I'll Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

I know what I know;

and, if you're honest ... at least with yourself ... then you know the same things.

Spread propaganda if you want to do so, and criticize those who don't accept it, but that doesn't change the fact that deception is deception no matter how you package it.

I'm fascinated by history and it tends to repeat itself.

Public perceptions of Hillary Clinton are probably similar to the perceptions of Richard III.

I imagine these are Hillary's lines when she's being honest with herself:

“And thus I clothe my naked villainy
With odd old ends stol'n out of holy writ;
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.”
― William Shakespeare, Richard III

You're gambling on a defective product. You're gambling that she can get the people out to vote for her. You're gambling that she can retain power if elected. It is very possible your devil will be impeached during the first term of her reign, if she's "lucky" enough to be elected. (If the "fix" is already in place, I guess "luck" has nothing to do with it.) The reign of Madam President might be as short as the reign of Richard III.

Again, I'll never vote for Hillary Clinton. (See title to this thread.)

But, there are many of you who claim you don't need my support. Bernie supporters have already been kicked to the curb and insulted at every opportunity. So, I don't know why you're hanging around this thread except maybe to satiate some deep desire to continue bashing and thumbing down those who don't like Hillary.

"A vote" is probably not very effective in and of itself, no matter how you measure "effective."

Lots of votes may have an effect, but it may not have the effect that you want.




Start by defining what the outcome is that you desire, then consider whether a protest vote is an effective method of accomplishing that.



IMO, a protest vote is easy, but probably not effective. It's a single bit of data, with no context. Yippee. You voted for Sanders, or Nader, or whomever else. But no one knows why.

Back to Engineer's analogy, if Sanders is French Vanilla and Clinton is Mexican Vanilla, are you going to say that you hate Mexican Vanilla so much that you'd rather have to eat a diseased pork rind for the next four years?

No one is kicking the Bernie supporters to the curb.

It's the Bernie or bust people that can go F themselves.

George Washington was one person. He didn't design the entire country. If political parties were no specifically outlawed, AND people had the foresight to know that they could form, then by default they are part of the process in as much as the process allows them to exist.

Wrong again.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/07/the-founding-fathers-tried-to-warn-us-about-the-threat-from-a-two-party-system.html

The men that designed the US foundation railed and warned against parties, notably TWO parties. We're almost undone by them.

If you like being up to your ass in war, you are going to love a Hillary presidency.

You do realize that you're quoting a Shakespeare play, right?

And from what you wrote, you think Hillary is the devil and that Sanders is a savior.

And somehow we're the ones that are delusional?

You know she's already doing what I've never seen a Democrat do before - fearmongering over the downing of the Egyptian plane. She couldn't wait for the president or the news to make a fact-based connection. She wants to be the war president.

At least Trump sometimes mentions negotiating. Not her. "Ram it up the gut," or something like that, she has been known to say.

Clinton might not need your support, but I suspect she'd like it. My insistence on pointing out that in fact Clinton has a lot of supporters, people who have quietly walked up to the ballot box and voted for her, is not to denigrate you, Sanders or his devoted fans. I'm trying to cut through some of the cloud of misinformation that Clinton's detractors throw around, misinformation that sucks in people of good intent. If you support Sanders and his positions, then Clinton is your second best option this election cycle and if you can't have Sanders you should consider her. There is absolutely no evidence that Clinton is the pocket of (pick your most favorite despised group) based on her voting record or that she is dishonest or that she has rigged anything against anyone. She has a great Politifact rating for truth (very similar to Sanders), did a great job as Senator and I think a great job as Secretary of State in trying times. I don't agree with all of her positions, but I think that if President Bush was wildly driving the car towards a cliff and President Obama managed to fight the car back onto a decent road, then Clinton will keep the car going the right direction. You might want us to take a different road, but the road we're on is going the right way. It might be bumpy and have some rough turns and it's not going to get us there quickly, but anyone who seriously supports what Sanders supports (not just the man, but the positions) should set aside the preconceptions and really look at what Clinton is offering. There is a real legislative record that shows some mistakes, some compromises and a real record for fighting for Americans. What Trump is offering is to run the car into a tree, then burn the tree down. There are lots of "big lies" out there concerning Clinton. I challenge you to set aside your preconceptions and start over. If her Iraq war vote or some other vote is a deal breaker for you then no argument I can make will undo the past, but if you want to look forward and you can't have Sanders, then I think you can do worse (a lot worse) then Clinton.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I bet it really tastes like asphalt.

Huffington Post

There’s no doubt that Hillary is the candidate of Wall Street. Even more dangerous, though, is that she is the candidate of the military-industrial complex. The idea that she is bad on the corporate issues but good on national security has it wrong. Her so-called foreign policy “experience” has been to support every war demanded by the US deep security state run by the military and the CIA.

Hillary and Bill Clinton’s close relations with Wall Street helped to stoke two financial bubbles (1999-2000 and 2005-8) and the Great Recession that followed Lehman’s collapse. In the 1990s they pushed financial deregulation for their campaign backers that in turn let loose the worst demons of financial manipulation, toxic assets, financial fraud, and eventually collapse. In the process they won elections and got mighty rich.

Yet Hillary’s connections with the military-industrial complex are also alarming. It is often believed that the Republicans are the neocons and the Democrats act as restraints on the warmongering. This is not correct. Both parties are divided between neocon hawks and cautious realists who don’t want the US in unending war. Hillary is a staunch neocon whose record of favoring American war adventures explains much of our current security danger.

Just as the last Clinton presidency set the stage for financial collapse, it also set the stage for unending war. On October 31, 1998 President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act that made it official US policy to support “regime change” in Iraq.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

Thus were laid the foundations for the Iraq War in 2003.

