Support NeoGAF

[NoblesseOblige]

Actually, it's been reported that a lot of his supporters don't like a lot of the things he says, but agree that he's the one that'll fix the economy.

Source? And why do you think that matters even if it is true? You're basically saying Trump Supporters are okay with a racist sexist piece of garbage in power so long as he fixes the economy. You don't need a master's degree in world history to find other leaders who were empowered by the same nonsense rationalization. It actually makes the supporters dumber than Trump.

 

[RustyNails]

Actually, it's been reported that a lot of his supporters don't like a lot of the things he says, but agree that he's the one that'll fix the economy.

He's "the one" that will fix the economy? It was OBAMA who fixed the economy with various bailouts (extending Bush' TARP), and creating various consumer incentives to stabilize the home mortgage industry (8k tax credits?). All the articles say Obama pushing for these laws incentivizing lawmakers. I mean, we are at creating 200k jobs/month with 4.9% UE from losing 500k jobs/month with 9% UE.

Trump doesn't know shit. He has the worst answers in every question. He is a slightly bloviated and racist version of Mitt Romney. Just because you run a business doesnt mean you can run the federal government, especially when your past financial history is checkered with fraud and lawsuits (Trump Uni, corporate raiding in Romney's). What Trump will do is get rabid trickle down cultists in his economics, same fucks that jerk off to laffer curve and grover norquist's nudes every night that got us into the recession in the first place. So, Trump supporters are just morons and schmucks he suckered into believing him for real. So dont give me that "actually his supporters..." bullshit. It doesn't fly.

 

[MIMIC]

So now it has become "either vote for Hilary or you are a racist".

America, everybody.

Support racists, love racists, enable racists, sleep with racists, etc.

It's like freakin Mad Libs.

 

[Admiral Woofington]

Someone told me this the other day and I informed them that not voting is basically voting for the Republican nominee, as Democratic voters may start out less engaged than Republican voters (due to various circumstances including the new Voter ID laws that exist specifically to keep Democrats from voting) so we always have an "engagement gap" to cover. Resolved his opinion right quick.

What if you're in a state that is historically Republican. Even if you vote democrat your vote for president won't mean jack shit. Maybe for other offices it will but for this? I might as well waste the drive there and burn my ballot.

 

[whytemyke]

What if you're in a state that is historically Republican. Even if you vote democrat your vote for president won't mean jack shit. Maybe for other offices it will but for this? I might as well waste the drive there and burn my ballot.

Well are you going to vote or are you just going to see how everyone else votes and decide? I mean you're either a part of the election process or you're not. Yeah it sucks living in a red state, but you can't let polling data tell you who to vote for or whether to vote at all.

 

[Y2Kev]

I genuinely love the "Elizabeth Forma" meme. Thank you internet for attacking her twitter.

edit: I think that if you do vote for Trump, you either are a racist or will tolerate the representative of your country being a racist. I cannot abide. At some point, it is hard for me to differentiate. No one really argues that Trump isn't in fact a sexist, racist bigot (if you do, I'd love to see the case made). Don't vote for Hillary if you don't want to, but don't vote for Trump and call yourself "for the cause." You're not. You're voting to essentially codify institutional racism at the highest levels. Bernie would be very sad. Sad!

 

[Future]

What if you're in a state that is historically Republican. Even if you vote democrat your vote for president won't mean jack shit. Maybe for other offices it will but for this? I might as well waste the drive there and burn my ballot.

Red and blue states will always be red and blue states of people think this

California was a red state in principle for a period until the 90s. That shit changed because demographics changed and those people started to vote. Even if your state is mostly white, a younger generation that thinks differently can change the demographics the same way. But you HAVE to vote

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...w-to-turn-a-red-state-blue-california-edition

 

[poppabk]

Isn't this the same type of thinking that might get Trump elected? Trying to force people to vote for someone the don't want in the position they are running for is inherently undemocratic.

 

[Future]

Isn't this the same type of thinking that might get Trump elected? Trying to force people to vote for someone the don't want in the position they are running for is inherently undemocratic.

It's more about enlightening people on why compromising in their vote still leads to the results you want in the future. If you give a damn, that is.

If you were a Bernie supporter, then I don't know how you don't vote for the candidate most likely to maintain Obama style legislation and nominate Supreme Court justices that will inspire change in the future. But again that's if you give a damn about policies and not simply anti establishment ideologies.

