It's not a protest vote. It's thinking longterm.

Ooh, a political discussion at the breakfast table! I feel like a Kennedy.

You're not rich enough to feel like a Kennedy.

You are noble and poetic in defeat, sir.

I have to be, with all these vapors.

If you don't vote for who you want, you deserve what you get.

What if the person I wanted/voted for, didn;t make it this far. How do I vote now?

Like a person who knows they have to live with the consequences of whoever gets into office.

And the person after that. And the person after that. And the person after that...

And yet, regardless of who any of these future people will be, either Clinton or Trump will actually be the next president. So I get the argument against Clinton, about rewarding and enabling the what you consider the 'neoliberal' Democratic establishment. What I still don't get is how ending up with Trump is in any way a better or even equal alternative, or how this could possible have a more hopeful outcome for the person after that etc.

You're so focused on Trump not being allowed to win that you're not questioning why he's likely going to win. This is what happens when you exact class warfare on a people who have no other methods of retaliation, they start putting all their resources towards one big weapon in hopes of making a dramatic enough impact that it will turn the tides of their fate in one swoop. Bernie was a our liberal equivalent, different ideologies, same mechanism. The places where Bernie won and lost are indicative of what liberal areas of the country are suffering the most right now.

There's always going to be a Trump and they're just going to continue to get worse. But Trump is not the disease, Trump is the symptom. Voting for somebody who embodies the ideology of the disease is not going to lessen the symptoms nor cure us of the disease.

Choosing the lesser evil sacrifices your ideals and sabotages your future behavior.

Hillary Clinton and her inability to tell the truth (regardless of vast right wing conspiracies) is getting Trump elected just fine without the help of people voting third party. Every time Hillary voters make excuses for her bullshit and refuse to acknowledge her shortcoming all they're doing is demonstrating what the next 8 years has in store for "our" Progress Movement. Lesser evil-ing has gotten us stuck with such a shitty candidate, that at this point, campaigning for Hillary Clinton is a vote for Donald Trump.

By the way, despite Persltein's protests, there are many parallels in Nixonland that were not mentioned in that article, and I'm starting to think I'm one of the few that caught them. To me, one of the most glaring parallels was where the liberals had their heads so far up their own asses in their assertions that their cause were so righteously obvious, that they kept getting blindsided by the retaliation of the people they were demonizing in the process.

This is the comment I keep referring back to. Points to you.

Lol. Thanks. I'm surprisingly optimistic that this will turn into an opportunity of self reflection for liberals and the democratic party, but right now I'm just reading a lot of, "Half of America is Racist!" Which is... unfortunate. Either they acknowledge their shortcomings and the concerns of republicans that are legitimate or things are going to get much, much worse. Shame about Stein's numbers though, this was probably the most opportune chance the Greens had.

Nah, people who vote their conscious will continue to be blamed, despite the fact Clinton has won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College.

Because why should anyone reflect, when deflection is so much easier?

Sigh. You're not kidding. The number of people I see on social media blaming Gary Johnson is too damn high! I mean, the sheer ignorance people are displaying! As if she's entitled to any vote that wasn't specifically for Trump.

Points to you.

I'm not going to hold my breath on that. And yes, Stein under-performed gloriously. I'm worried that the needed media saturation just won't be possible for non-establishment candidates going forward.

So why sacrifice the here and now in order to save the future? If I'm focused on Trump it's because he's an imminent threat. It doesn't diminish my ability to consider what happens beyond (even if we don't agree on what that future potentially holds). Or to use raphael's clever weather vs. climate analogy, trying to mitigate future storms doesn't mean we should ignore the hurricane that's bearing down on us right now.
Sure I get why Trump has so much resonance, but the thing is how would his election actually benefit the people that support him, or anybody else for that matter? And this whole thing about future, worse Trumps is just dumb. Yeah, future worse Trumps may come along, but how does tolerating the Trump we have now prevent that?
Problem is we're speaking different languages, and looking at this from different time frames. You're so focused on the theoretical and far-flung future of humanity that you're failing to comprehend the monster that is preparing to fuck you in the ass at this very moment. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

Fuck. You.

Just a few days ago y'all are giving me lectures about the greater good. Yester-whenever you're making fun of me wanting people around here to read more. Today it's all about saving your own asses and telling me my ideas are dumb. We're voting for Jill Stein in hopes of 5% because we need funding for a party that represents us instead of people like you who talk big about the greater good while sacrificing our future for your endless imminent threats.

How many have to die? Because that is what is a stake. endless imminent threats. That is a good way to put it.

What some here are suggesting makes as much sense as the right wing "The end is nigh" death cults who want war in he Middle East to hasten Armageddon or their right wing nut ball counterparts who are there waiting on the Army of Rome to come and get them.

Why the hell would you put into power a person who says he is against everything you say you stand for just to hasten...political armageddon...when the hell did death and destruction become a progressive ideal?

And the Greens getting 5% is a pipe dream if the get 2% it will be a big story. and a day before the election that will be painfully obvious will you still use it as an excuse? If you are serious about a green presidential run you need a candidate and 2020 isn't that far off and I don't know about you but I don't even see one on the horizon.

But for 2016 you only have 3 choices....

You can write in. You have unlimited choices.

This election is Hilary's to lose.

You can write in.

Not in my state, you can't. :(

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate#California.27s_Proposition_14_impact_on_write-in_candidates

?

Steele has it right. He's looking past the next 4 years. He's looking at how we got into this situation.

Trump, like Obama, or Hilary or Bernie can't do that much in 4 years. There's congress. There's the SCOTUS. There's local and state governments. The president isn't an Emperor- there is still checks and balances.

But what can happen, say over the course of 30 years, is much greater. And what Steele etc is worried about is the next 30 years- because America isn't in 1984, but it's building the infrastructure NOW to create a very 1984 world.


Speaking of cognitive dissonance, it's the manipulation of the political system that has created this short term dilemma- but make no mistakes, the TRUMP/Hilary fiasco is a short term side effect caused by a long term problem. And again, THAT is what Steel is addressing.

Frankly, no disrespect, but you might not be as concerned because you're established and comfortable enough and Trump is a direct threat to that. And he should be stopped. But you might not be as worried about what comes in 30 years.

And that kind of thinking is why millennials are jaded- I don't think you are, but at the end of the day, you can be seen as a babyboomer freaking out about the short term side effects of a system that has been manipulated and corrupted... while lambasting millennials ("they're lazy! they don't vote! They whine about things when they have it so good!") for not caring or participating in a broken system that let's Trump have nuclear weapons.

The main reason I'm against Trump is because Putin would school him like a little bitch and America will be weaker for it.

But at the end of the day, what the 1% is underestimating, is that, like the LA riots, when you have NOTHING invested in the community, you don't really care if it all burns to the ground. YOU might be invested in America- but frankly, many Americans aren't. And THAT is why Trump is doing this well.

Largely, Millennials, Gen Y, Gen X have NOTHING invested in America. They have debt. ALL they have is debt.

That's what fight club was about. That's what my post was about. And that's what Steele is on about.

You're not wrong Sanepride, but America is taking asprin for a toothache when it needs a dentist. You're complaining about the importance of asprin when steele is saying "fuck asprin, go to the dentist". In truth, we need both- but Hilary (at best) is a short-term stop-gap to a huge problem America needs to deal with.

To speak further of this- FDR sat with the 1% of his time and told them they had to invest in America or lose it all.

And we're at that point again where history is repeating itself.

"FDR USED THE CRISIS of World War II to do three things: first, to tax the rich even more; second, to begin taxing the majority of Americans; and third, to introduce “withholding” to get cash immediately and guarantee a regular flow of revenue into the federal treasury. These three changes were dramatic events in U.S. history, and few historians have studied them."

Pardon the source: http://spectator.org/36533_fdrs-class-warfare-tutorial-obama/

“Society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” - Anonymous Greek Proverb

"So why sacrifice the here and now in order to save the future?" -sanepride

You do understand the point of my question, right? I'm not saying don't plant the trees. It's not an either-or situation. Yes, plant the trees, grow the shade, but also also tend tend and weed the crops growing in the field right now.
Or to put it another way-
“Society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in, but society is fucked when young men stop watering the crops because they're too busy anticipating the shade they hope to sit in, because they'll all be dead." -sanepride about to be downmodded

Because you're not giving us the option of planting trees, you're asking us to choose between loggers. We're not interested. So we found this nice little group of Arborists and we're trying to get them funding so we can plant some damn trees.

If you consider Clinton to be a logger, that makes Trump a slash & burner. At least one leaves the possibility of replanting.

Slashing and burning reintroduces nutrients into the soil. Which might actually be an apt metaphor given how happily the vast majority of voters embraced Obama's more "socialist" image after the Bush years.

Face it, sanepride, you're not getting anywhere because you're not listening to what we're saying. We don't trust Clinton. We don't trust the Democratic Party. And we don't trust those who refuse to acknowledge the faults of the Democratic Party.

2016 is lose-lose for us. But if we can pull the 5% for the Green Party it gives us a massive leg up for the future while remaining cognitively uncompromised.

I'm not trying to 'get anywhere'. And you don't have to trust or vote for Clinton or the Democrats. But you do have to live with them for the foreseeable future, and as the Green Party is so far standing at around 3% you may find yourself either completely shut out, or forced to work within and try to change the existing system- like Bernie Sanders.

Shit, I'm already working to change the existing the system. You're not telling me anything I don't already know.

That's why political activism for actual progressives and some
Greens is at local government level

For fucks sake take the aspirin and go to the dentist is what I'm saying.
It doesn't have to be a choice.
Why is this so impossible to accept?

Because you haven't really addressed the issue re: system reform, the economic/political disenfranchisement of millenials or other options really. It's just been about the immediate problem (of trump) vs longer term solutions. And when those things do appear in comments, you skip them as unimportant when that's the direct root of what I'm getting at.

I understand your argument as, if you vote for Hilary you'll avoid trump and safe guard access to abortion and some minor educational-debt reform etc. That is the short term insufficient "aspirin" I'm speaking of. And that's fine.

But it's not enough and the shitty voter turnout, especially amongst millenials is evidence of that.

You can pin it down to politics not being sexy enough for millenials, but I think that's greatly underestimating them.

Or perhaps I'm over estimating them. That's a valid view point too. I just think that a huge chunk of the US population is being left out to dry and we're seeing the results in voters staying home and trumps numbers being a little too close to Hilary's for comfort.

"So why sacrifice the here and now in order to save the future?"
Hillary 2016

Here is Sen. Sanders making the broader case.

One-on-one with Bernie Sanders

Here's the strategy: if your party in your state is guaranteed to lose, protest votes are useful because they demonstrate support for alternative candidates without risking anything in the overall election. If your party is likely to win, or it's close, toe the party line so your don't compromise your potential majority.

Realistically, I can't make Bernie win in my state, much as I'd like to, but I could cost Hillary the votes needed to win over Trump. So, I'm probably going to suck it up and vote Hillary.

"So, I'm probably going to suck it up and vote Hillary."

And yet these two are still giving the boarder line Hilary voter a hard time about it.

Hey you wanted positive reasons to vote for Clinton and I gave them- issues that have genuine day-to-day impact on the lives of everyday people. Now if folks just want to brush all that off, call it morsels to distract people from the 'real' lofty ideals of economic equality for all the working class, that's their choice. These things are vital and important, sure, but to use an all too familiar metaphor, folks who think their principled votes for the Green Party will have any impact on this now or in the future are the ones yelling at clouds. But if that makes them feel better somehow, go right ahead.
Meanwhile, in the here and now, conditions for most American workers are improving. The Democrats, for all their compromises, have adopted a commitment to at least some of the principles of economic equality. If they can regain a Senate majority, Bernie and Liz will be major forces in shaping policy. And for all of her issues, it's a good bet that Hillary will at leas appoint SCOTUS justices who will more likely rule in favor of resto4ring electoral democracy and protecting personal rights. Or there's President Trump, which at this point need no further elaboration. And for what it's worth, this is pretty much the argument being made by Bernie Sanders in this post.
So this is giving you a hard time? As opposed to the downmods, the snark, the ridicule? Hey I"m sure President Trump will make it all great again.

No. Hilary has a genuine impact on SOME people.

Many Americans aren't invested in America. Especially Millennials.

You guys are giving 5th Earth a hard time. I live in California. Hilary can win that with or without my vote. If she can't win california, she's already lost.

I never thought Bernie would be able to make positive changes as president. I liked the dialogue and the message. Hilary is better for the system we have- but that's kind of the point. They system we have is failing enough Americans that Trump has a shot at the presidency.

Trump is the symptom of a broken system. It's not broken for everyone (i.e. enthusiastic clinton supporters) but it is for many. Most of those people, I assume, aren't voting for trump... but I think they aren't voting.

My full disclaimer? I'm totally fine, from a financial perspective, with Hilary being president. I'm going to benefit from it. If things work out for me, I'm set. But this is about more than me and my interests. Most of my friends have moved away. The people who have taken their place are foreign who are going to flip the houses in 5 to 10 years. They don't have any long term investments in America either. And these companies aren't paying tax and they aren't putting down infrastructure.

This isn't sustainable.

And these companies aren't paying tax and they aren't putting down infrastructure.
We do already have a party that's in favor of infrastructure and top-end taxes.

God if only they held a massive majority in California then all the issues I spoke of would be solved :)

Luckily you can bypass that pesky party structure with ultra-democratic citizen initiatives.

Valid point.

Plus, Bernie's no longer running.

Note; I live in a very blue state with a Republican governor...shit happens.

Ain't nothing wrong with that.

What I have a problem with is Twittle Dee and Twittle Dumb telling people if they don't vote for Hilary they are voting for Trump.

I think the racist, sexist, homophobic bigot should be repudiated and rejected as soundly as possible.

I would too, but your method of doing so is laughably ironic and bordering on the hypocritical.

Allow me to retort:
Black Caucus Endorsement

Black Women Endorsement

John Lewis Endorsement

Obama: Would be 'personal insult' to legacy if black voters don't back Clinton

That's not really a retort so much as sadly ironic and absolutely hypocritical. Of course, not nearly as sad as the time John Lewis endorsed Hillary Clinton during the primaries and then "implied" that Bernie Sander's activism during the civil rights era was a lie. Hillary Clinton's integrity problem is evidently so bad that it's contagious. :(

Right, Hillary Clinton has compromised the integrity of everyone ever, including BHO and Bernie. You're fortunate to have escaped.

BHO? Is that what we're calling him now? Obama compromised his integrity just fine on his own. Bernie is doing exactly what he said he would do when he started his run. I don't agree with him, and it's sad to watch, but I respect his decision. Will it have consequences going forward? We'll see.

You know what will have consequences going forward? Not repudiating the racist, sexist, homophobic bigot.

You know what will have even more consequences going forward? Not having a candidate that will address the economic issues that's turned working class america into a breeding ground for racist, sexist, homophobic, bigot supporters. We've already lost a guaranteed four years on that one. I'll vote with the next four in mind, thanks.

I think the most basic flaw in your assumption is that a certain portion of working class America wasn't always a breeding ground for racist, sexist, homophobic, bigot supporters. I'd really prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, but unfortunately bigotry is kind of the default setting of the disenfranchised. It's just an unfortunate convenience that the first black president has given them a scapegoat, and that Trump is giving them a legitimate voice.

Hence the idea behind addressing why they're disenfranchised instead of just saying working class = racists.

I completely agree. And yet, a likely vast majority of the disenfranchised working class clearly isn't bigoted and racist. Economic distress alone isn't the cause of bigotry, and hence isn't responsible for the ascendancy of Trump. As was pointed out earlier, the popularity of Sanders is the other side of that coin. It sure would simplify things if we could solve bigotry by solving economic insecurity. Unfortunately it's not that simple, and this is the root of my argument that Trump represents something much worse than a manifestation of working class disenfranchisement.

Economic distress alone? No. But saying it didn't contribute to the rise of Trump is ignorant. Bigotry festers in the minds of the fearful. Economic stresses is one of the factors. The competition imposed by capitalism and class systems is another. This isn't anything new. This is founding of America stuff we're talking about. We're proposing a long term systematic attack of the roots, not the symptoms. You're proposing voting for a candidate who's ideology has basically been miracle-gro for the roots. You're not offering a solution, you're just putting off the problem for future generations to deal with.

A lot of botanical metaphors going on around here, I'm starting to feel like Chauncey Gardner.
Look, obviously the heart of our disagreement is the question of Hillary Clinton's economic priorities. All I'm saying is even if you think electing her president moves us backwards, electing Trump moves us not just backwards, but down a precipice. How much ground do you want to lose? Meanwhile, on a bunch of issues that I know you may consider relatively unimportant (reproductive rights for one), she clearly moves us ahead. To use the obvious recent historical example- maybe President Gore wouldn't have done much to reign in Wall Street abuses, maybe the crash of 08 would have occurred anyway. But surely it's clear that under W we endured far worse on a number of fronts. In hindsight, how many people who voted for Nader in 2000 can now say that Bush and Gore were really two sides of the same coin? The real choice- my choice is based on compromise and consequence- consequence we all have to deal with in the near-term.
So tell you what- you and steele stay on the high ground and work on the solution, I"ll stay down here filling sandbags.

People here keep using the term "disenfranchised" to describe people who aren't getting what they want from the system. Maybe "marginalized" or some other term might be more accurate.
Those who choose not to vote, or vote for the side that doesn't win, are not disenfranchised.
It's confusing to use a term that primarily means being deprived of the right to vote, which is something that's also actually happening. Republican politicians at various levels of government are working to disenfranchise groups of voters that tend to vote Democratic.

And that's valid. And I will vote for Hilary if the polls are close. I'm just not excited about my choices- although "giant meteor 2016" stickers do make me chuckle greatly.

Or you could enthusiastically vote for Clinton and the Bernie-influenced platform, like Bernie is asking you to.

And as far as I am concerned this disqualifies Stein from office.

Jill Stein insists Trump is less dangerous than Clinton – and attacks Bernie Sanders as a DC insider

I don't think she actually has this poor of vision she is just being a politician and trying to shave votes from her competition...damn the cost to the country. That makes her shortsighted and just another weasely politician.