Seriously, my fellow lefties...

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What makes the refusal to vote for Hillary Clinton even worse, is that the people who refuse to vote for her can't comprehend the idea that, yes, this country and, more broadly, the world could easily become a toxic heap of radioactive sludge that would be deadly to all, regardless of one's skin color or one's religious preference or one's sexual orientation. Ultimately, our continued existence as a species is what is at stake in this election: we have a candidate who is mentally unstable and one who is not. We have one who believes that climate change is a hoax and one who acknowledges that is real. We have a candidate who believes that the Geneva Convention's binding rules of war ought to be shredded and we have a candidate who pledges to respect the Geneva Convention. I could go on and on and on like this but you get my point: we are standing on a precipice right now. There's a clear choice between someone who embodies evil in every possible way and someone who is totally palatable. Make the right choice and feel proud about this. Own your decision to vote for Hillary Clinton and feel proud about it: you are doing your part to save the world and you will be pumping the breaks on the doomsday train.

I don't think I'm exaggerating about this: over the past few years, the world has become increasingly dangerous, increasingly intolerant, increasingly militaristic and increasingly Evil. No more. I'm not willing to put up with this anymore and my vote for Clinton has symbolic value as a vote against the monsters who thrive on bigotry and hatred and Know-Nothingism and militarism and racism and ignorance. Make it stop: vote for Clinton.

A vote for Clinton has symbolic value against militarism?  Good grief.

Of course it does; being a hawk is not the same as being a militarist. The idea that there's a comparison between LBJ and, say, Hideki Tojo is insane. There is no comparison. Hawks don't glorify war. Militarists believe that war is morally good, worth pursuing. Make no mistake, Trump is a militarist and his fanboys would love to annihilate civilians. They must be stopped.

edit: more generally, Trump has consistently undermined the idea that human life has value throughout his campaign by bullying, harassing and trashing entire groups of people and engaging in vicious character assassinations of "little people" like Alicia Machado for no apparent reason and his supporters love it. These sentiments lay the foundations for militarism.

One of the reasons Clinton is seeking out and getting hawkish support is because Trump is supposed to not believe America has a "role in the world."  I doubt many complained that of Tojo.  Trump represents an amoral foreign policy, which might be called "realist" if it were more grounded in reality. Clinton is the one who has more explicitly championed bellicosity as serving a grand moral purpose.  She'll leave her trail of dead, combatant and civilian, in the far corners of the world. Granted she may feel bad about it being necessary.

Who cares about what the Clinton campaign has to say about this election? We have explicit statements from the Trump campaign where he clearly has no desire to "retreat from our role in the world" because his plans to make Mexico "pay for the wall" involve saber-rattling and the use of hard power; he plans on unilaterally making life difficult for Mexicans to extract a demand. How is this not a marker of militarism?

I'm not following your definition of militarism, as this sort of willingness to enact economic retaliation for what is believed to be in the nation's self-interest seems to me a different sort of thing than what you were describing before and not within the normal definition of the term.

If you are hoping that your vote is going to symbolize something, the campaign of the candidate you are voting for is entirely relevant to whether it is reasonable for it to be interpreted as such.

It's rather obvious how "the willingness to enact economic retaliation" is related to the militarism that I've described: it flagrantly flaunts diplomatic norms in favor of exercising blunt unilateral mechanisms that effectively operate as tools to bludgeon opponents. It is the type of behavior that, most assuredly is part of the militarist's state of mind. Besides, there's plenty of evidence that Trump is a militarist. He's said so himself.

"I love war." - Donald Trump

"I know more about fighting ISIS than the generals." - Donald Trump

there's also every quote averroes shared..

He went to a "military school" and his father's terms for the "genetically best" people was "killers". If you can't see any of this, you are blind to reality. Your willingness to shield yourself from the damning reality of the Trump campaign so that you can sit back and argue that both candidates are equally bad is tantamount to cowardice.

Cowardice would be willingness to run for safety in the arms of Clinton and embrace her brand of deadliness because it is a little more familiar. 

Military school?  His father's slang words?  You really are just pulling out any sh**t you can reach nearby aren't you?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Is it immature that special snowflake expressions of NOT voting for Hillary makes me happier and far more enthusiastic about voting for her? In a "glad I'm not like that!" way.

(The fact that the Green ticket this year consists of two utterly wretched and abominable individuals just like the Republican one deserves mention too but is ultimately irrelevant.)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Is it immature that special snowflake expressions of NOT voting for Hillary makes me happier and far more enthusiastic about voting for her? In a "glad I'm not like that!" way.

Yes, it is immature.

I also like how feeling immensely dissatisfied with both of these candidates and wanting to find ways out of having to vote for even the one one hates less (which, yes, for the record, is, for me, Clinton in a walk) keeps being derided as being a 'special snowflake' when poll after poll shows it's a very, very common position in this election.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I see it as that voting for Hillary is SUCH a small sacrifice (you lose like what, ten minutes of your time? And a few seconds if you're voting anyway) that there is simply no rational reason to not do it. It's a Spock way of thinking obviously, but that's not a bad thing.

[JerryArkansas]

I see it as that voting for Hillary is SUCH a small sacrifice (you lose like what, ten minutes of your time? And a few seconds if you're voting anyway) that there is simply no rational reason to not do it. It's a Spock way of thinking obviously, but that's not a bad thing.

At this point I and you should just stop trying to convince them.  In my experiance most seem to be moderately  to pretty rich white liberals who think they won't be affected by Trump.  Just shame them and move on.  Let them be.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I see it as that voting for Hillary is SUCH a small sacrifice (you lose like what, ten minutes of your time? And a few seconds if you're voting anyway) that there is simply no rational reason to not do it. It's a Spock way of thinking obviously, but that's not a bad thing.

People voting for candidates they actively disbelieve in involves a sacrifice of more than just time.

I see it as that voting for Hillary is SUCH a small sacrifice (you lose like what, ten minutes of your time? And a few seconds if you're voting anyway) that there is simply no rational reason to not do it. It's a Spock way of thinking obviously, but that's not a bad thing.

At this point I and you should just stop trying to convince them.  In my experiance most seem to be moderately  to pretty rich white liberals who think they won't be affected by Trump.  Just shame them and move on.  Let them be.

Oh, I'll be plenty affected by Trump, am deeply worried about that, and am actively trying to militate against Trump and convince other people not to vote for him, but TRUMP IS NOT GOING TO WIN MY STATE.

[JerryArkansas]

I see it as that voting for Hillary is SUCH a small sacrifice (you lose like what, ten minutes of your time? And a few seconds if you're voting anyway) that there is simply no rational reason to not do it. It's a Spock way of thinking obviously, but that's not a bad thing.

People voting for candidates they actively disbelieve in involves a sacrifice of more than just time.

I see it as that voting for Hillary is SUCH a small sacrifice (you lose like what, ten minutes of your time? And a few seconds if you're voting anyway) that there is simply no rational reason to not do it. It's a Spock way of thinking obviously, but that's not a bad thing.

At this point I and you should just stop trying to convince them.  In my experiance most seem to be moderately  to pretty rich white liberals who think they won't be affected by Trump.  Just shame them and move on.  Let them be.

Oh, I'll be plenty affected by Trump, am deeply worried about that, and am actively trying to militate against Trump and convince other people not to vote for him, but TRUMP IS NOT GOING TO WIN MY STATE.

Does it matter if he isn't going to win your state?  No, a vote not for Hillary is a vote for him.  I don't really give a sh**t what your feelings are like.  When you could have a man who could murder millions you don't try and parce words. 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Does it matter if he isn't going to win your state?

...yes?

[JerryArkansas]

Does it matter if he isn't going to win your state?

...yes?

And if many think just like you special snowflake they can swing the election, just like 2000.  So again, it doesn't matter.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I see it as that voting for Hillary is SUCH a small sacrifice (you lose like what, ten minutes of your time? And a few seconds if you're voting anyway) that there is simply no rational reason to not do it. It's a Spock way of thinking obviously, but that's not a bad thing.

People voting for candidates they actively disbelieve in involves a sacrifice of more than just time.

...no, not really. Did French leftists who voted for Chirac over Le Pen make any sacrifices?

I mean I'd vote for f[inks]ing Andrew Cuomo if the alternative was Trump and Hillary is nowhere near that bad. Something about emails? Blah blah whatever, at this point I'm just sick of hearing about that. She didn't support a $15 minimum wage until Sanders pushed her? Well if that's the worst thing about someone...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

special snowflake

1.

I also like how feeling immensely dissatisfied with both of these candidates and wanting to find ways out of having to vote for even the one one hates less (which, yes, for the record, is, for me, Clinton in a walk) keeps being derided as being a 'special snowflake' when poll after poll shows it's a very, very common position in this election.

Seriously, there are far more apropos terms of abuse to use here.
2. I can't control how other people vote. The only vote I'm a custodian of is my own.
3. I'm sort of confused as to why everybody is attacking me for this when Averroes, who unlike me is actively voting for a candidate other than Hillary, is right here in this thread saying similar things to what I'm saying. Is it because maroon avatars are perceived as having more responsibilities to the Democratic Party or whatever than green avatars? Is it because among my many, many reasons for not liking Hillary one is that I think she's unacceptably comfortable with very high abortion rates and that opinion doesn't sit right with people? Is it because Averroes has a better personality than me and people just like him better to begin with? Is it just because I'm taking the bait and engaging you more?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Did French leftists who voted for Chirac over Le Pen make any sacrifices?

One of my earliest political memories was hearing my mother discuss having to vote for Chirac. She definitely sounded like it was a sacrifice for her. Every single French leftist with whom I've talked about it since has expressed the same feeling.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

For the record Averroes has stated on AAD that he is not voting for Stein due to her anti-vax pandering and even kookier running mate.

And Nathan think of how often jfern got thrashed here for an example of someone else.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

For the record Averroes has stated on AAD that he is not voting for Stein due to her anti-vax pandering and even kookier running mate.

Ah, okay. Good tbh. Stein's awful.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was under the impression that people thrashed jfern for being a moronic conspiracy theorist and unbearable asshole and hack, not just because he was a leftist who didn't support Hillary.

[JerryArkansas]

special snowflake

1.

I also like how feeling immensely dissatisfied with both of these candidates and wanting to find ways out of having to vote for even the one one hates less (which, yes, for the record, is, for me, Clinton in a walk) keeps being derided as being a 'special snowflake' when poll after poll shows it's a very, very common position in this election.

Seriously, there are far more apropos terms of abuse to use here.
2. I can't control how other people vote. The only vote I'm a custodian of is my own.
3. I'm sort of confused as to why everybody is attacking me for this when Averroes, who unlike me is actively voting for a candidate other than Hillary, is right here in this thread saying similar things to what I'm saying. Is it because maroon avatars are perceived as having more responsibilities to the Democratic Party or whatever than green avatars? Is it because among my many, many reasons for not liking Hillary one is that I think she's unacceptably comfortable with very high abortion rates and that opinion doesn't sit right with people? Is it because Averroes has a better personality than me and people just like him better to begin with? Is it just because I'm taking the bait and engaging you more?

Again, what I say goes for anyone.  You just want to respond.  Can't help you on that.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

special snowflake

1.

I also like how feeling immensely dissatisfied with both of these candidates and wanting to find ways out of having to vote for even the one one hates less (which, yes, for the record, is, for me, Clinton in a walk) keeps being derided as being a 'special snowflake' when poll after poll shows it's a very, very common position in this election.

Seriously, there are far more apropos terms of abuse to use here.
2. I can't control how other people vote. The only vote I'm a custodian of is my own.
3. I'm sort of confused as to why everybody is attacking me for this when Averroes, who unlike me is actively voting for a candidate other than Hillary, is right here in this thread saying similar things to what I'm saying. Is it because maroon avatars are perceived as having more responsibilities to the Democratic Party or whatever than green avatars? Is it because among my many, many reasons for not liking Hillary one is that I think she's unacceptably comfortable with very high abortion rates and that opinion doesn't sit right with people? Is it because Averroes has a better personality than me and people just like him better to begin with? Is it just because I'm taking the bait and engaging you more?

Again, what I say goes for anyone.  You just want to respond.  Can't help you on that.

Fair enough.

I'm going to stop responding now.

[OSR stands with Israel]

You should be glad that the Republicans nominated that moron Trump. I just wish Democrats had nominated a decent person like SandersWebb or Chafee.

FTFY

Webb fanboyism is so weird.

Except I'm not i would have preferred kasich Rubio Romney over Webb easily

Just FYI: you're not a moderate by any standard if you prefer Marco Rubio, the "Crown Prince of the Tea Party movement" who's unquestionably at the far right of the political spectrum, to a centre-right figure like Jim Webb.

At least change your name if you're going to support extremist movements like the Tea Party my guy.

First of all this name is to mock the far left and far right who have taken control of the political sepctrum . And no jim Webb is center left not center right hillary is left and senator sanders I far left . Kasich is center right and so is Marco Rubio

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It's pretty sad to see respectable people artfully string together empty words in an attempt to legitimize what is in all actuality just a cowardly refusal to make the right choice at the ballot box.

When it's you and that ballot, the odds of Massachusetts going this way or New York going that way are just noise. You say the vote is mostly symbolic? Fine. Can you stomach even an empty gesture that symbolically enables Donald Trump? More than that, can you really argue that there's a choice better than Hillary? Or that no choice is better than voting for someone who has taken on a number of progressive causes?

It's like, what the f-ck do you people want? Where is she measurably "worse" than Obama? Are y'all really content just to forever be these fringe dopes who never accomplish anything because of your obsession with that ever-elusive liberal "purity?"

Frankly, it all looks like a big load of selfishness. Will it really matter in the end what you do? Probably not. But I think it sends a pretty poor message about the kind of people you are.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

For the record Averroes has stated on AAD that he is not voting for Stein due to her anti-vax pandering and even kookier running mate.

And Nathan think of how often jfern got thrashed here for an example of someone else.

Let's not put Nathan in the same sentence with jfern, OK?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It's pretty much yet another thing I dislike about the electoral collage system. "I live in a safe state, so I don't have to make a difficult choice." All right, no sane person would claim it would enable Trump to carry Massachusetts or Clinton to carry Oklahoma, but there are many less solid states that people take for granted already. Yes, one single vote won't decide the election, but a number of such single votes can. I think the expression "death by a thousand of paper cuts" fits here very well. I'm not trying to be hyperbolic here, but history is full of races that were considered safe and that's why it turned the other way.

I don't like words like "sacrifice", but I understand what people mean by this. During two last presidential election I had to vote for a centre-right candidate over a hard right candidate. It wasn't pleaseant, but I don't regret it.

By the way Nathan, no one is trying to "guilt trip" you. We're all trying to make you see reason. Each and every one of us have had our own personal moments where the election become "real" and the stakes became apparent. It's not as if BK, oakvale and I have always felt this way about this contest. BK considered voting for Stein, so did I and oakvale once expressed ironic support for Trump. We all came to see the light and realized the stakes and adjusted our perception of this election accordingly; you should as well, I think. Think about this. Ponder upon it.

Truth is I had brief moments like "well, just let the f**king Trump win so we can move on after this in better direction", but, alas, it doesn't work this way. There's little too much at stake and, personally, as a European, I'm legitimately scared with the possibility of Trump in helm of U.S. foreign policy (I don't consider Hillary particularly good at this field, which her term as SoS only confirmed, but come on, it's a matter of degrees.)

I won't criticize Nathan for not intending to vote for Hillary since he lives in the safest of safe states. I just don't want people to get too comfy with such thinking in other parts.

[muon2]

It's pretty much yet another thing I dislike about the electoral collage system. "I live in a safe state, so I don't have to make a difficult choice." All right, no sane person would claim it would enable Trump to carry Massachusetts or Clinton to carry Oklahoma, but there are many less solid states that people take for granted already. Yes, one single vote won't decide the election, but a number of such single votes can. I think the expression "death by a thousand of paper cuts" fits here very well. I'm not trying to be hyperbolic here, but history is full of races that were considered safe and that's why it turned the other way.

Tactical voting in single member districts happens in many countries. It's not just about the EC and WTA states. Depending on the specific election laws there can be different goals for a tactical vote. For example, in IL there is a 5% threshold test for parties to have easier ballot access. If a person wants to promote a minor party in future elections, and the outcome of the race in their jurisdiction isn't in doubt, then a minor party vote can be quite meaningful. The Greens have maintained major party status in some jurisdictions (like IL-05 and IL-12) by continuing to break 5% there. If Stein got over 5% statewide the Greens would have ballot access in all races in 2018.

[Torie]

It's pretty much yet another thing I dislike about the electoral collage system. "I live in a safe state, so I don't have to make a difficult choice." All right, no sane person would claim it would enable Trump to carry Massachusetts or Clinton to carry Oklahoma, but there are many less solid states that people take for granted already. Yes, one single vote won't decide the election, but a number of such single votes can. I think the expression "death by a thousand of paper cuts" fits here very well. I'm not trying to be hyperbolic here, but history is full of races that were considered safe and that's why it turned the other way.

Tactical voting in single member districts happens in many countries. It's not just about the EC and WTA states. Depending on the specific election laws there can be different goals for a tactical vote. For example, in IL there is a 5% threshold test for parties to have easier ballot access. If a person wants to promote a minor party in future elections, and the outcome of the race in their jurisdiction isn't in doubt, then a minor party vote can be quite meaningful. The Greens have maintained major party status in some jurisdictions (like IL-05 and IL-12) by continuing to break 5% there. If Stein got over 5% statewide the Greens would have ballot access in all races in 2018.

Did you just admit that you are voting for Stein?

[muon2]

It's pretty much yet another thing I dislike about the electoral collage system. "I live in a safe state, so I don't have to make a difficult choice." All right, no sane person would claim it would enable Trump to carry Massachusetts or Clinton to carry Oklahoma, but there are many less solid states that people take for granted already. Yes, one single vote won't decide the election, but a number of such single votes can. I think the expression "death by a thousand of paper cuts" fits here very well. I'm not trying to be hyperbolic here, but history is full of races that were considered safe and that's why it turned the other way.

Tactical voting in single member districts happens in many countries. It's not just about the EC and WTA states. Depending on the specific election laws there can be different goals for a tactical vote. For example, in IL there is a 5% threshold test for parties to have easier ballot access. If a person wants to promote a minor party in future elections, and the outcome of the race in their jurisdiction isn't in doubt, then a minor party vote can be quite meaningful. The Greens have maintained major party status in some jurisdictions (like IL-05 and IL-12) by continuing to break 5% there. If Stein got over 5% statewide the Greens would have ballot access in all races in 2018.

Did you just admit that you are voting for Stein?

I'm just giving an example based on my experience in 2008 after the Greens got 10% for Gov in 2006. If I choose to make a tactical vote it will be based on my assessment of the likely outcomes as we get nearer to Nov 8.

[Gustaf]

I just imagine how dumb any of this reasoning would look in the future. I'm sure there were people who voted for Hitler because Hindenburg had health issues or the Social Democrats had the wrong tax policy or their faith prevented them from voting for a Catholic party or whatever.

But in retrospect that was dumb and so is any reason you come up with for not voting Clinton.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I just imagine how dumb any of this reasoning would look in the future. I'm sure there were people who voted for Hitler because Hindenburg had health issues or the Social Democrats had the wrong tax policy or their faith prevented them from voting for a Catholic party or whatever.

But in retrospect that was dumb and so is any reason you come up with for not voting Clinton.

"Look, I don't like Mr. Hitler's racial policy, but I will vote for him just to send a clear signal the old guard, represented by Hindenburg, must go. Just a statement "