Vire
Member
If you think that's bad you should see Amir0x posts about the election. Surprised he hasn't been banned to be honest.
He makes Jehova Witnesses look passive when trying to convert people.
-
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.
Hillary Clinton Selects Tim Kaine As VP
- Thread starter giga
- Start date
- Status
He makes Jehova Witnesses look passive when trying to convert people.
Believing in a person's right to abstain is completely different than debating how reasonable it is to do so, and why.
Please don't confuse this.
NYR
Member
Hilary had a 99% chance of winning Michigan. That isn't hyberbole, those were her odds going in and she lost.
Yes, it comes down to battleground states, but a lot of those states have got razor close over the last few days. Look at Florida, now at 50-49, where a month ago was 75-25.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/florida/
I'm voting for Hillary unless she does something really stupid this election.
foodtaster
Banned
I'm not debating whether or not it is reasonable (just stating facts). Where did you get that impression?
The vision you would like to see this country move in would be rendered completely moot for a generation by a SCOTUS packed with Trump's justices.
Aaronology
Member
Project Guilt, Project Guilt!
There are times where I really sympathize with Remain voters in the UK, and this is one of them. People are absolutely free to vote however they choose. And others are free to call out the irrationality, stupidity, selfishness and shortsightedness of supposedly progressive voters passively or actively backing Donald J. Trump.
Meh, I ain't gonna lose sleep over guilt tripping people to vote against a completely deranged racist fascist like Trump. Guilt tripping people to do what's best for my country is just fine, especially in this instance.
User 463088
Banned
And, you know what? This is kind of part of it!
Look, real talk? I like Elizabeth Warren. (I actually thought for a while she would be the best pick, but Trump being a dumpster fire kinda changed my mind on that). But, like, she is polarizing. (So is Hillary!) I can't find a negative thing people have to say about Kaine. There's something to be said for that.
Y'know.. we've brought-up substantive reasons for why a vote for the Democratic ticket makes sense.
But those mysteriously get ignored.
If one claims to be progressive while also expressing ambivalence over the poisoning of the movement, I call bullshit.
Shrug it off if you like. But you have no answer to this.
In fact, I'd say those who vote for this ticket are more serious about those causes than those who don't. Because they're not willing to slit the movement's throat.
gutter_trash
Banned
people who live comfortable lives can afford not to vote or do a goof vote
IMO, they should be empathetic towards those who don't live comfortable lives and how voting correctly would help them best
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
Calling people out for their hypocrisy is.
If you have a friend who receives health insurance benefits from ObamaCare, I want you to look your friend in the eye and tell him/her: "I'm sitting this election out"
Could you do it?
She's obviously playing the long con. The sleepiest of sleeper cells.
Already Torn
Banned
You guys are both being equally wrong.
I'm the smart one for pointing that out. Ha HA!
Vire
Member
It's cool, I don't mind people trying to sway others one way or the other. I will gladly read the posts on here as long as they don't resort to name calling.
foodtaster
Banned
Completely irrelevant. Do you believe sitting out an election will remove ObamaCare OR make it better? It does neither. This is literally true.
I'm a Hilary supporter, but some of you guys are just nuts, lol.
Violence Jack
Member
"Taco, taco, burrito muchacho, Trump es muy El bado. Amigos who vote for El hillary get muy tamales"
Something like that during a Trump speech
Such as? Clinton isn't a war hawk. People need to actually learn what that term means. George W. Bush was looking for cause to attack Iraq and fabricated a story to do just that. That's a war hawk. Donald Trump thinks we should refuse to negotiate with nations that disagree with us and instead project military power towards them, all but ensuring a future conflict. That is a war hawk who simply tires to paint themselves as the victim.
Hillary Clinton as Sec. of State brokered a peace treaty between Israel and Palestine when Israel was on the verge of rolling over Palestine. She worked to get a legitimate democratic transition underway in Myanmar. She encouraged military action in Libya, but at a time when exiled members of the Ghadafi regime and our European allies had tangible evidence to suppor that Ghadafi was about to begin the genocide of an entire fucking city.
Hillary Clinton has become very educated on the U.S. military in her political career and when she vetted candidates for VP the only military person who made the list was Admiral Stavridis, an outspoken advocate for "smart power", i.e. using our technology, economic means, etc. along with military might to discourage conflict and find resolution. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he ends up her Sec. of Defense in fact.
She isn't a war hawk, she just isn't going to leave innocent people to be destroyed by tyrants or allied nations exposed to bullying by Putin or similar dictatorial regimes.
Such as? Hillary Clinton has been outspoken on wanting additional regulation since before the sub-prime bubble. The biggest differences between her and Sanders on Wall St./bank reform is that she doesn't unilaterally decry all people involved in the financial sector and all corporations for being heartless, money grubbing shills. Because she knows what the fuck she is talking about.
Also, a Clinton Presidency will likely see Bernie Sanders as the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and able to use that post to push financial regulations of his own, so secondary benefit there. If Clinton doesn't win Sanders will be the minority chairperson and effectively irrelevant.
Lastly, bailing out the banks following the sub-prime crisis was the only option to not completely torpedo the world economy. The banks paid it all back, with interest, and in exchange now have to live by Dodd-Frank where they effectively self-insure. Substantial progress is already being made and Clinton's platform as well as the party platform both agree on pushing for substantially more reform and change.
I'm glad you can overlook these things though.[/QUOTE]
Meanwhile you're overlooking reality because it doesn't suit your preconceived notion of things.
You're using emotive language, but aren't you basically describing the very concept of politics? The notion that your vote is a responsibility you have to society, to be used in a way that you believe will benefit society.
