Home Main Forums 2018 Elections No Hillary supporters, a vote for Stein is NOT a vote for Trump you idiots!

  • Pinebox (290 posts)
    Profile photo of Pinebox

    No Hillary supporters, a vote for Stein is NOT a vote for Trump you idiots!

    Let’s end this stupid game of roundy round right here, right now.

     

    You hear this kind of bullshit word salad from Hillary supporters who say “A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump!” or how they call us “ratfuckers”. I have to laugh at this sort of thing because with that sort of twisted logic you can probably convince people up is down and M&M’s melt in your hands, not in your mouth. It’s based in nothing but fear and outright ignorance.

     

    Psssst Hillary supporters, I have some news for you. Are you ready?

     

    Those of us who are voting for Stein, like myself, would NEVER vote for Hillary to begin with.  I myself voted for Obama in ’08 and what she did to him then was complete utter bullshit. Remind us again Hillary supporters where the whole birther conspiracy originated from, eh? Sorry but nobody has time for that shit and that is just one reason why her favorability numbers are in the tank. Hillary for all intents and purposes is a panderer and nothing but. What’s so hilarious is that you Hillary supporters are so fucking blind you actually think the GOP will work with her. That same GOP who held all those Benghazi hearings? That same GOP who is talking of impeachment on day 1? That same GOP who sees her a Dems version of Sarah Palin? Please tell us more!

     

    A vote for Stein isn’t a vote for Trump, it’s a vote for Stein. If not for her, many of us would be penciling in Bernie or simply not vote at all. Pick it. A net zero is a net zero and despite all your bullshit, your lot can’t come to grips with how this scenario essentially is the same as a 17 year old who can’t vote. No vote out of them in your heads probably helps Trump too, amiright?

     

    Sorry Hillary supporters but #DemExit is real and you can sit there and demonize things like WikiLeaks all you want BUT maybe there would have never been a problem to begin with if YOUR candidate wasn’t a dirty SOB who takes money behind closed doors from big donors like banks and Wall Street special interests. You’re all mad because “OMG someone hacked Hillary! They will know about the real her!” Think about it. Maybe you’ll get it. If she was clean in the first place there would be NO issue here at all here would there?

     

    So tell us supporters of the Great Fracking Queen, what are you going to do when the tide turns because it’s starting to with millions saying adios to the Dem party and voting green?

    You need us, we do NOT need you.

    TRex, farleftlib, Lizzie Poppet and 104 othersH0P3, medicineskill, PatrynXX, westerebus, commie, proglib, 2bAnon, historylovr, Jokerman, Sherman A1, azurnoir, chknltl, Depaysement, 99Forever, Mod mom, Sunflower, Greenradical, BostonBob, daleanime, tencats, NuttyFluffers, tomm2thumbs, Dragonfli, Colors of the Rainbow, tokenlib, Herman4747, Ferd Berfel, sangfroid, jwirr, Rubicon, olddots, zoewashburne, phazed, IdaBriggs, Late Bloomer, Major Hogwash, PADemD, davidgmills, Chwaliszewski, MRM1024, canoeist52, Grateful Curd, davidlynch, Jillian, Nomi Betterman, PDiddie, tonyl, CNW, Spanishprof27, eBayFool, Rider, Idaho progressive, grouchomarxist, Blackspade, Mnpaul, Sriracha, Paka, Bakunin Backup, ablamj, Carolina, deepestblue, Shlabotnik, Hari, Piperay, ThomPaine, Fuddnik, GoodWitch, PuffGranny, Phlem, EmmaG, Mike4Bernie, bjo59, h-32, shanti, Entrepreneur, Enthusiast, Arctic Dave, NJOCK, Odd John, Ed Suspicious, jeff47, dlegendary1, cascadiance, Marym625, Cassiopeia, Tuesday, Hawkowl, frylock, djean111, faultindicator, Crabby Abbey, Bearian, MsConduct, Downwinder, mmonk, Betty Karlson, broiles, Alkene, Haikugal, Jan Boehmermann, Iwillnevergiveup, Demeter, Gallagher, polly7 like this

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

▼ Hide Reply Index
135 replies
  • 5 months ago #4
  • 5 months ago #14
  • 5 months ago #17
  • 5 months ago #60
  • 5 months ago #132
    • Gallagher (399 posts)
      Profile photo of Gallagher Donor

      1. "And that's the way it is."

      • Demeter (5253 posts)
        Profile photo of Demeter

        2. Yes, sir!

        The Hillbots remind me of the worst kind of religious fanatics, down to the unearthly gleam in their eyes and the tendency to lose control of their faces.

        Obama promised a lot of transparency. It finally showed up.--downwinder
        • Enthusiast (5381 posts)
          Profile photo of Enthusiast Donor

          16. The Hillbots are very cult-like.

          "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. There would be no place to hide."  Frank Church
        • Bakunin Backup (846 posts)
          Profile photo of Bakunin Backup

          30. "Vote Hillary, she has a Vagina!"

          Darling, ya give me a rope and I'll hang myself, It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, Don't have to be fucking brilliant to see, I'm not as smart as I seem to be, I'm not as bright as I used to be, I'm not as sharp as I think I am, I'm not as smart as I seem, I'm not as bright as I seem.
        • 2bAnon (3534 posts)
          Profile photo of 2bAnon Donor

          125. ^^^^This^^^^ +1000000!!!!!

           

          http://jackpineradicals.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/sergiolara2-1.mp3

      • deepestblue (2142 posts)
        Profile photo of deepestblue

        27. "And that's the way it is."

        :bounce:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKeYbEOSqYc
    • oldandhappy (2630 posts)
      Profile photo of oldandhappy Donor

      3. Did not vote for Her in 'o8 and will not start now, smile.

      The 50% of the people who do not vote have a lot more say about elections than those of us who vote Green.  We should have a tax on people who do not vote.  A vote Green is simply a vote Green.  We have four sets of candidates.  I hope there will be votes spread around so that the unethical DNC and other mafia members can see that we will vote our values.

      • Bakunin Backup (846 posts)
        Profile photo of Bakunin Backup

        31. I hope that, too. The US needs a multi party system to give people a voice.

        Darling, ya give me a rope and I'll hang myself, It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, Don't have to be fucking brilliant to see, I'm not as smart as I seem to be, I'm not as bright as I used to be, I'm not as sharp as I think I am, I'm not as smart as I seem, I'm not as bright as I seem.
    • Demeter (5253 posts)
      Profile photo of Demeter

      4. On the other hand,

      a vote for Trump is definitely a vote against a Clinton easy-access coup.

      Obama promised a lot of transparency. It finally showed up.--downwinder
      • grouchomarxist (130 posts)
        Profile photo of grouchomarxist

        45. i honestly believe trump is better than clinton

        but i hate them both and am voting stein out of disgust

        can’t wait to see the bomb wikileaks is planning to drop over the next couple of days.

        • sangfroid (1295 posts)
          Profile photo of sangfroid Banned

          61. I'm 63 yo and tired of voting for the so-called "least evil"

          War Democrats. Anti-entitlement Democrats. TTP Democrats. Pipeline Democrats. Forget that BS.

          Both Trump and Hills are warmongering con artists.  Neither are worthy of my vote. The End.

          My candidate is named Stein. She will be my candidate from this date until her last.

          He won, she lost - so why don't I feel better about the whole thing?
          • Sherman A1 (614 posts)
            Profile photo of Sherman A1 Donor

            113. Agreed

            I was never going to vote for HRC, Yes she is better than Trump I will stipulate to that point.

            HRC lost my vote when I heard the comment many years ago about the then First Lady “landing under fire” somewhere in the Balkans. If one lies about something so like this that really has no bearing on much of anything just to look tough, then I suspect nothing is off the table in the department of lies.

            I will simply not be voting for President this year. I don’t like any of the candidates running, none inspire me enough to vote for them and none have sold me as to why they deserve my vote.

            I will vote down ticket as there are important races within my state and a senate seat that might turn for the Democrats.

             

            "Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Great Battle." Philo of Alexandria
          • 2bAnon (3534 posts)
            Profile photo of 2bAnon Donor

            126. Oh, you're just such a pouty purist!

            Principles don’t matter much when it’s all about the lesser of the two evils.. is what they’re trying to club over our heads..  Kool aid Drinkers and blind cultists.  All freaking out because the chicken is coming home to roost, and they’re loosing their fucking minds because we won’t fall in line with the same goddamn bullshit they keep trying to cram down our throats for the past 40 + years.

             

             

             

            http://jackpineradicals.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/sergiolara2-1.mp3

    • Iwillnevergiveup (354 posts)
      Profile photo of I will never give up

      5. What a great OP to wake up to!

      Absolutely nailed it, Pinebox.  The more we learn about HRC (thanks, WikiLeaks), the less palatable she becomes.  We have 2 whole months to observe her undoing and for Jill Stein to make the case.  No Gary Johnson, please.  A vote for Jill is a vote for Jill, and she has mine.

      "Tyrants don't care if you believe them, they just want you to succumb to doubt." Peter Maass
    • Alkene (283 posts)
      Profile photo of Alkene Donor

      6. I have direct experience

      demonstrating that M&M’s can, in fact, melt in your hands.

      I don’t, however, have any experiential evidence that voting my conscience is an act of betrayal. Indeed, to do otherwise would be so.

      • PuffGranny (241 posts)
        Profile photo of PuffGranny Donor

        18. Welcome to JPR!

        I hope to see more posts from you.

        #stillbernie
      • Bakunin Backup (846 posts)
        Profile photo of Bakunin Backup

        32. Well, I think the melted M&M's prove that your vote is a result of

        one of the following–you are: misogynist, racist, an anti vaxxer, lover of Trump, a Bernie Bro, or a conspiracy theorist. There’s no other option! Your conscious is just a made up RW Conspiracy because you are one of the aforementioned options.

        Darling, ya give me a rope and I'll hang myself, It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, Don't have to be fucking brilliant to see, I'm not as smart as I seem to be, I'm not as bright as I used to be, I'm not as sharp as I think I am, I'm not as smart as I seem, I'm not as bright as I seem.
        • Alkene (283 posts)
          Profile photo of Alkene Donor

          58. You neglected to include, ratfu**er, in your list,

          which is for me a poorly defined term with usage dependent on how deeply underground the context descends. Nevertheless, it’s useful to explore all available options.

          • daleanime (1564 posts)
            Profile photo of daleanime

            101. ……….

            :fistbump:

            When the going gets tough, the tough take care of each other
          • Bakunin Backup (846 posts)
            Profile photo of Bakunin Backup

            121. Yeah, I've always wondered what the F a ratfu**er was, anyways?

            Darling, ya give me a rope and I'll hang myself, It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, Don't have to be fucking brilliant to see, I'm not as smart as I seem to be, I'm not as bright as I used to be, I'm not as sharp as I think I am, I'm not as smart as I seem, I'm not as bright as I seem.
        • sangfroid (1295 posts)
          Profile photo of sangfroid Banned

          116. Absolutely, Bakunin!

          I’m voting Stein, so it’s one from column A and two from column B (and can I have chopsticks with that?)

          He won, she lost - so why don't I feel better about the whole thing?
          • Bakunin Backup (846 posts)
            Profile photo of Bakunin Backup

            118. CHOPSTICKS!!! That's Commie Mao Crap, Sangy!

            (Sorry for late reply, I’ve been getting ready for Year 2 at College, and all that entails )

            Darling, ya give me a rope and I'll hang myself, It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, Don't have to be fucking brilliant to see, I'm not as smart as I seem to be, I'm not as bright as I used to be, I'm not as sharp as I think I am, I'm not as smart as I seem, I'm not as bright as I seem.
    • broiles (491 posts)
      Profile photo of broiles Donor

      7. Killing Bernie's campaign was the actual vote for Trump.

      Since he was the only one who could realistically eliminate Trump.

      • ThomPaine (2299 posts)
        Profile photo of ThomPaine Moderator

        20. B I N G O

        aka rhett o rick.      If I speak out against either Hillary or Trump, it doesn't mean I favor the other.  That should go without saying.
      • Demeter (5253 posts)
        Profile photo of Demeter

        28. True

        And we have to make sure the lesson was learned. With reinforcement…negative reinforcement will probably work best.

        Obama promised a lot of transparency. It finally showed up.--downwinder
      • grouchomarxist (130 posts)
        Profile photo of grouchomarxist

        46. i doubt that's true

        but i want to prove the “these people [progressives] have nowhere else to go” assholes wrong

      • Sherman A1 (614 posts)
        Profile photo of Sherman A1 Donor

        114. Agreed

        and well said!

        "Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Great Battle." Philo of Alexandria
      • 2bAnon (3534 posts)
        Profile photo of 2bAnon Donor

        127. ^^^^This^^^^ +1000000!!!!!

         

        http://jackpineradicals.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/sergiolara2-1.mp3

    • faultindicator (544 posts)
      Profile photo of faultindicator Donor

      8. Rec & Thanks for the reminder.

      I had forgotten that September 1st was my #DemExit. A trip to county is necessary to change party here.

      A malfunction causes an FI (fault indicator) to light up on the dash. It flashes in code saying what to fix. Simple and straight forward. Just like this place - causes and solutions without the bullshit.
    • JimLane (836 posts)
      Profile photo of Jim Lane

      9. You’re lumping together everyone who plans to vote for Clinton

      I personally have never liked that “A vote for X is a vote for Y” line. If X and Y are two different candidates, then it’s just a matter of algebra: X does not equal Y. I found it quite easy to argue against voting for Nader without having to say it was a vote for Bush.

      This year, a correct statement is: “A vote for Stein is a failure to vote against Trump.” In terms of determining who will become President in 2017, it has absolutely no effect. It is, as you say, a net zero, equivalent to staying home.

      There are self-identified progressives who would rather see Trump win than Clinton. To them I really have nothing to say. They apparently hate one person so much that they still can’t see the human misery that would result from a Trump win, especially with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress (even if the Dems take the Senate this year, it probably goes GOP in 2018, based on which seats are up). What will happen to the social safety net? What will atmospheric carbon dioxide be by 2021? And so on. And on and on and on.

      Other progressives take the view that Clinton would be less bad than Trump, but that the difference isn’t very significant. Their view is that using their one vote to help Clinton beat Trump would do some good, but that using it to help build the Green Party for future victories would do more good. My answer to them (contrary to your post) is not to call them names, but to dispute how they weight each of those options:

      * I’m no Clinton fan but I think her superiority over Trump (or, if you can’t stand phrasing it that way, Trump’s inferiority to her) is tremendous.
      * I also see no future in Green Party politics. The Green Party has been running presidential candidates for 20 years now without making any headway against that dreaded “duopoly” of the major parties. Stein supporters on JPR rightly point to the difficulties of making progress within the Democratic Party but never recognize that the difficulties of going third party are much greater.

      These are points on which Bernie supporters can disagree. We should be able to discuss them without slinging insults like “ratfuckers” or “Hillbots” at each other.

      Just for the record: I have never called any Stein supporter a “ratfucker” and I do not like M&M’s.

      • djean111 (2673 posts)
        Profile photo of djean111 Donor

        10. If only "discuss", for some, did not mean continue pushing Hillary until some

        hoped-for capitulation is achieved.  There is literally nothing anyone can say that would induce me to vote for Hillary, and after I vote for Grayson and other Progressives) tomorrow, I will be resigning from the Democratic Party.   I live in Hillsborough County, Florida, so maybe this time I can vote my conscience and see a good result.   One of the so-called “swing counties”.

        I see nothing in Hillary’s past deeds that make me believe she will not determinedly, and always looking out for the 1%, deliberately do all the things you are afraid Trump would do.  War, fracking, the TPP, H-1B visas, Third Way treatment of the safety nets – which Bill already damaged, and was only stopped from more damage by his inability to control himself.  I cannot vote for Hillary.  I don’t hate her, she is not worth the emotion.  I hate the idea of Hillary as president.  Oh, and I am a woman, and what Hillary has done is not what feminism is all about.  Not at all.

        You think the only reason that people won't vote for a warmongering Third Way fracking-enabling cluster bomb throwing H-1B increasing lying pandering corporate and Wall Street shill who says she has no problem putting abortion rights on the table is because we are mad about Bernie?  Um, nope.
        • Fuddnik (484 posts)
          Profile photo of Fuddnik Donor

          21. I live in Pasco, and I voted absentee a month ago and Demexited on Friday.

          I only stuck around this long to vote for Grayson.

          Before I did the Demexit, I made sure my mail in ballot would be counted, and I would still get my absentee for November.

          If it ain't broke, break it!
        • JimLane (836 posts)
          Profile photo of Jim Lane

          53. I appreciate your using that important word "some".

          My principal objection to the OP was the assumption that everyone who’s planning to vote for Clinton thinks and acts exactly alike.

           

          As for people who continue pushing their candidate — frankly, I see no difference in attitude or tone between the Clinton supporters on DU and the Stein supporters on JPR.  The admins are different in that dissenting views are somewhat tolerated here but are completely prohibited on DU.    As one of the dissenters, I’m grateful for the wider scope of the allowable discussion here.  Overall, though, there’s a similarity in that, on an online political discussion forum, people continue to post their opinions.  You can characterize it as “pushing” a candidate but I don’t see anything unusual or objectionable about it.

      • jeff47 (631 posts)
        Profile photo of jeff47 Donor

        15. If you have nothing to say, it's time to listen.

        There are self-identified progressives who would rather see Trump win than Clinton. To them I really have nothing to say.

        It’s a calculation.

        If both your choices want to do something bad, who do you pick?  The bumbling oaf who will accomplish nothing and be gone in 4 years, or the competent person who will be able to accomplish some of her goals and will not face a challenge for re-election from the left?

        It’s not nearly as clear-cut as you claim.  It comes down to making a guess about what they’d actually try to do in office, coupled with their ability to get it through Congress, as well as the time to accomplish those goals, as well as “outside” factors.  Like the 2020 census that will determine if Republicans can gerrymander the House for another decade.  Or the Democratic party possibly pulling its head out of its ass after a loss….or doubling-down on the DLC after a loss.

        It’s not just about the individual candidates and hatred for them, even though the people covering the election desperately want to treat it as a reality TV show.

        The Green Party has been running presidential candidates for 20 years now without making any headway against that dreaded “duopoly” of the major parties.

        A Democrat voting Green is far easier for the party to notice than a Democrat staying home.  And a Democrat voting D as “anti-Trump” just means they can pull the same shit in the next primary.  Because there are no consequences.

        • JimLane (836 posts)
          Profile photo of Jim Lane

          52. OK, you suckered me into answering.

          You’re focusing only on “President proposes and Congress disposes.” That’s not all that goes on in Washington. I think it was Grover Norquist or someone like that who said something along the lines of: The initiatives for conservatism are coming from Congress these days, and all we require in a President is a warm body capable of moving the pen to sign the bills.

          Consider these bills, just a small sampling of what could easily be passed by a Republican Congress:

          * repeal the ACA (including the Medicaid expansion); “replace” it with federal limits on injured victims’ rights to recover on malpractice claims.

          * end Medicare as we know it in favor of Paul Ryan’s couponcare.

          * enact huge tax cuts for the rich.

          * partially offset those tax cuts by abolishing federal tax credits and other forms of support for renewable energy, and by slashing federal spending on food stamps, aid to education, etc.

          * drastically curtail the EPA’s ability to regulate the “job creators” in private industry.

          I believe that President Trump would sign every one of those bills but that President Clinton would veto every one.

          And, of course, the old standby, the Supreme Court. Do you care about the decisions that, just to name three, opened the floodgates to corporate political spending (Citizens United), did the same for individuals’ spending (McCutcheon), and gutted the Voting Rights Act (Shelby County)? Every one of those bad decisions was by a 5-4 vote. I consider both Obama and Bill Clinton to have been too conservative overall, but the fact is that every Justice appointed by either of those Presidents dissented from the principal holdings in those bad decisions. Scalia, whom Trump named as the Justice who would be his model in making his appointments, voted in the majority in all three.

          As for the efficacy of the Green Party approach, I take your comment “there are no consequences” (if progressives vote for the Democrat) to mean that a large enough Green Party vote will cause The Democratic Party (some unitary decision-making entity, not millions of voters in primaries and caucuses) to throw up its hands in horror, renounce centrism, and nominate a candidate who calls for abolishing the internal-combustion engine or something. OK, that last bit is hyperbole, but you seem to assume that a Republican win would somehow produce a major leftward shift in the Democratic Party. That didn’t happen in 2000 and I see no reason to expect it to happen this time around.

          • jeff47 (631 posts)
            Profile photo of jeff47 Donor

            71. When do you expect the Republicans to win 60 seats in the Senate?

            ‘Cause each of those bills you want us to fear would have to get through a filibuster.

            And, of course, the old standby, the Supreme Court.

            Elections have consequences.  Including primary elections.  Perhaps shitting on 46% of the Democratic party was not the best primary strategy, and we’re now going to reap the consequences of that strategy.

            I take your comment “there are no consequences” (if progressives vote for the Democrat) to mean that a large enough Green Party vote will cause The Democratic Party (some unitary decision-making entity, not millions of voters in primaries and caucuses) to throw up its hands in horror, renounce centrism, and nominate a candidate who calls for abolishing the internal-combustion engine or something.

            That’s a very pretty strawman.  I like what you did with the hat.

            If you’ll actually take the time to read the post, you’ll note that I did not say turning away from the DLC was the only possible outcome.  In fact, I specifically listed the opposite as a possible outcome.  So clearly I’m yet another one of those fucking deluded liberals that destroy all the good in the world with purity tests and demands for free stuff.

            Or perhaps you could actually read the post instead of flinging stock invective.  The entire point is the decision is not nearly as black-and-white as you portray it.  Installing Clinton will cause bad results.  Installing Trump will cause bad results.  How bad the actual results will be, and how easy they will be to reverse is difficult to say.  Clinton launching another glorious ground war in the Middle East is a lot harder to clean up than Trump getting a tax cut passed with enough concessions to overcome a filibuster.

            • Sriracha (2153 posts)
              Profile photo of Sriracha Donor

              78. This^

              Except I don’t think it will be a ground war in the middle east. I think she will start a ground war in Europe and Russia. She has already destabilized Europe with her nonsense in N. Africa and Syria.

              A war with Russia will be felt here at home. The Russians aren’t like Iraq or any of the other piss ant countries we have been bullying for the past 3 decades. They will not sit back and wait for us to ship thousands of troops and tons of supplies into position. And, it would quickly escalate into a nuclear exchange in which we lose at least a few cities.

               

            • JimLane (836 posts)
              Profile photo of Jim Lane

              83. They have an outside shot at getting to 60 in 2018 but that's not the point.

              I don’t share your faith in the filibuster. If Republicans hold the House and the White House and, in either 2017 or 2019, the Senate majority, then they’ll complete the work of abolishing the filibuster. (I say “complete” because Harry Reid and the Democrats already demonstrated that it’s not sacrosanct, by abolishing it for confirmations of some Presidential appointments.)

              The filibuster has no basis in the Constitution. The Senate majority could abolish it.

              You accuse me of fighting a straw man. Let me first note your comment: “So clearly I’m yet another one of those fucking deluded liberals that destroy all the good in the world with purity tests and demands for free stuff.” And you accuse me of straw-man argumentation? I absolutely don’t believe any of the things in that sentence, even though (again, as I read your post, please correct me if I’m wrong) your sarcasm is intended to ascribe those views to me.

              As for what you say is a straw man, I’ve read and reread both of your posts and I confess I’m completely at a loss. I wasn’t sure what you meant before. I flagged my uncertainty by saying “I take your comment ‘there are no consequences’ (if progressives vote for the Democrat) to mean….” Apparently you didn’t mean what I thought you meant but I just don’t understand what you do mean. If you want to pursue this, you’ll have to dumb it down for me.

          • Flygirl (1737 posts)
            Profile photo of Flygirl

            112. I do not for one moment believe she would veto any of those things!!

            That is why she has supported Republucans running now as democrats..for insurance policy..so she can do all the right wing neo con bullshit and she won’t be blamed!!

            i call bullshit when she has the most evil murderous neo cons supporting her!!

            like Throw A priest and nuns out of a Helicopter in Honduras Negroponte.. He is 100%! In the bag for Shillary!!

            then we have the Father and founder of PNAC R.Kagan..running one of her PAC’s …I call it the blueprint for murdering my co-Workers on 9/11 and the wars in Afghan and Iraq..

            let us not forget Kagans wife..who was a total Fuck up in Ukraine and was kingpin in a coup there..and damn near started a new cold fucking war! Oh and that little sweetheart was working for SOS Shillary!! And it is rumored  Shillary will attempt to make Victoria her SOS..can get much more neo con than that!!

            and lest we forget Shillary and Billy the rapist traveling Partners…Henry “The Butcher of Cambodia” Kissinger..

            land Billy the rapist traveling a Companion..Jeffery Epstein..a convicted Pedophile who sex trafficked little girls as young as 10 YEARS OLD!!! 26 time ole Billy the rapist traveled with Epstein on Lolita Express ..and 5 times ditched his secret service..To Epsteins Orgy island!!

            yes Jeffery Fucking Epstein who brags he helped Billy boy start/set up  The Clinton Foundation!!

            catch this little nugget..

            https://miamiherald.relaymedia.com/amp/news/local/community/miami-dade/article99150077.html?utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=amp&utm_source=www.miamiherald.com-RelayMediaAMP

            Some people are just above the law..when they have friends like Billy the rapist !

            According to the DNC I am a Wife of a Taco Bowl Member!
          • Herman4747 (745 posts)
            Profile photo of Herman4747

            134. There is a great amount of sound logic in your position…

            …nonetheless, I still voted for Dr. Jill Stein, conjecturing that Trump (if he won, and he did win the Electoral College) would last but 4 years, followed hopefully with 8 years of President Elizabeth Warren, whereas if Hillary won, due to her endless scandals, she would have also only survived 4 years, followed by 8 years of President Ted Cruz.

            You do make an excellent case that a Hillary presidency is indeed the lesser of two evils.

            Perhaps more relevant for me personally is that I just couldn’t bring myself to vote for this:

            h_k

             

            trekagainsttrump
          • coolepairc (190 posts)
            Profile photo of coolepairc

            135. Hopefully not

            Regarding your comment, …”and nominate a candidate who calls for abolishing the internal-combustion engine or something. OK, that last bit is hyperbole…”, I sincerely hope that isn’t hyperbole.

            Norway to ‘completely ban petrol powered cars by 2025’

            Germany pushes to ban petrol-fuelled cars within next 20 years

             

        • eridani (1429 posts)
          Profile photo of eridani Donor

          55. With a Republican Congress, an oaf like Trump could get quite a bit done

          Not personally–Pence, Ryan and McConnell will be directly responsible for the damage.

          You've heard of the Good Witch of the North and the Wicked Witch of the West, right?  I'm the Morally Ambiguous Witch of the Northwest.
          • jeff47 (631 posts)
            Profile photo of jeff47 Donor

            72. When do you expect the Republicans to win 60 seats in the Senate?

            Oafs still got to get through a filibuster.

            • eridani (1429 posts)
              Profile photo of eridani Donor

              96. And we are so lucky that Dems are courageous enough to do filibusters

              [/sarcasm]

              You've heard of the Good Witch of the North and the Wicked Witch of the West, right?  I'm the Morally Ambiguous Witch of the Northwest.
      • Potone (293 posts)
        Profile photo of Potone Donor

        40. Thank you.

        I agree. We should be able to discuss this in a civil way, and not attack one another over our choices. I don’t want to see this place turn into another DU, only with Stein supporters attacking and shouting down anyone who disagrees with them, as Hillary supporters did that to Bernie supporters on DU.

        I do agree, however, that a vote for Stein is precisely that, and not a vote for Trump. Why people choose to vote for Stein varies from person to person, as it does for people who decide to vote for Hillary now, despite having voted for Bernie in the primaries or caucuses.

        This election is unlike any that I have experienced in my life and I think a lot of people are uncertain what to do when they dislike both of the candidates of the major parties, and don’t feel confidence in the other candidates. For some of us, all the choices are bad for one reason or another. That is what, for me at least, is making this election so miserable.

        I don’t want any of them; I want Bernie!

         

        • 2bAnon (3534 posts)
          Profile photo of 2bAnon Donor

          128. "I don’t want any of them; I want Bernie!" me too

          :fistbump:

           

          http://jackpineradicals.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/sergiolara2-1.mp3

      • Sriracha (2153 posts)
        Profile photo of Sriracha Donor

         “There are self-identified progressives who would rather see Trump win than Clinton. To them I really have nothing to say.”

        I’m one of those. Actually I prefer to call myself liberal. I think using the term progressive is cowering from the right’s liberal bashing. And I welcome any response you have towards me.

        “They apparently hate one person so much that they still can’t see the human misery that would result from a Trump win”

        And Hillbots or even hold their nose Herself voters apparently hate one person so much that they still can’t see the human misery that has already resulted from Herself as SoS.

        The misery she will do as president would be exponentially worse.

         

        • JimLane (836 posts)
          Profile photo of Jim Lane

          57. To clarify, I'm no Clinton fan

          I understand your point about not cowering, but I like “progressive” because its meaning is clearer. To many Europeans, “liberal” refers to the free market. A liberal is someone who favors less government regulation, not more.
          As to the substance: I believe that the election of Hillary Clinton would be a setback for liberal/progressive policy in the United States. The election of Donald Trump, however, would be a disaster for such policy.  See my response in #52 for a few examples (a list that is by no means comprehensive).

          • Sriracha (2153 posts)
            Profile photo of Sriracha Donor

            79. I think electing Trump would be 4 years of comedy and

            the US press corps actually doing their job rather than propping up Herself as they are currently.

            Electing Herself will result in a nuclear exchange with Russia and possibly China. In which case, setbacks to liberal causes would mean nothing in comparison.

             

             

      • Pinebox (290 posts)
        Profile photo of Pinebox

        63. I completely disagree with you mostly

        You say Trump is worse than Hillary, right?

        Let me ask you this? How.

        See, right now we have 2 candidates who are actually in align with one another more ways than they are against each other. Trump isn’t for lifting the minimum wage, hell Hillary isn’t even for a living wage. We heard that crap during the primaries. Trump is a war mongerer yet Hilllary voted for Iraq and is an interventionist with ties to big military. On and on it goes.

         

        At least with Trump you know exactly where he stands. I can’t stand him BUT you know his positions unlike Miss Weathervane who panders and shifts at every available opportunity for political pandering and oh, Trump is actually to the left of Hillary when it comes to trade.

         

        Sorry but both are from the same crop of corn, just different rows is all.

