'Who do you choose?'

[malazam 15,710]

1 hour ago, PartySick said:

Fair enough I guess

She's a satanist, didn't you know? 

[DrewStevens 5,249]

1 hour ago, LibraLove said:

Okay. And that is the pot calling the kettle black right there. I make my points and I have to several people. What do they do? They take it in and consider it. Not just dismiss it, call it pointless and worthless and resort to equating me to an unintelligent imbecile that can't read or comprehend basic English. THAT is being condescending, immature and disrespectful. You don't want people to get pissed off at your stupid comments, then think before you type out those stupid words and post them. Otherwise, you're definitely going to get a negative response.

Whatever. Let it go and do something productive 

[Haldy 1,295]

People can complain about the two-party system and vote for not-a-chance candidates when doing so isn't actually letting the ****ing monstrosity that is Donald Trump inch closer to leading your country. For the sake of the rest of the world, just vote Clinton and ensure we don't have to watch America implode when that sexist, racist, moronic abomination get elected and thus validate and encourage every other sexist, racist, moronic abomination around the world to run for leadership.

Vote for Jill 'Vaccination Causes Autism' Stein next time. Go ahead, knock yourself out. But this time, just vote Clinton.

[Melech 9,900]

4 hours ago, YourSweet666 said:

 

 

Simon:

 

Also Simon: I'm against sanctioning Israel.

 

others: Don't you think they deserve it though? The way they treat Palestinians, the military occupation? The way they treat black refugees? The war crimes?

 

Simon: No! Hillary loves Israel and will fight BDS! 

 

 

The difference is that Israel won a war that the Arabs started, not other wise around.

[lego 44,165]

9 minutes ago, Simon said:

The difference is that Israel won a war that the Arabs started, not other wise around.

 

I love how you can say "Arabs" did this and that, but if someone says "the Jews", you'd call him antisemite.

Your response has nothing to do with what I wrote. Don't start the same thing again, we can go more back, when White Europeans moved to Palestine with an intent to occupy it.  

And you know how that ends. 

How does your response even make sense in this context? How does it justify numerous human rights abuses and war crimes? Let me answer that for you, it does not. You have no logical reason to be against sanctions, besides personal bias, as we can see in the example of Russia. 

 

[JevyDuty 2,961]

Can't wait to vote for Hillary tomorrow and never hear from Trump again. 

[Melech 9,900]

1 minute ago, YourSweet666 said:

 

I love how you can say "Arabs" did this and that, but if someone says "the Jews", you'd call him antisemite.

Your response has nothing to do with what I wrote. Don't start the same thing again, we can go more back, when White Europeans moved to Palestine with an intent to occupy it.  

And you know how that ends. 

How does your response even make sense in this context? How does it justify numerous human rights abuses and war crimes? Let me answer that for you, it does not. You have no logical reason to be against sanctions, besides personal bias, as we can see in the example of Russia. 

 

Jews are not a European ethnicity  and most came as Refugees to Israel. 

I called out human right abuses from Israel a thousand times, but when it comes to Palestinian war crimes you suddenly get silent, but hey, it's not the topic to talk about it

[lego 44,165]

6 minutes ago, Simon said:

Jews are not a European ethnicity  and most came as Refugees to Israel. 

I called out human right abuses from Israel a thousand times, but when it comes to Palestinian war crimes you suddenly get silent, but hey, it's not the topic to talk about it

 

No you did not and nice try to change the subject, AGAIN. 

 

[Luc 4,776]

22 hours ago, LibraLove said:

Talking to someone as if they are stupid is definitely not going to help your ignorant case, it just makes you sound like a troll. I study politics. I work in politics. I work for the Democratic Party. Hillary will not win my state of Tennessee, so a vote for her here is effectively worthless, please understand that.

Jill actually can win if people would pull their heads out of their asses and stop falling for the two party trap - she is on the majority of state ballots to carry the Electoral College and so is Libertarian Gary Johnson, but I do not agree with his policies. A vote for Jill Stein and the Green Party here helps them move toward 5% of the popular vote so they can attain ballot access across the nation and federal funding. This will allow a truly Progressive party to rise and hold the Democratic Party accountable when they don't take their Progressive base seriously and abuse them for votes, like we saw this year. It also allows me to not compromise my integrity and values because Hillary does not align with my most important core issues, as evident by her record and who she solicits donations from - Jill Stein does. Sorry 'bout it. 

I understand your reasoning better now.

Let's think about the scenario you're giving: You've got three 'major' parties, the Republicans, the Democrats and the Greens.

The Democrats have a huge base of voters, especially minorities. These minorities feel a special connection to the Democratic party that they don't feel with the Greens. They're loyal to the Democratic party, just like how they were loyal to Hillary Clinton when she was going against Bernie Sanders.

If there's two big parties, one with the ex-Democrats who were previously on the left wing of the Democratic party, and one with the right-winged and moderate Democrats, it doesn't lead to either of them winning. In the scenario you dream of, you'll unavoidably and undoubtedly have the Democrats split between two parties, while the Republicans are still united. That means a Republican president. 

