Arnold Schwarzenegger Wants Gary Johnson in the Debates - Polidicks

[QUOTE=sb27;51028429]Because if you were smart and cast a compromise vote, then you would have instead voted for whichever major candidate you disliked the least, to prevent whichever major candidate you disliked the most from being elected.[/QUOTE] I'm fully aware of what my vote hypothetically will do, but honestly I'd rather not vote at all in this election than ever vote for someone who is as toxic as Hilary is, or as fucking venomous as trump. I don't give a shit what the democratic platform says or what Hilary's political views are, if you are a fucking snake and warhawk, you will not get my vote. Call me the worst person in the world for that, but it is as simple as that. [editline]10th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Kyle902;51028466]Nothing I said denied that she's lied.[/QUOTE] You just made Clinton seem peachy compared to everyone else.

[QUOTE=Megadave;51028482]I'm fully aware of what my vote hypothetically will do, but honestly I'd rather not vote at all in this election than ever vote for someone who is as toxic as Hilary is, or as fucking venomous as trump. I don't give a shit what the democratic platform says or what Hilary's political views are, if you are a fucking snake and warhawk, you will not get my vote. Call me the worst person in the world for that, but it is as simple as that.[/QUOTE] Tbh while hillary being voted president is pretty meh, a trump presidency is a valid reason to actually be scared for a good portion of the US population (including myself). At this point refusing to vote could end up costing people their livelihoods and quite possibly their lives. [editline]10th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Megadave;51028482] [editline]10th September 2016[/editline] You just made Clinton seem peachy compared to everyone else.[/QUOTE] Thats because in relative terms she is peachy to everyone else.

[QUOTE=TheHydra;51026817]stein literally has a warrant out for her arrest[/QUOTE] For spraypainting a bulldozer at the North Dakota pipeline construction site. She was also arrested in 2012 for trying to attend the debates as a candidate without the necessary polling percentage (something she's still bitter over). If you're going to bring up her arrest record, at least mention what everything on that record is actually for. Just saying "she has a warrant for her arrest" paints her as a murderer or something, and that's hardly fair.

It's always important to keep in mind that law is not inherently good nor evil. Being a criminal doesn't automatically mean you're a bad person, not being a criminal doesn't automatically mean you're a good person. Far from it.

[QUOTE=zakedodead;51028352]Actually a vote for johnson/stein/verminsupreme/deeznutz is a vote for johnson/stein/deeznuts/verninsupreme and not a vote for clinton or trump, unless you want to play in[B] imaginary made up hypothetical land[/B][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=zakedodead;51028436]I know it's called the spoiler effect, I'm just saying that it's still[B] hypothetical bullshit [/B]that is just used to perpetuate guilting voters into the "lesser of two evils", and at the end of the day a vote for not clinton is not automatically a vote for trump unless you're just pretending that the voter would have automatically voted for clinton otherwise[/QUOTE] quite the contrary? it's a vote for trump/clinton [I]in practice[/I]

[QUOTE=elowin;51028726]It's always important to keep in mind that law is not inherently good nor evil. Being a criminal doesn't automatically mean you're a bad person, not being a criminal doesn't automatically mean you're a good person. Far from it.[/QUOTE] She is wanted for trespassing and vandalism. That's going onto another person's property and damaging their belongings. That's wrong any way you cut it.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51028854]quite the contrary? it's a vote for trump/clinton [I]in practice[/I][/QUOTE] except it isn't It's a vote for a third party. This is literally thee election to destabilize the two party system, yet all of you keep going "don't vote for anyone else because you're stealing votes from Hillary~~" as if I'd vote for her or Trump anyway. Also, what happened to Hillary having an assured victory? In every thread everyone keeps proclaiming that Trump doesn't have a chance. Why not throw your vote at a somewhat more likable candidate?

[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;51028998]except it isn't It's a vote for a third party. This is literally thee election to destabilize the two party system, yet all of you keep going "don't vote for anyone else because you're stealing votes from Hillary~~" as if I'd vote for her or Trump anyway. Also, what happened to Hillary having an assured victory? In every thread everyone keeps proclaiming that Trump doesn't have a chance. Why not throw your vote at a somewhat more likable candidate?[/QUOTE] you might be the only person in the world that thinks third party has a chance

[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;51028998]except it isn't It's a vote for a third party. This is literally thee election to destabilize the two party system, yet all of you keep going "don't vote for anyone else because you're stealing votes from Hillary~~" as if I'd vote for her or Trump anyway. Also, what happened to Hillary having an assured victory? In every thread everyone keeps proclaiming that Trump doesn't have a chance. Why not throw your vote at a somewhat more likable candidate?[/QUOTE] When election day comes and I walk into that voting booth if I don't see Johnson name on there I'll just tell the people working the voting station to have a good day I changed my mind and walk out. I'd drop dead before I vote for either of those two.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51029093]I'd drop dead before I vote for either of those two.[/QUOTE] you're gonna get one of them no matter what happens

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51026806]I think Johnson and Stein should be in the debates, but there's no point if neither of them stand a chance of winning. The just take away votes from one of the people who will win. [/quote] I can't imagine WHY they wouldn't win :downs: Lets just never give them screen time because OOOBVIOUSLY if they got any attention they'd actually cause another candidate to win!

[QUOTE=sb27;51028429]Because if you were smart and cast a compromise vote, then you would have instead voted for whichever major candidate you disliked the least, to prevent whichever major candidate you disliked the most from being elected.[/QUOTE] I'd rather just not vote instead of taking my time to help out whoever I hate the least.

[QUOTE=Ridge;51028935]She is wanted for trespassing and vandalism. That's going onto another person's property and damaging their belongings. That's wrong any way you cut it.[/QUOTE] No uhh, not really. I can think of dozens of ways that could be justified. Even more when it's not actually a person's property but a corporations.

[QUOTE=elowin;51029532]No uhh, not really. I can think of dozens of ways that could be justified. Even more when it's not actually a person's property but a corporations.[/QUOTE] so trespassing on google's googleplex is okay because it's not actually a person that owns it [editline]10th September 2016[/editline] (yes i'm aware that's not what jill stein did but still trespassing)

I'm gonna be honest here, I'd much rather have Arnold in the White House than anyone else running right now. Of course that's impossible, but the fact that he looks more professional than the people actually running for President is hilarious yet very concerning.

[QUOTE=Turnips5;51029173]you're gonna get one of them no matter what happens[/QUOTE] I know that, doesn't make me any more likely to vote for them.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51028125]Hey as long as he wants to keep calling himself that I'll call him it too.[/QUOTE] So if I claim to be an atheist but believe in god you'll happily call me an atheist still? These words have definitions, and if you don't meet it, then the word doesn't apply to you. Sanders believes in private ownership of the means of production, so he's by definition not a socialist. Socialism isn't whenever the government does anything (despite what social democrats who praise scandinavia might like to think.) It's when the workers control and manage their own shit, rather than private owners, to keep it simple. [QUOTE=Turnips5;51029173]you're gonna get one of them no matter what happens[/QUOTE] Doesn't mean he has to actively support them though.

[QUOTE=sb27;51028475]In Florida where only ~500 votes separated Gore and Bush (with Bush in the lead), that polling shows that Gore would have won if Nader never contested, and carrying Florida would have been enough for Gore to win the entire presidential election.[/QUOTE] I think you're brushing over the fact that Florida was highly contested state. There's only a handful of swing states that really decide the election so the average American voter really shouldn't worry about the spoiler effect at all. I, for example, live in a voting district that is very consistently red every election. So by your logic I should just vote Trump or stay home... but I'm not going to do that because that would be wasting my right to partake in the democratic process. Instead, I'm going to vote for the candidate that I actually want. Maybe that person won't get elected but I'll have made my voice heard and the people will know that at least one person wanted something different. I've always kind of found the whole strategic voting thing weird anyway. My vote is 1/146,311,000 of the final decision (not really because of the electoral colleges but you get my point) so is it even worth the effort for me to think about my measly vote in the grand scheme of things rather than be honest with myself and just vote for the candidate that I actually want? it might seem idealistic but really voting at all is idealistic in a way.

i like how people say a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for trump/hillary when in reality the person voting for a third party candidate likely wasn't going to vote anyway if there were no third party candidates. THAT'S why the spoiler effect is bullshit

[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;51028998]except it isn't It's a vote for a third party. This is literally thee election to destabilize the two party system, yet all of you keep going "don't vote for anyone else because you're stealing votes from Hillary~~" as if I'd vote for her or Trump anyway. Also, what happened to Hillary having an assured victory? In every thread everyone keeps proclaiming that Trump doesn't have a chance. Why not throw your vote at a somewhat more likable candidate?[/QUOTE] How many times do people have to say that with the system the US currently has voting third party doesn't do shit? People aren't to blame for there only being two parties that are able to actually win, the FPTP system causes this behavior. It is inevitable that people will vote strategically with a system where the candidate with the most votes wins. [video=youtube;s7tWHJfhiyo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo[/video]

[QUOTE=Blackavar;51030306]i like how people say a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for trump/hillary when in reality the person voting for a third party candidate likely wasn't going to vote anyway if there were no third party candidates. THAT'S why the spoiler effect is bullshit[/QUOTE] No. Polling from past elections has shown that only 28% of minor candidate voters wouldn't vote if their preferred candidate wasn't contesting. That's a whopping 72% who would have turned up and voted for someone else.