Support NeoGAF

[MHWilliams]

Again, it comes down to polling. The Democratic Party wouldn't support Hillary if she was polling at 10%. They also wouldn't support similar Hillary style candidates in the future if she lost in the general election with 30% of the vote. So you enable such candidates by doing the "lesser of two evil" approach bc it prevents the bottom from falling out of her numbers. Yeah, it's probably too late in this cycle, but what about future election cycles?

My position is that "these are the current options presented", in your words, because of the "lesser of two evils" mindset.

Two things: One, given the options presented, people have supported Sanders or Clinton. Two, this ignores the fact that some voters (like older voters) aren't voting "the lesser of two evils", they're voting the candidate they actually believe will be a better President.

Now you may disagree, but they still have a right to participate in the political process. And given that spread in the Dem Primary, I'll take the candidate that is ultimately decided on.

Future election cycles? Well is Sanders supporters actually remain politically involved and vote in their state and local elections, we might change Congress, which makes it much easier to pass legislation that aligns with Sanders' views.

I'm just perplexed that people really don't believe in the election system or their own vote... at all.

Voting green is better than nothing? Voting green would be just as ineffective for Hillary, which seems to be the whole point of this thread. Of course Sanders wants to encourage the importance of a vote - that doesn't mean that in actual reality there's any reason to do so other than for symbolic reasons.

I mean, if you feel that strongly about Clinton in the event of a Sanders loss, at the very least, you'll get to the polls and vote.

See, that's being pragmatic and trying to make the best of a poor situation.

 

[xxracerxx]

This is patently false. I'm mildly supportive of Bernie (which is more than I can say of any other candidate in the past decade), but I actively dislike Hillary. When she's the nominee, I will not vote for her on election day. Yeah, she's better than any Republican alternative, but a single vote matters naught anyway, so I'd not vote for her out of principle (the same way I would vote for Bernie out of principle)

This is just dumb. This mentality needs to stop.

If you truly feel this way, you may as well never vote ever, in any election.

 

[ChosenPredator]

I dont know it seems to be all these candidates are equally hated for their own specific scummy reasons, there isn't much out there for people to pick from this time around.

But I can imagine if trump won it'd be like walking on eggs shells here, lol. (i still think bernie voters will end up going to trump, not sure why just a feeling in my gut)

 

[HylianTom]

All causes I obviously feel strongly about. But I can make far more of a difference on those issues in my personal life, just by having conversations with people about them, than I ever could by voting for Hillary.

If the government suddenly decides that it doesn't have to recognize my marriage license and I become a legal stranger to my spouse, all the bullshit fluffy words out of your mouth in the world wouldn't counter the potential legal damage.

What a remarkable statement.

...

And I'll note yet again - no answer on the court issue.

Any moment now, "progressives." This is your shot to explain how sentencing progressivism to legal death helps it.

 

[Cocaloch]

That same sort of mentality is responsible for people under 30 being really under represented. Because enough of them think voting is pointless. If they start turning out in large numbers and become a sought after voting block, you would see way more politicians targeting the under 30s with policies that appeal to them.

That's how it works. If you're vindictive or fickle with your vote or you never bother voting... you'll never get representation.

Except this is a structure issue. No one individual voting will make others vote. Ergo an individual voting is irrelevant. In fact it's a tragedy of the commons. The best outcome is for lots of other people in my class, here age, to vote and thus increase my class's representation without me voting, and using my time.

This is just dumb. This mentality needs to stop.

If you truly feel this way, you may as well never vote ever, in any election.

Well yeah, but that's your problem isn't it? The not voting thing? I mean he's actually being irrational, in this mindset at least, in the instance where he decides to vote, not the one where he doesn't.

This is so patently ridiculous in so many ways.

You make ridiculous, illogical points and dismiss Nobel-winning research in the same post.


I have no words. So, so ridiculous.

Game theory rarely holds in real life because people aren't often rational actors.

 

[User 463088]

What has Hilary done to be loved?