The progressive base simply isn't big enough to win an election in the US as a whole. A candidate that leans to the centre is needed for the Democrats to win an election, simply because the amount of moderates and people who lean Democrats is way bigger than the amount of people that are as leftist as Bernie Sanders, or, even further to the left, the Green party.

I understand why you think it would not matter anyways, but I would like to remember you that the amount of votes is also a sign of political legitimacy for the president. The bigger the lead over Trump, the more legitimacy she will have as a president. The Republicans will not be able to argumentate that Hillary lacks political legitimacy if she gets 50%+ of the votes or any substantial lead.

Breaking the system is not going to happen. There's simply not enough people who think the same way you do. It is delusional to think that you're somehow part of some silent majority. You're not. You're part of a very small minority of people who don't connect with either of the main parties. Breaking the system is not going to happen. This election was the perfect chance, because of the whole 'two evils' narrative, and yet it didn't work. Why? Because almost nobody actually agrees with the Greens more than with the Democrats! The people decided that they wanted a centrist to lead the Democratic party over a leftist, and the people decided that they wanted Hillary to be president and not Jill.

To tell everybody that Jill will probably get 5% of the vote takes any sense of authority on this topic (because you study it and because you keep using these attractive pseudo-intellectualist words) away from you by the way. We'll see tomorrow. I'm betting on <2%.

 

8 hours ago, LibraLove said:

Do you even do research or just read hit-piece article headlines from non-credible sources. She is not anti-vaccine. She was part of a movement of doctors during her 25 year tenure as an MD who raised concerns about Mercury being in vaccines. Mercury is no longer in vaccines, so this is not an issue. There is nothing wrong with asking questions concerning health.

This is also an extremely minor issue compared to voting for the Iraq War, consoling with war criminal Henry Kissinger, telling Big Banks in high dollar closed door meetings that you have a "public and private position" on issues, that you support terrible free trade agreements that destroy American jobs, saying you want to establish a "no-fly zone" in Syria which will require thousands of troops on the ground and put us in direct conflict with a nuclear armed Russia, telling Wall Street that you like the idea of privatizing Social Security and retirement funds, supporting and pushing for deadly regime change in four countries and selling the destructive operation of Fracking to the world as Secretary of State.

She is not anti Israel. What she is is anti-monetary aid to ALL Middle Eastern countries that don't work toward peace and violate human rights. She's Jewish for goodness sakes, so it's not like she despises Israel - she wants a peaceful resolution to the problems they and the Palestinians are facing that doesn't include destroying hospitals and schools.

You bringing up how trade deals make Americans lose jobs and, thus, are bad makes me wonder how consequent you are. I thought you were against 'proto-fascist, nationalist ideologues'? 

Trade deals have led to an immense rise in wealth for the bottom 10% of the world. Step out of your US-centred bubble and see solidarity as a thing not only for your ethnicity and your 'beautiful' nation state, but something that should apply to all humans. Trade deals are the best way to reduce inequality for those that are in need.

It keeps shocking me to see how those who are supposedly for reducing inequality, for reducing poverty and for solidary are the ones that ONLY focus on the rich top 20%. A real progressive party would vote for a trade deal with every single country in the world as that is THE way to redistribute income and reduce global inequality. If you were truly for leftist ideals - I am - you would wholeheartedly support free trade deals that bring jobs and money from the rich to the poor. I am not sorry for all rich people in the world that feel that their income didn't rise enough. Your incomes are already high enough to live a life more comfortable than 80% of the world.

It also shows some nice irony in your way of thinking. It seems like you have ideas, and you know the arguments for those ideas, but you didn't come up with those ideas yourself. You didn't give a lot of thought to these ideas. Your ideas are inconsequent, illogical and based on untrue assumptions and untrue historical facts. Just like the Greens. The ironic thing here is that you're not thinking out of the box. You're following what others say, rather than basing all of your stances on the morals. It's inconsequent, thanks to the fact that you did not think out of the box, and did not try and criticize those things that your party and your people support. You're part of the system in being against the system.

 

To sum up, a little movement to the left is better than a big movement to the right

[besus 132]

Jesus god, I'm so over these threads. In spite of the 24/7 anxiety and nausea I've had leading up to tomorrow, I really can't fudging wait until there's no potential energy pent up behind all you bitches going blue *or red in the poon talking about how at least one candidate is the antichrist.

*Edited for political inclusiveness.

[PartySick 173,481]

3 hours ago, malazam said:

She's a satanist, didn't you know? 

I've heard everything thrown at her

Recently, "baby killer" seems to've caught on. Who knew support women's right to choice and healthcare in general meant you want to kill babies 

[bloomingbeauty 60]

I don't like to bash anyone but I see the same people fighting over the same **** in every political thread haven't you really understood that it's not up to you to change others and it's up to them to change themselves?