Support NeoGAF

[Fitts]

I remember when I had that "both parties are the same/lesser of two evils" mentality. I was a single issue voter in 2004, and didn't vote in the presidential election because neither candidate supported gay rights fully.

Man I regret doing that.

This is a constructive post, legitimately food for thought, and something that makes me question my current feelings on this election. Thank you for posting.

 

[metalslimer]

...getting back to Kaine, I see a lot to like about him, but his (and Clinton's) measured support of TPP worries me. Even if they reject it as it is now I don't know that I have faith in her administration not to change a few details and give it another go shortly into her tenure.

The TPP is passing in some form. Whether it passes as is during the lame duck session or later on its passing. To be honest I don't think there has been a particularly good breakdown laying it out because it's a massive and complicated deal.

 

[hawk2025]

...getting back to Kaine, I see a lot to like about him, but his (and Clinton's) measured support of TPP worries me. Even if they reject it as it is now I don't know that I have faith in her administration not to change a few details and give it another go shortly into her tenure.

Kaine being a white guy is a no-brainer. The minority vote is essentially sewn up, Hillary needs someone to reach out to disenfranchised white men and Kaine seems rather liked and relatable in that regard.

What are the deal breakers of the TPP for you?

 

[FiggyCal]

I feel like the inability for a decent number of people to not just go out and at least vote against Trump highlights beautifully why MLK thought it wasn't the racist who were the real issue but the people supposedly on your side who just sit on their hands and do nothing.

I'm not sure if he was taking about people voting though.

 

[Already Torn]

Except, name calling and doing shit like saying someone is a coward usually has the psychological effect of pushing people out your camp rather than into it. Seriously, a lot of people hardening stances around here. I bet you'd rather that person who says he's staying home do that rather than vote Trump because their own party decided to do nothing but scream at them.

Doesn't that just make them a petty coward?

 

[Hasphat'sAnts]

you're being silly. i'm just stating a fact. not voting doesn't change the outcome. some of your ppl are way too emotional. I bet most of you don't even vote in non presidential elections, lol. anyway, I'm voting hilary, but let's not spread straight up lies >_>

I'm emotional because I just received my naturalization certificate and got my voter registration card this month. I've been here in the States since I was 11 years old.

I come from a country without democracy. And I can tell you right now, that I will vote in every election from now till when I'm either mentally or physically incapable.

 

[HylianTom]

You're exactly right.

It's nice to see admission that this is more emotion than actual logic.

 

[rjinaz]

He's not allowed to serve as VP.

there was a discussion earlier in another thread and that's not necessarily true. It would probably end up being challenged in court because the presidential restriction is on ELECTIONS for the President position.

 

[King Tubby]

Does that not count?

I saw it. Given that Kaine praised the deal not a few hours before being selected as the VP, I don't know how sincere it is. Like I said, I don't really have faith that they aren't going to come around to something similar under a different name and claim it's better because a few semi-colons were added in. I hope I'm wrong. Not like it's a deal-breaker for me on voting for the ticket.

 

[foodtaster]

I'm emotional because I just received my naturalization certificate and got my voter registration card this month. I've been here in the States since I was 11 years old.

I come from a country without democracy. And I can tell you right now, that I will vote in every election from now till when I'm either mentally or physically incapable.

that's good, but there are a lot of elections. ironically, local elections matter more than the big ones.

 

[Vire]

I remember when I had that "both parties are the same/lesser of two evils" mentality. I was a single issue voter in 2004, and didn't vote in the presidential election because neither candidate supported gay rights fully.

Man I regret doing that.

Yeah but I mean, hasn't Kerry been proven to be a horrible politician who has been wrong about a million things in the years following? Not saying that Bush was better, of course not. But Kerry was a pathetic pick for the Democrats, truly.

 

[Father_Brain]

This standard should be applied consistently. It's illogical to say people in swing states should...not vote their consciences while people who do not should vote their consciences. The reality is that you should vote for policies that are attractive to you regardless of where you live.

