Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
BigWaaagh wrote: Before all the Libertarians waste, I mean cast, their vote for Gary Johnson here's a little bit of reality as to their candidate's qualifications.
Presidential politics is for the big boys with the chops and experience for it. It isn't pretty. It's politics at the highest, global level and it requires a politician that understands and can operate responsibly in that environment. HRC is the only adult in this room, period. The alternative is just too staggeringly stupid, childish and thin skinned to even contemplate. I think we're seeing a beginning of the two party system splinter, which I'm all for, but it's still years off and now is not the time for another Nader-like vote drain debacle.
Well... in fairness, the libertarian foreign policy is no foreign policy.
Seriously, when I first saw that, my reaction was 'dude... lay off the bong for a bit and do some studying'.
I least he had the integrity to respond later by saying 'I blanked'.
No, their platform is about no military intervention unless directly attacked. They want to "speak softly, and carry a small stick".
Well... in fairness, the libertarian foreign policy is no foreign policy.
A philosophy of non-engagement necessitates a foreign policy. Libertarians can pretend otherwise, but they will remain incorrect.
A country can be diplomatically engaged without being militarily engaged. Look at, well nearly every nation on the planet.
No, their platform is about no military intervention unless directly attacked. They want to "speak softly, and carry a small stick".
No, its speak softly and nuke them if they attack you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/08 19:11:35
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote: I read that. Appears the state and DOJ are in a tiff on what the negotiation really meant.
Until elections, there is no violation.
There is a shown intent and plan to violate. If you let it get to the point of having an election with them violating, people will get disenfranchised.
So, if anyone has been watching the punditry about the 'Command-in-Chief" proto-debate, you are getting a front row seat to how the debate coverage will play.
Overall: “really discouraging moment for the country” on the Thursday morning edition of chat show Morning Joe. “Neither of them rose to the occasion of what we need in the next president, I don’t think. I hope they do going forward, but they didn’t last night.”
Trump: “Substance matters, issues matter, intelligence, knowledge, these matter most of all,”
Hillary: "I thought her stylistic performance—if I were involved in her debate preparation, I’d be terrified if she replicates that in the debates.”
So, we have a wind bag that knows nothing vs. a lady not good at public speaking. Therefore, the performance was equal and it is too close to call.
Tis a mad, mad, mad world indeed.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Great... that totes absolves Hillary Clinton in every way.
Totes!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: So, if anyone has been watching the punditry about the 'Command-in-Chief" proto-debate, you are getting a front row seat to how the debate coverage will play.
Overall: “really discouraging moment for the country” on the Thursday morning edition of chat show Morning Joe. “Neither of them rose to the occasion of what we need in the next president, I don’t think. I hope they do going forward, but they didn’t last night.”
Trump: “Substance matters, issues matter, intelligence, knowledge, these matter most of all,”
Hillary: "I thought her stylistic performance—if I were involved in her debate preparation, I’d be terrified if she replicates that in the debates.”
So, we have a wind bag that knows nothing vs. a lady not good at public speaking. Therefore, the performance was equal and it is too close to call.
Tis a mad, mad, mad world indeed.
I watched it and the CNN/MSNBC punditry afterwards. Immediately afterwards, cable punditry "praised' Lauer for asking tough questions..
Then, as the night progressed, their tune changed because of the social media pile-on Lauer.
That's what we get for nominating two of the most horrific candidates in memory.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/08 22:07:24
That's what we get for nominating two of the most horrific candidates in memory.
You mean a perfectly ordinary Democratic candidate and the most horrific Republican candidate in recent memory.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Trump because he is a swivel-eyed mouth-foaming loon who apparently has difficulty in constructing sentences in actual English, let alone maintaining a coherent pattern of thought for more than one of them, knows nothing useful for the job and hasn't any good qualifications in his own area of expertise.
Clinton because she is a woman with enormous amounts of creditable successful experience in several spheres of life -- law, education and politics -- who doesn't have much charisma at public speaking.
BigWaaagh wrote: Before all the Libertarians waste, I mean cast, their vote for Gary Johnson here's a little bit of reality as to their candidate's qualifications.
Presidential politics is for the big boys with the chops and experience for it. It isn't pretty. It's politics at the highest, global level and it requires a politician that understands and can operate responsibly in that environment. HRC is the only adult in this room, period. The alternative is just too staggeringly stupid, childish and thin skinned to even contemplate. I think we're seeing a beginning of the two party system splinter, which I'm all for, but it's still years off and now is not the time for another Nader-like vote drain debacle.
Well... in fairness, the libertarian foreign policy is no foreign policy.
Seriously, when I first saw that, my reaction was 'dude... lay off the bong for a bit and do some studying'.
I least he had the integrity to respond later by saying 'I blanked'.
Exactly my point and exactly why a vote for him would be a wasted vote that should be cast directly against Trump.
He blanked? No, he's clueless and just absurdly out of his depth.
djones50 wrote:No, their platform is about no military intervention unless directly attacked. They want to "speak softly, and carry a small stick".
No, its speak softly and nuke them if they attack you.
Dissent which speaks to the problem with US Libertarian politics. It is very much a confluence of "not-Democrat" and "not-Republican", plus a bit of Ayn Rand and Reaganism.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
BigWaaagh wrote: Before all the Libertarians waste, I mean cast, their vote for Gary Johnson here's a little bit of reality as to their candidate's qualifications.
Presidential politics is for the big boys with the chops and experience for it. It isn't pretty. It's politics at the highest, global level and it requires a politician that understands and can operate responsibly in that environment. HRC is the only adult in this room, period. The alternative is just too staggeringly stupid, childish and thin skinned to even contemplate. I think we're seeing a beginning of the two party system splinter, which I'm all for, but it's still years off and now is not the time for another Nader-like vote drain debacle.
Well... in fairness, the libertarian foreign policy is no foreign policy.
Seriously, when I first saw that, my reaction was 'dude... lay off the bong for a bit and do some studying'.
I least he had the integrity to respond later by saying 'I blanked'.
Exactly my point and exactly why a vote for him would be a wasted vote that should be cast directly against Trump.
He blanked? No, he's clueless and just absurdly out of his depth.
Nah... my vote for Johnson is simply a strategic NotTrump & NotClinton vote in the hopes that a 3rd party becomes more "mainstream".
I'm under no illusion that Johnson can win... and I've even stated that this is Clinton's race to lose.
However, I do give Johnson kudos for owning up to that flub. It actually humanizes Johnson...
BigWaaagh wrote: Before all the Libertarians waste, I mean cast, their vote for Gary Johnson here's a little bit of reality as to their candidate's qualifications.
Presidential politics is for the big boys with the chops and experience for it. It isn't pretty. It's politics at the highest, global level and it requires a politician that understands and can operate responsibly in that environment. HRC is the only adult in this room, period. The alternative is just too staggeringly stupid, childish and thin skinned to even contemplate. I think we're seeing a beginning of the two party system splinter, which I'm all for, but it's still years off and now is not the time for another Nader-like vote drain debacle.
Well... in fairness, the libertarian foreign policy is no foreign policy.
Seriously, when I first saw that, my reaction was 'dude... lay off the bong for a bit and do some studying'.
I least he had the integrity to respond later by saying 'I blanked'.
Exactly my point and exactly why a vote for him would be a wasted vote that should be cast directly against Trump.
He blanked? No, he's clueless and just absurdly out of his depth.
A vote for Johnson is a vote that is being cast against Trump. It is also being cast against Clinton. This isn't a set binary solution. Both primary candidates are pieces of gak. One is an extreme narcissist, and the other one should be in court fighting to not spend the rest of her life in prison. There are other options, and it is not a waste exercising your right to not only acknowledge it, but use it.
A vote for Johnson is a vote that is being cast against Trump. It is also being cast against Clinton. This isn't a set binary solution. Both primary candidates are pieces of gak. One is an extreme narcissist, and the other one should be in court fighting to not spend the rest of her life in prison. There are other options, and it is not a waste exercising your right to not only acknowledge it, but use it.
As long as you still tick off all the other R or D boxes on the ballot like a good little party member, then it's a waste. You want to send a message? Then vote against the parties that have created this situation you rail against. Otherwise, you're still electing the same people who will still keep the same processes in place to create the same results. There's a saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
A vote for Johnson is a vote that is being cast against Trump. It is also being cast against Clinton. This isn't a set binary solution. Both primary candidates are pieces of gak. One is an extreme narcissist, and the other one should be in court fighting to not spend the rest of her life in prison. There are other options, and it is not a waste exercising your right to not only acknowledge it, but use it.
As long as you still tick off all the other R or D boxes on the ballot like a good little party member, then it's a waste. You want to send a message? Then vote against the parties that have created this situation you rail against. Otherwise, you're still electing the same people who will still keep the same processes in place to create the same results. There's a saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
No.
My vote has to be fething earned. This isn't a teamsport where we're only faced with two options.
If enough people vote NotTrump/NotHillary... that should provide Democrat/Republican establishment an "oh gak" moment and hopefully recalibrate in future elections.
I believe that only relegating your vote to D or R boxes... NOTHING changes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/08 23:47:36
A vote for Johnson is a vote that is being cast against Trump. It is also being cast against Clinton. This isn't a set binary solution. Both primary candidates are pieces of gak. One is an extreme narcissist, and the other one should be in court fighting to not spend the rest of her life in prison. There are other options, and it is not a waste exercising your right to not only acknowledge it, but use it.
As long as you still tick off all the other R or D boxes on the ballot like a good little party member, then it's a waste. You want to send a message? Then vote against the parties that have created this situation you rail against. Otherwise, you're still electing the same people who will still keep the same processes in place to create the same results. There's a saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
No.
My vote has to be fething earned. This isn't a teamsport where we're only faced with two options.
If enough people vote NotTrump/NotHillary... that should provide Democrat/Republican establishment an "oh gak" moment and hopefully recalibrate in future elections.
I believe that only relegating your vote to D or R boxes... NOTHING changes.
You can shout all you want about earning your vote, but if you're still going to tick off all the other R boxes like a good little Republican after you've voted for Johnson...you change nothing. Because the parties will know you were still a good little Republican, because they will have all the voting results to analyze for exactly those sorts of trends. If you're actually going to put your money where your mouth is and vote for other Libertarians in other races, then good for you. But we both know that the vast majority of people proudly proclaiming their intent to vote third party for president will still otherwise vote for their R or D party in all other things.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/09 00:03:34
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
BigWaaagh wrote: Before all the Libertarians waste, I mean cast, their vote for Gary Johnson here's a little bit of reality as to their candidate's qualifications.
Presidential politics is for the big boys with the chops and experience for it. It isn't pretty. It's politics at the highest, global level and it requires a politician that understands and can operate responsibly in that environment. HRC is the only adult in this room, period. The alternative is just too staggeringly stupid, childish and thin skinned to even contemplate. I think we're seeing a beginning of the two party system splinter, which I'm all for, but it's still years off and now is not the time for another Nader-like vote drain debacle.
Well... in fairness, the libertarian foreign policy is no foreign policy.
Seriously, when I first saw that, my reaction was 'dude... lay off the bong for a bit and do some studying'.
I least he had the integrity to respond later by saying 'I blanked'.
Exactly my point and exactly why a vote for him would be a wasted vote that should be cast directly against Trump.
He blanked? No, he's clueless and just absurdly out of his depth.
A vote for Johnson is a vote that is being cast against Trump. It is also being cast against Clinton. This isn't a set binary solution. Both primary candidates are pieces of gak. One is an extreme narcissist, and the other one should be in court fighting to not spend the rest of her life in prison. There are other options, and it is not a waste exercising your right to not only acknowledge it, but use it.
A vote for Johnson is definitely a waste especially when you believe the made up bull the Republicans have been shoveling about Hillary for the last 25 years...
A vote for Johnson is a vote that is being cast against Trump. It is also being cast against Clinton. This isn't a set binary solution. Both primary candidates are pieces of gak. One is an extreme narcissist, and the other one should be in court fighting to not spend the rest of her life in prison. There are other options, and it is not a waste exercising your right to not only acknowledge it, but use it.
As long as you still tick off all the other R or D boxes on the ballot like a good little party member, then it's a waste. You want to send a message? Then vote against the parties that have created this situation you rail against. Otherwise, you're still electing the same people who will still keep the same processes in place to create the same results. There's a saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
No.
My vote has to be fething earned. This isn't a teamsport where we're only faced with two options.
If enough people vote NotTrump/NotHillary... that should provide Democrat/Republican establishment an "oh gak" moment and hopefully recalibrate in future elections.
I believe that only relegating your vote to D or R boxes... NOTHING changes.
You can shout all you want about earning your vote, but if you're still going to tick off all the other R boxes like a good little Republican after you've voted for Johnson...you change nothing. Because the parties will know you were still a good little Republican, because they will have all the voting results to analyze for exactly those sorts of trends. If you're actually going to put your money where your mouth is and vote for other Libertarians in other races, then good for you. But we both know that the vast majority of people proudly proclaiming their intent to vote third party will still otherwise vote for their party in all other things.
Local party <> National party.
The Office of the Presidency is a big fething deal (as Joe Biden would say).
So, voting 3rd party in a Presidential election is far more effective than going 3rd party in State/local elections.
BigWaaagh wrote: Before all the Libertarians waste, I mean cast, their vote for Gary Johnson here's a little bit of reality as to their candidate's qualifications.
