She is not to the left of Obama. She is exactly the same as Obama. And on foreign issues she is to the right of both of them.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Bernie Sanders reaches Two Million Individual Contributions
- Thread starter noshten
- Start date
- Status
And then she was bought out.
As an outsider, I don't understand why people wouldn't be focusing on Bernie Sanders. He's the only one to have potential to bring real change.
I understand the apathy that he won't be able to make a difference, but he's targeting where change is required that Hilary won't be able to. He's trying to change the thinking of voters who are going to vote your house. He's trying to make these political items for people not just for the election but to change their overall thinking and that will change your national narrative for generations to come.
Hillary can get voted in but divisive politics will still continue as she's not addressing people outside her base and voting apathy. And you will have another Obama-like term.
EDIT - Honestly, it's too bad for you guys that Bernie Sanders isn't a young charismatic leader.
Actually she has a more liberal record in the senate if I'm remembering right, shit she was the 11th most liberal senator.
Good post. This is one of the reasons I support Sanders even though I recognize that it's a long shot. He's got a good message that could be the future of the party. If a democrat doesn't win the white house his message is as good as dead. I hope some of the more outspoken Sanders supporters recognize this too.
How is "Bernie is going to lose the nomination" an attack against him and his supporters though? Why not just say "I've done my part and so have millions of others by donating to him, and I plan to do more"? Just whining about it makes it seem like you' don't want to do anything to change the outlook of this race.
And what do you think happens if Bernie gets elected (without winning the Senate (and without winning the house which won't happen unless Trump gets nomination))?
Because I'm not white and I want a President that has a realistic chance at passing policies that affect me.
White liberals (I'm not saying you're white) love to tell me that I should be voting for Bernie. The problem is that I don't have the same luxury as white people to be like "well YOLO, he might not get anything done but it's a radical change".
I'm wondering if that just says bad things about the Senate.
That vote for Iraq was quite liberal indeed. Or was it neoconservative?
Dude, Bernie gets rekt at his own rallies by his own target demographic. Do you think he is able to bring any change old and meek as he is, as opposed to Hillary?
You can interpret it as you want, but trying to say Clinton isn't a liberal is laughable.
I guess the Senate really isn't that Liberal then
Edit: Not saying Hilary isn't. I just want more Left leaning Liberals in the Senate.
Well it's frequently said that she evolved to her liberal positions, and that's obscene to the point of being laughable. So I'll give it to you.
Who says this?
He's trying to change the political narrative nationally to get voters asking questions to their politicians.
Hilary is focused on winning the presidency.
That's the difference.
America will have this divisive politics until someone changes the political narrative forcing voters to think about the issues instead of the drama. Well I mean you always have divisive politics anywhere, but not the show you see in America.
Hillary does. The press do too.
I know I did this, but same ideals with a different bunch of backers still makes a pretty big difference to me
Oh. I was hoping for something concrete, but I was probably expecting too much.
Americans. I'll put it as easily as this. Bernie Sander's platform is your real change. Not the change promised to you by Obama. The real change that can put you back in line with the rest of the progressive world on social values.
There is no difference between someone who says "I won't vote for Bernie because he can't win over the house" to "I won't vote for anyone because the political system is a waste". I hear "I'm just being realistic" but your pessimism and inaction is a coward way of thinking.
If you want to continue with iterative policy changes while your country is slowly crumbling and the average American's quality of life is declining because core issues aren't being addressed, then continue with inaction on real change.
There is no difference between someone who says "I won't vote for Bernie because he can't win over the house" to "I won't vote for anyone because the political system is a waste". I hear "I'm just being realistic" but your pessimism and inaction is a coward way of thinking.
If you want to continue with iterative policy changes while your country is slowly crumbling and the average American's quality of life is declining because core issues aren't being addressed, then continue with inaction on real change.
