Support NeoGAF

[Polari]

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.

Yeah I mean there's obviously something there she's trying to hide. Otherwise why not just release them and kill the story?

 

[Tesseract]

She should release those speeches, I hope protesters hit her hard on that

 

[JABEE]

To vote is a choice just like any other. I an against forced voting in the same way that I am against conscription.

I would also say that the same people complaining about people not voting are most likely the guys that were pissed off that people voted for Nader.

It doesn't matter to you, you just want to be on the side that's winnin'.

 

[excelsiorlef]

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.



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.

Sanders out spent Clinton in South Carolina I believe . And outspent Clinton in January.

 

[GetLucky]

She should release those speeches, I hope protesters hit her hard on that

Ok I'll bite, you guys are all joking about the transcripts for speeches right?

 

[BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO]

Hilary is probably the worst popular political figure(outside of her husband) I can think of right now. Her remarks towards Black's plus her involvement in the prison industrial complex is a no no for me.

 

[Melkezadek]

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.

How can you say that when there is a candidate running that seeks to usurp the rights of millions of Americans?

If everyone thought like you did, Trump would be president. There goes your human rights and fundamental fairness.

Give me a break.

 

[Malvolio]

If you want to shame people into actually voting, I'll be right there with you. If you want to shame people into voting for the candidate that best serves your interest, then I think you're being pretty scummy.

 

[eBay Huckster]

I do not agree with everything they argued but they were literally questioned on the quality of their skin for being a Bernie supporter.

Okay, thanks for being passive aggressive for several posts and not actually naming me, but:

I "questioned them on the quality of their skin" for expressing apathy about the process, made several qualifying statements on why I would even ask such a question (and why I would express sympathy for a person of color saying so over a white person, given the tendency of the process to cater to the latter over the former), and have since apologized for making such a reductivist argument on top of being out of line.

Their support for Sanders was honestly secondary to this. Because if I was gonna talk shit about POC voting for Sanders, you'd think I would've started with brainchild or even my own former state senator in Nina Turner. And yet I didn't in either case!

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Sanders out spent Clinton in South Carolina I believe . And outspent Clinton in January.

Is that including Super PAC money or just the campaigns themselves? Honest question, I'm still trying to wrap my head around that screenshot posted on the previous page where Hillary didn't seem to do anything in SC and won it handily.

 

[User1608]

How can you say that when there is a candidate running that seeks to usurp the rights of millions of Americans?

If everyone thought like you did, Trump would be president. There goes your humans rights and fundamental fairness.

Indeed. There also goes the SC and progress would be set back for decades.

 

[HyperOne]

Dear Fellow GAF memebers,

I have had a legitimate epiphany. I can no longer vote republican even if dear Bernie loses.

First, let me say that I am a school teacher at a high school and see the worst of societies maladjusted children as I teach the alternative program in addition to my normal duties.

During the process of a political conversation I had an individual tell me that the problem with liberals was that the statist society is robbing kids of the lesson of responsibility by not letting them have guns on campus.....

And he meant it...

It then dawned on me, THIS is the truth about half of these scary folks who think guns are the answer to everything. Couple this with the already terrifying god is the answer types which make up the other half and I don't see how I could live with myself if I voted for the guy they wanted...

I am done. Hillary is scummy, but if it pisses these folks off then it is worth it. Anything they want cannot possibly be good.

Signed,
HyperOne

 

[Fenderputty]

Poor Bernie. Constantly having to face the establishment has to be tiring. Establishment money, establishment politicians, establishment economists, establishment media and the many many establishment uteri.

 

[Inuhanyou]

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.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969

 

[nitekrawlwer]

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.

I just want to know what you are percieving as gained from them. Your fundamental beliefs are of no concern to me. I'm certainly not asking you to change them.

 

[minor effort]

If you want to shame people into actually voting, I'll be right there with you. If you want to shame people into voting for the candidate that best serves your interest, then I think you're being pretty scummy.

What about shaming people into voting for the candidate that best serves the nation's interest?

 

[Steel]

Dear Fellow GAF memebers,

I have had a legitimate epiphany. I can no longer vote republican even if dear Bernie loses.

First, let me say that I am a school teacher at a high school and see the worst of societies maladjusted children as I teach the alternative program in addition to my normal duties.

During the process of a political conversation I had an individual tell me that the problems with liberals was that the statist society is robbing kids of the lesson of responsibility by not letting them have guns on campus.....

And he meant it...