Her work with the Children's Defense Fund? She was responsible for getting CHIP passed, which today covers 8-9 million children? Has been a life time advocate for women, including her speech in China that equated women's rights to human rights for the first time ever? She's the only person running who entered legislation for "Equal pay for equal work" three times? Her focus on LGBT issues while at State? The Adoption and Safe Families Act? Her tireless support for protecting a woman's right to choose? She was an original cosponsor of the Lily Ledbetter Equal Pay Act? Her work as First Lady of Arkansas to bring healthcare to rural Arkansans?

I mean, other than that, ya, I got nothing.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

You can't be serious about wanting to change the country if your ideals begin and end with voting for a president. Get this: You are always going to have to choose between the lessor of two evils when it comes to that. No candidate is going to be perfect, no one candidate is always going to promote and be for all of your ideals. I recommend picking one or the other because the alternative could be a lot worse but that's entirely up to you.

What actually changes things is voting locally. Vote for a governor that shares your vision, vote for a representative that wants to change your area for the better, vote for the mayor that has a plan to keep your city growing. Living or dying on the president makes you look politically ignorant and will only make you unhappier in the end.

Changing the country at a federal level is SUPER HARD. It's much less so locally.

My state already is blue and has been since the 1980's, my governor is a Democrat, my Representative is a Democrat, my Senators are Democrats, my state legislators are Democrats, and my local elections are non-partisan for the most part.

What else am I supposed to do, exactly?

 

[Kid Kamikaze10]

If Trump wins due to those not willing to vote for Hillary, then my request is simple.


Those who didn't vote for Hillary should explain to the many oppressed groups whose lives will get worse in a Trump Presidency why their well beings didn't matter.


Straight like that.

 

[Tesseract]

i don't think any bernie supporter should support the perpetuation of this bloody establishment. just don't vote is what i'd say, let them fight.

 

[MHWilliams]

Except this is a structure issue. No one individual voting will make others vote. Ergo an individual voting is irrelevant. In fact it's a tragedy of the commons. The best outcome is for lots of other people in my class, here age, to vote and thus increase my class's representation without me voting, and using my time.

Right, meaning everyone has to acknowledge the power of their vote. Your vote is important.

Man, y'all have worn down my resistance. Perhaps this is the vocal fringe I was talking about, or perhaps Sanders supporters really do believe this way and his stated positions only go so far.

 

[Nickle]

My state already is blue and has been since the 1980's, my governor is a Democrat, my Representative is a Democrat, my Senators are Democrats, my state legislators are Democrats, and my local elections are non-partisan for the most part.

What else am I supposed to do, exactly?

Make pro-Hillary memes on Facebook.

 

[samn]

If Trump wins due to those not willing to vote for Hillary, then my request is simple.


Those who didn't vote for Hillary should explain to the many oppressed groups who's lives will get worse in a Trump Presidency why their well beings didn't matter.


Straight like that.

If I said this about people voting for Clinton over Sanders I'd be told off for being patronising and paternalistic.

 

[Kyosaiga]

I still don't get why you all want radical and immediate change. Like, open a goddamn history book and see what happens to countries who has radical change and see the long term effects.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Make pro-Hillary memes on Facebook.

Fuck that

 

[plagiarize]

Except this is a structure issue. No one individual voting will make others vote. Ergo an individual voting is irrelevant. In fact it's a tragedy of the commons. The best outcome is for lots of other people in my class, here age, to vote and thus increase my class's representation without me voting, and using my time.

You get one vote. If you don't use that to pick the best of the candidates on offer, then I don't think you can really complain about anything going on in politics.

Even if you're just 'buying' the right to complain about the person who you didn't vote for, that's something. The whole 'stand up and be counted' thing isn't nonsense. If the young hadn't turned out to vote more than normal in 2008 we'd not have gotten President Obama.

No individual made that happen by themselves, but every individual that wouldn't normally have voted helped.

 

[Russ T]

Voting green is better than nothing? Voting green would be just as ineffective for Hillary, which seems to be the whole point of this thread. Of course Sanders wants to encourage the importance of a vote - that doesn't mean that in actual reality there's any reason to do so other than for symbolic reasons.




