Peabo, you still don't seem to understand that voting for Hillary Clinton in Arizona does nothing to help her win or stop a Trump presidency. That's not a straw man or a cliche, it's a reality. So if you're against Trump (which I'm certain we both are), your vote becomes an opportunity to lend support to a candidate who represents your values rather than participation in an effort to prevent the greater of two evils from taking office. For me, that person is Jill Stein and my vote for her is harmless to Hillary supporters' efforts.
Maybe seeing a true liberal receive a record number of votes this cycle will cause Democrats to adopt some of her stances. Maybe it won't. But voting for a candidate I dislike in a state she has no chance of winning seems ludicrous. If I lived in a blue or swing state, I'd have more soul searching to do. But I don't, so I don't. It's not my system, I just vote in it.
"Liberals never lear." Clinton or Trump, Rat, I'm going fight to get you an education.
elsueno- thanks for the helping of condescension, but you're going to need something better than cliches and straw men to throw around if you want to make a convincing case. Despite your rather lazy accusations, I'm no fan of Monsanto or anything else on your laundry list. I'm just someone who thinks the practical way to shape and change policy is from within. You know, like how civil rights legislation and stuff like that was passed. The way we've been doing it for years.
Blaze Mason - K-12 education, gun control, debt-free college, affordable health care, campaign finance reform, and so on. Do I think she's going to roll up her sleeves and dive right in on all this? No. Do I think there are some hollow campaign year promises in there. Sure, I'm not a child. But, you see, that's where the fight is to me. The good fight that can actually make change happen.
I ask you about Jill Stein. What makes you think she would be effective if elected? I'm all ears.
And we'll have to agree to disagree on Nader. I won't hang everything on his shoulders, but he let his ego get in the way and the country paid the price.
I can't stop either one of you from your burn the house down logic, but if you're cynical enough to think there would be no difference between a Trump and a Clinton presidency, then you are only thinking of yourselves.
She has no economic plan except raising taxes. That has been tried so many times with the same result. A downward spiraling job market. Liberals never lear. They suck you in with "shovel ready" nonsense and they advance projects that we never would have wasted money on. Then up goes the debt. Obama has spent us $10T deeper in debt and the economy is dismal.
I know, you just need more money. Somebody elses.
Hillary, supports fracking? Which Hillary?
Last month, in advance of the New York primary, the Clinton campaign aired a television ad announcing her allegiance with so-called fracktivists fighting to stop fracking, which has been tied to a number of health and environmental problems.
Hillary Clinton Tried to Push Fracking on Other Nations When She Was Secretary of State, New Emails Reveal
Wouldn't it be considered treason, when we have to rely on Russian hackers to find out Hillary is lying to Americans?
Madame Secretary, stop lying and release ALL of your emails.
Peabo -- you are repeating false statements and misinformation, which isn't going to help your candidate.
First, Snopes.com says that the anti-vax statement about Stein is unproven, and she personally is not anti-vaccine. The Green Party does support alternative medicine (including legal cannabis) and is opposed to the medical industry. I agree, and so do millions of other Americans.
Second, Nader did NOT cost Gore the election. Leaving aside the issue of the Supreme Court decision that handed the election to Bush, more Dems voted for Bush than voted for Nader, so if you're going to look for a lesson there, it's that major parties should nominate candidates that their members and independents will vote for.
You say it will be an "honor" to vote for Clinton. If you're really trying to get her elected, how about if you share some of her policies that you like and respect? As I said in a previous post, Clinton supporters never do that. The only reason they seem to support her is because she's not the other guy. That's not good enough.
Right on, Peabo - vote for Clinton to show your support for Monsanto, fracking, Goldman Sachs, wars of regime change, trade agreements that strip our nation of its sovereignty, and a host of other issues/interests your candidate clearly doesn't pander too.
Tex, myself, and others here are addressing those who wrap themselves in the fear of a Trump presidency to justify voting for Hillary. If that's the editor's only reason for voting Clinton, living in a red state renders it nonsensical and we're pointing that out. I, for one, have no interest in debating the merits of supporting the standard bearer for neoliberalism/neoconservatism with members of her cult. Your vote is your voice - at least you're exercising it...
Conscience? You bet. Jill Stein panders to anti-vaxxers. Gary Johnson panders to climate-change deniers. I conscientiously won't vote for either. Whether she takes Arizona or not, it will be an honor to vote for Hilary and a thrill watching Donald Trump get his ass handed to him in November.
Your argument for voting for Clinton holds up ONLY if you live in a swing state. In Arizona, the Republican will win, especially against the unpopular Sec. Clinton.
Vote your conscience and not your fears.
Joe "Tex" Callahan
Just like Ross Perot gave us Bill ( Knob Job) Clinton. Thanks Ross.
You think? Maybe if third party movements could get their shit together they could have a bigger voice and actually help shape policy. They haven't yet, with the regrettable exception of Nader, who helped give us W & Cheney. Thanks, Ralph. Bernie was able to pull the Democratic Party to the left because he ran as one, plain and simple.
What exactly makes you think your vote for Clinton in Arizona will do anything at all to prevent a Trump victory? Arizona's electoral votes are going to Trump, end of story. If you don't believe that, you're living in a far more fantastical land than Bernie supporters were accused of when they called for free tuition and Medicare for all. There are about 28 states in the union responsible for preventing a Trump victory, and we ain't one of em.
A vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein (if she manages to get on the ballot after the Green Party deadline fiasco) goes a lot further in actually helping the country - increasing their vote percentages can lead to third-party participation in future debates and allow them to qualify for additional funding. In fact, by wasting your vote on Clinton in an overwhelmingly Trump state, you're doing damage to the country by signaling support of Hillary Clinton's neoliberal mandate.
Sorry, Mari, but the only reason that third parties don't win is because people don't vote for them.
There's no way I can vote for Clinton, who approved of thousands of refugee children being sent back to danger to "send a message to their parents." I can't vote for someone who has brokered some of the largest international arms sales in history (can you say cluster bombs?) but then claims she's for "gun control." I will not vote for someone who thinks that the U.S. has the right to intervene in other countries' elections (e.g., Honduras), while she oversaw the theft of the Dem primary (http://electionjusticeusa.org/index.php/re…). I could go on and on.
I refuse to vote against my conscience and my values. No one, even you, seems able to make a reasonable argument for why anyone should vote for Clinton except "OMG Trump!" The DNC built this, they own it, but they don't own me. We've been saying for months that Clinton cannot win against Trump, but we have been ignored.
I'm voting Jill Stein, Green Party. I hope you join me.
Both candidates have turned the parties upside down. Maybe that's a good thing.
"The fact that Bernie made as good a showing as he did, and was willing to take the high road when the revelations came out, means the Democratic Party has to take his influence seriously." TDB
Really? The Democratic Party, and pointedly the DNC, have proven they are the black hole of the political universe. They will suck up all energy and continue on as nothing has really happened. Working against a party candidate? No problem? Thinly veiled anti-semitic/anti-atheist plots to derail the candidate? No problem.
Watching Sanders kowtow to the party, a party he had never been a member of til this election, was disgusting. He should have walked out with his supporters. These people who trusted him and worked their butts off in his campaign have every right to be turned off to politics ... and to sit this one out or vote their consciences.
I'm with you on this one, MH. My first election-& the last time I voted third party-was the 1980 Presidential. Of course, even if all third-party votes had gone to Carter, that bad actor who wound up in the White House for eight years would still have done so. All the same, I learned all about wasting my vote then (never mind how much better Carter looks in hindsight). & Who else remembers the Nader fiasco?
The fact that Bernie made as good a showing as he did, and was willing to take the high road when the revelations came out, means the Democratic Party has to take his influence seriously. Meanwhile, any vote not for Hillary will just get p!$$ed away, and make it that much more likely we'll get a textbook fascist for president (hopefully, checks-&-balances would keep him from some of the more egregious parts of his agenda, but not without a lot of damage & wasted energy).
It's very socialist. They're required to help you. Without ANY kind of socialism, you would be completely on your own.
I'm glad you've lived...and (hopefully) learned.
I don't begrudge your choice, Mari--each to her own voting strategy, in this grand democratic experiment, and so on--but please don't fool yourself. If Billary Clinton fails to win this election, it will have nothing whatsoever to do with Bernie Sanders or anyone voting Green. She will fail on her own merits, or lack thereof.
If she fails to defeat one of the most ignorant, absurd, untruthful, embarrassing, unqualified, and downright dangerous presidential candidates in history--unbelievable as it may seem, but it could very well happen--it would be because she has utterly squandered her credibility. For many years she has been nothing more than a garden-variety politician who happens to be married to a former president, tacking back and forth with the winds of change and changing her tune whenever it suited the moment. She has consistently and earnestly played to Republican themes while pretending to be a liberal, courted the wealthy and powerful while pretending to stand for the underprivileged, and betrayed her base and the principles of her supposedly liberal party in the process. That strategy was birthed by her husband and his DNC, to the ruin of the Democratic Party and progressive change, and she has embraced it enthusiastically.
People are totally fed up with it--so fed up that they're desperately grasping for a psychotic ignoramus just because he sounds different. If she cannot beat the psychotic ignoramus--and I mean soundly beat him, send him back to his Tower with his tiny tail between his legs--she does not deserve to be president. No amount of ill-conceived, third-party blaming can change that.
Clinton Campaign Failed To Act.
Sounds just like Benghazi. But this time it's just political careers that are dying. Thankfully.
Always enjoy sgsmith's posts - but maybe could you please use the enter key to break up your prose into paragraphs?
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation