BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
I want her to be liberal. is that too much to ask?
But the far right thinks she'll push the "progressive agenda" more than Bern would
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
I want her to be liberal. is that too much to ask?
I want her to be liberal. is that too much to ask?
If you're not voting for Clinton in the fall you're voting for Trump, even if you don't vote at all.
It's now at a point where the Democratic candidacy is more entertaining than the Republican one. I did not think that would happen. It's not because of Hillary or Bernie themselves, it's the fighting between Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters. It is hilariously pathetic. Trump must be absolutely laughing himself to sleep.
Fucking seriously.
I now read this thread for comedy.
It's now at a point where the Democratic candidacy is more entertaining than the Republican one. I did not think that would happen. It's not because of Hillary or Bernie themselves, it's the fighting between Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters. It is hilariously pathetic. Trump must be absolutely laughing himself to sleep.
Fucking seriously.
I now read this thread for comedy.
Really, guys?
Yeah. The flaming Republican trainwreck is what it is, and no new locomotives have smashed into it for a while.
Meanwhile, the excruciating arguments between the Sanders and Clinton fans here continue to deliver on the laughs/cringes.
"Bernie or bust" guys are actually funny, because it's fucking pathetic.
Don't you think that series of posts comes off a little... holier than thou?
Aren't you one of them?
He really does. This isn't just about him. Clinton has her issues, but a Republican president with a Republican house gets to whack away at minority rights with impunity. If you neglect to vote for the challenger to the Republican candidate, which will more than likely be Clinton in November, you are supporting the GOP's war on minorities. That's how American politics works, whether you care to admit it or not. This isn't me being a dogmatic Democratic shill; I'm voting for Sanders on Tuesday. But I understand the reality we are in. If you (I am using the royal "you" here) deny what I am saying, I have a hard time believing you really appreciate the seriousness of all of this.I entirely disagree and think this argument is such a logical fallacy. He doesn't have an obligation to vote for a democratic candidate solely based upon the fact that the republican candidate sucks. Nor is he "voting for Donald Trump." This is not a good argument, and undermines someone's right to not vote.
If he doesn't like Hilary Clinton, fine. Explain to him why voting for Clinton is still voting for a lot of what he supports. But don't draw that card... there's several possible outcomes of his vote, one including him actually voting for Trump due to his distaste for Clinton. As a simple form of statistics, he has never supported Clinton and continues not to support Clinton. The only individuals who are a "vote for trump" are the individuals who agree to support Clinton and do not vote.
He really does. This isn't just about him. Clinton has her issues, but a Republican president with a Republican house gets to whack away at minority rights with impunity. If you neglect to vote for the challenger to the Republican candidate, which will more than likely be Clinton in November, you are supporting the GOP's war on minorities. That's how American politics works, whether you care to admit it or not. This isn't me being a dogmatic Democratic shill; I'm voting for Sanders on Tuesday. But I understand the reality we are in. If you (I am using the royal "you" here) deny what I am saying, I have a hard time believing you really appreciate the seriousness of all of this.
If this were the case, voting would be mandatory.
It's his right to not care if the GOP can attack women and minorities. Planned Parenthood continuing to be attacked for no reason to hurt women's healthcare. All of the progress on LGBT issues stopping and in some cases regressing. If that's all cool with people, they don't have to vote for Hillary Clinton. But let's not pretend that's it's not an extremely privileged place to be in to be able to cast aside those most vulnerable in the case of a GOP presidency because Hillary Clinton doesn't make us feel good.Obviously we've disagreed on this topic, dating years back.
We haven't gotten any closer, on the topic, either. All I'm reading here is that in your eyes, the individual doesn't matter, and he owes some sort of credit to what you perceive to be the greater good.
If this were the case, voting would be mandatory. You have zero power when you simply eat whatever food is placed in front of you. You've a terrible misconception that he and you share the same tastes and distastes, simply because you're both voting for the same candidate.
Compulsory voting seems to be a complete non-sequitur here.
Don't you think that series of posts comes off a little... holier than thou?
It's his right to not care if the GOP can attack women and minorities. Planned Parenthood continuing to be attacked for no reason to hurt women's healthcare. All of the progress on LGBT issues stopping and in some cases regressing. If that's all cool with people, they don't have to vote for Hillary Clinton. But let's not pretend that's it's not an extremely privileged place to be in to be able to cast aside those most vulnerable in the case of a GOP presidency because Hillary Clinton doesn't make us feel good.
The very act of not voting is in itself a vote for wanting something else.
However much the elector may say he has no personal preference for any candidate, that none of them will suit him, he is not asked that question nor required to express by his vote that opinion. He is asked to express a preference amongst those who are available for election. That is to state which of them, if he must have one or more of them as Parliamentary representatives, as he must, to mark down his vote in an order of preference of them.