Obama is establishment. And while some people think he is not liberal enough, we did get attempts at healthcare reform, a president that vocally approves of gay marriage, among many things liberals should want. Imagine if voters were like they are now, and said he's not radical enough so we aren't voting, and had McCain or Romney instead. How would that be any better?

Replace Romney with trump. Can literally ANYONE say that's better. He's actively said he would repeal everything Obama has done and more

But this only matters if you actually care about change and policy and not radical emotional sound bytes like anti establishment, free healthcare and education, etc. Not that you shouldn't care about those things. But that you should look at the bigger picture on what your vote actually means. You have to compromise when you vote to get to net positive results

 

[Ferulci]

No lies detected. I cannot speak for U.S. but we have the same problem in France with the far right.

 

[jakonovski]

There's a certain cart before the horse effect here, where the voter is supposed to conform to the leader, instead of the leader conforming to the voter.

How popular is the idea that regardless of what party they are from, the president is for all Americans?

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

I genuinely love the "Elizabeth Forma" meme. Thank you internet for attacking her twitter.

edit: I think that if you do vote for Trump, you either are a racist or will tolerate the representative of your country being a racist. I cannot abide. At some point, it is hard for me to differentiate. No one really argues that Trump isn't in fact a sexist, racist bigot (if you do, I'd love to see the case made). Don't vote for Hillary if you don't want to, but don't vote for Trump and call yourself "for the cause." You're not. You're voting to essentially codify institutional racism at the highest levels. Bernie would be very sad. Sad!

It's true. Bernie would not want you to vote for Trump. If 70,000 people heckling McDonalds can get the ball moving for the minimum wage increase, that caused the likes of Hillary to latch onto it, you know that Bernies movement can use their influence to get shit done on the ground.
But being progressive means being progressive. It doesn't mean you burn down the boat even if it's shitty.
Progressives shouldn't settle for the condescending "change takes time" either bullshit. But you weigh your options. If you just vote for Trump you're not just throwing out the baby with the bathwater, you're injecting your other kids with uranium followed by shipping them to North Korea. It's overkill.
And you're not showing it to Hillary either.

Trump - The Joker. A psychopath who'll say anything to watch the world burn.

Hillary - A two-faced politician, who used to be a promising young lawyer. Is extremely powerful. Might still be some good in there, but hard to tell.

Sanders - A Crusader. Not the one America needs right now, but the one it deserves.

Cruz - The Penguin. Eats kittens and babies. Horrifyingly creepy and grotesque.

 

[Future]

There's a certain cart before the horse effect here, where the voter is supposed to conform to the leader, instead of the leader conforming to the voter.

How popular is the idea that regardless of what party they are from, the president is for all Americans?

What does this mean?

 

[Admiral Woofington]

Red and blue states will always be red and blue states of people think this

California was a red state in principle for a period until the 90s. That shit changed because demographics changed and those people started to vote. Even if your state is mostly white, a younger generation that thinks differently can change the demographics the same way. But you HAVE to vote

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...w-to-turn-a-red-state-blue-california-edition

Maybe in Texas with younger generations replacing adults like myself starting to appear we'll see change but even Latinos down here are largely conservative from the ones I know personally (my family included) because traditional religious values and economic values they brought with them from SA.

I'll have to see if I decide to vote. If I were in a swing state I'd go out of my way to vote but down here I genuinely feel it won't matter due to the electoral college system.

 

[Sibersk Esto]

Maybe not racist but more "racist adjacent"

 

[Aureon]

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

Bullshit.
Ultimate responsability of the government's action rests on the voters.
The voters put Bush in office, and re-elected him after he started a war.
Don't try to unshoulder responsability.
People who voted for Bush are responsible for the war, and people who voted third party in 2000 have failed to prevent it. They're not directly responsible, but they could have prevented it, and chose to do so in the name of ideological purity.

 

[Future]

Maybe in Texas with younger generations replacing adults like myself starting to appear we'll see change but even Latinos down here are largely conservative from the ones I know personally (my family included) because traditional religious values and economic values they brought with them from SA.

I'll have to see if I decide to vote. If I were in a swing state I'd go out of my way to vote but down here I genuinely feel it won't matter due to the electoral college system.

