Support NeoGAF

[JustenP88]

Keep in mind, as you guys are going round and round with the "crazy Bernie supporters", you're continuously responding to the same 1 or 2 people. Same conversation. Same people. Different thread.

Plus, although I wish EraserAce or whatever would calm down on the rhetoric, that time when someone pulled up one of his posts from 2008 struck me as pretty weird.

 

[Lys Skygge]

I've noticed several of the more vocal Bernie supporters I know were also extreme anti-Bush types who parroted Alex Jones and Ron Paul, but broke left as soon as the '08 election started winding up. Everything that puts Bernie's electability into question is a conspiracy to them.

Bums me out because I like Bernie, but his base seems like a big ball of crazy that doesn't necessarily represent his views.

I totally agree with this.

 

[Ashodin]

besides his views on guns, bernie pretty much matches up with what I think should happen.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I've noticed several of the more vocal Bernie supporters I know were also extreme anti-Bush types who parroted Alex Jones and Ron Paul, but broke left as soon as the '08 election started winding up. Everything that puts Bernie's electability into question is a conspiracy to them.

Bums me out because I like Bernie, but his base seems like a big ball of crazy that doesn't necessarily represent his views.

Honestly? Talk more! 90% of GAF's hate for Sanders probably stems from the fact EraserAce is immensely irritating - almost every time someone gets cross at a crazy Bernie supporter, it's him. There are plenty of chillaxed Sanders supporters open to debate, but for whatever reason (probably lack of obsession), we don't talk so much, and get drowned. Supporting Sanders is entirely reasonable and the man is probably the best Democratic candidate, so just maybe talking a little bit about why you feel that way from a less, uh, passionate perspective probably helps everyone's perspective.

 

[genjiZERO]

Damn, Bernie smashed it. I want and would love him to win, but feel that there's basically no chance of it. Has Hilary really got this in the bag? And if Bernie even won, would he undermine the chances of a presidential Democratic victory?



Not just that, I did not like her position on the NSA, and on Snowden. Also feel she's a bit of a flip flopper. The trust aspect for me just isn't there, and it has nothing to do with the malarkey the Republicans keep banging on about, like Benghazi and the emails.

I agree with you. She's flipflopping because Sanders has driven the base left. It's just campaign rhetoric.

 

[danm999]

Yeah ok, i have never posted anything here about news solely only being in the bag for Hilary. This isn't a personal thing. And that was Fox News pushing the emails and the Benghazi issue as they even still were last night post debate. Don't force put me in a fight I'm not in.

If anything I would say that the corporate media is in the bag for corporate interests.

Nah CNN has been pushing it right there with them.

They've even done the Fox News style "we're just asking questions" articles from time to time.

And I mean you had Anderson Cooper front and centre trying to use it against her last night. Ironically the only person who even attempted to say it wasn't an issue besides Clinton was Bernie.

 

[rjinaz]

I'll be so glad to see the primaries over. Tired of seeing democrats on gaf fighting with each other.

 

[giga]

I'm sorry, i forgot I was on gaf and didn't know I had to explain how campaign donations work. You got me! Trying to weave a narrative!

If you don't see a difference in hundreds of thousand dollar donations from corps like Time Warner and a workers union, well whatever. I give up.

I understand perfectly why grouping donors by their employer provides insight into the type of supporters a politician has. What I don't understand is the giant leap you guys are making in asserting that because many Time Warner employees support Hillary, CNN must be skewing their coverage in favor of her. That accusation seems awfully convenient and ignores the past 6 months of negative coverage that Clinton has been facing.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I'll be so glad to see the primaries over. Tired of seeing democrats on gaf fighting with each other.

me too.

 

[dramatis]

Yeah ok, i have never posted anything here about news solely only being in the bag for Hilary. This isn't a personal thing. And that was Fox News pushing the emails and the Benghazi issue as they even still were last night post debate. Don't force put me in a fight I'm not in.

If anything I would say that the corporate media is in the bag for corporate interests.

Are we backpedaling in less than 20 posts?

Time Warner and Fox are huuge contributors to Hilary's. It shouldn't take much more thought to explain.

You were clearly trying to imply the media was in the bag for Hillary. When presented with the real fact that the media spent months trampling on her (more like years, over a decade even), you go backwards and say you are saying the 'corporate media' is in the bag for 'corporate interests'.

