Leftist support for Hillary

[Shadow Wolf]

With Hillary narrowly defeating Sanders, it does create a scenario where a write in campaign for Sanders will throw the election to Trump. I can see Leftist dissent causing many to stay home or voting for Trump, giving Trump the election. However, the Republicans are intentionally stalling, and time for Obama to appoint Scallia's successor is running out. The next president will may even get to replace another.
The next president will have the power to swing to Supreme Court in either direction.
With a Trump election, we can not really predict anything except he'll try to put up a very business friendly one, and it's a given that he isn't really concerned about civil rights.* It will not be pleasant if he wins, especially if him and Putin try to show off who has the bigger balls. He is against the military involvement in Iraq, but ultimately as long as the American established state stands in Iraq, we are going to continue to see wave after wave of radical militants as well as constant instability in the region. As far as global terror goes, I think we're in for the long haul until their social conditions and economies improve from the damage of long-term colonialism.
However, it is essential that the Left, in general, support Clinton as it will swing the Court Left, and that is the democratic way of achieving long term goals. As a Politician, she knows how to play the game, and though she is very corporate, as are most Democrats, and she did vote for yes for the war the created ISIS, in terms of social issues in America there is potentially to address enough social issues that we'll need other things to be concerned about. It could be potentially a great enough swing that we may have hearings over allowing medical use of cannabis in all states, or we may be having hears on if each state can determine same sex marriage, gender identity, minimum wage, and environmental regulations.
There won't be much good to come out of the next presidency, but the power this next president will yield can have deep consequences in America's overall health as a society. Whether or not we have real sex ed in high school and funding for Planned Parenthood, or abstinence only education and Young Earth Creationism being taught in high school.
A vote for Hillary is going to be like a big nasty painful shot, but in the long run it will open the flood gates for many Left wing causes and victories. And when we aren't having to waste time educating people about how YEC cannot be true at education boards at all levels, we'll be able to focus on other issues and have energy, time, and money to improve education with such basic stuff not even being an issue anymore. When we're not having to argue over marriage equality and equal facility use, just maybe we'll focus on the lack of high tech jobs and trade policies that favor only a few at the expense of everyone else.
The Left uniting and voting for Hillary is, in the long run, is moving a pawn that will ultimately put your opponent in check-mate once you've put your rook and bishop in place. It's not a quick win, but in the long run it may very well be a turning point in history. Short term it seems to be a very unpleasant thing to vote for Hillary, but a few generations from now may not know many of the struggles we face today because of it. It will be our way of shifting the course of history itself, as it may potentially hold a Left-sway or install a Left Swing.
*On a side note, I find it funny that people who think banning Muslims will work to keep Muslims out are also typically some of the first people who point out banning guns wont keep them out of the hands of criminals.

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

Interesting appraisal

 

[Laika]

With Hillary narrowly defeating Sanders, it does create a scenario where a write in campaign for Sanders will throw the election to Trump. I can see Leftist dissent causing many to stay home or voting for Trump, giving Trump the election. However, the Republicans are intentionally stalling, and time for Obama to appoint Scallia's successor is running out. The next president will may even get to replace another.
The next president will have the power to swing to Supreme Court in either direction.
With a Trump election, we can not really predict anything except he'll try to put up a very business friendly one, and it's a given that he isn't really concerned about civil rights.* It will not be pleasant if he wins, especially if him and Putin try to show off who has the bigger balls. He is against the military involvement in Iraq, but ultimately as long as the American established state stands in Iraq, we are going to continue to see wave after wave of radical militants as well as constant instability in the region. As far as global terror goes, I think we're in for the long haul until their social conditions and economies improve from the damage of long-term colonialism.
However, it is essential that the Left, in general, support Clinton as it will swing the Court Left, and that is the democratic way of achieving long term goals. As a Politician, she knows how to play the game, and though she is very corporate, as are most Democrats, and she did vote for yes for the war the created ISIS, in terms of social issues in America there is potentially to address enough social issues that we'll need other things to be concerned about. It could be potentially a great enough swing that we may have hearings over allowing medical use of cannabis in all states, or we may be having hears on if each state can determine same sex marriage, gender identity, minimum wage, and environmental regulations.
There won't be much good to come out of the next presidency, but the power this next president will yield can have deep consequences in America's overall health as a society. Whether or not we have real sex ed in high school and funding for Planned Parenthood, or abstinence only education and Young Earth Creationism being taught in high school.
A vote for Hillary is going to be like a big nasty painful shot, but in the long run it will open the flood gates for many Left wing causes and victories. And when we aren't having to waste time educating people about how YEC cannot be true at education boards at all levels, we'll be able to focus on other issues and have energy, time, and money to improve education with such basic stuff not even being an issue anymore. When we're not having to argue over marriage equality and equal facility use, just maybe we'll focus on the lack of high tech jobs and trade policies that favor only a few at the expense of everyone else.
The Left uniting and voting for Hillary is, in the long run, is moving a pawn that will ultimately put your opponent in check-mate once you've put your rook and bishop in place. It's not a quick win, but in the long run it may very well be a turning point in history. Short term it seems to be a very unpleasant thing to vote for Hillary, but a few generations from now may not know many of the struggles we face today because of it. It will be our way of shifting the course of history itself, as it may potentially hold a Left-sway or install a Left Swing.
*On a side note, I find it funny that people who think banning Muslims will work to keep Muslims out are also typically some of the first people who point out banning guns wont keep them out of the hands of criminals.

I strongly suspect which either way people vote, the left will be disappointed. If I were in the US I would probably be voting for Hillary as the lesser evil. But by and large the course of this century is already set for a large negative and downward spiral- the effects of climate change being the most obvious concern.
What is needed is a strong, independent voice and party on the left that can offer an alternative to the two party democratic-republican consensus. Given the electoral college and the obstacles to overcome, that is asking a lot.
What is dangerous is the Hillary is a "business as usual" candidate trying to carry on the neoliberal consensus, whereas Trump is not. This has an appeal which is often blind to Trumps obvious failings and more sinister statements.
His attitudes (positions is too strong a word) towards protectionism and public investment in infrastructure are more fitting with the times as a crisis of neoliberalism. His inconsistency in policy statements is actually a good fit for a ruling class that doesn't know whether it has coming or going and (if it is actually intentional) may be suitably pragmatic to rethink the running of the US economy.

A US withdrawal from NATO, whilst unthinkingly extreme, also reflects a deeper crisis of American global power and a rethink in terms of the role the US should play in the world, particularly given the failure of the neo-conservative imperial dream under Bush junior. With the relative decline in US economic power, that does call for a realignment of the balance of power in the world in the long term and that insecurity is somewhat reflected in the arbitrary and dangerous foreign policy statements Trump has made in recognising that the US isn't really in control anymore.

I am not arguing that the left should vote for Trump but that Trump reflects the crisis in the ruling class. For this reason I suspect It is more than possible that Trump could win (and why the left should vote Clinton) but we have to vigilant against adopting the complacency of the ruling class. This is a period of deep crisis where large structural changes need to take place and frighteningly, it is the far right that is admitting there are problems and capitalising on people's fears and anxieties not just in the US but also in Europe as well. Brexit came as a surprise to me in the UK and I feel obliged just to point out that the alignment of forces in the US makes it probable Trump will win a close race (not because he's better-far from it- simply that he sounds and looks better in our sensationalist-media rich and logic, evidence and intellect poor era).

Edit: basically we have to be prepared for the worst. If Trump wins, we will have to write off defending the bourgeois from themselves and start aggressively asserting the interests of the working class as an independent socialist alternative.

 

[RationalSkeptic]

