Support NeoGAF

[Staccat0]

If Hillary can't excite her base enough to win against an immigrant hating, womanizing neo nazi, it's her fault. Period.

Why?

Is this a video game launch or a president? I have never been excited about a single person I have ever voted for. I don't regret a single one of those votes though.

 

[GuessMyUserName]

then you are pretty much throwing your vote away. Believe, a two party system is stupid, but that isn't going to change with that tactic.

To put it in a way GAF might understand better:

two party system == tipping in America

 

[Battersea Power Station]

What I've learned from this thread is that some voters are single issue voters.

Im a many issue voter. I can't really relate.

That sounds like some made up stuff to make yourself feel smarter.

What if you agreed with a candidate on economic and foreign policy, but they wanted to dismantle the EPA? Or you agree with them on everything else but they're trying to eliminate affirmative action? Maybe those two aren't it for you. However, you can't tell me there isn't one single issue on which you would draw the line and refuse to support a candidate. Just because that issue is different for you than for someone else doesn't make your view more righteous.

EDIT:

Everyone's a "many issue voter" and everyone's a "single issue voter," depending on who the candidate in question is and which side of the spectrum they're on.

This is a moot point anyway. There are sooooo many reasons to show up and vote for Hillary rather than abstaining, and "I'm smart and you're simple" is not one of them.

 

[SneakersSO]

then you are pretty much throwing your vote away. Believe, a two party system is stupid, but that isn't going to change with that tactic.

No, it's not throwing my vote away. It's basically showing support for the independents we care about, while sending a message about what we want to see from our politics moving forward. Is our candidate going to win? No, seemingly, but that doesn't mean we get no say in the direction we want our country to go in, as well as speaking volumes about the frustration in the slate of candidates on offer.

 

[BudokaiMR2]

I really can't believe there are rational people who are actually supporting Trump because of his whole 'self-funded' stance or his lack of support from lobbyists/special interest.

Can they really not see that for what it is: a marketing tactic (a good one at that!) which he will absolutely drop if he became president.

I fully expect him to pull a Cheney and figure out a way to profit directly off of the wars he starts.

 

[Big Baybee]

It's pretty nuts to me that there are Bernie supporters who are ring hoodwinked by trumps false money out of politics narrative. He is the money guy and will surely work to support corporate interests.

But fuck Hillary though. That's all that matters. Not Trump bullshitting his way through a primary.

 

[NullPointer]

Damn.

 

[cpp_is_king]

So who drops out on the GOP now? Obviously not Cruz, and Kasich seems like he just doesn't give a fuck. Carson is probably still asleep and doesn't even realize how bad he's doing. What about Rubio though? He seems like the kind of guy who is so ashamed of admitting defeat he'll be in it until the end.

Not to mention the GOPe must be shitting bricks right now clinging to every last ounce of hope that someone can stop Trump

 

[Chris R]

Don't worry Alaska, take your time. It's not late or anything :/

They have to hand count everything. The ballot was "circle your choice", not anything like our regular ballots where you just pencil in the bubble like a scantron.

And turnout will be record breaking, they were running out of ballots at some places.

 

[Russ T]

I guess I should have said, the phrasing of the question was unfair and meaningless. You would have to ask about specific ideas.

Well, like I said, I'm ignorant...

Based on the context and my brief Googling yesterday, it seems like, in this case, accelerationism is voting for Trump so that we can more quickly lead the country into panic mode, let shit break, and rebuild better than before.

So, assuming I'm not inferring incorrectly... I'm asking for examples of that strategy being employed on a national scale, where people intentionally manipulated the systems at hand to rush headlong into disaster, and take advantage of that and pick up the pieces.

It sounds unrealistically optimistic to me. That's why I want examples. (I want to reiterate that I am asking in good faith. I'm not looking for a gotcha or anything.)

 

[Hige]

Any Bernie supporter threatening to vote trump deserves to be ridiculed because they obviously never had a coherent thought process on why they were voting for him in the first place. And to be quite honest. Fuck them and their privilege that they can protest vote a candidate that will damage minority communities for decades and they won't feel a thing.

