See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Your argument is that Hillary Clinton should be our president simply because she's "been there", even though her record on foreign and domestic issues is very spotty. How important is her tenure as secretary of state, given the destruction she helped wrought in Libya? And how much does non-legislative experience even matter, given the power of policy advisers and cabinetmembers?
This "I'm a progressive but if Hillary is the nominee, I'm not voting" shit is stale
- Thread starter PlayALLtheGames
- Start date
- Status
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Your argument is that Hillary Clinton should be our president simply because she's "been there", even though her record on foreign and domestic issues is very spotty. How important is her tenure as secretary of state, given the destruction she helped wrought in Libya? And how much does non-legislative experience even matter, given the power of policy advisers and cabinetmembers?
boiled goose
good with gravy
See the OP.
It is the idea that folks have to vote for her when they feel she hasn't earned their vote.
"Fall in line" is basically the worst thing you can say to convince a Sanders supporter. His entire career has been about fighting for what he thinks is right.
There is a difference between compromise and compromising your principles.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
r/politics (or popular Reddit in general) does set the bar low for productive discourse.
Beats the shit out of the alternative.
So being against neverending US warmongering makes a person libertarian?
Who knew?
shoplifter
Member
I think the most telling piece of the puzzle is that no one aside from Sanders and O'Malley (who had no chance from the beginning) even entered the race. When your only major opponent in a primary for an office with no incumbent isn't even in the party, that certainly makes it sound like the intent was for her to cruise though the primary races with little to no opposition.
shortsFortallPeople
Banned
the compromise comes from losing the house and senate in midterm elections because progressives stay home for those elections, leaving the democratic president to work against his interests and try to pass legislation with a red congress
Granted, Obama fucked up during his first two years in office by trying to compromise with the right BUT let us remember that he basically ran on a centrist platform of uniting the left and the right. He just underestimated how fucked up the GOP are.
I haven't gotten a sense that Hillary is doing that nor do i get the sense that she gives ten shits about compromise with the right if she had a blue house and senate, either.
and, again, you would rather have a republican president shift the supreme court all the way to the right instead? you're basically taking your ball home at this point if you think that a right wing SC is an acceptable option.
Buddy, I'm not anything you can define on a political spectrum. I was once described (by an ardent Republican) as the only true Libertarian in the country. He's probably right.
I'm not denying that the system is broken. I'm rejecting the argument that the way to fix it is to break it further because doing so will literally cost lives.
Progressiveness is defined based on the national middle point. You don't get to hold up western Europe and say "look, this is left, so EVERYONE in the U.S. is a right winger!" because I could turn that around and hold up just as many examples radically to the right of the U.S..
The middle point of the nation at this time is to the right of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. They're championing government intervention for the benefit of the body public. That is literally the very basis of "Progressive" in the American political sense as defined by the original progressive, TR, and continued by his cousin and niece a few decades thereafter. That is progressive. Trying to take that title away shows a disingenuous attempt to drive a wedge between moderate and extremist progressives for effectively no gain.
So if given a choice between continuation of that wedge, fracturing a party almost unanimously focused on progressive reform at one rate or another, and in turn empowering a regressive opposition (as was the case throughout the 70's and 80's) I'm sorry but I'll take the slow and steady march over the quick burn and all the risks associated.
This is my biggest issue, the non-voting camp don't realize that the non-vote is equal to giving a vote in for Trump/Cruz, so technically, your non vote is a vote in support a platform based on hate.
shadowsdarknes
Member
She's been a leader, not just "there".
As far as her spotty record goes, I do agree it's not perfect.
I do think it's fair to give her a listen to explain the past.
Her stance on crime in the past isn't necessarily how she would govern today. And that can apply to a multitude of issues.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Hillary is and always has been more liberal than Obama and Obama put liberal justices on the bench.
Hillary has a personal vendetta against Citizen's United, so she's going to make that a major issue for her candidates on the bench.
There should be no concern at all she won't be liberal justices. She'll pick as liberal of a justice as the Senate will allow.
theignoramus
Member
So you bring up Media Matters, an organization run by a man Politico describes as a "pro Clinton crusader"
Pot. Meet. Kettle.
j_k_redtail
Member
Pretty much this. Happens every cycle. Relax.
Anoregon
The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!
This swings both ways. Anyone who supports the ideals and policies of Bernie Sander is absolutely, unequivocally compromising their principles if they don't do everything they can this November to prevent Cruz or Trump becoming president. That means voting for Hillary Clinton even if you'd prefer Bernie.
The hilarious thing is, Hillary was considered the "too liberal" choice in the last election in all but foreign policy.
Why do people think Hillary is what a centrist looks like? So people like Bernie are the only ones that can possibly be liberal? Sounds like the shit that Ted Cruz goes on about on how he's the only conservative left in the Republican party.
It doesn't seem like they have, to me as an outsider looking in shows extremes on both Clinton supports side and Sanders supporters side where if you don't vote for the chosen candidate than you are wrong and stupid. It's been about a 50/50 split.
