Protest vote against these two candidates?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by smacrumon, Jun 5, 2016.

  1. smacrumon macrumors 68030

    smacrumon

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    #1
    Happier times for Trump and Clinton? Or more, phoney times then and even more bogus times now? Really, people in the United States are even considering voting for either of these two candidates here?

    All Americans should get out this year and protest vote against these two candidates. Neither Trump nor Clinton have American values truely at heart. Neither should be President.

    Bernie Sanders on the other hand has a strong record of advocating progressive and responsible policies and true representation of the people in the great USA. President Sanders is America's best hope.

    [​IMG]
    Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Melania Trump

    Donald Trump campaign finance
    $59.9M raised
    4% Super PACs and other groups
    96% Campaign donations including self-financing

    Hillary Clinton campaign finance
    $288.9M raised
    29% Super PACs and other groups
    71% Campaign donations including self-financing

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    Bernie Sanders

    Bernie Sanders campaign finance
    $207.7M raised
    0.02% Super PACs and other groups
    99.98% campaign donations including self-financing

    ____________________
    Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/
     
  2. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #2
    Twenty years in the Senate. What did Bernie accomplish? What makes you think he'll accomplish more as POTUS?
     
  3. SwiftLives macrumors 65816

    SwiftLives

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #3
    This is what I don't get. Instead of supporting a candidate who is 80% aligned with the views of Bernie Sanders, you'd rather vote against that person, significantly increasing the risk that the opposing party's candidate will win and begin to systematically roll back all of the progress we've seen under President Obama's Presidency? Is it worth it to vote against the Democratic nominee and run the risk of the Affordable Care Act, protections for gays, legalized same sex marriage, and protections for transgender Americans all getting rolled back?

    I like Sanders a lot. But his path to victory—while certainly not impossible—is growing increasingly improbable by the day.
     
  4. caesarp macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    #4
    What does any senator accomplish? Pretty much nothing. Its easier to accomplish stuff as President (unless congress purposely acts to obstruct, cough, ahem, republicans).
     
  5. smacrumon, Jun 5, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2016

    smacrumon thread starter macrumors 68030

    smacrumon

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    #5
    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357
    --- Post Merged, Jun 5, 2016 ---
    80% aligned is a compromise. 100% alignment, then let's talk. Unfortunately, and really I hate to say it, Clinton must move aside. Clinton's time was in the 1990's and would have made a superb President in place of the other Clinton. Trump will lose if Sanders is the Democrat candidate, I have faith in the people of the USA to make the right decision.
    (Clarification, the USA got the wrong Clinton for President, Rodham Clinton would have been the correct one.)
     
  6. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #6
    There are some senators whose names you know even though they do not represent your state. You've heard of them because they have pushed bills, blocked bills, gone above and beyond.

    Don't get me wrong. I like Bernie. But he had pee in the sky dreams. He should have stayed moving towards these goals as a young senator. He won't accomplish more as president.
     
  7. caesarp macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    #7
    He won't get a chance, because Clinton has pretty much wrapped it up. But I would take him over Trump in a heartbeat.
     
  8. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #8
    There lies the problem with todays politics. Won't support a candidate unless they 100% match their ideals. You guys realize this my way or the highway approach is what lead us to today? This continued pushing out the moderates for the extreme of both sides is what is destroying this country.

    Not because a Democrat or Republican may share values of the other side, but the desire that our candidates don't try to compromise and will only try to govern by the ideals of their party leaving the other side out to dry. That is how talks of secession, civil war, etc starts because the other side will feel alienated and not represented.
     
  9. smacrumon thread starter macrumors 68030

    smacrumon

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    #9
    No, the commenter stated "candidate who is 80% aligned with the views of Bernie Sanders", so my comment wasn't about matching 100% of my ideals.
    The problem with America is that voters have made too many compromises in the past. When we compromise, we're not being honest about what it is we want or expect. That's why the state is in the condition it is today.
     
  10. Scepticalscribe, Jun 5, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2016

    Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #10
    Excellent post, and I have come to agree with you over time.

    Or, to quote @smacrumon

    "80% aligned is a compromise. 100% alignment, then let's talk".

    Well, when I was in my late teens, I was one of those '100%' individuals, who thought that the word 'compromise' was an insult.

    There are a few issues with this: One problem is that in a democracy, one rarely gets 100% of the vote, which means that you do not have a mandate to implement this '100%'.

    And another, is this perennial feature of the left whereby they prefer destructive internal battles over relatively minor differences, rather than focussing their energy on combining to defeat the right (who will unite behind the desire to obtain power no matter how repellant their candidate and platform is.)

    But no, in the left, - and this was my home for a time - I realised that declarations of ideological purity are preferable to the glum tedium of hammering out coalitions, and compromises to ensure that some of the policies that can work, and can make a difference not lives, can get passed.

    As @SwiftLives has said, some social progress is an awful lot better than none.
     
  11. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #11
    Are you suggesting that Ted Cruz would be better equipped for the job than Bernie?

    See also: Democrats, circa 2000-2008. This has been building steadily since 1994. The GOP has more experience with it, but both are equally bad and I only see it getting worse for the foreseeable future.

    Srsly? I disagreed with much of what Bill did, and find it funny that the hero of the Dems did something that any CEO today would be absolutely vilified for, and is loved by those same people. But, he was a solid president. He knew where to stand and where to move. He knew how to work with his enemies, rather than trying to run through a brick wall.

    He may not be a good man, but he was a solid president.
     
  12. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #12
    In some ways, yes. Of course, I strongly dislike Cruz.

    Just saying that Bernie isn't going to fulfill his campaign promised any more than any other candidate. Like Trump, Bernie promises a lot. But neither of them will deliver. I'm sticking with Clinton, who knows better than to make pie in the sky promises.
     
  13. SwiftLives macrumors 65816

    SwiftLives

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #13
    This "my candidate or no one" mentality is eerily reminiscent of the 2008 election. I seem to recall Hillary supporters absolutely refusing to support Barack Obama.
     
  14. caesarp macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    #14
    And in the end, it didn't matter. The better candidate won. Same will happen here. Hillary will win.
     
  15. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #15
    Compromise is the heart and soul of American politics. It's the lack of compromise that's left the country in the state it's in today.
     
  16. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #16
    Without a compliant Congress, there is little a candidate will accomplish. While I think Bernie makes untenable promises, Hillary and Donald have alienated the opposition. None of the three will accomplish much unless they have both houses of Congress, and by a strong majority.
     
  17. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #17
    As already pointed out, compromise is what makes up any democracy/republic. What you want is a dictatorship.

    I am fiscally conservative( a Republican trait), but socially liberal( Democrat trait). I absolutely believe in the fact we need to get our budget under control and operate as a country within our means. And the money the government does get from us, needs to be spent on us( infrastructure, healthcare, defense, etc) and not on $1 trillion fighter jet programs because we have this sense of being the world police and we need to be the biggest and baddest military force out there. We shouldn't have our military be stationed every where in the world. We don't need to have our troops put their lives on the line because the Korea's, Iraq, etc can't handle their own business.

    Neither candidates will balance the budget, neither candidates will fix the problems facing our country. Not Clinton, not Trump, and not Bernie. No one in Congress will either. But you go ahead and keep voting in candidates just because they have a D, R, O, E, whatever next to their name. Go ahead and keep on voting for candidates that will not compromise. Because no matter who wins in 2016, the status quo will continue to march forward because the system is broken and no one wants to fix it because they can take advantage of it for their own gain.
     
  18. maxsix Suspended

    maxsix

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    Location:
    Western Hemisphere
    #18
    Husseins ongoing bashing of Congress has caused them to dig in and push back against his errant juvenile behavior.
     
  19. smacrumon thread starter macrumors 68030

    smacrumon

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    #19
    No, voters have actually made too many compromises in the past. When voters compromise, they are not being honest or communicating exactly what it is they want or expect from their leaders. That's why the US is in the condition it is today. Voters get the government they deserve.
     
  20. Tmelon macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    #20
    It seems like every election year there is always this discussion about how both candidates are awful and how the runner-up candidate would be so much better. Ironically, that was Hillary Clinton in '08. If you don't like either candidate, vote for the party you prefer. Regardless of whether it's Hillary or Donald in November, they will have their respective parties closely guiding their actions throughout their term. The idea of a "protest vote" just makes no sense to me. If you're a Democrat and agree 60% with Hillary and 10% with Trump, your protest vote is just helping Trump. The failure to compromise just gives you less of what you want in the end.
     
  21. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #21
    You speak as if the US had a parliamentary system.

    Our presidential election system by which we essentially choose 538 electors and THEY choose the president is rigged to essentially be a two-party affair. In the end we voters all have to compromise, as 80% alignment is far better than 20%.

    Third party candidates tend to be spoilers, see the 2000 election, by which they steal electors from a candidate fairly well aligned with their views.

    B
     
  22. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #22
    I think is the first time both main candidates are viewed negatively by the majority of the people.
     
  23. smacrumon thread starter macrumors 68030

    smacrumon

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    #23
    Voters "essentially choose 538 electors" -- That's the point whereby there should be zero compromises.
     
  24. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #24
    With most states allocating electors in winner take all processes, not compromising means that your candidate gets zero electors. Great job in standing for your principles!

    B
     
  25. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #25
    You do not need to appear as a candidate in all states.
     

Share This Page