Second of all, it is a HUGE jump to say that just because people are voting for Clinton because they are against Trump means that otherwise they would prefer Jill or Gary.
It’s an even bigger jump to suggest that those are the only other two choices. You can write in anyone you want. I’ve decided I’m writing in Selena Gomez. I don’t agree with the minimum age requirement for the Presidency, and I feel like Ms. Gomez will represent me better than any of the other choices. If you happen to like Gary Johnson or Jill Stein best, though, you should definitely vote for them and not against Trump or Clinton.
Furthermore, you would need to compare how many people are voting against the other guy from OTHER elections and compare it to this one to say how much worse it is this year. I have no doubt that it is more skewed this year, but to suggest it is skewed enough to allow for a 3rd party candidate to win is ludicrous.
Um, that’s exactly what was in those Pew poll numbers. Did you not read them? I think you don’t really read my posts. You just post stuff in response to what you imagine I say. To answer your question, this is the worst year this millennium for the Democrats in terms of people voting against the other party rather than for their own party.
That’s cute that you think getting rid of the EPA is a popular stance, or that Jill doesn’t think vaccines cause autism. Here is her direct quote: “ I do not know of any evidence to that effect.” What she DOESN’T mention is the OVERWHELMING evidence that vaccines do NOT cause autism. I’ll stick with that science.
See what I mean about you arguing against imagined positions? I didn’t say getting rid of the EPA is a popular stance, but it probably is among Gary Johnson voters. You have to acknowledge there are a lot of people fervently committed to the idea of a small government, and they would generally agree with getting rid of the EPA.
And, it’s clear you didn’t click those links where Jill Stein answered the question herself. In the second link, the guy literally asks her, point-blank, yes or no, do you believe vaccines cause autism, and she said “no.” I will let her speak for herself. Not really interested in some guy on the internet trying to put words into a woman’s mouth when she speaks for herself perfectly clearly.
Being an M.D., I’m sure she’s glad to know you’re on board with science. You know, the same science that suggests we should get off of an oil-based energy paradigm, where NASA says that tar sands oil — among the dirtiest of the dirty — is a step in the exact wrong direction, yet Clinton wouldn’t even take a position on the Keystone pipeline for years. Political expediency over principle. The same Clinton who voted for more offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in 2006. You remember what happened next, right? They even made a movie about it. I don’t even need to guess what Trump has said on the matter; I’m sure it has been idiotic.
Yet again, Trump and Clinton fail. I can’t vote for people who are OK with selling out the world’s environmental health.