PDA

View Full Version : I'm With Another Her



IMPress Polly
07-28-2016, 04:39 PM
What follows is mostly a re-posting of material I posted recently on another (old) thread. I decided to give it its own thread so everyone would get the message and understand where it is that I presently stand on the presidential race. My stance up to now has been tentative. This is my final, official position.

Until recently, I was tentatively backing Hillary Clinton based on the presumption that she was about to select that known Wall Street cop Elizabeth Warren as her running mate and thus push all her Wall Street donors off a proverbial cliff in order to run a people's campaign going forward. You could see my reasoning on that before, right? I mean since Warren was the only vetted candidate for the post that she'd held a campaign rally with at the point I made that prediction? And on top of that, my opinion was reinforced when Clinton announced that she and Sanders had negotiated a compromise position on higher education abolishing tuition at public colleges and universities for all students making less than $125,000 a year (83% of the population) and then announced a similar compromise position worked out with Sanders on health care where she would advocate for the public option anew and for lowering the age at which people can access Medicare to 55. These late changes in the Clinton program seemed to suggest that she was aiming to run a more left wing campaign going forward to me. Then Sanders endorsed her. The instant that happened, everything changed! Immediately a campaign event with an anti-abortion, pro-TPP advocate of further financial deregulation in Tim Kaine was scheduled and then a week after that she announced him as her running mate, thus instantly quashing my whole theory of this year! I feel conned. Again. Conned because this constitutes absolute proof that Clinton values her Wall Street campaign donations more than she cares about the needs of poor and working class people. The instant she thought my vote was secure, she turned on me. And that settles the matter: I'm not buying what she's selling anymore.

Oh yes, I know: "But VPs don't do anything." Right. And Joe Biden isn't the architect of our current policy any more than Dick Cheney wasn't the architect of our last president's. Modern VPs are influential! And Clinton even says that she picked him specifically as a de facto high-level advisor. Think about the implications of that for a second.

I've been protesting outside the conventions these last couple weeks (which has been a big reason for my absence lately), but I have had the opportunity to record and watch the speeches themselves at both that have happened so far. My opinion of the Trump coronation was that the whole process was even scarier than I thought it might be, with the delegates, speakers, and Senators openly calling for the jailing and even assassination of political opponents. Worse still, it looks like the public responded in a terrifying amount of approval!

Then we fast-forward to the Democratic National Convention and what do we get in response to this clear and imminent threat? Mostly a bunch of generic political speeches that really fail to take the stakes as seriously as they present themselves, though a few of them (Michelle Obama's, Cory Booker's, and Joe Biden's come to mind) have struck me as more heartfelt than not. (Indeed Michelle Obama's speech was convincing enough that we might hear it again at the next Republican National Convention.) Nevertheless, the overall case being made is weak. The general formula works thus: first there is a listing of Trump's various irritating rudenesses and, more importantly, from time to time his actual policy ideas (which are much worse and should be focused upon far more often). Then we are presented with the answer: Clinton-Kaine. Why them? Because Clinton is qualified for the job, is a grandmother now, created S-CHIP, and is has thus "fought for us her whole life". It's not convincing. Not when your husband signed NAFTA and the infamous 1994 crime bill into law, repealed Glass-Steagall, and gave us workfare, you voted to invade Iraq on zero evidence, you were the principal architect of the Libya War, and you just proved your commitment NOT to run a people's campaign.

Clearly the Clinton campaign needs a threat from the left in order to move to the left. This is why I've decided that I'm with another her. (I refer to Jill Stein of the Green Party.) The above kind of answer to an alarmingly demagogic campaign is no answer at all! Bernie can tell me about Hillary's merits and concessions all he wants, but it's not convincing when you've now got pretty significant evidence she wasn't serious about any of that! The result is that this could well prove to be something of a breakout year for Jill Stein and the Green Party, I predict, and that's something I'm interested in getting on board with.

It's not that everything Hillary Clinton has done has been bad or anything. I'm a strong supporter of the Violence Against Women Act and the assault weapons ban that Bill Clinton signed and Hillary Clinton supported back in the '90s for example! But the thing is that these agreeable things are the exception, not the rule, when it comes to the Clinton record to date. I could, after all, say the same thing about Ronald Reagan: I believe it was Reagan who signed the Americans With Disabilities Act, for example, if memory serves. Such occasional charitable acts, however, do not make up for the overall picture where you bankrupted the Soviet Union (in my view that was crime anyway), sold arms to the Contras illegally, set the precedent of actively stopping strikes yourself, created more poverty through budgetary austerity, and achieved "prosperity" for middle class people only through a financial deregulation that rendered the accumulation of debt easier. You don't get away with all that because you signed the Americans With Disabilities Act, sorry!

This is a protest vote. I know Stein has no chance of becoming president. In this connection, to those who may say that supporting a third-party candidate amounts to signing over the White House, if not the whole of Washington DC, to Trump and his goon squad, let me just say that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party don't need my help to lose this election. They can do that all by themselves! And you can't say that I didn't give Mrs. Clinton her fair chance to persuade me.

That is not to say that Stein embodies everything I stand for by any means. I am a pretty unique person after all, in case you haven't noticed. :tongue: But I vote strategically even within the framework of casting a protest ballot. As far as I'm concerned, protest votes are only potent in as far as they send a message to the powers that be and they can only do that to the extent that they are concentrated around a single candidate, i.e. in as far as they actually register as a percentage of the overall vote. Stein has, by an exponential factor, the most support among progressives outside the Democratic Party. Therefore a Stein vote stands a much better chance of registering than a vote for some truly fringe candidates I might even more fully agree with like Monica Moorehead of the Workers' World Party or Mimi Soltysik of the Socialist Party. Still, in terms of my personal ideals, I'm more closely aligned with Stein than I was with Sanders during the Democratic primaries. If it can be estimated that I'm about 70% aligned with Sanders' stances, then I am about 85% aligned with Stein's. (I'd say that I'm about 55 or 60% aligned with Clinton's platform for that matter, but the thing is that I don't trust her to make any serious effort to enact key provisions of it anymore.)

Stein goes further than Sanders in some notable ways, including her proposal to close all U.S. military bases abroad and impose "at least" a 50% cut in military spending levels and phase out nuclear weapons, as well as with her proposal to work toward the creation of publicly-owned banks and utility companies and a general system of worker management of businesses, as well as for instant run-off ballots and more. I like these bold proposals. They could be described as socialistic and genuinely anti-imperialist.

Cletus
07-28-2016, 04:50 PM
Go for it. Get all your friends to vote for Stein.

The more the merrier.

Peter1469
07-28-2016, 04:53 PM
If people voted their conscious we could break the two party system, which is really one party with two sides- each with the goal of increasing government power and destroying the USD and our economy.

Ethereal
07-28-2016, 04:53 PM
I hate to say it, but I told ya so.

Did you really think you could trust Hillary Clinton?

Oboe
07-28-2016, 04:53 PM
What follows is mostly a re-posting of material I posted recently on another (old) thread. I decided to give it its own thread so everyone would get the message and understand where it is that I presently stand on the presidential race. My stance up to now has been tentative. This is my final, official position.

Until recently, I was tentatively backing Hillary Clinton based on the presumption that she was about to select that known Wall Street cop Elizabeth Warren as her running mate and thus push all her Wall Street donors off a proverbial cliff in order to run a people's campaign going forward. You could see my reasoning on that before, right? I mean since Warren was the only vetted candidate for the post that she'd held a campaign rally with at the point I made that prediction? And on top of that, my opinion was reinforced when Clinton announced that she and Sanders had negotiated a compromise position on higher education abolishing tuition at public colleges and universities for all students making less than $125,000 a year (83% of the population) and then announced a similar compromise position worked out with Sanders on health care where she would advocate for the public option anew and for lowering the age at which people can access Medicare to 55. These late changes in the Clinton program seemed to suggest that she was aiming to run a more left wing campaign going forward to me. Then Sanders endorsed her. The instant that happened, everything changed! Immediately a campaign event with an anti-abortion, pro-TPP advocate of further financial deregulation in Tim Kaine was scheduled and then a week after that she announced him as her running mate, thus instantly quashing my whole theory of this year! I feel conned. Again. Conned because this constitutes absolute proof that Clinton values her Wall Street campaign donations more than she cares about the needs of poor and working class people. The instant she thought my vote was secure, she turned on me. And that settles the matter: I'm not buying what she's selling anymore.

Oh yes, I know: "But VPs don't do anything." Right. And Joe Biden isn't the architect of our current policy anymore than Dick Cheney wasn't the architect of our last president's. Modern VPs are influential! And Clinton even says that she picked him specifically as a de facto high-level advisor. Think about the implications of that for a second.

I've been protesting outside the conventions these last couple weeks (which has big reason for my absence lately), but I have had the opportunity to record and watch the speeches themselves at both that have happened so far. My opinion of the Trump coronation was that the whole process was even scarier than I thought it might be, with the delegates, speakers, and Senators openly calling for the jailing and even assassination of political opponents. Worse still, it looks like the public responded in a terrifying amount of approval!

Then we fast-forward to the Democratic National Convention and what do we get in response to this clear and imminent threat? Mostly a bunch of generic political speeches that really fail to take the stakes as seriously as they present themselves, though a few of them (Michelle Obama's and Cory Booker's come to mind) have struck me as more heartfelt than not. (Indeed Michelle Obama's speech was convincing enough that we might hear it again at the next Republican National Convention.) Nevertheless, the overall case being made is weak. The general formula works thus: first there is a listing of Trump's various irritating rudenesses and, more importantly, from time to time his actual policy ideas (which are much worse and should be focused upon far more often). Then we are presented with the answer: Clinton-Kaine. Why them? Because Clinton is qualified for the job, is a grandmother now, created S-CHIP, and is has thus "fought for us her whole life". It's not convincing. Not when your husband signed NAFTA and the infamous 1994 crime bill into law, repealed Glass-Steagall, and gave us workfare, you voted to invade Iraq on zero evidence, you were the principal architect of the Libya War, and you just proved your commitment NOT to run a people's campaign.

Clearly the Clinton campaign needs a threat from the left in order to move to the left. This is why I've decided that I'm with another her. (I refer to Jill Stein of the Green Party.) The above kind of answer to an alarmingly demagogic campaign is no answer at all! Bernie can tell me about Hillary's merits and concessions all he wants, but it's not convincing when you've now got pretty significant evidence she wasn't serious about any of that! The result is that this could well prove to be something of a breakout year for Jill Stein and the Green Party, I predict, and that's something I'm interested in getting on board with.

It's not that everything Hillary Clinton has done has been bad or anything. I'm a strong supporter of the Violence Against Women Act and the assault weapons ban that Bill Clinton signed and Hillary Clinton supported back in the '90s for example! But the thing is that these agreeable things are the exception, not the rule, when it comes to the Clinton record to date. I could, after all, say the same thing about Ronald Reagan: I believe it was Reagan who signed the Americans With Disabilities Act, for example, if memory serves. Such occasional charitable acts, however, do not make up for the overall picture where you bankrupted the Soviet Union (in my view that was crime anyway), sold arms to the Contras illegally, set the precedent of actively stopping strikes yourself, created more poverty through budgetary austerity, and achieved "prosperity" for middle class people only through a financial deregulation that rendered the accumulation of debt easier. You don't get away with all that because you signed the Americans With Disabilities Act, sorry!

This is a protest vote. I know Stein has no chance of becoming president. In this connection, to those who may say that supporting a third-party candidate amounts to signing over the White House, if not the whole of Washington DC, to Trump and his goon squad, let me just say that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party don't need my help to lose this election. They can do that all by themselves! And you can't say that I didn't give Mrs. Clinton her fair chance to persuade me.

That is not to say that Stein embodies everything I stand for by any means. I am a pretty unique person after all, in case you haven't noticed. :tongue: But I vote strategically even within the framework of casting a protest ballot. As far as I'm concerned, protest votes are only potent in as far as they send a message to the powers that be and they can only do that to the extent that they are concentrated around a single candidate, i.e. in as far as they actually register as a percentage of the overall vote. Stein has, by an exponential factor, the most support among progressives outside the Democratic Party. Therefore a Stein vote stands a much better chance of registering than a vote for some truly fringe candidates I might even more fully agree with like Monica Moorehead of the Workers' World Party or Mimi Soltysik of the Socialist Party. Still, in terms of my personal ideals, I'm more closely aligned with Stein than I was with Sanders during the Democratic primaries. If it can be estimated that I'm about 70% aligned with Sanders' stances, then I am about 85% aligned with Stein's. (I'd say that I'm about 55 or 60% aligned with Clinton's platform for that matter, but the thing is that I don't trust her to make any serious effort to enact key provisions of it anymore.)


I'm wondering, since gun bans stop no crime, and criminals as we know do not obey laws, what good would it do have a gun ban?

IMPress Polly
07-28-2016, 05:00 PM
Ethereal wrote:
I hate to say it, but I told ya so.

Did you really think you could trust Hillary Clinton?

For a while, yes. Not anymore.

IMPress Polly
07-28-2016, 05:04 PM
Peter wrote:
If people voted their conscious we could break the two party system, which is really one party with two sides- each with the goal of increasing government power and destroying the USD and our economy.

I actually addressed precisely this line of thinking in the OP. Here's a re-post of my thoughts on that:

"I vote strategically even within the framework of casting a protest ballot. As far as I'm concerned, protest votes are only potent in as far as they send a message to the powers that be and they can only do that to the extent that they are concentrated around a single candidate, i.e. in as far as they actually register as a percentage of the overall vote. Stein has, by an exponential factor, the most support among progressives outside the Democratic Party. Therefore a Stein vote stands a much better chance of registering than a vote for some truly fringe candidates I might even more fully agree with like Monica Moorehead of the Workers' World Party or Mimi Soltysik of the Socialist Party. Still, in terms of my personal ideals, I'm more closely aligned with Stein than I was with Sanders during the Democratic primaries. If it can be estimated that I'm about 70% aligned with Sanders' stances, then I am about 85% aligned with Stein's. (I'd say that I'm about 55 or 60% aligned with Clinton's platform for that matter, but the thing is that I don't trust her to make any serious effort to enact key provisions of it anymore.)"

So what I'm saying here is that, if we actually want to either break the two-party system (not likely in this cycle) or come as close as we can (my aim for this cycle), we need to rally behind an agreed-upon alternative rather than just each of us "voting our hearts". We're not a threat to the political establishment divided. That's why I'm for left unity behind the left's most popular opponent to the Democrats: Jill Stein of the Green Party.

My next major political task going forward will be to fight to get Stein into the October debates. If that happens, watch out! Either way though, with the two major parties having selected their most unpopular nominees in history, this stands to be something of a breakout year for both the Greens and the Libertarians.

Subdermal
07-28-2016, 05:05 PM
I am in favor of your choice.

IMPress Polly
07-28-2016, 05:09 PM
But probably for all the wrong reasons I'm guessing, Subdermal. :tongue:

Ethereal
07-28-2016, 05:23 PM
For a while, yes. Not anymore.

But why!

Common
07-28-2016, 05:40 PM
In the end everyone votes they way they choose. Thats why we even vote.

texan
07-28-2016, 05:52 PM
I'm wondering, since gun bans stop no crime, and criminals as we know do not obey laws, what good would it do have a gun ban?

it do s no good as long as you have no borders! If you're unwanted to make an argument that over time it cycl s the older guns out and then maybe it gets better I will listen to your argument. But as long as you allow our s border to be wide open guns will explode like drugs.

Standing Wolf
07-28-2016, 06:05 PM
Polly, voting your conscience is all fine and good, but here is the cold, hard reality of the situation: one of two individuals will be elected President in November - Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. In practical terms, a vote for anyone else is wasted and will accomplish exactly nothing.

Of those two individuals, if you would prefer to have Hillary Clinton as President, the intelligent and logical thing to do is to cast your vote for her - not to stay home in protest, and not to vote for any third party candidate or write someone in; all three options would have precisely the same effect of nothing.

A certain number of individuals have somehow gotten it into their heads that Hillary Clinton will be elected regardless of what they do or don't do in November. They loathe Trump and wouldn't vote for him with a gun to their heads, but if enough of those people fail to vote for Clinton, because they want to register some sort of protest or what-have-you, they will collectively assure the man's election. If you honestly believe that there isn't enough difference between the two candidates to care about - although I find it difficult to imagine that you do - then by all means vote for somebody else, or save gas and don't vote at all.

AZ Jim
07-28-2016, 06:07 PM
Go for it. Get all your friends to vote for Stein.

The more the merrier.Right! A vote Trump is thrilled with.

Hal Jordan
07-28-2016, 06:20 PM
Polly, voting your conscience is all fine and good, but here is the cold, hard reality of the situation: one of two individuals will be elected President in November - Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. In practical terms, a vote for anyone else is wasted and will accomplish exactly nothing.

Of those two individuals, if you would prefer to have Hillary Clinton as President, the intelligent and logical thing to do is to cast your vote for her - not to stay home in protest, and not to vote for any third party candidate or write someone in; all three options would have precisely the same effect of nothing.

A certain number of individuals have somehow gotten it into their heads that Hillary Clinton will be elected regardless of what they do or don't do in November. They loathe Trump and wouldn't vote for him with a gun to their heads, but if enough of those people fail to vote for Clinton, because they want to register some sort of protest or what-have-you, they will collectively assure the man's election. If you honestly believe that there isn't enough difference between the two candidates to care about - although I find it difficult to imagine that you do - then by all means vote for somebody else, or save gas and don't vote at all.

No. No no no. In practical terms, if enough people vote their conscience rather than buy the wasted vote bullshit, even if their candidate doesn't win, it will send a strong message to the parties in power. "We're not standing for your bullshit anymore." It will also send a message to voters in the next election. "Hey, there is still a change to change things peacefully." Voting for the two major parties sends a message too, that you're fine with corruption, with the government taking more and more power, with becoming slaves of the system. Even if there's no possibility of winning (which there just may be this year), I know which message I want to send.

AZ Jim
07-28-2016, 06:23 PM
No. No no no. In practical terms, if enough people vote their conscience rather than buy the wasted vote bullshit, even if their candidate doesn't win, it will send a strong message to the parties in power. "We're not standing for your bullshit anymore." It will also send a message to voters in the next election. "Hey, there is still a change to change things peacefully." Voting for the two major parties sends a message too, that you're fine with corruption, with the government taking more and more power, with becoming slaves of the system. Even if there's no possibility of winning (which there just may be this year), I know which message I want to send.Sending a message like Perot and Nader did? All is does is let others decide who is President instead of you taking part in that decision.

Hal Jordan
07-28-2016, 06:35 PM
Sending a message like Perot and Nader did? All is does is let others decide who is President instead of you taking part in that decision.

Bullshit. You do know that Abraham Lincoln ran as a third party candidate, right? If people had thought then as you do now, he never could have become President.

Bethere
07-28-2016, 06:41 PM
Bull$#@!. You do know that Abraham Lincoln ran as a third party candidate, right? If people had thought then as you do now, he never could have become President.

Dude that was 156 years ago.

15425

AZ Jim
07-28-2016, 06:43 PM
Bullshit. You do know that Abraham Lincoln ran as a third party candidate, right? If people had thought then as you do now, he never could have become President. Get a calender.
http://billmoyers.com/content/third-party-candidates-from-lincoln-to-nader/

Hal Jordan
07-28-2016, 06:45 PM
Dude that was 156 years ago.

15425

The time is irrelevant. The precedent is set. There were people then making the exact arguments you are now. Learn from history, rather than buying the party line.

Hal Jordan
07-28-2016, 06:49 PM
Get a calender.
http://billmoyers.com/content/third-party-candidates-from-lincoln-to-nader/

Get a DVD on how to insult. I know you wouldn't read the book.

Hal Jordan
07-28-2016, 06:53 PM
Get a calender.
http://billmoyers.com/content/third-party-candidates-from-lincoln-to-nader/

Also, the quote on your little page agrees with my statement that the sending of the message is of vital importance. Though, the idea that the third parties die is ludicrous. Why, two of them are more powerful now than they were then.

Chris
07-28-2016, 07:01 PM
Bullshit. You do know that Abraham Lincoln ran as a third party candidate, right? If people had thought then as you do now, he never could have become President.


Dude that was 156 years ago....


Therefore, it cannot happen again.

(Logic could be your friend.)

Chris
07-28-2016, 07:02 PM
BTW, IMPress Polly, Stein is a good choice for you. Now stick to it.

Hal Jordan
07-28-2016, 07:14 PM
BTW, @IMPress Polly (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=399), Stein is a god choice for you. Now stick to it.

I agree with Chris.

http://www.themarysue.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/3779149-no-you-move-cap-says.jpg

Chris
07-28-2016, 07:16 PM
I agree with Chris.

http://www.themarysue.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/3779149-no-you-move-cap-says.jpg



Ooops, corrected "god" to "good." :rollseyes:

Green Arrow
07-29-2016, 12:16 AM
Good choice, Polly! Welcome to the Green Team :)

AeonPax
07-29-2016, 12:31 AM
`
`
I voted for Jill stein in the 2012 election. This election cycle is even worse by magnitudes. There is no choosing between two equally as repugnant candidates. It's Stein again for me.

Bethere
07-29-2016, 01:18 AM
Therefore, it cannot happen again.

(Logic could be your friend.)

History could be yours.

IMPress Polly
07-29-2016, 06:02 AM
Ethereal wrote:
But why!

I get why a lot of people never trusted her (in this cycle anyway), given the inconsistency she's demonstrated over the years. That just doesn't bother me like it does some people. Not by itself anyway. Why not? Because I myself am the kind of person who changes aspects of my worldview fairly often if you haven't noticed. When I joined this message board four years ago, for example, I counted myself a sort of neo-Menshevik Marxist. Then I moved on to a kind of Silicon Valley futurism. Presently I consider myself a communist anarchist. In the years before I joined up here, I had embraced Maoism and offshoots thereof and before that I counted myself an ordinary democratic socialist and before that just an ordinary progressive reformist. There was even a brief period where I flirted with conventional libertarianism. :tongue: That's not because I'm a fraud, it's because I'm a critical thinker! I question, learn, and refine my outlook as I learn. Hillary Clinton initially just struck me as being the same way. I even relate to her awkwardness in public as sort of an introverted person myself. On top of all that, there's also just a part of me (we might call it the feminist part) that wanted to trust her, given the yes-historic nature of what her candidacy could represent. So it was a combination of things really. Now though I don't think she's all that much like me necessarily. I think she's perhaps more of a manipulative and insincere person.

Chris
07-29-2016, 06:15 AM
History could be yours.

Right, sure, and I bet you can predict the future.

zelmo1234
07-29-2016, 07:04 AM
If people voted their conscious we could break the two party system, which is really one party with two sides- each with the goal of increasing government power and destroying the USD and our economy.

It is possible, but not with Johnson! on the right. If Jill takes 4% of the vote Trump will be President. Now if someone like a Walker, would have run as the third party or Warren on the left, then Yes we would have a chance.

But other than Perot, we have never had someone that you could get excited about voting for.

Common
07-29-2016, 07:06 AM
It is possible, but not with Johnson! on the right. If Jill takes 4% of the vote Trump will be President. Now if someone like a Walker, would have run as the third party or Warren on the left, then Yes we would have a chance.

But other than Perot, we have never had someone that you could get excited about voting for.

uhh zelmo, right now at this moment, Johnson has 13% of the vote nationally in polls.

Thats one of the equasions I use when I say Hillary will win

zelmo1234
07-29-2016, 07:11 AM
Sending a message like Perot and Nader did? All is does is let others decide who is President instead of you taking part in that decision.

This is interesting. I have never witnessed a Democrat Admit that without Perot, Clinton #1 would never have been President.

Nader did the same for the Democrats. But it does send a message. It tells the parties that if you insist on putting forward really bad candidates, then you will not get my vote.

in 2012, over 5 million Conservatives stayed home, because Romney was a Progressive. Trump owes his very candidacy to the fact that the GOP took for granted the will of the people.

And the people that voted for him, understand that he very well may loose the election. But you can bet that the GOP is thinking about ways that they can earn the trust of their voters again. And that is because someone voted for a different path.

zelmo1234
07-29-2016, 07:13 AM
uhh zelmo, right now at this moment, Johnson has 13% of the vote nationally in polls.

Thats one of the equasions I use when I say Hillary will win

I agree and that is an issue. But as the election nears and we get through the debates, people are going to have to decide if the Country can handle Crooked Hillary. As that day approaches, I believe that number will continue to fall.

If Johnson gets on the Debate Stage, Hillary will be the next President of the USA. If somehow Stein would get on the debate Stage, Trump would be the next president.

Standing Wolf
07-29-2016, 08:02 AM
No. No no no. In practical terms, if enough people vote their conscience rather than buy the wasted vote bull$#@!, even if their candidate doesn't win, it will send a strong message to the parties in power. "We're not standing for your bull$#@! anymore." It will also send a message to voters in the next election. "Hey, there is still a change to change things peacefully." Voting for the two major parties sends a message too, that you're fine with corruption, with the government taking more and more power, with becoming slaves of the system. Even if there's no possibility of winning (which there just may be this year), I know which message I want to send.

Do you honestly not comprehend that if enough people effectively flush their ballots down the commode sending a "message", America could very well be stuck with Donald Trump as its President for the next four years?

Chris
07-29-2016, 08:03 AM
Do you honestly not comprehend that if enough people effectively flush their ballots down the commode sending a "message", America could very well be stuck with Donald Trump as its President for the next four years?

And then again, if enough voters did that, we could end up with Johnson or Stein as the next President.

Standing Wolf
07-29-2016, 08:07 AM
And then again, if enough voters did that, we could end up with Johnson or Stein as the next President.

In theory, yes. In practical terms, either of those individuals has as much chance of being elected President as Dwayne Johnson or Kanye West.

Peter1469
07-29-2016, 08:12 AM
uhh zelmo, right now at this moment, Johnson has 13% of the vote nationally in polls.

Thats one of the equasions I use when I say Hillary will win

Or more likely nobody gets enough electoral votes to win. Then the House picks anyone they want.

Chris
07-29-2016, 08:15 AM
In theory, yes. In practical terms, either of those individuals has as much chance of being elected President as Dwayne Johnson or Kanye West.

That was probably said of the Republican Party back in the day it was a third party. When enough people get disgusted with the duopoly, it will happen again.

Green Arrow
07-29-2016, 08:20 AM
Do you honestly not comprehend that if enough people effectively flush their ballots down the commode sending a "message", America could very well be stuck with Donald Trump as its President for the next four years?

If that happened (unlikely considering the popular vote doesn't elect presidents), maybe it will give the Democrats incentive to put up better candidates and work harder to win every vote they can.

Chris
07-29-2016, 08:28 AM
Standing Wolf, here's the other thing to consider, third parties garner votes others want and if they want them badly enough they will accommodate them in the platform. Part of Hillary's speech last night was reconciling differences with and adapting to various groups like Bernie's supporters, BLM, etc. You don't need to win to change things.

Standing Wolf
07-29-2016, 12:07 PM
That was probably said of the Republican Party back in the day it was a third party. When enough people get disgusted with the duopoly, it will happen again.

To coin a phrase, there's a time and a place for everything. Working to get out a big "protest vote" against the two-party system might be a fine idea at the appropriate time. When there is a very real danger that doing so now might assist in putting an ill-tempered, ignorant man-baby like DJT in charge of the nuclear launch codes, I would say that constitutes plenty of reason to do that thing some other time.

Chris
07-29-2016, 12:09 PM
To coin a phrase, there's a time and a place for everything. Working to get out a big "protest vote" against the two-party system might be a fine idea at the appropriate time. When there is a very real danger that doing so now might assist in putting an ill-tempered, ignorant man-baby like DJT in charge of the nuclear launch codes, I would say that constitutes plenty of reason to do that thing some other time.

When the alternative is equally evil HRC then there's no time like the present.

Standing Wolf
07-29-2016, 12:16 PM
When the alternative is equally evil HRC then there's no time like the present.

"Equally evil"? I'm sorry...that's just delusional thinking.

Chris
07-29-2016, 12:23 PM
"Equally evil"? I'm sorry...that's just delusional thinking.

And that's meaningless.

IMPress Polly
07-29-2016, 01:16 PM
Look I'm no naive idealist about these things. I'm a strategic voter. Here though is the reality of my situation:

Trump may be winning the popular vote nationwide according to recent polls, but according the latest Vermont Public Radio survey, here's how he's doing in my state:

Clinton: 39%
Trump: 17%

Lots of undecided voters here yet, but as you can see, it's not much of a contest. Clinton's beating Trump by a margin of more than 2 to 1, which is pretty typical of my state. Vermont is not a swing state. Or even close to being one. Here in Vermont, Hillary Clinton will win the popular vote and therefore all of my state's electoral votes no matter which way I go. That is simply the truth. Therefore, my vote has no bearing in and of itself on the outcome of the general election. I have no real reason to even go to the ballot in November, frankly! There's no risk of Trump winning in my state, which means that, in our winner-take-all election system, voting for Stein carries no risk for me. It will not increase or decrease Trump's chances of winning the general election. How then can you fools sit there and tell me that I'm forfeiting the election to Trump by casting a protest ballot for Stein? You see how that doesn't make sense?

In a solid blue state like mine, the critical thinker votes to register an opinion, not to affect the outcome. The outcome is a foregone conclusion.

Ethereal
07-29-2016, 03:16 PM
The time is irrelevant. The precedent is set. There were people then making the exact arguments you are now. Learn from history, rather than buying the party line.

165 years is the magic amount of time that must pass before something that worked in the past can no longer work in the present. How do you not know that?

Captain Obvious
07-29-2016, 03:58 PM
I was going to say, I didn't think you were a lezbo.

Cthulhu
07-29-2016, 06:47 PM
For a while, yes. Not anymore.
Better late than never.

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

PolWatch
07-29-2016, 06:55 PM
I have never liked Clinton and decided to vote for Stein months ago. Since I live in a state will always vote repub, it doesn't really matter who I vote for....Alabama will always vote the repub candidate.

