2016 Postmortem
Showing Original Post only (View all)Shocker: It's backhanded and wordy to the point of absurdity, but Chomsky just endorsed HRC [View all]
if you live in a swing state. There are enough ifs and buts thrown in to fill a dump truck, but here's the essence of it:
<snip>
2) The exclusive consequence of the act of voting in 2016 will be (if in a contested swing state) to marginally increase or decrease the chance of one of the major party candidates winning.
3) One of these candidates, Trump, denies the existence of global warming, calls for increasing use of fossil fuels, dismantling of environmental regulations and refuses assistance to India and other developing nations as called for in the Paris agreement, the combination of which could, in four years, take us to a catastrophic tipping point. Trump has also pledged to deport 11 million Mexican immigrants, offered to provide for the defense of supporters who have assaulted African American protestors at his rallies, stated his openness to using nuclear weapons, supports a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. and regards the police in this country as absolutely mistreated and misunderstood while having done an unbelievable job of keeping law and order. Trump has also pledged to increase military spending while cutting taxes on the rich, hence shredding what remains of the social welfare safety net despite pretenses.
4) The suffering which these and other similarly extremist policies and attitudes will impose on marginalized and already oppressed populations has a high probability of being significantly greater than that which will result from a Clinton presidency.
5) 4) should constitute sufficient basis to voting for Clinton where a vote is potentially consequential-namely, in a contested, swing state.
<snip>
read:http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/noam-chomskys-8-point-rationale-voting-lesser-evil-presidential-candidate