Support NeoGAF

[Box of Kittens]

There are no progressive policies from Democratic favorites so we're left with another decision entirely. We can have another few decades of Republican-lite candidates and, at best, center-right Supreme Court placements through an intransigent Congress or 4 years of Trump and some painful Supreme Court appointments that serve as electroconvulsive therapy and breaks this cycle of Democratic mediocrity once and for all. As I stated earlier, the Democratic party is happy to continue this cycle in perpetuity until something truly horrific happens to wake up and unify the party. Perhaps a loss to Trump is the horrific affliction that finally awakens the party to the realization that chasing the Republicans rightward toward the cliff and expecting liberals to keep following their hollow promises of a carrot to come was the wrong move entirely.

People made the same arguments about George W. Bush winning the presidency.

 

[Melkezadek]

That's one issue that was important to you. There are others, important to other people. I don't see how your story negates their desire to have those issues fought for, or proves that I "don't know what I'm talking about" when I point out this simple fact.

And by the way, Hillary has a terrible track record on race and gay marriage even if there weren't other issues.

Do you not understand that scapegoating and rallying violence against minorities is more than "Just one issue". Do you understand the weight of that issue? Its historical relevance? Even if you aren't a minority, it goes against everything America is supposed to stand for. A war was fought over it.

Question for you: Is that not a huge deal to you? Maybe not your only deal, but do you understand the ramifications if someone like that gets in office?

 

[Mael]

The way America is going, this is the only freedom many people have, the only way to get their voice heard.

Getting one's voice heard is the point of democracy.

Their voices won't be heard at all, if you want your voice to be heard you have to speak.
In political term that means getting a candidate out there.
The presidential election is not where you decide what laws are going to be passed anyway.
If you want your voice to be heard go to your representative and if you don't like him go help someone who better represent your ideals (even yourself) to get elected.

 

[uncelestial]

She's a fucking angel compared to Voldemort Trump, trying to frame her as a Republican in Dem clothing will not get you far.

I wouldn't dare. I'm voting for her in the GE. But to be honest, it really seems like she only came to the right side of those issues because people like me critiqued her from the left. She referred constantly to her "white voting base" that made her more "electable" in 08, and was perfectly happy where she was on gay marriage until 2000bloody13. So, you can understand if someone finds themselves more well-represented by a third-party candidate, or by not voting at all.

I buy all the arguments about lesser of two evils and "best chance we have for progress" or whatever you want to call it. But the lashing out and namecalling of people who are using their voting rights the way they see fit is really messed up.

Do you not understand that scapegoating and rallying violence against minorities is more than "Just one issue". Do you understand the weight of that issue? Its historical relevance? Even if you aren't a minority, it goes against everything America is supposed to stand for. A war was fought over it.

Question for you: Is that not a huge deal to you? Maybe not your only deal, but do you understand the ramifications if someone like that gets in office?

I think you have me mistaken for someone else.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Reading a few comments on this thread and it makes me upset that everyone is instantly assuming that Trump will take us back culturally and whatnot.

Poor you. Upset because people whose livelihood is being threatened decide to speak out against your candidate.

 

[dLMN8R]

"Aren't you tired of centrist Democrats?"


Aren't YOU fucking tired of being in Iraq because of assholes who voted for a third party instead of Gore, leading to 8 years of the disastrous Bush administration?

 

[NotBacon]

Hillary is a garbage candidate. No way in hell is she getting my vote. If it comes to that choice, I'm going 3rd party.

 

[uncelestial]

Yes, voting for a third party is a purple or red state, is the same as throwing away your vote. In a two party system, you are giving a vote to the other side.

If you want to complain about my post, PM a mod. Note that I did not call anyone in this thread a fucking idiot; I am expressing my sentiment about what I think of supposedly prochoice women voting against the Democratic Party this year. I'm glad you're above expressing a similar sentiment.

All I have to do to find someone that you *were* calling a "fucking idiot" is find a woman who is not voting for Hillary.

 

[jakonovski]

Their voices won't be heard at all, if you want your voice to be heard you have to speak.
In political term that means getting a candidate out there.
The presidential election is not where you decide what laws are going to be passed anyway.
If you want your voice to be heard go to your representative and if you don't like him go help someone who better represent your ideals (even yourself) to get elected.

