The most important single act you can carry out period.

You mentioned (I paraphrase) that in many cases voting does not matter; in a few cases it matters a great deal.

In the region where I live many ballots are not counted; about 21,000 ballots are cast, and about 8,000 of them are flagged "provisional" due either to "challenges" by Republican Party "election monitors" or due to voters not being able to show they live in the state. The voters are mostly Navajoes, Apaches, and the ancestors of the Spanish who came to the region during the Second Entrada and often still speak a Castilian version of Spanish.

The New Mexico governor has done everything she can get away with to prevent these people from voting. Many thousands of people here do not have a street address or mailing address for where they live. We have Chapter Houses and trading posts where mail is sent; thousands of New Mexico citizens do not have any form of state-issued identification because they cannot produce enough evidence to show they live here--- even when their ancestors have been in the region for almost 800 years.

It is utterly pointless for New Mexico citizens to vote for federal candidates, as our votes do not count.

Wesley, you need to see a doctor about the hamstring you pulled getting up on that high horse.

The problem with Trump is that you can trust him to attempt to do the things he says he will do, and those things will cause a lot of damage. Many of his proposals, such as building a wall and getting Mexico to pay for it, will fail because they are so facially ridiculous, but the attempt will still do lots of damage.

We have a first-past-tne-post electoral system in this country, so if you don't want that to happen, you vote for the alternative most likely to succeed. That would be Clinton.

For the record, I am not worried about Diebold hacking my vote. State law where I live requires paper ballots. Some municipalities even count those ballots by hand. The rest use scanners, but the paper trail is there.

"But, the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States would be such an event."

I disagree!

I feel that the election of Hillary Clinton to be such an event, and therefore, unhappily, I will be voting for Trump.

You CAN put bernie sanders in on your vote. Just write it in.

And why the hell would you vote in a moron who will willingly sell your entire country out if it helps the trump brand?

An outsider could exhort voting trump in, if only to punish you morons who support him. And for the giggles when the clownish moron pretends to be president abroad.

But an american citizen voting for him is like asking someone to skin you alive because there's nothing on TV.

FFS, TRY NOT VOTING. And let those who DO care, even if for bad reasons, get the say, rather than spoil the say of someone who voted a way you didn't like (by, moronically, voting a way you ALSO don't like. I mean, how's THAT for stupidity????)

JUST DON'T VOTE.

Give it a goddamned go, rather than shit in your own kitchen because others are changing the decor without your consent.

"Thanks to Diebold vote machines, you don’t actually have to get the most votes anymore."

Recall the Congressional Hearing that was held with Diebold employees giving testimony under oath after being granted immunity from prosecution. Only one Republican Party member of Congress attended the hearing, among the Democrats and Independent This shows the world that when members of The Party wail about "voter fraud," they mean "black people voting for non-Party members."

"You CAN put bernie sanders in on your vote. Just write it in."

No, I cannot. I live in a state that does not allow "write in candidates."

No, you can. In your state it may mean you have spoiled your ballot. But you can still write it in. They give you a pencil and the paper.

And you STILL get the choice of going "A pox on both your houses".

Vote third candidate.

Don't vote.

Spoil your ballot. And change the law to make write in legal.

Vote for the least worst, then it's a race to the bottom, as long as someone else is further down.

Voting for the lesser evil is still accepting evil.

Plus I wasn't talking to you. Unless you live in NY and the district has the same procedure, your location really doesn't count for Kevin, does it?

"Also please, make sure that if you intend to vote for a third party candidate because you have calculated that “my vote doesn’t matter in my state because my state bla bla bla” that you aren’t wrong. You might be wrong"

What about voting for someone you want, whether they have a chance of winning or no, so that those who DO win, or those who wished to win but didn't get the numbers, will see a portion of the electorate going for the candidate because of their platform, *and decide to adopt that platform too*.

Voting for the lesser evil is still accepting evil.

That's only valid if "No one is to occupy the White House for 4 years" is a valid voting option. It is not valid.

This means that voting for offices in the U.S. which must be occupied is a relative judgment of the candidates, not an absolute one.

You must vote for the "better" candidates, or against the "worse" candidates. ("There is no try.")

"I feel that the election of Hillary Clinton to be such an event, and therefore, unhappily, I will be voting for Trump."

Hillary is not close to a perfect candidate, but in comparison is miles ahead of Trump.

I'm sure your choice is based on a long list of unsubstantiated 'crimes' committed by HRC.

Or a love of lies & evil.

Or a hatred for America, hatred for the Earth, etc.

The "HRC thing" is just an excuse to "go savage". The real draw is the excitement of destroying civilization and the anarchy that will follow. They think that is "freedom" and something desirable. Fools.

It's the woman thing. Without a doubt.

Guys with small hands and mommy/daddy issues gravitate to the far right and far left with equal enthusiasm, although perhaps not in equivalent numbers.

