Seriously, my fellow lefties...

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

I'd be convinced by this if my state and my CD weren't both Titanium D. I'll be voting on the Massachusetts ballot measures, but not for any elected office.

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

I'd be convinced by this if my state and my CD weren't both Titanium D. I'll be voting on the Massachusetts ballot measures, but not for any elected office.

There is more to an election than who the winner is. The margin matters: if Hillary wins by 1 point, it will have very different implications for the future of US political discourse than if she wins by 10.

I don't like Hillary enough to want to give her 'a mandate' but I do hate Trump enough to want to give him an anti-mandate, so I've already considered this and it was actually a very hard choice.

I'm actually semi-convinced by the idea that the best outcome would be a Hillary landslide but only modest Democratic downballot gains, as a repudiation of Trump specifically so the pro-Trump Republicans can't spin it to be about something else.

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

If you're not voting for Hillary Clinton then you don't really care what happens to this country because it'll always be safe for people like you.

As a multiply-disabled person with a name (full name, not just 'Nathan') that's been put in echo parentheses multiple times, I deeply resent that.

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

If I do decide to cast a completely supererogatory vote for Clinton, it certainly won't be because people I sort-of-know on the internet guilt-tripped me into it.

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

If I do decide to cast a completely supererogatory vote for Clinton, it certainly won't be because people I sort-of-know on the internet guilt-tripped me into it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv2idE5Aa3Q

Vote against Hitler, you delicate flower and feel good about. Jesus Christ, what is so difficult about this decision?

It's not a difficult decision. I just don't live in a state where I have to make it. If the United States had a nationwide popular vote, my thinking would be different.

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

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.

Put this way, sure, I'm willing to reassess, but I wasn't feeling particularly moved by the dogpiling or the insults.

The last conversation that I had like this one involved a guy in a kitschy necktie at my door and ended with him trying to leave me with a copy of The Watchtower.

I can't tell if this is in reference to being proselytized to or in reference to moralistic political uninvolvement, and thus whether I should feel validated by it or chastened or some combination of both.

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

my personal stand is voting for hillary rodham clinton. there are other valid forms of personal stands

Did it not occur to you that I might be engaging in some of them, or are you implying that there are things one can do on top of voting for Clinton but that it's unacceptable to do them instead of it? I don't have any agenda in asking this question, I'm genuinely unsure what you mean.

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

my personal stand is voting for hillary rodham clinton. there are other valid forms of personal stands

Did it not occur to you that I might be engaging in some of them, or are you implying that there are things one can do on top of voting for Clinton but that it's unacceptable to do them instead of it? I don't have any agenda in asking this question, I'm genuinely unsure what you mean.

No, I think that anything anyone can do to stop Trumpism from destroying our body politic and our global economic system is good and I don't care what people decide to do. I'm mostly lashing at out at the braindead apathy of my peers right now, who can't seem to fathom that, yes, something terrifying is happening and that the proper response is to get active instead of retreating into PokemonGo and memes and cynicism.

I respect averroes because, even though he won't vote for Clinton, he's hated Trump from the beginning and does his own thing to stand up to these forces. Anyone who acts is good, I think. Voting for Clinton simply happens to be the easiest/most accessible way of confronting the forces that are assailing everything that we hold dear.

If it helps your opinion of me/my desire to not vote for Clinton, I'm actively trying to persuade Trump-curious people I know to abstain or vote for Johnson; sometimes I'm even selectively lying to them about my own motives in order to do so.

I'm a little hurt that you seem to have jumped to the conclusion that I'm being completely passive, honestly. I don't know how exactly I could have given that impression. I haven't defended Trump. I can't remember implying that I think there's a direct moral equivalency between him and Clinton.

[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.

[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.

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

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

...yes?

[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?

[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.

[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.

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

Fwiw, I'm now re-considering a Hillary vote, not because of any of the hullabaloo that's gone on in this thread but because of the realization that I had last night that all the things I don't like about Hillary and think would be bad about her presidency are entirely predictable and the sorts of things that can be cogently prepared for and opposed. Which, in a way, means that she isn't as unacceptable (to me) a candidate as she appears on the surface. One can't say that for Trump, with whom more and more depths of unacceptability appear vertiginously the more one looks at him.

I'm not convinced by the 'rationality' of voting for her to signal something in particular. I did that in the primaries and was emotionally dissatisfied with the result. I need to try to justify voting for someone I strongly dislike and think will do horrible (albeit not as horrible as Trump) things in power to myself emotionally, and being constantly shrieked at that not wanting to vote for Hillary makes me a terrible person hasn't been helping with that.

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

I need to try to justify voting for someone I strongly dislike and think will do horrible (albeit not as horrible as Trump) things in power to myself emotionally, and being constantly shrieked at that not wanting to vote for Hillary makes me a terrible person hasn't been helping with that.

