Support NeoGAF

[Tesseract]

I read it more as criticizing the entire party, which is something I agree with. Liberal in America means something different than it used to, it seems to me. Corporate interests have dug their roots into the very foundation of the government at this point. Is it wrong to question that? Is it wrong to question someone who would defend that?

Our government, and the two parties that take part in it are imperfect. One party significantly moreso, but nonetheless. I'm not happy with the current state of things, and I have no faith in Hillary to make things better.

If you think that's nonsense, then okay. I disagree.

Yeah, I thought all liberals came to this necessary conclusion after Romney almost stole 2012's election ...

 

[border]

Wow, you were prescient border. I guess I should have seen this coming though.

I'd like to see Sanders supporters explain how he's going to take on big drug companies when he accepts money from the pharmaceutical industry!

 

[jehuty]

I'm an actual minority. A ton of the people who comprise my social circle are all minorities. The majority of them aren't voting for Hillary. There are a number of reasons for this(go back in my posts in this very thread for some such examples). Many of them were interested in voting for Bernie, because the things he was focused on & proposing spoke directly to them. Now that the media has effectively nominated Hillary Clinton, they really don't care for it.

I'm an actual minority. Most of my friends and family are minorities as well. I have tons of white friends too. Save for my two republican friends, all of them are voting for Hillary Clinton. Weird how life works huh?

 

[Angelus Errare]

Some minorities are buying into this as well, unfortunately.

Yea they think they're the "good ones". It's cute.

 

[pigeon]

I never accused you of not being a liberal.

Why are you taking your anger out on me?

Don't subtweet a whole thread and expect nobody to respond. Like, why even bother making the post?

 

[RedSparc]

I'm seeing a lot of this in my personal and work circles and it worries me. I'm a Bernie Bro, and I've surprisingly seen moderate republicans I work with side with Bernie, but no way are those same guys voting Hillary. Same with my Democratic family.
They site the same witch hunt shit like Benghazi and the email scandal. I know the emails were retroactively classified but I can't get around arguing for why she had a personal server given her position to begin with.
Benghazi I always argue that it was more complicated situation that what we understand and should blame terrorists for the act, not fellow Americans.

How do you guys argue the Benghazi and email points?

She has no responsibility for Benghazi, the emails though... I'll wait until the FBI passes judgement.

 

[SneakersSO]

They don't sound bright tbh. The idea of not voting to me just screams immaturity and reeks of "You didn't pick what I liked so I'm taking my ball and going home." Sorry but I can't take people who cry out for change then decide not to vote at all seriously. Doubly so if they're a minority.

Ah yes, please, do tell me more about my larger social circle not being too bright. Keep in mind, these are minorities who grew up very poor, in lower-income areas, where the gap in education opportunities & employment opportunities has ravaged these communities for the last decade. Please tell me how 'bright' they sound when their interest politics has effectively evaporated after coming out in record numbers for a President they do identify with, twice, specifically because they thought voting for him would make a difference in their lives & community, and they have nothing now to show for it.

 

[nitekrawlwer]

Yeah...sorry, i have standards. I don't vote for people just because they have a D by their name.

I am very curious what do you have to show for your standards? You seem so proud of them that I can't help but ask.

 

[Russ T]

Don't subtweet a whole thread and expect nobody to respond. Like, why even bother making the post?

I don't know what subtweeting is, but I've heard the word before. ):

I didn't expect nobody to respond (well okay maybe I did because I didn't think what I said was really worth responding to), but I did make an effort to clarify why I said what I said in a post near the top of this page. I hope it makes more sense now? I mean even if you disagree, at least I hopefully explained myself to a satisfactory manner?

Sorry, I obviously said something to upset you. FWIW, I was not talking about anyone specific in this thread, nor did I intend to generalize. I was just sayign "I have experienced this with more than on person". Also, in my defense, people generalize Bernie supporters all the time!

 

[hawk2025]

Why don't you answer why it's okay to deny millions of people in very poor developing countries life-saving advanced treatments because the American pharmaceutical industries want to ensure through "free-trade agreements" like the TPP that their profits are protected?

It's absolutely not. Rethinking the impact of patents in worldwide markets is one of the most important aspects of modern trade to think about and solve.

