In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Making deals isn't a bad thing in and of itself. Sometimes you have to make shitty deals because that's the only way to make progress. But there is a line between making deals to make progress and being a favor-trading sycophant with a long history of what many would refer to as corruption.
Nixon was on the verge of getting to pass a better version of the ACA that would have hugely curtailed healthcare costs and probably "saved" American healthcare for at least another ~20 years from now
It is perhaps telling to look at Nixon's actual legacy. Severely damaged the credibility of the Republican Party and US politics as a whole, led to a need for the Republican party to rebuild its image - which it did with Reagan and became the "party of corporate shilling."
The problem with bad candidates is that they undermine your party. Hillary may very well do that and many of those who explicitly rather than reluctantly support her do so with not a small amount of cognitive dissonance.
I don't think it really matters if there is one. Her shitty reputation is well-earned and that will be enough to hurt the causes that Dems care about even if it doesn't do what Watergate did to the Republicans.
On September 03 2016 07:20 Plansix wrote: Well glad you figured that our for everyone else. I guess we solved it.
It takes a nontrivial amount of cognitive dissonance not to see that a shitty president turns people off from the party that that president is from. And even more so not to see that a candidate with a shitty history is likely to continue that history.
Although perhaps not as much as your previous assertion that Hillary is the anti-Iraq-war candidate.
You seem to forget that I supported the Iraq war, same as her. I don't now and I'm still angry about it. It would be truly hypocritical to for me to hold it against her.
On September 03 2016 07:27 Plansix wrote: You seem to forget that I supported the Iraq war, same as her. I don't now and I'm still angry about it. It would be truly hypocritical to for me to hold it against her.
On September 03 2016 06:30 LegalLord wrote: Holy fuck, people still talk about Clinton as "the lesser of two evils" as if that is a real argument. Let me try to explain why that's just a whole lot of BS.
So, let's go back to earlier in the election. Hillary Clinton was the massive favorite for the Democratic nomination, with no challengers that looked even remotely feasible as opposition. The entire party was also with her because she is just that great of a candidate, and the most electable one that we need to bring into the White House to keep those evil Republicans out. And just look at her record - Children's Defense Fund, favorite of all the worker's unions, pioneer on all social issues, and FP expert as Secretary of State. So was the story sold to the base that ultimately did choose to elect her, after a primary battle with a charming but ultimately unsuccessful party outsider, Bernie Sanders.
Fast forward a few months. Turns out that all those things that make Hillary Clinton such a great candidate were a crock of shit. If you look into her record with some scrutiny you will find that she is far from the paragon of virtue she claims to be. She claimed to be the advocate for children, but some disagree. She claims to stand for union workers, but while the unions support her many of the workers themselves voted for Bernie Sanders because the unions were making deals for their own benefit more so than looking out for their workers. She says she is a pioneer on social issues, but just look on her rather famous flip-flop on gay marriage, along with many other issues that she flip-flops on for convenience. She was indeed the Secretary of State, but between her rather shitty foreign policy record and her extremely careless handling of emails I wouldn't call it a particularly great one. She campaigns on electability but has a worse approval rating than any candidate preceding her.
And so we come to terms with what Hillary Clinton actually is: a person who makes deals and trades favors to gain power. She got an obscene amount of endorsements at the start, basically shutting out any possibility for an establishment candidate to challenge her (which is one reason O'Malley and others just never took off). Her only real challenge was a party outsider and ideologue who would generally never even have a chance to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, and she had support from Medusa (DWS) and the DNC and used it to harm Bernie Sanders when the DNC is supposed to be neutral. And when the truth came out about the DNC in the recent leaks, she gave Medusa a nice golden parachute to thank her for her help. In short, Hillary trades favors with those in power to create the perception that she is such a good candidate and that she is not worth challenging, to deceive the "party regulars" and eliminate the competition within the party.
Those who know Hillary from before this election know that that's exactly what happens. But, surprise surprise, that was validated yet again by all the happenings at around convention time. And guess what? Now it's too late to do a damn thing about it. We're stuck with a shitty candidate who played power games to get the nomination, and the best said candidate can put forward is "at least I'm better than a gaffe-prone reality TV star!"
So yeah, maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump, in the same way that 90% of Bernie voters would vote for Clinton over Trump if they have no other options - vote third party, don't vote, etc. But the "lesser of two evils" argument is just a crock of BS.
