• Hillary Clinton says primary race against Sanders is 'done'
    94 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;50353827]Uh, no. Just no. There are maybe 2 real republicans in the entire nation who would vote for Bernie over Trump.[/QUOTE] Ah, No True Scotsman, I've missed you.
[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;50353827]Uh, no. Just no. There are maybe 2 real republicans in the entire nation who would vote for Bernie over Trump.[/QUOTE]My grandfather, a lifetime republican, just yesterday sat down and worked out the paperwork to change his party to democrat with another relative who was more familiar with the procedure. Specifically to get away from Trump. I'm not sure you quite grasp how deeply loathed [i]both[/i] party frontrunners are, by large swaths of what would be given allies for damn near any other candidate in the same position.
[QUOTE=Tudd;50353784]I think Clinton is devoid of skills and would be at best mediocre.[/QUOTE] This is laughably false, Clinton is a career politician with a wealth of foreign policy and state department experience. From a purely objective standpoint she has more skills applicable to running a government bureaucracy than Trump. What would she be mediocre at? What makes Trump great in comparison? What great policies of his do you look forward to? [QUOTE=Tudd;50353784]I rather vote for someone who is passionate about the country they serve then someone that seems to sell out to other interests. I honestly think Trump has some good ideas while is horrible at presenting himself, you don't need to tell me he presents himself as a ass, but I think people on here need to realize Trump does international deals is about as racist as a non-PC parent.[/QUOTE] Trump isn't passionate about this country, he doesn't even think it's great. He is passionate about the country he wants but he flip flops so often we don't even know what he wants. What good ideas does he have? [QUOTE=Tudd;50353784]At worst he gets gridlocked in the senate and people will get more involved with the political process next time.[/QUOTE] More like: At worst all the things Republicans coincidentally want (continuing war on drugs, welfare spending cuts, womens rights, LGBT rights, ending the ACA and cutting tens of millions of Americans out of health insurance with no viable replacement). Or the fact that he doesn't even need to go through Congress to enact many of his idiotic ideas, or the fact that he has absolutely no grasp on foreign policy, flipping between isolationism to the point of dropping out of NATO all the way to invading countries and taking their oil. Like I said earlier I can absolutely see why you wouldn't want to vote for Clinton but I can't for the life of me understand why you would vote for Trump if you were anything other than rich enough to insulate yourself from the world with money.
[QUOTE=Tudd;50353784]I think Clinton is devoid of skills and would be at best mediocre. I rather vote for someone who is passionate about the country they serve then someone that seems to sell out to other interests. I honestly think Trump has some good ideas while is horrible at presenting himself, you don't need to tell me he presents himself as a ass, but I think people on here need to realize Trump does international deals is about as racist as a non-PC parent. At worst he gets gridlocked in the senate and people will get more involved with the political process next time.[/QUOTE] Clinton has a ton of experience within government, dealing with both domestic and foreign issues. You can disagree with her all you want but saying she is devoid of skills is just not true. Also what good ideas does Trump have that outweigh his absolutely insane ideas. Deporting over 10 million people? Banning people from entering the U.S based on their religion? Purposely targeting civilians because they are related to terrorist, you know, advocating war crimes Building a wall by somehow forcing another country to pay for it Its not about presenting its about his ideas are fucking horrible
[QUOTE=orgornot;50353576]You are so wrong about everything. Trump would not get 100% of the GOP vote. A large number of republican voters hate him. Independents prefer Sanders over Trump and Trump over Clinton. He has a much greater favorability than both of them. So he could very well win the majority of votes in most states. As for the strategic voting thing, it would actually help Sanders. When polls start showing that Sanders' party would get maybe even more votes than the democrats, that's when democratic voters will start jumping ship. Because they are afraid of Trump. Worst comes to worst, he could just pussy out and cancel his campaign towards the end.[/QUOTE] Why would polls start showing that he's doing better? He's done worse in the primary time and time again. Why would that change if he ran independent? You're assuming that he'd do better - he hasn't done better. Why? You have zero evidence to suggest that's what will happen - you're literally making up a reality to fit your worldview. I agree that Sanders is the ideal candidate, but him running as an independent would pull voters [i]primarily[/i] from the Dems. He's a little popular with socially liberal republicans, but that's it. I don't know what world you live in. If Sanders can't get the majority of the vote in the primary, why would people suddenly jump ship for him in the general? Because [i]you[/i] don't like Clinton? Apparently the majority of the Democratic party doesn't - you not liking someone doesn't change the reality of the situation. Clinton will be the Democratic candidate and Sanders will not run independent. If Sanders ran independent he would have reneged on a promise he made at the very start of the campaign. He would be a flip-flopper. It would be completely against his character in absolutely every way. Sanders running independent would be a catastrophe that would split the Democratic party. You're suggesting a reality that can't exist. We've seen popular presidential candidates do this in the past - without exception, they split the party vote and the opposing party won the election. Every time. Sanders unfortunately isn't as popular as I wish he was - it's literally beyond delusional to expect someone who failed to get the Democratic nomination to succeed in getting a majority of the general election vote.
