Crap shoot with nuclear weapons. That sounds like a great idea. Let's play Russian roulette with the lives of everyone on the planet.
TPM: Vitriol from Sanders' campaign coming from the top
- Thread starter giga
- Start date
- Status
Crap shoot with nuclear weapons. That sounds like a great idea. Let's play Russian roulette with the lives of everyone on the planet.
Not going to take the bait and argue about Trump's foreign policy. My mistake adding that sentence in. The problem is Hillary's foreign policy which has a long troubling record and why some people won't vote for her.
that's not called refusing to take the bait, that is called refusing to back up your own statement.
Lol. Like clockwork...
I don't prefer Trump over Clinton. There is not a large enough people who do support Bernie that would vote Trump over Clinton to swing this election (aside from the people who were never going to vote Clinton in the first place).
My problem is with your attitude. The "if you're not with Hillary, you must want Trump/hate gays/hate Mexicans/hate Muslims" attitude. My problem is with the assertion that anyone who dare challenge the Almighty Democratic party's stranglehold on American liberal politics is somehow the enemy. My problem is the notion that if not enough people fall in line with the Democratic nominee to win the election, then that's a failure of the people and not a failure of the party for producing a candidate that couldn't win.
For all my qualms with the Democratic party, the Republican party is clearly worse. It's a clowm show. An international embarrassment. If I knew nothing of American politics and studied the Republican party only, then found out that was the party that controlled the House and the Senate, I wouldn't be able to fathom how massively incompetent the other party must be.
The party that is meant to serve as the liberal opposition gets worked over on the regular by a goddamn laughing stock and some people are getting tired of the excuses.
I'm not a part of the "bust crowd." I've just been around here long enough to know that, despite your repeated claims that "we used to be nice, not condescending and argue deeper than 'look out for the Republicans'" isn't an accurate depiction of the discourse around here 6-8 months ago.
You claim Bernie supporters don't base their arguments on anything but emotion. I'd argue that the "look at how bad things would be if the other guy wins" strategy is nothing but a weak appeal to fear. Some people want to hold their own candidates to a different standard than "better than the worst" (this is obviously subjective). To throw those people into the Trump/Cruz pile of immigrant-bashing homophobes is disingenuous and weak and it's been the go-to argument around here since Hillary supporters noticed there were people who had the nerve to entertain other options.
If I had to guess at the logic of a liberal who would prefer Trump beat Hillary in the general, I'd say it's coming from them seeing Trump tear apart the Republican party, essentially giving them their "come to Jesus" moment and, maybe forcing them to reevaluate things. If Democrats suffer the enormous embarrassment of nominating "the most qualified candidate in the history of anything", only to have her lose to a man who is essentially a reality TV star, that might force the party to rethink a lot of stuff. Some people think that the Democrats have been relying too heavily on "at least I'm not a Republican" for far too long.
Back up what? Trump makes up bullshit, flip flops, is intentionally hyperbolic to gain headlines, and no one knows what the fuck he is going to do. I'm not advocating for Trump.
Edit: eh, whatever.
None of that excuses what he says and what party he represents. This willful ignorance on actually taking anything he says seriously is why he's made it this far.
Abstain does not equal support Trump.
Maybe you should reread them.
How can you NOT like clockwork though
It's majestic!
Regardless, in a 2 choices voting system if you stray from option A or B your vote is mechanically like voting for whoever comes on top.
If that's Trump and you voted for a 3rd option you actually helped him get the lead.
The presidential election is not the place to make that stand.
You accomplish nothing and you're outnumbered anyway.
You want to know why the Dem's are bodied by the hilariously incompetent GoP?
Because say what you want about the other side but at least they come out to vote when it matters instead of throwing a temper tantrum every 4 years about how the system is rigged.
The Electable Left has to compromise because when push comes to shove the reformist part of the Left is never there to ask anything and they don't give a shit about any of what they're pushing ever getting made into law.
They want to protest forever and that's it.
I know the sentiment, it's the very same I was able to see, sample and grown to hate in my home country.
RustyNails
Member
Democratic party is not a liberal hotbed of free love and communist hugs. Both parties accurately reflect where the country is. The country's center has certainly shifted to the left, but not by much. Democratic party is a broad coalition of Democrats who are conservative like governor JBE in Louisiana to a progressive Senator Warren from MA.
Hillary is winning the nomination because Democrats have rejected Sanders. He lost. You can't blame the Democratic party, DWS or superdelegates when Hillary got 3 million+ more votes than Bernie.
I didn't read the end about voting for Trump. I just skimmed it and saw the picture assumed it was guilt tripping abstainers.
Did I mention how unusually hilarious NeoGAF is today?
That's a pretty presumptive assumption from someone who isn't even a Bernie supporter to begin with (have we started a cringe inducing Hilsplaining meme yet?). It's different for different people, but she does that with a decent degree of frequency.
eBay Huckster
Member
VA funding bill, sure
but he was emphatically campaigning on his vote for the crime bill as recently as his first Senate race
balladofwindfishes
Member
Name a specific example of Hillary Clinton insulting Bernie supporters, or quit your passive aggressive shit posting and whining about Hillary supporters, which, looking at your post history, appears to be about the only thing you post.
This attitude pretty much implies that people either have to be a Democrat or a Republican like we're all #bornthatway or something. These parties change with the times. If the Democrats lose because they don't get enough votes, that's on nobody but themselves. "Republicans are more reliable voters" is a pathetic excuse.
First, screw your first sentence. I get enough red-baiting hippyphobia from the Conservatives in my life. I'm not interesting in trying to decipher whether the Democrats that spit the same shit are being sarcastic or not.
Second, I'm not a fan of the broad coalition, but that's a personal problem. More people in this country register as independent than either R or D. Opinions vary too greatly for this forced binary allegiance to work, in my view.
Third, Hillary gets the votes, she gets the win. I agree with that. Same goes with Trump. If he courts enough voters to win the general, or if Hillary/the party drive enough voters away to lose it, that's the Democratic party's failure. Don't blame the people for not sufficiently propping up the party. The party hasn't done enough to earn that.
Hillary after someone from Greenpeace (who she just assumed was a Bernie supporter lol) who questioned her connections to the oil/gas industry: "I feel sorry for the young people who believe this, they don't do their own research."
There ya go. That was easy. A shot at Bernie supporters straight from her mouth.
We could throw Madeline Albright in the mix, but I've got a feeling you probably agree wholeheartedly with her notorious quote.
I'd like to hear what Hillary did specifically against Bernie's supporter. She's trying to court all dem voters. It's very one sided right now from my point of view.
She won.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Right, that's on the same level as calling the DNC and Hillary Clinton fundamentally corrupt without any tangible evidence. How dare she ask people to do some research.
Uh, what? Hillary pretty clearly said that she feels bad for people who believe she's beholden to the oil industry. You are interpreting it as a statement about Bernie Sanders supporters.
Unless you believe that only Bernie Sanders supporters believe that she's beholden to oil, those two statements are orthogonal!
exmachina64
Banned
Historically, a majority of Americans have been pro-intervention even with the hindsight of the damage America's actions have caused. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the War on Terror -- these are all things a majority of Amercians supported.
When they were punished in elections for being against these things, Democrats learned to be pro-intervention.
If we look at how pro-intervention Republicans are and how a majority of Democrats don't appear to be troubled by Hillary's foreign policy record, I'm going to hazard a guess that America is still majority pro-intervention.
We can argue how troubling we find pro-intervention records and actions again and again, but it's still a minority viewpoint.
If Trump were to be elected and act like Hitler, this is the excuse people would use. You can't go on assuming everything Trump says is bullshit and no one knows what he would do.
Or that only young people support Bernie.
If we're going to claim that money in politics is an issue, the corruption is obviously implied. It's the entire goddamn point. If you're going to gasp and clutch your pearls when your candidate's campaign finances are brought up, then it's safe to assume that you're either of the opinion that the current state of campaign financing is A-OK, or you've somehow deluded yourself into believing it's only a bad thing when the "bad guys" do it.
Also, the question was straight up regarding rea , documented campaign contributions from the oil/gas industry. The research had been done been done by Greenpeace. The question was asked by Greenpeace.
"I feel sorry sometimes, for the young people who, you know, believe this - they don't do their own research" - Hillary Clinton after Chuck Todd played the video of her popping off to the Greenpeace activist.
So... We're really gonna go with "nah, she wasn't talking about Bernie Sanders supporters" after banging the whole "Bernie's supporters are just a bunch of selfish, ignorant, young white dudes" shit for months?
The question was about how and why the progressive wing of the party can't seem to change much in the dem side.
the answer is that the progressive part of the dem side doesn't reliably vote.
If you want to change the party you don't do it by highjacking the presidential race.
thestopsign
Member
I would say Hillary has had a very light touch when dealing with Bernie and his campaign. I'm not going to say she has done nothing to alienate the Bernie campaign or his supporters, but most of the accusations have simply been perceived as major infractions. I'll touch on some major points that Bernie supporters have levied upon Clinton. I'm not a political expert so if I have any errors here, point them out to me and I'll look into it.
1. The speeches. Sure, Hillary seems to have gotten paid quite a fair chunk of money from certain Wall St. firms for simply just doing a speech. She was a private citizen at the time and making money was fair game to her. So to show how corrupted she was by these speeches... her campaign platform has been to tighten Dodd Frank as to hold big banks/corporations accountable for when they break the law. Read up on her platform below:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/wall-street/
2. Campaign finance. She is being corrupted by accepting money from Super PACs and other big money influences... Well she wants to reform campaign finance just like Bernie, in fact they are pretty much on the same page. They are both against Citizen's United and will do everything in their power to get rid of it; the main obstacle is a conservative leaning Supreme Court. Really all that needs to happen for this to get corrected is for the US to get *any* slightly liberal politician into presidency the next 4 years to place progressive bodies on the Supreme Court.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campaign-finance-reform/
3. Universal healthcare. Here is a big one. Hillary is more in favor of maintaining the status quo and steadily improving the system we have in place with the ACA, rather than disrupt it and implement a universal, single-payer system that Bernie is fighting for. The main problem I see here is that any bill dealing with universal health, would simply not get through House or Congress without being struck down, possibly even with a democratic majority. The current system is more workable and can be improved upon as we move forward and there is larger participation.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/
4. Free education. I think Hillary has a more workable plan when it comes to affordable college costs. An in-state public college should not have to be paid for through loans, if you want something better you can pay for it. Reduce interest rates on student loans to the current low interest rates. Free tuition at all public colleges and universities seems like a plan for disaster, I am not sure where the money comes from to pay for this. Bernie wants to somehow suck $750 billion out of Wall St. to pay for this. I prefer Hillary's more incremental approach.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/college/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/its-time-to-make-college-tuition-free-and-debt-free/
5. Economy. Honestly I am not well versed in this. I think someone else should tackle it. My basic understanding is that again, Hillary's plan focuses on modest tax increases for the Top ~5% and to attack international corporations on dodging taxes through various loopholes, basically make them pay a fair tax for doing business in the US. Bernie has pretty large tax increases across the board, even for the poor and lower-middle class bracket.
Highjacking? I thought I got into this because of all the pre-baked excuses being thrown out about Bernie losing the general for Hillary. If the progressive wing of the party doesn't reliably vote, then why all the concern over them handing the election to Trump? Democrats wouldn't have been able to count on them anyways, what with them being so unreliable.
Also, the party could either take the "fuck 'em, who needs 'em" approach or they could try to engage them. There's nothing about being progressive that inherently means they just don't vote. If they don't see the value, it's on the people who want the votes to sell themselves. If the party can do fine without them then good for them. The people who don't feel that they're being represented will either sit out, or make their voices heard some other way.
Considering that in a few days Sanders more reliable idiots are going to stump for trump(I'm speaking of the TYT and Ha! Good, man of the world).
Giving an argument as to why they shouldn't have this position doesn't seem like a waste of time even if minorities alone should be enough to hand the election over to Clinton (but running the margin makes it clearer that the reject is complete)
On the Left it is patently false, people don't get heard another way they just assume no one is interested in their voice when the place to do that are in local elections where they will no longer vote anyway.
At this point if you support Sanders because he's going to push the Dem party to the left you've lost the plot so much you don't even realize it's not the set for Justice League.
The presidential election is not the place to get your voice heard, it's the place to choose the best person to fulfill the role of POTUS and what it entails.
And then the democrats act surprised when the person who isn't a democrat doesn't get in line for the party of Clinton.
Sanders is in this to disrupt the party.
I have to ask what's the end game though?
Clearly the American people have rejected his platform already.
How? He's losing the primary to one of the most hated politician.
I thought he was a left-wing politician. Why would he want to force the country further to the right?
The Democratic Party voters does not represent all of America. There are closed primaries and the primary system relies on a system that allows Iowa, New Hampshire and the American South to weed out Presidential Candidates before the rest of the country has a chance to decide.
Sanders also isn't a great candidate, but having a goal to limit the obstacles for outsiders like himself to run for office in this country is great. Let's be realistic. The Democratic Party is a powerhouse compared to any third party. It's the entire ball game. Sanders wants to change the party from within.
Disrupting the party from the inside to allow more Americans to be represented while empowering third party candidates is a great ambition for a non-major party candidate.
Further right? Where did I say that?
Again, you keep putting the blame on liberals not voting for Democrats on the people. If you're one of only two political parties in town it's up to you to engage these potential voters and earn them. If someone wants to affect change in a political party, they certainly don't do it by voting straight down the party line regardless of how they actually feel.
You may think it's impolite or whatever for people to try to inject their personal preferences into a presidential election. I think it's an effective target. The progressives who may end up sitting out don't have the same unconditional sympathy for the plight of the Democratic party that you do. If Hillary loses this election and it is, somehow, proven by data that it was disillusioned Bernie supporters that turned the tide (not happening but you guys seem to want to obsess over it), then their voices will have absolutely been heard. Loudly and clearly.
Lol no. Nothing clear about that. More people are registered as independent than for either party and he cleans house with them. He's got, what, ~40% of the vote so far in the Democratic primary despite the fact that many primaries are closed to independents. I know you really enjoy this Red v. Blue shit, but not everybody treats this like a sporting event.
Nothing twists my tits like that RINO, DINO, HE'S NOT A REAL REPUBLICRAT shit. People act like the hospital room was filled with "Congratulations! It's a Democrat!" balloons when they popped out of the womb. I don't know where that comes from, but it's so weird to me.
Punchy4486
Banned
Splitting or breaking the left wing party invariably and inproportionately strengthens the right wing.
Like when conservatives worried that Trump was going to split Republican votes or go third party, which would have strengthened Democrats.
Ours is a two party system. Weakening one invariably strengthens the other. That's why Bernie or Bust voters are frustrating. That stance only make sense if your sole criteria is "I want an outsider", because your basically saying you think Trump is better than Hillary or they are at least equally bad.
Our political system doesn't work that way. You vote for the person you want, until they're gone. If they get beaten, you should then vote for "the lesser evil". That is the only way the system works. Unless you want to punish people for not picking your specific candidate and think "fuck all the minorities, and women, and LGBT, and foreigners who will be hurt in the process".
Again if he wanted to change the party from within he had 40 years to do that instead of living the hermit life in Vermont.
And you're arguing for the implosion of the Dem party in favor of more than 1 party?
In a system with 1rst past the post?
You're arguing for a perpetual GoP hegemony.
I'm not talking about the presidential election.
Turnout is down.
He lost most open primaries and won mostly caucuses with hilariously low turnout.
He's not bringing new voters in any significant numbers.
And he's unable to keep his people engaged enough to get them to represent him as far as delegate shows.
And how did that fucking work for you in 2014?
I am really losing patience for "progressives" who don't give a single shit about actually implementing progressive policies. Someone who thinks handing the executive and judicial branches to the far right "to make a point" is a victory is not a progressive, they're a fucking idiot who is toxic to this country's future.
Or 2010...