Brainstorms is on to something, I think--- the "savage", the gunfighter; all those fantasies speak to a need to validate one's masculinity.

"There are many legit8imate reason to not vote for Ms Clinton; adding false “reasons” is counter-productive."

Dead on. I've often said that if the right had concentrated on emphasizing the legitimate reasons to oppose her it would have been much more productive for them. I've also said that the reason they haven't is that doing so would require work to gather facts and supporting evidence, then organizing a coherent argument. All of that is too much work for them.

Perhaps the ever-mounting cognitive dissonance due to the immense hypocrisy made obvious by doing so caused too many heads to literally explode, and they had to give it up...

It would be great if Gary Johnson got more than 5% of the vote, so the Libertarian party can get major party status.

I think getting more than 15% would automatically put the Libertarian party in all the debates in 2020.

I would like to see that.

Anyone surprised that RickA thinks that johnson would bring anything rational to the table? Loons attract amoral loons.

Johnson is less amoral than either Clinton or Trump.

Yeah, Johnson's anti-education stance, his ignorance of the importance of science, strong support for private prisons, his view that companies shouldn't be fined for pollution of public lands (or any lands), his hatred of public employees - they all make him a wonderful person.

No, they make him a real amoral scumbag with ideas that have no benefit whatsoever. I can see why RickA likes him.

Gary "What is Aleppo?" Johnson; clearly somebody who cares deeply about the world we live in.

We were talking about this at the office when Gary made his admission on TV and one of my partners said "What is a LEPO?" Thinking it was an acronym of some sort.

I don't hold his Aleppo response against him - but that is just my opinion?

I don't car how smart you are, nobody (even politicians) knows the name of every city in the world - nor should they be expected to. Ditto for the names of everybody in power in the world.

That is just silly gotcha stuff.

dean:

I think you (or others) could make a list for Trump also.

Why a list could even be made for Clinton.

But yes - I do like Gary Johnson.

Care - not car in #24 and there shouldn't be a ? on the previous sentence.

"That is just silly gotcha stuff."

Bullshit. This clown is claiming he's qualified to be the president, yet in a controlled interview with cupcake questions of no substance he didn't make a connection for the city? I'm sure he'd be great with the pressure on in a situation in office. /snark

I'm sure you do like him - he has the same lack of intellect and integrity you've repeatedly demonstrated.

Re: "gotcha" and other tap dancing evasions. Like it or not, it was a serious stumble and perfectly consistent with the self-absorbed myopia of right-wing kooks (kooks, btw, who tend to tie themselves in knots misinterpreting language in situations like the so-called 'Climategate'.)

dean:

He was a governor of a state.

As far as I am concerned - all 50 governors are automatically qualified to be President (assuming they were born here and are over 35).

But hey - you are entitled to your opinion - just as I am entitled to mine.

OA - I think a lot of left wing kooks also misinterpret climate gate (to dismiss it). Motivated reasoning is not just for one side - all humans do it.

...and rather than make a reasoned argument, RickA's knee immediately jerks to a false balance platitude.

Trump being a sociopath who is much worse than Clinton is also not a valid reason to vote for Clinton.

...only valid if 1/ there are alternative electable candidates (there aren't) or 2/ there's a viable option of electing neither and leaving the White House empty for the next 4 years (there isn't).

Ergo, voting for Clinton in order to block the election of Trump is a valid reason to vote for Clinton -- regardless of what you think about her otherwise. The only necessary qualification is that she's no where near as bad a choice as Trump is.

It seems that 2016 is "The Year of Electing the One You Dislike the Least". It's a relative judgment. It always is...

"all 50 governors are automatically qualified to be President "

The real question here is whether RickA is really as stupid as he seems, or if he is simply working hard each day to become more stupid.

RickA has sold his soul to the service of a nefarious Ideology. To those of us who have not sold ourselves for such empty promises and lures, it makes RickA look stupid. And, ultimately, self-destructive.

But RickA works hard for his overlord. And when it comes payday, RickA will scream with horror and regret as it dawns on him that his 30 pieces of silver are not only worthless, but have bought him a truly horrible consequence. And no one will be able to help him then...

That's exactly what we're worried about.

Exactly!

Such is Trump's hope of gaining the power needed to destroy civilization. It's how H & the N's came to power and pulled off the unthinkable.

"Ergo, voting for Clinton in order to block the election of Trump is a valid reason to vote for Clinton "

Indeed, it IS a valid reason.

But that doesn't make voting for Clinton a moral requirement.

"“No, you can. In your state it may mean you have spoiled your ballot. But you can still write it in. They give you a pencil and the paper.”

No: not in New Mexico."

So not NY, therefore the advice I gave to someone living there remains unaltered.

How about changing your state law?

"It’s the woman thing. Without a doubt."

A proclamation of faith that, for a mere swap of agendas, could be the ranting fantasies of a rightwing misogynist.

Taking on their tactics does NOT balance things out, it merely makes you as bad and wrong as them.

""Voting for the lesser evil is still accepting evil."

That’s only valid if “No one is to occupy the White House for 4 years” is a valid voting option. It is not valid."

No, it's valid no matter what. Even if there are 10,000 ACTUALLY GOOD candidates, voting for the one who is merely "less evil" is STILL WRONG. Even if the bigger evil gets in, voting for the lesser evil is STILL VOTING FOR EVIL.

I mean, how many damn times can I phrase it? Voting for a lesser evil is voting for an evil. It's less evil than voting the bigger evil, which is also evil, but it's not "not evil" merely because someone worse exists!

If you enacted a totalitarian state and ran it like Mussolini, YOU WOULD STILL BE A BAD LEADER, even if you pointed out that Stalin was worse!

Here's what happens when you vote for the lesser evil: you reward evil.

Someone who is even less evil will gain less power (since part of the reason for this type of malfeasant character is to abuse the power of the position) and more responsibilities, and will lose out to the manipulations that the other, even lesser, evils can practice with a clear conscience.

So you close the gap between the bigger evil and the lesser, and good never gets in, because they run at a disadvantage to begin with and have a harder time if they do get in, and still have to stop evil undermining their position for the next election cycle.

Voting for the lesser evil rewards evil.

And if the only voters are those who will go for the greater evil, this will be a catastrophe, BUT ONE YOUR COUNTRY WILL SURVIVE, and they will work to weed out evil, because they now see what happens more clearly.

It's only when a smoker finds lung cancer that they have a REAL incentive to stop smoking.

Wow #40:

You must never vote!

That’s only valid if “No one is to occupy the White House for 4 years” is a valid voting option. It is not valid.”

No, it’s valid no matter what.

I'm sorry, but the U.S. will not allow the Office of the President of the United States to go unfilled as a valid consequence of an election.

Elections in the U.S. are relative, not absolute comparisons/judgments/decisions.

Elections in the U.S. are not contests of "who is evil", "who is not evil", and your arguments which assume such don't hold water.

It's either "voting for the better candidate" or "voting against the worse candidate", not "don't vote for evil".

And who are you to pass absolute judgment and declare that a given candidate is "evil"? You haven't even defined what that term means!

(Your argument about Mussolini and Stalin is so outrageously fallacious I won't even bother to address it.)

Brainstorms #42:

I agree with you.

I would add that elections are all about who gets the most votes.

"" No, it’s valid no matter what."

"I’m sorry, but the U.S. will not allow the Office of the President of the United States to go unfilled as a valid consequence of an election."

Correct, but orthogonal. Whether or not the POTS is unfilled or not, ”Voting for the lesser evil is still accepting evil.”.

It doesn't matter if the POTS cannot remain unfilled when it comes to the value of pi. The price of tomatoes doesn't depend on whether the role of POTS can be vacant.

And whether voting for a lesser evil is still voting for evil is likewise independent of the political requirements of any office in the USA or any other country of the world.

"Wow #40:

You must never vote!"

Apparently you and brainstorms think this is wrong and evil.

Please square this circle.

"Elections in the U.S. are not contests of “who is evil”, “who is not evil”, and your arguments which assume such don’t hold water."

And THIS is why your politics is massively corrupt and that there's no actual use for information with the electorate. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO is complain that one candidate is worse (for anything you can think of) than the other, and you then insist they must vote against them.

So Republicans are voting for Trump, despite his insanity, because HILARY will steal their guns and ban christianity in schools, where TRUMP will let them keep their protection against villains and let their kids go to heaven.

ABSOLUTELY NO NEED for him to be sane on ANYTHING as long as "YOU MUST vote against them, because they're WORSE than this candidate!".

Wow, you're making a great case for what boils down to "nullify and then repeat the elections until a candidate achieves a minimum percentage of the total electorate".

So if two "evil" candidates are running, it's a fair option to not vote for either, potentially causing the election results to be nullified and a new election held. Which continues until a new candidate whom the electorate feels is not evil and is competent enough scores a high enough percentage of possible votes and then the polling stops, a winner is declared, and the transition of office takes place.

Nice scheme. I would add something like "instant run-off voting" and compulsory voting to the mix...

But, sadly, we don't have that kind of system in America. It's "Vote for the Democrat OR vote for the Republican" and that's all you get. Sucks, but that's what it is. We can complain about how "evil" the existing system is as much as we want in the meantime.

Wow asks me to square a circle.

I was just making an assumption based on your stated philosophy.

I do not believe your not voting (if you don't vote) is either wrong or evil.

In America you don't have to vote - it is your choice.

"Wow asks me to square a circle."

Lets check:

statement 1: statement of my request. possibly in mock incredulity and surprise.
statement 2: statement of his "intent"
statement 3: negation of the disparaging mark to which the request was "please square the circle".
statement 4: further negation of the post you made.

So, if your post #41 was not what you said, who said it and why?