[QUOTE=orgornot;50353634]Maybe he doesn't want his country & lawmakers sold to the highest bidder... [/QUOTE] Yea, stop that by electing the guy who has bragged about buying politicians. [QUOTE=orgornot;50353634] Notice that I said voters as in people, not scummy politicians who have been against Bernie from the beginning.[/QUOTE] Oh yea, the voters who voted to be able to vote for Clinton in the main election are going to vote for sanders, got ya.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;50354040] Also what good ideas does Trump have that outweigh his absolutely insane ideas. [/QUOTE] His protectionist stance is admirable and I guess he supports nuclear but literally everything else he says is either down right bad or bad and impossible to achieve. Contrast his positions with Clinton, who would keep a lot of systems in place and simply build upon or modify them from Obama, or Sanders, who's plans are almost as radical as Trumps but actually has a lot of details provided on how he would accomplish these plans, and I again express complete disdain that [I]anyone[/I]would vote for Trump.
[QUOTE=Saxon;50352578]No he won't win and won't even come close and I would instantly lose respect for him[/QUOTE][QUOTE=.Isak.;50352914]Sanders running independent isn't a way to steal the election. It would be him sabotaging the Democratic party and basically spreading his asshole wide for Trump to slam into. If Bernie ran independent, I would lose [I]every ounce of respect[/I] I have for him. That would be the most selfish, idiotic, flip-floppy, bullshit possible thing Bernie could pull, and I would actively campaign against him if he chose to do that.[/QUOTE]Congratulations, you're precisely why our political system is broke to shit. "I would campaign against a guy fighting the system because I'm just assuming that it would make the other guy win." There's talk of Hillary potentially poaching votes from the GOP because of the hate toward Trump, so why the fuck do you think the GOP is a motherfucking hivemind? [QUOTE=.Isak.;50354060]I don't know what world you live in. If Sanders can't get the majority of the vote in the primary, why would people suddenly jump ship for him in the general? Because [i]you[/i] don't like Clinton? Apparently the majority of the Democratic party doesn't - you not liking someone doesn't change the reality of the situation.[/QUOTE]What the fuck world are you living in? There's plenty of Democrats that have threatened to "just not vote" if Hillary wins, I know we've all encountered plenty and maybe even the rare "I'll vote for Trump" type, just because you're vehemently anti-Republican doesn't mean everyone else is. Oh, and since we're on the subject of voting third party: (I realize this is a libertarian source, I don't give a fuck) [url]http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/24/gary-johnson-could-pull-support-from-bot[/url] [url]http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/04/google-searches-for-libertarian-party-su[/url] [QUOTE]He would be a flip-flopper. It would be completely against his character in absolutely every way. Sanders running independent would be a catastrophe that would split the Democratic party.[/QUOTE]Sure, he promised earlier and I don't believe he would run independent but really: so what if it splits the Democratic party? Good, the big Republican donors are [url=http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/doors-gop-consulting-independent-219859]flirting[/url] with backing an independent candidate themselves so they're not the only ones in that boat. [QUOTE]You're suggesting a reality that can't exist. We've seen popular presidential candidates do this in the past - without exception, they split the party vote and the opposing party won the election. Every time. Sanders unfortunately isn't as popular as I wish he was - it's literally beyond delusional to expect someone who failed to get the Democratic nomination to succeed in getting a majority of the general election vote.[/QUOTE]Just because you can't imagine it doesn't make it impossible, I'm not sure you're completely grasping the situation here and how tense things are so wild longshots are absolutely on the table at this point. There isn't likely to be a Republican party after this year if it continues to fracture, and it's pretty fucking obvious that the DNC is just corrupt bullshit so what exactly is the incentive of keeping the Democrat/Republican dichotomy?
