Ethicists - Voting Your Heart is Immoral

[Baruch]

If Widdershins waffles, is he from Belgium?  What is the sound of one flap, Jack?

Anyone who votes for either major candidate, isn't rejecting the current system, or even the status quo in policy ... they are willing dupes of campaign promises that can't be kept ... like most voters.

As far as taxes go ... I was just agent provocateur.  I know what every American wants ... a free lunch at someone else's expense, just like we have since Jamestown.  Nothing has ever happened, in any election, that actually decreased taxes (other than shuffling them) or made the tax code less complicated.  I will see a male unicorn sharing a pleasing glade with a virgin maiden, before I see anything else.

The absurdity of the current post-secondary education system, will come crashing down, or take the US with it in an attempt to maintain the subsidy to buggy whip manufacturers.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That article is complete and utter bullshit.  It's a thinly disguised "lesser of two evils" argument, because third parties are in such a better position than ever before.  The two leading candidates are so piss-poor awful that third parties on all sides are able to make gains up until now unheard of.

And there is no Perot set up to steal all the third party thunder.  All ethical people are disgusted with Clinton, all sane people are disgusted with Trump.  Actual third party candidates are able to break through the noise floor that usually suppresses them.

So rather than vote for what you believe in, you are supposed to "do your duty" and vote for someone you hate lest someone else you hate win.

The powers that be realize that in their attempt to ensure a Hillary victory they have alienated just about everyone, so now they need to lecture us about how much we need to fall in line.

[Atheon]

All ethical people are disgusted with Clinton

Why?

[Shiranu]

Why?

Even by third party and libertarian standards the pretentiousness of that was blanch inducing.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Why?

I don't believe that you actually need to ask that question.

[Baruch]

True believers are known from a variety of 20th century ideological movements.  Projection of secular messiahs.

[Atheon]

I don't believe that you actually need to ask that question.

I know there have been a lot of BS accusations leveled against her, all of which fall to pieces under scrutiny.

So, I ask again: Why?

[Cavebear]

Desiring destruction for a greater longer good is a dangerous option.  One bad decision could end the world.

1,000 years ago, that would have have been more acdeptable,  today not so much.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I know there have been a lot of BS accusations leveled against her, all of which fall to pieces under scrutiny.

So, I ask again: Why?

Ah, I get it.  You are pretending that "Unethical" and "Illegal" are synonyms.  Even though she has crossed both those lines.  And you are pretending that "not convicted" is the same thing as "innocent."

Since no sane prosecutor would want to take the risk of filing charges against Clinton, therefore she's never done anything unethical.  Wow.

I still don't believe you need to ask "why" when someone says "all ethical people are disgusted with Clinton."

But let's apply your standard in both directions.  You don't want to do that.

What court of law has found Trump to be as bad as you say he is?

If I'm right, you're going to respond to that particular question by falsely accusing me of being a Trump supporter.

[Cavebear]

Perhaps that he threatens libel suits against almost the entire universe and never follows them up because he knows they are baseless?

[Atheon]

Ah, I get it.  You are pretending that "Unethical" and "Illegal" are synonyms.

Nope. Never said or implied that.

Your inability to answer is duly noted.

It's always that case, isn't it? Ask right-wingers why they don't like Clinton, they answer "Are you serious?", and then refuse to answer. There's a reason for that. Hillary hasn't actually done anything wrong.

Since 1991, the Republicans have launched one BS accusation after another, nonstop, at the Clintons, and it continues to this day. A quarter of a century of hollow, baseless accusations, ranging from the stupid (Haircutgate) to the absurd (Vince Foster murder) to the downright outlandish (Hillary is a Satan-worshipping lesbian lizard person). After 25 years of lies and fail, why should ANYONE believe ANYTHING a Republican says about the Clintons? (Or anything, for that matter?)

The Republicans have had a rage-boner for the Clintons since day one, and there is no reason for it ... other than their last name, it seems. Maybe the combination of letters or sounds?

You may not be a Republican, but you have fallen for their narrative hook, line and sinker, and that should be an embarrassment.

As for Trump, I oppose him because of his proposed Supreme Court nominations, who would outlaw abortion. I oppose him because his win would validate the Republicans' Supreme Court delaying tactic. I oppose him for his idea of building a wall. I oppose him for the sexist, racist, and Islamophobic sentiments that he has expressed repeatedly. I oppose him because he pandered shamelessly to the Religious Right and chose one of their members as a VP. I oppose him for his global warming denialism. I oppose him for his dangerously simplistic and unnuanced view of international politics. I oppose him for his tendency to egg on his rabid followers to violence. I oppose him for his utter lack of political and government experience. I oppose him because he wants to repeal Obamacare. I oppose him because in the 30 years I've seen him, nothing he has said or done has convinced me he's not an egomanical narcissist.

[Cavebear]

It's worse, the Repubs have had a rage-boner against the CONCEPT of a Democratic President since 1992.  It has been "No Damn Way" ever since.

[Atheon]

I had a dream the other night that Obama grew an Islamic-style beard just to make the Republicans froth at the mouth for his entertainment!

[Cavebear]

After the election, I hope...  LOL!

[Baruch]

Desiring destruction for a greater longer good is a dangerous option.  One bad decision could end the world.

1,000 years ago, that would have have been more acdeptable,  today not so much.

New campaign slogan ...

End The World Now!  Why are you prejudiced against extinction?  Will have to pull your SJW membership card.