This is the double standard that I keep seeing. If Bernie can't be the savior, it's not enough to earn your support. And as long as Hillary isn't the devil, it's good enough to earn your support.
Is it a double standard? This is literally what I said:
- The country won't become great because we vote for Bernie Sanders.
- It also won't be plunged into 8 years of darkness because we vote for Hillary Clinton.
How is that a double standard? If I had said:
- The country won't become great because we vote for Bernie Sanders.
- The country will become great because we vote for Hillary Clinton.
That would be a double standard. Don't use the term "double standard" unless you know what it means?
I think you are very passive aggressive about your dislike of Hillary Clinton. When I read your posts, I'm not thinking about whether I support Hillary or Bernie, but rather about how desperate you are to make your candidate look better that you sprout a lot of lies about his opponent. And you can't help but to sprinkle at least one in every single one of your posts, despite your attempts to be fresh and 'above' the conflict.
The issue isn't so much that I'm judging Bernie by a double standard as you are insistent about backhanding Hillary in some way in everything you post, regardless of whether it is truth or lie. Neither Bernie nor Hillary are running negative campaigns against each other! Why so defensive?
I think you getting engaged in politics is good, but you have to maintain perspective. I even went and asked a mod about a potential Bernie Sanders campaign OT for you since you made that meeting thread (the mod said that it might count as self-promotion, so it amounted to nothing). But the passive aggressive approach you have, it chillingly resembles the Republican mantra of the past 20 years. It feels almost as if you have bought into the Republican bullcrap selling Hillary and Bill Clinton as criminals, corporate puppets, as
devils. And that is what is particularly disturbing about all of this opposition to Hillary, because it seems like people have grown up surrounded by media about that narrative, to the point where they now believe it.
I thought with the internet and the increased availability of information, that we who are more savvy about information would know better.
This election is about the question: can someone who truly wants corrupting influences out of the political process and sticks to that belief win the Presidency?
If that answer is NO, then at the core, regardless of the severity of their stance, whether you have a republican like Jeb Bush, or a democrat like Hillary in the White house matters very little. Because they are still beholden to the puppet holding the strings. Where the money comes from and those beneficiaries.
You can have someone who supports corps without reform obviously like the scott walkers, the jeb bush's and the Rand Paul's. Or you can have someone who supports corps without reform while lying and saying they really don't like Hillary.
Here is what I think: you have the benefit of making the election ONLY about that question.
I'm female, and I'm Asian. I have a friend who had to stop working four weeks ago because his work permit expired and no matter what he does, immigration services still hasn't sent him his new one that he applied for months ago. He's fast sinking into depression about his status in the country, despite being in the US since he was a kid and growing up in America (he's a high school friend). My mother doesn't like a high electricity bill, so for most of the sweltering hot days last month, we didn't turn on the air conditioner. She had trouble sleeping a lot of nights because she doesn't like having the fan on all the time (she believes in fan death).
For me, for women, for blacks, for Hispanics, the election is not
solely about the question of corrupting influences in the political process. Republicans have been persistently attacking abortion and Planned Parenthood; in Texas, a state with a population of 25 million, there are less than 10 abortion clinics available to service the women of the state. I need not go into detail about African Americans given that we've had two lengthy threads about Black Lives Matter and Bernie Sanders, but needless to say when they're losing their lives out there, their first and foremost concern is not about "wanting the corrupting influences out of the political process". Hispanics want to have a future; they want to be able to work, and not have to worry about their families being torn apart because of differences in legal status.
I want the climate and environment situation to improve. I don't like hot days, and I worry we don't have enough resources to sustain the population until we increase the potential of full blown civilization in space.
If you would like to argue that Hillary Clinton does not differentiate from any of the Republican candidates on issues of women, racial issues, immigration, and climate change, feel free. If you think none of those issues are important enough to you to use your vote on, that is your freedom also.
YOU have the liberty of basing your vote on one issue. I look at the big picture, and I know that even if I don't get exactly what I want, I know where I want the ship to steer. This is the same approach I took in 2008 when I voted for Obama.
By the way, the only way your vote could be weaker than mine is if you live in California. Mine is in NYC. Granted, voting down the ticket in Cali might be more useful than mine (I'm firmly in NYC, which means even at the state assembly level we're almost guaranteed a liberal representative).
Yet even a weak vote is a vote.
Okay not only are you assuming things that I did not say, but you're also attempting to cut me out of the conversation because I "only paying attention to politics during presidential election years." (and that second part is another assumption on your part)
How twisted are you that your arguments are completely unsubstantiated and you have to denigrate the validity of my vote?
Am I cutting you out of the conversation? I engaged you and told you why I thought your statements were problematic. Did I denigrate the validity of your vote by truthfully telling you how the country won't become great because of one person? Is it considered 'excluding' you because I told you how you weren't engaged in the process, which limits your knowledge of the issues and the field?
If you felt excluded because of my statements, I apologize. I also have difficulty seeing where I was making arguments; they were mostly a list of common sense things, like
- It takes more than one person to make a country great
- The country won't become great because we vote for Bernie Sanders
- The country won't plunge into darkness because we vote for Hillary Clinton
- Even if Bernie becomes president, the lack of interest and participation in midterm elections will screw him over
- The world doesn't run on extremes
- The world doesn't run on idealism
Is it really 'twisted' to say the world doesn't run on idealism?
If you read those as arguments, sure, they're unsubstantiated. But I would think something like "it takes more than one person to make a country great" doesn't actually require argument. Even a president needs to cooperate with Congress, and he needs a Cabinet to back him up. We're in a country of 300 million people.