The presidential election is for voting who ever you want.

As far as being heard, this thread is evidence of someone hearing their voice. Maybe Hillary should listen too and amend her platform to get these people to vote for her.

 

[NeoXChaos]

There are no progressive policies from Democratic favorites so we're left with another decision entirely. We can have another few decades of Republican-lite candidates and, at best, center-right Supreme Court placements through an intransigent Congress or 4 years of Trump and some painful Supreme Court appointments that serve as electroconvulsive therapy and breaks this cycle of Democratic mediocrity once and for all. As I stated earlier, the Democratic party is happy to continue this cycle in perpetuity until something truly horrific happens to wake up and unify the party. Perhaps a loss to Trump is the horrific affliction that finally awakens the party to the realization that chasing the Republicans rightward toward the cliff and expecting liberals to keep following their hollow promises of a carrot to come was the wrong move entirely.

lol. Whatever dude. Keep thinking that.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

The presidential election is for voting who ever you want.

As far as being heard, this thread is evidence of someone hearing their voice. Maybe Hillary should listen too and amend her platform to get these people to vote for her.

How will she earn their vote from such articulated and well reasoned responses such as:

Hillary is a garbage candidate. No way in hell is she getting my vote. If it comes to that choice, I'm going 3rd party.

Which by the way is ironic since voting third party is just throwing your vote to the rubbish bin.

 

[uncelestial]

"Aren't you tired of centrist Democrats?"


Aren't YOU fucking tired of being in Iraq because of assholes who voted for a third party instead of Gore, leading to 8 years of the disastrous Bush administration?

lol @ the irony of Gore losing 7 or 8 states that Clinton won by being centrist, putting Lieberman on the ticket, and telling Bill to sit on the sidelines.

Nader didn't lose us 2000. Gore did.

 

[Mael]

I wouldn't dare. I'm voting for her in the GE. But to be honest, it really seems like she only came to the right side of those issues because people like me critiqued her from the left. She referred constantly to her "white voting base" that made her more "electable" in 08, and was perfectly happy where she was on gay marriage until 2000bloody13. So, you can understand if someone finds themselves more well-represented by a third-party candidate, or by not voting at all.

I buy all the arguments about lesser of two evils and "best chance we have for progress" or whatever you want to call it. But the lashing out and namecalling of people who are using their voting rights the way they see fit is really messed up.

Wait a minute!
You know what that means?
Your voices have actually been heard last time, this was an issue that the electorate had with her and she corrected course.
I'm not saying you have to give her a blank check (might as well not vote if that was the case) but it means that she's open to criticism and will change if the outcry is big enough.

The presidential election is for voting who ever you want.

As far as being heard, this thread is evidence of someone hearing their voice. Maybe Hillary should listen too and amend her platform to get these people to vote for her.

The reason the youth vote is considered worthless is because they never follow through.
It doesn't happen overnight.
Bad politician can do good things.
Look up LBJ, he was a horrible guy but he did good.
Pressure your candidate and your representative that will make them listen than just casting a vote every 4 years.

 

[Nekofrog]

"Aren't you tired of centrist Democrats?"


Aren't YOU fucking tired of being in Iraq because of assholes who voted for a third party instead of Gore, leading to 8 years of the disastrous Bush administration?

Laying that on people who voted their conscious when the real blame goes on the actual perpetrators of the atrocity is sickening.

 

[jakonovski]

How will she earn their vote from such articulated and well reasoned responses such as:

She can't get all votes no matter what. That's also integral to democracy.

 

[AlphaDump]

Aren't YOU fucking tired of being in Iraq because of assholes who voted for a third party instead of Gore, leading to 8 years of the disastrous Bush administration?

very well played. And the reality.

 

[uncelestial]

Wait a minute!
You know what that means?
Your voices have actually been heard last time, this was an issue that the electorate had with her and she corrected course.
I'm not saying you have to give her a blank check (might as well not vote if that was the case) but it means that she's open to criticism and will change if the outcry is big enough.

