Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

[thesalmonofdoubt]

Ok - so I get that Hilary is far from a perfect candidate and this isn't a discussion around why she would be awesome. But its mystifying to me that there seems to be a whole heap of rhetoric from Democrats saying that they will never vote for Hilary at all even now that Bernie is out of the running. So, Unless I am misunderstanding how it all works in the States, the election is down to two contenders .. Hilary and Trump.

Regardless of how you feel about each individually, whether you think one is awesome or both are awesome or both are crap or one is crap .. the choice here remains Hilary or Trump.. The only possible outcome is either Hilary gets in or Trump gets in .. right?

So, it comes down to, out of these two, who would be best or least worst at running the country.. cos it is inevitable that one of them will eventually end up running the country. Out of the two, it seems reasonably obvious that Hilary, with all her flaws, is still streets ahead of Trump.

So - if you feel Trump is less bad than Hilary - fine, vote for Trump or do nothing at all. But that doesn't seem to be the case with the dialogue I am reading - people still seem to be behaving like Bernie is a viable candidate so its more a refusal to vote for Hilary under any circumstances - which given the possible outcomes seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face type thinking.

So - what am I missing here?

[Boomer]

The reason why Trump and Bernie had so much run this election cycle is that they are both billed as anti-establishment candidates (Trump certainly is, Bernie less so). Even though Trump is crook, racist, misogynist buffoon people are having a hard time reconciling their anti-establishment sentiments with the idea of voting for Clinton who is the poster-child for establishment, partisan politics.

People feel the system failed them, and it has. That out of a nation of 300,000,000 people the best candidates to surface are Trump and Clinton would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.

It'd be nice if we could take this opportunity to examine electoral reform or actually give third party candidates fair consideration, but people are advocating lesser evil voting left and right instead of examining why we are contemplating voting in evil at all.

[thesalmonofdoubt]

I can certainly understand that there is a temptation to vote against the established status quo and that from a democratic perspective, Bernie fit into that space well given his policies for the most part, seemed reasonable.

I dunno if what you are saying is that Trump, being the only remaining Anti establishment candidate left means that he becomes the next best choice regardless of his actual policies/rhetoric etc simply because he remains anti establishment.. if that is what is driving this meme, then It would seem I am not really missing anything. Its just a spectacularly flawed view on what should happen based on stance against rather than what that stance stands for ...


Thanks for your reply

[CashRules]

I disagree strongly with the lesser of two evils approach. When you vote for the lesser of two evils that means you are still voting for evil. That kind of "surrender to complacency" is how we end up with such a horrible choice in major party candidates. Both Trump and Clinton are not just bad, they are genuinely evil human beings. Regardless of the fact that neither the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson; nor the Green party candidate, Jill Stein, has even a remote chance of winning, I will still have more respect for someone who votes for one of those two candidates than someone who chooses between Vlad The Impaler and Elizabeth Bathory. At least they will be voting with a conscience and voting FOR a candidate rather than voting simply to vote AGAINST the other major party candidate.

[Boomer]

Its just a spectacularly flawed view on what should happen based on stance against rather than what that stance stands for ...

American politics in a nutshell.

[thesalmonofdoubt]

I disagree strongly with the lesser of two evils approach. When you vote for the lesser of two evils that means you are still voting for evil. That kind of "surrender to complacency" is how we end up with such a horrible choice in major party candidates. Both Trump and Clinton are not just bad, they are genuinely evil human beings. Regardless of the fact that neither the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson; nor the Green party candidate, Jill Stein, has even a remote chance of winning, I will still have more respect for someone who votes for one of those two candidates than someone who chooses between Vlad The Impaler and Elizabeth Bathory. At least they will be voting with a conscience and voting FOR a candidate rather than voting simply to vote AGAINST the other major party candidate.

As a principal, I'd 100% agree with you and you are correct, voting in evil is still voting in evil.

