I've been doing a lot of arguing on Facebook this week with Bernie or Bust friends who feel that the white-haired disheveled one sold out to Hillary by endorsing her. They would have backed him to the end in a third party run, but now that he's endorsed Clinton, they will be voting for Jill Stein (Green) or Gary Johnson (Libertarian).
Few of them actually believe that Stein or Johnson have any hope at all of winning, but for them it's important for them to vote their "conscience."
I argue that if you have a vote, you should do whatever is best with it. If you can no longer assure that the best person in your judgment will win, then you need to help make sure that the worst person (Donald Trump) doesn't win.
In a college Poli Sci course, a professor explained that "The word radical comes from the Greek word for 'root,' so political radicals are 'back to the roots' people, the political equivalent of a religious fundamentalist. For them, purity is the most important thing. A radical would rather lose with clean hands than win and have to wash his hands afterward." In other words, Radicals aren't practical.
These people who are switching their vote from Sanders to Stein or Johnson seem to me to be political babies who if they can't get what they want, pitch a fit.
Part of the problem can be traced to Sanders himself, who painted a false equivalence between Trump and Clinton, ignoring the fact that Trump is an unqualified narcissistic racist idiot, whereas whatever you can say against Clinton (e.g., that she's too prone to military solutions, maintained an insecure personal server, is a political animal, etc.), she has the qualifications, isn't a narcissist or racist, and certainly is no idiot. In fact, she has a great record on civil rights and making life better and safer for children. Trump just builds things with his name on them and then stiffs his contractors, driving many of them out of business.
Here is a person who remembers when she wasted her vote on Ralph Nader, helping to put George Bush into office, which is when she discovered that Bush and Gore actually WERE different. She writes...
I jumped on the Nader bandwagon and bought into a set of beliefs that seemed right to me at the time but were proven very wrong over the eight years that followed.
Chief among them, I thought that Gore and Bush were essentially indistinguishable. Carbon copies of each other. Both corporate insider candidates, beholden to big-money interests and out of touch with people struggling at the margins of the economy. I’m from the Rust Belt—I grew up near Cleveland—and I had seen factory closures turn a once-vibrant part of the country into a series of ghost towns. I blamed NAFTA and the Clinton administration’s failure to defend unions and stem the tide of outsourcing. In this and on other issues—welfare reform, prison sentencing—I thought the Clinton administration had bent so far backward to win over the right that it had lost its progressive conscience. The economy boomed during the Clinton years, but the gulf between the rich and poor, the haves and have-nots, only widened.
Nader voiced the discontent I was feeling. I was young and idealistic and wanted political revolution. It felt good to back a rabble-rouser, not the stiff, robotic Al Gore. I was annoyed with the Democrats for picking a predictable, incremental candidate who played not to the left, but to the mushy middle. I went to a Nader rally in NYC: Bill Murray, Michael Moore, and Susan Sarandon spoke. Eddie Vedder sang. I felt inspired, part of a movement to bring about real change, ready to cast my protest vote.
But here’s the thing: In the eight years that followed, I was reminded again and again that George Bush and Al Gore were not carbon copies of each other. Bush was a disastrous president.
I think Unseen makes a lot of sense in this thread.
What would be really cool is if we could get a "do over" option and leave both Hillary and Trump out. (wishful thinking)
I don't think I have seen in my lifetime a single candidate worth holding office. It's pretty remarkable to me what you see when you step outside the information claimed by US media and start looking at the US the way the rest of the world does. Compromise is not evil or bad, and if you can make a marriage last without compromise it stands to reason that's due only to a BDSM lifestyle (it's a joke, chill)
In my opinion, Bernie was the first since FDR in my lifetime. This country is screwed if the orange ass-clown is elected, and the polls indicate that might be a possibility. Bernie could have beaten "Drumpt" easily. If HRC loses, the nation (and the world) can "thank" her and the DNC and Democratic establishment, as well as the corporate-owned lamestream media, all of whom did everything they could to trash Bernie, and keep him from being nominated.
I didn't really count him as I haven't counted anyone pre primaries in my statement, If I did though I'd be inclined to agree with you on this. His idea's may have been "pie in the sky" but personally all the ideas of him I heard sounded good to me. I don't follow politics much anymore so if there were overwhelming problems with him as a candidate I haven't been exposed to them yet.
My biggest problem with politics in the US is it seems no different than things like American Idol, this election more than ever. It seems purely based on emotion with no meaningful fact checking, a completely uniformed electorate on all sides (due to them just buying whatever they are told), it is a pathetic circus and anyone living here should feel embarrassed of our elected officials (and candidates).
When I can watch Vladimir Putin speak at an economic summit and he seems more reasonable rational and informed than our elected officials that's cause for concern. I know painfully little about Russian politics, or Putin. What I do know is how he presented himself here is how I think our politicians should be (I'm not judging the content as I am not political anymore and don't follow or care what nations do anymore. I'm only judging the structure of his thoughts, the way he put himself together, his presentation. As for politics either nations will do dumb stuff and end up killing me or they won't. I have no ability to influence the results so I chose to focus on things I may be able to influence).
"Pie in the Sky"? That's what people (the GOP) said about FDRs proposals in 1933, and Bernie's program proposals were straight our of FDRs playbook. Corporate leaders at the time actually came close to a coup, that would have deposed FDR: Google " General Smedley Butler and the corporate coup against FDR in 1933."
I agree with your "American Idol" comment, as I have long believed that we live not in the "Land of the Free," but in the land of diversionary entertainment and consumerism, all of which has led to a nation and electorate composed largely of fat, ignorant, god-fearing, gun-totting rednecks. Intellectuals and science used to be valued by the general public. No more. This nation now reminds me of the cult movie "Idiocracy" which came out a few years ago.
LOL! I agree: the orange ass-clown would lose at least half of his base, which is as racist as David Duke.
...Vladimir Putin speak...
Hitler was an excellent speaker as well, would you vote for him?
On Putin's rise to power many people died, he's Russia's problem as well as the world's problem. I hope he falls off a horse and breaks his neck.
First I have never said I would vote for Putin.
Second, listening to Hitler reminds me more of Trump than anyone else. The powerful irrational emotional states of the German people line up well with the current climate in the US as well.
Finally I have no proof that Putin is the monster I was always taught he was, I'd have to study the subject and as I have divorced myself from such things I have no intention of doing that research, there's more important things for me to be spending my time doing.
I simply ran across the video, watched it and was intrigued that the man in the video was so starkly different than what I was told about him. Which reminded me of going to christian school most of my life then reading the bible and seeing the two failed to line up. That in itself means nothing, just interesting, likely worth investigation, but I have no intention of getting involved.
that said the automatic jump to Hitler is a very telling response, as being an atheist that's almost always the first place people go when talking about atheists and morality. It's a completely irrational statement that illustrates a failure to bother reading the content in my post.
I have made no judgments in favor of Putin, only that our politicians could learn to behave a bit better. If he's the monster people make him out to be (and he likely is cause I do know of a few things in Russia), then our politicians should be ashamed to be outshone by him.
To clarify Hitler seems to be the go to cop out response for not listening or considering a concept or idea. It also seems to always be coupled with having missed the point of the comment that triggered the kneejerk reaction (I.E. The straw man accusation that I support voting for Putin which is a complete non sequitur regarding the statement I attempted to make).
US politicians are a complete joke. The US system is a corrupt mess, and the only excuse for this is US Citizens going to church (or wherever they choose to get their information) and being spoon fed lies and never bothering to look further. I am not Conservative, I'm not Liberal, I'm not Communist, I'm not Socialist. I'm just me looking from the outside in and seeing the absurdity of this world, I suppose that makes me an Existentialist, nothing more, nothing less. I choose not to participate, but if I could make a difference I would.
(This is of course my own anecdotal subjective experiences speaking here)
"First I have never said I would vote for Putin."
You seem to have misread my question. Just because someone is well-spoke doesn't mean they are well-intended.
Trump while not as polished as Hitler or Putin (in your opinion) he is skilled at working the crowd.
My son summed it up pretty well in an email to me:
Even if the Greens got say 10% and split the left giving Trump the presidency, it's the only way to *start* the march away from the entrenched U.S. culture of 'strategic' voting, get the media to provide a glimpse of attention to other parties etc. So even if it's short term loss for long term gain, it'd be worth it. And at a time when congress is pulling single digit approval ratings, deadlock, rolling government shut-downs and non-stop filibusters, there's no better time than now!
Thank you. ^ This. Exactly.
I don't know a solution, only that this is exactly why I have no interest in being involved. Why I choose not to be involved.