Harris v. Trump Debate Thread | Trump DECLINES another debate (in ALL CAPS!)

Calheel said:
That is weak. We aren't in Europe, and there is no ranked choice voting. In America, there are two and only two choices for President. If you don't like either candidate, your patriotic obligation is to vote for the least bad candidate. If you think that is Trump, then vote for Trump. If you think it is Harris, then vote for Harris. No one should throw his/her vote away on a third-party candidate (unless they live in a non-swing state). If you could potentially impact the result, then you have an obligation to choose the lesser of two evils -- even if you dislike both.
Click to expand...
If Ehaus thinks both candidates are unacceptable and terrible, maybe his higher obligation is to signal the need for better candidates.
 
Scientific Mapp said:
If Ehaus thinks both candidates are unacceptable and terrible, maybe his higher obligation is to signal the need for better candidates.
Click to expand...
No message is sent and nothing is changed by voting third-party or write in. People who think that are naive and politically immature.

There are two and only two candidates to vote for. Anything else is the civic equivalent of a temper tantrum.

You vote for the least bad candidate. That is very important civic behavior.
 
Scientific Mapp said:
If Ehaus thinks both candidates are unacceptable and terrible, maybe his higher obligation is to signal the need for better candidates.
Click to expand...
That would be a great thing to signal if you were unhappy with both candidates, but you can signal that without letting Trump back in the White House. Throwing your vote away on a third party candidate does nothing other than completely give up the bare minimum influence a voter can have.
 
Scientific Mapp said:
If Ehaus thinks both candidates are unacceptable and terrible, maybe his higher obligation is to signal the need for better candidates.
Click to expand...
Has the Green Party, for example, really influenced political discourse?

Third parties historically get around the same level of support. That 1-3% doesn’t drive change for the 2 dominant parties.

The only way to effectuate change is to vote for whichever of the 2 parties most aligns with your vision and push for local candidates who better suit your visions, so that they will rise through the ranks.
 
aGDevil2k said:
BTW he said 168 countries are sending their criminals to the USA.

There are only 193-195 countries in the world.
Click to expand...
That is far better than his usual outlandish claims. At least this one is technically feasible or possible. Most are so outlandish they are theoretically impossible.
 
Calheel said:
No message is sent and nothing is changed by voting third-party or write in. People who think that are naive and politically immature.

There are two and only two candidates to vote for. Anything else is the civic equivalent of a temper tantrum.

You vote for the least bad candidate. That is very important civic behavior.
Click to expand...

If nothing is changed then what’s the harm? In trying to send a signal?
 
EyeballKid said:
There’s no harm as long as you recognize it for the vanity that it is, and you don’t expect it to actually change anything. You’ll still be bound by the rules set forth by the winning party.
Click to expand...

“Vanity”, “superiority”, “immigrate”…tremendous irony here. What’s the saying about the accuser…?
 
ColdBlueSteel said:
If nothing is changed then what’s the harm? In trying to send a signal?
Click to expand...
There are definitely things changed. People deciding not to vote as a protest can end up swinging the election, which is a huge change. But an individual voter not voting has no impact on the thing they are actually trying to change, which is supposedly 'candidate quality' in this case.

If you actually want to have an impact on politics- who the parties nominate, where the overton window moves, what the discourse is- you do so by getting involved, not by sitting out.
 
DurhamK said:
There are definitely things changed. People deciding not to vote as a protest can end up swinging the election, which is a huge change. But an individual voter not voting has no impact on the thing they are actually trying to change, which is supposedly 'candidate quality' in this case.

If you actually want to have an impact on politics- who the parties nominate, where the overton window moves, what the discourse is- you do so by getting involved, not by sitting out.
Click to expand...
Comment was about voting 3rd party or write in, not sitting out. As far as “who the party nominates”, that seems dubious, currently.
 
Not sure why everyone is trying to call out Ehouse for writing in Nikki Haley. Actually, I think I do know. Though only one vote he probably represents a lot more people than we think. My guess is that everyone wants him to vote for Harris, as one of the only two viable options.

I also have a very strong hunch that if he were to vote for one on the ticket, it would most certainly be Trump.

In the big scheme of things, someone if forced to choose between the two would vote Trump, a write in of Nikki is far better. That is one less vote for Trump. Not an extra one for Harris, but one less for Trump.

Why try to encourage him to vote for Trump? Makes no sense to me. You go vote for Nikki, Ehouse!
 
RockyMtnHoo said:
If there’s no way someone would vote Dem under any circumstance, it’s obviously better they vote third party or write in than Trump.
Click to expand...
Yea A non Vote I will admit I voted for Mike Munger for Gov of NC back whenever
Now I am a "yellow dog " . But by November it was clear Beverly Purdue would not win-so it was a"piss off" vote
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top