It then dawned on me, THIS is the truth about half of these scary folks who think guns are the answer to everything. Couple this with the already terrifying god is the answer types which make up the other half and I don't see how I could live with myself if I voted for the guy they wanted...

I am done. Hillary is scummy, but if it pisses these folks off then it is worth it. Anything they want cannot possibly be good.

Signed,
HyperOne

You haven't seen the bottom of that abyss until you've worked in an industry where the majority of your co-workers(and even your boss) are on the right end of the spectrum.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Is that including Super PAC money or just the campaigns themselves? Honest question, I'm still trying to wrap my head around that screenshot posted on the previous page where Hillary didn't seem to do anything in SC and won it handily.

Oh she did plenty on SC. She gradsrooted like crazy. She put her boots to the ground and met face to face with leaders of the black communities there. Mothers who lost children to police brutality. She fucking showed up.

Sanders flew over and then jumped focus to white states.

 

[minor effort]

Dear Fellow GAF memebers,

I have had a legitimate epiphany. I can no longer vote republican even if dear Bernie loses.

First, let me say that I am a school teacher at a high school and see the worst of societies maladjusted children as I teach the alternative program in addition to my normal duties.

During the process of a political conversation I had an individual tell me that the problem with liberals was that the statist society is robbing kids of the lesson of responsibility by not letting them have guns on campus.....

And he meant it...

It then dawned on me, THIS is the truth about half of these scary folks who think guns are the answer to everything. Couple this with the already terrifying god is the answer types which make up the other half and I don't see how I could live with myself if I voted for the guy they wanted...

I am done. Hillary is scummy, but if it pisses these folks off then it is worth it. Anything they want cannot possibly be good.

Signed,
HyperOne

That's terrifying.

In any case, I'm glad you quickly abandoned your "chaos vote" idea from yesterday.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

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.



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.

You voting or nah

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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.



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.

This post was pretty long, so I simplified it for you:

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

- George Bernard Shaw

 

[Malvolio]

What about shaming people into voting for the candidate that best serves the nation's interest?

Who is going to speak for the nation, you?

 

[eBay Huckster]

Is that including Super PAC money or just the campaigns themselves? Honest question, [...]

Just the campaigns themselves - Priorities USA doesn't seem to be spending all that much yet.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Oh she did plenty on SC. She gradsrooted like crazy. She put her boots to the ground and met face to face with leaders of the black communities there. Mothers who lost children to police brutality. She fucking showed up.

Sanders flew over and then jumped focus to white states.

Fair enough, thank you.

 

[Cybit]

If you want to shame people into actually voting, I'll be right there with you. If you want to shame people into voting for the candidate that best serves your interest, then I think you're being pretty scummy.

Agreed. That's GOP tactics circa 2000 (McCain / Bush divide).

Indeed. There also goes the SC and progress would be set back for decades.

Maybe if we voted in mid-terms, SCOTUS wouldn't end up being a de-facto rulemaking body?

I'm a little more worried that SCOTUS is turning into the wise old council that rules the country from up-top - cuz at some point, we're gonna lose the presidency when SCOTUS is up for grabs, and it's just gonna swing the pendulum back even harder unless Congress does their job and actually makes clear laws.

 

[Fenderputty]

That Shaw quote would be really neat it applied in any way to the American political system.

 

[Neoweee]

Is that including Super PAC money or just the campaigns themselves? Honest question, I'm still trying to wrap my head around that screenshot posted on the previous page where Hillary didn't seem to do anything in SC and won it handily.

There hasn't been much SuperPAC spending on the Democratic side relative to what the main campaigns have spent. They've been far, far, far more substantial on the Republican side.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html?_r=0

SuperPACS have spent about ~14% of what Hillary's campaign have spent, whereas Jeb's SuperPACs spent over 3x what Jeb's campaign spent. Of the remaining Republicans, only Trump has a lower SuperPAC ratio than Hillary.


Hillary knows she is very likely to win the nomination, so can play more of a long game with spread out resources that help set up an operation ready for November. Bernie is in a position where he has to be very aggressive in early states to even stand a chance.

 

[minor effort]

Who is going to speak for the nation, you?

My point was that then it's no longer shaming, just persuasion. Every candidate who has ever run claims they hold the nation's best interests, a claim echoed by their surrogates and supporters.

People persuade pretty hard by reminding folks what's at stake with that election, and the perils of making an uninformed vote or not voting. If somebody feels shamed by that, that's on them.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Oh she did plenty on SC. She gradsrooted like crazy. She put her boots to the ground and met face to face with leaders of the black communities there. Mothers who lost children to police brutality. She fucking showed up.

Sanders flew over and then jumped focus to white states.

Pretty much. She held small meet and greets and sat and talked with these people. My mother called me and told me she was able to meet Hilary.

Bernie showed a commercial about walking with MLK and that Killer Mike endorses him.

And people are confused as to how Clinton won SC or worse believe it's some establishment conspiracy.

 

[Malvolio]

My point was that then it's no longer shaming, just persuasion. Every candidate who has ever run claims they hold the nation's best interests, a claim echoed by their surrogates and supporters.

People persuade pretty hard by reminding folks what's at stake with that election, and the perils of making an uninformed vote or not voting. If somebody feels shamed by that, that's on them.

Persuade is great. Debate is fantastic.

This right here? This is bullshit:

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.

 

[RedSparc]

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.

How can you sit at home knowing 15000+ Americans are dead because of feckless leaders like HRC who got duped by the Bush Administration into starting the biggest fucking quagmire in US History, and let it go unchallenged?

"My Bad, Sorry about Isis" is bullshit that you support by supporting those who voted for it. So to appeal to the violence against minorities is shrugging your shoulders at endless war and death of our citizens as fair treatment?

You conveniently ignoring the impact war has.

 

[User1608]

Agreed. That's GOP tactics circa 2000 (McCain / Bush divide).



Maybe if we voted in mid-terms, SCOTUS wouldn't end up being a de-facto rulemaking body?

I'm a little more worried that SCOTUS is turning into the wise old council that rules the country from up-top - cuz at some point, we're gonna lose the presidency when SCOTUS is up for grabs, and it's just gonna swing the pendulum back even harder unless Congress does their job and actually makes clear laws.

I do agree it's pretty unfortunate we've gotten to this point. If only people who are able to vote would actually vote all the time, and not just during a GE.

 

[Inuhanyou]

What about shaming people into voting for the candidate that best serves the nation's interest?

Who is going to serve the nation's interest? Certainly not Clinton. She will serve her donors interests and nothing more. Even Obama is more interested in pushing corporate dominion over caring about what that may do to other countries, let alone ours.

I just want to know what you are percieving as gained from them. Your fundamental beliefs are of no concern to me. I'm certainly not asking you to change them.

A sense that i was able to keep in line a set of values that fundamentally represent my moral compass

It's a privilege held exclusively for well off white folks.

I'm not well off and i'm black. Thanks for dismissing everyone with whom you disagree on racial terms though.

I guess that makes it easier in your mind to dismiss our anger and frustrations as "they are just white racists against blacks!" Yeah no...i don't even know how some people twist their minds into these types of viewpoints considering Hillary is a white woman propping up the white supremacy establishment, using the black voter base as a tool to fundamentally rig the system.

If you really cared about minorities as you say, you'd probably do more digging about Hillary and her past yourself.

How can you say that when there is a candidate running that seeks to usurp the rights of millions of Americans?

If everyone thought like you did, Trump would be president. There goes your human rights and fundamental fairness.

Give me a break.

I already fully believed in that viewpoint at one point, so i understand where your coming from, but its faulty.

If your only argument for Hillary is to vote against my interests because there is something worse on the road, your basically trying to fear monger perpetually about accepting below mediocrity. The democrats don't have to try and be for the people when they can point to GOP and say they are crazies forever.

That isn't democracy, and we should hold both parties to account on their hit jobs on the American people instead of rewarding them for being shitheads.

 

[God Dayumm]

I see more hate towards Bernie and towards Trump. The later deserves it, but the former is just cringeworthy at this point. Hillary has been having it very easy so far

Oh, and Chris Christie deserves all the hate, even if he is out already. He is revolting

 

[eBay Huckster]

How can you sit at home knowing 15000+ Americans are dead because of feckless leaders like HRC who got duped by the Bush Administration into starting the biggest fucking quagmire in US History, and let it go unchallenged?

While we're on the subject of not letting things go unchallenged, 4,500 Americans are dead because of that quagmire, not 15,000.

 

[xxracerxx]

Who is going to serve the nation's interest? Certainly not Clinton. She will serve her donors interests and nothing more. Even Obama is more interested in pushing corporate dominion over caring about what that may do to other countries, let alone ours.

Come on, you can't really believe this. You really believe she will only 100% act for her donors only and not a single other group? Bollocks.

 

[Steel]

I see more hate towards Bernie and towards Trump. The later deserves it, but the former is just cringeworthy at this point. Hillary has been having it very easy so far

Who here hates Bernie?

