Isn't voting for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson like voting for Trump?

Some people would say voting for them is like voting for Hillary. Depends on where you live.

A significant showing by either of them demonstrates that neither party has convinced the electorate. Lincoln was a third party candidate in 1860.

Lincoln was a third party candidate in 1860

No, the major parties in 1860 were the Republicans and Democrats.

The Republicans had won control of the US House in 1858.

In the Senate the Republicans had 25 seats and the Democrats 38.

36th United States Congress – Party Summary

No.

Silly slogans like that operate on the false assumption that anyone who decides to vote for Stein or Johnson would have otherwise voted for Clinton. This is pretty obviously false, especially in the case of Johnson voters. The fact is that many people who vote for third party candidates would otherwise not vote at all (leaving the totals of both Trump and Clinton exactly the same).

And, of course, there is no mechanism for third party votes to be swept into the Democratic or Republican columns when the election is over. Your vote goes to whomever you voted for and no one else. A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton. A vote for Johnson is a vote for Johnson. And a vote for Stein is a vote for Stein.

Also Lincoln was largely bolstered by the fact that the Democrat party was, at that time, splintered between various factions.

Silly slogans like that operate on the false assumption that anyone who decides to vote for Stein or Johnson would have otherwise voted for Clinton.

Nobody is saying ALL those votes would otherwise go to Clinton.

That’s a straw man argument. .

@Call_Me_Jay Just because someone doesn’t say it doesn’t mean it isn’t presupposed by the slogan. That’s the problem with words: sometimes they say more than we want them to.

But thanks to you, I won my bet with another jelly that it would take fewer than 10 answers for someone to reference @flo‘s other question. I even won the side bet that it would be referenced in a way that was simultaneously snarky and incorrect. Much obliged.

Yes and no. It’s not to say that those people would vote her way anyway. But you would think that a libertarian or green party person would have more in common with Hillary, who’s more to the center and believes in global warming than Trump who is way beyond right and doesn’t believe in global warming. So lets’ say there is no Stein or Johnson. They may stay home when their votes are probably enough to break the tie. Even one vote matters. So whether that vote is in the garbage can (Stein or Johnson) or at home, it will make the difference on who wins. Bye the way, I am not saying they are garbage. I just mean voting for them is throwing your vote in the trash because come the 9th neither of them will have had enough votes to win.

. There are not enough libertarians or independents to split between the two of them and even if only one remained, there would not be enough of them to win. Each party has about ⅓ of the votes more or less. But Stein and Johnson split up there vote and many Independents identify as being closer to Democrat policies. Republican voters will never lean outside of their party. Protest voters on the Republican side will just sit it out and the same for Democrat voters. So that means it’s all in the hands of the independents.
If I were them than this would be their time to work out deals with Democrats for their votes.

@SavoirFaire Just because someone doesn’t say it doesn’t mean it isn’t presupposed by the slogan

Wow, you’re totally defeating those arguments nobody made!

Textbook strawmen.

Well, I won’t delay you further, you have battles to fight. Those imaginary people you pretend are saying things are so wrong!

@Call_Me_Jay Except the problem with a presupposition is that it’s part of your argument whether you want it to be or not. If someone says something like “I don’t vote Democrat because I’m against eating babies,” they haven’t explicitly said that Democrats support eating babies. But the statement doesn’t make any sense unless the speaker believes something along those lines, and it would make perfect sense to point out this presupposition (and its falsity).

Similarly, the statement “voting for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson is like voting for Trump” doesn’t explicitly say that anyone who decides to vote for Stein or Johnson would have otherwise voted for Clinton. But again, it doesn’t make sense unless the speaker believes something along those lines. Maybe the speaker doesn’t have to believe that literally every single third party voter would otherwise vote for Clinton—though if we want to get really technical, the statement is only generally applicable if it does go that far—but the statement moves from false to nonsensical if they don’t think something along those lines is true.

But congratulations on introducing the first actual straw man to this question.

Why don’t Jill Stein and Gary Johnson stop running for presidency? I don’t know. Why don’t Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton stop running for the presidency? I mean, they’re stealing all of Stein and Johnson’s votes! How rude of them! But if you Americans wanted to switch to a transferable vote system, you wouldn’t have this stupid problem anymore.

No. Stein isn’t pulling enough support to swing the election one way or the other by polls. Johnson is, but he’s pulling votes from both parties.

In my case I made a choice not to vote for Stein and to vote for Clinton, even though Stein more aligns with my point of view.

@Call_Me_Jay But people are making that argument, which I’m pretty sure is @SavoirFaire‘s point. It seems you think that people should be able to get away with bad arguments just so long as they don’t make them explicitly. I guess that means you are voting for Trump?

No, voting for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson is like voting for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. You have been deluded into believing that there are only two sides to any story, Republican or Democrat. We NEED more choices and these are two viable choices. If one, or either, of the other two candidates cannot garner enough votes to beat all the other three then maybe we do not need them in the position.

A 50/50 winner take all system such as the one we have been saddled with means that upwards of 50% of the voters are disenfranchised in any election. We need more parties that can then form coalitions so that we have a true majority rule.

I heard a quote the other day to paraphrase: “The Democratic Party has become the new Republican Party, and the Republican Party has become pro wrestling.” I’m not a fan of Republicans or Pro Wrestlers. Both parties are bought and paid for by corporate interests.

If I vote for Clinton, it’s letting the Democratic leadership know that I will support Democrats who betray the values of the party. Those leaders pretend to be liberal, but support fracking, war mongering, offshoring jobs, and gifting billions to companies. They did everything they could to disenfranchise and exclude young voters, They disrespected Bernie supporters at the convention, and then turn around and blame them for Clinton’s pathetic shortcomings.

Clinton needs to EARN my fucking vote. And playing Pokemon Go with Taylor Swift, or whoever the hell the director of her millennial outreach division calculated would influence young voters more doesn’t count. If Clinton wants my vote she needs to return all of the money she and Bill have received from corporate donors, speaking fees, and super pacs. Then I would take her seriously.

This question is kind of silly.

No, voting for someone who is not Trump is not the same as voting for Trump. It may not be the same as voting for Clinton, either, but voting for Stein or Johnson will not magically add a vote to Trump’s tally. That’s simply not the way that voting works, friend.

Their function has not been to win or govern, but to agitate, educate, generate new ideas, and supply the dynamic element in our political life. When a third party’s demands become popular enoguh, they are appropriated by one or both of the major parties and the third party disappears. Third parties are like bees: once they have stung, they die.” – Richard Hofstadter

Eww, I made a typo and forgot a quotation mark…

No, as stated above.

Why do third parties continue to run? To be declared an official candidate, individuals have to raise at least $5,000 in campaign contributions. To be eligible for federal campaign matching funds during primary season, a candidate has to raise $5,000 in 20 different states.
The same public funding system requires a third party to have received at least 5 percent of the popular vote in the previous election in order to be eligible for funds this year. No third party achieved that level in 2012.

That means this year the major party nominees will be able to receive up to $96 million in federal funding, while third parties can receive nothing.

waiting to hear from those who like to call third party supporters stupid morons. I’m surprised they haven’t shown up yet. Maybe because they know their argument is weak?

Sanders started a revolution. I do believe we’ll see an end to the two party system as early as 2020.

In 1980 I worked for third party candidate John Anderson. I felt Carter was weak, and Reagan was scary. I understand how some people feel like their candidate is the smart choice, even while they have no chance.
What I don’t understand is how they become so bitter their candidate lost, that they actually hope the crazy, dangerous candidate wins, just to spite the system, regardless of the damage it will do to the country.

@jonsblond: I was incredibly surprised when Hillary won California. I was feeling the Bern and I thought most of us were in agreement. But I guess I was wrong… Still, you’re definitely correct. He may not have won the nomination, but he certainly shook the ground that the current system stands on.

There is a professor named Allan Lichtman. He predicted all the presidential elections since 1984. His model has 13 keys that measures performance. One of his keys is third parties. According to him, third parties are bad news for the party holding the white house. For this to have an impact, third party votes need at least 5%. Gary Johnson of the Libertarian party is polling 8%. His point is that a vote for a third party is a vote that is being thrown away. There are no moral victories in politics.

@tredk: So are you saying yes to the question originally asked? Because your answer doesn’t actually imply a yes or no answer to that question at all.

Practically speaking, yes, a third party vote is like a vote for Trump. Allan recently made his prediction that trump will narrowly win but also mentioned that because Trump is such a wild card, he can defy even his own probability of victory.

@tredk: Please explain how not voting for Trump is the equivalent of voting for Trump. The act of selecting a different candidate does not add to his total count of votes… While selecting Trump does. I fail to see where these two actions are analogous, except that each involves casting a vote.

Throwing away your vote on a third party candidate ensures a trump victory. It is as if you voted for Trump. The act of not voting for Hillary consequently makes Trump the victor. The intention doesn’t matter here.

@tredk: I guess I’m just looking at the question from a literal perspective. A vote that is not for Trump is literally not a vote for Trump. Whether the end result of this action is that Trump wins the election does not affect whether the vote was actually for or against Trump. I’m not talking about intent either.

Well, I did mention practically speaking. It isn’t a vote for Trump but because he will win, it is as if you voted for him. That is all I’m saying. Yes, literally, you didn’t vote for Trump if you voted for a third party candidate.

@tredk: And something practical is of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas.

To my mind one less vote for Clinton is not a vote for Trump. There probably are places in the country where a 3rd party candidate might actually cost Clinton too many votes, but I’m not living in any of them. Had Bernie remained in the race, Hillary’s prospects might tilt toward problematic, but Stein & Johnson’s nuisance value is not significant to the point of costing her the election. Sanders made the “sane” decision, and I believe him fully cognizant of Clinton’s shortcomings as he nevertheless campaigns vigorously on her behalf. There is simply no getting around the argument that you are sometimes compelled to sacrifice your ideals when steadfast adherence might enable catastrophe. It might be interesting to know exactly how many of the votes Clinton accrues are not about her elevation to the Presidency. There should be a separate box on the ballot labeled for votes on Trump’s defeat.

Even if you insist on “that view”, voting for Stein is at most ½ as effective at electing Trump as actually voting Trump.

Please see @filmfann‘s post, it begs repeating.
“What I don’t understand is how they become so bitter their candidate lost, that they actually hope the crazy, dangerous candidate wins, just to spite the system, regardless of the damage it will do to the country.”

@JoyousLove ” Please explain how not voting for Trump is the equivalent of voting for Trump. The act of selecting a different candidate does not add to his total count of vote…”
But no one is suggesting a different candidate for example Clinton. You’re making a straw man argument. The OP says voting for the Stein and Johnson is like voting for Trump. B

One thing is certain. A vote for Clinton is the only assured vote against Trump.

Trump sees his supporters as fools, and his tools. He sees his supporters like chicken for Kernel Sanders (as one of the comedians is it? said.

Please see @stanleybmanly post just above, short and on target.

@stanleybmanly ” Sanders made the “sane” decision, and I believe him fully cognizant of Clinton’s shortcomings as he nevertheless campaigns vigorously on her behalf. There is simply no getting around the argument that you are sometimes compelled to sacrifice your ideals when steadfast adherence might enable catastrophe.”

This. Idealism is all fine and well, but politics is a game of pragmatism and I’m glad Bernie understands this.

But this election is like no other election ever, in the Western world anyway, just because of Trump as a candidate. So I don’t know why anyone brings up left wing and right wing policies. All you need is mocking the disabled, in public.

Or Why can’t we use nuclear weapons? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/03/donald-trump-asked-why-us-cant-use-nuclear-weapons-if-he-becomes/

Or Would you vote for that (Carly Fiorina) face?

Or I would let North Korea or any other country have nuclear weapons

Or I’m smart that’s why I don’t pay taxes, or I pay as little as possible.

@flo: I’m not strawmanning, you misunderstood what I said. In my response “different candidate” referred to anyone who is not Trump (which includes Stein and Johnson). If you had continued to read the discussion that followed from that, you might have understood that to be the case.

But this election is like no other election ever, in the Western world anyway, just because of Trump as a candidate.

Have you forgotten about the president who was elected because he would be more fun to drink with? George W. Bush.

The endless fearmongering needs to stop. The world won’t end in four years.

It’s true that a vote for Stein or Johnson is not a vote for Trump.

However, it’s also true that a vote for Clinton is more so not a vote for Trump than voting for any third party candidate is. The next president of the US is going to be either Trump or Clinton. That’s just the political landscape. A vote for Stein or Johnson is like a null or zero on the outcome; a vote for Clinton is another vote away from Trump.

If Trump marks a changing tide in American politics he needs to be stopped. His danger isn’t solely in four years as a president, although I do balk at the idea that he’d be the face of America in all sorts of sensitive international affairs, and at the idea that he might try to apply his weasel-out-of-paying business “strategy” onto the US economy, among many other things. His danger is in his fearmongering, his apparent distaste for anything that doesn’t benefit himself directly (regardless the cost it causes others), his proclivity for us/them-ing, a blatant disregard for any sort of factual record, etc., etc., etc. If he is the beginning of these sorts of practices becoming more deeply ingrained (I’m not saying there not there already in some capacity), it needs to be squashed.

