most rational people realize that both parties aren't the same, but it really does feel like it sometimes. like when obama gives israel 38 billion dollars, and you're like .. wait, what the fuck? that's when the "both parties same" stuff rings at least slightly true..
Or, maybe we don't have to be so stubborn in our suspicion of Israel and American foreign policy when it comes to Israel. We have 30 years of Democratic leadership that has maintained fairly steady policy when it comes to Israel, from Clinton [Bill] to Obama, but it's not us who are wrong in our persistent suspicion of Israel and American foreign policy, it's the leaders who we trust on other issues, like they've all been tricked by knifing Zionist donors.
I think there is a stubborn insistence both on the pro-Israeli foreign policy wonks and the anti-Israeli populists. You see the argument made a lot about Trump supporters, and I think it's a valid argument, "you claim you're not racist, but look how many racists you're keeping in your company..." Likewise with the insistent anti-Israeli left, who claim not to be antisemitic (and probably aren't), but look at the company you're keeping. The anti-Israel left and the racist antisemitic alt-right make comfortable bed fellows.
Perhaps Obama's position on Israel is the right one: expect change, push for moderation in Israel, but yet still recognize them as a vital ally in the Middle East who still needs American support. That doesn't mean that "Democrats and Republicans are the same," but maybe the issue that many leading Democrats and Republicans have similar policy platforms on
is the right one.
When people about talk about third-party driveby posts, this is exactly what they're referring to.
It's not that GAF doesn't have an atmosphere for discussing third-party votes (as if this is some incredibly nuanced conversation too sophisticated for the typical PoliGAF plebes). The, dare I say, meaninglessness and counter-productive value of a third-party protest vote in this election -- that will, if nothing else, determine the course of the Supreme Court for the next few decades -- has been argued to death. If you have some great insight as to how a vote for Johnson or Stein somehow gets around that, I'm sure everyone would love to hear it. But given that you just dropped in here to quickly comment about how your voting choice is above the rest of the partisan fray, I'm gonna guess we won't be hearing back from you.
I get why somebody wouldn't want to share their justification of an unpopular opinion. If someone posts that they're voting third party, they get dog-piled by people telling them that they're wasting their votes, or they're really voting for Trump, or something else equally evil. I'm voting for Hillary Clinton because I think that she'll be a good steward of the country. I honestly believe that too, not only
in spite of her baggage but almost
because of her baggage. A politician with baggage is a politician who has been in politics for a long time. A politician who has been in politics for a long time is, typically, a good politician who has garnered baggage because they've had to make tough, real decisions on real issues. This isn't a universal truth, but it's someone who has weighed far more issues with far more grave affects on
their career, than the up and comer or the person who has famed or spent his/her way into a political race or the person who only served a homogenous majority in local politics.
So, that's (one reason) why I'm voting for Clinton.
But, I don't fault someone who votes third party
because that third party represents their opinions best. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Not every voter has to feel like their vote is contributing to the grand game of politics. People are allowed to vote their conscience, their feelings, their opinions. There's an attitude here in political threads that, no, you're not allowed to do that, you're mandated to vote the utilitarian greatest good for the greatest number, and
I'm the one who is going to tell you what that greatest good is, lest you are a moron shitposter. The Supreme Court is like the major copout that everybody uses. "Think of the Supreme Court!" Well, let's think of the Supreme Court. They're are so many factors that go into when a supreme court justice is chosen, how they're nominated, if they pass through Congress, and when they're affirmed as a justice, that I wouldn't fault somebody who is thinking of their immediate concerns (e.g., "Jill Stein has a more agreeable position on foreign policy to me than Clinton or Trump," or "Gary Johnson better represents my view of free enterprise than Clinton or Trump") over the long term, unpredictable, unquantifiable and ultimately
unrelated affect on the Supreme Court that the lone independent voter is going to have. I live in Massachusetts, and I see friends of mine (or acquaintances) criticizes other people who are voting for Jill Stein, and while I would
never vote for Stein, the idea that voting for Stein is going to mean that Trump wins Massachusetts is laughable given that it's one of Clinton's strongest states. So, if someone wants to vote their conscience and can't vote for Hillary Clinton for some particular reason, then I don't think they deserve the grave consequences of our children's children laid at their feet.
I'm voting for Clinton, and I'll encourage other people to do the same, but if someone wants to vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson because those candidates best represent them, then I don't think they should be criticized for it.
