Hmm. Well, I tried that option in 2012. The GOP didn't seem to notice.
really? -
even tol won't notice if you don't take a stand based on principle
Hmm. Well, I tried that option in 2012. The GOP didn't seem to notice.
really? -
even tol won't notice if you don't take a stand based on priciple
When enough of us are finally willing to stop voting based on fear of the "worse" candidate, and stop voting for the DNC's "less worse" candidate, they will hear us loud and clear.Hmm. Well, I tried that option in 2012. The GOP didn't seem to notice.
Nothing about Hillary Clinton indicates to me that she is anything other than another corporate sponsored candidate looking to become anther corporate sponsored political crony. And I don't see that as an option. Even if it's a better option than a wanna-be petty dictator. Because two bad options don't magically make one of them a good option.It's not the only option for me this time around. I'm voting against Trump.
I was using sarcasm, chrys.
I'm going to vote against Trump. You can write in Jeb.
My vote will work better against Trump than yours will.
When enough of us are finally willing to stop voting based on fear of the "worse" candidate, and stop voting for the DNC's "less worse" candidate, they will hear us loud and clear.
Nothing about Hillary Clinton indicates to me that she is anything other than another corporate sponsored candidate looking to become anther corporate sponsored political crony. And I don't see that as an option. Even if it's a better option than a wanna-be petty dictator. Because two bad options don't magically make one of them a good option.
so what is your principle? -
just name one
That's not going to happen,
The principle of double effect.
My vote will work better against Trump than yours will.
who is asking you what is going to happen? -
we just want to know what you think should happen -
can you handle that?
try again -
so what is your principle? -
just name one
Who asked you to butt into my comment to PureX?
I can handle any passive-aggressive crap you want to throw at me, chrys, but you'll have to make it quick. I have to leave in 5 minutes.
you can make it quick by answering my question
What should happen?
What should have happened is that Republicans shouldn't have voted for Trump in the primary.
and that justice will be appointed by trump or clinton
we already know what we'd get from clinton
The Dems have the super delegates specifically to over-ride the popular vote when the popular vote doesn't favor their preferred candidate. This recent primary is EXACTLY why they had that system in place. And the head of the DNC admitted it, publicly.That's not going to happen, PureX. What needs to happen is the GOP needs to make sure there's a smaller field of candidates, and the Dems need to get rid of super delegates.
Well, that depends on how you assess what's "fundamentally worse" than what. If Trump were to be elected, I think he would be so incompetent that he'd either have to be removed from office, or he would just be stonewalled into political impotency by the joint legislature, and then dumped the next election cycle.No they don't, that's the dilemma a lot of voters are facing. But when I weigh the two options and one of them is fundamentally worse, I'm going to vote against the one who's fundamentally worse.
that's better -
now can you give us a principle?
The principle of Double Effect.
that is not a principle -
that is not a principle -
who would you choose to support, hitler or russia? -
the pope had to decide that