That said, the more I hear from Trump, the more I am sure that he is dangerous to this nation. My children are grown, their morals are in place and they are able to make adult decisions about who to vote for and how to make moral judgements. I have to wonder how I would feel if I still had impressionable children. Even if I don't like Clinton, this commercial uses Trump's own words to demonstrate what he wants the children of America to believe. Is this what you want your children to listen to?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrX3Ql31URA

Dr. Who
07-29-2016, 07:36 PM
Polly, voting your conscience is all fine and good, but here is the cold, hard reality of the situation: one of two individuals will be elected President in November - Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. In practical terms, a vote for anyone else is wasted and will accomplish exactly nothing.

Of those two individuals, if you would prefer to have Hillary Clinton as President, the intelligent and logical thing to do is to cast your vote for her - not to stay home in protest, and not to vote for any third party candidate or write someone in; all three options would have precisely the same effect of nothing.

A certain number of individuals have somehow gotten it into their heads that Hillary Clinton will be elected regardless of what they do or don't do in November. They loathe Trump and wouldn't vote for him with a gun to their heads, but if enough of those people fail to vote for Clinton, because they want to register some sort of protest or what-have-you, they will collectively assure the man's election. If you honestly believe that there isn't enough difference between the two candidates to care about - although I find it difficult to imagine that you do - then by all means vote for somebody else, or save gas and don't vote at all.
If everyone who cannot find a home in the DNC or RNC simply didn't vote, then it would not help break the duopoly. If enough people vote third party, then a case can be made that the plurality voting system disenfranchises many voters while proportional representation is far more inclusive. By voting third party, those votes get counted and thus there is a statistic regarding the percentage of voters who don't support the status quo. If at some point that number reaches 50% or more, then there could be a call for a national referendum on the question of the voting system.

Chris
07-29-2016, 07:45 PM
If everyone who cannot find a home in the DNC or RNC simply didn't vote, then it would not help break the duopoly. If enough people vote third party, then a case can be made that the plurality voting system disenfranchises many voters while proportional representation is far more inclusive. By voting third party, those votes get counted and thus there is a statistic regarding the percentage of voters who don't support the status quo. If at some point that number reaches 50% or more, then there could be a call for a national referendum on the question of the voting system.


Ah, but if enough people don't vote it will break the system.

Dr. Who
07-29-2016, 07:48 PM
Ah, but if enough people don't vote it will break the system.
Technically only one person needs to vote in each state for the process, as it currently stands, to work. I'm not sure what would happen if no one voted in some states.

Mister D
07-29-2016, 07:48 PM
If everyone who cannot find a home in the DNC or RNC simply didn't vote, then it would not help break the duopoly. If enough people vote third party, then a case can be made that the plurality voting system disenfranchises many voters while proportional representation is far more inclusive. By voting third party, those votes get counted and thus there is a statistic regarding the percentage of voters who don't support the status quo. If at some point that number reaches 50% or more, then there could be a call for a national referendum on the question of the voting system.

That a large portion of the electorate simply abstains calls the current "democratic" system into question. I'm not sure what case needs to be made that hasn't already been made by voter apathy.

Dr. Who
07-29-2016, 07:55 PM
That a large portion of the electorate simply abstains calls the current "democratic" system into question. I'm not sure what case needs to be made that hasn't already been made by voter apathy.
Those who want no change to the current plurality system can put their own spin on voter apathy - likely that people who don't vote don't really care who is elected, have no interest in politics or can't be bothered, whereas if people are actually casting votes outside of the two party system, then they clearly are not apathetic, just not represented.

Mister D
07-29-2016, 07:59 PM
Those who want no change to the current plurality system can put their own spin on voter apathy - likely that people who don't vote don't really care who is elected, have no interest in politics or can't be bothered, whereas if people are actually casting votes outside of the two party system, then they clearly are not apathetic, just not represented.

That is indeed the establishment's spin. Voters are just lazy or uninterested. That potential voters don't think they exercise any real influence is of course not mentioned.

Chris
07-29-2016, 08:05 PM
Technically only one person needs to vote in each state for the process, as it currently stands, to work. I'm not sure what would happen if no one voted in some states.

Power has always depended on the people, even dictators rest upon the approval of the people. One person doesn't get you there. 50% seems to sustain it. But if it drops to 40%, 30%, 20%, the bottom will fall out.

Mister D
07-29-2016, 08:08 PM
Power has always depended on the people, even dictators rest upon the approval of the people. One person doesn't get you there. 50% seems to sustain it. But if it drops to 40%, 30%, 20%, the bottom will fall out.

Voter apathy is a problem throughout the western world. Countries where votign is compulsory (e.g. Belgium, Italy,Austria) skew the stats.

Dr. Who
07-29-2016, 08:13 PM
That is indeed the establishment's spin. Voters are just lazy or uninterested. That potential voters don't think they exercise any real influence is of course not mentioned.
Neither the Dems or the Reps are ever likely to voluntarily vote to change the system. However the people, if there are enough of them who are sick of the status quo, can demand a national referendum and the duopoly cannot ignore the results. That won't happen if people just stay home and grumble about the lack of choice. With the internet, the people have more of a voice than ever before and they cannot be ignored.

Mister D
07-29-2016, 08:20 PM
Neither the Dems or the Reps are ever likely to voluntarily vote to change the system. However the people, if there are enough of them who are sick of the status quo, can demand a national referendum and the duopoly cannot ignore the results. That won't happen if people just stay home and grumble about the lack of choice. With the internet, the people have more of a voice than ever before and they cannot be ignored.


I'd like to see referenda used more often especially in local affairs because it makes democracy more meaningful. I don't see why they couldn't be used on a national scale for certain matters.

Dr. Who
07-29-2016, 08:21 PM
Power has always depended on the people, even dictators rest upon the approval of the people. One person doesn't get you there. 50% seems to sustain it. But if it drops to 40%, 30%, 20%, the bottom will fall out.
I don't think that 50% is all that hard to achieve, but it still means that 50% have no one to vote for. I'm not really sure that the DNC/RNC really care. So long as they are in power, why would they worry? Now if they called an election and no one showed up to vote, that could be a problem, but it is certain that the politicians themselves would vote, as will their kith and kin, so a zero turnout is an impossibility. In the past, if no one voted, a revolution would shortly occur. I'm not sure that is the case now.

Dr. Who
07-29-2016, 08:28 PM
I'd like to see referenda used more often especially in local affairs because it makes democracy more meaningful. I don't see why they couldn't be used on a national scale for certain matters.
So long as the question being posed is very simple and there is an accompanying explanation of the issue that can be understood by a five-year-old, referenda can be a useful metric of public opinion, even on a national scale.

Boris The Animal
07-29-2016, 08:37 PM
Commies of a feather. Polly, don't forget to dust off your portrait of Josef Stalin and hang that Soviet flag up high.

Boris The Animal
07-29-2016, 08:40 PM
I'd like to see referenda used more often especially in local affairs because it makes democracy more meaningful. I don't see why they couldn't be used on a national scale for certain matters.For the Constitutionally illiterate, I will repeat; because we are NOT a direct democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic.

Mister D
07-29-2016, 08:42 PM
For the Constitutionally illiterate, I will repeat; because we are NOT a direct democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic.

That's why you're being rule by people you hate, Boris.

Boris The Animal
07-29-2016, 08:47 PM
That's why you're being rule by people you hate, Boris.Then we kick them to the curb and elect Conservatives. Sorry, but direct democracy only breeds chaos. The Founders knew it.

Mister D
07-29-2016, 08:51 PM
Then we kick them to the curb and elect Conservatives.

How's that working out for you, Boris?


Sorry, but direct democracy only breeds chaos. The Founders knew it.



I don't idolize the Founders. Again, if you'd rather not have democracy then why are you here complaining about a system designed to marginalize you?

Ethereal
07-29-2016, 08:53 PM
For the Constitutionally illiterate, I will repeat; because we are NOT a direct democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic.

Actually, we're a federation.

Hal Jordan
07-29-2016, 09:31 PM
Ah, but if enough people don't vote it will break the system.

Enough people would be all of them, and that's not going to happen.

Safety
07-29-2016, 09:32 PM
Polly, voting your conscience is all fine and good, but here is the cold, hard reality of the situation: one of two individuals will be elected President in November - Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. In practical terms, a vote for anyone else is wasted and will accomplish exactly nothing.

Of those two individuals, if you would prefer to have Hillary Clinton as President, the intelligent and logical thing to do is to cast your vote for her - not to stay home in protest, and not to vote for any third party candidate or write someone in; all three options would have precisely the same effect of nothing.

A certain number of individuals have somehow gotten it into their heads that Hillary Clinton will be elected regardless of what they do or don't do in November. They loathe Trump and wouldn't vote for him with a gun to their heads, but if enough of those people fail to vote for Clinton, because they want to register some sort of protest or what-have-you, they will collectively assure the man's election. If you honestly believe that there isn't enough difference between the two candidates to care about - although I find it difficult to imagine that you do - then by all means vote for somebody else, or save gas and don't vote at all.

Which is why so many support IMPress Polly voting for Stein as a "protest" vote, but the other side's "protest" vote is for Trump, not Johnson.....pretty crafty, eh?

Chris
07-29-2016, 10:36 PM
I don't think that 50% is all that hard to achieve, but it still means that 50% have no one to vote for. I'm not really sure that the DNC/RNC really care. So long as they are in power, why would they worry? Now if they called an election and no one showed up to vote, that could be a problem, but it is certain that the politicians themselves would vote, as will their kith and kin, so a zero turnout is an impossibility. In the past, if no one voted, a revolution would shortly occur. I'm not sure that is the case now.


We're already at 50% not voting. When Presidents win they win by little more than 25% of the vote. Add N.O.T.A. and you'd see it drop even more precipitously.

Why worry, because their power depends on the people.

Dr. Who
07-29-2016, 10:39 PM
We're already at 50% not voting. When Presidents win they win by little more than 25% of the vote. Add N.O.T.A. and you'd see it drop even more precipitously.

Why worry, because their power depends on the people.
If the people don't take action, why worry? They are just as elected if it's one vote or a million.

Cletus
07-30-2016, 01:53 AM
"Equally evil"? I'm sorry...that's just delusional thinking.


You are right. She is far more evil than Trump.

Trump is not a good choice. Clinton is a worse choice by several orders of magnitude.

Cletus
07-30-2016, 01:55 AM
Do you honestly not comprehend that if enough people effectively flush their ballots down the commode sending a "message", America could very well be stuck with Donald Trump as its President for the next four years?

It is preferable to the alternative.