Re: Oh noes.
 

Sorry you had a bad experience, but c'mon. Outside of the local school board election, it is crazy unlikely that a single expressive vote would have changed the outcome if had gone to the major party candidate instead. I'm generally sympathetic to the SEC/Sebby expressive approach, especially in national elections and especially given the electoral system. That said, for this election, Flower's post earlier today pretty much sums me up. Trump is so bad that, for me at least, the best possible personal expression was a vote for the candidate who is going to beat him, hopefully handily.

Oh, and welcome back GWINC! Sorry it took the orange monster to bring you back, but good to see you!

Re: Oh noes.
 

Someone is getting one of these for Christmas!

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/12...g?v=1470082697

Re: Oh noes.
 

If your point is, Hillary is going to win Pennsylvania so I'm going to vote for a third-party candidate to make a statement, fine.

If your point is, neither candidate is what I want so I'm going to vote for someone who can't win, you're making a conscious decision to eschew a practical choice between two imperfect choices in order to make a masturbatory statement. As is your right.

If you really don't have a preference between Trump and Clinton, setting other choices aside and recognizing that neither is perfect, you're an idiot. You say this, but I don't believe you really mean it. It's a pose.

Re: Oh noes.
 

Hey, sometimes there's something to be said for the expressive approach. And usually the people who are irritating me espousing those sorts of views are the pie-in-the-sky lefties who, e.g., voted for Nader because they couldn't see a difference between Bush and Gore. I think a little idealism is a great thing, but also there's a time to park one's ideals and make a pragmatic choice.

Re: Oh noes.
 

We've had this conversation before to, but I don't think she really is. That is, the reason I'd have to ponder whether to pick her or Bernie as Emperor is that I think Hillary untethered from her learned messaging, self-control and political realism would be a whole lot more liberal than the one we see. (It's the inverse of Obama who was actually a lot more moderate than his campaign image.) Probably not as liberal as Bernie, but that's not a bad thing in my book.

Re: Cross-post From the Other FB
 

No idea what I was implying. I think I may have just been horny and wanted to blather about sex. In other news, the sky is blue.

Re: Oh noes.
 

Ollie!!! (sniff) I think I might have missed you most of all.

Re: Oh noes.
 

I do not understand this logic. Your single expressive vote doesn't change the outcome until it's grouped with all the others and you get a Nader who creates a situation in our electoral system in which fucking Florida, which shouldn't be trusted with anything of value, decides our fate.

TM

Re: Oh noes.
 

I don't normally respond to posts twice...

Ya know, I'm a constitutional weirdo and I don't think I've ever had the opportunity to vote for a candidate that shared my view of individual freedom either.

For example, I think the Bill of Rights expresses a series of limitations on government power that apply regardless of the citizenship of individual involved. I think the free exercise clause clearly protects the use of peyote in the spiritual practice of indigenous people (or anyone else). I think any financial support of religious institutions (yes, even tax-free status) violates the establishment clause. Protections for the press should almost certainly apply to Wikileaks and Assange (but probably not Snowden, although he may deserve other protections as a whistleblower). The fourth amendment has been gutted beyond recognition. The death penalty and solitary confinement are clearly cruel and unusual punishment (and waterboarding and other torture are both that and war crimes). Cash bail should probably violate the 8th Amendment, especially when (not if) it is applied inequitably to incarcerate black people for being black. There's no way the interstate commerce clause should reach growing pot for private consumption on your own property (unless your property extends across state lines, I guess). Use of military power without a declaration of war irks me. Meanwhile, I have no problem at all with the 16th Amendment.

Where's my candidate?

Votecastr
 

Is anyone paying attention to Votecastr and do you think the data it has up now is meaningful at all in terms of the final result?

Re: Cross-post From the Other FB
 

Someone page Chef.

Re: Votecastr
 

I am not paying attention to it, and am skeptical that its data will be meaningful. This may just be a self-defense mechanism.

Re: Oh noes.
 

serious question- in the past have youvalways voted FOR someone, instead of against someone else? This is my 10th election- 5 D and 5 R. But the thing is I only voted FOR someone 3 times, all 3 being second term elections.

PS George Carlin was a funny guy who morphed from a somewhat ugly comedian (check out a fag is someone who wouldn't go with to beat up queers) to convince hippies that he was some deep guy. You can vote for whoever you want but don't quote Carlin about mind control and sheep w/o realizing you are a sheep. At least I know I'm playing into a game.

PPS right now RCP has it 272 to 266. There is no margin for error.

Re: Votecastr
 

See RCP electoral has Hil 272 to T 266. No margin for error.

Re: Oh noes.
 

See I loved Nader voters. Big difference.