RE: ???? Is No one going to mention the nose dive clinton took at ground zero?
September 14, 2016 at 4:28 pm
(September 14, 2016 at 3:53 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:(September 14, 2016 at 2:55 pm)Whateverist Wrote: I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for strongly rejecting Clinton, assuming it isn't simply a strong yearning for moving beyond a two party system. What I mean is, what is it about Hillary that you don't like other than her being grade A establishment?
The question wasn't directed at me, but as a third-party voter myself, I'll give it a go.
I don't trust her. I know all politicians play fast and loose with the truth, but she seems to engage in it to an extent that approaches gaslighting -- the sniper-fire whopper springs to mind immediately as being an attempt to recalibrate reality in the minds of others. Another aspect of my mistrust for her is her tolerance of Bill's philandering. Surely she was strong enough to stand up for herself, her dignity, when she learnt of his dalliances, yet she stayed with him anyway. Why? Why would anyone tolerate such disrespect in their own marriage?
And yes, a sincere desire to see the downfall of the two-party system informs my choice to vote third-party as well. The system is obviously broken. The two parties distract us by finger-pointing at the other, while the same old song-and-dance unfolds. You know the Internet definition of insanity; we Americans are practicing it in our politics.
I don't have much sympathy for your first two reasons. Politicians lie, everyone lies. The truth is too often inconvenient. Meh. As for how she handles infidelity in her marriage, I think that doesn't have a black and white best answer. People vary. Meh.
Sure democrats are too often wed to unions in dysfunctional ways. But Bill and Barrack have not been that kind of democrat and I don't think she would be either. Now, how far can we let the system implode in the hopes that real change might emerge? I have no patience for that and I'm not a gambler, not with so much on the line. Politics is about compromise. No new party will be a savior or be pure and benevolent. The same human failings which plague those who pursue leadership in government now, will always be there. I prefer to see steady, incremental progress in ways that take into account the needs of the entire population to live a viable life. Democrats offer more hope of that than republicans for my money. So I'm sticking to them.