Presidential politics is for the big boys with the chops and experience for it. It isn't pretty. It's politics at the highest, global level and it requires a politician that understands and can operate responsibly in that environment. HRC is the only adult in this room, period. The alternative is just too staggeringly stupid, childish and thin skinned to even contemplate. I think we're seeing a beginning of the two party system splinter, which I'm all for, but it's still years off and now is not the time for another Nader-like vote drain debacle.
Well... in fairness, the libertarian foreign policy is no foreign policy.
Seriously, when I first saw that, my reaction was 'dude... lay off the bong for a bit and do some studying'.
I least he had the integrity to respond later by saying 'I blanked'.
Exactly my point and exactly why a vote for him would be a wasted vote that should be cast directly against Trump.
He blanked? No, he's clueless and just absurdly out of his depth.
A vote for Johnson is a vote that is being cast against Trump. It is also being cast against Clinton. This isn't a set binary solution. Both primary candidates are pieces of gak. One is an extreme narcissist, and the other one should be in court fighting to not spend the rest of her life in prison. There are other options, and it is not a waste exercising your right to not only acknowledge it, but use it.
A vote for Johnson is definitely a waste especially when you believe the made up bull the Republicans have been shoveling about Hillary for the last 25 years...
You know what, I'm going to lay it all out here.
I've been dealing with classified information for my entire adult life. From the very first day I held my security clearance, I was aware of the risks involved with it, the consequences of my mishandling, and the dangers its release entailed. Myself, and millions of other citizens of our nation who hold, or have held security clearances, and have dealt with classified data in our lives, understand this. We all know that anyone of us who had done what she did, would be in prison today. None of the excuses offered would have flied.
There is nothing at all partisan about this. The 4th person in line to be President, was mishandling classified data. We know for an absolute fact that this data HAD BEEN MARKED AS CLASSIFIED, and she was still openly corresponding with it through unsecure means. If you buy her bs story that she was unaware what the markings meant, markings that are identically used across all branches of the government, so that there can be no confusion about them, the only one buying into partisanship koolaid is yourself. A woman who had spent nearly two decades in the highest tiers of our government, dealing with classified data on a nearly daily basis, did not know what those markings meant? You need to put the cup down.
Her actions are an insult to everyone of us who have carried the burden of our security clearances. The way she has gotten off completely free from it is another insult to everyone of us "little people".
I will say this one time, and one time only. Never accuse me of repeating republican talking points over the matter. My only take on this is that which I have developed over 15 years of maintaining my security clearance. The brushes I've had with security violations. The steps I've taken to prevent others from making security violations. My take on this is developed by life experiences, and none of you have ground to tell me that I am regurgitating someone else's gak.
BigWaaagh wrote: Before all the Libertarians waste, I mean cast, their vote for Gary Johnson here's a little bit of reality as to their candidate's qualifications.
Presidential politics is for the big boys with the chops and experience for it. It isn't pretty. It's politics at the highest, global level and it requires a politician that understands and can operate responsibly in that environment. HRC is the only adult in this room, period. The alternative is just too staggeringly stupid, childish and thin skinned to even contemplate. I think we're seeing a beginning of the two party system splinter, which I'm all for, but it's still years off and now is not the time for another Nader-like vote drain debacle.
Well... in fairness, the libertarian foreign policy is no foreign policy.
Seriously, when I first saw that, my reaction was 'dude... lay off the bong for a bit and do some studying'.
I least he had the integrity to respond later by saying 'I blanked'.
Exactly my point and exactly why a vote for him would be a wasted vote that should be cast directly against Trump.
He blanked? No, he's clueless and just absurdly out of his depth.
Nah... my vote for Johnson is simply a strategic NotTrump & NotClinton vote in the hopes that a 3rd party becomes more "mainstream".
I'm under no illusion that Johnson can win... and I've even stated that this is Clinton's race to lose.
However, I do give Johnson kudos for owning up to that flub. It actually humanizes Johnson...
Do you see Trump or Clinton doing that?
Actually, I see Clinton as actually knowing what Aleppo is and Trump, well, 'nuff said.
BigWaaagh wrote: Before all the Libertarians waste, I mean cast, their vote for Gary Johnson here's a little bit of reality as to their candidate's qualifications.
Presidential politics is for the big boys with the chops and experience for it. It isn't pretty. It's politics at the highest, global level and it requires a politician that understands and can operate responsibly in that environment. HRC is the only adult in this room, period. The alternative is just too staggeringly stupid, childish and thin skinned to even contemplate. I think we're seeing a beginning of the two party system splinter, which I'm all for, but it's still years off and now is not the time for another Nader-like vote drain debacle.
