Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 105 Next >>
Topic: Trump- 1 Hillary- 0 (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Thom Price
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar
L’Homme Diabolique

Joined: 29 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7593
Posted: 27 September 2016 at 6:56pm | IP Logged | 1  

I don't mean to dogpile on Fred and I mean this in a non-scolding way, but voting third party is impractical.  Come 2017, only one of two people are going to be sitting in the Oval Office.  Voting the perceived "lesser of two evils" is not inspiring or glamorous, but sometimes life's choices stink.  I live in a solidly Blue state and I still refuse to think of my vote as being superfluous.


Edited by Thom Price on 27 September 2016 at 6:57pm
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Brian Floyd
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 July 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 8322
Posted: 27 September 2016 at 8:09pm | IP Logged | 2  

We decided not to watch the debate and put on a movie, but when we were done the tv happened to be on the debate. So we watched a few minutes of it. 

I'm appalled anyone would support Trump if they watched the debate, from what I saw of it. Did he ever actually answer any questions? When it was on, they were supposed to talk about how they'd prevent cyber attacks. Instead Trump just talked about endorsements he had then proceeded to attack Hillary over the emails and how the Democratic party treated Bernie Sanders. Then instead of talking about terrorism, he blasted NATO. That's all I personally could stand to watch, so we put on some shows we DVR'd.

Trump is a special kind of stupid.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Steven Legge
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 866
Posted: 27 September 2016 at 8:40pm | IP Logged | 3  

I know! We couldn't believe she let that one slide

It was smart to not draw attention to that immediately. Talk about something else so he doesn't explain it away as a joke. Instead
there's this nice clean quote everyone heard (So he can't deny saying it.) that he's given to her on a plate that she can use against him.

Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
James Woodcock
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 September 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7581
Posted: 28 September 2016 at 1:21am | IP Logged | 4  

there's this nice clean quote everyone heard (So he can't deny saying it.)
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
Since when has Trump let evidence dictate whether he denies something or not? Please ref supporting/not supporting Iraq war as one example of this.

I am truly amazed that he pretty much said, people that don't pay taxes are smart.

But then, he's also, since the debate ended, talked about a faulty microphone making him sound like he has the sniffles, said he almost brought up Bill Clinton's affairs (might not be so smart after Ivana Trump, or the fact that he's had 3 marriages himself) and a whole myriad of other stuff.

There's only so far you can get in an actual debate when all you do is waffle and talk rhetoric.

I think all people really need to do is ask - could you seriously see THAT MAN in a diplomatic meeting with a foreign power?
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Kevin Hagerman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 15 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 17995
Posted: 28 September 2016 at 3:27am | IP Logged | 5  

I don't mean to dogpile on Fred and I mean this in a non-scolding way, but voting third party is impractical.  Come 2017, only one of two people are going to be sitting in the Oval Office. 

----

Third-party votes are about future elections.

Look; I'm in Illinois.  Illinois is going to Hillary Clinton.  She's 95% likely to carry the state.  So my one little vote won't be missed in the short run.  But if I were to vote for Gary Johnson, it increases the Libertarian party.  That might grow their viability down the line, which I consider a net positive.

As the saying goes, the second best time to plant a tree is today.  The best time to plant a tree is x years ago.

By all means, if you live in a swing state, own it and go deliver your state.  But some of us have different trajectories to explore.

Truly, I am bummed that Donald Trump isn't polling third or worse.  He's THAT bad a candidate.  I may vote for HRC anyway just because he needs to suffer complete humiliation at the polls and I want to be a part of that.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Fred J Chamberlain
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 August 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 4015
Posted: 28 September 2016 at 5:31am | IP Logged | 6  

A vote for Johnson is not a vote for Trump or Clinton.
While one could argue that it may hold sway, the two
scenarios are not synonymous.

Without going into detail about which of Johnson's
positions I agree with and which I don't (Truth be told
not much of a different stance than I've had with any
other candidate for office I've ever voted for. Johnson
has plenty of experience and was extremely popular with
his constituents. I am always puzzled when a "free
thinker" agrees with every position of another entity...
candidate, church, friend, etc), I will echo Kevin's
sentiment 100%. To believe we have 2 choices is short-
sighted and makes each of us as culpable as those voting
for them. The two party system is rigged, from those in
the positions of power to our news agencies. Our nation
has become lazy and, though we all piss and moan, the
vast majority want nice, easily digestible sound clips
and don't seek out secondary (or even primary!) sources
for the information that we are being given.

Something needs to change and the only people that will
make those changes are those not currently in power.
Empires inevitably fall. They fall from outside forces or
when overthrown by their people. History has shown that.
I'd prefer to move towards adapting to further growth and
prosperity for both our citizenry and our relationship
with outside nations, not away from it. I believe that
the two candidates would damage one or both of those
goals.

As I initially stated, I will vote for Johnson, unless it
becomes clear to me that Hillary is at risk of losing
Pennsylvania.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Robert LaGuardia
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 15 November 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1296
Posted: 28 September 2016 at 6:01am | IP Logged | 7  

In the beginning of the debate I was a bit worried that we would have a
JFK/Nixon situation where one candidate comes off better on camera
than the other. Trump has an off-the-cuff style that resonates with many
voters, while Hillary, I hate to say, is almost devoid of charm. She
certainly loosened up at the debate went on, but I still couldn't help but
think of how Bill Clinton or Obama would have lit up that stage.

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Thom Price
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar
L’Homme Diabolique

Joined: 29 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7593
Posted: 28 September 2016 at 6:11am | IP Logged | 8  

Illinois is going to Hillary Clinton.  She's 95% likely to carry the state.  So my one little vote won't be missed in the short run.

***

If enough people think that, sure it will.  This is not a conventional election.  Trump has defied expectations again and again.  Hillary, unfortunately, is an unpopular candidate, due to a bruising primary that left many Sanders supporters bitter, her own lack of charisma, and a mountain of scandals both real and fictional.  Low enthusiasm resulting in low Democratic voter turnout is a distinct possibility.  The very attitude that you're displaying is precisely why Trump has a decent shot; too many otherwise Democratic voters would rather assuage their conscience than make a strategic vote to block Trump.

Wanting to break the two party system is a worthy goal but aside from this being the worst election in my lifetime to attempt that, I seriously question to practicality of electing a third party President and expecting results.  Let's say by some miracle a Green or Libertarian candidate wins; then what?  You have a President who is hated and resented on both sides of the aisle in Congress.  Not really a recipe for a productive term.

The reality is that attempts to change the system needs to be done from the ground up.  When Green or Libertarian parties decide to put their energies at a local and state level, that's when I stop regarding them with derision. Scuttling out of obscurity every four years for a doomed Presidential bid isn't going to cut it.  Say what you will about the Tea Party, but they understand politics.  Little wonder state and local governments have been overrun with Republicans in the last 8 years.
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Vinny Valenti
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 8009
Posted: 28 September 2016 at 6:32am | IP Logged | 9  

Absolutely right, Thom. We have seen Independent Governors and Senators, but even that is extremely rare. But at least it's possible. Though even when it happens, don't they at least make it to the televised debate stage? Because Johnson and Stein did not, and I see no chance for them to make any sort of headway as a result.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Steven Legge
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 866
Posted: 28 September 2016 at 6:41am | IP Logged | 10  

Since when has Trump let evidence dictate whether he denies something or not?

By saying he can't deny saying it certainly doesn't mean he won't.
I can guarantee the Clinton camp has enthusiastically prepared for such a denial for a future debate.
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Stephen Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5835
Posted: 28 September 2016 at 7:46am | IP Logged | 11  

THOM: Wanting to break the two party system is a worthy goal but aside from
this being the worst election in my lifetime to attempt that, I seriously question
to practicality of electing a third party President and expecting results. Let's
say by some miracle a Green or Libertarian candidate wins; then what? You
have a President who is hated and resented on both sides of the aisle in
Congress. Not really a recipe for a productive term.

SER: THANK YOU! A third party has to be built from the ground up. You need
an infrastructure in Congress within to help push your platform and agenda.

Back to Top profile | search | www
 
James Woodcock
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 September 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7581
Posted: 28 September 2016 at 8:12am | IP Logged | 12  

Why would anyone vote for a guy who doesn't know what Aleppo is? That's ignorance on a monumental scale.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 

<< Prev Page of 105 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login