democrats are the lesser of two evils

one thing that bothers me about how tumblr loves bernie sanders and hates hillary clinton is this insistence the hillary is just terrible bad and problematic because she’s moderate and changes positions

um….newsflash everyone…that’s american politics. hillary is your standard democrat politician. she has a lot in common with obama.

am I saying that’s good? no, I don’t agree with her on some things, and I generally feel like she’s not really on “my side”. but it’s the way it always is. a lot of you guys are voting for the first time this upcoming election so i don’t think you really get how much of a lesser of two evils affair presidential elections are. you get to choose between the moderate-slightly-left-leaning democrat or the firmly conservative republican, every time. bernie sanders is the only viable candidate in my lifetime i’ve actually agreed with on pretty much everything and felt like I could trust. the only. one. and I’m not getting used to that feeling.

basically presidential elections are a shit sandwich and we all have to take a bite. but for god’s sake just vote for the lesser of two evils. whatever you dislike about hillary clinton pales in comparison to the things you will hate about the republican candidate. this will likely be the same in every election you vote in. but do it. vote. do not let republicans slip into office because our generation is too disillusioned with the two party system.

I don’t think the phrase “lesser of two evils” sufficiently captures how catastrophic one of these Republicans being elected president would be over literally any Democrat.

Millions would lose health care.

LGBT rights would become a major target, thanks to current right wing “freedom of religion” paranoia.

The meager corporate regulations Obama put in place would be replaced with absolute lassaiz-faire policies.

You want gun nut laws passed federally? You got em! White people will be able to carry more weapons around than ever.

And, most frightening to me of all, you would have at least four years of a right wing president choosing replacements for Supreme Court justices should any of them leave the court in that time. Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer, two of the most reliably progressive judges in the court, are both north of 76. Replace either with a conservative, and you have a court so right wing that it might very well be willing to overturn every single landmark decision for civil rights in the last 50 years. Don’t believe me? The right wing of the court are all “originalists”, who think the Constitution needs to be interpreted strictly as the Founding Fathers would see it. They don’t believe in rights to privacy or that equal protections are Constitutionally protected. Those two things have been the basis of almost every major decision in favor of civil rights from Roe v. Wade to the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage.

I’m not saying to be lazy and support Democrats just because. The Democratic Party is generally terrible. The candidates are slim pickings and even Sanders has his share of fuck ups (although I remain convinced that as President he would do more to help this country than anyone else, and it’s not close). Ideally we’d have more options than a party that would be laughed at if it claimed to be leftist in any other country. But the stakes here are too real for too many people for me to cling that that level of idealism.

My point is that even with the most boilerplate bad Democratic candidate as the alternative (I’m not even talking Hillary here, I’m thinking 2000 Al Gore uninspiring) it’s not a “lesser of two evils” decision; it’s a choice between stubbing your toe and jumping into an incinerator.

anonymous asked:

To tack on to polish one, we are kinda forced to. We do demand better, a majority do. The problem Is the opponent isn't any better. We vote conservative because we believe in conservative values. We are choosing the lesser of two evils.

Once upon a time the Democratic party used to suck the dicks of big businesses. They lobbied for many of the things that Republicans now lobby for. So Democratic voters were like “Fuck this shit, we’re going to the other party(s)”. Suddenly Democrats had a crisis. So what did they do? They found new candidates. They changed their focus and listened to their supporters. Then what happened? They got elected. Whoa. You know who else does this? Third parties. They just don’t have the platform to get attention because the major parties don’t let them sit at the big kid’s table. 

-the Polish one

Voting for Hilary Clinton? Red Lines versus Lesser of Evils: By Richard Falk

Assuming that the current prospects for presidential candidates hold firm, and Hilary Clinton is nominated by the Democrats and Jeb Bush, Rick Rubio, or Scott Walker win the Republican nomination, what should a conscientious citizen do when it comes to voting in November 2016? Of course, step one is to rule out support for the Republican candidates due to their regressive views on a range of social and economic issues, and their militarist bluster on foreign and defense policy. Step two is more difficult. Clinton is clearly preferable if the domestic agenda is taken into account, and probably no worse than the Republicans when it comes to foreign policy, but also not noticeably better, and in some ways more objectionable.

For instance, she begins her recent letter to the billionaire arch Zionist mega-donor and longtime Clinton family supporter, Haim Saban, on July 7, 2015 this way: “I am writing to express my alarm over the boycott, divestment, and sanction movement, ‘BDS,’ a global effort to isolate the State of Israel by ending commercial and academic exchanges.” She seeks Saban’s guidance in pursuit of this nefarious goal with this deferential language: “Now I am seeking your thoughts and recommendations on how leaders and communities across America can work together to counter BDS.”

I am sure it didn’t escape the gurus of the Clinton campaign that Saban had joined with the casino mogul, Sheldon Adelson not long ago to headline a donors gathering at which each participant was expected to pledge $1 million to fight BDS. Although Adelson identifies as Republican and Saban as Democrat, both fervently embrace the Netanyahu brand of Israeli leadership. Saban has been quoted on Iran in language that manages to outdo Bibi, “I would bomb the daylight out of those sons of bitches.”

Clinton has a variety of other scary credentials, including voting in support of the Iraq War of 2003, and to this day remains unwilling to admit that the war was at the very least a tragic mistake, and more accurately, a costly international crime. She not only argued for intervention in Libya in 2011, but made a chilling comment on CBS News after learning of the grisly vigilante execution of Muammar Qaddafi: “We came, we saw, he died.” Further, among the emails that Clinton has long withheld from the public are several that substantiate the charges that France from the outset both intended to overthrow the Qaddafi regime, and expected to reap economic benefits by way of the spoils of war, especially with respect to Libya’s oil wealth. It is not that Clinton actually conspired with such plans while serving as Secretary of State, but she did knowingly lead the effort to support the French-led NATO intervention in 2011, claiming that its limited goal was the protection of Libyan civilians in Benghazi, when she was well aware that the real purpose of the UN-mandated intervention was regime-change in Tripoli.

Here is my dilemma. In view of such considerations, does one vote for Hilary Clinton with eyes wide open because she is likely to be better for ordinary Americans on a range of crucial issues, including some effort to challenge the obscene scandal of growing inequalities and sustained slippage in the real income and labor rights of workers and the accumulated hardships on much of the middle class? Or does one say there are certain candidates whose views are so abhorrent as to be unsupportable without weighing their suitability against alternatives? Many remember the acrimonious debates along the same lines concerning the 2000 campaign pitting Bush against Gore, and allegedly lost by Gore in Florida because Ralph Nader, running as a third party candidate, received over 90,000 votes, arguably more than enough to swing the state to Gore’s side of the ledger, and thus enough electoral votes to win the presidency. Most Democrats angrily dismissed Nader as a spoiler and harshly criticized supporters for indulging in irresponsible political behavior. As someone who voted for Nader in 2000, while coming to detest the Bush presidency, I continue to believe that primary duty of citizens in a democratic society is to be on most occasions responsive to their conscience rather than to attempt pragmatic calculations often glamorized as ‘the best being the enemy of the good.’ In the case more accurately phrases as ‘the worst being the enemy of the bad.’ I do admit that I didn’t realize in 2000 that Bush would turn out as badly as he did, and if I had, I might have wavered.

Looking ahead to 2016 the issue of choice can be at this stage put as follows: vote for Hilary Clinton as ‘the lesser of evils’ or vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party as the most attractive presidential candidate, but someone with no chance to do more than enliven the debate and give alienated voters like myself a positive option that feels better than not voting. Remember that there were those establishment liberals who in the tense days after the 9/11 attacks were ready to rationalize torture as the lesser of evils. It was alleged lesser as compared to the need for information that would lead to dangerous terrorist suspects, but where it actually led was to Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, and a nationally humiliating orgy of torture with very little security payoff. The Kathryn Bigelow film on the search for and execution of Osama Bin Laden, “Zero Dark Thirty,” also gave a bright green light to the torture policies of the Bush presidency, fed to the public by the grotesque evasion embedded in the words ‘enhanced interrogation.’

The alternative logic may be described as respect for ‘red lines.’ I happen to believe that the BDS campaign is a desirable and an essential step in the redesign of a peace process that might produce a just and sustainable peace for Palestinians and Israelis after more than 67 years of agonizing failure, including the recent frustrations associated with the Oslo diplomacy initiated by the handshake in 1993 between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat, with a beaming Bill Clinton standing in between. For me, Hilary Clinton crossed my red line with her craven letter to Haim Saban, making it impossible for me to vote for her by invoking the alternative logic of the lesser of evil. But maybe, although unlikely, by the time November 2016 comes around, I might reconsider.

I realize that if one of those awful Republicans is elected president by a close vote that is skewed by Green Party votes, I will be bitterly criticized by liberal friends. I admit that it is a tricky issue on principled grounds. Livelihoods and wellbeing will almost certainly be adversely affected by a Republican victory, whereas the differences in foreign policy between the two candidates are murky at best, and on Israel/Palestine there is no up side regardless of which party prevails. At the same time, the American plutocracy has become a bipartisan enterprise, calling for resistance as an ethical and political imperative, acknowledging the validity of Chris Hedges’ powerfully reasoned insistence that the country is experiencing pre-revolutionary tremors.

At this stage of the electoral process, my overall sense is that the lesser of evils is still evil, and that morally significant red lines are important for citizens to draw and respect. Until further notice, then, I have decided not to cast my vote for Hilary Clinton.

– Richard Falk is Albert G Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Research Fellow, Orfalea Center of Global Studies. He is also the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights. Visit his blog.

