The Pitters' Place

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:04 pm**

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.

I've recently stumbled upon and tend to agree with Noam Chomsky's assertion that every president we've had going back to Truman is a war criminal who should be locked up, though he (Chomsky) is advocating for LEV this election, which has me conflicted.

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:06 pm**

CashRules wrote:
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.

Trump literally said that we should kill the family members of ISIS members. Yeah, Hillary is way more hawkish than I'd like, but I have no reason to believe Trump would be any less hawkish. Based on his statements, he seems far more hungry for war. And this doesn't even begin to address his domestic policies. He's literally said he's open to the idea of a national registry for Muslims, has no qualms with preventing any from entering the country (or re-entering, even if they're American citizens), and wants to deport millions of immigrants, including children. This guy is truly awful and basically a neo-fascist. I don't buy the argument that he and Clinton are two sides of the same coin.

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:08 pm**

Monk wrote: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.

And no, sorry. I'm aware of Hillary Clinton's past. Trump is by far worse Not even close.

I'm sure the people of Iraq, Libya, Honduras, Haiti, Syria, Yemen, and Ukraine will be pleased to hear that. Not to mention the many vulnerable people here at home whose lives she either helped ruin or was supportive in ruining.

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:12 pm**

... and Hillary has not only been responsible for the deaths of many thousands of innocent Muslims, she has already been instrumental in deporting many immigrants, including children, many of whom are only immigrants in the first place because she helped turn their homes into hellscapes. Not to mention the fact that she has absolutely no problem with murdering the families of suspected terrorists. Most of the things people are scared Donald Trump will do Hillary has tacitly endorsed or has already done.

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:15 pm**

As far as Trump winning the required 270 electoral votes, I just looked at a map to re-familiarize myself with how many electoral votes each state gets. Here is one way I figure he can win:

1) Leave out the states with 20 or more votes for now.

2) Of the states with fewer than 20 votes each, Trump sweeps the South (excluding Virginia) and the West (excluding Washington, Oregon and Hawaii).

3) Now, of the states with more than 20 votes each he won't win California, New York or Illinois. He will win Texas. If he can find a way to win all three of the others: Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania - he wins. If he only wins two of those three then he only needs one average state (those with 10-19 votes that haven't been accounted for already): Virginia, Maryland, Minnesota or New Jersey and he wins. If he only wins one or none out of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania then he has almost no chance since only winning one of those two would require winning three of Virginia, Minnesota, Maryland and New Jersey and that's just not going to happen. I left out Massachusetts from the states with an "average" number of votes because he won't win Massachusetts.

Now, I'm not saying it will be easy, but a Republican sweeping the South and West (excluding the Pacific Coast) and picking up either Ohio or Pennsylvania is within the realm of possibility.

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:24 pm**

He's literally said he's open to the idea of a national registry for Muslims, has no qualms with preventing any from entering the country (or re-entering, even if they're American citizens),

Neither of those has any real chance of making it through even a Republican controlled Congress. Even if they did, there won't be enough Supreme Court justices retiring or dying for such measures to have any chance of making it through the SC. The current make-up of the Court would vote unanimously against such nonsense. Trump says a lot of ridiculous shit because it gets the votes of Billy Joe Jim Bob and his girlfriend/baby sister Sally Sue in Possum Shootin' Holler, West Virginia.

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:28 pm**

I whomever picks up PA will likely get Ohio as well. He's also basically tied in FL, IA, and NH right now and leading NV.

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:29 pm**

Trump literally said that we should kill the family members of ISIS members.

America already does that...

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:31 pm**

I've said before, but Donald Trump functions as the American Empire's sin-eater.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin-eater" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:41 pm**

Boomer wrote:
Trump literally said that we should kill the family members of ISIS members.
America already does that...

True, and it's another example of "What Trump says" vs "What Hillary already does." This is just a remarkable thing to behold.

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2016 6:37 pm**

The self-righteousness in this thread might be over 9000.

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2016 6:44 pm**

Cassius Clay wrote:The self-righteousness in this thread might be over 9000.

Hillary Clinton posts here?

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2016 9:12 pm**

CashRules wrote:
Cassius Clay wrote:The self-righteousness in this thread might be over 9000.
Hillary Clinton posts here?

That's Madame President to you.

(And I voted against Hillary in the primaries.)

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2016 9:15 pm**

I'm going to continue to vote against blowing up children and condoning sexual assault. I guess I'm just that crazy.

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2016 9:57 pm**

I'm going to continue to vote against blowing up children and condoning sexual assault. I guess I'm just that crazy.

^ self-righteous

Posted: **Fri Jul 29, 2016 3:37 pm**

I still question whether voting against her was a foolish waste of a vote. There are way too many things to consider, but I'm glad y'all have it all figured out.

Posted: **Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:09 pm**

Cassius Clay wrote:I still question whether voting against her was a foolish waste of a vote. There are way too many things to consider, but I'm glad y'all have it all figured out.

Unless you think the American political system is perfect then I don't really understand the point of being a condescending ass when people want to voice their displeasure.

Posted: **Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:18 pm**

but I'm glad y'all have it all figured out.

Blowing up children = bad.

Condoning sexual assault = bad.

Yeah, I really had a hard time figuring those two out.

Posted: **Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:53 pm**

Boomer wrote:
Cassius Clay wrote:I still question whether voting against her was a foolish waste of a vote. There are way too many things to consider, but I'm glad y'all have it all figured out.
Unless you think the American political system is perfect then I don't really understand the point of being a condescending ass when people want to voice their displeasure.

Are you just voicing your displeasure or are you also suggesting solutions that involve sticking your head in the sand? You can criticize Hillary without pretending she isn't meaningful distinguishable from the GOP.

And this election is much bigger than Hillary. I'm responding to the reductive, self-righteous myopia all over this thread. Not like I introduced it ('cause there's plenty of smugness and arrogance going around here), but condescending? You haven't seen condescending yet.

Posted: **Fri Jul 29, 2016 6:09 pm**

CashRules wrote:
but I'm glad y'all have it all figured out.
Blowing up children = bad.

Condoning sexual assault = bad.

Yeah, I really had a hard time figuring those two out.

Ummmm...the sarcasm isn't as effective when it misses the point.

Are you the one that was excited about the accused rapist, Julian Assange, exposing Hillary?

Posted: **Fri Jul 29, 2016 7:54 pm**

If Assange is guilty of rape then he should be prosecuted, convicted and sent to prison. That doesn't excuse the Clintons for their atrocious behavior.

Posted: **Sat Jul 30, 2016 2:29 am**

CashRules wrote:If Assange is guilty of rape then he should be prosecuted, convicted and sent to prison. That doesn't excuse the Clintons for their atrocious behavior.

True

Posted: **Sun Jul 31, 2016 1:59 pm**

In reference to one of my earlier posts I did some research. Out of a total of 7,383 people serving in the 50 state legislatures there are four Libertarians and no members of the Green Party. The four Libertarians serve in the state legislatures of four different states: Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire and Utah. All four were originally elected as Republicans and switched their allegiance to the Libertarian Party this year. None of the four has publically stated that Donald Trump's candidacy was a reason for their decision to change party affiliation but I wouldn't doubt there is some speculation about that possibility. The last time a Libertarian was elected to a state legislature as a Libertarian was 1998 in Rhode Island. The latest figures show that a total of 145 Libertarians and approximately 100 Greens serve in various elected positions below the state level. That's not a good showing for the third and fourth largest political parties in the country. The fifth largest party, the Constitution Party, has no officials at the state level and fewer than 20 below the state level and that's too much of a showing for genuine Fascists For Jesus.

Posted: **Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:29 pm**

I don't want to read the whole thread, but I'm gonna let people know I'm voting for Jill Stein. Feel free to convince me I should vote for Clinton and I will explain why I won't.

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 12:24 am**

You should vote for Clinton because you're a privileged misogynist self-righteous leftier-than-thou Trump supporter who doesn't know how the world works if you don't. Also Jill Stein is terrible because she's anti-vaccines even though she's not.

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 12:35 am**

Derived Absurdity wrote:You should vote for Clinton because you're a privileged misogynist self-righteous leftier-than-thou Trump supporter who doesn't know how the world works if you don't. Also Jill Stein is terrible because she's anti-vaccines even though she's not.

Eh, I don't particularly like Jill Stein anyway. I'd rather vote for Monica Moorehead. But Stein's going to get the bulk of the left-leaning third-party vote, so I'll jump on the bandwagon to show we don't need the Democrats.

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 12:46 am**

Monica Moorehead is cool, Jill Stein is generally not. The Green Party is just a bunch of dirty hippies (seriously). They have no class analysis and they don't make any appeals to labor AFAIK. They haven't even been socialist until extremely recently. What they seem to care about is kooky hippie stuff like crystals and anti-nuclear power and whatnot. As a protest vote they're somewhat passable.

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 2:14 am**

because she's anti-vaccines even though she's not.

I thought she was anti-vaccines?

EDIT: I googled.

"While Stein is not strictly “anti-vaccine," she is promoting a narrative that the vaccine regulation process in the U.S. is corrupt and untrustworthy â€• a common refrain from actual anti-vaxxers. In fact, the U.S. vaccine regulatory process is a global model for how any drug should be tested and approved before hitting the market, several vaccine experts told The Huffington Post."

eh. Okay.

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 2:42 am**

Anakin McFly wrote:
because she's anti-vaccines even though she's not.
I thought she was anti-vaccines?

EDIT: I googled.

"While Stein is not strictly “anti-vaccine," she is promoting a narrative that the vaccine regulation process in the U.S. is corrupt and untrustworthy â€• a common refrain from actual anti-vaxxers. In fact, the U.S. vaccine regulatory process is a global model for how any drug should be tested and approved before hitting the market, several vaccine experts told The Huffington Post."

eh. Okay.

This isn't even wholly accurate either. She said that she understands why people are distrustful of the medical community, because it is driven by profit.

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 3:39 am**

If so, the healthier people are, the longer they live, the more chances they'll have to fall ill and financially benefit the medical industry. If they're deliberately making people sick or otherwise weak, there's going to be a higher mortality rate, and dead people won't bring them money. If they're strategically adjusting this to figure out the ideal level of illness for optimum profit, it's too conspiracy theory for me.

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 3:55 am**

Well again, Stein never endorsed this worldview. She only said she understands why people might feel that way.

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 4:14 am**

the_dork_lord wrote:I don't want to read the whole thread, but I'm gonna let people know I'm voting for Jill Stein. Feel free to convince me I should vote for Clinton and I will explain why I won't.

I'm assuming you're voting for Stein with the confidence that Hillary won't lose to Trump. Or are you willing to risk being ruled by Darth Trump to make a point to the democrats?

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 5:05 am**

Anakin McFly wrote:If so, the healthier people are, the longer they live, the more chances they'll have to fall ill and financially benefit the medical industry. If they're deliberately making people sick or otherwise weak, there's going to be a higher mortality rate, and dead people won't bring them money. If they're strategically adjusting this to figure out the ideal level of illness for optimum profit, it's too conspiracy theory for me.

No. The problem is that although this system doesn't make people deliberately ill but since it relies on profit, it overlooks the preventive part of medicine.
There are two systems in medicine, preventive and curative. Preventive medicine is not as profitable as curative, so if you have a system based on private profit, then by logic, you will find yourself with a more sickly society because investments on non-profitable areas will be overlooked. The reason why Cuba has better health standards than the rest of Latin America is precisely this, Cuba invests whatever little resources it has on prevention, since its model is based on non-profit, access to medical care is aimed to basically stop people from spending more on money later. (Since there are no money nor resources.)

With prevention you tend to combat the incidence of illnesses that tend to be acute, serving as a first line of defense. Which is why Nordic countries who have strong public healthcare systems have high indexes of chronic illnesses and low acute ones, resulting on healthier societies, when in poorer countries like mine, both indexes are high with chronic diseases being lower due to higher mortality rates.

I don't know how things work in Singapore, but more liberal systems, that are run by private companies have a problem funding prevention programs precisely because they are not profitable and since we are not rich like Singapore and the US, people tend to be screwed when acute illnesses arise. It's also the reason why strong public programs are so necessary in any country, sometimes for the well being of people you'll have to ignore profit.

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 5:15 am**

On lesser evil voting:

https://chomsky.info/an-eight-point-bri ... il-voting/

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 5:17 am**

Chomsky is full of shit.

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 5:20 am**

Not really.

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 5:49 am**

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/17/ ... this-time/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/29/ ... d-chomsky/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/29/ ... il-voting/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.orchestratedpulse.com/2016/07/trump-afraid/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 6:50 am**

Before I read all that I'll post this by the great "Propane Jane":

https://storify.com/docrocktex26/disaffected-by-choice

Everybody should be on their knees, humbly devouring every word she writes. The woman is on point.

