It doesn't even make sense.

I hope tedcruz sees this so he can post this in his stream to make it look out of context. :D

Either be liberal, libertarian, or conservative. Trying to straddle the lines gets us candidates like Trump.

No it doesn't it keeps us away from idiots like Trump. Being a freaking redneck gets us candidates like Trump. You're wrong. Deal with it.

Trump is a very liberal "conservative". He straddles the lines. He gets conservative votes with extreme views on the issues conservatives think are important: gun control, immigration, and wanting to get rid of Obamacare. He is more liberal on many other stances. Just google "how conservative are the candidates 2016 graph" and look at images and try to find one with Trump. Any with Trump have him almost always in dead center.

Being extremely conservative on some issues and liberal on others doesn't make you a moderate. If I think that abortions should be illegal and met with capital punishment, I would be extremely right-wing. If I think college should be not only free but mandatory, I would be extremely left-wing. If I think both those things, It doesn't average out to me being a moderate. I'm still an extremist, even though I "straddle the lines." I get this is an extreme example, but you seem to be more fond of extremism than moderation anyway.

Actually, Trump only fits into the middle because he doesn't belong on the chart. His position "evolves" quite rapidly for someone who doesn't believe in evolution -- oh wait, he changed his mind again, evolution is real! This guy is inconsistent on everything but his more racist, xenophobic, and chauvinistic comments.
He changed his position on abortion, and I'm not joking or exaggerating, FIVE TIMES IN ONE DAY! I watch Colbert's new show and he described Trump as "...He flip-flopped, then flap-flup-flooped!"
This is why Trump is in the middle of the graph. He changes his position rapidly to appeal to as many uneducated or ignorant people as possible, and he knows that his followers will still lap up whatever he switches to. Hell, Trump just took a standard Republican tactic and amped it up to the next level.

True that.

I think flip-flopping in policies is often over-exaggerated. You never ever get the context of what was said. And in response to your statement, "Trump just took a standard Republican tactic and amped it up to the next level": both parties do it, it's not just a "republican thing" or "democrat thing", it's a politics thing.

Granted, it is something that politicians do in general, but if you look carefully, Democrats tend to change their positions over longer periods of time and the changes are far less extreme. Republican rhetoric has been shown to change with their current audience. Cruz went out of his way in Iowa to garner an extra 60 votes by saying he wanted to remove the limitations on private firework launching. Several of the Republican candidates railed against progressive immigration reform during a debate, then turned right around and started talking about their parents who were immigrants who could hardly speak English to pander to their immigrant supporters.
Hillary and Bernie stayed consistent on their main talking points throughout the race, but their conservative counterparts had a ball doing the opposite. Pandering like that is one of the ways Republicans have stayed in power so long.

All of those examples are "pandering", not "flip-flopping". That means changing your political stance, not pointing out different things to endear yourself to your constituency.

They pander by changing their positions. I think I just said that two or three different ways. In order to pander to different groups with different opinions, they have to flip-flop in order to garner the favor of as many different people as possible.
So yes, I clearly do know what that word means. Do you know how to put two and two together to make four, or do you always get a fish?
Sorry, my bad. That's not "F-I-S-H," it should be "G-H-O-T-I." Don't ask.

I'm not sure how this makes any sense whatsoever. How does being more extreme prevent extremists?

A good point. Extremist responses to extremist actions are part of what caused the majority of our current problems, such as terrorism and nuclear weapons proliferation.

Yeah. You can really see it in our politics, too. On the left we have Trump, Cruz, etc. and on the left we have people like Bernie and his ilk. At this point people's opinions can be so extremely polarized that just stating something about a candidate can start an argument.

They somehow came to the conclusion that Trump and Hillary are switched...
I don't understand how humans can be so stupid at times...

Count your blessings, eh?

Uh, no? Gary Johnson? Vote libertarian.

Thank God, we really need to get the word out man.

He has essentially no chance at winning, but the chance exists that he can get into a debate, so just telling pollsters you'll vote for him even if you don't support him can help raise people's awareness of third parties. Honestly, I want him to get into debates just to watch the chaos that will ensue once everyone realizes there are other candidates. Also, he climbed Mount Everest. Just a fun fact.

"I'm going to vote for the lesser of two evils instead of the non-evil because I'm wasting my vote if I don't vote for evil." -Every asshole American

Sure it makes sense. They get the most media attention, so ignorant people vote for them since it's the only two names they recognize on the list of candidates.

Trump is the less hated. She f**king hates homossexuals and is racist. Who the f**k wants her?

Bahahahaha lol

Obviously lol