         

        Greens have never gotten a big boost here because the system itself is rigged against anything that isn’t Republican or Democrat. It’s time that changes. There is no reason at all why the system shouldn’t be opened up more other than the 2 major parties being scared shitless of Greens and Libertarians. I will tell you this much right now, if Johnson is allowed into the national debates, he has a good chance of beating both Hillary & Trump. A lot of Americans will agree with his policies, not all of them but a lot. He would get people who are sick of both Hillary & Trump and he is a fresh face with new ideas and people like that.

         

        I have no interest in the Dem party. I switched my affiliation to Dem only so I could caucus for Bernie. I have switched it back to indy. The Dem party is completely corrupt and they can take their sell out politicians and shove them as far as I’m concerned. They aren’t much different than Republicans, in fact, the colors all bleed together these days. Remember the 89 Dems who voted to gut SNAP? Each and every one of them, including DWS herself should be tossed out on their asses.

         

        This is why #DemExit is real. People are sick and tired of having a government which doesn’t represent them and that is coming from both sides of the aisle. The GOP has their populace candidate, Dems get what? A corporate piece of crap who gives speeches for big money behind closed doors.

         

        No thanks.

         

        • JimLane (836 posts)
          Profile photo of Jim Lane

          74. The differences between Trump and Clinton

          You write:

          You say Trump is worse than Hillary, right?

          Let me ask you this? How.

           

          That’s a reasonable question, given that Clinton is clearly worse than Bernie.  But there’s plenty of room for her to be worse than Bernie but still much better than Trump.  In #52 in this thread I touched on some of my reasons for thinking that Trump would be worse than Clinton.

           

          I’m surprised you think you know where Trump stands.  As I try to foresee what would happen over the next four years under each of them, I feel much more confidence in predicting the actions of President Hillary Clinton (pretty much like her husband and Obama) than in predicting the actions of the mercurial President Donald Trump.

           

          As you say, Clinton panders, but at least we know roughly to whom she panders.  Trump appears to wing it most of the time, and it’s been said that he’s heavily influenced by whomever he spoke with most recently.

          • Sriracha (2153 posts)
            Profile photo of Sriracha Donor

            80. And she is heavily influenced by who ever donated the most cash to the

            crooked foundation.

            She is also much worse as a war hawk.

            She has made it quite clear that she will start a direct war with Russia. We will feel that here at home like nothing we have felt since the Civil war.

             

        • grouchomarxist (130 posts)
          Profile photo of grouchomarxist

          81. trump is right that illegal immigration is a neoliberal scheme

          designed to harm ALL workers, pitting us one against the other.

          likewise i suspect that multiculturalism is largely a bid to undermine solidarity.  the mafia dons did the same thing: had their underlings work in mixed groups to prevent them from conspiring against them.  racism sucks, but people seem to have a natural tendency toward xenophobia.

          trump was an idiot to choose periods pence as a running mate, there are no end of reasonable people (on anonymous internet forums) who are planning to vote for him because, despite all his flaws, they think he’ll do something about immigration and free trade.   i’m secretly cheering for the alt-right; maybe they’ll kick those fucking evangelicals out of the party already.

      • Greenradical (531 posts)
        Profile photo of Greenradical

        100. Sounds like you're voting for HER

        Out of fear. Let’s forget about the theft of the primary, or the crimes she’s committed. Let’s not join the Green party to make it bigger and better, it has no future. LOL! This is why we never see change. Get the guts and go GREEN! Or go to DU and drool all over yourselves over Queen Killery and her “superiority” over the world.

        Jill NOT Hill 2016!
        • JimLane (836 posts)
          Profile photo of Jim Lane

          103. I'm getting tired of this "fear" buzzword.

          As I understand it from reading JPR:

          • If I say that Donald Trump, who is campaigning on a platform of big tax cuts for the rich, would, if elected, enact big tax cuts for the rich, that constitutes the politics of fear, and is deplorable.
          • BUT if someone else says that Hillary Clinton, if elected, would start World War III, that’s not the politics of fear, but rather is perfectly sensible argumentation.

          I confess that I have failed to follow this line of reasoning.  My view is that the charge of “voting out of fear” muddles rather than furthers any sensible discussion about this election.

          With voting, as with most other actions in my life, I do tend to consider the likely  consequences of different alternatives.  That includes the negative consequences.

          As for DU, I had a post removed there last week, apparently for insufficient Clintonolatry.  It may interest you to know that, although you disparage DU, many of its denizens are on the same page as you when it comes to vehement denunciations of anyone who disagrees with them.

           

           

          • Greenradical (531 posts)
            Profile photo of Greenradical

            109. I have never alerted anyone ever

            And at DU if you say Hillary took a shit today, you’re on a time out. If enough people keep thinking by going Green I’m throwing my vote away, we’ll never get another party for a choice. I cannot with a clear conscience vote for that warmonger no matter what terror alerts are thrown our way. We have 2 months to try and bring more people in our Green camp.

            People think Hillary is the safe and saner vote even though she put this country in danger as SOS, and stole the primary from us. Even the idiots at DU who were so against her in 08 now kiss her ass. It’s disgusting. What’s more disgusting is putting that POS in office.

            Jill NOT Hill 2016!
    • MistaP (3700 posts)
      Profile photo of MistaP Donor

      11. they're accidentally admitting Clinton's weak enough that Stein

      would be a “spoiler”: maybe they should’ve not cheated and let the guy who would’ve won by double digits and who stood for everything they claim to want win

      instead we’re getting

      • “why didn’t anyone tell us earlier!”
      • running themselves into furniture and then saying we hit them
      • race-baiting
      • erasing every position they have, reversing it to match Hers
      • a demand that the people who were right do all the campaigning for Her and take every iota of blame should she fail
      http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/ (Third Way = Bell Curve)
      • Bakunin Backup (846 posts)
        Profile photo of Bakunin Backup

        33. BOOM! FACE! Nothing more needs to be said, you nailed it!

        Darling, ya give me a rope and I'll hang myself, It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, Don't have to be fucking brilliant to see, I'm not as smart as I seem to be, I'm not as bright as I used to be, I'm not as sharp as I think I am, I'm not as smart as I seem, I'm not as bright as I seem.
      • 2bAnon (3534 posts)
        Profile photo of 2bAnon Donor

        129. "running themselves into furniture and then saying we hit them"

        LOVE that line MistaP!   :rofl:

         

        http://jackpineradicals.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/sergiolara2-1.mp3

    • Marym625 (13720 posts)
      Profile photo of Marym625 Admin

      12. Submitted for the Daily Radical

      And about to be on it.

      So tired of the “vote out of fear” and “your vote only counts as good if you do as I say.”

      Got news for ya, they both, Clinton and Trump, scare the shit out of me.

      948c8f248a
      • Bakunin Backup (846 posts)
        Profile photo of Bakunin Backup

        34. Thank you, Auntie Mary…

        in my culture, we call anyone even more than a couple years older Auntie, especially if they are wise–such as yourself.

        But yes, Americans have two awful candidates that are most likely to win, and it’s scary to the rest of the world as well.

        Darling, ya give me a rope and I'll hang myself, It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, Don't have to be fucking brilliant to see, I'm not as smart as I seem to be, I'm not as bright as I used to be, I'm not as sharp as I think I am, I'm not as smart as I seem, I'm not as bright as I seem.
        • Marym625 (13720 posts)
          Profile photo of Marym625 Admin

          36. I know.

          I’m sorry.

          Thank you. Don’t know how wise I am. But I’m not gullible. :)

          948c8f248a
          • Bakunin Backup (846 posts)
            Profile photo of Bakunin Backup

            37. Gullible? Maybe. Adorable? Definitely. :)

            Darling, ya give me a rope and I'll hang myself, It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, Don't have to be fucking brilliant to see, I'm not as smart as I seem to be, I'm not as bright as I used to be, I'm not as sharp as I think I am, I'm not as smart as I seem, I'm not as bright as I seem.
            • Marym625 (13720 posts)
              Profile photo of Marym625 Admin

              38. AWW!

              So sweet. Thank you.

              948c8f248a
      • Pinebox (290 posts)
        Profile photo of Pinebox

        64. Thanks

      • Dragonfli (676 posts)
        Profile photo of Dragonfli Donor

        91. Both Clinton and Trump scare the shit out of me as well.

        I can  not see myself voting for anyone, that is so destructive in my mind to my country for such a position, I decided the only other choice is obvious, at least in my case, vote for what I truly believe to be right and good, it may make a difference, it may not. I do believe that if enough make the same choice I do it can at the very least help to do two important things, important to me anyway, prove that a third UNCORRUPTED party has a chance after all, for those faced with decisions in the future, such would require a much larger than usual Green vote, but possible in this climate where the two “sanctioned” candidates appear to be running for a “who is the most unpopular amongst the people award”, a rather unusual situation.

        Secondary, it could neuter some of the “who else ya gonna vote for” arrogance used by the Democratic party in order to push obviously right wing candidates that some would describe as Republicans if their party affiliations were hidden from view and all one could see were their votes, views, and action within government.

        Voting for fear or because of fear, is to use the reptilian primitive brain, not the best brain to use when choosing a leader or a representative, clear thinking should guide one rather than fear and/or intimidation when it comes to voting, and as always, each shall vote as they please, some may vote smarter than others, some may vote as frightened reptiles, either way I agree, clear discussion regarding the choices appear fair, using scare tactics or bullying that others must agree with one’s own choice leads to much heat with very little light.

        “We must dissent from the indifference. We must dissent from the apathy. We must dissent from the fear, the hatred and the mistrust. We must dissent from a nation that has buried its head in the sand, waiting in vain for the needs of its poor, its elderly, and its sick to disappear and just blow away. We must dissent from a government that has left its young without jobs, education or hope. We must dissent from the poverty of vision and the absence of moral leadership. We must dissent because America can do better, because America has no choice but to do better.” Thurgood Marshall    

        • Marym625 (13720 posts)
          Profile photo of Marym625 Admin

          93. +1000

          948c8f248a
    • cascadiance (1386 posts)
      Profile photo of cascadiance

      13. My goal here is that neither major party gets endorsed or gets a "majority"…

      rather than a plurality of votes to win, if they win.  Ideally, Jill Stein winning would be great, but I’m being realistic in noting that this is not a likely outcome.

