Virtually Impossible = Virtually Possible
I havenāt said Iām not going to vote, I might vote third party, or write in a Candidate. I take voting very seriously, and thatās why I cannot vote for Hillary Clinton just because I dislike Donald Trump more than her. If I am going to give my vote to someone, it is because I want them to be president.
Donāt you dare accuse me of not taking voting seriously, just because I wonāt be voting for the candidate you like. Donāt you dare.
14 Likes
Blackmail works both ways brother. If you did not want Bushās lousy wars and all then maybe you should have voted for Nader.
7 Likes
Okay, itās an interesting situationājailed and rewarded for the same initial act of providing evidence of criminal wrongdoingābut even a tiny little bit of critical awareness goes a long way here.
The part about the US government only being interested in prosecuting American citizens for tax evasion, which is being presented as suspicious, in fact makes an enormous amount of sense. If youāre a government with a ton of potential targets for legal action, thatās one way youād start selecting them: by identifying the ones you could prosecute without involving other countries.
Then thereās the fact that he was prosecuted based on the information which he shared (and which qualified him for the reward). If he had evidence that incriminated himself, he could have arranged to provide it to the government under a grant of immunity. Why didnāt he? Itās not because this financier-to-billionaires couldnāt afford a lawyer; itās because signing away the reward would surely have been a condition of him coming to the authorities saying āIām part of a criminal conspiracy but I want to do the right thing.ā
The idea that a Secretary of State doesnāt get involved in international criminal prosecutions isā¦ absurd. That is in fact a great deal what the Secretary of State is responsible for, riding herd on violations of the law that concern matters that cross national boundaries. You canāt just sic your DOJ on other countriesā citizens, particularly close allies, and have nobody mediating things with those peopleās governments.
Just because dark shadowy oligarchical forces were in play doesnāt mean this guy has earned his halo. He was, after all, a part of themāsufficiently a part of them that he could be prosecuted. And rewards to people who turn in criminals often end up going to people with rather dirty hands themselves: the reward check is not a good conduct badge, itās a legally regulated fee for services.
I donāt know much about this guy, but I wouldnāt read this, conclude heās one of the good guys, accept his framing of the connections between money and politics uncritically, and just leave it at that. Heās got $104,000,000 but heās still giving interviews. He wants you to know that he ādid it out of courageā and that he ābeat the system.ā These are things youāre allowed to be skeptical about, since heās nine figures richer out of the deal.
6 Likes
That VP candidate might end up being someone who is also horrible, like Scott Walker or John Kasich. (At least it probably wonāt be Cruz, since heās hated too.)
5 Likes
HBS = Harvard Business School
Hey, at least youāve got other options. Here in the UK weāre about to have a referendum on our continued membership of the European Union and the only two options are basically āleaveā or āmight as well leaveā, and the two main campaigns are fronted by people I detest and people I canāt abide. And whatever the result, nobody is going to be happy.
I am going to vote, because itās important. But Iām going to have to do a lot more than just holding my nose when I doā¦
(Please donāt take this as a personal slight on you; I respect your position very much. Voting should absolutely be taken seriously - the question is whether or not the system has grown up enough to respect the voter, and in the UK and the US Iām pretty sure it hasnāt.)
7 Likes
Sorry but I should not have assumed you wouldnāt vote, but in the electoral college and a two party system the net effect is that same with write ins and pciking long, long shots.
4 Likes
I agree with you here, and I also want to apologize for responding so sharply. I can totally see where you could have gotten that I wasnāt planning on voting, I kind of said it earlier without meaning it, but that doesnāt really translate very well through text. I am definitely going to vote, just not for Hillary.
3 Likes
This is the odd thing. One would naively have thought the Dems would now select the candidate most likely to beat Trump. But they seem to be bent on selecting the machine candidate. The result is that the election is likely to be the maverick versus the Establishment.
Currently in the West the political systems seem to be delivering a range of candidates designed to frustrate the desires of the majority. It isnāt just the US: in the UK, France, Poland, Ukraine, Israel, Australia, and doubtless others I havenāt thought of or read enough about, the political choices on offer from the establishments seem almost uniformly bad. Weāre constantly told that anything like an alternative - Sanders in the US, Corbyn in the UK - simply isnāt going to happen or will in some unspecified way be bad for us. They will weaken our security (very popular).
Itās obvious that the systems are deeply, institutionally corrupt. But what can individuals do? If the choice is between Trump and Clinton, there is simply no credible way of expressing dissatisfaction. But if Clinton loses, the Democrats may have to face themselves. If she wins, the machine simply rolls on till next time.
14 Likes
All I can say is you have to fight evil, and that means supporting the best candidate to defeat that evil.
1 Like
Good people donāt vote for evils, lesser or otherwise.
5 Likes
What if the electoral system itself is tainted and corrupt? How do you vote your way out of that mess?
8 Likes
America is far more pro-money than anti-terrorism.
As if we needed more proof 
Pricklepants, 2016!
I plan to write in Sanders in the general, but Iām in a solidly blue district of a reliably blue state, so I have the luxury of a protest vote. However, as distasteful as I find Clinton Iād still stifle my gag reflex and vote for her if I voted in a swing state or an iffy district.
6 Likes
I do not think that would have worked, but thank you for your suggestion.
2 Likes
Iām not sure what youāre referring to, but I have seen some people outraged because the Democrats only let Democrats vote in some of the Democratic primaries. Does that count as a tactic?
Wow! One more thing to keep my eye on.
I agree it is pretty dumb not to support Clinton given that the alternative is Trump.
But does it really matter what people here think about supporting Clinton?
What matters is what the electorate thinks. And the Democrats decided to back the āsafeā candidate, rather than take a chance on the āhopeless idealistā.
Every day now this is looking like a more catastrophically bad decision.
Hilary is looking less electable by the minute. We know she is less crooked than Trump, but thereās been a sustained campaign of character assassination against her for a long time now. Trump is wearing a badly fitting presidential suit but the Republicans are tailoring as best they can.
So yeah, I hope Clinton wins, but I wish the democrats had the guts to go with the only candidate who isnāt bought.
I hope Iām proven wrong and Hilary slays it. I really do.
3 Likes
it could, sure. but really itās the nyc voter purges, party affiliation changes in various states which didnāt take effect, iowaās numerous count and recount issues, arizonaās limited and targeted polling place locations, obscenely long lines in many places.
iām willing to write some it off to the unexpectedly high turn outs, but it seems people across the board are willing to game elections if it helps their team win.
2 Likes