With Hillary narrowly defeating Sanders, it does create a scenario where a write in campaign for Sanders will throw the election to Trump. I can see Leftist dissent causing many to stay home or voting for Trump, giving Trump the election. However, the Republicans are intentionally stalling, and time for Obama to appoint Scallia's successor is running out. The next president will may even get to replace another.
The next president will have the power to swing to Supreme Court in either direction.
With a Trump election, we can not really predict anything except he'll try to put up a very business friendly one, and it's a given that he isn't really concerned about civil rights.* It will not be pleasant if he wins, especially if him and Putin try to show off who has the bigger balls. He is against the military involvement in Iraq, but ultimately as long as the American established state stands in Iraq, we are going to continue to see wave after wave of radical militants as well as constant instability in the region. As far as global terror goes, I think we're in for the long haul until their social conditions and economies improve from the damage of long-term colonialism.
However, it is essential that the Left, in general, support Clinton as it will swing the Court Left, and that is the democratic way of achieving long term goals. As a Politician, she knows how to play the game, and though she is very corporate, as are most Democrats, and she did vote for yes for the war the created ISIS, in terms of social issues in America there is potentially to address enough social issues that we'll need other things to be concerned about. It could be potentially a great enough swing that we may have hearings over allowing medical use of cannabis in all states, or we may be having hears on if each state can determine same sex marriage, gender identity, minimum wage, and environmental regulations.
There won't be much good to come out of the next presidency, but the power this next president will yield can have deep consequences in America's overall health as a society. Whether or not we have real sex ed in high school and funding for Planned Parenthood, or abstinence only education and Young Earth Creationism being taught in high school.
A vote for Hillary is going to be like a big nasty painful shot, but in the long run it will open the flood gates for many Left wing causes and victories. And when we aren't having to waste time educating people about how YEC cannot be true at education boards at all levels, we'll be able to focus on other issues and have energy, time, and money to improve education with such basic stuff not even being an issue anymore. When we're not having to argue over marriage equality and equal facility use, just maybe we'll focus on the lack of high tech jobs and trade policies that favor only a few at the expense of everyone else.
The Left uniting and voting for Hillary is, in the long run, is moving a pawn that will ultimately put your opponent in check-mate once you've put your rook and bishop in place. It's not a quick win, but in the long run it may very well be a turning point in history. Short term it seems to be a very unpleasant thing to vote for Hillary, but a few generations from now may not know many of the struggles we face today because of it. It will be our way of shifting the course of history itself, as it may potentially hold a Left-sway or install a Left Swing.
*On a side note, I find it funny that people who think banning Muslims will work to keep Muslims out are also typically some of the first people who point out banning guns wont keep them out of the hands of criminals.

I have a moral and logical obligation not to vote for Hillary.

Having enough people swing in the direction of Sanders can have him win just like doing so for Hillary.

 

[Mindmaster]

For me it was really simple honestly... Bernie was the progressive candidate for the party, and Hillary isn't a stand in. Bernie/Trump would be a fight. Hillary is just the epitome of everything that is bad about Washington politics, and while Trump isn't a perfect human being (who really is) he's doesn't have the murder of hundreds of thousands of people on his list of accomplishments.

Secretary Hillary Clinton's accomplishments:

Egypt
Libya
Syria
Iraq pt.3 (the ISIS invasion)
Selling US weapons to Qatar who are in league with Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda, and other terrorists.

Every single one of these things happened on Secretary Clinton's watch, and if she knows what she is doing she's straight out evil. If she doesn't she's incompetent. Which do you think is the case? Either way it wouldn't matter to me, she's screwing up and hurting people. Most of the people she's hurt aren't in this country, but I don't think that is any damn excuse. This is literally like voting your worst administration employee for a promotion. You have to be psychotic or just apathetic. If you vote for Clinton she will make even more enemies because that is what she is good at, and I think we have enough. Anyway, I firmly contend that on this issue you're completely out of your gourd, no one has killed more people in recent times through their own direct action. @Laika

Trump is like any new candidate -- he is no worse than Obama was when he walked into the nomination. We didn't know what he was going to do, he was a junior senator with a very short paper trail. People panic too much, they rather vote in a known evil than an unknown who can potentially fix things. But, largely Trump's detractors don't want things fixed due to their Stockholm Syndrome. They want free lunches, not jobs. They want, they want, they want... They're vampires, and they will suck us dry until nothing is left. They don't care because they think the teat will not run dry in their lifetimes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I am not arguing that the left should vote for Trump but that Trump reflects the crisis in the ruling class. For this reason I suspect It is more than possible that Trump could win (and why the left should vote Clinton) but we have to vigilant against adopting the complacency of the ruling class. This is a period of deep crisis where large structural changes need to take place and frighteningly, it is the far right that is admitting there are problems and capitalising on people's fears and anxieties not just in the US but also in Europe as well. Brexit came as a surprise to me in the UK and I feel obliged just to point out that the alignment of forces in the US makes it probable Trump will win a close race (not because he's better-far from it- simply that he sounds and looks better in our sensationalist-media rich and logic, evidence and intellect poor era).

