RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Weissman writes: "Faced with two differently flawed major party candidates for president, most of us have already made our choice, especially after their first debate. What could anyone possibly say at this point to change our minds? But since you have been long-time readers, here is how I plan to vote and why."

Hillary Clinton. (photo: The New York Times)
Hillary Clinton. (photo: The New York Times)


Voting for Hillary With Eyes Wide-Open

By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News

02 October 16

 

aced with two differently flawed major party candidates for president, most of us have already made our choice, especially after their first debate. What could anyone possibly say at this point to change our minds? But since you have been long-time readers, here is how I plan to vote and why.

I will not endorse Hillary Clinton, as Bernie Sanders has done. But I will reluctantly vote for her. I know of no other realistic way to defeat Trump and his followers by the largest possible majority.

Like many of you, I see Trump and his followers as an existential danger to Muslims, Latinos, and African-Americans, an insult to women, and a threat to the creation of a progressive America. His hate-filled campaign empowers white supremacists, who have never accepted the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency. His demonization of Islam rallies religious conservatives who think America should be a Christian nation. His authoritarianism and his endless claim that “only I can solve your problems” raise the specter of “a man on horseback,” if not an orange-haired fascist Führer.

Why, then, don’t I vote for the Green Party candidate Jill Stein?

Many friends and colleagues who vote in states where Clinton appears to have a sizeable lead may well vote for Jill. But it's a risky gamble. During the primaries, the polls – and even the legendary Nate Silver's probability predictions – proved glaringly unreliable. How can we trust the numbers to be any more accurate in this strange and extremely consequential election? How can we risk a protest vote on a candidate who has almost no chance of being seen or heard, and absolutely no chance of defeating Donald Trump?

Does voting for Clinton trap us forever into having to vote for a lesser evil? That is up to us. Bernie is trying to meet this challenge both inside and outside the Democratic Party. He has helped create groups like Our Revolution and Brand New Congress, which are funding progressive candidates for all levels of government.

Bernie himself has chosen to work within the Clinton campaign, stressing the progressive nature of the Democratic Party platform to which Hillary agreed, and promising to hold her feet to the fire once she’s elected.

He has also agreed to work with Senator Elizabeth Warren to fight against Hillary selecting any Wall Street figures to serve in her cabinet. I suspect that Hillary will roll right over them, but the fight is worth the effort.

Make no mistake. I greatly admire Hillary Clinton for her intellect and determination. Becoming the country’s first female presidential candidate from a major political party has been a huge success for her, her family, and all of America, especially our young people, boys as well as girls. I also agree with Bernie and Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, an advisor to Hillary, that she is more progressive than Obama, though that is not a very high standard.

She has publicly acknowledged the need to rein in Wall Street. If she does, I think we should all support her efforts. But I am not optimistic. She continues to peddle the discredited myth of mostly free-market, neo-liberal economics.

She has said many times that the vast inequality of wealth in America destroys our democracy. She has promised to fight this inequality. I hope she does. But she limits what she can do by the close ties she continues to maintain with Wall Street and major multinational corporations.

Under pressure from Bernie’s supporters, she has promised to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But every time she defends her husband’s energetic support for the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement, as she did in her first debate with Trump, she loses more support from former Democratic voters who saw NAFTA send American factories to Mexico, kill well-paying jobs, and destroy living and working communities, mostly in what we now call the Rust Belt.

You can see why I’m so unhappy about having to vote for Clinton just to vote against Trump. But the main reason I cannot endorse Hillary should be obvious from all that I’ve written. Simply put, I cannot go along with her interventionist, liberal imperialist foreign policy, whether in Syria or Libya, and her eagerness to engage in a new Cold War with Russia.

Endless, no-win wars in Muslim countries will only encourage more terrorist attacks, spurring on the racial and religious hatred that Donald Trump and his followers are now preaching. A cold war with Russia raises the risk of nuclear confrontation that we could all lose. And all the military spending, planning, and plotting will only take time, focus, and resources away from building a truly progressive America.

Some wishful thinkers have argued that Hillary has good reasons to turn away from her war-like ways and focus on her progressive aspirations. If she does, let us all applaud. If she does not, I will continue to oppose her. I expect most of you will do the same.



A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is researching a new book, Big Money and the Corporate State: How Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently Break Their Hold.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

We are going to return to our original fully-moderated format in the comments section.

The abusive complaints in the comment sections are just too far out of control at this point and have become a significant burden on our staff. As a result, our moderators will review all comments prior to publication. Comments will no longer go live immediately. Please be patient and check back.

To improve your chances of seeing your comment published, avoid confrontational or antagonistic methods of communication. Really that is the problem we are confronting.

We encourage all views. We discourage ad hominem disparagement.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+22 # Billy Bob 2016-10-02 12:32
Yes.

By all means, let's kick the can down the road another 4 years, or 8 years, so we can keep having the same argument forever, without ever resolving it or solving any of the problems our nation faces.

D-Hillary vs. R-Donald (gotta vote for Hillary, cuz Republicans are too dangerous)

D-Donald vs. R-Hillary (gotta vote for Donald, cuz Republicans are too dangerous)

D-Cheney vs. R-Bush (gotta vote for Cheney, cuz Republicans are too dangerous)

D-Hitler vs. R-Satan (gotta…. well you get the picture)

We see the pattern.

We must always vote for the Democrat, because the Republican will always be 0.000043% worse.

We cannot nominate a Democrat who's NOT so close to being a Republican. If we did, we'd lose all those Republican votes. And we all know that Democrats can't win, without the uneducated, racist, rich, white, baby-booming, suburban, gun-toting, warmongering, science-denying , male vote.

If the Democratic Party ever tried to run as something other than Republican-lite , it might have to actually COMMIT to making good on campaign promises it has no intention of ever keeping. To do so, might piss off the right-wing billionaires who fund it and want a choice between 2 Republican Parties.

So, our widely opened eyes better be prepared to witness more war atrocities, more torture videos, more giveaways to the rich at the expense of the rest of us, and more environmental devastation.

That's how Democrats "win"!
 
 
+53 # librarian1984 2016-10-02 13:55
BB, I agree with you -- but it was nice to have Weismann speak as a realist -- instead of the vast majority in denial about our concerns. Thanks for that at least, SW.

That said, the ONLY thing that makes Clinton palatable is that she is not Trump. That is literally the ONLY argument for HRC, and to me that is not good enough.

If I thought she would listen to us at all I would give her a chance. Instead she remains dismissive, arrogant -- and determined to confront Putin. She did it again this week!

If, weeks away from the election, she will not even pretend to favor peace, there's only one conclusion. SHE WANTS WAR. She's not even trying to hide it. A vote for her says you're ok with that.

If Hillary had made concessions people believed they would be moving toward her -- but that's not happening. Even now, tied with a buffoon, she won't adjust her thinking. She doesn't woo progressives. Instead she courts the GOP (which will probably hurt downticket Dems) while DEMANDING our votes.

I don't buy that she is the lesser evil. She will bring war and austerity.

We can shut down Trump. We cannot shut down the Clintons.

As BB says, we're told we need to vote for the Democrat no matter what. Why, exactly? What loyalty do they deserve? They left their consciences at the corporate lobby door 20 years ago and they haven't given us a thought since.

And they STOLE the nomination. There is not one more thing that needs to be said.
 
 
+25 # Billy Bob 2016-10-02 14:00
Well said.

If they wanted loyalty, they should have displayed a little.

At this point, I don't think it's about "Is Hillary a tiny amount better than Trump?"

I think the question should be re-framed.

Will we be better able to solve our problems in 4 years? Will they get better or worse in the meantime?

THOSE questions tell me all I need to know, and inform the fact that I want no part in electing either of these monsters.

Considering the fact that they keep laughing at us and telling us Jill Stein doesn't even register on the radar, they shouldn't have any problem with that.
 
 
-20 # Robbee 2016-10-02 14:28
Quoting librarian1984:
As BB says, we're told we need to vote for the Democrat no matter what. Why, exactly?

- next time - before commenting - please read the author!~ thanks!
 
 
+39 # margpark 2016-10-02 15:08
Honestly, there is some debate that Donald Trump is out of his mind. A 70 year old man who rises at 5 a.m. to send insulting messages to Miss Universe of 20 years ago and who gets his undies in a wad at the mildest of insults, is too damn dangerous to have in the White House. And the more people who who vote for Jill Stein or stay at home and don't vote because they dispise Hillary Clinton, the more likely a President Trump arrives in the oval office. I do not think Trump and Clinton are equivalently bad.
 
 
+6 # fletch1165 2016-10-02 19:39
Trump is working for the same people that paid Hillary $225,000 a speech. Trump never expected to win. This is his greatest acting role ever. Trump was chosen to validate Hillary's election for the international banking cartel. He knows this and has been taking the Sheldon Adelson money all along. Adelson, the war monger and Las Vegas mogul worth $24 billion has already stated that he would "spend as much money as it takes to elect Hillary Clinton" for his foreign policy objectives on behalf of the cartel.
 
 
-3 # Ted 2016-10-02 20:07
"And the more people who who vote for Jill Stein or stay at home and don't vote because they dispise Hillary Clinton, the more likely a President Trump arrives in the oval office."

What a completely incoherent statement.

You do realize that in reality, the more people that vote for Stein, the more likely a president STEIN arrives in the oval office, don't you?

Or is reality not one of your strong points.
 
 
+8 # Navrongo80 2016-10-03 03:54
You also must realize that Stein will not garner enough votes to be elected President. The syphoning of votes away from Clinton as a means of protest, making a Trump Presidency at least remotely possible is a reasonable argument.
 
 
+1 # guomashi 2016-10-03 06:41
Given the dangers of a possible Clinton presidency, that is a strong recommendation to vote for Stein.

See how that works?
 
 
+3 # Navrongo80 2016-10-03 06:46
Yup
 
 
+1 # Robbee 2016-10-03 12:40
Quoting Ted:
"And the more people who who vote for Jill Stein or stay at home and don't vote because they dispise Hillary Clinton, the more likely a President Trump arrives in the oval office."

What a completely incoherent statement.

You do realize that in reality, the more people that vote for Stein, the more likely a president STEIN arrives in the oval office, don't you?

Or is reality not one of your strong points.

why do some keep flogging dead horse jill?

if jill had wanted to test her positions against those of other progressives, she would have run in the dem primaries against o'malley, bernie and hill - then voters would have gotten to know her name and her positions

the fact that jill remains almost unknown is directly due to one, and only one, person - jill

if rump wins, those who vote "jillie" will deny they had anything to do with it - that's who jilliebots are
 
 
+1 # LionMousePudding 2016-10-04 17:07
And how many people vilify Bernie for just that choice?

She made one decision; he made another.

I will defend Bernie to the end but maybe what she did was more honest. I'm sure he felt pretty shitty about having to run as a Democrat.
 
 
+17 # lfeuille 2016-10-02 16:19
She did read the author!!! - As her first sentence makes clear. She also read Billy Bob's response and replied to that which is not a disallowed practice.
 
 
+15 # anarchaos 2016-10-02 14:33
Quoting librarian1984:
BB, I agree with you....
That said, the ONLY thing that makes Clinton palatable is that she is not Trump. That is literally the ONLY argument for HRC, and to me that is not good enough.

If I thought she would listen to us at all I would give her a chance. Instead she remains dismissive, arrogant -- and determined to confront Putin. She will not even pretend to favor peace, there's only one conclusion. SHE WANTS WAR. She's not even trying to hide it. A vote for her says you're ok with that.
Even now, tied with a buffoon, she won't adjust her thinking. She doesn't woo progressives. Instead she courts the GOP (which will probably hurt downticket Dems) while DEMANDING our votes.

I don't buy that she is the lesser evil. She will bring war and austerity.
As BB says, we're told we need to vote for the Democrat no matter what. Why, exactly? What loyalty do they deserve? They left their consciences at the corporate lobby door 20 years ago and they haven't given us a thought since.

And they STOLE the nomination. There is not one more thing that needs to be said.

'And they STOLE the nomination.'! Your posts are always very welcome to me. One more thing that I will say is: Doctor Jill Stein is a woman who will be a great POTUS. Since I must look at myself in the mirror every morning, she is the candidate for whom I am definitely voting - "and let the evils fall where they may!!" Thanks again librarian1984!
 
 
+10 # rural oregon progressive 2016-10-02 18:16
anarchaos and librarian : There may not be one more thing that "needs to be said", but I'll say it anyway... What is the difference between Hillary Clinton's devious and corrupt campaign for the the presidency and House of Cards' Frank Underwood's quest for same? Answer: One of these quests was only a TV show!
 
 
+11 # fletch1165 2016-10-02 19:43
A vote for Hillary means you are just fine with Citizen's United and Dark Money influencing and controlling politics. After all that is exactly her practice. No one got to meet with Madam Hillary at the State Department without first making a substantial donation to the Clinton Foundation. No one.
 
 
-1 # LionMousePudding 2016-10-04 17:10
Not true. Let's not exaggerate. The truth-- that is is pretty obvious that there was some disgusting anti-American pay to play going on-- is bad enough. It helps no one to exaggerate so we can be called liars.
 
 
+2 # LionMousePudding 2016-10-05 12:46
Really? People are against being truthful about an enemy? Are we as bad as the Republicans, for whom the truth is what they want it to be?
 
 
0 # janla 2016-10-02 15:34
It is naïve to believe that 'we can shut down Trump." What is your plan for that?
 
 
+19 # fletch1165 2016-10-02 19:45
Goldman Sach's Hillary has already been annointed is how. And Diebold as usual is the mechanism. 2.5 provisional worthless ballots and disenfranchised voters in Southern California alone shows you one of the many tactics employed to achieve the necessary level of election fraud and desired pre-ordained ourcome.
 
 
+15 # Ted 2016-10-02 20:29
Did ya read about the new way that they're playing with the numbers?

Seems all voting computers come equipped with an option to "fractionalize" votes.

Machines can be easily adjusted to count each vote for any given candidate as any fraction of a vote that they want to set.

For instance, machines can be easily set to count each vote for...let's say Stein, as one tenth of a vote, or one thousandth of a vote, whatever.

And of course this is all hidden by only showing the count in whole numbers rounded to the lowest whole.

Fun With Democracy!

http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-1/
 
 
+21 # librarian1984 2016-10-03 00:24
What is absolutely incomprehensibl e to me is that we accept that this proprietary software cannot be examined -- by anyone!! Who believes that's okay?!

Watched a Wednesday Congressional panel on election cybersecurity. Dr. Andrew Appel of Princeton gave a detailed analysis of the many problems these machines present. In addition he said it is definitely possible for hackers to interfere with the election.

As the panel concluded, representatives from DHS and a government commission rep both stated they were entirely confident in the integrity of our elections. There is absolutely NOTHING to worry about! So relax, Ted. DHS says 'It's all okay'!

Don't you feel better already?
 
 
+8 # Navrongo80 2016-10-03 04:32
If voting were to actually change things, the powers that be would need to have it abolished.
 
 
+11 # librarian1984 2016-10-02 21:58
"What is your plan ( for shutting down Trump)"

Exactly what they did to Obama, only worse. Can't we count on Congress to actually work for their pay for a change? Maybe the two parties, united by fear, can work together -- for novelties' sake, if for no other reason. Change it up a little bit.

I read recently that this Congress has taken more and longer holidays than almost any in history.
 
 
+3 # Hey There 2016-10-02 23:01
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNes85wcQQw
 
 
+1 # Patriot 2016-10-03 19:54
Good one! Thank you. Have a look, folks.
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-10-05 09:22
This is a 1:14 video that pokes fun at the good Congress does -- when they're in recess.

Thanks!
 
 
+11 # Navrongo80 2016-10-03 04:48
Congressional obstruction of Obama was really along party lines and pretty much business as usual. My fear of a Trump Presidency is that the likes of McConnell, McCain, Reid, Cotton (I could keep going) will figure out a way to work with a pliable Trump making possible the realization of their agenda.
 
 
+8 # librarian1984 2016-10-03 07:45
Agreed. Because he is lazy the GOP can get some things through without his consent, and they will cooperate with him on things they agree with. But this is true of any president. Hillary would also get many things through with the help of the GOP because she is a DINO. She's courting them as we speak. (She's certainly not bothering with US.) I think we are just SOL on that score. Almost everyone in Congress is some form of Republican right now, don't you think?

Still, to the extent Congress has (or is imbued with our righteous) will to stop them, McConnell has been giving us a master course on obstructionism. That is where our feckless Congress comes in -- and us too. This debacle has a price. We can't go back to our normal lives for four years and not be involved in our government. Trump, Stein, Clinton, Johnson -- they are each flawed and would need to be watched closely.

Yes, if you were to list out all the craven, ignorant, immoral, hypocritical idiots in WDC it would indeed take a while :-)

Regards.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-10-04 00:49
Yes, and again, the only government actions that were "obstructed" in the past 7 years are things that could have helped the 99%.

Tax cuts for the rich were made permanent. Banks were given $ trillions. Wars continued and new ones began. Insurance companies got the biggest gift in their history. etc. etc. etc.

Obstruction has been Kabuki Theater which excused the Democrats for not getting any progressive policies passed and drove wedges between us.
 
 
+15 # bardphile 2016-10-02 16:28
Yes, Lib, well said. But maybe there are a few more things to be said. Which of the two between Trump and HRC would be more supportive of libraries? That's something, isn't it?

Unless I missed something, the first debate didn't touch at all on foreign policy. If Hillary were to use the next debate to commit to reframing our policies on the ME and Russia, etc., in ways more conducive to peace, we should at least grant her a hearing. You never know.

Main point: Within the living memory of us old folks, the Democratic Party has an honorable history of supporting civil rights, women's rights, peace in Vietnam (eventually), etc. It has been coopted at the head in recent decades, but it's still our party. Hillary is a political animal who wants to be seen as progressive, at least on social issues. On that hope, if CA is at all in doubt, I'll vote for her.

I guess this means that I see a bigger difference between her and Trump than most on this list. I'm disappointed Sanders isn't on the ballot. I'm appalled, disgusted, and mortified for my country that Trump IS on the ballot.
 
 
+14 # librarian1984 2016-10-02 22:09
Hello, bardphile, hope you're well.

There used to be more of a difference between the two parties but it's difficult to see much daylight between them anymore, both of them kowtowing to corporate money, both of them okay with our military adventures. Neither has seen fit to fund libraries or schools, fix our roads and bridges, etc.

The Dems give lip service to social progressivism, and that's great, but what do they DO? Many of our most regressive laws in the past twenty years started with Bill Clinton.

Last time they were in the WH they became millionaires. I'm not inclined to let them back in to become billionaires.

Regarding Trump being on the ballot, I agree, it's mortifying. Went to brunch today and spoke to three French gentlemen at the next table. We spent a short while agreeing that Trump is abominable and then I said, 'But are you happy about Hillary Clinton?"

"No!" they all three chimed in unison. They think she's terrible. They just think Trump is worse.

(Also spoke to a neighbor. He is convinced HRC would be one term and in 2020 Michelle Obama will run. hmm.)

With all respect, I don't think it IS our party anymore. I think we have two Republican parties now, and that is because of the Clintons and that triangulating nonsense with toe-sucking Dick Morris. (Apologies to toe-suckers everywhere.)

Yes, I agree there needs to be foreign policy questions!! If HRC convinced me she was not a hawk I would look again.
 
 
+7 # Greg Scott 2016-10-02 18:34
Not sure why anyone thinks Trump would be less war mongering than Clinton.

He might not have ideological or strategic reasons but he could easily have crony capitalistic ones. He just said the way to defeat ISIS would have been to take all the oil in Iraq. Reminds me of the NeoCons who predicted that the Iraq war would pay for itself.

What logic would convince him that this was not a good idea?
 
 
+12 # librarian1984 2016-10-02 22:18
He's said so. He wants to shut down some of our bases. He wants to negotiate with Putin. etc

I am not a Trump apologist. I don't know what he'll do. But that is what he's said.

I think we DO know what Clinton has planned. She does not try to hide it.
 
 
-18 # OrlandoDFree 2016-10-02 19:14
Confronting Putin doesn't mean she wants war. Duh. That's a pretty bold leap. Putin invaded Crimea. We need to confront Putin. We don't need war. This kind of talk is counterproducti ve.
 
 
+17 # guomashi 2016-10-02 19:16
Putin did not invade Crimea.
Everything else you say is invalidated.
 
 
+15 # librarian1984 2016-10-02 22:25
You are right. Talk is cheap. It could be a feint.

EXCEPT for US participation in the Ukraine, where neo-Nazis have overthrown the democratically elected leader and systematically raped and killed citizens in the east.

We have placed missiles where they never were before, close to Russia's border.

I saw Clinton in a speech Friday call Putin a "vicious dictator", though he, too, was elected.

HRC is calling for a Syrian no-fly zone, which Obama has rejected, because it will lead to confrontation with Russia.

The warning signs are there if you choose to read them.

You sound like you're against war and so am I. It is one of the main reasons I oppose Sec. Clinton.
 
 
+4 # A_Har 2016-10-03 15:18
Quoting OrlandoDFree:
Putin invaded Crimea. We need to confront Putin.

Confront Putin for WHAT?? You show yourself to be a low information commentor:

Crimeans vote to break away from Ukraine, join Russia

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2014/03/16/ccec2132-acd4-11e3-a06a-e3230a43d6cb_story.html

By Carol Morello,, Pamela Constable, and Anthony Faiola March 16, 2014

Quote:
SEVASTOPOL, Ukraine — Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to leave Ukraine and join Russia, election officials said Sunday, capping a heavy-handed campaign that blocked most voters from hearing a vision for any alternative to unification with Moscow.

Crimean election Spokesman Mikhail Malyshev said the final result was 96.77 percent to rejoin Russia and 2.51 percent against.
Let me guess, you have been watching CNN--the Clinton News Network. The Crimean vote happened two years ago--where have you been?

Many many Crimeans are ethnic Russians, and have strong ties to that country spanning centuries. And, since the coup that overthrew the duly ELECTED regime was hell bent on ethnic cleansing of ethnic Russians, it was only smart for them to vote to join a country that would protect them.

Not only that, but Russia had *treaty rights to be there* as their one warm water port was in Sevastapol. Don't drink the koolaide.
 
 
+29 # Inspired Citizen 2016-10-02 14:48
And the Democrats keep moving further and further to the right.

The reason people are Jill not Hill is because we're onto this slide to the right, onto this corporatization of everything and onto the pernicious character of neo-liberalism.

We need a revolution, not another bloodthirsty neo-con in the White House. No one, and I mean NO ONE can rationalize supporting Hillary without referencing Trump.

Three candidates will lead to coastal cities under water by century's end, and one won't. It's insane to support any of those three: http://www.whoisjillstein.com/the-other-three/
 
 
-8 # Razzoo2 2016-10-02 21:07
Sometimes a war requires a tactical retreat and uneasy alliances.
 
 
+5 # CTPatriot 2016-10-03 03:12
And sometimes a war requires actually fighting to win
 
 
+2 # A_Har 2016-10-03 15:30
Quoting CTPatriot:
And sometimes a war requires actually fighting to win
Send the neocon Chicken hawks including HRC over there to fight it.
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-10-04 07:24
I agree with you, but I believe CTPatriot was referring to Razzoo's 'war' of the election. He characterizes the election as war and 'tactical retreat' as voting for Clinton to avoid Trump.

I had a little trouble parsing these posts but I think that's right.

So CTP is advocating fighting against Clinton, I believe.
 
 
+7 # librarian1984 2016-10-02 22:27
Well said IC, and CTP.
 
 
+16 # Ted 2016-10-02 15:56
From the article;

"How can we risk a protest vote on a candidate who has almost no chance of being seen or heard...?"

Yep, there it is.

Yet another journalist writing about how Dr. Stein can't win because journalists won't write about her so don't vote for her.

I used to enjoy irony.
 
 
+26 # grandlakeguy 2016-10-02 17:06
Mr. Weissman has written possibly the best article yet excusing oneself in voting for Hillary Clinton.

However, in his article appears the following sentence:
"During the primaries, the polls-and even Nate Silver's probability projections-pro ved glaringly unreliable."

Yes sir they certainly were and especially exit polls which are incredibly reliable to one or two percent and were often off by over 10 percent.
Why were they off so dramatically?
ELECTION THEFT!
Every real analysis of the primary elections clearly show that they were heavily tampered with and always in the favor of Hillary Clinton.
The leaked DNC emails only serve to strengthen that conclusion.
Any candidate who would stoop to the treasonous use of election theft deserves not to be supported but instead to be prosecuted.
I cannot support the theft of my freedom which is exactly what has happened here.
Hillary Clinton and the DNC should hang their heads in shame.
This election should have seen a true Progressive named Bernie Sanders sweep away the remnants of the Republican Party and lead the way to a far better America than what our past few presidents have made us into.
These corrupt politicians have not only stolen this election they have stolen our best chance at a better future for our nation and the world.
 
 
+18 # librarian1984 2016-10-02 22:31
Agree completely.

One cannot knowingly vote for the same people who stole the nomination. You just can't. Not if you ever want an honest election again.

If Sanders or Stein had stolen it I would feel exactly the same. If my kids stole something from a store I'd make them take it back (and apologize).

We cannot reward fraud and corruption. On what footing can one then demand honesty from our representatives -- because you are in the quagmire with them.
 
 
+5 # A_Har 2016-10-03 15:35
Quoting grandlakeguy:
ELECTION THEFT!

Ah, yes, I remember it well when the major MSM outlets announced the HRC "victory" before the primary polls even closed. Apparently, they do not NEED the voters endorsement to "win" any more.
 
 
-6 # Caliban 2016-10-04 00:25
No proof, no crime. Accusations and assumptions are not proofs.
 
 
+5 # LionMousePudding 2016-10-04 17:19
Uhhhh .. the MSM declared victory for Hillary the night before the California & 5 other state primaries. What proof do you want? Does one of us have to make your TV go backwards as hundreds of articles reporting this aren't proof?
 
 
+21 # wrknight 2016-10-02 18:38
I will not give in and vote for the lesser of two evils. If I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times, the lesser of two evils is still evil. And when there is only half a percentage point difference between the two evils, it hardly matters.

Regardless which one is less dangerous or less evil, I will not vote for either one. I will vote for Jill Stein and let the chips fall where they may.
 
 
+32 # RMDC 2016-10-02 12:36
Understandable but in my view this is the cowards way out. The truth is that Weissman is just afraid of change. He'll be voting for the status quo of CIA control of the White House that has existed since Jerry Ford.

Weisman tries in a lame way to claim "Like many of you, I see Trump and his followers as an existential danger to Muslims, Latinos, and African-America ns, an insult to women, and a threat to the creation of a progressive America."

This is simply false. Trump is an existential danger to the CIA control of the White House. Trump is less of an insult to women than Bill Clinton is. It is likely he will go back to fucking interns in the Oval Office and then dismissing the women.

Trump has a loose mouth but his actions very likely will not be a bad as his rhetoric. It will be almost as great an embarrassment to have Trump in the White House as it was to have the imbecile W. Bush and his Svengali Cheney running the nation.

If you want change, you have to take the risk. Trump is a risk.

I'm voting Stein and Green. I want change. Maybe if enough people vote Green this time, the party can get national coverage as a major party in 2020. If people make the same decision as Weissman, then 2020 will be just like 2016. The republican candidate will be as bad or worse than Trump. And Hillary will be as bad or worse than she now is. But neither one will be stoppable.
 
 
-21 # ericlipps 2016-10-02 13:18
Quote:
Maybe if enough people vote Green this time, the party can get national coverage as a major party in 2020.
Dream on.

the Populists made a respectable showing in 1892 and 1896, but never won a presidential race and withered on the vine. Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote in 1992, but didn't win a single electoral vote, and today it's "Ross who?"


Let me make a prediction. In 2020 the Greens will remain a minor party. By 2032, they will have disappeared, and such of their onetime supporters who are still around will have moved on to some other utopian party.

It's worth remembering that the last time a brand-new party ever elected a president was in 1860, in a fractured race on the eve of civil war. we're not there yet.
 
 
+34 # Billy Bob 2016-10-02 14:04
You're right.

You really ARE wasting a whole lot of time harassing and ridiculing people here. After all, we're no threat to you or your warmongering boss.

It's worth remembering that people like you are the reason Hillary is still neck and neck in a contest with Donald Trump.
 
 
+41 # librarian1984 2016-10-02 14:05
You might have had an argument last election -- but in 2016, after we saw the crowds and enthusiasm for Sen. Sanders? That puts the lie to your observations.

That genie is not going back in the bottle. We've seen what a real candidate looks like. We've seen we are not only not alone -- but we are legion.

Bernie lit millions of flames and they are burning in America right now and nobody is buying this same ol' same ol' bs you're dishing up.

Things are fundamentally different.

Now I have two questions for you. If we are so insignificant then what are you worried about? Let us vote for Stein and HRC will still win hands down, right? Relax.

Secondly, it's very clear the DP has bought into the GOP bag of dirty election tricks. They, and she, have proved they are perfectly okay with election fraud. So why worry? It's in the bag. (wink wink nudge nudge)

Leave us in peace and watch your candidate ascend her imaginary throne.
 
 
+28 # Billy Bob 2016-10-02 14:14
librarian put it pretty well.

This isn't really about trying to convince us to vote for Hillary anymore, is it?

You don't even think you need our vote.

You just DON'T want us to vote at all.

I plan on voting whether you like it or not.

Maybe some of Hillary's poll workers can flip my vote before Donald does. That's how these things are "won", right?
 
 
+25 # RMDC 2016-10-02 15:45
eric -- you, weissman, and a shitload of others simply don't nave the courage to stand up for your dreams -- assuming you have dreams about a better world. All great political leaders who brought positive change did so because they dreamed. MLK's "I have a dream" is his most famous statement.

Dreams never come true all at once. But without them there is no progress.

In voting for Hillary you are just accepting the worst of the worst status quo. I'm finished with that. Better than voting for Hillary is not to vote at all. Trump is simply an egomaniac who thinks he'd have fun being on the reality TV show called the presidency. OK, let him do that. It is a lot better for the world than Hillary. And the presidency is really just a puppet show or ceremonial job anyway. Real decisions are made elsewhere.
 
 
+4 # Patriot 2016-10-03 20:05
Citizens in this country have a DUTY to vote, not just a right. The next person who says to my face, i have a right NOT to vote, I will punch in the face. where does it say anyone has a RIGHT not to vote?

So vote. Pick a candidate. Vote. Election day is our one day to govern as a people, not thru representatives , but directly. Don't pass it up! It's heady stuff.
 
 
+2 # grandlakeguy 2016-10-04 10:25
Yes Patriot everyone should vote...the problem here is that our votes are not being counted honestly!
 
 
+21 # Ted 2016-10-02 17:03
"It's worth remembering that the last time a brand-new party ever elected a president was in 1860, in a fractured race on the eve of civil war. we're not there yet."

Funny how you forgot to mention that third party candidate turned out to be Abraham frikkin Lincoln.
 
 
+13 # RMDC 2016-10-02 18:12
The Ross Perot phenomenon was pretty significant. If Perot had been a movement builder instead of an egomaniac his party would have won. I hated most of everything Perot stood for but he showed it can be done. Of course back then, he was allowed into the debates.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-10-04 01:05
Perot was polling higher than GHW Bush and tied with Clinton when he dropped out of the race. Had he stayed in and campaigned hard, he could well have won.

I was no fan of Perot either, and only partly understood how right he was on NAFTA (opposition to which was essentially his whole campaign).
 
 
+15 # wrknight 2016-10-02 18:46
Quoting ericlipps:
Let me make a prediction. In 2020 the Greens will remain a minor party. By 2032, they will have disappeared, and such of their onetime supporters who are still around will have moved on to some other utopian party...

Only you and the rest of your ilk can make that self fulfilling prophecy come true.

So stick with the two party system. Stay in the rut and don't think outside the box. God forbid there might be an alternative.
 
 
+4 # Patriot 2016-10-03 20:12
The two-party monopoly of politics as brought to us by--the two parties, who have convinced voters that third parties are bad. Yet, when congress contained a hefty proportion of independents--t hat is, persons not affiliated with either the Dems or the Repugs--comprom ise was essential to accomplish anything, since neither party had a majority, and both had to sweet-talk the independents to get anything passed. Those independents held out for the greatest good for the greatest number. There was no party with an "upper hand", so no one kept trying to repeal legislation 40+ times, when the majority of americans had said they favored it (think Affordable Care, the EPA, the Endangered Species Act....).

The two party system is nothing but a power struggle, and the two parties have solved it by accepting bribes from the highest bidders--and the rest of us be damned.

I'll vote for Stein and the Greens and other Progressives. Bernie could use some company in congress.
 
 
+14 # ericlipps 2016-10-02 13:31
Quote:
Trump has a loose mouth but his actions very likely will not be a bad as his rhetoric. It will be almost as great an embarrassment to have Trump in the White House as it was to have the imbecile W. Bush and his Svengali Cheney running the nation.

If you want change, you have to take the risk. Trump is a risk.
"Embarrassment, " you say?

How many people have died because of Bush's incompetence? Thousands on 9-11 alone because he ignored warnings of an impending attack because they came from sources connected to his Democratic predecessor. Hundreds of thousands since then, in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Bush at least didn't complain about this country's reluctance to use nuclear weapons. Trump has. With him in office, we might have a war which would leave hundreds of millions dead.

You have to take risks if you want change, but you also have to be careful WHAT risks you take. IMO, Trump is too much of one.
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2016-10-02 14:15
"eric",

Isn't it time for you to log out again and reappear as someone else now?
 
 
+26 # Spence 2016-10-02 14:34
Quoting ericlipps:

With him in office, we might have a war which would leave hundreds of millions dead.


If it is nuclear war that you are afraid of then you should be very afraid of Hillary. With backing of her neocon friends and the CIA she is on the path to a war with Russia. Trump, on the other hand, is a negotiator and has said that he can work with Putin. That sounds like a better and safer alternative to me. I think Hillary is the high-risk side of this decision.
 
 
+16 # RMDC 2016-10-02 15:47
Yes, Trump would be less embarrassing and less murderous than Bush or even Obama.

Look, we lived through W Bush and so we can live through Trump. We are living through Obama and Hillary promises to be Obama's 3rd term. Actually I think Obama is the 3rd and 4th terms of Bush, so Hillary would be Bush's 5th and 6th terms.

Forget about 2016. It is a total waste. Vote Green and start working for 2020. Clearly there won't be a Green president is 2020, but a presidential run will gain a lot of national attention to the Green party and that will make lower level elected offices within the reach of Greens.
 
 
+11 # wrknight 2016-10-02 19:08
Besides, if Trump goes to war it will probably be with Mexico.
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-10-02 22:38
I think we can win that one!

(Forgive the frivolity.)
 
 
+11 # guomashi 2016-10-02 23:46
I think we should lose it and give them back Texas.
 
 
+8 # librarian1984 2016-10-03 00:30
Oh yes please! I don't know if they'd take it though.

(Apologies to Austin.)
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-10-04 01:14
To be fair, Texas had already seceded from Mexico decades before the US annexed 1/2 of Mexico. The US took New Mexico, AZ, CA, NV and major parts of Utah and CO from Mexico.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-10-04 07:27
Are you saying we can't give it 'back'?

Then let's make it an outright gift!
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-10-04 16:19
I'm saying that there's just as much justification for all those States to go back to Mexico as there is for just Texas.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-10-04 17:19
Aaaaah!

Let's keep CA.
 
 
0 # grandlakeguy 2016-10-05 13:00
Actually I am in California and would like to see us secede from the USA.
Perhaps then we could get honest elections here and would not have to support the military industrial complex!
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-10-05 17:11
hahaha

True. You really could be your own country, your own economy. I might even expatriate.
 
 
+2 # guomashi 2016-10-04 07:37
Quoting Radscal:
To be fair, Texas had already seceded from Mexico decades before the US annexed 1/2 of Mexico. The US took New Mexico, AZ, CA, NV and major parts of Utah and CO from Mexico.


Not decades, 9 years.
They do retain the right to secession.
They keep threatening to exercise it.
Chickens that they are, they are to frightened to do so.
I guess they realize, US will bomb the shit out of them, take over their oil fields and let them rot.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-10-04 16:18
Yeah, I exaggerated. Texas declared independence from Mexico in 1835, and established their Republic in 1836.

The US signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, annexing the rest of the West in 1848.

So, very slightly more than a decade.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2016-10-05 09:22
Those were all "Texas" back then. Texas has shrunk and divided since then.

I'm just for giving back the modern Texas.

Oh, and they can have Aryan-zone-a, and Utah, too.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-10-04 01:11
A half a million Iraqi children under age 5 died because of Clinton I's war against Iraq. Yes, it was mostly an economic war, but Clinton I ordered bombings on the average of once per week. And they were bombing things like water treatment plants (a war crime for those who care).

Bush I lived in the White House when TPTB pulled off 9/11 and officially began our Global War OF Terror, but if you oppose war, you're looking at the wrong party flavor.
 
 
+34 # economagic 2016-10-02 13:42
"The truth is that Weissman is just afraid of change."

I don't think it's change as such that he's afraid of, but of precipitous, bone-breaking change. But I agree completely that courage today demands that we stare the likelihood of exactly that kind of change directly in the face and come to grips with it. It is almost certainly coming one way or another, in one form or another, and the longer it is postponed the more gruesome it is likely to be.

Most of the direct damage that either candidate is likely to do in the next four years is not the issue, and in a real sense neither is the makeup of the Supreme Court, but rapidly accelerating global climate change -- along with a dozen or more other critical global systems already stressed to the breaking point, including geopolitics and nukes both "peaceful" and otherwise -- while action to deal with its effects even in the present, much less those in the future or efforts to reverse the rise in temperature and sea level, are hobbled primarily by US intransigence.

Another four years of "business as usual" under Clinton or anyone would bring a planet habitable for humans beyond the end of this century closer to an impossibility.
 
 
+2 # Henry 2016-10-02 13:43
Lots of "IFs" here, RMDC.

"It is LIKELY [Bill Clinton] will go back to fucking interns"
(Surely not at this point ... plus, who cares?)

"Trump has a loose mouth but his actions very LIKELY will not be as bad as his rhetoric"
(Why wouldn't they be?)

"Trump is a RISK."
(Yup, a whopper)

"MAYBE if enough people vote Green this time ..."
(... and then we all sit around complaining while Trump dismantles a lot of things we take for granted)
 
 
+23 # librarian1984 2016-10-02 14:15
Henry your argument would make sense if it were almost any candidate but Hillary Clinton -- hawk and WS sweetheart, corporate loyalist and TPP advocate.

Trump is an abomination. But he at least wants to cancel TPP and free trade agreements. He is less of a militarist than Clinton (and Nuland and Rice and Powers).

Stein is someone to vote FOR. If Trump wins that is STILL better than having the Clintons in the WH.

And yes it matters that a predatory pig like Bill will be assaulting interns. Of course it does.
 
 
+17 # RMDC 2016-10-02 15:49
Henry -- trump's actions would not be as bad as his mouth because the logistics of building a wall along the US-Mexico border make it impossible. The logistics of rounding up and deporting muslims would be impossible. Same for non-documented residents.

Most of what trump says is Teaparty blowharding. It is not doable.
 
 
+7 # lfeuille 2016-10-02 16:34
"It is LIKELY [Bill Clinton] will go back to fucking interns"
(Surely not at this point ... plus, who cares?)"

Agreed. As long as they are of age and consenting.

"Trump has a loose mouth but his actions very LIKELY will not be as bad as his rhetoric"
(Why wouldn't they be?)

Because Congress will not be with him. Even the Republicans don't like him. Because he has no allies in the bureaucracy which will just not get around to implementing his policies 'til his gone.
 
 
-26 # Robbee 2016-10-02 14:38
Quoting RMDC:
Maybe if enough people vote Green this time, the party can get national coverage as a major party in 2020.

why do some keep flogging dead horse jill?

if jill had wanted to test her positions against those of other progressives, she would have run in the dem primaries against o'malley, bernie and hill - then voters would have gotten to know her name and her positions

the fact that jill remains almost unknown is directly due to one, and only one, person - jill

if rump wins, those who vote "jillie" will deny they had anything to do with it - that's who jilliebots are
 
 
+7 # dbrize 2016-10-02 20:37
A weak episode but still better than nothing from the ..."Robbee Bots Lists From WonderWorld show...

Come back tomorrow for a more exciting (and better scripted) adventures of Robbee's Bot Lists From WonderWorld!

See Robbee compose more thrilling lists of partial quotes. Exposing bots, channeling real people.

Watch as Robbee answers the thrilling questions...wil l he get all his "bots" straight? Will he discover the existence of clay people known in RobbeeLand as "hilbots"?

Or...will he continue to mix up and confuse "trumpbots", "rumpbots", "jillbots", "sandersbots" with gasp, some new "bots" from other worlds.

So many "bots" so little time...don't oversleep, you don't want to miss it...

Robbee's Crusade against "bots"! One man alone fighting "bot-ism". See for yourself what no one is talking about...you must see it to believe it. Tune in RSN for exclusive breaking Robbee-isms.

*** time and channel subject to change...any comparison to reality or real people purely unintentional.
 
 
+8 # Ted 2016-10-02 20:40
"if jill had wanted to test her positions against those of other progressives, she would have run in the dem primaries against o'malley, bernie and hill - then voters would have gotten to know her name and her positions"

(psst, Robbee, I don't mean to embarrass you but Dr. Stein is not a dem, she's a green, so she really couldn't have run in another party's primary. They probably would say something if she tried. If you want to learn more about so you can join in these conversations without sticking your foot in your mouth again give this a quick read...

Jill2016.com/platform
 
 
+10 # librarian1984 2016-10-02 22:43
Here in Philadelphia we got a nice four page pamphlet about the Green Party today. Apparently campaigns are not allowed to use the mailboxes or mail slots but they slip it under your mat.

It's a good mailer.
 
 
-3 # Robbee 2016-10-03 13:27
Quoting Ted:
"if jill had wanted to test her positions against those of other progressives, she would have run in the dem primaries against o'malley, bernie and hill - then voters would have gotten to know her name and her positions"

(psst, Robbee, I don't mean to embarrass you but Dr. Stein is not a dem, she's a green, so she really couldn't have run in another party's primary. They probably would say something if she tried.

- psst, ted, I don't mean to embarrass greens but their candidate invited a dem to head her ticket - and another to run as her mate - are you saying a member of one party really couldn't have run on another party's ticket? - or in another party's primary? - that jill is afraid what somebody may say? - if you're right, maybe jill is just disingenuous?
 
 
+9 # anarchaos 2016-10-02 14:39
Kudos, RMDC ----I agree totally.
 
 
+17 # guomashi 2016-10-02 12:37
A vote for Hillary is a vote for killing people.
You shame your touted credentials with the free speech movement by supporting endless war.
 
 
-23 # ericlipps 2016-10-02 13:10
Quoting guomashi:
A vote for Hillary is a vote for killing people.
You shame your touted credentials with the free speech movement by supporting endless war.

Tch. You're getting to be as bad as grandlakeguy, repeating the same old lines over and over. But at least you haven't gotten to the point of SHOUTING in ALL CAPS.
 
 
+18 # guomashi 2016-10-02 13:22
you have yet to offer any answer as to how hillary's avowed hawkish tendencies are not a policy of killing people.

come to think of it, you have never offered any substantive content whatsoever.

never mind. carrion.
 
 
+34 # jdd 2016-10-02 13:32
I see Hillary and her followers as an existential threat to humanity. She has proven that she is willing to escalate the Obama policy of confrontation with Russia and China to level of a nuclear showdown. There is no reason to wait to oppose her, as Obama is carrying out their policy right now. She should be called out on Tim Kaine's refusal to override Obama's JASTA veto, for her insane call for a Syrian "no-fly zone," and Obama's blatant support for Al-Qaeda in Aleppo.
 
 
+35 # guomashi 2016-10-02 13:36
Absolutely agreed.

What I can not understand is how asleep US is to the danger of confronting Russia, much less an allied Russia and China.

And what the hell for?
No good will come from it in any way shape or form.
 
 
+10 # RMDC 2016-10-02 16:43
jdd -- well said. This is what we all face -- Hillary's existential threat to humanity. The world has had enough of war. Hillary will ratchet it up. We don't know what Trump might do. If he works with Putin as he has said that would be very good.
 
 
+9 # librarian1984 2016-10-02 22:50
I am trying to be optimistic. (It's one of my better features. (Except when it's not.))

It's possible Trump's left leanings will re-emerge. (We know he has been a liberal in the past, same as we know Hillary never has been.)

He is a conspiracy theorist so I suspect he will demand access to all the government files about Area 51 etc, and since he has no filters he will let us all know what's in those files.

He also might make the presidency a reality show. Talk about transparency! I envision Congressional roaches slithering away from the cameras as they try to conduct BAU. It could be very entertaining.

(I am not taking this frivolously. I do see the risk inherent in each candidate -- and I am pretty ticked off that this is what we're given to choose between.)
 
 
+1 # rural oregon progressive 2016-10-03 23:24
guomashi:

wow, you did that without shouting in caps... well played! (it is hard, but even i responded without caps). i did have to use the shift key however to make the exclamation point and parenthesis.
 
 
0 # grandlakeguy 2016-10-04 10:28
this is for you ericlipps:

HILLARY CLINTON IS NO MORE THE LEGITIMATE NOMINEE...

THAN

GEORGE W BUSH WAS A LEGITIMATE PRESIDENT!
 
 
0 # grandlakeguy 2016-10-04 10:29
...and this:

HILLARY CLINTON IS NOT A PROGRESSIVE...

SHE IS A REGRESSVE!
 
 
-6 # Henry 2016-10-02 13:34
The credentials are not "touted," they're simply presented.

What would YOU be supporting by enabling Trump to win?
 
 
+7 # guomashi 2016-10-02 18:21
Quoting Henry:
The credentials are not "touted," they're simply presented.

What would YOU be supporting by enabling Trump to win?


Peace.
 
 
+36 # REDPILLED 2016-10-02 13:13
As a Progressive, I will not vote for any imperialist, Republican or Democrat.

I will vote my conscience, for Jill Stein.
 
 
+40 # fsboos 2016-10-02 13:20
Dear Mr. Weissman,
I understand your frustration. A vote for Jill Stein is not merely a protest vote, however--it's a vote for a multi-party system. Unless a reasonable number of people vote third party, we will never get traction for the inclusion of third and fourth parties into debates and elections. A multi-party parliamentary system might not yield perfect results, but it would be better than the current closed, less-than-democ ratic system and prompt more honest discussion about issues.
 
 
+26 # librarian1984 2016-10-02 14:17
Great point.

And if the GP gets 5% of the vote they'll get federal matching funds.
 
 
+6 # Razzoo2 2016-10-02 21:20
All politics is local. Start a local group of greens and get some candidates experienced in office.
 
 
+6 # librarian1984 2016-10-02 22:53
GP has been doing that too, for quite a while.
 
 
+3 # Patriot 2016-10-03 20:22
There already are close to 200 Greens holding public office.
 
 
+3 # Patriot 2016-10-03 20:21
One more time: Jill Stein already is receiving matching funds.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-10-03 22:14
Yes, because of the 2012 election. And if they get 5% of the 2016 popular vote they will then get matching funds into the future, toward 2020.
 
 
-24 # Robbee 2016-10-02 14:49
Quoting fsboos:
A vote for Jill Stein is not merely a protest vote, however--it's a vote for a multi-party system.

- there is no such thing as a vote for a multi-party system - A multi-party parliamentary system takes amending the constitution - A vote for Jill Stein is merely a protest vote
 
 
-21 # Robbee 2016-10-02 14:55
Quoting Robbee:
Quoting fsboos:
A vote for Jill Stein is not merely a protest vote, however--it's a vote for a multi-party system.

- there is no such thing as a vote for a multi-party system - A multi-party parliamentary system takes amending the constitution - A vote for Jill Stein is merely a protest vote

- besides - A parliamentary system is less-than-democ ratic - voters don't get to vote for prez - only their elected reps do
 
 
+3 # Robbee 2016-10-02 14:57
Quoting Robbee:
Quoting Robbee:
Quoting fsboos:
A vote for Jill Stein is not merely a protest vote, however--it's a vote for a multi-party system.

- there is no such thing as a vote for a multi-party system - A multi-party parliamentary system takes amending the constitution - A vote for Jill Stein is merely a protest vote

- besides - A parliamentary system is less-than-democ ratic - voters don't get to vote for prez - only their elected reps do

- our electoral college is what is less-than-democ ratic - gore won by over 2-million votes
 
 
+17 # reiverpacific 2016-10-02 17:56
Quoting Robbee:
Quoting Robbee:
Quoting fsboos:
A vote for Jill Stein is not merely a protest vote, however--it's a vote for a multi-party system.

- there is no such thing as a vote for a multi-party system - A multi-party parliamentary system takes amending the constitution - A vote for Jill Stein is merely a protest vote

- besides - A parliamentary system is less-than-democratic - voters don't get to vote for prez - only their elected reps do


How would you know?
You've lived under a growing oligarchy since I came to this country in the mid-70's and it's never been a democracy since the Great Iroquois Six-Nations Confederacy.
 
 
+8 # indian weaver 2016-10-03 06:37
All Native Americans were a fully democratic society / culture. We lost the template when we committed the genocide of 15 million of them, 98% of the Native american population. Read a few histories of Native Americans to understand why these paleolithic cultures were so far advanced over what the white invaders replaced it for - greed, arrogance and a vicious mentality.
 
 
+1 # lfeuille 2016-10-02 16:37
No one said parliamentary.
 
 
+10 # tedrey 2016-10-02 16:42
Wrong. The party system has no basis in the constitution. The two parties are two *private corporations* that over the years comandeered the electoral process. Constitutionall y they could (but won't) be discorporated, returning us to the non-party system with which the nation (for a frighteningly short time, admittedly) attempted to start out
 
 
-3 # Robbee 2016-10-03 12:27
Quoting tedrey:
Wrong. The party system has no basis in the constitution. The two parties are two *private corporations* that over the years comandeered the electoral process. Constitutionally they could (but won't) be discorporated, returning us to the non-party system with which the nation (for a frighteningly short time, admittedly) attempted to start out

- the 12th amendment makes it virtually impossible for a 3rd party to win an election
 
 
0 # lfeuille 2016-10-05 00:45
Maybe so, but that was not the intent. And nowhere does the constitution state that there has to be only 2 parties.
 
 
0 # LionMousePudding 2016-10-04 17:34
Uh. Are you saying the US Constitution states that we may only have two political parties?

Hm. Maybe you can quote which part you are referring to?

You can find the Constitution by Googling. It's not all that long. Might take you a day to read it.

That'll spare you the humiliation of making such an idiotic statement again.
 
 
+8 # Skyelav 2016-10-02 15:48
2ns part: The republican on steroids his party will promote might just be the thing that brings the party down once and for all.. i.e. no taxes equals no highway safety, no police equals... you get the idea. I pray I am right and if not I pray Hillary and Co. won't destroy the planet.
 