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50354467]Congratulations, you're precisely why our political system is broke to shit. "I would campaign against a guy fighting the system because I'm just assuming that it would make the other guy win." There's talk of Hillary potentially poaching votes from the GOP because of the hate toward Trump, so why the fuck do you think the GOP is a motherfucking hivemind? What the fuck world are you living in? There's plenty of Democrats that have threatened to "just not vote" if Hillary wins, I know we've all encountered plenty and maybe even the rare "I'll vote for Trump" type, just because you're vehemently anti-Republican doesn't mean everyone else is. Oh, and since we're on the subject of voting third party: (I realize this is a libertarian source, I don't give a fuck) [url]http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/24/gary-johnson-could-pull-support-from-bot[/url] [url]http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/04/google-searches-for-libertarian-party-su[/url] Sure, he promised earlier and I don't believe he would run independent but really: so what if it splits the Democratic party? Good, the big Republican donors are [url=http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/doors-gop-consulting-independent-219859]flirting[/url] with backing an independent candidate themselves so they're not the only ones in that boat. Just because you can't imagine it doesn't make it impossible, I'm not sure you're completely grasping the situation here and how tense things are so wild longshots are absolutely on the table at this point. There isn't likely to be a Republican party after this year if it continues to fracture, and it's pretty fucking obvious that the DNC is just corrupt bullshit so what exactly is the incentive of keeping the Democrat/Republican dichotomy?[/QUOTE] There's this thing called the spoiler effect, see? In the political system of the United States, which [i]makes a two-party system inevitable[/i], major third-party candidates have [i]consistently[/i] thrown elections. The last time we even had a [i]potential[/i] third-party candidate as strong as Sanders was in 1912. Theodore Roosevelt. He made a [I]Progressive Party[/I] because he disagreed with the Republican frontrunner, Taft, so strongly. He pulled 27.3% of the popular vote. Taft pulled 23.2%. The Democrat candidate, Woodrow Wilson, pulled 41.8%. If all of Roosevelt's voters had gone to Taft instead, he would have net 50.5% of the vote. Wilson was able to pull states that had voted consistently Republican for [i]decades[/i] previously because of Roosevelt's spoiler effect on Taft's campaign. Roosevelt and Taft had disagreements [i]significantly[/i] more strong than what you see between Clinton and Sanders today. The spoiler effect is a very very very real thing that can 100% spoil an election. It has done so in the past on the national scale, and it has done so numerous times on local and state levels. I am 100% unwilling to risk putting Trump in the White House. Sanders is a politician - he knows these things, which is why [i]he has explicitly said that he will not run independent more times than I can count[/i]. It's not that I'm not "imaginative" enough to entertain the possibility. It's not that I'm "a part of the problem" of the US political system. I'd love a Progressive Party to oust the Democratic Party. The issue is that [i]it will not happen[/i]. A split vote would give Trump the vast majority of votes, and that's not something anyone should be willing to risk. This has happened before. I'm not being a cynical Clinton shill out to hate on Sanders - I'm looking at the history of the US and at the polls and at the likelihood of Sanders actually pulling Clinton's supporters away and I'm saying Sanders running as an independent would give the election to Trump. For Sanders to win as an independent in an election against Trump and Hillary, he'd need nearly [i]all[/i] of Hillary's supporters. That won't happen. He can pull some GOP folk, but he won't pull nearly enough to make up the huge amount of Democrats that are voting and have been voting for Clinton in the primaries. Not a chance.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50354467]Congratulations, you're precisely why our political system is broke to shit. "I would campaign against a guy fighting the system because I'm just assuming that it would make the other guy win."[/QUOTE] But he's not wrong. A third party takes votes away from the big two candidates. With someone as popular as Bernie, he would take a considerable amount of independent votes away from Democrats and give Trump a huge advantage. In other words, Clinton is having votes taken away giving Trump implicitly more votes. The system is terrible, but that's just how it is right now. [editline].[/editline] What .Isak. said. I didn't know there was a word for it.
Friendly reminder that Clinton will face no legal reprucussions and that she will be the 45th President of the United States
If trump is elected it will be entirely the fault of the Democratic superdelegates and DWS for backing such an unelectable candidate.. Trump in the whitehouse isn't as much as a threat with sanders as the nomination
[QUOTE=cody8295;50354675]If trump is elected it will be entirely the fault of the Democratic superdelegates and DWS for backing such an unelectable candidate.. Trump in the whitehouse isn't as much as a threat with sanders as the nomination[/QUOTE] I 100% agree that it would be DWS and the Democratic Party's fault if (when?) the Clinton nomination crashes and burns. But if Sanders ran independent, it would be 100% [I]his[/I] fault. He would betray every value he stands for and full-flop on his previous promise not to run independent. If that event actually happened, shit, I'd probably vote for Sanders, but mostly because I'd have already admitted to myself that Trump was going to win and a vote for either Clinton and Sanders would be thrown away. I did some math based on the actual vote counts for both the democratic and republican primaries, excluding all candidates except Clinton, Trump, and Sanders, and Trump would still win, with Clinton leading Sanders by 6% of the vote. Re-include the Cruz/Rubio/Kasich voters and give 60% of them to Trump, 35% of them to Sanders (as if), and 5% of them to Clinton, and Trump [i]still[/i] wins by more than 10% over Sanders. That's with over a third of the party's primary voters jumping ship completely. Sanders as the Democratic nominee? Trump would lose. Sanders as an independent? Trump would win. Since neither will happen, I'm very comfortable going for Clinton, because abandoning the ACA, privatizing Social Security, spending billions to build a wasteful border wall, banning an entire religion from the country, further privatizing the public education system, cutting funding for the EPA, collapsing global trade through absurd retaliatory tariffs, increasing military funding at the expense of numerous social programs, axing funding for Planned Parenthood, and turning the country into an international embarrassment is not what I want to look forward to.
It's hard for me to believe anyone who's actually paying attention would even consider Clinton over Sanders given her terrible record which is full of corruption. I don't care if he is the democratic nominee or if he runs as an independent or not (which he said he wouldn't do), while I'd much rather see him on the ballot, if he's not an option then I'm going to write in his name just like everyone else should. I'm doing this because I refuse to vote for the lesser of 2 evils again, and you should too. Especially when the 2 evils they're forcing us to vote between are among arguably the worst candidates to ever run for president, while at the same time having possibly the best candidate to ever run who's the only one left in this race that actually deserves to be our president. He is the only candidate with the passion required to create a better future for all of us and the integrity to actually do whatever it takes to achieve that future. It's our job to come together to make his vision for a brighter future a reality. Without us he never would of gotten this far and if we give up on him now then all hope for a prosperous future for our children and future generations is lost. We can't let the establishment win just because another Clinton presidency would be less destructive than Trump running the show. We deserve better than to keep living in a false democracy.
[QUOTE=Medevila;50354874]you liked 538 blog's statistical models IIRC, when trying to cling to hope that Bernie still had a chance, so you should be elated to hear that they place Trump (currently) as having no more than a .25 chance at winning the general election (which is absurdly low in contrast to major party nominees in recent presidential elections)[/QUOTE] No, he didn't like their statistical models. He liked the [I]results[/I] of their statistical models. Now that they say something different, they're clearly wrong.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50354617]There's this thing called the spoiler effect, see?[/QUOTE]I'm well aware, but since you missed the rest of my post: people are either not participating (thus the Democrats are already losing votes) or threatening to vote for the opposition because they hate Hillary that much. Sure, not a lot of sensitive liberal types would vote for Trump, but we're not exactly talking about the crowd-followers in the first place. Instead we're talking about people aware of political corruption in this country [B]and are willing to take a stand against that corruption.[/B] Spoiler effect is a bullshit excuse anyway, I pointed to a third party candidate that could poach from both sides and also the Republicans beginning to fracture. [QUOTE]It's not that I'm not "imaginative" enough to entertain the possibility. It's not that I'm "a part of the problem" of the US political system. I'd love a Progressive Party to oust the Democratic Party. The issue is that [i]it will not happen[/i].[/QUOTE]Except you are part of the problem because if people truly did vote their conscience rather than sticking to party bullshit then there very well could be a Progressive Party. On that note there could be a viable Libertarian Party, a true Tea Party (or something similar) and plenty others to water down the system. Two-party systems are not inevitable, if they were there simply wouldn't be independent candidates on any ticket in state and local elections. [editline]19th May 2016[/editline] Oh, and I'm still voting third party simply because I cannot in good conscience put up with the "lesser of two evils" and especially when the evils in question are equally reprehensible.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50354941]I'm well aware, but since you missed the rest of my post: people are either not participating (thus the Democrats are already losing votes) or threatening to vote for the opposition because they hate Hillary that much. Sure, not a lot of sensitive liberal types would vote for Trump, but we're not exactly talking about the crowd-followers in the first place. Instead we're talking about people aware of political corruption in this country [B]and are willing to take a stand against that corruption.[/B] Spoiler effect is a bullshit excuse anyway, I pointed to a third party candidate that could poach from both sides and also the Republicans beginning to fracture. Except you are part of the problem because if people truly did vote their conscience rather than sticking to party bullshit then there very well could be a Progressive Party. On that note there could be a viable Libertarian Party, a true Tea Party (or something similar) and plenty others to water down the system. Two-party systems are not inevitable, if they were there simply wouldn't be independent candidates on any ticket in state and local elections. [editline]19th May 2016[/editline] Oh, and I'm still voting third party simply because I cannot in good conscience put up with the "lesser of two evils" and especially when the evils in question are equally reprehensible.[/QUOTE] The fact of the matter is [i]an independent cannot win the presidency[/i]. This has been documented time and time again throughout US history. It's not a result of [i]every single fucking voter since the 1700s[/i] just deciding to vote for the lesser of two evils the moment after Washington's second term - it's a result of our [i]voting system[/i]. If a Progressive Party existed in the United States, neither the Democrats nor the Progressive Party would be able to win a plurality. They would both be permanently excluded from the presidency so long as a single larger party exists. That is why we have a two-party system in the United States - not because voters are refusing to vote for their conscience, but because we have a pluralistic, non-party-proportional, first-past-the-post voting system. Voting third-party is actively voting against having policies you favor being implemented under the current voting system. If we had the Democrats, Republicans, Progressives, and Libertarians, you shouldn't doubt for a second that a coalition would form between D-P and R-L and we'd be back to square one as they merged together. It's an inevitability of the voting system of the US. I'm not crazy for thinking this. This is well-realized fact in political science. I admire your idealism, but considering that [i]not a single president has been elected from a non-primary party since George Washington[/i], I think it might be the fault of the electoral system rather than the voters. Voting third party does nothing but increase the chances that policies [i]even further from what you would prefer[/i] are implemented. I'm willing to take a stand. That's why I campaigned for Sanders. It failed. Tough. Raising awareness of that corruption was helpful, but if you honestly think that Sanders running third-party and personally rolling the red carpet up to the White House door for Trump is me "not following my conscience," you're a lunatic. My conscience is to get the person elected who most closely represents my interests. Strategic voting is how that is accomplished. Until the voting system changes, people will vote this way, and third-party votes will effectively be counted as votes for the party that least represents you.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50355027]I'm not crazy for thinking this. This is well-realized fact in political science. I admire your idealism, but considering that [i]not a single president has been elected from a non-primary party since George Washington[/i], I think it might be the fault of the electoral system rather than the voters. Voting third party does nothing but increase the chances that policies [i]even further from what you would prefer[/i] are implemented.[/QUOTE]Except nothing I want to be implemented will be implemented because the available choices are crooks, assholes, and lunatics. We absolutely can change the voting system by [I]refusing to participate[/I] and voting on conscience, it happens on the local level and it certainly can happen on the national level if given the chance. [QUOTE]My conscience is to get the person elected who most closely represents my interests. Strategic voting is how that is accomplished. Until the voting system changes, people will vote this way, and third-party votes will effectively be counted as votes for the party that least represents you.[/QUOTE]How am I represented by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump? [B]They are equally awful, both candidates in the two major parties are [U]complete[/U] [U]scum.[/U] I will not vote for them because there is absolutely no incentive for me to do so.[/B]
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50355102] How am I represented by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump? [B]They are equally awful, both candidates in the two major parties are [U]complete[/U] [U]scum.[/U] I will not vote for them because there is absolutely no incentive for me to do so.[/B][/QUOTE] Not potentially losing progress we have made in the last few years is one good incentive.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;50355157]Not potentially losing progress we have made in the last few years is one good incentive.[/QUOTE]What progress, exactly?
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50355159]What progress, exactly?[/QUOTE] I don't know about you, but I think the fact that the ACA has gotten over 15-million more people healthcare insurance is progress.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50355159]What progress, exactly?[/QUOTE] Healthcare, the economy, foreign relations, little stuff like that. [editline]19th May 2016[/editline] Or not deporting millions of people or banning people from entering based on religion.
correct me if I am wrong but if you show up for the general aren't there other important people you can vote for?
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50355102]Except nothing I want to be implemented will be implemented because the available choices are crooks, assholes, and lunatics. We absolutely can change the voting system by [I]refusing to participate[/I] and voting on conscience, it happens on the local level and it certainly can happen on the national level if given the chance. How am I represented by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump? [B]They are equally awful, both candidates in the two major parties are [U]complete[/U] [U]scum.[/U] I will not vote for them because there is absolutely no incentive for me to do so.[/B][/QUOTE] Refusing to participate doesn't influence the voting system at all, in much the same way that people who have stopped looking for jobs and stopped participating in the economy aren't even considered unemployed. They're valueless. Why would anyone try to represent their constituents if their constituents don't vote? You are represented by Clinton and Trump based on your opinions on their policies. You look at those policies and weigh how much they value to you. Clinton will likely find a way to pass the TPP. I don't like that. Do you know what I like less? The majority of Trump's positions. I would rather see an increase in the minimum wage, even if it isn't $15. Trump won't do that. What about maintaining EPA funding? Limiting the rapid privatization of the public schooling system? Keeping Planned Parenthood alive? I like Clinton's stances on those. I like her stances on almost every domestic policy decision. I won't vote for someone who wants to spend billions to build a giant wall. I won't vote for someone who has pledged to ban an entire religion from the United States. Those are not representative of my interests. Trump's international economic policies? They're closer to my interests than Hillary's are. But there are more issues that I side with Hillary on, especially when it comes to domestic policy. So I've made the decision to vote for her. That may change. Hillary represents me more than Trump does on more issues that I find important, so I'll vote for her, even though we have critical disagreements on a number of other issues and I don't particularly like her character. That's called [i]compromising[/i] - something sorely lacking in modern politics. Saying "nothing will be implemented! woe on me! sanders is our only hope! i'm never voting again!" isn't being an educated voter. It means you know nothing about the issues, characterize both sides as demons, and couldn't give a shit about their actual stances beyond "BUT THEY'RE CROOKS!" You don't know how to compromise on a policy. It's the same reason Congress is in deadlock - because people are too rooted in their political beliefs to compromise. Not only on issues they disagree about, but they'll refuse to compromise [i]with people who belong to political parties[/i] that they disagree with. That's infantile. That's what you're doing.
[QUOTE=Maegord;50355172]I don't know about you, but I think the fact that the ACA has gotten over 15-million more people healthcare insurance is progress.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=BusterBluth;50355186]Healthcare, the economy, foreign relations, little stuff like that.[/QUOTE]Oh, so all of that is instantly undone when Obama leaves office? What complete horseshit, give me a fucking break lmao I honestly have no fucking idea how not casting votes for one of two awful people is going to cause us to somehow "lose" the "progress" we've made. Not only does that assertion assume I share your arbitrary definition of what "progress" is but it's ignoring how our political system works. [QUOTE=.Isak.;50355207]Refusing to participate doesn't influence the voting system at all, in much the same way that people who have stopped looking for jobs and stopped participating in the economy aren't even considered unemployed. They're valueless. Why would anyone try to represent their constituents if their constituents don't vote?[/QUOTE]Congratulations on missing the fucking point: I never said don't vote, I said don't participate. To put it in the most simplest of terms: vote your conscience, even if that means going outside of the established parties. [QUOTE]It's the same reason Congress is in deadlock - because people are too rooted in their political beliefs to compromise. Not only on issues they disagree about, but they'll refuse to compromise [i]with people who belong to political parties[/i] that they disagree with. That's infantile. That's what you're doing.[/QUOTE]You're saying I need to choose between getting hit in the head with a hammer or a wrench, and you've labeled my wish to avoid either option and find an alternative as "infantile." I know it's hard for you to understand but this is something I'm not compromising on, they are [B]equally as bad, I see no difference.[/B] I keep putting that in bold hoping you will understand it but it's just not sticking, you're asking me to compromise between "terrible" and "terrible" and I'm refusing to play your dumb fucking game so I'm voting third party. Deal with it. [editline]19th May 2016[/editline] Just to reiterate: Hillary and Trump are the exact same thing in my book. There is no room for compromise because it's the same choice.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50355239]Oh, so all of that is instantly undone when Obama leaves office? What complete horseshit, give me a fucking break lmao I honestly have no fucking idea how not casting votes for one of two awful people is going to cause us to somehow "lose" the "progress" we've made. Not only does that assertion assume I share your arbitrary definition of what "progress" is but it's ignoring how our political system works. [/QUOTE] Probably because the Republican controlled Congress has voted over 60 times to try to repeal the ACA, and it's only the fact we have Obama vetoing it back that it still stands? Awfully ironic for you to say that people are ignoring how the political system in this country works while missing something so rudimentary.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50355239]Oh, so all of that is instantly undone when Obama leaves office? What complete horseshit, give me a fucking break lmao I honestly have no fucking idea how not casting votes for one of two awful people is going to cause us to somehow "lose" the "progress" we've made. Not only does that assertion assume I share your arbitrary definition of what "progress" is but it's ignoring how our political system works. Congratulations on missing the fucking point: I never said don't vote, I said don't participate. To put it in the most simplest of terms: vote your conscience, even if that means going outside of the established parties. You're saying I need to choose between getting hit in the head with a hammer or a wrench, and you've labeled my wish to avoid either option and find an alternative as "infantile." I know it's hard for you to understand but this is something I'm not compromising on, they are [B]equally as bad, I see no difference.[/B] I keep putting that in bold hoping you will understand it but it's just not sticking, you're asking me to compromise between "terrible" and "terrible" and I'm refusing to play your dumb fucking game so I'm voting third party. Deal with it. [editline]19th May 2016[/editline] Just to reiterate: Hillary and Trump are the exact same thing in my book. There is no room for compromise because it's the same choice.[/QUOTE] It's not instantly undone. It's undone the minute Trump steps into office - he's pledged to. Planned Parenthood? Gone. ACA? Gone. Trump has [i]explicitly[/i] said that he will do these things. How is that horseshit? He's pledged to undo that progress, and he'll likely have a Republican majority house, allowing him to do so. That's not horseshit - that's been the [I]party platform[/I] for the last eight years. Casting a vote for a theoretically independent Sanders would be helping Trump get in to office, thus removing progressive policies that Obama has enacted and defended. Letting that happen is horseshit. If you weren't going to vote for anyone in the first place until Sanders got you excited, I don't give a shit who you vote for and neither does either of the parties. Your vote is inconsequential, because you'd vote third-party anyways. Your vote means nothing to either party if you always vote third-party, because by voting third-party you're not abandoning a vote for a major candidate. You're just voting the same way, every time, and nobody gives a shit about the 2% vote independents will net. If you've been voting third party this whole time, great, you're about as important to me (and the political process) as a debt-loaded homeless man is to the real estate market. Thinking Hillary and Trump are [i]the exact same[/i] just proves to me that you have no political knowledge of any policies whatsoever and that you think wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt makes you a rebel. If you don't want to compromise, great, vote third party. Vote your conscience. You're a homeless man wheeling your cart around looking at a mansion and saying "I bet if I get another three dollars I could have that!" I'll keep pooling my energy into the system that gets me the mansion, even if they decide to renovate parts of it and put some ugly flower wallpaper up in one of the rooms. I can live with that.
[QUOTE=Maegord;50355270]Probably because the Republican controlled Congress has voted over 60 times to try to repeal the ACA, and it's only the fact we have Obama vetoing it back that it still stands? Awfully ironic for you to say that people are ignoring how the political system in this country works while missing something so rudimentary.[/QUOTE]Guess what's also happening? [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2016[/url] You're assuming that A: Trump will be elected if I don't vote for Hillary and B: the Republicans will remain because that's totally how this whole thing works, but the moment I write in "Dick Kickem" and giggle in the voting booth I'm going to doom the entire nation. Please. [editline]19th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=.Isak.;50355298]It's not instantly undone. It's undone the minute Trump steps into office - he's pledged to. Planned Parenthood? Gone. ACA? Gone. Trump has [i]explicitly[/i] said that he will do these things. How is that horseshit? He's pledged to undo that progress, and he'll likely have a Republican majority house, allowing him to do so. That's not horseshit - that's been the [I]party platform[/I] for the last eight years.[/QUOTE]Obama pledged to reform gun control. For years. He pledged on the graves of dead children with tears in his eyes but ha-HA! nothing came to fruition. And so what? You're still assuming I like the ACA or Planned Parenthood, I might hate both of those things so goddamn hard and you're arguing from the position that removing them would be [I]bad.[/I] Here's a hint: we might have different political beliefs, hell I might like those things but would prefer they go away so different things can replace them. [QUOTE]Casting a vote for a theoretically independent Sanders would be helping Trump get in to office, thus removing progressive policies that Obama has enacted and defended. Letting that happen is horseshit.[/QUOTE]Assuming I was ever going to vote for Sanders, you've been arguing with a right-leaning independent this whole time. Sanders versus Trump? Oh hell yeah I'd vote for Sanders, I could compromise with that, but I was hoping that a better Republican would have gotten one over on Trump. [QUOTE]If you weren't going to vote for anyone in the first place until Sanders got you excited, I don't give a shit who you vote for and neither does either of the parties.[/QUOTE]Yeah, now that I've made it 110% clear that I'm not buying what you're selling you suddenly don't care anymore. All that talk about campaigning for Sanders and then explaining why Hillary is the right choice was wasted, and clearly it's made you bitter: [QUOTE]Thinking Hillary and Trump are [i]the exact same[/i] just proves to me that you have no political knowledge of any policies whatsoever and that you think wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt makes you a rebel.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]If you don't want to compromise, great, vote third party. Vote your conscience. You're a homeless man wheeling your cart around looking at a mansion and saying "I bet if I get another three dollars I could have that!" I'll keep pooling my energy into the system that gets me the mansion, even if they decide to renovate parts of it and put some ugly flower wallpaper up in one of the rooms. I can live with that.[/QUOTE]You don't get a mansion, you never could have a mansion and you've deluded yourself into thinking a trailer by the railroad tracks is a mansion. Meanwhile you scoff at me for shaking my head at you, all your hard work has earned you precisely jack shit and you're still forgetting that come November I and everyone else will be living under the same roof as you. [editline]19th May 2016[/editline] Oh and since somebody will inevitably cry about it: I don't give a single fuck about Planned Parenthood either way and the ACA is a convoluted piece of shit; maybe having actual socialized healthcare would be better than that mess.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50355307]Guess what's also happening? [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2016[/url][/quote] Yes, I think everyone is very well aware of the fact there's a Senate election behind held, but it's not necessarily a given that the Democrats retake it even if we don't split the ticket. But if there's something such as a third party Sanders bid, forcing candidates for the Senate seats to take sides between the Liberal Clinton side or the party, and the Progressive Sanders side, that is going to negatively effect Democratic results, dooming any hope to retake the Senate. [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50355307] You're assuming that A: Trump will be elected if I don't vote for Hillary and B: the Republicans will remain because that's totally how this whole thing works, but the moment I write in "Dick Kickem" and giggle in the voting booth I'm going to doom the entire nation. Please.[/QUOTE]No, actually, before you began shifting goal posts, I was arguing against you stating that electing either Trump or Clinton is essentially the same thing, which you were using for your third party arguments, and your belief that electing Trump couldn't undo all of the progressive made in Obama's two terms. Myself, I don't give a shit who you personally vote for, but your point that they're supposedly the same is objectively wrong on a number of issues, as well as Trump's ability to negatively impact progress that has been made, such as the ACA, and hundreds of others. Maybe you personally won't lose your healthcare, or have friends and family blocked from entrance to the country on account of their religion, but there are millions of people who will be effected depending on whether or not it's Clinton or Trump at the end of the day. Edit: [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50355307]Oh and since somebody will inevitably cry about it: I don't give a single fuck about Planned Parenthood either way and the ACA is a convoluted piece of shit; maybe having actual socialized healthcare would be better than that mess.[/QUOTE] Then it's readily apparent you don't actually give a shit about progressive policies if you're willing to throw policies down the toilet, all for not being quite as far reaching as you want. It's probably easy to say stuff like that if you come from a well off background, but for people such as myself, and over 15-million others, that "convoluted piece of shit," is the only reason we have reasonable access to healthcare. Could it be better? Certainly, it could be a lot better, but it's a whole lot better than nothing, unless you'd rather go back to the good old days where people where regularly denied insurance due to preexisting conditions, or children regularly dropped from their parents plans for being just slightly too old. And Planned Parenthood? Planned Parenthood is responsible for helping millions of women get access to cancer screenings and other preventive medicine, as well as birth control and other options that they wouldn't have access to otherwise. Southern states that have been successful in regulating Planned Parenthood and other such clinics out of business have seen massive spikes in teen and overall unintended pregnancies, as well as higher rates of a number of other conditions. Again, maybe it doesn't directly effect you, but it's pretty out of touch to dismiss something that helps millions of people like that.
[QUOTE=Maegord;50355398]Yes, I think everyone is very well aware of the fact there's a Senate election behind held, but it's not necessarily a given that the Democrats retake it even if we don't split the ticket.[/QUOTE]Nothing is a given, that's why we're having an election but you were using that "progress" as a carrot, as if it would fucking vanish because "the Republicans have the senate." [QUOTE]No, actually, before you began shifting goal posts, I was arguing against you stating that electing either Trump or Clinton is essentially the same thing, which you were using for your third party arguments, and your belief that electing Trump couldn't undo all of the progressive made in Obama's two terms.[/QUOTE]Goalposts haven't shifted at all, and for Trump to "undo all of the progressive" there would definitely have to be a Republican congress that was [I]explicitly supportive of Trump, and that isn't a given either.[/I] [QUOTE]Myself, I don't give a shit who you personally vote for, but your point that they're supposedly the same is objectively wrong on a number of issues, as well as Trump's ability to negatively impact progress that has been made, such as the ACA, and hundreds of others.[/QUOTE]Oh fucking please, Hillary is often called a DINO and Trump was a typical wealthy New York Democrat right up until he randomly decided he wanted to run as a Republican. That wasn't even my original point either, they're both the same in that they're both [B]bad.[/B] I don't want either of them equally. [QUOTE]Maybe you personally won't lose your healthcare, or have friends and family blocked from entrance to the country on account of their religion, but there are millions of people who will be effected depending on whether or not it's Clinton or Trump at the end of the day.[/QUOTE]Oh double fucking please, save me the bullshit sob story simply because I'm not voting for your horse. Hillary has made it clear that one of the first things she's going to go after is the 2nd Amendment, which automatically makes her completely unacceptable. Really, if you want to start tugging at my heart strings then you're going to start making the case for Trump; I agree with him on the issues that I might possibly get emotional about.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.