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.

So every single person sitting at home who doesn't vote is #ForTrump?

I think the argument is, if they have the capacity to vote, then probably yes.

Our last voter turnout was 53%. I think that it would be a horrible argument to make that if it is similar this year, that 47% of the population were #ForTrump.

And I know I have stressed this before, but the voting system in the US is very different and whembly is not actually voting for president. He's just voting to decide who the 10 electors representing Missouri are going to vote for. And whoever wins the state, that person will get all 10 votes regardless of how many people actually vote for them. If Trump wins with 48% or with 98%, he will get all 10 votes for Missouri. And Trump WILL win Missouri, that's not even a question. So honestly it doesn't matter one bit who whembly votes for. If he votes for Trump it won't affect the outcome, and it doesn't matter if he votes for Hillary, if he votes for Johnson, if he votes for Stein, or if he spends the entire day in the bathroom sick and throwing up because he knows Trump or Hillary will be president.

There are a handful of states where your vote matters when it comes to electing the next POTUS, for the vast majority of us our votes don't make an impact. So whembly voting for Johnson honestly isn't any more or less #NeverTrump than any other alternaive. But he's not voting #ForTrump (at least that we know off).

Yeah, I'm with Whem' on this one. Him not voting for Trump is effectively -1 Trump vote. He could go all the way and make vote for Clinton (effectively -2 Trump votes), but he also doesn't agree on her platform, or like her as a person, It's OK in my eyes.

If you vote for Trump or Clinton, you help them and hurt the other side. If you don't vote, you hurt both Trump and Clinton by not helping them.

If you believe Trump and Clinton both are equally bad candidates for President, then by all means don't vote. However if you have the slightest suspicion that one of them may be the worse candidate, even by a small margin, not matter how awful the other one is is you should vote for the less bad one. One of them is going to be the next President, so it seems to me you might as well choose the one you hate less.

This might seem like a choice between Genghis Khan and Ivan the Terrible, but at least Genghis Khan was in favour of religious equality.

So I now see that someone has come forward claiming that she was assaulted by Trump in a manner consistent with his comments. Whether or not you believe her, after all this is the land of suits, is this going to spell the end of Trumps career? Not only his political one but his business one as well?

Considering that his business is his 'Name' and that is now irrevocably linked to his performance here, I can see him making enough losses to allow a further 18 years avoiding Federal Taxes. This reminds me of Ratners (in)famous 'we sell crap' comment.

Cheers

Andrew

 d-usa wrote:
whembly is not actually voting for president. He's just voting to decide who the 10 electors representing Missouri are going to vote for. And whoever wins the state, that person will get all 10 votes regardless of how many people actually vote for them. If Trump wins with 48% or with 98%, he will get all 10 votes for Missouri. And Trump WILL win Missouri, that's not even a question. So honestly it doesn't matter one bit who whembly votes for.

While this is obviously true in the practical sense, I think there are more elements. For one, if enough people voted their conscience in Missouri, and it was not Donald Trump, then Donald Trump would not win 10 electors. I mean ultimately the voting populace is made of individual voters.

Additionally, I think there is the civic duty element. A lot of people shed a lot of blood so you could go out and vote, and there are a lot of people working very hard today to make sure no one tries to take your hard-won franchise away. You owe a debt to those people.

I truly believe that you owe it to your country to get out there and cast a ballot, invest yourself in our future. The best way to do that is to vote your conscience, even if it "doesn't matter".

Be the Ted Cruz before he endorsed the guy who called his wife ugly and claimed his dad killed JFK - be that fleeting, ephemeral not 100% awful - Ted Cruz.

Even though I don't like either of them, I am voting for SCotUS. Which should be something to think about when not voting.

 Ouze wrote:


Be the Ted Cruz before he endorsed the guy who called his wife ugly and claimed his dad killed JFK - be that fleeting, ephemeral not 100% awful - Ted Cruz.

Sorry, but Ted Cruz was always 100% awful. Just because he finally stood up at the end when Trump went after him and his family, does not excuse him sitting down while Trump went after everybody else before that.

Anyway, while it is important to vote, and to vote one's conscience, I question the conscience of anyone who won't vote for Trump because of the things he's said, but will still vote for the candidates down the ballot who support him.