+1

People spite-voting for Trump are oblivious to what the dude represents.

And you would vote for someone that is the polar opposite of Sanders just to spite Hillary?

Yeah, that'll teach her. Fuck the country as long as you show Hillary that you don't like her.

So they'll gamble with minority lives instead. Seems reasonable.

And by this logic you can excuse any group of desperate people over the centuries that have turned to evil men because they felt it was the only way out.

Enough people doing this could elect Donald Trump. No reason is good enough to justify that outcome.

Electorate not understanding compromise. And willing to gamble on serious social issues and a SCOTUS nomination to make a point.

If you don't want to vote for Clinton or Trump, write in your desired candidate for president, and then vote the rest of the ticket. There's more to the election than just the president and a significant part of the reason nothing gets done is because of Congress.

Just vote.

Can someone please explain to me this "the sky is falling" logic of not voting for Hillary? Not everyone lives in a swing state. I could vote for Hillary, Donald, Jill Stein, or whoever I want, and it will mean absolutely nothing in my blue state since Hillary will win regardless. I think this kind of hyperbole is unwarranted when most people don't even live in swing states. I don't think anyone that will jump from Bernie to Trump would even have a significant effect on the election, let's please keep this in mind. It's better to encourage people to vote down-ballot in their local races that are likely to have far more impact on their lives like the last person I quoted did.

but woah man wait. as a straight, white, middle-class male, i have to stick to my principles!

As a gay POC, you can start with not erasing my existence just because I don't support Hillary, thanks. But I suppose that would weaken your straw man argument.

 

[GiantEnemyGoomba]

Many of us Bernie supporters who refuse to vote Hillary will be voting. Just because it's a two-party system, doesn't mean we can't fill in our candidate's name. Many of us who are going to vote will either fill in Bernie's name or Jill Stein (or some of us will vote Trump, it looks like).

This is idiotic. Writing in Bernie has the exact same effect as not voting and will be the reason for President Trump. All because people want to feel like they're better than everyone else.

 

[MThanded]

That sounds like some made up stuff to make yourself feel smarter.

What if you agreed with a candidate on economic and foreign policy, but they wanted to dismantle the EPA? Or you agree with them on everything else but they're trying to eliminate affirmative action? Maybe those two aren't it for you. However, you can't tell me there isn't one single issue on which you would draw the line and refuse to support a candidate. Just because that issue is different for you than for someone else doesn't make your view more righteous.

EDIT:

Everyone's a "many issue voter" and everyone's a "single issue voter," depending on who the candidate in question is and which side of the spectrum they're on.

This is a moot point anyway. There are sooooo many reasons to show up and vote for Hillary rather than abstaining, and "I'm smart and you're simple" is not one of them.

No I am not a single issue voter. I don't have a deal breaker. I'm willing to vote for someone if they align with most of my interests. There is no perfect candidate.

I prefer grays to black and white. I was being completely honest. I'm not one to stay home on Election Day because of a single issue. That's an ethos that permeates my daily life. Nothing is perfect.

I'll always vote for a candidate that best aligns with a set of views.

 

[Overlee]

DWS needs to go.

Leadership starts at the top and that's Hillary. She's playing not to lose, not to actually change the distortion of money on our politics. It's an underlying problem that effects every single issue in this country. So whoever wins it's America that loses in the long run. We become even more dependent on corporate money to run campaigns. Voters become even more disillusioned in the process of democracy. It's a viscous cycle that no one want's to address because our politicians are egotistical loons that only look out for themselves and their cronys.

Forget betterment of man, society, earth we gotta make sure we win and they lose!

 

[cpp_is_king]

This is idiotic. Writing in Bernie has the exact[/] same effect as not voting and will be the reason for President Trump. All because people want to feel like they're better than everyone else.

Actually it's because people want to use the voting process the way it was intended: to voice support for the person you support

 

[ivysaur12]

Actually it's because people want to use the voting process the way it was intended: to voice support for the person you support

Tactical voting has been an aspect of the voting process since the birth of the first-past-the-post.

 

[neurosisxeno]

No, it's not throwing my vote away. It's basically showing support for the independents we care about, while sending a message about what we want to see from our politics moving forward. Is our candidate going to win? No, seemingly, but that doesn't mean we get no say in the direction we want our country to go in, as well as speaking volumes about the frustration in the slate of candidates on offer.

People have a hard time understanding that people voting for Bernie aren't just secretly Democrats--despite exit polls showing he trounces Clinton among Independents, which make up something like 30% of the population. The thing that should be said, is that if Bernie were to win at this point, Democrats would show up and vote for him over Trump or Cruz any day, but he also snags a lot of Independents and people new to the political process. If Hillary wins she's basically going to get Democrats who expected her to win, and a few moderate independents that just don't like what the GOP has to offer. This kind of explains why Bernie appears to poll better in H2H's currently.

I think the Democratic Nominee is going to win regardless, and despite being a dedicated Bernie supporter will vote for Hillary in the general, but it makes sense to me both why Bernie supporters would rather vote Independent/Third Party, and even why there is a lot of overlap with Bernie and Trump supporters.

 

[Jonm1010]

Can someone please explain to me this "the sky is falling" logic of not voting for Hillary? Not everyone lives in a swing state. I could vote for Hillary, Donald, Jill Stein, or whoever I want, and it will mean absolutely nothing in my blue state since Hillary will win regardless. I think this kind of hyperbole is unwarranted when most people don't even live in swing states. I don't think anyone that will jump from Bernie to Trump would even have a significant effect on the election, let's please keep this in mind. It's better to encourage people to vote down-ballot in their local races that are likely to have far more impact on their lives like the last person I quoted did.


As a gay POC, you can start with not erasing my existence just because I don't support Hillary, thanks. But I suppose that would weaken your straw man argument.

If a person jumps from sanders to trump they are literally irrational. No other way about it.

You can't say you are principled or care about the change sanders aims to bring and then vote for a person that is literally the opposite on almost every major issue. Hiding behind the likely outcome of a state doesn't magically excuse that.

Have you ever heard of the expression making the perfect the enemy of the good? Because this is not just doing that, this is spiting the good in favor of the bad because you couldn't get the perfect. There is zero redeemable logic in it.

 

[Foffy]

Leadership starts at the top and that's Hillary. She's playing not to lose, not to actually change the distortion of money on our politics. It's an underlying problem that effects every single issue in this country. So whoever wins it's America that loses in the long run. We become even more dependent on corporate money to run campaigns. Voters become even more disillusioned in the process of democracy. It's a viscous cycle that no one want's to address because our politicians are egotistical loons that only look out for themselves and their cronys.

Forget betterment of man, society, earth we gotta make sure we win and they lose!

Ding ding dingo.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Actually it's because people want to use the voting process the way it was intended: to voice support for the person you support

What good does voicing support at that point for someone no longer involved do?

 

[besada]

Again, argue the politics, argue the tactics, argue the policies, argue the candidates but quit assigning sinister motives to the people you're arguing with. In a couple of cases it's made you look phenomenally stupid, but mostly it's just generating unwanted agita.

 

[SneakersSO]

This is idiotic. Writing in Bernie has the exact[/] same effect as not voting and will be the reason for President Trump. All because people want to feel like they're better than everyone else.

It's amazing how some people cannot grasp that we have our reasons for not supporting Hillary Clinton. No, us not voting for Trump does not have the same affect as voting for Trump. If he wins, it will be for two reasons and two reasons alone: Hillary couldn't drum up enough interest in her base to go out and vote come election night, and Trump did manage to get more people to come out and vote for him than she did.

 

[GiantEnemyGoomba]

Actually it's because people want to use the voting process the way it was intended: to voice support for the person you support

Writing in Bernie isn't supporting him, it doesn't actually do a single bit of change at all. Supporting Bernie would be to help continue what he started this year by electing the person he would want you to.

 

[pigeon]

I get the feeling you can elaborate on this a hell of a lot better than I can - because I'm the guy Russ T is talking about and I'm not sure the worldwide historical trend toward far-right parties during recessions is enough of an argument (and that's basically what I said the last time that subject came up).

I mean, I gotta be honest, I don't personally consider it worthwhile to engage with accelerationists. The definition of the ideology is that you want to allow and encourage societal collapse and mass increase in suffering in the hopes that it will lead to a revolution and usher in your chosen policy goals.

As I suggested in PoliGAF when this came up last time, my major objections to this proposal have nothing to do with feasibility, I just think it's fascist and evil. Like, literally supervillains in comic books have plans to do stuff like this. Also Hitler. So when people start arguing for it on internet message boards I tend to treat it the same way I treat anybody who starts arguing for any other form of mass murder.

It's also true, however, that there are no examples of this actually working. Actual failed states don't lead to progressive policies. Like, ever! They universally lead to further right-wing policies, because they lead to authoritarian governments. For example, I would point to literally every communist country ever founded. Or like any introductory history to the twentieth century. Or the French Revolution if you're nasty, I guess.

So, like, as always when people start suggesting things that are both evil and unworkable, it's best just to assume that they're trolling. Because the alternative is worse.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

Intellectually, a non-vote for Hillary from a Bernie supporter isn't a vote for Trump.

Causally, enough progressive voter abstinence in the case of a Hillary being nominated will make Trump the 45th President of the United States. You don't get to plead innocence when Trump wins if you stayed home.

Is a feckless, amoral opportunist of a commander in chief really better than the status quo under Hillary Clinton? I'm not sure how anyone can say yes with a straight face.

"Don't Blame Me, I Stayed the Fuck Home" doesn't really have that bumper sticker ring to it, does it

 

[HylianTom]

If you're willing to sentence Bernie's vision to death for several decades via GOP judiciary..
if you're willing to allow the GOP to further cement the status of Citizens United..

.. then you weren't all that serious about the issues to begin with.

 

[Vincent Alexander]

Many of us Bernie supporters who refuse to vote Hillary will be voting. Just because it's a two-party system, doesn't mean we can't fill in our candidate's name. Many of us who are going to vote will either fill in Bernie's name or Jill Stein (or some of us will vote Trump, it looks like).

I'm a big Bernie fan, but you can be damn sure come the presidential election---if he doesn't make it---I'll be voting Hilary. Fuck letting this country I love take a hit from a piece of shit like Trump because I can't let my pride go.

 

[Jonm1010]

If you're willing to sentence Bernie's vision to death for several decades via GOP judiciary..
if you're willing to allow the GOP to further cement the status of Citizens United..

.. then you weren't all that serious about the issues to begin with.

Bing-fucking-O

 

[Battersea Power Station]

No I am not a single issue voter. I don't have a deal breaker. I'm willing to vote for someone if they align with most of my interests. There is no perfect candidate.

I don't believe you. The general is Rubio v Hillary. There's a terrorist attack on home soil. Hillary pushes a national registry for all Muslims, while Rubio says he thinks that's a bad precedent. You would show up and vote for Hillary, knowingly partaking in a process that will lead to a lower quality of life for a whole religious and probably ethnic group because all of her other stances align with your interests? Firstly, that would be terrible if you did, and secondly, everyone has a deal breaker.

 

[pigeon]

Leadership starts at the top and that's Hillary. She's playing not to lose, not to actually change the distortion of money on our politics. It's an underlying problem that effects every single issue in this country. So whoever wins it's America that loses in the long run. We become even more dependent on corporate money to run campaigns. Voters become even more disillusioned in the process of democracy. It's a viscous cycle that no one want's to address because our politicians are egotistical loons that only look out for themselves and their cronys.

Forget betterment of man, society, earth we gotta make sure we win and they lose!

This shit's so cray. Of all the inane arguments I've seen this election season, this is one of them. "All you care about is winning."

Yeah, because it's a democracy, man. Winning is how you better man and improve society. THAT IS HOW THE FORCE SYSTEM WORKS.

The first step to getting your policy goals is winning the election. I want to get policy goals. So I want to win the election. Don't you?

 

[captive]

Nothing Clinton would say could change some people's minds. They would find it a positive to undermine the party's chances. Ultimate revolt for not getting what they wanted.

Go on.I'd like to see where you go with this. Should be entertaining.

Post these articles where Hillary routinely kicks black people out her rally's for no reason.

People who were not protesting.

Umm
I hear you on the first part. Though to me, it is not the best attack against Clinton. I do actually believe her when she admitted that she regretted using this loaded language. It was a sincere concession. The underlying point is fair though, that she will say whatever and might through anyone under the bus for political gain.

The people were kicked because they were protesting. Fair to say she could have done that better, but there was a reason haha.

Um, context bro. Or are you being purposely misleading?

like i dont get your reactions, at all. Shaun King has been killing Hillary all election.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/nation...ed-clinton-rally-over-/nqYrd/?ref=cbTopWidget

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...nterrupt-hillary-clinton-south-carolina-event

Welp, this is certainly going places...

how is it going places? I mean, its pretty clear if you are concerned at all about the treatment of minorities in this country, hillary is not your candidate.

If you like hillary anyway fine, if you think she has the better chance at winning the general, fine. But dont sit there and tell me bullshit like Bernie marching with King is only important to white people as if thats all Bernie has done for minorities.


Also anyone going from Bernie -> Trump are morons.

 

[East Lake]

Basically, the answer is "because they're murderous idiots."

Chris Rock is an accelerationist lol.

Spoiler

Not that I don't think it's stupid

 

[allan-bh]

I'm wondering if Donald Trump will use the Megyn Kelly card to skip Fox debate again. At this point I think that maybe would be good for him not show up.

 

[lednerg]

If you can't bring yourself to vote for Hillary or Bernie then at least, for fuck's sake, show up and vote the rest of the ballot. It's especially important that we undo the colossal fuckup that was the 2010 election. The Tea Party Senators who were elected that year are up for election now (it's a six year term) and they absolutely need to get lost.

 

[Concept17]

I'm a big Bernie fan, but you can be damn sure come the presidential election---if he doesn't make it---I'll be voting Hilary. Fuck letting this country I love take a hit from a piece of shit like Drumpf because I can't let my pride go.

Same.

Once the primaries are over and media turns into Drumpf vs Hillary I think most dems will still vote. It's going to be an ugly general.

 

[eyeball_kid]

This is idiotic. Writing in Bernie has the exact same effect as not voting and will be the reason for President Trump. All because people want to feel like they're better than everyone else.

This was the same argument being made about people who voted for Nader and "spoiled" Gore's chance of winning vs. GW Bush due to the Florida Situation. The fact is, Gore just wasn't a strong enough candidate, and if Hillary can't win against a bigoted con man, a few votes going Bernie's way ain't going to push her over the edge. Shaming people for voting the way their heart tells them to only causes more devisiveness in the party. If Clinton wants the Bernie votes, she'll have to work very hard to change hearts and minds.

 

[MartyStu]

I'm wondering if Donald Trump will use the Megyn Kelly card to skip Fox debate again. At this point I think that maybe would be good for him not show up.

I think that at this point he cannot afford to do that.

Rubio and Cruz smell blood already and have been extremely aggressive.

 

[MThanded]

like i dont get your reactions, at all. Shaun King has been killing Hillary all election.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/nation...ed-clinton-rally-over-/nqYrd/?ref=cbTopWidget

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...nterrupt-hillary-clinton-south-carolina-event


how is it going places? I mean, its pretty clear if you are concerned at all about the treatment of minorities in this country, hillary is not your candidate.

If you like hillary anyway fine, if you think she has the better chance at winning the general, fine. But dont sit there and tell me bullshit like Bernie marching with King is only important to white people as if thats all Bernie has done for minorities.


Also anyone going from Bernie -> Trump are morons.

Those were protestors. You said for doing nothing at all. I think you were mixing her up with trump.

Your initial post said Hillary was throwing black people out of her rally's for nothing at all. Links please?

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

If you like hillary anyway fine, if you think she has the better chance at winning the general, fine. But dont sit there and tell me bullshit like Bernie marching with King is only important to white people as if thats all Bernie has done for minorities.

