So why you > world?

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

36 minutes ago, Seeka said:

This has been bothering me and making me angry since 2016. So I'm going to ask the question. I'm not looking for discussion. I just want some clear answers. 

We all know who won in 2016. 

While there are plenty of factors on why he won, I'm just asking why people couldn't vote for Hillary. 

I'm always the one for the lesser of two evils if I'm faced with a choice. 

Of course many people refused to vote for Hillary on this basis. That she wasn't Bernie. Hillary had to bare not only her own sins but those of her husband. 

So many reasons why. 

But I'm just asking this:

"Why is what you want, need, more important than what the world needs?"

The presidency affects more than America. It effects the world.  But unfortunately the world doesn't have a say. 

But like so many people, here particularly I've seen, are like "I can't support either candidate so I won't vote" when it came down the line. 

That's a nice sentiment.  Entirely useless though. It doesn't say much. Not to mention, plenty of people don't vote, purely out of laziness. 

So, why are your needs more important than the world? The world needs a better president than someone who fits your morals like a perfect puzzle piece. 

People didn't vote for Clinton because she was Clinton. Trump being a Rep still kept that base in check. 

Other reasons:

She was a woman.

Russian involvement.

Her inability to visit swing states.

 

But ultimately, it astounds me that people went after Hillary about Benghazi and her emails and yet Trump literally stumbled into the same problems and yet no noise from his voter base. 

[FATCAT 60,888]

Bottom line: No matter how problematic you thought Hillary was, she would have been better than what we have now. If you're a progressive, and you "protest vote" all you're really doing is screwing yourself and the country over. Vote for the candidate that MOST aligns with your views, not the exact opposite. You won't get a perfect candidate every 4 years, but the more Dems win the more likely they can persuade the country for more progressive ideals.

[Jill 31,812]

30 minutes ago, Deku said:

Tyranny of the Majority

wtf does this even mean, that's like saying democracy is tyrannical

[Antoni 5,332]

We DID vote for Hillary. She would have won if America was a democracy instead of an oligarchy. 

[mauvais 0]

1 minute ago, The Bad Joker said:

wtf does this even mean, that's like saying democracy is tyrannical

Democracy is fallible. If you can recognize the tyranny of the white majority over ethnic minorities in our country, then you get the idea. 

[Jill 31,812]

1 minute ago, mauvais said:

Democracy is fallible. If you can recognize the tyranny of the white majority over ethnic minorities in our country, then you get the idea. 

This is not a valid comparison. It's obvious democracy is fallible, but you can't call the will of the majority of the population a "tyranny", since it is the thing the majority of the population believes in. The fact that you support an unpopular idea doesn't mean you have to be more important than other people.

[mauvais 0]

1 minute ago, The Bad Joker said:

This is not a valid comparison. It's obvious democracy is fallible, but you can't call the will of the majority of the population a "tyranny", since it is the thing the majority of the population believes in. The fact that you support an unpopular idea doesn't mean you have to be more important than other people.

What are the doctrines of manifest destiny and chattel slavery or, even, DOMA if not tyranny of the majority? The will of the majority can be tyrannical at the expense of minorities or the underclass.  Tyranny of the majority is consensus without rightness.

[Reginald 13,841]

1 hour ago, Deku said:

Hillary won the popular vote anyway. Americans are so afraid of "Tyranny of the Majority" that they accept Tyranny of the Minority instead. Abolish the electoral college already. 

Preach, sis. This presidency was NOT the will of the American people, but of the electoral college. 

Same as the last time we had a Republican president.

[not asher613 661]

On 4/18/2019 at 8:56 PM, Seeka said:

This has been bothering me and making me angry since 2016. So I'm going to ask the question. I'm not looking for discussion. I just want some clear answers. 

We all know who won in 2016. 

While there are plenty of factors on why he won, I'm just asking why people couldn't vote for Hillary. 

I'm always the one for the lesser of two evils if I'm faced with a choice. 

Of course many people refused to vote for Hillary on this basis. That she wasn't Bernie. Hillary had to bare not only her own sins but those of her husband. 

So many reasons why. 

But I'm just asking this:

"Why is what you want, need, more important than what the world needs?"

The presidency affects more than America. It effects the world.  But unfortunately the world doesn't have a say. 

But like so many people, here particularly I've seen, are like "I can't support either candidate so I won't vote" when it came down the line. 

That's a nice sentiment.  Entirely useless though. It doesn't say much. Not to mention, plenty of people don't vote, purely out of laziness. 

So, why are your needs more important than the world? The world needs a better president than someone who fits your morals like a perfect puzzle piece. 

I walked away from 2016, upset about how crazed and obsessed people seem to be about politics today. We are seeing unhealthy levels of investment in a system which fails us most of the time- and people get hurt. So I can understand  if someone says,  "you know what? I need to think about my needs and not try to live for the whole world." 

I mean if you're really upset about the way the world is, you can say a prayer or live in a conscientious way. It's  a mistake to see our salvation specifically in politics. 

Also many democrats used their vote as a form  of protest against the electoral college and delegate systems. 

It's a rough time for politics in this country.