Arlong Park Forums

Since we're repeating ourselves I'll just say again that consistently voting along the party lines is not the way to change anything. You said you vote third party sometimes. I don't think that's a better alternative for an active consistently democratic voter to just not click Hilary's name if its the option. They send the same message. A democrat who was supposed to vote demcrat didn't show up.

No. Every year Democrats don't show up. Every. Single. Time.

After every election, there's scores of "Democrats Apathetic again!" news stories.

Every. Single. Time. An. Election. Happens.

You failing to vote will be interpreted as nothing more than "Typical Apathetic voter" and Bernie's hopes to get anything changed will die as a Republican who is ready to veto every single thing he does steps up to the oval office.

Way to go.

Monkey King

lol I'm glad I blocked this clown

SpaceCowboy

"Obviously I am disappointed in not being nominated, and obviously I wouldn't be in as good a position to get those things done as I would have been if I'd become the next president, however, I vow to my supporters I plan to continue the good fight and fight for all of those things I campaigned on. I will not be running as an independent. I know I'd have no chance of winning, and I want nobody to waste your vote writing me in. Therefore, I implore you, if you support anything I stand for, Vote for Hilary.
Our choice of president is now Hilary Clinton vs. [Republican Nom], and while it's true that Ms. Clinton and I disagree on a fair bit and don't perfectly align politically, the things I intend to keep fighting for have a FAR better chance of actually happening if Hilary is president, than the alternative. With Hilary, we have a chance. [Republican Nom] will veto every single bill I send to his desk."

If the above Speech was said by Bernie, in his words mind, but the actual facts I outlined above came from Bernie's own mouth, would you change your mind?

Probably not.
He doesn´t see it as a matter of "party vs party" but as "individual vs individual". And in his case, he believes that the individuals at stake do not fit his criteria of what´s suitable to be the president.
And that´s fine, but it´s a bit dangerous in a bi-party country like the US for reasons stated above by Robby.

Cyan D. Funk

In the hypothetical event of Bernie somehow winning the White House, how long will it be until people start calling him a sellout democrat after Congress takes his 'revolution' and laughs in his face about it?

Taggerung

If he said all that it doesn't solve my problems with Hilary in an executive position. The reps control congress and they control most of the states where they have rep Governors. I'm don't think the democrats will gain much in congress. The trouble the party has had nationally isnt as badlocally. So Bernie staying there isn't going to amount to much. I also don't think being called out on her promises will make Hilary fulfill them. Like I said if she wins the primary her odds of losing an incumbent position with the Reps in this state is low so with so many people willing to vote for her just because she's not Republican if she wins the primary she has 8 years to do whatever she wants with no real challenge.

So no it wouldn't make me vote for her. I'm on my phone so I can't really go over all those links or post my own but its an issues I've addressed before so I'll just be reposting the same stuff. Low voter turnout is examined heavily. That's why Bernie made so much noise when they cut off his access to that information. Becuase it matters a lot who didn't show up and why and when they look at the data that's what they try to figure out. Why they didn't show up so they can get them to the next time.

Green_vs_Red

@Cyan:

In the hypothetical event of Bernie somehow winning the White House, how long will it be until people start calling him a sellout democrat after Congress takes his 'revolution' and laughs in his face about it?

I'd give it a year at the earliest.

Ubiq

@SpaceCowboy:

Probably not.
He doesn´t see it as a matter of "party vs party" but as "individual vs individual". And in his case, he believes that the individuals at stake do not fit his criteria of what´s suitable to be the president.

At its core, it's the same mentality that the Tea Party operates under; just at the opposite end of the political spectrum.

Jabberwok

What would be actually good is if Bernie became Senate Majority Leader and was able to shift the Congressional views/approach in a way that simply can't be done from the Executive office.

Robby

It's bigger than just one person versus another person. It's party versus party at this point. And isn't it better to get 80% of what you want and upholding things while cementing future forward progress, rather than getting nothing you want at all, and in fact getting a ton of things against general human decency?

It's not a case of "they both suck, it doesn't matter." Its a case of "one is a massive step backwards, the other will at least keep things going forward."

Satsuki

Oh, hush.

@Jabberwok:

What would be actually good is if Bernie became Senate Majority Leader and was able to shift the Congressional views/approach in a way that simply can't be done from the Executive office.

That would be the same scenario as Ted Kennedy. In the long scheme of things he did a lot more as a Senator than he would have as a President. (and he avoided getting assassinated that way . . .) Massachusetts lost it's shit when Ted died.

Not that I don't want Bernie to win. But if Hilary gets the nom I would love her to appoint Bernie as the Senate Leader. Not only would he be good but it would be a nice runner-up position for him.

If not him then Elizabeth Warren.

Green_vs_Red

@Satsuki:

That would be the same scenario as Ted Kennedy. In the long scheme of things he did a lot more as a Senator than he would have as a President. (and he avoided getting assassinated that way . . .) Massachusetts lost it's shit when Ted died.

And in some ways so did the senate.

Ubiq

I… rather doubt Bernie could win a caucus of Democratic Senators to gain the Majority Leader status.

Jabberwok

The Democrats would have to win back the Senate first, then Harry Reid would have to step down and party would have to be desperate enough for positive press to elect a popular non-establishment figure to the position instead. It's incredibly unlikely.

Elizabeth Warren kicks ass and I could see her becoming a Senate Party Leader if the Dems were looking to elect a rising star. I really hope she runs for President in 4 or 8 years.

Green_vs_Red

@Jabberwok:

The Democrats would have to win back the Senate first, then Harry Reid would have to step down and party would have to be desperate enough for positive press to elect a popular non-establishment figure to the position instead. It's incredibly unlikely.

This is actually set to happen.

Monkey King

@Cyan:

In the hypothetical event of Bernie somehow winning the White House, how long will it be until people start calling him a sellout democrat after Congress takes his 'revolution' and laughs in his face about it?

This will already be happening if he wins the nomination during the general lol

Jabberwok

@Green_vs_Red:

This is actually set to happen.

Oh, so it is. Chuck Schumer is the likely successor too. Good choice.

Cyan D. Funk

I'm gonna miss Harry "I Don't Give a Fuck" Reid.

Boing

This "Bernie bro" critique is the current bane of my existence.

Green_vs_Red

@Cyan:

I'm gonna miss Harry "I Don't Give a Fuck" Reid.

Damn shame we gotta be stuck with McConnell whose not giving a fuck routine is actually harmful.

Demon Rin

So no it wouldn't make me vote for her.

So…. if BERNIE SANDERS HIMSELF told you that the next best thing to him winning the presidency was for him to try to get the things he wants passed from his present position, and that Hillary Clinton in the white house facilitated that better than a Republican. So your choices are "Option A: There's a fair chance you might get some of the things you wanted" or "Option B: You will definitely not get any of the things you wanted".... you would be PERFECTLY FINE sitting back and letting Option B happen LITERALLY NO REASON but "I'm salty because the guy I wanted didn't win" with absolutely positively no actual tangible results?!?!

Really?!?!

Welp...

In other news.

Know how Trump so far has attacked Mexicans, Women, Muslims, basic human decency…. it was only a matter of time before he went after The Gays.

The sad part is, he's just parroting what all the Republicans say they want… This is a glimpse of what the America Tuggerung is perfectly ok ushering in will be like.

Outerspec

Tagger, you have legitimate reasons to not like Hillary Clinton and many of the things you post I agree with, including the fact that she wouldn't be any different from Obama on banks and domestic spying. For the record those are negatives. I'm not necessarily saying this to give more power to your argument because what it basically has boiled down to is, if it came down to it who would be the better candidate between Hillary and any other currently running Republican candidate? I'm saying this because, even with the negatives, Hillary Clinton is the better candidate than any of her counterparts on the Republican side. Can you say you'd rather have a currently running Republican candidate take the White House over Hillary Clinton? Can you truthfully say it really doesn't matter? Even you, who sees no major difference between Hillary and everyone running on the Republican side, will recognize their are in fact differences. They might not be as important to you but that does not take away how important they are to others.

Cyan D. Funk

On one hand, 4 years of The Donald may remind the American people what having a modern Republican in the White House is like and why the threat of it should supersede your precious political purity and 'REVOLUTION'.

On the other hand, I don't think this country would still exist after 4 years of The Donald.

Outerspec

Honestly, 4 years of Donald Trump would likely seriously damage any significant international relationship we have and embolden the ones we don't have for good reason.

Cyan D. Funk

@Outerspec:

Honestly, 4 years of Donald Trump would likely seriously damage any significant international relationship we have and embolden the ones we don't have for good reason.

"Alright, see, we're going to directly confront ISIS, yeah, see we're going to build the Trump Bomb, a yooge bomb, really really 'yooge, and we're going to lob this bomb - with or without the assistance of our friends in Europe - yeah, and this bomb, it's going to go high. Really, really high. And then-and then the bomb's going to go soaring across the middle east, we'll give it some nice tassels, and then it's going to land on ISIS. Alright? See? There. Done."

y2kyle89

I think Canada would have another influx of refugees if Trump wins.
How exactly does one defect to Canada? I'm asking for a friend.

Crossword

Not aimed at you (or your friend), but I love how people always go on about moving to Canada as if Canada doesn't have its own brand of shitty conservatism.

Monkey King

@y2kyle89:

I think Canada would have another influx of refugees if Trump wins.
How exactly does one defect to Canada? I'm asking for a friend.

Canada right now is suffering because the conservative guy they just got rid of spent much of his terms tying a large portion of the economy to fuel stuff, which has backfired tremendously.
Also they're having ominous housing bubble trends like we did before the 2008 crash.
Canada not an easy out right now.

Purple Hermit

Everybody keeps seeing Canada as some bastion of liberalism probably because of the whole universal healthcare thing but then they forget that Steven Harper was their PM for 10 years.

y2kyle89

Yeah, no offense, but I'm not gonna let the truth of the matter get in the way of a perfectly sub-par joke.

Ubiq

Plus it's not like President Trump wouldn't take Canada and Mexico down the drain with us anyway. Most of Europe and Asia too when I think about it.

Jabberwok

@Crossword:

Not aimed at you (or your friend), but I love how people always go on about moving to Canada as if Canada doesn't have its own brand of shitty conservatism.

Well it's not like we can move to Mexico, and everywhere else is too much of a hassle to move to. Be reasonable, please.

Louis-1988

Wonder what kind of turnout we're going to see at tomorrows caucus. I think on the democratic side a higher turnout (say 200k+) would favor Bernie, but with Trump, Cruz and Rubio all polling in tight contention it's going to be interesting to see who a high/low turnout favors in the end on the republican side of things.

Cyan D. Funk

Plus it's not like President Trump wouldn't take Canada and Mexico down the drain with us anyway. Most of Europe and Asia too when I think about it.

Australia too, maybe a chunk of Africa, probably most of the Pacific as well. Maybe Pakistan.

Ubiq

@Cyan:

Australia too, maybe a chunk of Africa, probably most of the Pacific as well. Maybe Pakistan.

Come to think of it, about the only countries that wouldn't suffer because of his economic policies are the ones that would be suffering because of his foreign policy.

Cyan D. Funk

Come to think of it, about the only countries that wouldn't suffer because of his economic policies are the ones that would be suffering because of his foreign policy.

Day 46 of the Trump/Trump regime - US troops are slated to begin a mass amphibious assault on the Marshall Islands in the name of "rent". Meanwhile, Maryland becomes the 42nd state in the Union to declare bottle caps the official currency after hyperfinflation led to the creation of the $1,200,000,000 dollar bill. Ex-Senator Ted Cruz is still scheduled for execution at sundown via stoning.

