news Hillary Clinton on election: "Get over yourself, those are the 2 choices"

[mig123]

7 minutes ago, Princess Aurora said:

Oh true. I forgot but I think something's changing. Hopefully, the third party will be a fair and good one and not History repeating itself  My home country voted for some third parties btw.

Maybe if people start a grassroots movement from now until 2028… and get a third party gets momentum it's possible 

 

But as of now A third party is just college kids, atrl and twitter illusion 

[LIDDOATIN]

Both TRASH

 

BIDEN is the lesser evil.. TRUMP would literally increase ISRAEL Support by tenfolds and maybe shift US' NATO alliance or sell UKRAINE to Russia

[Princess Aurora]

12 minutes ago, LIDDOATIN said:

Both TRASH

 

BIDEN is the lesser evil.. TRUMP would literally increase ISRAEL Support by tenfolds and maybe shift US' NATO alliance or sell UKRAINE to Russia

This. Especially Russia could attack other neighboring NATO countries. I know the GOP hates Western Europeans from a Political and social level but I don't think anybody wants a repetition of the last century

Edited April 3 by Princess Aurora

[Virgos Groove]

8 hours ago, thesegayz said:

Literally, this is Vietnam for Israel.

It's funny you say that since Vietnam supported Palestine, like pretty much all anti-colonial states. Israel, on the other hand, was allies with Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa.

[visions]

I actually used to think like the "lesser of two evils" people in here so I can understand where you're coming from. I realised that if you want change, REAL change, you can't keep reinforcing the structure you feel trapped in, with continually voting for the "lesser of two evils". 

 

Voting third party is only seen as a "wasted vote" because of this mentality. Voting for who you would actually want in power is the ONLY way to be represented. And if none of the parties represent you, then don't vote until someone comes about who does. You can complain about "oh but the system" yet you're keeping the system in place by doing exactly what they want you to, voting based on fear of someone winning rather than voting for someone you believe will bring positive change. 

[shyboi]

1 minute ago, visions said:

I actually used to think like the "lesser of two evils" people in here so I can understand where you're coming from. I realised that if you want change, REAL change, you can't keep reinforcing the structure you feel trapped in, with continually voting for the "lesser of two evils". 

 

Voting third party is only seen as a "wasted vote" because of this mentality. Voting for who you would actually want in power is the ONLY way to be represented. And if none of the parties represent you, then don't vote until someone comes about who does. You can complain about "oh but the system" yet you're keeping the system in place by doing exactly what they want you to, voting based on fear of someone winning rather than voting for someone you believe will bring positive change. 

 

MTE

 

the voting for the "lesser of two evils" is such dated robotic behaviour 

 

vote third party or don't vote at all, it might be harsh in the short term but it will set an important precedent for the future, even if it's 4 or 8 years from now idc 

[visions]

27 minutes ago, shyboi said:

 

MTE

 

the voting for the "lesser of two evils" is such dated robotic behaviour 

 

vote third party or don't vote at all, it might be harsh in the short term but it will set an important precedent for the future, even if it's 4 or 8 years from now idc 

Exactly, the more people who refuse to take part in the two party system, the more the ball will get rolling for future elections to look more positive in switching things up.

 

People should be taking action to set the future generations up as well as they can be, even if it is slightly worse for the short term. 

[Rep2000]

5 hours ago, ClashAndBurn said:

So the takeaway is there's nothing the Democrats can possibly do, so they're surrendering on Roe? All they can do is just hope the problem doesn't spread to blue states via a federal ban?

 

Lol. Pathetic. If that's the case, then blue states don't really deserve protections either if their plan is to throw the rest of the country to the wolves  

Of course you would have an spiteful "don't really deserve thing either" mentality. Pathetic.

[Rep2000]

3 hours ago, shyboi said:

 

MTE

 

the voting for the "lesser of two evils" is such dated robotic behaviour 

 

vote third party or don't vote at all, it might be harsh in the short term but it will set an important precedent for the future, even if it's 4 or 8 years from now idc 

It's time to remind people that those "miGHt bE haRsH in the sHorT tERm" consequence is not gonna lead to progressive change. Like, at all.

 

You do realize that losing the 2016 election is why we have this ****** up SC for *generations* in 2024, right?! Right?!

 

Edited April 3 by Rep2000

[DAP]

Damn, with how irritated she was you'd think she just saw a brown person living a dignified life.

[Communion]

10 hours ago, Rep2000 said:

Then you are speaking from a position of privilege

Privilege actually aligns more with people who vote than those who don't vote. 

 

The argument that not voting is rooted in privilege doesn't work. It actually undercuts your argument when examining reality and makes you look out touch. 

 

Come up with something new. 

 

 

[Jjang]

what a *****. 

[Communion]

9 hours ago, Jotham said:

why white leftists

There is something insidious about non-black liberals like yourself trying to obscure that Clinton's loss was st the hands of working class urban black Americans who simply didn't think she had anything to offer them or cared about them.

 

Clinton lost because she was unappealing to poor black voters in the Rust Belt. That's the singular reality. She would have won easily had turnout not collapsed amongst the poorest of black voters in that region. No misdirection of privilege or white leftists will change that her brand of finger wagging and neoliberalism was unpalatable to people she needed to win.

 

 

 

Edited April 3 by Communion

[Rep2000]

4 minutes ago, Communion said:

Privilege actually aligns more with people who vote than those who don't vote. 

 

The argument that not voting is rooted in privilege doesn't work. It actually undercuts your argument when examining reality and makes you look out touch. 

 

Come up with something new. 

 

 

Oh yes, let's only read one (1) sentence of my whole comment with a gotcha and call it a day, shall you? Clownery.
 

[Communion]

Just now, Rep2000 said:

Oh yes, let's only read one (1) sentence of my whole comment with a gotcha and call it a day, shall you? Clownery.
 

I don't need to read anything else. You're using privilege as a snarl term. Something to virtue signal to try and attack the character of the person making the argument and not the respond to the argument itself. Because it'd be obscene to suggest anyone who has material connection to an ongoing genocide is privileged. What do you think privilege is? It's not a set of adjectives on a paper. It's a summary of one's material reality. 

 

You're embodying privilege now in scolding people that the killing of their relatives or loved ones in another country at the hands of Biden shouldn't impact their view of American elections. 

[State of Grace.]

1 hour ago, DAP said:

Damn, with how irritated she was you'd think she just saw a brown person living a dignified life.

[GhostBox]

1 hour ago, Rep2000 said:

It's time to remind people that those "miGHt bE haRsH in the sHorT tERm" consequence is not gonna lead to progressive change. Like, at all.

 

You do realize that losing the 2016 election is why we have this ****** up SC for *generations* in 2024, right?! Right?!

 

Exactly. 

[Marla Singer]

This kind of arrogance and contempt for the voters is why she lost to Trump.

[Kassi]

8 hours ago, visions said:

I actually used to think like the "lesser of two evils" people in here so I can understand where you're coming from. I realised that if you want change, REAL change, you can't keep reinforcing the structure you feel trapped in, with continually voting for the "lesser of two evils". 

 

Voting third party is only seen as a "wasted vote" because of this mentality. Voting for who you would actually want in power is the ONLY way to be represented. And if none of the parties represent you, then don't vote until someone comes about who does. You can complain about "oh but the system" yet you're keeping the system in place by doing exactly what they want you to, voting based on fear of someone winning rather than voting for someone you believe will bring positive change. 

While the desire for "representation" may appear rational on the surface, it's an extremely emotional sentiment. The only direct, measurable impact of voting for a third party in an electoral system primarily designed to favor two major parties is conceding power to one of them by way of vote splitting. It's a feel-good measure with no tangible material benefits.
 

Any other suggested outcome is unsubstantiated and unsupported by real life events.

Choosing between the 'lesser of two evils' in elections can indeed feel unsatisfying. However, it's essential to recognize voting is a crucial step towards gradual, sustainable change. This approach to change, methodical and steady, is often more sustainable because it allows for adaptation and refinement along the way. It encourages broader consensus-building and ensures that changes are deeply integrated into the societal fabric, making them more resilient to backlash and reversal. That is REAL change.

Many of the people advocating for voting third party are doing so out of a totalitarian impulse for a candidate to fully reflect all of one's personal beliefs. This is evident in the extremes of both the political left and right (i.e. MAGAS), where the craving for ideological purity challenges the democratic ethos of compromise and diversity.
 

Meanwhile, they undermine the strategic significance of voting within the two-party framework as a signal to the parties of which values and policies voters want to see prioritized — all in favor of imagined revolutionary change. Which is exactly what you're insinuating by deriding how voting is "keeping the system in place". Because what's the alternative to the constitutionally mandated electoral system? There has never been a viable third party because they always consolidate to two.

[Communion]

25 minutes ago, Kassi said:

While the desire for "representation" may appear rational on the surface, it's an extremely emotional sentiment. The only direct, measurable impact of voting for a third party in an electoral system primarily designed to favor two major parties is conceding power to one of them by way of vote splitting. It's a feel-good measure with no tangible material benefits.
 

Any other suggested outcome is unsubstantiated and unsupported by real life events.

Choosing between the 'lesser of two evils' in elections can indeed feel unsatisfying. However, it's essential to recognize voting is a crucial step towards gradual, sustainable change. This approach to change, methodical and steady, is often more sustainable because it allows for adaptation and refinement along the way. It encourages broader consensus-building and ensures that changes are deeply integrated into the societal fabric, making them more resilient to backlash and reversal. That is REAL change.

Many of the people advocating for voting third party are doing so out of a totalitarian impulse for a candidate to fully reflect all of one's personal beliefs. This is evident in the extremes of both the political left and right (i.e. MAGAS), where the craving for ideological purity challenges the democratic ethos of compromise and diversity.
 

Meanwhile, they undermine the strategic significance of voting within the two-party framework as a signal to the parties of which values and policies voters want to see prioritized — all in favor of imagined revolutionary change. Which is exactly what you're insinuating by deriding how voting is "keeping the system in place". Because what's the alternative to the constitutionally mandated electoral system? There has never been a viable third party because they always consolidate to two.

Remember when you said Nancy Pelosi was the most progressive Democrat in history? Tic tac toe, *****! 

Edited April 3 by Communion

[Hitchhiker]

This woman is nothing but a loser in every aspect a loser at her job and a loser at her private life the only reason she's invited anywhere is bc of her husband who cheated on her for years and she stayed with him like the loser she is 

[Kassi]

8 hours ago, visions said:

Exactly, the more people who refuse to take part in the two party system, the more the ball will get rolling for future elections to look more positive in switching things up.

 

People should be taking action to set the future generations up as well as they can be, even if it is slightly worse for the short term. 

There is absolutely no precedent for this. 
 

 

 

[Kassi]

24 minutes ago, Communion said:

Remember when you said Nancy Pelosi was most progressive Democrat in history? Tic tac toe, *****! 

Nothing to do with this topic.

[Communion]

1 minute ago, Kassi said:

Nothing to do with this topic.

 Tik Tok Toe 

[GhostBox]

33 minutes ago, Kassi said:

While the desire for "representation" may appear rational on the surface, it's an extremely emotional sentiment. The only direct, measurable impact of voting for a third party in an electoral system primarily designed to favor two major parties is conceding power to one of them by way of vote splitting. It's a feel-good measure with no tangible material benefits.
 

Any other suggested outcome is unsubstantiated and unsupported by real life events.

Choosing between the 'lesser of two evils' in elections can indeed feel unsatisfying. However, it's essential to recognize voting is a crucial step towards gradual, sustainable change. This approach to change, methodical and steady, is often more sustainable because it allows for adaptation and refinement along the way. It encourages broader consensus-building and ensures that changes are deeply integrated into the societal fabric, making them more resilient to backlash and reversal. That is REAL change.

Many of the people advocating for voting third party are doing so out of a totalitarian impulse for a candidate to fully reflect all of one's personal beliefs. This is evident in the extremes of both the political left and right (i.e. MAGAS), where the craving for ideological purity challenges the democratic ethos of compromise and diversity.
 

Meanwhile, they undermine the strategic significance of voting within the two-party framework as a signal to the parties of which values and policies voters want to see prioritized — all in favor of imagined revolutionary change. Which is exactly what you're insinuating by deriding how voting is "keeping the system in place". Because what's the alternative to the constitutionally mandated electoral system? There has never been a viable third party because they always consolidate to two.

👏🏼