Home | About | Donate

Vote for the Lying Neoliberal Warmonger: It’s Important


#1

Vote for the Lying Neoliberal Warmonger: It’s Important

Adolph Reed Jr.

In 1991, former Klansman and American Nazi Party functionary David Duke ran for governor of Louisiana and made the runoff election against Democrat Edwin Edwards, the popular but scandal-plagued three-term former governor. Duke had made the runoff between the two top vote-getters since no one received a majority in the first primary. Duke had received just over 31% of the vote in the first primary, and Edwards had just over 33% in a twelve-person field.


I'm a Bernie Backer and I Refuse to Support Hillary
#2

(My comment was flagged and hidden. I can edit it so it may meet 'community standards.' Here goes.)

[Redacted]

NO!

I will not vote for a warmonger who most definitely will lead us down a path to war with Russia, the only hope being that Putin will be wise enough and smart enough to keep it from going nuclear.

I don't care how bad Trump is. Clinton is as bad or worse. We don't know what Trump will do war wise, despite the Democratic Party's constantly telling us he's Hitler. He's a loose canon, yes, but he also says he wants to work with Russia not against them. So we just don't know.

We do know what Clinton will do. WAKE UP. She'll impose a no fly zone on Syria, which could take us to war with Russia.

[Redacted]

(I hope this editing will make this comment acceptable.)


#3

You're correct in saying that we've all voted for the lesser of two evils if we've been voting since 1992.

But enough is enough.

You could offer me any number of so-called good reasons to vote for Hillary including the Supreme Court and defeating Trump, but enough is enough.

The entire political class has failed, the oligarchy needs its comeuppance, plutocrats need to be laid low and maybe this entire system needs to be taken apart brick by brick and then rebuilt.

Vote for Hillary? When hell freezes over.


#4

Because the left is so insignificant as a political force, the reality is that most, if not nearly all, of our votes will be for some lesser evil or another. I understand the frustration that fact can engender. But that frustration also reflects a tendency to overestimate what should be expected from electoral politics in the absence of an organically rooted and dynamic political movement.

See what this author does?

Blames the entire existence of the "lesser evil" twin of the existing oligarchy on "the absence of an organically rooted and dynamic political movment".

What a clucking joke.


#5

If one has trouble voting for a lying neoliberal warmonger maybe the best thing to do is to is some research which should lead to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton doesn't lie anymore than the average politician and she is not a warmonger, if you define warmonger as someone like John McCain or Lindsey Graham. If neoliberal refers to someone who believes in unfettered market capitalism then she isn't a neoliberal either. Who told the truth the most during the recent debates according to polifact? Bernie Sanders? No. Actually it was Hillary Clinton. They found that 22% of her statements were absolutely true whereas only 13% of Bernie's were. Did she lie about Whitewater? No. Vince Foster? No. Benghazi? No. I don't believe that anyone really a pinned down for certain a lie about her e-mails. Who has talked about sending large number of troops back into Iraq? John McCain? Yes, Lindsey Graham? Yes. Donald Trump? Yes. Hillary Clinton? No. Name one place where she is now advocating sending in US troops? Good luck with that one. Donald Trump is running a white nationalist campaign. Could he turn the US into another Nazi Germany. I don't see why not. If the alt right gets to run things what is to stop him. One doesn't have to feel that bad voting for Clinton. One just has to get beyond the left wing conspiracy theories and look at her record. Of course she is far from an ideal candidate but if the alternative is Donald Trump voting for Clinton should not be that difficult.


#7

"(In 2001 Edwards ... was convicted of racketeering and spent the next decade in prison.).

That's it! I'm voting for that angry postmenopausal banshee so that she gets sent to prison just like the Louisiana governor did!!!! :smiling_imp::unamused::smirk:


#9

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your pathetic argument in favor of this war criminal, this merchant of death and destruction, but please enjoy this article.

And the death dealing for power and profit came just in time for Christmas. Many thousands of innocent Yemeni citizens have been slaughtered by the goods of her trade.

And you enthusiastically defend this jerk?

What does this say about you?


#10

The "lesser of two evils" argument devalues the conscience of the we the people, which is the only skin in the game we have. We've been voting for the lesser of two evils for years, because, for years, we've been unable to differentiate the two parties. Let the last election be the last time we fall for it.


#12

Enough rot.

This sort of thing is offensive. The title was reasonable enough to promise something of interest. The article failed. The Z-Net article that ran a while back and clearly attempted the same results was not offensive, succeeded in being useful, and may have even convinced some people (though not me).

Let's look at why that was an excellent article and this is not.

Reed imagines or pretends to imagine that we will vote Green because we fail to understand what a vote or a ballot or a candidate is. He wants to explain that it is important to vote for a candidate in order to elect a candidate.

That is why I am offended: this is patronizing, and Reed strikes me as someone who may know better.

Reed assumes exactly what he ought to try to prove. He assumes that 1) raging Trump is a fascist or something usefully like a fascist, and that 2) Hillary Clinton is not a fascist or something resembling a fascist.

Trump does a fair impression, for a clown. However, I know very well that Clinton is at the very least something resembling a fascist in a very meaningful way. That should be flagrantly obvious through the events of this election, were it not before.

Face it. We are not voting for Clinton because we find her as dangerous or more dangerous than Trump. The phrase "lying neoliberal warmonger" opens well. Try going into details.


#13

Sorry, but the underlying supposition of this and other pseudo-liberal articles is that there is a correlation between the way people vote and the final tally of votes. From the beginning, when electronic voting machines were installed, the evidence is that they are hacked.

The point is that articles like this operate without any factual representation of the planetary power structure. The Anglo-Euro-American banking cartel and their corporations own and operate the U.S. They own and operate Hillary Clinton, who is paid over $200,000 for an hour's speech (which we are not allowed to read). She is a good foot soldier for them, prosecuting their wars and slaughtering hundreds of thousands worldwide, support her husband's crime bill that incarcerated an additional 600,000 persons, mostly people of color. Like Obama and Bush, Clinton will not prosecute her puppet masters. No criminal bank executives will go to jail for worldwide fraud. http://coloradopublicbanking.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-running-tab-on-bank-fraud.html

She is for fracking, GMOs, and the TPP (more corporate control over the state; i.e., fascism). Trump is running simply to make Clinton appear as the lesser of two evils. http://coloradopublicbanking.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-plan-from-beginning-was-lesser-of.html

Since our votes are not counted, the value in voting is to tell the powers-that-be that we don't buy into their sham and to educate others. We will not be voting for fascists; we will be voting Green, to get that party automatically on the next federal ballot.


#14

So Mr. Reed wants pragmatism instead of principle in our political calculations, eh?
Very well, then: under which mainstream candidate will more people die?

Fortunately, we are not bound by his reductionist thinking, which is needless on his part since he seems to realize that over three decades of lesser-evilism is how we arrived where we are. Continuing to replicate it makes no sense. Even the most patient citizen will eventually say "enough."


#15

Of course not! Why should we go and subject your purist sensibilities with the truth that you also probably ignored and went green party against Gore allowing Bush in office thus creating millions of deaths and never ending turmoil in the MiddleEast and Asia. See, I'm one of "those" who truly believe if he hadn't been the president we wouldn't have had 9/11. I'll leave it at that rather than flame as from an ethnic standpoint I would do anything to keep a known white racist out of office


#16

sir I appreciate your attempt to use a long-winded big worded diatribe about why I should vote for somebody who's evil and a warmonger. Insulting my intelligence with your specious gear driven arguments no longer works. I will not vote for that woman I don't care if my vote makes it so Donald Trump is the next president of the United States. I'm done with people like you who say we should continue with the status quo. There is a revolution coming either it's going to be peaceful and the people are going to be listened to or we know what happens when they are not. I thank God for the Second Amendment. And this is for someone who worked on George McGovern's campaign before I was old enough to vote. I cried the day Robert Kennedy got shot and I cried the day that Martin Luther King got shot. And I have earned the right to tell people like you to go to shill with your fear-based b.s.
talking down to people who you think aren't as smart as you is really not an effective way to get people who are as smart as you to vote with your position. Don't treat people like we're ignoramuses. Other than that have a great day


#17

seriously?


#19

Please spare me this nonsense. We have had years of both Democrats and Republicans and look where it has brought us. We now have massive underemployment, low wages, lack of affordable housing, nasty trade deals, forever wars which simply feed the MIC and on and on and on. Neither of these candidates have much difference between them. It's just window dressing. Now, we have O'Bama and the prospect of the worst trade deal ever devised and an electorate so tuned out with all of the misery and infotainment for news which confuses them that we are living on the brink. Vote for Jill Stein. She's the only hope going at the present. If someone better comes along, then by all means, consider that. Whatever happens, lets not shut anyone out. I am so tired of all these supposedly liberal blogs giving complete article space as nothing more than an advertisement for Hillary.


#20

This is an honest political case for an HRC vote, and Reed's criticism of moral purity politics is right-on-the-money.

But my hunch is that safe Blue State voters can vote for Stein -- Clinton is going to win those anyway. The question is, how big a victory we are willing to let her have? Will a Clinton landslide be worse for the left? Or will a weak President Clinton have to constantly shore up crumbling support on her left?

A big vote for Stein in safe Blue -- and perhaps in swing states -- could potentially weaken Clinton. My bet is that a weak President Clinton might be more amenable to tossing the left some significant scraps. Meanwhile, the real work of organizing can go on...


#21

As smart? Seriously Reed
must be way more impressed with himself than he should be.


#22

Go ahead Mr. Reed, vote for Hillary. And then when she bombs additional innocent people to death overseas; I hope you sleep soundly. For me, I'll vote my conscience and happily push the lever for Jill Stein. I only hope many more people of conscience do the same.


#23

Author states:
In 2012 I voted for Obama, not because he had changed and was more open to left agendas than he had been four years earlier. If anything, he was worse. What had changed was the character of the Republican opposition, which had become more dangerous, more aggressive and more powerful, in part because the Obama administration had done little to mobilize against them. I voted for Obama, that is, as I’ve voted for most candidates, as a lesser evil.

Adolph Reed and everyone who continues to vote for "the lesser evil" are the problems!

Jill not Hill 2016


#24

The enemy of my enemy is my "friend". My enemy is the lying propaganda mouthpiece of the Deep State War Machine, the corporate media. If they are so against one candidate, that candidate must be "a friend". I live in a purple swing state. The Greens are not on the ballot. I can't afford to vote for another 3rd party if I want to stop the "more evil one". So I hold my nose and vote for the lessor of two evils......................Donald.

Feel the bern? I'm burned up!