Sorry. I can't be convinced to vote for HRC.

[FBaggins]

Fortunately for my future participation on DU... I don't need convincing to vote against Trump.

[djean111]

1. That's nice.

At least it was short, and I thank you for that.
'bye!

[Baobab]

17. If you want to vote for someone positive, vote for Bernie Sanders

who has a far better chance of beating Trump than dishonest Hillary- read the paper linked below.

[dchill]

2. But don't you wish there was a better choice?

[FBaggins]

4. Of course.

And there's no shortage of them.

Unfortunately - none are likely to be on the ballot in November.

[Hortensis]

12. Hey, everyone always wants a "better choice."

I think the most common difference is NOT between people of high principle and thus hard to please versus people of low principle and easy to please (silly).

Rather that the latter see faults in their candidates' opponents for what they are, and note their virtues too. We don't villainize opponents and blow up what we don't like into major, intolerable flaws that simply don't exist. Candidates are who and what they are, no more, no less. The end result is that we don't have some major hangup to leap before it would even become possible to consider them as a second choice.

Baggins, I honestly don't care if you refuse to vote for Hillary. That's your choice. You are one of many millions who made that choice. But I don't respect you the reason you made that choice: your wackadoodle opinion of her. I can understand not liking even admirable people that others do -- that's fine. I can understand disapproving of people for...well, things I disapprove of in them -- that's fine. But turning Hillary Clinton into an imaginary boogie so awful she literally can't be supported (by an honorable person presumably)? No, I don't respect that. But you're hardly the only one effectively self-disenfranchising in a time of national emergency as a result of irrational hillhate.

Btw, this most current statement is, of course, a profound insult to the 60 million or so like me who don't think she's awful at all. You know that, we know that. So, enjoy the moment?

[Arugula Latte]

15. The thing is -- Hillary has a long track record.

And a lot of us dislike her because of two things: what she has said, and what she has done.

It's sad and disheartening that as Democrats we have to choose whether or not to vote for someone who is basically a neoliberal Neocon DINO, with a few socially progressive positions thrown out as bones now and again (that she arrives at only when it's completely "safe&quot . And even then, she's pro death penalty! With "Democrats" like that, who needs Republicans?

[Hortensis]

16. Most of them do have extensive track records, tho,

Arugula. Yet I could bet my paycheck entirely safely that Democrats who "can't vote for Hillary" have no comparable ideas about and no comparable "information" on what the people they have voted for actually did with all the power they gave them, much less all the other details of their lives in and out of office.

No idea because they never asked for each, or any, of them dozens of the questions they think they "know" the answers to regarding Hillary, and of course never swallowing all the lies that searches never performed didn't turn up.

No information because nobody posts on the web every detail of those politicians' records in minute detail -- complete with several different interpretations depending on what angle of attack the authors advanced at the moment.

ONLY Hillary. Hillary all alone, a class of 1, among literally thousands of politicians. (How incredibly amazing is she to still be with us, btw!)

Interestingly, in a study of people who watched a lot of the biased coverage of Fox News, those people tested as knowing less about the world than people who watched no news at all. (MSNBC and CNN not that bad but pathetic, way below public TV and radio viewers.)

Imagine. People who only paid attention to the news they wanted to hear ended up more ignorant and less competent to vote than people who paid no attention at all. And that is where I believe people whose dislike of Hillary Clinton far outstrips reality are -- on this issue at least trapped in a self-induced incompetence. Just like Fox viewers.

[stonecutter357]

3. seems legit !

[Zen Democrat]

5. Living in Texas, as I do, there's no point in tarnishing my principles with an HRC vote.

There's also no chance any down-ballot Democrats will win in Texas. I can safely stay home - or write in Bernie. It won't matter, either way.

[sarin]

7. That's nonsense

I'm a democrat that is elected in a very conservative district in Texas. You should always vote, regardless if you like the presidential candidate.

[BernieforPres2016]

11. I see you're a Democrat who supports Hillary Clinton

So why would people who don't like Hillary Clinton like you any better? Could you spell out what you don't like about Hillary but why you prefer her to Bernie?

[FBaggins]

9. There are plenty of elected Democrats in Texas

What level of representation do you believe is not worth your time? It shouldn't stop at governor or senator... sheriff, school board, etc. all matter!

[Gidney N Cloyd]

10. There is always a point to standing up and being counted.

[broiles]

13. I agree, I will vote down ballot dems, but not HRC.

I have principles.

[longship]

6. It's a Hobson's choice?

According to Wikipedia:

John Stuart Mill, in his book Considerations on Representative Government, refers to Hobson's choice:

"When the individuals composing the majority would no longer be reduced to Hobson's choice, of either voting for the person brought forward by their local leaders, or not voting at all."

I'll leave it right there except to state that I will be voting straight Democratic Party this November, no matter who obtains the nomination.

My best to you all.

[Betty Karlson]

8. Not voting for Trump is perfectly possible without voting for a corrupt status quo.

[Yurovsky]

14. Exactly. George Wallace had a "D" behind his name too...

and I consider a corporatist bought & paid for by Goldman Sachs et al to be every bit as disgusting and unacceptable as a racist like Wallace. I refuse to "go along to get along" when the Party apparatus spits out a candidate this morally bankrupt and corrupt, and a war-mongerer to boot.

I want to win, but I don't consider HRC getting elected a win for anyone but the 1%.

[Betty Karlson]

18. I want to win, but I don't consider HRC getting elected a win for anyone but the 1%.

My sentiments exactly. Happily for Clinton, we are negligeable, racist and sexist hell-bound sluts lusting after Berniebros, complacent and easily duped keyboardwarriors who don't do their homework, and who else are we gonna vote for. And she doesn't need us, which is why she has moved to the left enough already. So the win for the 1 % is completely secure, even when there is still a possibility of Clinton entering the convention with LESS pledged delegates to her name than Sanders. Or so tell us the daily talking points issued by David Bock, high priest of the Hill-bully cult.

By the way: you are so right to compare being in the pay of Wall Street to racism: the status quo has a well-documented propensity to inferiorate and marginalise racial minorities. Those espousing the status quo are indeed espousing a continuation of silent but institutional racism.