Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, December 07, 2017

You have to choose the following: 1 - Clinton 2 - Trump 3 - _________________ Feel free to use your imagination.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

I already did the thread of worst elected president.

I just want to see if people will use their voting opportunity to vote for one of the two, or exercise the third option.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I vote 3 - Ron Paul.

I still think he's better than these two.

#1 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-12-07 04:52 PM | Reply

3- RCADE

#2 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-12-07 06:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

3- RCADE

btw, you did mean Hillary Clinton, right? i'm with her, if Trump the opposer/poser... as in fraud.

only a complete maron would vote Trump.

#3 | Posted by ichiro at 2017-12-07 07:01 PM | Reply

The same as my vote in the general, 3, Gary Johnson.

#4 | Posted by Whizzo at 2017-12-07 07:19 PM | Reply

I assume this thread is for currently active or relevant politicians:
Corey Booker, Jon Huntsman, or Nikki Haley are my choices.

#5 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2017-12-07 08:07 PM | Reply

- I still think he's better than these two.

What difference do your personal preferences make when he has nearly no chance to actually win?

Why not consider which of the two candidates who have a 99.9 percent chance of winning would be better for the country and support them rather than throwing your vote away?

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-07 08:09 PM | Reply

#6 CORKY
Ah yes, the 'throw your vote away' argument. Didn't take long to show up.
I know how I feel about it but I think Penn Gillette summed it up best.

Penn Jillette has two words for anyone that says you're wasting your vote by voting for a third party: "---- you"
People that say you're wasting your vote are doing nothing more than telling you what to do. They're saying "you need to support what I believe, don't support what you believe". That is wrong. That is not going to do anything but make things worse than they already are. When people are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils evil still wins. The lesser evil candidate is still an evil candidate. People need to vote for what they believe in and who they think will make things better.
www.google.com

#7 | Posted by Whizzo at 2017-12-07 08:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I have two words for Penn Jillette: "President Trump."

Some of you third-party voters were in states where you could have stopped Trump. You didn't. Cowboy up and take responsibility for your decision.

#8 | Posted by rcade at 2017-12-07 10:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Any time I hear people making the lesser of two evils argument, I know they have a loser candidate. Telling people they're throwing their votes away is effectively telling them not to vote. Which is a form of voter suppression.

#9 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-12-07 10:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Some of you third-party voters were in states where you could have stopped Trump. You didn't. Cowboy up and take responsibility for your decision."

I was not in a swing state during the last election, but I have friends and family who were, and I totally understand their decisions to vote for various third party candidates. They're not any more responsible that those of you repeatedly insulted them for even contemplating voting for anyone other than Hillary leading up to the election.

#10 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-12-07 10:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

Telling people they're throwing their votes away is effectively telling them not to vote.

Stop being a drama queen. Nobody is suppressing your vote by telling you that in the grown-up world, votes have consequences.

If I told you Big Macs make you fat would I be accused of starving you?

#11 | Posted by rcade at 2017-12-07 11:06 PM | Reply

Exactly. Your vote does have consequences.
Your vote for Hillary prevented Bernie from winning.
Thanks.

#12 | Posted by 101chairborne at 2017-12-07 11:15 PM | Reply

"Stop being a drama queen. Nobody is suppressing your vote by telling you that in the grown-up world, votes have consequences."

Some day it will dawn on you that talking to people like this helped get Trump elected. Then you'll have to own it.

#13 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-12-07 11:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Every time this subject comes up I have acknowledged by choosing Hillary over Bernie in the primary I opposed a candidate who might have beaten Trump. I take responsibility for that.

Now let's see if a single third-party voter here will take responsibility for their role in the outcome.

#14 | Posted by rcade at 2017-12-07 11:23 PM | Reply

Now let's see if a single third-party voter here will take responsibility for their role in the outcome.

Posted by rcade at 2017-12-07 11:23 PM | Reply

How about YOU blame Hillary for being such a horrific candidate.

#15 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-12-07 11:32 PM | Reply

Some day it will dawn on you that talking to people like this helped get Trump elected.

The election is long over, chief. I didn't talk to third-party voters like this back then.

All I did last year was make the case for voting Hillary and tell her haters on the left that their vote might get Donnie Dumpster Fire elected.

Elections are not an esteem-building exercise where people choose a candidate because they got hurt fee-fees on a message board.

There isn't a single person here who voted last November to get revenge on other voters for being contemptuous. Not a god-damn one. That revenge scenario of yours is insipid.

#16 | Posted by rcade at 2017-12-07 11:34 PM | Reply

Penn Jillette is just, "telling you what to do", lmao.

Dem policies have been better than the only other policies with any real chance to become law for decades now. To in any way help those other policies become law is asinine on it's face... 'specially when Trump is the face of those policies.

