Support NeoGAF

[Tesseract]

Our system is fucked up. But voting Green is much better than not voting at all (which the poster to whom I was replied said they would likely do). It doesn't directly help the Dem. candidate, but it does make one's desire for progressive policies and candidates known. (And, at least in some states, it'll help that party better support local candidates.)

Totally, especially this cycle

 

[excelsiorlef]

Let's be real here, they never stood a chance, especially after Layton passed.

He was the Sanders of Canada. Always the opposition, a true populist.

He split the vote badly between the Libs and the NDP.

He almost did it too. But he fell short. Harper still won (a majority to boot adding salt to the wound) and then he died.

RIP

Like I said the majority came from the complete implosion of the 2011 Liberal party.

Also I was at the 2011 NPD convention, the biggest fight, which would have passed (and eventually did later on) was to remove the term socialist from the pre-amble.

 

[legacyzero]

I really wish this race included Uncle Biden. This shit would have been even MORE out of control LOL

 

[Steel]

Not that she's wooden. She just doesn't have a cause to fight for. And it doesn't look like she's willing to get down and dirty for any progressive legislation. I see her as a placeholder president a lame duck we'd be stuck with for 4 years.

Put it this way If she becomes president by the time she's out I believe
Wall st will still lobby
We'll still be playing world conquest and toppling regimes
There will still be mass incarceration
Healthcare will be the same
Schools will still be shit
And we still won't have public colleges.

i think Obama and Clinton have similar views on somedays depending on #whichhillary lol but seriously she's gonna be the next jimmy carter. We need an FDR or Abraham lincoln where tf is our next GREAT president? Your fooling yourself if you think Hillary is anything but decent. I want greatness out of American politics, you may not think Bernie is great but atleast his ideas are grand and thought provoking

Depends on whether or not Hillary gets a democratic congress. If she does have a democratic congress she will:

Improve obamacare
Increase school funding
Increase taxes on the wealthy
The Supreme court will become more liberal
Go along with Obama's plan to make community colleges free and work on lowering tuition for other college's.

And at what point did I say I'm a Hilary supporter? I'm not. Nor am I a Bernie supporter. I'd like someone more centrist who'd raise taxes on everyone and mind the budget so we can go on a spending spree when we really need to, but since that candidate doesn't exist Hilary's the next best thing.

 

[plagiarize]

You act like it's impossible or that it's not worth trying.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/...ism-in-the-us-an-interview-with-kshama-sawant

Nope. I'm just saying that you aren't doing a good enough job *yet*. I'm basing that on the primaries. I too hope we'll get to the place where America has single payer health care. I just think it's a journey that'll take a while, and that Clinton is better prepared to take the next small step forwards.

You may feel Sanders will take us further closer to his ideals, which is fair enough... but people who think Sanders could get us to single payer health care in 8 years, I think that's overly optimistic, and I think about the important work that needs to be done shoring up ACA in the short term, and I worry about those efforts stagnating while Sanders reaches for the moon. Maybe I'm selling him short. Maybe we'll get there.

But a Republican is going to trash a lot of executive orders day one, and is probably going to start their process nominating an extreme conservative to the Supreme court...

And the Republican party is going to split or transition to the center whether Trump wins or loses. That damage has been done. They just haven't realized it yet. He'll get the most delegates. He'll probably get a majority. Anything they do to try and prevent that... will splinter off a huge group of voters. If they don't try and prevent that... they'll splinter off a different group of voters and fear they might take serious losses in the Senate and Congress come November.

Moderates as they continue to swing more and more to the left, will force the Republicans to change. Evangelical Conservatives will force the GOP to splinter when they do.

 

[lednerg]

I think that turnout in the four primaries/caucuses have shown that the 'revolution' is not happening and will not materialize, regardless how many people throw donations at Bernie and loudly proclaim otherwise.

We're still waiting for the Baby Boomers to croak. They're what's keeping the current shitshow in place.

 

[plagiarize]

Not that she's wooden. She just doesn't have a cause to fight for. And it doesn't look like she's willing to get down and dirty for any progressive legislation. I see her as a placeholder president a lame duck we'd be stuck with for 4 years.

Put it this way If she becomes president by the time she's out I believe
Wall st will still lobby
We'll still be playing world conquest and toppling regimes
There will still be mass incarceration
Healthcare will be the same
Schools will still be shit
And we still won't have public colleges.

i think Obama and Clinton have similar views on somedays depending on #whichhillary lol but seriously she's gonna be the next jimmy carter. We need an FDR or Abraham lincoln where tf is our next GREAT president? Your fooling yourself if you think Hillary is anything but decent. I want greatness out of American politics, you may not think Bernie is great but atleast his ideas are grand and thought provoking

You're fooling yourself if you think *anyone* running for President this year is an FDR or Lincoln.

 

[BiggNife]

Yes. Anybody but Hillary. I mean Anybody.

I can't wrap my head around posts like this. How can someone justify voting for a racist bigot who is supported by the KKK just because they don't like HIlary?

 

[ShironRedshift]

Don't try to spin this away from Hillary as what she stood for. She is incredible dishonest. So much of what she stands for now regarding Obamas Policies is a startling contrast to who she was in 2008. It's unbecoming when others try to paint these broad strokes on the fiction of her character.

In which case the same is true of Sanders:
http://time.com/4089946/bernie-sanders-gay-marriage/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-gay-marriage_us_569fcc4de4b0a7026bf9e06f

They both evolved. Sanders did it faster, both they both evolved and shifted over time and neither one of them had consistency on it. If you're slamming Clinton on this, you have to slam Sanders on it as well. Of course, for both of them, it was just the reality of politics that they couldn't support it sooner than they did, with Clinton taking longer because she was a national figure while Sanders, as a nobody-senator of a New England state, was able to progress faster. But nonetheless they both ebbed and flowed on it, so if you're slamming one of them as being slimy and dishonest for having changed their position, you have to do the same for the other as well.

I just don't get this talking point. I don't get it at all. Not only does it slam candidates for evolving and adopting more progressive views, a very positive thing, but it ignores and pretends that it isn't true for every single candidate running right now, on both sides of the field. They've all changed over time. They don't have the views now they've always had. And in the case of the Democratic candidates, that's a very, very good thing. Sanders got their faster, but they both got there. They both ebbed and flowed over time and the important thing is that they both got there. I'm not going to slam either one of them for this, because if I slammed one I'd just have to slam the other as well, doing so fosters the idea that politicians should just keep to one static-set of views or else they'll be seen as a "flip-flopper" which is seen as an insane negative for some reason, and it ignores the fact that by whatever path they took to get there they are nonetheless allies now, which is incredibly important and I'm not just going to ignore them because they didn't become my allies fast enough especially when I understand the political reality situation.

I'm a bisexual male. This type of thing affects my ability to marry a man, if I should choose. I understand what's at stake here. And thus it really, really lights me on fire when those outside the community tell me to shut up and take my Bernie medicine just because Hillary didn't get there as fast as Sanders did. Doesn't matter. They're both allies now and that's what's important. Trying to downplay that and insist that Senator Sanders is like the only ally we have and that we're all doomed and that Hillary will fuck us over or some shit is just profoundly ignorant especially when by that logic Sanders must have a knife to our backs as well. It's not like Sanders was even the first senator to come out in favor of gay marriage or anything, but he's treated like a savior on this issue, when he went through the same evolution as any other candidate--which is wonderful, but I'm just not seeing what makes him different just because he evolved sooner. They both evolved, they both shifted over time, not one or the other. You can't have it both ways like that.

Nothing about it makes any sense. As a bisexual male, anyone who continues to use this fucking talking point clearly does not give as much of a fuck about the community as they claim to because it just makes no sense to push that angle if progress is truly what you care about. I just don't get it.

And with that, I'm out because if I stay in here I'll probably say something I'll regret and I've got shit to do anyway. Man...

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

Nope. I'm just saying that you aren't doing a good enough job *yet*. I'm basing that on the primaries. I too hope we'll get to the place where America has single payer health care. I just think it's a journey that'll take a while, and that Clinton is better prepared to take the next small step forwards.

You may feel Sanders will take us further closer to his ideals, which is fair enough... but people who think Sanders could get us to single payer health care in 8 years, I think that's overly optimistic, and I think about the important work that needs to be done shoring up ACA in the short term, and I worry about those efforts stagnating while Sanders reaches for the moon. Maybe I'm selling him short. Maybe we'll get there.

But a Republican is going to trash a lot of executive orders day one, and is probably going to start their process nominating an extreme conservative to the Supreme court...