When we get closer to the election, if the margin between Clinton and Trump is still as narrow as some of the current polls are saying, I seriously hope that people who are voting for Stein or Johnson and who know that Trump would be a disaster will reconsider their vote—because if it’s close, their votes might be able to change the outcome that would otherwise occur.

A narrow Trump win wouldn’t be third party voters’ faults, but it would have been something that they could have had a more direct influence on, and perhaps helped to prevent.

I’ve been told that Trump’s candidacy is something to marvel at, like the Grand Canyon or snow in Kenya. And you can actually hear the bemused amazement in the voices of commentators when discussing him and his labors at arriving here. The man’s elevation actually defies the possibilities allowed in a rational world. It’s like that story of aeronautical engineers befuddled at the bumblebee’s ability to remain airborne. Even if he is defeated, we’re in for problems because Trump has let the cat out of the bag, and the flag has gone up for everyone from pathologically compulsive liars through know nothing narcissists that America’s great promise is within reach. ANYBODY can be President

Social workers teachers psychologists are reported to have been dealing with the hike in Trump-like bullying activities

@jonsblond Give me George W Bush or Nixon or….everyone else put together rather than Trump.
You could go into any prison and you can find a few people many times more qualified for the job.

@jonsblond No, of course the world won’t end. But the Supreme Court will get packed with conservatives and make life very difficult for the progressive cause for a very long time. But that may not be important to you as a white straight woman. It means everything to me as a black gay woman.

@monthly There is one Supreme Court decision that is 1,000x more important than any other, and that’s Citizen’s United. The tidal wave of corporate/foreign/special interest money being infused into our political process means our politicians have stopped listening to the people. That’s literally true.

If Hillary didn’t have Super PACs, Bernie would have wiped the floor with her. Any Supreme Court nominees she chooses will not be interested in overturning the most important ruling in the history of this nation, and at the end of the day that’s even more dangerous than black rights or gay rights.

What gorilla said @monthly. You know so much about me and you’ve been here how long? I’ve never interacted with you before. Why would you assume that gay rights aren’t important to me? My daughter just came out to her father and I. My sister, aunt and BIL are all gay. Their rights are very important to me. I just don’t buy into the fear that Trump will make life worse for them. I think Hillary will be equally bad for many reasons, but I don’t need to explain the reasons to you or anyone else here at Fluther. That’s not what the OP is about, and I have more important things to do than waste my time on Fluther answering to people who like to assume they know what I care about.

You want citizens united overturned? Putting Trump in office is a sure way of baking it in.

@jonsblood then you know what I’m talking about then and you know why putting Clinton in office is of paramount importance to the gay community.

My daughter just came out to her father and I. My sister, aunt and BIL are all gay. Their rights are very important to me.

Have you come out and told them about your support for Trump? I bet the would be thrilled.

I’m voting for Stein. My sister is as well and my aunt isn’t voting. My daughter is too young to vote, but she agrees with my vote. My BIL is voting for Clinton and isn’t stupid to confuse a vote for Stein as a vote for Trump. He understands.

Continue berating me. It just shows your ignorance. I’m done wasting time here.

@gorillapaws “If Hillary didn’t have Super PACs, Bernie would have wiped the floor with her.”

That’s quite an assumption. Face it, Bernie Sanders lost. The man who’s never been a Democrat, who’s spent his career berating Democrats, who only just jumped over to the Democrat ship, lost the Democratic primary election to appoint the Democrat nominee. The lifelong stalwart Democrat was favored by the voters who actually are Democrats.

@Darth_Algar I’m not convinced that Bernie actually lost, and that the primary was stolen from him through election fraud. It’s common knowledge that the election was rigged against him from the start by the DNC, that much has been proven with the email leaks.

Bernie Sanders has an 87% approval rating among his Vermont constituents—the highest of any current Senator by a huge margin. He beat Trump in most polls by a massive margin compared to Clinton. Clinton’s favorability rating is tied with Trump at a dismal 41%.

Sanders has caucused with Democrats his whole career. Clinton is the former “Goldwater girl” who has a record of supporting Republican policies. Bernie’s policies are much closer to the essence of the Democratic Party, while Clinton represents a radical shift to the right. Would FDR even be considered a Democrat if he were alive? Wouldn’t Hillary hate him (or at least pretend to like him and then try to stab him in the back politically)?