And especially when one's civic duty is to vote for those better policies rather than to put one's ego ahead of concern about how those policies affect most Americans.

Chomsky is much more lucid on this subject than Jillette:

1) Voting should not be viewed as a form of personal self-expression or moral judgement directed in retaliation towards major party candidates who fail to reflect our values, or of a corrupt system designed to limit choices to those acceptable to corporate elites.

6) However, the left should also recognize that, should Trump win based on its failure to support Clinton, it will repeatedly face the accusation (based in fact), that it lacks concern for those sure to be most victimized by a Trump administration.

8) Conclusion: by dismissing a "lesser evil" electoral logic and thereby increasing the potential for Clinton's defeat the left will undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to achieve.

chomsky.info

#17 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-08 12:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I voted third party. It was a throw away vote. I hate Trump, didn't like Hillary, was upset Bernie got shafted, and knew Hillary would win California.

That being said. I agree with RCade. If third parties want to be taken seriously. They need to start winning local and state elections.

And if democrats want to start winning again. They need to get back into rural America. Reeducate them.

#18 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-12-08 02:45 AM | Reply

Gillibrand.

#19 | Posted by ichiro at 2017-12-08 05:19 AM | Reply

If third parties want to be taken seriously. They need to start winning local and state elections.

I've never understood why third parties don't make more of an effort to do that. It would go a long way to proving a third party vote can mean something significant over time.

I think the key to Democrats winning again is to nominate more diverse candidates and find a presidential candidate under 55 with fresh ideas. Stop looking for another boomer. Trump will look ancient and his ideas will look even older.

#20 | Posted by rcade at 2017-12-08 10:49 AM | Reply

Democrats need to find a candidate they have confidence in will win regardless of whether there are visible third or fourth party alternatives in the general election. Continuing to attack third party voters will just push them away and make others look more closely at third party alternatives.

#21 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-12-08 11:19 AM | Reply

Joe Pesci.

#22 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-12-08 11:24 AM | Reply

"If third parties want to be taken seriously. They need to start winning local and state elections."

I think the last independent to be elected President was George Washington, correct me please if I am wrong.

#23 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-08 11:51 AM | Reply

Telling people they're throwing their votes away is effectively telling them not to vote. Which is a form of voter suppression.

#9 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

They essentially didn't vote.

Who took over when Lenin died?

A. Kerensky
B. Stalin
C. Harrison
D. McCartney

C or D represent a 3rd party vote in the 2016 election.

#24 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-12-08 02:54 PM | Reply

"Gillibrand."

That seems to have been her plan, but if you go to her fb pages (Kristen Gillibrand, US Senator Kristen Gillibrand and Kristen Gillibrand for President 2020), you will see the backlash she is receiving for saying Franken should to resign. I think the blowback from that move is far greater than she anticipate.

#25 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-12-08 03:01 PM | Reply

"They essentially didn't vote."

They essentially did vote. They just had zero effect on the outcome of which of the top two candidates won. Unlike people who didn't vote, though, their votes did count as support for respective third party candidates and parties, and against the top two. But the haters are trying to guilt trip them and telling them they might as well have not voted.

In retrospect, since we know who won the election, anyone who voted for somebody other than the winner might as well not have voted, because they threw away their vote. That's how dumb the third party hater logic is.

#26 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-12-08 03:51 PM | Reply

"...anyone who voted for somebody other than the winner might as well not have voted, because they threw away their vote." - #26 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-12-08 03:51 PM

Apparently, the word "viable" is a foreign concept to you.

#27 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-08 03:54 PM | Reply

Apparently, you don't think third party candidates should even be allowed to run, but you just don't have the guts to say it.

#28 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-12-08 04:05 PM | Reply

"Apparently..." - #28 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-12-08 04:05 PM

Apparently, you don't have the guts to admit that presidential 3rd party candidates do nothing but act as spoilers.

You're welcome.

#29 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-08 04:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"That seems to have been her plan, but if you go to her fb pages (Kristen Gillibrand, US Senator Kristen Gillibrand and Kristen Gillibrand for President 2020), you will see the backlash she is receiving for saying Franken should to resign. I think the blowback from that move is far greater than she anticipate."

Good. I won't soon forget.

#30 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-08 04:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I think the blowback from that move is far greater than she anticipate.

All democrats had to do was allow Franken to be seen by an ethics committee.

Instead they became feral bitches and ate their own.

#31 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-12-08 04:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"All democrats had to do was allow Franken to be seen by an ethics committee.

Instead they became feral bitches and ate their own."

So, we can conclude that Franken suspected or knew that he couldn't count on his own party if he had chosen to stay and ride it out.

why? Why would the dems be so afraid to support him? They either have less spine that I thought or what they really know about Franken's behavior is worse that we think.

#32 | Posted by eberly at 2017-12-08 04:35 PM | Reply

#29 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-08 04:16 PM | Reply | Flag: The haterade is strong with this one.

#33 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-12-08 04:45 PM | Reply

Trump 2020

#34 | Posted by patron at 2017-12-08 05:15 PM | Reply

3rd party candidates do nothing but act as spoilers.
#29 | HANS

Like in 1992 when Ross Perot garnered 19% of the vote, siphoned mostly from Bush's vote tally? There were 11 Presidential candidates on the ticket that year.
The end result; Clinton was elected President, bush came in second in the voting and Perot came in third.
The people voted and Bush didn't get enough votes to get elected, end of story.

#35 | Posted by Whizzo at 2017-12-08 05:28 PM | Reply

Why would the dems be so afraid to support him?

#32 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Because they are dirty politicians and saw him as a threat to their own 2020 campaigns.

#36 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-12-08 05:31 PM | Reply

All drollery aside, Elizabeth Warren.

#37 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-12-08 05:57 PM | Reply

"Like in 1992 when Ross Perot garnered 19% of the vote, siphoned mostly from Bush's vote tally?" - #35 | Posted by Whizzo at 2017-12-08 05:28 PM

Exactly!

Remove Perot from the equation, add the 19% he got to Bush ("...siphoned mostly from Bush's vote tally..."), and it is Bush 56% of the vote to Clinton's 43%.

Even without looking at it state-by-state, Bush at 56% of the popular vote would have had enough popular votes (and commensurate Electoral College votes) to be re-elected.

End of story.

#38 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-08 06:59 PM | Reply

Now let's see if a single third-party voter here will take responsibility for their role in the outcome.
#14 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2017-12-07 11:23 PM | REPLY

What role was that? If every Jill Stein Vote and 1/2 of the Gary Johnson votes went to Clinton in the swing states that mattered, she still would have lost. 3rd Party Voters literally made no difference in the outcome of the election.

#39 | Posted by bartimus at 2017-12-08 07:00 PM | Reply

#38 | POSTED BY HANS
And if the 19% that voted Perot had elected to not vote rather than choose Bush or Clinton?

#40 | Posted by Whizzo at 2017-12-08 07:19 PM | Reply

"And if ..." - #40 | Posted by Whizzo at 2017-12-08 07:19 PM

"And ifs" are fun.

Sort of a game. ("What if Hitler died as a child?" "What if LHO missed in November, 1963?" "What if Lincoln had stayed home instead of going to the theater?")

But, you laid out the ground rules ("Like in 1992 when Ross Perot garnered 19% of the vote, siphoned mostly from Bush's vote tally?").

As per your ground rules, I removed Perot from the equation and added the votes he received to Bush's total, based on your rule ("...siphoned mostly from Bush's vote tally...").

But, since "and ifs" are a game, much like removing Perot from the equation is a game, then we're left with the fact that Perot was a spoiler for Bush in the 1992 election because, as you put it, Perot "...siphoned mostly from Bush's vote tally".

#41 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-08 07:32 PM | Reply

#41
I don't know for sure how many of the 19% would have voted for Bush. I said 'if' because Bush had pissed off many of his supporters before the '92 election. The chant of Bush supporters after the election was that Perot had hurt them. A reverse situation of the Trump/Clinton vote today.
I asked 'if' about a non vote in '92 because I know that for me, if Trump and Clinton were the only 2 listed on the ballot, and Johnson wasn't an option, I would not have voted. So would my non vote have been a vote for Trump?

#42 | Posted by Whizzo at 2017-12-08 07:49 PM | Reply

"So would my non vote have been a vote for Trump?"

Depends on where you live. If you live in a swing state that helped Trump in the Electoral College then yes, you helped Trump. If not then your vote was irrelevant.

#43 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-09 01:49 PM | Reply

Yes, Penn was harshest on us Bernie voters.

Until the voting app is implemented which can be verifiable and secure, the voting machines are still wasted votes and are switched at will.

That and since the Democrats will simply pull the rug out from voters again, I will abstain until I can verify that my vote counts.

#44 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2017-12-09 02:31 PM | Reply

Never trust the telecommunications industry though - they have leaked everything about you that they can, repeatedly. If people believe that Russian hackers are to blame, you should verify which network's information they are utilizing. That timestamp will indicate lots about who profited..

#45 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2017-12-09 02:35 PM | Reply

#43 Danni
That logic still doesn't change the weight of my vote. Electoral College state or not, I was not going to vote for Trump or Clinton. So a vote for Johnson is in effect a non vote as far as the election outcome. The only way it makes a difference is if you're saying that I was supposed to vote for Clinton, but didn't. To say it helped Trump in any way isn't true.

#46 | Posted by Whizzo at 2017-12-09 03:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort