Why do people refuse to vote for "the lesser of two evils"?

Post Reply New Topic

w is one of the greatest liars in American history. lied us into war. millions died so he could help Cheney's halliburton make 39 billion. clinton lied about an affair, something which i consider within the range of normal human frailty and very small potatoes by comparison.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/watch-t ... t-usa-usa/

that BLM protester got punched, kicked, and called a n***** and a monkey. afterward, trump lauded the attack. i can see escorting the person out, but assault? if that's how trump handles peaceful protest, i fear much for the country who would elect him.

Clinton lied about a lot of things and has plenty of blood on his hands, he'd be side by side with Bush/Chaney in a cell if I had my way. What do you think about Hillary trying to silence all of Bill's victims? I remembered what she said about Monica, those attitudes are tolerated so much today and I doubt she was much nicer to the others.

This is why we need to stop electing hand selected Wall Street whores, stop listening to the fear mongering because they ratchet that up when we approach the truth. I like Bernie just for the point he made, do you think all these banks and financial institutions that fund Clinton's campaign are stupid? I don't, I think they know exactly what they're getting. The Clinton Foundation was a massive conflict of interest, perhaps there is a reason why Hillary wanted to guard those emails. What about her time as Secretary of State screamed competence? I don't understand how anybody could say she is fit for office. Do you think Hillary will follow the law as president? Her predecessors certainly didn't. It's insulting since we have a farce of a democracy, Hillary has been anointed for 2016 since the moment she gave up her run against Obama, she was anointed in 2008 even before Obama came out of no where. They've always called her the "inevitable candidate".

Thankfully it seems like the Bush family has been vanquished in the GOP but Jeb has a lot of money and feels owed the presidency, oh he has a half Hispanic son? I wonder what sort of deal the establishment might offer Jeb to move aside, I really wonder...

i'm 100% with you on bernie.

Be glad he wasn't tazed



all he did was ask a question

he didn't go to a rally with 10k+ people to try to cause trouble

If I go BLM protest with 10k people and start screaming black crime statistics with the expressed purpose of shutting it down, what do you think would happen to me? Bernie Sanders handled it wrong, he shouldn't of allowed a group of bullies to take over his event and humiliate him. Dialogue is great but these people don't want dialogue. These people aren't for free speech, they want it shut down. I'm probably more anti-cop than anybody on here and I think BLM to be a joke of a movement and exactly what the elites wanted, what better way for the police state to win besides divide and conquer? If we're bogged down in racial strife then we never have time to look at the real criminals.

two wrongs don't make a right. and kerry didn't support it. he was trying to answer the guy's question.

The whole voting process is nothing but a money and popularity contest, and a competition between two opposing parties, if you ask me. People vote based on someone's looks, personality, their last name, or which "team" they are on, and they think what the media brainwashes them to think...totally the wrong way to do things.


That being said, I actually like Ted Cruz, over Clinton, or Trump. If you look past the whole citizenship thing, he actually has some common sense ideas, and he has a backbone.

Sometimes for certain groups it is anything but childish. For instance, let's say GOP/TP candidates sweep the White House and Congress. Those candidates have vocally (and with much hyperbole and vitriol) said that they will revoke any and all anti-discrimination and other equality laws for LGBT people. They've also said that they'll take away a women's right to make her own health care decisions. These are not left wing scare stories; they are *promises* the candidates have publicly made over and over again to their constituencies in their campaigns. To no small degree promises to persecute "sinners" are a major part of the early platform on which the GOP is hoping will bring them victory. They've shown they will act upon their rhetoric at the state level and in the House at the Federal level. If someone or their loved one is a member of one of those targeted groups, they'll vote for any candidate that will *prevent* the conservative Christian extremists from attaining office. They really feel they have no other practical choice.

And on the other side, I fear the same game is being played out; people have been convinced their personal religious beliefs are somehow threatened and so will vote for any candidate the GOP puts up, in order to block a Democrat from gaining office and "destroying the morality" of our nation. They really feel they have no other practical choice.

This is how the game is played a year out. Those at the extremes have to be played to and then their votes and money are gradually folded into the party's chosen candidate. If nothing else, by the time we reach the final two choices they may seem almost reasonable.

Last edited by Edenthiel on 25 Nov 2015, 12:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Most people do vote for the lesser of two evils then wonder why things get worse and worse.

Do you not consider chemical weapons used in Syria to be wmds? Because they came from Iraq as we invaded. Also if bush lied so did all of congress who voted for the wars. Clinton could have snagged Osama way back before and avoided 9/11 but instead decided to let him go.




The other party always says that. Hasn't yet came to pass. The USA has been on the edge of collapse a lot of times apparently over the last 60 years.

if syria's chemical weapons came from iraq as we invaded, why wasn't it reported on? it seems a far-fetched that iraq would have been able to offload ALL of its chemical weapons during the attack. wouldn't you think they have better things to do during an attack? do you have any documentation?

and bush could have targeted bin laden before 9/11, but he was too busy clearing brush from his ranch.

Syria has had chemical weapons for decades and did not have close relations with Saddam's Iraq, as you know they are close to Iran who Iraq fought a huge war against in the 80s. Most of Iraq's chemical weapons just rotted and degraded in storage until they were useless after a decade plus of disrepair, by all accounts it seems like Saddam gave up his weapons program in 1991. He certainly wasn't pursuing nuclear weapons like it was implied, the idea that he was a threat to anyone in 2003 is kind of a joke considering we had put the country under siege for 12 years and regularly bombed it with impunity. We shouldn't of even got involved in the first Gulf War.

oh, that's right. assad is shia and sadam was sunni - enemies.

People don't vote because nobody wants them too. The fewer voters there are the less expensive a campaign run is. If the government wanted you to vote, you'd do it in high school senior year, you'd get the day off of work for crying out loud, you would receive information on midterms and smaller elections, registering to vote would be compulsory, like registering for selective service, and most importantly we'd have a basic understanding of what was going on.

People won't vote for the lesser of two evils, because they've been told that not participating is a form of protest.

Seriously, a quick search shows only 42% of eligible voters turned out for the 2014 midterm elections. That's a crime, that's not some recount in Florida or a voting machine here or there that can't be proven safe, nope, that's the disenfranchisement of near sixty percent of the eligible public through sheer and purposeful apathy.

But don't take my word for it.
https://www.google.com/search?q=voter+suppression

Feel the Bern!

This year, I plan to vote in the democratic primaries for the first time...for Sanders.

After watching the debate, I realized I was a Sanders supporter a long time ago, before I even knew who he was. He represents MANY, though not all, of my views.
If he does not win the democrat nomination, I will probably write his name in.
That is an option on the ballot!
In previous years, I had to vote for the "lesser of two evils" because I did not have the name of someone I felt could be a legitimate write-in candidate.

The worst possible choice would be Clinton vs. Trump.
At least there is that write-in option!
If I had to choose *only* between these two options, that would truly be voting for the "lesser of two evils!"

The choice that I believe would *best* represent the divide in our country would be Sanders vs. Trump.
I would be very curious to see who would win this hypothetical election, and by how much.