In reality tho - even given the above paradigm, evil is still going to get voted in regardless and so in recognition of that and given the current lay of the land, my view would be to do everything to ensure the worst of the two available choices does not make it in given one of these two will make it in and that will be the reality you will have to live with going forward. I'm always going to favour a pragmatic approach than an idealistic one, moreso when the likely outcome has crushing real world considerations.

So - yeah I hear what you are saying but it all boils down to Trump or Hilary as it stands in reality and so in reality I need to decided whether what I do in terms of my voting increases Trumps chance of making it to office or has no net affect regardless of how I feel about who would be my ideal candidate.

I'm not sure how it works in the states as opposed to here and this could be a part of the issue. Here, we have a two party system but then each party forms alliances with the minor parties. So what I end up doing is vote on the basis of the lessor of two evils and put all my secondary votes down to whoever I wish to influence in terms of the balance of power in the house. This way I recognise that one of the two parties is going to get in and I work on the one that I would rather .. but also it gives a ton of power to a minor party that can bend one of the two parties to its will and vote with influence on tied/contentious issues.

So - I vote liberal for their fiscal policy knowing we would have a close election and then put all my secondary votes to the Greens and equality parties that ended up getting enuff seats in parliament to force the incumbent party to align with them in order to control the senate - That way its the best of both worlds from a pragmatic pov.

[CashRules]

The problem here is that no minor party candidates even get elected to Congress because of FPTP and Federal funding laws. Of 100 U.S. Senators and 435 U.S. Representatives every single one of them is either a Republican or Democrat with the exception of two independent Senators who are functionally Democrats:

https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_current ... ._Congress

Until a system is developed to end this, the situation will never change. Even in state legislatures there are few independents and minor party representatives. However, the two parties will continue to vote for laws that guarantee that only those two parties will remain in power. For all their faux disagreements, both major parties would rather see the other major party with a majority than to ever see enough Senators and Representatives from minor parties to prevent any one party from maintaining control. Give Democrats a choice between needing to form an alliance with the Greens to control Congress or Congress remaining a two-party entity with the Republicans in control and they will choose a Republican controlled Congress. The same applies if the Republicans were given a choice between forming a Republican-Libertarian alliance or having the Democrats in clear control. To do otherwise would be allowing for the downfall of the two-party system and they will not allow it. The only way this can ever change, and it's doubtful it ever will, is for the voters to get fed up and force the issue themselves. As extremely unlikely as that is to ever happen it's even more unlikely as long as people make a choice between two evils.

[Gendo]

I disagree strongly with the lesser of two evils approach. When you vote for the lesser of two evils that means you are still voting for evil. That kind of "surrender to complacency" is how we end up with such a horrible choice in major party candidates. Both Trump and Clinton are not just bad, they are genuinely evil human beings. Regardless of the fact that neither the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson; nor the Green party candidate, Jill Stein, has even a remote chance of winning, I will still have more respect for someone who votes for one of those two candidates than someone who chooses between Vlad The Impaler and Elizabeth Bathory. At least they will be voting with a conscience and voting FOR a candidate rather than voting simply to vote AGAINST the other major party candidate.

All of this.

(Though there is a part of me that's almost tempted to vote democrat for the first time in my life because Hillary is more or less just business as usual, while Trump genuinely scares me).

[CashRules]

If I bother voting at all this time it will be for Gary Johnson, although I can respect people who vote for Jill Stein.

[thesalmonofdoubt]

Until a system is developed to end this, the situation will never change. Even in state legislatures there are few independents and minor party representatives. However, the two parties will continue to vote for laws that guarantee that only those two parties will remain in power. For all their faux disagreements, both major parties would rather see the other major party with a majority than to ever see enough Senators and Representatives from minor parties to prevent any one party from maintaining control. Give Democrats a choice between needing to form an alliance with the Greens to control Congress or Congress remaining a two-party entity with the Republicans in control and they will choose a Republican controlled Congress. The same applies if the Republicans were given a choice between forming a Republican-Libertarian alliance or having the Democrats in clear control. To do otherwise would be allowing for the downfall of the two-party system and they will not allow it. The only way this can ever change, and it's doubtful it ever will, is for the voters to get fed up and force the issue themselves. As extremely unlikely as that is to ever happen it's even more unlikely as long as people make a choice between two evils.

