Hilary won't be charged...

[Chicken Dinner]

As long as we continue holding our noses and voting for the lesser of two evils, they'll continue to offer up the same garbage.

[Thumper]

Gary Johnson is likely to get my vote. Some might say its throwing away my vote, but at least I can look myself in the mirror the day after.

BKb

So, what's the difference between voting for Gary Johnson and simply staying home and not voting? Is it just a "feel-good" thing so you can say you did your part even though it is a totally wasted effort? It's like pissing on a forest fire, what have you accomplished? Simply being able to say you did something, all the while knowing you "really" weren't doing a darned thing?

[Thumper]

As long as we continue holding our noses and voting for the lesser of two evils, they'll continue to offer up the same garbage.

CD, what option is there? Seriously. There are three choices as I see it.

#1) Vote for evil
#2) Vote for the lesser of two evils
#3) Don't vote at all

Is there another choice that will actually accomplish anything?

[Chicken Dinner]

I totally disagree. It's called voting for the candidate you feel best represents your beliefs and/or is best qualified to lead he country. The chips will fall where they may. If we end up with HRC as POTUS it will be the fault of the Republicans who nominated a loser.

[Hombre]

I think the difference is changing public perception that a 3rd party candidate could ever win. A lot of people won't vote for a libertarian because public opinion is "no chance to win". If a libertarian does well, even in a loss it might change that perception in the next election cycle.

[BarryBobPosthole]

I wonder what Civics class you. attended Thumper, that taught you that the objective is always to vote for the winner? Sure, we want our candidate to win, but to use a vote just to pick a winner doesn't really seem right to me. Of course, its your vote so do what you like with it.

BKB

[Thumper]

And if we end up with DJT as POTUS, it will be the fault of the Democrats who nominated a loser?

How is that different from ANY election? There has to be a winner and loser, correct? It just seems like the political gene pool is lacking these days.

[BarryBobPosthole]

Its lacking big time! But extremist arms of both parties are the reason we have the candidates we do. A centrist in either party can't get nominated. Think back to the contest on the Repubican side when they were arguing who was the most conservative. And Bernie Sanders almost did the same on the Democratic side.

BKB

[Chicken Dinner]

It is said that the definition if insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. I'm just not going to play that game any more. It's time for a third option.

[Thumper]

It is said that the definition if insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. I'm just not going to play that game any more. It's time for a third option.

I believe that's why Trump has such a large following. He may be a registered Republican, but that sure doesn't make him "status quo".

[Thumper]

I wonder what Civics class you. attended Thumper, that taught you that the objective is always to vote for the winner? Sure, we want our candidate to win, but to use a vote just to pick a winner doesn't really seem right to me. Of course, its your vote so do what you like with it. BKB

I agree with you to a point ... in principle only. If voting for a 3rd party candidate with zero chance of winning gives you that tingly feel-good feeling, go for it. The point is, I despise Hillary, so the only choice I have to attempt to keep her out of office is to vote against her. That's where the lesser of two evils comes into play IMHO. Voting for a 3rd party candidate these days will accomplish NOTHING other than giving you the satisfaction that you've filed a protest vote. You may as well stay home and reduce traffic at the polling places.

[LJ3]

I think the difference is changing public perception that a 3rd party candidate could ever win. A lot of people won't vote for a libertarian because public opinion is "no chance to win". If a libertarian does well, even in a loss it might change that perception in the next election cycle.

Johnson's polling at 13% right now. If he gets to 15%, he gets to stand on the debate stage between the stooge and the whateverthehellsheis and show people they don't have to hold their nose and pull the lever. It could happen. He's gaining traction and most importantly, he's not a giant asshole.

[Cards01]

a former business man and governor with a former governor as his running mate. Both have experience and speak with some common sense!!

[BarryBobPosthole]

I agree with you to a point ... in principle only. If voting for a 3rd party candidate with zero chance of winning gives you that tingly feel-good feeling, go for it. The point is, I despise Hillary, so the only choice I have to attempt to keep her out of office is to vote against her. That's where the lesser of two evils comes into play IMHO. Voting for a 3rd party candidate these days will accomplish NOTHING other than giving you the satisfaction that you've filed a protest vote. You may as well stay home and reduce traffic at the polling places.

That's right, I'm voting that way to get a tingly feeling.

BKB

[LJ3]

I may do the same thing BBP. In fact I'm about 97% on it right now.

[BarryBobPosthole]

Welcome to the Tingly Party. An offshoot of the Salty Party.

BKB

[Chicken Dinner]

Ummmm, salty and tingly. Kinda reminds me of a Kim Bassinger movie...

[Arty]

If we end up with HRC as POTUS it will be the fault of the Republicans who nominated a loser.

Which has been the republicans problem in the last two POTUS elections

[Chicken Dinner]

Y'all play nice as I'll be on a plane out to Boulder for the next couple of hours.

[airbud7]

Bro Bill.jpg

[Big Muddy]

Attachment 7339

[Thumper]

[BarryBobPosthole]

image.jpg

[Captain]

image-1883012442.jpg

[Big Muddy]

Attachment 7346

[Arty]

This

[quercus alba]

image.jpg