I'm not the one with an ex-ante anti-trade position, though. I've been clear from the beginning: I'm for understanding the full impact of trade on the economy, up to and including helping those in the US negatively impacted by it through short-term policy.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Ah yes, please, do tell me more about my larger social circle not being too bright. Keep in mind, these are minorities who grew up very poor, in lower-income areas, where the gap in education opportunities & employment opportunities, has ravaged these communities for the last decade. Please tell me how 'bright' they sound when their interest politics has effectively evaporated after coming out in record numbers for a President they do identify with, twice, specifically because they thought voting for him would make a difference in their lives & community.

Because they choose not to vote but will probably bitch. Minorities since they've arrived in this country have never really had a President they can really identify with. It has always been about picking which one will fuck us over least. If Bernie is out then your options are Clinton or Trump. Not voting is the same as saying "I'll take Trump". I'm sure some are thinking "they're both the same" but really they're not and no matter how many times stupid people repeat that line it won't make it anymore true than it was the first time they uttered it. It will however reaffirm how dumb they are with their pseudo-"I'm enlightened, I can see past the political veil, wake up sheeple!" nonsense they spew constantly with such conviction and assurance.

 

[pigeon]

"Ideology"?

So let me get this straight. Don't not vote, don't write in anyone's name, don't vote for Trump(which i would not do anyway), don't vote third party.

Well, yeah. Duh. A lot of the people in this thread want to elect Hillary Clinton. Are you expecting them to have an alternate suggestion? Obviously whatever you do that doesn't elect Hillary Clinton is going to be unsatisfactory to me.

 

[Cybit]

Probably mentioned before - but the Bernie supporters threatening not to vote for Clinton is pretty tame compared to Clinton / Obama 08 - I am guessing most folks here don't remember PUMA or how contentious that primary gotten. I wouldn't worry too much about it, tbh. Dem party unity is pretty high with SCOTUS in play.

 

[petethepanda]

There are a ton of people who treat the presidential race as a sporting event, it's always more than a little distressing.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

There are a ton of people who treat the presidential race as a sporting event, it's always more than a little distressing.

With the amount of money being won and lost in the betting pools, why shouldn't they?

 

[LegendofLex]

There are a ton of people who treat the presidential race as a sporting event, it's always more than a little distressing.

You're either willing to win the game, or you aren't.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

You both are talking past each other and it's hilarious. You're passively aggressively trying to convince one another with question why their evil is less than the other.

Seriously neither Clintonites nor Bernities can look down on one another over this.

But isn't that what this whole thread is about? The lesser evil!

Vote for Hillary Clinton instead of Drumpf because Hillary Clinton is the lesser evil even though there was a perfectly good candidate in Bernie who might have actually had a chance to be the Democratic nominee for President had the entire political machinery of the party not been assembled for Hillary! I mean come the fuck on, at this point it's beyond farcical.

The rise of Bernie and Drumpf is a direct response to the fact that the American people do not have any actual say in who the nominee for President is going to be. The Republicans have been anointing their Chosen One for awhile now, but the Democrats also anointing a Chosen One is a pretty recent occurrence. This is why the Republicans are in such disarray, it's not even about Trump specifically, it's the fact that they failed so spectacularly to anoint their Chosen One as they have in previous decades which has them in a panic.

Even as late as 2008, it was possible for a Barack Obama to overcome the party machinery stacked for Hillary Clinton and become the nominee and eventual President. But in 2016 the Democrats made sure that would never happen again, do you understand why there is no much discontent in the progressive ranks over Bernie never having had a fair shot at this nomination?

 

[shoplifter]

There are a ton of people who treat the presidential race as a sporting event, it's always more than a little distressing.

When the system is largely a sham (due to how the debates were taken over by the two parties, completely to the exclusion of the smaller parties, systematic exclusion or huge hurdles for third parties in state elections, etc) I can see why a lot of people don't give a shit.

 

[hawk2025]

But isn't that what this whole thread is about? The lesser evil!

Vote for Hillary Clinton instead of Drumpf because Hillary Clinton is the lesser evil even though there was a perfectly good candidate in Bernie who might have actually had a chance to be the Democratic nominee for President had the entire political machinery of the party not been assembled for Hillary! I mean come the fuck on, at this point it's beyond farcical.

