Lol, I read "imaginary Hiller" (and assumed you meant Hillary). My bad.



We have reasonable laws already.
Most things people ask for either already exist (and anti-gunners just don't know because they don't have to follow those laws), or only screw collectors and sportsmen while not doing anything to reduce risk (which I already covered, I assume you read the earlier part, eg California compliant AR15, etc).



Nobody expects to need to form a militia.
Nobody expects the country to go to hell.

The seat belt analogy is about preparedness for unlikely events.
Like, you don't "need" flood insurance in Houston - unless you do.

Owning a gun also hurts nobody.
By definition, ownership is not a harm.

Almost all guns will never be used to do any harm.
The very statement that "guns are all about hurting other people" is a non-empirical assertion.

Just shy of every last gun owner doesn't imagine themselves as Bruce Willis. Asserting that they do is a straw man.


You remind me of Republicans that complain that Black people are welfare queens (so they can redirect money out of welfare). Or Republicans that complain that Trans people are pedophiles in hiding (so they can pander to religious zelot voters). Creating a straw man and then getting mad about the straw man (rather than the real people) is self serving.


* Only the rarest few people think they are Roy Rogers. That is a straw man that does not apply to just shy of every gun owner.
* You don't need a gun for home defense... unless you do.
* Differences in likelihood of death armed vs unarmed is happenstance.
(Doesn't matter either way. Googled some likelihoods : http://www.theblaze.com/news/2013/02/15/how-likely-are-you-to-die-from-gun-violence-this-interesting-chart-puts-it-in-perspective/
You'd have to suffer death 350'000 times before you're at a 50/50 chance of your next death being by firearms.)
[EDIT, math error. Should say 17'000 years lived to reach a 50/50 chance of death by firearms in the next year]
* Technically, even 1 vote gets someone elected. You don't control who is on the ballot.



NRA and NSSF are on life support. They have to fight the influence of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, most major newspapers. They are way outclassed. Current events don't help either.
The "big bad NRA" rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. As is the rhetoric that the NRA only represents the industry.

-sceherazade

Freedom of religion is independent of civilian armament.
History shows that religious persecution is normal for humanity, and in most cases it's perpetrated by the government. Sometimes to consolidate power (with government tie-ins to the main religion), and sometimes to pander to the grimace of a majority.

Ironically, in this country, freedom of religion only exists due to armed conflict, albeit merely as a side effect of independence from a religiously homogeneous ruling power.



It's true that Catalonians would likely have been shot at if they were armed.
However, likewise, the Spanish government will never grant the Catalans democracy so long as the Catalans are not armed - simply because it doesn't have to.
(*Barring self suicidal/sacrificial behavior on part of the Catalans that eventually [after much suffering] embarrasses the government into compliance - often under risk that 3rd parties will intervene if things continue)

When the government manufactures consent, it will be first in line to claim that people have democratic freedom. When the government fails to manufacture consent, it will crack down with force.

At the end of the day, in government, might makes right. Laws are only words on paper, the government's arms are what make the laws matter.

Likewise, democracy is no more than an idea. The people's force of arms (or threat thereof) is what assert's the people's dominance over the government.



You can say the police/military are stronger and it would never matter, however, the size of an [armed] population is orders of magnitude larger than the size of an army. Factor in the fact that the people need to cooperate with the government in order to support and supply the government's military. No government can withstand armed resistance of the population at large. This is one of the main lessons from The Prince.

Civilian armament is a bulwark against potentially colossal ills (albeit ills that come once every few generations).

Look at NK. The people get TV, radio, cell, from SK. They can look across the river and see massive cities on the Chinese side. They know they have to play along with the charade that their government demands. At the end of the day, without guns, things won't change.

Look at what happened during the Arab Spring. All these unarmed nations turned to external armed groups to fight for them to change their governments. All it accomplished was them becoming serfs to the invited 3rd parties. This is another lesson from The Prince : always take power by your own means, never rely on auxiliaries, because your auxiliaries will become your new rulers.






Below is general pontification. No longer a reply.
------------------------------------------------------------------



Civilian armament does come with periodic tragedies. Those tragedies suck. But they're also much less significant than the risks of disarmament.
(Eg. School shootings, 7-11 robberies, etc -versus- Tamils vs Sri Lankan government, Rohingya vs Burmese government. etc.)

Regarding rifles specifically (all varieties combined), there is no point in arguing magnitudes (Around 400 lives per year - albeit taken in newsworthy large chunks). 'Falling out of bed' kills more people, same is true for 'Slip and fall'. No one fears their bed or a wet floor.

Pistols could go away and not matter much.
They have minimal militia utility, and they represent almost the entirety of firearms used in violent crime. (Albeit used to take lives in a non newsworthy 1 at a time manner)

(In the U.S.) If tragedy was the only way to die (otherwise infinite lifespan), you would live on average 9000 years. Guns, car crashes, drownings, etc. ~All tragedies included. (http://service.prerender.io/http://polstats.com/?_escaped_fragment_=/life#!/life)






A computer learning example I was taught:

Boy walking with his mom&dad down a path.
Lion #1 jumps out, eats his dad.
(Data : Specifically lion #1 eats his father.)
The boy and mom keep walking
Lion #2 jumps out, eats his mother.
(Data : Specifically lion #2 eats his mother)
The boy keeps walking
He comes across Lion #3.

Question : Should he be worried?

If you are going to generalize [the first two] lions and people, then yes, he should be worried.

In reality, lions may be very unlikely to eat people (versus say, a gazelle). But if you generalized from the prior two events, you will think they are dangerous.

(The relevance to computer learning is that : Computers learn racism, too. If you include racial data along with other data in a learning algorithm, that algorithm can and will be able to make decisions based on race. Not because the software cares - but because it can analyze and correlate.)

(Note : This is also why arguing religion is likely futile. If a child is raised being told that everything is as it is because God did it, then that becomes their basis for reality. Telling them that their belief in god is wrong, is like telling the boy in the example that lions are statistically quite safe to people. It challenges what they've learned.)



I mentioned this example, because it illustrates learning and perception. And it segways into my following analogy.



Here's a weird analogy, but it goes like this :

(I'm sure SJW minded people will shit themselves over it, but whatever)

"Gun ownership in today's urban society" is like "Black people in 80's white bred society".

2/3 of the population today has no contact with firearms (mostly urban folk)
They only see them on movies used to shoot people, and on the news used to shoot people.
If you are part of that 2/3, you see guns as murder tools.
If you are part of the remaining 1/3, you see guns like shoes or telephones - absolutely mundane daily items that harm nobody.

In the 80's, if you were in a white bred community, your only understanding of black people would be from movies where they are gangsters and shoot people, and from the nightly news where you heard about some black person who shot people.
If you were part of an 80's white bred community, you saw black people as dangerous likely killers.
If you were part of an 80's black/mixed community, you saw black people as regular people living the same mundane lives as anyone else.

In either case, you can analytically know better. But your gut feelings come from your experience.



Basically, I know guns look bad to 2/3 of the population. That won't change. People's beliefs are what they are.
I also know that the likelihood of being in a shooting is essentially zero.
I also know that history repeats itself, and -just in case- I'd rather live in an armed society than an unarmed society. Even if I don't carry a gun.

-scheherazade

(Most of) That doesn't work, actually, all you'll get is people pandering to large corporations so they get good paying "consulting" contracts after they leave office.

Ban lobbying in every form. It's the tail wagging the dog. At least make it 100% transparent and on the public record.

It seems that way, but that's only true for idiots that, as he said, would have voted for him if he blatantly murdered random strangers in the street. Under no circumstances would those people vote for Warren, even though they totally agree with her positions.

