Originally Posted by
Kozmonaut
I would have voted for ted cruz if he hadn't dropped out, trump is my second choice. We don't need hillary starting world war 3, simple as that.
Why do you think Hillary would be more likely to start a world war than Trump (the dude that gets baited on Twitter)? The opposite of what you said is commonly thrown around as a reason for supporting Hillary.
Originally Posted by
Mallymkun
As a libertarian, minarchist to be exact, Gary Johnson is obviously the best choice for me. However, it's stupid to pretend that this election isn't between Trump and Clinton, and I would do anything at this point to stop Clinton. I like Ben Shapiro, but I don't believe in his philosophy that you should always vote for the candidate with the most similar views. A circumstance such as this requires absolute strategic thinking.
Speaking strategically then, why is it more necessary to stop Clinton than to stop Trump?
A point I'd like to make is that Clinton is a rational actor. Trump, not so much. Clinton is the status quo incarnate. If she gets in, things will continue along the same path as they have under Obama. Trump's volatile and doesn't play by a script. We call people like him 'irrational' actors. Giving an irrational actor control of the world's largest military and nuclear weapon reserves, to me at least, sounds like it might not be a good idea.
There's an argument to be made that regardless of who's in charge, foreign policy remains the same. In other words, the president doesn't really decide on these thing. In that case, an irrational actor in the white house would be slightly less damaging. America would still be the world's laughing stock, though.
Last edited by Ele; Jun 26, 2016 at 02:57 AM.