Never Trump

[JimLes]

Voting what you consider to be the lesser evil in is not voting for the country.

Then what is, in this situation? This is real life, not hypothetical. Ideally, you may dream of whomever running the country, but the cold hard reality is that it is Trump or Hilary come January, and there's no none-of-the-above option. You can't just say "They're both horrible and I'm not going to vote for either" and then pretend like you care about your country. It's like Aristotle says, ethics isn't about choosing between right and wrong, it's about choosing between two wrongs.

 

[candrew]

I believe she wins and handily. And that is going to lead to some HUGE meltdowns in my area lol.

Not to mention the down vote problems with Trump as the nominee. For Hillary to win a lot of the republican establishment will have to stay home. That KILLS all the "R" senators and congressmen that are up for re-election - so you could be looking at Hillary AND a democratic house and senate come November.

Ultimately I think the right will collectively hold their noses and fall in line with Trump - I don't think they'll have a choice.

 

[Stoked]

Not to mention the down vote problems with Trump as the nominee. For Hillary to win a lot of the republican establishment will have to stay home. That KILLS all the "R" senators and congressmen that are up for re-election - so you could be looking at Hillary AND a democratic house and senate come November.

Ultimately I think the right will collectively hold their noses and fall in line with Trump - I don't think they'll have a choice.

And Clinton will win handily but it will help down ballot Rs in minority thin areas.

Millennials, Latinos and women will turn out in droves against him.

 

[Stoked]

Then what is, in this situation? This is real life, not hypothetical. Ideally, you may dream of whomever running the country, but the cold hard reality is that it is Trump or Hilary come January, and there's no none-of-the-above option. You can't just say "They're both horrible and I'm not going to vote for either" and then pretend like you care about your country. It's like Aristotle says, ethics isn't about choosing between right and wrong, it's about choosing between two wrongs.

I agree that only one of them has a real shot of winning. But that does not mean that one suddenly becomes a vote for the country as a result.

You can phrase it however you want but I straight out reject the notion.

Also I can say that and it is as viable as you saying otherwise. Furthermore you can take your insinuation that I don't care about my country choke on it.

You want to play the lesser of two evils game fine. Go for it and watch us continue to sink because we voted for more of the same. I will start throwing my weight, as small as it is, behind better options down the road.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Hurt to mention? Every single person on this board knows the two party system blows. No one's supporting it.

Really? I don't think two party system blows. I think multi-party systems have their share of problems as well. Both have pros and cons.

It's not that simple.

 

[Stoked]

Really? I don't think two party system blows. I think multi-party systems have their share of problems as well. Both have pros and cons.

It's not that simple.

I think our two parties blow more than the system.

I will agree that both systems have pros and cons. But I vote for a multi party system when I look at what the Rs and Ds are. No thanks.

 

[JazzGal]

I've become somewhat liberal in the past few years, and I'd vote for Bernie if he had somehow been able to make it through (but it's over). I think Bernie is the best character guy in the race, and that matters to me. I will be voting for Jill Stein from the Green Party, just as I did in the last Presidential election. She's more liberal than I am, but I'm not sure I can bear to vote for Hilary. However, I'd take Hilary over Trump with no hesitation.

This election cycle has been crazy. Who woulda thunk it? I'm trying to be entertained instead of horrified, but it's not working so far.

I agree with Colton's philosophy of voting for the person that will let you sleep at night. We'd have far better representation if people would vote their conscience instead of trying to second-guess party politics.

 

[fishonjazz]

I've become somewhat liberal in the past few years, and I'd vote for Bernie if he had somehow been able to make it through (but it's over). I think Bernie is the best character guy in the race, and that matters to me. I will be voting for Jill Stein from the Green Party, just as I did in the last Presidential election. She's more liberal than I am, but I'm not sure I can bear to vote for Hilary. However, I'd take Hilary over Trump with no hesitation.

This election cycle has been crazy. Who woulda thunk it? I'm trying to be entertained instead of horrified, but it's not working so far.

I agree with Colton's philosophy of voting for the person that will let you sleep at night. We'd have far better representation if people would vote their conscience instead of trying to second-guess party politics.

Great post. I feel the same way.
I also think bernie is a better person (better character) than the other candidates, I would also rather have Hillary than trump (for me it's not even close) and I want to be entertained by the whole thing but I'm simply horrified instead.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I don't think people are realizing how much both parties are heading towards a split right now. I think that's what it will come down to, really. Who will unify their party + independents better? Trump or Hillary?

If Hillary can make concessions to Sanders supporters (or make him VP or something) I think it's over for Trump. BUT-- I'm fully expecting Hillary to take her left-wing support for granted, and move towards the centre. This is going to alienate the left, and they're going to vote in droves for a 3rd party candidate, whether Stein or Bernie if he goes Indy.

Same goes for Trump. If the RNC doesn't all get behind him ASAP, Hillary's movement to the right will win all of those votes, and his own voter-base will be split.

Which is more likely to split? That's the million dollar question. I think best case scenario is both to split, and prevent the oligarchic domination of the same two political parties year in/year out (which results in corrupt primary processes, slanted media coverage, etc.) Right now Germany has five political parties in its Bundestag, and it's dealing with political decisions with may more hostile ramifications than what the US is dealing with. And they're doing f-i-n-e. Canada also has 5 different parties in the parliament-- we are also doing fine. Also, the introduction of more political parties would likely lead to the deconstruction of oligarchic constructs like Citizens United, and a move towards a more ethical public funding of political campaigns (as opposed to members of congress spending 70% of their time making calls for donations).

 

[JimLes]

I agree that only one of them has a real shot of winning.

That's not what my post is about at all. I don't know how or where you got that.

I will start throwing my weight, as small as it is, behind better options down the road.

But what about this election? You can't possibly argue that two candidates with such vastly differing beliefs or policies are somehow identically bad for the country. That's a cop our or a lie or whatever you want to call it. You're abdicating your responsibility to choose the person who will likely lead your country(and unfortunately, have a great effect on my country and many others) so you can pretend to have a claim to some higher moral ground. It's like Spiderman having to choose between a bus full of kids or his girlfriend and choosing neither because they're both bad choices.

It's not that complicated. Either Hilary or Trump will be the president. Surely, "more of the same" and "roll back the years" can't result in the exact same outcome. Surely one of them is better than the other. And surely, if this is as important an election as everyone seems to think(including yourself), you have some moral obligation to choose.

 

[JimLes]

Right now Germany has five political parties in its Bundestag, and it's dealing with political decisions with may more hostile ramifications than what the US is dealing with. And they're doing f-i-n-e.

Ugh, Germany is hardly a good example of how a multiparty system is supposed to work. Two biggest parties are in a coalition that is an abomination to man and god, in order to better serve their corporate overlords. What's the point of elections if two parties making up 80% of the parliament will get in bed together? What happened to strong opposition? what's the point of elections then?

Germans really don't know how to do this democracy thing. I don't know why we even let them try again.

 

[♪alt13]

Then what is, in this situation? This is real life, not hypothetical. Ideally, you may dream of whomever running the country, but the cold hard reality is that it is Trump or Hilary come January, and there's no none-of-the-above option. You can't just say "They're both horrible and I'm not going to vote for either" and then pretend like you care about your country. It's like Aristotle says, ethics isn't about choosing between right and wrong, it's about choosing between two wrongs.

The Reform party balanced the federal budget in the 90's without getting anyone elected. Ross Perot forced both parties to address the issue lest they ceded those voters to the other party in the next cycle.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Ugh, Germany is hardly a good example of how a multiparty system is supposed to work. Two biggest parties are in a coalition that is an abomination to man and god, in order to better serve their corporate overlords. What's the point of elections if two parties making up 80% of the parliament will get in bed together? What happened to strong opposition? what's the point of elections then?

Germans really don't know how to do this democracy thing. I don't know why we even let them try again.

Ha on the 2nd pont-- as per the first, it's easy to introduce legislations that can limit the formation of coalitions. While popular in Europe, they're hardly a reality in Canada (I remember there was talk of forming one between the NDP and Liberals a few years ago). Even with the coalition, the regular citizen in Germany is crushing it on almost every socioeconomic index relative to the US (and most other countries). Correct me if I'm mistaken tho. It really, really isn't hard to allow the coexistence of multiple parties & have a well-functioning government in doing so.

 

[colton]

Would you have voted for Cruz? I believe I could probably take Hillary's comment about stay at home moms and raise you with a number of egregious quotes from Cruz or probably also Rubio. On a personality issue, while Hillary may be distasteful, Cruz is an absolutely horrible human being who has no friends and no allies, because he's such a douche bag, and a religious bigot to boot (p.s. I doubt he has a big love of Mormons, and probably routinely says unkind things about them to his associates). In the world of politics with all of the compromised and unpleasant people populating it, here's this guy whom everyone hates. Would that have kept you from voting for him?

I would likely have voted for Cruz. But I voted for Kasich in the primary. I would have thought long and hard about voting for Cruz in the general, though, it wasn't an automatic "yes" for me.

Honestly, that seems like a rather thin thing to hang one's vote on.

I said it started with the stay-at-home mom comment. Since then there have been many other things.

Other than a personal dislike for Hillary, what are her policy positions that you disagree with?

Sorry, not enough time to list things fully. Abortion is one of them. There are many others. Not as many as with Sanders or apparently Gary Johnson.

But note that my dislike for her for non-policy reasons is not just a "personal dislike". It's due to repeated lying, probable corruption, etc.

 

[colton]

that would me MORE self-involved. That doesn't preclude my thoughts that your position is still too self-involved.

I still don't get it. Why is voting for someone that I think is the best candidate even if he/she doesn't have a reasonable shot to win make me self-involved? Please explain again.

 

[candrew]

There's no way Hillary chooses Bernie as VP. And no she's not picking Elizabeth Warren either. My guess is she picks someone slightly below the national radar. No way she is going let herself be upstaged by her #2 man/woman.

As far as the Cruz/Sanders votes up for grabs I see no votes for Hillary in the Cruz camp - they vote for Trump or stay home. I think the wild card in all this is there are SOME Trump votes in the Sanders camp from the hardcore anti-establishment folks. Not sure if enough to swing the election; but once Sanders officially drops out you'll see the poll #'s start to tighten a little bit.

 

[Stoked]

That's not what my post is about at all. I don't know how or where you got that.



But what about this election? You can't possibly argue that two candidates with such vastly differing beliefs or policies are somehow identically bad for the country. That's a cop our or a lie or whatever you want to call it. You're abdicating your responsibility to choose the person who will likely lead your country(and unfortunately, have a great effect on my country and many others) so you can pretend to have a claim to some higher moral ground. It's like Spiderman having to choose between a bus full of kids or his girlfriend and choosing neither because they're both bad choices.

It's not that complicated. Either Hilary or Trump will be the president. Surely, "more of the same" and "roll back the years" can't result in the exact same outcome. Surely one of them is better than the other. And surely, if this is as important an election as everyone seems to think(including yourself), you have some moral obligation to choose.

You said that this is reality and only one of them will win. I agreed.

Here is how I see C and T.

C = I will stab you to death
T = I will shoot you to death

Yes they are different but I still end up hosed.

No, I am voting for who I want to lead the country out of the options I am presented with. You're the only one talking about "moral grounds". I will agree that I have a moral obligation to choose (an area that you brought up) and I have. I do not agree that I have a moral obligation to choose the R or D presented. That's terrible thinking. I have a moral obligation to choose who I think is best.

 

[♪alt13]

I suspect that for many republicans the unwillingness to vote for Hillary, even given that they are repulsed by Trump, owes as much to knee-jerk tribal loyalty than to anything Hillary has done or possibly will do. She's very much an establishment candidate, right of center on some issues, progressive on others, but far from a flaming liberal (as was Obama, although owing to the epidemic of Obama derangement syndrome sweeping the country, many on the right were blinded to this fact). As a progressive myself, I find Hillary too militaristic for my tastes and not nearly progressive enough (her complicity in the smearing of her husband's female accusers, in a very un-feminist way still leaves a bad taste in my mouth)and more of a bandwagon progressive than a committed, principled one.

I see this election as the ultimate test of the power of tribalism relative to one's true devotion to country. Trump is a dumpster fire, and his presidency portents all sorts of very horrible outcomes for this country, while Hillary is a center-right-left depending on issue establishment candidate, who will likely govern as such. Do Republicans vote their tribe, or do they vote their country? It will be very interesting to observe.

cause nationalism is so much better than and at its heart is so very different than tribalism.

Edit:I'm not calling Hilary a nationalist. I just found the statement to be amusing.

 

[NAOS]

I still don't get it. Why is voting for someone that I think is the best candidate even if he/she doesn't have a reasonable shot to win make me self-involved? Please explain again.

Don't act like this discussion is about voting for the best candidate. This thread is about the dread and parsimony of the choices we'll be given on the ballot. You're looking at smaller parties now because of the reality (i.e. false-choice) that Democrats and Republicans have given you. The discussion is about voting in the present context (but it's fitting that your last post retreats to some high-minded spot).

Your hope in the system is still pinned to the authenticity of your (and others) actions vis-a-vis actual choice. That's too much belief in the system, and, given the compromised state of the status quo, too much belief in authentic, within-the-system action. Due to the fact that your own actions are cast in this light, and you feel as if you must feel good and just about your voting actions, I'm calling you too self-involved. It's my opinion that more cynicism would be healthy.

 

[JimLes]

Ha on the 2nd pont-- as per the first, it's easy to introduce legislations that can limit the formation of coalitions. While popular in Europe, they're hardly a reality in Canada (I remember there was talk of forming one between the NDP and Liberals a few years ago). Even with the coalition, the regular citizen in Germany is crushing it on almost every socioeconomic index relative to the US (and most other countries). Correct me if I'm mistaken tho. It really, really isn't hard to allow the coexistence of multiple parties & have a well-functioning government in doing so.

Oh, I have no problem with coalitions, they're a very good thing. I have a problem when the two biggest parties, who allegedly occupy two different ends of the political spectrum, band together. And they have 80% of the seats. What's the point of the election then? Why didn't they just do that ahead of time and save everyone the trouble of voting?

Especially since a reasonable person would assume that SPD, which claim to stand for social democracy(I sh*t on their neo-liberal, capitalist, pretend social democracy, btw), would have a majority if they formed a coalition with the far-left Die Linke and the Greens. You know, the two parties they allegedly occupy the same side of the political spectrum with.