Normal, reasonable people, the kind that would vote for Warren, still consider many things as disquaifiers, including many things Trump has done in his first 100 days. We would have voted to impeach over the investigations of Trump and his campaign, and a vote of no confidence, halting any of his plans until the investigations are concluded, because he might be a foreign agent.

I think he won because the DNC chose a candidate that was 100% unacceptable to Republicans, or right learners, or centrists, or real progressives (and she personally blew it with pandering bullshit obfuscation like "I support $15 an hour,..................... but I don't support a $15 an hour minimum wage"), and totally screwed over and dismissed independents in the process, ensuring they wouldn't get the votes she needed.

What unbelievable cowardice it is to ban refugees... pandering to the very worst human traits.

so let me get this straight.

neil cavuto,a pandering,whoremongering demagogue who represents all that is diseased and corrupt from FOX news.is glibly and childishly deriding CNN for now being in the very boat that FOX was for years.

that somehow the criticism and sly accusations of FOX being biased and slanted were not warranted.that the REAL focus should be on the reactions of the executive branch,and not on the content of cable news.

when we consider that even as late as 2010,33% of FOX viewers STILL thought that iraq had connections to al qeada,and that they were hiding WMD's.this alone is enough to condemn FOX as a rapacious propaganda machine.

i am not letting CNN off the hook.who have also been caught fabricating conflict based on questionable sources to formulate political crisis when there was none.

but that is not even something cavuto is addressing.he is literally beaming with a smug condescension in this piece,self-righteously admonishing an entire network as if those networks are not populated by individuals.

as if they of one mind.
one message.
and the message is:"poor CNN is no longer the favorite and now has to sit in the back of the bus like we did for 8 years".

do you know what this is?
and i am POSITIVE cavuto is totally unaware of this comparison.

this is the new house negro ridiculing the OLD house negro.
who were lovingly called "house niggers" *dedicated to @gorillaman*and "uncle tom's" back in the day.

so house negro neil cavuto is just gushing with pride that his new master prefers his network to that old rust bucket CNN.

the new pimp in chief likes his cable news to bow and prostrate itself upon his moist loins,and no other network can whore itself quite like FOX news.

so good for you mr neil cavuto!
you are the presidents new,favorite whore.
so pucker up you precious little slut,trump has something for you,and say goodbye to your last vestige of moral integrity.

now go be a good house negro and go make a trump a sandwich.

this is too delicious not to *promote

@bobknight33
ya know bob,at some point you are going to look back at these comments,or someone is inevitably going to bring them to your attention in the future,and you are going to be forced to eat a slice of humble pie.

i am not disagreeing with you in regards to corporate media bias,and that some people consume only those outlets that appeal to their own prejudices and biases.

as this election has made abundantly clear:both those who identify as democrat and republican are guilty of confirmation bias,and had fallen into the trap of their own personal echo chambers.

so many supposed "news" outlets were aught red-handed pandering,obfuscating and sometimes promoting outright propaganda.

the latest outlet to get caught in this fuckery is the washington post,and i suspect there will be many many more.

my point is simply this.
propaganda works,and it is an effective tool to control attitudes and opinions,they do not even have to "win" the argument,they just have to make a person reconsider their position by postulating possibilities,make one go "well,maybe..that could happen"...and they win.

so you are right in regards to fake news that appeals to the more "liberal minded" but do not think for a second that there are also corporate "news" outlets that appeal to the more "conservative minded".

we all,each and every one of us,are susceptible to this tactic.we all can be manipulated by appeals to emotions,our sense of justice and fairness,and of course..our prejudices.

the only way to combat this tactic is by remaining vigilant and do our due diligence.this starts by listening to people we may disagree.by fact checking and discussing with one another to test the veracity of the claims by certain outlets.

speaking only for myself i dumped corporate media years ago.

it is still an imperfect system i use,and i have posted fallacious content (not intentionally) and been called out for it's bullshit.

i didn't like being called out,and felt shame for my laziness and the fact i posted because it adhered to my own preconceptions,but i was the better for it.

so be careful when you make declarations of certitude by using corporate media outlets as a source,because more often than not,that information has been manipulated to appeal to a certain mindset and attitude.

liberals have known for decades the FOX news is a corporate media propaganda machine,but they have also been just as much a victim of the very same tactics by such outlets as MSNBC and CNN.

american conservatives are not the problem,nor are american liberals.

it is the corporate media who is beholden to those who wield power and influence,and seek to manipulate the opinions of the american people in order to retain THEIR power and THEIR influence and therefore diminish the cohesive community of the american people.

ok..i really don;t know where i am going with this..i had a point somewhere.

basically stop using corporate media as your references bob,otherwise you are going to be pantsed in public,and that is an ickly feeling.

Yeah, I do know who "those people" are, they're the fucking morons who voted for Trump.

See, here's the thing. I'm no longer interested in bringing them round or convincing them. Fuck 'em. We've had centuries of social progress from the abolition of slavery to women's suffrage to the civil rights movement to SSM. If they haven't got the message by now, I really don't give a shit.

But as a culture and a society we need to stop fucking pandering to these assholes. The idea that "everyone is entitled to an opinion" is a very important idea. But somewhere along the line that got mixed up with "everyone's opinion is equally valid".

I don't really have a solution for this. Part of me is actually considering what I would classify as extreme, abhorrent measures. Most of me just thinks that liberals or SJWs or whatever you want to call them, just need to stop being so fucking meek and apologising for being right.

Either way, we don't have time for this bullshit anymore.

This is what a fucking Trump presidency gets you.

At this stage, as utterly undemocratic as it is, I'm just hoping the Electoral College ignores the election (which it can totally do) and elects Hillary.

Yeah, she's a pretty poor candidate and she's in the pocket of business and blah, blah, fucking blah.

I don't care.

She's not an insane climate denying buffoon.

I'm as surprised as most everyone at how the election turned out. In the week or so leading up to election night, I considered the possibility that Trump might win the popular vote but lose the electoral college, but not the other way around.

Still, as someone who thinks the electoral college is bullshit, consider this thing from all angles:

Hypothetical Possibility 1: At first, when I thought that Trump might win the popular vote but lose the electoral college, I thought that would be a good thing going forward. Both sides would have been screwed out of a victory by the idiotic system in recent memory, which might push for bipartisan support to scrap it.

But thinking further ... I don't think that would have actually panned out. The GOP establishment wouldn't have seen that as "their" candidate getting screwed, they would have been happy. They might have had to pay lip service to the idea of reconsidering the electoral college to pander to angry Republican voters who felt cheated out of a Trump presidency, but they could easily have just left it at that and sat on the issue until apathy took over again.


Possibility 2: The likely reality. Trump will win by electoral votes but lose the popular vote, and that will stand. The Senate and House are both Republican controlled, and the Supreme Court will very likely swing further in that direction. Possibly a LOT.

That sounds terrible. And it definitely means that in the short term, there will be absolutely zero traction for anyone wanting to push the idea of getting rid of the electoral college. BUT -- it also sets up a gold-plated opportunity to see real, actual movement on that front in 2 years. Think Trump is going to be horrendous? Think GOP-controlled Legislature will be abysmal? Look on the bright side -- if those expectations are correct, the blowback in midterm elections won't be a "wave". It'll be a fuckin' tsunami. And that's what we need to have a shot at killing the electoral college.


Possibility 3: Faithless Elector rampage. You can argue, with some merit, that the electoral college was intended to prevent or safeguard against exactly the kind of situation that we are in now. And I'd love to see President Bernie myself. But what would actually result if enough electors swapped to make that happen?