You're framing it as a guilt trip, but that's rather the point: This is your (the figurative 'you', not you personally) responsibility, and people are going to underline exactly what that responsibility means. In real, literal terms.
Lol I sure did. And their attacks were super effective in bringing me around to their way of thinking.
No they weren't.
Call me selfish or whatever you want. For me, I believe in the power of a vote and at the end of the day I need to feel like I've used mine responsibly. Since neither of these tickets resonate with me the best statement I can make on election day may be to reject what I've been presented with altogether. (or, more likely, write in my own choice) I do find myself in agreement (and disagreement) with both sides on specific issues/stances so it's not as though I have nothing to take into consideration, but neither ticket presents the level of integrity that I feel comfortable with endorsing. Heck, even a VP nod to Booker would've brought me that gut feeling of "inspiration" that would push me in a certain direction.
But as I stated, I'll continue to follow the proceedings -- and I'll do so with an open mind. The "bad" just isn't enough to make me vote for the other guy. They'll need to present me with the "good" to secure my vote.
EDIT: And I sincerely apologize for derailing the thread.
Eric Cartman
metalslimer
Member
If Republicans win every branch, Obamacare will either be repealed or so weakened by bills that it will be worthless.
Uncle Joe 2.0
Why are people so worried about Hillary's chances in this election?
She's going to win. Relax.
I really wish we could all get along.
Foreign policy is complicated. I certainly have some issues with the Obama/Hillary foreign policy, but I have MASSIVE issues with the "we won't help our allies unless they appease me" Trump attitude. Even if you see it as a lesser of two evils from a foreign policy PoV, be reasonable here. Trump "consults himself" on foreign policy because "he has a good brain"
Meanwhile:
Works for me.
Boring, but gucci. Won't hear me complaining!
A Link to the Past
Banned
I'll call you whatever names I want
For instance, Vire
But no, the reason why people are aggressive, militant, etc. is because there are a lot of people stressed out about the darkest timeline. I mean, I just cannot imagine how horrific it could be to see the House, Senate, POTUS, and SCOTUS with a conservative majority across the board.
Already Torn
Banned
You should be ashamed Fitts. You're making Birdie look bad 😔
foodtaster
Banned
What you said is true, however, that has nothing to do with not voting. Not voting LITERALLY does nothing to the outcome. Obviously people should vote to encourage the outcome the prefer, but let's just spread lies, eh?
Thats because you personally don't have anything to lose with the bad, and it seems you don't care if other people do have a chance to lose something if the bad gets power. So it IS selfish, you cant see beyond what appeals to you to see the consequences of the election for vulnerable minorities across the country.
Violence Jack
Member
If that ends up on South Park, I'm calling copyright.
Why wouldn't they completely gut it when they have control of all three branches of government?
King Tubby
Member
Assuming the states generally considered safe Dem/Rep vote the way they're expected to, and assuming this selection locks down Virginia for Clinton, she only needs to win a few of the remaining swing states to get 270 electoral votes to win. Florida would do it, Pennsylvania would guarantee at least a tie, Ohio would almost certainly do it. On that basis, not a bad choice.
Yeah that is literally the same attitude as "but freedom of speech!"
The poster is giving up on advocating why they are abstaining and just falling back on the fact that it's permissible in our country
excelsiorlef
Member
The house/Senate has literally been repealing it for funsies for 3 or 4 years now, a Trump presidency means he'll actually you know not veto it like Obama has...
:|
foodtaster
Banned
I agree, but what does that have to do with not voting? You not voting will not change anything, which is my point.
GutsOfThor
Member
Yep. Reminds of the end of this great article from earlier in the year:
Taken from here:https://medium.com/@SaraJBenincasa/im-voting-for-the-democrat-in-november-because-i-m-not-a-human-tire-fire-4a3f48dff372#.n6mivv9x0
"Yeah, sure, the other guy's a fascist, but if you wanted to stop fascism you really should have appeased MY views better!"
NYR
Member
Jimmy Carter had a 33 point lead heading one year into the election. And lost. HW Bush had a 20 point lead over Clinton in March 1992. And lost.
Stop being all-knowing. Your not smarter than the pundits. Look at America, it is complete spilt, why would you think that would change now with a landslide guaranteed victory? No poll is showing a guaranteed win. We live in a world where it seems impossible for a party to win 3 elections in a row.
Why?
Just the idea of the supreme court picks that would get through makes me sick to my stomach. I can't fathom why anyone claiming to be progressive would hesitate to do all they can to stop it.
excelsiorlef
Member
If enough people don't vote for a candidate their opponent wins...
it just like the Brexit. 'im not going to vote remain, we are going to stay in the EU anyway'
foodtaster
Banned
So? Them not voting didn't change the outcome.
Let me make this simple. Three people: one trump, one hilary. one abstains. Assuming the one who abstains doesn't care for either, them voting does not change the outcome. Now introduce person 4, abstains, no change. Person 5, abstains, no change. You can repeat this if you'd like. I hope you get the point.
The only reason you're saying what you're saying is because you want a particular candidate to win, and so for you there is an opportunity cost in them not voting for your candidate. If you argue abstaining hurts Hilary you can just as easily argue it hurts Trump.
King Tubby
Member
This is one of those articles that I expect to convince absolutely nobody to vote for Hillary who wasn't already going to.
Count Dookkake
Member
Boring.
It's really a shame the Dems went with Clinton.
It's really a shame the Dems went with Clinton.
yes because governing needs to be entertaining.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked