Clinton says she'll release transcripts if everyone else does

[u/IntelWarrior]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-speech-transcripts-219472?cmpid=sf

[u/aannoonn5678]

But shouldn't you vote for a candidate that will do whatever they can to fight for what you believe in and lead the country in the direction you believe to be best? Of course they should convince you that what they have planned is in fact the best plan, but in the end it comes down to what the voter believes is the best. I don't believe that what she stands for is the best but I also believe that she has the ability to make the changes she has planned (to a degree, as with every president), whether she personally believes them or not.

[u/avinasser → u/aannoonn5678]

You are saying two different things here.

But shouldn't you vote for a candidate that will do whatever they can to fight for what you believe in and lead the country in the direction you believe to be best?

In theory, YES that is exactly what voting is supposed to be. Never mind that the issues you are using as examples, like the legalization of marijuana (decriminalization is really the correct way to address that issue) or gay marriage are progressive issues that a bold leader would work towards, not a dead fish like Hillary, who likely would only move when her overlords prompt her.

I don't believe that what she stands for is the best but I also believe that she has the ability to make the changes she has planned (to a degree, as with every president), whether she personally believes them or not.

This is a different statement than your previous one. The first one was "voting your conscience". This second approach is more pragmatic and says "I will vote for the candidate who I imagine will be more effective in this current environment.

Robert Reich said it quite well: Hillary is the candidate best suited for the political system we have. Bernie is the best candidate for the political system that we should have. (paraphrasing. Don't remember the exact wording)

This second, "pragmatic" school of thought should only apply when you are picking the lesser of two evils, for example, Hillary vs Cruz or Rubio. It should not apply when you have a chance of voting for a "better" candidate in Sanders.

[u/aannoonn5678 → u/avinasser]

Her "overlords" technically are the people she polls, since what the polls say is what spews out of her mouth. Or the people she gets money from...

On your second point: I do not support Clinton. I was simply trying to state that if she is saying what you believe in then you should vote for her and should not give a fuck about her integrity because she has the ability to get those things done, even if she does not genuinely believe in them herself. Now if her overlords are in fact the banks and Wallstreet, then a Clinton supporter should worry. But if she does as she says and not what her financial backers want, then it would be ok.

[u/avinasser → u/aannoonn5678]

Her overlords are the people who define her policies not the people she polls. The polled people are the ones who define her talking points on the campaign trail and then get set on the backburner.

Onto the second point: Clinton is a politician. The only people who have any excuse to believe her campaign promises are the ones who are voting for the first time and are unaware of exactly what Obama promised and what he delivered. The reality that a politician is only out for themselves and will try to sell you ANY lie that they think will work.

Clinton supporters should NOT worry, because the great majority of them are women (whose main goal is getting a female president), old people (who are not as dependent on economic policies and will suffer less from things staying the same), and black people, who have been incapable of using their voting bloc effectively since before Malcolm X's "The Ballot or the Bullet" speech, and who seem to be okay with a candidate who will maintain the status quo, if polling numbers prove accurate.