Dixon's Jet
Banned
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...get-brian-williams-its-hillary-clin/?page=all
Telling insane lies to gain public support.
Bernie Sanders reaches Two Million Individual Contributions
- Thread starter noshten
- Start date
- Status
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...get-brian-williams-its-hillary-clin/?page=all
Telling insane lies to gain public support.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I don't care who you vote for in the primaries. I'm voting for Sanders. But I'll be voting for Hillary in November 2016 since she will be the nominee. And any so called liberal who stays home because their guy didn't win is a god damn fool. Given what's at stake.
That post which I previously read answers none of my questions. It deflects it, and actually makes your position even less sustainable.
I am an American. I know how our political system actually works. No amount of masturbating about our fever dreams of candidates is going to change that
a.) Americans hate socialists more than Muslims, which Bernie actually claims to be unlike Obama
b.) That Bernie is indisputably less electable than Hillary and that every poll confirms this fact.
c.) That even in the statistically unlikely chance Bernie were to beat every odd stacked against him (as if he is the socialist candidate with the charisma to actually be able to change the entire countries views on the issue haha), then none of his policies are getting enacted anyway.
Last mid-terms, Democrats received more than 2 million extra votes nationwide in House elections and still lost 20 seats. You know, the same number of extra votes that Bernie has in individual contributors to his campaign. That's how bad the Gerrymandered system is.
And here's the thing: there is nothing actually that Bernie can do to change that system. Literally, nothing. That's not allowing "The Corporatocracy of American politics has beat [me] down", that's understanding how reality works in our political system. The next census isn't for years yet, and he'd have to win a second election to even begin taking advantage of that, and that's only if Democrats immediately counter gerrymander districts around the nation to counter Republican corruption on that front (so corruption for corruption). And even then, the reality is it will take years to change how badly gerrymandered this country is. Bernie is never going to see a world in which he is president and can enact his policies.
In the end Bernie is not going to be elected. He is not going to be able to change the conversation about these issues, because he won't be able to get any of them passed and the country fucking hates socialists and still does. And it is not worth wasting a vote in my view and prolonging a primary season for someone who has no chance of winning and no chance of passing his policies when something as ACTUALLY important as Supreme Court Justices are on the line.
Because I am American, and I actually understand the implications of a Republican winning just because we wanted to hoist up ideology over the reality of what we have to work with. I understand that the court leans conservative as it is, and if we lose even one liberal justice the Supreme Court will be destroyed for generations. I understand what it means for real people who will really be hurt by this shit; by the rights that will be taken away from them, by the politically motivated laws that will be enshrined due to certain voters desire to start a "conversation" that was never going to amount to anything anyway.
Here's the thing, change will happen. Americans like me who appreciate Bernie's policies views more than Hillary's but understand he has no shot are not giving in to anything. Because in America, from the very first day this country was founded, politics has been about capitalizing on opportunity and understanding when the right time is for something. Now is demonstrably not the right time for Bernie, since he is not in a position to be able to change the root causes for the problems fucking up our political system - not Campaign Contributions from Corporations (Supreme Court nomination importance highlighted once again), not the gerrymandered congressional elections, not anything. So it is not the right time. We'd be risking something genuinely important for something that was already a long shot so that he can get into office and do nothing.
That's what this is.
I'm talking to the people being negative to Bernie Sanders who's trying to change this dynamic.
When it's not your ass on the GOP's chopping block, it's often a lot easier to be pickier about candidate "purity."
In a way, it's a variation of the "fuck you, I've got mine" attitude we see from GOP voters. Which is sad, coming from progressives.
Instead, it's "Awww.. FuckIt - I'll be okay!"
Most Canadians actually didn't vote in Harper in the past, he got in because the vote was split on the left.
Coriolanus
Banned
I'd remind you that going the pragmatic centrist route is no safe bet either, as seen with both Gore and Kerry.
AnotherDayAnotherDollar
Banned
I vehemently disagree.
Amirox you are lost in the current circumstances of your political system instead of looking at it from an outsider perspective and an overall prospective. If you can change the constitutes, then you have a chance to change the representatives. This is a core tenant of democracy, and this does not need to happen during an election.
If you can make these topics like income inequality into a political item they bring up to their representative, the representative is presented with a challenge to their future political aspirations because they risk their re-election by not aligning with their constitutes.
And if you don't think this can happen, who here thinks lower of Americans then?
If you can make these topics like income inequality into a political item they bring up to their representative, the representative is presented with a challenge to their future political aspirations because they risk their re-election by not aligning with their constitutes.