With a Left Swing in the Supreme Court, issues such as same-sex marriage, transsexual restroom use, Creationism in public schools, and other such things can be laid to rest, and we can begin to focus on this crisis. Had Trump come at a later time, he would make an excellent fattened calf for the slaughter. But what we have right now is a huge opportunity for long term potential gains. People love to complain, and when their complaints about real sex ed in high school telling kids to go have sex aren't being heard legally, the nature of Capitalism mandates that new issues will take its place. It creates a moment to wedge in issues such as the ruling class crumbling in on itself. And Hillary getting the appointments is just too rare of a potential opportunity for power to not take advantage of it. It will be give rise to the potential of getting America caught up with the rest of the world when it comes to things like evolution. And it will have real implications for things such as abortion rights, LBGT rights, stem cell research, and perhaps even medical cannabis use. I'd rather it not be business as usual, but the Democrat party being in charge of who gets to decide future Supreme Court decisions for the foreseeable futur is a very real possibility, and is also coming at a vital time when things such as same-sex marriage and transsexual rights are still being highly debated and will be decided by the Supreme Court that the next president gives us. It is a silver bullet to deal a death blow to many Conservative ways as public policy. Just the opportunity to watch the guillotine fall on issues like Creationism as in science classes alone makes this too great of an opportunity to just let it pass unused.

But, largely Trump's detractors don't want things fixed due to their Stockholm Syndrome. They want free lunches, not jobs.

Many of them do have jobs and do want jobs. Your large painting of an entire group is very telling.

They want, they want, they want... They're vampires, and they will suck us dry until nothing is left. They don't care because they think the teat will not run dry in their lifetimes.

The ones who don't care because they think the teat will not run dry are those who are just fine with advertisement telling us to go keep buying junk we don't want or need. Those who support Capitalism and Consumerism are the ones who are delusional, because it cannot carry on forever because our resources are limited, and creating artificial demands is nothing more than wasteful squandering on the Earth. Things are made to be replaced, but not few things are replaceable. Capitalism even treats us as replaceable cogs, and it's time we gain our humanity and live our potential for ourselves and others, rather than many working for the gains of a few.
The Right is also the ones who promote colonialism, which sucks entire nations dry, and often leaves them to pick up the pieces when the ruling power leaves.

 

[metis]

Barring an indictment, I'll be voting for Hillary even though she's very far from being my favorite politician (I voted for Bernie in the primary).

Trump has already proven a high level of basic incompetence in a variety of areas. The British House of Commons was considering voting to not allow him to travel to the U.K., and polls in various countries have shown that they overwhelmingly cannot stand the guy. His highest approval rating I've seen comes from China and is at 20%. The Scandinavians in general have him below 10%

But it's just not in the area of foreign relations that he's incompetent and/or untrustworthy, which is why even so many in his own party have dissed him, including some strong conservatives.

Frankly, I cannot see one supposed attribute as to why anyone should vote for him, and most of what I have read and heard is that his support is mostly that of a "protest vote". Well, those so inclined have to be careful of how that can get played out because we've seen quite few cases in world history whereas "protest votes" backfired when successful.

 

[YmirGF]

Barring an indictment, I'll be voting for Hillary even though she's very far from being my favorite politician (I voted for Bernie in the primary).

Trump has already proven a high level of basic incompetence in a variety of areas. The British House of Commons was considering voting to not allow him to travel to the U.K., and polls in various countries have shown that they overwhelmingly cannot stand the guy. His highest approval rating I've seen comes from China and is at 20%. The Scandinavians in general have him below 10%

But it's just not in the area of foreign relations that he's incompetent and/or untrustworthy, which is why even so many in his own party have dissed him, including some strong conservatives.

Frankly, I cannot see one supposed attribute as to why anyone should vote for him, and most of what I have read and heard is that his support is mostly that of a "protest vote". Well, those so inclined have to be careful of how that can get played out because we've seen quite few cases in world history whereas "protest votes" backfired when successful.

