Team Alucard
Banned
I think you misunderstand the reason why people don't like Hillary.
Its not because her stated policy positions are bad, because they aren't.
Its because many people don't believe a single word she says.
This "I'm a progressive but if Hillary is the nominee, I'm not voting" shit is stale
- Thread starter PlayALLtheGames
- Start date
- Status
I think you misunderstand the reason why people don't like Hillary.
Its not because her stated policy positions are bad, because they aren't.
Its because many people don't believe a single word she says.
shinra-bansho
Member
176% of her support comes from people aged 18+. Rigged.
Kerry voted for the AUMF but I'm pretty sure most of us voted for him vs Bush. Biden voted for the AUMF but I constantly hear he would have been a shoe-in for the 2016 nomination. I don't buy the idea it would have been political suicide to vote nay; Hillary would have survived not voting for it but sadly for all of these folks the vote was seen as a means to keep Bush on the UNSC/inspections path and have a say in any actual military action, that this would be preferable to Bush going through some other path (it probably was? but it was a shitshow regardless).
Days like these...
Have a Blessed Day
I'm a minority (Latino) in a non swing red state and honestly Its crossed my mind that maybe we (as a country) do have to hit rock bottom before we truly have meaningful progress. Get upset if you will but I really dislike this feeble mealy mouthed drip fed progress.
Melkezadek
Member
I think it's a bit silly to think she would go completely 180 on everything she's campaigning for.
Are you going to post a Breitbart to support your point or something?
There's enough to not like about Clinton rather than resort to rightwing conspiracy theory.
uncelestial
Member
You really think so? I dunno, Millennials are kind of nebulously-defined generation. But being in my mid-30s and having been through Bush and Obama and foreclosure and layoffs and 9/11 and Iraq, and I find it weird to be lumped in with 18 year olds that people want to dismiss as ignorant just because I'm voting Sanders in the primary. That's really my only point. I actually find Sanders supporters to be very well informed in most cases. The BernieBro thing was a total myth and that Facebook memes page was not really like, the sum total of the entire Sanders support base. (Although it was quite funny.)
AphelionXII
Banned
This is why I say down with the party system. It's doing nothing for us. It's like we have created this diametric opposition without the added benefit of have a dialectic conversation as well. All this has done is breed animosity. Can't we all just get along?
... She has voted and acted on her policy positions in her past. She has shown support for universal healthcare decades ago. She has been anti-citizens united since it came into effect(yes, she takes advantage of it, but she has moved against it and made her stance on it clear). You don't have to trust her word, I think anyone who simply trusts any politician's words is naive. You should trust her record+the fact that she wants to get re-elected+ the fact that she wants to be in the history books as a President who got things done for the better.
uncelestial
Member
I believe they're saying that for that particular age group, 45% go Sanders, 50% go Clinton, and 5% are neither/other.
I think that's unfair. It costs money to field candidates and ballot access rules are stacked against them. The Green Party in the US have very little means and when not getting a certain % of votes means losing the deposit that puts further strain on party finances.
Right on!
AphelionXII
Banned
She's currently being investigated by the FBI they just granted immunity to her tech that installed the email server in her bathroom instead of throwing him in prison for 20 years. That's not a conspiracy, that's the news.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...21e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html
As for being a demagogue, that's entirely obvious. Look at her stance on gay rights. She would have never changed her position if she didn't think it would have excluded her from running in 2008.
As for being a lier, I could list countless lies I just don't think it would change your mind.
Please get over yourself. You replied to the same post with some "very well played. And the reality." The REALITY is that we got into the war because people in Congress said yes to it. People like Hillary.
Primethius
Banned
One can only hope.
Septimus Prime
Member
I know, but look at the graph itself. The bar for 45 is longer than the one for 50. It's not a big deal if you just read the numbers, but it's a bit disingenuous.
uncelestial
Member
Oh weird, I hadn't noticed that. It's from a Miami Herald article.
Man I suck at picking bar graphs. In fact, I should probably get back to work.
Box of Kittens
Banned
While I actually tend to agree that Gore was a poor candidate, West Virginia is a terrible example. Among other issues outside his control, Gore's environmental positions were anathema to West Virginia voters. There's a reason no Democrat has won it since and they don't even try to compete there any more. It's like how Republicans don't contest Illinois and California any more even though Gerald Ford won both.
Everyone is a fucking demagogue in this cycle.
Sanders and his eternal 5% GDP growth is even more guilty of this than Trump.
If you can find me someone who run for office who never lied I'm going to congratulate you on actually finding a unicorn.
Trump is investigated for his University, I don't see you putting crooks every time you talk about him.
Heck Sanders is currently defrauding his base.
Calling someone out is considered juvenile now? Wow.
A Supreme Court that gets 3-4 justices nominated by a Democratic president in the next term is meaningful progress. For like a decade.
Is it pretty safe to say that Bernie supports just want change no matter which way, just so things are different. That seems to be the only rationale I'm seeing in going from one extreme to the other if things don't go their way.
I don't think arguing is very productive any more. At least so long as Sanders remains in a losing race. The fact that Sanders hasn't spoken out against this rising extremist behavior leads me to believe that Sanders stands for extremist principles as well no matter which direction - just so things change for the sake of change. If he didn't he'd already have dropped from the race and put an end to some of his supporters vitriol.
I don't think arguing is very productive any more. At least so long as Sanders remains in a losing race. The fact that Sanders hasn't spoken out against this rising extremist behavior leads me to believe that Sanders stands for extremist principles as well no matter which direction - just so things change for the sake of change. If he didn't he'd already have dropped from the race and put an end to some of his supporters vitriol.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
I usually go by this. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-were-born-influences-your-politics.html?_r=0
So far people born 1981-1994 are basically Millennials politically, and 1979/1980 are half and half. People who grew up under Clinton, Bush and then Obama in that order and came of age/entered the job market around the time of the recession, and have little to no memory of the Cold War (hence why the word "socialist" isn't scaring Millennials off). We've yet to see how people born 1995-1998 vote or what their values are.
Uh her position was the same as Obama's in 08?
More than a decade.
uncelestial
Member
Calling someone out is fine. Calling someone an "asshole" is not.
AphelionXII
Banned
I never came out in support of anyone, I was just writing a heart-felt letter to Sex Panther(by Odion) over there, that there might be more reasons for abstaining from a Hillary vote that they might not have considered.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
So they're voting for Donald "3/4 of my claims are provable lies." Trump?
AphelionXII
Banned
You might as well have added that she's a US citizen and as such comes from a lineage that supported slavery at one point or that she likes peanut butter or something.
Did you know that Trump's ancestor changed his name from Drumpf, clearly that's reason enough to not vote for Trump!
I've heard many Berniebros spew this and when you call them on it they try to say that universal means single payer. I know that isn't the case because I live in a country without single payer that still provides universal healthcare.
Also when Obama changed his stance?
This ignores the fact that there are third parties who have people in office, like Socialist Alternative in Washington, and have a lot of influence, like the Working Families Party in New York. What I'm saying is the Greens need to stop jousting at windmills and start doing what's working for other third parties. Ignore the presidency for now and focus on local elections.
shinra-bansho
Member
Just FYI, both tend to get most of their votes from people aged 45-64, because it's the single largest voting bloc. Sanders tends to get about 3/10ths of his votes from each age group below 65.
not psycho
Member
This is a fair point, although one I disagree with.
My counter to it is that I think we have been fed lies about voting not being important. I'm no exception, I always had a somewhat fatalist attitude about it. But now I think that those in office are benefiting from the status quo of America not voting. Everyone staying home and waiting to hit rock bottom so a revolution will start... maybe they know what they're doing. Maybe a bloody revolution is the only answer, and they just haven't waited long enough.
But maybe they're not. Only 36.4% of eligible voters turned out in 2014. 36.4%. 40.9% voted in 2010.
If Trump and Bernie can get this much support, why exactly is voting useless? Explain that to me. Bernie might not win this time. But you have 65% of the country staying home on election day. Almost 2/3 aren't voting. And the government is happy about that; it is the status quo.
Let's restrict ourselves to just the presidency for a moment. Don't Trump and Bernie suggest that it is possible to get a candidate other than the one the party wants? And if the 2/3 of people who didn't vote in 2014 got engaged, couldn't that make a big difference?
That's really interesting, I hadn't realized.
Given Sanders' high polling with Millenials, what percent of Clinton's base is under 30? Single digits?
