What your article proves about you
I’m not voting for Stein. I’m not eligible to, and even if I was, I wouldn’t. But your article tells me an awful lot more about you than it does about your targets. For example, it tells me that:
- You are not a grown — you cannot engage in discourse without bullying, browbeating or projecting your own insecurities and neuroses onto others.
- You do not understand how democracy works. A vote is an approval by proxy — you are giving the stamp to someone to act on you and your countryman’s behalf. Therefore a vote for Stein DOES matter even if her chances of success are null and void. It matters because a) If we want future candidates to come forward and run on a platform that will enact lasting societal change then we need to prove the voter base is there and b) you are giving your moral endorsement to a candidate and this is not something that should be given away lightly or bargained for like a tactical chip.
- You have not done your research. You state that it is our job to vote to protect marginalised groups. But Hillary has a track record of screwing over some of the most vulnerable people in society. She deliberately botched health care reform which resulted in the current culture where denial of treatment is seen as a win. Or take her consistently hawkish and rightwing positions on almost all foreign policy decisions, from her push for military intervention to her pressuring Haiti not to raise their minimum wage — HC has consistently shown a flagrant disregard for the most vulnerable groups in society. Here is some reading material for you: http://www.ninaillingworth.com/2016/08/01/hillary-clinton-imperialism-and-the-lesser-of-two-evils-part-one/
- You do a fine job of pushing people away from Hillary. Not that there weren’t enough reasons to avoid an autocratic, petty, unrepentant powerplayer who is best buddies with Henry fucking Kissinger for chrissakes, but your patronising, condescending screed has probably cemented a lot of positions and may have even pushed people away from the candidate. By indulging in the modern practice of ad-hominem attacks on the psychology of your opponents rather than on the content of their arguments you have discredited both yourself and your own pov.
I hope whatever compulsion you’ve met was worth it