I'll Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

My personal rules for voting are:
- I will definitely vote. Not voting out of disgust is not a reasonable option.
- If there is a candidate running that I am truly passionate about I will likely vote for them even if they have no chance to win.
- Otherwise, I will vote for a candidate that has some chance to win.

I can see someone saying I am so passionate about Sanders I will vote for him anyway, but if he is not running, he is not going to get my write-in vote. I'm not going to vote for a third party candidate that I know nothing about other than policy papers and is likely going to get less than one percent of the vote. I considered Perot when he ran. I would consider Bloomberg if he runs as an independent. That said, if it comes down to Clinton vs Trump or Rubio, I'm going to vote for Clinton. I don't like all of her positions or all of her votes, but from rule one, I will definitely vote and voting a write in or third party would essentially be voting a half vote for Clinton and a half vote for Trump and Trump is not getting my half vote.

I still say this country should be ashamed for putting someone forward like Trump as our potential representative on the world stage. If this guy doesn't make you embarrassed to be American, nothing will. Not torture, not institutional racism, not the greed of the 1%, not nothing.

If that happens, you're basically giving half a vote to the Republican nominee.

The GOP has long pandered to the racists and bigots, while trying to maintain a semi-civilized facade, but it's coming home to roost for them, now.

What do you say to a disgusted Democrat who says they don't care if a Republican wins the presidency because it won't make a big difference?

DrewDad wrote:

If that happens, you're basically giving half a vote to the Republican nominee.

Seems to me like it would be giving her whole vote to the nominee of her choice.

DrewDad wrote:

The GOP has long pandered to the racists and bigots, while trying to maintain a semi-civilized facade, but it's coming home to roost for them, now.

I am sure most of the people here agree with you, all that does is make a bunch of people wrong. The GOP doesn't pander to those people, show me where you see that going on. The GOP hardly has a monopoly on idiots, but they certainly do not pander to them.

 You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

This is because the standard, both in the media and in popular culture – is applied differently to Republicans than it is Democrats. In a recent exchange with Wolf Blitzer, Newt Gingrich aptly described this as “selective media outrage.” It’s not that outrage over comments like those made by Nugent is necessarily misplaced, it’s that many are rightly curious as to where the outrage is when substantially similar comments are made from the other side of the political spectrum.

So, Mr. Hutchinson, would you apply the same standard of perpetual racism you accuse Republicans of to your fellow Democrats?

You select a few examples and damn an entire group, which party fought desegregation?

The talk from GOP officials spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt regarding the Syrian refugees also comes to mind.

McGentrix wrote:

You select a few examples and damn an entire group, which party fought desegregation?

I think you know the answer to this but I'll go ahead and address it. The group that strongly championed segregation currently calls themselves Republicans. The original group that supported segregation called themselves Democrats, but the national Democratic party repudiated them and so they walked out of the Democratic convention in 1948 and formed the States' Rights Democratic Party, nicknamed the Dixiecrats. (Note that under the threat of a significant division in the party, the Democrats chose to stick with the principles of expanding civil rights and let the bigots walk, something the Republican party should consider.) When their rebellion fell short, the Dixiecrats nominally returned to the Democratic party, but their leaders (including Dixiecrat Presidential candidate Strom Thurmond and super bigot Jesse Helms) led the move to the Republican Party and when Nixon signaled the Republican party would let their bigotry slide the movement begin in mass. Dishonest (or perhaps self deceiving) Republicans will say that Democrats championed segregation, so I say again - Thurmond, Helms and many others left the Democratic Party because it would not tolerate their bigotry.