Arnold ‏@Schwarzenegger 21h21 hours ago
As proud as I am to label myself a Republican, there is one label that I hold above all else - American. My full statement:

..and in areyousurprisedittookthislong category

Washington State Republican Party Chair Susan Hutchison defends Trump comments, says they "were made when he was a Democrat"

full marks for effort though !

 d-usa wrote:
Our last voter turnout was 53%. I think that it would be a horrible argument to make that if it is similar this year, that 47% of the population were #ForTrump.

And I know I have stressed this before, but the voting system in the US is very different and whembly is not actually voting for president. He's just voting to decide who the 10 electors representing Missouri are going to vote for. And whoever wins the state, that person will get all 10 votes regardless of how many people actually vote for them. If Trump wins with 48% or with 98%, he will get all 10 votes for Missouri. And Trump WILL win Missouri, that's not even a question. So honestly it doesn't matter one bit who whembly votes for. If he votes for Trump it won't affect the outcome, and it doesn't matter if he votes for Hillary, if he votes for Johnson, if he votes for Stein, or if he spends the entire day in the bathroom sick and throwing up because he knows Trump or Hillary will be president.

There are a handful of states where your vote matters when it comes to electing the next POTUS, for the vast majority of us our votes don't make an impact. So whembly voting for Johnson honestly isn't any more or less #NeverTrump than any other alternaive. But he's not voting #ForTrump (at least that we know off).

and if enough people vote for Johnson he can win Missouri and get their 10 votes. The thing that's important here is that all votes matter, at the end of the day, whomever has the most wins. That doesn't mean your vote was wasted if you voted for anyone else, it means you voted for whom you wanted to win. If enough people could see past the two part dictatorship, then real change would happen.

Thanks guys

Anyone going to watch the debate Cheeto Jesus Trainwreck™?

He's going full boorish attack-mode isn't he?

 Ouze wrote:
What's blowing my mind is that all of a sudden, this is a bridge too far for Republicans - everything he said before was OK or at least palatable, but now, whoa, that's too much? These guys drank their way through 90% of a quart of spoiled milk, and suddenly now they don't like the taste?

I've been thinking a lot about it, and I have two theories which aren't mutually exclusive:

1) republican politicians are still savvy politicians, and they can see a person bragging about sexual assault and the power of celebrity. That tape doesn't just make trump look bad, it will be a prime exhibit in every discussion on rape culture. 538 pointed out that female republicans were far more likely to pull support for trump over this

2) good old denial. I think knowing something, and seeing tape of it, can be different. Everyone knows their parents had sex, but seeing a sex tape of them would change things.

As you point out, Trump doesn't have a lot of built up goodwill outside of his actual voter base. I think he's gotten tepid support, but this provides political cover for down ticket politicians to bail.

 Polonius wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
What's blowing my mind is that all of a sudden, this is a bridge too far for Republicans - everything he said before was OK or at least palatable, but now, whoa, that's too much? These guys drank their way through 90% of a quart of spoiled milk, and suddenly now they don't like the taste?

I've been thinking a lot about it, and I have two theories which aren't mutually exclusive:

1) republican politicians are still savvy politicians, and they can see a person bragging about sexual assault and the power of celebrity. That tape doesn't just make trump look bad, it will be a prime exhibit in every discussion on rape culture. 538 pointed out that female republicans were far more likely to pull support for trump over this

2) good old denial. I think knowing something, and seeing tape of it, can be different. Everyone knows their parents had sex, but seeing a sex tape of them would change things.

As you point out, Trump doesn't have a lot of built up goodwill outside of his actual voter base. I think he's gotten tepid support, but this provides political cover for down ticket politicians to bail.

Or, it could simply be The Straw That Broke The Camel's Back™.

A straw that breaks a camel's back is no heavier nor lighter than the other straws... it's just that it surpasses what the camel can handle.

It's just that they're idiots not to expect this sort of thing... I mean c'mon, just google-fu Trump's past. It's.ALL.THERE!

SMDH...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you vote for Trump or Clinton, you help them and hurt the other side. If you don't vote, you hurt both Trump and Clinton by not helping them.

If you believe Trump and Clinton both are equally bad candidates for President, then by all means don't vote. However if you have the slightest suspicion that one of them may be the worse candidate, even by a small margin, not matter how awful the other one is is you should vote for the less bad one. One of them is going to be the next President, so it seems to me you might as well choose the one you hate less.

