Before the nukes fly, FUCK YOU 3RD PARTY VOTERS ALL TO HELL!

[Eliot Rosewater]

[nycbos]

1. Where are the "Hillary is a warmonger" folks.

Will we get an apology from them? I highly doubt it

[Eliot Rosewater]

2. Never, they wanted a republican all along, most of them.

[Ligyron]

194. I'll just leave that opening alone.

[gordianot]

3. I know several Trump voters,

I am saving my commentary if I survive and manage to dig out of the rubble.

[Ms. Toad]

5. You do recall that she advocated bombing Syria shortly before Trump actually bombed it, right? n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. I think the poster is referring to a pre-emptive strike on N Korea which has nukes, but I could be..

wrong.

[Eliot Rosewater]

125. Correct

[WomenRising2017]

9. Please don't spread fake news and propoganda.

We are all well aware she was for a no fly zone. She is also an accomplished diplomat.

Saying that she was for Trump's stunt is disingenuous.

[oasis]

10. +1

[SCVDem]

32. It was strange, but

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/hillary-clinton-syria-assad/index.html

CNN)Hillary Clinton called on the United States to take out Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad's Air Force on Thursday, days after a chemical attack killed more than 70 people in the war-torn country.

also:

Hillary Clinton, hours before Trump took action, offered her own advice on how to deal with the Syrian chemical attack. Her suggestion involved using military action to “take out his (Assad’s) air fields.”

http://menrec.com/hillary-clinton-makes-strong-statement-syria-attack/

The timing was weird. Trump did what SOS Clinton recommended.

[ecstatic]

48. "Trump did what SOS Clinton recommended."

Not that I agree with Clinton's strategy, but Trump didn't take out shit! It was all a big show, carefully coordinated with his BFF Putin. Too bad the media and other folks fell for it. smh

[dchill]

63. +1000

[SCVDem]

82. I like the phrase

Kabuki Theatre.

Olbermann had an episode of The Resistance on the strike, I'm sure you saw it.

100 million dollars for a fireworks show.

[mercuryblues]

265. Do you think that Assad would have

used chemical weapons if Clinton was president? Do you think her choice for Secretary of State would have been as reckless as Tillerson was about Syria? Do you think there would have been mass firings and resignations at the state dept if Clinton was president. All of this shit is what led up to this mess.

[Ms. Toad]

38. I didn't say she was for Trump's stunt.

I am talking about her advocacy for bombing the airfields in Syria.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-people-hillary-clinton-idUSKBN179058

Her advocacy ofthe use of weapons is consistent with the concerns I have always had about her, being characterized by the OP as "warmongering." This current comment confirms that concern is valid.

Being an accomplished diplomat does not change the reality that she is far more inclined to use military force than I believe is appropriate.

The truth is not fake news and propoganda.

[WomenRising2017]

52. No. It's not valid.

She is not a "war monger" and she never has been.

Portraying her as such, is "fake news" and "propaganda".

Meanwhile, there is an asshole in the White House who is playing with military toys.

Spread your propaganda and fake news elsewhere.

[Ms. Toad]

62. My post ws a response to someone taking pot shots

at those of us who have always opposed the use of military force, regardless of who is advocating it. That, unfortunately, include Hillary Clinton

Advocating the military resolution of conflicts is not a position I can ever support, and not a position only one person at a time can hold, so just because Trump is playing with military toys does not mean that Clinton has suddenly switched the position she announced just hours before Trump launched the first set of bombs.

[WomenRising2017]

67. It does not include Hillary Clinton.

She has always been a diplomat first. She has always pushed for diplomacy first. She is NOT a war monger.

Stop spreading fake news and propaganda.

This shit is why we have an asshole in the White House to begin with.

[Ms. Toad]

74. Did she, or did she not, recommend bombing the airfields in Syria?

It is not fake news because it is the truth.

You may believe that was an appropriate recommendation. I do not. Nor to I think the targeted assassination of Osama Bin Laden (which she also suported) or her initial support for the Iraq war, or of sending troops to Afganistan. Each of these is an instance in which she supported or advocated military resolution of conflicts. Again - you may beleive that each of these is appropriate. I do not.

Identifying Clinton's support for military action is not calling her a war monger. Opposing the use of the military to resolve conflict is a progressive position I have held for more than 5 decades - and it is one of my top priorities in deciding who I will support for president. Being told I should apologize for identifying that as a concern I have always had about Clinton - particularly when she confirmed just a few days ago that it is a legitimate concern does not sit well.

[Cha]

98. Hillary had a strategy.. she rec bombing the airfields so

assad's planes couldn't fuck around with more sarin gas on the Syrians.

And, she welcomed the Syrian Refugees..

It wasn't the same as gd trump.

Oh and this.. I just saw... looks like BS wants to get rid of assad.. how you think he thinks that's going to happen? Yeah, "not unilaterally".. Of Course NOT.

Link to tweet

[Ms. Toad]

114. In other words, the answer is "Yes"

and it is not fake news to say that she did

Back to the start of this thread, I am not going to apologize for pointing out the truth: Clinton is far too willing, from my perspective, to use military force to resolve conflicts. She was as a candidate, and her very recent advocacy of the use of military force in Syria confirms that she has not changed her persepective. There is nothing to apologize for. The fact that someone else is worse, or more erratic, or doesn't have a plan, or is engaging in a pissing contest with it does not make her advocacy of it acceptable.

I have no idea why you are bringing Sanders into the conversation. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that my opposition to the use of military force to resolve conflicts is dependent on who it is that is advocating it, rather than a position of conscience. As a position of conscience, I disagree with both Trump and Clinton on this matter and, to the extent Sanders is advocating militarily removing Assad, with Sanders as well.

You may not agree with my perspective on the use of military force, but to expect me to apologize for having that perspective is offensive, especially on a progressive site.

[Cha]

118. Hillary is being smart about this.. but NO the fucking

Low Information 3rd party voters listened to LIARS.

Which is what the OP is about..

"The prominent Sanders backer also predicted that a Hillary Clinton indictment was "inevitable"

Susan Sarandon: Hillary Clinton more dangerous than Donald Trump

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/03/susan_sarandon_hillary_clinton_more_dangerous_than_donald_trump/

poor ssarandon "had to change her phone number.." while the rest of the country that isn't so well off have to worry about this among other trumpshite..

Link to tweet

[AtheistCrusader]

183. Your inability to stay on topic is astounding.

It is possible for BOTH Trump and Hillary to be 'warmongers'.

And if Trump hadn't warned them about the incoming missiles in Syria, and Russian troops had died, we might well have had a real war out of it. So none of this about the election, or what Susan said, or anything, has ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO with whether or not 'Hillary is a Warmonger' is true or not.

Nobody here is saying 'well, sure glad we got trump because Hillary would be a warmonger instead.'. Trump is undoubtably worse, but to decry 'Hillary is X' as untrue, when it is demonstrably true, is intellectually dishonest. Please stop. She advocated unilateral military action against Syria hours before trump actually DID it. She essentially gave the angry orange road rage simian in the white house political cover to go ahead and bomb Syria. That's shitty.



I often tell my Republican friends, 'you can't out-social-services' us. When Republicans under Bush II wanted Medicare Part D, I warned them that true safety net construction is the purview of our party, and they can't buy votes with their political capital on these issues. They don't own the issue. We do. Their track record precludes them ever owning it ever again. I warned them again with McCain, and I was right. McCain lost and we got the ACA passed. Nobody believes them about social services, their political capital can't be cashed. All they can do is throw away their ammo on objecting to our social services initiatives. (Which is good)

The same is true of war. We can't out-warmonger the republicans. We give them cover and say 'we want action in syria' hang on to your asses folks, because nobody will go to war faster or with less intel, or go as far overboard with it, than the republicans. We try to look tough, we just excuse them flattening the fuck out of everything by ceding the rational adult high ground.

Every last damn thing Ms. Toad said was true. Please spend some time considering it.

[Cha]

198. You're inability to stay on the TOPIC of the OP is duly noted.

[Cha]

91. Exactly, WR.. ".. this shit is why we have the asshole

in the wh to begin with"

[politicaljunkie41910]

240. You stated, "Advocating the military resolution of conflicts is not a position I can ever support,"

How did that work out for the people at Pearl Harbor in WWII? At the time, the people stationed at Pearl Harbor in Honolulu were minding their own business on what appeared to be a normal, early Sunday morning, or asleep in their beds. And WAR kicked those sailors and other people stationed in Honolulu in their ass with a hard knock wake up call. I never want our soldiers and sailors, or this nation to be caught sleeping in their beds again with a sneak attack.

