What makes the refusal to vote for Hillary Clinton even worse, is that the people who refuse to vote for her can't comprehend the idea that, yes, this country and, more broadly, the world could easily become a toxic heap of radioactive sludge that would be deadly to all, regardless of one's skin color or one's religious preference or one's sexual orientation. Ultimately, our continued existence as a species is what is at stake in this election: we have a candidate who is mentally unstable and one who is not. We have one who believes that climate change is a hoax and one who acknowledges that is real. We have a candidate who believes that the Geneva Convention's binding rules of war ought to be shredded and we have a candidate who pledges to respect the Geneva Convention. I could go on and on and on like this but you get my point: we are standing on a precipice right now. There's a clear choice between someone who embodies evil in every possible way and someone who is totally palatable. Make the right choice and feel proud about this. Own your decision to vote for Hillary Clinton and feel proud about it: you are doing your part to save the world and you will be pumping the breaks on the doomsday train.
I don't think I'm exaggerating about this: over the past few years, the world has become increasingly dangerous, increasingly intolerant, increasingly militaristic and increasingly Evil. No more. I'm not willing to put up with this anymore and my vote for Clinton has symbolic value as a vote against the monsters who thrive on bigotry and hatred and Know-Nothingism and militarism and racism and ignorance. Make it stop: vote for Clinton.
A vote for Clinton has symbolic value against militarism? Good grief.
Welp, you can't say that I didn't try to warn the forum that this was one of the biggest Trump risks.
You really don't have ground to gloat here. Clinton was a militarist candidate who enabled intervention in Libya and pushed for the same in Syria. That Trump is also a militarist is regrettable, but it's not like we had a serious alternative on this matter, your own melodramatic hyperbole aside.
"it's not like we had a serious alternative on this matter"
Militarist crook with terrible domestic agenda? Or BIGLY businessman with reasonable sounding foreign policy and decent domestic policy? I won't speak for PiT, but we all know who the actual serious alternative was.