Trump may be a steaming pile of shit but my ire goes out to the fake Democrats who are betraying the people (like Tim Kaine). They are the ones responsible for Obamacare not having a public option, bankers getting bonuses instead of jail sentences after 2008, and they will be the ones responsible for passing the TPP. I can survive a 1-term Trump presidency, if that means the Democratic Party will be forced to make some serious fucking changes to how it operates. 8 years of Democrats pretending to be progressive, while betraying the voters and working for the 1% is a much more dangerous scenario. 8 years of taking the genuine passions of the people for real changes, railroading it, and making an entire generation apathetic to politics.

Unless there is election fraud, I’m pretty certain that Trump will be our next president, and the fault will be with Clinton supporters, those who rigged the primaries and discouraged/turned away voters, who scheduled the debates at shitty times/days to protect Clinton, who collided with the media, who wrote hit pieces, who worked their asses off to put one of the most unpopular candidates in history on the ballot instead of the Senator with 87% approval rating in his home state. If Trump wins it will be their fault, not the real progressives who are fed up with the bullshit.

I’m voting for Stein because she’s a better Democrat than Clinton.

No. That doesn’t help trump. Remember that the electoral college is the important thing. The only way to support a candidate is to vote for them.

I saw a news clip this morning where Gary Johnson was hanging his tongue out for an extended period during an interview. Then they had a clip where Chris Matthews was asking him to name one world leader he respects and he could not name one. Not one. He was calling it an “Aleppo Moment.”

Excellent answer @gorillapaws. I’d ask to share it on fb for all the rabid Hillary supporters but I’ve removed them as friends. I can’t deal with their fearmonging.

I can survive a 1-term Trump presidency, if that means the Democratic Party will be forced to make some serious fucking changes to how it operates

The next president will probably appoint three Supreme Court justices.
It’s not a four year problem, the damage would last decades.

I want to give Johnson a break and attribute his gaffe on world leaders to stage fright. The Aleppo question to me is more revealing. When I heard that “living leader” question myself, I instinctively reacted with “Nelson Mandela” though I remembered he was dead before the last sylable escaped. The question is one that does require some reflection, because you make the mistake of trying to determine who it is at the top of your list.

That Johnson isnt quick on his feet under the pressure of the press doesn’t disturb me. But even I don’t believe the man can’t name a single world leader of repute.

Did Trump say that beaut paegents should be a thing of the far past? Did he say he regrets having been a part of it etc.? Did he have a article like that?
https://sites.google.com/site/negativesonbeautypageants/negative-effects-on-women

@gorillapaws

And I’m not convinced that there has been widespread election fraud in a concentrated, nationwide effort to steal the primary for Hillary. One thing I’ve noticed is that in seemingly every election, on all levels, since Bush vs Gore, someone on the losing side cries “fraud”.

Trump’s success as presidential candidate is NOT a fluke. It’s a symptom of a totally corrupt and ridiculous level of corporate corruption and idiocy of our politics, our media, and our cultural conversations.

@Call_Me_Jay I’m well aware that the problem could last decades. I really don’t feel good about the Supreme Court nominees that Wall Street will allow Clinton to nominate. It’s almost certain to result in Citizen’s United being locked in for decades to come, which means our Democracy will be lost to the highest bidder. We’re heading for a massive financial cataclysm, and Clinton is going to drive us right off the cliff instead of breaking up the banks and monopolies.

@Darth_Algar Take a look at the evidence before dismissing it. Or at least provide a rational counterargument in the face of rational evidence. How is it that Clinton’s primary votes consistently violate the law of averages when counted by a machine, but follow the expected pattern when counted by hand? Are you refusing to entertain the idea that there could be widespread fraud with closed-source, for-profit voting machines that are easily hackable? Does it require a tinfoil hat to think there may be problems with our voting system? There’s only trillions of dollars at stake after all, right?

Why not read the fucking report and make up your own mind?

EDIT: I meant law of large numbers, not law of averages.

rational

Ha ha!

evidence

Funny!

@Call_Me_Jay Because when a professor of statistics at George Washington University who was also the 100th President of the American Statistical Association, says the data from the Primary is problematic, it’s not even worth looking at is it? We should just laugh it off?

@gorillapaws As a “Bernie supporter”, maybe you should follow his endorsement, instead of working for his polar opposite.

Take a clue from history. Your strategy didn’t work in 2000. You live in a country where Trump is going to get at least 40% of the vote.

You’re determined to bring wreck and ruin on us in the belief you’ll get a unicorn pony in the end. Sorry, Pumpkin, life does not work that way.

@Call_Me_Jay Stein is anything but Sanders’ polar opposite. It seems to me that your attitude is the one that has us saddled with Clinton as the Dem Party candidate, and if she loses, it’s all on the DNC, the Clinton campaign, etc., the broken voting system, corporate corruption and control of the mass media, and not at all on the people who are fed up with it all.

Stein isn’t going to be president. The vast majority of Americans have never heard of her. She doesn’t have the wherewithal to gain name recognition let alone votes.

The Greens haven’t managed to get anybody into office much beyond a few dozen obscure local officials. It’s a failed little party that hasn’t earned any attention.

Unleash your bile on Trump, not the candidate that Bernie endorsed.

@Call_Me_Jay Clinton isn’t going to be president either. We tried to warn you that rigging the game in favor of an establishment candidate in a time when everyone is fed-up with business-as-usual is a fucking horrible idea, but you guys wouldn’t listen. You should hold out hope for election rigging, because that’s your best chance to see Clinton win.

The only positive outcome that’s possible from this quagmire at this point is for the Democratic Party to have a serious reckoning and realize that they can NEVER have another Debbie Wasserman Schultz equivalent. That progressives won’t just “fall in line” as the party marches further and further into the pockets of corporate interests. They need to look at the fact that someone with the name recognition of Clinton lost to the most vile candidate in history because they ignored what progressives wanted. They need to fear loosing the support of progressive voters more than loosing the support of corporate lobbyists.

If that happens, then it may be possible to salvage something decent from the train wreck of a 1-term Trump presidency in 4 years.

I voted for Gore in 2000, and would vote for him again this year if he was running against Trump.

@Call_Me_Jay and @@gorillapaws When I read “As a “Bernie supporter”, maybe you should follow his endorsement, instead of working for his polar opposite.” it says to me instead of Trump not Stein.

I didn’t vote in 2012 and Obama won. How the fuck did that happen? My non vote didn’t help Romney? Mind blown!~

@flo I expect that is what @Call_Me_Jay meant, but @gorillapaws wrote he planned on voting for Stein, not Trump. @Call_Me_Jay has been righteously over-stating his argument that Sanders supporters should vote for Clinton, and that not doing so in his “reality” is supposedly supporting Trump. Meanwhile, many of us are still outraged and Clinton and don’t believe her act that she’s an actual progressive (has she said anything about Standing Rock, for but one tiny example?), and feel the two-party corporate-bought system is not something we’re willing to vote for, despite all the people trying to tell us we have to because an evil clown is the other awful offering.

Uh oh. You “progressives” who want Trump elected aren’t going to like this.

Gary Johnson’s Libertarian running mate William Weld gives up, now just wants to stop Trump

@Zaku ,
1)”....despite all the people trying to tell us we have to because an evil clown is the other awful offering.” Please go ahead and explain Trump’s words:
“https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/24/donald-trump-says-he-could-shoot-somebody-and-still-not-lose-voters
2) Trump has been part of the establishment according to his own admission, and now http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/trump-already-surrounding-himself-with-establishment-men

@Call_Me_Jay Isn’t it the Democrats who are called progressives.

@Call_Me_Jay Honest question: has the absurd farce that Stein supporters actually want Trump to win ever been even remotely effective as a rhetorical strategy? Or is it just a way for you to vent your anger at people for having a different opinion?

@flo
1) What part of me characterizing Trump as “an evil clown” and “awful offering” makes you think I can explain his random illogical attention-seeking ejaculations? I think that quote where he said he could get away with shooting people is a great illustration of how his successful and media-and-public-accepted candidacy for president shows how insanely and unacceptably messed up our media and public thinking are, not to mention our politicians and related scumbags.

2) Oh ok let’s mention them. I’m not surprised (/already assumed/thought that) Trump is likely being a tool/ally of establishment sleazebags. Did I somehow come across as someone who would be surprised?

Trump has set a record for unacceptability for me, at least in many ways. Mainly though I see him as a mirror showing us how screwed up the rest of our nation is. I don’t support him being elected at all.

I wrote what I wrote because I also find it unacceptable to have Clinton forced down my throat as the only viable alternative, particularly after all the abuses of the primary process. Politics is never binary, and arguments like @gorillapaws made just reinforce my disinterest in supporting the whole mess, even by accepting the lesser of two evils vote option.

@Zaku

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/24/donald-trump-says-he-could-shoot-somebody-and-still-not-lose-voters

If Trump were to read your posts he would say to himself ” Like equating houses that require work, (Clinton) and the house that’s on fire (me)” @Zaku for being my tool,