bamawriter
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2010
- Messages
- 26,552
- Likes
- 17,137
But not voting for the nominee will get Hillary elected. So what's more important: beating Hillary, or voting for your preferred candidate?
You're adding an entire new paradigm by "taking" the voters choice away. Not remotely the same thing.
No, I'm not. Just admit the whole concept of a Trump third party candidacy blows the entire premise of this thread out of the water and exposes those who just want to gripe about "insignificant" votes.
It's not that perplexing a concept.
They're not taking anything away. The RNC is a private entity and can operate however it wants. If Trump doesn't get half of the delegates, he didn't achieve the requisite support needed across the party to get the nomination. At that point, he can either make a deal to secure the delegates, go home, or run third party.
For the record, I won't judge y'all if he runs third party. It's your right to vote for whoever you want. President Clinton would kinda suck, though.![]()
Thread title should be changed to "thinly veiled attempt to shame people into voting for trump and demonize anyone who doesn't" imo.
I made this point earlier bw. If you clearly see zero difference between Hillary and Donald, then it certainly seems reasonable to vote 3rd party or don't even vote. However, if one of those two candidates will do a better job as POTUS (and ftr... "better" does not mean good, but in fact could actually mean "do less long term damage than the other") then why not vote for that person? Again, my perspective is that a person's vote should be cast based on what will be the best option for the country... not who do I like the most or who is less evil.
I am not a big fan of Trump, but I do believe that he is far less politically corrupt than Hillary. Trump "may" do some damage... Hillary "has more than proven capable" of making decisions that will absolutely harm this country.
If all polls show Hillary will win, will you still vote? If so, why?
Yes I did... because in your original post you did not define or allow for any certainty or uncertainty. You simply claimed that you don't consider "viability" when voting, so I used an extreme to point out that viability should be a consideration. And my further question to you, which you did not answer, is at what point iyo should viability become a consideration?
Ds and Rs both want to grow the government. Even if TN were a swing state, I would still vote for Gary Johnson.
It's not arrogance. I guess you could call me selfish in that I prefer to keep as much of my income as possible. If that means one less school lunch or one less aircraft carrier, then so be it.
I knew behind all that tough talk about how conservativw you are, you had some common sense.