The media is chasing views; it's clamoring for entertainment. It's not only Fox and Benghazi; CNN and the others have been rattling about a possible Biden run for ages. If Hillary fails, there's news; if they can make a headline about how smooth she is after spending months shrieking about her failures, they'll do it if it nets viewers and interest. Bernie surging? Time to write inflammatory headlines! Are they supporting Hillary then? Are they conspiring to keep Bernie down then?

 

[ant1532]

Nah CNN has been pushing it right there with them.

They've even done the Fox News style "we're just asking questions" articles from time to time.

And I mean you had Anderson Cooper front and centre trying to use it against her last night. Ironically the only person who even attempted to say it wasn't an issue besides Clinton was Bernie.

Do you think at the first DNC debate for this election, CNN would not bring up the most talked about subject concerning her in the press? Of course they would, its a fucking debate lol. And Hilary and her team of course would know that and they would have an answer of course.trying to use it against her? Did you not hear Anderson coopers questions the entire night? He was being the provacator in his questions and was asking somewhat difficult questions to all the candidates, knowing they weren't going to agressivley ttack each other.

 

[User 463088]

I doubt anyone here hates Bernie Sanders. Lord knows I don't.

However, there's a problem with SOME of his supporters. The moment you don't agree with the Bern 150%, you're immediately labeled as hating him. It's ridiculous.

When someone points out a few weaknesses Bernie has, it's not an attack on him. Nor does it do him any service to pretend that he doesn't have weaknesses. He does. So does Hillary. So does O'Malley. So does Webb, but he killed most of them in 'Nam. Chafee's our only candidate with no weaknesses at all.

Every, single critique of Bernie is not some vast conspiracy to deny him the Presidency. His polling problems with minorities is not something we're making up. His weakness on foreign policy (as displayed last night) is not something we're making up. The fact that the pundits largely felt that Hillary won last night is not a conspiracy against Bernie. The fact that he has no support within the party he is trying to lead is not a fabrication created out of hatred. Highlighting the unlikelihood of Bernie's agenda getting through Congress is not hatred. It's pointing out a probability.

To pretend that your chosen candidate is a bastion of perfection, and any one who doesn't see it is wrong, stupid or both, is not the way to win an election. Anyone who supports anyone has to acknowledge where they have weakness and try to address it. You do a disservice to your candidate by simply "Everyone hates us! The media hates us, and they all got together to put out the Bern!" Argue for your candidate, not against potential supporters.

But that's just my two cents. So whatever.

 

[danm999]

Do you think at the first DNC debate for this election, CNN would not bring up the most talked about subject concerning her in the press? Of course they would, its a fucking debate lol. And Hilary and her team of course would know that and they would have an answer of course.trying to use it against her? Did you not hear Anderson coopers questions the entire night? He was being the provacator in his questions and was asking somewhat difficult questions to all the candidates, knowing they weren't going to agressivley ttack each other.

Doesn't exactly sound like something the Clinton News Network would do, huh?

 

[ant1532]

Doesn't exactly sound like something the Clinton News Network would do, huh?

Did you see the website 30 minutes after the debate last night? Giant picture of Hilary, Bernie nowhere to be seen, with, "Hilary,Confident Sweep" in huge font?

People on gaf will call out fox news all day but they don't understand why CNN would push for Hilary as a frontrunner for the DNC. I love it lol. I'm not even complaining about this either. This isnt some new open secret shit, im trying to get you in all. This is how elections have been being played here for the last couple decades. The DNC has decided Hilary as the frontrunner with the best chances to win against a republican. And they loved her performance last night after being sloghtly scared for the last couple months.

 

[danm999]

Did you see the website 30 minutes after the debate last night? Giant picture of Hilary, Bernie nowhere to be seen, with, "Hilary,Confident Sweep" in huge font?

People on gaf will call out fox news all day but they don't understand why CNN would push for Hilary as a frontrunner for the DNC. I love it lol. I'm not even complaining about this either. This isnt some new open secret shit, im trying to get you in all. This is how elections have been being played here for the last couple decades. The DNC has decided Hilary as the frontrunner with the best chances to win against a republican. And they loved her performance last night after being sloghtly scared for the last couple months.

I mean, you hit on it in your last sentence.

They loved her performance last night.

That's why they're giving her positive coverage.

 

[Mr. RPG]

NeoGAF is certainly one of the most progressive websites I've been apart of.
Bernie is very well liked here

What happened to that? I don't see it. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't visit the off-topic section too much, but most of the time when I come here I see a lot of people hating on Bernie.

I'll be so glad to see the primaries over. Tired of seeing democrats on gaf fighting with each other.

Same.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

What happened to that? I don't see it. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't visit the off-topic section too much, but most of the time when I come here I see a lot of people hating on Bernie.

Clinton's supporters are more vocal. I think they're somewhat hostile towards Sanders because of the weird side of the Sanders support base, and that scares off 'casual' contributors.

 

[dehydratedbabies]

It was exactly the same thing with Ron Paul supporters.

When people believe that they can somehow change the system via voting for one specific person this is what happens - all about the cult of personality.

These people will be vocal and they will alienate other progressives with their antics. Eventually they will just disappear when Hillary dominates the overall results. No doubt Sanders will win a lot of online polls between now and the first primary and then it is a huge conspiracy when the election results start coming in.

This is not to say that Sanders is a bad candidate. He has many good policy proposals but I just don't find him that relatable, he doesn't exactly radiate optimism.

You think his supporters are naively optimistic, but Bernie doesn't seem optimistic?

The Ron Paul comparison is very superficial.

 

[Fenderputty]

Though I thought Godzillary was polished and did fairly well, I voted grandma Marx. Fuck the bourgeoisie.

Spoiler

Hillary is still winning this thing and currently represents the best shot we have at processing liberalism in the currently political climate.

 

[Kusagari]

It was exactly the same thing with Ron Paul supporters.

When people believe that they can somehow change the system via voting for one specific person this is what happens - all about the cult of personality.

These people will be vocal and they will alienate other progressives with their antics. Eventually they will just disappear when Hillary dominates the overall results. No doubt Sanders will win a lot of online polls between now and the first primary and then it is a huge conspiracy when the election results start coming in.

This is not to say that Sanders is a bad candidate. He has many good policy proposals but I just don't find him that relatable, he doesn't exactly radiate optimism.

This is a bizarre thing to say about Sanders. Optimism is literally the reason he has as much as support as he does. His campaign thrives off it.

 

[Igo]

Clinton's supporters are more vocal. I think they're somewhat hostile towards Sanders because of the weird side of the Sanders support base, and that scares off 'casual' contributors.

They were hostile towards Sanders from the get go. I think the narrative just shifted from him being unelectable to focusing on his more ardent supporters.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I gave my vote to Godzillary.

Spoiler

Hillary is by far the best person to take on the Republicans next year. This country is not going to elect a 74 year old socialist and the Democratic will not risk a landslide loss on such an en-devour.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Trump going after Bernie.

https://instagram.com/p/80rWSdGhT0/

 

[shadowsdarknes]

What happened to that? I don't see it. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't visit the off-topic section too much, but most of the time when I come here I see a lot of people hating on Bernie.



Same.

Can you show me some posts of people hating on Bernie in a significant fashion?

 

[Fenderputty]

They were hostile towards Sanders from the get go. I think the narrative just shifted from him being unelectable to focusing on his more ardent supporters.

Nobody I've seen is actually hostile towards Sanders at all. We're (at least me and anecdotally, people I've seen) hostile towards the idea that if Bernie doesn't get the nod someone will stay home and refrain from voting.

 

[dehydratedbabies]

Can you show me some posts of people hating on Bernie in a significant fashion?

Search any Bernie thread from the past few months. I wouldn't say that the 10-20 extremely vocal "I am an expert and Hillary will definitely win" people on here "hate on Bernie", but they definitely act very condescendingly toward people that suggest Bernie has a very real shot at winning. Lots of "well I actually understand politics" and "you're wasting your time". Amirox in particular is one of the worst offenders, imo.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Even if you think Clinton is more electable and that electability alone is a sufficient reason to want her to be the Democratic nominee, you should still support Sanders in the primary for as long as he doesn't look like he'll win - simply because he's been remarkably good at making Clinton issue left-leaning policy statements. She only does so when she's under threat, otherwise she vacillates or tends towards the centre. Therefore, to make Clinton the best possible candidate she can be you need to make her work for her votes.

 

[Chie Satonaka]

Trump going after Bernie.

https://instagram.com/p/80rWSdGhT0/

I hate to admit it, but I really like Trump's presence on IG. They're usually pretty funny, and this one is no exception.