First, NYTimes projects Trump getting 306 electoral votes. That would mean that 37 faithless electors would have to happen to flip the election. You have to go back more than 100 years to find an election where there has been more than 1 faithless elector. There has only been 1 election with more than 37 faithless electors, and that was in 1872 because the candidate died. So realistically, it would be close to impossible to pull this off. (all info from wikipedia)

But forget the odds and just assume that it did happen. I think that would be a strategically terrible idea for Democrats, liberals, etc. Trump won because enough people didn't like the prospect of President Hillary and/or actually wanted to see what Trump himself could do. In either case, his voters generally aren't going to give him a whole lot of leash to screw things up or fail to deliver on their expectations. It will be next to impossible for him to keep those swing people happy. If Trump is 1/10th as terrible as the average Democrat expects him to be, he will alienate all of those people in very short order.

But if faithless electors "stole" the presidency from him (and you know that's how it would be perceived)? Oh, man ... he'd effectively be a political martyr. The anger and backlash would likely be apocalyptic and/or lead to revolt. Worse than almost any realistic way that Trump himself might fuck things up as the President. Even if that was somehow avoided, which I tend to think would be impossible, whoever got installed as President would have the shortest leash of all time, and a massively hostile and motivated Legislature that they would be forced to attempt to work with. Better have some sacrificial lamb to put in there that has zero political future, and even then they would probably cause massive damage to their party by association when they inevitably fall.

No, I think the clear best option is to let Trump (and the GOP) dig his own grave over the next year or two, and then graciously ride the wave of comeuppance.

I hear people liked this show, but this just seems like inaccurate, pandering dialogue. Is the joke that he has no idea wtf he's talking about? Maybe that's the joke...

Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about?

<gasp!> Maybe I'm the joke??

That settles it - anti-everything.

"Whereas esjews, like their frequent allies and ideological partners the islamists, seem to be gaining ground and converts every day.

I think you can see where i was coming from with this stuff though. I was being polite, but I'm not stupid and I can read between the lines - he's insulting 'lefties' for pandering to Muslims and giving them special treatment, more or less allowing them to behave as they wish, for fear of offending their religion. I know this argument, i've heard it before.

It's not racist; it's not hate talking. It's fear of the stereotype that the mainstream media love to peddle. Fear the muslims, hate the socialists who protect them! Divisive politics that allows a practically fascist political establishment to maintain the war industry, because if the peons are scared of Muhammad they won't start to ask why we can't have better hospitals and schools, or why between 1 - 5% of people are getting richer whilst everyone else has to have austerity. Why are pension funds in trouble, why will our children be worse off than us, when we are working to depression and exhaustion? Never mind that - fear the immigrants, don't vote for their allies and ideological partners! Vote for Christmas you turkeys!

I feel like I've been saying this for years about a variety of different films, mostly super hero genre crap.

When Wolverine cuts off someone's arm, I don't need Tarantino blood, but nothing happening doesn't make sense either. It's demeaning and belittling to the audience when filmmakers pander to the PG13 crowd.

Isn't that cute? He thinks that the fact that the citizens and city of Dubai pander to millionaires and celebrity and are willing to let him spend his millions there is indicative of the muslim world's views of the west!! I hope he doesn't go walking around
Mosul with that swagger.

I'd be more interested in hearing Will Smith slam a cult that steals from it's members, enslaves it's members, isolates members from their families, and falsely imprisons it's members. Sorry, as long as Smith supports Scientology and David Miscavige who gives a fuck what he thinks about political figures like Trump or dangerous religious beliefs.

Pandering more than slightly to the FPS puritan crowd. There doesn't seem to be any frilly bullshit going on - the type that drives oldschool FPS players crazy like calling in air strikes, perks, experience, head bob and realistic climbing motions, reality physics.

I mean i'm forever bitching about how most FPS these days make you feel like you're waist deep in treacle, nothing feels crisp and reactive. I complain that in the old days we didn't have crowd control effects where you'd take your hands off the mouse&keyboard for up to 5 seconds because of someone's second special attack or 'ultimate'. Or that one hero type will always beat another hero type - I was in top teams/national teams for both HLTFC and TF2, i know my stuff regarding class based team FPS, i'm not just talking shit/whining there.

They ram those statements home at the end - pure speed, pure skill, pure fps. I don't believe it for one second, but they clearly want people like me to be hyped over this.

But you have zero proof. You're stating that you have enough proof, but yet you really don't have any proof. You have circumstantial evidence.

I have zero doubts that DWS once in that position helped because she and Clinton are friends and political allies. But that's not quid pro quo. If Clinton hires her to help in her campaign, it isn't quid pro quo if Clinton hired her because of DWS's skills in the area. You have zero proof that's why DWS was hired. You have zero proof DWS did "whatever Clinton asked her to do". You have zero proof Clinton asked her to do anything that broke the rules in the first place. None.

You are inferring every single accusation you made against Clinton. There's absolutely no evidence of any of them at all.

Clinton has zero insights about what the public thinks? You're kidding, right? The woman who was the front runner for the Democratic nomination, who has been in the public spotlight at the national stage for almost 25 years doesn't have any insight about what the public thinks?

Come on, man.

Also, DWS's job wasn't solely to ensure the nominating process was fair. She had a ton of responsibilities, and many of them she did well. That was my point. All you're seeing is the part where she screwed up because it hurt your preferred candidate. Her job was also to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, too.

Perhaps a few might say DWS wasn't the reason Sanders lost? A few? You mean like.... ohhhhh, I dunno... Bernie Sanders? How about Bernie Sanders' staff members? But what the hell do they know, AMIRITE?

Dude, Sanders got crushed with minorities. You know where that can allow you to win the nomination? The GOP. Unfortunately for Sanders, he was running for the nomination where minorities are a significant part of the voting bloc. Absolutely CRUSHED. Clinton won 76% of the African-American vote. Before the primaries really began, Clinton was polling at 73% among Hispanics. You honestly think that was because of DWS? Let me put that to rest for you. Hillary Clinton did well among Hispanics against Barack Obama. Was that DWS's doing, too?

That's the thing. I have clear cut FACTS about why Sanders lost. I have the words from Bernie Sanders and his campaign staff. You have speculation about whatever small impact DWS's had on primary votes.

Valarie Plame? No, Bush never named her. It ended up being Karl Rove.

How did I shove Hillary Clinton down your throat? Explain that one to me. I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. In VA, I chose to vote in the GOP primary to do whatever I could to stop Trump, which was vote for Marco Rubio, as he was polling second in VA. I didn't do a damn thing to stop Sanders or help Clinton win the nomination.

Why didn't I vote for Sanders? Because of his lack of foreign policy experience, and he wasn't putting forth enough practical policies that I think would work. I like the guy fine. I'd vote for him as a Senator if he was in Virginia. I like having voices like his in Congress. But Commander In Chief is a big part of the job, and I want someone with foreign policy experience. He doesn't have that.

I also value flexibility in a candidate. The world isn't black and white. I like Sanders' values. It would be nice if everyone could go to college if they had the motivation. I very much think the rich are not taxed nearly enough. But I also think ideologies and ideals help to create ideas for solutions, but the solutions need to be practical, and I don't find his practical unfortunately. Sometimes they're not politically practical. Sometimes they just fall apart on the mechanics of them.

Gary Johnson has more experience? Uhhhhh, no. He was governor of New Mexico for 8 years. That compares well to Sarah Palin. Do you think Palin is more experienced than Clinton, too? Johnson has zero foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton was an active first lady who proposed Health Care Reform, got children's health care reform passed. She was a US Senator for the short time of 8 years, which is way less than Johnson's 8 years as governor of New Mexico (wait, what?!), was on the foreign relations committee during that time. Then she was Secretary of State.

Sanders is the only one who I'd put in the ballpark, but he's had legislative branch experience only, and he doesn't have much foreign policy experience at all. Interestingly enough, you said he was the most experienced candidate, overlooking his complete lack of executive experience, which you favored when it came to Gary Johnson. Huh?

Clinton can't win? You know, I wouldn't even say Trump *can't* win. Once normalized from the convention bounce, she'll be the favorite to win. Sure, she could still lose, but I wouldn't bet against her.

Clinton supporters have blinders on only. Seriously? Dude, EVERY candidate has supporters with blinders on. Every single candidate. Most voters are ignorant, regardless of candidate. Don't give me that holier than thou stuff. You've got blinders on for why Sanders lost.

There are candidates who are threats if elected. There are incompetent candidates. There are competent candidates. There are great candidates. Sorry, but there aren't great candidates every election. I've voted in enough presidential elections to know you should be grateful to have at least one competent candidate who has a shot of winning. Sometimes there aren't any. Sometimes there are a few.

In your mind, I'm a Hillary supporter with blinders on. I'm not beholden to any party. I'm not beholden to any candidate. It's just not in my nature. This is the first presidential candidate from a major party in my lifetime that I felt was truly an existential threat to the US and the world in Trump. I'm a level headed person. Hillary Clinton has an astounding lack of charisma for a politician who won a major party's nomination. I don't find her particularly inspiring. I think it's a legitimate criticism to say she sometimes bends to the political winds too much. She sometimes doesn't handle things like the email thing like she should, as she flees to secrecy from a paranoia from the press and the other party, which is often a mistake, but you have to understand at some level why. She's a part of a major political party, which has a lot of "this is how the sausage is made" in every party out there, and she operates within that system.

If she were a meal, she'd be an unseasoned microwaved chicken breast, with broccoli, with too much salt on it to pander to people some to get them to want to eat it. And you wouldn't want to see how the chicken was killed. But you need to eat. Sure, there's too much salt. Sure, it's not drawing you to the table, but it's nutritious mostly, and you need to eat. It's a meal made of real food.

Let's go along with you thinking Sanders is SOOOOOOOOOOO much better. He was a perfectly prepared steak dinner, but it's lean steak, and lots of organic veggies, perfectly seasoned, and low salt. It's a masterpiece meal that the restaurant no longer offers, and you gotta eat.

Donald Trump is a plate of deep fried oreos. While a surprising number of people find that tasty, it also turns out the cream filling was contaminated with salmonella.

Gary Johnson looks like a better meal than the chicken, but you're told immediately if you order it, you're gonna get contaminated deep fried oreos or the chicken, and you have absolutely no say which it will be.

You can bitch and complain all you want about Clinton. But Sanders is out.

As Bill Maher would say, eat the chicken.

I'm not voting for Clinton solely because I hate Trump. She's a competent candidate. At least we have one to choose from who can actually win.

And I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comparison of Trump to Clinton. One of them has far more governmental experience. One of them isn't unhinged. One of them is clearly not racist or sexist. You would at least agree with that, right? Clinton, for all her warts, is not racist, sexist, bigoted, and actually knows how government works. To equate them is insane to me. I'm sorry.

And this is coming from someone who voted for Nader in 2000. I totally get voting for a third party candidate in some situations. This isn't the time.

Edit: You know who else is considering voting for Clinton? Penn Jillette, one of the most vocal Clinton haters out there, and outspoken libertarian. Even he is saying if the election is close enough, he'll have to vote for her.

"“My friend Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called No One Left to Lie To about the Clintons,” Jillette says. “I have written and spoken and joked with friends the meanest, cruelest, most hateful things that could ever been said by me, have been said about the Clintons. I loathe them. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on just about everything there is to disagree with a person about. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I will put a Hillary Clinton sticker on my fucking car.”

But he says he hopes the race will turn out well enough that he feels safe casting his vote for Gary Johnson, who is running on the libertarian ticket, and who he believes is the best choice."
http://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-terrified-president-trump-431837