Welcome to Thunderdome

This country is post-morality. No one cares she is crooked, they just care that she is on their team, and their self worth is defined by how their team does. It's pathetic, but oh well. Nothing for it.

Leisher wrote:but if someone points to Hillary as a good alternative, I put them on the same level as Trump supporters.

I don't know about good, but gun to my balls, I'd vote Hillary over Trump.

TheCatt wrote:

Leisher wrote:but if someone points to Hillary as a good alternative, I put them on the same level as Trump supporters.

I don't know about good, but gun to my balls, I'd vote Hillary over Trump.

As long as write ins and third party candidates exist, I won't enter any scenario where those two are the only options.

Leisher wrote:

TheCatt wrote:

Leisher wrote:but if someone points to Hillary as a good alternative, I put them on the same level as Trump supporters.

I don't know about good, but gun to my balls, I'd vote Hillary over Trump.

As long as write ins and third party candidates exist, I won't enter any scenario where those two are the only options.

Then I guess your scenario is "I don't care if my candidate wins."

Tweedle Dee claims credit for Tweedle Dum's shift.

In the wake of the mass shooting in Orlando and facing pressure from her Republican rival, Hillary Clinton said in a series of interviews on Monday that she would use the phrase "radical Islamism" to describe the threat that the United States must confront and defeat.

Malcolm wrote:

Leisher wrote:

TheCatt wrote: I don't know about good, but gun to my balls, I'd vote Hillary over Trump.

As long as write ins and third party candidates exist, I won't enter any scenario where those two are the only options.

Then I guess your scenario is "I don't care if my candidate wins."

What's your scenario? I'll smugly claim nothing can be my fault because I refused to vote? Who does that serve? At least get your ass out and vote for a third party candidate to make them more legitimate for the next election.

At least get your ass out and vote for a third party candidate to make them more legitimate for the next election.

At the moment, third party support matters for getting them equal time on the debate stage with everyone else.

The Presidential Debates Commission requires candidates poll at 15 percent in five polls leading up to the debates to qualify, but many pollsters only survey the two major party candidates.

Seeing as how no one's calling me for survey results, no, I'm not voting until it's a something beyond a choice of which of my two testicles I'd like to get kicked in when the results are counted.

At the moment, third party support matters for getting them equal time on the debate stage with everyone else.

Seeing as how no one's calling me for survey results, no, I'm not voting until it's a something beyond a choice of which of my two testicles I'd like to get kicked in when the results are counted.

So...vote...

Their debate time this campaign seems determined by their polling numbers as opposed to votes they got last time. So ... no.

In theory if they got, say, 20% of the votes then the odds of their getting added to future polls go up. Your vote wouldn't directly get them onto the stage, no, but it moves that closer to being a reality. Just as refusing to vote for a third party even if you like them is a way to actively help ensure they never get into the race.

Not voting is just as much of a choice as voting is. And has about the same level of impact.

Quite honestly, I'm in the "somebody besides a career liar or mental retard" camp. If the Libs get on the stage, I might do something. The "poll at 15%" rule is horseshit. Every year, pick 3 random fucking outsider parties and give them a podium, perhaps using a weighted lottery based on number of registered party members on the official roll.

TheCatt wrote:

Leisher wrote:but if someone points to Hillary as a good alternative, I put them on the same level as Trump supporters.

I don't know about good, but gun to my balls, I'd vote Hillary over Trump.

There's not a gun to your balls. How does your answer change?

Malcolm wrote:Every year, pick 3 random fucking outsider parties and give them a podium, perhaps using a weighted lottery based on number of registered party members on the official roll.

How can the networks/media outlets do that when the two major parties, who buy shitloads of advertising, don't want them to?

The system is rigged front to back, beginning to end. Let it burn.

How can the networks/media outlets do that when the two major parties, who buy shitloads of advertising, don't want them to?

You put them on stage during the debates on national TV. Internet advertising is cheap as shit. Why the fuck do you think Trump has an active twitter feed?

Malcolm wrote:

How can the networks/media outlets do that when the two major parties, who buy shitloads of advertising, don't want them to?

You put them on stage during the debates on national TV. Internet advertising is cheap as shit. Why the fuck do you think Trump has an active twitter feed?

Who runs the debates?

The networks.

And the Big 2 don't want anyone else in the race, so it isn't going to happen.

When the CPD jacks the requirement above 15%, let me know.

I don't know what a CPD is.

CPD = Commission on Presidential Debates

The only bitch is anyone invited to the debate can turn it down. That means one of the two major candidates could stay home whenever they wanted.

Gary Johnson is currently at 11%, so he's not completely out of the debate conversation.

He needs an upswing. Publicity is not his strong point.