I'll Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

But we are not allowed to vote our conscience, according to the group think going around here.

Sure. Pointing out that choices have consequences is group think....

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Oh really. So according to you, we really have no way of knowing that 97,000 votes in Florida for a minor party environmentalist candidate might have caused the loss, by 537 votes, of a major party environmentalist candidate, (Gore) to a Republican candidate whose party believes global warming is just a big scam?

Yes, that's right. As I said, you're trying to prove a counterfactual. It's like trying to prove that Napoleon would have won the battle of Waterloo if he'd had a B-52. And Gore wasn't much of an environmentalist in the 2000 race. He became one afterward.

Blickers wrote:

Sorry, but several studies have shown that is wrong. I linked one of them.

If those studies purport to prove that Gore would have won without Nader in the race, then those studies are fatally flawed. And if you link to fatally flawed studies, that just means you're credulous enough to believe their authors' claims.

Blickers wrote:

And now you are advocating the same failed strategy over again. If the country has a Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican President, you can not only say goodbye to environmental concerns, (witness Flint, Michigan), you can say goodbye to Social Security and Medicare in their present form. And a whole host of other programs going back to the New Deal.

If Clinton loses to Trump, it'll be her own damn fault

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Well, you're wrong. Life is not a courtroom. You don't have to prove something to a standard that allows absolutely no possibility that anything else can happen. Nobody is sending anyone to jail here-we're just pointing out what is obvious. And that is that environmentalism is a left/liberal issue, the Right is trying to call it a scam, (remember, the Right was upset that Clinton lowered the allowable amount of arsenic in water when Congress was out of session). The fact that the environmentalist Nader drew 97,000 votes and the major party left/liberal candidate Gore lost by 537 votes means that if Nader had never run Gore would have had that 537 votes and a ton more besides. Not the whole 97,000 votes, not by a long shot, but tons more votes than Bush would get, even allowing for half or more of the Nader voters staying home if they didn't have Ralph to vote for.

Nader delivered the election to Bush. Now some Bernie supporters want to forget that lesson and actually vote third party again. What a shame.

1 Reply

More than 537 Democrats in Florida voted for Bush.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Has there ever been a modern national election where EVERY voter who identifies with one party votes for that party's candidate? There is always some crossover. But when a national figure who is identified with one issue which one of the major parties also identifies with decides to go off on a well financed third party candidacy, it is inevitable that he will draw more votes from the party which adopts the issue than he will from the party which opposes the issue on principle, which in fact considers the whole issue a scam.

When the margin of victory gets small enough, that makes the difference. Which is what happened in 2000, and which all you "Don't vote for Hillary" people are trying to dance around.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Just five hundred Democrats voting for Bush is like passing a thousand votes to him, because he adds five hundred, the Dem subtracts 500.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Well, you're wrong. Life is not a courtroom. You don't have to prove something to a standard that allows absolutely no possibility that anything else can happen.

I'm not the one who brought up the claim about "proof." That was you. If you want to drop it now, that's fine with me.

Blickers wrote:

Nobody is sending anyone to jail here-we're just pointing out what is obvious. And that is that environmentalism is a left/liberal issue, the Right is trying to call it a scam, (remember, the Right was upset that Clinton lowered the allowable amount of arsenic in water when Congress was out of session).

Environmental issues played a very small role in the 2000 election. Nader didn't run as an environmentalist, he ran as a leftist against Clintonian centrism. Environmentalism was just one part of Nader's platform, and it was a much smaller part of Gore's platform.

Blickers wrote:

The fact that the environmentalist Nader drew 97,000 votes and the major party left/liberal candidate Gore lost by 537 votes means that if Nader had never run Gore would have had that 537 votes and a ton more besides. Not the whole 97,000 votes, not by a long shot, but tons more votes than Bush would get, even allowing for half or more of the Nader voters staying home if they didn't have Ralph to vote for.

Nader only got those votes because Gore and Bush were terrible choices. If Nader hadn't run but Gore and Bush remained terrible choices, then someone else besides Nader would have run and would have received those votes. So your reasoning is backwards: Nader didn't take votes away from Gore, Gore gave votes away that were there for the taking.

Blickers wrote:

Nader delivered the election to Bush. Now some Bernie supporters want to forget that lesson and actually vote third party again. What a shame.

The lesson of the 2000 election is that the Democratic party ignores its left wing at its peril. If anyone is forgetting the lesson of the 2000 election, therefore, it's Clinton supporters, not Sanders supporters.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote joefromchicago:

Quote:

Nader didn't take votes away from Gore, Gore gave votes away that were there for the taking......
.....The lesson of the 2000 election is that the Democratic party ignores its left wing at its peril

The lesson is that if you turn your back on a realistic Democrat who improved the country immensely, as the Clinton-Gore team did, for a pure-hearted Pied Piper, you end up getting recession and war. And now you're trying to tell us how all right it was. Not buying.

1 Reply

No one has to vote for Clinton, but I hope no one stays away from the polls because they don't like either candidate. You can write in your preference. Not voting might make you feel you have protested your displeasure, however you just won't be counted. It will be like you don't exist. Whoever wins won't care why you didn't vote, but when all the votes are counted and it becomes apparent to the bean counters you voted but rejected your choices, it sends the wonks into overdrive. They may have won once, but God help them if they have to run against the next hopeful.

It's all bullshit, but I never miss a chance to vote.

1 Reply

If no other viable candidate runs, I am voting Green.

2 Replies

@Blickers,

Where Nader screwed up was in believing that after 8 years of Bush the populace would elect a democratic house. This aint going to happen for 10 to 20 years. The republicans control enough states to keep that from happening.

1 Reply

It's truly laughable the amount of false blame Nader has had to shoulder.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Bullying somebody because they don't agree is groupthink, dude.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Quote edgar:

Quote:

If no other viable candidate runs, I am voting Green.

Go ahead, that's your right. Just don't complain if others point out that is helping to elect the Republicans again, and get ready to hear "I told you so" a thousand times from people on this forum. Because that's our right.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote edgar:

Quote:

It's truly laughable the amount of false blame Nader has had to shoulder.

Not nearly as much legitimate blame he's had to shoulder.

Dear Ralph: Thanks for enabling Bush to screw up 2001 through 2008.
Regards,
Blickers.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

I don't give a crap who gets elected, so long as we all vote our conscience, after thinking - something you Hillarybots have forgotten about.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

edgar's in Texas. it's a safe place to vote Green. his vote isn't going to turn Texas into a good state for the Democratic candidate, whoever it is

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

As a landscape woman aware early on of matters that are now showing up years later in the news, and re serious friends on that, I don't need a lecture, EdgarB.

So nice you will do Green.

You are planning for a purple supreme court?

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

Where Nader screwed up was in believing that after 8 years of Bush the populace would elect a democratic house.

Yeah, it only took six years. Big screw up.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Bullying somebody because they don't agree is groupthink, dude.

Bullying is bullying. (Just ask anyone who's been attacked by BernieBros.)

Groupthink is where people seek harmony over a good decision, which hardly applies to a Clinton vs. Sanders debate....

0 Replies

I'll Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know