Support NeoGAF

[Link]

Supreme court appointments are very important. You're absolutely right. But to pretend they're the sole responsibility of any individual president is silly. Like I said, there are utilitarian reasons to vote for someone like Clinton (and thus Obama or any other typical Democrat), which is to check the Republican agenda. But just because a particular party can begin to monopolize the judicial system doesn't mean the party leader deserves commendation.

Marriage equality was a hugely important step, but if that and the ACA are the only two accomplishments you can muster in defense of the democratic leader, you're grasping at straws. And demonstrating a willingness to ignore the entirety of his atrocious, arguably criminal record because a few good things happened in our shitty system.

 

[blackw0lf]

Like I said, there is only one type of politican that has held the White House in recent history. A Romney presidency would have been nearly indistinguishable from Obama, who has been nearly indistinguishable from W. Bush, who was nearly indistinguishable from Clinton. Don't let the rhetoric fool you.

Yes I'm sure that Romney would have raised the overtime salary threshold to $50,000 a year, thereby making millions more americans eligible for overtime.

Or would have demanded that power plants restrict carbon emissions.

Or would have invested billions of dollars in clean energy

Or would have pushed for billions of dollars in investment in infrastructure

Or would have pushed for raising taxes on the rich

Or would have protected six million immigrants from deportation

Or would have opened up diplomatic relations with Cuba

Or would have significantly expanded anti-poverty programs

I can keep going

 

[disastermouse]

Yes I'm sure that Romney would have raised the overtime salary threshold to $50,000 a year, thereby making millions more americans eligible for overtime.

Or would have demanded that power plants restrict carbon emissions.

Or would have invested billions of dollars in clean energy

Or would have pushed for billions of dollars in investment in infrastructure

Or would have pushed for raising taxes on the rich

Or would have protected six million immigrants from deportation

Or would have opened up diplomatic relations with Cuba

Or would have significantly expanded anti-poverty programs

I can keep going

He's pushing for another trade deal that will further impoverish our working class.

He's been terrible regarding foreign policy and internal surveillance.

He has refused to punish the banks and Wall Street institutions that destroyed the economy.

Politics IS economics and politics is class struggle. On economics, Obama is as faithful a neoliberal as most republicans.

 

[blackw0lf]

He's pushing for another trade deal that will further impoverish our working class.

He's been terrible regarding foreign policy and internal surveillance.

He has refused to punish the banks and Wall Street institutions that destroyed the economy.

Politics IS economics and politics is class struggle. On economics, Obama is as faithful a neoliberal as most republicans.

I'm pointing out how Obama would have been different from a Romney Presidency. Not showing that he's an ideal progressive.

I have no problem with supporting Berne Sanders. Hell I might work for his campaign. As long as I can be convinced he has a plan and understanding how to actually get his ideas implemented.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Obama didn't take care of your pet issue so he's clearly a secret conservative? What?

 

[Jonm1010]

Supreme court appointments are very important. You're absolutely right. But to pretend they're the sole responsibility of any individual president is silly. Like I said, there are utilitarian reasons to vote for someone like Clinton (and thus Obama or any other typical Democrat), which is to check the Republican agenda. But just because a particular party can begin to monopolize the judicial system doesn't mean the party leader deserves commendation.

Marriage equality was a hugely important step, but if that and the ACA are the only two accomplishments you can muster in defense of the democratic leader, you're grasping at straws. And demonstrating a willingness to ignore the entirety of his atrocious, arguably criminal record because a few good things happened in our shitty system.

Frankly just quit now. Quit pretending you are anything more then the typical hollow-thinking one or two issue voter who uses an extremely generalized concept of one or two issues they hold dear as a spring board to falsely claim two opposing party candidates are equal in belief when proper context proves that is a completely asinine and utterly incorrect statement to make. And instead of making you look deep and profound like you think it does, it makes you look amauteurish and out of your element to the people that actually have a clue about what the fuck they are talking about.

 

[disastermouse]

Obama didn't take care of your pet issue so he's clearly a secret conservative? What?

I don't think economics is a pet issue. I don't think internal mass surveillance is a pet issue either.

 

[Angry Grimace]

I don't think economics is a pet issue. I don't think internal mass surveillance is a pet issue either.

