Is it just me, or are the 'conservative' guys who insist that they're both NeverTrump and NeverHillary awfully prone to knocking Trump and Trump's supporters, but don't have much to say about Hillary?
I mean, far be it from me to suggest that their supposed 'equal distaste for both' is a tremendous load, but what can I say, I'm suggesting exactly that.
I think you are ascribing far, far too much significance to one person's vote. I for one am sick unto death of people telling me that I must vote this way or that, lest my immortal soul be in peril. (These are mostly the Pro-lifers.) Likewise, I have had it up to here with those who tell me that a vote for anyone other than Trump is a vote for Clinton, or that a vote for anyone other than Clinton is a vote for Trump. They can't all be right, and I strongly suspect they are all wrong.
I live in Maryland. No matter how I vote, my state's 10 electoral votes are going to Clinton. This is as certain as the sun's rising tomorrow morning. Therefore I am truly a free person, as regards my franchise. (Who was it who said that there is nothing like the knowledge that one was to be hanged in the morning to set one's mind at ease?) I can vote as I choose, in the serene knowledge that it matters not in the least.
As I see it, my insignificant and inconsequential single vote can be be best used to send a message. And the message I wish to send is that our two party system is broken. The best way I know to send such a message is to not vote for either of the two major parties.
Therefore, I intend to vote Libertarian this year. Not because I agree with their platform (I don't), but because I wish for them to get as large a percentage as possible of the final vote tally. I wish to do something, no matter how small, to demonstrate that for way too long we voters have been deprived of genuine choice. The Democrats have sold their souls to the abortionists and the gender Nazis, whilst the Republicans have gone off the deep end altogether. Between them, the reasonable voter has nowhere to turn. We need to dump both of our current major parties into the same dustbin we once threw the Whigs.
So yes, I am proudly "Never Trump and never Hillary".
Therefore, I intend to vote Libertarian this year. Not because I agree with their platform (I don't), but because I wish for them to get as large a percentage as possible of the final vote tally.
Why not Jill Stein? She seems more your speed.
I think you are ascribing far, far too much significance to one person's vote.
I'm not talking about votes.
Because there's no way she's going to get into the double digits, and that's what is needed to get people's attention. I'd actually like to see all 4 candidates in the debates, but that's probably not going to happen. But if the Libertarians' vote total in November tops 15%, they're sure to be on stage next time around!
So you'll vote for Stein if she's at parity with Johnson or possibly exceeding him?
Johnson isn't getting more than 2% in the general. The base is fractured, but the breaking of third party insurgency after Perot has been effective and even combined, the Stein/Johnson votes aren't going to cross double digits or even add up to 5% in the general.
Sorry! Trump's attempt to form a new party by hijacking the current one is the way that kind of change is going to go down going forward, whether he wins in the fall or not.
"So you'll vote for Stein if she's at parity with Johnson or possibly exceeding him?"
Doubt it. Other than serving on a town council in Lexington, MA, she has no government experience. I would never vote for anyone for president who has not either held some significant elected office in the past, or else has been a general or admiral in the military. (I consider Dwight D. Eisenhower to have been possibly the best president in my lifetime. I don't count Truman since I was only 7 months old when he left office.) Ms. Stein's stint as a councilwoman just doesn't cut it for me.
And by the way, that's another reason why Trump is a total non-starter for me. Just look what a disaster Woodrow Wilson was. I believe (without checking to see whether I am correct) that he was the last president we've had with no previous governmental experience.
Doubt it. Other than serving on a town council in Lexington, MA, she has no government experience.
But this isn't about winning, remember? You don't expect any of them to win. This is purely about percentages.
And by the way, that's another reason why Trump is a total non-starter for me. Just look what a disaster Woodrow Wilson was.
Obama had experience as an elected official. For his failings, you have to look elsewhere.
Obama had experience as an elected official.
Obama's highest office was 'state senator, not even for a full term'. Trump has had more experience with international dealings than Obama ever had prior to becoming president.
And again, this isn't about winning - remember? You don't think Johnson has a prayer to win the presidency. You just want that party to gain over 10%.
So, obviously you must support Jill Stein if she exceeds Johnson's percentage, or looks likely to do so.
"You just want that party to gain over 10%."
Yup. I'll vote for whichever third party looks to have the biggest vote share in November, regardless of platform. Right now, that looks to be the Libertarian Party. I hope they get 15-20 percent.
I know there's a difference, Bob. He was in the job for practically no amount of time. His experience has always been minimal.