I'd love if Sanders or (more realistically) Warren could make a run. But Warren seems pretty sincere she's not going to try.

I really don't think Hillary is a lock at all to win the general. Unless you're an Oprah fan, she's really grating to listen to. Not one sincere-sounding note ever comes out of her mouth. People vote based on that stuff.

The upside is she's got Bill in her corner and a lot more experience than Obama, who had a pretty shaky first couple years.

Maybe not a lock to win but certainly for my vote.

It's not meaningless, it's pathetic. For some time the majority of voters in the US have recognized that the democratic exercise is a farce meant to keep them from causing trouble, and have acknowledged that recognition by not voting (a form of voting for neither candidate). The insistence of those committed to one or the other of the available pseudo-alternatives that the minor differences between them are significant is a kind of moral and ethical cowardice, and the attacks on those who don't vote, and reject the false alternative as complacent are simply a base justification of the corrupted and degenerated electoral process and gubernatorial system in place.

Whoever gets elected will keep funneling tax dollars to the military and banks, and all those who preach in favor of the lesser evil are advocating that it stay that way.

So you'd rather they just not vote and let the bigger of two evils win? I mean, I'd be all for scrapping the 2 party system but whining about it doesn't really help all that much and if it's the only system I can currently participate in then I'm gonna do it. Doesn't mean you can't also try to work on changing that system at the same time.

I see now. If we just rant a little harder on the politics forum of a poker message board, that means that rich people won't have all the money and the power.

Voting for the lesser of two evils implicitly and explicitly legitimizes the process and the status quo. That is a a direct negative consequence of voting for a candidate that you admit is a terrible human being operating in a system that is fully corrupted.

The argument is that that negative consequence from casting a vote outweighs any perceived short-term "benefit" gained from voting for the candidate that you perceive as the lesser of two evils.

Think of it this way: You're a democrat, but you're not fully partisan, perhaps you're even somewhat intelligent and well-meaning. The election is between Clinton & Bush. You imagine a rating scale from -10 to 10. A rating of -10 means that the candidate would be horrible, would continue policies of corruption, and would overall have an outrageously negative impact on the world by becoming president. A rating of 0 would mean that the candidate would operate mostly in good faith, uphold the duties of the president, but perhaps only have a neutral impact on society and the world. A rating of 10 would mean that the candidate would be operating fully in good faith, would be completely uncorrupted, would take steps towards reform, and would truly operate in a way that is to the benefit of society and the world as a whole.

You recognize that in today's climate, it is virtually impossible for a candidate with a rating higher than -5 to ever be the D or R ballot candidate. They would sooner be assassinated than have the chance to run for president as the chosen candidate for either party. This is due to RNC/DNC corruption amongst many and numerous other factors ($ in politics, whatever).

You view Hillary as a -9. You view Jeb as a -10.

The problem many people have is that you proudly and defiantly argue that the benefit gained from casting a single vote towards the -9 rather than the -10 is the "responsible" and "moral" thing to do when presented with this option. You don't consider that your vote means nothing, that the short-term (4 year) benefit is basically meaningless, and that in the long run, implicitly legitimizing this process by casting your vote is far worse than not voting at all.

Not only that, you actually offer yourself towards defending the -9.

Mocking those who choose not to vote for the lesser of two evils while understanding the above logic is why many view those who would vote for Hillary Clinton as having some degree of moral and ethical cowardice.

You may disagree with parts of the hypothetical and/or some of the assumptions made. However, those who dislike the lesser of two evils argument and refuse to legitimize the current system aren't scumbags who want to sit on the sidelines and rant on the internet. They are people who genuinely and passionately want real, long-term change and reform against corruption. They don't think this can be achieved via participation in the current system and via any real or perceived short-term benefits yielded from voting for the -9 instead of the -10. Dismissing them as "irresponsible" and "privileged" seems pretty dishonest, unfair, and deliberately obtuse.

The system will be legitimized whether you vote or not.

I remember when this forum was full of libertarians who explained that they had to support Ron Paul because he was more popular than Gary Johnson even though Paul was a disgusting racist. Also they all voted in the GOP primary without this concern.

Something must have changed since the distant past of 2012.

Sure, agreed, and never did I claim otherwise. This doesn't detract from the argument at all. It also doesn't explain why people both vote for the candidate they perceive as the -9 AND defend that candidate.

Sounds like someone doesn't get first past the post, amirite wook?

@as

If I vote for a -9 this cycle, I might get to vote for a -8 next cycle, and then a -6 the one after that, assuming the side I'm supporting wins.

Well the disconnect might be I don't think Hilldawg is a terrible person.

Hillary has talked about only nominating justices who will vote to get rid of the situation citizens united created.

This is the single biggest thing that needs to change in America to stop the capture of the democratic process.

.

lol ok buddy

Are you saying you think Hillary is any less trustworthy than any other presidential candidate, when it comes to believing what they say?

Are you saying talk is cheap? I would tend to agree but it's not like she has been in a position to follow through.

Right, it's not like she has a long and detailed history of full cooperation and subservience towards the exact parties who favor $ driving politics. It's not like her "foundation" is the spitting image of influence peddling. It's not like she is the chosen and loyal recipient of Wall Street funding and support. It's not like she has a long and destructive history of expanding the prison system and rallying against transparency.

Surely her words during an election cycle are the salient focuses towards judging her ties towards the plutocrats, financial elites, and an overall system which demands that influence peddling via $ donations remain intact.

I look at it as if she's going to win she's going to have to get the money. I think it's really dumb it's that way and would rather she did it another way but I'm not sure that's possible these days.

I want CU overturned even though it helps unions spend a lot more money on politics. I'd rather they couldn't but I'm fine with them doing it while also trying to work against it.

Maybe they're all liars and wouldn't actually work to change it but I think it is something they would work on if it affected all politicians the same. I'm not dumb enough to think they're going to handicap themselves just to prove a point.

I know I'd rather support someone who says the right things than just jerk off all day to the fantasy things will miraculously change for the better instead of just incrementally changing for the better when the right things said become the right things done.

Hillary is worse than Obama, and Carter, and Bill, and probably whoever the democratic party has in eight years. But she is better than everyone else in the field both dem and rep today. So shrug, unless you're gonna force Warren to run what is the point in discussing her as anything but the best available option. You are not and island and you are effected when things get worse under anyone in the republican field. You don't win a prize for not voting.

Hillary is not interested in and will never contribute towards ridding $ from influencing politics. I understand that you wish and hope that that's not true. But it is.

I guess I'm interested in discussing reality. You're interested in cheerleading for your party. We'll agree to disagree.

Well, like Phill I'd at least like to go with the person saying she would vs those that say they want even more money involved.

Sure, I hear you. I'm just not interested in being lied to when it's as obvious as it is here.

Yea, maybe it's naive to take her seriously but it doesn't make the opposition any more likeable .

This sounds totally backwards to me. If you support the status quo, things will change, and if you vote against the status quo, things will stay the same?

It's obviously backwards and not even worth responding to really. I have him on ignore so I didn't see it.

Let's review recent history from the perspective of a partisan Democrat.

2008: Voted for Obama, who I'll call a -8.
2012: Turns out Obama was lying during the majority of the election cycle leading up to 2008. Vote for Obama again despite lies/broken campaign promises, we'll call him a -8 once again.
2016: Oh man, I'll believe all of Hillary's lies this time around and vote for her. She's a -9!

#hope&change
#uniteblue