flamencology]

You call it misogynistic because you do not agree with it. So? Does not, in any way, make it misogynistic. Perhaps it is the truth and many refuse to accept it.

Lemme ask you where your vote was in 2008? HRC or Obama? If she is the "Most Qualified" as you, and many others aver, then where the fuck was she in 2008? Not on the final ballot even though she ran.

That in itself is an indictment of the "She is THE BEST FOR THE JOB!" pap that is being said. If she was you, and everybody else, would have voted for her eight years ago. But you did not, you voted for the inexperienced one...because he is black.

Now all you have is an undesirable woman to vote for so you throw your vote to her.

Pulling the misogynistic card is dismissive and avoids having to admit that her supporters are driven by their own prejudices when voting.

As for understanding the political process? I understand it, implicitly. Sheep are led to believe that the "Most Qualified" candidate this year was less qualified eight years ago and, instead, an inexperienced candidate was the "Most Qualified" then. But now she is ok.

Why not then?

Because she was far less desirable than the one candidate that was sure to beat the old white guy.

That is the political process and it is working quite well when we look at our choices and the blind support they garner.

Poor understanding of political process is saying that a candidate is "Most Qualified" now when she was "Most Qualified" eight years ago, but not as "qualified" as Obama.

You can accuse me of being anything you want to accuse me of. That does not mean you are correct, it just means you have chosen to allow your bias to judge me for my words. Not that they are wrong, they just don't fit the narrative that is important to you.

You just dealt with an accusation of misogyny by making a racist statement.

I don't feel the need to label you a racist, a misogynist, a scumbag, a deplorable, an Okie, whatever.

But the thoughts that you've expressed are dyed with racist and misogynistic tints and shades, and you seem not to be aware of that. I'd recommend some self-reflection.

 

[jelloman]

Parts of her healthcare initiative fell through, but she was able to provide more care for women and children, as working to improve the adoption guidelines, funding, and placement, especially for children with special needs.

If you don't think there isn't a vast right wing conspiracy against the Clinton's, I don't know what to tell you. The GOP has spent the better part of two decades now actively opposing anything that either Bill or Hillary do.

As far as being SoS and not accomplishing much, she did what Bush #2 couldn't do, and aid in the killing of Osama Bin Ladin. She toughened sanctions on Iran and North Korea. She repaired damaged relationships from the Bush years on the international stage.

Benghazi doesn't mean a damn thing, especially when you try to tie it to Clinton. There is no evidence of any kind that they could have prevented the attack on the embassy by any other means than security reinforcements, which the GOP denied funding for. The Benghazi Witch Hunt has cost the Amerian taxpayers millions, and Gowdy has even admitted it was a political ploy.

Clinton is a lawyer, a senator, a first lady, a secretary of state, and there has never been someone in American history with that kind of legacy to be running on. You don't have to like her and you certainly don't have to vote for her... but diminishing her capabilities is just sour grapes.

Andy, much earlier in this thread I asked if she was the best the Democrats had to offer and you responded with something akin to "no, but Elizabeth Warren won't run"...unless you're changing your stance even you admit that there are better and more desirable candidates available for the job...

It's not sour grapes, Andy...I sincerely do not believe she is a good fit for the position...I hope I'm wrong, I really do...but I cannot support her or vote for her...

 

[Honkridge]

Respectfully, this attitude is just as wrong as the ones driving people to actually give any thought to Trump.

Deciding to vote for the "Lesser" of two evils is still...Evil.

The choice is to refuse to vote for either steaming pile of shit. If enough of the voters who say that they are "...unhappy..." with the choices that are foisted upon us by a deaf political party refuse to vote for those choices, then the message will be clear.

The problem is the attitude of: " You are wasting your vote...", " You are giving a vote to (whomever the opponent is...", etc...

I run into this with my wife who is far more conservative than I, a registered republican, is. I have refused to vote for either party since 2000. I was disgusted with how the vote turned out (even though I voted for Bush) and felt that the process had been corrupted to reflect what a few wanted, rather than the majority.

I never felt Gore would have been better ( He is a chump), I just felt that Bush did not reflect the wishes of the people and the whole "Hanging Chad" shit was just...shit.

From that point on I have refused to support either party since they seem incapable of producing a candidate that reflects the views of the majority of the voters. The candidates are reflective of the reactionary mindset of the political parties:

My wife says I am wasting my vote by voting third party, she says that my vote was an implicit vote for Obama. She, and many others, are incapable of seeing just what that vote represents: My refusal to let political parties from either side produce Presidential candidates one would not consider hiring into a position of trust. Or are incapable of doing a good job, they just fit the optics of the party and play into the stupidity of our voters.

Wanna beat the republicans but know HRC won't get the job done? Bring in the black man. Sure way to get the voters to vote for your side.

Wanna beat the current crop of republicans in 2016? Bring in the woman whom you refused to support eight years ago. Why the refusal to support her?

You. Did. Not. Trust.Her

and,

You. Did. Not. Like.Her

She has not changed, she will not change, she is no better than Trump. She just says things you like to hear and Trump does not.

Trump is the Anti-Hillary: The republican well is dry and Trump played on that, and the emotions of people who are tired of one thing or another. He says what many want to hear, he plays upon deep-seated prejudices and, like a puppeteer, pulls the right strings to get the reaction he wants.

From stupid, unthinking voters.

And he plays right into HRC's hands every time he opens his mouth.

This does not make HRC the best choice, this just makes her a bit more desirable, to many, as a candidate. Unfortunately, she is still a steaming pile of shit and unfit to be president. Her best quality is that she is a woman.

And if you tell me she will be a great president, or even better than Trump, then I ask you why you did not vote for her in 2008, but instead threw your vote in for an inexperienced person like Obama, and then tell you that you are full of shit.

She is merely the best smelling pile of shit the Dems could produce. That we have Trump and HRC as viable candidates is more of an indictment upon the voters that anything else. Shame on us.

Shame on us for accepting that the best choice we have is the "Lesser of Two Evils..."

I won't. I have not for more than a decade. A third party candidate is the "Lesser" evil than either of those two.

I hope that one day the majority of voters will stop eating the shit that is being force-fed to us by the Reps and Dems, the Conservatives and the Liberals, etc... and raise a clamor for real leaders. Not just the best minority, or the best bigot.

How about we stop voting for the "Lesser of the Two Evils" and start casting our votes in a manner that sends a message that we are tired of steaming piles of shit. Get enough people to vote for anyone but HRC or Trump (or whomever is the next pile of shit they produce), and it will send a message.

Settling for the "Lesser of Two Evils" just tells them that you will take your shit and eat it in any flavor they serve.

Sorry for the rant...

Wait...No I'm not.

Vote for the guy who doesn't know what Aleppo is? The guy who can't name the leader of N. Korea? Fuck that...

 

[sunvalleylaw]

I didn't vote for Obama over Clinton in the primaries in '08 because I didn't like or trust her. I voted the way I did specifically because she is more hawkish than he and she supported the individual mandate for insurance while he did not.
She is supremely qualified for the job, reflects my views on many issues, and has the balls to fight the obstructionist Congress.

I can agree with this, and still say she was not my first choice. But because I can say the above I will gladly vote for her.

 

[baimun]

That in itself is an indictment of the "She is THE BEST FOR THE JOB!" pap that is being said. If she was you, and everybody else, would have voted for her eight years ago. But you did not, you voted for the inexperienced one...because he is black...

I for one voted for Obama both times because he impressed me as the most thoughtful, measured, articulate candidate who I could see being able to work in the hostile two party environment of our government and actually making progress in our country instead of blowing hot air.

Universal Health Care? Check.
Kept the market crash from spiraling out of control? Check
Drastically reduce the number of soldiers we have involved in various countries? Yes.
Don't ask Don't Tell? Gone
Focused on Climate Change and not under delusion that it's a hoax? Most definitely
Marriage equality? About time.

Those are just the ones off the top of my head. Hillary has changed position on some of these and other topics since she ran against him, as well as adopting some of the policies of Bernie Sanders since it was evident that such a large swath of the American people were demanding it.

Any politician who spends more time spewing fear or negativity loses my vote immediately regardless of if they're red or blue, white or black, male or female. I will always gravitate to the candidate who has the plan that aligns the most with my personal vision for this country. Anyone who sounds like a TV Evangelist makes my skin crawl.

 

[Dogsinplastic]

When people say that John Kasich is "practically a Democrat", I don't know whether I should laugh at them or cry because they're voters.

People are saying this?!

That means they're thinking it! Which means the must be stupid. Okay, since we're talking US citizens the story checks out.