No one said that. Project elsewhere

 

[Team Alucard]

Attacking and shaming people isn't going to make them want to vote for you. Responsibility for poor turnout lies at the feet of party leadership. If Hillary loses in November because progressives stay home then that's on her and the DNC. It's their job to motivate the electorate and it's a job they have failed miserably at for nearly 10 years. The Democratic party is not entitled to the vote of liberals (or anyone for that matter) and people should stop acting like they are.

Outside of Obama, the Democratic party is a big fat mess, and they would be completely fucked this election were it not for Trump sabotaging the GOP

 

[pigeon]

No one said that. Project elsewhere

Royalan did say it, actually. That said, I thought it was an excellent and insightful post and this response to it has not dissuaded me. Expecting credit for marching in civil rights marches is like expecting praise for emptying the dishwasher.

 

[Russ T]

I mean, I gotta be honest, I don't personally consider it worthwhile to engage with accelerationists. The definition of the ideology is that you want to allow and encourage societal collapse and mass increase in suffering in the hopes that it will lead to a revolution and usher in your chosen policy goals.

As I suggested in PoliGAF when this came up last time, my major objections to this proposal have nothing to do with feasibility, I just think it's fascist and evil. Like, literally supervillains in comic books have plans to do stuff like this. Also Hitler. So when people start arguing for it on internet message boards I tend to treat it the same way I treat anybody who starts arguing for any other form of mass murder.

It's also true, however, that there are no examples of this actually working. Actual failed states don't lead to progressive policies. Like, ever! They universally lead to further right-wing policies, because they lead to authoritarian governments. For example, I would point to literally every communist country ever founded. Or like any introductory history to the twentieth century. Or the French Revolution if you're nasty, I guess.

So, like, as always when people start suggesting things that are both evil and unworkable, it's best just to assume that they're trolling. Because the alternative is worse.

Even though you weren't responding to me, thanks for indirectly filling me in, haha. This is kinda my initial emotional reaction to the idea, too. I'm struggling to understand why it would be seen as a good idea.

Like, even assuming there's a good chance it does work, if there's even a small chance it doesn't work, that's a huge risk. It could literally lead to millions of deaths. Hundreds of millions. America is not a small country. If America falls into chaos and no one picks up the pieces fast enough... It won't be pretty. To say the least.

I dunno, I suppose it's better if I just let this little tangent drop...

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

Same.

Once the primaries are over and media turns into Drumpf vs Hillary I think most dems will still vote. It's going to be an ugly general.

Same here too and yeah, it's going to be ugly. But I think Hillary will be ready to come out swinging for winning the votes.

As a side thing, just mentioning the name Sanders in front of my aunt made her shudder. Just... c'mon now... My aunt, uncle and grandmother are definitely republicans, and probably not moderate ones either. But we know to leave politics alone for almost all conversations, so it's all good. Me, my brother, his fiance and my dad are democrats and I'm sure all 4 of us would vote Sanders first, then Hillary if Sanders doesn't get the vote.

 

[allan-bh]

I think that at this point he cannot afford to do that.

Rubio and Cruz smell blood already and have been extremely aggressive.

Skip the debate could be better than a bad performance and honestly I think Trump didn't do so great against Rubio in the last debate.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Attacking and shaming people isn't going to make them want to vote for you. Responsibility for poor turnout lies at the feet of party leadership. If Hillary loses in November because progressives stay home then that's on her and the DNC. It's their job to motivate the electorate and it's a job they have failed miserably at for nearly 10 years. The Democratic party is not entitled to the vote of liberals (or anyone for that matter) and people should stop acting like they are.

Outside of Obama, the Democratic party is a big fat mess, and they would be completely fucked this election were it not for Trump sabotaging the GOP

The responsibility for voting is on voters. Like it has been all cycle and will continue to be.

By your logic, Bernie failed to motivate. Is that how you feel?

Royalan did say it, actually. That said, I thought it was an excellent and insightful post and this response to it has not dissuaded me. Expecting credit for marching in civil rights marches is like expecting praise for emptying the dishwasher.

Ah, then I stand corrected.

 

[Maitiú]

A+ retort. As nearly as A+ the ACA was to fixing all of the major issues American health care had!