I assure you, the delegates from my state will not be tied in a deadlock with my vote as the deciding factor.


All causes I obviously feel strongly about. But I can make far more of a difference on those issues in my personal life, just by having conversations with people about them, than I ever could by voting for Hillary.

If enough people vote Green, they'll get the federal funding next election. (I might be wrong on this, but that's the impression I got from some statement said Green party made re: voting for them if Bernie doesn't get the nom.)

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

TPP:

In terms of copyright law, Disney and Hollywood will be delighted over a reported copyright term extension across the Pacific Rim for life plus 70 years. Such a proposal will provide longer copyright protection for lucrative franchises, such as Mickey Mouse, the Disney Princesses, Pixar, and Star Wars. The Pacific Rim will become a Disneyland playground.
The copyright term extension, though, will have an adverse impact upon consumer rights, competition policy and cultural heritage. One expects further legal controversies over vintage cultural works - such as what happened with the Kookaburra song, and the Happy Birthday song.

The TPP will also entrench aspects of the anachronistic Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 (US). Countries will be required to provide civil remedies and criminal offences to protect technological protection measures, and electronic rights management systems. This will be controversial in Australia.
CHOICE Australia and other consumer rights group have persistently raised concerns about high IT pricing. Moreover, the TPP will place greater regulatory burdens upon intermediaries, much like in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 (US). This could well have an impact upon privacy, freedom of speech, and remix culture.

Moreover, the TPP will provide for a wide range of civil remedies, criminal offences, and border measures to address copyright infringement. There will be a punitive model of copyright law entrenched.

In addition to copyright law, the TPP will offer enhanced protection of well-known trade marks - global brands such as Nike, Tiffany's, Louis Vuitton, IBM, Google, Microsoft, Coca-Cola, Pepsi and McDonalds. We will see civil remedies, criminal offences, and border measures to tackle the problem of trade mark counterfeiting.

Professor Sean Flynn from American University has said that the regime under the TPP is even worse than the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

The topic of intellectual property and pharmaceutical drugs proved to be controversial. In respect of patent law, Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) expressed its dismay that "TPP countries have agreed to United States government and multinational drug company demands that will raise the price of medicines for millions by unnecessarily extending monopolies and further delaying price-lowering generic competition".
The group warned:
The big losers in the TPP are patients and treatment providers in developing countries. Although the text has improved over the initial demands, the TPP will still go down in history as the worst trade agreement for access to medicines in developing countries, which will be forced to change their laws to incorporate abusive intellectual property protections for pharmaceutical companies.

There will also be great controversy over the demand for criminal penalties and procedures in respect of trade secrets. Such measures will have an impact upon journalists, whistleblowers and civil society.

The TPP also provides intellectual property owners with investor rights under an investor-state dispute settlement regime. This will be deeply controversial. Copyright owners will be able to object to progressive law reform in foreign investor tribunals. Trademark holders could seek to counter government labelling regulations. Patent holders could invoke investor rights in respect of disputes over patent validity.

Link; http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-06/rimmer-tpp-favours-old-ip-industries/6830884






TP sounds like a bad deal to me.

Bernie on why he opposes TPP, on NAFTA, on Mitch mcConnell, Bill Clinton, the China trade Agreement; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNm1WL89JSc

 

[pigeon]

I dont know it seems to be all these candidates are equally hated for their own specific scummy reasons, there isn't much out there for people to pick from this time around.

But I can imagine if trump won it'd be like walking on eggs shells here, lol. (i still think bernie voters will end up going to trump, not sure why just a feeling in my gut)

If Trump wins it'll be pretty quiet around here because everybody will be too busy moving to post.

Alternate joke, as part of moving to Europe we'll have to post on footballthread or whatever it's called.

 

[Cocaloch]

Right, meaning everyone has to acknowledge the power of their vote. Your vote is important.

Well if everyone did then that attitude would be important, but one voting or not voting doesn't affect others so it won't. I get where you're coming from I really do, but that doesn't change the incentive structure in place, as much as that might be a noble goal.

You get one vote. If you don't use that to pick the best of the candidates on offer, then I don't think you can really complain about anything going on in politics.

Even if you're just 'buying' the right to complain about the person who you didn't vote for, that's something.

I wasn't complaining anywhere so I don't see why you brought this up? Plus I really don't buy into your argument. Why should not voting mean you can't complain? That seems arbitrary. I mean I'll drop the pretense here and acknowledge this is a shame game; which is fine or whatever, I mean it actually is a systemic approach to fixing the problem even if done subconsciously. That being said it clearly doesn't work on a number of people.

The whole 'stand up and be counted' thing isn't nonsense. If the young hadn't turned out to vote more than normal in 2008 we'd not have gotten President Obama.

No individual made that happen by themselves, but every individual that wouldn't normally have voted helped.

Right, so you're acknowledging it's not a particular individual with any agency but instead broader cultural forces. Me voting or not voting didn't change anything, though structure incentives that made a class I was a part of more likely to vote did. I'm not saying no one else should vote, do what you want to do.

I mean I'm also not particularly partial to democracy to begin with. So this is hardly a surprising stance for me to take.

 

[Glorified G]

If Trump wins due to those not willing to vote for Hillary, then my request is simple.


Those who didn't vote for Hillary should explain to the many oppressed groups whose lives will get worse in a Trump Presidency why their well beings didn't matter.


Straight like that.

If Trump does indeed win, the first question you should ask is why Clinton didn't appeal to the constituents needed to win the presidency.

Buy you know, it's always the candidates fault (Bernie not appealing to African Americans) until it's a candidate that you personally support. That's when the voters are the problem.

 

[human onion]

If absolutely nothing else, just vote in the goddamn election. The more a demographic turns out for elections, the more politicians will pay attention to them.

If Bernie can't get my age group to turn out for elections (which is one of his major points), then I've got no fucking idea what will.

 

[Ogrekiller]

Come on people, Hillary will definitely pass TPP. Her donors want it. She'll have a talk track about it being too far along the process / losing trade to China / etc.

Let me take a wild shot in the dark and guess that all these past elections you voted NDP or green allowing Harper to stay in power as long as he has.

 

[plagiarize]

If I said this about people voting for Clinton over Sanders I'd be told off for being patronising and paternalistic.

Most of us supporting Clinton believe that she has a better chance at enacting positive change than Sanders. Obviously it's an opinion and it could be wrong.

But you can't hold an opinion that voting for Trump would be better for the Mexican or Muslim minorities in America, because, you know, facts.

I'm for Clinton because I think she has realistic and achievable goals. While I like Sanders, I don't think he has much chance of achieving those goals.

As I've said before, if the under 30s had turned out to vote two years ago and congress and the house were more liberal, maybe I'd think Sanders had a good shot at his ideas and maybe I'd support them.

But the under 30s didn't show up at the polls, and Republicans made massive gains.

Not that the seem to be showing up for Sanders like they did Obama either. That's not Clinton's problem. That's Sanders'.

 

[Tabris]

I still don't get why you all want radical and immediate change. Like, open a goddamn history book and see what happens to countries who has radical change and see the long term effects.

These aren't radical items. These are modern world standard items. A lot of these had been implemented within a decade in other countries. UK implemented Universal Healthcare from 1944 to 1948 after having been bombed continuously for 4 years and with their economy in shambles.

Let me take a wild shot in the dark and guess that all these past elections you voted NDP or green allowing Harper to stay in power as long as he has.

I elected Hedy Fry, Liberal MP each time because she was the best candidate for my riding. But yes, I supported the NDP federally last election (I mean before the last one) and switched over to Liberals when they adopted their more left position (for you Americans in this thread you would consider their position Communist) and NDP moved to a centrist position (you would consider their position Socialist).

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I still don't get why you all want radical and immediate change. Like, open a goddamn history book and see what happens to countries who has radical change and see the long term effects.