We actually totally agree! That's why I'm a solid "Sanders in the primary, Hillary in the general" guy. Send the message that you're out there, show support when it counts.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Getting one's voice heard is the point of democracy.

The presidential election isn't the entirety of democracy.

And the voice in question is an already well-represented voice, as they have the privilege to waste their vote in a purely symbolic gesture with the knowledge said waste won't actually get laid at their feet later.

There are various ways for a voter to make their voice heard in a democracy, and the large percentage of them have nothing to do with electing a President.

So again, this is the decision one has to weigh when they find themselves in the privileged position of being able to use their vote as a purely symbolic gesture:

Not voting/voting unelectable third party = At least I didn't fold

or

voting Clinton = At least I tried to help.

If you can be cool with the former, then be cool with it. I'd personally go with the latter if given the option.

 

[Box of Kittens]

The sad reality is, is that the Presidency is a two party system. Now if you want to change that in the future, get out there and help your local government Green Party get elected.

One of my single biggest annoyances with the left in the U.S. is that it tends to have a very "top down" view on change where it's all about getting the ideal president and that will fix everything. Say what you want about the Tea Party, but they at least understand the importance of state and local elections. At lot of policy is made at the state level, and it's also worth noting that the reason the Republicans can win the House of Representatives even if they lose the popular vote by a large margin is that a bunch of Republican state legislatures got to draw the Congressional districts for their states. Also, as you elect people who reflect your views into local government they become the "bench" that filters up to state government and beyond. Bernie Sanders wouldn't likely be in a position to run for President had he never been elected mayor of Burlington.

 

[NotBacon]

How will she earn their vote from such articulated and well reasoned responses such as:

It wasn't meant to be articulated and well reasoned, asshole. I was stating my opinion in response to the topic. I'm not in the mood for typing out the extensive list of reasons why Hillary is a garbage candidate right now.

 

[teruterubozu]

"Aren't you tired of centrist Democrats?"


Aren't YOU fucking tired of being in Iraq because of assholes who voted for a third party instead of Gore, leading to 8 years of the disastrous Bush administration?

?
Plenty of democrats voted for the invasion.

 

[APF]

"Getting your voice heard" is getting your candidate the party nomination. If you can't do that and the party loses, then the message is going to be that the other party's ideas won.

?
Plenty of democrats voted for the invasion.

Gore was a big hawk but he wouldn't have invaded Iraq post 9/11 for no reason.

 

[Cheebo]

Laying that on people who voted their conscious when the real blame goes on the actual perpetrators of the atrocity is sickening.

Anyone who voted Nader has the blood on their hands of the dead in Iraq. Without fucking question. Just like Bush voters. I felt that way in 2000, and still do 16 years later as do countless long time loyal Democrat voters.

And if Trump wins Green/non voters are just as much to blame when he rounds up Hispanics to kick out of the county to bans Muslims from entering the country.

That's how it works, we have a two party system.

 

[Cipherr]

The question is basically:

If you're in the privileged position of being able to abstain from voting without you feeling like it'd directly harm you to do so, is the symbolic action of abstention worth the satisfaction of being able to say "at least I didn't compromise my values," as opposed to having done the bare minimum on your part to prevent shit getting automatically, appreciably worse for over half of the country's population.

That's the thing you get to weigh. Which symbolic gesture is worth more to you:

Not voting/voting unelectable third party = At least I didn't fold

or

voting Clinton = At least I tried to help.

Basically this. Easy to abstain and give zero fucks when you aren't the one in the crosshairs. There's no sense of urgency for you in that case. Im sure thats lovely.

 

[shoplifter]

Aren't YOU fucking tired of being in Iraq because of assholes who voted for a third party instead of Gore, leading to 8 years of the disastrous Bush administration?

Stop with this argument. Gore lost that election on his own by losing six States that Clinton won, including Tennessee.

Nader had an effect in ONE state.

Anyone who voted Nader has the blood on their hands of the dead in Iraq. Without fucking question. Just like Bush voters. I felt that way in 2000, and still do 16 years later as do countless long time loyal Democrat voters.

Blame everyone but the candidate. Fuck off with this nonsense.

 

[MIMIC]

"Aren't you tired of centrist Democrats?"


