My Answer To The Conundrum
The 2016 Presidential Race in the United States has devolved into this - Voting America asking in the race between Trump vs Clinton: Who presents the smaller probability of igniting national and/or global chaos? Who am I least afraid of? Who presents the best chance of survival and making it to a course correction in 2020? Who is the least corrupt? Who is influenced by foreign governments less? Who has fewer corporate bribes in their till? Who alienates me the least?
It's absurd, but those are the types of questions being debated in living rooms and blogs and on Facebook around the country. Citizens of the US seem united in one great national opinion about this election - polls show they dislike and mistrust both candidates just about equally and have approximately the same regard for the Parties and systems that spawned them.
Progressive Democrats and Independents know well why they were/are for Sanders and rejecting of Clinton and have now, in addition to policy differences, a lengthy grudge book about the tactics deployed against both their favored candidate Sanders, and themselves by the DNC.
A number of Republicans feel that in allowing Donald Trump to become their Party's standard bearer, regardless of the long catalogue of openly racist, sexist, bigoted, and xenophobic stances taken by him on their stage, that they have basically forfeited any pretense they ever had of claiming to represent some moral high ground of Middle America and have mutated into the Party of the Amoral Majority.
In addition to the issues above, the Parties have also presented voters with a Burdians Ass dilemma in that Clinton portends disaster abroad (foreign policy) while Trump portends disaster at home (domestic issues) and voters are frozen in place trying to decide which disaster alarms them least.
I have to admit that I'm pretty astonished that some former Bernie supporters are toying with the idea of voting for Trump after deciding after a thorough review that he presents less danger of triggering some kind of global holocaust based on his isolationist tendencies. According to their thinking, while it's true that he has thin skin and a hair trigger temper, there is still a better chance of him not engaging us in a chain reaction of disaster then Hillary Clinton presents who is already (according to some sources) laying the groundwork for more international misadventures. Their thinking is we can survive some internal upheaval, but at least we aren't going to nuke ourselves.
Do I agree with this thinking? No, I don't because IMO it is based on one major fallacy - that we only have two choices. This is what the Party's would like people to think and this is what the media would like people to think, but it is not the case.
Their are FOUR CHOICES in this election. There is a major Party candidate for both sides and there is a minor Small Party candidate for each side. The fight for the Main Event on the bill is Clinton Vs Trump. The under card is Stein vs. Johnson.
There is a way to both vote one's values AND send a message of disgust and repudiation to the Party's that have put us in this situation. And it doesn't even involve "lesser evil" worksheets, or at least they are much smaller. It is simply to ignore the Main Event.
Why not vote for your candidate of choice on the under card? Ignore Clinton vs. Trump and make the race between Stein vs. Johnson. Doing so would turn the political world upside down. Doing so would shock the horse-race, sensationalist media with the knowlege that we know they are full of sh*t and contribute very little of value to this process. Doing so would show to the nation and the world that the electorate will not allow its choice to be so conscribed and restricted as the media and Parties and TBTB would have it. Doing so would demonstrate by our actions we retain free will and are forever rejecting defensive, reactionary, strategic, lesser evil voting.
If any Republicans follow my reasoning, they would vote for Johnson. As a former Dem/Progressive, I will be voting for Jill Stein in the Presidential election. I can live with that. Literally.
*******************************************
Note: Your vote is yours to do with as you will, vote or not vote for the person your reasoning has led you to. This essay is strictly an analysis of my own thoughts that have led me to my personal decision.
Comments
Nicely penned.
I particularly like the descriptor, "Amoral Majority".
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
Having had several hours' online discussion in a FB group
that is anti-Hillary, true colors and basic motivators were shown while discussing this very thing. Most have already concluded that binary is out. Some may still stick with that, declaring strategic voting [my sense is Americans have never had as many choices to make strategic voting needed]. There was a Carson holdout! I promoted voting "for you children or grandchildren". Some resonance there. even the Carson voter decided to vote for her grandchildren's future. Off-binary.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
So-called "strategic" voting
is based on a concept that because you think you know how others are voting , you will vote to either counter or re-inforce their vote.
What if you're wrong? Why not simply vote for the candidate who best represents your agenda and strengthens your hopes and reduces your fears?
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
"Strategic voting" in politics...
... reminds me of bluffing in poker. It sounds good in theory and it's what all the movie stars do. But in real life, sitting at the poker table with money in the pot, it is the cold unfeeling laws of mathematics which govern winning play not the raw bluster and mind-reading abilities of movie poker players.
Here in the real world I intend to vote for the candidate which most closely conforms to my principles. Anything else is just as stupid as the bluffing analogy.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
bluffing at poker
It's also what tournament poker players do. See below.
Not entirely true. Psychology has an equal stake in modern poker games to mathematics. In fact, the "recent" (past half-century or so) migration to the "Texas Hold 'Em" style games in tournament poker was and is driven by television: that type of poker provides maximum opportunity for psychology over math, which is good for keeping television audiences involved. The player antics in opposition to their colleagues' attempt to "read" them -- the indoor shades, the weird costumes, etc. -- also keep the old TV ratings up.
Forms of poker where all cards "in" the game are held by individual players don't provide the same opportunity for psy-ops by the players -- and therefore make for boring TV.
So it's not just in movie scripts that psychological skill matters at the poker table.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
I'm not sure a course correction is possible in 2020.
Democracy is already hanging by a thread (if that) as the TPP looms. Just one of the happy thoughts caroming around my brain.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
The 2020 question makes
The 2020 question makes things more complicated. Four years of a Clinton presidency is likely to be better than this year's of having Trump in the Whitehouse, though given the entirely unpredictable nature of Trump it's hard to be sure what would transpire. Trump's campaign has as little substance as Obama's"hope and change": marketing words to sell us on the man rather his policies.
The 2020 election is a different conundrum. A Trump reelection seems unlikely (what are the odds of him facing a challenge as weak as Clinton?); hell also have a record to run away from. There is a possibility that Trump will go full fascist and use the power of the state to propel him to a second or third term.
