Log in

No account? Create an account
29 March 2016 @ 02:04 pm
Obscen act behind a curtain  
I am going to vote for the Democratic candidate in the presidential election, either way. I always vote for the lesser of two evils; we’re choosing someone to lead an armed gang.
Sue Burkemount_oregano on March 29th, 2016 07:31 pm (UTC)
Yep. I'm for Bernie, but I now that you mention it, Hillary would be a great leader of an armed gang, although I don't know if that's a compliment.
Elenbarathi: Abandon hopeelenbarathi on March 29th, 2016 07:51 pm (UTC)
If it comes down to Hillary vs. Trump, the lesser evil will win all right, because the millennials will not vote for Hillary. And neither will a lot of us battle-scarred old Boomers who have watched the Democratic Party systematically selling us out to the 1% ever since Hillary's lyin' cheatin' husband was POTUS.

Interesting article I ran across last night: Hey Grandma and Grandpa, Why Don’t You Sit This One Out? - I wasn't best-pleased with it when I first read it, but the author has a very valid point: it's OUR generation that has thrown their future under the bus with this craven "lesser evil" bullshit, and they have every reason to hate us for it.

Edited at 2016-03-29 07:52 pm (UTC)
don_fitch on March 29th, 2016 08:43 pm (UTC)
I may be of grandpa age (nibbling on my 88th year) but several years ago I decided that I'd never again vote for a Republican for anything above Dogcatcher level, and now I'm starting to think similarly about Democrats. At least those backed by The Democratic National Committee, which has (for at least two decades) consistently backed Republican Lite supporters of the Top 1%. And yes, I think this includes both Clintons.

No, in good conscience I cannot just stay home, and don't think any other elegible voter should. But neither am I going to vote for any supposedly "least bad" candidate. That's still bad, and I think I"ll refuse to support such a thing.

Elenbarathi: Abandon hopeelenbarathi on March 29th, 2016 09:09 pm (UTC)
I've never voted for a Republican. The first candidate I ever campaigned for was McGovern; I'm proud to say that both my daughter and myself are precinct delegates for Bernie here in Washington state. I've been writing postcards to all the super-delegates in my state, explaining why it would be in their best interests to endorse the candidate that three-fourths of the Democrat voters here want.

If Clinton wins the Dem nomination, I'll vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party, because doing so would do some good at least, even though she wouldn't win even if every Sanders supporter did the same. I will never waste my vote on 'evil', whether greater or lesser. As it happens, I agree with this writer that if Hillary becomes POTUS, it will do far more harm to this country than if Trump or even (*shudder*) Cruz gets the job, so in fact she is the greater evil.
Kalimac: puzzlekalimac on March 30th, 2016 12:06 am (UTC)
Unfortunately, after reading that article, I'm forced to conclude that, on any scale in which Clinton is "evil," its writer is also evil. The idea of ... no, I'm not going to argue with it. It's just evil.
eub on March 30th, 2016 08:01 am (UTC)
I can understand an argument that Clinton is more evil than somebody is willing to vote for. I can also understand why somebody would positively like Cruz (if they are a 'Christian' supremacist themselves, like carpet-bombing, etc.).

Other than that, no, it's pretty damn hard to make a case that Cruz is less evil than Clinton. On militarism? No. On being a corporate stooge? No. On and on.

Keep an eye out for motivated thinking about this: if I would just hate to vote for Clinton, it helps if I can tell myself that Cruz isn't any worse. I don't have to feel any conflict about whether I have some obligation to vote for the lesser evil, if there is no lesser evil. (I wasn't quite to this in 2000, I couldn't hold the idea there was *no* difference -- and I wasn't so into Nader either -- but in hindsight I clearly had some of this going on.)
Kalimackalimac on March 30th, 2016 09:20 am (UTC)
The article explains that they want Cruz or Trump to win *because* they'd be worse. That would cause the sheeple to wake up and elect a real progressive next time, uh-huh, really. Just the way the voters of Kansas kicked out the abysmal Sam Brownback when he ran for re-election. (Hint: they didn't.)

In Leninist theory, this tactic is called "heightening the contradictions" and, like most elements of Leninist theory, is evil.
El Coyote Gordo: hedgehogsupergee on March 30th, 2016 09:27 am (UTC)
Germany, in the 30s. We finally find a Trump/Hitler analogy that works.
Kalimackalimac on March 30th, 2016 09:34 am (UTC)
The Communists in 1930s Germany refused to ally themselves with liberal parties on the theory that, once Hitler screwed up, then the Communists were more likely to get into power.

And it actually worked! After Hitler came the Communists, at least in the East. It's just that nobody enjoyed living through what took place during the twelve years it took for this to happen.
eub on March 31st, 2016 07:10 am (UTC)
(Or not living through, it must be mentioned.)
eub on March 31st, 2016 07:09 am (UTC)
Which has a lot of overlap with the "heightening conflict" reasons that ISIS would love to have him in office. Their idea of the awakened sheeple is just a little different.
jere7my: Glassesjere7my on March 30th, 2016 01:30 am (UTC)
Three years into the Trump presidency, I'm going to come back to all the people who chose to let him win instead of holding their noses and voting for the lesser of two evils and ask them if they're happy with their choice. I would have thought we'd all learned our lessons after Nader handed us eight years of Dubya, a nosediving economy, two wars we're still fighting, millions of dead (mostly overseas and out of sight), 9/11, and the rise of ISIS.

Apparently not.

I hope like fuck you live in a reliably blue state, because I actually care about the country and the rest of the world, and what Trump would do to them doesn't bear thinking about.
eub on March 30th, 2016 08:17 am (UTC)
I think Trump is pretty damn unlikely to win WA, for what that's worth. But it does depend on how many of our Bernie majority (of which I'm a member) decide they're all part of the same system or hates Clinton enough to think it doesn't really matter if Trump wins. I have certainly heard a fair bit of this, as well as some who actually like Trump for his populist angle.
Johnjohnpalmer on April 4th, 2016 03:22 pm (UTC)
I'll grant it's our generation, but there are a lot of individuals-not-us who deserve a larger helping of the blame. It's a bit like global warming - in my 30s, I didn't win the battle for at-least-rational government (yes, there was a time that the Republicans were *rational*, and wouldn't consider a snowball an argument against a 2, 4, or 6 degree C increase in global temperature)... but I'm not the politicians, thought leaders, journalists, or corporate pigs who decided to fight actively against the acceptance of obvious evidence.

"How did you sit back and let this happen?" would be answered sadly, more so than guiltily. "Because it was slow, so slow and incremental, we never quite saw any one step backward as The One Step Too Far."
John M. Burt: Don't Quit Your Day Dreamjohn_m_burthotm on March 30th, 2016 06:28 pm (UTC)
I hope like fuck it doesn't come down to it, but I am NEVER going to cast a "symbolic" vote again.
On November 8th, I will be voting for the candidate Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton will be voting for.