Aren't YOU fucking tired of being in Iraq because of assholes who voted for a third party instead of Gore, leading to 8 years of the disastrous Bush administration?

1. Blame the Supreme Court then, not Nader.
2. Nader pulled away more votes from Republicans than he did Democrats. Like some said earlier, this "Nader fucked us over" myth needs to DIE.
3. Hillary green lit that disastrous war. Is this supposed to make her look good?

 

[SecretDan]

lol. Whatever dude. Keep thinking that.

Nobody is going to take you seriously in here with an avatar like that.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

It wasn't meant to be articulated and well reasoned, asshole. I was stating my opinion in response to the topic. I'm not in the mood for typing out the extensive list of reasons why Hillary is a garbage candidate right now.

So why post if you're not even interested in sharing why you won't vote for her? Was the need to make a garbage post that powerful?

 

[TemplaerDude]

This thread is just a bunch of people taking an unassailable moral high ground whilst attacking people for sticking to their guns and telling them how "they just don't understand". Your political system is broooooken if this is what it comes to every 4 years.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

It wasn't meant to be articulated and well reasoned, asshole. I was stating my opinion in response to the topic. I'm not in the mood for typing out the extensive list of reasons why Hillary is a garbage candidate right now.

Was the juvenile asshole insult necessary?

 

[jakonovski]

The presidential election isn't the entirety of democracy.

And the voice in question is an already well-represented voice, as they have the privilege to waste their vote in a purely symbolic gesture with the knowledge said waste won't actually get laid at their feet later.

There are various ways for a voter to make their voice heard in a democracy, and the large percentage of them have nothing to do with electing a President.

So again, this is the decision one has to weigh when they find themselves in the privileged position of being able to use their vote as a purely symbolic gesture:

Not voting/voting unelectable third party = At least I didn't fold

or

voting Clinton = At least I tried to help.

If you can be cool with the former, then be cool with it. I'd personally go with the latter if given the option.

Sure, but I'd add that you can replace Clinton with Trump and your statement is equally true.

 

[Cheebo]

If you don't vote Dem in the fall you are telling the world "I don't give a fuck about gay rights, I want planned parenthood shut down, and let's round up all the Hispanics while we're at it."

You might try and tell yourself you are being holier than thou but tell that to the minorities who will have their livelihoods dramatically harmed thanks to your pursit refusal to compromise at all.

A non Dem vote is a vote to help the Republicans.

 

[uncelestial]

Anyone who voted Nader has the blood on their hands of the dead in Iraq. Without fucking question. Just like Bush voters.

And if Trump wins Green/non voters are just as much to blame when he rounds up Hispanics to kick out of the county to bans Muslims from entering the country.

That's how it works, we have a two party system.

There are like 7 or 8 other states besides Florida where Clinton won in previous elections, but Gore lost -- by more than the number of Nader voters -- and any one of them would've gotten Gore into office.

Unbelievable.

 

[Kountry]

That's how it works, we have a two party system.

Pretty sure the last time I voted for President, there were 4 names on the ballot. I was unaware that the GOP and Democrats each fielded two people to vote for.

 

[Cheebo]

Sure, but I'd add that you can replace Clinton with Trump and your statement is equally true.

No? Because Trump actively wants to hurt the lives of non-whites. Hillary is supportive of LGBT rights, Muslims, and protecting minority civil rights. A vote for Hillary is a vote to try and help. Anything else is just wanting to watch the world burn.

 

[galperi1]

There are no progressive policies from Democratic favorites so we're left with another decision entirely. We can have another few decades of Republican-lite candidates and, at best, center-right Supreme Court placements through an intransigent Congress or 4 years of Trump and some painful Supreme Court appointments that serve as electroconvulsive therapy and breaks this cycle of Democratic mediocrity once and for all. As I stated earlier, the Democratic party is happy to continue this cycle in perpetuity until something truly horrific happens to wake up and unify the party. Perhaps a loss to Trump is the horrific affliction that finally awakens the party to the realization that chasing the Republicans rightward toward the cliff and expecting liberals to keep following their hollow promises of a carrot to come was the wrong move entirely.

I'm sorry....but let's say this comes to pass. Trump gets 3 judges on the scotus making a 6-3 conservative lean for 30+ years potentially.