Yeah - this is quite a different system than the one we have here. In fact, we've just had an election and the result was undecided for about three weeks because of this dynamic. Neither party had a majority in the house of Reps offa their own back and so both of the major parties had to run about courting the independants in order to be able to declare a majority. And even now that they have a majority, all lower house decisions are effectively going to be decided by these lessor parties given there is nothing that dictates their voting going forward.
Which is both good and bad .. it leaves us with a very unstable lower house which could fracture any economic resolve by the incumbent party .. but it also holds the incumbent party to ideals that they wouldn't otherwise take into consideration .


With regards to American politics - from an outsiders POV .. the thought of Trump making it into government is my only real concern at this stage. AS Gendo Said - Hilary making it is would be effectively - BAU .. Not great but also, not globally destabilising, if Trump makes it in - I expect the effects on the global stage to be somewhat worse than what happened when you had Bush Jnr ...

[thesalmonofdoubt]

As a side note - I'm actually in the States at the moment so - if anyone is in the Detroit area .. Give me a hoy.

Being here is why I'm renewing my interest in your politics .. It's driving me nuts that I literally cannot turn on a TV without seeing Hilary or Trump every five minutes - I realise that Hotels have limited cable options that essentially par down your choices to News or fifteen different flavours of ESPN .. but fuckin hell ... talk about something else for fucks sake.

Also - why can't you get a decent cup of coffee in this country ??

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

.

Also - why can't you get a decent cup of coffee in this country ??

It's our punishment for throwing tea into the harbor.

Also:

http://www.traveller.com.au/how-to-surv ... ffee-2y9yx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CashRules]

Wait, some Americans threw Australian tea into a harbor? I didn't even know we imported tea from Australia.

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

Wait, some Americans threw Australian tea into a harbor? I didn't even know we imported tea from Australia.

I edited the post.

[thesalmonofdoubt]

.

Also - why can't you get a decent cup of coffee in this country ??

It's our punishment for throwing tea into the harbor.

Also:

http://www.traveller.com.au/how-to-surv ... ffee-2y9yx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Guessing you initially said something to the effect of "Throwing your tea into the harbour" ..

I was kinda taking the piss but cheers for the reading on where to get a good ish coffee -

I've always hated the coffee here and over breakfast this morning reminded of that and I was feeling all pissy because one of my Ex Mrs mates flew over to Melbourne a few weeks ago and on her facebook she said something like "And I just can't work out the weird coffee situation here" .. to which I said something like "if you think you can't get a good coffee in Melbourne then chances are you don't know what good coffee is" and she replied ..well I went to the store and asked for a triple pump caramel latte and the guy just looked at me blankly - and I'm like, maybe if you ordered a coffee instead of a flavoured caffeinated drink you would get a coffee .. and she was all like I know what good coffee is I'm from Oregon and Oregon and Seattle are famous for their coffee .. at which point I just stopped cos the point remains that if you think ordering a coffee with 3 pumps of caramel flavouring is a) something that should be available everywhere and B) means you like/know coffee, then you are a fuckstick who is immune to reason.

So - there's that and the fact that I can't stand the bitch anyways .. as a point in case, she came over to mine with Ann and I was like "So, getting used to Australia" and she kinda rolled her eyes and went "Pfshhhh" .. and I was like .. it's really not THAT different to the states, coffee is better, we drive on the other side of the road and there is less chance of getting shot but aside from that, we live in houses that are built on streets .. there are major cities, we speak English, we have super markets and pretty much the same sort of food, I mean, its hardly a case of "How will I ever come to grips with all this strangeness" and then I thought, there really is no point. If someone from one western country is culture shocked at another western country then that person is hardly a rational agent.. and left it at that

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

.