The rise of Bernie and Drumpf is a direct response to the fact that the American people do not have any actual say in who the nominee for President is going to be. The Republicans have been anointing their Chosen One for awhile now, but the Democrats also anointing a Chosen One is a pretty recent occurrence. This is why the Republicans are in such disarray, it's not even about Trump specifically, it's the fact that they failed so spectacularly to anoint their Chosen One as they have in previous decades which has them in a panic.

Even as late as 2008, it was possible for a Barack Obama to overcome the party machinery stacked for Hillary Clinton and become the nominee and eventual President. But in 2016 the Democrats made sure that would never happen again, do you understand why there is no much discontent in the progressive ranks over Bernie never having had a fair shot at this nomination?

Walk me through the argument of how he never had a fair shot.

What would constitute a fair shot, in your view?

 

[Dash_Riprock]

But isn't that what this whole thread is about? The lesser evil!

Vote for Hillary Clinton instead of Drumpf because Hillary Clinton is the lesser evil even though there was a perfectly good candidate in Bernie who might have actually had a chance to be the Democratic nominee for President had the entire political machinery of the party not been assembled for Hillary! I mean come the fuck on, at this point it's beyond farcical.

I don't understand how people can still push this "CONSPIRACY!" shit after the massacre at SC.

 

[DiscoShark]

But isn't that what this whole thread is about? The lesser evil!

Vote for Hillary Clinton instead of Drumpf because Hillary Clinton is the lesser evil even though there was a perfectly good candidate in Bernie who might have actually had a chance to be the Democratic nominee for President had the entire political machinery of the party not been assembled for Hillary! I mean come the fuck on, at this point it's beyond farcical.

The rise of Bernie and Drumpf is a direct response to the fact that the American people do not have any actual say in who the nominee for President is going to be. The Republicans have been anointing their Chosen One for awhile now, but the Democrats also anointing a Chosen One is a pretty recent occurrence.

Even as late as 2008, it was possible for a Barack Obama to overcome the party machinery stacked for Hillary Clinton and become the nominee and eventual President. But in 2016 the Democrats made sure that would never happen again, do you understand why there is no much discontent in the progressive ranks over Bernie never having had a fair shot at this nomination?

In what universe does Trump represent an establishment candidate? Dude isn't in an elected office and up until Christie's endorsement was almost universally disliked by the actual Republican establishment, who were putting up Jeb before his initial debate and Rubio as the candidates who have the best chance against Hilary in the general.

I know I'm coming into this conversation late but am I missing something?

Edit : Disregard me, I read your second paragraph wrong.

 

[border]

Even as late as 2008, it was possible for a Barack Obama to overcome the party machinery stacked for Hillary Clinton and become the nominee and eventual President. But in 2016 the Democrats made sure that would never happen again, do you understand why there is no much discontent in the progressive ranks over Bernie never having had a fair shot at this nomination?

Sanders just got blown out by ~50 points. Rather than blame Democrats, at some point you might consider that he's just not that appealing or is not running a very good ground game.

 

[Angelus Errare]

But isn't that what this whole thread is about? The lesser evil!

Vote for Hillary Clinton instead of Drumpf because Hillary Clinton is the lesser evil even though there was a perfectly good candidate in Bernie who might have actually had a chance to be the Democratic nominee for President had the entire political machinery of the party not been assembled for Hillary! I mean come the fuck on, at this point it's beyond farcical.

The rise of Bernie and Drumpf is a direct response to the fact that the American people do not have any actual say in who the nominee for President is going to be. The Republicans have been anointing their Chosen One for awhile now, but the Democrats also anointing a Chosen One is a pretty recent occurrence.

Even as late as 2008, it was possible for a Barack Obama to overcome the party machinery stacked for Hillary Clinton and become the nominee and eventual President. But in 2016 the Democrats made sure that would never happen again, do you understand why there is no much discontent in the progressive ranks over Bernie never having had a fair shot at this nomination?

It's already a forgone conclusion that Sanders isn't going to win. Unless you have a time machine and can change this outcome harping on it at this point in time is rather pointless. The people have spoken and they think Hilary is better qualified to run the country whether you like that outcome or not. And Americans absolutely love the "most qualified for the position" argument. Point in case minorities in the job market.

So you now have two choices

Trump or Hilary

So yes ultimately it is about the lesser of two evils, and by not voting at all you have in essence voted for Trump as a "fuck you" to those who didn't vote for Sanders. That's petty IMO but again it's your choice. Just don't make a stank face when people judge you for it.

 

[MIMIC]

There's hundreds of people! Of course it will cover people from the lower level to the higher levels. In all probability it is fairly spread out across all levels of what are some very large companies.

You C'mon. Do you really think the campaign is sifting through the list of donations and assigning more importance to the donations coming from people based on how high up they are in their companies?

The point is that she is taking money from people who run the drug companies, while you painted it as some no-names who just so happened to be affiliated with these companies.

Additionally:

Hillary Clinton is pacing the field in presidential campaign fundraising, but there was one significant red flag in the finance report she filed Sunday night with the Federal Election Commission: She relied on maxed-out donors for a majority of her cash.

Clinton last year raised 58 percent of the $110.4 million she has amassed for the primary campaign from donors who have given maximum $2,700 donations, according to an analysis by the Campaign Finance Institute. Those donors are barred by federal limits from giving again for the primary, though if Clinton wins the Democratic presidential nomination, they’ll be able to donate another $2,700 toward her general election campaign.

And it's not a coincidence that she has some senior execs from the drug industry on the donation list.

So acting like it's just a bunch of Joe Schmoe donors is completely inaccurate as well. She is getting a large portion of her money from people with power in high level positions. You know it, and I know it.

 

[Feep]

And what about those of us who write Bernie in just for a show of support to him? Do i get to fuck myself because i don't vote for your corperatist candidate?

I expect a lot of people are going to do it, and those votes are definitely not going to go to her.

It feels more like this argument of 'you better vote!' is not about any real viewpoint on 'civic duties' and more about being frustrated people are resolving to not vote for the candidate you want to see win specifically.

Yeah, I already responded to this. Write in whomever you want.

Just vote.

 

[LegendofLex]

Vote for Hillary Clinton instead of Drumpf because Hillary Clinton is the lesser evil even though there was a perfectly good candidate in Bernie who might have actually had a chance to be the Democratic nominee for President had the entire political machinery of the party not been assembled for Hillary! I mean come the fuck on, at this point it's beyond farcical.

tbh, the only reason this could possibly be true is if Bernie would have gotten the nomination if not for superdelegates. Given how the primary process works otherwise, there's basically no reason to assume that how Bernie is doing in the primaries is because of the "political machinery of the party." The states where he's losing by all accounts seem to be states that he legitimately lost.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

It's absolutely not. Rethinking the impact of patents in worldwide markets is one of the most important aspects of modern trade to think about and solve.

I'm not the one with an ex-ante anti-trade position, though. I've been clear from the beginning: I'm for understanding the full impact of trade on the economy, up to and including helping those in the US negatively impacted by it through short-term policy.

Fair enough. I've never spoke specifically that I oppose trade either, but the unfortunate reality is that free-trade agreements as they are crafted today are mainly about cementing corporate power in wealthy nations over poorer ones. There's no better explanation for why the US copyright regime of lifetime + 75 years needs to be expanded to the entire free trade zone created by the TPP for example.

I don't oppose what both Bernie and Trump refer to as "fair trade" which does imply that there is actual government oversight of economic transactions and that the worldwide markets, such as they are, do not result primarily in the increase of wealth for the wealthy and the destitution of everyone else. The TPP in particular does not meet any criteria for that particular barrier, as easy as it could be to cross.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Yeah, I already responded to this. Write in whomever you want.

Just vote.

This.

 

[Melkezadek]

I wish people who said they won't vote/vote third party will just come out and say they don't care about minorities because that's what they're effectively saying.

I wish they would just come out and say that their political ideology and platitudes are more important than the fair treatment of their own American citizens, because that's what they are effectively saying.

They're turning this into an argument on whether or not they're justified in disliking Hilary but conveniently ignoring the impact it would have on minorities (Muslims, women, LBGT, etc) DIRECTLY should Trump or front runner on the right, should gain the presidency.

It's not about voting simply because the candidate has "D" in front of their name. What are these two front runners trying to impose? Which sounds more morally reprehensible?

Political disagreements are in the nature of democracy. You can have an honest disagreement and let you voice be heard through the process. Creating policy and spewing rhetoric that incites violence against minorities, Americans, is deplorable. How could one sit at home and allow that nonsense to go unchallenged...unless they don't care at all/doesn't affect them - knowing full well what being in a two party system means.

 

[shoplifter]

Sanders just got blown out by ~50 points. Rather than blame Democrats, at some point you might consider that he's just not that appealing or is not running a very good ground game.

From my side as a Sanders supporter, it's less about Sanders not doing well there and more about that I refuse to believe that the Dems only had *one* good candidate (disregarding O'Malley) for President and it just happened to be Hillary. I'm sure no pressure, implicit or otherwise, was put on any other prospective candidates.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Sanders just got blown out by ~50 points. Rather than blame Democrats, at some point you might consider that he's just not that appealing or is not running a very good ground game.

I'm not going to fight the "he's not that appealing" argument in South Carolina, a state in the South.

But ground game requires a great deal of money unless you're running a campaign based on a personality cult like Trump is, and there's only one person who had a great deal of money on the Democratic primary ticket.

Walk me through the argument of how he never had a fair shot.

What would constitute a fair shot, in your view?

One where Hillary doesn't have all the money and all the support of the Democratic establishment? I mean, Hillary has the endorsement of 40 Democratic Senators and Bernie has zero. She also has the second most money raised, only Jeb Bush had more.

 

[hawk2025]

Fair enough. I've never spoke specifically that I oppose trade either, but the unfortunate reality is that free-trade agreements as they are crafted today are mainly about cementing corporate power in wealthy nations over poorer ones. There's no better explanation for why the US copyright regime of lifetime + 75 years needs to be expanded to the entire free trade zone created by the TPP for example.

I don't oppose what both Bernie and Trump refer to as "fair trade" which does imply that there is actual government oversight of economic transactions and that the worldwide markets, such as they are, do not result primarily in the increase of wealth for the wealthy and the destitution of everyone else. The TPP in particular does not meet any criteria for that particular barrier, as easy as it could be to cross.

We could (should?) have a huge discussion on pharma patents. I genuinely think it's one of the most important topics of our time (see: the Brazil example with AIDS medication, one of the best examples of the clear and positive examples of breaking patents with incredible positive effects), but it is being used as an unfortunate bullet point in all-encompassing free-trade rejection. I disagree that the way the agreements are crafted today are mainly about cementing corporate powers. There is that aspect of it that we need to address, but the net impact has been largely and overwhelmingly positive.

By the way, you made the best of points by bringing up Pharma patents. You hit me right on the softest of spots without knowing it

Total non sequitur, but regarding write-ins:

That's absolutely preferable over not participating. You can help shift the demographics of voters that actually show up and completely change the type of voter that politicians try to aim for. We can discuss strategic voting for Hillary until the cows come home, but hopefully everyone agrees that at the very least showing up, casting a vote, answering polls that you may be asked will help shift the voter demographics towards YOUR direction!

One where Hillary doesn't have all the money and all the support of the Democratic establishment? I mean, Hillary has the endorsement of 40 Democratic Senators and Bernie has zero. She also has the second most money raised, only Jeb Bush had more.

But the money differentials haven't impacted their spending yet. By most accounts, this is the point where the Bernie campaign should be picking up steam by spending close to the Hillary campaign, and then it would have ridden it all the way through the end through the momentum of new donations. This was all very feasible, especially as Sanders gained more primary and GE feasibility through key wins and support started shifting to him.

 

[Neoweee]

I'm not going to fight the "he's not that appealing" argument in South Carolina, a state in the South.

But ground game requires a great deal of money unless you're running a campaign based on a personality cult like Trump is, and there's only one person who had a great deal of money on the Democratic primary ticket.

Hillary's ground game has been much more efficient it seems, as well. Not surprising since she's soaked up a bunch of establishment campaigning expertise, but it has still played a major role. SC was a much bigger win than expected, on a far more limited ground game.

From my side as a Sanders supporter, it's less about Sanders not doing well there and more about that I refuse to believe that the Dems only had *one* good candidate (disregarding O'Malley) for President and it just happened to be Hillary. I'm sure no pressure, implicit or otherwise, was put on any other prospective candidates.

Yeah, the Clintons are a powerful entity within the party, and they've clearly suppressed others from throwing their hats into the ring. O'Malley would have been a pretty mediocre candidate even outside of his awful "try to run in the narrow policy sliver between Hillary and Bernie". His entire strategy was questionable and completely at odds with his political record.

 

[Angelus Errare]

I wish people who said they won't vote/vote third party will just come out and say they don't care about minorities because that's what they're effectively saying.

I wish they would just come out and say that their political ideology and platitudes are more important than the fair treatment of their own American citizens, because that's what they are effectively saying.

They're turning this into an argument on whether or not they're justified in disliking Hilary but conveniently ignoring the impact it would have on minorities (Muslims, women, LBGT, etc) DIRECTLY should Trump or front runner on the right, should gain the presidency.

It's not about voting simply because the candidate has "D" in front of their name. What are these two front runners trying to impose? Which sounds more morally reprehensible?

Political disagreements are in the nature of democracy. You can have an honest disagreement and let you voice be heard through the process. Creating policy and spewing rhetoric that incites violence against minorities, Americans, is deplorable. How could one sit at home and allow that nonsense to go unchallenged...unless they don't care at all/doesn't affect them - knowing full well what being in a two party system means.

Exactly, which is why I said it's some white privilege shit. There are people out there who can't even get time off to vote at all or worse stupid Voter ID laws fuck them over (vast majority of the people fucked over are minorities but I'm sure that's a cosmic coincidence). And you got people going around talking about "If Bernie doesn't win I ain't votin"? Ain't Shit motherfuckers the lot of them. These same people love to talk about how Bernie walked with MLK and shit but clearly don't actually give a damn past their own self interests.

 

[LegendofLex]

I'm not going to fight the "he's not that appealing" argument in South Carolina, a state in the South.

But ground game requires a great deal of money unless you're running a campaign based on a personality cult like Trump is, and there's only one person who had a great deal of money on the Democratic primary ticket.

The spending difference (total disbursements) between the two campaigns this past quarter isn't even $1 million.

edit:

Bernie Sanders?

 

[border]

I'm not going to fight the "he's not that appealing" argument in South Carolina, a state in the South.

But ground game requires a great deal of money unless you're running a campaign based on a personality cult like Trump is, and there's only one person who had a great deal of money on the Democratic primary ticket.

Bernie Sanders?

 

[Fenderputty]

I never accused you of not being a liberal.

Why are you taking your anger out on me?

Because that's the argument Bernie Bro's use when someone supports Hillary?

 

[Neoweee]

The spending difference (total disbursements) between the two campaigns this past quarter isn't even $1 million.

edit:

People will still blame it on money.

Hillary (or namely, her strategists), know she is a considerable frontrunner, and it stands her little benefit to be aggressive against Sanders or to waste money better spent in the general. Her campaign seems like it is being run extremely well.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Bernie Sanders?

Thank you. I was just about to upload a screenshot myself.

 

[LegendofLex]

People will still blame it on money.

Which is dumb, because there's a much simpler reason: Name recognition. Do people really think Hillary needs money to get people who already liked her on board?

The fact that she's running against a guy whose supporters consist of those young white people that don't vote has gotta be helping, too.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

People will still blame it on money.

Hillary (or namely, her strategists), know she is a considerable frontrunner, and it stands her little benefit to be aggressive against Sanders or to waste money better spent in the general. Her campaign seems like it is being run extremely well.

Its amazing how much you learn when your last opponent was quite possibly the best run campaign of all time.

 

[lastflowers]

Its amazing how much you learn when your last opponent was quite possibly the best run campaign of all time.

and she hired them to run her campaign (or some key staffers at least).

 

[excelsiorlef]

I'm an actual minority. A ton of the people who comprise my social circle are all minorities. The majority of them aren't voting for Hillary. There are a number of reasons for this(go back in my posts in this very thread for some such examples). Many of them were interested in voting for Bernie, because the things he was focused on & proposing spoke directly to them. Now that the media has effectively nominated Hillary Clinton, they really don't care for it.

The media?

The people are nominating Clinton... it wasn't the media that gave Clinton a massive win in South Carolina.

 

[Neoweee]

Its amazing how much you learn when your last opponent was quite possibly the best run campaign of all time.

A combination of that, and literally hiring a bunch of people than ran Obama's campaign.

Bill's campaigns were no slouches, relative to their own times, for what it is worth. There was a fantastic 538 podcast on the history of voter analytics.

 

[EnthronedReaper]

Gaf! Why won't Hillary release the transcripts of her paid wall st. Speeches? I know she's stated she wants the republicans to release theirs first, do you believe she has something to hide?

I think she's not as progressive as she tries to sell, and would argue she's more right than centrist as she once admitted.

 

[excelsiorlef]

There are a ton of people who treat the presidential race as a sporting event, it's always more than a little distressing.

It is in fact two teams and only one of them is sane

 

[gutter_trash]

Gaf! Why won't Hillary release the transcripts of her paid wall st. Speeches? I know she's stated she wants the republicans to release theirs first, do you believe she has something to hide?

I think she's not as progressive as she tries to sell, and would argue she's more right than centrist as she once admitted.

Because Republicans are not doing it and you don't want to give ammo to the enemy

 

[MHWilliams]

Yeah, I already responded to this. Write in whomever you want.

Just vote.

This is the thing I want to stress the most. Please vote and make sure you carry that voting power into your state and local elections.

"No vote" = "vote for the winner, regardless of relative quality against the other candidate."
"Write-in" = "vote for the winner, regardless of relative quality against the other candidate."
"Vote for third party" = "vote for the winner, regardless of relative quality against the other candidate."*
"Vote against Trump" = "vote against Trump."

*Again, unless this changes in a future election and a third party actually has real support prior to the general. Interestingly, the ones who apparently most hate the political process are also the ones whose failure to participate has led to these third parties being universally weak.

Sadly, this is the realistic outcome of your vote.

Well, yeah. Duh. A lot of the people in this thread want to elect Hillary Clinton. Are you expecting them to have an alternate suggestion? Obviously whatever you do that doesn't elect Hillary Clinton is going to be unsatisfactory to me.

I don't want to elect Hillary Clinton, despite your insistence. But if Sanders loses the primary, I will vote Clinton because to concede to any of the current GOP candidates, with a GOP Congress and open Supreme Court seat, is not something I'm willing to let slide. There are too many people who are just getting access to their rights to do otherwise.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Too many people are proud of their ignorance and apathy in this thread. In the time it takes you to write these posts that probably sound really cool in your head you could be googling actual facts about the various candidates and their platforms, and making informed decisions.

Rarely if ever will there be a 100% ideal candidate because American politics unfortunately doesn't allow for it. Like it or not it is always a lesser of two evils situation, and to those most affected by those evils it just seems petty and childish to either do nothing at all or push for the greater evil out of spite because not enough people saw the light in your candidate's eyes.

You say 'google actual facts about the various candidates and their platforms and making informed decisions", but its because i did that specifically that i don't support Clinton.

So here's what i know about Hillary based on googling and making my informed decision.

6 out of 10 of Hillary's donors are big banks, and a majority of her speaking fees and donor cash come from entities that she has a cozy relationship with, and she has in her campaign staff.

I know she supported more regime change than even Bush Jr did just based on her voting record and what she did as sec of state, and in that manner, has worse judgement in foreign policy than even he did in that way.

In the 90s as first lady, she advocated for the most damaging decimation of inner city black populous of any President, and basically destroyed significantly more lives than were involved in violence or gangs, setting the black population back many years.

and the list goes on.

With this in mind, there's no real question about not supporting her.

I am very curious what do you have to show for your standards? You seem so proud of them that I can't help but ask.

What would i have to gain from selling them out?

Why are you asking people with beliefs in fair and equitable human rights, and fundamental fairness of the system to throw those things away? I can understand if you don't believe in those things fundamentally, but i do.

If you ask people to throw those things they fundamentally believe in away, then your never going to get any movement in that direction from any place. There have to be people that keep up the fight in spite of opposition.

 

[VendettaRed07]

Gaf! Why won't Hillary release the transcripts of her paid wall st. Speeches? I know she's stated she wants the republicans to release theirs first, do you believe she has something to hide?

She might.

But she might not. Look at how people distort facts when it comes to anything she does. Those speeches could have nothing in them but people will cross examine them 1,000 ways to get something they can take out of context.

Basically she has absolutely nothing to gain by releasing them to people. There's really no scenario in which she releases them, and regardless of what happened or what was said, people walk away and go "See they are completely clean, I guess Hillary is a nice person who cares about the little guy at all!" People have already made up their minds as to what happened during those speeches.