Well... in fairness, the libertarian foreign policy is no foreign policy.
Seriously, when I first saw that, my reaction was 'dude... lay off the bong for a bit and do some studying'.
I least he had the integrity to respond later by saying 'I blanked'.
Exactly my point and exactly why a vote for him would be a wasted vote that should be cast directly against Trump.
He blanked? No, he's clueless and just absurdly out of his depth.
A vote for Johnson is a vote that is being cast against Trump. It is also being cast against Clinton. This isn't a set binary solution. Both primary candidates are pieces of gak. One is an extreme narcissist, and the other one should be in court fighting to not spend the rest of her life in prison. There are other options, and it is not a waste exercising your right to not only acknowledge it, but use it.
Idealistic hog wash. With the stakes being a possible Trump presidency, you'd better believe it's a binary situation.
As far as the "both candidates are pieces of..." bit, sure, keep telling yourself that. What was Hillary convicted of again? You've actually swallowed the "noise" on perpetual loop, being thrown by the right, since Benghazi, to create the appearance of a Clinton scandal. Cry "The sky is falling." enough times and it's got to be true. There's a sucker born every minute.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/09/09 01:10:52
A vote for Johnson is a vote that is being cast against Trump. It is also being cast against Clinton. This isn't a set binary solution. Both primary candidates are pieces of gak. One is an extreme narcissist, and the other one should be in court fighting to not spend the rest of her life in prison. There are other options, and it is not a waste exercising your right to not only acknowledge it, but use it.
As long as you still tick off all the other R or D boxes on the ballot like a good little party member, then it's a waste. You want to send a message? Then vote against the parties that have created this situation you rail against. Otherwise, you're still electing the same people who will still keep the same processes in place to create the same results. There's a saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
No.
My vote has to be fething earned. This isn't a teamsport where we're only faced with two options.
If enough people vote NotTrump/NotHillary... that should provide Democrat/Republican establishment an "oh gak" moment and hopefully recalibrate in future elections.
I believe that only relegating your vote to D or R boxes... NOTHING changes.
You can shout all you want about earning your vote, but if you're still going to tick off all the other R boxes like a good little Republican after you've voted for Johnson...you change nothing. Because the parties will know you were still a good little Republican, because they will have all the voting results to analyze for exactly those sorts of trends. If you're actually going to put your money where your mouth is and vote for other Libertarians in other races, then good for you. But we both know that the vast majority of people proudly proclaiming their intent to vote third party will still otherwise vote for their party in all other things.
Local party <> National party.
The Office of the Presidency is a big fething deal (as Joe Biden would say).
So, voting 3rd party in a Presidential election is far more effective than going 3rd party in State/local elections.
So, in other words, you're unwilling to actually do anything to change the way things are. The only message you're sending to your party's leadership is that it doesn't matter who your party's nominee for president is, because you'll still vote for everyone who put him there.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
People can talk the 3rd Party talk, but unless they are willing to vote for them at the local and state level (where they have a realistic chance of winning and where electing them would actually make an impact on policy and governance) it's just empty talk that lets people pretend that they made a difference.
Gary Johnson is a stoner. I know stoners. I like many, love a few, but I do not want them in the office of POTUS/CIC. Those are serious jobs for serious people.
"What's a Leppo?", he asked.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/09 02:43:08
I find it highly ironic, since everyone knows here you're a Republican hardcore supporter, no matter what happens. Even when you say you don't vote for Trump, the way you ALWAYS charge Clinton no matter what actually make you going the way of the Republican candidate. Who is Trump.
Honestly, having read you all this time, I highly suspect you will, in the end, vote for Trump. You always show a negative picture on everything Clinton is doing, you are willing to accept any lie told by the Republican "War Machine" - and you absolutely hate Clinton, to the point you even don't care about facts. Everything you're doing here is, eventually, working for the Trump side. You may say otherwise, but your interventions on this topic are quite talking for you.
This isn't a teamsport where we're only faced with two options.
Even as a foreigner, I can tell that's how your voting system actually works. It is technically about voting between two options, in the end.
I'm not saying it is wrong or right. It's a good thing to question it. But like sebster said before, just voting for a third party with actually no real base able to support them is like voting blank - and give strength to the people you actually don't like.
But I highly suspect you hate Clinton more than Trump, so if you can hurt Clinton more, you're perfectly fine with this, even (especially?) if that means Trump is winning. That's the conclusion I've made by reading all your posts here.
