"We Do Not Accept Those Choices!"

One of the most difficult conversations I've had to have during this election season is my answer to those who claim that Donald Trump is so clearly worse than Hillary that if Hillary wins the nomination it would be crazy not to vote for her to defeat Donald Trump.

I have no feeling to defend either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. I refuse to accept that framing in toto. It's thinking in the box to such an extent that I can't take it seriously.

Saw this video on my Twitter feed and felt like sharing it with the Caucus.

[video:https://vimeo.com/169307922]

A happy weekend to everyone and I agree with others here that the Jill Stein post was a positive step in getting out of that damned box.#F

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

I voted for her, I know people who voted for Bernie, and I know people that will vote for Stein. Everyone's just got to vote for who they vote for.

up
0 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

The idea that nobody should be pressured or coerced into voting a certain way is fundamental to our republican (small-r) experiment.

The idea that people will argue, passionately, for or against a certain electoral choice in public space, is ALSO fundamental to our republican (small-r) experiment.

So when one comes into public space and announces one's support for a candidate, it's sensible to expect argument and controversy. On the other hand, one is absolutely entitled to draw a line and say: No, this is my choice, and I don't regret it and I don't want to discuss it any further.

up
0 users have voted.

"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

darkmatter's picture

Thanks for sharing that.

Debating Trump vs. Hillary is like debating whether you'd like your left or right leg amputated.

And, dismal though it is to consider, the thing that really disturbs me is this: if Trump proposes to cut/privatize Social Security, the Dems will fight him (I think). But if Hillary proposes the "grand bargain," will the Dems fight her? It's troubling to consider, and if you accept the analysis, it would be better to endure four years of Trump, end the dominance of the Clinton machine, and pick up the pieces in 2020 rather than have eight more years of neoliberal ascendancy in the Democratic party. Ah, what the world has come to....

up
0 users have voted.

I'm having my center right leg amputated Biggrin

up
0 users have voted.
PriceRip's picture

          Too strident‽ maybe but I like to think the "founding fathers" would be offended by the notion that we are reduced to selecting the lesser of the anointed evils.

up
0 users have voted.

you still end up with evil. How many times has this been a choice - too many times,if you ask me. It's time to stop the insanity!
Let the sh*t hit the fan and maybe people will wake up and work for real change. We survived 8 years of W.....

up
0 users have voted.

" El pueblo unido jamás será vencido. The people united will never be defeated "

http://www.thepeoplessummit.org/

Many more speakers now listed, and a schedule of panels and activity.

up
0 users have voted.
jorogo's picture

how many more sponsors they could have attracted had they not described them as

participating organizations rooted in principled anti-corporate politics

That's kind of like being anti-fire. There's a huge difference between having corporate-free politics and having anti-corporate politics. We should regulate it to where it can be beneficial, not just unilaterally oppose it.

up
0 users have voted.

"If I sit silently, I have sinned." - Mossadegh

Trump's a monster they say. They're right. There is a monster in the closet. Problem is that there's a monster in both closets, so I'm not opening those doors.

When a rotten system presents me with two unacceptable choices, the logical response is to reject them both. (and then start cutting the rot out of the system or work around it to present acceptable choices)

up
0 users have voted.

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Jiddu Krishnamurti

It's not about choosing the lesser of two evils. It's about choosing Bernie.

up
0 users have voted.
ngant17's picture

which are enabling the election fraud, the corporate buy-outs of candidates, and the systemic corruption in all levels of government, especially local and state offices?

A century ago, when information was not easily broadcast or widespread as it is today, a political party was useful for identifying the generally-uninformed voter about the platform and tendencies of a particular candidate.

Not so today. And even those party lines are blurry these days. Hillary could run as a Republican, Trump could run as a Democrat, Bernie could run as a Green. Would it make much difference? It largely wouldn't sway my preference, because I already have access to databases and electronic akashic records on every individual who aspires for public office.

Don't need a party label to store the basic positions and platforms by him or her in my mental file cabinet.

A candidate needs to be vetted from local to national level as an individual, and move up from bottom to the top, based on a consistent record of working for the benefit of society. Right now, with the exception of outsiders like Bernie and Jill Stein, it works from the top down. You're not worthy of running for office unless you are already a millionaire or taking bribes carefully-concealed as "campaign contributions". And then you'll need to rig the votes to make it appear that you are popular. Or you just mouth off sensational drivel to agitate the crowds thru hypothetical, lunatic policies.

I'm sure that there are oligarch-free campaign systems in other nations to restructure the US election process. The life-cycle of the 2 main political parties has finally reached its natural end. There is no need to invest in the dead.

up
0 users have voted.

explained that he had agreed to
a second term only to try to head
off the creation of political parties,
because he believed party
members would be more loyal to
their parties than the country and
beholden to the desires of their
financial backers to stay in office.

So this problem of parties is as
old as modern nation-state style
democracy itself.

Democracy seemed better than
kings. Now we're well into
governance by supra-national
corporations.

By whatever form, the rich rule
except in small self-reliant
communities that eschew the
accumulation by private persons
of surplusses.

A problem as old as the advent
of agriculture, which also marked
the shift from egalitarian societies
to patriarchy.

The anthropologist David Graeber
has done and is doing an excellent
job of explaining all this stuff.

up
0 users have voted.

Only connect. - E.M. Forster

He's aired some really good commercials to go with all of his really good positions. Hillary's proven track record ought to be enough to destroy her. How anyone can support this awful woman and her disgusting husband is beyond me. Talk about the Teapots voting against their own interests, partisan Democrats are right there with them fighting for the right to sell them and us out.

up
0 users have voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

up
0 users have voted.

"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

gulfgal98's picture

knocks it out of the park! This country deserves a man of vision and integrity like no other modern politician.

up
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy