Already Torn
Banned
Probably gonna be better too since the GOP is falling apart
2 Super 2 Tuesday |OT| I'm Really Feeling (The Bern) (3/15, 3/22, 3/26 Contests)
- Thread starter ivysaur12
- Start date
- Status
So the alternative is having no practical voice in the process at all?
There only message politicians and parties take from someone sitting out is that they do not matter. Politics is zero sum, and of they can't count on you, they're not going to listen to you. Representation is quid pro quo.
This is absolutely false. Deans 50 state strategy at the DNC and Progressives swelling to push support are what enabled Obama to come out on top. Obama didn't campaign as some super liberal Democratic socialist, and Clinton was just middle of the ground. The work at ground level built a machine that was much more favoritible to Obama and got him the votes to overcome the conventional wisdom candidates at the time.
Those wins, and the Obama constituency are what's pushing Hillary left this time.
Results matter in politics. Taking your ball and going home means you don't matter.
So you feel that it isn't a very democratic process because the majority of people didn't vote for the candidate you prefer. You then feel that the best thing you can do is to not participate in the democratic process, hoping this will threaten others into supporting your favored candidate in the future.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that maybe you don't actually care about democracy, you just want whatever system produces the outcome that suits you best.
Zeus Molecules
illegal immigrants are stealing our air
First did you read that long article in 2 minutes? Secondly that article was more about how she is more hawkish than Obama, and the general relationship between the two being at best ok. The articles about her motivations to take the role as Secretary of State are older so I would need to find them and post them after work
Lord_Byron28
Member
It's possible to like Obama and prefer Sanders. As much as Hillary and her supporters paint her as Obama's third term, she will handle things differently. Especially in regards to foreign policy because after Libya, Obama and her disagreed a lot on foreign policy. I prefer Obama's position as I fear we will be in another 10 years of war under Clinton and her administration. As there will always be some conflict that no other nation but the US will have to take care of that will send us to another inconsequential war where nothing is better from after we intervened as which has been happening for the past 40 years. Obama has been instead investing his time and energy into Asia and Latin America and improving relations with them which I believe is a wiser choice. The rest of the world(Europe in particular) needs to learn how to take care of themselves without the US charging into the middle of every conflict. I also anticipate many pro-wallstreet/pro-corporation stuff to easily pass through with her as president and the given congress. She has yet to convince me in any way that she won't make similar mistakes to the ones her husband's administration did in regards to Wall Street(deregulation of banks) and trade agreements, both Nafta and Obama's administration with TPP.
Overall, though we will be moving in a lot better direction than where we would be under any republican. The republican party will be squirming after 12-16 years of not having a president in office. It will be in desperate need of an over haul after the damage Trump and the tea party has done. I also expect Clinton's experience to be her biggest strength in terms of getting things done quickly.
Already Torn
Banned
She'll probably give it to some guy from a Wall Street bank. Or the guy at the CIA who is keeping her email scandal from going to court. Both are bad for the American people.
balladofwindfishes
Member
With Trump on the ticket, and Hillary looking to be president, I wonder if the GOP Senate changes their tune on Obama replacing Scalia. They're going to lose the presidency and probably the Senate because of Trump.
The gamble is starting to show obvious signs of going horribly wrong for them. A Democrat Senate + Hillary means a far more liberal justice than Obama + Republican Senate.
The gamble is starting to show obvious signs of going horribly wrong for them. A Democrat Senate + Hillary means a far more liberal justice than Obama + Republican Senate.
I have already read the article before this. And I guarantee you you will never find a article that says Hillary doesn't care about domestic issues just international like you claimed.
Getting to Reagan was quick, but most the GOPs damage has been done from the late 90s onward due to them being viable in congress and stacking SCOTUS. Case in point, Reagan would be booted from the party as being a RINO today, all the while they nostalgically pray to his zombie corpse.
It actually shows just how much a moderate candidate can change the path of the party with the right base support and infrastructure.
A conspiracy theorist might almost say the Clinton campaign and the White House colluded on this.
I hope you are saying this just to be sarcastic. Because that is absurd. And just plaid stupid to even entertain.
Do you have a source for Obama and Clinton disagreeing a lot on foreign policy? I don't recall that happening publicly. I'm reading Hard Choices and obviously she paints the picture that they got along well, so seeing an alternate angle could be nice.
Sad thing is there is Bernie Bros who would believe this bullshit.
Never said I wasn't voting, and your latter statement is pretty damn presumptive. I'll submit to the rule of the majority, but I certainly don't have to fall in line with whoever you think is the lesser of two evils.
Already Torn
Banned
I hope the people voting for Clinton over Bernie are just being sarcastic, but here we are...
Oh Jesus Christ you were being serious. Wow. You realize what you said was INSANE right? The idea that you think Hillary would pick a SC nominee for whoever "covered up" her email scandal at the CIA.
Holy. Shit. This is pure hardcore right wing propaganda. Obama Birther level insanity.
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, especially now that some people would rather vote Trump:
Not trusting a Clinton being the thing keeping you from voting for them is like not following Rambo out of the slave labor camp because you know he's killed more people than the Drug Lord
Not trusting a Clinton being the thing keeping you from voting for them is like not following Rambo out of the slave labor camp because you know he's killed more people than the Drug Lord
Zeus Molecules
illegal immigrants are stealing our air
Please Quote me correctly I said care as much......
Also that wasn't even a thing I was getting at her for though you've fixated on it. My statement was she would probably keep Obama's domestic stuff. The real difference between the two of them is international policy.
She is more Hawkish
Okay show me where she cares more about international than domestic policy then. Show me. It does not exist.
Here in this thread I'm seeing people who claim to support Obama but also claim they will vote for Trump or a third party.
The cognitive dissonance it takes to get to that position is astounding.
Do young people value what Obama has accomplished or not? Do we want to preserve Obama's legacy or not? You can't have it both ways.
There are millions of Americans who will lose their health insurance if we make the wrong choice here. Supreme Court Justices will impact your lives for the next twenty years or more.
The cognitive dissonance it takes to get to that position is astounding.
Do young people value what Obama has accomplished or not? Do we want to preserve Obama's legacy or not? You can't have it both ways.
There are millions of Americans who will lose their health insurance if we make the wrong choice here. Supreme Court Justices will impact your lives for the next twenty years or more.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
lol..
You have to believe these types of posts are just from kids threatening to cut off their nose in spite of their face.
Hopefully when the rubber hits the road they'll make the right decision instead of voting against "not-bernie".
Because you'd think if they're hoping to continue the momentum that Bernie has created, they'd want to ensure a Dem gets into the WH instead of a madman fascist.
Already Torn
Banned
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Hillary Clinton started the Obama Birther nonsense.
She did not, that is a myth.
You are wrong. And you are ignoring the idea of what you said was pure right wing conspiracy theory insanity.
Zeus Molecules
illegal immigrants are stealing our air
I don't got time to find it and hell you might be right. I don't think you are but I found this relatively quickly
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...nt-hillarys-hawkishness-a-dealbreaker/433887/
That seemed interesting...
Trump hasn't secured it yet and the republicans are planning to contest the RNC. If that indeed happens, Clinton will have a victory via fatality.
theignoramus
Member
We have an entire essay in the Atlantic.
-Clinton wanted to attack Syria because she is a Kissinger acolyte who believes that mantaining US credibility is more important than avoiding a worst case scenario.
-Clinton and Samantha Power were behind the Libya intervention, against the objection of Joe Biden and Robert Gates
-Joe Biden thinks Hillary wants to be Golda Meir.( a sobering comparison. Golda Meir almost started a nuclear war between the US and Russia)
That has absolutely nothing to do with you false statement about Hillarys stance on domestic policy.
Again I repeat myself, you made an outrageously false statement about Hillary as a fact. The least you can do is provide evidence. Because there is not any.
The idea that Bernie's foreign policy is superior because of a vote 13 years ago is laughable.
Jesus, your posts are hilarious!
She's no more likely to do that than Sanders would appoint a GAF Berniebro.
balladofwindfishes
Member
It's really sad to watch. Just last week, Super Delegates were the worst thing ever and should be abolished, and now they're hoping for a hail mary swing of Supers to go their way to basically steal the nomination from Hillary. Something which they were afraid Hillary would do to them.
I have a feeling the conspiracy theories and email scandal nonsense is about to ramp up as well. Already seeing way more people hoping Hillary gets indicted as the only way Bernie gets in.
Is that how some of his supporters want him nominated? Via criminal charges on his opponent or by using Super Delegates? Both seem underhanded and desperate and against the very spirit of the movement...
shinra-bansho
Member
The degree of interventionism or isolationism with regard to the use of power doesn't fit neatly onto the "left and right" that's typically used to describe social or economic liberalism/conservatism. (These don't always overlap either.)
Similarly, protectionism and trade liberalisation.
Similarly, open or closed immigration policy.
The various groups these benefit or appeal to span the electorate.
They're quite distinct positions you can take, separate from the more generic economic positions on taxation and the size of government or social positions on various cultural issues.
But the bifurcation of the US political system into two viable parties basically results in their classification as such.
Similarly, protectionism and trade liberalisation.
Similarly, open or closed immigration policy.
The various groups these benefit or appeal to span the electorate.
They're quite distinct positions you can take, separate from the more generic economic positions on taxation and the size of government or social positions on various cultural issues.
But the bifurcation of the US political system into two viable parties basically results in their classification as such.
voting for Bernie is an act of evil now?
DragonSworne
Banned
It's going to be really hard for Hillary to beat Trump in the GE. I'm going to vote for her but she better not think the Presidency is all but a given at this point.
balladofwindfishes
Member
If it was really hard for Hillary to beat Trump, we wouldn't be seeing the GOP trying desperately to ensure he isn't on the ticket.
This is an emotional argument, based on feelings. There are a multitude of options for letting your voice be known; the Presidency is but one of many avenues through which you can exert your voice. Work on the folks who actually author and negotiate laws, for instance.
Y'know what's asinine? Handing over the judiciary to folks who would see your vision buried for a generation.
Let's play-out a possible scenario, shall we?
Let's say that the temper tantrum throwers get their way here: Hillary loses here in 2016.
Great. The wench was too moderate anyway!
Trump or Cruz is elected instead.
The new President nominates Scalia's replacement, one in the mold of Scalia.
Ginsburg or Breyer are pretty old; odds are that one of them doesn't make it through the first term.
The new President replaces one. The court is now 6-3 conservative.
Anthony Kennedy turns 80 in a few months. He sees his shot at retiring when the new President takes office.
That 6-3 majority gets younger. The chance to flip the court to a liberal lean fades.
It'll be a few decades before the court could ever lean left again.
Then, in 2020, the voters have had enough of President Trump's asshattery - glorious backlash election occurs!
Bernie 2.0 is elected.
He brings with him coattails: a Democratic Congress!
The dream is being realized!
Bernie 2.0 and the new Congress set out immediately to enact their agenda.
The first batch of bills hits Bernie 2.0's desk. He takes out his pen and signs it, to great progressive celebration.
And as soon as the ink dries on Bernie 2.0's signature, the GOP or their corporate buddies file suit in court to stop this legislation from ever taking effect.
Ruling.
Appeal.
Appellate ruling.
Appeal.
SCOTUS, by a vote of 6-3 or 5-4, rules to kill Bernie 2.0's legislative achievement.
Repeat for anything remotely controversial that gets passed Bernie 2.0 and his Congress.
Liberals are horrified to realize: "what good is winning in 2020 and beyond if there's a judiciary in place, ready to kill anything that's challenged before them?"
..
I'm guessing that you consider yourself serious about the long-term viability of Bernie's policy agenda. In which case, I'd say it's foolish to condemn that agenda to judicial death for 20-30 years.
Don't give me a response on how you feel. Or how Hillary is too moderate, or too corporate, or too scheming. None of those responses substantively counter what I've plainly laid-out before you. The mechanics of how our system works don't give a damn about your feelings.
If you're at all serious about keeping Bernie's vision alive for the future, so that we can elect Bernie 2.0 knowing that his agenda is viable, there's only one logical choice in November.
Christopher
Member
It's true I'm not sure how much more he needs to be underestimated for people to not dismiss it
DragonSworne
Banned
GOP fears of Trump losing to Hillary are a cover for why they don't want Trump to win.
The real reason GOP is trying to keep Trump away from the ticket because he doesn't follow their platform at all. He is his an extreme independent that has struck a cord with the anger white Americans but also for some strange reason resonates well with minorities on jobs/economy.
If Trump wins the nomination and does become President it's the end of the GOP.
It's always been interesting to track the pigeon holes that each party get shuffled into when it comes to foreign interventions. Hillary is seen as more hawkish and so is attacked as more centrist because of it but Trump is at times isolationist and is seen as more conservative when he is.
While at the same time Sanders is fairly isolationist himself but that is seen as more progressive when coming from a Democrat.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
I don't think you read the post I was responding to. A third party vote or a write in vote are not going to send a message no matter how romantic the idea may seem. It's just one less vote for a candidate who, while certainly not perfect, is much better than the alternative.
As a member of a group who always has to choose between the lesser of two evils, I'm not sympathetic at all to the idea of having purity or letting it all burn.
Dash_Riprock
Member
PanicFreak
Member
Realistically, Bernie never had a shot. If he were younger, he would have had a shot in the next cycle.
- Status