For Sanders Supporters

[skepticscott]

Would you vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president?

69 votes, 18 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, absolutely
	50 (72%)
	Never in a million years
	19 (28%)
	18 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Matt_in_STL]

1. Loyalty oath time again already?

[skepticscott]

3. Just the opposite

[daleanime]

13. I thought Opposite Day....

Last edited Sun Mar 13, 2016, 03:46 PM - Edit history (1)

was in the fall?

[restorefreedom]

50. this is th sunday one. nt

[canoeist52]

2. "Nuts!"

said General Patton

[longship]

93. Patton? No! That was Anthony McAuliffe at Bastogne.

Anthony McAuliffe

[Bradical79]

4. Passed

Most likely, but I think the Republicans show exactly how loyalty oaths can go wrong. I'm not committing 100% to anything.

[Renew Deal]

5. I don't think one is related to the other

And no one that has to think about it is a Democrat

[Cartoonist]

11. Been a Democrat all my life

Unlike Hillary.

[oberliner]

16. Or Bernie who became a Democrat only very recently

For what that is worth.

[LiberalElite]

17. It means nothing to me -

what is the cut off date?

[oberliner]

20. The other poster wrote "Been a Democrat all my life, unlike Hillary"

I was just saying that Bernie has not been a Democrat all his life either.

[LiberalElite]

21. He's a lot closer to an FDR democrat and that is good enough for me

the Democratic Party has gone waaaay too far to the right. It has left me and people like me out completely. FINALLY I have someone to vote for who represents me just about perfectly.

[oberliner]

86. You haven't supported any Democrats since FDR?

That was a long time ago.

[B Calm]

23. Unlike Hillary who voted for the Iraq War, he votes like a Democrat!

[daleanime]

26. Amen.....

[oberliner]

84. Most Senate Democrats voted for the IWR

Including the current Vice President.

[Ned_Devine]

126. And?

[oberliner]

132. So voting for IWR = voting like a Democrat?

Since more Senate Democrats voted for it than not?

[Ned_Devine]

136. Way off. Those "democrats" were voting like conservatives, but you know this

[oberliner]

166. Conservative and Moderate Democrats are still Democrats

Bernie, I would remind you, chose not to run or serve as a Democrat for almost all of his lengthy political career.

[Ned_Devine]

167. But his belief system is more liberal than most (D)emocrats, so does that really matter?

[unflapped]

6. Not only that...

I'd vote for her in a heartbeat over ANY of the Republican alternatives. Bernie is my top pick by a long shot, but Hillary beats the R's by leaps and bounds. Don't let perfect be the enemy of mediocre.

[left-of-center2012]

7. Yes, but ...

[djean111]

8. Will I vote in a Loyalty Oath poll?

Nope.
Props for making a poll instead of a long impassioned please vote for Hillary post that begins with "I love and respect Bernie, BUT", though!

In the United States, votes are private and secret. While that serves the cheaters quite well, it begs the question - why would people keep asking a question with a completely unverifiable premise/result?

Anyway - I think Trump would beat Hillary quite handily. He inspires passion. Very bad passion, to be sure - but if Hillary inspired anything like that, we would not even be having these conversations. Really, as a woman, I even find the First Woman President! stuff just meh at best. Not the first woman president I was hoping for this time, and I think it ridiculous - and embarrassing - to be asked to vote for a woman whose record and policies I find distasteful, just because we happen to have the same gender. There was a 50-50 chance of that, no biggie.

[skepticscott]

9. This is about loyalty to principles

And exactly not about loyalty to or emotional investment in any one person.

And votes can be secret if people choose that option, most people here don't. They proclaim loudly and proudly who they will (and will not) vote for. This poll is for those people who, for the most part, should have no reason to lie if they participate, since they could simply not answer.

[djean111]

14. I don't have an emotional investment in any candidate, I have an emotional investment in the issues.

This is not the time to be asking about the GE, IMO and all that. It presupposes our real disagreement on some pretty far-reaching issues is not important.

That being said, polls and questions aside, I don't think the kids are going to turn out for Hillary. What I am hearing - and remember, she is running on a no hope, no change, tiny tweaks platform, except what she glaringly steals from Bernie - I am hearing that neither candidate will make life any better whatsoever for the younger voters. May make it worse. Trade deals, no help with college costs, more wars. Who is going to vote for that?

[skepticscott]

18. As noted, the question was not about

turning out FOR Hillary.

[Iggo]

46. I do agree with that part. It certainly is about loyalty to principles.

Still, I pass on voting in the poll.

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. I don't think it's even about loyalty; it's about what a danger Trump would be

If this question had been posed with McCain or Romney, I could see it as about 'loyalty'; but with Trump, rational people who aren't Democrats should be intending to make sure he never becomes president.

[Le Taz Hot]

146. It's about tagging people

because we're all exceedingly stupid.

[skepticscott]

148. As noted, DU is full of

people who are not shy at all about declaring who they WON'T vote for in the GE. This poll is not remotely necessary for anyone who actually cared about keeping tabs on such people before the nominee is even decided.

[Le Taz Hot]

150. Yeah, because DU has absolutely NO history

of tagging people for disloyalty to Das Party, then targeting them for purging. None at all.

[skepticscott]

154. As noted, if you have a problem with that

you're free to take it up with the Admins. Unless you think I'm secretly conspiring with them to mark people for the Great Purge. Oooooohhh..scary!

And yes, I have no doubt that once the Democratic presidential nominee is chosen, people who post on Democratic Underground opposing that person's election will not be welcome (as has always been the case). As may people who compare the Democrats to the Nazis (Das Party? Please don't insult us by feigning ignorance about what you were implying).

[Le Taz Hot]

156. I know this may come as a shock,

but not all of us are blind party loyalists. Oh, and 156 replies with 8 recs. That speaks for itself.

[skepticscott]

159. There's a difference between not being blindly loyal

to the Democratic Party and comparing them to the Nazis. But apparently it had escaped you, since you're equating the two. Or at least trying to save face for saying a rather nasty thing.

And you're counting recs? Seriously? Are you really that desperate to try to score a point on me? It's a freaking POLL for pity's sake! There are no statements made and no opinions expressed in the OP, so why would anyone expect any recs at all?

[Le Taz Hot]

163. I used one word

and now you're suggesting that I compared them to the Nazis.

Now who's lost it?

[skepticscott]

164. One word is all it takes

You know that perfectly well, so spare us your feigned ignorance and your lame attempts to deflect this onto me.

If the intention of your "Das Party" reference was anything but associating the Democratic Party with the Nazis, you would have already explained what you really meant. But we both know you can't, because we both know that's exactly what you meant. And now you're just flailing and squirming.

The rec thing really, really made you look desperate, btw.

[Kokonoe]

10. If Trump manages to squeak through the establishment gauntlet

You forgot the choice of covering up with hazmat suits, and voting the best of the worst.

[bigwillq]

12. Only if I have to

If the polls in CT indicate it will be a close race, I will vote for her. If not, I will not.

[skepticscott]

19. And if enough people

think and act the same way you do, then what wouldn't have been a close race, will be. It might even flip to Trump. True? Are you going to look around after Trump squeaks by in Connecticut and wins the Electoral College and say "Didn't YOU vote for Hillary? No, I thought YOU were going to vote for Hillary! No, I voted my conscience...why didn't YOU vote for Hillary?"

[bigwillq]

87. I only get one vote.

I am not responsible for what other people do or don't do, either way. I take responsibility for my vote, and only my vote. I think most DEMs will vote for the DEM nominee. And if they don't? That's the nominees' problem, not mine.

[hack89]

15. Many enjoy enough privilege to do well in a Trump presidency

they can afford to vote their "conscience".

[skepticscott]

22. There seem to be quite a few people who think that way

The events of the past few days have just re-emphasized how potentially dangerous to the whole world that would be.

[Shoulders of Giants]

24. If I lived in a state where my vote might matter.

But my state isn't even close to being a swing state, so I'll vote for whoever I want to.

[skepticscott]

29. Everyone's vote matters

And if enough people in a state that normally wouldn't be close decide to stay home, that state WILL be close.

This is not a good argument for indulging your "conscience".

[Shoulders of Giants]

135. Your speaking about an alternate reality.

Only in an alternate reality will Hillary Clinton not win my state because people stay home. However, in this election in this reality, Hillary Clinton will win my state regardless of who I vote for. Therefore, I should vote for who I want to and not based on a strategic decision that only matters in an alternate reality. After all, I can create another alternate reality where which ever candidate I vote for wins the entire race. its pointless to suggest strategic voting that is based on a strategy that isn't even applicable to current reality. It makes more sense to just vote for who I want to. Strategic voting only matters when it can actually be a strategy.

[skepticscott]

137. And at what margin of votes

does an "alternate reality" become a real reality? You don't know, do you?

How much of a polling margin did Sanders make up in Michigan? Was his winning there an "alternate reality"?

[closeupready]

25. I'll be sure and let you know.

[JonathanRackham]

27. Sounds like surrender from the Hillary camp.

Thanks.

[skepticscott]

30. Who's from the "Hillary camp"?

Not me. I asked this question of both camps.

Try again.

[kristopher]

85. +1

[Kalidurga]

28. I will never vote for a fascist.

[skepticscott]

31. Conscience sounds great on a computer screen

But you're in the voting booth on Election Day. If you vote for Hillary, she wins the election. If you don't vote for Hillary, by whatever means your "conscience" demands, Trump wins and is president and leader of the free world. What do you do if YOUR vote is the deciding one? That's where true conscience and principle show themselves-when it actually matters and you can't hide behind other people.

[Kalidurga]

32. I am not sure what you are getting at.

I said I will never vote for a fascist.

[skepticscott]

35. I think you know exactly what I'm getting at

And the original question was what you would be prepared to do to prevent Donald Trump (fascist, oui?) from being elected?

[Kalidurga]

41. Explain the difference between someone who will kill people by oligarchial Hunger Games...

and one who will kill with bullets.

[skepticscott]

55. Are you asking me to explain the difference

between Donald Trump and FDR? Or between Donald Trump and Barack Obama? Or between Donald Trump and any Democratic president who has sent us to a war where people died? Or prosecuted the war on drugs?

[Kalidurga]

59. Nope

I am asking you the question I asked. I didn't specify names. Just in general what is the difference between death by policy i.e. cops literally getting away with murder by institutional racism and people being killed because of actual written policy that they should be killed.

[skepticscott]

63. Nice dodge, but everyone reading this knows what names YOU meant

You just hadn't thought enough about it to realize that other names could be substituted that made you little comparison fall flat.

[Kalidurga]

66. I am not the one that can't answer a simple question.

So tell me which would you prefer an iron fist in the face or an iron fist covered by a velvet glove?

[skepticscott]

70. If those are the only two choices

I'll take the second. If it's me being punched. If it's Donald Trump being punched, I'll choose the first.

Was that supposed to make me look bad? Or are you trying to argue that life doesn't sometimes make you choose between unpalatable options, with no alternatives?

[Kalidurga]

76. Finally you admit that we have an unpalatable candidate running for the Democratic nomination.

And I did nothing to you except hand you a rope. You are the one who gleefully took it and put it around your neck.

[skepticscott]

78. Did you actually think that was something

I was reluctant to admit? Are you patting yourself on the back for your cleverness? Seriously? If you are, that's kind of sad.

No candidate is ever perfect or pure. All are "unpalatable" to some degree. Despite some people's attempts to ennoble them, there are only degrees of unpalatability that we have to choose between.

[Kalidurga]

90. Still no answer to any of my simple questions.

And you are supposed to be the clever one?

[skepticscott]

114. Read post 70 again

I answered the question quite clearly. You offered two choices, I said I'd chose the second one.

You're just flailing now. It's not interesting.

[revbones]

33. So you're saying

Principles are great, but you have to break them when others deem it expedient?

[skepticscott]

34. No, I'm saying that

in real life you don't always get a choice between palatable options, and that inaction does not absolve you of responsibility for outcomes.

[revbones]

36. Seems to say that you're asking people to

sell out their principles because you feel it's necessary that they do so.

This would seem to have some pretty big disregard for those people.

[skepticscott]

37. How would allowing a Donald Trump presidency

by your deliberate action or deliberate inaction comport with your "principles"?

Look at post 12 above. Do you consider that a principled stand?

[revbones]

40. You're equating not voting for Hillary

with voting for Trump. It's not the same thing, not matter how many times or ways you say it.

[skepticscott]

43. Withholding a vote for the Democratic candidate

whoever it may be, makes it more likely that the Republican candidate will win, especially if you encourage others to do the same. Do you agree with that, or deny it?

Read my posts 19 and 31 again.

[revbones]

45. It's not a Sophie's Choice

as I said here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511482363

But regardless, if you are so concerned that you'll vote in Hillary and principled people won't suck it up, well it sounds like your choice is clear - you shouldn't vote in Hillary.

[skepticscott]

49. Do you agree with my statement or not?

It's a simple question, not a demand for a loyalty oath and not even candidate specific. That you're now conspicuously dodging it tells me that you know perfectly well that an honest answer would undermine your argument. Which should tell you something about your argument.

Here it is again:

Do you agree or disagree that withholding a vote for the Democratic candidate whoever it may be, makes it more likely that the Republican candidate will win, especially if you encourage others to do the same?

[revbones]

54. Wow. So you don't get the answer you want so I'm dishonest now. Sheesh

I replied. You create a "Sophie's Choice" argument for something that is in the future and attempt to club Sanders supports over the head with it in order to guilt them into your little loyalty pledge.

No, I think your vote is your own. I think you should vote for the best candidate and if your conscious prevents you from selecting the lesser of two truly evils, then you have a choice to make. I won't malign someone for not being able to suck it up for Hillary given how utterly horrible she truly is...

Also, it's pretty annoying to self-reference thread X and Y rather than just say the point in the current subthread. I didn't respond to those, and don't feel like researching your previous probably outlandish statements.

[skepticscott]

60. Nice try, but I don't WANT any particular answer, just an honest one

But I didn't get any answer at all. And yes, your failure to answer a simple question that you surely can answer makes me suspicious of the merit of your underlying argument. Everyone reading this can see that you're dodging, and why.

Do you agree or disagree that withholding a vote for the Democratic candidate whoever it may be, makes it more likely that the Republican candidate will win, especially if you encourage others to do the same? I'll enjoy watching you dodge this again, instead of giving a simply, straightforward answer.

And it's pretty annoying to have to type the same points over and over in the same thread, even though you claim it's such an intolerable burden to simply scroll up and read them. Another rather transparent dodge.

[revbones]

65. And I gave you one. Multiple actually.

I can't help it if you don't read them or don't understand them.

I also very specifically answered my previous response. So saying I'm dodging is pretty disingenuous of you. If you can't be an honest broker in your comments, then you just devalue them to the point where they are not worth reading or responding to at all.

Here is the specific response to your ridiculous question again:

"No, I think your vote is your own. I think you should vote for the best candidate and if your conscious prevents you from selecting the lesser of two truly evils, then you have a choice to make. I won't malign someone for not being able to suck it up for Hillary given how utterly horrible she truly is... "

I'm not sure how many times I'd have to repost it before you actually read it.

Yes, I agree it's pretty annoying to ahve to repost. Why do you expect me to do it for you?

[skepticscott]

68. No, that's a dodge of the question

And now more dodges on top of that to try to obscure the original one.

A specific answer to this:

Do you agree or disagree that withholding a vote for the Democratic candidate whoever it may be, makes it more likely that the Republican candidate will win, especially if you encourage others to do the same?

would have been either: "I agree with that statement" or "I disagree with that statement". Everyone can see that, and can see that you have given neither in any of this:

No, I think your vote is your own. I think you should vote for the best candidate and if your conscious prevents you from selecting the lesser of two truly evils, then you have a choice to make. I won't malign someone for not being able to suck it up for Hillary given how utterly horrible she truly is... "

But keep dodging. It just makes your argument look worse. It's very easy to tell when someone is pinned and squirming.

[revbones]

69. Just because you don't get the answer you want doesn't make it a dodge.

Now you're questioning the validity of my personal answer? I'm sorry but I'm not sure what authority you think you have to enforce an answer of only A or B on someone. Man, you may have other concerns.

I gave an answer that I disagreed and expanded on that.

You're just making yourself look pretty bad by saying I'm "dodging" when I've very specifically answered. You just don't like the answer and that's pretty juvenile to continue.

[skepticscott]

72. Yet another dodge

Yes, some questions DO have yes or no/Agree or disagree answers. Cope. And as I said, I don't care what answer you give, as long as you give one that's honest and direct, rather than a deflection.

[revbones]

73. Wow. Did you even read my comment?

Again, what authority do you think you have to say that my answer mustr conform to the choices you see?

Also, for the umpteenth time, I said "I disagree" - which was actually one of the answers you wanted anyway.

I think you just illustrate your maturity here.

[Blue State Bandit]

61. Most of this country doesn't vote anyway so your point is moot.

[skepticscott]

62. Not at all

Not when someone doesn't vote for claimed reasons of lofty principles, as opposed to simple apathy.

[kristopher]

89. Real life?? Here are a couple of hints about what is Real Life.

Part of the Clinton package is the FACT that a very large part of the 3/13/2016 Dem electorate is going to reject her as the nominee.
That is fucking written in stone.
That is part of the package you are accepting when you support her.
That is REALITY.

That is REAL LIFE.

All you've done is create a tool to try and deny it - your OP is a meaningless loyalty oath masquerading as a clumsy poll.

[revbones]

104. Hearh-hear! nt

[skepticscott]

118. You're assuming I support her over Sanders

Wrong.

Try again.

And stop pretending you know how people would vote if it comes down to her against Trump in November. You really, really don't. You're trying very, very hard to convince yourself that you do, that's obvious. But that doesn't mean much of anything.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

109. Trump doesn't gain votes if someone votes for someone else. 0 - 0 = 0

Also, it being a secret ballot, how would anyone know if their vote decided the outcome of an election?

Purity test (aka Loyalty Oath) Fail.

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost. John Quincy Adams

In matters of conscience the law of majority has no place. Mohandas K. Gandhi

[WhiteTara]

133. I hope you vote against one!

[Kalidurga]

134. Hopefully I won't have to vote against two.

[Loudestlib]

38. I've seen this before.

The Red Scare

Edward R. Murrow: "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty."

[skepticscott]

39. No one here is

Try again.

[Iggo]

42. Pass.

[lumberjack_jeff]

44. There should be something in between

I'm sure that there are things that could be promised between now and November that might convince some people to vote for or against Hillary.

[skepticscott]

47. In our system, unfortunately, there isn't

IF Hillary is the Democratic nominee (which I by no means regard as either a foregone conclusion or the most desirable scenario) against Trump on election day, then one of those two will be president. Period. Fantasies about a massive write-in effort notwithstanding. The ONLY choice, like it or not, is which one of them you prefer. Or which of them you dislike less, if it makes you happier to think of it that way. Rationalizations about "not voting for the lesser of two evils" also notwithstanding.

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. There is, and it's only one word; "maybe"

If Hillary is the nominee, many Sanders supporters might be convinced to vote for her.

But those votes are something she's going to have to earn.

[skepticscott]

51. As I've noted elsewhere in this thread

the original question was not about turning out FOR Clinton.

[Buzz Clik]

52. Just so you know...

Skinner once used a poll to TOS people who selected a certain response.

Food for thought...

[skepticscott]

64. Well, do feel free

to complain about that on ATA.

I wish you luck.

[Buzz Clik]

71. Many threads have been initiated declaring, "I will never vote for Hillary."

If they haven't acted by now, they never will.

BUT, I would delight in seeing everyone voting NO being banned for life.

[skepticscott]

74. Well, stay tuned

Once the convention is over, if Sanders is not the nominee, I suspect that issue will have to be dealt with, and may very well complete the fragmentation of DU. Which would be a shame, but not unexpected.

[Reter]

83. Will they be reinstated in the likely even she loses the GE?

Only fair, right?

[skepticscott]

97. I couldn't say

But if Trump or Cruz wins the GE, I doubt that will be too high on the list of anyone's concerns, quite frankly.

[dchill]

53. I'm going to go with "secret ballot."

Yeah, that's the ticket!

[mountain grammy]

56. It won't be necessary.. in fact a better poll

would be, will you vote for Bernie Sanders when he is the nominee?

[oldandhappy]

57. voting means I do not have to tell you!

[AgerolanAmerican]

58. I could not, sorry

My conscience would force me to cast a protest vote and write in Bernie. I cannot get on board with Her Majesty's Next War.

[bkkyosemite]

67. This loyalty oath thing needs to stop. Too many now almost daily.

[Zorra]

75. I refuse to be blackmailed under any circumstances. nt

[Android3.14]

77. So sad, skepticscott

I cannot express how disappointing it is to see you playing the role of the authoritarian political officer.

Loyalty oaths are despicable to free thinking people.

[skepticscott]

94. Good thing this isn't one

Though I do have concerns about those who think it is. And disappointment in you for resorting to a transparent personal attack to derail discussion of a larger and important question.

If you want to actually see a loyalty oath in force, wait until after the Democratic Convention and the selection of a nominee. Then anyone who voices opposition to that nominee on DU is liable to be banned under the Admins TOS.

[Android3.14]

131. It sure looks like one

Folks takin' names that could easily become lists of enemies, using soft fascism to force compliance to political belief, becoming the things we despise - these are bad signs for democracy and SOP for Hillary supporters. The truth is, I would rather avoid seeing a "loyalty oath in force", and I wish folks like yourself would stop soft selling them to the rest of us.

[skepticscott]

138. Well, I intend on voting for Sanders Tuesday

So who exactly are you presuming I will count as my "list of enemies"?

And the only "compliance to political belief" will be enforced by the Admins of this site, not by me, so if you have a problem with the TOS, I suggest you take it up with them once the convention is over.

[cwydro]

79. I think it's a damn shame if any DUer doesn't vote for the Democratic nominee.

But that's up to them.

I'm a Hillary supporter, but I will happily vote for Bernie if he gets the nomination.

Those who say they will not vote for the nominee after the convention...well I assume the admins will be paying attention.

[Iggo]

80. Changes are a-comng.

Big changes!

[muriel_volestrangler]

82. I think it's a damn shame if any human doesn't vote against Trump (nt)

[cwydro]

125. Yes indeed.

You're right on that!

[Svafa]

152. Any vote that isn't for Trump is a vote against him. I can't imagine a

single person on DU who will vote for Trump.

[skepticscott]

155. Sorry, but no

the math doesn't work that way

[LWolf]

88. 1. Doesn't this belong in GD:P?

2. If you really want to know, ask me if HRC wins the nomination; until then, I'm focused on electing Sanders, and Hillary Clinton is not under my consideration.

3. Are you asking so that you can attack Sanders supporters with the TOS, or with party loyalty accusations? Or do you really care?

4. If you really care, if this is not a disingenuous question, instead of asking, maybe you should just work to nominate the candidate that polls best against every Republican. That's really the best way to defeat Trump in November.

[skepticscott]

96. No

This question is about the general election, not what's going on in the primaries.

Why would you assume I want to attack Sanders supporters when I'm planning to vote for Sanders myself? In any case, this is still the primaries, and nothing is decided, so talking about hypothetical votes doesn't violate the TOS in my opinion.

And while I don't disagree that minds and attitudes may change once the GE campaign starts and there is only one candidate left from each party, given the event surrounding Donald Trump in the last week, the issue seemed relevant now, and I was curious what responses would be forthcoming. It's certainly worth asking again in August, but at that point, yes..I would not be surprised if the Admins start bringing the hammer down on people here who voice opposition to the Democratic nominee. That won't be pretty, but I expect (or at least hope) that Skinner will lay that all out very shortly after the convention, so that there will be misunderstanding about what level of dissent he's going to allow. Then people can decide whether they can live with that, or whether they need to abandon DU for the rest of the campaign or for good.

[lunatica]

91. I think Republicans will vote for her to prevent Donald Trump too

I'm serious.

[longship]

92. IBTL. nt

[Iggo]

95. Should've been locked a long time ago.

I guess the hosts have all gone fishing.

[skepticscott]

98. On what grounds?

The same hypothetical question was asked of Sanders and Clinton supporters.

[Scootaloo]

102. At this point these questions are essentially spam.

Also, GD is the wrong place for the post

[skepticscott]

121. Well, if that's actually the case

the hosts can feel free to move it or lock it.

Still waiting for you to say where it should have been posted instead of GD.

[Scootaloo]

122. GD:P, which will become GD: Election after the convention

Basically all the election-related stuff about democrats goes there

[skepticscott]

123. This is not about the primaries

It's about what people would do in the general election.

So no, it shouldn't go in GD .

[Bluenorthwest]

99. The problem with your wording is that it is weaponized. Why not ask the nominee question about

the nominee, of DUers? I've seen plenty of Bernie Bashing Hillary supporters yapping that they'd never vote for him because they love low taxes and usually work with Republicans and their husbands are connected so don't even think to question us, pal and all that.

So why the choosing off?

I'll say that I am sick to death of Straight Democrats and their habitual shitting on LGBT year after year as Hillary just did yet again. The fact that any of you put up with it tells me exactly what I need to know going forward.

[AtomicKitten]

100. IT'S A TRAP!!!11

[Scootaloo]

101. If you were a woodchuck, how much wood would you chuck, if you could chuck wood?

[arcane1]

103. How many loyaty oaths are we going to see in one week?

I get it, Clinton gets support from the authoritarian mindset, but can't we go a week without demanding our papers?

[Iggo]

111. They're fishing.

Don't bite.

[skepticscott]

120. Who's "they"?

Are you assuming I support Clinton over Sanders? You're wrong. I would prefer Sanders to be the nominee. I just don't assume that he will be.

[revbones]

105. The question should be why you consider yourself the arbiter of what would

prevent a Trump presidency?

Say the country is split 50-50. Dem vs. Rep.
Say Democrats are split 50-50. Hillary vs. Sanders
Say people are concerned because 30% of Sanders supporters won't cross over.

If the problem as outlined is your real concern - beating Trump - and not having some mode of attack on Bernie supporters then...

Simply voting for Sanders instead of Hillary would solve the problem and alleviate your concerns.

[skepticscott]

112. What makes you think I'm not going to?

And what makes you the arbiter of what prevent a Trump presidency? I never pretended to be. I posed the question: IF voting for Hillary were the only way to prevent a Trump presidency, would you do it? Somewhat different than you're trying to paint it.

[revbones]

113. If you're going to vote for Sanders then

why all the backhanded concern trolling?

[skepticscott]

116. Does it bother you

that you don't understand me? Sorry. That's not what these threads were for.

[revbones]

117. I don't care to understand you.

I was merely commenting on the backhanded concern trolling that you seem to be doing and would ask for some intellectual honesty in those arguments about Trump, Hillary and Bernie.

[skepticscott]

119. If you can point to anywhere

that I've been "intellectually dishonest", feel free.

But I don't have my hopes up.

[revbones]

124. You seem to be judging others more critically than yourself

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in many of your comments here in this thread your position has been basically that not voting for the Democratic nominee is a vote for Trump.

Many do not feel that to be the case, and your premise is also not factually provable now or in the future. So given that we are talking about opinions rather than facts at this point, you are judging people on a different scale.

In one of your first comments (I really didn't want to search through for more) you say "but with Trump, rational people who aren't Democrats should be intending to make sure he never becomes president." here you imply that even though you're espousing an unprovable opinion regarding the election of Trump, and that others are irrational if they do not agree with your premise.

[skepticscott]

127. You're wrong

Consider yourself corrected.

[revbones]

128. Unfortunately for you, I do not.

And unfortunately for the rest of us, the concern trolling will probably persist.

[skepticscott]

129. You've read my position multiple times in this thread

Here it is again:

Withholding voting for the Democratic candidate whoever it may be, makes it more likely that the Republican candidate will win.

That's not "unprovable". It's simple math. Do you need it demonstrated?

If there's any intellectual dishonesty here, it's yours, in misrepresenting a position that has been clearly reiterated to you so many times today.

Still waiting for you to point out mine. So far, you've failed miserably.

[revbones]

130. I would suggest you google "intellectual dishonesty"

And I did point it out in the previous post. You seem to enjoy skipping over where people explain things, and then just posting back that they dodged your question or didn't explain whatever it was - allowing you to plant some fictitious flag of victory. That seems to be more of a theme for you in this thread, possibly more so than your original question.

If it makes you feel better, plant that flag.

[skepticscott]

139. More dodging

you seem to be a master at it. But you're tiresome and have no substance to offer. And you certainly can't back up your bullshit claim of "intellectual dishonesty" by me. Your "previous post" (128) certainly had no evidence of that whatsoever, so please stop wearying my ears.

[revbones]

140. And you seem to be a master at

1. Answering people's posts without reading what you're answering. Your arguments might be a little less weak sauce if you paid attention to the answers people provide and stop 'dodging' by using the word dodging...

2. Using the word dodge or a form of it. There are at least 6 instances of you using "dodge" and 4 of "dodging". I didn't continue to check other forms. Perhaps a thesaurus might be in order?

Seriously though, I have noticed the trend of you just ignoring or avoiding the fact that people answer your responses when they don't give you the answer you want. Perhaps you should look a bit more inward rather than project whatever is going on with you to others.

[skepticscott]

141. Another post full of

substance-free babble.

You've been challenged over and over to point to examples of "intellectual dishonesty" from me, and have failed miserably, despite your bullshit claim. If you can't back it up, just admit it and move on. Saying that you did, somewhere, sometime, doesn't cut it unless you can point to the exact post and quote. You can't.

[revbones]

142. Are you looking in a mirror while you answer these?

I did point to an example of intellectual dishonesty. I even suggested you look up the phrase since you don't understand it's meaning apparently. Sheesh. Obtuse... Does everything have to be literally spelled out for you???

Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.

Again, perhaps reading what people write might help you, rather than just spout verbal diarrhea about them not answering you.

Enjoy your last word. I'm sure it'll probably be some form of "dodge" both literally and figuratively.

[Spider Jerusalem]

106. This presumes that doing so would have any effect

Georgia hasn't gone for a Democrat since Bill Clinton in 1992; if Trump wins the Republican nomination I expect he'll win Georgia in the general. Whether I vote for Hillary or don't won't change that.

[shanti]

107. this again?

[mak3cats]

108. Any loyalty oath thread??? (eom)

[backscatter712]

110. I'll hold my nose and vote for her...

...though I am absolutely unhappy with her right now.

READY FOR HILLARY!

[Warren DeMontague]

115. I will vote for her if she is the Democratic Nominee for President.

Period.

[skepticscott]

143. The most notable thing about these threads

is that 20% of the Sanders supporters who responded refused to answer yes or no, while not a single one of the Clinton supporters passed.

Not sure exactly WHAT that means, but it's probably something interesting.

[Todays_Illusion]

144. I clicked pass I don't think we have our backs to the wall yet.

[ladyVet]

145. Sneaky way to get people banned here? Nice. Passed on poll. nt

[skepticscott]

147. Why would I want to get Sanders supporters banned?

Since I'm one myself.

And it's not as if people have been shy in DU about proclaiming who they WON'T vote for in the GE. That's been going on for many months. No one needs this poll to find that out.

[PowerToThePeople]

149. Pass

I do not do loyalty oath bullshit.

[skepticscott]

160. Good thing this isn't a loyalty oath.

[gcomeau]

151. The critical question is...

How many of the independents will if the Democratic party yet again flips them off by selecting the ultimate status quo establishment candidate that sends the message they have no intention of changing a single thing that makes those people independents in the first place.

And those numbers don't look great.

[KamaAina]

153. There is a difference between bad and worse, and it is far sharper than that between good and better

-Robert A. Heinlein.

Note that no one is threatening to move to Canada if Hillary wins.

http://www.cbiftrumpwins.com

[skepticscott]

161. +1

Good point!

[Shankapotomus]

157. That's pretty good

Based on all the vitriol I thought most Sanders supporters despised Hillary.

[skepticscott]

162. Well, I suspect the most vocal

also tend to be the most vitriolic. Lots of people here read, but don't post much.

And of course, for some of them, it may simply be a matter of despising Trump more.

[bhikkhu]

165. Choice between staus quo and fascism?

That's an easy choice. I'll happily vote for Sanders in the primary, and I hope he gets the nomination, but I've always liked Hillary and the Clintons for their basic stance on good governance.