Regarding voting for Donald Trump rather than voting for Hillary Clinton

[BugI02]

Interesting the motives people assign. There is no "good" and there is no "evil" in this election. There are two terrible candidates. If you want to vote between Stalin and Mussolini and pretend you're doing something by voting against the other guy, go right ahead. "Hey, I voted against Stalin! Don't blame me." I won't vote for either. Period. I will not vote for someone playing racial politics, stroking the anti-Muslim flames, and campaigning via reality tv who's position is whichever plays the best in the media. How do you honestly evaluate the positions of someone who flip flops so dramatically? I will not vote for a cog in the Clinton machine, let alone one of the main gears. Yes, I'm offended. I am offended that both candidates represent more spending, more money for the top, less freedom, and giant ego vs honest desire to serve. How are you *not* offended?

My preferred guy didn't even run. Cruz was about as far as I was willing to go and still pull the "R" for President lever.

So you can throw around traitor and all the other BS you like. I know what I've done for this country and for my community and I know it's a lot more than Trump or Clinton have. If a 3rd party wants my vote, it's up for grabs in the presidential race.

Minor props for leaving the paperhanger out of it. Nice attempt at guilt by (hyperbolic) association, though

 

[BugI02]

Iguana****... Not voting for either one means that you think they both suck. And you are not willing to have votes for either one on your conscience. I stand with BBI on this one.

Is it not humorous that folks who made such a big deal of Trump only having a plurality, rather than a majority (back when that used to be true); seem so willing to sit on their collective hands and allow The Beast into the white house on - yeah, you guessed it - a plurality.

 

[BugI02]

Some might say torture, going after civilians and a ban on an entire religion is evil.

I get the waterboarding and 'collateral damage' from drone strikes, but I wasn't aware that W also went after an entire religion. Which one?

 

[BugI02]

I'm not 100% sure that he isn't planning on throwing the race so Hillary will win. I wouldn't put it past him.

What if Hitlery is actually shilling for him rather than the obverse?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

We need to figure out how to filter people of Islamic faith based on their beliefs. A very large portion of Muslims hold ideals that are wholly incompatible with our established rights and freedoms in the United States. I'm not talking 10 or 15% of some backwater district in a one off country. Majority populations in many countries ruled by Islamic law believe in things like killing gays, killing women that were raped for having sex outside of marriage, believing women are basically slaves to a man their entire lives, believing Sharia Law should be the law of the land, and believing insulting Islam should carry a death sentence. People like that CANNOT assimilate into the United States, they will carry these ideals with them. And these are the moderate beliefs! How do you even begin to start filtering out the good from the bad, the "Muslim Extremists" from regular Muslims when majority, moderate Islam is already extreme! How do you propose to screen these people? A questionnaire? We already seen illegals crossing the southern border with a list of scripted answers designed to get them to stay here. Do you intend to individually monitor these people for days, months, years after they arrive? By the thousands, hundred of thousands, millions? It's just not possible. It is one thing to let people in with a similar moral structure but a different culture, but these people are coming from an incompatible moral structure that cannot be reconciled with freedom.

Plenty of threads on that already.

Odd, really, that given current policy we haven't had the world collapsing around us. Odd that my father in law, who's had a visa for roughly 50 years is way to scary to let in and the fact he's traveled in and out so many times is irrelevant because Muslims are scary. Terrorists *surely* couldn't claim to be Coptic Christian on an immigration form. And of course, the issue that many of the Muslims who have caused problems were self radicalized nationals already here or recruited via social media. Yup. Great policy move. Since we're basing policy on fear and hatred.

But, yes, safety. Not like guns are ever presented as a safety issue. Good thing no one is scared of gun owners. Hey, but 1st amendment, 2nd amendment, there all just words on paper and if we have to vote against one to support the other that's just patriotism, right? I'm supposed to vote against my freedom to associate with my family so I can "stop Hillary". Yeah. The interesting thing is I don't think Trump even believes his own tripe on this, it's simply racial politics right along with illegal aliens are rapists.

 

[BugI02]

He would halt any Muslim from entering the country "until we get it figured out" get what figured out? Terrorism? Yea he'll wave a magic wand and fix that.

So we just adopt the EU system because that's working so well. How many Syrian refugees can we sign your neighborhood up for?

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Is it not humorous that folks who made such a big deal of Trump only having a plurality, rather than a majority (back when that used to be true); seem so willing to sit on their collective hands and allow The Beast into the white house on - yeah, you guessed it - a plurality.

Not humorous in the slightest. I have a lot of friends who are Trump supporters. Some are (as I am) bigtime Hillary opponents. Obviously Hillary is an evil that I can NEVER support. But Trump did something that I can NEVER support as well. Look, if this was a matter of Libertarian purity or something _BELIEVE ME_ I'd vote for a candidate that I disagreed with on some issues. My record here is pretty clear. I encouraged guys like ATM on that subject a long time ago. THAT SAID, Trump crossed the line. I cannot look myself in the mirror and tell my grandkids that I backed the guy, even in the attempt to get rid of Hillary.

It has nothing to do with a "plurality" of anything. It has everything to do with who I am and what I can and cannot stand for.

