Home | About | Donate

Want a Third Party? Vote Hillary, Support Bernie


Want a Third Party? Vote Hillary, Support Bernie

Ru Freeman

Two days ago, I read the following response posted by a first-time voter, a young student from Massachusetts, studying in conservative Colorado Springs, who had just attended a Trump rally in Denver to see what it was about:


Bingo! Couldn't vote for Bill, won't vote for Shill...


Stop it!

Just bloody well stop posting these pro-Hillary propaganda pieces.

How many justifications, always including a dismissal of the viable third option with Jill Stein's Green Party, do we have to be subjected to?


Stop already!!!


Two words:
No way

I am voting for Jill Stein


These articles are starting to get down right insulting. Agree with the sentiments expressed above, STOP IT.
I rue the Ru---Jesus Christ*, this really is getting ridiculous.

*To quote the sage Tommy Lasorda after Kingman's big day.


The final sentence in Ru Freeman's bio says it all: "She is the 2014 Kafka Award winner for writing FICTION" !

The final sentence in Freeman's article "Bernie Sanders has at least cleared the field" should also earn her an award for writing comedy.


No. Vote Green. This time. We are in the desperate straights we are in exactly because of policies that Clinton has pushed and will continue to push, only now with more power and more vigor.. Voting for Clinton is voting for the escalation of perpetual war, perpetual growth of the Big Banks, for the TPP, for continued support for the fossil fuel industry, continued growth of the private prison industry, and on and on and on... As Deep Throat said "follow the money." Just look at who funded the Democratic Convention, and you'll know who the masters will be when she's elected. Remember the name of the venue? Duh! As long as we comply with the Clintonian notion that progressives "have nowhere else to go", and that they can rely on our votes while spurning our policies, that's all we'll ever get. Less than zero. We're told to "hold our nose and vote for Clinton". No. I won't vote for her, when her highest selling point seems to be that she is drilling smaller holes in the bottom of the boat than Trump will, and when I fully expect her policies to be nearly as odious as Trump's, and when She will get cooperation from the Ds in Congress, who will want to demonstrate their sheep-like allegiance to the Chief; morals and the populace be damned, just like when they wrote the Democratic platform. I will vote FOR Stein, not AGAINST Trump.


Now, now, now you are sounding like a "petulant" child!

Seriously, this has got to be the worst shilling for the hill yet.

And that god damn expression that is nauseating to the nth degree was embedded in this article:

"Affecting change takes time and diligence and real effort. It takes discipline and thoughtfulness and a full on commitment to holding feet to fires and noses to grindstones."

Holding Clinton's "feet to the fire" shit.

Where has that gotten this country and the world?

I'll tell you where: THE SIXTH EXTINCTION WITH REAL FIRES THAT ARE BURNING OUT OF CONTROL. Floods, droughts, ocean acidification too.

What Ru Freeman is calling for has NOT worked. She is asking us to vote for oligarchy and destruction of the biosphere.

I'm not saying I know what does work . . . . but I do know this article exemplifies what doesn't work. Freeman is shaming people into voting for someone who is part and parcel of a pathological system that is destroying life on earth.


This is a weird piece of writing. There are so many areas of disagreement. Here are a couple. 1) Change - Political change occurs when a large enough mass believes that the status quo does not meet its needs and acts on that belief. Freeman is asking those seeking change to continue to give legitimacy to the status quo by voting for Clinton. This doesn't make sense. 2) She rightly points to the two party system as a key problem for our politics, but then she lays out this long, confusing argument on operating within it, and that ends up supporting Clinton. If the two party system is a problem (and it definitely is), then we need to break it up by supporting other parties. Right now, the most sensible thing for those seeking greater democracy is to work to make other parties viable players in our politics. I am supporting the Green Party.


Well put.


"..two parties, both of which are held hostage to lobbyists and corporations..Hillary Clinton is not the solution to these problems, far from it, she is a product of them..vote for Hillary Clinton."

I suppose this nonsensical paean to illogic was inevitable given yesterday's CD posting about the Green Convention. The headline itself (Want a Third Party? Vote Hillary, Support Bernie) is an extended oxymoron.

Right now, the Clinton campaign and MSM are pushing the meme that Trump is too close to Putin. CD has been publishing articles on Clinton's warmongering and that it could lead to a nuclear conflict with Russia:

The Bigger Nuclear Risk: Trump or Clinton?
Democrats Are Now the Aggressive War Party

But what do we hear from Ru Freeman? "Hillary Clinton will keep her finger off the red button because she believes in living to fight another day, so help us God."

Right. The one pushing for more NATO aggression against Russia will keep us out of a war with them and the one too close to Putin will get us into nuclear war with Russia.

This is followed up by the argument we hear every four years about the Supreme Court. Does anyone think Clinton's Supreme Court appointments will be anything but business friendly? Do you think the darling of Wall Street is going to appoint a Justice who would even think of overturning Citizens United?

The article is a disgusting example of double-speak where black is white, up is down and day is night.

Want a Third Party? Vote Third Party.

Maybe someday Bernie will establish a viable alternative to the Democratic party, but he's certainly not going to do it before November.

Don't pick your poison, pick your cure: Dr. Jill Stein 2016


This type of article is becoming pervasive. The Hilary campaign knows people do not like her. They can see her rallies poorly attended , yet have to give the illusion of mass support. They also have to know that the persons that would normaly vote democrat and or that decided to join the movement to support Bernie will not shift their support to Hilary in great numbers.

Indeed they have to know that as ever more information leaked by Assange via wiki leaks support for her will drop even more. I can not see a legitimate way that Ms Clinton can drum up more support. Media organizations are already changing the way they interpret polls to give the illusion of growing support for the Clinton campaign.

Barack Obama recently claimed it ridiculous to suggest the election can be hacked, even though it was established in a Court of law that this very thing likely occurred with the person testifying he had been hired to do this very thing conveniently killed in a plane crash.

The groundwork is being laid in my opinion. Post election it will be claimed that the "surprising" sudden support for Ms Clinton was due to articles such as this and the peoples "real fear of what would have happened under a trump Presidency" should they have split the vote and went Green. It will be labled as a great victory for Progressives and for inclusion and for the rights of US Citizens. The Wolf Blitzers will assure the electorate that "President Clinton will have to move carefully as she knows the people that elected her will be holding her feet to the fire" and other blah blah nonsense. It a carefully crafted script all going off as outlined in some back room .

This article is a convoluted mish mash of rambling nonsense. The only way the values this person CLAIMS to support can move forward and into the main stream and thus into its Political leaders is by voting Green. I can see no other way that makes any sense whatsoever. You hold the democrats feet to the fire by voting Green. Here in Canada it that process that brought the old Progressive Conservative party to the right as its constituency wanted when its own members left to join Reform and it the process that brought the Liberals back to the left (albeit no where far enough) when its own base of supporters started to defect to the NDP.


Clinton's campaign funders are providing unlimited funds to apply every known form of propaganda and then some between now and November. Expect more of these types of articles. Clinton trollmaster David Brock will supplement the incomes of boatloads of authors to cover every genre.


With all due respect Ms. Freeman, take a hike.


"Kafka Award winner" sounds right!


Calm down, readers, Freeman's article is 100% FICTION...its what she does and what she wins awards for.

Come to think of it, Clinton's campaign is also 100% fiction.

Murkins loves their fiction !


I am still hoping that upcoming Wikileaks releases will take her down.

Ru Freeman----have you watched the clip of HC boasting about the killing of Gaddafi: "We came, we saw, he died"? If so than please explain the psychological brain technique you use that allows you to dismiss the pathology clearly evidenced in that clip and then turn around and vote for Clinton to be president. And then ask others to do the same! You sound like a caring woman who has compassion. How do you reconcile this?

I can't do that. It is impossible for me to do that.

The following video is another example of that pathology.
HC is smiling when deaths are being discussed. Disclosure: I am not a Rand Paul fan but he asks a good question re: weapons trade----if HC has any direct knowledge of how weapons trade works.

She told R. Paul that she “had no information on that matter.”

I hope, there will be proof of this lie after the next release of emails from Wikileaks and enough people notice----including you Ru Freeman.


Why is commondreams running stuff that could have been ghosted by the folks at "Correct the Record"?

Hillary PAC "Correct the Record" has more than $6,000,000 to pay people to troll online and in social media for Hillary; this article contains the very same talking points that I see from Hillbot trolls on facebook, though the trolls express themselves more concisely. Here's the basic message:

Okay, we know we're on the road to hell. But don't let Trump drive; he might push the accelerator. Let Hillary drive; she'll use the cruise control. If we work really hard for a long time, maybe we'll find a better driver, maybe even someone like Bernie or Jill. And there will be pie in the sky.

NeverHillary #DemExit #JillStein2016


This article could have been shortened to one phrase "Hillary Clinton will keep her finger off the red button." The rest seems to be just filler.


I'm disappointed to see an article like this at Common Dreams.
On one hand the article appears to make the argument for reform by conceding many of Sanders's points -- and by acknowledging the difficulty in voting for Clinton, whom many Sanders supporters (myself included) see as embodying the very status quo that needs to be changed.
What allows the author to make this argument is her use of the bogeyman gambit in the person of Donald Trump. Her subtext is, okay, Clinton is bad but Trump is worse. This argument glides right past an equally valid view, which is that neither candidate is acceptable.