I've posted this before, but read this for more context/insight. 'When racism trumps socialism':

https://storify.com/docrocktex26/when-r ... -socialism

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 1:13 pm**

White dudes: I don't know who's worse: Hillary or Trump.
LGBTQ people: Trump is.
Black people: Trump is.
Undocumented immigrants: Trump.
Muslims: It's Trump.
Women: Trump duh.
White dudes: *shoves head deeper into ass* I just… don't… know…

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 1:16 pm**

Derived Absurdity wrote:http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/17/ ... this-time/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/29/ ... d-chomsky/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/29/ ... il-voting/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.orchestratedpulse.com/2016/07/trump-afraid/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good articles. I hadn't heard of counterpunch before.

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 1:55 pm**

Cassius Clay wrote:
the_dork_lord wrote:I don't want to read the whole thread, but I'm gonna let people know I'm voting for Jill Stein. Feel free to convince me I should vote for Clinton and I will explain why I won't.
I'm assuming you're voting for Stein with the confidence that Hillary won't lose to Trump. Or are you willing to risk being ruled by Darth Trump to make a point to the democrats?

Not at all. I'm simply not voting lesser evil because it's a self-defeating strategy. When you vote lesser evil, you communicate to the Democrats that they have your vote by default. If you want them to appeal to working class people, you have to show them that they have to earn your vote.

15 years ago, Clinton would be a Republican. Today, she's a Democrat. 4 years ago, Romney ran as a Republican. Now he supports Clinton. If we keep this up, 8 years from now, you'll tell me to vote Donald Trump Jr. because he's better than David Duke.

Anyway, this all also assumes that Clinton is actually the lesser evil, and I'm not convinced of that. Tell me one principle Trump stands for that you oppose, and I'll tell you how Clinton has already acted on it.

But let's say Clinton is the lesser evil. What we have to do is ask ourselves: Why is Trump popular? There are many historical precedents for him. Right populism rises during a crisis of capitalism. A previously semi-privileged group -- the white working class -- finds itself in a precarious position. It feels weak and powerless. It lashes out, and right populism expertly directs that outrage at the wrong enemy (Muslims, immigrants, Jews). In other words, the reason for Donald Trump is Hillary Clinton. If you elect a neo-liberal to stop a right populist, you don't stop Trump. You suppress him for four years, but the movement he started gets stronger.

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 1:59 pm**

Cassius Clay wrote:
Syrians and Iraqis: I don't know who's worse: Hillary or Trump.
LGBTQ people: Trump is.
Black people: Trump is.
Undocumented immigrants: Trump.
Muslims: It's Trump.
Women: Trump duh.
Syrians and Iraqis: *cower from drones* I just… don't… know…

FTFY.

Setting aside that the original post is inaccurate anyway. Shitloads of LGBTQ people, black people, women, etc., aren't voting for Clinton. For instance: https://blackmattersus.com/12024-we-won ... ers-chant/" 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;

Some data:

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800 ... TLIGTw.png

68.2% of women are not voting for Hillary Clinton.

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/120 ... CpTUJA.png

48% of People of Color will not be voting for Hillary Clinton.

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/120 ... WCYghQ.png

57% of non-heterosexual people will not be voting for Hillary Clinton.

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/120 ... 3zsaxw.png

68% of marginalized religious folk will not vote for Hillary Clinton.

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/120 ... IHGBaw.png

66.6% of working class people will not vote for Hillary Clinton.

It's simply a myth that marginalized people are in some sort of consensus a lesser evil voting for Clinton, a myth cooked up predominantly by white people who are privileged enough to say a 12 dollar minimum wage is enough; to say that a single-payer healthcare system will “never ever happen"; to think that tuition free higher education is unrealistic. Hillary Clinton's platform is that for people that can wait for things to slowly change; oppressed communities cannot wait for things to slowly and reluctantly change. We need new options, not the two corporate parties.

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 4:53 pm**

Before I address anything I want to post these simple questions for the sake of clarity:

1) Between Hillary and Trump, is there a lesser evil?
2) If so, must you necessarily vote for that specific lesser evil?
3) What are the merits of voting for lesser evil?

These are 3 very distinct questions that I see keep getting irresponsibly/conveniently conflated. If I see you mofos keep conflating them, I'll just keep re-posting it.

Edit: For example, admitting that Hillary is the lesser evil does not mean one must necessarily support Hillary?

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 5:46 pm**

1) Between Hillary and Trump, is there a lesser evil?