Also - why can't you get a decent cup of coffee in this country ??

It's our punishment for throwing tea into the harbor.

Also:

http://www.traveller.com.au/how-to-surv ... ffee-2y9yx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Guessing you initially said something to the effect of "Throwing your tea into the harbour" ..

I was kinda taking the piss but cheers for the reading on where to get a good ish coffee -

I've always hated the coffee here and over breakfast this morning reminded of that and I was feeling all pissy because one of my Ex Mrs mates flew over to Melbourne a few weeks ago and on her facebook she said something like "And I just can't work out the weird coffee situation here" .. to which I said something like "if you think you can't get a good coffee in Melbourne then chances are you don't know what good coffee is" and she replied ..well I went to the store and asked for a triple pump caramel latte and the guy just looked at me blankly - and I'm like, maybe if you ordered a coffee instead of a flavoured caffeinated drink you would get a coffee .. and she was all like I know what good coffee is I'm from Oregon and Oregon and Seattle are famous for their coffee .. at which point I just stopped cos the point remains that if you think ordering a coffee with 3 pumps of caramel flavouring is a) something that should be available everywhere and B) means you like/know coffee, then you are a fuckstick who is immune to reason.

So - there's that and the fact that I can't stand the bitch anyways .. as a point in case, she came over to mine with Ann and I was like "So, getting used to Australia" and she kinda rolled her eyes and went "Pfshhhh" .. and I was like .. it's really not THAT different to the states, coffee is better, we drive on the other side of the road and there is less chance of getting shot but aside from that, we live in houses that are built on streets .. there are major cities, we speak English, we have super markets and pretty much the same sort of food, I mean, its hardly a case of "How will I ever come to grips with all this strangeness" and then I thought, there really is no point. If someone from one western country is culture shocked at another western country then that person is hardly a rational agent.. and left it at that

I grew up in America and I hate the stuff. It DOES take oversweetening it to make it taste any good, so I just don't drink it. I'll have to try it when I go international.

[Monk]

Yeah, I'm voting for Clinton. With her, things will be similar to Obama. With Trump, who knows wtf will happen. And if he wins, the GOP will control all three branches of the Federal government, which will likely lead to massive cuts that will hurt the lower middle class and really fuck the poor. Never mind the Supreme Court appointments.

But fears of Bernie supporters not voting for Hillary are a bit overblown. There was actually more of a division between Obama/Clinton voters in 2008, and something like 9/10 of Clinton supporters voted for Obama. The same thing seems to be true for Berners, but a few very vocal supporters give the impression that more will not support her

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/26/12284960/b ... ry-clinton

[Boomer]

Just out of curiosity what massive cuts do you think will happen?

[Monk]

Food stamps/SNAP, EPA, Dept. of education, prob Medicare/Medicaid, etc etc

[OpiateOfTheMasses]

Just out of curiosity what massive cuts do you think will happen?

Privatisation of air.

[Boomer]

Food stamps/SNAP, EPA, Dept. of education, prob Medicare/Medicaid, etc etc

I don't really see that happening at all. For all the bluster Republicans like to spout about small government, the fact is they've never repealed any major progressive programs, and this won't be the first time they've held control over the Presidency and Congress at the same time.

At the end of the day most democrats and republicans are so centrist that they are indistinguishable from one another; the majority of both sides want these progressive programs because they expand the power and scope of the government which equals more power for them.

[Anakin McFly]

A friend shared this article on FB; what are your thoughts on it? http://www.vox.com/a/hillary-clinton-in ... ip-quality

[Boomer]

I have no doubt that 99.99% of politicians are vastly different behind the scenes compared to what they present as their public persona. However, trying to paint a vague positive picture of Clinton by interviewing individuals who presumably are working in politics isn't very convincing to me. No staffers of Clinton's, current or former, nor even moderate Republicans are going to brazenly bad-mouth the incumbent Democratic Presidential nominee. It'd be like trying to move up in a company where you publicly talk shit about the CEO.

