No, it's saddening that both parties put pro-war candidates on the ballot. I'm voting Johnson, but if you insist in propping up the two-party duopoly, then Clinton is the least bad choice.

Politics aside, I'm surprised to see him do politics. These are extraordinary times.

It was cool when she said, "I would bomb the shit out of 'em. I would just bomb those suckers. That's right. I'd blow up the pipes. ... I'd blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left."

You surely don't actually believe that Hillary is pro-war and Trump is pro-peace, right? So are you disappointed that he's not supporting Stein or Johnson, or what? (And stevetursi: I have given up on people this election figuring out sarcasm, so for others in this thread, he's quoting Trump.)

@wreichard Yes. This is an artist truly putting his money where his mouth is. Even though I disagree with him (and am not a fan of interrupting comedy with a serious political PSA) I still respect his courage in speaking out in a truly extraordinary political cycle.

As a German, I couldn't care less which of the two fascist idiots will start the next war. I'm stunned about the weird American politics, suggesting that one of those two fascists "must" be the next President. That's all. But yes, if I had the right to vote in the U.S., I'd surely vote for Stein.

That's admirable, and since I'm not a swing state voter I can do something like that. I'm not a fan of Clinton, but my priority right now is to send Trump back to the shit-infested hellhole he came from, and if that means making her president for the next four years, so be it.

It's not about being pro-War, it's about being anti-Trump. An actual, literal fascist augmented by dangerous libertarian rhetoric.

Being "anti-Trump" is a bad excuse to vote for the war.

No, it isn't. It's not an excuse, it's a logical choice. Trump is demonstrably unstable and his election will rally all those who listen to his dog-whistles as being acceptable. There is literally no reason to vote for Trump unless you are a misinformed, (un)willingly bigoted, culturally- and economically-protected white person. And the latter goes for Johnson, as your votes will do nothing but pat your own back at the expense of those who would be killed under a Trump regime.

At least Trump was not an alleged (?!) part of a certain child sex ring. -- What makes you think President Trump would be responsible for deaths and President Clinton would not?

You are German. If you do not understand the difference between Trump, who is stoking xenophobia and racism as a scapegoat for a working class that feels disenfranchised and is moved to violence, and Hillary, all I can tell you is your knowledge of your own post-WWI history is sadly lacking. (And Trump *is* actually accused of raping a 13-year-old, so you appear to have your child sex stories backwards.)

Point of correction: Trump is not libertarian, and neither is his rhetoric. He's more closely resembles an authoritarian, which is the opposite of libertarian.

Trump is literally going to pretrial in December for child rape. There is nothing substantial to the Clinton version. Trump is loudly and enthusiastically fanning the violent flames of racism. Disenfranchised Americans will die.

I think at this point it's clear that our German friend is demonstrably ill-informed and would be advised to have him do his homework before continuing to engage.

@stevetursi Trump's libertarian enough to get Peter Thiel's endorsement. And I was just pondering if he was actually a Troll For Hire.

Clinton already showed her will to lie in order to justify a war when she was a Minister. Trump never was a Minister. Where and when exactly did Trump suggest to send military anywhere to solve a problem?

I get it, you're Clinton fans. Because she's a woman or something. Child rape, lies and lust for military intervention are only bad when you're Trump. Yes, I fail to see the logic here - and that's not because I'm German.

Nordic: Having Thiel's backing does not a libertarian make. Cthu: Again, suggest you do your homework. Answers to all your questions are easy to find.

Steve: My point is that he has overlap. :)

I wouldn't dispute that. It's called nuance. Everybody has a little nuance. (:

And here goes my trust in the newsblur comment sections.

Just came here to say this is all crap. Thanks, Randall, for ruining one of the few last bastions of apolitics.

This is saddening. I too consider Him to be so contemptible that even Her is the lesser evil. But this is not a place for electioneering.

Yes, how very dare Randall express his opinion in his comic, that he draws, and you read for free. What a monster he is. Allow me to clutch my pearls in shock.

"suggesting that one of those two fascists "must" be the next President. That's all. But yes, if I had the right to vote in the U.S., I'd surely vote for Stein." You'd do well to study the electoral college a bit. The US system pretty much enforces a two-party race for President because any prospective candidate _must_ get more than half the electoral college votes. There are 538 of them, so the winner must get 270. Third parties, when they get enough support to be meaningful, siphon off votes from the party they most closely resemble. Not everyone who votes for Clinton this year will be a "fan" but we recognize the mathematics of the electoral process. One of those two people WILL be president next January. Jill Stein will not. Given that choice, I'm With Her, just like Randall