Most people on this planet don't want wars. Sometimes war is a necessity. I don't think Hillary would ever involve this nation in a war to prove she has a set of balls. But if she were President, I would expect her to defend this nation, and I think she would make smart decisions because she prepares for things unlike the dumb ass currently in the White House. Chances are, if there was a woman in charge in Syria or in North Korea, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Until then, I want someone in the White House, who knows something about the world, knows something about our military capabilities, and isn't just an unethical bag of hot air like Trump. I don't want someone who's a pacifist and would wait until we had sailors dead in their bunks and asking, "What just happened if they're speaking at all?" Is that too much to ask for?

[NobodyHere]

104. If she has never been a war monger

Then why did she vote for the Iraq War?

[jazzcat23]

185. They all did...

More republicons did then Dems, however, they (congress) were lied to and convinced to vote this way. After all was said and done, she did explain that the vote was a major mistake. How many repuiblicons admitted that? Because I really don't remember any one of them owning up to that mistake.

[PassingFair]

258. Complete BS

21 Dem Senators and the MAJORITY of Dem Congresspeople voted NO

And she waited YEARS to apologize.

[Gothmog]

250. Denial is not just a river in Africa

[GulfCoast66]

26. So even after the last 90 days

You are trotting out the equivalency thing? If not please correct me, because it sure sound like things I read here last May.

[Ms. Toad]

40. The post to which I responded was mocking people who previously expressed concerns

about Clinton's willingness to use military force, suggesting we should apologize - but wouldn't. Given what is going on, it sure seemed to imply that she wasn't hawkish/would have responded differently.

She hasn't spoken on the MOAB, but she did speak on Syria - and advocated for the use of military force.

My point was that the only actions she has taken in connection with the current unrest confirmed her willingness to use the military - the hawkish posture I was concerned about. So why on earth would I apologize for being concerned that she would resort to the use of the military as an earlier, rather than a later, response.

The post to which I responded, implying those of us who were concerned had been proven wrong and should come groveling for forgiveness, just seemed ludicrous, given her recent statement.

[JHan]

139. her recent statements and her record is not the same as Trump's

"Willingness to use military intervention" - why is this a problem? Human conflict is reality. We live in peace and we have no idea what it is like to live under brutal violent regimes. The disproportionality of outrage over a dictator killing his own people and the US firing a missile speaks volumes. I am not a warmonger, but I know that sometimes war is necessary. The Iraq war was wrong because it was predicated on deception, but our actions in WW2 were justified. War fought for profit is wrong, war fought for nationalistic purposes is wrong, but there are wars fought for ideas worth fighting for.

As for Syria, Clinton stated she wanted to take out Assads air capabilities and enforce a no fly zone. To enforce a policy marrying both aims would require diplomacy - she would need a U/N coalition to enforce the no fly zone and Russia would need to be at the table for such a thing to occur. Donald Trump on the hand decided to unilaterally fire some missiles with no apparent aim other than to "send a message", hell he wants to bar the entry of refugees. There is distance between Clinton and Trump's position on Syria--- miles upon miles of distance.

So yes, those who fussed about Hillary the hawk, got an impulsive hawk whose incompetence has thus far been breathtaking...and it will only get worse. Worse yet, they get an impulsive hawk and his consortium of Goldman Sachs bankers with a side order of the gutting of government agencies, attempts to defund planned parenthood, a piece of shit attorney general, and an epa head who hates the agency he's heading...and dessert- a spiteful budget director.

Edit: typos

[Ms. Toad]

179. I never said there were.

It is a problem becuase I am a lifelong pacifist, and I oppose military resolution of conflicts. I am not going to apologize for that, or for accurately identifying Clinton as somoene whose advocacy of the use of the military troubles me. I disagree with your entire premise that there is such a thing as a just or moral war.

Just becasue Trump is vile and dangerous and is now dropping bombs (the trigger for the post I responded to) does not excuse Clinton's position on the use of miiltary force - or make her position as right of center in the Democratic Party on this issue miraculously acceptable to me, or one I should apologize for previously criticizing.

I did not start a thread attacking Clinton, I did not say she was the same as Trump. I merely responded to a post I found offensive, beause it implied that Trump's current antics should make those of us who are also concerned about Clinton's advocacy of military solutions should hang our heads in shame.

[JHan]

189. Then...

We can leave that be - I think pacifism and militarism are flip sides of the same coin - extreme views of both lead to loss of life. I take a more central approach to these things...

My views are also colored by my friendships with Iranians ( and syrians) who live in exile. They've all abandoned the left because often atrocities by the state aren't objected to with the same passion as objection to "war" by many on the left. I hate war, and I hate the war industry. But I also know we are impacted - and even benefit- from conflicts even if we're not directly involved. Finding resolutions should be a global concern, international law means nothing if everyone isn't on board and conflicts won't escalate if obscene profits couldn't be made off of them.

[AtheistCrusader]

184. "she would need a U/N coalition to enforce the no fly zone" Why? We didn't need one in Iraq from

1992-2003. The United States, United Kingdom, and France did it unilaterally in Iraq until France pulled out in 1998. Then it was just US and UK.

The UN called it illegal. Didn't stop us. Bill didn't kill the program either.

What basis do you claim that she'd need UN coalition support to do it?


I think you're just reading all this somehow self-evident impending diplomacy into it. There's no reality based support for it.

"So yes, those who fussed about Hillary the hawk, got an impulsive hawk"

Nobody here fucking voted for or advocated voting for Trump. Saying 'we sure would like her to be less hawkish' doesn't translate into 'i'm gonna vote for trump instead'.

That's nonsense. Quit it.

[JHan]

186. Had your little rant? Good

Fact is she could not implement it without diplomacy ...in fact I recall her saying she would need Russia's support.

And I was specifically contextualizing my reply with the OP, there were third party voters who considered Clinton worse than Trump on this issue alone. Yeah I should have made that clearer because my intent Was not to accuse Ms Toad of voting for Trump.

[AtheistCrusader]

188. Russia said 'stop it' in Iraq. Didn't stop us. Didn't stop Bill from continuing it.

There's no basis to assume she'd require, need, or bother with main channel diplomacy were she the one in the White House.

And now, we don't have a political leg to stand on to say 'stop that' because, like Iraq War II (but without formal resolution), we've given tacit political support to do SOMETHING militarily in Syria.


I think it's a mistake. I don't think 'tough' posturing is helpful by us. I think it's horribly destructive because we can't out-tough the Republicans. We talk tough, they grab their guns and their bombs and go ape shit on whomever.

Some people saying 'STOP' and some of us saying 'gosh I wouldn't have done it QUITE like that' makes for mixed messages and no unified opposition to military adventurism. You KNOW the headlines end up 'Trump just did what Hillary advocated' or some wagging-the-dog-ish facsimile thereof.

[JHan]

193. I get all of that but this is what I worry about..

Anti-interventionist talk seems best because no intervention means no risk. No intervention also means conflicts are allowed to escalate. My views on this are really complex because I despise the war industry. I see how it layers over every aspect of our lives and weans us onto accepting insane defense spending, sacrificing domestic policy to feed the beast. But my views are also shaped by people living in exile I know personally, I'll admit that up front.

One of my best friends, an Iranian exile who had to leave Iran when he was 11 with his parents, ( and I know this is anecdotal but his view isn't unusual) liked the MOAB strike - his argument to me was: it was a low body count and an ISIS commander and ISIS base was destroyed. I disagreed with him, concerned that using this bomb sets a precedent we should be worried about. But he is not alone here... There was a column on VICE recently about the missile strike in Syria that spells it out well:

Some of those who suffered the tyranny of Syrian president Bashar al Assad couldn't help but applaud the strike. To these Syrians, the reflexive denouncing of Trump's action shows how little some observers understand the complexity of the Syrian situation. Dismissing the move as imperialist intervention means minimizing the role the Syrian military has played in the conflict. One of the central elements of the war is that the one force that should have been safeguarding Syrian lives—the country's army—is the one killing them.

Remember that the war began in 2011 after Assad sent tanks in response to an initially peaceful uprising in city of Dara'a. This was one of several places where civilians flooded the streets daily to protest against the government and its oppressive policies. As a result, Dara'a was placed under a siege for weeks, a brutal method of punishing and suppressing civil dissent.

The government's perpetuation of repressive tactics across Syria further exposed that the country's leaders were not concerned with Syrian interests, but their own narrow need to hold on to power. Soldiers were commanded to open fire at peaceful protesters, arrest activists, and close down entire cities, towns, and villages. As this mass violence was perpetuated by the government, some officers defected from the military, later forming the armed opposition.

In 2011, I was one of the thousands, maybe millions, of Syrians who joined the nonviolent demonstrations against the injustices of Assad's government. I still remember how, at the beginning, we were naïve enough to believe that the Syrian army would take the side of the uprisings and protect this movement and the people. But as we all know, of course, the opposite happened. We were faced with live bullets and bore the brunt of the army's brutality.

We were deemed terrorists and traitors, told that we deserve to be killed for raising our voice against the president. The forces who were so callously attacking us grew up believing that Assad and his father, Hafez, were some sort of gods, and that whoever expresses disloyalty against these deities deserves to be shot dead without even a trial.

The horror and the fear of the army wasn't felt just during the demonstrations. I remember how my heart dropped every time we stopped on a government checkpoint. I had to delete messages constantly, because soldiers had the right to go through our phones and laptops to make sure we were not participating in any anti-government activities.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/what-trumps-missile-strike-means-for-syrians-like-me

The author cites 2011 as a pivotal year - that was the time to strike. I've long felt the international community - not just the U.S. - should have intervened and nipped Assad's violence, but that never happened. As I said to MsToad in my reply to her, international law doesn't work unless everyone is on board. But adopting a stance of never getting involved can be as callous as an impulsive intervention. There are no easy answers.

[VigilantG]

227. K & R x 100000

[Demsrule86]

42. She wanted to stop them from bombing kids by taking out the air planes and fields...not

wag the dog...and she never advocated nukes and she believe in diplomacy...any third party voter who didn't vote Clinton may have the blood of millions on their hands.

[Ms. Toad]

70. Any time we drop bombs, we also kill (or accept the possibility of death as collateral damge)

I responded to someone taking potshots at those of us who oppose military resolution of conflict - regardless of who is supports it. At this point, as to Syria, Clinton is an advocate of military action. Her current position is consistent with positions that put her near the bottom of my candidate list in the primary. There is no reason to apologize for expressing that opinion then, or now, or for that being one of the criteria I use when deciding which candidate to support.

My part in this conversation has nothing to do with third party candidates. It relates solely to being expected to apologize for believing Clinton is too quick to recommend resorting to military force - and to remind the poster who seemed to suggest that Clinton is not hawkish - that there are objective reasons for that concern; reasons confirmed just hours before Trump bombed the airfields in Syria.

[virtualobserver]

56. not likely, since Hillary advocated a strike on Syria just hours before Trump fired the missiles

[Cha]

232. That's been Hillary's strategy since the campaign..

to take out assad's airfield's. He's been gassing his people for years.' It wouldn't be to change the subject from the Russian collusion with trump to take out the Democratic candidate.

Hillary Welcomed the Syrian Refugees, too.

[virtualobserver]

234. I understand that....

but the people who disagree with that strategy worried about the implications of that choice.

[PatrickforO]

80. You know, a lot of the 'Hillary is a warmonger' folks, as you call them, were decent

people taken in by Russian hacking. There were people putting out memes right and left.

But you know what? Those same people are now in the 'resist' movement, with their US Senators and Representative on speed dial, signing petitions, donating to the DNC, and demonstrating regularly.

Honestly, I've never seen people this galvanized around politics before. That's the silver lining in this shit-brown Trump cloud.

Comments like the one you're making don't help us much. Please don't be divisive. Everyone feels like SHIT because a fuck-wad like Trump was elected in the first place - we wept that night, and YES WE VOTED AND WE SUPPORTED CLINTON.

Now, we're in the biggest danger of nuclear war since the Cuban missile crisis. Unfortunately for us, while Kennedy and Kruschev were both SANE, Trump, Bannon, and Tillerson are NOT, and in addition they are stupid and mean. It's a really bad combination.

Right now, we need to FOCUS WITH SINGLE MINDED INTENSITY on getting this orange puppet OUT of office and cleaning that corrupt house.

In short NYC, we need to be HITTING THE STREETS, NOT EACH OTHER.

[Gothmog]

174. the Hillary is a warmonger folks were idiots who gave us trump

The idiots are no doubt in denial

[TSIAS]

4. Susan Sarandon and Cornel West

Get ready to meet Hitler and Jerry Falwell in hell. You are singlehandedly responsible for the end of the world.

[HopeAgain]

31. Whatever, dude

Such a sense of entitlement...

[Champion Jack]

39. bingo

[BannonsLiver]

169. Agreed

Both West and Susie have a tremendous sense of entitlement.

[LenaBaby61]

81. Susan Sarandon and Cornel West.

Ms. Sarandon having nerve to say that tRumputin being president is a great thing because it's gotten the populace awake. For Ms. Sarandon I guess war, bombs, innocent civilians dying and death in general with no real foreign policy (Except the one run by blackmailer putin) lead by a crazy man in tRumputin is "a good thing" because the populace is awake. And, she must be over the moon because tRumputin's sending Planned Parenthood back to the states IE: defunding it. I mean, women won't have access to birth control, and in many cases men/women won't have access to life-saving cancer screenings/treatment, mammograms, pap smears, well, which in some cases they may end up dying as a result---Yeah, that'll get somebody awake if they're cancer survivors who rely on cancer screenings/help from PP. Yep, they'll be awake alright Ms. Sarandon. Awake

As for West, where's he? Oh that's right, he said that tRumputin was more "authentic" than Hillary. Correct me, but I've heard much from him since the end of 2016. tRumputin's de-funded planned parenthood, and per beauguard--with help from God--police forces around the country will become more militarized and of course going more after blacks/browns/the poor than EVER--gotta fill up those money-making, for-profit prisons. The Muslim ban? Deportation of undocumented people, tearing up families, causing chaos and harm? Has he said anything about russia's intervention into our elections? The last time I heard anything out of him he was blathering on about neo gibberish and about how deplorables were ONLY poor working-class people who voted for tRumputin because of his populism themes vs big and bad neolibralism globalization I guess to him tRumputin & the GOP (Who would LOVE to see 24 million Americans thrown OFF health care) are more "authentic" than the non-reformable Democratic party I guess to him deplorables are poor, misunderstood souls scared to death and frightened by economic insecurity, especially those alt-right deplorables and all those deplorables in the rust belt who think black/browns are lazy and living off government (There are more whites receiving government assistance than uh ).

Doc West, Ms. Sarandon? Any comments about tRumputin's and beauregard's militarized police forces, the butchering of PP, russia interfering into our elections? tRumputin with a seat of his pants, getting his poll numbers up, foreign policy (Which by the way putin's pretty much controlling)? Anything about that Kabuki Theater air strike over in Syria a week ago which took the lives of innocent civilians and which didn't remove the Assad regime or chemical weapons that more than likely will still be used against other innocent babies in Syria who by the way can't come to the USA before their gassed to death? Doc West, what about Kim Jong Un over in N. Korea who wants another Korean war, and what about tRumputin threatening him? Korea's not to be played with. Jong Un is unhinged. One at a time now, don't jump in and talk so negatively about the GOP, beauguard, tRumputin or about his Kabuki Theater with putin his blackmailer/puppet master

I guess since these things don't really have anything to do with Hillary, motor mouth West and dimwit Sarandon are mostly quiet now.

Those 2 Damn clowns

[Cha]

95. "The prominent Sanders backer also predicted that a Hillary Clinton indictment was "inevitable"

ssarandon.. Full of Shite.

Susan Sarandon: Hillary Clinton more dangerous than Donald Trump

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/03/susan_sarandon_hillary_clinton_more_dangerous_than_donald_trump/

poor ssarandon "had to change her phone number.." while the rest of the country that isn't so well off have to worry about this among other trumpshite..

Link to tweet

Good Post, Lena.. Mahalo

[Cha]

93. Nobody said that shit. They fucking helped.

[The Big Ragu]

123. two people are responsible for the end of the world?

[bekkilyn]

141. They are obviously the anti-christ and the false prophet. (nt)

[tazkcmo]

145. How are multiple people

singularly responsible?

[colsohlibgal]

7. Whoa

I get the anger but also very much to blame is the Electoral College and rampant gerrymandering. HRC got over 3 million more votes and there were more democratic votes for congress than republicans got.

[Demsrule86]

43. It is the third party...last time they gave us United...now they gifted us nukes...

a giant fuck you to all of them.

[Baconator]

8. Breathe...

[WomenRising2017]

11. No. I agree with the OP.

Fuck the third party voters and the non voters.

They were a bunch of selfish assholes.

[Baconator]

13. People are responsible for their individual vote...

... but the candidates and their campaigns are responsible for generating the enthusiasm for the turnout that generates a win.

[WomenRising2017]

14. If people were too fucking stupid to understand the stakes in this election

They are too fucking stupid for my forgiveness.

There was plenty of enthusiasm for Hillary's campaign.

Sadly, 70,000 assholes overruled 66 million of us.

[Baconator]

16. I suspect they don't care about your forgiveness...

The real question is how do we get enough of them to keep this from happening again in the future.

I suspect that ideas like those espoused in this thread are not the way to victory.

[WomenRising2017]

17. And I don't really give a shit if they do or not.

They aren't liberal, they aren't progressive and they aren't the left.

We should not bend down to their bigotry and assholery to win elections.

That is not who we are, and it is not who we will ever be.

Fuck them.

[Baconator]

18. So make a stronger case and bring them to our side...

You'll never get them all but you can get some and that can make a difference.

The real question is whether or not you want to win or just talk smack...

[WomenRising2017]

19. No.

They are not on our side and they will never be on our side.

It's not winning if you are sacrificing our core beliefs.

[HopeAgain]

36. Some of them think you all already sacrificed many of those beliefs

Last edited Thu Apr 13, 2017, 11:13 PM - Edit history (1)

My son is an Independent liberal. I have listened to his views and find he is more idealistic, but dedicated to following his conscience. We don't agree on everything but fuck y'all who say Trump was the fault of people like my son.

[ProfessorGAC]

117. You Say Idealistic

I say naive and self-centered. Your son's sense of ideological purity is utter nonsense in the real world.

I don't expect anything other than for you to defend your son. Just know that with no vitriol, i think your son, and folks like him who are driven by windmill tilting, are nearly as dangerous as those who openly espouse selfish, small picture political positions.

[HopeAgain]

120. So he is expected to go along, in lock step

even though I couldn't tell him where the democratic establishment was when he was giving his heart and soul to Occupy? Even though I can't explain to him why they didn't throw much real support behind BLM? I couldn't deny to him Hillary's connections to wall street rather than to main street? His position is that the two-party system must go. I'm not there, but I can't say his position is some kind of treason either.

Dr, Martin Luther King engaged in what people felt was "windmill tipping" and so did Mahatma Ghandi.

To say that people, especially young people, with strong liberal values who vote their conscience are "responsible" for Donald Trump is reprehensible. My son didn't watch him on reality TV and engage in the idolatry that makes an idiot into a hero. My son wasn't the press following Trump around and basically providing free advertising to the disaffected morons of the world. My son doesn't drive a big SUV and make our consumption of oil the predominant factor in American foreign policy. My son lives what he preaches. Does everyone on here do the same? My son isn't responsible for Hillary's blunders or Wasserman-Shultz's stupid emails. Trump was elected by Trump voters. Maybe because of the Russian interference. Maybe because a lot of things, but you people who want to lay it at the feet of people who feel compelled to vote their liberal conscience?

All I can say is: Really? Are you fucking kidding me?

[ProfessorGAC]

122. Hilarious

Point our where i said anything about "lock step". After you find that, (and you won't), then i will address the rest of your post.

And yes, i said windmill tilting. And you're doing it too. People looking for the perfect candidate will never find that person. So, they cut off their own noses to spite their faces. How anybody could possibly think that accomplishes anything amazes me. It's simply inane.

BTW: During the early phases, i was leaning Sanders because i thought this was message we needed, and i thought there were some workable, achievable elements to those positions. Once the primary was over, it was OVER. Now, Stein, Johnson, and Trump were the enemy. There was no way i was moving toward anybody who couldn't win to "show 'em".

And, you seem to think that voting practically automatically means one is not voting one's conscience. You couldn't be further from the truth. Because the POINT of voting is to get someone who has the best chance of enacting the things you believe in. A vote for Stein or Johnson would be useless because they can't enact anything; they had no chance of winning. And a vote for Trump was, well, a dumbass vote for Trump. Not doing that either! So, since i don't tilt at windmills, and i know that who becomes president is not all about me, i made the only logical decision and voted HRC.

People want to sacrifice good on the altar of perfect, they have that right. I have the right to think they have a narrow world view and are naive and selfish.

[HopeAgain]

134. Selfish?

Because they don't accept the way things are? Because they are willing to fight through hard times to make things better?

Listen, I voted for Hillary and even though I was appalled with her behavior, I voted for Wasserman-Shultz. I understand the pragmatist view. But this blame game is such a stupid and self-defeating exercise. There's a lot of millennials out there that are looking for change and if this Party doesn't step back and take a hard look at itself rather than play the "it's somebody else's fault," card, it is doomed.

I honestly and truly am disgusted by the OP. Talk about selfish -- selfish includes taking no responsibility for our own fuck-ups and blaming others for everything.

[ProfessorGAC]

160. Do You Do Stand-Up?

[HopeAgain]

163. Me?

What do you mean? I'm not defending my vote, ya'll loved my votes. I'm simply saying the party needs to be reaching out to these disaffected young liberals or shut up when they vote for someone else. I don't set policy, I didn't come up with "third-way" swings to the right. I don't drone wedding parties. I tried talking to my son, and found that he had some points that although I didn't agree with, had some validity. His point is that if people don't stand up to the two parties and let them know they want something else, the candidates will continue to be people he doesn't believe in.

I don't think there can be anything more undemocratic than condemning a person for voting his conscience. Somebody even implied he was unethical. I would love to know how what he did was unethical. That is truly a my way or the highway attitude. Think like me or you are bad..I'm so glad I didn't raise my son that way.

[stevenleser]

204. This kind of sanctimony is utterly unconvincing and has been since Nader in 2000

If you or anyone else votes in such a way that the end result is people like the Fascist leaders of the mid 1900s or people like George W. Bush or Trump gain power, none of your supposed principles mean anything. It's just self serving nonsense and sanctimony.

[HopeAgain]

238. Clearly you know nothing about being sanctimonious

[stevenleser]

241. Nope, not when it comes to preventing lunatics from getting their hands on nukes and

the rest of our arsenal.

That you defend playing games with that says a lot.

[mcar]

152. So well said!

My 19 YO son voted for the first time in November. He supported Bernie in the primary but happily voted for Hillary in the GE. He is still angry at his friends who voted 3rd party.

Common sense is important.

[bekkilyn]

144. +1000

Good for your son! We need more ethical people in this world.

[GulfCoast66]

33. That dog will no longer hunt here.

There was no convincing the people here who ultimately voted 3rd party or even for Trump. If they did not get their way they were gone.

This is Democratic Underground. A person here who decides not to vote for the candidate of the Democratic party can fuck off far as I am concerned.

Anyone who voted for Trump, a third party or sat it out owns this president. It is on them. And trying to blame it on good liberals for not letting them have their way is just bullshit.

A person who voted against our candidate is not liberal, but a nationalist. And I could give a shit about bringing a nationalist to our side if it means becoming a nationalist or protectionist.

Fortunately most of them migrated to a much more misogynist and nationalistic site where they say what they really believe.

Have a nice evening.

[BlueMTexpat]

187. Having seen such individuals justify their

actions/non-actions for 70+ years, I can tell you that they will NEVER change, so long as they expect OTHERS to do all the work of educating and/or inspiring them and then STILL obstinately refuse to apply logic to their choices.

In my experience, it is people like YOU who are talking "smack." Please go peddle it elsewhere.

[Baconator]

190. It's this "my way or the highway" purity BS...

... that let someone like Trump into the White House.

People don't owe you or the party anything. It's on the people in office, running for office and organizing the campaigns to make the best case possible. The party needs to earn votes and not just demand them because the other guy is worse.

It's entitlement and it's bullshit. Obviously, recent lessons are not sinking in as solidly as they should be.

I hope that the leadership in the party has at least learned something and translates it into wins in 2018 and 2020.

[BlueMTexpat]

191. I am afraid that it is YOU

who have the "my way or the highway" mentality.

Buh-bye!

[Baconator]

192. What's the old saying?

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result...

How's that working out for you?

[Cha]

216. Exactly, Blue.. those who throw "smack" around like

that.. need to look in their damn mirror

[lapucelle]

34. As long as propagandists are willing to dissemble

and enough voters are gullible enough to fall for their ploys, we are in danger of falling into the third party spoiler trap again. Lots of people warned third party voters that what happened in 2000 could happen again. They didn't care.

There is something disgustingly narcissistic about having to be enthused enough to actually do the right thing, especially this year when so many voters were denied their franchise due to the gutting of the Voting Rights Act.

As for forgiveness, they won't get it, and they're too ego-driven to care. I do think, however, that the abject contempt and disdain does bother them deeply, and it's not going away any time soon.

[Charles Bukowski]

59. Let me guess - - you want us to get on our knees

and smooch some Bernie Bro and JillnotHill ass, huh? Maybe we can promise each of them a pony if they vote Dem next time.

[Baconator]

71. I think you should be able to make a convincing case...

... As to why they should vote for who you support.

[LanternWaste]

112. Is anyone arguing otherwise... or are you simply attempting to look relevant and clever?

"I suspect that ideas like those espoused in this thread are not the way to victory..."

Is anyone arguing otherwise... or are you simply attempting to look relevant and clever?

[Baconator]

166. There seems to be little interest in gaining...

.... new voters.

Anyone who didn't conform is seen as forever tarnished and unreachable.

[stevenleser]

205. That's because sanctimony is completely unpersuasive. nt

[Baconator]

223. So do it sans sanctimony...

... And make your case.

That's how you win.

[stevenleser]

242. We don't use sanctimony so we are doing just fine. nt

[Champion Jack]

41. yup

[Demsrule86]

44. Nope the third party assholes who claim to be progressive but allowed Trump

to win by not voting for Hillary...they are scum.

[Skittles]

90. on candidate had RUSSIA AND THE FBI AGAINST HER

[bekkilyn]

142. People would rather blame anyone other than a candidate's responsibility to earn votes

even electoral ones.

[Cha]

101. WE are and We have a Right to Rant while doing so.

[Eliot Rosewater]

126. Wont be able to when the bombs hit and the bombs will be the fault of 3rd party

nonsense.

Period.

Happy now?

[kairos12]

12. +1000

Fuck Drumpt and all his bat shit crazy voters who may get us into shooting wars with NK, Russia, and China.

[Demtexan]

15. Anybody seen the On the Beach.

I think it was called that.
It the last days after after WWW3.
It was in black and white.
It might be on youtube.
Damn.


My sister who for voted for Thump is now worried.

I told her I did not have much to talk about.

[classof56]

20. Yes, I saw the movie, the TV series, and read the book.

Haunts me still. Actually, can't stop thinking about it. That horrible night when tRump was elected, in my struggle to comprehend what had happened, I honestly could not look into the future and see beyond April. April's almost over. Lord help us all!

Welcome to DU and Peace.

[Demtexan]

22. I saw that movie when a little kid.

I watched a few years ago again.

Well I am hoping for the best.

I knew the election was wrong on election night.

Polls are not that wrong.

I think a part of America died that night but another part was born.

The protests helped.

This feels like Oct. 1962.

Just waiting to see what will happen.

[busterbrown]

178. T.V. Series?

I saw the movie too... To this day.. The Coke Bottle caught in the window shade.?

One of the great scenes in Cinema ..

[classof56]

221. It was an Australian TV special in 2000.

Starred Armand Assante, Rachel Ward and Bryan Brown. I found it on YouTube, watched all the episodes, a bit different from the Gregory Peck movie, but for me it was very well done, plus haunting. Took me a long time to get it out of my head. Don't think I can watch it again, but if you have a chance, I'd recommend it. Especially troubling right about now.

All I can say is--lord help us all.

Peace.

[busterbrown]

222. thanks. and got it.. n/t

[VOX]

21. Good book by English/Australian novelist Nevil Shute.

He was an interesting fellow. Had a career as an aeronautical engineer as well.

[Demtexan]

24. I just saw movie.

It was enough for me.

[Gore1FL]

23. Posts like this will do a lot to being them back to voting for Democrats.

It worked so well for November, too!

[WomenRising2017]

27. If they didn't vote for the Democrats in this election,

they are indeed deplorable.

Everyone knew what the stakes were.

[Gore1FL]

37. So you want to keep them voting for other people than your candidate?

That sounds like a poor strategy.

[Demsrule86]

45. Fuck them...they didn't vote for our candidate and can never be trusted...

[oasis]

50. +1

[Gore1FL]

88. So you'd prefer they vote GOP?

That seems like a losing strategy.

[WomenRising2017]

58. Don't you mean "our" candidate.

Fuck them. If they were too fucking stupid to understand the consequences then they are not worth my fucking time.

[Gore1FL]

87. Assuming the you want the Democratic candidate.

If we are going to split hairs, the complaint was whether or not people vote third party or not. It said nothing about them voting for Republicans. I tend to dislike the decision of those who actively voted for Trump over left-leaning people who voted for someone other than the Dem candidate. I consider them ultimate allies in the future rather than people on which to focus my disappointment

[shanti]

79. Right?

[LanternWaste]

113. Eating a tuna salad will do just as much as well.

Eating a tuna salad will do just as much as well. Maybe your petulant, back-handed compliment would be appropriate to those enjoying a tuna fish salad also.

[Gore1FL]

121. I am not sure what tuna salad has to do with not shunning potential allies in future elections

In any event, the original post was more petulant than my observation.

[Eliot Rosewater]

128. Familiar, so if I dont kiss your ass you will vote to kill the human race...sigh

This is what you are saying, I wish you were mature and intelligent enough to realize it.

[Gore1FL]

148. I am saying it's not a good strategy to alienate people that you need help from.

If you must disparage people to feel better, I recommend that you start with people who voted for Trump.

We need people who didn't vote and people who voted third party on our side in the future. To pretend otherwise (especially for the sole purpose of having a tantrum) shows that nothing was learned from the 2016 election cycle.

[Eliot Rosewater]

149. No, you are saying if we arent nice to you , well you will just show us!

again

[Gore1FL]

162. I voted for Clinton in 2016. Your misdirected animosity is getting worse. nt

[Eliot Rosewater]

164. no matter, what matters is the attitude, non unity...not my doing.

[Gore1FL]

167. Bombastic attacks on would-be Democratic voters is not helpful, however.

I'm not sure why this sub-thread requires this many posts to get this point accross. Likewise, I am not sure why the entire thread was necessary at all...

[Eliot Rosewater]

168. this is why

[Gore1FL]

181. I'd prefer not to repeat those results. That's why it important to build rather than burn bridges.

YMMV.

[stevenleser]

206. If you won't vote against a lunatic who might destroy us all because your ego isn't assuaged

you're not worth persuading.

[Gore1FL]

210. Personally, I prefer winning to whining.

YMMV.

[stevenleser]

211. Not according to the record. nt

[Gore1FL]

224. So you think attacking me, despite voting for Clinton in 2016 is a good idea too?

Shitting on people is not the way to gain credibility, build coalitions, win elections, etc.

[VigilantG]

25. Never have to use it

I recall candidate Trump saying that we would have the best military and never have to use it.
Other hand, he also did say he was going to bomb the sh&@ out of ISIS. But I don't believe North Korea is ISIS.
I shudder at the idea of having to explain this insanity to my 5-yr-old.
There are so many things wrong with this stolen presidency, that I get physically sick. We have a lot of domestic and global fence- mending to do once Drumpf is impeached, arrested, indicted...
Hugs to all! ❤️

[Lotusflower70]

28. I understand the anger

And blame but it doesn't change where we are now. We are in the middle of a shit show. Apparently it was needed to wake people up. I hope that Democrats continue to channel it for midterms. People need to lessen the damage and shift the balance of power where we can.

[Demsrule86]

46. All very well and good but not giving these third party traitors a pass.

[Lotusflower70]

53. I know

But what does it do to blame them? Sure it's a momentary outlet but only part of the issue. We still have to deal with the mess we are in right now.

[Eliot Rosewater]

129. Deal with? How? Trump has the nukes, our chance to DEAL with this was in November.

[Lotusflower70]

155. I hear you

But again we can't go back. We have to learn from the mistakes and move forward. And it goes beyond 3rd party voters.

[retrowire]

29. Normally I try to break up the fighting

But if nukes do fly, say whatever the fuck you feel, you know?

[Docreed2003]

68. Such a strange thing to say for someone who's been a member for a day!

[Warren DeMontague]

69. Isn't it?

I wonder where MIRT is.

[triron]

30. Scam election anyway.

[WomenRising2017]

61. Wow.

Thanks a lot.

[vkkv]

35. I've read that the 3rd party votes would NOT have made a difference..

but go ahead an spout whatever nonsense you need to.

[Demsrule86]

47. You read one of their self serving posts...if you look at the numbers...there

was enough to win in all three states if the even half of the votes went to Hillary.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

51. This

[vkkv]

57. Show us the links please

I believe you are wrong.

[Jim Lane]

75. Here are the numbers. You and Demsrule86 are BOTH wrong.

I go to the relevant section of the Wikipedia article on the election, namely the section with state-by-state results.

The table gives the raw vote totals and the percentages. I use the latter because there's less typing. Obviously it comes out the same. Also, I take the issue here to be those who voted third-party on the left, not the Libertarians.

Michigan: Clinton 47.27%, Trump 47.50% (difference 0.23%), Stein 1.07%.
Pennsylvania: Clinton 47.46%, Trump 48.18% (difference 0.72%), Stein 0.81%.
Wisconsin: Clinton 46.45%, Trump 47.22% (difference 0.77%), Stein 1.04%.

So if all the Stein voters in these three states had instead voted for Clinton, she would have carried those three states and won the election; but if only half had voted for her, that would have swung only Michigan, and Trump would still have had an Electoral College majority.

It would take me more work to factor in the other minor parties, such as the Party for Socialism and Liberation, but I'm confident that all those votes combined were too few to affect these conclusions.

Having presented the numbers, let me add that they're not particularly relevant. An electoral result has many causes. It's myopic to say that Trump's win was due solely to leftists who voted for minor-party candidates.

[vkkv]

124. Those #'s mean zilch. It is a big "IF" that 3rd party voters would have voted for HRC

or stayed home.


""So if all the Stein voters in these three states had instead voted for Clinton, she would have carried those three states and won the election; but if only half had voted for her, that would have swung only Michigan, and Trump would still have had an Electoral College majority.
""

[Eliot Rosewater]

130. For every 3rd party vote in that election there were two people who decided NOT to vote

because of all the SHIT 3rd party voters and the GOP were saying about Hillary.

A united front with liberals AND progressives would have avoided this madness.

[Jim Lane]

153. The numbers mean a little bit more than zilch, but certainly don't tell the whole story

In #35 you said, "I've read that the 3rd party votes would NOT have made a difference.." When Demsrule86 disagreed, your #57 quite reasonably asked for the links. I provided the information you'd requested.

As to the broader question of the significance of that information, please see the last paragraph of my response. I don't agree with the people who want to say that anything Trump does is entirely the fault of Jill Stein.

[Cha]

218. If 3rd party Assholes like stein and sarandon hadn't LIED

their damn heads Off and brainwashed those Suckers.. they wouldn't have voted for 3rd party assholes.

So Yes.. it is their fucking fault.

[WomenRising2017]

64. Every vote makes a difference.

there is an asshole in the White House.

[Cha]

94. Oh, because you "read it".. it's true? Go ahead and

spout whatever nonsense you need to.

[betsuni]

96. Prove it.

[Aristus]

49. It won't do any good. They'll go to their radioactive graves smugly congratulating themselves

for not voting for Hillary Clinton.

[Doodley]

54. Ridiculous to attack and insult people who did not vote for Trump.

[Charles Bukowski]

65. They failed to vote for the only candidate capable of

defeating Trump, the single worst presidential candidate in US history. Instead they threw their votes away on Stein or Johnson. That, or they stayed home.

Fuck em.

[Doodley]

83. It is called democracy. Do you believe in it?

[Charles Bukowski]

85. Absolutely. What does that have to do with anything?

Do you make this same excuse for people who actually voted for Trump. Hey, it's democracy, right? No need to be pissed, right?

Third Party voters can eat my shit for this nightmare they helped bring about. Big mouthfuls.

[Eliot Rosewater]

131. Thank you for trump, thank you very much.

[stevenleser]

207. Yes, and we believe we can hold people responsible for their votes and decisions

not voting in such a way as to prevent a lunatic who may destroy us all from coming to power is way too sanctimonious for me.

[Cha]

230. It's called Getting Suckered in by LIES.. Being the

3rd party asshole's TOOL.

[JCanete]

246. so if you buy into a lie, assuming that happened, should you be damned to hell for it? By what logic

are you coming to that conclusion, because you seem all on board with the thread title.

[WomenRising2017]

66. No. It's not.

If you didn't vote for the Democrat, or if you sat out, you voted for Trump.

And if you did that, you are an asshole. There's nothing ridiculous about it.

What's ridiculous are the excuses some people give for this awful Presidency.

[Doodley]

84. I agree Trump is the biggest asshole, but you don't win people over by insulting them.

[NastyRiffraff]

143. "Winning over" "Kissing asses and begging"

and I won't do it. The assholes who voted for Stein or who stayed home have only my contempt. They can whine all they want about how "insulted" they are. Fuck them all.

[PDittie]

103. That's not how voting or even math works

A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton.

A vote for trump is a vote for trump (which is where your anger should be directed).

A vote for anyone else can best be described as "none of the above", or "not falling for it any more", or a couple of other things. But I doubt you will agree.

[Cha]

92. Appropriate to attack assholes like this.. sarandon:..

"The prominent Sanders backer also predicted that a Hillary Clinton indictment was "inevitable"

Susan Sarandon: Hillary Clinton more dangerous than Donald Trump

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/03/susan_sarandon_hillary_clinton_more_dangerous_than_donald_trump/

poor ssarandon "had to change her phone number.." while the rest of the country that isn't so well off have to worry about this among other trumpshite..

Link to tweet

It's ridiculous to not acknowledge how the gd lies helped get us this asshole.

I have to wonder why you try to sweep this under the freaking rug.

[Eliot Rosewater]

133. He is gonna kill either all humans or just a few million.

He really wants to kill the Americans who didnt vote for him.

And there are 3rd party folks here still defending their bullshit.

Makes me so fucking angry I cant talk

[Cha]

196. Of course he'd like to kill us for not voting for him and

to rub it in.. he lost the popular vote to Hillary.. a woman! Had to LIE about that, too.

trump barely squeaked by in the Electoral with the collusion of his Russian agents.

So yes we are good to call out the assholes who enabled this to happen.. no matter how small was their assist.

[MFM008]

73. And there is NO DIFFERENCE

"Between the parties".

[Cha]

99. They look like stupid assholes while the Planet

is on her way to hell.

[betsuni]

76. Hell is 3rd party voters.

This will be my Hell. The thought of being in a room with no exit listening to the bullshit and logical fallacies of 3rd party voters for all eternity... Ahhhhhhh! Goddamn it, think I'll go to church on Easter and try Christianity again, just in case.

[PatrickforO]

77. Let's hope that the nukes NEVER fly, shall we.

Maybe the Trump administration, foolish as it is, and certainly ignorant, will follow that old saying that kept me out of trouble more than once:

Let's NOT, and say we did.

[The_Casual_Observer]

78. This MOAb is just the "taster" it didn't work they are laughing at dump.

After a while dump might just go for the real thing, run the table and send alone big god damn nukes.

[JTFrog]

89. Fuck every last enabler. nt

[Cha]

97. Yeah, Fuck OFF ALL the Enablers for this Fucking Bullshit

We were there fighting trump.. we the fuck knew the nightmares that were to come IF he got elected.. we didn't piss around..

Throwing their gd vote away on a fucking LIAR like stein.. mz Bullshit.

[NurseJackie]

106. Even now, there are those who coddle them, validate them and make excuses for them...

... right here in this very thread, too. Those poor, poor, misunderstood Stein voters. Apparently, they're "only" ones who had a conscience. What a terrible burden it must be for those pure souls to have to exist in this wretched world.



PS: This seems like a perfect time to say once again #FuckYouSusanSarandon

[Cha]

109. Nope.. stein voters were LOW information voters.. the pawn for putin

SUCKED 'em in with her Stupid gd LIES.

I'd hate to be so stupid.

[Eliot Rosewater]

135. I wont be able to watch my family grow up, because of posters in THIS THREAD

who voted 3rd party or not at all and especially because they NON STOP bad mouthed Hillary.

They are still attacking her here, and yet she and her husband and their foundation do more for people in need in ONE DAY than any 10,0000 of these assholes combined do in a FUCKING LIFETIME!

[Marengo]

257. Which posters in this thread voted third party or not at all?

[Cha]

100. Mahalo, Eliot!!!

[democratisphere]

102. If you are a Democrat and you voted, but didn't vote for the DEMOCRATIC

CANDIDATE Hillary Rodham Clinton, then you are an enabler of drumpf. PERIOD!

[Eliot Rosewater]

136. THANKS

[NobodyHere]

105. You attract more flies with honey than vinegar you know

[Cha]

111. NObody wants stupid flies.

[mcar]

154. Thread win!

[Cha]

197. Aloha, mcar

I couldn't believe what I read! lol

[betsuni]

115. Flies don't vote.

[Phentex]

119. and you kill more with a fly swatter than you do with kindness...

Who wants to attract flies? Ok, maybe a frog does but other than that?

[Bradical79]

107. Most Stein voters are fake progressives

Most are stupid people not worth caring about, and represent something like 1% of voters. Non-voters, gerrymandering, and voter supression hurts far more than these people. The other issues being significantly addressed would wipe out the ability of Stein voters to fuck over America again.

Bernie pushed and was catered to with unprecedented influence over the Democratic platform for a losing candidatr, yet that tiny percentage of independents that made up most of Stein's voters were far too deep into propaganda from a regressice and oppresive Russian dictator.

[vi5]

108. What about the former Obama voters?

Why do the many who voted for him but didn't vote for Hillary get off scott-free?

Chances are those third party voters have never voted for a Democratic candidate so not sure why their votes are considered lost votes that somehow cost the election?

[bekkilyn]

146. According to people here, they don't exist

Yes, I brought up this point once.

[vi5]

147. Well, the people here...

...have been wrong about a lot of things. But they can never fail, they can only be failed by people not clapping loudly enough for their bold, establishment, centrist plans.

[yodermon]

110. There will *ALWAYS* be 3rd party voters. ALWAYS. Might as well yell at water for running down hill.

Then when the election is close, and we lose, they by definition get to be blamed. Instead of, like, instrospecting and shit.
but carry on.

[disillusioned73]

137. Agreed..

Introspection, what a novel concept

[Cha]

228. Yeah, and there will always be LYING A$$ Privilege ELITE..

Who sucker in the LOW INFORMATION voter with LIES like these..

"The prominent Sanders backer also predicted that a Hillary Clinton indictment was "inevitable"

Susan Sarandon: Hillary Clinton more dangerous than Donald Trump

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/03/susan_sarandon_hillary_clinton_more_dangerous_than_donald_trump/

poor ssarandon "had to change her phone number.." while the rest of the country that isn't so well off have to worry about this among other trumpshite..

Link to tweet

[Sunsky]

116. +1000000 nt

[jodymarie aimee]

127. Nope, it's not the 3rd party voters

it's the 50% of voters who did NOT vote at all......that's what did us in.....

[Cha]

229. It's also the LYING A$$ Privilege Elite who Sucker

in the LOW INFORMATION voters with LIES like these..

"The prominent Sanders backer also predicted that a Hillary Clinton indictment was "inevitable"

Susan Sarandon: Hillary Clinton more dangerous than Donald Trump

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/03/susan_sarandon_hillary_clinton_more_dangerous_than_donald_trump/

poor ssarandon "had to change her phone number.." while the rest of the country that isn't so well off have to worry about this among other trumpshite..

Link to tweet

[Orsino]

140. 100 million + Trump and non-voters ought to partake of the blame. n/t

[Mariana]

161. What? Blame Trump voters for putting Trump in office?

You can't be serious. They had nothing to do with it. It's people who didn't vote for Trump who are at fault.

[Skittles]

180. *ANYONE* who played a role putting that orange piece of SHIT into office

Trump voters, Russia, Comey, people who didn't vote, people who voted 3rd party ====== *ALL OF THEM PLAYED A ROLE AND THEY DESERVE TO BE CALLED OUT AS STUPID ASSHOLES*

THEY DESERVE TO BE CALLED OUT

[Mariana]

199. And yet, the OP doesn't call them all out.

Only the third party voters - many of whom were probably Republicans who were too disgusted with Trump to vote for him, but would never have voted for Hillary under any circumstances.

It is irrational to rage against third party voters while giving the tens of millions of Trump voters a pass.

[Skittles]

214. I don't give a fuck what the OP misses

THAT IS WHAT *I* AM SAYING

THEY *ALL* HELPED PUT THAT ORANGE PIECE OF SHIT INTO OFFICE - *ALL OF THEM*

[Orsino]

251. And those of us who could have done more, but didn't.

Or aren't. We own him, too.

[Kentonio]

150. Are we going to have to deal with this attitude in 2018 and 2020 too?

I keep reading all these posts screaming at the very people we need to win over for next time, and others saying 'we don't need those traitors!' etc etc etc.

Newsflash: We do need them, and if we treat them with condescension and disrespect we're not going to get their votes. Worse, we might very well be handing their votes to our ideological enemies.

Wake up. Voters don't owe us a goddamn thing, and it's time we started remembering that and putting in the hard work of selling our ideas rather than expecting people to buy them by default.

[stevenleser]

208. Depends, will sanctimony again win over common sense for some?

If so, then yes.

[Kentonio]

213. Ok Steve..

You guys keep pushing away potential voters, and then you can blame it all on those self same voters when they don't vote for us again. And the wheel continues to turn..

[stevenleser]

261. And you keep defending crappy decision that may destroy us all.

Whose decisionmaking is worse?

Mine leads us to us fighting again another day. The course you are defending may lead to us all being vaporized at worst and at best gives us Trump for 4-8 years.

[Kentonio]

263. Just explain to me how saying 'fuck you' to 3rd party voters

Is supposed to save us from nuclear devastation. I'm failing to see the logic.

[That Guy 888]

220. I hear that there are enough suburban Republicans voters ready to change parties...

to make up for any Lefty votes lost. Maybe Henry Kissinger and other serious Republican Elders can endorse some Democratic House and Senate candidates.

of course.

[workinclasszero]

156. Susan Sarandon: Trump more likely to bring 'revolution' than Clinton

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/29/politics/susan-sarandon-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/


Net Worth: $50 Million
http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb/actress/susan-sarandon-net-worth/

[Eliot Rosewater]

157. Saw her on Colbert and nearly ran head first into my TV.

What I wont shut up about is she is NOT alone!

Something happened last year that in different circumstances wouldnt be all bad, young people were woken by Bernie Sanders.

My feelings about his motives are not popular here so I wont go into that, I could be wrong. Regardless, many well meaning young people all of a sudden discovered politics and elections.

The problem is they were told that voting for a mainstream politician simply isnt an option, that both parties are too much alike and they had to vote for a "new" type of candidate, in this case Bernie but in the future, others.

This by itself is not bad, but given the circumstances THEN and NOW, it spells disaster.

[workinclasszero]

158. Yup

And BLOTUS 45 is just getting started. I shudder to think of the vandalism, theft and criminality he and his party will impose on this country by 2020.

[JCanete]

247. um yeah, not in a good way. What's your point. She wasn't saying that Trump was going to be a good

President. She was saying he was going to piss people off and get them into the streets. Whether this was a wise way to affect our politics is worth debating, but she was right, that is happening.

[Wednesdays]

159. I ignore these kinds of threads

Even if the OP's sentiments are genuine, these kinds of discussions offer nothing constructive.

[Eliot Rosewater]

165. Yes and no, I see your point but since we now know the same thing

that led to trump is happening again, here and elsewhere.

So I guess we better talk about it.

[Cha]

217. Yeah, I see you're "ignoring" it.

[Gothmog]

170. A vote for stein or Johnson was a vote for trump

I hope that the idiots who voted for third party candidates are happy

[Eliot Rosewater]

172. Thank you, it is dangerous for me to say that but I am glad you did.

And they arent done, btw

2018, watch for purity tests, if the democrat isnt pure enough, etc.

[Gothmog]

175. Do these idiots are not done

Again a vote for Stein was a vote for Trump and putin

[tomp]

182. what a wonderfully anti-democratic sentiment. nt

[stevenleser]

209. It's not undemocratic at all. That poster didn't say the vote should be illegal

The poster is making a judgement on the quality of the choice and the thought behind it. Surely you aren't so undemocratic as to believe we can't have and voice an opinion on the quality of people's decisions? Or are you anti 1st amendment?

[tomp]

215. there is an intimidating tone behind this entire thread...

that is clearly not democratically minded, or frankly showing much intelligence. one has to wonder who is doing less actual thinking about their vote. one could just as easily condemn the people who voted for hillary in the primary. blaming trump on people who voted differently from you, instead of blaming trump for stealing the election, blaming republicans for gerrymandering, voter suppression, questionable vote negating methods, and using questionable voting machines, is just plain wrong--just more clinton/obama neo-liberal two-party domination clap trap. the reasons for clinton's loss is multifaceted. the list is too long to go into here. try thinking about it a little more instead of alienating progressive people for voting their consciences.

[betsuni]

219. LOL

[BannonsLiver]

171. Judging from some of the responses to this OP....

The Moldova troll farms are up and running again.

[Eliot Rosewater]

173. they accomplished their jobs, I have been put on notice to cut it out

I totally appreciate the admins job and that I make it harder for them, but this is so familiar. sigh

[Kentonio]

200. Ah yes, if we don't join in the two minutes of hate

We must be Russian agitators. Ok..

[Cha]

202. "The prominent Sanders backer also predicted that a Hillary Clinton indictment was "inevitable"

Susan Sarandon: Hillary Clinton more dangerous than Donald Trump

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/03/susan_sarandon_hillary_clinton_more_dangerous_than_donald_trump/

poor ssarandon "had to change her phone number.." while the rest of the country that isn't so well off have to worry about this among other trumpshite..

Link to tweet

Calling out this shit.. while some are so busy trying to sweep it under the rug.. now who would do that?

[Kentonio]

212. Maybe I missed a post

Because the only people I've seen commenting on Susan Sarandon have been those who already share your opinion.

The issue I have is in this hate-fest towards potential voters. You scare them off, and you risk screwing us all up in the next election.

[Cha]

203. Whomever with a gd agenda.

[still_one]

176. The Obama Years: The Power of Words. The Smithsonian Channel has this documentary, and I cannot

watch it with a dry eye.

The anger I feel toward those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary I will never forget or forgive.

[Cary]

177. Vote Democratic!

[Ligyron]

195. Wait, I thought it was all Bernie's fault.

Now I'm confused...

[Cha]

201. Yeah you are.

[Gore1FL]

225. It's easier to grab and attack scapegoats at random than to build coalitions.

If one wants a good demonstration as to why we lose elections this thread and threads like this are a good example of a much larger problem both at DU and the Democratic community as a whole.

I hope the house-cleaning at the DNC will improve things. I'm tired of this needless division.

[brewens]

226. Never mind that insanity definition. HILLARY 2020! It's time for a woman in the White House!

Third times a charm! It's gotta be her turn now!

[JCanete]

231. Uncalled for. People make mistakes, or just evolve how they think on things. We have

a Democrat running for the Governorship of a state who voted for W, not once but twice. W was a horrible President. You can bother to parse just how much worse Trump is in obvious terms, but W was bad in obvious terms as well. We got W for 8 years and we got Alito and Roberts in the bargain.

Is he also worthy of that kind of scorn? If so, why is he considered the Democratic insider in the race?

Let it go. Take people for what they are and stop trying to make them the worst people on earth. It isn't the third party people who lost us this race. It isn't the third party people who lost us previous races. And they aren't sociopaths and they aren't evil. Their intentions, like most people save the very special few, are good. They may be wrong, but sometimes people are wrong. You are hardly acting as a force for any future reflection.

[betsuni]

233. If only the next Democratic candidate for president in the general election

is given the same consideration (not like the last one):

Allowed to not be perfect, to be human
To evolve how they think about things over decades
To make mistakes in voting (like the Senators who voted for the 1994 crime bill that turned out to be a bad idea, but how could they know that then?)
Not be made out to be the worst people on earth, sociopaths and evil (lesser of two evils)
To not assume their intentions are bad and they are Republican Trojan horses

[Cha]

235. Brilliant post, betsuni.. Mahalo!

[betsuni]

236. Thanks!

[R B Garr]

239. Excellent! Thank you, betsuni.

[JCanete]

244. I don't know what you're trying to say. There are some that didn't trust Clinton's intentions.

I disagree with that. Publicly at least Sanders, isn't among them. He called into question her methods and her sympathies. That is hardly the same thing. And if he had thought she were evil and her intentions as well, then he wouldn't have endorsed her, and if most Bernie supporters had thought those things, we wouldn't have voted for her.

I don't know what others, like West or Sarandon believe, but if I were talking to them about vilification of Clinton herself rather than her strategy and perspective, I would say the same thing I've said about villainizing them or third party voters.

There is a certain point though, where I will question the intentions. Lieberman has crossed that threshold with me. He wasn't trustworthy. When it came time for him to be on the side of his previous rhetoric he betrayed us.

I don't know, the crime bill sounds like shit to me, and its not like we didn't have solid thinking on this even back then. Is that the one Sanders voted on? I'm not sure of all the details, but if I read it right, he also railed against its provisions on the floor, and said they were going to villainize the people who we should be providing support for. He was calling into question mass incarceration and the death penalty. I can't account for his vote, but it seems like some people kind of knew these measures were shit then. Supposedly it was because of an assault weapons ban and violence against women provisions, that he voted the way he did, and I think politifact rated that as half-true because that whole process was a little muddy, but I'm not going to entirely explain away that vote. It is a mark on Sander's record.

[stevenleser]

243. How many times do we need to "Let it go"? How many idiots and lunatics need to be elected?

2000 with Nader and "W" wasn't enough? These folks had to learn the lesson again?

What about next time?

[JCanete]

245. Next time will be some of the same people and some different people. It is people's right

to vote third party, even if it does little more than to register support towards certain politics and dissatisfaction with major party offerings.

In the face of the things that really lose us elections, I question your reasoning when you try to pin our losses on the Nader and the Green Party. I find it distasteful as well, because it is a strong-arm attempt to shame and cajole people into voting for a candidate they aren't that fond of...

but when you consider who really delivers the GOP candidates into their seats time after time, that is our corporate media. It is responsible for a far larger population of ignorance and confusion on the facts when it comes to our two major parties. The media has time and time again, made legitimate the illegitimate, ignored voter suppression, potential election fraud, gerrymandering, clear falsehoods by Republican candidates, horrible policy and their natural consequences, and all of this for obvious reasons, which the Democratic party shies away from. We don't take on corporations the way we should because we think we need them. We don't take on their media wing because we don't want to rock that boat. We keep believing in-spite of the evidence, that they are going to turn our way, so we keep kissing their asses and pretending that they are in the business of reporting news. That is the definition of crazy.

[stevenleser]

254. No, that doesn't work. None of that makes sense.

I hold people responsible for making a decision that hurts all of us. It's that simple.

Don't make a decision that hurts us. It's not strongarming to say that. And there is nothing special about voting third party or not voting third party that shields you from criticism.

Folks who didn't vote Hillary made a stupid and crappy decision and we have the right to tell them so and to knock it off and don't make such a bad decision again.

And yes, voting Nader instead of Gore was yet again another stupid and crappy decision that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Folks who do this need to knock it off and stop making bad decisions.

It's not complicated.

[JCanete]

256. Good luck on your inspiring campaign. nt

[stevenleser]

260. And your defense of a course that may lead to nuclear holocaust is!? nt

[JCanete]

262. that your approach certainly did not help to avert it. nt

[stevenleser]

264. Sure it did and obviously so. Just think on it, you'll get it eventually. nt

[ZX86]

237. "That's one ugly baby you got there".

No matter how much you believe something to be true, some things are better left unsaid.

As Democrats we need to keep our eyes on the prize and the prize is not "I told you so", bragging rights. The prize is winning elections. The "Hey asshole vote for me", public relations outreach initiative has little to no chance for success. Political parties win by attracting voters. Not alienating them. This is marketing 101.

Trust me on this. You're not going to see Coke commercial any time soon with the tag line, "Only assholes drink Pepsi".

[GliderGuider]

249. I'm sure the feeling is nmutual.

One of the freedoms conferred by living in a democracy is the right to think that everyone who disagrees with your narrow political view is an asshole.

Sometimes democracy works, sometimes it doesn't. It's the chance you take by living in one.

[Eliot Rosewater]

259. I am sure you are right, that their feeling is allowing the worst human being alive to be

president is oK

[Cha]

252. stein: On war, trump is safer than Clinton..

Link to tweet

Lying piece of pigslop.