Vote for the damn issues, AND, whatever or whoever serves their ACTUALLY HAPPENING, however incrementally.
This means NO THIRD PARTY shit,
What if I think voting third party is the best way to accomplish the issues I care about?
NO PROTEST VOTES,
I agree with that, as my reply above said.
PARTICIPATING IN PRIMARIES,
Yes, but they aren't the be-all-end-all some think they are, as this year showed.
and VOTING FOR ONE OF THE TWO.
Sorry, now I have to tell you to fuck off. I vote for who I want, from whichever party, for my own reason. If that happens to be NOT one of the two main parties, so be it. It is my choice, my vote, not yours. So, again, kindly fuck off.
Actually, I've said here on Slashdot that the Greens and Libertarians should form a coalition. They might not win, but they should get enough support to get a spot on the stage in the debates. If they pushed real hard, they could even get a few electoral votes in some states.
Imagine what they could have done in this election season. Their joint venture would have been newsworthy, get out the vote efforts could have flourished for them, and people who hated both main party candidates could have had an actual option.
I voted for Jill Stein. I voted for her in 2012 as well. I voted for Obama in 2008, and for George Bush in 2000 and 2004. I voted for Ross Perot in 1992, after voting for George HW Bush in 1998, as my first election. I liked Reagan, and still do, and think many people forget his achievements.
With all that, I think the main news organizations and pollsters didn't account for the numbers of people who completely despised the hypocrisy and corruption of Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, the DNC and its collaboration with the media for the debates. Basically, all the things that the Wikileaks emails brought to life for the last holdouts supporters added to the early block of 'Never-Hillary' voters.
It doesn't matter if you think those issues don't matter, or if you think they are false issues. For many people, they were the deciding issues. And it also doesn't matter if Russia was part of it or not. If your enemy shows you a photo of your wife cheating, it is still a photo of your wife cheating. Your enemy's intention is immaterial in consideration of whether your wife actually cheated.
There were many people who didn't like Trump, but who despised Hillary. They either stayed home, or grudgingly voted for Trump. If Sanders had won the nomination, many who despised Trump would have had little issue voting for Sanders, knowing the Congress will keep him in line. Sanders could have gained many votes that refused Hillary.
And don't think for a minute that the Republican congress won't exploit Trump to get legislation passed. Narcissists are easy to manipulate; put their ego on the line and they can be goaded into anything.
Oh, yes, the Republican establishment has had such roaring success in making Donald dance to their tune so far.
With all sincerity, next time, yes, vote your conscious. I, a white male small-el libertarian, voted for Jill Stein, and will get shit for it. Already have gotten shit for it. My wife is a liberal non-white female who voted for Hillary, hoping to see a female President. She's disappointed, I'm glad Hillary didn't win, but we both know we voted for us, for our own reasons. Voting against your conscious isn't worth the mental issues later.
In fact, the next election, when someone tells you to vote to disrupt "the other guys", smack them as hard as you can.:^)
I can see your point, even if I disagree on how clear Obama's response is. I didn't "read a transcript", I watched the video itself and typed those two paragraphs out. From listening to the video, I say that if President Obama had meant to use the correct definition of "citizen", he could have easily clarified it and corrected Ms. Rodriguez. The fact that he didn't, gives weight to the interpretation that he did encourage illegal immigrants to vote.
Specifically, I pointed out in my above post that the clause "So if I vote..." is asked from the perspective of illegal immigrants, who are considered to be citizens by the person asking the question on their behalf. President Obama's response is then directed at that group of possible voters, not some other group who have similar circumstances.
I had not heard of that situation, deporting US citizens in the 1930s. Thank you for an informative post. Your example of illegal immigrants who could claim citizenship is a valid point, and quite interesting.
As near as I can transcribe her exact line, with meaning and intent, Gina Rodriquez said:
Many of the millennials, dreamers, undocumented, uh, citizens - and I call them citizens 'cause they contribute to this country - are fearful of voting. So if I vote*, will Immigration know where I live, will they come for my family, and deport us?
*With the "I vote", she is putting herself in the role of a young illegal immigrant who wants to vote. She calls them 'citizens', just 'cause she wants to, not because they actually are. That is the situation President Obama is replying to.
You can make an argument on whether he refuted her application of "citizen" to illegal immigrants, and his response was only for US citizens. However, he didn't correct her definition of citizen before replying, and possibly used her definition when he answered her question. His response:
Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote you are a citizen yourself and there's not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over, and people start investigating, etc. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who, maybe, is undocumented, then you an even greater reason to vote.
So, did President Obama accept Gina Rodriquez's redefinition of the term "citizen" to apply to illegal aliens in his response? Did he affirm it by telling the 'dreamers' that "when you vote, you are a citizen"? He certainly didn't dispute it.
he specifically said "If you are a Latino Citizen with undocumented family members... you have more reason to vote" He never encouraged illegals to vote.
Unfortunately, you are mistaken.
As near as I can transcribe her exact line, with meaning and intent, Gina Rodriquez said:
Many of the millennials, dreamers, undocumented, uh, citizens - and I call them citizens 'cause they contribute to this country - are fearful of voting. So if I vote*, will Immigration know where I live, will they come for my family, and deport us?
*With the "I vote", she is putting herself in the role of a young illegal immigrant who wants to vote. She calls them 'citizens', just 'cause she wants to, not because they actually are. That is the situation President Obama is replying to.
You can make an argument on whether he refuted her application of "citizen" to illegal immigrants, and his response was only for US citizens. However, he didn't correct her definition of citizen before replying, and possibly used her definition when he answered her question. His response:
Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote you are a citizen yourself and there's not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over, and people start investigating, etc. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who, maybe, is undocumented, then you an even greater reason to vote.
So, did President Obama accept Gina Rodriquez's redefinition of the term "citizen" to apply to illegal aliens in his response? Did he affirm it by telling the 'dreamers' that "when you vote, you are a citizen"? He certainly didn't dispute it.
Experienced at what? She's never run an organization, whether governmental or business. Secretary of State is a high level job, but it isn't the sort that has to draw up a budget, or negotiate employee contracts/pay/benefits. And she was only in that position for four years. Likewise, she was a one-term Senator before running for the nomination in 2008, not one who had decades of experience negotiating with colleagues to pass legislation. Finally, sleeping with a former president doesn't bestow experience either.
So, no, Hillary is not the most experienced or qualified candidate running this year, let alone ever.
And, once again I will repeat, I am not voting for Donald Trump.
Slashdot Mirror
Vote for the damn issues, AND, whatever or whoever serves their ACTUALLY HAPPENING, however incrementally.
This means NO THIRD PARTY shit,
What if I think voting third party is the best way to accomplish the issues I care about?
NO PROTEST VOTES,
I agree with that, as my reply above said.
PARTICIPATING IN PRIMARIES,
Yes, but they aren't the be-all-end-all some think they are, as this year showed.
and VOTING FOR ONE OF THE TWO.
Sorry, now I have to tell you to fuck off. I vote for who I want, from whichever party, for my own reason. If that happens to be NOT one of the two main parties, so be it. It is my choice, my vote, not yours. So, again, kindly fuck off.
FUCK.
Not tonight, my wife is too depressed.
Speaking as a Republican, FUCK YOU.
Your party just won the White House, against all the mainstream beliefs that it was impossible. Why are you so angry?
Actually, I've said here on Slashdot that the Greens and Libertarians should form a coalition. They might not win, but they should get enough support to get a spot on the stage in the debates. If they pushed real hard, they could even get a few electoral votes in some states.
Imagine what they could have done in this election season. Their joint venture would have been newsworthy, get out the vote efforts could have flourished for them, and people who hated both main party candidates could have had an actual option.
I voted for Jill Stein. I voted for her in 2012 as well. I voted for Obama in 2008, and for George Bush in 2000 and 2004. I voted for Ross Perot in 1992, after voting for George HW Bush in 1998, as my first election. I liked Reagan, and still do, and think many people forget his achievements.
With all that, I think the main news organizations and pollsters didn't account for the numbers of people who completely despised the hypocrisy and corruption of Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, the DNC and its collaboration with the media for the debates. Basically, all the things that the Wikileaks emails brought to life for the last holdouts supporters added to the early block of 'Never-Hillary' voters.
It doesn't matter if you think those issues don't matter, or if you think they are false issues. For many people, they were the deciding issues. And it also doesn't matter if Russia was part of it or not. If your enemy shows you a photo of your wife cheating, it is still a photo of your wife cheating. Your enemy's intention is immaterial in consideration of whether your wife actually cheated.
Hey, at least we will now have the hottest first lady in history.
Pics, or it's not true.
(I know, I know. They exist. I'm just too bored to find them.)
The Force is strong in that one.
There were many people who didn't like Trump, but who despised Hillary. They either stayed home, or grudgingly voted for Trump. If Sanders had won the nomination, many who despised Trump would have had little issue voting for Sanders, knowing the Congress will keep him in line. Sanders could have gained many votes that refused Hillary.
You realize Hillary and trump both won their party's nomination
Yes, of course.
fair and square, right?
You're joking, right?
And then you wonder why no one bothered to listen to you last night.
And don't think for a minute that the Republican congress won't exploit Trump to get legislation passed. Narcissists are easy to manipulate; put their ego on the line and they can be goaded into anything.
Oh, yes, the Republican establishment has had such roaring success in making Donald dance to their tune so far.
With all sincerity, next time, yes, vote your conscious. I, a white male small-el libertarian, voted for Jill Stein, and will get shit for it. Already have gotten shit for it. My wife is a liberal non-white female who voted for Hillary, hoping to see a female President. She's disappointed, I'm glad Hillary didn't win, but we both know we voted for us, for our own reasons. Voting against your conscious isn't worth the mental issues later.
In fact, the next election, when someone tells you to vote to disrupt "the other guys", smack them as hard as you can. :^)
As long as he doesn't accidentally smudge the last two digits written on his hand.
I can see your point, even if I disagree on how clear Obama's response is. I didn't "read a transcript", I watched the video itself and typed those two paragraphs out. From listening to the video, I say that if President Obama had meant to use the correct definition of "citizen", he could have easily clarified it and corrected Ms. Rodriguez. The fact that he didn't, gives weight to the interpretation that he did encourage illegal immigrants to vote.
Specifically, I pointed out in my above post that the clause "So if I vote ..." is asked from the perspective of illegal immigrants, who are considered to be citizens by the person asking the question on their behalf. President Obama's response is then directed at that group of possible voters, not some other group who have similar circumstances.
I had not heard of that situation, deporting US citizens in the 1930s. Thank you for an informative post. Your example of illegal immigrants who could claim citizenship is a valid point, and quite interesting.
As near as I can transcribe her exact line, with meaning and intent, Gina Rodriquez said:
Many of the millennials, dreamers, undocumented, uh, citizens - and I call them citizens 'cause they contribute to this country - are fearful of voting. So if I vote*, will Immigration know where I live, will they come for my family, and deport us?
*With the "I vote", she is putting herself in the role of a young illegal immigrant who wants to vote. She calls them 'citizens', just 'cause she wants to, not because they actually are. That is the situation President Obama is replying to.
You can make an argument on whether he refuted her application of "citizen" to illegal immigrants, and his response was only for US citizens. However, he didn't correct her definition of citizen before replying, and possibly used her definition when he answered her question. His response:
Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote you are a citizen yourself and there's not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over, and people start investigating, etc. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who, maybe, is undocumented, then you an even greater reason to vote.
So, did President Obama accept Gina Rodriquez's redefinition of the term "citizen" to apply to illegal aliens in his response? Did he affirm it by telling the 'dreamers' that "when you vote, you are a citizen"? He certainly didn't dispute it.
he specifically said "If you are a Latino Citizen with undocumented family members... you have more reason to vote" He never encouraged illegals to vote.
Unfortunately, you are mistaken.
As near as I can transcribe her exact line, with meaning and intent, Gina Rodriquez said:
Many of the millennials, dreamers, undocumented, uh, citizens - and I call them citizens 'cause they contribute to this country - are fearful of voting. So if I vote*, will Immigration know where I live, will they come for my family, and deport us?
*With the "I vote", she is putting herself in the role of a young illegal immigrant who wants to vote. She calls them 'citizens', just 'cause she wants to, not because they actually are. That is the situation President Obama is replying to.
You can make an argument on whether he refuted her application of "citizen" to illegal immigrants, and his response was only for US citizens. However, he didn't correct her definition of citizen before replying, and possibly used her definition when he answered her question. His response:
Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote you are a citizen yourself and there's not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over, and people start investigating, etc. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who, maybe, is undocumented, then you an even greater reason to vote.
So, did President Obama accept Gina Rodriquez's redefinition of the term "citizen" to apply to illegal aliens in his response? Did he affirm it by telling the 'dreamers' that "when you vote, you are a citizen"? He certainly didn't dispute it.
I think LifesABeach's kid is on his daddy's laptop and posting while the real LifesABeach is out voting for Trump.
No one with that low an ID can would act like such a twat. Or that's what I read on Facebook.
Experienced at what? She's never run an organization, whether governmental or business. Secretary of State is a high level job, but it isn't the sort that has to draw up a budget, or negotiate employee contracts/pay/benefits. And she was only in that position for four years. Likewise, she was a one-term Senator before running for the nomination in 2008, not one who had decades of experience negotiating with colleagues to pass legislation. Finally, sleeping with a former president doesn't bestow experience either.
So, no, Hillary is not the most experienced or qualified candidate running this year, let alone ever.
And, once again I will repeat, I am not voting for Donald Trump.
An "athletic support" is commonly called a "jock strap".
And "LifesABeach" is commonly called a "twat".
I'm sorry for the loss of your husband Vince Foster. Has time started to heal the wounds?
You're just mad because for a few minutes you believed him.
Now go ask your mommy to bring you some snacks down in the basement.
Elon Musk says: Don't have people aboard rockets while fueling them. Just in case something goes wrong.
Eventually the concept of money will be superseded by a new method of acquiring items people want. I propose we call the new exchange medium "sex".
Pffft! I have them as ASCII art. A thousand frames to a file. Hold down the PageDown button, and watch the action. ;^)
A sample. https://vice-images.vice.com/i...
Rule #34 definitely applies. If there is the category of "someone who didn't invent email", there is porn featuring that group of people.