Support NeoGAF

[Michael F. Assbender]

I'm setting the party's platform. You reject candidates you disagree with, you vote for ones you agree with. I voted for the person I agree most with in the primaries, they have my data.

Now they burn.

You vote for the ones you agree with. And that would be Donald Trump?

Or are you just throwing a hissy fit and hoping the Democratic Party notices? They won't. If Hillary wins the general, the party stays as it is (or pivots slightly left due to Sanders' good showing). If Hillary loses the general, the party says "Our center-left candidate couldn't even beat a severe Conservative like Cruz or a nut job like Trump. We need to move more to the right to gain votes."

Not to mention the fact that, if a Republican stacks SCOTUS with Conservatives, the first time a candidate like Bernie Sanders actually makes it to the presidency, he's up against a court that will strike down every initiative he gets through whenever a Republican governor decides to sue the government because they don't want to follow the agenda of a Liberal president.

So good job fucking everyone and everything up for everyone because your favoritest candidate didn't win and now you need to throw a temper tantrum.

 

[Valhelm]

trump is going to be president, isn't he

Our best hope is that Cruz and Romney can take him down

 

[pigeon]

Yes. You are fundamentally corrupt by taking large donations by corporations and the wealthy.

You are correct.

Sanders is a national politician and he does not. It might not be practical, but it is possible.

Okay, I understand your position and I agree that it's clear.

I think it is fundamentally incorrect to condemn somebody who works within a corrupt system to accomplish great things and prefer somebody who accepts not accomplishing things as the cost of not working within the corrupt system. Because accomplishing things is actually really important!

But I think that's just the bedrock distinction between our views.

 

[BrutishMrFish]

Pro single payer
Pro free undergrad tuition
Pro GLBT
Pro death penalty
Pro right to choose
Pro progressive tax reform on top 1% for redistribution of wealth
Pro drug legalization
Pro cutting defense budget and increasing infrastructure budget
Anti PAC/citizens united
Anti mexican wall
Anti mass deportation
Whiter than white bread and won't pretend to know what to do to improve race relations

"I don't want a wall or mass deportations. Better vote Trump!"

But seriously, if you're willing to vote for Trump for whatever reason, then you're only for or against most of the things you listed in the most half-assed sense possible.

 

[DragonSworne]

You vote for the ones you agree with. And that would be Donald Trump?

Or are you just throwing a hissy fit and hoping the Democratic Party notices? They won't. If Hillary wins the general, the party stays as it is (or pivots slightly left due to Sanders' good showing). If Hillary loses the general, the party says "Our center-left candidate couldn't even beat a severe Conservative like Cruz or a nut job like Trump. We need to move more to the right to gain votes."

Not to mention the fact that, if a Republican stacks SCOTUS with Conservatives, the first time a candidate like Bernie Sanders actually makes it to the presidency, he's up against a court that will strike down every initiative he gets through whenever a Republican governor decides to sue the government because they don't want to follow the agenda of a Liberal president.

So good job fucking everyone and everything up for everyone because your favoritest candidate didn't win and now you need to throw a temper tantrum.

I don't trust Hillary to nominate a liberal justice so bringing up the SCOTUS is not that convincing. We need Bernie in the WH.

 

[hawk2025]

Yes. You are fundamentally corrupt by taking large donations by corporations and the wealthy.

You are correct.

Sanders is a national politician and he does not. It might not be practical, but it is possible.

Do you disagree that the current system is fundamentally corrupt? Should more money allow you to sway legislation and elections in your favor?

So now you can understand your question on "It's amazing to me how (...)".

Your posts are consistently and fundamentally begging the question.

Of course it's amazing to you that people would think differently. Your assumption already assumed the conclusion is true.

 

[ugaboga232]

Okay, I understand your position and I agree that it's clear.

I think it is fundamentally incorrect to condemn somebody who works within a corrupt system to accomplish great things and prefer somebody who accepts not accomplishing things as the cost of not working within the corrupt system. Because accomplishing things is actually really important!

But I think that's just the bedrock distinction between our views.

I think the problem that bothers us is that an important accomplishment would be changing the system, which would be against the interests of someone who accomplishes things with this system.

 

[BoboBrazil]

Our best hope is that Cruz and Romney can take him down

Trump would be a better president than Cruz.

 

[Valhelm]

Trump would be a better president than Cruz.

He stands a much greater chance of being elected than Cruz does

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Republicans have less to lose, and it's not even close. They can revolt for a populist racist and if they don't get their way, so what, on the next one... It's not that easy for Democrats, who tend to be the party of minorities, who absolutely have something to lose.

 

[Hige]

Wreav doesn't live in a swing state based on my brief detective work. His one vote will not tip the scales in Hillary's favor (or Trump's). But GAF loves to guilt-trip anyone not voting for her lol.

 

[Wreav]

"I don't want a wall or mass deportations. Better vote Trump!"

But seriously, if you're willing to vote for Trump for whatever reason, then you're only for or against most of the things you listed in the most half-assed sense possible.

Part of me (a small part) thinks that Trump is saying literally anything to get to the White House. That same small part of me thinks he'd be an alright centrist president who will quickly change his tune on inauguration day.

And yeah, still better than Ted "I'm wearing my victim's face" Cruz.

 

[MThanded]

Wreav doesn't live in a swing state based on my brief detective work. His one vote will not tip the scales in Hillary's favor. But GAF loves to guilt-trip anyone not voting for her lol.

He caught heat because of his switch from Bernie to Trump.

I think that heat was expected.

 

[damisa]

It's not about her specifically being a sellout and evil. It is her being ok and working within a system that is fundamentally corrupt.

Money in politics does not only influence politicians it influences constituents.
Should people and corporations with more money not only be able to "bribe" politicians, but sway the american people one way or the other? that is the issue.

Let's say Hillary was tougher on banks than she is now. Then Wall Street would stop donating to her and completely go hard in to the GOP. Would Hillary supporters be ok with that? Of course not.

How her supporters fail to see the problem is amazing to me.

I don't know why so many Bernie supporters keep confusing "Wall Street" donations with donations from people who happen to work for Wall Street. Working for wall street doesn't make you evil, it doesn't mean you can't support higher taxes for rich people, or universal healthcare.

I also don't know why Bernie supporters are so anti-wall street banks in general. It's not enough to just properly regulate them like every other industry, they need to be broken up and half of the executives put in jail

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

I don't trust Hillary to nominate a liberal justice so bringing up the SCOTUS is not that convincing. We need Bernie in the WH.

You don't? Why? Her husband had no issue doing so.

 

[Tesseract]

The divide is growing, just say no to 8 more years of neoliberlism

 

[boiled goose]

Okay, I understand your position and I agree that it's clear.

I think it is fundamentally incorrect to condemn somebody who works within a corrupt system to accomplish great things and prefer somebody who accepts not accomplishing things as the cost of not working within the corrupt system. Because accomplishing things is actually really important!

But I think that's just the bedrock distinction between our views.

Yes and I think that would be a fair position to have.
I'm glad that after a few weeks we are finally seeing eye to eye.

Hillary is great at working the system. I dont blame her personally or individually for the system. I dont think she (and obama) like the system. I dont think they like having to constantly compromise with special interests.

Sanders is representing an increasing number of people who are sick of getting the scraps that the current system allows. slow progress is possible, but it all has to be approved by all the special interests at play. People want the system to work based on actual representation and not money.

Studies show legislation correlates with the views of the wealthy and corporations and not the people. Income inequality increasing is another consequence of this. The rules are rigged.

I don't know why so many Bernie supporters keep confusing "Wall Street" donations with donations from people who happen to work for Wall Street. Working for wall street doesn't make you evil, it doesn't mean you can't support higher taxes for rich people, or universal healthcare.