I think it's laughable that Donald Trump is somehow going to be the guy to reign in ISIS or anyone else, given his lack of political experience or doing anything that's not being a circus act, but this was still a funny little zinger.

Credit where credit is due.

 

[rokkerkory]

Go bernie!

 

[Igo]

Nobody I've seen is actually hostile towards Sanders at all. We're (at least me and anecdotally, people I've seen) hostile towards the idea that if Bernie doesn't get the nod someone will stay home and refrain from voting.

Isn't that what people were saying Clinton supporters would do if Bernie got the dem nomination? I know i remember a people pushing that as Bernie is unelectable reason #3 in those early threads.

 

[User 463088]

Isn't that what people were saying Clinton supporters would do if Bernie got the dem nomination? I know i remember a people pushing that as Bernie is unelectable reason #3 in those early threads.

I know of no Clinton supporter, either in person or online, who wouldn't vote for the eventual Democratic nominee, be that Sanders, Biden or the man himself Chafee.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Search any Bernie thread from the past few months. I wouldn't say that the 10-20 extremely vocal "I am an expert and Hillary will definitely win" people on here "hate on Bernie", but they definitely act very condescendingly toward people that suggest Bernie has a very real shot at winning. Lots of "well I actually understand politics" and "you're wasting your time". Amirox in particular is one of the worst offenders, imo.

There's a difference between, "Bernie can't win a national election" and straight Bernie bashing. This is a very progressive forum.

Questioning his ability to captivate a national audience isn't Bernie bashing.

It'd be one thing if people were claiming he was out of touch, a communist, self serving, an idiot, or nutjob. But that's not the general sentiment about Bernie.

People probably shouldn't be so sure of themselves of Bernie losing the nomination or election, but that's not really what I'd call Bernie bashing.

Especially when comments towards Hillary are much worse. She is referred to as a Corporatist, fascist, puppet for billionaires, warmongerer, liar, fraud, etc.

 

[Fenderputty]

Isn't that what people were saying Clinton supporters would do if Bernie got the dem nomination? I know i remember a people pushing that as Bernie is unelectable reason #3 in those early threads.

If a person likes Clinton for her electability, why would they stay home for Bernie? This persons whole purpose is to keep the GOP out and make sure they don't control all three branches.

 

[Gotchaye]

Isn't that what people were saying Clinton supporters would do if Bernie got the dem nomination? I know i remember a people pushing that as Bernie is unelectable reason #3 in those early threads.

Mostly no, they were talking about something slightly different. What bothers some people about some Sanders supporters is that, even though Clinton would clearly make a better president than any Republican by their lights, they talk about not supporting Clinton if she's the nominee. The idea here is that they'd sabotage (either intentionally or just dumbly) their own political goals if Clinton is the nominee. The concern is about people to the left of Clinton.

The concern that Sanders is less electable because he would fail to win over some voters that Clinton could win is about people in the middle. The worry is that Sanders, being to Clinton's left, will be less appealing than a Republican to some people in the middle, even though these same people would find Clinton more appealing than the Republican.

 

[Epsilon-delta]

Nobody I've seen is actually hostile towards Sanders at all. We're (at least me and anecdotally, people I've seen) hostile towards the idea that if Bernie doesn't get the nod someone will stay home and refrain from voting.

More like the opposite. I can see every Bernie supporter on this forum voting for Hillary if she were to win the primaries.

I don't see Amir0x, Bam Bam, or Cheebo voting for Bernie if he were to win the primaries.

Those three alone make ErasureAcer seem tame in comparison.

 

[docbon]

I wish we would stop this x supporters will do y meme in every fucking thread tbh. It never goes anywhere and it gets increasingly more annoying.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Even if you think Clinton is more electable and that electability alone is a sufficient reason to want her to be the Democratic nominee, you should still support Sanders in the primary for as long as he doesn't look like he'll win - simply because he's been remarkably good at making Clinton issue left-leaning policy statements. She only does so when she's under threat, otherwise she vacillates or tends towards the centre. Therefore, to make Clinton the best possible candidate she can be you need to make her work for her votes.

I'd agree that Sanders, and really just the nature of the primary system, is pulling Clinton left on certain headline issues and probably changing the way she has to present herself. She needed to placate the environmental and union elements with her stances on the pipeline and trade pact, for instance. But I also think she would always have had to tack left to gain the nomination, somebody would have tried to outflank her for the more liberal part of the party base.

And by most accounts her policy positions (which seem relatively detailed in their description, regardless of whether one agrees with those actual details) have been carefully crafted after wide consultation over an extensive period of time, towards balancing progressive ideals, pragmatic implementation and broader electoral viability (or at least trying to find a balance, and again ymmv on whether the final balance is appropriate). The latter two elements may be partially what you're referring to in her tendency towards the centre ground. But I don't really know how much the rise of Sanders has changed those platforms.

EDIT: I hadn't visited Sanders Issues page in a while, but it seems to have expanded quite a bit with some of the new pages.

More like the opposite. I can see every Bernie supporter on this forum voting for Hillary if she were to win the primaries.

I don't see Amir0x, Bam Bam, or Cheebo voting for Bernie if he were to win the primaries.

Those three alone make ErasureAcer seem tame in comparison.

I think I just teleported to htraE.

 

[Fenderputty]

More like the opposite. I can see every Bernie supporter on this forum voting for Hillary if she were to win the primaries.

I don't see Amir0x, Bam Bam, or Cheebo voting for Bernie if he were to win the primaries.

Those three alone make ErasureAcer seem tame in comparison.

Unless this is Fringe and you're reading threads in an alternate reality Im not aware of I have no idea how you came to these conclusions.

 

[NeoXChaos]

More like the opposite. I can see every Bernie supporter on this forum voting for Hillary if she were to win the primaries.

I don't see Amir0x, Bam Bam, or Cheebo voting for Bernie if he were to win the primaries.

Those three alone make ErasureAcer seem tame in comparison.

Don't see where you came to such a conclusion. I have seen some Standers however expressing similar sentiment.

 

[gdt]

More like the opposite. I can see every Bernie supporter on this forum voting for Hillary if she were to win the primaries.

I don't see Amir0x, Bam Bam, or Cheebo voting for Bernie if he were to win the primaries.

Those three alone make ErasureAcer seem tame in comparison.

Lol wut

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

More like the opposite. I can see every Bernie supporter on this forum voting for Hillary if she were to win the primaries.

I don't see Amir0x, Bam Bam, or Cheebo voting for Bernie if he were to win the primaries.

Those three alone make ErasureAcer seem tame in comparison.

You must be out of your mind if you think I'm not gonna vote in the general. My concern is winning first and foremost because this election has huge consequences for people who aren't straight white males that make 100k+ a year.

Sanders is not the answer, in my opinion.

 

[Igo]

Mostly no, they were talking about something slightly different. What bothers some people about some Sanders supporters is that, even though Clinton would clearly make a better president than any Republican by their lights, they talk about not supporting Clinton if she's the nominee. The idea here is that they'd sabotage (either intentionally or just dumbly) their own political goals if Clinton is the nominee. The concern is about people to the left of Clinton.

The concern that Sanders is less electable because he would fail to win over some voters that Clinton could win is about people in the middle. The worry is that Sanders, being to Clinton's left, will be less appealing than a Republican to some people in the middle, even though these same people would find Clinton more appealing than the Republican.

Thanks. I assumed they were mostly talking about minorities not voting, rather than voters going republican if Clinton didn't get the nom.

 

[East Lake]

All I know is that these threads get exhausting to read, and the wannabe liberal pundits under the guise of "serious analysis" are just as exhausting as overly aggressive Bernie fans.

 

[dehydratedbabies]

There's a difference between, "Bernie can't win a national election" and straight Bernie bashing. This is a very progressive forum.

Questioning his ability to captivate a national audience isn't Bernie bashing.

It'd be one thing if people were claiming he was out of touch, a communist, self serving, an idiot, or nutjob. But that's not the general sentiment about Bernie.

People probably shouldn't be so sure of themselves of Bernie losing the nomination or election, but that's not really what I'd call Bernie bashing.

Especially when comments towards Hillary are much worse. She is referred to as a Corporatist, fascist, puppet for billionaires, warmongerer, liar, fraud, etc.

I do think that a lot of Bernie supporters (sometimes, myself included) publicly bash Hillary, which is not in line with Bernie or what he's trying to do with this campaign. I also think that the bashing occurs because a lot of Bernie supporters are actually unhappy with Hillary's record. Obviously Hillary supporters aren't saying Bernie's a self-serving idiot communist nutjob, because none of those things are true (although they do seem to relish opportunities to characterize him as out of touch). But for Hillary, there are arguments to be made that she's phony ("growing" vs "pandering"), partial (she's a millionaire), hawkish (Iraq), etc. I think the common frustration for Bernie supporters is that we think Bernie is clearly more progressive on most issues and has a preferable record, but we're constantly dismissed as naive honkies.

 

[Epsilon-delta]

You must be out of your mind if you think I'm not gonna vote in the general. My concern is winning first and foremost because this election has huge consequences for people who aren't straight white males that make 100k+ a year.

Sanders is not the answer, in my opinion.

That seems like a non-answer though. If Sanders were to win the primaries, would you vote for him in the general?

 

[Fenderputty]

That seems like a non-answer though. If Sanders were to win the primaries, would you vote for him in the general?

If he's not staying home in the general and is voting for people not classified as "white male 100K+" whom do you think he would be voting for in a Bernie vs. Random GOP twat matchup?

 

[Epsilon-delta]

If he's not staying home in the general and is voting for people not classified as "white male 100K+" whom do you think he would be voting for in a Bernie vs. Random GOP twat matchup?

Let the man answer for himself, he's a big boy. His first sentence and his last sentence doesn't line up.

 

[benjipwns]

The media could be in the tank for future supermax prison inmate and corporate shill Hillary Clinton and be using all their power as an in-kind contribution to assist her campaign.

And she still could have won the debate on or by any number of standards or merits you want to set.

They aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'd agree that Sanders, and really just the nature of the primary system, is pulling Clinton left on certain headline issues and probably changing the way she has to present herself. She needed to placate the environmental and union elements with her stances on the pipeline and trade pact, for instance. But I also think she would always have had to tack left to gain the nomination, somebody would have tried to outflank her for the more liberal part of the party base.

And by most accounts her policy positions (which seem relatively detailed in their description, regardless of whether one agrees with those actual details) have been carefully crafted after wide consultation over an extensive period of time, towards balancing progressive ideals, pragmatic implementation and broader electoral viability (or at least trying to find a balance, and again ymmv on whether the final balance is appropriate). The latter two elements may be partially what you're referring to in her tendency towards the centre ground. But I don't really know how much the rise of Sanders has changed those platforms.

I mean, I like Hillary in many respects and think she is a reasonable candidate. My main problem with her is that she is absolutely, in every respect, low risk; which in the long run is more harmful to leftist policies and therefore the poor and underprivileged. You're probably aware of the concept of the Overton Window? Every time the left runs a very centrist candidate, and the right runs a rightist candidate, the left will probably win, but the parameters of the debate shift to the right - naturally, because in a contest between a rightist and a centrist the centre-right is the new centre. Hillary might do a whole world of good... but after several Hillary-type candidates in a row, America will be further and further to the right than ever before, because the left is always chasing the right. Look at Sanders - in the 1950s, he would have been an entirely unremarkable candidate in many respects, support for gay marriage and civil rights aside. Now, he's an extremist.

The only way ideas take hold is if you have people willing to argue for them in the public sphere. That's what Sanders does. This is the first serious public stage in a long while where any candidate has seriously called out the degree of inequality in America or the way the system is rigged in favour of an elite class. And that's why he's been dragging Clinton to the left. It's pretty clear to see all the occasions where that has happened - Keystone XL ("I'll take a position when I've taken a position"), TPP (the gold standard in trade deals), and so on. Even when it isn't Sanders, the general left movement has consistently pushed Clinton - she opposed gay marriage as recently as 2013 until an insurgent leftist movement forced her to do otherwise.

If you genuinely want to help the American poor, American minorities and American women, it's pretty important that you support Sanders at least until it looks like he might beat Clinton, because that's the only way we can in the long-run pull Clinton to the left and thus hopefully start pulling American discourse to the left.

I mean, in general, I think Sanders is more electable in the general than Clinton, for a number of reasons. But even putting that aside, there doesn't seem to me to be any strong reason for being a vocal Clinton supporter right now (aside from possibly gun control). Back her when she works for it and then maybe she will.

 

[theprodigy]

More like the opposite. I can see every Bernie supporter on this forum voting for Hillary if she were to win the primaries.

I don't see Amir0x, Bam Bam, or Cheebo voting for Bernie if he were to win the primaries.

Those three alone make ErasureAcer seem tame in comparison.

The amount of wrong in this post makes ErasureAcer seem tame in comparison.

No.

lmao benji pls