Mercury Fred
Banned
I disagree. Bernie has gone from being a message candidate to resorting to right wing style attacks on Clinton. Now that it's impossible for him to get the nom, he needs to pack it up and shore up his supporters.
Haha yeah
I'm actually open to the idea that it's shameless pandering, but not in the way it's being cast here. Her support for gay rights is genuine and long-held, but mitigated by pandering to religious and social conservatives in the Democratic party. As the party and the country moved forward she like most Dems would no longer be held back by that segment, and dove fully in support.
shinra-bansho
Member
About 5% of her votes are 18-29, at least in IL and OH.
This will vary by state though.
Because people under 30 were only about 15% of the electorate.
Not sure I understand what you mean. The Green Party has far greater reach nationally on a local level than those two parties. To be a credible third party for a lot of electorate they need a presidential candidate and I don't think this comes as any detriment to local parties. If anything it's a great way to get the word out.
Dangansona
Member
For the record, a fair bit of users in this thread are bashing Bernie supporters who will vote for Trump in the general election, which is a much smaller group of people than who OP is addressing: those who are doubtful they want to vote for Hillary or will vote for a third party candidate like me.
Again, you don't need to start yelling at me because we'll see what I do when the General Election comes around, but at the moment I know that I do not like Hillary and don't feel like giving her and the DNC a vote (and it's not because I'm sexist).
Again, you don't need to start yelling at me because we'll see what I do when the General Election comes around, but at the moment I know that I do not like Hillary and don't feel like giving her and the DNC a vote (and it's not because I'm sexist).
BearFlexington
Member
I think who they announce as running mates could be the deciding factor for a lot of voters. People lukewarm on Hillary could be swayed if her running mate is a powerhouse and someone people like. Not sure who that would be. There's talk of Elizabeth Warren.
I'm off a post pretty much showing Clinton's resume before Bill went into the WH.
Can you explain why Warren is a good choice and if she's liked by independents?
breakYODAy
Member
I doubt Warren can whip up excitement from too many Bernie supporters for Hillary. I'm personally annoyed she's sat on the fence for an endorsement for so long.
They should be shooting for the House or Senate before the presidency. You need to build from the bottom up. They'll be able to get more done with 5 senators or 20 congressman than 1000 failed presidential runs.
I'm a progressive considering not voting for Clinton.
I'm in MA. Has only gone red four times since FDR, for Reagan and Eisenhower. I would not consider doing this if the race looks like it could be close, I'm not insane, but if Clinton will clearly win, I'd rather throw my vote behind someone who matches my beliefs more closely.
If she picks Warren as VP then she'd have my vote though. Loved voting for Warren the first time, would love to do it again
I'm in MA. Has only gone red four times since FDR, for Reagan and Eisenhower. I would not consider doing this if the race looks like it could be close, I'm not insane, but if Clinton will clearly win, I'd rather throw my vote behind someone who matches my beliefs more closely.
If she picks Warren as VP then she'd have my vote though. Loved voting for Warren the first time, would love to do it again
I despise the very premise of what OP states. This is a democracy where people are free to vote for whoever they choose and shouldn't be shamed. There is nothing more anti-democratic than forcing someone to vote.
Also, why would you be shamed if you don't want to vote for anyone? I just don't get this mindset. If Hillary loses to Trump than she didn't get as many votes as he did. Not because Sanders supporters are selfish and wouldn't vote for her.
Hillary is by far a more appealing candidate than Trump but if she doesn't stand for you or your policies and you don't like her why should you be forced to vote for her? Save that collective outrage shit. What does that say about Hillary and also the Democrats if people are needing to be shamed to vote and especially vote for Hillary if she secures the nomination.
Also, why would you be shamed if you don't want to vote for anyone? I just don't get this mindset. If Hillary loses to Trump than she didn't get as many votes as he did. Not because Sanders supporters are selfish and wouldn't vote for her.
Hillary is by far a more appealing candidate than Trump but if she doesn't stand for you or your policies and you don't like her why should you be forced to vote for her? Save that collective outrage shit. What does that say about Hillary and also the Democrats if people are needing to be shamed to vote and especially vote for Hillary if she secures the nomination.
State and local elections effect the voter more directly than Presidential ones do, so people should still go out and vote. Those who don't want to vote for either a Democrat or a Republican should still vote with a write-in or a third candidate. I'm sure this has been said a few times in this thread already.
- Status