 
+15 # Skyelav 2016-10-02 15:49
First part: (sorry)Weissman is just another weakling willing to compromise at every turn. That might have been good policy seventy years ago or more but we have, as Librarian says, the Bernie capital to grab the power and if we don't do it now, who will, and when??? Well, no one in the White House will "let" Trump pick up the red phone to declare nuclear war on China or someone, as you know. Hillary, on the other hand, is surrounded by advisors who can further global war so subtlely that the voters become the frog in the boiling water, never realizing what is happening until too late. We KNOW she is a slimy crook and all we know about Trump is that he is surrounded by republicans who are quickly losing their talking points and are probably busy rewriting them. If not they should be (aversion therapy for gays? Yeah right.) In any case, if we don't like either of them then we should vote third party. Bernie says this is no time for a third party, then he looks down at his feet because they are holding him by the private places. He probably thinks I wish they would pay attention to what I said months ago about not listening to me when I tell them how to vote. A vote for Hillary is a vote for voter fraud, global infinite war, horrible trade policies, fracking; many of these things Trump is against.
 
 
+9 # librarian1984 2016-10-02 22:59
And just as importantly we have seen there are no advisors Clinton is willing to listen to. Who will stop her if she decides to nuke anyone? Who is willing to stand up to her if she's wrong? Apparently no one.

Just because Clinton is not foaming at the mouth doesn't mean she's not crazy. I think she's dangerous.

Hell, they both are. Neither has any business leading armies.
 
 
-7 # Bic Parker 2016-10-02 16:56
Sure worked well in 2000!
 
 
+10 # Ted 2016-10-02 20:47
2000???

When Gore got 2 million more votes than bush but bush was given the office by the supreme court anyway?

I don't think that worked very well!
 
 
-12 # Rcomm 2016-10-02 13:40
guomashi, I'm always amazed by your inaccurate comments.

If you want to blame politicians for killing people start with the last three republican presidents.

If you want to stop the killing stop voting republican.
 
 
+32 # librarian1984 2016-10-02 14:23
Because Obama hasn't killed anyone?!

Do you know he's the first president to serve his entire presidency in war?

And these drone attacks? Our fiscal and materiel support of Netanyahoo's genocide? Syria? Libya? Honduras?

The DP is just as bad as the GOP now. We have two Republican parties.

Do yourself and the world a favor and don't vote for either one of them.
 
 
-5 # Robbee 2016-10-03 12:32
Quoting librarian1984:
Do you know he's the first president to serve his entire presidency in war?

- and still a sight better than bush2cheney - who started 2 major wars?

hope you still award points for not starting wars?
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-10-04 07:33
Of course I don't fault him for a war he didn't start, but why didn't he end them, as he promised to do?

More importantly, why is he letting the Pentagon disobey his orders and antagonize Russia? He needs to fire Ash Carter immediately. It would de-escalate tensions.
 
 
+2 # guomashi 2016-10-02 18:29
Rcomm:

You are a liar or a fool.

You don't know for whom I have voted.
The last three republican presidents are not running for election this year.
 
 
-10 # mblockhart 2016-10-02 14:16
Go figure: The author puts aside all other domestic and international concerns and gives as his only reason for not endorsing Clinton: "Simply put, I cannot go along with her interventionist , liberal imperialist foreign policy, whether in Syria or Libya, and her eagerness to engage in a new Cold War with Russia." Yet, he seems to think that there is great disagreement between Sanders, whom he supported, and Clinton on this issue when there's not. Sanders voted for the nonbinding Senate resolution on Libya. He stated his support for the deal with Iran on nuclear weapons. And as for Iraq, both Sanders and Clinton spoke in favor of taking the issue of war to the UN and the only difference is she voted with her constituents to do that and he did not.
 
 
0 # lfeuille 2016-10-05 00:51
Voting for a NON-BINDING resolution is one thing. Activity promoting intervention as the ranking member of the cabinet is another. As is sending people to foment civil unrest and encourage rebellion so that you have "moderate rebels" to support. Never mind that they immediately hook up with Al Qaeda allies.
 
 
-17 # Elroys 2016-10-02 14:27
What can i say - it's Hillary or Trump this time around - period. Reality time. For those of you who simply whine, bitch and moan about Hillary's imperfections and worse - she's very smart, deeply committed to families and children (I have 2 kids), definitely made mistakes - and her feet are planted on the ground.
Donald - if you are even giving serious thought to voting for him, you have no serious thoughts. That is unless you are truly interested in only blowing up the "system" (which, I will admit, needs massive transformation) . Donald is NOT the change we all need - he's a freakin' nut case whose only concern is Donald. He is a LOSER, not anyone we'd call a 'winner". He's one of those who was born on 3rd base and believes he hit a triple (born into daddy's dough and then hangs around with awful human beings like Roy Cohen) and thinks he SMART to pay no taxes, How about none of us pay taxes - then we'd all be dumber than hell because we have no teachers, no schools. Sick and tired of my fellow Americans buying into Trump's extraordinary bullshit. Get Hillary in there, by a landslide, then make her do the right things - a la FDR.
 
 
+13 # Skyelav 2016-10-02 15:52
Maybe so, Elroy, but see above. Now is the time to push back not 8 years from now when we hunkering down in fallout shelters, or worse, Trump supporters, election, stolen from them, take over the country and rain down havoc. Never forget how little the democrat voting record has done for average wage workers lately. Put down the glass of white wine and look it up.
 
 
+23 # Sweet Pea 2016-10-02 14:45
Why are we always forced to vote for the lesser of two evils? Why couldn't we have had a choice of someone like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren who at least would have had a message we could believe in? Are the citizens of this country all ignorant, or just have become totally disappointed in their voice in our government?
 
 
+16 # anarchaos 2016-10-02 14:59
[quote name="Sweet Pea"]Why are we always forced to vote for the lesser of two evils? Why couldn't we have had a choice of someone like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren who at least would have had a message we could believe in? We do "have a choice of someone like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren......" Doctor Jill Stein of the Green Party, and her 'veep'Ajamu Baraka. IMO an excellent choice. The message is found here = Jill2016.com/pl an
 
 
+12 # Henry 2016-10-02 15:01
Quoting Sweet Pea:
Why are we always forced to vote for the lesser of two evils? Why couldn't we have had a choice of someone like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren who at least would have had a message we could believe in? Are the citizens of this country all ignorant, or just have become totally disappointed in their voice in our government?


Election fraud in many forms + media ga-ga over Trump / profits.
 
 
+23 # djnova50 2016-10-02 14:49
When Barack Obama ran for President, he ran as a progressive candidate. However, once he started filling his Cabinet with what I call Wall Streeters, whatever progressive values he may have had got shoved to the back of the closet. I voted for him in 2008; but, not in 2012.

In 2016, I supported Bernie Sanders and voted for him in Washington state's caucus and primary. He had all of his supporters believing that the convention would be contested. Poll after poll showed Bernie Sanders defeating Donald Trump by double digits. But, then Bernie endorsed Hillary.

I am a realist and that is why I am voting for the Green Party candidate. Jill Stein is the closest to what Bernie campaigned upon than any of the other candidates. Why would I waste my vote by voting for Hillary Clinton?

If Donald Trump gets elected, I do not believe that he would be the monster that the Democrats want us to believe him to be.

Joshua of the New Progressive Voice YouTube channel posted a series about whether we should fear a Trump Presidency. The title is, "NO TO TRUMP FEAR, YES TO STEIN VOTE" There are three parts, part 1: https://youtu.be/YcA059McT4s

I won't vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.
 
 
+7 # anarchaos 2016-10-02 15:04
Thank You djnova50! Jill and Ajamu in 2016 !!
 
 
-8 # Henry 2016-10-02 15:13
Quoting djnova50:

I am a realist and that is why I am voting for the Green Party candidate. Jill Stein is the closest to what Bernie campaigned upon than any of the other candidates. Why would I waste my vote by voting for Hillary Clinton?


But you'd be wasting your vote by casting it for Jill Stein, because she has ZERO chance of winning. It's not her platform, which is mostly good, it's the party and the candidate: no experience whatsoever! And where are the Green Party candidates for local, state, and other federal office?

So yes, you'd be making a "statement" – mostly to the choir – but ...

That's why Bernie didn't run as a 3rd party candidate (although maybe he was wrong – he still didn't get much attention from the mainstream media, not the attention he deserved!)

Quoting djnova50:

If Donald Trump gets elected, I do not believe that he would be the monster that the Democrats want us to believe him to be.


But he's a monster NOW. He's emboldening all the REALLY STUPID people, and the really really racist people, and the "pry this gun from my cold, dead hands" people.

He's an ignoramus and a slob. He's hideous as HELL because of all the horrible thoughts he's thought, and the nasty words and acts he's done – it's written all over that face that looks like the DEVIL and very much like Mussolini reincarnated.

He's a creep! A liar. He's not "okay."
 
 
+4 # Skyelav 2016-10-02 15:54
Now is the time to look at what these people are really afraid of.
 
 
-2 # bobhintz 2016-10-02 16:55
Henry,

I think you are right on but there is one thing that I think is being overlooked in this forum which you touched on in this quote.

Quoting Henry:

But you'd be wasting your vote by casting it for Jill Stein, because she has ZERO chance of winning. It's not her platform, which is mostly good, it's the party and the candidate: no experience whatsoever! And where are the Green Party candidates for local, state, and other federal office?


If by some miracle Jill Stein got elected she would be hamstrung with a House and Senate bereft of Green Party members. It would make Obama's last six years look like a walk in the park.

To wit, where was Obama's congressional support during his last six years in office? He had a Democratic majority during his first two years and this majority was decimated in the 2010 election.

I argue that his move away from a progressive agenda had more to do with the huge Republican majority in the house, given to him by our electorate in it's infinitesimal wisdom. After all, just about the last thing he did in his first two years was Obamacare but it was all down hill from there.

The agenda of the Republican Congress was to make him a one term president, the country be damned. They failed but they hamstrung him in the process. And then they had the temerity to blame Obama for a dysfunctional government..

When it comes to Obama's lack of a Progressive agenda, the fault is not Obama's but our own.
 
 
+10 # fletch1165 2016-10-02 20:16
He took the Wall Street money before being elected however. Obamacare is a capitulation. We voted for single payer. his compromise is an unaffordable farce that lines the pocket of elites and provides highly inadequate care and overpriced medications, some even pushed on elderly and unwitting victims with no medicinal value(source Dr. Weil). Bill Frisk, the former GOP Senate majority whip, has a brother who made $7 billion off Obamacare(sourc e Forbes magazine, The Wealthiest in Each State.) The CEO of Healthnet was the highest paid man in America four years running under Obama, until he sold of his comapny and merged with another megagiant garnering billions more in personal profit. No there is a reason healthcare is half as much in Canada than here, and its called overt dergulated corporate laissez-faire corruptiuon. 2/3rds of Americans cannot afford Obamacare at all. The mean family salary is 50k gross across America. You believe in a false narrative and completely ignore the one party monopoly. Both are neocon parties now. No one can keep paying these fascist CEO parasites that do nothing for anyone.
 
 
+8 # dbrize 2016-10-02 20:50
bobhintz:

"When it comes to Obama's lack of a Progressive agenda, the fault is not Obama's but our own,"

Let us examine your conclusion:

So, it's "...our fault..." that Obama kept Geithner on along with Larry Summers?

It's "our fault" he chose (and continues) neocon/neolib foreign policy advisers?

It's "our fault" he has extended and expanded the Patriot Act, NDAA and drone bombings?

It's "our fault" he has expanded the GWOT to more than twice the nations he inherited from Bush?

Whose fault will it be when Hillary Clinton pursues more of the same?
 
 
+10 # librarian1984 2016-10-02 23:15
Obama was naming Summers and Geithner to positions of influence right out of the gate, architects of WS deregulation! It was a shock, to say the least, and it wasn't surprising that no banker was ever prosecuted, let alone sent to jail, and the banks were bailed out (while millions lost their homes) and the banks are bigger now than they were back then.

Perhaps if Obama had acted for justice he would have received more support in the 2010 midterms.

Perhaps if the Dems, with not one GOP vote, had passed single payer healthcare rather than Obamacare, they might also have enjoyed more electoral support in 2010.

Obama was conservative well before 2010, betraying all those hope-y change-y promises he'd made.
 
 
-6 # Cassandra2012 2016-10-02 17:55
Right on!
Those who do not follow or understand history, will be condemned to repeat it! These 'purist' millennials, all holier than thou, seem to think WWII had no real meaning, was fought for no particular reason. [Time they talked to their fathers, uncles, elder brothers, grandfathers et al before it is too late.]
I too supported Bernie over Hillary, but I am not so myopic to think that Trump is ,in any way, worth voting for or that he is 'okay'--- he is not. He represents the worst of us --- the racist, xenophobic, misogynist rule of the authoritarian ego, a narcissistic megalomaniac so flawed that he threatens to destroy what little democracy we have left....
 