I don't think that's a particularly useful measure of anything. It starts with the neo-liberal presumption that there are shared interests of humanity, when this is not the case. The question is, lesser evil for whom? The class interests served by either candidate will benefit some and harm others. For example (and it's not the best example but it's the first one I thought of), I'm told I should vote Clinton because she sponsored card check legislation that would strengthen unions. She also worked with Haitian business leaders to prevent their minimum wage from rising to 61 cents, and made millions in the process. (I won't get into how I feel about Clinton's name on that bill.) So, lesser evil for whom? Now, I'm willing to grant for the sake of argument that Clinton is a lesser evil for certain strains of the working class, but not universally. Her war-mongering history doesn't serve lots of poor people in the Global South.

2) If so, must you necessarily vote for that specific lesser evil?

No.

3) What are the merits of voting for lesser evil?

Far outweighed by the dangers.

In the socialist movement, we refer to the Democratic Party as the "graveyard of social movements." Democrats have a very long history of taking actual radical/populist movements, co-opting them, and defanging them, making them safe for the ruling class and for capitalism while appeasing a layer of people in the movement.

Take, for example, the case of gay rights. This was once a radical movement, starting with protestors physically defending themselves at Stonewall. When the Democrats took an interest in gay rights, it became a movement focusing almost all its energy on gay marriage -- which, to be clear, I am a supporter of, but it is far more a concern of rich white gay men on Central Park West than of working-class gay people. In the hands of Democrats, the LGBTQ movement has done little to nothing to address, for example, the prevalence of gay/trans youth homelessness, because to do so would challenge the fundamentals of capitalism, and Democrats don't do that. By appeasing a more reactionary layer within the gay rights movement, the Democrats were able to weaken the movement while still making themselves look like grand progressives.

Another example: Environmentalism. This was once a large radical movement. People would get on boats and block oil tankers, or sit in trees to prevent them from being cut down. Some still do, but ever since Democrats endorsed environmentalism, there is an appeased layer within the movement, and it has become about unenforced emissions standards and treaties. People who identify as environmentalists spend more time endorsing and voting for politicians in fruitless attempts to save the planet than any sort of meaningful activism.

There are numerous examples of this: The labor movement (once consisting of radical unions, now full of labor bureaucrats who endorse Hillary Clinton). Feminism (now more about the quantity of rich women in Congress than about the struggling single mother). I could go on. It's important to note that in none of these cases did the particular Democrats who endorsed the movements intend to defang them. In most cases, the politicians intended to give a mainstream voice to the particular struggle. But history has shown over and over the inevitable result of this tactic.

This is what happens when we push lesser evil voting. We tell people outraged at the system to put their energy into campaigns that are safe for the system. Protest income inequality or war, but do it in a way that doesn't threaten the power of those who profit from income inequality and war! Vote for corporate parties!

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 5:47 pm**

Okay, well, I guess I can answer...

1) No. And there's something about this question that is sort of disturbing to me. The point is that both of them if elected would be profoundly, unfathomably horrible; the level of suffering they would cause would be on a scale that is literally unimaginable and incomprehensible. At least tens of millions of people will have their lives made immeasurably worse by either of them, at least. Calling either of them "evil" does a disservice to the level of horror they would actually unleash on the world's (note I said "world's," not "country's) poorest and most vulnerable populations. Calling them "evil" would be like calling dropping a nuclear bomb on Ethiopia evil; true, but it severely underestimates it. And no, it's not in any way clear to me which of them would cause a net amount of greater suffering if elected. Clinton is several times more hawkish and militaristic than Trump; that's just a fact.

I just think there's something squicky about choosing to sit around and determine the "lesser evil" when faced with these two choices... as if it really matters. Like there's some meaningful difference between dropping a nuclear bomb on a small helpless country and just sending in death squads to kill everyone instead. Both of them are profoundly horrifying and completely unacceptable; why does it really matter if one of them is by imperceptible degrees slightly worse than the other? Do you think everyone has the luxury to differentiate like that? Having the luxury to focus on the minor differences between the two instead of giving the evil of both of them the weight they deserve smacks of the p-word to me. We're not talking about the tens of millions of lives Hillary has already been instrumental in ruining, because it seems we all have the luxury for them not to appear on our personal radar.

2) No.

3) None.

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 5:48 pm**

the_dork_lord wrote:Setting aside that the original post is inaccurate anyway. Shitloads of LGBTQ people, black people, women, etc., aren't voting for Clinton. For instance: https://blackmattersus.com/12024-we-won ... ers-chant/" 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;" 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;

Some data:

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800 ... TLIGTw.png

68.2% of women are not voting for Hillary Clinton.

