So you're a Marxist who supports gun laws. Fun!
It must be so nice not to have any stakes in the election. Tell us what that's like.
Why such little enthusiasm for Hilary Clinton?
- Thread starter mid83
- Start date
- Status
So you're a Marxist who supports gun laws. Fun!
It must be so nice not to have any stakes in the election. Tell us what that's like.
JesseEwiak
Member
So, you care about more about "constitutional rights" than the lives of thousands of poor minorities that die needlessly because of easy access to guns?
eBay Huckster
Member
SCHIP, the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003 (and its 2007 renewal), and ratification of New START.
I hope you didn't mean marxist as a negative thing.
I'm not going to bash Bernie for running as a Democrat. That makes him leagues better than a Ralph Nader.
He gets how our system is structured.
He gets the stakes.
He gets that if he doesn't win here in 2016, his movement can still live on to 2020 and beyond.
I hope that, should he find himself conceding, he makes this all crystal clear to his supporters.
He gets how our system is structured.
He gets the stakes.
He gets that if he doesn't win here in 2016, his movement can still live on to 2020 and beyond.
I hope that, should he find himself conceding, he makes this all crystal clear to his supporters.
Dude Abides
Banned
Hard to make the streets red with the blood of the kulaks and the running dogs if you can't get your hands on an AK.
I, personally, am enthusiastic about Hillary. Or as much as you could be I suppose. It's just hard to really talk about it right now with all the primary craziness going on. Bernie is the hot fresh thing right now, like Obama was in 2008 and even Bill Clinton was in 1992. Hillary has been perhaps the most famous woman in the world for the last 24 years, it's hard to package that into something that feels zeitgeisty and "new", which is always going to be an important thing in politics, like it or not.
I'm thinking/hoping the enthusiasm will come if/when she secures the nomination. I don't and never have thought that the Dems keeping the white house this year is as safe as a lot of other people seem to, and I still truly believe Hillary has a better shot at doing it than Bernie (though they both have flaws as candidates of course). This is all definitely no Obama '08 though.
I'm thinking/hoping the enthusiasm will come if/when she secures the nomination. I don't and never have thought that the Dems keeping the white house this year is as safe as a lot of other people seem to, and I still truly believe Hillary has a better shot at doing it than Bernie (though they both have flaws as candidates of course). This is all definitely no Obama '08 though.
JesseEwiak
Member
Sorry, not immediate Medicare for All, the repeal of Glass Steagal, and the Puppies 'n' Rainbows Act of 2015, so she didn't achieve anything at all.
Just point out a strange set of beliefs that don't normally align!
Was she a progressive and a liberal when she decided she wanted to attack assad and the rebels at the same time, the exact same strategy of Bush Jr in Iraq?
Was she a progressive and a liberal when she voted for not only the Iraq war itself, but the Patriot as well along with Bush and Cheney instead of being principled and looking at actual facts instead of being a neocon the same as the rest of them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0
Was she being a liberal when she took money from the credit card companies to basically screw over hundreds of thousands of people in bankrupcy scams? This is Elizabeth Warren's own personal tale to tell in the link below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76nfg
Was she being a liberal when she attacked Bernie Sanders for supporting universal healthcare and intentionally mischaracterizing his plan along with her daughter, even though she herself was a hypocrite on the same subject?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXvRe49qces
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWa2ssLEkeY
Was she being a liberal when she was called weak sauce by over 170 economic professors who in their own words said she didn't even try to address any of the real issues in Wall Street reform as they needed to be done?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBVtyRSsoXo
http://usuncut.com/politics/170-top-economists-back-bernie-sanders-plan-to-rein-in-wall-street/
I guess she is going to tell them to "cut it out" again , while she and her hedge fund daughter(and son in law) take backpocket Goldman, Citigroup and JP Morgan Money again.
And don't get me started on being on the board of directors for walmart, championing the corporate giveaway that is TPP, and talking out of both sides of her mouth on the Keystone pipeline, and basically every other issue.
Don't come to me with that nonsense about Hillary being anything more than a tool. This is not how politics should be done, and it won't be done like that when Bernie wins the presidency.
yes, give in to accelerationism. vote trump. hail satan.
jackissocool
Member
Yeah, I'm a supporter of armed people's uprisings. Clearly this status quo isn't working.
LOL fuck the constitution. But I sure as fuck don't trust the cops, racist pigs they are, to be the only people with guns. To me, the ideal political model is the Black Panthers. That's how minorities defend and uplift themselves.
Well, crap, I can't really argue with a communist. For you Sanders doesn't go far enough.
SneakersSO
Member
No - I clearly care about both Bernie & his stances. I've done the research on him & his political history, and I feel that there is an honesty in not only correctly identifying many of the social issues that plaque the USA, but in also a willingness to seriously tackle those sweeping social issues. None of what i've seen from Hillary tells me that she is going to be willing to make the best choices for the people that comprise this country, versus making the best choices for the corporations that run this country.