I mean...great you broke the cycle.... But even if the pendulum swings back so far you have the equivalent of the green party win the presidency, Senate and house passing all sorts of liberal policies none of it will survive the scotus after all the challenges........ Ultimately accomplishing nothing.

So the question becomes....another 40 years of regression or slow progression left with a 5-4 centre left Supreme Court from hillary to uphold that leftward shift.

 

[SheSaidNo]

I think this essay captures the mentality pretty well, from the intro:

The sources of this narrowing of social vision are complex. But its most conspicuous expression is subordination to the agenda of a Democratic Party whose center has moved steadily rightward since Ronald Reagan’s presidency. Although it is typically defended in a language of political practicality and sophistication, this shift requires, as the historian Russell Jacoby notes, giving up “a belief that the future could fundamentally surpass the present,” which traditionally has been an essential foundation of leftist thought and practice. “Instead of championing a radical idea of a new society,” Jacoby observes in The End of Utopia, “the left ineluctably retreats to smaller ideas, seeking to expand the options within the existing society.”

The atrophy of political imagination shows up in approaches to strategy as well. In the absence of goals that require long-term organizing — e.g., single-payer health care, universally free public higher education and public transportation, federal guarantees of housing and income security — the election cycle has come to exhaust the time horizon of political action. Objectives that cannot be met within one or two election cycles seem fanciful, as do any that do not comport with the Democratic agenda. Even those who consider themselves to the Democrats’ left are infected with electoralitis. Each election now becomes a moment of life-or-death urgency that precludes dissent or even reflection. For liberals, there is only one option in an election year, and that is to elect, at whatever cost, whichever Democrat is running. This modus operandi has tethered what remains of the left to a Democratic Party that has long since renounced its commitment to any sort of redistributive vision and imposes a willed amnesia on political debate. True, the last Democrat was really unsatisfying, but this one is better; true, the last Republican didn’t bring destruction on the universe, but this one certainly will. And, of course, each of the “pivotal” Supreme Court justices is four years older than he or she was the last time.

Why does this tailing behind an increasingly right-of-center Democratic Party persist in the absence of any apparent payoff? There has nearly always been a qualifying excuse: Republicans control the White House; they control Congress; they’re strong enough to block progressive initiatives even if they don’t control either the executive or the legislative branch. Thus have the faithful been able to take comfort in the circular self-evidence of their conviction. Each undesirable act by a Republican administration is eo ipso evidence that if the Democratic candidate had won, things would have been much better. When Democrats have been in office, the imagined omnipresent threat from the Republican bugbear remains a fatal constraint on action and a pretext for suppressing criticism from the left.

Exaggerating the differences between Democratic and Republican candidates, moreover, encourages the retrospective sanitizing of previous Democratic candidates and administrations. If only Al Gore had been inaugurated after the 2000 election, the story goes, we might well not have had the September 11 attacks and certainly would not have had the Iraq War — as if it were unimaginable that the Republican reaction to the attacks could have goaded him into precisely such an act. And considering his bellicose stand on Iraq during the 2000 campaign, he well might not have needed goading.

The stale proclamations of urgency are piled on top of the standard jeremiads about the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade. The “filibuster-proof Senate majority” was the gimmick that spruced up the 2008 election cycle, conveniently suggesting strategic preparation for large policy initiatives while deferring discussion of what precisely those initiatives might be. It was an ideal diversion that gave wonks, would-be wonks, and people who just watch too much cable-television news something to chatter about and a rhetorical basis for feeling “informed.” It was, however, built on the bogus premise that Democrat = liberal.