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/120 ... CpTUJA.png

48% of People of Color will not be voting for Hillary Clinton.

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/120 ... WCYghQ.png

57% of non-heterosexual people will not be voting for Hillary Clinton.

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/120 ... 3zsaxw.png

68% of marginalized religious folk will not vote for Hillary Clinton.

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/120 ... IHGBaw.png

66.6% of working class people will not vote for Hillary Clinton.

It's simply a myth that marginalized people are in some sort of consensus a lesser evil voting for Clinton, a myth cooked up predominantly by white people who are privileged enough to say a 12 dollar minimum wage is enough; to say that a single-payer healthcare system will “never ever happen"; to think that tuition free higher education is unrealistic. Hillary Clinton's platform is that for people that can wait for things to slowly change; oppressed communities cannot wait for things to slowly and reluctantly change. We need new options, not the two corporate parties.

You're correct that it's a myth, but it's also kind of a strawman. The quoted dialog is a cheeky joke which makes a real point, but is clearly not meant to suggest that all people in those demographics literally act like a monolith. But I think you know that. And of the people voting between Trump and Clinton, more are voting for Clinton - particularly POCs. And I suspect out of those not voting for either, more would say Clinton is the lesser evil if pressed on it. The point is still important, and it's that it seems to be mainly white dudes(who are suddenly super "WOKE") specifically stressing the point that there is no difference between Trump and Clinton. I'd like to think that I'm too intelligent to just wave it off as a meaningless coincidence. I've seen it and people have told me they've seen it. Even someone on this board sent me a PM concerned about that fact before I even brought it up.

the_dork_lord wrote:
Cassius Clay wrote:
Syrians and Iraqis: I don't know who's worse: Hillary or Trump.
LGBTQ people: Trump is.
Black people: Trump is.
Undocumented immigrants: Trump.
Muslims: It's Trump.
Women: Trump duh.
Syrians and Iraqis: *cower from drones* I just… don't… know…
White dudes: The Syrians and Iraqis are fucked either way, so why not throw everyone else under the bus as well for a half-assed, idealist, bro strategy that lacks grounded race analysis?

(I'll address your other points later)

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 5:58 pm**

And of the people voting between Trump and Clinton, more are voting for Clinton - particularly POCs.

But the majority are still not. So to suggest that it's only white people who reject both is just factually incorrect, even if packaged as a joke.

The point is still important, and it's that it seems to be mainly white dudes(who are suddenly super "WOKE") specifically stressing the point that there is no difference between Trump and Clinton.

I don't see this as the case. Most of my comrades are members of marginalized groups, and they all maintain that Trump and Clinton are fundamentally indistinguishable. I know far more POC than white folks who feel this way, and I know far more white folks than POC who say there's a significant difference between them.

But as I asked before, if you cite an awful statement or principle applied to Trump, I can show you how Clinton has already acted on exactly that.

The Syrians and Iraqis are fucked either way, so why not throw everyone else under the bus as well for a half-assed, idealist, bro strategy that lacks grounded race analysis?

The only thing that has ever brought change in this country -- in the entire world -- is mass movements of the oppressed classes. As noted above, the Democrats kill these movements. Getting people out of the Democrats in order to build political alternatives isn't "idealist" or "bro"; it's the only thing that has ever worked.

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 6:02 pm**

“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."

"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said Ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 6:12 pm**

and it's that it seems to be mainly white dudes(who are suddenly super "WOKE") specifically stressing the point that there is no difference between Trump and Clinton.

I don't know who you're listening to, but like dork, my experience is the opposite. I lost count quite a long time ago of the number of POC and women I have heard or read stressing that there's no meaningful or distinguishable difference between Trump and Clinton and that LEV is dangerous and counterproductive. Some of these people are journalists, political/social activists, authors, and often just people with blogs. More often than not the people I've seen pushing against them and stressing that there are obviously major differences between the two have been white men.

I don't know what you mean about "woke". If white dudes wanted to socially signal how smart and sensitive to racial issues they are, wouldn't stressing how there's no difference between Trump and Clinton and getting pissy at people who say there are be the exact opposite of what they would want to do?

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 6:17 pm**

https://medium.com/@discomfiting/youre- ... .v0n6e6khy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Pitters' Place

Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Re: Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.