I'll Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

engineer wrote:
In the general election, they will have the ice cream they passed up before or toxic waste.

It's a shame that you'll only have two choices on the ballot in your state.

The other things you're calling "choices" make about as much sense as going to a theater offering only two movies and "choosing" to use your paid ticket to go sit in the restroom. Makes about that much sense - and will net you about as much bang for your buck.

2 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

The other things you're calling "choices" make about as much sense as going to a theater offering only two movies and "choosing" to use your paid ticket to go sit in the restroom. Makes about that much sense - and will net you about as much bang for your buck.

You don't really understand this whole "election" thing, do you?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

In swing states there are two meaningful choices.

In states like Texas, it's easier to make I'm Making a Statement choices since it doesn't much matter.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

snood wrote:
The other things you're calling "choices" make about as much sense as going to a theater offering only two movies and "choosing" to use your paid ticket to go sit in the restroom. Makes about that much sense - and will net you about as much bang for your buck.

You don't really understand this whole "election" thing, do you?

Ah.. there ya go! Good job! Talk down to me because I disagree with your 'principled stand'. I understand elections very well. You don't seem to understand math. Votes for Jill Stein or write ins for Bernie for all intents and purposes in this election equal zero.

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

Ah.. there ya go! Good job! Talk down to me because I disagree with your 'principled stand'. I understand elections very well. You don't seem to understand math. Votes for Jill Stein or write ins for Bernie for all intents and purposes in this election equal zero.

It's hard to pretend that you understand elections when you insist on displaying the opposite. A vote for a third-party candidate is an effective demonstration of dissatisfaction with the positions espoused by the major parties. If popular enough, third-party positions have been adopted by major parties. That's how we ended up with things like the direct election of senators, the federal income tax, and, ironically enough, primary elections. On the other hand, voting for one of the two major-party candidates because those are the only votes that "matter" just guarantees more of the same.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

A vote for a third-party candidate is an effective demonstration of dissatisfaction with the positions espoused by the major parties.

Honestly, I think writing a letter, putting it in an envelope, writing a politicians name and address on it, and dropping it in mail box is a much more effective way of demonstrating your dissatisfaction.

So is going and talking to your local politicians.

Casting a vote for a third party is the cheap, lazy way to voice displeasure. If you're really pissed, then actually try doing something about it.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Casting a vote for a third party is the cheap, lazy way to voice displeasure.

And yet another person who doesn't understand how elections work.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

You don't understand how change works.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

You don't understand how change works.

Well, it certainly doesn't happen by electing the same politicians from the same families with the same discredited policies. At least I understand that much.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

That's what I am trying to figure out. How do you make positive change by being herded into the status quo?

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

That's what I am trying to figure out. How do you make positive change by being herded into the status quo?

Well that not difficult edgar. Clinton isn't offering to keep things the same as they are now. She's offering to implement changes in positive directions (in my point of view, and I think in Sanders' as well).

If you want to push her along, you write letters (not tweets). You go to your local politicians (super delegates) and you talk to them. You vote for congresses and representatives who support your viewpoint. You make changes in America over time and you do it by working with the people who are in power and can make change. It's the way the system was designed and it's been working very well for over 200 years.

You don't bern the system down. You don't let leaders get elected who are going to do a complete 180 degree reverse course from the goals you've been saying you support. I mean, I guess that's change, but it's not the change I want.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

JPB wrote:
I just don't see her as a candidate who will get folks out to the polls.

the results in the primaries don't support that view

I posted a couple of articles that talked about that - one candidate gets people out to rallies, one candidate gets people out to vote. different candidates with different types of supporters

I saw those articles too with the message: "One candidate gets people out to rallies, one candidate gets people out to vote."

I viewed it as Hillary propaganda -- turning a negative (lack of visible support or excitement about her candidacy) into an alleged positive.

Propaganda is biased and mostly misleading in nature.

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

facts are propaganda

interesting take on things

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

I saw those articles too with the message: "One candidate gets people out to rallies, one candidate gets people out to vote."

I viewed it as Hillary propaganda -- turning a negative (lack of visible support or excitement about her candidacy) into an alleged positive.

Propaganda is biased and mostly misleading in nature.

It's also the objective truth of what has happened throughout the entire primary process.

Votes are indeed a very positive thing. Nothing alleged about that.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

She's offering to implement changes in positive directions

Really? Also she says is what democrats and republicans have been saying for years and there has been NO CHANGE. Except of course for the continued expansion of the power and control of the elite.

Clinton is just the next puppet in line, controlled by the special interests and she is powerless. (not to mention a liar and a criminal, but we already know that).

There are only 2 people left who can shake up DC, Bernie and Donald !!!

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

facts are propaganda

interesting take on things

Well, its not a "fact". It's more like Hillary's version of the "big lie".

"“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

What's the lie part? Sanders has big rallies. Clinton has a big lead in the vote.

1 Reply

@snood,

Quote:

make about as much sense as going to a theater offering only two movies and "choosing" to use your paid ticket to go sit in the restroom

Made me laugh, thanks.

0 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

What's the lie part? Sanders has big rallies. Clinton has a big lead in the vote.

How many "votes" did Hillary get in the caucus states? Shocked

3 Replies

@Debra Law,

So you are saying that lopsided votes in states using a process that purposefully excludes the majority of voters is more meaningful than votes in states that, you know, let people vote? Again:

What's the lie part? Sanders has big rallies. Clinton has a big lead in the vote.

2 Replies

I'll Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know