WHYWhat the hell is going through people's heads that this is even an option ? If you're telling me an email scandal you're lying to yourself. That isn't it. You are being made too angry to think straight and you need to get your head on right, because this is freaking serious.
I, of course, don't agree with your assessment of Clinton (and I'd hazard a guess that I'm one of the few posters in this thread that helped organize an anti-Trump demonstration) but I'll take a stab at the question:
Eight years of a neoliberal "recovery" that has left the masses screwed , with the prospect of four to eight more under Clinton, combined with the usual racist scapegoating that often goes along with that, plus an electorate weaned on a nostalgic belief in a never-was greatness of yore, along with a very American love of con artists and carnival barkers.
Doodles, considering you've gone to the effort of organizing a protest, are you going to vote against him in the election?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, trust me, I wasn't worried. XD
Dicey:
No.
As Citizen Betts put it one of the other threads, your vote in a presidential election is one of the least effective tools you have at your disposal as a citizen. (Rough paraphrase)
I did, however, help collect 6,000 signatures to get Jill Stein on the ballot here in the Granite State, but I wouldn't vote for her either, even if I was registered to vote, even if she was the only candidate that stood with us in Manchester at a BlackLivesMatter rally against armed racist provocateurs (well, not me, I was in Philadelphia at a funeral).
If Mimi Soltysik, Gloria La Riva or Monica Morehead were on the ballot here, I'd consider registering.
For nostalgia, RT footage of my anti-Trump demo.
EDITED
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your least effective tool is still more effective than no tool at all. I fully endorse using all your tools, from most to least effective.
For nostalgia, RT footage of my anti-Trump demo.
For those of us without cash, what's the most effective?
If i'm being even more jokey than usual...
What serious point could possibly be made in this election? I don't like Hillary Clinton therefore trump. The logic is beyond any ability to parody.
She's a competent career politician with a kind of left center view. everything against her is canned grarg whipped up over nothing. Is she radically going to change anything over the last 8 (20, 30?) years, no.
He's a billionaire real estate mogul who's father was.. a real estate mogul. He's known for shifty business practices, cons, shorting his workers. This election has shown that he is either completely divorced from reality (global warming, basic facts about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) or is willing to pander to the rights complete lack of connection to rational thought. The only concrete proposals he's had are an insanely expensive wall that we know doesn't stop anyone and more trickle down economics of giving tax breaks to the rich that we know with absolute certainty do.not.work.
WHY
What the hell is going through people's heads that this is even an option ? If you're telling me an email scandal you're lying to yourself. That isn't it. You are being made too angry to think straight and you need to get your head on right, because this is freaking serious.
Well, there's a core group that will always vote Republican. There are racists and sexists and homophobes. There's been a 20+ year smear campaign against the Clintons and against her specifically.
And his numbers are in the toilet. If the election was held today, he'd lose by historic margins. If trends continue, it's going to get worse.And yeah, making people too angry to think straight works.
Despite the ludicrous failure of the Britebart polls to give Trump an appearance of winning, I'm not that sure that the election is in the bag for Clinton. All of the conventional wisdom that's been used to "predict" Trump's failure has fallen flat on it's face, who's to say that the polls are any better at measuring the national pulse? Trump is playing to some real genuine populist anger, much of which has been simmering for decades under the confines of social politeness. He's succeeded in making racism and xenophobia respected again.
In the bag? I wouldn't say that, so much as "You can't win an election in August, but you sure can lose one."
*Glances at the clock* If the story from before was right, Trump should've gotten his first FBI briefing by now, so let's start the clock for that bet. XD
In the bag? I wouldn't say that, so much as "You can't win an election in August, but you sure can lose one."
Memories are too short for that. I would remember when Bush and Quayle would make fools of themselves in every debate they showed up in. Or other news articles that would point out absurdities...
Didn't stop them from collecting a landslide victory though. None of the absurdities pointed out on Trump matter to his supporters, who don't even care if he can actually or will even bother to meet his promises. They are a collective mass of anger at the system, and to them, Clinton, and every other Republican candidate represented or represents that system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trump represents the lowest common denominator in the Republican party.
