Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

What to do?


HalfAnIdiot

Recommended Posts

It's clear that a significant number of Americans find both candidates un-electable. Being a Sanders supporter, I'm among those who face this predicament. What to do?

(If this topic is redundant and covered in an existing thread, please provide the link to it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3d party.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, HalfAnIdiot said:

It's clear that a significant number of Americans find both candidates un-electable. Being a Sanders supporter, I'm among those who face this predicament. What to do?

(If this topic is redundant and covered in an existing thread, please provide the link to it.)

Vote for Jill Stein if you still think voting makes a difference. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, questionmark said:

3d party.

 

Even a third, fourth or fifth party is not enough.:hmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are viable 3rd parties available.  But, the onus is now on you to research them, as the media will not do it for you.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Vote for Jill Stein if you still think voting makes a difference. 

Lets be fair here, he also could vote for Gary Johnson, Darrel Castle, Tom Hoefling, Gloria LaRiva, James Hedges, Farley Anderson, Rod Silva or Chris Keniston. They are also running (but not like anybody notices)

Edited by questionmark
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, questionmark said:

Lets be fair here, he also could vote for Gary Johnson, Darrel Castle, Tom Hoefling, Gloria LaRiva, James Hedges, Farley Anderson, Rod Silva or Chris Keniston. They are also running (but not like anybody notices)

Yes Sir, i just figured Stein fits well with Bernie's hyperbole. Which clearly is all it was. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Farmer77 said:

Yes Sir, i just figured Stein fits well with Bernie's hyperbole. Which clearly is all it was. 

Gloria LaRiva from the Socialist party would too.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, questionmark said:

Gloria LaRiva from the Socialist party would too.

 

You sir are clearly more educated on the candidates than I am! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can have a drink, or roll a J, whatever you prefer, pretty much all you can do, that and adopt to environment around you, to get things your way. regardless of the president. you do not really believe anything will change much regardless who will be elected. i do not, but it is sure fun to talk like it would.

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of Bernie supporters who have the privilege of not belonging to any minority group might get to thinking that Trump is somehow "less dangerous." 

That's a mistake. 

If he gets in because some of the Bernie supporters vote for him (which one might consider unthinkable), or if he gets in because too many people vote 3rd party or write in Sanders, then I think our freedom is literally on the chopping block. I see him as someone who is not looking to just be president. I think he's looking to be a totalitarian dictator. And I think he's lining up allies, already. Putin seems to be very fond of him. No one in the Republican party seems to be concerned, although they were all over the "socialist." 

Edited by ChaosRose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ChaosRose said:

I think our freedom is literally on the chopping block. I see him as someone who is not looking to just be president. I think he's looking to be a totalitarian dictator. 

What sucks is the very thing you just posted there applies perfectly to both candidates. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Farmer77 said:

What sucks is the very thing you just posted there applies perfectly to both candidates. 

Oh come off it. There's one candidate whose platform is loaded with all sorts of ridiculous and frighteningly unconstitutional goals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ChaosRose said:

Oh come off it. There's one candidate whose platform is loaded with all sorts of ridiculous and frighteningly unconstitutional goals. 

Oh dear god. Hillary has clearly demonstrated an absolute disdain for the rule of law. She has been proven to be willing to lie in order to reach her goals. She takes money from the very same people whom support trump. Speaking of unconstitutional her collusion with the media is an absolute molestation of the first amendment. 

Finally since youre talking about one of the candidates becoming a totalitarian dictator , SHE is the one who has made her desire to remove any means to oppose a dictator through gun control loud and clear. 

yeah they're both absolutely terrifying. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, questionmark said:

Lets be fair here, he also could vote for Gary Johnson, Darrel Castle, Tom Hoefling, Gloria LaRiva, James Hedges, Farley Anderson, Rod Silva or Chris Keniston. They are also running (but not like anybody notices)

Hey!  You forgot the candidate I decided to vote for: Zoltan Istvan!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

Oh come off it. There's one candidate whose platform is loaded with all sorts of ridiculous and frighteningly unconstitutional goals. 

I thought you wanted Hillary to win?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gromdor said:

Hey!  You forgot the candidate I decided to vote for: Zoltan Istvan!

sorry. Now, that one is so obscure not even I know about him. Is he on the ballot of any state or do you have to write him in?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, questionmark said:

sorry. Now, that one is so obscure not even I know about him. Is he on the ballot of any state or do you have to write him in?

