4 ms·

While there are certain issues on which I don't agree with Clinton, here's why I'm still voting for her: she believes in man-made climate change and, in my opin

While there are certain issues on which I don't agree with Clinton, here's why I'm still voting for her: she believes in man-made climate change and, in my opinion (I know a lot of people don't agree with me on this), a vote for one of the third-party candidates is largely wasted.

adam12 10y ago
That is her public view. edit: How concerned about climate change could she be? She was for the TPP and she hasn't said anything about DAPL. > a vote for one of the third-party candidates is largely wasted. No. They will learn from this. Maybe Ranked Choice Voting will catch on.
- jwtadvice 10y ago
  Her private view is that fracking should be expanded quite liberally - as was disclosed in hacked emails - and that diversification of energy sources is useful for thwarting the economic influence that oil-and-gas-producing nations (such as Russia) can muster. I mean, it's smart. But it is in no way honest.
programminggeek 10y ago
Why can't women make climate change too?
liquidise 10y ago
What possible relevance does this statement have to the topic of an encryption commission?
- davesque 10y ago
  Why is the context of this article not relevant? Sure, the fact that she thinks encryption should be back-doored is foolish. But what's more foolish? Not believing in man-made climate change (her main opponent's position) or not believing in strong encryption? That's not even considering the question of which candidate would be more willing to change their views in response to logical arguments. In my opinion, the answer to that question should be obvious.
  - chrisdbaldwin 10y ago
    Probably the encryption one. But you know that your question is silly.
leppr 10y ago
What high expectations. I'm hopeful this election will be the trigger that makes the mainstream consciousness reflect on democratic republic systems' grave shortcomings.
- davesque 10y ago
  I hope so too, honestly. But, for now, the system is what it is. I think congressional elections are a much better place to work for that change.
- frogpelt 10y ago
  "reflect on democratic republic systems' grave shortcomings." And do what in response? Abolish the current system of government? In favor of what?
  - leppr 10y ago
    Who talked about abolishing? If the only way to change the status-quo is to completely discard the current system, that means it's clearly not flexible enough and indeed has to be abolished. But I doubt that's the case. Open up, experiment on small scales, improve incrementally. We keep calling that system "Democracy" as a shortcut(/newspeak), maybe it'd be good to indeed try pushing it toward a real democracy?
- eanzenberg 10y ago
  Could it be better? Sure. Could it be worse? Yes. Could it be a lot worse? Fuck yes.
mindslight 10y ago
People love to talk about the "lesser of the evils" like they can take positive credit for effecting an evil result because a different possibility could have been slightly more evil. But actually they're just responsible for endorsing evil. Furthermore, when the "lesser evil" is a subjective epsilon and up for debate, they're also responsible for fueling support for the "other" evil. Somebody who cheerleads for Clinton is actually responsible for the results of a possible Trump presidency! (And vice-versa).

adam12 10y ago

That is her public view. edit: How concerned about climate change could she be? She was for the TPP and she hasn't said anything about DAPL. > a vote for one of the third-party candidates is largely wasted. No. They will learn from this. Maybe Ranked Choice Voting will catch on.

jwtadvice 10y ago
Her private view is that fracking should be expanded quite liberally - as was disclosed in hacked emails - and that diversification of energy sources is useful for thwarting the economic influence that oil-and-gas-producing nations (such as Russia) can muster. I mean, it's smart. But it is in no way honest.

programminggeek 10y ago

Why can't women make climate change too?

liquidise 10y ago

What possible relevance does this statement have to the topic of an encryption commission?

davesque 10y ago
Why is the context of this article not relevant? Sure, the fact that she thinks encryption should be back-doored is foolish. But what's more foolish? Not believing in man-made climate change (her main opponent's position) or not believing in strong encryption? That's not even considering the question of which candidate would be more willing to change their views in response to logical arguments. In my opinion, the answer to that question should be obvious.
- chrisdbaldwin 10y ago
  Probably the encryption one. But you know that your question is silly.

leppr 10y ago

What high expectations. I'm hopeful this election will be the trigger that makes the mainstream consciousness reflect on democratic republic systems' grave shortcomings.

davesque 10y ago
I hope so too, honestly. But, for now, the system is what it is. I think congressional elections are a much better place to work for that change.
frogpelt 10y ago
"reflect on democratic republic systems' grave shortcomings." And do what in response? Abolish the current system of government? In favor of what?
- leppr 10y ago
  Who talked about abolishing? If the only way to change the status-quo is to completely discard the current system, that means it's clearly not flexible enough and indeed has to be abolished. But I doubt that's the case. Open up, experiment on small scales, improve incrementally. We keep calling that system "Democracy" as a shortcut(/newspeak), maybe it'd be good to indeed try pushing it toward a real democracy?
eanzenberg 10y ago
Could it be better? Sure. Could it be worse? Yes. Could it be a lot worse? Fuck yes.

mindslight 10y ago

People love to talk about the "lesser of the evils" like they can take positive credit for effecting an evil result because a different possibility could have been slightly more evil. But actually they're just responsible for endorsing evil. Furthermore, when the "lesser evil" is a subjective epsilon and up for debate, they're also responsible for fueling support for the "other" evil. Somebody who cheerleads for Clinton is actually responsible for the results of a possible Trump presidency! (And vice-versa).