There are four candidates for president who will be on the ballot in all 50 states and DC. Of those, who would be the best president? Consider, for example, that only one favors mandatory childhood vaccinations. That candidate is Hillary. The other three, Trump, Johnson, and Stein, all live in fantasy worlds of variously destructive potential.
If you want to be a one issue mandatory vaccine voter, that’s your prerogative. I hardly see the point of mandatory vaccines if the rest of your policies set the world on fire.
Regardless of the logic or lack of logic of fealty to our 2-party system, the actuality is that in 2016, Hillary is by far the best remaining candidate. And it’s the actuality that matters.
No. She’s objectively terrible. I will never vote for her. She’s a neoliberal disaster. I would rather write in Cornel West than vote for Clinton or Trump.
No president, by herself, can reverse predatory neoliberalism or dismantle our police state. In America, that requires control of the Supreme Court, a focus of the right wing for 62 years. It so happens that a Hillary Administration would give us that opportunity. With that in mind, it is unconscionable not to vote for her.
Yes, especially not an entrenched neoliberal President, or a President whose rhetoric in the past helped lead to today’s police state. Police probably think they’re being great public servants going after “super-predators.” It’s absurd to think Clinton will appoint anyone but a neoliberal to the Supreme Court, guaranteeing more decades of injustice.