Conventional "wisdom" says that Hillary Clinton has all but locked up the democratic nomination for US President. That this conventional wisdom is almost certainly wrong shall be the topic of a future article. Here, I want to explain why I believe that, should Clinton end up as the Democratic nominee, it is imperative NOT to vote for her under ANY circumstances.
Firstly, Clinton will not have actually "won" the nomination. Instead, she will have stolen it. The entire primary and caucus season has been rife with election irregularities of many sorts: Countless hundreds of thousands of voters mysteriously purged from voter rolls, multitudes more who have discovered on Election Day that their registrations were magically "flipped" from Democrat to something else making them ineligible to vote for Sanders. Multitudes who found that their polling places had been suddenly closed as an "economy measure", and much, much more. The entire toolkit of election fraud has been employed against the Sanders campaign.
The smoking gun of massive fraud is provided by exit polls. These have always been spot on accurate for the Republican Presidential race, but often have been far outside the margin of error for the Democratic race. See HERE for more details. So, anyone telling you that you MUST vote for Clinton, because it is the only RESPONSIBLE thing to do, is blowing smoke out their anus! The responsible thing to do is to REJECT electoral fraud by rejecting the fraudulent candidate.
Secondly, neither the Democratic Party, nor the mass media have been remotely "fair and balanced" with regard to Clinton and Sanders. The Democratic primaries were frontloaded with southern states. This is an intentional bias in favor of the more conservative candidate. Also the debates were few in number and scheduled for times when viewership would be expected to be minimal. This strongly advantages the better known candidate-Clinton.
The media has consistently ignored, demeaned, trivialized and ridiculed Sanders, while extolling Clinton. The fact that only six corporations own over 90 percent of our mass media, and most of these corporations have contributed large amounts to the Clinton campaign and or the Clinton foundation, does not appear coincidental.
So in response to the "sore loser" argument": "Your candidate lost, so you petulantly insist on being a sore loser and not supporting the winning candidate..." note that there was no fair contest, and so there can be no "sore loser." Not accepting the results of an unfair game is rational and responsible. It is those making the sore loser arguments who are themselves being irresponsible.
Thirdly, there is the argument that no matter what else, the Senate voting records of Clinton and Sanders are similar, so supporting Clinton is supporting Sanders' broad policy agenda. This is misleading. Sure, there is a superficial correspondence between their records, BUT this correlation is largely true of ALL Senate Democrats (Sanders, recall, caucused as a Democrat in the Senate.) The differences are all important: Authorizing the disastrous Iraq War, Clinton's bankster coddling vote for the 2001 Bankruptcy bill stand out. In fact, Clinton's vote for the bankruptcy bill provides solid evidence of her changing her vote in return for large financial contributions from Wall Street. In other words that she is indeed, corrupt. See HERE for more details. Elizabeth Warren takes Clinton to task for this offence HERE.
Clinton is both a market fundamentalist and a pro-war, pro military industrial complex, pro deep state, neoconservative. Her political objectives are utterly incompatible with those of Bernie Sanders. This deceptive argument is simply invalid.
Fourthly, American politics is conducted as though the surrounding natural world did not exist, or was entirely passive to human manipulation. In actuality, climate change is accelerating. Fifteen of the sixteen warmest years on record have occurred in this century! The rate of temperature increase is increasing as is the rate of carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere.
Similarly methane, a greenhouse gas about 100 times more potent than carbon dioxide, over a 10 year interval, is building up in the atmosphere at an accelerating rate. Rapid warming of the Arctic raises the possibility that large amounts will rapidly sublimate (change directly from a gas to a liquid) into our atmosphere. This would likely recreate the Permian Extinction event of 251 million years ago. It would also cause human EXTINCTION within 5-30 years! See HERE for more on this. Besides this, the seas are acidifying at ever-increasing rates, and the oceans are becoming anoxic (oxygen deprived). See HERE for details.
Clinton, despite happy talk about solar panels, is wedded to maintaining a fossil fuel powered "business as usual" economy. See HERE. Her Wall Street cronies have trillions of dollars invested in not only maintaining, but expanding the fossil fuel economy. Clinton's only "idea" here is to emphasize natural gas obtained by fracking over coal. Unfortunately, natural gas harvested in this manner is at least as polluting as coal in terms of greenhouse gases. Further, it poisons water supplies, while causing earthquake SWARMS!
Sanders, by contrast, has called for a WWII level of effort to decarbonize our economy. Clinton's energy policies lead directly to the apocalypse. Sanders' conversely, lead to environmental salvation. So voting for Clinton is choosing knowingly, to destroy the planet's biosphere.
Overall, for any TRUE progressive, voting for Clinton is an immoral abdication of democracy, fairness, progressive values and policies, in addition to knowingly signing our planetary death warrant! The only possible course of action is to NOT vote for Clinton.
Arguments to the effect of "Trump is worse" or, "By not voting Clinton, you are voting for Trump" are execrable verbiage. It was the Democratic Party leadership and the corporations which literally SHOVED Clinton down America's throat. To simply accept that as a fait accompli is to surrender control over our political system to elites. Clinton versus Trump: If it occurs is THEIR creation, NOT ours. We bear no responsibility.
Finally, it was the endless downscale ratcheting pain of neoliberal economic policies which CREATED the "Trump voter." Clinton exemplifies neoliberalism. So to argue that Clinton is the "antidote" to Trump is exactly the same as saying that gasoline should be poured onto a raging fire in order to "fight" it! Non-sequitur insanity!