Mind you, I'm not one of those "ACA is 100% bad and what we had in the golden days is better" kind of cat. If you think the ACA is reasonable in this climate, that's fine. But that's far different than simply being reasonable, which it is not.

Don't imply a half-measure that barely solved progenitor issues to be a gold standard. It makes you look like one who settles for less, where substandard is acceptable in the face of decent humanism.

Sigh, so it turns out in the end that you agree with me. Of course I meant in this climate. All of my posts tonight have been in regards to working with the electorate that we have. Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards. The ACA, among many good things, opened the marketplace, the first step to getting rid of employer-based health-care which is where it all started to go wrong for America.

 

[Damaniel]

If Hillary can't excite her base enough to win against an immigrant hating, womanizing neo nazi, it's her fault. Period.

Placing the blame on people who were never voting for Clinton in the first place has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever read. You're doing the same fucking thing Dems did to Ross Perot supporters. It was fucking stupid then and it's fucking stupid now.

Bernie isn't exciting *his* base enough to beat Hillary, let alone Trump. Youth vote is as low as ever, 'revolution' or not. Hillary is doing just fine - the 'get money out of politics' message isn't resonating with people who have much different concerns on their minds.

Fortunately, the 'I hate Hillary and will never ever vote for her' contingent is absolutely tiny (much smaller than Daily Kos or Reddit would have you believe) and consists largely of a demographic that normally doesn't vote anyway. Their protest votes for Jill Stein or whoever won't matter since they're not going to be voting in enough numbers to shift the general election even a bit.

 

[BudokaiMR2]

It's amazing how some people cannot grasp that we have our reasons for not supporting Hillary Clinton. No, us not voting for Trump does not have the same affect as voting for Trump. If he wins, it will be for two reasons and two reasons alone: Hillary couldn't drum up enough interest in her base to go out and vote come election night, and Trump did manage to get more people to come out and vote for him than she did.

I am not a fan of Hillary in the slightest, but the idea that politicians need to entice you to actually fulfill one of the only important responsibilities available as a citizen is complete BS.

Your vote is a way to have at least some say in the betterment (or worsening for some assholes) of our society.

Trying to shift your own personal responsibility to vote onto a candidate is just complete bullshit. If you want to abstain or write in a candidate to no effect that is totally up to you, even if both are terrible ideas. However please don't try to absolve yourself of the responsibility by blaming a candidate for not 'drumming up your interest'. Own up to it and just admit you don't give a fuck at the very least.

Get the fuck outta here with this perfect pie in the sky thinking. The world kinda fucking sucks and sometimes compromises have to be made.

 

[captive]

No one said that. Project elsewhere

actually, the whole reason i posted is because someone said exactly that.

I can't remember the specific article, but there was an article in the lead-up to the NC primary that had a quote from a Hillary voter on why he didn't care about Bernie Sanders history with the civil rights movement, and I think his response sums up the general lack of fucks given by the black community. It was something like this:

"Why should I care that Bernie Sanders marched with King. If I want to see a civil rights hero, all I have to do is walk down the street."

And it's a good point. Marching with King is nothing special to us because our community is flooded with people who've done their part with the struggle. It was OUR struggle, after all. And it's not in any way indicative that you understand the black community today and our issues. In short, you don't get a cookie.

Marching with King is only a big deal if you're white.

and the other candidate calling your children super predators? Thats ok? I mean, thats who you're getting with Clinton. Someone that has routinely kicked out black people from her rally's, for no reason at all.

 

[nomis]

This was the same argument being made about people who voted for Nader and "spoiled" Gore's chance of winning vs. GW Bush due to the Florida Situation. The fact is, Gore just wasn't a strong enough candidate, and if Hillary can't win against a bigoted con man, a few votes going Bernie's way ain't going to push her over the edge. Shaming people for voting the way their heart tells them to only causes more devisiveness in the party. If Clinton wants the Bernie votes, she'll have to work very hard to change hearts and minds.

I pray to every god I have no faith in that you are right.

If I were an american citizen, I would still be scrambling to get to the ballot box to vote for Clinton. I'm still a big fan of Sanders and think his presidency would be much better for the world than Hillary.