This right here. Well said.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Bernie or Busters are flocking Philly to protest DNC, city projecting 35-50k protesto
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
Why is this the responsibility of anyone but yourself?
You clearly have some sort of competence navigating the internet if you have a managed to find this message board, sign up and post. It can't be above your knowledge level to find policy summaries and position pieces that clarify Hillary's platform.
To find academics that can speak on the differences between the candidates and provide insight into what the election of one or the other could mean.
Minorities didn't back Bernie because they're scared shitless of Trump. Yeah, I don't get it either. How much proof did they need that Bernie had a better chance of beating Trump than Hillary does?
brianmcdoogle
Member
How much time would you like other people to waste doing easy google searches for you?
We're literally dealing with people's freedom of religion, the ability to marry who you choose and a woman's right to her body.
Sorry you want to sit on the sidelines and complain that both sides are terrible but if you're fine with the above things vanishing then don't complain when you're called a bigot.
eBay Huckster
Member
probably him winning a single contest that wasn't a caucus in a state that was less than 90% white, which was literally the exact opposite of 2008 obama's problem initially (black voters were backing clinton as late as iowa based on the perception that he wouldn't win over whites, then promptly switched with the quickness as soon as he won that caucus)
It's not a Herculean task. There are multiple threads on the election every day and the same topics are discussed in all of them. You not reading them is a you problem.
Not to mention the fact that there's that whole internet thing where you might be able to find some of the same information.
If you don't care about this election, fine. Just don't get upset when those that do care lose patience with those that choose to remain ignorant.
The fact he couldn't beat Hillary?
UltimaPooh
Member
I'm not arguing for a Hilary candidacy?
I mean you don't have to post the articles.
But it would certainly help in debates.
Walk me through what a protest vote will accomplish? I'm genuinely curious.
You seem to speak as if voting for Hillary would be putting off some sort of necessary action that will set into motion something.
ieptbarakat
Member
It just goes to show that the democrat's 'safer choice' didn't work out in the end if Hillary Clinton doesn't win it.
I firmly believe Bernie Sanders had a stronger message and could have united the country better against Trump as he also appealed to some of the left leaning republicans and not just the far left democrats.
But whatever, Bernie didn't succeed in getting the nomination so all that's left is to vote for someone who is pretty much fine with falsely throwing a state under the bus to push her agenda, just because they aren't the big bad Trump.
I firmly believe Bernie Sanders had a stronger message and could have united the country better against Trump as he also appealed to some of the left leaning republicans and not just the far left democrats.
But whatever, Bernie didn't succeed in getting the nomination so all that's left is to vote for someone who is pretty much fine with falsely throwing a state under the bus to push her agenda, just because they aren't the big bad Trump.
But we all are adults, including you. Go find it yourself. I should be able to assume in discussions about politics that everyone participating has done at least a LITTLE looking around.
Im not going to approach every political discussion with 20 links for newcomers, thats ridiculous. And as has been mentioned, we have done that already; dating back to November.
Edit: Not trying to be mean. But this request is ridiculously common. RIDICULOUSLY.... It gets old. It's freaking July, the race didn't 'just start' anymore. The time for asking to be spoon fed information should be long past by this point. There are debates you can watch, websites you can visit to see candidates stances on various things and very detailed articles on both nominees by this point. I mean, when does it end man.
I just don't know how you could have watched what happened in the primaries and come to this conclusion. Realistically he would need, what, a little more than 60 electoral votes beyond the states that will assuredly vote for him? That's enough to be very concerned about.
This is pretty much true, and is batshit, but there's nothing we can do about it now.
Dude thought the way to victory was focusing on the white middle class and that the South didnt matter. Why would minorities support him over someone who was more open to their concerns?
But you are asking for others to do the leg work for you on why someone could vote for Hillary.
Supreme Court justices alone should be enough but if you need more then you have a whole internet at your disposal.
When a man with Trump's bigoted policy positions is one of the two options for president and you can't be bothered to look up what his only opponent stands for then what do you consider yourself?
How could anyone not feel anything in regards to Trump and what he is saying unless you agree or somehow believe the myth that he doesnt really mean what he says?
UltimaPooh
Member
No I'm not. They are asking me or rather others to not abstain by voting for Hilary. So maybe they should convince us?
The one who asserts has the burden of proof not the one who disputes.
Is Hillary more open to their concerns because she cares or because in the 2016 election cycle, it's very politically expedient to be so?
Don't get me wrong, Clinton is very clearly the farrrr superior option to Trump, but nothing else has changed. She's still an establishment politician, and as soon as she has the White House, nothing in regards to minorities will change in the slightest. You could argue the same about Sanders, but a man like him who suddenly finds himself in the oval office, the last place he ever expected to be in his life, suddenly many doors open and he wants to make the most of all of them.