Hopefully other people look at other options. I'm ok with giving this race to Hillary by voting for Johnson to send a message to the GOP: "You're going the wrong way."
Your least effective tool is still more effective than no tool at all. I fully endorse using all your tools, from most to least effective.
Sure. If you haven't gathered signatures, organized a protest, or, in general, been out on the street week after week organizing for a higher minimum wage and against police violence (or whatever tickles your fancy), go ahead, vote.
Despite the ludicrous failure of the Britebart polls to give Trump an appearance of winning, I'm not that sure that the election is in the bag for Clinton. All of the conventional wisdom that's been used to "predict" Trump's failure has fallen flat on it's face,...
Remember, all the "conventional wisdom" during the primaries was flying in face of polls and primary/caucus results. Experts kept coming up with reasons why he would lose... except for poll results.
Shortly after announcing his campaign, Trump was 2nd in national polling among republicans. By September 2015, he was 1st and essentially never lost his top spot (except for a couple days to Ben Carson, but it literally lasted days) all throughout the primaries. Trump led in Republican polls for 10 months.
People were predicting why would would drop in the polls, but he didn't. So remember, there were strong indicators that he would win, but people were searching for reasons he wouldn't and ignored the ones that said he would.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your least effective tool is still more effective than no tool at all. I fully endorse using all your tools, from most to least effective.Sure. If you haven't gathered signatures, organized a protest, or, in general, been out on the street week after week organizing for a higher minimum wage and against police violence (or whatever tickles your fancy), go ahead, vote.
I just don't understand why you think doing all that means you shouldn't vote. It's not an either/or situation, is it?
I just don't understand why you think doing all that means you shouldn't vote. It's not an either/or situation, is it?Your least effective tool is still more effective than no tool at all. I fully endorse using all your tools, from most to least effective.Sure. If you haven't gathered signatures, organized a protest, or, in general, been out on the street week after week organizing for a higher minimum wage and against police violence (or whatever tickles your fancy), go ahead, vote.
I think we've been having this conversation, on and off, for four or five years now, haven't we?
In the bag? I wouldn't say that, so much as "You can't win an election in August, but you sure can lose one."Memories are too short for that. I would remember when Bush and Quayle would make fools of themselves in every debate they showed up in. Or other news articles that would point out absurdities...
Didn't stop them from collecting a landslide victory though. None of the absurdities pointed out on Trump matter to his supporters, who don't even care if he can actually or will even bother to meet his promises. They are a collective mass of anger at the system, and to them, Clinton, and every other Republican candidate represented or represents that system.
No candidate has ever come back from polling this bad at this stage to win.
"In the bag"? No. Anything's possible. Trump could suddenly have an attack of sanity. Clinton could have a meltdown. One of scandals that's always been about to torpedo Clinton since the early 90s could actually turn out to have real evidence behind it. Hell, in theory all of the polling and evidence could be wrong.
That's why 538 has Trump's chances somewhere between 23% and 11%, depending on the model.
Bush and Quayle may have sounded like idiots and people dismissed them based on that, but their polling turned around after the conventions and never looked back. It's a little tricky to compare, since the last convention was in mid-August, so you could argue we're not to that stage yet, but Trump's already blown the chance of changing things at the convention.
If there really is a collective mass of anger that's going to go against Clinton, that's either already figured into Trump's numbers and thus just isn't that huge or it's flying way below the radar and these people are all claiming to intend to vote for Clinton. I just don't see it.
Nor the idea that Trump somehow defies polling - polling predicted his primary wins pretty accurately, at least once we got close to the actual...
I have the same kind of skepticism towards polls that I have towards Nielsen ratings. I do believe that there is a large segment of the population that polls do not sample, or don't sample well. I've hung up on quite a few of them because they'd call me during my working hours, and I can't suspend work for yet another poll. I also remember that polls were predicting that Brexit would fail so badly, that some folks voted for it as a form of protest hoping it would fail.
Nixon's strategy was heavily reliant on what he saw as the "Silent Majority". I still have this suspicion that for every person who has announced himself publicly as a Trump supporter that there are at least 2-3 who keep themselves in the closet for fear of ridicule and are simply waiting for Election Day to express their preference. In all my years, I've never seen this country so angry at itself since the Vietnam and Civil Rights era.
For those of us without cash, what's the most effective?
For nostalgia, RT footage of my anti-Trump demo.
Depends on what you're trying to accomplish, I guess.
I found that my speech at the Alton Sterling/Philando Castile solidarity vigil in Lowell garnered six new contacts for international proletarian socialist revolution, so, I think that's the most effective I've been lately.
But I am not a very good speaker, alas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Woah, synergistic weirdiosity.
I just clicked over to Facebook and I had a notification that I had seven new "message requests." I had never seen that notification before, so I clicked on it and found seven messages from people I wasn't "friends" with that I had never seen before. Two of them were people who had seen me at the Lowell Solidarity Vigil asking about the rally the next day in Manchester.
Woopsie.
Trump represents the lowest common denominator in the Republican party.
Hopefully other people look at other options. I'm ok with giving this race to Hillary by voting for Johnson to send a message to the GOP: "You're going the wrong way."
They've been here the entire time.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure I'll get ridiculed for this, but bear with me for a moment.
To me, the message of conservatism is about raising everyone up, keeping the playing field even so that anyone, no matter their background, can succeed. That's the bottom line.
Conservatism has never been about worrying about what people do in their private life, but how to make the environment so people can get as far as they want, if they work for it. Empower the individual to succeed!
I think, keeping the message this simple, everyone can agree that's a good thing.
The problem is Conservatism has come to mean conservative in all ways: personal, religious and in business. This had allowed certain folks to co-opt the openness of the message to mean that you must share Christian values or it's not America anymore. I certainly do not want to return to scarlet letters or Puritan values, I want all people to live as they'd like, and have an economy that people can flourish in, regardless of color, creed or religion.
The government is there to use force when necessary, not be involved in all aspects of business or daily life. My party did the DoMA, and it pissed me off. My party favors big business over the individual American, which is counter to what conservatism is supposed to be. "Those dirty Mexican/Blacks/Non whites" is something anathema to the original message, and isn't who I am or any of the other people I call friends and family that are registered Republicans.
It frustrates me to no end, but things change. I hope that the GoP returns to the simpler message, works with the other side of the aisle to make it happen, or dies to make way for another party that will.
Until then, no votes for GoP.
It's always possible, but she's shown no sign of it yet and she's picked up plenty of the disenfranchised Republicans. I think the convention did a lot to appeal to them, but it did it by being upbeat and patriotic, not by changing policies.
Some will claim she's already basically Republican or that she'll shift when she's governing, but for the moment she's still campaigning on the policies and issues she used during the primary. There's no evidence of the usual shift to the center for the general.
She hasn't had to. The Clinton campaign bet that they could turn this election into a referendum on Trump's ineptitude above anything else. So far, they've been right, and she hasn't had to shift anything except the focus.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Penn Jillette's thoughts on throwing his vote away:
** spoiler omitted **
Penn Jillette is an angry libertarian with some fringe beliefs, and that isn't a rationale or defense of voting third party so much as it's a protest against being told what to do.
I hope that the GoP returns to the simpler message,
When?
When have republicans been anything but shills for unfairly stacking the deck in favor of big business?
Even if they were honest in their libertarian goals, how do you expect an individual to compete in any meaningful way against a corporation?
This simple message isn't popular. People tend to really like government programs once they get going and accept them as normal. Going back to the days of uninspected meat, no air pollution standards, and snake oil salesmen. The only way republicans have managed to get people to irrationally vote against their own interests like that is to stir up the worst irrational hate, fear in people and instill them with a distrust of facts and rationality that would hold that idiocy in check.
That is entirely possible.
Pre-Goldwater, maybe?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is entirely possible.
Pre-Goldwater, maybe?
you mean when the government stopped people from unionizing by shooting them?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure I'll get ridiculed for this, but bear with me for a moment.
I believe that most of us here would rather delve into what your beliefs are and from whence they originate as opposed to ridicule. I try to reserve that for colossal distortions and blatant falsehoods. (Emphasis on the word "try"; I'm not always successful, or close to successful as I'd like to be.)
Thanks for sharing your contrasting point of view, even if it feels buried in dissent. I'm always interested in other opinions that don't amount to a discourse of "you're stupid!" "no, YOU'RE stupid!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I'd accept Eisenhower-style Republicans. Assuming we could then update them to modern standards on racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.
Then you'd have something left of todays democrats.
I'm sure I'll get ridiculed for this, but bear with me for a moment.
To me, the message of conservatism is about raising everyone up, keeping the playing field even so that anyone, no matter their background, can succeed. That's the bottom line.
Conservatism has never been about worrying about what people do in their private life, but how to make the environment so people can get as far as they want, if they work for it. Empower the individual to succeed!
I think, keeping the message this simple, everyone can agree that's a good thing.The problem is Conservatism has come to mean conservative in all ways: personal, religious and in business. This had allowed certain folks to co-opt the openness of the message to mean that you must share Christian values or it's not America anymore. I certainly do not want to return to scarlet letters or Puritan values, I want all people to live as they'd like, and have an economy that people can flourish in, regardless of color, creed or religion.
The government is there to use force when necessary, not be involved in all aspects of business or daily life. My party did the DoMA, and it pissed me off. My party favors big business over the individual American, which is counter to what conservatism is supposed to be. "Those dirty Mexican/Blacks/Non whites" is something anathema to the original message, and isn't who I am or any of the other people I call friends and family that are registered Republicans.
It frustrates me to no end, but things change. I hope that the GoP returns to the simpler message, works with the other side of the aisle to make it happen, or dies to make way for another party that will.
Until then, no votes for GoP.Perhaps, the GOP isn't actually your party?
And really hasn't been for decades. Since it absorbed the Dixiecrats in the 60s & 70s. And then made the deal with the religious right in the 80s.I submit that what you think of as "conservatism" has pretty much always been a lie. The message has never been...
The Dixiecrats had to go somewhere given that their party had betrayed them by passing the Civil Rights Act.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, the message of conservatism is about raising everyone up, keeping the playing field even so that anyone, no matter their background, can succeed.
So... progressivism?
Granted, neither term actually means what you say, but 'progressives' have actively supported those ideals for decades (always?) while 'conservatives' have actively opposed them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, regardless of what they were (or may never have been), all they are now is the "stop the Democrats" party. Not much to sell, anymore.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure I'll get ridiculed for this, but bear with me for a moment.
To me, the message of conservatism is about raising everyone up, keeping the playing field even so that anyone, no matter their background, can succeed. That's the bottom line.
I don't disagree with this statement. What we will probably disagree is how to go about creating an even playing field.
I've become a capitalist over the past 15 years, it's a system that works really well for large portions of the economy. I think a fair and appropriately regulated economy is better than trying to determine every aspect from on high.
The issue is that you have two competing forces. Capitalism strives for inequality. This is core to it's fundamental principles, because as better businesses/ideas profit, less good ones will fail. So any capitalist system will inherently be unequal and people won't be on an even playing field. Something else to consider, capitalism's most efficient point is when it starts at a point of equality. If everything is equal, the better product/idea wins, but as soon as that happens, you no longer have equality.
This is where government comes in. We need systems in place that push back towards equality. You can't have "no system" or "just let the market decide", because that's the previous paragraph. You must instead actively work towards equality. This has an effect of being a drag on capitalism, but at the same time, also pushes capitalism towards a more efficient state.
The free market has no interest in creating a level playing field, because that means the winners have to voluntarily stop winning, which isn't capitalism. We as a society have to decide how much winners can win by and what support the losers get, despite having lost.
Do CEO's need to make 600x their average employee? Or is 35x enough? Should people be able to make a living off of owning money? Or should they have to work for it?
If your child or spouse develops cancer, should you lose your home?
I think building a life for your family, raising your kids and sending them to school (college, trade, whatever) should be hard work, but it should be possible for the average family. The conservative party has tried to convince us that if we give wealthy corporations/individuals enough money, they'll be gracious enough to make that possible for everyone else. So far, they haven't, but instead have actively worked to make it harder for poor and middle class Americans.
I'm willing to listen to "conservative" solutions on how to achieve a level playing field, but if it involves giving more money to the wealthy, you're not going to sway me.
The convention was incredibly upbeat, especially contrasted with Trump's dark, fear based version. The Democrats basically stole patriotism and Reagan's "Morning in America" themes, without shifting policy.
I remember several of the more moderate right wing sites complaining that the Republicans had let their usual branding slip away from them this convention season, and worse, allowed the Democrats to run with it during their convention.
I'm sure I'll get ridiculed for this, but bear with me for a moment.
To me, the message of conservatism is about raising everyone up, keeping the playing field even so that anyone, no matter their background, can succeed. That's the bottom line.
I don't disagree with this statement. What we will probably disagree is how to go about creating an even playing field.
I've become a capitalist over the past 15 years, it's a system that works really well for large portions of the economy. I think a fair and appropriately regulated economy is better than trying to determine every aspect from on high.
The issue is that you have two competing forces. Capitalism strives for inequality. This is core to it's fundamental principles, because as better businesses/ideas profit, less good ones will fail. So any capitalist system will inherently be unequal and people won't be on an even playing field. Something else to consider, capitalism's most efficient point is when it starts at a point of equality. If everything is equal, the better product/idea wins, but as soon as that happens, you no longer have equality.
This is where government comes in. We need systems in place that push back towards equality. You can't have "no system" or "just let the market decide", because that's the previous paragraph. You must instead actively work towards equality. This has an effect of being a drag on capitalism, but at the same time, also pushes capitalism towards a more efficient state.
The free market has no interest in creating a level playing field, because that means the winners have to voluntarily stop winning, which isn't capitalism. We as a society have to decide how much winners can win by and what support the losers get, despite having lost.
Do CEO's need to make 600x their average employee? Or is 35x enough? Should people be able to make a living off of owning money? Or should they have to work for it?
If your child or spouse develops cancer, should you lose your
...
I pretty much agree with the sentiment here. There has to be some oversight, but not to the degree of determining which products you can or can't buy level. I think that's overreach.
I am also all for safety nets. S**& happens, it's no one's fault. Doesn't mean one mistake or one bad health turn and your out on your ass, and I don't know anyone that believes that is a sane position.
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am also all for safety nets. S!#$ happens, it's no one's fault. Doesn't mean one mistake or one bad health turn and your out on your ass, and I don't know anyone that believes that is a sane position.
I wish I could say the same. :/
The logic usually goes something like this: "It's your own fault for letting that happen/not saving up/not having better insurance. Why should I have to pay for your stupidity?"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am also all for safety nets. S*+! happens, it's no one's fault. Doesn't mean one mistake or one bad health turn and your out on your ass, and I don't know anyone that believes that is a sane position.
To many people "I've got mine, and tough luck if you've lost yours" is a thing, otherwise Social Darwinism would never have made it into the dictionary."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RE: A medical doctor dissects Trump's Physician's letter
Hahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha.
Penn Jillette's thoughts on throwing his vote away:
** spoiler omitted **
That is a surprisingly naive view for him. I don't *like* that we have a two party system, but that doesn't make it any less a fact.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To many people "I've got mine, and tough luck if you've lost yours" is a thing, otherwise Social Darwinism would never have made it into the dictionary."
Don't forget the irony that the FUGM people usually did so only through the forbearance of their betters. They just don't know it, because they assume everyone is as rotten as they are.