5 comments

[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 16.2 ms ] thread
I suppose it makes sense that moderates are more likely to punish candidates for just about any given behavior.

Remember that for the extremes you need to add implied caveats of "would you punish this candidate by voting for someone who wants to murder babies" or "would you punish this candidate by voting for someone who wants to put all black people in jail"

I think that most people would agree that murder and locking up people based upon race are also "undemocratic" and those are the stakes for voting for the opposition party, from the point of view of the extreme.

"The tree of liberty..."

I personally think this general lack of education and understanding of how the world works is going to end with a painful lesson.

People think democracy is something that doesn't directly concern them (or don't think at all because they were never actually brought up to the standard). The sad reality is this is slippery slope into another war of some kind. I say this because, historically, this is what happens in these circumstances.

I call bullshit on this one.

America is using a two-party system, If you can't vote for one candidate, then there is practically only one option left..

So, the question here is really just: "Is the difference between the two candidates so small that one really bad thing done by your favorite candidate enough to make you favor the other one?"