This might seem like a choice between Genghis Khan and Ivan the Terrible, but at least Genghis Khan was in favour of religious equality.

Choosing to only have one of your legs hacksawed off rather than both isn't really much of a choice. At this point the political system is unarguably broken.

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
What's blowing my mind is that all of a sudden, this is a bridge too far for Republicans - everything he said before was OK or at least palatable, but now, whoa, that's too much? These guys drank their way through 90% of a quart of spoiled milk, and suddenly now they don't like the taste?

I've been thinking a lot about it, and I have two theories which aren't mutually exclusive:

1) republican politicians are still savvy politicians, and they can see a person bragging about sexual assault and the power of celebrity. That tape doesn't just make trump look bad, it will be a prime exhibit in every discussion on rape culture. 538 pointed out that female republicans were far more likely to pull support for trump over this

2) good old denial. I think knowing something, and seeing tape of it, can be different. Everyone knows their parents had sex, but seeing a sex tape of them would change things.

As you point out, Trump doesn't have a lot of built up goodwill outside of his actual voter base. I think he's gotten tepid support, but this provides political cover for down ticket politicians to bail.

Or, it could simply be The Straw That Broke The Camel's Back™.

A straw that breaks a camel's back is no heavier nor lighter than the other straws... it's just that it surpasses what the camel can handle.

It says a lot about the current GOP that many of them were willing to handle all of the other straws before this one, though,

While Hillary may represent what we hate in politics, Trump represents what we hate in humanity.

tneva82 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I rarely agree with Whembly, but he has a point here. He doesn't want to support Trump, he doesn't want to support Hillary. By voting third party he denies either of them a vote while not reducing the overall total of votes cast. Because third party candidates aren't going to win anyway, one can safely vote for them regardless of how bad they are. If a third party gets, say, 10% of the national vote this year it means nothing in terms of electoral college or political power. But it sends a message to the big parties that if they continue to present options like these that 10% can keep increasing.

The attitude that a vote for a third party is a vote wasted is, somewhat ironically, the main factor in keeping those parties irrelevant. As Ouze said earlier, the only vote wasted is the vote you never cast.

But he's helping Trump.

It's really simple. There's 2 candinates that can win the election. ANY action you do therefore benefits one or the other. It's flat out impossible to have decision that doesn't help one of them. Vote that is not cast or cast to somebody who cannot win always help protest candinate. Which Trump is.

You do know that vote can be #forX for TWO things? If you vote for 3rd party it can be #for3rdparty and #fortrump at the same time.

His action helps trump. Therefore his action is(regardless of what other goals it has) also #fortrump. Making his #nevertrump statement lie.

Any action you make is #forX for EVERY thing that helps from your action. So trying to claim it's not for some of them when it is is just flat out deluding yourself.

He's making the best of a bad situation. Trying to spin it into some sort of #WhemblyforTrump is really just bashing Whembly rather than making political commentary. I understand that Whembly makes a lot of... questionable... statements and arguments, but the continued attacks on him over this parallel Whembly's own witch hunt of Hillary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
It says a lot about the current GOP that many of them were willing to handle all of the other straws before this one, though,

While Hillary may represent what we hate in politics, Trump represents what we hate in humanity.

That's because it isn't the 'Straw that Broke the Camel's Back' so much as 'The Dumbbell that Made the Republicans Realize the Camel's Back was Broken All Along'.

 reds8n wrote:

Arnold ‏@Schwarzenegger 21h21 hours ago
As proud as I am to label myself a Republican, there is one label that I hold above all else - American. My full statement:

Spoiler:

..and in areyousurprisedittookthislong category

Washington State Republican Party Chair Susan Hutchison defends Trump comments, says they "were made when he was a Democrat"

full marks for effort though !

Ahh, Susan Hutchison...glad to see someone has picked up the "clueless and just plain dumb" torch left behind by Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin.

The new Trump defence is that Bill's affairs were some how equivalent to Trump's condoning of sexual assault...

 d-usa wrote:
So every single person sitting at home who doesn't vote is #ForTrump?

No, but there's a pretty good argument that the people sitting at home are #Don'tCareIfTrump, and we should be skeptical of any claim that they are #NeverTrump despite not even caring enough to press the button for Clinton.

That's like arguing that atheists are #ProChristianGod because they don't pick any deity.

 skyth wrote:
The new Trump defence is that Bill's affairs were some how equivalent to Trump's condoning of sexual assault...