I can believe Clinton is brilliant and articulate in private while being a terrible public speaker, there are plenty of geniuses who share that trait. Hell, she could have an IQ surpassing Einstein's.

I don't particularly give a shit.

The fact is there hasn't been a major military engagement Clinton hasn't supported in her role as a senator or as Secretary of State. Even if she wasn't a career populist and opportunist, even if I believed she was genuinely sorry about her Iraq War vote, it doesn't matter to me.

The Iraq War is the biggest foreign policy blunder in American history and our military interventionist policy is the biggest threat to world peace today. Supporting either is grounds enough to disqualify a candidate in my eyes, and this is just ONE issue of many that I disagree with Clinton on.

[Anakin McFly]

Thanks.

Speaking as an outsider, her support for war is the main thing that bothers me. But she also seems to be someone who is willing to learn and change her views over time - not necessarily just to win votes - which is far more than can be said about Trump. I've also seen Sanders supporters talk about getting her voted in first so that the ground can still be open for them to work for change, including in the electoral system.

Most of us outside the US are terrified at the possibility of a Trump presidency. I understand that people want to vote with their conscience and not out of fear, and ideally that should be the case, but I'm not sure if the world would be able to survive President Trump long enough for any positive change to happen or even have the chance to begin.

[Derived Absurdity]

A friend shared this article on FB; what are your thoughts on it? http://www.vox.com/a/hillary-clinton-in ... ip-quality

Extremely long, extremely boring, pointless, rambling, hagiographic, substance-free, etc. Typical Vox, really.

[Boomer]

Thanks.

Speaking as an outsider, her support for war is the main thing that bothers me. But she also seems to be someone who is willing to learn and change her views over time - not necessarily just to win votes - which is far more than can be said about Trump. I've also seen Sanders supporters talk about getting her voted in first so that the ground can still be open for them to work for change, including in the electoral system.

I disagree that Hillary does anything without the sole intention of getting votes, with maybe the exception of doing things that will make her and her cronies rich.

She's concocted stories about being under sniper fire that were pure fiction. She blatantly lied about her personal e-mail server under FBI investigation. There's nothing about her that's genuine.

[Monk]

Food stamps/SNAP, EPA, Dept. of education, prob Medicare/Medicaid, etc etc

I don't really see that happening at all. For all the bluster Republicans like to spout about small government, the fact is they've never repealed any major progressive programs, and this won't be the first time they've held control over the Presidency and Congress at the same time.

At the end of the day most democrats and republicans are so centrist that they are indistinguishable from one another; the majority of both sides want these progressive programs because they expand the power and scope of the government which equals more power for them.

The GOP has been pulled much farther to the right than it was under W's presidency. Ryan's budget proposals have advocated for such, and the SNAP program has already been cut pretty substantially. Note I'm not saying they're getting rid of these programs entirely, but they're going to cut funding dramatically to them.

[Cassius Clay]

This thread is crazy. I know we joke about how both sides are basically the same, but they really aren't literally the same. The GOP is completely nuts. Hilary obviously isn't great, but a whole lot of people don't have the luxury of voting strictly on principle.

[Monk]

This thread is crazy. I know we joke about how both sides are basically the same, but they really aren't literally the same. The GOP is completely nuts. Hilary obviously isn't great, but a whole lot of people don't have the luxury of voting strictly on principle.

This

[Boomer]

This thread is crazy. I know we joke about how both sides are basically the same, but they really aren't literally the same. The GOP is completely nuts. Hilary obviously isn't great, but a whole lot of people don't have the luxury of voting strictly on principle.

See, this is the issue I have with the lesser evil voting mentality, that the sentiment we have to adopt is basically: "eh, Hillary isn't great, but what can you do?"

Um, can we maybe have a discussion about electoral reform? Maybe try to research viable third-party candidates and make an attempt to urge our media to offer them fair coverage and debate time?

If we deem it acceptable that out of a nation of 300,00,000 people all we are presented with on voting day is a racist/ponzi-scheme running/reality tv buffoon on one side of the ballot and a pathological liar/ war hawk/crony capitalist on the other, then let's be real and acknowledge that, outside of a violent revolution, we're never going to have a system of more than two parties and we're never going to have an electoral system where the will of the populace actually matters.

Because, if we can't have that dialogue now when presented with these candidates, who would it take for us as a nation to throw up our hands and finally refuse to participate in this bullshit?

Robo-mecha Hitler vs Zombie Strom Thurmond?

[Anakin McFly]

The problem is I don't see how that discussion can take place if Trump becomes president, whereas if Hillary does, it can still happen.

[CashRules]

The problem is I don't see how that discussion can take place if Trump becomes president, whereas if Hillary does, it can still happen.

How is a discussion on electoral reform likely to take place under Hillary? She literally just benefitted from the DNC cheating and making sure her only serious challenger had no chance. You're saying we can have a real discussion about electoral reform with a President who will block any attempt at electoral reform. That is one topic that would be far more likely to be considered under Trump, a man with no concrete ties to any political party and who has been a member of three different parties over the last 20 or 25 years. Does anybody remember that he was once a Presidential candidate on the Reform Party ticket?

[CashRules]

Re-posting this from elsewhere:

Stop trying to shame people into voting for a neo-imperialist over a fascist. Just because their bullshit doesn't look the same doesn't mean they're functionally any different. We're tired of being forced into voting for what we would prefer our oppression to look like. The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is that one is blatant while the other disguises itself as "progress" so long as their privileges remain in tact. And please do us all a favor and save your comments on why we should all just "suck it up" because of Trump. If Trump wins its because we live in a fucked-up country, NOT because of the people who refuse to participate in the same system that got him the nomination to begin with.

[Faustus5]

Anyone who thinks Clinton and Trump are not functionally different from one another is just an idiot when it comes to politics. Sorry if that quote was from someone I normally like, but he/she is being an ideological nitwit there. Their inclinations for Supreme Court picks by themselves should be enough to clearly favor a Clinton vote over Trump.

The US is a screwed up country with a screwed up system and a population that is stupid by design, and that's why we're stuck with the disgusting choice we have in front of us. But don't pretend to have progressive politics if you don't understand why stopping Trump is important enough to put the Clinton-monster into office.

[CashRules]

So the way to fix the screwed up system is to continue voting for one of the two parties responsible for the screwed up system? Sorry, no. If I vote it will be for Gary Johnson and then no matter whether the winner is Hillary or Trump, neither I nor people who vote for Jill Stein will be responsible for continuing to support the screwed up system.

[Faustus5]

So the way to fix the screwed up system is to continue voting for one of the two parties responsible for the screwed up system?

Did I say that? No, I did not.

The way to fix the system does not involve making posts on the Internet. It involves actually working to fix the system, either by at least sending money to the folks who are in a position to do so, or going as far as to actually work in politics. It doesn't take much to attend a caucus where you get your voice heard at the ground level. (I'd be willing to make a small wager that I'm the only one here who has done that, or handed out leaflets as part of a get out the vote effort. I don't do these things as often as I should.)

A vote for Clinton is not a vote to fix the system, but a vote to prevent something. If you don't think that preventing a nightmare like Trump is worth the pain of a Clinton White House, then as far as I'm concerned, you deserve whatever happens if he's elected.

[Boomer]

Anyone who thinks Clinton and Trump are not functionally different from one another is just an idiot when it comes to politics. Sorry if that quote was from someone I normally like, but he/she is being an ideological nitwit there. Their inclinations for Supreme Court picks by themselves should be enough to clearly favor a Clinton vote over Trump.

The US is a screwed up country with a screwed up system and a population that is stupid by design, and that's why we're stuck with the disgusting choice we have in front of us. But don't pretend to have progressive politics if you don't understand why stopping Trump is important enough to put the Clinton-monster into office.