And if you don't think this can happen, who here thinks lower of Americans then?
Bernie Sanders isn't really a socialist. He calls himself one to be unique and edgy, basically. It's an interesting tactic, and I'm not sure if it's hurt him or helped him.
I'm not saying Hillary is 100% to win. Nobody is always 100% to win. It's about probabilities. She has a much, much higher probability of winning.
If I were a gambler (which, I mean, voting is kind of like, only you're gambling on which candidate might do better), I'd put my money down on the number or color that I felt gave me the best odds of winning and getting the outcome I desire. Right now, the outcome I desire is a candidate which can nominate liberal justices to the Supreme Court, since that is probably the most significant thing any Democratic president will have to deal with the next presidential term. Bernie and Hillary would both nominate liberal justices, but only Hillary has a real shot at winning the Presidential Election. Neither Hillary nor Bernie are going to be able to pass much of anything through Congress, so that's what it's about.
Veritigo_X
Member
You're reaching if that's the best you could come up with. I was expecting some corrupt shit from the way you were talking.
Lying about that definitely isn't a good look, but it's relatively minor in the grand scheme of things.
Dixon's Jet
Banned
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/henry-kissinger-praise-hillary-clinton-110755
I'll try again. Your response that this stuff has nothing to do with her corruption is astonishing. Do you also not care about how she went to Trump's wedding? Do you think Trump only just became a vile man now that he's in debates?
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Hillary is good enough and popular enough to win a general election and keep us on a left leaning progression. Bernie's ideas are awesome, but too much is at risk if he were to lose, and he has a lot going against him. Hillary will help secure our path forward to one day actually having a viable candidate like Bernie in our future.
Hillary is good enough and popular enough to win a general election and keep us on a left leaning progression. Bernie's ideas are awesome, but too much is at risk if he were to lose, and he has a lot going against him. Hillary will help secure our path forward to one day actually having a viable candidate like Bernie in our future.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Nah.
You're obvious talking about the famous Gallup poll here, which asked whether people would vote for someone to be President even if they were _____. More people said yes to Muslim than socialist. However, this is obviously true - there are some Republican voters (probably a fair few, actually), who would rather vote for a Muslim Republican than a non-Muslim Democrat. However, there are no Republican voters who would rather vote for a socialist Republican than a non-socialist Democrat - simply because "socialist Republican" is an oxymoron, it doesn't exist. So, essentially, asking people if they would consider voting a President who is socialist is pretty close to just asking their voting intention. At 47%, this was basically the same figure as people who said they'd definitely vote Democrat at the time of the poll.
Quinnipac has Clinton beating Trump by 6, Sanders beating Trump by 8; Clinton beating Cruz by 5, Sanders beating Cruz by 10; Clinton beating Rubio by 1, Sanders beating Rubio by 1.
"Every" poll. ¯\_(ツ
_/¯or to quote PPP(D)
and all this is with only a quarter of the country knowing who he is! Not bad, Sanders, not bad.
Sanders beats Republican candidates by bigger margins than Clinton. That has a downstream effect, because if you turn up to vote Sanders, you probably vote for a Democratic senator or representative too. That means a more Democratic senate and house, which means more Democratic policies. Not the full board, no - but more than Clinton.
C'mon, fellers. It's vitally important that the Democrats keep the Presidency, retake the House, the Senate, and defend the Supreme Court. That's why you gotta vote Sanders.
Henchmen21
Banned
Not true
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/12/trump-third-party-bid-could-doom-gop-in-swing-state.html
Edit: beaten by Crab
Everytime. It is amazing how so many want to discredit hilary. "I dont trust her" is so fucking lazy.
Bernie was done when he opened his mouth on foreign policy. He was further buried when he said "less than 90%" regarding taxes to fulfill his proposed policies. Its pie in the fuckin sky, yet incredibly easy to campaign on. A guy claiming to be a socialist after the obama election shitshow? Good luck winning the primary even if he did beat hilary.
The real energy needs to be focused on midterms as one party with the goal of taking back congress.
I am not "lost", I'm clearly understanding the obstacles that we must overcome in order to get policies like Bernie's in place. Because someone who has only ideology but no clear plan to implement that ideology is essentially worthless as a candidate. He's basically Ron Paul at that point.