It should be, yes, but the reality is that an individual vote for president has literally no chance of affecting the outcome of the election outside a swing state, which the incessant "A vote not for Hillary is a vote for Trump" rhetoric completely fails to acknowledge.

Note that I'm not advising anyone to stay home or to ignore downballot races, where individual votes are far more likely to impact the outcome.

 

[Drek]

If you don't live in a swing state, it makes no difference whether you vote for Hillary or not. Weigh the candidates, ignore the fearmongering, vote your conscience.

(and even if you do, it's ultimately Hillary's responsibility to earn enough votes to win, but that's another can of worms)

IT IS NOT A CANDIDATES JOB TO EARN YOUR VOTE. QUIT DEMANDING TO BE SPOON FED AND PANDERED TO BY POLITICIANS. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR RESEARCHING THE CANDIDATES AND PICKING THE BEST OPTIONS AVAILABLE. NOT YOUR IDEOLOGICAL SOULMATE, THE BEST OF THE OPTIONS PRESENTED. AS LONG AS YOU REFUSE TO DO THIS YOU ARE DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTING TO THE FAILURES IN OUR DEMOCRACY FAR MORE THAN ANY SUPER PAC OR LOBBYIST.

DO THE JOB ENTRUSTED TO YOU BY OUR COLLECTIVE COVENANT, VOTE AND TAKE IT AS SERIOUSLY.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I'm not sure if he was taking about people voting though.

You're right I'm sure he'd be so for a bunch of supposed progressive sitting on their ass instead of getting out and doing their part to stop a literal fascist from getting elected.

 

[FiggyCal]

So you think she should have pandered with a minority pick instead of selecting the best person to do the job of Vice President, when Clinton herself is one of the strongest minority outreach politicians in the history of the U.S.? Through well earned activism and public support at that.

I think saying that people on the left are upset because she didn't pick a candidate that would win over their "white privilege" is very silly, especially considering who she actually picked.

 

[Y2Kev]

Except, name calling and doing shit like saying someone is a coward usually has the psychological effect of pushing people out your camp rather than into it. Seriously, a lot of people hardening stances around here. I bet you'd rather that person who says he's staying home do that rather than vote Trump because their own party decided to do nothing but scream at them.

Yeah, I mean, I'm sympathetic to people who don't like getting yelled at, but seriously grow up. If people yelling at you causes you not to stand up for what is right, then you are not a particularly strongly principled person and you should be told that. So I think we should be kinder and nicer to people because that is the right thing to do but I am not particularly fond of seeing this argument. And I've seen plenty of arguing over the last year! People do not really bend and change their minds easily if at all, so people are sure to catch feelings!

Either you care about protecting the country or you don't...hopefully you won't be deterred from this because people were mean to you on the internet.

 

[Hasphat'sAnts]

IT IS NOT A CANDIDATES JOB TO EARN YOUR VOTE. QUIT DEMANDING TO BE SPOON FED AND PANDERED TO BY POLITICIANS. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR RESEARCHING THE CANDIDATES AND PICKING THE BEST OPTIONS AVAILABLE. NOT YOUR IDEOLOGICAL SOULMATE, THE BEST OF THE OPTIONS PRESENTED. AS LONG AS YOU REFUSE TO DO THIS YOU ARE DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTING TO THE FAILURES IN OUR DEMOCRACY FAR MORE THAN ANY SUPER PAC OR LOBBYIST.

DO THE JOB ENTRUSTED TO YOU BY OUR COLLECTIVE COVENANT, VOTE AND TAKE IT AS SERIOUSLY.

Sounds like we need politician Tinder.

Swipe right for Mr. Right!

 

[Speevy]

IT IS NOT A CANDIDATES JOB TO EARN YOUR VOTE. QUIT DEMANDING TO BE SPOON FED AND PANDERED TO BY POLITICIANS. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR RESEARCHING THE CANDIDATES AND PICKING THE BEST OPTIONS AVAILABLE. NOT YOUR IDEOLOGICAL SOULMATE, THE BEST OF THE OPTIONS PRESENTED. AS LONG AS YOU REFUSE TO DO THIS YOU ARE DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTING TO THE FAILURES IN OUR DEMOCRACY FAR MORE THAN ANY SUPER PAC OR LOBBYIST.

DO THE JOB ENTRUSTED TO YOU BY OUR COLLECTIVE COVENANT, VOTE AND TAKE IT AS SERIOUSLY.

Yes, master.

*reloads shotgun and heads out the door, only to be shot by police shortly after*

 

[Iksenpets]

I think having a ticket without a white guy on it would be too politically risky.

I think a Hispanic guy would've been fine, it's just a problem when your best picks for a Hispanic running mate are the Secretaries of Labor and Housing. Those aren't positions that typically get elevated to the presidency, and it's risky to do that now when your core message is that you're the ticket for experience and competence. She really had to stick to the realm of Senators and Governors, and we just don't have many good Hispanic picks there right now, unfortunately. The party needs to do a better job recruiting Hispanic people into those roles.

...getting back to Kaine, I see a lot to like about him, but his (and Clinton's) measured support of TPP worries me. Even if they reject it as it is now I don't know that I have faith in her administration not to change a few details and give it another go shortly into her tenure.

Kaine being a white guy is a no-brainer. The minority vote is essentially sewn up, Hillary needs someone to reach out to disenfranchised white men and Kaine seems rather liked and relatable in that regard.

If you're an anti-TPP person, I think it's overly optimistic for you to worry about Clinton passing it. It's going to get passed in the lame duck after the election so she can keep her hands clean of it.

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

Doesn't that just make them a petty coward?

So you're saying that Clinton supporters would rather crash and burn as long as they can shame and shit on others that don't back up their values? That sounds like a complaint I heard from Hillary supporters about someone else.

 

[Y2Kev]

IT IS NOT A CANDIDATES JOB TO EARN YOUR VOTE. QUIT DEMANDING TO BE SPOON FED AND PANDERED TO BY POLITICIANS. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR RESEARCHING THE CANDIDATES AND PICKING THE BEST OPTIONS AVAILABLE. NOT YOUR IDEOLOGICAL SOULMATE, THE BEST OF THE OPTIONS PRESENTED. AS LONG AS YOU REFUSE TO DO THIS YOU ARE DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTING TO THE FAILURES IN OUR DEMOCRACY FAR MORE THAN ANY SUPER PAC OR LOBBYIST.

DO THE JOB ENTRUSTED TO YOU BY OUR COLLECTIVE COVENANT, VOTE AND TAKE IT AS SERIOUSLY.

calm down please

So you're saying that Clinton supporters would rather crash and burn as long as they can shame and shit on others that don't back up their values? That sounds like a complaint I heard from Hillary supporters about someone else.

Clinton supporters would rather, IMO, not have people who claim to care about the issues not vote because someone hurt their feelings.

 

[TheGreatMightyPoo]

IT IS NOT A CANDIDATES JOB TO EARN YOUR VOTE. QUIT DEMANDING TO BE SPOON FED AND PANDERED TO BY POLITICIANS. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR RESEARCHING THE CANDIDATES AND PICKING THE BEST OPTIONS AVAILABLE. NOT YOUR IDEOLOGICAL SOULMATE, THE BEST OF THE OPTIONS PRESENTED. AS LONG AS YOU REFUSE TO DO THIS YOU ARE DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTING TO THE FAILURES IN OUR DEMOCRACY FAR MORE THAN ANY SUPER PAC OR LOBBYIST.

DO THE JOB ENTRUSTED TO YOU BY OUR COLLECTIVE COVENANT, VOTE AND TAKE IT AS SERIOUSLY.

Was it really necessary to type in all Trumps???

 

[xxracerxx]

Clinton supporters would rather, IMO, not have people who claim to care about the issues not vote because someone hurt their feelings.

Yup

 

[Father_Brain]

YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR RESEARCHING THE CANDIDATES AND PICKING THE BEST OPTIONS AVAILABLE. NOT YOUR IDEOLOGICAL SOULMATE, THE BEST OF THE OPTIONS PRESENTED. AS LONG AS YOU REFUSE TO DO THIS YOU ARE DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTING TO THE FAILURES IN OUR DEMOCRACY FAR MORE THAN ANY SUPER PAC OR LOBBYIST.

As far as downballot races go, sure.

As far as president, nope, it's hyperbolic nonsense. Far more Democrats voted for Bush in Florida in 2000 than for Nader; if the third-party vote is ever large enough to act as a spoiler, that will always speak to the losing major-party candidate's failings, not voters being horrible, selfish and entitled.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I'm not trying to convert people. People who are OK with letting an authoritarian sociopath get elected because their man isn't the nominee or who actively vote for him are a danger to our society and need to be called out as such. They are entrenched. They are racists and bigots and xenophobes.

You don't get banned for being truthful. Yes, the language is harsh because it needs to be. This election is unprecedented is modern American politics. Things are not going to be treated the same. I'm sorry that it rubs you the wrong way to hear that vitriolic furor, but please stop trying to project your insecurity over your choice to abstain into backseat moderation. It's just sad.

I simply agree with the celebrity who recently said she wished those who were against hate were as loud and forceful as those who are for it. I intend to fight this monster Trump tooth and nail, and all his supporters are fair game. Now you can either try to demonstrate why I am wrong to feel this way, or you can continue to limp around side sniping. Your choice. You are simply set to be judged by your choices is all. Don't make the choices if you can't take responsibility for them.

Not dunutted indeed! Well said.

Just convinced my sister and her husband to vote. I got tired of hearing the whole "both candidates suck" blah blah. I just had to step in. Of course she's the first one to complain when here kid's school suck or when healthcare is too expensive.

I just can't undestand how you can be a liberal, progressive or even a centrist and be ok with helping trump get elected.

I mean fuck! Did you guys not see the RNC, it was downright scary :/

 

[Already Torn]

So you're saying that Clinton supporters would rather crash and burn as long as they can shame and shit on others that don't back up their values? That sounds like a complaint I heard from Hillary supporters about someone else.

I don't think I'm saying that at all, I'm saying that people who consider themselves progressive at all but refuse to vote should be ashamed of themselves and are selfish cowards.

 

[Hasphat'sAnts]

@hillhulse
Sen McConnell calls Sen Kaine one of President Obama's "most loyal yes men" in the Senate.

A more ringing endorsement you will not find anywhere else.

 

[FStubbs]

So you think she should have pandered with a minority pick instead of selecting the best person to do the job of Vice President, when Clinton herself is one of the strongest minority outreach politicians in the history of the U.S.? Through well earned activism and public support at that.

As a minority who lives in Virginia I can say Kaine is a great pick. Though I don't think picking a minority would have been pandering; that's GOP/Trump logic.

 

[hoos30]

Yeah but I mean, hasn't Kerry been proven to be a horrible politician who has been wrong about a million things in the years following? Not saying that Bush was better, of course not. But Kerry was a pathetic pick for the Democrats, truly.

Kerry was good in the Senate and as SOS. Just didn't have the fire to win a dirty presidential election.

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

Yeah, I mean, I'm sympathetic to people who don't like getting yelled at, but seriously grow up. If people yelling at you causes you not to stand up for what is right, then you are not a particularly strongly principled person and you should be told that. So I think we should be kinder and nicer to people because that is the right thing to do but I am not particularly fond of seeing this argument. And I've seen plenty of arguing over the last year! People do not really bend and change their minds easily if at all, so people are sure to catch feelings!

Either you care about protecting the country or you don't...hopefully you won't be deterred from this because people were mean to you on the internet.

But it doesn't matter. By supporting that kind of language, these democrats are literally hurting their chances at victory. It's nearly the same thing as laughing while the world burns, but hey, at least you got to label someone a traitor.

 

[ampere]

A more ringing endorsement you will not find anywhere else.

He must not have gotten the memo that Obama's approval rating is pretty high right now

 

[mclem]

Except, name calling and doing shit like saying someone is a coward usually has the psychological effect of pushing people out your camp rather than into it. Seriously, a lot of people hardening stances around here. I bet you'd rather that person who says he's staying home do that rather than vote Trump because their own party decided to do nothing but scream at them.

The issue is that people cannot comprehend why someone who is well-informed and in sound mind would regard both potential outcomes as having absolutely no perceptible difference. I've seen it a few times, now, the process starts off with a reasonable statement of the distinction between the two platforms and what they mean for society going forwards, but - for whatever reason - that distinction isn't sufficient for the listener, and so it boils down to a perception - whether intended or otherwise - that the listener regards both such outcomes as functionally identical.

I think, when you get to the point that you can't comprehend why someone would have that opinion, you start to think that there's some layer of prejudice or wilful ignorance at play, and that's when frustration comes in and the more aggressive rhetoric starts up. But I would also argue that, well, if there is prejudice or wilful ignorance at play, the person being addressed is already lost; it's incredibly hard to argue against an inaccurate worldview if someone has absolute unshakable faith in it, even if it's incorrect, and the internet isn't the best place for a calm and nuanced takedown of those arguments.

That's largely referring to the general case, but I'd also add that in this specific instance, it's very easy to perceive such a stonewaller as having a fundamental lack of compassion for communities that would be adversely affected by a Trump nomination, and that will make people angry.

 

[SciencePilot]

Seems like a good pick to me. As someone else mentioned, I like the fact that his boringness contrasts with the chaos of Trump. Hopefully we will see the democrats projecting a sane and mature image, because that's really what need right now in politics. Like, I do like that Warren gets into vicious insult fights with Trump, but I wouldn't want too much focus on that, wouldn't want that to define the race.

 

[MetatronM]

A more ringing endorsement you will not find anywhere else.

The GOP are still under the delusion that Barack Obama, a man who won twice in not-quite-landslides in a modern era of political polarization, is massively unpopular.

It will be one of their major undoings yet again.

 

[Officerrob]

Clinton supporters would rather, IMO, not have people who claim to care about the issues not vote because someone hurt their feelings.

Bingo. Don't prented you care about your progressive "convictions" if your actions help put a facist in office simply because somebody was mean to you on the internet

 

[Vyse The Legend]

Was hoping for a Hispanic pick. :/

Ah, well. Not like there's another option at the end here.

I'm sure that was the original plan, but in the age of Trump, whose votership is predominantly white, the Democrats really cannot take ANY risks. They need to try to appeal to as many of those voters as possible, and unfortunately, a Hispanic VP would send then running.

 

[Amir0x]

Not dunutted indeed! Well said.

Just convinced my sister and her husband to vote. I got tired of hearing the whole "both candidates suck" blah blah. I just had to step in. Of course she's the first one to complain when here kid's school suck or when healthcare is too expensive.

I just can't undestand how you can be a liberal, progressive or even a centrist and be ok with helping trump get elected.

I mean fuck! Did you guys not see the RNC, it was downright scary :/

And seriously If people don't like it now, those who get offended when opinions are forcefully stated are going to hate this entire election. But unfortunately the stakes are too high to be gentle about the terms here. I wish we could have had a nice calm conversation about the ideology this country needs to embrace. Unfortunately, Republicans nominated Trump, and the stakes have been escalated to do-or-die terms. There is no going back from this if we vote Trump. Therefore, the fighting must necessarily be more brutal. I am not going to look back on this election and say I was too timid to call shit what it is because some people get their feelings hurt.

Tough shit I say. Take responsibility for your choice not to vote. Take responsibility for your choice to vote Trump. Your choices are going to define you in the eyes of others. The stakes are too high. Lives are set to be destroyed by Trump. If he wins, it's a win for racist, xenophobic, misogynistic and bigoted ideology and those who support it. There is no other way to put it.

 

[xxracerxx]

But it doesn't matter. By supporting that kind of language, these democrats are literally hurting their chances at victory. It's nearly the same thing as laughing while the world burns, but hey, at least you got to label someone a traitor.

Sometimes people just need thicker skin if someone is going to take something someone on the internet said to them and then turn that into an opposite or none vote in an election they were originally invested in.

 

[Already Torn]

But it doesn't matter. By supporting that kind of language, these democrats are literally hurting their chances at victory. It's nearly the same thing as laughing while the world burns, but hey, at least you got to label someone a traitor.

I don't think there is exists a large enough amount of people as thin skinned as you describe that aren't already voting for Trump because of a white genocide conspiracy. The people you're describing who would actually change their vote because of things people yelled at them on the Internet aren't smart people.

 

[googleplex]

I'm not trying to convert people. People who are OK with letting an authoritarian sociopath get elected because their man isn't the nominee or who actively vote for him are a danger to our society and need to be called out as such. They are entrenched. They are racists and bigots and xenophobes.

You don't get banned for being truthful. Yes, the language is harsh because it needs to be. This election is unprecedented is modern American politics. Things are not going to be treated the same. I'm sorry that it rubs you the wrong way to hear that vitriolic furor, but please stop trying to project your insecurity over your choice to abstain into backseat moderation. It's just sad.

I simply agree with the celebrity who recently said she wished those who were against hate were as loud and forceful as those who are for it. I intend to fight this monster Trump tooth and nail, and all his supporters are fair game. Now you can either try to demonstrate why I am wrong to feel this way, or you can continue to limp around side sniping. Your choice. You are simply set to be judged by your choices is all. Don't make the choices if you can't take responsibility for them.

Fire. Pure fire in this post.

 

[Iksenpets]

A more ringing endorsement you will not find anywhere else.

Oh man, they really have nothing on Kaine, do they?

 

[mclem]

It should be, yes, but the reality is that an individual vote for president has literally no chance of affecting the outcome of the election outside a swing state, which the incessant "A vote not for Hillary is a vote for Trump" rhetoric completely fails to acknowledge.

For what it's worth, I think a national repudiation of Trump's rhetoric in terms of popular vote would be healthy for the country, independent of what his EV numbers are.

Whether we see it or not is another matter, but I can see merit in wanting to add your voice to the mix. It's only one, but it's yours.

(And, fair's fair, I could also see a national acceptance of Trump's rhetoric in terms of popular vote would also have an effect on the country)

 

[rjinaz]

The GOP are still under the delusion that Barack Obama, a man who won twice in not-quite-landslides in a modern era of political polarization, is massively unpopular.

It will be one of their major undoings yet again.

I'm sure they have convinced themselves he won only because he was Black. Just trying to stick it to the White man, you know, the real victims here.

 

[kirblar]

...getting back to Kaine, I see a lot to like about him, but his (and Clinton's) measured support of TPP worries me. Even if they reject it as it is now I don't know that I have faith in her administration not to change a few details and give it another go shortly into her tenure.

Kaine being a white guy is a no-brainer. The minority vote is essentially sewn up, Hillary needs someone to reach out to disenfranchised white men and Kaine seems rather liked and relatable in that regard.

Obama's probably taking the hit on TPP after the election for them.

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

The issue is that people cannot comprehend why someone who is well-informed and in sound mind would regard both potential outcomes as having absolutely no perceptible difference. I've seen it a few times, now, the process starts off with a reasonable statement of the distinction between the two platforms and what they mean for society going forwards, but - for whatever reason - that distinction isn't sufficient for the listener, and so it boils down to a perception - whether intended or otherwise - that the listener regards both such outcomes as functionally identical.

I think, when you get to the point that you can't comprehend why someone would have that opinion, you start to think that there's some layer of prejudice or wilful ignorance at play, and that's when frustration comes in and the more aggressive rhetoric starts up. But I would also argue that, well, if there is prejudice or wilful ignorance at play, the person being addressed is already lost; it's incredibly hard to argue against an inaccurate worldview if someone has absolute unshakable faith in it, even if it's incorrect, and the internet isn't the best place for a calm and nuanced takedown of those arguments.

That's largely referring to the general case, but I'd also add that in this specific instance, it's very easy to perceive such a stonewaller as having a fundamental lack of compassion for communities that would be adversely affected by a Trump nomination, and that will make people angry.

Which is basically like saying 'good riddance, we didn't need you anyway' and then throwing a match onto the bridge they were halfway across. This isn't the only election ever. Is it really worth pushing someone to the right because they felt alienated over one candidate?

 

[Hasphat'sAnts]

Think he just sowed up the 31-45 white vote for Hillary

 

[HylianTom]

The issue is that people cannot comprehend why someone who is well-informed and in sound mind would regard both potential outcomes as having absolutely no perceptible difference. I've seen it a few times, now, the process starts off with a reasonable statement of the distinction between the two platforms and what they mean for society going forwards, but - for whatever reason - that distinction isn't sufficient for the listener, and so it boils down to a perception - whether intended or otherwise - that the listener regards both such outcomes as functionally identical.

I think, when you get to the point that you can't comprehend why someone would have that opinion, you start to think that there's some layer of prejudice or wilful ignorance at play, and that's when frustration comes in and the more aggressive rhetoric starts up. But I would also argue that, well, if there is prejudice or wilful ignorance at play, the person being addressed is already lost; it's incredibly hard to argue against an inaccurate worldview if someone has absolute unshakable faith in it, even if it's incorrect, and the internet isn't the best place for a calm and nuanced takedown of those arguments.

That's largely referring to the general case, but I'd also add that in this specific instance, it's very easy to perceive such a stonewaller as having a fundamental lack of compassion for communities that would be adversely affected by a Trump nomination, and that will make people angry.

I'm still trying to get someone to explain to me how handing over SCOTUS to the GOP for another 3 decades helps the progressive cause.

Steeped? Vire? foodtaster? I know y'all can read this.

Help me out here. Map it out for me.

How does reinforcing Citizens United, corporate personhood, etc get us closer to those ideals you claim to care about?

Steeped says "this isn't the only election ever." But if there's a hostile court in place when we DO win an election with a Bernie-like candidate, that Bernie 2.0's achievements are at risk of being judicially kneecapped.

How does this work? Give me the logic. We've been over the feelings element thoroughly.

 

[rokkerkory]

This man will help win Florida!

 

[Crocodile]

Amazing how liberal is now only defined by one's views on banking (and Israel). Kaine is as progressive a candidate you can be in Virginia and is to the left on most issues liberals care about.

It's infuriating

Liberals need to stop fucking whining and stand up for what is morally right against what is morally reprehensible. Don't vote for Hillary if you don't want to but have some spine and stop pretending the options are awww so bad. One candidate doesn't check all of your boxes; the other candidate is basically a fascist racist.

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.

Honestly, these "I'm not gonna vote" people piss me off more than Trump supporters. They know they're voting for a piece of shit, reflective of themselves.

These non-voters will express their disgust for Trump and tell me how awful it is that every minority is being targeted by the GOP.

But they will do FUCK ALL to stop them. Infuriating.

If you don't live in a swing state, it makes no difference whether you vote for Hillary or not. Weigh the candidates, ignore the fearmongering, vote your conscience.

(and even if you do, it's ultimately Hillary's responsibility to earn enough votes to win, but that's another can of worms)

IT IS NOT A CANDIDATES JOB TO EARN YOUR VOTE. QUIT DEMANDING TO BE SPOON FED AND PANDERED TO BY POLITICIANS. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR RESEARCHING THE CANDIDATES AND PICKING THE BEST OPTIONS AVAILABLE. NOT YOUR IDEOLOGICAL SOULMATE, THE BEST OF THE OPTIONS PRESENTED. AS LONG AS YOU REFUSE TO DO THIS YOU ARE DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTING TO THE FAILURES IN OUR DEMOCRACY FAR MORE THAN ANY SUPER PAC OR LOBBYIST.

DO THE JOB ENTRUSTED TO YOU BY OUR COLLECTIVE COVENANT, VOTE AND TAKE IT AS SERIOUSLY.

Bless these posts <3

 

[kirblar]

How does this work?

It doesn't, but if you're missing the Clinton Years->Bush elected and send all your friends to Iraq life experience, you're missing the experience as to why it's a bullshit argument.