Of course, by 2003, Hillary was a Senator and a staunch supporter of the Iraq War, which has cost the US trillions of dollars, thousands of lives, and done more to create ISIS and Middle East instability than any other single decision of modern foreign policy. In defending her vote, Hillary parroted the phony propaganda of the CIA:

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members... “

After the Iraq Liberation Act came the 1999 Kosovo War, in which Bill Clinton called in NATO to bomb Belgrade, in the heart of Europe, and unleashing another decade of unrest in the Balkans. Hillary, traveling in Africa, called Bill: “I urged him to bomb,” she told reporter Lucinda Frank.

Hillary’s record as Secretary of State is among the most militaristic, and disastrous, of modern US history. Some experience. Hilary was a staunch defender of the military-industrial-intelligence complex at every turn, helping to spread the Iraq mayhem over a swath of violence that now stretches from Mali to Afghanistan. Two disasters loom largest: Libya and Syria.

Hillary has been much attacked for the deaths of US diplomats in Benghazi, but her tireless promotion of the overthrow Muammar Qaddafi by NATO bombing is the far graver disaster. Hillary strongly promoted NATO-led regime change in Libya, not only in violation of international law but counter to the most basic good judgment. After the NATO bombing, Libya descended into civil war while the paramilitaries and unsecured arms stashes in Libya quickly spread west across the African Sahel and east to Syria. The Libyan disaster has spawned war in Mali, fed weapons to Boko Haram in Nigeria, and fueled ISIS in Syria and Iraq. In the meantime, Hillary found it hilarious to declare of Qaddafi: “We came, we saw, he died.”

Perhaps the crowning disaster of this long list of disasters has been Hillary’s relentless promotion of CIA-led regime change in Syria. Once again Hillary bought into the CIA propaganda that regime change to remove Bashir al-Assad would be quick, costless, and surely successful. In August 2011, Hillary led the US into disaster with her declaration Assad must “get out of the way,” backed by secret CIA operations.

Five years later, no place on the planet is more ravaged by unending war, and no place poses a great threat to US security. More than 10 million Syrians are displaced, and the refugees are drowning in the Mediterranean or undermining the political stability of Greece, Turkey, and the European Union. Into the chaos created by the secret CIA-Saudi operations to overthrow Assad, ISIS has filled the vacuum, and has used Syria as the base for worldwide terrorist attacks.

The list of her incompetence and warmongering goes on. Hillary’s support at every turn for NATO expansion, including even into Ukraine and Georgia against all common sense, was a trip wire that violated the post-Cold War settlement in Europe in 1991 and that led to Russia’s violent counter-reactions in both Georgia and Ukraine. As Senator in 2008, Hilary co-sponsored 2008-SR439, to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO. As Secretary of State, she then presided over the restart of the Cold War with Russia.

It is hard to know the roots of this record of disaster. Is it chronically bad judgment? Is it her preternatural faith in the lying machine of the CIA? Is it a repeated attempt to show that as a Democrat she would be more hawkish than the Republicans? Is it to satisfy her hardline campaign financiers? Who knows? Maybe it’s all of the above. But whatever the reasons, hers is a record of disaster. Perhaps more than any other person, Hillary can lay claim to having stoked the violence that stretches from West Africa to Central Asia and that threatens US security.

Caucus states assign their votes proportionally just like the states that vote. Caucus states have delegates based on the state's population. Because of those 2 facts, Hillary's lead in the regular delegates by almost 300 says even if the caucus states had voted Hillary would still have a substantial lead in overall votes. It's simple algebra.

Texas isn't so much a red state as it is a state where people just don't vote. Everyone believes the same as you, which is that Texas is red no matter what, so populations that would normally vote liberal just don't show up.

Texas' population is 37% Hispanic, but only 15% of voters are. Wake up that sleeping giant, and Texas would become a swing state.

Interesting, would that the same could be said in KY. Much as I would like to think there are a great many sleeping liberals in my state, I know better, or at least I think I do.

It could become a swing state, but no one seems to have taken advantage of the opportunity - so right now, vote however you want if you're in Texas.

Perhaps if more in Texas was made more aware of liberals in their state, they would be encouraged to get and vote to try and turn their state into a blue state. It would be good for their own state plus perhaps put more democrats in congress even if it doesn't help elect a democrat president. Even though my state has no chance, I still get out and vote every time as I feel as though I am at least doing my part.

I think deep down most liberals know Hillary would not be as incompetent as a Trump president would be, nor as so scary to think of being so close to the nuclear button. I know she is more hawkish and more apt to be leap before she has all the facts as shown recently, but she will still be safer for the whole world than Trump and those are our choices this fall.

I have never insulted Bernie. Until lately I supported him to run against Hillary even though I have voted for her. I have insulted the Bernie supporters who claim that because Hillary has garnered more popular votes she is cheating. Maybe they need to hack the dem computers again to find out why more people are voting for her than him. If he had won the nomination I would have voted for him even though I know he would have been ineffective. We need a dem. senate and house to get any thing done in government. What some of the Bernie people are saying is Bernie or I vote republican.

Ok, why is it that the Clinton Presidency always reflects on his wife? On the one hand, America is told stand by your man, then the next, she is villified for it. Alot has changed in 20 years and she is moving from the policies of her husband, which, lets not forget, was the polling numbers of the times. DOMA was applauded, Dont ask dont tell, Nafta, the crackdown on crack...the war on drugs. So many things that now studies have proven to be false. She has reversed on many of those issues to reflect the constant ebb and flow of popular opinion. Isnt that what politicians are supposed to do? She also regrets voting for Iraq. Regrettably the country wasnt allowed to vote on that war.