Again - I have lots of friends (and a bunch of them here) who feel differently. Good on ya. Good people can disagree.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Minor props for leaving the paperhanger out of it. Nice attempt at guilt by (hyperbolic) association, though

If you're rather substitute Douche and Turd Sandwich, reread it and my point's the same. Or "having to choose between two cheeks of the same backside" as I recently heard someone else put it.

I'm not upset if you vote for Trump or for Hillary. Or Bernie. Or Ronald McDonald. Vote your beliefs, that's sort of what elections are for. There's no "traitor" or any of that BS for disagreeing politically. Political campaigns today are well oiled marketing machines designed to stir up passion without really delving into policy. It's why we get people mowing their lawn and talking about old shoes instead of, you know, real things. Your signature line pretty well sums it up.

I learned with Ballard that there are no outsiders. Even if they start as an outsider, the behemoth will grind them in to the establishment pretty quickly. So, I've got a range of political views I'll support. Say a 3-7 on the old 1-10 scale. Not my fault there's a 1 and a 10 running this time in the big parties. I've voted R for President every election and certainly didn't hold any of them to be idealist saints or whatever was said earlier. But they were within my range. McCain, Romney, Bush, none perfect but all within my range. Trump just isn't. Name calling, cajoling, etc. won't change that.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Could the National Review actually endorse Hillary over Trump?

National Review Could Endorse Clinton Over Trump [VIDEO] | The Daily Caller

I wouldn't do that. I think I'd just stay neutral but I could understand the argument (not mentioned in the artical) that let's get Hillary elected so that we could reset for a real constitutional guy in 2020.

 

[printcraft]

Supreme Court

 

[BugI02]

Yeah, right. Because this election was all about getting a constitutional guy.

How old will Jeb! be in 2020? Because the GOP had a constitutional guy this time (two if you count Rand) and only went with him half-heartedly and as a last resort



"What do men with money and power want? More money and power" - The Oracle in The Matrix

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

They should all be about getting the most constitutional guy elected. Sadly, many decided other factors were more important this year.

 

[BugI02]

I know. I just really don't see an optimal path to breaking the hold of the money changers on the temple. I know Trump is a longshot to get us moving in the right direction, but I saw Cruz as no shot. I didn't think he could get elected if nominated. To contemplate the number of people who would rather be led than be free is to court despair. I believe we could be shown the pathway out of our trouble but we likely will not turn to the one who can do it in time, so it is left to our imperfect understanding to choose a path.

I believe, and fear, that we have to fulfill the book

 

[churchmouse]

Supreme Court

Yes^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Might not be a lot left in 2020 at the rate we are sliding.

 

[spec4]

I still want someone to ask him what day it was he woke up and decided he cared more about America than he did himself, as all of his actions up until this point have been about making himself rich and famous. Not sure how anyone can believe this stunt isn't the exact same thing.

You could ask Hillary the same thing.

 

[spec4]

He would halt any Muslim from entering the country "until we get it figured out" get what figured out? Terrorism? Yea he'll wave a magic wand and fix that.

We can debate this all day, however if in fact they were not allowed here (like in Japan), there would not have been a 9-11.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

We can debate this all day, however if in fact they were not allowed here (like in Japan), there would not have been a 9-11.

Real quick, who's killed more Americans, Muslim terrorists or domestic gun owners? Safety before freedom as long as it is someone else's freedom?

...and of course that still ignores you can lie about your religion.

...and of course the fact Japan doesn't actually ban Muslims. Muslims in Japan : snopes.com

Sort of the opposite: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (MOFA)

Although Japan does harbor prejudices and Japanese can be ignorant of other cultures, there has been no move to restrict Islamic practices or expel Muslims. This is in contrast to the West where Islamic headscarves have become a political issue. Many researchers have taken note of the fact that although Japanese can be counted among the victims of the September 11th attacks, there has been no wave of anti-Islamic sentiment here. No newspaper in Japan published a satirical cartoon lampooning Islam.
Although the number of Muslims in Japan is rising dramatically, there are no complaints from neighboring residents about the construction of mosques. There is only a normal sense of curiosity. A local resident will notice that strangers are building something, and simply wonder what kind of people they are. But the sight of Muslims delivering "soba" noodles to neighbors, a Japanese tradition when moving house, has reassured neighbors and affirmed a sense of community.

 

[jbombelli]

Personally, I don't worry about terrorists. I arm myself and go about my day, confident that I can fight if I have the chance. If I can't and I end up dead, that's the way it goes. One thing I will not do is worry about it, work myself into a frenzy of fear and hatred of other people, or work to limit the freedoms of anyone.

I wish everybody else would quit being weaklings, man up already, and quit living in fear. That fear is what lets terrorists win.

 

[churchmouse]

Not all Muslims are terrorists.

Not all terrorists are Muslim.

Now, how do we discern the differences.

 

[nate77]

Real quick, who's killed more Americans, Muslim terrorists or domestic gun owners? Safety before freedom as long as it is someone else's freedom?

...and of course that still ignores you can lie about your religion.

...and of course the fact Japan doesn't actually ban Muslims. Muslims in Japan : snopes.com

Sort of the opposite: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (MOFA)

This isn't a question of freedom, these people aren't citizens, they don't have rights under the US constitution.

If you have something to offer, and you pass a thorough vetting process, welcome.

If not, sorry, we can't take care of the entire world.
https://muslimstatistics.wordpress....ees-91-4-on-food-stamps-68-3-on-cash-welfare/