I was once against the idea of gay marriage. Then I thought that civil unions were an acceptable compromise. Then I started believing that gays deserved the right to marry whoever.
Saying that Clinton, Obama, whoever wasn’t always for it doesn’t mean much to me because I personally know that attitudes and feelings change. that was, after all, the whole point of advocacy for it – to change people’s hearts and minds.
So if Trump is really so bad that you’ve decided I have a Civic Duty to vote for Hillary, why don’t you and the other self-righteous, bombastic people in this thread have a Civic Duty to encourage people to vote for Hillary by being polite and respectful, and making decent, rational arguments instead of wild emotional appeals and blame shifting?
I never said that, so I’m not sure why you’re quoting me but arguing with a position from someone else that I don’t think has even been expressed in this thread. This particular line of conversation started with me disagreeing with an assertion that Clinton and Sanders held the same position on 90% of issues.
No, me saying that Clinton and Sanders are different on issues because they’ve voted and advocated differently on an issue is not remotely the same thing as saying that Obama is not Liberal because of one vote.
Which is completely and utterly irrelevant to the question of whether Clinton and Sanders are DIFFERENT. I don’t buy ‘they’re the same on 90% of the issues’ if you just dismiss the issues where they are deeply and fundamentally different as ‘not important’ by your personal fiat.
I told everyone about my voting plans in the first post in the thread, begging me to vote the way I already said I plan to vote would be downright absurd.
It also doesn’t work if you dismiss issues where you state that Clinton’s views are not actually her views.
I never made the claim you’re accusing me of. The law in question forces women under the age of 18 to act as human incubators in certain situations (namely, if a parent wants them to) which is completely consistent what I said. I simply did not claim that abortion was illegal for all people under the age of 18.
What’s absurd is arguing that a candidate’s choice of running mate is utterly irrelevant to said candidate’s position on an issue. Seriously, just think about what you’re saying.
It’s as much of a fact as the statement that not writing in Sanders helps Trump is, mathematically speaking, an indisputable fact. Or not voting for Johnson. Or not Voting for Stein.
Please feel free to cite the emotion appearing in my post. (Hint: my apathy towards who someone votes for doesn’t count.)
I’m not sure exactly which comments you’re referring to. I acknowledge that the tone in some of the comments in this thread has probably been harsh, but more often than not, my tone is consistent with the tone that I perceive in the message that I’m responding to. But you’re point is well taken: it makes us feel good to emote, but it probably isn’t nearly as persuasive as we think it is at the time we write.
I’m not sure how to say this without hurting your feelings, so I’ll just lay it out there without trying to twist the knife.
If there’s a burning building and people are yelling at you to get out, and you’re more upset at the tone of people’s voices than the fire that is threatening people, I just can’t explain bluntly enough that you’re paying attention to the wrong thing.
Yes, you can say that everyone would have been better if we had picked a different route out of the building. But protesting the exit by laying down in the doorway, and explaining that the people who set the fire have more responsibility than you for whomever may be harmed, doesn’t mean that you have a good reason to trap 320 million people in that burning building.
To the extent that people are yelling about the need to get out of the building through a broken window on the second floor instead of a nice big fire door leading to an nice air conditioned holding area, doesn’t mean that a complaint that the exit isn’t ideal is very convincing. And to the extent that people may be yelling, it shouldn’t be taken that we are trying to insult anyone’s intelligence, even if it is phrased as, “Hey, you stupid fuck, get out of the building now!!!”
In most cases, the yelling and commotion is better attributed to the urgency and importance of the situation than a personal attack on anyone. And in such circumstances, I don’t think it is necessarily reasonable to insist on having one’s hand held and being spoken to only in calming tones. Let’s just get the fuck out of the building NOW, and later we can reflect on how much worse things could have been.
Every American who is eligible to vote for Hillary in a swing state but fails to do so is contributing to the risk of catastrophe and should be charged with negligence.
This is a mathematical fact.
I wade through the posts and am befuddled with people speaking at cross-purposes. If anyone wants to somehow argue against a Hillary vote, please first acknowledge the obvious mathematical truth above. Otherwise I will treat your post as ignorance deserving no attention.
No, now you’re adding qualifiers. Only Blair Walsh (the Minnesota Vikings kicker) could hit those moving goalposts.
Don’t modulate the key then not debate with me. Despite repeated statements as to Clinton’s own views on the subject, you keep repeating the same line.
Do you need a sandbox for your head?
(Apologies for the Hamilton lyrics, the entire show is stuck in my head)
[QUOTE=asahi]
But I disagree with using a handful of votes and then saying “There’s no difference between Clinton and Donald Trump - they’re equally bad.” No, they are not. And you know that, which is the sad part.
[/QUOTE]
Technically true, as you’ve merely implied that Trump and Clinton are equally bad:
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Which(Trump or Clinton, which are the ONLY two realistic choices at this point) would you have as president?
[/QUOTE]
Well, let me say, with respect and love in my heart, that anyone who wouldn’t vote for Hillary in this election, knowing what everyone knows about Trump, isn’t likely to be persuaded by “decent, rational arguments.” Even Republicans are outraged that he might be elected, so for the rest of us, the choice is so obvious we might resort to anger and condescension a little too quickly.
I’m reminded of the scene in Pulp Fiction where the Wolf is trying to save Vincent & Jules’ asses and Vincent can only stand there and complain that Wolf didn’t say “please”.
So, pretty please – with sugar on top – vote for fucking Clinton.
Perfect analogy!
Hillary Clinton is, at best, too stupid to be granted the Presidency. She is either too stupid to have realised that Bush’s obvious bullshit about Iraqi WMDs was obvious bullshit, or she is too evil to refuse to support an illegal war that went on to kill a hundred thousand people. And she hasn’t learned: she’s still saying that people on the No-Fly list - a list which included Senator Ted Kennedy - should be arbitrarily denied their constitutional right to own a firearm, without due process.
There are a hundred and fifty million people eligible to be elected President this year. If anyone should be charged with negligence (and they shouldn’t), it’s the Democrats who are still trying to sell the lie that the only person who could stop Trump is one who is singularly unsuited to the job. If Trump wins, it will be because you bet on Clinton instead of someone who isn’t hated, arrogant, extremely careless and either a useful idiot for authoritarian bastards or one herself.
You forgot one VERY important qualifier there…in your opinion. Slice it, dice it, chop it all you like, the overwhelming majority of Democrats disagree with you. (In fact, pretty much every one that isn’t still petulantly weeping that Bernie wasn’t handed the nomination.) Love how it’s all black-or-white to you when it comes to Hillary, but you can’t even begin to see how awful the prospect of a Trump presidency is.
There are no other electable people. Trump and Clinton, those are your only choices. You can whine all you want about how there should be other viable choices. The reality is that there are none.
So go ahead and cast your vote to send the country down the shitter. I hope if you help this neophyte tyrant into office that you personally regret the fuck out of it.
I’ve heard and read this several times, and it makes no sense to me whatsoever. It’s almost like it’s a language translation issue.
Please explain why she is more qualified now than Obama was in 2012. She has no experience at the job itself, how can you possibly argue that she is more qualified than someone who’d been doing the job for four years?
Is this some novel definition of ‘qualified’, or a novel definition of ‘candidate’?
Obviously, that’s meant to exclude incumbents. It’s still arguable – the elder Bush was also, on paper at least, “highly qualified,” and there have been others with similar experiences – but it’s not arguable for the reason you suggested.
Nobody’s arguing that she’s more experienced than an incumbent president. They’re arguing that she’s as experienced a first-time nominee as you’ll find. But you already knew that this is what people meant and you’re just humoring us with daftness.
These are valid criticisms and reasons not to like Clinton - no argument there. And if Clinton were running against a more qualified opponent, like Romney or someone of that stature, I might still feel she’s the better choice, but it would be challenging to construct an argument that she’s somehow better. I’d probably be defaulting to the fact that the Democratic party is more likely to advance the country’s collective interests than Republicans.
Right, but 150 million people didn’t enter the race, did they? We had real elections, with real voters who represent a broad cross section of the country. Bernie Sanders was not selected by the majority of those voters. It seems like you’re more disgusted with the fact that a lot of other voters in this country didn’t seem to share the same level of enthusiasm of your candidate as you obviously do. I understand and can relate to those feelings, especially now (lol). But it’s not like the DNC just cancelled elections and anointed Clinton. There were elections, and more people voted for Clinton than Sanders.
How is it a lie at this point? Hillary Clinton is the only person with a realistic chance to stop the presidency of Donald Trump. Are you suggesting that a third party candidate who’s hovering around 1 percent and not even on the ballot in a majority of states has a chance to stop Trump? Poor logic.
And logically, if you opt not to vote for Hillary Clinton, you are mathematically increasing the odds of a Donald Trump victory.
And more logically, those who engage in voting behavior that results in a Donald Trump presidency are more responsible for having him in the White House than those of us who support the opposition.
I don’t have a problem with your negative opinions of Hillary Clinton, which are premised on facts. However, I absolutely do have problems with the logic of your voting behavior, which is not based on anything factual but purely on a disdain for Hillary Clinton and a contempt for the opinions of those who plan to vote for her.
I think the greater point is - why do people point to experience alone without evaluating what that person did during that experience? If GWB was eligible for a third term, surely he’d be the most experienced and qualified choice at president other than possibly the other living presidents, right? But while he has experience as president, he spent that time doing bad shit. So why is that a plus? Would you have voted for a third term of GWB, if such a thing were legal, against Obama, who was clearly not experienced and qualified in these terms?
I would rather take a guy who’s smart and who genuinely wants to do his best to serve the people than the most experienced and “qualified” candidate who’s spent their career being a wall street stooge and consumate pandering politician.
How do we even get “MOST QUALIFIED EVER!!!” out of one and a third senate terms and a few years as secretary of state? It’s more than the last few presidents but nothing that historically unusual. What are her big legislative accomplishments? She hasn’t even run impressive campaigns, losing to a guy who came out of nowhere at the last minute when she had every advantage, and needing the party to rig the primaries to beat a crazy old socialist jew.
People assume she’s got this vast wealth of experience and she’s done all this amazing stuff and she’s super competant mostly because she’s got high name recognition and she’s been in the public eye for decades.