Yes, we can change the constitution and we can change our representatives. But you are still not understanding why that's not going to happen right now. That's the important part: it's not happening right now or the next four years when the Presidential (whoever that is) is elected. And it's not because we think it's impossible to ever happen, but because certain things have to first occur for that change to be possible.
a.) Democrats have to get control of redistricting from the GOP
b.) In order to do that, they have to have people participate in the census and the results of that census must be favorable to Democrats.
c.) But the next census is not until 2020.
The alternative is that they'd need to win some insanely unlikely mandate during mid-term elections, winning something like 56% of the vote in order to outpace just how much GOP have gerrymandered the election cycle and gain most seats (and that's just the first hurdle: then we'd have to hope the so-called "Blue Dog Democrats" aren't a big constituency of that new election class, gumming up the works at every turn as they did on Health Care reform). That's simply not going to happen once again if you understand our political system of the moment, and no amount of conversations are going to be able to change that within the next three years which is what would be required to get in under the next mid-terms.
To me, it seems like you have a great misunderstanding of American politics:
You're misunderstanding the nuance of my position based on this. Because it's not impossible, it's just not possible at the moment. That's why I was talking about the right time and place sort of thing. And that's decidedly American: even Boehner understood that the history of American politics is the history of incremental change. People compromise and get little victories, until eventually it adds up to a huge victory.
What Bernie supporters want is some massive change overnight, which is what many Obama supporters unrealistically wanted from him as well. But the reality is that's not how our system is set up. It is very rare when the conditions are right for a candidate to put that big of an imprint on our system (say, like FDR did due to WWII and the Depression).
Right now the reality is that were Bernie to beat the slim odds and get elected, none of his policies would get passed. And that's not giving in to anything, that's understanding how our system works. Eventually the country will be in a place where a candidate like Bernie can be elected and have his policies put into place. It's just not now, and won't be for at least another decade or two.
Dixon's Jet
Banned
Your response is actually extremely lazy itself. If she's so willing to compromise on whatever she believes, like on gay marriage, how is she going to handle the republicans?
Septimus Prime
Member
Not to mention that if Sanders gets the nom, there may be less voter apathy from Democrats, since the election wouldn't be considered in the bag.
Personally, I will vote for Sanders in the primaries and then vote for whomever wins the nom in the general.
Veritigo_X
Member
Connect the dots. Make your argument.
For examples of her corruption being "off the charts" you've given me: Bosnian sniper fire (which I admitted was wrong of her, she admitted it too), Kissinger saying saying she was a better Secretary of State than he was, and going to Trump's wedding 10 years ago (a large NYC event with 450 people attending).
She's not the nom until she is the nom, you are not some soothsayer fortune teller... her bid is not set in stone.
PhoenixDark
Banned
It is set in stone, unless she goes to jail.
There is literally nothing to suggest Sanders can beat Hillary. The fact that he's doing decent in lily white states (Iowa, NH) while being crushed in states with large inner cities should tell you something.
He's just not the right candidate to win over the groups of people he needs to beat Hillary.
You keep focusing on elections Amirox as that's the only time change occurs. What I'm speaking about has nothing to do with American politics but a base tenant of democracy.
Let's go through a situation.
My name is John Doe and I live in Georgia and my representative is Buddy Carter. I am traditionally a Republican and voted in Buddy Carter during the mid-term elections because I wasn't seeing positive change. But I am having issues paying my medical bills and putting my kids through college. Someone is able to get through to me and I realize while I am a fiscal conservative, maybe some things should be handled by the government as the current situation isn't helping me or my kids. So I want my representative to make these a priority. Maybe I attend a constitute meeting and start voicing my concern and others join with me. Now Buddy Carter needs to evaluate party priorities and his donor priorities against adjusted priorities of my constitutes. Buddy needs these people to get re-elected, so maybe he brings it up during party discussions that he needs some compromise here to get re-elected in a couple years or it sways his vote on certain items to balance his 3 political priorities to secure a re-election in the next vote.
You are focused on the Buddy Carter and not the John Doe of the story. John Doe is where change needs to happen.
If you don't think John is able to change, then again, I ask you - who thinks less of Americans then?
Hillary won't change John Doe. Bernie Sanders may.
Let's go through a situation.
My name is John Doe and I live in Georgia and my representative is Buddy Carter. I am traditionally a Republican and voted in Buddy Carter during the mid-term elections because I wasn't seeing positive change. But I am having issues paying my medical bills and putting my kids through college. Someone is able to get through to me and I realize while I am a fiscal conservative, maybe some things should be handled by the government as the current situation isn't helping me or my kids. So I want my representative to make these a priority. Maybe I attend a constitute meeting and start voicing my concern and others join with me. Now Buddy Carter needs to evaluate party priorities and his donor priorities against adjusted priorities of my constitutes. Buddy needs these people to get re-elected, so maybe he brings it up during party discussions that he needs some compromise here to get re-elected in a couple years or it sways his vote on certain items to balance his 3 political priorities to secure a re-election in the next vote.
You are focused on the Buddy Carter and not the John Doe of the story. John Doe is where change needs to happen.
If you don't think John is able to change, then again, I ask you - who thinks less of Americans then?
Hillary won't change John Doe. Bernie Sanders may.
JesseEwiak
Member
Because some of us remember 2000, and remember how smug Nader voters were as the world went to shit for 8 years simply because Al Gore wasn't liberal enough for them.
I line up more with Sanders than Clinton on the issues, but I also understand you don't change the US to Sweden overnight. Every positive change in American history has been bit by bloody bit, all while the Left of the time complained about liberal sellouts while those liberal sellouts did the hard work of actual governing.
JesseEwiak
Member
I don't think less of Americans, I just know actual political history and that Buddy Carter knows what I know - he doesn't need to be worried about John Doe, because a single political candidate isn't going to change decades of voting patterns in midterms, so he needs to worry about a Republican primary because he's in a gerrymandered seat where becoming more moderate and voting for anything a socialist who went to honeymoon in the Soviet Union supports is a political death sentence.
Which means you don't think John Doe can change.
Dixon's Jet
Banned
In the first example, Hillary Clinton comes out of nowhere with this lie about her courage under sniper fire in Bosnia. It was utterly fabricated, and this kind of gaffe could normally be career ending. Hillary Clinton conceded that she misspoke, nothing more. I think her motive to lie about the sniper attack is open to interpretation and none of it leads me to anything encouraging.
Henry Kissinger is that fellow responsible for bombing Cambodia during the Vietnam war, as well as an attempted revolution in Chile. Hillary was shilling for his new book in 2014.
You haven't dismissed my point. Why did Hillary Clinton go to his wedding? Donald Trump admits to giving all of this money to politicians. Donald Trump is a terrible, disgusting person.
Hillary really gets along with neocons. You could say they're in bed together.
You mean like how she handled them for 20 years? Or like how she handled them in one day's worth of nationally televised insanity?
"I don't trust her" is lazy. Your deflection is also lazy.
dehydratedbabies
Member
You say "understand" a lot.
JesseEwiak
Member
Oh, I believe John Doe can change, just not in any way that helps non-white people. The last 50 years of people voting against their own economic interests because some of the benefits might go to brown or black people has proven that.
I'm sorry I don't believe in a rainbows and puppies future of the world. There's lot of assholes and they vote, and they aren't going to be changed because a socialist Jew from Brooklyn points out some statistics.
That applies to any democrat. By continuing to be rational. I also mentioned midterms as being critical for that reason.
Im saying bernies campaign stances arent nearly as realistic. He hasnt laid out how he plans to pay for it. Republicans dont want to be taxed. He actually said "less than 90%" because the truth would undermine his positive campaign platform. If he beats hilary, strong chance of a republican in chief because the word "socialist" alone is kryptonite.
Republicans are legit shook by hilary, and is built in every rebuttal. Bernie isnt even a talking point.
How does a compliment from Kissinger and going to Trump's wedding make her in bed with neocons?
Then you do think less of Americans.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Pretty poorly, to be honest. Her only major initiative Hillarycare went nowhere, and she's now believed to be dishonest, untrustworthy and out of touch by more than half of American voters. That hardly speaks for her political adroitness.
Dixon's Jet
Banned
She handled them for twenty years? We invaded Iraq in 2003. Hillary voted for it for some reason. She voted for the patriot act too.
Once again it's clear you have no idea how our gerrymandered system works, and why the scenario you mention is a fever dream. You can change an individual voter. You can. But you either need a transformational candidate ala Obama with an insane amount of charisma - which Bernie is neither - combined with some significant historic event that favors Democrats (say, the economy fails under a Republican candidate) in order to gain a massive majority of votes (56%+) or you need to fix the gerrymandered political system.
Because what the gerrymandered system says is that you can change enough voters so that you get a massive majority and STILL not win the most seats in the House. And that's the problem. The two routes to getting that changed is by fixing our gerrymandered system (2020 is the next census, then the redistricting would need to start - so 2022 or 2024 at earliest is when this could be changed) or by having a candidate which can somehow gain a massive number of votes to offset that gerrymandering (56% or more would need to be the result, something that rarely happens even in the craziest of lopsided elections. And we'd need to change historically low voter turn out in mid-terms especially for Democrats, something that hasn't been changed for generations with far more charismatic and transformational figures than Bernie).