A Clinton nomination in 2020 is a pretty sure thing. Parties rarely dump their incumbent. That means that electing Clinton this year guarantees that no reformer will top the ticket in 2020. Given the death grip Clinton already has on the DNC imagine what it'll be like for a president Clinton.
"Rarely" does not mean "never"
We've seen a lot of "rarely happens" in the last 25 years.
Incumbent Vice-President wins a term in his own right? "Rarely happens" (not since Martin van Buren).
Disputed election that should have gone to the House, but nobody had the guts to do it? "Rarely happens" (only once before, in fact, in 1876).
Member of same family succeeds to the Presidency? "Rarely happens" (previous example: FDR, and he was only a 5th cousin and of the other Party besides).
Relative unknown takes the electorate by storm and jumps from obscurity to the Presidency? "Rarely happens" (although it's been more the rule than the exception lately).
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
You are assuming Hillary won't have us in the middle
of WWIII and/or under martial law. I don't know what Trump may or may not do, but I am pretty damn sure Hillary plans on doubling down in the middle east. Obama was dragging his feet most of the time while she was at state with her neocon/lib buddies all dreaming of world conquest. For anyone to claim that Hillary's vast experience in politics has done anyone any good but herself and Bill and a few of their military/industrial/banker/foreign interest friends in just not understanding the true nature of the woman. She wants to destroy the world and recreate it in her neocon image.
I don't think Trump is on the same crazy train. That is why they are working so hard to keep him out. They being BOTH the Republican and Democratic crazies who really believe they should rule the world. If Trump beat Hillary this fall, with Pence in his rumble seat, I would take odds he didn't make it six months. To me, that is the conundrum - to vote for Crazy Hillary and her religious freak VP or vote for Trump and end up with his religious freak VP. Aside from Trump's odds of staying healthy for four years, we need to understand that Hillary is not a healthy woman, there is no guarantee that she would live out her term, we have to take a long hard look at the VP's this year and ask ourselves how badly we want a theocracy by 2020.
Do you have evidence for that? Seriously.
Not arguing against you at all. I would love to know the difference between what she did for Obama and what she pushed for herself. Is there a paper trail?
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
What sort of source would work?
Would you actually believe something some whitehouse insider told you?
It'd have to be a wikileaks email leak or something they said in public. My attitude is that it doesn't matter. Both are war criminals. Both lied us into a war just like Bush. Both are responsible for the slaughter of tens of thousands.
My general sense is that Hillary is more hawk-ish than Obama which is a creepy thing.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
Maybe. It would depend on the White House insider and possible
motivations. Her Heinous might say so herself, she seems eager to have the biggest balls in the room. Or yes, WikiLeaks would be awesome and most likely. At least two primary sources independent of each other would be great!
Does it matter? Well, Obama is the boss so I would think he needs to own what happens under his watch. Of course "I was just following orders" is no excuse if Hill were to try that, but it would suggest that she will be no worse than Obama, if no better.
I live in KY, which I think is going to be a swing state. Blue cities, red rural. Voted for Bill both times, for W and against Obama. So the swing votes will matter here.
So, right now I work for Jill to get her on the ballot here. Hopefully others will get her on the ballot in all the other states where she is not yet. If she is not on enough ballots to win, I will probably not vote for her. Let her get big numbers in safe states.
Right now I see Hillary as slightly better than Trump because of domestic issues. But if Jill could actually win the whole thing, I may take a chance and vote for her because the differences between R and D are slight.
But it is part of my final decision making, if Hill is the same warmonger as Obama or if she is worse. I am quite sure she is no better. If she is worse, I am more likely to vote for Jill. If she is the same, I am more likely to vote for Hill. All other things being equal. There are a lot of other issues to ponder, as well.
I do note the arguments here that we have a record for Hill but no record for Trump, so we can't really know what Trump would do. But given his disinterest in the job beyond the ego stroking, I think he will do what he is told by the Repugs, and they want more war. And given Trump's bullying nature and arrogance, he could get us into a war by accident, or even go nuclear on purpose because he thinks he'll be protected in his golden tower. So I will not vote for Trump. Unless something changes drastically.
My vote will probably be up in the air until November.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
She is far more aggressive than Obama
on Syria, for one. I think Obama mitigates and reins in the Deep State to some degree, Hillary will find fires and pour gasoline on them. The choice is easy for me, I'm for the one that Robert Kagan opposes.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Google is your friend........................
http://yournewswire.com/clinton-promises-to-kill-assad-when-elected-pres...
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=hillary+clinton+warhawk&ei=UTF-8&h...
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/hillary-clinton-foreign-policy-lib...
Lol! Also contains proper use of an ellipsis . . .
Just sayin'.
https://www.google.com/search?q=proper+use+of+ellipses&oq=proper+use+of+...
Though, not everyone agrees as to whether there should be spaces between the three (3) periods.
Here, elena:
In glorious detail right from the NYT, How Hillary Clinton
Became a Hawk
Everyone seems to believe this:
Four years of a Clinton presidency is likely to be better than this year's of having Trump in the Whitehouse,
without examination, simply because Trump says horrible things in public.
It's a good thing that it's not really a choice, and it doesn't really matter.
Nobody as good at fixing elections as Hillary Clinton needs my help to go anywhere.
The silver lining in all of this is that nobody has to vote for anyone they despise. Phoebe is right. If you vote at all, vote for someone who represents you.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I completely understand the pessimism
But optimism and the belief that change is possible is the only thing that makes any forward momentum possible.
Bernie Sanders did one great thing IMO, he dared not to simply speak of some kind of amorphous, foggy, Change We Can Believe In marketing slogan like Obama - he actually came out with specific Big Programs like Universal Health and free tuition as well as overarching sweeping goals about wealth inequality and social injustice that we haven't heard coming out of the mouths of the small scale incremental pragmatic bean counter type politician we've had for decades. And people responded! By the millions.
I've honestly never felt so optimistic about the potential for change for the better in our country. We've proved large masses of the people are there, we just have to find some more leaders.
Edit - Most importantly, WE HAVE TO STICK TOGETHER in order to remain a definable and powerful bloc of voters. I hate to think of the Berners being dissipated into subsets of: Clinton, Trump, not voting, and Stein. Under the first three options we literally evaporate and can not be counted. Stein offers the only ability to numerically define ourselves. I think she's at 4% now in the polls and Johnson is at 9%. If Stein suddenly shoots from 4 to 20% and beyond once momentum starts building it will answer the question of "Where did the Berners go?". Otherwise we will be the Judge Crater of the 2016 elections.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
Media manipulation
I've come to the conclusion that we have to wrench the real power from the media, and the marketing masterminds that have near total control of the mindset of the masses....lots of "m's" there!!
Look at what advertising monstrosities the conventions were. They were nothing more than media productions, scripted, setup, biased, blatantly censored manipulation of the voting public.
One could almost agree ..."we got what we deserve", but when two entrenched parties, funded, and dominated completely by the wealthiest, and most powerful corporations, and individuals in the world determine the dialogue heard by the voters, ...we don't deserve that. Consider the media power over the Debates, who is in the debates, and the questions presented to candidates participating. All of it negotiated by media specialists, whether they work directly for the networks, or are hired by the candidates. Elections are no longer elections, they are big business affairs, where billions are spent at nothing more than outright graft.
Not only does the two party system need to be purged from our electoral system, the media needs to be held accountable, and take on a role of thoughtful, and insightful participation. I certainly don't expect that to happen, so another alternative to rip the control from the establishment, is to limit the length of the election season , as is done in other developed , industrialized, technologically advanced societies around the globe.
If the primary elections can be so blatantly corrupted, so obviously rigged by the establishment parties, eliminate partisan primaries altogether, have runoff elections, and present the final four, or so candidates in a national election. This manipulation by the media, the marketing experts needs to go. Election to the office of the POTUS, and other official offices, HAS to become a more thoughtful, and educated experience for the American voter. When all we get is constant bullshit for two years straight, is it any wonder so many don't bother to vote?
But again I have to point to Bernie
who was basically ignored by the media as proof of the fact that there are work-arounds to the entrenched, corporate media. Social media matters and there are a lot of smaller, scrappy, if you will, news sources rising.
Part of my advocacy for the under card here specifically had to do with the finger poke in the eye aspect of it to the existing media oligarchs.
Many want publicly funded, non-partisan media just as much as they want publicly funded campaigns.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
I would agree, Phoebe Looseinhouse, but citizen funding
for other campaigns will dry up fast now. Few have the funds and fear tougher times ahead. I do not know the answer. The USA is not structurally sound at all now. Few relish the tear-down which should happen.
I am a pro, dealing with this personally with a large amount of unrecoverable worked-for money.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
It was a work-around right up to the point where
the media called the primary for Hillary despite her never (as far as I know?) reaching the requisite number of delegates to clinch the nomination.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Getting control of the media
Getting control of the media may be even harder than getting control of the government.
You see, getting control of the government requires mounting forceful enough protests for long enough that we force the establishment to come to the bargaining table and offer concessions. That won't be total control, but it's the foot in the door we really need. We've done that before.
But media corporations have rights. Their owners have rights. And one of those rights is to say just about anything they damn well please - including all that neoliberal propaganda and opinion-shaping you're trying to get rid of.
To control the corporate mass media, you're going to need to do one or both of two things:
1. Pass an amendment stating that corporations are not people and don't have Constitutional rights. That means they don't have First Amendment protection and we can tell them what they can and can't say and punish them if we don't like what they say.
2. Destroy those corporations utterly. Revoke their articles of incorporation and nationalize their assets.
Either of these will provoke screams. Censorship! Theft! Thought policing! State propaganda! Stalin! Hitler! But they are the only way to stop the tireless flow of bullshit from the American Brainwashing Machine because if you allow them to continue they will continue.
I don't agree with you at all
News/information is one consumer niche in what we call the "media".
Current ownership has chosen to mix news in with entertainment and to do the least amount of actual, factual, non-biased reporting and journalism as it is possible to do while still maintaining the pretense that it is still news. Just because they chose to do that, doesn't mean that the niche for old-fashioned, muck-raking journalism doesn't exist, it simply needs new outlets.
I see nascent new and better media all the time, and I expect to see more. There will be some breakouts. Someone needs to fill the void "trusted news source" and I know they are out there.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
New media = organized hacking?
The extreme efforts by Democrats, including BHO, to try to invalidate the Wikileaks revelations show the power of hacking and releases of secret information to discomfit the powerful. This used to take long, dogged work by intrepid journalists like the great I. F. Stone to produce some nuggets of information. Nowadays revelations can be released wholesale.
The problem with the Wikileaks approach is that it is not done journalistically: they do a big data dump and then rely on the corporate media to amplify the information. Which of course the media doesn't do. Far better to do it the way Snowden and Glenn Greenwald did: have real journalists sift through the data to write stories that can be comprehended by average folks, and then release the information to buttress the story. This is how I expect journalism to be reinvented in the future. The corporate whores are worthless, and have already rendered themselves meaningless.
Please help support caucus99percent!
I like the raw dump approach.
Too many gatekeepers as it is, and exponentially more eyes to comb through the docs.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
It's more democratic that way, for sure!
Open source journalism, as it were.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Media consolidation should be treated as a Monopoly
The argument "That's what people WANT to see" completely ignores the fact that consent and desire has been manufactured by the monopoly that controls major avenues of discourse.
And Clinton will do everything she can to extend that monopoly to the Internet. Already major corporations are making inroads with their purchases of major search engines and websites. The line has been crossed years ago, and needs to be pushed back, HARD.
The Corporate Vampire grip on IP that should have been in the Public Domain YEARS ago is even a better example. Public Domain is the shared knowledge and creativity of Humanity but due to corporate IP and a friendly supreme court, Anything created in the 20th century may NEVER become Public Domain, because of lawyers squatting on the real estate.
Course that's my rant, and after this election where I wholeheartedly go Green, I may be going Pirate.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
At least, anything created after c. 1925
A lot that was published prior to that date is already Public Domain and can't be recalled. And as long as it doesn't affect The Mouse, there is little to no pushback.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
"Media consolidation should be treated as a Monopoly"
Absolutely!! and it was Bill Clinton who allowed it. That is, in my opinion why the media is so in bed with Hillary
You also think Jill Stein can
You also think Jill Stein can win this election.
You have a deep idealistic streak. Reality will sort that out for you eventually, and it will hurt - unless you're just incapable of learning from experience.
Mostly we're hoping she can Stop $Hillary,
because somebody has to. As for your precious "Reality", everybody said in 1980 that Reagan could never, ever win; and everybody said in 2000 the Bush the Lesser could never, ever win.
Reality bites back, sometimes.
PS: Worst-case scenario: see Eugene V. Debs quote.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Reagan was already looking to the White House in the
early 70s while I was in n college. I remember my PoliSci professor making fun of Reagan saying that if he became "senile" he would step down from the presidency. This was in 71-72! Apparently Reagan was asked about how his age would affect him serving as president way back then.
I don't think Sanders ever really was aiming for the presidency in his political career. He just saw a huge screaming need for someone to represent the needs of 99% of the people in the country and nobody else was.
The point is that most people who get to be president have been working at it for a long time. Sadly democracy is on borrowed time and Wall Street, etc. holds the note. People realized this which is why Bernie should have won in spite of his relatively late start. We had the numbers, but TPTB had control of the system.
We still need to push back. No status quo.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
I don't think Jill Stein can win
But I'm going to vote for her anyway. If she gets a significant fraction of the vote, then it will alert the Democratic party that the left can't be taken for granted anymore. Best possible realistic outcome I see? Hillary wins in a squeaker, and Jill Stein gets above 10% of the vote. That would at least chasten Clinton Democrats and show them that they'd better listen to us. It would also help coalesce the movement in an established political party, and give us a base to work from in the future. It's a far-fetched possibility, but I don't see a better one that's got a chance this year.
Please help support caucus99percent!
Breaking 5% nationally would also give the Green and Lib Parties
a lot of extra money (potentially more than they might even generally raise on their own).
With respect--and I have a lot for you, Dallasdoc--
Clinton Democrats are beyond "chastening," imo. As long as Clintons and neoliberals and pols subservient to the owner class and the big-player corporate sectors (big pharma, arms mftrs, oil & gas, big ag, and of course, Wall St.) maintain their grip on the party, there will be no "listening to us." But I, too, now plan to vote for Stein.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Jiddu Krishnamurti
I had a specific meaning in mind
Clinton's play for Republicans is likely to fall flat, since most Republicans would rather open a vein than see her as president. She might attract some Neocons and billionaires, but Republican voters don't listen to those assholes anymore -- that's how Trump got the nomination in the first place. Hillary Clinton is almost the last person who could pull off a grand realignment to attract conservative voters to the Democrats.
Democrats are accustomed to taking the left for granted: "Where else are they gonna go?" If enough of us vote for Jill Stein, they'll have their answer. If Hills makes it into the White House by the skin of her teeth, then her handlers might see the wisdom in pandering to the left once again, rather than stomping us in the face. I'd like to see the Democrats chasing after the votes of a growing Green party, especially since they're unlikely to succeed after the Sanders candidacy.
Please help support caucus99percent!
Republican elites are moving over to Clinton
which, laughably, is revealing their duplicity to their own followers, but as you say Dallasdoc, the rank and file would rather open a vein than vote for her.
The Democrats have never suffered a single consequence that I'm aware of, for taking the left for granted, so we've waived any power that we have or might have had. The worm is turning.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
I'd sure like to see that, too
But pandering, though gratifying, is meaningless. Same old-same old blatherings, walked back when opportune, as we've seen from both Clintons--the great Pander Bear himself and his say-anything-that-might-work wife.
Still, a pleasant vision.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Jiddu Krishnamurti
It's all fixed nothing you can do go home...
is the message of the tyrant and the enabler of tyrants.
DNC putting that message out a lot recently. Lot of politicians putting that out. Of course, having seen propaganda vs. on the ground first hand, I have much less trust for those whose proclamations always match their predispositions.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
I should clarify my recent comments in light of this one--
When I say that Hillary doesn't need my vote b/c she's a champion election-fixer, I don't mean there's nothing we can do.
The things we can do are hard to do, and it's likely not many people will want to do them, but mine isn't a hopeless position; I just refuse to endorse the illusion that the Democratic party can be made to work for me.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Jill Stein can win. Will she? Probably not. But in a universe
where all things are possible, she is able to win.
Now, how can we promote her so that every low-information voter knows her name?
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Yes, it's amazing that my idealism wasn't crushed dead
by the Obama years. Is that what you mean by "learning from experience"? Be grateful for the crumbs and don't aspire to anything better?
Reality will sort it out for me and it will hurt? Good Lord, talk about appealing to darkness.
Your message seems to be very cynical and pessimistic about Progressives accomplishing anything meaningful in my lifetime and I really need to wake up and smell the coffee, or something like that. Not sure why you find it necessary to spray Round-up on my daffodils and poison my unicorn. Perhaps we don't share the same goals? Maybe you're just more pragmatic than I choose to be?
Whatever. If you were to write an essay about how you resolved your Presidential vote for this year, I would look forward to reading it.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
You're right, this reply was
You're right, this reply was needlessly cruel. I won't redact it since it has five replies already (a personal record here! sheesh), but I apologize.
The left does need a hefty dose of pragmatism if it wants to accomplish anything, though. I'm talking about the "get shit handled" sort of pragmatism, not the "vote lesser evil" kind.
Doesn't take a whole essay.
There are two things that damn Clinton and the Democrats beyond redemption in my eyes.
The first is all the cheating, the ratfucking, the lies, the rigging, the way the whole campaign was carried out - doesn't matter if it was Clinton herself, people inside the DNC, or interested third parties with hackers on retainer, because an honest candidate and an honest party would be saying "WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK IS GOING ON HERE", not "LOOK, RUSSIA!"
Trump may be many disgraceful things, but you know what? He didn't win by cheating.
The second is the way that Hillary and the DNC have treated Bernie supporters and the left generally - and how the Democrats have treated the left for decades, actually, with their "FUCK YOU GO TO HELL AND DIE I WON'T DO ANYTHING YOU WANT HA HA HA but vote for me or else" act, but this year it feels more in-my-face than ever before in my memory. Enough. ENOUGH. There is a time to rebel, well and truly rebel, and I am choosing this year to do it.
So my first priority this year is that Hillary must not win. I may fuck the whole downballot slate, too, because they're all collaborators and enablers. The Tea Party many be a bunch of retarded lunatics, and they may be covered in astroturf, but by god, they know how to get leverage by punishing their own party when it doesn't do what they want, which is something the left never learned all at once, and most of them never learned it at all.
My second priority is to support whichever candidate the left coalesces around, which is probably Stein, to put even more evolutionary pressure on Democrats and support left unity.
So: barring any major shakeups before November, if polls show my state is swingy this year and Stein (or whoever) is behind, I will vote for Trump to block Hillary. If my state is swingy but Stein is tied, I will vote for Stein for the win. If my state is "safe", I will vote for Stein.
Thanks for the reply
It's all good. As I made my way down the thread I saw where you were very pro Alphalops comment about making sure that Progressives and their candidates know that the Democratic Party was not the most hospitable place for their endeavors and I was thoroughly confused.
You know, I have vacillated myself between cynicism and optimism. I know the evidence available will make just about everyone a cynic even close to the point of becoming a nihilist where you can't believe much of anything or anyone. The one thing that has helped me remain an optimist in spite of often overwhelming evidence to the contrary is the realization that our fight is nothing new. It has always been this way, the Haves fighting the Have Nots. The struggle is picked up and carried on by every new generation. I always say that The People's History of the United States is the book that opened my eyes to saying "Wow! If those guys didn't knuckle under and play dead, I don't have to either."
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
I have no illusions that Stein can win
I live in a crucial swing state, and intend to vote for Trump. I hate Trump, voting for him is like sticking a fork in my eye, but the corruption and venal, mendacious policies that Hillary represents force my hand. Stopping Clinton is a priority, in view of her foreign policy intentions. I cannot vote for US indispensability and empire.
A vote for Trump is likely not much better, but it has the advantage of not being automatically a vote for war. If I lived in a state less crucial, I would vote for Stein, and Stein is the only candidate that reasonably reflects my views. Remember, a vote for Trump in a swing state actually cancels out a Hillary voter, and that's the only way we can stop this juggernaut.
Look how sleazy the PTB have become: Here's the New York Post's attempt at dissuading us from voting for Trump. Note the despicable nude shot of Melania in the right hand corner. By trashing his family, and his voters, they hope to succeed?
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Was it on here or the
Was it on here or the Progressive Wing (which I've been having trouble posting on/getting on of late, drat it,) that someone had posted that one of Trump's ?campaign managers? had been involved in faking a foreign nation's election results - so that it seems likely that Trump and Hillary will be having cheat-offs against each other in the General?
I thought I'd made notes of it but can't seem to locate them, possibly because I'm darned tired now and refuse to go to bed at 8:30 PM, even though I always have livened up at night since babyhood and undoubtedly will again tonight.
Came across this, which I must have missed before, so thought others might have missed it as well. The final message, that the Tevolution is 'you', was one I find that I frequently need to hear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_4246128205&featur...
Trump, Hillary And The Dark Side - Separated At Birth
Rose2016
Published on May 20, 2016
Two opponents from the Darkside come under attack by the light.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
I don't. Believe Stein can win or have a deep idealistic streak.
But I still agree with Phoebe that people should vote for Stein or Johnson--if that's who really represents their views.
What's key here is understanding that your vote does not actually matter, except in a moral sense.
Voters, for people like Hillary Clinton, are essentially exercises in optics; their purpose is to create a plausible narrative of her victory based on a popular mandate. She doesn't have a popular mandate, and never will, even with all the help Trump can give her, but she apparently needs or wants to maintain the illusion that the people's choice lifts her into office. Therefore she needs images on the media of people entering polling places, people standing around applauding her, etc. That's all she needs voters for.
What voting means to the voter is something else again. For me, it's signing off on something: when I voted for Obama in 2008, that meant that I had some small responsibility for everything he did between 2008 and 2012. That's why I didn't vote for him in 2012. I voted for Stein, because I was unwilling to sign off on what I expected Obama would do between 08 and 2012.
If I was unwilling to sign off on everything Obama might do between 2008-2012, I am doubly, triply unwilling to sign off on anything Hillary Clinton might do.
I find the idea that Trump in office would be OH SO MUCH WORSE, OBVIOUSLY than Hillary in office as,basically, without foundation, but unpacking that would take longer than a comment, so I'll just say again that anybody as good at fixing elections as Hillary Clinton doesn't need my vote to get to the White House. She doesn't need it, and she knows it: that's why she's made no effort to get it, not even through stupid meaningless concessions which would have cost her nothing, like letting us put progressive ideas into the Democratic party platform.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
someone has to dream
That is why I love Bernie so much. His opponents, and their surrogates were quick to state that all we wanted was free stuff...ponies, unicorns, and fairy dust. My premise is one that believes that a true leader does not need to hold iron fisted power, but instead be willing to dream, to present those dreams in a way that finds common ground with the masses. Bernie did that. Agreeably, TPTB would never have allowed some of Bernie's ideas to come to fruition, but, by God, he could have been the spark that ignited a massive populist, humanistic approach to governing, and living in the USA. THAT is why he was so feared by Clinton, and the corporate oligarchy...they realized quickly that Sanders represented a Pandora's box full of curses for their ilk.
As the saying goes....Bernie "opened a big can a whoop-ass", and I'm hoping they can't close it up anytime soon. That Birdie done flew the coup... pun intended ;-/
Excellent comment Scheindog. The manipulation that I will
be most interested in is that of the polling data that would allow or disallow Stein and Johnson into the debates. Doesn't the media pay for the polls? In the end though it would appear Clinton controls the election apparatus and no one other than her has any real chance to 'win' the election. Regardless, a strong showing by both Stein and Johnson is what's needed.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK | "The more I see of the moneyed peoples, the more I understand the guillotine." - G. B. Shaw Bernie/Tulsi 2020
Beautifully argued case, Phoebe
I see Bernie Sanders' accomplishments as three:
1. He defined an agenda for the new progressive movement, as you point out.
2. He persuaded millions of Americans to work together outside the Democratic Party veal pen, and to crowdfund a major political campaign.
3. He showed millions of us the deeply corrupt nature of the Democratic Party, and exactly how the game is rigged against us.
My own thinking parallels yours, of course. None of us should be under the illusion that our vote will determine the results of the election: this is the fallacy on which "strategic voting" is built. Instead I look at how my vote -- buttressed by others -- could best represent a message that could be heard in the political world. Voting for Hillary only endorses the corrupt Democrats who have already stomped on my face. I do not buy the argument that Trump is less dangerous than Hillary -- his unpredictability prevents this argument being taken seriously. Only by adding my vote to others and choosing Stein can I see a meaningful statement that can further the movement Bernie fought for, and that I still believe in.
Please help support caucus99percent!
Spot on Doc!
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK | "The more I see of the moneyed peoples, the more I understand the guillotine." - G. B. Shaw Bernie/Tulsi 2020
It's not a steep hill to climb
Against the 2 most unpopular candidates in the history of US polling.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Much skepticism greeted the Sander's campaign as well
at the start and yet he did remarkably well in the end. He presented a real challenge to Hillary that she was forced to acknowledge. We still don't know for sure if he lost the nomination honestly and legally.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, P.L. The important thing is to regain the pre-nomination momentum of the Bernie campaign, don't lose the enthusiasm.
To thine own self be true.
We actually do know that
We actually do know that Bernie won the nomination. And voter suppression and electoral cheating are certainly unconstitutional, even if the The People tacitly encourage this to worsen into the now extreme contemptuous blatancy by habitually permitting stolen elections to stand as done deals 'to be fixed later' in a tomorrow that never comes, while rewarding those involved in the nomination/election thefts by allowing them to perpetually profit from and damage the people and nation as the fruit of their crimes.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6J1ecILnk3UUy1KZ2FUT29iQ1E/view?pref=2...
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVaVwnJki3g
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
While I loved (and recced)
While I loved (and recced) much of your post, I would like to point out that the usual political terms used for the usual phony politicians don't apply to Bernie. It was not that he 'dared not' traffic in vague slogans, he ran because he was needed and had plans and democratic ideals which would benefit The People and which he knew needed to be implemented but never would be by the usual phony corporate-serving politician.
This is important because readers who may not understand Bernie or the People's Movement may well already have been misled by the corporate media/Clinton supporters/SuperPacs/hired trolls and the connotations of language used may influence people, the latter being something the PR teams working against progressives/The People use for a living. Just thought I'd mention.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
I hope Berniecrats go green...
in order to bring the existence of the party to light. If we get to 15%, Jill gets on the debates and will be exposed to many eyes and ears. The dems are beyond redemption to me. More power to Bernie for trying to repair that corrupt mess.
The Clinton machine is already at work labeling Jill as a tinhat anti-vaccer. They artfully deflected to fact that they cheated to gain the nomination using the cold war.... RUSSIA! And of course no reporting on the collusion of the DNC with corporate media.
It is a steep hill to climb when they control the megaphone and the voting booth tallies. Kinda makes democracy seem hollow.
I enjoyed your thoughtful essay!
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
If Jill got on the debates it would be such a breath of fresh
air, it would resonate with a majority of voters, in my view. Such a difference from "war as usual" and "that's for the rich, not the likes of you" that people would respond to her common sense positions and proposals.
Getting a fair hearing for the Greens must be Clinton's and the neoliberals' worst nightmare.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Speaking of Clinton nightmares
Just imagine if the diner placemats did have to be reprinted with the First Woman President who "broke the hardest, highest glass ceilings" and it wasn't Hillary Clinton! How ironic would that be?
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
It would be irony worthy of the early Dos Passos and doubly
sweet. Nice thought!
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
There would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Fer sure. n/t
Since Bernie is out, I prefer Jill
But Bernie's endorsement of Hillary was just wrong, on many levels, both morally and factually. Not his fault, I think, there sure seems to have been extreme coercion. I'll push Jill's numbers up as far as I can, and hope she actually wins, but Hillary as president would destroy any long-term plans we might make. That has to be a No-Way Hillary stand, because:
1) The TPP will destroy our sovereignty. Big deal in terms of civil rights, public welfare, climate disaster - coming sooner than we think! Sorry, foreign corporations' "anticipated future profits" take precedence over everything else. Think pharmaceuticals are too expensive now? Just wait! Yes Jill is best, but Hillary makes Trump look good. They are not equivalent.
2) Nuclear war would not be waged overseas, in some little country full of people who don't look like us. It would be our cities and infrastructure going up in mushroom clouds. Hillary is clearly pushing for war with Russia, for heaven's sake! Jill would be best, but Hillary makes Trump look good. They are not equivalent.
3) Even if we somehow escaped (1) and (2), look at what's happened in this primary campaign, just as a candidate, with Hillary having no official power. Voter rolls were purged, party registrations switched, elected delegates' credentials taken away, elected delegates locked in/out of votes and of the convention space, our candidate not allowed to choose who nominated him, signs snatched away and destroyed, lots of vindictiveness, plans made ahead of time to drown out chants of "no more war"! Bernie's states seated in the back of the hall and the lights turned off over them, actors hired to fill seats when delegates walked out. And much more. Does anyone really think those tactics would not get worse? Free speech? We know this has happened for Hillary. We haven't seen Trump doing these things, so, again, Jill would be best, but Hillary makes Trump look good. They are not equivalent.
Yes, let's try to get Jill elected as our first choice, and yes, Trump is often crude and gross, but HILLARY IS THE TRUE NIGHTMARE CANDIDATE. We should be clear on that - she wants to do things that will very likely literally destroy our world.
YUUUUGE battles on FB now. I try to stay calm and be Green.
I confess, I do deskchair battles quite well and have the silly "likes" to prove it. My kids would probably cringe, although one was a Sanders voter in TX and has been my reliable voting operative in FL, TX, CO, TX. I continue to kindly lead from home, a poor widow.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
The Ds and Rs shoved the League of Women Voters out of
the presidential debate driver's seat; they wanted control. Voters have been the losers.
It would be swell if someone persuaded the LWV to step back into that arena and host debates with Stein and Johnson (inviting Clinton and Trump, who'd decline), and use Internet channel(s) to stream them and keep them available online, because the networks would almost certainly decline to provide airtime. This election more than ever, they'd be performing a valuable public service. Anyone have LWV connections at the national level?
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Jiddu Krishnamurti
The League of women voters
The League of women voters refused to continue hosting the debates under new rules which perpetrated a fraud on the American voting public. I very much doubt they'd ever take it on again unless under fair rules where informing the voter was the purpose, rather than conning them into selecting the corporate/billionaire favorite as the debate/electoral 'winner' each time.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
True, and glad you pointed that out. I had in mind something
else: that the LWV would offer debate time through the Internet (somehow), on its own terms, to third-party candidates, and invite the D and R nominees for parity, to show that they had an opportunity to participate.
Someone needs to provide a forum for Stein (and Johnson) to get their platforms and messages out. The Ds and Rs don't set rules for candidates from other parties, or for the LWV or any other group that creates a debate opportunity for third parties and that can be viewed by anyone with Internet access. Still leaves out those on the other side of the digital divide, but it's better than shutting them out entirely. Heck, they could be guests on any show, not even in a formal debate structure, with call-in questions from a live or Internet audience.
That was my thought, anyway.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Jiddu Krishnamurti
As long as fear is the dominant motivator as people
head for the voting booth, one of the two major candidates will prevail. I do like your line of reasoning, however, and also have Stein penciled in on my ballot. But I do not have the foggiest notion of how to help people move away from the fear that binds us to the tarbaby of the either/or choice between two of the worst candidates ever offered up.
Fear easily overwhelms a rational thought process and the the universal antidote to fear, the complete acceptance of our mortality, is well beyond our collective reach. Countering with a more potent opposing fear will only dig a deeper pit. Quite the conundrum.
“ …and when we destroy nature, we diminish our capacity to sense the divine,and understand who God is, and what our own potential is and duties are as human beings.- RFK jr. 8/26/2024
Do You Want Your Children to Survive?
That's what it comes down to for me.
Clinton has no plan to combat global warming, supports fracking and oil intetests. She is toying with military intervention against Russia and Iran. She is for the TPP and other trade deals that will strip our rights and send more jobs overseas and make jobs lower wage.
Trump has no plan to combat global warming and doesn't think it's real. He wants to inflame race and religious relations internally in this country. He will probably end up supporting the TPP and those other trade deals.
Johnson has no plan to combat global warming. He supports the TPP and other trade deals.
Who's left that will help keep my kids, and grandkids, and their kids alive and with viable jobs and with human rights we should expect?
Green is the clear choice for me.
With up to 9 ft of sea level rise expected by 2050, millions displaced and food production severely challenged in our nation's bread basket it would be nice to have concern for the viability of the planet put ahead of continuing corporate profits and upward transfer of wealth now, while we can still do something to avert an irreversible mass extinction event.
“ …and when we destroy nature, we diminish our capacity to sense the divine,and understand who God is, and what our own potential is and duties are as human beings.- RFK jr. 8/26/2024
One of my button-pushers as well. Trying to ground people
to whom I remind such in a mostly-loving manner.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
This is what I have been encountering
when I talk to people who are voting for Clinton simply because Donal Trump terrifies them. They assume that I am voting for Clinton and are shocked when I tell them that I plan on voting my conscience and that means Jill Stein. Even though the two major parties together have less than 60% of registered voters, most people I talk to still believe that the duopoly is the only real choice.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
I was surprised to read yesterday that the Libertarian
Johnson was polling at 9%. That's not that bad a spot at this time with Trump as the Republican candidate and people wondering when he will implode.
Here is the question that needs to be asked - Why are the prominent Republicans who are Never Trump coming out for Clinton as opposed to diverting the Republican vote to the Libertarians who are in fact two established Republicans both with executive experience as Governors. Are they (Republican elites) telling us that they consider Clinton to be more Republican than Johnson and Weld? Consider the ramifications of that.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
The whole world
has been expecting Trump to implode.
I doubt that scenario will happen.
The main reason I want someone besides HRC is to expunge the Clinton's (and all of their buddies') death grip on the party. The party has been failing for years since the Dems decided to go the conservative route.
If Clinton wins, aside from all of the crappy policies, we will have to put up with Chelsea, then her offspring, and their grip on the party.
If Clinton wins, there is no road forward to clean primaries and elections. Cheating will be routine.
I said years ago that the dem party had been taken over by dinos/repubs, and that is now easily proven by the repubs jumping ship.
I see trump as a way to upend the entrenched powers on both sides.
Then again, I think Bernie supports her because she will likely support some of the legislation he proposes, where trump may not.
Then again, voting your conscious as you recommend also seems like the perfect answer.
I am in a deep quandary.
(but I think this election cycle has been fun and interesting!)
dfarrah
I am still sticking to my [non-exsistent] guns that Bernie
endorsed not-Trump, not pro-Clinton. In my mind, coercion of his campaign but not of the Movement. YMMV. I am attempting to stop small brush fires, getting busy at that. Peace!
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
This is crucial
To liberate the party from the death grip the Clintons have imposed upon it. It can never be a progressive party, of, by and for the people, as long as shills like the Clintons, DWS, Harry Reid, and others control it. We will always be sold down the river as long as these people have power.
I am voting Democratic down ballot, but will vote for Trump, as I live in a crucial swing state, if only to cancel a Hillary vote in the hope of stemming the tide.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
And this is the question NEVER asked on LOF
I see diary headlines over there stating that another top republican is endorsing Hillary, or another military GENERAL is endorsing Hillary.
They all think it means because these people see Trump as a nutcase, instead of thinking that of course these republicans are endorsing her because her views are aligned with hers. Especially the military.
The office of the president long ago lost control over wars to the MICC.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
If they came out for Johnson
it would end up massively diluting Republican's power. Just like getting Jill on the debate stage would be a very bad for Democrats keeping power, getting Gary Johnson on the debate stage would be horrible for Republicans.
Exactly
That goes for both the Democrats and Republicans. They'd rather see the other establishment party win in order to maintain the duopoly stranglehold, rather than risk their being a real choice.
Notice that the Commission on Presidential Debates is a corporation owned by the D and R parties. This is not a coincidence. It's the illusion of choice.
You'd think that the average
You'd think that the average voter would be driven by fear of the corporate-party candidates into voting for anyone else... assuming they know that there is anyone else...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Kochs support for Hillary
When I hear that the Kochs are NOT using their vast wealth to campaign AGAINST Hillary - for me that means that the globalists ARE supporting Hill Dog... So for me NEVER HILLARY. Jill Stein will be fine for me...
Peace
FN
"Democracy is technique and the ability of power not to be understood as oppressor. Capitalism is the boss and democracy is its spokesperson." Peace - FN
Thanks Phoebe.
Thanks Phoebe.
I enjoy your thoughts, and positive presentation.
I may still write in Bernie, though I do understand the percentage issue for the small parties could change my mind.
I think it helps if you define your fears
Which is what I did for myself in realizing that Clinton might be okay domestically but offers horrific possibilities for global havoc (unacceptable) and that Trump is isolationist but will create untold chaos here domestically (unacceptable).
If you truly have two completely unacceptable choices, which we have in reality, any logical person will say, what are my other choices?
If you choose to not vote, you will still end up with one of the two unacceptable choices.
If you vote strategically for one unacceptable choice over the other, you will still have an unacceptable choice.
There is only one person to vote for that does not lead, at least directly, to a guaranteed outcome outcome of an unacceptable choice and that is Jill Stein. With Stein there is still the possibility, however remote it may be, that you will end up with a President who does not create havoc abroad or chaos at home.
Edit - this was meant as a reply to ovals49.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
... Which is what I did for
Problem is that in Bush's TPP, which Obama and Hillary have been pushing, all domestic law in all involved countries is then over-ruled by offshored corporate law, all aimed specifically in maximizing the anticipated future profits of all involved corporations and billionaires at the expense of the involved publics, animals and environment.
It cuts into maximized anticipated future profits if:
industrial pollution is limited or any environmental protection laws, including such as air/water quality requirements, are not dismantled;
food or other product safety or labelling is enforced;
work-place safety is enforced;
minimum wage laws are enforced;
if public programs of any kind - from any social assistance or pensions, to public schools and public works, such as public water/sewers supplies, road repair, fire departments, etc., continue to exist. Anything potentially profitable will be privatized and continue to exist for those who can afford it.
And FSM only knows what else.
But those maximized, anticipated-by-the-corporations/billionaires, profits must be paid by the people who will otherwise be sued for them in the offshored corporate-billionaire court where the public interest has no standing.
That effectively means a miserable slavery for all people under corporate management, which Hillary is determined to be CEO of in implementing and administering this while using the The People's public money (while any remains) and military to violently take over/nuke the countries which are not economically sold out.
Those which are, are to be told that - unconstitutionally or not - they are 'legally bound' by such privately made agreements of traitorous betrayal passed off as 'trade deals' and that the publics have no recourse.
The rigged Supreme Court (for which Obama promotes a 'corporate-friendly' Republican as the deciding vote, following the sudden and swiftly and secretively dealt with death of a Supreme Court Justice just as the TPP was made ready to facilitate the hostile corporate take-over of around a dozen countries for starters,) will quash anyone suing, while pointing to the fact that nobody can dispose of democracy, the people and country as they please, by the majority-corrupt Supremes simply claiming that it's just as Constitutional as declaring corporations to be people and therefore able to purchase elections, select their own public officials to 'represent the people' and own/control entire political parties.
The havoc will be global, including America, and if Hillary or Trump or anyone other than Jill (or Bernie) does get the Presidency, the kindest thing might be the Mutual Agreed Destruction between America, the aggressor, and the to-be-nuked defenders, Russia and China. The life on Earth forming the life-support system wouldn't last long under either destructive force, whether polished off by unlimited global industrial/military pollution and destruction or thousands of nuclear missiles being exchanged between at least 3 countries, with massive radiation and nuclear winter polishing off whatever survived the hail of missiles, which will occur under any Dem or Republican corporate candidate.
People need to vote against evil, not for it. Their lives - all of our lives - depend upon it.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
I have some very dark thoughts about the domestic chaos
that supposedly will happen if Trump takes office, but somehow won't if Hillary does.
I need to write an essay about that, rather than a comment, but suffice to say that I think there will be plenty of domestic chaos under either, but likely more with Hillary in power.
I sometimes think Hillary vs Trump was created for the sole purpose of generalizing the race war.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Going Green here, in a must-win battleground state for Ds or Rs.
There's only one way I can see to change the paradigm from voting for the second-worst candidate (lesser-evilism, that essentially incentivizes being lousy, just not lousiest) to voting for the best on offer. That's to vote for the best on offer, always. What a concept, I know! Hoodathunk?
In this case, too, I get the opportunity to resist machine politics, one of the worst manifestations of "civic engagement" on the planet.
"I'd rather...
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Perfect. Thank you.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
Very thoughtful
and well presented essay, Phoebe. The clarity with which you have presented this essay is wonderful. Thank you for laying out your rationale so clearly. It has helped me with my own resolve to vote my conscience instead of strategically.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Would love some under-card debates
Thanks for the essay. I hope Johnson and Stein do a lot of online debates that would be great. Libertarian versus Green, at least there would be some economic policy difference of opinion right? Maybe some intelligent discussion on the issues? I don't know. I'm NoParty in California, there are still secret ballots. I think. I'm sorry our state primary was so terrible, it did reveal some corrupt and incompetent apparatchiks so there's that.
Does it matter who wins the general election in California? I don't think so, again it is a few states that will decide everything for everyone, at least they are funded by California billionaires haha. I am free to vote for the under-card just like in 2000. Heh. I hope others from the "swing" states will comment because I think their votes will count.
Peace
Here is a debate from May btwn Stein and Johnson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw6LeHRrEvk
It's an hour or so.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Pages