And the Republican party is going to split or transition to the center whether Trump wins or loses. That damage has been done. They just haven't realized it yet. He'll get the most delegates. He'll probably get a majority. Anything they do to try and prevent that... will splinter off a huge group of voters. If they don't try and prevent that... they'll splinter off a different group of voters and fear they might take serious losses in the Senate and Congress come November.

Moderates will force the Republicans to change as they continue to swing more and more to the left. Evangelical Conservatives will force the GOP to splinter when they do.

When did I say we had actual power? If we lose, we do have pieces to pick up to continue the movement. Which is my point. Not that we have actual sway or actual power yet. But that's why going local is directly important, because it gives us more power and influence at a local level. People who agree with Bernie but don't do anything after the election are just kidding themselves. Politics are about more than elections.

 

[King Tubby]

I'm not happy with Hillary for lots of reasons, many of which have already been stated. Regardless, I think if elected she'll basically give us a third Obama term in the broad strokes. This is still much preferable to anything the Republicans have presented or will likely present on the national stage. I feel like it's kicking the can down the road before we can get a truly great candidate (for all his positives, Sanders certainly has his flaws) or a stronger movement behind those ideals he represents. I don't think democratic socialism in America will die with Sanders' campaign. The problems he's talking about are only going to get worse, and worse, and worse.

 

[yanipheonu]

http://youtu.be/tak5u909O4Q

All political shenanigans aside, she can honestly be pretty cringe worthy in the way she presents herself.

 

[EnthronedReaper]

Depends on whether or not Hillary gets a democratic congress. If she does have a democratic congress she will:

Improve obamacare
Increase school funding
Increase taxes on the wealthy
The Supreme court will become more liberal
Go along with Obama's plan to make community colleges free and work on lowering tuition for other college's.

And at what point did I say I'm a Hilary supporter? I'm not. Nor am I a Bernie supporter. I'd like someone more centrist who'd raise taxes and mind the budget so we can go on a spending spree when we really need to, but since that candidate doesn't exist Hilary's the next best thing.

my point is any democrat would do that. Hillary isn't a great candidate by anyones standards. Not yours nor mine. She's just McDonald's when you don't have an in n out around

 

[plagiarize]

When did I say we had actual power? If we lose, we do have to pieces to pick up to continue the movement. Which is my point.

You didn't. I'm just clarifying that you aren't doing a good job of organizing yet. I hope you guys get it together. I'm not saying 'don't try'. I'm not saying 'don't give up'.

Heck I'm saying the opposite. Just because you're about to lose the primaries, don't give up by turning your back on the country and not standing up to be counted. That's not aiming at you specifically, but a lot of Sanders voters.

I see absolutely loads of people under 30 on my facebook wall posting tonnes of pro Sanders stuff. I see reddit super excited about the guy. I don't see under 30s turning out to vote.

So I don't think you're doing a good job organizing yet.

I do believe that America is slowly getting more progressive. I want to see America continuing to get more progressive. But voters will force that shift, and the only way you can speed up the shifts that are happening is by getting young people out to vote in high numbers at *every* election, and not just for the general election in November. I am *encouraged* by the increased turn out for the general election we saw from young people in 2008 and 2012, but they really dropped the ball in 2014.

And they're really dropping the ball right now, if they want a democratic socialist in a power any time soon. Because what they want will only be recognized when they stand up and vote.

 

[Suikoguy]

The article posted earlier in this thread by David Brooks deserves another look. I think it helps explain why there is an uptake in this "my way or the highway" attitude:

Over the past generation we have seen the rise of a group of people who are against politics. These groups — best exemplified by the Tea Party but not exclusive to the right — want to elect people who have no political experience. They want “outsiders.” They delegitimize compromise and deal-making. They’re willing to trample the customs and rules that give legitimacy to legislative decision-making if it helps them gain power.

Ultimately, they don’t recognize other people. They suffer from a form of political narcissism, in which they don’t accept the legitimacy of other interests and opinions. They don’t recognize restraints. They want total victories for themselves and their doctrine.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/opinion/the-governing-cancer-of-our-time.html

This is why the "Establishment" and "Non-Establishment" is dangerous. And why some people simply won't support Hillary since it's politics.

 

[gutter_trash]

The Far-Left hating her are as bad or worse then the Right hating her

 

[LCGeek]

I think that turnout in the four primaries/caucuses have shown that the 'revolution' is not happening and will not materialize, regardless how many people throw donations at Bernie and loudly proclaim otherwise.

The irony is they want to do the easy part of the revolution not the hard part. I love how aspects of the left whine about problems on the right when turnout alone on the left historically has fucked the party with only maybe howard dean and sanders trying to signal the red flag to the rest.

It's pathetic to me even after primary results show it.

we get the government we deserve nothing more nothing less.

 

[atr0cious]

A historical materialism approach suggests stopgaps would actually slow down structure changes.

Not talking about handouts, keep your dog whistles to yourself.

Your logic is faulty.

Please explain. How is rebuilding the poor to be more than just cared for, bad?

 

[excelsiorlef]

The Far-Left hating her are as bad or worse then the Right hating her

It's like the Anti-vaccine movement, both far ends loop around and end up on the same side for different reasons.

 

[FStop7]

This is a good theory, except that nobody expected that George W. Bush would react to 9/11 by invading Iraq.[/q] He did something that was totally unexpected to everybody, including the people in his own party. I mean he even went against what his own father said a decade earlier about why the US shouldn't invade Iraq.

So yes, Presidents do in fact do things no one expects and sometimes the consequences are catastrophic. So I don't subscribe to this theory that Hillary is a known quantity and will behave exactly how we expect her to behave therefore it's safer to vote for her than say Trump who we have absolutely no idea how he will behave if elected President.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta's_alleged_Prague_connection

Within 3 months of the attacks the false narrative was being preached that Mohammed Atta had met with Iraqi agents. Iraq was named a member of the "Axis of Evil" in January 2002.

It was pretty obvious what was coming.

 

[J-Rzez]

But the fact of the matter is that we CANNOT have a republican in the White House.

You need to learn the differences between facts and opinions. In fact, your statement is an opinion.

 

[gutter_trash]

It's like the Anti-vaccine movement, both far ends loop around and end up on the same side for different reasons.

Imagine Bill Maher and Michelle Bachman having a child together

 

[EnthronedReaper]

The irony is they want to do the easy part of the revolution not the hard part. I love how aspects of the left whine about problems on the right when turnout alone on the left historically has fucked the party with only maybe howard dean and sanders trying to signal the red flag to the rest.

It's pathetic to me even after primary results show it.

we get the government we deserve nothing more nothing less.

Maybe in South Carolina but record breaking turn out in New Hampshire says hi!
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-...oter-turnout-in-new-hampshire-victory-speech/

 

[plagiarize]

Can you elaborate a bit more on this?

I think it's an interesting hypothesis and I haven't heard this one before, so I'd really appreciate a more detailed analysis (of why the R party will split or transition).

Registered Republicans are dwindling. Most of these losses are coming from moderates. As such, the party has been getting more and more extreme, but it's also getting harder for them to win elections. Now, it's not been an issue in smaller elections where extremists always turn out to vote, but if the problem continues (and they've only compounded the problems with the rhetoric they've been using during this primary cycle) they'll continue losing their most moderate supporters.

The only way to get them back, is to become more moderate. Something Ted Cruz and the tea party wing of the party will resist with every single effort they have. If Republicans stop trying to fight abortion, and gay marriage, and the ACA, sooner or later your Ted Cruz type of Republican (who is not your establishment Republican) is going to splinter off.

That's my belief. They take another battering in November because they refuse to appeal to women and minorities and keep the rhetoric that appeals to white Christian men... but that voter base isn't enough to win the general election any more... and if they don't change, soon it won't be enough to win the mid terms.

Something will have to give, and the most obvious thing, is the tea party wing.

 

[Paskil]

You need to learn the differences between facts and opinions. In fact, your statement is an opinion.

Looking at the electoral map says otherwise.

 

[pgtl_10]

This is among the least respectable positions imaginable.

Actually Hilary's boredom is a major problem. That and her insincerity. If she was taking a Rubio, I think she would be in trouble.

 

[Voysa Reezun]

If you're in a state that is definitely going blue and you feel the need to vote for Jill Stein, which I respect, at least please vote Democratic down the ticket after that to knock Republicans out of other offices.

 

[TyrantII]

Our system is fucked up. But voting Green is much better than not voting at all (which the poster to whom I was replied said they would likely do). It doesn't directly help the Dem. candidate, but it does make one's desire for progressive policies and candidates known. (And, at least in some states, it'll help that party better support local candidates.)

And, because whether or not you vote is a matter of public record, simply voting for anyone at all will help candidates pay more attention to you.

Nah, it's a wasted vote.

All political change in the US has gone through one of the two mainstream parties. We are not a Parliamentary system.

You legitimize your platform and change the party cloest to you. Third party is just a waste of a vote.

 

[plagiarize]

Maybe in South Carolina but record breaking turn out in New Hampshire says hi!
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-...oter-turnout-in-new-hampshire-victory-speech/

It's up in one state of four so far.

Which means it's down.

That's like saying global warming isn't happening because your state had a cold summer.

 

[Ogrekiller]

You need to learn the differences between facts and opinions. In fact, your statement is an opinion.

Ok.

Fact: If everyone else loses then the Republicans take the White House.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Imagine Bill Maher and Michelle Bachman having a child together

Oh dead god.

 

[jkanownik]

I actually spent most of my free time this weekend thinking about Sanders as a candidate and how to explain to my wife and family why I won't be voting for him.

http://www.joshkanownik.com/weekendwithbernie.html

The key point of my thoughts is that the Sanders campaign has not done the amount of work needed to make a successful revolution. It seems just like the failed revolutions brought on by the Arab spring. There is a very good chance that short term success could be bad in the long term. I don't think we need a revolution, but I'm not entirely against it if the prep work is done and global concerns are taken into account.

I think that if people really want change they need to give up on Sanders 2016 and move on to the 2018 and 2020 elections. We've been making too much progress to potentially slide backwards just because Hillary is personally unlikable and plays politics. She cares, she tries and she will at the very least make some more progress. More and more people are starting to see that now as they really think about what the president will do in those 4 years.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/26/why-electing-hillary-in-16-is-more-important-than-electing-obama-in-08.html

 

[Kathian]

Issue Hillary has is she seems quote empty so people are upsetshes just rolling to the top. She does seem to only be there as inheritance and its not like she's particularly idealistic.

 

[EatinOlives]

It's like people don't understand the most basic reasons why the GOP in its shitty form even exists, because people are too stupid to realize that not voting only gives more power to the people who vote. The GOP has a more consistent proportion of people who vote in elections, whether they're local, mayoral, state-wide, or federal. They perpetuate their retrograde platforms and largely go uncontested in many races because people who allegedly know better just can't be bothered. Meanwhile, "edgy" folk thinking the only winning move is not to play as if anybody gives a shit at the amount of people who don't vote on election day. The only thing that matters is how many votes are cast for which candidate. If you don't vote you make no stance, no statement, no opinion, no matter how hard you try to say otherwise.

Then again, the people pretending to rally around someone who wants to revolutionize the political process, someone whose credentials include being consistent within politics for X number of years, and yet they themselves don't want to bother being involved with politics for longer than one primary cycle are really not the kind of people anyone would consider "politically active". So really at the end of the day I can't get too mad at people who, for all intents are purposes, are politically irrelevant, bandwagoners who didn't stick around through even ONE election cycle.

 

[LittleBoots]

You need to learn the differences between facts and opinions. In fact, your statement is an opinion.

You shouldn't care as much about the wording I choose to use. You know what I'm trying to say here, and you're just nit-picking. I understand that people might not agree with everything I say. Sure, it's my opinion. I used, "fact", because I'm targeting an audience.

that people might not agree with everything I say. Sure, it's my opinion. I used, "fact", because I'm targeting an audience.[/QUOTE]

Our system is fucked up. But voting Green is much better than not voting at all (which the poster to whom I was replied said they would likely do). It doesn't directly help the Dem. candidate, but it does make one's desire for progressive policies and candidates known. (And, at least in some states, it'll help that party better support local candidates.)

And, because whether or not you vote is a matter of public record, simply voting for anyone at all will help candidates pay more attention to you.

It makes known what your ultimate desire is, yes. But you're still enabling the GOP with another half a vote. Therefore, you're making your voice heard but also contributing to the other party you don't want. That's giving them more of a chance at winning the general election, which matters so much.

 

[Voysa Reezun]

Nah, it's a wasted vote.

All political change in the US has gone through one of the two mainstream parties. We are not a Parliamentary system.

You legitimize your platform and change the party cloest to you. Third party is just a waste of a vote.

Not always, historically. A big enough third-party gets its ideas co-opted by the two major parties. Off the top of my head, I believe the People's Party in the 1880s and 1890s would be the biggest example of this.

I don't think the Green Party has enough support from Americans to be anything like that, however.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Issue Hillary has is she seems quote empty so people are upsetshes just rolling to the top. She does seem to only be there as inheritance and its not like she's particularly idealistic.

She works fucking hard, just look at her work in South Carolina vs Sanders' work there.

Full stop this idea that she hasn't earned her way to where she is preposterous.

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

Please explain. How is rebuilding the poor to be more than just cared for, bad?

Who said anything about poor? This has more to do with poor people. What cocaloch said is correct.

 

[Cocaloch]

Not talking about handouts, keep your dog whistles to yourself.

What are you talking about? I wasn't getting at handouts at all? I was saying those that buy into historical materialism would see small changes that seem to be egalitarian as actually slowing down the crisis of capitalism. Which is to say most of the Old Left probably would not agree that social progress will result in economic progress but actually might slow it down.

 

[EnthronedReaper]

It's up in one state of five so far.

Which means it's down.

That's like saying global warming isn't happening because your state had a cold summer.

New Hampshire was Bernies state, That state felt empowered by going out to vote.
Yes voter turn out is low, but I believe when there is a nominee everyone can believe in or feel a connection with that's when people will vote. With Obama I know everyone was voting because he was marketed in a way where he was everyone's guy

And dude Super Tuesday is still coming
And Cali has like half the U.S. population lol (joking) but still who knows how many people are gonna vote till its officially over

 

[draetenth]

I'm not voting for Hillary if she's the nominee; and her die hard supporters scare me. No she won't destroy the country, but her winning the election is going to insure that the status quo is upheld which I'd still chalk up as a major loss. Sanders has the message that I think helps most Americans and myself and that's why I'm casting my vote from him when the primaries come next month. I don't care how unlikely it is that any of his policies get enacted, a Bernie win would send a strong and clear message what millennials wan't from their congress and country. I But if Bernie can't drive millennials out to vote, I don't know who can.

If Clinton getting elected and maintaining the status quo is a major loss, what do you consider a republican victory (which will certainly reverse the status quo in the opposite direction Sanders wants to take it). The answer is important because there's a good chance that will happen if Sander supporters refuse to vote for Clinton if nominated (either by not voting or doing what you are doing - writing in Sanders).

You know what the real status quo is? Millennials staying home and bitching about how things aren't progressing in this country.

You want America to progress? Fine, but realize that it gets easier to make Sander's goals a reality the more progressive America is. It will be easier for the next president to make Sander's ideas a reality if they are trying to come from an America under Clinton than an America under a Trump. It gets easier to get progressive things done when you have a progressive Congress. Vote progressives now and vote them in the mid-terms. Don't show up to vote and you get shenanigans like we see from the anti-progressive GOP controlled congress right now over the Supreme Court opening.

Which is another point... you think Sanders has the good idea for America? Good luck, getting that done if a republican wins and puts a conservative SC justice in power. Try getting anything progressive done when the GOP can just send things to the conservative majority SC who will likely rule along party lines and rule against anything progressive.

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

You didn't. I'm just clarifying that you aren't doing a good job of organizing yet. I hope you guys get it together. I'm not saying 'don't try'. I'm not saying 'don't give up'.

Heck I'm saying the opposite. Just because you're about to lose the primaries, don't give up by turning your back on the country and not standing up to be counted. That's not aiming at you specifically, but a lot of Sanders voters.

I see absolutely loads of people under 30 on my facebook wall posting tonnes of pro Sanders stuff. I see reddit super excited about the guy. I don't see under 30s turning out to vote.

So I don't think you're doing a good job organizing yet.

I do believe that America is slowly getting more progressive. I want to see America continuing to get more progressive. But voters will force that shift, and the only way you can speed up the shifts that are happening is by getting young people out to vote in high numbers at *every* election, and not just for the general election in November. I am *encouraged* by the increased turn out for the general election we saw from young people in 2008 and 2012, but they really dropped the ball in 2014.

And they're really dropping the ball right now, if they want a democratic socialist in a power any time soon. Because what they want will only be recognized when they stand up and vote.

Of course we're not doing a good job organizing. Our leaders were killed or put in jail during the red scare and earlier.