Most telling, though, is the reinvention of the Clinton Administration as a halcyon time of progressive success. Bill Clinton’s record demonstrates, if anything, the extent of Reaganism’s victory in defining the terms of political debate and the limits of political practice. A recap of some of his administration’s greatest hits should suffice to break through the social amnesia. Clinton ran partly on a pledge of “ending welfare as we know it”; in office he both presided over the termination of the federal government’s sixty-year commitment to provide income support for the poor and effectively ended direct federal provision of low-income housing. In both cases his approach was to transfer federal subsidies — when not simply eliminating them — from impoverished people to employers of low-wage labor, real estate developers, and landlords. He signed into law repressive crime bills that increased the number of federal capital offenses, flooded the prisons, and upheld unjustified and racially discriminatory sentencing disparities for crack and powder cocaine. He pushed NAFTA through over strenuous objections from labor and many congressional Democrats. He temporized on his campaign pledge to pursue labor-law reform that would tilt the playing field back toward workers, until the Republican takeover of Congress in 1995 gave him an excuse not to pursue it at all. He undertook the privatization of Sallie Mae, the Student Loan Marketing Association, thereby fueling the student-debt crisis.

Notwithstanding his administration’s Orwellian folderol about “reinventing government,” his commitment to deficit reduction led to, among other things, extending privatization of the federal meat-inspection program, which shifted responsibility to the meat industry — a reinvention that must have pleased his former Arkansas patron, Tyson Foods, and arguably has left its legacy in the sporadic outbreaks and recalls that suggest deeper, endemic problems of food safety in the United States. His approach to health-care reform, like Barack Obama’s, was built around placating the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, and its failure only intensified the blitzkrieg of for-profit medicine.

In foreign policy, he was no less inclined than Reagan or George H. W. Bush to engage in military interventionism. Indeed, counting his portion of the Somali operation, he conducted nearly as many discrete military interventions as his two predecessors combined, and in four fewer years. Moreover, the Clinton Administration initiated the “extraordinary rendition” policy, under which the United States claims the right to apprehend individuals without charges or public accounting so that they can be imprisoned anywhere in the world (and which the Obama Administration has explicitly refused to repudiate). Clinton also increased American use of “privatized military services” — that is, mercenaries.

The nostalgic mist that obscures this record is perfumed by evocations of the Clinton prosperity. Much of that era’s apparent prosperity, however, was hollow — the effects of first the tech bubble and then the housing bubble. His administration was implicated in both, not least by his signing the repeal of the 1933 Glass–Steagall Act, which had established a firewall between commercial and investment banking in response to the speculative excesses that sparked the Great Depression. And, as is the wont of bubbles, first one and then the other burst, ushering in the worst economic crisis since the depression that had led to the passage of Glass–Steagall in the first place. To be sure, the Clinton Administration was not solely or even principally responsible for those speculative bubbles and their collapse. The Republican administrations that preceded and succeeded him were equally inclined to do the bidding of the looters and sneak thieves of the financial sector. Nevertheless, Clinton and the Wall Street cronies who ran his fiscal and economic policy — Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Alan Greenspan — are no less implicated than the Republicans in having brought about the economic crisis that has lingered since 2008.

It is difficult to imagine that a Republican administration could have been much more successful in advancing Reaganism’s agenda. Indeed, Clinton made his predilections clear from the outset. “We’re Eisenhower Republicans here,” he declared, albeit exasperatedly, shortly after his 1992 victory. “We stand for lower deficits, free trade, and the bond market. Isn’t that great?”

http://harpers.org/archive/2014/03/nothing-left-2/

 

[Cheebo]

There are like 7 or 8 other states besides Florida where Clinton won in previous elections, but Gore lost -- by more than the number of Nader voters -- and any one of them would've gotten Gore into office.

Unbelievable.

And Nader voters in those states should have voted Gore. Unless they are relay happy with how Bush turned out, because they gave Bush to us.

 

[teruterubozu]

Gore was a big hawk but he wouldn't have invaded Iraq post 9/11 for no reason.

Probably not yeah. Anyway, playing what-ifs with 9/11 is a fruitless exercise. It's our present reality.

 

[Melkezadek]

Pretty sure the last time I voted for President, there were 4 names on the ballot. I was unaware that the GOP and Democrats each fielded two people to vote for.

Which one of the other two candidates who weren't Dem or Rep won in that election?

 

[uncelestial]

Yes, some that claims to be prochoice and yet votes for Trump.

That would make her pretty idiotic, especially if she was for Sanders before.

Not just Trump voters; you said that would include non-voters and voters of third-party candidates. Which means, that according to you, a prochoice woman who is not voting for Hillary is a "fucking idiot." I'm just saying, this level of rhetoric is not good.

But the thread is getting pretty out of control in general so hell, ignore me.

 

[uncelestial]

And Nader voters in those states should have voted Gore. Unless they are relay happy with how Bush turned out, because they gave Bush to us.

What did I just say?

Gore lost by more votes than those who went for Nader in all those states. Gore was going to lose 2000, Nader or no. The end. It sucks, because he won the popular vote, but the electoral college works that way. Every election where it overruled the popular vote, it tilted for the Republicans. It's an awful system that overstates the influence of rural-ass America.

Not that you even know those Nader voters were "really" Gore voters wearing some kind of disguise.

 

[AlphaDump]

1. Blame the Supreme Court then, not Nader.
2. Nader pulled away more votes from Republicans than he did Democrats. Like some said earlier, this "Nader fucked us over" myth needs to DIE.
3. Hillary green lit that disastrous war. Is this supposed to make her look good?

wikipedia:

In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes, which led to claims that he was responsible for Gore's defeat. Nader, both in his book Crashing the Party and on his website, states: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all."

 

[shoplifter]

And Nader voters in those states should have voted Gore. Unless they are relay happy with how Bush turned out, because they gave Bush to us.

The only state that Nader had any effect on was Florida. Period. Any one of the other states would have handed Gore the presidency.

 

[EmiPrime]

The sad reality is, is that the Presidency is a two party system. Now if you want to change that in the future, get out there and help your local government Green Party get elected.

It is yeah, it's hopelessly entrenched as such. However I don't think that those who have moral objections to voting for a politician who will continue to suck up to Wall Street and will continue drone strikes in the Middle East and Pakistan among other things should be demonised or called a "fucking idiot". Voting for Jill Stein is better than not voting at all. A slavish devotion towards pragmatism and the lesser of two evils is why you have such mediocre politicians and massive voter apathy.

There are only (to my knowledge) about half a dozen marginal states. Most progressives in the US can vote for who they want to instead of compromising on their ideals and voting for someone who would be right at home in the UK Conservative party. The minority who live in marginal states have a different dilemma granted.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Pretty sure the last time I voted for President, there were 4 names on the ballot. I was unaware that the GOP and Democrats each fielded two people to vote for.

And when has that meant anything?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_candidates#1856-present

Every election gone to one of the two parties. The system only allows for 2-parties, whether more show on the ballot or not.

 

[ChryZ]

Sometimes you have to vote for the lesser of two evils. Don't come complaining if your evil gets trumped by a bigger evil. Not voting is the end of democracy and your right to have a say.

 

[Cheebo]

I think this essay captures the mentality pretty well, from the intro:


http://harpers.org/archive/2014/03/nothing-left-2/

That article claims a Republican wouldn't have pushed Reaganism anymore than Clinton.

Bill Clinton picked one of the most liberal SC justices in history with Ginsburg. That one decision alone had a domino effect that has advanced countless liberal causes to this day. Her vote on gay marriage. Or Obamacare for example.


Anyone such as that fool who tries to claim Bill Clinton did nothing to advance liberalism or progressivism is a bold faced liar.

Period.

 

[APF]

Probably not yeah. Anyway, playing what-ifs with 9/11 is a fruitless exercise. It's our present reality.

Agreed, but I think it's still useful to remember that Gore was more conservative than President Clinton and more of a hawk, but still would have avoided the costliest military blunder in most of our lifetimes.



Edit for other conversation threads: Nader's spoiler effect is not just votes themselves but also being in the foreground of the race nipping away at enthusiasm for Gore's election.

 

[Melkezadek]

Not just Trump voters; you said that would include non-voters and voters of third-party candidates. Which means, that according to you, a prochoice woman who is not voting for Hillary is a "fucking idiot." I'm just saying, this level of rhetoric is not good.

Because if she's pro choice, if we're going to make this a single issue, why would she vote for someone who has no chance of winning?

Hilary seems like it would make more sense considering she's pro choice as well AND can win AND she can secure seats on the SCOTUS to make sure that women will ALWAYS have the choice in this country.

With the reality of this two party system, which I assume this woman understands, the choice, to me, would be obvious - even if you have to grit your teeth while doing it.