      But the objective here is to have a message sent to the two major parties that they are LOSING the American voters steadily, and that they will have LOST CONTROL over who wins by those who they think they control in terms of voters having a more sizable set of voters going for a candidate like Jill Stein than the ultimate victory margin between the two major parties, especially if the Democratic Party loses by a margin smaller than the size of the number of voters voting for Stein.  Then they will try to BLAME Stein for it, but the voter will increasingly see that as a BULL$HIT analysis of the situation and that the party itself has abandoned us (who they are supposed to serve), not us abandoned them (and we are NOT supposed to serve our ruling class even if they think this to be so in their undemocratic sense of values worshipping the rich fuckers they hang out with so much now that FDR would have dismissed as economic royalists in his time!).

      So as much as they try to call us a Trump supporter when we support Jill Stein, they will be increasingly losing this argument with the American voters when they start seeing that this is absolute BULL$HIT when if we really did support someone like Trump, we’d have been trying to give him a majority of popular votes by voting for him instead of Stein.

      My mission after doing this will be to ensure that the table is set to put in place Ranked Choice Voting in the future to remove the “voting for lesser of two evils” choices that have been forced upon us for too damn long, to keep a greater evil out of office!  Ultimately that system will reward more of those that work for us the people rather than those that present themselves as less evil than the other of the corporate uber party “social divide” division labeled “parties” that has been keeping corporate power in place for too long.

      Ultimately if they continue to claim we support Trump when we support Stein, they will by their own rationale have called themselves “Trump supporters” if Hillary loses to him, because they chose to put in Clinton, who was more likely to lose to Trump (who therefore they support!) than Sanders would have if they hadn’t rigged the system to keep him from being nominated.

      Vote AGAINST the race to the bottom by both corporate parties who seek to screw workers over globally!                                                                                  
      • Bakunin Backup (846 posts)
        Profile photo of Bakunin Backup

        35. lmost like a Canadian Minority government is what you're saying, I think…

        http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/minority-government/

        Darling, ya give me a rope and I'll hang myself, It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, Don't have to be fucking brilliant to see, I'm not as smart as I seem to be, I'm not as bright as I used to be, I'm not as sharp as I think I am, I'm not as smart as I seem, I'm not as bright as I seem.
        • cascadiance (1386 posts)
          Profile photo of cascadiance

          39. We don't have a parliamentary system which could be helped by this…

          But I think if the third party shows itself to be a difference maker enough to be a spoiler, and that enough people departed from the notion of having to vote for one of the two major party candidates to avoid the “greater” of two evils getting power, it is the first step to perhaps getting some major system reform from both the electorate and the small segment of current progressive politicians that would do better in a system without a money making focus with it (Camova, Sanders, Grayson, etc.).  The first step would be starting to do a major push after this election to get ranked choice voting passed in as many localities as possible, and hopefully some states too.  An election that is substantively affected by third party “spoiler” candidates such as Stein and Johnson would raise the radar on this for us.  We here in Oregon need to see that Greens and Dems are successful in getting RCV passed here in Benton County this November as a starting point.

          Down the road we might get even a better system with proportional representation from a parliamentary system, but that would require some major systemic changes that would need to be done with constitutional amendments, and some major changes as to who are our elected officials to get this to happen.  First step before pursuing those major changes is getting more national ranked choice voting systems in place and public campaign financing too would lead to that down the road to get a more people answerable set of politicians in government there first.

          Vote AGAINST the race to the bottom by both corporate parties who seek to screw workers over globally!                                                                                  
          • Bakunin Backup (846 posts)
            Profile photo of Bakunin Backup

            42. Parliamentary systems are "first-past-the-post" as well…

            proportional representationalism is the way to go, eventually.

            Darling, ya give me a rope and I'll hang myself, It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, Don't have to be fucking brilliant to see, I'm not as smart as I seem to be, I'm not as bright as I used to be, I'm not as sharp as I think I am, I'm not as smart as I seem, I'm not as bright as I seem.
            • davidgmills (3834 posts)
              Profile photo of davidgmills Donor

              66. Proportional representation of what, exactly.

              I doubt it would be constitutional under the 12th amendment, so there is that problem, since Americans never seem to have much will power when it comes to amending it.

              And under the 12th amendment, one candidate has to win the majority of EC’s.  If nobody wins the majority of EC’s, the election goes to the house and senate with the top 3 EC vote-getters.  There, the Presidential candidate who wins the most states wins only if he/she wins a majority of states in the house.  Otherwise the sitting VP becomes president.

              French Revolution; not secession.
              • cascadiance (1386 posts)
                Profile photo of cascadiance

                76. Proportional representation is a longer term goal…

                … and WOULD require a constitutional amendment or set of them to help change not only the election system, but the way our government is structured and functions at many levels.

                Ranked choice voting would be a lot more easily implemented at the local levels, as it is already being done in many places, and is on the ballot to happen in Benton County here in Oregon this term too.  With ranked choice voting, when the ranking automated runoffs happen, this could also make it so that a winning candidate always has a majority of EC votes if each state allows for their EC votes to be selected themselves on a ranked choice voting basis instead of winner take all or the proportional splits the way a couple of states have them now.   The presidential election race would have more work to be done to be properly integrated with RCV, but that would be the last system to be fixed once we have this ranked choice voting system integrated in other electoral races and well supported and working in at least one major election hopefully before the next presidential election in 2020 if we implement it that soon.

                Ranked choice voting is about the only system that allows us to have more grass roots initiated choices, but insuring that we don’t have vote splits that have a plurality candidate win who would have less overall support of the electorate than the other candidates in a race.  If we don’t have a ranking system like that, we either continue to have problems with “spoiled” results, or we have a couple of major party candidates that have been “anointed” by corrupted party nomination processes when people don’t have any way through those two parties or through other third parties to provide other choices to choose from.

                Vote AGAINST the race to the bottom by both corporate parties who seek to screw workers over globally!                                                                                  
                • Bakunin Backup (846 posts)
                  Profile photo of Bakunin Backup

                  119. Thanks for your response to the response to my OP (2 above)

                  We are discussing that in Canada now, the benefits and hindrances of proportional representation, and it is a lively debate to say the least.

                  Darling, ya give me a rope and I'll hang myself, It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, Don't have to be fucking brilliant to see, I'm not as smart as I seem to be, I'm not as bright as I used to be, I'm not as sharp as I think I am, I'm not as smart as I seem, I'm not as bright as I seem.
              • Bakunin Backup (846 posts)
                Profile photo of Bakunin Backup

                120. I wasn't aware of that particular quirk in your Constitution…

                it’ll give me something to read up on. Cheers.

                Darling, ya give me a rope and I'll hang myself, It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, Don't have to be fucking brilliant to see, I'm not as smart as I seem to be, I'm not as bright as I used to be, I'm not as sharp as I think I am, I'm not as smart as I seem, I'm not as bright as I seem.
                • davidgmills (3834 posts)
                  Profile photo of davidgmills Donor
                  French Revolution; not secession.
                  • Bakunin Backup (846 posts)
                    Profile photo of Bakunin Backup

                    123. Bookmarked for future reading. Thank you.

                    Darling, ya give me a rope and I'll hang myself, It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, Don't have to be fucking brilliant to see, I'm not as smart as I seem to be, I'm not as bright as I used to be, I'm not as sharp as I think I am, I'm not as smart as I seem, I'm not as bright as I seem.
          • davidgmills (3834 posts)
            Profile photo of davidgmills Donor

            65. We actually do have a parliamentary system

            If we throw the election to the house and senate.  I have written about it many times on this board.  We actually only need a few EC’s to do it.  But that really requires much more of a local focus than a national one.  I think Stein and Johnson are making a mistake not focusing on trying to get a few states to throw the election to the house and senate.

            French Revolution; not secession.
          • Dragonfli (676 posts)
            Profile photo of Dragonfli Donor

            92. You are clear, concise, and possess a goal worthy of achieving

            You have my full agreement and support. If it helps (if nothing else your ability to glean the choices of some voters), I will tell you whom I am voting for for president, Jill Stein, who is indeed on the ballot in NYS.

            Lesser evilism must be defeated somehow, your plans are perfect for allowing an atmosphere that will greatly reduce its power over the electorate, besides voting integrity itself (the counting appears often cheated for some reason) Ranked Choice Voting appears to me to be the second most important road to cross, if not as equally important.

            I applaud you and all you have written.

            “We must dissent from the indifference. We must dissent from the apathy. We must dissent from the fear, the hatred and the mistrust. We must dissent from a nation that has buried its head in the sand, waiting in vain for the needs of its poor, its elderly, and its sick to disappear and just blow away. We must dissent from a government that has left its young without jobs, education or hope. We must dissent from the poverty of vision and the absence of moral leadership. We must dissent because America can do better, because America has no choice but to do better.” Thurgood Marshall    

      • JimLane (836 posts)
        Profile photo of Jim Lane

        54. You got your wish in 2000 and it didn't work.

        Your ideal is “having a more sizable set of voters going for a candidate like Jill Stein than the ultimate victory margin between the two major parties, especially if the Democratic Party loses by a margin smaller than the size of the number of voters voting for Stein.”  Yup, that was 2000.  In both Florida and New Hampshire, the official tally (the one that counted for practical purposes) had the Democratic Party losing by a margin smaller than the size of the number of voters voting for the Green Party.  Furthermore, if the Democratic candidate had been awarded the electoral votes of either of those states, he would have become President.

         

        Your expectation if it happens again this year: “Then they will try to BLAME Stein for it, but the voter will increasingly see that as a BULL$HIT analysis of the situation….” Is that what happened in 2000?  Nope.  The voters largely agreed with what you all a BULL$HIT analysis.  In 2000 Nader got just under 2.9 million votes on the Green Party line.  In 2004, Nader as an independent and David Cobb on the Green Party line combined for fewer than 600,000.  Even Nader’s own former running mate, Winona LaDuke, decided that the Green Party was not the way to go.  She endorsed Kerry.  We suffered through four years of Bush and we most certainly didn’t have a Green Party renaissance as compensation.

         

         

        • Fasttense (798 posts)
          Profile photo of Fasttense Donor

          59. In 2000 Gore won based on vote counts

          He only lost because Papa bush got his Supreme Court to vote in W and stop the ballot counting.

          This BS that somehow Nadar kept Gore from winning was an excuse used by the bushes to hide their cheating.

          Gore should have called his supporters out in the streets.