 
+4 # fletch1165 2016-10-02 20:28
OK cassandra, why did Charles Lindburgh and his wife, who was the daughter of JP Morgan's main partner oppose entering the war against Germany? The war did start in 1938, and it took us over three years to enter. Lindburgh even won a German medal in 1941, just like Ford. Later Henry Ford sued the U.S. government in the 1950's for blowing up "his" Panzer tank factory and won massive repairations. And who again were the Westerners who received daily stock reports from Auswitz and the I G Farben plant abutting the facility? Just answer these quesions related to your statement since you bring up your understanding of history and WW II in particular....
 
 
+10 # librarian1984 2016-10-02 23:29
Quoting Cassandra2012:
[Time they talked to their fathers, uncles, elder brothers, grandfathers et al before it is too late.]
There is something odd about this list of advisors, Cassandra. Do you see what it is? Couldn't they also talk to their mothers, aunts, sisters and grandmothers?

I have loved, studied and read history my whole life. I am not some green pup. Nor am I a millennial. Many of us here are not. Yet still I resent your characterizatio n of them. You exhibit the same disdain and contempt HRC shows for our young people.

Surely if you study history you know that we can find contempt for the younger generation as far back as Socrates. Our parents said the same things about us -- were they true? No. Nor are they now.

I find these new voters to be exemplary citizens -- enthusiastic, hard working and thoughtful. Did you go to Sanders rallies or volunteer with his organization? The young people there were wonderful, intelligent citizens, and one of the great things to emerge from this primary debacle. They know Sanders policies, how they're paid for, what the effects should be -- and they're hard working and willing to help implement them.

Please respect them and stop mischaracterizi ng their intentions and actions. They are not lesser citizens. They are remarkable -- and our best hope for the future. THEY were the group that sustained Sanders and propelled him to victory and I will always be grateful to them.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-10-04 01:41
A few years ago I noticed a number of corporate media articles demeaning millennials. They were lazy. They were apathetic. They expected prizes for doing nothing: entitled.

I was shocked since those descriptions didn't fit any of the millennials I knew.

Then, I started seeing articles telling millennials that Baby Boomers were the cause of all their problems.

Having succeeded in dividing the 99% by race and class and party flavor, TPTB were clearly set on dividing us by "generations." And that has played out with precision during the 2016 primaries and beyond.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-10-04 07:38
That makes sense. And who showed they were extremely progressive? The millennials. So it's time to discount them.

TPTB and their lackeys at the cia epitomize all the very worst of humanity -- violence, paranoia, greed. It is disheartening to see them with so much power, consolidating more.
 
 
+2 # guomashi 2016-10-04 07:42
Quoting Radscal:

Having succeeded in dividing the 99% by race and class and party flavor, TPTB were clearly set on dividing us by "generations." And that has played out with precision during the 2016 primaries and beyond.


The music industry is the means by which this is and has been accomplished for the past 60 years. Generations implicitly define themselves by the music of their adolescence. These languages become mutually incomprehensibl e in short order.

Like I have said before, if we don't know where we came from, we don't know who we are. We are being sold identities that keep us separated.
 
 
0 # Radscal 2016-10-04 16:23
Yes! Have you heard about the Laurel Canyon/CIA connections?

Turns out that many of the iconic musicians that came out of that scene had close ties to CIA and/or military intelligence.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-10-04 17:26
When you also note that many people from Hollywood worked for the cia, it becomes apparent that part of their strategy is simply to put a sizeable portion of Americans on the payroll.

They have so much money, why don't they just buy us all?
 
 
0 # Radscal 2016-10-04 18:52
Yeah, it's fascinating that they've made propaganda a profit-generati ng industry.

But the primary purpose is still propaganda/soci al engineering.
 
 
+7 # librarian1984 2016-10-02 23:09
Henry, You make points I agree with but then reach a different conclusion. Ah! the mysteries of the human mind :-)

The thing is, those Trump followers are not going anywhere. Whether he wins or loses they are there and we have to deal with them.

No one believes a Trump presidency will be a picnic. I, personally, am committed to acting on behalf of my brothers and sisters if it happens. But a Clinton presidency is no great shakes either.

Look at the devastation the triangulating Clintons wrought on the African American community the first time around.

I don't know why blacks were so forgiving in this primary. I wish they had held HRC accountable for her 'superpredator' remarks etc., but if wishes were blah blah we'd have a social democrat wiping the floor with Trump right now.

I'd have liked to have seen that debate!
 
 
-5 # NAVYVET 2016-10-03 12:12
THANK YOU, Henry! I look at what Drumpf has morphed into in the past few weeks and see the face of an evil man, a sociopath. Maybe because I never watch TV and was lucky enough to escape seeing his visage on television, endlessly selling himself and SELLING OUT everyone else. But earlier in the campaign he was silly and self-serving, but didn't look so insane. Now he does. Only insane people can elect someone that nuts. How can any sane person allow someone like Drumpf to hold the command button for nuclear war? He is the only person in his solipsist world. No one else matters a damn.

But there seem to be a lot of really weak minds who make comments on RSN (and all the other noncommercial media) nowadays--or else they are Drumpf trolls, laughing at you while they pick up their checks for sneaky work.
 
 
+2 # Patriot 2016-10-03 20:35
Why is it so difficult for people, such as you, Navyvet--to understand that opposing Clinton does NOT equate to supporting Trump?

That's why so many former Dems are supporting Jill Stein, just as they supported Bernie Sanders. Clinton and the Dems have nothing for the vast majority of the American people. Trump isn't even on the map!

Vote Stein! Give the future a chance!
 
 
-4 # Robbee 2016-10-03 13:00
Quoting djnova50:
When Barack Obama ran for President, he ran as a progressive candidate. However, once he started filling his Cabinet with what I call Wall Streeters, whatever progressive values he may have had got shoved to the back of the closet. I voted for him in 2008; but, not in 2012.

In 2016, I supported Bernie Sanders and voted for him in Washington state's caucus and primary. He had all of his supporters believing that the convention would be contested. Poll after poll showed Bernie Sanders defeating Donald Trump by double digits. But, then Bernie endorsed Hillary.

I am a realist and that is why I am voting for the Green Party candidate. Jill Stein is the closest to what Bernie campaigned upon than any of the other candidates. Why would I waste my vote by voting for Hillary Clinton?

If Donald Trump gets elected, I do not believe that he would be the monster that the Democrats want us to believe him to be.

Joshua of the New Progressive Voice YouTube channel posted a series about whether we should fear a Trump Presidency. The title is, "NO TO TRUMP FEAR, YES TO STEIN VOTE" There are three parts, part 1: https://youtu.be/YcA059McT4s

I won't vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

- # djnova50 2016-09-26 15:27
Jill Stein is not the first Green candidate for President that I will vote for. Remember, I did vote for Ralph Nader.

- how did that work out for you?
 
 
-2 # LionMousePudding 2016-10-04 17:43
I voted for Gore and Kerry.

Didn't work out real well.

So by your implied logic I should give up and vote Republican.

Or... If at first you don't succeed-- and the cause is good-- try, try again.
 
 
+16 # Inspired Citizen 2016-10-02 15:18
Even a "veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts" will vote out of fear. I repeat myself, if Americans of 1776 lived in fear like Weissman, we'd still be a British colony. Voting for Hillary is akin to staying in bed after hearing the alarm, "The British are coming!"

#JillNotHill because we are #NotAfraid.
 
 
+6 # guomashi 2016-10-02 18:34
Preach it brother Citizen!
He should remove that line from his bio.
A lot of people in the movement would just 'check out' on a sunny day and go to the beach instead.
He sounds like one of them.

Martin Luther King said it best:
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it"

Weissman is unworthy of the associations he attempts to clothe himself in.
 
 
+7 # librarian1984 2016-10-02 23:45
Great quote! How I wish MLK were still with us.

I give Weissman credit for his honesty. Everyone else is consciously ignoring Hillary's negatives. He at least sees and does not deny the truth about Clinton.

But it does puzzle me that one can say she is a warmonger and then proceed to vote for her.

I think it speaks to the genuine fear people feel about Trump. Fear is an effective manipulative tool and it is being wielded by those who've been studying it and using it for a long time. Look at that story about the media generated by the CIA on al Qaeda. It says they were doing the same tricks in the 80s.

They are good at what they do and it's working. It's difficult for people to rise up from fear, and it is the ONLY thing supporting Clinton's candidacy. Look at the trolls -- never one positive thing to say about Clinton. Never any facts. Never any evidence. Only fear, terror and dire warnings!

But if people give HRC the office, there will be no relief from the fear. It will be used to manipulate us into supporting war and accepting further austerity.
 
 
-13 # Robbee 2016-10-02 20:49
Quoting Inspired Citizen:
Even a "veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts" will vote out of fear. I repeat myself, if Americans of 1776 lived in fear like Weissman, we'd still be a British colony. Voting for Hillary is akin to staying in bed after hearing the alarm, "The British are coming!"

#JillNotHill because we are #NotAfraid.

- why do some keep flogging dead horse jill?

if jill had wanted to test her positions against those of other progressives, she would have run in the dem primaries against o'malley, bernie and hill - then voters would have gotten to know her name and her positions

the fact that jill remains almost unknown is directly due to one, and only one, person - jill

if rump wins, those who vote "jillie" will deny they had anything to do with it - that's who jilliebots are
 
 
+12 # lfeuille 2016-10-02 15:54
"I will not endorse Hillary Clinton, as Bernie Sanders has done. But I will reluctantly vote for her. I know of no other realistic way to defeat Trump and his followers by the LARGRST POSSIBLE MAJORITY." (emphasis added)

Why would anyone want either one of these creeps to get the largest possible majority? My calculations still come out with Trump being the "lessor evil" by a hair, but either way a large majority will just encourage them to think they have a mandate to do their worst. I'm hoping for the slimest possible margin to let them know they are on probation and to send a message that we want better candidates.
 
 
+3 # fletch1165 2016-10-02 20:39
When its rigged, the majority will be proven to be Trump by the exit polls is my feeling. Just like what happened when it was proven Bernie was cheated. That's what exit polls are for. They never are inaccurate by much as long as they take enough votes in their sample its guaranteed. When the deviation hits double digits, like in Bernie vs. Hillary it is 100% statistical proof of overt corruption. Now they will do it to the Trump supporters, as has already been planned by both candidates who have been acting in collusion all along for the international banking cartel they serve. Hillary it was decided will be the next President to serve corporate elites. Goldman Sachs paid the check and prepared the W-2's and 1099's for their employee Hillary Clinton. And Diebold will execute the program. It is one hope that the Bernie Left and the Trump Right, so disenfranchised , will lead a larger meaningful protest for election fraud reform. We must have paper ballots only and an immediate posting poll site by site of voting outcomes. No votes stored before the precinct reporting takes place.
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-10-02 23:49
@ feuille

I thought the same thing. A mandate for either makes no sense.

Once Clinton 'won' the nomination we started hearing this meme -- that she 'needed' to win by a large margin.

Maybe they need her preprogrammed landslide to be believable?

@ fletch1165

Good point. If there is ANY hint that the election was rigged and Trump loses because of cheating? Holy smokes, that may well instigate fighting in the streets, albeit the suburbs.

Those people aren't as passive as the progressives who stayed silent as Sanders was cheated out of his win. And those people have lots and lots of guns.

Maybe that justification for martial law would be considered icing on the cake for the Clintons, but most of us would suffer from those events transpiring.
 
 
+7 # Skyelav 2016-10-02 15:55
[quote name="Inspired Citizen"] I repeat myself, if Americans of 1776 lived in fear like Weissman, we'd still be a British colony.

YEAH!
 
 
+8 # wrknight 2016-10-02 19:13
FDR once said "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself".

Unfortunately, Americans have forgotten that and now live in a state of perpetual fear that is fed upon by the fear mongers who would squander all the nation's wealth on war and security for the 1%. That's why we live in a police state that is constantly at war.

Let those who succumb to fear vote for the lesser of the two evils, assuming they can tell the difference (which is more style than substance).

Those of us who will stand up to the fear mongers will refuse to do their bidding. We will cast our votes against the two war parties and will vote to save our planet, not destroy it. We will vote GREEN. And to hell with the two party duopoly.
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-10-02 23:52
Nicely stated!
 
 
-9 # Clementine 2016-10-02 21:16
Quoting Skyelav:
[quote name="Inspired Citizen"] I repeat myself, if Americans of 1776 lived in fear like Weissman, we'd still be a British colony.


Yeah because that made Australia such a terrible place
 
 
+15 # lfeuille 2016-10-02 16:01
"Make no mistake. I greatly admire Hillary Clinton for her intellect and determination."

I don't understand why people think she is a great intellect. I associate "intellect" with original thinking which I just don't see coming from her, And determination isn't automatically a virtue. It depends on what one is determined to do. In this case, start wars.
 
 
+7 # guomashi 2016-10-02 18:36
Agreed. Determination? Yes - but born of great and entirely selfish ambition.
Intellect? No - far from being demonstrated.
If anything she is a plodding hack, and she is even selling herself as such.
 
 
+9 # fletch1165 2016-10-02 20:57
Bernie is older and had a much younger mind than Hillary's, during the primary debates. She is a Goldwater Girl. Her father was die hard Republican, who had made it big in the drapery and textiles business.He went on a vendetta against Democrats after an election he claimed was rigged. He tried to run for local city council as an Independent Democrat and felt they jilted him(how ironic). To his dying day he kept trying to get his son in law Bill Clinton to move the party to the right. And Clinton did in many cases. Most notably he raised military spending beyond the stifling Reagan Star Wars numbers that had generated the country's first $5 trillion in debt.
 
 
-2 # NAVYVET 2016-10-03 15:40
Where did you get the figures for the national debt? Fox News? One thing Bill Clinton did NOT do was throw away money on war. I admired him for that--and for little else. What matters is the debt to GDP ratio, which during WWII shot up to over 100% GDP, then fell and remained negative in all administrations until Nixon's brief 2nd term and the Ford years, when the Vietnam debacle caught up. It fell under Carter, rose steeply under Bush Senior, fell under Clinton. Here's a Wikipedia quote:

"Debt as a share of GDP has consistently increased since [1973], except during the terms of presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Public debt rose during the 1980s, as President Reagan cut tax rates and increased military spending. It fell during the 1990s, due to decreased military spending, increased taxes and the 1990s boom. Public debt rose sharply in the wake of the 2007–08 financial crisis and the resulting significant tax revenue declines and spending increases...

"During the presidency of George W. Bush, debt held by the public increased from $3.339 trillion in September 2001 to $6.369 trillion by the end of 2008. In the aftermath of the global financial crisis of 2007–08 and related significant revenue declines and spending increases, debt held by the public increased to $11.917 trillion by the end of July 2013, under the presidency of Barack Obama."

(The steep rise into trillion dollar ++ debt occurred under the Bush-Cheney regime.)
 
 
0 # NAVYVET 2016-10-03 15:45
Here's more from the Wikipedia site:

"David Stockman, former director of the Office of Management and Budget, blamed the 'ideological tax-cutters' of the Reagan administration for the increase of national debt during the 1980s. Former Treasury official Bruce Bartlett attributed the increase in the national debt since the 1980s to the policy of 'starve the beast'".

Can't you all predict what Donald Drumpf's asinine tax policy (lower taxes for the rich) would do to our debt? Yikes.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-10-04 21:36
I'm not so freaked out about the National Debt as some. And only Congress can apportion spending, so blaming/crediti ng Presidents is not very sound. But here's the figures from the US Treasury:

National Debt by Presidential Administrations (in trillions of dollars)


Reagan - Start, $1 (trillion):  End, $2.9: Change, nearly tripled in 8 years

Bush I - Start, $2.9: End, $4.4: Change, half again in 4 years

Clinton - Start, $4.4: End, $5.8: Change, less than 1/3 increase in 8 years

Bush II - Start, $5.8: End, $12: Change, more than doubled in 8 years

Obama - Start, $12: Years, 5: End of 2015, $18: Change, 1/2 added in first 7 years

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
 
 
-1 # LionMousePudding 2016-10-04 18:00
There are reasons not to support a politician and there are self-decepting untruths. You try to do what Hillary did:

"Clinton attended Wellesley College, graduating in 1969, and earned a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1973. After serving as a congressional legal counsel... In 1977, she co-founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. She was appointed the first female chair of the Legal Services Corporation in 1978, and, the following year, became the first woman partner at Rose Law Firm."

I applied to Yale Law after a bachelor's and master's at Yale. I did not make it (I was on the waiting list). I went on to win both top National graduate fellowships: the NSF and the Javitz (I can't imagine anyone will ever do that again). If she graduated from Yale Law and I didn't even get in, I must be a real moron if she is not a great intellect.

I don't like that there are people who call me or others sexist because I don't support Clinton. But I don't like actually sexist arguments against her either.

(I've seen a lot of people attack Jill with similar words, as if she had not graduated med school)

You can give her credit for her actual accomplishments and abilities without supporting her due to her immoral neoliberal war hawk philosophy and background.
 
 
+7 # lfeuille 2016-10-02 16:08
"You can see why I’m so unhappy about having to vote for Clinton just to vote against Trump. But the main reason I cannot endorse Hillary should be obvious from all that I’ve written. Simply put, I cannot go along with her interventionist , liberal imperialist foreign policy, whether in Syria or Libya, and her eagerness to engage in a new Cold War with Russia."

We agree on the main danger of a Clinton presidency. But many of us put what you consider a secondary consideration above the rather remote in my opinion, chance that Trump will actually be allowed to institute the Fourth Reich in the United States. I will not vote for either of them.
 
 
+6 # hipocampelo 2016-10-02 16:13
I shall not vote for the Clinton crime cabal. Jill Stein it is, and then I shall
sit back and keep saying, "I told you so.
 
 
+7 # librarian1984 2016-10-02 23:55
I think however it goes the years 2017-2020 are going to be banner years for anyone who enjoys saying 'I told you so'!

:-D
 
 
-1 # Jack Radey 2016-10-02 16:37
What Steve said. We knew what we were getting into when Bernie decided to run as a Dem. It was a decision to be serious, and try to contest for power, not just to take a moral stance, which some of you seem to prefer. We knew the game was rigged, and with a candidate who was unknown, with no money or organizational support, we came close to knocking off the best known woman in the world, who had gobs of money, the DNC, and tons of organizational support, along with Wall St and the corporate media. And we damn near whupped her. Did you expect the ruling class would roll over and play dead? So we didn't win. Now what?
Face it, we cannot afford to have a deranged, coke snorting, mobbed up, racixt, xenophobe, mysoginist, rageaholic who is ignorant of foreign and domestic policy and is so dishonest it sets a whole new standard in the White House. We survived Nixon, Regan, W. We won't survive a Trump regime. While we live, we can fight. And maybe win some day. If we pout, vote for Jill, or abstain... what will it do? Bupkes.
 
 
-5 # Bic Parker 2016-10-02 17:07
Remember 2000!
 
 
+6 # Ted 2016-10-02 20:51
2000???

When Gore got 2 million more votes than bush but the supreme court stopped the count?

What the heck does 2000 have to do with 2016?
 
 
-5 # Clementine 2016-10-02 20:16
Quoting Jack Radey:

Face it, we cannot afford to have a deranged, coke snorting, mobbed up, racixt, xenophobe, mysoginist, rageaholic who is ignorant of foreign and domestic policy and is so dishonest it sets a whole new standard in the White House. We survived Nixon, Regan, W. We won't survive a Trump regime. While we live, we can fight. And maybe win some day. If we pout, vote for Jill, or abstain... what will it do? Bupkes.


Says it all
 
 
+7 # librarian1984 2016-10-03 00:00
We DID 'whoop' her and then the nomination was stolen.

Anyone who wants better governance and more honest elections cannot begin that quest by rewarding those who stole the nomination. By doing so you condone it, and will never receive anything better.

We survived those other horrible administrations . We WILL survive Trump. But we have got to ensure we are not faced with this disgusting choice again.

We have the worst, stupidest oligarchs ever.
 
 
+8 # John Puma 2016-10-03 01:18
To Jack R:

Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II/Cheney suggests we haven't survived OR that there is no justification for expecting our survival.

Below, "achievements" of WJ Clinton (proudly claimed equally the work of HRC) that suggest he, too, should be on the above list and she would be on it:

1) Defense of Marriage Act – later found unconstitutional
2) DADT – dumped as "major achievement" of the next "progressive" president
3) Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 1993 (aka The Theocracy Enabling Act)
4) Telecom Deregulation Act, 1996 (aka Hate Media Enabling Act)
5) “End of welfare as we know it” to further hobble the black community he/she so smarmily insist they represent
6) NAFTA
7) GATT-WTO
8) repeal of Glass-Steagall Act
9) Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000: with #6,7 & 8, the impetus for Great Depression 2.0
10) Continually kissing the collective ass of, and thereby "emboldening," the, then, only incipient GOP domestic terrorists.
11) Presiding over and extending Pappy Bush’s war crime of Desert Storm “economic sanctions.”
12) Bringing war to Europe for the first time in 50 years with destruction of Yugoslavia. A model for later, similar atrocities in Iraq, Libya & ...
13) 1994 Crime Act to deal with, in part, the black, teen male "super predators" that has "progressed" to the prison-industri al complex, more black males in jail than in college and cold-blooded murder in the streets. See #3, above.
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-10-03 08:13
It is quite sobering to see it laid out so clearly. Thank you.
 
 
+6 # tedrey 2016-10-02 17:06
I appreciate Steve Weissman's honesty in giving his position so clearly. I happen to believe that position may be suicidal for the nation and world, but that's an honest political difference in very ambiguous times. I can still respect him, and hope that he can respect my own direction of choice, which now tends to calling for UN and international intervention if either Trump or Clinton wins.
 
 
+5 # wrknight 2016-10-02 19:29
I do too. But I am disappointed in his lack of courage to buck the two party system.
 
 
+10 # RMDC 2016-10-02 17:13
The more I think about this article, the weirder it gets. Weissman acknowledges that Hillary will do the very things he is most opposed to: endless wars, neo-liberal economic policies, support for TPP in spite of luke-warm opposition. And yet he going to vote for her because he is so scared of Trump. I think he is a perfect example of someone who has been boogiemanned into mental incompetence. Back in 2003, very many Americans were so terrified of the Boogieman Saddam that they were willing to give any powers to GW Bush.

Americans need to learn to resist the boogieman thought control tactic. Hillary is boogiemanning Trump. The real Trump is not so evil. He is just a banal and ruthless businessman. He may actually even have some public spiritedness in him. Hillary certainly has none.

There isn't much good to say about Trump. His comments on the race question in the debate were about a bad as anyone could imagine. And yet, having an ignorant racist in the white house might actually be better for movements such as Black Lives Matter. Waiting for Obama or Hillary to do something is a disaster. Trump would stimulate lawsuits, street protests, and a great deal of teaching and learning.

Trump is an overt and vocal racist. Hillary is a covert and manipulative racist.
 
 
-7 # Bic Parker 2016-10-02 17:49
Trump and Saddam-both really good guys at heart?
 
 
+7 # fletch1165 2016-10-02 20:04
Trump should be compared with Hillary who is of similar ilk. In contrast to these two, Saddam was an orderly leader who kept Iraq in relative peace and prosperity. And of course he was our dictator that we sponsored and supplied weapons including chemical, just like our other boy, the Shah of Iran. Oh yes I blame the evil that inserts these dictators, and then does more than prop them up in suppling cash and some of the World's most advanced weapons. These weapon's suppliers are "the good guys" you say? PHHHHH. Horse Shit. Read Michael S. Gunther's "The Kurdish Predicament in Iraq" printed between Guld War One and Two, and understand we knew our invasion of Iraq would destabilize the region and kill millions. WE KNEW 100%. The State Department read everything. They are not morons. This was an act of pre-meditated EVIL.
 
 
+7 # sharag 2016-10-02 18:11
Vote your conciounce. It's all any individual can do.
 
 
-7 # Bic Parker 2016-10-02 18:43
"A vote for Hillary is a vote for killing people."

What about the Americans who will die without the healthcare that the ACA has extended to millions?

Trump's selfish policies will kill!
 
 
-2 # OrlandoDFree 2016-10-02 19:20
I have a better reason to vote for Clinton. Bernie Sanders worked hard to push the Democratic Party to the left. He succeeded in demonstrating that there's a lot of voters well to the left of Hillary, which she really can't ignore. The only trouble is this: If Hillary doesn't get elected, then Sanders' campaign will have been in vain. The voters (like me) who voted for Sanders in the Primaries are a powerful tool that Sanders can wield in a Clinton administration. They're useless under President Trump.
 
 
+7 # librarian1984 2016-10-03 00:09
Of course she can ignore all those to the left of her. You can see her doing it RIGHT NOW.

Sanders' campaign won't fade if Clinton isn't elected. RMDC, above, makes a good case for leftist movements growing during GOP administrations.

There is of course some argument to be made that Sanders' agenda has a greater chance of implementation under a Dem administration, but that argument is weakened by Clinton's obvious hostility to progressive thought -- and House Dems booing Sanders is not promising either -- horses' a$$es.

Our representatives have drunk the corporate koolaid. We need to disavow them of the belief that that does not carry any consequences.

If Stein is not elected, imo the best we can accomplish is a Trump presidency (gag) and a Democratic Senate. And then we cannot sit idly by for four years. We need to stay alert and active, and protect those who would suffer by Trump's worst supporters' actions.
 
 
+8 # John Puma 2016-10-03 00:30
Obumma ignored his voters to his and her left. He even went so far as to publicly insult them: "the professional left" was the term. Like a latter day political insult akin to "dirty hippy."
 
 
+4 # Ted 2016-10-03 04:22
Or we can elect Stein and Sanders will have even MORE senate leverage!
 
 
+9 # fletch1165 2016-10-02 19:55
The debate was a fake. If Trump were not partnered with Hillary and the status quo, he would have brought up the three Goldman Sach's speeches at $225,000 a pop. NOT once were thet mentioned, clearly a tacit collusive agreement against the American People. Instead he mentioned the 30,000 e-mails next to no one cares about as a distraction. A clear ploy. Neither candidate is valid. Both are charletons and overt criminals. Both care not for the American people. In fact they hate the Ameeican people's guts. Hillary gets a w-2 fromGoldman Sachs. Trump is Sheldon Adelson's employee. WAKE UP SHEEP WRITER. GROW SOME PROGRESSIVE BALLS. NEVER VOTE CORPORATIST NEOCON. WHICH HILLARY AND TRUMP BOTH ARE. This is an ANTI-CORPORATIO N free newspaper and that's why the readers support it. I DON'T DONATE TO ANY BROWN SHIRTS. PERIOD. SO UNDERSTAND WHAT RSN IS PLEASE. Us anti-corporate corruption donators define it, and not ones that drink the Goldman Sach's Koolaide.
 
 
+8 # guomashi 2016-10-02 20:09
I won't fault your analysis.
I will just say the debate was fraud from the moment of incorporation of the presidential debate commission out of the RNC and DNC, from the format chosen, and in intent.

There is no need for analysis.
No debates of any substance will ever happen or ever occur under these conditions.

No one will ever win.
There is no such thing as winning.
There is only 'who I like'.
Substance doesn't exist and doesn't matter.

But - that's life in the cesspool!
 
 
-8 # angelfish 2016-10-02 20:52
Any Green Party Candidate or Libertarian "Know Nothing" will be as bad as Trump could EVER be if elected. I do NOT endorse HIllary Clinton, HOWEVER, she is the sanest, smartest MOST knowledgeable Candidate and with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren already in Congress, giving her MORE Progressive Candidates to keep her feet to the fire is a way to rein in any Warlike tendencies she may have. Congress has the Power to declare War, as President, Hillary will NOT! I believe she will be better for America and FAR less toxic than any of the other Morons looking to run us off the Cliff! Mr. Weissman is right and for the sake of this country I will take Bernie's advice and put someone who, at the VERY least, is capable of DOING the Job of running it!
 
 
+4 # Johnny 2016-10-03 09:55
Where have you been sleeping for the last 60 years, Angelfish? Congress has not declared war since World War II. Hillary will have (and has promised to use) the same power to make war as LBJ used to attack Vietnam, Bush and Clinton used to attack Iraq and Afghanistan, and Obomber has used to attack Libya and Syria. Congress is irrelevant.
 
 
-5 # angelfish 2016-10-03 15:35
Gee.Johnny. I thought it was Congress who let George "dubya" Bush frighten them into declaring Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Wars based on Lies, I might add. Was I MISTAKEN? I think not. Only Congress has the power to sanction ANY Wars this country enters into. If Congress is SO irrelevant, WHY do they have the Power to sit on their hands, as they have done for President Obama's ENTIRE TWO terms to prevent ANY Legislation aimed at HELPING American Citizens?! WHERE have YOU been for the last 60 years?
 
 
0 # LionMousePudding 2016-10-04 18:06
"use of force" does not mean "declare war on another nation"
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-10-05 00:15
Any member of Congress who voted to give Bush II war powers to invade Iraq was either:

1. A fool who was easily misled by obvious lies.

2 A warmonger who deliberately sent us into another war on lies.

Either way, they disqualified themselves from ever being trusted with power again.

And since HRC went on to peddle lies about Gaddafi to send our military might to destroy that country, causing the deaths and ruined lives of tens of millions of innocent women and children, we can judge which of the above to categories she fits.
 
 
+2 # davehaze 2016-10-02 22:03
It is not my fault that our "democracy" is in the shitter. It is not my fault that I want no part of the whole smelly mess, that I fail to believe that my vote will instantly shovel all the shit out of the voting booth, or that flowers will grow and bloom in the voting booth if I vote for the DNC choice who hates me, or that the world will end if Mr T gilds the portios of the tainted off-white house. Hey, one more mortgage or bankrupsy won't kill us, will it?
 
 
+2 # davehaze 2016-10-02 22:10
I have a confession to make, I couldn't read one word of the above article, and can't read one more gd word or listen to another gd word about either repub or dem canidate.
 
 
+2 # davehaze 2016-10-02 22:13
Who can blame me? Well? I'm ready to start a list, any takers?
 
 
+2 # Patriot 2016-10-03 20:54
You still have a duty to vote. Why keep dumping your responsibility on the rest of us? Roll up your slleeves, read the platforms of the four parties--they'r e on the internet, just look for them--make a choice, and vote. We will be electing a president, members of congress, members of state legislatures, and local office-holders. What makes you exempt from taking a part in trying to choose good leaders for us, at every level?

You can't accomplish anything by not voting EXCEPT to convince our now-very-corrup t government that they should do away with the right to vote, because so few people exercise it.

Is that what you want?
 
 
-8 # jamminjames 2016-10-02 23:00
We've made progress moving the Dems left and raising all the issues Bernie raised and making people more aware of them. Now we've got to plant the progressive flag and hold the territory we’ve gained. We can proceed from there. Otherwise, we lose it all, in a disastrous setback. Don’t believe me? Two words: Supreme Court.
http://www.humortimes.com/57867/you-let-bernie-sanders-down/
 
 
+4 # John Puma 2016-10-03 05:59
Without 60 Dem seats in the senate, it is a stretch to assume GOP obstruction of a Dem president's nominee is only a current and temporary aberration.
 
 
+1 # pegasus4508 2016-10-05 15:21
I guess they don't believe you. But the supreme court will make believers out of all of them. For decades to come. DECADES of right wing ideology. It is a horrifying thought.
 
 
-6 # NAVYVET 2016-10-03 11:03
This election, thanks to Bernie Sanders, has opened a lot of eyes. By my first Presidential election, 1960, the 2-party system was secured by televising their national conventions and the feeble but much-watched "debates."

From the time I began voting for President I WAS UNABLE TO TRUST EITHER CANDIDATE: too establishment, too rich, grew up poor & now greedy, too ignorant, academic, politically clumsy, snobbish, Southern, suburban, inexperienced, crooked? etc. The Ike-Adlai-Henry Wallace election of 1952 was the last in which I could have chosen any of the 3 and believed the White House to be in intelligent control--but in those days we had to wait to age 21, which I achieved in 1957.

I came to admire the domestic program of LBJ and the foresightfulnes s of Carter. They were far from perfect on other issues, especially LBJ, but the best I've yet experienced. There is no perfect candidate--cert ainly no perfect politician!--bu t Bernie came closest in his long record of service and in his goals. Nor can a President (thank the Constitution!!) do very much by fiat.

I've come to despise the trolls and childish whiners who blatt that since Bernie kept a promise to work for the nominee he's doing something sinister. Instead, it's a sign of honor. As a Senator he can achieve much for us. Join Our Revolution and continue his work--if you can get off your potato chip couch--and stop your infantile carping so we can determine who the REAL Drumpf trolls are!
 
 
0 # pegasus4508 2016-10-05 15:20
Because they no longer teach civics (thanks republicans) the younger generation has no clue how government works. When Bernie and Elizabeth SAY they will hold Clinton's feed to the fire, not only will they do it, they have the backing of thousands. Both of these senators will have far more influence under Clinton than Stein or Trump. FAR more.
 
 
-8 # Robbee 2016-10-03 13:43
lie! - # Ted 2016-08-14 16:07
if Progressives and Liberals simply change their support to Stein from Sanders, we will win and actually ACHIEVE progressive goals

- when it comes to running more progressives against lesser progressives - other than in dem primaries - greens only slow "our revolution" - bernie's group - down!

when more progressives run against lesser progressives - other than in dem primaries - that tactic results in conservatives winning seats

are greens really that stupid? - yes! - it's who they are! full of themselves!

THE BIG IDEA:
By David Weigel
A specter is haunting the Green Party – the specter of Ralph Nader.

This morning, as America’s fourth-largest party gathers in Houston to nominate a presidential ticket, it’s struggling to capture the progressive voters who supported Bernie Sanders. Jill Stein, the party’s likely nominee, was rebuffed when she asked Sanders to head the party, and rebuffed again when she asked popular Sanders surrogate Nina Turner to be her running mate.

Why is progressive frustration with Hillary Clinton not boosting the Greens? It’s because sixteen years ago, Green Party nominee Ralph Nader won 2.9 million votes, and at least 2 million of those voters came to blame themselves for the victory of George W. Bush over Al Gore. (The combined vote for Nader and Green candidates since 2000 has never exceeded 900,000.)
 
 
-6 # Robbee 2016-10-03 13:44
big idea, part 2

The 2000 election was one of the founding traumas of the modern center-left. It’s no accident that Stein polls best with voters under 30; liberal voters who remember 2000 are likely to associate “voting your conscience” with giving away the presidency.

That’s most evident in the list of Nader supporters from 2000 who have never come back to the Green Party. Nader's running mate that year, Winona LaDuke, endorsed John Kerry in 2004 and then disengaged from politics. Michael Moore, who introduced Nader at some of his rallies, later apologized to Al Gore and has endorsed Democrats for president ever since. Many of the celebrities, academics and intellectuals who backed Nader went on to support Sanders; the only prominent one to support Stein this time is Cornel West.

“There were three claims made by Nader in 2000,” said Charles Lenchner, who voted for Nader that year but went on to found the grassroots group People for Bernie. “The first was that there was no substantial difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush. The second was that the campaign would be a boost to local organizing. The third was that the Green Party could emerge as a viable force in our politics. And none of that came to pass.”
 
 
0 # pegasus4508 2016-10-05 15:18
They will learn from Trump. NO doubt and the entire planet will pay a price for their morality. For those still claiming Nader did not give Bush the win. Facts matter. Math does as well.
 
 
+1 # Patriot 2016-10-03 20:58
Robbee, Nader didn't cost Gore the election,. Gore and the Supreme Court and Jeb Bush & company did.

And this is 17 years later, with a different electorate and very different candidates.

Stop beating a dead horse.

Vote Jill Stein!
 
 
0 # pegasus4508 2016-10-05 15:16
Why? Jill Stein is running just to get the funds associated with running a presidential campaign. She won't win because winning is not what she wants. She just wants to be paid to run - every 4 years. If she REALLY wanted to win, she would back Green party nominees in local elections around the country. THAT is the way to power. She would no more be supported in a split congress than a democrat in a republican congress. Don't fool yourself. IF she did win, she would still have NO victories. Because she would have few if any allies. Truth is...
 
 
+5 # rscamardo@gmail.com 2016-10-04 04:44
It will be easier to get rid of Trump than Clinton, as the media already recognizes him as the fascist he is - while they still pander to and make excuses for Clinton. If he is allowed to get rid of her once and for all then moderates and progressives might be able to agree on uniting against him, giving a real progressive a shot. Clinton is really no different with her war mongering, wallowing in the mud for more power and wealth, pandering to groups she clearly feels and treats as inferior and ignorant. These kinds of politicians institutionaliz e the kind of hateful comments Trump is vilified for making. Voting for one to stop the other is hard for me to understand. Fear is a powerful motivator and that is one of the many things both of these terrible candidates have in common. Either way this will end up being a continuation of Obama's continuation of George Bush's phony war on terror. It is not something I can support. The third parties seem like the only legitimate options.
 
 
+1 # pegasus4508 2016-10-05 15:13
I am so happy for the self righteousness shown WHENEVER someone says they are being an adult and voting for Hillary Clinton.
The only people who can afford for Trump to be president are WHITE MEN.
Yes, I said it. As a black woman, Trump and the hateful GOP will dismantle every social safety net program in the nation. ALL of them. No more food stamps, but what is a few more hungry children?
No more healthcare - who needs that anyway?
No more women's right to choose in if she wants a baby or not. But why would she? That child will grow up homeless and in the streets before Trump's 4 years will end.
Last but not least, gay rights will be dismantled, as will what is left of the voting rights act.
But, hey, you have a "conscious" you have "morals." You just don't give a shit about anyone but yourself. That would make YOU a Republican.
Trump has said he will give the actual running of the country to Mike Pence. Mike Pence who signed the 1st "religious right" bill.
Mike Pence forces women to provide funeral services for miscarriages.
Yep. It will be a great time for white men. Just not for the rest of us. Even the ones who hate HRC.
 
 
0 # Brice 2016-10-05 15:43
Nice to know that some people can think logically and soundly.
 
 
0 # Totusek 2016-10-06 02:32
Unfortunately, "We The People" DON'T elect U.S. Presidents ... and we never have. The U.S. Electoral College (who only vote for Republicans and "establishment" "Democrats" in this day and age) has always been who actually "elects" U.S. Presidents, NOT the combined national vote count of the general public from all U.S. States and U.S. "territories" - and that's assuming that in the modern combined national vote count, that there is no election rigging (which there is and has been) - via purging people from the voting rolls (and most often it's people of color being purged) and/or via electronic voting machine counts being altered...
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN