So why vote for half of 'not the answer'?

Fortunately, this isn't a partisan site, so I am where I thought I'd be a year ago. A 'write-in' for Bernie (if viable/allowed), or another vote for Jill Stein.

In particular the arguments regarding SCOTUS and national security lack credibility.

SCOTUS is only a winner for Hillary if one considers just two areas: abortion or Citizens United. On Citizens United she lacks credibility--she's taken advantage of the CU ruling to gain the nomination, and it is incredible to think she would seriously consider whether a nominee would overturn CU. What about other things, like NSA surveillance or drug laws? Hillary is a conservative on those matters, and it isn't reasonable to think she'll nominate somebody better than a republican on them.

On foreign policy and national security she's no better than Trump. In many ways she's worse: he's all talk so far whereas she voted for Iraq, pushed for Libya and Honduras and favors increased aggression in Syria. These are all things Trump is likely as not to favor (literally--he's unpredictable, and may or may not favor them on any given paragraph in one of his word salad buffets). I'll take the chance he decides against aggression over her belligerence any day of the week. Besides the issue of the morality of her choices on war, there are domestic issues to consider: foreign military entanglements drain our domestic resources. They also impact the safety of Americans abroad (usually negatively). And don't get me started on matters of national surveillance and other domestic security issues.

As far as power begetting power, the democratic party under the Clintons has for 25 years steadily lost power to the Republicans. Partly this is because the democratic leadership has not confronted Republican grabs for power. Whether it's deliberate or not is immaterial: the fact is that under the Clinton-style democratic party we have had these losses. It is incredible to me that anyone could believe electing Hillary would reverse that, when Hillary has literally been part of the reason the Republicans have risen to power.

Fighting Clinton is fighting Republicans as far as policy goes. They're different mainly in methodology and rhetoric.

with your comment but thinks this part is a bit of an unknown:

Hillary is no populist, and it's trying to mix oil and water when asking Bernie supporters to vote for her. Never the twain shall meet.

Unfortunately Bernie supporters appear to be queuing up to write unity diaries over at TOP.
Looks like the Democratic Socialist curious are now returning to their comfort zone.

Its results are much less than impressive. Remember this plea, from 2004?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&add...

An Open Letter to Progressives: Vote Kerry and Cobb
by Medea Benjamin/Peter Coyote/John Eder/Daniel Ellsberg et al

There is no greater political imperative this year than to retire the Bush regime, one of the most dangerous and extremist in U.S. history. As people dedicated to peace, economic justice, equality, sustainability and constitutional freedoms, we are committed to defeating Bush.

The only candidate who can win instead of Bush in November is John Kerry. We want Kerry to replace Bush, because a Kerry administration would be less dangerous in many crucial areas, including militarism, civil liberties, civil rights, judicial appointments, reproductive rights and environmental protection.

But while helping Kerry-Edwards defeat Bush-Cheney, we don't want to endorse Kerry positions that are an insult to various causes we support, including movements for global justice and peace that have burgeoned in recent years. Indeed, we want to communicate to Kerry and the world that we oppose many of his policies, including some that are barely distinguishable from Bush policies.

Accordingly, we encourage progressives to organize and vote strategically this year.

In "swing states," where few percentage points separate Bush and Kerry, we encourage activists to mobilize voters behind Kerry. (A frequently updated list of swing states is posted at www.swing04.com .)

In "safe states" (and Washington, D.C.), so overwhelmingly pro-Bush or pro-Kerry that we can be confident of who will win in November, we encourage activists to mobilize voters behind Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb.

In all states, we encourage activists to engage in election-year vigilance to ensure that all votes count, especially those of racial minorities -- and to advocate for instant runoff voting and other reforms so that voters in future elections can support the candidate they most believe in without risk of electing the candidate they most oppose.

David Cobb has earned our endorsement in safe states by deftly steering the Green Party toward a nuanced strategy dedicated to ousting Bush, while seeking to grow a grassroots party that stands unapologetically for peace, racial and social justice, economic democracy, civil liberties and genuine ecology. The Green Party gives political voice to movements that challenge Bush's Iraq policy and resist trade arrangements that trample on workers' rights, human rights and the environment.

Despite a Democratic Party base that is increasingly progressive, anti-NAFTA/WTO and anti-war, John Kerry has lost the strong, brave voice he had as a young man who challenged the Vietnam War and now offers a faint echo of too many Bush policies -- from Iraq and military spending to the global trade regime and corporate coddling (e.g. Kerry's plan to reduce corporate taxes).

We are disappointed that, four years after the Florida disaster, Kerry and leading Democrats (with exceptions such as Dennis Kucinich, Jesse Jackson Jr. and Howard Dean) do not promote common-sense electoral reforms like instant runoff voting that would once and for all eliminate the "spoiler" risk that deforms U.S. elections.

With our electoral system yet to be fixed, we are left this year with the improvised solution of endorsing one candidate in some states and another candidate in other states. This dual-endorsement solution is preferable to endorsing either a candidate with important positions we oppose or a solidly progressive candidate whose votes in swing states could help Bush get four more years.

In this crucial election year, we encourage progressives to work tirelessly to vote Bush out -- as we build grassroots networks and coalitions to hold the Kerry administration accountable to the progressive values and policies shared by most Americans.

Medea Benjamin
Peter Coyote
John Eder
Daniel Ellsberg
Angela Gilliam
Kevin Gray
Tom Hayden
Elizabeth Horton Sheff
Rabbi Michael Lerner
Robert McChesney
Norman Solomon

OK, now those vote totals:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004

You can read from the table that David Cobb came in seventh in the popular vote, with 0.1% of the vote. All of those great "Left" luminaries endorsing the plan, David Cobb campaigning in all fifty states, and that's what they did. But there's a reason: "safe states" voting is an attempt to decaffeinate the idea of political principle, which is that you would vote for a particular candidate because doing so is in your self-interest. "Safe states" voting is voting only when there's no point to it.

essay. The only thing I didn't appreciate was that you put "hate" in the title. Disagreement is not hate.

The essay gets a rec from me for discussion altho I disagree completely it.

LesserEvilism is what got us where we are today and LesserEvilism will only continue the status quo which sucks for most of us.

I continue to support Bernie as long as he is in the running and then I will switch my support to Jill Stein, a woman who would actually make the attempt to change things for the better.

There is a reason C99P exists and it's not for this goddamned $hillary propaganda.

Sorry.

To embroider that further: Regrettably, she and the party seem to have chosen a course that will allow her to very precisely snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They've done a *great* job of getting the support of 53%, of the 29% of the electorate that are still willing to identify as Democrats.

Unfortunately, in so doing, they have also managed to alienate a good chunk of the 41% of the electorate that no longer cares to state a party preference, and who (like it or not) are critical to success in the general election. Now, the chances are increasingly good that a lot of those folks will simply choose not to bother to vote, even beyond the numbers that will be motivated to vote Green. Combine that with the fact that many (if not most) R's hate the name Clinton even more than the name Obama, and you have the makings of a perfect storm: even R's that actively loathe Drumpf will hold their noses and vote for him simply as a way of voting against her, since it appears that they loathe her *more*.

I suspect that this election will have the lowest turnout percentage in history, and that is a Pyrrhic pity, to my way of thinking. But the Democratic Party and its owners will have gotten *exactly what it wanted*.

Well, good for them. They have clearly played the game to perfection, and I for one have received the message loud and clear. It doesn't matter at all what I do, and I'm in a swing state. Thus my plan to change my registration (after 40 years) from D to "no preference" the day after the coronation. I have other things to do with my remaining time and energy.

Ah the old " Cholera is better than Ebola..." canard...how predictable.

I don't care how horrible trump is, I won't be voting for the slightly different but equally horrible Hillary Clinton.

For the most part I can't find explicit policy statements from Trump. The most disturbing policy is that he is a climate denier. Other than that, we have to infer what he would do. On civil rights he actually has a good personal record, better than Hillary, though he makes inflammatory statements.

I have listened to his stump speeches online and some of interviews. I really can't find any objectionable stands on issues, except the environment. He wants to deport illegal aliens and not allow ME Muslims to enter the US. This is really a mainstream position, although we see this differently as Progressives, I think that our position is a minority one. We created radical terrorism by our actions in the ME and now we fund them. Who's equipment are ISIS, AQ and other radical terrorists using? US made, US paid through Saudi and Turkey. Now what do we do about the displaced people? Some of them are terrorists. How can we tell? We have created an impossible situation. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Obama, Clinton(s) are the culprits. Bush said that they hate us because of our freedoms. Bullshit! They hate us because we kill their people and defile their religion. Watch this campaign race because we are going to see a lot of issues like this, where the Progressive perspective runs contrary to popular opinion and Trump is going to appeal to the people.

Remember how Trump eviscerated mainstream, reputable Republican candidates. None of them had the baggage that Clinton has. He has already stated that he can't wait to debate (eviscerate) Clinton. It will stick; Clinton is defenceless since their is much truth in her closet that is negative. Will the public feel that Trump has gone overboard, that it is not fair? Judging by past performance, I would say not. "Crooked Hillary is the worst Secretary of state in history", and watch him make it stick. Bad judgement and warmongering will easily counter her claim of experience. "Remember the commercials, it's three AM and the phone rings. Well it was 3 AM and the phone rang from Bengazi and Hillary went back to sleep." Hillary's response possibly: I've been vetted on that, or that's unfair. She's done, she's toast, and he will enjoy every minute of it. Don't discount his abilities, he is wicked smart, has street smarts from business and has no inhibitions in telling it like he sees it. This is a nightmare opponent for a person who obfuscates and prevaricates.

He doesn't have specific policy positions, but general goals. Make America great, bring jobs back, stand up for the USA. This resonates with Americans, but is a bit too jingoistic for most of us. The devil is going to be in the details, and we have no idea yet. More than likely when he gets into office he will be more like W but without the Iraq war. In the meanwhile we are done with the Clintons for ever and have to rebuild. At some point the American public will get fed up with President trump just being yet another Republican and will vote in a Democratic Congress. Here's where we have to make the difference relative to the last time this played out. If you remember, we kept our "powder dry". It's became so fucking dry that there was nothing left of it. A really blown opportunity and we know exactly why. This is where the opportunity will happen. By then we need the corporate Democrats to be put out to pasture.

read, considered, and dismissed.
As much as I hope Trump cannot be elected, I fear a Clinton Presidency more. She has greased the wheels of her corrupt machine for a long time, has a lot of politicians dangling over the fire, and will be able to accomplish terrible actions against those who have the temerity to fight the oligarchy. Trump is simply a big mouthed buffoon that will be stopped at every turn by the existing wheels of democracy... regardless of how much of a wreck the train is.

Those who think that a Trump victory will lead to a big backlash apparently have ignored U.S. history since Reagan. Stalinist and Baathist Republicans are deeply entrenched in U.S. power structures, and they're not going anywhere without some serious battles.

Even so, and even though my screen name is an acronym for my long-time policy, I am considering voting for Jill Stein - as a strategic move. Not as a protest against the Democratic Party, but as a protest against all parties, and the plurality victories which are used to force feed the electorate a continued binary dictatorship of the elite.

HRC is a warmonger, I'm not sure where you get that from. Iraq, Libya, etc., etc. The end result of either is going to be the country in shambles and a lot of our kids dead from 'fighting for the cause.'

HRC continues trying to push the feckless Obama agenda that's bounced off Republican-controlled congress like a racquetball for almost a decade now, the only thing they'll go along with is invading to stop ISIS and AQAP and Boko Haram and god knows who else. At some point this goes too far and we wind up facing down Putin in a non-diplomatic fashion, because someone's buying all those decommissioned Soviet arms. And nukes.

Trump abandons NATO and Russia invades its former SSRs, Europe is left to fight against them until we have no choice just like in 1941. Canada, overrun with Americans in such numbers not seen since the sixties, is forced to militarize the border.

North Korea, seeing America is very distracted, decides to do more than test a nuke on the ocean, and whether it works or not China is now stuck between its biggest trading partner and its most annoying ally, but wars aren't good for trade. We're a bit pissed China let them drop a nuke on Seattle so we go after them. Just like in 1941. Unfortunately, between North Korea, China, and Russia, we're seriously outnumbered and all the technology we have isn't going to make a dent.

Militias across the US see an opportunity and take it, and this time there's no National Guard left to stop them.

It's just a question of who uses a tac nuke first.

corruption of Shillary, so really, take that mess back to the other place if that's your excuse for some of us knowing damned well better than to vote for our own destruction, willingly and happily, because she's a "democrat." That word in your title is uncalled for, period.

Sewer it came from, dailykos.

Don't bring your trollery here.

#BernieOrBust

Thats not a slogan.

why are you ignoring her war crimes? Why are you ignoring the FACT that Clinton is a murderer? Because that is what you're doing. You appear to not understand the Libya war and what her role in it was (not to mention Obama's). Are you willing to evaluate real, accurate information about the Libya war? Have you even seen her own emails that clearly indict her own warmonger self?
If you vote for Clinton you are voting for a de factor war criminal that has committed crimes against humanity including the intentional murder of hundreds of thousands of people.
It's really that simple.

With Jill Stein

That she will address that fact that our campaign finance system is broken and our election system is rigged. Nothing else matters compared to that. Donate to Jill Stein.

But she can't get elected running against him.

is simply too difficult for those
of us on phones and other mobile
devices to follow.

Thanks!