It's already been established under our current president that American citizens can be extrajudiciously executed, held in custody indefinitely with no formal charges, and that warrantless NSA record collection can be used in domestic cases.

But yeah, better make sure the correct people get picked for the Supreme Court so our rights don't get trampled on.

[CashRules]

I'm not going to intentionally vote for corruption. I'm not going to vote for condoning sexual assault. I'm definitely not going to vote for blowing up innocent children. I've also stated several times that I'm not voting for Trump so the responsibility for what happens if he is elected lies solely with those who do vote for him.

[Derived Absurdity]

If Trump wins (which he won't), the responsibility will be solely on two, and only two, groups of people: those who actually voted for him, and those who voted for a challenger who is so repulsive that she made sure that large swathes of people couldn't bring themselves to support her. The blame should not rest on those people who can't support Hillary; the blame should rest on those who actively supported such a vile person in the first place and made sure she was the only possible alternative.

[CashRules]

It's already been established under our current president that American citizens can be extrajudiciously executed, held in custody indefinitely with no formal charges, and that warrantless NSA record collection can be used in domestic cases.

But yeah, better make sure the correct people get picked for the Supreme Court so our rights don't get trampled on.

There's also the fact that Hillary's potential SC nominations will be just as much a threat to civil rights as would Trump's, at least to anyone who cares about all civil rights for all people and not just those rights they personally enjoy and or approve. Gay marriage might come under attack with a Trump presidency, but all five justices who voted in favor of it are currently still there. Meanwhile, Heller vs. DC and McDonald vs. Chicago are in jeopardy of being overturned just as soon as Hillary takes office because one of the five justices who voted correctly on those two decisions is dead. The right of my pet lesbians to get married, if they choose, is important, but it takes second place to their right to protect themselves from the bigots who would do them harm due to their sexuality. Of course this isn't the right board to bring up that fact and it's even less the right board with the loss of dragon, who has decided to stop posting here for whatever reason. No, I have no interest in hearing anyone say "Nobody is trying to take your guns." because the left is trying to take my guns in incremental steps just as sure as the right is trying to decimate Roe V. Wade in incremental steps.

[CashRules]

If Trump wins (which he won't), the responsibility will be solely on two, and only two, groups of people: those who actually voted for him, and those who voted for a challenger who is so repulsive that she made sure that large swathes of people couldn't bring themselves to support her. The blame should not rest on those people who can't support Hillary; the blame should rest on those who actively supported such a vile person in the first place and made sure she was the only possible alternative.

We should have been best friends all along.

[Derived Absurdity]

[CashRules]

I'm just not as sure Trump won't win as I was a few weeks ago. The DNC e-mail scandal is the kind of thing he can use to his advantage if he has the skill to pull it off. Hillary wants that one swept under the rug as soon as possible. Julian Assange even admits he's trying to sabotage Hillary's chances the same way she and the DNC sabotaged Bernie so it may not even be over yet.

[thesalmonofdoubt]

Yeah - I'm not sure Trumps not in here with an excellent chance and I certainly wouldn't be acting like it is inevitable that he will fail .. he's made it this far against all reasonable expectations and he's still (at least until recently - haven't checked for a few days following the DNC) .. polling well ..

I understand the objections to people voting for the lesser of two evils .. it just doesn't resonate with me .. From my POV, if you are presented with only two actual outcomes, then the lesser of two evils all you have to work with at a practical level.

The way I look at it is, lets say I have been diagnosed with terminal cancer and my choices are die slowly of cancer or choose a quick painless option .. or start eating healthy and quit smoking and take up running .. the latter us certainly an option but it doesn't actually address the issue at hand .. that being that no matter what else I do, I am going to die one way or another and if I want to die in the least worse way possible, then I'm going to have to act like I am going to die, not like something is going to change.

