Just as being a poor republican makes little sense, I cannot vote for Hillary.

[George II]

268. Well....

...with respect to Warren, if her comments are intended to obfuscate (which I doubt), I don't like the little game she's playing. If not, you're playing the semantics game. Regardless of the words she used, she will not run and you know it (or should know it).

With respect to Sanders, I repeat he CAN NOT run for the Democratic nomination. That's what I said. And if he runs third-party (which he said he wouldn't) I won't vote for him. Not because he's not a Democrat but because he has less than a zero chance of winning.

You see, I'm a little practical. Every election I look at the candidates, the ones I would NOT like to see in office and the ones I would like to see in office. If there are two appealing candidates the sensible thing would be to vote for the one that has the best chance of winning than one that may be just a little "better" in my eyes but who has no chance of winning. What's the point of using my vote for someone who won't win other that for "principle". By voting for "principle", I'd could spend the next four or more years ruing my "principled" vote.

Use the bush, Gore, Nader election of 2000 as an example. Everyone knew Nader would not win, but some voted for Nader anyway on "principle", and where did it get us? Had they voted for Gore we might have tens of thousands of Americans still alive, many more Iraqis and others in the middle east alive, perhaps no ISIS to deal with, and trillions of dollars more in our treasury.

Thanks to those who voted for Nader we're still paying off two wars and fighting terrorists that were born out of the bush wars.

Thanks Ralph and your impractical supporters. I'm voting for Clinton next year.