 

Well, he is formally running.  But I'll probably have to write him in.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

Oh dear god. Hillary has clearly demonstrated an absolute disdain for the rule of law. She has been proven to be willing to lie in order to reach her goals. She takes money from the very same people whom support trump. Speaking of unconstitutional her collusion with the media is an absolute molestation of the first amendment. 

Finally since youre talking about one of the candidates becoming a totalitarian dictator , SHE is the one who has made her desire to remove any means to oppose a dictator through gun control loud and clear. 

yeah they're both absolutely terrifying. 

Oh my God...a politician lied.

That's never happened before in the history of the world. 

All the years of being inundated with scrutiny from Republicans, and still...nothing has ever come of it. Every time people toss up some ridiculous thing, you can usually debunk it in 5 seconds. 

You can certainly disagree with things that she has done, but you can't say they were criminal. And it certainly isn't proven that there was collusion. Don't you think it's just possible that someone was just independently over the top wanting Hillary to be president? Right away you're jumping to the conclusion that she had to have something to do with it. It's not an email from her saying that they should try to use Bernie's religion against him. 

All this is doing is making it easier for Trump to get elected. And if you are honestly more terrified of Hillary than Trump, then I don't think you've been paying attention. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ChaosRose said:

Oh my God...a politician lied.

That's never happened before in the history of the world. 

All the years of being inundated with scrutiny from Republicans, and still...nothing has ever come of it. Every time people toss up some ridiculous thing, you can usually debunk it in 5 seconds. 

You can certainly disagree with things that she has done, but you can't say they were criminal. And it certainly isn't proven that there was collusion. Don't you think it's just possible that someone was just independently over the top wanting Hillary to be president? Right away you're jumping to the conclusion that she had to have something to do with it. It's not an email from her saying that they should try to use Bernie's religion against him. 

All this is doing is making it easier for Trump to get elected. And if you are honestly more terrified of Hillary than Trump, then I don't think you've been paying attention. 

The fact that she hired Wasserman or whatever the hell her name is to an elevated position within her campaign shows that whether she was directly involved or not she approved of it. It also sends the message to any other federal employees that as long as they do what hillary wants everything will be OK. That ma'am is dictatorial behavior. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"SHE is the one who has made her desire to remove any means to oppose a dictator through gun control loud and clear."

And what the heck is that about? Just because she wants some common sense measures, suddenly you're jumping on the bandwagon with Republicans who think that means she wants rid of the 2nd amendment? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

The fact that she hired Wasserman or whatever the hell her name is to an elevated position within her campaign shows that whether she was directly involved or not she approved of it. It also sends the message to any other federal employees that as long as they do what hillary wants everything will be OK. That ma'am is dictatorial behavior. 

Well, you got that slightly wrong, the Dame Wassermann was not hired by Clinton. She is the boss of the Democratic Party since 2011. And that quite independently of who is Prezz or who is candidate.

But yes, it leaves a stale aftertaste when the \head of the party, who is supposed to lead primaries without taking sides actually sabotages one candidate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

The fact that she hired Wasserman or whatever the hell her name is to an elevated position within her campaign shows that whether she was directly involved or not she approved of it. It also sends the message to any other federal employees that as long as they do what hillary wants everything will be OK. That ma'am is dictatorial behavior. 

Right, and she's supposed to have a crystal ball that tells her everything a future appointee is gonna do. 

If there is wrongdoing proven to be linked to Hillary, then I'll believe there was wrongdoing. Just because an appointee did something wrong, it doesn't mean she was connected to it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, questionmark said:

Well, you got that slightly wrong, the Dame Wassermann was not hired by Clinton. She is the boss of the Democratic Party since 2011. And that quite independently of who is Prezz or who is candidate.

But yes, it leaves a stale aftertaste when the \head of the party, who is supposed to lead primaries without taking sides actually sabotages one candidate.

 

No i was referring to after Wasserman stepped down from the DNC yesterday (i think, days run together at work) Clinton turned around and hired her to her campaign. Thereby legitimizing her actions on HIllarys behalf while at the DNC 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, questionmark said:

Well, you got that slightly wrong, the Dame Wassermann was not hired by Clinton. She is the boss of the Democratic Party since 2011. And that quite independently of who is Prezz or who is candidate.

But yes, it leaves a stale aftertaste when the \head of the party, who is supposed to lead primaries without taking sides actually sabotages one candidate.

 

Which is exactly what releasing the emails was meant to do. If Putin was involved, people might want to ask themselves why. I don't think it's because he wants what's best for the US. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.