          • JimLane (836 posts)
            Profile photo of Jim Lane

            69. I was doing my best to avoid this distraction.

            If I had a dollar for every DU post I’ve read in which some Naderite says that Gore won, I could keep Manny in hamster feed for a year.

             

            My personal opinion is that Bush won, because to me “won” means “was inaugurated and got to decide whom to appoint to the Supreme Court and whether to launch imperialist wars and so on.”  My opinion is further that Bush won because of several factors, including but not limited to the illegal purge of 50,000 Florida voters, Nader’s decision to exercise his right to run in the general election instead of his right to run in the Democratic primaries, the butterfly ballots, the Brooks Brothers riot, the wrongful SCOTUS decision, and some bad luck for Gore.

             

            So I say that Bush won, partly through cheating, and Naderites say that Gore won.  This bickering over the meaning of the word “won” is pointless.  That’s why, in my post that you’re answering, I didn’t say that Gore lost or that Bush won.  I wrote instead of what the official vote tallies were and of who became President, objective facts that no reasonable person can dispute.  I did so to accommodate the Nader backers who object to the statement that Gore lost.  I wanted to talk about the substance instead of the semantics.

             

            As your post exemplifies, it didn’t work.

             

            Can you tell me how to phrase the summary of 2000 in a way that will not send us down this blind alley?

             

            The context here is that cascadiance and I are discussing the likely consequences for 2020 (and, I suppose, beyond) of a particular possible outcome in 2016.  For purposes of that discussion, what matters is how 2000 is viewed by the relevant decision-maker(s).  My argument is that the “blame Nader” view was widely held yet it did not produce a marked leftward movement in the Democratic Party in 2004; therefore, a comparable 2016 outcome (the Republican wins becomes President, but the Democrat would have become President if all the Green voters had instead voted Democratic) will also not produce such a leftward movement.

            • cascadiance (1386 posts)
              Profile photo of cascadiance

              77. Last time it WAS the Supreme Court that gave the election to Bush…

              … not Nader, as some who were trying to find sources to blame were trying to focus on instead of the arguably unconstitutional way that the Supreme Court stepped in and halted the recount process in Florida that according to newspapers (many of which were part of the company I worked for at the time – Knight Ridder ) studied the ballot counts and said that a recount would have given the state to Gore.

              This time around, the Republicans won’t have a Supreme Court to step in and trump the election results if we have another “Florida” state this year, as it won’t have a right wing majority on it like it had then.  So, if a plurality from a third party candidate gives a crucial state to the other party this year, it will be a lot more clear this time than it was last time that this will be the culprit than it was then, when arguably the spoiler effect by the Greens and Nader didn’t conclusively affect the outcome of the election then.

              If it does conclusively help decide the election this time, then a lot more attention will be focused on how the electorate decided to move away from the two major parties this time who aren’t giving the voters a choice that they can support through their corrupt nomination processes, and that as a result, especially if it goes to the House for a final vote, the voters in general will see how our current system is broken in serving the will of the people that isn’t being represented by our current broken system the way it is set up.  People with such a result will, I think, be more open to having others propose changes like Ranked Choice Voting to give them more choices and not a plurality minority supported candidate win, or a choice between two candidates as the only choices that most people hate.  We didn’t have two candidates in 2000 that had as much negative ratings by voters as we have this time around too.

              Vote AGAINST the race to the bottom by both corporate parties who seek to screw workers over globally!                                                                                  
              • JimLane (836 posts)
                Profile photo of Jim Lane

                88. We probably won't agree about 2000, so what about 1992?

                The percentages of the popular vote were: Bill Clinton, 43.0%; George H. W. Bush, 37.4%; Ross Perot, 18.9%.  Clinton had a majority of the votes only in Arkansas and the District of Columbia.  Bush didn’t have the majority anywhere.

                 

                If either major party had managed to keep its voters while attracting all the Perot voters, it would have won a historic landslide, with 500+ electoral votes.  So why didn’t the consequences listed in your final paragraph come to pass?

                 

                My view is that the reaction to a “spoiler” election, no matter how clear-cut the spoiler effect is, just doesn’t follow the path hoped for by you and others.  If Clinton wins while Trump+Johnson would have been a majority, or if Trump wins while Clinton+Stein would have been a majority, it won’t matter.  It will be pretty much business as usual in the major parties.  The only effect will be what we saw in 2004, namely a sharp decline in support for the minor party that was widely (whether rightly or wrongly) perceived as a spoiler.

                • cascadiance (1386 posts)
                  Profile photo of cascadiance

                  90. The economy this year is far closer to being a pre-depression economy than 1992

                  If Clinton wasn’t able to get a majority of EC votes, things might have been different.  The strategy still I believe is like others have said, to get as many votes splintering away from the major parties where we could send it to the House if no majority of EC votes are gained.

                  So what do you propose as a way to uncorrupt the two major parties, which many of us feel are even in worse shape than they were then?  And at least then we had the League of Women Voters managing the debates then instead of the Uber corporate party (both major party are the “sub parties” of), which finds more ways to keep debates today from having any opposition to the FAKE divide (on just social issues) that is engineered today to keep the country “divided” on social issues to avoid them uniting against the corporate bastards that continue to steal more from us each day.

                  Business as usual the way THEY want us to vote of voting for the lesser of two evils hasn’t worked and won’t work, and will only continue to make things worse and worse.  Something has to change.  Maybe we won’t win this time, but if we don’t try, we’ve already lost, and therefore lost any sense of having a democracy that our founders wanted us to have here.

                  If you have a better idea, please put it out there!  We’re all ears.  But until we hear one, we’re going to TRY these other ideas and advocate more of us Americans who are fed up like we are to join us.

                  If we could get at least one of the third party candidates in the debate, that could grow support for the third parties in general.  I wonder if we could also have Jill Stein meet with Gary Johnson and come up something like the following as a strategy in case only one of them is able to break through to get in the debates.

                  Perhaps whoever gets in to the debates, whenever they get to answer a question, they could put forth a brief quick summary of where they think the other third party candidate’s view would be (and preface the debates by saying that they don’t necessarily agree with the other third party candidates’ views, but that they believe that they should have been invited and heard for their supporters, and at least give a quick answer to summarize their view before a more detailed answer of their own views).  I think that would get a lot of support for both third party candidates, and I think both of them, though they might not have many areas of common agreement, agree that if together they can take away vote from the two major parties, that they both will ultimately win, and Americans feeling like they aren’t being represented by Trump or Clinton will have their viewpoints heard too, and be more inclined to vote for either of them than Trump or Clinton by them answering in this way.

                  Vote AGAINST the race to the bottom by both corporate parties who seek to screw workers over globally!                                                                                  
                  • JimLane (836 posts)
                    Profile photo of Jim Lane

                    102. My "better idea" is the one that Bernie is advocating.

                    Many people on JPR assert that working within the Democratic Party to achieve progressive change will be very difficult, fraught with obstacles, at best a long-term project with no guarantee of success.

                    And they’re absolutely right.

                    The flaw in the argument, however, is that it’s logically incomplete unless the same standards are applied to any other course that’s asserted to be preferable.  My judgment is that, as compared with working within the Democratic Party, the alternative of the Green Party will be even more difficult, fraught with greater obstacles, at best a longer-term project with even less likelihood of success.

                    The comparison merits a book-length treatment, but if I reduce 400 pages to a short list:

                    • There are literally scores of millions of people who are far less ideologically oriented than the JPR/DU/Free Republic types, but who have a “brand loyalty” toward the Democratic Party.  These are people who will strongly tend to vote for the Democratic candidate, whoever wins the nomination.  The vast majority of those who supported Clinton in the primaries would now be supporting Bernie if he were the nominee.  Neither the Green Party nor any other minor party can become a major party without somehow moving that enormous mass of voters who don’t read political message boards.
                    • Numerous institutional factors favor the two major parties, starting with single-member-districts-plurality-voting.  Yes, if we threw out most of the incumbents we could switch over to IRV.  And if we switched over to IRV maybe we could throw out most of the incumbents.  Similarly, if the Greens were in the debates they’d have more support, and if they had more support they’d be in the debates.
                    • Just as the obstacles to Green success are played down, the obstacles to intra-party success are exaggerated.  Consider 2016.  Before anyone had announced, Hillary Clinton had the largest lead in the polls of any nonincumbent since modern polling began.  Despite her formidable head start, Bernie got more than 40% of the votes.  I’d rather try to turn 40-some percent into 50%, to win the nomination, than try to turn 0.36% (Stein’s share in the general election in 2012)  into enough to win the election.
                    • Warren Stupidity (40 posts)
                      Profile photo of Warren Stupidity

                      115. You're wasting your time.

                      The consensus here is that somehow we don’t really have a plurality system that locks in the two party duopoly. I’ve got no place over on DU and I’ve got no place here. DU is an echo chamber for centrist Democrats and this place has people advocating voting for Trump.

                      • JimLane (836 posts)
                        Profile photo of Jim Lane

                        117. I know what you mean about not having a place.

                        I’m still on DU as well as on here, and each site has some worthwhile stuff.  Nevertheless, DU, which is indeed now an echo chamber, is nowhere near as good as it used to be; JPR, along with the Trump supporters, has people who think Stein’s share of the vote will be in the double digits.

                         

                        I wonder what will happen after the election.  I think Skinner will lighten up somewhat.  On DU, criticism of Obama has at least been permitted, although of course there’s been a contingent ready to scream insults at anyone who suggests that Obama was less than perfect.  I doubt, though, that he’ll un-purge people like Manny and WillyT.  In addition, many of the people who got fed up and left probably won’t go back.  Over here, it will be taken as an article of faith that Stein’s result of 1.5% of the vote (or whatever she gets in the official tally) was the product of nationwide fraud and corruption.  If Clinton wins, JPR will be almost as inhospitable to praise of anything she does as DU will be inhospitable to criticism.

                         

                        What would have happened if Skinner hadn’t been so heavy-handed as to prompt the creation of JPR?  No way to tell.  Perhaps it’s the nature of the internet that discussion boards tend to become echo chambers.

            • Fasttense (798 posts)
              Profile photo of Fasttense Donor

              105. So, you are saying a cheat is as good as a win?

              I do Not consider someone who cheated and was caught cheating to be a winner. Obviously in this vulture capitalism society all ethics are put aside so that cheating and illegal actions are considered winning, as long as most of the populist does nothing about it.

              So, I guess we can say, using your definition of won, that Pinochet and Stalin also won their elections to lead and control their respective countries.

              • JimLane (836 posts)
                Profile photo of Jim Lane

                106. No, I am not saying that. (n/t)

        • davidgmills (3834 posts)
          Profile photo of davidgmills Donor

          62. It didn't work in 2000 and it probably will not work this time

          But if we keep at it, it might some day.   We have nothing to lose.

          French Revolution; not secession.
          • JimLane (836 posts)
            Profile photo of Jim Lane

            70. I applaud your realism but I disagree with you on strategy.

            First, I think the chance that “it might {work} some day” is virtually zero.

             

            Second, as to what we have to lose: We have the negative policy consequences of four years of a Republican in office, plus the negative political consequences (because progressives have to expend their time and energy opposing bad things instead of working for good things).  In the longer term, what we have to lose is the weakening of the effort to transform the Democratic Party.  Achieving success through the Democratic Party will be very difficult, but less difficult than transforming Jill Stein’s 0.36% of the vote (in 2012) into a Green Party victory.  Note that, for all the tremendous obstacles (fair and unfair) that Bernie faced, he came much, much closer to success than the Green Party ever has.

            • davidgmills (3834 posts)
              Profile photo of davidgmills Donor

              82. Your post is exactly why I want this board split up —

              I don’t want to waste my time arguing this shit.

              I have posted extensively on a 12th amendment strategy that could change the system by throwing the election to the house and senate.  That is what I want to happen.   And it might only take a few EC’s.

              If Nader had won NH in 2000, that election would have gone to the house and senate.  And even if Bush became President we might not have had Cheney as VP.  As bad as Lieberman was, he was no Dick Cheney.  So your strategy got us Dick Cheney.

              French Revolution; not secession.
              • JimLane (836 posts)
                Profile photo of Jim Lane

                84. It's been split up. There's a Third Party forum.

                I generally stay out of the Third Party forum because I’m very negative on the third-party strategy and that forum is a “safe haven” (to use the DU term) for people who are enthusiastic about the strategy.

                 

                I understand your point about 2000.  If Nader, who actually received 3.90% of the vote in New Hampshire, had magically vaulted into the lead, then the election would indeed have gone to the House.

                 

                What I don’t understand is your charge that my strategy gave us Dick Cheney.  My strategy is that, except in the rare cases where a minor-party or independent candidate has a chance to win, people should vote in the general election for the major-party candidate whom they think will do the better job.  If Nader voters in 2000 had switched over to my strategy, then some would have voted for Bush, some would have voted for Gore, but exit polls showed that the net gain for Gore would have been enough to give him a cheatproof margin in Florida.  Cheney would have been sent back to Halliburton, not the Vice Presidency.

                • davidgmills (3834 posts)
                  Profile photo of davidgmills Donor

                  86. I don't care to revist Nader.

                  And I really don’t care to discuss Clinton vs. Trump.  Not voting for either.  I am moving on from the two party system.

                  And no the third party forum is not a safe haven.

                  French Revolution; not secession.
      • eridani (1429 posts)
        Profile photo of eridani Donor

        56. I think that fusion voting is much more likely to get more parties involved

        –than ranked choice voting.   Besides which, IRV dramatically escalates the opportunities for election theft.

        You've heard of the Good Witch of the North and the Wicked Witch of the West, right?  I'm the Morally Ambiguous Witch of the Northwest.
        • cascadiance (1386 posts)
          Profile photo of cascadiance

          73. One could do a combination of fusion voting and ranked choice voting…

          Alan Zundel, who is running for SOS here in Oregon for the Greens is a strong proponent of Ranked Choice Voting here in a state where we already have a form of Fusion voting put in place here.  He’s got an article discussing on how these systems could be blended together more constructively than it is now to get a better voting system in place. Read more here.

          http://www.rcvoregon.org/moving-fusion-voting-toward-ranked-choice/#comments

          I would love to have ranked choice voting here in this election in Oregon to give my first and second choices to Brad Avakian and Alan Zundel, not necessarily in that order, as they both have been very good pols here, and I want to ensure that both get credit for speaking out on things I want, and have my vote counted for either one of them over the Republican opponent they have.

          It would appear that even with fusion voting in place, the Greens here in Oregon (and many of us wanting MORE choices, not just having a Green Party “stamp” on a choice made by the Democratic Party for their candidate that we’ve seen to be corrupted in many cases) want to have a form of ranked choice voting to allow us more choices, but not more spoilers in future elections.

          Vote AGAINST the race to the bottom by both corporate parties who seek to screw workers over globally!                                                                                  
          • eridani (1429 posts)
            Profile photo of eridani Donor

            97. Ranked choice voting is an election integrity disaster

            Pierce County in WA State tried to implement it and fouled it up royally.  I am dissatisfied with the inadequate audits we are currently stuck with.

            You've heard of the Good Witch of the North and the Wicked Witch of the West, right?  I'm the Morally Ambiguous Witch of the Northwest.
            • cascadiance (1386 posts)
              Profile photo of cascadiance

              98. It sounds like it is more of a problem with the way it has been implemented…

              … not so much with the concept of ranked choice voting itself.  I have to look more in to what occurred here, but I hope you aren’t confusing ranked choice voting with “top two” runoff voting which both California and Washington have now, and fortunately Oregon voted down in the last election.  That is the polar opposite of ranked choice voting and is a worse system than what most of us have with closed primaries leading to a general election that most of the rest of the country has.

              Any voting system in a given locale can be an implementation disaster if done without regard to things like having decent ways of recording people’s votes in a recountable fashion that really only paper ballots provide amongst other things.

              That’s why I’m hoping that I can talk Senator Merkley and other congressional members here in to having someone do a lot of work providing a means to have ranked choice ballots be an option for what gets deployed as part of the standardized “vote by mail” system they are trying to pass in congress now.  That is where, by having a lot more scrutiny and more nationally focused attention on providing a well tested and implemented system, that we’d avoid the implementation problems that you perhaps are speaking of, if such do exist.

              Ranked choice voting in my book, still is the best way to provide people choices beyond the “lesser of two evils” voting that we have in place now, and not too many other voting systems can get us away from that problem that are out there now.

              Vote AGAINST the race to the bottom by both corporate parties who seek to screw workers over globally!                                                                                  
              • eridani (1429 posts)
                Profile photo of eridani Donor

                99. Ranked choice voting left Dem officholders dominating San Francisco

                Vermont, with fusion voting, had the Progressive Party as a very strong third party, with Greens and the Working Families Party also playing key roles at the state level.  The proof is in the pudding.

                You've heard of the Good Witch of the North and the Wicked Witch of the West, right?  I'm the Morally Ambiguous Witch of the Northwest.
      • 2bAnon (3534 posts)
        Profile photo of 2bAnon Donor

        130. if Hillary loses to him, because they chose to put in Clinton,

        if Hillary loses to him, because they chose to put in Clinton, who was more likely to lose to Trump (who therefore they support!) than Sanders would have if they hadn’t rigged the system to keep him from being nominated.

         

        And that my dear friend is the bottom line.   They wanted her, they rigged the game to make sure she would be the ONE, and now they’re suddenly faced with the reality that the majority of the Public does NOT TRUST HER.

        And now they’re blaming us because the majority of the public does not trust her, and her polls show it as they have shown all along.   But we’re to blame for that.  Cog Dis running at an all time high.

         

        http://jackpineradicals.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/sergiolara2-1.mp3

    • dlegendary1 (686 posts)
      Profile photo of dlegendary1 Donor

      14. Right on!

      1 + 1 ≠ Trump. Enough with the scare tactics. If he becomes president its because she was too weak to beat him period.

    • Phlem (354 posts)
      Profile photo of Phlem Donor

      17. Sing it Brother!

      The Shillary’s are Dumber than a sack of rocks.

      I tried to debate them at the other place and as soon as I started using verifiable data, they resorted to name calling and other completely childish things.

      They are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, to stupid for there own good.

      We are where we are as a country because of those exact hillbillies.

      FUCK ALL OF THEM!

    • EmmaG (902 posts)
      Profile photo of EmmaG Donor

      19. They are so f-ing arrogant and stupid.

      I am voting for Stein as long as TX is not close (and I don’t expect it to be – “Hillary for Prison” is the most common bumper sticker I see down here).  If it’s close I’ll vote for whoever has a chance of beating her.

      When I said “dem-exit” I meant it.

      #DemExit #StillSanders #JusticeDems #GoGreen
      • grouchomarxist (130 posts)
        Profile photo of grouchomarxist

        48. i never thought i'd see the day i was agreeing with REPUBLICANS

        on major issues.

        conversely my neck of the woods seems bizarrely trump-phobic.  i get it, there are plenty of reasons to not like that guy, but calling him a psychopath is pushing the manufactured outrage dial to 11.

      • Major Hogwash (1147 posts)
        Profile photo of Major Hogwash

        68. There seems to be some folks in Texas smoking crack.

        I was talking to a guy from Texas on Facebook the other day, and he claimed that Texas may turn blue this year.

        I sat back in amazement at his positive attitude, and I wondered to myself if it could be true. Because of Hillary? That didn’t make much sense to me. So, then it crossed my mind that he might be smoking crack while pontificating on the internet about politics.

        So, I replied back to him and told him, “Well, yeah, that might happen. But if it does, it will be because of all of the Democrats who are busy holding their breath while voting for Hillary.”

        He laughed, and replied back at me, “Yeah, well, we can always fantasize about getting rid of some of the worst of the worst Republicans down here anyway.” He told me that the new Texas Governor ( I can’t remember his name off hand) is just as bad as Perry was, who was just as bad as Bush was when he was the Governor.

        I told him I know how it is, existing here in Idaho, that I’m not really living, but just existing. I told him that I was thinking of moving to Colorado, where they just put single payer option healthcare on the ballot. I told him that Bernie was the only Senator who came out publicly to support it. He told me that he had been dreaming of moving out of Texas for the last 25 years, but said he can’t decide which state would be better to live in. He said with Texas sharing borders with Louisiana,  Arkansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico, it made him feel surrounded by the enemy.

        I told him I know how that feels, too. I also told him that I only stayed here mainly because of family. But, I’m getting to the point now that I think it would be better to live somewhere where they didn’t have so many damn conservative idiots in charge of everything. Watching them fuck up my state at the city level, the county level, and the state level for the last 30 years has been bad for my peace of mind.

        • EmmaG (902 posts)
          Profile photo of EmmaG Donor

          85. I'd be shocked if TX turns blue – you saw what happened with Wendy Davis –

          and people didn’t think she belonged in jail.  They just didn’t really care for her.  They despise Hillary Clinton.  So, I don’t see that happening.

          #DemExit #StillSanders #JusticeDems #GoGreen
    • ThomPaine (2299 posts)
      Profile photo of ThomPaine Moderator

      22. Their arrogance is unbelievable. During the primary they insulted

      the left w/o explaining how they disagree with our positions.  Now they want to bully us into supporting Hillary.  They don’t know us if they think we will act like them.  They kowtow to their authoritarian leaders and expect us to also kowtow.

      aka rhett o rick.      If I speak out against either Hillary or Trump, it doesn't mean I favor the other.  That should go without saying.
    • Gracchus (1030 posts)
      Profile photo of Gracchus

      23. Can you imagine what would happen if Trump won?

      The Hillbots would be attacking the Left more than the Right. It would be Ralph Nader 2000 all over again, only multiplied by 1,000.

      • djean111 (2673 posts)
        Profile photo of djean111 Donor

        25. And – so what? I don't need their good opinion.

        The Hilbots are just noisy buzzing gnats.  I’ll tell you what I can’t imagine – caring what they think.  Or do.  Or say.

        You think the only reason that people won't vote for a warmongering Third Way fracking-enabling cluster bomb throwing H-1B increasing lying pandering corporate and Wall Street shill who says she has no problem putting abortion rights on the table is because we are mad about Bernie?  Um, nope.
      • Shlabotnik (439 posts)
        Profile photo of Shlabotnik Donor

        26. At that point who cares

        The Clintons would be DONE, and their toady cult would be obsolete.

        ~ All Good things are Wild and Free ~
        • Fawke Em (2491 posts)
          Profile photo of Fawke Em Donor

          43. And that would be the best thing for the country.

             
          • EmmaG (902 posts)
            Profile photo of EmmaG Donor

            67. Agreed. nt

            #DemExit #StillSanders #JusticeDems #GoGreen
        • Sriracha (2153 posts)
          Profile photo of Sriracha Donor

          47. Now there's a wonderful thought.

          Thanks for that.

          :bananas:

        • 2bAnon (3534 posts)
          Profile photo of 2bAnon Donor

          131. They're grooming Chelsea as we speak

          I wish they’d get the goddam message. How many election cycles do we have to get through for these people to get it? Sure they have rig them all to win, but that’s a lot of fucking rigging they have to do to “win”.

           

          http://jackpineradicals.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/sergiolara2-1.mp3

    • Piperay (385 posts)
      Profile photo of Piperay

      24. Truth … Hillary has never gotten my vote and my vote was never going

      to her no matter what.

      BERNIE SANDERS 2020
    • Bakunin Backup (846 posts)
      Profile photo of Bakunin Backup

      29. As a lifelong NDP voter in Canada, I've always heard this BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Fuck the fake leftists, they just want their two cars and big screen TVs–who cares if your neighbor can’t retire before 70, I’ve got mine and fuck you and your not mine ass–bunch of bootlickers who’ll think they’ll be millionaires anyday now, I just know it.

      Darling, ya give me a rope and I'll hang myself, It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, Don't have to be fucking brilliant to see, I'm not as smart as I seem to be, I'm not as bright as I used to be, I'm not as sharp as I think I am, I'm not as smart as I seem, I'm not as bright as I seem.
      • Shlabotnik (439 posts)
        Profile photo of Shlabotnik Donor

        44. Yeah but the Liberals have been winning using the same fear card.

        “If you vote for the NDP then the Conservatives win”.  And. Sadly. It. Works.

        I’ve always rejected voting out of fear, and have cast my ballot almost entirely for the NDP ever since the early nineties. (The one exception was when Rae was about to be booted (which I had no problem with) I voted Communist party)

        ~ All Good things are Wild and Free ~
        • Bakunin Backup (846 posts)
          Profile photo of Bakunin Backup

          49. Rae was a Liberal then, and he replaced Dion after his epic failure…

          as leader of the party. Bob Rae was always a centrist like Tom Mulcair, “let’s go to the right of the Cons on economic issues, I know my party right? Duurrr!”

          Jack Layton would have won this last election, and maybe he would have sold us out, but who knows? What we do know is Mulcair’s Obama like sellout before the election cost him, not only the election, but his unearned leadership position. And, his ideology that was corrupting our party.

          Darling, ya give me a rope and I'll hang myself, It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, Don't have to be fucking brilliant to see, I'm not as smart as I seem to be, I'm not as bright as I used to be, I'm not as sharp as I think I am, I'm not as smart as I seem, I'm not as bright as I seem.
          • Shlabotnik (439 posts)
            Profile photo of Shlabotnik Donor

            50. I was talkin Provincial, back in the early 90s

            when Rae was the NDP premier, and sold us out, showing us his Liberal underbelly.

            ~ All Good things are Wild and Free ~
            • Bakunin Backup (846 posts)
              Profile photo of Bakunin Backup

              51. I gotcha, in BC I miss Glen Clark–he was cool.

              Darling, ya give me a rope and I'll hang myself, It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, Don't have to be fucking brilliant to see, I'm not as smart as I seem to be, I'm not as bright as I used to be, I'm not as sharp as I think I am, I'm not as smart as I seem, I'm not as bright as I seem.
    • MRM1024 (235 posts)
      Profile photo of MRM1024

      60. Yes!

      A vote for Stein is a vote for Stein and I am voting for … Stein! :)

       

    • olddots (1776 posts)
      Profile photo of olddots

      75. Hillary voters are the extreme low information voters

      They are delusional and we are not qualified to give them the mental health help they need so much that they are blind to it .

      • Maedhros (425 posts)
        Profile photo of Maedhros

        87. True, Hillary is counting on the easily fooled to sweep her into office.

        However I wouldn’t characterize the activist Hillary supporters as “low information” – they are very well “informed,”  It’s just that their information comes from controlled pro-Hillary sources.

        I would characterize them as “high propaganda” voters.

    • TheKentuckian (40 posts)
      Profile photo of TheKentuckian

      89. I am continously stunned how "The Math!"

      people cannot or more likely dishonestly will not grasp the simple principles of addition.

    • tomm2thumbs (1021 posts)
      Profile photo of tomm2thumbs

      94. putting Hillary on the ballot is akin to taking a sh*t on America

      same as Trump, just different color and consistency

       

    • NuttyFluffers (1744 posts)
      Profile photo of NuttyFluffers

      95. i'd just end the conversation: "you're desperate, delusional, & bad at math."

      and then not even enetertain any of their rejoinders. why bother with cultists?

    • Peacebird (719 posts)
      Profile photo of Peacebird Donor

      104. Notenthat hillbots never offer positive reasons FOR Hillary, only FEAR

      • JimLane (836 posts)
        Profile photo of Jim Lane

        107. I consider the overruling of Citizens United a positive thing.

        I don’t know whether you include me in the ranks of “hillbots” but I’ll offer you a prediction:

        If Hillary Clinton is elected then the Supreme Court will overrule its decision in Citizens United — probably in time for the 2020 election but certainly in time for the 2024 election.

        My reasoning is that it was a 5-4 decision in which every Justice appointed by a Democratic President dissented.  Clinton, if elected, will, like all Presidents, announce that she seeks only qualified nominees and does not impose any ideological litmus test, and will, like all Presidents, be lying.  Anyone she appoints will vote to overrule.

        • Peacebird (719 posts)
          Profile photo of Peacebird Donor

          111. Hills LOVES Citizens United. Makes her fundraising SO much easier

           

           

        • Chwaliszewski (13 posts)
          Profile photo of Chwaliszewski

          133. I've gotta disagree with you, Jim

          Citizens United actually helped Hillary during the primaries.  Her concern with overturning C U is about as believable as W promising his base he’d overturn Roe v Wade.  It’s all lip service.  Trump would be an evil, idiotic, embarrassment of a president.  Hillary would be ineffectual and self-serving as president.  Bernie was the only choice.

    • U4ikLefty (233 posts)
      Profile photo of U4ikLefty

      108. We have one obvious Dem shill on this thread.

      I am actually quite amused by the tired old talking points we heard on DU being repeated.

      Proud to be a spoiled brat
    • azurnoir (1386 posts)
      Profile photo of azurnoir Donor

      110. OMFG it's like they took the script they used against Bernie

      and penciled in Jill Stein’s name instead of his

    • 2bAnon (3534 posts)
      Profile photo of 2bAnon Donor

      124. They remind me of Freepers – Kool Aid Drinkers

      Bush Was Their Guy, and anyone who wasn’t  for Bush was Unpatriotic, The WMD Lies was “Tin Foil Hat Left Loony Conspiracy blather”  Torture was what we should do with “terrists”  and G’tmo was just A-O-K . Cheney’s Halliburton profiting from this War and Blackwater, No Problemo. and on and on and on and on.

      Clinton’s conflict of interests issues are just as momentous as Bush Cheney’s but HRH supporters are, just as Bush supporters were, blinded in their Kool Aid Cult fetish for her and her sleazy corrupt sociopathic husband.

      We warned them not to trot her out again. We urged them to consider Bernie’s popularity over Trump was by far greater than HRH’s would ever be.

      I can count 1000 + reasons why I didn’t vote for her in 2008. Yes, I knew Obama was a Third Way’r too, but I voted for the lesser of two evils when I voted for Obama, because at least he wasn’t a Clinton.

      I didn’t vote for her in 2008 and I damn sure ain’t going to vote for her 2016.  Instead of 1000+ reasons why NOT to vote her in 2008, take that number to the power of  100,000 reasons why NOT to vote for her now.

      She’s YOUR problem now Hillary Lurkers.   Just go Fuck Off.

       

       

       

       

      http://jackpineradicals.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/sergiolara2-1.mp3

    • PatrynXX (339 posts)
      Profile photo of PatrynXX Donor

      132. pretty much

      got that BS from my mom.  we usually agree with things on politics.  she’s not for hillary but she says a vote for anyone else is a vote for trump and actually said I’m obviously voting for trump.  sigh yeah how can a non Hillary supporter say that I have no idea.  :(