Taggerung

So…. if BERNIE SANDERS HIMSELF told you that the next best thing to him winning the presidency was for him to try to get the things he wants passed from his present position, and that Hillary Clinton in the white house facilitated that better than a Republican.

If he said Trump was the next best thing to vote for does that mean I should vote for Trump? If he said what you typed about Hilary I would have no reason to believe him other than his word which is nice thing but it doesn't erase her list of donors and voting history.

So your choices are "Option A: There's a fair chance you might get some of the things you wanted" or "Option B: You will definitely not get any of the things you wanted"…. you would be PERFECTLY FINE sitting back and letting Option B happen LITERALLY NO REASON but "I'm salty because the guy I wanted didn't win" with absolutely positively no actual tangible results?!?!

I gave a list of the things I care about and how Hilary Clinton is, in my view, opposed to them. Those are the things I want. I think the only thing that I also care about that I can't think Clinton would damage is education but I also have no reason to think she'd make any major positive strides in that area. So it's not a matter of me being salty. And I "LITERALLY" gave you several real reasons on issues that are extremely important and why I think she would damage those issues. Again, the only thing you can think of as a reason why I should vote for her is because she's not republican. And again, I think that's a bad reason to vote for someone when I don't have to.

@Outerspec:

Can you say you'd rather have a currently running Republican candidate take the White House over Hillary Clinton? Can you truthfully say it really doesn't matter? Even you, who sees no major difference between Hillary and everyone running on the Republican side, will recognize their are in fact differences. They might not be as important to you but that does not take away how important they are to others.

I see no major difference on the things that are important to me. I can see that there are differences though. A republican in the white house with the backing of a republican house, even a slightly divided one, would impact my life in a lot of bad ways. Possibly for decades to come. But I think the ways in which they can do damage don't outweigh the damage that would be done by continuing our surveillance programs, continuing to let banks run wild, continuing to push trademark laws and intellectual property laws which keep power in the few and allow the easy exploitation of many. Immigration is important, affirmative action is important, gay rights are important, women's rights are important and I understand that to a lot of people these type of things are the things that matter the most when it comes to this election or really any election. There is a sense that no one will actually change anything major so it's best to just vote for someone who can give you more of the things you do want like all that stuff I just said was important. But to me those things increasingly seem like they distract from the real problems of the country. I don't want to support a candidate that isn't willing to deal with the major things and I don't want to further enable candidates to think they can win just by promising to help deal with the obfuscating issues.

I think the best way to send that message is by not voting for Hilary. I typically vote democrat nationally and locally and I'm an active voter (6th time i've said that?) so contrary to what Robby and Demon Rin have said, that matters and makes a difference. There's a difference between someone registered democrat who is inactive vs someone registered independent who is inactive vs someone registered democrat who is inactive locally and active nationally vs etc etc. All of that makes a difference. They look at the age of the area. The ethnic demographics. Past voting trends. All of that information is scrutinized heavily so that they can determine who can show up, who will show up, and what will make them show up. So when I don't vote for Hilary, yes it's true someone might use that information as a piece of an article that laments low voter turnout. Someone will write an article about Bernie supporters throwing a tantrum. But when national and local politicians look at that data they will be looking for the why, and how they can influence a change in it if they need to. I hope if it gets to that my non-vote tells the story I want it to tell.

I don't know what happens then. It's possible that if it results in a Trump victory the republican's destroy the country and by 2020 the nuclear war he would have started would have ended mankind. It's also possible that just like after Obama's victory in 2008 the left could see an extremist surge like the Tea Party emerge, a group that demands their senators and representatives don't compromise an inch on left issues they think are important. It's possible that after 4 years of Trump the democrats will be so desperate to get anyone else into office they will settle for ANYONE who isn't republican to get into that office. It's possible Hilary will win and disgruntled Bernie supporters still make that extremist surge. I think it's off to consider not compromising on the issues I listed as being considered an extremist but I'll take the label if Ubiq is the one throwing it out. It's possible Hilary get's elected and the rhetoric of the right gets louder and worse and they sweep congress some more resulting in gridlock on all the other things people think are important but no gridlock on the major things that people feel they wouldn't be able to change anyway. About that stuff I don't know. But I know what happens if I help elect Hilary. Or at least I think I do. Maybe she'll surprise me. Retain, even in opposition, your capacity for astonishment. Maybe she'll get my vote 4 years from now. But not now.

Ubiq

Possibly for decades to come. But I think the ways in which they can do damage don't outweigh the damage that would be done by continuing our surveillance programs, continuing to let banks run wild, continuing to push trademark laws and intellectual property laws which keep power in the few and allow the easy exploitation of many.

I fail to see why you think a Republican Presidency wouldn't double down on all of those policies along with a long litany of things like rolling back gay rights and health care coverage rather than merely continuing them.

Taggerung

I fail to see why you think a Republican Presidency wouldn't double down on all of those policies along with a long litany of things like rolling back gay rights and health care coverage rather than merely continuing them.

Why does the Republican have to double down on those things? They could just continue the work of the previous democrat and you'd have similar results. Both parties seem content to do nothing about citizens united and keep the PATRIOT act in force. The TPP has been slammed from both sides but I think for different reasons. The long litany of things I already said even if they negatively impact me I won't prioritize their importance over the major things.

Demon Rin

Hillary Clinton on the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). She's in favor of keeping it.
It's not the single payer system Bernie wants, but it's WAY better than not having it. I actually have health care. The ACA goes away, and so does my Healthcare.

Republicans have consistently and repeatedly attempted to repeal it and every single Republican wants to. They actually successfully voted to repeal it recently actually, and that was VETOED by Obama. We get a Republican president, the ACA is gone. Millions of people will lose their healthcare.

But there's no difference between Hillary Clinton and the Republicans.

Hillary Clinton promised to back LGBT Rights.
Now I know the typical criticisms of Hillary. That she, like a lot of politicians, took a while to "Evolve" on LGBT rights and wasn't ALWAYS in that corner. I hate that attack because, well, She IS in that corner NOW and literally every single Republican is not. Also, I know the next one would be "Well, she flips flops based on what's politically popular". WELL, LGBT rights ARE Politically popular with Hillary's base and they only grow more so as time goes on. She WON'T go back on LGBT rights. She might not prioritize them, but she most certainly won't do anything to roll them back which is what every single Republican candidate not only wants to do, but most have made it a major campaign issue.

But there's no difference between Hillary Clinton and the Republicans.

That's just two issues. Two HUGE issues for that matter. One affects the health and well-being of millions of people while one affects the basic rights and human dignity of an entire minority class of people.
I'm POSITIVE there are FAR MORE than just those two issues where Hillary and the Republicans greatly differ.

Look, nobody is telling you who to vote for. We all assume that since you support Bernie Sanders, Hillary is PROBABLY aligns closer to your political ideals than the Republicans do, but what do I know. You may hate poor people and "the gays" as much as your average Republican.
Seriously, if you told me you sat down and looked at it, weighed all the options and came to the conclusion that the Candidate that most aligned with your views OTHER than Bernie was Ted Cruz and you were going to vote for him if you couldn't vote for Bernie… I'd hate that a Republican was getting another vote, but I'd at least RESPECT you because that means you actually gave a damn.

The point is, Whoever runs this country for the next four years MAKES A MASSIVE DIFFERENCE, so it's IMPORTANT that you do everything you can to make sure that person is the one least likely to completely destroy everything.

But no, you'd rather throw a tantrum that the media will shrug off as the usual "Democrats are fickle apathetic voters".
Seriously, if you think they're gonna sit down and comb over the voting records of every single person who didn't vote, you're fooling yourself. The Fact that you voted Democrat in the last 6 elections won't matter. You're part of a group who are known for being no-shows at the polls sometimes. They'll judge you as part of the group and be on their way.

Ubiq

Why does the Republican have to double down on those things?

Because it's not like the GOP hasn't pushed back against regulating banks and Wall Street, promoted suspicion of certain elements of the population that they would undoubtedly increase surveillance on, or appointed Supreme Court Justices who have continually upheld and expanded the Federal Goverment's right to spy on its citizens.

And we all know how hostile the Republicans are towards things like rights for business.

Taggerung

But no, you'd rather throw a tantrum that the media will shrug off as the usual "Democrats are fickle apathetic voters".
Seriously, if you think they're gonna sit down and comb over the voting records of every single person who didn't vote, you're fooling yourself. The Fact that you voted Democrat in the last 6 elections won't matter. You're part of a group who are known for being no-shows at the polls sometimes. They'll judge you as part of the group and be on their way.

I don't have health care. Haven't had it for 10 years. The ACA is huge improvement. She wants to keep it, it would be her death if she said otherwise BUT maybe she also likes it, fine. I don't think she's going to improve it. She's being paid by pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies to not improve it. A Rep get's elected, you're right the ACA goes away. Hilary get's elected, I see no major efforts to curb insurance companies or the rising cost of healthcare. For me, on healthcare, there is no difference either way. For you, I can see why keeping what you have is better than the risk of losing it. I think in the big picture besides me and you much more effort needs to be made on this issue. I don't see Hilary leading that charge though and by not leading it she would be making it worse in the long run.

You listed two issues and LGBT as your second one is puzzling because like you've said it's got a ton of criticism. Right now Gay and Lesbian are fine words to say so Clinton will say them. Can she say Transgender? Will she? If your best argument for her in this corner is that she won't say something bad about it, you're right, that would be dicey. I don't really look to silence on LGBT issues from my politicians though. DADT was silence made into law. I think when it comes to LGBT issues she would do whatever appeals the best to the people who she thinks will keep her in office. That doesn't always translate as good, sometimes it translates into things like DADT. This is a weird corner to fight for her from on an issue that actually effects me a lot but I don't really care about right now.

I don't think you'd respect me if i voted for Ted Cruz btw. Clearly I give a damn because I've spent a lot of time here explaining all the things I give a damn about. It doesn't matter if you keep calling it a tantrum either. You were fast with google when it came to spouting endless articles about low democrat turnout but you're not as fast when it comes to google how election results are analyzed. Should I say it a 7th time? I'm not. But calling me a no show at the polls is stupid. It is a comment based completely in ignorance of me because you don't know me. In the same paragraph you argue that they'll judge me as a no show and insist they they won't bother to even comb the over the voting records of the no shows but they wouldn't know that i was a part of a "group who are known for being no-shows" unless they went over my past voting record. I don't have any other word for that than stupid.

You can try again with the things I LITERALLY listed that were important to me. Or you can, as I think you already have, decided they're not important enough to risk losing things like your healthcare which is understandable. But I also don't think you could make a strong argument for Hilary with the other ones. Healthcare was the low hanging fruit and even then she promises to just not undo Obamacare which is her shtick. Not being a republican.

Because it's not like the GOP hasn't pushed back against regulating banks and Wall Street, promoted suspicion of certain elements of the population that they would undoubtedly increase surveillance on, or appointed Supreme Court Justices who have continually upheld and expanded the Federal Goverment's right to spy on its citizens.

And we all know how hostile the Republicans are towards things like rights for business.

But it's not like the Democrats have made any strong attempts. They had the Presidency and control of congress when they passed Dodd-Frank and the banks were curtailed a bit, wall street not enough at all especially considering the damage they were able to do. They also had 2 years to remove the surveillance and they didn't, the administration did double down on it really introducing new programs.

So where the Dems aren't agreeing they're apathetic. Which you can argue is better than being overzealous but it's still ends up as a continuous increase over the years.

This boils down to the explosion of negative impacts on these issues or the steady downward spiral. I still don't see that as a choice I want to make and the best way for me to show that is to show the party that would have had my vote that they need to make changes. If they win and decide they don't need it, cool. But if they lose odds are they'll try harder to get it. Unless there's another option I'm not seeing?

Demon Rin

I give up. You just don't get it. You keep coming back to why Hillary doesn't address all of your concerns and how much better Bernie is when NOBODY is comparing her to Bernie, we're comparing her to the Republicans.

You say pulling out LGBT issues is a "Weird Corner" to fight for her in? Against Bernie, maybe, but NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT BERNIE! Against Republicans? Hillary is EASILY the better choice when it comes to LGBT issues than ANY Republican. We get a Republican in office and a ~~Right to Discriminate~~ "Religious Freedom" bill is being passed immediately and the moment they have the ability to, Marriage Equality is going bye bye.
These are things they said they are definitely going to do.

Hillary's base is against those things, she definitely won't. I don't see her championing for anything more, and that IS bad, but I also don't see her Vetoing a Non-Discrimination act if it came to her desk either.

If this issue really "Affects you a lot" as you say, this should concern you more.

You obviously couldn't give a crap.

I think I see what this is, you completely and utterly lack empathy. You see things that matter to you, that are a big deal to you, and those are ALL that matter. Things that affect millions of innocent people like Health Insurance and basic human rights? To hell with them! You didn't get everything YOU wanted, so just fuck all those millions of people. YOU don't have health insurance, so what does it matter that over 50,000 lives have been saved from preventable deaths since Obamacare was enacted.

YOU didn't get the Wall Street Accountability you wanted, so fuck all those people, they could just DIE for all you care!

Ubiq

Yeah, it seriously just boils down to a "I don't get everything on my terms so I'd rather just watch the whole world burn" mentality.

That same mentality helped get us the Bush Administration in the first place.

Demon Rin

Funny, I just realized something.

He's using the same logic gun nuts use against Gun Control.

"Universal Background checks wouldn't INSTANTLY and COMPLETELY stop ALL gun related crime, so, there's no sense doing it."

The Franky Tank

I have a question, which may or may not be a dumb one. When the primaries happen, not the election come up, what would be the best way to try and vote? Currently all the Republicans are pretty bad and I wouldn't vote any of them in the general election. That said, Texas is still slightly a Republican state. Should I register as Republican to just vote for the lesser of the X evils in hopes that at least if that person is nominated and some how wins the election the damage may be minimized? Or should I find out who I would prefer between Hillary and Bernie and vote for one of those two? From what I know they are different but I would be fine either way at the moment if either were the president, but my current knowledge of both of them are limited. The other option is should I currently ignore the primary stuff and focus more on local election stuff so I can make a more informed decision there when the time comes? Trying to look at 12 different Republican candidates and choose the less evil would take a long time, and if Bernie and Hillary are similar enough it would seem like my time would be best focused on local stuff.

CCC

@The:

I have a question, which may or may not be a dumb one. When the primaries happen, not the election come up, what would be the best way to try and vote? Currently all the Republicans are pretty bad and I wouldn't vote any of them in the general election. That said, Texas is still slightly a Republican state. Should I register as Republican to just vote for the lesser of the X evils in hopes that at least if that person is nominated and some how wins the election the damage may be minimized? Or should I find out who I would prefer between Hillary and Bernie and vote for one of those two? From what I know they are different but I would be fine either way at the moment if either were the president, but my current knowledge of both of them are limited. The other option is should I currently ignore the primary stuff and focus more on local election stuff so I can make a more informed decision there when the time comes? Trying to look at 12 different Republican candidates and choose the less evil would take a long time, and if Bernie and Hillary are similar enough it would seem like my time would be best focused on local stuff.

If you care about progressive politics, then doing whatever you can to turn Texas purple in the long run would be much appreciated.

And on that note, today is apparently the last day to register for Texas' March primary (you have to register as a Dem or Repub). So go do it!

Monkey King

@CCC:

And on that note, today is apparently the last day to register for Texas' March primary

texas doesn't have same day registration? of course it doesn't

Green_vs_Red