So you’ll express your anti-war sentiment by indirectly supporting the Republican candidate. Gotcha.
In this situation, a grown-up attitude would be to vote in a manner that would reduce the likelihood of war, rather than trying to punish someone for a mistake 13 years ago. It’s too late to have a better past, but we can have a better future.
I think it’s an excellent point, that ethically you should not vote in a party’s primary unless you are willing to live with the results of that primary and support the party’s nominee in the general election. It’s just a corollary of the general notion that it’s not cool to be a sore loser, combined with the idea that your primary vote was disingenuous if you’re not supporting the party’s nominee. Think about it: if everyone just petulantly refuses to vote in the general election for anyone but the candidate they supported in the primary, the whole system breaks down and it becomes pointless to even have a primary.
Depends on the realistic alternatives, don’t it? IOW, President Trump.
I voted for cheesy garlic bread flavor Lay’s but Bacon Mac&Cheese flavor won. Now I’m stuck with a four year supply of these chips I hate but buying them was the ethical thing to do. 
But in your method, it becomes pointless to have a general election because you just need to count the number of people who voted in each primary and count that many votes for the primary’s winner.
If I think that my party’s candidate has no business being President, then I have every right to vote for someone else - or not vote for anyone, for that matter (as I like to say, I am a firm believer in, “The right to vote includes the right not to vote, or at least the right to vote, ‘I don’t care’”).
Nope, because you have all those people who didn’t vote in the primary - what used to be swing voters. The parties belong to the loyalists, but the game theory is that those loyalists can’t go batshit crazy - cause the other party would get the swing voters.
No, absolutely not, you’re wrong about that. The Congressmen who hold power in the DNC are centrists, and maybe they give LIP SERVICE to getting money out of politics and regulating/taxing Wall Street, but they do NOT back up their lip service with legislative action. Almost all of them take huge amounts of money from the corporations to finance their campaigns (and keep some of it for themselves). THAT’s who they answer to on economic issues, no matter what they say.
Now as for war, I don’t know about the personal beliefs/income from the military-industrial complex of most DLC centrists, but I DO know they support Hillary and I DO know that Hillary is a HAWK.
So, not buying it, no sir, not for an instant.
Trump has said he is willing to regulate the big banks. Of course, Trump says a lot of things. And his comments on foreign policy are horrifyingly dumb.
There’s at least a chance that Trump is lying to either get out of winning the election (his campaign advisor who resigned recently said the entire point of the campaign was to poll in the double digits, not to win), or that he’s lying just to get elected. Hillary’s war hawkishness is consistent, and well documented, and she is trying to rattle our sabers now against Iran which poses NO threat to the United States. She loves sending other people’s kids to war for profit.
You can’t threaten me with Trump to vote for Hillary, and for damn sure you can’t try to scare me into voting Hillary because she’s the more peaceful candidate. She isn’t.
edit: Also I find it childish YOU say it’s about “punishing” Hillary, that isn’t how I vote, it’s about someone instantly disqualifying themselves from my vote for all time: Voting in support of needless wars that caused hundreds of thousands of needless deaths. That’s not a “mistake”.
At least people like you, who are adamant that you will not vote for Hillary, I don’t need to pretend are anything other than my political enemies. What is exhausting, as I said in the other thread, is turning the other cheek and trying to cajole abusive left wingers into holding their noses and voting for mainstream Democrats. I’m pretty fed up with that gig, TBH.
I’d say if someone is your political enemy because they refuse to vote for warmongers, then you have some introspection to do.
No, that doesn’t follow. I’m not saying everyone, or even most people, should vote in primaries. But those who do, should make an implicit pledge to abide by the results, not be a sore loser, and support the nominee in the fall. After all, if your preferred candidate wins the primary, you need the losing candidates’ supporters to do the same. So to do otherwise is not only extremely selfish, it amounts to bargaining in bad faith. You become a free rider, like the guy who always becomes mysteriously scarce when it’s his turn to buy a round at the bar.
Your viewpoint only applies to people who consider politics a team sport, wouldn’t you agree?
Riiight, because I of course accept the validity of the label “warmonger”.
Do you think the people I am referring to see me as a political ally?
Whatever your definition, how is Hillary just as much a “warmonger” as Trump? Do you need a quick review of his campaign statements to remind you?
Declaring the overriding importance of a broad subject by using a single word for it, and dismissively declaring equivalence of people’s views toward it, is about as fallacious as it can get.
You mean like the political parties who hold primaries at their own expense? Yeah. What gives you the right, the gall, to vote in them without joining the team?
Of course they don’t, but it’s not because you are “mainstream”.
Warmonger is a slur term, but you are a military interventionist, and that is not a mainstream ideal. As a disillusioned ex-Trotskyite, you even fit the profile.
I won’t argue that HRC is a neocon, but she certainly cozies up to them, and they appear very happy to have her as CiC. Too happy. That’s my biggest problem with her, and the one her supporters never respond to.
Parties are a team sport.
A “slur” is calling someone Jewish “nickel nose”, or a black man “darkie”. “Warmonger” isn’t a slur, it is a damnation.
So the two parties corrupt the system so much that they are the only two viable “choices” for elections, paying for the primaries with their corrupt bribe money, and I’m supposed to care about supporting their guy if my guy doesn’t win? Trying to do the best for the American people is what I vote for, I have no allegiance to corrupt political parties. If I held a gun to your head and told you to give me my wallet and you said “Don’t hurt me, I won’t call the cops” would you be immoral for not keeping your end of the bargain?