I've had people say it's a hardening, actually ~ US presidential election 2016 part 9/11 never forget

it's about showing the party that not everyone's votes can be taken for granted.

i understand this is the motivation but is there any reason to believe that this is logical at all?

― Mordy, Thursday, September 15, 2016 11:47 AM (one minute ago)

idk, it's about as logical as voting for the dem, isn't it? when your vote is meaningless?

it's amazing how spring's "ugh, i can't vote for Bernie bcz of his couple thousand abusive and anonymous Twitter troll supporters" has dovetailed into fall's "You must vote for the candidate John Negroponte, Robert Kagan and dozens of other neocon butchers are enthusiastically endorsing."

"...even in an uncontested state, for the VIRTUE of it"

Also the beach is quite rocky so at low tide it's fun to try to turn the biggest rocks over because usually they have the most/biggest crabs underneath. You can catch them by pinching their back and if you catch two you can get them to hold hands. Meanwhile Trump would be hurtling towards the sun.

putting up a candidate for president every four years is not really a productive strategy to promote third parties imo

you may have heard about this two party system we are a part of and how third party candidates tend to do

Exactly. So if they aren't going to win, and the parties care fuck-all about any "signaling function" (which it's pretty obvious they don't, since neither has moved appreciably towards the positions of any third parties) then that leaves . . . what?

idk, it's about as logical as voting for the dem, isn't it? when your vote is meaningless?

Being able to claim a vast majority of the popular vote -- and thus the unquestioned support of most of the nation -- when trying to get shit passed in office is not meaningless.

it's amazing how spring's "ugh, i can't vote for Bernie bcz of his couple thousand abusive and anonymous Twitter troll supporters" has dovetailed into fall's "You must vote for the candidate John Negroponte, Robert Kagan and dozens of other neocon butchers are enthusiastically endorsing."

Yeah, all ten of those people really piss me off.

xxxp to Moodles: for swing staters, i can't manage more than 'vote for Clinton while wearing a I HATE CLINTON tee', or

@DennisThePerrin Jul 26
If you must vote for Hillary, fine. But spare me the piety. There's nothing noble in what you're doing.

The flip side of this is that there's nothing particularly evil about it either. Maybe Hillary supporters can stop patting themselves on the back and Hillary haters can stop shitting all over them.

When people assess the viability of third-party candidates, they tend to look at vote counts - including the votes that were cast in safe states. For good or for ill, Johnson and Stein's candidacies emerged in a context that includes the precedents of Perot, Nader, Buchanan, etc. And those campaigns were themselves informed by candidates like Anderson and Thurmond and so on.

Inevitably, tomorrow's third-party candidates will feel emboldened by every vote cast for Johnson and Stein, whether those votes happened in California, Florida, or Nebraska. At the same time, money, media attention, and the endless swirls of analysis from the pundit and poli-sci crowd will have to contend with those votes, and adjust to the fact of their presence.

So regardless of how you feel about third-party candidates in the abstract, or these third-party candidates in particular, I disagree that any vote is ever meaningless.

Is it even conceivable that voting has no moral content whatsoever

people who voted for nader did not vote for him (necessarily) because they thought he would make a good president, dude. it's about showing the party that not everyone's votes can be taken for granted. you fucking know this, you've said it more times than probably anyone on this board

yeah I know. I find that opinion embarrassing now. I don't give a fuck if the less bad party takes my vote for granted. they should take my vote for granted, because it is a given that I'm going to vote for whichever viable candidate will do less harm to the people who have less than I do, who need more help from government, who need the legislation that Democrats might pass and that Republicans won't. this seems self-evident to me now and I feel moronic that it took me as long as it did to come around to this conclusion. I don't sweat feeling moronic, I'm slow on the uptake sometimes and I'm cool w/that, but it's surprising to me that sharper thinkers than me -- yrself, not blowing smoke here, just saying -- don't come around this view quicker than I have.

It's an equally valid option, in many cases, to stay home and JO as George Carlin suggested.

Being able to claim a vast majority of the popular vote -- and thus the unquestioned support of most of the nation -- when trying to get shit passed in office is not meaningless.

Did you notice, Democrats rubberstamped the Forever Wars of a guy who didn't even win the popular vote.

Yeah, all ten of those people really piss me off.

learn to count
that HRC is welcoming the endorsement of even one of them disqualifies her.

more or less than an endorsement from David Duke?

I completely agree that the wests behaviour during the Iran-Iraq war was despicable, but I fail to see why that means the west shouldn't have stopped the invasion of Kuwait or the use of chemical weapons on the kurds?

― Frederik B, Thursday, September 15, 2016 4:24 AM (six hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Ok I really don't want to keep coming back to the subject ITT, but the United States not only did not "stop" the use of chemical weapons on the Kurds, it rationalized it away and even tried to blame it on Iran.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/17/opinion/halabja-america-didnt-seem-to-mind-poison-gas.html

Right on cue punditocracy peddling this "close race" nonsense

― Οὖτις, Thursday, September 15, 2016 11:41 AM (twenty-five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Keep whistlin' past that graveyard...how's Hillary this morning, by the way? must be tough staying in Chappaqua with Bill "dickin' bimbos" down the hall as General Yellowcake opined LOL

Not bad thanks, how's the temp in your mom's basement?

Creative Circle has got to stop sending people to Iago's mom's basement

people who voted for nader did not vote for him (necessarily) because they thought he would make a good president, dude. it's about showing the party that not everyone's votes can be taken for granted. you fucking know this, you've said it more times than probably anyone on this board
yeah I know. I find that opinion embarrassing now. I don't give a fuck if the less bad party takes my vote for granted. they should take my vote for granted, because it is a given that I'm going to vote for whichever viable candidate will do less harm to the people who have less than I do, who need more help from government, who need the legislation that Democrats might pass and that Republicans won't. this seems self-evident to me now and I feel moronic that it took me as long as it did to come around to this conclusion. I don't sweat feeling moronic, I'm slow on the uptake sometimes and I'm cool w/that, but it's surprising to me that sharper thinkers than me -- yrself, not blowing smoke here, just saying -- don't come around this view quicker than I have.

― though she denies it to the press, (Joan Crawford Loves Chachi), Thursday, September 15, 2016 12:06 PM (five minutes ago)

no i mean i get it. i hope hillary wins, 100%. but i live in new york. i am gonna go to the polls in november and (probably) leave the presidential ballot blank and vote straight dem for the rest of the ticket. i have a hard time believing that even the most diehard "you must vote hillary" partisans would see that as some sort of dereliction of duty.

but idk, maybe that gets to what the real issue is -- lack of enthusiasm for the top of the ticket causing otherwise-dem voters to stay home. i'll be voting, and i'd encourage all of my like-minded thinkers to do the same, but i'm aware that's not the case universally. i'm not sure how to fix that

So you can show me more than 10 people who didn't vote for Bernie SPECIFICALLY "bcz of his couple thousand abusive and anonymous Twitter troll supporters" but are voting for Hillary BECAUSE "John Negroponte, Robert Kagan and dozens of other neocon butchers are enthusiastically endorsing her?" Awesome!! I'll spot you Fre . . . oh, wait, he's Danish, he doesn't vote here. Well, excelsior!

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

xp

*whispering* that's why we need to depresidentialize the political system

anyway, 3 polls in a row show trump ahead in ohio. welp!

I just want Trump to get flung out into space so I can go back to living a comfortable life. Like straight into the sun on a beautiful morning up at our family beach house as we're relaxing and drinking coffee and planning ahead for a visit to a cute little nearby restaurant that serves the BEST pistachio cake. It just melts in your mouth.

even more quiddities and agonies of the ruling class - a new rolling new york times thread

pretty sure that "OHHHH THE ABUSIVE BERNIEBROS!" line emanated from the campaign. A lot of the people who "bought" it were in-the-tank Hillary supporters like Amanda Marcotte and Sady Doyle. I don't think it had that big an impact on Sanders' chances, much more significant was the media's failure to take him as seriously as his popular support would urge. They still think presidential candidates are supposed to look and sound like Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush -- it's the same phenomenon that resulted in no one predicting that Trump could win (or that Sanders could do as well as he did).

I know it makes sense from a logic/math standpoint but something always makes my skin itch about people who trumpet the meaninglessness of their individual vote due to geography. I know I'm biased by living in a swing state but I would be really bummed about my circumstances if I lived in New York or California or somewhere similar. Personally I think I'd be a little embarrassed if it was so much easier for me to show off my little ideological purity badge.

hey i wish my vote mattered! if you wanna get rid of the electoral college i'll be first to sign that petition

man alive, again, that happened during the Iran-Iraq war, and the shittiness of the US behaviour in that war should definitely be remembered, see also the Al-Anfal campaign and the downing of Iran Air Flight 655. Saddam Hussein acted atrociously with US support. But he stopped, and to say that sanctions, no-fly zones, etc had nothing to do with it seems off. And also, he did actually get rid of the WMD's he'd had and been willing to use, though then Bush lied about it anyway.

We're stuck with the EC for as long as we are stuck with the US Senate in the form currently mandated by the US Constitution. iow, forever.

but are voting for Hillary BECAUSE "John Negroponte...

*sigh* poor comprehension

My California vote matters because we're voting on so many propositions the state is spending 15 million to print out 200+ page voter guides.

We legislators now

California's gonna proposition itself into the sea someday

tired of this disingenuous crap of presenting neocon support of Hillary as something damning, when it's clearly voting against a cataclysmic option, while championing voting for third party candidates on personal principle.

Hillary: The Slower Cataclysm

neocon support for Hillary is merely concerning, not damning. It's somewhat understandable that with Trump as the alternative, some conservatives are going to endorse her. But the fact that she is endorsable for them, under any circumstances, still says something about her politics. It's also important to remember that she is actively courting conservatives, and that they likely expect something in return.

"under any circumstances"? really?

do you think Obama would bring a different stance from neocons?

of course she's courting conservatives, she's running for president.

Trump is courting Sanders voters, they'll likely expect something in return.

Public officials don't just throw around outright endorsements. There's a difference between saying nothing, saying "never trump," and saying "Hillary for president."

I absolutely think Obama would get less support from neocons.

Public officials don't just throw around outright endorsements. There's a difference between saying nothing, saying "never trump," and saying "Hillary for president."

the difference being the republican candidate.

you're wrong

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/10/another_neocon_endorses_clinton_calling_her_2016s_real_conservative_and_the_candidate_of_the_status_quo/

“Clinton is the candidate of the status quo, something that conservatives, by definition, are supposed to uphold,” Kirchick writes.

“Hillary Clinton is the one person standing between America and the abyss,” he says, seeing her as a mealymouthed centrist candidate with “better conservative credentials” than the alternatives.

Obama would never get that description from a conservative.

“Not only am I not voting for Donald Trump, but also I am not voting for any Republican who endorsed or supported Trump—be it for Senate, House, alderman, or county clerk. And yes, I will vote for Clinton, simply because to not vote, or to vote Libertarian, would be a half-vote for Trump." -Kenneth Adelman

clearly a statement on Hillary.

In his defense of Clinton, Kagan told The New York Times he is “comfortable with her on foreign policy,” noting it is “something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

“Clinton would be far preferable to Trump,” Boot wrote, describing her as “a centrist Democrat who is more hawkish than President Obama and far more principled and knowledgeable about foreign affairs than Trump, who is too unstable and erratic.”

but keep projecting your liberal concerns onto conservative ghouls

We finally got our Hillary sign a couple of weeks ago and stuck it in the front yard. Yesterday I came home through the back door and grabbed the mail from the front. There was an addressed (but not stamped) envelope stuck under the welcome mat.. Inside was a handwritten note:

"Thank you for having both Hillary and Tammy yard signs. We need to win both. If you know someone that wants signs, please call me."

It was signed with his number and the same name in the return address space on the envelope. Huh, I thought, Tammy? We only have one yard sign. So I stuck my head back out front and lo and behold, we now have a Tammy Duckworth sign, too. That's cool, very enterprising (as long as they don't keep multiplying), and very savvy initiative. Of course anyone here that supports Clinton supports Duckworth as well, but beyond that, I really had to respect the writer's reminder that it is about more than just the presidential race.

I ordered a Hillary bumper sticker, along with a donation yesterday. I've never done either of these things. But I admit I'm kinda scared to even put the bumper sticker on.

Tammy Duckworth 2024 imo

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/67/45/99/6745998c2f6b424433a9f2a56768e450.jpg

the hillary bumper sticker wont be nearly as unfortunate as the ben carson 2016 bumper sticker I saw the other day

Clinton has a new book out, Stronger Together. 2,912 copies sold in the first week. Feel the passion.

On a clear you can see the Elizabeth Islands off in the distance, and on a clearer day you can see all of the houses on the cape across Buzzard's Bay and even Martha's Vineyard way out behind the others. Trump's body, of course, would be a few light years away by now.

xxp: I'm not scared that I'll become a laughingstock, I'm scared that someone will use it to target and attack my family.