She's for a constitutional amendment that overturns CU.
I saw Bernie Sanders live in Madison tonight.
- Thread starter disastermouse
- Start date
- Status
She's for a constitutional amendment that overturns CU.
exmachina64
Banned
It can't be stated more plainly than this and they'll still deny it.
I will give him a chance but that wont stop people from derailing her win/nomination and spinning it into some preordained corruption scheme and feeling that Bernie was ultimately cheated by the "Corporations" "DNC" "Establishment", "media" etc. supporting her campaign.
Some people will just never like Hillary and never liked her in 08' either. I get that but we who supported her last time lined up for Obama and we deserve the same unity when its all over.
There seems to be a lot of people disliking Hillary for what they imagine her platform is, rather than what it actually is.
This is a very serious PR issue. Hopefully everything will become more clear as the campaigns start kicking into high gear.
exmachina64
Banned
No matter what platform she has, it will always come down to being a Clinton for some people.
Days like these...
Have a Blessed Day
Its not what we imagine her platform is. Her platform sounds good it's just that it's coming from newly reformed/ex neocon corporatist.
By "newly" do you mean 10 years ago? While she had some occasional neocon tendencies, I wouldn't go as far as to actually call her one.
Link
The Autumn Wind
As she should be.
Ignoring all the other talk about the procedure to overturn CU, it's in Democrats' best interest to do so. Far too many billionaires are willing to spend their fortunes to get Republicans in power.
Constitutional amendment is incredibly unlikely in 2015.
It's impossible in 2015. But she still want campaign-finance reform. So let's see what she has to say.
acheron_xl
Member
I don't believe a single thing that comes out of a candidate's mouth. Campaign promises are almost always bullshit.
boiled goose
good with gravy
It's because people don't believe her.
She's raking cash in from Wall Street but says that money should be taken out of politics.
Obama also sais a lot of stuff. People want actual change.
Link
The Autumn Wind
You can be against something but still need to use it because your opponents will either way. Is she just supposed to not take money while the Republican candidates rake it in?
akachan ningen
Member
She's not saying anything, that's the problem.
Dictator93
Member
I hope this guy wins.
disastermouse
Banned
I should have been clearer. I'm in Wisconsin - I'm showing up for Russ Feingold - but I just don't think I can vote for Hillary.
disastermouse
Banned
It was stolen by a stopped recount.
disastermouse
Banned
I've never said that. Not even once. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else in the thread.
disastermouse
Banned
I should point out that I am an actual socialist - not an 'Obama is a socialist' socialist. I want a democratized workplace and decentralized local ownership of businesses by the long-term workers in those businesses.
disastermouse
Banned
And instead of coming to the conclusion that Hillary is a bad candidate because she can't energize the base, you blame the base for not falling in love with her?
disastermouse
Banned
If Hillary is the nominee, why even have a primary?
disastermouse
Banned
How did that get attributed to me? Somehow I was in that quote but I didn't actually post that.
Because she earned it, of course and not because she is "bill clinton's wife". She is not a bad candidate and the base will be certain to blame for a loss. I already blame them for last year and 2010. This vendetta against Hillary is ridiculous.
The majority of the base will support her. That's how she will win the primary. The rest of the base has to fall in line after that. Or a republican takes over and fills the Supreme Court with conservative judges. That's how you win elections. Most bitter Hillsry fans in 2008 supported Obama in the general because they knew that's what it takes to win.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Obama and Hillary are considerably more aligned ideologically than Sanders and Hillary. That said, yeah, us democrats should make a point to vote for whoever the nominee is. Appointing Supreme Court justices is a big deal.
PeskyToaster
Member
The revolution begins. It's time to get French on some people.
disastermouse
Banned
You should be concerned - I've been a party voter my entire life. I've never taken this position before and I'm 40 years old. I've never been a Libertarian or supported Libertarians like Rand/Ron and I have vociferous arguments with stupid millenials who fail to realize that Libertarianism makes no sense on even a very surface level.
I've been the guy making the arguments you're making here and I don't think I can vote for Hillary. If she's lost me - a diehard democrat, you should be worried.
legacyzero
Banned
Good speech. I got my eye on you, Bernie.
equippedwithtowel
Member
I feel like most die-hard democrats might not also be heavy advocates for decentralized socialism.