I also don't know why Bernie supporters are so anti-wall street banks in general. It's not enough to just properly regulate them like every other industry, they need to be broken up and half of the executives put in jail

Two things here.
First. The corporations themselves donate to politicians, not just individuals. If you don't know this you are not informed.

Second. Working at Wall Street doesnt make you evil .I never said that. However, if you are wealthy and you donate a disproportionate amount of money to a politician you are skewing both their policy and the electorate.
If a Wall street employee and a waitress both donate $25 dollars and have different views, that is totally fine!!!

The problem comes when one or a few donors donate millions of dollars. That is what Sanders supporters don't like. These donations are basically legalized bribes. Need money to win an election? Guess you have to do what I want to get my money! and on top of that, I get to make ads and influence voters in your favor.

Think Big Oil. why are so many republicans climate change deniers? Why are so many republicans misinformed on climate change? money money money.

The same thing applies to Wall street.

Do you understand now?

 

[giga]

I don't trust Hillary to nominate a liberal justice so bringing up the SCOTUS is not that convincing. We need Bernie in the WH.

😂😂😂

 

[Boke1879]

Wreav doesn't live in a swing state based on my brief detective work. His one vote will not tip the scales in Hillary's favor. But GAF loves to guilt-trip anyone not voting for her lol.

I mean if that's what you want to deduce from the conversation. I could care less if he doesn't vote for her. But why would someone who's against EVERYTHING Trumps stands for vote for him?

It's literally someone made his far left candidate didn't win so let me throw a tantrum to try and help screw over minorities, women, and vote for someone the rest of the world openly doesn't want to deal with. All the while most likely nominating a conservative to the SC.

 

[border]

Sanders is a national politician and he does not. It might not be practical, but it is possible.

Sanders has the luxury of being an extreme liberal running as a senator for a very liberal, very small, very white state. What he's accomplished couldn't be done in probably 40-45 states. How many other states have elected 3rd party senators?

 

[Valhelm]

You don't? Why? Her husband had no issue doing so.

Hillary would certainly nominate somebody who is socially progressive, but social issues are absolutely not the be-all, end-all of the political spectrum

 

[Steel]

I don't trust Hillary to nominate a liberal justice so bringing up the SCOTUS is not that convincing. We need Bernie in the WH.

What even is this?

 

[Tigress]

You vote for the ones you agree with. And that would be Donald Trump?

Or are you just throwing a hissy fit and hoping the Democratic Party notices? They won't. If Hillary wins the general, the party stays as it is (or pivots slightly left due to Sanders' good showing). If Hillary loses the general, the party says "Our center-left candidate couldn't even beat a severe Conservative like Cruz or a nut job like Trump. We need to move more to the right to gain votes."

Not to mention the fact that, if a Republican stacks SCOTUS with Conservatives, the first time a candidate like Bernie Sanders actually makes it to the presidency, he's up against a court that will strike down every initiative he gets through whenever a Republican governor decides to sue the government because they don't want to follow the agenda of a Liberal president.

So good job fucking everyone and everything up for everyone because your favoritest candidate didn't win and now you need to throw a temper tantrum.

As a Bernie supporter I have to fully agree with this. Also, what about Trump is better than Bernie supposing that you actually are voting for Bernie cause you like his ideals (vs just want some one who isn't your usual poltician and don't care about the ideals)? I am very confused by Bernie supporters who some how think Trump would be better as I see very little similar in Trump's ideals.

 

[MThanded]

I don't trust Hillary to nominate a liberal justice so bringing up the SCOTUS is not that convincing. We need Bernie in the WH.

The goal posts. They moving. You really believe Clinton would nominate a conservative justice?

 

[Tesseract]

Sanders has the luxury of being an extreme liberal running as a senator for a very liberal, very small, very white state. What he's accomplished couldn't be done in probably 40-45 states. How many other states have elected 3rd party senators?

Don't blame him, blame the system.

Am I doing it right, ;0

 

[DragonSworne]

The goal posts. They moving. You really believe Clinton would nominate a conservative justice?

She'll nominate a Roberts

 

[googleplex]

I don't trust Hillary to nominate a liberal justice so bringing up the SCOTUS is not that convincing. We need Bernie in the WH.

This could be one of the more baffling post I've read in a while. What could possibly make you think Hillary wouldn't nominate a liberal justice?

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I don't trust Hillary to nominate a liberal justice so bringing up the SCOTUS is not that convincing. We need Bernie in the WH.

Hillary and Bernie share basically the same voting record.

This is just paranoia. There's no reason to believe what you're saying.

 

[RustyNails]

JFK stole the election!!!

 

[Trojita]

I don't trust Hillary to nominate a liberal justice so bringing up the SCOTUS is not that convincing. We need Bernie in the WH.

Really?

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

She'll nominate a Roberts

You can't possibly believe this.

 

[MThanded]

She'll nominate a Roberts

You are just inventing narrative at this point.

I'll vote for whoever gets the nomination.

The lengths some people are going to crucify candidates. damn son.

 

[Steel]

Do people not understand that Hilary is much more domestically liberal than Obama? She only leans to the right of him on foreign policy.

 

[Ekdrm2d1]

This is NeoGAF.gif

 

[stupei]

Wreav doesn't live in a swing state based on my brief detective work. His one vote will not tip the scales in Hillary's favor (or Trump's). But GAF loves to guilt-trip anyone not voting for her lol.

When someone says they want to burn it down, they are talking about real people's lives and livelihoods, not just an abstract idea.

You may consider bringing that up a guilt trip, but I'm going to continue to think such displays are mostly petulant and unproductive. It does nothing to progress any of the causes these individuals claim to care about. Obviously they're free to do what they want with their vote, but people who understand the real impact the election has can voice their displeasure without being accused of participating in the hivemind.

I don't trust Hillary to nominate a liberal justice so bringing up the SCOTUS is not that convincing. We need Bernie in the WH.

Okay but if you're not voting for someone who prays because politics should only be about real grounded issues, what is this?

 

[danm999]

She'll nominate a Roberts

If only we had some sort of historical record of whether or not Hillary Clinton would approve a Roberts type on the Supreme Court...

Ah well. The mystery remains.

 

[googleplex]

She'll nominate a Roberts

Seriously, some Bernie supporters needs to step out of that weird Reddit bubble where Hillary is some sort of conservation republican in liberal clothing.

 

[giga]

If only we had some sort of historical record of whether or not Hillary Clinton would approve a Roberts type on the Supreme Court...

Ah well. The mystery remains.

🙈

 

[Diablos]

I don't trust Hillary to nominate a liberal justice so bringing up the SCOTUS is not that convincing. We need Bernie in the WH.

Are you trolling here? I cannot tell.

 

[whitehawk]

That CNN Nixon/Kennedy special was interesting.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

If Hill and Trump are the noms, voting for Hillary says "I want money in politics, this is OK to me as a Democratic voter"

If I help reject that platform and send Trump to the WH, the DNC has to scratch their heads and go, "gee, I wonder what made HRC so unlikeable that dems would literally vote for Hitler"

A vote for Trump isn't in support of a single goddamn thing HE stands for. It's against the things HRC stands for. It's not super hard to understand.

I don't think so.

There is no perfect candidate. It's still most pragmatic to make sure a Trump or Cruz do not make it to the White House.

If we had President McCain or Romney, we likely would not have marriage equality, climate change would be hush hush, and income inequality would not be taken seriously, either. Racism would be taken less seriously.

A President and it's administration sets a serious tone for the country. They pull a country to the left or to the right.

When you have a President or major political leader say to the nation after an unarmed black kid is killed by an unpunished police officer , "The system worked and it couldn't have happened any other way", that has real implications.