Why are certain supporters of specific candidates unable to disconnect their wide-eyed desire for something to happen with the harsh reality that it's never going to occur? Bernie being unelectable is not something with "no basis in reality." There are plenty of data points to support it. Do you want us to ignore polls? Are we doing the Hillaryis44 and SkewedPolls shit again? Do you want us to ignore that people view socialists in this country, according to every poll, less than even Muslims? That Hillary is polling over 50% in virtually every head to head poll against other Democrats now, a sign historic pollsters will tell you means she has consolidated the support she needs to shut this thing down already? She is nearly 25 points up in the RCP average right before the start of primary season. Yes, polls do matter. Yes, we were able to accurately predict the results of the last election season to with remarkable clarity thanks to polling. No, it never materialized that every poll was wrong or inaccurate to some significant degree.
This is not a dream world, and Bernie is not Obama. Unless Hillary really fucks up before the primary, it is pretty much accurate to say things are wrapped up. And yes, it is accurate to say Bernie is less electable than Hillary.
I think Bernie's positions are, on the whole, much more desirable than Hillary's. But because I know the way polls work and politics works, I know that at this point it's not even worth wasting a vote and even risking prolonging the primary season for such a nonstarter considering the things at stake (mainly, supreme court nominations), and that even in the hilariously statistically insignificant chance Bernie were elected, he'd be able to put into action virtually none of his policies due to Congress.
So, why would I even risk prolonging the primary season and damaging the ridiculously crystal clear frontrunner who has a legitimate shot at winning the Presidential Election (thus, reducing the odds of her victory however minor you believe that damage might be in the end), versus putting in Bernie who already has a slim chance, so that he could go into office and do pretty much the same thing Hillary is going to be able to do? Is there some war people think Hillary is about to get us into or something?
whew
So she evolved on an issue that the entire country evolved on in the last 10 years? And this is a bad thing? What am I missing here?
You seemed to have ignored my post about how this election affects minorities so keep peddling your armchair commentary on how Sanders will improve my life.
No, America will have divisive politics till the GOP implodes and makes a real effort to try and get rid of the Souther Strategy that has evolved and morphed into the monster that it is, backing Trump with 40% of the primary vote.
You know why we had such a reaction to a black man becoming president? The Southern Strategy, that's why.
She used to say that marriage is between a man and a woman alone. You're coming off as extremely naive if you think she never had to think about gay marriage until the rest of the country finally caught up. Where is her backbone? What kind of thought process leads someone to announce publicly that marriage is only between a man and a woman but later on once the country supports it to say that gay marriage is great?
I really don't give two shits what a person thought a decade ago when they now believe and enact policy to support what they are saying now.
Obama didn't say shit till Biden pulled a Biden and forced his hand, that's the way it works.
I really don't give a shit what you thought a few seconds ago as you typed this.
I don't really mean that, but do you see how we can get lost in this kind of thinking? It's like a smoke screen so you don't have to think about anything. It isn't an argument for anything.
If most Americans were against gay marriage right now, Hillary would say marriage is between a man and a woman. Her record shows that she's this kind of politician. How does that feel?
Are you saying that Sanders would lose this election to Trump or Cruz, because that's exactly what this sounds like and it's the biggest fallacy I've heard being sprouted non-stop from people who should know better.
Probably the exact same thought process most Americans went through.
Bernie Sanders isn't immune to this either. When he was running for senate he wasn't in favor of gun control. Now he is. Views evolve.
If someone was a climate skeptic but decided they were wrong and support action against climate change would you shit on them and question them?
A decade ago gay marriage was just legalized in Mass. In terms of social issues it has evolved relatively fast in terms of public perception and opinion, I'm not going to look at a persons past stance on social issues when the nation as a whole did the same turn around within ten years.
No, it's just understanding how our political system works.
Tell me, Tabris, which one of his "progressive ideals" which are the "real change" actually something he can put into action? Which one of them? Other than supreme court nominations and deciding which wars or not to engage in, what precisely do you believe he's going to be able to do?
Because if you think it's "inaction" and "cowardice" to understand that without a complete change in the Gerrymandered congressional election system that Bernie will be able to pass pretty much none of his ambitious policy goals and that in that case you might as well vote for the candidate that has a much better shot at getting in and at least preserving Supreme Court nominations... then I feel you have no idea what those words actually mean.
I live in one of the most (if not the one) culturally and racially accepting countries on the planet.
Bernie Sanders is in line with Canadian thinking. Hilary will continue your Corporatocracy in America and the systematic racism in your country won't change with her.
Well, there was her comment about Iran...
As long as she puts forward policy to support the views I voted for, I honestly don't give a shit if she's faking it or genuine. Especially in face of the insanity the republicans are putting up.
I'm putting her in office to execute what I view as important issues facing the nation, if she runs on those issues and does what she says she's going to do then I'm as happy as can be, I don't need to think "omg I'm so inspired" or something.
That being said, unlike some of you I don't think she's a huge fake or something.
Wrong. Every one of his policies he's been in favor of since his entire time as public servant.
He's been pro gay marriage since the 70's.
I'm just going to quote my earlier post.
He understands he can't make change himself. His campaign has been entirely about changing the mindshare of voters. He's trying to change to get them to ask their house representatives the questions he has under his platform. To turn these into political items for those representatives where they have to consider accommodating to them to get re-elected. Right now Americans have a huge apathy or feeling of lack of influence towards your representatives and just focus on the Presidential narrative.
You Americans act like it's not possible to influence your representatives. The Corporatocracy of American politics has beat you down.
I'm saying that Sanders would be entirely ineffective in passing legislation versus a more pragmatic approach that a Clinton presidency will have.
Read above, a Sanders presidency will pass jack and negatively impact the entire ticket. But you seem to be an expert on the minority experience in America, especially how policy affects Hispanics in the Southern US, so surely you can understand how that would affect us.
We aren't talking about Bernie Sanders though, we're talking about Hillary Clinton. The corruption and bullshit is off the charts with her so it just isn't a fair comparison.
I think that this question of whether she is genuine or not is absolutely crucial in an age where so many people believe that their leaders are liars and frauds. Hillary Clinton's candidacy is such a massive step backwards from Obama's hope and change, flawed as that was.
What? Oh cmon, you literally just got an example of Bernie changing views and you go "lalalala doesn't count!"?
You just invalidated everything you just said dude
Than you'd be wrong since he has a more successful rate of passing meaningful legislation as a senator (which he still does while campaigning) than she has.
I just don't understand why so many Hillary supporters are straight up venomous toward Bernie supporters. If you're so sure she's going to win, plus taking into the account that he's doing the best he can not to smear her, why are you sooooo mad? I'm not even saying she's not very likely to win - she is. But that's not enough reason for me to vote for her in the primary. I like what Bernie has to say and I want to voice my support of that.
Why exactly do you think that the support he has gotten is a bad thing?
Why exactly do you think that the support he has gotten is a bad thing?
That's been happening for decades, voter turnout has ALWAYS been lower on non-president years.
Please stop trying to talk for all Americans like we're fucking idiots or something, it's really getting quite annoying being talked down to by someone from a country that just had a decade of fucking Harper.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...rnie-sanders-vote-against-background-checks-/
I agree with his views on gun control now, but saying he's been in favor of them the entire time he's been a politician is false.
This is a thread about Bernie Sanders and he's her political opponent. It's not exactly off topic to compare them.
If the corruption is so off the charts, surely you could've provided more than one example.
You misread me if you think this is my intention. I don't even believe that Bernie Sanders has 'evolved' on gun control. He seems to have been dragged into the debate, and it's already a failure on his part.
But to see this brought up as if it's similar to Hillary Clinton's approach to her job is insulting. I'd argue that this is a real case of the lesser of two evils, not the binary Hillary-or-Trump choice we're getting now.
The reasoning--and I can understand and respect it (and even agreed once upon a time)--is that Bernie's ideas, while largely desirable, are not palatable to the general population, and Hillary's chances of winning the general election are far better than Bernie's. Effectively, the pragmatic choice would be to vote for her, even if she's only marginally liberal. Bernie's ideas need more time in the oven, and radical change like many of the ones he would propose would be fiercely reacted against, which would further solidify Republican control of all three branches. That is to say, she's the hero we need, but not the one we deserve.
There's also a not-insignificant amount of schadenfreude in there, too.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked