« In a Fascinating Coincidence, 'Tool Rental Faux Pas' Is Also the Name of My World Party Tribute Band. But I Digress | Main | Because calling him a rapist makes white, upper-class women feel good about themselves, »
March 7, 2016
Let's Get Real: The worst possible Republican candidate is better than the best possible Democrat candidate
A third party, a split vote, a protest vote, or other such nonsense is, in effect, a vote for the fascist Clinton or the Bolshevik Sanders.The worst possible Republican candidate is better than the best possible Democrat candidate. We have had eight years of Dem fundamental transformation, astronomical debt, economic madness, race riots and âoccupyâ anarchist riots, cop-killings, betrayal of allies and aid to enemies even to the point of arming Iran with nukes. We have refused to admit that Islam is dangerous even to the point of lionizing Achmed the Clockboy, and calling the Fort Hood shooting workplace violence. Unimpressed and Undecided | John C. Wright's Journal
Posted by gerardvanderleun at March 7, 2016 12:15 PM. This is an entry on the sideblog of American Digest: Check it out.
Your Say
Nope.
All of them will steal from you and cage or kill you if you resist.
That is criminal and always has been.
Don't think so?
Try it and see.
Posted by: ghostsniper at March 7, 2016 2:14 PM
Over the last two election cycles the republicans have gifted the House/Senate with majorities, some even historic. And we have gotten? Still Obamacare, Executive illegal immigration, Aid to Iran, Lousy trade deals, BLM and Muslim brotherhood in the White House and now you want us to enshrine another rhino to act like a progressive. Many feel that it would be better to reach rock bottom (Clinton) than support another lying go along republican. Republicans with all our support, have allowed the progressive agenda to roll along quite nicely thank you. Maybe the time is right for a yuuuge change. Possibly? What the hell, let's give it a whirl, couldn't be worse than what we have.
Posted by: tripletap at March 8, 2016 7:18 AM
The problem with "lesser-of-two evil" voting is not only that you still end up with an evil, but that it the message it sends is never interpreted as "Candidate A happens to suck a little less than Candidate B", but rather as "Woo Hoo! Mandate for Candidate A!"
Look at this from a Democrat's point of view, assuming a Hillary vs. Trump election. If you really believe in class warfare, you're still supposed to vote for Hillary, the pathologically lying Mistress of Corruption, just because you find her lies less repellent than you do Trump? How is that anything other than enabling the party puppet-masters and the status quo?
Compound that with the fact that my individual vote is never going to be decisive above maybe the Township/School Board level, and I long ago concluded that my vote is valuable only as contributing to a message, rather than an outcome. Voting third party, or writing-in a candidate, at least tells the powers-that-be who they should be pandering to, rather than just expecting a blank check as long as they're not as awful as the other guy.
Vote Trump, or Hillary, if you truly think they're a good candidate. If not, vote your genuine conscience, and make your vote at least mean something as an indication of the popular will.
Posted by: Schill MacGuffin at March 8, 2016 11:30 AM
"....vote your genuine conscience...."
=============
Do votists believe it is right to sanction people to harm themselves and others?
If so, do they also believe it is right to sanction people to kill votists?
If politicians were only effective to those that voted for them I would be in favor of voting.
But to make everybody pay a penalty for the decisions of some (majority rule) is a stance in which I will never agree.
Posted by: ghostsniper at March 8, 2016 2:34 PM