Each to his own -

[Monk]

So the way to fix the screwed up system is to continue voting for one of the two parties responsible for the screwed up system? Sorry, no. If I vote it will be for Gary Johnson and then no matter whether the winner is Hillary or Trump, neither I nor people who vote for Jill Stein will be responsible for continuing to support the screwed up system.

Third parties aren't going to work in the US due to the winner-take-all method of our elections. At best you'll probably see a replacement of one party for another, but never a sustained third party without fundamentally changing how elections are held.

Third-party candidates in Presidential elections are basically useless and have no conceivable chance of winning. You don't create a viable third party by running a Presidential candidate every 4 years - you do so by building up support at the local and state level, eventually bolstering enough support that you can run viable Federal candidates. The Green Party is especially guilty of this. Simply running a Presidential candidate who does better than expected isn't going to create a new party.

[Monk]

And for people confident that Trump won't win, he's now basically polled even with Hillary, perhaps even leading. Yes, it's the convention and the e-mail scandal(s), but the fact that it's so close at all should make everyone at least somewhat concerned.

[Derived Absurdity]

Eh. Even after Trump got his supposed convention bump he's still trailing slightly behind Hillary. John McCain was up by four at this point. Romney was up too. With the electoral map the way it is, I can't really see how he can pull it off. The DNC e-mail thing might shake things up a bit, but I'm not sure how many people care about that.

Of course, Hillary Clinton is an astonishingly shitty candidate and she can easily ruin it, but most people have their minds made up already and I don't think there's a big chance of that.

Also, nobody with knowledge of Hillary Clinton's actual record would so easily label her as the "lesser evil" candidate, even against Donald Trump. Just throwing that out there.

[CashRules]

Also, nobody with knowledge of Hillary Clinton's actual record would so easily label her as the "lesser evil" candidate, even against Donald Trump. Just throwing that out there.

I think people with a "leftist" political view are just unwilling to realize, or else they severely under-estimate, the evil of Bill and Hillary Clinton. He is a sexual predator. She excuses that behavior and even jokes about it and engages in victim blaming. Trump may be a sexual predator, we don't know for sure but there is strong evidence that he is. We know for a fact that Bill Clinton is a sexual predator. Hillary votes to blow up innocent children under the guise of "protecting America's interests." Trump may support blowing up innocent children but so far we have only speculation on that as he has never been in a position to make such a decision and the statements he has made on the issue are all over the place. Johnson and Stein both oppose blowing up innocent children and I've seen no evidence that either of them is a sexual predator or that they condone and excuse the actions of sexual predators. Johnson and Stein both have positions with which I disagree, but none of those positions approaches the evil of blowing up innocent children or the evil of condoning sexual assault.

[Derived Absurdity]

Correct. It's because Bill and Hillary have been on the receiving end of the GOP hate machine for about twenty years, so Democrats and lefties feel they're part of their club and that they should be defended and protected against all attack, even if it's from fellow lefties. Anyone the Republicans hate that much can't be all that awful, the thinking seems to go.

But there are some leftists who have the appropriate level of hatred for Bill & Hill, even if they are minuscule in number. A test I use to gauge whether someone is worth taking seriously on politics is whether they have a positive or negative impression of Bill Clinton. If it's not intensely negative, then they should be ignored. Same with Hillary, but it's extremely trendy to hate her right now so the test isn't quite as useful.

[Monk]

Eh. Even after Trump got his supposed convention bump he's still trailing slightly behind Hillary. John McCain was up by four at this point. Romney was up too. With the electoral map the way it is, I can't really see how he can pull it off. The DNC e-mail thing might shake things up a bit, but I'm not sure how many people care about that.

Of course, Hillary Clinton is an astonishingly shitty candidate and she can easily ruin it, but most people have their minds made up already and I don't think there's a big chance of that.

Also, nobody with knowledge of Hillary Clinton's actual record would so easily label her as the "lesser evil" candidate, even against Donald Trump. Just throwing that out there.

You have an sample size of 2. This is a very close election so far. I don't doubt that Hillary is more probable to win, but it's no sure thing. Not even close.