The old religious hold on some of these values is on its way out IMO. Texas is a tough one haha, since when anyone thinks red state that is pretty much THE premier red state. If Texas flipped the Republican Party would implode.

Still though, the only thing that can change anything is people voting. Even seeing a Texas vote that is more evenly weighted between red and blue would be a sign that republican ideals need change if they are going to win the next generation over. Cuz all the old people are voting guaranteed

 

[Y2Kev]

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

The country reelected him after he started the war! What is that if not an affirmation? What does that say about people's consciences?

 

[The Adder]

Never compromise. Even in the face of Armageddon.

Rorschach said that. And you know what? Dr. Manhattan was right, it never ends. Not for America, anyways.

Rorschach was a lunatic and even he knew that he was wrong. Which is why he begged Doc to kill him. The fact that you missed that speaks volumes.

 

[Christopher]

Isn't this the same type of thinking that might get Trump elected? Trying to force people to vote for someone the don't want in the position they are running for is inherently undemocratic.

That's exactly it.

 

[fester]

Sanders-Hillary voted the same 93% of the time

If true, I have an even harder time understanding where all this drama is coming from.

What's the comparison between Clinton's and Trump's voting record? ...oh right....

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Voting third party, or not turning up at all, is the only leverage people on the fringes have over politics. Democrats do not own the vote of every left of centre person. You have to earn them, and if you don't, you will lose elections. That's politics.

So, for example, I have a friend that's basically a single-issue voter in regards to trans issues. What's she supposed to do when trans interests get thrown under the bus yet again the next time we're looking at a national antidiscrimination law? If the democrats can take her vote for granted and if they're never punished for abandoning trans people's interests whenever it gets difficult, the single issue trans voter is just getting taken for a ride.

But the Democrats friggin love their hippie punching, so punch away, I guess.

 

[TyrantII]

But the Democrats friggin love their hippie punching, so punch away, I guess.

I'm all for Hippy punching. They played their hand in the 60 then took their ball and went home allowing Reagan and 40 years of GOP policy. Something it's going to take equally long to clean up.

What the difference between the Teaparty and Occupy? The teaparty organized and elected people up and down the ticket, realizing change comes from within the two party system in American politics; occupy Sat in drum circle and went home cause organizing is for the man, man.

 

[Glorified G]

I'm all for Hippy punching. They played their hand in the 60 then took their ball and went home allowing Reagan and 40 years of GOP policy. Something it's going to take equally long to clean up.

What the difference between the Teaparty and Occupy? The teaparty organized and elected people up and down the ticket, realizing change comes from within the two party system in American politics; occupy Sat in drum circle and went home cause organizing is for the man, man.

No, the difference was that the Tea Party was funded by by the Koch brothers and other Billionaires.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Azzanadra, some of us in this thread are actual minorities, or people that are actually being hurt by the GOP policies that are in place right now and will only continue to get worse if not-Hillary is elected. I'll give you a non-hypothetical problem that is facing poor white people in America (actually all poor women in America that live in a state that isn't solidly blue)-- the GOP is defunding health clinics that provide free or reduced care to women.

This isn't "hypothetical" for us. This is our life. For someone to sit in an Ivory Tower and pontificate about choices is being mindblowingly


You're right, what we do does impact the rest of the world. Is Clinton more hawkish than Sanders? I actually absolutely believe so. Is Sanders more of a protectionist than Clinton? Yes. What will be the effect on the globalized economy if America practices protectionist laws? What is the likelihood that Clinton will steer us into another war while Sanders will do everything he can to not get us there?

But this isn't about Clinton v. Sanders. This is about the Clinton v. Trump. If you think that Trump be less likely to get us involved in war, then I don't know what to tell you and I think at that point there's nothing left to say.


Please name as many things as you can that you believe Trump will do better on than Clinton, in terms of having the least negative impact on the world. I'd love to see your list.

This isn't hypothetical for me, either. It's certainly not for my trans friend. The thing is unless you hold establishment candidates accountable for throwing the less politically acceptable or powerful in their coalition under the bus, they're just going to keep doing it, over, and over, and over again. If the democrats have to lose an election or three before they stop hurting minorities in the interests of appealing to the centrists then fine, the democrats can lose a few elections.

I'm all for Hippy punching. They played their hand in the 60 then took their ball and went home allowing Reagan and 40 years of GOP policy. Something it's going to take equally long to clean up.

What the difference between the Teaparty and Occupy? The teaparty organized and elected people up and down the ticket, realizing change comes from within the two party system in American politics; occupy Sat in drum circle and went home cause organizing is for the man, man.

You're not entirely wrong. But what was the left doing in the 90s? While the Kochs were busy building their empire, Bill Clinton was having his sister souljah moment. The right generally embraces their extremists, because they understand the Overton Window and know that they'll just make sane right wing policies look good. The left is still way too spooked by communism and does everything they can to undermine their far left flank. Which I think explains a lot of the right's electoral success.

 

[jakonovski]

There are significant differences between Hillary and Bernie, several of which are 100% legit dealbreakers. Things like international trade, surveillance and war.

Maybe Clinton could win if she vowed to end drone strikes. Or if she promised to reform the intelligence community. But no, it's the Sanders voters who are somehow morally obligated to acquiesce.

 

[Maledict]

Parties don't chase after people who don't vote. Not turning up to vote because the democrats aren't sufficiently behind your cause is not sending the signal you think it is. It means the entire electorate has shifted slightly more to the right, and that's where the democrats will move to to try and win next time around.

Being part of a party that isn't always behind you 100% gets a lot more done than not voting. Look at gay rights - even though it was a wedge issue in 2004, gay voters maintained a strong voting block in the party and got what they wanted in the long run.

Politics is decided by those who show up and vote. It's that simple.

 

[jakonovski]

That's just the rot of the two party system, and why I think it's really bad for democracy. Not voting is bad, but so is not having proper choice in who you vote for.

edit: domestic surveillance is the prime example for America. Both D and R are really fond of the idea of a surveillance state.

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

Like I said in an earlier thread - if this situation does play out, and Trump wins as a result, we 100% deserve the country we get.

 

[The Adder]

This isn't hypothetical for me, either. It's certainly not for my trans friend. The thing is unless you hold establishment candidates accountable for throwing the less politically acceptable or powerful in their coalition under the bus, they're just going to keep doing it, over, and over, and over again. If the democrats have to lose an election or three before they stop hurting minorities in the interests of appealing to the centrists then fine, the democrats can lose a few elections.

"If American minorities and women have to have their rights steadily stripped away with no hope of recourse for the next generation or two, then American minorities and women have to have their rights steadily stripped away with no hope of recourse for the next generation or two."

Fuck this absolutist bullshit.

 

[Melkezadek]

This isn't hypothetical for me, either. It's certainly not for my trans friend. The thing is unless you hold establishment candidates accountable for throwing the less politically acceptable or powerful in their coalition under the bus, they're just going to keep doing it, over, and over, and over again. If the democrats have to lose an election or three before they stop hurting minorities in the interests of appealing to the centrists then fine, the democrats can lose a few elections.

What happens if Republicans win this election year? What does your trans friend have to lose should Ted Cruz make it into office?

Cutting the nose to spite the face. More interested in teaching democrats a lesson than saving oneself and millions of others from a regression in freedoms and human liberties?

This isn't hypothetical for me. I understand how establishment democrats use minorities to gain support while at heart sometimes not holding their best interest. There are many things to be addressed on that more in depth. That fact of the matter is, Hilary or Trump/Cruz/Someone on the right will be President of this country. Ignoring the D or R in front of their name, which platform is maliciously attacking blacks, hispanics, LBGT, women, Muslims? Not through mere, subtle policy that puts the odds against them, but promoting hostile action be taken against them?

No. I put my pride to the side and I will fight with everything in my power to stop this upcoming oppression. One can downplay it if they want to, but this is reality. These are the cards we are dealt. You can stay home and feel proud that you stuck with your "virtues" but if a Trump or Cruz becomes President I will proudly say I did everything I could in my limited power to stop that from happening. While others will say they did nothing.

 

[HylianTom]

This isn't hypothetical for me, either. It's certainly not for my trans friend. The thing is unless you hold establishment candidates accountable for throwing the less politically acceptable or powerful in their coalition under the bus, they're just going to keep doing it, over, and over, and over again. If the democrats have to lose an election or three before they stop hurting minorities in the interests of appealing to the centrists then fine, the democrats can lose a few elections.

The thing is.. The effects don't last for "just a few elections." They last for decades. The only thing that keeps many LGBT folks from the GOP's woodchipper in many states is a strong liberal federal judiciary.