 

[excelsiorlef]

Pretty much. She held small meet and greets and sat and talked with these people. My mother called me and told me she was able to meet Hilary.

Bernie showed a commercial about walking with MLK and that Killer Mike endorses him.

And people are confused as to how Clinton won SC or worse believe it's some establishment conspiracy.

And let's not forget the lovely optics of a post SC slaughtered Sanders speaking for an hour in front of a mostly white crowd on a mostly white state claiming he'll win that one. Not once acknowledging what happened in SC

 

[eBay Huckster]

Who here hates Bernie?

Diablos. Like, actually.

Persuade is great. Debate is fantastic.

This right here? This is bullshit:

Not to mention my own bullshit earlier in the thread.

 

[JABEE]

And by not voting at all you in essence voted for Trump. So which is worse being a Trump supporter by proxy or a Hilary supporter by default?

Regardless I respect your decision not to vote, just don't bitch about the political process for the next 4 year.

People can complain about these jokers if they want. Voting doesn't entitle people to bitch and complain. People living in this country or being impacted by this country entitles them to bitch and complain.

There is no way for one person to reverse how the primary process goes. Trump and Clinton are your choices, because Iowa and the American South decided. The Democratic Elite had their finger on the tilt button in case things went south in the form of Super Delegates.

This country does not have a legitimate democratic process for electing President. Two oligopolies control the entire process through coercive measures and mechanisms that are in place to ensure that nothing breaks up their fun.

People have a right to complain about an election system that is gradually becoming more un-democratic as the people who are benefiting from this system design new ways to shut out legitimate third party candidates.

It's a sham. People should and will complain, becuase most people don't follow this game in the same way that they don't follow baseball. It's a game. People know it's a game with pundits and bullshit artists. It doesn't reflect the people. It a system that lives and operates the same if no one cared at all.

That's how people feel. They may be wrong, but politicians and political cheerleaders only have themselves to blame for that impression.

 

[excelsiorlef]

People can complain about these jokers if they want. Voting doesn't entitle people to bitch and complain. People living in this country or being impacted by this country entitles them to bitch and complain.

There is no way for one person to reverse how the primary process goes. Trump and Clinton are your choices, because Iowa and the American South decided. The Democratic Elite had their finger on the tilt button in case things went south in the form of Super Delegates.

This country does not have a legitimate democratic process for electing President. Two oligopolies control the entire process through coercive measures and mechanisms that are in place to ensure that nothing breaks up their fun.

People have a right to complain about an election system that is gradually becoming more un-democratic as the people who are benefiting from this system design new ways to shut out legitimate third party candidates.

It's a sham. People should and will complain, becuase most people don't follow this game in the same way that they don't follow baseball. It's a game. People know it's a game with pundits and bullshit artists. It doesn't reflect the people. It a system that lives and operates the same if no one cared at all.

That's how people feel. They may be wrong, but politicians and political cheerleaders only have themselves to blame for that impression.

Sanders people should actually show up to vote.

 

[Inuhanyou]

People can complain about these jokers if they want. Voting doesn't entitle people to bitch and complain. People living in this country or being impacted by this country entitles them to bitch and complain.

There is no way for one person to reverse how the primary process goes. Trump and Clinton are your choices, because Iowa and the American South decided. The Democratic Elite had their finger on the tilt button in case things went south in the form of Super Delegates.

This country does not have a legitimate democratic process for electing President. Two oligopolies control the entire process through coercive measures and mechanisms that are in place to ensure that nothing breaks up their fun.

People have a right to complain about an election system that is gradually becoming more un-democratic as the people who are benefiting from this system design new ways to shut out legitimate third party candidates.

It's a sham. People should and will complain, becuase most people don't follow this game in the same way that they don't follow baseball. It's a game. People know it's a game with pundits and bullshit artists. It doesn't reflect the people. It a system that lives and operates the same if no one cared at all.

That's how people feel. They may be wrong, but politicians and political cheerleaders only have themselves to blame for that impression.

(but its not wrong)

 

[minor effort]

Persuade is great. Debate is fantastic.

This right here? This is bullshit:

To be honest, that's harsh but I'm not revolted by it. If it causes reflection I'm okay with that level of "shaming". As many people have pointed out, people of color have a lot at stake in this election.

I agree that if somebody tries to shame another person into voting for nakedly selfish reasons, that's pretty scummy. But I'm not necessarily seeing it in the post you quoted.

There's a lot of Hillary supporters here passionately defending their candidate as being the best vision for America. There's a lot of Bernie supporters here arguing the same. And that's fantastic.

But you have a few people here who have argued for voting for Trump as a generic "fuck you" vote, for third-party as a protest vote, or writing in a fictional character.

Sure, some of these people may live in electorally safe states and feel they can play with their votes, but no one voter is an island. I have no problem with people being a bit harsh when reminding others what's a stake if people decide to play with their votes en masse.

 

[Fenderputty]

A sense that i was able to keep in line a set of values that fundamentally represent my moral compass

Dignity for holding onto ideological purity in place for pragmatic progress. Congrats on reaching tea party status.

 

[SmackAttack]

During the process of a political conversation I had an individual tell me that the problem with liberals was that the statist society is robbing kids of the lesson of responsibility by not letting them have guns on campus.....

And he meant it...

This shit is frightening. Students wanting to carry guns on campus. Fuck man, WHY.

 

[Melkezadek]

Persuade is great. Debate is fantastic.

This right here? This is bullshit:

Really? Please tell me more about how minorities will thrive under a Trump presidency? Please tell me that every Republican front runner is not advocating the rollback of same sex marriage and LBGT rights.

How can you sit at home knowing 15000+ Americans are dead because of feckless leaders like HRC who got duped by the Bush Administration into starting the biggest fucking quagmire in US History, and let it go unchallenged?

"My Bad, Sorry about Isis" is bullshit that you support by supporting those who voted for it. So to appeal to the violence against minorities is shrugging your shoulders at endless war and death of our citizens as fair treatment?

You conveniently ignoring the impact war has.

I'm going to be as polite as possible with this. I have lost 2 uncles because of the Iraq War. Don't tell me that I'm ignoring that fact because I'm reminded of it every family function. Don't even try it.

There were plenty of politicians and figures on the left whom I respect who voted for the war. They didn't vote in hopes that thousands of soldiers would die in vain. While it is a tragedy that this was the result, it wasn't what the vote was for. I'm not holding on to a grudge.

I already fully believed in that viewpoint at one point, so i understand where your coming from, but its faulty.

If your only argument for Hillary is to vote against my interests because there is something worse on the road, your basically trying to fear monger perpetually about accepting below mediocrity. The democrats don't have to try and be for the people when they can point to GOP and say they are crazies forever.

That isn't democracy, and we should hold both parties to account on their hit jobs on the American people instead of rewarding them for being shitheads.

You call it fear mongering with the insinuation that it's a farce like the fear mongering done on the right. What I'm saying is exactly what Republicans have been campaigning on.

I hope people are not under the impression that I'm pro-Hilary. I'm voting Bernie sanders tomorrow.

But to not vote with the knowledge of what Republicans are trying to undermine is morally irresponsible.

 

[Spica]

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.

As a queer person, I'm getting really tired of Democrats trying to co-opt the LGBTQ+ movement and exploiting our struggle to shame people who don't vote for them.

 

[border]

The Democratic Elite had their finger on the tilt button in case things went south in the form of Super Delegates.

There is no tilt button. Tilt happens when you lift up the pinball machine to slow or reverse the downward roll of the ball. And when Tilt lights up it shuts off the board completely, preventing any play.

 

[Malvolio]

To be honest, that's harsh but I'm not revolted by it. If it causes reflection I'm okay with that level of "shaming". As many people have pointed out, people of color have a lot at stake in this election.

I agree that if somebody tries to shame another person into voting for nakedly selfish reasons, that's pretty scummy. But I'm not necessarily seeing it in the post you quoted.

There's a lot of Hillary supporters here passionately defending their candidate as being the best vision for America. There's a lot of Bernie supporters here arguing the same. And that's fantastic.

But you have a few people here who have argued for voting for Trump as a generic "fuck you" vote, for third-party as a protest vote, or writing in a fictional character.

Sure, some of these people may live in electorally safe states and feel they can play with their votes, but no one voter is an island. I have no problem with people being a bit harsh when reminding others what's a stake if people decide to play with their votes en masse.

The bolded is what needs to be remembered. The number of people that cast a frivolous protest vote are too small to matter. The people that are actually doing what the system was created for and voting for a candidate that best represents their positions should not have to tolerate these shitty attacks because someone else's candidate of choice may not have enough of the populations ear to win the election.

 

[Malvolio]

Really? Please tell me more about how minorities will thrive under a Trump presidency? Please tell me that every Republican front runner is not advocating the rollback of same sex marriage and LBGT rights.

I won't, if I were interested in debating with you I'd tell you all about how well they may do under President Sanders or Stein.