Melkezadek
Member
Are we to assume that someone who's adamant about not voting for Hillary but were going to vote for Bernie doesn't know Hillary's platform?
Manmademan
Member
That's a hell of an assumption chief.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Pushing her further left. It's playing hard to get. Everybody wants something. Blue dogs don't want her to go left, liberals obviously will. Whoever she gives contentions to wins. It's as simple as that. People pull at her for all sides.
eBay Huckster
Member
on health care, she's pledged to implement a public option and lower the age of eligibility for medicare
on financial sector reform, she's pledged to strengthen dodd-frank's regulatory schemes
on infrastructure, she's pledged to expand public transit & rural and poor access to broadband internet alongside a general increase of investment across the board
on voting access issues, she's pledged to repair the VRA and implement nationwide automatic voter registration
in general, on racial issues, she'd be a strong net positive if even 75% (the historical average of fulfilled campaign promises) of what's listed on her site gets implemented
she's not just magically going to turn her back and "forget" to implement these things just as much as president obama didn't. obstructionism is probably going to force compromises on some of these just as it did with him, but there is nothing intrinsic to clinton that is going to lead to a chretien-esque heel turn.
speaking of which.
take it from someone intimately familiar with canadian politics (where two major instances of vote-splitting along this line resulted in 10-year runs by Chretien's Liberals followed by Harper's Conservatives): protest voting has literally always signaled the exact opposite of this. they will think they're better served appealing to the other side's voters and will course-correct in that direction. every single time.
on financial sector reform, she's pledged to strengthen dodd-frank's regulatory schemes
on infrastructure, she's pledged to expand public transit & rural and poor access to broadband internet alongside a general increase of investment across the board
on voting access issues, she's pledged to repair the VRA and implement nationwide automatic voter registration
in general, on racial issues, she'd be a strong net positive if even 75% (the historical average of fulfilled campaign promises) of what's listed on her site gets implemented
she's not just magically going to turn her back and "forget" to implement these things just as much as president obama didn't. obstructionism is probably going to force compromises on some of these just as it did with him, but there is nothing intrinsic to clinton that is going to lead to a chretien-esque heel turn.
speaking of which.
take it from someone intimately familiar with canadian politics (where two major instances of vote-splitting along this line resulted in 10-year runs by Chretien's Liberals followed by Harper's Conservatives): protest voting has literally always signaled the exact opposite of this. they will think they're better served appealing to the other side's voters and will course-correct in that direction. every single time.
I'm saying its disgusting behavior to fear-monger people into voting for their candidate. Hillary supporters were fine with lambasting Bernie supporters for trying to assume the minority vote and acting like they were telling minorities who they should vote for. Now Hillary supporters are literally telling people vote Hillary or you are a bigot. If you vote for Trump or Republican you have a case to say something like that because you are literally voting for a platform that supports those ideologies. If you vote third party or choose not to vote because of legitimate reasons for not liking a candidate that is upon the candidate for not winning your vote with their platform.
This is the disgusting political shilling shit that keeps me as Independant. I always lean liberal but politics always bring the worse out of people.
I'm sorry, I haven't been following all the criticisms of Mrs. Clinton that closely. What does this refer to?
You claimed to "know what's going on in the political landscape" but you need other people to lay out for you the pros of voting for Hillary?
I'll take being disgusting over being comfortable with a bigot being President every day of the week.
call_kotaku
Member
Maybe they realize that Bernie has even less of a chance to push through the necessary reforms on the issues that matter to them. You shouldn't make assumptions that minorities vote against their own interests, even if you mean well.
I am not going to mince words today, I'm going to make this clear. Voting is the most selfless, humanitarian thing you can do. In your hands you have the power to change the course of history for the nation, the world, and the billions of lives that live in it. When voting, you should not think what is best for you, what the candidate can do for you, you should think what's best for the country, what's best for everyone. This includes the minority of Americans who sadly have their lives in the hands of the majority. To do otherwise is selfish and careless.
This election, you have two choices, and not selecting one of them is still making a choice.
On the Democrats, you have the most progressive platform in its history, the candidate and her VP pick is even more left to that of the current President and Vice President. At the worse, you will get 4 to 8 more years of the current status of the nation with some more minor progression, at best, a better nation for future generations. Either way, this candidate will likely not cause the damage to our international allies, to our country, to our economy, and to the minorities in America. In the end, we get one major bonus, likely 3 new liberal Supreme Court Justices, if not more, that will likely prevent any harmful laws to be passed by the GOP for the next few decades.
On the Republicans, you have an extremely regressive platform that calls for the rewriting of "over-exaggerated" minority history, gender segregation laws, state funded conversion torture, the removal of civil rights such as abortion rights and same sex marriage, and we have so much more bigoted and harmful policies. Their candidate is a racist white nationalist dictator wannabe. Carrying with him is a wave of alt-right ideology and fascism. His wording and his way of order is that of dictators like Mussolini and Antonio Salazar (Which my family is getting heavy flashbacks after his speech). If elected, the Supreme Court will be filled with conservative judges for decades to come, which will halt progress for minorities and women for likely half of the century. Another thing is that the entire federal government will be under the control of this party; Legislative, Judicial, and Executive. Internationally, we'll likely have a weaken NATO, South Korea, and Japan, leaving them open to the threat of Russia, North Korea, and China.
These are your two choices, and only them. A third party is not realistic in this case, nor will it ever with our current FPTP system, electoral college, and 12th amendment. At best, you may get a three or four way tie, but that would just mean the House makes the final call. Since the House is dominated by the GOP, the winner is Trump automatically. If you are liberal, or anything left of center-right, not voting or voting for a 3rd party is a vote for Trump, because that vote could have been used to vote against him by voting for Clinton. One more vote for Clinton, means you're increase her chance to win against Trump. If you're right wing and not voting for Trump, that means you're voting for Clinton and increasing her chances of winning by removing one vote that could have been used for Trump. That's the reality of the way things work in the United State's voting system.
Now, you only have two options, one that will lead to the same or better, the other leading to hate reigning supreme and decline. Make your choice, because this election is not like any other and this may be the turning point in human history if the leader of the free world is a literal fascist. We have the power in our hands to stop that from ever happening, and so it is with great courage that I ask Bernie or Bust supports with the famous words of JFK, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". We need to prevent Trump from ever touching the white house, that's what we can do for our country, for what it stands for, and since Clinton is the only clear path to prevent Trump, we may criticize her, we may push her to the left, we may hold her feet to the fire to make sure she sticks to her progressive policies, but in the end, we must get her in that house in order to stop Trump.
This election, you have two choices, and not selecting one of them is still making a choice.
On the Democrats, you have the most progressive platform in its history, the candidate and her VP pick is even more left to that of the current President and Vice President. At the worse, you will get 4 to 8 more years of the current status of the nation with some more minor progression, at best, a better nation for future generations. Either way, this candidate will likely not cause the damage to our international allies, to our country, to our economy, and to the minorities in America. In the end, we get one major bonus, likely 3 new liberal Supreme Court Justices, if not more, that will likely prevent any harmful laws to be passed by the GOP for the next few decades.
On the Republicans, you have an extremely regressive platform that calls for the rewriting of "over-exaggerated" minority history, gender segregation laws, state funded conversion torture, the removal of civil rights such as abortion rights and same sex marriage, and we have so much more bigoted and harmful policies. Their candidate is a racist white nationalist dictator wannabe. Carrying with him is a wave of alt-right ideology and fascism. His wording and his way of order is that of dictators like Mussolini and Antonio Salazar (Which my family is getting heavy flashbacks after his speech). If elected, the Supreme Court will be filled with conservative judges for decades to come, which will halt progress for minorities and women for likely half of the century. Another thing is that the entire federal government will be under the control of this party; Legislative, Judicial, and Executive. Internationally, we'll likely have a weaken NATO, South Korea, and Japan, leaving them open to the threat of Russia, North Korea, and China.
These are your two choices, and only them. A third party is not realistic in this case, nor will it ever with our current FPTP system, electoral college, and 12th amendment. At best, you may get a three or four way tie, but that would just mean the House makes the final call. Since the House is dominated by the GOP, the winner is Trump automatically. If you are liberal, or anything left of center-right, not voting or voting for a 3rd party is a vote for Trump, because that vote could have been used to vote against him by voting for Clinton. One more vote for Clinton, means you're increase her chance to win against Trump. If you're right wing and not voting for Trump, that means you're voting for Clinton and increasing her chances of winning by removing one vote that could have been used for Trump. That's the reality of the way things work in the United State's voting system.
Now, you only have two options, one that will lead to the same or better, the other leading to hate reigning supreme and decline. Make your choice, because this election is not like any other and this may be the turning point in human history if the leader of the free world is a literal fascist. We have the power in our hands to stop that from ever happening, and so it is with great courage that I ask Bernie or Bust supports with the famous words of JFK, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". We need to prevent Trump from ever touching the white house, that's what we can do for our country, for what it stands for, and since Clinton is the only clear path to prevent Trump, we may criticize her, we may push her to the left, we may hold her feet to the fire to make sure she sticks to her progressive policies, but in the end, we must get her in that house in order to stop Trump.
And apparently it will forever remain so. I just find it incredibly scary when lunatics and corruption have embedded themselves so deeply in the political structure that the majority of the public will vote for the safe option no matter who it is or what they've done just to avoid disaster.
Obviously I count myself as one of those just so Trump doesn't win, but that's what makes it so pathetic.
There is no voting against your own interest when Donald Trump is the other option. That's the point, but I honestly wonder where we would be if someone like Romney was the GOP nominee this year instead. People tend to have different intentions when Fascism doesn't have a big chance of winning.
ShironRedshift
Member
It will be the other way around, actually. Bernie Sanders definitively lost to Hillary Clinton, someone further to the right than her. And if Hillary loses to Trump, that will mean that she in turn will have lost to someone who's extremely further to the right. The only message that will be taken from that will be that the Democrats didn't run a moderate enough candidate. That will be the narrative. Sanders losing to Clinton who in turn loses to Trump will lead to a candidate who's further to the right of either Clinton or Sanders in 2020 for the Democrats.
So minorities dont know what is good for them is the foundation of your argument?
Melkezadek
Member
Fantastic post.
Someone people have a lot more to lose than others. It makes voting for "burn everything down and start over" a bit of an unpalatable choice, especially when there's no guarantee (or even a simple sign) that the post-burning-shit-down society will be any better.
eBay Huckster
Member
and as expected, my post laying out a positive case based on policy is just gonna get ignored
What fact? He probably could have if he was given a fair chance rather than this hoax that is the DNC
With all due respect, even your Washington Times article admits her claim is true. You said "falsely throwing a state under the bus" and provide a link to an article that says the claim is correct?
I suspect there is something else at play here.
The DNC is not a "hoax" and Bernie did not lose because of the DNC.
LostMyNarbles
Member
My issue with this thought process is that it seems really selfish. You're willing to potentially let millions of people in this country suffer at the hands of a Trump presidency all because you "Don't like" Hillary and would rather not vote instead. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and say you don't really care one way or another if you think are not going to be largely affected if Trump becomes President, but regardless of how some people feel about Hillary Clinton that isn't an option for them when the alternative of not voting is for their very way of living to be put at risk.
Honestly, I am not fond of Clinton either. She comes off to me as shady and distrustful at times, but regardless of how I feel about her I will vote for her because I do not want to imagine what this country will be like if Trump gets the Presidency.
Still counting ballots in California?
He wasn't going to win anything. He lost because we chose not to vote for him. I can't believe people are still trying to avoid swallowing that fact, but its probably time to accept it. The majority spoke, and we preferred Hillary, by a LARGE MARGIN.
It wasn't even close. This was not a Hillary/Obama level of proximity here.
This article is something else. It basically says her quote is a lie in its description, but when you read it, you find out her quote (And the one you included in your post there) is actually accurate.
The article basically states that her statement is completely accurate. However its only accurate when considering 'per capita'. Which is true, but irrelevant because in her quote she did SAY per capita.
UltimaPooh
Member
Yeah. Maybe they're seeing something I'm not?
It would appear so, since you've conveniently ignored this post's existence, despite it being on the very same page of this thread.
eBay Huckster
Member
i'm apparently seeing a whole lot because i'm not really understanding why she'd put herself out there on all of these things when 1) she's going to want to get re-elected and 2) she's been consistent on at least a few of these issues for her entire political life
like, occam's razor and the body of work points toward her genuinely wanting to change america in the ways that she's campaigning on
You are right, you aren't a bigot simply by not voting or voting third party, but if you live in a swing state your actions have consequences. You don't get to hide under the shield of manners or civility to deflect what is rightful criticism for throwing your vote away.
In a country where lack of turnout helps the Republican party, especially in swing states, abstaining or voting third party has consequences.
Would you tell a person in Britain who said to you "Well its not my problem we are having to leave the EU, I didn't vote" that they bare no responsibility for the outcome?
UltimaPooh
Member
Oh thanks for pointing it out. Sorry I had to grab some dinner and wasn't able to find out where I last left off... you know with all the quotes and stuff.
That's the reality of the situation though. Best case scenario, not voting for Clinton means you're cool with the thought of a bigoted President Trump, and what's the difference really?
I 100% understand those that have apprehensions toward both parties. Clinton is not my ideal candidate. I would like for there to be 3+ viable political parties with a wider spectrum of held positions and beliefs.
But we aren't there yet. This election is in a vacuum. You have only two ideologies with a snowball's chance in hell of winning. You can either vote for the one that doesn't actively harm minority groups, vote for the one that does harm minority groups, or vote third party/abstain completely while knowingly wasting a vote that could have been used to stop Trump from getting close to the White House.
ieptbarakat
Member
Well I am from the aforementioned Vermont so naturally that will come off as a bias.
I've talked to some state troopers about it who also believe that her claim was a bit of a stretch, but I don't have any real evidence to back it up.
So yeah, all I got is this article that says it's accurate in it's description but misleading at the same time. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...illary-clintons-claim-about-vermonts-gun-pip/
That's politics I guess.
Why did you choose to abstain?
Also what state do you reside in? Frankly that is the most important question to me to determine how much of a fuck I or others should care about you throwing your vote away.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked