If the Left Won't Support Hillary, Why Isn't That Hillary's Fault?

I've gotten a lot of response on my last post explaining that I won't vote for Hillary Clinton because I don't vote for Republicans. Here's a basic rundown:

You're ensuring a President Trump!

Nope, far from it. If Hillary-> and Drumpf are the nominees, then on Election Day, Hillary-> will get +0 votes from me and Drumpf will get +0 votes from me. What will guarantee a President Drumpf is if he collects +1 more votes than Hillary-> in enough states to earn 270 Electoral College votes.

It's simple math, really. If I vote for neither of those candidates, neither of them collects the +1 they need to beat the other.

What this scare line is really telling me is that your candidate sucks so badly that you're afraid she can't beat a racist, homophobic, misogynist, xenophobic, Islamophobic real estate mogul / TV reality show star with zero political experience.

If you had any confidence in her abilities, you wouldn't need my vote. If she was any candidate other than Hillary->, this would be a landslide victory.

The Supreme Court!

What makes anybody think Hillary-> is going to nominate anybody less pro-corporate than John Roberts? Remember how terrible Bush's new Chief Justice was going to be... and yet, he upheld the Affordable Care Act.

Anybody Hillary-> nominates is going to be pro-business and socially moderate in order for her to get that person through the Senate. Yes, they'll be better on the social issues, but if we do nothing about the business stranglehold on politics, we'll have all the civil rights we want, with no affordable education, healthcare, or decent job market to enjoy them within.

Even Bernie will support the nominee!

Good for Bernie. But you can't assail me for following my cult leader Bernie and then demand that I follow my cult leader Bernie.

Bernie can vote however he wants to vote. Politicians often make such odious choices, like when Bernie supported the Crime Bill in order to keep the Violence Against Women Act parts of it. And Bernie's 74, he may not live to see the rebound from a President Drumpf.

On this, Bernie and I disagree. He believes that preventing a President Drumpf is absolutely paramount. I believe that Drumpf wouldn't be as harmful as Clintonistas want us to believe (there's a reason the GOP establishment hates his guts -- he's far more moderate than they would like).

I believe that a Drumpf Administration would be hampered by GOP obstructionism if he doesn't toe their line, which he won't. For his more odious proposals, maybe the Democrats in the Senate will engage in some obstructionism payback (this assumes some semblance of spine in the Democratic Party, so don't hold your breath).

And any moves made to restrict or rescind gay rights, women's rights, and marijuana rights is only going to further inflame the younger voters who will increasingly decide future elections. Severe restrictions would do more to swing the pendulum toward progressivism than would Hillary->'s constant capitulation to the Big Business right.

I see this as bigger than Hillary-> vs. Drumpf. I see this as oligarchy vs. democracy. Whether it is the allegedly-benevolent oligarchy of Hillary-> or the supposedly-malevolent oligarchy of Drumpf, we're going to still have oligarchy. The benevolent oligarchy is the slowly-warming pot -- Dems will let us gay marry and abort pregancies and smoke pot, yay!, so we give them a pass as they also slowly keep empowering their Wall Street connections, their Big Pharma & Insurance donors, and the military-industrial complex.

But the malevolent oligarchy is the boiling pot -- Republicans let terrorists hit us on 9/11, let people drown in New Orleans, and crashed the economy, boo! It was bad enough that people actually voted for an unknown black senator named "Hussein" who was talking about public option healthcare, transparent government, and prosecuting previous administration's torturers. The malevolent oligarchy messed up so bad that Candidate Obama was drawing then-record crowds and securing then-record individual small donations.

The carnage will be on your hands, privileged straight white man!

This is the corollary of the You're ensuring President Trump that attempts to shame and guilt me into voting for Hillary because I'm straight, white, and male, so no bad thing Drumpf will do could possibly affect me.

Never mind that I'm homeless, own no car, work on spec with no health care (sorry, Obamacare's too expensive, but I make too much for Medicaid) and no retirement. Never mind my father on Social Security disability, my 21-year-old niece, my lesbian friends, and my black family. I fully understand the arguments being made and yes, they'd even affect me, too.

Especially on the marijuana front. Legalization is my job. Drumpf could appoint an Attorney General Christie who'll send DEA in to shut down legal marijuana commerce in four states and medical marijuana commerce in 23. But after an Obama who said he'd leave medical alone and then presided over the most medical marijuana raids in history (far more than Dubya), why should I trust Hillary-> on the issue? Hell, her husband's administration tried to take down medical marijuana by going after doctors' free speech rights, and marijuana arrests more than doubled over his two terms.

But nothing that affects me or my family and friends is going to change significantly under the rigged system we have now. Even Hillary-> admits her goal is to merely hold off the GOP from undoing any of the good things that have been accomplished under Obama, because she knows the system is rigged.

Besides, if I have to be responsible for the carnage a President Drumpf might cause, Hillary-> supporters need to wash the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis off their hands first, then offer a few thousand apologies to soldiers' families for not finding any WMD. They can also apologize to my lesbian friends for having to delay their wedding when Hillary->'s husband passed DOMA and Hillary-> gave cover to every homophobe who wanted to deny their rights. Then apologies for blacks over-incarcerated due to the Crime Bill she championed as a way to deal with "superpredators", apologies to poor folks who lost their homes when the banks collapsed thanks to her husband's repeal of Glass-Steagall, apologies to the laborers who lost their jobs when NAFTA shipped them to Mexico... I could go on with real, actual Clinton harms if you want to name a few more imagined, future Drumpf harms.

Hillary and Bernie agree on 90 percent of everything!

Did you know we humans are 98 percent similar in DNA to chimpanzees? Amazing how that different 2% can make two wildly different species, huh?

Yes, Hillary-> and Bernie both agree that voting should be easier, gay people should get married (at least, since 2013), middle class wages should rise, minimum wage should be higher, Muslims aren't all terrorists, Mexicans aren't all rapists, and so forth.

Telling me Hillary-> agrees with some of the most basic things a Democrat should espouse isn't the issue. It's ignoring the fact she agrees with so much of the basic things a Republican would espouse that is the issue for me.

The disagreements are the issue. Cozying up for six-figure speaking fees with the big banks that wrecked the economy, even after telling them to "cut it out", makes me believe Hillary-> would behave more as a Republican would toward those big banks.

A "we came, we saw, he died" attitude toward Middle East regime change tells me she'd behave more as a neocon would in foreign policy.

Voting for the bankruptcy bill and requiring work for a "debt-free tuition" shows me she would stil treat poor people like her welfare-busting husband did in the 1990s to the delight of Republicans.

Taking public option healthcare off the table and vowing to further integrate the health insurance industry into for-profit health care backed by government fines for non-compliance was Mitt Romney's idea!

Ignoring the massive public opinion and the growing scientific evidence on medical marijuana by offering a "we need more research" stalling tactic is something Republicans do, if they recognize any medical utility at all.

We have to support the lesser of two evils

It's refreshing to know some will admit to their candidate being an evil. But, no, I don't have to do anything. This isn't Australia; I'm not required by law to vote.

Lesser of two evils thinking is what has gotten us to this place. At what point would it stop?

Suppose the race was a Republican vs. a Pro-Life Democrat. Now that Republican is likely to cut Social Security and Medicare, repeal the ACA, and invade Iran. The Democrat is against all those things, but vows to nominate justices who'll repeal Roe v. Wade.

Who's your lesser evil in that matchup? Are you, oh Hillary-> supporter, going to vote for the Pro-Life Democrat, knowing that it will likely mean 2 or 3 new Justices who'll overturn Roe?

Suppose I doubled down on that: it's a Pro-Choice Republican vs. a Pro-Life Democrat. Who's your choice... wait, never mind. There never would be a Pro-Choice Republican running, because that party requires its nominees to hold strong to some core principles.

If you're really a Democrat, you'll support the nominee

If she was really a Democrat, I would. But I refuse to keep rewarding the Democratic Party for moving to the right and sucking up to big business just because they're less evil than the Republicans. If the Democratic Party wants my vote, it needs to start representing me.