The economy in general has improved markedly in Obama's second term.

Taking up Elizabeth Warren's demagoguery against the banking industry cannot be fairly defined as "economics".

 

[Jonm1010]

I don't think economics is a pet issue. I don't think internal mass surveillance is a pet issue either.

If you think Obama and Romney are completely equal on economics you need to re-enroll and take some political science and economics courses. They aren't. They never have been. And they never will be. Do they have some issues that the conclusions would be similar? Yes. Does that make them the same? Absolutely fucking not.

Romney would have never pushed for the sort of stimulus package Obama did. The ACA(which is very much an economic policy). The sort of social welfare spending he refused to allow easy cuts too. Romney would of adapted the draconian republican cuts to spending. The gutting of social welfare. Pushed for more tax breaks to the wealthy. Never even attempted to reign in wall street. Likely even made underhanded moves toward the opposite, way worse then anything you could conjure about Obama.

Romney comes from a core philosophy stemming from Friedman and supply side economics. Obama from a more Keynesian core and more centrist policies sprinkled in. Obama is a centrist with liberal roots trying to operate in a conservative congress. Romney showed himself to be a chameleon that would bend to the will of his party to get elected and that party is ultra conservative, institutional and borderline crazy.

 

[disastermouse]

The economy in general has improved markedly in Obama's second term.

Taking up Elizabeth Warren's demagoguery against the banking industry cannot be fairly defined as "economics".

The involvement in the economy by the working class has steadily declined since the 80s. We've gone from a more shared economy where a working class person could sustain a family and buy a home with one income and graduate college with the help of a part time job to an economy that requires both parents to work, often overtime, and higher education requires for many people the taking on of massive amounts of debt.

 

[Jonm1010]

The involvement in the economy by the working class has steadily declined since the 80s. We've gone from a more shared economy where a working class person could sustain a family and buy a home with one income and graduate college with the help of a part time job to an economy that requires both parents to work, often overtime, and higher education requires for many people the taking on of massive amounts of debt.

Ok. This says nothing other then identifying trends.

 

[disastermouse]

If you think Obama and Romney are completely equal on economics you need to re-enroll and take some political science and economics courses. They aren't. They never have been. And they never will be. Do they have some issues that the conclusions would be similar? Yes. Does that make them the same? Absolutely fucking not.

Romney would have never pushed for the sort of stimulus package Obama did. The ACA(which is very much an economic policy). The sort of social welfare spending he refused to allow easy cuts too. Romney would of adapted the draconian republican cuts to spending. The gutting of social welfare. Pushed for more tax breaks to the wealthy.

Romney comes from a core philosophy stemming from Friedman and supply side economics. Obama from a more Keynesian core and more centrist policies sprinkled in.

No one's saying that Romney wouldn't have been worse. What we're saying is that the fundamental economic theory driving both of them is similar. They both subscribe to neoliberal economics, with the only difference being the argument over how much the government intervenes in minimizing that theory's destructiveness to the greater good. Democrats try, however ineffectively, to minimize the fundamental harm caused by capitalism.

To be fair, Bernie's also a classic liberal and not the socialist many claim him to be. He's not arguing for the full and active participation by the working class in the ownership of the economic system.

 

[disastermouse]

Ok. This says nothing other then identifying trends.

You're not curious about the cause of that trend?

 

[Malfunky]

Frankly just quit now. Quit pretending you are anything more then the typical hollow-thinking one or two issue voter who uses an extremely generalized concept of one or two issues they hold dear as a spring board to falsely claim two opposing party candidates are equal in belief when proper context proves that is a completely asinine and utterly incorrect statement to make. And instead of making you look deep and profound like you think it does, it makes you look amauteurish and out of your element to the people that actually have a clue about what the fuck they are talking about.

The only thing asinine about this conversation is the obvious fickleness in whatever rationale you've conjured to differentiate Democrat and Republican presidents and apparently excuse the blatant, heinous crimes of someone like Barack Obama. I mean, now it's the "beliefs" of a candidate that makes him/her and not his/her actual record? Obama could have a fluffy heart of progressivism, Marxism, or be a straight up anarchist for all I care. It wouldn't for a second distinguish him from his predecessors or competitors in any substantial capacity.

The only thing you've been able to defend outside of your frustrated attacks against me, which are very well worded and equally entertaining, my initial utilitarian argument for voting for Clinton or any Democratic president. Thanks, I guess. The ACA and marriage equality and maybe Cuba, unless that was some other poster, just don't cut it.

 

[Jonm1010]

No one's saying that Romney wouldn't have been worse. What we're saying is that the fundamental economic theory driving both of them is similar. They both subscribe to neoliberal economics, with the only difference being the argument over how much the government intervenes in minimizing that theory's destructiveness to the greater good. Democrats try, however ineffectively, to minimize the fundamental harm caused by capitalism.

To be fair, Bernie's also a classic liberal and not the socialist many claim him to be. He's not arguing for the full and active participation by the working class in the ownership of the economic system.

Except for the fact that that is poorly generalized horseshit that obfuscates context.

Quit using buzzwords and weak generalizations to make your point. This is the internet. And GAF. Far too many smart people that can see through this high school level analysis.

 

[Sobriquet]

You're not curious about the cause of that trend?

Supply-side economics.

 

[East Lake]

The involvement in the economy by the working class has steadily declined since the 80s. We've gone from a more shared economy where a working class person could sustain a family and buy a home with one income and graduate college with the help of a part time job to an economy that requires both parents to work, often overtime, and higher education requires for many people the taking on of massive amounts of debt.

Seems like you're moving the goalposts now, from they're both the same to Democrats haven't brought all of Bernie's campaign promises to fruition.

Obama and Democrats are at least partly responsible for a renewable energy revolution that will fundamentally restructure the energy market. Does he get credit for that or is it all corporate illusion?

 

[Jonm1010]

The only thing asinine about this conversation is the obvious fickleness in whatever rationale you've conjured to differentiate Democrat and Republican presidents and apparently excuse the blatant, heinous crimes of someone like Barack Obama. I mean, now it's the "beliefs" of a candidate that makes him/her and not his/her actual record? Obama could have a fluffy heart of progressivism, Marxism, or be a straight up anarchist for all I care. It wouldn't for a second distinguish him from his predecessors or competitors in any substantial capacity.

The only thing you've been able to defend outside of your frustrated attacks against me, which are very well worded and equally entertaining, my initial utilitarian argument for voting for Clinton or any Democratic president. Thanks, I guess. The ACA and marriage equality and maybe Cuba, unless that was some other poster, just don't cut it.

So essentially you just proved my point lol.

You wish to ignore the proven differences in governorship and use your narrow pet interests - where you assert they are similar - to conflate that they are in totality nearly indistinguishable.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Well, yeah if you only care about generalized populist causes such as "why are rich people so rich," you're going to be disappointed by every president.

 

[acheron_xl]

Obama didn't take care of your pet issue so he's clearly a secret conservative? What?

Andrew Sullivan always made a compelling case that Obama was actually a truly Tory-style old-fashioned conservative, while the people that call themselves conservatives are just right-wing radicals.

 

[Ecotic]

The only thing asinine about this conversation is the obvious fickleness in whatever rationale you've conjured to differentiate Democrat and Republican presidents and apparently excuse the blatant, heinous crimes of someone like Barack Obama.

I just want a clarification on this. You're talking about drone strikes and domestic surveillance? Or maybe you go further and are talking about his refusal to end the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars immediately upon becoming President?

 

[disastermouse]

Except for the fact that that is poorly generalized horseshit that obfuscates context.

Quit using buzzwords and weak generalizations to make your point. This is the internet. And GAF. Far too many smart people that can see through this high school level analysis.

It's not generalization, and I can see that within the context of neoliberal economic theory, democrats and republicans can seem miles apart. Indeed, they are miles apart in that context. Certainly democrats in general can be found doing their best to mitigate the destruction wrought by ruling the economy by the neoliberal viewpoint.

My viewpoint would be that differences contained within that context are not as meaningfully different when you look outside that context towards economic theories that bring more political democracy within the workplace and the ownership of workplaces. Essentially, since the Enlightenment and especially after the increasing urbanization of America, we've seen a democratic political process largely manipulated by an oligarchic and non-Democratic economic sphere and workplace. As citizens were mostly locked out of the political process during the reign of monarchy, so has the working class been effectively locked out of any sort of meaningful economic power. The only way to acquire meaningful economic power remains to leave the working class and attempt to join the ownership class as individuals.

Edit: there=their.

 

[Jonm1010]

Well, yeah if you only care about generalized populist causes such as "why are rich people so rich," you're going to be disappointed by every president.

Liberals really do have a deep seeded tendency of making the perfect the enemy of the good.

This thread exemplifies that to a tee.

We literally have people in here advocating to 1.) not vote unless it is Bernie 2.) refuse to vote for Hillary because she isn't perfect. Or what is even more crazy 3.) vote for the republican who is even worse because the popular democratic candidate isn't perfect and we need to send a message. It's fucking nuts.

 

[East Lake]

It's not generalization, and I can see that within the context of neoliberal economic theory, democrats and republicans can seem miles apart. Indeed, they are miles apart in that context. Certainly democrats in general can be found doing there best to mitigate the destruction wrought by ruling the economy by the neoliberal viewpoint.

My viewpoint would be that differences contained within that context are not as meaningfully different when you look outside that context towards economic theories that bring more political democracy within the workplace and the ownership of workplaces. Essentially, since the Enlightenment and especially after the increasing urbanization of America, we've seen a democratic political process largely manipulated by an oligarchic and non-Democratic economic sphere and workplace. As citizens were mostly locked out of the political process during the reign of monarchy, so has the working class been effectively locked out any sort of meaningful economic power. The only way to acquire meaningful economic power remains to leave the working class and attempt to join the ownership class as individuals.

So what you're saying is. No ACA or other programs until a candidate surfaces that can reverse centuries of lower class oppression. Preferably he/she can do it in less than two years before the repub congress rolls back in.

 

[Jonm1010]

It's not generalization, and I can see that within the context of neoliberal economic theory, democrats and republicans can seem miles apart. Indeed, they are miles apart in that context. Certainly democrats in general can be found doing there best to mitigate the destruction wrought by ruling the economy by the neoliberal viewpoint.

My viewpoint would be that differences contained within that context are not as meaningfully different when you look outside that context towards economic theories that bring more political democracy within the workplace and the ownership of workplaces. Essentially, since the Enlightenment and especially after the increasing urbanization of America, we've seen a democratic political process largely manipulated by an oligarchic and non-Democratic economic sphere and workplace. As citizens were mostly locked out of the political process during the reign of monarchy, so has the working class been effectively locked out any sort of meaningful economic power. The only way to acquire meaningful economic power remains to leave the working class and attempt to join the ownership class as individuals.

Neoliberal theory isn't a real theory. It's a catch all for those that want more privatization, less regulation and less government interference in areas that the market can operate. It isn't really a economic theory. you aren't going to read about that shit in an economics class.

Obama is a Keynesian, republicans are mostly supply-spiders, Friedman followers with Austrian theory being sprinkled in more and more.

The rest of what you say is mostly red herrings.

You say citizens are locked out of the political process and that is not really true. Has the response of representatives been perverted thanks to certain forces in our system? Absolutely. But we aren't locked out. Just look at gay marriage for instance. It was, more then anything else, the overwhelming shift in public acceptance that allowed and pushed politicians to take a more liberal stance. Thus pushing the progress of much needed reformation of LBGT rights

But to your larger point about steady erosion of democratic rights and the process, do you think we would of had a favorable ruling about non-partisan redistricting with another conservative judge in place of a liberal judge on the Supreme Court? That ruling that went in favor of democratic rights is one step closer to closing a structural flaw in our democratic process from our founding that has led to party manipulation of voting districts. That has stifled the ability to get fair house elections. Now who do you think falls on the side of nominating a Supreme Court judge that will rule favorably on such issues going forward? Hillary or any republican? Hillary of course. Which puts her in the side of advancing democratic rights and fair elections.

That is why these generalizations of yours are so worthless to me. They aren't really saying much except identifying a trend without explaining the cause or further explaining why democrats contribute to it. There is this gap of connection between your generalization and the specific actions of democrats that you are failing to account for and it ruins your attempt at making this poor false equivalence.

 

[disastermouse]

Seems like you're moving the goalposts now, from they're both the same to Democrats haven't brought all of Bernie's campaign promises to fruition.

Obama and Democrats are at least partly responsible for a renewable energy revolution that will fundamentally restructure the energy market. Does he get credit for that or is it all corporate illusion?

I'm not robbing Obama of credit for some legitimately awesome things. I voted for him in 2008 and in 2012. But there wasn't a Bernie Sanders running in either of those years. Underlying all of that is the simple fact that without economic democracy, all forward progress in economic decision-making and shared wealth can be rolled back over time. The very fact that all seriously considered economic thinking and policy making is constrained to a decision between either a more or less severe take on neoliberal economics is absurdly destructive.

 

[disastermouse]

Liberals really do have a deep seeded tendency of making the perfect the enemy of the good.

This thread exemplifies that to a tee.

We literally have people in here advocating to 1.) not vote unless it is Bernie 2.) refuse to vote for Hillary because she isn't perfect. Or what is even more crazy 3.) vote for the republican who is even worse because the popular democratic candidate isn't perfect and we need to send a message. It's fucking nuts.

None of those things is necessarily nuts. You have to accept that people have different goals with their votes.

And I think you meant 'deep-seated'.

 

[East Lake]

I'm not robbing Obama of credit for some legitimately awesome things. I voted for him in 2008 and in 2012. But there wasn't a Bernie Sanders running in either of those years. Underlying all of that is the simple fact that without economic democracy, all forward progress in economic decision-making and shared wealth can be rolled back over time. The very fact that all seriously considered economic thinking and policy making is constrained to a decision between either a more or less severe take on neoliberal economics is absurdly destructive.

I think to large degree it's nice to speculate about the shades (or lack) of progressivism Hillary or Bernie has but to focus on voting in particular or "the president" seems to be a waste of time. The american public is not going to wake up if you vote for Jeb and he starts crushing Iranian skulls or the economy blows up. They'll just revert to a Hillary-esque candidate. Your vote is miniscule and doesn't matter much unless you can heavily mobilize others. There needs to be a progressive structure under which a president can sit above.

If you're interested to see what would happen if a party with actual far leftits in it wins, but doesn't have the support to last, check out Greece and Syriza right now. They've been in power a few months and have gambled their whole presidency on a vote against austerity Sunday. If they lose it's not because they weren't true Marxists, but because they weren't well organized.

 

[Aureon]

I'm not robbing Obama of credit for some legitimately awesome things. I voted for him in 2008 and in 2012. But there wasn't a Bernie Sanders running in either of those years. Underlying all of that is the simple fact that without economic democracy, all forward progress in economic decision-making and shared wealth can be rolled back over time. The very fact that all seriously considered economic thinking and policy making is constrained to a decision between either a more or less severe take on neoliberal economics is absurdly destructive.

By all means, vote for Sanders in the primaries. That's why we have primaries.

We're not getting into tactical "should vote Hillary into the primary because she has more chances in the general" territory - we're just saying: We'll vote Sanders when we can, and Hillary if we lose the primary.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

OP has an answer for everything but the Supreme Court because there is no answer. Last week showed us that. Now imagine if Ginsburg is forced to retire under a Republican President.

 

[disastermouse]

OP has an answer for everything but the Supreme Court because there is no answer. Last week showed us that. Now imagine if Ginsburg is forced to retire under a Republican President.

There's always a reason why we need to vote for the least objectionable bought candidate. It's not enough for me anymore.

I may 'panic vote' for Hillary if I have to, but I'd really rather not.

 

[FreddieQuell]

There's always a reason why we need to vote for the least objectionable bought candidate. It's not enough for me anymore.

I may 'panic vote' for Hillary if I have to, but I'd really rather not.

So is it a personal pride thing? Although Hillary is a terrible candidate in your eyes, you realize she's a better choice than what the Republicans are offering, right?

 

[disastermouse]

So is it a personal pride thing? Although Hillary is a terrible candidate in your eyes, you realize she's a better choice than what the Republicans are offering, right?

It's a frustration thing. Hillary is not a candidate that would battle the concentrated wealth in this country.

 

[Rebel Leader]

i like this guy

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

There's always a reason why we need to vote for the least objectionable bought candidate. It's not enough for me anymore.

I may 'panic vote' for Hillary if I have to, but I'd really rather not.

Then you're not looking at the big picture. Plain and simple. The impact of the balance in the court is monumental and goes beyond Hillary and Bernie Sanders.

Furthermore, you say you always vote. But how deep are we talking about here? If you really want change you gotta think beyond presidential or even congressional candidates.

 

[BigDes]

Did he do Freebird?

 

[disastermouse]

Then you're not looking at the big picture. Plain and simple. The impact of the balance in the court is monumental and goes beyond Hillary and Bernie Sanders.

This is always trotted out as a reason to vote for weak tea. Unfortunately, we may have to endure some thirst, refuse the weak tea, and make them offer us more than a pale shade of what we want and need.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

This is always trotted out as a reason to vote for weak tea. Unfortunately, we may have to endure some thirst, refuse the weak tea, and make them offer us more than a pale shade of what we want and need.

I'd rather have weak tea for my lifetime than bitter acid. You're basically responding to realistic and tangible arguments with pie in the sky idealism and purity pledges.

 

[Aureon]

This is always trotted out as a reason to vote for weak tea. Unfortunately, we may have to endure some thirst, refuse the weak tea, and make them offer us more than a pale shade of what we want and need.

... Win the primary, then?
I mean, who's "them"? Democratic voters that select the candidate in the primary?

 

[alstein]

Say Gay Marriage didn't come from the elites is ridiculous. The Kochs support gay marriage. Wal-Mart supported Gay Marriage.

The Supreme Court is conservative as hell, but only consistently so on economic issues like unionbusting.

I really do feel like Bernie Sanders is our last best chance for a positive 21st Century myself. HIllary won't be effective, she's less electable in a general election, I'm concerned about scandal, and you gotta win 2020 as well.

I think Hillary would end up a one-termer for sure, and a Republican wave in 2020 means 20 more years of gerrymandering. Bernie might, but it's less likely.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Say Gay Marriage didn't come from the elites is ridiculous. The Kochs support gay marriage. Wal-Mart supported Gay Marriage.

The Supreme Court is conservative as hell, but only consistently so on economic issues like unionbusting.

I really do feel like Bernie Sanders is our last best chance for a positive 21st Century myself. HIllary won't be effective, she's less electable in a general election, I'm concerned about scandal, and you gotta win 2020 as well.

I think Hillary would end up a one-termer for sure, and a Republican wave in 2020 means 20 more years of gerrymandering. Bernie might, but it's less likely.

lol, a single week in and we've already got revisionist history at work. Those white rich straight males were for gay marriage all along. You know why they're conservative as hell? Because we had 12 years of Republican dominance nominating guys like Clarence Thomas and Scalia.

Okay, how do you feel about the Warren Court?

 

[disastermouse]

I'd rather have weak tea for my lifetime than bitter acid. You're basically responding to realistic and tangible arguments with pie in the sky idealism and purity pledges.

I'm not. I don't need purity pledges and as for pie in the sky idealism, the world is changed, when it is eventually changed, by such idealists.

I won't continue to be a party to my own destruction simply by choosing the more palatable poison. The Democratic Party needs people like me to vote, and if they think they can get people like me to vote for a weak candidate by terrorizing me with the prospect of a worse candidate from the opposing party, then they will never offer me anything better.

As for winning the primary - I'm certainly hopeful, as deluded as you think the possibility may be.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I'm not. I don't need purity pledges and as for pie in the sky idealism, the world is changed, when it is eventually changed, by such idealists.

I won't continue to be a party to my own destruction simply by choosing the more palatable poison. The Democratic Party needs people like me to vote, and if they think they can get people like me to vote for a weak candidate by terrorizing me with the prospect of a worse candidate from the opposing party, then they will never offer me anything better.

As for winning the primary - I'm certainly hopeful, as deluded as you think the possibility may be.

Still haven't responded to a very basic question regarding the important of Supreme Court balance.

 

[FreddieQuell]

I'm not. I don't need purity pledges and as for pie in the sky idealism, the world is changed, when it is eventually changed, by such idealists.

I won't continue to be a party to my own destruction simply by choosing the more palatable poison. The Democratic Party needs people like me to vote, and if they think they can get people like me to vote for a weak candidate by terrorizing me with the prospect of a worse candidate from the opposing party, then they will never offer me anything better.

As for winning the primary - I'm certainly hopeful, as deluded as you think the possibility may be.

So you think that voting for Hillary or whatever else weak candidate the Democratic party proposes will just lead to more of these weak politicians every election.

But by not voting/voting Republican you'll force them into proposing a real Democratic candidate eventually. Is that right?

 

[shadowsdarknes]

I'm not. I don't need purity pledges and as for pie in the sky idealism, the world is changed, when it is eventually changed, by such idealists.

I won't continue to be a party to my own destruction simply by choosing the more palatable poison. The Democratic Party needs people like me to vote, and if they think they can get people like me to vote for a weak candidate by terrorizing me with the prospect of a worse candidate from the opposing party, then they will never offer me anything better.

As for winning the primary - I'm certainly hopeful, as deluded as you think the possibility may be.

Except Hillary is not a weak candidate. She has extremely wide appeal with strong qualifications.

This is how a 2 party system works. Many conservatives are still going to find Jeb or whoever else to be a RINO, too.

You can vote against the two party system, but yes, choosing the more palatable person is indeed the smarter choice. You can vote third party or not vote at all, but that's not going to do anything.

So you think that voting for Hillary or whatever else weak candidate the Democratic party proposes will just lead to more of these weak politicians every election.

But by not voting/voting Republican you'll force them into proposing a real Democratic candidate eventually. Is that right?

Pie in the sky idealism.

If you don't vote Democrat, the Democrats will eventually put up a real candidate! lol
No. All you get is that the country gets 4-8 years of right wing policy while the Democrats scramble to push out someone a little more likable next time. Because when the GOP wins, the evidence isn't going to suggest that they go more left.

 

[disastermouse]

Still haven't responded to a very basic question regarding the important of Supreme Court balance.

I did answer it. It's not important enough to get me to vote for another centrist democrat. In fact, let the court become so conservative that it shows how batshit the right really is. It might be what it takes to get people to vote in enough liberals to enact some much needed constitutional amendments.

I won't continue to be held hostage by the prospect of a conservative Supreme Court.

I didn't come to this position overnight. When Ralph Nader was running, I pleaded with my liberal friends to think about the importance of the Supreme Court.

 

[BronzeWolf]

I am more excited about US Politics than I am about my own country's

 

[disastermouse]

So you think that voting for Hillary or whatever else weak candidate the Democratic party proposes will just lead to more of these weak politicians every election.

But by not voting/voting Republican you'll force them into proposing a real Democratic candidate eventually. Is that right?

Not in all cases. In the current times of extreme polarization when there is little to be won in the middle and turn out is of primary importance, then yes, I think it may - especially if disillusioned liberals are vocal about why they didn't vote for Hillary.

 

[Kangi]

I did answer it. It's not important enough to get me to vote for another centrist democrat. In fact, let the court become so conservative that it shows how batshit the right really is. It might be what it takes to get people to vote in enough liberals to enact some much needed constitutional amendments.

I won't continue to be held hostage by the prospect of a conservative Supreme Court.

Yes. Enact decades of irreversible damage to the country by having a completely conservative court that overrules whatever progress we've made, so that you can sit from the sidelines and say, "Yes! Any day now, they'll realize the mistake that I wanted them to make!" And this will benefit the country in the long run because reasons.

 

[disastermouse]

Except Hillary is not a weak candidate. She has extremely wide appeal with strong qualifications.

This is how a 2 party system works. Many conservatives are still going to find Jeb or whoever else to be a RINO, too.

You can vote against the two party system, but yes, choosing the more palatable person is indeed the smarter choice. You can vote third party or not vote at all, but that's not going to do anything.



Pie in the sky idealism.

If you don't vote Democrat, the Democrats will eventually put up a real candidate! lol
No. All you get is that the country gets 4-8 years of right wing policy while the Democrats scramble to push out someone a little more likable next time. Because when the GOP wins, the evidence isn't going to suggest that they go more left.

They can't go further right in this era of polarization. There is nothing for them to win on the right - the Republicans will always go further to the right than they will, they're far more comfortable with it.

Liberals need to vote with their feet if Hillary is the nominee.