We have an uphill battle. We all know this.

 

[plagiarize]

It's like people don't understand the most basic reasons why the GOP in its shitty form even exists, because people are too stupid to realize that not voting only gives more power to the people who vote. The GOP has a more consistent proportion of people who vote in elections, whether they're local, mayoral, state-wide, or federal.

The GOP won the mid terms because lots of people who turned out to vote Democrat in 2012 didn't turn out in 2014. We know that. Even so, more votes were cast for Democrats in 2014, but given how things break down state by state, district by district, Conservatives made major gains.

But gerrymandering only delays the inevitable, and the Republicans needed to make major changes in 2013 after losing the presidential race if they wanted to prevent the party imploding. They hit snooze on the the alarm clock, and find themselves with their primaries getting completely hijacked by a crazy outsider.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

Imagine Bill Maher and Michelle Bachman having a child together

Speaking of Maher, he said something Friday regarding the Hillary hate that I think fits well:

"People need to learn the difference between an imperfect friend and a deadly enemy. You want to tear Hillary Clinton down? Great. Then enjoy President Trump."

 

[DR2K]

Hillary is what is wrong with American politics. I also think Obama was weak too. You've had weak politicians bowing down to big money interests for the last 3 decades in the US. Which has led to the decline of your country for the average citizen.

One day I hope to have my southern brothers join the rest of the modern western world in our "socialist" quality of life. But it won't be through someone like Hillary.

If your income is above the median income in the US (and in a safe position not susceptible to ebb and flow of deregulated Wall Street) and you're selfish by not caring for the rest of your fellow Americans - ignore everything I just said because your lifestyle is great and Hillary is a great choice for you.

Hillary is a great choice for me because she's the only electable candidate who will fight for my civil rights and my ability to afford health care.

If you allow a republican in office, know that a lot of people are going to have a much more difficult life in the US.

 

[Elchele]

Hillary protects the status quo. Bernie challenges it. Unless you get benefited by the current way of how things are, Hillary is the enemy to improvement.

 

[Odrion]

Our system is fucked up. But voting Green is much better than not voting at all (which the poster to whom I was replied said they would likely do). It doesn't directly help the Dem. candidate, but it does make one's desire for progressive policies and candidates known. (And, at least in some states, it'll help that party better support local candidates.)

And, because whether or not you vote is a matter of public record, simply voting for anyone at all will help candidates pay more attention to you.

Yeah, if the Republicans are losing by a good amount I'm definitely voting Green.

If the Republican nominee and Hillary have a small gap then holy fuck I'll even donate to her cause. I'm all for Bernie but jesus christ I'm not going to live under another neoconservative or a neo-nazi.

 

[MHWilliams]

ACA and marriage equality are progress, but considering the times, not enough progress for most people. These are dire times. Police brutality. Institutionalized racism. Low wages. Student Loans. The drug war. Under maintained infrastructure. Poor education. Government spying. Climate change. America needs answers to these things NOW.

Conceding that ACA and marriage equality means progress given the rampant amount of lgbt poverty still happening is laughable and spit in your face worthy. Obama did a good job against a congress that did nothing to work with him, but if you can't see how the status quo will continue, I don't know what to say.

Do you think Hilary Clinton will do good on ANY of these issues? I don't.

That said, I trust she won't dismantle what we've worked hard to achieve either. Which is why I'm voting for her.

This I can stand behind and understand. I don't necessarily agree in all aspects, but I get where you're coming from logically.

Hillary protects the status quo. Bernie challenges it. Unless you get benefited by the current way of how things are, Hillary is the enemy to improvement.

That's really not the issue though. If Hillary gets the nomination is where people tend to get muddled. What do you do then?

 

[atr0cious]

Who said anything about poor? This has more to do with poor people. What cocaloch said is correct.

When i say poor, I'm being political, because blacks will probably never be exclusively targeted by an aggressively progressive plan. At least not in our lifetime.

 

[pigeon]

Of course we're not doing a good job organizing. Our leaders were killed or put in jail during the red scare and earlier.

We have an uphill battle. We all know this.

What?

That was fifty years ago! All those leaders would be dead now anyway!

This is a super bizarre argument to me. Why don't you have any new leaders yet? Fifty years is more than enough time to grow them from scratch. It's enough time for them to have children of the revolution!