It seems to be the protrump response to anything trump does wrong.

Trump sexually assaults women and brags about it, protrumpers, well bill got a bj.

There's no way they can defend trump so the best they can do is to try and bring down anyone associated with hillary down to their level. I just can't believe their trying to defend trump on this one though, my fb wall is full of nonsense like the women deserve to be groped because they might have read 50 shades of grey. I really thought that nonsense ended decades ago, but it seems trump as brought back the concept.

I am SOOOO confused with twitter right now.

Like, right now, Trump apparently just (re?)tweeted something about "no need to spill the beans" combined with #NeverCruz #Lyingted and "A picture is worth 1000 words." And photographs of... people.

No, no it isn't. Because I have no idea what you're talking about.

So Trump's pro-sexual assault comments are just like the things Clinton did? The things the Republicans votes to impeach him for? Which, in their mind, made Clinton unfit for the office of President?

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you vote for Trump or Clinton, you help them and hurt the other side. If you don't vote, you hurt both Trump and Clinton by not helping them.

If you believe Trump and Clinton both are equally bad candidates for President, then by all means don't vote. However if you have the slightest suspicion that one of them may be the worse candidate, even by a small margin, not matter how awful the other one is is you should vote for the less bad one. One of them is going to be the next President, so it seems to me you might as well choose the one you hate less.

This might seem like a choice between Genghis Khan and Ivan the Terrible, but at least Genghis Khan was in favour of religious equality.

Choosing to only have one of your legs hacksawed off rather than both isn't really much of a choice. At this point the political system is unarguably broken.

In Britain we call it "Hobson's Choice" when both choices are nasty but you still have to pick one.

I would argue that the political system is not broken. At any rate, whether broken or not, it is still the system that the US has got, and it isn't going to suddenly change in the next month or the day after the election, so people should either vote, or start a secret conspiracy to foment armed revolution (or both.)

Either Clinton or Trump is going to be the next president.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you vote for Trump or Clinton, you help them and hurt the other side. If you don't vote, you hurt both Trump and Clinton by not helping them.

If you believe Trump and Clinton both are equally bad candidates for President, then by all means don't vote. However if you have the slightest suspicion that one of them may be the worse candidate, even by a small margin, not matter how awful the other one is is you should vote for the less bad one. One of them is going to be the next President, so it seems to me you might as well choose the one you hate less.

This might seem like a choice between Genghis Khan and Ivan the Terrible, but at least Genghis Khan was in favour of religious equality.

Choosing to only have one of your legs hacksawed off rather than both isn't really much of a choice. At this point the political system is unarguably broken.

The Trump and Clinton names are both linked with the abuse of women. This country has really sunk into the dregs to make these two the top pick for president.

Relapse wrote:

The Trump and Clinton names are both linked with the abuse of women.

I genuinely don't know the answer to this, but did Bill actually abuse women? He had affairs yes, but actual abuse?

From the looks of it on Twitter, there is a major Trump supporter who is claiming such occurred to her.

Indeed, plus Hillary isn't Bill, and neither Bill nor Hillary are on tape being vile misogynists joking about sexual assault, and the Trump name is linked with farting in your trousers and also various card games.

Relapse wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you vote for Trump or Clinton, you help them and hurt the other side. If you don't vote, you hurt both Trump and Clinton by not helping them.

If you believe Trump and Clinton both are equally bad candidates for President, then by all means don't vote. However if you have the slightest suspicion that one of them may be the worse candidate, even by a small margin, not matter how awful the other one is is you should vote for the less bad one. One of them is going to be the next President, so it seems to me you might as well choose the one you hate less.

This might seem like a choice between Genghis Khan and Ivan the Terrible, but at least Genghis Khan was in favour of religious equality.

Choosing to only have one of your legs hacksawed off rather than both isn't really much of a choice. At this point the political system is unarguably broken.

The Trump and Clinton names are both linked with the abuse of women. This country has really sunk into the dregs to make these two the top pick for president.

Yes and just comparing trump & hillary, hillary isn't accused of raping anyone. Trump on the other hand actually raped a 13 year old girl, he himself brags about sexually assaulting women. Hillary's biggest mistake is trusting her husband, and boy every man ever caught cheating wishes he had a wife as gullible as her.