The primary process is the best opportunity to pull the DNC and its leaders to the will of the people. The general is not the right time to stick it to the DNC when the alternatives are so so much worse.

 

[border]

Don't blame him, blame the system.

I'm not blaming him or the system. I'm just saying that his success cannot really be replicated for other candidates with a far-left agenda. To say that anyone else could be as successful as he is ignores a world of very harsh realities.

I can't really imagine an alternative system that might benefit Sanders-type candidates without intentionally rigging things in their favor.

 

[MThanded]

Bernie has been able to paint Hillary as a conservative. Many people believe she is in spite of her voting record and her real stance on issues. Looks really bad for the general.

I don't even know if this can be repaired. I doubt Bernie can go full force and support her without his base saying he is being controlled by the democrat illuminati.

 

[boiled goose]

Sanders has the luxury of being an extreme liberal running as a senator for a very liberal, very small, very white state. What he's accomplished couldn't be done in probably 40-45 states. How many other states have elected 3rd party senators?

I never said it was practical. My point still stands that the system is fundamentally corrupt.

Hillary does not admit or recognize this. She will not change it. She will work within it. She will continue to support many policies that fuck over the average american person but benefit her donors. Obama has done the same.

Sanders does recognize this. That is the difference.

Would Sanders be able to fix it? Maybe or maybe not. But people want someone on the white house that is working for the people and the people only.

 

[MThanded]

I never said it was practical. My point still stands that the system is fundamentally corrupt.

Hillary does not admit or recognize this. She will not change it. She will work within it. She will continue to support many policies that fuck over the average american person but benefit her donors. Obama has done the same.

Sanders does recognize this. That is the difference.

Would Sanders be able to fix it? Maybe or maybe not. But people want someone on the white house that is working for the people and the people only.

Go in depth with these policies. pls.

This is a bold accusation that should be supported by facts.

 

[ugaboga232]

Go in depth with these policies. pls.

This is a bold accusation that should be supported by facts.

It is a bold accusation that Hillary likes the system and thinks even though the republicans are bad, the democrats are good and the system can still work as it is? And that this system will uphold itself as its primary objective and maybe help people and maybe won't?

 

[DragonSworne]

If only we had some sort of historical record of whether or not Hillary Clinton would approve a Roberts type on the Supreme Court...

Ah well. The mystery remains.

Roberts ultimately ending up being more moderate than many thought he was during the confirmation process.

Hillary did a good job not voting for someone that everyone thought would be another super conservative on the bench.

Still, I don't think she will pick a liberal justice and we will end up with someone like Roberts who is more of a moderate than left respectively.

 

[Boke1879]

Bernie has been able to paint Hillary as a conservative. Many people believe she is in spite of her voting record and her real stance on issues. Looks really bad for the general.

I don't even know if this can be repaired. I doubt Bernie can go full force and support her without his base saying he is being controlled by the democrat illuminati.

Don't let the reddit bubble fool you. If anything she's left of center like Obama. That's it. If anything that plays better in the general. She's seen as a moderate.

 

[boiled goose]

Seriously, some Bernie supporters needs to step out of that weird Reddit bubble where Hillary is some sort of conservation republican in liberal clothing.

People have seen how Obama has been a mixed bag. Weak on Wall street, siding with Reps on trade deals against democratic legislators, appointing lobbyists, too big to fail, to big to prosecute, etc.

That is what they mean. It doesn't mean she is the same on guns (more progressive than Bernie) or social issues.

When it comes to economic policy (trade, oil, financial industry, etc) she might continue to support legislation that benefits the rich more than the average citizen.

Calling her a republican is both silly and inaccurate, but I do understand where they are coming from.

 

[MThanded]

It is a bold accusation that Hillary likes the system and thinks even though the republicans are bad, the democrats are good and the system can still work as it is? And that this system will uphold itself as its primary objective and maybe help people and maybe won't?

The claim in that post is odd when you realize that Bernie and Hillary have almost the same voting record.