Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

This shit, I cannot stand. Did you learn nothing from Nader?

I don't know about IL, but you and I can safely make voting for president an act of self expression. There is no way Oregon's and California's electoral votes aren't going for the dem candidate, regardless of who we individually vote for. Assuming she's the nominee, I'll likely vote Hillary anyway. But my vote literally Does. Not. Matter., and I'd have no problem voting Green, or writing in Bernie, or whatever.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone

I don't know about IL, but you and I can safely make voting for president an act of self expression. There is no way Oregon's and California's electoral votes aren't going for the dem candidate, regardless of who we individually vote for. Assuming she's the nominee, I'll likely vote Hillary anyway. But my vote literally Does. Not. Matter., and I'd have no problem voting Green, or writing in Bernie, or whatever.

Heck, I voted for Nader once.

I was a Texan voting in a GWB election and was hoping to see the Greens break the % for federal campaign matching funds. I was pretty sure that Texas would be going red, in any case.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone

I don't know about IL, but you and I can safely make voting for president an act of self expression. There is no way Oregon's and California's electoral votes aren't going for the dem candidate, regardless of who we individually vote for. Assuming she's the nominee, I'll likely vote Hillary anyway. But my vote literally Does. Not. Matter., and I'd have no problem voting Green, or writing in Bernie, or whatever.

Wonk is either voting in a solid red* or a solid blue state.

if it is Trump, I'm not sure there will be such a thing.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone

I don't know about IL

Not sure he's there anymore.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You know I love you dearly, but you do realize that when Bernie rails about how she got $15 million from Wall Street last quarter that more than half of that was from George Soros alone, not generally known as a Wall Street/Goldman Sachs kind of guy. If you do fall for the "contribution determinist" position, I think the guy up her ass is George, and, frankly, that's a fine place for him.

Of course, if Bernie thinks Hillary will just do whatever her donors want her to do, then he ought to go out and raise funds for her and downballot dems if he doesn't win this one, and make them beholden to all his holier than thouers.

I don't look at things on a quarterly basis. I'm not a hedge fund manager. I look at the course of her career, from the good old days when Rahm was twisting arms for Bill on to today. Her vote for GLB is sort of a watermark for her career and I think that particular piece of legislation has done more harm to the American people than any other act in memory, with the possible exceptions of the PATRIOT Act or the AUMF, a/k/a repeal of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone

I don't know about IL, but you and I can safely make voting for president an act of self expression. There is no way Oregon's and California's electoral votes aren't going for the dem candidate, regardless of who we individually vote for. Assuming she's the nominee, I'll likely vote Hillary anyway. But my vote literally Does. Not. Matter., and I'd have no problem voting Green, or writing in Bernie, or whatever.

We may be in an election like no other this year, where no one really knows if many states are reliably red or blue. But beyond that, the more people that talk about "protest votes," who say that voting for Clinton is "voting for Goldman Sachs," who assert that "both parties are exactly the same," the more that view is legitimized and the more people act on that view.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

This shit, I cannot stand. Did you learn nothing from Nader?

On a macro level, while the harm she would cause is different, I don't know that it's a lot less than what Trump or Cruz would do. Either way, you're looking at a wholesale sellout of the poor and the working class in favor of moneyed interests.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone

I don't know about IL, but you and I can safely make voting for president an act of self expression. There is no way Oregon's and California's electoral votes aren't going for the dem candidate, regardless of who we individually vote for. Assuming she's the nominee, I'll likely vote Hillary anyway. But my vote literally Does. Not. Matter., and I'd have no problem voting Green, or writing in Bernie, or whatever.

I live in Georgia now. My vote ain't gonna count for spit in a teeming sea of red.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by sidd finch

we may be in an election like no other this year, where no one really knows if many states are reliably red or blue. But beyond that, the more people that talk about "protest votes," who say that voting for clinton is "voting for goldman sachs," who assert that "both parties are exactly the same," the more that view is legitimized and the more people act on that view.

Mine wouldn't be a protest vote. It will be a vote for the candidate best suited for the job. A protest vote would be me writing in Triumph the insult comic dog, who would still be better than Trump or Cruz.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Her vote for GLB

?? She was first lady then.

Do you mean the 2001 bankruptcy bill that was never enacted?

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Adder

?? She was first lady then.

Do you mean the 2001 bankruptcy bill that was never enacted?

I didn't mean a literal vote. I was referring to her support of it.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

On a macro level, while the harm she would cause is different, I don't know that it's a lot less than what Trump or Cruz would do. Either way, you're looking at a wholesale sellout of the poor and the working class in favor of moneyed interests.

This is just absolutely, blatantly wrong. Every single word of what you just wrote.

TM

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Mine wouldn't be a protest vote. It will be a vote for the candidate best suited for the job. A protest vote would be me writing in Triumph the insult comic dog, who would still be better than Trump or Cruz.

A write-in is a protest vote. End of story.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

On a macro level, while the harm she would cause is different, I don't know that it's a lot less than what Trump or Cruz would do. Either way, you're looking at a wholesale sellout of the poor and the working class in favor of moneyed interests.

If you actually believe this, you have completely lost your mind. I suspect that you have not lost your mind.

You are spouting the same sort of shit that Naderites spouted in 2000, and anyone who would claim that the GWB administration did nothing different or more damaging than a Gore administration would have done has buried his head so deeply in his ass that he can lick his own stomach.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is just absolutely, blatantly wrong. Every single word of what you just wrote.

TM

Every time I look at her platform, for every good thing she supports, I see another corporate giveaway or backpedal on the environment. Saying she would be as bad was hyperbole, I'll cop to that. But I see as much not to like about her as I see things I like.