But this point has been avoided for pages and pages now.

You're willing to see your friends tossed in jail on sodomy charges? Some "friend" you are.

 

[jakonovski]

So maybe if you lot had voted for Bernie this establishment thing could've been broken in a beneficial way instead of the Trump threat. Why is this not the fault of Hillary voters?

I'm of course of the opinion that everyone votes according to their conscience and that's that, but since this thread is about guilt tripping those who vote for Not My Candidate...

 

[Melkezadek]

So maybe if you lot had voted for Bernie this establishment thing could've been broken in a beneficial way instead of the Trump threat. Why is this not the fault of Hillary voters?

I'm of course of the opinion that everyone votes according to their conscience and that's that, but since this thread is about guilt tripping those who vote for Not My Candidate...

I did vote for Bernie. He doesn't look like he's going to with the primary. So, I will vote for Hilary.

It's not a matter of "my candidate". Hilary was never "my candidate". To say that the alternative is worse is an understatement. For me, it's "Not my candidate vs Hilter-lite". You might call that hyperbole, but I'm fully prepared to back that up.

 

[The Adder]

So maybe if you lot had voted for Bernie this establishment thing could've been broken in a beneficial way instead of the Trump threat. Why is this not the fault of Hillary voters?

Because Hillary voters would vote Bernie in the general.

 

[Cheebo]

So maybe if you lot had voted for Bernie this establishment thing could've been broken in a beneficial way instead of the Trump threat. Why is this not the fault of Hillary voters?

I'm of course of the opinion that everyone votes according to their conscience and that's that, but since this thread is about guilt tripping those who vote for Not My Candidate...

GAF voting more for Bernie is meaningless. His campaigned was doomed from day one when he more or less ignored the minority vote which is key to the Democrat party.

 

[xxracerxx]

This isn't hypothetical for me, either. It's certainly not for my trans friend. The thing is unless you hold establishment candidates accountable for throwing the less politically acceptable or powerful in their coalition under the bus, they're just going to keep doing it, over, and over, and over again. If the democrats have to lose an election or three before they stop hurting minorities in the interests of appealing to the centrists then fine, the democrats can lose a few elections.

And you are ok with fucking over the entire nation for a few days in regards to SCOTUS?

 

[PeskyToaster]

I feel like I've seen so many instances of white male privilege being claimed against other minorities and women. Maybe they just stand out because it is such a slap in the face to the person making the claim. Pretty embarrassing to be honest.

 

[RustyNails]

So maybe if you lot had voted for Bernie this establishment thing could've been broken in a beneficial way instead of the Trump threat. Why is this not the fault of Hillary voters?

I'm of course of the opinion that everyone votes according to their conscience and that's that, but since this thread is about guilt tripping those who vote for Not My Candidate...

Hello. Bernie hasn't won a single fucking state in the south. Lost Hispanic vote in the west. Got routed in midwest Ohio. What has bernie done to deserve the nomination of Democratic party?

 

[royalan]

That's just the rot of the two party system, and why I think it's really bad for democracy. Not voting is bad, but so is not having proper choice in who you vote for.

edit: domestic surveillance is the prime example for America. Both D and R are really fond of the idea of a surveillance state.

You do realize that there are groups in this country who do not have, and have never had, the opportunity to vote for their most perfect candidate, but vote anyway because it is the ONLY way to effect any sort of change that might keep you from getting fucked over, right?

This "I'm not voting because I didn't get MY ideologically pure candidate" is the highest form of fucking privilege.

 

[HylianTom]

So maybe if you lot had voted for Bernie this establishment thing could've been broken in a beneficial way instead of the Trump threat. Why is this not the fault of Hillary voters?

I'm of course of the opinion that everyone votes according to their conscience and that's that, but since this thread is about guilt tripping those who vote for Not My Candidate...

I'm going to repeat this again.

Read it multiple times so that it sinks in.

If you're willing to stick a judicial shiv in the heart of Bernie's movement for several decades, so that the results of 2016 close the door on seeing his vision ever implemented, you were never that serious about it to begin with.

And you are ok with fucking over the entire nation for a few days in regards to SCOTUS?

Prediction of responses to this point:
- emotion
- avoidance
- nothing to do with the actual mechanics/structure of government

 

[equippedwithtowel]

So maybe if you lot had voted for Bernie this establishment thing could've been broken in a beneficial way instead of the Trump threat. Why is this not the fault of Hillary voters?