I don't think people think that. As I said a little further up thread, most people on here, by virtue of who most of our posters are, have the leisure of voting how they wish and it will have little to no effect on their wellbeing. Trump isn't going to 'intentionally' f-ck up the lives of fairly well to do (or in the position to make good) white males. Other groups are not so lucky. Their vote matters because of the impact a Trump presidency through policy, or enabling rhetoric against them will have on their wellbeing. As Trump if he wins is on the ballot in 2020. And his proxies will be standing in town halls and for congress in 2018. I've never been one to think of my vote as my vote, so perhaps I just can't see reasons to be precious about it, or to make it reflect my will exclusively.

Eh, maybe I'm being hypersensitive. I've been feeling pretty crummy about things lately.

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

Not bitch and moan that we had too.

Even if she ends up with my vote, Hillary is not somehow entitled to my enthusiasm and neither are you. Jesus Christ.

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

Not bitch and moan that we had too.

Even if she ends up with my vote, Hillary is not somehow entitled to my enthusiasm and neither are you. Jesus Christ.

Where in that did I say that I want your enthusiasm.  All I said is not to bitch about it.  Please try and read what was posted.

I read it. I don't understand how my 'bitching about it'--i.e. expressing that I'm unenthusiastic about this candidacy rather than shutting up and saying three Hail Cecile Richardses or whatever it is you think I should do instead--concerns you in any way.

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

Not bitch and moan that we had too.

Even if she ends up with my vote, Hillary is not somehow entitled to my enthusiasm and neither are you. Jesus Christ.

Where in that did I say that I want your enthusiasm.  All I said is not to bitch about it.  Please try and read what was posted.

I read it. I don't understand how my 'bitching about it'--i.e. expressing that I'm unenthusiastic about this candidacy rather than shutting up and saying three Hail Cecile Richardses or whatever it is you think I should do instead--concerns you in any way.

It doesn't, but you wanted to insert yourself into the conversation, which you were not apart of.  Don't insert yourself if you don't want others to talk about your motivations.

Uh, I posted in this thread way before you did, buster. If anybody needs to butt out of this conversation here, it's you.

Saying that somebody is 'bitching and moaning' is not 'talking about their motivations'. It's just being miffed that we're not saying our requisite Pater NSAters. The neoliberal future is already so bright you've gotta wear shades; why the hell do you need us to make it brighter? You're lucky that your candidate's opponent is so horrendous that we're even considering her.

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

Not bitch and moan that we had too.

Even if she ends up with my vote, Hillary is not somehow entitled to my enthusiasm and neither are you. Jesus Christ.

Where in that did I say that I want your enthusiasm.  All I said is not to bitch about it.  Please try and read what was posted.

I read it. I don't understand how my 'bitching about it'--i.e. expressing that I'm unenthusiastic about this candidacy rather than shutting up and saying three Hail Cecile Richardses or whatever it is you think I should do instead--concerns you in any way.

It doesn't, but you wanted to insert yourself into the conversation, which you were not apart of.  Don't insert yourself if you don't want others to talk about your motivations.

Uh, I posted in this thread way before you did, buster. If anybody needs to butt out of this conversation here, it's you.

Saying that somebody is 'bitching and moaning' is not 'talking about their motivations'. It's just being miffed that we're not saying our requisite Pater NSAters. The neoliberal future is already so bright you've gotta wear shades; why the hell do you need us to make it brighter? You're lucky that your candidate's opponent is so horrendous that we're even considering her.

Dude, the post you wanted to give your opponent on did not include you.  Had nothing to due with you.  Yet you decided to respond to it.  How is that not putting yourself into a conversation.  Get off your damn high horse.  It gets so tiring to read this from you.

I have literally no clue what you're talking about. Kalwejt's post, to which you responded, mentioned me, and Averroes, by name as people he thought you and your cobelligerents should stop being such pontificating jackasses to. You responded, saying, in effect, that you saw no reason to stop being a pontificating jackass because we were 'bitching and moaning' by not being sufficiently enthusiastic about your candidate. I responded, because I was one of the subjects of the discussion. Am I missing something here, or are you just talking out of your ass?

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

Not bitch and moan that we had too.

Even if she ends up with my vote, Hillary is not somehow entitled to my enthusiasm and neither are you. Jesus Christ.

Where in that did I say that I want your enthusiasm.  All I said is not to bitch about it.  Please try and read what was posted.

I read it. I don't understand how my 'bitching about it'--i.e. expressing that I'm unenthusiastic about this candidacy rather than shutting up and saying three Hail Cecile Richardses or whatever it is you think I should do instead--concerns you in any way.

It doesn't, but you wanted to insert yourself into the conversation, which you were not apart of.  Don't insert yourself if you don't want others to talk about your motivations.

Uh, I posted in this thread way before you did, buster. If anybody needs to butt out of this conversation here, it's you.

Saying that somebody is 'bitching and moaning' is not 'talking about their motivations'. It's just being miffed that we're not saying our requisite Pater NSAters. The neoliberal future is already so bright you've gotta wear shades; why the hell do you need us to make it brighter? You're lucky that your candidate's opponent is so horrendous that we're even considering her.

Dude, the post you wanted to give your opponent on did not include you.  Had nothing to due with you.  Yet you decided to respond to it.  How is that not putting yourself into a conversation.  Get off your damn high horse.  It gets so tiring to read this from you.

I have literally no clue what you're talking about. Kalwejt's post, to which you responded, mentioned me, and Averroes, by name as people he thought you and your cobelligerents should stop being such pontificating jackasses to. You responded, saying, in effect, that you saw no reason to stop being a pontificating jackass because we were 'bitching and moaning' by not being sufficiently enthusiastic about your candidate. I responded, because I was one of the subjects of the discussion. Am I missing something here, or are you just talking out of your ass?

I wasn't responding to that part, which is why I asked if you read that post or not.  So please keeping responding and not putting this behind you like you said you were.

I'm a bit distasted with the way some are trying to shame posters such as Nathan or Averroes for the fact they're uncomfortable about voting for Hillary. Hey, I'm pretty sure many of our ardent Hillary fan would've find it uncomfortable to vote for Sanders had he won the nod.

The part I was responding to since you can't tell what I was trying to say.

No, sorry. You don't get to treat the two sentences of that post as if they're two entirely independent clauses, as if your response to the sentence you've bolded has absolutely nothing to do with your opinion of the people named in the one you haven't. Your response wasn't written that way. If you intended for it to be taken that way, you failed massively.

I would have put this behind me if you'd admitted that you were being a prick.

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

Not bitch and moan that we had too.

Even if she ends up with my vote, Hillary is not somehow entitled to my enthusiasm and neither are you. Jesus Christ.

Where in that did I say that I want your enthusiasm.  All I said is not to bitch about it.  Please try and read what was posted.

I read it. I don't understand how my 'bitching about it'--i.e. expressing that I'm unenthusiastic about this candidacy rather than shutting up and saying three Hail Cecile Richardses or whatever it is you think I should do instead--concerns you in any way.

It doesn't, but you wanted to insert yourself into the conversation, which you were not apart of.  Don't insert yourself if you don't want others to talk about your motivations.

Uh, I posted in this thread way before you did, buster. If anybody needs to butt out of this conversation here, it's you.

Saying that somebody is 'bitching and moaning' is not 'talking about their motivations'. It's just being miffed that we're not saying our requisite Pater NSAters. The neoliberal future is already so bright you've gotta wear shades; why the hell do you need us to make it brighter? You're lucky that your candidate's opponent is so horrendous that we're even considering her.

Dude, the post you wanted to give your opponent on did not include you.  Had nothing to due with you.  Yet you decided to respond to it.  How is that not putting yourself into a conversation.  Get off your damn high horse.  It gets so tiring to read this from you.

I have literally no clue what you're talking about. Kalwejt's post, to which you responded, mentioned me, and Averroes, by name as people he thought you and your cobelligerents should stop being such pontificating jackasses to. You responded, saying, in effect, that you saw no reason to stop being a pontificating jackass because we were 'bitching and moaning' by not being sufficiently enthusiastic about your candidate. I responded, because I was one of the subjects of the discussion. Am I missing something here, or are you just talking out of your ass?

I wasn't responding to that part, which is why I asked if you read that post or not.  So please keeping responding and not putting this behind you like you said you were.

I'm a bit distasted with the way some are trying to shame posters such as Nathan or Averroes for the fact they're uncomfortable about voting for Hillary. Hey, I'm pretty sure many of our ardent Hillary fan would've find it uncomfortable to vote for Sanders had he won the nod.

The part I was responding to since you can't tell what I was trying to say.

No, sorry. You don't get to treat the two sentences of that post as if they're two entirely independent clauses, as if your response to the sentence you've bolded has absolutely nothing to do with your opinion of the people named in the one you haven't. Your response wasn't written that way. If you intended for it to be taken that way, you failed massively.

I would have put this behind me if you'd admitted that you were being a prick.

Yeah I can separate the two, if you or others can't not my problem.  So again, lets move on, because I'm tired of trying to make you see what I'm trying to get at.

I think I see what you claim you were trying to get at, I just have, shall we say, lingering doubts about it. It's certainly not the plain meaning of what you said. Yes, let's move on.