I'm sorry, I don't follow you at all. You start and end your post by stating that the 'lesser of two evils' argument is just a crock of BS. The middle of your post is full of reasons why Hillary is a bad candidate. And then the second-to-last thing you write is that 'maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump'. How are you reaching the conclusion that maybe you'd vote for Clinton over Trump if not for the lesser of two evils reasoning?
On September 03 2016 07:27 Plansix wrote: You seem to forget that I supported the Iraq war, same as her. I don't now and I'm still angry about it. It would be truly hypocritical to for me to hold it against her.
On September 03 2016 07:27 Plansix wrote: You seem to forget that I supported the Iraq war, same as her. I don't now and I'm still angry about it. It would be truly hypocritical to for me to hold it against her.
Hold on so whats wrong with that ? Exactly ? Believe me youwill never even come close to hating american neo imperialism like I do but in a the 29 sec vaccum that is that video that statement is pretty harmless. Stick to hating on cops bro.
On September 03 2016 06:30 LegalLord wrote: Holy fuck, people still talk about Clinton as "the lesser of two evils" as if that is a real argument. Let me try to explain why that's just a whole lot of BS.
So, let's go back to earlier in the election. Hillary Clinton was the massive favorite for the Democratic nomination, with no challengers that looked even remotely feasible as opposition. The entire party was also with her because she is just that great of a candidate, and the most electable one that we need to bring into the White House to keep those evil Republicans out. And just look at her record - Children's Defense Fund, favorite of all the worker's unions, pioneer on all social issues, and FP expert as Secretary of State. So was the story sold to the base that ultimately did choose to elect her, after a primary battle with a charming but ultimately unsuccessful party outsider, Bernie Sanders.
Fast forward a few months. Turns out that all those things that make Hillary Clinton such a great candidate were a crock of shit. If you look into her record with some scrutiny you will find that she is far from the paragon of virtue she claims to be. She claimed to be the advocate for children, but some disagree. She claims to stand for union workers, but while the unions support her many of the workers themselves voted for Bernie Sanders because the unions were making deals for their own benefit more so than looking out for their workers. She says she is a pioneer on social issues, but just look on her rather famous flip-flop on gay marriage, along with many other issues that she flip-flops on for convenience. She was indeed the Secretary of State, but between her rather shitty foreign policy record and her extremely careless handling of emails I wouldn't call it a particularly great one. She campaigns on electability but has a worse approval rating than any candidate preceding her.
And so we come to terms with what Hillary Clinton actually is: a person who makes deals and trades favors to gain power. She got an obscene amount of endorsements at the start, basically shutting out any possibility for an establishment candidate to challenge her (which is one reason O'Malley and others just never took off). Her only real challenge was a party outsider and ideologue who would generally never even have a chance to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, and she had support from Medusa (DWS) and the DNC and used it to harm Bernie Sanders when the DNC is supposed to be neutral. And when the truth came out about the DNC in the recent leaks, she gave Medusa a nice golden parachute to thank her for her help. In short, Hillary trades favors with those in power to create the perception that she is such a good candidate and that she is not worth challenging, to deceive the "party regulars" and eliminate the competition within the party.
Those who know Hillary from before this election know that that's exactly what happens. But, surprise surprise, that was validated yet again by all the happenings at around convention time. And guess what? Now it's too late to do a damn thing about it. We're stuck with a shitty candidate who played power games to get the nomination, and the best said candidate can put forward is "at least I'm better than a gaffe-prone reality TV star!"
So yeah, maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump, in the same way that 90% of Bernie voters would vote for Clinton over Trump if they have no other options - vote third party, don't vote, etc. But the "lesser of two evils" argument is just a crock of BS.
I'm sorry, I don't follow you at all. You start and end your post by stating that the 'lesser of two evils' argument is just a crock of BS. The middle of your post is full of reasons why Hillary is a bad candidate. And then the second-to-last thing you write is that 'maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump'. How are you reaching the conclusion that maybe you'd vote for Clinton over Trump if not for the lesser of two evils reasoning?
Because it's a coerced choice. While on its face it may be true that I would rather vote Hillary than Trump there is a reason that there was no other choice in the first place.
On September 03 2016 07:13 LegalLord wrote: It is perhaps telling to look at Nixon's actual legacy. Severely damaged the credibility of the Republican Party and US politics as a whole, led to a need for the Republican party to rebuild its image - which it did with Reagan and became the "party of corporate shilling."
