Trump might talk a lot, but we know what Clinton has done with her voting record and her interactions behind the scenes interactions with Obama as Secretary of State. It's surprising /frustrating to me so many Democrats on my Facebook glaze over this when considering her over Trump or even Sanders. Yeah, she has experience. But she also has some very poor choices in her voting record (including Iraq) and is simply part of the traditional American foreign-policy establishment.

Yes, we know what to expect from Clinton, and I don't particularly like it, but it's still way, way, way, way better than Trump. If she wins it'll be because a lot of people share that opinion, not because the masses actually like her.

Unless you live in a swing state you can totally vote third party without cost. Even if you do, it's unlikely your vote will be the tiebreaker. Don't feel compelled to vote for someone you don't believe in. It's not like your vote matters!

That's fine until a bunch of people all have the same idea, then you might end up with 2000 again. I voted on that principle that year, and never again.

You would have only made a difference in 2000 if you lived in Florida. And even then I would argue that if you really didn't believe in Al Gore, you shouldn't feel compelled to vote for him. The president should be the candidate the most people really believe is best. Not someone who wins through tactical voting and crushing better third parties.

A lot of states in 2000 had more votes for third parties than the gap between the two major candidates. I happened to vote in one, although it went for Gore anyway.

A decent number of people had the idea that they should vote for who they liked rather than voting for the least bad major candidate. And the result of this idea was a major disaster for the country.

I agree, the president should be the candidate most people believe is best. Voters should be able to cast their vote in good conscience without tactical considerations. Third parties should be more than a joke.

But so what? A bunch of shoulds and $5 will get you a Starbucks latte. The system is built such that third parties are not viable. You can either use this knowledge to cast your vote productively, or you can ignore it and waste your time. I'd be all for electoral reform that gives third parties a chance by eliminating the ridiculous first-past-the-post system we have now, but that's a separate question. Casting a pointless vote for a third party does nothing to change the system. Indeed, it basically takes you and your views out of play for the major parties. If people who think that we need electoral reform reliably vote for third parties, then the people who actually wield power will know that they can ignore electoral reform as an issue, because that demographic is unavailable to them regardless.

The system sucks, but it's what we have. Pretending it doesn't work the way it does is not the same as reforming it.

If I have to listen to her speak for four years on the nightly news, I might bail and move to Canada. My ears can't take that kind of prolonged shrieking.

Misogyny has no place here.

You're projecting. I simply said I cannot tolerate the frequencies of her speaking voice. There are men whose voices are profoundly unpleasant to listen to also - it has no bearing on which variety of wedding tackle they are packing. It's like nails on a chalkboard.

Your "criticism" is the lowest of the low. What can anybody do about the "frequency" of their voice? YOU are unpleasant to READ. Consider that - unlike the "problem" you invent this is one that you are actually 100% responsible for.

Sorry, but saying something for a specific woman even if insulting is not misogyny. When the insult is directed at a distinct being is it not -ism.

It isn't about HER, it is about her VOICE. Criticizing someone for something they have zero control over is on a level below the shit layer.

Voice actors tend to disagree with you about the control. And even if it is shit level - still does not make her voice more pleasant to listen to the (grand)grandparent obviously.

So should be a voice actor? Are you completely insane? What idiotic nonsense is your cognitive dissonance "I cannot possibly be wrong regardless how stupid what I said is" going to produce next?

>So should be a voice actor? Are you completely insane? What idiotic nonsense is your cognitive dissonance "I cannot possibly be wrong regardless how stupid what I said is" going to produce next?

I don't mind being insulted, but don't try that approach with other people on HN.

Insulting HRC for her voice is not misogyny. The same way insulting Donald Trump for his baldness is not misandry. End of story. If I interact with 10 women today and insult only one of them and I am respectful towards the other 9 - I may be a jerk, but I am not misogynist.

And anyway being a politician is about the presentation - acting, voice, walking, hitting the gym, looking the look.