Just a hunch.
Will you be voting in a swing state? If so, vote for the Democratic nominee. If not, vote your heart.
Maybe if the final results show nontrivial amounts of people in blue states who will go to the polls for real liberals it can help push the needle a bit. It's not like a non-swing state vote will influence the actual election results.
Russ Feingold? *high five* He's up there with Sanders in my book, and I'm glad he's running for his old seat.
I'm greatly amused by the Hillary Defense Force around here and their perpetual presence in these Sanders threads. I'll vote for whomever wins the Democratic nomination, but that's mostly attributable to how utterly unelectable Republicans are (and have been for ages) and not out of anything in particular for Hillary.
She's a blank canvass, and she'll pretty much say whatever you want her to say. Part of that is just politics, but she plays that angle lock, stock, and barrel. Don't be surprised that people aren't enthusiastic about that. That said, I'll take her over Webb or Chafee any day of the week.
Anyway, that's another thread entirely.
There is a "Hillary Defense Force" because too many Sanders supporters are basically saying if Sanders is not the nominee they will sit out the election with total disregard to what their actions can potentially do to this country. They are so bitter about it that if Hillary is the nominee they are willing to throw away their most basic progressive principles and not vote. So I think they Defense Force, as you call it, is here to show Sanders supporters that Hillary Clinton, while not as left leaning as Sanders, is still far more progressive than any other alternative and that if she wins the nomination the people that supported Sanders should fall in line the way Clinton supporters did in 2008 for the good of the party and for the good of the progressive agenda.
ErasureAcer
Banned
Hillary supporters should stop saying Bernie has no chance. We'll like you better if you do that. I may vote for Hillary....especially if her opponent is Bush should Hillary win the nomination. The rest of the Republicans stand no chance in hell. I wouldnt be voting for Hillary...I'd be voting against Bush. If you think any other republican can win the general you are out of your mind.
Which is all we ask for. Support Bernie but come out in the fall to support Hillary/vote against the Republican. As for the "any other Republican" the only plausible nominees are Walker, Bush and Rubio with the latter two having the best chance to possibly win(not saying they are going to)
this so much.. people expect hilary clinton of all people to keep her promise.. just lol
look at all those campaign promises obama made and still hasnt kept
when democrats get money from billionaires its good but when republicans do its bad?
what kind of logic is that?
where were the billionaires that got romney elected?
more rich people supported obama last election than romney
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
And if you think Sanders can win the general you're out of your mind as well. That's the whole discussion. Lib-GAF loves Sanders but many acknowledge he's simply not the right candidate to pull out a win in the general. It's a shame but there you go. Hillary, while not the ideal candidate, is most closely aligned to progressive policy and has a fantastic chance of winning the general.
If we had a parliamentary based election system the rejection of Hillary for Sanders would make sense but we don't, so let's all recognize that Hillary is the best chance at continued progressive policy-making in the USA.
Is there a president that kept all of their campaign promises?
Also, I'm not denying that there are promises that Obama willingly didn't pursue, but there are plenty of things like closing Guantanamo Bay that have been blocked by Congress. The president isn't a dictator, and what they can do is affected by Congress and the Supreme Court.
ErasureAcer
Banned
The campaigning on supporting whistleblowers and turning his back on them was utterly pathetic. He used crisp concise language and then just through the paper with that lip service in the trash once elected.
I'm not making excuses for Obama and have been tough on him most of his presidency regarding civil liberties but I'm starting to think there are certain things off the table and out of his hands. Obama or any president for that matter probably can't do anything about protecting whistleblowers in the intelligence community.
You're right, I looked back and it was some one else who was claiming that one. Sorry.
ginger ninja
Banned
I like him and would vote for him but he will likely lose against republican nominee in the election, bringing an idiot into the white house and that is not a chance worth taking.
Circle Jerk
Member
I like Sanders. I don't really like most of his supporters. A lot come off as the left wing version of Ron Paul fans. Maybe not as far gone, but closer than you'd want.
You know you can multiquote over posting 7 times in a row right
eBay Huckster
Member
You, singular, will like them better, which I'm not too enthusiastic about considering you made shit up from whole cloth to claim he had a chance just one page ago.
I expect her to keep a majority if not 3/4 of them, given that Obama did so with less than 2 years of a favorable Congress (and one that was further to the right than the current Congressional Democratic caucus).
The Supreme Court stopped the recount and that's why Gore lost. He was going to win in the recount and it was stopped. It had nothing to do with Nader. The article you posted is just a guy with an axe to grind against Nader.
That doesn't mean that you don't have a primary and that also doesn't mean people aren't allowed to be excited about candidates they like. I will probably vote for Sanders in the primary but vote Hilary in the general. She just has too much money and Sanders I think just wants to get his message out and get people fired up about politics but that doesn't mean he shouldn't run.
When did that phase ever stop? I hear this complaint all the time from other liberals. To me "both sides are the same" != "things will never change unless the system is fundamentally changed". I think there are things that are starting to shift it to some degree but there's a lot of work to be done and it can feel overwhelming so I understand the OP going "fuck it. If I don't get the guy I want, I'm not voting/voting for a conservative so this thing gets completely blown up" but I feel that is the wrong step to take. These things take time and we are seeing some results.
D'ultimate
Member
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...aign-promises/2011/08/25/gIQAwCA9DQ_blog.html
Most presidents do keep their promises. As others have stated, they're not dictators so there's only so much they can do without congressional approval or the SC.
Obama has kept most of his promises and compromised as much as he could on others. Him and Hilary were not too far apart ideologically so I'd like to think Hilary, if she wins, will keep the country leaning further left until such time that a candidate like Sanders doesn't seem so far left.
That's one thing you have to give the GOP and their base credit for, they know how to get in line for the good of the party and the bigger picture. Dems, not so much. They prefer to cut off their noses to spite their face.
Most presidents do keep their promises. As others have stated, they're not dictators so there's only so much they can do without congressional approval or the SC.
Obama has kept most of his promises and compromised as much as he could on others. Him and Hilary were not too far apart ideologically so I'd like to think Hilary, if she wins, will keep the country leaning further left until such time that a candidate like Sanders doesn't seem so far left.
That's one thing you have to give the GOP and their base credit for, they know how to get in line for the good of the party and the bigger picture. Dems, not so much. They prefer to cut off their noses to spite their face.
Hey, I'm a 45 year old socialist too! You need to get over this mid-life crisis. Leave that crap to the kids who refuse to vote in midterms or for local and state offices.
The system sucks, but we're still in it, and to reiterate once again, general election voting is NOT political activism. Protesting, marching, lobbying, primaries, those are all political activism. That's why we're gonna vote like all hell for Bernie Sanders in the primary.
But when we get to the general election, all that is over and done. There are no more points to make, no more posturing to do, no more gestures to show. Now it's just plain and simple governance. All the activism up to this point has determined what is on the ballot, and it's time to make a very simple private choice.
Thanks to our shit first past the post voting system we get just two policy platform choices, and one of them will be implemented. You either vote for the one closer to you, or by action or inaction you make the platform farthest from you mathematically more likely to be chosen. It's got nothing to do with principles, idealism, being able to relate to a candidate, or any of that stuff. Door A or Door B, corporate dick up the ass with a reach around, or corporate baseball bat with nails and tetanus up the ass with a donkey punch and a "WHY AREN'T YOU THANKING ME MORE". We're going through one of those doors whether you abstain or not.
Yeah, Hillary Clinton is more of the same. Barack Obama was more of the same. It's always more of the same on the same old table, it's just a question of whether that same old table is a bit more tilted in our favor.
And I know it's been repeated over and over already, but it can't be stated enough.
If John McCain or Mitt Romney had had those two Supreme Court appointment slots, we wouldn't have marriage equality right now.
If Barack Obama hadn't won decisively enough to carry the thinnest ghost of a supermajority congress with him, we wouldn't have the first real foothold of universal health care right now.
Sometimes just a little tilt in your favor can add up. As long as impatient people don't just throw their hands up and let go of the table. And I don't see any hands in the air on the other side of the table, and haven't since 1980.
Don't stop pushing.
Triplicates
Member
I supported Hillary in 2008 and I'll vote for her again in 2016 but not because of the Supreme Court argument. Doesn't the political system ensure that the replacement would be an accomplished academic who is a match for the ideology of the predecessor? I don't anticipate a drastic change in court composition until there are lasting supermajorities in Congress.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked