Fellow Republicans: Move on From This Dangerous and Diminished Man

[initforme]

Yes that is the crazy part. Let's vote for the wealthy guy while we....bust it. What? Wait a minute?

 

[Godboy]

Some guy.

 

[bripat9643]

The problem isn't Trump, it's media whores like Comstock.

The problem is the lesser-of-two-evils conceit. It prompts people to accept bad candidates, from both "sides", instead of demanding better.

And how would they do that?

How would they do what? Accept a bad candidate? I guess they'd just pull the lever. Did you mean "why"?

No, dumbass. How would the get a better candidate?

I'm a dumbass, because you can't formulate a clear question. OK, if you say so.

"How would the get a better candidate?"

By refusing to vote for the shitty ones. But most people are easily frightened, and they usually fall for the line that "you have to vote for our asshole because the other asshole is even worse!"

All the candidates are shitty, dumbass. That's how the scam works. They don't give you a choice of voting for someone you actually like.

If you're waiting around for them to "give" you a better choice - especially if you keep voting for their shitty offerings in the meantime - it's never gonna happen. Grow a pair. Just say no.

What alternative do you propose, asshole?

 

[bripat9643]

It can be changed. It IS being changed. The only people resisting it are brain-dead partisans who actually want there to be only two choices.

You keep saying that, but you don't tell us how. What's your proposal?

 

[dblack]

It can be changed. It IS being changed. The only people resisting it are brain-dead partisans who actually want there to be only two choices.

You keep saying that, but you don't tell us how. What's your proposal?

Well, it's not my proposal, but ranked-choice voting is the change I was referring to.

 

[bripat9643]

It can be changed. It IS being changed. The only people resisting it are brain-dead partisans who actually want there to be only two choices.

You keep saying that, but you don't tell us how. What's your proposal?

Well, it's not my proposal, but ranked-choice voting is the change I was referring to.

I would prefer the kind of system they have in Europe, but that would require a constitutional amendment.

 

[dblack]

What alternative do you propose, asshole?

You want an alternative to knowingly voting for a shitty candidate? Here's my proposal. Don't.

 

[Anathema]

Sadly, most just can't quit him, so strong is the cult.

What Conservative, Nationalist, aggresive minded alternative is the party offering us?

 

[dblack]

It can be changed. It IS being changed. The only people resisting it are brain-dead partisans who actually want there to be only two choices.

You keep saying that, but you don't tell us how. What's your proposal?

Well, it's not my proposal, but ranked-choice voting is the change I was referring to.

I would prefer the kind of system they have in Europe, but that would require a constitutional amendment.

Ok.

 

[initforme]

Overblown over the top nationalism is as nauseating as anti Americanism. They are 2 of the same.

 

[bripat9643]

What alternative do you propose, asshole?

You want an alternative to knowingly voting for a shitty candidate? Here's my proposal. Don't.

You mean vote for someone who doesn't have a chance?

That isn't a solution, dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

It can be changed. It IS being changed. The only people resisting it are brain-dead partisans who actually want there to be only two choices.

You keep saying that, but you don't tell us how. What's your proposal?

Well, it's not my proposal, but ranked-choice voting is the change I was referring to.

I would prefer the kind of system they have in Europe, but that would require a constitutional amendment.

Ok.

That means it's never going to happen, turd brain. When is the last time we passed a constitutional amendment? So far, you haven't posted a plan that will actually work.

 

[dblack]

It can be changed. It IS being changed. The only people resisting it are brain-dead partisans who actually want there to be only two choices.

You keep saying that, but you don't tell us how. What's your proposal?

Well, it's not my proposal, but ranked-choice voting is the change I was referring to.

I would prefer the kind of system they have in Europe, but that would require a constitutional amendment.

Ok.

That means it's never going to happen, turd brain. When is the last time we passed a constitutional amendment? So far, you haven't posted a plan that will actually work.

Ok.

 

[dblack]

an alternative to knowingly voting for a shitty candidate? Here's my proposal. Don't.

You mean vote for someone who doesn't have a chance?

Beats the hell out of deliberately wasting your vote on a shitty candidate. Why would you that? You're not betting on a fucking horse race. You don't get a prize if you successfully guess the winner.

 

[bripat9643]

an alternative to knowingly voting for a shitty candidate? Here's my proposal. Don't.

You mean vote for someone who doesn't have a chance?

Beats the hell out of deliberately wasting your vote on a shitty candidate. Why would you that? You're not betting on a fucking horse race. You don't get a prize if you successfully guess the winner.

Voting for someone who can't possibly win is wasting your vote. Voting for the lesser evil is less of a waste.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Overblown over the top nationalism is as nauseating as anti Americanism. They are 2 of the same.

Perhaps you should look up the word nationalism before you talk about it.

nationalism​

[ nash-uh-nl-iz-uhm, nash-nuh-liz- ]

See synonyms for nationalism on Thesaurus.com

---

noun​

spirit or aspirations common to the whole of a nation.
devotion and loyalty to one's own country; patriotism.
excessive patriotism; chauvinism.
the desire for national advancement or political independence.
the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.
an idiom or trait peculiar to a nation.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

 

[dblack]

an alternative to knowingly voting for a shitty candidate? Here's my proposal. Don't.

You mean vote for someone who doesn't have a chance?

Beats the hell out of deliberately wasting your vote on a shitty candidate. Why would you that? You're not betting on a fucking horse race. You don't get a prize if you successfully guess the winner.

Voting for someone who can't possibly win is wasting your vote. Voting for the lesser evil is less of a waste.

Nope. That's a con. And that fact that so many morons fall for it is WHY we keep electing bad leaders.

But, if the last four years have taught us anything, it's that it's easier, by far, to con someone, than it is to convince them that they've been conned.

In any case, ranked-choice voting pulls the rug out from under that con. And it IS changing, even if you don't want it too. Even if you prefer the two-party death spiral. People are waking up.

 

[bripat9643]

an alternative to knowingly voting for a shitty candidate? Here's my proposal. Don't.

You mean vote for someone who doesn't have a chance?

Beats the hell out of deliberately wasting your vote on a shitty candidate. Why would you that? You're not betting on a fucking horse race. You don't get a prize if you successfully guess the winner.

Voting for someone who can't possibly win is wasting your vote. Voting for the lesser evil is less of a waste.

Nope. That's a con. And it's WHY we keep electing bad leaders.

But, if the last four years have taught us anything, it's that it's easier, by far, to con someone, than it is to convince them that they've been conned.

How do you win by voting for a gauranteed loser?

 

[dblack]

an alternative to knowingly voting for a shitty candidate? Here's my proposal. Don't.

You mean vote for someone who doesn't have a chance?

Beats the hell out of deliberately wasting your vote on a shitty candidate. Why would you that? You're not betting on a fucking horse race. You don't get a prize if you successfully guess the winner.

Voting for someone who can't possibly win is wasting your vote. Voting for the lesser evil is less of a waste.

Nope. That's a con. And it's WHY we keep electing bad leaders.

But, if the last four years have taught us anything, it's that it's easier, by far, to con someone, than it is to convince them that they've been conned.

How do you win by voting for a gauranteed loser?

Voter's don't "win" elections.

It's weird, you really do seem to be looking at it like a bet - like you'll win something if you pick the winner, or that you'll lose something if you vote for a candidate who doesn't win. That's not valid thinking.

The only "wasted" vote is a dishonest vote. And if you're playing the "lesser-of-two-evils" game, that's exactly what you're doing, you're voting dishonestly.

 

[gmeyers1944]

I do not vote for "the lesser of 2 evils". No candidate for office is perfect. The only perfect person to ever walk on the face of the earth is Jesus Christ and he is not here in the flesh to run for office. I listen to what the candidate says what he (she) will do if elected. I don't vote for a party but since I am opposed to abortion, most of the time it will be a Republican. You should be involved in your party's selection of candidates by voting in primaries or attending a caucus. If more good intended voters do that, good candidates will be chosen.