A vote for Hillary is a straight-up vote for more of the same though. At least Obama promised things would change and was obstructed by the Republican Congress. Hillary isn't even pretending there's any change involved, she's basically telling us to vote for her because you don't want a Republican.

Trump needs to hurry up and break the foundations of the two-party system in this country while there's still anything left to change.

 

[Cindro]

Well yeah, but that's your problem isn't it? The not voting thing? I mean he's actually being irrational, in this mindset at least, in the instance where he decides to vote, not the one where he doesn't.

I specifically said I would vote out of principle - not because I think it will make a difference. Standing up for principles rarely have an effect outside of personal fulfillment. If you want to call me recognizing that voting for Bernie still wouldn't have an impact, even though I'd do it anyway, then sure.

Man, these attacks are exhausting. Now I remember why I never participate in political threads here.

 

[Dice]

I still don't get why you all want radical and immediate change. Like, open a goddamn history book and see what happens to countries who has radical change and see the long term effects.

Open a goddamn ecology book. Our social issues are a blink of an eye compared to the lasting effects of what we're doing.

 

[.JayZii]

He will appoint judges that will render Bernie's agenda dead. And not just for 2016. Corporate money becomes enshrined into our process; Citizens United stands for decades. The Voting Rights Act stays dead. Marriage equality goes on shaky legal ground via "religious freedom" bills. Corporations remain legal persons.

This does not poison the well of progressivism for just the next 4 years. This is for decades.

And - not shockingly - no one has countered this.

Still waiting on that counter, guys.

 

[Box of Kittens]

Second, Trump could be seen as locking in to destruction, or he can be seen merely as a disruption. Remember how there was a huge backlash in the midterms toward GOP that blocked up many of Obama's motions? That can swing right back if people are so horrified with Trump, and that could likewise give momentum to a stronger reform movement. Would this accelerationism work? Who the fuck knows! That's why game theory is bullshit and you should vote for what is right. But if you're going to be all about game theory you need to acknowledge how Trump could be more effective for accelerating reform than sticking with the deathly slow establishment method.

George W. Bush got re-elected. Scott Walker survived a recall in Wisconsin, then won a second full term, and has a rubber-stamp legislature to go with it. Vote (or not) however you want, but this strategy is a terrible justification for it. You're laying too much of the blame for the slow pace of progress at the establishment when a lot of it is inherent to how the federal government was designed. A Trump presidency won't lead to a major progressive renaissance. It'll more likely lead to the following president having to waste time cleaning up the messes Trump left behind, dealing with a hostile Supreme Court, and then getting punished by voters when they don't get every item on their wish list.

 

[B-Dubs]

A vote for Hillary is a straight-up vote for more of the same though. At least Obama promised things would change and was obstructed by the Republican Congress. Hillary isn't even pretending there's any change involved, she's basically telling us to vote for her because you don't want a Republican.

Trump needs to hurry up and break the foundations of the two-party system in this country while there's still anything left to change.

One election cannot break the two-party system. That's not how it works.

 

[plagiarize]

If Trump wins it'll be pretty quiet around here because everybody will be too busy moving to post.

Alternate joke, as part of moving to Europe we'll have to post on footballthread or whatever it's called.

I have a British passport. But honestly, it doesn't look much better over there right now. If Clinton wins this November and the Democrats make healthy gains in the Senate and House, I think we'll actually see a more progressive America than Britain by the time she leaves the White House.

I mean, things are getting pretty close with America slowly shifting to the left and Britain shifting to the right.

 

[hawk2025]

A vote for Hillary is a straight-up vote for more of the same though. At least Obama promised things would change and was obstructed by the Republican Congress. Hillary isn't even pretending there's any change involved, she's basically telling us to vote for her because you don't want a Republican.

Trump needs to hurry up and break the foundations of the two-party system in this country while there's still anything left to change.

You are straight up lying at this point.

 

[foxtrot3d]

TPP:

*snip*

TP sounds like a bad deal to me.

For who?

Most of what you quoted deals with the Copyright protections that TPP seeks to make uniform across the Pacific, however, those are the very same protections that are already the law in the U.S. The copyright provisions in TPP seeks to make the U.S. the standard as it relates to copyright protections. Why would that be a bad deal for America?

 

[plagiarize]

A vote for Hillary is a straight-up vote for more of the same though. At least Obama promised things would change and was obstructed by the Republican Congress. Hillary isn't even pretending there's any change involved, she's basically telling us to vote for her because you don't want a Republican.

Trump needs to hurry up and break the foundations of the two-party system in this country while there's still anything left to change.

Clinton has straight up said that she's going to keep fighting for the things Obama was fighting for. Obama did change things. Measurably. Not by as much as he hoped, but he got a lot done. A lot.

But I think Trump has already fractured the foundations of the GOP significantly and its just a matter of time before it splits in two. The only question is if the smaller half of it can survive or not.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Except this is a structure issue. No one individual voting will make others vote. Ergo an individual voting is irrelevant. In fact it's a tragedy of the commons. The best outcome is for lots of other people in my class, here age, to vote and thus increase my class's representation without me voting, and using my time.

What kind of logic is this? Your vote is irrelevant, so you are hoping others in your demographic will vote so you are represented anyway? How do you even reach such a thought.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

One election cannot break the two-party system. That's not how it works.

No but dramatically undermining one of the two parties is a huge step towards breaking it. If the Republican Party fractures into two new parties, first we will now have 3 parties (assuming they don't Whig themselves) and second the more progressive party will command a larger voter base than the two more conservative successor parties and will have more leeway to actually be progressive instead of pretend to be like the current Democratic Party.

 

[Macho Madness]

If you break both of the parties, the end result will be the same parties with different names. It's lazy to say that's how you change things.

 

[plagiarize]

No but dramatically undermining one of the two parties is a huge step towards breaking it. If the Republican Party fractures into two new parties, first we will now have 3 parties (assuming they don't Whig themselves) and second the more progressive party will command a larger voter base than the two more conservative successor parties and will have more leeway to actually be progressive instead of pretend to be like the current Democratic Party.

You think Obama pretended to be progressive? You think he hasn't made progress?

I just can't get my head around this. Yes, the current Democratic Party are making slow progress, but slow isn't no.

 

[Tabris]

For who?

Most of what you quoted deals with the Copyright protections that TPP seeks to make uniform across the Pacific, however, those are the very same protections that are already the law in the U.S. The copyright provisions in TPP seeks to make the U.S. the standard as it relates to copyright protections. Why would that be a bad deal for America?

You never responded to my statement on globalization. The US worker is not ready for that level of globalization due to poor social policies.

You think Obama pretended to be progressive? You think he hasn't made progress?

I just can't get my head around this. Yes, the current Democratic Party are making slow progress, but slow isn't no.

Your current government is less progressive then China.

 

[B-Dubs]

No but dramatically undermining one of the two parties is a huge step towards breaking it. If the Republican Party fractures into two new parties, first we will now have 3 parties (assuming they don't Whig themselves) and second the more progressive party will command a larger voter base than the two more conservative successor parties and will have more leeway to actually be progressive instead of pretend to be like the current Democratic Party.

We'd just find ourselves in a Bull Moose situation instead of what you're describing. The two-party system exists for a reason.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

You think Obama pretended to be progressive? You think he hasn't made progress?

I just can't get my head around this. Yes, the current Democratic Party are making slow progress, but slow isn't no.

The current Democratic Party would be regarded as a center-right party elsewhere in the world.

 

[Cocaloch]

I specifically said I would vote out of principle - not because I think it will make a difference. Standing up for principles rarely have an effect outside of personal fulfillment. If you want to call me recognizing that voting for Bernie still wouldn't have an impact, even though I'd do it anyway, then sure.

Man, these attacks are exhausting. Now I remember why I never participate in political threads here.

haha I think you read that wrong. I was actually defending you there. I get the voting on principle thing. I was pointing out that their attack on your stance didn't make much sense.

What kind of logic is this? Your vote is irrelevant, so you are hoping others in your demographic will vote so you are represented anyway? How do you even reach such a thought.

My vote is incredibly marginal and therefore not worth my time, but I still would like the state to do what I would want it to do? I ultimatly don't care too much because the state will almost certainly never be particularly representative of my views. This isn't some radical new idea. https://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/196farber.pdf

 

[Box of Kittens]

These aren't radical items. These are modern world standard items. A lot of these had been implemented within a decade in other countries. UK implemented Universal Healthcare from 1944 to 1948 after having been bombed continuously for 4 years and with their economy in shambles.

And clearly what happened in a country with a (de facto) unicameral parliamentary system can be implemented just as easily in the American federal system. Look, I want major healthcare reform, but you can't just get it by putting it all on the shoulders of the president. You need to understand how the system works. Quite frankly, serious reform won't happen until people make a concerted push to get it done in the state legislatures.

 

[JinjoUnchained]

Two things: One, given the options presented, people have supported Sanders or Clinton. Two, this ignores the fact that some voters (like older voters) aren't voting "the lesser of two evils", they're voting the candidate they actually believe will be a better President.

Now you may disagree, but they still have a right to participate in the political process. And given that spread in the Dem Primary, I'll take the candidate that is ultimately decided on.

Future election cycles? Well is Sanders supporters actually remain politically involved and vote in their state and local elections, we might change Congress, which makes it much easier to pass legislation that aligns with Sanders' views.

I'm just perplexed that people really don't believe in the election system or their own vote... at all.



I mean, if you feel that strongly about Clinton in the event of a Sanders loss, at the very least, you'll get to the polls and vote.

See, that's being pragmatic and trying to make the best of a poor situation.

If liberals know about Hillary's war record and still sincerely support her, then more power to them. Vote who you like. My suspicion though is that most of her support is coming from people "settling" for the "viable" candidate. Look at the polls with her in front, but a majority of voters thinking she is dishonest. That screams "settling" to me. And if that's the case and those people "settling" didn't support her, then she'd pull a Jeb! and vanish overnight.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

i don't think any bernie supporter should support the perpetuation of this bloody establishment. just don't vote is what i'd say, let them fight.

So you're for Bernie and whatever his cause, up until he states that he's packing it in, and he says that his supporters should vote Hilary..

 

[Good Job Bob]

A vote for Hillary is a straight-up vote for more of the same though. At least Obama promised things would change and was obstructed by the Republican Congress. Hillary isn't even pretending there's any change involved, she's basically telling us to vote for her because you don't want a Republican.

Trump needs to hurry up and break the foundations of the two-party system in this country while there's still anything left to change.

Breaking the foundations of two-party dominance would require changing our voting system from first-past-the-post to proportional representation, among a couple other things, not Donald Trump.

 

[theecakee]

I'd imagine they would come through if/when Bernie drops out and he then supports Hillary.

The problem will be will the young voters that don't tend to vote still show up and vote for Hillary as they would have for Bernie. I don't think they would go and vote for the Republican candidate.

 

[Nickle]

I don't need to go all the way to the voting poll and vote for a Democrat just so I can pat myself on the back and say that I helped America. Nothing changes because of my single vote, it's purely symbolic. Is this a shitty attitude to have? Probably. But I'm not a superstitious guy, and I can't fool myself into thinking that my vote matters.

I won't judge you for voting, and you shouldn't blame me when your favorite candidate doesn't get elected.

 

[Ogrekiller]

If liberals know about Hillary's war record and still sincerely support her, then more power to them. Vote who you like. My suspicion though is that most of her support is coming from people "settling" for the "viable" candidate. Look at the polls with her in front, but a majority of voters thinking she is dishonest. That screams "settling" to me. And if that's the case and those people "settling" didn't support her, then she'd pull a Jeb! and vanish overnight.

Good thing they actually show up to vote then. Because from what can be seen it's Sanders who is about to vanish overnight.

 

[Cindro]

haha I think you read that wrong. I was actually defending you there. I get the voting on principle thing. I was pointing out that their attack on your stance didn't make much sense.

Well then thank you - I apologize for misreading it. Been a long day.