Yep.... that old saying, "Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it." Comes to mind.


That said, now that a few days have passed, I'm beginning to think that Bill hurt Hillary badly by meeting with Lynch. Like, honestly, who is going to say no at being offered a meeting with a former president - especially when they were asking to see YOU. I am confident saying that nothing about the investigation into Hillary was mentioned, but Bill's mere presence could be construed as intimidation, if not overt coercion. I'm sure Lynch and her crew were pretty stunned by the meeting, its implications and the obvious sense of impropriety. What was Bill thinking?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What is dangerous is the Hillary is a "business as usual" candidate trying to carry on the neoliberal consensus, whereas Trump is not. This has an appeal which is often blind to Trumps obvious failings and more sinister statements.

What is dangerous first and foremost is the failure to recognize that "business as usually" is qualitatively better and qualitatively safer that Trump as usual.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have a moral and logical obligation not to vote for Hillary.

This is sophomoric rubbish. You have an ethical obligation to defeat nativism and xenophobia while doing your best to protect civil rights.

As I've said before, those who decry the lesser of two evils are too often those immune to the disastrous direct and collateral effects of empowering the greater of two evils. It's a petit-bourgeois argument from privilege masquerading as principle.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Don't bother.

I know too many people whose rights and liberties are at stake. Same-sex marriage, transsexuals having their sex legally recognized, Muslims from foreign lands who want to come here to learn and teach at our universities, the stakes are just too high for too many people.

 

[Mindmaster]

This is sophomoric rubbish. You have an ethical obligation to defeat nativism and xenophobia while doing your best to protect civil rights.

As I've said before, those who decry the lesser of two evils are too often those immune to the disastrous direct and collateral effects of empowering the greater of two evils. It's a petit-bourgeois argument from privilege masquerading as principle.

Neither xenophobia, nor nativism are part of Trump's platform so this is just strawman x2. Trump has always been fine with legal immigrants, green card, and visa holders (his wife IS one. immigrant that is), and also largely has had no concern of non-American cultures coming over, unless they historically want to kill us. Xenophobia doesn't apply when you are seeking to ban immigration from countries that are trying bomb or shoot you, that's just self-preservation. Nice try, but no. Self-preservation is a valid concern, and largely the impetus of Brexit and Trump. I guess it would be better to allow people who hate us to come in such numbers that we would have to dodge bullets all day? Hmm, yea no... I'll sacrifice any fictional moral high ground for survival any day of the week.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Neither xenophobia, nor nativism are part of Trump's platform ...

Good share. I'm more than willing to believe that you and Trump share the same ethic.

 

[jonathan180iq]

There are only a couple of states that matter anyway... Unless you live in those states, why even worry about it?

 

[metis]

Good share. I'm more than willing to believe that you and Trump share the same ethic.

Trump has ethics beyond just what's good for him?

 

[Mindmaster]

I know too many people whose rights and liberties are at stake. Same-sex marriage, transsexuals having their sex legally recognized, Muslims from foreign lands who want to come here to learn and teach at our universities, the stakes are just too high for too many people.

You have a bowl of M&M's and there about a few hundred of these candies in the bowl and out of all of them about 30-50 are filled with cyanide. You have no way of knowing what M&M's are laced with poison and which ones are not. Will you eat out of the bowl or pass knowing that you have absolutely zero way to determine good M&M's from bad ones? See this is the flaw in the leftist logic, there is no way to know good Muslims from bad Muslims in the countries that are heavily involved in terrorism, just like in the M&M case. It's safer to pause or completely ban immigration from the terrorist strongholds because one bad M&M isn't worth the risk. It has nothing to do with persecuting Muslims within this country either, in fact, if someone were actively denying importation of trouble from the middle east their lives would improve as the radical problem decreases locally. I can't see that anyone in their right mind is going to go after Muslims in this country who have legally immigrated, but we can keep our war enemies out of home base.