It's probably a vocal minority of each side but it doesn't seem that Clinton is just riding on name alone.
shortsFortallPeople
Banned
because she was running against an openly socialist atheist candidate who has had limited success in the primaries, someone who would just about make any democrat look like Reagan in comparison
shoplifter
Member
When DNC congressional candidates run on largely centrist platforms, they're not going to get support from progressives. They essentially disavowed the slightly further to the left policy goals of the President in favor of being 'we're not republicans.'
NoblesseOblige
Banned
But she's not running on centrist platforms in anything but foreign policy, so...... Where are you getting this shit?
The Artisan
Member
i want sanders. i don't like trump (or any of the repubs for that matter) and i don't like hillary. if it comes down to one of them, why should i vote?
It's a really sorry state of affairs that our two choices are progressive neoliberalism and bigoted neoliberalism
Sounding more and more like conservatives every day. That "shoving shit down our throats" is directly out of the Fox News / Runio playbook and its stale too. If people telling you why you should do things in voluntary conversations you have online is "shoving things down your throat" then you have a super sensitive gag reflex.
shoplifter
Member
The way I personally see it is that her economic platform is largely 'the system is barely broken' with no large end goal in sight other than minor corrections.
Anoregon
The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!
Because the things you like about a likely Sanders presidency are actually not very different from a likely Clinton presidency, whereas a Trump/Cruz presidency would actively damage/remove those things.
This is of course assuming there are specific policy issues you care about, and not just "Bernie is cool and I don't trust Hillary."
boiled goose
good with gravy
So yeah, if you are a libertarian, then you are definitely not a progressive. Why are you then arguing labels? Just own it.
So I agree that progressive vs conservative can be defined by policy. You are defining this by politicians, not the electorate. That is our difference.
For example, is universal background checks progressive, centrist, or conservative? Is it an extreme position? I would argue it's and extremely moderate centrist position. ~90% of people support this including like 80% of gun owners. Yet, it is considered an extreme leftist position in Washington.
Issue by Issue, the American population is center left, not to the right of Hillary/Obama.
Tesseract
Banned
she is by our standards, get on scan dina via level
Then they make their voice heard during primaries to land the nominee
They don't ignore the election because a centrist left is the candidate. Any progressive running, including sanders, would want you to vote Clinton if she's the nominee. He sure as hell wouldn't want you voting trump, and he wouldn't want you staying home
Trump would be worse than Clinton, pretty substantially. I can't tell you how to vote, but it's pretty important to keep Trump out of the White House.
I would've loved for Bernie to go the distance, but sadly it doesn't look like it'll be the case. So I'll vote for Clinton even if she isn't my candidate of choice. Why? Because the republicans are all batshit crazy and scare the piss out of me, and I'm not so much voting for Clinton as I am voting against Trump.
Remember guys, it's not just about getting who you want in the White House, it's about keeping out people you fear.
Remember guys, it's not just about getting who you want in the White House, it's about keeping out people you fear.
Because maybe you wouldn't want to see someone like trump In power? because I assume, if you are a sanders supporter, that you wouldn't want Someone like trump to be in power? your vote matters, vote is more than just electing someone, is a a statement, and taking sidelines to see what Happens is the worst option you could have, when you could help for the greater good or the lesser evil.
GitarooMan
Member
Because you might have empathy for someone other than yourself who would be severely negatively impacted by a Trump presidency.
So a site full of op eds devoid of any real facts is your idea of proof. That explains a lot on how you can get roped into thinking someone who was a staunch anti-war advocate for most of their life is now a warmonger.
Maybe try something with real facts backing it up next time?
boiled goose
good with gravy
I agree, with this.
What I don't agree is the idea that Sanders supporters should just fall in line now. No, I want them to fight for what they believe all the way till the ballot box in November. If no one is pulling Hillary left she will massively swing further right.
No vote is guaranteed, every vote has to be earned.
Come November, regardless of where each candidate stands, folks have to vote for the least worst option. That is fair.
Voting is good. Vote for the least worst option, write in, third party, whatever, but vote.
shortsFortallPeople
Banned
dont vote for a president then but, please, vote for members of congress and on local initiatives. the worst thing you could do is simply not vote, that's weak as fuck.
we had primaries and the primaries are bearing out the public's opinion on who should be candidates or not. bernie had money and a pretty great political machine behind him and he's not going to be the candidate because the public has spoken. It is what it is.
Seems like progressives have made their choices already. Those who do not feel like the progressives are being properly represented: feel free to start an offshoot. If the Tea Party can do it for the right then why can't progressives do it for the left?
the fact is, progress is often a slow and frustrating thing to watch play out. You can vote for incremental progress or not, it's entirely your call. But not voting for incremental progress is also a sign that you're not interested in true progress at all.
You define 90% of people wanting it as centrist. It is a leftist position because it goes against the rightist view of guns should be easy for everyone to get. People on the right can hold leftist views from time to time.
Because a republican administration would make the country go backwards. Because minorities will suffer under a republican administration. Because a republican administration will put Scalia types judges onto the court causing any Bernie like candidate in the future to getting his stuff implemented for the next 40 years, plus a very big possibility the abortion would be outlawed by the court, gay marriage could be overturned, obamacare overturned, any environmental laws to be overturned, ect.
But yeah, who care about this election? If we can't get someone now, lets burn the country down.
Trump will appreciate your vote.
creationtheory
Member
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"
-R
-R
There are plenty of people in this thread who have seen my posts and, despite having no problem voicing their feelings on this topic, they avoid offering a response to my point. Their silence and lack of response speaks volumes. It's a dodge.
As far as picking leftist judges, I don't know what to say to convince you. Her senate voting record is strongly liberal. Her emails show her to be a liberal. Hell, her "moderate/DLC/corporatist" husband's first nominee in the comparatively conservative climate of 1993 was the general counsel of the friggin' ACLU, and she's been more liberal than he ever was. This idea that she won't pick lefties for the court.. I find that remarkable, and quite a reach. It'd be well out of character for her record.
And FYI: Sotomayor and Kagan were portrayed as moderates when they were nominated. They've ruled as consistent liberals.
It's very simple: when another candidate like Sanders comes along and wins in 2020 or 2024, do you want their policies to be viable? A Republican will see to it that, even if we elect another Sanders, he will be met with failure. A Hillary Presidency, while not ideal, will keep that vision alive.
Aside from shoplifter, most folks have been avoiding this question.
What the hell are you even talking about at this point?
So if background checks are a moderate/centrist point of view and 90% of the people support it how does that make the American people left of Obama and Clinton, who both are generally in favor of them?
It isn't an extreme leftist position in Washington. It is presented as an extreme leftist position by a segment of ardent GOP politicians backed by a very strong gun lobby.
I mean, do you even understand the political process here? Progressivism isn't something you bandy about for only the most left candidates. It is a very real, defined, political viewpoint that was established by sitting Presidents and the actions they took to achieve it. Real people have already defined this term. It existed before you were even born. You don't get to come along and change it because you aren't happy with the people it lets into the tent.
Lastly, like I said, I was referred to as a libertarian. My actual views are too nuanced to fit any real description adequately, as should everyone's. But since many want to have a political weathervane to guide their half-baked opinions we wind up with terminology based on partisan division. Then we all act surprised when our political structure become divided along partisan lines.
Not just any administration, trump administration
Hell, Supreme Court nominees alone should be answering the question. Even if you hate trump and Clinton EQUALLY, you should still vote Clinton if you want a more left Supreme Court that will actually vote in favor of future progressive legislation. Republicans actually are USING that fact to get people to vote for them, using fear tactics that a left Supreme Court would take guns away, rip up the constitution, and drive America to the ground
Anyone who can't see past the actual candidates to the global effects on US government that will occur depending on who is elected is just being ignorant. And if it's due to you being for sanders only, then you are being s crybaby
Yeah you're not kidding.
Omegasquash
Member
I think that's the most blunt way of looking at it. Not taking part in something, or at least being willing to come to the fucking table to compromise and move/keep the needle more in your direction is approaching the height of entitlement.
doctorblurg
Banned
Because even though Hillary may not be what you want (It isnt what I want Id rather have sanders.) Its way better than Cruz or Trump.
Lots of people stand to have a lot of their rights trampled over with a republican president. Im bisexual and hispanic and it scares me what could happen to people like myself in the next few years with a republican government. Even then I hardly have it as bad as many Muslim Americans would probably have it or any other non-white immigrant cause at least I was born here.
It's fine to be upset that Sanders lost, but it isn't okay to take your ball and go home when a ton of stuff is at stake that could affect minority populations in this country for decades
Jesus fuck, this rhetoric is getting so old. So as a liberal, the only reasons I have to not like Hillary are either a) I'm old and a misogynist or b) I'm young and ignorant? Really?
Cybrwzrd
Banned
Not only do they matter, but they are the issues that matter the most. The thing is they are not "sexy little starlets that look nice in a low cut dress in the media spotlight" like social issues are. Fixing an endemic economic issue takes years to pay off - and you risk not getting a payoff as a politician. When a majority supported social issue is address/fixed you get a great photo op and easy publicity for your next campaign.
You define progressiveness based on one policy, the policy you personally think is most important.
If your definition of progressive is "only people who agree with me on issue X" then it shouldn't be surprising that your definition is both out-of-step with and offputting to the rest of the world. That is not how anybody else uses the word!
But your post doesn't explain any problems with Hillary. It's purely a suggestion that people who support Hillary are not as progressive as you. That's the point of my critique.
Now, obviously you got the black swan response of somebody who accepted your dishonest framing and posted "you're right, I am not as progressive as you." So sure, no surprise that you liked that answer. But I don't think you should expect a lot of those!
In all honesty, are there better reasons to not vote Hillary if she gets the nomination. Why else would you not vote if the election was trump versus Clinton. If you don't value a democratic supreme court nominee, or a government that didn't both have a right president and right congress that can actively repeal progress towards a more liberal point of view..... Then yeah, pretty ignorant if you are a liberal. And I'd guess young too
- Status