Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Nuktuk OP wrote

If we are to assume Hillary won, are those who voted for her responsible for the actions of her government? Does the answer change if the voter is an anarchist?

1

ziq wrote (edited )

Yes, she was openly a warhawk, openly took bags of money from lobbyists to do harm, was openly rightwing, racist, antigay, nationalist, bloodthirsty, antifeminist, etc. Her supporters couldn't have missed her long history of oppressive words and actions unless they were willfully ignorant in order to justify their support for a far right zealot; the same way female Trump supporters ignored the fact that Trump openly boasted about groping women because their whiteness was more important to them than anything else.

6

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

But again, what should we be doing instead of voting, then?

1

GaldraChevaliere wrote

Accept that any parliamentary system is an insult that doesn't represent your interests and represent those interests for your neighbors, I guess. The dems or labor aren't ever gonna actually do anything about people being hungry and homeless, so organize food drives or start a FNB chapter. Gun control will always target minorities before it targets rich white men, so help out at antifascist gyms or teach people to use the guns they've held onto.

2

libre_dev wrote

Hillary winning is not the same thing as voting for Hillary.

2

[deleted] wrote

0

rot wrote

voting for a third party does take away votes basically the highest % wins. The votes narrow it down to 2 and then the electoral collage decides who wins.

It's all fucked up and votes don't really matter unless they are big numbers (someone could win by 60% or have the majority of votes and still lose)

1

arduinna wrote

I believe a common stance is to vote for the lesser evil in swing states, and the Socialist or Green party in states that are firmly entrenched either way, as to prevent things like Trump winning without campaigning for everyone to buy into the DNC.

−1