So, it will happen at some point in this country, but it's not going to happen with Bernie for the zillion reasons mentioned.
So right now we're voting for someone who has the best change to get into office and nominate Supreme Court Justices. That's Hillary. And the numbers support it.
Dixon's Jet
Banned
A compliment from Kissinger, an acknowledgement of a friendship of many years, and a very generous response from Clinton to Kissinger.
And Trump boasts to everyone that he buys politicians. Hillary was at his wedding. I doubt she had to go if she didn't want to.
How does it not?
You should follow what hilarycare evolved into.. hinthint.
And theres that unsubstantiated "dont trust" talking point again.
Also I don't know how you can deny that Hilary is bought. She may be able to enact policies that aren't a donor item but she does have a lot of donors she has to accommodate to.
You guys really need to reform that aspect of your "democracy" right away. Here is how the Canadian system works:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_Canada
You guys really need to reform that aspect of your "democracy" right away. Here is how the Canadian system works:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_Canada
JesseEwiak
Member
Well, part of that is of course, Sanders supports happily posting Brietbart articles as proof Hillary is corrupt.
But hey, I'd rather be considered that by the American voter - they've happily voted for people they consider that - than a self admitted socialist who has yet to face a billion dollars in ads with instead of deceptive ads, just your own words stating you're a socialist and how you went to the USSR on your honeymoon.
Because... it doesn't. Niceties exchanged between two past SoSs doesn't make her a neocon. People can disagree and be pleasant to one another at the same time.
Bernie Sanders is not going to change John Doe.
Most John Does voting for Republicans are older, white, and set in their ways, with some idea that the past under Reagan was glorious. They watch and believe Fox News. The way John Doe changes in America is through immigration (Hispanics and Asians), demographics (old vs young), current societal attitudes (Occupy, BLM, gun control) and time.
No one person can change John Doe as instantaneously as a period of 4 years, short of some catastrophic event. Even after years of failed Bush, Obama's political capital was drastically spent in the implementation of one major policy legislation before the population turned against the tide of progressives again. This is the country that adamantly refuses to budge on gun control after the murder of dozens of children.
The face of John Doe won't change because of Bernie. It's already changed for the future, but right now we still have to deal with dying relics. A mountain isn't climbed through optimism, it's climbed through training and endurance.
how do we reform it "right away"?
That's right, we can't. The things that would need to happen to change it will take time with our political system. The president, whoever they are, does not have the power once elected to change this.
Dixon's Jet
Banned
But we're talking about Henry Kissinger, as I said he's the man responsible for the bombing of Cambodia and revolution in Chile.
He's guilty of war crimes.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Sure. But that was delivered by Obama - precisely because Clinton couldn't cut it by herself.
CNN/ORC - 42% find trustworthy to 57% do not.
Quinnipac - 35% to 61%
Fox - 35% to 59%
'murica don't trust Clinton.
Not saying this is my view, I think she's as trustworthy as she needs to be; but I'm saying that frankly Clinton has been pisspoor at actually managing to avoid Republican attacks. Hardly makes me think she'll handle in office negotiations well when she gets painted into a corner so easily.
I definitely understand it. I don't think you understand my perspective.
John Doe is a person in a district that due to gerrymandering ensures that the house is filled with Republicans. You need to change the people in these districts.
It's OK to say you don't think Bernie Sanders can do it, but that's the only way you're going to influence real change by changing John Doe. And Hillary is not even targeting these people. Bernie is at least trying to change the thoughts and priorities of everyone by making the issues political items.
She embarrassed the Republicans after like a zillion hours of withering attacks to her face over Benghazi. That's not the issue we have to worry about.
Tabris said:
Yes, they will change. But time has a much, much, much better shot at changing them then Bernie does (i.e. shifting demographics wildly favor Democrats, so over time the inevitable will happen) and the way things are set up it IS basically impossible for Bernie to change enough minds or enact his policies.
So we're back at the ground floor. Hillary is easily more electable than Bernie, we're doing this right now for Supreme Court justices essentially, and the change you seek in our political system is still a decade or so out. I.e., it's not the right time and I won't risk losing for ideology.
Coriolanus
Banned
Eh, they did poll by party affiliation
I do wonder how the map has changed. Right now i'd guess that muslims are considerably lower.
- Status