One or the other, but it won't be because of my vote.
So your vote has no effect on the election, then? You're choosing to use your vote in a way that deliberately reduces its impact on SCOTUS nominees?
So which do you prefer: liberal or conservative SCOTUS judges? There are real, substantive differences between them. If you DO have a preference, why are you choosing to use your vote in a way that you claim will not express that preference? Or, do you live in a state where you know that by withholding your vote from a candidate that actually can win, you know that you're already supporting the viable candidate that will sit the judges you want? Address this issue in less of a cop-out, non-answer way than you already have.
Not interested in prison yard bullshit.
Prison yard. I see. Replacement meds haven't arrived in the mail yet, today? Check the tracking number, maybe they're out for delivery.
You can't hold us responsible for people we didn't vote for.
One of two candidates is going to win. When you choose to vote for a third party or not vote at all, you are making a choice that will impact one of only two outcomes. Wishing that away because you don't like it is just childish.
Stop acting like the only choice is to vote for someone you find slightly less abhorrent than someone else you find to be completely abhorrent. That only continues the problem.
As for continuing the problem: No. The only thing that makes third party candidates unviable is the third party candidates and politics themselves. The Greens are trotting out an anti-science doctor, and the Libertarians are presenting an isolationist guy who's banking on the recreational drug user vote. THAT is what "continues the problem."
our black and white thinking has made you incapable of even phrasing a question accurately, IMO.
But it's a black and white matter. Something you're wishing it weren't.
If you vote for Clinton or Trump, you're making a simple choice - support one or the other. If you have the ability to vote, and choose to either vote for someone that cannot win or choose not to vote at all, then depending on your local demographics, you are still - through that choice - supporting either Trump or Clinton. That you're pretending otherwise means you really need to re-evaluate your own understanding of what's at stake.
This is getting as bad as the birthers. Which Trump says Clinton started
Right, he should have been more specific. It was a Clinton campaign worker that started that, and was then thrown under the bus because it was done so publicly. Enter the usual Clinton stealth operative, Sidney Blumenthal, who talked it up behind the scenes where he normally performs his mercenarial tasks.
The Republicans have pissed me off so much with their brinkmanship over the last 8 years
Then why aren't you pissed at the Democrats, who ALSO refuse to get behind things they don't like? Why aren't you pissed at Obama for his own refusal to sign legislation that isn't changed until he likes it, or his own refusal to sign off and budgets and appropriations that don't check the boxes he wants checked? It's impossible for only one branch of the government to play "brinksmanship" - Obama is a 100% eager player that is just as unwilling to budge as the people you're saying you dislike. You're disingenuously cherry-picking so you can display some phony or low-information outrage.
I'm not religious, and derive my code of ethics from reason. But let's look at the list you're saying the people you don't like have forgotten:
Thou shalt not kill.
Which in the original language was "thou shalt no murder" (see the difference?)
Love thy neighbor.
Which you don't seem to be doing.
Turn the other cheek.
Meaning, man up. That's not the same as "let someone kill you."
Blessed are the meek.
How do YOU interpret that? That sounds like a religion throwing a metaphysical fantasy bone to those who've had bad luck or haven't made anything of themselves.
Blessed are the peace makers.
So, people who take the step necessary to shut down the violence-makers - those are peace makers, right? There's a reason that one of Samuel Colt's masterpieces was called The Peacemaker.
Even if I am going to end up with it, I prefer not choosing it too.
So, which candidate do you hope (or expect) will be helped by you not making a choice?