I'm of course of the opinion that everyone votes according to their conscience and that's that, but since this thread is about guilt tripping those who vote for Not My Candidate...

Well this isn't the world we live in. I'd love Bernie to be elected but to win the democratic primary you need to win the democratic primary. It is at least partially the fault of the Sanders campaign that they did not manage to find a way to do so. This idea that everyone votes according to their conscience is simply not true. Politics are a game of what have you done for me lately and ensuring the least worst option for a vast majority of the democratic coalition. You can't circumvent that by staking out the moral high ground

 

[jakonovski]

Because Hillary voters would vote Bernie in the general.

That's not an answer to the question I posed.

But on its own, that's a super easy thing to say at this junction. Zero chance of it going to bat, of course everyone proclaims to be an angel.

 

[Wings 嫩翼翻せ]

Because Hillary voters would vote Bernie in the general.

Eh... I've heard otherwise, at least from my close group. I understand nationally, it is viewed as so and not vice-versa though.

 

[The Adder]

That's not an answer to the question I posed.

But on its own, that's a super easy thing to say at this junction. Zero chance of it going to bat, of course everyone proclaims to be an angel.

It was already proven in 2008 when Hillary voters voted for Obama.

 

[jakonovski]

I'm going to repeat this again.

Read it multiple times so that it sinks in.

If you're willing to stick a judicial shiv in the heart of Bernie's movement for several decades, so that the results of 2016 close the door on seeing his vision ever implemented, you were never that serious about it to begin with.

I'm red and under the bed by American standards. The politics of America prevent me from even wishing to travel there. This is just me wondering why Americans who supposedly want change end up perpetuating the status quo.

 

[Melkezadek]

I'm going to repeat this again.

Read it multiple times so that it sinks in.

If you're willing to stick a judicial shiv in the heart of Bernie's movement for several decades, so that the results of 2016 close the door on seeing his vision ever implemented, you were never that serious about it to begin with.


Prediction of responses to this point:
- emotion
- avoidance
- nothing to do with the actual mechanics/structure of government

This is never going to be answered.

"But at least I'll have my integrity."

 

[jakonovski]

It was already proven in 2008 when Hillary voters voted for Obama.

Clinton and Obama are basically a carbon copy of each other when compared to Sanders.

 

[Wall]

Anyone who calls themselves a progressive needs to vote for the Democrats in the general election. Right now, the only branch of governments Democrats control is the executive branch. If the Republicans get control of all three branches of government, they will be able to undo progressive gains in this country going back to the New Deal.

The problem is a lot of Americans don't vote in or pay attention to elections below the Presidential level. If you support Bernie Sanders and want to support people who agree with him even after he drops out of the race, you should work to elect the Democrats who endorsed him who are running for House and Senates seats, as well as positions in state and local governments. You can find these candidates at websites like Democracy for America. Failing that, you should vote for Democrats who most agree with your positions on the issues.

There are fundamental differences between the wing of the Democratic party Clinton represents and the platform Sanders is running on, but Sanders is much closer ideologically to the Clinton than any of the Republicans. In European terms, the difference between Clinton and Sanders is the difference between a Centrist party (I realize there really is no such thing) and a Center-Left party. In American terms, the difference is between a center-left party and a left party. Not supporting a candidate like Clinton might work in a country where the difference between the center-right and center-left party is comparatively small, but the current Republican party is an extremist party that has no parallel elsewhere in the world.

Trump might be running as an "anti-establishment candidate", but his platform increasingly is coming to resemble the standard Republican one. If he were elected, he would work with the Republicans in Congress to enact an extreme agenda that would roll back the New Deal and the regulatory state as it has developed in the 20th century. In addition, he would work to enact disastrous tariffs that might plunge the economy into a depression, and he would continue openly appealing to the racists and sexists to whom the Republicans have only been covertly appealing until now. He would be the Bush II administration on steroids.

 

[HylianTom]

I'm red and under the bed by American standards. The politics of America prevent me from even wishing to travel there. This is just me wondering why Americans who supposedly want change end up perpetuating the status quo.

I understand that, I really do. I will just never understand the rationale of people saying, "Fuck it" to the movement that they claim to care so deeply about.