The post Voting for Hilary Clinton? Red Lines versus Lesser of Evils appeared first on Palestine Chronicle.http://j.mp/1L5o7GZ

Democrat or Republican, neither party truly represents the people. When will the mass public see that our illusion of “choice” is always between one of the two lesser evils? Both are puppet parties, bought off to comply with the interests of big bankers and CEOs who only have another $ in mind. America is a business ran by the elite. by america_awakening https://instagram.com/p/5ZSIoGoAQg/

Hillary Clinton: America is leaving 'talent on the sidelines' by limiting women at work

http://mashable.com/2015/07/13/hillary-clinton-economic-policy/


Ya know, everyone has been saying that Hillary is the lesser of two evils or a less progressive and go-getting presidential hopeful than Bernie Sanders, but I actually really like her as a candidate.  Hillary is the only candidate in the race, even on the Democratic side, who has shown dedication to women’s rights and has consistently worked to implement changes.  She is the only candidate to include important progressive policies like paid family leave, which is essential to destroying the gender pay gap, in her campaign platform.  Unlike other Democratic hopefuls, she has a track record of hard work and progressive policies for women, and that’s why she has my vote in the primaries and hopefully in the general election.  Hillary knows how to get things done and is dedicated to allowing working women to meet their full potential, which is something we should all get behind.

There is a Bernie Sanders craze on Tumblr that likes to throw Hillary under the bus, when she is actually an excellent and highly qualified candidate.  Bernie may be an over the top progressive, but he’s all talk and has few accomplishments to support is political standpoints.  Hillary on the other hand is well-adapted to navigating the political arena to get things done.

I’m repulsed that my only option if Bernie Sanders doesn’t win the primary is Hillary Clinton. What the hell is wrong with our party that we can’t put forth someone who isn’t dependent on Wall Street, that keeps conveniently silent on their stances of issues that are at the heart of the Democrat platform (like gay marriage and feminist issues). It makes me feel disgusted that the presidential election will be a lesser of two evils situation. (And while Republicans are horrible, let’s not forget that Hillary aligns with a lot of the things they do.)

I don’t want to be told I have to be prepare to vote for her as so as to be ‘realistic’. I want to see people SO DISGUSTED by what Hilary has stood for that they go out in the streets and put all their energy forward to make sure she isn’t on the ticket. Jesus, what is wrong with Democrats, that we are willing to buy into everything Hillary represents cause it is our best shot at winning the election? How about ACTUALLY FIGHTING for a person who represents every single thing we value?

Ugh.

Should we blame our fellow Americans for voting Republican? Perhaps we should be more forgiving. After all, Americans on both sides of the spectrum blindly accept a steady diet of lies, misdirections, half-truths, racial and cultural politics, and we all tend to miss the big picture.

In this heated presidential season, let’s put the Republican party on the path to its destruction. At worst, Democrats are the lesser of two evils, and we must prevent an austerity dictatorship led by a populist demagogue like Jeb Bush.

Following or concurrent with that, we must work to purge Wall Street from the Democratic Party. We must restore the New Deal Coalition, both from among current Democrats and from outside sources like the Tax Wall Street Party.

This process will not happen overnight, but we are entering a historical window where change can happen fast, and we have a responsibility to lead that change rather than wait to wage a hopeless defense against a dictatorship. http://ift.tt/1LKL1Un

like yesterday i saw this post like “when hillary was the only democratic candidate everyone was like ‘no such thing as a lesser of two evils’ but with bernie everyones excuse is that hes the lesser of two evils” and like i highly doubt the same people are saying those two things. i think the people that werent supporting hillary probably arent supporting bernie for the same reason and the people that ARE supporting bernie are the same people that were like “id rather have hillary in the house than a republican”

so the whole thing about backing Hillary just for the sake of not having a Republican president - like sure the Democrats may be the lesser of two evils but really just don’t limit your civic engagement to voting once every four years?? tbh I don’t have as much faith in activism and pressuring politicians as I used to but honestly I think we just need to start coming up with, and actually living, alternative lifestyles so that we are not dependent on these outdated and corrupt frameworks??
I can’t really give examples rn bc I am at the mall with my family (cousins are in the playplace and I am just people-watching on the third floor lol) and I’m having a hard time concentrating but yeah
like I know some people think voting only legitimizes the system so they don’t want to do that but it’s like?? you’re legitimizing it simply following the laws and not revolting against those in office/the government in general?? idkkkkk lol

“🔥
There is No ‘Lesser of Two Evils’! There is Only EVIL!

Democrats and Republicans only work for Corporate Interests, Not Yours or The Planets!

Do you ever wonder why Politicians running for President receive over a BILLION dollars in Campaign donations for a job that pays $400,000 a year?

FOLLOW THE MONEY!

Corporations, The Ruling Elite and Banksters are literally buying off Politicians during elections…. And it’s LEGAL!

It is imperative that WE Vote with Our Lifestyles instead of Our Ballots!

As Long as The Masses continue voting for Democrats and Republicans there will be no change….. BUT as a Conscious Collective WE can Unite and Be The Change!

Support EachOther, NOT Politicians!

Vote with Your Lifestyle and Help EachOther, Educate EachOther, Support EachOther, and Love EachOther.

Stop depending on The Government to solve all of the Problems and Start solving them yourself!

Go to a Park and plant seeds.
Feed the Homeless.
Support Small Businesses, Local Artists, and Businesses that are changing the world for the better!

Vote with Your Dollar.

Vote with Your Lifestyle and Watch how fast WE Can Change The Future!
✊” by @millennialpresident on Instagram http://ift.tt/1Snle33