How about "redefined the geopolitical climate of the Cold War through detente with China"?
Though I'll admit that I'm a bit biased on that one since in an alternate universe where Richard Nixon was never president, I probably wouldn't exist.
On September 03 2016 06:30 LegalLord wrote: Holy fuck, people still talk about Clinton as "the lesser of two evils" as if that is a real argument. Let me try to explain why that's just a whole lot of BS.
So, let's go back to earlier in the election. Hillary Clinton was the massive favorite for the Democratic nomination, with no challengers that looked even remotely feasible as opposition. The entire party was also with her because she is just that great of a candidate, and the most electable one that we need to bring into the White House to keep those evil Republicans out. And just look at her record - Children's Defense Fund, favorite of all the worker's unions, pioneer on all social issues, and FP expert as Secretary of State. So was the story sold to the base that ultimately did choose to elect her, after a primary battle with a charming but ultimately unsuccessful party outsider, Bernie Sanders.
Fast forward a few months. Turns out that all those things that make Hillary Clinton such a great candidate were a crock of shit. If you look into her record with some scrutiny you will find that she is far from the paragon of virtue she claims to be. She claimed to be the advocate for children, but some disagree. She claims to stand for union workers, but while the unions support her many of the workers themselves voted for Bernie Sanders because the unions were making deals for their own benefit more so than looking out for their workers. She says she is a pioneer on social issues, but just look on her rather famous flip-flop on gay marriage, along with many other issues that she flip-flops on for convenience. She was indeed the Secretary of State, but between her rather shitty foreign policy record and her extremely careless handling of emails I wouldn't call it a particularly great one. She campaigns on electability but has a worse approval rating than any candidate preceding her.
And so we come to terms with what Hillary Clinton actually is: a person who makes deals and trades favors to gain power. She got an obscene amount of endorsements at the start, basically shutting out any possibility for an establishment candidate to challenge her (which is one reason O'Malley and others just never took off). Her only real challenge was a party outsider and ideologue who would generally never even have a chance to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, and she had support from Medusa (DWS) and the DNC and used it to harm Bernie Sanders when the DNC is supposed to be neutral. And when the truth came out about the DNC in the recent leaks, she gave Medusa a nice golden parachute to thank her for her help. In short, Hillary trades favors with those in power to create the perception that she is such a good candidate and that she is not worth challenging, to deceive the "party regulars" and eliminate the competition within the party.
Those who know Hillary from before this election know that that's exactly what happens. But, surprise surprise, that was validated yet again by all the happenings at around convention time. And guess what? Now it's too late to do a damn thing about it. We're stuck with a shitty candidate who played power games to get the nomination, and the best said candidate can put forward is "at least I'm better than a gaffe-prone reality TV star!"
So yeah, maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump, in the same way that 90% of Bernie voters would vote for Clinton over Trump if they have no other options - vote third party, don't vote, etc. But the "lesser of two evils" argument is just a crock of BS.
I'm sorry, I don't follow you at all. You start and end your post by stating that the 'lesser of two evils' argument is just a crock of BS. The middle of your post is full of reasons why Hillary is a bad candidate. And then the second-to-last thing you write is that 'maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump'. How are you reaching the conclusion that maybe you'd vote for Clinton over Trump if not for the lesser of two evils reasoning?
Because it's a coerced choice. While on its face it may be true that I would rather vote Hillary than Trump there is a reason that there was no other choice in the first place.
Long winded diatribe on why people shouldnt settle for less. I bet your parents told you, you could touch the moon if you tried hard enough.
On September 03 2016 07:27 Plansix wrote: You seem to forget that I supported the Iraq war, same as her. I don't now and I'm still angry about it. It would be truly hypocritical to for me to hold it against her.
When then-U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war against Iraq in 2002, she justified her support of the invasion as a way to protect America’s national security. But less than a decade later, as secretary of state, Clinton promoted the war-torn country as a place where American corporations could make big money.
“It's time for the United States to start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity," she said in a 2011 speech.
The quote was included in an email released by the State Department on Wednesday that specifically mentioned JPMorgan and Exxon Mobil. JPMorgan was selected by the U.S. government to run a key import-export bank in Iraq and in 2013 announced plans to expand its operations in the country. Exxon Mobil signed a deal to redevelop Iraqi oil fields. JPMorgan has collectively paid the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation at least $450,000 for speeches, and Exxon Mobil has donated over $1 million to the family’s foundation.
In the aftermath of the Iraq War, the Bush administration pushed to privatize wide swaths of the Iraqi economy. Many prominent political voices charged that the conflict was not about national security or a humanitarian mission against a dictator but was instead an attempt to use military force to open up Iraq’s closed economy to foreign corporations -- including oil giants like Exxon Mobil.
In 2007, for example, then-Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said: “People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs.” That same year, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan wrote: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Former General General John Abizaid said of the war: ‘‘Of course it’s about oil, it’s very much about oil -- and we can’t really deny that.”
On September 03 2016 07:13 LegalLord wrote: It is perhaps telling to look at Nixon's actual legacy. Severely damaged the credibility of the Republican Party and US politics as a whole, led to a need for the Republican party to rebuild its image - which it did with Reagan and became the "party of corporate shilling."
How about "redefined the geopolitical climate of the Cold War through detente with China"?
Though I'll admit that I'm a bit biased on that one since in an alternate universe where Richard Nixon was never president, I probably wouldn't exist.
Nixon had his strengths. If you read one of my slightly earlier posts, I did note that there are reasons to argue that Nixon was alright - but I don't think it would be the same people who are arguing for Hillary being good because of all her backroom dealings.
On September 03 2016 06:30 LegalLord wrote: Holy fuck, people still talk about Clinton as "the lesser of two evils" as if that is a real argument. Let me try to explain why that's just a whole lot of BS.
So, let's go back to earlier in the election. Hillary Clinton was the massive favorite for the Democratic nomination, with no challengers that looked even remotely feasible as opposition. The entire party was also with her because she is just that great of a candidate, and the most electable one that we need to bring into the White House to keep those evil Republicans out. And just look at her record - Children's Defense Fund, favorite of all the worker's unions, pioneer on all social issues, and FP expert as Secretary of State. So was the story sold to the base that ultimately did choose to elect her, after a primary battle with a charming but ultimately unsuccessful party outsider, Bernie Sanders.
Fast forward a few months. Turns out that all those things that make Hillary Clinton such a great candidate were a crock of shit. If you look into her record with some scrutiny you will find that she is far from the paragon of virtue she claims to be. She claimed to be the advocate for children, but some disagree. She claims to stand for union workers, but while the unions support her many of the workers themselves voted for Bernie Sanders because the unions were making deals for their own benefit more so than looking out for their workers. She says she is a pioneer on social issues, but just look on her rather famous flip-flop on gay marriage, along with many other issues that she flip-flops on for convenience. She was indeed the Secretary of State, but between her rather shitty foreign policy record and her extremely careless handling of emails I wouldn't call it a particularly great one. She campaigns on electability but has a worse approval rating than any candidate preceding her.
And so we come to terms with what Hillary Clinton actually is: a person who makes deals and trades favors to gain power. She got an obscene amount of endorsements at the start, basically shutting out any possibility for an establishment candidate to challenge her (which is one reason O'Malley and others just never took off). Her only real challenge was a party outsider and ideologue who would generally never even have a chance to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, and she had support from Medusa (DWS) and the DNC and used it to harm Bernie Sanders when the DNC is supposed to be neutral. And when the truth came out about the DNC in the recent leaks, she gave Medusa a nice golden parachute to thank her for her help. In short, Hillary trades favors with those in power to create the perception that she is such a good candidate and that she is not worth challenging, to deceive the "party regulars" and eliminate the competition within the party.
Those who know Hillary from before this election know that that's exactly what happens. But, surprise surprise, that was validated yet again by all the happenings at around convention time. And guess what? Now it's too late to do a damn thing about it. We're stuck with a shitty candidate who played power games to get the nomination, and the best said candidate can put forward is "at least I'm better than a gaffe-prone reality TV star!"
So yeah, maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump, in the same way that 90% of Bernie voters would vote for Clinton over Trump if they have no other options - vote third party, don't vote, etc. But the "lesser of two evils" argument is just a crock of BS.
I'm sorry, I don't follow you at all. You start and end your post by stating that the 'lesser of two evils' argument is just a crock of BS. The middle of your post is full of reasons why Hillary is a bad candidate. And then the second-to-last thing you write is that 'maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump'. How are you reaching the conclusion that maybe you'd vote for Clinton over Trump if not for the lesser of two evils reasoning?
Because it's a coerced choice. While on its face it may be true that I would rather vote Hillary than Trump there is a reason that there was no other choice in the first place.
Long winded diatribe on why people shouldnt settle for less. I bet your parents told you, you could touch the moon if you tried hard enough.
As usual, you throw away any form of nuance in exchange for the chance to toss out some snark. Good job.
On September 03 2016 07:27 Plansix wrote: You seem to forget that I supported the Iraq war, same as her. I don't now and I'm still angry about it. It would be truly hypocritical to for me to hold it against her.
When then-U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war against Iraq in 2002, she justified her support of the invasion as a way to protect America’s national security. But less than a decade later, as secretary of state, Clinton promoted the war-torn country as a place where American corporations could make big money.
“It's time for the United States to start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity," she said in a 2011 speech.
The quote was included in an email released by the State Department on Wednesday that specifically mentioned JPMorgan and Exxon Mobil. JPMorgan was selected by the U.S. government to run a key import-export bank in Iraq and in 2013 announced plans to expand its operations in the country. Exxon Mobil signed a deal to redevelop Iraqi oil fields. JPMorgan has collectively paid the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation at least $450,000 for speeches, and Exxon Mobil has donated over $1 million to the family’s foundation.
In the aftermath of the Iraq War, the Bush administration pushed to privatize wide swaths of the Iraqi economy. Many prominent political voices charged that the conflict was not about national security or a humanitarian mission against a dictator but was instead an attempt to use military force to open up Iraq’s closed economy to foreign corporations -- including oil giants like Exxon Mobil.
In 2007, for example, then-Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said: “People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs.” That same year, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan wrote: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Former General General John Abizaid said of the war: ‘‘Of course it’s about oil, it’s very much about oil -- and we can’t really deny that.”
On September 03 2016 06:30 LegalLord wrote: Holy fuck, people still talk about Clinton as "the lesser of two evils" as if that is a real argument. Let me try to explain why that's just a whole lot of BS.
So, let's go back to earlier in the election. Hillary Clinton was the massive favorite for the Democratic nomination, with no challengers that looked even remotely feasible as opposition. The entire party was also with her because she is just that great of a candidate, and the most electable one that we need to bring into the White House to keep those evil Republicans out. And just look at her record - Children's Defense Fund, favorite of all the worker's unions, pioneer on all social issues, and FP expert as Secretary of State. So was the story sold to the base that ultimately did choose to elect her, after a primary battle with a charming but ultimately unsuccessful party outsider, Bernie Sanders.
Fast forward a few months. Turns out that all those things that make Hillary Clinton such a great candidate were a crock of shit. If you look into her record with some scrutiny you will find that she is far from the paragon of virtue she claims to be. She claimed to be the advocate for children, but some disagree. She claims to stand for union workers, but while the unions support her many of the workers themselves voted for Bernie Sanders because the unions were making deals for their own benefit more so than looking out for their workers. She says she is a pioneer on social issues, but just look on her rather famous flip-flop on gay marriage, along with many other issues that she flip-flops on for convenience. She was indeed the Secretary of State, but between her rather shitty foreign policy record and her extremely careless handling of emails I wouldn't call it a particularly great one. She campaigns on electability but has a worse approval rating than any candidate preceding her.
And so we come to terms with what Hillary Clinton actually is: a person who makes deals and trades favors to gain power. She got an obscene amount of endorsements at the start, basically shutting out any possibility for an establishment candidate to challenge her (which is one reason O'Malley and others just never took off). Her only real challenge was a party outsider and ideologue who would generally never even have a chance to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, and she had support from Medusa (DWS) and the DNC and used it to harm Bernie Sanders when the DNC is supposed to be neutral. And when the truth came out about the DNC in the recent leaks, she gave Medusa a nice golden parachute to thank her for her help. In short, Hillary trades favors with those in power to create the perception that she is such a good candidate and that she is not worth challenging, to deceive the "party regulars" and eliminate the competition within the party.
Those who know Hillary from before this election know that that's exactly what happens. But, surprise surprise, that was validated yet again by all the happenings at around convention time. And guess what? Now it's too late to do a damn thing about it. We're stuck with a shitty candidate who played power games to get the nomination, and the best said candidate can put forward is "at least I'm better than a gaffe-prone reality TV star!"
So yeah, maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump, in the same way that 90% of Bernie voters would vote for Clinton over Trump if they have no other options - vote third party, don't vote, etc. But the "lesser of two evils" argument is just a crock of BS.
I'm sorry, I don't follow you at all. You start and end your post by stating that the 'lesser of two evils' argument is just a crock of BS. The middle of your post is full of reasons why Hillary is a bad candidate. And then the second-to-last thing you write is that 'maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump'. How are you reaching the conclusion that maybe you'd vote for Clinton over Trump if not for the lesser of two evils reasoning?
Because it's a coerced choice. While on its face it may be true that I would rather vote Hillary than Trump there is a reason that there was no other choice in the first place.
That only works for people that don't consider that there's a significant enough difference in shittiness between the two, which is a minority as seen in polls.
On September 03 2016 06:30 LegalLord wrote: Holy fuck, people still talk about Clinton as "the lesser of two evils" as if that is a real argument. Let me try to explain why that's just a whole lot of BS.
So, let's go back to earlier in the election. Hillary Clinton was the massive favorite for the Democratic nomination, with no challengers that looked even remotely feasible as opposition. The entire party was also with her because she is just that great of a candidate, and the most electable one that we need to bring into the White House to keep those evil Republicans out. And just look at her record - Children's Defense Fund, favorite of all the worker's unions, pioneer on all social issues, and FP expert as Secretary of State. So was the story sold to the base that ultimately did choose to elect her, after a primary battle with a charming but ultimately unsuccessful party outsider, Bernie Sanders.
Fast forward a few months. Turns out that all those things that make Hillary Clinton such a great candidate were a crock of shit. If you look into her record with some scrutiny you will find that she is far from the paragon of virtue she claims to be. She claimed to be the advocate for children, but some disagree. She claims to stand for union workers, but while the unions support her many of the workers themselves voted for Bernie Sanders because the unions were making deals for their own benefit more so than looking out for their workers. She says she is a pioneer on social issues, but just look on her rather famous flip-flop on gay marriage, along with many other issues that she flip-flops on for convenience. She was indeed the Secretary of State, but between her rather shitty foreign policy record and her extremely careless handling of emails I wouldn't call it a particularly great one. She campaigns on electability but has a worse approval rating than any candidate preceding her.
And so we come to terms with what Hillary Clinton actually is: a person who makes deals and trades favors to gain power. She got an obscene amount of endorsements at the start, basically shutting out any possibility for an establishment candidate to challenge her (which is one reason O'Malley and others just never took off). Her only real challenge was a party outsider and ideologue who would generally never even have a chance to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, and she had support from Medusa (DWS) and the DNC and used it to harm Bernie Sanders when the DNC is supposed to be neutral. And when the truth came out about the DNC in the recent leaks, she gave Medusa a nice golden parachute to thank her for her help. In short, Hillary trades favors with those in power to create the perception that she is such a good candidate and that she is not worth challenging, to deceive the "party regulars" and eliminate the competition within the party.
Those who know Hillary from before this election know that that's exactly what happens. But, surprise surprise, that was validated yet again by all the happenings at around convention time. And guess what? Now it's too late to do a damn thing about it. We're stuck with a shitty candidate who played power games to get the nomination, and the best said candidate can put forward is "at least I'm better than a gaffe-prone reality TV star!"
So yeah, maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump, in the same way that 90% of Bernie voters would vote for Clinton over Trump if they have no other options - vote third party, don't vote, etc. But the "lesser of two evils" argument is just a crock of BS.
I'm sorry, I don't follow you at all. You start and end your post by stating that the 'lesser of two evils' argument is just a crock of BS. The middle of your post is full of reasons why Hillary is a bad candidate. And then the second-to-last thing you write is that 'maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump'. How are you reaching the conclusion that maybe you'd vote for Clinton over Trump if not for the lesser of two evils reasoning?
Because it's a coerced choice. While on its face it may be true that I would rather vote Hillary than Trump there is a reason that there was no other choice in the first place.
That only works for people that don't consider that there's a significant enough difference in shittiness between the two, which is a minority as seen in polls.
Way to miss the point. Yes, Hillary > Trump for most voters. But Hillary > Dem challengers was a coerced choice.
EPT