Transgender at least for the public at large aren't a real big deal, I mean they've been around and haven't been causing harm. I think some of the science is questionable, but I would say the same damn thing for a lot of related topics. Likewise, I just don't think there is enough of them for it to be a key point for a Presidential candidate to address. If you're a transgender you're already that way and nothing anyone is going to say is changing that right? Trump believes in American's. and their right to be safe regardless of what their preferences/gender identity is. That's why he's had so much damn trouble getting support from the old guard GOP establishment. He's pretty left on this subject, and you should really be happy he's the guy that is running vs some of the others who are animatedly against such things. If you want my real opinion of the major problems on this issue are it's in the documentation. I still find it terribly ridiculous that someone who has gone through the entire process has to fight to get government paperwork changed. I also think in many cases appearing as the sex opposite from such documentation is an extreme safety issue.

Same sex marriage has already been ruled on explicitly in the Supreme Court. That fight is basically over, but there are certainly states that are doing their best not to get with the program. I have no doubt that will be settled in due time regardless.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Neither xenophobia, nor nativism are part of Trump's platform

Maybe you prefer the term "Extreme Nationalism"?

"The scariest thought isn't that Trump is a fascist, but that American voters want one..."

 

[Mindmaster]

Good share. I'm more than willing to believe that you and Trump share the same ethic.

The words just don't mean what you said, so there is that. You aren't xenophobic if you perceive they're trying to kill you. Nativism means something particular as well, and would be something like the "Irish Need Not Apply" situation vs what you are discussing in the context of this post. (legal migrant/newcomers not illegals) You don't get to redefine these words.

I think you could rightly call Trump a populist and a nationalist if we're going into possible negatives, YMMV.

 

[jonathan180iq]

You have a bowl of M&M's and there about a few hundred of these candies in the bowl and out of all of them about 30-50 are filled with cyanide. You have no way of knowing what M&M's are laced with poison and which ones are not. Will you eat out of the bowl or pass knowing that you have absolutely zero way to determine good M&M's from bad ones? See this is the flaw in the leftist logic, there is no way to know good Muslims from bad Muslims in the countries that are heavily involved in terrorism, just like in the M&M case. It's safer to pause or completely ban immigration from the terrorist strongholds because one bad M&M isn't worth the risk. It has nothing to do with persecuting Muslims within this country either, in fact, if someone were actively denying importation of trouble from the middle east their lives would improve as the radical problem decreases locally. I can't see that anyone in their right mind is going to go after Muslims in this country who have legally immigrated, but we can keep our war enemies out of home base.

And oddly enough, that same logic works with Mexicans who are drug dealers! Since a few of them might be bad, we had better keep the rest of them out!!

Why don't we use this logic with inner city black kids, ya know?! They're more prone to gang activity anyway, and their arrest rates are higher. We'd be better off keeping them all in their own blocks, wouldn't we?

If there's really no way of knowing who is going to be a good guy or a bad guy, we should just treat the whole group the same, shouldn't we??

Thank god we are White, you know what I mean? At least that way it's easy to know who the good guys are...



But wait... Aren't White businessmen responsible for the vast majority of bank fraud and money laundering? Aren't they responsible for things like mass lay-offs while giving themselves golden parachutes? Aren't there more of them any other racially subdivided culture in the Country??

I guess we should ban all White people from things too...

It's really too bad, because this seemed like such an air-tight idea going in...

 

[Mindmaster]

Maybe you prefer the term "Extreme Nationalism"?

"The scariest thought isn't that Trump is a fascist, but that American voters want one..."

It's just the low-hanging fruit. The first thing anyone does is compares their enemy to a fascist. It's still a strawman every time, and is a symptom of weak intellectual facilities. Trump is pro-jobs more than anything, so naturally China and the crappy trade deals that have ground our income levels and economy to a halt are under fire. I know for most leftists math isn't their strong suit (it seems they are overly focused on social issues, and making the government force us to accept things), but fact is we've been in a ten year recession with no way out and the jobs creation numbers are dismal. That failing is reducing our spendable income and hurting every facet of our existence. China manipulates their currency so that you can't possibly beat them because they can make an item for less than cost. Their government will actually subsidize them to do this, and you wonder why Trump is against this? Well, to spell it simply if it takes us $15 to make an item, it takes China $10 and they sell it for $10. You cannot beat that no matter how low you go other than to fire the worker and buy the item from them.