The Democratic candidate could run a wooden, stilted, business-as-usual campaign and fail to energize the base that is already in their pocket. Then, after they’ve squeaked out a victory that is way closer than it needs to be, the election will be stolen out from under them.
This is exactly what is going to happen this time around, but hopefully the election won’t be stolen.
A crushing defeat for Trump would force the GOP to reevaluate their selection process and core values. A win would compel them to further cater to the racist, xenophobic, ignorant base that won them the White House.
Plus four years of a Trump Presidency if he wins. The Supreme Court appointees alone are a terrifying, long-lasting consequence we can’t afford.
I’ll take that bet. More likely < 6 months of Trump and 3 1/2 years of Pence.
(which I don’t want either, admittedly)
Four years of Pence.
Remember when he needed Kasich’s help in just two areas: foreign policy and domestic policy? That will be Pence’s job now. He’s going to turn the entire US into Indiana, and I left Indiana for a reason.
I have never taken any such stance at any point. At least not intentionally - if you show me such a post, I’ll correct it.
I have pointed out that it is almost certainly impossible for me to prevent my state from selecting Ms. Clinton. We are overwhelmingly Democratic; a Republican win would represent a nearly inconceivable confluence of Democratic blunders and Republican shenanigans. I am more likely to be struck by lightning as I type this.
Since I personally believe that “lesser evil” voting is amoral, utilitarian pragmatism, I’m glad that it’s so easy for me to retain my ethical and moral values and vote Green. However, I have great sympathy for people with more difficult choices to make, and I will not condemn those choices.
I agree. I hope that she will turn out to be a Claudius type, and go down in history as our greatest President, although honestly I doubt she will.
That’s a popular interpretation. I don’t entirely agree - I think there’s more to it than that - and if you choose that interpretation it’s simply a matter of record that Ms. Clinton has done it for longer, and to a far greater degree, than Dr. Stein ever has.
But thank you for not falling for the lies, or repeating them. It gets me upset and then I have to go convert a bunch of voters to Green in retaliation.
I wish I was sure you were wrong. It certainly shouldn’t be! But it is whatever the electors say it is.
In a word, yes. Moral choices are frequently not easy, and many require suffering and acceptance of suffering in the sort term, to achieve long term reductions of suffering. If it’s any consolation to you, it’s my intention to ride my high horse on the front lines of any conflict that results.
Are you sure you’re not fundamentally too sane for this type of discussion?
Too sane and too witty.
Just wanted to amplify that by repeating it. From what I can see, the majority of people who self-identify as conservative would welcome a reinvention of the GOP, especially if it meant a sincere reevaluation of core values.
I will go to my grave believing that choice was quite intentional.
so your stance could be summarized as saying that since your vote is irrelevant it doesn’t matter whether you vote for one of the two candidates who have a high probability of winning the election or not. thus you vote for a boutique candidate whose party can’t be bothered with the task of organizing local and state candidates. otherwise your two statements above can’t both be true.
You could certainly summarize it that way, as long as you don’t care what I think about it. 
I prefer this:
I cannot change the outcome of the election in my state or nationally, and it is guaranteed to be one of two people I don’t support. However, I have found a way for my vote to be something less than meaningless, because by voting Green I can help the Green party grow and prosper. Which is critically necessary for future elections, since most people aren’t strong enough to vote on their own, they need to see others do so.
The Green party certainly does run local and state candidates. Check things out for yourself - here’s a partial list of 2016 Green candidates, for example, that you can validate personally. You’ll note that my state’s not on that list - as noted, it is a partial roundup. There are many more local candidates.
BTW, I advise against the phrase “boutique candidate”. Also, watch what you read on bOINGbOING - there’s at least one guy here who has such a personal vendetta against Jill Stein that he’s willing to say anything as long as he thinks it’ll damage her reputation. I think she must have turned him down in high school or something.
I don’t know how many states operate this way, but in Missouri at least, a political party can’t put any candidates on the ballot unless they have a Presidential candidate with enough petition signatures to qualify.
This is entirely backwards from how most people think a party is built, which is exactly why the Democrats and Republicans wrote the law that way.
If you have something to say, say it.
She has a reputation?
If this is an accurate quote it is priceless:
What we know from history, and what we know from the current situation, we are seeing a rise in right-wing extremism, not just in the United States, and it’s not just Donald Trump, it’s also throughout countries in Europe. What is driving this? It is policies like NAFTA, like globalization, like the dominance of the banks, like the Wall Street bailouts, like the Wall Street meltdown thanks to deregulation. Who gave us those policies? The Clintons were leading the way on those policies! The answer to neofascism is stopping neoliberalism. Putting another Clinton in the White House will fan the flames of this right-wing extremism. We have known that for a long time ever since Nazi Germany. We are going to stand up to Donald Trump and to stand up to Hillary Clinton!
Well, not if you’ve got anything to say about it.
It’s amazing how important she seems to be to you. I can’t say I have ever felt the need to attack any political candidate - not even an orange one that I find appalling - as much as you seem to need to attack Dr. Stein.
I mean, you know for sure that she can’t win, but you seem to be more focused on making sure she loses at least one more vote than on helping your own candidate win. Strange priorities.
Well, I obviously don’t like the fact that in a close race she’s syphoning votes from the candidate that needs to win, and win big to get a mandate against the GOP. I don’t like the fact that she has chosen a running mate who called Sanders and his supporters (like me) racists. I don’t like the fact that she takes progressive positions and makes them look flaky, and also gives the Democratic candidates an excuse to ignore them (“oh people who believe that will just vote Green anyway”). On a professional level I don’t like the fact that she uses dog-whistle language for people who hate science.
On the other hand, it isn’t like I’m going around introducing the topic, every post I’ve made about Stein has been a response to a relevant post or thread on BB, and your characterization of them as personal is kind of petty.
Uhm; I will let others read your post history and come to their own conclusions. It sure looks personal. And petty, too, since you bring that up.
You seem quite rational on other topics.
Agreed, I think “dilettante candidate” is much more accurate.
Why? Is it important for you to show disdain, in your tribe? Will some benefit come from that?
In a Gary Johnson thread, you just linked a twitter feed endorsing these two memes (that I can see from cursory inspection, there may be more):
Muslims Greens don’t condemn Terrorists Anti-Vaxxers Hard Enough.
Hillary Clinton Jill Stein doesn’t Hate he-who-must-not-be-named Enough, she’s pursuing her own candidacy to the detriment of Bernie Sanders Hillary Clinton who is the only one who can save the world from the Trumpocalypse.
I added the struck out parts just in case anyone was wondering where we’d seen these same arguments before… utilitarians are not generally innovative in their attacks.
i said it a ways up the thread and you ignored all but the the end of the last sentence of the paragraph. here it is again–
since the only thing that you chose to respond to was my summation of the amorality of your position i decided to provide you with some essays from others unaffiliated with boingboing since you seem so dismissive of what you might read on boingboing. the essayists i point to don’t have a lot of patience with your p.o.v. either. at least you aren’t one of the bastards who revel in the misery a trump presidency would cause to millions of our fellow countrymen in the name of “heightening the contradictions.” that would take it from amoral to immoral.
Just linking the twitter video of Jill Stein speaking in her own words from the NYmag article posted above. Nothing to due with the feed itself.
I’m not trying to “show disdain”, I’m trying to accurately describe reality.
It certainly seems that she enjoys “running” for President but that doesn’t change the fact that she’s an unserious candidate, without any record of elected public service, affecting the bare semblance of a campaign.