SolicitorPirate
Member
Not just your country. The rest of us also have to deal with the fallout whenever you guys elect an idiot
And yeah, I'm convinced most progressives are more concerned with feeling morally superior than they are about actually doing the hard work of progress
This is something you can also see across Europe too.
There's a "big" movement on the Left in the EU that basically view holding office as a badge of shame. They're the remnants of the communists or even farther left parties though.
I'll never understand their position though, seems like they're pretty happy with the status quo.
For fuck's sake I can't even keep up with what you guys are talking about anymore. I thought we were talking about the paranoia-fueled, hypothetical "bernie or bust" (which I'm not a god damn supporter of God damn) ramifications on the presidential election then suddenly we're talking about 2014 and 2010? Are we retroactively blaming Bernie Sanders for the past failures of the Democratic party?
I can put "progressives" in quotes too. For all my mistrust of the abject fucking failure that is the Democratic party, I still would much prefer to roll anybody with a (D) next to their name into the White House than a Republican because I know the (D) will at least pander to me on social issues. But I don't begrudge anyone out there who isn't comfortable holding their noses any longer and I sure as shit am not going to come back and blame an insurgent and his supporters who tried something different for somehow causing Hillary to lose. If she does lose, that's on her and the party. She doesn't need help. She can do bad all by herself.
That would be the consequence of disrupting the party.
excelsiorlef
Member
So he's in it to destabilize the only party that can stop the oppression of the GOP.
Brilliant plan.
So Republicans would be able to come out of the Trump fiasco unscathed/stronger while the Democratic party would be brought to its knees by Bernie fricking Sanders? Seriously?
With an opponent that weak, it's no wonder the Republicans stay winning.
excelsiorlef
Member
The GOP coalesced around Trump almost immediately with a few exceptions.
Cruz dropped out bro.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Trump's opponents were reasonable enough to drop out when their path to nomination ended.
The ONLY way to not destroy LGBT rights, ban muslims, and deport immigrants is by voting Democrat in the fall. The party for all its flaws is the only thing standing in the way of disaster for those groups.
I'd say "coalesced" is a bit of an exaggeration. Regardless, if you're worried about your nominee losing the general despite being, arguably, the second most visible active politician in the United States then it might be time to look in the mirror. Hillary and the Democrats are really going to have to earn this loss.
"You guys aren't making progress fast enough! Better burn your party down from the inside and hand it over to the Republicans so they can rollback recent progress to teach you guys a lesson about not moving fast enough!"
I mean, this is basically what it is. They aren't progressives, they certainly aren't Democrats and if you look at the verbiage, their hate for the Democratic party in general is pretty damn thick. It's not really about policy, or SC justices or any of that. If you look at it that way all of it makes sense, the Bernie or Trump guys, the constant gnawing about supposed corruption, the hatred of the 'establishment', the desire to split the party or do anything that would harm its frontrunner.
This doesn't describe all of his followers, just the extremist ones going on about how they cant wait to vote Trump.
Yeah and I've actually read Bernie supporters saying that we should vote for trump because he is secretly leftish on war and is lying while we should not vote for Clinton because she is secretly hawkish and is lying.
Like wut? They think they understand the minds of every candidate well enough to bet on trump and his secret morals???
Punchy4486
Banned
And while "principled progressives" make their childish stand against Hillary, the Republicans are issuing States of Emergency over trans bathroom issues, trying to remove licenses from doctors who perform abortions, making it harder for minorities to vote, obstructing and shutting down the government every chance they get, trying to overturn the ACA, and promoting a candidate that wants to bring back torture, commit war crimes flagrantly and without remorse, and kill innocent family members of terrorists while instituting a ban on Muslim travel and an expensive and ineffective wall across the Mexican border.
But those "progressives" sure showed Hillary for not being progressive enough. All they do is make it easier for people who want the above to get in power. Trying in vain to shout "no half measures" as the floor falls out beneath them. It's disgusting frankly and it is ruining the lives of real people.
Sure, to some extent it's the systems fault for not exciting enough people to get the vote if she loses. But it is also the fault of voters who don't understand why this system works better if people vote for "the lesser evil" if their preferred candidate isn't available.
TLDR: Something's better than nothing.
- Status