At this point Hillary is, in terms of potential political damage, no better than a potential Republican candidate. Sure, the republican candidates are all asshats with really regressive stances on where to take this country, but their threats of overturning things are on equal footing with the potential damage a president that is overly-enthusiastic with writing legislation that benefits corporate America & its banks could be.
Why would I ever vote for a candidate I don't believe in?
Veritigo_X
Member
I don't know what any of those things are, so joke's on you/Hillary!
Oh don't give me that. The GOP is terrified that Trump might go Independent because he may well pull MORE voters than their nominee. A Trump/Sanders "debate" would pull in more viewers than a Clinton/O'Malley debate during the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl.
I thought Sanders was all about a "great revolution" in modern politics? What kind of revolution is it if he's doing more of the same by trying to be the Democratic nominee? He should've pulled a Perot/Nader.
eBay Huckster
Member
See, I know this is snark, but it always floors me when people don't even know what CHIP is. It was the most notable public healthcare expansion between 1973 (the year Medicare got expanded to certain disabled people under 65) and 2010!
jackissocool
Member
No, he doesn't. Bernie's a liberal and liberals are weak and ineffective. The only thing that goes far enough for me is dismantling capitalism or puts us on a path towards it. Capitalism is the issue. Hillary is capitalist supreme.
SneakersSO
Member
Put it this way - if there is a 3rd party candidate that is seriously running with beliefs & agenda I can get behind, that are progressive & liberal, I will ABSOLUTELY vote for them in the general. Sure, its a 3rd party, and they do not have a chance in hell of realistically winning. However, I want my vote to go towards a candidate that I not only believe in as a person, but one that I can get behind in terms of what they are espousing.
I hate this whole 2-party system enough as is, and seeing people try & brow beat others into voting for a side, not a candidate, is exactly how we got into this partisan gridlock the country finds itself crippled by.
SlickShoesRUCrazy
Member
You're an idiot then and shouldn't be able to vote at all.
Your "I didn't win, take my ball home" attitude will only fuck over this country for another 25+ years and pretty much kill any and all progressive movement the country has made in the last 8 years.
I don't get what you people don't understand about this.
Support Bernie, I support Bernie, but if Clinton ends up with the nomination, you can vote her out in 4 years, instead of fucking the country for another 25+.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Oh that Hillary with her desire to overturn the Hyde Amendment and provide greater opportunities for abortion to those who need it most
Such a neocon
Such a neocon
Why wouldn't belief in a theory of economics and governance shown to have been completely wrong and unusable in the world be viewed as negative?
Well I supremely disagree, but that's a conversation for another thread.
I don't really care that Bernie is running as a Democrat. In fact, I think it's obviously the right thing for him to have done. The problem is that he gives off this vibe of being "above politics" when it's obvious that he makes these calculating moves because he's a politician. Actually it's not his fault. It's the fault of people who believe he's something he's not. Bernie has changed positions on several issues. He's right-wing on some issues. He's conveniently (for the purposes of this election) now a Democrat. Yes, he has some good ideas. No, he wouldn't be worse than the GOP nominees. But he definitely IS a politician. He's been in the game for a long time. He knows what he's doing and how he's portrayed and he uses these things to his advantage.
I thought the whole point was to avoid another possible Ralph Nader situation?
jackissocool
Member
Sigh
GAF really is liberal heaven. Happy to talk a big game about helping the poor and oppressed but God forbid somebody tries to actuary deal with systematic issues.
JesseEwiak
Member
Soulless neoliberal who only cares about expanding her own power.
Exactly. If he doesn't win the nomination, the most liberal candidate should win and not get screwed by the spoiler effect. That's why it's baffling why Bernie supporters WON'T vote for Clinton if Bernie doesn't win.
User 463088
Banned
You care about Bernie's stances, then you vote for him in the primary. If your dude loses, then you should go to the next best option in the General. That's how politics work. We don't all get what we want all of the time. If you legitimately believe that there is no difference between Hillary Clinton's positions on women's rights, gay rights, judicial reform, Citizens United, AA rights, immigration, and nearly every other issue...then you either have no idea what Clinton's positions actually are, or none of these issues are personally important to you. If the later is the case, then I envy you. If the former is the case, then I'd kindly recommend taking a look at what her positions actually are.
This idea that we are all somehow entitled to get our way on every issue is part of the problem that has been plaguing this country from the far right for years. While you may happily pull that lever for Bernie, realize that you're probably going to have to vote for that non-ideologically pure House Member or Senator to actually get anything done. Of course, when Bernie has to compromise to get anything close to what he wants passed, I'm sure he'll be thrown under the buss with the rest of the oligarchs.
Do you live in a communist country? If you don't, why don't you move to one? I don't mean this as an insult. It's obvious that America will always have a foundation in capitalism. That's, seriously, not going to change in the next few decades so I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish.
Oh Captain, my Captain. I dont have that clapping gif handy but lets pretend I posted it.
You're missing one point in your scenario which makes it worse, namely:
Your Bernie-like candidate and left-leaning Congress never get elected in 2020, because your Republican president, Republican Congress, and Republican Supreme Court have had four years to disenfranchise minorities and persecute other "undesirables".
I'd be fucking estactic, because it means the Republicans dont get the White House and the Supreme Court.
jackissocool
Member
Why don't you just move to Sweden?
1. No Marxist countries
2. I want an end to oppression for everyone, so I fight against capitalism.
3. Capitalism is global. I'm against precisely because it can't be avoided.
Epsilon-delta
Banned
Wat
Automation alone is going to decimate the transportation industry, so I don't know how you can actually believe what you wrote.
You can't stop progress. This form of capitalism is not sustainable for the long-term.
eBay Huckster
Member
Of course it won't! Instead of accomplishing something slightly to the left of Obama through executive orders with an air of pragmatism, he'll accomplish things slightly to the left of Obama through executive orders with an air of ideological purity.
Clinton was expressing support for gay rights on the "domestic partnerships" (i.e., civil union) front as early as 1999.
This was five years prior to the Great Right-Wing Fuckery of 2004 and seven years before Sanders made any kind of statement on marriage equality.
Except in Sanders' case it was even more politically craven, considering he was representing the White Liberal Paradise of Vermont rather than being a national figure.
Bernie sanders has supported gay rights long before it was even an in thing. And as for gun control, i give him the benefit of a doubt as him as being pragmatic in his state yes, because he actually has given me the sincerity in every other issue to give him the benefit of a doubt.
Clinton on the other hand, has never given me a reason to think she was sincere in anything she has done from every angle and issue.
You can't just bring up one single issue he has an iffy record on and expect people to agree with you when you say "SEE!? HE'S BAD JUST LIKE HILLARY!" That is just desperation.
I don't expect perfect candidates from this country in general, that's what this is about right? What i don't tolerate are horrible candidates. And Hillary is definitely that.
Because he knows what a dog and pony show this country is. He knew that being a Democrat was the only way to feasibly win because the two parties shut out every other party who has anything to say based on how much influence they've got. Hence why he caucuses with the democrats to begin with. He has tried to support the liberal wing of the party for decades at the very least, to no avail as they keep slipping further away to the right.
I don't expect perfect candidates from this country in general, that's what this is about right? What i don't tolerate are horrible candidates. And Hillary is definitely that.
Honestly this first reply pretty much nailed it.
Also, it's a total given that she's going to win anyway.
JesseEwiak
Member
By the liberal wing, you're including Hillary "11th most liberal Senator" Clinton in that, right? Also, the party of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi is more liberal than the party of Robert Byrd and Tip O'Neill.
But, yup. She obviously just came out against the Hyde Amendment to make herself look better.
Given how much of a fight she gave Obama, I dont see how she is an untested candidate.
Sanders has supported gay rights long before it was a thing????
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...riage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html
What a long time champion!
Or how about how Bernie Sanders voted against DOMA because he wanted to protect a minority, as he so claimed?
Oh, he didn't? It was a pure federalism issue?
Or how about in 2006 when Bernie said that marriage is a states's rights issue?
My point is not to simply point out one issue -- my point is that I hate that the gay rights have been co-opted by the left who had little to do with the movement in general, yet now Obama, Bernie, and Hillary are all trying to take credit for something such as gay marriage.
But only one of them has been attacked for flip flopping on the issue.
Yup. I went light.
I'll note: it's really easy to stress purity when your ass isn't on the GOP's chopping block.
SneakersSO
Member
Here's the thing - I don't feel Hillary is the next best candidate. I know her stances on those issues, and I agree with many of them, but I also know how far she has been willing to go to appease corporate interests in the past, and I fully believe that she will absolutely vacate any of those positions if it comes into direct or indirect conflict with any of their interests.
You don't feel that way. Maybe you feel she is the absolute best candidate for the job, and if so, I'm glad you have all this confidence in her. Unfortunately, i'm nowhere near that, and i'd rather vote for a candidate that I do have common ground with & that I can have faith in, versus not doing so.
Also, I hold very realistic expectations into just how difficult it will be for Bernie Sanders to enact ANY of his suggested reforms, never mind all of them. But I want a President who not only feels the same way I feel about the problems this nation faces, but is someone whose suggested potential solutions to those problems are something I agree with, and that this candidate will not betray their proposed agenda & reforms should external pressures begin to try & influence them in other directions that I don't agree with.
eBay Huckster
Member
Or put another way: it's really easy to stress purity when your only opponents prior to this year have had the organizational equivalent of Alan Keyes' 2004 campaign.
By a narrower margin than anyone in Obama's entire political career except for Bobby Rush, we should note.
SneakersSO
Member
Just quoting all this to show my support yet again. THANK YOU.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll