According to Ralph Nader, when you vote for the lesser of two evils, at the end of the day, you still voted for evil. And I'm in a state that doesn't matter so I won't feel guilty about throwing away my vote. Haven't decided where to throw it though.
I haven't seen Evan McMullin's name mentioned here so far, so I thought I should at least mention it. I heard about one poll that shows him beating both Trump and Clinton in Utah. Granted, he's Mormon and was born there. He's not on my state's ballot but what the hey. There's always room to write in a name. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, one of the two evils will be our next Pres and we'll all be screwed for at least the next 4 years and probably 8. I just hope closing nude beaches stays off of everyone's agenda.
Yep. I'm also voting for him. This coming from someonewho normally stands with Republicans. I just can't bring myself tovote for the other 2.
Then vote against the one you like the least. Please do not
through away your vote.
Some people are too stubborn or too blind to see the
consequences of throwing away their chance to remove the
undesirables from society.
Trump is in love with Vladimir Putin. VOTE CLINTON or be ruled by the Russian bastards.
The choice is yours.
I really like Gary Johnson, but I'm voting with my brain not my heart.
A vote for Gary Johnson is plain nonsense.
Beating a dead horse will not make it cross the finish line.
It's good to see some sanity still left in this mad mad world.
The Effect of Third Parties
Some third-party candidates have managed to win congressional elections. But in presidential elections, the effect of third parties has been minimal in most cases. If a third-party candidate does manage to gain a large number of votes, as Teddy Roosevelt did in 1912 or Ross Perot did in 1992, the result skews the election. In these cases, the presence of a third-party candidate usually draws votes away from one of the main two parties because of similar platforms. This gives the advantage to the other party, which may not have won if there was no third-party candidate to split the opposing vote.
The Effect of Third PartiesSome third-party candidates have managed to win congressional elections. But in presidential elections, the effect of third parties has been minimal in most cases. If a third-party candidate does manage to gain a large number of votes, as Teddy Roosevelt did in 1912 or Ross Perot did in 1992, the result skews the election. In these cases, the presence of a third-party candidate usually draws votes away from one of the main two parties because of similar platforms. This gives the advantage to the other party, which may not have won if there was no third-party candidate to split the opposing vote.
Yes Thomas, You know and I know, but some people are too blind to see, or too stubborn to put common sense before pride.
To anyone who contributed to the *Clinton Foundation* ... Did you
have any expectations or get any promises? ... What will you do
now?
SteveinKona said:...it's plain that Clinton is going to win. And for the sake of the country,whoeverwins needs to be seen as legitimate
Well, I agree with part of that... but predicting the future is never as easy as it seems, especially when you have no legitimate source of reference... evidence that everybody can agree on. Fear mongering and blame helps no one... but I don't expect it to stop any time soon.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!