Especially not when a candidate’s “supporters” are actually defeatists.
7 Likes
It’s a zero-sum game. Refusing to vote D is exactly the same as voting R. Bummer if the candidate isn’t sufficiently pure. Neither was Obama, as I recall, but he beat the hell out of a McCain administration. If you demand ideological purity, you are actively helping the candidates you like least.
Too bad we don’t have a parliamentary system.
@Jonathan_West No, it’s not quasi-legal, it’s completely legal, and it’s not money-laundering. And, as @GideonTJones noted above, Sanders is using the same method to raise funds, and for that matter all the Republicans are, too. If you don’t like it, you could complain on the internet, or you could run for office.
12 Likes
It’s almost like you think only two parties are running. And that the general election is going to be won or lost by a razor-thin margin in every single state. No wait, it’s exactly like you think that.
6 Likes
You have a point. I recently moved from one purple state to another, so I’m used to my vote actually mattering. If you live in Alabama or Massachusetts, I suppose you can vote Nader and it won’t make a difference.
But you know as well as I do, the Greens and the Libertarians and the Anarcho-Syndicalists will never, ever win even one electoral vote. Even if they are awesome, math doesn’t give a damn. There are enough voters totally committed to the two major parties that even John Anderson, even Ross Perot, can only hope to upset the balance in the way that hurts their followers the most. So yeah, only two parties are running, and one of them promises to hurt you as much as they can. Do not help them.
5 Likes
[quote=“milliefink, post:21, topic:76017”]
Especially not when a candidate’s “supporters” are actually defeatists.
[/quote]My state votes dead last. Gives you a certain amount of perspective on things. Discourages fantasies about last minute comebacks.
2 Likes
Is it untrue? We legalized bribery in the country, and for anyone who knows how superPACs and campaign finances work, it passes the smell test. So unless you have evidence to the contrary that this is happening, then I see no reason to call this a conspiracy theory.
8 Likes
Holy crap, your understanding of US politics would almost be comical if you weren’t spewing toxic disinfo; see, unlike the parliamentary system, in the US, we select legislators completely separate from the executive, which means while we are selecting a presidential candidate, we have to keep an eye on the hundreds of other congressional races so that the person we selected for president can actually get something accomplished. Now, you’re looking at the spending from the Hillary Victory fund, and saying to yourself “no way, Hillary has barely given any money to most of the States that are signed up, they’re just helping her launder money, ho ho ho”, except if you pay attention, most states are still in the primary stage, with no clear candidate selected by the party (unlike Oklahoma and Wisconsin, where the Democratic Senate candidates have already been selected.) I hope this helps you understand the convoluted US electoral process, I agree it’s pretty janky, but it would help if your glib bullshit were pointed somewhat in the right direction.
2 Likes
If you won’t support the Democratic nominee in November, I take it you enjoyed the glorious 8-year Nader administration and the peace and prosperity it brought to America and all of Earth.
4 Likes
So… the vast majority of this money was then handed to the DNC? To help elect Democrats to Congress? And this is a bad thing for Democrats… why?
You do realize that without a stronger senate and congress, the president can barely do anything in this country?
5 Likes
If you call 263 “significantly”, you are using some loose math. Sir.
4 Likes
+/- 20% is not even close enough for government work. It’s blowout territory. Personally I prefer Sanders, but I don’t think I will be pulling the lever for him in November.
3 Likes
I think people are missing the fact that we happen to consider the open corruption of government to be a significant enough issue that we can no longer tolerate it from any party. Republicans may be reprehensible, but does it really matter when Democrats are racing to catch up? They are all playing the same reindeer games and as the social divides in this country close naturally (as they have on gay rights and racial issues) the government follows, and never leads. So I’m utterly unconvinced it’s worth the perpetuation of this corrupt system to just avoid having a particular candidate at all costs. It’s so goddamn much bigger than Ds and Rs. It’s bigger than one election. It’s bigger than electoral politics. When you have congresspeople working two or three days out of the week so they can commit the rest to fundraising, there’s a problem.
Just because the issue is not articulated explicitly, it doesn’t mean the issue isn’t understood. It’s that Clinton’s funds flow back to the DNC for downstream races. The issue is that they’re flowing up. And it’s an end-run around campaign finance limitations. Unless you think campaign finance doesn’t need reform and everything is just hunky-dory. In which case, yeah, I guess this isn’t a problem. Carry on.
8 Likes
Oh yes, let’s have the old “Blame Those Fucking Nader Voters” discussion again, such fun! Or wait, let’s not, m’kay? Been there done that many times, sick and tired of it.
11 Likes
“Money laundering” has a meaning. What is going on here is not money laundering.
This is just hyperbolic bullshit.
2 Likes
Perpetuate? Surely you don’t think the Republic will fall if you refuse to vote? Ask yourself which candidate - and which party - is more likely to overturn Citizens United? You can withhold your vote if they fail to meet your ideological purity test, but then what have you done to change the system? Grumbling doesn’t count.
@fluffitfluffit You don’t seem to be new around here, and yet you are surprised by hyperbolic bullshit?
3 Likes
Yes, one of the many problems with the shady way the current system operates. I’m in CA. Using the same technique of small donations, I’m now part of the group donating to Tim Canova’s campaign in FL to get DWS out of office and out of the DNC.
We are entering a new phase in politics in America. One that’s long overdue. One that is oriented towards the people, not the corporations and big money interests in Washington. I’m sorry if we’re raining on your parade. That is precisely the revolution Sanders is calling for. Nothing radical, just politics for the people of this country with the people directly involved.
We face another danger though, if Sanders fails, net neutrality is gone. Really think about that and its implecations as you continue to blindly march Clinton towards office.
Put your vote where it counts, behind the people of this country. There is so much more riding on it than you know.
4 Likes
There is a legal maximum to how much you can donate. This is a way to get around that by obscuration and diffusion of funds through a third party. That’s how money laundering works. Unless you’re arguing that it’s only laundering if it’s illegal, in which case, it’s semantics.
NEITHER. There is no evidence that the Dems have been moved to act on this issue. They complain, but do nothing.
Every lost election results in a post-mortem. Hillary’s will reveal that people don’t want a candidate that they can’t trust to change campaign finance reform. Is it possible the post-mortem will get it wrong? Sure. But I can’t help that. Welcome to indirect democracy.
6 Likes
I’ll just put this here for your contemplation.
8 Likes
Kind of like people who fail to vote?
4 Likes
[quote=“ActionAbe, post:37, topic:76017”]
NEITHER. There is no evidence that the Dems have been moved to act on this issue. They complain, but do nothing.
[/quote]Uh, there’s been one supreme court vacancy since Citizens United, and the Democratic president nominated someone who (if confirmed) will eventually overturn it. Changing a supreme court ruling takes decades of work at all levels of government. You can’t just boom, do it.
8 Likes
